|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
4/12/2020 2 Comments Run Away "Hui is facing nine charges related to last year's protests in Hong Kong. He was active in several events that turned extremely violent." Ted Hui was never the most stable of politicians. He's well remembered here for snatching a mobile phone of a female civil servant and then running to hide in a toilet. That case resulted in assault charges against Hui.
2 Comments
30/11/2020 1 Comment Taken For A Ride "In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads." Richard Hughes famously stated, "Power in Hong Kong resides in the Jockey Club, Jardines and Matheson, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, and the governor, in that order." Well, not much has changed then since the colonial days.
With Hong Kong's Covid cases exploding, as clusters breakout from dance groups and imported cases, you'd expect our officials to be vigilant. Instead, they are busy granting exemptions for jockeys at Hong Kong's favoured gambling syndicate. Given that schools are closing, care workers are struggling, and the majority can't earn such special treatment, people are right to raise hell. After all, some of these jockeys are coming from high-risk areas. And what has suddenly made the Jockey Club so risk-tolerant? They were one of the first to cut and run by cancelling race meetings in 2019 during the disturbances. I'm sure there is any number of Hong Kong-based organisations who could construct the same 'bubble' protocols as the Jockey Club professes to have. Are we to grant them all exemptions or only a favoured few? These exemptions illustrate the moral shadiness at the heart of a government; people question whether officials put gambling above public health. Our Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, heads the Covid Task Force. So where does the responsibility lay for these decisions? Meanwhile, we should be grateful to politician James Tien. He's exposed how Covid testing for airport arrivals and the related shambolic follow-up quarantine procedures are failing. If the account given by James Tien is accurate, and the evidence suggests it is, officials have shown a deplorable lack of diligence. For starters, the arriving passenger conducts the spit test in privacy. Without supervision, there is no verification that the person followed the guidelines. Specifically, did the subject draw saliva 'deeply' - whatever that may mean? The consequence could be a high false-negative rate. Experts agree adopting the medically supervised swab test may yield better outcomes. Second, subjects are tagged but not required to activate the tag immediately. There are reports of people wandering around shopping, visiting relatives and only activating the tag much later. In one reported instance, the subject waited 24 hours. This delay is possible because of the third gap in the procedures. Subjects must make their way to quarantine hotels usually using taxis. This movement is neither tracked nor supervised. Fourth, when in quarantine it is evident subjects are receiving visitors because hotels are not enforcing the rules. In one instance, a man in quarantine infected his visiting mother, who then passed the virus into the wider community. In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads. This week Carrie Lam had given a series of interviews in an attempt to reset and polish her image. I'd prefer she spends her time putting in place suitably robust, risk-managed anti-Covid protocols. Also, Carrie needs to stop bowing to the usual vested interests. That way she'd earn genuine applause from the wider community.  "Britain has built a massive network of snitches" Folks, it's quiz time. Are you ready?
Q1: In which country does your doctor, who you consult about depression, feel obliged to report you to the police because you've had dark thoughts about events in the Middle East? Q2: In which country is your optician, nurse, dentist, social worker, lecturer or councillor duty-bound to alert the police if you exhibit signs of radicalisation or express opinion out of line with national values? That includes expressing non-violent extremist views. Q3: In which country must a college student get an endorsement and cite a security assessment before booking a seminar room? Q4: In which country was a librarian, when asked for a reference, required to assert that the prospective employee is not involved in extremist activity or terrorism? Q5: In which country did the college cleaning staff report a Sikh lady for uttering prayers in her room? This report led to a covert search and an interview by the Dean. Is this Russia, the USA, China or the UK? Suppose you answered the UK, well done. You scored 100%. Under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, all public institutions must put in place anti-radicalisation programmes. That includes the identification of terrorists or those likely to evolve into terrorists. Moreover, universities and colleges must make regular submissions giving tangible examples of steps they've taken. One college cited the prayer incident to show its diligence. With typical over-reach, some places demand guest lists before an event for security purposes. No list, no approval. At Oxford University, this prompted the cancellation of a talk on unrest in the Middle East. A variety of hotlines and anonymous reporting channels support these programmes. Rochdale Borough Council provides a helpful guide to spotting the potential terrorist, which includes :
All this activity is a legal obligation on public bodies and individuals who work there. Failure to comply can have severe consequences. In support of these laws, over one million public sector workers received training to spot proto-terrorists. In short, Britain has built a massive network of snitches. May this explain data that indicates that about 80% of the referrals have no merit. That doesn't mean the other 20% are on the route to terrorism, far from it. Yet, every year the scheme flags up thousands of men and boys considered a risk. The vast majority are cleared. That decision comes after police interviews, homes searched and other intrusive checks. You have to wonder how many people get radicalised by these interventions. It's worth noting that in 2016 the police received 60 children referrals a week, with 300 of those kids under the age of nine. Virtually all were Muslim children. Unfortunately, studies do not support this approach. A flawed theory of radicalisation — as a linear process — asserts that people move through stages to become a terrorist. Despite a body of research refuting this simplistic linear theory, Britain continues to apply it. You could argue such a response to terrorism is at least understandable, no matter how inept or counterproductive, given the threat. Whatever the merits of the UK's approach, this got my attention, because British politicians are attacking Hong Kong's security laws. In truth, by comparison, our laws are tame. I can't imagine the uproar here if we sought to impose the UK approach on our colleges. Dominic Raab, the UK Foreign Minister, needs to confront the truth of Britain's domestic anti-terror policies before he's in a position to criticise others. I heard a comment this week that Britain's response to events in Hong Kong is 'conceited, contempt and unjust condemnation.' Indeed, the utterances from Raab come weighed with heavy conceit. He holds a high opinion of so-called ‘British' values that are not borne out by facts on the ground. Second, he displays a contempt shaped by his prejudice and jaundiced lens. Lastly, his condemnation falters because he fails to recognise Britain helped plant the seeds of our predicament. Of course, he avoids the many historical questions or the support that the UK gave to radicals here. On those rocks, his words founder. 24/11/2020 0 Comments The Cobra & the 'Horizontal Mambo' "Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded" Actions have consequences, and those consequences can be unforeseen. Fortunately, history is a great teacher if you bother to look. India under British rule experienced a surge in deaths due to venomous cobras, especially in Delhi. Keen to show a caring face, officials offered a bounty for every dead cobra.
In no time, the savvy folks of Delhi had cobra breeding pens at home as they capitalised on the prize. Officials realised the deceit, cancelled the bounty and the citizens released the cobras into the wild. Soon Delhi had even more cobras, and deaths escalated. Hence the 'Cobra effect'. History comes littered with such lessons. French colonials in Vietnam fearful of a burgeoning rat population offered a reward for rat's tails. Rat catchers went around removing tails and then releasing the rats to breed in the sewers—a nice earner for rat catchers, with no decrease in rat numbers. China's 'four-pests' campaign is another example. More recently, carbon credits proved a lucrative source of income for companies. Starting in 2003, the European Union gave industries disposing of polluting gases cash for their environmental efforts. Except that the companies churned out more of the most noxious gases for no other reason than to get payment. Carbon credits made these noxious gases profitable. By 2013 the EU wised up. I do wonder if our officials study history because they've announced a $5,000-HK reward to folks infected with Covid-19. Granted they've applied some payment stipulations, but these look surmountable and imprecise. There is no means test. Let's be clear; some people will be going out of their way to catch Covid-19 to secure payment. Social media is already alive with chat of possible Covid parties. Meanwhile, citizens who play by the rules, wear masks and practice social distancing go unrewarded. Is Hong Kong the only place paying people to become sick? Looks like it. I can't help but think the government is struggling to refute claims from the medical profession that compulsory testing will drive carriers underground. The argument goes that the working poor, who can't afford to forfeit days off work, won't come forward for testing. If that's the rationale, then $5,000-HK is a token gesture with potentially terrible consequences. Are any of the infamous 'dance cluster' in line for a payout? What are the majority of the population to think? Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded. Their money is being siphoned off to support the utterly irresponsible. For the uninitiated, the 'dance cluster' is grabbing the Covid headlines. It's a story with all the tasty elements of a scandal; rich 'senior' ladies attending dance lessons with young male 'instructors' who are less well off. The instructors are mostly eastern European men, some with dubious claims to royal blood. Until now these 'dance clubs' operated below the radar. According to sources, the most popular dance is the 'horizontal mambo'. The blame falls to the 'dance cluster' for our current surge in cases. For a long time, it has struck me that officials either don't know or are blind to the mini-cultures and sub-groups in our society. The question needs asking 'Has anyone conducted an audit of activities that present a high-risk of Covid transmission because of behaviours?'. The recent terrible fire in Jordan and the 'dance cluster' suggest the authorities don't have the full picture. Reports are circulating of private parties in hotels, rented apartments and on boats. There is much going on in the veiled corners of society where officials aren't inclined to look. Is the next cluster coming from there? Instead of throwing public money around with potentially adverse repercussions, how about grappling with risks in a pro-active manner? Then put in place early interventions. Would I be straining creditability to suggest an excellent place to start would be Hong Kong's one-woman brothels, that daily serve hundreds of thousands of customers? Is there any action on that potential infection route? Or is Carrie and her team too prudish to recognise the reality of life? In the seemingly endless war of attrition against Covid-19, the government has done well, although the recent clusters suggest a dysfunctional approach in parts. Lastly, no word yet on a vaccine programme for Hong Kong. Other places are moving ahead to make plans. Come on, Carrie! 18/11/2020 1 Comment The Kardashians with castles "Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues" 'The Crown,' Series 4, now playing on Netflix, has finally caught up with my era. After a flu vaccination knocked me sideways for a day, a binge session got me through the fever and muscle soreness.
Spoiler alert: Diana has arrived on the scene to promptly throw up in a toilet, while Charlie boy is still horizontal-folk dancing with Camilla. In the real world, having spent the last decade seeking to polish Camilla's reputation, the pair can't be enjoying this retelling of the whole sorry saga. Even allowing for twisting of the facts, they don't come out of this well. Camilla's unfaithfulness to her husband gets written off 'because he's laying half of Gloucestershire'. Well, that's OK then. Meanwhile, Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues - the 'prince of piffle' as astutely judged by Christopher Hitchens. Actor Josh O'Connor plays the role with hunched shoulders and skulking about, giving echoes of Richard the Third: "But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks. Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass." Of course, this was Shakespeare's version of Richard the Third — a propaganda piece to appease the Tudors. Bear that in mind when viewing 'The Crown' and ask who does this portrayal of Charles serve? So, what else is new? Gillian Anderson gives us Maggie Thatcher on steroids, in full Iron Lady mode with a stellar high-rise hairdo to match. The voice is too deep, and husky, yet the whole ensemble is compelling. Anderson captures the walk and body language perfect; it's uncanny. Inevitably, Maggie brushes up against everyone, including Brenda (aka the Queen) over the Commonwealth. Yet, because this is a time of wokeness, history comes rehashed for the new age. The Queen is standing firm with the Commonwealth against Thatcher, who resists sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Yes, there is evidence that Brenda supported sanctions, but is it likely she confronted Thatcher so stridently to risk a constitutional crisis? The sudden departure of Royal press secretary as a result of leaks about a conflict between Maggie and Brenda is pure fiction. He left a year after the alleged leaks. Also, we are getting a reworking of the Micheal Fagan break-in story, with him giving the Queen a lecture about unemployment and the state of the nation. It didn't happen. Although, I never knew he broke in twice. On the first occasion, when spotted, he escaped having consumed a cheap bottle of wine. The Queen conspired to keep the first break-in quiet, fearful of more security disrupting her life. There are other intriguing tidbits. Did Anne had a fling with her bodyguard? There is a hint of that. Then Margaret discovers relatives hidden away in a care institution and declared dead. The Queen Mum explains this was necessary to preserve the reputation of the bloodline. A few special-needs kin deemed unacceptable, so written off, while all the shagging about is fine and dandy. Lovely people. The acting is superb throughout. Newcomer Emma Corrin as Diana is a revelation. In her first significant role, it's a slam dunk; the eyes are perfect, the tilted head and radiance are all there. Helen Bonham Carter was born to play the flawed, hollowed-out, boozy, Princess Margaret. She captures the arrogance, the wounded soul, and the sheer disdain of the women. It's hard to fault any of the cast. Having met several of Royals and spent two days at Buck House, I can attest to some details. The vast number of flunkies, the bowing and the hushed reverence when one of the Royals appears. None of it in the least normal. When I was there in 1992, the Palace felt run-down, especially back of the house, and away from the central accommodation. On my second day there, with heavy rain falling, the staff scrambled to catch water in buckets from ceiling leaks. Does the series do the Royal Family harm or good? To me, it reveals them as flawed, like the rest of us. Yes, they have tremendous privilege and don't have the common concerns of daily life. That's not to say they don't face other pressures, because the evidence is there that the role brings tremendous stress. As the series develops, I have to ask has the portrayal of the Queen grown less sympathetic? Feels that way to me. Her faults are exposed, including avoiding uncomfortable personal issues until too late, and a lack of warmth; she displays horror when Diana grasps her for a hug. The problem is, we don't know if any of the specific detail in 'The Crown' tells the truth. What is dramatic-license, what is an interpretation, which bits are parody and what is factual? All we can hope to get is a pastiche that draws of various elements. Nonetheless, the parameters of characters come aligned to existing public perception, so no one is too shocked. The Guardian got itself in a twist proclaiming the series 'historically inaccurate'. That's the point; this is the Kardashians with castles. It's the Royals as entertainment, with a pinch of truth to anchor the story. It's amusing to note that a cottage industry has evolved around critiquing the authenticity of the series. If you can be bothered, check out this chap discussing the cake stands and tea pouring etiquette—a bit of a niche activity. If you watch 'The Crown' in the hope of getting an account of history, you will be disappointed; but if you seek entertainment, you will be rewarded well enough.  "Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates." As Donald Trump fights to keep the presidency having lost the election, I must credit him with exposing the fickle state of democracy. While I'm guessing he will come to his senses and exit the White House, I doubt it will be a dignified departure. He's made that much clear. The great disruptor will continue to disrupt.
