Hong Kong sex scandals

By Uncle Cheng

When I say that in my thirty years in Hong Kong there has never been such a sensational scandal as this one, I think you will know which one I am referring to.

This super-sized sex scandal (Note: AP Photo) has captivated not only Hong Kong but the entire Chinese diaspora worldwide. Society’s prurient gaze has been entranced by the story of the nude bodies of famous celebrities from the entertainment world.

What is extraordinary is that thanks to the internet the most intimate sexual acts (which incidentally must be occurring many times a second somewhere or other) have been almost forced on the public. It feels as if these photographs have somehow invaded our own homes, so pervasive has the internet become.

Is this a kind of watershed or tuning point in history, where in the twinkling of an eye, just about everyone, at all levels of society from my building’s security guard to the taxi driver I took to Central to the typical housewife in Shaukiwan, has been confronted by the most intimate sexual photos of hugely famous people? If this is the internet, do we want it?

The power of the internet to destroy privacy is now self-evident. It behaves like a starved lion let loose on a chicken farm. Of course, as a mere lawyer I am interested by the legal side of things. Especially perplexing is how the Obscene Articles Tribunal (O.A.T.) will react.

What can it do? How effective can its rulings be? The internet may be like an untamed beast but can the O.A.T. tame the print media?

Quite a number of publications have reproduced a few of the hundreds of offending photographs, though always suitably blurred in all the required places to stay within the law. Despite the careful blurring, the question remains ‘Can the published photographs, despite their censoring blurs, be classified as obscene or indecent?’

Of course, newspapers and news magazines can argue that by the nature of their trade they have a public duty to publish news. And if nothing else these photographs are certainly news. That after all is how the media makes its money.

In a free and democratic society the press, as we all know, has important duties to perform. We also know that the dividing line between press censorship and freedom of the press can be difficult to define.

This is why the O.A.T. always has a problematic task to perform. Sadly, though, its performance to date has been erratic and its rationale hard to follow. I have myself represented a well-known publishing company for many years and dealt with cases involving the O.A.T. and from my limited experience I would say that the decisions of the O.A.T. are sometimes bizarre and often unpredictable.

I heard of an O.A.T. case, which was quite obviously a borderline case, where something in one publication was considered by the O.A.T. and yet an almost identical item in another publication was not brought to the attention of the O.A.T. at all. In the event the O.A.T. presiding officer, who was a trained lawyer, managed somehow to convince the other two laymen sitting with him that the photograph in question should be classified as indecent.

However, it is not fair to blame the O.A.T. totally for the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. The prosecution authorities (TELA) have a greater responsibility and heavier burden to bear. It is well-known in the publishing world that prosecutions are often very selective and similar articles or photographs may be classified to be indecent by one tribunal but not necessarily by another.

When such disparities occur it becomes difficult for the tribunals decision to be treated with respect.

The O.A.T. will no doubt be inundated with requests for classification regarding the ongoing sex scandal. Just how the O.A.T. deals with the publications may well decide the O.A.T.’s own future.
There is also the bigger question whether the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance needs to be amended. One thing is certain, however. After what has happened certain aspects of life will never be quite the same again.

I will say no more.

Elements

By Uncle Cheng

The local economic boom continues despite the volatility in the stock market, which has been behaving like a see-saw in the children’s playground. Walking about Hong Kong I see evidence of a tremendous increase in new retail businesses.

In Central district the sky-high rents make it impossible for poorer newcomers to obtain retail space. Only the big international companies with their famous brand names can afford to exist.

Occasionally you see a new shop taken up by a struggling small-scale entrepreneur but their window displays are usually no match for the extravagance of windows at places like Louis Vuitton and Hermes. Go inside these high-end boutiques, pass the black-suited security guards with their intercom earpieces, and it is another world — the world of the mainland shopper. In one luxury boutique I spotted one mainland businessmen who was escorting six pretty young girls and paying for all their many purchases.

In Causeway Bay there is also evidence of boom times but there the new businesses are different — cheaper products and fast-food outlets for those in a hurry between their shopping expeditions. As for the shopping malls I suppose it was the huge success of Pacific Place that changed Hong Kong for ever. I recall when Pacific Place first opened its doors, there was much scepticism — ‘the location is not convenient’ was a frequent comment. Of course, the sceptics were not just wrong, they were hugely wrong.

Then came the even bigger shopping extravaganza of the IFC mall. Again I heard people express scepticism about the location. Yet IFC’s first years have been if anything even more successful than Pacific Place was in its early days. The massive, iconic skyscraper above the IFC with its thousands of well-paid workers, has transformed the entire area.

The big question now is if the MTRC can repeat the success of the IFC development with its even bigger venture in West Kowloon called Elements. The International Commerce Centre (ICC) above Elements is going to be even taller than IFC at 118 floors. There will also be new boutique hotels and the entire area is surrounded by luxury apartment blocks. Banks like Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche, are flocking to the ICC, attracted by rents only a quarter of those at the IFC.

What makes the ICC venture especially fascinating is that this is the first time a property developer has tried to attract businesses, like banks, away from their traditional bases on the Island to Kowloon. Massive changes are underway and I suspect that Central is going to be transformed in the process.

I have an interest to declare. Many months ago my entrepreneurial godson Xuan conceived the idea to open a restaurant in Elements. My experience of the catering business is almost zero. About fifteen years ago I did invest a tiny sum in a brasserie-type restaurant called D&D in Wyndham Street. D&D was way ahead of its time, too minimalist for those days.

Anyway I like what the MTRC is doing at Elements and gave Xuan my blessing. If Elements succeeds, I guess his new restaurant will succeed as well -- until the first rent review comes along.

This is Hong Kong after all.

Property's rock star

The Raffles Conversation in BT on Hong Kong property executive Justin Chiu is well written and colourful, showing the man's innovative marketing side.

But Justin is definitely not in the same league as his big boss Li Ka-shing, whom I think has never been featured in the Raffles Conversation column. I hope to read Raffles Conversation on Li Ka-shing one day and other top personalities in Singapore and elsewhere.

Property's rock star
Cheung Kong Holdings' Justin Chiu talks to ARTHUR SIM about revealing his wild side in the marketing of the Hong Kong conglomerate's property developments

MILD-MANNERED businessman by day, and the property-trade equivalent of a rock star by night, Justin Chiu has single-handedly made property launches glamorous affairs in Hong Kong, and some say in Singapore too, attracting the paparazzi frenzy usually reserved for movie stars.

