All languages are equal, but some are more equal than others

Transcript of part of last night's ATV News (starting at 7:46 on the YouTube video):

ATV News:
The Law Society unveiled its proposals for democratic reform today, but we won't be reporting it [sic] because of the attitude on display during the press conference. Instead, we want to make a point here, and show you how increasingly difficult it is these days for English news gathering in Hong Kong, our so-called world city.

ATV reporter at the press conference: What's the Law Society's opinion on the 'love your country, love Hong Kong' requirement for the CE candidates?

Law Society President Ambrose Lam: I already explained it in Cantonese, sorry about that.

ATV: Yeah, we would like it in English please.

Lam: Sorry?

ATV: We would like it in English please.

Lam: I already provide[d] the answer.  Thank you.  [Pause]  You can translate into English.


The above gives the words, but you need to watch the video to observe the coldly dismissive tone in which they were delivered. What I wonder here is, if a CCTV reporter had asked for the answer in Putonghua, would Lam have told them he already gave it in Cantonese, or rushed to oblige?  Is it only the speakers of Hong Kong''s second official language that he shows contempt for?  Or ATV, perhaps?

In case you're wondering what he did say in Cantonese, the SCM Post reports:

Yesterday, Lam admitted the notion of "love the country, love Hong Kong" - cited by Beijing as a criterion for chief executive - was "literally absent" from the constitutional text and there was no clear mechanism to judge patriotism. "It is arguable whether patriotism constitutes a reasonable restriction on candidacy," Lam said. "But it is difficult to judge who complies with the notion. What is the mechanism to determine if an individual loves the country and Hong Kong?"

Stairway to Predictability

It seems that the South China Morning Post is not the only publication asking its readers silly questions.  This month's Mojo music magazine is asking its readers:

Vote For The Greatest Led Zeppelin Track Of All Time! What are the rock behemoth’s most awesome songs?

To which I would add my own question: is there any chance at all that anything other than Stairway to Heaven will come out on top?  I think we all know what Eliza Doolittle would reply.

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?

Last Chance to Have Your Say!

For what it's worth, the following is my submission to the government consultation on methods for selecting the next CE.  The closing date for submissions is tomnorrow, so it's not too late to express your views if you haven't done so already.  Whether they will be listened to is of course another matter entirely...

Submission to the Public Consultation on Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive in 2017

and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2016

Background

I have hesitated before submitting this, because I feel that the wording of the Consultation Document and the government’s public statements on constitutional reform have already precluded many of the possible avenues to achieving genuine democracy.  Furthermore, local media reports suggest that certain companies with links to the Central People’s Government (“CPG”) have been putting pressure on their employees to submit pre-drafted submissions, thereby distorting the perceived weight of opinion in support of certain positions.

Nevertheless, as a permanent resident of Hong Kong I feel it is important that the voices of citizens be heard in shaping the SAR’s constitutional development.

Public Expectations and the Objective of Universal Suffrage

Given that the Justice Secretary has criticized some recent constitutional reform proposals for not defining their terms clearly, it is odd that such key terms as “universal suffrage” and “democratic” are not defined in the Consultation Document.  Based on general international usage, however, we can define universal suffrage as a system in which each citizen has a fair and equal vote.

Beyond this, however, universal suffrage is not an end in itself – it is a mechanism for exercising choice.  The legitimate expectation of the Hong Kong people is that the election of the Chief Executive (“CE”) through universal suffrage will be democratic, meaning that it will offer them a genuine free choice of a reasonable number of candidates representing the major streams of political opinion in the SAR – including those which the CPG may view less favourably.

Any system which fails to provide this, however closely it complies with the law, will not be seen as satisfying the spirit of universal suffrage or representing the legitimate democratic aspirations of the community.  It runs the risk that the future CE will be viewed – both at home and by overseas observers – as lacking a legitimate mandate.  It could also lead to an election boycott by disappointed voters, further weakening the legitimacy of any future CE.

The Legal Framework

As the Consultation Document sets out at length, the CE will be elected in accordance with Article 45 of the Basic Law, which provides that a “broadly representative nominating committee” be formed to nominate candidates for election.

The Basic Law does not specify how many candidates shall be put forward, but the wording “a certain number” clearly implies more than one.  While the Consultation Document makes much of Article 45, it is curiously silent on Article 26, which provides that “Permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have the right to vote and the right to stand for election in accordance with law”.  While there clearly has to be a practical limit on the number of election candidates, this clause suggests that the spirit of elections under the Basic Law is to open up competition to a broad cross-section of candidates, with no exclusion of any candidate able to command significant public support.

“Love China, Love Hong Kong”

Much has been said suggesting that CE candidates must “love the country and love Hong Kong”.  It is important to note that this is nowhere specified in the Basic Law as a prerequisite for election.  While this phrase may reflect the aspirations of the CPG, as the Bar Association’s submission to this consultation has rightly pointed out, it is “highly questionable as a matter of law”.  Indeed it is hard to see how such love could be measured or verified.

It is extremely unlikely that the Hong Kong electorate would vote for a candidate they did not perceive as loving Hong Kong.  As for loving the country, there may be different perceptions at work.  It is generally recognised that the CPG tends to define “patriotism” in terms of loyalty to the Communist Party of China and the communist system.  However, the concept of “One Country Two Systems” which is enshrined in the Basic Law implicitly recognizes that Hong Kong people may, while being loyal to China, take a different view.

As the Consultation Document points out, the CE “represents Hong Kong” and “is accountable to the CPG”.  The hope of Hong Kong people is that, while cooperating with the CPG, their CE would nevertheless be willing to strongly represent their needs and concerns to the CPG, particularly where these may conflict with the interests of the mainland – rather than merely acting as a conduit to convey the wishes of the CPG to the Hong Kong people.  Such two-way communication should not be misinterpreted as a failure to “love China”, and the CPG should be willing to recognize it as a legitimate desire on the part of Hong Kong people within the “Two Systems” framework.

The Representativeness of the Nominating Committee (“NC”)

The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) in December 2007 states that “The nominating committee may be formed with reference to the current provisions regarding the Election Committee in Annex I to the Hong Kong Basic Law”.  It has been suggested by some that this means the NC must closely mirror the structure of the Election Committee.  The difficulty with this suggestion is that the Election Committee is widely recognized as grossly unrepresentative of the community as a whole, being heavily skewed towards selected sectors in its composition.  Adopting this interpretation would therefore make it impossible to meet the requirement of the Basic Law that the NC be “broadly representative”.

Such a contradiction would almost inevitably lead to an application for a judicial review on the grounds that any system introduced on this basis fails to meet the representativeness requirement of the Basic Law.  This would be divisive and damaging to public acceptance of the election framework.  We must therefore agree with the Bar Association’s view that the NPCSC decision cannot be so strictly interpreted.

A Matter of Trust

Rather than analysing the various election procedures in great detail, I believe it is more valuable at this stage to elucidate the underlying situation.  Clearly much of the disagreement over the CE election approach stems from a lack of trust on both sides:

•  A large proportion of the Hong Kong public (commonly described as the “pan-democratic camp”) lacks confidence that the electorate will be offered a genuine choice, and fears the “screening out” of candidates seen as undesirable by the CPG, even though they may enjoy broad public support.  Consequently they seek to circumvent the feared unrepresentativeness of the NC by calls for civic or public nomination or other methods of giving the wider public a say in the nomination process.  Some even threaten civil disobedience if an undemocratic system is foisted on the Hong Kong people.·         
• Meanwhile, the CPG and its local allies (commonly referred to as the “pro-establishment camp”) fear that a CE candidate may be elected whom they regard as “unpatriotic” and confrontational to the CPG – a situation they have even characterized as a risk to national security.  Consequently they propose systems which will tend to, as one DAB official admitted recently, “increase the predictability of the election result” (in other words, ensure that the CPG’s favoured candidate wins) – clearly not in the spirit of democracy.

I firmly believe that the fears of the CPG in this regard are unfounded.  As I have said, the Hong Kong public wants a CE who will represent their interests, but they are also well aware that the elected candidate will need to work closely with the CPG.  I am absolutely confident that they will use their votes wisely with this in mind.  Consequently there is virtually no chance that one of what many consider the “radical fringe” would ever stand a serious chance of being elected as CE – and in this extremely unlikely event, the CPG would still have the final safeguard of being able to refuse to confirm him or her in the post.

Given this, any attempt to unduly restrict the electorate’s choice of CE can only result in greater public distrust of the CPG and worsen the already tense political situation in Hong Kong, as well as the relationship between the SAR and the mainland.

Legislative Council

The main focus of the Consultation Document is on the CE election, but since it mentions the Legislative Council election, I will touch briefly on this.  It is obvious to all reasonable people that the Functional Constituency system gives disproportionate power and influence to a few small sectors of the community.  It is therefore essential that any long-term plan for democratic development must phase out the Functional Constituencies.  However, there are various alternative election systems, and a separate, more detailed, public consultation on these should be held as soon as possible.

Conclusions

In this submission, I have deliberately focused on matters of general principle rather than the minutiae of nomination procedures.  What is important is not the small details, but that the CE election system should conform to certain fundamental principles:

• The nominating committee should be genuinely “broadly representative” of the community.
• The nomination procedure should take note of public preferences and should not arbitrarily exclude any potential candidate who enjoys substantial public support.
• Extraneous and unverifiable criteria such as “loving the country” should not be applied.
• The nomination system selected should ensure that the public can enjoy a genuinely free choice between a reasonable number of candidates representing an array of political viewpoints, including those the CPG may regard less favourably.
• The CPG should refrain from attempting to influence the result, and should trust the wisdom of the Hong Kong people.  It should not confuse passionate advocacy of Hong Kong’s interests with antipathy to the country as a whole.

Conformance with these principles will, I believe, lead to the election of a Chief Executive who enjoys broad public support, is generally recognised as having a legitimate mandate, and is able to work effectively with the CPG.  It will also ensure that China is seen internationally as fulfilling its promises to the Hong Kong people, thereby enhancing the country’s reputation.

 

The Toilet Quiz

The furore over a mainland kid peeing in the street in Mongkok has become exaggerated out of all proportion.  As Hemlock points out today, the poor kid has unwittingly become a symbol of all the grievances Hong Kongers feel over the uncontrolled flood of tourists overrunning their city.

To put things in perspective, try this simple exercise:

1. Make a list of all the public toilets you know in the area where you live or work.
2. Imagine you are a visiting couple unfamiliar with the area, accompanied by a crying 2-year-old demanding the potty NOW!  How many of them would you be easily able to find within a couple of minutes?

And another question for Hong Kong parents: have you ever let your kid pee in the street or other public place because he/she was unable to reach a toilet in time?

The massive influx of mainland visitors is responsible for many problems here, but let's not make one poor child's bladder a scapegoat for everything that's wrong with the situation.  And maybe the Hong Kong government could consider putting up more signs pointing the way to the nearest public loo - that would be helpful to locals too.

Going Nowhere Slowly - and paying for it

"Does anyone care?" might be a more appropriate question than the one posed by the Pro-China Morning Post.  The Hong Kong people never asked to have their hard-earned money spent on this ruinously expensive project, and are hardly likely to be bothered by the prospect of it being delayed by a couple of years.  Like our other great white elephant infrastructure projects - the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge and the proposed third airport runway - the rail link reflects the hubris of the local and mainland governments rather than the real needs of Hong Kong.

What we should be worried about is the high probability that the delay will lead to yet more of our money being demanded to build this line from nowhere to nowhere - poorly connected at both ends.  And what we should perhaps be investigating is why the delay appears to have come as a sudden surprise to our government - adding Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung to the long list of government ministers who should be kicked out, which already includes those responsible for Justice, Finance, Constitutional Affairs, Development, Education, and Commerce and Economic Development.  (Come to think of it, Hong Kong's housing situation probably justified his removal much earlier, but that's by the by.)

No big project suddenly slips its timetable by two years - there is always a series of small delays acting as warning signs which gradually accumulate.  If the government did not spot these signs, then it was not monitoring the project adequately.  Expect the usual response - a round of hand-wringing, at the end of which nobody will be held responsible.

While we're on the subject of railways, whatever happened to the second steam locomotive of the pair brought back to Hong Kong from the Philippines some years ago?  One of the pair, which were once used on a long-defunct narrow-gauge line from Fanling to Shataukok, quite properly sits in the Hong Kong Railway Museum in Taipo (see picture above, from Wikipedia).  The other appeared to have vanished - rusting away, rumour had it, in the MTR depot at Fo Tan.  Since the government acquired it with public money, shouldn't it be on display somewhere where the Hong Kong public can enjoy it?

Well, apparently our lords and masters decided otherwise; according to the fascinating Industrial History of Hong Kong website, which has a picture of the line in operation (above), it was intended to restore the second loco to working order, but "after languishing at Fo Tan for several years it was donated to a narrow gauge railway in Wales catering for tourists" - apparently the Vale of Rheidol Railway, since a photo shows it at Aberystwyth (in terrible condition, one might add - see below). Did the Hong Kong government ever ask the Hong Kong public whether they wanted to keep it?  Just another example of our money being splashed around without consultation.

Predictable Nonsense

A member of the electoral reform panel of the DAB has admitted that Beijing “requires a high level of predictability over the [next Chief Executive] election".  Apparently he fails to see the blatant contradiction between this and his party's claim to stand for "Democratic" Action for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.  One can have democracy or predictability, but not both.

Signs of Confusion

Why a Well Women Clinic?  Wouldn't it be more useful to have a clinic for sick women?  Taipo.

"Overpayments Accepted" sounds so much nicer than "We rip you off by not giving change", don't you agree?  Market Square, Helmsley, Yorkshire, UK.

Hope no one misreads this as "Letter" and tries to pop their mail in there!  It does look like a mail box.  Somewhere I can't remember in the UK.

DAB - hhmmm...  Wonder if the Hong Kong government is trying a little subliminal advertising here?

You have to admire any hotel that displays Basil Fawlty at its front door!  Damn fine beer, too.  The Buckingham Hotel in Buxton, Derbyshire Peak District, UK.

Do you feel safe? Well, do you?

The mysterious disappearance of a Malaysian Airlines plane, possibly a victim of a terrorist attack, has brought renewed attention to the issue of airport security.  Malaysian Airlines, it emerges, not only allowed several passe4ngers with false or stolen passports to board the ill-fated flight, but has a previous conviction for knowingly falsifying passport records to allow a banned passenger to board a flight.

If this worries you, then consider my recent experience.  A year or two ago, airlines everywhere were panicking at the prospect of liquid explosives potentially being brought on to a flight, leading to a general worldwide ban on liquids in all but tiny quantities being carried in cabin baggage.  On Friday last week - the day before the Malaysian jet vanished - I flew back to Hong Kong from a business visit to Manila.  At the airport, every passenger not only had their cabin baggage X-rayed, but was even asked to remove their shoes for X-ray examination.  Strict security, you might think - but one of the colleagues I travelled with inadvertently left a bottle of drinking water in his backpack, which eluded discovery and went on to the plane with us.

So, is total flight security possible?  I doubt it - even if passengers' carry-on bags are checked, it would only take one criminal baggage handler to smuggle a bomb on board.  You either accept terrorism as a risk of flying, or stay at home.

So What?

The South China Morning Post has another of its patented "no useful information" online polls today.

So do the 73% think that Albert Ho should have had his knuckles rapped more firmly for being a naughty boy, or do they think that browsing soft porn is a perfectly intelligent response to the tedium of having to listen to John Tsang wrongly predicting a budget deficit for the 5th (or is it 6th) consecutive year?  I fear we shall never know.

Facing Basic Realities

An article by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam in the South China Morning Post urges Hongkongers to "accept basic realities" to achieve universal suffrage in 2017.  Yet Ms Lam appears curiously reluctant to accept some basic realities herself:

1. Basic Reality 1 - to any reasonable person, the purpose of universal suffrage is not merely to give each citizen an equal vote, but to do so in order to enable them to make a free choice between a selection of candidates representing a broad variety of political viewpoints.  To have a vote but only be able to choose between 2 or 3 identikit candidates with essentially the same views and policies falls well short of the "democratic process" Ms Lam claims to espouse.
2. Basic Reality 2 - most people don't need to have the meaning of "screening" spelled out.  Ms Lam says 'There are also views suggesting there should be no "screening", but without clearly defining or explaining what "screening" means'.  Well, most of us understand that it simply means rejecting any candidate who does not fit into the category commonly but inaccurately called "pro-China" - in short, anyone who is likely to stand up for the interests of Hong Kong where they clash (as they sometimes do) with those of the mainland.
3. Basic Reality 3 - contrary to Ms Lam's assertion that a nominating committee modelled on the framework of the four-sector Election Committee currently in place would be broadly representative, the majority of Hong Kong people are well aware that the Election Committee's structure is - and indeed was designed to be - totally unrepresentative.  The government's insistence on modelling the nominating committee on the pattern of the Election Committee (in line with the NPC Standing Committee's ruling) therefore directly engenders the public distrust which leads to demands for alternative systems such as civil nomination. Lam is right that these involve "bypassing the committee or undermining its substantive nomination power", but that is essentially because the likely composition of the committee will fail the Basic Law's requirement that it be "broadly representative".  So which side is failing to comply with the Basic Law here?
4. Basic Reality 4 -  the Basic Law does not spell out that a CE candidate must "love China and love Hong Kong".  The Hong Kong people are not going to be so stupid as to elect someone who does not love Hong Kong, and they are well aware that the elected person will have to be able to work closely with the central government on many issues.  The problem here is that Beijing implicitly defines "loving the country" to mean "loving the Chinese Communist Party"; a definition many - probably most - Hong Kong people do not share.  They simply wish to be offered at least one candidate who will stand up for the autonomy granted to Hong Kong in the Basic Law, and does not define cooperation as subservience.

