Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
 "In the deadly game of nuclear brinkmanship, Trump has just reset the rules to there are no rules." I picked up "Nuclear War - A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen at Manchester Airport while waiting for a 14-hour flight to Hong Kong. It was part of a 'buy one, get one 50% off' deal. I was initially more interested in the other book, which focused on advances in AI.
However, as I waited to board my flight, I started reading, and by the time I arrived in Hong Kong, I had finished Jacobsen's book. The book reads like a thriller, offering a second-by-second, minute-by-minute account of a nuclear war. Although the book captivated me, I still wish I hadn't bought it. The story it tells is genuinely terrifying and nightmarish. The awful image it leaves is now ingrained. Jacobsen's Wikipedia entry describes her as an investigative journalist specialising in war, weapons, and secrets. She has authored seven titles, including one about the events at Area 51. Because of this, some people label her a conspiracy theorist and dismiss her work accordingly. In "Nuclear War - A Scenario", Jacobson describes a series of events that could lead to nuclear conflict on a scale capable of devastating the entire planet and endangering humanity. We all know that nuclear war is catastrophic, yet Jacobson, drawing on extensive research and consulting numerous experts, depicts a truly terrifying scenario. Moreover, any comfort felt that the Cold War has ended must be set aside. She argues that the current systems and doctrines for nuclear weapons use, which lack time for decision-making or communication towards de-escalation, and the mutual distrust among nuclear-armed states pose a significant risk in themselves. None of this is new. Nevertheless, Jacobsen draws many threads together, including how cascading decision processes provide no escape route from Armageddon. The saga that Jacobson describes involves an initial attack by North Korea against the United States. A single intercontinental ballistic missile flies towards the Pentagon, and almost simultaneously, a submarine fires a missile at a nuclear power plant on the Californian coast. As these attacks unfold, the U.S. president has mere minutes to decide on a response while simultaneously being evacuated from the White House, which will be within the blast radius of the missile aimed at the Pentagon. I'm giving away spoilers here. Although the book itself is a work of fiction, it is based on a possible scenario and explains how a response to a nuclear attack might unfold. In brief, 'deterrence' has failed. Nevertheless, U.S. policy advocates a devastating counterstrike to eliminate the North Korean leadership. However, because the U.S. does not know their exact locations, millions of innocent North Korean civilians will be targeted to decapitate the country's leadership. It's a holocaust delivered from the sky as hundreds of nuclear missiles strike North Korea. In the process, South Korea and China suffer immediate collateral damage. Jacobson describes in grim detail the impact of a nuclear weapon on a modern city. While the atomic blast itself is truly terrible, what follows is a vast, all-consuming fire. Furthermore, Jacobson considers a possible scenario in which an EMP weapon detonates high above the United States, completely disabling the entire power grid, computer systems, and all related infrastructure. Within seconds, the U.S. regresses to a pre-electricity, pre-computer, and pre-modern state, leading to total societal collapse. In response to the attack from North Korea, the United States launched missiles towards the regime in Pyongyang. Some of these missiles must fly over Russia to reach their targets. With the U.S. President out of position and the Russians distrustful of what America is doing, believing the attack is aimed at them. The Russians followed their doctrine to launch missiles against the United States. In making that decision, they have also seen NATO activating its systems in response to the events in the United States and believe this is all part of a pre-emptive strike against Russia. In the final twist of this hellish cascade of events, the remaining nuclear forces available to the United States are now under the command of the Secretary of Defence because the president is believed to be dead and the vice president is unavailable. Operating from an airborne command post, the U.S. now launches a barrage of missiles against Russia based on a 'use them or lose them' strategy. Meanwhile, Russia is also attacking major military centres in Europe. And all of this has happened within just a few hours. Hundreds of millions of people are dead, dying, blind, or suffering severe burns and lacerations, requiring urgent medical attention. None will come because medical facilities no longer exist or are unable to function. Plus the sheer number of injured is beyond capacity by a factor of several million. Now, a vast cloud of radioactive material is spreading across the globe. Pushed into the upper atmosphere, sunlight is blocked. A nuclear winter has begun, effectively halting food production for decades. A human-triggered mass extinction event is underway. Even when that winter eases and the skies clear, the sun's life-giving light remains a hazard because the ozone layer is gone. Small traumatised groups of humans cling on as hunter-gatherers, scratching out an existence in caves and underground structures. It will take centuries for them to emerge onto the planet's surface fully. The sequence of events Jacobsen provides is plausible, except for the U.S. president parachuting from a doomed helicopter to avoid an expected nuclear blast. That seemed too contrived and downright ridiculous. For her scenario, Jacobsen needed the president to be dead to show how the power to use atomic weapons shifted. Having him caught in the blast over Washington should have been enough. The point of the book is that only a few nuclear weapons are needed to cause global panic and trigger a response that quickly spirals out of control. Furthermore, a strike on a civilian nuclear facility results has exponentially more damaging effects as the reactors melt down and spent fuel rods burn, releasing radiation into the atmosphere. Eventually, all that radiation settles back to the ground, poisoning the very soil and water we depend on. Jacobsen is right to describe the mistrust between nuclear states as potentially catastrophic. Recently, President Trump claimed he had not decided when to strike Iran and even misled the UK Prime Minister with reassurances that the decision was not imminent. As a willing patsy, Starmer repeated these promises. Yet within days, Trump attacked Iran's key nuclear sites. Preparations were underway when Trump gave these assurances. Now, while you might argue that Trump's stance gave a tactical advantge in that it put Iran off guard. Yet, in the broader view, Trump has also fostered distrust. In short, can you believe anything Trump says? In Moscow and elsewhere, this deception will be recognised and logged. During the next crisis, will Trump's assurances hold any value? Essentially, he has shown North Korea that only by keeping their nuclear weapons can they feel secure. Others will draw the same conclusion from these events. Thus, in the deadly game of nuclear brinkmanship, Trump has just reset the rules to 'there are no rules.' Critics have attacked Jacobsen's book as disaster porn and anti-nuclear weapon propaganda. They argue that, to date, 'deterrence' has been effective. Such critics say that Jacobsen gets her facts wrong but they appear unduly enthralled by the planning and thought that goes into the nuclear posture. Still, these individuals overlook the fact that 'deterrence' works until it doesn't. It is perhaps worth recalling that the same clique told us Saddam had nuclear and chemical weapons ready to strike at a moment's notice. The same clique, with all their clever systems of intelligence and war gaming, misinterpreted a civil war as a communist attempt to take over the world, leading to the Vietnam War. The same clique used cruise missiles to destroy a milk formula factory because flawed intelligence told them it produced chemical weapons. The list continues. History tells us things go wrong. Moreover, the deterrence strategy relies on rational actors. And history tells us humans can be irrational, and all our clever systems don't shield us from irrationality. Therefore, Jacobsen's book arrives at a critical moment. The book certainly has its flaws; However, as the blurb on the front states, every world leader should be encouraged to read it as a timely reminder.
1 Comment
1/7/2025 1 Comment Hong Kong 28 “Hong Kong has entered a period of stability, a beacon of calm in an increasingly chaotic world.” Not long ago, the accepted narrative in the West had Hong Kong finished. However, the 28th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule this week serves as a powerful testament to its resilience. It's a moment to pause and take stock of the situation.
The civil unrest of 2019/2020 is now behind us. Hong Kong has entered a period of stability, a beacon of calm in an increasingly chaotic world. Much of that chaos stems from events in the U.S. With Trump's return to the White House, America no longer even pretends to adhere to international norms. Treaties and agreements are discarded on a whim, while opponents and friends are bullied and/or bombed into submission. However, the only conflict where Trump has ever deployed troops is in California. Assailed by the icy blasts from Washington, Hong Kong becomes entangled in the rivalry between the U.S. and China. And yet, Trump 2 may prove a positive force as unforeseen consequences kick in, bringing unexpected benefits to Hong Kong. For starters, Hong Kong has reversed the investor exodus, challenging those who had been eager to speak of the city's financial decline. New listings have raised $13 billion this year, and that could increase to $25.5 billion, according to Deloitte. As Trump's on-and-off sanctions drove forward, Chinese companies struggled to obtain approval to access U.S. markets, and money flowed to Hong Kong. Following this trend, the Financial Times noted that large institutional investors are returning to Hong Kong as a safe and politically stable market. In truth, this is Hong Kong playing its traditional role as a gateway through which Chinese capital and international investors can operate. History, the common law system, and geography, especially Hong Kong's proximity to the Greater Bay Area (GBA), are all elements that make this possible. Singapore and Shanghai can't reproduce those factors. All this affirms Hong Kong's status as Asia's financial hub. Trump 2 is also helping drive leading academics and top-end STEM students towards Hong Kong. Visa revocations and stricter regulations introduced by Trump have led to a decline in Chinese students pursuing education in the U.S. With the authorities demanding access to social media posts and other intrusive actions, perceptions of a less welcoming environment have become widespread. Consequently, Hong Kong and other places are benefiting. In the race for dominance in AI and chips, could this deprive the U.S. of an advantage? Many experts argue that it could. To its credit, the Hong Kong government has reacted quickly with 'open door' initiatives that welcome this talent, including streamlined visa processes and support for research collaborations. Meanwhile, it would be remiss not to observe that Western politicians, who condemned Hong Kong for the measures it took to restore order in 2020, are now busy implementing much more draconian laws at home. For example, the police in England can now seize mobile phones and trawl through the contents without a warrant. These measures are amongst a raft of laws that have curtailed protest and free speech. Pot, kettle, black? Still, Hong Kong faces significant challenges. An ageing population and a low birth rate (not unique to Hong Kong) will put a strain on healthcare services and the economy. Like other places, the government is trying to implement family-friendly policies. These initiatives, including tax deductions, have shown some positive results. Unfortunately, I suspect that societal trends will be difficult to counter in the longer term. Remember, culture eats strategy for breakfast, and the culture is evolving away from the traditional family. With fewer workers, it is now common to see robots carrying out food delivery in restaurants. Likewise, cleaning robots and autonomous drive vehicles are rolling out. Expect more of that. On the housing front, some progress is being made, with the public housing scheme remaining the mainstay of government policy. With the most expensive housing market in the world - average home prices 20 times the median annual income - needy citizens face over five-year waits to get subsidised public housing. Thus, some 200,000 people live in subdivided flats, including the infamous cage homes. With bunk beds enclosed by wire mesh, shared bathrooms, and kitchens, these places have poor ventilation, pests, and are a fire hazard. Most of the residents are low-income elderly, unemployed individuals, or migrant workers. In such a wealthy city, cage homes remain a symbol of Hong Kong's housing crisis. The international media make great play of the issue often without comprehending the underlying issues. Journalists passing through Hong Kong delight in exposing the cage home issue as an 'exclusive', and the optics are terrible. Yet, I did not hear of a sensible, comprehensive solution offered by these instant experts. With only seven per cent of Hong Kong's hilly terrain used for housing and an extreme wealth gap, it's an unfortunate truth that cage homes fill a niche. At least the current government, under John Lee, is taking the problem seriously. Tighter regulations on subdivided flats, along with more enforcement action, are welcomed. Long-term solutions involve urban renewal, more affordable housing and quicker access to public housing. None of that can be achieved overnight. In the bigger picture, Hong Kong's future is tied to how China progresses, especially developments in the GBA conurbation, including Shenzhen and Guangzhou. With hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers crossing the boundary at weekends and during public holidays, the process of integration is organic and gathering pace. All this movement lays bare the fallacy that Hong Kongers fear the Mainland, which is a common misconception. Indeed, many seek medical and dental treatment on the Mainland, where quality care is available at cheaper prices. This activity, including dining and shopping, has led to Hong Kong's retail sector struggling. Hence, the empty shops and closing restaurants in some areas are a sign of another round of economic realignment. Nonetheless, that Hong Kong has survived the recent turmoil, both internal and external, is a testament to the inherent strength of this unique place. The city is well run, with world-beating public transport, is relatively crime free and our citizens enjoy the highest life expectancy on the planet. Many places aspire to such accolades, while in Hong Kong we often over look them. Chris Patten, the former governor, got many things wrong, but we agree on one thing: "Never bet against Hong Kong."  “The promise of a multicultural Britain, first conjured up by Tony Blair, has largely remained unfulfilled. Indeed, it's failed.” The accepted narrative is that Great Britain is no longer great. This is not just a matter of opinion but a pressing reality that demands immediate attention, as the national mood remains pessimistic. The nomenclature sums it up: we've moved from Great Britain to the United Kingdom to the Yookay. And for sure, there is much to bemoan. A quick tally of evident failings is listed below:
The decline of the country is most visible in the city centres. As a visitor, the changes are stark. Charity shop after charity shop, an abundance of Turkish barbers (what's that all about?) and shuttered premises tell a tale. Even the shopping centres (malls to the American) have abandoned upper floors, with only the food court seeing a steady trickle of business. Groups of sullen young migrant men hang around the public spaces, waiting. But, waiting for what? As evening falls, they wander back to their government-appointed hotels to wait more as beleaguered locals look on, baffled and suspicious. It's a recipe for disaster. Meanwhile, garden centres on the outskirts of the city offer a complete dining experience, with comfortable pensioners filling the cafes. The Balkanisation of society is clear. The promise of a multicultural Britain, first conjured up and implemented quietly by Tony Blair, has largely remained unfulfilled. Indeed, it's failed. So, what's the vision for the future? It's not just a question; it's a call to action. It's time to ask this question of the incumbent PM, Sir Kier Rodney Starmer. Unfortunately, he is a man who has repeatedly demonstrated a unique ability to be under-whelming. And yet, I observed nothing but good-natured people. From Hull, London and across the countryside, this nation remains underpinned by common decency and politeness. When I spotted an elderly lady struggling with her mobility scooter beside a dual carriageway, I stopped to offer assistance. At the same time, three others followed suit. She was soon on her way, accompanied by a slow-moving convoy guiding her home. These small acts of kindness revealed much about the British character. People still hold the door open for each other, queue up and rarely mutter a complaint about slow or poor service, like the crap weather; it's tolerated. Don't make a fuss. With public finances strained to breaking point, the governing Labour Party is already at war with itself. It can't afford to spend on welfare while also meeting the need to boost the military. With 1000 people a day going onto disability benefits -an extraordinary number - something needs to give, and that may yet derail Starmer's premiership. Meanwhile, Professor David Betz has stated that the Yookay is heading for civil strife. If his assessment is reliable, the disorder of last summer and the recent violent protests in Northern Ireland are just a foretaste of what is to come. And that isn't reassuring. This all brings me back to the question: where is the unifying leadership, and what is the vision for the Yookay? Or is it relentless decline? Only a factory reset will change anything, except that the Brits don't go for revolutions; instead, they have a cup of tea and moan before switching the discourse to the latest episode of Strictly or Love Island. After all, the latest inane antics of the trout-pout tarts and tattooed plastic men hold more traction. 18/6/2025 0 Comments The Truth Captures Starmer “With Starmer's defences collapsing, the stench of collusion hung over his previous announcements” In a stunning U-turn, Sir Kier Rodney Starmer, the British PM, has reversed his position and ordered a full national enquiry into the rape gangs. This dramatic change follows a report by Baroness Louise Casey, which slams the British establishment's past denials. This marks a pivotal moment. A national enquiry has been forced upon Starmer because the awfulness of the crimes and complicity of local and national politicians is now gaining recognition. This is despite, in recent weeks, Starmer accusing anyone who raised the issue of being 'far right' and racist. These are the very sentiments that allowed the rape gangs to operate unimpeded for decades. With Starmer's defences collapsing, the stench of collusion hung over his previous announcements. Only weeks ago, Starmer was blocking a full inquiry, instead ordering piecemeal local inquiries. These local inquiries allowed the councils that perpetrated these massive injustices to investigate themselves. So naturally many saw this as a cover-up. Then, it emerged that only Rochdale council agreed to undertake the work. Baroness Casey concluded that a culture of 'blindness, ignorance and prejudice' resulted in decades of inaction. This disregard, fuelled by misplaced fears of racism, saw many police forces decline to gather data on the ethnicity of suspects. In turn, this approach led to a failure to deter the vile culprits, protect victims, and prosecute offenders. None of this is news to those of us who bothered to research this topic. For years there was ample evidence in the public domain to support the view that the rape of mostly white young girls by men from the Pakistani community was ignored. One victim was a 10 year old girl. Yet, anyone who dared to point this out faced a deluge of vile criticism. In 2017, Sarah Champion was forced out by then party leader Jeremy Corbin for saying in a newspaper article, “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls". She was right. And even my inconsequential efforts drew criticism from those who couldn't see the facts staring them in the face. One interlocutor accused me of sounding like a 'Russian bot.' These defenders of the rape gangs should hang their heads in shame. What is surprising is that Starmer fought a rear guard action against a full enquiry, knowing full well the scope of the crimes committed and the complete failure of the authorities to act. I can only speculate he was motivated by a desire to protect the Labour councils who bear the lion's share of responsibility for this massive decades-long miscarriage of justice. Still, even now, Labour apparatchiks are working hard to deflect criticism by suggesting that public outrage has nothing to do with seeking justice for the white working-class girl victims but is xenophobic in origins. Others are hinting at hidden white-run rape gangs without providing any substantial evidence. One former chief constable, who had responsibility for child protection nationally, is busy distracting by pointing to children raping other children as a bigger issue. Again, where is the evidence? Why does he suddenly now raise this matter? It all stinks. And still, the MSM and commentators massage their output by using the term ‘grooming gangs’. This ‘softer’ language tells you that many still are unable to face the dreadful truth. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, this is not simply about the rape gangs. It is an inescapable fact that Starmer is unpopular. Last summer’s riots after the slaughter of young girls in Southport and the ongoing riots in Northern Ireland underscore that the public is no longer prepared to accept his two-tier law enforcement. And as the pressure builds in working-class communities — largely ignored by those in the Westminster bubble — the potential for social unrest is just a spark away. Two decades of stagnation, a sense of hopelessness and fear grips the Balkanised communities mostly in post-industrial northern towns. With the NHS in crisis and cuts in funding to many social programmes, people are exasperated that each day, a thousand economic migrants, mostly young men, arrive from across the Channel unimpeded. And while Starmer talks of putting the country on a 'war footing', the laughter can be heard across the shires. "We cannot even stop small boats in the channel: how can we be expected to fight a war?" is the reasonable retort. With his personal opinion polls in the toilet, a failing economy, anticipated higher taxes, and a general erosion in public services, Starmer is busy reversing policies in a scramble to retain the impression of being in control. The whole rape gang saga and Starmer's response to building community tensions point towards a man with his back to the wall. Well, he put himself there and must now deal with the consequences. Meanwhile, this episode remains a terrible indictment of the British establishment, which is captured by a flawed culture that will sacrifice young girls to maintain good relations with a minority ethnic community. If this new inquiry is allowed to go where the evidence takes it, then justice may finally be served on those who facilitated these crimes. Although, I fear that a protracted inquiry will, like the Post scandal inquiry, take too long and fail the victims 
5/6/2025 0 Comments Mr Burgess - was he a threat? “ Protocols and process-mapped decision-making models. ‘Accredited professional practice’ in action ... The slow, strangulated death of commonsense.” Dominic Adler. Last week, two British police officers were cleared of assaulting a wheelchair-bound, one-legged, 92-year-old man holding a cheese knife. They'd discharged pepper spray in his face. They’d hit him with a baton. They’d fired a taser at him.
