Thursday, April 1, 2010

Celebration of Contradiction

Hong Kong is a city of contradiction. No wonder even Premier Wen says that there is a deep level of contradiction (深层次的矛盾)in the HK society.

Hong Kong is a city where the peoples enjoys one of the highest degree of freedom and liberty in any Asian society. Yet it has a partially dysfunctional political system.

Ever since handover, there is a large section of HK peoples demanding for universal franchise. The government is often seen as re-active and worst handicapped. Very often the government was unable to make any decisive decision even after having rounds and rounds of consultation. Former Premier Zhu famously remarked about the first post-handover administration under CH Tung – deliberation without decision and decision without action.

Some commentators say that the HK government is incompetent because it doesn’t enjoy the popular mandate and that the universal franchise is the panacea.

Such is the contradiction between freedom and democracy.

Every now and then, the Unionist and the Democrats are hurling the accusation that the government and the business sectors conspired to milk the workers and the people at large. The fact that HK had not legislated any law on minimum wage or anti-Trust are cited as evidence.

HK government is also accused for closing one eye to the often questionable (not necessarily illegal) practice by property developers. Most recently, a proper developer is alleged to have artificially inflated the property price where apartments were sold with price reaching as high as USD 9000 psf. The allegation is premised on circumstances which is rather suspicious. 24 preliminary S&P agreements were transacted with off-shore companies and the execution of almost all of which had yet to be duly completed which are quite outside the norm.

Besides being a city where the property market prices itself out of the reach of great many, HK is also a city probably with the second highest ratio of luxury vehicle per capita after Monaco.

This should be appraised against a society where it is not uncommon to see elders pulling the cart in the crowded HK street collecting used papers or bins in return for meager income for subsistence.

This is also a city where many thousands of blue collars are earning just or below USD 3 hourly rate in the restaurant. A sizable numbers, many by circumstances, are living with the aid of social security.

Such is the contradiction between the rich and the less privileged.

On the cultural front, despite being discriminated against for the entire colonial period under the British rule, HK had only recently enacted the legislation against racial discrimination.

For a long time, the earlier Chinese migrants to HK looked down at the later batch of Chinese migrants and Cantonese language is widely used as a segregation tool if I may observe.

Such is the contradiction of a predominantly Chinese society dealing with inter and intra racial equality. At least and at last, HK has become enlightened.

HK is the very city that I have made it home for the last 10 years.

Despite the many shortcoming, I am actually in love with her.

I feel save and I feel proud of her.

The peoples here are perhaps one of the most charitable in the world. The society is free, just witness the media and the press. The civil service is almost corruption free. The civil society is vibrant, just witness the active NGOs in conservation and environmental protection.

The religious freedom is not retrained. The government funded health care despite repeated call for reform remains one of the best in the world.
The educational system is also generously funded even though it could deliver a better job.

The art and culture sector may not be as creative but there is a sizable inflow of good talent. Public amenity are readily available. Social courtesy and good mannerism is largely the norm.

Above all, this is a society anchored on the rule of law, judicial independence and an unassailable respect and safeguard for liberty and freedom. Even a giant like Google find retreats here.

I am off to celebrate my 10 years living in Hong Kong.

Still debating about Malaysia's social contract

We blogged about social contract back in Oct 2008 - The 27 Millions Peoples's Question. It is still being discussed back in Malaysia. See Azmi Sharom's article below.

What is truly disappointing is that we still have a Malay Supremacist NGO Perkasa still advocating for a quasi-apartheid system even though South Africa has since progressed to post-apartheid reconciliation. By the way, Mahathir is the patron to this group.

Then, we have a DPM who regards himself first as a Malay and then a Malaysian. This is especially disappointing because the question first posed by Kit Siang to the DPM is a political question and not a DNA question.

What happens next was his boss came to his defence to say that there is nothing wrong. This is most ironic coming straight out from the top two executives in the 1 Malaysia Cabinet.

If 1 Malaysia as propounded by Najib is really the vision statement of his administration, the question then is how could one puts his tribe above his nation; how could one who is under oath to uphold the Malaysia's Federal Constitution consider himself not a Malaysian in the first place.

Of course, His Honorable was giving the answer to satisfy his constituents. So his answer was politically correct in so far as his Malay ultra constituent is concerned.

I am reminded that the leopard does not change his spots.

By Azmi Sharom (The Star)

AH ... the social contract — a theory propounded by the philosopher Hobbes where the citizens of a country agrees to give power to a government in exchange for the guarantee of their own civil liberties and rights.

It is a term meant to dictate a type of governance where the needs of a powerful authority are balanced by the protection of citizens from abuse of that power. In this Hobbesian philosophy we find a weapon against tyranny.

But this is not so in Malaysia. The term “social contract” has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression. When “social contract” is used on these shores, it means that Malay political power must always hold sway and a state of perpetual pro-Malay economic policies must remain in place and everyone else must keep quiet as their forefathers had agreed to it.

The founders of this country did not have such racialist aspirations when we obtained our independence in 1957. The provisions in the Constitution which provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (note there is no such thing as “Malay rights” in our Constitution), were meant as a stop gap measure but not a permanent crutch.

