The FT has reported this morning that:
The big four global accounting companies have taken out press advertisements in Hong Kong stating they are “opposed” to the territory's democracy movement, warning that their multinational clients may quit the city if activists carry out their threats to disrupt business with street protests.
In an unusual joint statement published in three Chinese-language Hong Kong newspapers on Friday, the local offices of EY, KPMG, Deloitte and PwC said the Occupy Central movement, which is calling for electoral reform in the former British colony, posed a threat to the territory's rule of law.
Many in the tax justice movement, and Prof Prem Sikka in particular, have long pointed out that the Big 4 firms of accountants (PWC, Deloitte, KPMG and EY) represent a substantial threat to democracy since they are the almost universal and consistent presence in tax havens who have as a result underpinned the organised tax avoidance that those places facilitate to undermine the tax revenues of democratically elected governments. This new declaration by these firms is, however, something that has taken many of us involved in this movement by surprise.
The demands of the Hong Kong democracy movement can hardly be considered radical to most people used to the benefits that democracy has created throughout large parts of the world and yet here we have the Big 4 firms of accountants suggesting that a protest to demand what is a basic human right is a threat to business and should, therefore, be opposed.
The dividing line between the camps could not be more stark. Hong Kong's system of government is deeply discriminatory with just 1,200 people drawn from the city's elite being allowed to vote for their preferred candidate from a shortlist of names managed by Beijing. The Occupy Central movement wants a universal franchise.
The Big 4 oppose the calls for peaceful protest in support of this call for democracy saying, according to the FT translation of the Big 4 statement:
In Opposition to the Occupy Central Movement
With regards to some individuals proposing an ‘occupy central' movement, we hereby announce that we are opposed to this movement, and are concerned that ‘occupy central' would have negative and long-lasting impact on the rule of law, the society, and the economy of Hong Kong. We hope that the disagreements could be resolved through negotiation and dialogue instead.
The rule of law is a core value of Hong Kong and has been the last bastion in Hong Kong's good business environment and its ability to attract foreign investment. Acting lawfully and respecting the rights of others is the responsibility of every citizen.
As with all the Occupy movements the aim is peaceful protest. This is all people's basic human right, although many governments try to curtail it. And it is an absurd claim to suggest that 'respecting the rights of others' must mean giving up a right to demand democratic representation. This is, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, not least because it would necessarily mean that some have more rights than others. It is very hard not to conclude that this is the situation which the Big 4 firms of accountants wish to maintain.
We have over time seen an increase in the, to date, slightly veiled threats to democracy that have emanated from these firms and, for example, from the City of London ( who recently suggested the right of an elite to veto UK tax law, making clear that they considered democracy and convenience in the process) but now we have specific evidence that these firms think that if democracy gets in the way of of what they believed to be their right to conduct multinational business then they have no doubt in which side their sympathy lies.
Money matters to the Big 4. Democracy clearly does not. Neoliberalism is beginning to show its very very ugly side when it comes to human rights.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The selection of candidates for the post of Chief Executive is controlled by Beijing as you have mentioned. That is written in the Basic Law (HK’s mini constitution). It can only be changed by the Central Government and so will never be changed. They will never risk an anti-Central Government person as CE in Hong Kong. Protests will have no effect. The big worry is if the protests turn ugly, that the PLA get involved in dealing with it – and then things will really go to shit and that is the point they are making (without being so blunt!)
Why are you guys so predictable?
Not sure you’re going to like this Mr. M. but here goes,
Mr. M., there is no ‘democracy’ in HK. There never was that much in the days of Fat Pang, even less with CH Tung. The HKSAR gets as much freedom as the PRC wants it to have. No more, no less.
The protestors will achieve nothing. If the PRC wants the Big 4 to continue to operate in the manner that they are, they will continue to do so. Nothing will be allowed to disrupt – even for a few hours – HKs place in the global financial network.
The PRC will not allow it – that’s realpolitik. If western activists go to HK to stir up ‘trouble’ (from the point of view of the authorities at least), then they might find out that the way UK police deal with them really isn’t that bad.
We know there is no democracy
Supporting that situation is something quite different
You really do not get it, do you?
I think democracy will certainly arrive in Hong Kong at some point in the next 20 years but it is more likely to be driven by the adoption of democracy in mainland China which would then make the absence of democracy in Hong Kong untenable. There is huge industrial unrest in China which goes largely unreported by the mainstream media in the West – see e.g. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/08/china-in-revolt/
With any luck we might get some proper democracy in the UK as well at the same time, rather than a choice between 3 neoliberal parties! I remain hopeful.
Optimism is an essential quality Howard
I see your confusion now, it’s in this statement….
“Hong Kong’s system of government is deeply discriminatory with just 1,200 people drawn from the city’s elite being allowed to vote for their preferred candidate from a shortlist of names managed by Beijing”
That is how it is up to now. A list of preferred candidates is provided to this committee and these 1200 people choose the CE.
However, as per the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law, there will be one person one vote for the CE in 2017. As per the Basic Law, the candidates will be selected by the likely Beijing sympathetic HK committee of elites again.
It is this last part that Occupy Central objects to. They want any candidate to be able to stand but Beijing could never allow a critical CE. So they will stick to what is stated in the Basic Law, and that is very clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_45#Contents_of_Article_45
It is not in Beijing’s interest to change this. So it won’t change. 2047 will be more interesting.
There is no confusion
The Big 4 are opposing the human right to protest
In the process they are opposing democracy
And you choose to be a pedant on the sidelines in the hope no one notices
There’s nothing that says they oppose protests (protests happen every week here, and often on a scale that exceeds the People’s Parliamnent 50K). They are opposing the blockading of the key routes through Central which would cause chaos, result in police action and is illegal.
Your excuses are lame
Even Prof Judith Freedman at Oxford thinks they called this one seriously wrong
Stop supporting abuse is my advice
I am a little confused. What are a few ads got to do with it. No one will notice in any way.
We fought WW2 to preserve democracy
And it means nothing to you?
Well there is absolutely nothing to stop you coming to Hong Kong and getting on your high horse. Once again you criticise from the sideline – come and get your hands dirty, in the spirit of WW 2
There is ample to stop me going
Because of an impending operation I have no effective travel insurance for a start
I am very confused. We all agree there is no democracy in HK, so far so good.
If there is no democracy in HK, how can the Big 4 be opposed to (non-existant) democracy in HK?
I am completely willing, and agree, the Big 4 are indeed opposing democracy in the HK, but I do not understand how they are doing so.
They are opposed to moves to create democracy in Hong Kong
And let me suggest you are not confused at all