This is the second in a series that assesses the current standing of western-style democracy. What strikes me is that after four years of Trump insulting and degrading people, as he assailed institutions, he still managed to garner over 72 million votes. That the most ever for a defeated presidential candidate. Besides, he dodged every opportunity to play the statesmen, or display an ounce of magnanimity. In the process, he's confounded the pollsters, the pundits and even his party, many of whom still question if the man is unfit for office. What does this tell us? For sure the so-called experts don't have a handle on the evolution unfolding at the grassroots of public opinion. Have the people grown wise to pollsters? Do they hold back their genuine beliefs, with a covert desire to punch the establishment on the nose for all their deceits? Are citizens baulking at the conventions, rules and machinations of politicians? They ask is the system more designed to distract than deal with real issues? Something odd also occurred in Great Britain. Are Brexit and the startling win by the UK Conservatives in 2019, another manifestation of a hidden phenomenon? What are the processes driving these changes, and what does it say about democracy? A definable elite, who share common roots, hold sway in the UK Parliament. For starters, parliament's key positions come dominated by Oxbridge graduates. Eighty-eight per cent of MPs went to university, with twenty-two per cent attending either Oxford or Cambridge. Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates. In the Labour Party, thirty-three per cent of MPs attended either Oxford or Cambridge. Note that much less than one per cent of the population go to Oxbridge, and yet these folks dominate. It's the same in the civil service. More than half of all MPs held previous occupations in politics, law or finance. Also, there is an over-representation of lawyers with few engineers or scientists. The proportion of graduates in parliament has risen significantly in recent years. In 1979, 37 per cent of Labour MPs came from manual occupations without a degree. By 2015 that dropped to 6 per cent. These changes have made parliament less representative of the population, where 70 per cent don't have degrees. A similar change has taken place across most democracies in Europe as a professional political class seized power. Thus, authentic working-class representation has disappeared. As a result, the Labour Party garnered a reputation as 'out of touch metropolitan-types playing identity politics'. No wonder Labour's so-called 'Red Wall' collapsed in the 2019 election. Then you have the long march of liberal radicals through the institutions. Education, much of the media, the police and the courts are in their hands. Notably, the views and conventions of these people are out of kilter with a significant part of the population. Why then in late 2019, did the UK voters, including from the working class, decide to give a Falstaffian posh-boy an overwhelming mandate? This privately educated man, who studied classics at Oxford, has an undetermined number of children by various women. A judge described his behaviour as 'reckless', while his repeated lying comes well-documented. How come the people decided he's the appropriate choice to run the country? Granted he was up against the inept Jeremy Corbyn, but that doesn't answer the question. Boris Johnson is hardly the role model a nation seeks. With parliaments worldwide more the preserve of people filtered through higher education, working people face exclusion. But when allowed to show their displeasure, they opt for a dodgy, crass businessman in the USA, while in Britain an archetypical elitist wins the vote. Is it a case that when the opportunity arises, such as Brexit or when a Trump comes along with messages that resonant, they are willing to make their displeasure known. After all, the un-credentialed are not unintelligent and can see that their interests get ignored. On a couple of occasions, the curtain pulled back to reveal the contempt of these elites. Hilary Clinton didn't help herself by calling Trump's supporters' deplorable'. In the UK, the Gillian Duffy incident exposed the disdain that Labour leaders have for ordinary citizens. Something else is also going on. There is evidence that the Internet, in particular social media, is driving polarisation. William Davies proposes that the slow work of researching a subject and excavating the detail has stopped. We know that few issues are black and white, yet the Internet drives us to define ourselves in those terms. Davies attributes this to the use of simple up-ticks and down-ticks on social media platforms. People must give 'yes' or 'no' answers to matters that are not straightforward. Harness that to the mind-shaping processes of the Internet, and you can see the impact. Chunks of 'content' – images, screen-grabs, snatches of video – circulate according to the number of thumbs up or thumbs down they receive. It is easy to lose sight of how peculiar and infantilising is this state of affairs. Once a person indicates several preferences, the system does the rest. Algorithms offer up more of the same material, pushing them further down the same track. They are now in a feedback loop without meaningful discussion. The result is a people polarised, unable and unwilling to consider the other side of an issue. In turn, this prevents community cohesion, disrupts democracy and leads to mayhem. Aristotle identified in ancient Greece the core difficulty with democracy and its an issue that runs right up to the present day. He noted that in a democracy if the majority of voters wish, they could take away property from the rich. He considered this unfair on the assumption that the rich had worked for their success. Aristotle concluded the best way to deal with this is to have support systems that reduced inequality. He asserted everyone must have a chance to become rich. Has that happened? No, because all the evidence points towards reduced social mobility in recent decades. These days the most disadvantaged group in the UK is not black youth or Asians, its white boys from working-class backgrounds. With the sole exception of Roma Gypsy, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than white British. Of the white British who do attend, most are middle class, and 57 per cent are female. A similar pattern emerges with pay. While the merits of a degree are eroding, this demographic data should cause pause for thought. That minorities can make admirable progress is commendable. But, at the same time, a resentful disenfranchised cohort from the majority falls behind. If you want an explanation of the Brexit vote or support for Trump, perhaps look no further. The people broke with their norms of voting because politicians broke with them. As we enter a new political era, how is this going to unfold? Are we looking at intensifying political polarisation, declining economic mobility and the outsized influence of special interests? It's looking that way. If so, then democracy will come under increasing stress because it fails the many. 12/11/2020 2 Comments "狂犬吠日" — Mad dogs barking at the sun "A symbolic gesture that doesn't give you anything in practice, and a symbolic gesture that the other side would have calculated you would do and is quite happy for you to do, is a symbolic gesture that is effectively an own goal." The removal of four LegCo members for failing to abide by their oath of office has summoned up the usual baleful cries. 'This is the end' and 'Hong Kong is finished' sums up the mantra. Politicians in the West took a break from observing the Trump zombie-regime death-march to weigh in.
Of course, Benedict Rogers had to have his say. In a column in The Spectator, he was in full imperialist mode calling for a coalition of Western nations to confront China. What does Mr Rogers have in mind? Send in the navy to attack Chinese ports, then march inland to burn down a few palaces, while conducting a bit of looting on the way? Should Beijing kneel and tremble before the might of Western civilisation? Could someone have a word, because a reality check is needed; this is 2020, not 1860. Britain as a nation is incapable of leading a coalition of any sorts when the country is so divided and may not exist in 10-years time. If wee Nichola Sturgeon has her way, Scotland will be going it alone: to be shortly followed by Northern Ireland merging with Ireland. In any case, threats against other nations need backing up by tangible actions. With China turning inward under its next 25-year plan, and its economy on the mend post-Covid, sanctions and a trade war will have a minimal impact. After all, Trump failed in his trade war with Beijing, while Australia is suffering the fallout from its stance. With China holding many of the cards on the trade front, it can bide its time. A military action is always an option. Except Britain has no range now and must rely on the USA. A hot war could go either way or escalate into something far more severe. Also, is the USA prepared to sacrifice everything for Hong Kong? I doubt it. That the USA wouldn't give refuge in its Hong Kong Consulate is a stark illustration of realpolitik in action. For all its manifest failings, and there are many, China is a world power that isn't going to let the West push it around. Within the national psyche is a deep well of resentment over the West's action during China's weak period. In that narrative, the Brits forced drugs on the country, and the West sought to carve up the place. Any Chinese leader, whether communist or not, can't allow such humiliations again. Some will undoubtedly respond with the rote response of Britain's duty to the people of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, that sounds hollow and time-expired because Britain didn't dare to act before 1997. Never forget Britain cut off the people of Hong Kong with changes to the immigration law in 1981, just before negotiations on the handover gathered pace. That timing is significant. Offering a route to citizenship is a bit late in the day, especially given the costs involved, although some will take the offer. Good luck to them. At the same time, our Chief Executive, Carrie Lame, didn't help herself yesterday by displaying a fine set of sloping shoulders. She claimed 'Beijing pulled the trigger' although in truth she'd handed them the gun and ammunition. If she sought to gain some distance from the decision, she failed miserably and once again manifested her craven side. It's not hard to see that China has decided to 'bite the bullet' to get our stalled parliament working. In a magnanimous gesture, the rest of the opposition choose to help that process along by resigning. Professor Steve Tsang, the director of the SOAS China Institute, notes: "A symbolic gesture that doesn't give you anything in practice, and a symbolic gesture that the other side would have calculated you would do and is quite happy for you to do, is a symbolic gesture that is effectively an own goal." My neighbour, with typical Cantonese clarity, was far more succinct when we discussed the matter over coffee this morning. He taught me a new Chinese idiom "狂犬吠日" — mad dogs barking at the sun. 9/11/2020 1 Comment The Common Good "According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same" What's become of the common good? That's a question the advocates of western-style liberal democracies need to answer. Why? Well, for starters, Covid-19 has given us the chance to observe the different ways nations tackle a crisis, and autocratic China came out on top. In the third quarter, China's GDP grew by 4.9 per cent with a notable surge in industrial production. The country is up and running. Meanwhile, in much of the West, the pandemic rages unabated.
Did the West's response falter because of culture, allied to political jockeying? Has democracy fallen flat on its face? Add to that long-term issues, such as left-behind communities filled with resentment as the world globalised. To them, a hi-jacked democracy panders to elites and the wealthy. Does all this mean the autocracies have won? My intuition tells me, rushing to such a conclusion is misguided. As always, a nuanced, complicated, picture not open to straightforward analysis emerges. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, everyone assumed the debate was over. The verdict formed that the world was moving towards the spread of liberal democracies and free markets. As a consequence of the failure of the communist experiment, the USA stood as the world's only superpower. Did this vindicate the liberal democratic model as supreme? Many believed yes. Francis Fukuyama captured the zeitgeist as he trumpeted the 'End of History'. In Washington, this state of affairs echoed a long-standing conviction that America has a divinely inspired mission to make the world safe. A deep seam of evangelising runs through the culture: Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, when challenged on lavish pay replied he was "doing God's work." So, the West assumed they'd triumphed. And feeling empowered, led by the USA, they set about promoting a neoliberal version of globalisation as they encouraged democracy. When facing resistance, they sanctioned, threatened and intervened, sometimes, with terrible outcomes. But, if you look at the record, the West's support of democracy comes somewhat framed by strategic and economic interests. Contrast the position on Saudi Arabia to that of China. Pushing a democratic agenda, and human rights, doesn't appear to infuse Western politicians when national interests infringe. Odd that. Noam Chomsky cited this attitude as 'schizophrenia'. But far from being an all-embracing world view, a school of thought now portrays this 'winning' narrative as parochial. As the deliberations failed to recognise each countries unique history, how can it hold sway? In short, blinded by conceit, the majority of the Western intelligentsia didn't have the tools to comprehend events. Within academic circles, a fierce debate rages: "Have the scholars failed to interpret events correctly?". For many, the discourse holds that Fukuyama's chronicle of events has deep flaws, is shallow and unbalanced. Even Fukuyama has rolled back on his seminal work, admitting he missed the rise of China and other factors. As a side issue, this discussion is exposing so-called experts as intellectual eunuchs, devoid of free-thinking. These people are beholden to the agenda of their institutions. Instead of roaming free over vast areas of knowledge to interpret the world, most are hired-guns, who craft messages as 'product'. Think-tanks, governments and intelligence agencies fund this 'product' expecting a specific outcome. Then the media run this 'product' as the accepted version of events. By now, you are asking, beyond the Covid-19 response, where is the evidence that the democratic system falters? Exhibit One: with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experimented with a western-style free-market model and elections. As it turned out, this approach empowered an autocratic regime with oligarchs soon running the show. Exhibit Two: ousting Saddam Hussein did not bring freedom and calm to Iraq. Instead, the result was instability, millions dead, with a brutal civil war that rumbles on. Yes, Saddam ran a morally indefensible regime — no one denies that. Has what came next proved any better? The region is looking worse than ever. Exhibit Three: the Arab spring was to herald a new democratic era in the Middle East. In Egypt, once the despot fell, radicals seized the democratic process to install a regime of fundamentalists. Back to square one. Exhibit Four: we have economic data from the IMF and the Democracy Index of The Economist. Between 2012 and 2016, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, China, Mongolia, Ireland, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Laos, Panama and Georgia enjoyed the fastest economic growth. Only Ireland scores well in democracy. Moreover, South Korea made its best economic advances while under a military dictatorship. Add to that research by leading economist Paul Collier. He concludes that democracy can destabilise a country in the early stages of its economic development, in turn, stunting progress. Likewise, once a nation attains economic maturity, democracy can bring stability although the net effect of democracy may be ambiguous. Then I ask how Cuba can have better child mortality rates than the USA? How come Hong Kong’s streets are far safer than those in the UK? What’s interesting is that for life expectancy world-wide, US is ranked 46th, while undemocratic Hong Kong comes first. Maybe that because the USA is rated 97th for access to quality health care and 91st on basic education. The fact is, across a host of parameters, democracy doesn't always guarantee the best outcomes for the majority of people. So, the people who claim the supremacy of that model must face this uncomfortable set of facts. According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same. But, consider this: in China, both rich and poor alike realised income gains, while since the 1970s in the USA the growth has benefited the top ten per cent only. Of course, for decades, the 'experts' claimed China couldn't succeed because it wasn't democratic. That analysis proved wrong. In the early 1980s, across the border from Hong Kong, the special economic zone of Shenzhen gathered pace. This growth proved you could triumph economically without liberal democracy. It's interesting to note that China, despite its evident success, does not force its system on other countries. In Africa, China is conducting a programme of 'pragmatic imperialism' that involves investment, development and the taking of resources. Yes, the arrangement is transactional. China benefits, but, they don't tell the host how to live or run their country. As regard Covid-19, whereas President Trump fumbled about, China acted decisively. In an incredible display of capacity and order, the authorities tested the 11 million Wuhan residents for the virus within ten days. The verdict seems clear: authoritarianism is superior to liberal democracy when fast mobilisation drives success. But again, this conclusion is simplistic and even misleading. Note that democratic places, such as South Korea and New Zealand, handled the pandemic well. Their systems did not block the ability to put in place virus containment measures. Could it be that America's current troubles do not reflect a universal failure of democracy? Instead, are we witnessing an unbalanced order that favours a few? The lesson I draw from America's upheaval is that even a mature democracy must be continuously maintained to function. There is no 'end of history'. Likewise, never forget the catalyst for China's economic growth. Deng Xiaoping injected elements of accountability, competition, and limits on power. This hybrid political system, married to a firm commitment to markets, took China from poverty to middle-income status. Besides, the stated institutional advantages of China's top-down rule are both a strength and a weakness. Owing to its origins the Communist Party of China implements policies in the manner of ‘campaigns’. That means the entire bureaucracy and society come together to achieve a given goal. Then when pressured to do whatever it takes to achieve targets, officials may use extreme measures triggering new problems down the road. Significant and quick results rarely come without costs. For example, displacing people for urban expansion led to unrest and bitterness. Nonetheless, these ‘campaigns’ deliver impressive results. Xi's poverty-fighting initiative lifted 93 million rural residents out of poverty in seven years. Let's be clear; the West would still be debating the issue after seven years, without resolution, never mind any action. Here's the thing, the idea that we can choose only between an American-style democracy and a Chinese-style autocracy is false. Indeed when the real aim of governance is to ensure pluralism with stability – countries must find their own path. Perhaps the current era, rather than being the end of democracy, is a period of correction. Few would disagree, that the failure of free-market capitalism and globalisation to serve everyone, is causing deep resentment. The West needs to recognise this. It can't continue working with entrenched political ideologies that are tone-deaf to public sentiment. Where do we go from here? Looking back through history, every great civilisation rises to power, reaches a peak, and then declines. This is Oswald Spenglar's thesis. Yet, I doubt we are there: democracy won't collapse, nor will the liberal democratic model fade. But, it will evolve. After all, the USA, in particular, has a remarkable ability to reinvent itself — the 'new dawn' at each iteration. Meanwhile, China is advancing and finding its way. The West would be foolhardy in the extreme to think it can halt or hold back that process to secure its strategic interests. So, to answer the question: "What's become of the common good?" the West needs to acknowledge its manifest failings. Then bring some balance by addressing broader issues in their societies. In the meantime, raging and flailing against China won't help, especially when Beijing is advancing the stock of millions of people. Douglas Carswell asserts "The elites frequently get things wrong" in 'The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy'. He observed, "they endlessly seek to govern by design a world that is best organised spontaneously from below". Indeed, therefore, the best outcomes for the 'common good' rest in each system learning from the other, to incorporate advantages and moderate their failings. Engagement and cooperation is the only viable way forward.  "Rules are one thing, but it's often the unwritten norms of decorum that mark excellence" You have to give it to Donald Trump: the man never stops trying. That audacious press conference, asserting he'd won with counting ongoing, was pure high-stakes political theatre. Did he throw a massive spanner in the works of US democratic institutions?
2/11/2020 0 Comments Hazard All He Hath "There is no gambling like politics." Benjamin Disraeli John le Carré would struggle to craft a plot with these ingredients. An ex-US intelligence officer, using money from a Hong Kong-based newspaper baron to spin a sham story against the son of a US presidential candidate.
Meanwhile in the background is the unfolding discord between China, Taiwan and the USA; not to mention a shadowy religious cult and far-right neocons. Jimmy Lai, the newspaperman, is denying knowledge of these matters. His former second in command and best buddy, the ex-spook, Mark Simon, has fallen on his sword and resigned. For the uninitiated, the details are here. This intriguing saga is an intoxicating mix; hints of interference with US elections, false identities, fake news and a thread of influence-peddling connecting Hong Kong activists to big hitters in Washington. By way of background, Mr Lai is facing an assortment of allegations for his presumed role in last year's civil unrest, while Mr Simon is a fugitive wanted by the Hong Kong Police. He's alleged to have committed various offences but fled Hong Kong earlier this year. In 2014, Mr Simon faced exposure for his role in moving funds to support the ‘Occupy Central' movement. A hack of emails revealed him liaising with several right-wing US politicians. Further, it appears that he used his connections to open doors for Mr Lai. That includes getting a sit down with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Mr Simon's antecedents are worth a look. In short, he's a strident republican and well-connected to neocons in the USA. He's an unashamed big-mouth — his words — with a straightforward, bold style that is at times entertaining and audacious. Mr Lai is also a pal of Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary for defence under President Bush II. Wolfowitz is the advocate of a doctrine that emphasises US primacy. This policy entails early intervention and unilateral action that prevents the emergence of any new rivals. Thus, you can see why Beijing views Mr Simon and Mr Lai with some suspicion. Moreover, Mr Lai is now in the invidious position of potentially damaging his standing with US Democrats. He'd previously sought their patronage; therefore connection to an effort to black Biden won't play well. His endorsement of President Trump compounds that. A stance which has earned him the ire of traditional supporters in the West. The left-leaning Guardian doesn't sound too impressed. They struggle to reconcile Mr Lai's supposed pro-democracy credentials with allegiance to Trump. Indeed. So here is the question. By getting into bed with Trump, how does this advance Mr Lai's position when the election could go the other way? As an impartial observer of Sino/US relations, this is a captivating development that exposes Hong Kong's pro-democratic camp to the schism in US politics. No doubt there is more to come on this story. 29/10/2020 2 Comments The State of Play. "What is striking is that as an attempt to flee, this was a risible, ill-conceived and inept plan..." On Tuesday this week, members a Hong Kong independence group, Studentlocalism, sought asylum in the US Consulate. Details are sketchy. Media reports suggest security guards allowed them into the compound, yet shortly afterwards they left. The Americans aren't saying what happened, although it appears that this bid for asylum faced rejection.
Early that day the groups leader, Tony Chung, who is on bail, was arrested opposite the consulate, having arrived too early to gain entry. What is striking is that as an attempt to flee, this was a risible, ill-conceived and inept plan—a bit like taking a boat to Taiwan through Chinese waters. For starters, under US asylum laws, claimants must be physically in the US to be considered. Even a brief search of the internet could have established that fact. Moreover, these people do not qualify for refugee status because they are not outside their country of nationality. On top of that, these events expose the limit of American support for activists here. It's not gone unnoticed that the US dodged a major diplomatic incident, that could have added a catastrophic strain to its China relations and led to the closure of the consulate. Clearly, young Tony and his crew aren't worth the bother. With violence and protests curtailed by a combination of the national security law and Covid-19, the arena of action has shifted. Commentators in July, with a fondness for concision over messy realism, declared 'game-over' as the NSL took effect. In my reading of events, the introduction of the NSL brought a welcome respite from violence, while the arena of struggle shifted. The game is still on. The 2014 'Occupy Central' was just the first round or prelude in this series of events. That protest faded as the government mostly sat it out, waiting for enthusiasm to wane. Then the violence of Chinese New Year 2016 — the so-called 'Fish-Ball' riot — indicated an unwelcome evolution was underway. By 2019, with the extradition bill as the catalyst, the militants proved themselves willing to firebomb police stations and kill to achieve their aims. Along with that, a distinct independence movement emerged that challenged Chinese sovereignty. That poked a raw nerve in Beijing. By mid-2020, with protests still simmering, the NSL brought an abrupt halt to the on-street violence. At the same time, the new law cut off overseas funding, while criminalising actions that seek independence. Many prominent activists fled overseas, including several wanted for rioting and other serious offences. All protest movements must grapple with strategic goals, trade-offs, dilemmas and a multitude of choices. Activists are also the audience to each other's actions. For example, having witnessed the arrest in Chinese waters of fleeing bail-jumpers heading to Taiwan, it's doubtful anyone else will again attempt that route. However, structurally this is not just a struggle between the government and the activists. Such a view is an over-simplification of a complex web of intersecting interests. For starters, the government is far from a unified body with one set of interests. The best illustration is our independent judiciary, which operates separately and has come into conflict with the administration by finding against it. Also, you have significant sub-players: including the Police, a multitude of government departments, political parties and the wider passive public. Each has a different stake in events. Then you have the activists who exhibit even greater divisions. For that reason, they strive relentlessly to portray themselves as unified when beset by fault lines and disputes. Scratching the surface, you'll soon expose the fiction of consensus that seeks to sustain collective action. Trumpeting the 'leaderless' model of protest fails to recognise that without leadership, fragmentation is almost always inevitable — there is no centre to hold the movement together. Inevitably, leaderless movements face questions about their legitimacy: who can the government negotiate with?; what is the constituency of the protest movement? Simply uttering five demands doesn't cut the mustard. Joshua Wong is a classic illustration. He appointed himself as a spokesperson for the movement, garnering international coverage with his 'star' recognition. But during the height of the protests, he faced criticism and a hostile reception for grand-standing that caused him to retreat. The more militants types saw him as unwilling to join the 'braves' in fighting the Police. In their eyes, he is inauthentic, plus lacks courage. So while he is the darling of the US politicians, he's an increasingly marginal figure locally. Opposition politicians, meanwhile, in maintaining outward signs of solidarity with the activists, relegated themselves from the sphere of influence. These days their one-trick obstructionist approach in LegCo is mostly a side-show. Plus, when faced with robust debate from officials, they've taken cover. Witness how they've run away from exchanges with the Commissioner of Police in District Council meetings. In effect, they're suppressing debate and free speech because it exposes their inherent weaknesses. These days the arena of struggle has shifted to the law and the judicial system. Protesters are seeking to keep their space for action open by turning court cases into something useful for the cause. Trials are now campaign tools. In this game, activist lawyers are creating new domains for struggle by challenging court decisions, seeking interpretations of the law and with stalling actions. Philip Dykes, the head of Bar Association, jumped in on the first NSL case, seeking to question the validity of the law. That effort failed. Which proves a point; while new arenas of struggle provide new opportunities, they expose players to unknowns. Court decisions can set unwelcome precedents or even see activists locked away for lengthy periods, blunting the ardour of others in the movement. After all, many activists don't have the stamina to withstand long jail terms. On the bigger stage, animated by a sense of civilisational superiority, the West decided it must contain China. They see Hong Kong as a useful lever in that process, albeit local officials have made it clear that international sanctions won't deflect them from maintaining stability here. In effect, the West has pushed Hong Kong deeper into the arms of Beijing across a whole domain of issues including providing political top-cover, economic support and even the provision of public order equipment. With sanctions preventing kit reaching the Hong Kong Police, a process of innovation kicked off. This process led to new tactics with pioneering 'less than lethal' weapons and more effective, leaner, anti-riot teams. Looking around the world, it's dawning on some that: "The American 'beacon on the hill' is growing dim" (Peter Hartcher, The Sydney Morning Herald). Also, there is a recognition that the most vocal critic of China — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — is a biblical literalist who frames the struggle as 'God's battle until the rapture'. This picture is proving deeply unsettling with more rational folks. The penny has dropped with some nations that we've been here before because the push against China comes borne of a moral imperative with religious undertones. It's the same moral imperative that led to previous misadventures. To paraphrase Micheal Pembroke, former Australian Supreme Court Judge, cited in the SCMP: "prudent countries should keep their distance from Washington." It's worth pointing out that Hong Kong's NSL is less strident than Australia's law. Pembroke observes that the tectonic plates of international standing are shifting. Whereas in 1945, America was the world's largest creditor nation, that crown has now passed to China. And the largest debtor nation you ask? Yep, America. Whoever wins next week's US election will face that reality. 21/10/2020 2 Comments The Truth, You Can't Handle The Truth! “All warfare is based on deception” Sun Tze NATO defines PSYOPS as: ‘Planned psychological activities using methods of communications and other means directed to approved audiences in order top influence perceptions, attitudes and behaviour, affecting the achievement of political and military objectives’. I don't know how much of a shock this will cause you — perhaps none, but foreign powers now admit playing a role in Hong Kong's troubles last year. Not everyone accepts that. At the height of the rioting here, a friend quipped "All this talk of foreign involvement is nonsense." I was less sure.
To me, the relentless, sophisticated and focused social media campaign waged, in particular, against the Police had the hallmarks of Psyops. We've seen nothing similar in modern times except during the Arab Spring that kicked off in 2010. Then western governments and media made the false assumption that all you needed to do was get elections up and running, and hey presto, you'd have parts of the Middle East full of liberal-minded democrats. It didn't happen. Instead, the USA became alarmed at the political forces unleashed. President Obama soon adopted a policy of ambivalence; he offered words of comfort and support but little direct help. Last weekend my friend had the good grace to admit his mistake in comprehending events here. What caused his 'road to Damascus' moment? Well, first up he credited the uncloaking of Kong Tsung-gan as American Brian Kern. Local commentator Nury Vittachi twigged that Kong wasn't who he claimed to be. Then a detailed investigation by The Grayzone filled in the gaps. For some time, Kern portrayed himself online as a prominent Chinese pro-democracy activist. In the process, he earned extensive coverage including praise from Chris Patten and coverage in western media outlets. The Hong Kong Free Press gave him regular coverage. Then, when exposed as a white man pretending to be Chinese, Kern did a runner. Some people think Kern is an intelligence agency asset. If he so, then he was hardly operating under deep cover. As a former staffer for Amnesty International, with a job at the Chinese International School, he was a visible presence at the protests. Anyway, these days having an asset on the ground is not necessary. Social media allows influence-peddling from afar. Next, my friend's ears pricked up as news emerged that Trump cut-off support to Hong Kong activists. In effect, the US exposed itself. Through the Agency for Global Media, the US provided funds to enable Hong Kong activists to hide their identities online. Trump stopped that funding. Time Magazine revealed the connection. Later, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress owned up to the US's involvement. Plus, we've known for some time that the National Endowment for Democracy, poured funds into Hong Kong's opposition groups. Check out the NED's antecedents. None of this should surprise anyone who is a student of international affairs. Thomas Rid's book 'Active Measures' details the mind-bending campaigns of disinformation during the Cold War era. In 1951, the CIA sent shopkeepers in East Germany fake letters from the government in East Berlin. These letters instructed them to drop their prices at once. This action led to a surge of buying and then shortages. Psyops has a long history. Sun Tze highlighted the importance of information deception 2000 years ago. Down the ages, most effective military strategies employed a Psyops element. Ashurbanipal, the king of Assyria from 668 to 627 BC, gifted his neighbouring states the flesh of his victims. They got the message — don't mess with Ashurbanipal. In 1462, Vlad III adopted psychological warfare against Sultan Mehmet II's invading army. Vlad faced a force much more massive than his own. As the Sultan's army advanced, festering corpses greet them on spikes. Soon the name 'Vlad the Impaler' spread far and wide, discouraging further attacks. Vlad's enemies recorded and spread the word of his deeds, and at each telling, the narrator embellished the story. These days Psyops is more subtle. The process harnesses culture, symbols, perceptions and emotions to steer the behaviour of people under stress to meet desired outcomes. These outcomes can be political, military or even criminal. Terrorist activity and insurgencies have a high Psyops component. Plus, and this is critical, the Internet provides new cheap Psyops options. These days every kid with a computer, photoshop or film editing software is a potential Psyops operative. I invite you to go down this rabbit hole to see the workings of British disinformation and Psyops. Until the 1970s, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ran a unit with the sole job of spreading rumours. The Information Research Department sent out over 9,000 'un-avowable pieces of information' aimed at undermining other nations. All governments play these games. In the 1960s the Soviet Union leaked to European peace activists 'evidence' of American plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike. These shoddy fake documents had many errors. Peace activists commented it didn't matter that the leak was a forgery as 'we can guess there is a document almost exactly like it'. They wanted to believe, which unlocks a truth about our hidden attitudes. Walter Lippman (1889–1974), an American political writer, identified this phenomenon decades ago. He saw that people create a stereotypical world model to ease their comprehension of events. He surmised that as societies grow more complex, people must build these models in order not to become overwhelmed. To achieve this, they seek information that affirms existing opinions. Lippman recognised this 'echo chamber' effect well before the Internet threw explosives on the fire. Last year's events in Hong Kong brought this all into sharp focus. People wanted to believe falsehoods — turning palpable idiocies into 'fact'. Bear with me, as I seek to explore this exploitable human condition. We begin in the hard-wired primitive part of the brain — the amygdala region. This almond-shaped blob of grey matter regulates how we react to fear and anxiety. As part of the limbic system, it is not a thinking structure. The amygdala is more akin to a trip-wire that fires off automatically to produce a reaction that can protect us. We see a snake, the amygdala says 'danger', and then in an instant, we jump away. In evolutionary terms the amygdala served us well, helping us to get through the day on the dangerous African savanna. Unfortunately, it's not so helpful these days because the real physical dangers aren't there. Yet, the system is still ready and primed to fire a response. When exposed to death, disorder and destruction by the 24-hour news cycle or on social media, this jolts us into primitive-mind land. Our anxiety and fear levels rise. With your primitive-mind riled-up, you come primed for action. The Netflix docudrama 'The Social Dilemma' dramatised this mechanism. It portrays a young man undergoing radicalisation as social media algorithms augment his anger. Few would dispute that the West saw events in Hong Kong as an opportunity to bring pressure on Beijing. As such, Hong Kong played a role in the broader geopolitical tension of the era, but controlling the narrative would be essential. Thus enters Psyops on steroids, leveraging social media to create a formidable platform that's ready to broadcast any message. Fire up the amygdala, stoke some fear. Seed your message. Then repeat, repeat and repeat across many platforms. "I heard it on Twitter, and my friend says she saw it on Facebook. It must be true!" Nobody bothers to run down the source, so the story takes hold and is then picked up as 'fact' by the mainstream media. In the past, at this stage, you'd expect some verification by professional journalists. Not these days, with activist reporters controlling newsrooms. The mainstream media now feeds the frenzy with misleading headlines designed to get attention. They act as facilitators. That's how tales of 'ghost trains' and 'dead bodies' at Prince Edward still have traction with the gullible and weak-minded. It's even possible to deceive seasoned former journalists; Claudia Mo, turned up at Prince Edward station to lay flowers for people who never died. But other folks will respond in different ways. Some will post critical comments on social media or join marches, and a few will take up bomb-making. Whether a foreign power directed specific Psyops and spread misinformation in Hong Kong during 2019 is a moot point. This explanation is attractive because it explains the sophistication of the 'leaderless' movement. Yet this hypothesis negates the canniness of young people to mount such an enterprise. Plus, history has shown that Psyops efforts, even when covert, don't remain covert for long. With time, we may know more. What is certain is that activists, some schooled overseas and online, proved adept at shaping the story to their ends. Using Internet tools, they controlled the narrative for a while because the government's old-fashioned methods of communication proved no match. Officials needed to learn that press conferences and written press releases have marginal utility in the cyber age. Carrie Lam's administration was driving a clunky old bus, while her opponents speed pass in an autonomous drive sports car. For example, within minutes of people fighting in Yuen Long on the evening of July 21, edited clips emerged. Then in less than two hours, professional time-stamped photographs with commentary appeared. In an instant, these circulated through chat groups with the assertion that the Police conspired in the attacks. Even without reliable evidence, these claims become the dominant narrative. In no time, the international media — without verifying — repeat the story. Rehashed reports of alleged connivance between the Police and gangs add weight to the flimsy 'facts'; innuendo buffed up with a facade of truth for the uninformed. Only in the latter part of 2019 did the Hong Kong authorities start to wake from their plodding analogue approach. They'd fallen into the trap of believing the available truths are the dominant narrative because that's what they heard in their circle. I doubt Carrie Lam was reading Twitter or trawling through Reddit to see the distortions fed to the world. Gradually the government mounted a 'digital' response that penetrated the social media domain with fancy artwork with manga-like images. Plus, several videos appeared that purport to set the record straight. Someone has adopted the methods of Psyops to fight back. In modern times, the challenge we all face is discerning the truth in the blizzard of news, comment and opinion thrown at us. With politicians spinning half-truths or telling outright lies, as activists and governments create narratives, it's no wonder people get misled. Meanwhile, the self-appointed arbiters of the truth — the media — are busy filtering or twisting events to match their agenda. Here's a taste of their activities — a New York Times journalist fabricating a tale of joining ISIS. Whether state-controlled or not, the consequences are profound because the 'well of truth' is now poisoned. Ironically we can look to a former CIA agent to glean tips for spotting fake stories. In summary:-
These days the Hong Kong government and the Police have clawed back some ground. After all, the Hong Kong Police proved restrained compared to their US counterparts when facing rioters. In months of relentless violence, not a single person died at the hands of the Hong Kong Police, while the rioters did kill. That's a fact. 7/10/2020 0 Comments Rock & A Hard Place "The repair cost for the trashed PolyU campus is HK$700 million" Hong Kong parents are in a bind. The chatter is they want to avoid sending their kids to the over-politicised local campuses, but opting to ship them overseas has other hazards. The shambolic handling of Covid-19 in the USA and the UK, the two favoured locations for higher education, make this a high-risk option.
That, coupled with the rising anti-Chinese sentiment. Do you want the kids facing Covid-19 in a place that's floundering and with the threat of racial aggression? Tough call. Are things that bad on local campuses? Speaking to a group of students, I'm told the radical elements are in the soft degrees — the social sciences, and 'grievance studies'. No surprise there. The suggestion is that students tackling hard science subjects are less prone to political activism. Maybe, having less free time is a factor. After all, getting a place on courses for medicine, chemistry, maths, and physics remains challenging, as it should be. Also, it's argued that the focus needed for these courses tends to produce students with a realistic outlook. What is certain is that last year's troubles lost Hong Kong's universities, both friends and influence. In government circles, it's deemed that academics are on the 'wrong side' of the struggle. It hasn't gone unnoticed that deans lost control of their campuses, which became bases for the rioters. At least one dean did a disappearing act in an abrogation of his duties. The images of rioters training on the PolyU and ChineseU campuses sent a chill through society. When the Police took back PolyU, they discovered over 4000 petrol bombs and other weapons. Granted, some of those present may not have been students, yet the terrible optics did the damage. As a consequence, as the new term begins, stories abound that potential students are declining offers. Depending on who you believe, this is because of the NSL or parents opting to keep their kids away. How the NSL would impact a course choice is beyond me. If anything, the NSL has provided a welcome circuit-breaker to calm the situation. Meanwhile, universities need to tackle several significant challenges. Covid-19 is pushing learning online, with demands for fee reductions as aggrieved students claim they are not getting the full college experience. Then there is the matter of paying for the damage done to campuses by the rioters. The repair cost for the trashed PolyU campus is HK$700 million. ChineseU got off lighter at HK$70 million. In the end, I suspect the taxpayer will cover the cost, one way or another. What is surprising is no one is holding the deans to account for their manifest failures. We all saw that as trouble developed on campuses, they stood-by or gave tacit support. Few intervened to assert any control. Of course, the opposition politicians sought to normalise the smashing of campuses as laudable political protest. In their world, all the blame rests on the government and the Police. Along the way they've rewritten history and spun falsehoods, to portray rioters as brave warriors. But that's another story. As Hong Kong re-structured in the 1990s for the 'knowledge economy,' our civic leaders saw 'higher education' for the masses as the way forward. In the UK, Tony Blair trumpeted the same message with his mantra of 'education, education, education'. Yet, as is now recognised, going to university was over-sold for some because it produced unrealistic expectations. Those fancy jobs with premium pay and rapid career advancement didn't fall into laps. Then, again, that's not unique to Hong Kong. As degrees became ubiquitous, a cycle of qualification inflation took hold. Many degrees in the 'soft subjects' are proving worthless. I have to ask, did students expect a degree in 'film studies' and 'the liberal arts' would land them a top job? Well, yes they did because we told them it would. The logical endpoint is over-qualified, resentful people in retail, call-centres and crappy management roles. Which begs the question, would these kids be better off learning a trade? Yes. Much better off than attending bloated second-rate universities. Two years ago, I interviewed hundreds of Hong Kong graduates for management roles in the aviation sector. A number had a high opinion of themselves, with a sense of entitlement on show. They equally displayed a poor comprehension of the commitment needed in the modern workplace. With blunt honesty, some revealed themselves unwilling to consider shift work. Meanwhile, business friends tell me that Mainland graduates show a 'hunger' to get on. Thus, the thesis goes the Mainlanders displace locals graduates in the demanding roles that lead to senior positions. I have no data to support this assertion, but, as the saying goes, perception is reality. One must wonder how much this contributed to the violence of last year, as resentment built amongst local graduates. Coupled to this is a hard truth. Hong Kong is a service centre for China. Our 'parasite economy' thrives because the Mainland is structurally different. Should China ever become an open economy in the Western sense, then Hong Kong's importance wanes. Graduates, who are willing to acknowledge this situation, and seize the opportunity, will in all likelihood prosper. Those who oppose and fight the system curtail their career options. Employers are mindful of this reality. Before Covid-19 cut cross-boundary travel, prospective hires could face a second interview in Shenzhen. This simple step tested the willingness of graduates to cross to the Mainland and engage on that ground. No doubt, employers with Mainland interests are wary of employing anyone who played a role in the protests for fear of a backlash. One student told me a friend spent hours wiping his social media of 'protest-related' material before an interview with a bank. He then faced questions about the gaps. The tale sounded apocryphal. Yet, that the young man took the effort to tell me the story revealed his worries. The absence of a social media footprint can be as suspicious as any content. Also, don't forget that background checks have never been more straightforward thanks to Facebook, Twitter and the like. These platforms and online activism will continue to haunt a generation that put its militant rantings out there. I feel lucky that my cohort had the benefit of fading memories as we explored the boundaries and pushed against their limits. Time has eroded the evidence, something the internet doesn't do. Kids these days would do well to remember Bob Dylan's sage words "And don't speak too soon. For the wheel's still in spin. And there's no tellin' who that it's namin." 2/10/2020 1 Comment Have some common decency! "Mrs Choi would need to work over 35 years to take home what Carrie Lam makes in a year." Mrs Choi works a 12-hour shift, six-days a week, cleaning corridors, windows, door handles and ledges. With the onset of Covid-19 this year, her workload doubled. Enhanced precautions, mandated by her employer, required Mrs Choi to clean designated areas every 30 minutes. She now has only 20 minutes for lunch and no other breaks.
This middle-aged lady is part of the small army, the unrecognised heroes, who've helped keep us safe. Their relentless attention to hygiene in communal areas, on the streets and in public toilets is exemplary. And yet, Mrs Choi is on the minimum wage of HK$37.5 per hour and unlikely to see any increase soon. Indeed, that's the case if the Federation of Hong Kong Industries has its way. Once again they are summoning up apocalyptic tales of collapsing businesses if wages rise by one cent We've heard the same from them when the government introduced a minimum wage in 2010. Listening to their howls, you'd think life as we know it was about to end. It didn't happen. They adapted, and businesses prospered, as things soon settled down. Yes, there are pros and cons to the minimum wage debate; there is also fairness. Mrs Choi and her cohort are amongst the poorest in this affluent city. Despite a lifetime of hard work, they're unable to save as their salaries don't cover the rising cost of living. By comparison, the hourly UK rate is HK$64- and in New York, it's HK$116.2-. Granted, other factors are at play overseas, yet by any measure, Hong Kong's rate is low. Meanwhile, the government has thrown billions of dollars into industries that are not suffering the impacts of Covid-19. The supermarkets that have enjoyed a surge in business, as people dined at home, is the most egregious example. In the latest round of government aid, HK$24- billion is on offer, but not a penny going directly to those on the lowest wage. Instead, businesses will pocket the money, and we have no way of knowing how it's spent. Even our slumbering Consumer Council awoke and felt it necessary to intervene in the supermarket malarkey. In a laughable statement, Kwok Chun-wah of the Labour Advisory Board commented 'employers and employees are sharing the hardship'. Really Mr Kwok? It's not evident that employers are transferring any of the hardship to senior staff. Instead, the pain falls to the lowest paid. Don't forget that Hong Kong has one of the highest levels of income inequality on the planet, a fact that may have contributed to last year's civil unrest. Any responsible government would be looking to narrow that gap even at such a critical time, especially when you need the low paid to keep us all safe through their diligence. Carrie Lam, our Chief Executive, earns about HK$5- million per annum. Mrs Choi would need to work over 35 years to take home what Carrie Lam makes in a year. I wonder can the government assure us that hard-earned public funds thrown at oligarchs isn't lining the pockets of the top end? Added to that, a system of tendering that encourages a 'race-to-the-bottom', means companies feel the pressure to put in low bids. In the process, they shortchange their workers. In Covid-19's inversion of the status hierarchy, many of the truly 'key workers' turned out not be the bankers, flash-money men or wheeler-dealers, but those who did not go to college or less able to pass exams. One hopes that these folks, whose vitally important jobs we viewed as low status, will enjoy better condition and pay. They also merit our admiration. Our profligate government could adopt various strategies that ensure support reaches the needy. Direct payment to workers on minimum wage is one option, likewise enhanced transport subsidies or special tax concessions. Mrs Choi deserves better, including some dignity for her contribution during this crisis. A fine start would be making sure that handouts land in her pocket. Come on, Carrie Lam, have some common decency!  "There is no better demonstration of how far US politics has drifted from any moorings of civility." Trump ran amok at the first presidential debate. He bullied a weak-looking Biden and didn't hesitate to take on the moderator, who struggled to contain an insult filled session. Most of that vitriol coming from Trump.
The impression was of an unedifying mess dominated by Trump's antics. There is no better demonstration of how far US politics has drifted from any moorings of civility. Already the Twitter-sphere is full of comments: 'a shit show, a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck' captures the sentiment. Chris Wallace, the moderator, tried to reign in Trump's constant interruptions, reminding him of the rules. It didn't work. At once, Trump pivoted claiming Biden had interrupted him, and yes he had, but not regularly. The venue looked like a schoolyard with a petulant toddler in full tantrum mood "But Joe pushed me first!" Already Wallace is taking flak; but, it's hard to see how anyone could attain control short of shutting off the mikes. Trump opted to play nasty by evoking rumours about Biden's son. A visibly hurt Biden admitted his son had 'drug issues, but was making progress.' I suspect that short exchange earned Biden credit, while Trump came across as spiteful. Throughout Trump delivered his points with confidence, vim and didn't give an inch. In comparison, Biden was low-energy, plodding and looked flustered at times. No doubt the fact-checkers are hard at work assessing the details. We will need to wait but in a way none of that matters. It's the optics of debate that will sway opinion. On that score, Biden looked feeble next to Trump's chest-beating alpha-male. Yet, the question is, did Trump overplay his hand? No doubt he won the 'street-fight', but has he inadvertently created sympathy for Biden that could translate to votes? Doubtless Trump's base will love his performance; it's the swing voters who may demur. More to come. 21/9/2020 1 Comment Malice in Wonderland "Trump is conducting a symphony of chaos with no discernible tune" I am, to put it mildly, fascinated by the accounts of the Trump presidency. Has any other serving president had so much written about them. Over the past couple of years, we've had 'Fire and Fury,' 'The Room Where it Happened,' 'Unhinged,' 'Too Much and Never Enough' and 'Fear'. There are many others.
