Chan hopes US ruling brings reason to tariff chaos
Chan hopes US ruling brings reason to tariff chaos
Paul Chan says the recent IPO market resurgence solidifies Hong Kong's position as a global leader in new listings. Photo: RTHK
Financial Secretary Paul Chan has expressed hope that a US federal court ruling against recent tariff measures would bring President Donald Trump back "to reason".
Chan's comments came soon after a US trade court blocked Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs on Wednesday, ruling that the American president exceeded his authority by imposing blanket duties on imports from countries that export more to the United States than they import.
Speaking at a fireside chat during the Capital Markets Forum, Chan stressed the importance of countries maintaining an open mind in new trade negotiations.
"We have our value to bring to the negotiation table," he said.
"Say, for example, the mainland is the only country in the world that has the whole complete manufacturing chain.
"Also, it is not just about low cost, no more, but it is about the quality of the products and the capacity to serve huge overseas markets and the responsiveness to the change in market taste and style.
"So I think this is a core competitiveness of the mainland."
Chan also noted that mainland companies are increasingly relocating parts of their supply chains to southeast Asia, a shift he said that could significantly alter the international trade landscape.
He also said the SAR's IPO market is experiencing a resurgence, solidifying its position as a global leader in new listings.
The city has raised around US$10 billion through initial public offerings so far this year, equivalent to approximately 90 percent of the total funds raised in all of 2024.
Chan said more than 100 major companies are currently in the IPO pipeline.
"We welcome both mainland and international companies," he said.
"I think only we welcome them with open arms.
"So there is also a process for people to do some pre-IPO consultation on a confidential basis with the stock exchange, and going back to the earlier point about the vibrancy of this market, truly the valuations have been quite reasonable.
"So people are looking for bargains.
"In my engagements with overseas fund managers, I think they have underweight their allocation to this part of the world. So they need to catch up. That gives this additional liquidity.
"And also given the current geopolitics, Hong Kong is a safe haven for international capital. So all the more the reason to support the coming IPOs here."
Chan further added that Hong Kong continues to attract both mainland and foreign companies, pointing to growing collaboration between the SAR and Middle East markets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
4 hours ago
- RTHK
Ban on space oil ingredients 'stops drug production'
Ban on space oil ingredients 'stops drug production' Henry Tong welcomes the government's proposal to ban all etomidate analogues. File photo: RTHK The government's latest proposal to ban all synthetic versions of a space oil drug ingredient can effectively prevent the production of different types of the drug, chairman of the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health Henry Tong said. The Security Bureau on Tuesday proposed introducing a generic definition of etomidate analogues under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, empowering law enforcement agencies to ban the trafficking of all etomidate analogues. Tong told RTHK that he welcomes the bureau's action. 'That's an effective way to prevent criminals from keep creating different space oil drugs,' he said. Tong also appealed to the government to impose a complete ban on the possession of e-cigarettes, which he said are the 'main and only device' for young people to take the space oil drug. 'If the government can outlaw the possession of any e-cigarettes in Hong Kong, that sends a very clear message to all the people that e-cigarette itself, the device itself, is illegal and dangerous,' he said. Tong also said many students became drug users due to various reasons, such as coming from broken families, suffering mental stress or having been bullied by other students.
RTHK
4 hours ago
- RTHK
Ban on space oil ingredients 'stops drug production'
Ban on space oil ingredients 'stops drug production' Henry Tong welcomes the government's proposal to ban all etomidate analogues. File photo: RTHK The government's latest proposal to ban all synthetic versions of a space oil drug ingredient can effectively prevent the production of different types of the drug, chairman of the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health Henry Tong said. The Security Bureau on Tuesday proposed introducing a generic definition of etomidate analogues under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, empowering law enforcement agencies to ban the trafficking of all etomidate analogues. Tong told RTHK that he welcomes the bureau's action. 'That's an effective way to prevent criminals from keep creating different space oil drugs,' he said. Tong also appealed to the government to impose a complete ban on the possession of e-cigarettes, which he said are the 'main and only device' for young people to take the space oil drug. 'If the government can outlaw the possession of any e-cigarettes in Hong Kong, that sends a very clear message to all the people that e-cigarette itself, the device itself, is illegal and dangerous,' he said. Tong also said many students became drug users due to various reasons, such as coming from broken families, suffering mental stress or having been bullied by other students.
Asia Times
5 hours ago
- Asia Times
Ukraine shows it knows wars are never won in the past
The iconoclastic American general Douglas MacArthur once said that 'wars are never won in the past.' That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine's recent audacious attack on Russia's strategic bomber fleet, using small, cheap drones housed in wooden pods and transported near Russian airfields in trucks. The synchronized operation targeted Russian Air Force planes as far away as Irkutsk – more than 5,000 kilometers from Ukraine. Early reports suggest around a third of Russia's long-range bombers were either destroyed or badly damaged. Russian military bloggers have put the estimated losses lower, but agree the attack was catastrophic for the Russian Air Force, which has struggled to adapt to Ukrainian tactics. This particular attack was reportedly 18 months in the making. To keep it secret was an extraordinary feat. Notably, Kyiv reportedly did not inform the United States that the attack was in the offing. The Ukrainians judged – perhaps understandably – that sharing intelligence on their plans could have alerted the Kremlin in relatively short order. Ukraine's success once again demonstrates that its armed forces and intelligence services are the modern masters of battlefield innovation and operational security. Western military planners have been carefully studying Ukraine's successes ever since its forces managed to blunt Russia's initial onslaught deep into its territory in early 2022, and then launched a stunning counteroffensive that drove the Russian invaders back towards their original starting positions. There have been other lessons, too, about how the apparently weak can stand up to the strong. These include: attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin's vanity project, the Kerch Bridge, linking the Russian mainland to occupied Crimea (the last assault occurred just days ago) the relentless targeting of Russia's oil and gas infrastructure with drones attacks against targets in Moscow to remind the Russian populace about the war, and its incursion into the Kursk region, which saw Ukrainian forces capture around 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory. On each occasion, Western defense analysts have questioned the wisdom of Kyiv's moves. Why invade Russia using your best troops when Moscow's forces continue laying waste to cities in Ukraine? Why hit Russia's energy infrastructure if it doesn't markedly impede the battlefield mobility of Russian forces? And why attack symbolic targets like bridges when it could provoke Putin into dangerous 'escalation'? The answer to this is the key to effective innovation during wartime. Ukraine's defense and security planners have interpreted their missions – and their best possible outcomes – far more accurately than conventional wisdom would have thought. Above all, they have focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past. This means: using technological advancements to force the Russians to change their tactics shaping the information environment to promote their narratives and keep vital Western aid flowing, and deploying surprise attacks not just as ways to boost public morale, but also to impose disproportionate costs on the Russian state. In doing so, Ukraine has had an eye for strategic effects. As the smaller nation reliant on international support, this has been the only logical choice. Putin has been prepared to commit a virtually inexhaustible supply of expendable cannon fodder to continue his country's war ad infinitum. Russia has typically won its wars this way – by attrition – albeit at a tremendous human and material cost. That said, Ukraine's most recent surprise attack does not change the overall contours of the war. The only person with the ability to end it is Putin himself. That's why Ukraine is putting as much pressure as possible on his regime, as well as domestic and international perceptions of it. It is key to Ukraine's theory of victory. This is also why the latest drone attack is so significant. Russia needs its long-range bomber fleet, not just to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets, but as aerial delivery systems for its strategic nuclear arsenal. The destruction of even a small portion of Russia's deterrence capability has the potential to affect its nuclear strategy. It has increasingly relied on this strategy to threaten the West. A second impact of the attack is psychological. The drone attacks are more likely to enrage Putin than bring him to the bargaining table. However, they reinforce to the Russian military that there are few places – even on its own soil – that its air force can act with operational impunity. The surprise attacks also provide a shot in the arm domestically, reminding Ukrainians they remain very much in the fight. Finally, the drone attacks send a signal to Western leaders. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for instance, have gone to great lengths to tell the world that Ukraine is weak and has 'no cards'. This action shows Kyiv does indeed have some powerful cards to play. That may, of course, backfire: after all, Trump is acutely sensitive to being made to look a fool. He may look unkindly at resuming military aid to Ukraine after being shown up for saying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to capitulate without US support. But Trump's own hubris has already done that for him. His regular claims that a peace deal is just weeks away have gone beyond wishful thinking and are now monotonous. Unsurprisingly, Trump's reluctance to put anything approaching serious pressure on Putin has merely incentivised the Russian leader to string the process along. Indeed, Putin's insistence on a maximalist victory, requiring Ukrainian demobilisation and disarmament without any security guarantees for Kyiv, is not diplomacy at all. It is merely the reiteration of the same unworkable demands he has made since even before Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. However, Ukraine's ability to smuggle drones undetected onto an opponent's territory, and then unleash them all together, will pose headaches for Ukraine's friends, as well as its enemies. That's because it makes domestic intelligence and policing part of any effective defence posture. It is a contingency that democracies will have to plan for, just as much as authoritarian regimes, who are also learning from Ukraine's lessons. In other words, while the attack has shown up Russia's domestic security services for failing to uncover the plan, Western security elites, as well as authoritarian ones, will now be wondering whether their own security apparatuses would be up to the job. The drone strikes will also likely lead to questions about how useful it is to invest in high-end and extraordinarily expensive weapons systems when they can be vulnerable. The Security Service of Ukraine estimates the damage cost Russia US$7 billion. Ukraine's drones, by comparison, cost a couple of thousand dollars each. At the very least, coming up with a suitable response to those challenges will require significant thought and effort. But as Ukraine has repeatedly shown us, you can't win wars in the past. Matthew Sussex is associate professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
