|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
25/7/2019 1 Comment Carrie the Clueless
1 Comment
16/7/2019 0 Comments Sun Tze Speaks "Even the unqualified may sometimes have quick success, but even the most clever must fail in a protracted war. Prolonged warfare is never beneficial." |
| History tells us that leader-less movements fail. That is the dominant thinking amongst strategists, military planners and social scientists. But, some doubts are developing in my mind, given the success of the current Hong Kong 'anti-extradition' movement. Students and others are operating with a leader-less model while using social media to coordinate their actions. It's difficult to gainsay their success to date. Let's get one thing out of the way; the extradition bill is no longer the core issue. While it remains a pretext, broader issues get drawn in. Democratic representation, social mobility and a government beholden to a few are some of the problems. And in all fairness, the people are right to express their displeasure. The government has failed to address these matters. Getting back to the thrust of my article. Throughout human history, our societies needed differentiation of functions to coordinate our efforts. While some people reject the idea of a hierarchy, groups and cultures of any size or complexity have such structures. Even our near evolutionary animal-relatives have ‘alphas’. We see that leaders emerge to coordinate and then dominate groups. In human society, these 'alphas' either appear by default, seize power or get appointed by formal or informal processes. The utility of authentic and effective leadership is well-recognised. That's unquestioned. In assessing the current movement, I've used my old friend 'Sun Tze' as an anchor. He provides helpful insights, although he never had to deal with social media. Sun Tze identified five principles for success in a campaign. Spirit of the mission. Sun Tze recognised that you need a 'firestorm' of commitment to keep going because you believe your purpose is morally sound. No one can doubt the protesters believe in their cause. You have to give them 100% on that front. Climate and weather. Sun Tze observed that climate and weather impact morale, plus the ability to sustain operations. In response to the hot weather, protesters are setting up feeding and water stations to maintain their people. Terrain. Sun Tze asserts you need to select your area of operations with care. The protesters, for the most part, have chosen wisely, avoiding blocking roads for a protracted period. This tactic caused a loss of support during Occupy. They’ve also moved around the SAR. Command. Sun Tze cites examples of the importance of capable commanders. In essence, he asserts that without a single or unified control, you give up a crucial pillar to success. We've already seen signs of this deficiency in the ‘anti-extradition’ movement. Random, unfocused actions, such as disrupting the lifts at Immigration Tower, discredited the campaign. Organisation and discipline. Sun Tze says this flow from leadership, although the protesters have sought to achieve this without a leader. To date, they've had mixed results. The 'doctrine' of the campaign is part of this element. The protesters have a stated adherence to 'civil disobedience' principles. They purport to be a non-violent movement. Unfortunately, without tight discipline, violent elements asserted themselves. The attacks on police and trashing of LegCo garnered the headlines, and with that public support waned. Sun Tze has sage advice on strategy and tactics. He emphasises that to act in unison requires strict discipline. We've seen some examples of group discipline illustrated in this Reuters article. Protesters are achieving high levels of coordination and cooperation, even using simple hand-signals. They've also deployed encrypted messaging, helping overcome some of the disadvantages of a leader-less movement. | On the other hand, some exercised poor control in protecting sensitive information. Thus material leaked to open social media platforms. Then in a gradual process, their discussions and planning moved onto public channels. The leader-less model has the advantage of giving the protesters the flexibility to mount sudden actions. Yet Sun Tze noted that 'there are places you should not attack or besiege'. The storming and wreaking of LegCo come to mind. Sun Tze and many other strategists recognise the import of choosing your battles. 'When to fight, and when not to fight' is a crucial tenet of any endeavour. Without a leader to decide such matters, sub-groups can choose to engage in actions that weaken the broader movement. Finally, Sun Tze states there is a hierarchy of methods for success. At the top is defeating your enemy by strategy without actual fighting. Next is beating them by an alliance, third is a battle and last is besieging. He views the latter as a waste of human resources, time and effort. In Sun Tze's thinking, it can lead to the eventual collapse of the army. In consideration of these factors, the protester's strategy is imprecise beyond the five demands. Moreover, the alliances they've formed are tenuous. Overseas support remains mixed. Some countries have expressed backing, although economic interests trump everything, as few wish to cut-off from China. Beyond words of encouragement, it's unlikely foreign countries will commit overt acts of assistance. With a leader deploying a long-term strategy, the movement could have avoided some mistakes. For instance, he or she would recognise the symbolism of keeping LegCo intact to make the movement look rational and non-violent. Significantly, the one leader who did emerge during the LegCo sacking has fled overseas. He faces a life in exile. Let's accept that a leader spends a great deal of time and energy reconciling the conflicting elements within a movement. Thus, without that leader, the movement eventually fragments. The lack of a leader also makes it difficult for the government to negotiate. Who do you speak with, do they have enough clout to make a deal and enforce it? If not, then you are wasting effort. Although, such does ease a 'divide and conquer' approach. Which bring us to the big question. In the end, can the leaderless model succeed? History suggests it will fail as the constituent parts jockey to have their views asserted. When they feel their status and esteem goes unrecognised, cooperation breaks down. Political movements see this time and time again. The protesters have latched on to Bruce Lee's famous quote "Be like water". An elegant and laudable sentiment, which has some tactical utility. Beyond that, the protesters must resolve substantial matters to agree on a unified way forward. For example, are there any grounds for compromise? Perhaps predictions of the success or otherwise of the leader-less model are exaggerated. But for now, having killed off the bill, how to move forward? More street protests, more violence and more mayhem? I'll give Sun Tze the final say because he makes many observations that resonant today and have relevance beyond their age. “Make time your ally”. In essence, Sun Tze asserts that long campaigns will falter as prolonged operations take their toll. If an opponent with superior resources can blunt your efforts to draw you into a protracted campaign, defeat is inevitable. Yes, that was the approach adopted by the Hong Kong government in 2014. It worked. "Move only when it benefits you"; this is the most critical piece of advice from Sun Tze that the protesters ignored. The sacking of LegCo was a gratuitous act of violence that did not benefit them. With that, they've fallen into a trap. |
12/7/2019 0 Comments
| Carrie Lam has pronounced the extradition bill 'dead'. It's as dead as a Norwegian Blue administered 60,000 volts. It's not pining for Legco; it's gone. The bill is no more. It's ceased to exist and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff, bereft of life, and it rests in peace, it's shuffled off this mortal coil. Carrie ran down the curtain. This is an ex- bill! Apologies to Monty Python, but only a surreal rant can capture the ludicrous situation that is before us. Why can't the woman say the word 'withdrawal'? One wag in the SCMP comments section suggested that her Catholic upbringing precluded the use of such a term. After all 'withdrawal' was the only method of contraception the Pope sanctioned for years. "Oh, my god Bridgette, I'm coming, I'm coming." "Patrick, kill it, but don't withdraw." Of course, Carrie's announcement of the bill's death didn't appease her opponents. They want to hear the 'W' word. Plus, they have other demands fueled by the hubris of their movement. Foremost is an independent judicial enquiry into allegations of police brutality. Furthermore, they want amnesty for all offences committed by protesters. In other words, they want a suspension of the 'rule of law' to avoid arrest and prosecution for alleged crimes. It baffles me why they can't see that such a move sets a terrible precedent. If one group can gain amnesty from the law, down the road, another can justifiably seek the same. This week it's alleged rioters, next week we let off arsonists because they like playing with fire. It's not their fault you know, his Mummy didn't hug him enough, so he burns down buildings. Am I missing something? Either we have the 'rule of law', or we don't. Returning to the subject of an enquiry, I'm all for it. But, the scope must be broad enough to deal with all dimensions of this debacle. To focus on the police role would be like seeking to cure an illness without having a patient to study. Any enquiry must cover the lead-up, including steps taken by the government, the public response, and the actions of politicians. While I don't subscribe to the 'foreign forces' theory, it may worth looking at that to settle the matter. Those making such claims should produce evidence to support their allegations. Besides, I'm keen to hear opinions on how the police should help the press while dealing with unrest. | For example, with the media inserted between the police and violent protesters, what is the recommended approach? Likewise, I'd be willing to accept any recommendations on anti-riot tactics. In specific terms, how the community expects the police to deal with rioters? All these matters combined could give a comprehensive insight and address community concerns. Forgotten in the clamour for a judicial enquiry is the fact it would take at least two years. And that's if they got a move on. Judicial hearings are painfully slow, weighed down by legal disputes and often don't provide much resolution. However, one aspect of the government's approach that deserves serious study is its shambolic PR strategy. The lack of a single spokesperson, to give a daily press briefing, left the media space open to the most outrageous untruths. False news travelled halfway around the world to become the dominant narrative. By the time Carrie responded, it's too late. How many times do I have to say it, the youth of today are operating in a digital world; thus, a PR machine designed in the 1970s doesn't cut the mustard. Donald Trump recognises that fact. He communicates direct by tweets. While many are uncomfortable with his methods, you cannot deny he asserts control of the narrative albeit until for a short time. As the protests escalated, they have drawn upon more extensive strands of discontent. Poor housing, faltering social nobility, a failure to tackle poverty and the rip-off MPF scheme are contributing to the unrest. In the public's mind, Carrie Lam is beholden to vested interests which cause some of societies ills. She has a track record of saying one thing and then doing another. Years ago, she made great play of tackling the illegal structure issue in the NT. But did nothing. She promised that Queens Pier would be relocated — didn't happen. She appointed Teresa Cheung, the Secretary of Justice despite doubts about her integrity. These poor decisions all feed a narrative of Carries protecting a few against the wishes of the many. So while Carrie stumbles around for a solution, the police are on the streets facing the anger. You could see from events in Mongkok on Sunday 7 July, that their patience is wearing thin. Carrie's latest pronouncements have done nothing to ease the pressure. The bill is dead, not the anger. Anyway to lighten the mood, check out this. |
4/7/2019 2 Comments
| Where do I begin? So much has unravelled over the past few days, and it's challenging to know what to start with. Nor can I begin to interpret the ramification of events. After all, the ball is still in play, and we have no idea how long this match will last. Perhaps I should pontificate on the first surrender of a government building since the Imperial Japanese army visited in December 1941. Even at the height of the 1967 disturbances, government offices never fell to protesters. How about the fact that Police HQ lay sieged for two nights, defaced by rioters, while officers stood idle. Granted on the second night a short-lived token sweeping action took place. Of course, we're treated to a barrage of announcements condemning the damage and violence. These limp messages hang in the ether, ignored. Meanwhile, it's not clear that the government has a strategy or plan to deal with this mayhem. Officials, far from being resolute, appear to be foundering and out-maneuvered at every turn. I'd ascribed this student movement as operating with a 'fantastic fluffy idea' of no leaders. That fluffiness has evaporated to leave behind hardened thuggery that demands stern action. The pundits are spinning the failure to defend the LegCo building as a shrewd public relations move. I get that; it exposed the inherent violence of the mob, plus it avoided a potentially nasty confrontation. No doubt it provided a welcome bounce in support, but at what cost? After all, allowing rioters to go unchecked is a double-edged sword. You swing public support behind the government, while at the same time demoralising already fragile police sentiment. Police officers take an oath of office to uphold the law, and while they have a degree of discretion, ignoring such criminality rips at their very essence. Plus, let's not forget that in engagements with rioters, when allowed to act as trained, the police prevailed. In the process, the use of force was proportionate and measured. Now only political considerations are holding back an adequate response. Restraint is admirable at times. Yet I have to say that allowing rioters to trash our parliament looks like a cynical ploy. Is 'winning by losing' the new mantra? As I opined in the past, Carrie Lam appears hellbent on sacrificing the Police Force by making them Hong Kong's punch bag. Her failings brought about this situation, but she remains behind walls, safe from real danger. On the streets, the ordinary cops are taking the beating. They then go home to disgruntled families, rejected for medical care by unprofessional doctors and nurses. Is Carrie grateful? Nah. She utters empty words. Tangible action is missing. She had numerous opportunities to reach out with an olive branch to defuse the anger. Each she threw away. It's reported that the majority of the protesters who stormed LegCo are students. I'm guessing most are still living at home funded by the bank of Mum and Dad. I'd like to know how many studied the extradition bill? I ask because I've taken the opportunity this week to speak to young people in their mid-twenties. None had seen the bill, nor did they have an understanding of the legal processes associated with it. Still, each told me the law is terrible. When asked for specifics on the 'badness' I'm left with blank faces and shuffling feet. They soon changed direction to assert Mainland police operated in Hong Kong on 12 June to suppress the protesters. I ask for evidence. | "They had no numbers on uniforms and spoke Putonghua". On that last point, again, I ask, did you hear them, or do you have any substantiation? No, thought not. And so it evolves. Supposedly intelligent young people, with all the gifts offered by modern education, run to the streets to riot based on tweets and Facebook postings. Possessed of a false narrative, especially the perfidy of the Mainland, they're primed to run amok. This craziness continues to unfold. We now have pharmacists asking the police not to use tear gas because it's harmful. You can't make this nonsense up. Tear gas is not nice stuff that's for sure. But, it's safer than batons to the head or rubber bullets. Pharmacist should stick to their trade or at least have the common sense to recognise that officers have the right to defend themselves against spears and bricks. Feeding this maelstrom is biased reporting and activist journalism. The online so-called 'Hong Kong Free Press' is well recognised for its distorted copy, only matched by the likes of the Chinese language ‘Apple Daily’. They gleefully throw about references to Tiananmen, and portray the police as 'attacking protesters'. Edited video clips omit any instances of hooligans attacking police because you can't let the facts get in the way of an agenda. On a more positive note, by and large, the South China Morning Post has balanced coverage. In a disturbing development, the protesters opted to spread false news supported by doctored images. In one instance, the time on a police spokesman's watch is 'photoshopped' to suggest he filmed a statement before events took place. This false image enters social media to tell a lie that the police orchestrated the assault on LegCo. Fortunately, an official version shows the real time to refute the allegation. In another instance, someone posted clips of army vehicles travelling about to suggest the PLA was moving to LegCo. Dangerous stuff. I'm certain Beijing won't be sending the PLA or Mainland security units the deal with the rioters. I know that many in the West and the Pro-Dems wish to believe this would happen because it fulfils their delusional narrative. Even though things are rough at the moment, we are some considerable way from a collapse of social order. So to speak of Beijing taking a direct role is fanciful. In truth, the thugs who stormed and then wrecked LegCo have done immense damage to their cause. In recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of people protested peacefully. These sane and rational voices now lost to the scenes of violence brought forth by a few, which brings me back to my assertion why leaderless movements ultimately fail. Likewise, Police supporters did no one any favours by attacking journalists at the rally on Sunday. A dignified, well-ordered event, forfeited positive coverage to these incidents. Weighing things up, it's evident to me that the police are stretched. Nonetheless, don’t doubt their ability to take back the initiative once released of the political shackles. Fighting riots and dealing with hooligans is always a messy business, but I'm sure the Hong Kong Police will prevail. And yet, clearly, a political solution is needed, which Carrie Lam looks incapable of delivering. As I write, reports are coming in of arrests. Those who had their fun in LegCo are now waiting for a knock on the door. I'm thinking many are regretting their actions. |
| | |
Walter De Havilland was one of the last of the colonial coppers. He served 35 years in the Royal Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong Police Force. He's long retired.
February 2020
January 2020
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
August 2016
RSS Feed