Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
|
5/6/2025 0 Comments Mr Burgess - was he a threat? “ Protocols and process-mapped decision-making models. ‘Accredited professional practice’ in action ... The slow, strangulated death of commonsense.” Dominic Adler. Last week, two British police officers were cleared of assaulting a wheelchair-bound, one-legged, 92-year-old man holding a cheese knife. They'd discharged pepper spray in his face. They’d hit him with a baton. They’d fired a taser at him.
He died 22 days later in the hospital, although this appears to be unrelated, or so we are told. No matter how you look at it, the optics are terrible. Although they have avoided criminal convictions, I suspect that the police careers of PC Rachel Comotto and PC Stephen Smith are effectively over. Both are facing internal disciplinary procedures. The incident, captured on video, lasted under two minutes and understandably sparked widespread outrage in 2022. Initially, I aimed to write a humorous article referencing the infamous Monty Python self-defence sketch. However, this case raises significant questions that are not the most obvious ones regarding the use of force and proportionality. Furthermore, I do not approach this subject as an armchair critic. I have disarmed knife-wielding individuals under challenging circumstances, including a man who killed his child and attempted suicide. As I will discuss later, training has its limitations as it cannot adequately prepare one for the confusion of an incident. Moreover, I feel uneasy about second-guessing the actions of these officers based on video evidence without considering the on-ground pressures they faced. Nevertheless, I must step beyond that hesitation to analyse this event. Having established that caveat, let us delve in. The background: Two officers were called to a care home after a Mr Burgess, who has dementia, allegedly threatened the staff, claiming that he would kill them. Before proceeding, I urge you to watch the video and consider the arguments I will present below. Caution: it is not a pleasant watch. At first glance, most people would likely assert that the officers overreacted by using force recklessly, which was disproportionate to the threat. This stance would be further compounded by what happened next: the officers evidently made joking comments. I fully understand such public reactions. My initial reaction was one of shock and dismay at the officers' actions. However, after stepping back and taking a broader view of the situation, my position changed slightly. This is not to suggest that the officers acted without fault; far from it. Allow me to explain. Police officers, when called to a scene, react according to their training and utilise the tools that society provides them. In this instance, the two officers responded to a report of a man brandishing a knife and threatening staff. By the time they arrived, the man was confined to a wheelchair, though he still held the knife. What can be observed in the video? There is a distance between the officers and Mr Burgess, who is seated in a wheelchair with the cheese knife in his right hand. Maintaining distance is crucial in knife incidents. I did not notice the wheelchair until it was pointed out to me. Looking at the situation, I conclude that Mr Burgess poses no immediate or serious threat to the officers. However, that was only after watching the video in the comfort of my home without the attendent lead-up. PC Smith engages with Mr Burgess and asks him to drop the knife. It is evident that Mr Burgess is confused — it is unclear whether he understands. PC Comotto has her taser drawn and also issues warnings. Now, at this stage, let us pause the scene. I would inquire whether the officers thoroughly assessed the situation they faced. Did they consider that the man was in a wheelchair and had only one leg? Or, as PC Smith stated in court, was he focused on the knife? Did they understand that Mr Burgess's dementia may limit his ability to grasp what was occurring? Still, based on what the officers were observing, they should have been able to determine that this man did not pose an immediate threat to them. Keep your distance, and you remain safe. That may have been an appropriate moment to pause, step back, and reassess. Indeed, had the officers withdrawn and locked the door, Mr Burgess was going nowhere. Instead, the officers acted. Other options that come to mind include grabbing a blanket to throw over Mr Burgess or using shields. However, in the heat of the moment and having been called, the officers seemed to be in a hurry to resolve the situation. PC Smith discharged pepper spray directly into Mr Burgess's face; then drew his baton and tried to strike the knife away, but he was unsuccessful. At this point, the female officer discharged her taser, yelling "taser taser taser" after she'd fired. The video ends. It is essential to remember that knives can be extremely dangerous, and officers are trained to maintain their distance from individuals wielding knives. Nevertheless, in this particular case, a calm assessment could likely determine that the cheese knife did not pose a substantial threat to the officers. Additionally, police training often includes scenarios that escalate, necessitating the use of non-lethal weapons to resolve the situation. As I mentioned earlier, officers react as they have been trained to do. Thus, I would like to ask whether de-escalation is taught or integrated into the process. If it is, it was not apparent that the officers applied de-escalation in this situation. We may gain some insights into the officers' attitudes from the light-hearted remarks they are reported to have made after the event. More details on this matter may emerge during the disciplinary hearings the officers are currently facing. However, this inappropriate banter may amount to a stress response following a challenging situation. It's difficult to say. I have experience in dealing with culprits wielding knives and threatening harm to themselves, others, and officers. In 2002, I spent over an hour negotiating with a distressed woman who brandished a chopper while holding her baby, as her drugged-up husband lay on an adjacent couch. She was standing in the doorway of her tiny flat as I led a group of officers who were blocking a very narrow corridor. It was hot, sweaty, and tense. The yelling child was distressing for all of us. At various points during the incident, the woman threatened to harm herself, the baby, and her husband. We'd barricaded ourselves behind large shields for protection. As she continued to speak, we gradually moved into the doorway, relaxing our posture. For a moment, the lady became distracted by the moans of her husband and turned away from us. At that point, I acted. I don't recall making a conscious decision; all I remember is seizing an opportunity. I lunged forward, slapped her across the side of the head, and she went down in shock. The chopper fell onto the couch as we pounced. Nothing about my approach is covered in training. However, my team and I resolved the situation without anyone being harmed. At times, one must be flexible and avoid being too rigid in one's actions. That is the reality of police work, centred around the overriding principle of protecting life. Anyway, had it gone wrong, no doubt I’d be in trouble. In endless nights of rumination, I am certain the two officers involved in Mr Burgess's case have reconsidered their actions. They have undoubtedly reflected on how events might have unfolded differently. There is some evidence of their confused approach in the testimony provided by PC Rachel Comotto. In court, she stated that she discharged her taser to save Mr Burgess from PC Stephen Smith's actions. That assertion is frankly preposterous. As the prosecutor pointed out, she could have asked her colleague to stop. Ultimately, the jury acquitted the officers. The jury heard evidence the officers acted in accordance with protocols. I feel a measure of sympathy for the officers. I would like to know whether they had adequate training and equipment for the role they encountered. Specifically, is de-escalation included in their training, and are shields available for use in such circumstances? Lastly, what pressure did they experience from the fact that the nursing staff called them in? As the agency of last resort, police officers can often find themselves in the invidious position of being the solution to all problems. Then you have the "hero complex”, which manifests as an officer's strong desire always to be the rescuer or saviour, even when it is not appropriate or necessary. This can lead to overzealous actions and risky behaviour. Commentor Domanic Adler, an ex-UK officer, believes the Burgess case reflects “ Protocols and process-mapped decision-making models. ‘Accredited professional practice’ in action, I suppose. The slow, strangulated death of commonsense.” I think he’s right. To further complicate matters, and at the other extreme, consider the case of PC Lorne Castle, a highly decorated officer who was dismissed for allegedly showing disrespect towards a knife-wielding culprit he had arrested. I understand he is now appealing the matter. Good luck, Sir.
0 Comments
 "Donald Trump's ‘America First’ agenda didn't merely reshape U.S. immigration—it inspired similar policies worldwide." Today, as anti-immigration rhetoric spreads, various groups are bearing the brunt of these changes. From Chinese academics retreating from the U.S. to British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders, facing an uncertain future in the UK, the era of open migration is waning.
Donald Trump's second presidency has ripple effects across the globe that affect skilled migrants, refugees, and even long-standing visa programmes. Even innocent tourists are facing the wrath of U.S. immigration agents due to discrepancies in their visa applications. Hauled in chains to detention centres, this treatment does nothing to encourage tourism to the U.S. nor enhance the nation’s soft power. Meanwhile, thousands of citizens in Kuwait found their resident status revoked overnight without warning. The authorities cite irregularities in the application procedures, affecting approximately 32,000 people. Donald Trump's ‘America First’ agenda didn't merely reshape U.S. immigration—it inspired similar policies worldwide. From Europe to Australia, governments have adopted stricter vetting procedures, reduced refugee intake, and made work visas increasingly difficult to obtain except in specific categories. Presented as a national security issue, the U.S. government's crackdown has a chilling effect, compelling many Chinese scientists and students to return home rather than risk suspicion. Leading academics in AI, life sciences, and biochemistry have concluded that the environment is far from conducive to advancing their work. In response, both Hong Kong and the Mainland have rapidly moved to welcome these experts, making space for them in universities. For decades, China's brightest minds flocked to Western universities and tech hubs. However, accusations of spying and visa denials diminished trust in the U.S., making China a more appealing option for academics fearing discrimination. China now benefits from a reverse brain drain. The direct financial hit is a loss of fees paid by international students. In the UK, as many colleges depend on fees from international students to maintain their operations, the situation is dire. In effect, international students subsidise the education of home students. Fee increases or closures will become necessary. Meanwhile, in the UK, British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders from Hong Kong are worried that Prime Minister Keir Starmer's recent anti-migrant rhetoric may complicate and increase the cost of their stay. Media reports suggest that many now regret their hasty decision to migrate. In 2020, following the widespread social unrest in Hong Kong and China's imposition of the National Security Law, the UK introduced a BNO visa pathway for Hong Kong residents seeking refuge. The UK's shift towards anti-immigration policies has been swift and impactful. Despite years of citizen complaints, no mainstream political parties had earnestly sought to restrict legal and illegal migration. Indeed, they appeared incapable of controlling illegal arrivals crossing the channel in small boats. For sure, simmering discontent amongst the population was a factor in last summer's riots following the Southport killings. Then, last month, in local by-elections, the anti-migrant Reform Party surged to prominence. Many polls put them well ahead of the ruling Labour Party. In a panic response, Starmer reversed decades of Labour policy, introducing rigid new rules for migrants that make it harder to secure residency. The residential requirement is effectively pushed to 10 years, on top of a stringent English test. Special social care visas, a significant route for post-Brexit migration, will be scrapped. Student visas will be made stricter and shorter, and skilled worker visas will also become more stringent. Although the direct impact on the BNOs remains unclear, reports in the SCMP suggest panic is setting in. According to figures published by the Office for National Statistics, net migration to the UK has dropped to 431,000. That's nearly a 50% decline from last year's eye-watering 860,000. Yet, it's still twice what it was in the pre-Brexit years when annual figures were around 200,000 to 250,000. Additionally, to put this into context, a net inflow of 430,000 is equivalent to adding a city the size of Liverpool every year. The BNOs account for only a fraction of this figure. When first announced, pundits incorrectly predicted that millions would accept the BNO offer. It was never going to happen. As far as I can tell, around 190,000 people have applied to join the BNO scheme, while the number who accepted the offer is lower, at approximately 150,000. Even before the latest twist in this saga, many who had taken up the offer quietly returned to Hong Kong. Indeed, according to the Hong Kong Immigration Department, over 30,000 British National Overseas (BNO) holders have returned to Hong Kong in the past year alone. Whether the UK will change the rules to require BNO holders to wait 10 years for a British passport remains uncertain. Either way, the atmosphere has become less welcoming. The bitter irony of the BNO scheme is becoming increasingly apparent. Far from finding a new home and prosperity, skilled professionals fall into an economic trap, where spiralling costs meet plummeting opportunities in a nation showing clear signs of decline. Those of us with long memories have always been sceptical about the BNO scheme; it bore the taint of a forlorn gesture to assuage a guilty conscience. After all, until the 1981 Nationality Act, most Hong Kongers enjoyed the right of abode in the UK. Margaret Thatcher closed that door just as negotiations concerning Hong Kong's future were gaining momentum. Odd, that. I know BNO migrants who have struggled to settle in the UK. Not wishing to lose face, very few have spoken openly after their return. Despite being skilled professionals, one couple found their qualifications undervalued, forcing them into lower-paying jobs. Even with a master's degree, the husband could only secure work in a warehouse. He and his wife endured two British winters, unable to book doctor or dental appointments. The initial excitement of their good-sized detached home soon faded. They both have jobs in Hong Kong now and rarely mention their time in the UK. At least they were honest enough to acknowledge that their worst fears about Hong Kong proved unfounded. The UK may be suitable for some, especially those with a strong family support network and ample financial resources. Still, the grass isn't always greener, especially given the UK's relentless economic decline. My discussions with those who opted for the BNO suggest they acted primarily out of opportunity. Hong Kong has always experienced significant population turnover, and this latest episode is no different from the movements of people in the 1960s and around 1997. Some will settle overseas; others will return, and a few will be 'astronauts' coming back and forth. Thus, attributing all the departures solely to the events of 2019 and the enactment of the NSL is naive. Yet, every story is unique and different; therefore, generalising the migration experience is a fool's errand. Some have relocated for economic reasons, while others aim to offer their children opportunities they wouldn't have in Hong Kong. And yes, a few emigrated to escape justice for their involvement in the rioting that occurred in 2019 and 2020. Naturally, this raw data reveals nothing of the sacrifice, displacement, and struggles that many endured. Friendships, families, and marriages all suffered; the actual human cost remains invisible in any data field. If all this starts to look dystopian, with a TV game show host in the White House, the Hunger Games would inevitably become a reality: check this out. As nations continue to tighten their borders, one thing is sure — the golden age of easy migration has ended for now. However, once populations in wealthy nations hit a critical point in their decline, the demand for doctors, caregivers, and manual labourers will increase. At that point, the dynamics will shift again, with leaders facing difficult decisions to sustain their economies. Lastly, it's also worth recalling that Nazi Germany's blind prejudices pushed many leading scientists to flee. These folks then drove the Manhattan Project to its successful conclusion. Is it possible that Trump is doing huge self-harm to the nation he leads? 8/5/2025 0 Comments The Dumpling Queen "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women." With Trump seeking to isolate the U.S. further with his proposed 100% tariff on 'foreign' made movies, I found myself in the cinema for The Dumpling Queen. This nostalgic and true story of a mainland single mother arriving in Hong Kong with her two daughters, struggling to find work, is captivating and deeply inspiring.
