Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
3/12/2021 0 Comments M+ gets a B+ "After two hours I’d covered about 60 percent of the exhibits. There is a lot to take in. I’ll be back." M+ offers executed penguins, plump naked ladies, a talking crucifix and a trip down memory lane. Hong Kong's new M+ visual arts museum is proving a roaring success. Part of the much delayed and massive West Kowloon Cultural District, the museum opened to the public on 12th November. Intended to rival the Tate Modern, New York's MoMA and the Centre Pompidou, M+ has made a cracking start. The first two days saw over 50,000 people visit, with crowd marshalling needed to prevent a crush. The project was scheduled for completion in 2017, so the over-run put a dent in Hong Kong's reputation for delivering such ventures on time. Erecting a large structure atop two underground rail lines is an ambitious undertaking and would never be easy. A mega-truss was necessary to hold up one side of the building, which proved tricky to install. In addition, frequent management changes, accusations of incompetence and shoddy work marred the project. Along the way, a few reputations suffered. While M+ is open and other parts of the project, several key elements remain undelivered. In response, many commentators portrayed the West Kowloon Cultural District endeavour as an illustration of slipping standards of governance. The setting of M+ on the southern tip of the Kowloon peninsular facing Hong Kong Island is magnificent. The juxtaposition of the harbour, park and cafes add to the package, although there is still much to be done to exploit the potential for outdoor dining. Sadly, I regret to say that the M+ building doesn't grab me as exciting or innovative. Externally it's an inverted T, with false bamboo cladding. The adjacent Lyric Theatre construction site doesn’t help the vibe. The one redeeming feature is the massive LED system on the harbour-facing facade that makes the site visible from Hong Kong side. Inside, the initial impression is nuclear bunker - all drab grey straight concrete lines. Do I detect a 'brutalist architecture' ambience that scarred so many 1960s new towns in the UK? Looks like it. Yes, it is functional but not aesthetically pleasing. Because looking at it, I can't detect any special features. And before you take issue with my comments, as a taxpayer I get to rant. After all, I helped pay for this concrete box. The initial budget was HK$5.9bn although that sum has grown considerably. Nobody is saying by how much. On a more positive note, some outer galleries use natural light to excellent effect. Admittedly the building is a secondary consideration, and fortunately, the art is far more exhilarating. Yes, some of it wasn't to my taste; nonetheless, the range is ambitious and engaging. Also, set aside all the nonsense around censorship since the NSL was enacted. Many in the media focused on allegations of prohibitions against anything too sensitive. Well, for starters the dead penguins reference the 1989 Tiananmen killings, and several exhibits depict the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution. Meanwhile, Mao is shown behind bars. I’m only aware of items by Ai Weiwei that faced removal. A group of local politicians accused these pieces of "spreading hatred". Pictures of nudity also attracted objections, although the principal prudish complainant admitted she'd not seen the exhibit. The items remain on display. There is a variety of multi-media material. Some pieces document Hong Kong's development with intriguing contrasting clips using animation and live footage. Several of the works reflect the city’s urbanisation, with artistic interpretations of Hong Kong’s housing conditions. A black and white film from the 1960s Beijing underground movement caught my eye. It records ordinary people's experiences of the cultural revolution without commentary. The abundance of posters and pamphlets to spread messages, sits in distinct contrast to our social media world. I didn't get to see Antony Gormley's 'Asian Field' exhibit. This piece is an installation of tens of thousands of clay figurines created by the artist together with over 300 villagers from a Guangdong village in 2003. A 45-minute queue spoke to the popularity of this gallery. After two hours I’d covered about 60 percent of the exhibits. There is a lot to take in. I’ll be back. It's still early days, but I reckon M+ will prove a winner once it matures. With 17,000 m² of exhibition space the possibilities are endless. I give it a B+. Access is easy with a 10-minute walk from Kowloon Station. But, that time should shorten once the connecting footbridge opens. In any case, there are plenty of signs to guide visitors. At the moment entry is free with an internet booking. This keeps the numbers in check otherwise I suspect the place would be swamped. Below is a small sample of some of the art and use of space.
0 Comments
28/11/2021 4 Comments Can Britain Secure the Border? "Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them." Thomas Sowell For decades, illegal immigrants entering the colony of Hong Kong faced an immediate return to the Mainland. Each morning trucks carried men and women back over the boundary at the Man Kam To crossing.
This policy, executed with ruthless efficiency, had the full cooperation of the Chinese government. It's worth noting that the British authorities gave scant consideration to refugee status and political asylum claims. Before the war, the regime was less strict, with people moving with relative ease into Hong Kong. But, in the late 1940s, as China convulsed through a period of instability, more people fled, making their way to Hong Kong. As a result, a crowded Hong Kong faced the prospect of overwhelming numbers pouring through the porous land boundary and sea routes. That all changed in 1951. In an attempt to stem the influx of people and the strain on Hong Kong, the government created the Frontier Closed Area. This initiative involved creating a restricted area, then installing a fence and watchtowers. The British army and the police guarded the boundary with patrols and ambush points. Although illegal immigration has long ceased to be a problem, a modern version of the fence still exists. The economic success of China removed the impulse to seek a new life overseas. Yet, decades after the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, the fence is a reminder that this place remains separate and distinct. By the time I took command of the Man Kam To sector in 1995, illegal immigration had waned to a trickle. On a few occasions, we encountered pregnant ladies seeking to have a child born in Hong Kong. They'd risk squeezing through holes in the fence to cross the narrow stream at the eastern end of the sector and enter Hong Kong even late in their pregnancy. Snakeheads, who organised these attempts, spread false stories that the family could remain if the child were born in Hong Kong. One of the more bizarre aspects of the British approach was the Touch Base Policy, which operated from 1974 until 1980. If the illegals made it south of Boundary Street, they could apply for an identity card to remain in Hong Kong. The Victoria Immigration Centre, on the site of the current Pacific Place, processed the applications. Those caught before getting south of Boundary Street faced repatriation to the Mainland. The authors of this policy displayed a perverse sense of fair play or sought to assuage guilt by giving the illegals a chance. Either way, typical English woolliness shaped the scheme that allowed plucky illegals the opportunity to win. In effect, they'd turned the dangerous business of seeking refuge into an early version of the 'Hunger Games'. That all stopped on 24 October 1980. As the influx of illegal immigrants continued, the policy had failed. Henceforth all illegals faced an immediate return to the Mainland. Those already in Hong Kong had a three-day grace period to register, and the compulsory carrying of identity cards came in. With London's approval, the colonial authorities proved willing to take tough decisions to safeguard Hong Kong society. Likewise, the leaders in Beijing recognised the importance of retaining Hong Kong as a valued asset. Thus, they pragmatically acquiesced in the policies of the colonial government. Contrast this to the unfolding events in the English Channel. Last week 27 people died attempting to cross this busy sea lane in a flimsy inflatable. Hong Kong dampened the pull factors that attracted illegals by making it clear they'd go back. However, the situation in the Channel is far more complicated, and much more dangerous for those attempting to cross. Whether the UK can agree a return arrangement with France, a supposed ally, remains a moot point. You must recognise that Brexit soured relations and other issues complicate matters, including access to fishing grounds. Moreover, the problem is not new. In 2018, as I cycled through Normandy, it was soon clear that thousands of young men of middle-eastern origin were loitering near the ports. They'd attempt to enter trucks heading to Britain. As I came into the port of Ouistreham, the police and military had roadblocks and a cordon in place. Meanwhile, in the streets around the harbour, hundreds of young men waited their chance. The police soon chased down those who climbed the fence that secured the ferry boarding area. Hamstrung by a raft of human rights laws, the UK cannot deport those screened-out as genuine refugees. Thus, the numbers prepared to risk everything will continue to grow. Then you have Border Force staff refusing to implement policies enacted by the government. The British need to ask themselves several questions. First, how many migrants are they are prepared to take? Factored into that is what is the potential for societal dislocation is due to high levels of immigration? Third, is the government prepared to take the tough decisions that will reduce the pull factors which attract immigrants? Lastly, does the country have the means to implement the policies it deems needed? Once you establish controls, an orderly scheme to allow migrants to enter is possible. It’s madness to continue with the current confusion of policies, politics and relentless disputes with France that encourage illegal immigrants to take risks. I have no immediate solutions, Yet, don’t forget that Hong Kong's illegal immigration problem vanished as China prospered. So maybe if the West stopped bombing nations into submission and instead encouraged economic development, people wouldn't need to flee. For example, the war in Afghanistan has cost $2.3 trillion. That sort of money could lift the country and several of its neighbours out of poverty. Moreover, with decent living standards at home, people are less likely to make themselves migrants. Instead, rational choice theory suggests they'd opt to remain at home. If there is one lesson to come out of this, it must be that Boris needs to take some tough decisions to secure the UK's borders and protect life. In the end, desperate people will always be tempted to have a go, and many could die if the system tacitly encourages them to try. If you have to be cruel to be kind, you must accept the unpleasantness that results from your cruelty. But, unfortunately, the unsettling truth of Britain's current approach to illegal immigrants is that society has decided to be kind to its conscience and thus unleashed new cruelty on those seeking to cross the Channel. 24/11/2021 0 Comments Mr Z's Matrix Madness "Well, if you think kids spend too much time online now, wait until Mr Z gets his vision up and running." As Mr Z announced his latest innovation, why didn't he have the courage to call it the "The Matrix"? After all, his "Metaverse" has the necessary dystopian elements with an omnipotent Mr Z sitting atop the virtual mountain. A verdict not helped by Mr Z's avatar displaying more warmth and humanity than the real thing.
I'm asking, are we to allow this flaccid nerd further direct access to our brains because that is what he wants? I don't suppose Mr Z is evil, but he's driven to prove he's the most intelligent person in the room, and that is a worry. I've defended him in the past, but these days I'm less keen. He controls a global empire that has indisputably done harm — along with much good — and yet he ignores the downside. Recent revelations by whistleblowers cause me to question whether he should remain the final arbiter of many aspects of life in the West. I'm sure he didn't seek that role, yet that is where he is, given the reach and success of Facebook. I said the West because Facebook is banned in China and elsewhere. Meanwhile, other countries, such as India, are imposing tighter controls in response to concerns that the platform is feeding extremist behaviour. Mr Z's Metaverse envisages a 3-D virtual space where you can share an immersive experience. Guess where this is going. Yes, sex is again proving a driver of innovation. Porn propelled the expansion of the VHS video market, while sex websites did the same for the early internet. Libido was also at the genesis of Facebook; a nerd rejected by a girl because of his poor interpersonal skills gets revenge through a website rating women. From one million users in 2004 to 608 million six years later, you've got to give Mr Z his due. Facebook has more members than people existed 100 years ago. That's some achievement. Of course, the marketing teams will trumpet the positives of the Metaverse, and these are real. The potential of such a system is immense; medical care, teaching, entertainment and shopping are all in there. And while a low-resolution version of the Metaverse exists, these proposals take the process a significant step further. What could go wrong? Well, if you think kids spend too much time online now, wait until Mr Z gets his vision up and running. He is offering them the opportunity to drop out of reality, to spend their time in an immersive fake world without consequences or responsibilities. That is a tempting prospect in a world of trouble. The technology will use motion detectors that mimic human activity with hand, eye and body movements. We already have that with 3-D headsets. What we don't have is Electroencephalogram (EEG) technology to pick up brain patterns. That's the scary part of Mr Z's proposals. This technology is playing with the fabric of who you are as a person. It intrudes into the intensely private parts of the brain. That alone is disturbing. Acting in a feedback loop, the Metaverse presents the possibility of a progressive and relentless deterioration of our capacity to control our brains. The Metaverse also has the potential to put cybercrime on steroids. With fake avatars a possibility, crimes and cyberbullying would prove relatively easy as the line of reality further blurs. In short, Mr Z could control how you experience the world. We know that Facebook has a history of unscrupulous behaviour, including manipulating emotions, filtering news, and curtailing aspects of free speech. Then, again, others believe the Metaverse is a long way off. Instead, they see Mr Z's announcement as nothing more than an attempt to distract the media and the public from the allegations made by whistleblower Frances Haugen. The former employee leaked documents revealing that Facebook appears to have a cavalier attitude towards the company's negative impacts. At Congressional hearings, she said that Mr Z is not a bad person; yet, he is unsuited to the role of CEO. In her view, he's long been aware of the dangers of Facebook and yet doesn't act. It doesn't help Mr Z that aiding and abetting him is Nick Clegg. Remember him? He's the former U.K. Deputy Prime Minister politician who promised U.K. students no rise in fees. Yet, once he had their votes in the bag, he increased fees as part of a coalition deal. In short, he has few scruples. Cleggy is now Mr Z's spin doctor with a busy portfolio. He's spent the last few years defending Facebook against allegations it allowed interference in elections, gave a platform to extremists and live-streamed a massacre. Plus, until recently, Facebook came riddled with anti-vaxxing nonsense. There is a school of thought that Facebook would be considered a rogue state if a country. And yet, Facebook operates with impunity. No legislature, no law enforcement agency has managed to rein in its excesses. In 1909, the U.S. government acted against Standard Oil under antitrust laws to curtail the companies dominance. Today, is any politician brave enough to deal with Facebook to reduce the stranglehold on social media and how we see the world? Mr Z has 10,000 staff working on the Metaverse, with billions invested in the project. So we need to watch him like a hawk because, if nothing else, the opportunities for criminality are endless. 23/11/2021 1 Comment A Simulation of Virtue Falters "Given the chilling interventions mounted by the likes of Biden and Harris in the Rittenhouse case, they’ve rode roughshod over judicial independence." After more than two weeks of evidence and 25 hours of deliberations, a 12-person jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse of all five charges he faced after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer. The events unfolded during riots that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old man. The first man Rittenhouse shot and killed, Joseph Rosenbaum, chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. The second, Anthony Huber, hit him with a skateboard after he had fallen to the ground. The third, Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived, aimed his pistol at Rittenhouse's head when Rittenhouse fired. Grosskreutz admitted as much on the stand, bringing the prosecution crashing down. Hence, Rittenhouse's self-defence argument was bound to fly. For the record, Rosenbaum is a convicted child rapist who’d been released from a mental hospital days before being shot. And the other two men are hardly upstanding citizens.  And yet, the decision to acquit Rittenhouse is now under attack from the highest levels of the US government. Both President Biden and Vice President Harris decried the result, even though neither sat through the evidence. Biden declared himself angry at the jury decision. Harris went further. She called for reforms because the jury didn't return the result she wanted and expected. Wow! Then, Biden, as usual in a confused state, sought to roll back on his criticism by a mealy-mouthed plea "to respect the jury decision". If Biden truly respected that decision, this should be the end of the matter, but he opted to play both ends. What does all this tell us about respect for the US judicial system and the legal tenets at its foundation? One can conclude that Biden, Harris and many others don't seek a fair and open justice system, but rather a kangaroo court. Also, the judge in the Rittenhouse case banned NBC from the court. One of their freelancers was caught following the jury bus in an apparent attempt to photograph the jury despite an anonymity order. But, of course, there is a whole debate around allowing a 17-year-old kid to wander around with a semi-automatic rifle. Rittenhouse’s weapon was legal despite misleading reporting to the contrary. This is only one example of a myriad of distortions put out by the media. But I'm not going down that rabbit hole today. All these shenanigans around the Rittenhouse case arouse my interest when viewed against the treatment Hong Kong's judicial system has received from US politicians. Years of brickbats, ill-informed criticism and outright distortions pepper their outbursts. Recent events here, including the civil unrest and enactment of the NSL, prompted a renewed frenzy of bile from many self-serving, unqualified and deceitful pundits. As usual, British and US lawmakers topped that list. Yet, stop for a moment to imagine the outcry if Carrie Lam made public statements lamenting the decision of our courts to acquit accused rioters. US politicians would be falling over themselves to fire criticism our way, and not to be outdone, the usual hysterical barking crowd in the UK would join in. Although, any honest reading of the situation in Hong Kong must conclude that our courts continue to operate independently. We've seen accused rioters acquitted when doubts exist, and the recent decision on the matter of 'joint enterprise' demonstrates resolute common sense still exists at the highest levels of our judiciary. Reading the judgment in the 'joint enterprise’ ruling, you can see the deep roots in common law that anchor Hong Kong's courts. In the matter of 'joint enterprise', non-permanent judge Lord Sumption played a part. People are often surprised when I mention that Hong Kong courts still have 'on-loan' judges from the UK and elsewhere. I wonder if the Americans would entertain such a provision? Their legal system is based in common law, therefore inviting judges from other jurisdictions is feasible. Hong Kong is open-minded enough to adopt such a practice. I'd argue the integrity of Hong Kong's justice system is under direct attack, not from Beijing but from forces in the West. These unwelcome interventions are one element of the bitter public-opinion war against China, with Hong Kong as a pawn. Using an army of partisan think tanks and pseudo-experts, allegations are thrown around without any credibility. Given the chilling interventions mounted by the likes of Biden and Harris in the Rittenhouse case, they’ve rode roughshod over judicial independence. They've allowed their negative emotions to eclipse reason. And when reason is eclipsed, mobs spring up. That’s something we understand in Hong Kong. Thankfully our legal system remains above the fray despite many challenges. 19/11/2021 1 Comment Here We Go Again! "What is done to screen the hundreds of young men who illegally cross the Channel each week?" On Sunday, as reports of the Liverpool bomb attack started to emerge, immediately the speculation began. A good many people played the game; let's guess the culprit's name.
The blast's date, timing, and the location at a women's hospital all factored into the process. Soon, we learned the original target was likely the nearby Remembrance Day service in Liverpool. Bingo. Nobody was opting for a suspect called John Smith. Of course, every time this happens, there is silence as heads disappear into the sand with officials and a complicit media warning against jumping to conclusions. Yet, a weary British public soon made up their minds, and no amount of spin will change that. Then you can almost feel the relief in certain quarters that the terrorist was a "Christian convert". We soon heard that the culprit's application for asylum was rejected in 2014, although he remained in the UK despite a history of threatening behaviour. Clinging to these morsels of comfort, the Guardianista types can now work to shape the narrative. Throw in the "lone-wolf" label, mental health issues, and they've got it covered. They can now chalk up the attack to a disgruntled unstable Christian suicide bomber. The BBC, CNN, Sky, Channel 4, and the print media repeatedly reported that he'd converted to Christianity to reinforce the point. Except did the culprit convert, or was he practising Taqiyya? I'd never heard of this concept until a Muslim friend pointed it out. This process involves concealing your faith and foregoing prayers to deceive non-Muslims. But, we may never know the truth because the bloke has died. Adding to the confusion are media reports asserting that the Church of England is converting hundreds of refugees to Christianity to game the asylum system. Once converted, a person can claim they'd face persecution if returned to their home country. In effect, such conversions stall deportations. By a happy coincidence, Cherie Blair made millions from Legal Aid defending those with no right to be in the UK after her husband introduced the Human Rights Act that facilitated endless appeals. The process pretty much guarantees an illegal gets to stay once they're in the country. Meanwhile, from the footage, I deduce that the bomb didn't fully detonate, or only the fuze functioned. The fire suggests an ammonia nitrate type explosive typical of homemade bombs. In addition, evidence is emerging that the bomb was packed with ball bearing to cause maximum injuries. So, the alertness and actions of taxi driver David Perry averted a massacre. The primary task of every government is the protection of its citizens. In this regard, the British security services have made it known they are tracking thousands of Islamic militants. That's an impossible undertaking. While the comparison is not entirely justified, consider that the IRA at its height had around 10,000 members but only 1,000 plus active in terrorism. Yet, despite the focus of RUC, the considerable resources of the British Army and the security services, they couldn't keep track. Likewise, the vast majority of Catholics had no involvement with the IRA terrorists. And the same can be said of the Muslim community. For the record, there are 3.2 million Muslims in Britain, accounting for 5.8% of the population. Keeping track of people against that background is near impossible. Moreover, savvy terrorists know to go offline, cut contacts with their community and adopt behaviours that don't raise suspicion. Some argue that 'Prevent', a component of the UK's 'Contest' counter-terrorist programme, is not working. There is a body of evidence from academic studies that the Muslim community believe 'Prevent' to be a general intelligence gathering exercise and don't trust the initiative. Moreover, Ali Harbi Ali, the killer of MP Sir David Amess, went through the 'Prevent' programme. Yet, it didn't stop him from plunging a knife into Amess 17 times. Nonetheless, the security services can claim some success, having stopped 31 late-stage plots in the last four years. Still, all this begs the question, what is done to screen the hundreds of young men who illegally cross the Channel each week? In some instances, the Royal National Life Boat Institute - which is a charity - are ferrying these people into Britain. And once ashore, it's proving near impossible to remove them because they discard any identity documents and then engage in years of wrangling with the authorities. So even if their application for refugees status is refused, they'll often remain and enter the underground economy. Others may harbour resentments that boil over. The drivers of this violent extremism are multifaceted, complex and evolving. And yet, stretched local authorities must deal with the front-line operational challenges of direct community engagement under the 'Prevent' initiative. But, unfortunately, the cruel truth is most are underfunded and ill-equipped to do the job. Further, as seen with the Asian grooming gangs saga, they are often reluctant to engage and tackle specific communities for fear of the racist label. Research shows there is no single route to terrorism. In some instances, the perpetrators respond to perceived injustices committed by UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few cite the immorality of the West. What is clear is that most of the culprits are young men. And thus, the arduous job of curtailing terrorism in the UK is facing a heady mix of home-grown radicalisation and possible imported proto-terrorists. At the very least, Britain needs to restore control of its border. Until that happens, nothing will change. 15/11/2021 0 Comments COP 26 (Part IV) - The End Game "Even national treasure David Attenborough couldn't provide enough heft to save the credibility of the whole show." In case you hadn't noticed, COP 26 was a complete cop-out. After all the high-sounding faux pronouncements and hot air — including expelled from Biden's nether regions - COP26 concluded with a declaration that gives considerable wriggle room. Signatories have enough leeway to ignore or water down their headline pledges.
For starters, nations need not phase out coal because 'phasing down' is allowed. What does that mean? I guess anything you want it to mean. At least the tearful Chairman had enough courage to apologise for the outcome. Along the way, we heard astonishing hypocrisy and self-serving sentiments that were too much. For example, Prince Charles, who talked of a climate apocalypse, cannot lecture anyone on these issues. A man with a colossal carbon footprint waving around copies of 'The Prophecies by Nostradamus' looks silly. There was a time when the Windsors understood that massive privilege negates the right to complain and lecture others. Charles inverts this principle. Then we heard from luvvie Joanna Lumley, who I generally consider a good egg. She opened her mouth to assert we need war-time style rationing to counter global warming. Will Joanna be giving up one of her many homes or her frequent overseas trip to prove commitment? Of course not. Joanna is typical of the well-off set, who love telling the rest of us how to behave. Anyway, her intervention falters on the science. It is the advancement of people to more prosperity that will drive a commitment to reduce climate change. Joanna should stick to being absolutely fabulous because the hectoring look doesn't suit her. While Greta Thunderbird rallied her zealots, all warrior-like with her furrowed brow and dismissive pout, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron glared at one another. Even national treasure David Attenborough couldn't provide enough heft to save the credibility of the whole show. As I've repeatedly said, national interests will always shape the outcome. Thus, India, supported by China, wouldn't concede on the coal issue. And who can blame them when western nations continue to produce more greenhouse gases per capita and have done for much longer. Meanwhile, Australia dodged a bullet thanks to India and China. The Australian coal trade remains in play for now. Australia's deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce summed it up best. He mocked the chair for becoming emotional about the watering down of coal commitments and attempting to "shut down industries in other people's countries". Global warming is not new and hasn't just reared its head. But listening to the plaintive baying of our global leaders, you'd think it was a brand-new concept. Then again, with flabby and false jocularity, the feckless Boris Johnson didn't let the facts get in the way of his usual bluster. He declared COP 26 a success and the 'end of coal'. What he failed to mention was the entire conference ran on coal-generated electricity. Due to low wind speeds, two coal-fired units at Drax came online to sustain the national grid. We do need to focus on the environment and the future of our planet. Yet the hollow shindig that was COP 26 didn't help. And on that note, I find myself in a strange place by agreeing with Greta that all we got was "blah, blah, blah". 4/11/2021 1 Comment COP26 (Part III) - The Blame Game "By shaping the narrative of climate change around nation-state competition, we won't get far." During his one day at COP26, a showboating President Joe Biden couldn't help himself. Struggling to stay awake, the old fellow finally lumbered to the microphone. Once there, he took a cheap shot at President Xi and President Putin for not being physically present. That's laughable. Biden needed several planes, a caravan of 30 plus cars and thousands of support staff to get there for one day. The carbon footprint of his trip matched the output of a small country. Meanwhile, President Xi and President Putin opted for an internet link. Which is greener? Yet, on a more significant point, Biden sought to shape the climate conference as a blame game. So, who is to blame for climate change? Unsurprisingly, the answer is neither straightforward nor particularly helpful, given that climate change doesn't respect borders. Even so, let me seek to address the issue, and I'll frame this discussion mostly around the U.S. versus China discourse to illustrate a few points. First up, China is to blame. As the largest current emitter of greenhouse gases, China looks like the culprit.  But hang on a minute. Isn't that because China has the most people? Well, yes. China has 1.4 billion people, so it makes sense it would emit more than smaller countries. And when you look at greenhouse gas production per person, the U.S. tops the league. The average American produces nearly double the greenhouse gases as the average Chinese. Here is the data.  Then when you consider historical emissions, the chief culprit is the U.S. From 1751 to 2017, the U.S. produced 25% of all global emissions, the EU countries 22%, China 12.7%, and India 3%. And we know that historical emissions are closely linked to present day problems. Australia and the U.S. top the league for per capita emissions.  So you could argue that the West enjoyed an era of unfettered emissions, advanced their economies and now seeks to hold back others by restricting their use of fossil fuels. Is that fair?
That's not to say China shouldn't be slashing its greenhouse gas output. On the contrary, as China's economy grows and its people prosper, emissions per person will soon catch up with the West. That is an issue. But, let's also recognise that the West has displaced polluting industries to China to avoid domestic regulations. Regarding the renewable energy mix, China and the U.S. are about the same at 10% and 9%, respectively. So, it's evident that China needs to cut its reliance on fossil fuels and do that quick. That's recognised, with China building half of all the world's renewable energy plants in 2020. Moreover, the country has doubled its renewable energy production in just two years. Besides producing more solar and wind turbines than anybody else, China accounts for 40% of the global share of electric car sales. By shaping the narrative of climate change around nation-state competition, we won't get far. But, unfortunately, realpolitik and national interests will play a significant role. That's unavoidable. For example, China sees itself at a different stage of development, reserving the right to bring greater prosperity to its people through economic growth. Are rich Western nations going to tell poor Asians they need to avoid becoming prosperous? That isn’t going work. If COP26 follows the trajectory of previous climate conferences, we will hear plenty of commitments as world leaders pat themselves on the back. But then, reality kicks in; some obligations will be partially met, others will fade and be forgotten. To illustrate the point, at the Paris 2015 climate conference, the developed countries agreed to fund $100 billion a year to fight climate change in the developing world. Yet, in the end, the target was missed and continues to be ignored. Considering all the data, political factors, and the reality of the world order, at best, I can say everyone needs to do more, including China and the U.S.  "We need clear thinking with a rational discourse about how we can manage climate change and the repercussions of human activity." Opening COP26, Boris Johnson likened climate change to James Bond strapped to a "doomsday device." I'm not sure this constant catastrophising is helpful.
Catastrophisers tend to be pretty anxious people with high levels of anxiety that clouds their judgment. Moreover, it can lead to silly behaviours such as glueing heads to roads. This stuff scares the shit out of those operating with a deficit of thinking — usually kids and teenagers. Although, even some adults fall into this category. When the emotional mind takes over, you get kindergarten thinking, over-reactions and a lack of clarity. Plus, in the modern world, these “cognitive misers” draw opinions and conclusions from sound bites and 10-second clips on Tiktok. Detail, forget that. Compounding the problem is that humans are prone to episodic memory. Those of us around at the time have an image of 9/11 imprinted in our memory. We remember our location and reactions. That one episode powerfully shaped our beliefs about terrorism to suggest it's everywhere. In truth, the chances of encountering a terrorist incident are small. Hence, images of floods or forest fires stick as acute episodes that we extrapolate to be happening everywhere. They are not. Seeing Australian bush fires, you can believe Greta's lament, "The planet is on fire!" It takes more effort to comprehend that bush fires are part of the usual circle of events. And any increase in the number of fires may be down to human activity unrelated to climate change. People are less keen to recognise that China's 40-year reforestation project has planted over 70 billion trees. Or that the UK is half way to meeting Net Zero targets. Following this language of disaster is framing the response as "we must do something now!" And yet, only gradual, sustained action will bring about the outcomes we seek. Lastly, the constant cataclysmic language is off-putting and drives people away. We need clear thinking with a rational discourse about how we can manage climate change and the repercussions of human activity. Because, ever since our ancestors cleared a patch of ground, lit their first fire, and cooked food, we've changed the natural order of the environment. To survive as a species, we must do such things. The challenge is to avoid such a massive impact that we endanger our existence. In short, where do we draw the line on human activity? And for clarity, the planet is not in jeopardy any time soon. Even if we manage to wipe ourselves out, the Earth will carry on for billions of years, and most other species will carry on. Some 97 per cent of scientists involved in climate research agree that it is “extremely likely” that much of the warming observed since the early 1900s results from human activities. Several lines of evidence support this. Note the wording “extremely likely”. More on that later. Moreover, don't confuse the weather with climate. Yes, the two interact. But the weather is the stuff you experience daily and may not represent climate change. Add to that the confusion that climate change (i.e. warming) may produce colder weather in certain places. So, for example, Glasgow could see colder temperatures if the predictions prove accurate because the warming gulf stream may switch off. Discussing and studying the climate is a complex issue. Year-to-year climate changes include droughts, floods, and other events caused by a complex array of factors. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns shift—that affect the paths of storm tracks and the movements of air masses. Climate variations also occur at timescales lasting decades, with clusters of wet, dry, cool, or warm conditions in a row for given locations. Finally, at timescales of thousands of years, the climate responds to the "wobble" of Earth's axis, the planet's tilt, and the changes to the elliptical shape of Earth's orbit. All these phenomena interact to determine the amount of solar heating different parts of Earth's surface receive during the seasons of the year. We must also consider that the amount of radiant energy Earth receives from the Sun is slowly increasing, which adds more energy to the mix over time. That is why scientists use terms like "extremely likely” when stating their conclusions. Of course, they can't be sure, but the evidence points towards us having an adverse impact. Boris's James Bond trope, narration, and framing of climate change looks silly. Let's hope there are some adults at COP26. Meanwhile, Greta is assimilating in Govan, Glasgow. Did she understood the message she was encouraged to sing? Is Greta now a climate change denier? It's more likely the canny folk of Govan are having a laugh. 31/10/2021 1 Comment COP26 (Part I) - Glasgow Green "The two-week carbon footprint of the 25,000 delegates is estimated equal to that produced by Belgium in the same period." If you believe the hype, delegates at COP26 in Glasgow will decide our fate as a species. The 14 day COP26 conference is described as the world's last chance to stop catastrophic global warming. Really?
About 25,000 delegates will attend. The Brits advised people to travel by train to Glasgow to avoid the unfortunate image of delegates arriving by polluting planes. Only one problem — the unfortunate British rail system. Trains are notoriously unreliable after decades of mismanagement and underinvestment. And with no high-speed rail links, plus the usual lousy weather disrupting traffic, the whole shebang looks pretty chaotic before it begins. Never mind, the organisers have electric vehicles to transport the VIPs but fell short on electric charging facilities. So they've resorted to diesel-fuelled generators. You couldn't make it up. Add to that a lack of accommodation in Glasgow. The canny locals are charging an average of £6,000 for two weeks in Airbnbs. With the Queen resting at home, the Prince of Piffle will be there. This sort of thing is right up his street. In 2019, Charles asserted we only had 18 months to save the planet. Recently he's cited ten years to doomsday. I suppose you lose track of time after the longest apprenticeship in history. Anyway, it's essential to recognise the contribution made by the Royal Family. Prince Andrew has opted to remain at home for a while and forego any flights, especially those heading to America. That will help reduce his carbon footprint. Of course, Greta Iceberg is there. She arrived on an eco-friendly motorised skateboard powered by unicorn tears. No doubt, the faithful will hang on her every word, amplifying her sound-bites to assuage their progressive guilt. You know the type, the sort of nutter who superglues their head to the road as an act of piety. Greta has already decided that COP26 will fail. Brandishing an iPhone, she marched this week decrying air pollution. However, I'd take Greta a tad more serious if she bothered to set an example. Take that iPhone, for example. Also, could she come up with a comprehensive, implementable and sustainable plan? I'm not holding my breath. These are vastly complex issues that touch on all aspects of human life, nationhood, geopolitics and the economy. Thus, I'm afraid trite chastisements from Greta and her crew will echo and fade off the wall of reality. It's easy to protest but challenging to come up with genuine solutions. Meanwhile, Glasgow hosting COP26 has a touch of irony. The Glaswegians I know would welcome warmer weather. Looking through all the guff about COP26, it appears the big goal is Net Zero, which means the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. That's relatively easy to achieve. You build loads of wind farms and close the coal-fired power stations. Everybody is happy. Except, what happens when the wind stops blowing and your whole power supply is in jeopardy. Lets not forget that the UK came close to a complete shutdown earlier this year. When things like that start to impact the public, wait for the political fallout. A few grannies freezing to death without heat will soon swing sentiment to powering up the old coal burners. Any proposals that come out of COP26 need to weigh against what unwelcome behaviours may arise. For example, Glasgow introduced a £35 fee to remove large domestic items and encourage recycling. But, immediately, fly-tipping increased as people dumped items in the common areas of buildings. Cuts in the street cleaning budget, cuts in refuse collection and an ageing fleet of rubbish trucks created a perfect storm. Rats soon preyed on the piles of debris. To add to the fun, Glasgow's bin men have gone on strike for a week. Lastly, the two-week carbon footprint of the 25,000 delegates is estimated equal to that produced by Belgium in the same period. So, what I find perplexing is that anyone believes this hysterical scam will make any difference. Geopolitics, national self-interest, demographics and technology will influence the moves needed to limit climate change. There is a compelling argument that economic progress, with the emergence of affluence, does more to drive down climate change than any policy directives. Add to that falling birth rates, and then, hey presto, the job gets easier. Self-important people blah, blah, blah in rooms will make no difference, and on that point, I agree with Greta. In the meantime, I'd encourage more nutters to superglue their heads to the road in protest. It cheers me up no end watching this stuff. 20/10/2021 0 Comments Going Down Under "Given the rapid development in technology, how long so-called 'silent' submarines remain covert is debatable. Having spent vast sums and diluted attempts to denuclearise the world's military, Australia may get nuclear submarines too late." Don't expect to see Ozzie nuclear submarines popping up in the Taiwan strait anytime soon. Although much of the media coverage around AUKUS - the new security pact between America, Australia and the U.K. - focused on the submarine issue. Yet, it's unclear when the Royal Australian Navy will get new toys.