Now comes 'Rage' from heavyweight political journalist Bob Woodward. Remember him? Yes, he's the guy who in 1974 helped bring down Nixon with Carl Bernstein — a story told in 'All The President's Men'. Woodward wrote 'Fear' in 2018, without interviewing Trump. In that book, he portrayed Trump's presidency as 'chaotic and dysfunctional.' Woodward concluded that Trump was out of his depth, and couldn't recognise his predicament. Is this the Dunning-Kruger effect writ large? Then, in a bizarre move, Trump agrees to give Woodward full access for this latest book. Between December 2019 and July 2020, Woodward conducted seventeen interviews with Trump. He recorded over nine hours of exchanges. Likewise, Woodward had free rein to speak with anyone in the administration. Woodward treads a similar path to others in this genre; Trump comes across as unfocused and rudderless. In the end, Woodward concludes 'Trump is the wrong man for the job.' Bob, we all knew that, some time ago. Where Woodward serves a purpose is when he fills in the detail to give weight to insights. For starters, the trajectory of Trump's hiring and firing follows a predictable pattern. In the beginning, nominees are 'awesome,' 'a great person,' and 'incredible.' Then reality takes hold. The hire realises their advice goes ignored, or they fail to agree to Trump's demands. Slowly at first, a drumbeat against them starts. Then comes a steady increase in sniping and snide remarks. Even Tweets help to push home the message that someone is out of favour. Getting wind of their precarious position, honourable men offer to resign. Trump then acts fast to portray these resignations as firings. 'Glad he's gone,' 'I didn't like his leadership style.' It's petty, disagreeable, backbiting stuff. In the process, Trump proves in his world that loyalty is a one-way street. Everything for Trump is transactional, wrapped in hype, and driven home with occasional bitterness. The WTO, WHO, EU, China, Mexico, Canada and NATO are 'all ripping us off and screwing us.' Atop that is the legendary bragging and outright lies. These are too many to list. To help, The Washington Post keeps a record of all Trump's misleading claims. It's a fun read. Let us examine one signature policy initiative — 'The Wall' with Mexico. By mid-2020, it's still not there. How much is built? Well, that depends on how you do the maths. Trump would say 121.4 miles is complete, yet 99 miles of that is renovations and repairs. New sections amount to no more than ten miles. The border is 1,954 miles long. Some way to go. And not a cent has come from Mexico. Instead, Mexicans are stealing parts of the construction. Woodward had unique access during the unfolding Covid-19 crisis. He chronicles in detail all the steps taken by Trump or rather the lack of action. As the deaths mount, Woodward challenges Trump to account for the evident failures, the lack of coordination and reversals. On each occasion, Trump distracts, moves on or pivots to head off any admission. 'China is to blame' is the mantra. Such statements play well in the rust belt, where workers have lost jobs to cheap Chinese labour. On this score, only one point sticks. Why people couldn't move from Wuhan to Beijing due to a lockdown, yet international flights out of Wuhan continued. It's a fair criticism. Even when Woodward gives credit and acknowledges Trump made a tough call in late January 2020 to ban travel from China, the event gets twisted. Trump asserts he went against professional advice to do the 'right thing.' Strange how everyone else present recalls a reluctant Trump finally taking counsel. I suppose if anyone comes out of this book well, for me, it's young Jared Kushner. Against my instincts, I must give him kudos. Kushner scores points for his focus, attention to detail and for providing a stunning insight. Kushner demonstrates he can marshal resources and gets the job done at critical moments. His timely work in coordinating the distribution of ventilators for Covid-19 patients illustrates the point. He soon puts in place a system, which keeps ahead of demand. Then, Kushner inadvertently busts open the Trump phenomenon with a staggering and brutal insight. He cites four texts that a person needs to study to comprehend Trump. With these, we go deep down a rabbit hole, literally. The first came from a Wall Street Journal article that says, in essence, 'Trump is crazy, and it's kinda working.' Second, is the Cheshire Cat from 'Alice in Wonderland' who proclaims "If you don't know where you're going, any path will do." Next, Kushner recommends reading Chris Whipple's 'The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency'. Of course, Kushner is the de facto Chief of Staff. Last, you must digest the satirical Scott Adam's book 'Win Bigly; Persuasion in a World When Facts Don't Matter.' According to Kushner, Trump's 'misstatements' of facts 'invent any reality' the voter wants. Moreover, Trump will never apologise, and if you call him a liar: well, that's because 'you always do.' It's akin to trying to fight a shifting cloud of gas. Kushner observes that "The media can't hold Trump in check because he doesn't play by their rules." If they cross the line, they're ostracised. And because access for them is everything, Trump is prepared to cut them off. One other thing, Kushner has a 'lean and hungry look.' Although a tad untutored on the broader world, he will learn. After all, he recently brought home a partial peace deal in the Middle East. He's somebody to watch. At times during the interviews, you can hear that Woodward is attempting to school Trump. He repeats lessons from history, something Woodward at aged 77, and having dealt with every president since Nixon, is well placed to do. None of this appears to register with Trump, who displays few signs of introspection. There is so much to pick over in this book. Not addressed, but something that needs acknowledging is the damage Trump has done to the USA's standing on the international stage. Many believe he has accelerated the rise of China by distancing allies under his 'America First' policy. This remarkable state of affairs has consequences which remain unclear. In the end, I don't buy the argument that Trump is foolhardy. Far from it. He's a master of manipulation, can rouse a crowd and is ruthless. He's done many complex things in his life, while proving himself very stress resistant. Also, he's undoubtedly an odd man. Nonetheless, he's taken the US out of the 'normative mild-incompetence' of moderate politicians into a new arena of constant struggle. Trump is conducting a symphony of chaos with no discernible tune. The question is, will the US electorate opt for a new conductor? We will know soon enough. 16/9/2020 1 Comment The Sealed Knot "When in a hole, stop digging" The families of the 12 fugitives caught fleeing to Taiwan, held an ill-advised press conference last Saturday. Understandably, they are most concerned about their kids. You'd have to be heartless not to recognise their distress. And yet, in all truth, they may have made matters worse. In that, they are aided and abetted by opposition politicians James To and Eddie Chu.
"When in a hole, stop digging". These sage words served me well on the occasions when my belligerent side came to the fore. It's something I'll freely share with James and Eddie boy. Because having cajoled the protests last year, they're now sending some of their supporters to a worse fate. As one commentator noted, the 12 fugitives 'inadvertently, self-extradited to the Mainland'. Their foolhardy attempt to flee Hong Kong has landed them in the very situation they feared most. Also, there are questions the families must answer, including what did they know? They've all spoken of their ignorance of joint enterprise to flee including breaking bail conditions. That's hardly credible, given the life-changing venture their kids set out to undertake. Surely they noticed the preparations? The press conference, organised by James and Eddie, had the parents dressed like ISIS. I doubt this helps matters. On seeing it many of us had flash-backs to the nascent terrorists who ran amok last year, burning and trashing our city. The optics weren't right. Further, the event proved a spectacular own goal. The thrust of the parent's complaint is that the 12 fugitives are in incommunicado and can't access lawyers. The Mainland asserts it has provided them with proper representation. And, yes there is a legitimate conversation to be had about the legal system on the Mainland. But, I likewise, could make a case that US justice comes predicated on being rich enough to fight a lawsuit. Also, does anyone want to discuss Guantanamo Bay, enhanced interrogation techniques and Julian Assange? Meanwhile, it's emerged that Taiwan has held five other Hong Kong fugitives for two months under similar conditions. This bizarre twist has drawn no international reaction. Odd that. The rumour mill continues to churn out stories that the 12 fugitives were taken in Hong Kong waters and never intended in flee. Of course, in this post-truth age no one bothers to substantiate such claims with any evidence. Could it become any crazier? Well yes. In effect, the opposition politicians have now tied the fate of the 12 fugitives to the broader USA and China geopolitical struggle. Is that wise? By embedding the discussions about getting the fugitives back to Hong Kong in that context, they've made a timely resolution harder. Another example of the Pan Dem's reckless conduct that harms their cause. So far so bad, and it gets worse. The US chimed in with a characterisation of the 12 fugitives as 'democracy activists'. This statement ignores the fact the group includes accused rioters and bomb-makers. The Mainland fired back portraying them as separatists. Well done Eddie and James, you've now sealed their fate. I have some experience in getting suspects back from the Mainland. Back in the day, my command handled a murder case involving a suspect fleeing north. Acting on information, and by thorough detective work, my officers located the suspect in Guangdong. Then began a discrete and delicate round of liaison. For some months, this went on. We established that the suspect had also committed lesser crimes on the Mainland. Eventually, he’s handed back. After a trial here in Hong Kong, then a guilty verdict, he’s serving his sentence. All this helped bring some closure for the poor victim's family. This serving of justice was possible because we established a rapport and goodwill based on mutual respect with our Mainland counterparts. This then led to an amicable resolution. My experience is far from unique. Many other suspects have come home under similar circumstances. Thus there is a supreme irony in all this. Having spent most of last year decrying the Chinese legal system and vilifying Beijing, the opposition now begs its indulgence. I'm not a trained negotiator, but I reckon such an approach is unlikely to work. Plus, any sensible person recognises that Beijing doesn't take kindly to external interference. The intervention by the US is bound to backfire. Did Eddie and James sit back to reflect on their options? Because let's face it; the imagery and substance of their actions serve only to tighten the knot for the 12 fugitives. A more rational protagonist may think that burning bridges with Beijing is not such a wise strategy. Besides, there is nothing for the parents to gain by making their kids de facto hostages in the topsy-turvy US and China dispute. When the tides turn and the noise dies down, the 12 fugitives should return and face justice here. Finally, if this mess taught us anything, it's that these local politicians don't comprehend the rules of the game they've elected to play. Either that or they're prepared to sacrifice the 12 fugitives and their parents in the bigger game — nasty business. 15/9/2020 2 Comments Trapped in Space & Time "Is your maths any good? We’ll be doing a lot of counting of boats as they round the mark”. While not believing in parallel universes, my unfortunate victim may wish these existed. Then, he could escape my attention. But, hey, it’s not every day you get a CERN particle physicist hostage for six hours. We were there to marshal a sailing race, and I’d opened the discussion with “Is your maths any good? We’ll be doing a lot of counting of boats as they round the mark”.
He had the good grace to came back with “Yep, my maths is OK”. Twenty minutes later, I learnt his profession. He immediately regretted telling me. Typically, people run away when I start on about my theory for unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. And why it will be possible to achieve near light-speed using a blackhole, by skipping off the event horizon, in a slingshot action. I'm currently building a mock-up out of old toilet rolls, sticky back plastic, and a coat hanger. This proof of concept may yet allow us to escape this planet to colonise the galaxy. My new best friend, the particle physicist, couldn’t escape. But he confirmed there is a particle detector between the tubes of the Aberdeen Tunnel used to detect neutrinos. I knew it. Millions of neutrinos created in the Sun’s nuclear reactions pass through our body every day without ill effects. How cool is that? Between races, I managed to get in a discussion about multiverses, worm-holes, dark matter, black holes, and gravitational waves. When I say discussion, that’s an exaggeration. It was more him correcting me “No, the magnets at CERN don’t accelerate the particles. The magnet act to contain the particles in the beam”. Got that. OK, so what did I learn, besides the fact that I'm dumb? Well, for starters, fusion reactors on Earth are as far off as Brexit. But, no worries, because we have a functioning fusion reactor that appears every morning over the horizon and disappears at night. It’s output only takes about eight minutes to get here. We’d be better off harnessing that because it appears the Sun has five billion years on the clock. And don’t mention Professor Brian Cox, the poster boy of modern physics. Physicists are a jealous lot, and the fact that Brian Cox hasn’t done much real research is a bone of contention. Also, his youthful looks are not due to Brian using the Large Hadron Collider to travel back in time and regenerate. Who does he think he is? After all, we know the second law of thermodynamics prevents backward time travel. Yet, forward time travel is possible. Our GPS systems take account of the fact that time runs slower on satellites orbiting at high speed. Also, this means that astronauts who speed away from us to the Moon and then return have aged fractionally less than people on Earth. Although, it's now known that particle physicists listening to boring farts with their crackpot ideas age faster than anyone. Based on observations, I can attest to the fact that particle physicists can move fast once ashore, and when approached in the bar. Although, why wives jump to conclusions faster than the speed of light remains a mystery, yet it ages us. 12/9/2020 1 Comment Courting Disaster "The significant issue is the legitimacy of the Judiciary in a polarised society" Magistrate Stanley Ho Chun-yiu is on trial in the court of public opinion, along with the rest of the Judiciary it has to be said. Ho's recent removal from Eastern Magistracy has raised eyebrows and prompted much discussion. It's also affected the image of the Judiciary. A flaccid statement from them has done nothing to dampen speculation.
Despite assertions to the contrary, it's evident that Ho's transfer is far from routine. For starters, he jumped from a Magistracy to the High Court, albeit in an administrative role. Is this a promotion? In a rule-based bureaucracy, with a strict hierarchy, this is unusual. Ho stands accused of biased judgments and handing down light sentences in cases related to Hong Kong's civil unrest. Some see his acquittal rate as higher than other magistrates. Indeed, he's made strong adverse comments against the evidence given by police officers. One opinion leader noted that "police officers appearing in cases heard by Ho all seemed to be either unreliable or dishonest witnesses. Either it is an extraordinary coincidence that Magistrate Ho was assigned cases with weak evidence, or do we see a pattern that can be explained by the obvious reason." Netizens, legal types, and politicians have all raised concerns. Besides, the former head of operations at the ICAC, Tony Kwok, a man not known for supporting the police, wrote this article. He questions the actions of several judges, including Ho. For the laymen, it's difficult to assess the merits of these accusations. I know police officers can give weak evidence. Likewise, court prosecutors can fail to press cases with vigour. Nobody is infallible. Thus, as regards the specific conduct of Magistrate Ho, I'd caution against rushing to judgment. A mechanism is in place to deal with such matters. I'm assuming that process is underway. Although many reasonable, fair‑minded and well‑informed people have already taken a view, I’d rather wait. After all, assessing the attitudes of any person is hugely problematic. This reminds of Elizabeth I's words that she did not propose to "open windows into men's souls". Could it be that something else is going on, obscured from public view? Within most closed, elitist organisations it's expected that cliques form as people jockey for power and influence. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that such groupings may exist amongst our judges. An insider tells me these groupings coalesce around sporting activities such as golf. That's hardly unique. Whether Ho's transfer is related to internal machinations is impossible to say. However, with the imminent departure of the current Chief Justice, the tectonic plates of influence are shifting. Meanwhile, with predictable willful blindness, opposition politicians have jumped on this matter. The cry has gone out that judicial independence is under threat. Yet, a matter of months ago, these same politicians lobbied against District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin. He's barred from hearing criminal cases related to the civil unrest. At the time, I warned the actions of opposition politicians set an unwelcome precedent. In effect, they've opened the door for any aggrieved party to question a judge's motives. So it proved. The more significant issue is the legitimacy of the Judiciary in a polarised society. Let's be clear, if the Judiciary overlooks public support, no matter the lofty legal ideals they embrace, they'll be out of kilter with societies needs. If such sentiment grows, it could then undermine the 'rule of law.' Former High Court Judge Henry Litton already highlighted that Hong Kong's Judiciary is not evolving to meet the challenges of the future. He and others are gravely concerned about the direction of travel and the ability to sustain the common law system beyond 2047. The bizarre aspect to this is those who proclaim themselves defenders of the 'rule of law' are pushing an ideological agenda that may backfire. For example, the Bar Association, the trade union for barristers, has adopted a distinct political position under the leadership of Philip Dykes. This privileged guild, with a de facto monopoly of defending certain cases, is rightly judged by a yardstick not applied to others. Thus, having taken the group into the realm of advocacy outside the courtroom, he can hardly complain when flak comes his way. The Hong Kong Judiciary is one of our vital societal pillars. Weaken it at your peril. And yet, many in that fraternity lead a sheltered life, disconnected from the grassroots. Given this and other distortions brought about by their archaic practices, strange costumes and baffling procedures, the right question is who's interests do the Judiciary serve? Is it a highly-paid debating forum for esoteric points of law, or is it an agency for stability in difficult times? They'd probably answer neither. My legal friends frequently remind me that judges are legal decision-makers, evaluating cases on their merits, without prejudice or preconception. I get that. Except, when the public forms an opinion that partiality has crept into the process, things will soon unravel. That could take us into uncharted waters, and I'm not in favour of going there. 8/9/2020 3 Comments Testing, Testing, Testing. "It's a sign of the opposition's immense privilege that they mock a free scheme that benefits the poor." Last week, I joined the government's Covid-19 testing scheme. To date, some 1.2 million people registered for the free test. Making an appointment online couldn't be easier. When I arrived at the test centre, I'm greeted, instructed to sanitise my hands, and then registered. Next, comes the test: a swab from my nose and one from the throat.
The only issue I had was my eyes watered a bit. I'm heading home after less than four minutes. Eighteen hours later, a negative result pops up on my mobile phone. The scheme is a testament to Hong Kong's organisational abilities, with the help of the Mainland. Now the government is extending tests to meet the demand. This high uptake is despite the activities of the naysayers, who sought to disrupt the testing by encouraging people to stay away. Only in a demented world would anyone seek to stop such a worthy public health initiative by inciting mass hysteria. Yet even medical doctors, with breathtaking deceit, came out to criticise. A quick examination of their backgrounds soon established them as members of the militant opposition. Their opportunistic ranting then faded as public support grew for the scheme. Scrambling to find a point of attack, they seized upon the low rate of positives. Have they forgotten that a pandemic begins with one infected subject? Thus, any detections, even one, is a step in the right direction. But when you allow the infected to circulate, the deaths mount up and mostly amongst the elderly. Am I the only one to get the distinct impression that some in the medical community have allowed politics to cloud their professionalism? Or is the fact that private doctors lost a potential cash-cow, something that irked them? After all, the government scheme is free. With private doctors charging thousands of dollars for a test, they've taken a hit. Of course, the opposition politicians objected because, well, the Mainland is assisting Hong Kong. In their minds, anything from the Mainland is verboten. Seeking to dissuade the public from joining the scheme, they touted stories of our DNA crossing the border in some sinister plot. When faced with unassailable evidence that the entire procedure takes place in Hong Kong, they embellished their fantasies. The best I heard involved the covert planting of a micro-chip on our bodies. These malicious efforts exposed an opposition that is willing to sacrifice people's health for a perceived political gain. I'm not surprised. After all, these are the same politicians who turn up at Prince Edward MTR Station to worship the 'dead' killed by the police on August 31, 2019. Ask the likes of Legislator Claudia Mo to name of any of the 'dead' and expect a fact-free convoluted answer. When you want details, these people go further down the rabbit hole with claims of a massive cover-up. They muse about secret trains taking the bodies away, families paid-off, and hundreds of people missing. Then gullible western politicians, blinded by prejudices, rush to repeat these fake stories. In no time, the narrative takes hold. Only one problem - the dead are coming back to life. One popped up in the UK, where he is avoiding riot charges. Here's a thorough account of the events at Prince Edward MTR. Anyway, I digress. At least legislator Doctor KWOK Ka-ki, of the Civic Party, had the good grace to acknowledge that Covid-19 testing has its merits and is well-run. Speaking on Radio 3, he waffled around the topic before finally letting his professional side make a rational statement. When pressed on what he'd do different, he had nothing much to offer. He next went completely off-script by praising the Mainland. Shurely shome mishtake! Meanwhile, the government has preordered enough Covid-19 vaccine for one-third of the population. Plans are also in place to secure vaccine for the rest of the community based on two doses per person. With stage three testing of vaccines underway, the process of immunisation should start in mid-2021. It's now inevitable that the opposition will build an insidious campaign around stopping this mass vaccination. No doubt they'll draw upon the anti-vaccine lunatics in the USA, who've contributed to the re-emergence of measles and other diseases. It's a sign of the opposition's immense privilege that they mock a free scheme that benefits the poor. They can afford a test. No wonder the opposition stands accused of shameful hypocrisy. While trumpeting 'human rights', they seek to deny people the right to a disease-free society. This denial disproportionately hits our economically-deprived elderly by exposing them to increased risk. All rational and compassionate citizens must embrace testing and a vaccine so that we can get back to a near-normal and protect our senior citizens. Meanwhile, the opposition's mask of common human decency has slipped. 6/9/2020 0 Comments I'm Thinking of Ending Things "Coming home is terrible, whether the dogs lick your face or not..." Spoiler alert - In truth, a spoiler alert is meaningless with this film. There is so much happening, so many evaluations possible that you'll need to view it several times.
"I'm Thinking of Ending Things" is a movie full of daunting ambiguity. Having viewed it once, and tried to comprehend the plot (is there a plot?), I needed a libation. Director Charlie Kaufman is testing the boundaries. Although billed as a modern horror film, the impact is more unsettling than fear-inducing. Deeply unsettling. This movie is excellent for Netflix because you can pause, reflect and then move on. Even better, you can rewind scenes — did that plaster on the father's face change position, did he get taller? Answer to both: yes! Plus, throughout, there is a blizzard of 'foreshadowing' that will keep the movie-nerds debating for years. Is that the intension? What's with the children's swing that keeps appearing, plus the reference to chains? Is it because time in this story swings back and forward, and yet remains 'chained' to an eventual outcome. That's one interpretation, but it's anybody's guess because of the ambiguity piles atop the ambiguity. Yep, I'll need to use that word a lot here. At a basic level, we have a young couple in a new relationship — weeks rather than months — travelling to see his parents for dinner. Snow is falling, as conditions deteriorate throughout the trip. At first, we see events through her eyes. I say her because it's never clear who she is: her name changes, her clothes and her profession. Is she a poet, painter or physicist? The boyfriend is Jake. He's a timid, socially inept chap; although sensitive and well-educated. Or so we are led to believe. On route to his parent's house, we get hints that things are out of kilter. Jake exhibits indications that he can read what his girlfriend is thinking. At one point in the car, the girlfriend breaks the fourth wall for a fleeting moment as her eyes connect with the audience. She then recites a poem which is at odds with her character. In the last segment of the poem, she again breaks the wall to lock her eyes on us. Jake exclaims his love of the poetry with "It's like you wrote it about me". Then on arrival at the parent's house, the weird stuff kicks in. The parents are a bit kooky, although pleasant enough. As the evening progresses, Mum and Dad age. Then they reverse direction to become their younger selves. All a bit fragmented and confounding. None of this comes in a 'shock' moment. Most of these transitions are subtle, some hard to notice — a small change in hairstyle or height. That's were pausing, and rewinding helps. Then a couple of instances took me by surprise. And yet, none of it could frighten or evoke fear. Throughout all this, we bounce to scenes of an older man working as a janitor in a school. Then the girl wanders the house to find a copy of the poem she'd recited early in the car. That's when the penny dropped for me. She's not real. There is also an animated pig that is maybe acting as a guide to the afterlife. Confused? (Don't get hung-up on the poorly rendered pig. The director couldn't get a real one to walk on the slippery floors and turn its head. Animation provided the solution.) The whole thing ends with a bizarre musical number from the show 'Oklahoma' with a cue that the janitor committed suicide. Beneath everything is a sub-text of how we perceive the world and reality. These are not especially original insights. Perhaps this is Jake's mind at work because he is a tad immature and awkward. That includes his over-earnest utterances. It's as if he's seeking to polish his credentials as a 'woke' male who is 'safe' to be around women. Taking a run at it, I reckon Jake is the janitor, and the whole story of the road trip is his imagining of a possible reality. He's a lonely nobody who has suffered many slights in life. In the modern world, Jake is out of place. The girl is someone he once admired in a bar, although it never went beyond a fleeting encounter and her rejection of his attention. We are inside Jake's head, which echoes back to the director's earlier work as a writer on "Being John Malkovich". Could the title be signalling Jake's intent to commit suicide? Indeed, the final moment of the film suggests the janitor kills himself. But I don't know because there is more ambiguity here. The four lead actors — Jesse Plemons, Jessie Buckley, Toni Collette and David Thewlis — give impressively understated performances. Jesse Plemons as 'Jake' captures the disconnect between the surface personality and something bubbling deep inside. You know from the first moment he's an odd one. That sense of disquiet about him grows in increments. Toni Collette quickly adopts the unsettling mother role she rolled out in 'About a Boy'. Both Collette and Thewlis make for uncomfortable, cringe-inducing, in-laws. Although the story is strange, and at times inaccessible, it does engage. In the end, it's not a sad or morose film despite themes of regret, with isolation played out in a disturbing landscape. Nonetheless, I'm left perplexed about the purpose of the whole venture. Maybe the director wants us to think about the outsider. Doubtless, he's messing with us. Perhaps I need to watch it again. 4/9/2020 1 Comment Campbell Seeks Victim Status "As the high priest of the dark arts of deflection and propaganda, he's now engaged in an exercise of image rejuvenation." Alastair Campbell is at it again. For the uninitiated, Campbell was Prime Minister Tony Blair's spin doctor. Amongst Campbell's many doubtful accolades is his role in compiling a dodgy weapons dossier that cleared the way for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As we all know, that went well. Campbell is a man who has built his life and career around misleading and manipulating people.
These days he's peddling a book with a tale of his victimhood around mental health issues. These are not matters I'd generally comment on except that Campbell made it an issue. Crucially, I would have more sympathy for Campbell if he had the common decency to own up to his part in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. After all, can we attribute his ongoing struggles with depression, to the terrible things he's done? I'm no expert, but I reckon it must have an impact. As the high priest of the dark arts of deflection and propaganda, he's now engaged in an exercise of image rejuvenation. Helping him out are the useful idiots at the Guardian newspaper. Reading this piece in the Guardian, it's soon evident that Campbell wants our sympathy and understanding. And coming from a family that has experienced issues with depression, I have a degree of empathy. Except that the substance of Campbell's assertions comes wanting because he's less than honest — I hear a cry of 'nothing new there!' We know Campbell has a history of depression going way back; he has also spoken about his alcoholism. And yet I can't help but wonder if his ongoing self-deceit over the Iraq saga is playing with his soundness of mind. After all, Campbell is an astute man, who must in his quiet moments dwell on his part in the death and maiming of thousands. His leading role in a decision that caused untold misery to many families worldwide must be chewing away inside him. Especially as the mess that is Iraq continues today. And yet, we hear little about this saga from Campbell except when he seeks to earn our pity. Instead, he gives us details of his hallway curtains and his shaving habits. We also learn he operates a number system of one to 10 to assess his state of depression. I'd award him 10 out of 10 for being disingenuous. Of course, you may think a protracted period of calm reflection and solitude may help. Yet Campbell enjoys the limelight, and loves the sound of his own voice; thus, he must seek the attention he craves. So, despite all his 'suffering and pain', he still manages to pop up on TV and in the media at frequent intervals to share his words of wisdom. Campbell tells us "It was a horrible shock and I felt scared and powerless" when the Hutton inquiry sought his private diaries. That inquiry looked at the death of government weapons inspector David Kelly, a man who some believe Campbell propelled to suicide. It would be nice if Campbell could at least have the honesty to address the 'horrible shock and powerlessness' that Iraqi children must have felt as bombs fell on them. Listen how Campbell makes light of these horrors when caught out with his own words. He deftly steps over the corpses. Nonetheless, you've got to give Campbell his due. His antenna remains fine-tuned to the cultural zeitgeist with its fawning over victims. Accordingly, Campbell is doing what he does best — spinning. He's crafted a narrative with himself at the centre. And, the mental health card is only second to the race card as unassailable in the current climate. Having seen the Windsor boys exploit the mental health issue to regain lustre for their damaged brand, Campbell jumped at the opportunity. Now, I know, instances of well-known people talking about their struggle with mental illness can encourage others to consider seeking help. I get that. Yet, I'm far from convinced with Campbell. I'd maybe change my mind if he donated the profits from his book to the Iraq kids who lost arms and legs. Instead, Campbell has jumped on the gravy train getting himself appointed as a mental health ambassador. No doubt that will earn him speaking engagements to keep the revenue stream running and himself in the limelight. Meanwhile, Campbell's mate and partner in crime, Tony Blair, pops up to review the book. Blair is looking like a haunted shell of his former self. In recent years, he's acquired a worn and haggard look. Considering what is on his mind, this is no surprise. On the other hand, waking up next to Cherie can't help matters. Anyway, Blair opted to bury his psychosis in religion, something he kept quiet about that while in office at Campbell's bidding because "We don't do God". Since leaving office, Blair has 'done God' big time with his conversion to the Catholic faith. Could that permanently pained expression be a realisation he's to burn in hell for eternity? Campbell, as an atheist, has no such worries. His concern should be the impact of cognitive dissonance, which is most painful when evidence strikes at the heart of how we see ourselves— when it threatens beliefs that we are kind, ethical, competent, or smart. Marcel Pagnol, in his play 'The Glory Merchants', asserted "In politics, everything is a comedy." Well, there is nothing funny about this pair. It's time for Blair and Campbell to stop talking and go away. We've heard enough from these Janus-faced men. 2/9/2020 1 Comment Foot In Mouth? "Basic Law: Article 85 - The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference." There's an excellent reason Hong Kong people are concerned about the separation of powers. In a place with a democracy deficit, the 'separation of powers' at least ensures that 'check and balances' exist and that our judiciary remains independent. Carrie Lam, our Chief Executive, knows this very well or at least I thought she did.
Then this week we get a statement in which she contradicts herself. On the one hand, she says we have 'checks & balances', and then in the next utterance, she asserts we have no 'separation of powers'. Which is it? Am I missing something here? Unfortunately, it is precisely these blunders that cause even her supporters — the few that remain — to despair. This mess comes on the back of what was turning out to be a fine week for Carrie. She'd seen off the ludicrous opposition to the Covid-19 testing scheme from a lunatic fringe of medical workers. Their attempts to sabotage this critical public health initiative failed. For the sake of clarity, if we don't have 'separation of powers', then I'm afraid Hong Kong's much-trumpeted 'rule of law' is over. Simple as that. So either Carrie Lam doesn't understand the concept or something has changed because she frequently cites 'the rule of law' as our great strength. Let's not forget that business people and ordinary citizens take much reassurance from this principle. They know disputes or criminal charges will face adjudication in an open, transparent manner without one party or another exercising undue influence. It's called justice. After all, the Basic Law says this at Article 85 : "The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. Members of the judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions." Unfortunately, Carrie has form for such blunders with a long list behind her. She'll usually refuse to admit she's said anything wrong. Then she'll clarify her position with a subtle statement down the line. Although, in fairness to her, she did recently admit on TV that she's unqualified for her job. Bless her! 31/8/2020 4 Comments A Rough Passage "Trusting anyone to illicitly convey you that distance, in safety, takes a significant leap of faith. One loose tongue or someone spotting untoward activity, and the game is up." The capture of Hong Kong bail jumpers and wanted persons by Chinese maritime authorities, had my WhatsApp light up with wild conjecture. Was this a failed operation by an ‘agency’ from the West seeking to get its people out of Hong Kong? I doubt it.
For starters, whoever planned the trip is not too savvy. You don’t ‘put all your eggs in one basket’. Why? Because, if captured, you’ve given the other side an intelligence bonanza. And that’s what’s happened. Plus, everyone in the local maritime community knows the Mainland stepped up vigilance in 2019. Sailors and fisher folk noted seeing more patrols on the Hong Kong boundary. Everything moving in or out of Hong Kong waters comes under scrutiny. The detained 11 men and one female are all either on bail or wanted. These include four allegedly linked to a bomb case and another pending a firearms charge. Others are on bail for rioting and arson. Prominent in the group is activist Andy Li, who worked with several British and Australian politicians. These include the former leader of the Conservative party, Iain Duncan-Smith. Li was arrested earlier under the new National Security Law. The Daily Mail portrays Li as a British citizen, which is incorrect. He holds a British National Overseas passport (BNO), which does not grant citizenship. If the Daily Mail report is accurate, the UK Consulate in Hong Kong declined to assist Li. That’s a whole different story. Media reports further claim that triads provided the escape boat, which was to ferry the group to a coastal vessel for the onward trip to Taiwan. That seems possible. It’s known that organised crime has such capabilities, as it runs illegal operations that meet a variety of needs. The recent discovery of pet smuggling activity illustrates the point. Plus, don't forget in 1989, with the help of triads, under the codename ‘Operation Yellowbird’ dissidents came out of China. Hong Kong’s many islands, it’s proximity to the Mainland, and the use of high-speed boats made quick crossings possible. Yet, these transits were not without risk. In one recorded instance, three people sadly perished when their speedboat crashed. But, seeking to flee to Taiwan from Hong Kong by boat has a margin of risk that is much greater. The distance to the southern tip of Taiwan is some 600 km. The vast majority of the journey by sea would go through waters controlled by the Mainland, unless you opt to adopt a much longer southern route. Further, given the ongoing tension between China, Taiwan and the USA, these waters are subject to close monitoring. Trusting anyone to illicitly convey you that distance, in safety, takes a significant leap of faith. One loose tongue or someone spotting untoward activity, and the game is up. No doubt in time, more details will emerge of this incident and how it unfolded. In another reported case, the Taiwanese caught a group of five Hong Kongers, when their boat ran out of fuel. Despite offering words of encouragement to Hong Kong protesters, Taiwan has shown a less than welcoming face. Announcements by officials suggest further arrivals face classification as illegal immigrants. Among the many consequences of this incident, is giving extra ammunition for prosecutors to object to bail. Hong Kong courts have until now shown a willingness to grant bail even in significant cases. That may change. In the meantime, the 12 individuals are in the hands of the Mainland authorities. What action they face remains unclear, although they’ve broken the law by entering Mainland waters without clearance. That can attract a one-year jail term. Eventually, I anticipate the 12 will be back in Hong Kong to have their day in court. Let’s wait and see.  "Hong Kong has become a proxy for the struggle between China and the West" Carrie Lam needs to own the decision to suspend our election for a year. Because, if a week is a long time in politics, then a year is an eternity. By having some title to the decision, she can at least show integrity. Granted, Lam may never be a popular leader. Yet she can earn respect by her honesty and framing the decision as in the best interest of Hong Kong.
She should set aside the charade that the decision is based only on the threat of Covid-19. Yes, the pandemic is a factor. But not the only one. Had she opted for a two or three-month suspension, that premiss is sustainable. But a year doesn't wash—especially given the other events we've seen, including disqualifications. The public is justifiable in questioning her reasoning. Framing the decision as part of a move to 'steady the ship' after a year of mayhem is valid. There is plenty of ammunition. That Hong Kong has become a proxy for the struggle between China and the West, principally the United States is evident. Allied to that, she can cite the stated policy of the opposition to block all legislation and collapse governance. Localist candidate Gwyneth HO Kwai-nam made their position clear. She asserted that LegCo must be a 'battleground' to fight the Chinese Communist Party. The only conclusion to draw is the opposition's antics and violence that marked the last four years in LegCo would continue. By holding off on the election, Hong Kong has a period to step back, reflect and discuss. Commentators are suggesting we've entered uncharted constitutional waters. This is not true, although many legal issues need resolving. In 1997, with the LegCo through-train derailed by Patten's last-minute changes, Beijing responded with a provisional LegCo. Anyway, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will meet on August 8 to discuss the issue and provide direction. Nonetheless, legal challenges will result as aggrieved parties seek to assert their case—that's right and proper with due process to follow. Whether candidates disqualified in this adjourned election can continue to serve in a provisional LegCo is one question. For the moderates in the opposition, they face a tough decision. Do they opt to join any provisional LegCo and keep some say, or do they decline to take part? By joining they legitimise the process while also splitting themselves from the radicals. Until now they've acted in lockstep with the 'resistance bloc' of localists. If the moderate opposition declines to take part, then they've left the field open to the pro-establishment types. It's a tough call. Equally, the West claims to be concerned about events in Hong Kong. In response, they've implemented several measures to punish China and Hong Kong. These actions come against the background of the bigger game that seeks to contain China. Indeed, the 'five-eyes' nations have made their position clear — China needs curbing. In the years after the Second World War, the tendency has been to see the planet as tidily divided between America and Russia. As Russia's status slipped, a rising China now fills the role of the opponent. Any country that decides not to ally themselves with the United States is deemed as inherently immoral and outside the 'free world'. Never mind that China doesn't tick all the boxes as a threatening opponent. With a bit of manufactured consent, the West can fan the flames. Events in Hong Kong are ideal for this purpose. For example, get the media to portray the Hong Kong Police as 'brutal' when they didn't kill a single protester in months of rioting. It is strikingly noticeable that the force used by the US Police in recent months far exceeds that deployed in Hong Kong. Where are the calls for sanctions on the US? Likewise, the provisions of the NSL introduced here are 'draconian'. Meanwhile, similar regulations in the UK and the USA are reasonable. Likewise, unrest in France and Bahrain earns little or no attention, as the Americans and their cohort also ignore human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. I could go on. It's fair to say the double-standards and hypocrisy know no bounds. The Chinese always feared Hong Kong could be the Trojan Horse used by the West to seek regime change. The events of last year have reinforced those concerns. Recent moves and statements by the West have done little to persuade them that's not the case. Asylum for rioters, the relentless criticisms coupled with the military build-up in waters next to China feed deep suspicions. To the Chinese, a British aircraft-carrier heading this way smacks of the 1840s when the UK used gunboats to press its opium trade. Beijing asks is history repeating? You could argue much of the current noise comes from Trump's struggling election campaign. Plus, the fall-out from the Covid-19 pandemic isn't helping. Indeed, there is an element of truth there. Even so, the CCP is riding high in public opinion polls with ratings most Western politicians would die for. Given that the CCP has bound the nation to its remit, every criticism from the West strengthens Beijing's hand. Some in the West doesn't appear to understand that nuance. Meanwhile, the NSL blindsided Hong Kong politicians who lobbied Washington to intervene here. From their public statements, a tone of shock and disbelief cuts through their rote defiance. A few are now starting to realise they over-played their hand while underestimating the willingness of Beijing to act. Many of us warned their anti-China dogma would provoke an unwelcome intervention, and it did. In this febrile atmosphere of international tension and strident voices, the potential for misunderstandings and miscommunications increases. Carrie Lam had the courage to admit her mistake over the dining-in prohibition. That humility and candidness earned her kudos; she could earn more by a direct and blunt truth about the election suspension. |
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
November 2020
|
RSS Feed