Around the Corner

 Just wondering - if the earth is a globe, how can it have corners?

Look Back in Danger

Four decades in Hong Kong have given me a great admiratiuon for the Hong Kong people (if not, alas, for those who govern them). Yet despite their hard work, intelligence, and dedication to principle, one quality is curiously lacking - they seem to be totally unaware that vehicles can travel backwards as well as forward.  Any driver in Hong Kong trying to manoeuvre into or out of a tight parking spot can be sure that the second they start reversing, some idiot pedestrian will walk across their path a few inches behind them, seemingly blithely unaware that they are actually moving.  I'm not sure what accounts for this blind spot - posasibly the fact that many Hongkongers lack driving experience - but you can be sure that if one of these people who put themselves in harm's way actually suffered an injury, they would immediately blame the poor driver for it and not their own lack of caution.

Mind how you go.

Brexit Noir

If you are British, probably the best way not to be driven crazy by the ever more chaotic nonsense of Brexit is to treat the whole sorry saga as a black comedy.  It is, after all, full of delicious ironies, beginning with the fact that then Prime Minister David Cameron originally called the referendum in a bid to unite the Tory Party (how's that been working out for you, Dave?)

But perhaps the finest piece of dark humour to come out of Brexit is this:

The idea that extreme nationalism may deprive the country of its national flag carrier just points up the ridiculousness of the entire isolationist Brexit concept in a globally connected world.  Priceless!

Improvements for the Worse

As I have noted before, the MTR has a history of unneeded "improvements" which actually make things worse.  Well, they're at it again.

Getting a train at Tai Po Market station the other day, I found that the familiar display signs - which show the destinations and timings of the next couple of trains in big red glowing letters - had been replaced by TV-type screens.  This, says the MTR, is to give us "even more information".

Well, I don't want "even more information" (which probably means intrusive advertising anyway).  What I want is to see when the next train is coming.  And whereas the old signs were clearly legible from a substantial distance along the platform, the new ones can only be read easily if you're close to them.  From further away they just appear as a vague blue blob.

This is not the only stupidity the MTR is inflicting on us.  It was announced this week that when the new Shatin-Central Link opens, trains on the existing Eastrail line will be reduced from 12 cars to 9.  Fine, if the line only went from Shatin to Central - but what about all the stations between Lo Wu and Tai Wai, where the new line starts?  Quite often the train will already be filled to capacity with border crossers when it leaves Lo Wu, and at peak times in the morning, every carriage is jammed with commuters..  Do the people who make these decisions ever travel on the trains they run?

Daylight Robbery

Passport Blues

While Brexidiots have been celebrating the return of the supposedly iconic blue British passport, two ironic facts have largely escaped their attention:

• Contrary to their whines about supposed EU petty bureaucracy, there was never anything in EU regulations compelling Britain to adopt the EU burgundy colour.
• Research shows that areas where fewer people hold passports were more likely to vote Leave.  So we are being forced out of Europe by ignorant people who have never visited mainland Europe and presumably know little about it.  I know those in the Leave camp always complain about Remainers talking about them as if they were stupid, but frankly this kind of thing just proves the point.

Personally I don't give a damn what colour cover my passport has, but I do care deeply that these idiots are depriving me of my right to use it to live, work and travel freely across 27 countries in Europe.

Got to admit it's getting better

It appears that the MTR Corporation defines "improvement" as "impeding passenger flow by cramming more unneeded shops into already congested station concourses in order to make a few extra bucks".  But hey, this is Hong Kong.

Don't all board her at once

Flying High

If the Message Stinks, Repeat It Louder

When not blatantly brown-nosing China's leaders with an editorial (above) that could have been cloned straight from the front page of the China Daily, the South China Morning Post is usually sucking up to Hong Kong's business lobby.

Naturally, therefore, it joins the hysterical chorus demanding a third runway at Chek Lap Kok.  The public, it tells us, "can be excused for feeling confused about the development of the airport's third runway".  The Post suffers from no such uncertainty, assuring us with an air of smug superiority, "that the project is still challenged by different sectors at this stage underlines the need for better explanation."

That the project has failed to win public support is arrogantly assumed by the writer to be a mere failure of communication.  All that needs to be done, in his (or her) view, is to keep shouting the same message at the public until it gets across to them.

Does it not occur to these dumbclucks that the real reason the plan "has yet to get broad public support" may be that the case for the third runway is far from proven?  Perhaps the public is not convinced because the case for the project is not convincing.  For a start, even the editorial admits that it has not yet been decided who will pay for this grandiose mega-project, estimated to cost HK$136 billion -- though such massive infrastructure ventures typically end up costing far more than the originally budgeted figure.

