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

31/5/2020 2 Comments

An Empty Gesture

"Depending on which figure you believe, that's a possible 2.9 to 3.4 million Hong Kong folks heading to the UK"

As the fallout from Beijing seizing the initiative to enact Article 23 rumbles on, the UK is moving to open the door to British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders. Or that's what it purports to be doing. In truth, the picture is far murkier. A bit of background — until 1981, the Hong Kong people enjoyed the right of abode in the UK. Then, in a preemptive move, the Thatcher-led UK government removed that right before starting talks with China on the 1997 handover. In the process, the UK cut off the Hong Kong people and threw away a significant bargaining chip.

Now in the throes of self-flagellation over its moral obligations, the UK is proposing a 'pathway' to citizenship. Yet, the details of that 'pathway' are unclear, while a few boulders have already landed to make progress difficult. Not least of which is no one has consulted the British public. In fairness, people are rather busy with the Covid-19 travel habits of Dominic Cummings. It's the only story at the moment and a useful distraction.

Initial reports suggested the Brits would allow in 300,000 Hong Kong people. That's not an unsubstantial number. This figure struck me as odd because, with some 3.4 million BNOs issued, it appeared a massive under-estimate. My suspicions proved correct because the vast majority of citizens didn't renew their BNOs, opting for the cheaper Hong Kong passport. People can't resist a bargain. Currently, an estimated 300,00 BNOs are in use, hence the initial figure. We don't have much detail of the 'pathway' beyond the UK proposing the current six-month visa-free access extended to 12 months.

But here's the rub. The UK Home Office has confirmed that all those born before 1997 in Hong Kong keep the right to a BNO and de-facto are eligible to hop on a now very crowded 'pathway' leading to Britain. Depending on which figure you believe, that's a possible 2.9 to 3.4 million Hong Kong folks heading to the UK. For reference, the population of Birmingham is 2.4 million. Note that the young hooligans rioting on our streets born after 1997 don't get a BNO.

You can see already that this arrangement is smelling fishy. Eventually, the penny will drop that millions heading off to the UK won't endear the Boris Johnson's government to the electorate. Neither is China well-pleased.

I will venture a prediction: Any scheme the UK offers will come capped either by stealth or bureaucratic processes. Of course, the UK will seek to cherry-pick who gets in; the doctors, nurses and other needed specialists will get a welcome, but the number will be limited.

While allowing in a million or so hard-working entrepreneurs from Hong Kong would boost the British economy, there is a tribal dimension here. In general, the British Chinese citizens enjoy an excellent reputation as industrious folks operating below the radar. As a group, they do not attract the sort of animus that falls on other ethnic minorities.

But the question must be asked, in Brexit Britain would the arrival of millions of Chinese change that sentiment? My guess is yes, especially amongst those communities blighted with unemployment and social deprivation. Never forget that the Labour Party faced a rebellion amongst its core working-class vote due to immigration issues. Politicians of all hues recognise that factor. Covid-19 hasn't helped matters.

On the other side, what's the likely impact on Hong Kong? Well, if millions left, the place would suffer. Yet, as I said, that's extremely unlikely. Plus, Hong Kong has brushed off high levels of migration in the past with no visible consequences. In 1989 after Tiananmen, people moved out. The same happened before 1997. In all this, the UK was never the favoured destination, as Canada and the US topped the list. Often overlooked is that a fair percentage quietly returned to Hong Kong, having realised living as a 'second-class' citizen in a foreign land isn't for them.

Reflecting on the cack-handling of the Covid-19 outbreak in the US and the UK, I'd question whether I'd put my faith in either place. Add to that under-funded public services, rampant crime, high tax-rates and police who don't respond to calls. Suddenly the UK isn't looking that attractive.

Will there be any takers? I'm sure some will take up the offer, but as I said, no doubt the scheme will face moderation by UK domestic interests. Because once the British public learns that millions of Hong Kong people could be coming, watch the reaction.

Plus, don't forget those pushing this matter do not represent the majority in the UK. The unholy trinity of Lord Patten, Lord Alton and Benedict (God speaks to me) Rogers come from a cohort that is the old-school establishment. And while Patten enjoys some star status in Hong Kong, in the UK he is a marginalised figure after his involvement in various scandals.

The Jimmy Savile case bashed his reputation. Being a patron of St Benedict's Catholic Private School in Ealing, London, a place plagued by child abuse scandals for decades didn't help matters. Then there is his work for accused sex offender Cardinal Pell. The Australian courts judged Pell not guilty, although the odour of something hangs in the air.

