Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
|
22/4/2025 0 Comments Crisis = Opportunity "Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago." According to the Chinese saying, “A crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind.” And we've certainly felt plenty of wind from Trump.
So, how's it going? How is Hong Kong faring under the onslaught of Trump's tariffs? What is the mood on the street? Well, when people take a moment to look up from their phones and pause their enjoyment of the memes poking fun at Americans, not much has changed. Government officials are making plans as the business community toggles between bafflement and stoic acceptance. Despite the challenges, our ability to adapt, change course, and turn crises into opportunities has always been a significant strength. Supported by a business-friendly government and a vast Chinese hinterland, Hong Kong continues to resist fear. Additionally, vast amounts of foreign investment are flowing in. Some of that is money escaping Trump's craziness. As always, Hong Kong serves as a feeder city for the greater Chinese economy. Thus, with the Americans preoccupied with dismantling trade agreements and irritating just about everyone, Hong Kong stands to benefit as China's influence expands and foreign investors seek a stable market. Sure, China faces challenges, but it seems more capable of weathering the storm than most. Also, they've been preparing for Trump's shenanigans for decades. For starters, Trump is fighting for jobs that went out of fashion with Americans decades ago. Does he seriously expect them to go back to sweatshop production line conditions? These roles don't even exist in China now because they've moved out to Pakistan and Cambodia. In the 1950s, 22% of U.S. employment was in manufacturing. Today, that figure is only 8%. Efficiencies and robotics have replaced workers; thus, bringing manufacturing onshore won't create much additional employment. Still, Trump aspires to a rose-tinted past. Even the Vice President's acclaimed book, Hillbilly Elegy, is filled with nostalgic references as he yearns for an era long gone. In the card game analogy touted by U.S. officials, China holds a formidable hand. First, China plays the long game while Trump flips and flops. And don't argue that's a strength or strategy, because any leadership model will tell you such approaches rarely work. Money markets demand consistency from politicians because there are enough variables to tax their thinking without self-made chaos. Long-term always defeats the short-term. Next, China holds a strong position on rare earth minerals that the U.S. requires for a wide range of technologies. Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 elements crucial in producing high-tech products such as smartphones, electric car motors, and military equipment. China accounts for 92% of rare earth production. The U.S. relies entirely on imports for certain rare earths, with 100% dependency on yttrium, of which 93% comes from China. Additionally, the U.S. has an 80% import dependence on all rare earth compounds and metals, with 56% sourced from China. Without access to these materials, the U.S. must seek them elsewhere or mine them domestically. Neither option is straightforward. China is already restricting sales to the U.S., with prices surging dramatically, making the production of advanced electronics in the U.S. even more costly. Then consider medicines. The U.S. closed its last penicillin plant in 2004, and China supplies 90% of the antibiotic used in the U.S. Interestingly, rumours abroad are that U.S. hedge funds sold off U.S. Treasury bonds in response to Trump's tariffs — not China. If true, the money men who helped put Trump in office are now betting against him. In the meantime, China has gradually shifted from sourcing items from the U.S. to engaging with other trading partners. It has ceased using U.S. LPG and has opted for supplies from Australia while returning or cancelling Boeing orders as it transitions to Airbus-made aircraft or domestic planes. The same shift is occurring with soybeans and chickens. Moreover, China always has the option to enhance the regulations it imposes on U.S. companies to exert influence. When Walmart pressured Chinese manufacturers to lower their prices to offset Trump's tariffs, officials met with the company to remind it of its contractual obligations and the legal consequences of non-compliance. This incident highlights China's ability to leverage its regulatory power to maintain control over its trade relationships, even with large multinational corporations. Not only can China inflict harm on the U.S. in hard finance terms, but it is already exploiting Trump's behaviour on multiple fronts. For many countries, the U.S. has surrendered the moral high ground as a responsible world citizen by its overbearing style. The damage to U.S. soft power cannot be underestimated. Meanwhile, China is positioning itself as a responsible, mature, and stable partner who can be trusted. For decades, Southeast Asian countries sought to navigate a path between the U.S. and China, maintaining cordial relations with both. However, during my recent trip to Vietnam and Cambodia, I found that the U.S. is now perceived as hostile and bullying. As a result, they have chosen to lean towards China, another own goal for Trump. Even the Europeans, traditionally close allies of the U.S., are treading carefully. Under Trump, the U.S. is no longer considered a reliable partner, leading to a July China/EU summit. With 50% of the EU's profits from cars and luxury goods coming from China, they cannot afford to be caught in the crossfire of a trade war. There is one factor that many are missing in this discussion. Trade these days is rarely a matter of one nation selling to another and vice versa. For example, consider the Mini car. These iconic little cars get exported to 110 countries. The vehicle is originally British in design and origin, but the Germans now own the brand. Production occurs in Oxford (UK), Leipzig (Germany), and China. Components come from an estimated 30 countries. I say estimated because components comprise sub-components, and detailing all the entities involved is problematic. Likewise, the iPhone comprises components from 1100 suppliers made in over thirty factories across Asia, with 90% of the activity occurring in China. It took Apple 25 years to build that network. Thus, it’s not a matter of moving one factory and training one workforce. It’s a vast, evolved system that took decades to emerge. Therefore, it's wishful thinking to expect anything tangible to occur in under 10 years. Hence, China and other countries can continue to produce components and transship them through multiple nations before reaching U.S. consumers. And keeping track of these complex shipping and manufacturing regimes is a bureaucratic nightmare that will either discourage trade with the U.S. or become so resource-intensive that it can't be implemented. Either way, the U.S. does not receive the stuff it needs or gets it at an increased cost. Lastly, size and confidence matter. China isn't picking up the phone to speak to the U.S.; instead, it's quietly building new trade options while preparing for the worst. China is seizing the moral high ground, acting moderate and reasoned, because Beijing believes it can withstand the bitter wind blowing from Washington. Only time will tell, but I reckon Trump has made a massive blunder and we still have 1370 days to go. One thing is certain: America is losing the meme war big style.
0 Comments
16/4/2025 0 Comments Steel Town "The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making" I know Scunthorpe. It forms part of a trinity of post-industrial northern towns often mocked by the elitist London metropolitan crowd. Hull and Grimsby complete this trio.
During a school trip, I visited the Scunthorpe steel plant on a geography field day. This site has been a cornerstone of Britain’s industrial economy for over 150 years. The location was selected based on geographic, economic, and historical factors. The Frodingham ironstone bed, part of the North Lincolnshire iron field, was discovered in the 1850s, yielding high-quality iron ore just beneath the town. Nearby coal fields in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire provided coking coal for blast furnaces, while limestone originated from Derbyshire and the Peak District. Thus, Scunthorpe is located in the "Iron Triangle," where iron ore, coal, and limestone are all within a 50-mile radius. Furthermore, the nearby Humber ports, rail connections, canals, and rivers facilitated transportation. The first steelworks emerged in 1864, and two enormous blast furnaces now stand on the site. Suddenly, Scunthorpe is in the news because the blast furnaces that produce virgin steel are about to shut down, which would end steel production in the UK. The plant's owners, a Chinese company, warned the British government 18 months ago that the plant was no longer viable. Just days before the proposed closure, the British government enacted legislation that required the plant's owners to maintain operations in a frantic effort to prevent closure. With no coking coal in reserve, there is an urgency to deliver enough coal to the plant to keep the fires burning. Blast furnaces operate continuously because shutting them down risks structural damage incurs massive costs, and leads to prolonged downtime. While modern electric arc furnaces provide greater flexibility, traditional blast furnaces are still referred to as "always-on beasts." So why was the British government's sudden intervention necessary? The bottom line is that primary steel concerns not just metal but also power, survival, and economic dominance. Nations that lose control of it risk becoming vulnerable in crises. With Trump’s U.S. appearing less like a stable partner, post-Brexit Britain suddenly seemed exposed in a rapidly changing world. Steel is essential for military equipment, such as ships, tanks, and aircraft, as well as for infrastructure like bunkers and bases, as well as ammunition. Dependence on foreign steel imports can weaken a nation's defence readiness during conflicts or trade wars. Additionally, steel is the backbone of key industries, including construction, automotive, machinery, and energy, encompassing pipelines and wind turbines. Losing primary steelmaking capacity leads to reliance on unstable global supply chains. Currently, China produces 55% of the world's steel. Recognising the importance of steel production, the EU and India subsidise domestic steel to avoid over-reliance on other nations. Britain lacked such foresight. The story of the decline of British steel has been decades in the making. Under-investment, a lack of priorities, and the relentless drive for net zero are all factors at play. The sector relies heavily on coal-based blast furnaces, contributing 2% of the UK's total CO₂ emissions. Transitioning from coal-based production to hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs) requires £4–6 billion in investments. In truth, without government support, UK steelmakers cannot compete against cheaper imports from China, India, and Turkey. Currently, the UK imports 60% of its steel. The other elephant in the room is the UK’s electricity costs, which are 50% higher than those in European nations, making the modern EAF option unviable. If UK steel production becomes too expensive, manufacturers, such as those in the automotive and aerospace industries, may source cheaper foreign steel, further undermining the domestic sector. A few opportunistic politicians claim that the Chinese deliberately sabotaged the last remaining British steel plant to force the UK to rely on cheap imports. However, as political commentator Andrew Neil noted, "The British are perfectly capable of destroying steel production without help from anyone else. The industry has been under-supported for decades." Indeed, the mantra of net zero has provided cover for this destruction. Furthermore, Neil and other commentators note that Britain lacks long-term strategic plans to safeguard key industrial infrastructure. For decades, successive governments have avoided making tough decisions by allowing foreign interests to take precedence. From employing over 300,000 in 1971 to less than 3,000 in 2025, the problem of British Steel didn’t begin with the Chinese owners. It’s just business for them, as it was for the Indian owners before the Chinese. The Indian conglorate Tata ran the plant before a series of ownership changes with the Jingye Group taking over in 2020 after an approach by British officials. The Jingy Group then invested £330 millionin upgrading the site. Perhaps, the real risk sits elsewhere. In his book Vassal State, author Angus Hanton documents the extent to which U.S. commercial interests control the British economy. While China is taking flak in this saga, the influence of U.S. companies is much broader. Hanton argues that Britain exited Europe with Brexit while quietly placing itself at the mercy of U.S. private equity funds and big tech. The concept of an open door has led to the sale of many of Britain’s most productive and innovative businesses. The U.S. accounts for roughly 30% of all foreign investment in the UK, while China comprises 2%. Consequently, the U.K. appears to function as an appendage of the U.S., even though it is performing worse than America’s poorest state, Mississippi. As recent events have shown, the U.S. significantly influences global trade, tax, and investment to serve its own interests. Consequently, the U.K. now finds itself between a rock and economic failure. As reality sets in, the shift from balancing the pursuit of net zero to maintaining strategic industries has resulted in the latter taking precedence. For the workers of Scunthorpe, there is some short-term relief. However, the question remains, does Britain have the backbone to safeguard its national interests in this new disruptive Trump era? 12/4/2025 0 Comments Hubris "While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool" In the movie Ran, Japanese director Akira Kurosawa narrates the tale of a warlord whose prideful sin drives him to madness as he attempts to impose his vision in a world full of jealousy, finance, intrigue, vanity, and greed. Loosely inspired by Shakespeare's King Lear, the saga centres on an old man. He wanders from one tragedy to another, bewildered as he pushes in from the margins on issues he cannot resolve. Eventually, a war engulfs the land as his two sons fight for control. While the old man stumbles through the burning landscape, accompanied by his Fool, his sons and their warriors pay more attention to their conflicts than to this pathetic, peripheral figure. As life rushes forward, ignoring historical continuity, the wider world has its own desires and tempests. The old man's will holds little weight as others devour his spoils like dogs tearing at a carcass. Ultimately, he betrays his people, destroys everything, and fades away. In a final jarring scene, a blind woman walks toward the abyss to stand on the edge of oblivion. It’s an epic tale of hubris.  "Darren Jason Watkins Jr., (aka iShowSpeed) is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube." Until last week, I'd never heard of iShowSpeed. To clarify, that's not the name of a company or software. iShowSpeed is the online moniker for Darren Jason Watkins Jr., a 20-year-old American YouTuber and online streamer with 38 million subscribers. His channels have recorded nearly four billion hits.
This young man's online presence is not just influential; it's monumental. Some even argue that he can make or break a business. His arrival in Hong Kong this week was not just a visit but a seismic event that drew the attention of traditional media and officials who saw an opportunity to promote the city. He was mobbed wherever he went, primarily by adolescent boys who hung on his every utterance like the second coming of Christ. Although, if you're over 18 years old, he's probably not on your radar. Yet lawmaker Dominic Lee Tsz-king is upset. He posted on social media that the young Darrens's tour of Hong Kong didn't include the It's clear that some, like Mr Lee, have unrealistic expectations of Darren's visit. They seem to believe that officials should dictate his agenda, but let's be real. Darren is not the type to be told what to do. When the Tourist Board reached out to him, he didn't respond. And perhaps that's for the best. After all, he's not catering to the usual crowd. The nature of Darren's output is spontaneous, free-rolling and not without debatable content. He is one of the most polarising figures on YouTube. His explosive personality, outrageous stunts, and unfiltered reactions have sparked an intense backlash. He initially gained attention for his high-energy gaming streams, especially his obsessive love for Cristiano Ronaldo and FIFA. His exaggerated reactions, shouting fits, and unpredictable behaviour soon made him stand out in the crowded streaming world. Yet, his shock-value antics sometimes pushed boundaries, leading to controversies and viral moments. As a result, he faced multiple bans from platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and even events. In the 2022 World Cup, he stormed the field during Portugal vs Uruguay, wearing a Ronaldo jersey. He's also known for off-colour antics, such as allegedly exposing himself online and using racial slurs in his quest to shock audiences, generate clicks, and promote his merchandise. That's how he earns his income: t-shirt sales and other items. While some view him as a hilarious, unfiltered personality, others see him as a poor influence who crosses too many lines. In a town where the government has spasms of pearl-clutching when a teenager gets filmed smoking, young Darren is hardly a role model they'd likely encourage or promote. After viewing Darren's videos of Hong Kong, we got off lightly. Move on; there's nothing to see here.  "The U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon." Make no mistake, this is a game changer. Under Trump, the U.S. has turned against everyone, even the Heard and McDonald Island penguins. Well, that's not strictly true; Putin and the Fat Lad in North Korea receive a free tariff pass. The unpredictability of these actions leaves us all in a state of uncertainty.  Trumps action has many consequences, not least because the beacon of U.S. influence is fading on the geopolitical stage, a trend that could have long-term implications. As far as I can tell — and I'm no expert, so if I get this wrong, please let me know — Trump seeks to achieve two things. First, he wants to re-shore manufacturing and, second, to address perceived trade imbalances. Following this, the tariffs are supposed to generate revenue for the government to spend without raising taxes while suppressing growth, which creates demand for government treasury bills and drives down interest rates. This move, in turn, reduces U.S. national debt. This new tariff regime impacts nearly every conceivable product, from electronics and machinery to apparel and agriculture, leaving only a few strategic imports, such as certain metals, semiconductors, and energy resources, untouched. Trump claims that these "reciprocal tariffs" will tackle foreign protectionism and address "unfair" trade deficits that have "hollowed out" U.S. manufacturing. It's important to note that the tariffs are not based on actual foreign tariffs, but on a nonsensical formula tied to bilateral trade gaps. This is a crucial point to understand. To justify his actions, Trump argues that the U.S. is being taken advantage of and that the economy is in crisis. Neither of these claims stands up to scrutiny. Americans run deficits with some countries and surpluses with others. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy was performing well until last week; unemployment is at a 50-year low, inflation has dropped to 3 %, and GDP is growing at 2.4% while other countries are struggling. Trump asserts that he wants to re-shore production to "Make America Great Again." That's fair enough. However, that assumes it makes economic sense to manufacture goods in the U.S. For example, the U.S. is unlikely to be competitive in T-shirt production due to the low wages in Cambodia and Pakistan. Consider the production of high-end items like the iPhone. Under the new tariff regime, the cost of an iPhone could triple, making it uncompetitive against cheaper Chinese phones. Meanwhile, a conservative estimate suggests shifting iPhone production out of China will take five to ten years. Of course, this assumes all other things are equal, that you have skilled people, and that the plant and infrastructure are in place state-side. And how does Little Britain fair in all this? Angus Hanton's book "Vassal State" gives a comprehensive and stunning account of how the U.S. has already captured Britain's markets and moved to dictate economic policy. It has long been recognised that the British Foreign Office operated under the principle of "find out what Washington is doing, and do slightly less." Now, the U.S. has the U.K. by the short and curlies, with tax rises likely in the autumn as tariffs further slow business confidence and that elusive trade deal remains ever over the horizon. And if Britain doesn't play ball, bullying can quickly get the Limeys to comply. In 2020, when the U.S. banned China's Huawei, the Brits initially decided to take a different path with a partial ban. Trump went ballistic. U.S. officials urged British MPs to rebel against a cabinet decision as Trump called Boris Johnson in rage. A U-turn followed, cloaked in "new technical advice". Similarly, the U.K. military relies on the Americans for equipment, transport, and training. Between 2010 and 2021, the Ministry of Defence spent £26 billion on U.S. companies. While researching his book, Hanton discovered that the British government was reluctant to share details about the extent of U.S. ownership of U.K. businesses. A subsequent tip-off directed him to a U.S. government database that revealed the details. The U.S. owns numerous British businesses, including heritage brands that most Brits still believe belong to good old Blighty, such as high-street shops and manufacturers. Most folks think that Boots, Cadbury Chocolate, Quaker Oats, Fanta, Mars, Costa Coffee, and Manchester United are British. No. When Brits deal online with the U.K. government agencies such as the DVLA and the Ministry of Justice, U.S. big tech provides that communication channel. IBM, Microsoft and Oracle have cornered the market. When accounting for major U.S. multinationals like Amazon, U.S. companies now have annual sales in the U.K. exceeding $700 billion, translating to an average of about £20,000 per U.K. household. And yet, U.S. multinationals routinely avoid paying U.K. tax to a suspected sum of £5.6bn for 2022-23. Over two million Brits work directly for U.S. companies. The U.S. has placed 30% of all its overseas investments in the U.K., and half of its European investments are in Britain. This takeover is not surprising. The Brits opened their markets in a steady decade-long process, and the U.S. swept in. That's not to suggest that these companies don't provide quality services, many do. Significantly, other European nations protected certain critical sectors from takeovers by U.S. private equity firms and Big Tech. Now, the U.K. gets hit with a 10% tariff despite Starmer's genuflecting to Trump with a letter from a real King. Arguably, Trump has laid the lowest rate on Britain because, in effect, he's taxing U.S. businesses. Meanwhile, Europe is hit with a higher 20% rate. As the leaked Signal messages reveal, the Trump regime has no love for the Europeans. Yet, one continent is in a sweet spot regarding this uncertainty and arbitrariness. As the map below reveals, African nations have shifted from trading with the U.S. to focusing on China.  How the U.S. lost Africa in twenty years. Meanwhile, Hong Kong as a free port is not retaliating against Trump(for now). Our regime of free access remains unchanged. And this imposition of tariffs on a free port exposes that these measures have little to do with trade. The big game is played on many fronts.
2/4/2025 0 Comments More U.S. Hypocrisy "If the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay." The U.S. government has imposed another round of sanctions on Hong Kong officials, including the retiring police chief. While Washington presents these sanctions as a defence of human rights and democracy, critics contend that the actions are laden with “hypocrisy” and “double standards.”
Why? For starters, the U.S. has draconian national security laws that exceed any provisions used in Hong Kong. The Patriot Act (2001) allows for mass surveillanc and indefinite detention of suspects without trial. As Edward Snowden and others revealed, the U.S. will relentlessly pursue whistleblowers and impose severe penalties for leaks, even when they expose wrongdoing. The current crackdowns on U.S. campuses against protests, including aggressive police responses, contrast sharply with U.S. criticism of Hong Kong’s law enforcement. Plus, these days, Trump is focused on suppressing pro-Palestine voices, deporting critics of his policies while banning journalists from the White House who pose difficult questions. History shows that the U.S. supports authoritarian regimes when it is convenient. Despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the brutal repression, the U.S. continues to sell arms and maintains close ties to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, billions in military aid continue to flow to the Egyptian regime despite the jailing of journalists and activists. Looking further back, the U.S. supported dictators such as Pinochet (Chile) and Suharto ( Indonesia) when it aligned with Cold War interests. Its regime change activities have caused death and chaos in many regions, with consequences that persist today. Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone! Interestingly, when the British governed Hong Kong as a colony, the U.S. never advocated for democracy. Instead, they used the territory to support their wars Korea and Vietnam. Post-1997, business elites in this region and their political patrons in the U.S. supported a system that limited democratic processes.The U.S. only changed its stance on Hong Kong when protests aligned with its geopolitical objectives against China. We must recognise that these measures against Hong Kong officials represent a tantrum and a form of political theatre in response to the unsuccessful 2019 protests that the U.S. supported and sponsored. Yet in fairness, these sanctions are limited and look like a token gesture because Trump cannot afford to anger China too much as a trade war looms. Plus, if the U.S. were genuinely taking a moral position, it would sanction India over Kashmir, Israel over Palestine, or itself over Guantanamo Bay. Moreover, the action against Hong Kong can be seen as part of a broader effort by the U.S. to interfere in other countries’ sovereignty. Regime change operations in Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and covert actions in Latin America show that the U.S. often disregards sovereignty. What is the impact on the individual? Evidence suggests that sanctions are counterproductive by fostering a "siege mentality” that unites officials against a common enemy: the bullying West. In truth, although sanctions may inconvenience officials, they rarely alter behaviour. In the end, sanctions are a blunt instrument — an acknowledgement that the U.S. has waning influence. 23/3/2025 1 Comment Britain's Woes. "The events at Heathrow are indicative of Britain’s woes" In a previous life, I prepared Hong Kong for emergencies. This work assessed whether critical infrastructure was sufficiently robust to withstand terrorist attacks, including ensuring system redundancy and establishing a rapid recovery plan for potential disruptions to normal day-to-day operations. A 'Red Team' approach that frequently examined worst-case scenarios formed a core element of this work.
Thus, when news broke that Heathrow Airport, one of the busiest in the world, had ceased operations, I immediately sat up and took notice. This crucial national infrastructure plays a significant role in the British economy and worldwide civil aviation. I wanted to see how the facility was quickly brought back into service. Because, with its power supply interrupted, the ripple effect was felt globally. Aircraft from Hong Kong bound for the UK reversed course and returned, and hundreds of other planes either did not take off or were diverted to airports across the UK and Europe. The knock-on effect spread worldwide. Some questions arose. Was it a terrorist attack that disrupted the electricity supply? Before long, speculation emerged in the media, pointing the finger at Putin, who is alleged to have orchestrated firebomb attacks in Europe. As the bogeyman of the day, he was destined to receive the blame. Nevertheless, I remained puzzled about how a single fire at one substation could have led to the complete failure of the entire electrical supply system. If it was indeed an act of terrorism, then the perpetrator had specifically targeted the one node that would have the most significant impact. My questions intensified as evidence emerged that the fire was likely caused by overheating cooling oil. A few reports pointed to the substation operating beyond 100% capacity. Still, why did no backup systems come online? Are standby generators available? How did a single substation failure have such consequences? The terrorist narrative is now refuted, and Putin is in the clear. Phew! Instead, with the suggestion is that an engineer took the wrong action or the substation was overloaded. Either way, a fire resulted. Upon reviewing the press releases, it becomes evident that several factors are at play (as always). The backup sub-station is co-located with the site that caught fire, resulting in its shutdown. Whoever deemed that a sensible solution does not understand the basics of contingency planning. Next, it seems that Heathrow, in response to the push for 'net zero,' chose to remove its backup diesel generators and has introduced a biomass-fueled generator that failed to operate. I have new questions. And so it goes on. And what of the man in charge of Heathrow, Thomas Woldbye? When informed of the fire and disruptions, did Mr Woldbye rush to the airport to take charge? No. He chose to go to bed to be 'well rested' to make clear decisions. His deputy managed the first hours of the crisis, while Mr Woldbye got his shuteye. Meanwhile, the heads of several airlines worked through the night. Undoubtedly, the causes of this embarrassing incident will be identified. However, the underlying failures of well-paid civil servants and company directors must face scrutiny. The Post Office scandal, the NHS-tainted blood saga, and the fiasco of water companies not meeting their obligations resulting in vast amounts of raw sewage pumped into rivers—the list goes on. These events reveal foundational deficiencies and organisations that prefer to lie and obstruct rather than confront their responsibilities. It's high time for a change. Most concerning is that this lax attitude extends to an entity once held in the highest regard. This video blog examines the state of Britain's so-called independent nuclear deterrent. The findings presented are deeply troubling. The Royal Navy is deploying nuclear submarines that have exceeded their planned life expectancy and now require constant repairs. How long before something goes awry, and we face yet another round of hand-wringing? What can be done? If the UK is to avoid a disastrous downward spiral, the accountability of leaders must become a cornerstone in the military, civil service, business sectors, and among politicians. However, for this crucial shift to occur, national leaders must embrace a spirit of humility and honest reflection. It is vital to recognise that valuable lessons are beyond Britain's shores—lessons that can guide the UK towards a prosperous future. Let go of the misguided belief that ‘we do it best.' This is simply not the case. Britons must confront the uncomfortable truth: the UK's institutions and business practices no longer set the gold standard. Instead, they serve as cautionary tales of pitfalls to avoid. Trump has demonstrated a readiness to challenge established norms and confront complacency and vested interests directly. Whether you love him or hate him, his approach has important lessons for the UK. Look to Asia. China has plans that span decades, and it sticks to them. That's why stuff gets built instead of being kicked into touch by the least whim. How is the UK's high speed rail doing? Consider how social cohesion is maintained in Singapore and Japan. Do not settle for mediocrity; instead, strive for greatness by learning from other's successes. These qualities are not just desirable; they are essential for progress. The events at Heathrow are indicative of the UK’s woes. Only by acknowledging this can the UK forge a new path because right now, the UK appears weary, unstable, and exposed.  "The budget fails to provide the bold, transformative measures necessary to confront Hong Kong’s deep-rooted challenges." Hong Kong, a global financial centre renowned for its dynamism and resilience, has long been a city that flourishes on innovation, adaptability, and forward-thinking policies. However, the recent budget announcement for the fiscal year has left many citizens, businesses, and analysts feeling underwhelmed.
Financial Secretary Paul Chan’s budget, issued this week, lacks creativity and appears timid. While one could argue that we don’t require excessive creativity, insisting on prudence in financial matters, we still face a deficit many attribute to “structural” issues. As Hong Kong urgently recovers from the effects of Covid and confronts a rapidly changing world with Trump in the White House, our traditional sources of income are at risk. Further, the city faces intense competition from other regional financial centres like Singapore and Shanghai. Hong Kong has consistently been a service-oriented economy that capitalises on the broader Chinese market. A less flattering description is that Hong Kong clings to China, subject to the winds of crisis that affect its colossal host. Historically, Hong Kong lured foreign investment to encourage growth by positioning itself as a gateway to China. Excise duties apply solely to four commodities: tobacco, methyl alcohol, hard alcohol, and hydrocarbon oil, regardless of whether these items are produced domestically or imported. Furthermore, no quotas or anti-dumping laws are enforced. Hong Kong raises funds through direct taxes, including salaries, property, and profits taxes, and indirect taxes, such as stamp duty, betting duty, and land premiums. Collectively, these sources constitute approximately 68% of the total government revenue. With our current sources of income declining, mainly from land sales, Chan has not taken any significant steps to identify and establish new revenue streams. This lack of innovation is concerning. Instead, he has merely been tinkering at the edges, complicating matters further. Hong Kong cannot keep kicking the can down the road. For instance, the government has invested time and resources in preparing the elderly for a reduction in the transport subsidy, which will cost us HK$5 billion in the forthcoming financial year. Although saving a relatively small amount of money, the proposed reduction in the subsidy has created uncertainty and squandered the goodwill established with the scheme's introduction. The elderly, who rely on this subsidy for their daily travel, now face an increased financial burden. If the scheme's cost is deemed unsustainable and changes are needed, why not increase the standard usage cost from HK$2 per trip to, say, HK$4? It’s simple, easy to understand, and easy to implement. The last point is notable because the complications of the proposed changes mean a system upgrade that will take 18 months to implement. Additionally, allegations of cheating within the scheme have been made without substantial evidence to support these claims. How many cases have been prosecuted? The only data I could find indicates that 23 individuals were charged, presumably for using cards that did not belong to them. This hardly constitutes the widespread abuse that some claim is taking place. Moving on, unless I am mistaken, Chan has performed a sleight of hand in shuffling money between financial pots to reduce the deficit. The big pot received HK$62 billion from various endowment funds; without that, the deficit in 2025/26 would rise from an estimated HK$67 billion to HK$129 billion. Furthermore, we will issue HK$150 billion in bonds next year and repay $54 billion in bonds. Therefore, without the bonds and endowment fund additions to the larger pot, we would be $225 billion in deficit! Did I understand that correctly? Concerns about a few pensioners getting on and off buses with reduced fares appear trivial compared to these sums. While the government has tried to address some pressing issues, the budget fails to provide the bold, transformative measures necessary to confront Hong Kong’s deep-rooted challenges. From a lack of visionary economic policies to inadequate support for vulnerable groups, the budget appears more like a temporary fix than a strategic roadmap for the future. Hong Kong possesses immense potential, but realising this potential necessitates bold leadership and a readiness to embrace change. The budget signifies a missed opportunity to demonstrate this leadership and place Hong Kong on a course towards a more prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable future. Only then can Hong Kong truly reclaim its status as Asia’s world city. 14/2/2025 2 Comments It's Only Week Three! "It's Donald's way or the highway." Three weeks into Donald Trump's second presidency, the rules-based international order, established after the Second World War founded on multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is in jeopardy. This system emphasises cooperation, the rule of law, and collective problem-solving, and its principles are integral to understanding the current political dynamics.
Trump is having none of that. It's Donald's way or the highway. If, as some scholars believe, Machiavelli composed The Prince not as a practical guide for ruling but as satire — and essentially a guide on how not to rule — is Donald Trump having a laugh? For sure, the conventional wisdom holds that The Prince examines statecraft through a realpolitik lens, suggesting that the ends often justify the means to maintain power. The Prince, a seminal work written as early as 1513 but published only in 1532, five years after the author's death, firmly established Machiavelli as the father of political science. His name became synonymous with scheming and intrigue, yet, ironically, Machiavelli was less than adept at securing power. Machiavelli began his career as a government bureaucrat in Florence. However, the recently re-established republic was under threat, and the city's former rulers, the powerful Medici family, were poised to regain their power. With assistance from Spain, the Medici defeated Florence in battle and dissolved its government. From there, things quickly went downhill for Machiavelli. In 1513, he was accused of conspiring against the new rulers, jailed, and tortured. He was only freed when a general amnesty was declared to celebrate Cardinal Giovanni de'Medici's election as Pope Leo X. However, upon his release, Machiavelli didn't have much to celebrate. He was still unemployed. The former bureaucrat strived to work for the very family that brought about his downfall. He wrote The Prince in an attempt to impress the Medici with his grasp of the political climate. The Prince resembled a failed job application. Machiavelli remained unemployed for much of his life. He is now renowned for his writings rather than the work he undertook for the Florentine government. Unlike the noble princes of fairy tales, Machiavelli argues that a successful leader must be brutal, calculating, and, when necessary, completely immoral. Machiavelli asserted that leaders should not rely on luck but forge their destiny through charisma, cunning, and strength. In his view, life revolved around two main variables: fortune and virtù. (Virtù refers to bravery, power, and the ability to assert one's will.) Nietzsche put forth ideas similar to his assertions about the "will to power." Indeed, Trump 2 is harnessing all the traits highlighted by Machiavelli and more. By adopting Steve Bannon's strategy to "flood the zone with shit," a tactic that keeps the media off balance while both friends and foes fret about what it all means, Trump is exhibiting a Machiavellian approach to power. This approach, characterised by cunning, manipulation, and a disregard for moral norms, has significant implications for global governance. To see the impact, consider the backflips and reversals of feckless politicians such as British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Lord Peter Mandelson, who attempt to rewrite history by retracting their earlier ill-judged tirades against Trump. I would have more respect for them if they maintained their position instead of genuflecting, like a quisling. If Trump admires strong men, as many claim, those who kowtow will not earn respect. Trump may acknowledge the fundamental truth of the big game — might be right. Yet, there is a compelling argument that the "rules-based world order" and its adjacent claims to universal human rights were nothing more than a fig leaf with which powerful Western nations could evoke to interfere with the affairs of other countries. The much-applauded liberal international order centred itself on the "rules-based order." However, the rules—especially those of the post-Cold War economic order—were created by the West and "rigged" in their favour. During the Obama administration, the term became popular among Western diplomats and experts to criticise perceived rule-breaking by non-Western powers, especially China and Russia. By withdrawing from international agreements, the U.S. diminishes its leadership role and creates power vacuums other nations have sought to fill. It is often overlooked that Biden initiated this process with his hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, which signalled that the U.S. had no staying power. Meanwhile, China opened a direct rail link from Chongqing to Afghanistan this week. Trump's policies and rhetoric inadvertently make his supposed allies tremble as much as any enemy. Threats to seize Greenland by force should invoke warnings from other NATO countries. Instead, they bow their heads and hope Trump doesn't come for them. Greenland sits under the protection of Denmark, a NATO country. Article 5 of NATO states that if you attack a NATO country, all other NATO countries must come to your defence. Indeed, the only time NATO evoked Article 5 was after 9/11. However, Trump understands that NATO is ineffective without the U.S. military. As such, he can threaten Greenland without fear of consequences. After all, some estimates indicate that the U.S. contributes 50 per cent of NATO's funding. It's crucial to note that the challenges to the rules-based order did not begin with Trump. Issues like rising inequality, the backlash against globalisation, and China's growing influence have been brewing for years. Trump's presidency has undoubtedly amplified these trends, but they are part of a broader shift in global dynamics with long-term implications. While Trump's policies have undoubtedly challenged the rules-based world order, they have also sparked a renewed debate about the future of global governance. Ultimately, the survival of the "rules-based order" hinges on the willingness of nations to collaborate, uphold shared values, and adapt to new realities. The U.S. plays a critical role in this endeavour, but no longer as the titular leader. For all his rhetoric of "America First," I can sense a recognition in Trump's actions that a multipolar world is emerging. This week, he initiated negotiations regarding the Ukraine war with Putin, notably only briefing Zelensky as an afterthought. This move tacitly acknowledges that Ukraine is beholden to the U.S. rather than the Europeans, a sign of the shifting power dynamics in the international arena. Trump's direct approach to Russia signals that he recognises Putin's power. In response, the Europeans are in meltdown and throwing a tantrum. Likewise, his pronouncements on Gaza were presented without even consulting the Israelis, never mind representatives of the Palestine people. If he's watching, Machiavelli will smile. Meanwhile, the other major player, China, remains notably quiet, observing and biding its time. It has reciprocated Trump's tariffs and taken him to the WTO while moderating any statements. Playing the long game, I suspect it recognises that Trump's Machiavellian approach is unsustainable. It breeds mistrust and resentment and undermines credibility. It's only three weeks in! Post Script As I posted this blog, news arrived of Vice-President JD Vance's blistering speech at the Munich Security Conference. The U.K. and Europe are now on notice that the U.S. will no longer tolerate their ideological antics while expecting the American taxpayer to pay for their defence. The free ride is over. 1/2/2025 1 Comment Panama, Hong Kong & Trump "Trump's assertions are undoubtedly part of his 'bully-boy' negotiating strategy." They say history doesn't repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme. Could it be that Trump's attempt to regain control of the Panama Canal mirrors the Suez Canal crisis, which many believe signalled the end of the British Empire? Is Trump at risk of encountering a similar fate if he pursues this issue?
There exists a strong connection between Hong Kong and this saga. More on this later. Some background information is necessary. The concept of a Panama Canal, a monumental feat of human engineering, dates back to 1513 when the Spanish recognised the advantages of connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. By 1534, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V commissioned a study that yielded no results. It is said that the British explorer Francis Drake recognised the potential benefits of a canal through Panama around 1596, during the Anglo-Spanish War. According to the tale, he climbed a tree to view the Pacific Ocean. When he turned in the opposite direction, he could see the Caribbean Sea approximately 40 miles away. A canal would have saved an 8,000-mile journey, which was fraught with perilous conditions, particularly around Tierra del Fuego at the continent's southern tip. Sadly, Drake did not live much longer after that. On the night of 28 January 1596, he succumbed to severe dysentery. This dreadful condition and other ailments were set to delay the canal's construction for hundreds of years. The Scots embarked on the Darien Scheme around 1698, establishing a colony named New Edinburgh. The colony once boasted a population of approximately 2,500 before disease and drunkenness brought the project to its knees. The Spanish also intervened by besieging the colony. It is reported that only a few hundred Scots survived and returned home. Then came the French. Between 1881 and 1899, they commenced construction. However, malaria claimed a significant number of lives, with a death toll of around 22,000, and considerable engineering challenges hindered progress. Vast corruption did not assist matters. The ensuing fallout nearly toppled the French government. Yet, the project persisted, a testament to human determination. The U.S. stepped up to the plate, with President Theodore Roosevelt keen to take charge of the project. He was eager to demonstrate U.S. prowess and recognised that a canal would benefit America's emergence on the world stage. In a series of actions, he supported Panama's break from Colombia, a pivotal moment in the canal's history. On 2 November 1903, U.S. warships blockaded sea lanes to prevent potential Colombian troop movements intended to quell the rebellion in Panama. Panama declared independence on 3 November 1903, and the United States promptly recognised the new nation. Essentially, the U.S. established Panama to facilitate the construction of the canal. On 6 November, Panama's ambassador to the UN swiftly signed an agreement granting the U.S. control of the canal 'in perpetuity'. The deal limited other rights to 99 years. Does this sound familiar? This agreement was not well received in Panama, with the incoming government taken aback by what the ambassador had agreed to. They perceived that Colombia's control was relinquished in favour of U.S. control. This perception was destined to remain a point of contention in U.S.-Panama relations, marked by cooperation and tension over the years. By 1904, the Americans had assumed control of the project. They eradicated the risk of malaria and constructed support facilities for the workers. The canal was opened to traffic in August 1914, costing the U.S. nearly $500 million (approximately $15.2 billion today) to complete. This sum represented five per cent of the U.S. GDP at the time. Since then, the canal has been expanded and modernised. Fast-forward to the 1960s: Panamanians, aggrieved by U.S. control of the canal, expressed their objections vigorously, culminating in student protests. Drawing comparisons to the Suez Canal, they pointed out that the U.S. had compelled the British and French to cease their intervention in Egypt in 1956. Things reached a critical juncture in January 1964 when violent confrontations led to the deaths of 22 students and four American soldiers. The international reaction was swift and critical of U.S. actions. Panama severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. By 1974, negotiations to transfer complete control to Panama were in progress. On 31 December 1999, the Panamanians gained control, with the understanding that the canal would remain neutral. The government of Panama owns and operates the canal via the Panama Canal Authority. Meanwhile, a Hong Kong-based company, Hutchison Whampoa, secured the rights to manage the container ports at both ends of the canal. The port operator is Panama Ports Company, part of Hutchison Ports, a subsidiary of the Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings, owned by Li Ka-shing. In 2021, Panama Ports Company's concession was extended by 25 years. Herein lies the rub for Donald Trump. He portrays CK Hutchison's involvement as evidence that China controls the canal. Yet, the Chinese government has made it clear that it has no role in running the canal. Indeed, there is no evdience to support such a claim. Furthermore, as the largest canal user, Trump claims that the U.S. is being overcharged. "The fees imposed by Panama are absurd," he wrote. "This complete 'rip-off' of our country will cease immediately." These statements prompted the Panamanians to audit the entire project "aimed at ensuring the efficient and transparent utilisation of public resources." Trump's assertions are undoubtedly part of his 'bully-boy' negotiating strategy. This approach, characterised by aggressive and confrontational tactics, aims to intimidate the Panamanians into making concessions. And while he may gain some advantage, his approach ultimately undermines the U.S. ability to engage in diplomatic negotiations. Already wary of U.S. actions in the region, Panama became the first Latin American country to endorse China's Belt and Road Initiative in 2017. Trump's stance on the canal may further alienate the U.S. from Latin American nations, which perceive his behaviour as “neo-colonialism." If Trump's ‘overcooked’ intervention fails, it may indicate the further decline of U.S. influence, much like the Suez crisis did for Britain. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2025
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed