Please Leave Li Ka-shing Alone
请放过李嘉诚
By Li Chen （李臣）
In the history of China’s Reform and opening up, Li Ka-shing (李嘉诚) is a figure both controversial and impossible to ignore. Rumors about his overseas investments and withdrawals never cease, and the latest claims suggest that he has sold his management stake in the Panama Canal under pressure from the United States. This has once again drawn intense public attention. At the same time, the online sphere has been filled with insults and attacks against him, from the earlier chorus of “Don’t let Li Ka-shing run away” to labeling him a “traitor.” Beyond these heated debates, however, it is worth recalling the unique contributions Li Ka-shing has made to China’s economic and social development during the Reform and Opening-Up, and indeed over the following four decades, as well as considering the social responsibilities and obligations he has shouldered as a businessman.
“Selling Hong Kong” and “Selling the Nation”
For years, Li Ka-shing has been dubbed a “real estate tycoon,” with extensive investments and real estate holdings in Mainland China and Hong Kong. Because his business extends across many sectors—ranging from early real estate ventures to ports, energy, infrastructure, and retail—any move to sell assets by Li Ka-shing becomes a sensitive signal in the eyes of many. To some, any sale or withdrawal of funds in a certain location suggests that he has lost confidence in that region or is taking profits and fleeing. Moreover, the public generally knows little about how international capital flows operate among wealthy business figures, so any mention of “divestment” or “selling” easily invites accusations of “losing faith in China,” “selling out Hong Kong,” or “selling out the nation.”
In recent years, as the international situation has fluctuated, the United States has been applying pressure through geopolitics, trade conflicts, and strategic maneuvers. Whether it is Canada, Japan, Mexico, France, or the United Kingdom—no developed economy can entirely avoid the constraints imposed by Washington. Under such circumstances, it is perfectly normal for multinational corporations and investors to readjust their overseas businesses and seek safer or higher-growth markets. Some people, invoking “national spirit” or “patriotism,” demand that a single business clan face off against the world’s most powerful country on its own, which is clearly unrealistic. This does not mean we deny patriotism, nor does it imply that business logic is supreme; rather, we should recognize that a business is, in essence, an economic organization reliant on market and capital flows to function. Asking a single company to stand alone against overwhelming power defies practical sense and might well jeopardize the interests of both the company’s owners and investors.
Overlooked Historical Achievements
There is another side to Li Ka-shing that has been largely overlooked by the public year after year. In the early period of Reform and Opening-Up, Mainland China faced numerous hurdles in shipping and international trade. Owing to insufficient economic cooperation between China and Western nations at that time, foreign ports were not familiar with China’s state-owned shipping enterprises and, in some cases, imposed restrictions or refused entry. Many foreign ports were unfriendly toward Chinese ocean freighters, denying them dock space or charging higher berthing fees, creating substantial barriers for China’s export trade. Yet during that era, Li Ka-shing seized the opportunity by investing in, constructing, and acquiring multiple overseas ports through his personal and corporate resources, providing Chinese ocean freighters with convenient docking, loading, and unloading facilities, and thus reducing obstacles and extra costs.
In the long run, these moves not only brought commercial returns to Li Ka-shing’s enterprises but also truly opened up maritime avenues for a China that had been isolated for years and was eager to enter the global market. Some might argue that “he made a lot of money,” but one must not overlook the role such commercial investments played at a time when China was not yet fully integrated into the global economy. To a certain degree, Li Ka-shing delivered a crucial “foot in the door” for China in international maritime trade and offered the Chinese people a tangible lesson about global shipping models.
Meanwhile, Li Ka-shing and his family foundation have for many years donated generously to education, healthcare, and public welfare both in Mainland China and around the world, with contributions exceeding several billion Hong Kong dollars. Particularly noteworthy is the large-scale donations he began making to Mainland China in the early 1980s, when the country was still in the initial phase of rebuilding, with urban infrastructure underdeveloped and many social needs unmet. Li Ka-shing established numerous education funds, helping to build many primary and secondary schools and enabling children from impoverished backgrounds to receive an education. He also provided independent or joint funding for two universities and a business school, investing significant resources in young people.
In the area of medical charity, the Li Ka Shing Foundation has covered surgery fees for millions of individuals with disabilities and sponsored cataract operations that restored sight to numerous ordinary families. During major natural disasters, Li Ka-shing has frequently donated more than 100 million yuan (RMB) toward emergency relief and reconstruction. From the Wenchuan Earthquake to the Southern China floods, from the fight against SARS to assistance for patients in remote regions, his foundation has repeatedly, though quietly, played a crucial role. Moreover, the nationwide distribution of free pain medication for cancer patients, according to many sources, was also funded in part by the Li Ka Shing Foundation; in the wake of the Wenchuan Earthquake, it contributed to fitting artificial limbs and providing wheelchairs for those disabled in the disaster. All of these examples demonstrate Li Ka-shing’s long-standing commitment to philanthropy, which is evident to anyone who looks at the facts.
And yet, for many years, the public has seemed more interested in stories of him “flipping property” or “running away” while largely ignoring or downplaying the charitable work and the contributions he made to improve China’s international maritime situation. Perhaps the most bizarre claim is that he was labeled the “father of common area charges,” an accusation that actually has nothing to do with him. In reality, the theoretical origins of “common area” or “shared space” charges stem largely from other real estate figures or policy designs, not from Li Ka-shing. Plainly, a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation has surrounded this entrepreneur.
A Merchant’s Responsibility and Obligations
When it comes to a “merchant’s responsibility,” people often resort to two extreme viewpoints: one emphasizes that businesses should unconditionally shoulder the nation’s economic and social burdens, promoting the idea of “serving the country,” while the other leans toward market-based principles, contending that a company’s only duty is to follow commercial rules and maximize shareholder returns. In reality, a merchant’s responsibilities and obligations are not just empty slogans; they lie in striking a sustainable balance among national interests, personal or corporate interests, and the interests of the wider public.
Taking Li Ka-shing as an example, his role in supporting Mainland China’s economy and society during the early phase of Reform and opening up can be viewed as using commercial methods to advance national interests, helping China secure a foothold in international markets. This “initial dividend” was not conferred by official mandate; it was a result of his personal market foresight and subsequent investments. In other words, while pursuing profit, he also contributed to both state and societal development, representing a kind of “win-win” in business. His long-term commitment to philanthropic activities further illustrates that “a merchant may prioritize profit, but money is not everything.” Once a business grows large enough and accumulates ample resources, taking on broader social responsibilities often enhances corporate reputation, fosters societal well-being, and contributes to a firm’s long-term stability and sustainability.
In fact, when confronted with international upheavals, any company must weigh risks and benefits; it is unthinkable to “power everything with love” and confront overwhelming might head-on—let alone single-handedly take on the world’s largest economic and military power. Although Li Ka-shing wields considerable influence in the Chinese-speaking world, he still lacks the means to stand against a superpower. Thus, if the United States amplifies its influence in critical regions such as the Panama Canal, it is hardly surprising or unreasonable for Li Ka-shing to opt out or shift business segments. From a corporate perspective, that decision aligns with standard business sense.
That said, this does not excuse entrepreneurs from their obligations to their country and society. While they may not directly sway geopolitical conflicts, they can run their enterprises more effectively, adhere to regulations and integrity, create jobs through commercial investments, drive technological progress, and give back to society through philanthropy—those actions form the core of an entrepreneur’s responsibility. Judging from his track record over the past few decades, Li Ka-shing has committed significant resources to education, healthcare, research, and social welfare both in Mainland China and Hong Kong—and even around the globe—indicating his consistent fulfillment of responsibilities beyond mere profit-making.
As for those who accuse him of “selling out the nation,” such sentiments largely reflect emotional outbursts. Understandably, people are concerned about economic security and national interests, but before branding a businessman as a traitor, one must examine whether he has actively harmed the nation’s core interests or handed over vital state secrets or resources to foreign entities. Regarding projects like ports in Panama, these were commercial acquisitions or investments made by Li Ka-shing, not gifts from the nation. Moreover, China never had exclusive strategic control over those overseas ports as it does with certain domestic ports. If there is no involvement of national assets or collusion with foreign powers that imperils national security, it is difficult to make a case for “selling out the nation.”
Facing Entrepreneurs’ Roles Rationally
Li Ka-shing’s story also sheds light on the interplay between public opinion and entrepreneurs: when the times demanded capital and investment, entrepreneurs used their money to facilitate China’s opening to the outside world and drive economic growth. But once the broader environment matured and the country’s economic strength rose steadily, people sometimes overlooked the achievements these pioneers once brought. In some cases, when entrepreneurs adjust their businesses in normal ways, they become targets of moral or even political condemnation.
During the early stages of Reform and opening up, the central government proposed that “let some people get rich first.” Indeed, a small group of entrepreneurs was among the earliest to seize opportunities and capitalize on policy incentives, including figures like Li Ka-shing, who possessed cross-border resources and know-how to swiftly expand international trade and investment channels. For historical reasons, the public has always had a complex attitude toward capital—on the one hand, it is needed, and on the other, there is apprehension that it could lead to social issues. As capital accumulates, it is almost inevitable that suspicions, criticisms, or even the “demonization” of capital will arise.
Yet in today’s world—marked by intensified economic globalization and fierce international competition—we need rationality, openness, and tolerance for different social roles. Entrepreneurs are not the government, nor can they replace it in matters of diplomacy, security, or public welfare. However, they can assume maximum social responsibility in their own domains, aligning their interests with those of the nation and the public. In this regard, Li Ka-shing’s story is an intricate case in point: he is both a controversial magnate and a philanthropist who has made substantial contributions to the economy, education, and healthcare in Mainland China.
Li Ka-shing’s decision to sell his stake in the Panama Canal under American pressure has once again provoked public concern and sparked debate over whether he is “selling out the nation.” But if we strip away the more extreme sentiments and place this in the larger framework of global political and economic rivalry, we can better grasp the thinking behind each major capital move by this business titan—and more fully appreciate the concrete contributions he has made to China’s economic and social progress. Over the course of several decades, he has not only leveraged his commercial empire to help China gain a firmer footing in the international arena but also donated vast sums to advance education, healthcare, research, and social welfare across the Mainland, quietly providing hope to countless ordinary families.
For entrepreneurs, pursuing profit does not preclude morality. For the public, “patriotism” should not be equated with “denigrating businesspeople.” We need a broader perspective in evaluating an entrepreneur’s role at various stages—acknowledging his pursuit of commercial interests while also acknowledging his involvement in a range of public causes. Perhaps Li Ka-shing is no “perfect saint,” but if we merely attack or “demonize” him, how can we expect more entrepreneurs to willingly bear their share of social responsibility? Let us hope that going forward; we can be more pragmatic and empathetic in judging business leaders and less inclined to derision or denunciation. Only then can China’s business environment grow healthier, attracting more resources and talent to join hands in the country’s development.
This translation is an independent yet well-intentioned effort by the China Thought Express editorial team to bridge ideas between the Chinese and English-speaking worlds.