Li Ka-shing is determined to come up with an indirect strategy, and the mainland's response has arrived: there is no room for ambiguity on principle issues.

Due to the corresponding transaction involving damage to national interests, the plan for Li Ka-shing to sell overseas ports at a low price to an American consortium has been put on hold. However, Li Ka-shing remains undeterred and decides to proceed with the transaction through an indirect approach. It has been reported that Li Ka-shing plans to split the sale of Hutchison Whampoa's overseas ports into two separate transactions to continue. This move by Li Ka-shing is clearly aimed at evading regulatory oversight and achieving his goal of selling the ports in a flexible manner. By splitting the sale, he aims to avoid anti-monopoly investigations from the state, which can be seen as a form of clever maneuvering.

In response to Li Ka-shing's strategy, the State Administration for Market Regulation promptly replied, stating that all parties involved in the Hutchison Whampoa port transaction must not take any measures to evade anti-monopoly reviews! Clearly, there is no room for compromise on principle issues. We will not resort to any coercive measures, but we will certainly act according to law, leaving no room for ambiguity. At all times, relevant transactions should be conducted within the scope of laws and regulations, which is also a common practice internationally.

Some individuals have openly taken sides with the American acquisition, siding with the group led by Li Ka-shing, and even some relatively well-known figures like Academician He. It is unclear whether they are genuinely unaware of the legal regulations or if they are deliberately doing so. The sale of the corresponding ports under the Hutchison Whampoa Group is evidently not a simple ordinary commodity transaction but involves issues such as monopoly and violations of national security interests. Some argue that since the ports belong to Hutchison Whampoa Group and the money is from American capital, and one party is willing to sell while the other is willing to buy, there should be no interference. Clearly, this argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the law.

Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1830634143773708/

Disclaimer: The article solely represents the views of the author.