Blog Archives

Are you woke enough?

23/5/2019

A spat broke out this week over a picture of two chaps holding hands. On Monday, the newspapers reported that our airport and rail operators refused to display an advert by Cathay Pacific Airways.

According to the Airport Authority and the MTR Corporation, the public wouldn’t accept the image of men strolling along arm in arm. Wrong. Both soon backed down in the face of criticism. Some people are gay, get over it.

But, there is an issue here. As one commentator asked, “Is it the job of corporations to promote LGBT issues?”

A valid question. I’m not sure I know the answer. It’s a tricky area because companies are entering the realm of social justice when a fierce debate is underway.

For example, Gillette recently overreached with its ‘toxic masculinity’ campaign. Many took offence at the hectoring tone -- as a consequence, a boycott of Gillette goods developed.

Along the way, their online advert attracted millions of dislikes. In the West, we are witnessing a scramble by large corporations to prove they are woke. I’d better define that term.

First, we had political correctness dictating that certain words are verboten. These words may offend.

Not content with that, the social justice warriors, supported by the grievance study professors, ventured into testing society to make sure we are all culturally compliant.

The social scientists see this as the second phase of the cultural wars after step one shaped by the PC game.

To be clear, you are woke if you hold all the ‘correct’ opinions on identity, politics and so-called neo-leftwing issues.

A manifestation of woke is the desire to crush anyone who disagrees with you. Puritanical in approach, those with alternative opinions are by default nasty people. They face vilification.

To achieve this, the identity politics game comes forth. In simple terms, everyone must have a category based on colour, race or sex. That category then confers prescribed values.

Thus, all straight white men are members of the patriarchy and evil. Everyone else is at a disadvantage. For clarity, all women and non-white people lack privilege because whitety controls everything.

The inherent nonsense of the woke culture gets lost on the faithful as they fail to recognise its regressive aspects. In the 1960s, people fought for equal rights.

Contrary to belief, being woke is not progressive because it reverses the gains of the past. We are all prescribed boxes then assigned our views. Of course, this pseudo-progressive ideology has its grounding in social condescension.

In the UK, the woke are in the main upper-middle-class folks looking down on the masses. You could argue being woke is a form of class hatred.

As it unfolded in the UK, the woke culture produced ‘no-platforming’, apostles of safe spaces and attacks on institutions associated with dark periods of history. Universities removed statues of figures deemed inappropriate.

This intolerance shut down debates, preventing critical discussions as part of exploring ideas. No rational debate over immigration, race or trans issues is possible.

Only the correct way to speak prevails, as the imposition of a woke dictatorship takes hold.

Lecturers faced bans for standing next to a person with a T-shirt deemed improper. This ludicrousness reached new heights in 2014, with the idea that people without a uterus cannot discuss abortion. This is the position taken by radical woke feminists at Oxford University.

Matters then became somewhat confused. Someone asked about allowing people who identify as women in on the debate, i.e. men. Soon it all spun out of control; it’s argued that to deny people who identify as women in on the discussion is transphobia.

So by applying a bit of lippy, putting on my high heels, and insisting on being Brenda for the day, I’d get in. This stuff is comedy gold. Then you have things like this.

The woke have adopted the ‘stay in your lane’ phrase to control people. You can only talk about your experience and matters that pertain to you directly. Owen Jones demonstrates this trait to perfection here.

The woke want us sealed in our boxes and to shut up. The atmosphere around the woke culture is akin to Maoist struggle sessions. Learned people must sit, head bowed, while the woke, rant about compliance with their ideology.

John Stuart Mill, in his profound work ‘On Liberty’ observed that the biggest threat to an open society does not come from the law. He opined that the tyranny of custom and accepted wisdom is stronger.

As a species, we all seek to fit into the group, to conform by saying the right things. Such informal pressure is intense because it helped humans get along. Evolution shaped us that way.

Nonetheless, the downside is forcing people into a spiral of silence when their views don’t follow the consensus. If you speak out, then be ready to lose your job as a punishment for a thought crime.

In turn, the public discourse becomes dishonest, although in private people don’t change. That’s happening in the UK.

I have a gut feeling that the Brexit vote is, in part, a reaction by the working class against imposed conformity. The vote out was a ‘fuck-off’ to condescending middle-class phoney-liberals.

Fortunately, Hong Kong has escaped much of this malarkey, although it’s starting to creep in. No doubt it will arrive in force soon as corporations appear keen to get involved so they signal ‘we are nice guys’.

It only remains to point out the inherent dangers in woke culture. It soon flips into shutting down those with different opinions or involving the law in policing what people may think — all big brother stuff.

At least some see the funny side.

1 Comment

Physician Heal Thyself

19/5/2019

0 Comments

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

Check, but not check-mate.

15/5/2019

0 Comments

I'll give the so-called democrats their due, they've stalled the extradition bill. Their mindless zombie body-flying assault worked. Plus, in the process, they've stirred up a furore of epic proportions.

A massive street protest bellowed their sails, giving them headway after many lacklustre efforts. And yet, they've only won a battle, not the war. To some extent, they're holed below the water line.

They've overplayed their hand and now appear in damage control mode. The violence unleashed in LegCo is not playing well with the public.

Even their most ardent supporters recognise that matters got out of hand. The shrill Emily Lau, former leader of the Democrat Party, admitted the scenes we saw in LegCo are unacceptable.

Calls have gone out for mutual respect. Unfortunately, the damage is done. Once you instigate violence, you've raised the stakes and invited resentment. Over the weekend this realisation sunk in, as the democrats scrambled to contain the fall-out.

Being leaderless, they are prone to the miscalculations. Then the hot-heads seize the moment for a bit of thuggery. These assaults are excused by flipping the blame back on the government. It's a form of victim shaming used by the most callous of criminals.

The democrats are now calling for the government to intervene in the affairs of LegCo. This is a stunning reversal of their previous position on separation of powers. Of course, the government is pointing out it can't interfere in an internal LegCo matter.

Today legislator Micheal Tien made a compromise proposal. He's suggesting separating the issue of extradition to Taiwan from the broader point of rendition to the Mainland.

This proposal deals with the urgency aspects of having a process in place to deal with a murder suspect. But, there is a wider geopolitical aspect to all this that many commentators are ignoring.

Here's the big question. If Hong Kong, a part of China, can conclude an extradition arrangement with Taiwan does that legitimise Taipei's status? Especially given that no such deal exists with the Mainland.

Don't forget that Beijing considers Taiwan a renegade province. Hong Kong giving Taiwan preference over the Mainland in the judicial realm is not going to play well in Beijing.

I'm not concerned about the usual opportunistic China-bashing noise coming from overseas. The nuances of this saga miss the overseas audience conditioned to adopt an unfavourable view.

Overseas politicians will spin this to gain publicity, failing to mention they sanction extraditions to China. It's all part of the big game.

Doubtless, the government is marshalling a response. Concessions may come, but I wouldn't expect anything significant. At the end of the day, if the matter goes to a vote the pro-government lobby has the votes.

It's unprecedented, but bypassing the bill's committee and going to a full legislative council meeting is a viable solution.

Meanwhile, Abraham Shek, the government's man, has quit the chairmanship of the bill's committee. Who can blame him? At 73-years-old who'd be prepared to face the goons of the so-called democrats.

Surrounded and threatened he must have feared for his safety. The triads would recognise the democrat's rough-up tactics. Hardly the behaviour you'd expect of legislators since Wong Yuk-man departed LegCo.

Without a doubt, the government has the upper hand; if it can get the amendment into a full legislative council meeting, it's assured of passage. Although, that's not without political costs.

The democrats will seek to avoid that happening, having painted themselves into a corner. Faced with the full legislative council, the democrats have few options beyond further violence.

0 Comments

This Great Stage of Fools

12/5/2019

1 Comment

Democracy is about consensus, give and take; it's not about abuse, violence nor giving and taking punches.

Thus, the scene that unfolded in our LegCo chamber on Saturday morning is both shocking and frightening. Matters have moved beyond rational debate into the realm of the beer-hall putsch.

We could debate the merits of the extradition bill, LegCo procedures and house-rules, but there is no point. Neither side is listening nor has any willingness to listen.

In my opinion, if you wanted to give democracy a bad name, you couldn't have staged a better performance.

The litmus test of a real democratic system is when you lose a debate or vote, you take it with good grace and struggle on through legitimate channels.

When the USA elected Donald Trump, Obama didn't block his way to the White House or surround him with yelling goons. No, he acted with dignity. Even Hilary Clinton had the courtesy to turn up at Trump’s inauguration.

"I'm here today to honour our democracy and its enduring values," Hillary tweeted on the morning of the inauguration in February 2017.

What values are our lame politicians signalling? If you’re defeated, then it's acceptable to assault and block your opponents physically; use fascist tactics of noise, intimidation and throw yourself at them.

Then feign injuries by crashing to the floor, to seek sympathy suggesting your opponents caused the harm; if you can get yourself in an ambulance even better.

My concern is that the brutality we witnessed legitimises the aggression of young hotheads on the streets. Moreover, if so-called democrats politicians can block corridors and doorways, then anyone can.

They've lowered the bar. I'll make a prediction; the same tactics will soon be used against them. The dye is cast.

So where do we go from here? LegCo has descended into chaos. Reasoned debate is no longer possible in a climate of vitriol.

It's no good Claudia Mo yelling that everyone else is to blame, when her antics and those of her cohort contributed to this mess.

Each side has erected it barricades; they've dug-in ready for a long battle.

Meanwhile, they've provided Beijing with all the ammunition it needs to cast doubt on the merits of democracy.

The BBC reported Humphrey Hawksley observed in his book 'Democracy Kills' … “the British colonial government and, it turned out, the non-democratic Chinese gave Hong Kong people enough dignity, wealth and freedom to make democracy a worthy vision, but not one worth dying for"

The so-called democrats are not dying for democracy; they're killing it.

1 Comment

The Garden's of Fuyang

11/5/2019

0 Comments

Fuyang (富阳区) sits to the south-west of the famous Hangzhou. This area is low mountains, valleys and the broad Fuchun River. A temperate climate favours tea plantations in the hills, while on the banks of the river industry flourishes.

Stretching along the boulevards are trees, floral displays, manicured lawns accompanied by jogging and cycling tracks. These gardens and walkway tell us something. Here is a provincial city with ambition.

This small place, in a big country, has a plan and the confidence to drive forward. Moreover, that plan is audacious, stretching to the horizon with a high-speed rail link and modern highways.

It's a plan well on the way to realisation. On all sides are construction; new homes, factories and signs of wealth.

Here we have a striking demonstration that even a somewhat minor city is riding the wave of China's emergence with a bold statement.

Technology is ubiquitous here. You call a cab by an App, and it appears in minutes; its approach displayed on a map. Payment is cashless; likewise in restaurants, shops and just about everywhere.

The convenience is exceptional. The local people are healthy, positive and engaging although the concept of queuing hasn't reached everybody.

Thus it's disheartening to read the Western media coverage that portrays China as a land of harsh repression. That's the danger of adopting a single perspective and then generalising. We know that all media organisations, despite assertions of balance, have a slant that distorts their commentary.

Snobbery and self-regard are also at play. An illusion of superiority around institutions and culture, asserting the West is best. A self-proclaimed eminence from living like a frog in a well. This arrogant and narrow view is being shaken as democracy falters, as the tide of influence ebbs east.

A generalised negative stereotyping of China predisposes people to accept without question the false narrative of a few. The Falun Gung cult is not alone in harnessing this attitude to spread propaganda. Many in the West lapped it up.

Only when Falun Gung leader Li Hongzhi denounced homosexuals, rock music and 'mixed-marriage' did people wake up.

Besides, Li's exotic ideas around shape-shifting and aliens using humans as pets pulled back the curtain on the madness at the organisation's core. The gullibility of supposedly educated Westerners never ceases to surprise me.

While trumpeting a free media, the West ignores its inherent bias. As an example, the BBC blanks out thousands of ex-soldiers gathered in central London. Their demonstration in support of retired colleagues charged over historical events gets scant coverage.

Not so the simultaneous middle-class climate protest, that has celebrities jetting-in to get their picture taken. The BBC gives that hypocritical show wall-to-wall coverage.

Looking at the world through a distorted prism fosters misinterpretation. The USA entered the Vietnam war believing the domino theory of communist influence. They then found themselves in an unwinnable civil war, with the population as the enemy.

Without a doubt, some fear China as an emerging power. People question why can't the UK or the USA have a Huawei or similar corporation. They have short memories. Apple, IBM, General Electric and alike dominated the world of innovation for decades.

Now its China's turn. And this should be no surprise when you consider the number of STEM graduates the country produces. The data for 2016 is below.

According to estimates, the number of Chinese graduates aged between 25 and 34 will rise 300 per cent by 2030. The US and Europe can expect just 30 per cent.

Why focus on STEM graduates? Simple, these folks are crucial to emerging industries. They write the software, design engineering solutions and innovate.

Granted, some STEM graduates may elect to work overseas. Nonetheless, the sheer number at China's disposal fills her sails and provides the momentum that will keep them ahead. Plus China has long-term plans that it implements.

Let me illustrate the point with the example of the UK's dithering over a high-speed rail system.In the last 15 years, China has built 18,000 miles of high-speed rail track with trains running at 217 mph (350 kph). By 2025, the system will cover 24,000 miles of track.

In the meantime, the UK can't agree, never mind, build a single high-speed link between London and Birmingham covering 125 miles. The proposed project remains only an idea, despite decades of discussion.

All in all, it's evident that China is forging ahead. They adopt technology faster, while infrastructure projects continue to expand. Importantly, there is a recognition that the environment suffered due to breakneck development; as a result, initiatives abound.

A good number of cities operate all-electric buses. Soon you will see electric cars as the norm. Undoubtedly human rights are lagging, but the child labour that drove the UK's industrial revolution is not there.

It took the West, hundreds of years to move from an agrarian society to the modern world we see. China is doing the same, with many more people, in decades.

Thus, there are bound to be miscalculations along the way. I have to say that blind criticism doesn't help.

If the gardens of Fuyang tell us anything, it's that China has a strategy, a direction and the willingness to implement. In the process, millions of people are brought out of poverty, fed and given an education.

In truth, we must ask several questions; could a western-style government achieve this? Is the mantra of Western society that democracy equals freedom and prosperity sustainable? Or is democracy deployed as a cover to shield strategic interests and drive access to markets?

0 Comments

Crimetown

3/5/2019

1 Comment

Is Hong Kong in danger of becoming a haven for criminals? That's possible given the unfolding altercation over amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Four weeks ago, I expressed my support for the modest proposals made by the Secretary for Security.

Since then, we've seen street protests and rising opposition from many quarters. Of course, given the perverted state of local politics, any rational debate evaporated under the onslaught of the usual anti-China dogma. Project fear is underway.

Some commentators heralded the street protest as a reemergence of the democracy movement. Such an assessment is premature. Also, inflated claims of the number attending the rally eroded the organiser's credibility.

The so-called democrats have now taken up the challenge to defeat the proposals. The business community, including pro-China figures, who initiated the objections have skulked off into the shadows.

In an arrogant move, they'd sought special treatment by way of exclusion for certain economic crimes. They now appear content to let their customary opponents make the headway. I'm sure this has not gone unnoticed in Beijing.

Since 1997, China handed to Hong Kong over 200 wanted fugitives. These suspects came back to face justice at the hand of our common law system. Mainland security authorities facilitated that process, made the arrests and all despite the lack of a formal agreement.

The action of the Chinese authorities sent a clear message; you can't flee Hong Kong to hide on the Mainland. If caught you'll be heading back to face Hong Kong justice.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the Mainland. By way of reciprocation, Hong Kong has sent no one the other way. Which begs the question, how many Mainland fugitives are sheltering in Hong Kong?

One Chinese official hinted that as many as 300 are here. Hong Kong's stance is ambiguous. Since there is no extradition agreement between the two sides, the Mainland has not sent any requests for the surrender of suspects.

With no applications, we have no data on the number of criminals hiding here. That in itself is a worrying state of affairs. Do we know who these people are and what they're doing?

Driving the negative attitudes is a dread that anyone may face extradition to Mainland China, where the legal system toes the party line. Some have warned that the amendment deals a crippling blow to our freedoms.

Setting aside this hype, a reading of the proposals makes it clear that our courts have the final say on extradition. These are courts operating under the common law principles and with robust safeguards. Moreover, the amendment excludes political offences.

Thus, it appears to me those opposing the changes, don't trust Hong Kong courts to uphold the 'rule of law'. A worrying stance to take, but no surprise.

During Occupy in 2014, leading public figures — including self-acclaimed legal experts — displayed contempt for the rule of law. They ignored the law for months, asserting their motivations justified such action.

In an act of supreme arrogance, they granted themselves the right to break the rules, citing a higher calling. Unfortunately for them, the courts took a different view; their conceited reasoning rejected for the falsehood at its core. Nobody is above the law.

Does the same erroneous thinking blight this episode? Or is it another example of opposing anything that touches on the Mainland?

I suspect a bit of both. The so-called democrats can't help themselves but disapprove.

We have seen them hold up many initiatives, and are now hellbent on protecting criminal fugitives. That includes a man suspected of killing his girlfriend and their unborn child in Taiwan. He's forgotten in the furore.

Let's not overlook that many Western nations have extradited suspects to China, thus it's perverse that Hong Kong - a part of China - can't do the same. In February, Spain deported two suspects to China on fraud charges.

In 2018, Bulgaria returned an allegedly corrupt official. Lai Changxing, a criminal mastermind behind a massive smuggling operation, was recovered from Canada in 2011. In all these cases China provided assurances of no-death-penalty.

The usual naysayers are wading in with their hypocritical utterances. Chris Patten, our last colonial governor, is on speed-dial for most journalists as the go-to Hong Kong critic. Therefore no surprise, he's highly vocal in opposition to the extradition proposals.

But as usual with Patten, double standards apply. He's silent about Britain's extradition treaties with Zimbabwe, Cuba, Uganda or Brunei. Dispatching people to a country that allows the stoning of gays is apparently acceptable to Patten.

James To has led the efforts to stall these amendments in the legislative process. He's held up the bill reading at the committee stage by frivolous antics.

In response, the pro-government camp is seeking to unseat him. He's countering with threats of a judicial review that could drag on for years. None of this is edifying or noble.

Simultaneously, our Chief Executive Carrie Lam declined to meet privately with the so-called democrats. She opined that the LegCo Chamber is the place to debate the issue.

Thus, with both sides now digging in, a long-term struggle is possible. Without a doubt, the only people benefiting are the felons.

I'm confident that this issue won't go away. It's only a matter of time before a Mainland murderer, rapist or paedophile arrives to seek sanctuary in Hong Kong.

They may already be here. Wanted by the Mainland police, the fugitive will have James To, Claudia Mo and Dennis Kwok fighting for them. History will not judge these folks well.

Lastly, I do wonder how China looks upon these antics. Let's be clear; our common law legal system has a shelf-life that expires in 2047. So does it serve our long-term interests to block these amendments?

Are we affirming an unwillingness to cooperate with the Mainland? Come 2047, Beijing may well ask, why keep a system that harbours dangerous criminals?

If a particularly wanton criminal took refuge here, would Beijing act? Perhaps that's what the so-called democrats seek. Maybe that's the big game? To bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy of China intervening.

In the meantime, crooks can mock our criminal justice system to hide amongst us.

Is that the image Hong Kong seeks to project to the world — a haven for villains?

1 Comment

Walter's Blog

Are you woke enough?

Physician Heal Thyself

Check, but not check-mate.

This Great Stage of Fools

The Garden's of Fuyang

Crimetown

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter