Eldon-Online

Vote for Hong Kong

It's election time in the USA. It is where I am right now and as I write it is still Tuesday so it ain't over. Personally I shall be pleased when it is. Not because the outcome is not important, it is, but because of the months and months it seems to have been assaulting our ears in Hong Kong and elsewhere - and the money the process costs in America. Frankly I prefer the British electoral system. Call an election, keep the period for electioneering short and restrict the amount of money it costs.  (Similar to the USA, though, it still doesn't guarantee we get the right person at the top!)

So with elections being topical I started to think, as I often do, about Hong Kong. Not from a political leadership perspective, but from the point of view of Hong Kong's position in the world, in Asia and in China - particularly in the post "American Crisis" era.

 Historically Hong Kong has thrived on crisis; political or economic. It was done by a mixture of entrepreneurial and practical business people with common sense, a facilitative civil service and a hard working labour force. 

 What's changed? 

 Well not a lot when you think about it. The entrepreneurs are still there, university-educated perhaps but with less of the raw gut instinct of their fathers. The civil service is still there and has the ability to perform as before, even if it does not always show the inclination to do so (due partly to the presence and pressure of a less business savvy and more banana-driven and hirsute legislature), and the workforce still seems to be largely willing to perform as hard as before. So although we, along with everyone else, who has been caught up in the "American Crisis”, have some issues, we've nothing to be concerned about long term, right?

Well, maybe we'll be lucky, but this is no time for complacency and it is pleasing to know that at least some in the business community are looking seriously at the subject. Mind you, looking, debating and agreeing are only a part of the sum; action is harder.

 I was delighted to be asked recently to give my views to a group of business people. Delighted because at this stage of career I am pleased to be asked my opinion about something - well just about anything actually.

 I used a couple of stories to illustrate the points I was making but my main thoughts from the first story, in brief, looked at:

 - the world over the next 30 years; a more interconnected, interdependent and international world. A world in which Hong Kong, despite the ties with China and the obvious synergies, must remain international in focus unless we want to become just another city in China - and a small one at that.

- whether we need to ask ourselves some basic but sensitive questions. For example have we become all too comfortable in relying largely on China? Do we realise there are markets in directions other than north? 

- Simply put, Hong Kong is where it is today because of our international focus. Because this is a city where people from different places can do business together. If we want to remain relevant to China, and the world, our internationalism cannot be left behind - unless we want to be left behind.

 In terms of the second story, the salient point was that as Hong Kong moves forward we have to increase our appeal. In the comments above, I talked about our interconnected world. In such a scenario people we need in Hong Kong will only be attracted here if our city offers them and/or their families the best lifestyle. This means being honest with ourselves. Are we sometime soon going to go beyond paying lip service to cleaning up our environment or do we expect to be able to do as little in the next 30 years as the last 30 and still have a city worth living in? Simply put, if Hong Kong hopes to compete going forward, it must be a desirable destination for both business and leisure.

 Lastly I made a few points about aggression; being aggressive in defending our turf and our reputation. There is a re-balancing taking place in world economies. We are becoming increasingly volatile in the global economy - a volatility that is being partly driven by flows of information and misinformation. But in this environment we need to consider what we must do to stay ahead of the competition. 

Once again, these trends raise some sensitive but basic questions for Hong Kong. Questions about how to best fend off the competition, to make sure we stay ahead of ALL those cities in Asia that want what Hong Kong already has? But also questions about dealing with negative perceptions transparently and promptly and aggressively protect Hong Kong's regulatory reputation.

So, a few thoughts on this Election Day but for me - and I hope for those of you who have an interest in your future, when you have an opportunity - Vote for Hong Kong.

Pride of Place

The British author and TV Presenter, Jeremy Paxman, summed up the English (specifically) as being "... polite, unexcitable, reserved, and who had hot-water bottles instead of a sex-life". A summing up that could, perhaps, apply to the British generally although we Scots have been known on occasion to thump our chests, albeit usually prematurely, having scored the first points in a Six Nations rugby against the "Auld Enemy", from which we go on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

Britons have usually been more apologetic than proud of their country and its achievements - at least since they lost the Empire! Rare sightings are seen of anything other than a stiff upper lip, and competitiveness on a school sports field seems to have been banned because it disadvantages the less talented. Not so, it seems in the world of art, where a dead sheep suspended in a tank of formaldehyde is considered worthy of rapturous outpourings. Thank goodness art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Abroad, the average Brit will not open his or her mouth in a foreign language unless there is a high degree of confidence that, mentally at least before utterance, the words and the sentence construction are correct; (and I did say "average" before my own children who are at least bi-lingual and in most cases tri-lingual, take me to task!). We tend not to stand out in a crowd in case we stand at the wrong time. We are self-effacing to the extent that you realise we would have been just as happy with getting a second place. A jolly good show!

That was until two weeks ago.

The usually staid "Daily Telegraph" newspaper headline for 20 August read "A Great British Olympics". Since I arrived a few days ago, I have seen a level of pride rising in Britain in a way I have not seen before. A pride in being British, even. Not an arrogant, huffing and puffing, chest-out pride of course, (let's not go overboard!) but just a genuine pleasure in seeing British athletes in all disciplines bringing home medals many were not expected to win. And even taking a good natured "dig" at the Australians for a change, to whom we seem to lose at so many other things.

But the point is this. Success is infectious. It has been the wettest August in Britain for many years, maybe since records began - and we are only just over half way through the month, but you wouldn't know it, from the glow of the Olympic successes. There is an attitude of mind that is positive, and it has been achieved in a short space of time. A real feel good factor. And it brought me back to thinking about Hong Kong.

Thinking about how, so often, we look for the negatives even in a positive environment - or an environment that is least better than that elsewhere. If attitude of mind is the key, then we need to be highlighting those events that should make us feel proud of Hong Kong. Start with our part in the Olympics - a successful equestrian event, thanks to the Jockey Club in large part. Continue by promoting democracy, and electing people to Legco next month whose interests are in the future prosperity of Hong Kong. 

I feel the world is watching us rather more closely than we might think, and a positive attitude will demonstrate that we are awake, alive and not suffering from complacency. We must be proud of who we are and what we have achieved. If the British can do it - so can we!

Right Choice - Convicts Not Wanted

The decision by the Hong Kong Government, according to the latest news I have heard, not to permit convicted British paedophile Paul Gadd, (better known to an older generation perhaps as Gary Glitter) to enter Hong Kong is rational, sane and should be applauded. I just hope hope that no one changes the Government's mind!

But the decision will be met with dismay by at least one British Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom, who is the UK Independence Party's representative for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.

I heard Mr Bloom today on Britain's Radio 2 advocating strongly that Glitter should be permitted to stay in Singapore or Hong Kong if that is what he wants to do. After all, Mr Bloom says, "why would we want a paedophile brought back to Britain, at the taxpayers expense, just so Britain can keep an eye on him?" He went on to say that as Glitter had served his time for his recent conviction, and as he had made his strong desire known that he did not want to return to Britain but preferred to stay in South East Asia, he should be allowed - even encouraged - to do so. 

I must admit to a heart-sinking feeling when I heard that Glitter was, indeed, on his way to Hong Kong, in First Class, but good sense it seems has prevailed.

The laws in Britain covering people convicted of paedophilia are much more stringent than they would seem to be in Asia generally. A register of persons convicted of this most heinous of crimes is maintained, and the physical movement of paedophiles is monitored carefully, to the extent of taking away a person's ability to travel. Sadly, few Asian countries monitor such activities as carefully, leaving young children down as young as babies at serious risk from these sick people. No wonder Gary Glitter doesn't want to return to Britain, as his activities will be severely curtailed - and he might even be the target of some unpleasant abuse.

And, Mr. Bloom, I am sure you don't want Mr Gadd returning to his home country particularly if you have young grandchildren who might be at risk as a result, but don't try and foist this disgusting specimen of the human race onto us in Hong Kong.

Oh! What a Night.

You had to be there, right? I know it will not have impressed everyone and, guess what, there were some logistical problems. The media who will have been hunting for the bad rather than the good, will have found plenty of glitches; the handful of protestors will have found loopholes even if they were never seen. It was horribly hot - and I thought it might be better to watch it on television. But I was wrong. Courtesy of some wonderful people who invited me to join them I was there, and I was in awe.

The opening ceremony of the the XXIXth Olympiad in Beijing was everything this observer could have imagined - and plenty of things that could not have been imagined. Whether or not Steven Spielberg was ever going to provide some technical assistance, I am glad he didn't. They managed just fine without him. And whoever must have been watching from the London Olympic Committee should have been chewing their nails by the end, wondering how they were going to top that - and they haven't seen the closing yet!

From the opening drum beats to the final lighting of the flame, this was a triumphant procession of China's contributions to the world over a 5,000 year time span - done subtly and spectacularly in an entrancing programme. The entrance of the athletes from the huge continents to representatives from the tiniest of nations, all putting sport where it belongs on this occasion, above the politics that seem to have been never far from the surface with these particular games. Athletes with smiles as wide as the stadium, happy to be there and part of an event that for many will be their chance of a lifetime, their dream. The cheers that erupted from the whole stadium to welcome the arrival of the team from Chinese Taipei must have warmed the hearts of those who seek closer cooperation between the two places, as much as the cheers for the Iraq team must have made President Bush wonder if his hearing was properly attuned - but these were cheers, I think, for the fact that through tragedy and adversity the Iraqis had managed to send a team at all - nothing more sinister than that. And for China of course, and rightly, the loudest cheers as they were led around the stadium by Yao Ming accompanied by a nine year old boy from Sichuan who had helped rescue some of his classmates when the earthquake struck last May. A poignant and appropriate tribute representing many heroes of that disaster, recognised and unrecognised. 

This was a night when animosity and politics should have been forgotten. A night which belonged to the organisers of what some might claim was a contender for the title of the greatest show on earth. A night which belonged to the volunteers and participants whose years of dedication to the spectacle will be a long memory for them, but a night that above all celebrated the global village of athleticism where to even take part, will be a tribute to the determination and dedication of many.

And yes, if you were able to,  you had to be there!  

Dare to Demonstrate - For Fun!

Hong Kong really is a remarkable place.

How many other cities in the world can "host" a civil demonstration year after year which is - in every sense - civil? Although protests on 1 July have been a feature of Hong Kong since the 1997 return of Hong Kong to China, the first serious march took place in 2003 amidst widespread discontent in Hong Kong. It has now become an annual event; attracting numbers up towards the 500,000 level on occasion although recent marches have seen smaller, but still significant, numbers. And the crowd trouble which normally accompany such marches? - Nowhere to be seen. Peaceful demonstrations of purpose. Marching for a cause.

I support and admire people who are willing to give up their time to express their views with such solidarity, and without violence. But what I found interesting last year and even more so this year was the diversity of causes that brought people out. It was not so much an outpouring of focused purpose, a march only seeking more democracy or complaining about a piece of Government legislation (Article 23 issues in 2003) or leadership, but various groups of marchers with a variety of themes suggesting perhaps that this was not so much a march of unified disgruntlement, but a number of splinter groups wanting to highlight their specific issues and demands.

And it seemed, as usual, to be relatively good natured, embracing family units from the very young to the elderly, which led me to thinking about where these marches go from here. July the first in Hong Kong should be, for many, a celebration, so why can we not celebrate and at the same time use the day to highlight our particular burning issues?

The parallels might not be glaringly obvious but the Notting Hill Carnival, held annually in London each August had its awakening in the mid 1970's on the back of some rather ugly race riots. It is now an annual event, the second largest street festival in the world after Mardi Gras in Rio. It regularly attracts anywhere between 750,000 to 2 million people over a two day weekend, with many people coming from very far afield to participate.

It seems that there are some possibilities for Hong Kong here. I am sure that, as with Notting Hill, the police would have extra work - but then they have that anyway with the march. I am sure, too, that the legislators and pro-democracy supporters would have some concerns that their "demonstration" was being taken lightly - but it seems to me that there are so many splinter groups now entering the scene that the impact of the march is changing in form.

Why not turn this into something positive? Allow the marches. Let the people who wish to be heard provide details of their issues to a wider audience through stalls and information booths, but let it be a family day too. Music and entertainment. A resurrection of a Harbour Fest look-alike (the concept was brilliant, even if the execution could have been better; we learn from mistakes). Close the streets and keep some of the polluting traffic off the roads for 48 hours. Give more people some exercise by encouraging them to walk. Use Victoria Park (pity we can no longer use the Tamar site!). Maybe we can set a record for the biggest street party in Asia!

Let's demonstrate, remonstrate as necessary...and have some fun too! 

Hong Kong's Got Talent; So Let's Worry About It - The Hong Kong Disease

Talent, in Hong Kong, appears to be suffering from Acquired Nationality Syndrome. Find a person to do a job within Government, with the right credentials and potential for the future, make the appointment and then - oops, get told that the candidate is unsuitable because of their passport; because they are "obviously not loyal" to Hong Kong. What are we thinking of - does it actually matter what nationality a person has, acquired or otherwise, if he or she is willing to devote their energy and efforts to further the prosperity and well being of Hong Kong? If they are standing for the post of Chief Executive or another senior Government position then, yes, there is a case to be made for ensuring that the potential candidate is politically correct, but at deputy minister level?

This is not a debate about the credentials of the people chosen for the roles, nor is it a debate about salaries - it is the principle behind the idea that is being questioned. The money, frankly, shouldn't matter a great deal anyway - Hong Kong's civil servants have always been right up there in salaries with the business community, so by all means pay people for the job they do - and judge them by the results. If that means firing them too - so be it.

Maybe I am not a good example, but I have a British passport. Does it mean that if I am able to contribute something to Hong Kong that might help, I should keep quiet? I received a question from the Hong Kong media some months ago, after my "appointment" as Adviser to incoming Korean President Lee Myung Bak was announced, when they asked why I had not helped Hong Kong; I responded, tongue in cheek, that I had not been asked. Of course I don't think I need to be asked, and I believe that I have in a number of very small ways been of some help to Hong Kong through involvement in the TDC, various other Government bodies and charities and the like, and I propose to continue doing so. But take a person like Alan Zeman, who I don't think has a Hong Kong passport (I may be wrong Alan, and if so, apologies), but what a huge amount someone like him has contributed to Hong Kong.

 I have no aspiration to be a deputy minister, but I am sure there are many excellent Hong Kong born Chinese, with foreign passports, who would willingly contribute to this city. I presume they are now precluded from doing so.

I do wish, sometimes, that we would just stop this bickering. This navel gazing, This desire to worry ourselves silly over issues which, if viewed in a broader perspective could be dealt with more maturely than demanding apologies from the CE in Legco for perceived heinous "crimes" that are rarely worth more than a few column inches in the media. Or maybe a few comments in Legco, if our representatives have something worth saying. It is a rearward looking disease, common to Hong Kong, that is generally counterproductive to the way forward, and suggests that we should consider nominating the ostrich to be the national bird of the city.

There is much talent resident in Hong Kong, with many good ideas. We should harness it and use it. The results might be positively startling - but then we would certainly worry about who to blame for that too!    

What An Interesting Question!

Have you noticed one of the favourite tricks interviewees do on television when they are asked something difficult? They say something like "I am not sure about that, but what I think you meant to ask was ..." - and off they trot into the message they have been itching to impart, with hardly a care for the interviewer or listener.

I got one like that last week, but not on live television.

I was in China and was being asked about the impact of foreign banks in China, since the market had been opened up to allow foreign institutions to take stakes in domestic banks. Had the "experiment" been a success, I was asked. Well, I was able to trot out a whole range of answers about the injections of capital, the expertise that had become available to the investee banks in some cases by the secondment of executives from outside China (although I admit this has not been a universal success). The opening up of the foreign markets, in return, to those domestic Chinese banks, and so on. And the introduction of "best practice" in so far it is understood by foreign banks, in the realms of corporate governance and transparency - taking provisions for bad debts early rather than hiding them. A "no surprise" regime. Not forgetting the important area of credit control.

I really should have noticed the slight narrowing of the eyes and pursed lips.

The conversation continued until it had almost reached its natural conclusion. The interviewer relaxed, as did I. Just one last question Mr. Eldon, if I may? Of course.

"You mentioned earlier that one of the important areas, perhaps the most important contribution that had been made by the foreign banks to China was the introduction of good lending systems and controls over lending. Can you tell me, then, what you think about these expert foreign banks who got caught up in the sub-prime debt market. If they are so expert, how could this have happened - and do they really bring such good practices to China. Should we be worried, or should we let more foreign banks in to teach us?

"Ah!" I said. "What an interesting question - what I think you really meant to ask was...". But in this case, there was little sensible I could add; no message I had been itching to impart.

Message to foreign banks wanting to invest in Chinese banks - tell them about your lack of sub-prime exposure. That will impress them as to your suitability as a partner.

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!!

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!

Food For Thought - (But Not For Long?)

I have been spending a little time recently, in one of Hong Kong's "rival" cities, to where a number of people I know have de-camped from Asia's "World City". Why the move? They cite the usual reasons like pollution in Hong Kong, lifestyle, better for the children where they are moving to - while Hong Kong Government statisticians continue to tell us that the inflow into Hong Kong of new companies has never been higher. Amazing what you can do with numbers and statistics - just another type of labeling I guess, but we will get onto that in a minute.

The city I talk of is, of course, Singapore. The original "nanny state" of Asia where citizens (and occasionally visitors) have been instructed in how long their hair should be, how to be polite, what type of person they should marry, what they should not drink or chew as children, and so on. But guess what; it doesn't seem to have done Singapore any harm, and they have achieved certain standards of behaviour, politeness and cleanliness, making it a really pleasant city. And much less talk of "nannying" these days it seems, as that mantle passes to Hong Kong. As if by confirmation, a note in a recently researched web-site states "...Attempts to introduce new taxes, labor regulations (like a minimum wage), the emergence of bodies with arbitrary power of prosecution, corporate welfare and nanny-state legislation are on the rise."

I tend to agree; but the "nannying" goes much further than just in relation to business!

As we try to remain healthy in the face of breathing the foul air in Hong Kong, by at least eating the right sort of foods, up pops the Government with its latest craze. Food labeling.

Don't get me wrong, I am completely in favour of food labeling. We have a right to know what we are eating - and some of the proposed legislation in Hong Kong is helpful, even if it does try to second guess the quality of labeling of the producing country.

If the new rules currently under discussion are passed into legislation, as seems likely at present, all imported packaged foods must bear Hong Kong-specific nutrition labels. That's okay, and easy for the high volume imports, as they can adapt their labeling to suit. But lower volume imports, such as your specialist foods, health foods, the sort of things you like to see daily on your breakfast table, for example are at risk.

Now, while the authorities have accepted the argument that many packaged foods entering Hong Kong are low volume, (defined as less than 30,000 pieces annually), they have exempted these products from the specific labeling - BUT, and here's the rub - woe betide any importer who, wishing to make use of the exemption, finds that in addition to the nutritional values given on the packaging, also finds the packaging contains nutritional claims. You know the sort of thing; "Fat Free", "Sugar Free", "Gluten Free" "Omega 3s". Oh no! Nutritional claims are NOT allowed and therefore the products are NOT exempt.

Well, of course, we do want to be sure that these nutritional claims are genuine - and well, why should we just take the word of another jurisdiction that permits such labeling 'cos "nanny" assumes they must have got it wrong.

Oh, but did I mention that Hong Kong already has a labeling law in place today, which mandates no less, that any representation made on food packaging must be true? Hmm; so actually we are covered already from false claims?

I love Hong Kong. I enjoy living here as does my family, but we are about to lose many of the things that we enjoy having on our shelves. Those foods that elsewhere in the world are deemed to be healthy but which "nanny" says I now can't have.

Time was, in Hong Kong, when people were able to make choices for themselves.

No longer it seems, so perhaps we are really heading to the point so neatly portrayed on our friend Alfred E Neuman's "Mad: magazine for this month where in bold letters, at the bottom right hand corner, are imprinted the words "Viva La Stupidity".