• Tue
  • Dec 23, 2014
  • Updated: 10:50pm

Li Ka-Shing

Often referred to as “Superman” in Hong Kong because of his business prowess, Li Ka-shing is the richest businessman in Asia, and chairs conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa and Cheung Kong Holdings, a property group. Li turned Cheung Kong Industries into a top property group, and Cheung Kong expanded to acquire Hutchison Whampoa in 1979 and Hongkong Electric in 1985. Li is a noted philanthropist and heads a charitable foundation that is a shareholder in Facebook.

NewsHong Kong

Li Ka-shing warns of threat to Hong Kong's core values

Asia's richest man says core strengths must be defended and reveals his anger at accusations that he was preparing to pull out of the city

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 28 November, 2013, 1:42pm
UPDATED : Friday, 29 November, 2013, 6:44pm


  • Yes: 24%
  • No: 76%
28 Nov 2013
  • Yes
  • No
Total number of votes recorded: 267

Li Ka-shing has dismissed rumours he is cashing out of Hong Kong, while also offering his thoughts - and a warning - on the city's political future.

Asia's richest man said suggestions he was pulling out of the city were a "big joke".

But while defending the city's core values, he said: "Hong Kong cannot go down the path of rule of men. Hong Kong has many core values, such as an open and free market and the rule of law, which are not come by easily.

"If there is any mishandling in governance, these [values] would all be gone.

"My relationship with the Hong Kong government and other countries is built on this understanding. It should not be changed when there is reshuffle of individual leaders or officials."

Li, 85, made his comments in an interview with Guangzhou-based Nanfang Media Group that lasted for 21/2 hours.

Li rarely gives media interviews - he hasn't given any one-to-one interviews with the Hong Kong media since the late 1990s.

The tycoon backed Leung Chun-ying's rival, Henry Tang Ying-yen, in last year's election for chief executive and there are widespread rumours he is not on good terms with the current administration.

But asked whether he should "mend fences" with Leung, Li said: "We have no grudge against each other in the first place. Why is there a need to mend fences?"

Speaking in his office in the Cheung Kong Center in Central, he said people read too much into his business dealings.

"In today's globalised economy, this kind of accusation is out of place and unhealthy for business as well as the government," he said.

Some media speculated Li was moving assets abroad after selling three commercial properties - in Shenzhen, Shanghai and Beijing - for a total of 12.8 billion yuan (HK$16.2 billion).

Hutchison Whampoa was also looking to sell the ParknShop chain, but withdrew the plan after the offers fell short of expectations. Li said such transactions were simply good business.

"[People] accuse me wrongly, and I'm not happy. Today I'm going to hit back. I will present figures and facts and they can't argue with that."

He said: "The gross income of Cheung Kong and Hutchison was about HK$430 billion last year. The capital invested in the two overseas infrastructural projects this year was only HK$8 billion, accounting for less than 2 per cent.

"And this year we invested HK$4 billion in Hong Kong's container port. How can Cheung Kong and Hutchison be said to be pulling out capital? It's Arabian Nights. It's such a big joke."

He added: "Sell high and buy low is normal business behaviour … I have done business internationally for more than 30 years.

"This is the first time I'm hearing [such accusations] … Now it [the criticism] has been extended to the mainland as well.

"We have investments in 52 countries in various businesses, including property. We have sold assets in different countries, in some cases making a profit of more than HK$100 billion.

"People there didn't say that I am pulling out."

Li seemed to be particularly upset by the notion of so-called "property hegemony" - a phrase coined to describe how property tycoons made their fortune through a network which is carefully crafted to enable them to control the city.

The tycoon also dismissed this suggestion as a joke and said his companies were making "much more" in other countries than in Hong Kong.

He claimed there was an "unhealthy trend [of making unfair criticism]" in Hong Kong, which often put officials and public figures in a difficult position.

"It would result in lose-lose situation for both the government and the community. I breathe a sigh of relief that I didn't join the government because officials have to balance the interests of various stakeholders."

Yet he also said, tongue-in-cheek: "If I could choose [a career] again, I'd probably go into politics." Li said his main loyalty was to his shareholders.

"I'm not a clever person … I'm not omnipotent. I can't predict changes in politics nor can I influence politics. What I can do is use my intelligence to make decisions which are favourable for our shareholders."

When asked how to alleviate the gap between the rich and the poor, he said a "free lunch" approach was not the solution.

"The only solution lies in providing a good education for our young generation. It would be wrong if the government only targets those who are competent, rather than resolving the problem of lack of upward mobility."

Li also said that while he had no thoughts of retiring yet, plans were in place. "I have prepared well for retirement. My eldest son, Victor, [Li Tzar-kuoi] can take the helm anytime," he said.


The thoughts of Li Ka-shing

Hong Kong has many core values, such as an open and free market and the rule of law - which are not come by easily … If there is any mishandling in governance, these [values] would be all gone

[When making investments, I] must opt for countries that have fair laws ... The world's investment chances and choices are too overwhelming for us; the group can choose environments that have the rule of law and fair policies to invest in

Buying low and selling high is a normal commercial activity. All over the world, we are never criticised for pulling out capital - except in Hong Kong, where the never-ending rumours are regrettable

I have a deep love for the country and the people. My home is in Hong Kong. For me, Cheung Kong and Hutchison are based in Hong Kong; I absolutely will never move their domiciles

To gain fame means paying a price for easily attracting criticism … The larger the portion of the investments are in a particular place, the higher the chance [one] gets criticised [there]

I do not fear death. If I were a lamp, I could light up a road, with my still-alive foundation, which can only be destroyed politically

If I am to write an epitaph, I will select two phrases that back my will to fight every day: build up self; go after selflessness.

Sources: Nanfang Media Group / Cheung Kong Holdings


Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

What is agai n HKs core value Mr. LkS? Ripping off peoples hard earned money as you call this a free market? Those core values benefit only the rich and you but the people have to pay for your benefit. We can have a free market but essential goods like food, work, education and housing have to be regulated.
Here is wisdom from a man who has done well by hard work, enterprise, learned acumen and a good slice of luck who at his time of life has nothing to gain or lose by speaking his mind.
"Hong Kong cannot go down the path of rule of men. Hong Kong has many core values, such as an open and free market and the rule of law, which are not come by easily. "If there is any mishandling in governance, these [values] would all be gone."
How correct and apt to today's Hong Kong whose governance has fallen under the rule of men instead of law; actually they are less than men because so many are corrupt or sycophantic to the rule of other corrupt men.
"The only solution lies in providing a good education for our young generation. It would be wrong if the government only targets those who are competent, rather than resolving the problem of lack of upward mobility."
How right again. The domestic economy is dominated by cartels, duopolies or monopolies. The system is corrupt and the ordinary citizen has little chance of advancing unless by predatory behaviour at the expense of fellow citizens.
Yes, that was my impression too. He's self-interested to the point of denying obvious truths about the market distortions that have contributed so much to his wealth, but at least he seems to get the importance of the rule of law, good governance and education... more so than the 'administrators' that pass for government here.
He has only worked within the system. He did not create it and he certainly had no hand in the corruption of the present system of Sino-administration.
For all his faults, we have to applaud him for making rule of law and good governance prominent in his remarks. He came close, it seems, to slapping the CCP in the face.
Someone must be living in a hole to even claim that the tycoons did not play a part in creating this system.
According to Michael J. Boskin,
'Research reveals that strong enforcement of property rights and stable, predictable, and non-confiscatory tax and regulatory regimes are essential to long-run economic prosperity.
The key to China’s reform, and what the Chinese people want most, is John Adams’s “government of laws, not men” – even-handed administration of reasonable laws, not special favors for the connected few.'
Hong Kong's core value: enabling a stranglehold on the economy and government by the elite thru monopolies, duopolies and cartels. The only reason the Brits were not kicked out earlier is they allowed a few select locals in on the game.
Oh sure, the wicked colonial Brits allowed a few select locals in on the game, i.e. about 6 million of them. They only provided cheap public housing, free mass education, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of movement, freedom of occupation, enabled foreign passports and citizenship, not much.
What has China done for you?
Only 18% of those polled say they would have voted for him if he had gone into politics. A rather strange question to ask in hindsight. Knowing what they now know, how many would vote for Donald Tsang, Henry Tang, C. Y. Leung and their crooked gang of cronies? Even 1%?



SCMP.com Account