Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
27/2/2021
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
27/12/2020
The Dating Game. "True romance consisted of three pints of Stones Bitter for courage, then a quick fumble in a bus shelter to the twang of knicker elastic." 'Ghosting', 'cat-fishing', 'pigging' and 'orbiting' — I learnt a whole new language over dinner this week.
Being our wedding anniversary, we had a few friends over, including a single young man lamenting a lack of romance. The conversation soon turned to dating-apps, as I'm schooled in a world hidden from me by marriage. After some cajoling, our guest allowed me access to his Bumble app. He may yet come to regret this. Greeting me was a bevvy of young ladies, who laid out their wares in seeking Mr Right — 'all done in the best possible taste'. This realm is new to me. Back in my youth, before the marvels of the Internet, all dating came limited by geography, your circle of friends and clumsy social skills. Gone are the days of 'My mate Sharon fancies you' or taking the lonely walk unto a group of ladies to make your introduction. Shortly followed by a quick retreat, with my feathers on fire and confidence dented. My chat-up lines are now redundant. Such classics as 'You don't sweat much for a fat lass,' — a dance floor favourite — is consigned to the dustbin of love. True romance consisted of three pints of Stones Bitter for courage, then a quick fumble in a bus shelter to the twang of knicker elastic. Don't disparage it; this is East Yorkshire in the late 1970s. Halcyon days. The pool of available potential-partners always faced constraints. Early humans married their immediate neighbours. Then the horse and bicycle increased the range, as did trains and the internal combustion engine. These days the whole planet is within reach. In the USA, 39 per cent of married couples met online. So, how does it work? Well, you upload a photograph or photographs accompanied by a brief profile of likes and dislikes. The app suggests potential dates and the user swipes left or right. Left sends to person into a loveless wilderness to await their next turn: the system doesn't let them know you've rejected them. Swiping right places them on a list for further exploration, assuming they also give you a right swipe. It's a mutual thing. Within a minute, I'd swiped through 20 plus ladies, adding five to the 'possible' list. My dinner guest would await their response, if any, then seek to engage through WhatsApp. If that went well, they'd set up a meeting and take it from there. He admitted having ten plus such dates, one of which produced an ongoing liaison. I'm ambivalent. Sure, it offered a lot of choices. Yet, I have a distinctly uneasy feeling this is a cattle market. My younger guests disagreed. 'What's the difference between ogling girls in a disco and making a move?' Fair question. I suppose the industrial scale, the algorithms learning your preferences, and the brutal dismissing based on a photograph caused my discomfort. Many of the images flashed up by Bumble benefited from photoshopping, as all the people had flawless skin. Does this artificial inflation of looks create false expectations? Of course, all the ladies presented themselves in their best. In truth, the real sorting would come later. In that sense, you could argue all the dating app does is create choice and a rapid turnover. But, we know that more choice is not always healthy. Still, my doubts linger. Because algorithms pick up likes, the app soon learns to send you a specific type as it seeks to home in on the perfect match. Again, this struck me as sinister. Along the way, a whole range of possible incredible partners gets swept aside because the computer says 'No'. During my small venture in the app, it did throw up two ladies who didn't appear to fit the pattern I'd followed. Perhaps a random element is at work. How about the language of dating apps? 'Ghosting' is the practice of ignoring people, causing them profound stress. In response, a cottage industry evolved around gently letting people down from an encounter that didn't work out. I guess it was inevitable that someone would adopt the apps to the cruel game of 'pigging'. For the uninitiated, 'pigging' refers to the hideous practice (instigated by mostly immature young men) of asking women out as a joke or a prank. The term comes from the fact that the woman in question is unattractive and/or overweight. To be fair, this practice evolved before online dating apps even existed. Meanwhile, 'cat-fishing', involves creating a false identity to compromise or harm someone. There is evidence that 'cat-fishing' produces profound psychological damage for victims and caused suicides. False identities existed before the Internet; the apps put the activity on steroids. The most sinister activity driven by dating apps must be 'orbiting'. Anna Lovine coined the term 'orbiting' for situations when your ex watches your online activities and may seek to re-engage. Again, I suppose this is the Internet equal of the unhinged ex-partner hanging around outside your house. All a bit problematic. Meanwhile, there is an unbroken truth hovering in the background of the dating game. Males tend to marry down and across their social status. On the other hand, females seek out partners who are equal or higher in rank. Thus, by default, high-status women find themselves with a smaller pool of potential partners. For these ladies, dating apps provide a ready solution by doing the sorting. Dating apps aren't for everyone; they remove that first-encounter spark when the total person suddenly engages you. The instant judgemental swiping still strikes me as harsh. Have we conferred marketplace dynamics and a numbers game on a profoundly important human interaction? Thus, the feeling persists, that there is something creepy about the whole business.
12/12/2020
Lantau Tomorrow "The 'Lantau Tomorrow Vision' is typical of the concrete pouring solutions of the Hong Kong Government." Hong Kong ranks amongst the most densely populated places on the planet. Add to that a lack of land for development, a shortage of housing and you have sky-high prices. A car-park space can cost the same as a decent-sized detached house in the UK. Depending on location, a 400 square-foot flat can will set you back around HK$8 million. That's about £800,000 or US$1 million.
No wonder people are struggling to get on the property ladder. There is a school of thought that protests last year, were in part, spurred on by a perception that wealthy mainlanders are buying up properties. All Chief Executives have promised to tackle the housing issue without success. In the latest "I've got a great idea" Carrie Lam proposes building several artificial islands around Lantau. She aims to create a housing and business centre large enough for 1.1 million people — that’s equal to the population of Birmingham. A construction project on this scale is possible, and I do not doubt that Hong Kong could tackle it. Yet, I'm not so sure we can justify the expenditure and environmental impact. The cost comes estimated at HK$624 billion, which is a more than 50% hit to our General Reserve of HK$1,000.8 billion. Proponents asserts this money will come back in sales of land and property, while critics claim only the developers gain. Also, it's not evident that we've exhausted all other options to free up land. There is a considerable amount of space in the New Territories that is either misused, held by developers or capable of redevelopment. Yet, officials appear unwilling to tackle the vested interests who maintain control of this land. Besides, HK$500 billion would go a long way towards alleviating poverty or repurposing existing properties to improve living conditions. No wonder there is an outcry that Lam is "pouring money into the sea". There are many government claims about the project that don't stand up to scrutiny. For starters, the proposed population densities don't offer the less-cramped living suggested. Also, the transport links look set to create more bottle-necks. Conversely, the idea that the government can attract financial services and IT companies to locate there is fanciful. At best, this will be another dormitory town with most residents commuting elsewhere to work. With our economy battered by Covid-19, it remains uncertain that the government can fund the scheme and sustain other projects. The cost may lead to a standstill on all other initiatives. There are several options to fund the project. Nonetheless, someone will need to pay, and some aspects of the deal look like a money grab by the usual culprits. With a bond issue, the benefits go to the same people who profited from our dodgy MPF scheme. Meanwhile, putting all our eggs in one basket is not the best approach. In an age of climate change, creating low-level islands is a disaster waiting to happen. Take a look at Osaka Airport, which sits on reclaimed land. When Typhoon Jebi hit in 2018, the whole site flooded. With sea levels expected to increase more than three feet above 2000 levels by the end of the century, will flooding be an issue? The infrastructure to withstand tidal surges will push up the costs further. Time is also a factor. We have over 250,000 residents living in tiny subdivided flats or cage homes. The artificial islands will take a decade to appear, with housing units not expected to be ready until 2035 at the earliest. For many, that's too long to wait. The government needs to do something in the nearer term. Opposition to the project is building, while the usual big players are coming out in support. For me, the 'Lantau Tomorrow Vision' is typical of the concrete pouring solutions of the Hong Kong Government. Already, taxpayers are coughing up HK$590 million for studies. However, just this week, the government dropped plans for the Kai Tak rail link having wasted millions on consultancies. We need to avoid similar expensive blunders. With the population predicted to stabilise and then fall, it is debatable if we need such a massive project. As an alternative, a laudable start would be taking back land in the NT that is illegally occupied or used as storage. After all, let's not spoil this stunning scenery for future generations.
9/12/2020
The Other Side of the Story "Nury's book may prove the defining exposition of why legitimate concerns about the extradition bill spiralled rapidly into wanton violence." Ever since the Hong Kong protests turned violent last year, I've reflected on whether I misinterpreted the whole messy affair. I listened to all sides, using a critical eye to examine events including the actions of the government and Police. Along the way, I felt some pity for kids caught up in the moment. Many of these youngsters now face serious criminal charges, possible ruin and unsure futures. Meanwhile, the unscrupulous politicians who led them to the streets have either fled or gone silent.
At every turn, I kept coming back to the inescapable conclusion — some unseen entity is manipulating events. Somebody is nudging the well-drilled radicals along, seeking to draw the Police into over-reacting. As a student of social movements, crowd dynamics and how the actions/reactions of the authorities shape outcomes, this all intrigued me. I could see specific patterns emerging. Of course, being an ex-copper, it's easy for the pundits to dismiss my interpretation as partisan. "He's protecting his former colleagues" was the often-heard refrain. A friend suggested, "You're paranoid". But, it's not so easy to dismiss the conclusions of an ardent government critic, with an in-depth knowledge of Hong Kong. Like me, journalist and commentator Nury Vittachi is an adopted son of Hong Kong. That's where the similarities end. He made his name taking the mickey out of officials, including the Police. In the past, I was on the receiving end of Nury's barbs. For that reason, I always viewed his musings with a jaundiced eye. Yet, I recognise that every court needs a jester, who can speak truth to power under cover of humour. That's a powerful tool. Thus, having finished his account of the troubles —"The Other Side of the Story" —I’m stunned we agree on so much. Finally, an account emerges that gives a balanced and insightful framing of events. Nury's book may prove the defining exposition of why legitimate concerns about the extradition bill spiralled rapidly into wanton violence. And yet when the bill is withdrawn, that violence continued unabated. In telling the tale, Nury notes that there is plenty of blame to go around. He spares no one. But particular focus lands on the biased coverage by foreign journalists and the unseen 'forces' working behind the scenes. To get the story across, Nury deploys his trademark humour, the absurd and a 'tongue in cheek' style. You’re lulled into a false sense of ease, before an exceptionally profound point lands in your lap. Unlike foreign journalists, with their monochromatic views, Nury understands the nuance, the grainy detail of this place. But as he points out in the opening remarks, he's immediately lashed on social media as a Beijing stalwart for addressing truths. Unfortunately, that's the crazy world we live in. Personal attacks and unthinking bile have replaced sensible discussion. Irrational types engage in this sort of name-calling rather than addressing the issues. All this nonsense is despite Nury's credentials as a robust critic of the Hong Kong Government and Beijing. In my view, China long sought to give Hong Kong as much freedom as possible after laying down some 'red-lines'. As a consequence, after 1997, despite constant prophecies of doom, Hong Kong boomed. It's the safest city on the planet, while people enjoy the longest life expectancy. We do better than Japan on that score. Yes, we have inequality and pollution, but we are working towards addressing these issues. Plus, in all the recent noise, often forgotten is that in 2014 our march towards democracy stalled. Why? Well, because the pan-democrats vetoed proposals that incrementally moved us in the right direction. For them, it was 'all or nothin'—this thickheaded decision set in train a course of events that soon spun out of control. Violent radical elements began testing one of China's 'red-lines' by demanding independence. These people surfaced at the end of the Occupy Movement and in the Mongkok Chinese New Riot of 2016. Then, as Nury documents, the extradition law proposed in 2019, was seized upon by a coalition of local and external forces to incite an insurrection. Millions of dollars poured into supporting the unrest. The book sets out evidence to suggest some of that money came from the back-channels of the US government. With an investigators eye for detail, Nury observes the appearance of US flags and such words as 'protect our constitution' on protest banners. This is not Hong Kong's lingo. Also, we don't have a constitution as such. Likewise, he breaks down the deliberate over-reporting of crowd sizes. In truth, a million marchers numbered around 200,000. You have to ask, did Diane Abbott do the counting? We hear about the tactics adopted for assailing the Police and then taking refuge in the massive press pack. As the Police respond, only images of officers wading into the press emerge, ignoring the build-up. The radicals take this to the next level by dressing up as reporters and first-aid workers. Also, less visible and not covered by the overseas journalists, an underground campaign to intimidate the Police was underway. Activist teachers bullied their pupil, while firebombing of officer’s homes marked a horrific development. A whole chapter assesses the ordained narrative that the Hong Kong Police are guilty of widespread brutality. Nury and friends attended the key events, trawled through the photos and videos to conclude the evidence didn't exist of generalised badly-behaved Police Officers. He concludes the opposite: "comparing them with clips of police forces in other places … our local officers are far less violent than many." Dehumanising the Police is text-book revolutionary theory apparently discussed at the Oslo Freedom Forum, a US-based organisation. This process is curated by circulating doctored or single images that portray the Police as brutal. None of the lead-up, context nor truth is allowed into this 'transmogrification'. Once ready, the media amplify the message. I have to say that biased reporting, especially from the Western media outlets, is not merely a professional outrage, it's far more sinister. It feeds a sentiment of hate that encourages physical and mental cruelty. Thanks to wild claims and exaggerations on social media, things went, er, totally batshit. Fake stories of death trains, rapes and torture flashed around the world. Gullible politicians, like Lord Alton in the UK, swallowed these lies wholesale. However, in the end, the radicals with their violence, intimidation and wanton destruction forged the weapons to be used against them. Good decent Hong Kong people wouldn't stand for the burning and killing of dissenters, or the threatening of children. I do not doubt that many will disagree with Nury's conclusions, especially those absorbing different information streams and unwilling to contemplate they got it wrong. That's the problem of our age. People see the same event but disagree on what they have just seen. For now, Covid-19 and the National Security Laws have brought a halt to the violence. Many of the instigators have fled overseas, others are in jail or awaiting trial. Our parliament is functioning without the constant interruptions from hooligan politicians intent of damaging progress. In the meantime, the majority of ordinary folks are trying to get on with their lives. Simultaneously, the West led by the USA, is imposing sanctions on Beijing and Hong Kong officials, while fretting over Taiwan and the rise of China. In this febrile atmosphere, it’s easy to fall into the doomsday trap; cue another round of ‘it’s all over!’ Yet, as Nury points out, Hong Kong will continue to prosper. Never bet against this place.
30/11/2020
Taken For A Ride "In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads." Richard Hughes famously stated, "Power in Hong Kong resides in the Jockey Club, Jardines and Matheson, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, and the governor, in that order." Well, not much has changed then since the colonial days.
With Hong Kong's Covid cases exploding, as clusters breakout from dance groups and imported cases, you'd expect our officials to be vigilant. Instead, they are busy granting exemptions for jockeys at Hong Kong's favoured gambling syndicate. Given that schools are closing, care workers are struggling, and the majority can't earn such special treatment, people are right to raise hell. After all, some of these jockeys are coming from high-risk areas. And what has suddenly made the Jockey Club so risk-tolerant? They were one of the first to cut and run by cancelling race meetings in 2019 during the disturbances. I'm sure there is any number of Hong Kong-based organisations who could construct the same 'bubble' protocols as the Jockey Club professes to have. Are we to grant them all exemptions or only a favoured few? These exemptions illustrate the moral shadiness at the heart of a government; people question whether officials put gambling above public health. Our Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, heads the Covid Task Force. So where does the responsibility lay for these decisions? Meanwhile, we should be grateful to politician James Tien. He's exposed how Covid testing for airport arrivals and the related shambolic follow-up quarantine procedures are failing. If the account given by James Tien is accurate, and the evidence suggests it is, officials have shown a deplorable lack of diligence. For starters, the arriving passenger conducts the spit test in privacy. Without supervision, there is no verification that the person followed the guidelines. Specifically, did the subject draw saliva 'deeply' - whatever that may mean? The consequence could be a high false-negative rate. Experts agree adopting the medically supervised swab test may yield better outcomes. Second, subjects are tagged but not required to activate the tag immediately. There are reports of people wandering around shopping, visiting relatives and only activating the tag much later. In one reported instance, the subject waited 24 hours. This delay is possible because of the third gap in the procedures. Subjects must make their way to quarantine hotels usually using taxis. This movement is neither tracked nor supervised. Fourth, when in quarantine it is evident subjects are receiving visitors because hotels are not enforcing the rules. In one instance, a man in quarantine infected his visiting mother, who then passed the virus into the wider community. In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads. This week Carrie Lam had given a series of interviews in an attempt to reset and polish her image. I'd prefer she spends her time putting in place suitably robust, risk-managed anti-Covid protocols. Also, Carrie needs to stop bowing to the usual vested interests. That way she'd earn genuine applause from the wider community.  "Britain has built a massive network of snitches" Folks, it's quiz time. Are you ready?
Q1: In which country does your doctor, who you consult about depression, feel obliged to report you to the police because you've had dark thoughts about events in the Middle East? Q2: In which country is your optician, nurse, dentist, social worker, lecturer or councillor duty-bound to alert the police if you exhibit signs of radicalisation or express opinion out of line with national values? That includes expressing non-violent extremist views. Q3: In which country must a college student get an endorsement and cite a security assessment before booking a seminar room? Q4: In which country was a librarian, when asked for a reference, required to assert that the prospective employee is not involved in extremist activity or terrorism? Q5: In which country did the college cleaning staff report a Sikh lady for uttering prayers in her room? This report led to a covert search and an interview by the Dean. Is this Russia, the USA, China or the UK? Suppose you answered the UK, well done. You scored 100%. Under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, all public institutions must put in place anti-radicalisation programmes. That includes the identification of terrorists or those likely to evolve into terrorists. Moreover, universities and colleges must make regular submissions giving tangible examples of steps they've taken. One college cited the prayer incident to show its diligence. With typical over-reach, some places demand guest lists before an event for security purposes. No list, no approval. At Oxford University, this prompted the cancellation of a talk on unrest in the Middle East. A variety of hotlines and anonymous reporting channels support these programmes. Rochdale Borough Council provides a helpful guide to spotting the potential terrorist, which includes :
All this activity is a legal obligation on public bodies and individuals who work there. Failure to comply can have severe consequences. In support of these laws, over one million public sector workers received training to spot proto-terrorists. In short, Britain has built a massive network of snitches. May this explain data that indicates that about 80% of the referrals have no merit. That doesn't mean the other 20% are on the route to terrorism, far from it. Yet, every year the scheme flags up thousands of men and boys considered a risk. The vast majority are cleared. That decision comes after police interviews, homes searched and other intrusive checks. You have to wonder how many people get radicalised by these interventions. It's worth noting that in 2016 the police received 60 children referrals a week, with 300 of those kids under the age of nine. Virtually all were Muslim children. Unfortunately, studies do not support this approach. A flawed theory of radicalisation — as a linear process — asserts that people move through stages to become a terrorist. Despite a body of research refuting this simplistic linear theory, Britain continues to apply it. You could argue such a response to terrorism is at least understandable, no matter how inept or counterproductive, given the threat. Whatever the merits of the UK's approach, this got my attention, because British politicians are attacking Hong Kong's security laws. In truth, by comparison, our laws are tame. I can't imagine the uproar here if we sought to impose the UK approach on our colleges. Dominic Raab, the UK Foreign Minister, needs to confront the truth of Britain's domestic anti-terror policies before he's in a position to criticise others. I heard a comment this week that Britain's response to events in Hong Kong is 'conceited, contempt and unjust condemnation.' Indeed, the utterances from Raab come weighed with heavy conceit. He holds a high opinion of so-called ‘British' values that are not borne out by facts on the ground. Second, he displays a contempt shaped by his prejudice and jaundiced lens. Lastly, his condemnation falters because he fails to recognise Britain helped plant the seeds of our predicament. Of course, he avoids the many historical questions or the support that the UK gave to radicals here. On those rocks, his words founder.
24/11/2020
The Cobra & the 'Horizontal Mambo' "Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded" Actions have consequences, and those consequences can be unforeseen. Fortunately, history is a great teacher if you bother to look. India under British rule experienced a surge in deaths due to venomous cobras, especially in Delhi. Keen to show a caring face, officials offered a bounty for every dead cobra.
In no time, the savvy folks of Delhi had cobra breeding pens at home as they capitalised on the prize. Officials realised the deceit, cancelled the bounty and the citizens released the cobras into the wild. Soon Delhi had even more cobras, and deaths escalated. Hence the 'Cobra effect'. History comes littered with such lessons. French colonials in Vietnam fearful of a burgeoning rat population offered a reward for rat's tails. Rat catchers went around removing tails and then releasing the rats to breed in the sewers—a nice earner for rat catchers, with no decrease in rat numbers. China's 'four-pests' campaign is another example. More recently, carbon credits proved a lucrative source of income for companies. Starting in 2003, the European Union gave industries disposing of polluting gases cash for their environmental efforts. Except that the companies churned out more of the most noxious gases for no other reason than to get payment. Carbon credits made these noxious gases profitable. By 2013 the EU wised up. I do wonder if our officials study history because they've announced a $5,000-HK reward to folks infected with Covid-19. Granted they've applied some payment stipulations, but these look surmountable and imprecise. There is no means test. Let's be clear; some people will be going out of their way to catch Covid-19 to secure payment. Social media is already alive with chat of possible Covid parties. Meanwhile, citizens who play by the rules, wear masks and practice social distancing go unrewarded. Is Hong Kong the only place paying people to become sick? Looks like it. I can't help but think the government is struggling to refute claims from the medical profession that compulsory testing will drive carriers underground. The argument goes that the working poor, who can't afford to forfeit days off work, won't come forward for testing. If that's the rationale, then $5,000-HK is a token gesture with potentially terrible consequences. Are any of the infamous 'dance cluster' in line for a payout? What are the majority of the population to think? Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded. Their money is being siphoned off to support the utterly irresponsible. For the uninitiated, the 'dance cluster' is grabbing the Covid headlines. It's a story with all the tasty elements of a scandal; rich 'senior' ladies attending dance lessons with young male 'instructors' who are less well off. The instructors are mostly eastern European men, some with dubious claims to royal blood. Until now these 'dance clubs' operated below the radar. According to sources, the most popular dance is the 'horizontal mambo'. The blame falls to the 'dance cluster' for our current surge in cases. For a long time, it has struck me that officials either don't know or are blind to the mini-cultures and sub-groups in our society. The question needs asking 'Has anyone conducted an audit of activities that present a high-risk of Covid transmission because of behaviours?'. The recent terrible fire in Jordan and the 'dance cluster' suggest the authorities don't have the full picture. Reports are circulating of private parties in hotels, rented apartments and on boats. There is much going on in the veiled corners of society where officials aren't inclined to look. Is the next cluster coming from there? Instead of throwing public money around with potentially adverse repercussions, how about grappling with risks in a pro-active manner? Then put in place early interventions. Would I be straining creditability to suggest an excellent place to start would be Hong Kong's one-woman brothels, that daily serve hundreds of thousands of customers? Is there any action on that potential infection route? Or is Carrie and her team too prudish to recognise the reality of life? In the seemingly endless war of attrition against Covid-19, the government has done well, although the recent clusters suggest a dysfunctional approach in parts. Lastly, no word yet on a vaccine programme for Hong Kong. Other places are moving ahead to make plans. Come on, Carrie!
18/11/2020
The Kardashians with castles "Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues" 'The Crown,' Series 4, now playing on Netflix, has finally caught up with my era. After a flu vaccination knocked me sideways for a day, a binge session got me through the fever and muscle soreness.
Spoiler alert: Diana has arrived on the scene to promptly throw up in a toilet, while Charlie boy is still horizontal-folk dancing with Camilla. In the real world, having spent the last decade seeking to polish Camilla's reputation, the pair can't be enjoying this retelling of the whole sorry saga. Even allowing for twisting of the facts, they don't come out of this well. Camilla's unfaithfulness to her husband gets written off 'because he's laying half of Gloucestershire'. Well, that's OK then. Meanwhile, Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues - the 'prince of piffle' as astutely judged by Christopher Hitchens. Actor Josh O'Connor plays the role with hunched shoulders and skulking about, giving echoes of Richard the Third: "But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks. Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass." Of course, this was Shakespeare's version of Richard the Third — a propaganda piece to appease the Tudors. Bear that in mind when viewing 'The Crown' and ask who does this portrayal of Charles serve? So, what else is new? Gillian Anderson gives us Maggie Thatcher on steroids, in full Iron Lady mode with a stellar high-rise hairdo to match. The voice is too deep, and husky, yet the whole ensemble is compelling. Anderson captures the walk and body language perfect; it's uncanny. Inevitably, Maggie brushes up against everyone, including Brenda (aka the Queen) over the Commonwealth. Yet, because this is a time of wokeness, history comes rehashed for the new age. The Queen is standing firm with the Commonwealth against Thatcher, who resists sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Yes, there is evidence that Brenda supported sanctions, but is it likely she confronted Thatcher so stridently to risk a constitutional crisis? The sudden departure of Royal press secretary as a result of leaks about a conflict between Maggie and Brenda is pure fiction. He left a year after the alleged leaks. Also, we are getting a reworking of the Micheal Fagan break-in story, with him giving the Queen a lecture about unemployment and the state of the nation. It didn't happen. Although, I never knew he broke in twice. On the first occasion, when spotted, he escaped having consumed a cheap bottle of wine. The Queen conspired to keep the first break-in quiet, fearful of more security disrupting her life. There are other intriguing tidbits. Did Anne had a fling with her bodyguard? There is a hint of that. Then Margaret discovers relatives hidden away in a care institution and declared dead. The Queen Mum explains this was necessary to preserve the reputation of the bloodline. A few special-needs kin deemed unacceptable, so written off, while all the shagging about is fine and dandy. Lovely people. The acting is superb throughout. Newcomer Emma Corrin as Diana is a revelation. In her first significant role, it's a slam dunk; the eyes are perfect, the tilted head and radiance are all there. Helen Bonham Carter was born to play the flawed, hollowed-out, boozy, Princess Margaret. She captures the arrogance, the wounded soul, and the sheer disdain of the women. It's hard to fault any of the cast. Having met several of Royals and spent two days at Buck House, I can attest to some details. The vast number of flunkies, the bowing and the hushed reverence when one of the Royals appears. None of it in the least normal. When I was there in 1992, the Palace felt run-down, especially back of the house, and away from the central accommodation. On my second day there, with heavy rain falling, the staff scrambled to catch water in buckets from ceiling leaks. Does the series do the Royal Family harm or good? To me, it reveals them as flawed, like the rest of us. Yes, they have tremendous privilege and don't have the common concerns of daily life. That's not to say they don't face other pressures, because the evidence is there that the role brings tremendous stress. As the series develops, I have to ask has the portrayal of the Queen grown less sympathetic? Feels that way to me. Her faults are exposed, including avoiding uncomfortable personal issues until too late, and a lack of warmth; she displays horror when Diana grasps her for a hug. The problem is, we don't know if any of the specific detail in 'The Crown' tells the truth. What is dramatic-license, what is an interpretation, which bits are parody and what is factual? All we can hope to get is a pastiche that draws of various elements. Nonetheless, the parameters of characters come aligned to existing public perception, so no one is too shocked. The Guardian got itself in a twist proclaiming the series 'historically inaccurate'. That's the point; this is the Kardashians with castles. It's the Royals as entertainment, with a pinch of truth to anchor the story. It's amusing to note that a cottage industry has evolved around critiquing the authenticity of the series. If you can be bothered, check out this chap discussing the cake stands and tea pouring etiquette—a bit of a niche activity. If you watch 'The Crown' in the hope of getting an account of history, you will be disappointed; but if you seek entertainment, you will be rewarded well enough.  "Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates." As Donald Trump fights to keep the presidency having lost the election, I must credit him with exposing the fickle state of democracy. While I'm guessing he will come to his senses and exit the White House, I doubt it will be a dignified departure. He's made that much clear. The great disruptor will continue to disrupt.
This is the second in a series that assesses the current standing of western-style democracy. What strikes me is that after four years of Trump insulting and degrading people, as he assailed institutions, he still managed to garner over 72 million votes. That the most ever for a defeated presidential candidate. Besides, he dodged every opportunity to play the statesmen, or display an ounce of magnanimity. In the process, he's confounded the pollsters, the pundits and even his party, many of whom still question if the man is unfit for office. What does this tell us? For sure the so-called experts don't have a handle on the evolution unfolding at the grassroots of public opinion. Have the people grown wise to pollsters? Do they hold back their genuine beliefs, with a covert desire to punch the establishment on the nose for all their deceits? Are citizens baulking at the conventions, rules and machinations of politicians? They ask is the system more designed to distract than deal with real issues? Something odd also occurred in Great Britain. Are Brexit and the startling win by the UK Conservatives in 2019, another manifestation of a hidden phenomenon? What are the processes driving these changes, and what does it say about democracy? A definable elite, who share common roots, hold sway in the UK Parliament. For starters, parliament's key positions come dominated by Oxbridge graduates. Eighty-eight per cent of MPs went to university, with twenty-two per cent attending either Oxford or Cambridge. Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates. In the Labour Party, thirty-three per cent of MPs attended either Oxford or Cambridge. Note that much less than one per cent of the population go to Oxbridge, and yet these folks dominate. It's the same in the civil service. More than half of all MPs held previous occupations in politics, law or finance. Also, there is an over-representation of lawyers with few engineers or scientists. The proportion of graduates in parliament has risen significantly in recent years. In 1979, 37 per cent of Labour MPs came from manual occupations without a degree. By 2015 that dropped to 6 per cent. These changes have made parliament less representative of the population, where 70 per cent don't have degrees. A similar change has taken place across most democracies in Europe as a professional political class seized power. Thus, authentic working-class representation has disappeared. As a result, the Labour Party garnered a reputation as 'out of touch metropolitan-types playing identity politics'. No wonder Labour's so-called 'Red Wall' collapsed in the 2019 election. Then you have the long march of liberal radicals through the institutions. Education, much of the media, the police and the courts are in their hands. Notably, the views and conventions of these people are out of kilter with a significant part of the population. Why then in late 2019, did the UK voters, including from the working class, decide to give a Falstaffian posh-boy an overwhelming mandate? This privately educated man, who studied classics at Oxford, has an undetermined number of children by various women. A judge described his behaviour as 'reckless', while his repeated lying comes well-documented. How come the people decided he's the appropriate choice to run the country? Granted he was up against the inept Jeremy Corbyn, but that doesn't answer the question. Boris Johnson is hardly the role model a nation seeks. With parliaments worldwide more the preserve of people filtered through higher education, working people face exclusion. But when allowed to show their displeasure, they opt for a dodgy, crass businessman in the USA, while in Britain an archetypical elitist wins the vote. Is it a case that when the opportunity arises, such as Brexit or when a Trump comes along with messages that resonant, they are willing to make their displeasure known. After all, the un-credentialed are not unintelligent and can see that their interests get ignored. On a couple of occasions, the curtain pulled back to reveal the contempt of these elites. Hilary Clinton didn't help herself by calling Trump's supporters' deplorable'. In the UK, the Gillian Duffy incident exposed the disdain that Labour leaders have for ordinary citizens. Something else is also going on. There is evidence that the Internet, in particular social media, is driving polarisation. William Davies proposes that the slow work of researching a subject and excavating the detail has stopped. We know that few issues are black and white, yet the Internet drives us to define ourselves in those terms. Davies attributes this to the use of simple up-ticks and down-ticks on social media platforms. People must give 'yes' or 'no' answers to matters that are not straightforward. Harness that to the mind-shaping processes of the Internet, and you can see the impact. Chunks of 'content' – images, screen-grabs, snatches of video – circulate according to the number of thumbs up or thumbs down they receive. It is easy to lose sight of how peculiar and infantilising is this state of affairs. Once a person indicates several preferences, the system does the rest. Algorithms offer up more of the same material, pushing them further down the same track. They are now in a feedback loop without meaningful discussion. The result is a people polarised, unable and unwilling to consider the other side of an issue. In turn, this prevents community cohesion, disrupts democracy and leads to mayhem. Aristotle identified in ancient Greece the core difficulty with democracy and its an issue that runs right up to the present day. He noted that in a democracy if the majority of voters wish, they could take away property from the rich. He considered this unfair on the assumption that the rich had worked for their success. Aristotle concluded the best way to deal with this is to have support systems that reduced inequality. He asserted everyone must have a chance to become rich. Has that happened? No, because all the evidence points towards reduced social mobility in recent decades. These days the most disadvantaged group in the UK is not black youth or Asians, its white boys from working-class backgrounds. With the sole exception of Roma Gypsy, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than white British. Of the white British who do attend, most are middle class, and 57 per cent are female. A similar pattern emerges with pay. While the merits of a degree are eroding, this demographic data should cause pause for thought. That minorities can make admirable progress is commendable. But, at the same time, a resentful disenfranchised cohort from the majority falls behind. If you want an explanation of the Brexit vote or support for Trump, perhaps look no further. The people broke with their norms of voting because politicians broke with them. As we enter a new political era, how is this going to unfold? Are we looking at intensifying political polarisation, declining economic mobility and the outsized influence of special interests? It's looking that way. If so, then democracy will come under increasing stress because it fails the many.
12/11/2020
"狂犬吠日" — Mad dogs barking at the sun "A symbolic gesture that doesn't give you anything in practice, and a symbolic gesture that the other side would have calculated you would do and is quite happy for you to do, is a symbolic gesture that is effectively an own goal." The removal of four LegCo members for failing to abide by their oath of office has summoned up the usual baleful cries. 'This is the end' and 'Hong Kong is finished' sums up the mantra. Politicians in the West took a break from observing the Trump zombie-regime death-march to weigh in.
Of course, Benedict Rogers had to have his say. In a column in The Spectator, he was in full imperialist mode calling for a coalition of Western nations to confront China. What does Mr Rogers have in mind? Send in the navy to attack Chinese ports, then march inland to burn down a few palaces, while conducting a bit of looting on the way? Should Beijing kneel and tremble before the might of Western civilisation? Could someone have a word, because a reality check is needed; this is 2020, not 1860. Britain as a nation is incapable of leading a coalition of any sorts when the country is so divided and may not exist in 10-years time. If wee Nichola Sturgeon has her way, Scotland will be going it alone: to be shortly followed by Northern Ireland merging with Ireland. In any case, threats against other nations need backing up by tangible actions. With China turning inward under its next 25-year plan, and its economy on the mend post-Covid, sanctions and a trade war will have a minimal impact. After all, Trump failed in his trade war with Beijing, while Australia is suffering the fallout from its stance. With China holding many of the cards on the trade front, it can bide its time. A military action is always an option. Except Britain has no range now and must rely on the USA. A hot war could go either way or escalate into something far more severe. Also, is the USA prepared to sacrifice everything for Hong Kong? I doubt it. That the USA wouldn't give refuge in its Hong Kong Consulate is a stark illustration of realpolitik in action. For all its manifest failings, and there are many, China is a world power that isn't going to let the West push it around. Within the national psyche is a deep well of resentment over the West's action during China's weak period. In that narrative, the Brits forced drugs on the country, and the West sought to carve up the place. Any Chinese leader, whether communist or not, can't allow such humiliations again. Some will undoubtedly respond with the rote response of Britain's duty to the people of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, that sounds hollow and time-expired because Britain didn't dare to act before 1997. Never forget Britain cut off the people of Hong Kong with changes to the immigration law in 1981, just before negotiations on the handover gathered pace. That timing is significant. Offering a route to citizenship is a bit late in the day, especially given the costs involved, although some will take the offer. Good luck to them. At the same time, our Chief Executive, Carrie Lame, didn't help herself yesterday by displaying a fine set of sloping shoulders. She claimed 'Beijing pulled the trigger' although in truth she'd handed them the gun and ammunition. If she sought to gain some distance from the decision, she failed miserably and once again manifested her craven side. It's not hard to see that China has decided to 'bite the bullet' to get our stalled parliament working. In a magnanimous gesture, the rest of the opposition choose to help that process along by resigning. Professor Steve Tsang, the director of the SOAS China Institute, notes: "A symbolic gesture that doesn't give you anything in practice, and a symbolic gesture that the other side would have calculated you would do and is quite happy for you to do, is a symbolic gesture that is effectively an own goal." My neighbour, with typical Cantonese clarity, was far more succinct when we discussed the matter over coffee this morning. He taught me a new Chinese idiom "狂犬吠日" — mad dogs barking at the sun.
9/11/2020
The Common Good "According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same" What's become of the common good? That's a question the advocates of western-style liberal democracies need to answer. Why? Well, for starters, Covid-19 has given us the chance to observe the different ways nations tackle a crisis, and autocratic China came out on top. In the third quarter, China's GDP grew by 4.9 per cent with a notable surge in industrial production. The country is up and running. Meanwhile, in much of the West, the pandemic rages unabated.
Did the West's response falter because of culture, allied to political jockeying? Has democracy fallen flat on its face? Add to that long-term issues, such as left-behind communities filled with resentment as the world globalised. To them, a hi-jacked democracy panders to elites and the wealthy. Does all this mean the autocracies have won? My intuition tells me, rushing to such a conclusion is misguided. As always, a nuanced, complicated, picture not open to straightforward analysis emerges. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, everyone assumed the debate was over. The verdict formed that the world was moving towards the spread of liberal democracies and free markets. As a consequence of the failure of the communist experiment, the USA stood as the world's only superpower. Did this vindicate the liberal democratic model as supreme? Many believed yes. Francis Fukuyama captured the zeitgeist as he trumpeted the 'End of History'. In Washington, this state of affairs echoed a long-standing conviction that America has a divinely inspired mission to make the world safe. A deep seam of evangelising runs through the culture: Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, when challenged on lavish pay replied he was "doing God's work." So, the West assumed they'd triumphed. And feeling empowered, led by the USA, they set about promoting a neoliberal version of globalisation as they encouraged democracy. When facing resistance, they sanctioned, threatened and intervened, sometimes, with terrible outcomes. But, if you look at the record, the West's support of democracy comes somewhat framed by strategic and economic interests. Contrast the position on Saudi Arabia to that of China. Pushing a democratic agenda, and human rights, doesn't appear to infuse Western politicians when national interests infringe. Odd that. Noam Chomsky cited this attitude as 'schizophrenia'. But far from being an all-embracing world view, a school of thought now portrays this 'winning' narrative as parochial. As the deliberations failed to recognise each countries unique history, how can it hold sway? In short, blinded by conceit, the majority of the Western intelligentsia didn't have the tools to comprehend events. Within academic circles, a fierce debate rages: "Have the scholars failed to interpret events correctly?". For many, the discourse holds that Fukuyama's chronicle of events has deep flaws, is shallow and unbalanced. Even Fukuyama has rolled back on his seminal work, admitting he missed the rise of China and other factors. As a side issue, this discussion is exposing so-called experts as intellectual eunuchs, devoid of free-thinking. These people are beholden to the agenda of their institutions. Instead of roaming free over vast areas of knowledge to interpret the world, most are hired-guns, who craft messages as 'product'. Think-tanks, governments and intelligence agencies fund this 'product' expecting a specific outcome. Then the media run this 'product' as the accepted version of events. By now, you are asking, beyond the Covid-19 response, where is the evidence that the democratic system falters? Exhibit One: with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experimented with a western-style free-market model and elections. As it turned out, this approach empowered an autocratic regime with oligarchs soon running the show. Exhibit Two: ousting Saddam Hussein did not bring freedom and calm to Iraq. Instead, the result was instability, millions dead, with a brutal civil war that rumbles on. Yes, Saddam ran a morally indefensible regime — no one denies that. Has what came next proved any better? The region is looking worse than ever. Exhibit Three: the Arab spring was to herald a new democratic era in the Middle East. In Egypt, once the despot fell, radicals seized the democratic process to install a regime of fundamentalists. Back to square one. Exhibit Four: we have economic data from the IMF and the Democracy Index of The Economist. Between 2012 and 2016, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, China, Mongolia, Ireland, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Laos, Panama and Georgia enjoyed the fastest economic growth. Only Ireland scores well in democracy. Moreover, South Korea made its best economic advances while under a military dictatorship. Add to that research by leading economist Paul Collier. He concludes that democracy can destabilise a country in the early stages of its economic development, in turn, stunting progress. Likewise, once a nation attains economic maturity, democracy can bring stability although the net effect of democracy may be ambiguous. Then I ask how Cuba can have better child mortality rates than the USA? How come Hong Kong’s streets are far safer than those in the UK? What’s interesting is that for life expectancy world-wide, US is ranked 46th, while undemocratic Hong Kong comes first. Maybe that because the USA is rated 97th for access to quality health care and 91st on basic education. The fact is, across a host of parameters, democracy doesn't always guarantee the best outcomes for the majority of people. So, the people who claim the supremacy of that model must face this uncomfortable set of facts. According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same. But, consider this: in China, both rich and poor alike realised income gains, while since the 1970s in the USA the growth has benefited the top ten per cent only. Of course, for decades, the 'experts' claimed China couldn't succeed because it wasn't democratic. That analysis proved wrong. In the early 1980s, across the border from Hong Kong, the special economic zone of Shenzhen gathered pace. This growth proved you could triumph economically without liberal democracy. It's interesting to note that China, despite its evident success, does not force its system on other countries. In Africa, China is conducting a programme of 'pragmatic imperialism' that involves investment, development and the taking of resources. Yes, the arrangement is transactional. China benefits, but, they don't tell the host how to live or run their country. As regard Covid-19, whereas President Trump fumbled about, China acted decisively. In an incredible display of capacity and order, the authorities tested the 11 million Wuhan residents for the virus within ten days. The verdict seems clear: authoritarianism is superior to liberal democracy when fast mobilisation drives success. But again, this conclusion is simplistic and even misleading. Note that democratic places, such as South Korea and New Zealand, handled the pandemic well. Their systems did not block the ability to put in place virus containment measures. Could it be that America's current troubles do not reflect a universal failure of democracy? Instead, are we witnessing an unbalanced order that favours a few? The lesson I draw from America's upheaval is that even a mature democracy must be continuously maintained to function. There is no 'end of history'. Likewise, never forget the catalyst for China's economic growth. Deng Xiaoping injected elements of accountability, competition, and limits on power. This hybrid political system, married to a firm commitment to markets, took China from poverty to middle-income status. Besides, the stated institutional advantages of China's top-down rule are both a strength and a weakness. Owing to its origins the Communist Party of China implements policies in the manner of ‘campaigns’. That means the entire bureaucracy and society come together to achieve a given goal. Then when pressured to do whatever it takes to achieve targets, officials may use extreme measures triggering new problems down the road. Significant and quick results rarely come without costs. For example, displacing people for urban expansion led to unrest and bitterness. Nonetheless, these ‘campaigns’ deliver impressive results. Xi's poverty-fighting initiative lifted 93 million rural residents out of poverty in seven years. Let's be clear; the West would still be debating the issue after seven years, without resolution, never mind any action. Here's the thing, the idea that we can choose only between an American-style democracy and a Chinese-style autocracy is false. Indeed when the real aim of governance is to ensure pluralism with stability – countries must find their own path. Perhaps the current era, rather than being the end of democracy, is a period of correction. Few would disagree, that the failure of free-market capitalism and globalisation to serve everyone, is causing deep resentment. The West needs to recognise this. It can't continue working with entrenched political ideologies that are tone-deaf to public sentiment. Where do we go from here? Looking back through history, every great civilisation rises to power, reaches a peak, and then declines. This is Oswald Spenglar's thesis. Yet, I doubt we are there: democracy won't collapse, nor will the liberal democratic model fade. But, it will evolve. After all, the USA, in particular, has a remarkable ability to reinvent itself — the 'new dawn' at each iteration. Meanwhile, China is advancing and finding its way. The West would be foolhardy in the extreme to think it can halt or hold back that process to secure its strategic interests. So, to answer the question: "What's become of the common good?" the West needs to acknowledge its manifest failings. Then bring some balance by addressing broader issues in their societies. In the meantime, raging and flailing against China won't help, especially when Beijing is advancing the stock of millions of people. Douglas Carswell asserts "The elites frequently get things wrong" in 'The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy'. He observed, "they endlessly seek to govern by design a world that is best organised spontaneously from below". Indeed, therefore, the best outcomes for the 'common good' rest in each system learning from the other, to incorporate advantages and moderate their failings. Engagement and cooperation is the only viable way forward. |
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
February 2021
|
RSS Feed