Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
|
8/5/2025 0 Comments The Dumpling Queen "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women." With Trump seeking to isolate the U.S. further with his proposed 100% tariff on 'foreign' made movies, I found myself in the cinema for The Dumpling Queen. This nostalgic and true story of a mainland single mother arriving in Hong Kong with her two daughters, struggling to find work, is captivating and deeply inspiring.
It resonates with the challenges many Hongkongers faced. Through sheer tenacity, Zhang Jianhe prevails in a tale that takes her from street hawker to heading one of Hong Kong's largest food companies. At the film's beginning, we learn that Zhang is abandoned in Hong Kong by her husband, who has taken another wife in Thailand. This second wife has borne a son, earning her a favoured position. Zhang faces a future as a de facto concubine, serving her husband and his new wife. Zhang rejects this role. Set in the late 1970s, when Hong Kong was grappling with a surge of legal and illegal migration, the city was bursting at its seams. The touch-base policy, which allowed Mainlanders to secure their status in Hong Kong, abruptly ended by 1980, leading to profound personal consequences for many. Zhang, a trained nurse with a qualification not recognised here, is forced to take a menial job while she builds a life for herself and her children. Scenes of Zhang and her kids assembling toys evoke the work my wife did after school to earn a few bucks. The street scenes are instantly recognisable to anyone who lived through that era. Similarly, the clusters of food hawkers at the public piers must dash away, hot fat flying, leaving customers holding utensils when the police approach. As a new inspector on patrol, I wandered nonchalantly into Bowring Street, Yaumati, to witness a stampede of hawkers, knocking over pedestrians and bashing carts into cars as they fled. Perplexed, it took me a moment to recognise I was the cause. All that came back to me in the dark of the cinema. The superb cast delivers deeply engaging performances, including Hong Kong stalwarts like Kara Ying Hung Wai and Cho-Lam Wong. In the lead role, Li Ma captures the inner strength it must have taken to persevere despite many hardships. Kara Ying's landlord hints at a deeply troubling past. She takes Zhang under her wing, providing the family with a roof and a degree of stability, showcasing the resilience of the human spirit. While the movie presents a compelling narrative, my only critique is that it may have overdone the emotional manipulation. The lachrymose music often heralded another scene of Zhang staring into the distance as yet more setbacks befell her. Meanwhile, the frequent harbour panorama views, a neat piece of CGI, showcased the Queen Elizabeth II liner steaming along. This repetition felt excessive. Plus, I would have liked to see more of the backstory of the tenement residents, who shared the crowded space with Zhang and her girls. This interesting group of characters lived cheek by jowl in single rooms with a tiny shared kitchen and bathroom. The movie has been a massive success at the box office, dominating the holiday season in China. Media reports indicate that it earned a staggering 748 million yuan (HK$797 million) from May 1 to May 5, a testament to its compelling narrative and powerful performances. It's unclear whether Trump would regard such a story as propaganda; however, he appears concerned that significant success stories from other parts of the world might conflict with his worldview. Still, as I left the cinema, I was reminded of the line from the late great Christopher Hitchens, "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women." If that's propaganda, bring it on
0 Comments
27/4/2025 1 Comment Live Long And Prosper. "For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses." Whenever a controversial piece of legislation appears that restricts or impinges on the rights of a few, the freedom argument arises. In the context of Hong Kong, that stance is woven into a misleading narrative suggesting that all our general freedoms are under attack.
The freedom argument carries the least weight when it defends the rights of smokers, a minority whose habits affect the majority. For decades, we've known of the grim reality that two-thirds of smokers will meet an early demise due to cigarette-triggered illnesses. This toll burdens our already stretched public health system and inflicts immeasurable financial and emotional costs on families. Moreover, this is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the impact of passive smoke. Thus, this week, as the government moved to curtail the use of vapes and further restrict smoking in public places, the freedom argument gained prominence. The SCMP provides a helpful guide to what is coming. For centuries, thinkers have struggled to define the boundary between individual freedoms and restrictions for the betterment of society. Let's keep it simple and summon the famous Vulcan philosopher Mr. Spock, who observed, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Thus, I welcome the government's moves that address the needs of the many. However, it’s clear that a more straightforward approach, such as a blanket ban on smoking except in strictly designated areas, would be more effective and easier to enforce. Instead, we have adopted an increasingly layered approach, prohibiting smoking within certain distances of schools and in queues. From an enforcement perspective, this creates confusion and discourages officers from acting due to fear of disputes. Additionally, the focus on vapes overlooks traditional cigarettes. Of course, the tobacco industry will mount a subtle campaign through its proxies to water down any legislation using various arguments. On the vapes front, they've hit upon the idea that banning vapes will discourage tourism. Nonsense. I'd assert it's more likely to encourage tourists, knowing they can bring their kids to venues free of toxic vapes. It's disheartening to see the tobacco industry's lack of integrity. Their history of deceit regarding the impact of smoking, their manipulation of scientific data, and their attempts to lure children into smoking places them in the same league as drug cartels. This is why they operate through proxies and shadow organisations, trying to gain a false sense of credibility. The work of these lobby groups is already visible in the comments section of newspapers and in the utterances of some politicians. In the meantime, the greater good should prevail. Live long and prosper. 22/4/2025 1 Comment Crisis = Opportunity "Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago." According to the Chinese saying, “A crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind.” And we've certainly felt plenty of wind from Trump.
So, how's it going? How is Hong Kong faring under the onslaught of Trump's tariffs? What is the mood on the street? Well, when people take a moment to look up from their phones and pause their enjoyment of the memes poking fun at Americans, not much has changed. Government officials are making plans as the business community toggles between bafflement and stoic acceptance. Despite the challenges, our ability to adapt, change course, and turn a crisis into an opportunity has always been a significant strength. Supported by a business-friendly government and a vast Chinese hinterland, Hong Kong continues to resist fear. Additionally, vast amounts of foreign investment are flowing in. Some of that is money escaping Trump's craziness. As always, Hong Kong serves as a feeder city for the greater Chinese economy. Thus, with the Americans preoccupied with dismantling trade agreements and irritating just about everyone, Hong Kong stands to benefit as China's influence expands and foreign investors seek a stable market. Sure, China faces challenges, but it seems more capable of weathering the storm than most. Also, they've been preparing for Trump's shenanigans for decades. For starters, Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago. Does he seriously expect them to go back to sweatshop production line conditions? These roles have mostly left China, moving out to Pakistan and Cambodia. In the 1950s, 22% of U.S. employment was in manufacturing. Today, that figure is only 8%. Efficiencies and robotics have replaced workers; thus, bringing manufacturing onshore won't create much additional employment. Still, Trump aspires to a rose-tinted past. Even the Vice President's acclaimed book, Hillbilly Elegy, is filled with nostalgic references as he yearns for an era long gone. In the card game analogy touted by U.S. officials, China holds a formidable hand. First, China plays the long game while Trump flips and flops. And don't argue that's a strength or strategy, because any leadership model will tell you such approaches rarely work. Money markets demand consistency from politicians because there are enough variables to tax their thinking without self-made chaos. Long-term always defeats the short-term. Next, China holds a strong position on rare earth minerals that the U.S. requires for a wide range of technologies. Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 elements crucial in producing high-tech products such as smartphones, electric car motors, and military equipment. China accounts for 92% of rare earth production. The U.S. relies entirely on imports for certain rare earths, with 100% dependency on yttrium, of which 93% comes from China. Additionally, the U.S. has an 80% import dependence on all rare earth compounds and metals, with 56% sourced from China. Without access to these materials, the U.S. must seek them elsewhere or mine them domestically. Neither option is straightforward. China is already restricting sales to the U.S., with prices surging dramatically, making the production of advanced electronics in the U.S. even more costly. Then consider medicines. The U.S. closed its last penicillin plant in 2004, and China supplies 90% of the antibiotic used in the U.S. Interestingly, rumours suggest that U.S. hedge funds sold off U.S. Treasury bonds in response to Trump's tariffs — not China. If true, the money men who helped put Trump in office are now betting against him. In the meantime, China has gradually shifted from sourcing items from the U.S. to engaging with other trading partners. It has ceased using U.S. LPG and opted for supplies from Australia, returning or cancelling Boeing orders as it transitions to Airbus-made aircraft or domestic planes. The same shift is occurring with soybeans and chickens. Moreover, China always has the option to enhance the regulations it imposes on U.S. companies to exert influence. When Walmart pressured Chinese manufacturers to lower their prices to offset Trump's tariffs, officials met with the company to remind it of its contractual obligations and the legal consequences of non-compliance. This incident highlights China's ability to leverage its regulatory power to maintain control over its trade relationships, even with large multinational corporations. Not only can China inflict harm on the U.S. in hard finance terms, but it is already exploiting Trump's behaviour on multiple soft-power fronts. For many countries, the U.S. has surrendered the moral high ground as a responsible world citizen with its overbearing style. The damage to U.S. soft-power cannot be underestimated. Meanwhile, China is positioning itself as a responsible, mature, and stable partner who can be trusted. For decades, Southeast Asian countries sought to navigate a path between the U.S. and China, maintaining cordial relations with both. However, during my recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia, I found that the U.S. is now perceived as hostile and coersive. As a result, they have chosen to lean towards China, another own goal for Trump. Even the Europeans, traditionally close allies of the U.S., are treading carefully. Under Trump, the U.S. is no longer considered a reliable partner, leading to a July China/EU summit. With 50% of the EU's profits from cars and luxury goods coming from China, they cannot afford to be caught in the crossfire of a trade war. There is one factor that many are missing in this discussion. Trade these days is rarely a matter of one nation selling to another and vice versa. For example, consider the Mini car. These iconic little cars get exported to 110 countries. The vehicle is originally British in design and origin, but the Germans now own the brand. Production occurs in Oxford (UK), Leipzig (Germany), and China. Components come from an estimated 30 countries. I say estimated because components comprise sub-components, and detailing all the entities involved is problematic. Likewise, the iPhone comprises components from 1100 suppliers made in over thirty factories across Asia, with 90% of the activity occurring in China. It took Apple 25 years to build that network. Thus, it’s not a matter of moving one factory and training one workforce. It’s a vast, evolved system that took decades to emerge. Therefore, it's wishful thinking to expect anything tangible to occur in under 10 years. Hence, China and other countries can continue to produce components and transship them through multiple nations before reaching U.S. consumers. And keeping track of these complex shipping and manufacturing regimes is a bureaucratic nightmare that will either discourage trade with the U.S. or become so resource-intensive that it can't be implemented. Either way, the U.S. does not receive the stuff it needs or gets it at an increased cost. Lastly, size and confidence matter. China isn't picking up the phone to speak to the U.S.; instead, it's quietly building new trade options while preparing for the worst. China is seizing the moral high ground, acting moderate and reasoned, because Beijing believes it can withstand the bitter wind blowing from Washington. Only time will tell, but I reckon Trump has made a massive blunder and we still have 1370 days to go. One thing is certain: America is losing the meme war big style. 16/4/2025 0 Comments Steel Town "The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making" I know Scunthorpe. It forms part of a trinity of post-industrial northern towns often mocked by the elitist London metropolitan crowd. Hull and Grimsby complete this trio.
During a school trip, I visited the Scunthorpe steel plant on a geography field day. This site has been a cornerstone of Britain’s industrial economy for over 150 years. The location was selected based on geographic, economic, and historical factors. The Frodingham ironstone bed, part of the North Lincolnshire iron field, was discovered in the 1850s, yielding high-quality iron ore just beneath the town. Nearby coal fields in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire provided coking coal for blast furnaces, while limestone originated from Derbyshire and the Peak District. Thus, Scunthorpe is located in the "Iron Triangle," where iron ore, coal, and limestone are all within a 50-mile radius. Furthermore, the nearby Humber ports, rail connections, canals, and rivers facilitated transportation. The first steelworks emerged in 1864, and two enormous blast furnaces now stand on the site. Suddenly, Scunthorpe is in the news because the blast furnaces that produce virgin steel are about to shut down, which would end steel production in the UK. The plant's owners, a Chinese company, warned the British government 18 months ago that the plant was no longer viable. Just days before the proposed closure, the British government enacted legislation that required the plant's owners to maintain operations in a frantic effort to prevent closure. With no coking coal in reserve, there is an urgency to deliver enough coal to the plant to keep the fires burning. Blast furnaces operate continuously because shutting them down risks structural damage incurs massive costs, and leads to prolonged downtime. While modern electric arc furnaces provide greater flexibility, traditional blast furnaces are still referred to as "always-on beasts." So why was the British government's sudden intervention necessary? The bottom line is that primary steel concerns not just metal but also power, survival, and economic dominance. Nations that lose control of it risk becoming vulnerable in crises. With Trump’s U.S. appearing less like a stable partner, post-Brexit Britain suddenly seemed exposed in a rapidly changing world. Steel is essential for military equipment, such as ships, tanks, and aircraft, as well as for infrastructure like bunkers and bases, as well as ammunition. Dependence on foreign steel imports can weaken a nation's defence readiness during conflicts or trade wars. Additionally, steel is the backbone of key industries, including construction, automotive, machinery, and energy, encompassing pipelines and wind turbines. Losing primary steelmaking capacity leads to reliance on unstable global supply chains. Currently, China produces 55% of the world's steel. Recognising the importance of steel production, the EU and India subsidise domestic steel to avoid over-reliance on other nations. Britain lacked such foresight. The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making. Under-investment, a lack of priorities, and the relentless drive for net zero are all factors at play. The sector relies heavily on coal-based blast furnaces, contributing 2% of the UK's total CO₂ emissions. Transitioning from coal-based production to hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs) requires £4–6 billion in investments. In truth, without government support, UK steelmakers cannot compete against cheaper imports from China, India, and Turkey. Currently, the UK imports 60% of its steel. The other elephant in the room is the UK’s electricity costs, which are 50% higher than those in European nations, making the modern EAF option unviable. If UK steel production becomes too expensive, manufacturers, such as those in the automotive and aerospace industries, may source cheaper foreign steel, further undermining the domestic sector. A few opportunistic politicians claim that the Chinese deliberately sabotaged the last remaining British steel plant to force the UK to rely on cheap imports. However, as political commentator Andrew Neil noted, "The British are perfectly capable of destroying steel production without help from anyone else. The industry has been under-supported for decades." Indeed, the mantra of net zero has provided cover for this destruction. Furthermore, Neil and other commentators note that Britain lacks long-term strategic plans to safeguard key industrial infrastructure. For decades, successive governments have avoided making tough decisions by allowing foreign interests to take precedence. From employing over 300,000 in 1971 to less than 3,000 in 2025, the problem of British Steel didn’t begin with the Chinese owners. It’s just business for them, as it was for the Indian owners before the Chinese. The Indian conglorate Tata ran the plant before a series of ownership changes with the Jingye Group taking over in 2020 after an approach by British officials. The Jingy Group then invested £330 millionin upgrading the site. Perhaps, the real risk sits elsewhere. In his book Vassal State, author Angus Hanton documents the extent to which U.S. commercial interests control the British economy. While China is taking flak in this saga, the influence of U.S. companies is much broader. Hanton argues that Britain exited Europe with Brexit while quietly placing itself at the mercy of U.S. private equity funds and big tech. The concept of an open door has led to the sale of many of Britain’s most productive and innovative businesses. The U.S. accounts for roughly 30% of all foreign investment in the UK, while China comprises 2%. Consequently, the U.K. appears to function as an appendage of the U.S., even though it is performing worse than America’s poorest state, Mississippi. As recent events have shown, the U.S. significantly influences global trade, tax, and investment to serve its own interests. Consequently, the U.K. now finds itself between a rock and economic failure. As reality sets in, the shift from balancing the pursuit of net zero to maintaining strategic industries has resulted in the latter taking precedence. For the workers of Scunthorpe, there is some short-term relief. However, the question remains, does Britain have the backbone to safeguard its national interests in this new disruptive Trump era? 12/4/2025 0 Comments Hubris "While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool" In the movie Ran, Japanese director Akira Kurosawa narrates the tale of a warlord whose prideful sin drives him to madness as he attempts to impose his vision in a world full of jealousy, finance, intrigue, vanity, and greed. Loosely inspired by Shakespeare's King Lear, the saga centres on an old man. He wanders from one tragedy to another, bewildered as he pushes in from the margins on issues he cannot resolve. Eventually, a war engulfs the land as his two sons fight for control. While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool, his sons and their warriors pay more attention to their conflicts than to this pathetic, peripheral figure. As life rushes forward, ignoring historical continuity, the wider world has its own desires and tempests. The old man's will holds little weight as others devour his spoils like dogs tearing at a carcass. Ultimately, he betrays his people, destroys everything, and fades away. In a final jarring scene, a blind woman walks toward the abyss to stand on the edge of oblivion. It’s an epic tale of hubris.  "Darren Jason Watkins Jr., (aka iShowSpeed) is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube." Until last week, I'd never heard of iShowSpeed. To clarify, that's not the name of a company or software. iShowSpeed is the online moniker for Darren Jason Watkins Jr., a 20-year-old American YouTuber and online streamer with 38 million subscribers. His channels have recorded nearly four billion hits.
This young man's online presence is not just influential; it's monumental. Some even argue that he can make or break a business. His arrival in Hong Kong this week was not just a visit but a seismic event that drew the attention of traditional media and officials who saw an opportunity to promote the city. He was mobbed wherever he went, primarily by adolescent boys who hung on his every utterance like the second coming of Christ. Although, if you're over 18 years old, he's probably not on your radar. Yet lawmaker Dominic Lee Tsz-king is upset. He posted on social media that the young Darrens's tour of Hong Kong didn't include the It's clear that some, like Mr Lee, have unrealistic expectations of Darren's visit. They seem to believe that officials should dictate his agenda, but let's be real. Darren is not the type to be told what to do. When the Tourist Board reached out to him, he didn't respond. And perhaps that's for the best. After all, he's not catering to the usual crowd. The nature of Darren's output is spontaneous, free-rolling and not without debatable content. He is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube. His explosive personality, outrageous stunts, and unfiltered reactions have sparked an intense backlash. He initially gained attention for his high-energy gaming streams, especially his obsessive love for Cristiano Ronaldo and FIFA. His exaggerated reactions, shouting fits, and unpredictable behaviour soon made him stand out in the crowded streaming world. Yet, his shock-value antics sometimes pushed boundaries, leading to controversies and viral moments. As a result, he faced multiple bans from platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and even events. In the 2022 World Cup, he stormed the field during Portugal vs Uruguay, wearing a Ronaldo jersey. He's also known for off-colour antics, such as allegedly exposing himself online and using racial slurs in his quest to shock audiences, generate clicks, and promote his merchandise. That's how he earns his income: t-shirt sales and other items. While some view him as a hilarious, unfiltered personality, others see him as a poor influence who crosses too many lines. In a town where the government has spasms of pearl-clutching when a teenager gets filmed smoking, young Darren is hardly a role model they'd likely encourage or promote. After viewing Darren's videos of Hong Kong, we got off lightly. Move on; there's nothing to see here.  "The U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon." Make no mistake, this is a game changer. Under Trump, the U.S. has turned against everyone, even the Heard and McDonald Island penguins. Well, that's not strictly true; Putin and the Fat Lad in North Korea receive a free tariff pass. The unpredictability of these actions leaves us all in a state of uncertainty.  Trumps action has many consequences, not least because the beacon of U.S. influence is fading on the geopolitical stage, a trend that could have long-term implications. As far as I can tell — and I'm no expert, so if I get this wrong, please let me know — Trump seeks to achieve two things. First, he wants to re-shore manufacturing and, second, to address perceived trade imbalances. Following this, the tariffs are supposed to generate revenue for the government to spend without raising taxes while suppressing growth, which creates demand for government treasury bills and drives down interest rates. This move, in turn, reduces U.S. national debt. This new tariff regime impacts nearly every conceivable product, from electronics and machinery to apparel and agriculture, leaving only a few strategic imports, such as certain metals, semiconductors, and energy resources, untouched. Trump claims that these "reciprocal tariffs" will tackle foreign protectionism and address "unfair" trade deficits that have "hollowed out" U.S. manufacturing. It's important to note that the tariffs are not based on actual foreign tariffs, but on a nonsensical formula tied to bilateral trade gaps. This is a crucial point to understand. To justify his actions, Trump argues that the U.S. is being taken advantage of and that the economy is in crisis. Neither of these claims stands up to scrutiny. Americans run deficits with some countries and surpluses with others. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy was performing well until last week; unemployment is at a 50-year low, inflation has dropped to 3 %, and GDP is growing at 2.4% while other countries are struggling. Trump asserts that he wants to re-shore production to "Make America Great Again." That's fair enough. However, that assumes it makes economic sense to manufacture goods in the U.S. For example, the U.S. is unlikely to be competitive in T-shirt production due to the low wages in Cambodia and Pakistan. Consider the production of high-end items like the iPhone. Under the new tariff regime, the cost of an iPhone could triple, making it uncompetitive against cheaper Chinese phones. Meanwhile, a conservative estimate suggests shifting iPhone production out of China will take five to ten years. Of course, this assumes all other things are equal, that you have skilled people, and that the plant and infrastructure are in place state-side. And how does Little Britain fair in all this? Angus Hanton's book "Vassal State" gives a comprehensive and stunning account of how the U.S. has already captured Britain's markets and moved to dictate economic policy. It has long been recognised that the British Foreign Office operated under the principle of "find out what Washington is doing, and do slightly less." Now, the U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon. And if Britain doesn't play ball, bullying can quickly get the Limeys to comply. In 2020, when the U.S. banned China's Huawei, the Brits initially decided to take a different path with a partial ban. Trump went ballistic. U.S. officials urged British MPs to rebel against a cabinet decision as Trump called Boris Johnson in rage. A U-turn followed, cloaked in "new technical advice". Similarly, the U.K. military relies on the Americans for equipment, transport, and training. Between 2010 and 2021, the Ministry of Defence spent £26 billion on U.S. companies. While researching his book, Hanton discovered that the British government was reluctant to share details about the extent of U.S. ownership of U.K. businesses. A subsequent tip-off directed him to a U.S. government database that revealed the details. The U.S. owns numerous British businesses, including heritage brands that most Brits still believe belong to good old Blighty, such as high-street shops and manufacturers. Most folks think that Boots, Cadbury Chocolate, Quaker Oats, Fanta, Mars, Costa Coffee, and Manchester United are British. No. When Brits deal online with the U.K. government agencies such as the DVLA and the Ministry of Justice, U.S. big tech provides that communication channel. IBM, Microsoft and Oracle have cornered the market. When accounting for major U.S. multinationals like Amazon, U.S. companies now have annual sales in the U.K. exceeding $700 billion, translating to an average of about £20,000 per U.K. household. And yet, U.S. multinationals routinely avoid paying U.K. tax to a suspected sum of £5.6bn for 2022-23. Over two million Brits work directly for U.S. companies. The U.S. has placed 30% of all its overseas investments in the U.K., and half of its European investments are in Britain. This takeover is not surprising. The Brits opened their markets in a steady decade-long process, and the U.S. swept in. That's not to suggest that these companies don't provide quality services, many do. Significantly, other European nations protected certain critical sectors from takeovers by U.S. private equity firms and Big Tech. Now, the U.K. gets hit with a 10% tariff despite Starmer's genuflecting to Trump with a letter from a real King. Arguably, Trump has laid the lowest rate on Britain because, in effect, he's taxing U.S. businesses. Meanwhile, Europe is hit with a higher 20% rate. As the leaked Signal messages reveal, the Trump regime has no love for the Europeans. Yet, one continent is in a sweet spot regarding this uncertainty and arbitrariness. As the map below reveals, African nations have shifted from trading with the U.S. to focusing on China.  How the U.S. lost Africa in twenty years. Meanwhile, Hong Kong as a free port is not retaliating against Trump(for now). Our regime of free access remains unchanged. And this imposition of tariffs on a free port exposes that these measures have little to do with trade. The big game is played on many fronts.
2/4/2025 0 Comments More U.S. Hypocrisy "If the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay." The U.S. government has imposed another round of sanctions on Hong Kong officials, including the retiring police chief. While Washington presents these sanctions as a defence of human rights and democracy, critics contend that the actions are laden with “hypocrisy” and “double standards.”
Why? For starters, the U.S. has draconian national security laws that exceed any provisions used in Hong Kong. The Patriot Act (2001) allows for mass surveillanc and indefinite detention of suspects without trial. As Edward Snowden and others revealed, the U.S. will relentlessly pursue whistleblowers and impose severe penalties for leaks, even when they expose wrongdoing. The current crackdowns on U.S. campuses against protests, including aggressive police responses, contrast sharply with U.S. criticism of Hong Kong’s law enforcement. Plus, these days, Trump is focused on suppressing pro-Palestine voices, deporting critics of his policies while banning journalists from the White House who pose difficult questions. History shows that the U.S. supports authoritarian regimes when it is convenient. Despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the brutal repression, the U.S. continues to sell arms and maintains close ties to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, billions in military aid continue to flow to the Egyptian regime despite the jailing of journalists and activists. Looking further back, the U.S. supported dictators such as Pinochet (Chile) and Suharto ( Indonesia) when it aligned with Cold War interests. Its regime change activities have caused death and chaos in many regions, with consequences that persist today. Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone! Interestingly, when the British governed Hong Kong as a colony, the U.S. never advocated for democracy. Instead, they used the territory to support their wars Korea and Vietnam. Post-1997, business elites in this region and their political patrons in the U.S. supported a system that limited democratic processes.The U.S. only changed its stance on Hong Kong when protests aligned with its geopolitical objectives against China. We must recognise that these measures against Hong Kong officials represent a tantrum and a form of political theatre in response to the unsuccessful 2019 protests that the U.S. supported and sponsored. Yet in fairness, these sanctions are limited and look like a token gesture because Trump cannot afford to anger China too much as a trade war looms. Plus, if the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay. Moreover, the action against Hong Kong can be seen as part of a broader effort by the U.S. to interfere in other countries’ sovereignty. Regime change operations in Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and covert actions in Latin America show that the U.S. often disregards sovereignty. What is the impact on the individual? Evidence suggests that sanctions are counterproductive by fostering a "siege mentality” that unites officials against a common enemy: the bullying West. In truth, although sanctions may inconvenience officials, they rarely alter behaviour. In the end, sanctions are a blunt instrument — an acknowledgement that the U.S. has waning influence. 23/3/2025 1 Comment Britain's Woes. "The events at Heathrow are indicative of Britain’s woes" In a previous life, I prepared Hong Kong for emergencies. This work assessed whether critical infrastructure was sufficiently robust to withstand terrorist attacks, including ensuring system redundancy and establishing a rapid recovery plan for potential disruptions to normal day-to-day operations. A 'Red Team' approach that frequently examined worst-case scenarios formed a core element of this work.
Thus, when news broke that Heathrow Airport, one of the busiest in the world, had ceased operations, I immediately sat up and took notice. This crucial national infrastructure plays a significant role in the British economy and worldwide civil aviation. I wanted to see how the facility was quickly brought back into service. Because, with its power supply interrupted, the ripple effect was felt globally. Aircraft from Hong Kong bound for the UK reversed course and returned, and hundreds of other planes either did not take off or were diverted to airports across the UK and Europe. The knock-on effect spread worldwide. Some questions arose. Was it a terrorist attack that disrupted the electricity supply? Before long, speculation emerged in the media, pointing the finger at Putin, who is alleged to have orchestrated firebomb attacks in Europe. As the bogeyman of the day, he was destined to receive the blame. Nevertheless, I remained puzzled about how a single fire at one substation could have led to the complete failure of the entire electrical supply system. If it was indeed an act of terrorism, then the perpetrator had specifically targeted the one node that would have the most significant impact. My questions intensified as evidence emerged that the fire was likely caused by overheating cooling oil. A few reports pointed to the substation operating beyond 100% capacity. Still, why did no backup systems come online? Are standby generators available? How did a single substation failure have such consequences? The terrorist narrative is now refuted, and Putin is in the clear. Phew! Instead, with the suggestion is that an engineer took the wrong action or the substation was overloaded. Either way, a fire resulted. Upon reviewing the press releases, it becomes evident that several factors are at play (as always). The backup sub-station is co-located with the site that caught fire, resulting in its shutdown. Whoever deemed that a sensible solution does not understand the basics of contingency planning. Next, it seems that Heathrow, in response to the push for 'net zero,' chose to remove its backup diesel generators and has introduced a biomass-fueled generator that failed to operate. I have new questions. And so it goes on. And what of the man in charge of Heathrow, Thomas Woldbye? When informed of the fire and disruptions, did Mr Woldbye rush to the airport to take charge? No. He chose to go to bed to be 'well rested' to make clear decisions. His deputy managed the first hours of the crisis, while Mr Woldbye got his shuteye. Meanwhile, the heads of several airlines worked through the night. Undoubtedly, the causes of this embarrassing incident will be identified. However, the underlying failures of well-paid civil servants and company directors must face scrutiny. The Post Office scandal, the NHS-tainted blood saga, and the fiasco of water companies not meeting their obligations resulting in vast amounts of raw sewage pumped into rivers—the list goes on. These events reveal foundational deficiencies and organisations that prefer to lie and obstruct rather than confront their responsibilities. It's high time for a change. Most concerning is that this lax attitude extends to an entity once held in the highest regard. This video blog examines the state of Britain's so-called independent nuclear deterrent. The findings presented are deeply troubling. The Royal Navy is deploying nuclear submarines that have exceeded their planned life expectancy and now require constant repairs. How long before something goes awry, and we face yet another round of hand-wringing? What can be done? If the UK is to avoid a disastrous downward spiral, the accountability of leaders must become a cornerstone in the military, civil service, business sectors, and among politicians. However, for this crucial shift to occur, national leaders must embrace a spirit of humility and honest reflection. It is vital to recognise that valuable lessons are beyond Britain's shores—lessons that can guide the UK towards a prosperous future. Let go of the misguided belief that ‘we do it best.' This is simply not the case. Britons must confront the uncomfortable truth: the UK's institutions and business practices no longer set the gold standard. Instead, they serve as cautionary tales of pitfalls to avoid. Trump has demonstrated a readiness to challenge established norms and confront complacency and vested interests directly. Whether you love him or hate him, his approach has important lessons for the UK. Look to Asia. China has plans that span decades, and it sticks to them. That's why stuff gets built instead of being kicked into touch by the least whim. How is the UK's high speed rail doing? Consider how social cohesion is maintained in Singapore and Japan. Do not settle for mediocrity; instead, strive for greatness by learning from other's successes. These qualities are not just desirable; they are essential for progress. The events at Heathrow are indicative of the UK’s woes. Only by acknowledging this can the UK forge a new path because right now, the UK appears weary, unstable, and exposed.  "The budget fails to provide the bold, transformative measures necessary to confront Hong Kong’s deep-rooted challenges." Hong Kong, a global financial centre renowned for its dynamism and resilience, has long been a city that flourishes on innovation, adaptability, and forward-thinking policies. However, the recent budget announcement for the fiscal year has left many citizens, businesses, and analysts feeling underwhelmed.
Financial Secretary Paul Chan’s budget, issued this week, lacks creativity and appears timid. While one could argue that we don’t require excessive creativity, insisting on prudence in financial matters, we still face a deficit many attribute to “structural” issues. As Hong Kong urgently recovers from the effects of Covid and confronts a rapidly changing world with Trump in the White House, our traditional sources of income are at risk. Further, the city faces intense competition from other regional financial centres like Singapore and Shanghai. Hong Kong has consistently been a service-oriented economy that capitalises on the broader Chinese market. A less flattering description is that Hong Kong clings to China, subject to the winds of crisis that affect its colossal host. Historically, Hong Kong lured foreign investment to encourage growth by positioning itself as a gateway to China. Excise duties apply solely to four commodities: tobacco, methyl alcohol, hard alcohol, and hydrocarbon oil, regardless of whether these items are produced domestically or imported. Furthermore, no quotas or anti-dumping laws are enforced. Hong Kong raises funds through direct taxes, including salaries, property, and profits taxes, and indirect taxes, such as stamp duty, betting duty, and land premiums. Collectively, these sources constitute approximately 68% of the total government revenue. With our current sources of income declining, mainly from land sales, Chan has not taken any significant steps to identify and establish new revenue streams. This lack of innovation is concerning. Instead, he has merely been tinkering at the edges, complicating matters further. Hong Kong cannot keep kicking the can down the road. For instance, the government has invested time and resources in preparing the elderly for a reduction in the transport subsidy, which will cost us HK$5 billion in the forthcoming financial year. Although saving a relatively small amount of money, the proposed reduction in the subsidy has created uncertainty and squandered the goodwill established with the scheme's introduction. The elderly, who rely on this subsidy for their daily travel, now face an increased financial burden. If the scheme's cost is deemed unsustainable and changes are needed, why not increase the standard usage cost from HK$2 per trip to, say, HK$4? It’s simple, easy to understand, and easy to implement. The last point is notable because the complications of the proposed changes mean a system upgrade that will take 18 months to implement. Additionally, allegations of cheating within the scheme have been made without substantial evidence to support these claims. How many cases have been prosecuted? The only data I could find indicates that 23 individuals were charged, presumably for using cards that did not belong to them. This hardly constitutes the widespread abuse that some claim is taking place. Moving on, unless I am mistaken, Chan has performed a sleight of hand in shuffling money between financial pots to reduce the deficit. The big pot received HK$62 billion from various endowment funds; without that, the deficit in 2025/26 would rise from an estimated HK$67 billion to HK$129 billion. Furthermore, we will issue HK$150 billion in bonds next year and repay $54 billion in bonds. Therefore, without the bonds and endowment fund additions to the larger pot, we would be $225 billion in deficit! Did I understand that correctly? Concerns about a few pensioners getting on and off buses with reduced fares appear trivial compared to these sums. While the government has tried to address some pressing issues, the budget fails to provide the bold, transformative measures necessary to confront Hong Kong’s deep-rooted challenges. From a lack of visionary economic policies to inadequate support for vulnerable groups, the budget appears more like a temporary fix than a strategic roadmap for the future. Hong Kong possesses immense potential, but realising this potential necessitates bold leadership and a readiness to embrace change. The budget signifies a missed opportunity to demonstrate this leadership and place Hong Kong on a course towards a more prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable future. Only then can Hong Kong truly reclaim its status as Asia’s world city. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2025
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed