My Take | MPF ban on BN(O) withdrawals actually works in holders’ favour
- Migrants should thank powers that be for helping them to invest and diversify with a pot of gold, which waits to eventually be reclaimed
Anti-China hawks in Britain and the United States have to keep stirring the pot to stay in the news. So, on the third anniversary of the Beijing-imposed national security law in Hong Kong and a day before the 26th anniversary of the 1997 handover, they sent a letter to HSBC blasting it for refusing to release early the pension savings of British National (Overseas) passport holders starting a new life in the UK.
It’s not the first time they have made a fuss over the issue, to no one’s benefit other than their own.
It’s not clear why Hong Kong’s immigration and pension fund policies are any of the business of Mike Gallagher, chairman of the US Congress Select Committee on China. Maybe Chinese lawmakers should criticise cruel and unusual immigration policies and the treatment of refugees on the US southern border. No?
However, Alicia Kearns, chairwoman of the British parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee might have a better case. HSBC is headquartered in the UK, and the Sino-British Joint Declaration gives her position some diplomatic legitimacy.
I am not sure, though, why they keep picking on HSBC. While I have no love for the bank, it represents just two out of 15 approved trustees under the Mandatory Provident Fund retirement scheme in Hong Kong.
Other trustees with foreign business links are Manulife, AIA, and Standard Chartered. And what about those Chinese banks and fund managers?
Well, I suppose HSBC makes an easy target for people like Gallagher and Kearns, who has claimed, without evidence, that the Chinese government has threatened the safety of her family and wanted extra police protection.