Cabinet needs a Secretary for Bickering with Media

Secretary for Security Chris Tang issues a response to Ming Pao‘s response to his earlier response after a reporter asked him a question he didn’t like. Details at HKFP, which adds…

Over the past two years, the Hong Kong government has lashed out at Ming Pao over news reports, opinion pieces, and satirical cartoons.

On March 5, Tang warned the paper not to be “exploited by people with ulterior motives” as he condemned legal scholar Johannes Chan for “undermining the rule of law” in a Ming Pao opinion piece criticising a court ruling.

In January, the newspaper defended its journalism after the government described one of its reports on a cybersecurity bill as “biased and misleading.”

In August, Ming Pao urged its columnists to be “prudent” and “law-abiding” when penning for the newspaper, saying “crisis may come” if they were not compliant.

He is not the only government minister having problems with the media asking questions. Starting around five minutes into this Bloomberg vid, Financial Services Secretary Christopher Hui gets a reasonable question about the possible impact of the CK Hutchison ports deal drama on the financial sector. He reels off a list of barely relevant reasons why Hong Kong is an anchor of stability and top financial hub. The interviewer asks the question again, only to get pretty much the same non-answer. A second interviewer comes in and asks specifically whether he thinks the deal will go through. For a third time, he recites press-release jargon.

The word is that he stormed out of the studios without getting his make-up removed.

If he was really unprepared, it would have been better to just say it’s a sensitive issue and I can’t discuss details.

Why were the reporters’ questions about the repercussions of the port deal perfectly valid? Look no further than two more stories.

A report (by Bloomberg) says that Beijing is telling state-owned companies not to start any new business with firms linked to Li Ka-shing…

China has told state-owned firms to hold off on any new collaboration with businesses linked to Li Ka-shing and his family, according to people familiar with the matter, after the Hong Kong billionaire irked Beijing with his plan to sell two Panama ports to a global consortium.

The directive was issued to state-owned enterprises last week at the behest of senior officials, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing private matters. Existing tie-ups are not affected, they added.

Under the directive, state enterprises wouldn’t immediately get approval for business activities linked to the tycoon. The regulators are also reviewing what investments the family has in China and abroad in a bid to better understand the breadth of their business dealings, the people said.

…The order to pause new dealings doesn’t necessarily mean Beijing will bar state firms from working with businesses linked to Li. But it does ratchet up pressure on the 96-year-old billionaire after CK Hutchison’s deal with a BlackRock Inc.-led consortium to sell ports in Panama and elsewhere put his conglomerate’s flagship entity in the crosshairs of US-China tensions.

(HKFP/AP story here.)

How much does this ‘ratchet up the pressure’? Is that a veiled threat in the last sentence of the second para? What sort of message does it send the foreign investors Beijing wants to attract? Is Li Ka-shing, looking at a US$19 billion deal, going to pay any attention?

A local spin from the SCMP, which in which the Hong Kong government feels a need to get involved…

Tycoon Li Ka-shing’s CK Hutchison Holdings and the Hong Kong government are discussing “a reasonable way out” with a week to go until the deadline for sealing a controversial deal to sell its two Panama ports to a consortium led by US investment firm BlackRock, the Post has learned.

Sources said on Wednesday that the government had approached Hutchison immediately after learning from its surprise announcement on March 4 that it was selling all its overseas port operations to a group led by the US firm.

…“Both sides have since been in contact, trying to look for a reasonable way out,” a government source said.

Other sources said the options were limited as pulling out of the sale was likely to be costly and carried serious political implications while pressing ahead with it would exact a toll on both the company and the country.

RTHK reports yet another Ta Kung Pao piece on the issue…

The article by the Ta Kung Pao newspaper quoted business experts who questioned whether the Li Ka-shing-owned conglomerate had gotten the best deal it could have, stressing that businesses should “stand with the nation in the face of hegemonic bullying.”

The article noted that public opinions that the sale did not appear to conform to the business logic of maximising profits.

“Not only is the valuation of the assets low, but the decision was made very quickly, without adopting the ‘highest-bidder wins principle,” the article said.

“Western media reports have also pointed out that the US consortium had gotten a bargain.”

The apparently gravely concerned, warm-and-fuzzy but never quite convincing argument that your foe is picking up a stone only to drop it on his foot. Nice of the writer to care so much for CK Hutchison’s welfare, but if anyone wanted to bid more for the ports, they are (or were) free to do so. Many people would say that, with the world turning protectionist, US$19 billion was pretty rich for a bunch of cranes and wharfs.

Some weekend reading – the Hong Kong government’s anguished statement on the UK’s latest six-monthly survey of the city…

 The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) strongly disapproved of and must resolutely refute the untruthful remarks, slanders and smears against various aspects of the HKSAR in the so-called six-monthly report on Hong Kong: July to December 2024 of the United Kingdom (UK) today (March 27).

(Continued for 18 paras.)