Blog Archives

Walter's Blog

"But how can you live and have no story to tell?" Fyodor Dostoevsky

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

Hong Kong weather

27/4/2018 0 Comments

Friday Cartoon.

0 Comments

26/4/2018 2 Comments

Windrush - Is anyone surprised?

The shocking treatment of the Windrush generation by the UK scratched an old sore of mine. The whole saga is no surprise. It avows my view that you need to hold officials, and their mealy-mouthed political masters, to account. I realise this is not a unique opinion, but experiencing it first-hand is affirming.

In the late 1940s and 1950s, a struggling UK sought people from the colonies to rebuild a nation broken by war. Cheap labour from the West Indies arrived on the first ship ‘Empire Windrush’. Hence a generational name. On arrival simple ‘landing cards’ recorded personal details. This process was the only documentation of new arrivals for many years to come.

Move forward many decades. The Windrush folks have toiled in hospitals, kept public transport running, paid their taxes, raised families.

Then things start to go astray. With the 'landing cards' destroyed in 2009 or 2010 (depending who you believe) they can't prove they've landed legally. Meanwhile, an aggressive Home Office is pursuing them. Theresa May laid the foundations of this approach during her tenure as Home Secretary. As many have no documents, they're trapped. Denied access to medical care, some face deportation, as their lives get torn apart.

Meanwhile, the politicians are busy pointing fingers at each other as a human tragedy unfolds. The countries moral standing is in the toilet. The fact that the Windrush generation is black tinges the whole saga with a hint of racism.

Let's be clear, Britain has a record of double-dealing and insincerity in its immigration policies. In 1948, Clement Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister, sought to acknowledge the debt owed the Empire for helping win the war. He created ‘Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies’. With this status came ‘right of abode’ in the UK. Since then it’s rolled back on those undertakings.

The 1981 British Nationality Act deprived Hong Kong citizens of those rights. Timing is everything. With 1997 negotiations looming, did the UK fear an influx of Hong Kong Chinese? Later in 1983, the UK receded the provisions applying to the Falkland Islanders. It granted them full British citizenship. Admittedly the number involved was small, yet a nasty taste remains in the mouth.

As a serving RHKP officer, these matters come into sharp focus for me in the mid- 1980's. Married to a Hong Kong lady, we had young kids and faced a dilemma. With the return of Hong Kong announced in 1984, I'm encouraged to stay on for continuity. The sudden departure of officers could disrupt policing. And yet the immigration status of my spouse and children remained uncertain.

As negotiations rumbled on between Britain and China, many of us couldn’t wait for answers. In an attempt to provide us reassurance, a series of chinless mandarins arrived from the UK. Politicians, accompanied by patronising officials, relayed the message ‘Britain would act with honour’. It didn’t help that officials couldn't hide their annoyance as we challenged them for details. We were a nuisance, who should shut up.

Some senior police officers were also unhelpful, suggesting we ‘shouldn't rock the boat’. As these men would be gone by 1997, their self-interest was ugly and contemptible.
And yet, the message of ‘honourable’ behaviour didn’t appear to have reached the Home Office. Officers who sought the Home Secretary’s discretion to wave UK residency requirements as members of a 'designated service’ met resistance and rejection. Applications disappeared into the system; then we heard nothing for years. One couple waited three years for a rejection.

Matters came to a head in June 1989. The events in Beijing shook Hong Kong’s confidence. The Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe heard it first hand on 4th July 1989. With nerves frayed, weeks after Tien An Mun, he met with the Hong Kong Police Staff Associations. He took robust views from officers frustrated at the UK's intransigence.

In an attempt to shore up confidence, the UK responded with a meagre offer of 50,000 passports for Hong Kong. The inequity of these arrangements didn't go unrecognised. In a June 1990 Parliamentary debate MP Steven Norris noted:

" ... the extraordinary proposition that if an ethnic Chinese obtains a passport under the scheme and his wife, who is a substantially better position than the ethnic Chinese wife of a British citizen... "

Still, Home Office officials refused to budge. Except that word leaked that officers in specific sensitive departments did get a concession. At the same time, local officers received reassurances in confidential briefings.

Faced with this situation, we opted to go to London. We wrote, visited and canvassed MPs across all parties. In October 1990, we gained a meeting with the cross-party British Hong Kong Parliamentary Group. There was instant understanding and support.

Suddenly, the Home Office awoke. As one MP told us, officials don’t like them prying and asking questions about process. The Home Secretary found himself able to grant an exemption.

The Hong Kong Immigration Department told to cooperate, expedited action. Acting as the UK's agent, it processed and verified applications. Things then got farcical. It was necessary that the wives undergo an English assessment. A Hong Kong official conducted the test, struggling with his pronunciation. Bemused ladies shrugged it off.

The inconvenience we went through was nothing compared to that inflicted on the Windrush generation. I do not suggest to equate the two. The comparison sits in the negative and hostile attitude of the Home Office. Even back in the 1980's, with an opportunity to resolve matters, officials refused to move. They ignored us, scorned us and then only deemed to act as political pressure mounted.

As a vocal, well-resourced group of insiders, we harnessed the media and politicians to campaign. We rejected unworthy voices that told us to keep quiet. Nor would we accept empty verbal assurances. How much more terrible it must be for people without the clout we wielded. It pleases that the Windrush generation's plight is now public. Besides, Mrs May needs to act to restore a sense of decency in the UK.

2 Comments

25/4/2018 0 Comments

Shoot or Don't Shoot!!!

Officer Lam and his Dad

On Monday a man didn’t get shot and die on a Toronto street. Despite the fact he drove through pedestrians, killing ten innocent people. He lived.

As a single police officer moved in to deal with the culprit, Alek Minassian, he claimed to have a gun. Demanding "Shoot me in the head" Minassian is brandishing something in his hand. He points it at the officer. Still, the bad guy doesn’t go down in a hail of gunfire.

"Get down”, officer Ken Lam shouts again and again, as he moves in to restrain Minassian. Lam switches to his baton, holstering his pistol before he applies the handcuffs.

It's not gone unnoticed that this scenario would have played different some 20 miles away in the USA. In all probability, the culprit would have received a single verbal warning before the shooting started. He'd likely be dead.

Some have argued this incident gives weight to the view that the US police are using excessive force. I'm not so sure. Comparisons are fraught with contradictions when so many variables come into play.

During my police career, I was never a ‘gun-guy’. Many of my colleagues took the same view as me; the gun was a tool you'd rather not deploy. While I enjoyed the range courses, the day-to-day carriage of a firearm could prove a nuisance. I can only recall drawing the gun from its holster twice for an operational reason. I never fired it except at the range.

In the early days of my career, the under-powered Colt 38 was secured by a lanyard in a flimsy leather holster. The lanyard was a sensible move. Chasing a pickpocket down Jordan Road, my revolver clattered along behind. Not a good look.

In the 1980s our revolver training consisted of firing at paper targets. You’d be either static standing or kneeling behind a barrier. You fired a single shot, re-assessed and fired again. The target didn’t move except to swivel into view. None of this simulated the distractions we’d face on the streets; traffic noise, people in the way and mayhem.

Later came the video ranges. These proved a vast improvement with evolving stories and real human shapes. Things moved, the lighting changed, and noises acted to distract. The video range put you in the scene to test that you used the appropriate ‘degree of force’. As events unfolded, you’d switch to baton, pepper-spray or revolver. And yet, we never fired multiple-rounds in rapid succession. It was either single shot or two at most. Once hit, the culprit went down. The lights came on as you breathed a sigh of relief.

In 2010, I tasted a different approach to gun training. As 'active shooter’ incidents escalated worldwide, we needed to understand the best international practices. As part of a fact-finding exercise, I found myself undergoing training with a US Police Force. Other officers went elsewhere.

I received a warm welcome. A Brit serving in the Hong Kong Police is an exotic creature to our American cousins. With cultural reference being Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee, it took some time to disavow them of my Kung Fu skills. They qualified me on the Glock pistol. Then my actions somewhat perplexed the instructors.

Put through a scenario in the 'combat house' with an actor firing paintball rounds back at me; I soon discovered my single shot approach didn’t work. With a moving culprit in cover, he kept coming back at me.

Covered in bruises, I soon learnt to multi-fire. Double-tap, keep going until he was down and out. Then quick reload. Put through the drill again and again; car stops, room clearing and always rapid fire. The thing with training is that it works. You revert to things practised as muscle memory kicks in.

You can argue that the US police approach is aggressive, that it will result in deaths. This assessment is a misreading not only of the training but the logic behind the drills.

In the US, because of the prevalence of guns, officers face a significant threat at each encounter. Moreover, events have shown that when they don't act the consequences can be tragic. Officer survival is paramount, it forms the basis of training and shapes policy. Some are on edge with disproportionate responses. Thus the deaths of young black men encountering US Police remains an issue of grave concern.

Officer Lam of Toronto deserves recognition for his cool and well-executed capture of Minassian. But to extrapolate that to cover all incidents is wrong. Every event a police officer encounters is different. He or she doesn't have the luxury of time or the ability to consult before making fatal decisions. For that reason, I'm reluctant to be judgmental of the officer who opts to fire.

Personally speaking, respect belongs to the officer who is actually in the arena, who faces a threat with adrenaline pumping. Striving valiantly to do the right thing, some will err, some come up short or adjudged incorrect. Still, they deserve credit. Even failing merits acclaim over those cold and timid souls who are critical but neither know victory or defeat for fear.

If any lessons or comparisons are to be drawn, it may be worth assessing the training and coaching given officers. Escalating to firearms can become a reflex action if the threat is the only issue in an officer's mind. The quality of training must have an impact on the outcome of incidents. In the US training is far from consistent, with smaller police forces struggling to provide standardised regular coaching.

US Police academies spend on average about 110 hours training recruits on firearms skills and self-defence. Conflict management, mediation and appreciation of situations are covered in eight hours. Meanwhile, the Canadian Police training places a high emphasis on de-escalating situations. Canada’s far lower rate of gun crime certainly plays a role in shaping their approach. Yet it’s something the US needs to consider in the long-term if its to reduce the average 980 people killed each year by police shooting.

A side-note: Officer Ken Lam’s father served in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.

0 Comments

15/4/2018 0 Comments

I'm a Feminist, my daughter's insist.

An exceptional lady

The evidence is stark and clear. Societies that empower women flourish. Across cultures, across continents, the effect is pronounced and almost immediate. Moreover, women who gain control of their reproductive cycle bring compounded gains. No longer broodmares, these ladies excel. And we all benefit, men included.

But there is a price to pay. As society prospers and becomes affluent, then child-care and education become more expensive. Ultimately, this means only the well-off folks can marry given the costs of raising kids. Financial expenses, emotional investment and the sheer hardship of the process deter many.

Thus, you see in countries like Japan a huge one-third plunge in population predicted by 2060. Surveys suggest that as many as half of Japanese young women are not interested in raising a family. These ladies exist for their jobs, a consumer lifestyle and having fun. The same is happening in Hong Kong, where young women have pets instead of babies.

Meanwhile, in the West, the radical feminists assert that women have everything stacked against them. Pay is not equal, while for women opportunities are cut off. The evidence suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, that’s their mantra.

This simple assertion does not stand up to critical analysis. Ultimately women shape their futures by personal decisions. Mythical conspiring male-dominated structures have no role. Thus, to blame ‘white male patriarchy’ is palpable nonsense. It’s also a lazy analysis of a complex situation. Of course, as a white male, I’m risking life and limb pointing out these facts.

Worldwide, female literacy rates now equal or exceed males. The disparity in education has evaporated in the face of determined action. And educated girls are healthier, more productive and have far fewer children. The only exception is Afghanistan, where the appalling Taliban closed schools to girls.

Women are doing much better than men in education. With a superior academic performance, the numbers going through colleges are higher. And this then leads to career opportunities. As such, there is no end to the possibilities opening up.

We know that women are entering such professions as a lawyer in higher numbers than ever before. They then rocket up the career ladder, working 80-hour weeks to make partner in their early 30s. In the process, they’ve out-performed the majority of their male colleagues. Then a good portion leave.

It's believed that as women reach the upper echelon's of organisations, the reality dawns on them. A future of long-working weeks, the endless chasing of deadlines. Either the desire for a family gets shunted aside as you keep at the top of your game or something gives. If you relax or divert your energies, someone will forge forward to take your hard-won position. Men face the same challenge. But for men, there is one distinct and subtle difference. Men are not evolved to give birth to children.

An added complication for women is bearing most of the risks in opting to have a child. Potential medical issues are apparent; then there is insecurity brought about by a partner’s action. In general, it's the women who struggle to raise a child as a single parent.

Some argue that’s the reason we have marriage. It bounds the couple together in the interests of the child and the broader community. No matter how you cut it, a growing child needs Mum and Dad. The outcomes for single parent kids, in the main, are not favourable.

Evolution has factored this into human behaviour. When selecting partners, women opt for men who are older and of higher income. Women are 93 percent more likely to marry men with a higher salary than themselves. They do this to ensure that resources are available for the care of the child. Again, all cultures have this phenomenon.

For the high-flying woman, there are a unique set of challenges. Based on the high-income criteria, she is seeking a partner in a smaller pool of eligible candidates. Further, she is competing for that elusive man with ladies in lower income earning groups. Also, men hesitate to form marital relationships with women who have both more education and higher salaries than they do.

Research from Canada tracks high-flying ladies who opt out in their early 30s. It’s a complicated dynamic, with some evidence suggesting having a family is more important than a hard-driving job that consumes all your energy. They then return to work-force later, often in less-demanding jobs.

I’m sorry, but in the end, it's a rigged game. Biology and evolution have conspired to put ladies at a disadvantage when it comes to childbirth. And that’s not the fault of men. The feminist may as well blame the sun for rising in the East.

Nature balances the equation by having men face their own set of risks and challenges. Males do the vast majority of dangerous and outside jobs. If guys weren’t prepared to work on oil rigs or above the arctic circle, then oil and gas wouldn’t be available to keep us all warm and on the move. These professions have a higher death rate. Women are capable of doing these jobs but don’t.

Thus each sex has to deal with fairness and unfairness. None of this is a result of social structures, nor was put in place by a group of conniving men. The machinations of men and women’s status down the ages is an extremely complicated thing. Unfortunately, that complexity evades the most strident feminists. They adopt a simple viewpoint to demonise men.

I want a fair game for my daughters. What I’m not prepared to accept are idle, unsustainable and non-sensical arguments. I suspect radical feminists perpetuate the patriarchy argument because it's simple. It's an easy victimhood sell, ideal soundbite material. It doesn’t make it right. The reasoning starts to disintegrate when you throw the plight of poor, underprivileged white males into the equation.

All I know is that as a white male, a hate figure in the minds of some, I’m fighting for my daughters to do well. So, that makes me a feminist.

0 Comments

<<Previous

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

Friday Cartoon.

Windrush - Is anyone surprised?

Shoot or Don't Shoot!!!

I'm a Feminist, my daughter's insist.

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter