tim's experiment

The 360 cable car from Tung Chung to the Big Buddha has now been out of action for a couple of months. No doubt the shopkeepers have been feeling the pain and many visitors have been disappointed. Yet, this time, nobody has been complaining about the management.

This is not what happened when the cable car endured a little spate of opening glitches. There is a habit in Hong Kong, of which locals appear completely unaware, and indeed which appears so natural and inevitable that it seems almost churlish to complain. If something goes wrong there is a tendency to find a foreigner to take the blame. This satisfies everyone except the foreigner conerned, who with luck will leave the territory and be in no position to complain. The habit surfaces in all sorts of places. Education is no bar to it: it is often the outcome of problems in universities (and institutes which would like to be universities). Sometimes, as in the Harbourfest debacle, the foreign scapegoat bites back. More often, as in the airport launch complaints, he has already left us and perhaps does not mind too much what is said about him.

When the cable care had a few initial teething troubles, as new pieces of machinery tend to, a number of people who had shown no previous signs of knowledge pertaining to cable cars opined that the management company, which was Australian, were not up to snuff. The management company was duely fired, and the MTR took over. Everyone was happy. Readers will note that the standard of management appears actually to be no better. Maybe cable cars are harder to run than appears on the surface. Maybe the MTR’s formidable engineering skills are not of the type required. Whatever the reason it appears that the cable car is still accident prone. As there is no longer a foreigner to blame I suppose we just have to put it down to bad luck.

Read Full Post »

A llttle snippet stuck in my brain from the Legco debate (as I call it for want of a better word) on the third runway. The government spokesperson gave a figure for the total cost of the new runway, and followed it with a figure for the runway’s contribution to the local economy over the ensuing 30 years.

And the question is, of course, what was this figure worth. Look at it this way. The runway will not be finished for six years. So the official figure purports to tell us the share of the Hong Kong economy contributed by the new white elephant between six years from now and 36 years from now. This prediction comes to you from a government which has consistently failed to predict its own income and expenditure over the ensing 12 months.

There are good reasons why predictions of this nature should be regarded as a joke. Over 36 years your errors proliferate. If you make an error of one percent a year in your estimate, this does not mean that at the end of 36 years your estimate is 36 per cent out. This works like compound interest: the accumulated error will be over 50 percent. Inevitably, there will also be unforseen events of a one-off kind: banking crises, epidemics, volcanic eruptions or whatever. These will blow large holes in your forcast. A serious prediction would at least come with a range. One could pretend to take seriously a figure which came with a caveat that the outcome might vary by 30 per cent either side. But I fear on topics of this kind the official figures are not intended to be honest: they are intended to be propaganda for what the government has already decided it wants to do.

Well I came across an interesting piece of research the other day. An academic had studied all the railway projects in the world over the last three decades of the 20th century. He came up with some interesting figures. The average cost over-run for these projects – not the maximum, the average, was 120 per cent. The average shortfall in the passenger numbers compared with the pre-project predictions (once again note this is an average) was 50 per cent. In other words, as a rough rule of thumb you can expect any railway project to cost twice as much as it was supposed to, and then to attract half the predicted number of passengers. Shares in the High Speed Rail Link, anyone? I have seen no comparable figure for new airports or runways but it does show you that there is a large margin of error here, and most of the errors tend to be in the same direction.

Read Full Post »

Fascinating to watch the reactions to our new CE. Anson Chan a belated fount of hostile comment. Regina, I rather suspect, would like a job. Taipan thinks only three of CY Leung’s supporters are capable of becoming policy secretaries (come on, the job’s not that difficult) while other commentators are pencilling names with enthusiasm. Some genius decided that China (a usefully vague word people use when guessing what passes through the collective mind of the Liaison  Office) wanted 80 per cent of existing secretaries to stay on in the interests of continuity. Heaven forbid that there should be any blips in the supply of mediocrity.

Clearly Mr Leung is not going to go short of advice. I am not sure that urging him to keep the tired old team more or less intact is very helpful, and putting forward Arthur Li as a potential appointee is barely short of sabotage. But I shall not add to the discord.

Some advice, though, for everyone else. Do not expect too much. I found a wonderful comment on politics from Michael Oakeshott lurking in a current (highly recommended) bestseller called the Social Animal. The quote goes like this: “In political activity, then, men ssail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy; and the seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion.” Success, in short, is keeping things afloat, not finding Paradise.

The other thing to remember is that politics is very much a matter of luck. Some politicians manage to hold power in unchallenging times, some meet challenges for which they are well equipped, and some are overwhelmed by events. Which you get is down to luck.  If Mr Tung had been Hong Kong’s last Governor the territory would still have enjoyed prosperity, and if Mr Patten had been the first CE there would still have been a financial crisis and a SARS epidemic. Mr Leung’s success will depend on many matters beyond his, and our, control.  That of course will not stop us blaming him if things go pearshaped, but that goes with the job too. He wanted it. He’s got it. Fruit will now fly.

Read Full Post »

Quite the most depressing feature of the exercise which masquerades as a Chief Executive election has been the growing chorus of complaints from electors that they do not know whom to vote for. This would perhaps be understandable if it was a complaint about the attractiveness of the three candidates. But it is not. The thing which is bothering a surprising number of electors is that they have not received a clear signal from Beijing, and consequently do not know who is the candidate favoured by our imperial masters.

This complaint reached a pathetic crescendo last week with two “electors” complaining on the front page of the usual newspaper that they had not had clear instructions. One of them apparently spoke for the Chinese Medicine group of voters, betraying a degree of sycophancy which perhaps explains why this group was chosen as the source of a surprising number of electors in the first place. The witch doctors are “which?” doctors, willing puppets who will complain if their strings are not pulled vigorously enough.

I can understand voters thinking that Beijing’s preferences are a relevant matter for consideration. After all we all understand that if the winner is Albert Ho then the whole “one country two systems” concept may come under a strain which it is unable to bear. Clearly it is useful if the successful candidate is somebody who is acceptable in Beijing, and will be trusted by our colonial masters not to do a Dalai Lama.

Having said that one would also expect that electors could take on board the idea that if Beijing does not have a clear preference between two of the candidates then this is an opportunity for voters to use their own skill and judgment in the public service. If Hong Kong is ever to make full use of its “high degree of autonomy” we must surely recognise that Beijing’s preferences in matters of this kind may be more sophisticated than a simple preference for one candidate under all circumstances.

Actually my understanding, for what it is worth, of Beijing’s position is that they would prefer Henry Tang but not if he has to be enthroned in the teeth of widespread public disapproval. I would have thought anyone who was bright enough to practice medicine of any kind ought to be able to get his head round that. Sorry boys, Beijing actually expects you to use your own brains and make your own choice. Stop whinging and get on with it.

Read Full Post »

Anopther mysterious and fascinating piece of journalism on Friday’s SCMP front page. Headline: “Xi calls for end to chaos and mud-slinging”. Secondary heading: Beijing’s leader-in-waiting (My insertion: Xi Jinping, currently Vice President, is expected to step up soon) tells congress delegates to consider the bigger picture – an apparent reminder to chief executive candidates to exercise self-restraint”. An apparent reminder?

First paragraph: “Vice President Xi Jinping yesterday essentially called for an end to the chaos and scandal-mongering in the city’s chief executive election”.  Well well. When I was a reporter people sometimes called for things. Sometimes, if this was surprising, we reported that they did not call for things. But they did not “essentially call” for things . What does “essentially” mean in this context? Coming later. In the meantime we have a quote from Maria Tam “Xi told delegates to the NPC … not to focus on personal interests but to take care of the overall well-being of the city,” which seems like a harmless and rather unspecific call for self-sacrifice, patriotism and other platitudes. Not, however to our intrepid reporter, who discovered that “Politicians and analysts said that Mr Xi’s remark was code (!) intended to remind the supporters of both front-runners … to refrain from further smear campaigns”. OK, the mud-slinging was in the code; when do we get to the chaos?

Well we don’t, actually. First we get a real quote from Maria Tam, quoting Mr Xi: The vice president said that patriots … should serve as role models to prioritise the overall interests of the country above their personal interests, to stand tall and look at the bigger picture when contemplating the city’s development.” So who says this means “chaos and mid-slinging”? Enter “China affairs expert” Mr Johnny Lau Yiu-sui. Before we get to Mr Lau’s code-breaking, a word about who he is: Google the name and you get a succession of Press pieces in which he is referred to variously as “political pundit”, “Hong Kong-based veteran China-watcher”, and “veteran political commentator”. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, though, Mr Lau is a journalist.