It resonates with the challenges many Hongkongers faced. Through sheer tenacity, Zhang Jianhe prevails in a tale that takes her from street hawker to heading one of Hong Kong's largest food companies. At the film's beginning, we learn that Zhang is abandoned in Hong Kong by her husband, who has taken another wife in Thailand. This second wife has borne a son, earning her a favoured position. Zhang faces a future as a de facto concubine, serving her husband and his new wife. Zhang rejects this role. Set in the late 1970s, when Hong Kong was grappling with a surge of legal and illegal migration, the city was bursting at its seams. The touch-base policy, which allowed Mainlanders to secure their status in Hong Kong, abruptly ended by 1980, leading to profound personal consequences for many. Zhang, a trained nurse with a qualification not recognised here, is forced to take a menial job while she builds a life for herself and her children. Scenes of Zhang and her kids assembling toys evoke the work my wife did after school to earn a few bucks. The street scenes are instantly recognisable to anyone who lived through that era. Similarly, the clusters of food hawkers at the public piers must dash away, hot fat flying, leaving customers holding utensils when the police approach. As a new inspector on patrol, I wandered nonchalantly into Bowring Street, Yaumati, to witness a stampede of hawkers, knocking over pedestrians and bashing carts into cars as they fled. Perplexed, it took me a moment to recognise I was the cause. All that came back to me in the dark of the cinema. The superb cast delivers deeply engaging performances, including Hong Kong stalwarts like Kara Ying Hung Wai and Cho-Lam Wong. In the lead role, Li Ma captures the inner strength it must have taken to persevere despite many hardships. Kara Ying's landlord hints at a deeply troubling past. She takes Zhang under her wing, providing the family with a roof and a degree of stability, showcasing the resilience of the human spirit. While the movie presents a compelling narrative, my only critique is that it may have overdone the emotional manipulation. The lachrymose music often heralded another scene of Zhang staring into the distance as yet more setbacks befell her. Meanwhile, the frequent harbour panorama views, a neat piece of CGI, showcased the Queen Elizabeth II liner steaming along. This repetition felt excessive. Plus, I would have liked to see more of the backstory of the tenement residents, who shared the crowded space with Zhang and her girls. This interesting group of characters lived cheek by jowl in single rooms with a tiny shared kitchen and bathroom. The movie has been a massive success at the box office, dominating the holiday season in China. Media reports indicate that it earned a staggering 748 million yuan (HK$797 million) from May 1 to May 5, a testament to its compelling narrative and powerful performances. It's unclear whether Trump would regard such a story as propaganda; however, he appears concerned that significant success stories from other parts of the world might conflict with his worldview. Still, as I left the cinema, I was reminded of the line from the late great Christopher Hitchens, "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women." If that's propaganda, bring it on 27/4/2025 1 Comment Live Long And Prosper. "For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses." Whenever a controversial piece of legislation appears that restricts or impinges on the rights of a few, the freedom argument arises. In the context of Hong Kong, that stance is woven into a misleading narrative suggesting that all our general freedoms are under attack.
The freedom argument carries the least weight when it defends the rights of smokers, a minority whose habits affect the majority. For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses. This toll burdens our already stretched public health system and inflicts immeasurable financial and emotional costs on families. Moreover, this is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the impact of passive smoke. Thus, this week, as the government moved to curtail the use of vapes and further restrict smoking in public places, the freedom argument gained prominence. The SCMP provides a helpful guide to what is coming. For centuries, thinkers have struggled to define the boundary between individual freedoms and restrictions for the betterment of society. Let's keep it simple and summon the famous Vulcan philosopher Mr. Spock, who observed, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Thus, I welcome the government's moves that address the needs of the many. However, it’s clear that a more straightforward approach, such as a blanket ban on smoking except in strictly designated areas, would be more effective and easier to enforce. Instead, we have adopted an increasingly layered approach, prohibiting smoking within certain distances of schools and in queues. From an enforcement perspective, this creates confusion and discourages officers from acting due to fear of disputes. Additionally, the focus on vapes overlooks traditional cigarettes. Of course, the tobacco industry will mount a subtle campaign through its proxies to water down any legislation using various arguments. On the vapes front, they've hit upon the idea that banning vapes will discourage tourism. Nonsense. I'd assert it's more likely to encourage tourists, knowing they can bring their kids to venues free of toxic vapes. It's disheartening to see the tobacco industry's lack of integrity. Their history of deceit regarding the impact of smoking, their manipulation of scientific data, and their attempts to lure children into smoking places them in the same league as drug cartels. This is why they operate through proxies and shadow organisations, trying to gain a false sense of credibility. The work of these lobby groups is already visible in the comments section of newspapers and in the utterances of some politicians. In the meantime, the greater good should prevail. Live long and prosper. 22/4/2025 1 Comment Crisis = Opportunity "Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago." According to the Chinese saying, “A crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind.” And we've certainly felt plenty of wind from Trump.
So, how's it going? How is Hong Kong faring under the onslaught of Trump's tariffs? What is the mood on the street? Well, when people take a moment to look up from their phones and pause their enjoyment of the memes poking fun at Americans, not much has changed. Government officials are making plans as the business community toggles between bafflement and stoic acceptance. Despite the challenges, our ability to adapt, change course, and turn a crisis into an opportunity has always been a significant strength. Supported by a business-friendly government and a vast Chinese hinterland, Hong Kong continues to resist fear. Additionally, vast amounts of foreign investment are flowing in. Some of that is money escaping Trump's craziness. As always, Hong Kong serves as a feeder city for the greater Chinese economy. Thus, with the Americans preoccupied with dismantling trade agreements and irritating just about everyone, Hong Kong stands to benefit as China's influence expands and foreign investors seek a stable market. Sure, China faces challenges, but it seems more capable of weathering the storm than most. Also, they've been preparing for Trump's shenanigans for decades. For starters, Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago. Does he seriously expect them to go back to sweatshop production line conditions? These roles have mostly left China, moving out to Pakistan and Cambodia. In the 1950s, 22% of U.S. employment was in manufacturing. Today, that figure is only 8%. Efficiencies and robotics have replaced workers; thus, bringing manufacturing onshore won't create much additional employment. Still, Trump aspires to a rose-tinted past. Even the Vice President's acclaimed book, Hillbilly Elegy, is filled with nostalgic references as he yearns for an era long gone. In the card game analogy touted by U.S. officials, China holds a formidable hand. First, China plays the long game while Trump flips and flops. And don't argue that's a strength or strategy, because any leadership model will tell you such approaches rarely work. Money markets demand consistency from politicians because there are enough variables to tax their thinking without self-made chaos. Long-term always defeats the short-term. Next, China holds a strong position on rare earth minerals that the U.S. requires for a wide range of technologies. Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 elements crucial in producing high-tech products such as smartphones, electric car motors, and military equipment. China accounts for 92% of rare earth production. The U.S. relies entirely on imports for certain rare earths, with 100% dependency on yttrium, of which 93% comes from China. Additionally, the U.S. has an 80% import dependence on all rare earth compounds and metals, with 56% sourced from China. Without access to these materials, the U.S. must seek them elsewhere or mine them domestically. Neither option is straightforward. China is already restricting sales to the U.S., with prices surging dramatically, making the production of advanced electronics in the U.S. even more costly. Then consider medicines. The U.S. closed its last penicillin plant in 2004, and China supplies 90% of the antibiotic used in the U.S. Interestingly, rumours suggest that U.S. hedge funds sold off U.S. Treasury bonds in response to Trump's tariffs — not China. If true, the money men who helped put Trump in office are now betting against him. In the meantime, China has gradually shifted from sourcing items from the U.S. to engaging with other trading partners. It has ceased using U.S. LPG and opted for supplies from Australia, returning or cancelling Boeing orders as it transitions to Airbus-made aircraft or domestic planes. The same shift is occurring with soybeans and chickens. Moreover, China always has the option to enhance the regulations it imposes on U.S. companies to exert influence. When Walmart pressured Chinese manufacturers to lower their prices to offset Trump's tariffs, officials met with the company to remind it of its contractual obligations and the legal consequences of non-compliance. This incident highlights China's ability to leverage its regulatory power to maintain control over its trade relationships, even with large multinational corporations. Not only can China inflict harm on the U.S. in hard finance terms, but it is already exploiting Trump's behaviour on multiple soft-power fronts. For many countries, the U.S. has surrendered the moral high ground as a responsible world citizen with its overbearing style. The damage to U.S. soft-power cannot be underestimated. Meanwhile, China is positioning itself as a responsible, mature, and stable partner who can be trusted. For decades, Southeast Asian countries sought to navigate a path between the U.S. and China, maintaining cordial relations with both. However, during my recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia, I found that the U.S. is now perceived as hostile and coersive. As a result, they have chosen to lean towards China, another own goal for Trump. Even the Europeans, traditionally close allies of the U.S., are treading carefully. Under Trump, the U.S. is no longer considered a reliable partner, leading to a July China/EU summit. With 50% of the EU's profits from cars and luxury goods coming from China, they cannot afford to be caught in the crossfire of a trade war. There is one factor that many are missing in this discussion. Trade these days is rarely a matter of one nation selling to another and vice versa. For example, consider the Mini car. These iconic little cars get exported to 110 countries. The vehicle is originally British in design and origin, but the Germans now own the brand. Production occurs in Oxford (UK), Leipzig (Germany), and China. Components come from an estimated 30 countries. I say estimated because components comprise sub-components, and detailing all the entities involved is problematic. Likewise, the iPhone comprises components from 1100 suppliers made in over thirty factories across Asia, with 90% of the activity occurring in China. It took Apple 25 years to build that network. Thus, it’s not a matter of moving one factory and training one workforce. It’s a vast, evolved system that took decades to emerge. Therefore, it's wishful thinking to expect anything tangible to occur in under 10 years. Hence, China and other countries can continue to produce components and transship them through multiple nations before reaching U.S. consumers. And keeping track of these complex shipping and manufacturing regimes is a bureaucratic nightmare that will either discourage trade with the U.S. or become so resource-intensive that it can't be implemented. Either way, the U.S. does not receive the stuff it needs or gets it at an increased cost. Lastly, size and confidence matter. China isn't picking up the phone to speak to the U.S.; instead, it's quietly building new trade options while preparing for the worst. China is seizing the moral high ground, acting moderate and reasoned, because Beijing believes it can withstand the bitter wind blowing from Washington. Only time will tell, but I reckon Trump has made a massive blunder and we still have 1370 days to go. One thing is certain: America is losing the meme war big style. 16/4/2025 0 Comments Steel Town "The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making" I know Scunthorpe. It forms part of a trinity of post-industrial northern towns often mocked by the elitist London metropolitan crowd. Hull and Grimsby complete this trio.
During a school trip, I visited the Scunthorpe steel plant on a geography field day. This site has been a cornerstone of Britain’s industrial economy for over 150 years. The location was selected based on geographic, economic, and historical factors. The Frodingham ironstone bed, part of the North Lincolnshire iron field, was discovered in the 1850s, yielding high-quality iron ore just beneath the town. Nearby coal fields in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire provided coking coal for blast furnaces, while limestone originated from Derbyshire and the Peak District. Thus, Scunthorpe is located in the "Iron Triangle," where iron ore, coal, and limestone are all within a 50-mile radius. Furthermore, the nearby Humber ports, rail connections, canals, and rivers facilitated transportation. The first steelworks emerged in 1864, and two enormous blast furnaces now stand on the site. Suddenly, Scunthorpe is in the news because the blast furnaces that produce virgin steel are about to shut down, which would end steel production in the UK. The plant's owners, a Chinese company, warned the British government 18 months ago that the plant was no longer viable. Just days before the proposed closure, the British government enacted legislation that required the plant's owners to maintain operations in a frantic effort to prevent closure. With no coking coal in reserve, there is an urgency to deliver enough coal to the plant to keep the fires burning. Blast furnaces operate continuously because shutting them down risks structural damage incurs massive costs, and leads to prolonged downtime. While modern electric arc furnaces provide greater flexibility, traditional blast furnaces are still referred to as "always-on beasts." So why was the British government's sudden intervention necessary? The bottom line is that primary steel concerns not just metal but also power, survival, and economic dominance. Nations that lose control of it risk becoming vulnerable in crises. With Trump’s U.S. appearing less like a stable partner, post-Brexit Britain suddenly seemed exposed in a rapidly changing world. Steel is essential for military equipment, such as ships, tanks, and aircraft, as well as for infrastructure like bunkers and bases, as well as ammunition. Dependence on foreign steel imports can weaken a nation's defence readiness during conflicts or trade wars. Additionally, steel is the backbone of key industries, including construction, automotive, machinery, and energy, encompassing pipelines and wind turbines. Losing primary steelmaking capacity leads to reliance on unstable global supply chains. Currently, China produces 55% of the world's steel. Recognising the importance of steel production, the EU and India subsidise domestic steel to avoid over-reliance on other nations. Britain lacked such foresight. The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making. Under-investment, a lack of priorities, and the relentless drive for net zero are all factors at play. The sector relies heavily on coal-based blast furnaces, contributing 2% of the UK's total CO₂ emissions. Transitioning from coal-based production to hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs) requires £4–6 billion in investments. In truth, without government support, UK steelmakers cannot compete against cheaper imports from China, India, and Turkey. Currently, the UK imports 60% of its steel. The other elephant in the room is the UK’s electricity costs, which are 50% higher than those in European nations, making the modern EAF option unviable. If UK steel production becomes too expensive, manufacturers, such as those in the automotive and aerospace industries, may source cheaper foreign steel, further undermining the domestic sector. A few opportunistic politicians claim that the Chinese deliberately sabotaged the last remaining British steel plant to force the UK to rely on cheap imports. However, as political commentator Andrew Neil noted, "The British are perfectly capable of destroying steel production without help from anyone else. The industry has been under-supported for decades." Indeed, the mantra of net zero has provided cover for this destruction. Furthermore, Neil and other commentators note that Britain lacks long-term strategic plans to safeguard key industrial infrastructure. For decades, successive governments have avoided making tough decisions by allowing foreign interests to take precedence. From employing over 300,000 in 1971 to less than 3,000 in 2025, the problem of British Steel didn’t begin with the Chinese owners. It’s just business for them, as it was for the Indian owners before the Chinese. The Indian conglorate Tata ran the plant before a series of ownership changes with the Jingye Group taking over in 2020 after an approach by British officials. The Jingy Group then invested £330 millionin upgrading the site. Perhaps, the real risk sits elsewhere. In his book Vassal State, author Angus Hanton documents the extent to which U.S. commercial interests control the British economy. While China is taking flak in this saga, the influence of U.S. companies is much broader. Hanton argues that Britain exited Europe with Brexit while quietly placing itself at the mercy of U.S. private equity funds and big tech. The concept of an open door has led to the sale of many of Britain’s most productive and innovative businesses. The U.S. accounts for roughly 30% of all foreign investment in the UK, while China comprises 2%. Consequently, the U.K. appears to function as an appendage of the U.S., even though it is performing worse than America’s poorest state, Mississippi. As recent events have shown, the U.S. significantly influences global trade, tax, and investment to serve its own interests. Consequently, the U.K. now finds itself between a rock and economic failure. As reality sets in, the shift from balancing the pursuit of net zero to maintaining strategic industries has resulted in the latter taking precedence. For the workers of Scunthorpe, there is some short-term relief. However, the question remains, does Britain have the backbone to safeguard its national interests in this new disruptive Trump era? 12/4/2025 0 Comments Hubris "While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool" In the movie Ran, Japanese director Akira Kurosawa narrates the tale of a warlord whose prideful sin drives him to madness as he attempts to impose his vision in a world full of jealousy, finance, intrigue, vanity, and greed. Loosely inspired by Shakespeare's King Lear, the saga centres on an old man. He wanders from one tragedy to another, bewildered as he pushes in from the margins on issues he cannot resolve. Eventually, a war engulfs the land as his two sons fight for control. While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool, his sons and their warriors pay more attention to their conflicts than to this pathetic, peripheral figure. As life rushes forward, ignoring historical continuity, the wider world has its own desires and tempests. The old man's will holds little weight as others devour his spoils like dogs tearing at a carcass. Ultimately, he betrays his people, destroys everything, and fades away. In a final jarring scene, a blind woman walks toward the abyss to stand on the edge of oblivion. It’s an epic tale of hubris.  "Darren Jason Watkins Jr., (aka iShowSpeed) is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube." Until last week, I'd never heard of iShowSpeed. To clarify, that's not the name of a company or software. iShowSpeed is the online moniker for Darren Jason Watkins Jr., a 20-year-old American YouTuber and online streamer with 38 million subscribers. His channels have recorded nearly four billion hits.
This young man's online presence is not just influential; it's monumental. Some even argue that he can make or break a business. His arrival in Hong Kong this week was not just a visit but a seismic event that drew the attention of traditional media and officials who saw an opportunity to promote the city. He was mobbed wherever he went, primarily by adolescent boys who hung on his every utterance like the second coming of Christ. Although, if you're over 18 years old, he's probably not on your radar. Yet lawmaker Dominic Lee Tsz-king is upset. He posted on social media that the young Darrens's tour of Hong Kong didn't include the It's clear that some, like Mr Lee, have unrealistic expectations of Darren's visit. They seem to believe that officials should dictate his agenda, but let's be real. Darren is not the type to be told what to do. When the Tourist Board reached out to him, he didn't respond. And perhaps that's for the best. After all, he's not catering to the usual crowd. The nature of Darren's output is spontaneous, free-rolling and not without debatable content. He is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube. His explosive personality, outrageous stunts, and unfiltered reactions have sparked an intense backlash. He initially gained attention for his high-energy gaming streams, especially his obsessive love for Cristiano Ronaldo and FIFA. His exaggerated reactions, shouting fits, and unpredictable behaviour soon made him stand out in the crowded streaming world. Yet, his shock-value antics sometimes pushed boundaries, leading to controversies and viral moments. As a result, he faced multiple bans from platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and even events. In the 2022 World Cup, he stormed the field during Portugal vs Uruguay, wearing a Ronaldo jersey. He's also known for off-colour antics, such as allegedly exposing himself online and using racial slurs in his quest to shock audiences, generate clicks, and promote his merchandise. That's how he earns his income: t-shirt sales and other items. While some view him as a hilarious, unfiltered personality, others see him as a poor influence who crosses too many lines. In a town where the government has spasms of pearl-clutching when a teenager gets filmed smoking, young Darren is hardly a role model they'd likely encourage or promote. After viewing Darren's videos of Hong Kong, we got off lightly. Move on; there's nothing to see here.  "The U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon." Make no mistake, this is a game changer. Under Trump, the U.S. has turned against everyone, even the Heard and McDonald Island penguins. Well, that's not strictly true; Putin and the Fat Lad in North Korea receive a free tariff pass. The unpredictability of these actions leaves us all in a state of uncertainty.  Trumps action has many consequences, not least because the beacon of U.S. influence is fading on the geopolitical stage, a trend that could have long-term implications. As far as I can tell — and I'm no expert, so if I get this wrong, please let me know — Trump seeks to achieve two things. First, he wants to re-shore manufacturing and, second, to address perceived trade imbalances. Following this, the tariffs are supposed to generate revenue for the government to spend without raising taxes while suppressing growth, which creates demand for government treasury bills and drives down interest rates. This move, in turn, reduces U.S. national debt. This new tariff regime impacts nearly every conceivable product, from electronics and machinery to apparel and agriculture, leaving only a few strategic imports, such as certain metals, semiconductors, and energy resources, untouched. Trump claims that these "reciprocal tariffs" will tackle foreign protectionism and address "unfair" trade deficits that have "hollowed out" U.S. manufacturing. It's important to note that the tariffs are not based on actual foreign tariffs, but on a nonsensical formula tied to bilateral trade gaps. This is a crucial point to understand. To justify his actions, Trump argues that the U.S. is being taken advantage of and that the economy is in crisis. Neither of these claims stands up to scrutiny. Americans run deficits with some countries and surpluses with others. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy was performing well until last week; unemployment is at a 50-year low, inflation has dropped to 3 %, and GDP is growing at 2.4% while other countries are struggling. Trump asserts that he wants to re-shore production to "Make America Great Again." That's fair enough. However, that assumes it makes economic sense to manufacture goods in the U.S. For example, the U.S. is unlikely to be competitive in T-shirt production due to the low wages in Cambodia and Pakistan. Consider the production of high-end items like the iPhone. Under the new tariff regime, the cost of an iPhone could triple, making it uncompetitive against cheaper Chinese phones. Meanwhile, a conservative estimate suggests shifting iPhone production out of China will take five to ten years. Of course, this assumes all other things are equal, that you have skilled people, and that the plant and infrastructure are in place state-side. And how does Little Britain fair in all this? Angus Hanton's book "Vassal State" gives a comprehensive and stunning account of how the U.S. has already captured Britain's markets and moved to dictate economic policy. It has long been recognised that the British Foreign Office operated under the principle of "find out what Washington is doing, and do slightly less." Now, the U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon. And if Britain doesn't play ball, bullying can quickly get the Limeys to comply. In 2020, when the U.S. banned China's Huawei, the Brits initially decided to take a different path with a partial ban. Trump went ballistic. U.S. officials urged British MPs to rebel against a cabinet decision as Trump called Boris Johnson in rage. A U-turn followed, cloaked in "new technical advice". Similarly, the U.K. military relies on the Americans for equipment, transport, and training. Between 2010 and 2021, the Ministry of Defence spent £26 billion on U.S. companies. While researching his book, Hanton discovered that the British government was reluctant to share details about the extent of U.S. ownership of U.K. businesses. A subsequent tip-off directed him to a U.S. government database that revealed the details. The U.S. owns numerous British businesses, including heritage brands that most Brits still believe belong to good old Blighty, such as high-street shops and manufacturers. Most folks think that Boots, Cadbury Chocolate, Quaker Oats, Fanta, Mars, Costa Coffee, and Manchester United are British. No. When Brits deal online with the U.K. government agencies such as the DVLA and the Ministry of Justice, U.S. big tech provides that communication channel. IBM, Microsoft and Oracle have cornered the market. When accounting for major U.S. multinationals like Amazon, U.S. companies now have annual sales in the U.K. exceeding $700 billion, translating to an average of about £20,000 per U.K. household. And yet, U.S. multinationals routinely avoid paying U.K. tax to a suspected sum of £5.6bn for 2022-23. Over two million Brits work directly for U.S. companies. The U.S. has placed 30% of all its overseas investments in the U.K., and half of its European investments are in Britain. This takeover is not surprising. The Brits opened their markets in a steady decade-long process, and the U.S. swept in. That's not to suggest that these companies don't provide quality services, many do. Significantly, other European nations protected certain critical sectors from takeovers by U.S. private equity firms and Big Tech. Now, the U.K. gets hit with a 10% tariff despite Starmer's genuflecting to Trump with a letter from a real King. Arguably, Trump has laid the lowest rate on Britain because, in effect, he's taxing U.S. businesses. Meanwhile, Europe is hit with a higher 20% rate. As the leaked Signal messages reveal, the Trump regime has no love for the Europeans. Yet, one continent is in a sweet spot regarding this uncertainty and arbitrariness. As the map below reveals, African nations have shifted from trading with the U.S. to focusing on China.  How the U.S. lost Africa in twenty years. Meanwhile, Hong Kong as a free port is not retaliating against Trump(for now). Our regime of free access remains unchanged. And this imposition of tariffs on a free port exposes that these measures have little to do with trade. The big game is played on many fronts.
2/4/2025 0 Comments More U.S. Hypocrisy "If the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay." The U.S. government has imposed another round of sanctions on Hong Kong officials, including the retiring police chief. While Washington presents these sanctions as a defence of human rights and democracy, critics contend that the actions are laden with “hypocrisy” and “double standards.”
Why? For starters, the U.S. has draconian national security laws that exceed any provisions used in Hong Kong. The Patriot Act (2001) allows for mass surveillanc and indefinite detention of suspects without trial. As Edward Snowden and others revealed, the U.S. will relentlessly pursue whistleblowers and impose severe penalties for leaks, even when they expose wrongdoing. The current crackdowns on U.S. campuses against protests, including aggressive police responses, contrast sharply with U.S. criticism of Hong Kong’s law enforcement. Plus, these days, Trump is focused on suppressing pro-Palestine voices, deporting critics of his policies while banning journalists from the White House who pose difficult questions. History shows that the U.S. supports authoritarian regimes when it is convenient. Despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the brutal repression, the U.S. continues to sell arms and maintains close ties to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, billions in military aid continue to flow to the Egyptian regime despite the jailing of journalists and activists. Looking further back, the U.S. supported dictators such as Pinochet (Chile) and Suharto ( Indonesia) when it aligned with Cold War interests. Its regime change activities have caused death and chaos in many regions, with consequences that persist today. Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone! Interestingly, when the British governed Hong Kong as a colony, the U.S. never advocated for democracy. Instead, they used the territory to support their wars Korea and Vietnam. Post-1997, business elites in this region and their political patrons in the U.S. supported a system that limited democratic processes.The U.S. only changed its stance on Hong Kong when protests aligned with its geopolitical objectives against China. We must recognise that these measures against Hong Kong officials represent a tantrum and a form of political theatre in response to the unsuccessful 2019 protests that the U.S. supported and sponsored. Yet in fairness, these sanctions are limited and look like a token gesture because Trump cannot afford to anger China too much as a trade war looms. Plus, if the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay. Moreover, the action against Hong Kong can be seen as part of a broader effort by the U.S. to interfere in other countries’ sovereignty. Regime change operations in Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and covert actions in Latin America show that the U.S. often disregards sovereignty. What is the impact on the individual? Evidence suggests that sanctions are counterproductive by fostering a "siege mentality” that unites officials against a common enemy: the bullying West. In truth, although sanctions may inconvenience officials, they rarely alter behaviour. In the end, sanctions are a blunt instrument — an acknowledgement that the U.S. has waning influence. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
June 2025
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed