乡港系列

indy

香港黑暴時，示威者對警察進入校園是不允許，傳媒會指責的。


並沒到這地步
我在全程看戲。因為當年是看天安門。
傻美國以為人氣可用了。歷經幾年在台灣的運用，可用到大陸一角。
就因為這一角，讓美國功敗垂成。
配合英國給的空幻居留權，年青人亂了，想奪權的瘋了，都忘了絕大部分只說廣東話的老一輩，都有老家在隔海或另邊。
於是美國公開給錢付出征費，傻子被拐去出力。結果就香香港大亂，反面教育了大陸人，亂還了得。
老美不太敢動有幾個因素
一，老共大軍有更多滲入者在掌握動向和人物。
一，隔岸已出現了一個武警師，是配槍和配棍棒的機動單位。
一，怎麼鼓動，也沒人敢去漂一漂駐港軍隊。
一，等玩到反效果時，就開始自縛了。

誰能講出雨傘花怎麼忽然偃旗習鼓的？
就是忽然沒了衝動？
破解群眾運動最好的方法，就是拖到對方沒了資源。
美國的目的變了向，少了煽動力，師疲兵乏的雨傘花就成了雨夜花。
老共打出頭鳥，直打李00。
結束。
其他都是替死的螻蟻。
雨傘花讓美國死了心，退出阿富汗。
開始另找拿手的戰場。
疆獨也沒了。
改用晶片戰配合虜人戰。
可惜了。中國不是法國，最後在達到某些目標後，只能放人。
老美現在玩更直接的
烏克蘭讓他們嚐副甜頭。
日本，韓國不傻，總有傻子。菲律賓。
沒法呀，馬可士的錢在美國的手上。
至於，哈

indy

SNIPER’S CAR TO BE BURNED OUT
THE HONG KONG SNIPER would start shooting people in the immediate aftermath of the double-bombing in Wan Chai, a court heard yesterday. He would then be collected in a car that would drive at speed to Clearwater Bay, where the vehicle would be set on fire.
.
More details of the foiled plot by Taiwan-trained activists to create a major terrorist attack in one of the most crowded parts of Hong Kong in December of 2019 emerged from a High Court trial of seven suspects yesterday. The sniper, David Su, has already pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing.
.
The one female on the team, Lau Pui-ying, 24, was in charge of handling the money, the court was told. Between August 1 and December 9, there were 938 transactions on her bank account, her PayMe app, and her Jockey Club gambling account. They added up to more than HK$2 million, said to be from “crowdfunding”.
.
About half of this was later transferred to the account of Wong Chun-keung, a man who was the local Hong Kong team leader of the “Dragon Slayer” operation. He pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing.
.
After the Taiwan training, members went “hiking” in rural Sai Kung—but really walked into the hills to find a remote location where they could test-fire their weapons, the court heard. One participant filmed the tests, and sent it to Wong.
.
Another man sent messages showing that they had stolen chemicals to create explosives from a storeroom at Baptist University in Kowloon. The ones contained in brown bottles “should not be stored in direct sunlight”, a participant in the chat warned. A test of the explosives was also filmed and shared.
.
Throughout the trial so far, prosecutor Juliana Chow Hoi-ling has been able to show the jury records of conversations and even video clips backing up the details of the plot, all of which were recorded on phones and uploaded to the Telegram website.
.
The case continues.

indy

FT writers tend to rigidly follow the US State Department narrative, but occasionally they allow a more truthful message to appear from readers on the letters page. There was a good example today. Scroll down to read it.
.
"Why it’s premature to write off Hong Kong"
By Weijian Shan.
.
In Stephen Roach’s Markets Insight piece, which in the online version ran with the headline “It pains me to say Hong Kong is over” (Opinion, February 13), he bemoans a “major exodus of talent” as one of the reasons why Hong Kong is over. His data must be dated. Hong Kong statistics show a net inflow of 152,300 residents to the city in 2022-23, compared to a net outflow of 97,200 in 2020-21.
.
The number of Americans living there had reached 84,000 in 2023, the highest level since the Covid pandemic and 30 per cent more than in 2014.
.
People choose to live in Hong Kong. In addition to about half a million foreign citizens, 5.4mn residents — nearly three in four Hongkongers — are British National Overseas BN(O) status holders and their dependants.
.
All are eligible to live in Britain.
.
But only 157,576 people, less than three per cent of the 5.4mn, have taken up the British offer.
.
What makes Hong Kong so attractive? It remains a free and open society with arguably the world’s freest capitalist system. Its legal system is based on common law with a judiciary so independent that 10 of 17 highest court judges are from western countries. There’s free flow of information and free flow of capital. Taxes are low, at about 15 per cent for personal income and nil for capital gains and dividends.
.
Hong Kong’s much-debated national security law is no more draconian than, say, the UK’s. Few Hongkongers fear it for the same reason that few Britons fear theirs.
.
Roach considers the recent performance of its stock market a sign of Hong Kong’s “demise”. The bourse had seen sharper drops than the most recent one, and each time it bounced back. Who can say it won’t again?
.
Roach believes Hong Kong’s growth will decelerate with China’s. Statistically Hong Kong’s economy has been much more correlated with the US than with China, as its growth trajectory almost hugs that of the US, up 2.3 times in 30 years versus America’s 2.1 times. (Both pale in comparison to China’s 12 times expansion.) The reason is the Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the US dollar, which means Hong Kong’s monetary policy must follow that of the US.
.
Hong Kong has gone through some rough patches. But the worst seems over, and the economy has resumed growing — up 3.2 per cent in 2023 — as has the talent pool.
.
In conclusion, it’s too early to count the city out.
.
Weijian Shan
Hong Kong
.

indy

美國學生和平抗議，沒襲警/沒衝擊國會/沒放火/沒傷人/沒搶劫/沒裝修/沒撕鳥/沒放箭/沒淋汽油/沒三罷/沒十八區開花街頭暴力/沒要求獨立……卻被稱為暴徒，遭到美警方不留情鎮壓。
反觀2019年黑暴肆虐，香港十八區充斥了暴力，而美方卻大讚暴徒勇敢和「美麗的風景線」，暴露出美國政客的雙標和假民主/假自由的虛偽面具

indy

THE BIZARRE TALE of a 10-step plot to escalate chaos in Hong Kong until there was blood on the streets and destruction of the economy came to an end this morning.
.
And the care taken by the judges shone a positive light on the Hong Kong judiciary – as did their openness in releasing their paperwork to public scrutiny.
.
Most participants (31) in this important subversion case had already pleaded guilty—and a court this morning found the same was true for the majority (14) of the remaining ones, who were found guilty. Two were acquitted.
.
Details of the case are below—and read to the end for five important conclusions you won’t read anywhere else.
.
.
.
.
BLOODY SUPPRESSION
The plotters aimed to use loopholes in the city’s governance system to create what they called “a constitutional weapon of mass destruction” that would paralyze Hong Kong.
.
A specific step in the plan was to side-line pro-peace opposition members in favor of pro-violence radicals.
.
Participants were asked to sign a pledge (titled “Inked Without Regret”) that if they got into the Legislative Council they would follow instructions to act as a bloc to veto the city’s budget and freeze all government spending: the money that kept schools, hospitals and utilities working.
.
This would create a state of emergency, escalate violence, and cause so much chaos on the streets that it would force China’s leadership to take control of Hong Kong—in what organizers hoped would be “a bloody suppression”.
.
.
.
.
WE BURN, YOU BURN
This in turn would enable the US to declare that Beijing had ended “one country two systems” which the west could use to justify hitting Hong Kong and mainland China with political and economic sanctions.
.
The resultant destruction of Hong Kong’s economy would cause immense harm to the population of the city, but thinking was that it would be worth it under the “we burn, you burn” principle, which saw economic catastrophe as a desirable step towards political goals.
.
The court heard that the scheme evolved from initial plans in December of 2019. It was then outlined in detail by academic Benny Tai in a plan entitled “10 steps to real mutual destruction”.
.
Various versions were printed between April and May 2020 in Apple Daily, a newspaper run by anti-China campaigner Jimmy Lai and his right hand man Mark Simon, a former US intelligence officer.
.
.
.
.
AWASH WITH CASH, AS USUAL
But Hong Kong investigators became suspicious about mysterious sums of money moving around among individual political activists, with sums ranging from HK$4,000 to HK$290,000.
.
In the end, judges agreed to freeze more than HK$1.6 million of unexplained cash.
.
During the opening steps of the plan, a public popularity contest to select candidates, arrests were made and 47 participants charged with conspiring to commit subversion. Thirty-one pleaded guilty and 16 denied the charges.
.
Today, 14 of those were found guilty, while two were acquitted.
.
.
.
.
ANALYSIS
ONE: Western media reports say the arrests were for “organizing primaries”. This is not true. They were detained on suspicion of “conspiring to subvert state powers”, a crime recognized worldwide, and used thousands of times MORE in western countries than it has been in Hong Kong.
.
.
TWO: The case is difficult for the west to use against China. That’s because most of the people arrested pleaded guilty, including the prime mover, Benny Tai. This meant the facts were not in dispute.
.
Furthermore, four of the people gave evidence for the prosecution, which meant that there was no shortage of detailed evidence confirming the prosecution’s case.
.
.
THREE: The mixed verdicts—with two people acquitted—are also a problem for Hong Kong’s critics, including Jimmy Lai, Mark Simon, and much of the western press, who have repeatedly said that the city no longer has a rule of law, and no one can win national security cases.
.
Indeed, one of the men who was acquitted, Lawrence Lau, stood outside the court today and praised the judgment. “If there is any star in this case, this judgement should be the star,” he told the scrum of reporters.

The judgment—a huge document of almost 300 pages, was made publicly available. What comes across in the document is just how much care the judges took in defining every term used, and the wealth of references to other cases around the world.
.
.
FOUR: In terms of timing – 2019 and 2020 – this Hong Kong scheme coincides with a long list of anti-China activities which involve east-west politics, anti-China activism, and lots of unexplained cash.
.
The Hong Kong people are rightly concerned about the involvement in the city of numerous “three-initial” pro-western groups, including OTF, NED, and RFA, contributing millions of dollars for anti-government activism in Hong Kong.  
.
The U.S. strictly bans overseas political interference in its own country, but has spent massively, for decades, on sponsoring political interference around the world.
.
.
FIVE: But here’s the

indy

【獨家文章】我們如何在夾縫中突圍而出？
屈穎妍／資深傳媒人

近期香港人一聚頭的話題，非北上消費莫屬，大人有大人吃喝，年輕人有年輕人玩樂。

當父母在大灣區捐窿捐罅找美食、逛超市、配眼鏡、體檢、洗牙、甚至洗車、換胎……，他們的子女也許正跟同學朋友北上唱K、滑雪、看電影、玩密室逃脫……

大家一邊憂慮香港經濟如何是好，一邊又忍不住踏過羅湖橋駛過港珠澳大橋；這邊廂宣傳大灣區機遇無限，那邊廂又拼命在內地搶人才，似乎有點精神分裂。

其實，香港人到今天還未習慣自己的衛星定位，在太空、月球還是高德地圖看下去，我們都是大灣區的一部分。大灣區11個城市，本來就包括香港，所以當大家說到大灣區尋機遇，不代表我們只能北上，也代表其他城市的人南下。

吃不及人家價廉物美，連服務都被人超越，到底香港還有什麼機遇？

我想在這裡跟大家說兩個小故事……

早前我跟幾個朋友上深圳一家日本料理店吃了頓廚師發辦，平時在香港吃這類Omakase，動輒每位一、二千，但那頓飯，每人只需300元。

可能你會擔心，三百元跟二千元相差甚遠，貨色一定差天共地。其實，人家能賣低價，除了租金平、人工平，來貨價便宜也是主因，舉個例，同樣是海膽，大連來貨就跟北海道來貨，相差就好多倍價錢，對比之下，大連海膽更新鮮肥美呢。

廚師介紹菜式之餘，也跟我們聊聊天，原來，他是香港人，過江來深圳找機遇。同聲同氣，份外親切。其實「香港人」三個字仍有點金漆效應，無論食肆、牙科診所、還是體檢中心，一句「香港人開的」，彷彿就是品質保證。

結帳時，朋友給廚師小費，他竟堅拒不收，推來擋去，廚師說：「你在大眾點評給我個好評就夠了。」這是我近年跑內地常見的景象，好多行業都不收小費加一，數目清晰、公平廉潔。

在這位廚師身上，我忽然看到了香港機遇，這機遇，不只是一個北上大灣區工作的香港人，而是由這個香港人身上體現出來的國際標準與廉潔基因。

又一次，我跟女兒上深圳，美侖美奐的商場內看到幾家看似名店的名店，什麼意思呢？譬如一個看似法國品牌的專門店，名字串法甚至商標圖案都幾可亂真，但中間有一、兩個字母及圖案的改動，故不能算是翻版，但擺到明是扮某名牌。

女兒問：「為什麼翻版店可以公然在商場開專門店？」她的問號讓我反思，對啊，香港商場就絕不容許這種「扮名牌」店存在。

所以，如果問，今天香港還有什麼優勢，大灣區每個城市都有特色，我們如何在夾縫中突圍而出？我覺得，對知識產權的重視和遵守，對標準的確立，對廉潔的執著，就是我們的最大賣點。

為什麼內地人仍喜歡來香港買黃金、買名牌、甚至買保險、買樓房？因為我們不會翻版、我們有嚴格標準、我們有廉潔風氣，這些價值，在一代一代的教育及實踐下入了血、注進了基因，我們要珍惜，更要發揚光大，影響大灣區，再影響全中國。
圖片來源：港人講地

#香港 #北上消費 #粵港澳大灣區 #機遇 #搶人才 #深圳

indy

黎智英今天在反送中暴動刑事庭改口稱當時他尋求美國中央情報局的介入與協助純粹是口誤
這件事我可以作證當時中情局聞聲嚇壞了兩千多幹員全落跑到鬼島一個叫聽毋的偏鄉躲了起來又怎麼可能繼續幫黎智英呢


