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
|
|
29/9/2025 0 Comments Britcard - It won't happen! "Nobody in the UK raised a hue and cry when mandatory ID cards were imposed on colonial citizens" I find myself in unfamiliar territory, as I kinda agree with Sir Kier Rodney Starmer. He has announced that a UK digital identity is on the way—the modern equivalent of the identity card—and this is a good thing. He’s partially correct because the proposal will only work if supported by a raft of strident actions that Starmer appears unwilling to take.
The media already refers to the verifiable digital identity, which operates via an app, as the BritCard. But it's not going to happen. The UK public's reaction is swift, overwhelmingly negative, and offers yet another stick to beat Starmer’s struggling prime ministership. As a side issue, the handling of this policy is another sign that Starmer is pretty crap at this politics game. In Hong Kong, we are accustomed to carrying identity cards, just as citizens of many other countries do. Places such as Belgium, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Argentina, Chile, and many more require their citizens to carry their identity cards at all times. Other countries require citizens to obtain and possess a national ID card, but they do not legally enforce carrying it constantly. Clearly, Starmer is promoting this effort to address illegal migration, which the public has identified as one of its main concerns. However, reactions of ‘big brother’ and ‘state control’ have greeted the proposal. The fact that the idea originated and developed in the Tony Blair Institute does not help. He and his supporters remain deeply distrusted. Additionally, many social clips have heavily highlighted allegations that the platform managing the digital ID has Blair’s son as a significant shareholder. Taking firm stances, the discourse revolves around corruption, a global control agenda, and government overreach. The argument goes that the government wants the Britcard for verifying the right to work. Therefore, you will need to present it to get a job. However, this is viewed as the thin end of the wedge, as it may soon be required to produce the Britcard for various activities, leading to increased government control. Ultimately, an Orwellian system of “social credit” could be implemented. Given the current raging anxiety around freedom of speech in the UK and the overzealous policing of social media by police officers, the Britcard adds another hot ingredient to the spicy debate. And yet, most Brits already have multiple digital identities spread across passports, driving licenses and various banking apps. This rather defeats the arguments about privacy. Except that most systems in the UK aren’t joined up, whereas the Britcard will offer that opportunity. Nobody in the UK raised a hue and cry when mandatory ID cards were imposed on colonial citizens. Odd that. Hong Kong also introduced identity cards to address illegal migration, which threatened to overwhelm the then colony. The first identity cards were introduced in 1949 in response to the post-war influx of refugees from the mainland, which made it difficult to determine the population accurately. The 1949 ID card was a simple paper document. Initially, it was not compulsory for all residents; only the adult population were required to carry one. When I joined the police in 1980, a cheap-looking plastic identity card was in use. A red circle on the back indicated the holder didn’t have permanent residence and may be subject to deportation. Of course, this being a British colony, Expatriates didn’t carry identity cards. Things changed on June 2, 1980, with the introduction of compulsory carry laws, following the launch of the Hong Kong Identity Card Scheme for all citizens. Once again, the primary objective was to address the serious issue of illegal immigration. This scheme made it mandatory for all residents aged 11 and above to register and carry an ID card. This was Hong Kong's first computerised identity card, a plastic card with a laminated strip containing the holder's details, making it much harder to forge than the old paper versions. And with that, my role became much easier: I had access to criminal records that were swift, and I could determine if someone was wanted—a game changer. In June 2003, the Smart Identity Card was launched. This card contained an embedded microchip, which stored the holder's biometric data, including fingerprints and a digital photograph. This greatly enhanced security and reduced identity fraud. The chip also allowed the card to be used for automated immigration clearance through the e-Channel system and as an optional digital certificate for online transactions. A further upgrade in 2018 introduced new security features and increased durability to stay ahead of evolving forgery techniques. What is overlooked in the UK's current outcry is that the country has a notable history of identity cards, particularly during wartime. The UK first introduced national identity cards under the National Registration Act 1915. The primary reasons were military conscription, which enabled the government to monitor men of fighting age and identify those available for service. The ID cards also assisted with rationing and labour allocation as the war advanced. The scheme was discontinued shortly after the war ended in 1919. Identity cards were reintroduced at the start of World War II under the National Registration Act 1939. This legislation enabled universal registration: every citizen, including children, was issued a card with a unique National Registration number. The cards were crucial for managing the rationing system for food, clothing, and fuel. The government utilised them to track population movements, particularly after bombings or evacuations. After the war, identity cards continued to be used, but public backing diminished. The obligation to carry identity cards was abolished in 1952 following a public campaign and a notable court case, Willcock v. Muckle (1951). In more recent times, a brief scheme was introduced under the Identity Cards Act 2006. It was abolished in 2010 by the new coalition government due to concerns over cost, civil liberties, and effectiveness. Critics of the current policy in the UK argue that ID cards (digital or otherwise) have not reduced illegal migration to Germany and other countries. That may be true because these countries haven’t linked the ID cards to the quick identification and removal of illegal immigrants. That remains the central issue in the UK. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UK is bound by its provisions, and this convention offers avenues for illegal migrants to appeal, delay, and obstruct deportations. Until this issue is resolved, the Britcard is of limited use. Sure, it could help the government better assess the population size. Additionally, UK citizens are assigned a National Insurance number for employment purposes, which renders the Britcard redundant even before it is rolled out. No wonder citizens are suspicious. The Britcard could be effective if the UK acted swiftly to remove illegal immigrants. Here in Hong Kong, IIs from the mainland (which are very rare nowadays) are sent back the next day. The official Hong Kong government position, as stated by an Immigration Department spokesperson in 2012, is that Hong Kong has a "long-established policy of not granting asylum and we do not admit individuals seeking refugee status", citing fears that asylum seekers would abuse the system given the prosperity of the city's economy and liberal visa policy. Those asylum seekers who try and fail because, when asked “Why didn’t you claim asylum in safe countries on route here?”, they cannot provide a reasonable answer and their applications are rejected. In the UK, there is no appetite for the Britcard, and a government with no resolve to tackle illegal immigration beyond gesture politics. Until Starmer grasps the nettle of the ECHR, the Britcard is superfluous except as a weapon to attack him.
0 Comments
 Hamas, in response to Starmer’s actions, announced, “This is a victory for the justice of our cause.” To say that terrorism “pays off” feels morally repugnant. It immediately evokes images of shattered lives, unimaginable grief, and a profound breach of our collective sense of security. From a human perspective, terrorism is an unmitigated evil, a failure of politics and humanity. It never truly "pays" for the victims, their families, or the societies left to pick up the pieces.
At its heart, terrorism is not primarily about killing people. The violence serves a larger purpose. The real target is not the immediate victim but the audience watching—the government, the public, and the international community. Terrorism acts as a cruel form of psychological and political theatre meant to sway the emotions of millions. And yet, the British PM, in his usual nasal tone and stiff manner, has just rewarded Hamas for rapes, murders, and taking hostages by recognising the state of Palestine. That’s Hamas’s core aim. Hamas, in response to Starmer’s actions, announced, “This is a victory for the justice of our cause.” Hamas has affirmed why the UK is weak and that terrorism can be a horrifyingly effective strategy. It “pays off” not in a moral sense, but in a strategic one, by making Hamas’s claims legitimate. It “pays off” by giving Hamas a place at the negotiating table. Lastly, it “pays off” for Starmer, who is beholden to the extreme views of a segment of his electorate. Also, Starmer’s claim that Hamas will have no role in any future Palestine is meaningless. He will have no say. And that's probably for the best, given Britain’s involvement caused this mess. With the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the British promised a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. But they had already committed the same land to the Arabs as an independent state and assured the French government it would be an internationally administered zone in a volatile region. Then, after World War II, the Brits ran off, leaving the Arabs and Jews to fight over it. Of course, recognising the state of Palestine is a highly charged political and moral issue. While many see it as a crucial step towards justice and peace, I’d argue it is, in practical terms, a "pointless gesture” without substance. Diplomatic recognition does not, in itself, create a state. A functioning state requires a government with effective control over a defined territory, a permanent population, and the capacity to engage in international relations (the Montevideo Convention criteria). Hamas is currently running what remains of Palestine. Starmer’s actions change nothing on the ground: Israel militarily occupies the West Bank and controls its borders, airspace, movement of goods and people, and security. It continues to build and expand settlements. Hamas remains in control of Gaza, which is under a strict Israeli and Egyptian blockade. Recognition does not open a single crossing or improve living conditions