Blog Archives

Walter's Blog

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

25/7/2019 1 Comment

Carrie the Clueless

Had you asked me earlier this year, I'd have said that Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement was moribund. Having failed to achieve anything with Occupy Central, it dissipated its energy and was looking lifeless.

However, along comes Carrie Lam, our hapless Chief Executive, intent on breathing life into the movement. Single-handed, she's proved their best recruiter.

So, while Hong Kong remains deeply divided, there's broad consensus on one thing - our Chief Executive is irredeemable. After weeks of rioting and mayhem, she sits bunkered behind the walls of Government House. Bereft of ideas, solutions and displaying not the slightest sliver of leadership.

Meanwhile, she's left the beleaguered Police Force to face the music. It's the front-line cops who suffer the daily indignities, the yelling, the violence and the accusations of bias.

First, a mea-culpa, I supported the proposed amendments to the extradition bill. My natural sentiment leaned that way. Plus, I had high hopes of Carrie after her second policy address last year.

She gave the distinct impression of moving forward, with a willingness to tackle long-term injustices in this town. Then things started to unravel.

Should one feel any sympathy for her plight? I don't wish to appear unkind, but my answer is a resounding no. In part, she's trapped by her administrative officer hinterland and the arrogance it bestows.

We can thank the British colonial civil service training for that trait; it creates senior officials unmarked by doubt. They know best. Except Carrie Lam doesn't have a clue. We shouldn't be too surprised because the signs were there.

Her appointing a friend Teresa Cheung to the position of Secretary for Justice rang alarm bells. Despite evidence that Cheung misled people and may have engaged in malpractice, Carrie didn't relent. She anointed Cheung to a post with a $4M salary.

About the same time, Lam was busy taking an allowance away from the working poor. She proposed changes to welfare benefits for impoverished people aged between 60 and 64 who will suffer a one-third cut in payments.

In response to the outcry over this stingy behaviour, Lam responded: "I am over 60 years old, but I still work for over 10 hours every day." These words are some of the most absurd I've heard a public figure make.

Setting aside the fact that we have massive reserves that would allow an increase, Lam's words are revealing. She pulled back the curtain on her complete disconnect from the trials and tribulations of ordinary folk.

We had hints of this disconnect much earlier when Lam struggled to use an octopus card on public transport. She also didn't know where to buy toilet paper. After years of a pampered existence at the top of the civil service, she's immune to the struggles of ordinary folks.

In September 2018, the morning after Typhoon Mangkhut, she went to an insurance conference. As the rest of Hong Kong reeled from the damage, Lam posed on stage. She declined to consider giving a day off to recover despite the blocked roads, failing rail system and other potential risks.

For Lam, in her police-escorted limousine, it's business as usual as the rest of us braved the mayhem. At one point the crowds in Tai Wai rail station became so large police feared a disaster. Meanwhile, Lam is oblivious to this.

As the extradition saga unfolded, Lam had several opportunities to step back. She could opt to slow matters, reassess and take the measure of public opinion. Yet on each occasion, she ignored the signs, to charge forward.

As the extradition saga unfolded, Lam had several opportunities to step back. She could opt to slow matters, reassess and take the measure of public opinion. Yet on each occasion, she ignored the signs, to charge forward.

On June 9, a massive protest makes its way from Victoria Park to government headquarters. The organisers say around a million people have rallied against the extradition bill. Police put the protest numbers at 240,000.

Violent skirmishes break out later that night between radical activists and police. This significant turnout, no matter it was a million or not, should have alerted Lam. Nonetheless, she vows to table the bill in LegCo.

On June 12, another large turnout brings hundreds of thousands to the streets. Then police fire rubber bullets and tear gas as rioters attack the LegCo building. Rioters injure many officers.

It takes two days for Lam to announce a delay in the bill's reading. Not satisfied with the government's response, large crowds gather for a march on June 16. Lam then issues a written apology to the public after the second massive protest in a week.

As violent protests continue, Lam announces on June 18 the suspension of all work on the extradition bill. She does not use the word 'withdrawn' one of the critical demands of the protesters.

An astute politician, sensing the public mood, would step-back and 'withdraw' the bill much earlier. That Lam blindly pressed ahead fueled public anger. When that fury burst forth on July 1 with the sacking of LegCo, the thin veneer of public order evaporated.

Since then matters have escalated with rioting in various districts. Lam remains impassive except to make the odd lacklustre press statement. It's no longer possible to gauge if Lam is in charge.

She's announced nothing of importance in weeks, only appearing from behind the wall to condemn the protesters. You have to ask, who's running the show? The answer to that raises more questions.

It's easy to criticise, so what would be the alternative approach. For starters, Lam needs to utter the words' withdrawal'. Be clear that the bill has gone.

Next, announce a wide-ranging enquiry into all aspects of the saga, including who instigated the violence, the police response and role of various parties.

At the same time, Lam must state that under no circumstances will anyone get an amnesty. The paramount importance of the 'rule of law' must take precedence. Further, make it clear that those who engage in violent protests will face swift action.

Then, as a matter of urgency, ensure the police take robust enforcement action against violent acts. And yes, I expect a few tough weeks with possible injuries or worse. That's better than allowing this mess to rumble on for months.

In every engagement when the HKPF was allowed to use its measured tactics, it prevailed over the rioters. The problem is officers face flip-flopping decisions form above.

Plus, and this is critical, a political solution is needed. Even if the PLA arrive to suppress the riots, that doesn't address the underlying issue. Moreover, it creates new problems.

Lam needs to get out of her bunker and solve the mess she created. Not that she'll take a blind bit of notice. Given her record to date, I'm not holding my breath.

Last, with 2047 on the horizon, Hong Kong people need to seriously reflect what sort of relationship they want with the Mainland. Because attack and violence is not a game they can win.

There are no winners if the current troubles rumble on.

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."

Sun Tzu 545 BC to 470 BC

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.

0 Comments

12/7/2019 0 Comments

Dead as a Parrot!

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.

0 Comments

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

Carrie the Clueless

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."

Sun Tzu 545 BC to 470 BC

Dead as a Parrot!

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

Carrie the Clueless

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." Sun Tzu 545 BC to 470 BC

Dead as a Parrot!

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter

"Even the unqualified may sometimes have quick success, but even the most clever must fail in a protracted war. Prolonged warfare is never beneficial."

Sun Tzu 545 BC to 470 BC