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
|
|
28/7/2025 1 Comment Armageddon Out of Here "...the release of secret papers from the UK Government reveals that thoughts quickly shifted to the worst-case scenario, involving a mass exodus from Hong Kong." May 1997. Kai Tak Airport is swamped with passengers desperate for any available flight as airlines rush to add more services. The police are enforcing a queue that stretches through Kowloon City. Fights often break out as people attempt to jump the line. The night flight curfew is lifted while the runway remains open 24/7. People smuggling gangs are offering safe passage for exorbitant fees that transport families to the Philippines and Taiwan. The Hong Kong British administration is on the back foot and rapidly losing control as a mass exodus is underway. The rich have already fled by private jet and luxury yachts to well-appointed bolt-holes.  Thankfully, it didn’t happen. Yet in secret, the British prepared for a mass exodus scenario according to Cabinet papers released last week. Against the background of June 1989 in Beijing, Hong Kong’s confidence in the impending return to Chinese sovereignty wavered.
Over time, that confidence was restored, although in 1989 it was unclear which way we were heading. Such a mass exodus would have a profound and far-reaching impact on both the UK and Hong Kong, prompting officials to evaluate the potential consequences. All of this makes for fascinating reading for those of us who lived through these uncertainties. Working covertly, a Cabinet Office Committee called MISC 140 began assessing the complex challenges that could suddenly confront Britain. By late June 1989, it had initiated its contingency planning, with a sub-committee focusing on the ‘Armageddon’ scenario of a mass exodus. A proposed three-phase operation began with a Green Phase (planning), an Amber Phase (a crisis seems imminent), and the Red Phase (a mass exodus has already started). The terms of reference were “To devise plans to deal with the contingency of a large-scale exodus from Hong Kong in the period up to July 1997 and thereafter.” Officials soon realised they could not predict the timing or scale of any exodus, including when and how it would start. Also, surprisingly, despite Hong Kong's years as a colony, it is evident that officials in Whitehall had only a minimal understanding of the sentiment in Hong Kong. Relying on figures like Dame Lydia Dunn and other Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils (OMELCO) was akin to asking the landed gentry what miners thought in the 1930s. Britain's colonial mindset meant the planners were working in the dark. From the outset, the British aimed to leverage their experience from the 1972-73 Ugandan East African Asian crisis. That episode saw 30,000 people expelled from Uganda and arriving in the UK. Accommodation, reception arrangements, resettlement, schooling, and healthcare all needed to be provided. The Resettlement Board model, used during the Ugandan crisis, was to be adopted, although the scale would turn out to be much greater. The Board would oversee the reception and resettlement of all Hong Kong refugees, including matters such as language training and employment. This work was kept so secret that only the Hong Kong Governor was informed; the Hong Kong Government was excluded from the entire process. The belief was that such planning could further undermine confidence in Hong Kong among the local population and international partners. Moreover, the Brits had no idea how China might respond. The UK planners considered various scenarios, ranging from quiet emigration to a sudden rush akin to the Vietnamese boat people saga. In either case, it was expected that the UK might need to accept a large number as part of its moral obligation. However, the planners soon accepted that Britain couldn’t handle any mass departure alone. Furthermore, the impact in the UK was expected to be significant and enduring. One paper examined the potential for a notable rise in arrivals in the UK by commercial airlines, with the UK largely unprepared for this influx. As a result, measures were introduced to improve the monitoring of people's movements. Various papers, briefing documents, and policy discussions explore all aspects of the different scenarios in commendable detail, with clarity about the logistics that emphasise the immense challenges likely to be faced. Focusing solely on the aspect of transporting a large number of people, calculations showed that it would take 250 Boeing 747 Jumbo jets to move 100,000 passengers. Since Kai Tak Airport could only handle 75,000 passengers at a time, operating continuously, the scale of any airlift was immense. Furthermore, at any given moment, the airport could only accommodate 40 747s. Neither the RAF nor the Royal Navy had enough resources to assist, except on the fringes. To expedite the relocation process, planners considered the possibility of shuttle flights to destinations such as the Philippines, which would operate refugee holding centres. Based on this, 50 747’s could transport 2.3 million refugees from Hong Kong to Manila within a few months. This assumes that the necessary facilities are in place to receive, accommodate, and transfer these individuals. However, gaining the support of the host government was seen as problematic. Transporting 100,000 people by sea to the Philippines costs £40 million*, while doing so by air costs £21 million. Meanwhile, it is estimated that reception centres would cost £5 million to accommodate a million people. Another option considered was relocating people to Sydney on a temporary basis - assuming the Australians agreed. All this detail highlighted the chilling scale and complexities of such an operation. Even the possibility of requesting a US military airlift is mentioned, though I imagine that would not go down well in Beijing. The planners expected that sea evacuation could transfer 2.4 million people using 143 cruise ships, which would operate for between 14 and 28 days. They considered cruise ships shuttling back and forth to Taiwan. Why pick Taiwan is not clear. But again, the political repercussions of this option could be significant. This idea suggests ignorance on the part of the planners over the sentivities of such a move. Moreover, such an exercise could cost £800 million just to get to Taiwan. The UK taxpayer might have concerns about that. In their deliberations, the planners assumed that China would accept significant emigration from Hong Kong, although no evidence was provided to support this assumption. Elsewhere, the planners recognised that the Chinese could prevent ships from leaving Hong Kong, and under international law, had the right to challenge any vessels passing through their waters. Several documents discuss the likely impact in the UK of mass arrivals. It becomes clear that the UK could not manage an influx of several million from Hong Kong without international help. Therefore, proposals for an international conference to gather support are outlined. A detailed analysis of the likely impact on Britain is included in the Corry Report commissioned by the South China Morning Post. The planners cite this report. In a few instances, the benevolent face of the British officials slips: a policy paper notes that “Moves by China to stem emigration to the UK might be in our interest.” When discussing the offer of citizenship, a recurring theme emerged: attracting the brightest and most capable from the business community to invest in Britain by giving them priority. However, this approach conflicts with the often stated goal of keeping Hong Kong a sustainable entity by anchoring local businesses. The bipolar nature of the UK's strategy was also clear in other areas. The British clearly aimed to limit the number of Hong Kongers allowed to land in the UK and they sought to regulate the quality of those admitted. Nonetheless, they rightly observe that well-qualified individuals had better opportunities in the US, Canada, and Australia, which are preferred destinations for many. And while press releases claimed that the British aimed to protect the Hong Kong citizenry, plans for extraction by sea indicated that the limited Royal Navy assets should be reserved solely for politicians and a few specially chosen individuals. In one revealing document, the Governor is criticised for not ensuring that British companies obtained a substantial share of the contracts for the new airport project. And, notably, concerns are voiced about securing the cooperation of the Hong Kong Government in managing any visa scheme for those heading to the UK. It appears that full cooperation was not taken for granted, and negotiations would be necessary. Indeed, discussions about funding the upkeep of the British military in Hong Kong suggest local politicians had cards to play and asserted their influence. The discussion on granting visas for residency in the UK involved extensively debated legal issues, not to mention the UK's aim to limit numbers. Then, the additional complication of the Vietnamese Boat people is introduced into the equation. To the sceptical eye, all this planning could be seen as an attempt by the British to extract the best talent from Hong Kong and leave behind a barren place with a depleted population. Therefore, it's no surprise the matter was kept secret. After all, Beijing had already expressed legitimate concerns that the new airport project might reduce Hong Kong’s reserves, leaving the treasury empty after 1997. In the end, the released papers offer no definitive solution; instead, what we have is some ‘blue sky thinking’ or ‘scenario planning’. More details in future releases may shed light on how British planning progressed. It’s commendable that the UK sought to consider these issues, although it was blinkered by a lack of deep understanding of the mood here in Hong Kong at the time. This lack of comprehension remains an ongoing issue. Nevertheless, it cannot be overstated that Britain was not in the driving seat here. China and the people of Hong Kong would determine any outcomes, with the British simply responding. Fortunately, none of these contingencies turned out to be necessary as the pragmatic outlook of the Chinese prevailed. (* All costings are based on 1989 prices.)
1 Comment
 "The super injunction was so broad that it even silenced and restrained the Speaker of the House, effectively undermining Parliament's sovereignty—the very foundation of British democracy." I’ve long believed that British democracy is a pantomime, a shameless façade designed to give the illusion that the public is in control. In reality, behind closed doors, influential figures hold power and sway largely without scrutiny.
And yet, these same people love repeating the mantra that the “mother of parliaments” is the best because it allows citizens to elect representatives who hold the government and civil servants accountable for policies and how the country's limited funds are allocated. All of this, we are told, is intended to ensure maximum transparency. Then, last week, the curtain was drawn aside to reveal what had been hidden. The idea of accountability is a cruel charade. The Afghan data leak makes this clear. It is essential to examine the details to understand the deception involved. However, at its core, a judge colluded with the government to impose a super-injunction that concealed a major data breach, substantial public expenditure, and put lives at risk. Furthermore, this was concealed from Parliament and the public for over three years. Governments of all hues, Labour and Conservative, participated in this deception. This disastrous saga starts with the poorly conceived and ill-fated invasion of Afghanistan by U.S.-led allied forces in 2001 to eliminate Al-Qaeda and oust the Taliban from power as part of the post-9/11 response. After the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, unimaginable horrors, the displacement of millions, the expenditure of between $4 and $6 trillion, and years of chaos, the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan in scenes of utter chaos. Many parties share blame in this tale of poor judgment, overconfidence, and incompetence. For the British, Tony Blair initiated the process with his steadfast support for George W. Bush’s war on terror. Alongside Alistair Campbell, Blair's spin doctor, who some claim manipulated documents to justify British involvement, including exaggerating the risks to the UK. (I’m being careful with my words here, for legal reasons) Along the way, it’s alleged that Blair and his team aimed to silence critics while pressuring the intelligence community to produce dubious assessments, as they wanted a war at any cost. (A challenging side story is what happened to weapons expert Doctor David Kelly.) This led to a pointless conflict. All subsequent British leaders and senior officials followed the same path, until the US suddenly withdrew in 2021. The British taxpayer faced a bill of £32.8 billion in 2024/25 prices for 20 years of unnecessary involvement. More importantly, 457 British personnel lost their lives. An uncounted number suffered severe injuries, trauma, and high rates of suicide. Well done, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell! In their rush to leave, the British left thousands of Afghans behind who had assisted them as translators and support staff. With the Taliban's return to power, these individuals and their families faced a grave risk. After the Taliban regained power in 2021, a plan to rescue vulnerable Afghans was launched, with Britain seeking to fulfil its moral duty to those who had supported them and now faced a bleak future. Then, in early 2022, the personal information of about 18,700 Afghans who had applied to come to the UK was leaked by a hapless official. That list eventually appeared on Facebook. Only then did the matter finally come to the attention of panicked ministers and officials, who learned of the breach in August 2023. They immediately sought an injunction to prevent any public discussion of the issue. During the application process, Mr Justice Knowles granted the request “contra mundum” – against the world – and ruled that the leak remain secret, resulting in an unprecedented super-injunction that stayed in place until it was lifted on Tuesday, 15 July. Meanwhile, the UK was secretly extracting people from Afghanistan and managed to get out 4000 of 70,000. These people were housed on military bases, with approximately 20 per cent of military real estate allocated to the operation. That operation cost £7 billion, while British pensioners faced cuts to their winter fuel allowance. The super injunction was so broad that it even silenced and restrained the Speaker of the House, effectively undermining Parliament's sovereignty—the very foundation of British democracy. In a slow drip of information, we’ve now learnt that the names of British spies and special forces came out in the data leak. And still, the official who leaked the details remains unpunished. Over the course of three years, media outlets became aware of this imbroglio and sought to have the super-injunction overturned. Time and again, officials argued that the super injunction must remain in place to prevent the Taliban from gaining access to the list. Journalist Louis Goodall details how he was gagged here. It is now clear that the Taliban had the list from the very beginning. Therefore, it appears officials misled the courts, as the super injunction only served to protect ineffective British officials and safeguard ministers' reputations. All of this has raised numerous questions. Prime Minister Kier Starmer is launching an inquiry (of course, he is) and relying on a parliamentary committee to conduct the investigation. He did a similar thing with the rape gang controversy before being forced to establish a public inquiry with full powers to call witnesses. Foremost among the questions is what other super-injunctions serve as hiding places for government failures? Maybe none. We just don’t know. The case for democracy is that it allows for the removal of corrupt and incompetent politicians at regular intervals. However, what if the act of rotating politicians only scratches the surface, as the true ‘controllers’ remain in place, operating from the corridors of Whitehall with impunity? With experts agreeing that the UK is on the edge of major public disorder, democracy feels fragile.  "In the deadly game of nuclear brinkmanship, Trump has just reset the rules to there are no rules." I picked up "Nuclear War - A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen at Manchester Airport while waiting for a 14-hour flight to Hong Kong. It was part of a 'buy one, get one 50% off' deal. I was initially more interested in the other book, which focused on advances in AI.
However, as I waited to board my flight, I started reading, and by the time I arrived in Hong Kong, I had finished Jacobsen's book. The book reads like a thriller, offering a second-by-second, minute-by-minute account of a nuclear war. Although the book captivated me, I still wish I hadn't bought it. The story it tells is genuinely terrifying and nightmarish. The awful image it leaves is now ingrained. Jacobsen's Wikipedia entry describes her as an investigative journalist specialising in war, weapons, and secrets. She has authored seven titles, including one about the events at Area 51. Because of this, some people label her a conspiracy theorist and dismiss her work accordingly. In "Nuclear War - A Scenario", Jacobson describes a series of events that could lead to nuclear conflict on a scale capable of devastating the entire planet and endangering humanity. We all know that nuclear war is catastrophic, yet Jacobson, drawing on extensive research and consulting numerous experts, depicts a truly terrifying scenario. Moreover, any comfort felt that the Cold War has ended must be set aside. She argues that the current systems and doctrines for nuclear weapons use, which lack time for decision-making or communication towards de-escalation, and the mutual distrust among nuclear-armed states pose a significant risk in themselves. None of this is new. Nevertheless, Jacobsen draws many threads together, including how cascading decision processes provide no escape route from Armageddon. The saga that Jacobson describes involves an initial attack by North Korea against the United States. A single intercontinental ballistic missile flies towards the Pentagon, and almost simultaneously, a submarine fires a missile at a nuclear power plant on the Californian coast. As these attacks unfold, the U.S. president has mere minutes to decide on a response while simultaneously being evacuated from the White House, which will be within the blast radius of the missile aimed at the Pentagon. I'm giving away spoilers here. Although the book itself is a work of fiction, it is based on a possible scenario and explains how a response to a nuclear attack might unfold. In brief, 'deterrence' has failed. Nevertheless, U.S. policy advocates a devastating counterstrike to eliminate the North Korean leadership. However, because the U.S. does not know their exact locations, millions of innocent North Korean civilians will be targeted to decapitate the country's leadership. It's a holocaust delivered from the sky as hundreds of nuclear missiles strike North Korea. In the process, South Korea and China suffer immediate collateral damage. Jacobson describes in grim detail the impact of a nuclear weapon on a modern city. While the atomic blast itself is truly terrible, what follows is a vast, all-consuming fire. Furthermore, Jacobson considers a possible scenario in which an EMP weapon detonates high above the United States, completely disabling the entire power grid, computer systems, and all related infrastructure. Within seconds, the U.S. regresses to a pre-electricity, pre-computer, and pre-modern state, leading to total societal collapse. In response to the attack from North Korea, the United States launched missiles towards the regime in Pyongyang. Some of these missiles must fly over Russia to reach their targets. With the U.S. President out of position and the Russians distrustful of what America is doing, believing the attack is aimed at them. The Russians followed their doctrine to launch missiles against the United States. In making that decision, they have also seen NATO activating its systems in response to the events in the United States and believe this is all part of a pre-emptive strike against Russia. In the final twist of this hellish cascade of events, the remaining nuclear forces available to the United States are now under the command of the Secretary of Defence because the president is believed to be dead and the vice president is unavailable. Operating from an airborne command post, the U.S. now launches a barrage of missiles against Russia based on a 'use them or lose them' strategy. Meanwhile, Russia is also attacking major military centres in Europe. And all of this has happened within just a few hours. Hundreds of millions of people are dead, dying, blind, or suffering severe burns and lacerations, requiring urgent medical attention. None will come because medical facilities no longer exist or are unable to function. Plus the sheer number of injured is beyond capacity by a factor of several million. Now, a vast cloud of radioactive material is spreading across the globe. Pushed into the upper atmosphere, sunlight is blocked. A nuclear winter has begun, effectively halting food production for decades. A human-triggered mass extinction event is underway. Even when that winter eases and the skies clear, the sun's life-giving light remains a hazard because the ozone layer is gone. Small traumatised groups of humans cling on as hunter-gatherers, scratching out an existence in caves and underground structures. It will take centuries for them to emerge onto the planet's surface fully. The sequence of events Jacobsen provides is plausible, except for the U.S. president parachuting from a doomed helicopter to avoid an expected nuclear blast. That seemed too contrived and downright ridiculous. For her scenario, Jacobsen needed the president to be dead to show how the power to use atomic weapons shifted. Having him caught in the blast over Washington should have been enough. The point of the book is that only a few nuclear weapons are needed to cause global panic and trigger a response that quickly spirals out of control. Furthermore, a strike on a civilian nuclear facility results has exponentially more damaging effects as the reactors melt down and spent fuel rods burn, releasing radiation into the atmosphere. Eventually, all that radiation settles back to the ground, poisoning the very soil and water we depend on. Jacobsen is right to describe the mistrust between nuclear states as potentially catastrophic. Recently, President Trump claimed he had not decided when to strike Iran and even misled the UK Prime Minister with reassurances that the decision was not imminent. As a willing patsy, Starmer repeated these promises. Yet within days, Trump attacked Iran's key nuclear sites. Preparations were underway when Trump gave these assurances. Now, while you might argue that Trump's stance gave a tactical advantge in that it put Iran off guard. Yet, in the broader view, Trump has also fostered distrust. In short, can you believe anything Trump says? In Moscow and elsewhere, this deception will be recognised and logged. During the next crisis, will Trump's assurances hold any value? Essentially, he has shown North Korea that only by keeping their nuclear weapons can they feel secure. Others will draw the same conclusion from these events. Thus, in the deadly game of nuclear brinkmanship, Trump has just reset the rules to 'there are no rules.' Critics have attacked Jacobsen's book as disaster porn and anti-nuclear weapon propaganda. They argue that, to date, 'deterrence' has been effective. Such critics say that Jacobsen gets her facts wrong but they appear unduly enthralled by the planning and thought that goes into the nuclear posture. Still, these individuals overlook the fact that 'deterrence' works until it doesn't. It is perhaps worth recalling that the same clique told us Saddam had nuclear and chemical weapons ready to strike at a moment's notice. The same clique, with all their clever systems of intelligence and war gaming, misinterpreted a civil war as a communist attempt to take over the world, leading to the Vietnam War. The same clique used cruise missiles to destroy a milk formula factory because flawed intelligence told them it produced chemical weapons. The list continues. History tells us things go wrong. Moreover, the deterrence strategy relies on rational actors. And history tells us humans can be irrational, and all our clever systems don't shield us from irrationality. Therefore, Jacobsen's book arrives at a critical moment. The book certainly has its flaws; However, as the blurb on the front states, every world leader should be encouraged to read it as a timely reminder. 1/7/2025 1 Comment Hong Kong 28 “Hong Kong has entered a period of stability, a beacon of calm in an increasingly chaotic world.” Not long ago, the accepted narrative in the West had Hong Kong finished. However, the 28th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule this week serves as a powerful testament to its resilience. It's a moment to pause and take stock of the situation.
The civil unrest of 2019/2020 is now behind us. Hong Kong has entered a period of stability, a beacon of calm in an increasingly chaotic world. Much of that chaos stems from events in the U.S. With Trump's return to the White House, America no longer even pretends to adhere to international norms. Treaties and agreements are discarded on a whim, while opponents and friends are bullied and/or bombed into submission. However, the only conflict where Trump has ever deployed troops is in California. Assailed by the icy blasts from Washington, Hong Kong becomes entangled in the rivalry between the U.S. and China. And yet, Trump 2 may prove a positive force as unforeseen consequences kick in, bringing unexpected benefits to Hong Kong. For starters, Hong Kong has reversed the investor exodus, challenging those who had been eager to speak of the city's financial decline. New listings have raised $13 billion this year, and that could increase to $25.5 billion, according to Deloitte. As Trump's on-and-off sanctions drove forward, Chinese companies struggled to obtain approval to access U.S. markets, and money flowed to Hong Kong. Following this trend, the Financial Times noted that large institutional investors are returning to Hong Kong as a safe and politically stable market. In truth, this is Hong Kong playing its traditional role as a gateway through which Chinese capital and international investors can operate. History, the common law system, and geography, especially Hong Kong's proximity to the Greater Bay Area (GBA), are all elements that make this possible. Singapore and Shanghai can't reproduce those factors. All this affirms Hong Kong's status as Asia's financial hub. Trump 2 is also helping drive leading academics and top-end STEM students towards Hong Kong. Visa revocations and stricter regulations introduced by Trump have led to a decline in Chinese students pursuing education in the U.S. With the authorities demanding access to social media posts and other intrusive actions, perceptions of a less welcoming environment have become widespread. Consequently, Hong Kong and other places are benefiting. In the race for dominance in AI and chips, could this deprive the U.S. of an advantage? Many experts argue that it could. To its credit, the Hong Kong government has reacted quickly with 'open door' initiatives that welcome this talent, including streamlined visa processes and support for research collaborations. Meanwhile, it would be remiss not to observe that Western politicians, who condemned Hong Kong for the measures it took to restore order in 2020, are now busy implementing much more draconian laws at home. For example, the police in England can now seize mobile phones and trawl through the contents without a warrant. These measures are amongst a raft of laws that have curtailed protest and free speech. Pot, kettle, black? Still, Hong Kong faces significant challenges. An ageing population and a low birth rate (not unique to Hong Kong) will put a strain on healthcare services and the economy. Like other places, the government is trying to implement family-friendly policies. These initiatives, including tax deductions, have shown some positive results. Unfortunately, I suspect that societal trends will be difficult to counter in the longer term. Remember, culture eats strategy for breakfast, and the culture is evolving away from the traditional family. With fewer workers, it is now common to see robots carrying out food delivery in restaurants. Likewise, cleaning robots and autonomous drive vehicles are rolling out. Expect more of that. On the housing front, some progress is being made, with the public housing scheme remaining the mainstay of government policy. With the most expensive housing market in the world - average home prices 20 times the median annual income - needy citizens face over five-year waits to get subsidised public housing. Thus, some 200,000 people live in subdivided flats, including the infamous cage homes. With bunk beds enclosed by wire mesh, shared bathrooms, and kitchens, these places have poor ventilation, pests, and are a fire hazard. Most of the residents are low-income elderly, unemployed individuals, or migrant workers. In such a wealthy city, cage homes remain a symbol of Hong Kong's housing crisis. The international media make great play of the issue often without comprehending the underlying issues. Journalists passing through Hong Kong delight in exposing the cage home issue as an 'exclusive', and the optics are terrible. Yet, I did not hear of a sensible, comprehensive solution offered by these instant experts. With only seven per cent of Hong Kong's hilly terrain used for housing and an extreme wealth gap, it's an unfortunate truth that cage homes fill a niche. At least the current government, under John Lee, is taking the problem seriously. Tighter regulations on subdivided flats, along with more enforcement action, are welcomed. Long-term solutions involve urban renewal, more affordable housing and quicker access to public housing. None of that can be achieved overnight. In the bigger picture, Hong Kong's future is tied to how China progresses, especially developments in the GBA conurbation, including Shenzhen and Guangzhou. With hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers crossing the boundary at weekends and during public holidays, the process of integration is organic and gathering pace. All this movement lays bare the fallacy that Hong Kongers fear the Mainland, which is a common misconception. Indeed, many seek medical and dental treatment on the Mainland, where quality care is available at cheaper prices. This activity, including dining and shopping, has led to Hong Kong's retail sector struggling. Hence, the empty shops and closing restaurants in some areas are a sign of another round of economic realignment. Nonetheless, that Hong Kong has survived the recent turmoil, both internal and external, is a testament to the inherent strength of this unique place. The city is well run, with world-beating public transport, is relatively crime free and our citizens enjoy the highest life expectancy on the planet. Many places aspire to such accolades, while in Hong Kong we often over look them. Chris Patten, the former governor, got many things wrong, but we agree on one thing: "Never bet against Hong Kong." |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2026
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed