Thursday, 8 January 2015
Tuesday, 23 December 2014
Monday, 22 December 2014
Friday, 19 December 2014
Monday, 15 December 2014
Friday, 12 December 2014
getting into the newspapers at every opportunity and making money without having any talent whatsoever?
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
Monday, 8 December 2014
Friday, 5 December 2014
Thursday, 4 December 2014
Wednesday, 3 December 2014
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Saturday, 29 November 2014
In the passage that follows, excerpted from CS Lewis's Spectator article “After priggery, what?”, Cleon (the first prominent representative of the commercial class in Athenian politics – derided by Thucydides and Aristophanes as a warmonger and demagogue when he became leader of the Athenian democracy following the death of Pericles) stands for the archetype of the dishonest, money-grubbing ‘hack’ journalist.
“We have lost the invaluable faculty of being shocked - a faculty which has hitherto almost distinguished the man or woman from the beast or the child…The result is that things are a good deal too easy for Cleon. Even when the rewards of dishonesty are strictly alternative to those of honesty some men will choose them. But Cleon finds he can have both. He can enjoy all the sense of secret power and all the sweets of a perpetually gratified inferiority complex while at the same time having the entrée to honest society. From such conditions what can we expect but an increasing number of Cleons? And that must be our ruin. If we remain a democracy they render impossible the formation of any healthy public opinion. If the totalitarian threat is realised, they will be the cruellest and dirtiest tools of government.”
Worth a demo on its own, perhaps...
Tuesday, 25 November 2014
* okay, the one that looks like an otter will do too
Monday, 24 November 2014
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
Journalists were quick to make capital of the incident, organising a march for the Sunday following, which ended up in front of government headquarters, where they unfurled a huge banner with the bizarre message “You Can’t Kill Us All”. Bizarre, given that “You” had killed no one, certainly not Kevin, who was recovering nicely in hospital.
It was especially bizarre because it is difficult to imagine why anyone would wish to kill the average Hong Kong journalist. For getting the details wrong in most stories they cover, I hear “You” say. “You” might have a point there, but, with so much decent journalism available online, do people actually read their stuff and would they go to all the bother that killing someone involves?
Kevin’s carefully crafted statement proves to be of a different water entirely, taking a leaf out of the Renaissance “Guide to Aspiring Authors” by combining profit with pleasure (where ‘profit’ must be understood in its sense of bringing benefit to the reader with regard to offering him enlightenment).
As we have already mentioned, the very first “statement” that the statement makes is contained not in the text but in the letter-heading, which shows that Kevin is keen that what follows in the body of the statement should not only be lent added gravitas but should also be seen as coming with the approval, if not the endorsement, of the entire journalistic industry – oops, “profession”.
Next for the statement itself (which was of course unsolicited, being quite separate from anything he was asked to provide in order to help the police with their enquiries). Here it is in full:
“I am grateful for the police’s efforts over the past few days in apprehending the culprits and protecting my family members. I hope the police can hunt down the mastermind and ascertain the motive for this brutal attack justly and impartially as soon as possible.
Before the truth is revealed, it is bewildering for the Commissioner of Police to have said that there had been no direct evidence to suggest that the assault was related to any journalistic work. I hope the police can come up with a swift clarification.
I have already signed and verified my testimony to the police, in which I stated that my family members and I are not involved in any financial, extra-marital or other personal disputes. I am, therefore, positive that the assault is related to my job in the newspaper.
I am encouraged by the progress in the investigation and hope that the police can make an early arrest of the mastermind behind this crime.”
The first thing to note is the repeated reference to a “mastermind”, a word which is regularly trotted out when people with connections to the media are targeted by unknown figures in attacks that are fated to remain unsolved. (One thinks of Albert Cheng King Hon and Leung Tin Wai in the 1990s, and more recently the attacks on the property of Jimmy Lai Chee Ying, publisher of Apple Daily.)
In the case under consideration, the point is not so much that anyone denies that a mastermind exists (no one is seriously suggesting that the assailant and his accomplice – two “plumbers”, who double as Triad members – did it), but rather that we don’t know what kind of motivation said shadowy figure in the background had for ordering the attack.
But I have got ahead of myself, because before we get to the first mention of “mastermind” we have Kevin extending his gratitude to the police for “protecting [his] family members”. What, you may ask, is the significance of this? Is it not merely the expression of a courtesy to Asia’s finest? Should we not be applauding Kevin for being able, at a time of such personal difficulty, to step back and consider things from someone else’s point of view?
Well, call me an old cynic, but I’m not so sure. You see, if Kevin was attacked because, say, just for the sake of argument, he had been conducting that extra-marital affair he talks about, then, to be quite honest, his wife and children (not to mention, granny, nan, granddad, pops, his brothers and sisters, and the whole extended family who get together to celebrate all those festivals we have) wouldn’t have been in much need of protection.
Now, the rest of the statement up to the point where he signs off with the somewhat forlorn (and possibly disingenuous – see below) hope that the police will soon nab the “mastermind” is devoted to a lengthy attempt to persuade one and all that the reason for the attack was the nature of his job duties at Ming Pao. (Kevin doesn’t say this, but I think he means his former duties as chief editor rather than the duties he was undertaking at the time of the attack, since nowhere has it been suggested that someone powerful was pissed off by his work on the Ming Pao Group’s e-Learning platform).
It is in relation to this that we find the most extraordinary sentence in the whole statement. I don’t know if it is because he is beginning to believe all the publicity about himself as saviour of the free Hong Kong press corps or if it reflects a deeper malaise within, but it takes bare-faced cheek to try and tell the local police chief how to do his job. Especially, when it is anything but “bewildering” that the police should follow tried and trusted procedures by considering every possible motive for the attack. The fact that the majority of such attacks in Hong Kong are the result of getting into debt or into bed with the wrong person more than justifies the police in keeping all their options open. One can just imagine the fuss that an organ like Ming Pao would make if they were to learn that the police were ruling out a particular motive for committing a crime in any other case.
As for the conclusion of Kevin’s apologia, is it just that cynic in me or when Kevin says that he hopes the police will “make an early arrest of the mastermind”, does he in fact mean quite the opposite? And, on a final note, is there, I wonder, any significance in the choice of tense when Kevin writes that he told the police after the attack that "my family members and I are not involved in any financial, extra-marital or other personal disputes".
Monday, 17 November 2014
Back in February, Hong Kong was rocked by what journalists in Hong Kong reported as an attack on freedom of the press in the shape of an attack on one of the most distinguished and respected of their own, Kevin Lau Chun To (劉進圖).
Kevin was at the time looking after the Ming Pao Group’s e-Learning platform, a far cry from the heady days he enjoyed helming Hong Kong’s answer to The Washington Post, Ming Pao (明報), as editor-in-chief.
The attack on Kevin was made – allegedly – by two Hong Kong “plumbers” (eerie parallels with Washington once more) by the name of Yip Kin Wah and Wong Chi Wah. Now, if the two Ah Wahs carried out the attack (and we don’t yet know since the pre-trial preliminaries have been stretched out with at least three court appearances having been made to discuss this and that but no trial at the High Court having yet taken place), you would have to say they are the Hong Kong equivalent of “Dumb and Dumber”.
First, they managed to get themselves caught on closed circuit television when carrying out the deed, and then, after they had scarpered across the boundary to the Mainland, they took their mobile phones with them so that the boys in blue could ring up for a friendly chat and ask their country cousins to arrest them.
In the meantime, Hong Kong was almost drowning itself in its outpourings about press freedom, even though anyone with half a brain (even the Ah Wahs, perhaps) know that, as George Orwell pointed out three quarters of a century ago (in a “true democracy”, to boot), “All the papers that matter live off their advertisements, and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over news.”
Even that mother and father of has-beens, Mike Rowse, was driven out of the woodwork by the flood of tears mixed with cigarettes and expense claims cascading down Ice House Street, clambering onto the raft-cum-soapbox that is the “Opinion” page in the South China Morning Post to intone that “Someone very powerful and wealthy – and evil – has been angered by something Lau has done.”
While this may be considered an example of what my old English teacher used to mark in the margin as "CGO” (“crashing glimpse of the obvious”), Mike shows that the old magic is still there more than a decade after “Harbourfest” by leaping to the stunning conclusion that there is no “ambiguity in Lau’s case”, which is a clear “attack on freedom of the press”.
Which makes it all the more interesting that a source close to the family has suggested that this case may have a lot more to do with an angry husband than a pro-Beijing politician or dodgy local businessman whose nose has been put out of joint.
One wonders whether Ming Pao will duly cough up its reward of HK$3 million for bringing the assailants to justice if our Kev is found to have fallen foul of the age-old eternal triangle. Those Frenchies knew a thing or two when they demanded that the investigation of every case of violence against the individual should start with a cry of “Cherchez la femme!”
One awaits judicial developments with great interest.