Eldon-Online

North Korea - How Near Is The Finger To The Button?

Much has been written about Li'l Kim in recent weeks as the world takes differing views on the seriousness of the threats coming out of North Korea.

 

He has certainly generated a lot of media attention, but as a good friend pointed out yesterday he must be a bit "miffed" about the death of Baroness Thatcher - seeing as how she has now taken pride of place in the media headlines.

What seems clear to most observers is that this recent spate of rhetoric is, as usual, less of a genuine threat. But the big difference this time is that no one really knows whose hand is hovering over the button marked "war".

Previous history might suggest that such threats were designed more to gain some sort of "pay-off", thereby enabling the country to stagger along from one famine to another. After all, no one really takes seriously the notion that North Korea has an armoury sufficient to pose a significant threat to the world at large, or over a sustained period of time. So, are the threats designed to make South Korea very uncomfortable? Sure. And China and probably Japan too and definitely the US. But, again, in general, troop movements in the North have not given rise to concerns that the rhetoric is likely to be supported by action.

To this unlearned observer there seems to be a power struggle going on behind the scenes. As I wrote a little over two years ago, in predicting the death of Kim senior, I suggested that Li'l Kim would fall foul of the generals and be ousted in a power struggle. He was young, untested, appeared to be uneducated and would not be able to stand up to a concerted effort by the generals to remove him.

Then, in a surprise to me anyway, Kim seemed to be gaining the upper hand when he purged his mentor, Ri Yong-ho, and sacked him from all his posts - including significantly, his position as Head of the Army. This happened some 9 months ago. But it now seems that this did not perhaps lead to the army heads into becoming more compliant, and heeding Kim's every word. And this, I believe, is why we are where are now. The Generals are revolting!! (You can take that comment how you like!)

Kim is having to pump up the stakes, create front page news, make people nervous and demonstrate through Kim-controlled media that he is a no nonsense leader, and he is focused on the "enemy" outside his borders. By doing that he reduces the internal tensions that seem to exist, as anyone who protests will be seen as unpatriotic.

But this is turning into a high stakes game of brinksmanship. But it is being played by a potentially impetuous juvenile whose finger may just slip and hit the wrong button! After all, where does he go from here? He has warned foreigners to leave South Korea because "he doesn't want foreigners to be harmed". That suggests he is prepared to bomb, or otherwise harm the ONLY country that could possibly help North Korea reach some sort of economic model for growth. Where's the logic in that? Of course, not a lot of what is happening is, in fact, logical.

He may test a nuclear weapon, but testing does not of itself achieve the goals established by the rhetoric. Thus his only last resort, in a power struggle where he has publicly set out his intentions, is to actually do something. If he fails - the Generals win, and I have no idea what that means for the country. Or there is a very high profile diplomatic solution, engineered probably by China which enables Kim to remove his hand from over the button without losing face. But that seems to be a long shot.

I am hopeful that it will all come to nothing, once again, but I am more nervous this time about the boy and the button!!

Change ... Or No Change. Part III.

I think I have come to the conclusion that my last Blog on this subject wandered too far off the original theme. Muddled thinking helps no one, and even if I knew what I was writing about, a re-read persuades me that others reading Part II might be getting lost.

I started down this road of Change or No Change on the premise that we may think the world around us generally is changing because of the amount of activity taking place. But the reality is we are not changing very much at all. You can be in an induced coma-like state for ten years and when you wake up although things like fashion will have changed, the world around us generally has not done so. To recap, I think this is generally true of Europe ... lots of activity and not much action. North and South America, in a similar position although North America does seem to be translating some of their actions into progress. Africa meanwhile remains in the grip of corruption, and nothing positive will change on that continent until tribal issues get resolved (difficult), and the countries are run by people who will attempt to eradicate corruption (unlikely, in my view).

But what of Asia; is there change here? On the face of it, of course yes. New leaders in China, Japan and South Korea for a start, but will they create real changes?

In the case of South Korea the evident change is their first ever woman President in a country known to be a male dominated society, but Ms Park's newly sworn in administration is already beginning to hit some speed bumps. Her Defence Minister nominee has quit, and she herself has been singled out for some pretty unpleasant rhetoric from the North Korean "boy" who is starting to walk down a dangerous path of brinksmanship that might go badly wrong. Of course it seems that Ms Park's relatively narrow victory in the December election was largely due to the vote from the older members of the Korean population who remembered her Father. A military dictator, who was assasinated in 1979, was credited with growing the Korean economy but disliked for his policy of crushing dissent and preventing democratic development. One wonders how much of the father has rubbed off on the daughter.

