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.

Go Google Yourself

There are a lot of things I like about the Chrome browser, but I've been wondering why it doesn't allow me to use Realdownloader to download videos from YouTube.  Now I find that Google has disabled this, and any other extension not in their Chrome Web Store.  They won't allow me to re-enable it unless it's added to the Web Store, which requires the developer to apply and pay a fee (not a lot, but multiply it by the number of browser extensions out there...)

It is obvious from the postings on the Chrome forum that I am far from the only user annoyed by this policy.  If Google want to flag extensions as potentially dangerous to alert the user, that's fine.  But what gives them the right to decide what software the user can add to his system, and to irretrievably disable anything they don't like?  Oh well, back to Firefox.  Realdownloader works fine with that.

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.

These Are Not The Dr.Roids You're Looking For

I've seen many odd "English" names in Hong Kong - including Puffer and Whisker - but this is a new one on me.  Given that most people adopt an English label while at school, it doesn't say much for the standard of English teaching here that no one tells the students when a name they choose is too weird to use.  Given this, it's perhaps not surprising that the SCM Post reports on this sign in Victoria Park:

 

However, I rather like the comment from one person interviewed by the Post that the mistake doesn't matter much because "few people pay attention to the warning signs anyway".  Now there's the true Hong Kong spirit!.

Speaking Truth to Power

As usual, the police's estimate of the numbers attending last night's June 4th candlelight vigil was about half the organisers' figure - even though they couldn't pull their usual "at its peak" trick to underestimate the numbers this time, as the event is a static protest.  Now this is one case where the real figure should be fairly easy to determine, give or take a few - since one candle is given out to each arriving participant, one only needs to count how many candles were handed out.  Number of candles in box x (number of boxes purchased - number of boxes left) - simple.

I didn't personally see the Voice of Lying to Hong Kong's counter-event last night, but according to the Morning Post it attracted all of a record 20 participants.  The Post page includes a video of them, in which their leader tries to justify the massacre (let's call it what it was, not the currently politically correct euphemism "crackdown") on the grounds of foreign interference.  Another labels someone calling for the overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party a "British dog" - indicating a remarkably narrow mindset.  Hong Kong really should have better mental health care for people suffering from acute paranoia.

The Voice of Darkness

The grotesquely misnamed Beijing front organisation Voice of Loving Hong Kong not only urges us to "forgive and forget" the events of 4 June 1989 - I wonder if they would "forgive and forget" the murder of their own children for demonstrating peacefully - but has resurrected the misleading claim that "no one was killed in Tiananmen Square".  Technically this may be true - the deaths largely occurred in the nearby streets - but their intent is clearly to cast doubt on whether the massacre happened at all.  Well, the Woodstock festival wasn't held in Woodstock, either, but that doesn't mean there was no festival.

See you in Victoria Park tonight.

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

Next to a Landfill - the Best Place to Buy Property

Nobody in Hong Kong wants to live near a landfill, as we've seen in the recent spate of nimbyism over the government's expansion proposals.  Yet paradoxically, there are great advantages to buying property right next to one.

True, while the landfill is in operation, you will suffer from the smell, filthy dusty air, and infestations of flies.  But once it is decommissioned, you will have something few Hong Kong property owners can enjoy - at least a ten-year guarantee of an unimpeded green view.  While others watch despairingly as reclamation or new buildings block the open views they paid dearly for, you will relish the sight of a verdant forest gradually spreading over the former garbage dump as it settles down and decomposes.  Nothing can be built on it until this process finishes.

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.

What kind of fakery is this?

The grand arrival of the "Buddha's parietal bone relic" in Hong Kong last night, to be displayed at the "China-backed" World Buddhist Forum in the Coliseum, was certainly a colourful spectacle, but the whole event reeks of fakery.

Leaving aside the irony of an avowedly atheist regime sponsoring a religious event, the relic itself is of dubious provenance.  Claimed to be part of the Buddha's skull, it was apparently only unearthed in Nanjing, China, in 2010 (or 2008 - China's propaganda organ, the China Daily, does not even seem sure of the date).   I have seen no clear explanation of how a fragment of bone dug up in Nanjing can be positively identified as coming from a body cremated 2,000 miles away 2,500 years ago.  In fact the whole business of religious relics has historically been mostly about persuading the gullible faithful to part with their money - it has often been jokingly said that there was enough "wood of the true cross" in Europe to build a battleship.

Even if the relic is genuine, why are believers being invited to worship it?  This is surely contrary to the teachings of the Buddha that suffering is caused by excessive attachment to the material world.  Whatever remains significant about Sakyamuni, it is not his physical body.

Further evidence that the Forum is more of a propaganda event than a religious one comes from the presence of the so-called Panchen Lama.  In fact no one knows the whereabouts of the real Panchen Lama - or even whether he is still alive - other than the Chinese authorities who abducted him and engineered his disappearance after his recognition by the Dalai Lama.  The person attending the Hong Kong event is the fake Panchen Lama chosen by the Chinese government, who have no more authority to appoint the Panchen Lama than they do to select the next Pope. - which they would probably like to do if they thought they could get away with it!

Bun There, Thrown That

A relatively trivial gesture in LegCo - one that falls within a time-honoured tradition - has all sorts of people fulminating about legislators run wild and how they should be punished, with LegCo president Tsang Yok-sing one of the few voices of calm reason.  Here's a suggestion - let democracy do its job.  If the Hong Kong people are really as upset over such antics (nicely captured in the SCMP's photo above) as the CE and his acolytes claim, the lawmakers responsible will be thrown out of their seats at the next election.  If they are not, then CY Leung would do well to reflect on why so many members of the Hong Kong public apparently want to see things thrown at him.

Doublespeak to the max

An early contender for the Orwell Award 2014: proving yet again that every child should be given a copy of George Orwell's Politics and the English Language as an essential tool of life, Beijing mouthpiece the Global Times says this:
“The South China Sea disputes should be settled in a peaceful manner, but that doesn’t mean China can’t resort to non-peaceful measures in the face of provocation from Vietnam and the Philippines. Many people believe that a forced war would convince some countries of China’s sincerely peaceful intentions."
or in plain English, "if you don't believe in my sincerely peaceful intentions, I will use violent means to convince you that I am not violent."  More stuff you can't make up.

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.

Have We Got News For You

Watching the news in Hong Kong, it is often hard to shake off the feeling that the whole broadcast is one elaborate - and not even very funny - satire.  Take the first half of last night's ATV news for example:

• Beijing expresses concern over the anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam - which are remarkably reminiscent of the anti-Japanese riots that break out in China from time to time over similar perceived insults to national sovereignty.  Of course the PRC government could stop the whole problem in seconds by announcing that China would remove its oil rig from the disputed waters off Vietnam, but...
• Hong Kong's Financial Secretary announces that in the face of the LegCo budget filibuster, he will withdraw funding from the Hospital Authority and higher education - presumably so the money can be spent on more important social needs, like the White Elephant Bridge to Macau or the inflated salaries of overpaid but underskilled government ministers.
• He also announces that he will not talk with the radical legislators leading the filibuster because he is opposed to their demands.   Isn't that why they need to talk?  If they already agreed on everything, they would have no need to discuss their differences in the hope of reaching a compromise.
• By the way, who was the marionette-like figure lurking behind John Tsang's right shoulder and nodding sympathetically on cue at the FS's words of supposed wisdom?
• The government announces that it will not include demands for civic nomination in the next round of consultation on the 2017 CE elections, thereby making it clear that the first round - the results of which have not even been released yet - was a meaningless exercise which will, as we feared, be ignored in favour of whatever the government has been told to do already by its puppet-masters in Beijing.  They could at least be smart enough to pretend to be listening to the people, but that would require some degree of intelligence.
• To add insult to insult, Carrie Lam asks those planning to vote in Occupy Central's coming referendum to "consider whether it provides them with a genuine choice".  Er, would that be by comparison with the fake choices offered by the government, or what? If no genuinely democratic candidate is permitted to run in 2017, I suggest a write-in vote for Mr. Bean - we certainly need a leader with more substance than the present crowd.
• The Consumer Council warns that energy drinks contain high levels of sugar and caffeine.  Hello?  Isn't that why people drink them?

"You couldn't make this stuff up" may be a cliché, but no other response seems appropriate to the farce that passes for news in Hong Kong.

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.