|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
21/1/2021 1 Comment Perfidious Albion Are threats and intimidation against legal counsel the norm for British ministers? Is the UK seeking to disrupt and discredit Hong Kong's independent judicial system? It certainly looks like it. How else do you explain the actions of the UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab and others, who mounted a disgraceful and unwarranted attack on Barrister David Perry QC? Perry was to prosecute several people here under colonial-era laws. Following the cab-rank system operated by the UK and Hong Kong Bar, Perry agreed to undertake the job. This process aims at ensuring judicial independence. However, he was immediately threatened and vilified by misinformed people, who sought to conflate this assignment with the national security law. Raab then jumps in to accuse Perry of being a 'mercenary' in a scandalous twisting of the facts. Are threats and intimidation against legal counsel the norm for British ministers? It is no wonder that a recent survey by a Washington-based group found the UK's freedom levels substantially lower than Hong Kong's, despite our democratic deficit. Measuring human freedom across multiple dimensions, Hong Kong came third, while the UK dropped seven places to seventeenth place. Ouch! The nine defendants, including the high-profile Jimmy Lai and Martin Lee, will appear in District Court on February 16. They stand charged with organising an unauthorised assembly and participating in the said unauthorised assembly. The charges stem from the Public Order Ordinance; a colonial-era law left behind by the British. Following Raab's line of thinking, it's acceptable for the colonial Brits to charge people with this offence, but not the post-1997 SAR government. Perry has previously acted in Hong Kong to prosecute former Chief Executive Donald Tsang and milkshake murderer, Nancy Kissel. Many in our legal fraternity expressed shock at Raab's ill-informed intervention. They see it as imperative for the Hong Kong judiciary's future to have both overseas judges and practitioners, admitted for both the prosecution and the defence. (See the letter below to The Times). Thus, if the UK is seeking to shore up Hong Kong's judiciary's independence to ward off Beijing's influence, then it's pulling in the wrong direction. This latest episode appears to be part of a concerted campaign. Last summer, overseas judges in Hong Kong faced pressure to step aside to appease the UK's naysayers. In response, Beverley McLachlin, the former Chief Justice of Canada, who'd served in Hong Kong, responded with "it's a wonderful court". Anyway, a new prosecutor is appointed. So the case will go ahead against the defendants, who will enjoy all the rights conferred through a common law legal system. Fiat justitia! 
1 Comment
15/1/2021 1 Comment Trump - a leader? "We should not confuse a desire to seek and hold power as competence to lead." Trump is entering his final days in the White House. Who'd believe that a serving US president would stand accused of inciting insurrection and terrorism? Well, except, of course, in other countries. You've got to give Trump his due; the man is a bold innovator for trying out US foreign policy on home soil. An exciting concept, which left five dead in one day.
Despite throwing his followers under the bus by decrying their actions, many remain loyal. A new poll found two-thirds of Republicans approve of his behaviour, with 43 per cent 'strongly' agreeing. Meanwhile, the FBI is warning of more violence. In response, Washington is now home to more US troops than war-torn Afghanistan. In 2019, the PLA deployed on the streets of Hong Kong. That was to clear up debris after a typhoon. With jaw-dropping audacity, the opposition decried this deployment as the 'end of Hong Kong'. Moreover, despite months of rioting, bombs and mayhem, the Hong Kong Police regained order without killing a single person. As veteran US diplomat Chas Freeman acknowledged "Our police are apparently not as well-trained and gentle as those that the British left behind in Hong Kong." Indeed. But I digress. Over the past four years, Trump's leadership style provided a great deal of fodder to chew on. He exhibits many of the attributes recognised in successful leaders from history. Applying the traits model of leadership qualities, we can see that Trump ticks many of the boxes. He's confident, outgoing, dominant, ambitious, bold, controlling, dauntless, engaging and able to communicate messages easily. All these features are well-recognised leadership strengths if moderated and applied with finesse. The paradox is that these traits are also potential weaknesses. When allied to a brash, selfish and boastful nature, such characteristics can run out of control. And it is the area of weaknesses that Trump also excels. He is impulsive, acts on his emotions, has a weak grasp of complex issues, indulges in hubris that goes off the scale, while he focuses on short-term gains. For most of the time, he appears to operate as a 'transactional' leader. By way of explanation, 'transactional' leaders give something as a reward for work or outcomes. Those rewards come through jobs, favours, praise or money. This approach can work, although it has limitations. We know from research that 'transactional' leadership is weaker than the 'transformational' approach. It can also lead to subordinates who are loyal but incompetent. 'Transactional' leadership needs constant reinforcement to maintain results. In short, keep giving the sweets, or your people wander off. With 'transformational' leadership, people buy into your brand and ideas, and you sustain loyalty by a sense of purpose. While Trump may enjoy some 'transformational' support from his core family team, his broader circle needs the 'sweets'. 'Transactional' leaders tend to buy loyalty. Conversely, the 'transformational' leader aims to build a personal commitment from their team. I'd argue that the high-turnover of White House staff is indicative of a failing 'transactional' approach. This state of affairs creates extreme risks for a leader, especially one who is not prepared to listen to advice. When complex issues arise, leaders need a team able to weigh the implications of actions. The opportunity to speak in candid terms is crucial. We've seen from Trump's public statements and the insights given by various insiders that he adopts a black and white world view. This lack of nuance led to his failed efforts to engage North Korea. Along the way, Trump accorded Kim Jong-un gravitas as his equal, although the 'Little Rocket-man' out-flanked him. In the end, Trump came away, empty-handed from two summits. While his vision of 'America First' had immediate resonance at home, it proved to have less utility in foreign relations. Trying to build coalitions and unify allies is problematic when you trample on their needs. Further, we should not confuse a desire to seek and hold power as competence to lead. Several pundits have observed that Trump has strong narcissistic tendencies. And while many leaders are on the narcissistic spectrum, there is compelling evidence Trump is high in the unhealthy aspects. Doctor Mary L Trump, his niece and psychologist, had this say of her uncle: "His deep-seated insecurities have created in him a black hole of need that constantly requires the light of compliments that disappears as soon as he's soaked it in. Nothing is ever enough. This is far beyond garden-variety narcissism; Donald is not simply weak, his ego is a fragile thing that must be bolstered every moment because he knows deep down that he is nothing of what he claims to be." These egotistical aspects include an inflated sense of self-importance (Greatest President ever! - many people saying it!), fantasies of success (I built the wall) and distortions about their abilities. (Sorry losers and haters, but my IQ is one of the highest!). As moderate voices exit Trump's entourage, who remains to feed his ego? Only those who pander to him. Given his known ability to construct false narratives, a 'bunker mentality' will make for an exciting lead-in to Biden's inauguration next Wednesday. I predicted some of this in 2017, although I have to admit that Trump exceeded my expectations with this dysfunctional ending. I feel Trump is bound to stage a significant gesture to mark his departure from the White House. If he has any decency, he'd shake Biden's hand (or bump elbows), wish him well and move on. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. 11/1/2021 0 Comments Crazy Town "China rigged the election using Italian satellites to cause ballots to switch on voting machines." Lt General Thomas McInerchy (Retired) As Trump’s presidency lurches towards the final act, I'm wondering what Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) would make of the unfolding calamity. Hitchens had the unique gift of capturing the zeitgeist, as he exposed political fraudsters while spearing the pompous with his eloquence.
I suspect he'd be in his element deconstructing Trump. Particular vim would come reserved for Steve Bannon, who pseudo-intellectually framed Trump's agenda and gave it undue gravitas. Hitchens would likely attribute Trump's rise to Hillary Clinton's failures, her hubris and outright lies. He'd portray one as the reflection of the other. No fan of Hillary, Hitchens sought to expose her and her morally negligent husband. Let's pause to remember that Hillary summoned all the forces at her disposal to destroy the women who accused Bill of sexual assault and predation. She aimed to eviscerate her 'sisters' to save Bill's career. Her credentials as a feminist look rather threadbare against that background. Along the way, she propagated false stories of a 'right-wing' conspiracy. These claims helped lay the groundwork for adopting such tactics by all sides in the political realm. History will remember Hillary as the lady who blew it. The presidency was within her grasp until she characterised her opponent's supporters as evil. You have to conclude she set the tone, degrading the atmosphere, and that Trump took it to the next level. No side can profess a monopoly on bat-crazy conspiracies. The Democrats pursued Trump on flimsy evidence that he conspired with Russia. They then failed to produce the goods. All the above moulded the political discourse taking it to 'crazy town'. Ultimately, we land with retired Lt General Thomas McInerchy. Standing in the White House, he shares his insights. So you don't need to watch the clip, let me summarise. General McInerchy states that China rigged the election using Italian satellites to cause ballots to switch on voting machines. He cites the specific time when this happened. It gets better. US Special Forces, disguised as Antifa, took Nancy Pelosi's computer containing compromising material. Note, the implication that those storming the Capital Building are Antifa. Nancy is now in a panic because the material on the laptop exposes her. Dropped in, as an aside, is that Pakistan's intelligence service also had a role. Next up, the General tells his audience that Covid-19 is a biological attack on the USA coordinated with Trump's impeachment in early 2020. He states this is a distraction operation. Remarkably, the Democrats are in league with Beijing to bring down Trump. Lastly, the General asserts that Vice President Pence is guilty of treason. Remember, this man has access to the seat of power, he may have the president's ear. He certainly had an attentive and sympathetic audience in the clip. At this point, I become a hostage to my disbelief. I can only laugh. Is this a bad episode of Scooby-Doo? Will someone rip off the General's mask to reveal 'old Man Withers' from the fairground? "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for the meddling facts!" 7/1/2021 1 Comment The horror, the horror! "Storming a legislative chamber is now an 'insurrection' and not a 'beautiful sight'. Who knew?" I woke up this morning to a strange sense of deja vu. A wild mob is rampaging through a legislative chamber, trashing institutional symbols, sending the police fleeing as control falters. Tear gas hangs in the air as hooligans brandishing US flags, scale the walls and occupy offices. Meanwhile, the US president eggs them on.
Did I suffer a time slip? Is karma real? But hang on, there is a difference. During the storming of Hong Kong's parliament by rioters, no one died. The police didn't open fire, plus we had no tear gas inside the building. Amazing how quickly things change. Storming a legislative chamber is now an 'insurrection' and not a 'beautiful sight'. Who knew? In 2019, Nancy Pelosi salivated with pleasure at scenes of mayhem in Hong Kong. Now I know it's a cheap shot to gloat given that the two scenarios are slightly different, so I've restrained myself. Nancy P, you are a gorbellied common-kissing, flap-dragon and a hypocrite of the highest order! The tartness of your face sours ripe grapes. There, I feel much better. By blatant interference in Hong Kong's political development, with the 'you too can be like us' mantra, you've invited an unwelcome and avoidable outcome. It's cognitive narcissism that only your model of democracy works, and the route for getting there. Yesterday in Washington, your words echoed forlorn and tarnished, while blood spills on Capital Hill. And yes, Trump is a law unto himself. He is a bully, a buffoon, and a whiner. He inhabits a self-made world in which he is the sole arbiter. He has no appetite for argument and seeks only to browbeat those he regards as his inferiors, namely everyone. Nonetheless, he secured over 70 million votes in what was a close-run election. From this, I can only deduce the US is a deeply polarised place. What happens over the next two weeks is anyone's guess. But I'm confident Trump isn't going away. After a tantrum or two, he may be gone from the White House, then settle into his new role of disruptor general. Think Colonel Kurtz operating with his private army, up the river, alone, with a heart of darkness. On a more positive note, Mexico has decided they will pay for the wall and Canada wants one too. 5/1/2021 1 Comment Bugger Off 2020!! "Covid-19 is far from the deadliest disease to strike humanity, yet it exposed the deep fissures in many societies." Covid-19 dominated everything in 2020. As the virus took hold, people here, well-versed after SARS 2002, opted to self-initiate precautions. That included mask-wearing. Throughout the year public vigilance ebbed and flowed with each cluster. Most of the time, our government got it right, although it was behind the curve and wilfully blind to certain risks.
None of this matched the sheer incompetence seen elsewhere or the refusal to face facts exemplified by Trump and Boris. Consider that the US has only four per cent of the world's population, yet it accounts for twenty per cent of all Covid deaths. Hong Kong is recording 17 deaths per million people against the US's 955. The high US death rate is partly attributed to poor underlying community health: obesity is a co-morbidity factor. Nonetheless, shambolic policies, denial and ineptness must account of the lion's share of the deaths. Unfortunately, in post-Brexit Britain, another national lock-down heralds more misery. The UK dodged a bullet by securing a last-minute Brexit deal, yet is far from out of the woods. Covid has emboldened Nicola Sturgeon as she outshone Boris in the PR game with Scotland clamouring for independence. With grim proficiency, Bloomberg tabulated national performance data with the 'Covid resilience rankings'. Many so-called first world countries, including Belgium, the US and Italy, proved wanting. Meanwhile, New Zealand sits atop the list. It's remoteness, island status and low-population density favour the fight against Covid. Allied to that, vigilance by its border agents proved useful. Well done, Colin! All this data brought home some stark truths. Covid-19 is far from the deadliest disease to strike humanity, yet it exposed the deep fissures in many societies. Fortunately, science provides a solution. With unprecedented speed, the boffins produced vaccines of remarkable efficacy. All groundbreaking stuff. Although I expect we will need to live with Covid-19 as an endemic ailment like seasonal flu. Above I mentioned Carrie Lam's willful blindness? How else do you explain the dance club saga, which set off a cluster of Covid cases that continues to haunt us? Rich older ladies dancing with young 'instructors' has a salacious sizzle. The Internet soon pounced to shame the culprits, including the wives of prominent citizens. I'm sure none of this was pleasant for those on the receiving end, yet it served a purpose. People who flaunted the rules, even influential people, faced exposure and ridicule. Our tourism industry, already battered by the protests, collapsed. The airport emptied of passengers, although cargo traffic boomed. Hotels scrambled to provide stay-vacations and then offered themselves as quarantine sites — anything to keep the business going. Of course, the bar and restaurant owners complained about restrictions, pressuring officials to relax the rules or give handouts. The same people then scrambled for cover when Covid cases reemerged. Yes, we all understand the need to strike a balance between the economy and curtailing the disease. That's why I favoured a short, sharp lock-down instead of flip-flopping measures. At times Carrie Lam couldn't steer a straight course as she sought to pander to all sides, pleasing no one in the process. Militant medical staff took every opportunity to put the boot in, by feeding the media with stories of PPE shortfalls. Much of this chatter proved opportunists grandstanding. The other big story is the lingering aftermath of the protests, which already waned by late 2019. The majority of citizens grew tired of the violence that accompanied each march, as radicals hung onto their destructive ways. Having used a 'be as water' strategy to some effect throughout much of 2019, going static and holing-up on college campuses proved a tactical disaster. The Police put in cordons and waited. Occasional protests flared in the first half of 2020, but fatigue was evident. Guileless elements of the movement hung onto Mike Pompeo's words, expecting a direct US intervention. Then when the National Security Law arrived, a switch flipped. Everything stopped. It's now doubtful that the US will grant Hong Kongers special refugee status. Ted Cruz asserted they could be Chinese spies amongst those fleeing. Well, yes, because it's so unlikely that somebody from one of the freest places in the world could be a "refugee". These guys must be spies. That makes sense Ted, right? Then again, Ted has a habit of doing the most audacious u-turns. Plus, you've got to laugh at the descriptions of Hong Kong as a vast prison. At least the UK had the decency to offer a path to citizenship, restoring a right it took away in 1981. But, there is a price to pay. The application and set-up costs in the UK are high. Then you have to consider taking a risk on post-Brexit Britain. One of my friends, a moderate protester, is in despair. 'We went too far, inviting the worst possible outcome', he laments. Indeed, the police brutality narrative took a nosedive after the BLM protests in the US. People realised what real police brutality looks like. After all, the protesters haven't been able to pin a single death on the Hong Kong Police, despite many attempts to fake stories. Most agree the five demands are looking passé. Whether Hong Kong can move to a more democratic system, now some rationality has returned, is an unsettled point. Indeed, the sentiment for change is there. But if local politics is again hijacked by groups seeking to topple the CCP, we are going nowhere. On top of that, many protest leaders who before said they'll fight till the death retired, disengaged or fled Hong Kong. And the national security law is not going away. Never forget, Hong Kong had over two decades to craft and enact an NSL as part of the deal between the UK and China. Yet, the opposition delayed, blocked and disrupted every effort to bring forward laws shaped by Hong Kong's legislative process. Then faced with increasing calls for independence, the vulgar realism of politics intervened. Beijing acted and acted swiftly. Dominic Raab, the British Foreign Secretary, is confecting outrage as Hong Kong brings violent protesters to court. That Hong Kong applies colonial-era law and common-law procedures given to us by the UK is beyond Raab's comprehension. Plus, I don't recall Britain rushing to grant Hong Kong democracy. Raab would do well to reflect on how Britain reacted to social disorder here in 1967, by operating secret prisons and arbitrary detention. So cut the hand-wringing, the lectures and the sanctimonious drivel. For now, the arc of China's economic supremacy comes boosted by its quick containment of Covid-19. The indicators suggest China well ahead of the USA by 2028. Strangely, most Western media failed to pick up on the November 15th signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This pact binds Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and the Philippines into a low tariff trade zone with China. The agreement shifts the focus of world trade to the Asia-Pacific Region, further undermining US influence. How Joe Biden navigates the mess left behind by Trump's 'America-first' mantra remains unclear. The Germans have awoken to this new reality by positioning themselves as interlocutors between the EU and China. As the tectonic plates of geopolitical influence shift, watching how this unfolds will be interesting. Back in Hong Kong, one person deserves our unflinching praise. Doctor Chuang Shuk-Kwan, from the Centre for Health Protection is the public face of the government's response to Covid-19. Each day she fronts the daily press conference, fielding questions and offering advice—a demanding job at the best of times. We didn't know until November that her husband was dying of a brain tumour. Every day, Doctor Chuang would rush to care for him and then conduct the daily briefing. On November 6th, he succumbed. Within days, Doctor Chuang was back at work. A few opposition figures took the opportunity to summons up false 'karma' prescriptions on Doctor Chuang in a mark of callousness. Words fail me. I know it's trite to say it, but 2020 brought out the best in many people; unfortunately, the darkness in other souls came to the fore. Let's trust 2021 proves a kinder year. 27/12/2020 1 Comment The Dating Game. "True romance consisted of three pints of Stones Bitter for courage, then a quick fumble in a bus shelter to the twang of knicker elastic." 'Ghosting', 'cat-fishing', 'pigging' and 'orbiting' — I learnt a whole new language over dinner this week.
Being our wedding anniversary, we had a few friends over, including a single young man lamenting a lack of romance. The conversation soon turned to dating-apps, as I'm schooled in a world hidden from me by marriage. After some cajoling, our guest allowed me access to his Bumble app. He may yet come to regret this. Greeting me was a bevvy of young ladies, who laid out their wares in seeking Mr Right — 'all done in the best possible taste'. This realm is new to me. Back in my youth, before the marvels of the Internet, all dating came limited by geography, your circle of friends and clumsy social skills. Gone are the days of 'My mate Sharon fancies you' or taking the lonely walk unto a group of ladies to make your introduction. Shortly followed by a quick retreat, with my feathers on fire and confidence dented. My chat-up lines are now redundant. Such classics as 'You don't sweat much for a fat lass,' — a dance floor favourite — is consigned to the dustbin of love. True romance consisted of three pints of Stones Bitter for courage, then a quick fumble in a bus shelter to the twang of knicker elastic. Don't disparage it; this is East Yorkshire in the late 1970s. Halcyon days. The pool of available potential-partners always faced constraints. Early humans married their immediate neighbours. Then the horse and bicycle increased the range, as did trains and the internal combustion engine. These days the whole planet is within reach. In the USA, 39 per cent of married couples met online. So, how does it work? Well, you upload a photograph or photographs accompanied by a brief profile of likes and dislikes. The app suggests potential dates and the user swipes left or right. Left sends to person into a loveless wilderness to await their next turn: the system doesn't let them know you've rejected them. Swiping right places them on a list for further exploration, assuming they also give you a right swipe. It's a mutual thing. Within a minute, I'd swiped through 20 plus ladies, adding five to the 'possible' list. My dinner guest would await their response, if any, then seek to engage through WhatsApp. If that went well, they'd set up a meeting and take it from there. He admitted having ten plus such dates, one of which produced an ongoing liaison. I'm ambivalent. Sure, it offered a lot of choices. Yet, I have a distinctly uneasy feeling this is a cattle market. My younger guests disagreed. 'What's the difference between ogling girls in a disco and making a move?' Fair question. I suppose the industrial scale, the algorithms learning your preferences, and the brutal dismissing based on a photograph caused my discomfort. Many of the images flashed up by Bumble benefited from photoshopping, as all the people had flawless skin. Does this artificial inflation of looks create false expectations? Of course, all the ladies presented themselves in their best. In truth, the real sorting would come later. In that sense, you could argue all the dating app does is create choice and a rapid turnover. But, we know that more choice is not always healthy. Still, my doubts linger. Because algorithms pick up likes, the app soon learns to send you a specific type as it seeks to home in on the perfect match. Again, this struck me as sinister. Along the way, a whole range of possible incredible partners gets swept aside because the computer says 'No'. During my small venture in the app, it did throw up two ladies who didn't appear to fit the pattern I'd followed. Perhaps a random element is at work. How about the language of dating apps? 'Ghosting' is the practice of ignoring people, causing them profound stress. In response, a cottage industry evolved around gently letting people down from an encounter that didn't work out. I guess it was inevitable that someone would adopt the apps to the cruel game of 'pigging'. For the uninitiated, 'pigging' refers to the hideous practice (instigated by mostly immature young men) of asking women out as a joke or a prank. The term comes from the fact that the woman in question is unattractive and/or overweight. To be fair, this practice evolved before online dating apps even existed. Meanwhile, 'cat-fishing', involves creating a false identity to compromise or harm someone. There is evidence that 'cat-fishing' produces profound psychological damage for victims and caused suicides. False identities existed before the Internet; the apps put the activity on steroids. The most sinister activity driven by dating apps must be 'orbiting'. Anna Lovine coined the term 'orbiting' for situations when your ex watches your online activities and may seek to re-engage. Again, I suppose this is the Internet equal of the unhinged ex-partner hanging around outside your house. All a bit problematic. Meanwhile, there is an unbroken truth hovering in the background of the dating game. Males tend to marry down and across their social status. On the other hand, females seek out partners who are equal or higher in rank. Thus, by default, high-status women find themselves with a smaller pool of potential partners. For these ladies, dating apps provide a ready solution by doing the sorting. Dating apps aren't for everyone; they remove that first-encounter spark when the total person suddenly engages you. The instant judgemental swiping still strikes me as harsh. Have we conferred marketplace dynamics and a numbers game on a profoundly important human interaction? Thus, the feeling persists, that there is something creepy about the whole business. 12/12/2020 0 Comments Lantau Tomorrow "The 'Lantau Tomorrow Vision' is typical of the concrete pouring solutions of the Hong Kong Government." Hong Kong ranks amongst the most densely populated places on the planet. Add to that a lack of land for development, a shortage of housing and you have sky-high prices. A car-park space can cost the same as a decent-sized detached house in the UK. Depending on location, a 400 square-foot flat can will set you back around HK$8 million. That's about £800,000 or US$1 million.
No wonder people are struggling to get on the property ladder. There is a school of thought that protests last year, were in part, spurred on by a perception that wealthy mainlanders are buying up properties. All Chief Executives have promised to tackle the housing issue without success. In the latest "I've got a great idea" Carrie Lam proposes building several artificial islands around Lantau. She aims to create a housing and business centre large enough for 1.1 million people — that’s equal to the population of Birmingham. A construction project on this scale is possible, and I do not doubt that Hong Kong could tackle it. Yet, I'm not so sure we can justify the expenditure and environmental impact. The cost comes estimated at HK$624 billion, which is a more than 50% hit to our General Reserve of HK$1,000.8 billion. Proponents asserts this money will come back in sales of land and property, while critics claim only the developers gain. Also, it's not evident that we've exhausted all other options to free up land. There is a considerable amount of space in the New Territories that is either misused, held by developers or capable of redevelopment. Yet, officials appear unwilling to tackle the vested interests who maintain control of this land. Besides, HK$500 billion would go a long way towards alleviating poverty or repurposing existing properties to improve living conditions. No wonder there is an outcry that Lam is "pouring money into the sea". There are many government claims about the project that don't stand up to scrutiny. For starters, the proposed population densities don't offer the less-cramped living suggested. Also, the transport links look set to create more bottle-necks. Conversely, the idea that the government can attract financial services and IT companies to locate there is fanciful. At best, this will be another dormitory town with most residents commuting elsewhere to work. With our economy battered by Covid-19, it remains uncertain that the government can fund the scheme and sustain other projects. The cost may lead to a standstill on all other initiatives. There are several options to fund the project. Nonetheless, someone will need to pay, and some aspects of the deal look like a money grab by the usual culprits. With a bond issue, the benefits go to the same people who profited from our dodgy MPF scheme. Meanwhile, putting all our eggs in one basket is not the best approach. In an age of climate change, creating low-level islands is a disaster waiting to happen. Take a look at Osaka Airport, which sits on reclaimed land. When Typhoon Jebi hit in 2018, the whole site flooded. With sea levels expected to increase more than three feet above 2000 levels by the end of the century, will flooding be an issue? The infrastructure to withstand tidal surges will push up the costs further. Time is also a factor. We have over 250,000 residents living in tiny subdivided flats or cage homes. The artificial islands will take a decade to appear, with housing units not expected to be ready until 2035 at the earliest. For many, that's too long to wait. The government needs to do something in the nearer term. Opposition to the project is building, while the usual big players are coming out in support. For me, the 'Lantau Tomorrow Vision' is typical of the concrete pouring solutions of the Hong Kong Government. Already, taxpayers are coughing up HK$590 million for studies. However, just this week, the government dropped plans for the Kai Tak rail link having wasted millions on consultancies. We need to avoid similar expensive blunders. With the population predicted to stabilise and then fall, it is debatable if we need such a massive project. As an alternative, a laudable start would be taking back land in the NT that is illegally occupied or used as storage. After all, let's not spoil this stunning scenery for future generations. 9/12/2020 8 Comments The Other Side of the Story "Nury's book may prove the defining exposition of why legitimate concerns about the extradition bill spiralled rapidly into wanton violence." Ever since the Hong Kong protests turned violent last year, I've reflected on whether I misinterpreted the whole messy affair. I listened to all sides, using a critical eye to examine events including the actions of the government and Police. Along the way, I felt some pity for kids caught up in the moment. Many of these youngsters now face serious criminal charges, possible ruin and unsure futures. Meanwhile, the unscrupulous politicians who led them to the streets have either fled or gone silent.
At every turn, I kept coming back to the inescapable conclusion — some unseen entity is manipulating events. Somebody is nudging the well-drilled radicals along, seeking to draw the Police into over-reacting. As a student of social movements, crowd dynamics and how the actions/reactions of the authorities shape outcomes, this all intrigued me. I could see specific patterns emerging. Of course, being an ex-copper, it's easy for the pundits to dismiss my interpretation as partisan. "He's protecting his former colleagues" was the often-heard refrain. A friend suggested, "You're paranoid". But, it's not so easy to dismiss the conclusions of an ardent government critic, with an in-depth knowledge of Hong Kong. Like me, journalist and commentator Nury Vittachi is an adopted son of Hong Kong. That's where the similarities end. He made his name taking the mickey out of officials, including the Police. In the past, I was on the receiving end of Nury's barbs. For that reason, I always viewed his musings with a jaundiced eye. Yet, I recognise that every court needs a jester, who can speak truth to power under cover of humour. That's a powerful tool. Thus, having finished his account of the troubles —"The Other Side of the Story" —I’m stunned we agree on so much. Finally, an account emerges that gives a balanced and insightful framing of events. Nury's book may prove the defining exposition of why legitimate concerns about the extradition bill spiralled rapidly into wanton violence. And yet when the bill is withdrawn, that violence continued unabated. In telling the tale, Nury notes that there is plenty of blame to go around. He spares no one. But particular focus lands on the biased coverage by foreign journalists and the unseen 'forces' working behind the scenes. To get the story across, Nury deploys his trademark humour, the absurd and a 'tongue in cheek' style. You’re lulled into a false sense of ease, before an exceptionally profound point lands in your lap. Unlike foreign journalists, with their monochromatic views, Nury understands the nuance, the grainy detail of this place. But as he points out in the opening remarks, he's immediately lashed on social media as a Beijing stalwart for addressing truths. Unfortunately, that's the crazy world we live in. Personal attacks and unthinking bile have replaced sensible discussion. Irrational types engage in this sort of name-calling rather than addressing the issues. All this nonsense is despite Nury's credentials as a robust critic of the Hong Kong Government and Beijing. In my view, China long sought to give Hong Kong as much freedom as possible after laying down some 'red-lines'. As a consequence, after 1997, despite constant prophecies of doom, Hong Kong boomed. It's the safest city on the planet, while people enjoy the longest life expectancy. We do better than Japan on that score. Yes, we have inequality and pollution, but we are working towards addressing these issues. Plus, in all the recent noise, often forgotten is that in 2014 our march towards democracy stalled. Why? Well, because the pan-democrats vetoed proposals that incrementally moved us in the right direction. For them, it was 'all or nothin'—this thickheaded decision set in train a course of events that soon spun out of control. Violent radical elements began testing one of China's 'red-lines' by demanding independence. These people surfaced at the end of the Occupy Movement and in the Mongkok Chinese New Riot of 2016. Then, as Nury documents, the extradition law proposed in 2019, was seized upon by a coalition of local and external forces to incite an insurrection. Millions of dollars poured into supporting the unrest. The book sets out evidence to suggest some of that money came from the back-channels of the US government. With an investigators eye for detail, Nury observes the appearance of US flags and such words as 'protect our constitution' on protest banners. This is not Hong Kong's lingo. Also, we don't have a constitution as such. Likewise, he breaks down the deliberate over-reporting of crowd sizes. In truth, a million marchers numbered around 200,000. You have to ask, did Diane Abbott do the counting? We hear about the tactics adopted for assailing the Police and then taking refuge in the massive press pack. As the Police respond, only images of officers wading into the press emerge, ignoring the build-up. The radicals take this to the next level by dressing up as reporters and first-aid workers. Also, less visible and not covered by the overseas journalists, an underground campaign to intimidate the Police was underway. Activist teachers bullied their pupil, while firebombing of officer’s homes marked a horrific development. A whole chapter assesses the ordained narrative that the Hong Kong Police are guilty of widespread brutality. Nury and friends attended the key events, trawled through the photos and videos to conclude the evidence didn't exist of generalised badly-behaved Police Officers. He concludes the opposite: "comparing them with clips of police forces in other places … our local officers are far less violent than many." Dehumanising the Police is text-book revolutionary theory apparently discussed at the Oslo Freedom Forum, a US-based organisation. This process is curated by circulating doctored or single images that portray the Police as brutal. None of the lead-up, context nor truth is allowed into this 'transmogrification'. Once ready, the media amplify the message. I have to say that biased reporting, especially from the Western media outlets, is not merely a professional outrage, it's far more sinister. It feeds a sentiment of hate that encourages physical and mental cruelty. Thanks to wild claims and exaggerations on social media, things went, er, totally batshit. Fake stories of death trains, rapes and torture flashed around the world. Gullible politicians, like Lord Alton in the UK, swallowed these lies wholesale. However, in the end, the radicals with their violence, intimidation and wanton destruction forged the weapons to be used against them. Good decent Hong Kong people wouldn't stand for the burning and killing of dissenters, or the threatening of children. I do not doubt that many will disagree with Nury's conclusions, especially those absorbing different information streams and unwilling to contemplate they got it wrong. That's the problem of our age. People see the same event but disagree on what they have just seen. For now, Covid-19 and the National Security Laws have brought a halt to the violence. Many of the instigators have fled overseas, others are in jail or awaiting trial. Our parliament is functioning without the constant interruptions from hooligan politicians intent of damaging progress. In the meantime, the majority of ordinary folks are trying to get on with their lives. Simultaneously, the West led by the USA, is imposing sanctions on Beijing and Hong Kong officials, while fretting over Taiwan and the rise of China. In this febrile atmosphere, it’s easy to fall into the doomsday trap; cue another round of ‘it’s all over!’ Yet, as Nury points out, Hong Kong will continue to prosper. Never bet against this place. 30/11/2020 1 Comment Taken For A Ride "In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads." Richard Hughes famously stated, "Power in Hong Kong resides in the Jockey Club, Jardines and Matheson, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, and the governor, in that order." Well, not much has changed then since the colonial days.
With Hong Kong's Covid cases exploding, as clusters breakout from dance groups and imported cases, you'd expect our officials to be vigilant. Instead, they are busy granting exemptions for jockeys at Hong Kong's favoured gambling syndicate. Given that schools are closing, care workers are struggling, and the majority can't earn such special treatment, people are right to raise hell. After all, some of these jockeys are coming from high-risk areas. And what has suddenly made the Jockey Club so risk-tolerant? They were one of the first to cut and run by cancelling race meetings in 2019 during the disturbances. I'm sure there is any number of Hong Kong-based organisations who could construct the same 'bubble' protocols as the Jockey Club professes to have. Are we to grant them all exemptions or only a favoured few? These exemptions illustrate the moral shadiness at the heart of a government; people question whether officials put gambling above public health. Our Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, heads the Covid Task Force. So where does the responsibility lay for these decisions? Meanwhile, we should be grateful to politician James Tien. He's exposed how Covid testing for airport arrivals and the related shambolic follow-up quarantine procedures are failing. If the account given by James Tien is accurate, and the evidence suggests it is, officials have shown a deplorable lack of diligence. For starters, the arriving passenger conducts the spit test in privacy. Without supervision, there is no verification that the person followed the guidelines. Specifically, did the subject draw saliva 'deeply' - whatever that may mean? The consequence could be a high false-negative rate. Experts agree adopting the medically supervised swab test may yield better outcomes. Second, subjects are tagged but not required to activate the tag immediately. There are reports of people wandering around shopping, visiting relatives and only activating the tag much later. In one reported instance, the subject waited 24 hours. This delay is possible because of the third gap in the procedures. Subjects must make their way to quarantine hotels usually using taxis. This movement is neither tracked nor supervised. Fourth, when in quarantine it is evident subjects are receiving visitors because hotels are not enforcing the rules. In one instance, a man in quarantine infected his visiting mother, who then passed the virus into the wider community. In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads. This week Carrie Lam had given a series of interviews in an attempt to reset and polish her image. I'd prefer she spends her time putting in place suitably robust, risk-managed anti-Covid protocols. Also, Carrie needs to stop bowing to the usual vested interests. That way she'd earn genuine applause from the wider community.  "Britain has built a massive network of snitches" Folks, it's quiz time. Are you ready?
Q1: In which country does your doctor, who you consult about depression, feel obliged to report you to the police because you've had dark thoughts about events in the Middle East? Q2: In which country is your optician, nurse, dentist, social worker, lecturer or councillor duty-bound to alert the police if you exhibit signs of radicalisation or express opinion out of line with national values? That includes expressing non-violent extremist views. Q3: In which country must a college student get an endorsement and cite a security assessment before booking a seminar room? Q4: In which country was a librarian, when asked for a reference, required to assert that the prospective employee is not involved in extremist activity or terrorism? Q5: In which country did the college cleaning staff report a Sikh lady for uttering prayers in her room? This report led to a covert search and an interview by the Dean. Is this Russia, the USA, China or the UK? Suppose you answered the UK, well done. You scored 100%. Under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, all public institutions must put in place anti-radicalisation programmes. That includes the identification of terrorists or those likely to evolve into terrorists. Moreover, universities and colleges must make regular submissions giving tangible examples of steps they've taken. One college cited the prayer incident to show its diligence. With typical over-reach, some places demand guest lists before an event for security purposes. No list, no approval. At Oxford University, this prompted the cancellation of a talk on unrest in the Middle East. A variety of hotlines and anonymous reporting channels support these programmes. Rochdale Borough Council provides a helpful guide to spotting the potential terrorist, which includes :
All this activity is a legal obligation on public bodies and individuals who work there. Failure to comply can have severe consequences. In support of these laws, over one million public sector workers received training to spot proto-terrorists. In short, Britain has built a massive network of snitches. May this explain data that indicates that about 80% of the referrals have no merit. That doesn't mean the other 20% are on the route to terrorism, far from it. Yet, every year the scheme flags up thousands of men and boys considered a risk. The vast majority are cleared. That decision comes after police interviews, homes searched and other intrusive checks. You have to wonder how many people get radicalised by these interventions. It's worth noting that in 2016 the police received 60 children referrals a week, with 300 of those kids under the age of nine. Virtually all were Muslim children. Unfortunately, studies do not support this approach. A flawed theory of radicalisation — as a linear process — asserts that people move through stages to become a terrorist. Despite a body of research refuting this simplistic linear theory, Britain continues to apply it. You could argue such a response to terrorism is at least understandable, no matter how inept or counterproductive, given the threat. Whatever the merits of the UK's approach, this got my attention, because British politicians are attacking Hong Kong's security laws. In truth, by comparison, our laws are tame. I can't imagine the uproar here if we sought to impose the UK approach on our colleges. Dominic Raab, the UK Foreign Minister, needs to confront the truth of Britain's domestic anti-terror policies before he's in a position to criticise others. I heard a comment this week that Britain's response to events in Hong Kong is 'conceited, contempt and unjust condemnation.' Indeed, the utterances from Raab come weighed with heavy conceit. He holds a high opinion of so-called ‘British' values that are not borne out by facts on the ground. Second, he displays a contempt shaped by his prejudice and jaundiced lens. Lastly, his condemnation falters because he fails to recognise Britain helped plant the seeds of our predicament. Of course, he avoids the many historical questions or the support that the UK gave to radicals here. On those rocks, his words founder. 24/11/2020 0 Comments The Cobra & the 'Horizontal Mambo' "Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded" Actions have consequences, and those consequences can be unforeseen. Fortunately, history is a great teacher if you bother to look. India under British rule experienced a surge in deaths due to venomous cobras, especially in Delhi. Keen to show a caring face, officials offered a bounty for every dead cobra.
In no time, the savvy folks of Delhi had cobra breeding pens at home as they capitalised on the prize. Officials realised the deceit, cancelled the bounty and the citizens released the cobras into the wild. Soon Delhi had even more cobras, and deaths escalated. Hence the 'Cobra effect'. History comes littered with such lessons. French colonials in Vietnam fearful of a burgeoning rat population offered a reward for rat's tails. Rat catchers went around removing tails and then releasing the rats to breed in the sewers—a nice earner for rat catchers, with no decrease in rat numbers. China's 'four-pests' campaign is another example. More recently, carbon credits proved a lucrative source of income for companies. Starting in 2003, the European Union gave industries disposing of polluting gases cash for their environmental efforts. Except that the companies churned out more of the most noxious gases for no other reason than to get payment. Carbon credits made these noxious gases profitable. By 2013 the EU wised up. I do wonder if our officials study history because they've announced a $5,000-HK reward to folks infected with Covid-19. Granted they've applied some payment stipulations, but these look surmountable and imprecise. There is no means test. Let's be clear; some people will be going out of their way to catch Covid-19 to secure payment. Social media is already alive with chat of possible Covid parties. Meanwhile, citizens who play by the rules, wear masks and practice social distancing go unrewarded. Is Hong Kong the only place paying people to become sick? Looks like it. I can't help but think the government is struggling to refute claims from the medical profession that compulsory testing will drive carriers underground. The argument goes that the working poor, who can't afford to forfeit days off work, won't come forward for testing. If that's the rationale, then $5,000-HK is a token gesture with potentially terrible consequences. Are any of the infamous 'dance cluster' in line for a payout? What are the majority of the population to think? Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded. Their money is being siphoned off to support the utterly irresponsible. For the uninitiated, the 'dance cluster' is grabbing the Covid headlines. It's a story with all the tasty elements of a scandal; rich 'senior' ladies attending dance lessons with young male 'instructors' who are less well off. The instructors are mostly eastern European men, some with dubious claims to royal blood. Until now these 'dance clubs' operated below the radar. According to sources, the most popular dance is the 'horizontal mambo'. The blame falls to the 'dance cluster' for our current surge in cases. For a long time, it has struck me that officials either don't know or are blind to the mini-cultures and sub-groups in our society. The question needs asking 'Has anyone conducted an audit of activities that present a high-risk of Covid transmission because of behaviours?'. The recent terrible fire in Jordan and the 'dance cluster' suggest the authorities don't have the full picture. Reports are circulating of private parties in hotels, rented apartments and on boats. There is much going on in the veiled corners of society where officials aren't inclined to look. Is the next cluster coming from there? Instead of throwing public money around with potentially adverse repercussions, how about grappling with risks in a pro-active manner? Then put in place early interventions. Would I be straining creditability to suggest an excellent place to start would be Hong Kong's one-woman brothels, that daily serve hundreds of thousands of customers? Is there any action on that potential infection route? Or is Carrie and her team too prudish to recognise the reality of life? In the seemingly endless war of attrition against Covid-19, the government has done well, although the recent clusters suggest a dysfunctional approach in parts. Lastly, no word yet on a vaccine programme for Hong Kong. Other places are moving ahead to make plans. Come on, Carrie! 18/11/2020 1 Comment The Kardashians with castles "Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues" 'The Crown,' Series 4, now playing on Netflix, has finally caught up with my era. After a flu vaccination knocked me sideways for a day, a binge session got me through the fever and muscle soreness.
Spoiler alert: Diana has arrived on the scene to promptly throw up in a toilet, while Charlie boy is still horizontal-folk dancing with Camilla. In the real world, having spent the last decade seeking to polish Camilla's reputation, the pair can't be enjoying this retelling of the whole sorry saga. Even allowing for twisting of the facts, they don't come out of this well. Camilla's unfaithfulness to her husband gets written off 'because he's laying half of Gloucestershire'. Well, that's OK then. Meanwhile, Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues - the 'prince of piffle' as astutely judged by Christopher Hitchens. Actor Josh O'Connor plays the role with hunched shoulders and skulking about, giving echoes of Richard the Third: "But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks. Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass." Of course, this was Shakespeare's version of Richard the Third — a propaganda piece to appease the Tudors. Bear that in mind when viewing 'The Crown' and ask who does this portrayal of Charles serve? So, what else is new? Gillian Anderson gives us Maggie Thatcher on steroids, in full Iron Lady mode with a stellar high-rise hairdo to match. The voice is too deep, and husky, yet the whole ensemble is compelling. Anderson captures the walk and body language perfect; it's uncanny. Inevitably, Maggie brushes up against everyone, including Brenda (aka the Queen) over the Commonwealth. Yet, because this is a time of wokeness, history comes rehashed for the new age. The Queen is standing firm with the Commonwealth against Thatcher, who resists sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Yes, there is evidence that Brenda supported sanctions, but is it likely she confronted Thatcher so stridently to risk a constitutional crisis? The sudden departure of Royal press secretary as a result of leaks about a conflict between Maggie and Brenda is pure fiction. He left a year after the alleged leaks. Also, we are getting a reworking of the Micheal Fagan break-in story, with him giving the Queen a lecture about unemployment and the state of the nation. It didn't happen. Although, I never knew he broke in twice. On the first occasion, when spotted, he escaped having consumed a cheap bottle of wine. The Queen conspired to keep the first break-in quiet, fearful of more security disrupting her life. There are other intriguing tidbits. Did Anne had a fling with her bodyguard? There is a hint of that. Then Margaret discovers relatives hidden away in a care institution and declared dead. The Queen Mum explains this was necessary to preserve the reputation of the bloodline. A few special-needs kin deemed unacceptable, so written off, while all the shagging about is fine and dandy. Lovely people. The acting is superb throughout. Newcomer Emma Corrin as Diana is a revelation. In her first significant role, it's a slam dunk; the eyes are perfect, the tilted head and radiance are all there. Helen Bonham Carter was born to play the flawed, hollowed-out, boozy, Princess Margaret. She captures the arrogance, the wounded soul, and the sheer disdain of the women. It's hard to fault any of the cast. Having met several of Royals and spent two days at Buck House, I can attest to some details. The vast number of flunkies, the bowing and the hushed reverence when one of the Royals appears. None of it in the least normal. When I was there in 1992, the Palace felt run-down, especially back of the house, and away from the central accommodation. On my second day there, with heavy rain falling, the staff scrambled to catch water in buckets from ceiling leaks. Does the series do the Royal Family harm or good? To me, it reveals them as flawed, like the rest of us. Yes, they have tremendous privilege and don't have the common concerns of daily life. That's not to say they don't face other pressures, because the evidence is there that the role brings tremendous stress. As the series develops, I have to ask has the portrayal of the Queen grown less sympathetic? Feels that way to me. Her faults are exposed, including avoiding uncomfortable personal issues until too late, and a lack of warmth; she displays horror when Diana grasps her for a hug. The problem is, we don't know if any of the specific detail in 'The Crown' tells the truth. What is dramatic-license, what is an interpretation, which bits are parody and what is factual? All we can hope to get is a pastiche that draws of various elements. Nonetheless, the parameters of characters come aligned to existing public perception, so no one is too shocked. The Guardian got itself in a twist proclaiming the series 'historically inaccurate'. That's the point; this is the Kardashians with castles. It's the Royals as entertainment, with a pinch of truth to anchor the story. It's amusing to note that a cottage industry has evolved around critiquing the authenticity of the series. If you can be bothered, check out this chap discussing the cake stands and tea pouring etiquette—a bit of a niche activity. If you watch 'The Crown' in the hope of getting an account of history, you will be disappointed; but if you seek entertainment, you will be rewarded well enough.  "Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates." As Donald Trump fights to keep the presidency having lost the election, I must credit him with exposing the fickle state of democracy. While I'm guessing he will come to his senses and exit the White House, I doubt it will be a dignified departure. He's made that much clear. The great disruptor will continue to disrupt.
This is the second in a series that assesses the current standing of western-style democracy. What strikes me is that after four years of Trump insulting and degrading people, as he assailed institutions, he still managed to garner over 72 million votes. That the most ever for a defeated presidential candidate. Besides, he dodged every opportunity to play the statesmen, or display an ounce of magnanimity. In the process, he's confounded the pollsters, the pundits and even his party, many of whom still question if the man is unfit for office. What does this tell us? For sure the so-called experts don't have a handle on the evolution unfolding at the grassroots of public opinion. Have the people grown wise to pollsters? Do they hold back their genuine beliefs, with a covert desire to punch the establishment on the nose for all their deceits? Are citizens baulking at the conventions, rules and machinations of politicians? They ask is the system more designed to distract than deal with real issues? Something odd also occurred in Great Britain. Are Brexit and the startling win by the UK Conservatives in 2019, another manifestation of a hidden phenomenon? What are the processes driving these changes, and what does it say about democracy? A definable elite, who share common roots, hold sway in the UK Parliament. For starters, parliament's key positions come dominated by Oxbridge graduates. Eighty-eight per cent of MPs went to university, with twenty-two per cent attending either Oxford or Cambridge. Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates. In the Labour Party, thirty-three per cent of MPs attended either Oxford or Cambridge. Note that much less than one per cent of the population go to Oxbridge, and yet these folks dominate. It's the same in the civil service. More than half of all MPs held previous occupations in politics, law or finance. Also, there is an over-representation of lawyers with few engineers or scientists. The proportion of graduates in parliament has risen significantly in recent years. In 1979, 37 per cent of Labour MPs came from manual occupations without a degree. By 2015 that dropped to 6 per cent. These changes have made parliament less representative of the population, where 70 per cent don't have degrees. A similar change has taken place across most democracies in Europe as a professional political class seized power. Thus, authentic working-class representation has disappeared. As a result, the Labour Party garnered a reputation as 'out of touch metropolitan-types playing identity politics'. No wonder Labour's so-called 'Red Wall' collapsed in the 2019 election. Then you have the long march of liberal radicals through the institutions. Education, much of the media, the police and the courts are in their hands. Notably, the views and conventions of these people are out of kilter with a significant part of the population. Why then in late 2019, did the UK voters, including from the working class, decide to give a Falstaffian posh-boy an overwhelming mandate? This privately educated man, who studied classics at Oxford, has an undetermined number of children by various women. A judge described his behaviour as 'reckless', while his repeated lying comes well-documented. How come the people decided he's the appropriate choice to run the country? Granted he was up against the inept Jeremy Corbyn, but that doesn't answer the question. Boris Johnson is hardly the role model a nation seeks. With parliaments worldwide more the preserve of people filtered through higher education, working people face exclusion. But when allowed to show their displeasure, they opt for a dodgy, crass businessman in the USA, while in Britain an archetypical elitist wins the vote. Is it a case that when the opportunity arises, such as Brexit or when a Trump comes along with messages that resonant, they are willing to make their displeasure known. After all, the un-credentialed are not unintelligent and can see that their interests get ignored. On a couple of occasions, the curtain pulled back to reveal the contempt of these elites. Hilary Clinton didn't help herself by calling Trump's supporters' deplorable'. In the UK, the Gillian Duffy incident exposed the disdain that Labour leaders have for ordinary citizens. Something else is also going on. There is evidence that the Internet, in particular social media, is driving polarisation. William Davies proposes that the slow work of researching a subject and excavating the detail has stopped. We know that few issues are black and white, yet the Internet drives us to define ourselves in those terms. Davies attributes this to the use of simple up-ticks and down-ticks on social media platforms. People must give 'yes' or 'no' answers to matters that are not straightforward. Harness that to the mind-shaping processes of the Internet, and you can see the impact. Chunks of 'content' – images, screen-grabs, snatches of video – circulate according to the number of thumbs up or thumbs down they receive. It is easy to lose sight of how peculiar and infantilising is this state of affairs. Once a person indicates several preferences, the system does the rest. Algorithms offer up more of the same material, pushing them further down the same track. They are now in a feedback loop without meaningful discussion. The result is a people polarised, unable and unwilling to consider the other side of an issue. In turn, this prevents community cohesion, disrupts democracy and leads to mayhem. Aristotle identified in ancient Greece the core difficulty with democracy and its an issue that runs right up to the present day. He noted that in a democracy if the majority of voters wish, they could take away property from the rich. He considered this unfair on the assumption that the rich had worked for their success. Aristotle concluded the best way to deal with this is to have support systems that reduced inequality. He asserted everyone must have a chance to become rich. Has that happened? No, because all the evidence points towards reduced social mobility in recent decades. These days the most disadvantaged group in the UK is not black youth or Asians, its white boys from working-class backgrounds. With the sole exception of Roma Gypsy, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than white British. Of the white British who do attend, most are middle class, and 57 per cent are female. A similar pattern emerges with pay. While the merits of a degree are eroding, this demographic data should cause pause for thought. That minorities can make admirable progress is commendable. But, at the same time, a resentful disenfranchised cohort from the majority falls behind. If you want an explanation of the Brexit vote or support for Trump, perhaps look no further. The people broke with their norms of voting because politicians broke with them. As we enter a new political era, how is this going to unfold? Are we looking at intensifying political polarisation, declining economic mobility and the outsized influence of special interests? It's looking that way. If so, then democracy will come under increasing stress because it fails the many. 12/11/2020 2 Comments "狂犬吠日" — Mad dogs barking at the sun "A symbolic gesture that doesn't give you anything in practice, and a symbolic gesture that the other side would have calculated you would do and is quite happy for you to do, is a symbolic gesture that is effectively an own goal." The removal of four LegCo members for failing to abide by their oath of office has summoned up the usual baleful cries. 'This is the end' and 'Hong Kong is finished' sums up the mantra. Politicians in the West took a break from observing the Trump zombie-regime death-march to weigh in.
