Rules Gone Mad

This is absolutely incredible. Australia is truly going mad. Clearly commonsense is no longer welcome in Australian society. Insanity and fear mongering are now the currency of those with authority.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/no-kites-no-holes-as-council-cracks-down-on-perths-most-famous-beach-20100922-15m9g.html?autostart=1

---

Funny follow-up to "Australia's Silent Civil War"

NOAH TODAY

In the year 2010, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in Bega (Gods country) and said:

"Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying:

"You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

"Noah!," He roared,

"I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah,

"but things have changed since you asked me to build your 1st Ark."

"I needed a Building Permit."

"I've been arguing with the Building Inspector about the need for a sprinkler system."

"My neighbours claim that I've violated the Bega Valley LEP and DCP, numerous SEPs and many other Regulations by building the Ark in my back garden and exceeding the height limitations.

We had to go to the Bega Valley Council and now we have to go to the Regional Planning Committee for a decision and then to the NSW Land & Environment Court."

"The RTA; Council and the Electricity Company have demanded a shirt load of money for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea.

I told them that the sea would be coming to us and it would float itself, but they would hear nothing of it..."

"Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban
on cutting local trees in order to save the Barking Owl habitat."

"I tried to convince the Council, The Green?s and local environmentalists that I needed the wood to save these same owls - but NO - GO!"

"When I started gathering the animals the RSPCA took me to court. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.

They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space."

"Then the Green?s put pressure on the NSW Environmental Protection Agency ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on YOUR proposed flood."

"I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission & Labour Council on how many minorities and women I'm supposed to hire for my building gang."

"Immigration are checking the Visa status of most of the people who do want to work."


"The Building trade unions say I can't use my sons.

They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience."

"To make matters worse, the ATO and Customs seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species."

"So, forgive me, Lord, but it will take at least 20 years for me to finish this Ark."


"Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky."

Noah looked up in wonder and asked,


"You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord.


"The Local Councils and Government have beaten me to it."

Australia's Silent Civil War

I admit I’m probably at the edge of consensus when I say that Australia has become an authoritarian state. Others such as London-based Australian Formula One driver Mark Webber labelled it a “nanny state” in February, and some within Australia – a “police state”. Both these descriptions are true, but my sense after spending the last month in Australia is that the situation is far worse, broader and deeper than these commentators describe.

What is fast becoming an irony to me is that Australia continues to enjoy an international image borne several generations ago; a reputation as a laid back, free-spirited, friendly, sun-drenched, sporting nation. Whilst observations regarding Australia’s unique natural splendour and priceless environment remain largely valid, it is the image of Australia’s way of life and Australians as people that has become dated to me.

What I see in Australia is a population subjugated by a phenomenal web of social regulation. I’m not talking about the requisite legal regulation of commerce or industry, nor the framework of the criminal justice system. Both these spheres of legislation are built on years of sensible, thoughtful decision-making that balances regulation with enterprise and punishment with the crime. I’m talking about the annoying and consistent intervention of little rules in the daily life of every Australian.

The most prevalent example of this is the militarised roads. Over the last 10 years there has been an unrelenting build up of regulatory enforcement designed to do nothing but generate State government revenue. There is no statistical evidence to support a corresponding improvement in road safety as the number of police and regulation has increased. The Australian roads have become so over-regulated and over-supervised that the public now drives in a constant state of fear that any moment they will be fined. One only needs to look internationally to understand road safety lies not in reduced speed limits or more police hiding behind trees, but in higher standards of driving expertise. The State government could replace the revenue it steals from motorists by fining them, with a serious mandatory professional driver training course that it administers. It’s still authoritarian but at least it would actually be dealing with the issue at hand in a positive way.

The roads are just one of many examples where common sense, and a sense of responsibility for one’s self, are being taken away from Australians. Regulations can be seen at the beach, in parks, forests, rivers, camping grounds, libraries, museums, airports, shopping centres and on every street in every city. One only needs to count the number of instructional signs that now visually pollute every crevice of the Australian landscape. In fact, the number of places you can go to escape constantly being told what to do is limited. Once upon a time, Australians could 'roam the lands' as many of our folksongs regale. Not anymore. Even the daily ritual of having a shower now has authoritarian dogma attached – ‘thou shall not run the water for longer than 3 minutes’. My grandmother is scared to water the plants in her garden in case a neighbour dobs her in to the authorities. Washing the car, that’s a no-no as well. I understand well there has been a protracted drought period, but come on, has anyone seen the water wasted by industry and the failure of catchment systems due to ill-conceived dam locations? Where is the government on these big-ticket items? Nowhere. Our government is too busy interfering in the minutia of people’s daily lives. Somewhere along the way it became easier to herd the population with more regulation than to tackle big complicated issues.