By cancelling the agreement to buy French diesel-electric submarines, Australia hitched its fortunes firmly to the U.S. The French then accused the Australians of stabbing them in the back and portrayed the U.K. as 'vassal state' of the U.S., going full 'your father smells of elderberries' mode. The caustic French reaction fits their policy that seeks to break away from NATO. In 2019, President Emmanuel Macron issued a dramatic declaration favouring European independence from NATO. Instead, he prefers a European military organisation accompanied by a separate diplomatic role in the world. Thus, AUKUS undermines France's vision by reasserting U.S. dominance. Meanwhile, without any nuclear industry nor expertise, the assumption is that the Australians will borrow a few spare submarines left lying around. They'll use these to build experience and capacity before getting their own. And yet, estimates suggest they won't have those hand-downs operational anytime in the next ten years. While home-grown submarines aren't likely until the mid-2040s, if then, given the usual cost overruns and delays that such projects encounter. Regardless, Australia bet the house on lasting U.S. power in Asia. In addition, military experts agree that stealthy nuclear submarines make little sense for homeland defence being more suited to an offensive role. And the target is obviously China, which can now spin this as modern Western gunboat diplomacy. Then again, given the rapid development in technology, how long so-called 'silent' submarines remain covert is debatable. Having spent vast sums and diluted attempts to denuclearise the world's military, Australia may get nuclear submarines too late. Of more significance is that the AUKUS and the QUAD alliance (US, India, Japan, Australia) feeds Beijing's narrative that the West seeks to stop the rise of China. Underpinning that mindset is Beijing's view of history: outsiders taking chunks of the country and exploiting its resources. The capture of Hong Kong at gunpoint to traffic opium, plus the seizing of ports by the Russians are examples. That Australia opted to ally itself with the U.S. and U.K. while abandoning France, strengthens Beijing's rendering of these events - the Anglo-Saxon countries are seeking to keep domination of the world order. So while the U.S. may speak of 'the rule-based world order', Chinese officials see these words as cover and tactics. For them, the West forfeited any claim to hold the moral high ground. They note with some alacrity that the U.S. follows the 'rules' when it accords with their aims; then abandons rules and principles when it suits national interests. The Chinese cite the U.S.'s frequent interventions in other nations through regime change, Guantanamo Bay, rendition, waterboarding, and allowing social media corporations to censor a democratically elected leader. How can Beijing interpret this web of actions and sentiments except to come back to a stance that 'might is right'. And as always, the Chinese are playing the long game. Moreover, in their psyche, territorial integrity is a way of demonstrating strength and confidence at home and abroad. This means no Chinese leader, communist or otherwise, can allow history to repeat and hope to survive. Current tensions revolve around Taiwan. But, again, in Beijing's mind, this is a Chinese issue as part of the unresolved aspects of the Chinese civil war. Interestingly, this month President Biden moved to reassert the One-China policy in a move to ease tensions. Nonetheless, with hawks on both sides beating the drums of war, the potential for a mishap is real. In that context, Chinese flights in the vicinity of Taiwan are signals to the U.S. rather than the Taiwanese. Likewise, claims of violated Taiwanese airspace need treating with a pinch of salt. As many commentators have asserted, the delineation of the zones is open to debate. Having travelled widely both on the Mainland and in Taiwan, I would say the people are good-natured, generous and hospitable. They enjoy a common heritage and kinship. Today, Taiwan is one of the biggest investors in the Mainland. Between 1991 and the end of March 2020, approved investment in China comprised 44,056 cases totalling US$188.5 billion. In 2019, the value of cross-strait trade was US$149.2 billion. That connection aids prosperity on both sides of the straits. In short, the people of Taiwan are prosperous and resourceful. Their economy is doing well. Likewise, the people on the Chinese Mainland are the same. Thus, away from the interventions of others seeking to stoke tension, a rapprochement between Beijing and Taiwan is possible. A greater Fujian/Taiwan Cooperation zone would be a good start. In commercial practice, the groundwork and ethnic links are already there. Such a development will take time and cool heads. Plus, it will be easier without warships, submarines and warplanes involved from both sides. 16/10/2021 1 Comment When is a murder, not a murder? "The UK has had six MPs murdered in the space of 42 years; on average, one every seven years. For a group that numbers 650 at any given time, would you fancy the odds?" So Jo Cox was 'murdered', but Sir David Amess 'passed away' or died. 'Passed away' — FFS, the poor man didn't fall down the stairs at work. In truth, this was a political assassination inside a church by an Islamic extremist with a history of radical conduct. Amess was stabbed 17 times in a frenzied premeditated attack. But reading and watching the initial coverage, you'd struggle to get the facts, which gives a fascinating insight into news spin, either by intent or unconscious bias. When Labour MP Jo Cox was killed in June 2016, the media soon defined her attacker as a far-right white man. However, in the Amess case, the attacker, who waited in a church, is a British national of Somali heritage. Spot the difference? Excellent use of the word 'heritage'. Granted, a few outlets had the decency to acknowledge the culprit's antecedents. Some even made it known he was on the radar through the counter-terrorist 'Prevent' programme. The agenda of the 'don't normalise' hatred journalists would have some merit if they bothered to apply it across the board. But, instead, when a high-ranking member of the opposition, Angela Raynor, calls all Tories 'scum', that's fine. Her party leader, the chinless Starmer, dismissed this remark as "It's Angela being Angela". Fair enough, because I don't buy the narrative that Rayner played a part in this killing, although a good portion of the internet is throwing blame her way. If the uncouth Rayner in any way influenced the killer, I'd be amazed. My point is that politically motivated journalists can't have it both ways. If certain words have power, as they claim, then surely that applies to all sectors of society. The UK has had six MPs murdered in the space of 42 years; on average, one every seven years. For a group that numbers 650 at any given time, would you fancy the odds? The mainstream media will continue to focus on the protection for MPs issue. Meanwhile, discussion of the underlying problem is verboten. Sir David now joins a long list; Fusilier Lee Rigby, the kids at the Manchester Arena bombing, MP Stephen Timms, the victims of the London Bridge attack and many others. God forbid anyone should mention 'Jihad'. Anyway, look out for how this murder is spun as a ‘lone wolf’ attack, entirely unavoidable, we stand united. That’s enough, nothing to see here. Move along!  11/10/2021 0 Comments Dune - The Blue Eyed Girl "Doing justice to the whole Dune epic storyline is difficult in the extreme." As a Dune fanboy, I desperately wanted this movie to work. I read the books as a teenager during my science fiction phase— after I'd abandoned the von Däniken bat shit 'Chariot of Gods' genre. Unfortunately, despite von Däniken claims, the aliens weren't amongst us or at least they'd not made it to Hull.
Adapting science fiction to the cinema is always problematic because movies struggle to capture the depth of the culture, technology, and the breadth of the rich source material. As a result, some stuff gets skimmed over. Thus, doing justice to the whole Dune epic storyline is difficult in the extreme, predominantly because author Frank Herbert paints a universe with textures that lends all the storylines and characters depth. Thus, we have the Emperor and his family, the Spacing Guild and the Navigators, House Harkonnen, House Atreides, the Lansraad, the Freman and the pivotal Spice Melange. And that's for starters. To gather all the threads is a tall order, which is why this is only part one at two hours and thirty-five minutes. Plus, Dune 2021 faces the double jeopardy of comparisons with David Lynch's 1984 version. At first, the critics panned Lynch's interpretation, which I thought unfair given the challenge. Instead, in my view, it's a commendable effort, not a great movie - but a decent film that trims the story for easy digestion. Thankfully over time, Dune 1984 gained a cult following as people recognized its strengths. I needn't have worried about Dune 2021 (Part 1). After all, director Denis Villeneuve proved his worth with Blade Runner 2049. Of course, it takes some audacity to reprise Blade Runner — one of the best science fiction movies ever made. Yet, he pulled that off with some flair. Spoiler alerts! The arc of the Dune story looks like the archetypical hero's journey. Our protagonist, Paul Atreides, initially appears to be following the path of Luke Skywalker — off on a journey of discovery as another kid with hidden powers, facing challenges he didn't want. It's classic stuff that usually ends with the protagonist triumphing. Except this is only part one, and if the sequel holds to the books, that arc is subverted. To quote Herbert, "I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label 'may be dangerous to your health'" There is a nod to the 1984 version in the esthetics, but then again, you can only portray a sand planet one way — with loads of sand. Meanwhile, the technology is all understated, worn and looks credible. As this is Villeneuve, you expect superb cinematography. And he delivers in spades. The jaw-dropping set pieces of ornithopters flying, the massive space vehicles and the sweeping vistas are eye candy. This movie is the big-screen material only. There are a couple of flaws. First, an awful lot of exposition looks like it's setting up for Part 2. Also, the repetitive dream clips need trimming because we get the message that Paul will meet the blue-eyed girl. And while the casting is spot on, there is one notable exception. The fat Baron in Dune 1984 summoned up much more menace, creepiness and outright distaste. Stellan Skarsgård can't match the outrageous performance of Kenneth McMillan as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Skarsgård's manifestation of the Baron lacks a genuinely sinister edge. At one point, for no apparent reason, we get a brief conversation in Mandarin. Is this a weak market-placement attempt? The audience thought so as it drew titters. But for me, the absolute icing on the cake is the Hans Zimmer soundtrack. Visceral and intense, the music and sound elements carried the visuals to a new intensity. Wait for the soul-wrenching cry the Shadout Mapes exhales at the moment of revelation — disturbing. Then bath in the whine of the distorted bagpipes as House Atreides parades on Arrakis; at once familiar and haughtily strange. Where is Part 2? Well, not even in production yet as another victim of Covid. However, work is due to start in 2022. So, did I like it? Yes. This movie feels like the beginning, and I'm ready for more. 8/10/2021 1 Comment British Police need a reality check "The Couzens saga is emblematic; no one held to account, disjointed values and a failure to enforce standards." Who'd want to be a police officer in the UK? It's a tough job at the best of times, now made much worse as the political class and a fair part of society have decided that, by default, you can't trust male officers.
To prove my point, here's some official advice: If a single plainclothes officer stops a woman on the street, do not assume the officer is legit. Instead, 'wave down a bus', challenge the officer's identity, or decline to cooperate until some form of confirmation arrives. So that's going to work? Of course, this is the fallout from the Couzens case. Earlier this year, a serving Met officer tricked Sarah Everard into a car, drove her away — raped and then murdered her. Couzens then burnt the body in a futile effort to hide the crime. In a nation accustomed to seeing the police through the prism of Dixon of Dock Green and Z Cars, this case is a harsh reminder that something else is going on. Yet, this horrific crime was avoidable. I'd opine that the predicament the UK police find themselves in is of their own making. And that's not to place blame on frontline officers, although they have a role to play. Instead, the responsibility rests with senior police commanders. In Hong Kong, we worked to the principle of 'supervisory accountability'. As a result, leaders and supervisors may face investigation to determine what they knew and could have prevented when something went wrong. Of course, this system was far from foolproof, nor was its implementation always fair; on occasions, it produced faulty outcomes. But the existence of 'supervisory accountability' put senior officers on notice; be ready to explain. If supervisory accountability exists in UK policing, it's not evident. May I present exhibit one: Met Commissioner Cassandra Dick. It's a standing joke that she retains her job when her failings are the stuff of legend. For starters, she ran an operation that led to the assassination of an innocent man. Add to that criticisms for obstructing investigations into police corruption, and the list goes on. Perhaps because Dick gets away with it, her middle managers feel compelled to act the same way when assessing their subordinate officers. For example, we know from many studies that middle-ranking supervisors take the lead from the behaviours of their seniors. So do they become ambivalent about accountability when they see their seniors enjoy free rein? It's hard not to see that something went wrong, given the known behaviours that Couzens exhibited. First up, his nickname — 'The Rapist' — seriously! Second, he used 'sex workers' - a lady even complained to his station that she'd not received payment. Thus, he's called back from the beat to resolve the debt by handing over some cash. So why aren't alarm bells ringing? Third, he brought a prostitute to a police wedding and then openly boasted about it. Plus, we have the reports that he 'flashed' women on several occasions without consequences. Finally, it's known that Couzens used drugs and had an addiction to extreme porn. Incredibly, none of his supervisors acted on any of this. I've heard that a culture of not prying or passing judgement on people's private affairs held his supervisors back. If true, this is arrant nonsense and not dissimilar to allowing rape gangs to run free for fear of stoking racial tensions. In all this, I'm reminded that one of the essential qualities of a copper is to be nosey. You have got to want to investigate and get to the bottom of an issue. Then again, the UK has a Prime Minister with the morals of an over-sexed alley cat. Is the nation supposed to draw its values from him? You can see the problem. Is it a surprise that Couzens went undetected? After all, the UK police don't investigate burglaries, car thefts and most crimes, so why bother chasing down one of their own. For the record, Manchester Police failed to record 80,000 crimes in one year, with auditors suggesting this is 'the tip of the iceberg'. Not only is this a procedural disgrace, but it also denies the police access to a great deal of intelligence. Also, police officers became habitual in ignoring, covering up or walking away from their core duties. Is it right to conclude that a whole generation of officers comes imbued with a culture that ignores the evidence before them? And yet, senior officers have become skilled at switching the focus to the 'low hanging fruit' of policing language and feelings by scanning the internet for hate speech. The Harry Miller case illustrates the point. In many ways, the Couzens saga is emblematic; no one held to account, disjointed values and a failure to enforce standards. I've had some exposure to British policing; I undertook attachments and command courses. But, likewise, I've had the opportunity to see many other jurisdictions, including Singapore, Japan, Canada, the USA and Australia. One of the challenges the UK faces is they remain locked in the myth that British policing is the gold standard. Granted, the significant set-piece investigations get done well, but the mundane frontline stuff is substandard. But, then again, any police unit that is well resourced, focused with a specific remit usually does well. And there is part of the problem; underfunding. Allied to that is the toxic ideology of postmodernism and the woke culture that created unfocused and relentless mission drift. When I attended a UK command course, it soon became plain that the 'leaders of future policing' are groomed as politicians, not crime fighters. That process includes developing all the traits of deflection and double-speak. Now, I recognise police leaders need to be politically savvy - except in the UK, that's the only criteria to ascend to the top. So above all, it's hard not to conclude the UK police are not interested in tackling crime. But, instead, they're now quite happy to become the enforcer of speech codes and minority attitudes. Further, I'd argue that Hong Kong, Singapore and many other places provide better 'day-to-day' policing, not least because officers respond to calls and within strict time perimeters. And, yes, I know societal culture is a relevant factor, so making direct comparisons is problematic. Nonetheless, a bit of honesty and humility from senior UK police commanders may allow them to learn from others. I feel considerable sympathy for the ordinary UK copper. Most are decent, honest, hardworking people trying to do their best in a weird, rapidly evolving, complex environment. But, unfortunately, they come hemmed in by their leaders playing politics by pandering to agenda-driven pressure groups. Hence, the kowtowing to minority interests, and appeasing eco-lunatics who block ordinary citizens from doing their lawful business. I often wonder if the critics and senior police leaders realise the damage because without that, are they capable of repairing it? But, unfortunately, the evidence isn't encouraging. Look how is Ms Dick responding. Another study, of course. The whole notion that the UK police need more studies and inputs by self-serving academics to address these issues looks embarrassingly naive. Instead, I'd propose some straightforward leadership, accountability and crime-fighting. Too simplistic? Probably - I expect my advice will falter because it's not packaged in some fancy academic model from a pseudo-intellectual with no frontline police experience. That's enough, nothing to see here. Move along! 6/10/2021 0 Comments Policy Address in full. "It's action that counts - talk is cheap" Blah, blah, blah, housing, blah, blah, New Territories North, blah, blah, sub-divided flats, blah, blah! Innovation hub, blah, blah. Sunlit uplands, blah, blah. (subtext - this is a re-election speech).
Sound familiar? Yes, we've heard it all before. Tung, Tsang and CY all made promises to resolve the housing crisis; the result was no change. Although, this time, with Carrie getting a kick up 'la derrière' from Beijing, plus the waning power amongst the property oligarchy, we may see some action. But it's a big 'may'. Moreover, Lam can't claim that opposition forces are stalling her efforts. The Pan-Dumacratics and their lunatic independence friends have either run for the hill or are locked up. No longer can they frolic around the LegCo chamber like juvenile chimps, throwing stuff and attacking officials. And that's a good thing. Unfortunately, as I've before pointed out, Carrie has a habit of talking big, and then nothing much happens. For example, look at how she cleared up the issue of the illegal structures - or instead didn't. Add that to her occasional willful blindness and insensitivity - remember Typhoon Mangkhuk and the old folk's allowance issue? I won't bother rehashing how she was absent for the early stages of the 2019 civil unrest, leaving a hard-pressed Police Force to hold the line while she dithered. So come on, Carrie, get the job done or exit the stage so somebody with a bit of grit can take charge. And, while you are at it, how about taking down the exploitative MPF scheme - it's the biggest rip off in Hong Kong. Removing the clawback acknowledges that the MPF scheme is flawed, but you need to go further. Such boldness will show a genuine commitment to Hong Kong people. It's action that counts - talk is cheap. 1/10/2021 2 Comments Labour's love lost Dear Leader, Kier Starmer, "It's not right to say only women have a cervix." Watching the UK Labour Party conference this week, a couple of things struck me - their ‘winning’ strategy pivots on insulting the electorate, engaging in endless struggle and talking nonsense.
15/9/2021 1 Comment Nicki Minaj Talking Bollocks! “My cousin in Trinidad won’t get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent. His testicles became swollen.” Nicki Minaj isn’t on my radar. However, a quick visit to her Wikipedia entry reveals she’s a rap singer with a secondary school education and a string of sackings from waitressing jobs for rudeness to customers. Unfortunately, I don’t see any details about her medical qualifications, especially her expertise in Covid vaccines. None of this stopped her from sharing the following with her 22 million followers and the world. “My cousin in Trinidad won’t get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent. His testicles became swollen.” Ms Minaj goes on to note that the swollen testicles and alleged impotence resulted in a called-off wedding. When called out for spreading lies about vaccines by both Professor Whitty and Boris Johnson, she doubled down in a series of tweets, including mocking Witty’s British accent. But, oddly, Ms Minaj declared her love for Boris, affirming her well-developed sense of humour. And Ms Minaj doesn’t look to be showing any signs of backing down. Instead, she moved on to attacking professional big mouth Piers Moron and the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg. No wonder she couldn’t hold down a job as a waitress. Lucky break Minaj can rap and shake her ample bottom. Ms Minaj should stick to her particular area of expertise, leaving the science to the scientists. Yet, just in case she drops in, here is a message she can comprehend.
I'll get my coat.
13/9/2021 1 Comment Stand Up Straight and Make Your Bed "You have to run as fast as you can to stay in the same place," observed the Red Queen" Has it ever occurred to you that Jordan Peterson and the leaders in Beijing have much in common? Both want people, especially young people, to stand up straight, make their beds and gather some purpose in life. In other words, shape up, take on responsibility.
Peterson's influential book "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos" looks like a template for the changes that the CCP is seeking to drive with a few caveats. With growing numbers of flabby, disengaged, demotivated kids, and a looming population decline, China is starting to see the impact of an emergent middle-class. And while the speed of change in China continues at a pace unseen in history, there are favourable and negative outcomes. On the positive front, consider this. When the communists came to power in 1949, the average life expectancy was around 40. Today it is 77. Along the way, with millions lifted out of poverty, China’s economic growth startled the world. The new middle-class soon adopted the behaviours and conventions of modern advanced countries. That includes life choices such as a reluctance to marry or getting married later. Driving this is a highly competitive education system, workplace stress, and difficulty getting onto the property ladder. Does that sound familiar? In Japan, the response was the 'Hikikomor' sub-culture. People refused to leave their homes or even a single room as they disengaged from society. Usually, these are young males trapped in an online world. In China, something similar manifested with "lying flat" or tangping (躺平). Again, young people opt out of an over-worked and stressed-out life. Also, "lying flat" amounts to a rejection of the consumer society. Besides, with children spending 12-hours a day on education, not including the extra lessons after class, a marked impact on physical and mental well-being is evident. For example, more and more kids, as young as 12, need neck physiotherapy for posture problems. Likewise, severe harm to eyesight results from hours spent looking at screens. Meanwhile, lack of upper body strength is common as muscle development falters. Related to this issue is a perceived over-indulgence in the worship of celebrities followed online. From all of this, I can see that Beijing fears the current direction of society and sub-cultures that may weaken the nation. They've recognised that over-burdening youngsters with false expectations and educational pressures may cause them to 'drop out'. Besides, the costs and stress of raising children deter prospective parents from having a family. So, how to deal with these intersecting issues? Well, with a raft of measures, the government has gone to the perceived root of the problem. For starters, they've closed the private tutor centres that provided cramming sessions to boost kid's academic performance. Overnight, these centres — which employed vast numbers of so-called star-tutors — fell. This move aims to deflate the increasing competition amongst students while also reducing the cost of parenting. Cuts in school hours, a ban on weekend classes and curtailing competitive exams are likewise mandated. In addition, the amount of time that kids spend on computers and the types of games they play are under scrutiny. The under-18s will get no more than three hours of online gaming a week. And the tech companies are to be held to account for these perimeters. Some pundits surmise that part of the motivation for these sweeping changes is to constrain the influence of tech companies. For example, China sees in the West that companies such as Facebook operate as monopolistic entities beyond accountability. Beijing is signalling it is not prepared to cede control to the likes of Zuckerberg. The crackdowns on celebrity culture, the tech firms and the profit-seeking educational institutes kills several birds with one stone. First, it is a partial return to the original doctrine of the party by reducing the power of the super-rich. That segues (hopefully) into a more egalitarian society that offers dignity to workers. Hence, a work/life balance while recognising the importance of the family. But, above all, it demonstrates the party remains in control. Peterson, in his book, used the Taoist symbol shown above to represent the boundary between order and chaos. This doctrine illustrates the importance of balance. In Taoist thinking and Peterson's interpretation, you find meaning in the boundary between order and chaos. Although you should never wander too far on either side as life can go out of kilter. In support of his thinking, Peterson proposed that people must live by the same code that renders them mutually predictable. Therefore, they act in keeping with each other's expectations and desires, aimed at a peaceful existence. In conjunction with this, people must adopt individual responsibility and contribute to broader society. To start this process, Peterson proposes instilling self-discipline with predictable daily routines. It is possible to see these elements in the Chinese policies. I would argue that the leaders in Beijing are now engaged in a tacit negotiation with their citizenry. They've acknowledged that rapid growth and wealth brought forth society-wide strains. Accordingly, they now seek to reduce the negative aspects of success. But, at the same time, they pursue cooperation in advancing the notion of common prosperity. Yet, despite China's track record of turning a vision into reality, I foresee a massive challenge in driving such changes. Remember, both Singapore and Japan failed with a similar approach to encourage child-bearing. Likewise, weening people off celebrities is near-impossible because culture is an awkward force to bend. Plus, I fear the message of less pressure for kids hasn't registered with all Chinese parents. Already some are seeking to get around the government-mandated restrictions with homeschooling. "You have to run as fast as you can to stay in the same place." observed the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. So as China wakes to the fact that not everyone can keep up, is the pace going to slow down? I'm reminded that ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’. The plain fact is all those Tiger mums didn’t spring from nowhere. 10/9/2021 1 Comment The Unseen Hand "The Christian Science Monitor described Sharp as 'the most influential American political figure you've never heard of" Throughout the protests of 2019, I marvelled at the ingenuity, resourcefulness and flair of the protesters. They appeared capable of constant innovation, shifting their tactics to cause frustrations and embarrassment to the authorities.
Was this accident or by design? It now appears they followed a template provided by American academic Gene Sharp. Like many other observers, I put much of their success down to youthful vigour and imagination. These traits undoubtedly played a significant role, not least because the kids harnessed social media to amplify their messages. It seemed that the protestors had the government's PR machine outflanked with clever and sophisticated use of the Internet. Also, it struck me as odd that no one emerged to negotiate with the government. Instead, well-known moderates proved unwilling to come forward — nor did they condemn the violence. The Christian Science Monitor described Sharp as 'the most influential American political figure you've never heard of". The deceased Harvard professor authored the seminal book on regime change, 'From Directorship to Democracy'. In addition, he is the intellectual weight behind many protest movements, framing his philosophy as a soft coup method that substitutes war. In a career spanning four decades, Sharp developed and refined the strategies and tactics used by protesters. Left-wing activist Marcie Smith explores Sharp's work, its impact and his motivations here. While Sharp is often portrayed as a pro-democracy advocate, his motives also point towards a neoliberal free-market agenda supporting big business. Cloaked in the mantle of democracy, Sharp sought to kick open market access. Examining Sharp's book, especially Appendix 1, you can see a template for the events in Hong Kong. Mock funerals, product boycotts, attempts at dual governance are a few examples amongst the 198 actions he recommends. Significantly, Sharp opposed any negotiations with governments. He has a whole chapter that argues under no circumstances should protesters meet with the officials to discuss a compromise. Because he asserts, such talks lead to undermining the ultimate goal of regime change. I surmise the initiation of the 2019 unrest was spontaneous. Even so, powerful forces were waiting in the wings, ready to exploit the situation; recognising an opportunity, foreign politicians egged on the unrest here. Indeed the U.S. made no secret of this. The National Endowment for Democracy gave cash as listed here. Further, don't forget that in the lead-up to the events of 2019, activists received training overseas. The BBC documented this as the protagonists attended the Oslo Forum. The clear dangers in Sharp's thinking are self-evident. First, without the possibility of compromise, protesters enter a struggle of attrition. That's a fool's errand when facing a much superior force. Also, without universal support in the local population and relentless discipline, the movement soon spun out of control with violence and terrorist activity. The Arab Spring is an example where Sharp's ideas had adverse consequences. In Egypt, the outcome was a military dictatorship. And as scholars continue to pick over the pieces of that struggle, what is certain is that the results weren't beneficial as much of the Arab world is less stable. Even though Sharp spoke of nonviolence, he acknowledged that brute force has a role in any struggle. The activists in Hong Kong echoed these sentiments. Sharp advocated for the use of attacks to provoke the authorities into taking harsh counter-measures. In addition, protesters can exploit graphic violence by the police and others for propaganda purposes to undermine the government further. In Hong Kong, creating disorder was the easy part. But this soon escalated, out of control, morphing into an attempted insurrection with the assault on our parliament. This was bound to happen with a leaderless movement having no clear direction, prone to miscalculations and fragmentation. And so it proved. The 2014 Occupy Central movement foreshadowed this failure. Professor Benny Tai planned that exercise in civil disobedience. Tai, derided as an ideas man with no practical leadership experience, was forced to start the occupation early. He soon left the scene, running back to his office at Hong Kong University, leaving mayhem on the streets. The occupiers lingered for 79 days before finally disappearing with a whimper. Throughout, the authorities remained primarily passive, allowing the blockages to continue knowing that the participants couldn't sustain their efforts for too long. The public also grew tired of the inconvenience, which undermined support. Leaderless protest looks fine on paper. But, in truth, it is a fanciful concept with no practical use. The idea prevents the authorities from targeting the movement's leaders to decapitate the organisation. But then again, it is nearly impossible to sustain an effort; a lack of control is inevitable and fragmented groups. Gene Sharp died in 2018. But, no doubt, his ideas will likely continue to shape how protesters behave. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, China has applied its antidote with the implementation of NSL. It is tough medicine and a harsh lesson for the naive kids caught up in a futile strategy.  "All UK military personal involved had leave cancelled on 23 July, yet Raab went on holiday." He is at work, honest! The UK's foremost action hero is on the job. Or that is what he wants you to believe. So as UK Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, scrambles to save his career, his PR team is pumping out photographs of 'Action Raab'.
Having pleaded with the Taliban to allow orderly fleeing, Raab is running around shutting stable doors long after the camel bolted. (Surely some mistake - do camels even live in stables?) Before Raab could jet off to pose for pictures in exotic lands, the Foreign Affairs Committee wanted a word. Here are the five key takeaways from the grilling of Dynamic Raab.
Standby for more 'Action Raab’ coming to a news outlet near you. I'm guessing a few choreographed moments in a refugee camp, then a picture standing at a border pointing into the distance, before riding around on more military hardware. The only picture we need to see is Raab riding off into the sunset. 29/8/2021 0 Comments The Game Changer "There is no getting over the fact that the standing of the West has taken a significant hit." Most of the time, the tectonic plates of geopolitics creep slowly. Then, now and again, the plates jolt, convulsing, thrusting upon us dramatic swings in power that rock everything. That just happened.
At the hands of the Taliban, the disorderly retreat of the West has changed the world order. When a U.S. president talks up a medieval murderous religious cult to secure their cooperation, you know things aren't going well. When the U.K.'s foreign secretary, the hapless and hopeless Dominic Raab, seeks out help from China and Russia, the game has changed. When images of the Taliban brandishing U.S. M4 rifles, wearing U.S. uniforms, while adorned with other U.S. military supplies, you know something went seriously wrong. Also, kids standing waist-deep in sewage awaiting clearance to enter Kabul airport is an unforgettable picture of failure. Then, as tired and overwhelmed young soldiers do their best, Biden skulks away from a press conference, refusing to answer questions. Alas, when Biden announced 'America is back', I didn't realise that meant he'd be showing his back. Many are now questioning his ability to lead. Following the shameful deception of G7 cooperation, that is understandable. Boris Johnson chairmanship of the G7 counted for nothing because Biden made it clear he had no desire to consider the opinions of so-called allies. Biden's policy on Afghanistan suffers the same fundamental flaw that led to the misadventure in Vietnam. It is rooted in the demands of U.S. domestic politics rather than a realistic assessment of the interests and conditions of the Afghan people. It was in American interests to invade, and that's what driven the departure — the often proclaimed 'human rights' and 'state building' a fig leaf for these ventures. Granted, the frontline operators believe their mandate is to bring democracy, a fudge their political masters are willing to sustain. Graham Greene in 'The Quiet American' summed it up with his C.I.A. character Alden Pyle, “I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused … impregnably armoured by his good intentions and his ignorance.” A tad harsh, but the ring of truth. This latest demonstration of U.S. rationale raises questions in the U.K. and Europe, 'Do we have a common purpose with the U.S., and how can our interests be met?'. At the same time, vice-president Harris is running around Asia seeking to shore up confidence for the undertakings given to this region. For Harris, that's a tough gig when actions speak louder than words. Are Japan, Taiwan and the rest naive enough to swallow her distracting rhetoric of "China is intimidating everyone"? Indeed, Vietnam wasn't prepared to consent. The others gave Harris a polite hearing but no strong statements of unanimity. Plus, how long before China and Russia are running the evacuation from Kabul because Biden has cut and run? It's possible. Both will retain embassies in Kabul, as China is working on cutting an investment deal with the Taliban. With the end of August deadline fast approaching, the recrimination game is gathering pace. It remains baffling that the political leaders in the West believed the Afghan army would stand. Instead, a few guys in pickup trucks with A.K. 47s show up, and the entire Afghan military does a runner. Tony Blair -- the turd that won't flush — had the cheek to criticise Biden's action. Of all the people least morally qualified to comment, Blair tops any list. I do wish he'd curl up under a slime-covered rock to remain silent. In May this year, Noam Chomsky, philosopher and social critic, predicted such an outcome. With tongue firmly in cheek, Chomsky claims he benefited from 'not having any intelligence assessments'. Yet, he did have an understanding of history and hubris. Chomsky's point about intelligence assessments, although made in jest, hints at a serious matter. Remember the failures of intelligence over 9/11, the W.M.D. saga and Soviet nuclear missile lead that didn't exist. And that's far from an exhaustive list. Putting all ideology aside, there is no getting over the fact that the standing of the West has taken a significant hit. A U.S. president demonstrated scant regard for the views of supposed allies, while the U.K. and Europe proved incapable of acting without American military support. There is a reason the British army goes by the name 'The Borrowers'. Meanwhile, the U.K. Ministry of Defence P.R. machine is working overtime circulating pictures of soldiers helping kids, giving out water while sheltering them from the heat. So naturally, the B.B.C. and Sky are once again happy to fall in line, giving these heart-tugging pictures the maximum coverage. Much as they uncritically cheered on the invasion twenty years ago. At least the coverage on Aljazeera is more honest. It shows the Taliban firmly in control, maintaining order and controlling airport access — albeit by harsh methods. Hence Biden's genuflecting to them. After all, if the Taliban wish they could overrun the airport without firing a shot by allowing refugees to stream in. And not to miss an opportunity, Chinese media is running the 'graveyard of empires' narrative. Conversely, some in the U.K. appear more concerned about dogs and cats left behind in Kabul. So, in a revealing gesture, they've raised enough cash to hire a Boeing 737 to bring out these strays. So what does that tell us about sentiments towards the fate of the Afghans? From monitoring FlightRadar 24, it is possible to watch the pace of the evacuations flights in and out of Afghanistan. For much of early August, only the Turks had a regular shuttle service running from Kabul to Islamabad in Pakistan. Then the planes of the U.S.A., the U.K., New Zealand, Spain and others started crossing into Afghan airspace. An assortment of Globemaster IIIs and Hercules C130s doing the lifting, while American KC 135 Stratotankers back them up with fuel. The awful news that ISIS are back in action with suicide bombs killing U.S. Marines and Afghan civilians underline the dangers of this retreat. ISIS may now have a regained territory from which to operate, threatening us all. And thanks to the shambolic withdrawal, they have plenty of military supplies. Biden has hit back against ISIS with a supposed drone strike allegedly killing a so-called mid-level ISIS planner. There is no evidence to suggest the target is connected to the airport bombing. Call me cynical, but the scenario indicates that Grandad Biden looked weak and useless, so he had to hit something as a distraction for his manifest failings. Giving Biden the benefit of the doubt to assume he hit the right people, lashing out in this manner won't help except as a distraction. Moreover, it's worth remembering that random attacks on the enemy validate their random attacks on you, as the moral high ground is forfeit. That's the ideological price to pay. Let's be clear; I've no qualms about killing terrorists if that is what it takes to get the job done. However, it's the piecemeal efforts conducted for cosmetic purposes, adding fuel to the fire without a clear overarching objective, that earns my derision. It's often argued that the Suez crisis of 1956 is the moment that laid bare Britain's imperial impotence. So is it premature to portray the shambolic retreat from Kabul as the American equal? Only time will tell. 25/8/2021 1 Comment Echoes on the Water. "After a race, the ritual moaning starts as the crews dissect the day's events, ruminating over perceived etiquette infractions." The young men — and it was primarily men— who built the British Empire were an uninhibited lot. Shy and quiet types wouldn't cut the mustard holding the reigns of power while cajoling the natives into submission. Yet, with all that bluff and pluck came an enthusiasm for the outdoor life, sports and adventure.
Today, the sports clubs of Hong Kong are the most resilient memorial to the fact that the Brits exported their games with them. They sent cricket to India, rugby to Samoa and football to the Aborigines. In colonial times, 'the club' fulfilled a particular role; something of a refuge, a home from home, allowing the newly arrived Expat to integrate, but only with his own. It isolated him from the local community because a chap could 'go native' without proper guidance. But membership also greased the wheels of business. Jan Morris observed in Pax Britannica, '…whenever the wandering Briton wished to find the company of his kind, he'd get an invite to the club and soon be standing at the bar as if he owned it.' Pretending to be grander than they were was pretty much de rigueur. The sports clubs provided an outlet for all that youthful energy of these thrusting types. Formed as a diversionary consolation for the vexations of colonial life, today's clubs are more integrated, although still offering an intriguing window on a sub-set of Hong Kong society. My job gave automatic membership to the Police Officer's Club. This safe space allowed cops to vent, letting off steam without 'outsiders' within ear-shot. Then some 20 years ago, I joined a sailing club. As part of the process, I learnt to sail and did my bit as a volunteer. Hong Kong's sailing clubs are a significant enterprise with large clubhouses, boatyards, thousands of staff and a full racing calendar. Our superb harbour, Sai Kung's islands and the south side provide world-class sailing conditions. Whatever you fancy, from the large motor yacht — assuming you are super-rich — to the single-person dinghy, it's all on offer. These days, the clubs have dropped their colonial undertones, although the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club kept the title unchanged in a small act of defiance. Also, Expats manage all the clubs, although the membership is predominately Chinese. Would you please stay with me as I go amateur anthropologist? In recent years, exposure to the local sail-racing scene gave me absorbing insights. I've seen the petty rivalries, cliques, competitions, and the hard work that goes into this sailing malarkey. I reckon all sailors score high on the sociability index. That's the nature of the beast. Crews working together is essential even for a fraction of success in such a competitive environment. There is a hierarchy of sorts, although where you sit depends on perception. Big money super motor-yachts with top-heavy structures, adorned with every gadget, draw the disdain of the old salts. One such three-tier monster, owned by a businessman, is so out of kilter it can't turn in a moderate swell for fear of capsizing. So confined to the bays, she drifts around, never to face the open ocean. The guys who love hoisting sails by hand are another extreme, even forgoing the coffee grinder winch. Also on the fringes are the rowers and paddlers, all muscle power, with no frills. These sub-sets strongly identify, "We are Rowers" came the stern rebuke when I mistakenly called them 'paddlers'. Sorry. The crews range from the semi-professionals through to the weekend warriors. Either way, the competition is intense. Racing is a serious business. The Committee boat sits supreme, setting the course, marshalling the starts and overseeing the whole shebang. Volunteers keep wind readings, checking off the boats as these arrive on station, while the Race Officer — a semi-god for the day — sets the route. The course laying is an art, as much as a science. Position the marks (big floaty things that boats go-round), wind deflections discussed, course times estimated against wind strength and boat speed. "There is a wind shadow behind Sharp Island," "Don't forget the shift east as the afternoon arrives". Amongst the volunteers, matriarchal memsahibs seek to dominate with various degrees of success. Flags and horns command the entrants to line up for the off. Then, as the skipper's jockey for position while avoiding collisions, calls of protestation fill the air, "Give way", and less polite shouts. Then, once the fuss of the start is over, the committee boat settles to a routine, recording rounding times, and sounding horns for the finishers. After a race, the ritual moaning starts as the crews dissect the day's events, ruminating over perceived etiquette infractions. Anxious skippers await the decisions on formal protests as the committee adjudicates. Others offer a 'liquid handshake' to appease an offended party, knowing full well that role reversal awaits in the coming weeks. Mark you, the clubs are as much about the social life as sailing. For new arrivals in town, especially young women, it's an opportunity to mingle without the insidious dangers of the bar scene. One lady told me, "It's a safe 'flirting' zone because social norms hold people in check". Plus, you can soon 'belong'. The exotic appeal of dragon boating is an immediate draw to the newbie. That soon wanes. Although, even the most blatantly incompetent (that's me) can don a life-jacket, whistle and gloves to pretend you've served decades before the mast. But don't ask them to tie a reef knot. Alcohol that cools the fervour — especially after a race — is more or less compulsory. Not too much, but indeed enough to lift the mood and drive the teasing banter along. Then on departure home, it's all wild embraces and hugs, given as if some treasured aunt is off on a long trip. So while the colonial era retreats, with the illusion of Empire (Jan Morris again), and Britain is an island once more, hints of grandeur linger. The Aberdeen Boat Club displays the fire control panel from the sunken Queen Elizabeth, an apt epitaph perhaps. At the same time, the emblems of long gone warships adorn the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club walls. How bizarre that such symbols receive scorn in the homeland while they enjoy acceptance as quaint echoes of the past in a former imperial possession. There is a good deal of easy analysis on offer these days about the merits or otherwise of the British Empire. I always wonder why the most ardent critics are found in Britain itself. Strange that. 20/8/2021 1 Comment Carry On Up the Khyber "In 2001, the war on terror began with people falling from the twin towers, and today's episode ends with Afghan kids falling from U.S. planes." I've received my final copy of The Spectator magazine, having dropped a subscription. The decision to stop putting money their way came about, in part, through cock-eyed coverage of events in Hong Kong. Their inability or unwillingness to comprehend the true nature of the events here caused me to question the integrity of other articles.
A minor point, perhaps. But one that, in the long term, has clear repercussions for the way people absorb facts and understand what is happening in the world. In turn, that can drive unhelpful policies and actions by governments. As I am reading this last edition, an article affirms my thinking. Former British intelligence officer Andy Owen asserts, "The war in Afghanistan will not end this year". That comment appeared in the 7th August edition; unfortunately for Mr Owen, the Taliban marched unopposed into Kabul a week later. The war is over. In fairness, Owen did acknowledge the weakness of the Afghan Army, and he's not the only one to misjudge the situation — the entire Western political elite got it wrong. Further, Owen points out that the West doesn't understand the complexities of places it elects to 'modernise' with liberal democracy. On that, we can agree. Karl Marx said history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. The West’s involvement in Afghanistan is now looking like a complete farce - Carry on Up the Khyber! In 2001, the war on terror began with people falling from the twin towers, and today's episode ends with Afghan kids falling from U.S. planes. The sheer awfulness of that imagery is not lost on people no matter how much spin Biden seeks to put out. And, as others have said — this is not comparable to the fall of Saigon; it's much worse. Today the women and girls of Afghanistan are at the mercy of the Taliban. Sure, the Taliban are seeking to project a more moderate image while openly talking of sharia law. That alone must make us shudder. For now, the Taliban appear to cooperate with Western forces as the airport evacuation proceeds. That may not last. Meanwhile, thanks to the U.S. taxpayer, the Taliban own more Blackhawk helicopters than most advanced nations. Biden's rushed departure gifted them 20 billion dollars worth of the most dangerous military hardware in the world. Yes, I know Trump cut the deal that kicked off the run-down of U.S. forces. But, that doesn't change the fact that Biden executed the plan - if there was one. In the three months from April to June 2021, the U.S. handed over to the Afghan forces six A-29 light attack planes, 174 Humvees, about 10,000 2.75 inch high-explosive rockets, 61,000 40-mm high explosive rounds, 900,000 rounds of .50 calibre ammo, and 20,15,600 rounds of 7.62 mm bullets. Add to that 151 helicopters (Blackhawk, MD-530s, and 56 Mi-17), 23 Super Tucano ground-attack planes, Hercules transport aircraft, C-208 utility aircraft, and assorted fixed-wing aircraft. Now, granted, some of this kit needs servicing, which may prove impossible now that the U.S. contractors have left. Further, a lack of qualified pilots means this expensive hardware is no immediate threat. Are no lessons learnt from history? After all, this is the U.K.'s fourth war in Afghanistan since 1839, each ending in defeat. Undoubtedly, Western politicians will continue to claim that girls got an education, as women enjoyed freedoms, and a fledgling democracy took hold. All true, but irrelevant now. It may all end up in the bin. Concerning the last few days, the old rule of 'Hope for the best while planning for the worst' was ignored in spades...the U.S., U.K. and NATO all went on their summer holidays hoping for the best... and copped a nasty surprise which they are now saying wasn't their fault. It must be clear now that nations cannot be bombed and coerced into becoming liberal democracies, primarily when operating on a different cultural voltage that does not align with so-called 'Western values'. Afghanistan will likely revert to civil war as the various tribal factions jostle for power. That may provide cover for terrorist groups, especially many of those displaced from Syria. Back to square one. The cluelessness about Afghanistan and Iraq (coming soon) is equally applicable to events and developments in this region. I often wonder if Western consulates reported with clarity on the 2019/2020 civil unrest here. Or did they pander to their political masters? Was judgement coloured by confirmation bias — which happens when we believe or disbelieve evidence depending on what we think to be accurate based on preconceived ideas? Likewise, the Western media elected to play down the protester violence — committed by a significant minority — to instead focus on and portray police actions to restore order as brutality. Few covered the 'burning man' or the attacks on anyone who dared to speak out against the violence. Did the foreign consulates provide honest assessments to counter biased media? We don't know. None of the coverage I saw mentioned the xenophobic anti-Mainland sentiments at the core of the unrest. On that point, you could argue the events had a tribal element as Hong Kong people struggled for an identity fearing sublimation. Instead, the West received a straightforward package narrative of peaceful protests and repression by the authorities. Is it right to surmise that the unreliability of this coverage drove politicians in the West to make un-nuanced decisions? The West's reaction, in turn, led China to believe the West supported the feckless independence movement? Looks like it. Hence the robust national security law. Once the West licks its wounds and digests the events of Afghanistan, what is needed is some candid reflection. That should include that you can't run around promoting 'values' that you have neither the capacity, will, nor a questionable right to impose. Meanwhile, we all need to be ready for the bow wave of troubles that will follow this chaotic Afghan withdrawal. So on that score, the terrorist threat just went up. 16/8/2021 3 Comments Run Away!! "A supposedly highly-trained Afghan army melted away without a fight" How to best sum up the West's war and intervention in Afghanistan; hubris, arrogance, and a complete failure? Yep, that kind of captures the big picture.
Of course, the Americans are taking most of the flak for the bungled withdraw. But, all the same, I must say that NATO countries are equally culpable for this tangled mess. Today, a ragtag army of Taliban fighters, armed only with AK47's and RPG7s, is consolidating control of the country. Twenty years of battle with the most sophisticated armies the West could field has these medieval fighters as victors. All the helicopters, jets, drones, satellites, integrated command and control systems and special forces couldn't defeat blokes wearing cheap sports shoes, riding around in pick-up trucks. Meanwhile, a supposedly highly-trained Afghan army melted away without a fight. It never had much of a stomach for battle, and with the West gone, the smell of defeat hung in the air. Soldiers abandoned their posts, changed into civilian clothes and headed home. Why did it come to this? Undoubtedly, the military staff colleges and think tanks will dwell on that question for decades to come. Pundits will earn PhDs, books will come forth, as reputations get polished and trashed in equal numbers. These assessments will throw in Sun Tzu (孫子) — 'know your enemy, understand yourself and win a thousand battles', plus a bit of 'winning without fighting'. Supplement that with some Carl von Clausewitz and a smidgen of Machiavelli, and you've got intellectual heft. Nonetheless, in the end, it comes down to a complete lack of comprehension and commitment. No amount of rumination by professors and soldier-scholars will change that assessment. Because, at its core, the mission was unclear. Moreover, holding a few remote compounds does not constitute a victory. Likewise, sitting inside a secure 'green zone' or at guarded airbases gives one the false impression of control. Still, the Taliban waited with patience outside the perimeter. Even a meagre understanding of Afghan history and past wars should give pause for caution. Perhaps they don't teach Kipling at school anymore, him being too colonial and imperial. I have no idea if the Taliban are adherents of Sun Tzu. What is clear, they've followed his guiding principle; make time your ally. They waited, knowing the West would grow tired of the war. Yet, the biggest failing is political. For that, Biden is in the direct firing line, along with Johnson and the NATO leaders. Other culprits are Bush, Blair and much of the Western establishment for gamely going along. The politicians sowed the seeds of this debacle decades ago with a failure to plan. What was the ultimate aim of the campaign? Was that goal achievable, and did anyone have an exit strategy? Because fleeing in the night doesn't work as a confidence builder for those you leave behind. To all these questions, the answer is clear. The initial mission to rout Al-Qaeda from its Afghan base succeeded. That was the time to leave. Instead, the mission morphed towards nation-building, a fraught prospect in a country that runs on tribal loyalties. Anchoring all this was much talk of getting girls into school — a worthy initiative but not enough. So the only conclusion to draw is that a failure to plan led to a failure! People scramble to Kabul airport as helicopters lift off from a U.S. Embassy once again. No matter how many times U.S. secretary of state Blinken rejects comparisons with Saigon 1975, the imagery defeats him. Whether Afghanistan reverts and becomes a base for terrorism is one worry, the other is the fate of the people who put their faith in the West. Unfortunately, the signs are not promising. If Afghanistan descends into chaos, you could argue this serves the West's geopolitical interests by stirring trouble on China's border, especially as Afghanistan abuts the sensitive Xinjiang region. Leaving also removes a distraction for the forthcoming U.S. mid-term elections. Biden would like the weight of Afghanistan off his shoulders, although Iraq may yet prove a heavier burden. All of this is at the cost of allies questioning whether they can trust the West to stay the course. As I've previously discussed, countries in Asia are treading a careful line between China and the U.S.A. as that 'cold war' escalates. So what conclusions will they draw from this sudden departure? Also asking questions are families in the West, who sent their sons and daughters, mostly from post-industrial towns, to die in this futile effort. They deserve answer. But, as the media swirl goes on, where is Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell? Always so ready to offer their sage advice, these charlatans stand damned by their silence. A mea culpa from Blair would be a start, but I'm not holding my breath.  "But, of course, he won't be sweating because, as he told us, he can't." If Andrew Windsor, the Queen's favourite son, thought his denials of abusing a teenage girl would pass muster, he's a monumental fool. His infamous Newsnight interview affirmed the man's lack of moral fibre and self-awareness. He felt the interview went well; everyone else saw a disaster. But, unfortunately, that is what you get when you live a life surrounded by sycophants.
Having stonewalled his accuser — pushing her into a corner — a lawsuit is her last option. We know that Virginia Giuffre, formerly Roberts, was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein with Prince Andrew, allegedly taking his pleasure of this girl. The above graphic tracks the flights he took on Epstein's private jet. These include visits to the infamous island, where several minors resided under the control of Epstein. Even presence on that island shows a lack of judgement. For the record, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the age of consent is 18 years old. On the subject of evidence against Andrew, it looks compelling. We have photographs, witness corroboration and enough circumstantial material to set alarm bells ringing. Any police officer worth his salt would be 'feeling his collar' and demanding, 'can we have a word?'. Yet the British police have failed to act, despite alleged events taking place on their soil, which is fertile ground for allegations of a cover-up. Also, we know that Andrew had protection officers with him at times: all his movements were logged with dates, times and places recorded. Any investigator would love to get their hands on that treasure trove. And if Andrew is innocent, as he claims, these details will clear his name. So, why not cooperate? I think we know why, and Andrew's attempts to avoid a full investigation isn't convincing the British public. According to the latest YouGov poll, only 6 per cent believe he's telling the truth. So, in the court of public opinion, he at minimum has a case to answer; at worst, people think he is guilty of sex with a trafficked teenager. During his car crash interview, we learnt that Andrew places much store in honourable conduct. He explained that's why he flew to New York to break off contact with a convicted paedophile personally. And yet, he doesn't have enough honour nor common decency to address these charges. In truth, Giuffre's attempts to get Andrew into court are likely to fail. As this is a civil case, extradition is not possible. So the best she can hope for is a conviction in absentia. Or a deal is done. GIuffre gets a pay-off, and Randy Andy continues to deny the allegations. Nothing to see here. Either way, for Prince Andrew, there are no good outcomes. Instead, he will carry the shame of the public's verdict with him for the rest of his life. But, of course, he won't be sweating because, as he told us, he can't. I'd venture to suggest the trajectory of events. At some point in the not too distant future, the stout heart that beats in the chest of Queen Elizabeth will stop. At that point, Prince Charles will become King after a long apprenticeship. Charles has already made it clear that he wants a slimmed-down monarchy by resisting Andrew's attempts to elevate his gormless daughters. Thus, with the label of 'Pedo Prince' hanging around his neck, Andrew will skulk off like another prince of piffle, perhaps into foreign exile. After all, Andrew has long passed his usefulness. He is now the redundant spare because the royal line of succession branched off once Prince Charles started having heirs. The Queen can't even use Andrew in the human meat market of dynastic alliances. That dismal business having faded with rickets and child-chimney sweeps Over time, as with the Jimmy Savile saga, I suspect more evidence will emerge to substantiate claims against Andrew. Then, so gradually, the cloak of protection offered by the establishment will fall away. Meanwhile, the institution of monarchy is tainted. But not to worry. It's survived killing boy princes in The Tower, beheadings galore, red hot pokers up the bum, and the Royal 'It's a Knockout'. So I reckon they'll soldier on.  "The Australians put the military on the streets ... hovering helicopters over homes, demanding compliance with Covid rules." Earlier this year, the government here raised the possibility of compulsory Covid vaccinations for some professions. Immediately, a cry went out that this is further proof of Hong Kong's freedoms under attack. The usual pundits piled in with screams of 'white terror and the end of liberty.'
Strange that the same people are silent as France (Liberté, égalité, fraternité) mandates vaccinations. Meanwhile, CNN — that bastion of press freedom — fired three staff for failing to get the jab. So that's alright then! I have droned on about this before — you can adapt any change to claim 'freedom' is gone. Moreover, applied with skill, this can disorientate the unthinking while burnishing your credentials as a freedom fighter. It is, of course, true that on some occasions, genuine freedoms get taken away. But you need to pick your examples with care by weighing this against other dimensions such as the 'greater good'. So with cover provided by CNN and the French, Hong Kong civil servants are now compelled to take the jab or face weekly Covid tests. Discipline action is also a possibility against those who don't comply. For folks with genuine medical issues, supported by proper certification, exceptions are possible. Note: the ramblings of a friend on the internet, who acquired her medical knowledge through WhatsApp, won't suffice. Thus, with a whimper, most will people fall in line. Meanwhile, the universities are getting in on the act. As if to help, the Australians put the military on the streets while hovering helicopters over homes, demanding compliance with Covid rules. So do I sense that those sneering and calling out Hong Kong are struggling against the tide? If that's the accepted international standard, as set by Western democracies, Hong Kong enjoys a liberal regime. Lastly, as a public service, I'd like to remind you of the side effects of Covid vaccines. These include:
|
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 2021
|
RSS Feed