Eldon-Online

P R and C ... and Sixty

P, R and C - three seemingly random letters from the alphabet but which, put together as I write this week, have some interesting meanings.

In the first instance, PRC is of course the key set of initials leading people in many parts of the world to focus on the celebrations in China, as the People's Republic celebrates its 60th Anniversary. A number of friends are already in Beijing waiting for 1 October, to be present and to experience the atmosphere - although I suspect the visuals may actually be better experienced on the television. Wonder if the celebrations will be shown in Dubai, where I am headed?

Of course, feelings about the whole event - the cost, the scale, the symbolism and the multiple messages it sends - are already subject to much scrutiny and interpretation. I have not met anyone yet who is  ambivalent about it, from university professors to taxi drivers and hairdressers (okay, barber in my case!), from Americans to Chinese, Australians and Africans - everyone it seems. From the overly optimistic to the prejudicially pessimistic. And the media for once is very mixed; some actually with glowing positive reports as to what all this means for the future - "balanced" by the downright scary.

China has spent lavishly on a couple of events in the last few years, what with the Olympics and now this parade. And we will never know the exact amounts. But when was the last occasion they spent like this? Maybe 20 years ago when they celebrated their 40th? Let’s remember that China operates its calendar under a sexagenary cycle, meaning that 60 is a particularly important milestone as calendars go. Yes some (or all) of that money could have been used for other purposes and yes, China is not perfect in so many ways. But I would argue it has improved dramatically certainly in the last 30 and is continuing to do so. It is probably one of the only economies in the world today that has some growth – having avoided some of the excesses suffered by its so called “developed” teachers and advisers. Why not have a party, and lighten up a little?

It is always interesting to me that people are quick to be critical of China, who take some pride in their nationalism. Is it possible that the Americans are any less nationalistic, or the Thais or the Singaporeans? As I wrote earlier, China Is not perfect. Its government does things that interfere with civil liberties but you cannot tell me that such issues are not present in the countries mentioned above. Oh, and they all have another thing in common - the death penalty. What a civilized world in which we live!

China is celebrating 60 years in a way they know best. It's a country that has 1.3bn people - of course there's going to be a cast of thousands. At least people can take a little ownership and say that they were a part of it.

Whether it suits us or not, we have to get used to the idea that China is a part of the world in which we live, and will be around for many more lifetimes. Perhaps the time will come when the world is going to need China's help somehow, and they'll have every right to turn around and say - why should we? But they won't, because that's not how they play their game.

Returning to the alphabet, where I started, not only is PRC in the news this week, but for me P and R are also in the news – and just happens to involve C too. Lost?

Public Relations are an important part of our world today. It doesn’t matter if you are a Fortune 500 company, or an individual – PR is all around you.

The announcements made by HSBC at the end of last week concerning the relocation of the Group Chief Executive to Hong Kong were a real PR coup in my opinion. Coming just one week before the 60^th Anniversary, the timing was perfect. The return home, in many ways, provides a ringing endorsement that Asia in general and China in particular is seriously important as far as the economic future of the world is concerned.

I have received many requests from journalists seeking my opinion on the move and on a number of the ramifications surrounding the decisions but I think I had better keep them to myself, other than to say, “Welcome home”!

And before I leave PR. I hope you noticed the announcement last week that the China Investment Corporation (CIC) has invested a substantial sum of money into Noble. That, coming on the back of a rating agency upgrade, saw a lot of positive PR for a company with which I am happy to be associated. 

Finally, I had to smile at a smart (paraphrased) response from the eloquently elegant Madam Fu Ying, Chinese Ambassador to the United Kingdom that I saw on a news channel yesterday who, when asked by a British reporter whether the next 60 years might see a change in China, leading to giving people the vote said, “You mean, copy the way you do things?” Touché Madam. 

All in all, a pretty good week for P, R and C – and happy birthday to a Sixty Year Old from an Over Sixty!

Addictions...We Are Not Learning!

"Work is the Curse of the Drinking Classes"

Oscar Wilde

A flippant remark, which often draws a laugh - particularly given the originator, but a remark nevertheless that has a serious side. In a November 2007 blog I wrote about alcohol and particularly binge drinking amongst the younger generation. It is a subject about which I feel strongly, not because I am some sort of puritanical reformer who is teetotal, far from it in fact, but because I see the damage it does - and will continue to do unless we accept that it is a problem to be resolved.

My attention was re-drawn to the issue last week, following the death of a 22 year old from cirrhosis of the liver, after a life of drinking heavily from the age of 13. I was particularly alarmed at the comments of the boy's Mother who blamed "widely available cheap alcohol". She would perhaps have found another answer closer to home if she had paused to look in a mirror. Surely she must have had some idea that her son was drinking to excess from an early age. Early enough to act.

Statistics in the UK indicate that from 2002/3 to 2007/8, alcohol related admissions to hospital increased by 70%. That is a worrying number no matter which way you look at it. But despite the health warnings, the advertising curbs on when alcohol related advertisements can be shown, there is a culture that "booze is cool". The pop stars, and even sports stars do it ... so for the impressionable younger generation "it must be okay".

We need more public comments from these younger stars who set the standards today, to echo the admissions of some of the older ones. People for example like Barry Humphries, creator of Dame Edna Everage, who in a recent interview said that in his early career he was drinking to "flamboyant excess". He stopped drinking 39 years ago, after realising that his blackouts were not funny. He says that he has had every possible alcoholic experience - all of which were disastrous. But his career ever since has been hugely successful.

Or the popular Scots-born US TV Chat Show host Craig Ferguson, who said it all on one of his shows. If you have 10 minutes to spare - watch it on YouTube. And maybe pass it on.  

Alcohol is not the only addiction, obviously. The list seems endless, but we are watching young lives thrown away needlessly because appropriate support does not appear to be available. In Britain, it is being suggested that doctors are being encouraged to ask children from the age of 10 upwards how much alcohol they drink. Perhaps they should do the same with smoking - although heaven knows what sort of answers they will get in either case.

Some of the nicest, funniest, down to earth people in the world manage to go through life without falling into that deep pit. But the cleverest are those who, having fallen down a black hole, managed to climb out in time and create a new life for themselves. They are the ones who enjoy the love and support of their family and friends, and if that support and understanding is not given, or they get ridiculed by their friends for being "different" then their future is bleak.

For Gary Reinbach, dead at 22, I wonder who was providing his support.

Pete Seeger's song "Where Have All The Flowers Gone" has the lines "When Will We Ever Learn?" When indeed.

 

 

Korea...North and South...Two Countries - Two Systems

On a very recent visit to South Korea I was struck by an air of calm in Seoul that I had not witnessed on previous occasions immediately following a period of North Korean sabre-rattling. As a general rule, when you are living in a capital city less than 30 kms away from someone with whom you are still technically at war, you are bound to get nervous. And on this occasion there had been some actual rockets fired.

The reason for the apparent calm was explained to me as being a result of the strong support being shown to the South by the USA in particular. A comfort that foreign powers were going to keep a close watch on behalf of the M B Lee Government. In addition, China has appeared less inclined to side with the North as they may have done previously. Recognising, perhaps, that they too are now probably as much at risk from a madman's possible mistakes as South Korea.

The North has clearly tried to "up the stakes", but is this an act of desperation disguised as bravado? Perhaps they are concerned that its starving population might just get enough combined strength together to create "difficulties" for the Kim dynasty, although it is hard to see how this might happen in the repressive communist state. Or maybe this is Kim Jong-il trying to "appeal" to the Americans, or anyone else for that matter, to let him have some money... or else! If so, he's got a darn funny way of going about getting any kind of support. 

Or is he, for some reason other than a mental meltdown feeling somehow rather confident? How, for example, is he getting enough money to build new weapons of mass destruction? I am sure there are many people out there who have access to more possible answers than I have, but at the front of my own thoughts is the question - who else might be willing to lend a hand in creating nervous tension in the region? It would have to be somebody with money, and a desire particularly to destabilise any potential western influence in the region. And here I keep coming back to Iran as a potentially willing collaborator. Food, perhaps, for thought if not for Mr. Kim's starving population.

Whatever the North wishes to do politically, undiplomatically or whatever, the rather unusually calm South nevertheless has had its own issues to deal with, but the support coming from external forces takes some of the heat off needing to focus solely on the North.

The South's focus has, therefore, continued to be more business oriented, and I must tell you that, although it may not yet be apparent to the outside world, there remains a strong commitment by the Lee Government to open up the market to foreign companies and investors.

This Governmental commitment is not always reflected within South Korea generally where businesses still have some way to go in accepting the overall concept of more open markets. Market protectionism, which features in many of M B Lee’s speeches as being something that must not be pursued by Korea, nevertheless suits many if it protects their own industries and jobs – and it is a fact of life that it is a common theme in many countries. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot close your markets to others, yet expect markets elsewhere to remain open to your goods and products.

By the same token, therefore, is it okay to close your markets to foreign business yet be willing to openly accept foreign support against a potential aggressor? Okay, so the USA has a security interest in being somewhere in the region, and Korea is a large presence for them, so their willingness to support the South may not totally altruistic. But it nevertheless remains an argument.

So what is the point of all this?

North Korea is becoming increasingly and worryingly belligerent, possibly supported by outside forces and maybe concerned about the plight and possible reaction of its starving population. South Korea on the other hand, is pressing ahead with plans to open up its economy, and is being allowed to do so as it faces less pressure from the North.

So what about in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons arsenal, North Korea opens up to foreign investment in the same way that its communist neighbour, China, has done so successfully. Step by step. But guided by the South. They speak the same language. They have the same ethnic background. They could follow the format of another experiment further south, of One country – Two systems. It would be a start, but perhaps it will take a real change of attitude, or leader, in the North to come anywhere close.

WMD; Weapons Or Words?

The term WMD, in recent history, came to be known as an abbreviation for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Those things that the Americans said existed in Iraq, who dragged the British along with them into a war which rid the world of a dictator, but left a legacy of internal conflict in the country that shows no signs of abating. Oh, and just as an aside there didn't seem to be any WMDs - strange that!

On the other hand we have the North Koreans who most definitely do have WMDs, and a dictator, but nobody seems terribly interested in knocking him on the head and giving that country a chance of escaping from abject poverty and starvation. Where's the justice in that - or did everyone wake up to the idea that invading Iraq under some pretext or other was just wrong? Mind you, Iraq had oil - North Korea doesn't.

But it occurs to me that WMD could just as easily stand for Words of Mass Destruction - at least in Iran most recently where some bloodthirsty cleric is proclaiming that all rioters should be executed.

To re-cap, there can be few people in the world today, civilised or otherwise, who believe that the recent elections in Iran were fair and just. Of course, it is quite possible that both sides were trying to rig the ballot boxes, but there are just too many anomalies in the results to believe that the incumbent President won the election by anything like the claimed majority. He might have won, I cannot comment, but certainly not by the proclaimed majority.

The strength of negative feeling from the opposition within Iran, and from Iranians outside the country, is massive and powerful. They have been giving vent to their feelings, and show little appetite for remaining silent - almost at any cost. Which leads me to ponder on the words of the Islamic Cleric Ahmad Khatami, a known hardliner, who said "I want the judiciary to... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge the leading "rioters" as being "mohareb" or one who wages war against God. "They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran’s Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as "mohareb" is execution.

One must assume that Khatami is equating rioting against a corrupt President Ahmadinejad as waging war against God; surely a dangerous and heretical supposition, but then perhaps he is becoming fearful of his own position and, like a cornered snake, is prepared to come out fighting.

The fact that inflammatory words can be as destructive as weapons is not in doubt. Comments such as these will lead Iran into a bloody domestic conflict that will end in tears. The fact that these words can can come from a man of religion is even more worrying. If religious leaders promote violence, from a religious base that is supposed to preach tolerance - and by religious base I mean all religions - what hope will there ever be for the people of this world to live a life where differences are respected, where freedoms become the right of everybody, and where the ambitions of dictators are not allowed to flourish. I hope that Iran does not descend into more bloodshed on account of the words of mass destruction uttered by its supposed men of peace. 

The Rules Of Principles... or How To Labour Under A Misapprehension.

I was brought up to believe that principles were everything. "Intent" was a defining noun. Doing the right thing, even if the "rules" allowed you to go further, was important. It has led to various debates throughout my life where my, at times perhaps, overly conservative/protectionist/reputational shield has come into play. For example, I did not think it "right" that my former employer should open a representative office in Myanmar, even if the rules allowed us, but they went ahead anyway. I closed it as soon as I was in a position senior enough to do so.

The discussion has struggled on. The "rules-based" provisions in the USA did not prevent the likes of Enron and WorldCom from going bust. The introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley "rules" has had some impact, but seemed to be more like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - or so it became, even if the original intent was much less draconian. Rules, we said, encouraged the nimble-minded to see just how close they could get to the imaginary line created by the rules - or even assess the risk of having one foot on either side of those lines.

Principles, on the other hand were altogether more, shall we say, "lofty". More sort of, well, British. People instinctively knew what was right and what was wrong, and acted accordingly without having to resort to a "rule" book. Today, sadly, one might have to say that to trust in ones fellow human beings to act "properly" is blinkered and naive in the extreme.

Britain's ruling (for the time being anyway) Labour party has been found with an excess of moral turpitude and, to be fair, I suspect there are also a few members of the Conservative Party who have their heads very well below the parapet for fear of being branded the same way. It all started with expenses. There has been so much written in the world-wide media about how these politicians, representatives of the constituents who voted them into power, have blatantly abused the trust placed in them that I will not continue old news. "But", say these disgraced politicians, "it was allowed by the rules"! Forget the principles, people of Britain, it was in the "rule book", so it was okay.

Well, the people of Britain have had an opportunity to have their say. In the local elections held on Thursday and with results almost all in, the Labour Party has - in effect - been kicked out of Parliament, although that actual event is not going to take place until a General Election is called sometime with the next 12 months. The very people who voted for the last Government have already said "we don't want you any more. Leave."

The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is I am sure an honourable man and must be bitterly disappointed at his inheritance from the rather clever Mr Blair, his predecessor, who maybe saw this coming before he left office mid-term. The Cabinet re-shuffle announced yesterday looks awful and surely the only way in which Mr Brown can salvage any dignity whatsoever is by resorting to his own strong  principles.

He is presiding over a Government that lacks credibility and which the people of Britain would like to see changed - now! The message is clear - move on, or run the risk of more indignity. This is nothing to do with the financial crisis, this is all about Governance and Leadership.

Do not stick to the "rules" and hold an election at the last possible day; Do stick to your principles and do the right thing. 

Britain - Pay As You Go (Out).

The Visit Britain website is a mine of useful information. Even though I left the country over 40 years ago I still enjoy visiting, not only because of the redoubtable Mother, but because it is stunningly beautiful and historic. And I always encourage others to do the same. Indeed, just this summer we will be hosting a small group of Americans who have never visited Britain before, and on doing the research I am seriously amazed and impressed at the deals available for foreigners. Welcome to Britain!

The sights in Britain are in fact so good that the "enlightened" but beleaguered Government are determined to encourage more Britons to stay at home and visit. Hence the bad news for the foreign tourists is that there appears to be a dark sting lurking in the tail of the British welcome.

So what is it that has caught my attention? 

A little underhanded Economic Nationalism perhaps - some protectionism, despite the fact that everyone is paying lip service to the "no protectionism" bandwagon? [And on that particular protectionism subject think ‘Buy America’ provisions. Or China’s Coke moment. Or Australia’s 

Rio Tinto dilemma. But I digress.]

In Britain's case it all revolves around the now "hidden" subject of Air Passenger Duty (APD) - in other words, Departure Tax. 

In the most recent British budget - and presumably to act as an incentive for Britons to stay at home rather than go and enrich some other economy during their holidays, there is about to be introduced a higher APD. Great for the British Government revenues and of course for Britain - or is it?

If you are a UK based businessman who travels overseas to acquire business which will ultimately benefit Britain, you are going to be paying more for the privilege - or at least your company is going to pay. If you are a British tourist who wants to go overseas on holiday, in the most economical class of travel, it will cost you more, (and heaven help you if you want to move up to World Traveller Plus). And if you are a foreign tourist, like our summer visitors who are a source of revenue to Britain, you can get in to the country, no problem - but then you have to pay to leave!!

An example as supplied by a friend who has looked into this carefully (it is complicated by distance, but I will use Hong Kong):

• 4001-6,000 Miles from London (eg Hong Kong, Thailand,Brazil, Kenya, China,Seychelles, Mauritius,S Africa)

       Current APD:   £40 Economy.                £80 Any other class

       In Nov 2009 will go to:      £50       £100

       And Nov 2010 will reach:     £75               £150

So today, the minimum airport tax to leave the UK on an economy class ticket is £40 - already the most expensive in the world. By November 2010 it will almost have doubled to £75. If you are a business traveller or tourist, who travels even just a little further up the plane, you will be paying £150 before the end of 2010!

And before anyone claims that this is all to do with the "greening of Britain", none of these taxes is earmarked for use for environmental purposes or research and development of cleaner engines or fuels or  technology improvements or anything to do with aviation or climate change.They simply go into general revenue. So, a "Brown-ing of Britain" in effect. (I wonder if Government Ministers or other Civil Servants are exempt from airport taxes?)

One quotable quote (I suspect the others were unprintable!) I have seen, was from the IATA Director General and CEO, Giovani Bisignani who said “It is time for the UK to realise that APD is penalising one of its most powerful economic  catalysts at the same time that is spending billions to bail out other failed industries.”

Hear hear, Giovani; on one hand the international business community that is a generator of revenue for Britain, and the tourism industry which does rather well from the arrival of foreign tourists, have been well and truly stuffed - to use a rather crude expression. But what a good move by the "Bayou Beauties", the ladies from Louisiana who chose the Summer of '09 to make their trip to the UK. They will still have to pay to leave - but it would have been a lot more next year.

Rotten Swine!

Go on admit it, you just had to look, right?

Since the outbreak of the annoying swine flu lots of people, in a quest to lighten the gloom, have already tumbled back in history to the antics of that 1950s British radio comedy show, "The Goon Show". It starred, amongst others, Peter Sellers in the role (one of many) of "Bluebottle" - whose catch phrase "You dirty rotten swine you!" , became often used, even by Royal Princes.

But tempted though I was to write something on the latest crisis to hit the globe (if that is ultimately what happens), which seems to be unfairly blamed on an unsuspecting omnivorous, artiodactylous mammal with a bristly coat and elongated, flexible snout (yes, a swine!), I decided against it. After all, latest reports seem to indicate that the "flu" is actually a mixture of both pig and avian - and that's a worry! Flying pigs? Plus the fact that from what I have read so far at least, no swine have died from their own flu. Therefore, as there is already enough confusion out there I propose not to add to it.

So where do I go from here? Let's talk about headlines!!

Perhaps you looked at this blog because the headline caught your attention. That was the intention! It highlights for me the role of the media headline-writers. Like the headline that I read two days ago which said "Bank of China Profit Slumps". Now I don't know what "slump" means to you, but to me it suggests that something has declined dramatically or has performed badly. Fast forward to the article in question: the actual story - Bank of China profits down less than 15% and up over 300% from the previous quarter. Oh that we could all have a "slump" like that!

 

It is the eye-catching headline which is all important for a newspaper. I know that. But I am also aware of the damage that such headlines can do. It doesn't seem to matter that the article content is by and large accurate - it is the headline that people remember and then use to form an opinion. In other words if the headline is sensational, the reader starts on the article with a picture in his or her mind. It's a bit like the courtroom dramas you see in movies or on television where the clever lawyer extracts some "unfavourable to the opposing side" statement from a witness, the opposing side objects and the judge says to the jury, "ignore that last remark". As if!

 

History is littered with admonitions to the media. Take Piers Morgan, for example, the judge on a number of Simon Cowell TV Talent shows who was forced to apologise (rightly), when the Daily Mirror, a British tabloid of which he was the editor, came up with the headline ""Achtung! Surrender" a day before England met Germany in a semi-final of the Euro 96 football championship. Much further back were the words of George Rae, who I have mentioned before in relation to financial crises when he firmly put the role of the media in its place, (In 1875) saying that the media had a role to be responsible - and not to create panic.

Headlines are going to remain a prominent feature of our daily lives - be it in the print media, television or radio. But if they are continuously "sensational", portraying extremes that on closer investigation turn out to be more moderate, they eventually invade our "rational" space. And, by the way, I do know people who can base whole arguments founded on a newspaper headline without actually having read the article.

But, in deference to my own headline, let me return to the rotten swine (and I have been called worse!), flying pigs, whatever!

Whether we really do face a pandemic, and with all the information currently available I have come to the definite conclusion that it may or may not happen, I am going to continue to go about my normal daily business, practicing a high standard of personal hygiene. I intend to travel normally (almost entirely in Asia and the Middle East) and carefully, unless it becomes clear that I should not do so, and to assess my risks in any situation.

Allow me to leave you with the first verse of the famous pig song:

'Twas an evening in October, I'll confess I wasn't sober

I was carting home a load with manly pride,

When my feet began to stutter and I fell into the gutter,

And a pig came up and lay down by my side.

Then I lay there in the gutter and my heart was all a-flutter,

Till a lady, passing by, did chance to say

"You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses,"

Then the pig got up and slowly walked away.

The "Cowboys" Are Back In Town - A Cautionary Tale!

Will we never, ever learn?

I had a disturbing conversation this week with an acquaintance. We were discussing the inevitability of new regulations for the financial services industry - and whether they would be "knee jerk", or rational. While the former seemed more likely given past history, obviously we preferred the second "option", but hoped they would be "appropriate regulation" rather than just papering over the cracks. After all, it has been clearly demonstrated that any old regulations do not always work; as the troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have amply demonstrated.

But it was a follow-on conversation relating to Independent Non-Executive Directors (INED) that made me wonder just where we were headed - new regulations or not. Have we learnt anything at all from the recent past? It seems, not a lot. Here is the (true) story.

Company "A" was the subject of an offer from Company "B". Discussions had been taking place for some time, and non-disclosuree agreements obtained from all the appropriate people. On reaching a critical point in the discussions, documentation was prepared and released to interested parties one Friday evening. The following week, unusual activity was noticed in Company "A"s shares, leading the INEDs of that company to consider issuing a formal, standard statement re the price movement and transaction volumes. Unusual activity even by current volatile market standards, and particularly in comparison to a peer group of companies.

The Investment Bankers who were advisers of Company "B", when advised that this course of action (over which they admitted they had no control) was being considered, were visibly put out. Totally ignoring the reputational implications to the INEDs in Company "A" they firstly "humbly requested" a delay (until the end of that month!) of any announcements and then - when that plea appeared to fall on deaf ears - said rather petulantly that if the announcement went ahead, then perhaps the deal would have to be called off!!

Now, why would Investment Bankers want to "threaten" independently minded people unless, of course, they saw possible fat fees and rich bonuses going out of the window? Greed perhaps, or am I being unfair?

Here we are in the middle of a financial crisis. Many responsible people are doing what they can to try and recover from the situation in which they find themselves - but beware, because the "cowboys" are back already. Vultures, it is said, never move far from their prey until they have picked it clean. To Independent Non-Executive Directors be on your guard, and keep your eyes open - those are the first things the vultures go for! 

Under the circumstances I can think of some new regulations!!

With All Due Humility, A Job's A Job...

The height of humiliation, according to the South China Morning Post, is to work as a domestic helper. Try telling that to the thousands of Filipinas in Hong Kong and around the world, many with university degrees they can't put to good use. But, it seems, taking a job as a housekeeper is too embarrassing in China.

Let me tell you a true story. The only two points of significant difference between this story and the one in the newspaper are that firstly the subject (let's call her Mary) did not have a University degree, and secondly her life commenced many years ago.

Mary was born in one of the toughest parts of Glasgow, one of six children. Her Father, she said, was a good man because he always made sure his children had something to wear on their feet when they went to school, unlike many of the other children around them. The soles of the shoes were changed regularly, when there was a new piece of cardboard available. Mary was a bright child. Never out of the top two or three at school and where her worst subject was geography where she "only" got marks in the 70 and 80 percent levels. This, despite receiving punishment (usually the strap) almost every day for being late in the classroom. It was only some years later her teacher found out that Mary was late because she had to take her younger sister to school first, and the younger one started later than Mary. But, said Mary, she didn't want to go around making excuses. 

When she was 14 years old Mary had to stop school because the family needed her to work to earn money, so she entered domestic service as a housekeeper.

Ultimately the second world war intervened, and Mary joined the army where, due to her skill and intelligence, she rapidly rose through the ranks and became a gunnery sergeant, receiving high commendations and top marks wherever she went. As the war was coming to a close Mary married another sergeant - a commando who she had met when he was doing some training. Sadly he died just before the war ended leaving Mary a widow with a child on the way.

To cut what could be a very long story into a manageable tale, Mary found work as a cook/housekeeper to a family who were prepared to take her on with a baby. The job, managing an extremely large house was, to say the least, demanding. The employers were reasonable, but they entertained large numbers frequently and it was not uncommon for Mary to be up at 6 in the morning and not be in bed until 11 at night having had a full day cleaning and cooking. She was never known to complain - accepting (rightly or wrongly) that you play with the deck you are dealt. You take the opportunities when they arise, but you get on with life.

Mary was involved with the same family, parents and children, until at the age of 72 she decided she should slow down and stop full time work. Throughout her working life she never asked for an increase in pay - preferring instead to rely on the provision of a roof over her head and the pension she received from the army for the loss of her husband, as well as by then an old age pension.

Her intelligence never wavered. She reached the London finals of The Times crossword puzzle in her 70s, but declined to attend them because she did not want to be in any form of public eye, or the pressure that went with it.

Her humility, her grounding, her loyalty and her total lack of selfishness have provided for others a base from which to work. But humiliation for working as a domestic helper?? It would not have crossed her mind. A job, she would say, is a job - and if you can do something with the few opportunities you can find in life, then grasp them.

Happily, Mary today is in her 90th year and as sharp and as fiercely independent as ever. She lives comfortably and quietly, but of the headline in the newspaper today she would probably have a few choice things to say about "too high expectations", and to stop whining - be happy you even have a job, as there are many who don't.

I shall speak about it to "Mary" when I call her tonight - although I will call her Mum!

    

Blame It On Education!

Amidst all the doom and gloom-laced newspaper headlines foretelling the end of the world, isn't it "refreshing" to discover that there are some people who really don't worry about the current state of affairs? Take the story that broke at the end of last week of the 13 year old British boy who has become a father after having had sex with a 15 year old girl. When asked what he would do to support the baby financially he said "what does financially mean"? 

Come on, at least he's honest. It would surely not be too far fetched to suggest there are quite a few people out in the world today who are considerably older, apparently better educated - if length of time at it is any measure - and in receipt of huge dollops of money regularly (unlike our young father who "occasionally gets £10 pocket money" from his dad!), of whom it might be said were similarly confused by the meaning of the word "financially".

But it's the fatherhood rather than the financials I am considering here, in addition to wondering out loud whether there will be any legal action as a result of underage sex!

 Of course the "blame-game" has already started. This is clearly the fault of promoting sex education in schools, say some critics. If you didn't teach them about these things, the children wouldn't have an urge to go off and try it for themselves, they say. (Yeh, right!). Other "experts"  wade in and say that you must have sex education in schools. Presumably because they remember their own uneducated exploratory fumblings in the corner of a long forgotten school yard, which they tried to relate to some story their parents told them about birds and bees. The necessity for this type of education, they continue, is because parents no longer seem to take this responsibility on, preferring to leave it to the schools. 

And in relation to that last point, it seems that no criticism on this child's fatherhood has been levelled at the parents. So, whichever camp you are in with regard to sex education/no sex education in schools, the fundamental point must be the fact that parents are now failing in their own basic responsibilities towards their children. They are the ones who should be doing the educating, not leaving it to the schools and then blaming them when something goes wrong.

Don't blame it on education.

(As a brief aside, on sex education, if you are ever in Bangkok have a meal at "Cabbages and Condoms", you won't be sorry, for a number of good reasons). 

Now, while I am on the subject of education, and moving from Britain to Asia, it appears that Hong Kong is playing host to the daughter of one of the worlds most reviled "leaders". Bona Mugabe has apparently been studying under an assumed name at the University of Hong Kong since the autumn and I am partly - or perhaps I should say minutely - sympathetic to the views of the University spokesman who said we should put education above politics. There is now some doubt about exactly which establishment she has been at, or is intending to attend, but no smoke without fire! She must have been/be around here somewhere!!

Maybe by exposing Miss Mugabe to the feelings of the entire world about her father, she will experience some sort of remorse and work towards making a difference. But, sadly, I suspect not.

It is not Miss Mugabe who has snatched the headlines, however, but the reports of her mother allegedly assaulting a Sunday Times photographer in January, two journalists reportedly being threatened by guards in Hong Kong last week, and reports of a purchase by the Mugabes of a US$5.8m home in Hong Kong.

And in case you have forgotten, Zimbabwe is currently facing annual inflation of 231m%, and has just issued a $100 trillion banknote (worth US$33 - or it was at the time the note was issued!!).

So, back to education - which is where we came in. There have been calls for the Hong Kong Government to remove any approval for Bona Mugabe to study in Hong Kong. Why should we provide "cover" for a member of a corrupt family who have been banned from many other countries? We, wisely in my view, refused entry to the paedophile Gary Glitter, on the grounds of undesirability yet we seem willing so far to turn a blind eye in this case.

Likewise, shouldn't the Government be considering whether the Mugabe money (where did it come from - don't we have anti money laundering requirements here any more?) is in fact welcome? The people of Zimbabwe may find a better use for USD5.8m, and whereas they may not be allowed to raise questions, we can. I would suggest that the Government listen very carefully to the call by the people from around the world who may find our present "acceptance" of the situation to be - well - uneducated!