He died 22 days later in the hospital, although this appears to be unrelated, or so we are told. No matter how you look at it, the optics are terrible. Although they have avoided criminal convictions, I suspect that the police careers of PC Rachel Comotto and PC Stephen Smith are effectively over. Both are facing internal disciplinary procedures. The incident, captured on video, lasted under two minutes and understandably sparked widespread outrage in 2022. Initially, I aimed to write a humorous article referencing the infamous Monty Python self-defence sketch. However, this case raises significant questions that are not the most obvious ones regarding the use of force and proportionality. Furthermore, I do not approach this subject as an armchair critic. I have disarmed knife-wielding individuals under challenging circumstances, including a man who killed his child and attempted suicide. As I will discuss later, training has its limitations as it cannot adequately prepare one for the confusion of an incident. Moreover, I feel uneasy about second-guessing the actions of these officers based on video evidence without considering the on-ground pressures they faced. Nevertheless, I must step beyond that hesitation to analyse this event. Having established that caveat, let us delve in. The background: Two officers were called to a care home after a Mr Burgess, who has dementia, allegedly threatened the staff, claiming that he would kill them. Before proceeding, I urge you to watch the video and consider the arguments I will present below. Caution: it is not a pleasant watch. At first glance, most people would likely assert that the officers overreacted by using force recklessly, which was disproportionate to the threat. This stance would be further compounded by what happened next: the officers evidently made joking comments. I fully understand such public reactions. My initial reaction was one of shock and dismay at the officers' actions. However, after stepping back and taking a broader view of the situation, my position changed slightly. This is not to suggest that the officers acted without fault; far from it. Allow me to explain. Police officers, when called to a scene, react according to their training and utilise the tools that society provides them. In this instance, the two officers responded to a report of a man brandishing a knife and threatening staff. By the time they arrived, the man was confined to a wheelchair, though he still held the knife. What can be observed in the video? There is a distance between the officers and Mr Burgess, who is seated in a wheelchair with the cheese knife in his right hand. Maintaining distance is crucial in knife incidents. I did not notice the wheelchair until it was pointed out to me. Looking at the situation, I conclude that Mr Burgess poses no immediate or serious threat to the officers. However, that was only after watching the video in the comfort of my home without the attendent lead-up. PC Smith engages with Mr Burgess and asks him to drop the knife. It is evident that Mr Burgess is confused — it is unclear whether he understands. PC Comotto has her taser drawn and also issues warnings. Now, at this stage, let us pause the scene. I would inquire whether the officers thoroughly assessed the situation they faced. Did they consider that the man was in a wheelchair and had only one leg? Or, as PC Smith stated in court, was he focused on the knife? Did they understand that Mr Burgess's dementia may limit his ability to grasp what was occurring? Still, based on what the officers were observing, they should have been able to determine that this man did not pose an immediate threat to them. Keep your distance, and you remain safe. That may have been an appropriate moment to pause, step back, and reassess. Indeed, had the officers withdrawn and locked the door, Mr Burgess was going nowhere. Instead, the officers acted. Other options that come to mind include grabbing a blanket to throw over Mr Burgess or using shields. However, in the heat of the moment and having been called, the officers seemed to be in a hurry to resolve the situation. PC Smith discharged pepper spray directly into Mr Burgess's face; then drew his baton and tried to strike the knife away, but he was unsuccessful. At this point, the female officer discharged her taser, yelling "taser taser taser" after she'd fired. The video ends. It is essential to remember that knives can be extremely dangerous, and officers are trained to maintain their distance from individuals wielding knives. Nevertheless, in this particular case, a calm assessment could likely determine that the cheese knife did not pose a substantial threat to the officers. Additionally, police training often includes scenarios that escalate, necessitating the use of non-lethal weapons to resolve the situation. As I mentioned earlier, officers react as they have been trained to do. Thus, I would like to ask whether de-escalation is taught or integrated into the process. If it is, it was not apparent that the officers applied de-escalation in this situation. We may gain some insights into the officers' attitudes from the light-hearted remarks they are reported to have made after the event. More details on this matter may emerge during the disciplinary hearings the officers are currently facing. However, this inappropriate banter may amount to a stress response following a challenging situation. It's difficult to say. I have experience in dealing with culprits wielding knives and threatening harm to themselves, others, and officers. In 2002, I spent over an hour negotiating with a distressed woman who brandished a chopper while holding her baby, as her drugged-up husband lay on an adjacent couch. She was standing in the doorway of her tiny flat as I led a group of officers who were blocking a very narrow corridor. It was hot, sweaty, and tense. The yelling child was distressing for all of us. At various points during the incident, the woman threatened to harm herself, the baby, and her husband. We'd barricaded ourselves behind large shields for protection. As she continued to speak, we gradually moved into the doorway, relaxing our posture. For a moment, the lady became distracted by the moans of her husband and turned away from us. At that point, I acted. I don't recall making a conscious decision; all I remember is seizing an opportunity. I lunged forward, slapped her across the side of the head, and she went down in shock. The chopper fell onto the couch as we pounced. Nothing about my approach is covered in training. However, my team and I resolved the situation without anyone being harmed. At times, one must be flexible and avoid being too rigid in one's actions. That is the reality of police work, centred around the overriding principle of protecting life. Anyway, had it gone wrong, no doubt I’d be in trouble. In endless nights of rumination, I am certain the two officers involved in Mr Burgess's case have reconsidered their actions. They have undoubtedly reflected on how events might have unfolded differently. There is some evidence of their confused approach in the testimony provided by PC Rachel Comotto. In court, she stated that she discharged her taser to save Mr Burgess from PC Stephen Smith's actions. That assertion is frankly preposterous. As the prosecutor pointed out, she could have asked her colleague to stop. Ultimately, the jury acquitted the officers. The jury heard evidence the officers acted in accordance with protocols. I feel a measure of sympathy for the officers. I would like to know whether they had adequate training and equipment for the role they encountered. Specifically, is de-escalation included in their training, and are shields available for use in such circumstances? Lastly, what pressure did they experience from the fact that the nursing staff called them in? As the agency of last resort, police officers can often find themselves in the invidious position of being the solution to all problems. Then you have the "hero complex”, which manifests as an officer's strong desire always to be the rescuer or saviour, even when it is not appropriate or necessary. This can lead to overzealous actions and risky behaviour. Commentor Domanic Adler, an ex-UK officer, believes the Burgess case reflects “ Protocols and process-mapped decision-making models. ‘Accredited professional practice’ in action, I suppose. The slow, strangulated death of commonsense.” I think he’s right. To further complicate matters, and at the other extreme, consider the case of PC Lorne Castle, a highly decorated officer who was dismissed for allegedly showing disrespect towards a knife-wielding culprit he had arrested. I understand he is now appealing the matter. Good luck, Sir.  "Donald Trump's ‘America First’ agenda didn't merely reshape U.S. immigration—it inspired similar policies worldwide." Today, as anti-immigration rhetoric spreads, various groups are bearing the brunt of these changes. From Chinese academics retreating from the U.S. to British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders, facing an uncertain future in the UK, the era of open migration is waning.
Donald Trump's second presidency has ripple effects across the globe that affect skilled migrants, refugees, and even long-standing visa programmes. Even innocent tourists are facing the wrath of U.S. immigration agents due to discrepancies in their visa applications. Hauled in chains to detention centres, this treatment does nothing to encourage tourism to the U.S. nor enhance the nation’s soft power. Meanwhile, thousands of citizens in Kuwait found their resident status revoked overnight without warning. The authorities cite irregularities in the application procedures, affecting approximately 32,000 people. Donald Trump's ‘America First’ agenda didn't merely reshape U.S. immigration—it inspired similar policies worldwide. From Europe to Australia, governments have adopted stricter vetting procedures, reduced refugee intake, and made work visas increasingly difficult to obtain except in specific categories. Presented as a national security issue, the U.S. government's crackdown has a chilling effect, compelling many Chinese scientists and students to return home rather than risk suspicion. Leading academics in AI, life sciences, and biochemistry have concluded that the environment is far from conducive to advancing their work. In response, both Hong Kong and the Mainland have rapidly moved to welcome these experts, making space for them in universities. For decades, China's brightest minds flocked to Western universities and tech hubs. However, accusations of spying and visa denials diminished trust in the U.S., making China a more appealing option for academics fearing discrimination. China now benefits from a reverse brain drain. The direct financial hit is a loss of fees paid by international students. In the UK, as many colleges depend on fees from international students to maintain their operations, the situation is dire. In effect, international students subsidise the education of home students. Fee increases or closures will become necessary. Meanwhile, in the UK, British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders from Hong Kong are worried that Prime Minister Keir Starmer's recent anti-migrant rhetoric may complicate and increase the cost of their stay. Media reports suggest that many now regret their hasty decision to migrate. In 2020, following the widespread social unrest in Hong Kong and China's imposition of the National Security Law, the UK introduced a BNO visa pathway for Hong Kong residents seeking refuge. The UK's shift towards anti-immigration policies has been swift and impactful. Despite years of citizen complaints, no mainstream political parties had earnestly sought to restrict legal and illegal migration. Indeed, they appeared incapable of controlling illegal arrivals crossing the channel in small boats. For sure, simmering discontent amongst the population was a factor in last summer's riots following the Southport killings. Then, last month, in local by-elections, the anti-migrant Reform Party surged to prominence. Many polls put them well ahead of the ruling Labour Party. In a panic response, Starmer reversed decades of Labour policy, introducing rigid new rules for migrants that make it harder to secure residency. The residential requirement is effectively pushed to 10 years, on top of a stringent English test. Special social care visas, a significant route for post-Brexit migration, will be scrapped. Student visas will be made stricter and shorter, and skilled worker visas will also become more stringent. Although the direct impact on the BNOs remains unclear, reports in the SCMP suggest panic is setting in. According to figures published by the Office for National Statistics, net migration to the UK has dropped to 431,000. That's nearly a 50% decline from last year's eye-watering 860,000. Yet, it's still twice what it was in the pre-Brexit years when annual figures were around 200,000 to 250,000. Additionally, to put this into context, a net inflow of 430,000 is equivalent to adding a city the size of Liverpool every year. The BNOs account for only a fraction of this figure. When first announced, pundits incorrectly predicted that millions would accept the BNO offer. It was never going to happen. As far as I can tell, around 190,000 people have applied to join the BNO scheme, while the number who accepted the offer is lower, at approximately 150,000. Even before the latest twist in this saga, many who had taken up the offer quietly returned to Hong Kong. Indeed, according to the Hong Kong Immigration Department, over 30,000 British National Overseas (BNO) holders have returned to Hong Kong in the past year alone. Whether the UK will change the rules to require BNO holders to wait 10 years for a British passport remains uncertain. Either way, the atmosphere has become less welcoming. The bitter irony of the BNO scheme is becoming increasingly apparent. Far from finding a new home and prosperity, skilled professionals fall into an economic trap, where spiralling costs meet plummeting opportunities in a nation showing clear signs of decline. Those of us with long memories have always been sceptical about the BNO scheme; it bore the taint of a forlorn gesture to assuage a guilty conscience. After all, until the 1981 Nationality Act, most Hong Kongers enjoyed the right of abode in the UK. Margaret Thatcher closed that door just as negotiations concerning Hong Kong's future were gaining momentum. Odd, that. I know BNO migrants who have struggled to settle in the UK. Not wishing to lose face, very few have spoken openly after their return. Despite being skilled professionals, one couple found their qualifications undervalued, forcing them into lower-paying jobs. Even with a master's degree, the husband could only secure work in a warehouse. He and his wife endured two British winters, unable to book doctor or dental appointments. The initial excitement of their good-sized detached home soon faded. They both have jobs in Hong Kong now and rarely mention their time in the UK. At least they were honest enough to acknowledge that their worst fears about Hong Kong proved unfounded. The UK may be suitable for some, especially those with a strong family support network and ample financial resources. Still, the grass isn't always greener, especially given the UK's relentless economic decline. My discussions with those who opted for the BNO suggest they acted primarily out of opportunity. Hong Kong has always experienced significant population turnover, and this latest episode is no different from the movements of people in the 1960s and around 1997. Some will settle overseas; others will return, and a few will be 'astronauts' coming back and forth. Thus, attributing all the departures solely to the events of 2019 and the enactment of the NSL is naive. Yet, every story is unique and different; therefore, generalising the migration experience is a fool's errand. Some have relocated for economic reasons, while others aim to offer their children opportunities they wouldn't have in Hong Kong. And yes, a few emigrated to escape justice for their involvement in the rioting that occurred in 2019 and 2020. Naturally, this raw data reveals nothing of the sacrifice, displacement, and struggles that many endured. Friendships, families, and marriages all suffered; the actual human cost remains invisible in any data field. If all this starts to look dystopian, with a TV game show host in the White House, the Hunger Games would inevitably become a reality: check this out. As nations continue to tighten their borders, one thing is sure — the golden age of easy migration has ended for now. However, once populations in wealthy nations hit a critical point in their decline, the demand for doctors, caregivers, and manual labourers will increase. At that point, the dynamics will shift again, with leaders facing difficult decisions to sustain their economies. Lastly, it's also worth recalling that Nazi Germany's blind prejudices pushed many leading scientists to flee. These folks then drove the Manhattan Project to its successful conclusion. Is it possible that Trump is doing huge self-harm to the nation he leads? 8/5/2025 0 Comments The Dumpling Queen "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women." With Trump seeking to isolate the U.S. further with his proposed 100% tariff on 'foreign' made movies, I found myself in the cinema for The Dumpling Queen. This nostalgic and true story of a mainland single mother arriving in Hong Kong with her two daughters, struggling to find work, is captivating and deeply inspiring.
It resonates with the challenges many Hongkongers faced. Through sheer tenacity, Zhang Jianhe prevails in a tale that takes her from street hawker to heading one of Hong Kong's largest food companies. At the film's beginning, we learn that Zhang is abandoned in Hong Kong by her husband, who has taken another wife in Thailand. This second wife has borne a son, earning her a favoured position. Zhang faces a future as a de facto concubine, serving her husband and his new wife. Zhang rejects this role. Set in the late 1970s, when Hong Kong was grappling with a surge of legal and illegal migration, the city was bursting at its seams. The touch-base policy, which allowed Mainlanders to secure their status in Hong Kong, abruptly ended by 1980, leading to profound personal consequences for many. Zhang, a trained nurse with a qualification not recognised here, is forced to take a menial job while she builds a life for herself and her children. Scenes of Zhang and her kids assembling toys evoke the work my wife did after school to earn a few bucks. The street scenes are instantly recognisable to anyone who lived through that era. Similarly, the clusters of food hawkers at the public piers must dash away, hot fat flying, leaving customers holding utensils when the police approach. As a new inspector on patrol, I wandered nonchalantly into Bowring Street, Yaumati, to witness a stampede of hawkers, knocking over pedestrians and bashing carts into cars as they fled. Perplexed, it took me a moment to recognise I was the cause. All that came back to me in the dark of the cinema. The superb cast delivers deeply engaging performances, including Hong Kong stalwarts like Kara Ying Hung Wai and Cho-Lam Wong. In the lead role, Li Ma captures the inner strength it must have taken to persevere despite many hardships. Kara Ying's landlord hints at a deeply troubling past. She takes Zhang under her wing, providing the family with a roof and a degree of stability, showcasing the resilience of the human spirit. While the movie presents a compelling narrative, my only critique is that it may have overdone the emotional manipulation. The lachrymose music often heralded another scene of Zhang staring into the distance as yet more setbacks befell her. Meanwhile, the frequent harbour panorama views, a neat piece of CGI, showcased the Queen Elizabeth II liner steaming along. This repetition felt excessive. Plus, I would have liked to see more of the backstory of the tenement residents, who shared the crowded space with Zhang and her girls. This interesting group of characters lived cheek by jowl in single rooms with a tiny shared kitchen and bathroom. The movie has been a massive success at the box office, dominating the holiday season in China. Media reports indicate that it earned a staggering 748 million yuan (HK$797 million) from May 1 to May 5, a testament to its compelling narrative and powerful performances. It's unclear whether Trump would regard such a story as propaganda; however, he appears concerned that significant success stories from other parts of the world might conflict with his worldview. Still, as I left the cinema, I was reminded of the line from the late great Christopher Hitchens, "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women." If that's propaganda, bring it on 27/4/2025 1 Comment Live Long And Prosper. "For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses." Whenever a controversial piece of legislation appears that restricts or impinges on the rights of a few, the freedom argument arises. In the context of Hong Kong, that stance is woven into a misleading narrative suggesting that all our general freedoms are under attack.
The freedom argument carries the least weight when it defends the rights of smokers, a minority whose habits affect the majority. For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses. This toll burdens our already stretched public health system and inflicts immeasurable financial and emotional costs on families. Moreover, this is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the impact of passive smoke. Thus, this week, as the government moved to curtail the use of vapes and further restrict smoking in public places, the freedom argument gained prominence. The SCMP provides a helpful guide to what is coming. For centuries, thinkers have struggled to define the boundary between individual freedoms and restrictions for the betterment of society. Let's keep it simple and summon the famous Vulcan philosopher Mr. Spock, who observed, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Thus, I welcome the government's moves that address the needs of the many. However, it’s clear that a more straightforward approach, such as a blanket ban on smoking except in strictly designated areas, would be more effective and easier to enforce. Instead, we have adopted an increasingly layered approach, prohibiting smoking within certain distances of schools and in queues. From an enforcement perspective, this creates confusion and discourages officers from acting due to fear of disputes. Additionally, the focus on vapes overlooks traditional cigarettes. Of course, the tobacco industry will mount a subtle campaign through its proxies to water down any legislation using various arguments. On the vapes front, they've hit upon the idea that banning vapes will discourage tourism. Nonsense. I'd assert it's more likely to encourage tourists, knowing they can bring their kids to venues free of toxic vapes. It's disheartening to see the tobacco industry's lack of integrity. Their history of deceit regarding the impact of smoking, their manipulation of scientific data, and their attempts to lure children into smoking places them in the same league as drug cartels. This is why they operate through proxies and shadow organisations, trying to gain a false sense of credibility. The work of these lobby groups is already visible in the comments section of newspapers and in the utterances of some politicians. In the meantime, the greater good should prevail. Live long and prosper. 22/4/2025 1 Comment Crisis = Opportunity "Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago." According to the Chinese saying, “A crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind.” And we've certainly felt plenty of wind from Trump.
So, how's it going? How is Hong Kong faring under the onslaught of Trump's tariffs? What is the mood on the street? Well, when people take a moment to look up from their phones and pause their enjoyment of the memes poking fun at Americans, not much has changed. Government officials are making plans as the business community toggles between bafflement and stoic acceptance. Despite the challenges, our ability to adapt, change course, and turn a crisis into an opportunity has always been a significant strength. Supported by a business-friendly government and a vast Chinese hinterland, Hong Kong continues to resist fear. Additionally, vast amounts of foreign investment are flowing in. Some of that is money escaping Trump's craziness. As always, Hong Kong serves as a feeder city for the greater Chinese economy. Thus, with the Americans preoccupied with dismantling trade agreements and irritating just about everyone, Hong Kong stands to benefit as China's influence expands and foreign investors seek a stable market. Sure, China faces challenges, but it seems more capable of weathering the storm than most. Also, they've been preparing for Trump's shenanigans for decades. For starters, Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago. Does he seriously expect them to go back to sweatshop production line conditions? These roles have mostly left China, moving out to Pakistan and Cambodia. In the 1950s, 22% of U.S. employment was in manufacturing. Today, that figure is only 8%. Efficiencies and robotics have replaced workers; thus, bringing manufacturing onshore won't create much additional employment. Still, Trump aspires to a rose-tinted past. Even the Vice President's acclaimed book, Hillbilly Elegy, is filled with nostalgic references as he yearns for an era long gone. In the card game analogy touted by U.S. officials, China holds a formidable hand. First, China plays the long game while Trump flips and flops. And don't argue that's a strength or strategy, because any leadership model will tell you such approaches rarely work. Money markets demand consistency from politicians because there are enough variables to tax their thinking without self-made chaos. Long-term always defeats the short-term. Next, China holds a strong position on rare earth minerals that the U.S. requires for a wide range of technologies. Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 elements crucial in producing high-tech products such as smartphones, electric car motors, and military equipment. China accounts for 92% of rare earth production. The U.S. relies entirely on imports for certain rare earths, with 100% dependency on yttrium, of which 93% comes from China. Additionally, the U.S. has an 80% import dependence on all rare earth compounds and metals, with 56% sourced from China. Without access to these materials, the U.S. must seek them elsewhere or mine them domestically. Neither option is straightforward. China is already restricting sales to the U.S., with prices surging dramatically, making the production of advanced electronics in the U.S. even more costly. Then consider medicines. The U.S. closed its last penicillin plant in 2004, and China supplies 90% of the antibiotic used in the U.S. Interestingly, rumours suggest that U.S. hedge funds sold off U.S. Treasury bonds in response to Trump's tariffs — not China. If true, the money men who helped put Trump in office are now betting against him. In the meantime, China has gradually shifted from sourcing items from the U.S. to engaging with other trading partners. It has ceased using U.S. LPG and opted for supplies from Australia, returning or cancelling Boeing orders as it transitions to Airbus-made aircraft or domestic planes. The same shift is occurring with soybeans and chickens. Moreover, China always has the option to enhance the regulations it imposes on U.S. companies to exert influence. When Walmart pressured Chinese manufacturers to lower their prices to offset Trump's tariffs, officials met with the company to remind it of its contractual obligations and the legal consequences of non-compliance. This incident highlights China's ability to leverage its regulatory power to maintain control over its trade relationships, even with large multinational corporations. Not only can China inflict harm on the U.S. in hard finance terms, but it is already exploiting Trump's behaviour on multiple soft-power fronts. For many countries, the U.S. has surrendered the moral high ground as a responsible world citizen with its overbearing style. The damage to U.S. soft-power cannot be underestimated. Meanwhile, China is positioning itself as a responsible, mature, and stable partner who can be trusted. For decades, Southeast Asian countries sought to navigate a path between the U.S. and China, maintaining cordial relations with both. However, during my recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia, I found that the U.S. is now perceived as hostile and coersive. As a result, they have chosen to lean towards China, another own goal for Trump. Even the Europeans, traditionally close allies of the U.S., are treading carefully. Under Trump, the U.S. is no longer considered a reliable partner, leading to a July China/EU summit. With 50% of the EU's profits from cars and luxury goods coming from China, they cannot afford to be caught in the crossfire of a trade war. There is one factor that many are missing in this discussion. Trade these days is rarely a matter of one nation selling to another and vice versa. For example, consider the Mini car. These iconic little cars get exported to 110 countries. The vehicle is originally British in design and origin, but the Germans now own the brand. Production occurs in Oxford (UK), Leipzig (Germany), and China. Components come from an estimated 30 countries. I say estimated because components comprise sub-components, and detailing all the entities involved is problematic. Likewise, the iPhone comprises components from 1100 suppliers made in over thirty factories across Asia, with 90% of the activity occurring in China. It took Apple 25 years to build that network. Thus, it’s not a matter of moving one factory and training one workforce. It’s a vast, evolved system that took decades to emerge. Therefore, it's wishful thinking to expect anything tangible to occur in under 10 years. Hence, China and other countries can continue to produce components and transship them through multiple nations before reaching U.S. consumers. And keeping track of these complex shipping and manufacturing regimes is a bureaucratic nightmare that will either discourage trade with the U.S. or become so resource-intensive that it can't be implemented. Either way, the U.S. does not receive the stuff it needs or gets it at an increased cost. Lastly, size and confidence matter. China isn't picking up the phone to speak to the U.S.; instead, it's quietly building new trade options while preparing for the worst. China is seizing the moral high ground, acting moderate and reasoned, because Beijing believes it can withstand the bitter wind blowing from Washington. Only time will tell, but I reckon Trump has made a massive blunder and we still have 1370 days to go. One thing is certain: America is losing the meme war big style. 16/4/2025 0 Comments Steel Town "The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making" I know Scunthorpe. It forms part of a trinity of post-industrial northern towns often mocked by the elitist London metropolitan crowd. Hull and Grimsby complete this trio.
During a school trip, I visited the Scunthorpe steel plant on a geography field day. This site has been a cornerstone of Britain’s industrial economy for over 150 years. The location was selected based on geographic, economic, and historical factors. The Frodingham ironstone bed, part of the North Lincolnshire iron field, was discovered in the 1850s, yielding high-quality iron ore just beneath the town. Nearby coal fields in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire provided coking coal for blast furnaces, while limestone originated from Derbyshire and the Peak District. Thus, Scunthorpe is located in the "Iron Triangle," where iron ore, coal, and limestone are all within a 50-mile radius. Furthermore, the nearby Humber ports, rail connections, canals, and rivers facilitated transportation. The first steelworks emerged in 1864, and two enormous blast furnaces now stand on the site. Suddenly, Scunthorpe is in the news because the blast furnaces that produce virgin steel are about to shut down, which would end steel production in the UK. The plant's owners, a Chinese company, warned the British government 18 months ago that the plant was no longer viable. Just days before the proposed closure, the British government enacted legislation that required the plant's owners to maintain operations in a frantic effort to prevent closure. With no coking coal in reserve, there is an urgency to deliver enough coal to the plant to keep the fires burning. Blast furnaces operate continuously because shutting them down risks structural damage incurs massive costs, and leads to prolonged downtime. While modern electric arc furnaces provide greater flexibility, traditional blast furnaces are still referred to as "always-on beasts." So why was the British government's sudden intervention necessary? The bottom line is that primary steel concerns not just metal but also power, survival, and economic dominance. Nations that lose control of it risk becoming vulnerable in crises. With Trump’s U.S. appearing less like a stable partner, post-Brexit Britain suddenly seemed exposed in a rapidly changing world. Steel is essential for military equipment, such as ships, tanks, and aircraft, as well as for infrastructure like bunkers and bases, as well as ammunition. Dependence on foreign steel imports can weaken a nation's defence readiness during conflicts or trade wars. Additionally, steel is the backbone of key industries, including construction, automotive, machinery, and energy, encompassing pipelines and wind turbines. Losing primary steelmaking capacity leads to reliance on unstable global supply chains. Currently, China produces 55% of the world's steel. Recognising the importance of steel production, the EU and India subsidise domestic steel to avoid over-reliance on other nations. Britain lacked such foresight. The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making. Under-investment, a lack of priorities, and the relentless drive for net zero are all factors at play. The sector relies heavily on coal-based blast furnaces, contributing 2% of the UK's total CO₂ emissions. Transitioning from coal-based production to hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs) requires £4–6 billion in investments. In truth, without government support, UK steelmakers cannot compete against cheaper imports from China, India, and Turkey. Currently, the UK imports 60% of its steel. The other elephant in the room is the UK’s electricity costs, which are 50% higher than those in European nations, making the modern EAF option unviable. If UK steel production becomes too expensive, manufacturers, such as those in the automotive and aerospace industries, may source cheaper foreign steel, further undermining the domestic sector. A few opportunistic politicians claim that the Chinese deliberately sabotaged the last remaining British steel plant to force the UK to rely on cheap imports. However, as political commentator Andrew Neil noted, "The British are perfectly capable of destroying steel production without help from anyone else. The industry has been under-supported for decades." Indeed, the mantra of net zero has provided cover for this destruction. Furthermore, Neil and other commentators note that Britain lacks long-term strategic plans to safeguard key industrial infrastructure. For decades, successive governments have avoided making tough decisions by allowing foreign interests to take precedence. From employing over 300,000 in 1971 to less than 3,000 in 2025, the problem of British Steel didn’t begin with the Chinese owners. It’s just business for them, as it was for the Indian owners before the Chinese. The Indian conglorate Tata ran the plant before a series of ownership changes with the Jingye Group taking over in 2020 after an approach by British officials. The Jingy Group then invested £330 millionin upgrading the site. Perhaps, the real risk sits elsewhere. In his book Vassal State, author Angus Hanton documents the extent to which U.S. commercial interests control the British economy. While China is taking flak in this saga, the influence of U.S. companies is much broader. Hanton argues that Britain exited Europe with Brexit while quietly placing itself at the mercy of U.S. private equity funds and big tech. The concept of an open door has led to the sale of many of Britain’s most productive and innovative businesses. The U.S. accounts for roughly 30% of all foreign investment in the UK, while China comprises 2%. Consequently, the U.K. appears to function as an appendage of the U.S., even though it is performing worse than America’s poorest state, Mississippi. As recent events have shown, the U.S. significantly influences global trade, tax, and investment to serve its own interests. Consequently, the U.K. now finds itself between a rock and economic failure. As reality sets in, the shift from balancing the pursuit of net zero to maintaining strategic industries has resulted in the latter taking precedence. For the workers of Scunthorpe, there is some short-term relief. However, the question remains, does Britain have the backbone to safeguard its national interests in this new disruptive Trump era? |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
July 2025
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
||
RSS Feed