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.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
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.
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.
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.
** 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.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Abraham Lincoln's Path to History
[24/3 - Partly revised.]
I just came back from my daughter's class field trip to the New York Historical Society where they viewed an exhibition of Abraham Lincoln. That exhibition has been going on for a year since it opened on Mr Lincoln's 200th birthday and examines his Presidency's relationship to New York City.
I did not finish seeing the exhibit and for sure I cannot be mistaken for a scholar of Lincoln. But the exhibition made an impression on me because it reminded me that greatness is a difficult and arduous journey that feels anything but great when traveling on it.
What I learn from the exhibit is that Lincoln was given a political boost and became a political star due to the promotion of certain New York political barons of the (then nascent and comparatively social-progressive) Republican Party who wanted their own non-establishment candidate to challenge the establishment favorite William Seward. They wanted a Westerner candidate for the presidential election of 1860 to propel them out of their narrow political base; some one who would speak credibly about expansion to the West (free land, free labor, free men), lavish protection on industry (tariffs, railways, ports and canals etc.), anti-unions and be mildly anti-slavery. Lincoln proceeded to gave a famous and widely promoted speech at the Cooper Union in New York setting out his vision; which on slavery was actually a compromise whereby the South can keep their slaves but new territories would henceforth be free of slaves. He was not an abolitionist but was only against the expansion of slavery.
Aided by his powerful patrons, Lincoln soon gathered the support of many political forces that were against the Democratic Party: populists (who are anti-business), abolitionists (who are anti-slavery) but also neo-Fascist movements such as the "Wide Awakes" and the Nativist/xenophobic "Know Nothing Party".
The big businesses in New York favored the Democratic Party which was the establishment party; and businesses are wary of the abolitionist movement because they fear any rupture (or worse, war) with the south would mean disruption of business, loss of access to raw material supplies to the mills in the North and markets in the South.
Lincoln won the Presidency with only 40% of the popular votes. But wary of Lincoln's views on slavery, 7 Southern states seceded from the Union even before he took office. His popularity fell even further especially in the major cities of the Northeast.
But when Fort Sumner was attacked, patriotic fervor caused the North to rally around him; but within a year and many battlefield defeats (and war supplies corruption and mounting government indebtedness) later Lincoln found himself deeply unpopular. The newspapers and public opinion were deeply scathing. To raise money for the war effort, Lincoln instituted the income tax and a federal backed US dollar amidst widespread opposition. He strong-armed and wrestled many powers such as the raising and provisioning of armies from the States and into Federal control. His opponents were decrying the end of the United States and against him for trampling on the Constitution. There was huge outcry that he was resorting to dictatorial means. To put down dissent, he imposed martial law allowing detention by military tribunals without trial, which incarcerated 10-15000 people! Amidst all these, he suffered huge electoral losses during elections which resulted in openly antagonistic state governments /governors who were out to thwart him at every turn.
In a bid to recalibrate the reasons for fighting, which initially was about the preservation of the Union, and to get more Union recruits Abraham Lincoln issued the initial Emancipation Proclamation as a military order in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. It was quite limited in scope at first being limited only to the Confederated States (but preserves slavery in some border states such as Delaware and Maryland) and primarily serve to pressurize the South. Later, it was extended to all lands seized by the Union army hence making abolition a Union war objective. He was also hoping to encourage slave revolts and gather freed slaves into the Union Army.
Granted, there were pragmatic reasons and risks if he were not more gradualist in abolishing slavery. Lincoln was concerned that outright abolition might tilt Northern slave states into joining the Confederacy. Maryland in particular was a concern because it was the crucial link between Washington DC and the North. Lincoln's abolitionist stand became more and more resolute after the Emancipation Proclaimation and in the end, became a non-negotiable term for ending the war.
As a military order, it did not have the force of law that an Act of congress would have. Belatedly, as the tide turned in the Civil War, Lincoln got Congress to entrench it as the XIII amendment to the Constitution, which was not ratified until after Lincoln's death when it was ratified by 2/3 of the states. Mississippi did not ratify that amendment until 1995.
If judged by popularity alone, it would be hard to make any assessment of Lincoln's greatness during his lifetime. For most of 1864 prior to his re-election, he did not think he was going to be re-elected. In fact, only when the tide of war turned in September 1864, two months before the election, before his victory became possible. Nonetheless, despite having only the Northern states participating in the election he was re-elected in 1864 with a respectable but far from heroic 54% of the vote. He would likely have lost the election had the Southern states participated. Especially in the South and amongst those opposed to the ascendancy of Federal government vis-a-vis the rights of the states Lincoln remained a much hated figure even after his death.
It an interesting and telling perspective on how a person is being judged by one's contemporaries as opposed to posterity.
I just came back from my daughter's class field trip to the New York Historical Society where they viewed an exhibition of Abraham Lincoln. That exhibition has been going on for a year since it opened on Mr Lincoln's 200th birthday and examines his Presidency's relationship to New York City.
I did not finish seeing the exhibit and for sure I cannot be mistaken for a scholar of Lincoln. But the exhibition made an impression on me because it reminded me that greatness is a difficult and arduous journey that feels anything but great when traveling on it.
What I learn from the exhibit is that Lincoln was given a political boost and became a political star due to the promotion of certain New York political barons of the (then nascent and comparatively social-progressive) Republican Party who wanted their own non-establishment candidate to challenge the establishment favorite William Seward. They wanted a Westerner candidate for the presidential election of 1860 to propel them out of their narrow political base; some one who would speak credibly about expansion to the West (free land, free labor, free men), lavish protection on industry (tariffs, railways, ports and canals etc.), anti-unions and be mildly anti-slavery. Lincoln proceeded to gave a famous and widely promoted speech at the Cooper Union in New York setting out his vision; which on slavery was actually a compromise whereby the South can keep their slaves but new territories would henceforth be free of slaves. He was not an abolitionist but was only against the expansion of slavery.
Aided by his powerful patrons, Lincoln soon gathered the support of many political forces that were against the Democratic Party: populists (who are anti-business), abolitionists (who are anti-slavery) but also neo-Fascist movements such as the "Wide Awakes" and the Nativist/xenophobic "Know Nothing Party".
The big businesses in New York favored the Democratic Party which was the establishment party; and businesses are wary of the abolitionist movement because they fear any rupture (or worse, war) with the south would mean disruption of business, loss of access to raw material supplies to the mills in the North and markets in the South.
Lincoln won the Presidency with only 40% of the popular votes. But wary of Lincoln's views on slavery, 7 Southern states seceded from the Union even before he took office. His popularity fell even further especially in the major cities of the Northeast.
But when Fort Sumner was attacked, patriotic fervor caused the North to rally around him; but within a year and many battlefield defeats (and war supplies corruption and mounting government indebtedness) later Lincoln found himself deeply unpopular. The newspapers and public opinion were deeply scathing. To raise money for the war effort, Lincoln instituted the income tax and a federal backed US dollar amidst widespread opposition. He strong-armed and wrestled many powers such as the raising and provisioning of armies from the States and into Federal control. His opponents were decrying the end of the United States and against him for trampling on the Constitution. There was huge outcry that he was resorting to dictatorial means. To put down dissent, he imposed martial law allowing detention by military tribunals without trial, which incarcerated 10-15000 people! Amidst all these, he suffered huge electoral losses during elections which resulted in openly antagonistic state governments /governors who were out to thwart him at every turn.
In a bid to recalibrate the reasons for fighting, which initially was about the preservation of the Union, and to get more Union recruits Abraham Lincoln issued the initial Emancipation Proclamation as a military order in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. It was quite limited in scope at first being limited only to the Confederated States (but preserves slavery in some border states such as Delaware and Maryland) and primarily serve to pressurize the South. Later, it was extended to all lands seized by the Union army hence making abolition a Union war objective. He was also hoping to encourage slave revolts and gather freed slaves into the Union Army.
Granted, there were pragmatic reasons and risks if he were not more gradualist in abolishing slavery. Lincoln was concerned that outright abolition might tilt Northern slave states into joining the Confederacy. Maryland in particular was a concern because it was the crucial link between Washington DC and the North. Lincoln's abolitionist stand became more and more resolute after the Emancipation Proclaimation and in the end, became a non-negotiable term for ending the war.
As a military order, it did not have the force of law that an Act of congress would have. Belatedly, as the tide turned in the Civil War, Lincoln got Congress to entrench it as the XIII amendment to the Constitution, which was not ratified until after Lincoln's death when it was ratified by 2/3 of the states. Mississippi did not ratify that amendment until 1995.
If judged by popularity alone, it would be hard to make any assessment of Lincoln's greatness during his lifetime. For most of 1864 prior to his re-election, he did not think he was going to be re-elected. In fact, only when the tide of war turned in September 1864, two months before the election, before his victory became possible. Nonetheless, despite having only the Northern states participating in the election he was re-elected in 1864 with a respectable but far from heroic 54% of the vote. He would likely have lost the election had the Southern states participated. Especially in the South and amongst those opposed to the ascendancy of Federal government vis-a-vis the rights of the states Lincoln remained a much hated figure even after his death.
It an interesting and telling perspective on how a person is being judged by one's contemporaries as opposed to posterity.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true"
Last Saturday, President Obama gave Democrat congressmen a pep talk prior to eventually passing health care reform which happened late last night, in a historic and landmark achievement. It takes spending a few years in the US (and a few years living outside) to realise how ridiculously dysfunctional the US health system is. It spends 2x more per capita than other developed countries and yet leave 15% of its population to fend on their own uninsured; and as much more under-insured meaning they go broke if they fall sick. Meanwhile the costs are so out of control that it saps the competitiveness of US economy, cause real wages to be stagnant since the 1990s and costs the Federal Government 33% of its budget (rising to 50% at current rate in 2020).
There will be many things to be said for the President, but I came across this excerpt from the off-the cuff talk he gave last Saturday, which I feel has value in posterity for anyone in politics or in public service. When I first read it, I breathe hard and read it again. I thought of all the people in politics and in public life. And it convinced me that in the President we have a good man who deserve support and success.
(approximately 22 mins into a 30 mins pep talk - or 2 mins into this clip: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/20/without-a-teleprompter/#more-23761
".......I know what it's like to take a tough vote. But what did Lincoln say? “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true.” Two generations ago, folks who were sitting in your position, they made a decision -- we are going to make sure that seniors and the poor have health care coverage that they can count on. And they did the right thing.
And I'm sure at the time they were making that vote, they weren't sure how the politics were either, any more than the people who made the decision to make sure that Social Security was in place knew how the politics would play out, or folks who passed the civil rights acts knew how the politics were going to play out. They were not bound to win, but they were bound to be true.
And now we've got middle class Americans, don't have Medicare, don't have Medicaid, watching the employer-based system fray along the edges or being caught in terrible situations. And the question is, are we going to be true to them?
Sometimes I think about how I got involved in politics. I didn't think of myself as a potential politician when I get out of college. I went to work in neighborhoods, working with Catholic churches in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, trying to figure out how people could get a little bit of help. And I was skeptical about politics and politicians, just like a lot of Americans are skeptical about politics and politicians are right now. Because my working assumption was when push comes to shove, all too often folks in elected office, they're looking for themselves and not looking out for the folks who put them there; that there are too many compromises; that the special interests have too much power; they just got too much clout; there's too much big money washing around.
And I decided finally to get involved because I realized if I wasn't willing to step up and be true to the things I believe in, then the system wouldn't change. Every single one of you had that same kind of moment at the beginning of your careers. Maybe it was just listening to stories in your neighborhood about what was happening to people who'd been laid off of work. Maybe it was your own family experience, somebody got sick and didn't have health care and you said something should change.
Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don't just look out for ourselves, that we don't just tell people you're on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community -- (applause) -- and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class. That's why you decided to run. (Applause.)
And now a lot of us have been here a while and everybody here has taken their lumps and their bruises. And it turns out people have had to make compromises, and you've been away from families for a long time and you've missed special events for your kids sometimes. And maybe there have been times where you asked yourself, why did I ever get involved in politics in the first place? And maybe things can't change after all. And when you do something courageous, it turns out sometimes you may be attacked. And sometimes the very people you thought you were trying to help may be angry at you and shout at you. And you say to yourself, maybe that thing that I started with has been lost.
But you know what? Every once in a while, every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made in all those town meetings and all those constituency breakfasts and all that traveling through the district, all those people who you looked in the eye and you said, you know what, you're right, the system is not working for you and I'm going to make it a little bit better.
And this is one of those moments. This is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself, doggone it, this is exactly why I came here. This is why I got into politics. This is why I got into public service. This is why I've made those sacrifices. Because I believe so deeply in this country and I believe so deeply in this democracy and I'm willing to stand up even when it's hard, even when it's tough.
Every single one of you have made that promise not just to your constituents but to yourself. And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine. We have been debating health care for decades. It has now been debated for a year. It is in your hands. It is time to pass health care reform for America, and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow. Thank you very much, House of Representatives. Let's get this done. (Applause.) "
There will be many things to be said for the President, but I came across this excerpt from the off-the cuff talk he gave last Saturday, which I feel has value in posterity for anyone in politics or in public service. When I first read it, I breathe hard and read it again. I thought of all the people in politics and in public life. And it convinced me that in the President we have a good man who deserve support and success.
(approximately 22 mins into a 30 mins pep talk - or 2 mins into this clip: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/20/without-a-teleprompter/#more-23761
".......I know what it's like to take a tough vote. But what did Lincoln say? “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true.” Two generations ago, folks who were sitting in your position, they made a decision -- we are going to make sure that seniors and the poor have health care coverage that they can count on. And they did the right thing.
And I'm sure at the time they were making that vote, they weren't sure how the politics were either, any more than the people who made the decision to make sure that Social Security was in place knew how the politics would play out, or folks who passed the civil rights acts knew how the politics were going to play out. They were not bound to win, but they were bound to be true.
And now we've got middle class Americans, don't have Medicare, don't have Medicaid, watching the employer-based system fray along the edges or being caught in terrible situations. And the question is, are we going to be true to them?
Sometimes I think about how I got involved in politics. I didn't think of myself as a potential politician when I get out of college. I went to work in neighborhoods, working with Catholic churches in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, trying to figure out how people could get a little bit of help. And I was skeptical about politics and politicians, just like a lot of Americans are skeptical about politics and politicians are right now. Because my working assumption was when push comes to shove, all too often folks in elected office, they're looking for themselves and not looking out for the folks who put them there; that there are too many compromises; that the special interests have too much power; they just got too much clout; there's too much big money washing around.
And I decided finally to get involved because I realized if I wasn't willing to step up and be true to the things I believe in, then the system wouldn't change. Every single one of you had that same kind of moment at the beginning of your careers. Maybe it was just listening to stories in your neighborhood about what was happening to people who'd been laid off of work. Maybe it was your own family experience, somebody got sick and didn't have health care and you said something should change.
Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don't just look out for ourselves, that we don't just tell people you're on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community -- (applause) -- and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class. That's why you decided to run. (Applause.)
And now a lot of us have been here a while and everybody here has taken their lumps and their bruises. And it turns out people have had to make compromises, and you've been away from families for a long time and you've missed special events for your kids sometimes. And maybe there have been times where you asked yourself, why did I ever get involved in politics in the first place? And maybe things can't change after all. And when you do something courageous, it turns out sometimes you may be attacked. And sometimes the very people you thought you were trying to help may be angry at you and shout at you. And you say to yourself, maybe that thing that I started with has been lost.
But you know what? Every once in a while, every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made in all those town meetings and all those constituency breakfasts and all that traveling through the district, all those people who you looked in the eye and you said, you know what, you're right, the system is not working for you and I'm going to make it a little bit better.
And this is one of those moments. This is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself, doggone it, this is exactly why I came here. This is why I got into politics. This is why I got into public service. This is why I've made those sacrifices. Because I believe so deeply in this country and I believe so deeply in this democracy and I'm willing to stand up even when it's hard, even when it's tough.
Every single one of you have made that promise not just to your constituents but to yourself. And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine. We have been debating health care for decades. It has now been debated for a year. It is in your hands. It is time to pass health care reform for America, and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow. Thank you very much, House of Representatives. Let's get this done. (Applause.) "
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Power Influence in Southeast Asia - Comments from Anonymous
Anonymous said...
The question is always relative power vs absolute power. I think in terms of absolute power US influence is unquestionable. They have their navies, their internet, their Americana of American Idol, Glee & Lady Gaga. Heck even Yao Ming and Jackie Chan know where the center of the world lies.
Yet there is no doubt that the gap is getting closer and relatively it looks like China is on the move. It doesn't help that we tend to look at these things thru the stars & stripes tinted glasses of CNN, NBC etc and despite their protestations media neutrality, cultural bias is something that will always be difficult to remove.
Yet while US definitely has a head start, China has a natural advantage. Tell me an East Asian/South East Asian country that has not been touched by Chinese culture throughout its history and I'd probably tell you East Timor and Papua New Guinea doesn't really count. China is good at coddling South East Asian countries because it is an Asian country and it instinctively understands how Asians like doing things.
Not to say China does not have disputes with its neighbors. Japan, Vietnam & India come immediately to mind. However, China's rise coincides with Asia's rise, and are inseparable.On the other hand, one could argue that increasing Chinese influence in South East Asia merely reflects a return to normal status of the last 1500 years. Colonization & Pax Americana are a blip in history and it not a matter of If but When that South East Asia returns to the motherland.
Or as Deng Xiaoping has been know to say... "its too early to tell"...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
-------------------------------------
KH says:
Thanks for your comment "anonymous"! I applaud - and readily concede - your two excellent points on China's natural geograohical advantage and by taking the historical perspective.
My initial posting was a snapshot arguing that reports of the demise of America's influence in Southeast Asia is greatly exagerated. It does not pre-suppose that the same would be same for the future. Indeed, my closing argument was that unless we have some form of emperical measurement it would be difficult to discern the changes taking place.
In fact, when we look from the structural or historical perspective, China has an enormous built-in advantage. In terms of geographical location, there is no way Southeast Asia can ignore China. Evan at its weakest during the late Ching and early Republican era, China managed to profoundly shape Southeast Asia through migration. America can, if it chooses to, disappear from the region, but China? Never. China's proximity is an enormous source of power and influence. But one can also say that is a constant and that is supported by history. If anything, advances in technology can only strengthen China's position.
Another aspect which I neglected to elaborate on is the role of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. Unlike first generation Chinese migrants, the question of identity for their ethnic Chinese population is now unambiguously localised. However, their cultural heritage and linguistic links makes it easy to "germinate" strong social-civic-intellectual connection with China.
My hypothesis is premised on the orientation amongst the country's elite. It may be no accident that the business elites (many of whom ethic Chinese) are more strongly drawn to China or more specifically to the economic opportunity in China's resurgence. But other than Singapore, Southeast Asia's political or military elite are rarely of Chinese ethnicity and hence less attuned to China. Nonetheless, as we saw with Hong Kong and Macau, when a society decides to reorientate itself to a different bearing things can change very quickly.
Which bring me to the question of what are the common interests for America to sustain its power and influence in Southeast Asia? And I could see none that is compelling. As powerful and influential as the US may be in Southeast Asia, America's power and influence has largely been by choice and not inevitable as in the case of China. With the end of the Cold War, America finds it difficult to justify the political and military investment that is needed to remain a power in the region. For years, the US also saw itself as the vanguard and defender of the global economic system of (open and capitalist) trade and commerce. However, that system is also becoming less American/Western centric as Southeast Asia, India, China and Brazil etc becomes bigger players in the global economic and commercial system.
The question is always relative power vs absolute power. I think in terms of absolute power US influence is unquestionable. They have their navies, their internet, their Americana of American Idol, Glee & Lady Gaga. Heck even Yao Ming and Jackie Chan know where the center of the world lies.
Yet there is no doubt that the gap is getting closer and relatively it looks like China is on the move. It doesn't help that we tend to look at these things thru the stars & stripes tinted glasses of CNN, NBC etc and despite their protestations media neutrality, cultural bias is something that will always be difficult to remove.
Yet while US definitely has a head start, China has a natural advantage. Tell me an East Asian/South East Asian country that has not been touched by Chinese culture throughout its history and I'd probably tell you East Timor and Papua New Guinea doesn't really count. China is good at coddling South East Asian countries because it is an Asian country and it instinctively understands how Asians like doing things.
Not to say China does not have disputes with its neighbors. Japan, Vietnam & India come immediately to mind. However, China's rise coincides with Asia's rise, and are inseparable.On the other hand, one could argue that increasing Chinese influence in South East Asia merely reflects a return to normal status of the last 1500 years. Colonization & Pax Americana are a blip in history and it not a matter of If but When that South East Asia returns to the motherland.
Or as Deng Xiaoping has been know to say... "its too early to tell"...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
-------------------------------------
KH says:
Thanks for your comment "anonymous"! I applaud - and readily concede - your two excellent points on China's natural geograohical advantage and by taking the historical perspective.
My initial posting was a snapshot arguing that reports of the demise of America's influence in Southeast Asia is greatly exagerated. It does not pre-suppose that the same would be same for the future. Indeed, my closing argument was that unless we have some form of emperical measurement it would be difficult to discern the changes taking place.
In fact, when we look from the structural or historical perspective, China has an enormous built-in advantage. In terms of geographical location, there is no way Southeast Asia can ignore China. Evan at its weakest during the late Ching and early Republican era, China managed to profoundly shape Southeast Asia through migration. America can, if it chooses to, disappear from the region, but China? Never. China's proximity is an enormous source of power and influence. But one can also say that is a constant and that is supported by history. If anything, advances in technology can only strengthen China's position.
Another aspect which I neglected to elaborate on is the role of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. Unlike first generation Chinese migrants, the question of identity for their ethnic Chinese population is now unambiguously localised. However, their cultural heritage and linguistic links makes it easy to "germinate" strong social-civic-intellectual connection with China.
My hypothesis is premised on the orientation amongst the country's elite. It may be no accident that the business elites (many of whom ethic Chinese) are more strongly drawn to China or more specifically to the economic opportunity in China's resurgence. But other than Singapore, Southeast Asia's political or military elite are rarely of Chinese ethnicity and hence less attuned to China. Nonetheless, as we saw with Hong Kong and Macau, when a society decides to reorientate itself to a different bearing things can change very quickly.
Which bring me to the question of what are the common interests for America to sustain its power and influence in Southeast Asia? And I could see none that is compelling. As powerful and influential as the US may be in Southeast Asia, America's power and influence has largely been by choice and not inevitable as in the case of China. With the end of the Cold War, America finds it difficult to justify the political and military investment that is needed to remain a power in the region. For years, the US also saw itself as the vanguard and defender of the global economic system of (open and capitalist) trade and commerce. However, that system is also becoming less American/Western centric as Southeast Asia, India, China and Brazil etc becomes bigger players in the global economic and commercial system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)