The do-gooders will say every rule is created for a reason, because "there was one idiot that ruined it for the rest, so we had to make a rule". What an irony. As my brother says "Its better to let ten guilty go free than incarcerate one innocent" - I totally agree. I want to know who decided we should regulate for the one idiot among us. Why do decent Australians allow themselves to be imprisoned as collateral damage in the vain attempt to regulate every facet of society?

How can children grow up in this over-regulated society and ever develop a robust sense of responsibility for their own welfare, when the government and all those in positions of authority insist on doing it for them? You see that’s the problem; it’s hard to stand up and argue for less regulation. The apparatus of authority has become so large and now employs so many people, that to speak the contrary leaves one feeling ostracised and out of step. It’s too easy to identify a problem in society and then enact a blanket rule to supposedly mitigate the problem. No one ever stops to evaluate the widespread impingement this new rule creates for the masses, because everyone involved focuses exclusively on the few idiots that were the cause of the new rule in the first place ... And just like that another little piece of Australian laid-back liberty is forever cut away. It’s this endless stream of new rules that in isolation appear justified but when viewed collectively over the years have created an unnecessarily legislated way of life.

I’m not suggesting this build up of regulation is some mastermind plot of government. It is ordinary people that have both created the rules and accepted their bridling effect. I am amazed at how apathetic Australians are when quizzed on their increasingly regulated life. A few complain about it in private, but seem resigned to the fact they will be told how to live and what they are, and are not, allowed to do when they wake up every morning. The theft of their liberty has been so seamless, subconscious and gradual, many don’t even appreciate it is happening until reminded of what life was like when they were kids. Like zombies caught in a trance, those with authority have taken control and convinced those without authority that it’s for their own good, for their own protection, and even if they don’t like it, there’s nothing they can do about it anyway. The web of regulation Australians now live under has become as familiar as the walls of a cell to a prisoner.

There seems to be more people in positions of “authority” nowadays. Police have always been around, but these days in staggeringly high numbers and rarely where they are needed. When was the last time you felt the police were there to serve you? How many “nice” police officers do you meet? Recently NSW changed the name of its “Police Service” to the “NSW Police Force”. A small detail perhaps, but to me it reveals a much deeper attitudinal shift taking place under our noses. What is also fascinating is the army of civilian uniforms in society – park rangers, customs officials, quarantine officers, local council supervisors, health & safety officers, coast guards, toll road officials and most noticeably private security staff everywhere. Basically wherever you go, you’re bound to come across someone dressed in authoritarian uniform ready to tell you what to do.

But the real authoritarian class that’s changing Australian society is far harder to identify; it is the increasing prevalence of authoritarian behaviour from regular people in regular jobs, such as the local bar tender, the check-in staff at the airport, the guy at the rubbish tip, bus drivers, taxi drivers, waiters at restaurants, car park attendants, flight attendants, theme park attendants, and the list goes on. There is always someone saying, you can’t walk here, can’t ride your bike there, you can’t swim here, you can’t drive there, you can’t park here, you can’t sit there, you can’t stand here. The prevailing attitude these days is if you have a job that’s got some sort of authority to it, then that’s the key element of the job and it becomes the tone you present.

So where did this authoritarian culture come from? Probably the same place political correctness came from. Social debate is an oxymoron in this case – social activism is stronger in those who can more easily connect to an accepted value - to “righting a wrong” or fixing a problem; those who believe “less is more” can’t be bothered to stand up and argue for greater liberties or a dismantling of this regulatory web. Who in authority is actually going to support the removal of regulation? Conventional thinking is to favour regulation of a system. Therefore Australia has been on a decades-long binge of regulatory construction; an obsessive, unabated rush to mitigate every possible purportedly negative occurrence in society no matter how remote or tenuous it may be.

Australians are losing their way, the fun is disappearing, and our larrikin culture is being shoved aside by ridiculous rules fuelled by fear and worry. I believe Australia is the greatest country on earth and Australians are its best people, so naturally I believe we can take responsibility for ourselves, and make our own choices based on common sense and morality. Its time to stop the runaway train.

Enough Porkies Its Time For Some Home Truths (from the Sydney Morning Herald)

I often read great articles, but only occasionally ones I feel compelled to share. Thank you to Nathan Parris for bringing this gem of an article to my attention ...

Foreigners can get the funniest impressions of Australia. A charming, educated, middle-aged American working in the US Federal Reserve Bank told me some years ago that it was her dream to visit the Sydney Opera House.

So why don't you? "Oh, I couldn't stand the sharks!" came her emphatic answer. Sharks? Puzzled, I asked what she meant. "The Opera House is right there in the harbour, with sharks all around," she explained as if I were especially thick. "I am completely terrified of sharks."

But, I tried to assure her, you don't need to cross the water to get to the Opera House. It's on the foreshore. Just stroll along the walkway, or catch a taxi to the door. The land route is shark-free.

Was she pleased to discover that she'd been under a misapprehension, that her dream was now in reach? Not a bit of it. She simply refused to believe me. She actually scoffed at my insistence, as if I were a trickster trying to play a prank on a gullible foreigner.

It occurred to me that this woman probably knew only two things about Australia: it's home to a sublime piece of architecture on Sydney Harbour, and it has lots of sharks. All she had done was to put them together. With odd results. What she lacked was perspective.

In the past year, this column has been preoccupied with the porkies and porkbarrels of our national polity - as a political column must be. But for a moment, I'd like to put aside the scalpel and the quibble and get some perspective on the place.

Australia is a bloody miracle. If you had set out to design a successful, free, peaceful, prosperous, tolerant, modern society, you would not have started with Australia's beginnings.

On the contrary, Australia's white settlement set it up for failure. The population was stocked with Britain's criminal outcasts. Charles Darwin was confident that our convict genes were our destiny.

After inspecting colonial Australia in 1836, he wrote that "it can hardly fail to degenerate". White settlement had begun in criminality and barbarity and it wasn't going to get any better, the great naturalist determined.

Similarly, the landscape was most unlikely to support a prosperous society. Jared Diamond, a professor of geology and environmental health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in his 2005 book Collapse that "ecologically, the Australian environment is exceptionally fragile, the most fragile of any First World country except perhaps Iceland."

Australia has less rain than any other continent apart from Antarctica and about a third less than the next-driest continent, Asia.

Soil nutrients were thin from the outset. And when the separate British colonies federated to form the new Commonwealth of Australia, the first moments of nationhood were not very promising for a society hoping to develop any sort of tolerance.

One of the very first acts of the new Parliament was a law prohibiting Chinese immigrants, the policy known as White Australia. Aggressive racism was one of the strongest common bonds bringing the new states together.

Yet, somehow, from criminal, brutal, racist beginnings, the country developed into a law-abiding, harmonious, tolerant society. The precariousness of the environment remains a problem, and it only gets bigger.

But Australia not only feeds itself, it manages to supply 20 per cent of all global food exports. This is testament to the ingenuity and resilience of its farmers and scientists over two centuries.

But at least the prosperity of the place was guaranteed, right? The mineral wealth lying just below the ground has given us a foolproof way of paying for high living standards, surely?

Not really. Coal, gas, oil, gold, copper, zinc, bauxite, uranium and diamonds are valuable commodities.

But, in the long story of humankind, it is normal that resource-rich societies end up failures. Paradoxically, the apparent blessings of nature usually turn out to be a curse. Not just most of the time, but virtually all the time. Resource wealth usually comes with high inflation, extreme indebtedness, corruption and civil war.

Professor Paul Stevens, from the University of Dundee in Scotland, surveyed 52 resource-rich developing countries and found that only four had managed to extract a real national benefit from nature's bounty: Chile, Malaysia, Indonesia and Botswana. That is a dismal record.

A large surge of money gushing into a fragile state will almost always break it, not make it.

Only a handful of truly resource-rich nations have made it all the way through the obstacle course to become First World countries: the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. (Norway sits atop a gusher of oil, but it was rich before it found the black gold in the 1960s.)

The common Anglo origins of these successful countries hint at one of the explanations for their success. The neo-Britains imported a ready-made set of helpful habits and institutions - a concept of citizens' rights protected in the common law, the rudiments of parliamentary democracy, an independent judiciary, the right to private property, a strong work ethic and the structures for capitalist risk-taking.

