An economist says he was pushed out of his job at a Chinese bank in part due to his views on the effect of Hong Kong’s protests.
A brokerage employee in the territory is looking for a new job because she disagrees with her bosses’ politics.
An investment banker says he avoids talking to most colleagues about the unrest, fearing it might damage his career.
At financial firms across Hong Kong, personal political views that used to have little bearing on work are taking on new significance, as the territory’s pro-democracy protests harden opinions on both sides of the debate.
For some in the industry, it is making an already difficult business environment even tougher to navigate and fueling concerns about Hong Kong’s future as one of the world’s premier financial hubs.
The change is being felt most acutely at state-owned Chinese financial companies, where several backers of the protests say they fear retribution from superiors if they are found to attend rallies or otherwise support the pro-democracy movement.
Law Ka Chung (羅家聰), former chief economist at Bank of Communications (Hong Kong), has gone public with his concerns, saying on Tuesday last week that he suspects he was ousted in part because his research contradicted the Chinese government’s narrative on Hong Kong.
While global banks operating in the territory are more insulated from local politics, they are not immune. At BNP Paribas SA, a legal executive left the company in September to focus on activism after social media posts on his personal account led to the bank issuing a public apology.
In Citigroup Inc’s Hong Kong office, some pro-Beijing staff are now socializing less frequently with their pro-democracy counterparts, with the rift becoming more apparent in the wake of a widely circulated video of one of the firm’s investment bankers being arrested after a scuffle with police, employees familiar with the matter said.
The employees, who asked not to be named, as they were discussing a sensitive subject, emphasized that in most cases the differences of opinion have yet to get in the way of work.
When a JPMorgan Chase & Co banker from mainland China was filmed being punched during his lunch break after shouting: “We are all Chinese” at a crowd of yelling protesters, several employees complained verbally to their managers about his behavior, a person with knowledge of the matter said.
It is not clear from the video what initially sparked the confrontation, and there is no indication it was connected to his employer.
Conversations between some JPMorgan staff from mainland China and their peers from Hong Kong have become less frequent since the protests began, two people said.
For senior managers in Hong Kong’s financial industry — which accounts for about 20 percent of the territory’s GDP — the potential for rising workplace tensions adds to challenges that already include a sinking local economy and a pullback in dealmaking.
Banks have to find ways to accommodate employees with differing views without getting caught up in controversies that damage their brands, said Benjamin Quinlan, chief executive officer of financial services consultancy Quinlan & Associates in Hong Kong.
“Firms need to be much more clever about the way things are handled, carefully balancing free and open thinking while ensuring ongoing employee professionalism,” said Quinlan, a former executive at Deutsche Bank AG.
In response to questions from Bloomberg News, a Citigroup spokesman said that the US bank “values diversity and inclusion, which speaks to not just gender or ethnic diversity, but also diversity of thought. We respect people with different views and perspectives and our staff and clients respect that diversity too.”
A JPMorgan spokeswoman said that the firm’s employees “come from all walks of life and so many different backgrounds and continue to support each other.”
BNP declined to comment when the executive left in September, while BoCom did not respond to a request for comment.
Law, who spent more than 14 years at the Chinese bank, wrote in an August article that Hong Kong’s protests would worsen the territory’s slowdown, but that their effect was limited, a view that contradicted the dire outlook in China’s state-run media.
He was asked to leave the bank shortly after he shared with colleagues a link to an outside article critical of China’s firewalls and closed system, Law said.
He left behind a team of mainly local Hong Kongers.
“I wish them good luck,” he said in an interview.
Employees at other Chinese financial firms said that they have felt similar pressure to toe Beijing’s line.
Man, 25, who works in a back office at a Chinese brokerage in Hong Kong, said that her firm’s department heads have told employees that they will be fired if they participate in pro-democracy protests.
The company sends staff to pro-police rallies, which Man has attended even though she also takes part in pro-democracy protests without telling her employer.
While she wants to leave the firm, she is finding it difficult because most of the job openings she sees in Hong Kong are with mainland Chinese firms.
Like others who agreed to speak for this article, she asked to use only one name, because of the subject’s sensitivity.
Jason, who works at a Chinese investment bank in Hong Kong, said that most of the senior executives at his firm openly condemn the protests and are strongly supportive of Beijing.
Lower-level managers who have lived in Hong Kong for years tend to have a milder stance — supporting the right to demonstrate while condemning violence — whereas middle and back-office workers are typically Hong Kong locals who back the protesters, he said.
His views place him somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, Jason said.
Wary of offending someone on either side, he said he takes care to speak about the protests only with his closest coworkers when they are outside the office on cigarette breaks.
Another banker, surnamed Chan (陳), said that he is part of a small minority of pro-democracy employees at a Chinese securities firm.
Fearful of “whistle-blowers” who might out him to pro-Beijing managers, he keeps quiet when colleagues discuss the protests at lunch.
Some of his peers have been reported to high-level bosses in China for social media posts that contradict Chinese Communist Party messaging, he said.
Chan keeps his own posts on Facebook and WeChat free of politics, although he sometimes shares song lyrics that convey subtle messages of support for the pro-democracy movement.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new