Of course, Benedict Rogers had to have his say. In a column in The Spectator, he was in full imperialist mode calling for a coalition of Western nations to confront China. What does Mr Rogers have in mind? Send in the navy to attack Chinese ports, then march inland to burn down a few palaces, while conducting a bit of looting on the way? Should Beijing kneel and tremble before the might of Western civilisation? Could someone have a word, because a reality check is needed; this is 2020, not 1860. Britain as a nation is incapable of leading a coalition of any sorts when the country is so divided and may not exist in 10-years time. If wee Nichola Sturgeon has her way, Scotland will be going it alone: to be shortly followed by Northern Ireland merging with Ireland. In any case, threats against other nations need backing up by tangible actions. With China turning inward under its next 25-year plan, and its economy on the mend post-Covid, sanctions and a trade war will have a minimal impact. After all, Trump failed in his trade war with Beijing, while Australia is suffering the fallout from its stance. With China holding many of the cards on the trade front, it can bide its time. A military action is always an option. Except Britain has no range now and must rely on the USA. A hot war could go either way or escalate into something far more severe. Also, is the USA prepared to sacrifice everything for Hong Kong? I doubt it. That the USA wouldn't give refuge in its Hong Kong Consulate is a stark illustration of realpolitik in action. For all its manifest failings, and there are many, China is a world power that isn't going to let the West push it around. Within the national psyche is a deep well of resentment over the West's action during China's weak period. In that narrative, the Brits forced drugs on the country, and the West sought to carve up the place. Any Chinese leader, whether communist or not, can't allow such humiliations again. Some will undoubtedly respond with the rote response of Britain's duty to the people of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, that sounds hollow and time-expired because Britain didn't dare to act before 1997. Never forget Britain cut off the people of Hong Kong with changes to the immigration law in 1981, just before negotiations on the handover gathered pace. That timing is significant. Offering a route to citizenship is a bit late in the day, especially given the costs involved, although some will take the offer. Good luck to them. At the same time, our Chief Executive, Carrie Lame, didn't help herself yesterday by displaying a fine set of sloping shoulders. She claimed 'Beijing pulled the trigger' although in truth she'd handed them the gun and ammunition. If she sought to gain some distance from the decision, she failed miserably and once again manifested her craven side. It's not hard to see that China has decided to 'bite the bullet' to get our stalled parliament working. In a magnanimous gesture, the rest of the opposition choose to help that process along by resigning. Professor Steve Tsang, the director of the SOAS China Institute, notes: "A symbolic gesture that doesn't give you anything in practice, and a symbolic gesture that the other side would have calculated you would do and is quite happy for you to do, is a symbolic gesture that is effectively an own goal." My neighbour, with typical Cantonese clarity, was far more succinct when we discussed the matter over coffee this morning. He taught me a new Chinese idiom "狂犬吠日" — mad dogs barking at the sun. 9/11/2020 1 Comment The Common Good "According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same" What's become of the common good? That's a question the advocates of western-style liberal democracies need to answer. Why? Well, for starters, Covid-19 has given us the chance to observe the different ways nations tackle a crisis, and autocratic China came out on top. In the third quarter, China's GDP grew by 4.9 per cent with a notable surge in industrial production. The country is up and running. Meanwhile, in much of the West, the pandemic rages unabated.
Did the West's response falter because of culture, allied to political jockeying? Has democracy fallen flat on its face? Add to that long-term issues, such as left-behind communities filled with resentment as the world globalised. To them, a hi-jacked democracy panders to elites and the wealthy. Does all this mean the autocracies have won? My intuition tells me, rushing to such a conclusion is misguided. As always, a nuanced, complicated, picture not open to straightforward analysis emerges. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, everyone assumed the debate was over. The verdict formed that the world was moving towards the spread of liberal democracies and free markets. As a consequence of the failure of the communist experiment, the USA stood as the world's only superpower. Did this vindicate the liberal democratic model as supreme? Many believed yes. Francis Fukuyama captured the zeitgeist as he trumpeted the 'End of History'. In Washington, this state of affairs echoed a long-standing conviction that America has a divinely inspired mission to make the world safe. A deep seam of evangelising runs through the culture: Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, when challenged on lavish pay replied he was "doing God's work." So, the West assumed they'd triumphed. And feeling empowered, led by the USA, they set about promoting a neoliberal version of globalisation as they encouraged democracy. When facing resistance, they sanctioned, threatened and intervened, sometimes, with terrible outcomes. But, if you look at the record, the West's support of democracy comes somewhat framed by strategic and economic interests. Contrast the position on Saudi Arabia to that of China. Pushing a democratic agenda, and human rights, doesn't appear to infuse Western politicians when national interests infringe. Odd that. Noam Chomsky cited this attitude as 'schizophrenia'. But far from being an all-embracing world view, a school of thought now portrays this 'winning' narrative as parochial. As the deliberations failed to recognise each countries unique history, how can it hold sway? In short, blinded by conceit, the majority of the Western intelligentsia didn't have the tools to comprehend events. Within academic circles, a fierce debate rages: "Have the scholars failed to interpret events correctly?". For many, the discourse holds that Fukuyama's chronicle of events has deep flaws, is shallow and unbalanced. Even Fukuyama has rolled back on his seminal work, admitting he missed the rise of China and other factors. As a side issue, this discussion is exposing so-called experts as intellectual eunuchs, devoid of free-thinking. These people are beholden to the agenda of their institutions. Instead of roaming free over vast areas of knowledge to interpret the world, most are hired-guns, who craft messages as 'product'. Think-tanks, governments and intelligence agencies fund this 'product' expecting a specific outcome. Then the media run this 'product' as the accepted version of events. By now, you are asking, beyond the Covid-19 response, where is the evidence that the democratic system falters? Exhibit One: with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experimented with a western-style free-market model and elections. As it turned out, this approach empowered an autocratic regime with oligarchs soon running the show. Exhibit Two: ousting Saddam Hussein did not bring freedom and calm to Iraq. Instead, the result was instability, millions dead, with a brutal civil war that rumbles on. Yes, Saddam ran a morally indefensible regime — no one denies that. Has what came next proved any better? The region is looking worse than ever. Exhibit Three: the Arab spring was to herald a new democratic era in the Middle East. In Egypt, once the despot fell, radicals seized the democratic process to install a regime of fundamentalists. Back to square one. Exhibit Four: we have economic data from the IMF and the Democracy Index of The Economist. Between 2012 and 2016, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, China, Mongolia, Ireland, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Laos, Panama and Georgia enjoyed the fastest economic growth. Only Ireland scores well in democracy. Moreover, South Korea made its best economic advances while under a military dictatorship. Add to that research by leading economist Paul Collier. He concludes that democracy can destabilise a country in the early stages of its economic development, in turn, stunting progress. Likewise, once a nation attains economic maturity, democracy can bring stability although the net effect of democracy may be ambiguous. Then I ask how Cuba can have better child mortality rates than the USA? How come Hong Kong’s streets are far safer than those in the UK? What’s interesting is that for life expectancy world-wide, US is ranked 46th, while undemocratic Hong Kong comes first. Maybe that because the USA is rated 97th for access to quality health care and 91st on basic education. The fact is, across a host of parameters, democracy doesn't always guarantee the best outcomes for the majority of people. So, the people who claim the supremacy of that model must face this uncomfortable set of facts. According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same. But, consider this: in China, both rich and poor alike realised income gains, while since the 1970s in the USA the growth has benefited the top ten per cent only. Of course, for decades, the 'experts' claimed China couldn't succeed because it wasn't democratic. That analysis proved wrong. In the early 1980s, across the border from Hong Kong, the special economic zone of Shenzhen gathered pace. This growth proved you could triumph economically without liberal democracy. It's interesting to note that China, despite its evident success, does not force its system on other countries. In Africa, China is conducting a programme of 'pragmatic imperialism' that involves investment, development and the taking of resources. Yes, the arrangement is transactional. China benefits, but, they don't tell the host how to live or run their country. As regard Covid-19, whereas President Trump fumbled about, China acted decisively. In an incredible display of capacity and order, the authorities tested the 11 million Wuhan residents for the virus within ten days. The verdict seems clear: authoritarianism is superior to liberal democracy when fast mobilisation drives success. But again, this conclusion is simplistic and even misleading. Note that democratic places, such as South Korea and New Zealand, handled the pandemic well. Their systems did not block the ability to put in place virus containment measures. Could it be that America's current troubles do not reflect a universal failure of democracy? Instead, are we witnessing an unbalanced order that favours a few? The lesson I draw from America's upheaval is that even a mature democracy must be continuously maintained to function. There is no 'end of history'. Likewise, never forget the catalyst for China's economic growth. Deng Xiaoping injected elements of accountability, competition, and limits on power. This hybrid political system, married to a firm commitment to markets, took China from poverty to middle-income status. Besides, the stated institutional advantages of China's top-down rule are both a strength and a weakness. Owing to its origins the Communist Party of China implements policies in the manner of ‘campaigns’. That means the entire bureaucracy and society come together to achieve a given goal. Then when pressured to do whatever it takes to achieve targets, officials may use extreme measures triggering new problems down the road. Significant and quick results rarely come without costs. For example, displacing people for urban expansion led to unrest and bitterness. Nonetheless, these ‘campaigns’ deliver impressive results. Xi's poverty-fighting initiative lifted 93 million rural residents out of poverty in seven years. Let's be clear; the West would still be debating the issue after seven years, without resolution, never mind any action. Here's the thing, the idea that we can choose only between an American-style democracy and a Chinese-style autocracy is false. Indeed when the real aim of governance is to ensure pluralism with stability – countries must find their own path. Perhaps the current era, rather than being the end of democracy, is a period of correction. Few would disagree, that the failure of free-market capitalism and globalisation to serve everyone, is causing deep resentment. The West needs to recognise this. It can't continue working with entrenched political ideologies that are tone-deaf to public sentiment. Where do we go from here? Looking back through history, every great civilisation rises to power, reaches a peak, and then declines. This is Oswald Spenglar's thesis. Yet, I doubt we are there: democracy won't collapse, nor will the liberal democratic model fade. But, it will evolve. After all, the USA, in particular, has a remarkable ability to reinvent itself — the 'new dawn' at each iteration. Meanwhile, China is advancing and finding its way. The West would be foolhardy in the extreme to think it can halt or hold back that process to secure its strategic interests. So, to answer the question: "What's become of the common good?" the West needs to acknowledge its manifest failings. Then bring some balance by addressing broader issues in their societies. In the meantime, raging and flailing against China won't help, especially when Beijing is advancing the stock of millions of people. Douglas Carswell asserts "The elites frequently get things wrong" in 'The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy'. He observed, "they endlessly seek to govern by design a world that is best organised spontaneously from below". Indeed, therefore, the best outcomes for the 'common good' rest in each system learning from the other, to incorporate advantages and moderate their failings. Engagement and cooperation is the only viable way forward.  "Rules are one thing, but it's often the unwritten norms of decorum that mark excellence" You have to give it to Donald Trump: the man never stops trying. That audacious press conference, asserting he'd won with counting ongoing, was pure high-stakes political theatre. Did he throw a massive spanner in the works of US democratic institutions?
2/11/2020 0 Comments Hazard All He Hath "There is no gambling like politics." Benjamin Disraeli John le Carré would struggle to craft a plot with these ingredients. An ex-US intelligence officer, using money from a Hong Kong-based newspaper baron to spin a sham story against the son of a US presidential candidate.
Meanwhile in the background is the unfolding discord between China, Taiwan and the USA; not to mention a shadowy religious cult and far-right neocons. Jimmy Lai, the newspaperman, is denying knowledge of these matters. His former second in command and best buddy, the ex-spook, Mark Simon, has fallen on his sword and resigned. For the uninitiated, the details are here. This intriguing saga is an intoxicating mix; hints of interference with US elections, false identities, fake news and a thread of influence-peddling connecting Hong Kong activists to big hitters in Washington. By way of background, Mr Lai is facing an assortment of allegations for his presumed role in last year's civil unrest, while Mr Simon is a fugitive wanted by the Hong Kong Police. He's alleged to have committed various offences but fled Hong Kong earlier this year. In 2014, Mr Simon faced exposure for his role in moving funds to support the ‘Occupy Central' movement. A hack of emails revealed him liaising with several right-wing US politicians. Further, it appears that he used his connections to open doors for Mr Lai. That includes getting a sit down with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Mr Simon's antecedents are worth a look. In short, he's a strident republican and well-connected to neocons in the USA. He's an unashamed big-mouth — his words — with a straightforward, bold style that is at times entertaining and audacious. Mr Lai is also a pal of Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary for defence under President Bush II. Wolfowitz is the advocate of a doctrine that emphasises US primacy. This policy entails early intervention and unilateral action that prevents the emergence of any new rivals. Thus, you can see why Beijing views Mr Simon and Mr Lai with some suspicion. Moreover, Mr Lai is now in the invidious position of potentially damaging his standing with US Democrats. He'd previously sought their patronage; therefore connection to an effort to black Biden won't play well. His endorsement of President Trump compounds that. A stance which has earned him the ire of traditional supporters in the West. The left-leaning Guardian doesn't sound too impressed. They struggle to reconcile Mr Lai's supposed pro-democracy credentials with allegiance to Trump. Indeed. So here is the question. By getting into bed with Trump, how does this advance Mr Lai's position when the election could go the other way? As an impartial observer of Sino/US relations, this is a captivating development that exposes Hong Kong's pro-democratic camp to the schism in US politics. No doubt there is more to come on this story. 29/10/2020 2 Comments The State of Play. "What is striking is that as an attempt to flee, this was a risible, ill-conceived and inept plan..." On Tuesday this week, members a Hong Kong independence group, Studentlocalism, sought asylum in the US Consulate. Details are sketchy. Media reports suggest security guards allowed them into the compound, yet shortly afterwards they left. The Americans aren't saying what happened, although it appears that this bid for asylum faced rejection.
Early that day the groups leader, Tony Chung, who is on bail, was arrested opposite the consulate, having arrived too early to gain entry. What is striking is that as an attempt to flee, this was a risible, ill-conceived and inept plan—a bit like taking a boat to Taiwan through Chinese waters. For starters, under US asylum laws, claimants must be physically in the US to be considered. Even a brief search of the internet could have established that fact. Moreover, these people do not qualify for refugee status because they are not outside their country of nationality. On top of that, these events expose the limit of American support for activists here. It's not gone unnoticed that the US dodged a major diplomatic incident, that could have added a catastrophic strain to its China relations and led to the closure of the consulate. Clearly, young Tony and his crew aren't worth the bother. With violence and protests curtailed by a combination of the national security law and Covid-19, the arena of action has shifted. Commentators in July, with a fondness for concision over messy realism, declared 'game-over' as the NSL took effect. In my reading of events, the introduction of the NSL brought a welcome respite from violence, while the arena of struggle shifted. The game is still on. The 2014 'Occupy Central' was just the first round or prelude in this series of events. That protest faded as the government mostly sat it out, waiting for enthusiasm to wane. Then the violence of Chinese New Year 2016 — the so-called 'Fish-Ball' riot — indicated an unwelcome evolution was underway. By 2019, with the extradition bill as the catalyst, the militants proved themselves willing to firebomb police stations and kill to achieve their aims. Along with that, a distinct independence movement emerged that challenged Chinese sovereignty. That poked a raw nerve in Beijing. By mid-2020, with protests still simmering, the NSL brought an abrupt halt to the on-street violence. At the same time, the new law cut off overseas funding, while criminalising actions that seek independence. Many prominent activists fled overseas, including several wanted for rioting and other serious offences. All protest movements must grapple with strategic goals, trade-offs, dilemmas and a multitude of choices. Activists are also the audience to each other's actions. For example, having witnessed the arrest in Chinese waters of fleeing bail-jumpers heading to Taiwan, it's doubtful anyone else will again attempt that route. However, structurally this is not just a struggle between the government and the activists. Such a view is an over-simplification of a complex web of intersecting interests. For starters, the government is far from a unified body with one set of interests. The best illustration is our independent judiciary, which operates separately and has come into conflict with the administration by finding against it. Also, you have significant sub-players: including the Police, a multitude of government departments, political parties and the wider passive public. Each has a different stake in events. Then you have the activists who exhibit even greater divisions. For that reason, they strive relentlessly to portray themselves as unified when beset by fault lines and disputes. Scratching the surface, you'll soon expose the fiction of consensus that seeks to sustain collective action. Trumpeting the 'leaderless' model of protest fails to recognise that without leadership, fragmentation is almost always inevitable — there is no centre to hold the movement together. Inevitably, leaderless movements face questions about their legitimacy: who can the government negotiate with?; what is the constituency of the protest movement? Simply uttering five demands doesn't cut the mustard. Joshua Wong is a classic illustration. He appointed himself as a spokesperson for the movement, garnering international coverage with his 'star' recognition. But during the height of the protests, he faced criticism and a hostile reception for grand-standing that caused him to retreat. The more militants types saw him as unwilling to join the 'braves' in fighting the Police. In their eyes, he is inauthentic, plus lacks courage. So while he is the darling of the US politicians, he's an increasingly marginal figure locally. Opposition politicians, meanwhile, in maintaining outward signs of solidarity with the activists, relegated themselves from the sphere of influence. These days their one-trick obstructionist approach in LegCo is mostly a side-show. Plus, when faced with robust debate from officials, they've taken cover. Witness how they've run away from exchanges with the Commissioner of Police in District Council meetings. In effect, they're suppressing debate and free speech because it exposes their inherent weaknesses. These days the arena of struggle has shifted to the law and the judicial system. Protesters are seeking to keep their space for action open by turning court cases into something useful for the cause. Trials are now campaign tools. In this game, activist lawyers are creating new domains for struggle by challenging court decisions, seeking interpretations of the law and with stalling actions. Philip Dykes, the head of Bar Association, jumped in on the first NSL case, seeking to question the validity of the law. That effort failed. Which proves a point; while new arenas of struggle provide new opportunities, they expose players to unknowns. Court decisions can set unwelcome precedents or even see activists locked away for lengthy periods, blunting the ardour of others in the movement. After all, many activists don't have the stamina to withstand long jail terms. On the bigger stage, animated by a sense of civilisational superiority, the West decided it must contain China. They see Hong Kong as a useful lever in that process, albeit local officials have made it clear that international sanctions won't deflect them from maintaining stability here. In effect, the West has pushed Hong Kong deeper into the arms of Beijing across a whole domain of issues including providing political top-cover, economic support and even the provision of public order equipment. With sanctions preventing kit reaching the Hong Kong Police, a process of innovation kicked off. This process led to new tactics with pioneering 'less than lethal' weapons and more effective, leaner, anti-riot teams. Looking around the world, it's dawning on some that: "The American 'beacon on the hill' is growing dim" (Peter Hartcher, The Sydney Morning Herald). Also, there is a recognition that the most vocal critic of China — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — is a biblical literalist who frames the struggle as 'God's battle until the rapture'. This picture is proving deeply unsettling with more rational folks. The penny has dropped with some nations that we've been here before because the push against China comes borne of a moral imperative with religious undertones. It's the same moral imperative that led to previous misadventures. To paraphrase Micheal Pembroke, former Australian Supreme Court Judge, cited in the SCMP: "prudent countries should keep their distance from Washington." It's worth pointing out that Hong Kong's NSL is less strident than Australia's law. Pembroke observes that the tectonic plates of international standing are shifting. Whereas in 1945, America was the world's largest creditor nation, that crown has now passed to China. And the largest debtor nation you ask? Yep, America. Whoever wins next week's US election will face that reality. 21/10/2020 2 Comments The Truth, You Can't Handle The Truth! “All warfare is based on deception” Sun Tze NATO defines PSYOPS as: ‘Planned psychological activities using methods of communications and other means directed to approved audiences in order top influence perceptions, attitudes and behaviour, affecting the achievement of political and military objectives’. I don't know how much of a shock this will cause you — perhaps none, but foreign powers now admit playing a role in Hong Kong's troubles last year. Not everyone accepts that. At the height of the rioting here, a friend quipped "All this talk of foreign involvement is nonsense." I was less sure.
To me, the relentless, sophisticated and focused social media campaign waged, in particular, against the Police had the hallmarks of Psyops. We've seen nothing similar in modern times except during the Arab Spring that kicked off in 2010. Then western governments and media made the false assumption that all you needed to do was get elections up and running, and hey presto, you'd have parts of the Middle East full of liberal-minded democrats. It didn't happen. Instead, the USA became alarmed at the political forces unleashed. President Obama soon adopted a policy of ambivalence; he offered words of comfort and support but little direct help. Last weekend my friend had the good grace to admit his mistake in comprehending events here. What caused his 'road to Damascus' moment? Well, first up he credited the uncloaking of Kong Tsung-gan as American Brian Kern. Local commentator Nury Vittachi twigged that Kong wasn't who he claimed to be. Then a detailed investigation by The Grayzone filled in the gaps. For some time, Kern portrayed himself online as a prominent Chinese pro-democracy activist. In the process, he earned extensive coverage including praise from Chris Patten and coverage in western media outlets. The Hong Kong Free Press gave him regular coverage. Then, when exposed as a white man pretending to be Chinese, Kern did a runner. Some people think Kern is an intelligence agency asset. If he so, then he was hardly operating under deep cover. As a former staffer for Amnesty International, with a job at the Chinese International School, he was a visible presence at the protests. Anyway, these days having an asset on the ground is not necessary. Social media allows influence-peddling from afar. Next, my friend's ears pricked up as news emerged that Trump cut-off support to Hong Kong activists. In effect, the US exposed itself. Through the Agency for Global Media, the US provided funds to enable Hong Kong activists to hide their identities online. Trump stopped that funding. Time Magazine revealed the connection. Later, members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress owned up to the US's involvement. Plus, we've known for some time that the National Endowment for Democracy, poured funds into Hong Kong's opposition groups. Check out the NED's antecedents. None of this should surprise anyone who is a student of international affairs. Thomas Rid's book 'Active Measures' details the mind-bending campaigns of disinformation during the Cold War era. In 1951, the CIA sent shopkeepers in East Germany fake letters from the government in East Berlin. These letters instructed them to drop their prices at once. This action led to a surge of buying and then shortages. Psyops has a long history. Sun Tze highlighted the importance of information deception 2000 years ago. Down the ages, most effective military strategies employed a Psyops element. Ashurbanipal, the king of Assyria from 668 to 627 BC, gifted his neighbouring states the flesh of his victims. They got the message — don't mess with Ashurbanipal. In 1462, Vlad III adopted psychological warfare against Sultan Mehmet II's invading army. Vlad faced a force much more massive than his own. As the Sultan's army advanced, festering corpses greet them on spikes. Soon the name 'Vlad the Impaler' spread far and wide, discouraging further attacks. Vlad's enemies recorded and spread the word of his deeds, and at each telling, the narrator embellished the story. These days Psyops is more subtle. The process harnesses culture, symbols, perceptions and emotions to steer the behaviour of people under stress to meet desired outcomes. These outcomes can be political, military or even criminal. Terrorist activity and insurgencies have a high Psyops component. Plus, and this is critical, the Internet provides new cheap Psyops options. These days every kid with a computer, photoshop or film editing software is a potential Psyops operative. I invite you to go down this rabbit hole to see the workings of British disinformation and Psyops. Until the 1970s, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ran a unit with the sole job of spreading rumours. The Information Research Department sent out over 9,000 'un-avowable pieces of information' aimed at undermining other nations. All governments play these games. In the 1960s the Soviet Union leaked to European peace activists 'evidence' of American plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike. These shoddy fake documents had many errors. Peace activists commented it didn't matter that the leak was a forgery as 'we can guess there is a document almost exactly like it'. They wanted to believe, which unlocks a truth about our hidden attitudes. Walter Lippman (1889–1974), an American political writer, identified this phenomenon decades ago. He saw that people create a stereotypical world model to ease their comprehension of events. He surmised that as societies grow more complex, people must build these models in order not to become overwhelmed. To achieve this, they seek information that affirms existing opinions. Lippman recognised this 'echo chamber' effect well before the Internet threw explosives on the fire. Last year's events in Hong Kong brought this all into sharp focus. People wanted to believe falsehoods — turning palpable idiocies into 'fact'. Bear with me, as I seek to explore this exploitable human condition. We begin in the hard-wired primitive part of the brain — the amygdala region. This almond-shaped blob of grey matter regulates how we react to fear and anxiety. As part of the limbic system, it is not a thinking structure. The amygdala is more akin to a trip-wire that fires off automatically to produce a reaction that can protect us. We see a snake, the amygdala says 'danger', and then in an instant, we jump away. In evolutionary terms the amygdala served us well, helping us to get through the day on the dangerous African savanna. Unfortunately, it's not so helpful these days because the real physical dangers aren't there. Yet, the system is still ready and primed to fire a response. When exposed to death, disorder and destruction by the 24-hour news cycle or on social media, this jolts us into primitive-mind land. Our anxiety and fear levels rise. With your primitive-mind riled-up, you come primed for action. The Netflix docudrama 'The Social Dilemma' dramatised this mechanism. It portrays a young man undergoing radicalisation as social media algorithms augment his anger. Few would dispute that the West saw events in Hong Kong as an opportunity to bring pressure on Beijing. As such, Hong Kong played a role in the broader geopolitical tension of the era, but controlling the narrative would be essential. Thus enters Psyops on steroids, leveraging social media to create a formidable platform that's ready to broadcast any message. Fire up the amygdala, stoke some fear. Seed your message. Then repeat, repeat and repeat across many platforms. "I heard it on Twitter, and my friend says she saw it on Facebook. It must be true!" Nobody bothers to run down the source, so the story takes hold and is then picked up as 'fact' by the mainstream media. In the past, at this stage, you'd expect some verification by professional journalists. Not these days, with activist reporters controlling newsrooms. The mainstream media now feeds the frenzy with misleading headlines designed to get attention. They act as facilitators. That's how tales of 'ghost trains' and 'dead bodies' at Prince Edward still have traction with the gullible and weak-minded. It's even possible to deceive seasoned former journalists; Claudia Mo, turned up at Prince Edward station to lay flowers for people who never died. But other folks will respond in different ways. Some will post critical comments on social media or join marches, and a few will take up bomb-making. Whether a foreign power directed specific Psyops and spread misinformation in Hong Kong during 2019 is a moot point. This explanation is attractive because it explains the sophistication of the 'leaderless' movement. Yet this hypothesis negates the canniness of young people to mount such an enterprise. Plus, history has shown that Psyops efforts, even when covert, don't remain covert for long. With time, we may know more. What is certain is that activists, some schooled overseas and online, proved adept at shaping the story to their ends. Using Internet tools, they controlled the narrative for a while because the government's old-fashioned methods of communication proved no match. Officials needed to learn that press conferences and written press releases have marginal utility in the cyber age. Carrie Lam's administration was driving a clunky old bus, while her opponents speed pass in an autonomous drive sports car. For example, within minutes of people fighting in Yuen Long on the evening of July 21, edited clips emerged. Then in less than two hours, professional time-stamped photographs with commentary appeared. In an instant, these circulated through chat groups with the assertion that the Police conspired in the attacks. Even without reliable evidence, these claims become the dominant narrative. In no time, the international media — without verifying — repeat the story. Rehashed reports of alleged connivance between the Police and gangs add weight to the flimsy 'facts'; innuendo buffed up with a facade of truth for the uninformed. Only in the latter part of 2019 did the Hong Kong authorities start to wake from their plodding analogue approach. They'd fallen into the trap of believing the available truths are the dominant narrative because that's what they heard in their circle. I doubt Carrie Lam was reading Twitter or trawling through Reddit to see the distortions fed to the world. Gradually the government mounted a 'digital' response that penetrated the social media domain with fancy artwork with manga-like images. Plus, several videos appeared that purport to set the record straight. Someone has adopted the methods of Psyops to fight back. In modern times, the challenge we all face is discerning the truth in the blizzard of news, comment and opinion thrown at us. With politicians spinning half-truths or telling outright lies, as activists and governments create narratives, it's no wonder people get misled. Meanwhile, the self-appointed arbiters of the truth — the media — are busy filtering or twisting events to match their agenda. Here's a taste of their activities — a New York Times journalist fabricating a tale of joining ISIS. Whether state-controlled or not, the consequences are profound because the 'well of truth' is now poisoned. Ironically we can look to a former CIA agent to glean tips for spotting fake stories. In summary:-
These days the Hong Kong government and the Police have clawed back some ground. After all, the Hong Kong Police proved restrained compared to their US counterparts when facing rioters. In months of relentless violence, not a single person died at the hands of the Hong Kong Police, while the rioters did kill. That's a fact. 7/10/2020 0 Comments Rock & A Hard Place "The repair cost for the trashed PolyU campus is HK$700 million" Hong Kong parents are in a bind. The chatter is they want to avoid sending their kids to the over-politicised local campuses, but opting to ship them overseas has other hazards. The shambolic handling of Covid-19 in the USA and the UK, the two favoured locations for higher education, make this a high-risk option.
That, coupled with the rising anti-Chinese sentiment. Do you want the kids facing Covid-19 in a place that's floundering and with the threat of racial aggression? Tough call. Are things that bad on local campuses? Speaking to a group of students, I'm told the radical elements are in the soft degrees — the social sciences, and 'grievance studies'. No surprise there. The suggestion is that students tackling hard science subjects are less prone to political activism. Maybe, having less free time is a factor. After all, getting a place on courses for medicine, chemistry, maths, and physics remains challenging, as it should be. Also, it's argued that the focus needed for these courses tends to produce students with a realistic outlook. What is certain is that last year's troubles lost Hong Kong's universities, both friends and influence. In government circles, it's deemed that academics are on the 'wrong side' of the struggle. It hasn't gone unnoticed that deans lost control of their campuses, which became bases for the rioters. At least one dean did a disappearing act in an abrogation of his duties. The images of rioters training on the PolyU and ChineseU campuses sent a chill through society. When the Police took back PolyU, they discovered over 4000 petrol bombs and other weapons. Granted, some of those present may not have been students, yet the terrible optics did the damage. As a consequence, as the new term begins, stories abound that potential students are declining offers. Depending on who you believe, this is because of the NSL or parents opting to keep their kids away. How the NSL would impact a course choice is beyond me. If anything, the NSL has provided a welcome circuit-breaker to calm the situation. Meanwhile, universities need to tackle several significant challenges. Covid-19 is pushing learning online, with demands for fee reductions as aggrieved students claim they are not getting the full college experience. Then there is the matter of paying for the damage done to campuses by the rioters. The repair cost for the trashed PolyU campus is HK$700 million. ChineseU got off lighter at HK$70 million. In the end, I suspect the taxpayer will cover the cost, one way or another. What is surprising is no one is holding the deans to account for their manifest failures. We all saw that as trouble developed on campuses, they stood-by or gave tacit support. Few intervened to assert any control. Of course, the opposition politicians sought to normalise the smashing of campuses as laudable political protest. In their world, all the blame rests on the government and the Police. Along the way they've rewritten history and spun falsehoods, to portray rioters as brave warriors. But that's another story. As Hong Kong re-structured in the 1990s for the 'knowledge economy,' our civic leaders saw 'higher education' for the masses as the way forward. In the UK, Tony Blair trumpeted the same message with his mantra of 'education, education, education'. Yet, as is now recognised, going to university was over-sold for some because it produced unrealistic expectations. Those fancy jobs with premium pay and rapid career advancement didn't fall into laps. Then, again, that's not unique to Hong Kong. As degrees became ubiquitous, a cycle of qualification inflation took hold. Many degrees in the 'soft subjects' are proving worthless. I have to ask, did students expect a degree in 'film studies' and 'the liberal arts' would land them a top job? Well, yes they did because we told them it would. The logical endpoint is over-qualified, resentful people in retail, call-centres and crappy management roles. Which begs the question, would these kids be better off learning a trade? Yes. Much better off than attending bloated second-rate universities. Two years ago, I interviewed hundreds of Hong Kong graduates for management roles in the aviation sector. A number had a high opinion of themselves, with a sense of entitlement on show. They equally displayed a poor comprehension of the commitment needed in the modern workplace. With blunt honesty, some revealed themselves unwilling to consider shift work. Meanwhile, business friends tell me that Mainland graduates show a 'hunger' to get on. Thus, the thesis goes the Mainlanders displace locals graduates in the demanding roles that lead to senior positions. I have no data to support this assertion, but, as the saying goes, perception is reality. One must wonder how much this contributed to the violence of last year, as resentment built amongst local graduates. Coupled to this is a hard truth. Hong Kong is a service centre for China. Our 'parasite economy' thrives because the Mainland is structurally different. Should China ever become an open economy in the Western sense, then Hong Kong's importance wanes. Graduates, who are willing to acknowledge this situation, and seize the opportunity, will in all likelihood prosper. Those who oppose and fight the system curtail their career options. Employers are mindful of this reality. Before Covid-19 cut cross-boundary travel, prospective hires could face a second interview in Shenzhen. This simple step tested the willingness of graduates to cross to the Mainland and engage on that ground. No doubt, employers with Mainland interests are wary of employing anyone who played a role in the protests for fear of a backlash. One student told me a friend spent hours wiping his social media of 'protest-related' material before an interview with a bank. He then faced questions about the gaps. The tale sounded apocryphal. Yet, that the young man took the effort to tell me the story revealed his worries. The absence of a social media footprint can be as suspicious as any content. Also, don't forget that background checks have never been more straightforward thanks to Facebook, Twitter and the like. These platforms and online activism will continue to haunt a generation that put its militant rantings out there. I feel lucky that my cohort had the benefit of fading memories as we explored the boundaries and pushed against their limits. Time has eroded the evidence, something the internet doesn't do. Kids these days would do well to remember Bob Dylan's sage words "And don't speak too soon. For the wheel's still in spin. And there's no tellin' who that it's namin." 2/10/2020 1 Comment Have some common decency! "Mrs Choi would need to work over 35 years to take home what Carrie Lam makes in a year." Mrs Choi works a 12-hour shift, six-days a week, cleaning corridors, windows, door handles and ledges. With the onset of Covid-19 this year, her workload doubled. Enhanced precautions, mandated by her employer, required Mrs Choi to clean designated areas every 30 minutes. She now has only 20 minutes for lunch and no other breaks.
This middle-aged lady is part of the small army, the unrecognised heroes, who've helped keep us safe. Their relentless attention to hygiene in communal areas, on the streets and in public toilets is exemplary. And yet, Mrs Choi is on the minimum wage of HK$37.5 per hour and unlikely to see any increase soon. Indeed, that's the case if the Federation of Hong Kong Industries has its way. Once again they are summoning up apocalyptic tales of collapsing businesses if wages rise by one cent We've heard the same from them when the government introduced a minimum wage in 2010. Listening to their howls, you'd think life as we know it was about to end. It didn't happen. They adapted, and businesses prospered, as things soon settled down. Yes, there are pros and cons to the minimum wage debate; there is also fairness. Mrs Choi and her cohort are amongst the poorest in this affluent city. Despite a lifetime of hard work, they're unable to save as their salaries don't cover the rising cost of living. By comparison, the hourly UK rate is HK$64- and in New York, it's HK$116.2-. Granted, other factors are at play overseas, yet by any measure, Hong Kong's rate is low. Meanwhile, the government has thrown billions of dollars into industries that are not suffering the impacts of Covid-19. The supermarkets that have enjoyed a surge in business, as people dined at home, is the most egregious example. In the latest round of government aid, HK$24- billion is on offer, but not a penny going directly to those on the lowest wage. Instead, businesses will pocket the money, and we have no way of knowing how it's spent. Even our slumbering Consumer Council awoke and felt it necessary to intervene in the supermarket malarkey. In a laughable statement, Kwok Chun-wah of the Labour Advisory Board commented 'employers and employees are sharing the hardship'. Really Mr Kwok? It's not evident that employers are transferring any of the hardship to senior staff. Instead, the pain falls to the lowest paid. Don't forget that Hong Kong has one of the highest levels of income inequality on the planet, a fact that may have contributed to last year's civil unrest. Any responsible government would be looking to narrow that gap even at such a critical time, especially when you need the low paid to keep us all safe through their diligence. Carrie Lam, our Chief Executive, earns about HK$5- million per annum. Mrs Choi would need to work over 35 years to take home what Carrie Lam makes in a year. I wonder can the government assure us that hard-earned public funds thrown at oligarchs isn't lining the pockets of the top end? Added to that, a system of tendering that encourages a 'race-to-the-bottom', means companies feel the pressure to put in low bids. In the process, they shortchange their workers. In Covid-19's inversion of the status hierarchy, many of the truly 'key workers' turned out not be the bankers, flash-money men or wheeler-dealers, but those who did not go to college or less able to pass exams. One hopes that these folks, whose vitally important jobs we viewed as low status, will enjoy better condition and pay. They also merit our admiration. Our profligate government could adopt various strategies that ensure support reaches the needy. Direct payment to workers on minimum wage is one option, likewise enhanced transport subsidies or special tax concessions. Mrs Choi deserves better, including some dignity for her contribution during this crisis. A fine start would be making sure that handouts land in her pocket. Come on, Carrie Lam, have some common decency!  "There is no better demonstration of how far US politics has drifted from any moorings of civility." Trump ran amok at the first presidential debate. He bullied a weak-looking Biden and didn't hesitate to take on the moderator, who struggled to contain an insult filled session. Most of that vitriol coming from Trump.
The impression was of an unedifying mess dominated by Trump's antics. There is no better demonstration of how far US politics has drifted from any moorings of civility. Already the Twitter-sphere is full of comments: 'a shit show, a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck' captures the sentiment. Chris Wallace, the moderator, tried to reign in Trump's constant interruptions, reminding him of the rules. It didn't work. At once, Trump pivoted claiming Biden had interrupted him, and yes he had, but not regularly. The venue looked like a schoolyard with a petulant toddler in full tantrum mood "But Joe pushed me first!" Already Wallace is taking flak; but, it's hard to see how anyone could attain control short of shutting off the mikes. Trump opted to play nasty by evoking rumours about Biden's son. A visibly hurt Biden admitted his son had 'drug issues, but was making progress.' I suspect that short exchange earned Biden credit, while Trump came across as spiteful. Throughout Trump delivered his points with confidence, vim and didn't give an inch. In comparison, Biden was low-energy, plodding and looked flustered at times. No doubt the fact-checkers are hard at work assessing the details. We will need to wait but in a way none of that matters. It's the optics of debate that will sway opinion. On that score, Biden looked feeble next to Trump's chest-beating alpha-male. Yet, the question is, did Trump overplay his hand? No doubt he won the 'street-fight', but has he inadvertently created sympathy for Biden that could translate to votes? Doubtless Trump's base will love his performance; it's the swing voters who may demur. More to come. 21/9/2020 1 Comment Malice in Wonderland "Trump is conducting a symphony of chaos with no discernible tune" I am, to put it mildly, fascinated by the accounts of the Trump presidency. Has any other serving president had so much written about them. Over the past couple of years, we've had 'Fire and Fury,' 'The Room Where it Happened,' 'Unhinged,' 'Too Much and Never Enough' and 'Fear'. There are many others.
Now comes 'Rage' from heavyweight political journalist Bob Woodward. Remember him? Yes, he's the guy who in 1974 helped bring down Nixon with Carl Bernstein — a story told in 'All The President's Men'. Woodward wrote 'Fear' in 2018, without interviewing Trump. In that book, he portrayed Trump's presidency as 'chaotic and dysfunctional.' Woodward concluded that Trump was out of his depth, and couldn't recognise his predicament. Is this the Dunning-Kruger effect writ large? Then, in a bizarre move, Trump agrees to give Woodward full access for this latest book. Between December 2019 and July 2020, Woodward conducted seventeen interviews with Trump. He recorded over nine hours of exchanges. Likewise, Woodward had free rein to speak with anyone in the administration. Woodward treads a similar path to others in this genre; Trump comes across as unfocused and rudderless. In the end, Woodward concludes 'Trump is the wrong man for the job.' Bob, we all knew that, some time ago. Where Woodward serves a purpose is when he fills in the detail to give weight to insights. For starters, the trajectory of Trump's hiring and firing follows a predictable pattern. In the beginning, nominees are 'awesome,' 'a great person,' and 'incredible.' Then reality takes hold. The hire realises their advice goes ignored, or they fail to agree to Trump's demands. Slowly at first, a drumbeat against them starts. Then comes a steady increase in sniping and snide remarks. Even Tweets help to push home the message that someone is out of favour. Getting wind of their precarious position, honourable men offer to resign. Trump then acts fast to portray these resignations as firings. 'Glad he's gone,' 'I didn't like his leadership style.' It's petty, disagreeable, backbiting stuff. In the process, Trump proves in his world that loyalty is a one-way street. Everything for Trump is transactional, wrapped in hype, and driven home with occasional bitterness. The WTO, WHO, EU, China, Mexico, Canada and NATO are 'all ripping us off and screwing us.' Atop that is the legendary bragging and outright lies. These are too many to list. To help, The Washington Post keeps a record of all Trump's misleading claims. It's a fun read. Let us examine one signature policy initiative — 'The Wall' with Mexico. By mid-2020, it's still not there. How much is built? Well, that depends on how you do the maths. Trump would say 121.4 miles is complete, yet 99 miles of that is renovations and repairs. New sections amount to no more than ten miles. The border is 1,954 miles long. Some way to go. And not a cent has come from Mexico. Instead, Mexicans are stealing parts of the construction. Woodward had unique access during the unfolding Covid-19 crisis. He chronicles in detail all the steps taken by Trump or rather the lack of action. As the deaths mount, Woodward challenges Trump to account for the evident failures, the lack of coordination and reversals. On each occasion, Trump distracts, moves on or pivots to head off any admission. 'China is to blame' is the mantra. Such statements play well in the rust belt, where workers have lost jobs to cheap Chinese labour. On this score, only one point sticks. Why people couldn't move from Wuhan to Beijing due to a lockdown, yet international flights out of Wuhan continued. It's a fair criticism. Even when Woodward gives credit and acknowledges Trump made a tough call in late January 2020 to ban travel from China, the event gets twisted. Trump asserts he went against professional advice to do the 'right thing.' Strange how everyone else present recalls a reluctant Trump finally taking counsel. I suppose if anyone comes out of this book well, for me, it's young Jared Kushner. Against my instincts, I must give him kudos. Kushner scores points for his focus, attention to detail and for providing a stunning insight. Kushner demonstrates he can marshal resources and gets the job done at critical moments. His timely work in coordinating the distribution of ventilators for Covid-19 patients illustrates the point. He soon puts in place a system, which keeps ahead of demand. Then, Kushner inadvertently busts open the Trump phenomenon with a staggering and brutal insight. He cites four texts that a person needs to study to comprehend Trump. With these, we go deep down a rabbit hole, literally. The first came from a Wall Street Journal article that says, in essence, 'Trump is crazy, and it's kinda working.' Second, is the Cheshire Cat from 'Alice in Wonderland' who proclaims "If you don't know where you're going, any path will do." Next, Kushner recommends reading Chris Whipple's 'The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency'. Of course, Kushner is the de facto Chief of Staff. Last, you must digest the satirical Scott Adam's book 'Win Bigly; Persuasion in a World When Facts Don't Matter.' According to Kushner, Trump's 'misstatements' of facts 'invent any reality' the voter wants. Moreover, Trump will never apologise, and if you call him a liar: well, that's because 'you always do.' It's akin to trying to fight a shifting cloud of gas. Kushner observes that "The media can't hold Trump in check because he doesn't play by their rules." If they cross the line, they're ostracised. And because access for them is everything, Trump is prepared to cut them off. One other thing, Kushner has a 'lean and hungry look.' Although a tad untutored on the broader world, he will learn. After all, he recently brought home a partial peace deal in the Middle East. He's somebody to watch. At times during the interviews, you can hear that Woodward is attempting to school Trump. He repeats lessons from history, something Woodward at aged 77, and having dealt with every president since Nixon, is well placed to do. None of this appears to register with Trump, who displays few signs of introspection. There is so much to pick over in this book. Not addressed, but something that needs acknowledging is the damage Trump has done to the USA's standing on the international stage. Many believe he has accelerated the rise of China by distancing allies under his 'America First' policy. This remarkable state of affairs has consequences which remain unclear. In the end, I don't buy the argument that Trump is foolhardy. Far from it. He's a master of manipulation, can rouse a crowd and is ruthless. He's done many complex things in his life, while proving himself very stress resistant. Also, he's undoubtedly an odd man. Nonetheless, he's taken the US out of the 'normative mild-incompetence' of moderate politicians into a new arena of constant struggle. Trump is conducting a symphony of chaos with no discernible tune. The question is, will the US electorate opt for a new conductor? We will know soon enough. 16/9/2020 1 Comment The Sealed Knot "When in a hole, stop digging" The families of the 12 fugitives caught fleeing to Taiwan, held an ill-advised press conference last Saturday. Understandably, they are most concerned about their kids. You'd have to be heartless not to recognise their distress. And yet, in all truth, they may have made matters worse. In that, they are aided and abetted by opposition politicians James To and Eddie Chu.
"When in a hole, stop digging". These sage words served me well on the occasions when my belligerent side came to the fore. It's something I'll freely share with James and Eddie boy. Because having cajoled the protests last year, they're now sending some of their supporters to a worse fate. As one commentator noted, the 12 fugitives 'inadvertently, self-extradited to the Mainland'. Their foolhardy attempt to flee Hong Kong has landed them in the very situation they feared most. Also, there are questions the families must answer, including what did they know? They've all spoken of their ignorance of joint enterprise to flee including breaking bail conditions. That's hardly credible, given the life-changing venture their kids set out to undertake. Surely they noticed the preparations? The press conference, organised by James and Eddie, had the parents dressed like ISIS. I doubt this helps matters. On seeing it many of us had flash-backs to the nascent terrorists who ran amok last year, burning and trashing our city. The optics weren't right. Further, the event proved a spectacular own goal. The thrust of the parent's complaint is that the 12 fugitives are in incommunicado and can't access lawyers. The Mainland asserts it has provided them with proper representation. And, yes there is a legitimate conversation to be had about the legal system on the Mainland. But, I likewise, could make a case that US justice comes predicated on being rich enough to fight a lawsuit. Also, does anyone want to discuss Guantanamo Bay, enhanced interrogation techniques and Julian Assange? Meanwhile, it's emerged that Taiwan has held five other Hong Kong fugitives for two months under similar conditions. This bizarre twist has drawn no international reaction. Odd that. The rumour mill continues to churn out stories that the 12 fugitives were taken in Hong Kong waters and never intended in flee. Of course, in this post-truth age no one bothers to substantiate such claims with any evidence. Could it become any crazier? Well yes. In effect, the opposition politicians have now tied the fate of the 12 fugitives to the broader USA and China geopolitical struggle. Is that wise? By embedding the discussions about getting the fugitives back to Hong Kong in that context, they've made a timely resolution harder. Another example of the Pan Dem's reckless conduct that harms their cause. So far so bad, and it gets worse. The US chimed in with a characterisation of the 12 fugitives as 'democracy activists'. This statement ignores the fact the group includes accused rioters and bomb-makers. The Mainland fired back portraying them as separatists. Well done Eddie and James, you've now sealed their fate. I have some experience in getting suspects back from the Mainland. Back in the day, my command handled a murder case involving a suspect fleeing north. Acting on information, and by thorough detective work, my officers located the suspect in Guangdong. Then began a discrete and delicate round of liaison. For some months, this went on. We established that the suspect had also committed lesser crimes on the Mainland. Eventually, he’s handed back. After a trial here in Hong Kong, then a guilty verdict, he’s serving his sentence. All this helped bring some closure for the poor victim's family. This serving of justice was possible because we established a rapport and goodwill based on mutual respect with our Mainland counterparts. This then led to an amicable resolution. My experience is far from unique. Many other suspects have come home under similar circumstances. Thus there is a supreme irony in all this. Having spent most of last year decrying the Chinese legal system and vilifying Beijing, the opposition now begs its indulgence. I'm not a trained negotiator, but I reckon such an approach is unlikely to work. Plus, any sensible person recognises that Beijing doesn't take kindly to external interference. The intervention by the US is bound to backfire. Did Eddie and James sit back to reflect on their options? Because let's face it; the imagery and substance of their actions serve only to tighten the knot for the 12 fugitives. A more rational protagonist may think that burning bridges with Beijing is not such a wise strategy. Besides, there is nothing for the parents to gain by making their kids de facto hostages in the topsy-turvy US and China dispute. When the tides turn and the noise dies down, the 12 fugitives should return and face justice here. Finally, if this mess taught us anything, it's that these local politicians don't comprehend the rules of the game they've elected to play. Either that or they're prepared to sacrifice the 12 fugitives and their parents in the bigger game — nasty business. 15/9/2020 2 Comments Trapped in Space & Time "Is your maths any good? We’ll be doing a lot of counting of boats as they round the mark”. While not believing in parallel universes, my unfortunate victim may wish these existed. Then, he could escape my attention. But, hey, it’s not every day you get a CERN particle physicist hostage for six hours. We were there to marshal a sailing race, and I’d opened the discussion with “Is your maths any good? We’ll be doing a lot of counting of boats as they round the mark”.
He had the good grace to came back with “Yep, my maths is OK”. Twenty minutes later, I learnt his profession. He immediately regretted telling me. Typically, people run away when I start on about my theory for unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. And why it will be possible to achieve near light-speed using a blackhole, by skipping off the event horizon, in a slingshot action. I'm currently building a mock-up out of old toilet rolls, sticky back plastic, and a coat hanger. This proof of concept may yet allow us to escape this planet to colonise the galaxy. My new best friend, the particle physicist, couldn’t escape. But he confirmed there is a particle detector between the tubes of the Aberdeen Tunnel used to detect neutrinos. I knew it. Millions of neutrinos created in the Sun’s nuclear reactions pass through our body every day without ill effects. How cool is that? Between races, I managed to get in a discussion about multiverses, worm-holes, dark matter, black holes, and gravitational waves. When I say discussion, that’s an exaggeration. It was more him correcting me “No, the magnets at CERN don’t accelerate the particles. The magnet act to contain the particles in the beam”. Got that. OK, so what did I learn, besides the fact that I'm dumb? Well, for starters, fusion reactors on Earth are as far off as Brexit. But, no worries, because we have a functioning fusion reactor that appears every morning over the horizon and disappears at night. It’s output only takes about eight minutes to get here. We’d be better off harnessing that because it appears the Sun has five billion years on the clock. And don’t mention Professor Brian Cox, the poster boy of modern physics. Physicists are a jealous lot, and the fact that Brian Cox hasn’t done much real research is a bone of contention. Also, his youthful looks are not due to Brian using the Large Hadron Collider to travel back in time and regenerate. Who does he think he is? After all, we know the second law of thermodynamics prevents backward time travel. Yet, forward time travel is possible. Our GPS systems take account of the fact that time runs slower on satellites orbiting at high speed. Also, this means that astronauts who speed away from us to the Moon and then return have aged fractionally less than people on Earth. Although, it's now known that particle physicists listening to boring farts with their crackpot ideas age faster than anyone. Based on observations, I can attest to the fact that particle physicists can move fast once ashore, and when approached in the bar. Although, why wives jump to conclusions faster than the speed of light remains a mystery, yet it ages us. |
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
January 2021
|
RSS Feed