fashion beach

Is there anyone left at the Pro-China Morning Post who knows English?  This headline on their website suggests not.

Nancy Kissel can appeal all she likes against her husband's murder, but that won't bring him back from the dead.  What they presumably mean is appeal against her conviction for her husband's murder - a very different thing.

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.

Another of the Pro-China Morning Post's meaningless polls today.  "Do you agree with ex-minister Fred Ma that Hong Kong has been distracted by trivial issues?"  Yes, I think we can all (well, 89% of respondents, anyway) agree on that - but I very much doubt that we would all agree on what is trivial.  For example, I would consider one protester shouting abuse at the police in the heat of the moment a trivial incident - as would many others - but Chief Executive CY Leung apparently considers it significant enough for him to call for a report on the award-winning teacher responsible, and the China Daily predictably backs him in this witch-hunt.  There is no sign that this report will look into the far-from-trivial accusations of police bias that raised the protester's ire in the first place.

I'm not going to add more to the weight of verbiage on the demonisation of that unfortunate lady.  What interests me today is the Post's choice of words in its editorial - written by Lau Nai-keung, who can usually be relied on to channel the latest propaganda direct from the Central Government Liaison Office without any intervening thought process. The article, headed "Public opinion turns on anti-government protesters", begins: "The dissidents made a big mistake by staging a mass confrontation on August 4".

Now there are several points of interest here - for one thing, how big does a crowd have to be to make it a "mass"?  And which public is he talking about?  When you read the article, he appears to be talking mainly about the media and the new so-called Silent Majority organisation.

"Mainstream Hong Kong people", Lau argues, "badly want change, but not to the point of rocking the boat, never mind some kind of regime change as some dissidents would like. When our dissidents go too far, the silent majority will rise up and try to push them back, and this is what we are witnessing now".  He doesn't mention public concern that some of the "pushing back" at the recent Tin Shui Wai incident appears to have been done by known gangsters.  That's another issue the government apparently considers too trivial to pursue.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of Lau's piece is his frequent use of the word "dissident".  The term is broadly defined, says Wikipedia, as one who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy or institution.  But in general usage, the term is almost exclusively applied to those who do so in response to a tyrannical dictatorship.  It seems that Lau's choice of the word is telling us more than he intends about the regime he so avidly supports.

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.

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?

--Jeremiah 22:3

Anyone who kills children for any cause (assuming the Boston Marathon bombings were some kind of political act) amply demonstrates that their cause is not worthy of support.

Yesterday when I heard the news, my first thought was for a close friend who is visiting the city, where her daughter, son-in-law and grandchild live.  Thankfully they are all safe.  This boy, Martin Richard, was not so lucky.  Rest in peace, little one.  And rot in hell, whoever did this.

I was planning to start the day with some remarks on the obnoxious Margaret Thatcher, who died yesterday - an obituary I've ben writing in my head for several years.  But when I opened Firefox to get into Blogger this morning, instead of my usual home page - set to Google - I was greeted by the Chinese version of this:
After my initial WTF reaction, I tried opening my other two browsers, Chrome and IE, only to find the same thing - appropriately labelled "PCCW Force Portal" - in all of them.  Attempts to bypass it by closing and reopening, and by opening new tabs, proved fruitless, with each new tab just popping up another copy of the same screen.

Finally I was forced to respond to the offer from PCCW (declining it, of course - I am not giving these clowns any additional opportunity to mess with my system; in fact I didn't even read the details of whatever scheme they were trying to push, I just wanted them off my screen) in order to get rid of the damn thing, and eventually got a screen graciously permitting me to go about my usual online business:
So why did this happen?  PCCW's subsidiary Netvigator is my Internet Service Provider, and while others have good cause to hate them, I've generally found their service OK.  But I don't recall ever signing anything that gave PCCW boss Richard Li the right to override my system settings and hijack all three browsers on my system with his unsolicited advertising.  If PCCW want to contact me, they have my email address.  This is outrageous - contrary to all the rules of netiquette and totally unacceptable - in fact I shall look into making a formal complaint to OFTA about it.

And while I'm bashing PCCW, I received a letter from them recently (they know where I live, too, if they want to contact me) using all the standard meaningless PR buzzwords: "Thank you for choosing HKT as your telecommunications partner [i.e. phone company]. We constantly strive to provide the best customer experience through service excellence." before going on to say: "In order to cope with increasing costs and continue to offer high standards of service quality, we would like to inform you that the monthly service fee for Local Business telephone Services will have to be adjusted with effect from May 1, 2013."

Why can't businesses (not just PCCW) just be honest and say they are "raising" their fees, instead of always using the weasel word "adjusted".  When was the last time you saw a fee adjusted downward?

Beijing-loyalist Maria Tam says the right to be elected is not universal.

So says the South China Morning Post today.

Imagine if the last US election had given voters a right to choose only between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton excluded from aspiring to the presidency.  That is effectively the scenario now being proposed for Hong Kong by the small clique of Beijing loyalists that has undue influence in such matters.  Their idea is that we will all have an equal vote for who runs Hong Kong, but anyone who might actually stand up for Hong Kong's rights instead of kowtowing to the central government will be unable to run for Chief Executive.

It is of course farcical to claim this as any sort of democracy - but then Maria Tam, Rita Fan and the other Hong Kongers who sit on the NPC and NPPCC are not interested in democracy.  Their main discernible talent has been worming themselves to the top of a system where a small self-appointed elite claims to represent Hong Kong with no popular mandate whatever - first under British rule, and then as sudden patriots, under Beijing rule after 1997..

If it were not so serious, the last NPPCC "election" would have been quite amusing.  China declared that members would be required to display high moral standards, then demonstrated their sincerity by giving Henry Tang - failed CE candidate, self-confessed adulterer and owner of an illegal basement below his house three times the size of the average Hong Kong family's total living space - a seat.

As Hong Kong people have grown in political awareness and self-confidence, elements of democracy have gradually chipped away at this old cozy system, but those who benefit from it are not willing to lose their influence without a struggle.  The problem is that Beijing actually listens to these people and takes their advice on Hong Kong matters as if they were representative of anything more than their own self-interest - which probably helps account for its gross misreading of the public mood on such matters as Article 23 and "National and Moral Education" (the coupling of the two is a dead giveaway - the subtext being "if you don't love the nation [as we define it] you are an immoral person").

If the central government understood that in a democracy, an opponent is not automatically an enemy, they might talk to articulate moderate democrats (Audrey Eu would be a good choice, for example) to get a better understanding of Hong Kong, instead of just being told what they want to hear.  Until then we will have to suffer mad old bats selling out the rights we are supposed to enjoy under the Basic Law.

Headline story in toda's South China Morning Post:

I sometimes respond to the South China Morning Post's opinion polls on its website, but I just as often find them irritatingly meaningless.  Take today's, for example: the question asked is: "Is India still a safe destination for foreign tourists?"  Pertinent, after recent widely-reported rape cases there, certainly, but totally unscientific.

First of all, note the implied assumption that India was previously safe.  Then consider the impossibility of summing up the safety level of a large and enormously diverse country of more than a billion people in one snap judgement.  Are you safe at the Taj Mahal?  Probably.  In Indian-occupied Kashmir, or the poorest slums of Kolkata - probably less so.

And what do you mean by "safe" anyway?  Likely to get raped or murdered - even with the occasional case that hits the headlines, not very.  Likely to have your pocket picked?  Much more probable - but not only in India.  Safe from your own stupidity?  Thousands of tourists die in foreign countries every year because people tend to take foolhardy risks on holiday that they would not take at home, from overdosing on drugs to riding motorcycles without a helmet to swimming in dangerous waters to eating in places with dubious hygiene standards - or even over-exerting themselves sexually!  Most Hong Kong people consider Thailand a safe destination for tourism, but apart from the country's appalling level of road safety, five foreign tourists and a Thai guide died in 2011 because of over-exposure to a pesticide used to kill bed bugs!  Who would have seen that coming?

Then there is the question of what one means by a foreign tourist.  In a tour group or travelling independently?  Male or female?  Travelling alone or with a companion?  Able to speak the local language or not?  Staying in luxury resorts or local flophouses?  All of these factors - not to mention one's visible "ethnicity", as officials like to call race these days - could affect how safe one is.  But a white female friend of mine lived for two years in India, travelling alone on a limited budget, with no problems, and loves the country.

My advice: don't let this kind of question put you off travelling except for avoiding obvious trouble spots (two other friends enjoyed a wonderful trip to Syria some years ago, but I wouldn't advise it at the moment)..  Just take sensible precautions, remember shit happens everywhere, and as they used o say in Hill Street Blues: "Be careful out there!"

The Cyprus bank deposit grab has triggered the law of unintended consequences.  It does not seem to have occurred to the wise idiots at the European Central Bank who came up with the idea of a levy on bank deposits that, far from strengthening ailing banks, it would further weaken public confidence in banks generally, with depositors in other countries rushing to keep their money safe under the mattress at home rather than leaving it where the "banksters" (as a protest placard in Cyprus called them) can grab part of it.  And ordinary Cypriots may well conclude that if troubled banks can't keep their money safe for them, then those banks do not deserve to survive anyway.

The "tax" - now rightly rejected by the country's legislature, with not a single member voting for it - was supposed to compensate those affected with shares in the worthless banks - hardly an attractive prospect.  But it was blatantly unfair, hitting those who keep their wealth in cash in the bank while not touching those whose riches are in other forms - stocks, bonds, artworks.  Maybe they should open up every safe deposit box in the banks and seize 10% of any jewellery inside?  It also aroused fierce opposition among overseas depositors, many of them Russian (which doesn't say much for their confidence in their own country's banks), who are being forced to "share the burden" of a problem that is none of their business.

You really have to wonder sometimes how stupid politicians can be.

The handling of the Euro crisis is becoming ever more ridiculous.  In the latest bailout, citizens of Cyprus will have 10% of their bank deposits stolen from them by their government as part of the deal with Europe's central bank.  This is described by authorities as "sharing the burden".  Why should Cypriots be asked to share the burden of a crisis triggered by a combination of global bank greed and the Greek government's overspending?  (Cyrpus's banks are mainly in trouble because of over-exposure to Greek debt.)

Two things have been consistent throughout this crisis: one is that the policies intended to cure it will instead worsen it by choking economic growth.  The other is that the burden falls on those least able to bear it, while the fatcats responsible for the trouble in the first place survive relatively unscathed.

Politicians and bankers - ain'tcha sick of 'em?

Catching up on Hemlock's blog from a few months back, my attention was caught by a quote from a South China People's Daily, sorry SCMP, opinion piece by one Lau Nai-Keung, who delivers this gem of either confused thinking or blatant hypocrisy, (depending on whether he is as stupid as he seems):

"The South China Sea will no longer be an issue, after China recovers the sovereignty of various rocks and islands one by one, either through peaceful means or by force. But with a tradition of a somewhat benign paternal attitude, China will refrain from bullying its neighbours despite the American absence. Instead, it will continue to push for peace and co-development in the region, if only to distinguish itself from Western hegemony."

So China will recover [sic] the chunks of rock it claims in its neighbours' backyard by force, but will "refrain from bullying and pursue peace and co-development".  Does the writer not recognise his own contradiction here?  And does no one in the CPP (to which he belongs) recognise that this sounds exactly like the kind of "peace and co-development" that Japan pursued at China's expense in the 1930s?

And I love that "if only..." clause - the implication being "we want to be violent, but we have to be peaceful to look different from the US"!

Whether or not a country exercises the death penalty is usually a pretty good indicator of how civilised it is - or at least, aspires to be.  When a country shows executions live on TV, you know for sure it's barbaric.  Whether it also violates the country's own law which provides that executions shall not be held in public, is a legal question I am not qualified to judge.

Making It Better
Amnesty International

The South China Morning Post reports that a Beijing restaurateur was forced to take down a sign barring customers from nations with which China has maritime territorial disputes (which currently means just about every neighbouring country that isn't landlocked, including some so far away - see maps here and here - that they stretch the definition of "neighbouring" to breaking point).  Personally i'd like to see him put his nasty little sign back up to avoid any chance that I might inadvertently put any money in his racist pocket by patronising his establishment next time I visit Beijing.

Meanwhile, over in the UK the Royal Bank of Scotland proves that bankers have learned nothing (certainly not humility) from the 2008 financial crisis caused by their greed, by declaring a loss of
£5.2 billion (much of it as a result of penalties for past misdeeds) and admitting it may not be able to pay back the money it owes British taxpayers, but still paying out £697 million in bonuses to its staff.  The bank's chairman claims this is necessary to compete for good staff - in other words, everyone else in the banking sector is just as greedy despite the fact that hardly any major bank in the world is untainted by the scandals and blunders of the past few years.

And while we're looking at such nice people, let's not leave out the charming lady back in China who wore a false belly to make her appear pregnant so people would give up their seat to her on the train - then officially complained that the device didn't live up to its description when her ruse was rumbled.

So many jerks out there, and so little time to be rude about them all...

CNET used to be a pretty reliable download source for a variety of software.  Like many other download sites, it encouraged you to install various toolbars and other crap with each download, but I just unchecked those options and had no problem.  (If I installed every toolbar I'm invited to, my whole screen would be filled with them.)  But now it seems CNET has sold out completely - when you download anything from CNET now it installs the Blekko search bar without warning or advising you in advance.

Now Blekko - a name which sounds like someone throwing up - may or may not be good software, but that's not the point.  I want to select my own software.  It is totally unacceptable and unethical for anyone to install anything on your PC without your prior consent.  I may still look at CNET for its user reviews, but I will never again download anything from there.

I got rid of the Blekko toolbar by uninstalling it via the Control Panel (taking the opportunity to clear out the unwanted Bing toolbar, which had somehow crept into my system earlier, at the same time), but found it had also changed the home page on all my 3 browsers to Blekko search.  Then, having been angry with CNET, I also became annoyed with Google.  I tried to reinstate google.com as my home page, but Google kept detecting my IP location and redirecting me to google.com.hk - something that a Google search tells me is also annoying many others who want to use the version of their chocie.  I sorted this out eventually, but I shouldn't have had to.  Software should do what you tell it to and respect the user's choice, not impose the provider's choices on you.

So, black marks for CNET and to a lesser extent for Google - why don't they go to the version you specify but ask if you want the localised version of the country you access it from? Instead they do it the other way round - take you to the one they think you should want, then offer google.com as an option in inconspicuous grey letters at the bottom right corner.  If I ask for a mango I don't expect to be given a strawberry then asked if I want to switch to a mango.

A couple of classic typos this morning: the online programme guide on BBC Entertainment TV has the hottest stars performing live "to a 1, strong audience".  That doesn't sound very strong to me!  Meanwhile Rupert Murdoch's British rag The Sun, reporting on some loony guru who claims the tragic rape and murder of a young Indian woman was partly her own fault, says that the victim "was flown to Singapore for treatment to her catastrophic industries".  Yeah, hard work can be a killer.

The Sun also wins today's award for most tasteless headline of the day: "Lesbians 'tortured pensioner before leaving him to die'".  When you read the story, the fact that the assailants happened to be a lesbian couple has nothing to do with their crime - "Women" would have told the story perfectly well - but The Sun being what it is, no doubt some sub-editor couldn't resist spicing up the story with a bit of titillation in the headline (let's see if it works for me, above).    Or perhaps Sun reporters are secretly terrified that gangs of rampaging lesbians are on the prowl, Night of the Living Dead style, looking for helpless pensioners to torture.  I'm terrified already...

I've noticed over the years that Boxing Day usually brings a rash of headlines reporting disasters, natural or man-made.  This year the disaster season seems to have started a day early - the South China Morning Post leads today with a bus crash that killed 11 children in China, while the BBC features yet another senseless shooting in another small town in America.  This time the shooter, who subsequently killed himself, had already served a 17-year jail term for killing his grandmother.  No doubt the NRA would argue that he nevertheless had a legal right to own a gun for self-defence.  They appear to be blind to the irony that so did Nancy Lanza, and it killed her.  They also want every American school, at a time when many are already reducing teaching staff because of budget cuts, to have the extra expense of hiring armed guards - a strategy that obviously worked so well at Columbine.  The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, argues the NRA, is a good guy with a gun.  Personally I agree with the late Isaac Asimov that "violence is usually the least intelligent solution to any problem".

Back here at home, anyone who drives in Hong Kong knows that the roads are full of pedestrians seemingly hell-bent on suicide, because they wander all over the street totally oblivious to traffic.  (If they can do it wearing black clothes at night, so much the better.)  For some reason, the number of these lemmings seems to multiply around Christmas time - any idea why?

Oh well, Merry Christmas to all my readers!  And hey, hey, hey, be careful out there!

As Mo Yan accepted his Nobel Prize for Literature this week - the first Chinese author to receive it -  while carefully attempting to stay out of political controversy, it may be appropriate to post this, which I wrote a couple of years ago but never got round to completing at the time:

Beijing, 8 October 2010 - Foreign Office spokeswoman Jiang Yu, her characteristic beaming smile even broader than usual, today expressed the Chinese government's pleasure at the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo. "The entire nation shares in congratulations on the award of this great honour to Liu, whose tireless work for human rights and democracy in China has endeared him to so many of our people" Jiang said. "A prestigious international honour given to any Chinese citizen is a matter of national pride for China."

Sadly the above is of course not the way it went - instead the stern-faced Jiang delivered her usual predictable  lecture about not interfering in China's international affairs, and how it was shameful that such an honour should be given to someone China regards as a criminal. (Curious how many Nobel Peace Prize winners have been regarded as criminals by their own country's governments in their time - Nelson Mandela, for example - not that I agree with all the Prize Committee's dubious decisions.)  Incidentally, if China considers Tibet part of China, then wouldn't that make Liu not the first, but the second Chinese national to receive the Nobel Peace Prize - the first being another notorious "criminal", the Dalai Lama?