Eldon-Online

A Piece for Peace

With our daily diet of negative media I am not sure whether any of you have noticed that outside the global financial meltdown, (with associated recessions/depressions and unemployment), the distressing tales of infant deaths in the United Kingdom due it seems to appalling negligence by the Social Services and the continuing loss of life in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan, there is actually some potentially positive news out there.

The New York Times, for example, has been running a series of full page advertisements in the last week during the occasion of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's visit to the United Nations General Assembly. The one I noticed was inserted by a group promoting an event known as a "Weekend of Twinning". Twinning by 50 Mosques and 50 Synagogues across the USA and Canada to be held later this month. The message being jointly presented by the "Weekend" is one of an effort to confront Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. 

It's a start but it needs to go much further, and I hope it will. The signs, at least to me, look positive.

It is a truism that both of the "conditions" or phobias, that is Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, exist in large measure in our world, the latter for many more years than the former. Thus a greater degree of understanding through education can surely only be good. But dealing with the phobias alone does not deal with the broader issues - and the next steps, which would lead to co-existence. A co-existence by mankind in general - where a Muslim arriving in any country is not immediately branded a potential terrorist, where a Jew is not seen as a member of a tightly knit almost secret society with excessive influence in the corridors of power, and an historical financier of wars for financial gain. 

That said let me be the first to acknowledge that I am venturing on to shaky ground here. I am an amateur observer of what are some deeply rooted issues. But I suspect even so, having lived a good number of years in the Middle East, and continuing as a regular visitor I have a better understanding of those issues than many who present their opinions as "experts". Nevertheless, I am receiving some clear pictures in my mind, and verbal messages in my ears that the senior leaders in the Middle East are beginning to stick their necks out and send ever clearer signals that the world must have peace in the region. Peace that must start first with an acknowledgement that terrorism, threats from nearby countries, and the general state of "alert" that prevents human beings from going about their daily lives without the threat of being blown up, is unacceptable. 

I am not so naive as to believe that this is easily achievable, although I do think that former President Clinton came close to reaching an agreement just before he stepped down from the Presidency. But any agreement is only possible if Middle Eastern leaders, from both sides, genuinely want there to be peace. Will an agreement stop the hostilities immediately? It is unlikely, but those same leaders can put pressure on the perpetrators if they have a will to do. And they are showing signs of doing so.

It may be somewhat ironic, but what sort of a positive message would it send around the world if we really achieve something positive around the same time as the Christian faith celebrates its religious holiday? And before the end of the Chinese New Year of the Rat - a year that the soothsayers predicted would be every bit as appalling as it has turned out to be - a peace that would have a very significant impact upon a world that is fearful, beaten and miserable.

It doesn't really matter what you believe in, does it? It would be seriously good news whenever it happens - and if the event in North America is a start, there could be a boost very soon. 

However we choose to place our wishes and thoughts, this the time we should all put our minds to doing our piece for peace.   

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.

"We Will Survive"

With the above words Tony Tan, Deputy Chairman and Executive Director of Singapore's GIC, concluded his remarks at a session of the Institute of International Finance's Annual Membership meeting in Washington DC last month.

I agree.

The world has suffered many madnesses in its history, and if you have never lived through one previously you will always believe that yours is the most extreme, the worst ever, the absolute end of the world, and that we should never allow such a thing to happen again. But are the problems we face today truly worse than previous disasters? I missed the Second World War but my parents did not - so I can only imagine what they and millions of other people, ordinary people, went through. My parents missed the crash of 1929, or were too young to notice. History is littered with examples, experienced I am sure by our ancestors. Disasters of varying degrees of magnitude beset us on a regular basis, it seems, but we always seem to manage to get through it. 

Certainly in such times, and sadly, people who should not suffer - often do so. While others, already at a relative advantage perhaps, find ways to turn the crisis into an opportunity. (And do not be misled into thinking that the word for crisis in Chinese, weiji or 危机, actually means both danger and opportunity; lovely theory though it may be, it seems that whilst wei is indeed danger, ji means something like "incipient moment; crucial point, when something begins or changes. Which could, I suppose, give the idea of opportunity – or it could mean more trouble. But I digress).

In plotting the course of this particular crisis, it does seem that the severity of it has been underestimated all the way down the line, with the result that each Government or Economic Bloc's solution has proved to be nothing more than a band-aid, requiring more and stronger medicine on a regular basis. There are signs, however, that we are getting closer to some kind of stability, albeit still very fragile, and I have no doubt there is more to come.

There are questions that will be asked, once the dust has settled, and I am sure there will be additional regulations imposed as a direct consequence of some of the answers. There will be people considerably more erudite than I am who will provide all the economic arguments you want to read; so many arguments, in fact, you may also become as confused as everyone else. And they will tell you what, in their view, was the cause and the real effect and how it should have been spotted, (some will even tell you that they did spot it, but no-one listened) and stopped.

There will be comments from all quarters on the role of the investment bankers, the politicians (what elections??), and the people who decided they would no longer pay their mortgages for no better reason than there was no recourse to them as borrowers. There will be stories of the inappropriate selling of investment products to the wrong people, of rising inflation and how - in the end - the era of low interest rates that had created an overleveraged society brought about the "American Crisis". (Well, we like to call it that in Asia because we were pretty quickly dubbed as having the Asian Crisis a few years ago. A crisis that taught us many lessons, since heeded).

But, we will survive. We may take many years to return to the sort of free-wheeling lifestyles witnessed in various places, if that is really what we want to do, but I suspect we may be the better for it - until we forget all the lessons learnt and do it all over again.

Forget? Surely not! Perhaps the following few passages will give you a clue - 

"Bank failures we may have now and then, but not catastrophes like these. Our future failures, if any, will arise from imprudent banking, - from the locking up of deposits in unavailable forms of security..."

"The existence of Leeman's (sic) Act is another point in favour of our future outlook. Under that act, the broker who offers shares for sale must have the shares to sell. He cannot execute unlimited bear operations in the shares of any bank which he may select for attack and thus place its credit, and possibly its existence, at his mercy"

" The panics of the future will be influenced to some extent in their direction and force by the action of the public press. What any leading newspaper says today will be repeated throughout the land in a million or so news reports tomorrow"

Hmm; passages (a few of many) taken from "The Country Banker", a book by George Rae (a Scot, of course) first published in 1885! So - exactly what is it we have learnt in 123 years?

Obituary - Farewell to Common Sense

Some time ago a friend forwarded to me an obituary. Not his in anticipation nor, happily, mine. I filed it away because I knew it would come in useful one day - as it had clearly been useful before. An obituary, lamenting the passing away of common sense. I suggest you read it before you go on.

If the structured finance crisis was not already enough to demonstrate the toxicity that a mixture of greed and insanity can bring, then surely we learnt the lesson that paying out millions of dollars in compensation to Chief Executives of institutions that had been brought to their knees was not morally acceptable; particularly to the people in those same companies who had lost their jobs. Didn't we?

Okay, so the amounts are now lower, but the headlines scream as loudly. Today's UK Daily Telegraph newspaper greeted its readers with the headline "Failed bank chief is £2m winner". This, of course, relating to the ousted head of HBOS, who has presided over the failure of a bank where, at the time of the forthcoming merger with Lloyds might see a loss of upto 40,000 jobs, according to some estimates (a little overdone, in my view). Oh - and he gets to keep a job in the new organisation!

In the meantime, across the pond, incredulity remains that a company like Lehman has gone, the folk at Bear Stearns who were rescued thank their lucky stars for achieving "first-loser" advantage, AIG were happy that they were too big to fail (insurers to the Government perhaps?), while toilet paper sellers are still doing a roaring trade around the offices of the likes of Morgan Stanley, Washington Mutual and Wachovia Bank. Everywhere across the globe, speculation is rife about the future - and now the US Government has acted to help shore up the world economies by chucking a couple of hundred billion US dollars at it!

Well, at least the markets have reacted positively today in response to this (rather late) gesture - but the British Government, in case they are uncharitably feeling a sense of schadenfreude,  can take the smile off their faces if they think they have acted expeditiously and smartly; think Northern Rock first of all, and then heed the words of an adviser to Hong Kong's Monetary Authority and to the Bank of England (now former adviser), Sir Charles Goodhart, whose view was that HBOS might have survived if the Government had acted more quickly. Back on the lap of poor old Gordon Brown - blamed again. It seems, they say, that if you meet him, make sure he doesn't wish you good luck!

But is all of this enough? Despite the market rally, have we now bottomed out in the west or is it just a temporary "happy blip" to make us feel better over the weekend? To be followed by the stark reality that on Monday morning we will still not have created any more jobs, an increasing number of people will realise they can no longer afford the rent on their swanky apartments, and the credit card repayments will continue to come under pressure.

No I do not think the world is coming to an end in financial terms, and we will muddle through eventually, but common sense not only suggests we should not live beyond our financial means. It also means that beyond finance, we should not condone (by turning a blind eye) the farce that appears to be Zimbabwe and other similar situations; that hiding behind religion - whichever one - is not an excuse for terrorism, and that many other of todays idiocies (see next blog;  "Non-Compete Clause") could be addressed appropriately by a strong dose of common sense.

Let's hope there is a cure for the apparently deceased.

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!  

The Standards Board - Double Trouble.

Everything seems to have a "Standards Board" these days. Not a bad idea really, if it applies to everyone fairly, is clear and unambiguous. Of course, they do go for "minimum standards", to protect the less robust in the case of financial institutions for example. Basel II is a case in point - on the basis that it was actually needed in the first place - but here we have an agreed set of "standards" to apply to the financial services industry globally. Wonderful. But no sooner had it been put in place when certain countries said "Well, yes, this is good, but perhaps it doesn't all apply to us", and others who said "Clearly, the top ten banks have to follow the rules in their entirety, but the other 12,000 can modify it to something simpler". Drop the standards, double the trouble. Bail out the big investment banks, who perhaps should have known better, but sorry, the little provincial bank must be allowed to fail.

Financial markets aside, what about the sporting community? I am getting just a little fed up of the "warnings" being put around in advance of the Olympics which start on Friday, against the drug cheats. Not because I think drug induced performances should be condoned, but because the people who are giving the "heaviest" warnings seem to come from countries with a high proportion of suspect athletes and sports people, who have already had their sports men and women disqualified from previous victories. The standards are there, but they only seem to provide a "target" for the coaches to aim at, and see what they can get away with.

Speaking of the Olympics, there is a great deal of fuss about the use of the internet and the level of access being allowed to journalists and others in Beijing. Journalists, it seems, want to go to Beijing to report on the Olympics - and the first thing they do after they arrive is try and access sensitive sites as a "test". I think that China is entitled to believe, as has been stressed in other parts of the world at other times, that the Olympics should be non-political. This should be for genuine sporting achievement. If you want to protest about something, fine, but there is a time and a place for everything. It seems that the Chinese are much more likely to respect the sensitivities of their hosts when they visit other countries, than the so called civilised world is choosing to do when in China. 

And as we are on politics, I was struck by a comment in the Letters column of the South China Morning Post a few weeks ago, when someone wrote about the way in which the world treats Mr. Mugabe on the one hand in Zimbabwe, and Hamas on the other. Once again, don't misunderstand me as I am not apologising for, or condoning terrorism. It seems odd, though, that from an election which by all accounts was reasonably and fairly run we have an elected Government (Hamas), which is subject to immediate sanctions by the West if they put one foot out of line. On the other we are subjected to regular doses of an African leader, unfairly elected, who by almost every account is unspeakably dreadful - and no-one does anything other than express their distaste for him.

Standards? Yes, let's agree them and abide by them if that is what they are there for, but double standards are quite unacceptable.

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!    

Shattered Dreams?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suffer The Little Children

While the hand-wringing continues over the melt down in the financial markets, and some CEOs and Chairmen in some countries are agonising over how many millions of dollars they are going to be paid for bringing their companies into near bankruptcy or disrepute I have been struck, in comparison, by the increasing incidences of, but lack of serious publicity given to, some of our more devastating social ills.

A bizarre connection? Well, a little random perhaps, but not entirely off the wall.

In the last month I have been in China, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, UK (very briefly) and Vietnam; From Javea to Hanoi, Seoul to Shanghai, and so on (Okay; so much for retirement!). Six countries in different stages of development, but more about that, perhaps, in my next notes.

For the purposes of this blog, the country I want to focus on is Vietnam because it was as a result of a newspaper article in Hanoi that started me off on this research, involving the treatment of children.

We are all familiar with stories that emerge, too frequently, of yet another tragic schoolyard killing in America. Stories that receive prominence in the global media, involving losses of young lives in a society that should know better. But the pictures are beamed around the world, the killer analysed to the "n"th degree - and the media wagon moves on to the next "newsworthy" item. Meanwhile, back in Lai Chau Province in Vietnam yet another child has been snatched from its home at knife point or when the parents have been away in the fields working - and it rarely makes the local news, yet alone the national.

Kidnapping of children in Asia, it seems, is a growing problem, and Lai Chau Province in Vietnam, which shares its border with China, is in the front line. International criminal rings receive "orders" for boys or girls - usually aged between one and four years old to meet the demand from China and other countries.

A review on Google, for example, additionally reveals that the problem is widespread; everywhere from Africa through Europe - but save the recent one-off publicity when the French medical workers were accused of trying to kidnap 103 children from Chad - there appears to be little on the subject that is deemed worthy of comment by the international media.

So, what is it that needs to be done to highlight and then do something about this dreadful human trafficking? The problem has no Sir Bob Geldof to highlight the issue. And is it going to take a busload of infants to be abandoned and then to die in appalling conditions before the international media becomes aware that there is a problem out there, in the middle of our society?

Korea - Land of the Morning Calm

The western nickname for Korea has not proven so true in my house for the last couple of days, where my telephone has been ringing off the hook, ever since President-elect Lee Myung-bak announced my appointment as co-chairman of the special committee on National Competitiveness. It seems it is the first time a foreigner has been appointed to such a role, and let's not be coy, I am both flattered and honoured (not to mentioned somewhat amazed).

There will be many who ask why I agreed to take this on, and you may be sure that I asked myself the same question. I did not seek the role, and there is no compulsion for me to do so. I owe nobody anything, and I am beholden to no-one. I was rather amused, in fact, by a suggestion reported in the UK newswire Times Online that I might be able to influence the Korean regulators to approve an application from my former employer who wishes to invest in a Korean bank. It only goes to show that the commentators don't know me at all, and the comment from the regulator who said I would not influence them was absolutely right; I wouldn't dream of even trying. The piece, under the byline of Andrew Salmon suggested that I was "unavailable for comment". I think, on reflection, that about the only journalist from Korea who didn't call me yesterday was Andrew Salmon.

So, for those good people who swamped my blog site yesterday - and look like doing the same today - here are some facts (that might also correct some of those in the Times Online's rather inaccurate "potted" CV).

I am a career banker, who started out in 1964, left Britain in 1968 and who has worked and lived in a variety of Middle East countries as well as Hong Kong and Malaysia. I have been traveling globally on business since the late 1980s, and first started visiting Korea regularly from about 1992. I retired from the HSBC Group over two and a half years ago after an association of 37 years. I believe it was a mutually satisfactory relationship, but since leaving them I have got on with my life and have no association with them other than some shares and some friends. I live in Hong Kong.

I am independent, and always have been, sometimes to the dismay of others who wished I was more "flexible". I believe in fair play and get easily irritated by bullies (and by companies like Amazon.com who still refuse to answer my letters on identity theft (mine) - even though I have sent the recent letters earlier this month by registered mail - see "Up the Amazon (.com) Without a Paddle" posted 17 September 2007).

I first got to know President-elect Lee Myung-bak when I chaired the Seoul International Business Advisory Council (SIBAC). I found him to be a man with drive and vision. His views on creating Cheonggyecheon were being criticised by many people, it seemed, but having lived through some of the disruptions caused in Hong Kong by the creation of the Mass Transit Railway, I could see that there was a long term benefit to be gained by short term inconvenience. I believe that today the benefits of Cheonggyecheon are plain for all to see, and I expect Mr Lee has not finished yet.

I have no illusions (or delusions) of "guruhood". I am conscious that I am a foreigner with a remit to suggest ways in which Korea might become a more "acceptable" destination for foreign direct investment. Korea itself has to determine if this is what it wants. I have no magic, no crystal ball, but I hope I bring a degree of openness and objective thinking with no pre-conceived ideas or bias to a country with potential that in my view should be realised.