It was reported by the Financial Times on 16 July 2020 that Mr Barr said Chinese Communist Party(CCP) officials had increasingly sought to pressure American executives into taking action to support their international policy priorities and cautioned that doing so could require them to register as foreign agents. A reader of this article commented that the Wall St. Globalists like Paulson and Buffett would rather invest in Communist China than in the US and would rather create jobs in China than the US.
It should be made clear that the Wall Street, Globalists or communists in USA created jobs for elites of CCP to suppress low paid Chinese workers with no human rights and with no work protection where they worked more than 12 hours per day & seven days per week to yield abnormal return and compensation for CCP elites and those bankers. In essence, they are colluding with CCP to bring people all over the world onto the Road to Serfdom. CCP forbade workers to organize their own trade unions and arrested all the leaders of the workers’ own independent trade unions.
Mostly leaders of trade unions are also management of employers. The assets of trade unions are also controlled by employers. The trade union in China doesn’t protect workers’ rights, wastes private businesses’ money in the name of trade union expense and never negotiates with employers on behalf of workers because trade unions’ funds mainly come from employer’s distribution at 2% of gross wages rather than from workers’ dues.
Since working as an accountant after graduating from a university with a bachelor’s degree in accounting in China, I have never met a chance of casting vote for trade union leaders. When I was working in an accountancy firm, I often worked more than 13 hours per day and 6 days per week especially during busy season because of CCP’s madatory date of closing annual accounts, presenting financial statements and preparing annual corporate income tax returns required by the Accounting Law and Corporation Income Tax Law passed by CCP’s rubber-stamp parliament.
Huawei is a great example to tell you the truth. As far as Huawei is concerned, it is not controlled by workers. Huawei is jointly owned by a trade union which contributed 99.1235% equity capital, and Ren Zhengfei who contributed 0.8765% equity capital. According to the Trade Union Law of CCP, the funds of trade unions come from membership dues paid by union members, monthly allocations of 2% of the total wages of all of its employees paid to a trade union as funds by the employers, government subsidies and other incomes. Therefore, it’s incorrect to conclude that final control of Huawei lies in a trade union. It’s unknown how much government subsidies Huawei’s trade union received and what are the terms and condition set upon that. The excessive reactions of CCP on sanctions against Huawei made the argument untrustworthy that Huawei is controlled by a trade union. Moreover, CCP detained Huawei workers for claiming rights over Huawei and banned social media comments.
Further, we can’t judge whether there is a control relationship solely by looking at shareholding ratio in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standard 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, UK Companies Act 2006 or US GAAP. There’re other situations constituting control as stated in the three documents.
The principle of substance over form is mentioned in various accounting standards and regulations and it’s advised to follow this principle in understanding Huawei. There’re some videos showing who’re controlling Huawei in substance as follows.
- Who invented Huawei’s 5G?
- Huawei is CCP’s People’s Liberation Army.
- Huawei: China and UK relationship ‘seriously damaged’
- Ben’s Broadside: Hong Kong and Huawei I, II
- PLA affiliate Huawei abducts Europe
- Reports: Huawei has closer ties to Chinese military than had been previously disclosed
- ‘Claws of the Red Dragon’ exposes connection between Huawei and CCP | China in Focus
- Solution to CCP Totalitarian and No Independent Trade Union
Author: CPA Jim
(The above content only represents the author’s personal opinion)