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.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Do you feel safe? Well, do you?
Posted by Private Beach at 5:07 pm 2 comments:
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
The South China Morning Post has another of its patented "no useful information" online polls today.
Posted by Private Beach at 7:21 pm 1 comment:
Monday, March 03, 2014
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
Posted by Private Beach at 8:10 pm No comments:
Sunday, March 02, 2014
We know who you are
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?
Posted by Private Beach at 10:41 pm 2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)