Lawmakers urge Hong Kong stock exchange to speed up reforms, sharpen edge
Advertisement
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (HKEX) should implement changes to its listing rules and other improvement plans as soon as possible, lawmakers said in a monthly financial affairs panel at the Legislative Council on Monday, against the backdrop of a global market sell-off.
'The volatile global markets may provide new opportunities for the Hong Kong IPO [initial public offering] market,' said Jeffrey Lam, a member of the city's Executive Council. 'HKEX should speed up the listing approval process and carry out more listing reforms to attract more new listings from leading companies of different markets.'
The Hang Seng Index sank 13 per cent to 19,828 on Monday in the worst rout since October 1997. Other Asian markets slumped by 4 per cent to 8 per cent. Markets crashed after China imposed a tit-for-tat 34 per cent tariff on US goods, following President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' package against all its trading partners.
04:47
US tariff storm disrupts global business expansions, but some see opportunities
US tariff storm disrupts global business expansions, but some see opportunities
'The Hong Kong stock market has been very volatile, while we also found the initial public offerings were robust in the first quarter,' Lam said. 'Leading companies on the mainland and some overseas companies may consider listing in Hong Kong as the city's market performance is more stable.'
Advertisement
Joseph Chan Ho-lim, Undersecretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, said the Hong Kong market was trading smoothly despite the volatility. The HKEX reforms have the backing of the government, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
10 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
India's hand in Trump tariff row stronger than it looks
On August 6, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order doubling tariffs on most Indian exports to the United States, raising the rate from 25 to 50%. The decision, set to take effect later this month, was justified on grounds of trade imbalances and New Delhi's continued discounted purchases of sanctioned Russian oil. The escalation marks the sharpest deterioration in US-India trade relations in decades. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has denounced the measures as 'unfair and unjustified,' noting that other major buyers of Russian crude have not been penalized. 'We will protect our farmers and our domestic interests, even if we must pay a heavy price,' he told a rally in Gujarat in response to the tariffs. Within days, India announced a pause on planned US defense acquisitions — a not-so-subtle signal that its strategic options extend far beyond the Pentagon's procurement lists. Senior officials have begun mapping out a menu of counter-moves, from limited retaliatory tariffs to deeper integration with BRICS partners and other non-Western economies. To understand why India is in no rush to fold, it is worth taking stock of how the balance of power has shifted. First, BRICS itself has shaped into a US$32.5 trillion economic coalition after the addition of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Indonesia. The enlarged group now represents roughly 30–40% of global GDP and accounts for over a fifth of world trade. This is not yet a substitute for the G7 ($46.8 trillion), but it is a credible alternative pole. Second, while the US dollar remains dominant, accounting for around 58% of global reserves and cross-border transactions, its share has been steadily declining, from 72% in 2000. India's trade with Russia, which surged to around $65–69 billion last fiscal year, is increasingly settled in rupees and rubles, bypassing the dollar entirely. Similar currency-swap arrangements with the UAE and other partners are quietly expanding. Third, India's role in critical global supply chains gives it built-in leverage. The country produces about 60 percent of the world's generic medicines and exported $28 billion worth of pharmaceuticals in 2023–24. Its IT and ICT services exports, worth roughly $150 billion annually, are heavily embedded in US corporate operations, from Silicon Valley's software pipelines to Wall Street's back-office systems. Tariffs on Indian goods thus risk boomeranging onto American companies and consumers. Modi's real advantage lies in what analysts such as Nishant Rajeev call 'multi-alignment' or 'optionality,' the skill of pivoting among multiple partners and platforms without locking into any single one. India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar framed this strategic agility in Foreign Policy as the freedom to choose partners based on interests rather than on emotion or prejudice. India's $3.4 trillion economy and 1.4 billion market give it scale; its BRICS membership, combined with Quad, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and G20 roles, gives it reach. This unique positioning allows New Delhi to keep one foot in the Western security architecture while cultivating deep ties to Russia, Iran, the Gulf, and Central Asia. Optionality has a financial dimension too: the more India settles trade in local currencies, the less exposed it is to US financial leverage. That, in turn, blunts the coercive edge of both sanctions and tariffs. Washington's wager appears to be that punitive tariffs will force India into strategic compliance. History suggests otherwise. Sustained tariff wars often prompt global supply chains to reroute, and the early signs here point to a similar outcome. Rather than isolating India, higher tariffs may accelerate the very multipolarity the US seeks to contain. Trade diversion toward BRICS partners, the Gulf and ASEAN could deepen alternative payment systems and standards. Politically, the optics of coercion from Washington may play into Modi's domestic narrative of sovereign resilience, especially in the run-up to state elections. There are domestic costs for the US as well. More expensive Indian pharmaceuticals could raise healthcare costs, while disruption in IT services risks operational headaches for US firms. In a tight labor market for STEM talent, alienating a country that produces over half a million new engineering graduates each year is a questionable move. Seen through this lens, Trump's tariff escalation risks becoming a strategic own goal. It undermines the bipartisan effort of the past two decades to position India as a counterbalance to China. It also introduces uncertainty into defense cooperation, just as Washington is seeking to strengthen maritime deterrence in the Indo-Pacific via essentially the Quad. More fundamentally, it sends a message that US economic statecraft is increasingly zero-sum, a framing that will nudge other swing states toward hedging strategies. In that world, India will not stand alone: it will be joined by BRICS and several mid-sized powers seeking insulation from great-power coercion. If Trump's goal is actually to keep India close, a more sophisticated approach would blend incentives with calibrated pressure. That could mean reviving stalled trade talks, offering targeted supply-chain co-investment in sectors like semiconductors and AI and easing market-access irritants in agriculture and services. Such engagement would not preclude firm conversations about Russia, but it would avoid the trap of punitive measures that push India further into BRICS and alternative coalitions. Modi's India will not back down from a challenge; it will build around it. The more the West applies pressure, the more New Delhi is likely to deepen its ties with BRICS and other non-Western coalitions that offer strategic autonomy in a multipolar world. Ricardo Martins holds a PhD in sociology with a specialization in geopolitics and international relations and an advanced studies certificate in international trade. He is based in the Netherlands.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Ukraine-Russia land swap, security guarantees ‘largely agreed', Trump says after Putin summit
land swap and security guarantees to end the Ukraine wa r have been 'negotiated' and 'agreed', US President Donald Trump has said following talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska. In an interview with Fox News soon after the summit on Friday , Trump said the points 'were negotiated' and 'largely agreed on', but one 'big thing' of disagreement remained. 'I think [Putin] wants to see it done,' Trump said, refusing to say what the outstanding issue was. Trump also accused his predecessor, Joe Biden, of pushing China and Russia together, countries that he said should have been 'natural enemies.' 'He did something that was unthinkable. He drove China and Russia together. That's not good,' he said. 'It's the one thing you didn't want to do because they're basically natural enemies. Russia has tremendous amounts of land. China has tremendous amounts of people, and China needs Russian land.
AllAfrica
3 hours ago
- AllAfrica
80% of American troops would disobey illegal orders: study
With his August 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, DC to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged US troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. 'The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,' a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. 'This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.' Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey 'manifestly unlawful' orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that US troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. President Donald Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Biondi, announced at a White House news conference on Aug. 11, 2025, that he was deploying the National Guard to assist in restoring law and order in Washington. Photo: Hu Yousong / Xinhua via Getty Images / The Conversation US service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the US Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the US Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would 'obey any order.' Only 9% 'didn't know,' and only 2% had 'no comment.' When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were 'obviously wrong,' 'obviously criminal' or 'obviously unconstitutional.' Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that 'orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they're immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.' Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was 'harming civilians,' while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as 'torturing prisoners' and 'harming US troops.' One wrote that 'an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.' A tag cloud of responses to UMass-Amherst's Human Security Lab survey of active-duty service members about when they would disobey an order from a superior. UMass-Amherst's Human Security Lab, CC BY But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust US law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized US law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the US. 'Trump will issue illegal orders,' wrote one respondent. 'The new laws will allow it,' wrote another. A third wrote, 'We are not required to obey such laws.' Several emphasized the US political situation directly in their remarks, stating they'd disobey 'oppression or harming US civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution' or an order for 'use of the military to carry out deportations.' Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on 'manifestly unlawful orders' before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the US troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, 'becoming violently ill.' Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead's research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don't want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Charli Carpenter is professor of political science, UMass Amherst and Geraldine Santoso is a PhD student in political science, UMass Amherst Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
