Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
11/4/2021 0 Comments Jabs Wars "There appears to be public resistance developing to vaccines, with many factors at play." The UK has good reason to celebrate. Vaccination rates for the over 70s are approaching 100%. Plus, some 50% of the adult population received a jab. That's a remarkable achievement that goes some way to offset the earlier cack-handed response that let Covid-19 rip through the community. Some experts believe the UK may achieve herd immunity next week. That's after 127,284 deaths (as of 10 April 2021) from 4.4 million cases.
By all accounts, the execution of the vaccine rollout proceeded with flawless precision. The British vaccine success story needs recognition, so we must give kudos to everyone who made this happen. Well done! Meanwhile, in Europe, their vaccination campaign is stuttering along, marked by blunders, mismanagement and political shenanigans. Less than 15% of the adult population of France, Germany, Italy and Spain have received a jab. In frustration at evident failings, the EU lashed out like a petulant child. Faced with a shortage of vaccines, they blocked a shipment of a quarter of a million jabs to Australia. And then, in a reckless move, threatened the UK with the same treatment. The floundering head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, soon rolled back her threats. Why? Because the UK would be fully justified in withholding the raw materials that make vaccine production possible. The lipids required to coat the vaccines come from God's county, Yorkshire. Stand up Croda Chemicals of Snaith and take a bow. None of this clumsy EU diplomacy or mismanagement should come as a surprise. Frau von der Leyen is well-remembered in her native Germany for her stunning impact on the German army. With millions wasted on procurement, units deployed without secure communication systems. In the most embarrassing incident, soldiers carried broomsticks as stand-ins for rifles that the government could not supply. Having failed in Germany, then dispatched to the EU, her incompetence spread beyond a national boundary. One German leader noted that "Ursula is our least capable minister". As Europe goes back into lock-down due to the resurgence of Covid-19, the UK is moving to open up. The EU will pay a high political and economic price for its shambolic handling of the vaccine programme. Even remainers, like myself, must now recognise the inherent failures of the EU. Here in Hong Kong, the Pfizer vaccine is now back online as the government seeks to catch up with delayed vaccinations. As I suspected, the packaging issue that caused the delay was not a safety concern. Nonetheless, given the sentiments here, the wait was a wise precaution, although it may have further dampened vaccine uptake. Hong Kong has issued about 791,300 vaccine doses, with some 232,500 people getting their second dose. That's for a population of 7.8 million. The pace needs to pick up. To date, we've recorded 11,569 Covid-19 cases that resulted in 207 deaths. Worryingly, there appears to be public resistance developing to vaccines, with many factors at play. The city continues to function, adapting well to the restrictions, which may suppress vaccine take-up rates. Some of that reluctance comes from our low number of cases. Also, our track and trace system operates with ruthless efficiency. Thus people assume the pandemic is over, so why bother to take the risk of a vaccine. I should point out that the Hong Kong people are a hypersensitive lot, especially when it comes to health. The collective memory of SARS 2003 is still very much alive. That imprint from the past served us well during the pandemic's initial stages, as everyone rushed to take precautions without prompting from the government. Within a matter of days, people adopted mask-wearing and other safeguards. And yet, this is a double-edged sword. Any sign that a vaccine may cause a bad reaction or worse is bound to set off a ripple effect of anxiety. Each time this kicks off another round of 'should I get vaccinated and which vaccine?'—anything to delay a decision. The media fulfils its usual role of exciting matters out of all proportion by failing to give much context or nuance. The headlines scream, "Man died 12 days after jab". That he was 82 years old, had a severe heart problem, high blood pressure, and one lung lay buried (no pun intended) in the coverage detail. Words of wisdom Nos 1: Life is full of risks; take your pick. Then layered atop this is a hysteria with a political dimension. Anti-China elements are suggesting that the Sinovac shot is a mind-control drug. This lunatic fringe asserts that immunisation is to pacify and control the population. How exactly this works is never explained. I recently had the good fortune to listen to a panel discussion by a group of leading US doctors. They sought to discuss the merits of the various vaccines available, including Sinovac. Their medical message was clear; take whatever vaccine you can because any jab's impact is significantly less than catching Covid-19. There was agreement that all the currently available vaccines show reliable degrees of efficacy against the virus. Further, most experts agree that comparisons about effectiveness rates are pointless. The different regimes of testing make these unconvincing. Such details complicate the narrative, so these get left out of the media tail of woe and doom. Anyone can co-opt the immunisation issue and harness it to their agenda. Sure, it was only a matter of time before Greta Thunberg would get her climate change knickers in a twist over the vaccine rollout. "With the extremely inequitable vaccine distribution, I will not attend the COP26 conference if the development continues as it is now," Thunberg said. Is she seriously suggesting that nations should hold off vaccinating until we are ready to vaccinate everyone? I've often felt Ms Thunberg's understanding of issues is shallow; she's affirmed that view. Does she want folks to die while vaccines linger in storage until we have enough stock? Words of wisdom Nos 2: Life isn't fair. Get over it, Ms Thunberg. Nations need to get their own house in order and then move to help their neighbours. That's the proper, humane option. Thankfully we still have some adults in the room. Dr Micheal Ryan, executive director of the WHO, noted, "If you need to be right before you move, you will never win. Perfection is the enemy of the good when it comes to emergency management." In the meantime, Ms Thunberg should stick to her speciality of dropping classes, riding around on expensive carbon-fibre boats and as the intellectually challenged gobshite preeminence. Get your jabs.
0 Comments
5/4/2021 5 Comments Back To The Future "Our citizens enjoy the highest life expectancy on the planet, while child mortality rates are the lowest." I'm growing weary of the West's relentless, repetitive propaganda that Hong Kong's freedoms are gone. Here on the ground, this lie falters in the face of reality. As the Easter weekend is upon us, and I look around, the Churches are full of worshipers; the beaches crowded with families and the hills welcoming thousands of walkers.
Meanwhile, the Government Flying Service is working flat out, pulling injured and sickly hikers off our remote mountains. The unwell get carried gratis to our free hospitals to receive first-class care. Ambulances arrive within minutes of calls for help, with trained para-medics ready to give critical care. What is more, our citizens enjoy the highest life expectancy on the planet, while child mortality rates are some of the lowest. As Covid eases, the bars and restaurants are coming to life as Hong Kong regains its usual vibe. All citizens can walk the streets, night or day, free of the crime that blights most cities. Teenagers and youngsters travel unaccompanied on public transport. And when trouble does occur, the Police respond. Emergency calls don't go unanswered unless radicals seek to swamp and block the system, as happened during the riots. Meanwhile, no one fears a gun-battle in a shopping mall or a senseless mugging. Random acts of violence are rare. That's why Hong Kong rates amongst the freest places on earth. Local media continues its vibrant ways with criticism of the government unabated. After each regular spasm of 'press freedoms under attack', I'll ask journalist friends which stories face censorship? That usually draws a blank look, a bit of foot shuffling, then murmurs about emphasis rather than a story's culling. You know, the sort of thing that goes on daily in all media. But you'd never believe any of this listening to the neocolonialism nonsense spouting forth from Washington and London. It's evident that startled and unsettled by China's rise, the West wishes to deploy Hong Kong as an issue to beat Beijing. In the process, twisted stories, plus outright falsehoods, stir the pot. But, of course, my detractors shout, 'what about political freedom?' Fair point. I've documented elsewhere how the so-called democrats blew it and then took us in the wrong direction. Separatists then hijacked the whole show. Mixed into that came Hong Kong's deep-seated undercurrent of xenophobia against Mainlanders. As China prospered, the badly stung Hongkongers faced eclipse by resourceful Mainlanders. The hallmarks that once defined Hong Kong now transferred north. Having had a distinct identity as colonial citizens, the Hong Kong people found themselves a small part of a more significant group. They felt swamped. That's why they cling to symbols of the past, the BNO or anything that makes them distinct. Alas, jealousy proved a potent motivating factor for our recent troubles. Add a bit of overseas money to oil the protest movement's wheels, and bingo, months of rioting. The judgment of the moderate democrats looked seriously askew when they allied themselves to the violent separatists—even allowing them to dictate the protest agenda. As the moderates refused to break ranks and criticise the beatings and bombs, they heralded an inevitable escalation in the mayhem. True to form, the West's swivel-eyed rhetoric gave support to the radicals. Venal overseas politicians willfully ignored the havoc wrought here. Yet, when the same comes to their streets, note the reaction. Only Beijing's intervention with the National Security Law flipped the off-switch. Having calmed the streets and atmosphere, Beijing has now moved on to political reforms. When you cut through all the noise, in truth, we are returning to a facsimile of the colonial system that served British interests so well before 1997. Except in this iteration, the system serves China. Britain and the rest can hardly complain when they championed the 'executive led' design of governance as something suitable for Hong Kong. Beijing has taken that model then moulded it with only 'patriots' allowed to stand for elections. Under British rule, until the mid-1990s, only 'safe-hands' who'd cleared vetting got to sit in our parliament. So the noisy hypocrisy of the West is breathtaking. Much of it pulls the focus away from evident domestic failings. Dominic Raab, the UK's foreign secretary, bangs on about the 'rule of law' yet threw that out the window by direct interference in a Hong Kong criminal case. Raab's much-vaulted principles collapsed as he pressured barrister David Perry not to work in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, his party seeks to introduce restrictions on protest far more severe than anything Hong Kong can summon up. That the West gave tacit succour to Benny Tai and his crew as they sought to action his 'lam chau' plan speaks volumes. Let's be clear what the 'lam chau' plan meant to achieve. Tai wanted nothing short of complete societal collapse through widespread disorder under the banner of 'we burn, you burn.' The plan meant to bring down the city's institutions. And these ideas manifested themselves in the thousands of petrol bombs thrown at Police and others. The radicals ran industrial-scale petrol bomb factories on the Chinese University and at the City Polytechnic University. One unfortunate man suffered 'direct action' when he confronted protesters on a footbridge. They responded by setting him on fire. That he didn't die is a miracle. I ask what place on earth would stand by and allow this to happen? Every society has the right to protect itself from such acts. To me, it is evident that every international media decrying the loss of freedom and liberty in Hong Kong has slanted its coverage and worse. Here's a recent example: the UK's Independent portrayed a violent armed criminal's arrest as Police beating an innocent protester. No mention that he'd threatened bank staff with a knife. Of course, there are real issues here. Our attempts to tackle poverty, a housing shortage and pollution all need a boost. With our parliament now operating without constant interruptions, we should make some progress. Plus, government staff needn't fear assaults in the parliament's precincts. The convicted criminal, and former legislator, Ted Hui, has run off to Australia's welcoming arms. It would appear that they have no problem accepting a man who assaults women. Granted, what unfolded here is not to everyone’s liking, with some opting to migrate. Moving out is hardly a new trend, and the numbers are not that high. Living in a liberal democracy may better suit those so minded because you are free to believe any old bollocks. After all, for them, Hong Kong's freedoms are gone. On the other end, some feel only direct control from Beijing will work to restore order long-term. Neither is correct; Hong Kong is continuing on a middle path, granted with a democratic deficit from a Western perspective — just as it did under British rule. So, for those overseas, exercise caution when reading anything the mainstream media or your governments say about Hong Kong. 28/3/2021 0 Comments Tit For Tat "You can't draw up a few cannons and intimidate us. Those days are over." The propaganda department of the CCP has a recruit in President Joe Biden. The boys in Beijing don't need to worry too much about their popularity; Biden is rallying the Chinese people behind them. By stating he will not allow China to become a leading world-power, Biden played into the narrative of bullying foreigners holding back the Chinese.
Whoever is advising Biden has no grasp of history, the sentiment within China, nor the likely consequences of this bravado. Unbeknown to Washington wonks, the dyed-haired brigade in Zhongnanhai is now probably grinning from ear to ear. Meanwhile, Asians (because all Asians are Chinese) suffer terrible violence in a febrile anti-Chinese atmosphere, as the racial hatred pot is stirred. A few politicians seek to make the distinction between the CCP and the Chinese people. But that's a dead-end street for many reasons. First, all the surveys show consistent majority support for the CCP within China. Second, even if the CCP fell or some form of democracy emerged, don't imagine that Chinese public sentiment would differ. They will still demand that past shames are not repeated. That includes resisting the demands of the West. Here it is necessary to pause and understand the deep-seated underpinnings in the Chinese mindset. A truth that ought to be acknowledged is that China was once the world's leading civilisation. Then China took a century-long detour through instability, mayhem, civil war and famine. Granted, that's very much a potted history. During this period, stronger nations waded-in to get a piece of the action, hence Hong Kong, Macau and various treaty ports. Japan exploited China's weakness to seize vast tracts of lands committing many atrocities along the way. Well documented is China's hundred years of humiliation. Every Chinese kid knows how the British used gunboats to bombard Mainland ports to force the sale of opium. They know about the Summer Palace's sacking and the plunder of art, much of which now sits in the British Museum. Plus, that foreign powers took turns biting chunks out of China. That era remains a deep scar on the national psyche, shaping everything. Thus last week, when the West announced sanctions, China's response was swift and unequivocal, "You can't draw up a few cannons and intimidate us. Those days are over." In forums, meetings and press conferences, the Chinese leadership make it clear they'll no longer remain silent and passive when Western nations take action. This week they've countered-sanctioned several British politicians, an academic and companies. Of course, those sanctioned claim to be upholding British values, although they appear more reticent about events on their doorstep in Batley. Strange that death threats against a teacher don't summons them to action around their claimed values. The issue of the day is Xinjiang and claims of genocide. Getting a handle on what is happening to the Uyghurs remains challenging. A few commentators suggest the situation is comparable to Northern Ireland in the 1970s/80s on a much larger scale. Others note the geopolitical aspects asserting that Xinjiang is an ideal jumping-off point for destabilising China. Don't forget that Xinjiang province abuts Afghanistan, where a Western force has been at war against the Taliban for decades. Xinjiang is also home to the largest reserves of oil in Asia. It's natural for anyone who recalls the whole WMD saga and Iraq to be sceptical. Recent history has told us that 'manufactured-consent' is a tool used to shape public opinion before action. Last week, we had this report affirming that Trump and his team lied about Chinese influence on US elections. I do not doubt that China is clamping down hard in Xinjiang following a wave of terrorist incidents. And aspects of that clampdown are robust, perhaps similar to the US approach after 9/11. It's worth remember that many Uyghurs were held in Guantanamo Bay. As the struggle between the West and China escalates, the Uyghur issue has proven a useful stick with which to beat Beijing. Yet odd, isn't it, that Muslim nations remain silent about the Uyghurs? I suspect the truth is much more complex and nuanced than we currently understand. Over the past 40 years, with the communist experiment de facto abandoned, China moved towards an authoritarian-capitalist centralised system. This approach brought unprecedented growth. Academics in the West naively believed that such success would morph into a western-style democracy. They opined that true affluence could only come by adopting such a system. That proved wrong. Likewise, the belief that China would disintegrate Soviet Union style. How many times did I listen to lofty professors holding forth that China would either fail or break up into feuding fiefdoms. That none of it happened illustrates that the 'experts' hardly justify their title. Whatever Biden may say, China is a dominant power in our world. It takes the lead on climate change, while the belt-and-road initiative has seen it bring much-needed infrastructure to developing countries in parts of Asia, Africa and elsewhere. Besides, the pandemic affirmed growing Chinese confidence that the West is in decline. Despite all the bellicose noise, China does not present the kind of threat one might believe. Beijing is not seeking to promote its ideology as it ramps up economic clout and international reach. In truth, China is more occupied with its own financial, demographic and political challenges. The one-child policy proved too effective, with possible destabilising consequences meaning the country may grow old before it grows rich. In short, they may not have enough people. The emergence of a middle class pushes that process along, as educated women take charge of their reproduction. Then atop that are debt-ridden industries and clunky state-owned enterprises proving a drag on economic progress. What China has, in its favour, are unity and focus. It's not a 'silly people' as eloquently put here by Bill Maher. Blocking China's advance, as Biden proposed, is a blunt instrument from a Cold War mindset of military dominance. Looking ahead and returning to an old theme, the future will be far better if Beijing and Washington place cooperation above confrontation. As the tectonic plates of global strength shift, shouting at each other from the barricades won't help. 24/3/2021 1 Comment Teacup in a Storm "And while you could argue the government has overreacted, I'd opine their caution is correct" As news broke this morning of shut Covid-19 vaccination centres, a palpable fear gripped the city. The first whiff I got of something untoward was RTHK's 'Backchat' show; the presenter happily relaying reports sent to them on Facebook around 9 am.
He was keen to stress the reports as 'unconfirmed'. Yet did I detect a degree of relish in his tone? After all, such a tidbit is manna from heaven for a journalist. He repeated the breaking news at least twice, all without any verification or fact-checking. My Whatsapp soon filled with messages. These included a forwarded picture of a makeshift sign announcing BioNTech jabs' suspended. Next, I heard that Macau had stopped jabs with a public statement. By 9:30 am, the conspiracy nut-jobs had it that a cyberattack took out the Vaccine webpage and booking system. I soon confirmed this to be untrue by logging-on to the webpage without issue. Over the next hour, the conspiracies escalated. In various forms, the lunatic fringe claimed that the government messed up the BioNTech vaccine to force us all to opt for Sinovac. The claimed motivation is to prove Hongkong's patriotism. This gem ignored certain realities. For starters, why would the government give us a choice of vaccines and then opt to sabotage one? Plus, to date, two-third of jabs are Sinovac. Next, the government has enough on its plate organising and promoting vaccine use. Besides, China ordered millions of BioNtech doses, which destroys the patriotism argument. So all the conspiracy theories collapse as nonsensical naked fantasies. Also, I find it perverse that Covid-19 causes so much misery and hardship for medical professionals, yet many of them discredit the government's efforts. In some of their utterances, you can see the bias spilling forth. Some facts. The BioNTech vaccine comes in glass vials. Each vial contains five doses, although, by careful handling, it is possible to squeeze out six shots with a fine needle. While Hong Kong uses fine needles, it opts for five doses a vial to avoid any untoward issues. The vials have four features that prevent leakage and cross-contamination. Even if one seal fails, the others provide redundancy. The first seal is a plastic cap, the second a metal cap and finally a rubber membrane. Also, inert gas pressurises the vials to prevent the intrusion of contamination if a seal fails. That pressure will also show any leaks by causing the liquid vaccine to expel, leaving a stain. The government states that they've found 57 identifiable defects in 150,000 vials. That sounds well within production tolerance to me. It would appear that during transportation, unwrapping and preparation for use, a few vials sustained damage. And that damage prompted the issue we've seen today. And while you could argue the government has overreacted, I'd opine their caution is correct. You can imagine the outcry if they'd pressed-on without investigation. Also, unscrupulous types could exploit the damaged vials with leaks to the press. If my thinking is correct, with the harm caused by transportation, it's a straightforward matter. Physical checks with a 'Mark One Eyeball' should be enough before resuming the vaccination programme. Even so, I accept the detractors have a new drum to beat. Listen out for the beat because they must seize upon any morsel to justify their falsehoods. 21/3/2021 1 Comment Do as I say, not as I do! "Fancy ten years jail for being annoying?" It's said that an era of censorship, threats and state repression is upon us. The government is demanding the deletion of Internet content and seeking to censor the media. A leading magazine is facing threats of legal action and unlimited fines.
New laws are coming in that will curtail the right to protest including criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Fancy ten years jail for being annoying? At the same time, freedom of speech will falter under draconian 'hate speech' legislation. Even comments made in the privacy of a home may now be subject to legal sanction. It's a heady mix of Orwellian stuff. And to clarify, I'm not talking about Hong Kong. All this is happening in the UK. Undoubtedly, if Hong Kong attempted the same, we'd face threats of sanctions and an international outcry. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill ( Part 3 Para 54 of draft bill is relevant) has undergone a second reading in the UK Parliament. The bill is a hotchpotch of mundane matters, while hidden in there are ‘Trojan horses’. This legislation gives the Police the power to stop protests, even static single-person events that officers deem too loud or causing a nuisance. Moreover, Police can decide that a demonstration has too much 'impact' and then close it down. Even causing 'annoyance' is to become unlawful. Forgive me, but I thought the purpose of protests was 'impact' and 'annoyance'. Applying ‘impact’, ‘annoyance’ ‘noise’ and the ‘nuisance’ principle would shut down all Hong Kong protests. If that’s the international standard that we are to be measured against, I’m sure we’d do well. Even unwittingly attending an outlawed UK protest may now become a statutory offence with a possible jail sentence. Powers to stop people walking on the cracks in the pavement have yet to emerge. No doubt they'll get round to that. The new law proposes broad discretion for the Police. Likewise, the Home Secretary gets sweeping powers to ban demonstrations. What could go wrong? To date, the bill enjoyed an easy passage through parliament. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, made a token effort, but his weak party are too busy infighting. Theresa May, the former PM, had a bash by warning these proposals are a severe infringement of the right to protest. Things must be dire with your democracy when the only effective opposition is a former PM sitting on the back-benches. The recent events on Clapham Common may make the passage for the bill harder given the public disquiet at police actions. That Home Secretary Priti Patel sought to shut down the Clapham Common vigil by encouraging the Police to act is now evident. This revelation has opened another can of worms. Don't the Police operate independently of politicians? Then we have disingenuous criticism of the Police by Patel, who it now appears acted on her instructions. On March 11, Scotland voted in a controversial new law of 'stirring up hatred'. One commentator called this "the most contentious piece of legislation ever considered by the Scottish Parliament". This law got my attention because many people in the West like to poke fun at China's 'picking quarrels' charge. Fair enough, but Scotland now has its version. There are serious concerns that this new law will impact freedom of speech. For example, JK Rowling, of Harry Potter fame, could face up to seven years in prison for expressing her concerns about trans rights. Comedians telling "A Scotsman, an Englishman and an Irishman walked into a bar" jokes may face arrest. All it takes is for someone to decide this is 'hate' and report it. Lawyers, journalists, actors, authors, comedians, churches, secularists, civil liberties groups and feminists all objected to the new law. These groups warned that the 'stirring up' offence is vague and far-reaching. The Scottish Police Federation said the bill would result in officers "policing what people think or feel." Plus, don't forget that in 2018, Scotland successfully prosecuted a comedian for the moronic stunt of teaching his dog to give a Nazi salute. As Ricky Gervais noted at the time, "If you don't believe in a person's right to say things that you might find 'grossly offensive', then you don't believe in freedom of speech." The specific wording of the offence is:- 'behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting' — or communicates such material — if he or she 'intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or if a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group'. Codifying feelings and view-points, then ascribing some as hateful, is a slippery slope. Does the State feel it's qualified to regulate emotions? I can only assume that in Scotland, politicians are confident they can. Yet this law places a loaded gun at every debate, in comedy clubs and at the head of anyone who dares to speak out. And while proponents of the law claim they have good intentions, that's a profoundly naive statement. They've created a monster that will come back to haunt them. For the record, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides no right not to be offended. But, Article 19 states: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Indeed, the British Police have already demonstrated an inability to apply such laws with appropriate discretion. Harry Miller's case tells us that officers will over reach to appease special interest groups. In the process, they are willing to trample on freedoms. Then you have Merseyside Police backpedalling after this massive blunder. All this is atop a network of official informants that the UK established the 2015 Counter Terrorism and Security Act. It's compelling to note that the Scottish National Party-controlled parliament enacted this ‘hate speech’ law. This week the SNP, through the Crown Office, sought to censor The Spectator magazine with legal action threats. The magazine received instructions to remove details of the ongoing Sturgeon/Salmond saga. Much of this information is already in the public domain. David Davies, an MP, took advantage of parliamentary privilege to reveal the same facts. So why the haste to delete it from The Spectator magazine? How often do we have to listen to lecture from the Dominic Rabb and the rest about upholding ‘universal values’. Yet here we stand, with compelling evidence that Britain is stripping away people's freedoms while pointing the finger at us. Sorry, I forget this stuff is only authoritarian when enacted outside the 'free world’—my mistake. 18/3/2021 0 Comments Hello Kitty & Beer is the answer! "It's not five-star accommodation, neither is it Club Med. Yet, it's clean and well-provisioned" Our 'Dear Leader' has spoken. Carrie Lam made it clear that her formidable shoulders will carry the burden of implementing Hong Kong's political 'reforms'. Should we applaud her? At the back of my mind, her statement stirred something from my school days. Then it came back to me, Squealer's address from Animal Farm: "Comrades, I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility." For sure, Carrie Lam has a thankless task, made harder by her lack of empathy and self-awareness. As more families with young children faced quarantine in the Penny's Bay facility, Carrie's robotic side was on full display. It's not five-star accommodation, neither is it Club Med. Yet, it's clean and well-provisioned. Then stories emerged of breast-feeding mothers separated from their babies; while restrained in cots; toddlers faced days of purgatory. Last year we had this self-entitled lady over-egging it with concentration camp claims. She's now gone to ground. I'm told Hong Kong's Mumsnet went into hyperventilation mode. But, the hype soon became clear. As far as I can tell one mother faced separation, after she'd opted to place her child into hospital care, and then relented. She is now back with the kid. Less tolerable is the now admitted practice of physically restraining children. No matter how you cut it, this procedure is medieval with or without the parent's permission. Surely we can do better because flashing around the world is the message that Hong Kong ties up babies. Meanwhile, a clip is circulating of an expatriate family in Pennys Bay with the wife bemoaning the conditions. She has two kids. And, yes, she will struggle with two youngsters in such a room for weeks. Yet, these conditions are not unknown to most Hongkongers, who live in tiny spaces. Mrs Chan from a tenement in Sham Shui Po dreams of such luxury. Thus, sympathy from the majority? Forget it. In all this hullabaloo, a simmering anti-expatriate vibe emerged. That a Chinese couple kicked-off the complaints about child separation doesn't sit well with the narrative of whinging Expats. Then you have the chap in the clip below, full of praise of the facilities as he undergoes testing at North Lantau Hospital. Into this fray, steps 'caring' Carrie. In her public statements, she hits all the proper technical notes; follow the law, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and blah, blah, blah. In all this, she manages to display not an ounce of affinity or humanity. All it would take is, "As a mother, I understand these concerns. We will seek to make the children's stay as comfortable as possible." Instead, nothing except "We are compassionate" when her tone suggests otherwise. All the research tells us the importance of empathetic gestures and compassion in modern leadership. These traits go a long way to anchoring authentic leaders. Did Carrie get that memo? And then she went even further, claiming that the public is not cooperating over Covid vaccinations. I wonder why? Leadership models tell us that Carrie has five kinds of power she can exert to get people to take vaccines. Expert power: get the doctors to tell the people the facts. That approach falters because the 'experts' disagree as they jockey for the media spotlight and their 15-minutes of fame. A politicised medical profession doesn't help. Referent power: this all about being liked and respected. You can see the issue. Even within the pro-government camp, Carrie doesn't enjoy much affection. Coercive power: punish those who don't get vaccinated. This one doesn't look tenable given political sentiment. Forcing people plays into the loss of freedoms narrative. Legitimate power: if people feel Carrie is a legitimate leader, they'll respond and get vaccinated. Again, you can see the issue. Only 40 per cent of the population view Carrie Lam as legit. The rest reject her or don't care. Reward power: induce people to comply by rewarding them. I reckon the last option is Carrie's best bet. Also, I'm prepared to help with suggestions based on my extensive observations of society. A careful review of Hong Kong history points the way with helpful precedents. Every time McDonald's offered a free toy with a burger, the lines went around the block. Plus, back in the day before I became a potential vector for Mad Cow disease, I'd empty an arm full of blood at the Red Cross. A cold San Miguel followed as reward and rehydration. And contrary to Carrie's disingenuous claims, over a quarter of a million folks have cooperated in getting their first shot. There you go, Carrie. Give away Hello Kitty dolls to the younger crowd while free beer works for me. You know it makes sense. Cheers! 15/3/2021 0 Comments The Battle of the Bandstand "Home Secretary Priti Patel's craven criticisms disgraced her office" Scenes of male police officers dragging female protesters away from the Clapham Common bandstand in London brought forth a torrent of adverse comment. No matter how you cut it, the arrest of women at the vigil for the slain Sarah Everard is poor optics.
Emotions were bound to be unrestrained when you consider the victim's alleged murderer's profession, which I'm afraid cannot be ignored. With a serving police officer as the accused and coming on the back of ‘International Women's Week,’ the confluence of events couldn't be worse. Thus when Commissioner 'Cassandra' Dick stood up for her officers, she earned my respect. In the past, I was less than enamoured with Commissioner Dick; she appeared willing to sacrifice police neutrality for any passing trendy tenet. On this occasion, she's stood her ground against the onslaught. We've yet to hear from the commanding officer on the ground. Whether it was right and proper for the police to act is a judgement that awaits all accounts. Thus, wouldn't it be appropriate for commentators to wait until all the evidence is available? How many people have seen the clips of the peaceful protesters chasing the police? Nonetheless, the incident fascinates me because there are distinct parallels to events we've seen in Hong Kong when protesters put themselves above the law. So, please excuse me if I join in the debate. For starters, the police are in this position because politicians enacted laws that make such gatherings illegal. These same politicians are now rounding on the police. Home Secretary Priti Patel’s craven criticisms disgraced her office. No surprise there. Let's break this down. Either the police enforce the law or don't, and once they start to act on the law, and people refuse to comply, the outcomes are never good. That's my experience in over 36 years of policing. And yes, the police must exercise care, discretion and may decide in some instances not to act. Days before the vigil, the police told the organisers it would be an illegal gathering. At a hearing on Friday, the courts upheld this position. The judge did ask the organiser and police to liaise, although this did not happen for reasons that are not clear. The police also briefed ministers of their approach, so Patel can hardly claim ignorance. On Saturday, the event kicked off quietly. The Duchess of Cambridge attended without a media fanfare. She was mask-less, appeared to have no bodyguards and stayed long enough to be filmed. Take that, Meghan! Having examined the available videos of the incident, I can see a clear progression. Initially, the crowd looks dispersed, maintaining social-distancing around the bandstand. As night falls, several speakers start to address the group, and the people come in closer. At this stage, the police continue in a passive mode. That includes assisting with the placing of flowers on the bandstand, which has become a shrine. With the crowd pressing in, the police start asking people to move back. These police requests draw a hostile reaction from some in the group. A red-headed lady stirs up the crowd with chants, while a blonde female charged forward and collides with officers. Pushed back at least four times, she keeps coming on. Soon, scuffles kick-off. Officers retreat at one point, chased by an aggressive yelling mob. The police then start detaining people. The red-headed lady is then pinned to the floor by two male officers. That becomes the iconic image of the event. Underlying the events at the bandstand are strong feelings. In the UK, a woman dies at the hands of a man every three days. The vast majority of these terrible deaths occur behind closed doors in homes. Partners are responsible. Thus the outrage of women, specifically as this case involved a police officer as a suspect, is understandable. Less understandable is why similar protests don't arise for murdered men. Figures show that three-quarters of murder victims are men, and the homicide rate for men and boys is almost three times higher than that for women and girls. In the year to March 2020, the number of male victims rose by 20 per cent, from 422 to 506, while the number of female victims fell by 16 per cent, from 225 to 188. In 2019, 75% of suicides in the UK were male. Where are the vigils and the outrage? Meanwhile, today The Independent elects to lead a story with, "The vast majority of murderers in England and Wales are white men, official figures show." Well, given that white males make up most of the male population at 88%, that's pretty much a given. What about the other 33%? Which group do they belong to that only makes up 15% of the population? Don't go there. The Independent proves a point made here. The white working-class are the only underprivileged group that can face open revilement in British society. All the data points towards white working-class males as the largest disadvantaged minority in the UK. They suffer the worst educational outcomes, higher unemployment, high rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and lower life expectancy. Meanwhile, because the intersectional pyramid of victimhood ascribes them as 'white' and with 'masculine toxicity' they're ignored at best and vilified at worst. Getting back to Hong Kong, the authorities here stand accused of silencing protests with Covid restrictions. The same accusation is now levelled at the UK Police; 'Women's voices must be heard' is the mantra. Yet, in both instances, it's not true. There are plenty of forums to allow voices of protests and dissent. It's undeniable that people can make themselves heard without threatening public health and placing themselves above the law. Given the bile heaped on the UK police, will they be prepared to step up next time? The court of public opinion has found them guilty while the politicians seek to distract from their liabilities. How often have we seen that before? On a lighter note, this officer from Twat Valley Police responds. 13/3/2021 0 Comments A Flight From Facts "The Chinese people are patriotic to the middle of their very bones, and if they sense China is in danger, they'll rally to its defence as a matter of course" This past week you couldn't go far without hearing the sound of whining. A couple of multimillionaires kicked off the process; then it's vaccines, and latterly an assertive China causing panic in the West.
Harry and Meghan complaining about their treatment in the House of Windsor sucked up most media oxygen. With Covid still ravaging communities, we can do without this self-serving piffle. Then in an excellent rebuff, the Internet came alive with mocking memes. At times it was hard to keep up with all this hilarity. I suspect if Harry and Megan see even a tiny slice of this, they'll begin to see that the vast majority, beyond their Hollywood bubble, have no sympathy for their alleged plight. Needless to say, they'll come to regret the interview. If they sought to follow Diana's playbook, then did that include reading the final chapter? She came to regret her infamous 1995 interview with Martin Bashir. Despite all this fun, the highlight of my week remains Covid jab number one. Administered with Hong Kong's usual efficiency, the vaccination centre was a well-ordered process. I was in and out within 20 minutes, including the 15 minutes, to ensure I had no immediate adverse reaction. Meanwhile, the bookings for vaccinations are dropping off. A scare following the deaths of four older people who took the Sinovac jab is gathering pace. In this round, given that the over the 60s are receiving jabs, some will die in the natural course of events. But let's be clear; the correlation between the vaccine and the deaths is far from proven. For example, one 70-year-old lady died of heart failure a week after the jab. This simple fact has not stopped the media from hyping the story to suggest that the Sinovac vaccine is killing them. People with chronic illnesses must get medical advice before taking any vaccine. It appears this didn't happen. Plus, like everything else in Hong Kong, this has now become a political issue. With Sinovac coming from the Mainland, the detractors can't help themselves. The BioNTech vaccine is also available; if anyone dies after taking that, it will be interesting to see the reaction. Anyway, it will take us two years to jab the entire population at the current rate. The government needs to step up its efforts to counter the negative sentiments around vaccines. As more alternatives to Sinovac appear, things may change. Yet, any deaths from these variants may produce a similar boycott. Hong Kong people are a fickle lot. Meanwhile, we are all waiting to hear the details of the 'reforms' to our democratic system that Beijing will put in place. Teasing out the details is difficult because all the spokespeople are still in the 'four-legs good, two-legs better' phase of the spin exercise. The massaging of previous undertakings is in full swing. From what I can discern, it looks like a return to something akin to the British colonial system. In short, anybody wishing to stand for the election must agree not to challenge the central authority. That was very much the colonial era approach, with government committees meeting in secret to vet potential representatives. All this was avoidable. After 1997, Hong Kong's democratic systems did evolve and progress. Unfortunately, militant elements opted to hijack the process to challenge Beijing. This activity included making trips to the UK and Washington to garner support for foreign interventions. Members of the opposition encouraged sanctions and harm to the economy here to further their agenda. Naturally, Beijing grew alarmed, especially when protest escalated to widespread violence. Then on July 1, 2019, rioters smashed their way into our parliament and occupied the building. They then proceeded to trash the symbols of the state. With justification, Beijing became deeply suspicious of Hong Kong's pro-democracy camp. The response to these events exposed where power lies and the vassal status of our Chief Executive. Beijing has addressed the issue by insisting that only 'patriots' can now stand for elections. This option was entirely avoidable had the opposition politicians shown astuteness and agreed to the steady progress towards universal suffrage set out in 2014. Instead, they embarked on confrontation at that crucial fork in the road, choosing a battle they could not win. At the time, many of us warned of this outcome. But our voices faced scorn and accusations of kowtowing. It was nothing of the sort. Instead, our realistic position took account of the primary dichotomy within 'one country, two systems'; 'one country' dominates, and any challenge to the centre brings down the whole. While Western politicians are complaining about these changes, in reality, there is little they can do. Sanctions aren't working, a trade war failed, and military intervention is unthinkable. As Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan have shown, the West is incapable of 'feeling the stones' to comprehend the challenges posed by its interventions. Hubris, doctrine, and a failure to understand complexities all combine to blind them. It is against this backdrop that China is no longer prepared to bow to pressure from the West, which it perceives (right or wrong) as using issues such as 'human rights' as tools to suppress the nation's development. Failure to understand this is one reason why Western politicians are seldom able to produce a coherent China policy. All the talk is of 'containing, countering and confronting'. At each utterance, these 'defeat China' mantras strengthen the hand of Beijing. The Chinese people are patriotic to the middle of their very bones, and if they sense China is in danger, they'll rally to its defence as a matter of course. Atop that, Beijing is encouraged by its financial and commercial clout and the containment of Covid. This year they've predicted 6 per cent growth. Allied to that is long-term planning: China has a five-year plan, a ten-year plan, and plans extending out 50-years. Can anyone tell me what the five-year plan for the US or the EU is? These plans, allied to the unity of the nation, are China's greatest strengths. I don't deny that China is facing many challenges. It may soon suffer from many of the ailments that impact modern nations, including falling birth rates and an ageing population. Pollution and inequality remain dire issues that the government must address. It's clear that China sees the shambolic handling of Covid in the USA and elsewhere as an endorsement of their system. Anhui province, which has roughly the same population as the UK, achieved zero Covid in six weeks. Enforced lockdowns, accompanied by robust testing, achieved an outcome that Western nations couldn't muster. By these measures, Anhui avoided tens of thousand deaths, damage to the economy and untold hardships. Which begs the question, which system serves the greater good? And yes, Anhui's draconian actions trampled on freedoms while saving thousands of lives. In any case, the West should be careful what it wishes for. If China can achieve such commanding heights with an 'autocratic hybrid capitalist/socialist system', then unfettered capitalism would bring even more significant challenges for the West. As I've said before, only engagement will bring progress. That is the only tenable position, and anything else is a flight from fact.  "The Brits exploded 12 atomic bombs in friendly Australia" Until now, I never realised the full extent and impact of Britain's nuclear bomb tests in Australia. While the Yanks dropped two bombs on the enemy to end World War II, the Brits exploded 12 atomic bombs in friendly Australia. Maralinga in South Australia was the most extensive test site.
At first, the British had no plans to test in Australia. In 1946, when the Americans discovered that a British spy was working on the Manhattan project, they enacted the McMahon Act. This act excluded the British from working on secret military programs. Hence the Brits had to find new test sites as they went it alone. The quirky and disjointed Netflix show, 'Operation Buffalo', pulls back the curtain on this shabby chapter in Britain's history. The series is a highly fictionalised account of events at the Maralinga test site between 1956 and 1963, an area of land claimed to be empty. In truth, the site is Aboriginal land and occupied by the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara people. Further, not all these people had the opportunity to evacuate. A single warden was to ensure their safety, as they roamed as nomads in an area the size of England. Many didn't know about the tests, as evidence emerges that the dead found after the blasts had secret burials. Better documented are terrible tales of people, including children, blinded and poisoned by the tests. Caught in the fall-out zone, many suffered horrific lingering deaths. I must say that the Netflix series is a confused dramatisation of events. I can't decide whether it's a black-comedy, Cold War thriller or a mystic drama piece. At times the convoluted storyline is so unconvincing that you have to laugh. Nonetheless, it's entertaining and thought-provoking. I found it best to go with the flow, although the ending took me by surprise and disenchanted; the series offers no real closure. For the record, besides testing seven nuclear bombs at Maralinga, the Brits burnt large plutonium quantities to see what would happen, as you do. This open-air burning spread contamination far and wide. Much of that burnt plutonium will remain hazardous for about 24,000 years. By comparison, 24,000 years ago was the middle of the last ice age. The tests at Maralinga aimed to assess the functioning of the bombs and the impact on military personnel. For this purpose, both British and Australian soldiers lined up in the open, beyond the blast range, to observe the detonations. As a precaution, they turned their backs. Then, without protective gear, they were marched through the blast zone. As a consequence, 30% of the service personnel who attended the tests died of cancers. By comparison, in a normal population, about 5% of people die of cancer. The British and Australians kept all this secret until the 1970s when whistleblower Avon Hudson began talking. Subsequently, a Royal Commission revealed a litany of cover-ups, recklessness and wanton disregard for public safety. Attempts to clean up the site began in the 1960s. But these were far from successful. A more thorough cleaning began in 1995 lasting until 2000. That project cost $100 million, 75% of which Australia covered. Yet, even today, vast tracks of the test site remain off-limits to humans. Campaigners shamed the British into covering some of the medical costs of indigenous people poisoned by the tests. In 2017, the exhumation of a child's remains helped reawaken sentiments around the test's legacy. 'Operation Buffalo' takes in the political machinations of the day. In brief, Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies authorised the tests without consulting his parliament. Keen to curry favour with the British, he wrapped the operation in secrecy and, for obvious reasons, hid the broader impacts. Without giving too much away, 'Operation Buffalo' has wonderfully colourful characters. Topping the list is General 'Cranky' Crankford, an old-school warrior sitting out his 'grace and favour' posting pending retirement. Played with restrained strength by James Cromwell, Cranky is the good-conscience who does the right thing. He recognises the absurdness of the tests. At the same time, he connects with the Aboriginal people in a bizarre series of events. Meanwhile, there is plenty to enjoy in the cartoonish portrayals of vile politicians and the incompetent Australian secret service. If nothing else, 'Operation Buffalo' raises many questions. I came away disgusted at the indignity visited on the indigenous people by the men making clouds.  "And you thought 'The Crown' was exciting - that's fiction." A short blog today because the excitement is palpable. In case you've not noticed, Britain's longest-running soap opera is undergoing a fantastic reboot. The new writers are working overtime. We've not been so captivated since Randy Andy's run-in with the FBI. As that story-line recedes, to spice things up, Duchess Netflix escaped with her man to California.
Desperate to avoid the media's prying eyes, the Duchess and Harry have decided to remain low profile by broadcasting an audience with Queen Oprah of TV land. After all, the press destroyed their mental health. Rumours are the Duchess is about to spill the beans on the Windsors. Back in the UK, Team Windsor is not taking any of this lightly. They've released the attack dogs quicker than Prince Andrew can recollect a trip to Woking. Leaked allegations of bullying and other untoward behaviour have taken the wind out of Meghan's sails. Her attempts to control perceptions has run up against old school skullduggery. She'd do well to stay away from any tunnels or underpasses. And you thought 'The Crown' was exciting - that's fiction. This stuff is the real deal. Even Shakespeare would struggle to imagine such an imbroglio. An old honourable Queen struggles to hang on while a dotty heir frets about spires and talks to plants. Enter the wayward young prince, who never will be king, now led astray as a star-crossed lover; while lurking in the background is the ghost of the people's princess. Next up is a stepmother. She made the 'beast with two backs' in the heir's chamber to the lascivious pleasing of a lute. And then, brought asunder the people's princess. For a touch of pathos, the old Duke lays dying in hospital. We've got all elements of Macbeth, Hamlet, and Richard the Third intertwined here with a dash of King Lear. So, this weekend, Me-again and the tamed Duke will have their moment in the limelight. Will the lady protest too much as her lips wobble? Methinks yes. Meanwhile, Brenda and Chuck are priming the cannons with more dirt. Stay tuned. 27/2/2021 0 Comments The Centre Must Hold "In the 'Alice in Wonderland' world of Hong Kong politics, elected politicians used the oath as a tool. For most of 2019 and the first half of 2020, the Hong Kong Police engaged in a struggle to contain increasing violence by radical protesters and nascent terrorists. Carrie Lam, our Chief Executive, proved mostly supine except for the occasional condemnation of the rioters. Doubtless Beijing was watching with growing concern.
The radicals attacked anything associated with the Mainland. Restaurants, outlets and official offices all received 'redecoration' efforts. 'Redecoration' is the Orwellian term used by the radicals for fire-bombing and smashing up places. Not content with that, they set about destroying our infrastructure. MTR stations, traffic cameras, toll-booths, police buildings, and the seat of government all suffered under the onslaught. Also, rioters inflicted millions of dollars of damage on university campuses. The targets bore witness to the sectarian roots of the protests. Outsiders often don't comprehend that much of this mayhem arises from a perception that Hong Kong has lost its identity. Meanwhile, the foreign media continue to peddle the straightforward pro-democracy narrative. Paradoxically, by attacking symbols of the Mainland, the protesters brought forth the very thing they feared. Believing themselves virtuous, they're now compelled to retreat by forces they summoned up. Thus, having tugged the tail of the dragon, they can't hold on. The first tranche of Beijing's response came in the National Security Law (NSL). Hong Kong is obliged to enact such a law under Article 23 of the Basic Law, but for 23 years failed to do so. That's another story. The arrival of the NSL brought an almost immediate halt to violent protests. The radicals feared charges that carried severe penalties. Many fled. The second tranche is now coming into sight. 'Reforms' to electoral processes will see all politicians and civil servants required to follow their oath of office. Indeed, that's a given, you'd think. Undoubtedly, the purpose of taking an oath is to prove a willingness to follow its tenets. Yet, in the 'Alice in Wonderland' world of Hong Kong politics, elected politicians used the oath as a tool. They misquoted parts while acting out a perverse pantomime. In a calculated insult, Sixtus Baggio Leung changed his oath from "People's Republic of China" to "people's re-fucking of Chee-na”. Chee-na is an offensive term associated with the brutal Japanese occupation of China. It's the equal of using the 'N' word. Sixtus Baggio Leung (that's his real name) is now in the US seeking political asylum. Some opposition elements used their seats in the legislative council to advocate the overthrow of the Beijing government. That set alarm bells ringing. As the events of January 6 in Washington affirm, governments don't take kindly to treason. Both mobs — one that smashed up our legislative chamber and the other that stormed Washington's Capitol Hill, believed they had right on their side. Neither group did. There are also differences between the groups. The US hooligans acted without prompting from overseas. Whereas in Hong Kong's case, the evidence continues to mount that oversees agencies played a role. This is the worst kept secret on the planet. The bottom line is that Beijing wants politicians who don't advocate independence or seek to overthrow the CCP. It's as simple as that. Of course, the Western media, anxious to avoid showing any developments here in a positive light, continue to portray all this as the 'end of Hong Kong.' For us folks on the ground, that narrative elicits the yawn of 'we've heard it thousands of times before.' For the record, the oath of office for Hong Kong politicians is "I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity." You may wish to compare that to the oath taken in the US and the UK. I must say that the Pan Democrats and their fellow travellers took a wrong turn by thinking they could rely on foreign powers to pressure China. This approach ignores a fundamental misreading of history. After all, the CCP positioned itself as righting the 'humiliations' Western nations visited upon China. No Chinese leader, of whatever political persuasion, will overtly bow to foreign demands. Of course, times have changed. China is now a global power prepared to defend its interests. This assertiveness unsettles the West as it struggles to comprehend the changing world order. If you read the history of the Chinese dynasties and the CCP's methods, you will realise that their way of handling change is always gradual. Test, see results and then more change. By forcing them to thrust Hong Kong, in one step, to full democracy is naive. Beijing took a step forward in August 2013. The National People's Congress offered direct elections for the Chief Executive, albeit with candidates vetted by a committee. The Pan Democrats killed that process in 2014, setting us down a road that led to the current destination. Significantly, Beijing is not seeking to impose a replica of its system on us. This may come as a shock to some. Indeed, despite claims to the contrary, the courts remain independent. On top of that, the evidence doesn't support the often-cited cries of press censorship. Can you tell me which stories get suppressed? Because the Apple Daily and others continue their diatribe against officials? More details of the 'reforms' are to come. My guess is we are moving towards a Singapore model of democracy — imperfect to the purists and illiberal in some aspects, but a step forward. Let's see, as delayed elections are due in September this year. 20/2/2021 0 Comments Happy Anniversary Covid-19 "Do lockdowns cause more virulent and lethal strains of Covid-19 to emerge?" A couple of weeks back, we reached the anniversary of Covid-19. While we remember the victims, let's celebrate. Over the past 12 months, we've learnt a great deal with the advances made on vaccines, nothing short of remarkable. These innovations place us in a strong position when the next pandemic arrives. But there is much we have yet to understand.
For example, do lockdowns cause more virulent and lethal strains of Covid-19 to emerge? While this may appear an odd question, understanding how evolution works means further examination is needed. Undoubtedly lockdowns curb the spread of all variants you assert. That's not the case. It helps to consider human behaviour as a factor. Dr Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist from Massachusetts, believes the lethal strains enjoy a boon due to our actions. Let me try to explain. We know that the RNA in a virus undergoes constant random mutations. There is no plan at work here, only haphazard processes. What is essential to note is that specific mutations gain an advantage because the environment favours their spread. After all, the virus seeks to do one thing, move from host to host. Thus, virulent strains that kill the host quick are unlikely to move into the broader population because the transmission chain is cut. To illustrate the point, Ebola doesn't enjoy much contagion because it rapidly turns the victim's insides to a mush. The game is up before the virus can reach lots of people. During the 1918 flu outbreak, the initial virus was relatively weak and mild in symptoms. Thus soldiers who caught the flu remained on post in the trenches. This gentle form spread without any significant impact. Then came a second wave with a mutated virus that proved more severe in symptoms and was lethal for many. In particular, this strain hit people of fighting age hard. In response, the military removed the infected from the front-line through clearing stations and into hospitals at the rear. This process gave the virulent strain an advantage that allowed it to move into a much larger population. As the more virulent strain kept people immobile, unable to care for themselves, others attended them. Stretcher-bearers, orderlies, nurses and doctors all came into contact with the carriers. We thereby provided a route for transmission. With Covid-19, we've seen some correlation between places that implemented strict lockdowns and the emergence of potent variants. For instance, the United Kingdom. Whereas places like India and Hong Kong have had no virulent strains appear. Only the milder forms of Covid-19 dominated, even though both India and Hong Kong are crowded. The hypothesis is that by locking down a population, you keep people static in one place, and thus the mild variants cannot move around. In that sense, you achieve your aim. But, when a new, more potent strain emerges, you transport the sick to a hospital and into care. That movement provides the opportunity for the virulent strain to pass into the wider community. Our response gives the nasty mutation an advantage. It's important to stress that this is a theory. We need a study, using statistical models allied to the tracing of individual strains to verify the idea. Also, it is not that we dismiss the merits of lockdowns. Please don't lose sight of how we are dealing with a complex dynamic system of virus transmission. Lockdowns will keep a role, even if the theory proves correct. Still, we may adjust these to minimise the leg-up we give virulent strains and reduce community-wide deaths. The obvious conclusion is that there is much to learn and celebrate. 18/2/2021 0 Comments If the Kids are United ... "Given the historical context, the involvement of Hong Kong youth in demonstrations should be no surprise" As the dust settles, and order returns to our fair city after the violence of 2019/20, many ask what happened? Competing narratives spring forth seeking to answer that question, each shaped by perception and partisanship. Discerning an agreed truth is problematic. What is certain is that young people, in particular students, played a leading role in the protests.
Their involvement should be no surprise. Here, I'll frame that in a historical context. This article draws upon research undertaken by various Hong Kong parties, citing data whenever possible as this lends more substance to the conclusions. At the outset, I'll affirm it's impossible to tie together all the threads that played into Hong Kong's recent disorder. My earlier articles give some perspectives on other aspects and factors. For those interested, the following are relevant:Youth involvement in protest is nothing new. In truth, most social movements begin with young people questioning the established order. It's a quirk of human nature that youth always feel cynical about the older generation. No doubt this has an evolutionary advantage; it can produce meaningful innovation and progress. Yet, it is the young's fate to grow old and become the upcoming generation's target. Over and above that, if unrestrained, such youthful exuberance can lead to wanton disorder. In the modern era, the late 1960s saw growth in youth protest across Europe and the USA. The Vietnam War drove some of this, while a general disquiet at perceived unfairness in society also contributed. Academics identified distinct phases in these protests. First, idealism with marches and occupations, second radicalisation and militant actions. On occasions, this advanced onward to terrorist activity. But, in the end, most movements collapsed with infighting, disenchantment and due to state action. Examples of emergent terrorist activity include the 'Symbionese Liberation Army' in the US and 'Baader Meinhof' terrorist gang in Europe. These grew out of left-wing counter-culture groups. While in Northern Ireland, the Provisional IRA arose from a civil rights movement. In China, Mao seized upon youth exuberance to unleash the Red Guards in pursuit of his aims. He soon lost control as the movement degenerated into uncontrolled violence that needed an intervention by the PLA to restore order. Nearer to home, and on a lesser scale, Benny Tai surrendered control of the 2014 ‘Occupy Central’ protests, when he couldn't constrain the younger, more militant elements. In broad terms, ideology and identity issues drove many of these protest movements. In the 1960s Jack Weinberg, an American political activist, captured the zeitgeist when he asserted "We don't trust anyone over 30". In China, the Cultural Revolution pivoted on attacking the "Four Olds". Given the historical context, the involvement of Hong Kong youth in demonstrations should be no surprise. Examples include the anti-colonialism movement of the 1970s, the Tiananmen protests in 1989 and the latter-day pro-democracy events. All had a majority youth component. It's worth remembering that participants age, move on and fade from the scene. Who remembers Christine Chan? In 2008, she was the darling of the media. Commentator Stephen Vines hailed her as Hong Kong youth's authentic voice, just before she gave an incoherent speech at the Foreign Correspondents Club. Within two years she was gone and now barely merits a footnote in Hong Kong's protest history. Coming up to date, you can find the genesis of the 2019 protests in the events of 2014's 'Occupy Central with love and peace'. Professor Benny Tai's brainchild, 'Occupy' aimed to push forward the pace of democracy. The movement soon slipped through his fingers if he ever indeed had much control. Young activists forced Tai to start the 'occupation' by haranguing him after midnight on 28 September 2014. Within a matter of weeks, he retreated from the scene back to his safe office, leaving a ragtag collection of groups on the streets. Meanwhile, 'with peace and love' fell away. Violence at the Mongkok occupation site didn't bode well. Then fatigue, legal injunctions and police action saw the campaign fade away. By 3 December 2014, it was over, and the public regained the freedom to move around. This was far from the end of the matter. As most protesters skulked away, a few radicals morphed into the so-called 'localists'. Their intent was an independence agenda. This element made their presence felt by staging the so-called Fishball riot at Chinese New Year 2016. Under the pretence of protecting hawkers in Mongkok, they ambushed police officers and went on the rampage. Not anticipating violence at a time when people traditionally avoid confrontation, the Police proved off-guard. The government failed to see this coming, despite a comprehensive mechanism for monitoring public sentiment. That blindness is either willful or due to incompetence. Likewise, a failure to defuse building community disquiet over Hong Kong losing its identity meant trouble was again brewing. In early 2019, the extradition bill proved the catalyst that ignited mayhem. What started as peaceful protests were soon hijacked by the extremists intent on widening the scope of demonstrations. As the government dithered, the Police fought the radicals on the streets. By the time Carrie Lam acted to withdraw the extradition bill, it was too late. The momentum of the protests was self-sustaining, partly aided by overseas interests keen to see Beijing put in a tight spot. By late 2019, a new more pro-active Commissioner of Police, saw the Force take a firmer line putting the radicals on the back foot. Meanwhile, Beijing's attitude grew more distrustful of Hong Kong. Then in mid-2020, the NSL abruptly halted the violence. Meanwhile, the emergence of Covid 19 cooled the ardour for mass gatherings, something the government leveraged to advantage. In seeking to comprehend these events pundits put forward claims of angry, disengaged youth, facing stalled social mobility and an identity crisis. An examination of the data from surveys tells a more nuanced story, that is perplexing and counter-intuitive. Here I'll cite long-term and comprehensive studies by Professor Stephen Chiu, EdUHK. This work, allied to surveys by the Youth Research Centre of the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups, provides useful insights. The cohort of people surveyed range in ages from 16 to 34 years old. The key points to note are:
Surveys found no correlation between a sense of unhappiness and joining social movements and protests. Oddly, those who expressed 'hope' for Hong Kong are more likely to join protests. 76% don't trust the government. While, over 50% claimed the government fails to listen to their voices and is poor at communication. From this data, we can discern that young people have a strong connection to Hong Kong and want a voice in society's direction. That's as expected. The levels of distrust of government match other age groups. For the most part, none of this is surprising. On social mobility and the impact it may have, the findings are intriguing. Assessing social mobility is challenging. Defining people by economic terms alone does not take account of perceptions. The numbers alone indicate that social mobility patterns haven't changed in several decades. Nor has it stalled. The academics divide society using the following parameters:
Class I and II are the middle class. A 2016 study found reasonable social mobility levels from Class IV to Class III/II with 78% moving upwards from their parent's category. For the Class III cohort, about 41% moved up to Class II/I. It's a more mixed picture in Class II, but most hang onto their parents' status. For Class I, some 41.5 % keep their parent status, while about 28% drop to Class II, 25.5% move down to Class III and 5% hit Class IV. These are the squeezed middle class. Digging into the data, the cohort at Class I and II finds it harder to keep their relative advantage. Real wage stagnation and the fact that Hong Kong is now a mature capitalist economy, limits opportunities to advance further. Whether this factor motivated younger elements to join social movements is unclear. Considering individual success, a couple of factors have prominence. Having parents with a degree, and then acquiring a degree almost guarantees a young person a position in Class I/II. Plus, the advantage of a degree increases with age as the salary gap widens. Despite the often claimed sentiment that universities are failing or producing students with the wrong mix of skillsets, a degree still gives a profound advantage. The data is exact in this area. Even for students from Class IV, a degree offers rapid upward social mobility. These findings are at odds with the claims from young people that their chances in life are diminishing. The mantra is that the baby boomers - the BBs - have stolen opportunities from the millenniums. Having climbed to the top, the BBs pulled up the ladder. This assertion is untrue. After all, the BBs provided the millenniums with far greater access to education than earlier generations. In 1996, 16.9% of teenagers went to university in Hong Kong. By 2016, that figure reached 42.7%. The BB generation funded and facilitated that improvement. Much of this data points to several issues that are not unique to Hong Kong. Young people feel that social mobility has stalled when the surveys suggest otherwise. This perception may come shaped by the increasing wealth gap between the very rich and the majority. Because, indeed, wealth inequality has increased. In simple terms, when your neighbour is poor, and you are poor, then you don't perceive you've missed out. But, when you are poor and see affluence around you, your viewpoint shifts to one of 'this is unfair'. And in Hong Kong, massive wealth lives cheek by jowl with the majority. Could this be driving the sentiment that social mobility has stalled? In addition, identity issues are a factor. The data points towards a fear of losing the unique Hong Kong character and the attendant legacy. As Mainland integration takes hold, an apprehension grows that existing norms will falter. This sentiment has manifested itself in clinging to aspects of the colonial era. Examples include the Queen's Pier and Wedding Card Street sagas. These attachments, including colonial-era symbols, inevitably collide with Beijing's position to increase their concern that Hong Kong is seeking to break away. Politicians who rushed off to Washington consulting with anti-China forces fed that unease. These politicians invited Beijing to protect its interests via the NSL, prompting the very thing they feared most. If the government is to avoid future such conflagrations, it must listen sincerely. Paying lip-service to consultations isn't going to wash. Whether process-driven administrative officers are capable of adopting the right posture remains questionable. Likewise, it takes two to tango. So those individuals who only seek to berate and humiliate officials don't help. It is also striking that survey after survey concludes Hong Kong people support the 1C2S concept. Even those involved in the 2019 protests, including the young, exhibited a strong preference for retaining the system. Doubtless, threatening rebellion against the central authority is a road to ruin. The smarter upcoming politicians must position Hong Kong in that context while maintaining its unique features. If Beijing is confident that Hong Kong does not present a threat to the broader nation, then the 1C2S will survive beyond its cutoff date in 2049. Indeed, I believe that's an outcome we can all agree is desirable. Besides, in 2049, the youth protesting in 2019 will be approaching their late 40s. 13/2/2021 5 Comments The Merry House of Windsor "We're told that the monarchy is a figurehead: that facade is starting to crumble." For those Brits, who believe they live in a free and democratic country, a bit of uncomfortable reflection is in order. Why? Well, the Windsors are displaying an audacity rarely seen since William of Normandy declared that all land (in England) belonged to him.
I blow hot and cold on the merits of the Guardian newspaper. The fawning over victimhood, allied to a mindless affection for all aspects of woke culture is bloody tiresome. Then, when I'm about to banish them from my reading, up pops a superb piece of legitimate journalism. Likewise, I blow hot and cold on the House of Windsor. This week the Windsors are feeling the chill, while the Guardian is on fire. In a series of articles, the Guardian exposed how Brenda and her family, including the prince of piffle, Charles, manipulate the law to their advantage. Are the freedoms that Briton’s enjoys contingent on the Windsors acquiescing? Looks that way. The practice of 'Queen's consent' provides one unelected woman with the right to change draft laws. Moreover, the evidence is emerging that she used this privilege to protect her and the family from taxes and gained other exemptions. Examples include avoiding scrutiny of their investments and giving Charles the right to prevent long-term residents on his estate from buying their homes. He is the only landlord with such preferential treatment. Residents on Charles's land do not enjoy the rights given to other tenants under the Leasehold Reform Act. An exemption allowed Charles to avoid the laws applied to others so that he could keep an income stream. Earlier, in the 1970s, Brenda had changes made that allowed her to hide investments. Since then, the Panama papers revealed the vast sum of money she placed offshore to avoid UK tax. The 'Queen's consent' grants the monarch the right to vet incoming laws before it may go forward. In the past, this process came sold as a formality. We can now see that is not the case. Moreover, the documentation of these actions is lacking. Telephone calls and private conversations in corners suffice, as draft laws get amended to please the Windsors. Thus, when the lackeys in the royal household declare that the Queen never blocks a bill, they're on solid ground. The legitimate question must be 'is this a genuine democracy?’. Or are we witnessing the theatre of a parliament that votes on legislation agreed by the Windsors? Some commentators suggest that the UK remains a feudal fiefdom with a veneer of democracy, which overstates the case. Not all draft legislation goes to Brenda; only stuff that may impact her domain. Nonetheless, there's a whole world of vested interests out there, doing their best to keep this hidden. In the UK, many mock and revile other places for their secrecy. Are not the Windsors peas in the same pod? Charles's greed (aka the Duchy of Cornwall) and how he treats those he claims to help is distasteful. Cornwall is one of the most impoverished areas in western Europe. Yet he lords it over this area, as a future king, who seems so dim to be genuinely oblivious to this situation. Asserting, Charles is too dumb to notice grants him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that he is aware of the abyss between his wealth and those living on his land. It's known that Charles vetted at least 275 draft laws since 1970. These bills covered such subjects as fox hunting and inheritance. We don't know how many amendments he proposed because he's declined to say. But the most significant offence is against the supposed democracy and the rule of law. The idea that the Queen, and those close to her, have a mechanism to influence law-making is breathtaking. Worse, they seem to be trying to brush it off as nothing to see here. Move on. We're told that the monarchy is a figurehead, that doesn't engage in politics. That facade is starting to crumble. If Britons honestly claim themselves a free country, then this affront to democracy must go. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not desperate to see the monarchy abolished; they have some utility. And what do you replace them with, if indeed a replacement is necessary? God forbid a President Blair. On the other hand, support for the monarchy continues to wane amongst young people. Brenda, the adroit royal survivor, better take note because her ‘light-weight’ son is busy in the corner talking to the plants. After all, most people would prefer his son as the next king. A good start for the UK would be a written constitution that establishes the perimeters, check and balances, and power vested in the House of Windsor. Until then, they'll continue to fudge the issue and hold off on reform. 5/2/2021 1 Comment Stealing the Microphone "Did Facebook and Twitter overstep the mark by cutting off an elected official?" The civic-minded folk of the Wimborne Militia, Dorset, England are re-enactors who help keep alive English Civil War history. This merry band of about 50 receive a small stipend from the local council, and for this, they carry out several public functions.
Each year they escort the outgoing mayor to the town hall and welcome the successor. A vital role rewarded afterwards with pints of beer down the local pub. They also maintain a public garden, which is the home to medicinal and culinary plants. A couple of times a year — under normal circumstances — they'd gather to 'play' battles from the English civil war. This sort of quaint English eccentric behaviour is common the length and breadth of the country. Unfortunately, super-nerd Mark Zuckerberg wasn't having any of that. His algorithms first banned the group in December 2020 and then allowed them back. Following the January 6th assault on the US Capital, Facebook again ejected the Wimborne Militia as suspected right-wing paramilitary types. Only in recent days, following an appeal, and plenty of media coverage was the group reinstated. A misunderstanding you might say. Yet, something more sinister is going on here. Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and Apple now control the space for public discourse and our access to information. FATGA, as they've become known, are the de facto gatekeepers on speech, ideas and our freedoms. They decide who can talk and what prominence individual voices receive in the public Internet square. These private corporations are dominating communication like no other entity since the Catholic Church in the pre-Reformation era. And, as we all know, that went well. Do a quick audit of how many of FATGA products you use. My score is four. I'll guarantee that most of us score at least three. For the most part, the dominion exercised by the likes of Zuckerberg is unregulated. And, as the Parler case has shown, these companies will use their clout to protect their commercial interests against the competition. These corporations are now woven into the very fabric of our societies at multiple, intersecting points. For example, Amazon Web Services is the largest cloud computing platform globally, providing hosting for most news outlets, Netflix and Twitter, and the industrial giants General Electric and Unilever. In 2013, Amazon signed a $600m deal with the US government to host its various intelligence agencies' top-secret workloads, including the CIA and NSA. Please don't assume that Jeff Bezos made his money selling stuff to us; it goes much further than that. Alarm bells should be ringing that the Overlords of Silicon Valley can cut off a serving US president. Now, to be clear, I don't condone what Trump did in the final days of his presidency. As he scrambled to keep power in a deranged attempt to overturn the election, the man exhibited borderline insanity. Nevertheless, Trump's actions don't change a critical question. Did Facebook and Twitter overstep the mark by cutting off an elected official? Given the prevalence of cancel culture with corporations scrambling to appease specific agendas, this is all rather unsettling. Today, as I logged onto the Apple Store to make a purchase, up pops a message. I'm invited to educate myself about the 'black and brown' experience. When did Apple presume I needed such a lecture? This hectoring is all rather tedious and counter-productive. Besides, it's not gone unnoticed that Apple and Google initially failed to act when an App appeared that allowed violent protesters to track Hong Kong Police vehicles to ambush officers. Likewise, Twitter still hosts various nasties, including virulent anti-Semites, vaccine conspiracists and groups who glorify violence. If these companies only enforce policies against particular political leanings, what does that say about our freedoms? We should be asking what the correct response to the likes of Trump is? Do we feel comfortable allowing FATGA to call the shots? What if next time they decide you are the target for cancellation? But it also goes much deeper than that. I hope we all agree a set of protocols that keeps the criminals, terrorists and outright lunatics off the Internet is needed. Though deciding who can exercise that judgement of exclusion is the issue. Existing mechanisms are failing. After all, the courts are too slow, politicians too partisan and FATGA is getting it wrong. Zuckerberg repeatedly stated he does not favour censorship. But that's what he's doing, while his shotgun approach sweeps up innocent bystanders like the Wimborne Militia. I doubt the nerds imagined they'd be in this position nor do they welcome the role. Some people are excusing the actions of FATGA by asserting that anyone unhappy with censorship may opt to set up their own platforms. Parler sought to do that. In response, the Big Guys denied access to the Parler App. Amazon even went a step further by rendering Parler unusable on its platforms. In effect, FATGA closed the gates to the market square of public discussion. As these channels of communication close off, the nut-jobs get driven deeper into the recesses of the Internet. It is risky to assume they've gone away. They're adapting by acquiring encrypted networks and IP address switching. In effect, FATGA has prompted them to go covert, making law enforcement harder. For sure, the potency of unintended consequences is relentless. After the events in Washington, pundits loved to claim 'I could see this coming'. Well, if you censor angry, paranoid people on the Internet, guess what happens? Next time, we may not see it coming. Maybe we need an independent Internet ombudsman who can act with speed to remove or shutdown stuff deemed to have breached the rules. Of course, an appeal mechanism and final adjudication by the courts will be necessary. It won't be pretty, although I reckon it is better than the ongoing process leading down a slippery path. If we continue with the current approach, here is my prediction. Henceforth, all sides in any political debate will clamour for the other to be banished from the Internet, de-platformed and excommunicated. They'll conjure up claims of 'hate speech' and perceived threats, conflating past violence. The oligarchy of Internet kingpins may yet come to regret that they opened the floodgates by taking out a sitting United States President. The die is cast. 3/2/2021 1 Comment When the wind doesn't blow "You have to recognise that leaving behind the nasty fossil fuels has its consequences" On a cold night January 2021, as temperatures dropped across the UK, the national grid's controllers made frantic calls. With low-wind conditions, which usually go with a cold snap, Britain's much-trumpeted drive for green power hit reality. As the wind turbines slowed and fell silent, the gas and coal generators scrambled to fire up.
In the process, the owners of these generators were able to command a premium price. On a typical day, a unit megawatt-hour cost £40. That evening the top price reached £4,000. That prize went to the gas-powered West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire. You know, one of those places hated by the eco-warriors that sustain the heat for pensioners and the power for ventilators. Overnight, other gas and coal power stations increased their output thus averting a disaster. The UK has made commendable strides in tackling greenhouse gases. A couple of times in 2020, the entire country ran on wind power, albeit during low demand periods. Yet, a double whammy of cold weather and high demand is not unforeseeable. And that's the trouble with wind power. No matter how many turbines you build, when the wind stops blowing, no electricity. Thus, you have to recognise that leaving behind the nasty fossil fuels has its consequences. Plus, traditional power stations take decades to plan and construct. At least the national grid foresaw this situation, announcing as winter began that supplies would be tight. Moreover, they forecast the cost of power would inflate. Then they helpfully noted: "It does not signal that blackouts are imminent". Experts struck a different tone asserting "the UK is at much greater risk of blackouts". And already this winter the national grip issued three warnings as cold weather stretched capacity. For now, the system worked although the ability to respond to demand surges this winter will face a severe test. France is facing a similar dilemma. They plan a dramatic downsizing in their nuclear capacity, shifting to renewables like wind and solar. The planning for this involves building 6,500 new wind turbines adding to an existing 8,100 already in service. Here's the issue. France is already 90 per cent carbon-free in electricity production thanks to nuclear power. The trouble is nuclear power is verboten with the eco-warriors, and these plants must go. Instead, France will keep its fossil fuel stations on standby for when the wind drops. All this is costing £110 billion in the initial stages, to solve a problem France doesn't have while producing more CO2 emissions. None of this would be an issue if we could store electricity efficiently; the power created on the windy and sunny days held for when the demand arises. Pumping water uphill on the good days, then releasing it to run downhill and turn turbines on bad days is an option. Except that both the UK and France will need hundreds of hydroelectricity plants blighting upland areas with massive reservoirs. Also, the battery storage option looks someway off. It's easy to spot that something is out of kilter. Is incoherent policy-thinking exacerbated by activist agendas that see wind and solar as the only solutions? Trying to push back against these concepts is a struggle in a post-rational world. Practical issues, like those discussed above, appear to allude the Greta-cult. We may retort with: "How dare you!". You can monitor the real-time demand and production of the UK's electricity here, updated every five minutes. For a long-term stable electricity supply at an affordable price, we need a mix of nuclear and fossil fuels backing up renewables. I can only hope that rational adults work on this to ensure the lights and heat stay on. Unfortunately, it may take a blackout or two to cause the majority to sit up and take notice. 1/2/2021 0 Comments A Prison for Dolphins? "Ocean Park can't hide the fact they've taken captured wild-dolphins, and put them on display" Has Ocean Park had its day? Should we be throwing billions at a failing theme park when people are festering in tiny ramshackle apartments? Is the taxpayer funding a prison for dolphins masquerading as a conservation initiative?
Well, it looks like our officials see no problem with pouring more money into the place. The generosity is staggering. For starters, a one-off grant of HK1.67 billion, followed by HK1.1 billion over four years for conservation and education programmes. Then waving interest on a loan of HK5.4 billion and pushing back the repayment date until 2028. As a sop to public criticism, we get free entry to the park and then pay per ride or venue visited. How is that a concession? It's not. Ocean Park once enjoyed a commendable position in Hong Kong's collective memory. Opening in 1977, many of us enjoyed wonderful days of fun there. At one time, I held a season pass, as I'd take the kids almost monthly. Burned into our family folklore is the tale of a Japanese tourist projectile vomiting from the roller coaster. With each telling, the volume of spew increases, the splatter area growing to cover vast crowds of onlookers. Straddling Brick Hill, with Deep Water Bay on one side, and the South China Sea as the backdrop, the setting is breathtaking. A visit was a must for overseas visitors, especially riding the cable car to the Headland. Then as Mainland tourism to Hong Kong increased exponentially, Ocean Park lost its lustre with locals. Over-crowding, rude behaviour, stories of ill-disciplined queuing and cigarette smoke filling the air, all degraded its reputation. In many ways, Ocean Park proved a microcosm of the Hong Kong/Mainland culture-clash that shaped aspects of our politics in recent decades. Adding to that is a change in attitude toward animal conservation placing Ocean Park in a difficult spot. Is it a fairground or conservation-themed venue? The operators managed to conflate or fudge the two. Still, many people feel that having dolphins performing for our entertainment is no longer acceptable. Besides, Ocean Park's conservation efforts looked like tokenism. Despite a slick PR machine, they couldn't hide that they took captured wild dolphins and put them on display. In 2017, Ocean Park lost HK236.5 million, marking the third straight year in the red. The protests of 2019 didn't help matters. Then Covid hit. But, the cause of Ocean Park's underperformance is a bit more complicated than first appears. When Hong Kong Disneyland opened in 2005, many people wrote off Ocean Park as doomed. But the place prospered. Why? In 2003, Allan Zeman, Lan Kwai Fong's founder, came in to run the venture. Zeman immediately hired an experienced overseas theme park management team. They set about introducing a series of special events, such as the Halloween Fest to lure people to the park. And it worked. Ocean Park thrived under Zeman's management. Forbes even went as far to call Zeman the "Mouse Killer". Yet, there is a suggestion Zeman fell out of favour when he backed Henry Tang against rival candidate CY Leung in 2012 CE election. CY won, and Zeman moved on from Ocean Park in 2014. Some believe the new and less able management led to a steady decline, made worse by recent events. Either way, year after year, Ocean Park lost money. So here we are today, with the government proposing to spend billions on Ocean Park. With other voices demanding we cut our losses and put Ocean Park out of its misery, you can see that sentiment is hardening. Yet, a closure could see 2000 plus staff out of work, besides hitting the many support companies that supply the park. Weighing all this up, for now, I see no alternative. We have to keep the place going, although the management team must account for future performance or face the chop. Moving towards a water-themed amusement park seems a better idea than seeing animals forced to live in small enclosures. After all, having humans reside in pokey flats is terrible enough; let's treat the animals better. 27/1/2021 3 Comments Is the grass really greener? "Never forget this is the land of Shakespeare, Harry Potter, the Beatles, Nora Batty and Wordsworth." Britain is responding to events here by offering a route to citizenship for Hong Kong people. Applications start next week. In the process the UK has gone some way to correcting its shabby act of removing 'right of abode' from Hongkongers in 1981. That timing looked sinister, coming just before starting negotiations on the handover. Also, I'd argue the Brits threw away a significant bargaining chip by changing the law.
Yet, in truth, the BNO scheme is not much different from the UK's general 'citizenship' pathway except the process's prominence in the media. Beijing has reacted with anger, asserting that the UK promised not to offer 'right of abode' as part of the handover arrangements. Indeed, we know the UK unsuccessfully lobbied Portugal to withhold 'right of abode' for Macau citizens to avoid setting a precedent. With Macau citizens getting de facto access to Britain through their EU passports, the Brits looked mean-hearted. That’s something British ministers don't like discussing. Depending on who is speaking, hundreds of thousands will 'flee' or very few. The UK Home Office claims it is planning on a likely figure of 123,000 to 153,000 migrants in the first year. Then, up to 322,400 over five years. Keep in mind that 153,000 is equal to the population of Cardiff. One million would be equivalent to a city the size of Birmingham. Nowhere do we hear about the infrastructure to accommodate these people, the housing, the transport systems, or hospitals. That's no surprise. With an economy in free fall from Covid-19, and public borrowing at a record £1 billion a day, the UK doesn't have the money. There is a school of thought that the whole scheme is a bluff to bring pressure to bear on Beijing. It's claimed that in private, UK ministers prey that few take up the offer. Why? Well, they recognise the UK is ill-prepared for an influx of people, especially in a post-Covid and post-Brexit landscape. The UK politicians are selling these proposals to the indigenous population by citing a possible boost to the economy. That comes in the form of extra tax revenue of between £2.4 billion and £2.9 billion over five years. That's about three days of the UK's national debt. Let us run through some other numbers: a family of four will pay around HK$10,000- to make the visa application (£250 per head). Besides, the immigration health surcharge for the family would be HK$124,000-HK for five years. Applicants pay upfront with the visa application. On top of that, they'll need to prove they have accommodation and enough cash to support themselves for six months. Depending on where the migrants live that could be between HK$100,000-HK to HK$200,000. In addition, they will need to reside in the UK for five years before applying for citizenship. During this period, they cannot leave the country for a period not exceeding 180 days. The conditions stipulate no social security payments, which means finding a job or burn-up savings. All in all, the scheme has drawn a mixed response in Hong Kong. Some ask if the UK is so concerned about people's freedoms and welfare, why it doesn't grant immediate citizenship? Fair question. Others ask is Hong Kong so terrible that a move is necessary? Exactly what freedoms are people seeking in the UK beyond a vote for a politician who will then ignore their wishes? Again, fair question. One lady commented to me, noting the five-year rule: "That's a significant chunk of my life, including five UK winters. I'd prefer Vancouver for a winter". And there is the rub. Canada and Australia remain the favoured destinations for Hong Kong migrants. It's my gut feeling that the UK's offer will tempt unattached young people. For starters, it's much easier for them to move without the complications of uprooting a family or leaving granny behind. Also, faced with increased competition from mainland graduates, some may fare better in the UK. Of course, there are pros and cons to the UK. What struck me speaking to a few people here, is their belief a land of 'milk and honey' awaits. For them, Hugh Grant runs the corner book-shop, while Benedict Cumberbatch is rushing about detecting crime. These folks need a reality check. Comparing Hong Kong with the UK is problematic. I do not weigh up two similar places, they are very different, and any opinions come shaped by individual tastes. For example, some folks may welcome a slower pace of life and others dread it. The question is not, which is best, but rather which place meets my needs. Moreover, London is not the UK, no more than 'Love Actually' is an accurate account of modern life in the capital. Likewise, Hong Kong people need to understand that the UK is four separate entities, each with distinct identities. In recent years these distinctions have grown more acute, especially amongst the Scots. Even within the four nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the populations are far from homogenous. There is a north/south divide in England. Then you have the old rivalry between Lancashire and God's chosen people from Yorkshire. Moreover, opinion polls suggest Scotland is slipping away from the UK. Migrants may find themselves in a country that's about to fracture. I won't venture to mention Northern Ireland; that's another story. I suppose that most Hong Kong Chinese will end up in the south-east of England, near London. This area has most of the work and a sizable existing Chinese community. Unfortunately, it also has the highest property prices. Migration continues to be the main driver of the UK's population growth since the 1990s. That growth is slowing down. London's population may fall in 2021, with Covid-19 cited as a factor. Let's break this down and seek to provide some insights. Likely Reception The Chinese enjoy a reputation with the British public for hard work, dynamism and energy. Indeed on the surface, the Chinese don't attract the hostility that other minorities can face. A YouGov poll found that 64% of Brits, who know of the visa scheme, approve. The caveat here is 'who know of the scheme' because 44% of Brits feel the level of immigration is too high, while 33% says it's about right. Britain prides itself on its 'multi-cultural' society with even small towns having a fair cross-section of races. Yet, most Brits can't make the distinction between the Hong Kong Chinese and a Mainlander. They'd also struggle to tell Koreans, Japanese and Chinese apart. Whether a sudden influx of Hong Kong Chinese will change attitudes is unknown. If locals perceive they are losing jobs, housing and access to public services, then the mood could flip. None of that alters the fact that the majority of the British are decent, welcoming people. Weather The British weather is such a feature of life that it forms the basis of most conversations. "A bit chilly today" can be a greeting as well as a comment on the air temperature. Migrants who wish to integrate would do well to learn the rules of weather-speak. The UK weather is less than stellar. Sorry, that's an understatement — the UK weather is shite. Long winters, damp, cold and marked by grey overcast skies. It rains a lot. During the winters the hours of daylight are short, with darkness arriving around 4 pm. Don't expect to see the sun until around 9 am if it deems to put in an appearance. The summers are nothing remarkable compared to Hong Kong. There are moments of absolute bliss. Nothing beats sitting outside, late on a summer evening with a pint. Jobs Covid-19 put large sections of the population on furlough, and the UK's unemployment is rising. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development assesses that the UK will suffer the worst impacts because it failed to get on top of the outbreak. The aftermath of Brexit continues to create uncertainty. Regardless, Britain needs skilled professionals with doctors and medical workers in demand. On a more positive note, the UK takes an enlightened attitude towards 'work/life' balance, with strict adherence to working hours. Likewise, workers enjoy better protection than seen in Hong Kong. But don't expect 13 months pay. Tax Be ready to pay much more tax, including 20% VAT on most purchases and services. UK income tax runs from 20% to 45% for high earners. Compare that to Hong Kong's flat 17% salary tax and no VAT. Cost of Living and Housing The cost of food from UK supermarkets is cheaper. With genuine competition — unlike in Hong Kong — prices are lower, and the range of items is broader. Most towns have a Chinese supermarket. For Hongkongers transitioning from tiny flats, they'll get more space for the money. Nonetheless, any property within commutable distance of London is expensive. As you move away from London prices drop off. In the south-east, the average house price is £258,640. To get a mortgage, a buyer needs a deposit of £38,796 and an annual salary of £48,854. In the north-east, those numbers drop off to a deposit of £16,542 and salary of £20,831. But, if the migrant has a Hong Kong flat to sell, they should cover these costs with cash to spare. By comparison, a single bedroom flat in London's inner zones will cost at least £2,000- per month. Further out, in Dagenham or Southhall, a three-bedroom house is around £1,300 per month. Public Transport Compared to Hong Kong, the UK's public transport system is expensive and less efficient. New arrivals to Britain, especially from the Far East, take surprise at the lamentable state of the nation's infrastructure. Crowded airports, with second-rate facilities, don't stand up to Singapore, Shanghai or South Korea. According to a 2019 survey, three of the world's worst airports are in the UK. Public transport is patchy outside the cities. Within major urban centres, such as London and Manchester, modern transport systems work well. Further afield things start to deteriorate. In rural areas, you'll need a car. Cabs are expensive. Safety and Crime The UK's crime rate is much higher than Hong Kong's. In 2018 the London crime rate per 100,000 population was 9,804, for Hong Kong 724. The Metropolitan Police recorded 149 homicides in 2019, 90 in stabbing attacks. Hong Kong had 24 murders. Even accounting for population differences, London's murder rate is far higher and on a ten-year upward trend. Also, British policing is in crisis. Detection rates are at low levels of under 10%, and only 7% of all crimes lead to a suspect charged. That figure plummets to 1.4% for rapes. Hong Kong's detection rates hover around 45%. If you are the victim of a crime in Hong Kong, a call to '999' will get a response. In the UK, that is not always the case. In 2017, UK police took over one hour to respond to one million' priority cases'. Even burglary cases go unattended, while knife crime and drink-related late-night violence are common. So, Hongkongers moving to the UK need to develop a greater awareness of personal safety. For example, your kids won't have the option to travel unaccompanied on public transport at night. Education The standard of schooling in the UK varies a great deal. Some of the local government-funded schools are superb, and others are failing. Parents will often buy a house in the right 'post-code' to get a child into a decent school. The private schools - yes called 'Public Schools' which is confusing — are expensive. Of course, the UK education system is less rigid and results orientated than in Hong Kong. Some kids will enjoy this regime. Services The NHS provides world-class care, although waiting times for treatment can be lengthy. This situation is not dissimilar to the public hospitals in Hong Kong. But you can't beat the NHS for critical care. Private health care is available for those who can afford it. In Hong Kong, if you need a plumber or an electrician, it is a straightforward matter, and they'll be there that day, if not within an hour. Not in the UK. Getting anything done, such as building work or simple repairs, takes time and expense. That's why DIY is popular. Other Factors The UK is proud of its cultural heritage with a strong preservation ethos and a thriving arts scene. Also, there is the splendid countryside, although the weather is a factor when venturing out. Did I mention the rain? Never forget this is the land of Shakespeare, Harry Potter, the Beatles, Nora Batty and Wordsworth. A rich seam of traditions runs through the place. Migrants must take account of the fact that the UK is in a state of flux. Brexit has opened deep wounds in society, causing polarisation and some social unrest. The very existence of a 'united kingdom' is a moot point. Summary All these machinations take me back. Pre-1997 I saw first-hand people going through the same process as families deliberated migrating. Some elected to go and others to stay. Either way, it was no easy decision. Over time, a few regretted going and came back. Others settled to make a new life overseas with mixed degrees of success. In any case, the movement of people in and out of Hong Kong is nothing new. To be sure, opting to go or stay is a personal choice. Many migrants cite 'freedom' as the reason for choosing the UK, with a tendency of adopting an oversimplified viewpoint. After all, there are many dimensions to freedom, such as the ability to walk the streets safe, day or night. This survey provides some pointers. Will securing work in post-Brexit and Covid-19 ravaged Britain prove a daunting challenge? After all, the economy runs on confidence, which is fragile in the UK at the moment. With China's economy growing, plus the Greater Bay Area's ambitious plan, is staying put a better option? Those of us who marvelled as Shenzhen grew from nothing to a mega-city in 40 years know that China delivers. Having said that, certain categories of professionals will experience few difficulties in securing work. How China decides to handle the BNO issue will have a significant impact on people's thinking. If Beijing brings in punitive measures against BNO holders, those who opt for UK citizenship may lose the 'right of abode' in Hong Kong. For some that has a psychological, as well as a practical wallop. So, as the saying goes, 'it's swings and roundabouts' at the end of the day. The choice offers advantages and disadvantages depending on perceptions. Take your pick. I suppose the smart folks will seek to leverage the best of both worlds while sitting out the 'politics' that swirls around us. 26/1/2021 1 Comment The Flowering of Scotland "Voltaire asserted: "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." Obviously, he'd never seen Sauchiehall Street on a Saturday night, but the point is well made." "We don't take foreign money": That's the response a Scots relative received when he presented a Royal Bank of Scotland £20 note at a Bridlington fish & chip shop. He replied with profanity and something about 'Remember Bannockburn'. Such episodes do nothing to foster the 'Union'. For the record, Scottish notes are legal tender in England.
As if Brexit and Covid-19 wasn't enough, the United Kingdom is facing the prospect of a breakup. If Nichola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, has her way, the path to Scottish independence is heaving into view this May. With Scottish parliamentary elections due, Sturgeon has said her party will hold an independence vote if it wins. And the polls show the majority of Scots want independence. By setting out her 11-point roadmap, Sturgeon seeks to bypass Boris Johnson's veto on the issue. Until now, the serial adulterer Johnson failed to win over Sturgeon. And henceforth, saying 'no' to Scotland isn't going to work. Further, Johnson's blundering over Covid-19 has awarded Sturgeon a victory. She came across as a leader with vim, control and vision. In stark contrast, Johnson flip-flopped and proved incoherent at times. No matter that Scotland faired no better than England on deaths and Covid-19 cases, because wee Nichola looked superior. Many Tories are starting to believe that Sturgeon is the real opposition rather than the unfortunate Labour party. Last week, the Spectator magazine ran an article that Sturgeon is the biggest threat to Johnson's premiership. Things must be bad when she enjoys better poll ratings with English voters than Johnson. Plus, we know that Johnson tends to ignore issues until the last minute. Thus sticking to a blocking approach amounts to drifting towards a constitutional crisis. And, as if the prospect of Scotland heading off isn't worrying enough, Northern Ireland is watching with interest. They may yet take a cue from Scotland. While Johnson managed to bluff his way through Brexit and Covid-19, his career is over unless he acts to safeguard the Union. The man who idolises Churchill may yet go down in history as a latter-day Chamberlain. Outflanked and outclassed by a savvy opponent. Let's not forget that Scotland produced the most astonishing array of philosophers, engineers and mathematicians. Voltaire asserted: "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." Obviously, he'd never seen Sauchiehall Street on a Saturday night, but the point is well made. Scotland gave birth to many ideas and innovations that transformed Britain and spread out into the world through the Enlightenment. That this all spilt forth from a population of just over a million in the 1700s is remarkable. In truth, much of this was possible because of the Union, which conferred stability and synergy (hate that word, but it fits the bill). As Boris appears incapable of forming a vision for the Union's future, and the SNP is in the ascendancy, is the die cast? What shape the independence will take is now the question. Meanwhile, not all Scots welcome independence. Here is one delivering his opposition with some levity. 24/1/2021 0 Comments Silver Lining "We need to balance the risks of Covid-19 against a multitude of other consequences caused by our response." Here we go again. A couple of city blocks in Kowloon are now in temporary lock-down as another spike in Covid-19 takes hold. Residents are undergoing testing to stem this new cluster. Crowded tenements, with sub-divided flats, is the ideal breeding ground for the virus. I'm surprised we've not seen more such clumps of cases. As the graph below shows, we've had ups and downs throughout the year. Unless I'm missing something, reviewing the data makes it challenging to correlate the surges and drops in cases to specific measures. Yes, I agree wearing masks helps, and social distancing must have an impact. Likewise, track and trace allied to quarantining carriers, cuts transmission rates. Whether the on/off dining restrictions, the closure of gyms and schools proved useful is debatable.  Yet, at times it feels like we are returning to the beginning. Interpreting all the data is a nightmare because the variables are so many, while the media doesn't help.
They'll seize upon something sensational to get a headline without explaining the proper context. For example, is the UK variant of Covid-19 really that much deadlier? The data is far from comprehensive, and the experts talk about a 'realistic possibility' that infection with the UK variant is associated with an increased risk of death. The term 'realistic possibility' has a specific meaning: they are between 40 to 50 % sure of their findings. In other words, we need more data to be certain. That nuance is lost on the media. However, there are certain things we can say. Covid tends to kill older folks, especially those with secondary conditions. This factor is significant and let me illustrate why comparisons with previous pandemics are not always helpful. When the Hong Kong flu struck the UK in 1968, the average life expectancy was about 72 years. Today it's 81 years. You can immediately see that improvement creates a larger cohort of old folks to protect. Moreover, the average age of those dying with Covid in the UK is 82. In Hong Kong, the data shows similar patterns. HKU determines that the overall severity of Covid on the over 70s is nine times greater with a fatality rate of 14%. For the under-50s the fatality rate is 0.1%. It's worth remembering that advances in medical care are keeping many critical patients alive. Again, in the past, these people would have died. That's why comparing today with 1918-20 or 1968 is not always helpful. Besides, the 1918-20 flu pandemic was unique, in that a disproportionate number of its victims were ages 15 and 44. Likewise, saying one nation is doing better than another must factor in the population's general health. For example, in the US, obesity is pushing up death rates. The pandemic will likely be with us for the remainder of 2021. Our politicians need to be upfront about that. The harsh truth is we need to balance the risks of Covid-19 against a multitude of other consequences caused by our response. While the economic impact is to the fore, the population's mental and physical health needs attending. Preventing people from exercising, socialising and confining them to small homes must be weighed up. Let's face it; everyone is already tired of flip-flopping messages from our leaders. I have to say that the notion of zero Covid -19 cases is nonsense. With its strict lock-downs and a robust medical surveillance system, even China has seen outbreaks return. We need to discuss the level of risk that society is prepared to accept—that conversation isn't happening. The political leadership must acknowledge these realities to stop painting a rosy picture to shore up their short-term popularity. On a more positive note, science is coming to our rescue. Covid-19 may prove the event that spurred the next revolution in vaccines, with profound positive consequences for humankind. Sorry, I can't help myself but have a dig at the lunatic fringe, who value opinions over objective truths and facts. Their subjective ways and homoeopathic horse-shit won't save us. What will come to the rescue are the scientists. At the forefront are the mRNA vaccines, doggedly enhanced this year these may yet prove capable of fighting all harmful viruses. Once genetic engineers sequence a virus, they can tweak mRNA vaccines to fire up the human immune system. Advances mean sequencing now takes days rather than months. We may soon have an all-purpose vaccine ready for deployment against hepatitis and even the common cold. Of course, the anti-vaccinationists can stay away. Instead, they can take advice from Karen on Facebook, a shaman, or some voodoo doctor. If and when a more deadly virus arrives, let nature take its course, and they'll be gone. That's the wonder of Darwinism. My belief is that science will get us through Covid-19. But what will the post-Covid-19 world look like? No doubt some of our habits will evolve. People will continue to wear masks, especially on public transport and in other crowded locations. Awareness of fitness and general wellbeing will grow as people take up long-term healthy habits. Smokers must be ready to face even greater disapproval. There is also a debate around the virtues of dispersed working and the need for offices. Given the economic merits conferred by cities and direct human collaboration, I'm suggesting not much will change as attending a workplace confers advantages. It will take more than Covid-19 to reverse the trend of urbanisation. Sociologist and economists observed that the 1918-20 flu pandemic drove an upsurge in human creativity that swept through the 1920s. Massive building projects, technology innovations and the arts all received a boost. At this moment, someone is sitting in isolation, writing a groundbreaking thesis, a breathtaking film script or redefining music with a novel creation. Eventually, this stuff will emerge. We may yet see that Covid-19 herald another evolution of human advancement. 21/1/2021 1 Comment Perfidious Albion Are threats and intimidation against legal counsel the norm for British ministers? Is the UK seeking to disrupt and discredit Hong Kong's independent judicial system? It certainly looks like it. How else do you explain the actions of the UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab and others, who mounted a disgraceful and unwarranted attack on Barrister David Perry QC? Perry was to prosecute several people here under colonial-era laws. Following the cab-rank system operated by the UK and Hong Kong Bar, Perry agreed to undertake the job. This process aims at ensuring judicial independence. However, he was immediately threatened and vilified by misinformed people, who sought to conflate this assignment with the national security law. Raab then jumps in to accuse Perry of being a 'mercenary' in a scandalous twisting of the facts. Are threats and intimidation against legal counsel the norm for British ministers? It is no wonder that a recent survey by a Washington-based group found the UK's freedom levels substantially lower than Hong Kong's, despite our democratic deficit. Measuring human freedom across multiple dimensions, Hong Kong came third, while the UK dropped seven places to seventeenth place. Ouch! The nine defendants, including the high-profile Jimmy Lai and Martin Lee, will appear in District Court on February 16. They stand charged with organising an unauthorised assembly and participating in the said unauthorised assembly. The charges stem from the Public Order Ordinance; a colonial-era law left behind by the British. Following Raab's line of thinking, it's acceptable for the colonial Brits to charge people with this offence, but not the post-1997 SAR government. Perry has previously acted in Hong Kong to prosecute former Chief Executive Donald Tsang and milkshake murderer, Nancy Kissel. Many in our legal fraternity expressed shock at Raab's ill-informed intervention. They see it as imperative for the Hong Kong judiciary's future to have both overseas judges and practitioners, admitted for both the prosecution and the defence. (See the letter below to The Times). Thus, if the UK is seeking to shore up Hong Kong's judiciary's independence to ward off Beijing's influence, then it's pulling in the wrong direction. This latest episode appears to be part of a concerted campaign. Last summer, overseas judges in Hong Kong faced pressure to step aside to appease the UK's naysayers. In response, Beverley McLachlin, the former Chief Justice of Canada, who'd served in Hong Kong, responded with "it's a wonderful court". Anyway, a new prosecutor is appointed. So the case will go ahead against the defendants, who will enjoy all the rights conferred through a common law legal system. Fiat justitia!  15/1/2021 1 Comment Trump - a leader? "We should not confuse a desire to seek and hold power as competence to lead." Trump is entering his final days in the White House. Who'd believe that a serving US president would stand accused of inciting insurrection and terrorism? Well, except, of course, in other countries. You've got to give Trump his due; the man is a bold innovator for trying out US foreign policy on home soil. An exciting concept, which left five dead in one day.
Despite throwing his followers under the bus by decrying their actions, many remain loyal. A new poll found two-thirds of Republicans approve of his behaviour, with 43 per cent 'strongly' agreeing. Meanwhile, the FBI is warning of more violence. In response, Washington is now home to more US troops than war-torn Afghanistan. In 2019, the PLA deployed on the streets of Hong Kong. That was to clear up debris after a typhoon. With jaw-dropping audacity, the opposition decried this deployment as the 'end of Hong Kong'. Moreover, despite months of rioting, bombs and mayhem, the Hong Kong Police regained order without killing a single person. As veteran US diplomat Chas Freeman acknowledged "Our police are apparently not as well-trained and gentle as those that the British left behind in Hong Kong." Indeed. But I digress. Over the past four years, Trump's leadership style provided a great deal of fodder to chew on. He exhibits many of the attributes recognised in successful leaders from history. Applying the traits model of leadership qualities, we can see that Trump ticks many of the boxes. He's confident, outgoing, dominant, ambitious, bold, controlling, dauntless, engaging and able to communicate messages easily. All these features are well-recognised leadership strengths if moderated and applied with finesse. The paradox is that these traits are also potential weaknesses. When allied to a brash, selfish and boastful nature, such characteristics can run out of control. And it is the area of weaknesses that Trump also excels. He is impulsive, acts on his emotions, has a weak grasp of complex issues, indulges in hubris that goes off the scale, while he focuses on short-term gains. For most of the time, he appears to operate as a 'transactional' leader. By way of explanation, 'transactional' leaders give something as a reward for work or outcomes. Those rewards come through jobs, favours, praise or money. This approach can work, although it has limitations. We know from research that 'transactional' leadership is weaker than the 'transformational' approach. It can also lead to subordinates who are loyal but incompetent. 'Transactional' leadership needs constant reinforcement to maintain results. In short, keep giving the sweets, or your people wander off. With 'transformational' leadership, people buy into your brand and ideas, and you sustain loyalty by a sense of purpose. While Trump may enjoy some 'transformational' support from his core family team, his broader circle needs the 'sweets'. 'Transactional' leaders tend to buy loyalty. Conversely, the 'transformational' leader aims to build a personal commitment from their team. I'd argue that the high-turnover of White House staff is indicative of a failing 'transactional' approach. This state of affairs creates extreme risks for a leader, especially one who is not prepared to listen to advice. When complex issues arise, leaders need a team able to weigh the implications of actions. The opportunity to speak in candid terms is crucial. We've seen from Trump's public statements and the insights given by various insiders that he adopts a black and white world view. This lack of nuance led to his failed efforts to engage North Korea. Along the way, Trump accorded Kim Jong-un gravitas as his equal, although the 'Little Rocket-man' out-flanked him. In the end, Trump came away, empty-handed from two summits. While his vision of 'America First' had immediate resonance at home, it proved to have less utility in foreign relations. Trying to build coalitions and unify allies is problematic when you trample on their needs. Further, we should not confuse a desire to seek and hold power as competence to lead. Several pundits have observed that Trump has strong narcissistic tendencies. And while many leaders are on the narcissistic spectrum, there is compelling evidence Trump is high in the unhealthy aspects. Doctor Mary L Trump, his niece and psychologist, had this say of her uncle: "His deep-seated insecurities have created in him a black hole of need that constantly requires the light of compliments that disappears as soon as he's soaked it in. Nothing is ever enough. This is far beyond garden-variety narcissism; Donald is not simply weak, his ego is a fragile thing that must be bolstered every moment because he knows deep down that he is nothing of what he claims to be." These egotistical aspects include an inflated sense of self-importance (Greatest President ever! - many people saying it!), fantasies of success (I built the wall) and distortions about their abilities. (Sorry losers and haters, but my IQ is one of the highest!). As moderate voices exit Trump's entourage, who remains to feed his ego? Only those who pander to him. Given his known ability to construct false narratives, a 'bunker mentality' will make for an exciting lead-in to Biden's inauguration next Wednesday. I predicted some of this in 2017, although I have to admit that Trump exceeded my expectations with this dysfunctional ending. I feel Trump is bound to stage a significant gesture to mark his departure from the White House. If he has any decency, he'd shake Biden's hand (or bump elbows), wish him well and move on. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. 11/1/2021 0 Comments Crazy Town "China rigged the election using Italian satellites to cause ballots to switch on voting machines." Lt General Thomas McInerchy (Retired) As Trump’s presidency lurches towards the final act, I'm wondering what Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) would make of the unfolding calamity. Hitchens had the unique gift of capturing the zeitgeist, as he exposed political fraudsters while spearing the pompous with his eloquence.
I suspect he'd be in his element deconstructing Trump. Particular vim would come reserved for Steve Bannon, who pseudo-intellectually framed Trump's agenda and gave it undue gravitas. Hitchens would likely attribute Trump's rise to Hillary Clinton's failures, her hubris and outright lies. He'd portray one as the reflection of the other. No fan of Hillary, Hitchens sought to expose her and her morally negligent husband. Let's pause to remember that Hillary summoned all the forces at her disposal to destroy the women who accused Bill of sexual assault and predation. She aimed to eviscerate her 'sisters' to save Bill's career. Her credentials as a feminist look rather threadbare against that background. Along the way, she propagated false stories of a 'right-wing' conspiracy. These claims helped lay the groundwork for adopting such tactics by all sides in the political realm. History will remember Hillary as the lady who blew it. The presidency was within her grasp until she characterised her opponent's supporters as evil. You have to conclude she set the tone, degrading the atmosphere, and that Trump took it to the next level. No side can profess a monopoly on bat-crazy conspiracies. The Democrats pursued Trump on flimsy evidence that he conspired with Russia. They then failed to produce the goods. All the above moulded the political discourse taking it to 'crazy town'. Ultimately, we land with retired Lt General Thomas McInerchy. Standing in the White House, he shares his insights. So you don't need to watch the clip, let me summarise. General McInerchy states that China rigged the election using Italian satellites to cause ballots to switch on voting machines. He cites the specific time when this happened. It gets better. US Special Forces, disguised as Antifa, took Nancy Pelosi's computer containing compromising material. Note, the implication that those storming the Capital Building are Antifa. Nancy is now in a panic because the material on the laptop exposes her. Dropped in, as an aside, is that Pakistan's intelligence service also had a role. Next up, the General tells his audience that Covid-19 is a biological attack on the USA coordinated with Trump's impeachment in early 2020. He states this is a distraction operation. Remarkably, the Democrats are in league with Beijing to bring down Trump. Lastly, the General asserts that Vice President Pence is guilty of treason. Remember, this man has access to the seat of power, he may have the president's ear. He certainly had an attentive and sympathetic audience in the clip. At this point, I become a hostage to my disbelief. I can only laugh. Is this a bad episode of Scooby-Doo? Will someone rip off the General's mask to reveal 'old Man Withers' from the fairground? "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for the meddling facts!" 7/1/2021 1 Comment The horror, the horror! "Storming a legislative chamber is now an 'insurrection' and not a 'beautiful sight'. Who knew?" I woke up this morning to a strange sense of deja vu. A wild mob is rampaging through a legislative chamber, trashing institutional symbols, sending the police fleeing as control falters. Tear gas hangs in the air as hooligans brandishing US flags, scale the walls and occupy offices. Meanwhile, the US president eggs them on.
Did I suffer a time slip? Is karma real? But hang on, there is a difference. During the storming of Hong Kong's parliament by rioters, no one died. The police didn't open fire, plus we had no tear gas inside the building. Amazing how quickly things change. Storming a legislative chamber is now an 'insurrection' and not a 'beautiful sight'. Who knew? In 2019, Nancy Pelosi salivated with pleasure at scenes of mayhem in Hong Kong. Now I know it's a cheap shot to gloat given that the two scenarios are slightly different, so I've restrained myself. Nancy P, you are a gorbellied common-kissing, flap-dragon and a hypocrite of the highest order! The tartness of your face sours ripe grapes. There, I feel much better. By blatant interference in Hong Kong's political development, with the 'you too can be like us' mantra, you've invited an unwelcome and avoidable outcome. It's cognitive narcissism that only your model of democracy works, and the route for getting there. Yesterday in Washington, your words echoed forlorn and tarnished, while blood spills on Capital Hill. And yes, Trump is a law unto himself. He is a bully, a buffoon, and a whiner. He inhabits a self-made world in which he is the sole arbiter. He has no appetite for argument and seeks only to browbeat those he regards as his inferiors, namely everyone. Nonetheless, he secured over 70 million votes in what was a close-run election. From this, I can only deduce the US is a deeply polarised place. What happens over the next two weeks is anyone's guess. But I'm confident Trump isn't going away. After a tantrum or two, he may be gone from the White House, then settle into his new role of disruptor general. Think Colonel Kurtz operating with his private army, up the river, alone, with a heart of darkness. On a more positive note, Mexico has decided they will pay for the wall and Canada wants one too. 5/1/2021 1 Comment Bugger Off 2020!! "Covid-19 is far from the deadliest disease to strike humanity, yet it exposed the deep fissures in many societies." Covid-19 dominated everything in 2020. As the virus took hold, people here, well-versed after SARS 2002, opted to self-initiate precautions. That included mask-wearing. Throughout the year public vigilance ebbed and flowed with each cluster. Most of the time, our government got it right, although it was behind the curve and wilfully blind to certain risks.
None of this matched the sheer incompetence seen elsewhere or the refusal to face facts exemplified by Trump and Boris. Consider that the US has only four per cent of the world's population, yet it accounts for twenty per cent of all Covid deaths. Hong Kong is recording 17 deaths per million people against the US's 955. The high US death rate is partly attributed to poor underlying community health: obesity is a co-morbidity factor. Nonetheless, shambolic policies, denial and ineptness must account of the lion's share of the deaths. Unfortunately, in post-Brexit Britain, another national lock-down heralds more misery. The UK dodged a bullet by securing a last-minute Brexit deal, yet is far from out of the woods. Covid has emboldened Nicola Sturgeon as she outshone Boris in the PR game with Scotland clamouring for independence. With grim proficiency, Bloomberg tabulated national performance data with the 'Covid resilience rankings'. Many so-called first world countries, including Belgium, the US and Italy, proved wanting. Meanwhile, New Zealand sits atop the list. It's remoteness, island status and low-population density favour the fight against Covid. Allied to that, vigilance by its border agents proved useful. Well done, Colin! All this data brought home some stark truths. Covid-19 is far from the deadliest disease to strike humanity, yet it exposed the deep fissures in many societies. Fortunately, science provides a solution. With unprecedented speed, the boffins produced vaccines of remarkable efficacy. All groundbreaking stuff. Although I expect we will need to live with Covid-19 as an endemic ailment like seasonal flu. Above I mentioned Carrie Lam's willful blindness? How else do you explain the dance club saga, which set off a cluster of Covid cases that continues to haunt us? Rich older ladies dancing with young 'instructors' has a salacious sizzle. The Internet soon pounced to shame the culprits, including the wives of prominent citizens. I'm sure none of this was pleasant for those on the receiving end, yet it served a purpose. People who flaunted the rules, even influential people, faced exposure and ridicule. Our tourism industry, already battered by the protests, collapsed. The airport emptied of passengers, although cargo traffic boomed. Hotels scrambled to provide stay-vacations and then offered themselves as quarantine sites — anything to keep the business going. Of course, the bar and restaurant owners complained about restrictions, pressuring officials to relax the rules or give handouts. The same people then scrambled for cover when Covid cases reemerged. Yes, we all understand the need to strike a balance between the economy and curtailing the disease. That's why I favoured a short, sharp lock-down instead of flip-flopping measures. At times Carrie Lam couldn't steer a straight course as she sought to pander to all sides, pleasing no one in the process. Militant medical staff took every opportunity to put the boot in, by feeding the media with stories of PPE shortfalls. Much of this chatter proved opportunists grandstanding. The other big story is the lingering aftermath of the protests, which already waned by late 2019. The majority of citizens grew tired of the violence that accompanied each march, as radicals hung onto their destructive ways. Having used a 'be as water' strategy to some effect throughout much of 2019, going static and holing-up on college campuses proved a tactical disaster. The Police put in cordons and waited. Occasional protests flared in the first half of 2020, but fatigue was evident. Guileless elements of the movement hung onto Mike Pompeo's words, expecting a direct US intervention. Then when the National Security Law arrived, a switch flipped. Everything stopped. It's now doubtful that the US will grant Hong Kongers special refugee status. Ted Cruz asserted they could be Chinese spies amongst those fleeing. Well, yes, because it's so unlikely that somebody from one of the freest places in the world could be a "refugee". These guys must be spies. That makes sense Ted, right? Then again, Ted has a habit of doing the most audacious u-turns. Plus, you've got to laugh at the descriptions of Hong Kong as a vast prison. At least the UK had the decency to offer a path to citizenship, restoring a right it took away in 1981. But, there is a price to pay. The application and set-up costs in the UK are high. Then you have to consider taking a risk on post-Brexit Britain. One of my friends, a moderate protester, is in despair. 'We went too far, inviting the worst possible outcome', he laments. Indeed, the police brutality narrative took a nosedive after the BLM protests in the US. People realised what real police brutality looks like. After all, the protesters haven't been able to pin a single death on the Hong Kong Police, despite many attempts to fake stories. Most agree the five demands are looking passé. Whether Hong Kong can move to a more democratic system, now some rationality has returned, is an unsettled point. Indeed, the sentiment for change is there. But if local politics is again hijacked by groups seeking to topple the CCP, we are going nowhere. On top of that, many protest leaders who before said they'll fight till the death retired, disengaged or fled Hong Kong. And the national security law is not going away. Never forget, Hong Kong had over two decades to craft and enact an NSL as part of the deal between the UK and China. Yet, the opposition delayed, blocked and disrupted every effort to bring forward laws shaped by Hong Kong's legislative process. Then faced with increasing calls for independence, the vulgar realism of politics intervened. Beijing acted and acted swiftly. Dominic Raab, the British Foreign Secretary, is confecting outrage as Hong Kong brings violent protesters to court. That Hong Kong applies colonial-era law and common-law procedures given to us by the UK is beyond Raab's comprehension. Plus, I don't recall Britain rushing to grant Hong Kong democracy. Raab would do well to reflect on how Britain reacted to social disorder here in 1967, by operating secret prisons and arbitrary detention. So cut the hand-wringing, the lectures and the sanctimonious drivel. For now, the arc of China's economic supremacy comes boosted by its quick containment of Covid-19. The indicators suggest China well ahead of the USA by 2028. Strangely, most Western media failed to pick up on the November 15th signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This pact binds Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and the Philippines into a low tariff trade zone with China. The agreement shifts the focus of world trade to the Asia-Pacific Region, further undermining US influence. How Joe Biden navigates the mess left behind by Trump's 'America-first' mantra remains unclear. The Germans have awoken to this new reality by positioning themselves as interlocutors between the EU and China. As the tectonic plates of geopolitical influence shift, watching how this unfolds will be interesting. Back in Hong Kong, one person deserves our unflinching praise. Doctor Chuang Shuk-Kwan, from the Centre for Health Protection is the public face of the government's response to Covid-19. Each day she fronts the daily press conference, fielding questions and offering advice—a demanding job at the best of times. We didn't know until November that her husband was dying of a brain tumour. Every day, Doctor Chuang would rush to care for him and then conduct the daily briefing. On November 6th, he succumbed. Within days, Doctor Chuang was back at work. A few opposition figures took the opportunity to summons up false 'karma' prescriptions on Doctor Chuang in a mark of callousness. Words fail me. I know it's trite to say it, but 2020 brought out the best in many people; unfortunately, the darkness in other souls came to the fore. Let's trust 2021 proves a kinder year. |
AuthorWalter De Havilland was one of the last of the colonial coppers. He served 35 years in the Royal Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong Police Force. He's long retired. Archives
March 2021
|
RSS Feed