Tuesday, 26 October 2021

Photo: 九华山 [Mount Jiuhua, Anhui Province], by Thomas_Yung

Bright yellow Buddhist temples with red tile rooftops cling to the side of the heavily forested Mount Jiuhua, in Chizhou, Anhui Province.

九华山 [Mount Jiuhua, Anhui Province], by Thomas_Yung (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/10/photo-%e4%b9%9d%e5%8d%8e%e5%b1%b1-mount-jiuhua-anhui-province-by-thomas_yung/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

National Security Law Threat Drives Amnesty International to Close Hong Kong Offices

On Monday, Amnesty International announced that it would leave Hong Kong by the end of the year, explaining that it is now “effectively impossible” for the NGO to continue operating under the National Security Law. Its departure from Hong Kong marks the exit of one of the most prominent international NGOs in the city, and is an ominous sign for what remains of the city’s civil society. 

The Hong Kong branch of Amnesty International consists of two offices, both of which are scheduled for closure. Dan Strumpf from the Wall Street Journal described the scope of Amnesty International’s work in its Hong Kong offices:

In Hong Kong, Amnesty focused on human-rights education, including providing classroom talks, promoting an annual human-rights-themed documentary film festival and co-sponsoring a regional journalism award.

A separate Amnesty office in Hong Kong worked on research and human-rights advocacy work across the region. Amnesty said it would close its local office by the end of October, and its regional office by the end of the year. It said the regional office’s work would continue from new locations but didn’t say where. More than 30 people worked for the organization’s two offices in Hong Kong, a spokesman said. [Source]

Tom Grundy from the Hong Kong Free Press reported that the threat of government reprisals for dissent was a major reason for Amnesty International’s departure: 

“This decision, made with a heavy heart, has been driven by Hong Kong’s national security law, which has made it effectively impossible for human rights organizations in Hong Kong to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals from the government,” said Anjhula Mya Singh Bais, chair of Amnesty’s board, in a Monday press release.

[…] “Hong Kong has long been an ideal regional base for international civil society organizations, but the recent targeting of local human rights and trade union groups signals an intensification of the authorities’ campaign to rid the city of all dissenting voices. It is increasingly difficult for us to keep operating in such an unstable environment.” [Source]

Al Jazeera added that the vagueness of the National Security Law has blurred the line between criminality and legality, to the detriment of Amnesty International and other NGOs in Hong Kong:

“The environment of repression and perpetual uncertainty created by the national security law makes it impossible to know what activities might lead to criminal sanctions. The law has repeatedly been used to target people who have upset the authorities for any number of reasons – from singing political songs to discussing human rights issues in the classroom,” said Amnesty’s Bais.

“The pattern of raids, arrests and prosecutions against perceived opponents has highlighted how the vagueness of the law can be manipulated to build a case against whomsoever the authorities choose.” [Source]

The blurred line has created a Catch-22 for many NGOs and opposition groups in Hong Kong: to avoid breaching the National Security Law (NSL), many organizations have disbanded, ceased their activities, or left Hong Kong, but the act of doing so may provide grounds for future prosecutions of their organizations under the very same law. This is the case for the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF), whose activities were deemed to be in conflict with the NSL. Despite the group’s disbandment, authorities stated that CHRF would be “daydreaming” to think it could escape prosecution, and they began investigating it for rallies held before the law went into effect. This is also the case for the Hong Kong Democratic Party, whose participation in the upcoming elections would directly challenge the NSL, but whose potential election boycott “will possibly violate the Hong Kong national security law,” according to a prominent pro-Beijing establishment figure. Again, this seems to apply to Amnesty International, which decided to leave the city to avoid being targeted by the NSL. But as Laura Westbrook reported in the South China Morning Post, one establishment figure in Hong Kong attempted to spin the organization’s departure itself as a challenge to the NSL:

But lawmaker Holden Chow Ho-ding, vice-chairman of the pro-establishment Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said he was “deeply disappointed” by Amnesty’s claim it was no longer able to work in the city without fear of official reprisal and called it “untrue”.

“It is outrageous for any organisation to smear the national security law by unnecessarily closing their branches here,” Chow said. [Source]

Amnesty International joins a long list of organizations that have disbanded or left the city to avoid being targeted under the National Security Law. Agence France-Presse reported that at least 50 civil society organizations have already done so, including human-rights-related organizations such as the Hong Kong Civil Human Rights Front, the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, and the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. Human Rights Watch left Hong Kong after being penalized by China for U.S. legislation supporting Hong Kong protesters, according to the New York Times. Some organizations, such as the New School for Democracy, have relocated to Taiwan.

Zen Soo from the Associated Press cited a report by the Georgetown University Center for Asian Law which explained how the National Security Law makes it dangerous for NGOs considered “political” to liaise with local activists and groups:

In a June report, Georgetown University’s Center for Asian Law said the National Security Law mirrored legislation in mainland China that tightly restricts contacts between local and international non-governmental organizations and threatens activists with imprisonment for allegedly colluding with foreign forces.

“It’s disturbing — and contrary to international law — to see Hong Kong’s ‘national security’ law similarly strangle civil society and free speech in the territory,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch.

“The degree of surveillance and the National Security Law’s vague prohibitions makes contact between Hong Kong people and those outside the territory potentially subject to prosecution, such that information-sharing is impeded,” she said. [Source]

In a statement, Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnes Callamard paid tribute to the organization’s accomplishments over the years:

“We are deeply indebted to Amnesty members and staff who over the last 40 years have worked tirelessly to protect human rights in and from Hong Kong. From successfully pushing for the full abolition of the death penalty in Hong Kong in 1993, to exposing evidence of excessive use of force by police during the 2019 mass protests, Amnesty in Hong Kong has shone a light on human rights violations in the darkest of days,” said Agnes Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

“In the wider region, our research and campaigning has tackled subjects including freedom of expression in North Korea, conscientious objection to military service in South Korea, the right to housing in Mongolia, Japan’s wartime atrocities against “comfort women”, and the crackdown on human rights lawyers in China.

“Moreover, Amnesty International Hong Kong’s education programmes – from classroom talks to a documentary film festival – have enhanced awareness of human rights not only in the city’s schools but among the general public as well. No one and no power can demolish that legacy.” [Source]



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/10/national-security-law-threat-drives-amnesty-international-to-close-hong-kong-offices/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, 23 October 2021

Photo: Atlas of Provincial Geologic Maps of the People’s Republic of China (1973), by James St. John

The embossed leather cover of an old 1973 Chinese atlas, and a brilliantly colored and highly detailed map of Yunnan Province in southwestern China.

Atlas of Provincial Geologic Maps of the People’s Republic of China (1973), by James St. John (CC BY 2.0)



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/10/photo-atlas-of-provincial-geologic-maps-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-1973-by-james-st-john/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Caixin Removed From Cyberspace Administration of China’s “Whitelist”

One of China’s premier investigative reporting outlets, Caixin, has been removed from the Cyberspace Administration of China’s (CAC) latest media “whitelist.” The whitelist governs how news is shared across the Chinese internet: news sites may only republish articles from outlets on the whitelist. Earlier in October, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) published a draft regulation barring non-public, i.e. private, capital from investing in news media—a rule that, if adopted, could potentially eliminate all non-state media outlets. These latest moves indicate an even more muscular approach to ensuring that the media is “surnamed Party,” in accordance with Xi’s 2016 mandate. At Reuters, Josh Horwitz and Brenda Goh reported on the CAC’s new whitelist of approved media outlets:

The list contains quadruple the number of outlets compared with an earlier version of the list from 2016, and includes more public and social media accounts, the CAC noted in its initial announcement.

The regulator added that internet news services that reprint news information must follow the latest version of the list. Outlets that do not abide by the rules will face punishment.

This month China’s state planner said it was halting the investment of “non-public” capital into a variety of publishing activities, including live broadcasts, news-gathering, editing and broadcasting entities and the operation of news. [Source]

The list was a dramatic revision of the 2016 list, which was scrapped and deleted from the CAC’s website. In accordance with Xi Jinping’s mandate to foster “positive energy” on the internet, the new list removed outlets that “no longer meet standards, perform poorly, and lack influence.” The often groundbreaking and widely-read Caixin surely did not fall under the latter two categories. The Economic Observer, a prominent independent publication, was also removed from the 2021 whitelist. Yet Caixin’s removal from the whitelist may not be all that damaging to the outlet. China Media Project’s David Bandurski told The Financial Times that “the goal is to ensure that the growing universe of digital media products is politically disciplined when it comes to sourcing news and discussion of current affairs,” but noted that Caixin has never relied on other outlets republishing its work for revenue.

Justin Tang, head of Asian research at United First Partners in Singapore, told Bloomberg News the message behind Caixin’s removal was simple: “No outlet is above the party.” There is some speculation that Caixin was removed due to behind-the-scenes political dueling between Xi Jinping and Wang Qishan, China’s Vice President. Hu Shuli, the pioneering founder of Caixin, posted an image of pig heads to Weibo. The post was captioned: “the sight of a pig’s head is not welcomed… Given its bad reputation, nobody wants to sit at the table with it to establish a strategic partnership.” Some believed Hu was using “pig’s head” as a veiled allusion to Xi Jinping. The post preceded the publication of the NDRC’s draft proposal to ban private capital from investing in the news industry, a measure that could prove far more disruptive to Caixin than being removed from the CAC’s whitelist. China Law Translate translated the NDRC’s sweeping draft rules, a section of which is excerpted here:

Non-public capital must not engage in news gathering, editing, and broadcasting operations

Non-public capital must not invest in the establishment or operation of news institutions, including but not limited to news agencies, newspaper publishers, radio and television broadcasters, radio and television stations, as well as internet news information gathering and publication service institutions, etc.

Non-public capital must not operate news institutions’ layouts, frequencies, channels, columns, public accounts, etc.

Non-public capital must not engage in live broadcast operations of politics, economics, military, and foreign affairs, or major activities or incidents in society, culture, technology, health, education, sports, and so forth that are related to political orientation, the orientation of public opinion, and values orientations.

Non-public capital must not introduce news released by foreign entities

Non-public capital must not host summits and award selection activities in the field of news and public opinion [Source]

If adopted, the rules will transform China’s media space. A 2020 scandal in which Weibo censored news of an Alibaba executive’s affair underscored the Party’s fear of private capital’s influence on media markets and public opinion. Alibaba was forced to divest portions of its media empire. The NDRC’s draft proposal would significantly expand existing limitations on non-public capital’s role in the media business issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China in 2017. According to Wang Sixin, a professor of law at the Communication University of China, private media is unfit to cover China. “You must be qualified to publish news, just like if you are not a doctor, then you cannot treat patients,” he told Global Times. At The Wall Street Journal, Liza Lin reported on the NDRC’s proposed rule change:

“Mr. Xi wants to create a new China, and as part of his creation, he’s making these moves,” said Fang Kecheng, an assistant professor of journalism at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. “The media plays a crucial part in this re-creation of society because of its role in shaping public opinion. He wants Chinese people to be thinking in a more uniform manner and subject to less influence from private capital.”

[…] Many of the restrictions described in Friday’s draft have existed in some form for years, according to media scholars, but China’s large internet companies have long operated in a legal gray area when it comes to online news content. While print and broadcast media are heavily regulated in China, internet companies such as Sina Corp. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. have produced news, financial and entertainment coverage and commentary with much less scrutiny, according to Zhan Jiang, a retired journalism professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University.

[…] “All of society has already realized that we have entered into a very different era from the past, and past experiences might not be suitable to assess current events,” [Fang Kecheng] wrote. [Source]

The CAC and NDRC’s moves are components of a Party-engineered “profound transformation” in Chinese society. Over 1,000 WeChat public accounts were deleted in October for unspecified violations. Prominent journalist Luo Changping was detained for defaming “heroes and martyrs” after criticizing a nationalist blockbuster celebrating the People’s Liberation Army’s role in the Korean War. The changes are nothing less than an ambitious effort to “make fools” of the Chinese people, wrote WeChat essayist 大鱼聊小事 in a since-censored essay:

It seems that the integrity of news is mostly unrelated to whether it is state-owned. The faker the news, the more likely it is to have come from venerable “big media”—no individual would dare to make up lies like that.

[…] The funny thing is, after this one platform published the news about this new draft resolution, many people went to the comments to say, “I support it.” These voices of support already violate article six, which mandates that “activities that direct public opinion or value perceptions” are prohibited. They can even delete the comments of support and ban their accounts. From now on, only unconditional support is allowed.

A consensus forged over the process of human development is: the most powerful monopoly is not over resources, manpower, territory, or products, but a monopoly over information, because it can make fools of people without them even realizing it. But actually daring to state that goal so blatantly is no small feat. [Chinese]



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/10/caixin-removed-from-cyberspace-administration-of-chinas-whitelist/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

NBA Star Enes Kanter Speaks Out on Tibet and Xinjiang, and is Promptly Censored in China

Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter made shockwaves this week when he called out “brutal dictator” Chinese President Xi Jinping for human-rights abuses in Tibet and Xinjiang. His forceful denouncement led to the censorship of his name and the Celtics’ team name from the Chinese internet. It also forced the NBA back into the spotlight, placing the league in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between defending players’ right to free speech and appeasing a lucrative Chinese market.

After meeting Tibetans at a community center in New York, Kanter released a nearly three-minute-long video on Twitter criticizing what he described as a “cultural genocide” against the Tibetan people. Eva Xiao from the Wall Street Journal provided more detail on Kanter’s message: 

On Wednesday, Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter posted a video on Twitter advocating independence for China’s ethnic Tibetans—an act that would be considered illegal in the country—while criticizing Beijing’s policies in Tibetan regions, such as restrictions on religion and freedom of speech.

Wearing a black T-shirt emblazoned with an image of the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader that Beijing views as a separatist, the Turkish basketball player called on Chinese leader Xi Jinping —whom he called a “brutal dictator”—to “free Tibet.” [Source]

To emphasize his support for the Tibetan people, Kanter even approached Chinese dissident artist Badiucao to create custom-designed shoes painted with the Tibetan flag, the words “Free Tibet,” and flames to represent the over 157 Tibetans who have self-immolated to protest the Chinese government’s human-rights abuses in Tibet. Kanter wore the shoes to the Celtics’ season-opening game against the New York Knicks on Wednesday night. 

ESPN reported that the Dalai Lama congratulated Kanter on his “courageous act” of advocacy:

The Washington, D.C.-based office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama released a statement to ESPN later in the day that read in part: “We are thankful to Enes Kantor, NBA player for speaking in support of Tibet. In a two minutes video message he summed up the existential threat faced by the Tibetans under Chinese communist rule. Every word that he said is true.”

The statement also noted that Kanter’s “courageous act” of advocating on behalf of Tibetan independence came “at the huge risk to his personal life and career.” [Source]

Having already garnered tremendous media attention, Kanter then used his spotlight on Friday afternoon to criticize the Chinese government on yet another pressing issue: the torture and other alleged human-rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. In a video over three minutes long, he chastised President Xi Jinping and also called out famous Muslim athletes and politicians for their silence, naming Liverpool F.C.’s Mohamed Salah and former boxing champion Amir Khan, among others. The Guardian described how Kanter held nothing back in his sweeping critique: 

“Right now as I speak this message, torture, rape, forced abortions, sterilizations, family separations, arbitrary detentions, concentration camps, political reeducation, forced labor … this is all happening right now to more than 1.8 million Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region in northwestern China,” said Kanter, who wore a ‘Freedom for Uyghur’ T-shirt as he spoke into the camera.

“The Chinese government has been taking sweeping measures to crackdown on the Uyghur people simply because they embrace their own religion, their own culture, language, history and identity,” he continued. “The Uyghur region has become an open-air prison and surveillance state where freedoms are non-existent for the Uyghur people. The Chinese government has sent Uyghurs along with Kazaks, Tajiks and other Muslims groups to concentration camps for simply applying for a passport, for texting someone overseas or for believing in anything that does not align with the Chinese Communist Party’s agenda.” 

Kanter went on to single out Pakistani prime minister Imram Khan, Saudi Arabia’s King Mohammed bin Salman, Abu Dhabi crown prince Mohamed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan and Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, saying: “It’s shameful and sad how you have decided to prioritize money and business with China over human rights. You call yourself Muslims, but you are just using that for show. You simply do not care about people.” [Source]

Kanter also revealed another pair of custom-made shoes by Badiucao. These were painted with the words “Free Uyghurs” and “Stop Genocide, Torture, Rape, Slave Labor.” 

Soon after Kanter’s first video on Wednesday, the CCP’s censorship apparatus scrubbed Kanter from the Chinese internet. By Thursday, Tencent, which partners with the NBA to stream its games in China, had blocked replays of past Celtics games and deleted listings for future ones. Tencent’s Sogou search engine also deleted search results and pages for Kanter on its WeChat, Baidu, Weibo, Baike, and Zhidao platforms. Eva Dou and Lyric Li from the Washington Post described how some Weibo accounts criticized Kanter and vowed to stop commenting on the Celtics: 

On Thursday, a Celtics China fan account on Weibo with more than 600,000 followers posted on the Twitter-like platform that it was suspending updates on the Celtics because of a certain NBA player’s social media slights.

“From now on, the homepage will no longer report any information about the Boston Celtics, and our Weibo will stop updating!” read the post from the account, Celtics Weibo Express. “Resolutely resist any behavior that undermines national harmony and the dignity of the motherland!”

A sports blogger with more than 4 million Weibo followers, “Brother Qiang Says Stuff,” declared that there should be zero tolerance for Kanter. Others called for a boycott of the NBA to teach Kanter and others a lesson. [Source]

Criticism of the Chinese government has proven to be a complicated issue for the NBA. In 2019, China accounted for approximately ten percent of the NBA’s revenue, equivalent to about 8 billion U.S. dollars, and was expected to reach twenty percent by 2030. The last major flashpoint occurred in 2019 when Daryl Morey, who was the general manager of the Houston Rockets, tweeted support for Hong Kongers protesting the draconian new National Security Law. His advocacy prompted a backlash that led Chinese media to erase NBA-related articles from websites, Chinese companies to cancel sponsorship deals, and CCTV to cease NBA broadcast coverage, which cost the league about 400 million dollars in lost revenue for the 2019-2020 season alone.

The NBA and some of its star players have also been harshly criticized for prioritizing access to the Chinese market above free speech and human rights. After Morey’s tweet supporting the Hong Kong protesters, the NBA initially disavowed his statement, Houston Rockets star James Harden apologized to China for Morey’s tweet, and Lebron James criticized Morey for not being “educated on the situation.” James and Harden have sponsorship deals with brands making billions of dollars in the Chinese market. In contrast with these athletes, Kanter’s courage in putting human rights above money has drawn praise from many quarters, and raised questions about whether Kanter’s advocacy—and flashy “Free Tibet” shoes—were the reason why he was benched during Wednesday’s game: 

Kanter has not shied away from activism in the past. Born in Turkey, he has been an outspoken critic of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who has labeled Kanter a terrorist, revoked his passport, and sought his extradition. In 2020, Kanter called the NBA “scared little rats” for omitting him—perhaps in an effort to avoid angering Erdogan—from its European Instagram page’s graphic featuring the best Turkish basketball players. In 2018, he publicly supported a letter that the Council on American-Islamic Relations sent to the NBA, demanding that it pull out of China. 

Kanter’s activism has already catalyzed action to address human-rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Patrick Blennerhassett from the South China Morning Post reported on recent U.S. government efforts to prevent imports of apparel made by forced labor in Xinjiang, which could affect some NBA players’ lucrative clothing-endorsement deals:

Elsewhere, two US Democrat politicians, Senator Jeff Merkley and Representative James McGovern, the chair and co-chair of the bipartisan and bicameral Congressional-Executive Commission on China, released a statement on Thursday.

In it they asked US Customs and Border Protection commissioner Troy Miller if they had stopped imports from companies that have publicly endorsed the use of cotton from China’s Xinjiang region.

[…] The statement criticised NBA players who have deals with Chinese sportswear manufacturers.

“Of particular concern, given the start of a new NBA season, is the continued availability of products from the Chinese sportswear companies Anta, Peak, and Li-Ning, which have high-profile endorsements from NBA players,” the statement said. [Source]

Over the past two years, the international sports world has witnessed a wave of protests against the Chinese government’s alleged human-rights abuses. In late 2019, another Muslim athlete of Turkish descent, the German-born former Arsenal F.C. midfielder Mesut Özil, publicly criticized the Chinese government for human-rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. French national football star Antoine Griezmann cut his sponsorship deal with Huawei in late 2020, after learning that the company had collaborated with the Chinese government to build facial recognition software targeted at Uyghurs. Last week, the Olympic torch-lighting ceremony in Greece was disrupted by multiple protesters denouncing human-rights abuses in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong. One of the organizers of the protests in Greece, the NGO Students for a Free Tibet, coordinated the meeting with Kanter in New York that preceded his first video message. 



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/10/nba-star-enes-kanter-speaks-out-on-tibet-and-xinjiang-and-is-promptly-censored-in-china/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, 21 October 2021

Photo: Sunset time, Shenzhen CBD, by Thomas_Yung

Shenzhen skyline at sunset with trees in foreground

Sunset time, Shenzhen CBD, by Thomas_Yung (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/10/photo-sunset-time-shenzhen-cbd-by-thomas_yung/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Billions in International Pension Funds Support Abuses in China; Hong Kongers Flee With Their Own Pensions

A report by the NGO Hong Kong Watch reveals that numerous major international pension funds have been heavily invested in Chinese companies connected to serious human rights issues. Some of these pension holders, such as members of the UK parliament, are gradually confronting their complicity in financing these abuses and calling for change. While money from international pension funds continues to flow into China despite allegations of human rights abuses, money from Hong Kong’s own pension funds have flown out in recent months, as a result of similar issues. 

Hong Kong Watch’s report provided a detailed picture of the international pension funds’ Chinese investments. The 84-page report included information on the international pension funds involved, their public “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) commitments, their Chinese investment portfolios, statistics on the tens of billions of dollars they collectively invested, and the troubling human rights records of notable Chinese companies. Through the lenses of human rights, environmental protection, and national security, the report identifies four types of problematic Chinese firms receiving investment from international pension funds: those blacklisted by the U.S. government for ties to the PLA or human rights abuses in Xinjiang; other Chinese tech firms complicit in human rights abuses in Xinjiang; Chinese state-owned banks that bankroll state-owned enterprises; and Chinese fossil fuel giants. 

The report spotlights Alibaba and Tencent as major investment destinations of concern, due to their role in alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang and other parts of China. As the report notes, Alibaba has produced facial recognition software that specifically targets Uyghurs and helped build the Xinjiang internment camps. Tencent owns WeChat, which enables the CCP’s extensive censorship and surveillance of the app’s 1.25 billion users.

A Hong Kong Watch statement about the report discussed the gap between ESG commitments and actual investments, and between investors and the public:

A new report by Hong Kong Watch shows that, despite lip-service to the importance of responsible investing and ESG priorities, major international pension funds are heavily invested in Chinese companies with problematic human rights records. 

Hong Kong Watch’s new report considers the paradox that investment into China has soared in the era of ethical investment. More money is being invested in China by Western pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and other institutional investors than ever before. 

[…] Johnny Patterson, Policy Director of Hong Kong Watch, says: “There is a clear knowledge gap between financial professionals who know that enormous amounts of the money of ordinary people, institutional investment, pensions and government funding is being invested in China, and the members of the public, media and policy makers who would have serious ethical and practical reservations about what seems to be a reckless and problematic course of action. This information gap has provided cover for financial institutions to pursue profit without regard for the social impacts of their ties with firms that are closely affiliated with egregious rights abuses in Hong Kong or Xinjiang.” [Source]

The U.K. parliament’s pension fund was one of those singled out by the report. According to Hong Kong Watch, the fund had at least $1.23 million invested in Alibaba and $3.16 million in Tencent, along with other investments in China Construction Bank and Sinopec. In response to the report, 117 British Members of Parliament and 20 members of the House of Lords penned a letter to the fund’s trustees urging the fund to divest from Chinese companies accused of being complicit in human rights violations or having ties to Beijing. Patrick Wintour from the Guardian reported on the signatories and their motivation to take action: 

The signatories include Lisa Nandy, the shadow foreign secretary, and the former Conservative cabinet ministers Liam Fox, Iain Duncan Smith and Norman Tebbit. Others include the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson, Layla Moran, and the shadow foreign affairs minister, Stephen Kinnock. The Conservative MP David Amess was also a signatory, one of his last political acts before his death on Friday.

[…] The Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh, a leading signatory and member of the Treasury select committee, said: “When the world is presented with such overwhelming evidence of gross human rights abuses, nobody can turn a blind eye.

“But we must also ask ourselves what it means to be complicit and that’s why I’m horrified to learn that our own pension fund is invested in Chinese institutions with close ties to the state. If we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act. Warm words are simply not enough because this time no one can say that they did not know.” [Source]

Britain provides an interesting case study for how foreign governments might respond to revelations of their financial entanglement in problematic Chinese firms. The British government is well aware of the issues: in March, the U.K. Foreign Secretary sanctioned four Chinese officials deemed responsible for the alleged genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang, which led to the Chinese government relatiating with sanctions against five British Members of Parliament. In April, the House of Commons passed a motion declaring the Chinese government’s policies in Xinjiang a genocide. In September, the British Parliament symbolically banned Chinese ambassador Zheng Zeguang from entering parliament. But political momentum for protecting human rights may not necessarily produce a change in British investments, according to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who stated this week that the U.K. government will not “pitchfork away every [investment] overture from China.” 

Beyond Britain, the report spotlights several other governments whose pension fund investments in China are even more troubling. The Australian Super Fund has invested about US$2.4 million in Hikvision and almost US$900,000 in iFlytek, two Chinese companies that have developed surveillance software to help the Chinese government target Uyghurs in Xinjiang; the fund has also invested US$403 million to Alibaba and US$293 million to Tencent, orders of magnitude higher than the British parliament. In Asia, the Japanese government’s pension fund has invested US$2.04 billion to Alibaba and US$1.74 billion to Tencent, and the National Pension Service of South Korea has invested the most out of all of the funds analyzed in the report: US$12.15 billion in Alibaba and US$9.11 billion in Tencent. In North America, Canada’s Pension Plan Investment Board has invested US$2.23 billion in Alibaba and US$3.51 billion in Tencent, and Canada’s British Columbia Investment Management Corporation has invested a combined total of US$880,000 million in Alibaba and Tencent. 

In the U.S., pension funds at Princeton and Columbia University are similarly complicit. Dennis Kwok and Johnny Patterson highlighted those funds’ investments in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece:

A new Hong Kong Watch report on institutional investment around the world has implications for U.S. retirement investors. Consider one example: Vanguard manages academic and staff retirement funds for several elite U.S. institutions, including Princeton and Columbia. Between 22% and 35% of each retirement fund is allocated to the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund, depending on the retirement date of pensioners. As of July 31, this fund, which isn’t ESG-driven, held $4.4 billion in Alibaba, $4.6 billion in Tencent, $17.3 million in Iflytek, $7.6 million in Dahua Technology, $23 million in the Aviation Industry Corp. of China, and nearly $2 billion in China’s top four state-run banks. [Source]

​

​

Institutional Investor Funds Invested in Alibaba Funds Invested in Tencent Other key Chinese Equities
UK Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund £ 0.9m (USD$ 1.23m) £ 2.3m (USD$ 3.16m) China Construction Bank, Sinopec, CNOOC (Until 2019)
UK Universities Superannuation Scheme £ 371.79m (USD$ 511m) £ 413.96m (USD$ 569m) China Construction Bank, Sinopec
Australian Super Fund (Balanced pre-mixed investment option) Aus$563m (USD$ 403m)Aus$409m (USD$ 293m) Bank of China (Aus$4.9m), China Construction Bank (Aus$9m), Hikvision (Aus$3.2m), Iflytek (Aus$1.2m), China Mobile (Aus$13.3m)
Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund USD$6.7bn USD$5.9bn Sinopec (US$205m), Baidu (US$759m), Bank of China (US$261m), China Construction Bank (US$1bn), China Mobile (US$371m), SMIC (US$92m), China Unicom (US$42m)
New Zealand Superannuation Fund NZ$93.47m (USD$ 64.68m) NZ$87.95m (USD$ 60.87m) 14 entities sanctioned by US including: AVIC (NZ$250,933), China Communications Construction Co. (NS$472,202), China Mobile (NZ$7,151,619), Hikvision (NZ$961,223), China Unicom (NZ$219,492), SMIC (NZ$2,306,284), Zhejiang Dahua Technology (NZ$219,670).
Others including: iFlytek (NZ$229,702), Bank of China (NZ$5,871,296), China Construction Bank (NZ$15,384,971)
BCI (Canada) Can$1.1bn in the two combined (Mar,2020) (USD$887m) March 2020: China Communication Construction Group (C$2m), CNOOC (C$56.1m), Hikvision (C$45.3m), China Mobile (C$104.6m), Zhejiang Dahua Tech (C$14.42m), China Construction bank (C$91.98m)
CDPQ (Canada) Can$938.6m (USD$744m) Can$666.9m (USD$529m) 18 companies on the US sanctions list, including: AVIC, CNOOC Ltd, CoStar Group Inc, Inner Mongolia First Machinery Group Co, Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co, and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp.
Japan Government Pension Investment Fund £ 2.57bn (USD$2.04bn) £ 2.2bn (USD$1.74bn) Sinopec (£62 million)

 

While money has poured into China from foreign pension funds, money is flowing out of Hong Kong’s. Inflows into Hong Kong’s pension fund began declining in the second quarter of 2020, and this quarter they reached their lowest point in three years. The drop coincides with the deteriorating human rights situation under the National Security Law, which has pushed over 90,000 Hong Kong citizens to emigrate and cut the city’s population by 1.2 percent. Reuters reported on the Hong Kong pension fund capital flight:

Residents leaving Hong Kong withdrew HK$2.095 billion ($270 million) from Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) pension accounts in the second quarter, up 111.6% from the same period in 2020.

A sweeping security law imposed on Hong Kong in June 2020, aimed at anything Beijing regards as subversion, secession or terrorism, prompted residents of the city to move tens of billions of dollars to other countries including Canada, where thousands hope to forge a new future. read more

A total of 8,000 claims were made during the second quarter of 2021, data from the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority on Tuesday showed. That compared with 6,000 claims during the same period in 2020, when HK$990 million was withdrawn. (https://bit.ly/3n8NCzP).

There were 7,700 claims during the first quarter of 2021, when HK$1.931 billion was withdrawn, marking a rise of 49.1% from the same quarter in 2020. [Source]

International criticism on human rights abuses in China has been fierce and widespread. But many of the same people and institutions that voice this criticism allow their pensions to pump more investment into Chinese firms involved in these very same human rights abuses:



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/10/billions-in-international-pension-funds-support-abuses-in-china-hong-kongers-flee-with-their-own-pensions/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)