Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
15/9/2021 0 Comments 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.
0 Comments
 "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:
8/8/2021 0 Comments The Doctrine Of The Mean 中庸 "The superior man is watchful over himself, even when he is alone" "故君子愼其獨也" The Choi affair continues to rumble on. In an ignoble incident, the senior police officer was caught inside an unlicensed massage establishment and then suspended from duty.
Now cleared of any criminal charges — the right decision — he will return to work. Meanwhile, a discipline review by the Civil Service Bureau will consider his fate. That’s the proper course of action. Yet, it's obvious that Choi placed himself in a compromising position with all the attendant risks. Naturally, this saga has drawn considerable public comment, damaging the image of the Police Force at a difficult time. And because Choi headed up the new National Security Unit, the story continues to provide easy fodder for those who are intent on undermining the police. On that score, eyebrow's rose as Choi is to now lead the section that deals with internal discipline. Of all the roles that Choi could fulfil pending a decision on his future, this appointment will continue to attract attention. What is the ordinary citizen to make of this? What conclusions are junior officers to draw? After all, the Police Force strived for decades to shake off the tag of corruption, rudeness and indifferent service. It made commendable progress starting in the 1980s and gained broad public support as quality service initiatives sought to build a culture of integrity. And while recent events have seen a setback due to a demonisation of the police by hostile elements, this palaver doesn't help matters. The longer the affair drags on the more reputational harm the Force suffers. Whatever happens next, it may be worth revisiting Confucius's opening discourse in 'The Doctrine of the Mean’:- There is nothing more visible than what is secret, and nothing more manifest than what is minute. Therefore the superior man is watchful over himself, even when he is alone. 故君子愼其獨也。 Confucius saw every individual human as a sovereign actor in pursuit of happiness. And yet, he recognised that humans could indulge too much, stray from the path and therefore suffer pain. He foresaw that even what brings pleasure can induce pain. Later in 'The Doctrine of the Mean' Confucius has this to say:- In a high situation, he does not treat with contempt his inferiors. In a low situation, he does not court the favor of his superiors. He rectifies himself, and seeks for nothing from others, so that he has no dissatisfactions. He does not murmur against Heaven, nor grumble against men. Wise words indeed. I'll leave it at that. 27/7/2021 1 Comment Money Talks "China and the U.S. are shipping goods to each other at the fastest pace in years" Sometimes you have to look behind the clickbait headlines to understand what's going on. So while U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman had a face like a scalded cat during her recent Beijing encounter, in truth, the U.S. and China are joined at the hip and need to cooperate.
Sherman was on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from Chinese diplomats in full wolf warrior mode. That’s something you wouldn’t have seen five years ago, affirming China’s growing confidence, or maybe that they understand the reality of world trade. Because, when you cut through the posturing on both sides, the data tells a story. China and the U.S. are shipping goods to each other at the fastest pace in years. It looks like the tariff war and pandemic never happened. Consider this: over half of the shipping going through the Port of Los Angeles is heading to Mainland China or Hong Kong. A shipping bottleneck is developing owing to the fact the port can’t handle the rising throughput. And all this congestion is happening before the pre-Christmas rush kicks in. Somebody better tell America's kids that Santa may not get through this year. The graph above, which draws on data from the Chinese authorities, tells a story of vibrant two-way trade albeit with an imbalance. As U.S. consumers continue to shop, Chinese factories are back in action pumping out products. Then when you account for the U.S. trade surplus in financial services, which it gains through the US$, that deficit in goods looks less troublesome. (More details are here in 'The Big Game') The only conclusion to draw is that both sides have learned to live with punishing tariffs, a fraught political situation, while talk of decoupling is laughable. We know that the U.S. and China use trade as a weapon in their wider geopolitical game. But, what does it say when the U.S. benefits from Chinese actions taken against Australia? As this report states, the U.S. stepped-in to fill the gap in coal supplies to China with Australian coal blocked. And I thought the U.S. and Australia stood together. Perhaps not when there is money to be made and trade to be done. 23/7/2021 1 Comment Charge Of The Granny Brigade "They'll ignore government advice, the sage words of scientists and hard data, but the possibility of a free iPhone will get them moving." The Hong Kong public has finally woken up to the need for vaccinations. A surge in jabs means we could hit 70% coverage by September. Maybe they've seen the data from the U.S., where 99% of Covid deaths are unvaccinated.
I doubt it. More likely, the incentives offered by various lucky draws are the motivation. An apartment, a new Mercedes Benz, free flights, iPhones, gold, frankincense and myrrh are all on offer. I applaud these private sector lotteries, but what does it say about Hong Kong people's mentality? Of course, they'll ignore government advice, the sage words of scientists and hard data, but the possibility of a free iPhone will get them moving. None of this should come as a surprise, given the long queues every time McDonald’s offers a free piece of shitty plastic with a burger. Back in the day, I policed those lines. And the McDonald’s cohort, while eager, couldn't match an army of pensioners scrambling for free rice distributed by local charities. Every hardened police officers stomach knotted in anxiety when 'Rice distribution crowd control' appeared on the duty list. But, let's be clear. None of the old folks are hungry nor anywhere near what could be considered destitute. Yet, that didn't stop decades of imprinting — when free food is on offer, you dash in. The years of famine in China left a deep scar; thus, it often took a platoon of the Police Tactical Unit to hold back the charging geriatrics. I reckon dealing with a football crowd was easier. After all, you can't use pepper spray to hold back a marauding mob of rampant grannies. The optics are unfavourable. A line of barriers, batching the crowd, and some humour usually did the trick. A gregarious Gwailo cop, using broken Cantonese, to entertain the crowd also helped. Thinking back, the smell of those events lingers — a mix of musty moth-balls, burning joss sticks, with a hint of Pak Fah Yeow — all mixed in that signature Hong Kong confection. Somebody should bottle and market it — Perfume de Sham Shui Po! For the discerning. 20/7/2021 1 Comment Gesture Diplomacy "When the U.S. Congress banned China from collaborating on the International Space Station, what happened? Within ten years, China had its own Space Station." In summer 1970, when the parents next door banned my brothers and me from playing British Bulldog in their garden because we were too rough, we took the game to the street. Soon more kids joined in; we had extra space, a fantastic time and went to bed exhausted. Sometimes, actions have unintended consequences.
Thus as the U.S. announced another round of sanctions against officials here over the perceived erosion of freedoms, I'm wondering have they thought this through? This move comes one year after the implementation of the National Security Law. And while you can argue the merits of the NSL, what is certain is the law brought a quick end to the rioting. And that is not to suggest that the NSL vanquished the extremists. On the contrary, some have transitioned to terrorist activity, with bomb plots and lone-wolf attacks on police. As a result, the police remain on alert with high levels of vigilance. Along with the sanctions came a warning about doing business in Hong Kong. That fell on stony ground given Hong Kong's stout economy that companies ignore at their peril. But the question needs asking, do sanctions work or are these moves counterproductive? When China launched the NSL, the U.S. responded with immediate measures against Hong Kong officials and individual police officers. Yet, there is no evidence of any impact. Indeed, some people see sanctions as affirmation that the U.S. sought regime change here and felt vindicated to be named. Even policymakers view sanctions as blunt instruments, more manifestations of frustration than a serious attempt to resolve differences. Moreover, when dealing with a strong opponent like China, sanctions can give rise to the very thing you intended to avoid. When the U.S. Congress banned China from collaborating on the International Space Station, what happened? Within ten years, China had its own Space Station. In responding to the perceived threat, the U.S. spurred the Chinese on, thereby bypassing the West in the process. The same is happening on a broad front; in computing, agriculture and infrastructure development. Former U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong, Kurt Tong, makes a case that sanctions and other economic prohibitions aren't working. Instead, capital flows into Hong Kong remain robust because the sheer size of the China market means banks and companies must engage. So while U.S. Neocons cling to sanctions, he concludes the U.S. and Western nations have few options to influence China because the success of Hong Kong remains essential for the global economy. Oddly, having argued that sanctions don't work, he says that the U.S. should continue to apply them against individuals. He fears stopping sanctions will 'sends the wrong signal'. And with that, he sums up how naive, disjointed and ineffective is the U.S. approach. It's all about gestures because business trumps everything. And the Chinese, who are pragmatic above all else, know this. Of course, you could argue that America's greatest asset for contesting China is its military. But I'd assert it's the U.S. dollar. Of all global trade transactions, some 41 per cent occurs in U.S. dollars. Whereas the RMB only makes up one per cent. This fact affords America leverage over the World's economy while protecting U.S. citizens by allowing them to access cheap goods. In reality, the American people are paying for Chinese goods with 'paper money' printed to keep the U.S. financial system afloat. Plus, with well over 90 per cent of global financial transactions in U.S. dollars, the Americans have an advantage. Hence the U.S. has a trade surplus in services and a deficit in goods with China. Should the RMB ever gain traction in the World's financial system, the U.S. would be in serious trouble. While China is exploring options that rival the dominant US-dollar mechanism, including blockchain, these look some way off. But if the U.S. did opt to weaponise the dollar then China would likely respond with its own system. These days China no longer shrugs off sanctions to do nothing. Instead, it is willing to hit back. Confident in the power offered by its vast market, it can deny access that hits hard. Ask the Australian wine industry, which suffered a 96% drop in exports to China, its best costumer. Ask Nike how sales are going in China; down 59% after the company became embroiled in the cotton saga. Yet, as the American Chamber of Commerce made clear, the appeal of Hong Kong remains undiminished. Excellent infrastructure, robust rule of law, safe streets and access to the Mainland all work in Hong Kong's favour. As proof, AmCham invested in a new site in Central to foster business. Equally, The Economist rated Hong Kong top of the league for 'normalcy' during Covid, while inward foreign investment is the world's third highest. At the same time, property prices continue to rise, as unemployment moves below five percent. Say no more. 18/7/2021 1 Comment The Dirty Dozen "These anti-vaccine activists operate on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, reaching more than 59 million followers." Research from the U.S. claims that 12 people are responsible for most of the misinformation spread about Covid-19 vaccines. A report by The Center for Countering Digital Hate documents how this dirty dozen, some with medical qualifications, fostered suspicions and outright rejection of vaccines. In the process, they may have stalled efforts to counter Covid-19 by feeding on the public's gullibility.
This week, President Biden sought to blame the social media companies "They're killing people. The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated." Meanwhile, his spokeswomen claimed China and Russia are responsible for some of the misinformation. Given that it's a game all governments play, it's safe to say they are all at it, including the U.S. The CCDH report concludes the 12 named individuals — one a Kennedy -- harnessed existing fears within communities, including along racial lines. Hence, it's argued that Black, Latino, and Native Americans suffer disproportionately high rates of Covid-19. Further, the report highlights the profound impact when people take most of their information, unverified, from social media. After the events of 2019, this comes as no surprise to us in Hong Kong. Outright lies propagated by a few, entered the public mindset as the gospel truth; death trains and mass rapes are examples. These anti-vaccine activists operate on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, reaching more than 59 million followers. When you then extrapolate the trickle effects into the wider community, the footprint is global. And with plenty of conspiracy theorists and Karens out there, the appeal of the dirty dozen is clear. Here's how it works. On 19 March 2020, the website Biohackinfo.com falsely claimed that Bill Gates planned to use a Covid-19 vaccine to monitor people through an injected quantum-dot spy software. Two days later, traffic started flowing to a YouTube video on the idea. Soon it hit two million views. Then Roger Stone — a former adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump — discussed the theory on a radio show, adding that he'd never trust a coronavirus vaccine that Gates had funded. The New York Post covered the interview but didn't debunk the notion. Then that article was liked, shared or commented on by over one million people on Facebook. That's better performance than most mainstream media news stories. How you rein-in this activity to decide what is legitimate comment and falsehood, is fraught with challenges. With its much-vaunted First Amendment, the U.S. will struggle to tackle this issue. The same applies elsewhere. Moreover, given the deep-seated mistrust of governments in some sectors, any effort to 'police' the Internet may drive the lunatic fringe deeper underground. So, good luck with that. We're at the point where these influencers have persuaded many not to get a free, life-saving vaccine, and those people are dying at a rate of 99-to-1 compared to the vaccinated. You could argue that this is Darwinism at work, with the dirty dozen are killing their base. 14/7/2021 2 Comments Let Rip "The people have unlocked themselves and marked the occasion by inserting flares up their bottoms" Oh boy, this is going to be interesting to watch. Boris Johnson is intent on relaxing England's Covid restrictions on 19 July. While around 68 per cent of the British adult population has received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, and just over half are now fully vaccinated, the data on new cases is less encouraging. These surged with 221,000 people testing positive in the UK in the week to 11 July.
Am I comfortable with this approach? Not really, because the pandemic reminds us that we are all connected, and the unfolding crisis in one country can impact every country. That's especially so when Hong Kong and the UK have such close contacts. Although sitting 6,000 miles away, at least we will have time to put the barriers up if it all goes awry. But, wait a minute, aren't direct flights from the UK already banned? Yes, but we still have rare cases arriving here by around-the-houses routes. In fairness, Boris did ask that people take personal responsibility and wear masks when appropriate. Then again, why bother with any restrictions? The footage this weekend of England fans running amok in London while the boys and girls in blue skulked away suggest it's all rather academic. The people have unlocked themselves and marked the occasion by inserting flares up their bottoms. Forget all the talk of football as the beautiful game — there is nothing appealing in a lardy lad with a firework sticking out of his bum. Where do these people think they are, the PTU Officer's Mess? When this particular practice came into favour, I'm not sure. What is the cultural significance? Although, it does appear popular given the number of pictures and video clips circulating. Also, getting your kit off, waving your man-bits about and throwing beer accompanied the Hershey highway action. No doubt, an anthropologist will secure a grant to study all this. Is it a right of passage to manhood or some form of fertility dance? What also struck me was the absence of the police as the fans ran amok. Maybe the cops are adhering to Prof Clifford Stott's 'Elaborated Social Identity Model' and keeping their distance in fear of radicalising the fans. Stott is well-known in Hong Kong for advocating that the mere sight of police officers causes spasms of disorder and the breakdown of civilisation as we know it. Better to let the mob run riot than taking enforcement action that may lead to people being upset. I suppose the saving grace is that the police's absence meant they didn't need to take the knee. Moreover, some yobs balls on fire are, rightly, a lower priority. Meanwhile, with people sticking flares up their bottoms, personal responsibility for Covid-19 precautions feels like a stretch. Once again, Johnathan Pie sums it up with eloquence. 10/7/2021 2 Comments Vietnam Part Deux “I want to talk about happy things man!” protested President Joe Biden when pressed by reporters about the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Here we go again. History is repeating like a bad Chung King curry. How else are we to judge the withdrawal from Afghanistan, with troops skulking away, while the zealots of the Taliban are on the march again. The parallels with Vietnam are striking and uncanny.
I don't blame the brave men and women who bore arms. They answered the call and did their best under trying circumstances. Once again, the culprits in this shameful episode are the politicians, who send young people into battle with ill-defined objectives and no end-game. Unlike Vietnam, the Brits played a role this time as part of NATO. In 2001, Tony Blair jumped in with both feet, although, of course, none of his kids would be doing the fighting. As a consequence of Blair's decision, 457 British soldiers died for no discernible reason other than hubris. With commendable foresight, Harold Wilson, the former Labour PM, had the savvy to keep Britain out of the Vietnam war. But, unfortunately, Tony Blair lacked that critical skill of forward-planning and something called a backbone, proving all too willing to do the bidding of Bush. Iraq is another example of a shockingly misjudged invasion. These British victims join an estimated 65,600 Afghan soldiers, 2,420 Americans, 159 Canadians, 89 French, 57 Germans, 53 Italians and 321 other assorted nationalities killed. At the same time, the Taliban lost 51,000 plus. Then you have 3,937 contractors killed—finally, an estimated 47,245 civilian men, women and children. Tens of thousands were injured. According to charity Save The Children, an average of five children were killed or wounded every day for the past 14 years in Afghanistan. That data can't capture the human toll on the families, the wounded, the smashed communities. Let's remember the particular penchant for drone strikes on Afghan wedding parties. Seeking to excuse the killing of 40 plus, including several toddlers during one such strike, a U.S. spokesman asserted, "Who holds a wedding in the middle of the desert? We know what was going on". And with that statement, he summed up the clueless approach of the Western forces. A lack of cultural awareness, wilful blindness and a 'we had to destroy it to save it' attitude underscores the mindset. The U.S. has spent a stunning total of $2.26 trillion on the war. That's just under 10 per cent of the U.S. national debt in 2020. Think what you could do with that; new hospitals, refurbished roads, bridges and airports. The Defense Department's latest 2020 report said war-fighting costs totalled $815.7 billion. That covers the operating expenses from fuel and food to Humvees, weapons and ammunition, from tanks and armoured vehicles to aircraft carriers and airstrikes. Although America first invaded to retaliate against al-Qaida and rout its hosts, the Taliban, the U.S. and NATO soon pivoted to a more open-ended mission: nation-building on a massive scale. Washington has poured over $143 billion into that goal. Of that, $88 billion went to training, equipping and funding Afghan military and police forces. Another $36 billion went on reconstruction projects, education and infrastructure. Then $4.1 billion has gone to humanitarian aid for refugees—finally, the campaign to deter Afghans from selling heroin around the world cost over $9 billion. As part of the nation-building, the West sought to shoe-horn in a liberal democracy model on a tribal nation with no history nor hinterland of such systems. That failed. The so-called democratic government is corrupt to the core and so widely reviled even the Taliban look more welcome to some sectors. Plus, the reason for going to war was dubious at best. While the Taliban did shelter al-Qaida forces, it's not clear that Bin Laden was there at the time. Later, he turns up in Pakistan, a supposed U.S. ally. Not only that, he lives next door to Pakistan's top military academy. That's where Seal Team 6 caught up with Bin Laden. Did the entire enterprise prove a colossal waste of human life, capital and time? Was it an honourable effort? Did it make the world safer? Of course, the NATO forces could win battles and take ground, but without a stable, trusted government in place couldn't translate those victories into anything meaningful. It's difficult not to conclude, as a resurgent Taliban gains ground, the effort was pointless. Helpfully the West left behind a massive haul of weapons that may now fall into the wrong hands. Meanwhile, Bush and Blair, the decision-makers, are busy accounting for their missteps by twisting the history. At each attempt, Blair looks more haunted because the truth will always be there. “I want to talk about happy things man!” protested President Joe Biden when pressed by reporters about the withdrawal. In Parliament, Boris Johnson sought to produce the best spin he could. Finally, a few conservatives MPs had the decency to acknowledge "it looks a bit like the last days of Vietnam, an unprecedented and hurried exit with no commitment". Reports of flag lowering in secret and the NATO forces sneaking away from bases without bothering to tell their Afghani counterparts doesn’t sound reassuring. At one location, the local militia only knew the Americans had gone when looters entered the base. The withdrawal is out of sight of the media because the imagery portrays defeat. Here's what happens next; civil war, millions displaced, thousands dead, and a new threat from the emboldened, rearmed Taliban. As the Taliban tighten their grip, heroin production will surge to fund their rebuild of an Islamic state. Along the way, their efforts will destabilise the region, including the border with China's sensitive Xinjiang province. Before that, minority groups face the terrible decisions of either up and leave — if that's possible - to convert to Islam or face death. This ethnic cleansing is a direct result of NATO leaving. In 1992, under Taliban rule, Hindus and Sikhs had to wear yellow armbands. Expect more of the same and worse as a brutal theocracy takes over. In the West, late in the evening, a mother will sit in silence asking what her son died for? Did he make the world safer? Did he free an oppressed group? At best, she can take some comfort that for a brief window of time, Afghan girls got an education, with some semblance of order attained. Maybe you could argue that a blunted al-Qaida forestalled more attacks. But, unfortunately, all is about to be reversed. The Afghans must be asking themselves why they bothered to trust the West, given the awful fate that now awaits them. Meanwhile, the U.S. and the West emerge from Afghanistan diminished on the World-stage. So next time, and there will be the next time, the politicians need to pause, and question are we prepared to stay the course? Or will we again lower flags after dark to sneak away, leaving another bloody mess behind? Because without an integrated military and political plan, these ventures are death-producing follies of monumental proportions. Surely, we can do better. 4/7/2021 4 Comments The Changing of the Guard "What sweeping reforms did former AOs Anson Chan and Donald Tsang bring during their decades of governance? Not much." With the usual hyperventilating, critics came out in numbers to slam the appointment of John Lee to the role of Chief Secretary. Lee, a former Deputy Commissioner of Police and the incumbent Secretary for Security, is the first former member of the disciplined services to hold the position.
While the ascent of police officers to top positions in government will primarily be analysed from a security perspective, a more compelling and largely ignored aspect is perhaps the desire to bring a 'can-do' attitude to the civil service. But, of course, the upper echelons of government is traditionally reserved for members of the administrative officer (AO) cadre. So I suspect a few noses are out of joint and that fed the bleating. Most commentators agree that Beijing's trust in the AO cadre has waned because they sat on the fence during the civil unrest of 2019, biding their time. That's not to suggest that these officials took a political stance, far from it. Instead, they adopted their usual wait and see attitude. As Bob Dylan asserted, "And don't speak too soon. For the wheel's still in spin. And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'. For the loser now will be later to win." Thus, the police were fighting alone without the back-up of the rest of the civil service. It soon dawned on the heads of the other disciplined services, which way the wind was blowing. They then came out in support to provide manpower and logistics. Some of the criticisms of Lee's suitability for the job are laughable. For example, people alleged he's inexperienced and unsuited to the task. That's after four decades in government, including holding down a ministerial post during a crisis. Yet, the same people want a 24-year-old running Hong Kong, a young man who has never had a job nor organised anything beyond street protests. Lee's replacement as Secretary for Security, former Commissioner of Police, Chris Tang, sparked mutterings of a police state taking shape. Give me a break, please. That's palpable nonsense and defies reality. Are not the independent judiciary still in place? The last time I looked, the guys and gals in wigs were still there. So, it's a stretch to claim we've become a police state. After all, critics continue to voice their criticisms, including me aiming at the government's failure to tackle many issues. And while I agree Beijing has placed a greater emphasis on security, that's something to be expected after the mob ransacked our parliament. Moreover, if the powers exercised by the police in Hong Kong are the definition of a 'police state', how does that sit against the more draconian public order laws in the UK? How about the laws that curtail free speech in Scotland? I could go on. Nonetheless, the appointment of Lee and Tang represents a change. It speaks to a concern about the effectiveness and willingness of the Hong Kong civil service to do its job. What sweeping changes did former AOs Anson Chan and Donald Tsang bring during their decades of governance? Not much. Poverty remained unaddressed, while the housing shortage was never tackled in a meaningful way. Instead, these mandarins applied the usual rote consultations, a plodding approach, no real change, and then tea and medals. Moreover, while Beijing may have doubts, the AOs still are dominant. Groomed to lead Hong Kong since colonial times, I'd opine that many in this group have grown too comfortable, pompous, adept at deflection and unwilling to deliver the initiatives that Hong Kong needs. Some of these people proved more twisty shifty than a twisty shifty thing. The AO cadre continued to function after 1997 much as it had before. Endless meetings, bureaucratic machinations and disdain for anyone who dared to question their right to rule the roost. I had the misfortune to attend meetings with these people. 'Yes, Minister' came to mind, except it wasn't as funny. As a consequence for many years, it's evident that several key departments have become moribund. Loitering in their offices, locked into process and analysis to the point of paralysis, not much tangible happens. As a result, many enforcement issues remain unaddressed, as the recent fire in Aberdeen Harbour demonstrated. With some boats illegally occupied, and packed on moorings, the risk was evident. Sure, we will see a flurry of activity after such an event, but it's soon back to the office and heads down. Meanwhile, the police by the nature of their role must be on the streets, dealing with whatever lands in their lap. They need to be proactive on crime to prevent things from getting out of hand. By default, the police are in direct contact with the community without the ability to hide away. In the process, the police take the flak for matters beyond their control. Take on-street parking as an example. In crowded Hong Kong, without adequate off-street parking, street obstruction is rampant. Yet, the police could ticket cars all day and still not make a dent in the issue because such actions only have a short-term impact. Meanwhile, the policy for parking rests with the Transport Department. A failure to coordinate an approach across departments to ensure adequate off-street parking and enforcement penalties that bite creates the situation we see. The police are left holding the problem. And this applies across a raft of issues. I saw with illegal land occupation, departments shifting responsibility with breathtaking audacity. Had the same amount of time and energy been spent tackling the matter, departments could have resolved the issue years ago. That's not to say the police are themselves are incapable of shifting responsibility; they've had to learn and play that game. Plus, officers can adopt an attitude that gives a low priority to matters that citizens feel deserve a focus. So, for instance, a barking dog is hardly gripping stuff for a cops but a real issue if you live next door. I suppose if the appointment of former senior police officers to top jobs in the civil service can achieve anything, it should be shaking up the current complacency and lack of focus on results. So let's see how this unfolds. 27/6/2021 3 Comments The Modern Witch Hunters "Sorry, there is no evidence that ET is here, has been here or is likely to be here soon" When as a species we started to realise our immense loneliness in a vast universe, a deep unsettling fear took hold. Today we know that our planet is circling an unremarkable star — on the edge of the Milky Way — our position daunting and precarious against the vastness of time and space. Consider that, on average, most species last four million years. No wonder we went running for the protection of Gods in any form.
Likewise, some folks amongst us want to believe that aliens will arrive with an advanced culture and technology to save us. Hence, they hope our kind may survive into the long future by journeying out to the stars with the help of our new intergalactic friends. But, on that note, a word of caution. History tells us that when an advanced civilisation encounters a less well-developed society, the latter soon collapses. Remember the Aztecs? That’s why Captain Kirk had to follow the ‘Prime Directive'. Thus, in recent weeks, anticipation built, awaiting the US government's report on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). Besides the usual collection of UFO fanboys, normally rational types engaged in wild speculation. Would we finally get to see the alien cadavers from Roswell? Talk of captured flying saucers and other out of this world treasures summoned up images from Independence Day. Then, as the report dropped, the sense of disappointment was palpable. No alien bodies, no flying saucers. Nothing that rational types hadn't already concluded. Sorry, there is no evidence that ET is here, has been here or is likely to be here soon. The report produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence focused on 144 reports of UAP. While the investigation sought to explain events from a national security perspective, it touched upon the alien UFO thing by default. Mike West gives a detailed breakdown of the report here. He can be satisfied that the findings confirm many of his judgments. In a previous blog, I covered West's work on the famous 'Gimbal' and 'Gofast' clips. In the 144 reports considered, a good number are single observer events without any corroborating evidence—no radar footage nor video to support the claims of human witnesses. And, of course, we already know how unreliable witnesses can be, given our inability to judge distances and motion. Likewise, in instances that the detection system did spot something, anomalies and system limitations caused misinterpretations. Again, as West demonstrates, this was almost certainly the case with the 'Gimbal' clip. West faced considerable resentment when he questioned the reports of naval aviators. How dare he challenge these highly trained 'Top Guns’? Well, in truth, West was correct because even ‘Maverick’ is operating with a Mark-One eyeball and a human brain, both of which are fallible. Moreover, organs developed for hunting on the African savanna aren't well-adapted to discerning objects at vast distances moving laterally, especially when the observer is also moving at speed. Airborne clutter, such as blown litter and wayward balloons, accounted for some sightings. On occasions, because only one system tracked these objects, it proved impossible to get triangulation to measure actual speed and direction. A high percentage of these UAP/UFO reports came from the Navy, and the vicinity of military bases. These incidents raised the specter of foreign powers spying. Yet, collection bias means that such locations are more likely to spot stuff because they are looking for it. After all, guards and sensor systems are operating for that specific purpose. So, in summary, the US government is going away to do more study. But, cutting through all the jargon, it's clear they've found nothing alien or that exciting. In an established pattern, the true believers and conspiracy nut jobs will dismiss the report as another cover-up. Not for them rational analysis dwelling on hard evidence, with the crunching of data. Instead, with a zealots fever, they'll press on looking for ET in every wind-blown plastic bag or temperature inversion. These folks are the latter-day witch hunters. 22/6/2021 0 Comments Legacy Media - is the end near? "No one under 35 regularly purchases a hard copy newspaper" As The Apple Daily hangs on by a thread here in Hong Kong, the media scene is evolving rapidly. Some of the trends mirror those seen worldwide; other changes arise from the period of civil unrest and fall-out from Covid-19. A perfect storm in many ways. Across the globe, newspapers continue their relentless decline in circulation as the Internet eats away at their customer base. In the UK, former titans of circulation wars are looking battered and worn out. For example, The Sun once had a daily print run of four million copies with weekly profits of £4- million. Today, the paper prints 500,000 with losses mounting towards £200 million. Owner Rupert Murdoch has declared the paper worthless in part due to payouts for phone hacking and other criminality. Some pundits believe that once Samantha Fox declared herself a lesbian, The Sun was doomed. The Apple Daily had a circulation of around 400,000 in 1997 and is now down at 70,000. That decline was well underway before its current troubles. Likewise, The South China Morning Post, at one time the most profitable newspaper in the world, saw its profit decline since peaking in 1997 at HK$805 million. It is now adopting a paywall approach for the online version. And the future for many legacy news outlets is looking bleak unless they adapt with business models that appeal to the young. How exactly you do that is not clear. All this brings home a stark point made by a journalist friend; newspapers are there to make money. If you don’t make money, you fail. TV news channels are seeing similar impacts as the young aren't tuning in. As one commentator observed, "Broadcast TV is so dead that young people don't even recognise the corpse." The same applies to print media because no one under 35 regularly purchases a hard-copy newspaper. For many legacy media organisations such as the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, and the rest of the corporate entities, is the writing is on the wall? In a recent debate, these organisations attracted the remark 'zombies walking towards to their demise'. That's a tad overblown but indicative of the challenges they face. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020 provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking insight into the seismic shifts jolting the news media world. The changes identified are profound. Until Covid-19 arrived, people proved unwilling to pay for online news. An uptick in subscriptions occurred in 2020, although it is unclear if this is sustainable. There is evidence that subscription fatigue soon creeps in, with people dropping out after a period. That, in turn, can drive online news outlets to adopt click-bait tactics. These involve increasingly sensational headlines that bear no resemblance to the facts. Also, people are spending less time on Facebook, opting for Apps with high levels of privacy. WhatsApp is an example. Concern about misinformation and disinformation remains high despite efforts by platforms and publishers to build public confidence. In the UK, trust in the media has fallen 20% since 2015 and shows no signs of levelling out. While in Hong Kong in 2019 alone, confidence in the press fell by 16%. Undoubtedly coverage of the protests was a factor as all sides questioned the validity of stories presented. Here, Now TV news enjoys the top spot for trust, followed by RTHK news. It's interesting to note that while the Apple Daily enjoys wide circulation, the public rates it low on trustworthiness. Although, it did hold officials feet to the fire most of the time — something that’s needed — it also went overboard with inflated stories. Meanwhile, worldwide only 38% of people trust the news outlets most of the time. The Reuters study makes a couple of things clear. First, the use of the smartphone to access news continues to grow in importance. Some 66% of people now use the device to follow the news. Plus, there exists a distinct preference for visual messages rather than the written word. Hence, video podcasts and audio are gaining in popularity. For me, political debates on legacy TV channels such as CNN, Fox, the BBC and Channel 4 have become unedifying exercises in point-scoring without exploring issues. These debates are staged, with some aimed at ambushing one party or another. Activist journalists as moderators often attempt to score points instead of listening and examining the issues. Without a doubt, the best example is the Cathy Newman interview of Professor Jordan Peterson in 2018. Newman suffered cognitive dissonance because she wasn't listening to Peterson's sensible moderate replies to her loaded questions. Instead, she ploughed on with her agenda. Newman soon found herself confronted with truths that exposed her worldview's falsehood. She then stalled and struggled to recover. Seen over 30 million times on YouTube, the interview generated many memes, my favourite being above. Hence, you can see why the quality of debate has been eroded when activist journalists brings their bias to the game. On a more positive note, what the Internet taketh away, it giveth back. Because the legacy media outlets no longer have a monopoly or much control over the message, other people fill the niche. In particular, the internet-based, long-form interviews that allow participants to explore issues and develop ideas while debating in a non-judgmental way prove popular. Joe Rogan has made a great success of this format. Other examples are Triggernometry and the work done by Jordan Peterson. There are many such channels. It suggests that a market exists for honest and open debate, although it is not clear that the legacy media can meet that demand given inherent bias. The Reuters research also found that more people say they actively avoid the news. In the UK that figure has risen 32% in the past two years ago. Data suggests that boredom, anger and sadness over Brexit drove that avoidance. Besides, people say they avoid the news because it harms their mood or they feel powerless to change events. That's a sentiment many of us recognise. Except, as Jordan Peterson and Marian Tupy discuss here, things as far from the pending apocalypse portrayed in the mainstream media. In truth, in the long term, we are doing pretty well on most fronts. Listen and learn. (Addendum: The Apple Daily ran its last print on 24 June 2021. It shut down all it’s Hong Kong operations.) 16/6/2021 1 Comment Justice Denied "Watching the BBC executives, what struck me was the condescending tone in all replies to questions about their responsibilities." This week, two strands of inquiry came together on Tuesday, exposing the arrogance and contempt for justice that resides in Britain's institutions.
In the first instance, MPs grilled past and present BBC executives over the Bashir affair. They focused on the use of forged documents to groom Princess Diana into giving that infamous interview. Second, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel delivered a report slamming the Metropolitan Police. Morgan, a private detective, died in a south London car park with an axe to the head in March 1987. At the time, he was investigating links between corrupt police and gangland figures. Five investigations by the Metropolitan Police failed to find his killers. It's now becoming clear why. Watching the BBC executives, what struck me was the condescending tone in all replies to questions about their responsibilities. They refused to accept any criticism for what happened around Bashir. Nor would they apologise to the whistle-blower who they ruined. Instead, when cornered, their response was "I can't remember", "I don’t know", "We can't find the documentation," and "You don't understand how things work". I came away with the impression that 'things work' without any checks and balances at the BBC. And how dare anyone question them? After all, as self-appointed arbiters of all the news, they are above reproach. Meanwhile, according to the BBC narrative, Bashir was a lone rogue reporter who deceived the entire editorial team and senior management. Yet, even when they knew Bashir had lied, they rehired him as their chief religious affairs correspondent. Praise the Lord! The trashing of the Metropolitan Police also noted a haughty attitude and dismissal of people. The Panel observed how the victim's family faced sneers and rebuttals by Met officers as they pursued a three-decade campaign for justice. I suppose if members of the Royal Family struggle to get the truth, what chance do ordinary people have? Thus, it's a testament to Morgan's family that their tenacity achieved so much against officials intent on protecting reputations. The Panel, led by Lady O'Loan, found evidence of bent coppers scuppering the murder investigation. Inappropriate links between the media, police and organised crime abounded. Brown envelopes stuffed with payoffs are reminiscent of the corruption Hong Kong experienced in the 1970s. In London, detectives sold confidential information to the underworld and the media. In the years after the murder, various Met leaders, including the current Commissioner, Cressida Dick, stand accused of hindering investigations. Lady O'Loan finishes by asserting the Met is 'institutionally corrupt'. Note the present tense. They can add that to their 'institutionally racist' tag. This broad-brush epithet is odd because elsewhere in the report, it’s stated that the vast majority of police officers in the Met are honest. So why tar everyone with the same brush? No doubt Commissioner Dick will hang on. Because, having participated in the execution of an innocent man in 2005 and survived that, this is but a minor blot on her record. This incident joins a litany of pratfalls that would have seen any other official go. Yet, for reasons unknown, Commissioner Dick retains her job. Doubtless, Commissioner Dick will be facing further questions in the coming days and months over the failure of her officers to investigate the activities in the UK of convicted paedophile Jeffery Epstein. As this Channel 4 documentary makes clear, there are issues worthy of further study. Only a deeply suspicious person would suggest that any of these events are linked. Even so, what does it say about public life in Britain that Commissioner Dick continues as the top cop? Meanwhile, at the same time, the BBC is again dodging accountability. Nothing to see here, move on. Does it seem time for the UK to consider a Hong Kong-style independent commission against corruption? Because the evidence is mounting that the UK police are incapable of addressing the issue of in-house corruption. The ICAC had a painful birth and bumpy ride at times, but Hong Kong is a less corrupt place as a result. Whether the UK has the political will to tackle these issues is another question.  "How about tackling poverty, housing issues and providing a decent pension scheme instead of relying on the rip off MPF?" Be under no illusions. While the national security law has dampened the ardour of the opposition voices in Hong Kong, it has not driven them away. Besides, as a Covid lid presses down on protest activities, disaffection simmers below the surface.
So unless Carrie Lam can dissipate the underlying sentiment of restlessness, pressure may build again. Could that lead to a return of unrest? Hard to say. Last Friday, the annual June 4th remembrance passed with muted activities in various districts. Covid restrictions played a part in preventing large gatherings. In the past, the violent radicals used the cover of peaceful crowds to mount their attacks. On this occasion, a pro-active police presence sought to deter groups, which undoubtedly inhibited the radicals. Whatever happened in Beijing, June 1989, and accounts vary, people did die, including soldiers, students and citizens. However, a confusion of reporting feeds disputed versions of the exact circumstances. Overlooked by most commentators is the larger violent clashes between the army and workers away from the square. Yet, in the Hong Kong context, discussing such details is relatively futile because Tiananmen is pivotal to the political zeitgeist. Moreover, it has a totemic quality highlighted by the annual vigil. Accordingly, only one narrative prevails. Furthermore, it is all too easy to dismiss the youngsters who mark the event as naive, as most were born well after 1989. Yet, a bit of self-reflection will bring out the truth that we all celebrate anniversaries for events before our birth. Each year the gathering in Victoria Park proves a huge money earner for the opposition. With stalls selling items and collecting donations, the vigil helps swell their coffers. The gathering is so crucial that when the police changed the crowd flow into the park for public safety reasons, an uproar erupted because the route bypassed a valued donation point. With media reports suggesting the oppositions funds are drying up, you can see why they'd be keen to organise any money-raising event. But, cut off from donations, overseas funds and fighting many legal actions, most commentators agree their influence is waning. A lack of funds may become critical for them in the forthcoming LegCo elections scheduled for November. In preparation for that, the opposition first needs to decide if they will run; then mount a campaign within the new perimeters. That needs money. One group, the League of Social Democrats, has already indicated it will not take part. Others may opt to do the same. For Carrie Lam, this removes any excuses for failing to put in place policies that serve the best interests of Hong Kong people. She can no longer hide behind claims that the opposition hinders progress. Because, in truth, she has no functioning opposition. How about tackling poverty, housing issues and providing a decent pension scheme instead of relying on the rip off MPF? Through such actions Carrie may demonstrate she has the best interests of Hong Kong people at heart. Come on, Carrie, the ball is your court.  "Boris Johnson is unfit to be the Prime Minister; the government had no Covid plan; all it had was a plan to have a plan." "You're scaring people." was the sharp rebuke I received in 2003 from a senior police commander. During the initial stages of SARS, I'd put my officers in PPE, given that we covered the Prince of Wales Hospital, then the epicentre of the outbreak. All the medical staff wore PPE; thus, it seemed logical and prudent because a police uniform is no protection against a virus.
Unfortunately, the sense of crisis had yet to permeate Police HQ. The police public relations branch wanted answers from me because the press raised the issue. A tense exchange followed that ended with me asking, "Are you ordering me to remove the PPE, Sir? I'm prepared to do that and then record your order in my notebook." That ended the conversation. Within days the same officer hurried to reassure the public that the police service would continue to function. This exchange all returned to me with a strong sense of déjà vu as I listened to Boris Johnson's former special adviser Dominic Cummings. He lamented the chaos and lack of urgency that pervaded the UK's initial response to Covid. As Cummings identified, the system or the people in it failed to switch to crisis mode. Let's not forget that in 2003, Hong Kong's Director of Health, Margaret Chan, initially played down SARS. She, of course, went on to head the WHO. Scrambling to protect my staff, I faced resistance from various quarters. When I asked for extra PPE and bleach for cleaning, the clerks informed me I'd not budgeted for this and thus couldn't receive it. And, yes, they had it in their stores. They helpfully told me to place estimates in my budget for next year, and I may get more supplies six months later. I met the same inertia as I went up the chain of command. Finally, I sat down with my regional commander, who soon understood the potential disaster that loomed. He knocked down the roadblocks. And yet, even with such top-cover, it took weeks to get the kit we needed. In the meantime, I did direct buying of PPE and kept the receipts hoping repayment would come. In a similar vein, the complaints against the police office sought (unintentionally) to sabotage our response. I'd adjusted duty schedules to have officers on two-hour stints in the Prince of Wales Hospital to minimise their exposure. A team of volunteers agreed to cover the hospital posts based on such flexibility. Then, a member of the public saw one volunteer in a 7/11 Shop buying a drink, which attracted a complaint about taking an unauthorised break. CCTV confirmed he'd been there less than two minutes, but CAPO considered this a 'break' that needed recording. They threatened to discipline the man. So here was the system going through the motions at a time of calamity, undermining morale and acting against everyone's interests. Only after an exchange of frank emails did we resolve that. Thus, I can comprehend Cummings's frustrations. All organisations are process-driven, reluctant to switch direction and careful to guard their domain. In Hong Kong, none of the clerical or administrative staff, who have their hands on the levers, will act unless told. This reluctance to show initiative is especially prevalent when anti-corruption measures incentivise absolute adherence to regulations. Cummings is in many ways an unsympathetic character. He's portrayed as a ruthless political operator with laser focus and an incredible intellect. Yet, he came across as more human than expected, apologising for his role in the Covid deaths. Except his confession looked like a ploy to weaponise his later evidence. Also, in the week before his appearance before the committee of MP's investigating Covid, he staged a single-handed campaign that softened up Downing Street. He tweeted intent to storm their trench, and there would be casualties. This build-up soon had the vultures circling in anticipation. Then on the big day, with his trade-mark dishevelled 'fuck you' fashion sense, he put in a seven-hour, seven-minute scorching performance. The fusillade of shots he landed was blistering. In short, Boris Johnson is unfit to be the Prime Minister; the government had no Covid plan; all it had was a plan to have a plan. Strange that Cummings only recognised the unsuitability of Johnson for the job once he's given the boot. Oddly, Cummings's massive frontal cortex couldn't see that in the years he worked to get Johnson elected. Next came the allegations that Matt Hancock, the Minister for Health, should have been fired 15 to 20 times for lying. Wrapping it up was a civil service of 'lions led by donkeys.' Cummings laid out specific charges against Hancock as a serial liar, responsible for the deaths of thousands in care homes, which he failed to protect despite giving assurance of a 'ring of steel.' Hancock stands accused of sending thousands of vulnerable, sick, old people out of the NHS and back to care homes. This step was in anticipation of the NHS needing the beds to treat a surge of Covid patients. That surge never appeared. But many of the old folks sent away died. How these deaths came about is a complicated subject with conflicting sets of data. There is evidence that asymptomatic infected agency staff, moving between care homes, brought the Covid in. Only a comprehensive inquiry will establish the truth, if that's even possible. This allegation raised the spectre of corporate manslaughter charges. That would take some doing because the hard evidence is not there at this time. Johnson and Hancock, supported by their MPs, fought back that Cummings is a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind. That's an assertion that holds some truth, but it does not take away from aspects of the evidence he gave. Many of the claims that Cummings made were already known. Plus, I'd add that the initial response is always confused, disjointed, and unsettling in most crisis. That's the nature of the beast. And even with robust contingency plans, society and organisations take time to switch their mindset. Cummings asserts that there are many well-qualified people who could have done a better job. I'd counter that even the best-qualified get things wrong, and it's not because they are idiots or evil or corrupt. It's just that when making decisions without adequate facts, uncertainty prevails, and errors occur. Atop that, you can't wait for the smoke to clear to see the complete picture because it's too late. You have to act and be prepared to get things wrong. 22/5/2021 1 Comment More BBC Deceit! "Operating under the mantle of press freedom, breaking the law was of little consequence to Bashir and the BBC." Shock, horror — a BBC journalist lied and used forged documents! No one with any insights into the workings of the BBC should express surprise at the findings of Lord Dyson. In Hong Kong, we've long seen the BBC distorting the truth, most recently with its portrayal of the 2019/2020 civil unrest.
By whitewashing the mob violence here while vilifying the forces of law and order, the BBC gave tacit support to criminals and put innocents in danger. Even today, the BBC is doing the same with its one-sided coverage of trouble in Paris that seeks to taint the French police. Lord Dyson's report on the infamous 1995 Princess Diana/Bashir interview gives legal weight to a well-known truth; the BBC is intrinsically deceitful. That assessment applies to BBC news output and its opinion programmes. But don't worry, the wildlife documentaries are primarily believable because the BBC can't get Lions and Tigers to lie. The Princess Diana saga is awful on two levels. First, underhand methods snared the interview; second, the BBC sought to cover up, deflect, and disparage anyone who dared to challenge them. That cloaking took a sustained effort over decades. In 1995, with the help of the BBC, reporter Martin Bashir forged documents to groom Princess Diana, coaxing her into giving him access. The interview triggered a series of events that led to her divorce, removal of royal protection and her eventual death at the hands of a drunk driver in Paris. And while we may quibble over the direct linkages, you can hardly deny the impact. At best, Bashir was unethical, and at worst, he's part of an evolution of events that led to her death. All the while, the BBC supported, applauded and encouraged him. Of course, Diana is not entirely innocent in this matter. As an adult, she made decisions. Although, given her evident 'spurned woman' status, she was vulnerable. Bashir exploited that. Operating under the mantle of press freedom, breaking the law was of little consequence to Bashir and the BBC. We hear the same here in the case of a journalist who lied to get information from the Transport Department. Convicted in the courts, she continues to argue her case. Also, I've seen warrior cops adopt a similar attitude in pursuit of the bad guys, prepared to bend, or break the rules, to get a result. Any short-term positive outcomes come outweighed by the erosion of the law. Then when the truth emerges, the damage taints the whole organisation and society. In a lame defence of his actions, Bashir seeks to downplay the importance of the forged documents. That's the only hope he has. Unfortunately, I don't think it will wash in the court of public opinion. If I were Mr Bashir, I'd be looking to keep a low profile for the next two to three decades. As academic David Sedgwick identified in his seminal work on the BBC "The Fake News Factory", many journalists believe themselves above the law. They are willing to use unethical and illegal means to get results in their self-appointed status as guardians of all that is right and good. Sedgwick further holds that the BBC, captured by a minority of activists, seeks to mislead, unnerve, and inflame their audience. He makes a convincing case that takes in Brexit, the war in Syria and the BBC's portrayal of rape victims in the north of England, who suffered at the hands of Asian gangs. Meanwhile, these activist journalists continue to take public money to pursue their agendas without any proper oversight. In short, the British public is paying for an enterprise, which is starting to look criminal. There is no doubt that the terrible behaviour of one man – Martin Bashir - was responsible for much of this malignancy. Yet the role that BBC leaders played to obstruct investigations needs exposing. But, I can see that the 'rogue journalist' excuse getting rolled out to protect the rest of the corrupt edifice. Already, the defenders of the BBC caution against a feeding frenzy as they did after Savile and other nastiness. Then with Bashir gone, the BBC will revert to the norm, looking for the next story to fabricate. Unless something is done, we will have this conversation every couple of years. While demands for change are rising, the question remains can the BBC reform? History suggests not. Savile, Harris and many other terrible incidents tell us that this organisation doesn't learn. The culture is self-preservation above all else hidden behind a veneer of press freedom. In truth, I'm not sure how you bring about change, given that the BBC is a massive beast with its tentacles in many domains. There are parts of the organisation that do commendable public service work. These need keeping. Perhaps making the BBC a subscription service could have the desired impact instead of forcing people to pay. If BBC products are so much in demand, the public can subscribe. If not, then the Beeb will need to change or disappear. Lastly, I must applaud the Duke of Cambridge for his eloquent and heartfelt statement. In all this madness, he presented himself as steadfast, moderate in tone but deeply sincere. He's starting to look like a future King. Well done, Sir! 10/5/2021 2 Comments A Seismic Shift Peter Mandelson typifies Labour's arrogance with assertions like "the working class have nowhere else to go". In case you missed it, last week, two seismic shifts rattled British politics. This jolting of the UK's tectonic plates could have profound consequences. And as I alluded to in an earlier blog, Hong Kong will feel the ripple effects. Anyone heading that way needs to understand significant changes are coming that may see the ‘united kingdom’ fragment.
First, the Scottish National Party won a decisive victory in the Scottish Parliamentary elections. While Nicola Sturgeon failed to get a majority by one vote, her alliance with the Green Party means she remains First Minister. In no time, she pledged to press ahead with plans for a second independence referendum. For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, this is terrible news, because as Sturgeon asserts, "there is no justification to deny a referendum". A constitutional battle now looms that may make Brexit look like a picnic. To head off Sturgeon, Boris called for a Covid-recovery summit with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the process, he inadvertently signalled he's a leader only in England. Thus, is drawn a de-facto line of separation between the nations to reinforce Sturgeon's position. The optics don't look good. How long Boris can deflect the Scottish question is anyone's guess. The second event may give Boris some comfort. The opposition Labour Party has imploded. The Hartlepool loss is a stark confirmation that the working class has made the cultural break from routinely voting Labour. This affirms that the 2019 general election result wasn't a blip. I dare say that in regular times Hartlepool should be an easy win for Labour. As a working-class area, you'd expect them to walk it. But times have changed, although Labour doesn't appear to have recognised that. The election results paint a picture of a Labour rout except in Wales and London. And Labour only has itself to blame. So while the left and right of the party are busy throwing bitter attacks at each other, the public look on with despair at this ideological ranting. The dominant narrative is that a London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors, has captured the party. Although, in truth, Labour's disconnect from the working class began some time ago under Tony Blair. Often forgotten is that New Labour lost 1.5 million votes in the North of England between 1997 and 2010. That process gathered pace in recent years under the leadership of Corbyn and Starmer. There is plenty of evidence that a metropolitan elite who dominate the Labour party — most of whom never had 'dirty hands' jobs — sneer at ordinary folks. In 1979, 37 per cent of Labour MPs came from a manual work background. By 2015, that number dropped to 7 per cent. In patronising and hectoring tones, working peoples concerns faced rejection by Labour intellectuals. The only conclusion to draw is that Labour is now so out of contact with its grassroots that its institutionally incapable of understanding why it keeps losing elections. Peter Mandelson typifies Labour's arrogance with assertions like "the working class have nowhere else to go". In this statement, he affirmed George Orwell's position decades ago that socialists don't support the working class; instead, they hate the rich. By the way, this is the same Peter Mandelson who took holidays with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What a working class hero! Then in 2016, working-class people smelled a rat when Labour vilified them as misled thickos and xenophobic for supporting Brexit. Remember Gillian Duffy. Next up is leading Labour figure Emily Thornberry's sneering at a working-class household flying the English flag. Thornberry is well known for her hypocrisy, having sent her kids to an elite school despite the party opposing such schools. In contrast, the Tories took the people's vote for Brexit seriously. For the most part, it wasn't the posh boys of the Tory Party who looked down with condescension on working people. To sum it all up, losing Labour council leader Chris Emmas-Williams, told the Derby Telegraph on Friday, "It's been a disastrous day for us. The voters have let us down. I hope they don't live to regret it." Instead of capitulating, the working class have now drawn up a seat to watch. They'll amuse themselves as Labour engages in another round of the competitive victimhood based on intersectional nonsense. Labour has forgotten that people aspire to get on in life, moving beyond dependency and patronising help. Plus, they ask, how is the common good served only in pandering to minority interests? Yes, it's correct to feel compassion for victims of whatever origin, but don't always defer to them. If status as a victim is self-inflicted, deferring entrenches that victimhood. After all, care must focus on the genuinely needy and sick. Moreover, because someone is a victim or a minority doesn't excuse poor or unethical behaviour we wouldn't accept from the majority. Lastly, accept no guilt for something you are not responsible for. Above all, visiting the father's sins on the son is an outrage. Accordingly, the toppling of statues, taking the knee and calling for reparations — something Starmer supported — isn't a vote winner. Instead of insulting the voters, Labour must acknowledge the common decency of working-class voters and their pride. Also, they aspire to a better life instead of playing a bit part in Labour's game of identity politics, as the people who need looking after. So with Boris as the Prime Minister of England, how does he stop Scottish independence? Without a doubt, that's the big question. Meanwhile, I suspect that Labour will wander the political wilderness, ranting from the fringes and fighting each other. They may hold sway in London and Wales but no longer command the heartlands that gave them power. It's profoundly sad to see this once great party brought to its knees by taking the knee at the altar of virtue signalling. Further, the removal of an effective opposition gives free rein to blundering Boris. Is that ideal? On Scotland, Boris should have a brave-heart, call wee Nicole's bluff and settle the matter. |
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
September 2021
|
RSS Feed