Eldon-Online

Hong Kong: Have You Read The Headlines?

Once again the media pundits are at it. An opinion piece in the UK’s Times newspaper on Saturday. “China is ready to kill the golden goose”, is what it read, and it goes on to suggest that China will not hesitate to crush the Hong Kong protests if it meant preventing democracy infecting the mainland.

The writer is of the view that Hong Kong is a golden goose that has benefitted China, and because China is now wealthy and powerful enough to stand on its own, it no longer has a need for Hong Kong.

I would respectfully suggest that the author takes a look at the current state of China’s economy. Whilst there may indeed be some individuals in China who have and display considerable wealth, the Chinese economy is not in the greatest shape and indeed is walking something of a tightrope. Not only does China have considerably more to worry about internally than some students demonstrating in Hong Kong, as it attempts to bring a more recognisable style of governance and anti-corruption principles to the country (principles recognisable to the West that is), it also has to deal with growth issues.

I have generally contended that I am more concerned by the potential for social unrest in China than I am about the economy, but there is no doubt that economics are at present playing a major part in the overall situation.

And, by the way, I fail to see clearly where Hong Kong has actually been China's golden goose. What is it that Hong Kong has contributed to China? Hong Kong has certainly received special treatment through its Special Economic Partnership Agreement with China, it has been in the forefront of the internationalisation of the RMB, it has invested in China early on and reaped the first mover benefits, it has been the beneficiary of inward investment by Chinese companies, and it has received influxes of Chinese tourists that have helped keep certain businesses in Hong Kong going.

What has Hong Kong given China in return that has been so valuable?

On the subject of inward tourism for a moment, there has been something of a backlash against Mainland tourists into Hong Kong because of their “uncivilised” behaviour, according to Hong Kong residents. Interesting; on arrival in Hong Kong 40 years ago there were plenty of signs around asking people not to spit on the floor, or anywhere else for that matter. You certainly had to walk carefully for fear of someone “gobbing” on your shoes – although I suppose that could just have been a protest at yet another gweilo walking around their Chinese city of Hong Kong. How things have changed, but it’s like all converts – they become holier than thou in their attitudes, conveniently forgetting what they were like themselves once.

But this is a digression from the “golden goose”. There is a popularly expressed hope that China is going to be forced into stepping in to make some radical changes in Hong Kong as a direct result of these student protests, that are organised and assisted by the students’ own professors.

Obviously I can’t know what the next steps are going to be at the end of the day, but it would surprise me if the Chinese Government were about to give in to threats. How could they as it would open the door to all sorts of demands in future? But if the current defiance continues I also don’t expect them to do nothing. That said, they will tread carefully, no matter how it is portrayed by the media and the protesters.

I have written about this before, but for the reasons behind my thinking first of all look back at the establishment of the Hong Kong Lease in 1898 that gave Kowloon and the New Territories to Britain to run for 99 years. China always described this as an “unequal” or “unfair” treaty. There were a number of occasions when China could have walked into Hong Kong during those 99 years and taken it over. The world would have reacted in horror for six months and then forgotten about it. China chose not to do so. They now have their own agreement with Britain and even though it looks somewhat odd, I think they will stick to it.

Ah, you will say, but China has not kept to the agreement they signed because that is what all this trouble is about; the election, by a universally enfranchised Hong Kong public, of its own Chief Executive. To which the answer I am afraid appears to be encapsulated in Article 45 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law that seems to say that Beijing can reserve the right to appoint candidates on which the public can then vote. Now, clearly if you are voting for candidates that have been pre-vetted, then that is not universal suffrage – but if the Basic Law gives China the right to select candidates, then the fault lies not so much with the Hong Kong Government, but with the drafters of the law who let this go through.

Secondly, China is always hopeful that Taiwan will formally return to the Mainland. Personally I think there is little hope of that ever happening, but to go against an agreement they have signed with the United Kingdom would certainly put a final nail in that particular coffin.

Hong Kong has, again as I have written before in my Blogs, been suffering an inferiority complex for a long time and many of us have tried to ensure that Hong Kong does not become just another Chinese city. However, the hand wringing that has gone on in the past is now set to intensify further as a mood of depression sets in, and Hong Kong slowly becomes an irrelevance.

At some time in the very near future I hope our students realise that they themselves will have no future if this continues. Of course they may like to review the "democracies" of places like those in Zimbabwe, or in the Ukraine, or in Egypt and a myriad of other places – and where the protests in the end have come to nothing.

As for Hong Kong being the golden goose … lame duck is more like it!

Pass or Fail - Who Decides in Hong Kong's Universities?

There is something puzzling me about the University scene in Hong Kong right now. A scenario that I have seen in countries elsewhere, but it raises serious questions for the future of our students.

We currently have an associate professor of law at Hong Kong University, Mr Benny Tai, who is the leader of the Occupy Central movement. And for those who don’t know, this is a civil disobedience movement geared up to protest if the Beijing Government did not agree to the implementation of direct elections for the city’s “mayor” or Chief Executive by 2017. They didn't, so the movement has been protesting.

I have never questioned the right of people to express their own opinions, and this “protest” therefore is within Mr. Tai’s “rights”. I may not agree with the methods used by the protesters, but that’s a discussion for another day.

My more specific question however relates to Mr. Tai’s students who will be hoping to pass their exams at some stage in the future, and I wonder what will happen to those who express a different view to that held by Mr. Tai. In other words, if he is given responsibility for assessing their views on certain legal issues in relation to their course work, how can they be sure that they will not be penalised when those papers come to be marked if they have not embraced Mr. Tai's own views?

Let me be very clear, I am not questioning the assistant professor’s integrity or his beliefs. However, students lack experience, they have a tendency to view the world differently, and may be somewhat naive in their thinking. They embrace "radical" movements as a way of flexing their developing muscles. Will his students therefore think they must reflect the views of their professor if they are to stand a chance of getting appropriate passing marks?

I am sure the University Vice Chancellor and the Governing body of HKU will have considered this matter, but I do not recall having yet seen any definitive statement that provides for a “second opinion” on Professor Tai’s judgement, and I think this is unsatisfactory.

I will be told I am sure, that academia is above all of that and that I should stick to business issues. But the parallels here on an issue such as this with the business world are fascinating. To ensure good (better) behaviour in companies of all sorts, not just financial services, having a "risk" committee is now essential  and as Chairman of a couple of such committees, there would be red flashing lights all over this state of affairs.

I am aware of incidents in other countries where an individual within the academic body has imposed their own beliefs on those of the student body and marked people down accordingly if they did not follow those personal beliefs. I am also aware of directives being given to one University – not in Hong Kong – where a Professor was “leant upon” to reduce his passing mark for a First Class honours degree to allow one or two “well-connected” students who would otherwise not have made it, receive such degrees. As you might expect, the Professor concerned resigned rather than accede to the request – but the University soon found a replacement Professor who was more compliant.

Taking this to another level down, there is evidence to suggest that teaching at many madrassas follow a pattern where children are “brainwashed” by their teachers beyond the point of being able to think for themselves, and then end up us jihadists fighting for the likes of the brutal IS. In other words they hang on to every word of their teachers and are influenced by that teacher's thinking - even if the school itself overall does not set out to turn out classrooms full of wannabe terrorists.

But that is more extreme than the theme of this Blog, so let’s return for a moment to Mr. Tai – and quite possibly others like him.

As I said before, I have no problem with concerned citizens who want to express their own thought-through point of view. But as an influencer of young views can our students be absolutely certain that they have passed their exams because they have followed the prescribed course and done so in a thorough manner, rather than having to toe a line set by their teacher?

All of which reminds me of a story I was told by a friend a few days ago about the seven year old girl who went to her Mother and said “When I grow up I want to be a man”, to which her Mother simply said “You can’t do both dear!”

I think that our academics need to consider the choices they are making – do they want to teach a syllabus to their students by which those students can be assessed fairly, or do they want to impose their views on the students, with pass marks only being obtained if the students accepts the Professor’s views? You can’t do both.

And even if you think you can fairly do both, then I suggest there still needs to be - for the "safety" of everyone - a control against perceived even if not actual bias.

 

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.

It's That Time Again - Annual Handwringing in Hong Kong

The newspaper headline says it all - "HK Fightback Urged As New Zones Blunt Edge"; Oh woe! Hong Kong has just re-discovered that some of Mainland China's larger cities have an intention to become potential competitors to its perceived advantage. Well, currently two of them, this time round.

Given the worried looks and furrowed brows in some quarters, it has to be said that this news should not be a surprise ladies and gentlemen. It is an issue that has been written about by me, and by far more intelligent people than me, (not difficult, I know!) over an extended period of time. And if that hasn't been enough of a warning, Mainland China has been saying it repeatedly and openly. The erudite and highly respected Dr. Fang Xinghai has been pushing Shanghai's case for becoming a major financial centre for a long time - with a view to restoring that city's former entrepreneurial dominance. Representatives from Beijing, and Tianjin and other Mainland Cities have all at some time or another been in Hong Kong saying, "we're open for business", pay attention. But one gets the sense that we haven't paid enough attention.

Hong Kong has benefitted from that blissful honeymoon period enjoyed by many newly weds, when adjustments to their change in status take place. In this case in 1997 of course. As the blushing bride, Hong Kong soon began to experience irrational self-doubt in a manner that had not been felt by the previous generation or two of Chinese entrepreneurs, who themselves had built on the legacy created by the foreign community. Despite Hong Kong being in a "privileged" status compared to many other cities on the Mainland at the time of the handover, the new spouse took care to preserve those privileges in a number of ways. One has to ask whether Hong Kong's retail businesses, for example, would have survived the last few years had it not been for the number of mainland tourists being allowed to visit the city. Certainly given the way rents have increased the vast majority would have been out of business due to greedy landlords, let alone a lack of domestic purchasers.

Then there was CEPA, the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, not loved by all perhaps but yet a further indication that China was trying to help out its new charge. And let's not get too dewy-eyed about all this, as clearly China also wanted to send a message to the world at large and to Taiwan in particular that it could deliver on its promise to leave things unchanged in Hong Kong for 50 years. 

So far so good; the benefits have been in Hong Kong's favour - although listening to some of the protestors on the street, if you were a recent arrival in Hong Kong, you might think that we have an appalling government and dreadful legislative opposition, and that relations with China are on an irretrievable downhill slope. Well part of it's true ... and possibly less the latter!!

But for us to be concerned at this stage about China's latest strategies aimed at benefitting its other cities is a bit rich. Firstly, we should have been assiduously putting ourselves in a position to compete with the best in China - domestically and internationally - and used that honeymoon period to cement our "privileged" position: not necessarily with the hope that we would remain dominant, because over time that was bound to be eroded, but we would at least be up there with or hopefully leading the other major players when the time came.

Secondly, the two cities chosen for the next stage of development are - only two cities. There could be many others. Admittedly Shanghai is a threat - always has been and always will, but it will still take them some time to gather all the skills and the reputation enjoyed by Hong Kong before they are a real challenge.

As a result, I do think we have time to put ourselves in a strong position to make it hard for other centres to overtake us. We already have the reputation, but we have an increasing negative perception for lagging behind other centres - not being responsive enough to a changing market. Perceptions that have been around long enough to indicate there is truth in them. But all of this is in our hands! If the benefits we have enjoyed are being eroded by others we have to make sure we implement those benefits better than others, and seek other innovative ways to be relevant to the market. 

What we should not be doing is sitting wringing our hands and waiting for a nice handout from Beijing to bolster our position, to the detriment perhaps of the Mainland's other cities. There is a limit to Beijing's generosity. We should also be making it a much harder choice for businesses just to move north to the new centres - unless they are forced by the authorities there to do so. In that last scenario we would be stumped by a non-level playing field, and might have genuine grounds for complaint, but that's a different issue.

I fear we are continuing to erode the spirit that made Hong Kong the vibrant economic powerhouse it once was, by this lack of self-confidence. The announcement from China about the expansion of its financial businesses should be taken as a challenge, not as a reason to produce a handkerchief!

Running Sore - Corruption In China

Recent reports from China suggest that social media has played a major part in bringing down a senior policymaker who had been abusing his position and indulging in fraudulent activities on a broad scale. So a victory for the people, by the people.

