Hong Kong Democracy: The Slow Motion Train Wreck

If someone has not been closely following the issue of how Hong Kong will elect its next Chief Executive (CE), then the posturing between “Occupy Central” and Pro-Beijing loyalists is hard to understand. Today, we are about to hear from the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress what the rules of the 2017 CE election will be. The outlines have been leaked, and it seems they will be very conservative, by which pundits mean it will support control by the rich and Beijing. This will result in protests, and it is likely that the pan-democrats in the Legislative Council will block the reforms, and thus will prevent Hong Kong from have “universal suffrage.” Many who have not followed the issue closely will wonder why pro-democrats are getting arrested in Central and blocking universal suffrage. For us in Hong Kong, we see this as a slow moving train wreck: we can see the collision coming, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

In general, it is good for democratic reforms to evolve gradually. And that is what the central government keeps saying as it justifies its conservative approach. The problem is, the pan-democrats do not trust Beijing to allow an evolution towards real democracy. When officials claim elections are “Western” or even a Western plot to undermine China, they indicate they do not have any intention of allowing real “universal suffrage”.

Officials keep promising reforms in the future, but at a certain point, people start to view this as merely a stalling tactic.  “Hong Kong's 2017 election is not the end of reform, hints NPC's Zhang Dejiang” (SCMP 22 July 2014) shows the Pro-Beijing forces trying to do the same thing: promise more democracy in the future, in return for limited reforms now. In general, this is a good idea; progress needs to be made step by step, and reform is a long-term process.

The problem is that the Democrats feel burned by the last round. When it was agreed in 2010 that there would be “Universal Suffrage” in 2017, no one anticipated that the threshold for nominations would be raised from 1/8 of Nomination Committee members to one half. Nor did they anticipate that there would be a cap on the number of candidates (it is going to be 2 or 3). As many have noted, this makes the Nominations Committee act like an Election Committee. The problem in the 2012 election, after all, was that both the pro-establishment candidates, Henry Tang and C.Y. Leung, were both considered poor candidates. Tang was nicknamed “the pig” (implying his lack of intellect) and Leung “the wolf” (supposedly because“wolf” in Cantonese is close to the pronunciation of his surname, and because he is considered cunning). The fact is that the 2012 election was a competitive election, with three candidates and considerable uncertainty, except that everyone knew that the third candidate, Albert Ho of the Democratic Party, did not have a chance of getting elected. The Election Committee of 1200 persons included all top elected politicians but was mostly elites selected by Beijing. Though it was good that the Democrats participated, they had no chance of winning. The problem was that the choice was between two poor choices (some said three poor choices).

Now, though Beijing will allow "one person one vote" to elect the CE, they have decided to make it more difficult to get nominated. This will make it impossible for any pro-democratic politician to be elected. The rich of Hong Kong and Beijing both fear a truly democratic CE, who might use populist policies to address Hong Kong's extreme wealth gap. Beijing increasingly views all democrats in Hong Kong as enemies of the state.  People like Peter Wong, a National People's Congress delegate from Hong Kong, tries to make objections to this high threshold seem illegitimate by saying "The electoral arrangement will be seen as unfair if it is designed to help certain candidates run." This is a red herring; it is the conservatives who are making it unfair by excluding certain candidates.

The crux of the matter is what is meant by "a high degree of autonomy." In Hong Kong, many people feel that Hong Kong should be able to elect its own CE, like cities around the world elect their mayors. But Beijing is concerned that the "mayor" might even try to declare independence. This sounds far fetched (only a lunatic fringe talks about HK independence) but Beijing leaders expect to be in complete control, and it is the job of leaders to worry about such scenarios. Instead of trying to find some compromise, both sides have hardened their positions, with many pro-democracy activists insisting on the right of "civic nomination" (i.e. nominating candidates for CE bypassing the Nominations Committee) and Beijing not changing the Nominations Committee, raising the threshold for getting nominated, and limiting the number of nominees who can run. I sometimes wonder if a compromise was actually ever possible.

It is possible that the very conservative approach to be announced by Beijing, and promoted by Hong Kong's rich like Peter Wong, will so inflame the situation that many people who were weary of "Occupy Central" will now be more supportive of the civil disobedience movement. Some in the government realize this, so this week there has been a concerted effort to blame Occupy Central for the conservative electoral rules, saying that the threat of civil disobedience caused the central government to lose trust in Hong Kong and directly led to conservative rules.

One final point. I find it surprising that so many people in the pro-establishment camp have railed against Occupy Central. Why do they find it so worrisome and offensive? The Alliance for Peace and Democracy (which is the name for the anti-Occupy Central group) launched a petition campaign and a march and most pro-establishment figures spoke in favor of it, and CY Leung himself even signed the petition. Much of the movement is well funded and orchestrated; there are many stories of employees being told to sign petitions or lose their jobs. I can only assume the Occupy movement has somehow hit a raw nerve. From one point of view, when the Occupy Central protesters lie down on the street, they can just be arrested and taken away. It will cause some disruption, but it is not the end of the world. The pro-establishment camp has organized all sorts of trade groups, even the Big 4 accounting firms, to speak out against Occupy Central (employees responded a few days later with an anonymous ad in the Apple Daily saying, with a mild vulgarity, “Hey boss, your statement doesn’t represent us."

Why the panic? What I see is pro-democracy activists feeling frustrated after years of deferring their hopes. People say there should be dialog, but at some point, if enough people believe the other side is not discussing in good faith, dialog breaks down and people will take more radical steps. Fortunately, Occupy Central is led by three idealist pacifists, and they have no intention of using violence. The police can also non-violently remove them. With the breakdown in trust and communication, many people will feel civil disobedience is their only choice. Because while it is true that democracy has to come gradually, it is also true that it rarely is won without a struggle.

Religion, Sports and the University President

Our university president is not a soccer/football fan, but he has organized an open air World Cup championship game viewing event both this year and four years ago that is quite popular. Despite the 3:00 am kickoff, about 1,500 people watched the game on the main quad of our campus with President Joseph Sung. This is a classic example of why he was selected president; he is happy to mingle with students, and does it well.

After the event, he wrote a blog about what football (soccer) can teach us about life, and I just became aware of it last Friday when it was publicized by "Mass Mail System" with a link through our university alumni newsletter. I eagerly looked it up since I will be teaching a new course on "Sports and Culture." It is a pretty pedestrian list of values that apply pretty much to anything:

• Find your place
• Know the field
• Play as a team
• Get up where you fall
• Guard your integrity

What struck me as odd was that the blog ended with a quote from the bible. People often say that sports is like religion, but that is not the case here. It seems inappropriate to end a piece with a bible quote. He only quoted the bible, and not other religious traditions. This made his statement seem like proselytizing.  Especially inappropriate is the quote he chose:

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:7–8)?

Note that "the righteous judge" will only smile unto the believers (i.e. those "that love his appearing"). So the quote is not saying that if you guard your integrity and follow good behavior, you will be rewarded. It is saying only those who believe will be rewarded. This is not a universalistic statement, but a sectarian one. 

Upon greater reflection, however, it is probably fine for the president to end his personal blog entries with religious quotes. But then they should not be promoted to the university community through mass mailings. He can write what he wants in his blog, but it should not then be picked up and presented as an official University statement.

I am no doubt more sensitive on this because of my American upbringing. In the US, the tradition was to avoid religious statements in public so as to allow different faiths to co-exist. This tradition is increasingly misunderstood by evangelicals who try to rewrite history and claim the US has always been a Christian nation. As Steven Waldman has shown in Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America, "the United States was not founded as a "Christian nation," nor were the Founding Fathers uniformly secular or Deist. Rather, the Founders forged a new approach to religious liberty, a revolutionary formula that promoted faith--by leaving it alone."

I wish President Sung would not assault me with his religion and religious quotes, and would just leave it alone. His religion is his private matter; it can guide his actions and values, but he should not impose it on others. There is no way he can talk about it without it seeming to be judgmental. It may be OK for him to use biblical quotes in his personal blog, but not in messages sent out to the University community and in the Alumni Newsletter. We are, after all, a public, not religious, university.

The False Science of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings

Anthropologists complain about rationalization and bad quantification, but we generally moan about it to each other and are often not very specific. I want to try to explain what is wrong with the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. I want to argue that the survey is based on bad data and thus gives spurious results. All the results do is confirm loosely held biases, but by presenting them in quantitative form, the league tables become more real and powerful than they deserve.

This year, I was again asked to participate in the survey. I received the following email:

Dear Colleague,

Thomson Reuters is pleased to invite you to participate in the annual Academic Reputation Survey, which will support the Global Institutional Profiles Project and Times Higher Education World University Rankings.  You have been statistically selected to complete this survey and will represent thousands of your peers. The scholarly community, university administrators, and students worldwide depend on the survey results, as they provide the most reliable access to the voice of scholars like you.  

A sample survey is available online. I have to commend ThomsonReuters for their transparency on this; most pollsters try to protect themselves from criticism by keeping their questions secret. 

The heart of the questionnaire are four questions, in which we are asked to list the 15 best research universities 1) in our region and 2) in the world, and the 15 best teaching institutions 3) in our region and 4) in the world. This seems straightforward enough, and I am a great fan of "freelisting" (see in Bernard’s Research Methods in Anthropology or in ANTHROPAC). But people can only list things they know something about.

I do not normally think in terms of “best research universities”; I know of some good scholars in different universities whose work I admire, but in each case, I do not know most of their colleagues unless they also publish in areas I am interested in. I may notice that “State University” appears more often than “Podunk U” in authors’ affiliations, but if State is a large school, I may not actually attribute its frequent appearance to “excellence” in research. It may just be because they are big. It may also be because many of their graduating PhDs still have not found jobs, and are using their more prestigious school affiliation rather than the schools where they teach as adjuncts.

Ranking the “best research universities” may be more of a problem in anthropology, where we do not work in “research teams”, and where there is an emphasis on departments covering the diversity of cultures and approaches to culture, rather than concentrating on one area. I am actually more likely to know which university has a good Asian Studies program than which one has a good anthropology program. If I were asked to list the best universities for the anthropology of China, that would be easier. Recently the Society for Economic Anthropology weblist collectively listed the top graduate programs for economic anthropology. That is a reasonable list: where to go to study a particular subfield. Anthropology PhD students work with a small number of scholars, so it is more important that there be scholars in their primary area of interest rather than a "good program."

The problems with ranking "teaching universities" are even worse. First of all, teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels are totally different. Many large state research universities have huge classes, and undergrads are often taught by TAs and instructors rather than the famous teachers who appear in the catalog. Those famous professors are freed up for research and to work with graduate students. So my recommendation for student is totally different depending on whether they are an undergrad or looking for a PhD program.

In addition, the truth is that most of us have NO IDEA what the teaching environment is like at other universities. (And here I’m not even going into the issue of whether students prefer more experiential participatory learning, or seminar style, or more traditional lecture formats, among many other variables. The idea that there is one teaching scale, good to bad, that we can all agree on is laughable.) Even for two elite universities where I have three data points--students who attended their graduate programs--I do not know how to generalize, as some thrived, and others struggled or were not that happy. I cannot understand how anyone can confidently list the best 15 schools for teaching.

Obviously, the problems with ranking universities for teaching is a point of contention, because it was addressed in the justification of the methodology this year. 

ThomsonReuters say that respondents who at the start of the survey indicate that their work is primarily teaching “are later asked to identify the one institution they would recommend that a student attend ‘to experience the best undergraduate and/or graduate teaching environment’ in their subject area.”  

They thus assume that those who teach primarily are in the best position to know where the best teaching programs are. This is ridiculous. Most academics who are primarily teachers are overburdened with teaching and struggling hard to try to get a research position. Just because they primarily teach in their current position does not mean they are aware of which universities offer excellent teaching.

Thus, since most people cannot really answer which are the best universities for research or teaching, they fall back on vague images of “prestige” and image. And when one adds in all the universities of the world, the results get even more confused. Do people filling out the survey really know whether Tokyo University or Beijing University or the Sorbonne is good? Aren’t people just filling out the survey based on vague impressions, many of them decades old?

I have noticed that many, indeed most, China scholars in the USA cannot remember the difference between Hong Kong University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong. I know because I am often introduced as coming from Hong Kong University (not correct). I am convinced that a small but significant portion of HKU’s lead over CUHK in THE tables and in other such reputational rankings is due to similar mistakes by the people who fill in such surveys. In medicine and some other areas, HKU may well be better than CUHK. But since HKU does not have an anthropology department, and their history department has gone through serious difficulties, I can confidently say that in a number of the social sciences and humanities, CUHK is stronger than HKU.

Another problem with the survey is more prosaic: the software did not work. On one page, I had not finished filling in the names of universities but hit the “Enter” key instead of the  Tab key and it went on to the next question. There is no way to go back on the survey. Then, when I was asked to select non-university research centers, the page would not let me add any because an error message popped up claiming that center had already been selected. I had to claim “I don’t know of any NON-UNIVERSITY research only institutions in this subject area” in order to go on. I also had to run the survey three times before I could get to the end, because it hung on me twice.

I hope we can pull the screen back and show that there is really just vague bias behind these league tables, and they should not have the outsized importance that they have achieved. I for one refuse to submit my survey. I think it is unconscionable to participate in this fraud. And I urge other scholars to publicize the tricks their deans promote to game the system. The more people realize the fraudulent and unscientific nature of the surveys, and the perverse incentives they engender, the less they will treat them as serious measures of quality.

The Press, China, and Cross-Cultural Communication

Many Americans would be surprised to find out how many Chinese students in the US are not very happy with their host country. I don't know the percentage, and maybe my sample is biased, but I do think most Americans assume the rest of the worlds wants to be American, which is at best a gross exaggeration and over-generalization. One thing I find many Chinese students complain about is the anti-China bias in US media. At first this was hard for me to understand. In part, students who complain that the US focuses too much on Tiananmen Square are a bit biased themselves, since they don't know anything about it so of course think if it as a minor issue. But they do have some points. Here is an article entitled "Westerners are so convinced China is a dystopian hellscape they'll share anything that confirms it" that points out that stories published in Time, CBS News, and Huffington Post that were totally wrong (even absurd) were re-posted as though they were true. Such stories, to a Chinese reader, suggest a hostile intent on the poster, and stupidity on the reader for believing such stories are possible. Who could believe that giant screens show the sunrise to compensate for the heavy pollution in Beijing?!

Unfortunately, cross-cultural understanding is not easy. There is a heart-breaking column by Helen Gao in the NY Times where she describes the rejection she faces from family and friends because she has studied seven years overseas. Even when she says the same criticism about pollution or politics as others, it is seen as inappropriate coming from her who has spent time abroad. At the same time, these same people have unrealistic images of the US:

Like someone gazing out a window but staring only at his own reflection, many Chinese look at America in ways that are colored by their feelings toward China. The United States they see — a nation with a pristine environment, perfect schools, generous welfare and complete political transparency — is a figment of their imagination, custom-made in stark contrast to the reality we live in.

 It has long been the fate of bicultural persons not to be trusted by either side. When the English arrived in North America, they exchanged young boys with the natives so each side would have native speakers of each other's language. This was an early type of AFS intercultural exchange! The boys would then go back to their own cultures to act as language and cultural interpreters. They were not trusted, however; . They would often try to make their countrymen see the situation from "both sides", which, under tense situations, would be perceived as disloyalty. It is the dilemma of cultural exchange and cross-cultural competence: we need to foster it to avoid international conflict, yet those who have these essential skills are often the ones who suffer the most for their competence. They have greater understanding (of both sides), but are often ignored or even rejected for their "deviant" ideas. When Helen Gao notes that she cannot repeat a friend's statement because it will be interpreted differently due to her time in the US, we see that there is really no central, unbiased point or position from which we can look at the world. There is no neutral "objective" space,  though we all try to stand there. But crazy stories about China do not help create that space, or the trust that is necessary for communication.

Cathay Pacific "Flash Mob"

Going through some old newspapers from early December, I came across an intriguing picture of several hundred Cathay Pacific attendants dancing in the arrival lobby of the Hong Kong airport. The online article has an SCMP video embedded, and there are a number of videos of the event on Youtube (see here, and here for a longer version showing the choir, and here for a more professional version). It is fun, and features my favorite airline. It was also part of "Operation Santa Claus," which is a good fundraiser run by our public radio and the SCMP (I'm not clear how this raised funds, however).

I do have a quibble with the term "flash mob," however, and it reflects something about Hong Kong. A flash mob is not supposed to be so well-planned, or be so purposeful. The Wiki entry for "flash mob" says it "is a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then quickly disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment, satire, and artistic expression."  It notes that for planned social activities and PR stunts, the term used should be "smart mob."

This stunt was well coordinated: the videos show guards keeping the space empty, the music is played over the airport PA system, and the dancing is choreographed. (Hmm, I wonder if they paid royalties for the music they played; might be a violation of HK's strict copyright laws!).

I think the term "flash mob" is being applied here for two reasons (in addition to the fact that worldwide, companies have used the term for stunts that then become viral online commercials). First, last year (2012) a much smaller less formal such event was held that was probably  more like a flash  mob. This year, more professionals got involved, including the fundraising aspect, so perhaps what was more like a flash mob has evolved into something more choreographed, but the name has not changed. But in addition, there is a tendency in Hong Kong for little to be truly spontaneous. Like elections (even student elections on campus), the idea of it being spontaneous is attractive, but everyone likes to know the result ahead of time (in fact, on campus elections, there is always only one ticket running for all the offices). In this case, you can actually see dozens of spectators anticipating the event, waiting for it to start (probably friends of family of the participants!)

A true flash mob is actually a bit like vandalism; it can cause congestion, not to mention accidents and injuries to bystanders who do not expect dancers to be in their way as they walk through an airport or a train station. Yet we seem to like the incongruity of a show (and a well choreographed one at that) in a public place. That is part of what makes it fun, even if it is, after all, a PR event. At least this is for a fund raiser and not just to try to convince us that Cathay Pacific staff are one big happy family who just love to take care of clients. Their staff is well trained and does offer a high level of service, but they are, after all, employees. It will be interesting to see how this event evolves in the next few years.

Academic Freedom and Hong Kong

I recently posted on a listserv an announcement about the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship, a great scholarship that pays for PhD studies in Hong Kong. I was surprised to receive a query by an anthropologist who does research on minorities in China, asking “How much academic freedom is really possible in Hong Kong as an anthropologist? Is it that much different from the mainland?” I was stunned. Hong Kong universities are funded and administered totally separately from the mainland. I think anyone who knows Hong Kong would agree that Hong Kong has a high degree of academic freedom, with no restrictions on teaching or research, a free Internet and plenty of books on Taiwan and Tibet in the libraries. We are quite vigilant about academic freedom. But obviously the perception out there is different.

As I thought more about this, I realized that there are periodic stories that will pop up in the international news (e.g. The New York Times) that might make Hong Kong seem less open than it is. In fact, we are living through one such story right now. This is the case of Hong Kong Television (HKTV). Hong Kong has two free-to-air TV companies, TVB and ATV, which broadcast one Cantonese and one English channel each. There has long been talk of expanding the market, and a process of adding more stations has been dragging on inexplicably for over four years. A couple of weeks ago, the HK government announced that only two of the three applicants for new licenses would be granted, and that HKTV would not get one. The astonishing part of the story is that the government has refused to explain its decision. It says that Executive Council decisions are confidential. This is true, but it is bad politics not to give any explanation. It has emerged that consultants’ reports said that all three licenses could be issued, but it seems that there is some worry that the Hong Kong market, with only a bit over 7 million people, is not big enough to support five TV companies (and ATV is considered the weakest of all; TVB currently has an astonishing 80 percent market share).

Protests have erupted, confidence in the Chief Executive has declined, public opinion ratings of the government have hit an all-time low, and even some pro-government politicians such as Michael Tien and former ExCo members have said this decision needs to be explained or perhaps reversed.

It is not clear why the government is being so silent about the reasons. In the silence, speculation fills the gap. Some suggest that the tycoons who control the existing stations pressured the government, since the winning bidders are companies owned by tycoons who run cable TV companies in the SAR. Many were quick to suspect interference from China, but HKTV owner Ricky Wong said he doubted that, noting that he was not involved in any politics and that his proposed station was all entertainment and no news or current affairs. On the other hand, there has been speculation that his mistake was not including any mainland officials on his board to make Beijing comfortable with his company. It  has been suspected that because he is truly independent and has no investments in the mainland, that Beijing put pressure to have his license application denied. This is all speculation, however. It would explain why the government cannot reveal the reasons for denying him a license, but so would the tycoon conspiracy theory. Part of the reasons for the protests and speculation, however, is that people in Hong Kong are very vigilant about their freedoms.

Someone reading about this story from overseas might rightly worry about Hong Kong’s freedom. The Edward Snowden story also raised questions about Hong Kong’s autonomy. But the Snowden case also affected international relations (as well as legal process), so was at least partly under Beijing’s mandate. (As an aside, I find it hilarious that Hong Kong claimed they could not hold Snowden because of discrepancies in his middle name on the documents provided by the US. This is the kind of bureaucratic idiocy and procedural rigidity we often face in Hong Kong, both with the government, in the university, and even in banks. It made for a believable excuse in the Hong Kong context, though sounded ridiculous to Americans--as it indeed was. If he had been wanted by the HK police or PRC authorities, there is no doubt they would have detained him).

But when it comes to things like political and academic freedom, we in Hong Kong definitely do not think of ourselves as part of China. Indeed, I was surprised to read in Slate the sentence that said “... Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks advisor who has reportedly been by Snowden's side since he was in China.” I wanted to say, “Hey, he was never in China, he was in Hong Kong!” This is not to deny that Hong Kong is part of China, but that there is a big difference between his being in Hong Kong and being in mainland China. The tragedy of the Snowden affair for Hong Kong is that in the contradiction between following legal procedure and the need to follow Beijing on international relations, the law may have been bent.

Academic freedom everywhere is very important, and needs to be constantly protected and even expanded. This is why MarshallSahlins’ article in The Nation on the Confucius Institutes is important (see also an earlier NYTimes story here). These Institutes are established within leading universities abroad but have teachers hired by the Chinese government. Of course, every donor has an agenda when they donate money to a university. But universities who accept such funds need to take more care to assure they maintain control and academic freedom. In the meantime, I can assure readers that we are quite free to research controversial topics in Hong Kong, from religious groups to the Hong Kong Autonomy Movement to environmental pollution. Whether we get government grants for some of these projects is another matter, but then the problem there seems to be more that our government is most concerned with promoting research that supports the HK economy. But that is another problem. When it comes to freedom, we in Hong Kong even have professors who are a thorn in the side of the government and are organizing "Occupy Central," and no one is talking of them being punished or fired. There are costs to activism (see Chan Kin Man's case here), but not in the form of retribution from our administration. So far, at least, we have maintained a high degree of autonomy, and freedom.

Daniel Ng, 1937-2013

Last week I attended a memorial for Daniel Ng, the entrepreneur who brought McDonald's to Hong Kong. He had a PhD in chemical engineering and worked first in the US (and I understand he had a patent for a fuel cell for pacemakers), and then at 35 years of age in 1972 moved back to Hong Kong to work with a venture capital fund. In 1974 he went back to Chicago for a year to learn the McDonald’s system, before opening his first restaurant in Hong Kong in 1975. He had a 20 year franchise and was extraordinarily successful, so that when McDonald’s exercised its option to buy back the franchise, he was very wealthy. He ran the company so well, and kept McDonald’s prices so low, that no other hamburger chain has ever had much success in HK. It was he who suggested the "Big Mac Index" to the Economist.

I knew him because he was the primary supporter of AFS Hong Kong, and was the chairman of the board, on which I am a member. The success of McDonald’s in HK was due to many factors, but top among them were: 1) his deep understanding of branding (he also created a logo and brand image for AFS worldwide); 2) his sense of humor and love of fun (he liked McD because it sold fun); and 3) his belief in persistence and determination. Apparently he loved a quotation from Calvin Coolidge to this effect, but while Coolidge said talent, genius and education were not enough, Daniel had all those characteristics PLUS persistence!

Daniel was quirky. One friend described him as “weird,” even. But he was genuine. He was gentle, and not abrasive, but decisive. Often he got his point across with humor. Whether due to intelligence, experience, or a well developed “executive function” in the brain, he was very decisive. He was completely bi-lingual and bi-cultural, with native English and Cantonese. He was also apparently notorious among his friends for only buying second-hand cars, and not spending a lot of money on clothes (those who know me will see why I feel a connection with him).

He was passionate about many things. He was a strong supporter of music, and commissioned a number of works to promote young composers. He was a strong supporter of the Ronald McDonald House and had been working in the past few years to make sure that a second house would be opened with the new specialty pediatric hospital on Kai Tak. And he was a strong believer in intercultural understanding. He wanted Hong Kong youth to be more cosmopolitan by going overseas on exchanges, and by meeting exchange students who come to Hong Kong for a year. He did not suffer fools, and he thought a particular horse-related charity in Hong Kong was being very narrow-minded when they decided only to sponsor outgoing Hong Kong students and not incoming foreign students (they claimed they only wanted to support Hong Kong students, as if Hong Kong students don’t benefit from having an exchange student in their midst).

Daniel died on August 23rd of cancer at age 76, which is still young by today’s standards. As his children’s statement put it, He had been ill for some time, but never wanted to let anyone know, choosing as always to focus on living. he had a formidable spirit, insatiable curiosity and zest for life that served him well even at the end.” His memorial was attended by probably over 400 persons, and it was by invitation only, or it would have been many, many more. Everyone had humorous stories to tell. Former employees and colleagues were very grateful for his mentoring and guidance.

There is one image of Daniel that captures his youthful spirit for me. Years ago, shortly after the iPhone first came out, he already had one. He also had several apps, and he had a blast showing them off. He had the “lighter app” that would allow you to hold up a “lighter” at a rock concert, and he had the “beer app,” which appears to fill the iPhone screen with beer, and then allows you to “drink” the beer as you tilt the iPhone to your mouth. He loved to laugh. Almost every picture you will find of Daniel has him smiling broadly or laughing. He was truly an impressive figure.