Ordinary Gweilo

It's not big and it's not clever, it's just a Brit in Hong Kong writing (mainly) about Hong Kong

recent posts

Archives

Categories

  • 97% Fat Free?

    There’s an interesting range of opinions on display with regard to the government’s plans to make it mandatory for packaged food to be labelled with nutritional information. BWG complained that it was pathetic that it was going to take so long to introduce these laws, Phil agreed, but Conrad is totally against the idea:

    If there was sufficient consumer demand for such labels, the food companies would be applying them voluntarily. They aren’t. Requiring it by law will raise the price of selling packaged foods in Hong Kong. That price increase will will be passed on to the consumer. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, much less a free, nutrition labeled, lunch.

    Rather surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Conrad that there is no need for the government to get involved. Already many imported products have detailed labels, and many local brands do the same, and I feel sure that within five years (which is the government’s timescale) it will be the norm.

    However, I have to take issue with Conrad’s rather idealistic view that the market always delivers what the consumer wants. It’s a lovely idea, and one that enables economists and politicians to defend the free market system, but we all know that it doesn’t always work. The devil, as they say, is in the detail. Or, to put it another way, consumers always have a limited choice – there may be three or ten brands of mayonnaise on the supermarket shelves, but that doesn’t mean that I can find one that is made with olive oil and unpasteurised eggs. Supermarkets control which brands are available, and especially in Hong Kong where cartels rule supreme, choice very often comes a poor second best to profit maximisation.

    If we really had a free market system then I am willing to believe that consumer preferences would be accurately reflected in what was available, but we’re a long way from that!

  • I want one

    I bought Tuesday’s SCMP not realizing that Jake van der Kamp is away again (possibly ashamed after Monday’s rather poor effort).

    The Technology section is now down to 6 pages, presumably because they can’t sell any advertising. It is filled out with syndicated stuff, including a column from Dan Gillmoor (the guy who attended the Hong Kong blogmeet that I unfortunately missed) about how easy it is to change your mobile phone service provider in Hong Kong mobile. I can’t link to the SCMP and the column isn’t there, but you can find the same content here or via Dan’s blog.

    However, hidden inside the paper is a small magazine called “digitalaudiovideo” which does have some advertising. It’s about electronic gadgetry such as DVD recorders, plasma and LCD screens, MP3 players etc.

    Anyway, it includes fairly detailed reviews of two DVD recorders. They have taken a surprisingly long time to come to Hong Kong, but there are a few available now. The shocking thing is that they are so expensive here compared to the States. I want one, but I refuse to pay the ridiculous prices that are being charged by Fortress, Broadway, etc.

    The reviews in DAV are of the Sony RDR-GX7, which seems to be a good quality machine; and the Panasonic DMR-E100H which also has a 120gb hard disk drive, meaning that you can record stuff to the hard drive and then put it on to a DVD if you want to keep it. Last time I looked, Fortress etc. were charging about HK$9,000 for another Panasonic model with an 80gb drive which is available in the States for less than US$600. Given that we have no sales tax in Hong Kong, where do they get these prices from?

    The other item I have seen in Fortress is a Samsung DVD HDD Recorder. At first I thought it was a DVD recorder, but actually it’s a DVD player with a hard drive, so you can record programs and watch them, but the only option for keeping a copy would be to attach it to a VHS recorder! Even this is about HK$5,000.

    I suppose the excuse they will have is that they have to adapt this equipment for the Hong Kong market (voltage, dual NTSC and PAL, multi-region) but that can’t be too difficult, surely? Presumably before long a Chinese manufacturer will have a cheaper machine available in Hong Kong, and personally I’m quite willing to wait.

  • Cold Front

    This is the time of year when opinions about the weather vary somewhat depending on whether you are a local or a foreigner. For many of us (as Shaky noted) this is good weather, pleasant during the day but perhaps a bit cool at night. However, locals are dressing up in scarves and winter coats because it’s so cold. People actually tell me I must be very strong to go out wearing a shirt but no jacket!

    Later in the year we can look forward to the cold weather warnings from the Observatory:

    • Members of the public are advised to put on warm clothes and beware of low
      body temperature due to the cold weather.
    • If you must go out, avoid prolonged exposure to wintry winds.
    • If you know of elderly or persons with chronic medical conditions staying
      alone, call or visit them occasionally to check if they need any assistance.
    • Make sure heaters are safe before use, and place them away from any combustibles.

  • Way too much information

    There are many different types of blog, even in Hong Kong.

    The first one I read was Hemlock’s diary, which is unusual (but not unique) in that it is both anonymous and partially fictional. The way it is written leaves the reader deliberately unsure how much of any particular story might be true, and one assumes that the more outrageous tales are not (quite) true.

    At the other extreme, we have blogs such as See Lai and UK Joe where the authors tell us clearly who they are, with photographs and any other details we may desire. Naturally. these people exercise a certain amount of caution in writing about their personal lives.

    Then we have the people like Phil (Flying Chair) and Simon – and myself – who don’t put their full names on their sites, but are somewhat circumspect in what they write about themselves, friends and families.

    However, some of the most high profiles bloggers in Hong Kong are very careful to hide their real identities and then write very frankly about their lives, safe (??) in the knowledge that they can remain anonymous. Of course, we have no way of verifying that what we read is true (or complete), but the assumption is that having chosen to "confess" in this way, they don’t hold anything back. The problem is that posting information on the Internet is about as public as you can get, and I sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable reading this stuff (especially after a while, when you feel that you have got to know the person who is writing it).

    In the last few days, both Shaky and Conrad (Gweilo Diaries) have written things that made me wonder. Both, of course, involve women. Shaky has been recounting his ‘courtship’ of a young lady and we have Conrad being very indignant that an ex-girlfriend is asking for his help because she is pregnant.

    I certainly don’t wish to pass judgement on either of these matters. They don’t concern me personally, and I wouldn’t be offering unsolicited advice or passing judgement (even if I knew all the facts, which I don’t). My only point is that these people have chosen to write about these matters on a blog where comments are solicited, and needless to say some people have jumped in and had their say.

    It takes all sorts to make a world, or something like that, but I think I’ll stick to writing about transport policy, politics, the weather, intelligent crows and so forth.
    [all links deleted – only Hemlock’s site is still available]

  • Watch out

    According to this report, it seems we may need to start worrying about crows coming into our homes looking for food. According to the report:

    Crows are dangerous because they are not only highly intelligent, but aggressive as well.

    Are they saying that stupid birds would not be so dangerous? Surely a highly-intelligent bird would be able to figure out that staying away from humans would be the safer option. Or do they fly in and change the channel to Discovery or National Geographic so that they can watch nature programs and figure out where they have gone wrong?

  • If

    No time for anything else today due to work (boo) and still not being 100%, but I found another marvellously over-the-top letter in today’s South China Morning Post and I can’t resist:

    Taiwan freedom

    I note readers and columnists demanding greater freedoms and more democracy in Hong Kong while staying curiously silent on the same freedoms in Taiwan.

    Once again, the mainland is rattling its sabre towards tiny Taiwan in the hope of dissuading its voters from exercising their hard-won freedom to choose their leaders. China views the island as a breakaway region, and would love to reunite it, by force if necessary – but what has democratic Taiwan done to deserve this?

    If the mainland invaded, it would triumph after a brief and bloody battle. A conquering army not welcomed by locals, the PLA would show no mercy, going on a rampage of murder and looting. What would be left of Taiwan? Families torn apart, democratic institutions dismantled, leaders imprisoned, executed or forcibly co-opted and orphanages filled with rape-babies. All because Taiwan dares to dream of freedom.

    Why not leave them alone? Is the smell of freedom so close to the mainland too much for the Communist Party to bear? So I ask in this time of threats and bullying, what can China actually give Taiwan?

    CRAIG CURRIE-ROBSON, Tuen Mun

    If the mainland invades. But they’re not going to, are they?

  • Democracy – how it works

    Phil has already had a go at this, but that’s not going to stop me.

    Yesterday, Peter Wong Man-kwong (a local deputy to the National People’s Congress) did his best to defend the appointment of district councillors, a practice that was re-introduced by Tung Chee-Hwa after Chris Patten had abandoned it. He said:

    “Maybe, the 55 per cent of voters opted not to vote in the election because there were no candidates they desired. It doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t care about the society. If this group of a ‘silent majority’ chose to give up their rights or some of them who couldn’t vote because of physical disability, the government [should] represent them automatically.”

    Unsurprisingly, this upset a lot of people. It’s a bizarre argument, all the more so because the government itself wasn’t democratically elected. The assumption, of course, is that government would mainly appoint councillors from the DAB who were defeated in the election, which would run counter to all known forms of democracy.

    However, in truth it doesn’t really matter whether Tung Chee-Hwa appoints 100, 400 or 1,000 district councillors – it won’t make any difference. The district councils still don’t have much power to do anything, and conversely even if the Democratic Party and its allies had won every single seat they wouldn’t have been able to cause much trouble to Mr Tung.

    That’s one reason why less than half the electorate bothered to turn out and vote. In fact, many of those who did vote probably knew little about their local candidates or the issues on which they were fighting. Like local elections all over the world, they were turned into a vote of confidence on the government’s performance. That verdict is in, and appointing more councillors won’t alter it one iota.

    If district councils have any value, it is as a forum where local people can have their say about the issues that affect them. However, once the elections become a matter of deciding between being “patriotic” and supporting more democracy (or more crudely whether you are for or against Tung Chee-Hwa) then the local issues get forgotten. So, although most of what Wong said was nonsense, he’s probably right that “some of the defeated candidates have served in their districts for a long time and have done a lot for the community”. It’s tough, but that how democracy works. Good guys sometimes lose.

  • Not proven

    One of the few good reasons to buy the South China Morning Post these days is to read Jake van der Kamp’s “Monitor” column. I’ve only met him once, but he struck me as a nice guy and he takes a refreshingly independent view on most issues, normally backed up with facts and figures.

    I was hoping that today he was going to de-bunk the government’s theory that tourists from the PRC are what are boosting Hong Kong’s economy, but instead he is discussing the US imposition of tarrifs on TV sets from China. Under the somewhat misleading headline Perspective gives clearer view on TV row, Jake van der Kamp tries to get a clearer picture of what is happening.

    Unfortunately for him, there aren’t enough facts and figures to form a clear judgement. The figures seem to show that China has significantly increased its exports of TVs, but is still a long way behind Japan, and that their prices have dropped significantly (by about 20% in the last 18 months).

    He says that local government in China has a significant shareholding in TV manufacturers (on what basis, I am not sure), and that it is therefore “just possible” that these companies may be less interested in their P&L and simply want to earn US dollars.

    Well, maybe, but that hardly amounts to proof that China is “dumping” TV sets at below cost price.

    The point I would expect Jake to make is that the whole idea of tarrifs and quotas is inconsistent with US policies on free trade, and probably unhelpful to their economy. How can it possibly be beneficial to the US to stop other countries exporting cheap televisions? It’s not a strategically important sector and there is no leading-edge technology involved. This is protectionism, pure and simple. Instead his conclusion is that we should “wait a little before proclaiming that the US case is utterly without justice”. Blimey.

  • Don’t believe everything you read

    The Washington Times, owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s controversial Unification Church, has this insight on recent developments in Hong Kong.

    Highlights of their incisive analysis include:

    Hong Kongers simply are not happy being part of the PRC.

    Hong Kong’s free market made it rich. It is questionable whether it can continue to prosper if businesses are punished for supporting greater democracy. While celebrating Sunday’s election results, it is wise to remember that the regime has not hesitated to send tanks to quell democratic demonstrations in Beijing or troops to crush secessionists in Tibet

    Marvellous…

  • Scrutiny

    Phil has some interesting thoughts on the changing role of politicians in Hong Kong. The story is that a cross-party committee of legislators is concerned that the government has appointed a former civil servant as director of audit in spite of his lack of professional qualifications. After 29 years as a civil servant is he likely to be truly independent when he investigates the way the government spends money?

    This follows on from the controversy about Michael Wong’s brief tenure as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Mr Wong decided to terminate Patrick Yu’s employment as Director of Operations before he had even taken up his post, apparently on the basis of an interview he gave to the South China Morning Post. Yu had been recruited by Wong’s predecessor at the EOC, and was highly regarded in Northern Ireland, where he was (and presumably still is) a member of the Human Rights Commission, which was established in March 1999 as part of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement (see below).

    What seems to have caused a problem is not that Patrick Yu demonstrated any lack of ability or competence, but rather that he was a bit too keen to use his position at the EOC to deal with racial discrimination. You might think was exactly what that organization was supposed to do, and why he had been recruited, but Wong’s predecessor, Anna Wu Hong-yuk was unpopular with the government because of her enthusiasm for taking action to enforce the anti-discrimination laws, and her contract was not renewed. Instead a retired judge with no known interest or involvement in the subject (Wong) was brought in as her replacement, apparently with the remit of giving the EOC a lower profile. His insensitive handling of this matter actually had the opposite effect, creating much greater interest in the EOC, and re-igniting the controversy that surrounded the government’s refusal to renew Wu’s contract!

    The point here is that legislators, pressure groups, and the media are proving very effective at scruitinizing the actions of Tung Chee-Hwa’s government. Michael Wong was most indignant at the way that the newspapers pursued this issue so vigorously, but anyone in public life in North America or Europe would regard this as quite normal. Hong Kong most definitely has a free press, and the popularity of Apple Daily and Next magazine demonstrate that taking an independent line and criticising the Hong Kong and PRC governments doesn’t have to be bad for business. Sadly, the SCMP is not so bold.