For his elaborate efforts that go towards creating memorable events with each launch, Mr Chiu - an executive director of Li Ka-shing's Hong Kong conglomerate Cheung Kong Holdings and head of its property arm - is affectionately known in Hong Kong as 'The man with a 100 faces'.

In a recent incarnation, he dressed as an Arab sheikh to launch one Hong Kong development, simply because, 'everyone was saying that Middle East investors were coming'. (Units went for $5,300 per square foot, by the way.)

In Singapore, he has at various times led a bevy of beauties while dressed as James Bond and a convoy of Harleys in Easy Rider costume, all in the name of creative marketing.

Amazingly, Mr Chiu, 57, has only been in marketing and property development for 10 years with Cheung Kong. Before this, there was a four-year stint at Sino Land, and 15 years at Hang Lung Development Co. At these jobs, he was responsible for retail and commercial leasing as well as property management.

So when did he discover his wild side?

Mr Chiu joined Cheung Kong in 1997 and started doing sales and marketing in 2000. It was not the best of times for the property market and he knew he had to create buzz for an upcoming launch or there would be the real possibility that no one would come.

'I thought what we needed at the time was a spokesperson, or a movie star ... a sort of icon,' he recalls.

Celebrity endorsements are not a new concept, especially in Hong Kong. One only has to think of the many products that Jackie Chan has put his name to.

Mr Chiu, on the other hand, decided to create his own spokesman, and initially he had intended the position for his manager of the sales team. 'We were launching a seafront development at the time so I told my manager to come dressed as a naval commander.' Understandably, his manager refused.

Leading by example

So like any good boss, he decided to lead by example, and get into character himself. 'Anything is better than seeing another old man in tie,' he says.

The response, from the press at least, was unprecedented. And Mr Chiu's launch event occupied the covers of the property pages in the local media. A star was born.

'What we did was a great way of soft selling. People don't read ads but they do read the news. We also saved money on advertising, and we didn't need to pay for movie stars.'

Mr Chiu's instincts about marketing a product were right, a feat made more impressive by the fact that his educational background is founded on staid degrees in sociology and economics. But as he understands: 'What you study at university does not always relate to what you do for living.'

So far this year, Cheung Kong has earned up to HK$14.6 billion (S$2.8 billion) from the sale of 4,200 residential units. The turnover was more than double that for the same period last year and has already achieved the company's full-year sales target.

Selling property these days is a lot easier.

And Mr Chiu also does not really need to get dressed up any more, but he still does. 'The Hong Kong people have come to expect my 'special image' and reporters even want to know what I will be wearing next,' he says.

Now, Mr Chiu gets recognised in the streets. And overseas too.

He recalls how once, at the Changi International Airport, his Singapore staff was led to him by a small commotion from tourists shouting: 'Hey it's the Cheung Kong guy!'

Another time in a Chinese restaurant in New York, the waiter recognised him from the Chinese tabloids and Mr Chiu was seated immediately.

The going has not always been easy though, even for Easy Rider.

Cheung Kong's residential forays into the Singapore market began back in 1996 with acquisition by Li Ka-shing of a site in Thomson Road for $130 million. A year later, Cheung Kong bought an East Coast site for the then astronomical sum of about $680 million, 30 per cent higher than the next highest bid. The two purchases came just before the Asian financial crisis.

The developments came under considerable media scrutiny, not least because everyone wanted to know how Li Ka-shing, Asia's richest and shrewdest businessman, would get out of this one.

The task of moving units in a stagnant market fell on Justin Chiu and Cheung Kong's Singapore property arm, Property Enterprises Development. Mr Chiu got creative.

For starters, he devised an incentive scheme for the 390-unit Thomson project - Thomson 800 - something that had not been done before.

Under its Guaranteed Appreciation Plan, Cheung Kong was prepared to offer buyers a 10 per cent capital appreciation in about five years for units at Thomson 800 as well as protecting buyers against price falls of up to 10 per cent. If the valuation increased by less than 10 per cent above the purchase price, the developer would pay buyers the difference.

In essence, it was a kind of discount but unlike other developers who were offering outright money-off, this sounded more like a value-add. Clever.

The Asian financial crisis and its repercussions sent all property markets in the region into a tailspin. Only about half the units of Thomson 800 were sold, with City Developments finally buying the remaining units in 1999.

For the East Coast development - Costa del Sol - the situation was more dire because there were 906 units to move. Even the help of the bikers on Harley Davidsons could not stir the market, and only a third of the development was sold.

Amazingly, Cheung Kong went on to buy another site, this time in Cairnhill for $370 million, and again the property market dived with the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001.

The 248-unit Cairnhill Crest was launched in 2004 and Mr Chiu remembers how selling 40 units - after putting on an extravagant launch party with him dressed as James Bond - was quite an achievement at the time.

But even then, Mr Chiu did something that was not often done here, and that was to go direct to his buyers by flying them in from Hong Kong and China.

Following his own advice

Today, properties do frequently sell out within weeks. But then, who can predict property cycles? And how important are they? Mr Chiu says: 'Whether the market is good or bad, developers must buy land.'

Fortunately, he heeded his own advice.

In 2001, Cheung Kong, together with joint venture partners Keppel Land and Hong Kong Land clinched a site in Singapore's New Downtown at Marina Bay for $462 million. Many sniggered behind their backs. 'At the time, everybody was saying that it was too risky,' remembers Mr Chiu.

But we all know what happened. The economy turned and the office building, One Raffles Quay (ORQ), went on to become one of the most talked about developments of the time, with all the big financial institutions clamouring to get in.

In July this year, Cheung Kong and Keppel Land each sold one-third stakes in ORQ to their sponsored real estate investment trusts (Reit), Suntec Reit and K-Reit, for $941.5 million each. Incidentally, Mr Chiu is also chairman of ARA Asset Management, which manages Suntec Reit.

In 2005, the same consortium won a tender for a commercial mega-site at Marina Bay to become major stakeholders in Singapore's new growth story.

Both ORQ and the newly dubbed Marina Bay Financial Centre have gone on to register 'over 100 per cent profit margin' for Cheung Kong. Indeed, as Mr Chiu reveals, 'all our projects in Singapore made money', although profit margins for the residential developments were considerably slimmer. For Cairnhill Crest, this was about 10-12 per cent.

On a philosophical note, Mr Chiu says: 'You cannot be winning all the time.'

But because Cheung Kong has very, very deep pockets, it can afford to hold off selling units, such as those at Costa del Sol and Cairnhill Crest, until the property cycle swings up again. The last block of Costa del Sol was sold in August for about $200 million, or $820 psf.

But this is only slightly higher than the launch price in 2000 and you do not need to be an expert to know that property prices are still rising.

Perhaps this is the real lesson here. All developers know that having the resources to hold on to property until prices pick up is the key to survival. Only a certain kind of developer believes that making a killing isn't everything - even when dressed up as 007.

Standing out from the crowd

STEREOTYPES are fun. Especially if you are not the object of derision.

Wisely then, Hong Konger Justin Chiu refused to be drawn into the age-old discussion on why Singapore is just so different from Hong Kong. He would not say, for instance, if he agreed with the popular stereotype that Singapore is clinical and boring.

Or, for that matter, if Singaporeans lack verve and an entrepreneurial spirit.

He was, however, game to talk about 'Hongkies'. 'The competition in Hong Kong is very stiff. So if you want to be noticed, you really have to stand out,' says Mr Chiu, by way of explaining why Hong Kong people are perceived as show-offs, and why it has more Rolls Royces per capita than any other country in the world.

It probably also explains why according to this writer's own Louis Vuitton Index, Hong Kong ranks above Paris, New York, Beijing and Singapore, with a total of six stores.

Mr Chiu, an executive director of Hong Kong conglomerate Cheung Kong Holdings, knows a thing or two about standing out from the crowd. The eleventh child in a family of 14, he decided that getting a university degree was going to be his thing. 'During my time, getting a university degree was a big deal,' he says.

His beginnings, although not exactly humble, were not entirely privileged either. His father, he recalls, had only two wives. 'Most people had four,' he says, quite seriously.

His first degree was in sociology. Then realising that he needed something more practical, he took a second degree in economics at Trent University in Canada.

He cut his teeth in the real estate industry at Hang Lung Development Co in 1979 - still one of Hong Kong's larger property developers. But by 1994, finding that the pace of business had slowed too much for him, he decided to move on. 'I am actually quite aggressive,' he reveals.

So he joined Sino Land instead, the Hong Kong property arm of Singapore's richest man, Ng Teng Fong. Compared with the other Hong Kong developers, Sino Land was a relatively young company that had to prove itself, so it suited Mr Chiu for the three years that he was there.

'Sino Land had to be very aggressive in the market, especially in bidding for development sites at government land tenders because unlike older companies, it did not have the same contacts,' explains Mr Chiu.

Ng Teng Fong was not hands-on in the daily operations of Sino Land, leaving that to his son Robert. Still, the occasional meetings with the tycoon left him with a strong impression. 'If Singapore had more Ng Teng Fongs, it would be a lot more successful,' he says.

Mr Chiu, the father of two children in their twenties, is not impressed by the many young people he has met lately. 'Many just want stable jobs in government agencies or investment banks,' he notes. 'And in Singapore, if you can get a job in the civil service, the pay is actually quite attractive,' he added.

Mr Chiu does not think Hong Kong people are, like himself, 'aggressive'. He is of Shanghainese stock after all. Still, he does believe that Hong Kongers are more adventurous. 'They are prepared to take higher risks,' he says.

'Which is why,' he adds, 'reits (real estate investment trusts) are not very popular in Hong Kong. Hong Kong people think reits are boring. There is no capital appreciation. Singaporeans, however, like reits because it offers a stable income.'

This says a lot actually.

Mr Chiu is also the chairman of Cheung Kong's ARA Asset Management which manages Fortune Reit, which counts as its assets Hong Kong shopping malls. The reit, together with its Suntec Reit, were listed on the SGX mainboard and not the Hong Kong exchange.

So why does a man as dynamic as Justin Chiu - a man who rides a motorbike for his speed fix, skis, and until recently, para-glides - choose to work for not one but two of Asia's most dynastic companies?

Cheung Kong, Mr Chiu says, 'is very big'. The property arm alone has a 150 million sq ft landbank in China's first and second tier cities alone.

Mr Chiu also remembers being very impressed by Asia's richest man.

He was interviewed by Li Ka-shing personally for his job at Cheung Kong, and after the interview, Mr Li told him that the organisation values integrity above all. 'He also told me not to promise people anything that I don't think I can deliver,' recalls Mr Chiu.

On Mr Li's part, he also shows his subordinate mutual respect. 'I have been given a free hand to try new ideas,' Mr Chiu says, adding that Mr Li junior, Victor, is also very supportive.

And to his credit, the senior Li is always willing to listen. 'He would listen to you first and comment only when you are done. He never interrupted you. It really shows respect,' says Mr Chiu, laying to rest another stereotype.

The Free Economy

By Uncle Cheng

“Nothing in life is free”. We have all heard people say that. Yet I am beginning to wonder if it is still true. Nowadays so many things seem to be free. It is a perplexing phenomenon of the modern world.

Evidently it is a strict law of economics that somebody somewhere always has to pick up the bill — i.e. nothing is ever free of charge. But how to explain then the free newspapers and free telephone calls that are thrown at us? It seems the public are being showered with goods and information for which we are not being asked to pay a cent. We are living in an amazing economy full of freebies.

Wherever you look goods and information, which we once had to pay for, are now available for free. It is not just free newspapers on the MTR. When did you last have to buy a ballpoint pen, a diary or a calendar? DVDs are given to us as promotional items or we can buy them for virtually nothing.

Of course the internet is the biggest driver of this free economy. It is an odd paradox that in this age when intellectual property matters more than ever before in history, digital information is increasingly free. The internet is full of free articles, videos, and vast archives of data. Dictionaries, books, images and just about anything imaginable are legally available for free on the internet. Why buy a dictionary when it can be sourced free on the web?

Then there is something called “open-source” free software like Linux which means computer users no longer have to buy expensive Microsoft software. Email addresses, which used to be charged for, are now free. Computer memory is now available for free from Yahoo and Google.

These changes are happening at an astonishing speed. Not many years ago it could cost HK$20 a minute to phone overseas. Such a cost today is unimaginable. In fact we can now use the internet to make phone calls free of charge. Google’s CEO, who should know about such things, says mobile phones will be complimentary items financed by advertisers. An American professor predicts phone calls to any destination worldwide will cost the same minimal price, which in the case of the U.S. means between 1 and 2 US cents a minute. That would mean the cost of calling Guangzhou from Hong Kong would be the same to Buenos Aires.

I also read that even food is being given away. Tesco supermarkets in Europe have been distributing free tins of beans. Websites enable consumers to check where food is free (freesite or ourfreestuff).

Where the free economy is having by far the biggest effect is in the world of intellectual property. The cost of distributing information has quite simply crashed. Think of it like this. If you read a publication on the internet it does not matter to the publisher if you are one of 1,000 readers or one of 1 million readers — the cost is the same. Maybe it is only a matter of time before all intellectual property is free of charge.

Old accounting methods are being turned upside down. Financial institutions used to sell investment analysis but give it away free. An internet user who prints a newspaper article bears the cost that was once borne by the publisher. A whole new business world is being created at record speed. A new invention is the “freemium,” which is a marketing ploy to tempt consumers with free items before selling then extras at premium high prices. The phone website Skype has a neat trick — members call one another for nothing but must pay to call non-members. Publishers have learnt that readers of their free-to-view websites can be made to pay for special interest items like football games.

Unfortunately there are some prices that are immune to the internet. Restaurants for example. The cost of eating out just goes up and up. I will be horrified when a meal in my favourite restaurant costs $1,000 a head and it will be little consolation that the cost of a hour-long phone call to San Francisco is only $10.

Sophie's note: Sigh, Sophie has been blogging for free. Sophie has not earned any money to buy dog biscuits, which are not free in the real or virtual world.

London Resurgent

By Uncle Cheng

Did you read the recent news item that one of a set of four penthouse flats in central London has been sold off-plan for a staggering £85 million (HK$1,300,000,000)? A few weeks earlier came the news that New Year bonuses paid out by financial institutions in the City of London topped a staggering £9 billion (HK$138,000,000,000). London, to put it mildly, is riding the crest of a wave of wealth.

Quite why London has suddenly boomed now is a bit of mystery. Experts say that New York shot itself in the foot with over-regulation after some corporate scandals and has made itself unattractive to foreigners because of excessively tough visa rules. Even the Mayor of New York is warning that New York’s very future is threatened by London. Mainland Chinese and Russian companies are choosing to issue their shares in London rather than New York.

This is all very strange because only a few years ago Britain was being warned that if it did not adopt the new European currency, the Euro, London would lose out as a financial centre and be replaced by Frankfurt. Well, Britain did not join the Euro and today by far the biggest trading centre for Euros is London, not Frankfurt. Then Germany’s biggest bank Deutsche Bank moved its investment banking headquarters from Frankfurt to London.

You might ask why what happens in London interests me so much? There are many reasons, and reasons that Hong Kong should pay attention to. First of all, I did law pupillage there and one of the reasons for London’s present pre-eminence is the city’s concentration of legal talent. Hong Kong is also home to a pool of legal talent and we must ensure it stays here. Secondly, London, and New York before it, benefited hugely by being cultural melting pots. A staggering forty percent of Londoners are foreign-born and they speak an incredible 300 languages. Of course, there is no way Hong Kong can compete with such figures but we must keep our economy open to talent from anywhere in the world, not just from the mainland.

London, like Hong Kong, does not tax rich foreigners on their overseas income and this has proved a huge magnet to the world’s new billionaires. There are said to be 23 Pound billionaire residents in London, and of those 11 are foreigners such as the Indian Lakshmi Mittal (worth £14.8 billion) and the Russian Roman Abramovich (worth £9.1 billion), owner of Chelsea football club.

Then there is London’s population, which after decades of decline, has been rising very steeply mainly due to immigration from eastern Europe. Even the UK’s Chinese population has risen fast recently and now totals about 600,000.

Perhaps I should add that I do have a selfish interest in London’s economic well-being because I own a house there which must rank as the best investment I ever made in my entire life. In not that many years it has appreciated by over 600 percent and by an extraordinary 35 percent in 2006 alone. A lot of the demand has come from foreign buyers and I have heard that native Londoners wanting to buy residential property are complaining that they can no longer compete with super-rich foreigners who think nothing of upping a bid by a million Pounds.

So for the moment at least London is again the capital of capitals. The city is abundantly confident, the restaurant bills have gone stratospheric, there is creativity and dynamism everywhere. The sceptics say even Athens and Rome fell in the end as confidence lapsed into decadence.

Yet I see no sign of London losing its grip just yet. Indeed London’s affluence and its dominance of international finance seems likely to strengthen further. Even the French, who as you will know have fought many wars with the British, have had to acknowledge London’s success. Nicolas Sarkozy, campaigning as a candidate to succeed Chirac as President of France, went to London recently to address London’s 350,000 French residents.

London, you see, has become the seventh largest French city in the world.

Hong Kong election

Sophie is still speechless over the BIG JUMP in the salary of Singapore ministers. She has taken a vow of silence for another day.

In the meantime, let Uncle Cheng do the talking, not about Singapore but about the recent election in Hong Kong. Hong Kong may not have such highly paid government officials compared to Singapore but universal suffrage is still an alien concept in the special administrative region of China.

By Uncle Cheng

Last Sunday turned out to be a beautiful day weather wise if nothing else. It also happened to be election day and it obviously came as no surprise that our Chief Executive (Xinhua Photo: Hong Kong chief executive Donald Tsang Yam Kuen waves hands in Hong Kong, south China, March 25, 2007) was elected by a large margin. Indeed, it would have been a massive shock to the system if the result had been otherwise.

Like most of Hong Kong’s population I watched the electioneering process during the past few weeks. Even though the eventual result was totally predictable, I believe this election marks a very healthy and pivotal stage in Hong Kong’s constitutional development. As one impartial observer remarked to me, this first-ever semi-contested election has demonstrated just what a fully contested election might be like. It was like a maiden flight of a new aeroplane to demonstrate its airworthiness.

The big question in my mind remains where in the world can you find a truly contested election where the result is totally unpredictable? Unexpected election results are exceedingly rare events. Perhaps the presidential election in the United States that brought George Bush to power counts as an unexpected result in the sense that, after weeks of delay and procrastination, it was not the people of the United States who made the final decision but the nine judges of the Supreme Court of the United States — none of whom is democratically elected.

Those nine justices are in fact appointed by Presidents and it is common knowledge that Republican Presidents usually nominate Republican judges and Democratic Presidents choose fellow Democrats.

