Eldon-Online

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.

Korea - What Next?

It was never going to be easy!

President Lee fought his election campaign in 2007 on the basis of change. Against a backdrop of falling investment in the country. With a history of being tough minded but successful, he won the election by the widest majority achieved in a democratic South Korean election. A win which sparked a glimmer of hope amongst people in Korea and in businesses outside Korea. It brought a full email box to me from Koreans working outside Korea who were writing "At last, positive change and we would like to come back".

Fast forward to today and we have a President whose ratings in Korea have dropped to a low level. A major project, The Grand Canal, was abandoned. A waterway project that was not only going to be for practical business  use, but was potentially environmentally friendly for the most part, and would have created leisure opportunities and wet lands, although admittedly financing was an issue. And then to the import of beef, about which significant protests still abound - but is this really about beef-related health issues - or does it go wider than that?

It seems to me that this is more to do with internal issues, seeking an outlet for domestic woes like unemployment, especially amongst the young. A view clearly shared by others that I have spoken to within Korea, but who have not spoken about it publicly for fear, I guess, of being criticised. But if anything was set to derail the ambitions of President Lee in his quest to make Korea a more open and welcoming economy, then the usual media feeding frenzy on the "standard" pictures of Korean demonstrators does nothing to help.

So, what next?

From the perspective of foreign investors, existing or potential, nothing much has changed. Korea remains, to many, as being "anti-foreign" or at the very least "systemically unfriendly" to foreign investors. Views that have been confirmed by various polls of business leaders in such organisations as the UK's Institute of Directors, and by the complete omission of a mention of Korea in the International Herald Tribune in an article about foreign investors in the the region. Not once was Korea mentioned. But I prefer to think of Korea as being less anti-foreign and more pro-Korean. In others words Korean interests tend to be put, or considered above all others. And I see nothing inherently wrong with this attitude, but the reality is that if you want to be a major player on the world economic stage you cannot be perceived, in any way, as being unfriendly towards foreign business.

For Korea, to move slower than the other neighbouring economies or, worse yet, stand still means it is losing ground. Look at the region. A powerhouse economy like Japan, countries which are developing rapidly like China and India. Newly emerging economies like Taiwan, Vietnam and the "next Vietnam" - Cambodia. Established business hubs like Hong Kong and Singapore, which are constantly enhancing their offerings and, in addition to Shanghai the newly emerging Chinese cities like Tianjin, Dalian, Chengdu and Chongqing which all have serious aspirations as business hubs. 

Let's be blunt, I am concerned that Korea runs the very real risk of being marginalised.

When I first became an Adviser to President Lee I made it very clear to all who listened that for Korea to take its place on the world stage, it had to want to be there. I was not there to tell them what to do, but to provide help if I could and if it was what they wanted. The message I am receiving now is one that is divided. For the President, I believe he knows very clearly what needs to be done for his country, and for the future. For the Korean people, they have a choice. They can either see foreign participation in the domestic economy as some sort of threat...and see only the downsides. Or they can realise that such foreign interest is actually a vote of confidence in the future of Korea, and in the many talents of Koreans. It should bring employment, and a wider marketplace for the economy.

I, for one, hope it happens.

Dare to Demonstrate - For Fun!

Hong Kong really is a remarkable place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let The Good Times Roll; Crisis Over?

First an excuse. May was manic and blogs, though started, never saw the light of day, bar one. So June will be quieter and more productive, yes? Well if you ignored the "Sell in May and Go Away" warning, then you can quite possibly spend the next month or or so on a quiet beach in gentle relaxation - if your airline is still operating and if you believe you will still have a desk to go back to. If you haven't gone away, hold on to the edge of your seats in Asia, because it could get choppy.

We still have falling markets, rising oil prices, falling food production and rising inflation. We have apparently rigged elections in Zimbabwe (I know, not Asia - just testing!), concerns about chickens in Hong Kong (no, you guess which sort!), mad cows in Korea, the lack of visas in China and the Olympic Games (by the way - who's going to get in without a visa?), a new rapprochement with Taiwan and the list goes on....including an upcoming US election, the result of which - to be debated for the next few months ad nauseam - with no immediate signs of a US economic decoupling from Asia, is going to have an impact on what happens here.

Some of these topics are for later, but for now the "economy" has the floor. I have said before, I am not an economist - and I guess it shows! I am a retired banker whose crystal ball now is no better than it was before I retired - and back then it was flawed - just like the ones used by everyone else. Which is why rather than listening to theories that may or may not be right, I rely on gut feel and taking an interest in what is happening in real time around me, to draw my own conclusions.

In this regard, I have been struck by the kaleidoscope of news, good and bad in the financial markets during the year to date, and the aftermath of the seismic shocks created by the sub prime crisis (which should be better known as the structured debt finance crisis). Yes, say the headlines, the US "nearly" slipped into recession but escaped it narrowly and now things will be better. I hear from some quarters cries of "the market crisis is over!", and "the worst is behind us".

I am pleased to hear it. At least it makes my decision to cement my ties with Hong Kong even stronger, by venturing once more in to the property market, not such a bad idea after all. That said, I have also been given some pretty solid reasons to venture into the jaws of the Dubai property market too, but Hong Kong remains the base!

However, if the crisis is really over why are the airlines needing to increase the cost of flying anywhere, and beginning to drop frequency on routes? Why are the G8 demanding that oil producers increase their output, only to be rebuffed with a comment that the output is sufficient but that consumption elsewhere is over the top - and to note, for example, that SUV sales in the USA are down by about 30%, year on year. Target sold half its credit card receivables to JP Morgan last month - a good deal for both, or was it? Some folk are not so sure. And these are problems at the high end of the market.

Inflation is beginning to affect everyone, and strike action in Europe for example is becoming more common.

What about food? There is perhaps at last some recognition that food, its production and its cost is an issue. People are dying of starvation and, yes, there is some help at hand (although whether it reaches the right places in some countries is debatable). 

And let's not forget natural disasters - as well as the reaction to them. The Chinese calendar for the Year of the Rat, which is this year, was generally not propitious and so it is proving. Myanmar, China, killer storms in the mid-West, Japan's earthquake yesterday, Greece - and we haven't got into either the typhoon or hurricane seasons yet.

Crisis Over? - I don't think so!

What An Interesting Question!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read The Label, Stupid!

"When I finished "Puckoon" I vowed I would never write another book. Here it is". Thus wrote the Goon and comedian Spike Milligan in the front of his 1971 book "Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall".

In an altogether more humble manner, I vowed when I started this blog to never write about the same subject twice. Economics and business generally, of course, are dynamic and therefore changing all the time. Fair game, therefore, for further comment, but no, I am about to break my self-imposed rule and return to a topic I have addressed recently.

The rationale? I am not in favour of being told what I can and cannot eat by anyone other, perhaps, than a doctor who says, "By the way Mr. Eldon, if you eat lots of fatty fried food you will eventually kill yourself!". (It's not what I eat, actually, and I am not in favour of killing myself, but I know what he means).

Why is it that our Government seems to believe that we have no idea whether we can make our own informed decision about what is in a container of food? Mind you, they seem to have the same notion about giving us the vote too, but that is another story.

I am back on the subject of food labeling - I wrote about it in March 2008 in a piece entitled Food For Thought - (But Not For Long). If you are unfamiliar with the topic, or need to refresh your memory, may I suggest you click on the link?

Now I do not expect the words of one blogger to make a difference, but the note was picked up by the media and others. The subject was also being discussed at the same time, and much more widely, in many households in Hong Kong. But there seems to be a perception somewhere out there that this is just an "expatriate" gripe. And perhaps given the low number of expatriates in "Asia's World City" this does not warrant a great deal of attention but, Hong Kong Government, I really don't think this is just an expatriate issue. It goes much more broadly than that.

The complaints are becoming more vocal, more widespread and are rational.

Perhaps Government have gone too far down the road now to turn back without looking silly. Maybe they are so entrenched in their view that, for example, a petition campaign from all sectors of the community will not sway them. Maybe they think, as I suggested before, that the numbers are likely to be so small it will eventually all blow over. Maybe they don't heed their own advice; a recent announcement recognised the growing prevalence of obesity and a concurrent increase in diabetes amongst all its social classes. The same piece also said "...it is important to make sure Hong Kong's ...food market is open and competitive which will help broaden the food supply and widen consumers choice...". Well, not if this legislation goes through.

In the area of diabetes at least, we can perhaps rejoice that "full fat" products remain on sale. "What's that? Oh, people can choose whether to buy them?" Errm - sorry, what's a double standard?

Look, is it of so much importance and do you really think that people are unable to make up their own minds? And do you seriously have so little faith in your own existing "truth in advertising" laws which covers the area of labels? Well, if yes, then seek a compromise. Allow those people who want to take the risk of buying "fat free", "cholesterol free" and "sugar free" products only do so if they have an identity card evidencing that they are not minors! Make them produce an identity card in the supermarket to buy "dangerous goods" that actually are pretty good for your health - and a lot, lot better than the air that we chew!!

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.

Quicksand? - or Slow Mind?

I don't know what it is about Jake van der Kamp! I've only formally met the SCMP columnist once, although I have certainly been on the receiving end of his barbed comments. Once, I recall, was when I publicly questioned the low standards of English in this city - a question that was on the minds of many at that time and, it seems, those concerns have not diminished. On another occasion he took me to task for using a phrase which had by then already slipped into modern usage, even though I did not actually even like it myself very much. It was "Human Capital" - but sadly for Jake he discovered the next day a large advertisement in his own newspaper, announcing the paper's sponsorship of a - yes, you guessed it, "Human Capital" Conference.

Jake has a job to do. He is, I think, meant to be provocative in his column, and in a society like Hong Kong where freedom of speech is still practiced, he is entitled to his opinions and biases. That is what freedom of speech is all about and I am not going to take him to task for any of that but I do wish he would investigate his stories with more care.

Today's Monitor column (Oh! alright Jake, some free advertising for you, even if you don't deserve it) talks about Dubai in terms that suggest he has never set foot in the place. More specifically he goes on to talk about the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). (What's that Jake? You really didn't know I was the DIFC Chairman?)

If I were to respond to each of Jake's rather (at least in my opinion) derogatory comments in turn, we would be here all night and use too much space. He refers to a comment from the Heritage Foundation, which he quotes as reserving some choice words for the UAE, such as "...incompetence and corruption are rarely challenged". Contrast that statement Mr. van der Kamp if you will, by an excerpt from the IMF Article IV Consultation in September 2007 which reads "...Moreover, the development of the DIFC continues to support the diversification and international standing of the UAE's financial sector."

"Building on Dubai's aggressive diversification drive, the Dubai International Financial Center (DIFC) is increasingly promoting the U.A.E. as a regional financial hub. Activities in the DIFC are supported by an impressive physical infrastructure and sound legal framework aligned with best international practices."

The report goes on to state, "The DIFC might best be desc ribed as a future regional financial center. The Center has well defined regulatory and supervisory systems that are on par with other regional financial centers (such as Singapore and Hong Kong)"

Jake's view of the bankers who have registered with the DIFC is no less jaundiced, saying that they are "playing the game" and fulfill their obligations they "...put in three juniors, two of them local hires, give them a pair of scissors..."

Instead of the guessing game Jake, try these: As at February 2008 we have over 11,000 people employed by companies registered in the DIFC; a number we expect to grow to 50,000 in two years, by 2010. The contribution of financial services to Dubai's GDP will more than quadruple from USD3.4bn today to USD15bn by 2015. We are the only jurisdiction in the region with a data protection regime. The securities regulator, the DFSA, was established from the outset as a world class regulator and the list goes on and on...

Is Dubai perfect? No of course not - but then having read your column once or twice it seems that Hong Kong is not that perfect either - in your view. But it is trying hard to be different. It is looking at success stories elsewhere, which is a new departure for them, and it is taking its head out of the sand - whereas I am not quite sure where you are putting yours!