fashion beach

A hysterical (in both senses) article in Beijing mouthpiece The Global Times castigating Hong Kong for selfishness in not wanting to be flooded with ever more mainland tourists asks:

The answer to this question is easily illustrated:

As you celebrate Valentine's Day with your loved one today, spare a thought for the millions who will never have anyone to celebrate it with.

The recent crackdown on the booming sex trade in Dongguan has gained much media attention, with some articles suggesting it is the start of a new campaign to return to the strict "socialist morality" which had almost eliminated prostitution in China by the time the Open Door Policy reopened the door to it in the 1980s.  However, basic biology tells us that any such campaign is doomed to failure.  Apart from the entrenched corruption which protects the sex business, the one child policy combined with the traditional Chinese preference for sons over daughters has created a situation where male births exceed female ones by possibly as much as 15 to 20 percent.

This has created a situation where tens of millions of men  - some estimates suggest 24 million by 2020 and 30 million by 2030 - will never find a wife (except perhaps in Tibet, where there is a tradition of one woman marrying several brothers).  Figures vary - the most pessimistic projections suggest that 25% of men of marriageable age may never find a mate, while others argue that many female births are in fact being concealed from the authorities and the situation may be less severe than feared - but either way, it is simply unrealistic to expect that all these masses of unmarried men will be willing to remain celibate for their whole lives.  The reality is that Chinese government policies have unwittingly created a social need for prostitution - a reality reflected in negative public reaction to the current clean-up campaign.

This is not the only irony in the situation.  The very desire for a son to carry on the family name - so deeply ingrained in Chinese culture - has contributed to a situation in which many family lines will come to a dead end in the current generation.  As the old saying goes: Be careful what you wish for - you may get it.

Happy Valentine's Day! 


'China's growing population of singles has caused changes in the youthful perception of Valentine's Day. What was once viewed as a celebration of love is now the subject of discontent for some youngsters, and in the 1990s, "Single's Day" was a born as a rebellious answer to Valentine's Day.

Occuring on November 11, with the date 11/11 chosen for its appearence of "four single digits", Single's Day has evolved in recent years into one of the mainland's biggest days for online shopping.'

[The spelling and punctuation errors are the Post's, not mine.]

ATV News last night reported that Shu Yuelong, director of the Chinese National Influenza Centre, said that in the long term, authorities will have to reconsider allowing chickens to be raised in backyard farms.  This is getting things exactly the wrong way round.  Science should be evidence-based, but there is no evidence that small farms are the problem here.

For centuries, people around the world have kept a few chickens running around in their back yards, and bird flu was never a significant problem.  Far from this, it is in fact the giant factory farms of today that are the source of the problem.  Cram hundreds of chickens into row upon row of prison-like cages in unhealthy conditions, feed them an unnatural diet, and you have the perfect environment for any disease to spread quickly from one enfeebled bird to another.

Even before considering the cruelty involved, these "farms" should be eliminated.  Naturally reared birds may cost more, but they are less likely to put your life at risk - indeed a recent scientific study finds their eggs are better for you.

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 Pro-China Morning Post has a talent for quoting from "experts" whose opinions are at variance with those of any intelligent observer.   Of course analysts and property consultants welcome the chance to make money from the despoliation of Lantau Island; those who care about Hong Kong's environment shudder at the prospect.  No doubt the same analysts are wetting their knickers in alarm at the empty shops in Causeway Bay; the rest of us hope this presages more affordable rents that will no longer drive out businesses serving local needs in favour of those purveying overpriced tat to mainland tourists.
I have tended to oppose the government's curbs on the property market on the grounds that they have made it harder for existing owners to sell while doing little to assist new market entrants to buy.  However, if they help to delay the erosion of one country two systems - which is what "closer integration with the mainland economy" really means - and reduce the flow of additional unwanted immigrants into our already overcrowded city - then I might be persuaded to change my mind.

In what is clearly an orchestrated campaign, a former government minister and a failed CE candidate have both suggested in the past few days that former Financial Secretary Antony Leung - who has suddenly re-emerged in public after a period of keeping a low profile - would make a good Chief Executive of Hong Kong.  Apparently the tycoon sector want to put someone of their own forward as an alternative to the presumed democratic candidate (if we're lucky) plus whoever gets the Beijing bootlicker nomination to replace the doesn't-have-a-hope-in-hell-of-re-election CY Leung - but they must be pretty desperate if they select someone who's already left the government in disgrace once.  Perhaps they think the Hong Kong public suffers from the same kind of memory loss that afflicted Leung when he raised vehicle taxes shortly after acquiring and apparently forgetting an expensive new motor, or perhaps they think Leung's fragrant wife compensates for his own shortcomings as a candidate.  Or - worst case scenario - they already know Beijing will put a block on any truly democratic candidate, and figure the Hong Kong public will respond by voting for anyone who isn't too visibly far up Beijing's backside, rather than the Party's anointed one.  Scary thought...

In Britain, we liken this sort of behaviour to the spoiled kid who picks up the soccer ball and runs away with it because he doesn't like the way the game is going.  There is a well-established mechanism under international law for adjudicating on competing territorial claims.  If China is so confident of the validity of its claims to enormous chunks of the South China Sea, it should not be afraid to follow the rules, as the Philippines is doing in this case.  Otherwise we can draw our own conclusions.

[Story from South China Morning Post]

As Carrie Lam, Elsie Leung and other cheerleaders continue to argue for the government's stance on electoral reform, they also continue to gloss over the serious contradiction at the heart of it.  On the one hand they insist that any reform must comply with the Basic Law, which requires that a "broadly representative" nominating committee should nominate candidates for election by universal suffrage as Chief Executive of Hong Kong.  Most of us could live with that; the problem arises when they insist that the formation of the committee must also comply with the ruling by the NPC Standing Committee in 2007 that it be formed "with reference to the existing election committee" that selected CE candidates for the last "election".

According to those who are supposed to know, this means in Chinese legal parlance that the nominating committee, while it may be larger, should be of similar composition to the "four sectors" making up the election committee.  The difficulty here is that, other than those with a vested interest in the old system, no one in Hong Kong recognises the election committee as coming anywhere close to being "broadly representative"; in fact, the very opposite.  So if we have a nominating committee that follows the NPC ruling, we will not have one that is in any genuine sense "broadly representative" , and therefore it cannot be compliant with the Basic Law.

Apart from providing ample fodder for a judicial review, failure by the government to address this contradiction seems almost guaranteed to bring on Occupy Central.  Is that what they want?

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.

Modern China - Part 2 of an occasional series
I took this picture of a group of Chinese children on a school trip to the Three Kingdoms City theme park in Wuxi a few days ago.  Looking at it this morning, I was reminded that not too long ago, every China tour involved two invariable stops: one at a Friendship Store (remember them?), and the other at a school where a bunch of kids dressed like this
would sing songs such as "The East Is Red" glorifying the Communist Party and the "Great Helmsman" Chairman Mao.  [Pic borrowed from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/01/aint_no_party_like_the_communist_party]

One or two generations later, ignore the facial features and the kids in my pic could be anywhere from Sapporo to Sacramento.  While China today has many problems - massive pollution, widescale corruption and gross abuses of human rights - for the average Chinese person who does not challenge the (still nominally Communist) system, life has probably never been more colourful nor offered so many choices.

Modern China - Part 1 of an occasional series.

Interesting to see that Hong Kong's Avenue of Stars rates number 2 in CNN Travel's list of The World's Twelve Worst Tourist Traps.  Can someone please publish a Chinese translation where it will be seen by prospective visitors from you-know-where?

