Eldon-Online

Freedom of Speech - But Fair Comment?

I recall some years ago just prior to June 1997, having an exchange of views with a non Hong Kong based western journalist who was, to put it mildly, "exercised" by what he saw as an impending crackdown over Hong Kong's freedom of the media. My opinion then, as now, was that press freedom would be largely unchanged unless any Hong Kong newspaper owners decided that self-censorship would enhance their "standing" in the eyes of our new leaders - whether located in Hong Kong or Beijing.

A significant cornerstone of any free society should be one that allows the media to report fairly and freely on the issues that surround us - however unpalatable they may be. And I believe that Hong Kong has passed that test. But does that also give the media a right to pass-off gratuitous and insulting phrases under the "freedom" banner?

One journalist who regularly tilts at windmills but who chooses to do so by selecting certain facts, and ignoring others that might make his stories less interesting (such is the nature of the newspaper business), is the SCMP's Jake van der Kamp. He can be entertaining, occasionally lets the air out of tyres that need it, and is sometimes more objectionable than objective when he lets a "personal peeve" get in the way. But on balance he is a positive contributor to the opinions of the business community.

Today, however, he has overstepped the mark. His "Monitor" column reads "Every sheikhdom in the Gulf now vies with (Singapore) to become Asia's premier money-laundering centre...". I was not aware that Mr van der Kamp had such an extensive knowledge of the Gulf that would put him in a position to comment so freely, in the certainty that what he was reporting was fair comment - however unpalatable it might be, if true. Although of no concern to Mr van der Kamp, I am sure that such a statement will not help the Hong Kong Government's cause in furthering their desires to become an Islamic Finance Centre - but more on that particular subject from me, soon.

A Racing Certainty

I had better declare an interest! I am involved in Hong Kong's Jockey Club and have watched in recent years as attendance at race meetings has fallen and betting turnover has dropped. Happily that trend has, at least in the early part of the 2007/08 season, been reversed and there are a few more smiles around the place.

For those not in the know, the Jockey Club is non-profit. The majority of the stake gets returned to the punters, a decent percentage (well, decent for them) goes to the Government in tax, a small percentage goes to the running and administration of the Club, while the balance goes to charity. So far, so good, and for those who read these pages, you may recall another piece dealing with Macau in July where I also touched upon the Jockey Club.

I write this from Melbourne where I have been attending, on behalf of the Jockey Club, the Melbourne Cup Carnival - and what a show they have put on. It spans a week, and is held in a true carnival atmosphere.
But for me, the contrast with Hong Kong racing is stark. Not because this is a one off week of colour and entertainment, because Hong Kong can do that too, and does so for the International Races. No, what struck me was the attendance of young people, of two categories. There were the young adults caught up in the enthusiasm of the day. No, not all of them racing aficionados; many just there for a good time at an event where they would meet and catch up with friends. The others, children of racegoers. There for a good picnic lunch and a runaround.

During the summer this year I attended Ascot in the UK, where the races were not so carnival-like in outlook, but where the attendance demographics were similar to Melbourne. In addition the UK has a website which sets out exactly what people can expect from a day at the races - including free entry for children up to the age of 16. A comment that would send shivers down the spine of our Government.

Hong Kong's racegoers, by contrast, are generally engrossed in their racing form - and children are not allowed anywhere near the place for fear that they will fall into bad habits and be allowed to gamble. It would be true to say that there are some signs of life in the new Racing Club, and in the provision of activities more appealing to a younger, but adult, crowd particularly at the Happy Valley track on a Wednesday night.

The whole sport of racing, in the eyes of Government and certain focus groups in Hong Kong, appears to be a fear that the attendance of young people at races tracks in Hong Kong will subsequently lead to bad habits, and in particular an addiction to gambling. The preferred "solution" appears to be a prohibition on such activities.

Gambling is a disease, and gambling ruins families. I am not so naive as to believe it is a minor problem. But, as experience has shown, prohibition merely drives it underground. Gambling is not going to stop just because you make it illegal, or try to prevent it by other means. People who have the unhealthy desire to gamble will soon find alternative means to do so.

Meanwhile, back to Melbourne and Ascot and all those many other racing jurisdictions around the world where a day at the races is seen as a family day out. It seems to me that Hong Kong should encourage a healthy interest in the sport of kings, rather than trying to make it look like some sleazy activity only to be carried out furtively inside smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors.

We should celebrate the success of Hong Kong's racing industry and its many achievements. And we should build a base of newer, younger interested people - just like they do successfully in other World Cities.

Have A Drink On Me

If the headline meant that you thought I might be making a recommendation on places to drink in Hong Kong (or China, for that matter), move on quickly - although I do have to say that LAN in Beijing has recently caught my eye as a "watering hole"! If you're in Beijing it's well worth a visit, in my opinion.
However, my topic is indeed drink-related, and has an impact on both the workforce and the future as I have been considering what I, and a good many others, have been talking about recently; Binge Drinking.
Many of us, in what I might politely describe as an "older" group, have formed an opinion that our children drink far more today than we ever did. Whether this is a perception brought about by prematurely damaged brain cells from having perhaps forgotten how much we used to drink when we were their age I cannot say, but clearly newspaper headlines on the subject are much more common, and action to deal with the problem, at least in the United Kingdom is now a Government priority.
Knowing and seeing the after-effects of binge drinking on some university students and white collar workers who, respectively, either miss lectures or turn up for them or for work in a state of inebriation, cannot be good for the quality of the output they are producing (let alone their health). The result? A continuous fall in standards.
And no, I am not charging off on some moral crusade about the evils of alcohol. But it had me wondering why this apparent recent phenomena existed at all. What had changed?
Extensive research through many publications into the perceived causes , tended to focus on issues like pricing strategies by booze companies, extended Happy Hours, promotions and peer group pressure - but nobody mentioned what I was expecting to find - which was simply a reflection of changes in our society.
Many children in developed countries are "parked" in front of a television from a very early age and then, when they go to schools and University they are expected to do research and prepare their work on computers. They have individual Game Boys, and they listen to music on their personal headsets - on the bus, the train, the family car, and even at the dining room table.
Is it just me tilting at shadows, or is there a pattern developing here?
It occurs to me that none of these things - televisions, computer games, MP3 players - foster any kind of social interaction. The ability of an increasing number of the younger generation, the so-called "Digital Animals", to hold a conversation seems to be diminishing.
Some of our forebears (well, not mine, they were tradesmen), used to spend leisure time in a "café society". A society where meeting friends in a café was principally for the purpose of conversation. The Public House became a replacement for the café (and was less "aristocratic"), and continued to be the place where people met - and talked.
Can I suggest we have reached a stage where, given the lack of social and conversational skills in our younger community, going and having a lot to drink in a short space of time makes up for the lack of something to say?
There is a solution, and it starts at home.