Don't you think the world we are living in is rather like one of those irritating jigsaw puzzles that you think is almost finished, and then you discover there are a few pieces missing?
I mean let's start with the election in the U.K. last week where the result which, some weeks earlier, seemed to be a foregone conclusion. It became increasingly clear as the day drew near that this was nothing like the pushover it was supposed to be, and the final tally should have surprised no-one, except maybe some over-confident elements in the Conservative party. But now there are surely pieces missing with a hung parliament and a total new set of dynamics to play with. In the Middle East, recent and generally unexpected developments involving the GCC and in particular the effective blockade of Qatar has heightened some tensions and shifted the dial rather. And it all seemed quiet on the surface. And just for some light relief, in Hong Kong some comments on the status of Uber; a situation that really needs a review to find the missing piece - and perhaps a little more seriously the approach of the twentieth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to its original leaseholder.
Some weeks ago the British Prime Minister, as you will all be aware, decided that she would change direction by 180 degrees from her previously declared promise not to hold a general election - and hold one! Labour didn't stand a chance, the polls said. The Labour leader was constantly being ridiculed, not least for things he had said as an MP in his earlier years, including his apparent early IRA sympathies. He had no hope. He needed the young voters on side to help him; and on this occasion they were more than willing to oblige. After all, they had been robbed of the chance to remain as part of the EU by the narrowest of margins. An opportunity lost, in their view, by a referendum imposed on them by the Conservatives. You know all this already, and will also be up to date with the many commentaries subsequent to the result. I do think, though, that there was possibly one thing that Theresa May could have done to help her cause in a Britain that is becoming somewhat more xenophobic in outlook. Following the second terrorist attack in London, and the appalling "out of context" insults tweeted by President Trump about London's Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, if Mrs May had very publicly said "How dare you - your invitation for a State Visit is withdrawn” it would have shown her to be strong and not chasing a friendship we do not really need. That is to say, a friendship with the USA, yes, but not with that man. Of course we now know that he is questioning whether he should come anyway, in case he gets shouted at by protesters. A more than likely scenario!
The Middle East is somewhat problematic. The effective blockade of Qatar by certain of the Gulf Cooperation Council members (and, rather bizarrely to me anyway, others including Yemen - joining a Saudi-led initiative when the Saudis have been bombing Yemen) is not good news. Again, the media has covered this extensively although it is all rather complicated and in jigsaw puzzle terms there really are some missing pieces. If the GCC has been emboldened by President Trump's emphasis on supporting Saudi Arabia against Iran and he is therefore supportive of this move, what does that do to the large US base that exists in Qatar? I question I believe that is also a puzzle to one or two senior officials in the Trump administration. The puzzle is slightly complicated by Oman not initially joining their GCC counterparts, as they would prefer solutions to confrontations, and for real reasons I have yet to fully understand Turkey is ramping up their support of Qatar. In other words there is, in my mind, much more to this than meets the eye, but it has the potential to get out of hand so keep a close watch on events if you have interests in the region.
And so to Hong Kong. Uber! I could have written a whole piece on Uber, but Jake Van Der Kamp in the South China Morning Post beat me to it! He also focused on a more detailed financial rationale for his comments than I would have done, and provided an argument with which I agreed. Again!
Anyway, following the recent arrest of about 22 Uber drivers for "breaking the law" in Hong Kong the Secretary for Transport said, in response to a question about Uber "The company that you mentioned ... can run its businesses like how existing taxi companies do now". Please, Minister, NO!! If you call an Uber, 9 times out of 10 it turns up. Also, it doesn't matter if you are going from Kowloon to HK Island or vice versa, they still turn up. If on the other hand you are standing by the roadside looking for a taxi the driver either takes one look - thinks “foreigner, no thanks” and drive off, (no obligation to stop, it seems), or they quickly put up a sign to indicate they are from Kowloon and don't know the Hong Kong Island places. Unless of course you look as if you might be able to guide them, and here they usually make that judgement on a sweeping assumption that a foreigner doesn't speak Cantonese. Taxi drivers in Hong Kong are their own worst enemies and it is no surprise that Uber has become so successful. It is time that the government started to look at how Ubers operate in places like Canberra, Dubai, or in Malaysia. Places where they are regulated and provide a service that is needed. Put the last piece in the puzzle and get on with it. And an aside on the Malaysia story I was listening yesterday to a deal whereby a medical services provider in Malaysia has arranged with Uber to transfer patients from a clinic to a hospital or another centre if needed (clearly not an ambulance case) and where the patient gets a discount on the fare.
And finally a brief word on the 20 years since the return of Hong Kong. I must say the media are either finding no one to talk to or no one wants to talk to them - unlikely the latter, to the extent that they have even come to ask me for my comments. Actually, flattered they have asked but there’s not a whole lot I have to say. What did people expect? I believe I am a realist. I don’t think the deal was the best available but then I am not sure that Britain had the strongest hand to play - a bit like Brexit really and that’s a whole different jigsaw puzzle!
Recently 'discovered' your log/posts. Interesting views and as an ex career expat myself (including hkcc squashCosmo hockey etc) I can align with many. Regards from Liz and Alan Petts
Posted by: Alan Petts | 25 June 2017 at 04:39
As always, pertinent and thought provoking comments for which many thanks. I am afraid our own city jigsaw has many pieces missing right now and you are right, if we don't find them in due course some will find them for us.
As for the Bank input of 30 years ago - to which I certainly was not privy - I can only say that "input" does not necessarily amount to either agreement or implementation.
Posted by: David Eldon | 18 June 2017 at 23:44
Thank you for this post, David.
Yes, Jake did indeed make many good points in his article about Uber, the major one to me being the existence of the "rotten borough" electoral system in which the owners of those companies that hold speculative positions in some of the 18,000 taxi licences that the government sets as a limit for issue are so important in our electoral system that the current Chief Executive of Hong Kong seems to offer them an inordinate amount of respect.
In this context, I seem to remember that a certain Governor Patten (a very well politically connected individual with whom I became personally acquainted during his time in office here, and for whom I developed - and currently maintain - no respect whatsoever) appointed one Maria Tam to be chairman of our Transport Advisory Committee, notwithstanding her extremely close links to the taxi trade.
Was that appointment a political trade off, or simple stupidity?
Anyway, back to the point, which is that the solution to the taxi/Uber situation is very apparent and existing legislation could easily cover it, if anyone in the current HKSAR government had the moral fibre to go for such a thing.
Then there is the matter of the seeming clowns in the so-called "pan democratic movement" a number of whom have been taking rather a lot of money from various sources (including sources based in the United States)to undermine Hong Kong's stability: if our legislature does not allow the passage of our own Article 23 national security legislation quite soon, the Standing Committee of the NPC is quite likely to interpret the Basic Law so as to apply the corresponding national law to Hong Kong.
Will that be a good thing, or what? But perhaps that is what the backers of the clowns want.
But in the context of Basic Law matters, just where was Hong Kong Bank during the discussions that began in 1985? The Bank was very influential then, it must have had very considerable input.
I really do wonder just what that input was.
Best wishes.
Posted by: John D | 18 June 2017 at 23:18