Qian Mu is my favorite Chinese History scholar cum writer. I had read most of his publications and developed an immense liking of his writing and analysis when I was in my 20s.
This apology is long overdued and I am very happy to see the leaders across the Strait like Wen and Ma who embody many fine aspects of the best Confucianist values - the respect for the scholars.
2010-08-31
(綜合報道)(星島日報報道)國學大師錢穆六十年代離開香港後，定居台北素書樓。一九九○年，錢穆病榻中，因被指控侵佔市府土地，被逼搬離故居，旋即病逝。馬英九(相關)昨日在錢穆逝世二十周年追思會上，以總統身分向錢穆遺孀胡美琦致歉，強調當局重視文人故居，不再做出「不公不義」的事。
一九六七年，錢穆夫婦應蔣介石邀請從香港遷往台北，在翠林幽谷的外雙溪建房，親手繪製圖樣，由當局代為施工。次年入住時，錢穆因紀念母親命名此樓為「素書樓」，在此長居二十三年。
一九九○年，當時的台北市議員周伯倫，指稱素書樓佔用市府土地，而時任立委的陳水扁(相關)也強烈要求台北市政府收回。當時錢穆雖高齡九十六歲，眼盲體衰，但不甘受辱，決定搬走，三個月後辭世。
馬英九昨日表示，他以飲水思源、追念大師的心情參加追思會，對事件一直耿耿於懷，一九九八年當上台北市長之後，開始整修名人故居。○二年素書樓整修完成，重開大門時，他即以台北市長身分，向錢穆遺孀胡美琦鞠躬，代表市政府致歉。
他昨日再次向錢夫人表達歉意，強調賓四先生（錢穆）沒有霸佔公產，那塊地是賓館用地，在錢穆返台前原作招待外賓之用，絕無侵佔公有財產之事。
「君子疾沒世而名不稱焉」，馬英九又引《論語‧衞靈公篇》來說明錢穆的委屈。他表示，台灣社會除自由民主外，也講求公平正義；對於不公不義的二二八事件、白色恐怖及錢穆故居風波等，他保證不再發生。
八十二歲的錢穆遺孀胡美琦昨日坐着輪椅致詞表示，四十三年前由於兩位蔣總統禮賢下士，讓他們夫妻住進素書樓，卻因政客的污衊而搬離。她說，世事無常，如同錢穆生前所寫「塵世無常，性命終將老去；天道好還，人文幸得綿延。」
錢夫人因長年住院，已很少回故居，昨日睹物思人，難掩傷感，不時拭淚。台北市文化局長謝小韞在追思會中，向錢夫人深情地說：「這裏永遠是您的家」。
為紀念錢穆學術貢獻，目前「素書樓」已改為紀念圖書館，委託東吳大學管理，並定名「錢穆故居」，定期舉辦書畫展、學術座談會等。
Showing posts with label Hong Kong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hong Kong. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Mandarin and Cantonization - 500 words Reply to David Tang
As an overseas Chinese, I treasure the importance to preserve one’s identity and one’s language in a minority environment. I thus have great empathy for Sir David. (David Tang Wing-cheung’s Cantonese is a rich and subtle language that must be preserved”, August 23)
I want to relate the adoption of Mandarin in South East Asia. My parents, like the overwhelming majority of their generation, received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fujianese.
Many Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, still proudly speak Mandarin among them.
These show how readily the South East Asian Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language despite their different vernacular.
After the Second World War, the South East Asian Chinese educationist and the community had the foresight to install Mandarin as the unifying language.
The major resistance to Mandarin is among the Cantonese peoples in pockets of area where they form the majority. The often cited evidence of Cantonese sophistication is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese.
What is ironic is that there is very sizable number of non-Cantonese in Hong Kong and their second generations are all converted into Cantonese speaking. Isn't Cantonese imposed on these non-Cantonese?
Understandably, this was a deliberate British colonial “divide and rule” policy to promote Cantonese primacy in the school.
It didn’t help that, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung introduced the disastrous mother tongue policy by assuming that the mother tongue was Cantonese and worst by promoting Cantonese in post-handover as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country".
What I find most amusing is that even the recent arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly makes them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local are adopting English names such as David as their own.Many locals, with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the Mainland, have their own skepticism of anything Mainland and these include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
However, it is still either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand.
The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
Our children started to learn Mandarin half-heartedly only after the handover; and our shopkeepers half-competently only after the SARs.
We should promote Mandarin as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese in school. This is a historical decision Hong Kong cannot wait.
Cantonese as a vernacular, like the Taiwanese, will always be around, alive and kicking.
I want to relate the adoption of Mandarin in South East Asia. My parents, like the overwhelming majority of their generation, received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fujianese.
Many Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, still proudly speak Mandarin among them.
These show how readily the South East Asian Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language despite their different vernacular.
After the Second World War, the South East Asian Chinese educationist and the community had the foresight to install Mandarin as the unifying language.
The major resistance to Mandarin is among the Cantonese peoples in pockets of area where they form the majority. The often cited evidence of Cantonese sophistication is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese.
What is ironic is that there is very sizable number of non-Cantonese in Hong Kong and their second generations are all converted into Cantonese speaking. Isn't Cantonese imposed on these non-Cantonese?
Understandably, this was a deliberate British colonial “divide and rule” policy to promote Cantonese primacy in the school.
It didn’t help that, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung introduced the disastrous mother tongue policy by assuming that the mother tongue was Cantonese and worst by promoting Cantonese in post-handover as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country".
What I find most amusing is that even the recent arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly makes them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local are adopting English names such as David as their own.Many locals, with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the Mainland, have their own skepticism of anything Mainland and these include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
However, it is still either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand.
The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
Our children started to learn Mandarin half-heartedly only after the handover; and our shopkeepers half-competently only after the SARs.
We should promote Mandarin as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese in school. This is a historical decision Hong Kong cannot wait.
Cantonese as a vernacular, like the Taiwanese, will always be around, alive and kicking.
Mandarin and Cantonization - Unedited Reply to David Tang
Being a member of Overseas Chinese Diaspora, I treasure how important to preserve one’s identity and one’s mother tongue in a minority environment. I thus have great empathy for Sir David. (David Tang Wing-cheung’s Cantonese is a rich and subtle language that must be preserved”, August 23)
Let me be clear, I am not in favor of suppressing Cantonese but I do take the stance to promote the use of Mandarin for the Chinese anywhere anytime.
I want to discuss about the spread of Mandarin usage outside the Mainland China by relating my family experience in the South East Asia. My parents received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, they still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fukienise (Fujianese in Pinyin) by descent.
As a young child growing up in repressive environment in the 1980s, my generation was constantly reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular when we went to school. This was true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony in South east Asia.
Even the Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them perhaps with an accent Sir David would perhaps regard as insufficiently good.
These show how readily the South East Asian Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language. A big credit to all the pioneers and successive generation of Chinese educationist who have the foresight to install Mandarin as the unifying spoken language for the Chinese Diaspora. It was done without any political pressure from Beijing at all and with the consensus of all the major tribes of Chinese.The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese-centrism in pocket where the Cantonese descent forms the majority. It is also very ironic that many prominent Cantonese would rather speak English than Mandarin.
I know this may be controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true from Vancouver to Kuala Lumpur, not to mention Hong Kong.Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin or other vernacular which may be true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin. The Cantonization phenomena in Kuala Lumpur, I believe, is largely attributed to the rise of Hong Kong pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s. The reasons are rooted in the perceived Cantonese superiority and the popularity of its pop culture.
Many of the Chinese who lived in Hong Kong today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fukien (Fujian in Pinyin) organization, there is more than a million Fujianese in Hong Kong. If we add up the more frequently encountered waves of immigrants or refugees from Chiu-chow (Chaozhou in Pinyin), Shanghainese and Hakka (many of whom are actually native in the New Territory), the non-Cantonese number is definitely very substantial in Hong Kong.However, their second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the Chinese in Cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin uninterrupted from the 1950s until today. Such is the miserable state of Mandarin in Hong Kong.Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which was right but he got it wrong in that the mother tongue was presumed to be Cantonese. Mr Tung hails from Zhejiang.That's ironic and unfortunate for Hong Kong.
There were indeed many great scholars such as Professor Qian Mu (钱穆) who came to Hong Kong and set up the predecessor of what is now the Chinese University during those difficult years in 1950s . Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized, at least in their name. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names such as David as their own.Of course the social political backdrop between Hong Kong and Overseas Chinese Diaspora are very different. Retaining Cantonese in post-handover is seen as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country". Prior to the handover, the local Hong Kongers with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the Mainland from the Great Leap Forward to the Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Incident, have their own reservation of anything Mainland and these surely include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
What is the state of Mandarin today?
Only after the handover that the children are beginning to learn Mandarin; and only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin of an acceptable standard to the Mainland visitors.
I think it is either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand. The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
The promotion of Mandarin in Hong Kong at least in the school as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese doesn’t deprive the cultural value of Cantonese. Cantonese as a vernacular like the Taiwanese will always be around, alive and kicking.
Let me be clear, I am not in favor of suppressing Cantonese but I do take the stance to promote the use of Mandarin for the Chinese anywhere anytime.
I want to discuss about the spread of Mandarin usage outside the Mainland China by relating my family experience in the South East Asia. My parents received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, they still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fukienise (Fujianese in Pinyin) by descent.
As a young child growing up in repressive environment in the 1980s, my generation was constantly reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular when we went to school. This was true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony in South east Asia.
Even the Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them perhaps with an accent Sir David would perhaps regard as insufficiently good.
These show how readily the South East Asian Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language. A big credit to all the pioneers and successive generation of Chinese educationist who have the foresight to install Mandarin as the unifying spoken language for the Chinese Diaspora. It was done without any political pressure from Beijing at all and with the consensus of all the major tribes of Chinese.The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese-centrism in pocket where the Cantonese descent forms the majority. It is also very ironic that many prominent Cantonese would rather speak English than Mandarin.
I know this may be controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true from Vancouver to Kuala Lumpur, not to mention Hong Kong.Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin or other vernacular which may be true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin. The Cantonization phenomena in Kuala Lumpur, I believe, is largely attributed to the rise of Hong Kong pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s. The reasons are rooted in the perceived Cantonese superiority and the popularity of its pop culture.
Many of the Chinese who lived in Hong Kong today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fukien (Fujian in Pinyin) organization, there is more than a million Fujianese in Hong Kong. If we add up the more frequently encountered waves of immigrants or refugees from Chiu-chow (Chaozhou in Pinyin), Shanghainese and Hakka (many of whom are actually native in the New Territory), the non-Cantonese number is definitely very substantial in Hong Kong.However, their second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the Chinese in Cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin uninterrupted from the 1950s until today. Such is the miserable state of Mandarin in Hong Kong.Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which was right but he got it wrong in that the mother tongue was presumed to be Cantonese. Mr Tung hails from Zhejiang.That's ironic and unfortunate for Hong Kong.
There were indeed many great scholars such as Professor Qian Mu (钱穆) who came to Hong Kong and set up the predecessor of what is now the Chinese University during those difficult years in 1950s . Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized, at least in their name. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names such as David as their own.Of course the social political backdrop between Hong Kong and Overseas Chinese Diaspora are very different. Retaining Cantonese in post-handover is seen as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country". Prior to the handover, the local Hong Kongers with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the Mainland from the Great Leap Forward to the Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Incident, have their own reservation of anything Mainland and these surely include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
What is the state of Mandarin today?
Only after the handover that the children are beginning to learn Mandarin; and only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin of an acceptable standard to the Mainland visitors.
I think it is either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand. The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
The promotion of Mandarin in Hong Kong at least in the school as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese doesn’t deprive the cultural value of Cantonese. Cantonese as a vernacular like the Taiwanese will always be around, alive and kicking.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Unfair Attack on Singapore
I am not a Singaporean but I would like to take issue with David Tang Wing-cheung, a knighted Anglo-Chinese, who asserts that Singaporean residents speaks three languages badly. (Öfffensive views on Cantonese condescending", August 10)
His inappropriate remark was made in the context of the recent saga between over the use of Putonghua and Cantonese.
I don't see why Sir David had to drag the four million Singaporean into this debate. Neither could I find any passable justification or compelling evidence that the seven million Hong Konger have a better command of language when we speak than the Singaporeans.
We expect the majority Putonghua speakers to respect our right to speak Cantonese in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, we should also respect Singaporean's language preference.
Appeared in SCMP August 12, 2010
His inappropriate remark was made in the context of the recent saga between over the use of Putonghua and Cantonese.
I don't see why Sir David had to drag the four million Singaporean into this debate. Neither could I find any passable justification or compelling evidence that the seven million Hong Konger have a better command of language when we speak than the Singaporeans.
We expect the majority Putonghua speakers to respect our right to speak Cantonese in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, we should also respect Singaporean's language preference.
Appeared in SCMP August 12, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Losing out to Lion City
My good friend and his family are relocating to Singapore.
Our young children who have been best pals for years will miss their playmateship.
My good friend works for a Multi-national Corporation (MNC), which is moving to the Lion City.
The company has chosen to set up its regional headquarters there becaue it has been offered tax advantages.
Hong Kong seems to view such initiatives with a couldn't care less"attitude.
My friend told me that his employer had approached the relevant Hong Kong departments several times over the past years, seeking similar advantages here, but always got a negative response.
Some might argue that you cannot have preferential treatment in one of the freest economy in the world.But the truth is that our city is losing its once-enormous competitive advantage against a determined competitor.
We can continue to do nothing, which was the stand taken by officials regarding my friend's company. But inaction will lead to higher unemployment rates.
We will have to absorb the economic and social costs of those redundancies.
If more multinationals leave Hong Kong, I think the prospect of my children in the city I love is poorer.
#Appeared on SCMP on August 2, 2010
Our young children who have been best pals for years will miss their playmateship.
My good friend works for a Multi-national Corporation (MNC), which is moving to the Lion City.
The company has chosen to set up its regional headquarters there becaue it has been offered tax advantages.
Hong Kong seems to view such initiatives with a couldn't care less"attitude.
My friend told me that his employer had approached the relevant Hong Kong departments several times over the past years, seeking similar advantages here, but always got a negative response.
Some might argue that you cannot have preferential treatment in one of the freest economy in the world.But the truth is that our city is losing its once-enormous competitive advantage against a determined competitor.
We can continue to do nothing, which was the stand taken by officials regarding my friend's company. But inaction will lead to higher unemployment rates.
We will have to absorb the economic and social costs of those redundancies.
If more multinationals leave Hong Kong, I think the prospect of my children in the city I love is poorer.
#Appeared on SCMP on August 2, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Lion City Trumps the Lion Rock
My good friend and his family are relocating to Singapore. Our young children who have been best pals for years would surely miss each other playmateship.
My good friend's employer, a Multi-National Corporation (MNC) , is shutting down its Hong Kong operation and moving it to Singapore.
The reason is that Singapore is enticing the MNCs with preferential tax advantage to set up regional headquarter in the Lion City.
My city under the watchful eye of the Lion Rock however has been lukewarm and takes a "couldn't be careless" approach.
According to my friend, his company had apparently approached the relevant Hong Kong authority several times in the past years for comparable treatment.
The response had been negative. There was no attempt to offer anything to reduce or narrow down the attractiveness of the relocation business case.
It maybe true that preferential treatment in a supposedly one of the freest economy in the world is a misnomer.
The truth is our city is losing its once enormous competitive advantage against a determined competitor. Our income per capital is now less than that of Singapore. It won't be long that the gap will be widened.
We can choose to do nothing like what happened to my friend's company's relocation. The inaction, as I learn, would cause lay-off to over hundred of local employees. We soon will have to absorb the economic and social cost of these redundancies. Hundred maybe a small number for our government to show concern but the adverse spill over effect to our economy is greater.
If the same happens (which has been happening for some years) to more MNCs relocating their operation away from Hong Kong, I think the prospect of my children is dimmer at the foot of our beloved Lion Rock.
My good friend's employer, a Multi-National Corporation (MNC) , is shutting down its Hong Kong operation and moving it to Singapore.
The reason is that Singapore is enticing the MNCs with preferential tax advantage to set up regional headquarter in the Lion City.
My city under the watchful eye of the Lion Rock however has been lukewarm and takes a "couldn't be careless" approach.
According to my friend, his company had apparently approached the relevant Hong Kong authority several times in the past years for comparable treatment.
The response had been negative. There was no attempt to offer anything to reduce or narrow down the attractiveness of the relocation business case.
It maybe true that preferential treatment in a supposedly one of the freest economy in the world is a misnomer.
The truth is our city is losing its once enormous competitive advantage against a determined competitor. Our income per capital is now less than that of Singapore. It won't be long that the gap will be widened.
We can choose to do nothing like what happened to my friend's company's relocation. The inaction, as I learn, would cause lay-off to over hundred of local employees. We soon will have to absorb the economic and social cost of these redundancies. Hundred maybe a small number for our government to show concern but the adverse spill over effect to our economy is greater.
If the same happens (which has been happening for some years) to more MNCs relocating their operation away from Hong Kong, I think the prospect of my children is dimmer at the foot of our beloved Lion Rock.
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.
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.
Friday, January 8, 2010
HK New Year Day Protest - A Father's explanation
"Why are there so many peoples walking on the street?", my son asked me. Before I could figure out how to explain in a way a four years old could understand. He shot me several more questions - " why are they carrying flag? ", "what are they singing", "why are there so many police?"
This was on the New Year Day along the Queen's Road. The Pan-Democratic camp organized the New Year Protest March which has in recent years become almost an annual custom.
The protesters had a myriad of petitions but two stood out prominently - universal franchise for 2012 and release of Liu Xiaobo.
The Pan-Dem had been working to pressure on an earlier date for universal franchise as well as the abolishment of functional constituencies which are a depository of various professional and business interest. Actually, several Pan-Dem legislators are planning to resign to force an island-wide reelection which they hope is a surrogate of a referendum on calling for earlier universal franschise.
Calling for the release of Liu is perhaps a last minute inclusion as Liu was sentence a week earlier on X-mas for 11 years. Several brave hearts put up a banner calling for the end of one party dictatorial rule.
HK is perhaps the only place under the Chinese sovereignty in which freedom of expression is not restrained.
The dissidents in HK need not worry being waken up middle of the night and taken to icy-cold lock up for interrogation. In a certain country, witness invited by the authority to give evidence could find himself death plunging from multiple storey building the next morning. In a slightly more enlightened country, the dissidents would have to watch their mouth lest they are sued for defamation into oblivion.
Nothing of these happen in HK.
13 years had lapsed since the handover. The CCP's pledge of preseving the one country two systems in HK for 50 years has only 37 years to go. Will HK be better or worse, only time can tell. But there were these retirees, parents with young children, students and ordinary peoples who were trying to make the difference.
Standing on the pavement, bending down to HR's eye level, I told him that these peoples were expressing themselves by walking, by singing, by shouting slogan, by hitting the drum, by hoisting banners and flags, trying to make China better and Hong Kong happier.
He seemed understood.....or it was just what I want to believe.
This was on the New Year Day along the Queen's Road. The Pan-Democratic camp organized the New Year Protest March which has in recent years become almost an annual custom.
The protesters had a myriad of petitions but two stood out prominently - universal franchise for 2012 and release of Liu Xiaobo.
The Pan-Dem had been working to pressure on an earlier date for universal franchise as well as the abolishment of functional constituencies which are a depository of various professional and business interest. Actually, several Pan-Dem legislators are planning to resign to force an island-wide reelection which they hope is a surrogate of a referendum on calling for earlier universal franschise.
Calling for the release of Liu is perhaps a last minute inclusion as Liu was sentence a week earlier on X-mas for 11 years. Several brave hearts put up a banner calling for the end of one party dictatorial rule.
HK is perhaps the only place under the Chinese sovereignty in which freedom of expression is not restrained.
The dissidents in HK need not worry being waken up middle of the night and taken to icy-cold lock up for interrogation. In a certain country, witness invited by the authority to give evidence could find himself death plunging from multiple storey building the next morning. In a slightly more enlightened country, the dissidents would have to watch their mouth lest they are sued for defamation into oblivion.
Nothing of these happen in HK.
13 years had lapsed since the handover. The CCP's pledge of preseving the one country two systems in HK for 50 years has only 37 years to go. Will HK be better or worse, only time can tell. But there were these retirees, parents with young children, students and ordinary peoples who were trying to make the difference.
Standing on the pavement, bending down to HR's eye level, I told him that these peoples were expressing themselves by walking, by singing, by shouting slogan, by hitting the drum, by hoisting banners and flags, trying to make China better and Hong Kong happier.
He seemed understood.....or it was just what I want to believe.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Mandarin and Cantonization
Talking about the spread of Mandarin usage in the SEA, I must relate a small story from my parents. Despite the fact that they received merely primary education at about the turn of 1960s, they converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fujianese.
Even until 80s when we went to school, we are reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular. I believe this is true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony. Even for Indonesian Chinese whom I met in HK, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them.
These show how readily the SEA Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language. A big credit to all the pioneers and successive generation of chinese educationist who have the foresight to install mandarin as the unifying spoken language for the disapora.
To this, you and I are indebted to.
The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese speaking peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese Cultural Imperialism. I know this is a big word and controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true in KL and it is true in HK.
The phenomena in KL, I believe, is attributed to the rise of HK pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s.
It is my observation, maybe controversial, that the Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin which maybe true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin.
This observation is based on my 19 years (to be exact) experience living in the Cantonese speaking environment both here in HK and KL.
Let's me talk about my observation of HK, my adopted home. Many of the Chinese who lived in HK today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fujian organization, there is more than a million or so Fujianese in HK. Personally, I encounter many Chaozhou, Shanghainese and Hakka in my 9 years living in HK. By the way, there are substantial Hakka native in the New Territory.
So, the non-Cantonese number is definitely not small in HK.
However, the second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the local cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin from the 1950s. Such is the miserable record and state of Mandarin in HK.
Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which is right but got it wrong in that the mother toungue is Cantonese. CW Tung hails from Zhejiang.
That's ironic if it is viewed against what was happening in the SEA as KH brilliantly pointed out in the earlier post.
Surely, there must have been waves of "May 4th Chinese" (allow me to use this term for convenience) and nationalist Chinese (many famous scholars including my favorite historian Qian Mu 钱穆 who headed to HK during those difficult years. Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.
What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the mainland after the handover are rushing to be Cantonized. When applying for their ID, they happily swap the pinyin to cantonese spelling for their name. Abandoning pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers - this was what I overheard when I was applying for my son's ID. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names as their own.
Just last Sunday, an elderly couples spoke to me in Cantonese advising me that I should teach my sons "our language".
Of course the social political backdrop between HK and SEA are very different. Retaining Cantonese in post-handover is seen as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country". Prior to the handover, the local Hong Kongers with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the mainland from the Great Leap Forward to the Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Incident, have their own reservation of anything Mainland and these surely include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
Only after the handover that the kids are beginning to learn Mandarin. My own observation is that the kids in the primary have better command in Mandarin than the older groups. And only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin to the mainland visitors.
Let's wish Mandarin is really putong (universal) to all Chinese everywhere. This will realize one of the original intent of the May 4th pioneers. I hope I am not imputing this.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Civilization with and without Price
The rich and the famous in this part of the world have traditionally donated to the schools, churches, temples, hospitals, universities, social welfare organization in return for their name or chosen name to be honored or christened to a building, library, lab, faculty, a wing, an auditorim, a hall or even a gold/blonze statue.
It is common sight of seeing someone's wife or mother being honored in Hong Kong.
Whether it is sensational or otherwise, naming the donor is sometimes rather controversial.
There was a huge debate several years ago whether it is fine for HKU to name its medical faculty after LKS for his HKD 100 million donation.
Actually, all these are fine so long the common good is the objective and credit/honor ought to be given when it is due. I am inclined to believe that creating competition or a sort of market base incentive for charity serves the public good.
Big-ticket charity is often neither nameless nor faceless. We don't and shouldn't expect it to be altruistic. I recall even a small temple donation of just couples of ringgit get a mention in my little home town.
An issue confronted by most societies over here is that they are too often themselves not affluent to support "these civilizational causes".
It is costly to run a public library and etc. (recently, i read of Phily major is closing quite a number of them due to budget deficit. What about maintening a Cantonese opera or some marginal cultural or other social interest?
How much of these should and could be taken by the govt?
New York is different and certainly more lucky than perhaps all other places in the world with a tradition of generosity and charity. As a trading port and as a finance center of the world, the wealth generated (some argued they are virtual until it is spent) has allowed massive historically/artistically/civilizational-important collection for display and appreciation.
My Hong Kong has a much shorter history as an affluent society. She doesn't have a foundation-run library or a world class muzium or gallery with permanent collection of privately-owned but publiy displayed antiques and etc.
There are other equally civilizational traits that I am proud of.
Being one of the most affluence society in Asia, she is pretty spontaneous in responding to charitable cause whether it is a relief of earthquake or adoption of an African kids living in dire straits or rebuilding a Sizhuan/Tibetan school in an earthquake aftermath.
I also recall reading somewhere a survey that HKger, not just the rich, has the highest percentage of giving out of pocket donation (without tax rebate) in this part of the world.
They are the one who step out from the MTR station and reach into their pocket for several token of coins and placed them into a tiny bag in return for a small flag (sticker actually) attached to their chest or on their sleave.
They are the one who rang the toll free number to pledge a donation in response to a charitable concert/TV show.
These are my unsung hero who are generous and charitable whose name are most likely not recorded in the annal of history but whose deed are no less noble.
This gesture allows many NGO, social and religious cause to survive.
To understand how this social work and charity permeate this society, I notice that there is a large number of the full time social workers paid by various foundation in HK that in turn warrant a functional legislative seat allocated to this sector.
Let me drift to Taiwan. Many hospitals in Taiwan are named in similar style after the classic MSKCC. You find Wang Yung Ching naming hospitals he set up after his dad's name.
Actually, when you came to think about it, isn't our human civilization based on that little cooperation, charity and courtersy without which how could there be community in the first place even before we talk about civilization. Price is just one of the variable.
It is common sight of seeing someone's wife or mother being honored in Hong Kong.
Whether it is sensational or otherwise, naming the donor is sometimes rather controversial.
There was a huge debate several years ago whether it is fine for HKU to name its medical faculty after LKS for his HKD 100 million donation.
Actually, all these are fine so long the common good is the objective and credit/honor ought to be given when it is due. I am inclined to believe that creating competition or a sort of market base incentive for charity serves the public good.
Big-ticket charity is often neither nameless nor faceless. We don't and shouldn't expect it to be altruistic. I recall even a small temple donation of just couples of ringgit get a mention in my little home town.
An issue confronted by most societies over here is that they are too often themselves not affluent to support "these civilizational causes".
It is costly to run a public library and etc. (recently, i read of Phily major is closing quite a number of them due to budget deficit. What about maintening a Cantonese opera or some marginal cultural or other social interest?
How much of these should and could be taken by the govt?
New York is different and certainly more lucky than perhaps all other places in the world with a tradition of generosity and charity. As a trading port and as a finance center of the world, the wealth generated (some argued they are virtual until it is spent) has allowed massive historically/artistically/civilizational-important collection for display and appreciation.
My Hong Kong has a much shorter history as an affluent society. She doesn't have a foundation-run library or a world class muzium or gallery with permanent collection of privately-owned but publiy displayed antiques and etc.
There are other equally civilizational traits that I am proud of.
Being one of the most affluence society in Asia, she is pretty spontaneous in responding to charitable cause whether it is a relief of earthquake or adoption of an African kids living in dire straits or rebuilding a Sizhuan/Tibetan school in an earthquake aftermath.
I also recall reading somewhere a survey that HKger, not just the rich, has the highest percentage of giving out of pocket donation (without tax rebate) in this part of the world.
They are the one who step out from the MTR station and reach into their pocket for several token of coins and placed them into a tiny bag in return for a small flag (sticker actually) attached to their chest or on their sleave.
They are the one who rang the toll free number to pledge a donation in response to a charitable concert/TV show.
These are my unsung hero who are generous and charitable whose name are most likely not recorded in the annal of history but whose deed are no less noble.
This gesture allows many NGO, social and religious cause to survive.
To understand how this social work and charity permeate this society, I notice that there is a large number of the full time social workers paid by various foundation in HK that in turn warrant a functional legislative seat allocated to this sector.
Let me drift to Taiwan. Many hospitals in Taiwan are named in similar style after the classic MSKCC. You find Wang Yung Ching naming hospitals he set up after his dad's name.
Actually, when you came to think about it, isn't our human civilization based on that little cooperation, charity and courtersy without which how could there be community in the first place even before we talk about civilization. Price is just one of the variable.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Nationality and Nationalism
Hui, what a fantastic write-up. I truly enjoy reading your second installment of "moments from my metropolis".
As we marvel at our good fortune living in our respectively enlightened metropolis, we cannot but feel dumbfounded by the slow progress made in our home countries.
Instead of grousing on lack of progress in our home countries, I am diverting to another topic - that of - nationality and nationalism. Two news on naturalization provided the backdrop to this post.
One from mainland China. The mainland chartroom and blogosphere were recently filled with angry posting on Gong Li who recently took up Singaporean citizenship. You can imagine all the accusations against this once adored celebrity from the mildly betrayal of to the highly charged treason against her mother land.
What do we make out of taking up a new citizenship?
I ponder and then I am reminded by my recent reading of Mencius. One thing that Mencius strikes me is how liberal or rather how much more liberal he is compared to the modern days liberal doctrine.
Mencius advocates, in essence, free movement of peoples from one country to another, whether to live to toil the land as a farmer or to serve as an official in the court of the new lord. I think almost all sovereign countries today would not have endorsed especially the latter.
What is the fuss with these angry netizen? They should have asked not just - why my country has failed to retain her but also why my country cannot attract more talented foreigner be my compatriot?
Least that these angry netizen know - at about the same time over in Hong Kong, a German born Jew sworn in as a Chinese citizen and gave up his Canadian citizenship. He is Allan Zeman, a successful entrepreneur in his own right and who is better known as the Father of Lan Kwai Fong, the night life district in Hong Kong (disclosure: I lived there for 6 months).
Since 2004, he is the chairman of Ocean Park, a government owned theme park that rival the HK Disneyland (partially owned by HK government as well). His success in turnaround the Ocean Park (another disclosure: my sons favorite weekend hangout) has earned him the nickname of Mouse Killer in a 2007 Forbe's article.
What a paradox with a Jew becoming a Chinese and a Chinese becoming a Singaporean!
In the world we live in, almost all people obtain their nationality from jus solis or jus sanguinis which are fortuitous. An individual is never given a real choice and therefore my view is that the freedom of adopting a new nationality is very much a human right not to be denied if an individual conforms to the law of nationality in the adopted country.
Equally it is always legitimate to be stay patriotic to one country to effect the necessary change in government or to repel foreign occupation or to end civil strife. It is ultimately about freedom of choice and that create condition for competitive improvement in the society.
Extending Mencius's basic tenet that the ruler has to be benevolent to attract peoples to the farm the idle land and the intellectual to serve as the official into the modern context, one can say that no country earn an automatic allegiance from its citizen unless its government is good or benevolent in the Confucian terminology. This will encourage all countries striving to be benevolent/good government in competing for talent besides grooming its very own.
Nationalist sentiment on the question of nationality is always mindless when the very issue ought to be self introspection and respect for individual's exercise of liberty
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Post Racial Society and Race Discrimination Law
Obama is often described as a post-racial President (elect). What matter more however is a post-racial society.
In that respect, many parts of America especially the traditional blue states have reached, if not close to, that status.
Prejudice takes a long time to eradicate. America history can testify to that. America took more than a century from the Civil War to the Civil Right movement to remedy its once racially exploitative and divisive society.
The issue is not how long it takes but rather whether it is done to eradicate racism which is arguably one of the men's greatest threat with maximum hatred with a minimum of reason.
Hitherto, the choice of public policy dealing with a society comprising of different races have been either one of assimilation/integration, accommodation, discrimination, segregation or outright inaction. All decent countries have abandoned the wide variety in favor of accommodation with equality.
My attention is drawn to two pieces of racial discrimination legislation recently passed in Asia.
One was passed by my city, Hong Kong, on July 10, 2008. The Post-handover Hong Kong doesn't practise any institutionalized racism however it must be admitted that just like all other societies there are sections of the Hong Kong society that are still possessing racial prejudice. The complaints are often related to employment and education opportunity available to the ethnic minority in Hong Kong. There are also complaint related to the provision of goods and service.
The Race Discrimination Ordinance is enacted to outlaw any discrimination, harassment, victimization and vilification on the ground of race in the areas of , among other, employment, education, provision of goods, facilities, services and premises, election and appointment to public bodies, membership and access to clubs.
The significance of this legislation in the context of Hong Kong is that we are talking of a society that is 95% Chinese that recognize the evil of racism.
The other one which is more interesting comes from Indonesia.
The law passed on October 28, 2008 treats racial discrimination as serious crime. The Anti-Discrimination Act imposes imprisonment as minimum sentence to deter people from committing racial discrimination. For leaders of public institution found guilty of adopting discriminatory policies, the law introduces a jail term one-third more severe than usually meted out.
This is a rare achievement by a country that was besieged with bloody race riot with reported mass killing and rape as recently as in 1997. Success can actually come quickly with enlightened leaders.
Eradicating racism through legislation doesn't necessarily guarantee its success but legislation is always useful to define the parameter of acceptable behaviour. Enforced by early childhood education and concerted civic education and publicity, the new and the reborn generations of the society can surely rid of racism. The issue is for the society concerned to take the first step in that direction.
Sadly, many SEA countries, Brunei, Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore included have not ratified the International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If this baby step is not taken, these societies is surely in need of treatment.
Hopefully with Indonesia making giant strides in human right, these neighboring countries can quickly learn the meaning of equal right for all, special privilege for none.
In that respect, many parts of America especially the traditional blue states have reached, if not close to, that status.
Prejudice takes a long time to eradicate. America history can testify to that. America took more than a century from the Civil War to the Civil Right movement to remedy its once racially exploitative and divisive society.
The issue is not how long it takes but rather whether it is done to eradicate racism which is arguably one of the men's greatest threat with maximum hatred with a minimum of reason.
Hitherto, the choice of public policy dealing with a society comprising of different races have been either one of assimilation/integration, accommodation, discrimination, segregation or outright inaction. All decent countries have abandoned the wide variety in favor of accommodation with equality.
My attention is drawn to two pieces of racial discrimination legislation recently passed in Asia.
One was passed by my city, Hong Kong, on July 10, 2008. The Post-handover Hong Kong doesn't practise any institutionalized racism however it must be admitted that just like all other societies there are sections of the Hong Kong society that are still possessing racial prejudice. The complaints are often related to employment and education opportunity available to the ethnic minority in Hong Kong. There are also complaint related to the provision of goods and service.
The Race Discrimination Ordinance is enacted to outlaw any discrimination, harassment, victimization and vilification on the ground of race in the areas of , among other, employment, education, provision of goods, facilities, services and premises, election and appointment to public bodies, membership and access to clubs.
The significance of this legislation in the context of Hong Kong is that we are talking of a society that is 95% Chinese that recognize the evil of racism.
The other one which is more interesting comes from Indonesia.
The law passed on October 28, 2008 treats racial discrimination as serious crime. The Anti-Discrimination Act imposes imprisonment as minimum sentence to deter people from committing racial discrimination. For leaders of public institution found guilty of adopting discriminatory policies, the law introduces a jail term one-third more severe than usually meted out.
This is a rare achievement by a country that was besieged with bloody race riot with reported mass killing and rape as recently as in 1997. Success can actually come quickly with enlightened leaders.
Eradicating racism through legislation doesn't necessarily guarantee its success but legislation is always useful to define the parameter of acceptable behaviour. Enforced by early childhood education and concerted civic education and publicity, the new and the reborn generations of the society can surely rid of racism. The issue is for the society concerned to take the first step in that direction.
Sadly, many SEA countries, Brunei, Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore included have not ratified the International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If this baby step is not taken, these societies is surely in need of treatment.
Hopefully with Indonesia making giant strides in human right, these neighboring countries can quickly learn the meaning of equal right for all, special privilege for none.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Three Links towards Peace
Taiwan and the mainland signed agreements on Nov 4 to pave ways for completing the outstanding two out of the so-called three links - trade, transport and postal - that was banned by the KMT government after losing the civil war.
Under the agreements, both sides across the Strait agree to full direct flight, direct cargo flight, direct shipping, direct postal and also to establish cross-strait cooperation on the latest concern on the food safety.
Bravo to both sides for making this happen.
The next thing is to call for an official truce and followed by the grand slam political settlement.
My fear is that some Pan-Green supporters may turn extremist and resort to terrorism to destabilize the cross-strait relationship. The security forces and intelligence agencies of both sides got to be cautious.
In Hong Kong, some newspapers are lamenting about the losses to Hong Kong following the historic deal. Currently, most of the flights and postal link are via Hong Kong. These papers are just microscopic.
Under the agreements, both sides across the Strait agree to full direct flight, direct cargo flight, direct shipping, direct postal and also to establish cross-strait cooperation on the latest concern on the food safety.
Bravo to both sides for making this happen.
The next thing is to call for an official truce and followed by the grand slam political settlement.
My fear is that some Pan-Green supporters may turn extremist and resort to terrorism to destabilize the cross-strait relationship. The security forces and intelligence agencies of both sides got to be cautious.
In Hong Kong, some newspapers are lamenting about the losses to Hong Kong following the historic deal. Currently, most of the flights and postal link are via Hong Kong. These papers are just microscopic.
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Tsang Administration Ate Banana Pie
The Tsang's administration ate the humble pie (or more aptly the banana pie).
The latest is prompted by Donald Tsang's policy speech in the context of the old age allowance (popularly known as fruits allowance in Cantonese). He proposed to raise the elderly's allowance from 705 dollars to 1000 dollars subject to a means test.
The allowance started way back in 1973 as a token of respect for elderly reaching the age of 65 and not intended as a welfare handout. The reality is that many elderly are depending on the allowance for living. The escalated cost of living and health care are two underlying reason for the increase in the allowance.
The legislators from both sides of the aisles criticize Tsang for demeaning the elderly on the introduction of means test. Tsang himself had a banana thrown at him at the Legco by a sensationist legislator from the League of Social Democrat. The opinion poll was against the imposition of a means test.
Facing popular backlash, the Tsang's administration withdrew the mean test today conceding to populism, one may say.
This maybe a reason of his lacking the popular mandate via a universal franchise.
The graver problem with Tsang's handling is one on policy execution lacking careful strategic thinking and political spinning.
The introduction of means test for what is actually a token of respect to elderly smacks of elitism and patronage. Means test is understandable and politically acceptable to reduce the likehood of abuse and to better distribute the welfare resources as the society is aging and the burden of the welfare spending is growing over times.
What Tsang should have done is to demarcate the fruit allowance without means test from other form of welfare allowance supporting the elderly.
Any elderly who satisfy the means test should be rightfully given more welfare allowance for living, however you name it as long as it is not called 'the fruit allowance'.
Further the imposition of means test is simply too costly for administering considering the high cost of civil service in Hong Kong. One proposal which should have been considered is to streamline and simplify various welfare scheme for more convenient and speedy application especially for elderly who maybe infirm, illiterate and without dependent.
The increase on welfare for elderly is popular. Yet, Tsang let the opponents win the kudos and ended up with the banana pie.
The latest is prompted by Donald Tsang's policy speech in the context of the old age allowance (popularly known as fruits allowance in Cantonese). He proposed to raise the elderly's allowance from 705 dollars to 1000 dollars subject to a means test.
The allowance started way back in 1973 as a token of respect for elderly reaching the age of 65 and not intended as a welfare handout. The reality is that many elderly are depending on the allowance for living. The escalated cost of living and health care are two underlying reason for the increase in the allowance.
The legislators from both sides of the aisles criticize Tsang for demeaning the elderly on the introduction of means test. Tsang himself had a banana thrown at him at the Legco by a sensationist legislator from the League of Social Democrat. The opinion poll was against the imposition of a means test.
Facing popular backlash, the Tsang's administration withdrew the mean test today conceding to populism, one may say.
This maybe a reason of his lacking the popular mandate via a universal franchise.
The graver problem with Tsang's handling is one on policy execution lacking careful strategic thinking and political spinning.
The introduction of means test for what is actually a token of respect to elderly smacks of elitism and patronage. Means test is understandable and politically acceptable to reduce the likehood of abuse and to better distribute the welfare resources as the society is aging and the burden of the welfare spending is growing over times.
What Tsang should have done is to demarcate the fruit allowance without means test from other form of welfare allowance supporting the elderly.
Any elderly who satisfy the means test should be rightfully given more welfare allowance for living, however you name it as long as it is not called 'the fruit allowance'.
Further the imposition of means test is simply too costly for administering considering the high cost of civil service in Hong Kong. One proposal which should have been considered is to streamline and simplify various welfare scheme for more convenient and speedy application especially for elderly who maybe infirm, illiterate and without dependent.
The increase on welfare for elderly is popular. Yet, Tsang let the opponents win the kudos and ended up with the banana pie.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Cherish our liberty and the rule of law
The Thailand Prime Minister's office compound has been occupied by anti-government protesters for weeks and yet the PM has chosen restraint rather than taking action against the trespasser.
Ironically, the Malaysian government, facing with increasingly critical online commentaries, has resorted to arrest a prominent "cyber transgressor" - an online political blogger - under a draconian security law that allows for indefinitely detention.
The Umno-led Malaysian government, with all law enforcement agencies under its control and a record of oppresive encorcement, clearly favors the strong arm approach to thwart the opposition.
Whereas the Samak/Thaksin Thai government, with a likely partisan Royal House and a watchful military, all that could be meted out by the administration is a softie restraint.
In my view, Malaysia needs a full jab of human right and Thailand needs a strong dose of the rule of law.
Seeing our neighbors situation, we ought to be thankful and hence watchful of our liberty and the rule of law in Hong Kong
Ironically, the Malaysian government, facing with increasingly critical online commentaries, has resorted to arrest a prominent "cyber transgressor" - an online political blogger - under a draconian security law that allows for indefinitely detention.
The Umno-led Malaysian government, with all law enforcement agencies under its control and a record of oppresive encorcement, clearly favors the strong arm approach to thwart the opposition.
Whereas the Samak/Thaksin Thai government, with a likely partisan Royal House and a watchful military, all that could be meted out by the administration is a softie restraint.
In my view, Malaysia needs a full jab of human right and Thailand needs a strong dose of the rule of law.
Seeing our neighbors situation, we ought to be thankful and hence watchful of our liberty and the rule of law in Hong Kong
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The 2008 Hong Kong Legco Result
The result for the geographical constituencies is 19 seats for the Pan-Dem and 11 seats for the Pro-Establisment - a return to the distribution before the last Legco was dissolved.
Pro-Establishment:
DAB : 7 seats (7)
FTU: 2 seats (1)
others: 2 seats
Pan-Dem:
DP: 7 seats (7)
CP: 4 seats (3)
LSD: 3 seats (2)
Others: 5 seats
(numbers of seats formerly held in geographical constituencies)
The status quo is largey maintained and the biggest loser at this election is the pro-business Liberal Party which failed to retain the two seats they held in the geographical constituencies.
The presense of two other Pro-establishment candidates, one from from FTU (who won) and one self-proclaimed independent (who lost with respectable votes) in the two relevant constituencies, have diluted the Liberal Party's support.
This gives rise to the speculation that the pro-establishment camp (read pro-Beijing) has taken away their endorsement from the Liberal Party. Liberal Party maybe regarded by the Pro-establishment as not sufficiently reliable. It is still remembered that the Liberal Party ditched Tung's at the eleventh hour in opposing the article 23 legislation.
Civil Party won an extra seat in the Hong Island constituency at the expense of Democratic Party giving the party 4 geographical seats. Elsewhere, Civil Party has failed to make inroad. Civil Party was not formed in the last election and this makes the analysis difficult.
One of their candidate who retained the seat for Civil Party managed only 16.6% of votes compared to 19% in 2008. The party may have won more geographical constituencies but that is done at the expenses of their fellow Pan-Dem - the Democratic Party. Without a strong grassroot organization, reliance on celebrity barristers (all elected are barristers by porfession) alone may be problematic to the party in the future.
LSD, the more radical Pan-Dem saw an increase of support. Two of LSD winners won their seats with second highest number of vote in the multi-seat constituencies they contested. This is evident that there is a growing base of supporters for LSD who favor more vocal and sometimes theatrical opposition to the government amid an econimic downturn.
Despite a low turnout which generally favors the Pro-Establishment camp, Pan-Dem has reason to feel relieve with their accomplishment.
Post-note:
In a skewed electoral system where half of the seats are elected via functional constituencies. The Pro-Establishment camp continued to do well and have 35 seats. Pan-Dem retained only 4 functional seats and had only 23 seats in the new Legco. 2 functional seats are held by independents without affiliation.
The major party distribution In the new Legco ( functional seats in bracket)
DAB 10(3)
LP 7(7)
DP 8(1)
CP 5(1)
2008 Legco Election Turnout Rate
The turnout rate for Legco geographical constituencies in 2000 was 43.57 %and in 2004 was 55.64%.
The official turnout rate is 45.2%, 10% lower than 2004. What explains such a poor turnout?
Is the government to be blamed? The government cannot be faulted for not encouraging the voters to exercise their voting rights. Voters registration exercise and legco election are widely promoted.
Each voter receives voting informatio including a two-page brief on each candidates contesting in the constituency which the voter belong to. Through TV, radio, internet, traditional media, the HK government deploy celebrities in high exposure promotional campaigns.
The polling hours strecthing from 7.30 am to 10.30 pm is perhaps one of the longest in the region yet the turnout rate in HK legoc election remains disappointingly one of the lowest in the region.
Are voters's political apathy the reason? That maybe so. The 2008 Legco election did not have any heated political issue like the Article 23 legislation in the previous round and the disatisfaction with Donald's Tsang has not reached the acute level of discontent with Tung.
Further, I suspect a large number of middle class or aspiring middle class who voted for the Liberal Party didn't show up at the polling station this time as evident by the loss of all the Liberal Party candidates in the geographical constituencies.
It would appear that the 2004 turnout rate of 55.64% is the exception and 45% should be about the normal turnout rate for an election without contentious political issues.
The official turnout rate is 45.2%, 10% lower than 2004. What explains such a poor turnout?
Is the government to be blamed? The government cannot be faulted for not encouraging the voters to exercise their voting rights. Voters registration exercise and legco election are widely promoted.
Each voter receives voting informatio including a two-page brief on each candidates contesting in the constituency which the voter belong to. Through TV, radio, internet, traditional media, the HK government deploy celebrities in high exposure promotional campaigns.
The polling hours strecthing from 7.30 am to 10.30 pm is perhaps one of the longest in the region yet the turnout rate in HK legoc election remains disappointingly one of the lowest in the region.
Are voters's political apathy the reason? That maybe so. The 2008 Legco election did not have any heated political issue like the Article 23 legislation in the previous round and the disatisfaction with Donald's Tsang has not reached the acute level of discontent with Tung.
Further, I suspect a large number of middle class or aspiring middle class who voted for the Liberal Party didn't show up at the polling station this time as evident by the loss of all the Liberal Party candidates in the geographical constituencies.
It would appear that the 2004 turnout rate of 55.64% is the exception and 45% should be about the normal turnout rate for an election without contentious political issues.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The 2008 HK Legco Election Campaign
Hong Kong Legislative Council (Legco) election is divided into 30 functional and 30 geographical constituencies. The combined electors for the functional constituencies are about 230,000 whereas the geographical constituencies represent 3.37 million registered votes.
The functional constituencies are frequently critized as the undemocratic component of the Legco and most of the political parties across the divide have agreed to phase them out. The only difference among them is the timing.
The Pan-Democrats aims at 2013 and the largest pro-government party, DAB, aims at 2018. DAB's stance is in line with the NPC's ruling in favor of direct election for the Chief Executive in 2017 and Legco after 2017.
As of today, the electoral system used for the geographical constituencies is the list system of proportionate representation. Hong Kong SAR is divided into 5 multi-seats contituencies contested by numerous parties, organization and individuals.
This system broadly produce a pretty representative result - 60% for the Pan-Democrat and 40% for Pro-Establishment. The functional constituencies are designed to preserve the business, professional and pro-Beijing interest.
This weekend Legco election see the largest contest in the geographical constituencies. This is in large part due to the highly fractious Pan-Democratic camp consisting of diverse groups of political parties and organizations held in common by attacking the Donald Tsang's administration and its allies in the Legco, described variously as the Loyalist, pro-Beijing or pro-establishment camp.
This camp until recently was dominated by the Democratic Party. A new upstart, the Civil Party, led by several leading barristers in the city, and backed by former Chief Secretary, Ansan Chan, has emerged as the strong contender to be the largest party for the Pan-Democratic Camp.
This camp includes smaller party like the more radical League of Social Democrat (LSD), ADPL, labour union and interest groups.
Having said that the camp is not an alliance. There are massive intra-camp strifles as seen from the current election campaign. This is a natural consequence of the electoral system. It is easier to pinch the support from among the pan-democratic and independent supporters rather than from the supporters of the opposing camp.
The Pro-Establishment camp is represented mainly by the traditional leftist DAB, pro-business Liberal Party and HKFTU, a leftist labour union. Generally, there is more cohesion within this camp.
The issues for the election as seen from the several debates and campaign leaflets are dominated by livelihood and economic issues. The Pan-Democrats are also taking shots at the Pro-Establishment camp on a string of administrative blunder by the Tsang's administration.
The trend of this Legco election points t0 the pan-democrat camp's favor because of the general economic downturn that affects the livelihood issues faced by the middle and the working class.
What is interesting about this election is that there are a lot more political debates held among the candidates, almost all of which are broadcast and accessible by youtube. The quality of the debates, as in any debate, ranges widely from one extreme to the other, depending on one's view. Over all, this is a healthy development of a political debate culture - one that is fair and open. Debate time, and hence the air time, is given equally to all the contested candidates, even though he/she maybe an independent with very small following.
There is also a general trend across the divide towards nominating younger candidates, who becomes politically active after 1997 handover. This is a welcome sign because the political scene has been dominated by the so-called party big brothers who crafted their political skills mostly
post 1989 and have been around over the last two decades.
The turnout rate in the 2004 Legco was 55.64% and 2000 was 43.57%. It is unlikely that the 2008 turnout rate will be higher than the 2004 which saw a massive turnout (by Hong Kong standard) to express disapproval against CH Tung's administration for promoting article 23, a national security legislative proposal, widely regarded as an encroachment of Hong Kong's liberty as well as his perceived incompetence in managing the post-SAR economy.
It is true that Donald Tsang's popular rating suffered a significant drop lately. This surely doesn't help the pro-establishment camp.
On the other hand, the sentiment among the Hong Kongers towards Beijing is far more positive than in 2004 - CEPA (Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) and other policies have helped Hong Kong's economy; China's victory in Olympic has rallied patriotism. Having said that, it is however unlikely that the pro-establishment camp will be rewarded by the voters simply because Hong Kongers have stronger identification with China.
The 2004 Legco election produces 18 seats for Pan-democrats and 12 seats for pro-establishment camp. A by-election last year gave Pan-democratic an additional seat vacated by the death of a pro-establishment Legco member.
My prediction is that the turnout rate will be lower than 2004. This should favor pro-establishment camp as they are better at mobilizing their supporters.
However the general election factors favor the pan-democrat. The likely result will not produce a landslide because of the proportionate representation system used.
My prediction is 20 for the pan-dem and 10 for the pro-establishment camp, a slight improvement for the pan-dem from the last election.
It is fun watching how pluralistic the HK Legco election. I am however not so interested in the eventual electoral result. Rather it is the way how it is played out that interest me.
The functional constituencies are frequently critized as the undemocratic component of the Legco and most of the political parties across the divide have agreed to phase them out. The only difference among them is the timing.
The Pan-Democrats aims at 2013 and the largest pro-government party, DAB, aims at 2018. DAB's stance is in line with the NPC's ruling in favor of direct election for the Chief Executive in 2017 and Legco after 2017.
As of today, the electoral system used for the geographical constituencies is the list system of proportionate representation. Hong Kong SAR is divided into 5 multi-seats contituencies contested by numerous parties, organization and individuals.
This system broadly produce a pretty representative result - 60% for the Pan-Democrat and 40% for Pro-Establishment. The functional constituencies are designed to preserve the business, professional and pro-Beijing interest.
This weekend Legco election see the largest contest in the geographical constituencies. This is in large part due to the highly fractious Pan-Democratic camp consisting of diverse groups of political parties and organizations held in common by attacking the Donald Tsang's administration and its allies in the Legco, described variously as the Loyalist, pro-Beijing or pro-establishment camp.
This camp until recently was dominated by the Democratic Party. A new upstart, the Civil Party, led by several leading barristers in the city, and backed by former Chief Secretary, Ansan Chan, has emerged as the strong contender to be the largest party for the Pan-Democratic Camp.
This camp includes smaller party like the more radical League of Social Democrat (LSD), ADPL, labour union and interest groups.
Having said that the camp is not an alliance. There are massive intra-camp strifles as seen from the current election campaign. This is a natural consequence of the electoral system. It is easier to pinch the support from among the pan-democratic and independent supporters rather than from the supporters of the opposing camp.
The Pro-Establishment camp is represented mainly by the traditional leftist DAB, pro-business Liberal Party and HKFTU, a leftist labour union. Generally, there is more cohesion within this camp.
The issues for the election as seen from the several debates and campaign leaflets are dominated by livelihood and economic issues. The Pan-Democrats are also taking shots at the Pro-Establishment camp on a string of administrative blunder by the Tsang's administration.
The trend of this Legco election points t0 the pan-democrat camp's favor because of the general economic downturn that affects the livelihood issues faced by the middle and the working class.
What is interesting about this election is that there are a lot more political debates held among the candidates, almost all of which are broadcast and accessible by youtube. The quality of the debates, as in any debate, ranges widely from one extreme to the other, depending on one's view. Over all, this is a healthy development of a political debate culture - one that is fair and open. Debate time, and hence the air time, is given equally to all the contested candidates, even though he/she maybe an independent with very small following.
There is also a general trend across the divide towards nominating younger candidates, who becomes politically active after 1997 handover. This is a welcome sign because the political scene has been dominated by the so-called party big brothers who crafted their political skills mostly
post 1989 and have been around over the last two decades.
The turnout rate in the 2004 Legco was 55.64% and 2000 was 43.57%. It is unlikely that the 2008 turnout rate will be higher than the 2004 which saw a massive turnout (by Hong Kong standard) to express disapproval against CH Tung's administration for promoting article 23, a national security legislative proposal, widely regarded as an encroachment of Hong Kong's liberty as well as his perceived incompetence in managing the post-SAR economy.
It is true that Donald Tsang's popular rating suffered a significant drop lately. This surely doesn't help the pro-establishment camp.
On the other hand, the sentiment among the Hong Kongers towards Beijing is far more positive than in 2004 - CEPA (Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) and other policies have helped Hong Kong's economy; China's victory in Olympic has rallied patriotism. Having said that, it is however unlikely that the pro-establishment camp will be rewarded by the voters simply because Hong Kongers have stronger identification with China.
The 2004 Legco election produces 18 seats for Pan-democrats and 12 seats for pro-establishment camp. A by-election last year gave Pan-democratic an additional seat vacated by the death of a pro-establishment Legco member.
My prediction is that the turnout rate will be lower than 2004. This should favor pro-establishment camp as they are better at mobilizing their supporters.
However the general election factors favor the pan-democrat. The likely result will not produce a landslide because of the proportionate representation system used.
My prediction is 20 for the pan-dem and 10 for the pro-establishment camp, a slight improvement for the pan-dem from the last election.
It is fun watching how pluralistic the HK Legco election. I am however not so interested in the eventual electoral result. Rather it is the way how it is played out that interest me.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sir Donald Tsang forgets politics
Hong Kong is indeed a unique place. Her mini constitution, the Basic Law, even make provision to allow foreign national to hold governmental office up to pretty senior level. For instance, up to 20% members of the legislative council maybe foreign national holding HK permanent residency.
Many senior judges and senior governmental officers of the current administration are either non Chinese themselves (this make them even less likely to become Chinese national) or they are Chinese who are themselves not exclusively Chinese nationals.
This phenomena is unique because China doesn't allow for dual nationality.
Partly it is a legacy of the history. Had it not the "one country two systems" conceived by the Deng Xiaoping, this would have been unthinkable.
The recent controversy regarding the deputy political secretaries and political assistant nationality is actually an easy one to solve and there is no question that Tsang administration scored an own goal.
One nationality defines one political allegiance. It is therefore apt that a political appointee shall owe allegiance to the polity of which he wishes to serve. The argument that the Basic Law doesn't prohibit such an appointment is simply a legal one and that alone doesn't make it political appropriate.
Tsang administration should be minded to have Taiwan as a constant reference to avoid making political mistake. It was not too long ago that Ma Yin Jeou's green card was made such a huge issue in the last Presidential election.
Many senior judges and senior governmental officers of the current administration are either non Chinese themselves (this make them even less likely to become Chinese national) or they are Chinese who are themselves not exclusively Chinese nationals.
This phenomena is unique because China doesn't allow for dual nationality.
Partly it is a legacy of the history. Had it not the "one country two systems" conceived by the Deng Xiaoping, this would have been unthinkable.
The recent controversy regarding the deputy political secretaries and political assistant nationality is actually an easy one to solve and there is no question that Tsang administration scored an own goal.
One nationality defines one political allegiance. It is therefore apt that a political appointee shall owe allegiance to the polity of which he wishes to serve. The argument that the Basic Law doesn't prohibit such an appointment is simply a legal one and that alone doesn't make it political appropriate.
Tsang administration should be minded to have Taiwan as a constant reference to avoid making political mistake. It was not too long ago that Ma Yin Jeou's green card was made such a huge issue in the last Presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)