Generation 40s – 四十世代

Good articles for buddies


Leave a comment

Red light on private cars needed in Hong Kong to curb roadside pollution

CommentInsight & Opinion

Mike Rowse says air pollution caused by the combination of traffic congestion and tall buildings has created a health crisis that can only be tackled by cracking down on the number of vehicles on the roads

 

It is a basic duty of governments to maintain the health and safety of their citizens to the maximum extent possible. If they can’t do that, then they don’t deserve to call themselves governments.

There are two policy areas where our government is close to failing in its duty (some would say has failed): roadside air pollution and peak-hour public transport. The issues are connected, but what is really alarming is that the problems are well documented, the solutions are well known and readily available, yet the likely outcome is that nothing will be done until it is too late. This suggests we have a fundamental problem of governance.

The subject of air pollution is broad and multifaceted. There is the cross-border aspect because of industrial activity in Guangdong province. There is a marine aspect because our busy harbour is close to the urban area. Some measures have been implemented to address these issues in recent years, though many would say too little, too late. To be fair, we should also acknowledge the greater use of cleaner fuels in power generation. Despite these modest improvements, air pollution is thought to cause five premature deaths per day in Hong Kong, and contribute to the deaths of around 20,000 Hongkongers per year.

Specifically on roadside air pollution, Hong Kong has a particular problem because of the “canyon effect”, where we have a large number of tall buildings in proximity. The major cause here is emissions from motor vehicles.

There has been explosive growth in the number of private cars during the last 10 years. We now have over 750,000 vehicles of all types on our roads, more than 540,000 of which (over 70 per cent) are private cars. Their direct contribution to roadside air pollution is modest – probably under 5 per cent. But their very presence on the road in such large numbers creates congestion. These vehicles would cause a lot less pollution if they were able to move more freely.

Which brings us to transport policy. The mainstay of our public transport system is our railway network. This is world-class and does a great job. But as anyone who uses it during peak hours will know – and I suspect this does not include our ministers – the MTR is getting dangerously overcrowded at certain times. The extensions to existing lines and construction of new ones are welcome but at key interchanges, they will bring more passengers and exacerbate the problem. At Admiralty, the situation is already dangerous, tolerable only because of the good sense and behaviour of passengers. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

To reduce the overcrowding and danger, our railway needs to be supplemented by a well-planned network of bus routes. But no matter how good the planning is, it will be to no avail if the vehicles are not moving freely. We do not need more buses on the road: we just need the ones we already have to be able to make more and faster journeys.

Here, the roadside air pollution and peak-hour transport overcrowding problems come together. We must halt the growth in the number of private cars on Hong Kong roads and then take bold steps to reduce the total. We cannot rely on fiscal means alone to achieve this as Hong Kong is a wealthy society and some people will always be prepared to stump up. That means we have to introduce a permit system.

There are various ways in which this might be done. People wishing to buy a car could be invited to bid for one of the limited number of permits to be issued each year (whether by lucky draw or highest offer is open to discussion). Existing owners of cars over a certain age, say 10 years, would also need to secure a permit before their car is relicensed. Any such scheme would be wildly unpopular with owners, but unless draconian steps are taken, the roadside air pollution and transport safety situations will deteriorate.

We cannot continue with a situation where the environment department just records how bad things are, the health department tries to treat the afflicted, while the transport department passively licenses increasing numbers of private cars which add pollution and increase congestion. That is not joined-up government and it is time we had some.

Mike Rowse is the CEO of Treloar Enterprises.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

How Europe is working to solve the plastic waste problem – and Hong Kong can, too

South China Morning Post
Comment›Insight & Opinion
2018-01-25

Carmen Cano

Carmen Cano outlines a new EU strategy involving making recycling profitable, limiting use of non-recyclable plastics, stopping littering at sea and promoting R&D, to keep plastics out of our waters and bodies

Every year, Europeans generate 25 million tonnes of plastic waste, but less than 30 per cent is collected for recycling. Microplastics are now found in our lungs, air and dinner tables, and damage our health without us even noticing. We need to address this and that is the objective of the new European Union Plastics Strategy.

The strategy on plastics is part of the EU’s transition towards a more circular economy. It will transform the way products are designed, produced, used and recycled in the EU. Now plastics are produced, used and discarded without the economic benefits of a circular approach. This mistake harms the environment. Our goal is to protect the environment while laying the foundations of a new plastic economy that promotes economic growth. This can be achieved by fully integrating the need to reuse, repair and recycle throughout the entire life cycle of products. At the same time, we will continue to develop more environmentally friendly materials. Europe is best placed to lead this transition.

By taking the lead, we will turn a threat into an economic and health benefit, while creating new investment opportunities and jobs. Under the plans, all plastic packaging on the EU market will be recyclable by 2030, consumption of single-use plastics will be reduced and intentional use of microplastics restricted. To ensure the strategy is effective and yields the best results, the EU will measure progress and adapt its policies where needed.

What does the strategy mean in practice? First, make recycling profitable for business through new rules on packaging to improve the recyclability of plastics and increasing the demand for recycled plastic, along with new recycling facilities and a standardised system for the collection and sorting of waste across the EU. This will create a more competitive, resilient plastics industry.

Second, curb plastic waste. Standards in Europe have reduced plastics use significantly. The new proposal focuses on single-use plastics and fishing gear, measures limiting microplastics use, and labels identifying biodegradable, compostable plastics.

Third, stop littering at sea. New measures will ensure that waste generated on ships is not left at sea but returned to land and disposed of adequately. It will also reduce the administrative burden on ports, ships and competent authorities.

Fourth, drive investment and innovation with guidance for national authorities and European businesses to minimise plastic waste, with 100 million euros (HK$956 million) more in support for R&D for smarter and more recyclable plastics.

Get on board the battle to stop plastic polluting the oceans

The EU strategy is not only relevant for Europeans. Last September, the EU Office to Hong Kong and Macau held a beach cleaning with more than 100 volunteers at Rocky Bay beach. In less than two hours, more than 900kg of waste was removed, the large majority of it plastic. The world faces an emergency. If we do not change how we produce and use plastics, there will be more plastics than fish in our oceans by 2050. We must keep plastics out of our water, food and bodies. The only long-term solution is to reduce plastic waste by recycling and reusing more. This is a challenge citizens, industry and governments around the world must tackle together. We hope the guidelines, available online, will be useful to others as well.

The EU will do its part but cannot, and should not, do it alone. Everyone must join in to make the waters clean, the air breathable and the environment safe again. Hong Kong can be a part of the solution and reap the benefits. The EU and its member states are ready to work together with Hong Kong on its plastic and environmental policies.

Ambassador Carmen Cano is head of the EU Office to Hong Kong and Macau


Leave a comment

From start-ups to big guns: can more Hong Kong entrepreneurs make it big in mainland China?

NewsHong KongEconomy
2018-01-24
One stumbling block is the issue of identity. Many young Hongkongers cringe at any sort of ties to mainlanders, but for savvy entrepreneurs who have crossed the border, gunning for their pot of gold has included playing down their connection to the city

As the wealthy mainland investor was about to speak, aspiring Hong Kong entrepreneur Vincent Wong had the sinking feeling that his hopes of securing a cash injection for his start-up had been dashed.

This scene took place in Beijing two years ago when Wong, then aged 30, was anxiously trying to raise funds for his no-frills quick haircut business, Xingkeduo.

“We sat down and the first question he asked was, did I think Hong Kong entrepreneurs could succeed on the mainland? I just knew that the meeting was over,” Wong recalled with a laugh.

Meanwhile, things have looked up for Wong, who now boasts 90 salons across the country delivering more than 100,000 haircuts a month.

But Wong’s story highlights the obstacles facing Hongkongers who want to leave their comfort zone and step outside the nine-to-five work culture to be their own boss.

In 2009, only 7.3 per cent of about 2,000 adults surveyed in Hong Kong had ever considered starting their own business in the city, according to a large-scale study jointly conducted by three universities in Hong Kong, the Shenzhen Academy of Social Science and the Savantas Policy Research Institute, a think tank. By 2016 the figure had expanded to nearly one in five.

But only 3.6 per cent turned their intention into reality in 2009, with the figure rising correspondingly to 9.4 per cent in 2016.

The study also compared the trends for 2016 in other places: the percentage of respondents who had started their business was 16 per cent in Shenzhen, 10.3 per cent in the mainland as a whole, 12.6 per cent in the United States, 8.8 per cent in Britain, 8.2 per cent in Taiwan and 6.7 per cent in South Korea.

What the survey did not measure was the number of Hongkongers who crossed the border to follow their dreams. The size of this group is unknown but officials have previously estimated that about 300,000 – or 8 per cent of the city’s working population – work on the mainland.

The challenges of crossing the border

Recent news that Hongkongers on the mainland will get to access more perks – such as studying in public schools, receiving an employment report certificate to facilitate their job hunt after graduating from a mainland university, and the opportunity to contribute to a fund to help them own property – might encourage more people to move across the border.

But two issues then come into play.

First, the angst-fraught question of identity. Hong Kong has been back in China’s fold for almost 21 years but many young Hongkongers remain uncomfortable with any sort of connection to mainlanders.

A recent survey by the University of Hong Kong asked 1,034 respondents to choose their identity from the following options: “Hongkonger”, “Hongkonger in China”, “Chinese” and “Chinese in Hong Kong”. Only 0.3 per cent in the 18-29 age group picked “Chinese”, compared with 69.7 per cent for “Hongkonger”.

Under the “one country, two systems” principle in place since 1997, Beijing allows Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy and free speech, although recent incidents – such as the mysterious disappearance of booksellers who later turned up on the mainland – have raised questions about Beijing’s commitment to those rights.

Efforts to better integrate Hong Kong with the rest of China – such as the Greater Bay Area initiative that aims to unite Hong Kong, Macau and nine Pearl River Delta cities into an integrated economic powerhouse – are only just starting to gain traction, and what effect that will have on cultural identity remains to be seen.

Second, the difference in business culture. A lack of transparency in the mainland government’s policymaking process means that business activities considered legal one day can suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law the next day.

Given the importance of  guanxi – or personal connections – to the smooth conduct of business, Hongkongers with paltry ties may struggle.

Many Hong Kong entrepreneurs also have had to deal with a common perception among mainlanders that Hongkongers do not understand guoqing, or how things work in China.

To blend in, be humble

Despite Wong’s painful rejection two years ago, he went on to raise about 200 million yuan (US$31 million) for Xingkeduo and is considering taking it public.

Wong has learned to navigate the mainland business environment with a touch of calculated humility.

“When I introduce myself now, I say that I’m from a small Chinese suburb called Hong Kong,” he said.

“It’s challenging to build a big business in China if you can’t blend in with the people and understand them. You may build a business, but it won’t be a big one.

“It’s not unlike, say, trying to do business in the United States with a limited grasp of English. Investors won’t discriminate against you but you might run into some challenges making friends with these people, getting business connections,” he added.

Wong grew up in Hong Kong but attended university in the US. After graduating in 2007, he joined HSBC Banking Group in its Shanghai and Mexico offices.

“When I went to Shanghai in 2008, almost nobody wanted to go there. People were asking, why should they go to the mainland? But after I started working there, I realised that every city has its own type of energy.”

In 2012, he left his job and started a software company, renting a small flat and looking for customers via Taobao, the online shopping platform owned by Alibaba Group Holding, which also owns the South China Morning Post.

In 2015, he merged his software company with Xingkeduo and became its chief operating officer. He revamped the brand, raised the price of a haircut from 15 to 58 yuan and improved its appointment service, allowing customers to make bookings through WeChat, a mainland messaging app.

Hong Kong entrepreneur Terence Lin Chiu-fai has also become savvy in dealing with mainlanders.

Lin, who co-founded MICHE to sell used cars online and through its 105 outlets, tells investors he is from his family’s home province of Fujian instead of mentioning Hong Kong.

“Mainland investors sometimes feel that Hong Kong people don’t understand the mainland market.

“[But] a lot of Hongkongers also turn up on the mainland with an attitude that they are superior to local people,” Lin said.

He started MICHE in Xiamen three years ago as he saw the potential for the used car business, after Beijing began restricting new car ownership due to traffic congestion and air pollution.

Lin now has a staff of 1,000 and also heads a think tank set up by Hongkongers and Macanese who graduated from mainland universities.

To secure benefits, embrace the risks

Met Li Hing-lung is a young Hongkonger with dreams of building robots to replace delivery workers in China.

The mainland is an ideal place to pursue his idea, given that nearly 21 billion deliveries – for food and other goods – are made each year, according to his own research.

In 2016, Li co-founded ZhenRobotics, which produces metre-high six-wheel robotic AI delivery vehicles.

“Sometimes you see packages lying around delivery vehicles on the streets. That’s not the future. The future of delivery lies in artificial intelligence,” he told the Post from his office in Zhongguancun, Beijing’s Silicon Valley. Each robot is equipped with sensors and CCTV cameras and costs about 100,000 yuan to build.

Since last October, his robots have been making about 2,000 deliveries a day across 20 universities to solve the “last-mile” conundrum.

It works this way: delivery workers send online orders made by students to storage facilities on campus as they are not allowed to enter the dormitories due to safety concerns. Instead of students walking to the store room and back to pick up their parcels, they can now use ZhenRobotics’ WeChat account and request that their items be delivered for a fee of 2 yuan.

But recently, Li was caught off guard when some universities told him he could no longer charge his robots’ batteries on campus. This happened after a few incidents of electric scooters catching fire due to problems with their batteries, Li said.

“In the past, we could charge our robots as many times as we wanted. Now we have to charge the batteries once a day off campus,” he added.

Similarly, Sampson Ho, co-founder of China’s leading co-working space company WEPLUS, had to go back to the drawing board when mainland authorities recently banned the practice of multiple companies registering themselves under one business address.

This affects small start-ups who do not want to invest in an office but prefer using a co-working space to minimise costs.

“We’re still figuring out how to deal with that,” the Hong Kong entrepreneur said. “Some people are saying that because of the new policy, they won’t be using our spaces.”

The Federation of Hong Kong Industries recently said that the city’s business sector wanted mainland authorities to seek their views first before implementing policies that could affect them.

Despite this, for Hongkongers with dreams of building business empires, the mainland is still the place to be.

Aware that competitors are entering the market, Li is gunning for his robots to hit the streets in five years and to be the biggest supplier of delivery robots.

His company has received 300,000 yuan in subsidies from the mainland government, which is encouraging innovation and technology.

“The scale of fundraising in the mainland is so much different from that in Hong Kong.” Li said

“In Beijing, it is not us reaching out to the investors, but the investors who come to us.

“How many investors could you possibly find in Hong Kong? You can count them all on the fingers of both hands.”


Leave a comment

Switch off the smartphones, to save children from tech addiction

CommentInsight & Opinion
2018-01-25

Robert Badal says social media and smartphone technology are inherently addictive, and e-learning might do more harm than good. Parents and teachers need to lead by example in the fight against device overuse

 

January 2: the World Health Organisation listed “gaming disorder” as a mental health condition under its International Classification of Diseases.

January 6: the California State Teacher’s Retirement System wrote to Apple demanding restrictions to children’s smartphone access and support for research, citing a range of serious mental health issues connected to smartphone use supported by clinical studies.

Soon after, former Apple executive Tony Fadell, “the father of the iPod”, slammed internet and social media companies for creating widespread addiction that Steve Jobs would have opposed.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Dr Sherry Turkle called this rising storm “a bottom-up backlash”. She wrote a prophetic book in 2011 Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, warning of the psychological and societal damage that is omnipresent now.

It is the nature of the beast. One of my students, Hoi Yan Shek, a Columbia University economics major, nailed it: “The key performance indicator of tech firms is the amount of time users spend and their engagement. This directly affects a company’s stock price. Tech firms must be dedicated to getting users addicted.”

And we have all been fatalistically complaisant. I was a California public school teacher when president George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act mandated classroom technology utilisation. Companies churned out e-learning gizmos that we had to deploy in our lessons. Later, as a university professor in Japan, great fanfare accompanied the new computer room’s unveiling: row after row of boxy, now obsolete, desktops. Core skills – reading comprehension or writing – were never the rationale. The pitch was some variation of the need to “expose students to technology”.

Students use iPads during a lesson at the United Christian College (Kowloon East), in Hong Kong. Photo: Thomas YauPart of this was to address poorer students’ unequal access to technology. But this argument is outdated. Now anyone can step into a shop and walk out holding a more powerful device than that entire roomful of desktops.

Ironically, the impetus propelling educational technology today is the opposite of altruism. E-learning is designed either to sell gizmos or replace paid teachers because it can be mass duplicated: cheap economies-of-scale “education”.

A newer argument for technology in schools is that students love smartphones, so they belong in the classroom – again, with no objective studies about consequences.

How many other “tech advances” with questionable effects have we unquestioningly swallowed?

The cause of tech addiction is its intrinsic addictiveness and the unhesitating belief in technology’s benefits. The standard response to the problems is to rhapsodise about the amazing “possibilities” of tech and recite “all we need is education in its proper use”. Really?

There has never been anything to match the intimate, innately addictive nature of this new technology – or anything with such profound effects that was embraced so recklessly on such a mass scale.

PostComparing it to the appearance of television is absurd: families used to watch programmes together. They didn’t take their TV to school or work. The old flip phones were pocketed until calls came in. Now, addicts compulsively clutch their devices, shutting out their surroundings. Their flashing smartphones usually ruin my Hong Kong cinema experience, despite the theatre’s on-screen “education” to switch off.

The oft-chanted reply with regards to children is that “parents are responsible”. True, but this is also another form of shifting the blame, exactly what the US gun lobby does after mass shootings. Product package warnings is another suggestion, but every cigarette pack now has gruesome warning images, yet Hong Kong is still choked with second-hand smoke.

Social media and smartphone technologies are carefully-crafted, always-with-you addictions. Founders of tech companies restrict their children’s access because they know how effective that built-in addictiveness is. A nine-year old with a smartphone won’t choose to read instead of play games or watch videos.

The “parents are responsible” slogan is an oversimplification. Their responsibility often translates into simply taking away the child’s phone, which backfires in schools where phones are permitted because there is always one child with the latest model, who immediately becomes “cool” and his or her device the object of envy. France is currently in the process of banning smartphones in primary and middle schools. A good start, but the solution for children is complex.

A child absorbs his or her environment, especially at home. “Educating” children about proper use is hopeless unless their home life reflects the message. Cellphone-addicted parents produce cellphone-addicted children. “Do as I say, don’t do as I do” doesn’t work – especially given the Hong Kong “delegating” parenting style of assigning a helper and tuition schools to be surrogate parents.

Parents must participate in their children’s education. There has been considerable documentation about the benefits of something I grew up with: parents reading with their children.

Parents are busy and may not be great readers, but the skills and attitudes engendered and the parent-child bond created outweigh the challenges. The sad truth of Dr Turkle’s book title, Alone Together, becomes painfully obvious when you see a family having dinner, not speaking, each engrossed in his or her phone.

One of the most damning references in the letter from the California State Teacher’s Retirement System to Apple was a study showing that children in a technology-free environment for five days had greater empathy afterwards. “If you don’t use it, lose it.” If we keep substituting technological experiences for real ones, we will lose everything.

Robert Badal is on Facebook at Ba Lao Shi Perfect English


Leave a comment

Why big data must be shared to realise Hong Kong’s smart city vision

CommentInsight & Opinion
2018-01-24

Christine Loh says data transparency across government departments and access to information from private companies providing public services are needed to create a smart, sustainable city

Experts have warned that Hong Kong could slip behind in the use of big data. The challenge requires data sharing across government departments, so they can compare information and assess correlations for Hong Kong to function better across the board. Being a smart, sustainable city is all about maximising efficiency by saving as well as sharing resources.

Managing a city in the age of the internet of things requires governments to have the relevant data in the first place. In some cases, authorities have the data because essential services, such as electricity, water and transport, are provided by the public sector.

There are cases where all or some of those services are in private hands. Unless there are arrangements whereby private operators are required to provide the data to the authorities, accessing it is not easy.

In Hong Kong, electricity data belongs to private companies as power generation and supply are in private hands. While the electricity companies provide excellent services at a reasonable cost to users, they are not obliged to share all their data with the government. Now that energy saving has become a major part of the city’s climate-change efforts and creating a smart city is another policy objective, not having the data is an obvious hindrance.

The new schemes of control reached last year for the two electricity companies are more data transparent than before but there is room for improvement. Data for individual buildings would enable the government to draft sharper policies and help occupants be more energy efficient.

This contrasts with freshwater supply, which is provided by the Water Supplies Department, where the government has the full range of data to consider what it can do to save water. While it uses technology to identify leaks and get public water pipes fixed quickly, the department only stepped up dealing with private water pipe leaks after a highly critical Ombudsman report in 2015.

Another problem is the inability to raise water tariffs. The government is fully aware Hong Kong’s cheap water encourages wastage but fears legislators will object to any increase. So, the challenge in this case has not been the lack of data for analysis but the lack of will to deal with problems.

Mobility data presents other challenges. While the government is the largest shareholder of the MTR Corporation and can presumably access the data it needs, this is not the case for all other trips. Buses, minibuses, taxis and ferries are all operated by private companies. Small providers, such as minibus owners, may only collect minimal data.

Private companies providing public services say they can’t share data because of privacy issues or because it is commercially privileged information. In the case of water supplies, no one has complained about the government knowing how much water users consume or indeed waste. It is hard for the energy companies to make a case on privacy grounds. As regards whether releasing the data would lead to unfair competition between the two electricity providers, there could be arrangements whereby the full data could be given to the government on a confidential basis, which the government could then release publicly in a form that avoids unfair competition.

Transport data is mostly anonymous, although new services such as Uber don’t want anyone to access their personal ride histories. Even here, the companies can provide data without showing details about riders.

Data is king and it is a major policy issue for the government to work out with the private sector.

Christine Loh is chief development strategist and adjunct professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s Division of Environment and Sustainability