Eldon-Online

The Madness Games - Guns and Football

I am not sure the world is thinking straight - or certain parts of it anyway.

In the news this last week, along with the usual reports of wars, terrorist attacks and their associated killings, we had various commentaries on the state of the world economies about which there does not seem to be a consensus, a few reminders that we are running out of water and arable land, plus the fears that we are in danger of Ebola eventually getting out of hand and becoming a global epidemic, or indeed that the next terrorist attacks on the west will be in the form of deadly viruses. And one day that could well happen!

That said my regular readers, a few of whom still seem to think I am anti-American anyway, will hopefully forgive me if I am scratching my head over two other news headlines this week -  both from the USA. One concerning the 9 year old girl who fatally shot her gun instructor, and then there were the headlines that read "Soccer Moms Sue FIFA For Not Doing Enough on Concussions". Presumably if you were supposed to head the ball it would be called headball. 

What has happened to good old-fashioned common sense for heavens sake? I did a Blog about Common Sense almost exactly six years ago, and linked it to an "obituary"; it might just be worth a re-read if you click the link.

"I don't know" - as Teresa Norton used to say when she had her great column in the South China Morning Post, "maybe I'm nuts" ... but what is a 9 year old girl doing with a lethal weapon in her hand anyway? Shouldn't she be out playing soccer or something - oh no, can't do that either because she might get concussed or something.

But really, that poor little girl is probably going to be traumatised for the rest of her life - and what, for heavens sake, were her parents thinking? "Here you are dear - it's legal to do this in Arizona because you're over the age of 8, and we are with you so we can take a movie of you to send to your grandparents - and might show any boyfriends you meet later on who we want to put off". The gun laws in the USA are surely an abomination. You have, and will defend to the death (literally it seems) the right to bear arms and no one it seems is allowed to take that right away. Despite the fact that you are now apparently grown up and civilised? You had the right at one time to keep slaves - but you changed that one, eventually!! And just to be totally controversial, this dreadful group now rampaging around Iraq and Syria together with the Taliban want to "return to the old days" - but you want them to behave like civilised human beings in the 21st century. There has to be a certain irony in all of that.

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, I know, but isn't someone sensible going to stand up and say this stupidity must stop? I see that the opinion now is that "the instructor" (deceased) is being branded as criminally negligent. I can understand that as a ruling. But don't the parents have a part in this? The existing laws don't have a part in this? I'm sorry but it's all wrong.

And then at the other end of the spectrum we have "soccer moms" suing the international governing body of football, together with anyone else they can join in to their actions, because there is a chance that if someone playing football puts their head to the ball, they might get concussion, and there are insufficient guidelines in place to deal with someone who is concussed. What happens next - notices on footballs in big white letters warning against the dangers of heading the ball?

To try and bring some semblance of balance to this, in fairness there has been comment in the press in Britain recently about the dangers of playing rugby, and I have to admit that the nature of that particular sport has changed immeasurably since my own playing days. Bigger, faster, fitter, bulkier human-beings (mostly) than in my day, but you probably receive more damage from an opposing player trying to cause you grievous bodily harm than you do from the ball itself - and so I am sure it is with soccer. It's a part of the game and, yes of course I am aware, people do get hurt. They also get hurt crossing the road, or slipping on ice, or having someone drive into the back of their vehicle. Or being stung by a bee.

Is it just me missing something here, or have certain elements of our society gone off the rails - and if so, how on earth do we get them back on track again?

Fate - Out Of Our Hands

How do you deal with life? An odd question, perhaps, but every day when one goes to school, reads the newspapers, watches television, talk to people, you are dealt a huge amount of information to filter. Information that is subject to individual interpretation, the “spin” of the teacher, the writer, the presenter or the author.

Read any newspaper today and in every daily edition you will read the stories that start  “…in a survey of 127 people …”, or “scientists have now concluded that …”, and goes on to say that such and such a product is now good/bad/healthy/unhealthy for you. Or common “wisdom” suggests you shouldn’t fly a particular airline because it is jinxed. Malaysian Airlines for example where an aircraft has gone missing and when the same airline has had one of its planes shot out of the sky through absolutely no fault of the airline - and don’t say they were “wrong to take a short cut” – there was a procession of luckier aircraft that went through that very same air space in the hours before Malaysian Airlines.

And the food surveys, “best” diets, wine studies, chocolate reviews, but also parenting, fashion, political and economic forecasts – whew! The list goes on and on and on. Surely this information, or perhaps misinformation or half –truth overload will get you in the end. Red wine and chocolate were supposed to be positively good for your health. Recent studies – at least by headline – now suggest they are no longer so wonderful. But the evidence in the reports actually seems to say that while they are not bad, they are actually no better than anything else comparable. Oh, and today we learn that sitting is more harmful to your health than smoking. Really? I am now standing up to write this.

Of course the business world has found the answer to all of this in “Big Data”. Always assuming of course that you have the right person or team to ask precisely the right interrogatory questions of that data!

But the information dispensed doesn’t stop with things like food, health and safety!!  It also stretches to broader political issues. For example the “black warning”  (just recently reduced to “amber”) imposed by the Hong Kong Government on travel to the Philippines because of the shooting of a tourist bus carrying Hong Kong tourists in 2010. A tragedy, for sure, but if the tourists had been from another country, would the shooting have also prompted a travel ban to the Philippines by the Hong Kong Government? I think not.  And if such bans are purely on grounds of safety and security, the same HK Government should perhaps issue at least an amber warning in its own country for the way mini-bus drivers operate their vehicles!

The trouble is that this information overload is often more confusing than helpful. These interpretations by third parties can shape peoples minds into narrow channels to the extent that they cannot see a broader picture. It stifles rational and independent creative thought, and it makes people stressed and depressed. It also prevents some people moving on for fear of taking missteps, or being criticised.

A recent practical example is a question I had from someone who asked if they should still go on a trip at the end of this month for a break because they were going to a country that has a minority Muslim population. With all the problems in the Middle East (even though the country to be visited was nowhere near that region), could those problems spill over into other countries?

The purely “to be safe” answer of course has to be yes, because you can never ever guarantee that what happens in one country will not happen elsewhere. Not every single member of the global community is a decent, law-abiding, respecter of human rights and human dignity. But that should not mean that you wake up every morning afraid to go out of your front door. Or stop eating because some study of a few people has shown a particular food to be carcinogenic in 80% of mice but only if they eat 15 times their bodyweight.

By the way, my advice to the travel question? Go! Statistically you are more likely to be hit by a wayward bus in Hong Kong than being a victim of a terrorist attack.

We are being smothered by studies and statistics. We are perpetuating the dissemination of all sorts of information by means of (anti) social media, often without any consideration of accuracy. We are adopting an attitude of  “I heard it here – so it must be right”.

Well of course as an individual you are entitled to do and think whatever you want (subject to the laws of the country in which you live of course!!), but there seems to be a need for more individual thought, an individual assessment of situations and not just a blind acceptance of information because someone else has done the work. Moderation in all things is an adage that has generally stood the test of time, together with common sense and perspective.

Everyone is different. Me? I guess I am a fatalist at heart. On balance, I do enjoy life. I have ups and downs like everyone else. But I also like to consider individual situations on the merits as assessed by me in the light of the information I can obtain. It means keeping an open mind, and it does not mean that I will always get it right – indeed, far from it, but I am not going to stop doing something unless there is a good reason – and if I’ve got it wrong then it was meant to be, but at least I will have lived my own life and not one prescribed by a myriad of conflicting studies and reports.

 

Hong Kong’s Future – In the Hands of Whom - Activists or Politicians?

In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.  (Charles Darwin)

                                                                                                                   

The Hong Kong system of “Government” is far from ideal, but the amount of noise it is currently generating locally is out of proportion to Hong Kong’s self-perceived importance on the world stage.

For those that don’t know, and it seems I have readers who are unaware, on 1 July 1997 the Hong Kong Civil service (and an excellent one it was too), was re-branded “Government”. A legislative council  (Legco)– part elected by functions and partly by constituency boundaries – was in place but without a mandate to ultimately convince the general public that its Council members were competent to govern. There was therefore no real need for the Legco to consider the best interests of Hong Kong and its people, because they would never be asked to implement their ideas. Legco was thus in effect a permanent opposition to an unelected body of people who were formerly civil servants, and suddenly collectively referred to as “Government”.

In the years that preceded the Handover to China had Britain attempted to introduce a recognisable form of democracy to Hong Kong? Erm – no! So all the posturing about needing to have a democracy established in a territory that was being returned to a Communist-run country was maybe a little fanciful. But that was the agreement reached.

At the Handover date Hong Kong was to be led by an appointed Chief Executive. Appointed by whom? Well, effectively China, seeing as it was territory they owned originally and had leased to Britain, and to which Britain had appointed “Governors” without any election by the people. (And for the pedants amongst the readers – I know that Hong Kong Island and the bits of Kowloon had been owned by Britain, but they could not survive without the land leased for 99 years from China).

Part of the agreement reached between Britain and China prior to the territory’s return, perhaps in a perceived coup for the lessees, included opportunities over time for universal suffrage and for the direct election of the Chief Executive. The time frame by when this was to be achieved is now fast approaching and, guess what, China seems to be getting a little nervous about having agreed to this democratic process. There is some definite back-pedalling going on, which is unfortunate, and I suspect that there will be many discussions yet to be had over the “interpretation” of the pro-democracy clauses.

But do we in Hong Kong have clear leaders who would do a great job for Hong Kong if they were to be elected under universal suffrage? No one seems hugely happy about the three people that have so far been entrusted with the role, but while we do have, without a doubt, suitable leaders I suspect that none of them would stand for election. We would therefore be left to choose from members of Legco, and we are constantly reminded by the media about the sort of people we might have as our elected representative.

For example a Legislator (Leung Kwok-hung) known as “Long Hair” for his – well, long hair and for turning up in Che Guevara T shirts in the Legislative Council. (Not many governments around the world would actually tolerate such behaviour). He idolises Guevara as a hero and rebel with a cause, but seems to conveniently forget that Guevara was a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary thug, an executioner of many and whose attempts at revolution largely all failed. It’s a pity – because Mr Leung actually comes across as an intelligent man. As a leader of Hong Kong representing the city on a global stage what impression would he make?

I looked around to see if whether what we had in Hong Kong were politicians or activists – and the conclusion I have come to is the latter. If our system is to change to one where we effectively have a legislative council led by a credible Chief Executive and where proper sensible debate about the future of the city of the Hong Kong is rationally discussed, and crucially where the people having those discussions are made accountable for their decisions and subsequent actions, we might get somewhere.

Today we have in Legco a body of people who have no accountability, so they can say and, it seems, do what they like. They don’t have to actually perform for the better health of Hong Kong. But they do have to perform for their electorate. And if they haven’t been shouting at the “Government”, they might not get re-elected.

And now the latest follies – “Occupy Central” or “Occupy Something or other”. People who want to express their views that the next Chief Executive of Hong Kong should be properly elected (and I do not disagree with the sentiment), have decided that the most effective way they can get their message across (to Beijing?) is to disrupt the business community in the Central District of Hong Kong. I don’t have an office in Central so it doesn’t affect me, but do the people who are contributing to the taxes and financial wealth and health of Hong Kong, and who do so from their offices in Central care? I just think they might.

Does the rest of the world care? Nah! It seems not really. I have been travelling a lot recently and the general reaction when this topic comes up following the odd article or picture is “why”?  Surely, people say, the bigger and better picture is to get involved in China’s Maritime Silk Road or China’s land based “New Silk Road”. China’s description, not mine.

Hong Kong managed to be successful pre 1997 without a democratic process and whilst I, having grown up in a democracy would much prefer that form of government, I can be patient a little longer. And in the process I think we need to do so with accountable politicians, rather than attention seeking activists.

Bankers Bite Back

... and before anyone says, "Ooh; here's another one supporting "his boss" so wouldn't you expect him to say that anyway!" ... here is the news! I am, and always have been independent of thought and action, which might have done me no favours on occasion, so just to be clear the thoughts that follow are mine - and anyway you don't know what I'm going to write yet!!