https://sc.mp/lukqi?utm_source=c ... medium=share_widget

indy

FORMER CIA CHIEF MIKE POMPEO had just seen his boss, US President Donald Trump, hit Hong Kong hard by signing an order cancelling its special trading status.
.
But Pompeo's associate in the city, a publisher named Jimmy Lai, was making confusing statements, so he decided someone should check in with him. Pompeo's chief assistant Mary Kissel got in touch Lai through his right hand man, former US intelligence officer Mark Simon, a court heard.
.
Kissel had known Lai and Mark Simon for more than ten years, having lived in Hong Kong in a previous job as a Wall St Journal reporter.
.
.
.
.
HITTING HONG KONG
[Context: The US was making a long series of hits on Hong Kong which the media was blaming on Beijing, quoting anti-China activists. Hong Kong publisher Jimmy Lai is on trial for collusion and sedition. The court is currently examining the events of 2020.]
.
Mark Simon used the extra-secure Signal app to discuss the issue with the publisher. “There is a question from Mary, as they are a bit confused, as some press reports had saying that you would prefer US not break all ties with Hong Kong," the American wrote.
.
Lai replied: "The point is not HK but China. Sanction China as to stop it from clamping down on HK. But after I thought about it, I think they're right to revoke HK’s special status because once the US and China decoupled, HK would be a way out for China. To close this outlet would force it to come to terms easier to the demands of the US.”
.
Mark Simon took Lai's reaction as okaying the hit on Hong Kong and promised to relay it to Pompeo's office. “Thanks… will relay,” he wrote on Signal.
.
.
.
.
REMOVAL OF 'ONE COUNTRY TWO SYSTEMS' POLICY
Over the following hours and days, the news went public that Hong Kong would now be classified under the same restrictive trading laws as mainland China, with the US effectively cancelling the "one country, two systems" policy.
.
Hong Kong people would lose their positive relationship, with the withdrawal of special privileges and special economic treatment, and the city would no longer be allowed import/ export of listed technology items.
.
Detailed news of the damaging hit on the city in south China was published on the front page of Apple Daily on July 16. In the West Kowloon court, Lai distanced himself from the incident, saying that he had not read the report in his own newspaper.
.
.
.
.
POMPEO CONNECTION CONTINUED
But the connection between Jimmy Lai and the activities of Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director now working as Secretary of State, continued.
.
On 24 July 2020, Hong Kong time, Jimmy Lai and Mark Simon received an email with an attached document, marked "sensitive information", the court heard. The email had been sent by US anti-China hawk Christian Whiton, a former White House advisor.
.
As well as being sent to Lai and Simon, it was sent to the Hong Kong pair's long-time associates, former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and former Vice Chief of Staff of the US Army Jack Keane.
.
.
.
.
HARSH ANTI-CHINA POLICY
The attachment was a draft for a new, harsh, US policy position on China to be announced by Mike Pompeo immediately (on July 23, US time) in which he would call for US actions against China to be escalated worldwide, in an attempt to isolate the country.
.
"The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage," Pompeo said. "Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies."
.
Not even 10 days after the US removed the "one country, two systems" policy, Pompeo was claiming that Beijing had removed it. "China walked away from its promise to the world on Hong Kong," it said.
.
The speech also mentioned Pompeo's sources. "I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai.  Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law," he said.
.
The court was earlier shown financial accounts that revealed that Lai and Simon had distributed cash to anti-China activists, including HK$3 million to Cardinal Joseph Zen.
.
[Note: Nathan Law is an anti-China campaigner in the west who was sacked from a Washington anti-China operation called the Hong Kong Democracy Council, after serious accusations of sexual harassment.]
.
.
.
.
'BRAVO!' TO SECRETARY POMPEO
At the West Kowloon court, Jimmy Lai said that he could not remember if he opened the Pompeo attachment and read the "sensitive information" policy document or not.
.
But the court was shown that Lai had a WhatsApp exchange with his Twitter account manager Simon Lee the same day. The publisher told Lee to post a link to Pompeo’s speech, and his praise for Pompeo.
.
In court, the defence exhibited three tweets posted on Lai’s Twitter on the same day, all quoting excerpts from Pompeo’s speech. Lai's words expressed enthusiasm for the former CIA director's announcement: "Bravo! Well said Secretary Pompeo."
.
In court, Lai admitted having watched the video of the speech and agreed that it advocated hostile actions against China. Lai however claimed that his actions did not show that he himself was advocating hostility towards China.
.
.
.
.
HAPPY FOR A NEW COLD WAR
The same day, Jimmy Lai had a WhatsApp exchange with former President of Apple Daily Yeung Wai-hong. Yeung described Pompeo's speech as "a major policy on disengagement with China".
.
Lai replied: "Yes, it's very powerful speech. This speech seems to have kicked off the new Cold War with China! Bravo! Mary Kissel should have something to do with it. So proud of our friend."
.
Yeung responded: “We and Hong Kong are so lucky to have her to be our close friend. The friendships you assisted to build are really second to none."
.
.
.
.
BRITAIN GETS INVOLVED
Also on the same day, Jimmy Lai applauded a British announcement that millions of Hong Kong people would be offered British National (Overseas) passports to move to the UK. "This is urgent and necessary," Lai wrote. "Our young people are the backbone of our freedom movement."
.
[Note: About 97% of eligible Hong Kong people ignored the BNO invitation, with a take-up rate of only three per cent, some of whom have now returned.]
.
In court, Justice Esther Toh asked what Lai meant by "our freedom movement" and the publisher replied “freedom from mainland China”.
.
“So you want Hong Kong to be independent,” the judge said.
.
Lai backtracked rapidly. Independence from China is highly unpopular in Hong Kong.
.
.
.
.
U.S. USING LAI NARRATIVE
Four days later, on July 28, 2020, Pompeo staff again wrote to Jimmy Lai via Mark Simon, the court heard on Friday.
.
Simon used the Signal app to tell Lai that they had message from Peter Berkowitz, director of policy planning at the State Department. This said that he and Pompeo were adopting Lai's narrative that what was really happening in the world was "a war of values" between the US and the Chinese.
.
Lai's characterization of the situation, originally printed in the New York Times, would later underpin an August 2020 report in which the US slammed China for human rights violations.
.
The trial continues.

indy

THE ONLY JOB a Hong Kong teacher who moved to the UK on the BNO scheme could find was as an assistant in a nursing home—at one tenth of her usual pay.
.
And she’s not alone. Three years later, most Hong Kongers who went to UK are still looking for jobs—they are also struggling with the language and are short of money. Only 35 percent of BNO passport holders had found full time work, a new study showed—and that’s if you define “full time” as 30 hours a week. (For women, just 28 per cent have 30 hours of work a week.)
.
And many have problems, struggling with the language, unable to find work, and short of money, according to a new UK government-financed study.
.
.
– A woman who was board director’s secretary in Hong Kong is now working two cleaning jobs to try to make ends meet.
.
– A Hong Kong editor was now working as a waitress, a qualified accountant is working in a kitchen, a civil servant is now a prison guard, and so on.
.
.
Many Hong Kong women with children said they felt isolated without the home help most families have in their home town. “I can’t be at home all the time just playing the role of a mother,” lamented a woman in the northeast of England.
.
The BNO data comes from a series of studies by British Future. Its 2023 survey was based on research from 2,089 Hong Kongers in the UK, and the 2024 follow-up focused on in-depth interviews with 96 individuals.  
.
.
.
.
TWIST IN THE TALE

The awful thing is that it is all entirely unnecessary.
.
The mainstream media (and many local media in Hong Kong) have long falsely reported that a mass exodus from the city was triggered by the 30 June 2020 adoption of a Western-style law against collusion with foreign forces.
.
But it wasn’t true. The big jump in applications for BNO passports actually happened in 2019. There was an eight-fold rise in applications that year, a UK freedom of information request made by the South China Morning Post revealed. That was when a mysterious disinformation campaign and massive cash handouts from unknown sources triggered violent protests over a G-7 recommendation to amend an extradition law.
.
The 2020 new law did not cause a further jump, despite what has been reported. So, to reinforce the west’s “China bad” narrative, the British took action the following year.  From 31 January 2021, the British made a special emigration visa available for an estimated 5.4 million Hong Kong people.
.
This was a clear violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, as Hong Kong law professor Grenville Cross pointed out. Even Britain’s then attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, made the same point in 2008.  
.
The press not only hid this fact, but turned it upside down, saying that China had violated pre-handover agreements by introducing a national security law. Yet the opposite was true. Hong Kong’s Basic Law, drawn up in the British Hong Kong era, clearly said that the city should have a national security law. It was number 23 in its list of post-handover items of necessary legislation.
.
.
.
.
ANOTHER FAILURE

So the truth was that the National Security Law did not trigger an exodus. But the new British scheme ALSO failed to trigger one.
.
The revised British National Overseas (BNO) offer was ignored by 5.2 million (that’s 97 per cent) of Hong Kong’s passport-entitled residents. A mere 158,000 (three per cent) took up the offer over four years, according to the latest UK government statistics available, which date from September 2024.
.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s population has risen from 7,401,500 in 2021 to  7,531,800 this year. So even with the 158,000 BNOers calculated into the total, the city has 130,300 MORE people than it had. So, clearly not an exodus.
.
Furthermore, the number of Hong Kong people taking the BNO path to UK has dropped to just 5,100 in the three months most recently measured, the UK reported—a tiny number.
.
.
.
.
SIMPLE RACISM

Why do so many news media produce reports that imply that all the expats have left Hong Kong?
.
It’s simple racism. There are more people in Hong Kong, and more new people too. But there may be proportionally fewer white people in some sectors. For western journalists, only white people count.
.
.
.
.
HURTING EVERYONE