Although the government conducted a public consultation exercise on the issue back in 2011, this was based on a highly selective presentation of the facts, and several trends have changed since then.  China's economy has slowed, along with the rest of the world's, probably leaving forecasts of future demand overstated.  Climate scientists' warnings of the dangers of global warming have become more urgent, though carbon emissions were not even considered in the original environmental impact assessment.  Even "pro-China" politicians are now calling for a cap on tourist numbers as Hong Kong creaks at the seams to accommodate too many mainland visitors.  And recent studies suggest that the beleaguered local Chinese White Dolphin population - whose habitat sits in the way of the proposed land reclamation - is under even greater stress than previously thought. All these have negative implications for airport expansion.

In fact so many factors are involved that it is doubtful that any forecast of future air travel demand can be more than a best guess, depending on what assumptions one chooses to make.  Economic developments, fuel costs, the ongoing movement of manufacturing away from the Pearl River Delta deeper into China, the adoption of larger planes like the Airbus A380, the effect on wildlife, the impact of China's expanding High Speed Rail network on demand for air travel, the shortage of local construction workers - so many uncertainties surround all these variables that any prediction is likely to be well off the mark.  In fact the only certainties -- increased noise and air pollution if the project goes ahead and the likely wiping out of our local dolphin population -- all support the cancellation of the expansion plan.

"Our status as a regional aviation hub" the Post argues "hinges on whether we can compete with other airports" -- but readers' comments beneath the original editorial question whether we can -- or need to be -- a regional aviation hub in a region with four other airports. Indeed, some suggest that the region's airspace is too crowded already to permit the number of extra flights required to make the additional runway cost-justifiable.

Of course those in the aviation sector -- with the Post as their cheerleader -- predictably insist that the third runway is urgently essential, because it will benefit them.  But is is by no means clear that it will benefit the community as a whole.

Making It Better:
Worldwide Fund for Nature

Who's Blocking Whom?

So let me see if I've got this straight: a group of minibus drivers take over the street to protest against people planning to take over the streets.  Hmm.  Another story for the "You couldn't make this stuff up" file.

Snippets

There are too many things going on to write at length about all of them (I have to work, you know).  So, just a couple of quick reactions to some recent snippets of news.

"Tourism Board chairman Peter Lam Kin-ngok warned that Occupy Central could harm tourism in the city."
-- So, another reason to welcome Occupy Central!

And in China, an appeal court believes a totally nonsensical story and reduces a killer's sentence to 7 years.  This one is so absurd that even the usually Pro-China Morning Post gives space to demolishing it.  See also here and here.

-- Oh well, it may not be justice, but at least we can be sure the judges are patriots!

Satire - Who Needs it?

In other news:

• Hong Kong can handle up to 100 million tourists, says Commerce Secretary
• Third airport runway will not endanger dolphins, says Airport Authority

"In other news..." is a standard satirical device for ridiculing absurd official statements.  In most countries, this means producing a humorously exaggerated version of other public statements.  Here in Hong Kong, there is no need to do that - what the authorities say is already absurd enough to be a satire of itself.

Typically absurd Pro-China Morning Post front page above, as well - giving the opinion of one clapped-out retired Chinese politician greater prominence than the opinions of more than half a million Hong Kongers.

Double Fault

In response to my last post, Troika says "Funny how the SCuMP never draws attention to its own gaffes".  I suggest the reason is that they don't even notice them.  Certainly yesterday's web page, where the same headline appeared twice, suggests that no one is actually editing (or even reading) their output.

New Love, New Hate

I love my new toy - which I took out for a maiden voyage yesterday - but it has inadvertently given me something else to hate - the braindead pedestrians who wander aimlessly along the cycle track instead of using the adjacent footpath. Grrrr!

Old Boys Network

Chief Excutive CY Leung today refuted criticism that his recent round of appointments to public bodies was a case of "jobs for the boys", pointing out that one of his highly qualified cronies appointed was in fact a girl.

Seriously, look at this: Vincent Lo succeeds Marvin Cheung as Chairman of the Airport Authority for one year, at which time Jack So will take over.  In the meantime Jack So remains Chairman of the Trade Development Council until mid-2015, when he will be succeeded by:  (pause for fanfare) - Vincent Lo!  Also popping up as a new member of the Airport Authority is that rather unpleasant character Franklin Lam, whom we thought we'd happily seen the last of when he resigned from the Executive Council after it emerged that he'd sold a couple of flats shortly before the government imposed additional stamp duty to cool the property market.

Lam is also one of the mad bunch who want to smother our country parks with concrete and encourage even more mainland tourists to flood Hong Kong.  He and Lo were on the (previously) losing side of a battle with Marvin Cheung over plans to develop a new shopping mall at the airport - we can probably assume, therefore, that the new appointments reflect the government's support for constructing yet more shops selling overpriced luxury crap to yet more unwanted visitors.

Meanwhile CY's campaign manager Fanny Law becomes chairwoman of the board of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation, while solicitor Larry Kwok, who "has been serving in many Government commissions" (in other words is another one of the boys), becomes the new Chairman of the "Independent" Police Complaints Council.  Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok argues that the Council's professional secretariat will somehow ensure Kwok's impartiality.

In a city of seven million talented people, why are appointments to public bodies so often drawn from the same incestuous little pool of (sometimes ethically-challenged) yes-men (and occasionally women)?

The Patriot Game

"Patriots don't go to Russia."
--US Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking of Edward Snowden

Undisputed Nonsense

undisputed (adjective):not challenged or called into question; accepted. 

From last night's ATV News: [Chinese] Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang "said the Vietnamese boat capsized after smashing into the drilling platform, which he emphasised is in undisputed Chinese territory."

This story differs from China's original account of the incident, which claimed that the sunken Vietnamese vessel collided with a Chinese fishing boat (which just happened to be in the vicinity of the contentious oil rig by chance, presumably, like the other 40-odd boats hanging around the area).  That aside, unless Qin's statement has been badly translated, what are we to make of that word "undisputed"?  The Chinese government knows very well that its claim to the area of sea in which this occurred is hotly disputed by Vietnam; and, indeed, that large parts of its other maritime claims in the South China Sea are fiercely challenged by half a dozen other nations on whose coastal waters they intrude.

Given this, Beijing is clearly well aware that the area of water in question is far from being undisputed Chinese territory.  One wonders, therefore, why its spokesman is allowed to make statements that are obviously bare-faced lies.  In what way does it strengthen China's case to talk undisputed bollocks?

Try this: ask a European to name half a dozen great European sailors and navigators from history.  He or she is likely to reel off without much difficulty such names as Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Magellan, Drake, Cook, Bligh, Cabot, and so forth.  Now ask a Chinese person the same question.  Their immediate answer will be Zheng He (who was in fact more of a diplomat than the admiral he is often described as).  After that will probably come a long uncomfortable pause...

The reality is that, despite its "claims from history" to vast areas of ocean, China has never been much of a maritime power.  And while Chinese fishermen certainly roamed the South China Sea from ancient times, so did fishing folk from the other lands around it.  In an age when fish were abundant and the idea of undersea mineral extraction had not yet been conceived, it is very unlikely that any of them thought of the vast ocean as the exclusive property of any single country.

I Told You So

Private Beach on the high speed rail delay, 16 April: "Expect the usual response: a round of hand-wringing, at the end of which nobody will be held responsible."
 
One month later: the pro-China Morning Post reports that Chief Secretary Carrie Lam said
"the panel’s main objective was to identify what went wrong in the process, and not to look for who was personally responsible in order that they be penalised."

Heaven forbid that anyone should actually be held accountable for their screw-ups!.  That would not be the Hong Kong way.

Conspiracy of Amateurs

Telephone conversation, November 2013:

• Transport Secretary: It says here that the high speed rail project may be delayed by 2 years - shouldn't I inform LegCo?
• MTR Chairman: No worries, we can catch up.
• Transport Secretary: Oh, that's all right then.

Telephone conversation, April 2014:

• Someone in the MTR: I'm afraid the high speed rail project will definitely be delayed by 2 years.
• Transport Secretary: Oh my God, what a surprise!  How could this happen?  Why didn't someone tell me earlier?  I'd better inform LegCo.

Telephone conversation, April 2014:

• Transport Secretary: Would you be willing to chair the independent inquiry into the high speed rail project delay?
• Professor Lee: Sure, no problem.

Telephone conversation, two hours later:

• Professor Lee: By the way, will it be any problem that I'm on the board of one of the project's main contractors?
• Transport Secretary: [Expletive deleted]

Until we get genuine democracy, if ever, there's very little we can do about the fact that our government's principal government officials are mostly a bunch of Beijing bootlickers.  But do they also have to be a gaggle of incompetent amateurs who've apparently never heard of due diligence?