Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2025

How, I wonder, did Hong Kong catch the coffee bug? The other day I was in the Wai, the MTR’s downmarket mall for Tai Wai inhabitants (no international brands, no wheeled suitcases) and pondered this mystery: while there are no brands or suitcases there are outlets of Starbucks and Pacific Coffee, together with two serious coffee shops, and one of them offers a menu of exotic beans which you can watch being transformed into nectar at considerable expense.

My favourite cafe in Shatin – five floors up, and so well away from the brands and suitcases – claims that its coffee chef has some international qualification in the matter. Certainly he does a very fine flat white.

Yet Hong Kong is supposed to be a tea place, like the UK of my youth. I really didn’t encounter coffee of any kind until I reached university. Students in those days were not offered any cooking equipment more advanced than a kettle – we did make toast by hanging slices of bread on the bars of the electric fire – and no refrigerator. So the only hot drink was coffee made with instant powder and dried milk. And a lot of sugar.

By the time I reached the world of work there were, I believe, proper coffee shops in London with Italian machinery, but in the North we drank tea.

As Hong Kong people did when I arrived here. Western-style hotels had “coffee shops” but there was nothing particularly sophisticated about the coffee offered there, which traditionally was made by the filter method on an industrial scale, and then sat about on a hotplate slowly becoming undrinkable.

Whether your cup was nice depended on the luck of the draw. If it was recent it might be good, and if not… A local magazine decided to do a comparative review of hotel coffee. The unhappy recipient of the brickbat for the worst local hotel brew responded in an interesting way: they fired their PR person.

On a study visit to Australia in the early 90s my students, and I, were impressed to discover that quite humble street sandwich bars offered a menu of coffee styles – cappucino, latte and so on – which had not really arrived in Hong Kong yet.

Well it duely arrived with multiple openings of the usual suspects: Starbucks and Pac Coffee. But although the menu arrived, generally the lifestyle did not.

Coffee shops, in the Viennese or 18th century London model, were supposed to be sociable establishments. Newspapers and magazines were provided. They were places for long leisurely chats or reading, catering to a population of regulars. It was a place where “everybody knows your name”.

This did briefly appear when the Baptist University, rightly concluding that academics – as many learned establishments have discovered – have no talent for running catering, invited Pacific Coffee to take over a small space at the south end of our long thin campus which had clearly been designed as some sort of snack bar.

This featured a rather easy-going financial arrangement which did not require either rapid turnover or packing lots of people in, so the space was furnished in a comfortable domestic style featuring soft furniture and even some plump armchairs. It swiftly became the hang-out for occupants of the nearby fine art and communication building. Small meetings could be held there. Early pioneers of remote working used laptops. Antiquated preservers of print read newspapers or books. Random encounters sparked interesting cross-disciplinary conversations.

This did not last. Alerted to the possibility that profits might be appearing the university introduced some form or tendering, and Pacific Coffee were replaced by the other lot. I have nothing against Starbucks, but this was a disaster. Pursuing the theory of profitable coffee shop management Starbucks filled the place with uncomfortable wooden furniture clearly designed to move people on and milk the space.

The complaints which ensued were so loud and bitter that the university eventually offered PC another space on the campus. But this illustrates a problem. Opening a coffee shop is supposed to be about much more than offering a particular kind of hot drink. A coffee shop should aspire to the status of an important social space, a community asset like the English pub or the French estaminet.

But this in turn requires a willingness to forgo that process known in business circles as “sweating the assets.” A traditional coffee shop meets needs outside the simple matter of warm fluid which are difficult to monetise. Efforts to impose or encourage a “minimum spend” or a “maximum stay” are not compatible with the desired ambience.

The situation is not hopeless. Perhaps the present turbulence in the commercial property market will lead to more tolerance for experiments. Perhaps corporate greed will wilt in the face of alert and discriminating consumers. Or perhaps not.

Read Full Post »

Having sworn off Hong Kong politics I am certainly not going to start writing about American ones.

Besides, what American electors get up to is really none of our business. If citizens of the Land of the Free wish to be represented on the international stage by a convicted criminal, serial sex pest and compulsive liar, that is their choice.

I am, though, concerned about reports that the titans of US tech have been lining up not only to make the usual polite noises about a new president, but to throw money at his inauguration and express admiration and allegiance to the Orange Catastrophe.

Press people are not much better, I admit. Six months ago Mr Trump was being written about in the sort of condescending tones usually reserved for unsuccessful stand-up comics. Now we are treated to thoughtful analysis of Mr Trump’s possible policies.

In their innermost thoughts most of these writers are well aware that Mr Trump does not have policies. To have a policy you must first read and think about the issues involved. Mr Trump notoriously does neither. Where other people have policies he has prejudices and impulses.

The prejudices are unchanging and unchangeable. The impulses come and go from day to day, under the unhelpful influence of Fox News. Neither the prejudices nor the impulses are hampered by any close examination of the real world.

Still, none of the press people has been adopted as courtiers. Whereas at the Inauguration on Monday the tech tycoons were lined up for the cameras. The nobodies in the background are members of the new Cabinet, who are apparently going to get the same respectful attention as Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet got from her.

The problem this poses is nicely exemplified by the flourishing market in bumper stickers for embarrassed Tesla owners to put on their cars. These run to variations on “I bought this car before we knew that Elon was mad”. An entertaining option: “I bought this car before Elon became First Lady.”

Fortunately I had not got round to buying a Tesla of any kind. Also, having never been a Twitterer I have effortlessly avoided X. As I have no ambitions to move to Mars I suppose I am pretty Muskproof. Which is just as well, because I know what a Nazi salute looks like and I am looking at one now.

However my computer is an iMac. It is a very fine computer and it is a recent purchase. I can hardly give it up. But I understand the big Apple man has made his bow although he doesn’t seem to have attended the inauguration.

Definitely in the picture, though, are the billionaires responsible for my two favourite pieces of time-wasting software, Youtube and Facebook, as well as the modern journalist’s essential tool, Google.

This integration of digital imperialism with the political kind must be a worry in a good many places. There is mounting evidence that indulging in extensive internet use is toxic for children and young people. And if there is no attempt to stem the torrent of lies it can be pretty disturbing for adults, too.

It will be a source of much justified resentment if attempts to deal with these problems in Europe or South America are opposed by the US in the name of “free speech”.

We all like free speech and we all recognise, as our local government occasionally reminds us, that it has limits. Steven Pinker asserts (in “The better angels of our nature”) that humanity was elevated to a new level of sympathy and gentleness by the invention of the novel, and the resulting invitation to put yourself in other people’s place and imagine what they must be thinking and feeling.

According to Mr Pinker this was a slow but dramatic change, leading to a great reduction in violence generally. This raises the question: what is five hours a day of web browsing doing to people? I am not sure what the answer to this question might be but it seems increasingly likely that the answer is “nothing good”.

So the titans of tech are poisoning our minds. And if we use their stuff I suppose we are in danger of complicity. They invite you in, but only so that they can sell you to advertisers. It seems under the circumstances the least you can do is install a good ad blocker. This also has the important benefit of making Youtube much more enjoyable.

I cannot unfortunately recommend the further step of urging our government to restrict nasty internet content. This is because our leaders have a track record of using laws intended for other purposes to harass or punish activities they disapprove of, like fund-raising for unliked causes, playing unliked tunes in public, running independent bookshops or dubiously loyal restaurants, and so on. They’re doing quite enough censorship already.

Read Full Post »

A word of advice for policy secretaries: do not, in your laudable efforts to communicate with the general public over social media, tell us all how tough your job is.

This thought was first prompted by an end-of-the-year Facebook contribution from Chris Tang, the Secretary for Security, in which he recalled a year full of challenges, loss of sleep and “inflammation in my eyes and shoulders, and my gout came back.”

Mr Tang is in a sense in a class of his own. As the Secretary for Security he is in charge of the prison-filling machinery. Numerous people who have friends enjoying the unwanted hospitality of the correctional industry will have been tempted to rather uncharitable responses to reports of his medical problems. Like “Gout? Pity it wasn’t ebola.”

Let us, though, avoid personal specifics and concentrate on the situation of policy secretaries generally. There are plenty of things which they all have in common, which make them rather unlikely recipients for public sympathy.

We know from the budget that you all enjoy salaries exceeding those enjoyed in other countries by prime ministers, presidents and even in some modest cases kings. We know from the reported details of the Political Appointments scheme that you have the services of a secretary, a deputy, a personal assistant and a driver.

Where there is a driver we must also suppose there is a free car.

We know from a little glitch in the sewage system of the freshly-opened Central Government complex that your office also has a private toilet, a dream for many Hong Kong people living in subdivided flats or bedspaces.

We know from the difficulties Ms Carrie Lam experienced when thrust out into the real world that these generous provisions lead to helplessness when forced to use public transport, and complete lack of familiarity with the concept of buying your own toilet paper.

Your work may feel challenging and strenuous but it is also clean, safe and prestigeous. Hong Kong’s working population is (latest census figure) 3.83 million. At least 3.8 million of those people would happily swap jobs with you. Many of them are completely unqualified for the work, but would tell themselves that even if they were fired after a month they would still have earned more than they usually get in a year.

But being unable to do anything useful has not historically been a bar to a lengthy period in office as a policy secretary. The rice bowl is not iron but it is not exactly fragile either.

Under the circumstances complaining about your work makes you look like, to coin a phrase, a bit of a wuss. Getting landmark legislation through Legco may be a source of pride. But how hard can it be to get a law passed in a legislature containing 89 government supporters and one independent?

I would also recommend not going on about possibly work-related medical problems. You are all about 60 years old, give or take a few years. You are reaching a stage in life when the biological machinery which you have taken for granted for half a century starts to throw up the odd problem and needs some care and maintenance.

Sooner or later all of you will encounter one or more of arthritis, tinnitis, varicose veins, deteriorating eyesight, cataracts, mysterious muscular twinges, and occasional inability to remember where you put something down five minutes ago. Your doctor will develop a desire to push cameras into places where you do not normally welcome foreign bodies – happily this is done while you are asleep – and subject you to mysterious but expensive scans.

After a few years of this you will find that conversations with other people in your age group often involve comparisons of medical histories. This is all part of life’s rich pageant and nothing to worry about. But people who are already enjoying it will not be impressed by complaints about the first small symptoms.

A final word for fellow gout victims. This problem is not caused by hard work; it is caused by high uric acid levels in your blood. The solution is a cheap pill called allopurinol. I have been taking it for 40 years.

Looking on the bright side, this used to be known as “the disease of kings” because it was erroneously associated with rich food. Famous victims have included Isaac Newton, Christopher Columbus, Benjamin Franklin, Beethoven and George W. Bush’s vice president Dick Cheney. Doesn’t that feel better?

Read Full Post »

The government has put out some details about its plan to eliminate substandard miniflats. But a question remains.

According to a newspaper contribution by the relevant minister there are believed to be 110,000 sub-divided flats – where an already miniature flat is further split up for multiple occupation – in Hong Kong.

It is estimated that 220,000 people live in them. This is a suspiciously round number. It appears that it is the consequence of a finding (wild guess?) that the number of people living in each tiny flatlet is on average two.

No doubt this is a difficult area and two seems a plausible number for a very small space. On the other hand before the public housing system really got under way there were similar estimates for the number of people per squatter hut. And they turned out to be much too low.

Never mind. Let us go along with the official numbers. There are 110,000 miniflats accommodating 220,000 people. It is further supposed that about 80,000 of these little homes will be able, with some work, to conform to official standards in the matter of space, windows, plumbing and such like.

The other 30,000 or so will, in the Housing Secretary’s rather chilling phrase, be “targeted for eradication.” She supposes that this will leave 77,000 units still on the market after mandated improvements.

This also seems a bit optimistic. If you are the owner of a sub-divided flat facing a large bill to bring your sub-units up to official standards, there are alternatives. One obvious one is to dismantle the subdivisions and sell or rent the flat in its original intended form. Or you can unload the whole arrangement to some hardened criminal who will regard the remote possibility of a large fine with equanimity.

Still, again, let us go along with the official figures. We now come to the unanswered question. There are 30,000 flats to be “eradicated”. They will be home to 60,000 people. Where are all these people supposed to go?

We have already been told that they will not be going to public housing, unless they arrive at the front of the queue just in time. Officials are apparently worried that there may be a rush to occupy really squalid spaces in the hope that inhabitants will be wafted swiftly into public housing.

Well whatever the merits of that theory, only 40 percent of miniflat dwellers have even applied for public housing. So we have 36,000 people for whom the government apparently has no plans at all.

There is an ironic history here. During the 1980s and 90s the government took a great pride in the number of overseas housing people who came to Hong Kong to look at local public housing efforts and learn from them.

But the big attraction was not the multi-story tower blocks which were then growing like mushrooms all over the New Territories. Lots of places had experimented with public housing in tower blocks, with mixed results.

The big attraction was an innovation called a Temporary Housing Area. The idea behind these places (pic here) was that the government provided a floor and roof for a single-story structure and the occupants put in the walls. Water, showers and toilets were provided centrally and residents cooked on bottled gas.

This was an outstandingly cheap solution and had obvious attractions for places which had more space than we do. Hong Kong being Hong Kong there were recurring reports of local bandits monopolising the wall-building, but apart from that the only drawback was that the area was always only temporarily available. The government had other plans for it, usually but not always for housing.

This was nobody’s idea of paradise but it met a need. The nearest thing to it now seems to be what officials call “transitional housing”. Web site here. It is usually run by NGOs apparently. However only 3,000 units are currently under construction so those 36,000 people will have to wait.

I am sure the government’s intentions in sorting out the sub-divided flat situation are good. It would be nice, though, if the people running housing policy tried harder to look as if they recognised that the occupants are people, whose happiness is the objective of the exercise.

Read Full Post »