Here he goes on the code: “When Xi asked the people to stand tall and look at the bigger picture, he meant the people should make sacrifices for the greater benefit of society. The series of scandals is not only causing chaos for the election, it is putting Beijing in a difficult position.”  I take it, in other words, that Mr Xi was calling for sacrifices. The mud-slinging and chaos is Mr Lau’s gloss on the situation, effortlessly transferred by sleight of journalistic hand to Mr Xi.

Well we were promised “politicians and analysts” in paragraph 3. Mrs Tam is a p0litician and Mr Lau is an analyst, so we should have one of each to go. Actually we get two more politicians. One NPC deputy said Xi’ s remarks showed the Central government was concerned that the election was becoming an “ungentlemanly contest”. And then we come to our beloved Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai … who said that Mr Xi was not talking about the election at all!

Now let us sort out one little verbal point first. The use of the words “mud-slinging”and “scandal” should be reserved for cases where the items being slung are phony. Nobody has been spreading scandal about Henry Tang: the emergence of every story is followed by a press conference at which Henry admits all, asks us to forgive him, or his wife, or both of them, and then carries on as if nothing had happened. People who want a CE with a big basement have been trying to come up with something on CY Leung but none of it has amounted to much so far.

Another point: in the days when it was difficult to visit China and even harder to get people there to talk to you, there was a valuable role for people who sat in Hong Kong and provided a verbal sauce to slather over whatever tiny morsels of information you had managed to glean. This is no longer the case. Mr Lau may be right in supposing that the Communist Party leadership fears “chaos” in Hong Kong but he helps nobody by imparting that interesting thought to Mr Xi’s speech. Even allowing for the amount of translation going on in the generation of this story, the resulting exegesis seems to have so fragile a connection to Mr Xi’s reported words that it could have been attached to almost any comment on Hong Kong that was not about our football team.

I realise that many hands go into the construction of a news story. Also I have on occasion, when a front-page lead was wanted and no prime candidate had appeared for the slot, been reduced to a desperate effort to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as they used to say. Still, there are limits. It seems to me that if readers are told in the headline “Xi calls for an end to chaos” they are entitled to a good deal more than an interpretative quote from another journalist. Mr Xi will soon be the only person in China who can exercise complete freedom of speech. He does not need distant strangers to say on his behalf things he did not say himself. Perhaps the SCMP, also, needs to “stand tall and look at the bigger picture”.

Read Full Post »

Another of those little mysteries on Page 2 of the Post today. At the top: the G20 confronts the global economic crisis. On the right, the CE election. At the bottom, Hong Kongers queue for Lady Gaga tickets. In the middle, two academics comment on safety conditions in the Zambian copper mining industry. Eh? I realize that readers of our Leading English-language Newspaper are citizens of the world, cosmopolitan investors with a wide range of outside interests, but even if Zambian copper mining is the thing which floats your boat, why would you be interested in what a couple of local Powerpoint pushers had to say about the subject?
Well the Post team did their best. It seems that safety standards in mines owned by Chinese firms in Zambia had been criticised in a Human Rights Watch report for having unusually low safety standards. I presume this means unusually low by Zambian standards, not by Chinese ones. This is a them versus us story, OK? Chinese firms are being slagged off by Western imperialist running-dogs.
Two local academics will present a paper on their disagreeement with the report next month, the story went on. Actually if you want to read their comments they are already on the internet, followed by a reply from Human Rights Watch, and further comments from them. Agreement remains elusive. The seminar, if you are a glutton for the finer points of human rights in Zambian copper mines, is at the HKUST on March 9. You will not meet me there.
Actually there is more going on here than meets the eye. The two academics, Barry Sautman of the UST and Yan Hairong of the PolyU, have a nice little joint thing going on the Chinese presence in Africa. Many “research outputs” have already hit the presses. Basically they see China as a Good Thing. This will not surprise connoisseurs of Dr Sautman’s output because as well as a “political scientist and lawyer” he is an enthusiastic exponent of the idea that the Chinese government is a benevolent and law-abiding institution shamelessly slandered by Western academics and journalists. He is the sort of foreigner the China Daily cherishes, willing at appropriate moments to be rude about the Dalai Lama, Liu Xiaobo, or anyone who supposes that at some point in its long history Tibet may once have been an independant country.
Diligent searchers of the internet will find the Zambian copper mine controversy already covered in a variety of strange places, including one website whose correspondent in Syria started his latest bulletin with the immortal phrase “The Syrian military yesterday continued their operation to defend the Syrian population from insurgents, which are most heavily concentrated in the city of Homs.”
Readers will I hope by now be nurturing some suspicions that the mine safety aspects of this matter are being somewhat polluted by the political ones. The two complainers have it in their report that the total number of deaths in China-owned mines is lower than in the others, which by itself is meaningless. They go on to the figure proportionate to the number of miners, which is a bit high but not much, then rather muddy the waters by suggesting that low wages at the Chinese mines are because both of them were closed for long periods during the time the casualty figures were being collected. Clearly it is not beyond the wit of man to settle this by examining detailed figures, but this is not what social scientists and anthropologists do. So readers who are really interested in mine safety should probably look elsewhere.
Meanwhile we are left to wonder what the Hell is going on at the South China Morning Post. Upcoming academic seminars on business practices in Africa are not usually regarded as material for the news pages. Drs Sautman and Yan clearly belong on the Op Ed page, if we must have them. Is the new regime trying harder … to compete with the China Daily English language edition?

Read Full Post »

A narrow escape last week. I read the story that Donald Tsang had accepted a ride on a luxury yacht from Macau, where he was on holiday, back to Hong Kong. This was within government guidelines for the acceptance of advantages, we were told, because Donald had paid (presumably the millionaire yacht owner) the price of a ferry ticket over the same route. This seemed to me to suggest that either the guidelines, or Donald’s ínterpretation of them, left a good deal to be desired. After all a ride on a luxury yacht is not just a way of getting from A to B. While the hapless victim of the jetfoil companies is virtually trapped in his seat, plied, if he is lucky, with over-priced junk food, the traveller by luxury yacht has a quite different experience. He can get up, walk around, talk to the driver, visit the engine room, bask on the deck or enjoy whatever culinary titbits his host’s generosity will stretch to. Mr Tsang admitted to consuming a “light breakfast”. So I was going to write that Mr Tsang should think again. It was as if he had been offered a flight back from Las Vegas in a private jet, and merely paid the Economy Class fare. Fortunately I was still mulling over this line of argument when some further news emerged about Mr Tsang’s travels. He had, apparently, accepted a ride back from Thailand in a private jet, and he had in fact paid the Economy fare.

Now look, folks, this will not do. If someone presents you with an antique bottle of Veuve Cliquot champagne, you do not discharge your obligations to honest government by paying him the price of the cheapest available bottle of Park ‘n’ Shop plonk. You pay him the market price for that particular bottle or you are accepting an advantage. The market price of a private jet trip is not the same as the price of an Economy Class ticket over the same route. Chartering large yachts is extremely expensive – almost as expensive as chartering a plane – so the price of a trip on one from Macau to Hong Kong is not the same as the price of a jetfoil ticket either.

I realise that the whole thing is potentially a bit embarassing: someone offers you what appears to be a favour and you start waving bundles of money at him. But there is a solution to this problem. Mr Tsang should stop hobnobbing with mainland millionaires altogether. He cannot be so stupid as to suppose that his social cachet in these circles is due to his wit, wisdom or personal beauty. Having a Chief Executive on your boat or plane is good for business, even if the CE is a paragon of honesty. In mainland business circles official corruption is not just anticipated as a possibility, it is assumed.  Mr Tsang is supposed to be solving Hong Kong’s numerous problems, not researching for a post-retirement tome on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

Read Full Post »

Dear Henry,
Sorry mate, it’s time to pack it in. Always a shame to abandon a dream, but some things are just not meant to be. Watching you on television last night, trying to slide the Building Ordinance blame gently towards your wife, was the most stomach-churning spectacle to grace the Hong Kong goggle box since a python regurgitated a half-digested calf in Saikung 20 years ago. If you still had a serious chance we might at this point spend some time on the need for a Chief Executive to be a person of character, willing to take responsibility, willing to recognise that sometimes the buck stops on his desk.

The fact is, though, that your Kowloon Tong fuhrerbunker has not just revealed you as a man with an easy way with the law and a distressing faculty for half-excuses. Worse than that, it has made you a laughing stock. The idea of a multi-millionaire with a secret underground retreat and a bottoms-up view of his own swimming pool is going to launch a thousand jokes, many of them hardly compatible with the minimum level of respect appropriate to a Chief Executive, even in the eyes of an old anarchist like me. As this point somes home to selection committee members you are likely to be in more danger of coming third than of winning. You had a good run, you don’t need the money, and no doubt our imperial masters will be able to find some prestigious consolation prize in the vicinity of the CPPCC. Get off the stage while we’re still laughing, before we all start throwing fruit.

Read Full Post »

For people who were kids in the 50s, sequences of three digits conjure up long forgotten visions of steam locomotives. In the days of steam a locomotive was classified by three digits which told you the number of driving wheels — the middle figure — and the number of other wheels in front and behind. So Thomas the Tank Engine was 0-6-0, the Titfield Thunderbolt was 0-4-4, the exquisitely beautiful Stirling Single was 2-2-4 and the record-breaking Mallard was 4-6-2. And so on. The numbers were always even, because the locomotive wheels always came in pairs: one each side. To those of us raised with this system the arrival of 3-3-4 suggests a railway engine designed by an idiot, with one or two wheels missing. Unfortunately on closer acquaintance with Hong Kong’s so-called educational reforms they still suggest a machine designed by an idiot, with one or two wheels missing.

In the two decades I have been working in Hong Kong higher education I cannot recall an innovation which inspired less enthusiasm and confidence. Universities and their components are already setting up Crisis Committees — under a variety of tactful names — to deal with the crises confidently expected. We do not know what the crisis will be yet but that there will be one is not in doubt. This is one of Donald Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns”.

The problem is not with the principle of the thing. Whether young people should spend — broadly speaking — the period between their 17th and 18th birthdays in the last year of school or the first year of university does not make a great deal of difference, as long as the total remains the same … which it will. Under the new system there will be an increase in the number of students staying until age 17, then a decrease in the year until 18, and then the same number as there is now. The implementation is the problem.

When the idea of four-year degrees was first mooted, all sorts of university people had interesting ideas for the use which could be made of the extra time. This decision, however, was ruthlessly preempted by the Heads of Universities Committee, which without consulting anyone audibly, decided that the extra year would be spent on a preparatory year of General Education. We need to be careful in our wording here, because some people have described this as “a liberal general education”, or “a general liberal education”. which is misleading. Liberal education has nothing to do with it.

Liberal education is an idea usually ascribed eroneously to the 19th century divine Cardinal Newman, who used the term in a detailed (but not implemented) plan for a new university in Ireland. But this grossly overstates Newman’s influence. Liberal education is a widespread explanation for the university curriculum because the great Prussian educational reformer Wilhelm von Humboldt embodied it in German universities, whence it was exported by immigrants to America. In some parts of the 20th century the fact that much of the American university education system was based on German models was … embarassing. But even Humboldt’s fans admit that he did not invent the concept either. It can already be found in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in 1765, and it is clear from the way Blackstone used the term that he expected readers to be familiar with it. As you might expect from this era Liberal Education was intended for aristocrats, as an alternative to the then traditional university education, which was intended for priests. The hope was that young aristocrats could be persuaded to take an interest in more edifying pursuits than the traditional aristocratic hobbies: sex, husbandry and hunting, with occasional warfare. Indeed Blackstone defends law as a part of the liberal curriculum (he was the first Professor of Law at Oxford) on the grounds that it would prepare students for their future roles as Justices of the Peace and MPs. Both of these jobs were at the time entirely unpaid roles, taken up by people who had time and money to spare. But Liberal Education on this model is not a free-for-all. It requires the study of specific components, basically classical (i.e. ancient Greek and Roman) history and philosophy. This was not the doddle now offered under the label of Classical Studies because the Greek and Roman works were to be read in the original languages. By the time of Humboldt some pure science had been added but the ancients were still there. The degree course was supposed to explore the foundations of knowledge, not tour the whole building.

General education is a different kettle of curriculum. It provides some basic required subjects distributed around the university, and requires the student to spread his patronage around: so many subjects in the Science
Faculty, so many in Business, so many in Arts, and so forth. This actually has very little to do with the educational merits of syllabus tourism, and a great deal to do with the convenience of university administrators. If they are honest (which they rarely are on this topic) they will admit that the great merit of forcing students to spread their attention is that this cushions the administrative inconvenience caused by changes in the popularity of different subjects. Let us say the number who wish to take Sewerage Studies halves, and the number wishing to take Logical Positivism doubles. We still do not have to fire sewage specialists, or hire philosophers, because the students must in any case spend half of their time spreading their custom around the university. So there will still be some demand for sewage and the effect on philosophy will be halved.

However in order to convince us all of the merits of General Education a large number of eager enthusiasts were imported, with the consequence that at some universities the idea did not stop at the end of the first year, but effectively consumed the second. In effect, committees devoted to planning the new four-year curriculum found that they barely had room for what they were doing in three. In fact in some places, including the one where I still occasionally push the Powerpoint, the eventual total was somewhat less. Students studying Journalism in the new four-year programme will have 45 units of Journalism out of a total of 120. In the old system they had 54 from 90something. Personally I do not think this is an improvement. Some planners, quite understandably under the circumstances, decided that they really were not called on to do anything new at all: they simply dropped the old three-year curriculum into the space remaining and left it at that.

Enthusiasm was not encouraged by other things which were going on at the same time. The UGC continued its efforts to sort out local universities into five sheep (mainly teaching) and three goats (mainly research). Previous attempts in this direction had been a total failure. All the UGC-funded institutions want to be research universities so they all pumped up their research output. The UGC’s latest wheeze replaces research output as the key to prosperity with the results of a competition which the goats are expected to win. Money will be bestowed on those who are successful in garnering competitive research grants. Woe to the researcher whose work does not happen to require a large grant. He is likely to be unpopular. Universities bidding for the goat category redoubled their efforts to push staff into doing more, and more competitive, research. At the same time the UGC unveiled its new bid to appear to take teaching seriously. This is called OBTL (Outcome Based Teaching and Learning) and posits an elaborate structure of planned and advertised objectives, methods, activities and evaluations, leading to course objectives which support programme objectives, which in turn are conducive to Graduate Attributes sought by the whole university. Complaints that this was a negation of university education, in particular because of the insistence that nothing should be taught unless it could be counted immediately at the end of each course, were met by the reply that people complaining “did not understand” OBTL. I must say this came as a surprise to me. Trying to help colleagues to get their heads round this system I find that the more they know about it the less they like it. One wonders what Humbold would have thought of it. Well actually we know what Humboldt would have thought of it, because he thought of educational institutions as working communities entailing the exchange of ideas between professors and students, not sausage factories in which students would be stuffed with predetermined dollops of knowledge. “The university teacher is no longer the teacher, and the student is no longer the learner, but himself does research, with the professor guiding his research and supporting him in it.” Clearly whatever we are doing it is not Liberal Education in the traditional sense. Anyway whether you like OBTL or not it involved another avalanche of unsought extra work, so some reluctance to consider the finer points of the four-year curriculum was to be expected.

The first four-year problem will probably be admissions. The university heads also bent their brains to this problem, and ordained that admission to all programmes should be initially to the faculty or school, with students choosing their Major later. Exceptions were made (only a foolhardy Vice Chancellor would meddle in the arrangements of the doctors and lawyers) for “professional programmes”. But for the rest of us, Faculty or School it is. The problem with this is that as a result there will be thousands of applicants to each portal. And as the new examination system offers a much narrower range of grades than the old one did, many of them will be difficult to tell apart. But as there will be thousands of applicants it will not be possible to take other things into account, much less do anything really time-consuming like interviews. So the results will be reinterpreted in a variety of interesting ways to differentiate the students. This, by a gross misuse of language, is called “broad-based admission”. Students who fear that their chances of success in the new system are difficult to predict are quite right. A small collection of results will be tweaked in a variety of ways to magnify differences between students, so quite small differences in your exam success may make a very large difference to your chances of going to the university you really want. The attraction to universities is, as usual, administrative convenience. Once they have admitted you it is too late to change so if quotas force you into a Major you didn’t want then you will have to lump it. Students will have to conform to the university’s plan, not the other way round.