The British scheme hurt everyone. It hurt the community of Hong Kong, who didn’t deserve to have their home (a healthy, wealthy, low-crime city) painted as a terrible place from which people were fleeing.
.
It hurt the UK, which has been struggling with the immigration issue, which is causing polarization, pressure on facilities, resentment, and political instability.
.
And most of all, it hurt the Hong Kong people tricked into applying for BNO passports. The two British Future reports paint a worrying picture of a struggling community—and let’s not forget that this is a pro-UK, China-critical group, so they will be putting a positive spin on the situation.
.
Even the Hong Kong people who did find employment in the UK found it difficult to find jobs for which they were trained. “Our 2023 survey found that almost half of employed BNOs, of all levels of skill and qualifications, said that their job doesn’t match their skills and experience at all, or only a little,” researchers said.
.
.
.
.
10 SPECIFIC PROBLEMS OF THE HK BNOs
.
1) They struggle with spoken English, particularly with the many regional accents in the country.
.
2) The UK government provides subsidized language lessons, but BNOs are not allowed to even start that until three years after they have landed. This makes a long period without work.
.
3) When they try to set up a business or get professional training, they are refused loans or credit. Lenders require a credit history within the UK.
.
4) While food and schools are cheaper in the UK, the cost of council tax, energy bills, public transport, and eating out are higher.
.
5) The BNO visa includes a ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ condition which prevents them from accessing most in-work and out-of work benefits.
.
6) Public service workers in the UK often don’t know what rights BNO people have, so getting good information is very difficult.
.
7) People who are not full citizens can only get child care subsidies if they don’t have savings – but to get on the BNO scheme, you have to show that you have savings. This makes it tough for families.
.
8.) Professional qualifications from Hong Kong are often not recognized in the UK.
.
9) Many BNOers can only afford to live in areas where there are few job vacancies.
.
10 ) People with transferable professional qualifications find they are regarded as lacking sufficient UK experience to practice their occupation, but are seen as having too much experience to enter at a lower level. Result: Even successful professionals struggle to find work.
.
.
.
.
CHANGES NEEDED
The report calls upon the government to make a series of changes to the law so the new immigrants can access taxpayer cash. But with the UK (and much of the western world) in a strongly anti-immigrant mood, the likelihood of that happening is not high.

A BNO man in the south west of England told the researchers that he felt low without a job: “My wife is very understanding and supportive. But at some point, you start to feel worthless, which is quite troubling and affects your mood.”
.
[From fridayeveryday .com]

indy

自己要的啦


How those HK's Professionals were fxxked by their Colonial Master

*The sad truth about the HK migrants to UK. They believed the lies of their colonial masters.*

Fwdd by a HK professor friend..

Spare a few minutes to read the following if you haven’t before:


How U.K.’s “welcome” left Hong Kong professionals stranded and broke

27th December 2024 – (London) The truth lies buried in British Future’s latest research paper. While the government-funded Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers releases carefully worded statements about “integration success,” their own data tells a devastating story: nearly half of Hong Kong arrivals have been forced to abandon their careers.

The research, interviewing 96 BN(O) visa holders, reveals a systematic degradation of professional talent – accountants working in kitchens, IT specialists in warehouses, and insurance executives cleaning offices.

This isn’t the “skills transfer” ministers promised. Three years into Britain’s supposed lifeline to Hong Kongers, the unemployment rate among BN(O) holders sits at an outrageous 35% – eight times higher than the national average of 4.3%. Yet at a January reception marking the scheme’s anniversary, government ministers had the audacity to celebrate “vibrant integration” while sipping champagne.

The Welcoming Committee’s umbrella groups paint a picture of community support and successful settlement. The reality? Their research exposes a professional wasteland where Hong Kong qualifications dissolve on contact with British bureaucracy. Behind the committee’s diplomatic language about “employment challenges” lies a brutal truth: Britain’s job market has effectively locked out an entire generation of Hong Kong talent.

The financial devastation runs deeper than unemployment statistics. The research exposes how 72% of Hong Kong arrivals have been forced to drain their life savings, with many now turning to Universal Credit – a benefit system they never imagined needing. The Welcoming Committee’s sanitised reports carefully dodge mentioning how many former Hong Kong professionals are now working zero-hour contracts just to keep their families fed.

Behind closed doors, community organisations report skyrocketing cases of depression and family breakdown. The research reveals 65% of respondents facing severe mental health challenges – unsurprising when senior executives find themselves stacking supermarket shelves at 3 AM. Yet the government’s response? More photo ops and patronising “success stories” about Hong Kongers “embracing British culture.”

The banking sector’s response is particularly nauseating. While London’s financial institutions trumpet their “Asian expertise” in glossy brochures, their HR departments systematically reject Hong Kong finance professionals with decades of experience. The British Future study found that 83% of Hong Kong finance professionals couldn’t secure roles even remotely matching their previous positions.

Meanwhile, the NHS struggles with staffing shortages while qualified Hong Kong medical professionals drive Uber. The research identifies 156 healthcare workers among respondents – only 12 managed to secure roles in their field. The rest face a byzantine maze of requalification requirements costing thousands of pounds they no longer have.

The housing crisis adds insult to injury. Having sold properties in Hong Kong, many arrivals now find themselves trapped in overpriced rentals, their professional credentials worthless in a job market that values “UK experience” over actual expertise. The study shows 68% of respondents living in accommodation significantly below their previous standard of living.

The policy failures are systemic and deliberate. British Future’s data exposes how the government’s much-vaunted “Welcome Programme” amounts to little more than £3 million spread thinly across 144,500 arrivals – roughly £20 per person. Compare this to the billions spent loudly celebrating the scheme’s “success” through ministerial photo ops and glossy brochures.

The research decimates official narratives about skills recognition. A staggering 91% of Hong Kong professionals report their qualifications being effectively nullified by UK professional bodies. Requalification costs can exceed £15,000 – an impossible sum for those forced into minimum wage work. The government’s response? More empty promises about “reviewing” the system while another generation of talent goes to waste.

The tech sector’s hypocrisy is especially evident. While U.K. firms whine about digital skills shortages, the study found 88% of Hong Kong IT professionals working well below their skill level. Major tech companies that dominated headlines with promises to hire BN(O) talent have delivered barely a handful of actual jobs.

Most damning is the research’s exposure of the “consultation sham.” Despite running 23 community engagement sessions, the government implemented exactly zero policy changes based on feedback. The Welcoming Committee’s own minutes reveal how officials systematically ignored warnings about qualification recognition and employment barriers.

The banking sector’s conduct is egregious. The research unveils how significant institutions, which benefit substantially from business ties in Hong Kong, consistently turn away BN(O) professionals. Their HR departments use “U.K. experience” prerequisites as a shield, all the while their marketing departments promote their “Asian market proficiency.”

Let’s shed a tear for Hong Kong’s privileged professional class, suddenly discovering that their fancy titles and corner offices don’t automatically translate to British success. Welcome to the real world, where your Harvard MBA and Central district penthouses count for precisely nothing.

The British Future research reveals a particularly delicious irony: 78% of respondents admitted they expected to slide right into equivalent U.K. positions. Imagine their shock when British employers didn’t roll out the red carpet for their “prestigious” Hong Kong experience. Those tear-jerking stories about former finance directors working in Amazon warehouses? That’s called joining the real economy.

Poor dears – 65% report feeling “professionally humiliated.” Perhaps they should have read the fine print before liquidating their Hong Kong assets and expecting Britain to bend over backwards for their “expertise.” The research shows 82% never bothered investigating U.K. qualification requirements before arrival. Apparently, due diligence only matters when it’s someone else’s money.

These are the same professionals who once looked down their noses at service workers, now discovering what real work feels like. The Welcoming Committee’s data shows 91% had never worked a manual job before arrival. Welcome to Britain’s gig economy – where your Hong Kong Stock Exchange credentials won’t help you deliver that Deliveroo order any faster.

The research exposes an entitled mindset that’s almost comical. Former Hong Kong executives complaining about “degrading” Universal Credit applications, as if Britain somehow owes them a director-level position. They fled Hong Kong’s problems, only to discover that the U.K.’s promises of a warm welcome came with some rather chilly fine print.

The bitter pill of reality comes with a hefty price tag. These former elites, who previously characterised Hong Kong’s democracy protesters as “troublemakers,” now confront the repercussions of their departure, likely due to their views on the Hong Kong or Chinese government as “authoritarian”. The British Future data shows 89% can’t afford to return to Hong Kong, trapped in a country that sold them a dream and delivered a nightmare.

Let’s be brutally honest – Britain never intended to absorb Hong Kong’s professional class meaningfully. The BN(O) scheme served its purpose: generating glowing headlines about British “humanitarian leadership” while conveniently ignoring the human cost. These professionals traded Hong Kong’s political uncertainty for Britain’s economic meat grinder, and the irony is absolutely delicious.

The research’s final statistics tell the real story: 35% unemployment, 72% depleted savings, and a 91% qualification rejection rate. Behind these numbers are former Hong Kong elites learning harsh lessons about social mobility – or rather, the lack of it – in modern Britain. Their privileged bubbles have well and truly burst.

So spare us the violins about “brain drain” and “wasted talent.” Britain got exactly what it wanted – positive PR and a fresh batch of desperate workers willing to take any job to survive. As for Hong Kong’s former professional class? They’re learning what many before them discovered: British “welcome” extends exactly as far as the photo opportunity. The next time you hear government ministers celebrating the BN(O) scheme’s “success,” remember the research’s most damning finding: 94% of respondents say they wouldn’t have come if they’d known the truth. But then again, that was never part of the sales pitch, was it?

https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/how-u ... stranded-and-broke/

indy

很想知她現在的想法

indy

【大公時評】葉嘉豪：偉大的企業家都是錚錚愛國者

近日，長江和記公司擬將其持有的包括巴拿馬運河兩大港口在內的43個港口出售給美國財團的消息，引發國人高度關注和強烈質疑：為何如此輕易將這麼多重要港口轉讓給不懷好意的美國勢力？表面宣稱的商業行為暗中藏着怎樣的政治算計？所謂「精明」的交易有沒有考量國家民族利益？這般選擇是否在助紂為虐、貽害中國和世界？

由此，人們進一步發出靈魂拷問：在大是大非面前，當事的企業家應怎麼取捨，帶領企業駛向何方？

歷史早已給出答案：無論何時何地何種情況，偉大的企業家從來不是冷血投機的逐利者，而是熱誠傲骨的愛國者！商場如戰場。那些在民族史冊上熠熠發光的偉大的企業家，無一不像偉大的將軍，堅定勇敢地維護國家利益、民族大義。他們將自己和企業前進的羅盤對準祖國的星辰，與自己的人民同呼吸、共命運，因此才名垂青史，為後世景仰。

國人想起的是，在舊中國積貧積弱、強敵環伺之時，張謇創辦大生紗廠以實業救國。在抗日戰爭的烽火之中，馬萬祺通過商貿網絡為前線輸送物資，並想盡辦法救治傷員。

國人想起的是，新中國剛成立，百廢待興，以美國為首的西方陣營又迫使我們投入一場更加殘酷的戰爭，並對新中國實施全面圍堵封鎖。當此嚴峻關頭，眾多企業家如同戰場上的戰士，奮力築起國家新的經濟長城，用行動詮釋「商之大者，為國為民」。柯麟、柯正平在港澳為國家籌集大量資金和物資。霍英東頂着港英當局「緝私」的槍口，組織船隊突破封鎖線，將藥品、鋼材等戰略物資運往內地。

國人想起的是，改革開放後，曹光彪第一時間到內地投資開辦香洲毛紡廠。面對外界的觀望、家人的疑慮，他毅然決然說：「必須得做，哪怕虧掉所有投資也值得做，因為這是對國家發展有用的。」包玉剛與內地造船企業簽署協議，定製多艘船隻，推動中國船舶業走向世界。他對兒女說：「無論什麼時候，什麼地方，都不要忘記我們是中國人！」曹光彪和包玉剛造就非凡商業奇跡，正根源於「苟利國家生死以，豈因禍福避趨之」的堅貞信念，根源於將個人抱負彙於天下興亡的浩蕩洪流。

今天，中國新一代的傑出企業家進一步傳承光大着愛國精神。面對美國的技術封鎖、市場圍剿以至針對個人的瘋狂打擊，他們不屈不撓、絕地反擊，在圍堵中突圍，在承壓中超越，堅決有力捍衛國家產業自主尊嚴。任正非帶領華為頂住全球供應鏈斷裂的衝擊，在被切斷高端芯片供應的絕境中啟動「南泥灣計劃」，用英勇行動詮釋了何謂「站着抗爭」，守護了中國通信產業的技術主權，向世界宣告中國企業不會在強權面前屈膝。還有許多企業家將被列入美國所謂制裁名單視作登上「光榮榜」，將外部打壓轉化為自主創新、突破發展的戰略契機。比亞迪、寧德時代、科大訊飛、大疆，一個個拚搏勝利的故事彰顯着企業走向成功、走向偉大之路。

「滄海橫流，方顯英雄本色」。歷史和現實都提示處於風口浪尖的企業家們，面對美國的強權霸凌，唯有堅定地與國家站在一起，勇敢鬥爭，才能保家衛國，才能贏得尊嚴、守住清譽。反之，如果看不清美國那些政客「既要錢、更要命」的本質，選擇與之共舞、倒行逆施，或許一時可做成「大刁」、賺到大錢，但最終是沒有前途，更會背上歷史罵名的。

indy

3月13号：莫天真，勿糊涂；
3月15号：伟大企业家都是铮铮爱国者；
3月19号：香港工商业应胸怀家国大局，勇于担当；
3月20号：商人在大是大非面前应守住底线；
3月21号：停止交割，切勿因小失大。

前几天的文章可谓苦口婆心，今天的文章已经可以算警告了，文中更是直接表示此举实为“以合法外衣下掩盖非法目的。”

#香港大公报再发文直指长和

indy

＃基本属于对长和的最后通牒了
＃长和一意孤行要在4月2日前完成交易

《大公報》就長和擬售港口再發評論：
勿在錯誤的道路上越走越遠！

文/唐志明

長和集團計劃「打包」出售巴拿馬運河港口等資產，引起海內外的強烈質疑。但消息公布近一個月後，各界並沒有看到相關企業果斷停止交割，反而看到「陰陽」兩面的操作：一方面拒絕作出任何正面回應，另一方面又在媒體上「請槍」散布各種混淆視聽，甚至別有用心的論調。其實，一時的天真糊塗尚可諒解，若是堅持在錯誤道路上越走越遠，後果將十分嚴重。

請「槍手」製造輿論

昨日香港《南華早報》獨家揭露，一間本地房地產代理公司的董事總經理透露，長和內部的一名聯繫人要求他發表一篇文章，為該公司出售港口的理由辯護。最終文章在一個本地網站上刊出，而類似的文章連日來不斷在各大媒體上出現，所兜售的不外乎兩個觀點：一是指交易是商業決定，中央政府和香港特區政府最初並未對此表示反對；二是否認美資貝萊德是交易核心，聲稱李家「世交」、意大利人才是主要買家。

顯而易見，這些都是「請槍」混淆視聽的手段，並非負責任的做法。如果真的如此「理直氣壯」，何不直接開誠布公作出解釋？如此迂迴操作，又是懼怕什麼？更何況，上述兩個說法完全與事實不符。