So where does this leave us?  Probably we can agree with Ms Lam on one thing - that "the outlook for the successful implementation of universal suffrage for the chief executive election is not very bright, though the prospect is not yet completely bleak".  It would become a lot brighter, however, if the government itself faced up to the basic realities and focused its efforts on trying to convince the authorities in Beijing to trust the Hong Kong people, instead of trying to ram a fake version of democracy that ignores these realities down the throats of the Hong Kong electorate.

We know who you are

This slogan has become omnipresent since the brutal chopping attack on former Ming Pao Chief Editor Kevin Lau a few days ago.  It's interesting that everyone in Hong Kong seems to know who "They" refers to.

There were some unexpected faces on today's anti-violence protest.  Of course the usual suspects were there, but who would have expected a delegation from The Liberal Party?  And perhaps even more surprisingly, at one point I found myself standing next to CY Leung-supporter-turned-foe Lew Mong-hung.  Who would've thunk it?

The Big Budget Question

With everything we love about Hong Kong, from press freedom to our country parks, seemingly under sustained assault at present, the annual budget seems curiously irrelevant this year.  Financial Secretary John Tsang used his budget speech as another opportunity to repeat his gloomy prediction that the SAR will run out of money in a few years, despite having bigger reserves than most countries many times our size.

No doubt his figures will be endlessly picked over by analysts; however, no one is likely to answer the really big budget question. If a private company employed a Chief Financial Officer who year after year predicted that the company would make a modest loss, but in the event it repeatedly turned in massive profits, he would surely be fired as incompetent.  So why is someone who gets his sums wrong year after year still in charge of our economy?

Value Added

A T-shirt is a T-shirt is a T-shirt, or why Gertrude Stein would not have done well in the fashion business:

 Factory price HK$10

Street market price HK$20

Chain store price HK$40

Fancy boutique price HK$200

Moving in the Dark

The Hong Kong government announced yesterday that an APEC meeting planned for the city in September will instead move to Beijing - if they can find it!

Putting Tourism into Proportion

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:

"Chinese tourists bring their bad habits of shouting, noise level, shopping in crowd and in bulk to Paris, London and New York. Only Hong Kongers react to these problems more violently than the 'foreign devils/ghosts'. Why is Hong Kongers' tolerance level so low? Shouldn't they have thought about their inability to tolerate and embrace (Chinese tourists)?"

[Translation by the invaluable (to non-Chinese readers) Real Hong Kong News – apparently from a longer Chinese version.]

The answer to this question is easily illustrated:

In simple terms, tiny Hong Kong had a ratio of approximately 3.4 visitors per resident in 2012 (most of them from the mainland), compared with 0.8, 1.6 and 0.6 visitors respectively for the much larger Paris, London and New York metropolitan areas.  Is it any surprise that we feel like we’re being crowded out of our own city?

[Sources: Population figures taken from Wikipedia.  Tourist numbers from here - the latest complete comparative figures I could find, though other sources differ – things have already become much worse in Hong Kong since then.)]

Little Minds

LITTLE BRITAIN

LITTLE HONG KONG

Oh where are you, my Valentine?

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! 

P.S. After posting this, I read this story: China Valentine: No cinema seats for Shanghai couples.  The SCMP's version of the story adds: 

'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.]

Chicken Spittle

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.

Triad Influence

What is it that compels otherwise sensible companies to change meaningful names to meaningless - and often hard to remember - three-letter identifiers?

 

Now another well-known Hong Kong chain seems to be succumbing to this curse.