Ordinary Gweilo

Sunday (July 1st) is the 10th anniversary of the "handover".  Much is being made of this even though 10 years is a totally arbitrary period of time.  Well, it fills up newspapers, I suppose.

Back in 1997 it seemed that everyone I met in the UK wanted to know what had changed in Hong Kong on 1 July.  The honest (but dull) answer was that Brits had lost their special privileges and would need a working visa, but pretty much everything else was the same as before.    

I suppose this anniversary will prompt a few people to ask the same question, and the answer is equally dull.  I could probably find dozens of articles that say much the same thing as this one (HK after the handover) in The Times: 

The guns still fire at noon across Causeway Bay, Queen Victoria continues to gaze down sternly from her plinth on Statue Square, the street signs remain in English and Chinese, and you can still order a mean Martini at the Mandarin Oriental bar …

Tourist officials, tour operators and expats living in Hong Kong say that little has changed in the day-to-day life of residents and those visiting the former British colony since the handover from Britain to China a decade ago.

When pushed on any significant changes, Richard Hume, director of the Hong Kong Tourism Board in the UK, simply said: “Well, the post boxes are now green.” Before, he said, they were red.

For a place in which many predicted huge upheaval after the 1997 handover, the transition to Chinese control seems to have gone remarkably smoothly. “Many people thought that things would change for the worse,” Hume said. “In fact, the changeover has made things better.”

The Economist also has a special report on the 10th anniversary of the handover, which also concludes that not much has changed:

THE torrential rain that fell on Britain’s end-of-empire parade on the night of June 30th 1997 conjured up apocalyptic visions of the future of Hong Kong. Prince Charles bequeathed a sodden city to Jiang Zemin, China’s president, and left on board his yacht with Chris (now Lord) Patten, the last British governor. That very night the city’s new masters swore in a new “provisional” legislature appointed to replace one elected under British rule. Television cameramen flocked to the territory’s borders with China to film the arrival of the People’s Liberation Army. It proved to be almost the last chance to see those soldiers in Hong Kong: they disappeared into their barracks. There were no round-ups of degenerates, dissidents or democrats, and no newspaper closures.

It is tempting to argue that Hong Kong has changed China more than the other way round, as this newspaper and others forecast in 1997. Certainly China has changed the more, though Hong Kong’s role in this—compared with, for example, the dynamic momentum of China’s internal reforms, and the country’s accession to the World Trade Organisation—is debatable. Yet as Hong Kong and China celebrate the tenth anniversary of their reunion, their self-congratulation seems justified. An experiment without historic precedent, the transfer of Hong Kong’s sovereignty while keeping its unique way of life, has come off—so far.

What has not changed in the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” SAR of China is more obvious than what has. The city streets still hum to the rhythm of commerce. The skyline remains one of the glories of urban ambition.

Then there was Fortune magazine, which admit that they got it wrong with their predictions in 1995 (The death of Hong Kong), with a mea culpa in the current issue (I can’t find it online).

Of course Hong Kong has changed, but not because of the Handover.  The main factor has been the astonishing growth of China, but that started long before the Handover.  Being a British colony didn’t seem to be much of a handicap for Hong Kong, and being part of China hasn’t brought any significant advantages.  The reality is that it has suited Hong Kong businesses to relocate their factories to China, and it has greatly benefited China to have that expertise available. 

(more…)

This is the rainy season in Hong Kong.

Umbrellas – I hate ’em. Obviously they are very useful when there is heavy rain, but then you have to carry them around and try to avoid losing them. If you are caught without one, there’s always that awful decision whether to buy the world’s most over-priced umbrella (and worse, to become a walking advertisement for 7-11).  Then, to get full value out of their rash purchase, people insist on using it when (1) they are under cover and (2) it has actually stopped raining.  Well, you never can be too careful, I suppose. 

Slippery flooring – what’s that all about? Whenever they "upgrade" a shopping centre or office building they seem to think that a shiny marble floor is just the job. Then when it rains, people walk in (with their wet shoes, wet clothes and that expensive umbrella they just bought in 7-11), and now we have our very own ice skating rink. With predictably hilarious results.

Thunderstorm warnings. Enough said (but there’s more here).

Not that it’s all bad.

After a good storm, the skies are clear and we can briefly forget that we are in such a polluted city. It is traditional to celebrate this by taking photographs of the Hong Kong skyline and remarking upon how exciting it is to be able to see the Cultural Centre from the Peak.  Or is it the other way round?

On those rare ocasions when the Observatory have resisted the temptation to issue a Thunderstorm Warning, I rather enjoy swimming in the rain. Especially as the pool is usually empty.

Not only that, but the water is cooler after a storm so you don’t feel like you’re having a bath when you go swimming.

Interesting idea of the week (from the In Brief section of today’s Sunday Morning Post):

Dog-friendly eateries wanted

Hong Kong cannot claim to be an international city until dogs are allowed to join their owners at the restaurant table, Pets Central Asia said. The organisation began a campaign after being refused a licence for a dog-friendly restaurant. Chairman Peter de Krassel said Hongkongers could take birds, cats and other animals into restaurants but not dogs.

This important story was also covered in the SCMP on Friday (subscription required):

Who says there’s no discrimination in Hong Kong? Not Peter de Krassel. The chairman of Pets Central (Asia) thinks the government is treating dogs like second-class animal citizens.

The group runs a clinic in North Point’s Provident Centre, the first pet-friendly mall in the city, and since October they have also opened in the adjoining space a Pet Cafe serving light nibbles for people and animals.

The group applied to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department for a proper cafe licence but their application was formally rejected last month.

The department’s objection was that pets at the adjoining clinic might carry infectious diseases, fleas, parasites, etc. However, when de Krassel and managing director Pauline Taylor looked closer at the rules, they discovered the rejection came only as a result of anti-canine bias.

“Under the regulations, the only animal that is not allowed in an area where food is served is dogs,” de Krassel said. “In other words, every other animal would be okay. We can have birds there, civet cats and all other animals that can bring Sars, but dogs, the safest animals, are arbitrarily rejected.

“Since we’ve opened the cafe, we have not had one complaint from the landlord, tenants or anyone.”

It is doggie discrimination, doggone it! So the clinic and cafe have started a petition and are planning a press conference tomorrow to inform the media of their plight. Good luck.

Words fail me…

One of the more pleasant surprises for a newcomer to Hong Kong is the generous selection of public holidays scattered through the year, on what appear to a Westerner to be somewhat random dates.

Today is Tuen Ng, on which it is traditional to eat glutinous rice and take part in (or more likely watch) Dragon Boat racing.  Like the other traditional Chinese festivals, the date is fixed according to the Chinese calendar (normally it falls some time in June, but last year it was at the end of May).

In the UK, there are just three (count ’em) standalone public holidays – two in May, and one at the end of August.  They are all on Mondays, which creates the phenomenon of the Bank Holiday Weekend (expect heavy rain and/or long traffic jams).  Not something we have in Hong Kong, where public holidays can fall on any day except Sunday (Saturday is still officially a working day, though the government has recently moved to a 5-day working week).  

I say that, but rather splendidly Hong Kong did used to have one ‘Bank Holiday Weekend’ – with a Saturday and Monday both designated as public holidays.  It was to celebrate the Queen’s birthday and it was in the middle of August, as I recall.

Not any more, of course.

According to the SCMP on Sunday (subscription required), KMB have delayed the withdrawal of non-aircon buses, originally scheduled for this year. 

On a hot morning at the Tsim Sha Tsui bus terminus this week, the driver and passengers on the No5 bus were sweating profusely as the temperature reached 32 degrees Celsius – three degrees higher than outside.

Other buses in the queue were much cooler, because they had air conditioning, but this No5 bus was one of KMB’s 260 non-air-conditioned buses, which were all supposed to be replaced this year.

[..] 

KMB began introducing air-conditioned buses in 1995 and pledged to phase out the old buses from its fleet of 4,021 buses by the end of this year. Yet the company has since postponed the full-replacement for three years, claiming some residents are reluctant to pay the higher fare for the new buses. The 260 old buses have raised concerns about air pollution and fare rises.

Polytechnic University vehicle emission expert Lo Kok-keung said the “hot dog” buses were more polluting than the new buses. Vehicle emission is the main cause of air pollution at street level in Hong Kong.

“All the non-air-conditioned buses are pre-Euro [emission standard] models and manufactured before 1992, [so] the emission is roughly 20 per cent more than the new buses.” Mr Lo said. “Besides, they [the `hot dogs’] are less energy efficient because of the old design.”

Explaining the delay in the fleet’s full replacement, a KMB spokesman said: “We have faced opposition from some district councillors, saying the elderly in some areas find it difficult to accept the fare adjustment. Thus we postponed the progress and expect all buses will be air conditioned in 2010.”

Another concern was cost effectiveness.

Frankly, I doubt that the difference in fares really reflects the cost of providing air conditioning, and if you bear in mind that newer buses should be more fuel efficient (and therefore cheaper to run) the fares are probably something of an anomaly.

It’s a few years since I travelled on a bus without aircon – but there was a time when I used one service occasionally because it took me from door-to-door without any need to change.  

Even in summer, it was just about OK on the top deck as long as the bus kept moving, but buses do have this unfortunate habit of stopping quite frequently (at bus stops, at traffic lights and pretty much everywhere else).  Then, of course, you have to close the windows when going through a tunnel.  All round, not a particularly pleasant experience in hot weather, and we do have a lot of that in Hong Kong.

Is it true that KMB only started introducing aircon buses in 1995?  Surely that can’t be right… 

There is a curious story in the SCMP (subscription required) saying that the government will not allow Green Minibuses to add more seats:

The government refused yesterday to consider allowing green-top minibuses to install more seats in an effort to cut peak-hour congestion, despite claims that the idea had wide support in the community.  The Transport Department said it had no plans for a strategic review of public light bus services as it did not foresee growth in demand because of robust railway development.

But Leung Kong-yui, associate head of the Centre for Logistics and Transport at Hong Kong University SPACE, who made the proposal, said the department was not responsive to calls from the community.

The buses now have 16 seats but have space for 24. If a change were made, it would be the first since the number was increased 20 years ago from 14 to 16.

I am fascinated to know where they were planning to put these extra 8 seats.