The recent decision by CK Hutchison Holdings to sell its 43 overseas port operations, including the two at each end of the Panama Canal, to a consortium led by United States investment firm BlackRock has ignited fierce backlash from Hong Kong society. Defenders argue that businesses should be judged by profit alone, not national strategy, and that it’s unfair to fault a Canadian-nationality tycoon and his Cayman Islands-registered conglomerate for a “routine commercial move”. Yet this “business is business” line underestimates the paramount importance of national interests and glosses over the profound ties between a company and its homeland.
Even if Li Ka-shing has distanced himself from a strictly Chinese identity through citizenship and corporate registration, his “Yangtze”-branded empire has thrived on the institutional dividends of “one country, two systems” since Hong Kong’s 1997 handover, with every expansion bolstered by China’s backing. In today’s cutthroat global competition, merchants have a homeland, and firms bear responsibilities — any attempt to cloak a retreat in the guise of “borderless commerce” fails to obscure its disregard for national strategy.
Over the 27 years since Hong Kong’s return to the motherland, CK Hutchison has leveraged the unique advantages of “one country, two systems” to spearhead Chinese capital’s global outreach. Hong Kong’s 16.5 percent corporate tax rate, significantly lower than the Chinese mainland’s 25 percent, has delivered substantial savings to businesses. The Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, signed in 2003, opened doors to restricted mainland sectors, enabling the group, through Watson’s China Holdings, to rake in over HK$10 billion ($1.28 billion) annually. In ports, the group’s investments in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Ningbo have secured control over strategic assets like Yantian International Container Terminals and Hongkong International Terminals, yielding over HK$200 billion from 2015 to 2023. On the financial front, CK Hutchison issues US dollar-denominated bonds in Hong Kong at a low interest rate of 3.6 percent, capitalizing on pricing advantages to fuel its global ambitions, with steady cash flow serving as its “golden ticket”. Crucially, the Belt and Road Initiative has propelled the group’s port operations in regions like the Middle East and Latin America — doors that would have remained shut without its identity as a Hong Kong-based Chinese enterprise. These figures lay bare the institutional windfall of “one country, two systems” and the edge of being “rooted in China, facing the world”.
Profit-seeking is the nature of capital, yet when commercial interests clash with national ones, companies must forgo business gains to uphold national interests, never defying national directives under the pretext of “purely commercial decisions”. Following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the German government, adhering to European Union sanctions against Russia, pressed Siemens to end its Russian operations to bolster Europe’s collective security strategy. Siemens opted to exit, incurring a direct loss of 600 million euros ($648.6 million). In 2018, when the US reinstated sanctions on Iran, the British government backed the policy and urged British Petroleum (BP) to withdraw from Iranian projects to uphold the Anglo-American alliance and national security interests. BP chose to abandon its profits and pulled out. By contrast, CK Hutchison’s sale of Panama ports weakens China’s strategic foothold in Latin America, ceding influence in regional trade networks to the US, exposing a disconnect among some Hong Kong firms between economic freedom and national duty. This shortsightedness stands in stark contrast to the typical practices of their global peers.
Patriotism isn’t defined by passport alone — history proves that blood and kinship outweigh identity papers. During the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1931-45), Tan Kah Kee, a citizen of British colonial Singapore, and Situ Meitang, a US-based Chinese patriot, poured their fortunes into aiding their ancestral homelands through personal sacrifices and organized donations. Post-handover, Hong Kong tycoons like Henry Fok Ying-tung embodied patriotism through deeds. Their choices affirm that “blood is thicker than water”, and firms should not bow to profit-first logic, lest they drift as rootless entities. Yet CK Hutchison, at a moment when China seeks to reshape global trade rules through the Belt and Road Initiative, opts to abandon a strategic outpost — a retreat that leaves observers dismayed.
Some lament Li’s predicament, viewing CK Hutchison as emblematic of Hong Kong firms buckling under pressure, a symptom of their struggle to reconcile economic freedom with national security. But in a globalized world where security and economic stakes collide, this excuse rings hollow. The US’ Strategic Competition Act of 2021 tightened scrutiny of Chinese firms’ third-country acquisitions. When Beijing’s Skyrizon targeted Ukraine’s Motor Sich, Washington slapped on sanctions, citing “national security threats”, forcing Ukraine to nationalize the company. Such decisive intervention underscores that when national interests are at stake, major powers don’t hesitate to rein in corporate moves. Adam Smith, the father of Western economics, penned The Theory of Moral Sentiments 17 years before he wrote The Wealth of Nations, grounding self-interest in moral restraint and laying an ethical bedrock for markets. Without such guardrails, the market’s “invisible hand” descends into chaos. Today, corporate duty extends beyond old-school philanthropy to intertwine with national progress itself.
CK Hutchison’s port deal may gleam on the balance sheet, but it falters on the scale of national interest. Merchants have homelands, and firms have ethics — truths etched in history and demanded by the present. As Western capital fuses commerce with national strategy, Chinese companies enticed by the mirage of “borderless profit” risk ceding ground in the global game. In this turbulent era, Hong Kong enterprises must rethink their dual role: market trailblazers and national stewards. Only by rooting their ambitions in the tide of national rejuvenation can they forge a business epic worthy of the age.
The author is the convener at China Retold, a member of the Legislative Council, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People’s Party.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
