They should not get away with their role as an accomplice to a brutal, aggressive regime, in crimes committed against Hong Kong train commuters on 8.31 in 2019, Hong Kong.

No international investor, fund manager, and especially the popular ethical funds, should put their money in MTR Corp, Hong Kong (0066.HK). This is in consideration of their abhorrent human rights record in assisting the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), the Hong Kong puppet government, and their foot soldiers (whether police or triad gangs), in attacking Hong Kong people as they went on with their everyday commuting.

A case in point.

Four years ago, on 31 August, commuters at Prince Edward Station, Hong Kong, were treated to unthinkable violence, inside carriages as well as on platforms and elsewhere underground, within MTR’s domain. Gates to the streets were locked down. The attackers? Riot police, heavily armed, beating up and assaulting with all types of sprays and other weapons, out of sight of journalists and emergency responders who were gathering outside the locked gates. 

MTR staff made sure the trains were stopped inside the station, train doors were open, all passages were cleared for police to roam and attack. And commuters had no way to get out. It was an absolute blood-bath and nightmare, from the evidence that surfaced afterwards.

Rumours abound about people seriously injured and killed inside the station. MTR, for its part, did not disclose crucial CCTV recordings for that night, citing technical problems. The absence of such evidence would support the government and police’s denial of any fatalities that might have occurred. To date, none of the victims have publicly spoken out about their ordeal, either.

One could call that a cover-up, which MTR has played a vital part of.

MTR continues to thrive in their business these days, around the world. The key personnel involved in assisting the authorities that night were rewarded,  promoted, or have even entered politics in the “new Hong Kong” system[1][2].

What can be done?

Nothing has been done to return justice to the victims. Pro-CCP supporters have been turning a blind eye to these gross perpetrations, having taken up the official narrative, and only their voice can be heard in Hong Kong now. The CCP Hong Kong government makes sure history is gradually rewritten in their favour. Police guards MTR stations on “important” days to intimidate any commemoration by citizens.

International investors pretend it is “nothing to see here”, and continue to make money out of MTR. Those include investment funds labelled and promoted as “ethical” funds, many of them declaring that they have human rights screening. Those include investment and super funds in Australia, such as the largest fund, Australian Super[*].

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that MTR should fail such basic screening. Investors who are concerned with human rights violations and atrocities committed by dictatorship regimes, should not have their precious savings invested in MTR.

In short, accomplices to brutal dictators should be punished, not rewarded.

We should not continue to be conned by such “ethical” funds that continue to put MTR in their international holdings, just to improve our annual returns by 0.001% or whatever it is.

We have to tell our Aussie and overseas fund managers loud and clear. NO to MTR.

Please sign our petition and add your comment!

For more information…

• Wikipedia - 2019 Prince Edward station attack - Wikipedia
• Wikipedia - MTR Corporation - Wikipedia
• BBC (with video) - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49540751
• FactWire (in Chinese) - ［採訪手記］重組831太子站事件—— 一個未能完整解開疑團的調查報道 - FactWire News Agency 傳真社
• RFA Cantonese (in Chinese) - 【8.31三周年】記者及前區議員：眾多謎團未解　重組真相困難重重 — RFA 自由亞洲電台粵語部

References:

1. Inmediahk.net 獨立媒體 (in Chinese) -【立會選戰】港漂組織派8.31太子站經理選新界北拒答是否獲中聯辦祝福
2. Mingpao.com 明報 (in Chinese) -  8．31暴動案開審控方稱被告挑釁乘客張欣宇當晚曾到場(14:45) - 20221107 - 港聞

*  Notes on Australian Super - my struggle to ask them to exclude MTR from their “Socially Aware” fund option (long read)

I have been waging a personal war with my main super fund, Australian Super, on their holding of MTR in their “Socially Aware” portfolio. So far my voice has been silenced.

Timeline:

• 22/6/2022 First contact: online enquiry
  Reason for enquiry: Investment
  Topic: WhatWeInvestIn
  
  Description: I am your existing socially aware option member. I appreciate investing in an ethical fund. However today going through the equity listing, I have spotted the following. • MTR Corp Hong Kong – it is well known that MTR assisted the Hong Kong government and police to suppress the democratic movement in the city in 2019-2020. The brutal beating up of ordinary citizens on 21 July 2019 by triads linked to the government at Yuen Long station, and on 31 August 2019 by riot police inside train cabins, and subsequent refusal of release of their CCTV to provide evidence to the public – should be enough evidence for MTR Corp to be taken out of any fund that emphasises on human rights. Links:
  o https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/triads-linked-to-violent-pro-china-gangs-as-hong-kong-protests-enter-dangerous-new-phase-20190722-p529ln.html
  o https://hongkongfp.com/2019/10/12/hong-kongs-mtr-unlikely-target-protests-showed-daddy/ I will hold off adding to my super unless the above can be explained satisfactorily. I will also switch all funds invested in MTR until it has been removed from the portfolio.
  
  
• 22/7/2022 “internal complaints” decision - email - Australian Super
  Thanks for your query regarding the Socially Aware investment option.
  
  AustralianSuper’s Socially Aware option has a small holding in MTR Corp Hong Kong. MTR is not excluded from Socially Aware’s investment universe as the company does not currently meet the option’s screening criteria. This criteria includes companies in the Australian shares, international shares and fixed interest asset classes which have a red flag controversy rating on human rights and other ESG controversies. Our ESG data provider regularly reviews companies for changes to their controversy ratings and we ensure any changes are reflected in the portfolio.  
  
  AustralianSuper operates a globally diversified, long-term investment portfolio. We integrate Environmental, Social and Environmental (ESG) considerations across all our investment options, including the Socially Aware investment option. We have a long-standing program of integrating human rights considerations as part of this process.
  
  We trust we have addressed your concerns however if you’re not satisfied with the outcome of this internal complaints process, you have the option of contacting the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) – an independent external dispute resolution scheme set up by the Federal Government to assist members and beneficiaries in resolving certain superannuation complaints. AFCA can be contacted at GPO Box 3 Melbourne VIC 3001, on 1800 931 678, online at www.afca.org.au or by email to info@afca.org.au
  
  Please note the date of this email is our decision date, should you need to refer to this in the future. The reasons for the decision are outlined above.
  
  
• 5/10/2022 Registered online for Australian Super’s AGM, and submitted a question for the meeting, regarding their MTR holding
  
  
• 17/11/2022 Rejected my submitted question for the AGM - email - Australian Super
  We refer to your complaint dated 5 October 2022. We understand you raised this query earlier this year and resubmitted the enquiry through our Annual Member Meeting process. Our response remains unchanged.
  
  Thanks for your query regarding the Socially Aware investment option.
  
  AustralianSuper’s Socially Aware option has a small holding in MTR Corp Hong Kong. MTR is not excluded from Socially Aware’s investment universe as the company does not currently meet the option’s screening criteria. This criteria includes companies in the Australian shares, international shares and fixed interest asset classes which have a red flag controversy rating on human rights and other ESG controversies. Our ESG data provider regularly reviews companies for changes to their controversy ratings and we ensure any changes are reflected in the portfolio.  
  
  AustralianSuper operates a globally diversified, long-term investment portfolio. We integrate Environmental, Social and Environmental (ESG) considerations across all our investment options, including the Socially Aware investment option. We have a long-standing program of integrating human rights considerations as part of this process.
  
  We trust that we have addressed your concerns however if you’re not satisfied with the outcome of this internal complaints process, you have the option of contacting the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) – an independent external dispute resolution scheme set up by the Federal Government to assist members and beneficiaries in resolving certain superannuation complaints. AFCA can be contacted at GPO Box 3 Melbourne VIC 3001, on 1800 931 678, online at www.afca.org.au or by email to info@afca.org.au
  
  Please note that the date of this email is our decision date, should you need to refer to this in the future. The reasons for the decision are outlined above.
  
  
• 17/11/2022 Email reply to Australian Super - cc: to AFCA, Stephen Mayne, Ted Hui, Australia Hong Kong Link, Aus Hong Kong Connex, HongKonger station
  
  So Lisa C,
   
  AusSuper does not allow me to raise the question at the AGM on 29 November, to share it with other members? And let them know what to think about it themselves? You think you can suppress my question by taking it under wraps?
   
  Obviously I am not satisfied with a “Socially Aware” which turns a blind eye to human rights transgressions, and hides behind an opaque “ESG data provider” and takes no responsibility for your shareholdings. Then AusSuper is a CON, there is nothing ethical about your fund.
   
  I will continue to complain and this email reply is copied to AFCA, and Stephen Mayne well-known activist, and others. It will also be posted to social media, and change.org. Good thing that Australia is, for now, a free country, and I am still allowed to speak up elsewhere.
   
  In the meantime, you can again review BBC’s posted video taken at an MTR station, 31 August 2019. https://fb.watch/gRmJ1VJtb7/
  
  
• 18/11/2022 Email complaint to AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority), as instructed by Australian Super
  Yes, this is a complaint. Your website does say I can complain by email, so here it is. You have my arguments, AusSuper’s arguments, in the email below.
   
  If you need more details, please do not hesitate to ask. AusSuper is not letting me submit my question regarding their “Socially Aware” fund, which holds a well-known Hong Kong human rights offender’s shareholding. I want to attend the AGM on 29 November but I am being suppressed.
   
  So AusSuper is wrong on TWO fronts – lying about their “ethical” fund, and preventing their fund member from asking a question at their upcoming AGM.
  
  
• 26/4/2022 phone conversation with AFCA; email reply by AFCA afterwards - cc: Australian Super
  Thank you for your time on the phone today. As discussed, your complaint was referred to rules to assess whether the issues raised fall within our jurisdiction to consider.
  
  A review has been finalised, please find attached correspondence outlining AFCA’s position. 
  
  I refer to the complaint you recently lodged. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you on this occasion because your complaint falls outside our Rules. This letter explains my understanding of the complaint and why we are unable to consider it.
  
  My understanding of the complaint
  • You are a member of the AustralianSuper superannuation fund.
  • You invested in the ethical option because you do not want to see your funds invested with businesses that do not accept human rights or run oppressive regimes.
  • You say AustralianSuper is lying about its “ethical” Socially Aware investment option as it holds a well-known Hong Kong human rights offender’s shareholding and you believe this to be greenwashing.
  • You say AustralianSuper is preventing its fund member from asking a question at its AGM.
  
  The outcome you are seeking is to have that option divested.
  
  Why we cannot consider the complaint
  
  Your complaint is about the management of the fund as a whole
  Your complaint is about an investment decision. We are unable to consider complaints that relate to the management of a fund or scheme as a whole. This means where the subject of the complaint concerns the day to day operation of the fund or scheme and applies to or affects all members of the fund or scheme.
  
  From the information you have provided, it appears that your complaint relates to AustralianSuper’s strategic investment decisions that apply to all members of the fund in the same way.
  
  AFCA is an external dispute resolution scheme. We are not a regulator of the financial services industry and cannot compel a financial firm to change its investment strategies or review how it makes decisions about how to screen its options, nor can we review how it applies its Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) management policies.
  
  Your complaint relates to AustralianSuper’s general policies
  
  The other issue you raised appears to relate to AustralianSuper’s decision not to allow you to raise your question at the AGM.
  
  How AustralianSuper runs its AGM and who it allows to contribute is a commercial decision. AFCA cannot review a financial firm’s general policies or operational decisions as it is not a breach of legal obligation owing to you.
  
  I understand that our decision to exclude your complaint is disappointing.
  
  The complaints that AFCA can consider are set out in our Rules, and our decision not to consider your complaint relates to sections C.1.5(b) and C.2.2(c). There is a fact sheet attached to this letter with more information about what to do now – I hope you find it helpful.
  
  If you believe we have misunderstood the circumstances, or there are reasons why we should reconsider our decision to close your complaint, please write to me by 26 May 2023.
  
  
• 26/5/2023 AFCA complaint closed by AFCA
  
  
• Latest - Australian Super now, on their website, clarifies the following for “Socially Aware”:
  
  AustralianSuper's ESG and Stewardship program applies to the Socially Aware option. In addition, the Socially Aware option applies screening to the following asset classes, which covers around 56% of the option1: Australian shares, international shares and the corporate securities component of fixed interest. The screens aim to remove the shares or corporate securities of companies in these asset classes that:
• directly own thermal coal, oil or gas reserves2
• directly manufacture tobacco products, cluster munitions or land mines 
• have single gender boards (for S&P/ASX 200 companies)
• have received the highest severity rating on a labour rights, human rights, environmental or governance controversy from the relevant ESG research provider.
• directly own uranium reserves in the case of the Australian shares and international shares asset classes2.

So - I suppose MTR has a less than “highest severity” rating? They have not killed enough people, I guess? IS THIS CRITERIA GOOD ENOUGH FOR SUCH A FUND??

Conclusion:

• See what is going on? Australian Super knew very well that AFCA is not empowered to handle my complaint against them, and yet they referred me to complain to AFCA.
  
  
• A very satisfactory outcome for Australian Super and MTR indeed
  
  
• “Ethical” investments are screened by an opaque “ESG data provider”, and no small investor is made aware of who they are, and what their process is, and cannot complain directly to them. For all we know, these providers may not exist, or alternatively be located in mainland China!
  
  
• Meanwhile, fund managers continue to make big money by calling their products ”ethical” to attract investors with a conscience. They should drop the “science” and just honestly admit it is a CON.
  
  
• Australian investment funds, including super, are poorly regulated. They can label their products and take your money and run them any way they like, using regulation loopholes. Few investors would dig into details and realise what they have got themselves into.