Blog Archives

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

30/4/2020 2 Comments

Well Done, Hong Kong.

1,038 Covid-19 cases and four deaths - Hong Kong is doing something right!

We are all wrestling with the maths of Covid-19. It's the numbers that will drive a return to some form of ordinary life. Although as I've before commented, gathering, analysing and drawing conclusions is problematic.

Although, fortunately, we now have more data that will allow meta-analysis. In turn, this helps us decide which strategies are working and the relative merits of various measures.

I won't cite much data here but have provided links that support the positions I'm taking.

Two things are immediately apparent. First, Hong Kong has done well with only 1,038 confirmed Covid-19 cases (as of 29 April 2020) from a population of 7.5 million, living in very dense housing.

With an average of 130,000 people packed inside each square kilometre, the Mong Kok district is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Ideal conditions to spread a virus you'd think.

Of those 1,038 cases, only four deaths are Covid-19 related, while four people remain in critical condition. Significantly, we've not recorded a single infection of a medical worker.

So, while not out of the woods yet, the omens are promising. The risk now lies in a second wave or an outbreak as Singapore experienced amongst its migrant workers. So, let's not get too complacent.

My second observation is that there exists no credible evidence that lockdowns stop the spread of the virus. Further, given the adverse economic impact of a lockdown, plus the consequences for people's mental health and general well-being, we must ask serious questions about this approach.

Add to that the overzealous actions of some law enforcement in policing lockdowns. I'm intrigued to see the British police adopting measures that would cause an outcry in Hong Kong. Another example of Western double-standards — I digress.

Hong Kong did not adopt a lockdown — by which I mean people forced to stay at home, most gatherings banned, and many businesses closed. We did the following:-

People wore masks
Hand washing
School closures
Banned large gatherings
Curtailed travel
Temparature checks at point of entry
Quarantining the sick
Contact tracing and quarantining

People in Hong Kong came primed to act because the SARS episode of 2003 left deep scars in the collective memory. Thus, without prompting from officials, we started taking precautions. The government never mandated mask-wearing.

Initially, I was sceptical. I took the view that masks, then in short supply, should be held back for medical staff. Then over time, as evidence of asymptomatic carriers emerged, my attitude changed.

The science is simple to comprehend; any disease spread by droplets is hampered by a mask. Granted, no mask is 100 per cent effective. Still, a study by Hong Kong City University found even two layers of paper towel was 80 per cent as effective as an N95 mask in reducing droplet dispersal.

That extrapolated over a population of millions produces a substantial reduction in the spread.

Likewise, hand washing reduces the opportunity for the virus to move around. The frequent disinfecting of high-traffic surfaces, something that Hong Kong adopted during SARS, came back in force. Lift buttons, handrails and door handles have never been so clean.

Scientists at the University of Arizona placed a benign virus on a door handle; then monitored its movement. Within four hours, the virus was on most surfaces and had reached half the staff. Thus, frequent cleaning works.

Also, research supports the closure of schools as effective against halting a community outbreak. Likewise, any large gathering has the potential to produce a cluster that soon grows.

As an example, on 18 February, hundreds of Christians gathered in Mulhouse, France, for a traditional celebration. This event was mostly in the open; yet, crowds came together to chant and pray. At least one of those present brought Covid-19.

To date, officials traced 2,500 Covid-19 cases back to this event, with 17 of the congregation dead. The virus soon moved out from Mulhouse into Germany, Latin America and Corsica.

From this case and others, we can see that banning large gatherings is crucial to success.

Hong Kong, Sweden and the Netherlands are amongst the places that didn't adopt a lockdown. Each has had varying degrees of success in containing the virus.

Alone this does not prove lockdowns are ineffective because other factors are also relevant. But, we can assert that a lockdown is not a critical ingredient; otherwise, Hong Kong would be overrun with cases.

Hong Kong-based economist Lyman Stone makes a convincing case against 'lockdowns' in this article. In the same vein, the issue gets debated here.

Meanwhile, the hard truth is that places which adopted a lockdown have more unemployed people, their economies are in tatters, and public borrowing about to skyrocket.

Next, comes inflation and all the related consequences. At least Hong Kong has it's massive reserves to fall back on, but for how long?

The picture that is emerging is that Hong Kong's system containment worked. Medical staff had enough protective gear, government departments coordinated, and we rolled out measures as necessary.

The media is speculating that countries led by women are, in the main, handling Covid-19 better. Our Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, is not on that list. While I've been a critic of hers for years, credit is due for overseeing this situation.

Meanwhile, a review by the Deep Knowledge Group puts Hong Kong in the top 10 for health security capabilities. The USA and the UK don't make the top 40; yet, both top the lists for Covid-19 risk rating.

As things stand today, I can only conclude that Hong Kong has handled the Covid-19 outbreak well. Credit is due for that, as we start the process of getting life back on track.

2 Comments

27/4/2020 0 Comments

Tied Together

Cutting through the political rhetoric, China holds only 5 per cent of US debt.

The Frog and Scorpion fable teaches us that vicious people cannot resist hurting others, even if it is not in their interests. This lesson seems to be playing out again today as Covid-19 enters into Cold War II between the US and China.

Meanwhile, Trump is busy distracting to cover-up his inadequate response that killed thousands of US citizens. Along the way, he is stoking fear of Beijing’s economic clout. It could come back to bite him.

With the US economy in a shambles, Trump’s best chance of winning reelection in November is to run against China. Thus, I suspect, he will exploit distrust of China, xenophobia and nationalism at every opportunity. He's got little else on which to hang his election chances. But it's a strategy that is risky.

I doubt he will be talking much about how state-owned Chinese banks funded his projects. One loan for $200M from the Bank of China matures in 2022. Neither will he highlight the Chinese construction companies building his latest projects in the UAE and Indonesia.

Whether Trump received other loans from Chinese banks and investors is unknown, because he refuses to disclose his financial records.

Walter Shaub, former Director of the Office of Government Ethics, which sets standards for conduct in the Executive Branch, wrote "So, who knows who else he owes money? I'll tell you: The lenders who have him in their grip."

Depending on how you do the calculations, either the US or China is the world's largest economy. Using the IMF's 'purchasing power parity' method, China took the lead in 2018, with the EU second and the US third.

These three combined generate 50 per cent of the world GDP. In unadjusted numbers - nominal GDP - the US remains the largest economy. Besides granting bragging rights, the top position is mostly academic.

And, of course, Covid-19 is taking its toll. For example, the US took ten years to create 20 million new jobs. In the last month, 26 million Americans applied for unemployment benefit.

The 2020 US budget deficit will increase after four response bills pile more than $2 trillion onto the national debt. These numbers tell a story that shapes the interaction between the US and Chinese economies. And this brings in the issue of debt and politics.

As of 17th March 2020, the total amount of debt owed by the US federal, state and local governments stood at $23.4 trillion. Of that amount, China holds claim on $1.1 trillion. But, China is second to Japan with $1.2 trillion owed. Strange that US politicians rarely fret about Japanese influence on the economy.

Further, since 2011, China has sought to reduce its level of US debt from a height of $1.3 trillion.

Don't forget that the trade war dampened China's ability to invest in US debt, a situation that will exist for some years to come.

Yet, no matter how you cut it, the two economies come tied together. Should the US Scorpion plunge its stinger into the Chinese frog, both may drown. The Chinese yuan is linked to the US dollar, an arrangement that pivots the economic relationship between the two.

If confidence in the US dollar falls, China also suffers. So be careful those US pensioners who are demanding punishment of China, because that could see your retirement funds drop off.

Cutting through the political rhetoric, China holds only 5 per cent of US debt. That’s not insignificant, but it does not offer the leverage that some think. Why?
Well, because China relies on American markets to sell its goods. With the profits made, China bought up US Treasury stocks.

In turn, this helps inflate the US dollar, making Chinese good cheap to buy with the American consumer benefiting. At the end of this cycle, the average American is better off. In short, China is providing affordable services and only taking pieces of paper in return.

Selling off those pieces of paper would push the dollar down; hurting China's competitiveness by raising the value of the yuan relative to the US dollar. It’s assessed that if China opted to sell, willing buyers would snap up the stocks; thus blunting any punitive impact on the US.

Further, the US-China economic relationship delivers more benefits to the US than is commonly recognised. Recent data shows that US exports to China support around 1.8 million jobs in sectors such as services, agriculture, and capital goods. Although, that relationship does mean jobs transferred from the US to China. It's swings and roundabouts.

As human we find simple ideas very attractive. Politicians like Trump recognises this trait, then exploits its power. Thus, its China's fault that the US economy is doing poorly or that US jobs are going overseas. Unfortunately, matters are far from that simple.

A multitude of linkages including economic, political, treaties and even geography are at play. Understanding this reality can be a time consuming and complex process. Trump's over-simplistic finger-pointing distracts from that more complicated truth.

In reality, the US-China economies rely on each other. A decrease in China's growth can hurt the world economy and slow down global economic growth. The effects would hit the US.

Thus, people who call for a reckoning with China must understand the consequential blowback. No amount of political posturing or rallying cries will change that.

0 Comments

21/4/2020 1 Comment

Bring on the Clowns

"Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg!"

Welcome, then, to a world in which celebrities feel it's fine to spread batshit crazy ideas without bothering to consider the facts.

Ricky Gervais, the anti-celebrity celeb, summed up the luvvies at the 2020 Golden Globes.

"So if you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech. You're in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg."

That hasn't stopped the uneducated and unqualified celebrities from spreading Covid-19 conspiracies. Bored in their mansions, and pining for attention, a number have jumped on the 'it's 5G that did it' bandwagon.

First up is Amanda Holden, an English media personality of undetermined ability. Amanda built a career from looking pretty, while her education consists of attending a drama school in Peckham.

Does that qualify her to comment on radiation, the science of epidemiology and health outcomes from viruses? She thinks it does. At least, following widespread scorn, she had the good grace to remove her tweets linking the Covid-19 to 5G.

Woody Harrelson hasn't yet seen the light. Does his judgment come clouded by the vast amounts of cannabis he consumes or is he is channelling his most famous role — the dumb barmen in Cheers? Hard to say.

Either way, Woody that video you posted of Chinese people pulling down a 5G transmitter was a surveillance camera in Hong Kong. The incident took place in Kowloon Bay in 2019, well before the Covid-19 emerged.

Not deterred, Woody opined "5G radiation is exacerbating the contagion spread and making it more lethal." Really? Exactly how is that mechanism working Woody? I'd like to hear the science that supports these assertions you shared with two million Instagram followers.

Perhaps Woody should lay off the 'product' to clear his head.

Boxer Amir Khan, we can let off the hook. After all, the poor chap has taken many blows to the head, plus he's an ardent follower of the clown-prince of conspiracies, David Icke. Khan reposted claims from Icke that the virus is there to test 5G's impact.

Meanwhile, Dancing On Ice judge Jason Gardiner posted several tweets last week that encouraged followers to sign a petition halting the roll-out of 5G. Joining in are several rappers — not usually on my radar — with a chap called Wiz Khalifa with over 36 million followers.

A lady rapper called M.I.A. claims the coronavirus is a ploy to mass-vaccinate the world's population and implant us with a tracking chip linked to 5G. M.I.A tweeted she chooses death over the chip. Well, that's clear then.

John Cusack, another Hollywood celeb, tweeted to his 1.6 million followers. "5 — G wil [sic] be proven to be very very bad for people's health."

He later deleted the tweet, but not before calling those who disagreed with him "just DUMB and fucking sheep". Nice. John is no stranger to the dangers of tweeting.

In 2019, he tweeted anti-semitic images. When challenged he first claimed a bot created the message, then defended it, then apologised and finally removed it. John is a class act.

These conspiracy theories are typically the output of a marginalised few on Reddit and 4chan forums. Yet crazy ideas gain traction with a broader audience when celebs peddle this nonsense.

Willfully spreading dangerous myths that are untrue to gullible followers is a recipe for mayhem. Moreover, it legitimises attack on infrastructure and other criminal acts.

We know that celebrities thrive on attention. And in these difficult times, alone in their mansions, they feel sad. But for now, do us all a favour — sit down and drink a large cup of 'shut the fuck up'.

Lastly, I'd rather put my trust in the prognostications of the scientists than in some confused luvvie.

1 Comment

19/4/2020 2 Comments

Lost Youth

"The Pan Dems, and others, need to reflect on their role in drawing these gullible kids to the streets."

Having so far contained the Covid-19 virus outbreak, Hong Kong is not out of the woods. Covid-19 may come back, plus our economy is ailing, and further violent social unrest is possible.

As the sudden surge of Covid-19 cases in Singapore demonstrated, we need constant vigilance, and we can't allow any chance for a spread. In Singapore, they had a migrant worker blind-spot that the virus exported ruthlessly; Hong Kong should learn from that lesson.

But, when the virus precautions ease here, the question everyone is asking "Will the violent protests be back?" Tempered by a weak economy and ongoing court cases, the protest movement's future is debatable.

Moreover, with supporters in the West distracted, Hong Kong could fade from their agenda. Or, more likely, we’ll become a pawn in the broader game between China and the USA.

Indeed, Trump is looking at all means to distract attention from his shambolic Covid-19 response. Initially, he pronounced Covid-19 was “fake-news … another attempt to discredit me.”

Then as the death's mounted, he switched tack although he's never demonstrated genuine leadership with a comprehensive strategy.

He now plays a relentless blame-game; first China, then WHO, then state governors, all along with the media. Meanwhile, he accepts no responsibility.

In his attempts to distract, he could see the protests in Hong Kong as a useful tool with which to blacken Beijing further. Until now he's avoided that, although he's so erratic anything is possible.

Plus, with China emerging from Covid-19 quicker than others, firing up its economy, it’s certain to rile Trump. If he can't get Covid-19 under control, and with increasing unemployment, based on his past performance, he will lash out more.

I have no doubt the protesters will return, with or without overseas support. Although, it's uncertain what scale and character the demonstrations will take.

With job losses mounting across many sectors, is it right to assume people focus on economic issues? I'm not sure. With elections for LegCo in September, the omens are not favourable.

Last week, during my wandering through the hills, I found a group of six college students heading up the mountain towards Windy Gap in search of Repulse Bay.

I pointed out there were heading in the wrong direction, then led them back down to the Tai Tam Dam to connect with the correct path. Our encounter had all the hallmarks of an allegory.

We struck up a conversation heading downhill. To cut a long story short, I revealed my past, which caused some unease, as they candidly admitted an active part in the 2019 protests. A discussion followed.

One student described the experience of the protests as 'unsettling' because those around him escalated to violence without delay. He's now withdrawn from on-street activities because he feels it's too risky. Fearing arrest, he had sleepless nights.

This group have a melancholy air. One girl remained surly throughout, making it clear she's not going to talk to me.

The others offered criticism of many parties and players.

Of course, the government and Police took a fair share of bile. To my surprise, the Pan Dem politicians drew contempt for providing no leadership. "Why didn't Anson Chan intervene?" Great question.

The students didn't realise that Martyr Lee sat in Beijing, negotiating the Basic Law, a fact that caused some reflection. I had to laugh when they dismissed Joshua Wong, the darling of the US politicians, as self-serving. Thus, we agreed on something.

I raised the issue of petrol bombing police quarters and attempts to target the children of police officers. That drew a silence. One ventured "We weren't there, did it happen? Much false news?” Who does that sound like?

I mentioned the 2014 democracy proposals, rejected by the Pan Dems; this pivotal moment is often forgotten. It signaled a change, that has led us all on the wrong path seeking a destination that cannot be reached from here.

While far from perfect, the proposals moved in the right direction. Again, this drew blank faces from the students. Clearly, the context and meaning is lost in the whirl of social media hubris.

One lad asserted he'd go back to the streets. Although, if the protests become violent, he'll seek to leave. That's wise.

After all, the Police are looking increasingly proficient in containing the extreme elements under the robust leadership of Commissioner Chris Tang. He displays none of the hesitance of his supine predecessor.