Thus, as the UK garners headlines to give the impression of acting on its obligations, reality will soon bite. Rest assured once the details emerge of the 'pathway', MPs will lobby in the background to limit the numbers allowed in. Having dangled the carrot, we can expect the UK to use 'process' to fend off the majority. Lastly, who recalls Chris Patten pushing hard for full British citizenship for the Hong Kong people before 1997?

No one, because he didn't.

2 Comments

22/5/2020 2 Comments

Beijing says enough is enough!

"The best outcome would be Hong Kong to enact the legislation after due scrutiny, however the Pan Dem's slammed that door shut"

The Hong Kong Pan Dem camp has brought to their door the very thing they feared the most. Their cocked-eyed approach to Hong Kong's democratic development has now hit 'realpolitik'. Beijing's decision to enact national security legislation is a direct result of the Pan Dem's inability to negotiate rationally.

The scenes we've seen in LegCo over the past two weeks are an affirmation of their juvenile, callow conduct. Well, Daddy has stepped in and taken away the keys to the toy box.

Let's get to the core of the issue. Beijing's biggest fear was always that Hong Kong might evolve into a centre for destabilising the whole nation. With 1.4 billion people to look after, China can ill-afford turmoil. Plus, any chaos may spill over into the wider world.

Thus, the interests of Hong Kong, with seven million people are de-facto subordinate. That's the hard truth.

How, you wonder, did we get to this situation. Cut a long story short, an attempt to pass Article 23 laws in 2003 failed after massive public opposition. Since then the issue has been held in abeyance.

Then allied to that in 2014, the Pan Dem's failed to grasp the opportunity for democratic reform, making 'perfect' the enemy of a practical solution. Since then, things spiralled downhill; Occupy Central, the Mongkok 2016 CNY riot and the civil unrest of 2019.

We all know that ‘one country, two systems’ was always a compromise solution that nonetheless has a certain elegance. It could work if each side recognised the other concerns. I’m afraid that's not happening.

To safeguard its interests, the Chinese insisted that the 1997 agreement included national security laws. In simple terms, Hong Kong should not be a base to subvert the government in Beijing. The British agreed that provision, although the detail was left for after 1997.

It's 23 years since the handover with Hong Kong nowhere near agreeing on legislation. In the meantime, the likes of Anson Chan, Martin Lee and Joshua Wong went running to Washington demanding a US intervention. These actions are the very thing Beijing feared.

You can excuse Joshua Wong, after all, he's a young man with issues. This means he may not always comprehend the consequence of his actions. The same cannot be said for Anson Chan and Martin Lee. As seasoned political operators, they’ve elected to inflame sentiment.

Following the events of 2019, with Hong Kong teetering on anarchy, and the recent shenanigans in LegCo, Beijing lost patience. I’m told behind the scenes talks to broker a settlement broke up months ago.

Having slammed the door on negotiations, the Pan Dem's adopted a policy of filibuster and disruption.

Pro-establishment politicians are not blameless. They failed to reign in the filibuster, wobbling and prevaricating in LegCo. At the same time, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, proved incapable of breaking the impasse.

The emergence last year of an independence movement at the core of the violent protests must have rattled the windows at Zhongnanhai. Kids with underdeveloped frontal cortexes, and thus impulsive by nature, took to the streets to confront the police.

With little ability to grasp the possible outcomes, these kids are now paying the price with jail terms, careers ruined and families in pain. Meanwhile, the failure of the Pan Dems to condemn the violence, the killing and the mayhem is a stain on their reputation.

The timing of Beijing's move is astute. The Pan Dem's could likely win a large victory in September's LegCo elections. That would rule out Article 23. Further, the distractions of Covid-19 and a weakened US president, provide a window of opportunity.

Added to that, Hong Kong is a city of extreme hypochondriacs: thus the virus might be seen as a more significant threat than national security laws. This may mute any response, although its anyone's guess.

This morning the social media chatter was its usual bipolar self. Some decried the decision of Beijing and others welcomed it as correcting a failing. The detractors asserted Hong Kong would experience a new wave of emigration.

They may well be right, but we've encountered several such waves in the past and brushed off the impact. In any case, many of those who left before 1997 regretted their decision and sought to return quietly. With anti-China sentiment on the rise overseas, the welcome mat is missing.

Taiwan was open to Hong Kong protesters fleeing arrest action in 2019. Then once Tsai Ing-wen secured another four year term, she closed the door to Hong Kong migrants by imposing new regulations. She can ill-afford to have a cluster of hard-core Hong Kong asylum seekers stirring up trouble.

What is clear, the Pan Dems are now between a rock and a hard place. They can shout and bleat all they like, or take to the streets again. It won't matter. Their tactics backfired and gave us the result we didn't want, because the best outcome would be Hong Kong to enact the legislation after due scrutiny.

Many of us warned of such an outcome if the Pan Dems continued with their myopic relentless anti-Beijing mindset. And so it's come to pass.

2 Comments

17/5/2020 0 Comments

Saint Greta of Iceberg

"Not only is Greta a specialist on climate change but she's also the go-to-expert on Covid-19"

Some 500 years ago, the Chimu people in what is now Peru ritually killed hundreds of their children in the largest known child sacrifice. The Chimu believed slaughtering the kids appeased the angry Gods.

Down the ages, as pestilence and death stalked the land, our ancestors sought a solution through such killings. At other times distraught people seeking answers would gather around a possessed child to hear the voice of God.

While child sacrifice is rare these days, even in this so-called enlightened era, we still can't help ourselves. Thus we venerate the words of a kid with Asperger's syndrome and OCD, allowing her to lecture us on climate change.

You could argue that Greta Iceberg fulfils a niche for those people seeking answers beyond science.

You know the sort, those who believe in tarot cards and astrology. It remains a sad reflection of the homo sapien’s finite mind that we seek comfort from such pronouncements.

This week I learned that not only is Greta a specialist on climate change but she's also the go-to-expert on Covid-19. Greta is busy popping up on CNN and in The Guardian (of course) offering her sage advice.

Greta famously can see carbon dioxide in the air; that's according to her mother. This skill is incredibly useful in the fight against climate change.

The world's scientists, with all their training, need fancy instruments to do the same. Thus it's only appropriate that Greta helps us beat Covid-19.

At this stage it's unclear whether Greta can see the Covid-19 virus — we can only hope. After all, she's had the disease and survived. Well, when I say she's had it, no tests were done on her.

That's not needed because Greta carried out a self-diagnosis. Thus it's now gospel truth in the media that she had the Covid-19 and defeated it. It's another omen.

Her skills know no bounds. As I write this, she's likely at a secret X-Man school with Professor Charles Xavier coaching her to the next level. Except we know that Greta doesn't need schooling or teachers. She has a gift.

The advocates for Greta proclaim that people with autism are not as influenced by social pressures as the rest of us, which frees their mind to see problems more realistically and find creative solutions.

The syndrome comes with gifts of abstract thinking, which lends itself to talents in science and political theory. Except I've not heard a single innovative solution from Greta.

She repeats the usual rote messages; plant trees, protect biodiversity and cut carbon emissions.

It's all rather entertaining, apart from the fact it's not. Her parents orchestrate all the activities, find sponsors and collect the money. They have the connections that make this profitable.

Around Greta are various interested supporters including business people including a venture capitalist. Are they in it for the sake of the planet or for a profit? Is this really ethical?

Meantime, Greta and her minders have seized upon the lockdowns 25 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions as proof of what is possible. In the process, they've blindly ignored the tremendous damage to the economy, people's livelihoods, the old and our mental health.

None of that matters, because according to Greta and her followers, Covid-19 has given us a sign. The way forward; lockdown, economic ruin and death.

Like old-time medieval zealots, the eco-warriors proclaim Covid-19 is a punishment for our evil ways. Along the way, Greta morphs into a latter-day Joan of Arc. And look how it turned out for poor Joan.

That the mainstream media provide a platform for Greta and fetishise her every statement is bizarre. Yet, those who a voice of concern about letting a 17-year-old control the narrative are beyond the pale; dismissed as evil old folks who caused the problem in the first place.

Forgotten in all this, is that Greta is receiving mental health treatment through a system operated and funded by these old folks.

Somebody called Poppy Noor gets a column in the Guardian to argue that Greta is the perfect choice to speak about Covid-19. Noor asserts that Greta's public profile and standing qualify her.

I wonder if Noor would elect to have heart surgery done by David Attenborough on the same basis? He's got a high public profile and enjoys public confidence.

Of course, Noor proclaims anyone critical of Greta is sexist. That's the unthinking default response these days— others include racist, homophobic, transphobic.

So while leading scientists struggle to comprehend Covid-19, we're expected to draw advice from this high-school dropout of no fixed ability. Please give me strength.

Unfortunately, the media have no such misgivings. In the end, all Greta could offer was 'listen to the experts'. That's it: no unique insights, no new truth nor direction. Fair enough.

0 Comments

11/5/2020 1 Comment

The Circus is back in town.

"Young people filled with passion, impulsive and inclined to act on their emotions, are led astray with ease."

With a vengeance, the heat of a Hong Kong summer has arrived. A typhoon is lingering south of us, as the cool weather of our Covid-19 period retreats.

Likewise, the militant protesters are back. They're testing the limits of the social distancing laws, testing the police and everyone's patience.

With the economy in decline and unemployment rising, it's debatable whether large numbers of citizens will risk everything by returning to the streets.

Last night, the black shirts made a reappearance in Mongkok, only to face a swift intervention by the increasingly assertive police. As the courts jail rioters for up to seven years, we all debate whether this will dissuade the militants. Everyone has an opinion that draws off a thousand variables.

The calm we enjoyed during the Covid-19 semi-lockdown was an opportunity for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step forward as the people's protector in these dangerous times.

After all, people will cleave to robust leaders. And while Lam and her team did exceptionally well in containing the virus, she's failed to ride the wave of success.

Currently, only the Commissioner of Police, Chris Tang, is showing the sort of robust leadership needed in times of crisis. He stands tall amongst a field of mediocre, sheep-like, officials.

You can see that Tang trucks no nonsense from his officers nor opponents. The recent arrest of officers indicates he will hold them to account.

No politician has succeeded in landing a damaging blow on Tang despite repeated attempts in district councils and at LegCo. I sense he enjoys sparring with those people while they seek to score cheap points.

Of course, they don't like it when he retorts to their misplaced attacks with polite derision and hard facts.

Meanwhile, the LegCo circus is in full swing. On Friday, after seven months of delays, the pro-establishment camp swept into the chamber to seize the House Committee. This body controls the business of LegCo; thus, whoever directs the committee sets the pace in LegCo.

The committee failed to elect a chairperson since October 2019, as filibustering blocked progress. Acting chair Dennis Kwok allowed endless arguments about procedures and brought LegCo to a halt.

Starry Lee from the pro-establishment camp, acting on legal advice, marched-in, under escort, to seize the chair. An outflanked opposition reacted by charging forward; scuffles followed, as the two sides faced-off. Lee then declared the meeting in session.

As trouble rumbled on, she ordered eleven opposition councillors out of the chamber for causing disorder. The rest soon followed.

With fourteen bills cleared that afternoon, the opposition was left claiming assault and foul play. There is no shortage of evidence with live CCTV coverage, the media on scene and councillors filming events.

Opposition legislator Ray Chan charged back and forth in a comical manner before he's dragged away shoeless. At the same time, Eddie Chu demonstrated remarkable skills by climbing the chamber walls. His attempt to breach the cordon-line protecting Starry Lee failed.

This unedifying spectacle sets a terrible example. No wonder the kids believe it is acceptable to throw petrol bombs and beat up anyone who questions their methods.

Doubtless, this is far from the end of the matter. Last Friday's skirmish is part of an evolving opposition rear-guard action. They believe that in September's election they'll gain controll in LegCo.

So until then, the plan is to stall all legislation, especially the national anthem law and anything related to Article 23. I expect more shenanigans in the weeks ahead.

And yet, life goes on because Hong Kong is a resilient city. In my forty years here, she's survived typhoons, riots, refugees, financial collapses and pandemics.

As Donald Tsang asserted at the height of the 1998 financial crisis, "No one makes money by betting against Hong Kong."

Yet, how many times do all-knowing foreign journalists come here, sniff around, do a cage-home story and then feel able to write their 'fall of Hong Kong' article? In truth, they know next to nothing.

This place has a tremendous capacity to absorb a crisis, brush it off and then move forward, cushioned by the vast Chinese hinterland.

Despite last year's wide-spread unrest with some terrorist activity, we are still here. The property market didn't crash, the Hong Kong dollar is intact, and business activity is returning.

In other places, when this state of affairs has continued for long enough, they have a revolution. Here that's not an option.

"We made the wrong decision." That's from a friend who jumped too early as Covid-19 took hold here in January. They put their faith in the US by fleeing to the safety of New York with three kids. That's not something they'll do again. Despite everything, Hong Kong looks like a sanctuary of safety.

Watching all this unfold, I feel things are rarely black and white. While the protests are back, the determination of the violent militants remains open to question. Many of their mistakes are due to the excess and overzealousness of youth.

Young people filled with passion, impulsive and inclined to act on their emotions, are led astray with ease. And because they know everything, their confidence knows no bounds. Then reality bites with arrest, court and jail time. Life is a severe teacher.

With one of the five demands met, the other four languish in the bin. The militants must have noticed that the courts have designated that the events of 12 June 2019 as a riot.

Their demand for a retraction of the riot characterisation is now impossible without suspending the rule of law. If suspending the rule of law is possible, then we are truly lost.

Moreover, the protesters now face a unified and blooded Police Force, who have grown in confidence. Anyone thinking they can win this struggle on the streets is taking a considerable risk.

Their best bet is the LegCo elections, if the opposition doesn't blow that with their infighting.

Either way, it's a long hot summer coming.

1 Comment

<<Previous

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

An Empty Gesture

Beijing says enough is enough!

Saint Greta of Iceberg

The Circus is back in town.

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter