Eldon-Online

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.

New on the Menu - Rat of Lamb!

Oh dear! There I was, just about to settle down to write a really exciting Blog either on why University candidates are opting out of going to Uni, or a small note on "Big Data" - the consultant's latest buzz word that is sweeping through a Boardroom somewhere near you when, hard on the heels of my last Blog about food - and China's aspirations to ensure its future food supplies from other parts of the world - along comes a tale (tail perhaps?) of skullduggery in the mainland's kitchens. 

In case you missed it, recent news reports from China have highlighted the seizure of a gang that has been selling rat, fox and mink meat in the Eastern part of China - passing it off as lamb and mutton. Now I have never knowingly eaten a "joint of rat", but I don't care how much gunk and preservative you put on it surely a rodent would have a different taste and texture from what you were expecting? I would have imagined rat to be sort of stringy, even if it was thinly sliced - and surely the purchasers or users of the raw item must have ... well, smelt a rat when they saw the meat? 

China, of course, has had a run of scandals in the last few years over food items that have been tainted. The most notorious being tainted milk. This has led to such concern in China that demand for powdered milk from places like Hong Kong and, I am told, even London has led to a restriction on the amount of powdered milk that can be bought by mainlanders in those cities to take back to China. And then there were the thousands of dead pigs floating downstream into Shanghai a month or two ago, having been dumped in the river. And there are other examples ... all of which make the United Kingdom's "horsemeat for beef" scandal look rather tame by comparison.

For the genuine storekeeper, restaurateur or whatever, don't you think they would know that a rat is a small rodent that feeds from old food and smelly bins, and carries fleas (amongst other things!)? Sheep, or more specifically lambs on the other hand, are soft and cuddly fluffy animals that mostly eat grass! If you can easily get the two mixed up then I would guess you are in the wrong business.

That said there was always the rumour being circulated amongst Westerners that Chinese people would eat anything that had its back to the sun. This neatly prohibited cannibalism because most of us walk upright. But judging by some of the things I have eaten over the years, that would not be considered totally normal to Western tastes, I think that the saying may be pretty accurate!

All of which leads me to attach a drawing courtesy of a good friend wth a gift for cartoons, and with apologies for "amending" what has become a well known saying emanating from China,

But the serious message is clearly this. In a country where the vast majority of people eat to live rather than live to eat, playing around with people's food is not clever, given the potential consequences. And when it happens too often, with different food items, and the public begins to question what the Government is doing about it to provide safeguards, and the social networks start buzzing, there is a serious risk of unrest. Weibo, the micro blogging service in China has something like 500 million registered users of which around 10% are active on a daily basis. If 50 million people start complaining, you get some idea of the impact a site like this can have, for good and bad! Really the ball is now very firmly in the Leaderhip's court, and I hope that demonstrable progress can be made to improve this situation.

I have for a long time said that I am much more concerned at the impact of social unrest in China than I am about things like the economy. And if people are afraid to eat what is put in front of them for fear it is tainted, they will get angry. And guess what comes next .....

So, maybe some ratatouille with the rat of lamb?

 

North Korea - How Near Is The Finger To The Button?

Much has been written about Li'l Kim in recent weeks as the world takes differing views on the seriousness of the threats coming out of North Korea.

 

He has certainly generated a lot of media attention, but as a good friend pointed out yesterday he must be a bit "miffed" about the death of Baroness Thatcher - seeing as how she has now taken pride of place in the media headlines.

What seems clear to most observers is that this recent spate of rhetoric is, as usual, less of a genuine threat. But the big difference this time is that no one really knows whose hand is hovering over the button marked "war".

Previous history might suggest that such threats were designed more to gain some sort of "pay-off", thereby enabling the country to stagger along from one famine to another. After all, no one really takes seriously the notion that North Korea has an armoury sufficient to pose a significant threat to the world at large, or over a sustained period of time. So, are the threats designed to make South Korea very uncomfortable? Sure. And China and probably Japan too and definitely the US. But, again, in general, troop movements in the North have not given rise to concerns that the rhetoric is likely to be supported by action.

To this unlearned observer there seems to be a power struggle going on behind the scenes. As I wrote a little over two years ago, in predicting the death of Kim senior, I suggested that Li'l Kim would fall foul of the generals and be ousted in a power struggle. He was young, untested, appeared to be uneducated and would not be able to stand up to a concerted effort by the generals to remove him.

Then, in a surprise to me anyway, Kim seemed to be gaining the upper hand when he purged his mentor, Ri Yong-ho, and sacked him from all his posts - including significantly, his position as Head of the Army. This happened some 9 months ago. But it now seems that this did not perhaps lead to the army heads into becoming more compliant, and heeding Kim's every word. And this, I believe, is why we are where are now. The Generals are revolting!! (You can take that comment how you like!)

Kim is having to pump up the stakes, create front page news, make people nervous and demonstrate through Kim-controlled media that he is a no nonsense leader, and he is focused on the "enemy" outside his borders. By doing that he reduces the internal tensions that seem to exist, as anyone who protests will be seen as unpatriotic.

But this is turning into a high stakes game of brinksmanship. But it is being played by a potentially impetuous juvenile whose finger may just slip and hit the wrong button! After all, where does he go from here? He has warned foreigners to leave South Korea because "he doesn't want foreigners to be harmed". That suggests he is prepared to bomb, or otherwise harm the ONLY country that could possibly help North Korea reach some sort of economic model for growth. Where's the logic in that? Of course, not a lot of what is happening is, in fact, logical.

He may test a nuclear weapon, but testing does not of itself achieve the goals established by the rhetoric. Thus his only last resort, in a power struggle where he has publicly set out his intentions, is to actually do something. If he fails - the Generals win, and I have no idea what that means for the country. Or there is a very high profile diplomatic solution, engineered probably by China which enables Kim to remove his hand from over the button without losing face. But that seems to be a long shot.

I am hopeful that it will all come to nothing, once again, but I am more nervous this time about the boy and the button!!

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!

 

Direct Property - Direct Sales - Direct Pain!

If you were hoping to find a “rant” regarding some recent experiences I have had about a company involved in direct sales of property, then I must disappoint you.

Following the posting of my Blog, the company took the trouble to get in touch, and to apologise for the experience I had with them. Also, and although not as a result of my Blog, I understand the person who made the telephone call to my PA is no longer with the company. A known problem apparently.

The company has expressed a concern that my Blog may damage their business, and have requested that I remove the post. I am flattered they think I have such influence over the business community; I don’t see it myself.

Nevertheless in view of the apology, the change of personnel, and in the interests of not wishing to stifle what is a legitimate and successful business, I have agreed to the request.  

 

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.

 

Change ... Or No Change. Part 1.

There is a game show on British television which having started in Holland must exist in some form or other in additional countries, called "Deal ... Or No Deal". It's a game of chance where you hope to walk away with more money through your own luck rather than skill, than you are being offered from time to time by a faceless banker. Sounds a bit like real banking at present!!

There's no real point to that story other than that it provided the thought behind my Blog title today. For those of you who know I have not been active of late, I was thinking to myself ... in the time I have been away what's changed in our world? And the answer, as it seems to be in many "soaps" is lots on the face of it but precious little in reality, or if I were really showing off I could have called the piece "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose", in other words "The more it changes, the more it's the same thing".

The Middle East in general, Syria in particular, is not in the news quite as often as previously so you might expect all has quietened down. If you do, you would be wrong. Assad still believes he will come out of his war unscathed. Heaven help us if he does, but at this moment in time even if he were to lose there is no great certainty that peace would follow, as there are too many factions installed in Syria. Remember too that Syria is a "new country" relatively speaking. Under Turkish rule from the early 16th Century it came under the French in the early 20th Century becoming a military republic in 1963.

The region is probably also going to be heading back into the newspapers once the Iranian elections start to grab some attention and then there is Egypt which, for my money, has always been a major key to Middle Eastern stability. It's simmering like a pressure cooker. Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan - the list of potential trouble spots continue. And Israel, currently more hawk than dove, (more war than peace), cannot be left out of any solution. So, lots going on even if it's not much in the headlines, but not a lot has changed.

Europe looks decidedly uneasy. You have a comedian in Italy capturing a large share of the vote in the last general election, on a platform of getting out of any previous agreements made with the EU that would continue the austerity measure which, in my view, sadly must continue - although not in a solely cut, cut, cut environment. You must have growth too.  And Mr. Berlusconi, who seems to be desperately seeking election to avoid being tried on sex-related and corruption charges, is obviously in some Italian minds a "credible" leader. Either that or they just want to see what the hell happens next. 

Mr. Hollande, the French President would appear to be seriously out of his depth with the country getting into deeper and deeper trouble, and even Mrs. Merkel with the immense job she has done in holding it all together in Europe is going to face something of a backlash in her own country. So, even if much has been happening, has anything changed? Not really.

Oh wait, there is of course a significant change ahead in Vatican City following the resignation of the Pope. A brave move, in my view - but what hasn't changed, disappointingly, is the number of churchmen in high places who have been admitting to past indiscretions of a sexual nature. And just because these people have been falling on their crucifixes does that mean the younger generation of priests have not been doing the same sort of thing? This appears to have been a plague, passed from one generation to another.

And that little island off the coast of mainland Europe is also struggling. I actually think many of the measures being taken by Mr Cameron's government have a semblance of sense in them, but if the old adage which says it is "going to get worse before it gets better" is true,  then the Conservative party is going to be voted out of office before it does get better and Britain will be plunged into financial chaos by a new populist administration with all the hand-outs and borrowings. Maybe Scotland DOES have the right idea with wanting independence! (Please don't take that last comment seriously). 

It seems to me that the problem with politics, politicians and national economies is that everything ends up in a compromise. Can we not at least for a short period of history (during my lifetime would be nice), put the best people into those important jobs that affect the countries in which they live, irrespective of their "party" lines?  Which might take me neatly into the USA (doing better, I think), Latin America, Africa and then Asia, but at the risk of writing too much in one go, that will be for Part 2 very soon.

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.

It Takes Balls.

I should apologise for a slightly ribald start to the year but hey, one can only be conservative (with a small "c" of course) for so long. Rather like some Conservatives (with a big "C") in Britain who have also decided you can only be a Conservative for so long! Yes, you definitely need to break out once in a while.

So, what prompted my Blog title this week? It was a snippet, for want of a better expression, which caught my eye in a magazine explaining that apparently castration could extend men's lives? It seems, from a study of historical genealogical records, that eunuchs tended to live 14 to 19 years longer than other men! Thus, if the punishment proposed as being appropriate to some bankers in the aftermath of the global financial meltdown had been carried out, you might have had them living longer - but at least they might not have had the - well, balls - to go back to their previous ways!  

I am referring of course to the ability of the global Investment Banking community - reviled only 5 years ago for creating the global financial crisis, and who are now clawing their way back to a level of "respectability". Or are they?

Howard Wynn, in his excellent Lai See column in the South China Morning Post was quick to remind readers earlier this week that proprietary trading by investment banks is supposed to have been banned under the Volcker Rule. But it's not applicable to Goldman Sachs it seems, who have established a new unit known as Multi-Strategy Investing, which does ... proprietary trading. And back to the past we go.

So why are the investment banks getting away with it? Because the so-called high street banks are taking all the flak. And why are they getting the flak? Because they are the ones that deal with the man in the street and not in the atmospheric heights of big swinging corporate deals. They therefore attract the attention of the media, the public, the vote-seeking politicians - and the regulators of course, while the investment bankers deal in esoteric products that no one understands - or so it seems.

But there we are - all that rant from the merits or otherwise of castration, when I really wanted to talk about regulators and regulation.

Another year is behind us, and the financial services industry is still wondering what is happening with new regulations - both in the formulation of them, the implementation, the overlapping, and particularly the cost. There appears to be a lack of coordination in the policies of regulators, governments and central banks, none of which is helpful.

In the meantime business is being stifled. Lending and investment is reduced, economic growth is inhibited, and the bankers still get blamed. But what do you expect with these mixed messages? Governments desperately want economic growth ... and austerity. Banks are pressed to increase their capital ... and lend more.

And then there are the warnings. The IMF is concerned that ... five years on ... a safer global financial system is far from reality. And warnings from those great escape artists, the rating agencies, who have somehow escaped severe censure for their major role in the global financial crisis, who say they are sceptical about specific regulations.

Yes, on paper there seems to be some progress, but there is precious little consensus in practice. So what can we expect in the months (and years) ahead?

In mid-October 2012 the leaders of the European Union agreed to work towards the creation of a single banking supervisor overseeing around 6,000 banks in 17 euro countries ... and saying that the necessary legislation could be in place within weeks! The resulting Single Supervisory Mechanism would be up and running this year, 2013. If it is I will have to start believing in fairies!

Perhaps we will see the finalisation of Dodd-Frank. At the last count it ran to 8,800 pages of new rules in the USA - and estimates suggest that is only about 35% complete. So that doesn't look so imminent either.

And if you add it all up:

Dodd-Frank, Volcker Rules, the EU super supervisor, the Vickers Report plus Twin Peaks regulation in the UK, Basel III, the related unintended consquences and the extra-territorial implications it totals  ... yes, you guessed it, continued uncertainty! And that's only where the regulators are concerned. Regulators who are in many cases in the driving seat of the industry, thanks to the legislators, while being aided and abetted by the media who sense there is an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon.

But think about this! It ain't gonna change. As an industry you can try to fight against it or you can accept it as the new reality for the industry. You can see it as an opportunity to better understand regulatory expectations. To seek guidance when the rule setting agencies and regultors seem to differ in their approach. And as an opportunity to anticipate regulatory trends quicker. I think the best option is clear - even if you think it is all balls!  

 

 

What Did I Miss?

If you don't get out much, as has been my misfortune of late, you start picking up all sorts of "rubbish" information. For example, were you aware that "soap operas" - now shortened of course to just "soaps" - got their name because the original sponsors of these long running fictional dramas were the major soap companies? I certainly wasn't.

Another feature of soaps - not that I watch them, but as I have been told - you can be watching one over a period of time and then not do so for a matter of months, but when you come back to them you can apparently pick them up virtually from where you left off. You don't seem to have missed much.

So it has been for me! Before I took to my bed Barack Obama was President of the USA - but under "serious threat" from Mitt Romney. I recover to find the USA still has President Obama. The battles in Syria go on, albeit despite the dangers globally they have taken a back page. Egypt still hasn't found any solutions as a result of the Arab Spring - but seems to be degenerating, which was the other option if they didnt get their act together. The Eurozone still hasn't bitten any kind of bullet, as a result of which they are in disarray, which was the expected outcome of not taking any action. China has established its new leadership to cover the next ten years. Although it is only new to the extent of confirming what everyone already knew some time ago.

So, what did I miss in the last six weeks? Precious little, it would seem. The moral of the story? Take a holiday. Have a break if you can still afford one and have a job to come back to, and you will find not much has changed. 

And, of course not to be outdone at home - Hong Kong's beleagured Chief Executive C Y Leung is still facing questions about illegal structures, bus and minibus drivers still drive too fast without due care and attention, and the focus on business and those little things that might drive Hong Kong to retain its important role in Asia, get pushed further and further backwards and swept up in the general news.

Just as an example, a little over a week ago the UK press picked up on a report issued by the highly regarded Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The CEBR report said that "London has lost its crown as the world's financial capital by number of finance jobs to New York. And it will fall to third place behind Hong Kong by 2015". (The bold script is mine). Did this get reported by any of our Hong Kong media, or were they too focused on a highly intelligent member of our Legislature, who wears totally inappropriate T Shirts to the Chamber and throws things at people? Oh! Perhaps I missed it!!

The report is actually good news - but we do seem to have trouble in bringing ourselves round to the point of publishing things that are good. Is it because we don't really believe them?

I do seriously wonder if there is any possibility that we will get to the stage where the "Government" can work together with the Legislative Council, and perhaps the business community in its broadest sense, to the overall benefit of Hong Kong and it's future.

Publish the good news and the successes, damn it, and  put some serious thought into keeping Hong Kong's status highly regarded in the world. Then there will be no need for the front pages of our newspapers to focus on silly shirts and relatively minor issues, or for people to feel the need to wave an old colonial flag.

This does not mean sweeping the important things under the carpet. It does not mean ignoring the calls towards establishing a democratic process for the election of some, hopefully, appropriate legislators and a Chief Executive, but it does mean leaving room on the front pages for some of Hong Kong's achievements.

We are becoming just like a soap opera - close your eyes for a month or two and nothing has changed. We do not have the luxury of floating in a sea of inertia.