{"id":25292,"date":"2014-06-27T14:33:35","date_gmt":"2014-06-27T13:33:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=25292"},"modified":"2014-06-27T14:33:35","modified_gmt":"2014-06-27T13:33:35","slug":"the-big-4-firms-of-accountants-oppose-democracy-in-hong-kong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2014\/06\/27\/the-big-4-firms-of-accountants-oppose-democracy-in-hong-kong\/","title":{"rendered":"The Big 4 firms of accountants oppose democracy in Hong Kong"},"content":{"rendered":"

The FT has reported this morning that<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The big four global accounting companies have taken out press advertisements in Hong Kong stating they are \u201copposed\u201d to the territory\u2019s democracy movement, warning that their multinational clients may quit the city if activists carry out their threats to disrupt business with street protests.<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s rule of law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Many in the tax justice movement, and Prof Prem Sikka in particular<\/a>, have long pointed out that the Big 4 firms of accountants (PWC, \u00a0Deloitte, \u00a0KPMG and EY) represent a substantial threat to democracy since they are the almost universal and consistent presence in tax havens who \u00a0have 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The dividing line between the camps could not be more stark. \u00a0Hong Kong's system of government is deeply discriminatory with\u00a0just 1,200 people drawn from the city\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The Big 4 oppose the calls for peaceful protest in support of this call for democracy \u00a0saying, according to the FT translation of the Big 4 statement:<\/p>\n

In Opposition to the Occupy Central Movement<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em>With regards to some individuals proposing an \u2018occupy central\u2019 movement, we hereby announce that we are opposed to this movement, and are concerned that \u2018occupy central\u2019 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em>The rule of law is a core value of Hong Kong and has been the last bastion in Hong Kong\u2019s good business environment and its ability to attract foreign investment. Acting lawfully and respecting the rights of others is the responsibility of every citizen.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As with all the Occupy movements the aim is peaceful protest. This is all people's basic human right<\/a>,\u00a0 although many governments try to curtail it. And it is an absurd claim to suggest that 'respecting \u00a0the rights of others' \u00a0must mean giving up a right\u00a0to demand democratic representation. This is, again, a fundamental \u00a0misunderstanding of the UN Declaration of Human Rights<\/a>, \u00a0not least because it would necessarily mean that some have more rights than others. It is very hard not to conclude that \u00a0this is the situation which the Big 4 firms of accountants wish to maintain.<\/p>\n

We have over time \u00a0seen 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, \u00a0making clear that they considered democracy and convenience in the process<\/a>) \u00a0but now we have specific evidence that these firms think that if democracy gets in the way of \u00a0of what they believed to be their right to conduct multinational business then they have no doubt in which side their \u00a0sympathy lies.<\/p>\n

Money matters to the Big 4. Democracy clearly does not. Neoliberalism is \u00a0beginning to show its very very ugly side when it comes to human rights.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The FT has reported this morning that: The big four global accounting companies have taken out press advertisements in Hong Kong stating they are \u201copposed\u201d
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67,101,59,60,16,23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-accountancy","category-big-4","category-deloittes","category-ernst-young","category-ethics","category-kpmg","category-pwc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}