I was interested to see comments in the press this last week, and the reaction to them, by Douglas Flint the Chairman of HSBC - and the disclaimer for those that don't know me, I am a retired full time employee of that Bank and, having spent a reasonable amount of time away from the organisation, am currently a non-executive and independent director of one of its principal subsidiaries.

Douglas is a thoughtful man, and something has clearly got to him, given his comments on the impact that regulation was having on the ability of the Bank and its employees to go about their daily duties including lending money for business and still produce decent returns for shareholders, and pay substantial taxes to the Government. (Actually the very last bit was my addition). The general reaction from the media was predictable I suppose; stories written by people who have largely never had to actually run a business, and who have taken the view that bankers generally are criminals who need to be jailed for their crimes, and that regulation has been necessary to prevent bad behaviour.

Let me be equally clear in my explanation. I have no argument against the need for regulation - as long as it is appropriate. In earlier times people would build houses that were sub-standard, and they fell down. Regulation was necessary to prevent re-occurrences. In many other businesses, including the financial sector, similar problems occur. Medical practice and inappropriately researched drugs, accounting standards, journalistic behaviour, are always under review and need to change their practices.

The Financial Services industry is not immune. In the days when the local bank manager was a pillar of society, apparently, business was done on the basis of good sound principles without the need for too many rules, although I wouldn't mind betting even then there were a few who abused their position. And as they did, and morals changed - as they have done - those abuses were being brought in the open and so principles were swapped for rules. And once you have rules, human nature starts to consider how to use them to gain an advantage. This happens everywhere, not just in banking.

And when you start to have a situation when your shareholders are demanding higher and higher returns, and your regulators have not got their eye on the ball, and Governments are encouraging the industry to do more and more to promote financial centres - praising them even; remember Gordon Brown's words at a Mansion House Speech "What you, as the City of London, have achieved for financial services we, as a government, now aspire to achieve for the whole economy" .. and you start paying performance bonuses to front line staff ... and the list goes on, something is going to snap!!

 

It is not actually all that amusing.

It is all very well the media trying to say that the Banks need to be brought to heel, and should actually implement the regulatory changes even more quickly than they are. The problem though - and as I have said before in these columns - is that very often new regulations are introduced to try and paper over cracks in the wall. And what happens if you paper over a crack without cleaning out and repairing the wall itself? It cracks again - maybe somewhere else. In addition, and too often new regulations lead to unintended consequences.

I recall a meeting with Senator Paul Sarbanes some years ago when he produced the original two and half pages of his original draft rules - that became Sarbanes-Oxley. One of the clauses, he said, had now been expanded to cover 300 pages of rules. This was not what he had intended.

Look at the Basel rules for banks. They are introduced globally - apparently - but then not every country enforces them, or requires its banks to do so. I know from experience that HSBC - and it does not always get everything right - does its best to follow all rules and regulations, globally - on the basis that its standards must never be lower than the most stringent in operation. This is done all around the Group even if local standards do not require such strict adherence, and it is carried out by staff whose cultures do not necessarily fully understand why the Bank is being so strict. And no, I am not so naive as to believe that the bank in every single jurisdiction in which it operates gets it right - and as the recent slew of cases in America suggests, neither does anyone else.

I spoke a few years ago at a Regulators Conference in Asia. I believe it was the first time they had a banker making a presentation to them. They were happy to consider imposing regulations on their "charges" but they were doing so in an environment where they did not always think about the consequences of their actions because they never had a conversation with the people they were impacting. In fear perhaps of being persuaded to take a less tough line? I think not.

The concerns being expressed not just by Douglas Flint but others too are not a "plea for leniency". I see them as a legitimately aired concern on behalf of people who are under a huge amount of pressure. People on whom small businesses depend, but who are less likely to lend money for fear of falling foul of being branded as criminals for making a mistake.

You want criminals? Go look first at the terrorists around the world and get them sorted out. They are a far greater threat than the financial services community.

 

 

A World At War ... For What?

I guess I would generally describe myself as a long-term optimist. I may be pessimistic about certain aspects of my own little world, but I have found that either way in the long run things often have not turned out as badly as I might have earlier predicted.

Right now, however, as a result of what has been growing without check in the last very few years, I have started to ask around about just how safe we are, and what does the longer term hold in store for the generation or three that has never experienced the devastations of war? Of course there are far too many people who, as a result of civil strife or who have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, already know what wars can bring – particularly to innocent bystanders. But the majority of people have lived in relative peace since 1945.

The Arab Spring was viewed with some concern initially and treated with caution, but it was not a Pan Arabian-Peninsula movement. Rather it was a reflection of and reaction to years of pent up feelings against corrupt dictatorships and cronysim, and it was confined country by country. Since the outbreak of the movement in 2010 some Arab leaders have changed (sometimes more than once in the same country), and there have been ongoing riots in other countries but it is hard to see what has yet changed fundamentally for the better in terms of democracy and stability.

The outside world has kind of focused on these "Arab Spring" related issues, together with the desire to bring foreign troops out of earlier confrontations in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result the more extremist elements in our midsts have been given some breathing space to consolidate by re-grouping, re-arming and regressing!! In other words, in the case of the last element, the extremists are reverting to a form of Islam that really has no place in the civilised world - and it seems these are also the thoughts of much more learned scholars and relevant experts than me.

The build up of these worrying elements has been slow and, until recently, quiet as a result of which the world was rather surprised by the "sudden" emergence  and success of ISIS and the devastation it has caused so far. The specifically anti-Christian edicts in Iraq, together with the treatment of women has brought barbarity and irrational thought to the region.

But it is not just in the Middle East; it's also Boko Haram in Nigeria and pockets in other countries where momentum is currently building, partly as a result of poverty, a lack of education, and an inability to get work and earn money.

The trouble is, while these things may not currently affect many of us, the world is changing and if we don't react, and if we are saying "it can't happen to us" - think again.

And this is why – it is not just a question of the need to defeat these extreme groups – but it will be the aftermath when the foreign extremists recruited from countries like Britain return to their home countries and try to impose their will on someone else’s culture. No wonder that UKIP is doing quite well in Britain as is the Front National in France, despite the fact they both seem to spend much time extracting their feet from their mouths.

Add to this, in recent weeks there has been the “mistaken” shooting down of a civil airliner as a result of separatist action in Ukraine. There has been the pain and devastation created in Gaza where yes, agreed, Hamas is a venomous snake that needs putting in a cage with its fangs removed, but the number of innocent people caught in the bombing by Israel is appalling. The revival of the Taliban, with all their warped sanctimonius and "Middle Ages" practices in Afghanistan all added together makes it clear we are reaching a state of anarchy. Pleas for common sense, broken cease fire agreements all add fuel to the flames. Largely regional, and divided down religious lines - even intra religious lines i.e.Sunni vs Shia - we are nevertheless not so well positioned today to keep the potential problems contained, and to deal with them.

Flying is becoming potentially dangerous for many more people, indiscriminate edicts affecting people who have so far been used to having a choice may eventually have a backlash and the possibility of bombing innocent people in the course of their everyday lives are all becoming far too real.

But what's missing here? Action from world leaders - yes, it would seem so, perhaps in the interest of not losing business (or votes?). But for me what is really missing is any word of condemnation from important Arab leaders. It is a plea I have made before, and yes, there have been offers from sensible Muslim community leaders - but it is the leaders of countries who need to stand up and be counted and condemn these acts of barbarity, and lack of common sense.

The Commonwealth Games have just been held in Glasgow, Scotland - and one of the more enduring sights? A Mullah at a conference being followed onto the podium by a Rabbi, and shaking hands with each other as they passed. This needs to be expanded - massively, but it's not going to happen is it?

The way things are going I think we will be in for a few years, perhaps decades, of trouble unless there are some strong people with the ability, charisma, leadership skills, determination and drive to deal with the issues and ask the questions - "what on earth are we doing to each other - and why?"

Today is the Anniversary of the outbreak of World War I. We must never forget the sacrifices our forbears made for our benefit, and we must not let the potential for wanton desctruction by over zealous, bigots ever return.