首先，交易絕不可能是普通的「商業決定」。正如大量輿論所指出的那樣，港口運營權不是普通資產，而是關鍵基礎設施，關乎全球航運和貿易。美國過往對於類似的交易曾作出嚴格的限制，荷蘭的阿斯麥、法國的阿爾卡特等等，相關交易都曾被阻斷。在事關國家安全和發展利益的重大問題上，必須審慎、全面考量，身為龍頭企業，掌握如此大規模的基礎設施，豈能沒有責任擔當？中央政府和香港特區政府堅定維護國家利益的立場非常清晰，豈會存在所謂的「最初不反對」立場！

其次，交易核心是將關鍵資產交予外國手中。此次交易的買家是貝萊德組成的財團，不論財團名稱如何，其核心都是美資背景。美國當局近來多番威脅要「收回」港口以打壓中國，在此關鍵時刻出現美資財團收購港口，當然不是巧合。在現在的地緣政治下，一旦全球43個港口碼頭落入美資財團，也就等同落入美國當局手中，中國的造船、航運、國際貿易，乃至「一帶一路」發展都將面臨嚴重打擊，國家利益也會受損，還可能造成地緣政治衝擊下的連鎖負面效應。事關國家重大利益，豈能以「世交」為由輕輕帶過！

大企業要算好長遠賬

長和出售港口事件，一不是普通的商業行為，二涉及大是大非的原則問題，引起輿論的強烈關注，這當然值得重視。當前出現的各種質疑甚至批評，更多的是從國家、香港乃至長和集團本身的利益出發，提出的善意忠告，絕非一些人口中所謂的「文革式批鬥」，更非針對某個企業的打壓，不應轉移視線、混淆視聽。

企業逐利無可厚非，不過大企業既要算自己的交易賬，也要算好長遠賬，更要算好國家發展的大賬。美國全方位針對中國，絕非一時一地之策，關鍵防線一旦失守，後患無窮。香港的發展與國家密切相連，國家強盛則商業興盛，國家受困則企業受損。扎根香港的企業，過去從國家發展中獲得豐厚的利益，理當扛起應有的責任。

古語云：覆巢之下，焉有完卵；皮之不存，毛將焉附？孟子更有名句：「不義而富且貴，於我如浮雲。」希望相關企業切勿作出錯誤的判斷，不要一錯再錯！

（來源：大公報A5：要聞 2025/03/26）

indy

拒絕回頭！李嘉誠“清倉港口”為何引發眾怒？答案就藏在特朗普的“一盤大棋”中

觀雨者

近期，李嘉誠（家族）出售港口事件引發了巨大的爭議。

有人認為這是個不負責任的舉動，因為它危害了國家的利益；也有人認為這是正常的“在商言商”，無可指摘。

然後兩邊就吵成了一團。

其實吵起來是正常的，因為這個問題確實不是一兩句話就能解釋清楚的。

所以今天我們就來徹底梳理一下這個事件，給大家一個清晰的說法。

世紀交易

3月4日，李嘉誠旗下的長江和記實業公司（下文簡稱“長和”）突然發布公報，宣布他們已和美國貝萊德公司（BlackRock）領銜的一個國際財團達成協議，將出售自己手中的大量港口。

這裡需要說明一下的是，港口交易中所指的“港口”其實都是碼頭。

現實中的大港口一般會由多個碼頭組成，這裡面的習慣稱呼不是特別統一，所以本文不對此作專門區分。

和記的這筆買賣堪稱“世紀交易”，因為它的規模刷新了整個港口行業的歷史紀錄，涉及的企業總價值高達228億美元。

作為對比，史上排名第二的港口交易是2014年中國招商局集團收購澳大利亞紐卡斯爾港，金額僅為16.2億美元。

十幾倍的差距，斷崖式領先。

根據公告內容，該交易的最終文件將於4月2日前簽署。

屆時全球將有超過十分之一的集裝箱吞吐量被貝萊德公司控制。

這有什麼不妥嗎？

在回答這個問題之前，我們先來看看這個交易的具體內容。

該交易主要包括兩個部分：

第一部分是“PPC交易”，即“巴拿馬碼頭公司（Panama Ports Company）交易”。

巴拿馬碼頭公司是長和的子公司，經營着巴拿馬運河兩端的兩個港口：

位於太平洋端的巴爾博亞港（Balboa Port）和大西洋端的克里斯托瓦爾港（Cristobal port）。

根據協議，巴拿馬碼頭公司90%的股份將被出售給貝萊德公司，這也意味着這兩個巴拿馬港口將被美國徹底控制。

第二部分是“HPH交易”，即“和記港口控股有限公司（Hutchison Port Holdings）交易”。

和記港口控股有限公司是長和負責國際港口業務的子公司，擁有全球23個國家的43個港口的經營權。

在這個交易中，該公司80%的股份將被出售給貝萊德。

這波操作基本屬於“清倉大處理”，長和一夜之間就要把自己手中除中國以外的港口全部脫手。

他們預計將因此收入超過190億美元的現金。

真的是“恭喜發財”。

不過盡管金額巨大，但港口經營權的交易本身並不是什麼稀罕事。

那為什麼人們會覺得這個交易有問題呢？

最直接的原因就是巴拿馬那兩個港口的位置太關鍵了。

“港口由誰經營”重要嗎？

巴拿馬運河連接着太平洋和大西洋，是全球四大海運咽喉之一（蘇伊士運河、霍爾木玆海峽、馬六甲海峽、巴拿馬運河），承擔着全球5%左右的海上貿易。

這樣的地區對於我們這種全球最大的貨物進出口國來說當然意義重大。

中國是巴拿馬運河的第二大客戶，2023財年的貨運量占港口總貨運量的22.7%。

而作為“咽喉要地”，這裡自然也是“群英薈萃”。

巴拿馬運河兩端共有5個主要港口，除了長和控制的巴爾博亞港和克里斯托瓦爾港外，還有：

由美國和巴拿馬合資控制的曼薩尼約國際碼頭（Manzanillo International Terminal）、

台灣長榮集團控制的科隆集裝箱碼頭（Colon Container Terminal）、

新加坡港務集團（PSA）控制的羅德曼港（Rodman Port）。

總結起來就是同時存在中國勢力、巴拿馬勢力、美國及其盟友勢力。

這不是巧合，這是地緣平衡。

這個平衡非常符合巴拿馬運河的位置和處境，是各方都能接受的一個局面。

但在長和把自己的兩個港口賣給美國後，這個平衡就被打破了。

因為美國就此獲得了壓倒性的優勢。

講到這裡，我們就碰到了關於此次交易的第一個重大爭議：

“港口經營權在誰手上”到底重不重要？

如果站在紙面規則的角度上看，誰來經營港口其實沒什麼區別。

經營港口是打開門做生意，賺的是提供服務和出租地盤（泊位、倉庫...）的錢。

有船來這裡裝卸貨物，經營者才有飯吃；如果限制貨船的進出，那就是自己砸自己的飯碗。

至於被限制的貨船，它們完全可以在附近另找一家港口。

另外，盡管巴拿馬港口的位置關鍵，但經營港口跟管理運河並沒有直接聯繫。

港口由各個港口公司運營，巴拿馬運河則由巴拿馬政府管理。

這些港口的主要作用是貨物中轉和提供船舶配套服務，跟是否允許你通過運河無關。

也就是說即使你控制了所有港口，在理論上也無法封鎖運河。

這就是為什麼很多人認為“港口交易問題不大”的原因。

但這種“問題不大”是有前提的：

大家都遵守規則。

問題是大家遵守嗎？

如果這個世界上的所有國家都能老老實實的按規則辦事，那麼：

荷蘭的光刻機現在應該已經在中國建廠；

台積電接大陸高端芯片的代工訂單應該也已經接到手軟；

TIKTOK也不用整日在被強制賣身的邊緣戰戰兢兢；

...

所以不要天真了，現實就是我們生活的世界是一個叢林世界。

只知道從紙面規則去解釋港口交易的人，非蠢即壞。

事實上國際港口一直都被各國視為重要的戰略資源，也是各國長期爭奪的目標。

因為它們是海上運輸線的關鍵節點。

這種資源在平常時期看不出太大的作用，但一旦出現特殊情況，比如說大規模戰爭或災難導致港口資源緊張的時候，你掌握的港口數量就非常重要了。

就算沒有發生特殊情況，控制港口也能給你帶來很多看不見的優勢。

比如說你可以方便的在自己的港口裡搞各種小動作，打壓對手的海上運輸。

即使你沒有害人之心，也依然有必要去控制盡可能多的港口。

因為這些港口就是你制衡對手、防止他們對你搗亂的籌碼。

“你敢在你的港口搞我的船，我就在我的港口搞你的船。”

這比什麼仲裁都有效，高端的博弈往往就是這麼樸實無華。

總的來說，在世界上控制的港口越多，話語權和操作空間就越大，制衡對手的底牌也就越多。

反之，如果控制的港口數量不足，那就很容易被人拿捏或者因為各種突發事件而陷入被動。

所以“港口經營權在誰手裡都一樣”、“港口出售只是普通的商業行為”...之類的說法，純屬自欺欺人。

尤其是對巴拿馬運河這種關鍵地區的港口而言。

更何況巴拿馬本身也從來不是什麼太平之地。

血河

2024年底，正在等待上崗的特朗普突然高調宣稱巴拿馬運河是“美國的重要資產”，並表示美國將“奪回”該運河。

霸氣側漏。

不過站在特朗普的立場上看，這個態度也不奇怪。

首先，美國是巴拿馬運河最大的客戶，貨運量占運河總貨運量的70%以上，所以交錢最多的自然也是他們。

在特朗普看來，這不是“在商言商”，這是“搶朕的錢”。

其次，巴拿馬運河在歷史上確實也曾一度屬於美國。

該運河最早由法國人在1879年動工修建，那個時候巴拿馬還是哥倫比亞的一個省。

不過因為這個工程的難度實在太大，所以修到1889年的時候就爛尾了。

本來美國只是一個看熱鬧的角色，但9年後的美西戰爭讓他們充分認識到了這條運河對自己的重要意義。

當時美國為了調動自己太平洋沿岸的俄勒岡號戰列艦去大西洋古巴參戰，不得不繞行南美洲最南端的合恩角，星夜兼程狂奔66天，多開了15000多公里，狼狽不堪。

為了以後能夠方便的調動兩洋海軍，美國就在20世紀初接盤了巴拿馬運河項目。

不過正如剛才提到的那樣，巴拿馬當時還是哥倫比亞的一個省，所以這個運河修好後也是哥倫比亞的資產，美國只能賺點辛苦費和分紅。

對此美國人當然不答應，因為他們追求的是對這個咽喉要道的徹底控制。

1903年初，美國與哥倫比亞政府達成協議，獲得了在巴拿馬地峽區域駐軍的資格。

眼看問題已經解決，結果該協議遭到哥倫比亞人民的激烈反對，最終只得作罷。

郁悶的美國人一不做二不休，乾脆一腳把哥倫比亞踢開。

1903年12月3日，美國策動巴拿馬政變。3天後，巴拿馬獨立建國。

靠美國支持才建國的巴拿馬精英自然投桃報李，馬上就與美國簽署了《海-布諾-瓦里拉條約》，把巴拿馬地峽周邊的整片區域永久租讓給美國。

於是美國就獲得了在這裡建造運河和鐵路以及駐軍的權利，基本上就相當於建立了一個國中之國。

次年，美國正式動工建造運河，1914年實現通航。

很顯然，這條運河打娘胎裡就不是什麼“商業成果”，它後來的發展軌跡也遠遠超出了“商業活動”的範疇：

1959年，巴拿馬人民在古巴革命的激勵下開展了收回巴拿馬運河主權的鬥爭。

1964年1月9日，巴拿馬爆發“護旗運動”。

大批巴拿馬學生舉起國旗走向運河區，結果遭到美軍暴力鎮壓，造成20多人死亡、500多人受傷。

巴拿馬當即宣布與美國斷交，並單方面廢除《海-布諾-瓦里拉條約》。

1973年在聯合國安理會特別會議上，大批第三世界國家表達了對巴拿馬收回運河主權的支持。

1977年，在多方壓力下，美國總統卡特與時任巴拿馬總統托里霍斯簽訂了《巴拿馬運河條約》和《中立條約》（合稱《托里霍斯-卡特條約》），承諾在1999年歸還運河主權。

其中《中立條約》要求巴拿馬經營運河時保持中立立場、不得偏向任何國家，美國則隨時可以因為這裡“不夠中立”而進行干預。

這才有了後來各方勢力齊聚巴拿馬的“盛況”。

托里霍斯在1978年卸任，但繼續保留國民警衛隊司令職務；1981年遭遇飛機失事身亡，有傳聞說飛機被特工安放了炸彈。

1989年美國突然以時任巴拿馬總統涉嫌販毒為由，悍然入侵巴拿馬。

2.6萬名美軍在12月20日凌晨分五路發起進攻，最終造成當地數千人傷亡（有獨立機搆統計死亡人數達3000人）。

美軍憑借此戰成功抓捕了時任巴拿馬領導人諾列加，並扶持反對派領袖列爾莫.恩達拉上台。

然後圖窮匕見，企圖在歸還運河主權的問題上反悔。

只是這種肆意踐踏他國主權的行為引起了巴拿馬和整個拉美地區的強烈抗議，以至於美國扶持的傀儡政府根本無力改變運河主權回歸的進程。

1999年12月31日，隨着美軍的撤離，運河管理權總算移交到巴拿馬政府的手裡。

這就是巴拿馬運河的來時路：

在殖民經濟中孕育、在列強紛爭中誕生、在民族獨立鬥爭中易手。

這裡從來就不存在什麼“在商言商”，這裡的每一分權利都是血籌。

如今在世界格局發生劇變之時，身為世界咽喉之一的巴拿馬運河又不可避免的成為中美博弈的重要一環。

特朗普的大棋

“中國”是懂王最喜歡念叨的詞語之一，他對中美關係的態度可以用兩點來概括：

“中國威脅我們的安全”；

“中國威脅我們的錢包”；

而這兩點又恰恰都和巴拿馬運河乃至整個航運業相關。

關於“威脅安全”這個事，特朗普在今年1月就公開發表言論說“巴拿馬運河正在被中國運營”，暗示美國安全受到威脅。

這種觀點當然是扯淡。

正如上文提到的那樣，運河地區的港口跟運河運營毫無關係，況且長和只是經營着5個重要港口中的2個而已。

但特朗普不管那麼多，自己樹的靶子無論如何也要打，反正就是要贏。

於是他的好友、貝萊德公司CEO芬特就帶隊收購了長和在巴拿馬的港口經營權，為特朗普的贏麻之旅添上了濃墨重彩的一筆。

對此特朗普感到十分高興，他於3月4日在美國國會聯席會議上驕傲的宣稱：

“為了進一步加強我們的國家安全，我們的政府將收回巴拿馬運河，而且我們已經開始這麼做了...就在今天，一家大型美國公司宣布，他們將購買巴拿馬運河周圍的兩個港口。”

而關於“威脅錢包”這個事，特朗普一直都認為是“中國製造”搶走了美國人的飯碗。

這當然又是一套歪理。

美國自己早早走上去工業化的不歸路，國內生產效率連年雪崩，就算沒有中國製造業的崛起，他的產業也同樣會流失。

但還是那句話，樹起的靶子一定要打，懂王一定要贏。

至於打壓的辦法，除了增加關稅和實施貿易制裁外，就是鉗制中國的海洋運輸線了。

只要在運輸線上控制了足夠多的關鍵節點，就可以方便的對“中國製造”使出各種盤外招。

而所有美國控制的港口都是美國操弄盤外招的馬前卒，這其中就包括那幾十個被貝萊德一口吃掉的港口。

看到這裡我們就不難明白，這場史上規模最大的港口收購案對於懂王來說是多大的一記強心針了。

這是美國在國際港口博弈中的一個重大勝利。

雖說以懂王的水平，未來未必能靠這些資源玩出什麼花來，但巨大的隱患是客觀存在的。

當我們理解了這場交易的嚴重後果後，就會碰到第二個重大爭議：

李嘉誠作為一個商人，有沒有義務在商業行為中考慮國家利益、“為國守港”呢？

仙界和凡間

其實這個爭議的關鍵問題並不是雙方誰對誰錯，而是“為什麼會產生這樣的爭議？”