Since leaders of Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement met with a former President of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party recently, they have been subjected to a flood of vilification by the usual pro-establishment suspects here -- despite the fact that another former DPP President held talks with Chinese officials in Hong Kong not long ago.

Beijing has always insisted that Taiwan, despite its de facto independence since 1949 and half a century of Japanese occupation earlier in the 20th century, remains an integral and inseparable part of China.  But yesterday Charles Yeung, Chairman of the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, was quoted by TVB news as saying that he is worried about Occupy Central organisers working with "foreign political forces".

So are the Taiwanese lost children of China who should be clasped to the forgiving bosom of the motherland, or subversive foreign troublemakers who need to be kept at a safe distance?  I think we should be told.

Isn't it time LegCo stopped bashing poor old Timothy Tong?  Far from spending public money unwisely, it is obvious that the former ICAC chief was merely trying to single-handedly rescue Hong Kong's wine trade in the face of slumping high-end sales in the mainland.  Hong Kong has, after all, been declared a wine hub, and as we all know, hub status is sacred in the eyes of the government.  Anything that threatens hubness must be defeated, so far from being reviled, surely Tong should be awarded the GBM (Great Boozer Medal) for his valiant efforts. 

If the story that some mainland students at City University signed up for a lecture advertised as being presented in Cantonese then insisted the lecturer speak Mandarin is true, it suggests there is something wrong with the university's admission criteria.  Clearly anyone too stupid to understand that "presented in Cantonese" means "presented in Cantonese" lacks the intelligence to benefit from a university education, and should never have been given a place.

The recent article by British Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire saying that Britain stands ready to help Hong Kong in its move towards full universal suffrage has brought the expected response from the pro-Beijing crowd, all indignant at the idea that China could possibly have anything to learn from foreigners (funny how many of them, including Chief Executive CY Leung, send their kids to British schools - not to mention that China officially proclaims its allegiance to a political creed originated by a German Jew).

NPC member Rita Fan, one of the many leading political figures in Hong Kong who loyally served the British for years before suddenly discovering their latent Chinese patriotism in 1997, warned people not to be naive about offers of help, saying her experience tells her that governments always have their own hidden agendas (TVB news, 5 October).  So Rita, what's the hidden agenda behind all these offers of "help" and "cooperation" that Hong Kong keeps receiving from your friends up North?

In reality, most "hidden" agendas are pretty transparent.  In this case, Britain has several interests: to ensure the continued successful implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the "one country, two systems" principle , lest it be accused of having sold out the people of Hong Kong; to be seen as a champion of democracy; and (most importantly) to maintain stability and the rule of law in Hong Kong in order to keep it safe for continued British trade and investment.

Meanwhile  China seeks to earn the love of Hong Kong people and give them a warm cuddly feeling towards the motherland, with a long-term aim of transitioning from "two systems" to "one country"  So far, many of its efforts in that direction seem to have backfired; flooding us with mainland tourists to help our economy has earned Beijing more enemies than friends here.  Nevertheless, they will keep trying to balance the stick of stern warnings to behave ourselves with the carrot of economic incentives.

Those with limited imaginations - a category which sadly includes most members of the Hong Kong government - invariably see only one solution to any problem and are blind to other ways of looking at the situation. Former Canadian Gregory So, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, speaking on TVB news a few days ago about the negative impact of mass tourism from the mainland, said: "The solution must [my emphasis] lie in the fact that we need to expand our capacity so that we can take in the visitors".

Why must it?  If a highly-regarded restaurant is so popular that one needs to book a table weeks in advance, the owner's first response is not usually to rush out and expand his capacity.  Given that mass tourism benefits only a few in Hong Kong and reduces the quality of life for everyone else through overcrowding, higher prices, and the disappearance of popular shops and restaurants in favour of more profitable luxury goods outlets targeted at tourists, why should we encourage more visitors to come?  Perhaps we should decide, as Bhutan for example has done, that the benefits of mass tourism are not worth the cost, and limit the numbers allowed in - possibly through a quota system or a tourist tax.  Furthermore, those who do arrive will have a more enjoyable experience.

Another group unable to see an obvious solution to a problem are those who demonstrated recently demanding that mainland mothers of Hong Kong-born children whose fathers have died or abandoned the family - they claim there are 7,000 of these - should be given accelerated entry to Hong Kong to care for their offspring.  Again, why?  The one-way permit system is supposedly intended mainly to allow mainland residents to be reunited with their Hong Kong spouses (which doesn't explain why a man already deported from Hong Kong after serving a sentence for homicide here was allowed back to settle in the territory, but that's another question that needs asking).  If there is no husband here for the wife to be reunited with, wouldn't it be more natural to send the child back to live with its mother?

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.

The latest of the rash of anti-democracy groups springing up like poisonous toadstools in Hong Kong (no doubt with the Central Government Liaison Office's hand at work behind the scenes) calls itself The Silent Majority.  Come on!  That's one of the oldest and most clichéd political tricks in the book - when you don't have enough supporters, simply declare that everyone who doesn't express any other view openly must be on your side.  The fact that some of this group are academics doesn't say much for the quality of Hong Kong's teaching of logical thinking.

The reality is that in most political systems, the majority of people keep a low profile most of the time unless some major event (Article 23, National Education) stirs them to a level of dissatisfaction that brings them out on to the streets.  If this new group assume that this indicates satisfaction with the status quo, they are sadly out of touch with public feeling in Hong Kong today.  If they know they are talking nonsense, then this can be seen as yet another ploy to persuade the public to shut up and accept what they're given.

Meanwhile another of these shadowy groups, the so-called Hong Kong Youth Care Association, continues its obviously well-funded campaign of harassment and occasional violence against the Falun Gong, with the apparent connivance of the Hong Kong Police Force.  For those who haven't followed recent events, a group of HKYCA activists were (as usual) attacking Falun Gong members a couple of weeks ago.  The Police held back a counter-protest group while seemingly doing nothing to rein in the HKYCA.  This angered a local teacher, Alpais Lam, who asked in intemperate language WTF the police were doing.  This in turn triggered a pro-police protest and a pro-free-speech counter-protest in Mongkok, leading to clashes and more exchanges of colourful language.

Following a tsunami of personal criticism, with calls for her to be sacked from her job, and even funeral wreaths bearing her name being left outside her school, Ms Lam (no doubt under intense pressure) later apologised for her choice of words.  However, the case has stirred up a welter of argument in Hong Kong.  For details and video see here, here, here, and here.

The Falun Gong's beliefs may be nonsensical, but the fact is that if Chinese communist front groups are allowed to suppress anyone's beliefs in Hong Kong, then none of us is free to believe what we choose.  So what do we know about the HKYCA?  Well, several things (see some of the above links):

• It is related to the China Anti-Cult Association, a supposed NGO in the mainland but in reality a government-supported organisation.
• It receives financial support from Yanjing Brewery (Yanjing Beer being, probably less than coincidentally, the official State Beer of China).

And what can be done about it?  Here are some suggestions:

• Whenever you see the HKYCA's illegally erected banners on the street, complain to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.  (And speaking of illegality, it's ironic that a CCP front organisation is in blatant violation of the Basic Law which pro-Beijing groups are usually so quick to defend - the HKYCA's attempts to suppress a religious organisation in Hong Kong clearly contradicts the Basic Law's guarantees of religious freedom.)
• Complain to the Inland Revenue Department that the group should not enjoy its tax-exempt charitable status, because its principal activities bear no relation to its stated objectives and constitution and are clearly political in nature, making them ineligible for tax-exemption.  I plan to do this myself and will let you know the response.
• Boycott Yanjing beer, and let others know why you are doing so.

Maybe none of these will be effective, but I see no reason why we should give this noxious group an easy ride.