Let's be clear, it is no secret and neither should it be a surprise that China does not fare well on Transparency International’s annual list that ranks countries in order of merit. For the last three years it has hovered around the 75-80^th position out of about 180 countries surveyed. Even though it was 80th in the last published survey, at least its score had improved. (Perhaps, given the relative “noise” they make about standards, more surprising to me is the position of the United States and the United Kingdom. At least in the 2012 report the USA managed to move into the teens out of its previous rankings in the 20s, and be adjudged marginally less corrupt than Chile for the first time!)

It is perhaps understandable, though not excusable, why China should find itself in this position on the corruption table. When you have suffered from the deprivations of a closed economy for decades, and that economy starts to open up, you discover a lifestyle existing in the world outside that you could not have imagined. In some ways you want to be a part of it especially if you are sent overseas and get used to a way of living, only to find that you are unable to reciprocate hospitality on offer – and when you return home, you discover that your newly acquired lifestyle is unsustainable and unaffordable. So you seek out the opportunities to maintain that life. That, inevitably, leads to corrupt practices - although clearly not everyone should be tarred with the same brush.

As part of China’s ongoing reform process, the Chinese leadership have made corruption one of their primary targets. This was evident as a serious move when they appointed the outspoken and aggressive Wang Qishan as the Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Wang was perhaps better known for his financial acumen (although he did a good job as Beijing Mayor) and would have been expected to take a post in that area after his election to the Standing Committee, but his no nonsense approach fits well with his current role. The fact that the measures being taken are having an effect can be evidenced by the food and beverage departments of China’s leading hotel groups, all of whom have taken a very substantial revenue hit in recent months as lavish entertaining by senior officials has been scaled back dramatically.

There is no doubt in my mind that a significant reduction in corruption can only benefit any country that gets it right - economically and socially.

So, while the tone from the top has been set and implemented it seems to be taking a much longer time to filter down to the lower ranks. I am being told by a number of different people I talk to from around China that corruption at party, municipal and village level has never been higher. These days you have to pay someone for every little thing – presumably to people who know that they have a limited time frame in which to create some wealth for themselves. But while corruption at the top is usually counted in large sums, paid by large companies with deep pockets – the payments made at the village level are by people who already have little, and can afford it less. But with the increase in revelations by social media networks, such as that experienced by Liu Tienan, it is likely to all end in tears – eventually. Nowhere to hide!!

With the focus on the example being shown by the Leadership, perhaps it would be as well to bear in mind the paraphrase of an old English proverb that says “take care of the pence and the pounds will look after themselves”. In other words, deal with the easy and small things first – corruption at the more widespread lower levels  - and the bigger levels of corruption will be dealt with over time as a matter of course.

And note, one can only talk about “curbing” corruption – eradication is not possible, as the Transparency International rankings will tell you. Developed countries have developed less detectable but nevertheless effective means of corruption – so it will never go completely.

It was Chinese philosopher Laozi (604bc – 531bc) who wrote  “a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step”. If China is going to succeed in curbing corruption, then at least the single step has been taken. 

New on the Menu - Rat of Lamb!

Oh dear! There I was, just about to settle down to write a really exciting Blog either on why University candidates are opting out of going to Uni, or a small note on "Big Data" - the consultant's latest buzz word that is sweeping through a Boardroom somewhere near you when, hard on the heels of my last Blog about food - and China's aspirations to ensure its future food supplies from other parts of the world - along comes a tale (tail perhaps?) of skullduggery in the mainland's kitchens. 

In case you missed it, recent news reports from China have highlighted the seizure of a gang that has been selling rat, fox and mink meat in the Eastern part of China - passing it off as lamb and mutton. Now I have never knowingly eaten a "joint of rat", but I don't care how much gunk and preservative you put on it surely a rodent would have a different taste and texture from what you were expecting? I would have imagined rat to be sort of stringy, even if it was thinly sliced - and surely the purchasers or users of the raw item must have ... well, smelt a rat when they saw the meat? 

China, of course, has had a run of scandals in the last few years over food items that have been tainted. The most notorious being tainted milk. This has led to such concern in China that demand for powdered milk from places like Hong Kong and, I am told, even London has led to a restriction on the amount of powdered milk that can be bought by mainlanders in those cities to take back to China. And then there were the thousands of dead pigs floating downstream into Shanghai a month or two ago, having been dumped in the river. And there are other examples ... all of which make the United Kingdom's "horsemeat for beef" scandal look rather tame by comparison.

For the genuine storekeeper, restaurateur or whatever, don't you think they would know that a rat is a small rodent that feeds from old food and smelly bins, and carries fleas (amongst other things!)? Sheep, or more specifically lambs on the other hand, are soft and cuddly fluffy animals that mostly eat grass! If you can easily get the two mixed up then I would guess you are in the wrong business.

That said there was always the rumour being circulated amongst Westerners that Chinese people would eat anything that had its back to the sun. This neatly prohibited cannibalism because most of us walk upright. But judging by some of the things I have eaten over the years, that would not be considered totally normal to Western tastes, I think that the saying may be pretty accurate!

All of which leads me to attach a drawing courtesy of a good friend wth a gift for cartoons, and with apologies for "amending" what has become a well known saying emanating from China,

But the serious message is clearly this. In a country where the vast majority of people eat to live rather than live to eat, playing around with people's food is not clever, given the potential consequences. And when it happens too often, with different food items, and the public begins to question what the Government is doing about it to provide safeguards, and the social networks start buzzing, there is a serious risk of unrest. Weibo, the micro blogging service in China has something like 500 million registered users of which around 10% are active on a daily basis. If 50 million people start complaining, you get some idea of the impact a site like this can have, for good and bad! Really the ball is now very firmly in the Leaderhip's court, and I hope that demonstrable progress can be made to improve this situation.

I have for a long time said that I am much more concerned at the impact of social unrest in China than I am about things like the economy. And if people are afraid to eat what is put in front of them for fear it is tainted, they will get angry. And guess what comes next .....

So, maybe some ratatouille with the rat of lamb?

 

Hong Kong - A SAD City?

You have probably heard of SAD ... or Seasonal Affective Disorder to give it a proper name. It means basically that if there is a lack of sunshine people get depressed and I am sure you have noticed it yourselves. How much happier do the folk around you seem when the sun is out? Many countries because of their geographic position will have a higher percentage of SAD sufferers than others. If you are in virtual darkness for most of the winter because it just doesn't get light for many hours each day you can understand the depressed feeling it would create.  Others suffer a change in mood because of unusual weather patterns. Dubai today, for example has a lot of glum looking people around because it is - somewhat unusually for this time of  the year - raining. 

SAD, as the name suggests, is supposed to be a seasonal affliction, but I am getting a sense that in Hong Kong we are beginning to suffer from the syndrome on a regular, even annual rather than a seasonal basis.

Okay, maybe in Hong Kong I have to admit perhaps we do have a lot of things on our minds that could be distressing. Pollution is never pleasant. Striking dock workers, a recent phenomenon and by the way where did their Australian brethren come from to support them? (I wonder whether the Australian dockers union knew that some of their brothers had an all expenses paid trip to Hong Kong. And were trying to compare wages in Australia with those in Hong Kong - hello; real world!) There is the threat of a new Occupy Central movement in support of Universal Suffrage - this is going to be depressing for the many commuters who will have to thread their way past the debris of such a movement that seems to have been created to provide "grandstand" opportunities for the politicians involved. Perhaps the Government could consider hosing down the streets at night to keep them clean.

And then there is "Government" itself - that re-branded (but hard working) civil service that occupies the Governmental role, unelected and unremovable facing off against the elected  de facto and permanent opposition who operate with no accountability for their actions.

Okay, perhaps there is a reason to be depressed after all. But has nobody got any good news out there? If we do, it is getting increasingly hard to find.

How many times did I hear former Chief Secretary Anson Chan, in extolling the virtues of Hong Kong in her promotion of the city overseas and indeed within Hong Kong itself, point to one our greater strengths - a "can do" attitude. This has become a rather petulant "won't do" attitude now. And it's not doing our future any good at all.

I am in the Middle East at present, where I visit from time to time, and where the attitude to the future is just a little different - despite the rain!! There is a recognition here that the world is not sitting on its hands and doing nothing. Investments here and in Sub Saharan Africa and In Latin America are growing quickly, and those who sit on their hands too long will get pins and needles. We are undertaking an exercise that looks at the future of the world, and the impact it is likely to have on business here. Business that is going to be done by younger people using technology far in advance of anything we know about today. Few older people running companies today have any idea as to how their businesses will be done in 10, 15 or 30 years time, yet they have to start putting in place the framework that will enable them to face up to new competition. Where new market players without traditional baggage, will be fierce competitors.

This is the sort of thinking that Hong Kong needs. As a City, even, not just its individual corporations.

The business community doesn't speak up enough, I get told, because they fear being "branded" as uncaring or sympathisers with the present form of Government, or worse, the Chief Executive who has still not been given much of a chance lets be honest (no pun intended), then the media will have a field day saying that comments from the business community - yes, the same community that creates jobs - are self serving.

Is the business community really willing to push the Government to do something about pollution, and no it does not all come from China, even if there are costs involved? Heaven knows, we tried a few years ago. But how come Tokyo and Seoul managed to clear up their heavily polluted cities (and please don't tell me it's all because of the wind that we are where we are!)?

But if we carry on doing things the old way, and if we allow a bunch of disruptive and grubby tents to be erected in the business district of Hong Kong, and do nothing about the levels of pollution, then we will be a SAD city in more ways than one.

Direct Property - Direct Sales - Direct Pain!

If you were hoping to find a “rant” regarding some recent experiences I have had about a company involved in direct sales of property, then I must disappoint you.

Following the posting of my Blog, the company took the trouble to get in touch, and to apologise for the experience I had with them. Also, and although not as a result of my Blog, I understand the person who made the telephone call to my PA is no longer with the company. A known problem apparently.

The company has expressed a concern that my Blog may damage their business, and have requested that I remove the post. I am flattered they think I have such influence over the business community; I don’t see it myself.

Nevertheless in view of the apology, the change of personnel, and in the interests of not wishing to stifle what is a legitimate and successful business, I have agreed to the request.  

 

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.

Another Feather In Hong Kong's Hat ... For Education?

If you have been following the debate in Hong Kong recently about the claims of falling standards, class sizes and funding issues, you could be forgiven for thinking that we were falling behind the rest of the world. Unless, that is, you had been following a similar debate taking place in Britain. In fact, declining standards in education, particularly secondary education, do seem to be prevalent in many countries.

And I think us older people sometimes think we know the answers. Lack of discipline, parental abdication of responsibility - a particularly Western trait - the "shorthand" being used in social networking communications, and the list goes on. Pay also often being a factor.

There is also the fact that teachers are being asked to do more than they have been used to - but with fewer resources. There are some legitmate reasons therefore why standards have fallen - or have been put under pressure.

But get this.

The Economist Intelligence Unit has just published some analysis which resulted in them listing their Top Schools in the world. British schools came sixth. A position that has surprised some, because it was lower than they would have liked, and others because it is a lot higher than they expected. But the British media reported it as a real positive. One snippet was "... high numbers of teenagers progressing to higher education account for Britain's position, along with strong maths and science results." (The Times). 

First of all, I wonder how the Hong Kong media would have reported this 6th place achievement. As a positive? Hmm. Possibly not. Well, maybe I should reveal the names of some of the other countries who appeared in the top 10.

In first place, where they have been for a long time - Finland. So, Hong Kong parents, you want the best education system in the world you know where to go. The next 4 - that is the countries that beat Britain - are all Asian and include the usual suspects - South Korea, Japan and Singapore, in 2nd, 4th and 5th places respectively! And in 3rd place - yes, you will have worked it out, our very own, Hong Kong.

Now then, I am not so stupid (well I don't think I am) as to believe everything I read. I too have concerns about the quality of education in a number of the countries with which I am involved, Hong Kong included and I am sure you could pick holes in the Economist list, but they are a respected publication - globally. So what about it Hong Kong media - any gaps in your front page to record Hong Kong's position - or does it go so much against everything you have written so far on the subject - pushing the popular anti-Government view that you would be embarrassed to do so?

Just trying to say, once again, that we are not as bad as we like to believe we are!