客觀的說，無論你是否認為李嘉誠有義務“為國守港”，都有一定的道理。

因為錯的不是你，而是這個世界。

這個世界本身就是矛盾的。

它既有台面上的商業規則，也有台面下的江湖邏輯。你從不同的角度去看問題，當然會得出不同的結論。

那麼問題來了，哪個角度才是看待商業行為的正確角度呢？

這就得分情況了。

我們要看這個商業活動是屬於“凡間的生意”還是“仙界的生意”。

這是啥意思？

如果你的生意不會直接對國家利益產生重大影響，或者在市場上有很多的替代者，那麼這就屬於“凡間生意”。

這也是大多數商人都在做的事情，比如說開個小賣部。

而如果你的生意對國家利益有着直接的重大影響，且短期內無法被替代，那麼這個生意就屬於層次較高的“仙界生意”了。

比如說經營港口。

那麼它們的根本區別是什麼呢？

在叢林世界中，一切道德和規則都是暴力平衡的產物。所以任何商業活動的正常運轉都需要高階暴力（通常是政府）的背書。

有警察叔叔保護你的安全、維護你的權益，這個生意才做得下去。

而“凡間生意”和“仙界生意”的根本區別就在於高階暴力背書的方式不同。

“凡間生意”因為不直接對國家利益產生重大影響，所以從業者一般也不會遭到外國政府的針對性打擊。

在這種情況下，本國政府就是市場裡那個唯一的高階暴力，沒有任何力量可以挑戰他的權威。

有了“至高無上”的地位，為生意背書就變得非常簡單，甚至可以進行批量化操作，即通過制定一個統一規則來約束和管理所有人。

但“仙界生意”就不同了。

它因為影響力巨大，甚至關乎國運，所以難免會卷入到國家級的“神仙打架”中。

既然是“神仙打架”，那自然就沒有誰“至高無上”，這時候你單方面立個規矩就沒意義了。

現實中沒有任何紙面規則能夠真正約束一個國家尤其是大國的行為。

所以在這個“神仙大佬”滿地走的地方，一個國家要保護自家企業，就只能具體問題具體應對。

比如說有針對性的抵擋來自某個國家的壓力、在某些方面給予特定企業特別的支持等等。

這就屬於“個性化定制的暴力背書”了。

對於這個生意的從業者來說，他此時就處在了一個特殊的生態位上：

“國家的伙伴”。

那麼理想的伙伴關係應該是什麼樣的呢？

當然是互相幫忙、互相信任、肝膽相照。

比如說我知道你的企業在國際上壓力大，那我就在國內市場多照顧你一些，讓你能享受到一些特殊的優待；以後碰到外部壓力的時候，也希望你能盡量頂住...

因為“神仙打架”本來就超出了紙面規則的範疇，所以這類合作關係也不可能寫在紙面上，它靠的主要是默契。

這就是剛才提到的“江湖邏輯”。

關於這一點，我們可以拿澳門舉個例子。

我們都知道澳門博彩業非常發達，不過這個行業並不是誰都能從事的，它需要牌照。

該牌照最開始只有一張，現在有六張。

盡管規定嚴格，但實際的商業操作可以很靈活。全球各地的資本既可以參與牌照的競投，也可以通過與持牌公司的合作來參與這個市場。

“引入外資，推動行業國際化”一直都是特區政府的發展方略，這些就是擺在台面上的規則。

但迄今為止，沒有一家台灣資本能夠進入澳門博彩業，這就是默契。

選擇

1995年9月，中巴兩國簽署《關於互設民間商務代表處的協議》（當時還未建交），之後中國國際貿易促進委員會就多次組織企業代表團訪問巴拿馬，推動雙方在港口、物流等領域的合作意向。

這些行動為港資企業打入美國的傳統勢力範圍鋪平了道路。

長和（當時還是“和記黃埔”）後來能夠拿下運河港口的經營權，除了出價高以外，還有一大原因就是巴拿馬政府把長和視為他們與中國市場對接的潛在橋梁。

當時中國的進出口貿易額雖然還不是全球第一，但也已經進入前十，且增長得很快，潛力肉眼可見。

只是巴拿馬在1996年進行港口招標時還未正式拿回運河管理權，不可能“冒美國之大不韙”把港口賣給中資企業。

再加上當時的中資企業也缺乏準備，所以在紙面上中立的港資企業就成為了幾乎唯一的選擇。

這就是“神仙打架”造就的歷史機遇。

後來隨着經濟的發展，中國也加大了對拉美國家的投資。

其中進出口銀行、國家開發銀行對包括巴拿馬在內的拉美基建項目的貸款，極大的提升了巴拿馬對中資和港資的信任度，為港口的正常運營創造了良好的外部環境。

與此同時，美國以這些港口為靶子來渲染“中國控制運河”的行為也一直沒停過。

中國則多次通過公開表態尊重巴拿馬運河主權的方式來對抗這種輿論壓力，為運河區的商業活動爭取寬鬆的輿論氛圍。

至於中國在國內市場對長和的優待，那就更不用說了。

作為企業，如果你總是在國家為你爭取到有利形勢的時候悶聲發大財，在國家需要你站出來的時候就拿出紙面規則當擋箭牌，然後還號稱“在商言商”，那就太不地道了。

當然，我們理解一家企業的力量是有限的，要在殘酷的國際鬥爭中頂住壓力絕非易事，或勝或敗都很正常。

但“抗爭後失敗”、“根本不抗爭”、“不僅不抗爭甚至還主動配合”是三種性質完全不同的選擇。

就拿這次港口交易案來說。

就算你迫於壓力需要出售港口，那也應該先和國家溝通，盡可能的把一部分港口賣給中資企業，而不是背着所有人去和貝萊德私下談判，主動被人一鍋端。

作為行業標杆級的企業，這種完全不顧及國家利益的行為給整個行業都開了一個很壞的頭。

說到底，這個世界不是在哪裡都能“在商言商”的，開港口和開小賣部注定是兩種不同的生意。

結 語

其實早在2015年就有消息稱，中資企業有興趣購買和記港口集團40%的股份，只不過最終因為價格太貴而未能成交。

當時長和對港口集團40%的股份的估值為1600億港幣。想到現在1700多億港幣（228億美元）就向貝萊德出售了80%的股份，而且連聲招呼都不打，真是令人唏噓。

目前各方在台面下的博弈仍在繼續，最終的結果還不能說是塵埃落定。

不過無論結果如何，李家都可能會因為此次交易而不得不選擇一個明確的立場。

其實這也是大環境的一個寫照：

東西方之間的中間地帶越來越少，左右逢源的時代已經宣告終結，曾經的弄潮兒們要選擇自己最終的歸宿了。

是相信勝利最終屬於東方？還是相信西方會接納自己作為“家庭的一員”？

反正落子無悔。

當然，盡管大量港口易手的隱患很大，但隱患終究不等於現實。未來在特朗普正式出招的時候，我們也依然會有很多反制的手段。

畢竟我們是全球最大的貨物進出口國，整個大洋上航行着的都是我們製造的船隻和我們生產的貨物，制裁我們就等於制裁全人類。

任何盤外招都不可能對抗基本的經濟規律。

只不過西方的底線之低往往超出我們的想象，所以也不排除他們在未來會做出損人不利己的蠢事。

而我們能做的，就是繼續增加自己對整個海洋運輸線的控制力和威懾力，包括軍事威懾在內。

其實出現本方大量港口易主的事件也不完全是壞事，因為它會促使更多的人清醒過來，並最終認識到這麼一個現實：

金錢在力量面前不值一提，軍艦才是這個世界真正的股本。