Rapid interventions, flexible tactics and new 'less-than-lethal' weapons give commanders options that keep violent protesters at bay. In addition, having gone through several riots, officers are well-schooled and confident in their skills.

Moreover, opposition attempts to demonise officers with allegations of 'brutality' and attacks of police homes are proving counter-productive. By all accounts, morale is high.

Media reports of a surge in police resignations are over-blown. Likewise, those that left are welcome departures. I'm told most lacked the physical stamina for the job or proved 'wobbly' when confronted by the mob. Their resignations removes a burden.

With hundreds of hard-core protesters fled to Taiwan, the evidence suggests they are struggling with the decisions they made. The Pan Dems, and others need to reflect on their role in drawing these gullible kids to the streets.

My encounter with these young people, all born after 1997, reminded me we live in an age of amnesia. People forget that Anson Chan, Martyr Lee and many Pan Dems sat at the table in Beijing to parlay Hong Kong's future.

Then the 1989 Tiananmen killings and the misguided efforts of Chris Patten derailed progress towards more democracy.

Even after that, Anson Chan worked with tireless fervor to sell the Joint Declaration to the people of Hong Kong, standing centre stage at the handover.

For me, when a full accounting is made, all sides have debits — especially the Pan Dems for rejecting democracy proposals in 2014.

At least I left the students on the right track to Repulse Bay. I hope they made it.

2 Comments

15/4/2020 3 Comments

The Labour Party - The Wilderness Awaits.

"Labour needs to recognise that the British ... are moderate people."

'Never believe your own bullshit!' That sage advice, given to me early in my police career, saved me from hubris. Well, not always. Anyway, the UK's Labour party would do well to take this advice, as it ruminates over the disaster of the 2019 election.

After all, getting a drunk crowd of middle-class kids at Glastonbury (£250 a ticket) to chant your name doesn't make a government.

I have to say that all the ideological praise heaped on the bearded messiah, echoed around a silo. Meanwhile, the wider populace didn't buy Corbyn's nostalgic socialist narrative.

In attempts to understand modern Britain, you need to move away from soundbites and the 24-hour news cycle. To keep abreast of matters while on lockdown, I recently acquired back copies of the New Statesman magazine.

This left-leaning weekly counter-balances the more rightist Spectator. Both are well-written. And they provide a respite from the daily apocalyptic headlines of click-bait newspapers. Their analysis is in-depth, insightful commentary on politics, the arts and culture.

Yes, the New Statesman and the Spectator each has an axe to grind that colours their coverage. But, fear not, people are capable of navigating this to make judgements.

What strikes me is the amount of space the New Statesman gives to Labour's postmortem after the 2019 election catastrophe. In some issues of the magazine, one-third of the articles are ruminations on Labour's failure.

Hurt and stumbling around for answers, Labour apparatchiks come consumed by bereft feelings. 'Why would the working-class reject us?'.

Ok, time for some hubris. I predicted this outcome in May 2018. If I could foresee the result from 6000 miles away, why couldn't others see the coming disaster? At that time, I asserted that Labour leader Corbyn was the best asset the Tories had. And so it proved — Corbyn put Boris Johnson in power.

Anyone with an inkling of public sentiment would know that traditional Labour voters could never back Corbyn. These people may have moderate left-leaning views but hold themselves patriotic.

Thus, Corbyn's dalliances with terrorists and his anti-British sentiments drove them away. The cover-up of anti-Semitism, facilitated by Baroness Chakrabarti, didn't help. That Corbyn then rewarded her with a seat in the House of Lords confirmed his willingness to play dirty.

Corbyn's blind and ardent support for the awful regime in Venezuela as it trashed the economy, locking up opponents, spoke to his dogma.

Back at home, the lawyers and Oxbridge crowd — who fill the upper echelons of the party — appeared to view the voters as useful idiots. Instead of listening, they dictated with a condescending tone.

As a consequence, Labour lost scores of working-class constituencies it had held for generations, surrendering large parts of its northern heartland to the Conservative Party.

Rother Valley, a mining community in South Yorkshire, had been in the party's hands since 1918. Gone. Sedgefield, held by Labour since 1935. Gone. In 1997, Tony Blair won this constituency with 71 per cent of the vote.

Reading the News Statesman, I'm convinced that Labour has commenced the process that will keep it out of power for decades. With precision, they are picking over policy decisions and the minutiae going back years.

To me, this is bizarre. When the country is facing a crisis of epic proportions, Labour is burning energy examining bellybutton fluff.

Besides, many of the people leading the discussion were complicit in Corbyn's rise and reign. How can Labour expect any honest reflection from these culprits?

Much of this flagellation is an attempt to rewrite history or draft multiple accounts to see which holds up best. Yet none of it changes the fundamentals. First, Labour lost and not by a small margin, but by a large measure. It's a seismic change, that prompts me to think is the old category of 'working-class' voter relevant?

Second, people tire of the default racist label if they dare to raise legitimate concerns about immigration or integration. Remember Gillian Duffy.

They are also tired of a progressive agenda that promotes the rights of tiny special-interests groups over the majority. They've not forgotten that the police and other officials, under the sway of progressives, ignored rape gangs fearful of a backlash.

But, the same police proved more than willing to check the language of citizens who dared to speak out. All these uncomfortable subjects played into the decisions voters made.

Third, people want security, respect and are aspirational. Corbyn and his crew signalled that folks should 'stay in their lane'. Then with Corbyn sitting on the Brexit fence and thinking this was clever, he tacitly poured scorn on the majority who voted out.

Now Labour has a new leader, Sir Keir Starmer KCB, QC, MP. He only became an MP in 2015. Before that, he served as a Barrister and in the Crown Prosecution Service. In that former life, he helped drive the campaign to secure justice for Stephen Lawrence.

Then in 2013 he somewhat stained his reputation. He now stands accused of adopting the role of 'witch-finder general' by pursuing a policy of 'always believe the victim'.

They are suggestions that Starmer over-corrected after the Jimmy Saville imbroglio. As a result, many innocent men faced false allegations. One wonders if this will come back to haunt Starmer.

Starmer is keen to shape the narrative by laying claim to working-class roots. He must think the electorate are fools to swallow that nonsense.

He is as much establishment as Boris Johnson. Furthermore, and this is my main point, the voters have moved on from the tribalism that defined the Labour movement.

Yet, the fierce debate over what Labour should do next will continue. If they opt to dig deeper into the intersectional 'social-justice-warrior' narrative, it condemns them to the wilderness. They will remain a marginal party, a permanent protest movement without real power. Especially as the Tories, under Boris, will move to the middle ground.

The way things are shaping up, even after the UK's muddled Covid-19 response, Labour won't be able to make much headway. For now, the NHS is sacrosanct under the Tories — the Covid-19 scare affirmed its position as Britain's only state religion.

So Labour lost that stick with which to beat the Tories. The evidence is shaping up that Boris has little to fear from Starmer.

Labour needs to recognise that the British, with some regional eccentricities, are moderate people. 'Don't overdo it,' 'For the sake of peace and quiet' and 'Order, Order' is the default national doctrine.

The challenge is, how does Labour distinguish itself as different and useful in opposition? For all that, the answer is unclear. But a sensible start would be to stop baiting the voters with marginal ideological positions. Next, cut the animus to your British identify.

3 Comments

12/4/2020 1 Comment

Get Serious!

"Science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom" Isaac Asimov.

In my squandered youth, I avidly consumed the books of Erich von Däniken. Before the Internet era put all conspiracy theories on steroids, von Däniken was the best we could get.

His idea of humans seeded from intergalactic travellers enthralled me until Charles Darwin took me in a different direction.

These days the nut-jobs are having fun as Covid-19 is shoe-horned into every conspiracy, prejudice and fantasy. This feeding frenzy is drawing in the usual crowd of suspects. Of course, leading the pack is the high priest of the genre, Mr David Icke.

To the uninitiated, Mr Icke believes we are all controlled by a secret society of lizard mutants led by HRH Queen Elizabeth. Icke is busy getting his face on every willing YouTube channel to push his ideas.

It's the usual nonsense. We are the victims of a 'one per cent' conspiracy to enslave the majority, with Covid-19 an agent of control and aided in its propagation by 5G networks.

Mr Icke polished his reputation with a few successes. He predicted paedophiles in the upper echelons of UK society well before the police bothered to investigate.

At times Icke sounds plausible until you scratch the surface to reveal the lack of substantiation or rationality. At other times, he's bat-shit crazy.

Despite this, Icke has carved out a niche that earned him an estimated £2M from 20 books and lecture tours. Anyway, he's now facing possible sanctions after attacks on 5G facilities.

In other places, people harness Covid-19 to existing prejudices. In India, the blame falls on Muslims for the spread after attending religious ceremonies. While Iran is claiming Covid-19 is a Zionist-plot with Israel holding a secret vaccine.

Look anywhere in the world, and I guarantee you'll find someone blaming the 'other'.

Above all, it's inevitable that Covid-19 is now a weapon in the struggle between nations. Folks in the US accused China of manufacturing the virus and then leaking it.

China fires back with equally unproven claims that the US military brought the virus to Wuhan during a sporting contest in Autumn 2019. Neither story holds up to serious examination or scientific examination.

That's the beauty of science; verifiable evidence and peer review. I'd argue that science is the most honest of disciplines because scientists welcome challenges, share their testimony and seek peer affirmation.

The integrity of that process is profound. None of the YouTube pundits and charlatans making mouth-watering claims begins to jump the first hurdle of scientific integrity.

It's fortunate that undistracted by this social media frenzy and the politics, scientists are toiling away on Covid-19. And it's remarkable that their cooperation jumps over the political boundaries.

They don't tend to rush to make headlines, nor do they speak in the brash language of absolute certainty. Instead, in moderate tones, they'll present their findings as open to challenge.

First, let's be clear, there is nothing to suggest from reliable scientific sources that Covid-19 came from a lab. When humans tamper with a virus, we tend to leave our mark. That signature is not there on Covid-19.

As far as the scientists can tell, the evidence points to the infection transferring from either bats or pangolins.

Cambridge University, in conjunction with German scientists, has tracked the spread of the virus using a genetic footprint tool. This technique proved potent in mapping the migration of humans from Africa, allowing us to understand our evolution.

As the scientists get a clearer picture of Covid-19's spread, the situation is far more complicated than first thought.

For starters, Covid-19 comes in three distinct flavours that appear to impact distinct cohorts of people in different ways. What follows is a simplification of the current thinking.

Based on samples from Wuhan, the scientists identified Covid-19 Type A was mostly present in people from America and Australia. Yet, Type A was somewhat absent from Wuhan's Chinese population. Instead, these folks carried predominately Covid-19 Type B.

Type B didn't spread outside the Asia region because it appears the wider population has a degree of herd immunity. But, Type B evolved into Covid-19 Type C, which surfaced in France, Italy, Sweden and the UK.

To add to the confusion, Type C is absent from the Mainland Chinese population yet found in Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea. Whether large non-Chinese communities in these places acted as a reservoir remains unclear.

The genetic spread of the virus points to the outbreak starting (the founding event) in Wuhan between September and December 2019. As the virus moved out, and evolved, clusters from Germany and Singapore seeded the events in Italy.

These findings will no doubt undergo further verification and assessment. In time, as more data arrives, we should be able to fully track the spread and evolution of the virus, allowing better interdiction.

Then, this morning, I see comments in the SCMP misreading or misinterpreting this research to suggest that the virus had US origins. Wrong.

Eventually, the science will refute the nonsense spread on social media and elsewhere, albeit by then much damage may be done.

After all, a good number of people already believe that Covid-19 is the product of military experimentation. And once these beliefs take hold, dislodging them is gruelling. David Icke is proof of how gullible people can be.

1 Comment

9/4/2020 6 Comments

Everything Evolves!

"Very soon, China will be the largest economy in the World. Covid-19 may have accelerated the arrival of that day."

The tectonic plates of geopolitics are shifting with Covid-19 accelerating that process. While all governments have made mistakes in handling the pandemic, particularly at the early stages, the virus is exposing the strengths and weaknesses of political systems.

The inherent secrecy of China's political regime meant a slow initial response as the centre digested the information. But, once it decided to act, China was able to bring strict controls, reinforced by robust enforcement. Plus, it has the capacity in political will to move and the resources to respond.

Evidence is emerging to suggest the virus appeared in Wuhan in November 2019, having circulated for decades without breaking-through. And, yes, by mid-December 2019, local authorities in Wuhan realised they had an outbreak on their hands.

Although this didn't trigger worldwide alarms until January 2020 — no one can claim that by mid-January those alarms weren't ringing loud and clear.

What happened next? Well, most nations not immediately affected, looked-on with bemused interest, circulated memes and then went about their business.

Further, while China locked-down, both Trump and other world leaders sought to play-down the likely impact. They squandered the opportunity to act.

To some extent, Trump was flying blind. He'd earlier dismantled the White House pandemic response team, who scan the World for these impending threats. The efforts to gear up testing faced resistance.

Likewise, appointing Vice President Pence to head the initial response didn't help. Pence doesn't believe in evolution, rejecting the abundant scientific evidence. Enough said.

Across in the UK, the response faltered on a flip-flopping policy that saw 'herd-immunity' — an awful term — dropped within days. The failure to stockpile PPE and learn the lessons of 2016's Exercise Cygnus didn't help matters.

Exercise Cygnus predicted the scenario we now see unfolding in the UK, with deaths likely to exceed other nations.

The liberal democracies in the West proved slower to mount a comprehensive response. I sensed from Boris Johnson's early statements a distinct caution. His liberal instincts precluded him adopting an over-bearing tone that translated into 'let's wait and see'.

Then the refusal by large numbers of citizens to remain indoors prompted stricter actions. The police then faced accusations of over-reacting. While public sentiment changed, considerable chatter continues around an overbearing state.

No wonder the UK can't build a single high-speed rail-link when individual rights override compelling group needs.

In part to deflect, critics in the West air allegations that China suppressed its number of infections and deaths. The mantra is ‘China lied and had Beijing been honest then we wouldn't be in this position’.

These assertions conveniently miss the fact that even when the warning came, Trump and others didn't respond.

In truth, no one country has accurate data on Covid-19. I addressed the issue of counting here.

Are China's figures on the light side? Yes. Then again, everybody's data is indicative. Without comprehensive testing, we have a partial view of the Covid-19’s spread.

In time more accurate data on deaths in China and elsewhere will emerge. Until then, we rely on what we have.

What is clear is that shutting down large swathes of the economy is having a profound impact that will test economic and political systems to breaking point. Whether this cure will kill the patient raises the stakes.

Both the US and UK economies are forecast to shrink by five per cent, with China and India expected to see moderate growth.

Further, the West is awakening to the realisation how much they've hollowed out their manufacturing industries. In the pursuit of cheap goods to please Western consumers, companies moved their factories to Asia, in particular China.

Along with that came medical supply manufacture. Covid-19 has exposed the national-security dimension of this off-shore production. In response, Trump has taken to seizing masks from partner nations, something that raised eyebrows and signalled to the World his attitude.

These industries will, in time, return onshore. The process will not be quick because factories need building, workers identified and trained. That's assuming the money is available to drive this process.

The slow and partisan response of the West hasn't gone unnoticed in developing countries. Singapore, China and Chile are examples of states that achieved rapid economic growth without democracy.

The adage that you need democracy to attain prosperity is under threat. As people pivot in a rational way to systems that offer the best outcomes for the majority, in the shortest time, the West has its work cut out.

For example, its remarkable to me how the unity of the EU evaporated in the last few weeks as national interests resurfaced.

I shouldn't be surprised. Covid-19 exposed the artifice of the EU; the lack of leadership, coordination or any action that distinguished Brussels as relevant.

We can expect some realignment from this failure. I'm not suggesting the EU will collapse, but its importance will wane.

Very soon, China will be the largest economy in the World. Covid-19 may have accelerated the arrival of that day.

We are also closer to India catching up with the USA. On a related, and significant point, the Gini-coefficient ( a measure of income inequality) is the same for the USA and China.

But in the US that disparity is increasing, while in China, it's falling. Thus which system is fairer to the majority?

Developing nations in Africa and elsewhere are watching and asking the same question. Is it best to shoe-horn Western liberal democratic systems into a country with an emphasis on individual rights? Or is the Chinese approach of command capitalism the way to go?

In the script fed us by Francis Fukuyama and other 'thinkers', the war is over with liberal democracy prevailing. Yet nobody told the other side, who continue to soldier on.

And yet, a victory for China in the economic contest comes bequeathed with complications. The USA remains the most potent military power, and as China imports half its oil through the Strait of Hormuz, that old Middle East nightmare weighs in.

In short, Covid-19 won't leave any winners, only losers with various degrees of damage. All I can say is that at the moment, with China re-opening for business, Beijing will be first back in the ring.

Newsflash: The UK is accused of producing substantially misleading Cover-19 statistics by not including the deaths of the elderly in care homes. Jason Oke, a senior statistician at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences in Oxford, said the current figures were “obviously an underestimate of the severity of the pandemic”. Looks like a cover-up is underway.

6 Comments

5/4/2020 0 Comments

Evening All!

"The chief constable in all his or her duties is not the servant of anyone, save the law itself … he is answerable to the law and the law alone." Lord Denning, 1968.

As the Covid-19 crisis unfolds, societies are undergoing rapid changes, with existing values reset. In the UK, the police are facing criticism for perceived heavy-handed action in response to the lock-down.

Britain prides itself on its freedoms. Thus, as the state extends its tentacles into ordinary life by limiting movement, a backlash is inevitable. Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, cited drones filming people walking their dogs as authoritarianism.

In response to this criticism, police leaders have asserted that these are challenging times, with officers facing many difficulties. They are right. Thus we need public forbearance. Yet these events are exposing the limitations of the British policing model in times of crisis.

Peel's principle of 'policing by consent' is rubbing up against reality. In truth, all policing is by consent. Because should the population decide to rise-up enmasse, no police service can stem the tide.

(The attribution of the nine principles to Peel himself is historically dubious — it's more likely that they were written by Rowan and Mayne. Later Peel claimed credit.)

The recent troubles in Hong Kong have brought up similar issues. A tangible shock wave ran through the community when the police, righty, used robust measures against rioters.

It was soon evident that few understood the law, and the requirements imposed on the police to maintain order. This was compounded by Hong Kong people's collective memory, which is, sadly, short.

Adding to this are attempts to portray young adults throwing petrol bombs as 'misunderstood' youth — these utterances border on the surreal. People, with over-indulgent tendencies, fell over themselves to justify the violence.

In containing the riots, the Hong Kong Police have used tactics that have evolved since the 1950s. These methods served Hong Kong well in 1956, 1966 and 1967.

Likewise, in 2005 the public cheered on the police against rioting Korean Farmers attending the WTO conference. Few raised an eyebrow in the late 1980s and 1990s when Vietnam refugee disturbances needed controlling.

Also, the 'false horror' of opposition legislators is laughable. Many have visited the Police Tactical Unit, over many years, to see the training. They were fully aware of the police training, and what responses would be made to counter threats to society.

While a few people are busy laundering the facts and displaying willful blindness to reality, others are misreading history. Into the mix has fallen the issue of 'policing by consent'. Yet, 'policing by consent' doesn't negate the need to maintain law and order.

Lord Denning, in 1968 asserted, "The chief constable in all his or her duties is not the servant of anyone, save the law itself … he is answerable to the law and the law alone."

This judgement faced several challenges, including during the Patten Inquiry in Northern Ireland. And yet it remains a powerful influence on police governance. Denning gave voice to the view that the police are not in absolute terms beholden to the whims of their communities.

It's worth revisiting some history. The first British Police Force, established in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel's Police Act, faced bitter resistance. Many people felt the establishment of a regular, full-time police force as a threat to liberty, and a power grab. Such opinions still hold sway in specific sectors.

With the formal establishment of the Hong Kong Police Force in 1844, the original model adopted was not from mainland Britain. For Hong Kong and other colonies, the 'occupier' Irish policing model became the frame of reference.

This process accelerated in 1907. The Colonial Office decided that all ranking officers of colonial police forces must undergo training at the Dublin depot of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Hence, as the Hong Kong Police underwent a steady expansion, officers came imbued with the Irish paramilitary model.

Then 1936 saw the establishment of the Colonial Police Service. Amongst other aims, this aimed to bring uniformity to colonial policing. The Colonial Police Service remained under the Foreign Office, while the Home Office controlled policing in Britain.

Over time, in the UK, the 'citizen constable' concept evolved, and the myth of policing as exemplified by 'Dickson of Dock Green'.

The Hong Kong Police was a very different animal. In its first iteration, the Hong Kong Police was a tool of it's colonial masters.

Moreover, it operated under a system of apartheid, with the interests of Europeans taking precedence over the local people. Given the training that the commanders received in Ireland, the paramilitary ethos predominated.

Outbreaks of public disorder meant retaining this approach. Academics Crisswell and Watson (1980), identified the Hong Kong Police model as 'coercive institutionalised paramilitary'. There is substantial research from others that affirm this view.

That's not to say the Force wasn't cognisant of public perception. Indeed in the late 1970s, increasing awareness of community expectations shaped policing. Although it would be mistaken to suggest that the Force wholly adopted Peel's principles.

As Hong Kong's middle-class emerged, their demands and expectations drove reform. That, coupled with the advent of ICAC, and the drive against corruption, led to many initiatives.

The 1980s saw attempts at neighbourhood policing, and later came public opinion surveys and such. This reform gathered pace with the formation of the Service Quality Wing, in the 1990s, as a push for culture change started. But, the underlying policing model never diverged much, retaining its 'paramilitary' element.

That posture served British interests in the lead up to 1997, when the UK feared unrest from an unsettled local population. Those structures and processes remained in place after 1997. I've covered this history in more detail here.

The crude belief that British policing is somehow superior because of Peel's principles soon falters. Even in Britain, there is a recognition that the 'policing by consent' model has profound imperfections, especially when it comes to public order policing.

The Guardian ran this article some years ago. As the article points out "If they act too soon or in too widespread a manner, they (the police) face charges of indiscriminate brutality at worst and at best wholesale erosion of innocent protesters' rights. If they delay or stand by reticently, they are castigated for giving succour to vandals and violence." That's sounds familiar!

In my career, I had extensive exposure to the UK's policing on courses and exchange visits. Once I joined a table-top exercise dealing with a riot. Imagine my shock as the UK police stood passive as shops and homes went up in flames. Anti-riot units loitered, while community leaders came in for discussions.

At the debriefing, everyone appeared pleased because commanders had 'engaged' with their community. The fact that peoples livelihoods lay in ruins was incidental.

Asked my view, I opined the officers had neglected their duty to restore order and failed in the primary role of a police officer. Later over drinks, UK officers agreed with my assessment, but to state these views in a formal context is career-ending.

The British police response reminded me of Sergeant Wilson in Dad’s Army. After a receiving a direct order to deal with the riots, they murmured ‘I say … would you mind awfully stopping that petrol bombing? Be good chaps.’

Then in 2011 the same scenario played out for real, as riots gripped the UK after the death of Mark Duggan. Police stood passive for long periods allowing looting, arson and attacks to unfold. They lost control of large swaths of London, leaving peaceful citizens exposed to wanton violence.

Thus it's pertinent to ask how are Peel's principles working out in modern Britain. With rampant crime and an overall detection rate of under 8%, something has gone wrong. In London, young men die daily on the streets in stabbings.

No matter how worthy Peel's principles, these haven't saved the UK citizens from the reality of underfunding and misdirected resources.

In the end, 'policing by consent' is not the 'be all and end all' of policing. On occasions, in speeches and seminars, Peel's ideas did surface in Hong Kong in an aspirational manner. You could argue that Peel had some influence on the Hong Kong Police Force's values, although this is far from explicit.

At no time did the Hong Kong Police Force endorse the Peel model as a founding principle. Policing in any society needs to reflect the culture and the legal framework of that culture. Hong Kong is a unique culture.

Lastly, while the Hong Kong Police are far from perfect, their international standing is higher than most western police forces. And, after all, Hong Kong remains one of the safest places on the planet, Peel or not.

0 Comments

3/4/2020 1 Comment

The Truth Will Out

"Lawyers, such as Martin Lee and Albert Ho, who stood with Lam as he spread his lies, are compromised by his deception"

Fantasist Howard Lam cut a wretched and lonely figure as he made his way to court to hear the verdict on his appeal. None of his former friends from the Democrats accompanied him to court yesterday (2nd April 2020). How things have changed.

In August 2017, Lam was their poster boy for Chinese oppression and alleged dirty deeds. They lapped up his story of kidnapping, torture and then denigrated the police for not swallowing the nonsense that Lam concocted.

After all, who wouldn't believe that the Chinese authorities would send a team here to staple the fat legs of this rather marginal figure. Well, any rational person wouldn't believe it.

Yesterday, Lam lost his appeal against conviction for misleading the police with a false report. He is now starting five-months imprisonment. Lam, a founding member of the Democratic Party, stuck to his story throughout.

Unfortunately, for him, overwhelming video evidence proves he fabricated the episode. It's no surprise that the judge concluded that the conviction was both lawful and reasonable. He dismissed all seven grounds of appeal.

At the time of the incident, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon with press conferences. They fired up the international media with dark tales of local politicians facing adduction.

Further, they accused the Hong Kong Government of ignoring threats to the safety of the public. When the police started investigating, they became the target of bile and hate speech.

At the time many of us concluded that 'Walter Mitty' Lam was seeking attention. He's something of a sad individual in the democratic movement and a well-known oddball.

Lawyers, such as Martin Lee and Albert Ho, who stood with Lam as he spread his lies, are compromised by his deception. They've remained silent.

Then you have former ICAC officer Lam Cheuk-ting. You'd expect this so-called professional investigator to at least check the basis of the story and look for corroborating evidence. Not in this instance; willfully blind, he endorsed Lam's story as the truth.

All this is significant because the Democrats and others in the opposition have a track record of spin and spreading untruths. They've done the same with Prince Edward MTR deaths fantasy and the 'eye-lady.' Of course, the gullible and unthinking lap up these lies. Again, in time, the truth will come out.

So, Howard Lam is now sitting in his cell, while his mates abandoned him. How many impressionable kids — who the Democrats brought to the streets — will face the same fate in the coming years?

1 Comment

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

Well Done, Hong Kong.

Tied Together

Bring on the Clowns

Lost Youth

The Labour Party - The Wilderness Awaits.

Get Serious!

Everything Evolves!

Evening All!

The Truth Will Out

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter