The much-anticipated sale of 43 global ports by CK Hutchison Holdings to a BlackRock-led US consortium hit a roadblock. The 145-day exclusivity window closed with no contract inked. That means the old deal is technically off the table, and both parties can renegotiate, potentially with entirely new terms. Beijing’s intervention to stall the handover was no small feat: it stopped the transfer of these critical assets, ensuring they wouldn’t fall into American hands and threaten China’s strategic interests.
From Contracts to Flexibility
Let's take a closer look from the business angle. CK Hutchison’s exclusive negotiation period meant they couldn’t talk to other buyers, but now that time’s up, all bets are off. CK is free to reopen negotiations, whether with the original US bloc or a new set of suitors. That introduces a big dose of flexibility in how this transaction could proceed. The board has signaled ongoing talks with BlackRock, but they’re also inviting key Chinese strategic investors to join the consortium. Crucially, no deal happens without the green light from all relevant regulators, hinting that future buyers will almost certainly include mainland Chinese stakeholders.
According to Bloomberg, COSCO Shipping is now primed to join the fray alongside BlackRock and Mediterranean Shipping. COSCO wants full access to deal info and, importantly, veto rights to block anything detrimental to China’s interests. The negotiations are ongoing, but the direction is now clear—China wants a seat at the table and a say in critical decisions.
This Isn’t Just Business—It’s Geopolitics
When the initial agreement was signed back on March 4, Donald Trump didn’t hesitate—he crowed in Congress about “retaking the Panama Canal” for the US. That’s not the language of high finance; that’s geopolitics in action. Washington has made a national priority out of ramping up port charges on Chinese ships, specifically to hurt China’s shipping and shipbuilding. If anyone still says, “It’s just a business transaction,” they’ve missed the memo. This isn’t just about money. It’s geopolitics knocking on the door.
CK Hutchison’s plan to add major Chinese players to the buying group is an unspoken admission of the political weight this deal carries—a pragmatic and necessary step in today’s environment.
Trade Winds Shift: The US Softens
With Trump back in the White House, global trade tensions roared back to life. China responded with guts—slapping counter-tariffs and restricting rare earth exports. This tit-for-tat forced the US and China to the table in Geneva for some tentative agreements, and talks continue in Sweden. Interestingly, Trump is now seeking a sit-down with Xi Jinping, and recently lifted bans on Nvidia’s H20 chip sales to China. As relations thaw, American opposition to Chinese involvement in the ports deal is cooling too. There’s less reason than ever for CK Hutchison to cling to the original all-American buyer plan.
Finding Common Ground, Or Bust
From Beijing’s perspective, getting a Chinese investor with veto rights is non-negotiable—that’s essential for shielding China’s strategic interests. CK Hutchison wants the right price and, frankly, doesn’t care who pays it as long as regulators sign off. As for BlackRock and Mediterranean Shipping, with tensions easing, their incentive to exclude Chinese capital evaporates. That’s just pragmatism: if you want approval and global business, you have to play along—and sometimes, share the driver’s seat.
In this ruthless global landscape, nostalgia for some “good old days” of US–China friendliness is just “too simple, sometimes naïve”. The hard reality? Power rules. China’s interests are front and center, and no amount of financial engineering will change that. Capital may travel without a passport, but for Chinese companies, national interests remain a top priority. If the ports deal finds its way back to the tracks, all sides might just reach a workable compromise. If not? It could sink, just like the Qualcomm–NXP Semiconductors deal in 2018, torpedoed by a wall of Chinese opposition.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.
Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.
On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.
Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."
Court Slams the Door Shut
The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.
The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.
Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.
Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.
1. Chow's passion for making requests
As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).
Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.
This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.
2. Burning public funds on the public's dime
Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.
Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.
3. Prison is not a holiday resort
Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.
Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.
How Prison Oversight Actually Works
I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.
The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.
Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.
I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Lo Wing-hung