Tun Dr Ismail likened it to a golf handicap where you give the weaker party a boost until he reaches a point where he can play on equal terms. Indeed the time limit initially set was for the affirmative action to last 20 years.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Allow me to regale you with some quotes that can be found in the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission “… in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …”

And the people who said this were not the British and their pompous hats. It was the Alliance which in case you have forgotten who they were, consisted of the Malayan In-dian Congress, the Malayan Chinese Association and the United Malay National Organisation. That’s right our great leaders of Umno hoped and dreamt of a Malaya based on equality. And you can see this aspiration reflected in the Constitution. Article 8 guarantees equality except in situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. In other words, if an affirmative action is not specifically allowed for in the Constitution, it is unlawful.

And there are other provisions as well; like Article 136 which states that all government servants must not be discriminated against based on race and creed. So our non-Malay public servants have a Constitutional protection against poor treatment for example in promotions. I don’t see all these “warriors for the social contract” waving placards demanding impartial treatment to all civil servants. Of course not, it would not do to defend the non-Malays, will it?

By the way, it is not only the politicians who wanted a country where there is racial equality, the rulers, our Sultans themselves said that they “... look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country”.

But in case you think I am making this up, it’s in the report mentioned above on page 71. Check it out yourself.

So the next time some ex-premier, or multi-millionaire Malay, or racist rhetoric politician, go on and on about the “social contract”, please be informed that this kind of self- serving bigoted behaviour was not part of the dream that is independent Malaya. Our founders did not have such base ideals they wanted better, and so should we.

Secular Value in MCA Politics

I had an entry back in Oct 28, 2008 arguing that public ethic and competency are more important criteria for public office. I was writing in the context of Dr Chua Soi Lek then when he won the deputy president contest.

Since then, MCA was entangled in one of the worst politic crisis since its founding until it culminated in Soi Lek winning the 3 ways Presidential contest featuring two other, what are now, ex-party President, Ong Ka Ting and Ong Tee Keat.

It is apt to give a quick summary of event unfolding in what commentator called the Romance of Three Kingdom episode of MCA crisis.

It started with Ong Tee Keat maneuvering the dismissal of Soi Lek from his position last August with the support of his ally, Liow Tiong Lai , then the VP and now the DP, and Wee Ka Siong, the Youth Wing leader. Soi Lek countered with a party member petitioning for a special party assembly which he successfully got himself reinstated by Oct.

Tee Keat in turn found himself losing the motion of no confidence vote with a small margin. His ally, Liow and his ally turned against Tee Keat and wanted him to resign in line with his pledge earlier that he would resign in the event of losing the no confidence motion. Ong felt he was betrayed and refused to resign and insisted on collective responsibility.

Liow and his ally then started a campaign calling for another special assembly to resolve the crisis.

In the meantime, Tee keat successfully outmaneuvered Liow by pulling up a Greater Unity Plan with Soi Lek’s support to maintain the status quo. The unity Plan proved short-lived. Soi Lek and his ally tendered resignation from Central committee in early March this year to compel the March 28 special assembly to reelect the new party office holders.

Out of nowhere, Ong Ka Ting, another ex-president, this time allied with Liow, reemerged from political retirement and contested in the same ticket with Liow for the top two positions.

The result was Soi Lek won with 39% of votes, Ka Ting, the self-acclaimed party savior, 36% and Tee Keat, the incumbent with 25% . However, Liow beat Soi Lek’s ally in the deputy contest with less than 3% margin. In the 4 VPs contest, each of the Kingdoms has won at least a seat.

I think MCA will now take a breather after this long saga. MCA, as a political force, has lost its relevance since the 308 General Election and I sincerely hope that MCA is a spent force. For a better Malaysia, any communal base party has no place at all.

What I really want to comment about is that at least in so far as MCA is concerned, public ethic and competency matters more than private indiscretion. I am not here to advocate private indiscretion. Neither am I saying that public figure with private indiscretion is not controversial. If it would please the moralist, my message can be construed as the lesser of two evils. Even with concession, I am still rejected by the moral absolutist.

My view is that as long as the public figure repented and forgiven by democratic mandate, his or her return to public office shouldn’t be causing disproportionate alarm. After all, private indiscretion doesn’t encroached upon the public domain like corruption or abuse of power. Of course, peoples tend to be more emotional with private indiscretion than rationale about what is required of a public office holder, namely, public/political ethic and competency.

I am happy with Soi Lek’s victory not because I am in favor of him.

Rather I am happy that the MCA Chinese demonstrated the secular value as opposed to the puritanical values or holier-than-thou values in choosing public offices.

Premier Wen Visiting My Old School

**Due to the earthquake in Qinghai earlier in the month, the Premier's visit to Brunei has been postponed**
** Post to be updated ** I am thrilled that Premier Wen will be visiting my old school - the Ching Hwa Middle School of BS Begawan - when he visits Brunei next April 22-23. Unimaginable! My niece is busy practicing a dance performance for the visit. This is a big moment for the humble little Chinese community that I come from and for the Chinese school which so many of my family gave so much for. My late father who was on the school board for 20+ years. My mother who was on the board briefly later on. I have aunts and uncles who grew up studying there, met each other, got married and later taught at the school. Both my parents, myself, my sister and all my children and my sister's children studied in the school, as are most of my cousins. Through it all, we donated to the school and rooted for it in competitions and brag about it when it produced excellent examination results. So much of my life is actually connected to the school which is why I am reflecting on this news with such great pride.