Returning to Asia I find it hard to recall any election in recent years which has delivered an unexpected result. Wherever opinion polls are used election results become even more predictable because opinion polls have become a highly refined science able to predict both voter turnout and voting intentions with scientific accuracy. You could even argue that opinion polls could replace actual elections!

Hong Kong’s election last Sunday fits into this pattern. Everyone knew what the election result was going to be. It was simply impossible for Donald Tsang to be denied victory. Why then all the fuss from the democratic camp that the election was a farce? The democrats make it sound as if the result surprised them.

For myself I see the election very differently. It was a part, an important part as well, in the process of Hong Kong’s constitutional development. I did not witness anything farcical or surprising. The results was predictable as any elections anywhere. Like all elections the result was known beforehand.

Of course, the true basis of the bitter democratic condemnation of the election is disappointment that universal suffrage is taking such a long time to arrive. Democratic campaigners are disappointed that they could not stand as candidates at the election, but where were their voices before 1st July 1997?

The big question is whether this exercise in political predictability was good or bad for democratic development. Was Alan Leong's quixotic challenge a sign of progress? Were the more extreme democrats right to scorn what they called Leong's hopeless candidacy?

It was interesting that the protest march by the Civil Human Rights Front could only muster less than 5,000 supporters. Universal suffrage hardly seems to be a burning issue for Hong Kong's citizens. Perhaps the population at large take the sensible view that the existing system has served Hong Kong well. Society and the economy are in a good condition.

I also suspect that the public have been pleasantly surprised by Donald Tsang electioneering performance --- "Bow Tie versus Pocket Square". Increasingly, as the weeks went by the Chief Executive appeared more and more in charge of his brief and confident.

A fully democratic election under universal suffrage would have returned the same result!

The truth is Hong Kong constitutional system remains a work in progress. Stay tuned!

Electricity mad Hong Kong

By Uncle Cheng

Is air pollution shaping up to be the biggest threat to Hong Kong’s continued prosperity? I think so. On the Mainland the pollution problem is different because it includes contamination of drinking water and chemical poisoning of the earth. We in Hong Kong are in a sense lucky because our pollution is overwhelmingly a matter of air pollution.

Even better news for us is that a few simple steps will greatly reduce existing air pollution. Top of the list of things that the government must do is to scrap the present incentives which encourage our two electricity generating companies to overbuild and over-produce power. Secondly, we urgently need tough laws to enforce energy saving throughout society.

Up to now the two power generators have enjoyed an almost utopian existence. According to their agreements with the government they are allowed to earn an incredible 13.5 percent return on their investments in fixed assets. The result is that Hong Kong has an abundance of electricity but at too high a price. It is an insane arrangement which turns normal economic rules upside down.

When did you hear of CLP or Hongkong Electric encouraging the power-saving strategies that are common in other advanced economies? Never, because they can maximise their profits by massive overbuilding. CLP’s proposed multi-billion dollar natural gas terminal on Soko Island is a perfect example. It is unnecessary because gas can be piped from the Yacheng field on Hainan Island much more cheaply.

Our power companies are on a constant investment binge which results in an overproduction of electricity. They can get rid of some of the excess power by offering huge discounts to the biggest users while small users have to pay the full whack. CLP can also get rid of a fifth of its power by selling it to the Mainland.

Quite how the Government got itself into this mess has its origins in the old colonial days. The scheme of control is a massive intervention in what should be a free market. For example, in every other country I know of, electricity is priced according to the time of day. So power at night is cheaper than daytime power, which encourages people to switch on at night and switch off during the day. But not in Hong Kong because such pricing might reduce demand, and less demand would mean less opportunity to build more generating capacity and thus less profit (remember that tantalising 13.5 percent return on fixed assets).

Back to our horrible air pollution. Nobody denies that burning fossil fuels to make our electricity is a major contributor to our murky skies. Why does the government not do something about it?

I believe that the government is way behind public opinion on this issue, as it is on many environmental questions. There is a growing groundswell of opinion throughout society that demands the government must do whatever is necessary to roll back the clouds of pollution and reveal the hidden blue skies of yesteryear. Opening up electricity generation to the normal laws of supply and demand would be a promising first step.

Downsides of Democracy

By Uncle Cheng

As we know, Hong Kong's fascination with democracy was launched by our last colonial governor Fat Pang. Before his 'reign' the word 'politics' had almost been a taboo word in polite Hong Kong society. Fat Pang politicised Hong Kong and we are still not sure where it will all end.

But perhaps this is as good a moment as any to consider democracy's record around the world. I must warn you that the picture is not a pleasant one. Far from it. In fact, I would say that democracy as a system of government is going through a very bad patch and is in retreat in many countries.

You might imagine that one benefit of a democratic system would be more openness and less corruption. But that does not seem to the case at all. Just take a look at endemic corruption in democratic South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines ... I could go on but I think you get the picture.

Then you might think a democratic government would be more stable because it supposedly reflects the popular will. How then do you explain the military coup in Thailand where the introduction of a democratic system was supposed to have stopped such an event. The same happened in Pakistan some years back when a lengthy period of popular democratic government was suddenly swept aside by army generals.

The experience of the former Soviet Union is also revealing. There was great excitement in the west, especially in the U.S., when Boris Yeltsin won a landslide election to rule a democratic Russia . But what of that democracy today? Russia has kept its name but the government has become increasingly autocratic under President Putin and democracy is having a very rough time.

And what of Iraq whose people were trampled on by that vile dictator Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis, so the Americans thought, would be delighted to embrace democracy? Today, not only are democratic ideals in ruins in Iraq, but the Iraqi example has sent democratic dreams into retreat in neighbouring countries.

But by far the most compelling and worrying example of democracy in action is to be found in Britain. But isn't Britain meant to be the ultimate example of a functioning democracy that works without blemishes? Not now it isn't! The British Prime Minister has been interviewed twice by police investigating allegations of corruption and attempts to pervert the course of justice. A member of his staff was arrested early one morning at her home. A close colleague and member of the House of Lords was also arrested.

And it gets worse. Tony Blair went to an elite public school, became a barrister, and is a devout Christian. You expect him to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. But his opponents are compiling a long list of things he has said in his career that have proved to be untrue. In the early days it was minor untruths such as when he first entered politics he said he had written articles for the Guardian newspaper but no such articles have ever been found. More recently in 2002, he famously claimed that "the intelligence community had established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein was making chemical and biological weapons and was on his way to making nuclear weapons. It was all untrue.

Do they really believe that democracy will cure all known ills? Would you prefer to be ruled over by a benevolent dictatorship instead? The only problem is that benevolent dictators are in very short supply.

Letter from Singapore, Part 2

By Uncle Cheng

Here are a few comparisons with Hong Kong that struck me during my recent stay in the lion city. Of course, as we all know Hong Kong compares very badly with Singapore on three important quality-of-life points — cleanliness, air pollution and preservation of heritage buildings. But what struck me quickly this time is that Singapore’s economic rebound and currency appreciation are having a big effect on Singaporean living standards. Certainly the gap with Johor Bahru (in Malaysia) is widening, and I suspect that Singapore is pulling ahead of Hong Kong on many economic fronts.

Among Singaporeans two common topics of conversation are that the economy is pulling ahead of Malaysia’s (they tend not compare themselves with Hong Kong) and the seriousness of crime in Johor Bahru. It made me recollect that here in Hong Kong there is always much talk about economic growth on the Mainland — and the problem of street crime in Shenzhen. Serious crimes are rare partly because punishments have been traditionally very severe. (though things seem to have mellowed a little under the new Chief Justice but the reverse seemed to be happening in Hong Kong)

On the question of air pollution I should add a small caveat to correct the common misconception that Singapore air is totally pure. In fact, like Malaysia, Singapore does suffer from seasonal smoke haze which the wind blows from Indonesian forest fires. But subtract the Indonesian haze and Singapore’s own air is remarkably pollution-free — unlike Hong Kong shamingly putrid air.

Believe it or not but Singapore traffic moves freely and is not gridlocked like Hong Kong’s. This is partly because Singapore pioneered many years ago an electronic pricing system to reduce traffic congestion. By comparison, the Hong Kong government’s only solution to traffic congestion seems to be to build more roads, which as we all know immediately turn into more traffic jams.

When it comes to preservation of heritage buildings the comparisons between Singapore and Hong Kong leave us totally shamed and humiliated. Through very strict laws including compulsory purchase, Singapore has preserved and renovated not just isolated historic buildings but entire streets and city blocks. The result is that the historic buildings have become a magnet for small businesses, bars, and restaurants.

While our Financial Secretary recently declared that the idea of a sales tax had been abandoned, Singapore proceeded to announce that its sales tax would be increased from 5 percent to 7 percent. I fear that Hong Kong has made a mistake. Of course, any new tax is going to be unpopular but Hong Kong urgently needs to widen its tax base. Otherwise we will be forever trapped by the colonial high land price policy on which the government relies for much of its revenue.

Singapore is also aiming to make itself more attractive to business with its plans to reduce its corporation tax, now at 20 percent compared to Hong Kong’s 17 percent, to 19 percent.

If it is any consolation there are at least two areas where Hong Kong beats Singapore hands down — one of which is fireworks. The New Year fireworks in Singapore were very low key and brief compared to the mega-spectacular that Hong Kong delivers. Perhaps the ever-careful Singapore government does not like its money to go up in smoke!

The other is even more difficult to quantify – Singapore is still a boring place.

Sophie: Must ask Uncle Cheng to come to Singapore more often and show him the more happening places as indicated in this report last year! :-)

The Straits Times
8 November 2006
Surprise! S’pore is No. 2 for nightlife and dining

In any case, Singapore is “hot”, say more than 1,500 frequent travellers and travel experts who ranked it No.2 for nightlife and dining in a global brand study.

The Global Country Brand Index was compiled by brand consultancy FutureBrand and public relations firm Weber Shandwick.

Singapore did not even make it to the top 10 last year in this category. The finding stunned nightspot operators.

Letter from Singapore

By Uncle Cheng

Singapore may not seem the most obvious place for Hong Kong people to choose for a holiday but that is where I found myself for family reasons last Christmas and new year. It was a revealing experience and I kept on making comparisons in my mind between Singapore and Hong Kong.

The first thing I learnt, and which becomes obvious in discussions with Singaporeans, is that Singapore is on the verge of an economic boom. After years of slow growth there is great optimism that new government policies are lifting both the economy and peoples’ spirits.

Property prices are rising markedly, foreign bankers are flooding in, huge public infrastructure projects are underway, and investment capital is streaming into local bank accounts from such local nations as Indonesia and even from distant Europe. Suddenly all the ingredients for economic growth are looking good.

One of my sources is a nephew of mine who is in a favourable position to know such things as his work keeps him in close touch with business and economic prospects in Singapore and the nearby region. I was especially interested to hear him explain how the government’s decision to reverse decades of anti-gambling policy and licence two super-casinos has transformed the economic horizon. It reminded me of how Macau’s economic fortunes were totally transformed by the decision to end the old casino monopoly and open the gambling market to virtually open competition.

One argument always used by people who oppose casinos is that they attract crime, triad activity and get poor people into financial difficulty. But as everyone knows the Singapore government has always prided itself on its low crime rate and its very tough treatment of all criminal behaviour. How, I wondered, will the government be able to square its anti-crime reputation with the new casinos. Well, as usual, Singapore has thought the issue through and announced a range of measures which it says will keep the casinos free of crime.

Yet despite its great wealth, efficient government and highly disciplined society Singapore’s miniscule size remains its greatest disadvantage. You cannot flex impressive muscles when you are a dwarf. The city state’s prosperity has to depend on the friendliness of its neighbours.

No neighbour is more crucial than Malaysia for it is from there that Singapore imports fresh water and daily foodstuffs, especially vegetables. It reminds me of Hong Kong’s dependence on the Mainland for the same things. Incidentally, the worst floods in the state of Johor for many years threaten large increases in Singapore vegetable prices through the lunar new year.

An irritating problem between Singapore and Malaysia has been the disagreement about a bridge to replace the existing solid earth Causeway. When no agreement could be reached about the proposed bridge which Malaysia favoured, the Malaysian government decided to spend millions on building new extravagant immigration facilities at its border. As Malaysia had made the case for an overhead bridge, which would have opened up the waterway to small shipping, Singapore hesitated and raised other issues such as the sale of sand and the use of Malaysian air space. Indeed the bridge became such a prickly issue that at one stage Malaysia came up with the bizarre suggestion that the bridge should be built without Singapore's approval. Presumably that would result in the bridge stopping in mid-air at the Singapore border!

Next week I will continue my look at Singapore and in particular I will make some comparisons between Hong Kong and Singapore — comparisons that, I regret to say, are not favourable to Hong Kong.

Sophie's note: Please see Singapore's marketing pitch for Marina Bay, the centrepiece of the Lion City.

Courtroom TV

By Uncle Cheng

Recently there has been some interest in the local press about allowing television cameras into our courtrooms for the broadcast of high profile cases. But what interest there was proved strangely short-lived and evaporated as quickly as it appeared. In some ways I was sorry that the proposal aroused so little public interest because it is an important subject that warrants a full public debate.

The issue entered the public arena after the Lord Chancellor of England had suggested that certain high profile criminal cases might be televised in order to encourage a greater public understanding of the legal system. And because our legal system is a colonial inheritance, it seems only logical that Hong Kong should also consider the pros and cons of court TV.

In fact, our Director of Public Prosecutions Grenville Cross has seemingly voiced his support for reform in this area. He is reported to have said of court TV that "if implemented, it would give the public a far greater awareness of the way in which our criminal justice system operates". Mr Cross's opinion matters because he is a very seasoned criminal lawyer with almost 30 years' experience and is the first post-1997 Director of Public Prosecutions. His opinions always deserve respect and consideration.

For myself I am generally in favour of allowing television into our courtrooms as a matter of principle. However, I do not agree with the Lord Chancellor that only certain high profile criminal cases should be televised. The vast majority of criminal trials are not at all high profile and about 80 percent of all criminal trials in Hong Kong are held in the magistrates' courts. These magistracy cases can be termed as invariably low profile, mundane, and they do not always involve well-known people (such as Jacky Cheung Hok-yau's former helper and a fan of Ella Koon Yun-na) but they often involve the liberty of the subject.

I appreciate that low profile criminal trials may not be very exciting or popular. But I do believe the purpose of introducing television into courtrooms should not be to provide additional entertainment but to educate the public about our legal system. If court TV concentrates only on the high profile cases the result will be a media circus such as that which accompanied the notorious O. J. Simpson trial in the United States a few years ago.

But even before we introduce television into our court rooms there remain many bizarre laws that need to be amended to tune them with the modern world. If you care to look, as an example, at the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228) Laws of Hong Kong, you might well suffer a temporary shock.

Under that Ordinance a person can be branded as a criminal for taking a photograph in a courtroom or making a sketch portrait of a judge for publication. And the Ordinance defines a "judge" to include justices of the peace! Other equally bizarre laws in the Ordinance include six months' imprisonment for failing to obtain a permit for a unicorn dance! "Taking fish in any water which is private property" is also an imprisonable offence. Why such things need to be listed as separate offences in this day and age is totally beyond any common sense but as a wise man once remarked the law is not necessarily based on common sense.

There are of course cynics who argue that allowing television into courtrooms may not be such a good idea for one unfortunate reason. Do we really want to expose everything that happens in our courts, especially in the magistracies, to real-time public scrutiny? For as the famous English constitutional lawyer Walter Bagehot once observed about exposure of the British monarchy "It might bring out the sunshine on places which are best hidden from view".

Death of a Spy

By Uncle Cheng

The case of Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian spy whose life came to a bizarre end when he was poisoned by a rare radioactive isotope, continues to haunt Moscow and is attracting worldwide attention. Acres of newsprint and hundreds of hours of television coverage have been devoted to the mysterious circumstances that led to his death in a London hospital.


The case has all the hallmarks of a James Bond thriller or a Le Carre triple-twist plot but the Litvinenko case is unique in that it is being played out in the full glare of public investigation.

As I followed the incredible twists and turns of Litvinenko's life and death, my lawyer's mind became intrigued by what had happened to Litvinenko in 1999. At the time he was a high ranking officer in the KGB, which was the notorious and infamous Soviet security agency and the equivalent of the British MI6 or the American CIA. Following the demise of the Soviet Union the KGB changed its name to FSB but it appears it did not change its tactics. Litvinenko continued to work in the FSB until he fled to exile and arrived in London in November 2000.

Just before he managed to escape Russia first to Turkey and then to London (he claimed asylum at Heathrow airport while in transit) Litvinenko had been incarcerated for eight months in what the Russian legal system calls 'pre-trial detention' and which to us means that he was refused bail pending his trial. What most intrigues me as a lawyer is the details of the criminal charges he faced. They are of great legal interest because he was charged with what we in Hong Kong call 'misconduct whilst in public office' and which the Russian legal code calls 'abuse of power whilst in public office'.

What, I wondered, was the actual background to the charges? Presumably, like all secret agents and possibly most civil servants the world over, Litvinenko surely took an oath of secrecy on his original appointment as a spy. He must have known the nasty details of many of highly unpleasant operations conducted by the spy agency. Like any spy he could cause chaos if he broke his oath of confidentiality and told the public or foreign governments what he knew.

It is well known that Litvinenko took a special dislike to our friend President Putin of Russia, who had himself worked for the KGB. Litvinenko allegedly leaked secrets — important and very embarrassing secrets — about his bosses' wishes to eliminate a man who is one of the richest Russian tycoons and a sworn enemy of Putin. No doubt he leaked directly or indirectly many other secrets that he had sworn to keep secret.

Now, dear readers, come the awkward questions? What is your moral position on this issue? Do you condemn Litvinenko or praise him? There is hardly any doubt in my mind that most sensible people outside Russia will applaud Litvinenko's actions and praise him for exposing such wickedness, if true. However, on the other hand he was clearly in gross breach of his duty of confidentiality to his bosses. In that case his misconduct in public office was a very grave one.

Which brings me to the relevance to Hong Kong's law. There is perhaps a lesson to be learned here for Hong Kong. In 2002 our highest court ruled that misconduct in public office has always been a criminal offence under the common law, even though no one has ever been charged in Hong Kong with such an offence. And because it is a common law offence the maximum possible sentence is life imprisonment.

On the hypothesis that one of our compatriot civil servants in Hong Kong were to reveal something remotely akin to what Litvinenko exposed, what would your reaction be? Would that civil servant be a hero or a villain? Should he be charged with misconduct or should the law be ignored? Does the rule of law have certain limits?

Thirty Years Ago

By Uncle Cheng

An anniversary approaches and I take a glance in my rear view mirror. Thirty years ago I was called to the Bar in Hong Kong. So I hope you will forgive me if I indulge in a bit of nostalgia for times past on this occasion.

The exact day was 20th December 1976. On that Saturday morning Sir Geoffrey Briggs admitted me to be a barrister in the High Court. Apart from being the Chief Justice he was widely well-known for his great fascination in everything possibly associated with frogs. He was in a sense a frog freak. His home and his Chambers were covered with frog collectibles of every description and size.

In those days the Hong Kong bar was a very small world. There were just over 100 barristers and about 500 or 600 solicitors. Surprisingly the ratio between barristers and practising solicitors has always to this day remained in the region of one to six. What was certain was that back in 1976 the Chief Justice had far more frogs in his collection than there lawyers.

The High Court was at that time housed in what is now the Legislative Council building. In fact the building had originally been built as a High Court and it had that old world colonial gravitas — dark wood panelling, low lighting, ineffectual air conditioning, echoing voices, the sound of traffic passing by. It was a big contrast to the courts we barristers must work in today with their bright lights, pale wood decor, microphones, sometimes too chilly air and total noise insulation which cuts off the courtroom from the real world outside.

Over the subsequent years the High Court was shifted from place to place. At one time it even moved to temporary, and very inadequate, dingy colonial quarters in the old Western Magistracy building in Arbuthnot Road in Central. It was in that historical building, now hopefully to be preserved along with the old police station complex, that I vividly remember defending the King Fuk double murder case. The jury in that case was slow to decide its verdict and it was not until 2:30 a.m. that the foreman of the jury said the magic words “not guilty”.

The contrast with today could not be greater. The point is that in those days the jury was actually allowed to continue deliberating until 2:30 a.m. Nowadays, of course, it is considered to be a material irregularity if a jury deliberates beyond 8 p.m..

Another difference was that in those days there was no overnight accommodation for jurors. I also recall that when jurors sat through the evening, swarms of waiting lawyers would descend on the famous, and still much missed, Dragon Boat bar in the Hilton Hotel (now the site of the Cheong Kong Centre). Many members of the Hong Kong Bar spent many happy hours at that particular bar.

Some things of course never change. Hong Kong then and as now was a big construction site with new buildings and road works everywhere. A standard joke was to say “Hong Kong will be a nice place when it is finished”. Traffic congestion was already bad and getting across the harbour by ferry in those days before tunnels and the MTR was a major adventure.

But that does not mean the situation today constitutes much of an improvement. The congestion is worse than ever and the traffic seems to increase much faster than roads can be built. Super skyscrapers dot the horizon. Even thirty years on Hong Kong still is not finished.

The one major change is the pollution we now must endure. In 1976, especially at this autumnal time of year, the climate was idyllic and the British colonialists used to state that Hong Kong in November and December was like a good English summer. Sadly the clear blue skies have become a rarity.

Also, in 1976 life moved at a much slower pace and the Star Ferry took longer to traverse a wider and more beautiful harbour. Telex machines were all the rage, IBM golf-ball typewriters were replacing manual typewriters, and overseas phone calls were frighteningly expensive. Fax machines and computers were blinks on the horizon.

It was a standard joke among those living and working on the island, that we needed a passport to cross to Kowloon because any trip to Kowloon had to imply you were most probably on your way to Kai Tak airport.

Hong Kong Smog

By Uncle C

Is there something fundamentally misguided in the Hong Kong government department responsible for tackling our horrendous and worsening pollution problem? I get the impression that the government has a mindset that prefers to concentrate on what is not possible rather than what can be done. A sort of negativism pervades their utterances and policies. Take a look at the four main aspects of the pollution that blight our lives, cost the economy billions and actually kill the weak.

First, electricity generation. The government has negotiated long-term terms of control with the makers of our electricity which have left the government in a stranglehold. Measures to reduce pollution from generating stations will take time and lots of money and in the short term there is little that can be done, we are told. But isn’t this way of thinking too negative? Should not the emphasis be on large-scale solutions, alternative sources of energy, even if the cost is great? Hong Kong faces the sea, we have plenty of off-shore islands, there is plenty of untapped wind energy. Why can’t we lead the world and tap that wind energy by building huge off-shore wind farms. Of course the wind does not always blow, and sometimes it blows too fast for wind turbines, so we need back-up sources of supply. But the back-up supply could as easily be pollution-free nuclear power. It seems that the latest designs of nuclear stations are much safer and produce hardly any nasty radioactive waste. Why can’t Hong Kong negotiate with China and find sites for new nuclear power stations. But whatever happens we simply must close down mega-polluters like the Castle Peak and Lamma Island generators.

Secondly, transport pollution. The government is tied into long-term agreements with the bus companies that actually create unnecessary pollution. As everyone knows our roads are often clogged with buses carrying few passengers. Perhaps the bus companies should be penalised for every empty seat/kilometer they carry. As for cars, the government appears wedded to the ancient idea that the best answer to congestion is to build more roads. But we all know that new roads simply lead to more vehicles and yet more congestion. Again, we need to think the unthinkable. Higher taxes on the most polluting vehicles, congestion charging, variable parking charges, charges per kilometer — there are lots of ways to tackle vehicle pollution. And more can be done to encourage electric vehicles. The same applies to aviation pollution at the airport, which is a pollution blackspot. Should we not be thinking about pollution taxes on air transport?

Thirdly, urban planning. Our planners are wedded to the ultra-high-rise solution. This is mainly the result of the old colonial policy of high land prices. Our urban roads have become narrow canyons of high-rise buildings. Take a walk down Hollywood Road and between the new skyscraper blocks where the narrow street level lives in permanent shade. Heat and pollution from air-conditioners and vehicles is trapped between the buildings and cannot escape. Surely, we need a change of direction. Let’s move away from the high land price policy and design buildings so that pollution can escape. We also need rules that require buildings to create their own pollution-free power.

Finally, there is that old bugbear, pollution imported from across the border. Most of this pollution is caused by factories owned by Hong Kong businesses and I simply cannot understand why the government cannot tackle the problem. The fact that the polluters are outside the jurisdiction is not an insurmountable problem. Again, there is this govrenment mindset that says because the pollution is outside our jurisdiction, there is nothing or not much that can be done. This negativism is a principal part of our pollution problem.

Oh, I forgot to mention the big common thread that links all four pollution problems. Every solution will mean offending big business interests. Does the government have the stomach for that?