Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
19/1/2022 0 Comments Carrie's Hamster Hell "Phrases such as ‘hamster holocaust’ and ‘genocide’ are over the top, however indicative of public sentiment." Carrie Lam has another PR disaster on her hands, and again, it is of her making. Sure, no matter how you package it, culling 2000 plus pet hamsters was never going to be an easy sell. But then rushing the decision while admitting you are not sure that the hamsters transmitted the virus to humans was bound to produce an over-reaction from the public.
One hamster owner stated, "If people who attended Witman Hung's birthday party are culled, then I will hand my hamster to the government." Oh dear! Phrases such as ‘hamster holocaust’ and ‘genocide’ are over the top, however indicative of public sentiment. The SPCA expressed shock at the government decision noting, "it did not take animal welfare and human-animal bonding into consideration." A veterinary scholar called the government's decision "super harsh" and expressed fears that it could lead to mass abandonment of animals. Also, we know Covid has brought much mental strain to the populace, with pets providing a degree of comfort for many. To remove that support invites more mental health issues. Was that factor considered? We've long learned that Carrie can't summon up much in the way of empathy. Yet, if any occasion called for a display of sympathy, then this was it. And what did we get is silence. Finally, a few lesser officials muttered contrite words, then soon moved on. The hamster 'holocaust' has brought the Internet to life with innovative memes, none of which are kind to Carrie. But, in the longer term, if hamster to human transmission is established, appropriate protocols can minimise the risks. Yet, the US Centre for Disease Control already advises that the risk of pet to human transfer is low. So, this morning kids across Hong Kong say a tear-filled farewell to Hamish the hamster, who is conveyed to a killing centre based on weak science and a knee jerk reaction. The question everyone is asking, which species is next?
0 Comments
13/1/2022 1 Comment End of the Road? "The public has decided that Andrew, like Boris, is beyond the pale." Two powerful and privileged men are hurtling down a road, taking them to a cliff edge; and neither appears capable of avoiding their fate. Both engaged in behaviour deemed abhorrent to the public. Both sought to cover up, deny, delay, and deflect the inevitable when caught out. But, for both, the road is running out.
Boris Johnson's over-played bluster and gall isn't working anymore as the evidence mounts that he probably broke the law by attending the infamous garden party. His stalling, coupled with a non-apology in parliament, did further damage, that probably sealed his fate. Boris has shown himself bereft of common decency and an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of his situation. Had the Metropolitan Police bothered to get off their bottoms and check the CCTV coverage of the garden, they’d soon establish the facts. Their willful blindness is telling. As Boris partied in Nos 10, he prevented thousands of heartbroken citizens the right to hold the hand of dying relatives under the threat of arrest. To then lie for months about his actions rubbed salt in their wounds. So, whatever the political calculations or the polls say, he must go. In one sense, Boris has done a great public service by exposing the falsehood that politicians serve the people. That founding tenet of the liberal democracies can’t stand up to scrutiny when the leader is openly acting in absolute self interest. And because Boris won't surrender like a man of honour, he will need removing one way or another. Joining Boris on the road to misery is Andrew Windsor, aka 'Randy Andy’. He's fought an unsuccessful rearguard action to hold off his accuser, Ms Giuffre. Unfortunately, like Boris, he's done immense damage to the institution he’s supposed to serve. I can't imagine that US District Judge Lewis Kaplan ever thought he'd be ruling on the fate of a British royal. Nevertheless, Kaplan said yesterday the case against Andrew for allegedly sexually abusing Ms Giuffre may proceed, when a full airing of the evidence should be possible. I don't presume to know whether Andrew is guilty or not, yet his conduct is enough to merit serious questions. It remains baffling to me that a man under constant police protection can't produce evidence to rebuke claims he was at certain places at certain times. I know from personal experience the movements of the royals are methodically logged by the Metropolitan Police. So it should prove easy for Andrew to rebut Ms Giuffre's claims if indeed he is innocent. Yet, therein lies the rub. The Queen felt compelled to remove Andrew from all royal duties in response to this debacle. At the same time, veterans groups demanded he step aside because they were no longer willing to toast his health at regimental functions. Except for Andrew's hapless ex-wife, no one is willing to speak up for him. That doesn’t help much because Fergie is a thoroughly discredited figure. The royals are usually taciturn but can use back-door options to get their messages of support into the media. That's not happening. On the contrary, there is a suggestion that Prince Charles's people are briefing against Andrew to distance the future king from his brother. Shakespeare would get a gripping play out of this. Having failed to stop the case against him in a New York court, Andrew has no good options left. He can't face the prospect of a high-profile trial with his daughters called as witnesses to affirm his movements. Plus, a trial would expose him to further scrutiny with the possibility that more accusers may emerge. Besides, ignoring the court action could result in a guilty finding with all the attendant harm. Then he has the option of settlement out of court; but would amount to an admission no matter what legal spin the agreement contains. But, of course, that's assuming Ms Giuffre is willing to accept such a deal. She's proven herself robust in pursuit of Andrew no matter what her motives. In one sense, it's all academic; the public has decided that Andrew, like Boris, is beyond the pale. Whether Boris goes sooner or later depends on the next leak or how much damage the Tories are prepared to sustain. For Andrew, I’m afraid it is a slow boil until Ms Giuffre extracts a penance. Meanwhile, hovering in the background is a malevolent figure. The role played by Commissioner Dick, of the Metropolitan Police, deserves examination. She held off conducting a thorough investigation into the shenanigans at Nos 10, while she knows more about Andrew's activities than is made public. Her officers will have detailed records of Andrew's movement that may throw light on the case. But I'm not holding my breath. Commissioner Dick has a teflon quality that both Boris and Andrew can only dream of. 9/1/2022 0 Comments Power has limits "Life always gets harder toward the summit—the cold increases, responsibility increases." Friedrich Nietzsche Down the eons of civilisation, leaders have learnt that their power has limits. Last week, the public visited that harsh lesson on our senior officials and politicians. Plus, in the modern era, with rapid interlinking communication, it is possible to soon feel how the wind of public opinion is blowing. Besides, seeking to control the narrative or covering up stuff has risks. You can expect the amplification of any falsehood, slip-up or massaging of the truth to be played back on a loop. So, while we may not have what the West would call full democracy, the public here can exert considerable influence because the Internet's public square allows quick and impactful comment. Thus, when news broke that senior officials and politicians partied with a possible Covid contact, matters soon escalated. Initial attempts by some to play down the incident promptly faltered. As a blast of public indignation took hold on social media, the government faced a dilemma. It had to address public anger and curtail a possible Covid cluster. But the optics of senior officials bussed into de facto detention could hardly be worse. Yet, in the end, the correct decision was taken and Penny’s Bay soon filled. This rapid action soon eased the firestorm of criticism. Then in another twist, the Covid alarm proved false. Yet, this incident demonstrates a point - fast and firm action is needed to protect the community and the administration’s standing. The government can no longer bet on issues blowing over. After all, if anything is going to fire up anger, it is the perception that officials are above the rules imposed on the rest of us. And although, in this case, the rule-breaking may amount to not using the 'Leave Home Safe' app, nonetheless, damage resulted. To Carrie Lam's credit, she acted fast when faced with tough choices. But, looking ahead, officials and politicians will need to take extreme care in all aspects of their conduct. And although the confirmation of a false positive eases the fallout, it doesn't negate the need for a complete account of what happened. There is plenty of evidence from academic research and life that accountability builds, sustains and affords a leader credibility. It’s worth noting that this goes beyond legal obligations into the moral domain. Lastly never forget the court of public opinion is a ruthless judge, so officials may do well to heed the wise words in this clip. Newsflash
Micheal Tien, a local politician, alleges more officials attended the event than initially thought. Moreover, he claims that Carrie Lam cautioned officials against attending large gatherings on the day of the party. Unfortunately, some officials didn't heed the advice. So far, two people who participated in the party have tested preliminarily positive for Covid. This story moves faster than a rabbit going down hill on a promise. 8/1/2022 1 Comment Carrie Achieves The Impossible "The Chaps in Beijing must be shaking their heads in disbelief at this saga." After years of division and polarisation in society, Carrie Lam and her team achieved the impossible — they've unified Hong Kong. But, unfortunately for Lam, it is a solidarity of disgust and anger mixed with sniggering at the antics of her top team. A team which she feels is beyond her control.
Ignoring long-standing advice to reduce Covid infections, officials and politicians gathered at a party, along with a suspected infected individual. As a result, a total of 170 guests are now in quarantine at Penny's Bay. At the time of writing, two attendees are showing positive for Covid. Among those quarantined are the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Immigration, the Commissioner of the ICAC, the Home Affairs minister, and 20 newly elected lawmakers. That's some catch. Last year, the Director of Immigration, AU Ka-wang, was fined for breaching social distancing rules at a hotpot dinner. On this occasion, he's admitted not using the 'Leave Home Safe' app. What a fine example he is setting to his subordinates. The timing of this debacle couldn't be worse for the government and especially Lam. Having this week announced new Covid restrictions and taken Cathay Pacific to task for their staff breaking the rules, this incident is a monumental own goal. Also, with the chief executive election due in March, Lam's chances are looking dented given the genuine anger on all sides of the political divide. While we do not get to elect Lam directly, I'm sure that Beijing takes account of sentiment here. They must be shaking their heads in disbelief at this saga. Lam went full head-girl to lambast Cathay Pacific after their people got caught breaking the rules to spread Covid in the city. Yet, when called to account for her team's actions, she claimed she was not responsible. The story developed rapidly yesterday, with initial attempts to play down the incident soon faltering as a wave of outrage swept the city. With in-dining suspended at 6 pm and everyday life disrupted, images of officials partying looks crass. At least Lam has awoken to the crisis and is now engaged in damage control as she investigates the whole fiasco. The director of her office, Eric Chan, has landed that daunting job. He will need to consider the breaches of the rules, including failures to use the 'Leave Home Safe' app and the broader aspects of unprofessional conduct. Either way, the damage to reputations is done. Along the way, these officials provided ammunition for Hong Kong's detractors at a significant moment. Many honourable members aren't around with the new LegCo due to start work next week. Social media has tagged the event as the ‘Witman Hung Cluster’ in honour of the host. Probably not the publicity the flamboyant 'party animal' sought. If media reports are accurate, Witman loves a good tune, so the best I can do is leave you with the Bee Gees. Newsflash : the suspected carrier has been declared a 'false positive.' Some are heading home after one night in Penny's Bay, while others will remain under observation.  "Carrie Lam has again failed to carry public opinion with her." Our chief executive has decided to re-impose sweeping restrictions in response to the Omicron variant. These measures come two days after she denied rumours of action as 'fake news’—another own goal!
I agree we need a response to the emerging clusters; yet, Carrie Lam has again failed to carry public opinion with her. Quite clearly, folks will hardly trust someone who contradicts themselves within days. That officials broke the guidance on Covid gatherings doesn't help matters. Lam went full head-girl on Cathay Pacific when their staff were caught breaching the rules, which places her in a bind. A few severe spankings are in order. Perhaps she should take her lead from Mainland authorities, who have no hesitation in holding officials to account for their failings. Maybe we could focus the attention of our wayward officials by applying similar provisions. I'm sure a stint in Penny's Bay will prove efficacious. Plus, we need to know what is the long-term plan. Any mention of that is notably absent from Lam's press conferences. If she doesn't see the end-game — which I suspect is the case — then have the decency to say that. Because as other developed economies start moving toward a post-pandemic world, our adherence to zero-cases is looking impossible to sustain. When will the penny drop? Obviously, concern over hospital ICU beds is a major factor in deciding to act as the city nears its capacity to handle Covid cases. With more than 340 people in isolation, the authorities are scrambling to create extra beds. Significantly the vast majority of those isolated are returning travellers. So let's give credit to the public's remarkable stoicism over the past year by going along with government directives without much complaint. That cooperation kept local transmissions down. But, their patience is not inexhaustible. Meanwhile, as the restrictions arrive, ordinary citizens are asking several questions. Why, for example, is in-restaurant dining stopped at 6 pm? Is the virus more active at night? After all, the recent outbreak is traced to a lunchtime event. As others have pointed out, Hong Kongers rarely cook at home during the week; thus, this provision means people will line up for take-aways. Does that add to the transmission risk? Also, why are gyms and swimming pools closed when there is no evidence of transmission at these venues in months? The so-called experts are not helping confidence that we need these measures by contradicting each other on the nightly news. It is difficult not to conclude a few are grandstanding and enjoying their moment of fame. At times they appear to be competing for air-time. While standing around in restaurants tracing the airflow to pontificate on how the virus may have spread looks credible, it is hardly scientific. I was always told you need to simulate the actual conditions. Thus testing airflow with the doors sealed and no people present hardly seems realistic. On the PR front, Carrie Lam continues without a principal spokesperson. This approach is out of kilter with most leaders who rely on a professional. Hence we are treated to important messages from Lam in her usual uncompelling style with the trademark lack of empathy. In the same way, her hubris was evident in last year's policy address. In a statement dripping with unacknowledged irony, she stated, "There are issues I can't avoid in the policy address." Except she managed to ignore them for the last four years. Her new big idea is to reorganise a couple of departments and create a culture bureau. But, of course, this will take time and energy, although giving the impression of action. While in truth, the wheels are spinning without any forward motion. It is a clever distraction if you are bereft of ideas. Even the Mainland authorities appear less than impressed. They have grown impatient for Hong Kong to engage with rapid developments in the Greater Bay Area. So while this vapid talk of re-structuring looks like progress, the housing crisis continues. To signal their concern, Chinese officials visited the cage-like homes of the underprivileged. At the heart of the matter are not structural issues; instead, a lack of courage hampers progress on significant issues. No amount of re-structuring will address that if senior civil servants remain timid, disengaged and awaiting instructions. In fairness to Lam, she is an administrator through and through, without much originality of thought. As I before pointed out, "Her administrative officer hinterland traps her. One flaw of the British colonial civil service training is that it created senior officials unmarked by doubt. They know best. Add to that a taint of Catholic infallibility, and you have a potent mix." Lam has a track record of over-confidence and under-delivery. Who remembers how she cleared up the problem of illegal structures in the NT, having given a solemn undertaking to tackle the issue? Don't you? That is because she didn't. In 2007, Lam wrote to the Heung Yee Kuk, reassuring them that villagers suspected of illegally transferring their ding rights would not face charges. I was always under the impression that the Department of Justice decided on prosecutions. Silly me. Then, in 2015, she refused to hold anyone to account for the contaminated water scandal. That was despite evidence pointing to lax civil servants. Compare that to Beijing's robust response to failings by civil servants. So I'm still surprised she survived the 2019 troubles, although much of that was down to the Police Force, who held the line while she wobbled. Lam may get a footnote in history as a competent administrator. But, with the CE election due on 27 March 2022, many of us asking, surely we can do better? The best I can do is leave you with a bit of Dolly Parton. 29/12/2021 0 Comments Anita - An Allegory for Hong Kong "Undoubtedly the emotive stuff hit the right notes with audiences seeking to remember a lost Hong Kong" This movie is a highly sentimental, sanitised and somewhat truncated account of Anita Mui's life. I saw her perform a couple of times and know the dodgy 1980s nightclubs she worked with her sister in Yaumati.
First off, the lead actress, the largely unknown Louise Wong, is superb. She captures Anita's pathos, although her voice is markedly different. Also, the film is a journey through the monumental changes Hong Kong experienced in the 1980s, 1990, and 2000s. Recreating long-gone settings, such as the Lai Chi Kok Amusement Park, captures a time and place that anchors the life of Hong Kongers from that era. With Jordan Road street scenes, Dai Pai Dongs and the trams making the turn outside the Lee Theatre, I had a tear in my eye. Along the way, original footage of her iconic performances comes cleverly intermingled to give the film an authentic feel. The movie's leitmotif is Anita's many failed relationships, her friendship with Leslie Cheung and her overwhelming tenacity to succeed. In the end, she foregoes love to marry the stage, appearing in a wedding dress for her final performance. Although, in truth, there is another Anita Mui story to be told, and while this film alludes to it, they didn't opt to explore the deep triad links that controlled the entertainment business. The infamous slapping incident is covered, but the fall-out of two murders and a brewing triad war gets breezily ignored. Likewise, the role of Anita's family as the film only focuses on her sister. Whitewashed from the story are her mother and brothers. That's another story. I guess the nasty family stuff and complications of intersecting on the fringes of the criminal underworld would change the tone of movie. Anyway, I enjoyed the stroll down memory lane. Also, describing Anita as the 'Madonna of the East' is far from the truth. She was a much more talented singer than Madonna and a better actress. Undoubtedly the emotive stuff hit the right notes with audiences seeking to remember a lost Hong Kong; that yearning for the past is especially evident after the self-destruction of 2019. Thus, I can do no better than leave you with the lyrics of 'Song of the Setting Sun', her signature song and final performance on 15 November 2003. Cancer took her 45 days later. In many ways the movie makers have given us an allegory of Hong Kong and this could be the anthem. The setting sun seems limitless, yet it’s radiance doesn’t last Gradually dispersing with the crimson clouds It glows, fades and doesn’t return. As months and years pass, Life’s upheavals are hard to endure Clouds gather and scatter, tangled in weary twists of fortune Along the endless road, suddenly aware of a fading life After all, happiness is brief and won’t return Who has seen that my dreams are ordinary? Having weathered so much wind and rain I stagger towards my hopes and dreams Having met your sincere shoulder and arm Which carried me through my suffering Rushing through the prime of life, my heart is dispirited The road ahead is full of twists and turns I want to go back one day, but it is too late. 20/12/2021 1 Comment Carrie Clings On "Although she's not on the ballot, the election turnout is a de-facto referendum on her popularity" Chief Executive Carrie Lam is no doubt sighing with some relief. She will take comfort that the 2021 LegCo election turnout is not catastrophically low at 30%. It is embarrassing, but after all, the results could be much worse.
Although she's not on the ballot, the election turnout is a de-facto referendum on her popularity and the government's standing. That plays into her re-election chances because she needs Beijing's endorsement. Other factors are Covid, the lingering memory of the unrest of 2019, and an unprecedented attempt at a boycott. The polls attracted international attention with electoral reforms that removed those seeking independence or overthrowing Beijing. In the weeks leading up to the election, a concerted effort by disaffected elements encouraged a boycott. That has failed; all they've done is give the other side a win. Nonetheless, Carrie Lam sounded rattled when she made this statement last week, "I think the turnout rate does not mean anything." Really? Why on earth say such a thing when you've spent millions on advertising campaigns, providing free public transport and making an all-out effort to encourage the electorate to turn out? Even Beijing got in on the act by asking people to vote. Lam's statement is ridiculous, revealing a lack of PR savvy that has marred her term as Chief Executive. Also, the fact is, a fair proportion of the public, on both sides of the political divide, view her as politically inept. Such statements affirm that view because turnout means a lot in terms of legitimacy. Any leader who denies that is kidding no one except themselves. Anyway, the turnout rate is an adequate 30%. LegCo elections usually attract between 40% and 45% of the electorate. And yes, this is much lower than attained in the recent District Council election, which hit 71%. It's worth noting that the first LegCo election under the British in 1991 achieved a 39% turnout, although that dropped to 37% in 1995. No doubt the critics will make much of such comparisons. But times have changed. The populist radicals aren't on the ballot, which means younger voters may not engage. Meanwhile, local correspondent Nury Vittachi argues this is the cleanest election we've had in decades. He has a point. Even so, the political climate, lacklustre campaigns and an air of indifference dampened enthusiasm. As a result of the events of 2019, some have concluded that too much politics leads to disorder. Alas, the offer of free public transport back-fired. Designed to encourage the people to come out, it worked. Except they headed for the hills while Ocean Park and Disney reported a brisk trade. Of course, the media in the West can't help themselves. The Guardian led with a headline, 'Police Deployed at Polling Stations as Hong Kong Votes.' So, yes, we had police officers outside the polling station following the UK practice. What can we conclude from this election? First, Hong Kong remains a society with deep divisions. Second, Lam may have dodged a bullet because the turnout didn't fall through the floor. Third, Lam's chances of a second term remain in play. Today, she is heading up to Beijing for her annual visit, aka 'staff appraisal'. Everyone is watching for hints of her fate. 19/12/2021 1 Comment Boris is Buggered "A politician complaining about the media is like a sailor complaining about the sea." Leadership 101 tells us that followers reject leaders who fail to set an example. When leaders ignore the rules they set for others, they delegitimise their words. In short, no one trusts them.
Boris Johnson, the hapless British PM, studied the Classics at Oxford. Maybe he was asleep or recovering from a night out wrecking a restaurant with the Bullingdon boys, when Aristotle's "Liars when they speak the truth are not believed" came up. Also, Aristotle spoke at length that leadership is an interaction between the leader and the follower. But not to an entitled posh boy, who survives by deflecting with humour and then muddling through. Not for him paying for new wallpaper, wearing a mask or adhering to the rules on partying during Covid. That's for the plebs. Before the Internet, mobile phones and CCTV, leaders could hide their activities to some extent. Not any more. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police again show an unwillingness to do their job when it involves influential people. They are happy to raid the weddings of ordinary folk, fining people under the Covid rules. Yet, they are less keen on investigating possible illegal goings-on in Downing Street. It should be easy for Commissioner Dick's crew to view the CCTV coverage of Downing Street to determine what was going on. After all, the whole area is secure, with all movements logged. Then, again, the Met has form for standing off and not doing its job. At the height of the phone-hacking saga in 2009, Assistant Commissioner Yates asserted there was no evidence of widespread phone hacking. In 2011, Yates resigned under a cloud of suspicion fighting hard against allegations he had a relationship with Rebecca Brookes. A later inquiry found that he had failed to investigate phone hacking properly. Is it too much to suggest that the Metropolitan Police have never learned their lesson? Or must I notch this nonsense up to another failing of Teflon Commissioner Dick? With each day comes a new blow to Boris. The North Shropshire by-election was a disaster, with an unprecedented swing against the Tories. Then the bloke Boris asked to investigate the alleged parties, top civil servant Simon Case, resigned because he'd had a party. That Boris needs an inquiry to discover what's happening one floor below his flat tells us a lot. Next Boris's Brexit man, Lord Frost, seen as the only adult in the room, resigned citing policy disagreements. Frost took to The Spectator magazine to explain why he's fallen out with Boris. The public has decided that Boris is deceitful; thus, he is a liability for Tory MP's. They now openly discuss his possible successors as momentum builds to remove him. In a bizarre twist, Boris is getting his Covid plans through because the opposition Labour Party support his approach. And all this comes at a critical time. The British nation looks for leadership and clear direction, as Covid surges, it has a buffoon at the helm. Meanwhile, this clown blames the media for his troubles by focussing too much on politics. As Enoch Powell observed, "A politician complaining about the media is like a sailor complaining about the sea." Stay tuned; more to come. 19/12/2021 0 Comments Smoke Gets in Your Eyes "Smoking is projected to a take toll of one billion lives by the end of the 21st century." Hearing that New Zealand proposes banning smoking, my emotional brain blurted out, "Good for you!”. Then my rational side engaged, "Wait a minute, this isn't going to work. All they've done is create a new revenue stream for the criminals and reduced government tax coffers".
On a positive note, smoking rates are falling worldwide. For generation Z —those born between the mid-1990s and the early 2010s — 68% never smoked. Government policies and tactics played a role; gigantic health warnings, age restrictions, plain packaging, disgusting pictures of cancerous lungs, stiff taxes, public smoking bans and so on. Less obvious is that people are more health-conscious. This change in the culture removes the subtle group pressure that may push young people into the habit. As a result, according to data for Hong Kong, 10% of the population are regular smokers, a decline from about 23% in the early 1980s. Although Hong Kong's heavy taxation on cigarettes meant the triads and others, who illegally import untaxed tobacco that sells cheaper, had a business opportunity; that trade continues despite regular seizures. The merits of reducing smoking are a non-brainer. In the US, cigarette smoking is the leading cause of cancer mortality. The National Cancer Institute director Norman Sharpless asserts," Eliminating smoking in America would cut about one-third of all cancer deaths." Globally, tobacco use killed over 100 million people in the 20th century and is projected to a take toll of one billion lives by the end of the 21st century. Yet still, some people keep smoking. And while officials and campaigners talk of an 'endgame' for smoking, that's a tricky one. For the record, I probably smoked about 10 cigarettes in my teens. Fortunately it always disagreed with me, and I avoided tobacco since. Watching a close relative slowly die from lung cancer reinforced the message - stay away. As far as I can tell, only Bhutan tried to ban smoking starting in 2004. Almost immediately, this led to rapid growth in the illicit sale of tobacco. Also, something else odd happened. As the ban was imposed, only 1% of the Bhutanese were smokers. However, recent data shows that around 34% of men and about 13.6% of women aged 18-69 are tobacco users– a stark growth in numbers. What is going on? There is a suggestion that making smoking illegal developed an aura of the 'forbidden fruit' that attracted people to tobacco. This effect proved somewhat pronounced in young people. According to the Global Youth Tobacco Survey, the prevalence of tobacco use in this age group is disproportionately high in Bhutan. Bhutan has now eased the ban because it drove illicit cross-border movement into India, bringing Covid back. Although, the Bhutan government asserts this relaxation is a temporary measure. The proportion of people who smoke in New Zealand has fallen to 16%, while some 5,000 New Zealanders die from smoking-related causes every year. That death rate corresponds with global rates. The New Zealand approach involves a long run-up to the all-out ban on smoking. Incrementally they plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. Anyone born after 2008 will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime, under a law expected next year. Hence tobacco will be available for those born before 2008, allowing a black market to develop. Also, nicotine may be the most addictive bit of smoking, but it is not the most harmful. The leading causes of disease are tar, toxic chemicals, and smoke inhalation. How you enforce the age restrictions may prove a contentious issue. There are no national identity cards, and who carries the liability for proving age? When the United States banned alcohol, under prohibition, Americans wanted to carry on drinking. So they did. Thus rather than legitimate, tax-paying businesses, they bought their alcohol from the mob. In the process, many law enforcement agencies fell to corruption as the mob gained influence. Plus, I hear the US war on drugs is still going brilliantly. The country has millions of addicts that even militarised policing can't contain. So, while New Zealand's approach is, on the surface, a worthy initiative, it is the unforeseen consequences that may trip up this bold move. Others argue that these proposals are illiberal, suggesting the New Zealand government is over-reaching in a intrusive manner. Let’s see how this unfolds. 10/12/2021 1 Comment Boris Implodes "Posh bird Allegra Stratton joking about the 'alleged' lockdown party in Downing Street may be a tipping point." Poor Boris Johnson has had a rough week. Much of it is his own doing - caught lying about Christmas parties at Nos 10 while the rest of the country was in lockdown.
Now it also appears he prioritised the evacuation of dogs over people from Kabul in August. It doesn't look good. A Foreign Office whistle-blower made clear: time spent on dogs was not spent on people. Some of those people are now dead. Add to that Johnson's inability to secure the borders, sleaze allegations and the fact he can't keep the power on after a bit of rough weather. That clowning visage is starting to slip. And, oh yes, his wife Carrie delivered him of child number seven. But, of course, when I say seventh child, that is a guess because it's unclear how many kids the PM has fathered. It isn't easy to keep track when dealing with a randy alley-cat. So, Johnson's future is looking shaky. Many things could bring down the clown prince of British politics, but my money is on his many lies catching up with him. Posh bird Allegra Stratton joking about the 'alleged' lockdown party in Downing Street may be a tipping point. Her utter contempt for the law and the people denied the right to hold the hand of dying loved ones feeds straight into the 'them and us' narrative. All these shenanigans lead back to the Johnson household. Stratton is Carrie Johnson's best mate. The suggestion is that connections helped Stratton get the job of PM's spokesperson. Moreover, Stratton's husband is the Political Editor of The Spectator magazine, somebody the PM would wish to keep on side. Somewhat like Ed Oldfield's father, the 23-year-old son is a special advisor to Johnson and joined in the fun about the 'alleged' party. But, Oldfield's father is a major Tory donor, so I'm confident this had nothing to do with young Oldfield getting a job at Nos 10. On the contrary, I've heard he advises on crucial matters such as making the tea and getting the pizzas in. Looking from 6000 miles away, Johnson is a painful joke and a national embarrassment. But you can't say nobody warned us. Max Hastings, the respected editor of Daily Telegraph, fired Johnson, stating, "He is unfit for public office." On the back of all this, opposition leader Kier Stainer again couldn't land a killer blow during Prime Ministers Questions. So instead, the job fell to Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, MP for Tooting. She was working in intensive care during the lockdown. She recalls weeping behind her mask as she watched an online call between three children and their mother, who had fallen unconscious. They were begging and pleading with her to wake up. Meanwhile, Nos 10 was in party mode. Dr Allin-Kan asked Johnson, "How do you sleep at night?" That question landed a wallop to Johnson's solar plexus as all the usual flippant jest expelled. Before slumping back to the benches, a crestfallen Johnson rose to express his sympathy — the only possible response. And while the party stuff is a classic example of the cover-up proving more damaging than the actual event, the Kabul saga is far more troubling. The rush from Kabul found the UK wanting on all fronts; a lack of capacity, a lack of urgency, a lack of planning, confused priorities and no leadership. If the evidence of whistle-blower Raphael Marshall is accurate, former Foreign Secretary, now Deputy PM, Dominic Raab should go. Raab was on holiday and couldn't understand the urgent briefs sent to him at the critical time. So he adopted the old tactic by seeking a rewrite and reformatting before deciding. These changes took valuable time; meanwhile, the clock ticked down as the Taliban closed in. Not helping matters are indulgent work/life balance policies that ensure FCO staff didn't get too stressed. So no night-shift. Sad to say, hard-pressed soldiers at Kabul had no such comfort. In the end, the UK left its people behind to face their fate at the hands of the Taliban. Reports suggest a 100 plus former staff from the British Embassy remain in hiding with little chance of rescue. Well done, Raab! As I write, reports are coming in that Johnson may have also lied about who paid for the refurbishment of his flat. How many hits can this man fend off? With a by-election next week, pundits will be watching the outcome. Tory backbenchers, who never wholly trusted Johnson, are waiting to pounce. If nothing else, the Tories are ruthless when exiting a leader, as Thatcher discovered. David Cameron's time at PM ended in disgrace after calling and losing a referendum on Europe. Johnson's time as PM may end because he lied to protect his indulgent wife's purchase of wallpaper. Oh, the indignity. 8/12/2021 2 Comments An Orgy of Deceit "Executing captured enemy fighters in front of the media is never a good look when you wish to portray yourself as the good guys." Max Hastings's book, 'Vietnam - An Epic History of a Tragic War' exposes an intoxicating mix of smoke and mirrors, coupled with the sheer doggedness of the North Vietnamese. His account of the war blends all the political and military narratives, telling the painful tale through the eyes of both sides.
This recent history fascinates because the bow wave of the war rocked Hong Kong for decades as refugees fled. First published in 2018, I've just completed the book that uncovers many uncomfortable facts that leave no side untouched. Described as "His best work yet", the author pulls no punches. He is critical of both the North and South regimes, but especially the self-deception at the highest levels of the American government. If you have the stomach for it, Hastings provides an inventory of this historic atrocity including the 12 million gallons of lethal toxins sprayed by the Americans on the Vietnamese and US troops. These dioxins disguised by the softer name ‘Agent Orange’ linger to this day, poisoning the earth and people. We get a full account of a relentless orgy of deceit, as President Nixon lied to his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger about bombing Hanoi. Then, in turn, Kissinger lied to the Russians, the Chinese, the North and South Vietnamese. Meanwhile, the North Vietnamese lied to the US and everybody they dealt with. Much of the history is well-worn ground. Yet Hastings manages to surface rich detail exposing the falsehoods, duplicity and delusions that shaped the war. For starters, we have the distortion of the events in the Gulf of Tonkin on 2nd and 4th August 1964, when the American public was told that North Vietnamese forces conducted sustained attacks on a US vessel. All untrue. Then, using this embellished incident as an excuse, President Johnson committed more US forces in a marked escalation of the war. As the story unfolds, self-interest dominates each side's actions to exclude rational assessments. President Nixon's deal to withdraw, extracting the US from the war, came driven by one factor — his 1972 reelection chances. The deaths of US troops or Vietnamese civilians had no bearing. Much earlier, by late 1966, American experts concluded that the US was unlikely to win. Yet President Johnson and then Nixon kept adding to the pile of bodies until 1975. In the process, they drew innocent Cambodians and Laotians into their destructive game. As a consequence, both nations plunged into years of chaos. When you strip away all the guff and get to the core of the issue, the North Vietnamese had the will to keep fighting despite losing most battles. Moreover, the vast, sophisticated US war machine had only a marginal impact on the outcome. Secretary for Defence McNamara's use of calculations in pursuit of industrialised warfare, his kill rates, statistical models and application of 'business practices' counted for nothing against the tenacity of fighters in rubber sandals with AK47s. Sure the Americans and their allies could defeat the enemy on the field of battle, but that's not the point. When the other side doesn't surrender, you can't pretend you've won. McNamara, a disillusioned man, exited the stage before the final act. He resigned in 1968, going to head the World Bank, where he somewhat atoned for his sins by shifting the Bank's work towards poverty alleviation. In the end, the North Vietnamese won the public relations battle, with the 1968 Tet offensive the pivotal moment. For months General Westmoreland and President Johnson assured the American people that victory was in sight. Then, on 30 January 1968, the Viet Cong, supported by North Vietnamese regulars, struck targets across the country during Tet. This audacious attack struck 100 towns and cities, including provincial capitals and Saigon. Airfields, military bases, police and government buildings all came under assault. In Hue, a month-long battle raged, while in Saigon, Viet Cong commandoes stormed parts of the US embassy compound. A US Marine captain, Mike Downs, recalls, "We didn't know where the enemy was, in which direction even." Much of this played out live on US news channels, destroying the myth that the Americans were winning. Yet, in truth, the Tet offensive proved a military disaster for the North Vietnamese as they suffered huge losses of men and equipment. Their ability to sustain the struggle was now in doubt. Perhaps not fully appreciated by the North at the time, they'd scored a significant victory by undermining US public support for the war. The incredible rose-tinted reports assuring the American people that the enemy was only capable of small ambushes no longer had traction. Moreover, executing captured enemy fighters in front of the media is never a good look when you wish to portray yourself as the good guys. Although, neither side had a monopoly on atrocities. Johnson soon announced he'd not be standing for reelection. Then Westmoreland moved on. And by 1969, Nixon was in office. Eventually, Nixon did a deal to pull out that had the South Vietnamese assume responsibility for holding the North at bay. Just one problem, the US negotiated that deal without consulting their supposed ally in South Vietnam. Over-confident assessments claimed the South Vietnamese forces would hold out. And in fairness, several units did sterling work. Then once the North Vietnamese realised the South could no longer call on US airpower, the rout started. In no time, the triumphant North Vietnamese rolled into Saigon. That sounds familiar — the parallels with recent events in Afghanistan are uncanny. Inflated reports of military success, secret deals and then a quick clumsy withdrawal. That is not the only coincidence. In recent times we've seen dodgy dossiers used to manufacture consent for the war in Iraq. Please stand-up war-criminal Alistair Campbell. Joining him came Colin Powell feeding falsehoods to the world in the UN chamber. Add to that a 'them and us' attitude that takes no account of the world's complexities. Hastings concludes the book with a quote from US Marine General Walter Eugene Boomer, "What was it all about? It bothers me we didn't learn a lot. If we had, we would not have invaded Iraq". Well, indeed. Except he should reference the leaked Pentagon Papers. President Johnson stated that the Vietnam War aimed to secure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam". However, the Pentagon Papers told a different story. In a January 1965 memorandum by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton, the justification was "not to help a friend, but to contain China". The book contains many equivalent chilling episodes. But, for me, the most startling occurred in October 1972, as Kissinger stood before the South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu. "The US will never sacrifice a trusted friend", he assured the South Vietnamese leader. Two days later, back in Washington, he told staffers in the White House, "I have only one desire — to turn the Vietnamese loose on each other." Today Vietnam is a prosperous modern place. I've visited several times, taking the compulsory tour of the Cu Chi Tunnels — a Disneyfied version of the deprivations suffered by the Viet Cong fighters. Modern Vietnamese are upbeat and engaged with the world, while Ho Chi Minh city (the former Saigon) is glitzy. As Hastings observes, "Where the US armed forces failed with B-52s, defoliants and Spooky gunships, YouTube and Johnny Depp have proven irresistible." And this returns us to a crucial point. If allowed to work by osmosis, culture is a powerful tool. If nothing else, the aftermath of the war taught us that. 3/12/2021 0 Comments M+ gets a B+ "After two hours I’d covered about 60 percent of the exhibits. There is a lot to take in. I’ll be back." M+ offers executed penguins, plump naked ladies, a talking crucifix and a trip down memory lane. Hong Kong's new M+ visual arts museum is proving a roaring success. Part of the much delayed and massive West Kowloon Cultural District, the museum opened to the public on 12th November. Intended to rival the Tate Modern, New York's MoMA and the Centre Pompidou, M+ has made a cracking start. The first two days saw over 50,000 people visit, with crowd marshalling needed to prevent a crush. The project was scheduled for completion in 2017, so the over-run put a dent in Hong Kong's reputation for delivering such ventures on time. Erecting a large structure atop two underground rail lines is an ambitious undertaking and would never be easy. A mega-truss was necessary to hold up one side of the building, which proved tricky to install. In addition, frequent management changes, accusations of incompetence and shoddy work marred the project. Along the way, a few reputations suffered. While M+ is open and other parts of the project, several key elements remain undelivered. In response, many commentators portrayed the West Kowloon Cultural District endeavour as an illustration of slipping standards of governance. The setting of M+ on the southern tip of the Kowloon peninsular facing Hong Kong Island is magnificent. The juxtaposition of the harbour, park and cafes add to the package, although there is still much to be done to exploit the potential for outdoor dining. Sadly, I regret to say that the M+ building doesn't grab me as exciting or innovative. Externally it's an inverted T, with false bamboo cladding. The adjacent Lyric Theatre construction site doesn’t help the vibe. The one redeeming feature is the massive LED system on the harbour-facing facade that makes the site visible from Hong Kong side. Inside, the initial impression is nuclear bunker - all drab grey straight concrete lines. Do I detect a 'brutalist architecture' ambience that scarred so many 1960s new towns in the UK? Looks like it. Yes, it is functional but not aesthetically pleasing. Because looking at it, I can't detect any special features. And before you take issue with my comments, as a taxpayer I get to rant. After all, I helped pay for this concrete box. The initial budget was HK$5.9bn although that sum has grown considerably. Nobody is saying by how much. On a more positive note, some outer galleries use natural light to excellent effect. Admittedly the building is a secondary consideration, and fortunately, the art is far more exhilarating. Yes, some of it wasn't to my taste; nonetheless, the range is ambitious and engaging. Also, set aside all the nonsense around censorship since the NSL was enacted. Many in the media focused on allegations of prohibitions against anything too sensitive. Well, for starters the dead penguins reference the 1989 Tiananmen killings, and several exhibits depict the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution. Meanwhile, Mao is shown behind bars. I’m only aware of items by Ai Weiwei that faced removal. A group of local politicians accused these pieces of "spreading hatred". Pictures of nudity also attracted objections, although the principal prudish complainant admitted she'd not seen the exhibit. The items remain on display. There is a variety of multi-media material. Some pieces document Hong Kong's development with intriguing contrasting clips using animation and live footage. Several of the works reflect the city’s urbanisation, with artistic interpretations of Hong Kong’s housing conditions. A black and white film from the 1960s Beijing underground movement caught my eye. It records ordinary people's experiences of the cultural revolution without commentary. The abundance of posters and pamphlets to spread messages, sits in distinct contrast to our social media world. I didn't get to see Antony Gormley's 'Asian Field' exhibit. This piece is an installation of tens of thousands of clay figurines created by the artist together with over 300 villagers from a Guangdong village in 2003. A 45-minute queue spoke to the popularity of this gallery. After two hours I’d covered about 60 percent of the exhibits. There is a lot to take in. I’ll be back. It's still early days, but I reckon M+ will prove a winner once it matures. With 17,000 m² of exhibition space the possibilities are endless. I give it a B+. Access is easy with a 10-minute walk from Kowloon Station. But, that time should shorten once the connecting footbridge opens. In any case, there are plenty of signs to guide visitors. At the moment entry is free with an internet booking. This keeps the numbers in check otherwise I suspect the place would be swamped. Below is a small sample of some of the art and use of space. 28/11/2021 6 Comments Can Britain Secure the Border? "Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them." Thomas Sowell For decades, illegal immigrants entering the colony of Hong Kong faced an immediate return to the Mainland. Each morning trucks carried men and women back over the boundary at the Man Kam To crossing.
This policy, executed with ruthless efficiency, had the full cooperation of the Chinese government. It's worth noting that the British authorities gave scant consideration to refugee status and political asylum claims. Before the war, the regime was less strict, with people moving with relative ease into Hong Kong. But, in the late 1940s, as China convulsed through a period of instability, more people fled, making their way to Hong Kong. As a result, a crowded Hong Kong faced the prospect of overwhelming numbers pouring through the porous land boundary and sea routes. That all changed in 1951. In an attempt to stem the influx of people and the strain on Hong Kong, the government created the Frontier Closed Area. This initiative involved creating a restricted area, then installing a fence and watchtowers. The British army and the police guarded the boundary with patrols and ambush points. Although illegal immigration has long ceased to be a problem, a modern version of the fence still exists. The economic success of China removed the impulse to seek a new life overseas. Yet, decades after the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, the fence is a reminder that this place remains separate and distinct. By the time I took command of the Man Kam To sector in 1995, illegal immigration had waned to a trickle. On a few occasions, we encountered pregnant ladies seeking to have a child born in Hong Kong. They'd risk squeezing through holes in the fence to cross the narrow stream at the eastern end of the sector and enter Hong Kong even late in their pregnancy. Snakeheads, who organised these attempts, spread false stories that the family could remain if the child were born in Hong Kong. One of the more bizarre aspects of the British approach was the Touch Base Policy, which operated from 1974 until 1980. If the illegals made it south of Boundary Street, they could apply for an identity card to remain in Hong Kong. The Victoria Immigration Centre, on the site of the current Pacific Place, processed the applications. Those caught before getting south of Boundary Street faced repatriation to the Mainland. The authors of this policy displayed a perverse sense of fair play or sought to assuage guilt by giving the illegals a chance. Either way, typical English woolliness shaped the scheme that allowed plucky illegals the opportunity to win. In effect, they'd turned the dangerous business of seeking refuge into an early version of the 'Hunger Games'. That all stopped on 24 October 1980. As the influx of illegal immigrants continued, the policy had failed. Henceforth all illegals faced an immediate return to the Mainland. Those already in Hong Kong had a three-day grace period to register, and the compulsory carrying of identity cards came in. With London's approval, the colonial authorities proved willing to take tough decisions to safeguard Hong Kong society. Likewise, the leaders in Beijing recognised the importance of retaining Hong Kong as a valued asset. Thus, they pragmatically acquiesced in the policies of the colonial government. Contrast this to the unfolding events in the English Channel. Last week 27 people died attempting to cross this busy sea lane in a flimsy inflatable. Hong Kong dampened the pull factors that attracted illegals by making it clear they'd go back. However, the situation in the Channel is far more complicated, and much more dangerous for those attempting to cross. Whether the UK can agree a return arrangement with France, a supposed ally, remains a moot point. You must recognise that Brexit soured relations and other issues complicate matters, including access to fishing grounds. Moreover, the problem is not new. In 2018, as I cycled through Normandy, it was soon clear that thousands of young men of middle-eastern origin were loitering near the ports. They'd attempt to enter trucks heading to Britain. As I came into the port of Ouistreham, the police and military had roadblocks and a cordon in place. Meanwhile, in the streets around the harbour, hundreds of young men waited their chance. The police soon chased down those who climbed the fence that secured the ferry boarding area. Hamstrung by a raft of human rights laws, the UK cannot deport those screened-out as genuine refugees. Thus, the numbers prepared to risk everything will continue to grow. Then you have Border Force staff refusing to implement policies enacted by the government. The British need to ask themselves several questions. First, how many migrants are they are prepared to take? Factored into that is what is the potential for societal dislocation is due to high levels of immigration? Third, is the government prepared to take the tough decisions that will reduce the pull factors which attract immigrants? Lastly, does the country have the means to implement the policies it deems needed? Once you establish controls, an orderly scheme to allow migrants to enter is possible. It’s madness to continue with the current confusion of policies, politics and relentless disputes with France that encourage illegal immigrants to take risks. I have no immediate solutions, Yet, don’t forget that Hong Kong's illegal immigration problem vanished as China prospered. So maybe if the West stopped bombing nations into submission and instead encouraged economic development, people wouldn't need to flee. For example, the war in Afghanistan has cost $2.3 trillion. That sort of money could lift the country and several of its neighbours out of poverty. Moreover, with decent living standards at home, people are less likely to make themselves migrants. Instead, rational choice theory suggests they'd opt to remain at home. If there is one lesson to come out of this, it must be that Boris needs to take some tough decisions to secure the UK's borders and protect life. In the end, desperate people will always be tempted to have a go, and many could die if the system tacitly encourages them to try. If you have to be cruel to be kind, you must accept the unpleasantness that results from your cruelty. But, unfortunately, the unsettling truth of Britain's current approach to illegal immigrants is that society has decided to be kind to its conscience and thus unleashed new cruelty on those seeking to cross the Channel. 24/11/2021 0 Comments Mr Z's Matrix Madness "Well, if you think kids spend too much time online now, wait until Mr Z gets his vision up and running." As Mr Z announced his latest innovation, why didn't he have the courage to call it the "The Matrix"? After all, his "Metaverse" has the necessary dystopian elements with an omnipotent Mr Z sitting atop the virtual mountain. A verdict not helped by Mr Z's avatar displaying more warmth and humanity than the real thing.
I'm asking, are we to allow this flaccid nerd further direct access to our brains because that is what he wants? I don't suppose Mr Z is evil, but he's driven to prove he's the most intelligent person in the room, and that is a worry. I've defended him in the past, but these days I'm less keen. He controls a global empire that has indisputably done harm — along with much good — and yet he ignores the downside. Recent revelations by whistleblowers cause me to question whether he should remain the final arbiter of many aspects of life in the West. I'm sure he didn't seek that role, yet that is where he is, given the reach and success of Facebook. I said the West because Facebook is banned in China and elsewhere. Meanwhile, other countries, such as India, are imposing tighter controls in response to concerns that the platform is feeding extremist behaviour. Mr Z's Metaverse envisages a 3-D virtual space where you can share an immersive experience. Guess where this is going. Yes, sex is again proving a driver of innovation. Porn propelled the expansion of the VHS video market, while sex websites did the same for the early internet. Libido was also at the genesis of Facebook; a nerd rejected by a girl because of his poor interpersonal skills gets revenge through a website rating women. From one million users in 2004 to 608 million six years later, you've got to give Mr Z his due. Facebook has more members than people existed 100 years ago. That's some achievement. Of course, the marketing teams will trumpet the positives of the Metaverse, and these are real. The potential of such a system is immense; medical care, teaching, entertainment and shopping are all in there. And while a low-resolution version of the Metaverse exists, these proposals take the process a significant step further. What could go wrong? Well, if you think kids spend too much time online now, wait until Mr Z gets his vision up and running. He is offering them the opportunity to drop out of reality, to spend their time in an immersive fake world without consequences or responsibilities. That is a tempting prospect in a world of trouble. The technology will use motion detectors that mimic human activity with hand, eye and body movements. We already have that with 3-D headsets. What we don't have is Electroencephalogram (EEG) technology to pick up brain patterns. That's the scary part of Mr Z's proposals. This technology is playing with the fabric of who you are as a person. It intrudes into the intensely private parts of the brain. That alone is disturbing. Acting in a feedback loop, the Metaverse presents the possibility of a progressive and relentless deterioration of our capacity to control our brains. The Metaverse also has the potential to put cybercrime on steroids. With fake avatars a possibility, crimes and cyberbullying would prove relatively easy as the line of reality further blurs. In short, Mr Z could control how you experience the world. We know that Facebook has a history of unscrupulous behaviour, including manipulating emotions, filtering news, and curtailing aspects of free speech. Then, again, others believe the Metaverse is a long way off. Instead, they see Mr Z's announcement as nothing more than an attempt to distract the media and the public from the allegations made by whistleblower Frances Haugen. The former employee leaked documents revealing that Facebook appears to have a cavalier attitude towards the company's negative impacts. At Congressional hearings, she said that Mr Z is not a bad person; yet, he is unsuited to the role of CEO. In her view, he's long been aware of the dangers of Facebook and yet doesn't act. It doesn't help Mr Z that aiding and abetting him is Nick Clegg. Remember him? He's the former U.K. Deputy Prime Minister politician who promised U.K. students no rise in fees. Yet, once he had their votes in the bag, he increased fees as part of a coalition deal. In short, he has few scruples. Cleggy is now Mr Z's spin doctor with a busy portfolio. He's spent the last few years defending Facebook against allegations it allowed interference in elections, gave a platform to extremists and live-streamed a massacre. Plus, until recently, Facebook came riddled with anti-vaxxing nonsense. There is a school of thought that Facebook would be considered a rogue state if a country. And yet, Facebook operates with impunity. No legislature, no law enforcement agency has managed to rein in its excesses. In 1909, the U.S. government acted against Standard Oil under antitrust laws to curtail the companies dominance. Today, is any politician brave enough to deal with Facebook to reduce the stranglehold on social media and how we see the world? Mr Z has 10,000 staff working on the Metaverse, with billions invested in the project. So we need to watch him like a hawk because, if nothing else, the opportunities for criminality are endless. 23/11/2021 1 Comment A Simulation of Virtue Falters "Given the chilling interventions mounted by the likes of Biden and Harris in the Rittenhouse case, they’ve rode roughshod over judicial independence." After more than two weeks of evidence and 25 hours of deliberations, a 12-person jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse of all five charges he faced after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer. The events unfolded during riots that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old man. The first man Rittenhouse shot and killed, Joseph Rosenbaum, chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. The second, Anthony Huber, hit him with a skateboard after he had fallen to the ground. The third, Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived, aimed his pistol at Rittenhouse's head when Rittenhouse fired. Grosskreutz admitted as much on the stand, bringing the prosecution crashing down. Hence, Rittenhouse's self-defence argument was bound to fly. For the record, Rosenbaum is a convicted child rapist who’d been released from a mental hospital days before being shot. And the other two men are hardly upstanding citizens.  And yet, the decision to acquit Rittenhouse is now under attack from the highest levels of the US government. Both President Biden and Vice President Harris decried the result, even though neither sat through the evidence. Biden declared himself angry at the jury decision. Harris went further. She called for reforms because the jury didn't return the result she wanted and expected. Wow! Then, Biden, as usual in a confused state, sought to roll back on his criticism by a mealy-mouthed plea "to respect the jury decision". If Biden truly respected that decision, this should be the end of the matter, but he opted to play both ends. What does all this tell us about respect for the US judicial system and the legal tenets at its foundation? One can conclude that Biden, Harris and many others don't seek a fair and open justice system, but rather a kangaroo court. Also, the judge in the Rittenhouse case banned NBC from the court. One of their freelancers was caught following the jury bus in an apparent attempt to photograph the jury despite an anonymity order. But, of course, there is a whole debate around allowing a 17-year-old kid to wander around with a semi-automatic rifle. Rittenhouse’s weapon was legal despite misleading reporting to the contrary. This is only one example of a myriad of distortions put out by the media. But I'm not going down that rabbit hole today. All these shenanigans around the Rittenhouse case arouse my interest when viewed against the treatment Hong Kong's judicial system has received from US politicians. Years of brickbats, ill-informed criticism and outright distortions pepper their outbursts. Recent events here, including the civil unrest and enactment of the NSL, prompted a renewed frenzy of bile from many self-serving, unqualified and deceitful pundits. As usual, British and US lawmakers topped that list. Yet, stop for a moment to imagine the outcry if Carrie Lam made public statements lamenting the decision of our courts to acquit accused rioters. US politicians would be falling over themselves to fire criticism our way, and not to be outdone, the usual hysterical barking crowd in the UK would join in. Although, any honest reading of the situation in Hong Kong must conclude that our courts continue to operate independently. We've seen accused rioters acquitted when doubts exist, and the recent decision on the matter of 'joint enterprise' demonstrates resolute common sense still exists at the highest levels of our judiciary. Reading the judgment in the 'joint enterprise’ ruling, you can see the deep roots in common law that anchor Hong Kong's courts. In the matter of 'joint enterprise', non-permanent judge Lord Sumption played a part. People are often surprised when I mention that Hong Kong courts still have 'on-loan' judges from the UK and elsewhere. I wonder if the Americans would entertain such a provision? Their legal system is based in common law, therefore inviting judges from other jurisdictions is feasible. Hong Kong is open-minded enough to adopt such a practice. I'd argue the integrity of Hong Kong's justice system is under direct attack, not from Beijing but from forces in the West. These unwelcome interventions are one element of the bitter public-opinion war against China, with Hong Kong as a pawn. Using an army of partisan think tanks and pseudo-experts, allegations are thrown around without any credibility. Given the chilling interventions mounted by the likes of Biden and Harris in the Rittenhouse case, they’ve rode roughshod over judicial independence. They've allowed their negative emotions to eclipse reason. And when reason is eclipsed, mobs spring up. That’s something we understand in Hong Kong. Thankfully our legal system remains above the fray despite many challenges. 19/11/2021 1 Comment Here We Go Again! "What is done to screen the hundreds of young men who illegally cross the Channel each week?" On Sunday, as reports of the Liverpool bomb attack started to emerge, immediately the speculation began. A good many people played the game; let's guess the culprit's name.
The blast's date, timing, and the location at a women's hospital all factored into the process. Soon, we learned the original target was likely the nearby Remembrance Day service in Liverpool. Bingo. Nobody was opting for a suspect called John Smith. Of course, every time this happens, there is silence as heads disappear into the sand with officials and a complicit media warning against jumping to conclusions. Yet, a weary British public soon made up their minds, and no amount of spin will change that. Then you can almost feel the relief in certain quarters that the terrorist was a "Christian convert". We soon heard that the culprit's application for asylum was rejected in 2014, although he remained in the UK despite a history of threatening behaviour. Clinging to these morsels of comfort, the Guardianista types can now work to shape the narrative. Throw in the "lone-wolf" label, mental health issues, and they've got it covered. They can now chalk up the attack to a disgruntled unstable Christian suicide bomber. The BBC, CNN, Sky, Channel 4, and the print media repeatedly reported that he'd converted to Christianity to reinforce the point. Except did the culprit convert, or was he practising Taqiyya? I'd never heard of this concept until a Muslim friend pointed it out. This process involves concealing your faith and foregoing prayers to deceive non-Muslims. But, we may never know the truth because the bloke has died. Adding to the confusion are media reports asserting that the Church of England is converting hundreds of refugees to Christianity to game the asylum system. Once converted, a person can claim they'd face persecution if returned to their home country. In effect, such conversions stall deportations. By a happy coincidence, Cherie Blair made millions from Legal Aid defending those with no right to be in the UK after her husband introduced the Human Rights Act that facilitated endless appeals. The process pretty much guarantees an illegal gets to stay once they're in the country. Meanwhile, from the footage, I deduce that the bomb didn't fully detonate, or only the fuze functioned. The fire suggests an ammonia nitrate type explosive typical of homemade bombs. In addition, evidence is emerging that the bomb was packed with ball bearing to cause maximum injuries. So, the alertness and actions of taxi driver David Perry averted a massacre. The primary task of every government is the protection of its citizens. In this regard, the British security services have made it known they are tracking thousands of Islamic militants. That's an impossible undertaking. While the comparison is not entirely justified, consider that the IRA at its height had around 10,000 members but only 1,000 plus active in terrorism. Yet, despite the focus of RUC, the considerable resources of the British Army and the security services, they couldn't keep track. Likewise, the vast majority of Catholics had no involvement with the IRA terrorists. And the same can be said of the Muslim community. For the record, there are 3.2 million Muslims in Britain, accounting for 5.8% of the population. Keeping track of people against that background is near impossible. Moreover, savvy terrorists know to go offline, cut contacts with their community and adopt behaviours that don't raise suspicion. Some argue that 'Prevent', a component of the UK's 'Contest' counter-terrorist programme, is not working. There is a body of evidence from academic studies that the Muslim community believe 'Prevent' to be a general intelligence gathering exercise and don't trust the initiative. Moreover, Ali Harbi Ali, the killer of MP Sir David Amess, went through the 'Prevent' programme. Yet, it didn't stop him from plunging a knife into Amess 17 times. Nonetheless, the security services can claim some success, having stopped 31 late-stage plots in the last four years. Still, all this begs the question, what is done to screen the hundreds of young men who illegally cross the Channel each week? In some instances, the Royal National Life Boat Institute - which is a charity - are ferrying these people into Britain. And once ashore, it's proving near impossible to remove them because they discard any identity documents and then engage in years of wrangling with the authorities. So even if their application for refugees status is refused, they'll often remain and enter the underground economy. Others may harbour resentments that boil over. The drivers of this violent extremism are multifaceted, complex and evolving. And yet, stretched local authorities must deal with the front-line operational challenges of direct community engagement under the 'Prevent' initiative. But, unfortunately, the cruel truth is most are underfunded and ill-equipped to do the job. Further, as seen with the Asian grooming gangs saga, they are often reluctant to engage and tackle specific communities for fear of the racist label. Research shows there is no single route to terrorism. In some instances, the perpetrators respond to perceived injustices committed by UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few cite the immorality of the West. What is clear is that most of the culprits are young men. And thus, the arduous job of curtailing terrorism in the UK is facing a heady mix of home-grown radicalisation and possible imported proto-terrorists. At the very least, Britain needs to restore control of its border. Until that happens, nothing will change. 15/11/2021 0 Comments COP 26 (Part IV) - The End Game "Even national treasure David Attenborough couldn't provide enough heft to save the credibility of the whole show." In case you hadn't noticed, COP 26 was a complete cop-out. After all the high-sounding faux pronouncements and hot air — including expelled from Biden's nether regions - COP26 concluded with a declaration that gives considerable wriggle room. Signatories have enough leeway to ignore or water down their headline pledges.
For starters, nations need not phase out coal because 'phasing down' is allowed. What does that mean? I guess anything you want it to mean. At least the tearful Chairman had enough courage to apologise for the outcome. Along the way, we heard astonishing hypocrisy and self-serving sentiments that were too much. For example, Prince Charles, who talked of a climate apocalypse, cannot lecture anyone on these issues. A man with a colossal carbon footprint waving around copies of 'The Prophecies by Nostradamus' looks silly. There was a time when the Windsors understood that massive privilege negates the right to complain and lecture others. Charles inverts this principle. Then we heard from luvvie Joanna Lumley, who I generally consider a good egg. She opened her mouth to assert we need war-time style rationing to counter global warming. Will Joanna be giving up one of her many homes or her frequent overseas trip to prove commitment? Of course not. Joanna is typical of the well-off set, who love telling the rest of us how to behave. Anyway, her intervention falters on the science. It is the advancement of people to more prosperity that will drive a commitment to reduce climate change. Joanna should stick to being absolutely fabulous because the hectoring look doesn't suit her. While Greta Thunderbird rallied her zealots, all warrior-like with her furrowed brow and dismissive pout, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron glared at one another. Even national treasure David Attenborough couldn't provide enough heft to save the credibility of the whole show. As I've repeatedly said, national interests will always shape the outcome. Thus, India, supported by China, wouldn't concede on the coal issue. And who can blame them when western nations continue to produce more greenhouse gases per capita and have done for much longer. Meanwhile, Australia dodged a bullet thanks to India and China. The Australian coal trade remains in play for now. Australia's deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce summed it up best. He mocked the chair for becoming emotional about the watering down of coal commitments and attempting to "shut down industries in other people's countries". Global warming is not new and hasn't just reared its head. But listening to the plaintive baying of our global leaders, you'd think it was a brand-new concept. Then again, with flabby and false jocularity, the feckless Boris Johnson didn't let the facts get in the way of his usual bluster. He declared COP 26 a success and the 'end of coal'. What he failed to mention was the entire conference ran on coal-generated electricity. Due to low wind speeds, two coal-fired units at Drax came online to sustain the national grid. We do need to focus on the environment and the future of our planet. Yet the hollow shindig that was COP 26 didn't help. And on that note, I find myself in a strange place by agreeing with Greta that all we got was "blah, blah, blah". 4/11/2021 1 Comment COP26 (Part III) - The Blame Game "By shaping the narrative of climate change around nation-state competition, we won't get far." During his one day at COP26, a showboating President Joe Biden couldn't help himself. Struggling to stay awake, the old fellow finally lumbered to the microphone. Once there, he took a cheap shot at President Xi and President Putin for not being physically present. That's laughable. Biden needed several planes, a caravan of 30 plus cars and thousands of support staff to get there for one day. The carbon footprint of his trip matched the output of a small country. Meanwhile, President Xi and President Putin opted for an internet link. Which is greener? Yet, on a more significant point, Biden sought to shape the climate conference as a blame game. So, who is to blame for climate change? Unsurprisingly, the answer is neither straightforward nor particularly helpful, given that climate change doesn't respect borders. Even so, let me seek to address the issue, and I'll frame this discussion mostly around the U.S. versus China discourse to illustrate a few points. First up, China is to blame. As the largest current emitter of greenhouse gases, China looks like the culprit.  But hang on a minute. Isn't that because China has the most people? Well, yes. China has 1.4 billion people, so it makes sense it would emit more than smaller countries. And when you look at greenhouse gas production per person, the U.S. tops the league. The average American produces nearly double the greenhouse gases as the average Chinese. Here is the data.  Then when you consider historical emissions, the chief culprit is the U.S. From 1751 to 2017, the U.S. produced 25% of all global emissions, the EU countries 22%, China 12.7%, and India 3%. And we know that historical emissions are closely linked to present day problems. Australia and the U.S. top the league for per capita emissions.  So you could argue that the West enjoyed an era of unfettered emissions, advanced their economies and now seeks to hold back others by restricting their use of fossil fuels. Is that fair?
That's not to say China shouldn't be slashing its greenhouse gas output. On the contrary, as China's economy grows and its people prosper, emissions per person will soon catch up with the West. That is an issue. But, let's also recognise that the West has displaced polluting industries to China to avoid domestic regulations. Regarding the renewable energy mix, China and the U.S. are about the same at 10% and 9%, respectively. So, it's evident that China needs to cut its reliance on fossil fuels and do that quick. That's recognised, with China building half of all the world's renewable energy plants in 2020. Moreover, the country has doubled its renewable energy production in just two years. Besides producing more solar and wind turbines than anybody else, China accounts for 40% of the global share of electric car sales. By shaping the narrative of climate change around nation-state competition, we won't get far. But, unfortunately, realpolitik and national interests will play a significant role. That's unavoidable. For example, China sees itself at a different stage of development, reserving the right to bring greater prosperity to its people through economic growth. Are rich Western nations going to tell poor Asians they need to avoid becoming prosperous? That isn’t going work. If COP26 follows the trajectory of previous climate conferences, we will hear plenty of commitments as world leaders pat themselves on the back. But then, reality kicks in; some obligations will be partially met, others will fade and be forgotten. To illustrate the point, at the Paris 2015 climate conference, the developed countries agreed to fund $100 billion a year to fight climate change in the developing world. Yet, in the end, the target was missed and continues to be ignored. Considering all the data, political factors, and the reality of the world order, at best, I can say everyone needs to do more, including China and the U.S.  "We need clear thinking with a rational discourse about how we can manage climate change and the repercussions of human activity." Opening COP26, Boris Johnson likened climate change to James Bond strapped to a "doomsday device." I'm not sure this constant catastrophising is helpful.
Catastrophisers tend to be pretty anxious people with high levels of anxiety that clouds their judgment. Moreover, it can lead to silly behaviours such as glueing heads to roads. This stuff scares the shit out of those operating with a deficit of thinking — usually kids and teenagers. Although, even some adults fall into this category. When the emotional mind takes over, you get kindergarten thinking, over-reactions and a lack of clarity. Plus, in the modern world, these “cognitive misers” draw opinions and conclusions from sound bites and 10-second clips on Tiktok. Detail, forget that. Compounding the problem is that humans are prone to episodic memory. Those of us around at the time have an image of 9/11 imprinted in our memory. We remember our location and reactions. That one episode powerfully shaped our beliefs about terrorism to suggest it's everywhere. In truth, the chances of encountering a terrorist incident are small. Hence, images of floods or forest fires stick as acute episodes that we extrapolate to be happening everywhere. They are not. Seeing Australian bush fires, you can believe Greta's lament, "The planet is on fire!" It takes more effort to comprehend that bush fires are part of the usual circle of events. And any increase in the number of fires may be down to human activity unrelated to climate change. People are less keen to recognise that China's 40-year reforestation project has planted over 70 billion trees. Or that the UK is half way to meeting Net Zero targets. Following this language of disaster is framing the response as "we must do something now!" And yet, only gradual, sustained action will bring about the outcomes we seek. Lastly, the constant cataclysmic language is off-putting and drives people away. We need clear thinking with a rational discourse about how we can manage climate change and the repercussions of human activity. Because, ever since our ancestors cleared a patch of ground, lit their first fire, and cooked food, we've changed the natural order of the environment. To survive as a species, we must do such things. The challenge is to avoid such a massive impact that we endanger our existence. In short, where do we draw the line on human activity? And for clarity, the planet is not in jeopardy any time soon. Even if we manage to wipe ourselves out, the Earth will carry on for billions of years, and most other species will carry on. Some 97 per cent of scientists involved in climate research agree that it is “extremely likely” that much of the warming observed since the early 1900s results from human activities. Several lines of evidence support this. Note the wording “extremely likely”. More on that later. Moreover, don't confuse the weather with climate. Yes, the two interact. But the weather is the stuff you experience daily and may not represent climate change. Add to that the confusion that climate change (i.e. warming) may produce colder weather in certain places. So, for example, Glasgow could see colder temperatures if the predictions prove accurate because the warming gulf stream may switch off. Discussing and studying the climate is a complex issue. Year-to-year climate changes include droughts, floods, and other events caused by a complex array of factors. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns shift—that affect the paths of storm tracks and the movements of air masses. Climate variations also occur at timescales lasting decades, with clusters of wet, dry, cool, or warm conditions in a row for given locations. Finally, at timescales of thousands of years, the climate responds to the "wobble" of Earth's axis, the planet's tilt, and the changes to the elliptical shape of Earth's orbit. All these phenomena interact to determine the amount of solar heating different parts of Earth's surface receive during the seasons of the year. We must also consider that the amount of radiant energy Earth receives from the Sun is slowly increasing, which adds more energy to the mix over time. That is why scientists use terms like "extremely likely” when stating their conclusions. Of course, they can't be sure, but the evidence points towards us having an adverse impact. Boris's James Bond trope, narration, and framing of climate change looks silly. Let's hope there are some adults at COP26. Meanwhile, Greta is assimilating in Govan, Glasgow. Did she understood the message she was encouraged to sing? Is Greta now a climate change denier? It's more likely the canny folk of Govan are having a laugh. 31/10/2021 1 Comment COP26 (Part I) - Glasgow Green "The two-week carbon footprint of the 25,000 delegates is estimated equal to that produced by Belgium in the same period." If you believe the hype, delegates at COP26 in Glasgow will decide our fate as a species. The 14 day COP26 conference is described as the world's last chance to stop catastrophic global warming. Really?
About 25,000 delegates will attend. The Brits advised people to travel by train to Glasgow to avoid the unfortunate image of delegates arriving by polluting planes. Only one problem — the unfortunate British rail system. Trains are notoriously unreliable after decades of mismanagement and underinvestment. And with no high-speed rail links, plus the usual lousy weather disrupting traffic, the whole shebang looks pretty chaotic before it begins. Never mind, the organisers have electric vehicles to transport the VIPs but fell short on electric charging facilities. So they've resorted to diesel-fuelled generators. You couldn't make it up. Add to that a lack of accommodation in Glasgow. The canny locals are charging an average of £6,000 for two weeks in Airbnbs. With the Queen resting at home, the Prince of Piffle will be there. This sort of thing is right up his street. In 2019, Charles asserted we only had 18 months to save the planet. Recently he's cited ten years to doomsday. I suppose you lose track of time after the longest apprenticeship in history. Anyway, it's essential to recognise the contribution made by the Royal Family. Prince Andrew has opted to remain at home for a while and forego any flights, especially those heading to America. That will help reduce his carbon footprint. Of course, Greta Iceberg is there. She arrived on an eco-friendly motorised skateboard powered by unicorn tears. No doubt, the faithful will hang on her every word, amplifying her sound-bites to assuage their progressive guilt. You know the type, the sort of nutter who superglues their head to the road as an act of piety. Greta has already decided that COP26 will fail. Brandishing an iPhone, she marched this week decrying air pollution. However, I'd take Greta a tad more serious if she bothered to set an example. Take that iPhone, for example. Also, could she come up with a comprehensive, implementable and sustainable plan? I'm not holding my breath. These are vastly complex issues that touch on all aspects of human life, nationhood, geopolitics and the economy. Thus, I'm afraid trite chastisements from Greta and her crew will echo and fade off the wall of reality. It's easy to protest but challenging to come up with genuine solutions. Meanwhile, Glasgow hosting COP26 has a touch of irony. The Glaswegians I know would welcome warmer weather. Looking through all the guff about COP26, it appears the big goal is Net Zero, which means the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. That's relatively easy to achieve. You build loads of wind farms and close the coal-fired power stations. Everybody is happy. Except, what happens when the wind stops blowing and your whole power supply is in jeopardy. Lets not forget that the UK came close to a complete shutdown earlier this year. When things like that start to impact the public, wait for the political fallout. A few grannies freezing to death without heat will soon swing sentiment to powering up the old coal burners. Any proposals that come out of COP26 need to weigh against what unwelcome behaviours may arise. For example, Glasgow introduced a £35 fee to remove large domestic items and encourage recycling. But, immediately, fly-tipping increased as people dumped items in the common areas of buildings. Cuts in the street cleaning budget, cuts in refuse collection and an ageing fleet of rubbish trucks created a perfect storm. Rats soon preyed on the piles of debris. To add to the fun, Glasgow's bin men have gone on strike for a week. Lastly, the two-week carbon footprint of the 25,000 delegates is estimated equal to that produced by Belgium in the same period. So, what I find perplexing is that anyone believes this hysterical scam will make any difference. Geopolitics, national self-interest, demographics and technology will influence the moves needed to limit climate change. There is a compelling argument that economic progress, with the emergence of affluence, does more to drive down climate change than any policy directives. Add to that falling birth rates, and then, hey presto, the job gets easier. Self-important people blah, blah, blah in rooms will make no difference, and on that point, I agree with Greta. In the meantime, I'd encourage more nutters to superglue their heads to the road in protest. It cheers me up no end watching this stuff. 20/10/2021 0 Comments Going Down Under "Given the rapid development in technology, how long so-called 'silent' submarines remain covert is debatable. Having spent vast sums and diluted attempts to denuclearise the world's military, Australia may get nuclear submarines too late." Don't expect to see Ozzie nuclear submarines popping up in the Taiwan strait anytime soon. Although much of the media coverage around AUKUS - the new security pact between America, Australia and the U.K. - focused on the submarine issue. Yet, it's unclear when the Royal Australian Navy will get new toys.
By cancelling the agreement to buy French diesel-electric submarines, Australia hitched its fortunes firmly to the U.S. The French then accused the Australians of stabbing them in the back and portrayed the U.K. as 'vassal state' of the U.S., going full 'your father smells of elderberries' mode. The caustic French reaction fits their policy that seeks to break away from NATO. In 2019, President Emmanuel Macron issued a dramatic declaration favouring European independence from NATO. Instead, he prefers a European military organisation accompanied by a separate diplomatic role in the world. Thus, AUKUS undermines France's vision by reasserting U.S. dominance. Meanwhile, without any nuclear industry nor expertise, the assumption is that the Australians will borrow a few spare submarines left lying around. They'll use these to build experience and capacity before getting their own. And yet, estimates suggest they won't have those hand-downs operational anytime in the next ten years. While home-grown submarines aren't likely until the mid-2040s, if then, given the usual cost overruns and delays that such projects encounter. Regardless, Australia bet the house on lasting U.S. power in Asia. In addition, military experts agree that stealthy nuclear submarines make little sense for homeland defence being more suited to an offensive role. And the target is obviously China, which can now spin this as modern Western gunboat diplomacy. Then again, given the rapid development in technology, how long so-called 'silent' submarines remain covert is debatable. Having spent vast sums and diluted attempts to denuclearise the world's military, Australia may get nuclear submarines too late. Of more significance is that the AUKUS and the QUAD alliance (US, India, Japan, Australia) feeds Beijing's narrative that the West seeks to stop the rise of China. Underpinning that mindset is Beijing's view of history: outsiders taking chunks of the country and exploiting its resources. The capture of Hong Kong at gunpoint to traffic opium, plus the seizing of ports by the Russians are examples. That Australia opted to ally itself with the U.S. and U.K. while abandoning France, strengthens Beijing's rendering of these events - the Anglo-Saxon countries are seeking to keep domination of the world order. So while the U.S. may speak of 'the rule-based world order', Chinese officials see these words as cover and tactics. For them, the West forfeited any claim to hold the moral high ground. They note with some alacrity that the U.S. follows the 'rules' when it accords with their aims; then abandons rules and principles when it suits national interests. The Chinese cite the U.S.'s frequent interventions in other nations through regime change, Guantanamo Bay, rendition, waterboarding, and allowing social media corporations to censor a democratically elected leader. How can Beijing interpret this web of actions and sentiments except to come back to a stance that 'might is right'. And as always, the Chinese are playing the long game. Moreover, in their psyche, territorial integrity is a way of demonstrating strength and confidence at home and abroad. This means no Chinese leader, communist or otherwise, can allow history to repeat and hope to survive. Current tensions revolve around Taiwan. But, again, in Beijing's mind, this is a Chinese issue as part of the unresolved aspects of the Chinese civil war. Interestingly, this month President Biden moved to reassert the One-China policy in a move to ease tensions. Nonetheless, with hawks on both sides beating the drums of war, the potential for a mishap is real. In that context, Chinese flights in the vicinity of Taiwan are signals to the U.S. rather than the Taiwanese. Likewise, claims of violated Taiwanese airspace need treating with a pinch of salt. As many commentators have asserted, the delineation of the zones is open to debate. Having travelled widely both on the Mainland and in Taiwan, I would say the people are good-natured, generous and hospitable. They enjoy a common heritage and kinship. Today, Taiwan is one of the biggest investors in the Mainland. Between 1991 and the end of March 2020, approved investment in China comprised 44,056 cases totalling US$188.5 billion. In 2019, the value of cross-strait trade was US$149.2 billion. That connection aids prosperity on both sides of the straits. In short, the people of Taiwan are prosperous and resourceful. Their economy is doing well. Likewise, the people on the Chinese Mainland are the same. Thus, away from the interventions of others seeking to stoke tension, a rapprochement between Beijing and Taiwan is possible. A greater Fujian/Taiwan Cooperation zone would be a good start. In commercial practice, the groundwork and ethnic links are already there. Such a development will take time and cool heads. Plus, it will be easier without warships, submarines and warplanes involved from both sides. 16/10/2021 1 Comment When is a murder, not a murder? "The UK has had six MPs murdered in the space of 42 years; on average, one every seven years. For a group that numbers 650 at any given time, would you fancy the odds?" So Jo Cox was 'murdered', but Sir David Amess 'passed away' or died. 'Passed away' — FFS, the poor man didn't fall down the stairs at work. In truth, this was a political assassination inside a church by an Islamic extremist with a history of radical conduct. Amess was stabbed 17 times in a frenzied premeditated attack. But reading and watching the initial coverage, you'd struggle to get the facts, which gives a fascinating insight into news spin, either by intent or unconscious bias. When Labour MP Jo Cox was killed in June 2016, the media soon defined her attacker as a far-right white man. However, in the Amess case, the attacker, who waited in a church, is a British national of Somali heritage. Spot the difference? Excellent use of the word 'heritage'. Granted, a few outlets had the decency to acknowledge the culprit's antecedents. Some even made it known he was on the radar through the counter-terrorist 'Prevent' programme. The agenda of the 'don't normalise' hatred journalists would have some merit if they bothered to apply it across the board. But, instead, when a high-ranking member of the opposition, Angela Raynor, calls all Tories 'scum', that's fine. Her party leader, the chinless Starmer, dismissed this remark as "It's Angela being Angela". Fair enough, because I don't buy the narrative that Rayner played a part in this killing, although a good portion of the internet is throwing blame her way. If the uncouth Rayner in any way influenced the killer, I'd be amazed. My point is that politically motivated journalists can't have it both ways. If certain words have power, as they claim, then surely that applies to all sectors of society. The UK has had six MPs murdered in the space of 42 years; on average, one every seven years. For a group that numbers 650 at any given time, would you fancy the odds? The mainstream media will continue to focus on the protection for MPs issue. Meanwhile, discussion of the underlying problem is verboten. Sir David now joins a long list; Fusilier Lee Rigby, the kids at the Manchester Arena bombing, MP Stephen Timms, the victims of the London Bridge attack and many others. God forbid anyone should mention 'Jihad'. Anyway, look out for how this murder is spun as a ‘lone wolf’ attack, entirely unavoidable, we stand united. That’s enough, nothing to see here. Move along!  11/10/2021 0 Comments Dune - The Blue Eyed Girl "Doing justice to the whole Dune epic storyline is difficult in the extreme." As a Dune fanboy, I desperately wanted this movie to work. I read the books as a teenager during my science fiction phase— after I'd abandoned the von Däniken bat shit 'Chariot of Gods' genre. Unfortunately, despite von Däniken claims, the aliens weren't amongst us or at least they'd not made it to Hull.
Adapting science fiction to the cinema is always problematic because movies struggle to capture the depth of the culture, technology, and the breadth of the rich source material. As a result, some stuff gets skimmed over. Thus, doing justice to the whole Dune epic storyline is difficult in the extreme, predominantly because author Frank Herbert paints a universe with textures that lends all the storylines and characters depth. Thus, we have the Emperor and his family, the Spacing Guild and the Navigators, House Harkonnen, House Atreides, the Lansraad, the Freman and the pivotal Spice Melange. And that's for starters. To gather all the threads is a tall order, which is why this is only part one at two hours and thirty-five minutes. Plus, Dune 2021 faces the double jeopardy of comparisons with David Lynch's 1984 version. At first, the critics panned Lynch's interpretation, which I thought unfair given the challenge. Instead, in my view, it's a commendable effort, not a great movie - but a decent film that trims the story for easy digestion. Thankfully over time, Dune 1984 gained a cult following as people recognized its strengths. I needn't have worried about Dune 2021 (Part 1). After all, director Denis Villeneuve proved his worth with Blade Runner 2049. Of course, it takes some audacity to reprise Blade Runner — one of the best science fiction movies ever made. Yet, he pulled that off with some flair. Spoiler alerts! The arc of the Dune story looks like the archetypical hero's journey. Our protagonist, Paul Atreides, initially appears to be following the path of Luke Skywalker — off on a journey of discovery as another kid with hidden powers, facing challenges he didn't want. It's classic stuff that usually ends with the protagonist triumphing. Except this is only part one, and if the sequel holds to the books, that arc is subverted. To quote Herbert, "I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label 'may be dangerous to your health'" There is a nod to the 1984 version in the esthetics, but then again, you can only portray a sand planet one way — with loads of sand. Meanwhile, the technology is all understated, worn and looks credible. As this is Villeneuve, you expect superb cinematography. And he delivers in spades. The jaw-dropping set pieces of ornithopters flying, the massive space vehicles and the sweeping vistas are eye candy. This movie is the big-screen material only. There are a couple of flaws. First, an awful lot of exposition looks like it's setting up for Part 2. Also, the repetitive dream clips need trimming because we get the message that Paul will meet the blue-eyed girl. And while the casting is spot on, there is one notable exception. The fat Baron in Dune 1984 summoned up much more menace, creepiness and outright distaste. Stellan Skarsgård can't match the outrageous performance of Kenneth McMillan as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Skarsgård's manifestation of the Baron lacks a genuinely sinister edge. At one point, for no apparent reason, we get a brief conversation in Mandarin. Is this a weak market-placement attempt? The audience thought so as it drew titters. But for me, the absolute icing on the cake is the Hans Zimmer soundtrack. Visceral and intense, the music and sound elements carried the visuals to a new intensity. Wait for the soul-wrenching cry the Shadout Mapes exhales at the moment of revelation — disturbing. Then bath in the whine of the distorted bagpipes as House Atreides parades on Arrakis; at once familiar and haughtily strange. Where is Part 2? Well, not even in production yet as another victim of Covid. However, work is due to start in 2022. So, did I like it? Yes. This movie feels like the beginning, and I'm ready for more. 8/10/2021 1 Comment British Police need a reality check "The Couzens saga is emblematic; no one held to account, disjointed values and a failure to enforce standards." Who'd want to be a police officer in the UK? It's a tough job at the best of times, now made much worse as the political class and a fair part of society have decided that, by default, you can't trust male officers.
To prove my point, here's some official advice: If a single plainclothes officer stops a woman on the street, do not assume the officer is legit. Instead, 'wave down a bus', challenge the officer's identity, or decline to cooperate until some form of confirmation arrives. So that's going to work? Of course, this is the fallout from the Couzens case. Earlier this year, a serving Met officer tricked Sarah Everard into a car, drove her away — raped and then murdered her. Couzens then burnt the body in a futile effort to hide the crime. In a nation accustomed to seeing the police through the prism of Dixon of Dock Green and Z Cars, this case is a harsh reminder that something else is going on. Yet, this horrific crime was avoidable. I'd opine that the predicament the UK police find themselves in is of their own making. And that's not to place blame on frontline officers, although they have a role to play. Instead, the responsibility rests with senior police commanders. In Hong Kong, we worked to the principle of 'supervisory accountability'. As a result, leaders and supervisors may face investigation to determine what they knew and could have prevented when something went wrong. Of course, this system was far from foolproof, nor was its implementation always fair; on occasions, it produced faulty outcomes. But the existence of 'supervisory accountability' put senior officers on notice; be ready to explain. If supervisory accountability exists in UK policing, it's not evident. May I present exhibit one: Met Commissioner Cassandra Dick. It's a standing joke that she retains her job when her failings are the stuff of legend. For starters, she ran an operation that led to the assassination of an innocent man. Add to that criticisms for obstructing investigations into police corruption, and the list goes on. Perhaps because Dick gets away with it, her middle managers feel compelled to act the same way when assessing their subordinate officers. For example, we know from many studies that middle-ranking supervisors take the lead from the behaviours of their seniors. So do they become ambivalent about accountability when they see their seniors enjoy free rein? It's hard not to see that something went wrong, given the known behaviours that Couzens exhibited. First up, his nickname — 'The Rapist' — seriously! Second, he used 'sex workers' - a lady even complained to his station that she'd not received payment. Thus, he's called back from the beat to resolve the debt by handing over some cash. So why aren't alarm bells ringing? Third, he brought a prostitute to a police wedding and then openly boasted about it. Plus, we have the reports that he 'flashed' women on several occasions without consequences. Finally, it's known that Couzens used drugs and had an addiction to extreme porn. Incredibly, none of his supervisors acted on any of this. I've heard that a culture of not prying or passing judgement on people's private affairs held his supervisors back. If true, this is arrant nonsense and not dissimilar to allowing rape gangs to run free for fear of stoking racial tensions. In all this, I'm reminded that one of the essential qualities of a copper is to be nosey. You have got to want to investigate and get to the bottom of an issue. Then again, the UK has a Prime Minister with the morals of an over-sexed alley cat. Is the nation supposed to draw its values from him? You can see the problem. Is it a surprise that Couzens went undetected? After all, the UK police don't investigate burglaries, car thefts and most crimes, so why bother chasing down one of their own. For the record, Manchester Police failed to record 80,000 crimes in one year, with auditors suggesting this is 'the tip of the iceberg'. Not only is this a procedural disgrace, but it also denies the police access to a great deal of intelligence. Also, police officers became habitual in ignoring, covering up or walking away from their core duties. Is it right to conclude that a whole generation of officers comes imbued with a culture that ignores the evidence before them? And yet, senior officers have become skilled at switching the focus to the 'low hanging fruit' of policing language and feelings by scanning the internet for hate speech. The Harry Miller case illustrates the point. In many ways, the Couzens saga is emblematic; no one held to account, disjointed values and a failure to enforce standards. I've had some exposure to British policing; I undertook attachments and command courses. But, likewise, I've had the opportunity to see many other jurisdictions, including Singapore, Japan, Canada, the USA and Australia. One of the challenges the UK faces is they remain locked in the myth that British policing is the gold standard. Granted, the significant set-piece investigations get done well, but the mundane frontline stuff is substandard. But, then again, any police unit that is well resourced, focused with a specific remit usually does well. And there is part of the problem; underfunding. Allied to that is the toxic ideology of postmodernism and the woke culture that created unfocused and relentless mission drift. When I attended a UK command course, it soon became plain that the 'leaders of future policing' are groomed as politicians, not crime fighters. That process includes developing all the traits of deflection and double-speak. Now, I recognise police leaders need to be politically savvy - except in the UK, that's the only criteria to ascend to the top. So above all, it's hard not to conclude the UK police are not interested in tackling crime. But, instead, they're now quite happy to become the enforcer of speech codes and minority attitudes. Further, I'd argue that Hong Kong, Singapore and many other places provide better 'day-to-day' policing, not least because officers respond to calls and within strict time perimeters. And, yes, I know societal culture is a relevant factor, so making direct comparisons is problematic. Nonetheless, a bit of honesty and humility from senior UK police commanders may allow them to learn from others. I feel considerable sympathy for the ordinary UK copper. Most are decent, honest, hardworking people trying to do their best in a weird, rapidly evolving, complex environment. But, unfortunately, they come hemmed in by their leaders playing politics by pandering to agenda-driven pressure groups. Hence, the kowtowing to minority interests, and appeasing eco-lunatics who block ordinary citizens from doing their lawful business. I often wonder if the critics and senior police leaders realise the damage because without that, are they capable of repairing it? But, unfortunately, the evidence isn't encouraging. Look how is Ms Dick responding. Another study, of course. The whole notion that the UK police need more studies and inputs by self-serving academics to address these issues looks embarrassingly naive. Instead, I'd propose some straightforward leadership, accountability and crime-fighting. Too simplistic? Probably - I expect my advice will falter because it's not packaged in some fancy academic model from a pseudo-intellectual with no frontline police experience. That's enough, nothing to see here. Move along! 6/10/2021 0 Comments Policy Address in full. "It's action that counts - talk is cheap" Blah, blah, blah, housing, blah, blah, New Territories North, blah, blah, sub-divided flats, blah, blah! Innovation hub, blah, blah. Sunlit uplands, blah, blah. (subtext - this is a re-election speech).
Sound familiar? Yes, we've heard it all before. Tung, Tsang and CY all made promises to resolve the housing crisis; the result was no change. Although, this time, with Carrie getting a kick up 'la derrière' from Beijing, plus the waning power amongst the property oligarchy, we may see some action. But it's a big 'may'. Moreover, Lam can't claim that opposition forces are stalling her efforts. The Pan-Dumacratics and their lunatic independence friends have either run for the hill or are locked up. No longer can they frolic around the LegCo chamber like juvenile chimps, throwing stuff and attacking officials. And that's a good thing. Unfortunately, as I've before pointed out, Carrie has a habit of talking big, and then nothing much happens. For example, look at how she cleared up the issue of the illegal structures - or instead didn't. Add that to her occasional willful blindness and insensitivity - remember Typhoon Mangkhuk and the old folk's allowance issue? I won't bother rehashing how she was absent for the early stages of the 2019 civil unrest, leaving a hard-pressed Police Force to hold the line while she dithered. So come on, Carrie, get the job done or exit the stage so somebody with a bit of grit can take charge. And, while you are at it, how about taking down the exploitative MPF scheme - it's the biggest rip off in Hong Kong. Removing the clawback acknowledges that the MPF scheme is flawed, but you need to go further. Such boldness will show a genuine commitment to Hong Kong people. It's action that counts - talk is cheap. |
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
January 2022
|
RSS Feed