In the past two weeks, a controversial editorial has caused a stir around Hong Kong property tycoon Li Ka-shing. From quasi-official criticism to a more accommodating tone later, from Li’s compromising explanation to a more steadfast statement, this event has evolved far away from the original status, suggesting a complicated relationship between the authority and private capital.
It all started from a controversial commentary slamming Li Ka-shing for fleeing the Chinese market. On Sept. 14, Luo Tianhao, a political blogger at the Outlook Institute published a commentary entitled "Don't Let Li Ka-shing Run Away." The article criticized Li’s recent move to sell out the Shanghai part of his Cheung Kong Property Holdings Limited, especially when China’s economy is in such a critical point. It also suggested that Li could not simply "run off" because he owed his success and mammoth US$25 billion fortune to political blessings from Beijing.
Given Outlook Institute's affiliation with Xinhua, it has been suggested that the article must have had approval from the party leadership. Most see it as a warning to Li, who has transferred more than 73.8 billion yuan (US$11.6 billion) of assets from China and Hong Kong since January 2014, including selling off 12.9 billion yuan (US$2 billion) worth of real estate on the mainland.
The targeted company Cheung Kong Property Holdings Limited responded several days later that they did not plan to withdraw from China, and emphasized that what they were doing were just normal business activities. It seems an olive branch extended by Li Ka-shing.
Luo's article was removed from the Outlook website within hours, and a commentary with a more accommodating tone was released three days later in the Securities Times, an outlet under the auspices of the Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily. In the meantime, netizens across China and beyond have been able to discuss the meaning of Luo's piece without any interference from the country's internet censors. Netizens’ views are also widely divided.
Some media regarded Luo’s editorial not merely a warning to Li, but an open warning towards other groups. Duowei, a US-based Chinese political news outlet, for example, said Luo's editorial has also turned out to be a form of open intimidation aimed at advocates of privatizing China's state-owned enterprises. The outlet added that Luo's article was published just days following Beijing's release of a new guide on state enterprise reform that encouraged two-way investment between the public and private sectors as well as other mixed ownership structures.
Debates and speculations are still going on, and finally, Li released his first individual statement towards the editorial today (September 29). In the strong-worded statement, Li negated the allegation of divesting from China, saying that his assets in China has increased these years. Li expressed his confidence in China’s economy as well as the leadership of the Communist party. He said he was, is and will be a strong supporter to the Chinese nation.