Blog Archives

A Futtocking Mess

25/6/2019

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."

0 Comments

Cops carry the can for Carrie.

22/6/2019

1 Comment

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

The Zen Master

17/6/2019

0 Comments

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

The Crunch Moment Arrives

7/6/2019

0 Comments

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

June 4th

5/6/2019

0 Comments

The crack of AK47s around Beijing in June 1989 still echoes in Hong Kong. These events, however you interpret them, continue to influence Hong Kong politics. If you doubt that, consider the ongoing extradition debate with direct lines drawn to 30 years ago.

People in the West and some in Hong Kong have a superficial understanding of the sequence of events, the causes and the consequences. Images of the ‘Tank Man’ frame their narrative, together with students making bold statements about democracy. Then the army rolls in, and people die. Alas, this vast over-simplification doesn’t even scratch the surface.

I can’t cover all the ground here, except to say the unrest wasn’t confined to Beijing and the causes were many. A weak economy, widespread corruption and an internal party struggle all coalesced.

The catalyst was the death of reformer HU Yaobang. Students took to the streets, then occupied Tiananmen Square demanding reforms.

It’s known protests flared in several urban centres. Students and workers seized bridges in Wuhan, occupying streets in Shanghai, Xi’an, Nanjing and Chengdu.

These troubles rumbled on for days after June 4, although the authorities gradually gained the upper hand.

In Shanghai, the protests dispersed peacefully. Not so in Chengdu. Reports suggest as many as 300 people died as the police moved on protesters. But, without the presence of international media, these reports are not verified.

We know from first-hand accounts that the students in Tiananmen couldn’t coordinate their actions or agree on a strategy. Several factions jockeyed for control.

Misunderstandings and confusion meant the forfeiting of opportunities. In the end, it was probably too late — yet even with the soldiers advancing on the square, the students continued a frantic debate.

Also, the Western media reports of killings in the square proved inaccurate. It’s now known that confrontations developed in the West of the city. None of this changes the fact that people died, but it fed a description of the West’s media producing false reports.

The abiding image in the West is of ‘Tank Man’ confronting the PLA armoured column. That took place on June 5. He is later led away by other protestors. We don’t know who he is, and his whereabouts remain a mystery.

As a response, Hong Kong’s people’s faith in the future under Chinese rule evaporated overnight. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets. The New China News Agency in Happy Valley (now the Metropolitan Hotel) was the focus of their wrath. Along the way, vast sums of money came in to help the students flee.

Then an exodus of talent started from Hong Kong as people sought to secure a future abroad. The lame response from the British didn’t fill many with confidence. Besides offering a stingy 50,000 passports across a population of five million, the Brits uttered empty words of reassurance.

But times changed, and attitudes evolved. China underwent an accelerated development that saw it challenge the US as the leading economy.

Hong Kong’s people’s zeal for change in China eased as the economic benefits of a close relationship supplanted political considerations.

Most folks accepted the situation to make an uneasy peace, while keeping their options open. A Canadian passport in the bottom drawer and a house in Vancouver sit ready.

Commemoration of June 4 is ritualistic for our old-guard pro-democracy politicians. Moreover, it’s the time of the year when they can replenish their coffers with donations. The communion of the candle-lit vigil, replaying of the news clips and former student leaders speeches.

And yet, the draw of the event is weakening for the new batch of activists. They reject Tiananmen as irrelevant to their generation, to focus within Hong Kong. Although, after the collapse of the Occupy movement in late 2014, and the later prosecutions, they’ve somewhat lost direction. Their frustration bubbled over with the 2016 Mongkok riot.

It’s telling that before last year’s vigil, the head of Hong Kong University Student’s Union made public statements.

“As Hongkongers, do we have a responsibility to build a democratic China? This is a question we must ask.” He went on to infer that Hong Kong people have a different identity from Mainlanders. He implied this creates a responsibility to focus on Hong Kong issues.

Similar sentiments came from other student bodies, who asserted they didn’t ‘feel’ a connection to the events of 1989. This rejection of a broader role in Chinese affairs is an anathema to the old-guard. Beijing can’t be comfortable either, because the Hong Kong students are defining themselves as outside the domain of greater China.

China 2019 is very different from the China of 1989. During a recent visit to Shanghai, I’m knocked sideways to see hundreds of teenagers dressed in Hogwarts costumes rushing to a movie.

The people are wealthier, better travelled and engaged in building a future that is breathtaking to observe. They’ve attained much in a short time.

The clamour for democracy — in whatever form — was predicted to flow from increased prosperity. For the most part, pundits asserting such theories failed to recognise the complexities on the ground.

In truth, the ability of the Party to deliver wealth, layered atop tight controls, held things in check. Allied to that is the inherent nationalism with an overwhelming sense that the Chinese are moving forward.

Meanwhile, the Tiananmen anniversary is weaponised to serve a broader agenda. It’s an easy stick with which to beat China, while countries gainly ignore their history. Without wishing to engage in naked whataboutism or cynically deflect responsibility, is there a contradiction and double-standard in the West’s attitude?

None of this justifies nor condones what happened. On my travels, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with people who were there in Beijing; academics, officials and city residents. Believe me; there are regrets and recriminations aplenty on all sides.

Tonight I observed the vigil. I went to sense the mood and understand the current sentiment. The turnout was huge. As expected, the crowd was sombre.

They sang the songs, eulogised the dead and called for the Party to reverse the verdict on 1989 and recognise the students as patriots. All eyes are now on Sunday, June 9, when a march against the proposed extradition bill will take place.

0 Comments

Chernobyl: seal off the city.

2/6/2019

0 Comments

“We seal off the city, no one leaves. We cut the phone lines. We contain the spread of misinformation. That is how we keep the people from undermining the fruits of their labour.”

Chernobyl remains etched in my memory. In the spring of 1986, I’m awaiting the birth of my first child in the north of England as news arrives of a radioactive cloud drifting across Europe towards us.

My wife and I scrambled for any information. What precautions to take? Should we leave the UK? Perhaps we should have stayed in Hong Kong for the birth?

Only weeks before we’d seen the Challenger disaster live on TV. Both of us questioned bringing a child into the world with radiation falling from the sky.

Fortunately, the UK suffered less than others. Scotland received most of the fallout, and some fell in Cumbria. The contamination followed rainfall patterns.

All this came back to me watching the HBO series 'Chernobyl.’ With hindsight, our concerns paled against what unfolded in the Soviet Union. HBO has done an exceptional service in capturing the complex, multilayered nature of the disaster, including the courageous response by ordinary Russians.

A reminder of the events — on April 26 1986, after midnight the operators of Reactor 4 at Chernobyl carried out a safety test. Due to a design flaw and the operators failing to follow a checklist in the correct order, superheated water turned to steam.

This water burst from the containment vessel in a massive explosion that sent radioactive material nearly a mile high. An estimated 190 metric tons of uranium was now in the atmosphere. Then the reactor core erupted in flames to shower the immediate area with irradiated graphite.

The responding fire-crews stood next to the open reactor core, pouring water in a futile attempt to douse the fire. Most of those men died within weeks. While they succeeded in containing the fires in adjacent structures, the core continued to burn.

For nine days, it pumped tonnes of radiation into the atmosphere. The blaze is eventually extinguished by a combined effort of helicopters dropping over 5,000 metric tons of sand, lead, clay, and neutron-absorbing boron onto the burning reactor.

From the outset, the plant operators, the senior management, local political leaders and the whole chain of command sought to downplay or conceal the scale of the disaster. In the process, they put more people at risk.

They repeated the lie of an intact reactor core because Soviet prestige was at stake. Meanwhile, the population of the local town looked at a strange blue light filling the sky as the air ionized.

Then the truth emerged. In Sweden, a worker’s shoe sets off an alarm at a nuclear plant. A particle from Chernobyl has travelled westward; more tests pick up high levels of radiation in the atmosphere. Soon satellite pictures confirmed the scale of the disaster.

The HBO series captures all this. Full credit goes to Craig Mazin for researching, conceiving and writing the series. With a matter of fact tone, the story — which we already know in sketch form — starts to fill with detail.

By filming in the former Soviet Union, the production values are excellent, adding considerable authenticity. The Soviets built their cities to a standard plan; thus, the film-makers were able to find exact copies of the nearby town of Pripyat. Period vehicles, clothes and furniture were all available.

All the characters are real people, except for the female scientist Ulana Khomyuk. Played with understated resolve by Emily Watson, she represents several scientists.

The superb Jared Harris plays the pivotal role of the real-life Valery Legasov. It’s Legasov who leads the fight to prevent a further explosion that could contaminate the whole continent.

He opens the series by committing suicide two years after the disaster. Death is constant throughout. The irradiated firemen in agony, a stunted child, pet dogs culled and finally the end of the Soviet system.

The inherent design fault in the RBMK reactor was known, a fact kept from the operators. A culture of secrecy, patronage and human frailty led to the accident. And yet, it was Soviet citizen’s who came forward in a noble way to tackle the problem. Some knew the risks; others didn’t. All pressed on, with a fair number sacrificing themselves.

The ‘salt of the earth’ miners, who dig an unneeded tunnel by hand directly under the burnt-out core, is a revelation. Four hundred men without any protection, including clothes, push on to get the job done.

In the end, the tunnel proves redundant because a meltdown did not occur. Their scene with the minister for coal and soldiers is probably apocryphal, nonetheless so poignant.

The message is clear. The people have the final say because the soldiers can’t kill everyone. Plus, you can’t kill men who’ve already embraced death. As they toiled away naked in the heat, their bodies receive the equal of 160,000 X-rays. It’s believed that a quarter died as a result.

Also, over 600 Soviet helicopter pilots risked dangerous levels of radiation to fly the thousands of flights dropping material to cover the exposed reactor. One crashed when he collided with a crane.

Then, you have the most remarkable men — human robots. After radiation frazzled the circuits of robots clearing the plant roof of toxic material, men with shovels took over. Working for less than 90 seconds at a time, these brave souls heaved the toxic debris back into the core. Linger too long, death is inevitable. A painful death that even morphine can’t ease.

A multitude of messages come forth from this series. Yes, nuclear power has enormous risks. Also, the truth will get out; facts will always trump ideology. Radiation doesn’t know or care for our human ideas or ideals; it has no sentiments, empathy, nor viewpoint. It just is.

All the apparatus of the Soviet regime, the KGB and threats of imprisonment or worse, couldn’t contain the lie. And then when the truth emerged, it started a process that brought the system down.

A clean up at the sealed site continues. A new cover is being built to shield us from the radiation. Current estimates state the core will remain dangerous for 20,000 years.

That’s a long time. Let’s get some scale on that number. Some 20,000 years ago, the human population was an estimated 300,000. We clung to existence as hunter-gatherers, having emerged from Africa.

Chernobyl is chilling. The nuclear disaster is one part of the story. Stupidity, bureaucracy, self-serving officials, corruption, human-frailty and sheer horror are all in the mix. A top it all is the awful sacrifice that people made to prevent the disaster escalating.

The man who looked into the exposed reactor core to assess the situation knew he’d die — likewise, the operators wading through pools of radioactive water to open valves. Thousands of military personnel clearing debris, stripping topsoil and washing down everything — all exposed themselves to terrible risks. The exact grim toll will never be known.

0 Comments

Walter's Blog

A Futtocking Mess

Cops carry the can for Carrie.

The Zen Master

The Crunch Moment Arrives

June 4th

Chernobyl: seal off the city.

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter