Blog Archives

What Next?

25/4/2019

As Occupy kicked off in September 2014, my wife’s 98-year-old grandad ventured:

“It will all end in tears.”

This man has a history. He’d fought the Japanese invasion of Hong Kong, to flee by the skin of his teeth on a junk out of Aberdeen. He went through the 1967 riots, fearful for his life as his colleagues brandished the ‘Little Red Book.’ He’s seen things that would make your hair turn grey.

And it did end in tears. Chu Yiu-ming is crying as his co-conspirators went off to jail. Claudia Mo is sitting in LegCo ranting against ‘evil Carrie Lam’ as her emotions ran out of control. All rather bitter and sad, but so predictable. Then we have the pathos of Tanya Chan announcing a tumour on her brain.

That an uneducated but astute old man could predict the outcome, you have to ask why all the gifted souls in the democratic camp couldn’t? Years of studying law, nor decades of social activism didn’t help them.

The trial of the leaders of the 79-day Occupy Central concluded yesterday. Some are guilty as charged, others found not guilty.

The authors of the illegal action, Tai Yiu-ting, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-Ming, each received 16-months in jail. In compassion, the judge suspended Chu’s sentence given his age and ill-health.

Meanwhile, the sentencing of Tanya Chan is on hold. The poor lady’s condition demands an urgent operation. I wish her well. She's passionate although a misguided person and the stress of recent weeks must be taking its toll.

The younger people charged walked away from court with community service orders, except one with a criminal record. Today, legal scholars are busy passing comment. Many have skin in the game as advocates for one side or the other; thus their observations are tainted.

We could debate the merits of the sentences without achieving a resolution. In the end, the judge made his call. I respect that. As the old saying goes “don’t do the crime if you can’t do time.”

Tai and the others expressed no regret. This stance earned them a rebuff from the judge for their failure to offer an apology to the people of Hong Kong for “excessive inconvenience and suffering.” Predictably, supporters portrayed them as ‘martyrs’ and ‘prisoners of conscience.’

These assertions underline the distortions of truth that shaded aspects of Occupy. The other is the falsehood of a peaceful protest. Then, despite grandstanding claims they’d accept the court's decision, today came news of an appeal.

Occupy left our fair city divided. Our institutions suffered damage, with enormous strains felt in many quarters.

The Police Force suffered the most. Gains it made throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s were suddenly wiped out. Public trust waned as police officers became the meat in the proverbial sandwich.

Officers tutored to deliver a ‘quality service’ in a new era of policing found themselves on the end of relentless insults. Then came the violence.

At work they’re spat at and abused daily; then at home face rifts as families divided along ideological lines. For some, the wounds have not healed as resentment, and deep feelings won’t fade soon.

And yet Tai and his group remain conceited in their opinions that they did the right thing. It's a blind mantra to them. While some sectors are calling for reconciliation and compromise, Tai appeared to offer no such option.

As a law professor, he knew that he faced a conviction for his actions. Thus I find the ‘prisoner of conscience’ label egotistic and an insult to genuine political prisoners.

No matter. Rational thought plus pleas for adherence to the rule of law are unlikely to change ideologically-fixed minds.
So what next? Indeed, Hong Kong needs to move forward on democratic reform especially given the non-functioning LegCo. The Basic Law also mandates we act.

I conclude Carrie Lam is right to hold off bringing forward new proposals for more democracy. In the current climate, with hostile attitudes on all side, constructive and meaningful debate is not possible. It's wise to let the dust settle, and then reconsider.

But have the so-called democrats learnt anything? They remain a divided entity, who detest each other as much as their political opponents. The constant fragmentation within their ill-disciplined ranks plays straight into the hands of the opposition.

Moreover at the grassroots, down at the district level, the democrats have only isolated strongholds. The DAB and others are better organised, with experienced pro-active workers at the frontline dealing with the day-to-day issues of citizens. The democrats, except for Lee Cheuk-yan’s trade union, have no similar structures.

Also, the champagne-liberals like Claudia Mo and Albert Ho fail the communication test at the grassroots. Their message plays well with students, middle-class types and those with anti-China views.

It fails to impress working folks who are struggling to hold down two jobs but can’t get to work because a protest blocks a road.

In short, the democrats are uncoordinated, mercurial and stubbornly blind to their failings. Everything that goes wrong for them is a conspiracy or united front action. In reality, their ineptness is more damaging.

Further, a refusal to engage with Beijing places them outside where the real game is taking place. Running off to Washington or London to bleat about ‘human rights’ only feeds suspicions of their motives.

Simultaneous, there is a more significant transformation at play. One of the cornerstones of western political thinking is that only democracy can provide the environment for economic growth and innovation. That theory is falling apart under the weight of China’s progress.

Likewise, western thinkers assert that the emergence of a middle-class will stoke calls for democracy. Well, that’s not happening. China moulded the best elements of the West's economic model to its system without embracing Western-style democracy.

In the process, they’ve lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in decades. This stunning achievement exposes western theories as wanting.

With elections for District Councils in November this year and LegCo in 2020, we should be able to see if Occupy has a bearing on the outcome.

I’d suggest not, because the public has moved on. Let’s see.

1 Comment

The stench of hypocrisy

19/4/2019

2 Comments

In the capital, politicians call for the full weight of the law to crash down on protesters adopting civil disobedience. In the same city, young minorities die in increasing numbers, stabbed in the street.

The police can't stop this slaughter, but can storm an embassy to drag a journalist to jail. Meanwhile, the political class is busy fighting against the democratic wishes of the public.

But it gets worse. Outside the capital, a campaigner against child rape and his traumatised children, get frog-marched from a town. Aggressive police officers forced them to a train station.

You see, in this country, you can face arrest for thought crime.

At the same time, gay rights activists are banned from university campuses as no platforming takes hold. Then, in a chilling incident, shooters kill a journalist while she's covering a riot.

In the most sinister development, the government wants to control the internet and who can say what.

Where is this Orwellian place? Not Beijing or Hong Kong, but Great Britain.

The response to the London climate protests didn’t reflect well on the British establishment. Especially their last proxy in Hong Kong, Chris Patten.

Only days before, Patten was wagging his finger at Hong Kong, lambasting us for taking action when people blocked roads in Central.

That Benny Tai and his crew advocated civil disobedience accords them a free pass in Patten’s book. That Occupy descended into violence is ignored.

Contrast that to London. Blocking streets there to pursue your cause with civil disobedience is not allowed. The Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, is demanding that the police act.

Is Chris Patten rushing to the streets to stand in solidarity with the protesters? I’m not holding my breath.

In fairness to Patten, he was not alone in attacking Hong Kong’s judicial process for convicting the Occupy instigators. Politicians of all flavours joined in. The stench of hypocrisy hung in the air with every utterance.

Further, the British government is formulating strict internet laws that rival those of the world's most oppressive regimes. Under the pretense of protecting children and dealing with fake news, free speech could be shut down.

Control of the process will rest with institutions steeped in nanny-state orthodoxy. You can see where this is going. Woolly definitions and threats of jail provide the levers of suppression.

Britain's political class humiliated the country over Brexit. In places like Hong Kong it’s further denigrating its standing by shameless double-standards; do as I say, not as I do is the mantra.

I suppose, in part, this is arrogance linked to a failure to recognise that Great Britain is no longer a credible voice. As Britain stumbles towards a form of Brexit, is it time for schadenfreude?

2 Comments

A Safe Space?

18/4/2019

1 Comment

An ugly ‘anti-harassment’ imbroglio has spilt out from the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club. It's played out through Twitter, then across the local newspapers and radio. Some club members are asserting freedom of speech is under threat from a badly drafted policy.

Others feel the culture of the FCC is arcane, with drunken men, most expats, allegedly misbehaving. Given the FCC’s self-appointed status as the freedom of speech bastion, this is intriguing.

Let me start by saying, I’m not a member of the 76-year-old FCC. I have attended functions there, generally having a cracking night in mixed company. As sometimes occurs, when alcohol is taken, the banter becomes raunchy, with the ladies contributing their fair share.

At the end of one evening, a bear-like hug by a stout Dutch lady lingered too long. I took no offence because she gave none. That’s the norm for well-adjusted adults.

Also, I recognise that times have changed. The laddie behaviour of my younger years is no longer acceptable. That’s understandable. As a father of daughters, I grew aware of these issues.

Unfortunately, and increasingly, I've encountered professional victims who will seek offence in anything. These types appear driven by a postmodern agenda that attributes all the world’s problems to me and other white blokes.

Of course, both women and men have a legitimate expectation of using the FCC free from harassment. Although, and here's the rub, there is a balance to be struck. Otherwise, we’d go through life never communicating for fear of offending someone.

The Twitter feed over this issue has given us an insight into the ongoing dispute. Appears one lady wants to get physical - copy below.

For the record, I realise that as a white male my views are irrelevant to the hard-line third wave feminists. My colour and gender mark me as a vile creature beyond the pale. Such is the discourse in the identity politics culture wars.

At the FCC, on one side, we have members objecting to the policy. These are not all old white men, as some claim. The evidence points to half of this group being female. They’ve raised concerns that the anti-harassment policy as drafted suppresses free speech.

The FCC definition states harassment is "any unwelcome conduct, comment or display that is reasonably known to offend, intimidate or humiliate the recipient on the basis on the basis of appearance, gender, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, physical size or weight, age, marital/family status, nationality, language, ancestry or place of origin.”

As with all such definitions, it’s subjective and rests on the interpretation of the receiver.

Definitions like this led the London Metropolitan Police to the madness of banning the expression ‘black coffee’. Instead, officers ask for ‘coffee without milk.’

You can see how misappropriation of such a policy is possible.

Certainly, the endless line of people wanting to join the claimed victimhood hierarchy get a leg up. Thus, it would be easy to weaponise the policy to address personal grudges.

Let's suppose two people are discussing the rape of children by Catholic priests. On the next table a person over hears the conversation and is offended, feeling such a discussion is inappropriate. Is that harassment?

On the other side is a group of women and men, who feel that the FCC is not a safe space. They allege leering, unwelcome attention and sexual harassment.

The discussion I’ve seen between FCC members is an ideologically ladened debate. It's akin to no-platforming discussions seen at some Western universities. All the language of the woke world is there; mansplaining, patriarchy, victim-shaming, racism, sexism, micro-aggressions and white-man privilege.

One female journalist has taken to the press writing an opinion piece. In this, she conflated the anti-harassment policy with many matters including the murder of journalists, female prostitution and the pay-gender gap.

Also, it appears a photo of two topless women in the FCC caused some anxiety. That picture went. A photo of a Scottish soldier's bottom didn’t seem to deserve similar action. Interesting.

If we're allowed to conflate on equal terms, I could argue that women's sport is over thanks to a woke generation asserting transgender rights. Likewise, black kids in London face an onslaught of stabbings because a PC culture prevents action. I could go on, but I won't because it's too depressing.

An FCC member speaking on Radio 3 alleged harassment at the main bar is common. When asked if any of this was reported, the questioner faced immediate castigation as ‘victim-shaming'.

This tactic comes from the third-wave feminists. In the same way, some people play the 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' card when caught out in a debate on race.

If you simply shout ‘victim-shaming’ at every question you don’t like, you tend to loose the argument. The vilification of opposing opinions is then linked to the other person being depraved. Meanwhile, the legitimate question goes unanswered.

I have a question. If our journalists are not bold enough to challenge lousy behaviour in the FCC, how can we expect them to be their job?

The FCC issued a statement asserting part of the problem is excessive drinking by some members. Is this a tacit admission that the FCC is a disorderly place. Such may constitute a breach of the liquor licensing conditions.

The licensee is not permitted to allow drunkenness, quarrel or other disorderly conduct on the premises. Perhaps the FCC shouldn’t worry about their lease because without alcohol the club is finished anyway — I’ll take my tongue out of my cheek now.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, except to say I favour free speech within limits. Furthermore, I recognise people must have protection from harassment. How the FCC balances these matters will be interesting to observe.

1 Comment

Game Over.

12/4/2019

0 Comments

In December 2014, the Occupy Central Movement (OCM) collapsed. The protest disintegrated under the weight of internal disputes and legal actions.

The instigators, including the pseudo-intellectual Benny Tai, fled the field of play long before that. He’d exercised no control from the outset as disparate groups hijacked the protest. This week the organisers of OCM faced conviction.

I give them credit for waging a successful media campaign that portrayed the event as peaceful. Many in the West and rosy-eyed expatriates in Hong Kong are blind, willfully or otherwise, to the truth.

That 520 people needed hospital treatment: 130 of them police officers, one kicked unconscious in Central, goes unacknowledged. The falsehood of a peaceful event is now embedded in folklore.

Even this week, academics discussing the findings peddled the myth that the police caused the occupation. It's suggested that by closing a footbridge, this prompted people to take to the roads.

This assertion is palpable nonsense. The movement always intended to block roads. To me, these academics have abandoned rational, evidence-based thought in their attempt to shift blame.

While that occupation played out, Hong Kong people sought to get back to normal life. Over time our lawful right to use the roads was reinstated.

I’ve written much about OCM: here, here and here. Now, after four years the perpetrators have finally faced justice. Found guilty, the prospect of jail time awaits them.

None of this fills me with joy. Yes, I’d like to see this gang of the self-righteous serve long sentences. But would we feel better as a society if that is the outcome? These are base impulses, which we should try to restrain.

While there is an obvious need to hold them to account, making them martyrs will be counterproductive. But, to allow them off scot-free makes a mockery of the rule of law. And that's why the unwelcome intervention by Chris Patten is so disheartening.

I suppose Patten can’t help himself. Scorned in the UK, he still enjoys the limelight in Hong Kong. Regrettably, his response amounts to an attack on the judiciary.

Patten is no longer a viable or truthful commentator. For starters, he's out of touch with the reality on the ground.

Second, he appears to be fed a line by his Hong Kong contacts. Combine this with his proven misjudgments - need I mention Jimmy Savile - and you have a man who is not credible.

Joining Patten in this misguided political moralising is British and European politicians. They’re embarrassingly wrong in their judgments. Due process under the common law system applied to the convicted.

I listened to UK politicians justifying the arrest and possible extradition of Julian Assange. The words they used included ‘the rule of law’, ‘due process’ and ‘nobody is above the law.’ All these statements apply to the instigators of Occupy. The willful blindness to this fact is indicative of the Wests double standards.

No matter how much spin and false sainthood the instigator's display, it's inescapable that they failed in their endeavour. Unfortunately, in the process, they polarised Hong Kong society. What’s more, they seeded deep suspicions in Beijing. If you ask the question did Occupy Central help, the answer must be a resounding no.

In the judgment, the court rejected the boneheaded assertion that the police caused the occupation by firing tear smoke. The judge rightly points out that Tai and his mates always sought to bring large crowds to the streets.

Further, their claim that civil disobedience put them above the law was kicked out. Moreover, and something many of us pointed out in 2014, the judge highlighted the naivety of the group.

Sun Tzu (孫子) 544 - 496 BC, envisaged that OCM would falter. A winning strategy lies in ‘making an assessment of the outcome of action’ and ‘form a single united body at one place.’ OCM had neither. It was doomed to fail from the outset.

No doubt we will see the usual protests as a reaction to this judicial finding. Of course, there is a chance that some may decide on radical action. But in reality, OCM is a spent movement. They had their moment and blew it. Likewise, its bastard son the Hong Kong independence movement is finished.

To me, the stock of democracy worldwide is falling. Brexit and Trump are busy seeing to that. As that plays into the equation, people are wondering is it worth it? Many are coming round to the view it’s wrong-headed to have a system that stems progress.

For example, Brexit held hostage to a few. Is that fair when the public voted out? With Western democracy in crisis, Patten pointing the finger at us is a staggering conceit.