There is an emerging theme here. When university reform is conducted on a top-down basis the convenience of administrators’ effortlessly trumps the desires of the people actually doing the teaching, while their victims — the students — are not considered or consulted at all. Of couse the new system is being presented as a benefit to students. How could they say anything else? General education, we are told, will introduce students to the whole wide range of human knowledge. This is a worthy objective, but one unlikely to be achieved by leading the horse to the trough and then holding its nose underwater. There are plenty of ways in which interested students can broaden the range of their knowledge without them being dragooned into doing so at the taxpayer’s expense. Or we are told that this new arrangement will help students to make a more informed choice of Major. This will no doubt be true for students who arrive at university with little or no idea of what they want to do, though they will probably not be allowed to leave the faculty which admitted them. But what about the student who knows and loves his subject already, and expects the university to allow him to extend and deepen his appreciation of it? He will probably not welcome a compulsory year of academic tourism, even if the spots visited are interesting — an optimistic assessment.

We seem to be moving towards a system in which your first degree is largely spent on paying tribute to the university system and the people who run it in their own interests. If your chosen career actually has educational requirements you will have to do a Master’s degree, at considerable extra expense on a self-funding (for which read profit-making) basis. This is not a wildly attractive prospect. Indeed I understand educational officials actually expect about 30 per cent of the potential users of the new system to give it a miss. For a little more money and a lot less time you can go to the UK and choose a degree devoted to the subject of your choice which you will complete in three years. Those of us who work in Hong Kong universities are often asked for advice about degree choices. A depressing number of us find we have to mention this exodus as an attractive choice for those who can afford it.

Read Full Post »

Concern about the number of mainland ladies coming to Hong Kong to have their babies has mysteriously transformed itself into a preoccupation with the fact that the resulting kids have an automatic right to live in Hong Kong. Hence the solution to the problem now being touted on all sides is to come up with some legal way of removing the automatic residency from the off-spring. This seems to me to be rather unrealistic. It is not based on any careful research among mainland mothers-to-be and depends on a rather poor stab at their likely motivations.

No doubt if you are a pregnant mainlander the prospect of your kid having the right to live in Hong Kong is not unwelcome. But it hardly seems a strong enough attraction to offset the considerable cost, inconvenience and even danger involved in having your baby in Hong Kong. After all his or her right to live in Hong Kong is going to be a rather fragile asset. The kid is going to stay with you on the mainland, in the majority of cases, until he or she is old enough to leave home for work or university – say 18 years. In that time a lot of things could happen. The Hong Kong government may change the law so that your kid is no longer a resident. Or the need for permission may disappear: in most places citizens are allowed to travel freely within their own countries. This arrangement has not yet reached China but things are getting looser. Another possibility is that after 18 years no sane mainlander wishes to move to Hong Kong anyway, there being no attractive difference any more. If something really dire happens in China, Hong Kong can no longer expect to be left out. So giving birth in Hong Kong, as a long-term investment in the future of your sprog, doesn’t have a great deal going for it.

Meanwhile there are other more cogent reasons which have nothing to do with the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR and relate to parts of China’s current arrangements which local left-wingers would perhaps rather not draw to our attention. The One-child policy, to begin with, is still policy. Mothers embarking on a second pregnancy are still subject to a good deal of discouragement and some post-natal persecution. No doubt having it in Hong Kong is not a complete solution to this problem, but it helps.

There is also the matter of mainland medical services. We are occcasionally assured that some hospitals in China are as good as any hospitals anywhere, but the average standard is quite low, and corruption is a problem. There is also the matter of unscrupulous suppliers of necessities like baby milk. In a country where people are prepared to poison babies to make a fast buck, mothers-to-be may feel that the hazards of having their babies on the threshold of a Tuen Mun casualty department are worth risking, and indeed smaller than the dangers of a conventional delivery nearer home.

Given these attractions you have to wonder whether mainland mothers would be significantly deterred by an announcement that their off-spring would no longer be instant Hong Kongers. Actually if people really believe this is the main consideration the problem could be solved very easily by announcing that all babies born anywhere in China would have the automatic right to live in Hong Kong. This would entirely remove the incentive to give birth in Hong Kong and the babies, when grown, would still have to solve the sort of problems which face would-be migrants anywhere: jobs, housing, culture shock …. And of course if the present arrangements are still in force they will need exit permits from the Chinese authorities.

But this will of course not happen. There is no room in our inn. Perhaps we should offer a stable.

Read Full Post »