for Gazans. The Palestinian Authority, which would be the beneficiary of recognition, only has limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank and is deeply unpopular. It has no authority in Gaza, meaning there is no single Palestinian government to rule a unified state. The long-standing framework for peace, supported by the UN and major powers like the US, is a two-state solution achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This attempt by Britain to drive itself into the negotiating process opens another front for Hamas by ”short-cutting" Israel. From this perspective, if Palestinians can gain statehood through international bodies without having to make difficult compromises, they have less reason to engage seriously in talks with Israel. All of this hardens the Israeli positions. This can empower hardline Israeli politicians who argue that negotiations are futile, leading to a more defiant stance. They will claim that once again, the West has let the Jewish people down. Furthermore, recognition creates a legal and diplomatic fiction: a state whose sovereignty cannot be truly exercised. Without control over borders, a state is not fully sovereign. Then again, Starmer does not understand this concept at home. I can only conclude that Starmer is virtue signalling to a domestic political audience in a move that requires no real sacrifice. Britain won’t be sending any troops for a peacekeeping mission. Amid major domestic issues and some of the lowest popularity ratings ever seen for a PM, Starmer is keen to divert attention away from his failure to curb illegal migration. Making pointless announcements on international matters gives him some cover. Nobody is fooled. As Brendan O’Neill suggests in The Spectator, “Forget playing fantasy states overseas, Sir Keir: fix the one you run.” 20/9/2025 0 Comments Storm Surge "Pause and consider it: a wave crashing up the Shatin Valley." It feels as though we are experiencing a typhoon nearly every two weeks at the moment. All eyes are on the approaching Super Typhoon Ragasa, which is expected to arrive on Tuesday. It is packing winds comparable to Typhoon Mangkhut in 2018, and warnings of a storm surge are already emerging. Hong Kong is no stranger to the destruction caused by typhoons. On 1st September 1937, an unnamed typhoon moved westward across Hong Kong Island. Wind speeds quickly reached 125 mph. The storm was small, intense, and agile. The Observatory anemometer broke, having exceeded its designed tolerance. Later assessments estimated wind speeds of up to 149 mph. Victoria Harbour, crowded with ships, bore the brunt of the initial impact. Vessels were pulled from their berths and driven ashore. Captains surrendered the fight to let their boats run aground. Around 600 ships are reported damaged, with hundreds of vessels sunk. Simultaneously, a storm surge caused water to crash through Wan Chai, Causeway Bay, and Central. Basements were flooded, as ground-floor premises were overwhelmed. Food stored in waterlogged warehouses is now unusable, as streets have turned into rivers. Only the steep terrain prevented further damage. As the storm moved westward, the back-end part was expected to cause much greater destruction. Around 1 am, the eye of the storm crossed over to the Mainland, bringing with it fierce winds and heavy rain. Unfortunately, the peak of the gale coincided with a high tide. The swollen waters of Mirs Bay pushed westward with significant force, sweeping through Starling Inlet, Tolo Harbour, and Tide Cove. Constrained by the terrain in the Tolo Channel, the surge gained momentum. It stored energy. As it struck the shoreline, that energy was released. A wave the height of two double-decker buses swept inland without mercy. The residents of Shatin and Tai Po had no warning. The area was considerably less populated than it is today. The Shatin Valley, a narrow floodplain, was home to a farming community. Villages and hamlets were grouped together. The Kowloon-Canton Railway follows the route it uses today. There are no tall buildings, no concrete channels, as the Shing Mun River winds its way to the sea. There was no racecourse, while Ma On Shan was a small community. As the destructive wave charged inland, it destroyed everything in its path. All along the coast from Ma On Shan to Tai Po Market, roads, bridges, and homes vanished. The railway embankment was swept away, and then the railway tracks collapsed. At Tai Po Market, 60 homes and their occupants disappeared. The flood rolled towards Tai Po Kau, over half a mile inland. It carried battered humans, cattle, pigs, dogs, ducks, and debris with it. Estimates of the number killed range from 10,000 to 12,000. However, this was not the first such surge; similar events happened in 1874, 1906, and 1923. The public blamed the Observatory. Using rudimentary science, the Observatory's warnings proved insufficient. Over time, the importance of storm surge forecasting became clear. By 1975, it was vital. The growth of new residential and industrial areas on reclaimed land heightened the risks. New towns meant more people were in danger.  Predicted Track of Super Typhoon Ragasa by Windy.com In the 1970s, the Observatory computerised the study of surges: tide monitors, satellites, and other technology supplied data to the system. Using computer modelling leads to better predictions. The government then set up a dedicated Storm Surge Unit in January 1978. Since 1994, the Observatory has used the SLOSH model to predict surges with afair degree of success.
Nonetheless, predicting the surge is one thing. It doesn’t resolve the question of what you should tell people to do. What are the escape routes? Where should people shelter, and who is coordinating? Furthermore, modern developments have reduced Tolo Harbour's capacity to absorb a tidal surge. In fact, we have increased the risk. The Plover Cove Dam, built in 1968, decreased available space. The engineers understood this, although the link to a potential tidal surge did not register with policymakers. Since the 1980s, development in Shatin, Ma On Shan, and Tai Po has encroached on Tolo Harbour. Reclamation and construction have reduced the area's capacity to dissipate a tidal wave. The Science Park is built on reclaimed land, as are sections of the Tolo Highway. The small wetland at Tai Po Kau, hemmed in by concrete, cannot help absorb the impact. With the Shing Mun River fixed by embankments, it will act to funnel any surge inland. Research indicates that a tide surge of nearly four metres is possible with the right combination of circumstances. Amplified by the limited space, the consequences are catastrophic. Pause and consider this fictious scenario based on modeling by HKO scientists. Imagine such a wave crashing up the Shatin valley. The first to be hit is the Marine Police Base at Ma Liu Shui. Next, it would smash through the Shatin Sewage Works, grabbing everything to carry it inland. A wave of toxic sewage now surges inland. The Shatin Racecourse track is submerged under water. The Tate’s Cairn Highway disappears as the surge pushes through the ground floor of the Shatin Hospital. Shoreline properties at Siu Lek Yuen are submerged under water. Underground car parks fill with foul, stinking sludge. The surge extends to Shek Mun and presses forward. Shatin City One residents get off lightly—the raised estate is protected by its podium levels. Across the river, Wo Che and Lek Yuen Estates are less fortunate, as ground-floor access is flooded. Next come New Town Plaza and Sha Kok Estate. Finally, the wave barrels into the narrow streets of Tai Wai. Che Kung Temple is waterlogged. Meanwhile, power is failing as sub-stations shut down. People trapped in lifts are unreachable by the Fire Services. With roads flooded, access is impossible. The sheer number of calls overwhelms the mobile telephone system, causing it to shut down. Shatin Police Station comes to a halt due to a flooded compound. Ma On Shan Police Station is situated at a higher level and escapes the worst. Tin Sum Police Station is similarly protected by its elevation, although it is operating on emergency power. Meanwhile, similar events are happening in Tai Po. The low-lying industrial estate is flooded. The gas plant automatically shuts down as fail-safe systems activate. Parts of Tai Po Town Centre are submerged. The East Rail and Ma On Shan lines are halted. Tragically, residents in Providence Bay, next to the Science Park, pay a terrible price. Their waterfront homes bore the worst of the surge. The ground floor flats are flooded with water and debris. Across Shatin and Tai Po, people have died. Many more were injured. The retreating waters leave behind a mass of untreated sewage, human remains, and sludge. The risk of disease is high. Tolo Harbour, filled with floating cars, carcasses, and assorted debris, drains towards the sea. I’m sure that these days, early warnings would alert us to a surge, hopefully preventing much death and destruction. For this to happen, a well-resourced, tested, and properly executed plan must be in place. While just under one million people live in the Shatin, Ma On Shan, and Tai Po areas, not all are at risk. Many developments are on high ground and are therefore unlikely to be directly affected, although they may experience power outages, transportation disruptions, and water supply issues. Certainly, it is possible to avoid this. Constructing a surge barrier across the Tolo Channel would safeguard the area. At its narrowest point, the channel is approximately 1.5 km wide. A movable flood barrier similar to the Thames Barrier should be technically feasible and might become necessary as sea levels continue to rise. Meanwhile, the government requires a strong evacuation plan. Rapidly withdrawing citizens from flood-prone low-lying areas is essential. There is no place for complacency. It has occurred before; it will occur again.  "Mandelson told journalists who questioned him about Epstein to, "Fuck off" - not the most diplomatic response." Lord Peter Mandelson, the British Ambassador to Washington, has been fired. Mandelson's close relationship with a notorious convicted sex trafficker was well-known, but recent revelations point to Mandelson lying about details of that relationship. Indeed, much of this should be no surprise, except to the willfully blind PM Kier Starmer, because Mandelson has a track record of imploding.
Mandelson is one of the most influential yet controversial British politicians of modern times, and he is once again at the centre of a political firestorm. Simultaneously, as the flames from the Epstein saga spread, President Trump struggles to dampen the blaze, as it threatens to engulf him. Now he faces a rekindling that is happening from an unexpected direction in the UK. For decades, Mandelson, a Machiavellian figure with a polite campness, built a reputation for underhand tactics and shady dealings that even involved Hong Kong affairs. With a sharp mind, coupled with relentless ambition, he has rarely been far from power. Now, he may have reached his nadir. Mandelson first gained public attention as the principal architect of New Labour, which propelled Tony Blair to power in 1997. He served three terms in the UK cabinet but was compelled to resign from high office twice. He was serving as Minister without portfolio in Tony Blair's first government in 1998, effectively acting as a key strategist and "spin doctor" alongside his role as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In December 1998, it was revealed that Mandelson had borrowed £373,000 from his fellow Labour MP and Treasury Minister, Geoffrey Robinson, to buy a house in London's upmarket Notting Hill. Mandelson had not declared this loan to his building society or to the Prime Minister's Office. This loan created a massive conflict of interest, as he was, in his official role, responsible for overseeing an investigation into Geoffrey Robinson's business affairs. The scandal was intensified by the culture of "sleaze" that New Labour had promised to eradicate from the previous Conservative government. Mandelson resigned from the government on 23 December 1998. He was later cleared of breaching any ministerial rules, but the damage had already been done. After a brief period back on the back benches, Tony Blair reappointed Mandelson as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 1999. In January 2001, it became known that Mandelson had contacted a Home Office minister, Mike O'Brien, to lobby on behalf of the Hinduja brothers, Indian billionaire businessmen seeking UK citizenship. The Hinduja brothers had donated £1M to the Faith Zone of the Millennium Dome, a project Mandelson had previously overseen. While an official inquiry later found that Mandelson had not misbehaved, the allegation stuck that he had used his influence to secure a favour for donors. The timing was terrible, coming so soon after his first resignation. Mandelson resigned for the second time on 24 January 2001. After his second resignation, Tony Blair helped secure Mandelson a position as the British European Commissioner in Brussels in 2004. He was reappointed for a second term in 2008. In October 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown brought Mandelson back into the UK cabinet as Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. To assume this role, Mandelson had to resign from his position in the European Commission. He became a compelling figure as Business Secretary and later First Secretary of State, serving as a vital stabilising force for Gordon Brown's government during the global financial crisis. This revival of Mandelson’s career was regarded as the "comeback of all comebacks." Throughout all this, Mandelson built a reputation that earned him the nickname, 'The Prince of Darkness.' At times, working alongside Alister ‘Goebbels' Campbell, he was known to bully journalists and feed the press stories as a distraction. Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, believes Mandelson targeted him in 1997 as part of Labour Party spin efforts to distract the media. Patten claims that Mandelson leaked a false story alleging he was under investigation for breaking the Official Secrets Act. This subterfuge still irritates Patten because he mentioned it again in a recent interview. Then again, Mandelson has a history of looking down on others, including Labour voters. "They've got nowhere else to go" was his response when Labour policies threatened to harm their core supporters. That statement hasn’t aged well because working-class voters are abandoning Labour in favour of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party. No doubt Patten and many others, journalists and politicians, will be relishing Mandelson's fate. Recently, the MSM awoke to the fact that Mandelson continued his support for Epstein after his conviction. In the process, reporters dug deeper to reveal the depth of Mandelson's relationship with Esptein. However, much of this information is already in the public domain, raising questions about the vetting process Mandelson underwent before his appointment. Mandelson was appointed ambassador to Washington in February this year; that raised many eyebrows. Some thought the appointment was brilliant, considering Mandelson's flattery towards Trump was seen to work, although it was excessive. Others anticipated a considerable risk because of Mandelson's history. Unfortunately, Starmer either didn't count on the Epstein factor or ignored advice. Mandelson enjoyed stays at Epstein's infamous pedo island, rode on his private jet and used his New York mansion. Mandelson told journalists who questioned him about this to "Fuck off" - not the most diplomatic response. When pressed, Mandelson would insist he was unaware of Epstein's illegal actions and would express regret for having met him. However, the evidence now suggests Mandelson lied. The release of Epstein's 2003 50th birthday book and emails point to Mandelson supporting the sex offender after his conviction, offering advice on how to appeal and expressing his 'love' for Epstein. Comments like 'yum, yum' and 'my best pal' are hard to reconcile with Mandelson's claims. In a June 2008 email, Mandelson wrote to Epstein: "I think the world of you, and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened. I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain. You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can." It continued: "Everything can be turned into an opportunity, and you will come through it and be stronger for it." Just before sentencing, Mandelson wrote to Epstein, "You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can. The whole thing has been years of torture, and now you have to show the world how big a person you are, and how strong." In July 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein's townhouse in Manhattan while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor. In 2010, following Epstein's release from prison, Mandelson asked for his assistance to arrange a deal for JP Morgan to buy a stake in the UK government-owned RBS bank. All these facts, which Mandelson does not deny, reveal a deception in which he claims he ended contact and feels great sympathy for Epstein's victims. The truth is that Mandelson continued to utilise his relationship with Epstein. He even offered Epstein support after his conviction, asserting, "Your friends love you." After dithering in the face of the evidence, Starmer sacked Mandelson today (Thursday, 11 Sept). All of this raises questions about Mandelson's vetting process. Even the information in the public domain before this week suggested Mandelson had misled about his relationship with Epstein. If, as Starmer claims, "Proper checks were done," then questions emerge about the thoroughness of those checks or whether anything was swept under the carpet. Even yesterday, Starmer was asserting his confidence in Mandelson, a stance that appeared unsustainable. Which brings us to Trump. Mandelson's appointment was all about securing a trade deal for the UK with a tariff-obsessed Trump. And by all accounts, Mandelson has ingratiated himself with Trump and his team. However, Trump also features in the Epstein 50th birthday book—an entry that Trump claims is fake. Trump has worked tirelessly to distract the media from his connections with Epstein. He will not welcome this flare-up of media attention. Mandelson has admitted his entry in the book is genuine, as have many other contributors. The 238-page book contains messages and photos sent by many of Epstein's friends, including a letter bearing a signature that resembles that of President Donald Trump. This puts Trump in a tricky position. Why, out of all the entries, is only his fake? Is that possible? Is that believable? Next week, Trump is scheduled to visit the UK on a State visit. That should be entertaining for Starmer and the King, as the Epstein story persists and once again makes headlines. Starmer’s judgment is now the focus of much attention. A week after he sacked his deputy, his government is looking increasingly lost. And he still has three years to go. Meanwhile, the corpse of Peter Mandelson's political career is burning in the blaze of publicity. For a man who enjoyed the high life and sought the company of the rich and famous, this downfall is mainly due to his own actions. Why do such talented men fall for the allure of luxury, peddled by tricksters? I’m sure there is a study somewhere into this. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808) 6/9/2025 1 Comment Stunning EU Ignorance "In China, both Nationalist and Communist forces fought a relentless campaign that tied up Japanese resources." Among all the images from Beijing this week, the one that genuinely alarms the West isn't the truckloads of nuclear missiles, nor the hypersonic projectiles, nor the latest drones or precision drill by line after line of troops. What truly unsettles the West is the picture of three men greeting each other.  The sight of Xi, Modi, and Putin together sent a clear message that the centre of geopolitical influence has shifted. And for that, we can thank President Trump. In a matter of months, he's managed to alienate both friends and foes; indeed, sometimes it's challenging to tell if he fully understands the difference. If the statement that "states don't have friends, only interests" is true, then Trump has taken that to the extreme. Along the way, he's dealt the final blow to a rules-based world order. China is now filling the space left by Trump: presenting itself as a stabilising influence, a country that acts rationally as it attempts to maintain the line against Trump's mercurial approach to geopolitics. The events in Beijing, commemorating the 80th anniversary of Japan's defeat in World War II, including the military parade, have prompted widespread reflection in the EU, where the influence of Trump's actions is leading to a swift reassessment of policies and military expenditure. Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that the officials representing the EU have notable gaps in their understanding of history and the reasons behind China's actions. Ms Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, responded to the anniversary with shocking ignorance. She took to the TV to claim that China was trying to shape the narrative and inflate its role in WWII to gain favour with the Global South. It quickly became clear she didn't know that China's war began in 1931, when Japan invaded. That's a full eight years before the war arrived in Europe and ten years before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. She then goes on to claim that Russia's assertion that it fought the Nazis is "something new". Really. The chart below details the deaths during the war; the Soviet Union and China suffered the highest toll.  Let's be clear, the Soviets did the bulk of the fighting against the Germans, responsible for about 70% or 80% of all German casualties. In China, both Nationalist and Communist forces fought a relentless campaign that tied up Japanese resources. Indeed, the war against Japan in the Pacific was a collaborative effort between China and the US.
To gain some further perspective, the US military casualty count for the war is around 400,000 dead overall. Meanwhile, the Soviets lost approximately the same number of troops in a single battle at a place called Rzhev. And while the US supplied much of the war-fighting material across all fronts, the British and their Empire contributed large numbers of troops. In terms of military and civilian deaths, China paid a far higher price than the UK or the US. Those deaths include the horrors of the Nanjing massacre and activities of the infamous Japanese Unit 731. Research suggests that Unit 731 killed at least 12,000 Chinese men, women and children in gruesome experiments. Without Chinese resistance, Japan might have freed up hundreds of thousands of troops to confront the British in India and oppose the US retaking the Philippines. China was responsible for approximately 25% of Japan's losses in the Pacific War. Furthermore, with Germany's defeat in May 1945, the Soviets shifted their focus to attacking Japan, beginning with the invasion of Manchuria on 9 August 1945. Some historians argue that this event, along with the atomic bombings (the Nagasaki bomb was dropped on 9 August 1945), prompted Japan to surrender. As a boy, I enjoyed watching Saturday afternoon war films and read the works of Captain Liddell Hart. From that perspective, the British had won World War II with a bit of help from the Americans, who arrived late as usual. Only later, with broader reading and travel, did I realise that the truth was elsewhere. All of this escaped the hapless Ms Kallas, who should hang her head in shame. The sacrifice of the Chinese is not narrative, but hard facts. And, of course, none of this detracts from the individual effort made by millions of people from all races and nations. Nevertheless, Ms Kallas should consider why China is celebrating this anniversary with such grandeur instead of dismissing it. If she reflects the calibre of EU officials, it's alarming. A question then arises: how can the EU formulate effective policies, navigate diplomatic nuances, and address complex geopolitical issues when led by such a lack of understanding? 6/9/2025 0 Comments High Hypocrisy "Watching events in the UK this week, there are echoes of Hong Kong’s recent history." At the drop of a hat, British politicians and commentators cannot resist criticising Hong Kong. Any perceived breach of their lofty ideals can spark a wave of outrage over rights and freedoms. However, it's unfortunate they don't apply the same standards at home.
In the latest display of British high-hypocrisy, five armed counter-terrorism officers removed a middle-aged comedian and playwright from a plane upon arrival at Heathrow, London. This gallant response by specialist officers was mounted because the culprit allegedly posted hurtful words on X. With the UK terrorist threat at "substantial," deploying these officers was considered appropriate. Had any terrorist chosen this moment to launch an attack, they would have had a clear shot. However, one must prioritise correctly: evidently, rushing to arrest Graham Linehan was more urgent. After all, the wounded feelings of some cross-dressing complainant must take precedence over the threat to life. Linehan, an Irish citizen, posted the offending tweets while living in the US four months before his arrest in the UK. This transnational reach of laws is something that irked Hong Kong's critics when the National Security Law took effect. You can't have it both ways. Linehan's situation would be amusing if it were isolated, but it occurs within a long history of similar cases. So, while the police claim to be stretched thin fighting knife crime, they always appear able to muster groups of officers to raid someone's home at 5 am over an ill-advised social media post. Other notable recent cases include parents complaining about a school, which led to a police raid, holding them in cells for 11 hours and seizing their computers. Then there is the fireman who grumbled about his boss: the police raid his home, and bail conditions are imposed that prevent him from telling anyone. Perhaps the most notable case is that of Lucy Connolly, 42, a distressed mother, who was sentenced to 36 months in prison for a tweet she deleted within three hours after recognising her overreaction to the murder of three girls. Connolly had recently lost a child, and her reaction to the slaughter of young children in the Southport massacre is understandable. After Axel Rudakubana murdered three schoolgirls in Southport, Connolly posted, "Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care." Clearly an inappropriate tweet, prompted by an incorrect belief that Rudakubana was an asylum seeker. The police allowed this misrepresentation to spread by not providing details of his background. The list continues as British police are arresting around 30 people a day for things they say on the internet. Meanwhile, detection rates for serious crimes, such as burglaries, have plummeted. One in 10 officers is 'health impaired' and unable to perform proper policing. Confined to a desk, they can only direct others to easier targets. Or is it the decades-long indoctrination by minority interest groups that influences police policy through the Police College? Certainly, these groups shape the tone of British policing, embedding their agendas into the culture, while senior managers bow and scrape at the woke altar. For sure, here in Hong Kong, we have specific red lines that should not be crossed due to their sensitivity. And yet, I enjoy greater freedom of speech here than in the UK. If I wish, I can openly challenge arguments about gender while using words and terminology that might offend. And if I do offend some sensitive soul, I'm not going to get the 5 am knock, have my computer seized, or be hauled off to the police station. Watching events in the UK this week, there are echoes of Hong Kong’s recent history. Reform Party leader Nigel Farage is speaking before Congress in Washington. He is calling for the US to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on the UK due to the Online Safety Bill, which he believes is stifling free speech. In response, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer accused Farage of "having flown to America to badmouth and talk down our country", adding: "He has gone there to lobby the Americans to impose sanctions on this country that will harm working people.” Others have gone so far as to accuse Farage of sedition and treason. Will the parallels be recognised when the judgment in the Jimmy Lai case is announced later this year? Because there is no doubt that Hong Kong will face another surge of intense hypocrisy led by the usual anti-Chinese circle. This particular clique appears consumed with a Jesuit's passions and a modern white man's burden. It’s as if the specter of empire has never left them. For people with such noble values, you would think their outrage over that horror show of child abuse within their domain would ignite their passion. But no. Then again, it requires a specific degree of religious zeal to reach such heights of self-deception and delusion. Even Yeshua would recognise their true nature: "He who never sinned cast the first stone" Nevertheless, our judiciary appears to function transparently and seems to be fair, based on my observations. Just this week, suspects were acquitted in a trial related to an attempted bombing in 2019, during the height of the troubles. If the government has fixed the system, as critics claim, wouldn't these suspects have remained in custody? To a remarkable degree, such fact-based arguments do not influence the zealots. Truth is an anathema to them. |
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