Eldon-Online

Initially ...

I was having one of those inane debates with myself the other day about the use of cc and bcc in messages on email. Why, I thought, do we still persist in using cc (carbon copy) when we are copying a message to someone else, when so many people around today have never even seen a sheet of carbon paper let alone used one. And of course the same goes for bcc (blind carbon copy). Why don't the Microsofts and Googles of this world change message formats to "ec", for email copy or perhaps being really innovative use "copy" or "copied" on its own? It's only two more letters.

While accepting a degree of pedantry in my thinking, (I know, get a life!) but to try and make sure I wasn't being totally antediluvian, I did ask a member of the next generation down for a view on the meaning to him of "cc" in an email - to which the reply came back "What's email? Everyone's on FB and WhatsApp!" Touché. And as is the case, even those as tools of messaging seem to be evolving. But then for good measure he threw in other anomalies like candle power to denote the strength of a torch beam, knots for the speed of a ship, and horse power in cars. 

But it was too late. Clearly I was obsessed about initials.

Let's face it, the use of initials to create acronyms (An acronym is an abbreviation formed from the initial components in a phrase or a word) as a form of shorthand, is not new. Those of us belonging to that older generation known as baby boomers grew up with things like PLUTO no, not the planet, but which were initials for the "pipeline under the ocean" - a World War II pipeline, and SWALK and BURMA written on the back of letters, which I presume are no longer in use as we don't send any letters now, but the first means Sealed With A Loving Kiss. For others particularly like SNAFU, you will have to look up yourself. I try and avoid any profanity here! And they were in use much further back than that too - think of SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus), that catchy little acronym that identified the Roman Empire.

[Just as an aside, in a rather dismaying discovery I have just realised I am two months short of being considered in the baby boomer camp! Too old, even, for that. And in trying to find out exactly which category of dinosaur is was being labeled, some market research carried out by one of my sons elicited a great response from a young girl who was asked recently how she referred to really old people, to which she replied "Mum and Dad"! Ouch!] 

But I digress. Back to the initials ... and before some pedant picks me up on the difference between acronyms and initials; I know! Acronyms are, as described above whereas initials are usually just abbreviations. But why spoil my fun?

Where do we go now? We are bombarded on the social networking sites with the latest initials, and the immediacy of the world in which we live is creating an informal and irritating manner of business communication. Some of the "newspeak"  is understood easily even if you aren't sure, but some, rather like its creators I suspect, is somewhat ambiguous. I mean how was British Prime Minister Cameron supposed to know that "lol" meant laugh out loud instead of lots of love when he sent messages to former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks? Although having said that I see "lol" has now also acquired the second meaning. But BTW, BBL, WFM and WTF are all finding their way into common usage - well maybe not the latter!

Soon will we be receiving letters from the Banks which will be short and uninformative? (Oh, they are already? Sorry!)

When I started this blog I thought perhaps we were doomed to a life of initial acronyms. Now I am certain. Especially given the one I came accros the other day that read: SSEWBA (Someday Soon Everything Will Be Acronyms)!

"Big Data" - Big Help or Big Problem?

You just cannot be in business today without hearing the term "Big Data". Mind you, I blame the management consultants for producing yet another snazzy buzz phrase to tease their clients. To be clear, I am not against buzzwords just as long as they are relevant and convey the appropriate meaning. The "C-Suite", for example is pretty reasonable shorthand for the senior people in a company whose titles start with the letter "C" - Chairman, CEO, CFO, COO and so on. But this "Big Data" is leaving me somewhat cold by its ambiguity, and the real problem is that it has hit the C-Suite.

I heard a Chief Executive recently talking about the fact that he would in future have all the management information his company needed because they had embraced the idea of big data. He could save huge amounts of money because he would no longer need hordes of people like analysts in his back office, nor would he need to employ expensive management consultants. And because he had so much information he would be miles ahead of those companies that didn't understand big data. He was quite affronted when I suggested that big data might not be quite as much of a panacea as he was obviously thinking - and I spent the next 30 minutes discussing with him the merits - and otherwise, from my perspective! I hope I at least persuaded him that he might want to be asking quite a few more questions before he embraced it any further.

Don't get me wrong. I truly think that big data can be of enormous help to businesses - as long as it is understood and, even more importantly in my view, then used properly!

There are of course many people who know what big data is all about, (particularly at the working level) but for the less technically or business minded readers of my blog, let me just try an explanation. 

Simply put, imagine the biggest reference library you have ever seen or can imagine, and multiply the size by at least ten times. Big data is like that. It is a collection of data so large that it becomes difficult to find what you are looking for by using traditional methods of database management. As a result, work that was previously being done by using analysts is now being handled through creating a series of algorithms that "interrogate" the data and spew out the information you need. Or you think you need. This, for the business community, could be used to spot business trends, seek out inefficiencies, and provide clues to current customer behaviour - leading perhaps to future trends (of course only as long as the conditions existing today remain unchanged!) Sounds good, doesn't it? And it is a big help.

So far, so good - but with the huge mass of information you are receiving who handles it, who "interrogates it", and who is then responsible for creating company strategy?

But there are a few basic things to remember here. Firstly, is all the information you think you need actually necessary to make some decisions, or are you just accumulating information that is of little real value? Secondly, who is creating the algorithms to interrogate the big data to provide the results? Until computers can think for themselves (and yes, I know it's coming), you will still need people to create the right algorithms. People who know the business, and therefore have the ability to ask the right "questions" Remember that old saying from Economics Nobel Prize Laureate, Ronald Coase (who by the way is 102 years old), who said "Torture the data, and it will confess to anything!" Quite!

From my point of view it is surely valid for consultants to be pushing big data as a concept to companies, but there is probably a better case to be made for those consultants who can successfully help in the creation of appropriate algorithms, in other words creating the right questions, and the subsequent interpretation of the answers. Heaven help many Boards of Directors if they are left to understand this stuff on their own. And yes - that includes me!

While we live in an increasingly technologically driven world, the users of that technology still only operate with human brains - which frankly have their limitations. So until we catch up, corporations need to realise that big data aside, much of the "little data" they have is still sufficiently powerful to enable them to do a better job for their clients, and therefore their businesses, than they are doing at present.

As one of my sons pointed out in a comment recently, how is it that a financial institution with whom he has had a relationship for 30 years still addresses him by mail as "Dear Valued Customer". They will have enough clues to realise that he is now married, since he has a joint account, should have an idea that he has children as they have accounts of their own, and with this should know - and be able to customise easily, suitable offers to him. We have the capability to do all this stuff today on "little data". 

Other organisations do it - witness the slightly embarrassing story that came out of US retailer Target. (Do have a read - it's worth it, and it provides a lesson in what you can do today!)

So before we get hung up on big data, make a start by using more effectively the "little data" you already have.

But as for "Big Data"? - Sure, go for it and use it successfully but make darn sure those people in the Boardroom know what it's all about if they are being asked to commit millions of shareholder money in whatever currency into technology that might pay off - but might not if you don't use it properly! 

You've Heard Of The Three "R's"? ... Read On

What does the phrase "the 3Rs" mean to you? Chances are, depending on your age, you will recognise it as relating to a comment coined in the late 1700s, when Sir William Curtis referred to them as: Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. (No, I was not around at the time before you ask!). But even if you didn't know the phrase before, I am sure you will have picked up the irony of the fact that they don't all start with an "R". But they sound as if they do!  Nearly. 

So, moving swiftly to the 21st Century, I have an alternative version - not of "R"s, but "U"s - although sadly two of them do start with the letter "U" - but then we're not all perfect.

I refer to Unemployment, University and You.

First of all, what I am about to write is less likely to appear as an issue in Asia for some time to come, but then who knows..., particularly if unemployment becomes a more serious matter than it is already. The pressure on educating children in Asia has become quite obsessive and stressful to both children and parents, all in the hope that a great education, as long as you get into the right university in some countries, will lead to the best jobs. That is, as long as there are sufficient jobs to go round. But if not, then what happens?

Let me try and make some sense out of where my line of thinking is going. Succinctly.

In case you think I am having a go at universities in particular, but education in general, let me state categorically that education first and foremost is essential. A well educated world, starting with the children, are generally less likely to be proponents of war. If we neglect our duties to educate everyone, boys and girls, every race religion, beliefs, and colour, we are setting a bonfire that someone will light at some stage in the future.This is something acknowledged by a variety of leaders, many of them presiding over poorer countries or at least living in their shadow. Although this will take a long time, generations indeed, to achieve, it must nevertheless be undertaken.

In this Blog, though I am dealing with something more immediate. I am focused for the present on well-educated children who are joining a real world where there is a lack of jobs, and a growing phenomenon in the West by some potential University entrants to try and beat the system. 

Simplistically, you earn good grades to secure a good University place. You work hard for three or four years to come out with a good degree. But you emerge into a market where jobs are hard to come by - and you have a pile of debt.

 

Unemployment in developed and developing economies is not a new phenomenon, but in many places it is too high and is stubbornly refusing to come down significantly. When you add to this the increasing use of technology in many workplaces, the cost of paying people, and therefore the substitution of jobs by "robots", you have a situation that is not going to add many jobs any time soon. But please remember I am being quite general here. I am not talking about the important specialisations such as the medical profession although even that over time will surely be taken over by technology. With unemployment in the USA and the UK both over 7.5%, France and Italy over 10.5%, Spain and Greece at a staggering 27% - and others, there are no "quick fixes". Factor in the demographics of the unemployed by age and you have a good number of young people making up a large percentage of the numbers.

So you come to the question of how are people getting round it. Easy. They are opting not to go to University!!

Now, if you speak to many people especially in Asia such an idea is almost heresy. (Heresy, as in any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs). And some Western friends are also somewhat sceptical that opting out of University is likely to work, but here's the thinking.

If you work hard at school and get good results, to the extent that you would have been offered a place at a decent University, you opt instead to go look for a suitable employer and immediately enter the work force. If you are lucky enough to find an employer of course. And heer we are back to the old system of learning on the job. You start the process of taking any relevant professional exams which, given a fair wind you should complete in 3 years. Then, when your peer group graduate from University straining under the burden of having to repay a large student loan and apply with the thousands of other graduates at the same time to your company for a job - guess what? They already have on their payroll a trained, qualified, bright committed employee (who is doubly happy because they have no debt!) Possible? Why not?

If employers get creative and open their doors to potential advancement for early joiners - rather than only fast-tracking University graduates - then I see the potential.

So, what is the You part of this? Well it can be you as in the potential University entrant trying to decide on a pre-emptive course of action to avoid the debt and unemployment trap, or it could be you as in a potential employer looking for talent early on in the workplace and not believing that only University graduates are the ones who can do a better job because they are supposed to be intellectually superior - or some such nonsense. 

Mind you, as someone who left school at the age of 16 I suppose I might be slightly biased, and I used to feel a little disingenuous when trying to convince all my children they needed degrees to even get an interview!!

And You relates to every one of "us" really who is in a position to be open-minded about such a radical change, and also to do your bit to ensure we work towards an educated world.

So It's Not Just Me Then ...

An article in today's edition of The Times carries the headline "Too chummy by half? Why we don't want to be on first-name terms".

It seems that I am not alone in my dislike of being addressed by my first name by someone I don't know. A survey by Ask Jeeves, a search engine, discovered that overall 55% of responders to the survey preferred to be addressed by their title when spoken to, written to or emailed by a stranger. An even higher percentage disliked this "personalised impersonality" when it came from someone who was cold calling on the telephone.

I don't know, at the time I included my distaste for the practice in a recent Blog I thought maybe it was just me. Or perhapse it's the reserved Brits who don't go for this feeling of "We're all mates together" syndrome, or "fake friendliness" as it is referred to in the article. And as the article concludes, "There is nothing wrong with friendliness but it just doesn't wash when it comes from someone you have never met or even spoken to".

Hear Hear!

 

What's In A Name?

Hong Kong, in common I guess with other countries, allows a system of personalising car number plates. In Hong Kong however it is a profit generator. The process allows you to apply for a number plate which is then auctioned. As the originator you rather hope that no one outbids you, but I suppose it can happen.

These personalised plates are in the English language but they seem to be largely unmonitored by the Transport Department – and can lead to some irritation or misinterpretation.

I used to have a sense of humour failure myself when I saw my family name used as a "number plate".

Only because people kept asking if it was my car. Now the only satisfaction I derive is that if someone is looking for me to exact revenge for some wrong doing I may have committed, they might plant a bomb in the wrong car first, thinking it was me!! 

But this lack of "thought" if you like when the Transport Department approves the names in the first place can lead to other rather more unfortunate consequences. For example, as my rather smutty mind was working overtime a few years ago, I commented in my Blog on the wisdom of allowing a car to be registered with the plate “Fuk Hing”. And now I see we are at it again. In the last list of personalised plates up for auction that I saw is one with the name of “Lady Kaka”. Puzzled?

Kaka, it is true, is the name of a Brazilian footballer so the name does exist in another part of the world, although it might be worth pointing out that the person concerned is male rather than a "Lady". And maybe the owner of the car that will bear the "Lady Kaka" plate has the nickname of Kaka. If so, again no real harm and I must point out that I certainly mean no disrespect to her in what follows. But in the more “slangy” end of the English language “kaka” means, politely, faeces. I am quite sure that the licensing authority really doesn't know what it is accepting sometimes, and why should it - English after all is not their first language.

While on the subject of names, and language, I had the privilege of attending a talk recently by the author Lynn Truss, who wrote a great book called “Eats Shoots and Leaves”. She is very entertaining and is known as the "Apostrophe Warrior" for her defence of punctuation and the comma in particular. If you have an interest in grammar – no matter how fleeting, the book is a wonderful refresher and reminds you of the correct use of punctuation marks.

I must say that one of the irritants in my life today is getting letters (yes, and emails) that are written badly. Now I am the first to admit I am not perfect, but some things I get to read, signed by people for whom English is their first language, should actually be taken out and burnt. The authors, I suspect, in every case know exactly what message they intended to convey, but they don’t put themselves in the position of the reader. With the result that the letters often contain misspelt ambiguity. In addition this obsession with using first names in a letter is, frankly, offensive and rude. If I am happy to be addressed as “Dear David..” in a letter or email, which more often than not I prefer, I will let you know. But don’t take the liberty yourself of assuming you are already my bosom buddy.

In fact, I spoke to Ms Truss after her talk and said that I had found her book a great “refresher course”. It was not supposed to be a “Teach Yourself Grammar” book, but it certainly put me back on track, after I had fallen off the rails by employing some bad practices. (Such as I still do in these Blogs).

In our modern technologically driven world, there is still room for politeness – and for using language that is easily understood by some of us dinosaurs. Even the younger generation will benefit. It is the sloppy use of language that leads to ambiguity, ridicule, and therefore to misunderstandings.

Change ... Or No Change. Part III.

I think I have come to the conclusion that my last Blog on this subject wandered too far off the original theme. Muddled thinking helps no one, and even if I knew what I was writing about, a re-read persuades me that others reading Part II might be getting lost.

I started down this road of Change or No Change on the premise that we may think the world around us generally is changing because of the amount of activity taking place. But the reality is we are not changing very much at all. You can be in an induced coma-like state for ten years and when you wake up although things like fashion will have changed, the world around us generally has not done so. To recap, I think this is generally true of Europe ... lots of activity and not much action. North and South America, in a similar position although North America does seem to be translating some of their actions into progress. Africa meanwhile remains in the grip of corruption, and nothing positive will change on that continent until tribal issues get resolved (difficult), and the countries are run by people who will attempt to eradicate corruption (unlikely, in my view).

But what of Asia; is there change here? On the face of it, of course yes. New leaders in China, Japan and South Korea for a start, but will they create real changes?

In the case of South Korea the evident change is their first ever woman President in a country known to be a male dominated society, but Ms Park's newly sworn in administration is already beginning to hit some speed bumps. Her Defence Minister nominee has quit, and she herself has been singled out for some pretty unpleasant rhetoric from the North Korean "boy" who is starting to walk down a dangerous path of brinksmanship that might go badly wrong. Of course it seems that Ms Park's relatively narrow victory in the December election was largely due to the vote from the older members of the Korean population who remembered her Father. A military dictator, who was assasinated in 1979, was credited with growing the Korean economy but disliked for his policy of crushing dissent and preventing democratic development. One wonders how much of the father has rubbed off on the daughter.

Japan has returned to a former leader who seems to be promising to do all the things he promised to do previously as Prime Minister - but he only lasted a year on that occasion. The rather hawkish and nationalistic Mr. Abe might wish to leave more of a mark this time - and I am not sure that the consequences will be good for North Asia, or the Japanese economy that remains in recession.

China has now formally had its change of leadership. Some people I speak to are clearly unconvinced about China and what the new leaders will bring, but initial signs seem relatively positive. As with many developing economies, corruption has plagued China for years but the appointment of the no nonsense Wang Qishan to the role of Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection might bring about some major changes in that area. The new President Xi Jinping, and new Premier Li Keqiang, at 59 and 57 years of age respectively could make some significant changes to China as it continues the process of emerging into the world, but it's not going to be easy. Much remains to be done, although I get a real sense that the new leaders are serious about doing what is necessary to create a "fair and just society" as Premier Li said the other day.

But change takes time. That is why it often appears that there has been no change. Who actually remembers the Kyoto Protocol on Climate change? Did anything substantive really come out of that? I am sure that we all remember the Basel rules for financial institutions. After many iterations of the rules, countries seemed to make up their own minds as to whether they would adopt them or not. Therefore, I would argue, why do we spend so much time, effort and indeed money on debating issues of "change". At the end of the day the changes that take place as a result of the activity are - little or no change.

Change ... Or No Change. Part II.

... as I was saying, sort of, are things around the world changing due to there being a lot of apparent activity, or does that activity result in nothing more than a gentle re-shuffle? As a result little moves too far away from where it started? 

In Part I, I had a quick look at the Middle East and Europe, of which the latter region in particular is looking clearly unwell ... but now if we hop the pond to the USA, perhaps we do have some real change. Okay we have had the re-election of President Obama so no change there then, but what about the economy? 

Fiscal cliff or no fiscal cliff, here we do have a country of which one might say the shoots of spring are beginning to show. Not consistently across the piece perhaps, but there are some positive signs that I find encouraging. Having said that, as the USA was the source of the Global Financial Crisis I suppose one should expect the earliest afflicted to have the earliest signs of the virus leaving. First in, first out. 

Anyway, America's unemployment level is down which is a good change, corporate results are selectively doing well - especially in the financial arena, and Warren Buffet has bought US household name Heinz. All signs that corporate America is raising its head positively. Hopefully it will last, because whether we like it or not, what happens in the USA still has an impact on other parts of the world. But lurking in the corner remains the ever present ultimate threat of inflation once interest rates start to rise, and that could be a harder task to manage. But overall, clearly here is a case where some of the activity that has taken place has resulted in some actual positive change.

Is Latin America changing? I am not sure it is much. Certainly Brazil is continuing to progress and Chile has been quiet and steady for quite a few years now. Argentina remains difficult, as do other areas of Latin America. And although nothing much stands out, look at the amount of commercial activity in the area of acquisitions being made by Chinese and Middle Eastern companies, as well as sovereign wealth funds. With the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez perhaps there is some scope for real change, in that country anyway, but much will depend on who gets elected - hopefully in free and fair elections. (Unlikely say some of my Venezuelan commentators)!

To Africa, and what can one say about leaders with very dubious human rights records being elected (Kenya), a region providing a fertile breeding and training ground for terrorist groups (Somalia and Mali). A region steeped in poverty where inward investments are chanelled to the few and ignore the mass (Most places). Where investments from China tend to provide jobs for imported Chinese labour and the output, be it agricultural products or minerals, go to satisfy the needs of China leaving little behind in the host country. Nothing wrong with that strategy from a Chinese perspective - rather clever in fact, but will it be allowed to last? Lots of activity bringing about unwanted change in many cases.

But look, when I started on this current tour d'horizon which is deliberately brief and probably considered to be superficially generalist, (and currently missing Asia - of which more later), I came to realise that it does not address some fundamental issues that impact all of us. The most important of which, to me anyway, is the future.

If the suggestion I am making through the title of these two pieces is at least on the right lines, that despite all the apparent activity going on around the world there is in fact little change coming out of that activity, is it always going to be that way?

Don't get me wrong - there has been phenomenal change particularly in certain areas of technology, medicine, manufacturing processes and others. But there are also negative changes taking place in food and water supplies, and population growth. Putting a strain on our limited resources.

So I wonder whether the political and economic structures of the world today, such as they are, can actually cope with these changes? Are companies, those generators of employment and wealth, considering where they need to be in 20 or 50 years time to remain competitive? Do we in fact run around re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic believing that the traditional ways in which we do things today are going to prevail, or are they going to be swallowed up by newcomers who think and do things differently? It is all very well talking about the way things "should be done", but the new competitors will do things differently whether you like it or not. And what will be the role and impact of governments who think in terms of four and five year election cycles? Will those other political/leadership structures that exist elsewhere actually provide a different, and maybe more successful - model from the one we grew up with?

There are some really interesting studies out there today. Information that is readily available from a variety of sources but put together in one place so you can see almost at a glance where the problems and the opportunities exist. To enable you to consider the future, and think about how you can remain competitive.

But more of that - and Asia - in the third and concluding part.

 

Why Don't You Blog Off?

I have just gone through my annual Blog review, wondering whether now is the time for me to stop blogging and move on to other things. It was an even more thoughtful process this year because I have not written very much in the last two or three months. Clearly this was due to some circumstances beyond my control, and by the way I must thank those who enquired about my health. I think it is safe to say that I am now fully recovered.

Anyway, my review process is pretty simple really. I start by asking myself why I do it, does anyone actually read it other than family and a few stalwart friends, and what actually am I hoping to achieve by writing a few of my random thoughts down on a computer? And it is really the latter thought that exercises my mind the most.

My Blog is most definitely not an ego trip: some morbid desire to hang on to the past. If I write something, I want it to be able to inform, or provide a perspective on events that happen within the world in which we live today. Perhaps viewed through the eyes of experience from a generation that is already living longer, and which is active for longer, than previous generations. I am very conscious, though, that there is much opinion already out there – available immediately. And although I may not agree with such opinion, are mine any more relevant or should be respected than the opinions expressed by others? Opinions to which they are clearly entitled.

Historically, the Blog really started because I was still being asked questions by a number of journalists, so I thought it easier to provide a “general” comment on issues in which they were interested out of which they could pick the bits they wanted. But, not surprisingly the questions from them have slowed over time – let’s face it I have been retired (from full time employment, anyway) almost 8 years – and although I know the blog is still read by some journalists, they are mostly Hong Kong based, and they are interested in Hong Kong and HSBC! But my own interests are much broader than that.

We are impacted in Asia by things that happen elsewhere around the globe. Particularly economically. Our future safety is wrapped up in what happens in the Middle East and in North Korea, and undoubtedly other places. But also amongst certain communities that profess to embrace tolerance, but who by their actions demonstrate a flagrant disregard of their own teachings. And as I have continuing roles in the Middle East region, as well as Asia, I have other thoughts to share.

But this is not just about economics, and politics and security – important though they are. It is also about demographics, employment, education, food and water supplies, nationalism both economic and territorial. And it is about older people – like me, who are still able to contribute, and it’s about our children and our grandchildren and the world in which they are living, surrounded by technological and medical advancement – both the good, the bad, and the very ugly.

There is so much going on out there in our world that you just cannot become an ostrich and pretend that if you don’t see it – then it won’t see you! The media can inform, but it can also misinform. It can interpret, and it can misinterpret. By way of example I read an article recently in a respectable Australian business newspaper that was writing about how difficult it was going to be for international banks to operate in China because of the restrictions being imposed by the authorities. It quoted a couple of recent cases that, in their opinion, justified their line of thinking. But I happen to know the precise story behind one of the examples quoted – and I have been advised by a reliable source about the other one and can, with confidence, say that the report while well-written and indeed convincing, was also free from reality.

For this reason, despite the blog commentator who has described my blog, if I may paraphrase, as being written by someone in the winter of his life and who he therefore thinks may express views that are of less relevance today, that even though the old lion may not run so fast as before, he can perhaps still finds ways to make his presence felt.

So conclusion? Another year I think, and then we’ll see.

Open Doors - A Cautionary Tale

Once the door is open it becomes hard to close again.

Hong Kong has never been the most generous place on earth if you want a handout! And I for one, in general, have no problem with that concept. There are far too many people we read about in other parts of the world who expect to live on handouts from the Government, as if it is an "entitlement" and this needs to be kept under control. BUT, there are always genuine and deserving exceptions. You can and should be prepared to assist those who are not so fortunate as you. Humanitarian acts, although sadly even these are often open to abuse, should be the basis on which we live.

We also need to live in a world where we are prepared to open our doors to others, but with appropriate safeguards for our own people, although this too can eventually become a sore point for local residents. In Hong Kong, for example, there were concerns raised about the growing numbers of Vietnamese Boat People we took in during the 1970s and 1980s. A humanitarian act to be sure, but it lead to violence. Today, we have a burning issue over the cost of accommodation. Properties here have been bought up by people from Mainland China for whom cost seems to be less of an issue for them as it provides perhaps a “bolt-hole” in a different location to their own. We now have hospital beds being booked in advance by Mainland mothers-to-be because they want their children to be born in Hong Kong. But this makes maternity beds scarce for Hong Kong residents.

The trade off, if there is one and despite the negatives of our “open door”, is that many businesses in Hong Kong would not have survived unless Mainland Chinese had not been allowed over the border to come and support the Hong Kong economy, by spending money here.

So, open the doors appropriately by all means, but maintain the controls so that the ability of people to obtain an unfair advantage over the local population is at least kept in check. 

Okay, by now with and with some justification you may be saying, where is all this leading? Well, to a cautionary tale for other countries, including Hong Kong.

It was, quite simply, a newspaper headline that caught my eye from the United Kingdom that read, "You're a soft touch" “There’s no chance we’re leaving. British benefits give me and my daughter a good life.” 

The Lithuanian lady concerned is receiving HK$3,400 a week in benefits (not including a fully furnished two bedroom apartment - free). She lives well, and spends her money on designer clothing and other luxuries. And even she admittedly finds the system "strange", although she did think that the benefits should include paying for a nanny to look after her daughter.

To me, that's nuts. No wonder that people in Britain are deserting the main political parties, and giving more time to fringe parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). A party fiercely opposed to the European Union or rather, the UK's membership of it, because it is EU laws that allow this sort of benefit abuse to happen.  And it therefore does become an "entitlement". One of the trends in our world today is this growing sense of "you owe me", without the "me" making any contribution whatsoever. In fact it is better for some people to be on "benefits" in Britain, than working. And somewhere, some time, a line is going to be drawn that will make people unhappy. 

But the door is open. Try closing it now!

2012 - Where Did It Go?

Whoosh!! Where the heck did that go ... I wonder how many people have said to themselves "I can't believe where this year went".

I know I vividly remember a few years ago - on my 21st birthday actually - a lady saying to me "enjoy this one David, each year will get faster from now on!" I have to now accept that the advice, dismissed at the time as the ramblings of a mad and aged 36 year old, was spot on. And there are few people I have met who would disagree with the concept.

The world around us is getting faster, and we are suffering as a result. So I had a think about why this might be the case, and came up with some answers. Now I accept they might not be the right ones - but they suited my simple mind. It's all our fault!

When I started working on the international circuit, much of our mail was sent by sea so it arrived, and we had a while to deal with it before the ship called in on its return journey. With the advent of the telex machine, things started to move a little faster, but you had to spend some time in coding or decoding messages, especially if they were orders to pay someone. Telephone calls to the Head Office of your company were often put into a queue - or you could book a call a day or so in advance through the local telephone company or Cable and Wireless. If you wanted information on a particular subject - any subject - you could try an encyclopedia or an almanac. If you were lucky you might actually find someone who knew the answer, or go off to the local bookshop to find out if there was a book on the subject.

Life therefore was leisurely, in many ways, although it brought different stresses and strains from those in existence today. People had to use their initiative, live in conditions that were normal for the time but would be considered a hardship today, make judgement calls which could go horribly wrong, and most importantly be accountable for what they did. But as each year progressed, communications got faster. Travel got faster. Instant gratificaction became the goal.

Fast forward to today, and what do we see? Pub quizzes where people surreptitiously have their iPhones under the table to look up answers they never bothered to learn. People in restaurants enjoying each others company:

It was Einstein, I believe who said "I fear the day when the technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots."

No wonder the world is moving faster than ever. We want an answer? It is usually in the palm of our hand - and don't get me wrong, in some cases that's a good thing! But you get the answer and you move on to the next thing. And so the world speeds up - faster and faster, and the years go by similarly faster. Even parenting is likely to succumb:

Quite!

So, the mystery of why our years seem to go faster and faster is resolved by the fact that as we develop and fine tune our skills, the world around us becomes impatient and hurried. Lunches and dinners are taken on the run, not at the table. The pressures are different. We are on call - unless we find the off button on our devices, which seems to be an affliction affecting many - 24/7. If we are not responding to the call from the office we are using (anti) social networks to have "conversations" with people we don't really know. We tweet 140 characters to let people know we are going to the bathroom. No wonder we live in a faster and faster world - and we only have ourselves to blame.

Have a happy 2013, and enjoy it because it will soon be gone!