Eldon-Online

Read The Label, Stupid!

"When I finished "Puckoon" I vowed I would never write another book. Here it is". Thus wrote the Goon and comedian Spike Milligan in the front of his 1971 book "Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall".

In an altogether more humble manner, I vowed when I started this blog to never write about the same subject twice. Economics and business generally, of course, are dynamic and therefore changing all the time. Fair game, therefore, for further comment, but no, I am about to break my self-imposed rule and return to a topic I have addressed recently.

The rationale? I am not in favour of being told what I can and cannot eat by anyone other, perhaps, than a doctor who says, "By the way Mr. Eldon, if you eat lots of fatty fried food you will eventually kill yourself!". (It's not what I eat, actually, and I am not in favour of killing myself, but I know what he means).

Why is it that our Government seems to believe that we have no idea whether we can make our own informed decision about what is in a container of food? Mind you, they seem to have the same notion about giving us the vote too, but that is another story.

I am back on the subject of food labeling - I wrote about it in March 2008 in a piece entitled Food For Thought - (But Not For Long). If you are unfamiliar with the topic, or need to refresh your memory, may I suggest you click on the link?

Now I do not expect the words of one blogger to make a difference, but the note was picked up by the media and others. The subject was also being discussed at the same time, and much more widely, in many households in Hong Kong. But there seems to be a perception somewhere out there that this is just an "expatriate" gripe. And perhaps given the low number of expatriates in "Asia's World City" this does not warrant a great deal of attention but, Hong Kong Government, I really don't think this is just an expatriate issue. It goes much more broadly than that.

The complaints are becoming more vocal, more widespread and are rational.

Perhaps Government have gone too far down the road now to turn back without looking silly. Maybe they are so entrenched in their view that, for example, a petition campaign from all sectors of the community will not sway them. Maybe they think, as I suggested before, that the numbers are likely to be so small it will eventually all blow over. Maybe they don't heed their own advice; a recent announcement recognised the growing prevalence of obesity and a concurrent increase in diabetes amongst all its social classes. The same piece also said "...it is important to make sure Hong Kong's ...food market is open and competitive which will help broaden the food supply and widen consumers choice...". Well, not if this legislation goes through.

In the area of diabetes at least, we can perhaps rejoice that "full fat" products remain on sale. "What's that? Oh, people can choose whether to buy them?" Errm - sorry, what's a double standard?

Look, is it of so much importance and do you really think that people are unable to make up their own minds? And do you seriously have so little faith in your own existing "truth in advertising" laws which covers the area of labels? Well, if yes, then seek a compromise. Allow those people who want to take the risk of buying "fat free", "cholesterol free" and "sugar free" products only do so if they have an identity card evidencing that they are not minors! Make them produce an identity card in the supermarket to buy "dangerous goods" that actually are pretty good for your health - and a lot, lot better than the air that we chew!!

Shattered Dreams?

Tibet. A name on the lips of many today as violent scenes erupt around the world in a carefully orchestrated outpouring of sentiment towards a country that seeks self determination.
No good will come from writing about such an emotive topic, because to support the arguments on either side will result in criticism and misunderstanding on the other. But not to say anything at all, and pretend there is not a problem, really supports the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) - which read:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

I believe entirely in human rights. I believe in the freedom of expression; the rule of law; in the ability of anyone to openly practice whatever religion or follow whatever belief they choose - or not to follow anything at all. I believe that no one should go hungry and that everyone should be entitled to clean water, nor should they be discriminated against.

A kind of Utopia, right? A state of unrealism which suggests that the Americans should give back the land to the Mexicans that were taken from them; that Guantanamo Bay should not exist; that Robert Mugabe should without question step down from the office he has held so corruptly for many years; that the Middle East conflicts in Israel, Palestine and Iraq should be resolved and that Christians should be allowed churches in Saudi Arabia. A world in which the military junta in Myanmar should be hunted down and made to hand over the reins of power to those who won it, fairly, in a democratic election.

Tibet, a "cause" that has had the word "celebre" added to it. A cause which seems to have attracted the same "rent a mob" that attends the WTO or the IMF meetings where the advertisements to entice attendees (of the protesting kind) promise entertainment, street parties and some action. A mob which knows how to shout "Free Tibet", but which doesn't know either why it should be freed, what it should be free from or, actually, where it is. I do not belittle the efforts of those who do know what they are talking about, but I speak as a generalisation.

So, we now have a global campaign designed to support a perceived injustice. "Perceived" because, at this stage China has merely said "hands off" without offering any explanations as to its actions or being willing to talk to reach an understanding. Like it or not we live in a globalised world where the actions of our fellow world-dwellers cannot be hidden from view. We need to deal with the politics, but should do so through diplomatic means, not mindless violence.

Meanwhile, if this continues shouldn't we start planning for the protests against the UK in the run up to the 2012 Olympic Games? Wasn't it Britain that helped create many of the problems that Africa faces today by not preparing them properly for democracy; by dealing ineffectually with people like Mugabe; who helped create a "country" like Iraq after World War 1, and who then supported the invasion of that country? Why single out China for attention - just because everyone else is feeling smug in their new glass houses? Come on, keep the ball rolling. I am sure there are some Scots who would be more than happy to join in. Serious? Of course not - but there are plenty of activists out there looking for a cause, whether it affects them or not.

But with all that, I got away from the point.

While politics and diplomacy g>should be taking centre stage in resolving an issue that clearly has much wider implications than I suspect China ever anticipated, try and spare a thought for those athletes whose dream has been to represent their country at the Olympics. Something that, for many, is the culmination of years of determination, sweat and genuine endeavour. Dreams that, as a result of threats, boycotts and other actions that have little to do with sport, may never be fulfilled in full.

And no, this is not an "apology" for condoning issues as serious as human rights, but those dreams also exist amongst those living in desperately poor and/or oppressed countries under despotic regimes. Dreams that might, for just a while, give them a glimmer of hope. Dreams that can so easily be shattered in a world increasingly ruled by the media and the mobs.

Quicksand? - or Slow Mind?

I don't know what it is about Jake van der Kamp! I've only formally met the SCMP columnist once, although I have certainly been on the receiving end of his barbed comments. Once, I recall, was when I publicly questioned the low standards of English in this city - a question that was on the minds of many at that time and, it seems, those concerns have not diminished. On another occasion he took me to task for using a phrase which had by then already slipped into modern usage, even though I did not actually even like it myself very much. It was "Human Capital" - but sadly for Jake he discovered the next day a large advertisement in his own newspaper, announcing the paper's sponsorship of a - yes, you guessed it, "Human Capital" Conference.

Jake has a job to do. He is, I think, meant to be provocative in his column, and in a society like Hong Kong where freedom of speech is still practiced, he is entitled to his opinions and biases. That is what freedom of speech is all about and I am not going to take him to task for any of that but I do wish he would investigate his stories with more care.

Today's Monitor column (Oh! alright Jake, some free advertising for you, even if you don't deserve it) talks about Dubai in terms that suggest he has never set foot in the place. More specifically he goes on to talk about the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). (What's that Jake? You really didn't know I was the DIFC Chairman?)

If I were to respond to each of Jake's rather (at least in my opinion) derogatory comments in turn, we would be here all night and use too much space. He refers to a comment from the Heritage Foundation, which he quotes as reserving some choice words for the UAE, such as "...incompetence and corruption are rarely challenged". Contrast that statement Mr. van der Kamp if you will, by an excerpt from the IMF Article IV Consultation in September 2007 which reads "...Moreover, the development of the DIFC continues to support the diversification and international standing of the UAE's financial sector."

"Building on Dubai's aggressive diversification drive, the Dubai International Financial Center (DIFC) is increasingly promoting the U.A.E. as a regional financial hub. Activities in the DIFC are supported by an impressive physical infrastructure and sound legal framework aligned with best international practices."

The report goes on to state, "The DIFC might best be desc ribed as a future regional financial center. The Center has well defined regulatory and supervisory systems that are on par with other regional financial centers (such as Singapore and Hong Kong)"

Jake's view of the bankers who have registered with the DIFC is no less jaundiced, saying that they are "playing the game" and fulfill their obligations they "...put in three juniors, two of them local hires, give them a pair of scissors..."

Instead of the guessing game Jake, try these: As at February 2008 we have over 11,000 people employed by companies registered in the DIFC; a number we expect to grow to 50,000 in two years, by 2010. The contribution of financial services to Dubai's GDP will more than quadruple from USD3.4bn today to USD15bn by 2015. We are the only jurisdiction in the region with a data protection regime. The securities regulator, the DFSA, was established from the outset as a world class regulator and the list goes on and on...

Is Dubai perfect? No of course not - but then having read your column once or twice it seems that Hong Kong is not that perfect either - in your view. But it is trying hard to be different. It is looking at success stories elsewhere, which is a new departure for them, and it is taking its head out of the sand - whereas I am not quite sure where you are putting yours!