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

31/5/2019 0 Comments

Mobile Phones & Crime

A large body of evidence shows that long-term crime rates are declining. That’s not only in Hong Kong; it’s a trend seen across all modern societies.

Surprisingly, no one has a coherent all-encompassing explanation of why. (Yes, I know knife crime is surging in the UK, and there are other blips out there.)

Like their predecessors, today’s senior police officers bask in the glory to claim their policies brought about the change. Uncomfortable as it is to state this, in reality, the police’s ability to influence global crime-trends is minimal.

Granted, short-term impacts in fixed areas are possible. Across the generations, societal factors are more critical ingredients.

A new intriguing study points to the emergence of mobile phones as pushing crime downwards. This study aroused my interest because it counters a conventional narrative.

During my time in the Hong Kong Police, it was common to view mobile phones as crime enablers. Driven out of sight by the technology, enforcement against certain crimes proved challenging. I’m sure that’s true.

Still, there is an upside and a bigger picture. Drug trafficking is a prime example. The study out of the USA suggests mobile phones helped reduce crime rates, including a 19 to 29 per cent decline in homicides from 1990 to 2000.

Let’s examine this. In the past, drug traffickers needed to control territory to conduct their trade. That may be a street corner, a sector of a neighbourhood, a night club or a bar. This need for physical space brought opposing gangs into direct contact, with conflict as they vied for the ground.

With the arrival of the mobile phone, the need for transactions at fixed locations disappeared. Traffickers and users hooked up via messaging to arrange a drop.

Thus, the gangs did not need ‘turf’ to dominate the drugs trade. The ‘turf’ moved to cyberspace, where a physical confrontation between rival gangs is impossible.

Also, the possibility of ‘robbery’ by rivals or opportunists decreased. With the traffickers on the move, taking out a competitor proved difficult. In turn, the research established that the need for a large gang dissipated.

With no turf to protect, fewer confrontations and scores to settle, a leaner business model emerged.

For the trafficker, the fixed location makes them vulnerable to enforcement action. Besides, the mobile phone benefited small-time operators. As a consequence, drug prices fell with increased competition.

Your friendly neighbourhood drug dealer delivering to the door — pizza style — is an attractive option. Venturing out to gangland to buy drugs from a menacing thug does not appeal. In effect, it’s argued, the mobile phone gentrified the drug trafficking game.

At first glance, the evidence in the US research is compelling. As the cell-phone network spread, researchers tracked changes in crime patterns. Drilling down into the data, specifically victim/culprit relationships, the link emerges.

Yet, some researchers have come out to question this study as too simplistic. They assert the data is far from robust in establishing course and effect. For them, the evidence does not hold up across time, across cities, or across countries.

We know that Hong Kong has seen the disappearance of the ‘street traffickers’ except in entertainment areas. Thus, it may be possible to conclude similar processes at work here. I’d like to see more data before affirming that.

My gut feeling — mobile phones have had negative impacts and some positives. Yes, nothing is exciting or novel in that assertion. And I know quantifying these effects with reliable statistics is tricky. The well-recognised unreliability of official crime statistics is part of the problem.

What is certain is that these days, people can report incidents with ease, gather evidence by recording on phones and then share it. Add to that the deterrent impact.

For example, as trouble flairs in a dispute, and a fight may occur, out come the phones to capture the moment. Seeing this, the adversaries sometimes back off.

My conclusion, for what it’s worth, is that technology is making old-school crimes harder to commit. CCTV, facial-recognition, the tracking of movements and pattern spotting algorithms all help.

But fear not, bad guys are also harnessing that technology. The so-called computer-crimes, online frauds and the like, all herald that change. We need to remain vigilant.

0 Comments

30/5/2019 2 Comments

Are the tectonic plates of politics shifting?

Mrs May is no longer a lame duck prime minister; she’s a dead duck. In response, every Tory with a whiff of ambition has thrown their hat into the ring. When I started writing this piece, the tally was ten contenders. It’s now eleven. We can expect more. This race is going to be fun to watch.

