The Edge Malaysia:
Chinese ambassador criticises plan to return Darwin Port to Australian ownership
By Kirsty Needham / Reuters
26 May 2025, 11:42 am
SYDNEY (May 26): China's ambassador to Canberra has criticised the Australian government's intention to return Darwin Port to local ownership, saying the Chinese company running the strategically located northern port should not be punished.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in April during the election campaign that his government was working on a plan to force the sale of Darwin Port from its Chinese owner on national interest grounds.
Australia sold the commercial port on a 99-year lease to Chinese company Landbridge in 2015, a move that was criticised by the US president at the time, Barack Obama. Around 2,000 US Marines exercise for six months of the year in the northern city.
Ambassador Xiao Qian said Landbridge Group had invested in the port and contributed to the local economy, according to a statement on Sunday by the Chinese Embassy.
"Such an enterprise and project deserves encouragement, not punishment. It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable," the statement said.
Albanese said in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview in April that his government wants the port to "be in Australian hands", and would directly intervene and buy the port if it was unable to find a private buyer.
Landbridge said last month the port was not for sale.
Australia is building up its northern military bases, which will host US bombers and fighter jets on a rotational basis, as it increases defence cooperation with the US.
"It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable," the statement said."
ReplyDeleteEh....when Brittania leased the Fragrant City in 1841 it was a useless pirate and malaria-infested jungle, definitely not a profitable port. They turned it into a global financial centre, contributing nearly 25% of the 5000 yo Bullyland GDP, then Bullyland demanded it back in 1997. So Brittania bagi balik, with a free Chep Lap Kok airport to boot. No Fuss.
It's Karma, but on a much much smaller scale.
you have the tongue of a white man, all forked and thorny, wakakaka. Kowloon was leased by the Poms which ended in 1997, thus had to be returned in that year (Darwin lease hasn't even reached that 99 years yet). You twist and turn kerbau into pseudo-facts, soon you'll transform completely into your idolised form, a Shailok, wakakaka
DeleteBTW, Chep Lap Kok airport was not built with Pommie money but with a significant portion of the financing came from a $4 billion syndicated loan, with four banks involved. The South China Morning Post reports. The airport was also built with $205 million in contracts from Leighton Asia
From Chat AI. Maybe KT use DeepSeek?
DeleteQ: Did mainland China pay for Chep Lap Kok?
Answer:
No, Mainland China did not pay for Chek Lap Kok Airport (Hong Kong International Airport). The airport's construction was primarily funded by the Hong Kong government and the Hong Kong SAR government. While there were concerns and disagreements about the project's scope and cost with China, Mainland China did not directly pay for the airport's construction.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Hong Kong Government Funding:
The Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK), a statutory body of the Hong Kong government, is responsible for the operation and development of the airport. The construction was funded by the Hong Kong SAR government.
Negotiations with China:
There were significant discussions and negotiations between China and Britain, and then the Hong Kong government, regarding the airport's construction, especially in the lead-up to the 1997 handover. China raised concerns about the project's scale and cost, leading to changes in the project's scope and financing.
No Direct Payment by China:
While China did express concerns and push for certain changes, they did not directly pay for the airport's construction. The Hong Kong government ultimately funded the project, though there were disagreements and adjustments made in response to Chinese demands....
HK was supposed to be one country two systems for a further 50 years. We are now not even 30 years. Bullyland has forgotten the hard work and contribution of Hongkongers who pulled up the Mainland economy for decades, it was the main gateway for foreigners into the Mainland, contributed 20% of the GDP with only 3% of the population. After 1997, all was forgotten, it was Shanghai, Shanghai Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzen, Guangdong and poor Hongkong was relegated to second class. But they did fight hard.
DeleteIt's still one country two systems, thus HK has its own legal, educational, etc system. On economy, whilst there's no denying HK's diligence, wasn't it the Mainland serving as a rich vast hinterland that propelled HK into a rich colony?
Deletewho's the Hong Kong SAR government.\? wakakaka
DeleteW/O thd financial support of the Chinese central govt, the HK SAR would be laid waste & ruined by Soro, who deployed a “double play” strategy to manipulate the city's currency and stock markets through late 1997 and 1998.
DeleteBTW, the promised 1C2S policy only lasted from 1997 to 2047. The speculated extension of another 50 yes after 2047 is only speculation!
This know no shame mfer has kept to its lies propagation!
DeleteDarn..that 2015 decision to sell the port to a China company on a 99- year lease was a bad one..
ReplyDeleteBad one?
DeleteMfer, there wes no other choices & takers to help sustaining the Darwin port survival.
No even the Oz federal govt was willing to support the port business, despite the lost of local jobs.
Unfortunately for all u anmokausai worshippers, who could never understand - "瘦田无人耕，耕开有人争"
DeleteA Chinese ancestral wisdom thats applicable throughout the time & places, especially with those pirate culture!