Finally, as China progresses, change will come at their chosen speed. The pace will not be set or dictated by yesterday's men. Hong Kong’s democratic forces will need pragmatism, rather than blunt objection if they are to remain a player.

In the meantime, Tai and his friends will no doubt wrap themselves in the banner of victimhood. Sentencing is in two weeks, at which time we can expect more haughty insults from the likes of Patten.

0 Comments

Throw him to the floor Centurion!

9/4/2019

0 Comments

Comedy Gold

At first, I thought a new Monty Python series is coming. Next, I’m curious to know if Arnold Rimmer is back for another round of Red Dwarf. The absence of a forehead H suggests not. Then, it dawned on me — this is the head of the British Army. And his performance is comedy gold.

The voice, the stance and awful faux studio-setting created an online stir. General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith’s strange presentation took loads of flak. In a three-minute piece, he affirmed that a stiff upper-class type still leads the British Army. The abiding image is a man straight out of 1930s central casting: one lisping old Etonian please, heavy on the hip stance.

Carleton-Smith’s condescending tone didn't play well with the proletariat, who make up the bulk of his thinning army. Unfortunately, it’s probable the poor man has no inkling he’s doing immense damage. ‘The Life of Brian’ clip comes to mind. John Cleese’s Centurion failing to stop Biggus Dickus addressing the mob is the template.

The Real Thing

By all accounts, Carleton-Smith is an accomplished soldier. He went through SAS selection — no slouch then — and served with distinction.

That alone marks him as a tough guy. Unfortunately, the qualities that allow him to excel in one role may not be applicable in another.

The only explanation I can think of is he received poor advice. In the modern era, he needs to recognise that his approach was always likely to attract scorn. Plus, virtue-signalling by men from a privileged background never works well.

But, let’s get some perspective here. Carleton-Smith sought to address recent incidents that attracted media attention. Yet, by conflating these, he’s failed to comprehend the broader consequences. An alleged incident involving sexual abuse is under investigation.

Such conduct, if proven, should result in criminal charges and severe punishment. Nobody condones this behaviour.

Unfortunately, Carleton-Smith fuses that incident with the much less serious matter of soldiers firing at a picture of Jeremy Corbyn. That's a mistake.

Terrorist Supporter Upset

That video emerged last week to spark a furore as the loony left linked it with the assassination of Joe Cox, the Labour MP. This stance says more about their opportunism than the actions of the soldiers. Also, it’s worth remembering that Corbyn is outspoken in his support of terrorists who took the life of parachute regiment members.

I doubt Corbyn and his cohort would be running to the media if these lads were blown sky-high by a roadside bomb. He's more likely to have the bombers round for tea in his allotment shed.

Recruitment Falters

Another aspect that arises from these events is its impact on recruitment. The soft cuddly recruitment campaigns of 2107/2018, saw successful applications for the Army collapse. Forty-seven per cent of applicants drop out. Building on that failure came the 2019 snowflake campaign, a costly exercise in political correctness gone crazy.

As a result, the British Army is now 5,600 short of regular soldiers. Carleton-Smith’s woeful outburst is unlikely to help attract people. Who will join an organisation that throws its people under the bus of political expediency?

One of the most gratuitous responses came from professional soy-boy and drama queen, Owen Jones. He played his expected hand, affirming a status as the lefts man-child commentator. I don't recall young Owen getting upset when posters appeared vilifying Theresa May. Amazing how selective these people can be.

To be honest, soldiers are not angels nor should they be. We ask them to face extraordinary dangers to protect our freedoms. Many pay the ultimate price.

The business of fighting wars is messy. Young people thrust into that disorientating world experience pressures most could never shoulder. If they let off steam with inappropriate humour, then who are we to pass comment. It’s sure that the likes of Corbyn and Owen Jones are not fit to judge these men.

When the beast is at the door, I want the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment guarding that door. I don't want some politically-correct softy. Nonetheless, one aspect of this episode that concerns me is the poor grouping on the target. I’d expect better from such elite soldiers.

0 Comments

Walter's Blog

What Next?

The stench of hypocrisy

A Safe Space?

Game Over.

Throw him to the floor Centurion!

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter