Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
 "... David, golden balls, the tattooed knight in shining cleats; Victoria, the eternally unsmiling Spice Girl who somehow turned pouting into a billion-dollar empire..." Ah, the Beckhams—soccer royalty, fashion overlords, and a picture-perfect family life curated and played out in Hello magazine. What could go wrong?
Now, this is not my usual territory, commenting on the antics of celebs. Nevertheless, there are salient lessons here about our internet and social media world and the pursuit of fame. That fake world can’t stop reality from crashing in After all, David, golden balls, the tattooed knight in shining cleats; Victoria, the eternally unsmiling Spice Girl who somehow turned pouting into a billion-dollar empire; and their brood of Instagram-ready offspring, who were supposed to be the epitome of perfect parenting. Yet, when you make a deal with the social media Devil, he can call in the favour with terrible consequences. So, no surprise that on Monday, eldest son Brooklyn Peltz Beckham (26) aired the family’s dirty laundry in an Instagram manifesto, calling his folks control freaks who couldn’t even let him have a wedding without turning it into a Beckham-branded circus. Because nothing says “family bonding” like public accusations of sabotage and humiliation. Why did it all go so wrong? Well, perhaps selling your kids' photographs to generate brand PR and some cash wasn’t a good start. A childhood spent as a prop in Mum and Dad’s headline-grabbing ventures may have left some scars. Still, Brooklyn goes on to cite several claims. Let me try to break this down. The Wedding That Launched a Thousand Eye-Rolls (April 2022) Brooklyn and Nicola Peltz’s Palm Beach nuptials, which should’ve been a fairy tale, apparently turned into a passive-aggressive fashion war. Nicola ditched a Victoria Beckham gown for Valentino—gasp! She said it was a timing issue, but Brooklyn’s 2026 rant suggests Victoria pulled a last-minute “oops, can’t make it” on the dress, leaving everyone scrambling. Then, the real gems: Family members allegedly whispering that Nicola’s “not blood” and “not family” the night before—because who needs welcoming vibes when you can go full soap opera? And the cherry on top? At the reception, Brooklyn is called up for the first dance with his bride, but wait—there’s Victoria, hijacking the moment and allegedly grinding on her son. Brooklyn says he was “humiliated,” Nicola was in tears, and they had to renew vows in 2025 just to scrub the memory—with zero Beckhams on the guest list, naturally. How utterly heartwarming. The Endless Campaign to “Respect” Nicola (Or Not) Brooklyn’s big gripe? His parents have been “consistently disrespecting” Nicola since day one, trying to tank their relationship as if it were a personal mission. Pressuring him to ditch the “Beckham” name for his kids? Check. Inviting ex-girlfriends to family events to stir the pot? Double check. Ignoring Nicola’s charity work during the LA wildfires because, why bother? And don’t forget the alleged press leaks to spin the narrative in their favour—because controlling the tabloids is just what loving parents do, right? Brooklyn swears he’s not the puppet everyone thinks he is; no, he’s “standing up for himself for the first time.” Sure, kid—after years of silence, this is totally not a mid-twenties rebellion fuelled by his billionaire in-laws. How original. The Art of the Snub: Absences and Instagram Wars If actions speak louder than words, the Beckhams are screaming. Brooklyn and Nicola ghosted David’s 50th bash in 2025, Victoria’s 50th the year before, and even David’s knighthood ceremony. Next came a full-on social media purge: Brooklyn blocking his parents pre-Christmas 2025, Cruz admitting it’s mutual, and the brothers (Romeo and Cruz) unfollowing each other like it’s a middle-school spat. By January 2026, Brooklyn’s firing off cease-and-desist letters via lawyers, all in the name of “mental health.” Because therapy is excellent, but nothing beats a public family implosion for real healing. The Instagram Bomb Drop Cue January 19: Brooklyn’s epic post declaring he’s done with the “manipulation” and wants no reconciliation. “I’m not being controlled, I’m standing up!” he insists, while prioritising “peace, privacy, and happiness”—from his very public platform, of course. David’s response? A vague CNBC chat about kids “making mistakes” and social media pitfalls. The rest of the family? Silence. Why Now? Because Timing Is Everything in Showbiz Why blow it up in 2026? Maybe Brooklyn’s floundering career (chef? Photographer? Whatever’s next) clashed with the Beckham brand machine. Or perhaps spending time with Nicola’s mega-rich Peltz clan showed him what “independence” looks like. This whole mess reeks of fame’s uglier side: in-law jealousy, wedding pettiness, and the delusion that a perfect public image equals a happy home. So, will the Beckhams kiss and make up, or is this the dramatic end of their dynasty? Honestly, who gives a shit—pass the popcorn. In a world of real problems, watching celebs feud over designer dresses is the guilty pleasure we didn’t know we needed. And the Beckhams are a helpful distraction from the antics of Orange Baby Man.
1 Comment
 "Trump has confirmed that his ‘morality’ sets the constraints on the U.S." If Donald Trump has contributed anything of significance, it is his willingness to articulate the underlying principle of geopolitics openly: ‘might is right’. In doing so, he has acknowledged what many have long suspected—the rules-based international order (RBIO) is a charade.
One might choose to disregard the rhetoric from Trump and his administration and instead examine the new U.S. National Security Strategy, which I have previously analysed. Meanwhile, allied states such as the United Kingdom remain largely silent, constrained by their limited influence and perhaps embarrassed by their complicity in this hypocrisy. Let's be honest, the RBIO functions as a rhetorical device, providing a protective justification for Western military interventions, which are often framed as being in the interests of humanity. Moreover, Trump has confirmed that his ‘morality’ sets the constraints on the U.S.; I’m sure we are all comfortable with that. Yes? And with that, he implicitly acknowledges that the RBIO was never designed to regulate the actions of the U.S. and its Western allies; rather, it is intended to control less powerful states. Consequently, when dominant powers engage in military action, it is labelled a 'policing action,' whereas similar actions by others are classified as war crimes. Following World War II, the victorious powers, led by the U.S. and its Western allies, established the RBIO primarily to advance their own interests. This framework, ostensibly designed to prevent chaos and aggression, encompasses institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as various treaties that claim to promote peace, human rights, and economic stability. As the RBIO evolved into what is now termed the 'liberal international order,' economic institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) assumed prominent roles, alongside legal frameworks such as the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. Fundamentally, the RBIO purports to create a global system in which nations adhere to shared norms and violations are addressed through accountability. However, even a cursory analysis reveals a significant asymmetry: Western powers designed this system to enforce rules globally, yet they apply those rules selectively, holding adversaries accountable while exempting themselves and their allies from equivalent scrutiny. This double standard not only undermines the principles the RBIO claims to uphold but also effectively nullifies them. As a result, many states are increasingly unwilling to maintain the pretence of adherence. Western nations, including the United States, Britain, and France—all permanent members of the Security Council with veto power—positioned themselves as the architects and guardians of this system. The stated objective was to replace 'might is right' with rule-based diplomacy, a goal that is noble in theory but ineffective in practice. Even before Trump threw this system into disarray, it was fundamentally structured to favour these powers. The veto mechanism allows them to block any resolution that targets them or their allies, thereby institutionalising impunity and hypocrisy. This selective enforcement is overt. Western states often impose sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military threats on other countries. However, when Western interests are at stake, adherence to these rules often disappears. For example, the U.S. has promoted the RBIO while refusing to ratify key treaties, such as the Rome Statute, thereby ensuring that its military actions remain outside the ICC's jurisdiction. This approach enables Western states to advocate for human rights and sovereignty while disregarding these principles when convenient. Endless examples could be given on this subject, but I will be content to cite the following. In the 1960s, Laos—one of the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries—was subjected to a covert bombing campaign. The total tonnage of bombs dropped on tiny Laos matched that used in World War II. Between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. dropped an estimated 270 million cluster bombs on Laos, averaging 33 bombs per inhabitant. Approximately 200,000 Laotians were killed—about 10 per cent of the population—while 400,000 were injured and 750,000 displaced. These actions were justified as support for the U.S. war in Vietnam, despite Laos not being a party to that conflict. And anyway, the U.S. lost that war because it had never defeated an enemy who wore flip-flops. Consider the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which was presented as a preemptive strike against weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and a mission of liberation. The operation lacked United Nations Security Council authorisation, making it illegal under international law, according to numerous legal experts. Yet, the Bush administration argued that resolutions from the 1990s provided justification, though this rationale was widely rejected. No WMDs were found, hundreds of thousands of individuals died, and no Western leader was prosecuted. In contrast, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S.advocated for accountability, resulting in swift United Nations-backed retaliation. This demonstrates that the RBIO enforces consequences for non-Western violators while protecting Western states from similar repercussions. Another example is NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya. Although authorised by UN Resolution 1973 to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s crackdown, the mission quickly shifted towards regime change, with NATO airstrikes facilitating the advance of rebel forces and ultimately leading to Gaddafi’s death. This intervention exceeded its original mandate, transforming a humanitarian mission into an operation for regime change without further United Nations approval, thereby constituting a clear violation of international law. Following this, Libya descended into significant instability and civil war. Western leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, described the operation as a success. However, when Russia intervened in Syria under comparable 'humanitarian' justifications, Western states responded with sanctions and public condemnation. This contrast exposes the RBIO’s double standard. The ICC exemplifies Western avoidance of accountability. Although established to prosecute war crimes and genocide, it has primarily targeted African leaders, revealing a clear pattern of bias. When the ICC initiated investigations into U.S. actions in Afghanistan or Israeli conduct in Palestine, the response was severe. The United States, which has not ratified the Rome Statute, imposed sanctions on ICC officials, judges, and prosecutors and declared any investigation into American or allied forces illegitimate. On that occasion, even European Union officials condemned these actions as a significant setback for global justice. This illustrates a tendency to demand ICC accountability for adversaries, such as Russian officials in Ukraine, while rejecting it when it is directed at Western states. Western support for Israel further exemplifies this pattern. More than 200 United Nations General Assembly resolutions have condemned Israeli actions in the occupied territories, where settlements are deemed illegal under international law. The U.S. has responded by vetoing numerous Security Council measures and by continuing to provide military aid. This ongoing hypocrisy not only fosters global cynicism but also contributes to the erosion of the international system. It is therefore unsurprising that the U.S. views China with apprehension. Recent trade conflicts initiated by the Trump administration indicate that the U.S. no longer holds uncontested dominance. For sure the 'America first' policy has diminished U.S. influence, even among traditional allies, while China steadily expands its global presence through trade, exchange programmes, and infrastructure initiatives. Going off on a tangent, we may gain insight into how all this may play out. Male chimpanzees frequently form temporary alliances, or coalitions, to increase their standing and gain access to resources such as mating opportunities and food. These alliances are dynamic and often shift depending on the situation and the individuals involved. A dominant male, or ‘alpha,’ must constantly manage these relationships, often breaking up fights and maintaining social order to preserve his position. That includes sharing resources, cooperating, and being seen as fair. The process highlights the intricate social dynamics and political manoeuvring inherent in chimpanzee societies, where status is determined by a complex interplay of physical strength, intelligence, and the ability to form and maintain strong alliances. Alpha males who fail to cooperate with others and share are eventually ousted by a coalition of other males. I do wonder whether Trump ever watched a lecture by Jane Goodall.  "After 1,600 city-wide inspections and 700 new site checks, officials issued only four smoking penalties." Go to any bus terminus, and you’ll see smokers lighting up in plain sight, breaking the law with impunity. Challenge them, and many turn hostile—I encountered one just this week.
Yet, after 1,600 city-wide inspections and 700 new site checks, officials issued only four smoking penalties. This "clampdown"—following the introduction of new no-smoking zones lacks punch. The yawning gap between inspections and penalties raises the question: Is enforcement real, or just for show? Smoking wipes out over eight million people globally every year—most are users, but over a million are innocent bystanders breathing second-hand smoke. It’s the world’s number one preventable killer. So, while Hong Kong’s tougher no-smoking zones are good on paper, enforcement is another matter. Sixteen hundred inspections for just four penalties? Something doesn’t add up. The process feels half-hearted—more box-ticking than real action. Sure, a few enforcement officers might scare smokers off for a minute, but real compliance needs real consequences: fines, not warnings. Enforcement is supposedly the job of the Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office. But with so few penalties, you have to wonder if these resources are well used. Fortunately, Hong Kong has long been at the forefront of tobacco control in Asia, driven by a commitment to public health. It’s worth remembering that the city’s laws aim to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke and discourage tobacco use. We can celebrate that smoking rates have fallen from 23% in the 1980s to around 9.5% today, thereby averting thousands of premature deaths from cancer, heart disease, and respiratory diseases. The journey began in 1982 with the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance, which imposed initial restrictions on advertising and on sales to minors. A significant milestone came in 2007, when smoking was banned in all indoor public places, workplaces, and on public transport. Over the years, outdoor bans expanded to parks, beaches, and bus interchanges. By 2022, the focus had shifted to emerging threats, such as vaping, with a complete ban on the import, sale, manufacture, and promotion of alternative smoking products, including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. As of January 2026, these regulations have been tightened further to cover traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and other alternative products. Entering 2026, the fixed penalty for smoking in no-smoking areas doubled from HK$1,500 to HK$3,000. In addition, smokers must now maintain a three-metre distance from entrances to childcare centres, schools, and hospitals. Another change is that hotels must offer at least 80% of their rooms as smoke-free. Vaping is subject to particularly stringent rules. Since 2022, possession of vapes for commercial purposes has been illegal, but personal possession has been tolerated until now. From April 30, 2026, carrying or using an activated vape in public will be prohibited, and offenders will face a HK$3,000 fine or up to six months in jail. These provisions cover e-cigarette cartridges and related materials. The ban also extends to heated tobacco, reflecting concerns about its marketing as a “safer” alternative. Flavoured cigarettes, excluding menthol, will be phased out by mid-2027, further reducing their appeal among young people. Sure, education campaigns and hotlines help—but they’re no substitute for tough, steady enforcement. Without it, these laws are little more than empty threats. Take vapes: the 2022 ban didn’t stamp them out—they’re everywhere. Until we take enforcement seriously, these problems will continue to undermine public health. Hong Kong’s anti-smoking laws are bold, but there’s a gap between what’s possible and what’s delivered. If vaping restrictions are to mean anything come April, robust enforcement is needed. 5/1/2026 1 Comment Venezuela - Pick Your Narrative "And yet, shockingly, removing Maduro won’t magically fix everything." In a stunning military operation that will no doubt inspire a few films, the U.S. nabbed a sitting president and his wife. Both were spirited away in the night - not just an average Tuesday night abduction. Hollywood’s finest, Kathryn Bigelow, surely has nothing better to do than scramble for the movie rights, because clearly this is a story worth telling.
And the reason for what happened? Take your pick! Oil, drugs, national security, political theatre—spin the narrative roulette wheel and see where it lands. Every pundit needs a pet theory, after all. Let’s unpack the competing narratives. Version 1: The “Oil Grab” Theory This perspective, prevalent among some left-leaning and anti-interventionist circles, frames the situation as a continuation of historic U.S. resource extraction in Latin America. Proponents point to Venezuela’s status as the holder of the world’s largest proven oil reserves. They argue that U.S. policy is about controlling Venezuela’s oil. Version 2: The “Narco-State” & National Security Narrative This narrative casts Maduro as the hemisphere’s villain—a criminal mastermind presiding over a narcoterrorist empire. With the U.S. Justice Department having indicted him, the only logical move is to swoop in heroically to save America from a cocaine tidal wave and single-handedly clean up hemispheric corruption. This, unsurprisingly, gives law-and-order types plenty of material for cable news monologues. Yet, in a plot twist worthy of reality TV, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a convicted drug trafficker, no less. Why? Well, who needs consistency? Version 3: The Ideological & Political Theatre Lens Some analysts—those diplomatic, “sober-minded” types—insist this is all about grand ideology and political theatre. Trump, ever the subtle statesman, gets to flex his “anti-socialist” credentials and remind everyone that Venezuela is merely the latest bogeyman in a tradition stretching back to North Vietnam. Because nothing says nuanced foreign policy like dusting off Cold War talking points for a modern audience. Version 4: The Humanitarian & Democracy Framework Many opposition figures and international do-gooders insist it’s all about Venezuela’s humanitarian agony—migration, starvation, repression. Oil and drugs? Mere background noise. The real story, they say with utmost sincerity, is the noble quest to restore democracy and save the people—because those outcomes always follow foreign intervention, right? Iraq, anyone? Version 5: The Great Power Competition Angle This school of thought assures us that Venezuela is merely the latest pawn in the U.S.-China-Russia chess match. After all, what’s a sovereign country if not just a square on the great gameboard? For strategists, it’s all about flexing hemispheric muscles and making sure no one else gets to play in America’s backyard. So, Which Is It? In briefings, Trump has offered a buffet of explanations for his actions. He and his team insist it’s not about regime change, a truly innovative spin, given that they literally just ousted the regime’s leader. Who knew semantics could be so powerful? Reality, of course, is a delightfully tangled mess of all these stories. Geopolitics is never about just one thing—except when it is, or isn’t, depending on who’s talking. The U.S. is, no doubt, motivated by pure ideals: national security, regional chess moves, economic self-restraint, and a burning passion for democracy (just ask anyone at the State Department). And yet, shockingly, removing Maduro won’t magically fix everything. The same generals are still running the show. Surely, Trump’s moves have them quaking in their boots—or maybe plotting their next PR campaign aimed at the global South, waving the anti-imperialist banner like it’s Fashion Week. Meanwhile, the UK and the Europeans have masterfully ensnared themselves in a diplomatic mousetrap of their own ingenious design. These self-proclaimed champions of international law now twist themselves into Olympic-level knots, desperately trying to square their lofty principles with the urgent need to avoid bruising Trump's delicate ego. The resulting spectacle could be mistaken for performance art, were it not so revealing—casting Starmer and the rest as little more than eager vassals, tripping over themselves to appease Trump. What’s clear is that the Venezuelan people remain caught in the middle, with their fate often a secondary consideration amid these competing narratives. As we watch this story unfold, it’s worth examining not only the events but also the lenses through which we choose to see them. Our prism often reveals as much about our own priorities and worldview as it does about the complex truth on the ground. 3/1/2026 1 Comment British Justice Pays Well "... we have a double murderer, who took a prison officer hostage, refused to associate with other prisoners, became depressed, sued the government, won, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab." Oh, the British public’s devotion to its national institutions is truly the stuff of fairy tales—just a nonstop lovefest for these paragons of virtue, whose every action is a masterclass in wisdom, transparency, and unadulterated brilliance.
Honestly, it’s a wonder people aren’t camped outside Parliament with bouquets and thank-you cards, eager for a glimpse of these untouchable icons of public service. The suggestion of a 'pre-revolutionary state' is obviously just the fever dream of malcontents who can’t handle living in a society where the only thing more flawless than the system is the haloed leadership running it. If you sense any unrest, don’t worry—it’s probably just a national allergy to perfection. Joking aside, the saga I’m about to tell lays bare the depth of the rot. A rot often hidden behind legalese, process and flannel. So, grab a coffee, sit down (just in case you fall over in shock), and hear the tale of Fuad Awale. In 2011, Awale, a Somali drug trafficker, walked up to two teenagers in Milton Keynes, held a gun to their heads, and carried out an execution. “Execution” is the term used by the judge presiding over the case. In January 2013, Awale was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 38 years. In May 2013, while serving his sentence at Full Sutton Prison, Awale and others took a prison officer hostage for five hours, threatening to kill him. They demanded that Britain release the radical cleric Abu Qatada. Awale pinned the officer to a chair, held a makeshift knife to his throat, and said: “Stop struggling, I’ve killed two people – I’ll kill you.” Awale was sentenced to a further six years for this offence. Due to the danger Awale posed to staff, he was placed under close supervision - the so-called Rule 45 regime. By then, he was expressing extremist Islamic beliefs and declaring himself a jihadist. These beliefs, together with his actions, made him one of the most threatening prisoners in the system. Under Rule 45, a prison governor may authorise, in writing, a period of removal from association of up to 14 days. The Secretary of State may grant removal from association for a maximum period of 42 days and may renew such leave for subsequent periods of up to 42 days. Between 2019 and 2023, Awale spent long periods in solitary confinement. He was offered opportunities to socialise with other prisoners (playdates, if you like), but declined some, claiming he feared for his safety. Yet the record shows that Awale was a danger to other prisoners and staff. In July 2019, Awale attacked another prisoner during association. He claims he made a pre-emptive strike in self-defence. After this, Awale faced rotation through various high-security prisons. Throughout 2020, he remained at HMP Manchester, spending most of the day out of his cell and engaging with staff. However, in January 2021, he attacked and punched a prison officer in the face. Following concerns that he had been inciting prisoners to harm staff, on 26 March 2021, he moved to HMP Long Lartin, where he began to settle down. As the prison service struggled to find prisoners for Awale to associate with, he eventually landed at HMP Woodhill. Still seen as a danger, he was subject to a four-officer unlock with body-worn cameras in operation. With effect from 15 December 2021, Awale entered an association group with prisoner LF, which permitted association outside their cells. They developed a good relationship. Then LF moved prisons. The prison service assessed that only 13 potential associations existed for Awale across the entire estate, assuming Awale would associate with them. Over time, Awale claims to have developed depression. His lawyers then took the government to court, arguing that the depression resulted from procedural failures, rights infringements and the presence of racist and Islamophobic gangs in the prison system. No shit, Sherlock. Who knew the prison was full of nasty people? In 2024, in a High Court judgment, Awale won his case. The judge found breaches of procedural rules, common law fairness, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the ECHR protects the fundamental right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. I kinda assumed that when you went to jail for a double murder and then held a prison officer hostage, threatening his life, you’d forfeited these rights. Moreover, repeated attacks on staff and prisoners made you ineligible for these rights—silly me. In December 2025, Justice Secretary David Lammy revealed that Awale was awarded £7,500 in compensation and £234,000 in legal costs, to be paid by the taxpayer. In short, we have a murderer who took a prison officer hostage, refused to associate with other prisoners, became depressed, sued the government, won, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Along the way, the lawyers make a tidy sum. Regarding the lawyers, Matrix Chambers represented Awale. Cherie Blair helped found these chambers—recall her? She’s married to former Labour PM Tony Blair. Dan Squires KC of Matrix Chambers appeared for Awale, and Sarah Hannett, also of Matrix Chambers, represented the government. Squires is married to the current Labour Minister for Courts, Sarah Sackman KC, MP. It's a small world. I’m sure this is all normal and above board. Also, just for the record, Sackman’s boss is Justice Secretary David Lammy, who authorised the payment. Oh, and guess what? The court, in its infinite wisdom, discovered all sorts of procedural failures—like not properly reviewing Awale's isolation or pondering the subtle effects of racism in a prison system that’s clearly running like a well-oiled machine (if the oil is, say, molasses). Shocking, right? I mean, who could have ever anticipated that a system teetering on the brink of collapse might drop the ball? And of course, Labour, always up for a bold move, decided that the best way to fix things was to throw open the doors and release a bunch of prisoners—including, just for good measure, sex offenders. Because what could possibly go wrong with that? The ruling and payout drew intense criticism from many quarters, including opposition politicians, who labelled it a "sick joke" and called for emergency legislation to overturn such judgments. Oh, absolutely—legal commentators have noted that the judgment is brimming with common sense (if you live on another planet) and that the judge, far from being lost in a maze of self-important mental gymnastics, was simply delivering the kind of brilliant, real-world insight we’ve come to expect from the bench. Truly, hats off. Naturally, the icing on the cake is last month’s Labour PM, Kier Starmer, rolling out the red carpet for an Islamic extremist who, ever so charmingly, referred to British people as “dogs and monkeys” and called for Jews to be killed. Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? Clearly, Kier just can’t catch a single break—what with sending Jeffrey Epstein’s BFF off to represent Britain in Washington (because who better?), and then, for good measure, losing his deputy PM thanks to some totally-not-shady property deals. It’s almost as if there’s a secret competition for the most questionable decision. Who could imagine why the average person might have any issues with our politicians or the legal system? I mean, it's only a flawless system that showers rewards on the deserving (read: the worst of the worst), while the rest of us just get the privilege of footing the bill. Truly, what a dream.  "The most significant event was President Donald Trump's return to office and the swift start of a global tariff war." As we move into 2026, it is essential to look back at the major geopolitical shifts of 2025. Rising trade tensions, power grabs, and broken alliances significantly changed the global landscape.
Many will remember 2025 as the year the post-war international order fell apart. Instead of clear-cut battles, ongoing confrontations and tough choices reshaped the world. The United States focused on its own economy, China showed patience, Russia sought to maintain its influence, and Europe struggled to stay united. Meanwhile, the global south recognised that international law is merely another tool wielded by stronger powers against them when convenient. They will increasingly be unwilling to play that game. The U.S.-China Economic Confrontation: A War of Attrition The most significant event was President Donald Trump's return to office and the swift start of a global tariff war. The U.S. imposed high tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying this would restore lost wealth and boost American manufacturing. In April, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods jumped to 145%, causing imports from China to drop by almost 25% in the first nine months of the year. Still, China handled the situation better than expected, thanks to years of preparation. Beijing hit back by targeting U.S. grain exports and restricting exports of rare-earth metals. The plan to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. mostly failed, with data showing a loss of blue-collar jobs. On top of that, the uneven way tariffs were applied created significant uncertainty for American businesses and shoppers. By year’s end, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods settled between 20% and 50% for most items, lower than the April peak. Analysts called this a clear win for China, noting how Beijing stood firm against U.S. pressure and kept its economy growing. The semiconductor competition also cooled, and China showed that top-tier technology is not always necessary to succeed. By using good-enough chips and innovative programming, China matched its main rivals. In a stunning move, Deepseek landed for free. By the end of the year, China maintained its strategic edge, while the U.S. economy sent mixed signals under Trump’s leadership. Lacklustre job gains were concentrated in just a handful of industries, while high prices remained a concern, prolonging the affordability-related struggles that beset Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden. Meanwhile, the U.S. banking system is creaking and things could quickly run amok. It's kinda complicated - the best explanation I've found is here. Russia's Strategy: Retaining Power Through Hybrid Escalation Vladimir Putin stayed in power in 2025, but his government faced more risks. After failing to win clearly in Ukraine, Russia’s decline may make it more likely to take risky actions. Russian troops made slow, costly progress by using small-unit tactics and better drones, but experts agree that a clear path to victory is not evident. With war costs rising to near late-Soviet levels, Russia’s military strength is declining. Since a regular military win seems unlikely, experts warn that 2026 could see more hybrid tactics. This might mean more sabotage of European defences, stronger information attacks on important elections, and military pressure to weaken Western support for Ukraine. Europe's Dilemma: Humbled by Division, Not Just Trump In 2025, Europe had to face the hard truth that the U.S. was no longer a reliable ally. Still, many of Europe’s political problems were caused by its own actions. The Trump administration changed its approach to Europe, often using critical language. Important documents, such as the U.S. National Security Strategy, warned that Europe could decline due to uncontrolled migration. Instead of coming together to negotiate as equals, Europe often gave in to Trump’s demands. European leaders wanted to maintain support for Ukraine and ensure that NATO was not abandoned. But deep divisions within Europe weakened this strategy. Far-right parties with pro-Russian views led in polls in several countries, which hurt the EU’s ability to negotiate on trade and defence. Big countries like Germany, France, Italy, and Spain could not agree on how to respond to U.S. tariffs. By year’s end, European leaders recognised the need to strengthen their self-reliance. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Europe "must become much more independent from the U.S.", signalling a late but serious push for change. Britain: A Country Adrift Eighteen months after a big election win, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government is facing major political problems. Although they promised change after 14 years of Conservative rule, the government is now caught up in scandals, losing public support, and facing internal divisions. Seeing the Chancellor cry next to the Prime Minister in Parliament was a first and showed the government’s wider problems: they are playing with a second-rate team. A string of mistakes has undermined the government’s claims to be more ethical and competent than those before it. For example, Starmer choosing a close friend of a convicted paedophile to represent the country in Washington was a significant error of judgment. A cabinet member's cheating on a house purchase didn’t help matters Nigel Farage’s Reform UK now regularly leads Labour in national polls, winning over voters in Labour’s old strongholds who are fed up with mainstream politics. The Green Party is also gaining ground, especially with young people and in cities like London. The first big test comes in May 2026, with important elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd, and many English council seats. Labour is likely to face a shellacking that seals Starmer’s fate. If Labour loses Wales, it would be a significant blow. In his New Year message, Starmer asked people to be patient and promised that real change would come in 2026. He said he would stick to his current plan and that Britain would see positive changes However, with his approval ratings falling, the party behind in the polls, and MPs disagreeing internally, Starmer’s leadership looks less and less sustainable. 2026: Who knows? The events of 2025 have set the stage for an even more unpredictable future. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether the Trump's tariff policies are legal. If the court rules against them, the U.S. might have to pay back up to $1 trillion in tariffs, causing major economic uncertainty. The U.S.’s national security policy is also likely to further break up the international order. Still, the pundits are starting to think about what might happen after Trump. That is unclear. Europe should get ready not for a stronger Russia, but for a desperate one that might use sabotage, cyber-attacks, and disinformation to make up for its weaker military. Russia could also use nuclear threats to get the world’s attention. Europe has a big choice to make: keep reacting to events or invest in its own defence, hybrid warfare protection, and a united foreign policy. Whether Europe can come together will decide if it shapes the new world order or is shaped by it. In short, 2025 was not about big wins but about ongoing challenges. China showed strength, Russia acted out of weakness, Europe’s divisions were clear, and the U.S. went its own way both economically, strategically and politically. Stay tuned as we navigate what 2026 has in store. Happy New Year! 16/12/2025 2 Comments Pax Americana Is Over! "The release of Trump's new U.S. national security strategy trashes long-standing policies, leaving nations scrambling to grasp the implications." In case you didn’t notice, President Trump has fundamentally disrupted the global geopolitical order. Globalisation, traditional alliances, and polite diplomacy have been swept aside.
Since WWII, there has been a steady overlap in U.S. foreign policy from President Truman to President Biden, regardless of which party was in power. The common thread has been a rules-based world order, with the U.S. and its allies, to a lesser extent, acting as enforcers. In his first term, President Trump supported this approach, although signs indicated that the thread was beginning to unravel. Now, it is broken. The release of his new national security strategy (NSS) trashes long-standing policies, causing nations to scramble to understand the implications. These changes are neither small nor incremental; they are seismic. By law, each president must produce an NSS, although most resemble wish lists. Usually, such strategies are based on assessments that identify risks, threats, and opportunities. However, this NSS is full of aspirational statements, often lacking clear methods for achieving them or a comprehensive analysis of the current environment. In this new NSS, Trump asserts that only the nation-state matters and that genuine power derives from economic and military strength—with the United States in the lead. It’s a blunt statement that the U.S. doesn’t have friends; it only has interests. While the NSS aligns with Trump’s public statements in recent years, this formalisation lends new momentum to his worldview—an approach that has surprised many countries, especially in Europe. European nations are now singled out in the NSS, while traditional adversaries such as Russia receive only a brief mention. Significantly, the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US is absent from the NSS, confirming a long-held suspicion that it is more important for Britain than for Trump’s America. All Sir Kier’s grovelling to Trump has come to nothing. European commentators and politicians have reacted with alarm, describing the strategy as ‘astonishing,’ ‘deeply disturbing,’ ‘alarming,’ and ‘staggering.’ Yet Trump has signalled his intentions for years. So why the surprise? Conversely, Russian officials welcomed the new strategy, claiming it aligns with their understanding of global affairs. Essentially, Trump claims that the United States must remain the world’s strongest economy and most powerful military. The US will work with other nations only when it serves its core interests, and will take all necessary measures to defend them. This is not a quid pro quo arrangement. However, implicit within the NSS is that the U.S. will act solely in its own interests, primarily limiting its direct influence to its immediate neighbours and leaving China and Russia to manage their respective spheres. In many respects, this signifies a return to the realpolitik that once governed Europe before the Treaty of Westphalia. This pivotal moment introduced diplomacy and laid the groundwork for the modern international system. For example, the very existence of NATO may now be in doubt. Similarly, intelligence sharing among Western allied nations is becoming increasingly uncertain. In fact, the UK and Dutch governments are already restricting their intelligence cooperation with the U.S. due to concerns over military actions, particularly alleged extrajudicial killings. Additionally, European-supplied intelligence has appeared on social media chats among U.S. officials. Meanwhile, Denmark has moved to declare the U.S. a security risk, a remarkable stance for a NATO founding member. Trump has clearly expressed that Latin America is within the US’s sphere of influence, and others should stay clear. This is the Monroe Doctrine on steroids. Notably, the NSS mentions events in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East only briefly. It also pays little attention to the perceived threats from Russia and China, a feature of the previous policy stance. Instead, the strategy mainly criticises European nations for failing to defend their borders, culture, and civilisations. Trump has gone as far as to support political parties in Europe that share his worldview. He’s warned against ‘civilisational erasure’ in Europe and aims to ‘cultivate resistance’ to governments he believes are out of line with his ideals. We are familiar with that approach in Hong Kong. Throughout 2019 and much of 2020, Hong Kong saw the US funding ‘resistance’ that led to months of firebombs and rioting. In an interview with Politico that accompanies the release of the NSS, Trump is uncompromising in his attacks on European nations. "Europe’s leaders are not doing a good job … some are stupid," and "Many European countries will not be viable soon." "Most European nations are decaying, they are weak, they don’t know what to do." He asserts, "Europe is getting destroyed." And on it goes. But what did the Europeans expect? They have remained silent while the US has interfered with governments across the globe for decades. The US has a history of toppling unwelcome leaders, installing puppet regimes, and funding revolutions. Now those tactics are reaching Europe, with Trump eager to install favourable leaders. Will US cavalry charge across the Atlantic if Putin kicks off against NATO? That’s the question Europeans are asking. German Chancellor Frindrich Mertz has already answered it. “Pax Americana is over.” Meanwhile, they’ll scramble to invest huge sums in upgrading their military forces, including recruiting personnel. In the UK, that might prove tricky because most frontline fighters come from white working-class communities who have been vilified and ignored for decades. Why should they step up and fight for a country that scorned them? In all of this, the primary beneficiaries are Russia and China. Trump’s vision of the new world order essentially regards China as the dominant power in Asia, while maintaining the status quo on Taiwan and freedom of passage. Similarly, his approach to the war in Ukraine has consistently shown he tends to support Putin's position. However, there are contradictions in the NSS. Trump asserts he will utilise the U.S.’s unmatched ‘soft power’ to influence events. Nonetheless, it is already evident that other nations no longer trust the U.S. because of Trump’s uncompromising stance. This attitude will undermine any ‘soft power’. Furthermore, the policy assumes that other countries have no choice but to comply with U.S. demands. This is mistaken. Nations are already looking for new alliances. Trump claims to be the ‘President of Peace’, which is an assertion we should commend. Although his statements should be taken with a pinch of salt. Has he truly brought long-term resolution to eight wars? For starters, the conflict on the Thai-Cambodian border has reignited. Additionally, he has failed to make progress on the Ukraine conflict. With a touch of schadenfreude, Hong Kongers are watching these events. Europe is now on the receiving end of American hubris that has caused so much damage elsewhere. Henry Kissinger’s statement, “It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal," has never been truer. Of course, in context, Kissinger was asserting that the U.S. needed to support its allies to maintain international credibility, particularly to prevent the perception that aligning with the U.S. carried ‘fatal’ consequences. Critics frequently use this shortened, popular version of the quote to suggest that the U.S. exploits, abuses, and then discards its allies for its own gain. That iteration of the Kissinger quote is now coming to pass. 2/12/2025 1 Comment The Archaeology of the Recent Dead "With respect, every fragment is handled carefully, recognising the deceased and honouring their memory." A fire scene erupts as a hive of frenzied rescue efforts. Now that it's known there are no more survivors, the mood shifts. The urgency gives way to careful precision rather than haste. The site is declared a crime scene until proven otherwise, cordoned off with perimeter tape. A heavy, focused silence descends, broken only by the crunch of debris and quiet commands. Now, the painstaking task of identifying the human remains at the site is underway. Each day, a sombre procession of masked white figures, makes a subdued journey to the scene. Young men and women, who last week were in offices investigating deceptions and fraud, are now sifting the wreckage. It is a methodical, slow and profoundly challenging task that blends forensic science with grim physical and emotional labour. They undertake it with the core principles of preserving evidence and dignity. Charred floors and walls are susceptible to collapse. Toxic chemicals, sharp metal, and broken glass are scattered everywhere. The air is heavy with the unforgettable smell—acrid smoke, melted plastics, and the sickly-sweet odour of burnt organic matter beneath it. Everything appears in monochrome—shades of black, grey, and white. Familiar objects distort into grotesque shapes. The scene now a grid system with each sector designated to a team. The officers work from the least-damaged areas towards the most-damaged, and from the upper layers downwards. Debris is methodically removed piece by piece. This delicate task involves small hand tools such as trowels, rakes, and ultimately, gloved hands. The search is tactile as officers feel for irregularities, for the density of bone or tooth amidst ash and plaster. With respect, every fragment is handled carefully, recognising the deceased and honouring their memory. The goal is identification; each recovered fragment could be crucial for naming the victim, providing closure to grieving families, and supporting justice. Investigators encounter the most personal and tragic moments preserved in destruction— a child's toy melted beside a bed or photographs curled into ash-reminding us of the emotional weight carried by this work. The psychological impact on teams is well recognised; they support each other while professional help is on hand to cope with the emotional weight of the scene. This is one of the most demanding tasks in policing, requiring a rare blend of scientific detachment, physical endurance, and profound humanity. This is the archaeology of the recent dead—a meticulous, respectful reversal of destruction to recover identities and, with them, the potential for justice and closure. 26/11/2025 0 Comments Disaster in Tai Po "Those responsible for the circumstances that created the risk must be held accountable for their decisions..." As I write this blog, the fires at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po continue to burn. Media reports tell me that 13 are dead, with many more critically injured. Those numbers are likely to be higher once a complete account is given. Meanwhile, distressed residents are desperately searching for missing relatives, which should inspire our collective concern and compassion. For the past two years, as a Tai Po resident, I’ve passed Wang Fuk Court, wrapped in bamboo and green plastic netting during renovations. I’d assumed the blocks were empty of residents. Therefore, I am shocked to discover that someone considered it acceptable to keep tenants in situ despite the apparent dangers. Have no lessons been learnt from the Grenfell Tower fire in London? Sure, it is premature to say what caused the fire. But what is certain is that once it took hold, controlling it proved extremely difficult for our brave firemen. That one has lost his life is a testimont to the dangers. Undoubtedly, there will be a thorough enquiry into this tragic incident. Those responsible for the circumstances that created the risk must be held accountable for their decisions, especially choosing to leave tenants, including vulnerable elderly residents, in place. Risks must no longer be ignored, especially in Hong Kong with its many high-rise buildings. It is essential that the government takes decisive action to understand what happened and lead safety improvements. Update: As dawn breaks, the fires are still burning although increasingly under control. 36 are confirmed dead and at least 279 are missing. Three people are under arrest on suspicion of 'manslaughter'. Meanwhile, the city is in shock.23/11/2025 0 Comments LegCo - All Change! "If Hong Kong aims to cultivate political talent, then fresh blood is essential." It's election season in Hong Kong. Elections? Yes, Hong Kong holds elections for the Legislative Council and district councils. On 7 December, we will vote to elect 90 LegCo members. Among serving lawmakers, 35 have decided to step down and not stand for re-election. Some commentators have called this an exodus, suggesting that councillors are either being encouraged to step down or are dissatisfied with the system. Although the turnover of LegCo members is marginally higher than usual, it is important to note that 12 of these 22 are over 70 years old and have served lengthy terms. It’s time for them to step aside. This change could bring new perspectives and approaches to governance, offering a hopeful outlook for our city's future. After all, if Hong Kong aims to cultivate political talent, then fresh blood is essential. These days, LegCo sessions receive less media attention, a welcome change now that the disruptive radicals and their antics are history. The era of shouting, throwing objects, physical skirmishes, and other attention-seeking behaviours in the chamber has ended, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief. A LegCo member snatching a female official's phone, fleeing to hide in the male toilets, and flicking through her messages was not the worst behaviour. That qualification should be reserved for the two young legislators who chose to insult the entire nation by invoking the Japanese name for occupied China when they were sworn in. These immature, foolish, and crass remarks earned them justifiable widespread condemnation. They knew their words poked a raw nerve. Even former Governor Chris Patten came out to criticise the pair, asserting their antics “… make a mockery of a serious political argument.” Later, the duo abandoned their taxpayer-funded offices, leaving behind crates of half-consumed alcohol and new, expensive game consoles, demonstrating that their priorities were never to serve as diligent representatives of the people. On 15 November 2016, the court disqualified the two legislators for failing to take their oaths "faithfully and truthfully." They attempted to force their way into the LegCo chamber, injuring security staff in the process. Both were convicted and served brief prison sentences. Subsequently, one fled to the U.S., and the other disappeared from public life. "With the highest life expectancy on the planet, we can take pride in the safety and quality of life our city offers. Despite the critics, it is clear that Hong Kong is doing many things right." It is also possible to draw a direct connection between the violence witnessed in the LegCo chamber and the rioting on the streets in 2019. The destruction caused by the Antifa-types, who stormed through our city and even the LegCo building, was tacitly encouraged by the radicals within LegCo. In doing so, they invited their own downfall.
For this election everybody is closely observing the turnout. The turnout rate in 2021 was just over 30%, following events in 2019 and Covid. In 2016, the rate was about 58%. The Hong Kong elections may not pass the litmus test with Western politicians. You know, the ones who question the legitimacy of LegCo, while they take an oath of office to an unelected King, his heirs, and successors, including some chap called Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Yep, the former pedi-adjacent prince still remains in the line of succession. Similarly, the ones who sit in an unelected House of Lords packed with Bishops and other appointees. Then there is the fact that seats in the House of Lords can be purchased for the correct sum to the right party. Transparency International UK research found 68 nominations from political parties between 2013 and 2023 were political donors – handing over £58 million to various parties. Meanwhile, across the pond in the U.S., wealthy financiers fund presidential campaigns to install their preferred candidate. That's to say nothing of voter suppression. Anyway, the government here is already actively encouraging citizens to vote, as a low turnout will inevitably cast doubt on LegCo's legitimacy. Singapore has a voter turnout of about 96% in parliamentary elections. However, voting is mandatory. In fact, 22 nations worldwide require their citizens to vote. Those that do not have turnout rates ranging from around 98% (Laos) to 11% (Tunisia). To gain public support, political parties must clearly articulate their positions on holding officials accountable while avoiding the reckless behaviour seen previously. Various construction project scandals, along with the recent debacle over the procurement of bottled water, highlight key issues to watch. And on that note, I have yet to see any candidates in my area provide English versions of their campaign literature. Not even a link to a website where I can read and familiarise myself with their platforms. Considering that English remains one of the three official languages of Hong Kong and our politicians promote the city's international status, I would expect better. Meanwhile, worldwide, the public is becoming increasingly distrustful of politicians, a trend most evident in Western democracies, where radical parties are on the rise. The inability to secure national borders against illegal immigration, combat Islamic extremism, terrorist activities, and address rising inequality are some of the contributing factors. Hong Kong is fortunate that illegal immigration and terrorism do not tarnish our society. The streets are safe, and we benefit from excellent infrastructure, including the world's best public transport system. With the highest life expectancy on the planet, we can take pride in the safety and quality of life our city offers. Despite the critics, it is clear that Hong Kong is doing many things right. Nonetheless, housing remains a challenge, with cage homes revealing deep inequality. While the government aims to improve these Dickensian quarters, ongoing effort is necessary to maintain progress. And that's the key: the public desires to see consistent, incremental changes rather than radical, disruptive policies. So, get out and vote. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2026
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed