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

  • BBC Entertainment

    As of yesterday, BBC Prime on Now Broadband TV became BBC Entertainment. However, as I expected, it appears that this is mainly a re-branding exercise, with a few minor changes to the schedule – though it’s hard to tell because although there is a bbcentertainment.com website, it redirects to bbcprime.com and if you select Hong Kong nothing happens.

    One of the "new" programs is Footballers’ Wives, which I’ve never seen, but it is apparently so trashy that it’s quite funny. The odd thing is that it was made for ITV in the UK (but it’s also on BBC America so I suppose they must have the international rights). Two things – firstly, it’s not really "new", it’s nearly 5 years old (and has recently been cancelled), and secondly I’m not sure I see the point if it is subject to the same heavy-handed censorship they had on BBC Prime.

    The other problem I have with Now Broadband TV is that you can’t set a timer to record programmes (as you can with Cable TV). They did announce back in January that they were going to provide a ‘Video On Demand’ service, and it got mentioned in Business Week (This Is The Face Of Broadband TV) but it doesn’t seem to have got beyond the trial, which only includes 4 Chinese language channels. Anyway, the DVD for the first two series of Footballers Wives is only £15.00 from Amazon, so why bother trying to record it? 

    One thing that is clear is that I have missed my chance to watch Eastenders. BBC Prime introduced it in January and now it is gone without me watching even a single episode.

  • Out with the old

    A brief update on Hong Kong blogs.

    Someone presumed to be a Kiwi has started a new blog at HK Ham, but has not yet been added to the list of HK blogs because of a bug in Typepad. Grrrr…

    DGNYHK has left Hong Kong, but I have been unable to add Tribe DGNY to Asian blogs because of the bug in Typepad. Which they know about, by the way.

    Spirit Fingers seems to be closing down, but the same sense of humour can be found at If it’s on teh interweb it must be true. I’ll update the right-hand bar when Typepad can fix the bug. How hard can that be?

    I have dropped Human Dynasty because it hasn’t been updated for a couple of months (the bug doesn’t stop me removing things), but I did manage to restore ranhasa before the bug appeared.  Yes, Ran was there once before, but I removed him because his blog was just too darn weird.  Either he’s got less weird or I have got used to him. 

    Did I mention that there’s a bug in Typepad?

  • Odd one out

    On Monday, the SCMP printed one of Simon Patkin’s (always entertaining) letters.  Today they have printed two replies:

    Evidence of warming

    Simon Patkin’s accusations of "Shrill alarmism" (October 2) reflect an increasingly aggressive right-wing view in the US that anyone who disagrees with the party line is either biased, un-American or both.

    His selective evidence is telling. Would he perhaps consider the following – to use his term – "biased" evidence?

  • On September 20, European scientists released a photograph dated August 2003 which shows the normally ice-bound North Pole-32 meteorological research station sitting beside open water;
  • Satellite images last month showed dramatic openings – over an area larger than the British Isles – had appeared in the Arctic’s perennial sea ice during late-summer storms.
  • Scientists say it is "highly imaginable" that a ship could soon sail unhindered to the North Pole; and
  • The journal Science recently reported year-round Arctic sea ice shrank by one-seventh between 2004 and last year.

    Mr Patkin writes that US Senator James Inhofe blames left-wing media for biased reporting. This is the same senator who called the US Environmental Protection Agency a "Gestapo bureaucracy". This is the same senator who is involved in a lawsuit to suppress a scientific report on the possible effects of climate change in the US.

    This is also the same senator who has received more oil and gas campaign contributions than any senator except John Cornyn of Texas.

    The recent studies Mr Patkin refers to were partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

    Mr Patkin seems to espouse the view of the American right that environmental activism is simply another movement targeting US infrastructure and unity.

    American self-interest has never been more aggressively pursued than in recent years.

    Biased? Alarmist? Who is the pot and who is the kettle here?

    DAVE DEARMAN, Tuen Mun

    • I think I have agree with Mr Dearman’s analysis.  Simon Patkin’s view of the world seems to be that one is either for or against capitalism, and that environmentalists are all left-wing anti-capitalists.  Of course it’s no problem to find individuals and groups who do take that extreme position, and it suits Simon to pretend that this discredits all those who express concern about the environment.

    However, the reality is that concerns about global warming can now be heard from those on the right of the political spectrum (The Economist and the British Conservative Party come immediately to mind) who had previously been deeply sceptical.  In addition, many large corporations (including several energy companies) are starting to get worried, and even to take action – though Simon apparently regards them as traitors to the cause.

    There probably was a time when Simon could have got away with dismissing environmentalists as irrelevant left-wing extremists, but the debate has moved on and now it is the climate-change-deniers who seem out of touch. 

    (more…)

  • What’s the story?

    Both the English language newspapers had stories about Oasis over the weekend.  The Standard reported that Oasis does not yet have an operating licence, and could be forced to cancel flights if it doesn’t receive it soon (Budget carrier in race to win flights license):

    Oasis entered the limelight earlier this month when it began selling its "hot deal" – a one-way trip from Hong Kong to London for HK$1,000 – to celebrate its inaugural flight on October 25. Tickets sold like hotcakes, averaging 1,100 a day, with more than 10,000 sold in the first two weeks – or more than half of total inventory, according to a company spokesman.

    What on earth does "more than half of total inventory" mean?  Could the journalist translate this into plain English for us?

    But here’s the catch: the airline, which applied for a license in Hong Kong over a year ago, cannot fly until it receives government approval.

    The consequences of failing may be fatal for Oasis. The airline, which began selling tickets on September 4, has already sold them for flights as far ahead as March 26, 2007. Beginning November, according to the company, flight frequency will increase from four times a week to daily from both Hong Kong and London.  The high-stakes bet by Oasis has alarmed the Civil Aviation Department, which said it has "repeatedly" reminded the airline to warn its customers of the situation and have refunds ready.

    As the approval process for an operating license is "long and complicated," there is no guarantee Oasis will receive approval before its October 25 deadline, a department spokesman said Friday.  He added that licensing depends on many factors, including aircraft condition, maintenance arrangements and suitable manpower. "There’s no usual timeframe for completing the process. Taking several years is not unusual," the spokesman said.  To date, the Hong Kong government has only granted an air operator’s license to nine airlines, including Cathay Pacific, Dragonair and Air Hong Kong.

    But an Oasis spokesman Friday said the airline is confident it will receive approval by mid-October – just days before its first departure. He added the airline is already scheduled to perform a test flight of its aircraft for government officials, representing one of the last stages of the licensing process.

    The SCMP put its ace investigative reporter on the story, and he seems to have discovered that travel agents would prefer to sell more expensive tickets from established airlines (Agents advise against using two-plane Oasis):

    Though Oasis offers one-way flights to London for as little as HK$1,000 plus taxes, landing charges and fuel surcharge, agents from Travel Expert and business service Travelux recommend customers fly with other airlines whose fares are four times as expensive.

    Most Oasis tickets are booked online or through a company call centre, bypassing agents [my emphasis].

    One agent at Travelux said there was a high chance of delays and cancellations because the airline was using two Boeing 747-400 aircraft bought from Singapore Airlines, which entered service in 1989.  "If one of the planes suffers mechanical problems, it will completely throw out their schedule," the agent said. "The airline has not got its licence yet to fly from Hong Kong either, so there is a risk all you will get is a refund."

    An agent from Travel Expert advised a "better option" would be to fly with an established airline if it was affordable. "There is no history for the airline yet, so you might be better to wait and see how good they are first," the agent said.

    I don’t really understand why Oasis is selling tickets through travel agents, but I think I may understand why agents might be all that bothered about selling them.  I also wonder whether anyone might have an interest in getting negative stories about Oasis in the local press.

  • Shrill voices

    The SCMP is often an even greater disappointment than usual on a public holiday, but today I feel I got full value for my HK$7.

    Firstly, there is that old standby the Patkin letter.  This one (Shrill alarmism – subscription required) is up to Simon’s normal high standards:

    Your paper’s desire to cause an outcry over global warming ("Global effort needed against warming", September 27) is just shrill alarmism. So are the efforts to scare us into action from Michael Chugani ("Feeling the heat yet, Donald?", September 28) and Frances Yeung of Greenpeace ("Wake up, Hong Kong,
    global warming is our problem too", September 30).

    Earlier this year, 60 scientists wrote to the Canadian prime minister saying that the Kyoto Protocol was wrong. For the record, none was called Ginger Spice or starred in M*A*S*H, as some environmentalists will surely  claim.

    In a speech last week, US senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, cited recent studies showing the polar ice caps are actually expanding – making complete nonsense of Chugani’s claims of polar ice shrinkage. Senator Inhofe also noted that the left-wing media’s coverage of global warming is biased. I wonder, did the Post cover his speech? 

    Did the SCMP cover his speech?  Why would they, I wonder?  "Republican senator accuses left-wing media of being biased" is hardly sensational news.  Especially not given that Inhofe is a staunch conservative who has "received almost $300,000 in campaign donations from oil and gas interests and nearly $180,000 from electric utilities since 1999" (according to American Prospect).

    The only shrill voices I can hear are from the like of Mr Patkin and Senator Inhofe.  When the SCMP, The Economist and New Scientist start sounding the alarm about global warming I don’t think we are talking about the left-wing media – but maybe from Simon’s perspective these are all dangerously liberal publications.

    That wasn’t all I got for my HK$7, oh no. The SCMP also published an opinion piece (that doesn’t seem to be on the website) by James Tien that stuck the boot into the government’s ill-considered proposal for GST and a bone-headed editorial (Coup leaders show little regard for the common good) written by someone who can’t get over the fact that the new Thai Prime Minister is a retired general.

  • Round-up

    Hongkong Disneyland are now offering an annual pass (Disney passes aim to lure visitors) with prices that vary according to when you want to go there.  My advice (for what it’s worth) – don’t go there on a very hot day (because there’s not enough shade) or when it’s very busy (the queues are too long, and very few attractions currently have ‘Fast Pass’ available) and definitely don’t go next week or over Chinese New Year (for obvious reasons).  Apart from that it’s a great place to go.  Well, maybe.

    Bangkok now has a new airport (New Thai airport opens to acclaim) which follows the trend for being big and modern but also much further from the city centre, and (in the fine tradition of Kuala Lumpur & Shanghai) they will only get round to finishing the public transport links in a year or two.  Maybe they were anticipating further delays – it seems that many airlines must have been, because several haven’t got their lounges open yet.

    You have to feel a little sympathy for Thaksin Shinawatra – this was one of his pet projects, and if only it had opened a few weeks earlier he would undoubtedly have been there, “bigging it up”.  As it is, he is in London with only his vast personal fortune to console him.  Meanwhile, the BBC reports that the US imposes sanctions on Thailand – because, I suppose, a pointless gesture is required. 

  • The wrong kind of fat

    Last year I seem to recall I was rather dismissive of a food label that said “0g Trans Fat” – on the grounds that the product still had a high fat content.  However, perhaps that was a little unfair – it is widely accepted that there are good fats and bad fats, and Trans Fats are the worst of the lot (The Guardian has more on this).

    This is yet another case of the food industry finding something cheap that has benefits for them (it makes their products last longer and look and keep better) but which has no nutritional value and is actually very bad for whoever eats the stuff (see this in the New Scientist). 

    Unsurprisingly, junk food often has a lot of Trans Fat in it – McDonald’s settled a class-action suit last year and KFC are currently being sued in the US – but it can appear almost anywhere.  Food manufacturers know a good thing when they see it – good for them, bad for us, that is.   

    Since the start of this year, it has been mandatory in the US to itemise Trans Fats, and I guess the UK will follow suit – big supermarkets have pledged to remove all Trans Fat from their own-label products, and several large manufacturers have also announced that they will at least reduce the amount in their products (and I’m sure that they will be keen to tell us about it).

    It’s highly unlikely that Hong Kong will make it mandatory to identify Trans Fats, so we will have to make do with the usual hotpotch of different labels from different countries.  There are a few clues, though, if you can recognize names such as “vegetable shortening” or “hydrogenated vegetable oil”, or you may be able to compare the total percentage of fat with the breakdown (saturated, poly-unsaturated, mono-unsaturated) to see what is missing (clue – it’s probably Trans Fat). 

    Going back to those Pringles with 0g of Trans Fat, I noticed that there is another similar product which proudly claims that it is “baked, not fried”, but lurking in the ingredients is vegetable shortening.  I think I know what that is…

  • Unwellcome

    Only this morning I was wondering how many ways there are that I hate Hong Kong supermarkets.  This thought was prompted by the discovery that the most of the blueberries I bought a few days now seem to become rotten.  Would it really be so difficult to put “sell by” and “eat by” dates on the packaging?

    Then I went to one of the nearby Wellcome supermarkets and things got worse.  I suppose I should have been alerted to what was going on by the army of old people outside the shop and the woman with 10 bottles of cooking oil in her shopping trolley.  Yes, that’s right, it’s 10% off everything day.  Why do they do this to me?  I probably visit this shop less than once a month, normally to buy a couple of things for my lunch, and I want to be in and out fast.  No chance of that today, just the same as back in May when I previously wrote about it – and once again I only realized this after wasting 5 minutes selecting what I wanted to buy.  

    At least the crazy reductions at Park’n’Shop are fairly harmless, but unfortunately, there isn’t much choice near where I work.  It’s one of oddities of Hong Kong that you often find areas where all the supermarkets seem to be run by one or the other of the big two, and here there are three Wellcomes and no sign of Park’n’Shop.  Where I live it’s the other way round.

    Anyway, do promotions like this really help?  The risk is that you drive customers like me away (probably no great loss) and encourage people with more time to buy in bulk and then wait until then next 10% off day.  I remember about 10 years ago when the department store chain Debenhams used to have maybe 3 or 4 big sales each year, and as a result of this hardly sold anything the rest of the year because customers could easily wait till the next sale came round.  I think the management did eventually realize that this was not a smart strategy.     

    Of course, walking around a busy supermarket is made even more unpleasant because they clog up the aisles with cardboard boxes full of stuff they are promoting.  Again, I really wonder whether this helps them but, hey, maybe they get enough money from the suppliers for displaying their products for it to be worthwhile. 

  • Communication problems

    I’ve just been reading the hilarious argument between George Adams and the rest of the world over at Flagrant Harbour.

    The consensus seems to be that the problem is with the company hosting the website and its connection to Reach, rather than anything in Hong Kong. 

    George refuses to accept this and insists that his site is being blocked.  He obviously doesn’t understand the Internet, and he also thinks that PCCW offers two separate broadband services, one for Now Broadband TV and one for Netvigator.  No, they don’t. 

  • Keeping cool

    I see that after Spike’s complaint, the SCMP published a series of sensible letters on Friday (Denying our role in global warming will cost the Earth – subscription required), including this one which I thought summed it up quite well:

    Correspondents like Richard Straw miss the point. The argument that it has not been conclusively proved that we are responsible for global warming echoes protestations from tobacco companies that there is no conclusive proof cigarettes wreck your health. Whether or not it kills you, smoking is a filthy, antisocial habit.

    The world is bent on pouring millions of tonnes of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, filling the seas, lakes and rivers with filth and devastating natural habitats. Stopping, or at least limiting, these activities is a fitting end in itself – and if it happens to help slow or halt global warming, that is a bonus. In the meantime, apologists like Mr Straw and Hong Kong’s power stations use every flimsy pretext to carry on destroying the world for us and for our children. It is not my cornflakes that I am choking on, Mr Straw, it is Hong Kong’s filthy air.

    TREVOR HUGHES, Pokfulam

    The thing that strikes me about all of this is that there are so many things that could be done without affecting our quality of life or costing very much money (indeed, some would actually save money).  

    For example, if all aircons allowed the speed of the fan to be adjusted it would be possible to provide good ventilation without making the place too cold. 

    Taking this a step further, buildings can be designed to have good ventilation and more comfortable temperatures without excessive use of air conditioning.  The initial cost may be higher, but the savings in energy costs can be significant. 

    Several years ago (in the UK) I worked in a fairly old building that could be uncomfortably hot in the summer (often only on one side).  Then the company installed “comfort cooling”, which seemed to quite effective at moving cooler air from the side of the building that was in the shade across to the other side where the sun was making it hot.  I am not sure how this all works or what is possible, but couldn’t the hot air also be used to warm up the water from the mains supply for showers etc?

    Anyone who has been to the south of France will have noticed that their older buildings have thick walls (and small windows), and hence stay very cool even on the hottest days.  Most Hong Kong building are almost exactly the opposite, with thin walls and large windows, so not only are they hot in summer, they quickly become very cold when we have our few days a year of wintry weather.  Surely it wouldn’t cost that much to build thicker walls?

    Finally, I have just noticed that Simon Patkin has responded to my earlier post on this subject.  He seems upset that I am “sitting on the fence” and taking my usual rather sceptical view of both sides in this argument.  However, I have to say that Simon himself seems not so sure what he is arguing.  The title of an earlier post Global Warming is Not Man-Made, seems clear enough, but then he concludes his later post with this:

    There is no overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is man made as Al Gore claims

    Which is probably a fair point (though the grammar may leave something to be desired).  However, clearly that isn’t the same thing as saying definitively that global warming is not man-made.

    I accept that there are scientists who have quite reasonable doubts about global warming.  What concerns me is that companies such as Exxon (Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial) and assorted nutcases are using this for their own ends.  

    Even if there was overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming was man-made, I don’t think that this would alter Simon’s belief that we should ignore it and just get on with making as much money as possible (or doing whatever else is in our rational self-interest).  Fortunately, many large corportations take a more enlightened view (Business has to do more to tackle climate change).