Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact
free rant unfiltered by rational argument. |
|
30/11/2020 1 Comment Taken For A Ride "In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads." Richard Hughes famously stated, "Power in Hong Kong resides in the Jockey Club, Jardines and Matheson, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, and the governor, in that order." Well, not much has changed then since the colonial days.
With Hong Kong's Covid cases exploding, as clusters breakout from dance groups and imported cases, you'd expect our officials to be vigilant. Instead, they are busy granting exemptions for jockeys at Hong Kong's favoured gambling syndicate. Given that schools are closing, care workers are struggling, and the majority can't earn such special treatment, people are right to raise hell. After all, some of these jockeys are coming from high-risk areas. And what has suddenly made the Jockey Club so risk-tolerant? They were one of the first to cut and run by cancelling race meetings in 2019 during the disturbances. I'm sure there is any number of Hong Kong-based organisations who could construct the same 'bubble' protocols as the Jockey Club professes to have. Are we to grant them all exemptions or only a favoured few? These exemptions illustrate the moral shadiness at the heart of a government; people question whether officials put gambling above public health. Our Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, heads the Covid Task Force. So where does the responsibility lay for these decisions? Meanwhile, we should be grateful to politician James Tien. He's exposed how Covid testing for airport arrivals and the related shambolic follow-up quarantine procedures are failing. If the account given by James Tien is accurate, and the evidence suggests it is, officials have shown a deplorable lack of diligence. For starters, the arriving passenger conducts the spit test in privacy. Without supervision, there is no verification that the person followed the guidelines. Specifically, did the subject draw saliva 'deeply' - whatever that may mean? The consequence could be a high false-negative rate. Experts agree adopting the medically supervised swab test may yield better outcomes. Second, subjects are tagged but not required to activate the tag immediately. There are reports of people wandering around shopping, visiting relatives and only activating the tag much later. In one reported instance, the subject waited 24 hours. This delay is possible because of the third gap in the procedures. Subjects must make their way to quarantine hotels usually using taxis. This movement is neither tracked nor supervised. Fourth, when in quarantine it is evident subjects are receiving visitors because hotels are not enforcing the rules. In one instance, a man in quarantine infected his visiting mother, who then passed the virus into the wider community. In short, lax procedures, poor controls and a failure to manage risks have brought us more cases as the virus spreads. This week Carrie Lam had given a series of interviews in an attempt to reset and polish her image. I'd prefer she spends her time putting in place suitably robust, risk-managed anti-Covid protocols. Also, Carrie needs to stop bowing to the usual vested interests. That way she'd earn genuine applause from the wider community.
1 Comment
24/11/2020 0 Comments The Cobra & the 'Horizontal Mambo' "Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded" Actions have consequences, and those consequences can be unforeseen. Fortunately, history is a great teacher if you bother to look. India under British rule experienced a surge in deaths due to venomous cobras, especially in Delhi. Keen to show a caring face, officials offered a bounty for every dead cobra.
In no time, the savvy folks of Delhi had cobra breeding pens at home as they capitalised on the prize. Officials realised the deceit, cancelled the bounty and the citizens released the cobras into the wild. Soon Delhi had even more cobras, and deaths escalated. Hence the 'Cobra effect'. History comes littered with such lessons. French colonials in Vietnam fearful of a burgeoning rat population offered a reward for rat's tails. Rat catchers went around removing tails and then releasing the rats to breed in the sewers—a nice earner for rat catchers, with no decrease in rat numbers. China's 'four-pests' campaign is another example. More recently, carbon credits proved a lucrative source of income for companies. Starting in 2003, the European Union gave industries disposing of polluting gases cash for their environmental efforts. Except that the companies churned out more of the most noxious gases for no other reason than to get payment. Carbon credits made these noxious gases profitable. By 2013 the EU wised up. I do wonder if our officials study history because they've announced a $5,000-HK reward to folks infected with Covid-19. Granted they've applied some payment stipulations, but these look surmountable and imprecise. There is no means test. Let's be clear; some people will be going out of their way to catch Covid-19 to secure payment. Social media is already alive with chat of possible Covid parties. Meanwhile, citizens who play by the rules, wear masks and practice social distancing go unrewarded. Is Hong Kong the only place paying people to become sick? Looks like it. I can't help but think the government is struggling to refute claims from the medical profession that compulsory testing will drive carriers underground. The argument goes that the working poor, who can't afford to forfeit days off work, won't come forward for testing. If that's the rationale, then $5,000-HK is a token gesture with potentially terrible consequences. Are any of the infamous 'dance cluster' in line for a payout? What are the majority of the population to think? Absolutely nothing rankles with the public more than the idea of rule-breakers rewarded. Their money is being siphoned off to support the utterly irresponsible. For the uninitiated, the 'dance cluster' is grabbing the Covid headlines. It's a story with all the tasty elements of a scandal; rich 'senior' ladies attending dance lessons with young male 'instructors' who are less well off. The instructors are mostly eastern European men, some with dubious claims to royal blood. Until now these 'dance clubs' operated below the radar. According to sources, the most popular dance is the 'horizontal mambo'. The blame falls to the 'dance cluster' for our current surge in cases. For a long time, it has struck me that officials either don't know or are blind to the mini-cultures and sub-groups in our society. The question needs asking 'Has anyone conducted an audit of activities that present a high-risk of Covid transmission because of behaviours?'. The recent terrible fire in Jordan and the 'dance cluster' suggest the authorities don't have the full picture. Reports are circulating of private parties in hotels, rented apartments and on boats. There is much going on in the veiled corners of society where officials aren't inclined to look. Is the next cluster coming from there? Instead of throwing public money around with potentially adverse repercussions, how about grappling with risks in a pro-active manner? Then put in place early interventions. Would I be straining creditability to suggest an excellent place to start would be Hong Kong's one-woman brothels, that daily serve hundreds of thousands of customers? Is there any action on that potential infection route? Or is Carrie and her team too prudish to recognise the reality of life? In the seemingly endless war of attrition against Covid-19, the government has done well, although the recent clusters suggest a dysfunctional approach in parts. Lastly, no word yet on a vaccine programme for Hong Kong. Other places are moving ahead to make plans. Come on, Carrie! 18/11/2020 1 Comment The Kardashians with castles "Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues" 'The Crown,' Series 4, now playing on Netflix, has finally caught up with my era. After a flu vaccination knocked me sideways for a day, a binge session got me through the fever and muscle soreness.
Spoiler alert: Diana has arrived on the scene to promptly throw up in a toilet, while Charlie boy is still horizontal-folk dancing with Camilla. In the real world, having spent the last decade seeking to polish Camilla's reputation, the pair can't be enjoying this retelling of the whole sorry saga. Even allowing for twisting of the facts, they don't come out of this well. Camilla's unfaithfulness to her husband gets written off 'because he's laying half of Gloucestershire'. Well, that's OK then. Meanwhile, Charles continues to come across as a lost boy with mummy issues - the 'prince of piffle' as astutely judged by Christopher Hitchens. Actor Josh O'Connor plays the role with hunched shoulders and skulking about, giving echoes of Richard the Third: "But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks. Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass." Of course, this was Shakespeare's version of Richard the Third — a propaganda piece to appease the Tudors. Bear that in mind when viewing 'The Crown' and ask who does this portrayal of Charles serve? So, what else is new? Gillian Anderson gives us Maggie Thatcher on steroids, in full Iron Lady mode with a stellar high-rise hairdo to match. The voice is too deep, and husky, yet the whole ensemble is compelling. Anderson captures the walk and body language perfect; it's uncanny. Inevitably, Maggie brushes up against everyone, including Brenda (aka the Queen) over the Commonwealth. Yet, because this is a time of wokeness, history comes rehashed for the new age. The Queen is standing firm with the Commonwealth against Thatcher, who resists sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Yes, there is evidence that Brenda supported sanctions, but is it likely she confronted Thatcher so stridently to risk a constitutional crisis? The sudden departure of Royal press secretary as a result of leaks about a conflict between Maggie and Brenda is pure fiction. He left a year after the alleged leaks. Also, we are getting a reworking of the Micheal Fagan break-in story, with him giving the Queen a lecture about unemployment and the state of the nation. It didn't happen. Although, I never knew he broke in twice. On the first occasion, when spotted, he escaped having consumed a cheap bottle of wine. The Queen conspired to keep the first break-in quiet, fearful of more security disrupting her life. There are other intriguing tidbits. Did Anne had a fling with her bodyguard? There is a hint of that. Then Margaret discovers relatives hidden away in a care institution and declared dead. The Queen Mum explains this was necessary to preserve the reputation of the bloodline. A few special-needs kin deemed unacceptable, so written off, while all the shagging about is fine and dandy. Lovely people. The acting is superb throughout. Newcomer Emma Corrin as Diana is a revelation. In her first significant role, it's a slam dunk; the eyes are perfect, the tilted head and radiance are all there. Helen Bonham Carter was born to play the flawed, hollowed-out, boozy, Princess Margaret. She captures the arrogance, the wounded soul, and the sheer disdain of the women. It's hard to fault any of the cast. Having met several of Royals and spent two days at Buck House, I can attest to some details. The vast number of flunkies, the bowing and the hushed reverence when one of the Royals appears. None of it in the least normal. When I was there in 1992, the Palace felt run-down, especially back of the house, and away from the central accommodation. On my second day there, with heavy rain falling, the staff scrambled to catch water in buckets from ceiling leaks. Does the series do the Royal Family harm or good? To me, it reveals them as flawed, like the rest of us. Yes, they have tremendous privilege and don't have the common concerns of daily life. That's not to say they don't face other pressures, because the evidence is there that the role brings tremendous stress. As the series develops, I have to ask has the portrayal of the Queen grown less sympathetic? Feels that way to me. Her faults are exposed, including avoiding uncomfortable personal issues until too late, and a lack of warmth; she displays horror when Diana grasps her for a hug. The problem is, we don't know if any of the specific detail in 'The Crown' tells the truth. What is dramatic-license, what is an interpretation, which bits are parody and what is factual? All we can hope to get is a pastiche that draws of various elements. Nonetheless, the parameters of characters come aligned to existing public perception, so no one is too shocked. The Guardian got itself in a twist proclaiming the series 'historically inaccurate'. That's the point; this is the Kardashians with castles. It's the Royals as entertainment, with a pinch of truth to anchor the story. It's amusing to note that a cottage industry has evolved around critiquing the authenticity of the series. If you can be bothered, check out this chap discussing the cake stands and tea pouring etiquette—a bit of a niche activity. If you watch 'The Crown' in the hope of getting an account of history, you will be disappointed; but if you seek entertainment, you will be rewarded well enough.  "Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates." As Donald Trump fights to keep the presidency having lost the election, I must credit him with exposing the fickle state of democracy. While I'm guessing he will come to his senses and exit the White House, I doubt it will be a dignified departure. He's made that much clear. The great disruptor will continue to disrupt.
This is the second in a series that assesses the current standing of western-style democracy. What strikes me is that after four years of Trump insulting and degrading people, as he assailed institutions, he still managed to garner over 72 million votes. That the most ever for a defeated presidential candidate. Besides, he dodged every opportunity to play the statesmen, or display an ounce of magnanimity. In the process, he's confounded the pollsters, the pundits and even his party, many of whom still question if the man is unfit for office. What does this tell us? For sure the so-called experts don't have a handle on the evolution unfolding at the grassroots of public opinion. Have the people grown wise to pollsters? Do they hold back their genuine beliefs, with a covert desire to punch the establishment on the nose for all their deceits? Are citizens baulking at the conventions, rules and machinations of politicians? They ask is the system more designed to distract than deal with real issues? Something odd also occurred in Great Britain. Are Brexit and the startling win by the UK Conservatives in 2019, another manifestation of a hidden phenomenon? What are the processes driving these changes, and what does it say about democracy? A definable elite, who share common roots, hold sway in the UK Parliament. For starters, parliament's key positions come dominated by Oxbridge graduates. Eighty-eight per cent of MPs went to university, with twenty-two per cent attending either Oxford or Cambridge. Boris Johnson's cabinet consists of two-thirds of people who attended private schools. Half are Oxbridge graduates. In the Labour Party, thirty-three per cent of MPs attended either Oxford or Cambridge. Note that much less than one per cent of the population go to Oxbridge, and yet these folks dominate. It's the same in the civil service. More than half of all MPs held previous occupations in politics, law or finance. Also, there is an over-representation of lawyers with few engineers or scientists. The proportion of graduates in parliament has risen significantly in recent years. In 1979, 37 per cent of Labour MPs came from manual occupations without a degree. By 2015 that dropped to 6 per cent. These changes have made parliament less representative of the population, where 70 per cent don't have degrees. A similar change has taken place across most democracies in Europe as a professional political class seized power. Thus, authentic working-class representation has disappeared. As a result, the Labour Party garnered a reputation as 'out of touch metropolitan-types playing identity politics'. No wonder Labour's so-called 'Red Wall' collapsed in the 2019 election. Then you have the long march of liberal radicals through the institutions. Education, much of the media, the police and the courts are in their hands. Notably, the views and conventions of these people are out of kilter with a significant part of the population. Why then in late 2019, did the UK voters, including from the working class, decide to give a Falstaffian posh-boy an overwhelming mandate? This privately educated man, who studied classics at Oxford, has an undetermined number of children by various women. A judge described his behaviour as 'reckless', while his repeated lying comes well-documented. How come the people decided he's the appropriate choice to run the country? Granted he was up against the inept Jeremy Corbyn, but that doesn't answer the question. Boris Johnson is hardly the role model a nation seeks. With parliaments worldwide more the preserve of people filtered through higher education, working people face exclusion. But when allowed to show their displeasure, they opt for a dodgy, crass businessman in the USA, while in Britain an archetypical elitist wins the vote. Is it a case that when the opportunity arises, such as Brexit or when a Trump comes along with messages that resonant, they are willing to make their displeasure known. After all, the un-credentialed are not unintelligent and can see that their interests get ignored. On a couple of occasions, the curtain pulled back to reveal the contempt of these elites. Hilary Clinton didn't help herself by calling Trump's supporters' deplorable'. In the UK, the Gillian Duffy incident exposed the disdain that Labour leaders have for ordinary citizens. Something else is also going on. There is evidence that the Internet, in particular social media, is driving polarisation. William Davies proposes that the slow work of researching a subject and excavating the detail has stopped. We know that few issues are black and white, yet the Internet drives us to define ourselves in those terms. Davies attributes this to the use of simple up-ticks and down-ticks on social media platforms. People must give 'yes' or 'no' answers to matters that are not straightforward. Harness that to the mind-shaping processes of the Internet, and you can see the impact. Chunks of 'content' – images, screen-grabs, snatches of video – circulate according to the number of thumbs up or thumbs down they receive. It is easy to lose sight of how peculiar and infantilising is this state of affairs. Once a person indicates several preferences, the system does the rest. Algorithms offer up more of the same material, pushing them further down the same track. They are now in a feedback loop without meaningful discussion. The result is a people polarised, unable and unwilling to consider the other side of an issue. In turn, this prevents community cohesion, disrupts democracy and leads to mayhem. Aristotle identified in ancient Greece the core difficulty with democracy and its an issue that runs right up to the present day. He noted that in a democracy if the majority of voters wish, they could take away property from the rich. He considered this unfair on the assumption that the rich had worked for their success. Aristotle concluded the best way to deal with this is to have support systems that reduced inequality. He asserted everyone must have a chance to become rich. Has that happened? No, because all the evidence points towards reduced social mobility in recent decades. These days the most disadvantaged group in the UK is not black youth or Asians, its white boys from working-class backgrounds. With the sole exception of Roma Gypsy, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than white British. Of the white British who do attend, most are middle class, and 57 per cent are female. A similar pattern emerges with pay. While the merits of a degree are eroding, this demographic data should cause pause for thought. That minorities can make admirable progress is commendable. But, at the same time, a resentful disenfranchised cohort from the majority falls behind. If you want an explanation of the Brexit vote or support for Trump, perhaps look no further. The people broke with their norms of voting because politicians broke with them. As we enter a new political era, how is this going to unfold? Are we looking at intensifying political polarisation, declining economic mobility and the outsized influence of special interests? It's looking that way. If so, then democracy will come under increasing stress because it fails the many. 9/11/2020 1 Comment The Common Good "According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same" What's become of the common good? That's a question the advocates of western-style liberal democracies need to answer. Why? Well, for starters, Covid-19 has given us the chance to observe the different ways nations tackle a crisis, and autocratic China came out on top. In the third quarter, China's GDP grew by 4.9 per cent with a notable surge in industrial production. The country is up and running. Meanwhile, in much of the West, the pandemic rages unabated.
Did the West's response falter because of culture, allied to political jockeying? Has democracy fallen flat on its face? Add to that long-term issues, such as left-behind communities filled with resentment as the world globalised. To them, a hi-jacked democracy panders to elites and the wealthy. Does all this mean the autocracies have won? My intuition tells me, rushing to such a conclusion is misguided. As always, a nuanced, complicated, picture not open to straightforward analysis emerges. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, everyone assumed the debate was over. The verdict formed that the world was moving towards the spread of liberal democracies and free markets. As a consequence of the failure of the communist experiment, the USA stood as the world's only superpower. Did this vindicate the liberal democratic model as supreme? Many believed yes. Francis Fukuyama captured the zeitgeist as he trumpeted the 'End of History'. In Washington, this state of affairs echoed a long-standing conviction that America has a divinely inspired mission to make the world safe. A deep seam of evangelising runs through the culture: Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, when challenged on lavish pay replied he was "doing God's work." So, the West assumed they'd triumphed. And feeling empowered, led by the USA, they set about promoting a neoliberal version of globalisation as they encouraged democracy. When facing resistance, they sanctioned, threatened and intervened, sometimes, with terrible outcomes. But, if you look at the record, the West's support of democracy comes somewhat framed by strategic and economic interests. Contrast the position on Saudi Arabia to that of China. Pushing a democratic agenda, and human rights, doesn't appear to infuse Western politicians when national interests infringe. Odd that. Noam Chomsky cited this attitude as 'schizophrenia'. But far from being an all-embracing world view, a school of thought now portrays this 'winning' narrative as parochial. As the deliberations failed to recognise each countries unique history, how can it hold sway? In short, blinded by conceit, the majority of the Western intelligentsia didn't have the tools to comprehend events. Within academic circles, a fierce debate rages: "Have the scholars failed to interpret events correctly?". For many, the discourse holds that Fukuyama's chronicle of events has deep flaws, is shallow and unbalanced. Even Fukuyama has rolled back on his seminal work, admitting he missed the rise of China and other factors. As a side issue, this discussion is exposing so-called experts as intellectual eunuchs, devoid of free-thinking. These people are beholden to the agenda of their institutions. Instead of roaming free over vast areas of knowledge to interpret the world, most are hired-guns, who craft messages as 'product'. Think-tanks, governments and intelligence agencies fund this 'product' expecting a specific outcome. Then the media run this 'product' as the accepted version of events. By now, you are asking, beyond the Covid-19 response, where is the evidence that the democratic system falters? Exhibit One: with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experimented with a western-style free-market model and elections. As it turned out, this approach empowered an autocratic regime with oligarchs soon running the show. Exhibit Two: ousting Saddam Hussein did not bring freedom and calm to Iraq. Instead, the result was instability, millions dead, with a brutal civil war that rumbles on. Yes, Saddam ran a morally indefensible regime — no one denies that. Has what came next proved any better? The region is looking worse than ever. Exhibit Three: the Arab spring was to herald a new democratic era in the Middle East. In Egypt, once the despot fell, radicals seized the democratic process to install a regime of fundamentalists. Back to square one. Exhibit Four: we have economic data from the IMF and the Democracy Index of The Economist. Between 2012 and 2016, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, China, Mongolia, Ireland, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Laos, Panama and Georgia enjoyed the fastest economic growth. Only Ireland scores well in democracy. Moreover, South Korea made its best economic advances while under a military dictatorship. Add to that research by leading economist Paul Collier. He concludes that democracy can destabilise a country in the early stages of its economic development, in turn, stunting progress. Likewise, once a nation attains economic maturity, democracy can bring stability although the net effect of democracy may be ambiguous. Then I ask how Cuba can have better child mortality rates than the USA? How come Hong Kong’s streets are far safer than those in the UK? What’s interesting is that for life expectancy world-wide, US is ranked 46th, while undemocratic Hong Kong comes first. Maybe that because the USA is rated 97th for access to quality health care and 91st on basic education. The fact is, across a host of parameters, democracy doesn't always guarantee the best outcomes for the majority of people. So, the people who claim the supremacy of that model must face this uncomfortable set of facts. According to the World Bank, levels of income inequality in China and the USA are about the same. But, consider this: in China, both rich and poor alike realised income gains, while since the 1970s in the USA the growth has benefited the top ten per cent only. Of course, for decades, the 'experts' claimed China couldn't succeed because it wasn't democratic. That analysis proved wrong. In the early 1980s, across the border from Hong Kong, the special economic zone of Shenzhen gathered pace. This growth proved you could triumph economically without liberal democracy. It's interesting to note that China, despite its evident success, does not force its system on other countries. In Africa, China is conducting a programme of 'pragmatic imperialism' that involves investment, development and the taking of resources. Yes, the arrangement is transactional. China benefits, but, they don't tell the host how to live or run their country. As regard Covid-19, whereas President Trump fumbled about, China acted decisively. In an incredible display of capacity and order, the authorities tested the 11 million Wuhan residents for the virus within ten days. The verdict seems clear: authoritarianism is superior to liberal democracy when fast mobilisation drives success. But again, this conclusion is simplistic and even misleading. Note that democratic places, such as South Korea and New Zealand, handled the pandemic well. Their systems did not block the ability to put in place virus containment measures. Could it be that America's current troubles do not reflect a universal failure of democracy? Instead, are we witnessing an unbalanced order that favours a few? The lesson I draw from America's upheaval is that even a mature democracy must be continuously maintained to function. There is no 'end of history'. Likewise, never forget the catalyst for China's economic growth. Deng Xiaoping injected elements of accountability, competition, and limits on power. This hybrid political system, married to a firm commitment to markets, took China from poverty to middle-income status. Besides, the stated institutional advantages of China's top-down rule are both a strength and a weakness. Owing to its origins the Communist Party of China implements policies in the manner of ‘campaigns’. That means the entire bureaucracy and society come together to achieve a given goal. Then when pressured to do whatever it takes to achieve targets, officials may use extreme measures triggering new problems down the road. Significant and quick results rarely come without costs. For example, displacing people for urban expansion led to unrest and bitterness. Nonetheless, these ‘campaigns’ deliver impressive results. Xi's poverty-fighting initiative lifted 93 million rural residents out of poverty in seven years. Let's be clear; the West would still be debating the issue after seven years, without resolution, never mind any action. Here's the thing, the idea that we can choose only between an American-style democracy and a Chinese-style autocracy is false. Indeed when the real aim of governance is to ensure pluralism with stability – countries must find their own path. Perhaps the current era, rather than being the end of democracy, is a period of correction. Few would disagree, that the failure of free-market capitalism and globalisation to serve everyone, is causing deep resentment. The West needs to recognise this. It can't continue working with entrenched political ideologies that are tone-deaf to public sentiment. Where do we go from here? Looking back through history, every great civilisation rises to power, reaches a peak, and then declines. This is Oswald Spenglar's thesis. Yet, I doubt we are there: democracy won't collapse, nor will the liberal democratic model fade. But, it will evolve. After all, the USA, in particular, has a remarkable ability to reinvent itself — the 'new dawn' at each iteration. Meanwhile, China is advancing and finding its way. The West would be foolhardy in the extreme to think it can halt or hold back that process to secure its strategic interests. So, to answer the question: "What's become of the common good?" the West needs to acknowledge its manifest failings. Then bring some balance by addressing broader issues in their societies. In the meantime, raging and flailing against China won't help, especially when Beijing is advancing the stock of millions of people. Douglas Carswell asserts "The elites frequently get things wrong" in 'The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy'. He observed, "they endlessly seek to govern by design a world that is best organised spontaneously from below". Indeed, therefore, the best outcomes for the 'common good' rest in each system learning from the other, to incorporate advantages and moderate their failings. Engagement and cooperation is the only viable way forward.  "Rules are one thing, but it's often the unwritten norms of decorum that mark excellence" You have to give it to Donald Trump: the man never stops trying. That audacious press conference, asserting he'd won with counting ongoing, was pure high-stakes political theatre. Did he throw a massive spanner in the works of US democratic institutions?
|
AuthorWalter De Havilland was one of the last of the colonial coppers. He served 35 years in the Royal Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong Police Force. He's long retired. Archives
September 2021
|
RSS Feed