fashion beach

This is good news - perhaps they could start by looking at some secret offshore accounts in the British Virgin Islands.  Although of course if you're in China, those accounts don't exist.  A case of the pot calling the kettle white?

The recent visit to Hong Kong by Li Fei, chairman of the Basic Law Committee (BLC) of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), appears to have been primarily intended to let the Hong Kong public know the permitted limits of our long-promised democracy.  As a China Daily article by devoted Beijing acolyte Lau Nai-keung makes clear, what this means in practice is that Beijing will tell us in advance who we're allowed to vote for to save it the necessity of telling us after the election that we voted for the wrong person - a precaution Lau considers necessary because of Hong Kong's "disrespect towards Beijing's goodwill".

Unusually for anyone on the establishment side, Lau does acknowledge that the interests of Hong Kong and Beijing may not always coincide, a fact he describes as "embarrassing", though the only solution he offers is "a capable CE to keep both sides happy".  But how is this fantasy figure to be chosen?  While there has been talk of it being a legal requirement that any candidate "love China and love Hong Kong" in order to be qualified for election, no law has yet been devised anywhere that can mandate or verify love.

It appears from comments by another Chinese official,  Hao Tiechuen, that the required "love of China" may be ensured through loyalty to the country's constitution, presumably by requiring candidates to swear some sort of oath of loyalty - something he describes as an internationally accepted convention.   Hao is of course wrong in saying that loyalty to a country's constitution is generally a requirement for election in other countries - take a look at the Scottish Parliament, for example - only that changes to that constitution should be achieved through constitutional means.

The fundamental problem here is that the Chinese leadership itself does not live by what it proposes.  The Chinese constitution guarantees - in theory - human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of demonstration, and property rights; all values dear to us in Hong Kong.  But not only do the authorities regularly ride roughshod over all of these rights in practice; and not only do the courts lack the power to overthrow a law as unconstitutional; but a substantial faction within the leadership regards the very concept of what it calls "constitutionalism" as a Western-imposed affront to "socialist" values [with Chinese characteristics, of course.]

So where does that leave Hong Kong?  In the contradictory position of requiring a potential leader to demonstrate loyalty to China's constitution in order to assure the Chinese leadership of his or her deference to them, while they themselves ignore the very same constitution with impunity.  You couldn't make this stuff up.

Credit to the Hong Kong government where it's due: watching the Legislative Council TV feed this morning, I noticed that they now show a sign language interpreter in the corner of the screen.  My memory may be at fault, but I think this is new - long overdue, of course, but welcome all the same.

Unfortunately, the government's limitless capacity for ineptitude is on full display in another matter: the granting of TV broadcasting licenses to only two of the three applicants - and one of them the notoriously incompetent PCCW.  What makes this unacceptable is the government's refusal to let the public know the reason for the decision.  They have hinted that it's because they don't feel the failed applicant, HKTV, can succeed financially, but in a supposedly free market, why not let all three have a go and fight it out in the marketplace for viewers?  "Let the market decide" is supposed to be Hong Kong's credo, isn't it?  If one fails, it won't be the first time - remember CTV?  (And it won't necessarily be one of the three newcomers - though the mighty TVB is probably unruffled, ATV will certainly not welcome increased competition.)

At the same time, Commerce Secretary Greg So (who seems increasingly intent on competing with Paul Chan and Eddie Ng for the "minister least trusted by the public" title) argues that the government cannot release the reason because some of the information supplied by the three companies is confidential.  Why?  They are applying for a share of a public resource - the limited bandwidth available for broadcast television - so why doesn't the public have a right to know on what basis that resource is allocated?

A new entrant to the toadstooling crop (mushrooming is too complimentary a word for these poisonous growths) of clumsily-named and aggressive organisations claiming to love Hong Kong so much they need to tell us all how to think, "Caring Hong Kong Power", wants local teachers to be forced to declare their political affiliations.  If this latest attempt at CCPisation succeeds, one can only hope that someone will found a Mind Your Own Damn Business Party which all teachers will join, then they can all write Mind Your Own Damn Business on the declaration form.

On the other hand, it may be possible to turn this against its instigators.  Since it is well known that certain schools in Hong Kong are sponsored by pro-Beijing organisations (founding DAB member and current LegCo president Tsang-Yok-sing was principal of one of these before entering full-time politics), could we not argue that by the same token, these schools are subjecting children to undue political brainwashing and should be closed down?

In a SCMP profile, the group's loudmouthed leader,  Chan Ching-sum, reveals her ignorance - or true intentions - by saying: "We in Hong Kong abide by the Chinese constitution".  Well, no, we don't.  The whole point of the Basic Law is that Hong Kong, while part of China, is exempt from much of the constitution which governs the rest of the country (except for the other SAR, Macau), and has its own system.

Chan also says of the pan-democrats: "When there was no universal suffrage, people asked for it; when there is [sic], they ask for it to be real".  Presumably she thinks fake democracy is all the Hong Kong people deserve.  Whatever she "Cares" about, it sure isn't Hong Kong.

In days gone by, it was common for the mad or retarded (a non-PC word these days) to be hidden away in shame, out of sight of the world.  In the recent BBC series Upstairs Downstairs, the main protagonist Sir Hallam Holland discovers that his Down's Syndrome sister Pamela is not dead, as he's been led to believe, but has been secretly shut away in an asylum.  And of course there is the famous case in Jane Eyre of the mad Mrs Rochester, detested by her husband and locked up under guard in his attic.

The Dylan album from 1973 (called A Fool Such As I in some releases) has always seemed like the Mrs Rochester in Bob Dylan's attic.  Compiled without input from Bob after he left Columbia for Asylum (!) Records (only to return later with full artistic control), it is the only one of his studio albums not currently available on CD, though it was briefly released in that format in Holland many years ago.  Nor is it available on iTunes, I believe, though it made a brief appearance there as part of a larger Dylan collection.  In fact it was until recently only available on cassette (probably clearing old stocks), though Amazon UK now sells a nicely packaged but overpriced CD version of dubious legality [click on the picture for details] which also includes bonus tracks from the Bob Dylan/Johnny Cash sessions (surely a candidate for a future Bootleg Series release).  Indeed, so neglected is the album that Columbia even reused its title for a later hits collection in 2007.

Yet just as Hallam Holland brings his sister back into the family circle, and Jean Rhys gives Bertha Mason (Mrs Rochester) a voice of her own in her novel Wide Sargasso Sea, perhaps now is the perfect time to bring this abandoned child out of the attic and take another look at it.  After all, we are currently in the middle of a media blitz for the forthcoming Bootleg Series number 10, Another Self Portrait.  This consists largely of out-takes from the Self Portrait and New Morning sessions - the exact same sources as Dylan.  The simple fact is, while it is far from Dylan at his best, it has (like Self Portrait, which is now undergoing critical reappraisal) never been as bad as its reputation.  Take it for what it is - Dylan running casually through some old folk songs and a few contemporary songs he likes by other writers - and it becomes a pleasant if unremarkable footnote to his more celebrated albums.

Now there are rumours - via an apparently premature story later withdrawn - of a career-spanning box set of all Dylan's albums (some newly remastered) plus a double CD of other previously released material, much of it currently unavailable.  Details are sketchy at this stage - it is not even certain it will appear at all - but if so, it will be interesting to see whether Dylan gets included as part of the official canon, and if so, whether it will finally get a standalone CD reissue as well.  I hope the rarities set comes out separately, because I have all Bob's albums already - some in multiple editions including the Original Mono Recordings box set - so it would take a lot to make me fork out US$300, the rumoured price, to get them all again.  As with many things Dylan, however, everything at the moment is mixed-up confusion, all tangled up in blue.

Disclaimer - I get a small commission from Amazon UK if you buy the CD through the picture link here.

So let me see: I have to Love Hong Kong - no problem, but becoming increasingly difficult as more and more of the Hong Kong I love is under threat or disappearing.  Love China - hmmm, let's see.  It's not my motherland, but I do appreciate the great architecture, art, food and magnificent scenery.  Not so fond of the repressive government, environmental degradation, adulterated milk, secret prisons, corruption, and censorship.  I find it easier to Love Democracy ("the love that dare not speak its name" as far as the Chinese government is concerned).

Now it seems I have to Respect and love the elders as well.  Isn't this taking the whole love thing a bit too far?  I hope I treat everyone with the respect they deserve, but do I really have to share my limited supply of love with every cantankerous old wrinkly in Hong Kong?

Looking at the South China Morning Post online, I was struck by the irony of the headline "China media urges transparency over pollution", but shortly afterwards, the headline was switched to "China state media urges action as smog hits 40 times safe limit" - though the original headline can still be sen on Aljazeera and other sites.  I think transparency is the last thing Beijing residents are likely to see in their air for a while - and we thought we had it bad here in Hong Kong...

The stupidity of the pro-gun lobby in America is clearly shown by their call for British journalist Piers Morgan to be deported because he attacked the appropriately named Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America, on CNN.  Their petition calls for Morgan to be kicked out of the country on the grounds that by calling for gun control, he is attacking the US Constitution, the Second Amendment of which guarantees the right to bear arms (though contrary to a recent wrong-headed decision by the Supreme Court, explicitly in the context of a "well-regulated militia").

If these people are so keen on protecting the Constitution, perhaps they should read the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.  They might also note that these are Amendments, not part of the original Constitution - the Constitution provides for its own amendment.  In other words, it implicitly allows people to attack it so they can call for it to be changed.  Furthermore, Morgan is saying little more than what most sensible Americans, from President Obama downwards, are saying, albeit in less temperate language.   I suppose if you're going to shoot the messenger, a foreign messenger makes an easier target.

I was somewhat amused to see that one member of the new Chinese leadership line-up, Zhang Dejiang, studied Economics at Kim Il-Sung University in North Korea.  Given that communist North Korea has possibly the world's worst-run economy, unable to even keep its own people fed, this would probably be about as useful as studying Evolution at Bob Jones University in the USA.  The country is also classified by the Committee to Protect Journalists as the second most censored country in the world,

The official video celebrating the 15th anniversary of Hong Kong's reunion with China - "Memorable Moments" - perfectly illustrates the widening gap between government rhetoric and on-the-street reality in the SAR.  Almost the first shot depicts three goose-stepping PLA soldiers.  Whatever else Hong Kong people may dream about, it's certainly not the PLA, except perhaps in their nightmares on June 4th.

Far more in tune with the city's current mood is the parody version, "Who's Killing Our Dreams?"  It was perhaps with this kind of production in mind that the government recently tried - fortunately without success in the face of fierce public opposition - to introduce an amendment to the copyright ordinance that would have outlawed parodies.  They will probably try again.

Does anyone in Hong Kong really believe Rita Fan's claim that she knows little of what happened in Beijing in June 1989? Asked about the Tiananmen massacre, she said she was in Hawaii at the time and only knew what she saw on CNN. But considering that CNN was giving an almost literally blow-by-blow account of the events as they happened, does Fan really think she would have learned more if she had been watching CCTV? Furthermore, as a member of China's parliament (I do not say a representative of Hong Kong to it, since Hong Kong people have no say in who supposedly "represents" them), is it plausible that she has not bothered to acquaint herself with the details of one of the pivotal events of modern Chinese history?

All this would be academic if Fan were not a probable candidate for the post of next Chief Executive of Hong Kong. But since she is, do we want to be led by a woman who appears more concerned with not contradicting Beijing's official line on the massacre - sorry, "unfortunate incident" - of June 4th 1989 than with finding out the truth? Or, if we accept her story, by a woman who can't be bothered to do her political homework? Either way, I think not.

Probably the silliest story of the week comes from Italy, where a mother complained to the police that a young woman on the beach was "troubling" her two sons, aged 12 and 14, by rubbing suntan oil into her "ample" breasts in a sensuous manner.

Having been a teenage boy myself, I can assure the mother that the only thing troubling her boys was probably their mother's presence at the scene.

Oddest headline of the day: from the BBC News website, Sailor found dead in Afghanistan. Considering Afghanistan is a landlocked country, you'd have great difficulty sailing there!

The actual story, when read, turns out to be about the death of a US Navy man serving with the American forces there. Which brings us to the Wikileaks release of numerous documents suggesting that America's war effort in that country is also well of course. However, is anyone really surprised that the war is apparently going less well than we are led to believe from public statements? War is a matter of psychology as well as brute force; success depends partly on demoralising the enemy, so why would you want to let them know how badly they're hurting you?

Since opening up to the world, China has become much more adept at public relations than in the old communist days, when the ultimate in propaganda was pictures of smiling peasants happily gathering improbably bounteous harvests under the benevolent guidance of Chairman Mao. But one thing the country's leaders still don't appear to have grasped is that in a free country, the surest way to publicise anything is to try to ban it. For this reason, China's efforts to export its domestic suppression of dissent often have the opposite effect to that intended. The suppression becomes the story, highlighting the very cause China wishes to keep hidden.

Hardly anyone outside Xinjiang Province had heard of Uighur rights activist Rebiya Kadeer until a few months ago. China's clumsy attempts to have a film about her withdrawn from the Melbourne Film Festival and her invitation to attend cancelled, far from keeping her campaign out of the public eye, transformed her into a world figure instead. And the Dalai Lama's prominence on the world stage owes much to China's high-profile ritual denunciations of any world leader who agrees to meet with him.

One day China's leaders will cotton on to the fact that keeping silent is often the best tactic. Until then we should thank them for helping to highlight their own country's darker areas so effectively.

Despite all the political tensions between the USA and Iran, at heart Americans and Iranians are exactly the same.

Proof: the Iranians have just done in 2009 exactly what the Americans did in 2004 - re-elected a failed incompetent ill-informed loudmouth of a president just because he said the right things to appeal to religious conservatives.

P.S. (17 June) That is, if he actually did win the election - clearly a large proportion of the Iranian people don't think so. But then, objections to Bush's election were swept under the carpet as well.

Every year I promise myself that I will attend the June 4th candlelight vigil in Victoria Park, and there's always some reason why I don't make it. But I do want to mark the occasion here - if only to tell Donald Tsang firmly and clearly that no, you do not speak for all Hong Kong people in trying to sweep the massacre under the carpet. You certainly don't speak for me.

"If file sharing is destroying the music industry, then how did Warner Music Group increase its sales in the first quarter 7 per cent to $989 million?"

From the latest issue of (Bruce Springsteen biographer) Dave Marsh's periodic email newsletter Rock & Rap Confidential (just linking those two genres is already an unorthodox move). Sign up for it here.

"The severity of Chinese repression in Tibet since [1959] is well-documented. There is severe repression of Tibetan Buddhism, which in 1997 was labeled as a “foreign culture” Virtually all classes in secondary and higher education in Tibet are taught in Chinese not Tibetan, resulting in a high drop-out rate among Tibetans. Urban development has generally benefited Chinese immigrants, large numbers of whom have moved to Tibet and who are now about 12% of the population in the Tibet Administrative Region. Tibetans are routinely detained for long periods without charge or sentenced to long prison sentences for peacefully advocating independence or maintaining links with the Dalai Lama. Torture and ill-treatment in detention is widespread. Freedom of expression is severely restricted. Peaceful political demonstrations are invariably broken up and their participants arrested. Tibetan culture is treated as inferior to Chinese culture, and most key posts in the government and the economy are held by Chinese. Those few Tibetans who are able to enter Chinese government service do so at the cost of alienation from their own people and culture. Tibet’s environment and natural resources are ruthlessly exploited in the interests of China."

Hong Kong's Law Society commissioned Senior Counsel Paul Harris, an expert in constitutional law, to write an article examining the legal basis of the case for Tibetan independence, then chickened out of publishing it. Fortunately maverick publisher (and well known campaigner for the rights of minority shareholders) David Webb displayed more testicular fortitude - you can read the whole article on his site.