Japan has returned to a former leader who seems to be promising to do all the things he promised to do previously as Prime Minister - but he only lasted a year on that occasion. The rather hawkish and nationalistic Mr. Abe might wish to leave more of a mark this time - and I am not sure that the consequences will be good for North Asia, or the Japanese economy that remains in recession.

China has now formally had its change of leadership. Some people I speak to are clearly unconvinced about China and what the new leaders will bring, but initial signs seem relatively positive. As with many developing economies, corruption has plagued China for years but the appointment of the no nonsense Wang Qishan to the role of Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection might bring about some major changes in that area. The new President Xi Jinping, and new Premier Li Keqiang, at 59 and 57 years of age respectively could make some significant changes to China as it continues the process of emerging into the world, but it's not going to be easy. Much remains to be done, although I get a real sense that the new leaders are serious about doing what is necessary to create a "fair and just society" as Premier Li said the other day.

But change takes time. That is why it often appears that there has been no change. Who actually remembers the Kyoto Protocol on Climate change? Did anything substantive really come out of that? I am sure that we all remember the Basel rules for financial institutions. After many iterations of the rules, countries seemed to make up their own minds as to whether they would adopt them or not. Therefore, I would argue, why do we spend so much time, effort and indeed money on debating issues of "change". At the end of the day the changes that take place as a result of the activity are - little or no change.

Why Don't You Blog Off?

I have just gone through my annual Blog review, wondering whether now is the time for me to stop blogging and move on to other things. It was an even more thoughtful process this year because I have not written very much in the last two or three months. Clearly this was due to some circumstances beyond my control, and by the way I must thank those who enquired about my health. I think it is safe to say that I am now fully recovered.

Anyway, my review process is pretty simple really. I start by asking myself why I do it, does anyone actually read it other than family and a few stalwart friends, and what actually am I hoping to achieve by writing a few of my random thoughts down on a computer? And it is really the latter thought that exercises my mind the most.

My Blog is most definitely not an ego trip: some morbid desire to hang on to the past. If I write something, I want it to be able to inform, or provide a perspective on events that happen within the world in which we live today. Perhaps viewed through the eyes of experience from a generation that is already living longer, and which is active for longer, than previous generations. I am very conscious, though, that there is much opinion already out there – available immediately. And although I may not agree with such opinion, are mine any more relevant or should be respected than the opinions expressed by others? Opinions to which they are clearly entitled.

Historically, the Blog really started because I was still being asked questions by a number of journalists, so I thought it easier to provide a “general” comment on issues in which they were interested out of which they could pick the bits they wanted. But, not surprisingly the questions from them have slowed over time – let’s face it I have been retired (from full time employment, anyway) almost 8 years – and although I know the blog is still read by some journalists, they are mostly Hong Kong based, and they are interested in Hong Kong and HSBC! But my own interests are much broader than that.

We are impacted in Asia by things that happen elsewhere around the globe. Particularly economically. Our future safety is wrapped up in what happens in the Middle East and in North Korea, and undoubtedly other places. But also amongst certain communities that profess to embrace tolerance, but who by their actions demonstrate a flagrant disregard of their own teachings. And as I have continuing roles in the Middle East region, as well as Asia, I have other thoughts to share.

But this is not just about economics, and politics and security – important though they are. It is also about demographics, employment, education, food and water supplies, nationalism both economic and territorial. And it is about older people – like me, who are still able to contribute, and it’s about our children and our grandchildren and the world in which they are living, surrounded by technological and medical advancement – both the good, the bad, and the very ugly.

There is so much going on out there in our world that you just cannot become an ostrich and pretend that if you don’t see it – then it won’t see you! The media can inform, but it can also misinform. It can interpret, and it can misinterpret. By way of example I read an article recently in a respectable Australian business newspaper that was writing about how difficult it was going to be for international banks to operate in China because of the restrictions being imposed by the authorities. It quoted a couple of recent cases that, in their opinion, justified their line of thinking. But I happen to know the precise story behind one of the examples quoted – and I have been advised by a reliable source about the other one and can, with confidence, say that the report while well-written and indeed convincing, was also free from reality.

For this reason, despite the blog commentator who has described my blog, if I may paraphrase, as being written by someone in the winter of his life and who he therefore thinks may express views that are of less relevance today, that even though the old lion may not run so fast as before, he can perhaps still finds ways to make his presence felt.

So conclusion? Another year I think, and then we’ll see.

Silly and Serious

Almost sounds like a comedy act doesn't it? Like Morcambe and Wise or Zig and Zag ...

Actually I had started off intending to write something serious about North Korea but before I had started I came across a couple of things that made me smile, so I thought I might as well include them before the more serious commentary.

It's odd what people find amusing, which tends to make me very odd as I derive amusement from the silliest things. Like today's South China Morning Post headline that read "Japanese paper mill told to fold". Actually the story that followed was quite serious, but my initial reaction was that some far-sighted Japanese bosses had decided that ready-made origami had a market and they were changing their production lines in their paper mill. (Please don't make me explain origami -  it takes away the amusement!) 

Perhaps that made my senses a little more alert than usual, because I then came across an article in the Financial Times today (actually, I am really trying to demonstrate that I read more than one newspaper), again a serious piece and well written about the Free Syrian Army wondering why no one from the West will help them stop the massacre after they had helped Libya. Fair point, but given the topic and with absolutely no disrespect intended to the journalist involved I thought it just mildly ironic that it was written by a Professor Slaughter.

I know!!

Which only goes to confirm a point I stole from someone else a while back and have used before, that I have never really grown up but have just learnt how to behave in public; at least most of the time. 

So from Silly to Serious - or is it?

In December 2010 at an Economist function in Hong Kong, (The World in 2011), I had "predicted" the death of Kim Jong Il. An event that somewhat scarily came true in December 2011. I went on to say in 2010, and indeed have since repeated it, that I thought the young, apparently uneducated and obviously pictorially overweight Junior Leader or Dear Succesor would be gobbled up by the generals in no time at all. 

If I have to eat my words - so be it, but recent events do seem to be proving me wrong. I must say that the "ousting" of General Ri Yong Ho suggests to this unlearned watcher that something else is going on in the background. The Young 'Un appears to be behaving in a populist (was it ever thus), but somewhat naively "man of the people" role. Appealing to the younger generation, and now being seen in public with a young wife. But to counter that, North Korea is still belligerent in the case of the South.

I am an old cynic, and take nothing at face value until I can establish a degree of certainty, which is hard to do out of the Hermit Kingdom. But firstly, I have to believe at present that someone else is pulling the strings. If everything we have heard so far about the young Kim's intelligence is true, then surely he could not have masterminded the changes that have happened. And who is behind the popular "street level", sort of Disney-like image - Kim's idea? If it is then we have all been misled about his intelligence, not to say cunning.

If there is a puppet master involved, how did he (or she?) become so powerful to have outflanked the General? Is there a greater "plot" involved, designed to make Kim the more acceptable face of a despotic regime, so he can eventually emerge blinking into the sunlight and join at least some of the rest of the world? If so, that's a high risk strategy, but it might prevent the Kim family being murdered for the sins of their ancestors for having kept the North Koreans bottled up in poverty, starvation and misinformation for the last 60 years. Or is the master planner even stronger and bolder than this, planning for Kim to be all sweetness to the outside world, saying a few encouraging words to the world at large, and allowing more aid to be provided in return for a genuine and commensurate reduction in war-mongering, and for him to then leave the country with his family, with a reasonable chance of protection and thus save his skin?

The multi million dollar question - who would we get then?

Silly, or Serious? I wish I knew, but the removal of one more dangerous dictator can surely only be a good thing.

Look, Listen ... and Learn.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. (Douglas Adams - author of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy")

How true is that?

Every day we are regaled with stories of people who never seem to learn from the mistakes of others. Accident "black spots" are designated as such because people never heed the warnings even if they hear about them regularly, and they are well signposted. Political crises occur because the lessons learnt from messes made by previous administrations are not remembered, because ultimately it becomes politically expedient to tread the populist route rather than making the tough calls. Financial crises appear periodically despite the politicians and regulators saying "this is never going to happen again!" after the latest one. To which the rejoinder is always "Oh yes it will!". And it does! We do not learn.  

Of course the learning process does not have to relate solely to mistakes, as given in the above examples.

The ability to listen and learn "positively" is alive and well. I recall occasions not that many years ago when senior figures from Singapore would arrive in Hong Kong and invite small, select groups of Hong Kong businessmen for lunch. They would compliment the invited guests on their successes and then, with them suitably preened, would dredge out of them the "secrets" of their success. Back in Singapore they would sift through the information, pick out the good bits they could use themselves or suitably adapt, and discard the rest. Sadly, because "we knew it all already", there was never a return match.

Singapore today, as many will tell you, is a transformed city. It has picked up ideas that have suited its development and does not worry too much about the "not invented here" syndrome that hinders growth in other cities. If it works, use it! It isn't important where it came from initially.

And they are doing it again. The Economic Development Board in Singapore is flexible in its attitude to attracting talent to the city. It is prepared to cut deals. It will contribute to the salaries of suitable experts from outside Singapore if it means better talent will arrive in the City, develop business, enhance the prestige of the country, transfer their knowledge and contribute to the continued prosperity of Singapore.

Okay - Singapore may not suit everybody, but it is telling a compelling story, and people are listening. Including people from Hong Kong!

And if Hong Kong needs yet another prod that we may not be looking or listening enough - beware the next issue of the Global Financial Centres Index. After the last report that indicated there was little difference now between London, New York and Hong Kong - this latest issue will indicate that Hong Kong is slipping. London has improved slightly and New York is moribund in the index, but Hong Kong has fallen. In fairness, Singapore and Shanghai have fallen too, and we will need to wait until later this month to understand why, and then perhaps we can learn from others? Improve our standings?

Clearly our drop in ratings is not (hopefully) directly connected to the CE race chaos, but it is yet another indication - as if we really need any more signposts -  that Hong Kong should be concerned about its reputation as an IFC, and the mess with Messrs Tsang, Tang & Leung isn't doing the city any good.

There is plenty of good advice available in Hong Kong. Innovative ideas that were once the lifeblood of this city cannot have just disappeared, but perhaps no one is listening.

Beauty Is In The Eye Of The (Western) Beholder!

Beauty, it seems, is not just skin deep. (Well we knew that, didn't we?). Beauty comes in many forms - but I fear somewhere, somehow, we really are losing the plot if we believe that only in the "west" do we understand what makes a person, in this case, beautiful and acceptable.

As Westerners we have been, in recent history, destroyers of economies, setting new benchmarks in greed, setting bad examples in consumption and failing to save our money - and now we want to interfere with what we believe is judged "beautiful". Give me a break!

You may not have heard of Lou Zilin, but if not you will soon. She is a mainland Chinese lady of 24, who has won China's beauty pageant and who will therefore represent her country in this year's Miss Universe pageant, but get this. Miss China is deemed to be too "Chinese", and has therefore been sent to that city of overwhelming taste and culture, New York, (I know, fingers down the throat!) to learn how to become more "western".

Stop it!

It is true that, to many westerners, certain Asian traits and mannerisms are "not polite". In our view, for example, there are better ways of expressing satisfaction with a meal than a loud burp, and we would not usually come straight out and ask how much you earn, but then who set us up as the custodians of polite behaviour?

And even that behaviour changes over time. For example, my generation (at least the males) would always walk on the outside of a lady - closest to the road. First because historically when roads were not made as they are today with drainage, there was a chance a lady's clothes would be splashed by passing traffic and the man was being protective both of the splashing but secondly also of the traffic itself. But even that changed from a time even further back in history when the man always walked on the inside of the lady, closest to the buildings, to protect her from being hit by objects, including chamberpots and their contents (night soil), chucked out of the windows above with no thought of what or who might be below.

I understand the point of view put forward in the particular case of China's representative for Miss Universe, that if she is at least made aware of the practices of the majority of contestants in the pageant she will not feel isolated, but I take exception to what seems to be the view that only what we do in the west is right and everyone else is therefore, by default, wrong.

I commented in April about Bertrand Russell's book, written in 1922 about China where he cautioned against China's civilisation being substituted by the American. It seems that he might not have been far wrong.

An Own Goal For Singapore?

I recall a former Chairman of mine saying to me once “You know, every time I praise someone, the next thing I know is they've done something silly”. In this case actually it was me he was telling off - and yes, I deserved it! Fresh from the glow of having been commended for successfully completing a particularly complex piece of work, I let a stupid thing happen right under my nose a week later.

Not that I can imagine Singapore “basking” in the positive report I gave them two weeks ago - why should they care - (and okay, I was probably prodding Hong Kong as much as praising Singapore) but did they honestly think their declaration made last week, that Temasek was going to sell stakes in two Chinese banks and an Indonesian one, was going to go unnoticed? This was all an act of re-balancing their portfolio, they said. Hmm; really?

There is a growing body of opinion that says Chinese bank loans are actually not in as good a shape as they would like us to believe. And you can imagine why. The funds made available by the banks under the stimulus package of the last three years found their way largely into the rural areas and, it seems, local government pockets. (By the way, I am not suggesting here that the funds have gone into individual pockets; that, of course, remains to be seen!). Anyway, neither set of borrowers - rural communities/local governments - have a strong repayment record. So, while official statistics suggest that non-performing loans as a percentage of total loans has declined - which would happen naturally as new loans were granted, the records show that the absolute value of non- performing loans has also reduced. Well, when you think about it that's not unusual either, as they would naturally reduce as loan recoveries were made (maybe partly from the new money), plus some natural repayments. And the new loans have not yet been classified as bad.

On the surface then - all is well. But if the general opinions are correct, is the Singapore "“re-balancing” not just an attempt to get their money out of harms way before the nasty stuff hits the fan?

Ah no, they say. This is a general re-balancing, and just to prove it we are selling our stake in Bank Danamon in Indonesia. It is not just China. Okay, true, but I imagine that Bank Danamon could be an attractive purchase for someone wanting a foothold in Indonesia. The Singapore stake is a controlling one, which adds to the attraction. Thus two birds with one stone - get out of some potentially difficult investments in China if the NPLs get really bad, and get a decent return from the sale of an investment in a bank in Indonesia.

But here's a devious thought. The last I heard Singapore was very keen to become, like Hong Kong, a Renminbi clearing centre. It would enhance their standing as a Global Financial Centre and continue the perception that they are moving forwards while Hong Kong stagnates. But if you were China, and you thought someone was displaying a lack of confidence for the future of your country by selling stakes in your banks, would you give them what they wanted elsewhere? A bit too much like having your cake and eating it too!

I will need a lot more convincing that this sale of financial interests is genuinely how it is portrayed, and not just a ploy to get rid of some potentially damaging investments. If the real reason is the latter, then be brave and open about it - others might benefit from your wisdom? If, on the other hand it is a genuine re-balancing of the portfolio, then one message you are sending is a lack of confidence in the banking sector in certain countries - because you can always re-balance by acquiring additional, and different, assets. Either way, I am not sure that RMB clearing centres will be a feature of Singapore's product offering in the immediate future.

And in the Blue Corner ... Singapore vs Hong Kong?

The end of this week sees a heavyweight boxing reunification title match between David Haye, the British holder of one title and Wladimir Klitschko the Ukrainian holder of two titles. An event that has been long anticipated, and will see plenty of action, I have no doubt. 

So, why the reference to boxing? In a somewhat lower-key event that has nevertheless been building up into something more aggressive recently, I have been keeping an eye on the rivalry that undoubtedly exists between Hong Kong and Singapore. A sort of virtual boxing contest where perhaps the smaller contender has been showing signs of punching above its weight.

I thought about it in particular when I noticed a revival of interest in a Blog I wrote just over two years ago on the debate about Hong Kong vs Shanghai. I had no idea why this should again be on the mind of readers, unless it was part of the regular round of paranoia on the subject - usually for the less confident people of Hong Kong. The blog concluded then that Hong Kong, if it stayed focused, flexible and positive would remain of significant global importance, but needed to keep Shanghai in its sights. 

On reflection, I then realised that I had become much more focused on the positioning of Singapore in recent months, after the election, because here is an economy and a political structure in transition - and it's making waves. I thought a quick look at the situation - as usual from my own perspective - was warranted.

Before I get started, I should say I am familiar with the old arguments about Singapore being more focused, smaller, and able to be more flexible than Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong has its hands tied and should not compete in the same manner with Singapore. I am sorry to say that on the latter part I disagree. We do not have to have our hands tied, and continuously worry about the blanket opposition that seems to typify debates in a negative Legco.

I should also say, having said it before, that despite the frustrations everyone feels occasionally, Hong Kong is my home. I enjoy being here. I want us to do well domestically and to continue working on areas of social reform, but without giving everything away for nothing in return. But our prosperity also relies on our performance internationally and as a global business centre. Thus I am not going to throw in the towel just because we are looking more and more as if we have lost our way, but we have to wake up. In another more recent blog, in September last year, I spoke of Hong Kong's attitude towards the present and the future as giving me some cause for concern. That continues to be the case, but I digress.

Today I am hearing Singapore's name being mentioned a little too often for Hong Kong's own good.

In the years before I retired, I was invited on a number of occasions to lunches in Hong Kong hosted by some very senior officials from Singapore. Lunches that were attended by a small number of Hong Kong businessmen who were variously flattered for their business acumen (in fairness, justifiably in many cases), and then asked to share the secrets of their success - which they did willingly. It seems that after the information had been harvested, those officials would return to Singapore and sift through the commentary provided to see if there was anything that might be of value to Singapore. Ideas they could use, or adapt to suit their own purposes. Whether it was a successful exercise or not is hard to say today - but the real point was, they were prepared to seek out ideas and didn't mind where they came from.

I remarked at the time that I could not see any Hong Kong official seeing the need to do the same sort of thing in Singapore, as we seemed to believe we had all the answers anyway.

Fast forward to today, and what are we hearing?

I am talking about what I hear from people I speak to with practical experience. I am all too familiar with the statistics that pop out from Government to indicate how well Hong Kong is doing in attracting new offices and headquarters. No, I am hearing from people trying to employ quality internationally minded linguistically competent staff, trying to find school places in Hong Kong, and trying to find a general quality of life that is attractive. From people who are looking at choices available - Singapore, Hong Kong or China direct. People who are looking at legal structures in which they would feel comfortable operating, looking at the rules and regulations in effect or their likely trend, and searching for incentives - real incentives.

In all of this searching, Hong Kong has of course one major attribute that Singapore just cannot replicate - and that is proximity to China. And a special relationship that, although perhaps strained at times, has certainly been favourable to Hong Kong. But for the rest?

Despite a few good days recently in Hong Kong where the skies have returned temporarily to the blues of some decades back, one cannot help but feel this is temporary. And if it is not - what has changed? I saw an argument that our recent good weather is a reflection of the fact that factories in China are not so active as previously and that therefore all our earlier pollution problems were due entirely to factories in China (operated mainly, by the way, by Hong Kong businesses). I don't think so, somehow.

Wind - of one sort or another - has always had an impact on our pollution levels!!

I was told the other day that an incoming executive from an established Hong Kong entity looking for a school place for his children in an ESF school had one of them at 120 on the waiting list! He chose Singapore instead. We are not going to gain, or even obtain credibility or talent if that continues to be the case. I understand that Harrow School's total registration in Hong Kong for new students was filled in less than an hour after opening. I have no independent verification if this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And most compelling of all is perhaps Singapore's willingness to do "deals". In this, where Hong Kong may hold the moral high ground and be applauded by trying to ensure that everyone is treated as fairly as possible, it is nevertheless unlikely to win us new businesses.

In any business environment, you occasionally have to make special offers to attract new business. Does this disadvantage existing players in the market? - Yes, but then if you are attracting the right sort of business, the overall benefits could be higher - if you are efficient and competitive. And it is here that Singapore is currently winning out - tax concessions are significant when compared to Hong Kong. And the other benefits being offered would certainly match Hong Kong on the face of it. And if the reality is different - then we are not articulating our competitiveness sufficiently well.

If this is a heavyweight contest, then we are certainly facing an onslaught of jabs right now. If we don't protect ourselves by becoming the aggressor, then the body blows will start to take their toll, and we will be vulnerable to the killer punch.

Boxing matches usually have a result and although there may be a re-match, the loser is often at a disadvantage. If we are in the early rounds, we had better re-think our strategy as we move deeper into the fight, because we may be falling behind on points.

We need some inspired and inspiring leadership to start changing the characteristics of the fight, yet June 2012 for a change of trainer sounds a long way off.

But as they used to say, before it became politically incorrect to do so, may the best man (person) win! 

"Staying Alive" ...The Kim Family version

Okay, so although it was the Bee Gees that wrote it and then sang it first in 1977, with many other artists recording it, including Ozzy Osbourne who put it on his 2005 Album "Prince of Darkness", why does "Staying Alive" have a connection with the North Korean Kim family?

Think about it.

If you were running a business, when you and members of your family were eventually found to have lied systematically to 25 million employees over a 50 year period, whilst depriving them of human rights, food, creating famine, and denying them many other basics that most of the rest of us take for granted, don't you think your employees would be pretty mad about it? Wouldn't you be very scared for your life?

Okay, perhaps this is a very superficial view, and there will be many learned scholars out there for whom the complexities of the two Koreas (North and South) provide them with their livelihood, and who will put me firmly back in my place, but my very simplistic view of events runs something like this.

Over a number of years, there have been incidents involving both North and South Korea who, let me remind you, are still officially at war. The most recent of those events has been the sinking of the South Korean naval corvette Cheonan, with considerable loss of life. A number of possible scenarios have emerged to "explain" the reason for the attack. One suggestion is that this is retaliation for the events of November 2009, where a couple of North Korean soldiers were killed - but even for the North Koreans the scale of this retaliation seems out of character. Or, it is suggested, maybe it was just another phase in North Korea's line of "Belligerent Economics", which goes along the lines of "we blow something up and you give us money and aid to stop us doing more damage". Again, a little over the top and out of character for a nation that has found less damaging ways of extracting the same result. Or, it was designed to distract the international community from getting back to the Six Party talks that have been going on and off for a few years.

But of all the theories, my favourite is the one that suggests this is all part of an internal power play to ensure that the "Dear Leader's" youngest son becomes the "Dear Successor". That the strike against South Korea was designed to indicate to an internal audience that the Kim family is in control, and that Kim Jong Un, the current leader's youngest son was in charge of the strike. It all seems to make sense.

If you think about it, which country is most likely to have the capability to assist North Korea in emerging into the 21st Century? For my money it would have to be South Korea - ethnically, linguistically, geographically - it would be the logical choice, and there is the matter of re-uniting the divided families that live on either side of the border. In many ways it is an Asian version of East/West Germany.

But let's say the borders opened up freely. The North Koreans would suddenly discover that, contrary to their beliefs - as a result of the information fed to them - their Southern counterparts were not actually slaves of the Americans. That they were able to put food into their mouths daily, that millions did not die as a result of famine and starvation, that they had homes and cars and were very successful. Wouldn't they start to look to see who had been feeding them all this rubbish about life over the border? And wouldn't the "Dear Leader" become the "Most Wanted Leader"? Him - and all his family.

In all the meetings and discussions that have been held on the subject, peace has been the objective, with an eventual opening up of the economy. But if this were to take place, where would it leave Kim and Family? Clearly, where they belong - in an open field with the spotlights trained on them and no support. Let's face it - he would have NO friends to protect him. Nothing. Nowhere is there an incentive for Kim Jong il to approach a peaceful solution to anything. For him personally - although he is reported to be very ill and may not be around for much longer - there is no upside. Peace with South Korea is not really on his priority list I suspect. Under any circumstances.

Thinking back, Iraq was invaded in the mistaken belief that it had weapons of mass destruction. It was the wrong thing to do - in the lack of any concrete evidence, but it did the world a favour by ridding it of a malicious and cruel dictator. North Korea does have weapons of mass destruction - but an invasion here (which would also help remove a malicious and cruel dictator) would not have the backing of China, which is a pity but that is their stance. Therefore the neatest option is out.

An impasse. No peace prospect ever in sight, while Kim protects his family. No invasion likely, unless the North Koreans do something so stupid that China becomes sufficiently angry with them. Little prospect of an overthrow, internally. Solution?

It would stick horribly in the throat, but let's say we actually wanted to defuse the political situation in the region. Remove the nuclear threat. Improve the living conditions and the prospects for North Korea. We would perhaps need to rely on the diplomatic and persuasive skills of China to bring this about - but if Kim could be persuaded that his 25 million subjects were about to find out the truth about the life of Kim, which would likely cause an uprising leading to his eventual capture - but that a safe haven could be found for the family in China to keep him from harm (a la Idi Amin, who went into exile in Saudi Arabia from Uganda).

This would be better than any invasion, or Six Party talks and the like.

If it is all too Alice in Wonderland, then I guess the status quo remains. A consistent diet of "Belligenomics", random killings and threats ... and all for what? In the meantime, if I were Mr. Kim I would be regularly thinking about the song "Staying Alive". 

Thailand UnTied

Honestly? Things don't look so good at present, and I have a feeling we have gone beyond Thaksin now.

Let's just take a step back.

We are talking of Thailand ("The Land of Smiles"), where behind the serenity of those smiles and the softly spoken greetings lies a complex culture. Many learned books have been written on the subject of the culture and customs of Thailand, and to even attempt an in-depth comment by way of background would be futile. I will therefore restrict my comments here to some personal observations, garnered over 30 years and which may surprise some.

I have recognised the power of the monarchy in Thailand. In how many cases over the years have there been incidents in the present day Capital and elsewhere, which have been resolved not by the elected Government, but by the King? Pictures showing the various factions sitting, or kneeling, on the floor at the monarch's feet, followed by an announcement that matters have been resolved and that everything is returning to some degree of normality. That is, until now.

The recent development of Thailand politically and economically has not always been smooth. Who can forget the Asian crisis of 1997, with its origins in Thailand? (At least it gave a bored media attending the uneventful Hong Kong handover in June 1997 a new vigour!)

And the more recent ascent of Thaksin Shinawatra to power. A savvy, wealthy businessman who harnessed the support of the rural masses to succeed in becoming the 23rd Prime Minster of Thailand in 2001. Elected on the back of his relatively newly founded (1998) political party "Thai Rak Thai" - or effectively Thailand for the Thais. A businessman who understood that the fortunes of Thailand were likely to rest on goodwill towards, and encouragement of foreign investors, but who knew that he was unlikely to gain the needed support for election if he espoused embracing a foreign "invasion".

And here is where one of the "hidden" difficulties for Thailand exists. Remember one critical fact; Thailand has never been colonised, and is therefore the only country in Asia never to have suffered that fate. As a result the Thais are proud of their history their heritage and their independence - fiercely proud! Leading perhaps to a well-hidden, but nonetheless present, xenophobia.

So, as we approach today's situation we have a chain of events spanning a little over 10 years that has led us to today. And as an aside, I don't want to skirt over the last couple of years but to do it justice would defeat the purpose of trying to create a general picture of where we seem to be today. It would be a large volume.

We commenced with an Asian economic crisis that started in Thailand in 1997, the formation by Thaksin of a new political party in 1998 (dissolved for electoral fraud around 2006) which met a pent-up nationalistic demand mainly from the majority rural areas, and the subsequent election in 2001 of Thaksin. He was ousted in 2006 in a bloodless coup, but has been keen (some say desperate) to return to power. His huge rural support base, to whom he still appeals and who he reportedly assists financially, have become part of a new organisation - characterised by the "red shirts" - to put pressure on the Government to hold elections that might bring him back. Meanwhile he has himself been convicted of fraud and sentenced, as a result of which he remains out of the country.

Today, we are faced with the "red-shirts" having created mayhem, death and bloodshed in the streets of Bangkok. In the past this would have been dealt with already by the Monarch calling in the main parties and striking a deal, but the King is ill, and has been for some time. He is the world's longest reigning monarch (June 1946), but the issue of his succession is also one that occupies the minds of many in Thailand. It is still the case in Thailand, I believe, that anyone who writes about the Monarch is deemed to have broken a law - so heaven knows what might happen the next time I go down there - but this succession issue is difficult. Once again, I can only rely on the information I get from respected colleagues and friends who are much closer than I am to what goes on but the Crown Prince, by many accounts, is not popular, and does not enjoy the reverence with which his Father is treated.

The Government with the support, currently, of the armed forces, is standing firm against the demands of the demonstrators and refusing to bow to pressure which is the sort of stand you would expect from an elected Government. But my worries go beyond the current situation. I think we need to keep a close eye on what happens with the Monarchy and the power that it previously held. Also, I have a feeling that the "red shirts" - once (still?) under the patronage and support of Thaksin have developed a "people power" strength of their own and may be out of control. The role of the army is looking increasingly important and, as has happened before, we may just end up with a military government in Thailand. Not ideal, but perhaps it is the only way to restore some semblance of peace and order.

But one thing is starkly clear. The neatly "bundled" entity that was Thailand, with the clear roles played by the Monarch, the military, the Government and the people, has become untied. Putting it back is a little like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube - which you can do if you start from the bottom!!