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

25/6/2019 1 Comment

A Futtocking Mess

There is poison in the air and vitriol in every argument. For some, it's a vendetta with a passion that's an obsession. Even erstwhile defenders of the 'rule of law' — people who should know better — are calling for rioters to walk free.

At the same time, they've demanded the pillorying of the police for doing their job.

Anson Chan Fan On-sang, former Chief Secretary, is making such a call. You could argue Anson Chan always had loose respect for the law when it doesn't serve her interests.

In her earlier days, as Director of Social Welfare, she oversaw a break-in to private premises to release an allegedly abused child. At the time, many suggested her actions were illegal. A later enquiry cleared Chan, although her authoritarian manner didn't go unnoticed.

In effect, Anson Chan is calling for the suspension of the 'rule of law'. If the government accedes to this wanton request, then the next mob can demand the same.

She's inviting the government to intervene in the independence of our legal system, the very thing she decries on the Mainland. Her hypocrisy is breathtaking.

But, these are strange times. People ignore the facts, the evidence that is before them. I've heard protesters claim that the bricks that flew at police are fantastic fake images. Yet with glee, they'll accept any image of police actions as 'brutality'.

You have to suspect that Anson Chan and other politicians are providing top cover for the rioters. They give tacit support through words of encouragement that go down to the street as justification for hurling bricks at police officers.

Then when the police respond, they're at fault for seeking to protect themselves while restoring order.

It's inevitable we now have a deep level of instability in our society. The extradition bill was a catalyst to bring forth anger from a deep well of resentment over the repeated failings of our government.

Poor housing, a dereliction in tackling environmental issues, reduced social-mobility and stagnant real wages are all factors. That the government appears to serve vested interests, especially leading business figures, feeds resentment.

While Hong Kong is sitting on massive reserves of capital, old folks work collecting cardboard to survive. We have one of the highest Gini coefficients (a measure of inequality in society), and I'd long felt that must eventually give rise to unrest.

Now the police are the focus of the protester's ire, in part, because the anti-riot tactics worked so well. During the 2016 Mongkok riot, the police proved slow to respond. Since then, they've adapted and changed tactics.

The new 'raptor squads' are mobile, use controlled aggression and have effectively shut down the aggressive elements. They've responded with allegations of brutality. Of course, with protestor violence neutered the opposition is seeking to blunt the police's options as a capable agent to restore public order.

Meanwhile, the trajectory of events is following a similar pattern to Occupy. After the initial engagement, with a fair amount of violence, each side is waiting for the other to move. While the police have taken a battering in the media, the protesters haven't had it all their way.

They've forfeited a degree of support with their siege of Police HQ, and the damage they did. Stupid tactics such as blocking doors on MTR trains will not endear them to the public. Moreover, the call for a general strike was a complete failure.

Undeniably they've learnt that Occupy tactics don't work when society continues to function. Moreover, escalating the violence will not earn them the result they seek. Their dilemma is simple. Unless the majority of the public support them, they'll fragment and falter.

They've adopted a leaderless movement model, a fantastic fluffy idea. I want to point out we know the history of leaderless movements. Sooner or later, these movements lead to internal frustration and failure, as the component groups jostle for ascendancy.

Rarely, if ever, does such a campaign, carry the momentum to endure long enough to see the change it desires. I'm reminded of Macbeth's cynical observation:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

1 Comment

22/6/2019 1 Comment

Cops carry the can for Carrie.

Carrie Lam is Hong Kong’s chief executive in name only. Even with a soft-authoritarian, semi-democratic government, you govern at the consent of the people. If the people don’t consent, then you’ve lost authority, and it’s only a matter of time before you go. Thus, Lam is a besieged and lonely figure.

She’s vilified by the young, distrusted by her constituents in the pro-government camp and Beijing appears unimpressed. Her divided Executive Council members are only making lukewarm efforts on her behalf.

Their pleading for a ‘second-chance’ has a desperate tone that underlines her dilemma; she can’t step aside without Beijing’s blessing.

After the massive display of public sentiment on Sunday 9th June, she had an opportunity to roll back on the extradition bill. Then reassess the situation. Instead, with willful blindness, she pressed on.

As a supporter of the law, I was immediately apprehensive that she’d misread the situation. Although, I'd not expected the fury that manifested itself in Wednesday’s violence. The later handling of matters with ‘on again/off again riot’ remarks by the Commissioner of Police feeds a narrative of bumbling.

It’s the frontline police officers who faced physical danger as a consequence of Lam’s ineptitude. Having taken a beating during the initial stages of the Mongkok riot in 2016, the police were ready with new tactics and equipment.

Once applied, these proved useful in moving the rioters along. Throughout, the use of force was proportionate.

As is always the case, bystanders caught up in events suffer when tear smoke is used. That’s why folks need to listen to police warnings. If people don’t opt to move away, they face the consequences of their actions.

Likewise, members of the press who insert themselves between the police and rioters are taking a terrible risk. I’d be interested to know if any press were hit by the rioters hurling bricks at the police.

Of course, the protesters are alleging brutality and over-aggressive tactics. That’s part of their strategy to switch blame for the riot.

Amnesty International, the NGO with a political agenda, has joined in with its biased coverage of events.

Getting back to the root cause, some blame must fall on the British. First, the Brits left Hong Kong without addressing the matter of extradition. That remains a stain, amongst many, on their record in Hong Kong. The cynical removal of ‘right of abode’ in the UK for Hong Kong citizens is the most severe blight.

Second, the aloof culture of the administrative officer cadre didn't help matters. The adopted British colonial system hasn’t worked well in the new reality of Hong Kong. The senior echelons of the Hong Kong civil service, which gave us two chief executives, is stamped with the training the Brits gave them.

To be fair, this system worked well and served the UK’s interests when applied with a deft hand in the context of colonial rule. The officials who administered colonies were wary of their position, and tread with care.

Not so their successors. Adopting a coercive and autocratic management style, they stereo-typed opposing voices as radicals. Couple that with the self-aggrandising we’ve seen from Carrie Lam, and the whole show starts to unravel. Lam preaches altruism, but her conduct is less so. With the damage done, she’s marking time until the axe falls.

As always, its the frontline police officers who pick up the pieces. They suffer the daily taunts and indignities brought forth by Lam. And yet, in less anxious times the administrative officers sneer at the police, forcing them to jump through hoops for any concessions on pay and conditions.

My experience is of an elite self-serving group, who are more attuned to internal intrigues than the needs of the community they serve.

Few believe there is a quick solution to the fury that Lam has unleashed. The more insidious effect of this mess is not visible. Police officers, already wary of government officials, now have a deep resentment that rioters can attack them with impunity.

There is a sense that the government is willing to sacrifice police officers for its political goals. Empty words of encouragement from the pulpit will not change that.

1 Comment

17/6/2019 0 Comments

The Zen Master

Aeschylus, an ancient Greek playwright, is the father of tragedy plays. He famously stated, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Those words could apply to Hong Kong this week.

We appear to be at war with ourselves. I think it’s fair to say that a traumatised Hong Kong is seeking to digest what happened and establish some truth.

Over the past few days, I’ve been consistently asked “What do you think?” as if I can offer some new insight or revelation.

I regret to say; I have no quick nor appropriate response. So, I thought it best to steal a quote. From the movie ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’, these words best sum up my current state of mind.

There’s a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse... and everybody in the village says, “how wonderful. The boy got a horse”

And the Zen master says, “we’ll see.”

Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, “How terrible.”

And the Zen master says, “We’ll see.”

Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight... except the boy can’t cause his legs all messed up. and everybody in the village says, “How wonderful.”

The Zen master says, “We’ll see.”

0 Comments

7/6/2019 0 Comments

The Crunch Moment Arrives

There is only one political issue in Hong Kong at this time; the proposed amendments to extradition arrangements.

It’s sucking up all the political oxygen as the community once again polarises along ‘blue’ and ‘yellow’ lines brought forth by Occupy.

My initial opinion remains mostly unchanged. I favour the amendments, although I’m honest enough to see issues with the safeguards that need attention. The trick will be enhancing those safeguards, but not at the risk of making the amendment non-functional.

Much debate continues as the government presses ahead with modified proposals — meanwhile, the forces of resistance fight — literally — to derail the bill.

To recap, Hong Kong has no extradition arrangements with Taiwan, Macau or the Mainland. This bizarre situation means Hong Kong is a safe refuge for criminals, including a man accused of killing his girlfriend in Taiwan. She was pregnant at the time. He fled back to Hong Kong, but can’t face charges for murder here.

The proposed amendments came about to deal with this young man. That fact is now somewhat lost. In simple terms, the whole matter has evolved into a much broader debate around the fairness of the Mainland courts.

With this, is conflated a discussion on the ability of the Chinese State to reach into Hong Kong using legal means to seize its opponents. ‘Well water mixing with river water’ or ‘removing the firewall’ sums up the apprehension.

Objectors to the amendment include groups who would generally support the government. Business leaders expressed reservations, citing the loose interpretation of the law on the Mainland. They asserted that commercial disputes often fall foul of the criminal law.

In response, the government granted them concessions that removed ‘economic’ crimes from the list of offences. I have to say that this terrible precedent de-facto acknowledges that there is a problem with China’s legal system.

Allied in challenging the amendments, is a potent mix of the legal community, teachers, accountants and strident anti-China groups. Further, overseas governments are involved in expressing concerns.

Of course, Chris Patten has had his say. He probably sees another book in the issue and needs to segue in at any cost. I’ve yet to hear from him a proposal that would have the criminals face justice.

In the ongoing debate, I’ve heard courteous and well-reasoned positions from several knowledgable people.

Faced with persuasive, balanced arguments, you can understand why concerns arise. Yet, none of this is insurmountable.

If Canada is capable of rendering suspects back to China, one has to ask why can’t Hong Kong?

Sadly, the opposition in LegCo — our parliament — is led by the snarling Claudio Mo and her crew of goons. For them, there is no compromise, no ground to give as everything that China touches is evil.

They repudiate anyone who takes another path as a traitor. Hence the violence we’ve seen in the LegCo Chamber and its adjoining corridors.

The false narrative put about by the radical opposition has laid the seeds of misconception and anxiety. A university graduate in her mid-twenties told me she feared snatching off the streets for rendition to the Mainland.

She’d posted pro-democracy messages on her Facebook page. This lady works for a Mainland Chinese bank and spends at least one week a month in Shenzhen.

I suggested that if the Mainland authorities had an interest in her Facebook postings, which I doubt, why had they not detained her in Shenzhen. What followed was a convoluted explanation, without an element of rational thought. It came as a shock to me that such an ‘educated’ person didn’t see the sheer silliness of her reasoning.

But then again, the doyen of the opposition Martin Lee repeatedly claimed before and since 1997, that he’d end his days in a Chinese gulag. In the meantime, he moves in and out of Hong Kong travelling to such places as Washington to badmouth China.

But then the opposition has their heroes, their villains and their truth. Alas, there is a greater truth. Hong Kong cannot conclude an extradition treaty with Taiwan while ignoring the Mainland. Such a state of affairs is politically unacceptable.

Why? Well, because Beijing doesn’t recognise Taiwan as a separate entity; to them, it’s a renege province. Thus it’s impossible for the Hong Kong government, which is subordinate to Beijing, to go it alone.

Doubtless, we cannot stand still. Here’s an idea. Instead of demonising the Chinese legal system, how about seizing the opportunity to engage. Take the occasion to make the Mainland aware of our expectations as regards safeguards and protocols.

After all, in 2047, that much acclaimed ‘firewall’ is no longer a certainty. Perhaps it would be best to engage now, and plants some seeds of reform.

For that, to work, we’d need to move away from the bile and chanting of ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ doctrine of the radical opposition. On Sunday, a march against the amendments takes place.

A large turn-out could force the government’s hand. Do not forget they backed down on Article 23 following the massive showing of discontent in 2003. The crunch moment is close. Let’ see.

0 Comments

<<Previous

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

A Futtocking Mess

Cops carry the can for Carrie.

The Zen Master

The Crunch Moment Arrives

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter