Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
27/2/2021
The Centre Must Hold "In the 'Alice in Wonderland' world of Hong Kong politics, elected politicians used the oath as a tool. For most of 2019 and the first half of 2020, the Hong Kong Police engaged in a struggle to contain increasing violence by radical protesters and nascent terrorists. Carrie Lam, our Chief Executive, proved mostly supine except for the occasional condemnation of the rioters. Doubtless Beijing was watching with growing concern.
The radicals attacked anything associated with the Mainland. Restaurants, outlets and official offices all received 'redecoration' efforts. 'Redecoration' is the Orwellian term used by the radicals for fire-bombing and smashing up places. Not content with that, they set about destroying our infrastructure. MTR stations, traffic cameras, toll-booths, police buildings, and the seat of government all suffered under the onslaught. Also, rioters inflicted millions of dollars of damage on university campuses. The targets bore witness to the sectarian roots of the protests. Outsiders often don't comprehend that much of this mayhem arises from a perception that Hong Kong has lost its identity. Meanwhile, the foreign media continue to peddle the straightforward pro-democracy narrative. Paradoxically, by attacking symbols of the Mainland, the protesters brought forth the very thing they feared. Believing themselves virtuous, they're now compelled to retreat by forces they summoned up. Thus, having tugged the tail of the dragon, they can't hold on. The first tranche of Beijing's response came in the National Security Law (NSL). Hong Kong is obliged to enact such a law under Article 23 of the Basic Law, but for 23 years failed to do so. That's another story. The arrival of the NSL brought an almost immediate halt to violent protests. The radicals feared charges that carried severe penalties. Many fled. The second tranche is now coming into sight. 'Reforms' to electoral processes will see all politicians and civil servants required to follow their oath of office. Indeed, that's a given, you'd think. Undoubtedly, the purpose of taking an oath is to prove a willingness to follow its tenets. Yet, in the 'Alice in Wonderland' world of Hong Kong politics, elected politicians used the oath as a tool. They misquoted parts while acting out a perverse pantomime. In a calculated insult, Sixtus Baggio Leung changed his oath from "People's Republic of China" to "people's re-fucking of Chee-na”. Chee-na is an offensive term associated with the brutal Japanese occupation of China. It's the equal of using the 'N' word. Sixtus Baggio Leung (that's his real name) is now in the US seeking political asylum. Some opposition elements used their seats in the legislative council to advocate the overthrow of the Beijing government. That set alarm bells ringing. As the events of January 6 in Washington affirm, governments don't take kindly to treason. Both mobs — one that smashed up our legislative chamber and the other that stormed Washington's Capitol Hill, believed they had right on their side. Neither group did. There are also differences between the groups. The US hooligans acted without prompting from overseas. Whereas in Hong Kong's case, the evidence continues to mount that oversees agencies played a role. This is the worst kept secret on the planet. The bottom line is that Beijing wants politicians who don't advocate independence or seek to overthrow the CCP. It's as simple as that. Of course, the Western media, anxious to avoid showing any developments here in a positive light, continue to portray all this as the 'end of Hong Kong.' For us folks on the ground, that narrative elicits the yawn of 'we've heard it thousands of times before.' For the record, the oath of office for Hong Kong politicians is "I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity." You may wish to compare that to the oath taken in the US and the UK. I must say that the Pan Democrats and their fellow travellers took a wrong turn by thinking they could rely on foreign powers to pressure China. This approach ignores a fundamental misreading of history. After all, the CCP positioned itself as righting the 'humiliations' Western nations visited upon China. No Chinese leader, of whatever political persuasion, will overtly bow to foreign demands. Of course, times have changed. China is now a global power prepared to defend its interests. This assertiveness unsettles the West as it struggles to comprehend the changing world order. If you read the history of the Chinese dynasties and the CCP's methods, you will realise that their way of handling change is always gradual. Test, see results and then more change. By forcing them to thrust Hong Kong, in one step, to full democracy is naive. Beijing took a step forward in August 2013. The National People's Congress offered direct elections for the Chief Executive, albeit with candidates vetted by a committee. The Pan Democrats killed that process in 2014, setting us down a road that led to the current destination. Significantly, Beijing is not seeking to impose a replica of its system on us. This may come as a shock to some. Indeed, despite claims to the contrary, the courts remain independent. On top of that, the evidence doesn't support the often-cited cries of press censorship. Can you tell me which stories get suppressed? Because the Apple Daily and others continue their diatribe against officials? More details of the 'reforms' are to come. My guess is we are moving towards a Singapore model of democracy — imperfect to the purists and illiberal in some aspects, but a step forward. Let's see, as delayed elections are due in September this year.
20/2/2021
Happy Anniversary Covid-19 "Do lockdowns cause more virulent and lethal strains of Covid-19 to emerge?" A couple of weeks back, we reached the anniversary of Covid-19. While we remember the victims, let's celebrate. Over the past 12 months, we've learnt a great deal with the advances made on vaccines, nothing short of remarkable. These innovations place us in a strong position when the next pandemic arrives. But there is much we have yet to understand.
For example, do lockdowns cause more virulent and lethal strains of Covid-19 to emerge? While this may appear an odd question, understanding how evolution works means further examination is needed. Undoubtedly lockdowns curb the spread of all variants you assert. That's not the case. It helps to consider human behaviour as a factor. Dr Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist from Massachusetts, believes the lethal strains enjoy a boon due to our actions. Let me try to explain. We know that the RNA in a virus undergoes constant random mutations. There is no plan at work here, only haphazard processes. What is essential to note is that specific mutations gain an advantage because the environment favours their spread. After all, the virus seeks to do one thing, move from host to host. Thus, virulent strains that kill the host quick are unlikely to move into the broader population because the transmission chain is cut. To illustrate the point, Ebola doesn't enjoy much contagion because it rapidly turns the victim's insides to a mush. The game is up before the virus can reach lots of people. During the 1918 flu outbreak, the initial virus was relatively weak and mild in symptoms. Thus soldiers who caught the flu remained on post in the trenches. This gentle form spread without any significant impact. Then came a second wave with a mutated virus that proved more severe in symptoms and was lethal for many. In particular, this strain hit people of fighting age hard. In response, the military removed the infected from the front-line through clearing stations and into hospitals at the rear. This process gave the virulent strain an advantage that allowed it to move into a much larger population. As the more virulent strain kept people immobile, unable to care for themselves, others attended them. Stretcher-bearers, orderlies, nurses and doctors all came into contact with the carriers. We thereby provided a route for transmission. With Covid-19, we've seen some correlation between places that implemented strict lockdowns and the emergence of potent variants. For instance, the United Kingdom. Whereas places like India and Hong Kong have had no virulent strains appear. Only the milder forms of Covid-19 dominated, even though both India and Hong Kong are crowded. The hypothesis is that by locking down a population, you keep people static in one place, and thus the mild variants cannot move around. In that sense, you achieve your aim. But, when a new, more potent strain emerges, you transport the sick to a hospital and into care. That movement provides the opportunity for the virulent strain to pass into the wider community. Our response gives the nasty mutation an advantage. It's important to stress that this is a theory. We need a study, using statistical models allied to the tracing of individual strains to verify the idea. Also, it is not that we dismiss the merits of lockdowns. Please don't lose sight of how we are dealing with a complex dynamic system of virus transmission. Lockdowns will keep a role, even if the theory proves correct. Still, we may adjust these to minimise the leg-up we give virulent strains and reduce community-wide deaths. The obvious conclusion is that there is much to learn and celebrate.
18/2/2021
If the Kids are United ... "Given the historical context, the involvement of Hong Kong youth in demonstrations should be no surprise" As the dust settles, and order returns to our fair city after the violence of 2019/20, many ask what happened? Competing narratives spring forth seeking to answer that question, each shaped by perception and partisanship. Discerning an agreed truth is problematic. What is certain is that young people, in particular students, played a leading role in the protests.
Their involvement should be no surprise. Here, I'll frame that in a historical context. This article draws upon research undertaken by various Hong Kong parties, citing data whenever possible as this lends more substance to the conclusions. At the outset, I'll affirm it's impossible to tie together all the threads that played into Hong Kong's recent disorder. My earlier articles give some perspectives on other aspects and factors. For those interested, the following are relevant:Youth involvement in protest is nothing new. In truth, most social movements begin with young people questioning the established order. It's a quirk of human nature that youth always feel cynical about the older generation. No doubt this has an evolutionary advantage; it can produce meaningful innovation and progress. Yet, it is the young's fate to grow old and become the upcoming generation's target. Over and above that, if unrestrained, such youthful exuberance can lead to wanton disorder. In the modern era, the late 1960s saw growth in youth protest across Europe and the USA. The Vietnam War drove some of this, while a general disquiet at perceived unfairness in society also contributed. Academics identified distinct phases in these protests. First, idealism with marches and occupations, second radicalisation and militant actions. On occasions, this advanced onward to terrorist activity. But, in the end, most movements collapsed with infighting, disenchantment and due to state action. Examples of emergent terrorist activity include the 'Symbionese Liberation Army' in the US and 'Baader Meinhof' terrorist gang in Europe. These grew out of left-wing counter-culture groups. While in Northern Ireland, the Provisional IRA arose from a civil rights movement. In China, Mao seized upon youth exuberance to unleash the Red Guards in pursuit of his aims. He soon lost control as the movement degenerated into uncontrolled violence that needed an intervention by the PLA to restore order. Nearer to home, and on a lesser scale, Benny Tai surrendered control of the 2014 ‘Occupy Central’ protests, when he couldn't constrain the younger, more militant elements. In broad terms, ideology and identity issues drove many of these protest movements. In the 1960s Jack Weinberg, an American political activist, captured the zeitgeist when he asserted "We don't trust anyone over 30". In China, the Cultural Revolution pivoted on attacking the "Four Olds". Given the historical context, the involvement of Hong Kong youth in demonstrations should be no surprise. Examples include the anti-colonialism movement of the 1970s, the Tiananmen protests in 1989 and the latter-day pro-democracy events. All had a majority youth component. It's worth remembering that participants age, move on and fade from the scene. Who remembers Christine Chan? In 2008, she was the darling of the media. Commentator Stephen Vines hailed her as Hong Kong youth's authentic voice, just before she gave an incoherent speech at the Foreign Correspondents Club. Within two years she was gone and now barely merits a footnote in Hong Kong's protest history. Coming up to date, you can find the genesis of the 2019 protests in the events of 2014's 'Occupy Central with love and peace'. Professor Benny Tai's brainchild, 'Occupy' aimed to push forward the pace of democracy. The movement soon slipped through his fingers if he ever indeed had much control. Young activists forced Tai to start the 'occupation' by haranguing him after midnight on 28 September 2014. Within a matter of weeks, he retreated from the scene back to his safe office, leaving a ragtag collection of groups on the streets. Meanwhile, 'with peace and love' fell away. Violence at the Mongkok occupation site didn't bode well. Then fatigue, legal injunctions and police action saw the campaign fade away. By 3 December 2014, it was over, and the public regained the freedom to move around. This was far from the end of the matter. As most protesters skulked away, a few radicals morphed into the so-called 'localists'. Their intent was an independence agenda. This element made their presence felt by staging the so-called Fishball riot at Chinese New Year 2016. Under the pretence of protecting hawkers in Mongkok, they ambushed police officers and went on the rampage. Not anticipating violence at a time when people traditionally avoid confrontation, the Police proved off-guard. The government failed to see this coming, despite a comprehensive mechanism for monitoring public sentiment. That blindness is either willful or due to incompetence. Likewise, a failure to defuse building community disquiet over Hong Kong losing its identity meant trouble was again brewing. In early 2019, the extradition bill proved the catalyst that ignited mayhem. What started as peaceful protests were soon hijacked by the extremists intent on widening the scope of demonstrations. As the government dithered, the Police fought the radicals on the streets. By the time Carrie Lam acted to withdraw the extradition bill, it was too late. The momentum of the protests was self-sustaining, partly aided by overseas interests keen to see Beijing put in a tight spot. By late 2019, a new more pro-active Commissioner of Police, saw the Force take a firmer line putting the radicals on the back foot. Meanwhile, Beijing's attitude grew more distrustful of Hong Kong. Then in mid-2020, the NSL abruptly halted the violence. Meanwhile, the emergence of Covid 19 cooled the ardour for mass gatherings, something the government leveraged to advantage. In seeking to comprehend these events pundits put forward claims of angry, disengaged youth, facing stalled social mobility and an identity crisis. An examination of the data from surveys tells a more nuanced story, that is perplexing and counter-intuitive. Here I'll cite long-term and comprehensive studies by Professor Stephen Chiu, EdUHK. This work, allied to surveys by the Youth Research Centre of the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups, provides useful insights. The cohort of people surveyed range in ages from 16 to 34 years old. The key points to note are:
Surveys found no correlation between a sense of unhappiness and joining social movements and protests. Oddly, those who expressed 'hope' for Hong Kong are more likely to join protests. 76% don't trust the government. While, over 50% claimed the government fails to listen to their voices and is poor at communication. From this data, we can discern that young people have a strong connection to Hong Kong and want a voice in society's direction. That's as expected. The levels of distrust of government match other age groups. For the most part, none of this is surprising. On social mobility and the impact it may have, the findings are intriguing. Assessing social mobility is challenging. Defining people by economic terms alone does not take account of perceptions. The numbers alone indicate that social mobility patterns haven't changed in several decades. Nor has it stalled. The academics divide society using the following parameters:
Class I and II are the middle class. A 2016 study found reasonable social mobility levels from Class IV to Class III/II with 78% moving upwards from their parent's category. For the Class III cohort, about 41% moved up to Class II/I. It's a more mixed picture in Class II, but most hang onto their parents' status. For Class I, some 41.5 % keep their parent status, while about 28% drop to Class II, 25.5% move down to Class III and 5% hit Class IV. These are the squeezed middle class. Digging into the data, the cohort at Class I and II finds it harder to keep their relative advantage. Real wage stagnation and the fact that Hong Kong is now a mature capitalist economy, limits opportunities to advance further. Whether this factor motivated younger elements to join social movements is unclear. Considering individual success, a couple of factors have prominence. Having parents with a degree, and then acquiring a degree almost guarantees a young person a position in Class I/II. Plus, the advantage of a degree increases with age as the salary gap widens. Despite the often claimed sentiment that universities are failing or producing students with the wrong mix of skillsets, a degree still gives a profound advantage. The data is exact in this area. Even for students from Class IV, a degree offers rapid upward social mobility. These findings are at odds with the claims from young people that their chances in life are diminishing. The mantra is that the baby boomers - the BBs - have stolen opportunities from the millenniums. Having climbed to the top, the BBs pulled up the ladder. This assertion is untrue. After all, the BBs provided the millenniums with far greater access to education than earlier generations. In 1996, 16.9% of teenagers went to university in Hong Kong. By 2016, that figure reached 42.7%. The BB generation funded and facilitated that improvement. Much of this data points to several issues that are not unique to Hong Kong. Young people feel that social mobility has stalled when the surveys suggest otherwise. This perception may come shaped by the increasing wealth gap between the very rich and the majority. Because, indeed, wealth inequality has increased. In simple terms, when your neighbour is poor, and you are poor, then you don't perceive you've missed out. But, when you are poor and see affluence around you, your viewpoint shifts to one of 'this is unfair'. And in Hong Kong, massive wealth lives cheek by jowl with the majority. Could this be driving the sentiment that social mobility has stalled? In addition, identity issues are a factor. The data points towards a fear of losing the unique Hong Kong character and the attendant legacy. As Mainland integration takes hold, an apprehension grows that existing norms will falter. This sentiment has manifested itself in clinging to aspects of the colonial era. Examples include the Queen's Pier and Wedding Card Street sagas. These attachments, including colonial-era symbols, inevitably collide with Beijing's position to increase their concern that Hong Kong is seeking to break away. Politicians who rushed off to Washington consulting with anti-China forces fed that unease. These politicians invited Beijing to protect its interests via the NSL, prompting the very thing they feared most. If the government is to avoid future such conflagrations, it must listen sincerely. Paying lip-service to consultations isn't going to wash. Whether process-driven administrative officers are capable of adopting the right posture remains questionable. Likewise, it takes two to tango. So those individuals who only seek to berate and humiliate officials don't help. It is also striking that survey after survey concludes Hong Kong people support the 1C2S concept. Even those involved in the 2019 protests, including the young, exhibited a strong preference for retaining the system. Doubtless, threatening rebellion against the central authority is a road to ruin. The smarter upcoming politicians must position Hong Kong in that context while maintaining its unique features. If Beijing is confident that Hong Kong does not present a threat to the broader nation, then the 1C2S will survive beyond its cutoff date in 2049. Indeed, I believe that's an outcome we can all agree is desirable. Besides, in 2049, the youth protesting in 2019 will be approaching their late 40s.
13/2/2021
The Merry House of Windsor "We're told that the monarchy is a figurehead: that facade is starting to crumble." For those Brits, who believe they live in a free and democratic country, a bit of uncomfortable reflection is in order. Why? Well, the Windsors are displaying an audacity rarely seen since William of Normandy declared that all land (in England) belonged to him.
I blow hot and cold on the merits of the Guardian newspaper. The fawning over victimhood, allied to a mindless affection for all aspects of woke culture is bloody tiresome. Then, when I'm about to banish them from my reading, up pops a superb piece of legitimate journalism. Likewise, I blow hot and cold on the House of Windsor. This week the Windsors are feeling the chill, while the Guardian is on fire. In a series of articles, the Guardian exposed how Brenda and her family, including the prince of piffle, Charles, manipulate the law to their advantage. Are the freedoms that Briton’s enjoys contingent on the Windsors acquiescing? Looks that way. The practice of 'Queen's consent' provides one unelected woman with the right to change draft laws. Moreover, the evidence is emerging that she used this privilege to protect her and the family from taxes and gained other exemptions. Examples include avoiding scrutiny of their investments and giving Charles the right to prevent long-term residents on his estate from buying their homes. He is the only landlord with such preferential treatment. Residents on Charles's land do not enjoy the rights given to other tenants under the Leasehold Reform Act. An exemption allowed Charles to avoid the laws applied to others so that he could keep an income stream. Earlier, in the 1970s, Brenda had changes made that allowed her to hide investments. Since then, the Panama papers revealed the vast sum of money she placed offshore to avoid UK tax. The 'Queen's consent' grants the monarch the right to vet incoming laws before it may go forward. In the past, this process came sold as a formality. We can now see that is not the case. Moreover, the documentation of these actions is lacking. Telephone calls and private conversations in corners suffice, as draft laws get amended to please the Windsors. Thus, when the lackeys in the royal household declare that the Queen never blocks a bill, they're on solid ground. The legitimate question must be 'is this a genuine democracy?’. Or are we witnessing the theatre of a parliament that votes on legislation agreed by the Windsors? Some commentators suggest that the UK remains a feudal fiefdom with a veneer of democracy, which overstates the case. Not all draft legislation goes to Brenda; only stuff that may impact her domain. Nonetheless, there's a whole world of vested interests out there, doing their best to keep this hidden. In the UK, many mock and revile other places for their secrecy. Are not the Windsors peas in the same pod? Charles's greed (aka the Duchy of Cornwall) and how he treats those he claims to help is distasteful. Cornwall is one of the most impoverished areas in western Europe. Yet he lords it over this area, as a future king, who seems so dim to be genuinely oblivious to this situation. Asserting, Charles is too dumb to notice grants him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that he is aware of the abyss between his wealth and those living on his land. It's known that Charles vetted at least 275 draft laws since 1970. These bills covered such subjects as fox hunting and inheritance. We don't know how many amendments he proposed because he's declined to say. But the most significant offence is against the supposed democracy and the rule of law. The idea that the Queen, and those close to her, have a mechanism to influence law-making is breathtaking. Worse, they seem to be trying to brush it off as nothing to see here. Move on. We're told that the monarchy is a figurehead, that doesn't engage in politics. That facade is starting to crumble. If Britons honestly claim themselves a free country, then this affront to democracy must go. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not desperate to see the monarchy abolished; they have some utility. And what do you replace them with, if indeed a replacement is necessary? God forbid a President Blair. On the other hand, support for the monarchy continues to wane amongst young people. Brenda, the adroit royal survivor, better take note because her ‘light-weight’ son is busy in the corner talking to the plants. After all, most people would prefer his son as the next king. A good start for the UK would be a written constitution that establishes the perimeters, check and balances, and power vested in the House of Windsor. Until then, they'll continue to fudge the issue and hold off on reform.
5/2/2021
Stealing the Microphone "Did Facebook and Twitter overstep the mark by cutting off an elected official?" The civic-minded folk of the Wimborne Militia, Dorset, England are re-enactors who help keep alive English Civil War history. This merry band of about 50 receive a small stipend from the local council, and for this, they carry out several public functions.
Each year they escort the outgoing mayor to the town hall and welcome the successor. A vital role rewarded afterwards with pints of beer down the local pub. They also maintain a public garden, which is the home to medicinal and culinary plants. A couple of times a year — under normal circumstances — they'd gather to 'play' battles from the English civil war. This sort of quaint English eccentric behaviour is common the length and breadth of the country. Unfortunately, super-nerd Mark Zuckerberg wasn't having any of that. His algorithms first banned the group in December 2020 and then allowed them back. Following the January 6th assault on the US Capital, Facebook again ejected the Wimborne Militia as suspected right-wing paramilitary types. Only in recent days, following an appeal, and plenty of media coverage was the group reinstated. A misunderstanding you might say. Yet, something more sinister is going on here. Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and Apple now control the space for public discourse and our access to information. FATGA, as they've become known, are the de facto gatekeepers on speech, ideas and our freedoms. They decide who can talk and what prominence individual voices receive in the public Internet square. These private corporations are dominating communication like no other entity since the Catholic Church in the pre-Reformation era. And, as we all know, that went well. Do a quick audit of how many of FATGA products you use. My score is four. I'll guarantee that most of us score at least three. For the most part, the dominion exercised by the likes of Zuckerberg is unregulated. And, as the Parler case has shown, these companies will use their clout to protect their commercial interests against the competition. These corporations are now woven into the very fabric of our societies at multiple, intersecting points. For example, Amazon Web Services is the largest cloud computing platform globally, providing hosting for most news outlets, Netflix and Twitter, and the industrial giants General Electric and Unilever. In 2013, Amazon signed a $600m deal with the US government to host its various intelligence agencies' top-secret workloads, including the CIA and NSA. Please don't assume that Jeff Bezos made his money selling stuff to us; it goes much further than that. Alarm bells should be ringing that the Overlords of Silicon Valley can cut off a serving US president. Now, to be clear, I don't condone what Trump did in the final days of his presidency. As he scrambled to keep power in a deranged attempt to overturn the election, the man exhibited borderline insanity. Nevertheless, Trump's actions don't change a critical question. Did Facebook and Twitter overstep the mark by cutting off an elected official? Given the prevalence of cancel culture with corporations scrambling to appease specific agendas, this is all rather unsettling. Today, as I logged onto the Apple Store to make a purchase, up pops a message. I'm invited to educate myself about the 'black and brown' experience. When did Apple presume I needed such a lecture? This hectoring is all rather tedious and counter-productive. Besides, it's not gone unnoticed that Apple and Google initially failed to act when an App appeared that allowed violent protesters to track Hong Kong Police vehicles to ambush officers. Likewise, Twitter still hosts various nasties, including virulent anti-Semites, vaccine conspiracists and groups who glorify violence. If these companies only enforce policies against particular political leanings, what does that say about our freedoms? We should be asking what the correct response to the likes of Trump is? Do we feel comfortable allowing FATGA to call the shots? What if next time they decide you are the target for cancellation? But it also goes much deeper than that. I hope we all agree a set of protocols that keeps the criminals, terrorists and outright lunatics off the Internet is needed. Though deciding who can exercise that judgement of exclusion is the issue. Existing mechanisms are failing. After all, the courts are too slow, politicians too partisan and FATGA is getting it wrong. Zuckerberg repeatedly stated he does not favour censorship. But that's what he's doing, while his shotgun approach sweeps up innocent bystanders like the Wimborne Militia. I doubt the nerds imagined they'd be in this position nor do they welcome the role. Some people are excusing the actions of FATGA by asserting that anyone unhappy with censorship may opt to set up their own platforms. Parler sought to do that. In response, the Big Guys denied access to the Parler App. Amazon even went a step further by rendering Parler unusable on its platforms. In effect, FATGA closed the gates to the market square of public discussion. As these channels of communication close off, the nut-jobs get driven deeper into the recesses of the Internet. It is risky to assume they've gone away. They're adapting by acquiring encrypted networks and IP address switching. In effect, FATGA has prompted them to go covert, making law enforcement harder. For sure, the potency of unintended consequences is relentless. After the events in Washington, pundits loved to claim 'I could see this coming'. Well, if you censor angry, paranoid people on the Internet, guess what happens? Next time, we may not see it coming. Maybe we need an independent Internet ombudsman who can act with speed to remove or shutdown stuff deemed to have breached the rules. Of course, an appeal mechanism and final adjudication by the courts will be necessary. It won't be pretty, although I reckon it is better than the ongoing process leading down a slippery path. If we continue with the current approach, here is my prediction. Henceforth, all sides in any political debate will clamour for the other to be banished from the Internet, de-platformed and excommunicated. They'll conjure up claims of 'hate speech' and perceived threats, conflating past violence. The oligarchy of Internet kingpins may yet come to regret that they opened the floodgates by taking out a sitting United States President. The die is cast.
3/2/2021
When the wind doesn't blow "You have to recognise that leaving behind the nasty fossil fuels has its consequences" On a cold night January 2021, as temperatures dropped across the UK, the national grid's controllers made frantic calls. With low-wind conditions, which usually go with a cold snap, Britain's much-trumpeted drive for green power hit reality. As the wind turbines slowed and fell silent, the gas and coal generators scrambled to fire up.
In the process, the owners of these generators were able to command a premium price. On a typical day, a unit megawatt-hour cost £40. That evening the top price reached £4,000. That prize went to the gas-powered West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire. You know, one of those places hated by the eco-warriors that sustain the heat for pensioners and the power for ventilators. Overnight, other gas and coal power stations increased their output thus averting a disaster. The UK has made commendable strides in tackling greenhouse gases. A couple of times in 2020, the entire country ran on wind power, albeit during low demand periods. Yet, a double whammy of cold weather and high demand is not unforeseeable. And that's the trouble with wind power. No matter how many turbines you build, when the wind stops blowing, no electricity. Thus, you have to recognise that leaving behind the nasty fossil fuels has its consequences. Plus, traditional power stations take decades to plan and construct. At least the national grid foresaw this situation, announcing as winter began that supplies would be tight. Moreover, they forecast the cost of power would inflate. Then they helpfully noted: "It does not signal that blackouts are imminent". Experts struck a different tone asserting "the UK is at much greater risk of blackouts". And already this winter the national grip issued three warnings as cold weather stretched capacity. For now, the system worked although the ability to respond to demand surges this winter will face a severe test. France is facing a similar dilemma. They plan a dramatic downsizing in their nuclear capacity, shifting to renewables like wind and solar. The planning for this involves building 6,500 new wind turbines adding to an existing 8,100 already in service. Here's the issue. France is already 90 per cent carbon-free in electricity production thanks to nuclear power. The trouble is nuclear power is verboten with the eco-warriors, and these plants must go. Instead, France will keep its fossil fuel stations on standby for when the wind drops. All this is costing £110 billion in the initial stages, to solve a problem France doesn't have while producing more CO2 emissions. None of this would be an issue if we could store electricity efficiently; the power created on the windy and sunny days held for when the demand arises. Pumping water uphill on the good days, then releasing it to run downhill and turn turbines on bad days is an option. Except that both the UK and France will need hundreds of hydroelectricity plants blighting upland areas with massive reservoirs. Also, the battery storage option looks someway off. It's easy to spot that something is out of kilter. Is incoherent policy-thinking exacerbated by activist agendas that see wind and solar as the only solutions? Trying to push back against these concepts is a struggle in a post-rational world. Practical issues, like those discussed above, appear to allude the Greta-cult. We may retort with: "How dare you!". You can monitor the real-time demand and production of the UK's electricity here, updated every five minutes. For a long-term stable electricity supply at an affordable price, we need a mix of nuclear and fossil fuels backing up renewables. I can only hope that rational adults work on this to ensure the lights and heat stay on. Unfortunately, it may take a blackout or two to cause the majority to sit up and take notice.
1/2/2021
A Prison for Dolphins? "Ocean Park can't hide the fact they've taken captured wild-dolphins, and put them on display" Has Ocean Park had its day? Should we be throwing billions at a failing theme park when people are festering in tiny ramshackle apartments? Is the taxpayer funding a prison for dolphins masquerading as a conservation initiative?
Well, it looks like our officials see no problem with pouring more money into the place. The generosity is staggering. For starters, a one-off grant of HK1.67 billion, followed by HK1.1 billion over four years for conservation and education programmes. Then waving interest on a loan of HK5.4 billion and pushing back the repayment date until 2028. As a sop to public criticism, we get free entry to the park and then pay per ride or venue visited. How is that a concession? It's not. Ocean Park once enjoyed a commendable position in Hong Kong's collective memory. Opening in 1977, many of us enjoyed wonderful days of fun there. At one time, I held a season pass, as I'd take the kids almost monthly. Burned into our family folklore is the tale of a Japanese tourist projectile vomiting from the roller coaster. With each telling, the volume of spew increases, the splatter area growing to cover vast crowds of onlookers. Straddling Brick Hill, with Deep Water Bay on one side, and the South China Sea as the backdrop, the setting is breathtaking. A visit was a must for overseas visitors, especially riding the cable car to the Headland. Then as Mainland tourism to Hong Kong increased exponentially, Ocean Park lost its lustre with locals. Over-crowding, rude behaviour, stories of ill-disciplined queuing and cigarette smoke filling the air, all degraded its reputation. In many ways, Ocean Park proved a microcosm of the Hong Kong/Mainland culture-clash that shaped aspects of our politics in recent decades. Adding to that is a change in attitude toward animal conservation placing Ocean Park in a difficult spot. Is it a fairground or conservation-themed venue? The operators managed to conflate or fudge the two. Still, many people feel that having dolphins performing for our entertainment is no longer acceptable. Besides, Ocean Park's conservation efforts looked like tokenism. Despite a slick PR machine, they couldn't hide that they took captured wild dolphins and put them on display. In 2017, Ocean Park lost HK236.5 million, marking the third straight year in the red. The protests of 2019 didn't help matters. Then Covid hit. But, the cause of Ocean Park's underperformance is a bit more complicated than first appears. When Hong Kong Disneyland opened in 2005, many people wrote off Ocean Park as doomed. But the place prospered. Why? In 2003, Allan Zeman, Lan Kwai Fong's founder, came in to run the venture. Zeman immediately hired an experienced overseas theme park management team. They set about introducing a series of special events, such as the Halloween Fest to lure people to the park. And it worked. Ocean Park thrived under Zeman's management. Forbes even went as far to call Zeman the "Mouse Killer". Yet, there is a suggestion Zeman fell out of favour when he backed Henry Tang against rival candidate CY Leung in 2012 CE election. CY won, and Zeman moved on from Ocean Park in 2014. Some believe the new and less able management led to a steady decline, made worse by recent events. Either way, year after year, Ocean Park lost money. So here we are today, with the government proposing to spend billions on Ocean Park. With other voices demanding we cut our losses and put Ocean Park out of its misery, you can see that sentiment is hardening. Yet, a closure could see 2000 plus staff out of work, besides hitting the many support companies that supply the park. Weighing all this up, for now, I see no alternative. We have to keep the place going, although the management team must account for future performance or face the chop. Moving towards a water-themed amusement park seems a better idea than seeing animals forced to live in small enclosures. After all, having humans reside in pokey flats is terrible enough; let's treat the animals better. |
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
February 2021
|
RSS Feed