And, in starting afresh, these new societies also managed to leave behind some of the worst aspects of their colonial mother. We shrugged off the ruinous British class system, developing an aristocracy of merit rather than rule by an entitled idiocy. Egalitarianism is a deep well of national strength.

This constellation of forces created strong states that were able to extract vast natural wealth without destroying their society and their economies in the process.

Yet even the few societies, like Australia's, that managed to build a successful country in a resource-rich land remain under constant threat from man-made economic disaster.

The US is a case in point. Apparently unassailable only a decade ago, it is now an enfeebled giant. US unemployment stands at 10 per cent, against Australia's 5.7 per cent. Child poverty in America was 20 per cent even before the recession, against 12 per cent in Australia.

America maintains a mighty war machine that it can finance only at the discretion of the Communist Party of China. The US President may be commander in chief, but he wields a military on hire-purchase.

Or New Zealand, which discovered last year that it was so indebted to the world that it had effectively lost sovereign control of its fiscal policy. So just when it needed to be able to stimulate growth, in the midst of a global recession, it found it could not.

In sum, a bounty of resources is neither a sufficient condition nor even a necessary condition of national wealth.

Indeed, if we relied on minerals and energy alone, we'd be a developing country. Mining and energy, even in the midst of a commodities boom, accounted for a tad less than 8 per cent of our total economy in 2006-07, and about one-third of exports.

Australia did drift into a long, post-war economic malaise. But the country snapped out of it, thanks to the Hawke-Keating reforms and the Howard-Costello follow-through. The status report for Project Australia is that, however you measure it, Australia is one of the richest countries in the world.

According to the most comprehensive measure, the United Nations annual index of human development that ranks 182 countries, Australia is second only to Norway in enjoying the best living conditions available to the human species. This index includes life expectancy, education and purchasing power. If it incorporated climate, of course, Norway would have to vacate the dais.

And Australia is not just one of the very richest, but also one of the very fairest. The Paris-based club of 30 rich democracies, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, reports that in the past few years the level of income inequality in Australia fell below that of the OECD average for the first time.

It turns out that John Howard and Peter Costello delivered the closest thing to a socialist paradise that Australia has seen. Who knew?

Opportunity abounds: "Australia is one of the most socially mobile countries in the OECD. What your parents earned when you were a child has very little effect on your own earnings," the OECD reported last year.

Australians enjoy First World living standards, but are as carefree as the most contented peoples of the Caribbean. A British think tank, the New Economics Foundation, this year rated Australians as the third happiest people in the world after the citizens of Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. The Brits themselves came in a glum 74th.

Is the place perfect? Of course not. Aboriginal Australia is a parallel universe suffering Third World conditions, for a start. Then there's the problem of water and climate, the state of our hospitals, the high cost of housing, a mind-numbing booze culture, the rotten State Government of NSW and, of course, there are the sharks.

But let's put our gripes in perspective. We share a country that's one of the safest and most stable on Earth. People from around the world have left behind ancient strife and anguish to create a country of unsurpassed harmony and hope, that offers wide-open opportunity for the ambitious and a social safety net for those who fall by the wayside.

If there is a sweet spot in human existence, Australia, you're in it.

Eyes Wide Open But Still Out Of Focus

I have mixed feelings about the result of a week-long, but really years-long, climate summit just concluded in Copenhagen.

On the one hand the mere fact the world’s leaders turn up to such a gathering shows that humanity is making progress towards recognition of climate change as the most enormous issue of our species’ existence. Further, the fact that expectations leading up the summit and discussions during the summit were so widely and intensely followed by the world’s media proves that these existential issues are categorically in the mainstream consciousness of people everywhere. These are the necessary conditions to unraveling the political and commercial complexity that bridles our response to the accepted knowledge that the ‘life-conducive’ environment we live in is under threat. Until people force politicians to correctly prioritize the restoration of our ecological systems, a multi-lateral universal action plan will continue to elude us.

Government’s role here is to lead. Lead by showing us the high road that individuals and businesses in one country or another either don’t know exists or are too scared to take. It’s true that no one segment of society can fix our problems in isolation. Ultimately it requires business, households and government to work in unison globally, which is why meetings such as we have just witnessed are the only way forward.

The universal grip of global capitalism is alive and well. Whether you are a developing nation or a developed nation, I believe the key to this seemingly impossible problem of global warming lies in making ‘being clean or green’ profitable. Capitalism is the only ‘other’ thing that is global. Ironically, the pursuit (sometimes reckless at points in our history) of economic progress that got us into this mess, will be the very same driving force that will get us out of it. Our only two truly universal dependencies locked in a mutual live-saving dance across the decades.

The failure to achieve binding consensus on any road map for the future in Copenhagen will be judged by history in a kinder context than the abject disappointment felt now. History will show that this week was an important stepping stone in a much longer conquest to address our most complex issue ever. When triumphant agreements are forged in the years ahead, on reflection we will agree they weren’t possible without the participation, dialogue and learning provided this week in Copenhagen.

The Justice of Apathy

Below is the statement provided to police last month regarding a dual robbery at home by my former driver.

On Friday 4 September 2009 I returned home from a business trip to Shanghai. As usual, I unpacked my bags personally upon arriving home. I specifically take care to return all my valuable items such as watches, electronic equipment and cameras to their respective storage locations within my bedroom and study. On this date, I placed my Panerai watch (value HK$42,000) and my Casio camera (value HK$3,000) in my drawer. This was the last time I saw either item.

For the next 6 weeks, our domestic helper (Michelle Castillo), my partner (Levina Poon) and my daughter (Aria Parker) all consistently searched the house for the missing items, spending over 100 hours. This search and the fact the items were missing caused considerable stress for all concerned.

On Wednesday morning 14 October 2009 I was hurriedly preparing to leave for the airport on a business trip to Singapore. In my routine manner I went to my watch drawer to grab my Cartier watch (value: $50,000) to wear it on the trip. I picked up the Cartier, but given the stress of still having not found my Panerai watch, I prudently put it back, deciding I was not going to take any watch on the overnight trip to Singapore.

Upon my return in the afternoon of Thursday 15 October 2009, I went through my usual routine of unpacking my bag. This time I returned a pair of cufflinks to my watch drawer. To my astonishment, the Cartier watch I had left behind 30 hours earlier was gone. I immediately interrogated our domestic helper, who mentioned she noticed it was gone a few hours earlier whilst undertaking her typical cleaning procedures. It was at this point I first thought there may be some connection between the three missing articles.

Whilst questioning Michelle Castillo, I asked who had been in the vicinity of my bedroom whilst I had been away. She replied that the only people were herself, Levina Poon, a workman installing shelves in the study and our driver Cheng Chung Wai. I was shocked to learn that our driver had been inside the house (he is forbidden from entering the house) and furthermore was upstairs in the private area of the house. I asked how Cheng had gotten inside and then upstairs and she indicated he had forced his way past her insisting on supervising the activities of the workman inside. Michelle tried to stop him but was overpowered. Stupidly, Michelle failed to inform Ms Poon or myself at this point, but instead went back to her duties in the kitchen downstairs.

[Background: Cheng Chung Wai has worked for me as the family driver since 21 August 2008. As a Police Reserve member, we always considered him safe and trustworthy. However, I grew increasingly wary of his character during early to mid 2009 as my office began receiving many strange telephone calls from loan sharks and underworld-type people looking for Cheng, and informing that he owed them significant amounts of money. Coupled with the fact, Cheng had applied inappropriately to several of my professional colleagues to extend him a loan on multiple occasions, a concerning image was emerging. At this point Ms Poon asked Cheng what was going on and why people were chasing him for repayment of loans. Cheng said his sister was going bankrupt and these weren’t his debts but hers. In August, Cheng informed Ms Poon his sister needed money to pay lawyers processing her bankruptcy. He asked us for HK$26,000 representing 2 months advance salary to be paid back by him over a 6 month period. Ms Poon paid him the money. Despite being told repeatedly in early 2009 not to use my office address and phone number for his purposes, right up September we continued to receive calls for him at my office. I asked one caller why he was calling my office number looking for Cheng, he informed me that Cheng was applying for a loan from his company using Taubman’s (my employer) name, address and phone numbers as his employer’s details. Cheng was fraudulently representing he was an executive with Taubman. This was clearly very concerning to me. Instead of confronting Cheng over this revelation, I informed my colleagues to monitor Cheng and bring to my attention any further incoming calls for Cheng.]


After consultation with Ms Poon and further questioning of our domestic helper Michelle, I concluded there were three possible culprits responsible for stealing the Cartier watch: the workman, Michelle Castillo and Cheng Chung Wai. Ms Poon called both the workman and Cheng to ask if they knew anything about the missing watch, both said ‘no’. Michelle also denied any involvement in the robbery.

On Friday 16 October 2009 at 10:00am, I asked Ms Poon to telephone Cheng and tell him that if the three missing items were returned to our letterbox by 4:00pm that day, no further investigative or legal action would be taken. She also informed Cheng that he was one of three suspects in this matter and that the other two were being given the same opportunity to return the stolen items. Thus, whoever was responsible could remain anonymous and not jeopardize their future relationship with us. However, in reality Cheng was the ONLY suspect told to return the items to the letterbox. Absolutely no recovery discussions were conducted with the other two suspects.

At precisely 4:00pm I went to our letterbox and found my stolen Cartier watch wrapped in scrap paper inside. The missing camera and Panerai watch were not there. It was now categorically clear that Cheng’s forced entry inside the house at around 4:00pm on Wednesday 14 October 2009 had been the occasion for him to steal the watch.

The recovery of the Cartier watch was encouraging; however there were still two missing articles that had been stolen from the same drawer as the Cartier at some point in the preceding 40 days. My primary objective was to recover the stolen items and insure no further robbery could occur. I immediately notified all related parties including Michelle Castillo, the security guards at my house and all my Taubman employees of Cheng’s actions to ensure they remained on alert.

At 4:30pm I asked Ms Poon to call Cheng and inform him that we had received the Cartier but still wanted the Panerai watch and Casio camera returned, and to also inform Cheng his employment had been terminated for obvious reasons. Privately I had concerns about the recovery of these two items from Cheng as they had been stolen some time earlier, and were thus likely to have already been re-sold or placed with a pawn broker in exchange for cash. Recovery of these items after several weeks would be difficult. Nonetheless, Ms Poon pushed Cheng to return the two items.

Cheng admitted to stealing the two items and a deadline of 5:00pm Monday 19 October was agreed to by Cheng to return the Panerai and camera. The deadline passed without return of the items. Ms Poon then called Cheng and he informed her he couldn’t return the watch or camera. Cheng offered no explanation as to why he couldn’t. Ms Poon told him if he couldn’t return the stolen items then he needed to repay the amount in cash (HK$44,000) by 5:00pm Friday 23 October 2009), Cheng asked Ms Poon to prove the replacement cost of the items. (Ms Poon had already been to the respective shops to obtain the current pricing of the items). Cheng agreed to repay $44,000 in cash. No separate request was made at this time to repay the HK$26,000 Cheng borrowed from Ms Poon in August 2009.

On Friday evening 23 October 2009, Ms Poon made several attempts to call Cheng but his phone was off.

On Monday 26 October 2009, Cheng called Ms Poon (using a new mobile number) to inform us he couldn’t pay back the money as it was simply too much for him to manage. Ms Poon consulted with me, then called Cheng back offering a payment plan for HK$44,000 over 8 months; the first payment of HK$5,000 being due on Monday 2 November 2009. As at today’s date, no money has been received.

We recognize we should have reported the multiple robberies and home invasion of 14 October 2009 earlier to Police. However, we desperately wanted to recover our stolen property and provide Cheng with the opportunity to redeem himself.

We now wish to prosecute Cheng for his committed and confessed actions to the fullest extent of the law.


The above statement was provided as part of a 3 hour consultation with the dectective squad of Hong Kong police who seemed interested in pursing the matter. So interested in fact they arrested Cheng within 48 hours of me visiting the police headquarters. However he was released on bail whilst the police conducted further investigation.

Today, I've been informed that because the police have been unable to find the stolen Panerai and have found nothing in Cheng's apartment that is suspicious, they are NOT willing to prosecute him. This is a pretty filmsy excuse when we have two events of robbery, a confession from the robber himself and a heap of supporting circumstantial evidence. What does it say when someone steals from you, you report it to the police and the confessed thief is able to talk his way out of even being prosecuted, let alone convicted.

Justice seems to be applied in the most selective manner in today's society. Perhaps the police decided Cheng wasn't worth it, or better yet, I wasn't.

Make a Smilebox slideshow