You’d expect calls for a general election. That won’t be happening. Why? Well because the opposition Labour Party is in meltdown. Corbyn’s sitting on the fence fell flat with the voters. Or they don’t trust a man who is so dogmatic that if you dare to vote for another party, you enter the wilderness.

Politics is the art of the possible, except for old-style lefty types who steamroll anyone who dares to think differently. For them, it’s a short distance from expulsion to the gulag.

Who is crunching the numbers at Labour Central? The Brexit Party cannibalised UKIP, the Tories and a section of former Labour voters. That means traditional Labour voters were in the majority voting for the Lib Dems and Remain parties.

Corbyn appears intent on alienating these same voters by expelling someone that voted as they did. He’s made the wrong call again. Maybe that tremendous political intellect, Diana Abbott has the spreadsheet.

Even a town steeped in the history of the Labour movement, Merthyr Tydfil, has rejected Corbyn. You get the impression there are two Labour Parties; the London elite, and in the post-industrial towns, the restless working folks.

That second category is looking for a new political home given Labour’s performance. After all, Corbyn is hardly the ‘working class’ hero he purports.

At this stage in the electoral cycle, with the ruling Tories in an appalling mess, you’d expect Labour to surge ahead. Wrong. Corbyn is intent on missing every open goal.

He was never able to deliver a decisive blow to Mrs May during PM questions, by dithering or rambling on too much. The body language of Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy, gave away his frustration. Expect him to make his move soon. More blood will flow. So May is gone. I suspect Corbyn will join her given his fragmenting support.

Much of this would be easy to dismiss except the real consequences for people. With all the political oxygen sucked up by Brexit, industries are faltering, and no one has a strategy to address the decay.

The latest victims are the steelworkers of Scunthorpe. Five thousand workers face the dole, plus 20,000 men and women in the supply chain. With British Steel in administration, the impact will be severe.

When the Redcar steelworks closed in September 2015, a surge in suicides — especially amongst men — swept through the town.

What comes with that is domestic violence, mental health problems and alcohol abuse. In that instance, the blame landed on EU rules for hampering an intervention that could save a community.

Scunthorpe produced ultra high-quality steel. It built the Jodrell Bank Lovell radio-telescope that allowed us to study quasars, pulsars and see deep into space. With that gone, not only are communities devastated, but the UK slips behind in the technology stakes.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage has pulled off the most astonishing political feat. He’s taken a party that didn’t exist six weeks ago to the head of the line.

His message was simple — for too long, the main political parties have ignored whole sections of British society -- especially those places overwhelmed by hardships and demographic changes.

The Brexit Party took a page out of Barack Obama’s book. They harnessed existing social network platforms, and grassroots campaigners to spread the message. In the process, the Brexit Party bypassed the mainstream media helping feed the narrative of bias in the BBC and others.

It worked because these ignored communities are looking for answers, and Farage spoke to them. Counter-intuitively, the fact that the Brexit party had no manifesto didn’t seem to matter.

It was surprising to watch that across the country, ordinary citizens challenged BBC reporters. Think back 30 years, when such would be unthinkable.

This change is partly due to perceptions of bias and such cases as harbouring sex offender Jimmy Savile. With their reputation trashed, people are questioning this once mighty institution.

At the same time, the whole process has turned much nastier. It started with milkshakes — laughed off as political theatre in the Guardian — then soon became bricks at a political rally in Preston.

Then we had the whole suicide bomber nonsense. Social media is feeding that frenzy. It’s not so much that people are in echo chambers, more like social media amplifies messages including distortions.

So, are we seeing the wholesale reshaping of British politics and a shift in public attitudes? Indeed, the two political behemoths, Labour and Tory, that dominated for so long are looking fragile. Brexit has exposed deep internal divisions.

At the same time, once favoured public institutions are under suspicion. That includes broadcasters, the courts and the police.

There is no paucity of people to blame, something that Farage exploited. But to go further, he will need to put some meat on the bone.

2 Comments

26/5/2019 3 Comments

You Dirty Rat!!

Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung announced last week “I’ll not spare a single rat” as he launched a three-month campaign to kill off Hong Kong’s rodents following an outbreak of the rat hepatitis E virus.

Hong Kong has earned the dubious distinction of being the first place to record the transfer of hepatitis E from rats to humans. And yet, Hong Kong does not have a rat problem; it has a human problem.

We’ve created the perfect environment for the rat to thrive. For this achievement, we can thank our lacklustre approach towards cleanliness, third-world hygiene standards and not enforcing the law.

We’ve learnt nothing from SARS, as we’ve slipped back into our old habits. Walk down any alleyway in Hong Kong, and you will find discarded food. No wonder the rats thrive.

With his unachievable statement, the Chief Secretary grabbed the headlines. I doubt much will come of this given the culture of not enforcing the law. Add to that the inability of the Food and Environmental Health Department to respond with the required magnitude of effort. Cheng’s statement illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the task.

There are two types of rat in Hong Kong – the larger, brown Norway or sewer rat (Rattus norvegicus) and the smaller, black roof rat (Rattus rattus). We tend to encounter the sewer rat in the city. The average brown rat weighs in at about 250g.

For starters, we have no idea how many rats are in Hong Kong, thus how do you measure progress? Estimates vary from five to ten million depending on who you speak with. Moreover, the capture and kill techniques we apply are scratching the surface.

Let us assume the lower figure of five million rats in Hong Kong. Now, the two favoured approaches of killing the rats are poisoning and trapping. Next set the modest target of killing one million rats in traps.

Based on a single trap catching three-a-day for three months, you’d need about 5,555 traps. Each would need positioning, checking, and the dead rats recovered.

One million brown rats weighs 25o metric tonnes that need transporting to burial. The logistics are unattainable given current staffing levels and the inability of FEHD to coordinate such a large scale operation.

Rats are hardy creatures. They breed prolifically, can survive falls from 15 meters; additionally, they can swim considerable distances. They’re also intelligent enough to detect traps; the scent of humans alerts them.

By trapping and taking account of Darwin’s evolutionary concept, we accelerate the creation of a breed of rats who avoid traps. Thus, the government has set itself up to fail.

Cheng’s statement was grandstanding. We’ve seen it before. Remember ‘Team Clean’ after SARS headed up by Donald Tsang — loads of publicity, ministers on TV putting on a show and then it all fizzles out. Grab the headlines, move on.

Nothing changes on the ground. Without a long-term commitment, the government won’t attain anything but cynical comments from chaps like me.

Rats are a real danger to us. They spread diseases while creating untold damage. In Mumbai, rats are responsible for most of the vehicle fires. Furthermore, airlines work relentlessly to keep rats off planes.

Their teeth make short work of control wires, with the potential to bring down a plane. Studies in the USA suggest the cost of damage caused by rats amounts to US$3- billion a year.

Part of the challenge in Hong Kong is the unwillingness to enforce the law with vigour. Our agencies give out leaflets, repeated warnings, and bend over backwards to persuade people to cooperate.

We witness this daily with the approach to illegal parking, dripping aircons while the laws on smoking are ignored wholesale. This reluctance to enforce the law is steered by the accompanying policies designed to prevent complaints. Until that changes, the public knows they can ignore the law.

Compare us to Singapore to see the difference. Their back alleys are free of the litter because strict enforcement has caused a change in behaviour. The places that have achieved success in ‘managing’ their rat populations, adopt long-term approaches — not quick fixes.

An aspect that has gone unremarked would be the adverse consequences if Cheung achieved his target of killing all rats. For starters, we’d have a massive waste problem on our hands.

The rats provide a service by clearing away discarded food to convert it into new rats. Second, other invasive species, such as cockroaches, would find themselves without a challenger. Their populations would explode. Thus, by removing one problem, we create another.

I’d prefer if Cheung were confident enough to admit that the best we can hope to achieve is ‘suppression’ of the rat population. Flash headlines don’t remove the menace of the rats; consistent enforcement and changing human behaviour does.

3 Comments

19/5/2019 0 Comments

Physician Heal Thyself

Hong Kong has a shortage of doctors. With a population of about 7.4 million, we have some 14,000 doctors. That’s a ratio of 1.9 doctors per 1,000 people. Compare that to Singapore, which has 2.4.

To meet that figure we’d need another 3,000 doctors. Another report suggests Hong Kong is down by 11,000 doctors. The shortage is acute in particular specialities. Child development assessment is 40 per cent down on the required number of doctors.

None of this is a surprise to the public lining up for treatment. Long waits are the norm. And yet Hong Kong is sitting on massive reserves of cash. Why isn’t that money used to invest in better medical care for the community? Well, several barriers are preventing movement on that issue.

As a consequence of obstruction by some and blindness by others, we see massive waiting times at public hospitals. Patients with a stable condition are waiting for up to 3½ years to see a specialist. If you have private medical care, there are no such delays. But that comes at a cost. And there is the nub of the issue.

Our two medical schools, funded by the taxpayer, do not produce enough doctors to meet needs. Allied to that is the poor working conditions in public hospitals run by the Hospital Authority.

Doctors and other staff put in long hours while facing a heavy workload for pay that doesn’t match the private sector — anyone who can jump ship.

So why not import doctors? Well, blocking the gate is the Medical Council. This professional body is acting like a militant trade union to prevent overseas doctors from coming through. Of course, it puts forth arguments about maintaining professional standards, dropping dark hints about doctors from certain places.

The places are not named, but we all get the point. As a control, it puts in place restrictive entry requirements, designed to keep them out. Did I mention local doctors run the Medical Council? Get the picture?

Ultimately, our government is not beyond blame. With the Medical Council hindering the import of doctors, officials adopted their usual passive attitude and obfuscated. This situation has gone on for years.

It’s worth pointing out that officials are mostly immune to the consequences of the shortage. With specialised clinics designated for civil servants, long waits are not something they suffer. Besides, most can afford private medical care given the packages of senior officials.

Matters came to a head during the recent flu season. Signs of strain in the Hospital Authority broke to the surface.

Staff discontent at their appalling workload and lack of manpower caused the government to react finally. They adopted the usual ‘knee-jerk’ reaction of a cash injection.

No long-term solution, nor a comprehensive strategy, with a lifetime commitment. Only a quick bit of cash. Then, business as usual. Move on, nothing to see here!

In summary, we have a Medical Council working against the public interest, a dithering government, and to boot, loads of money in the bank.

One pundit suggested the only way is to open up the flood gates, to swamp the market. Without the ability to make a reasonable living in the private sector, force doctors to stay in the public system. It’s a tad radical, but a sign of the sentiment building in the community.

Politicians on all sides are right to be displeased. As a consequence, the Medical Council has taken a well-deserved beating in the court of public opinion. Operating behind closed doors, the public has little insight into its workings.

Let’s talk briefly about social responsibility. I wouldn’t mind so much if doctors paid the full cost of their training and then went into the private sector to make huge salaries. Fair enough. But if they don’t pay, they then owe the community a return on the money we invested in their training.

It usually takes six years to complete a medical degree. The fees are about HK$43,000 per year. The fact is the public subsidises medical courses because, without such an investment, few could afford to become doctors.

Mind you; this doesn’t mean doctors don’t have a responsibility to serve the community that paid for their training. As taxpayers, we fork out HK$3.7 million per doctor in basic-training costs. Then add-on the specialist training that comes later to reach an amount nearing HK10 million.

That doctors from reputable overseas institutions need to pass local exams appears restrictive. Surely, it’s a simple matter of drawing up a list of recognised accredited foreign institutions.

After that, and verification of individual qualifications, let them in.
Moreover, since we’ve got the money, invest in a long-term approach.

We have an ageing population — the people that built this great city — and they deserve care in their twilight years.

A new medical school and a Medical Council that works in the public interest would be an excellent start.

0 Comments

<<Previous

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

Mobile Phones & Crime

Are the tectonic plates of politics shifting?

You Dirty Rat!!

Physician Heal Thyself

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter