A number of American officers, high and low ranks, advisers and trainers, were killed by Afghans, creating panics. For our fellow Americans, leadership in particular, who still harbor hope of pacifying – democratizing Afghanistan to secure our national interests in the guise of betterment of human kind, they are well advised to spare some time to read my recent work on POLICING IN HONG KONG (Ashgate, 2012) pp. 16 - 18 regarding how the British fared as a colonial master:
To the British colonial officers and resident traders, Hong Kong was an unruly place because the people did not follow expectations61 and were not amenable to control.62 They had few social bonds and were exposed to many corrupting influences and illegitimate opportunities. British officials characterized Chinese migrants as fugitives from the law, gold diggers or drifters:
In a new settlement, wrested from the Chinese by force of arms, although England be at open war the Chinese government and the Chinese population, yet the latter are invited to repair to hold lands, to build houses, and to become denizens; with such an invitation, under the state of war between the two countries, we have long and often said that only the worst spirits of the warn-out time would flock to Hongkong—our prediction has been fulfilled to the very letter; all that there is of bad and worse in China have flocked and are flocking to Hongkong.63
The Hong Kong inhabitants, day laborers (from Kowloon) and transient workers (from China) were also feared as “terrorists” ever ready to destabilize Hong Kong, especially in the early years of the colonization (“seizure”) of Hong Kong, first without a treaty, and finally under the “unequal” Treaty of Nanking. Indeed, the British were seen as aggressive and shameless “foreign devils” who had invaded China on account of opium trade, and who, after all, were unwelcome guests of the magnanimous Emperor. This view stirred up resentful and emotional sentiments of the most powerful kinds: nationalism, regionalism and anti-foreignism. Thus people who worked with/for the British were labeled “han jiang” (traitor), registering the sense of betrayal.
The apprehension of the Chinese was real and palpable to the ruling British. In time chronic fear transformed into paranoia and a state of hysteria. At one point rumors were heard such as: “The Chinese are making preparations to attack Hongkong. The force is variously estimated at ten to fifteen thousand men ….”64
But for the Hong Kong foreign communities, disorderly soldiers and sailors could be just as bad: a letter to the editor published in Friend of China in 1842 read: “Sir, the disgraceful scenes of which our streets are the arena, call loudly for magisterial interferences, each day they become worse and worse. You must be quite sure. I can only allude to the drunken delinquencies of our soldiers and sailors: for the conduct of our native population, by contrast is truly admirable.”65
The moral panic66 generated by hateful and contemptuous (“terrorists”), and otherwise immoral and depraved (“criminals”) Chinese, lurking in every corner waiting to strike at every expat, was both real and unnerving. No one was spared, not even well-guarded governors. It was reported in the news:
More about the assassination. It is apparently reported in Canton, and is very generally believed, that the officer upon whom it devolved to organize the assassination of Governor Amaral, has been rewarded with a button of considerable ran for his services! And has the promise of a situation of emolument on the first vacancy (from the Hong Kong Register, September 11—Friend of China, September 12, 1849).67
The fear of crime (committed by Chinese) and disorder (conducted by foreigners) in the respective Hong Kong communities needs to put in context. While the British Government might not have been ready to invest heavily in Hong Kong due to legal uncertainty (a treaty not yet having been signed), economic difficulties and a lack of political commitment (politics at home, differences between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, conflict between Whitehall and trade representation), a local vibrant expat community was fast emerging and consolidating, and they were committed to making Hong Kong a home away from home. More significantly, they wanted to make Hong Kong every bit like the home they left behind in Europe, with an elegant lifestyle and high culture to match. Their expectations were high (which exacerbated the fear of disorder and the unknown and therefore a sense of helplessness). Thus we witness in 1843, the expat community in Hong Kong attempting to bring high culture to Hong Kong, a place with no culture:
Advance Hongkong!!! Theatre Royal … Messrs. Dutronquoy & Co. at length the satisfaction of announcing to the nobility, gentry and clergy thus flourishing and opulent Colony, that the Theatre is advancing most rapidly towards completion. It is on a most splendid scale, and what with the pieces that will be performed, the Scenery that will be introduced and the splendid assemblage of rank, beauty and fashion which they hope to be honored with, there is no doubt but that the blaze of Splendor will dazzle the eyes of all beholders. Vivat Regina. N.B. The actresses have arrived during the last week, their beauties and talents are only to be surpassed by their spotless virtues.68
By 1847, the European community has secured itself a well ornate Hong Kong Club as the center of community social activities.69
The two groups of people (European and Chinese), while different in ethnic composition, cultural disposition and economic circumstance, had one thing in common. Both had uprooted themselves from well-established societies to a new land in search of fame, fortune, adventure and a safe haven. They exhibited unbound personal aspiration and few communal bonds/restraints. “Hong Kong became a society of immigrants, sojourners, transients and aliens.”70 As a noted sinologist of the time, Dr Eitel, observed in 1891:
The Chinese also, the refuse of whose lowest classes began, early in 1884, to flock to the site of the present city of Victoria, consisted during the first few years of our Colonial history, chiefly of boat-people, common labourers, stone-masons, blacksmiths, and provision dealers, all of whom have come to Hong Kong, in defiance of Mandarin prohibitions, for temporary employment rather than as settlers and left their families on the mainland. They naturally had neither the time nor inclination to think of the education of the young.71
One of the many things that separated the two groups related to the fact that the expat group, notwithstanding having been transplanted from a distant land and uprooted from a different society, still enjoyed a sense of identity, entitlement, community and permanency due to their elevated social status, superior economic position, dominant cultural symbols and controlling political institutions. This was not the fate of the Chinese, who had found themselves in a permanent state of denial and drift:
As regards the population of the island, one third have no land habitation but live wholly on the water, another third may be considered in a perpetual state of migration and shifting domicile, and even upon those more respectable people who have longest inhabited the island we have lately seen that more than twenty thousand have abandoned their families and their business at the arbitrary mandate of the mandarins on the mainland.72
Since the Chinese—local and transplants—refused to accept British rule, they found themselves aliens within their own (Chinese) land and culture. “Any Chinese resident here would at present hear with amazement that either himself or his children were no longer regarded as owing allegiance to the Emperor of China but to her Majesty.”73
AFTERTHOUGHT
On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong sovereignty reverted back to China.
Still, we now see more churches than temples, more blonde in bikini than Chinese in cheongsam, more calculator than abacus, more lawyers than mediators. Notwithstanding, after 15 years few in Hong Kong if any would remember, still less sing the praise or level a curse at the British, for leaving the Hong Kong people with so many cultural artifacts (for better or ill).
Looking at Afghanistan, colonial history is repeating itself - American military will leave, eventually, but American culture would stay, forever.
Who is there to clean up the alien culture for Hong Kong and Afghanistan people, after the colonizers depart, with Hong Kong children crowding to Pizza Huts instead of visiting traditional tea houses and Afghanistan kids chanting Martin Luther King than one of their national heroes.
At the end of the day: Whose dream should Hong Kong and now Afghans be pursuing? Whose dream indeed.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Relationship Poliicing vs. People Policing
Everyone has hopes and dreams, often time dismissively called "personal" agenda. Mine is to make a different in the studying, and in turn (time) understanding, of policing, as we know it.
In the case of 中国警务 (Chinese policing)，it is an error to believe that 中国警务 needs to be developed along western lines; disarmingly, seductively and now compelling called scientific, professional, and of late, in HKc context, progressive best policing practices. Nothing is further than the truth.
To me, policing is first and foremost about fostering and mending relationship （关系警务论）. People rarely kill - hurt friends, with relationship as bonds (孔子， 礼， 仁）. (Confucius, Hirschi) People routinely destroy - damage enemies，as things of (dis)utility. (Bentham - moral calculus)
Evidence for above observation is everywhere. Communal - affective life ("we" network, @HK 1950) is harmonious thus peaceful; daily, fierce and rancorous family "feud" notwithstanding. Individual - rational existence ("me" network, @China 2012) is competitive, thus conflictual; appearance of regularity and orderliness not withstanding.
I am developing a theory of "guanxi" relationship policing, a radical departure from "people" policing. I need all the help I can get.
Our job as students - intellectuals - scholars, is to dream big and think/act small, one idea/thing/step at a time, in correcting myths (Chinese police should copy from the West) and removing paradigm (legal/bureaucratic/professional policing model is the ONLY way to do policing).
Policing is not about enforcing strict law but fostering good relationship.
"Knowledge never rests, people do" (KCW, 1987)
In the case of 中国警务 (Chinese policing)，it is an error to believe that 中国警务 needs to be developed along western lines; disarmingly, seductively and now compelling called scientific, professional, and of late, in HKc context, progressive best policing practices. Nothing is further than the truth.
To me, policing is first and foremost about fostering and mending relationship （关系警务论）. People rarely kill - hurt friends, with relationship as bonds (孔子， 礼， 仁）. (Confucius, Hirschi) People routinely destroy - damage enemies，as things of (dis)utility. (Bentham - moral calculus)
Evidence for above observation is everywhere. Communal - affective life ("we" network, @HK 1950) is harmonious thus peaceful; daily, fierce and rancorous family "feud" notwithstanding. Individual - rational existence ("me" network, @China 2012) is competitive, thus conflictual; appearance of regularity and orderliness not withstanding.
I am developing a theory of "guanxi" relationship policing, a radical departure from "people" policing. I need all the help I can get.
Our job as students - intellectuals - scholars, is to dream big and think/act small, one idea/thing/step at a time, in correcting myths (Chinese police should copy from the West) and removing paradigm (legal/bureaucratic/professional policing model is the ONLY way to do policing).
Policing is not about enforcing strict law but fostering good relationship.
"Knowledge never rests, people do" (KCW, 1987)
Friday, February 17, 2012
Jeremy Lin (JL) and Cultural Marketing
JL is big business for NBA and related US merchandises.
JL is a marketing dream come true for US big businesses from Nike to NBA franchise. It certain helps to deflate the US trade deficit with China. ("Linsanity" a marketing dream in Asia.” http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/sports/2012-02/17/content_14636182.htm)
Let us see how “Linsanity” works out in dollars and cents, and in turn whether it makes sense:
(1) JL makes about $762, 195, or about $12,000 per game.
(2) The labor cost per pair of NIKE shoes made in China is $2.42. The market retail price is about $65. NIKE makes about $32.50/pair of shoes (APPENDIX I).
(4) If NIKE sells 1 million pairs of NIKE on account of “Linsanity”, that amounts to $32 millions of profit, net.
How do we make sense of this “Linsanity” NIKE transaction?
(1) NIKE (NBA) pays JL $762, 195/yr.
(2) Chinese people buy NIKE shoes in the millions.
(3) Chinese laborer gets paid $2.42 for making per pair of shoes.
(4) MIKE keeps $32.5 as profit.
(5) NIKE adds no value to the pair of shoes, other than promoting JL, a cultural product.
(6) NIKE MBAs are sipping cold latte in air condition offices in front of a computer, working 9/5 or flex hrs., with big pay checks, creating a wholesome image of JL.
(7) Chinese laborers are sweating in the factory 12 hr., a day, with subsistence wages, creating the shoes. (Average wage: $300 - 400)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
(8) Environmental, health and other social costs are extra.
If you are a NIKE executive, would you rather have the Chinese making money for you, or doing it all yourself?
In this NIKE case, all business actors are from China – Taiwan: marketing (JL), manufacturing (Chinese laboring), purchasing (Chinese consumers). Yet, NIKE - US makes most of the money in the process. A good deal?
Somebody is laughing to the bank. Brain power over sweat labor, every time.
Now you understand why JL is not (only) about celebrating JL, and Yao Ming before him, for their athleticism. It is about culture marketing, through and through.
The question is, if China, Taiwan, or Asia see through this, would they be buying JL – NIKE still? More importantly, if Asia is not an emerging market, would JL still be an overnight sensation?
AFTER THOUGHT
There is a good end for this critical piece.
So far this is a win-win situation for everyone involved: China gets her hero. Chinese youths get their shoes. JL gets to be famous. NIKE gets the money. US gets to reduce its trade balance. A fair trade, all round! Who is complaining?
APPENDIX
"What exactly is the labor cost of Nike shoes?
The cost of labor for Nike products varies slightly by model, volume and sources. As a general rule, labor represents about 15 percent of the price Nike pays the factory for the product. Because Nike's cost is about 25 percent of retail cost, labor accounts for about 4 percent of the retail cost. The breakdown is roughly as follows:
Let's say the consumer pays: $65
Retailer pays: $32.50 to Nike, and then doubles the price for retail.
Nike pays: $16.25 and then doubles the price to retailers for shipping, insurance, duties, R&D, marketing, sales, administration and profits.
The $16.25 price paid the factory includes:
Materials: $10.75
Labor: $2.43
Overhead + Depreciation: $2.10
Factory Profit: $0.97
Total Costs: $16.25
JL is a marketing dream come true for US big businesses from Nike to NBA franchise. It certain helps to deflate the US trade deficit with China. ("Linsanity" a marketing dream in Asia.” http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/sports/2012-02/17/content_14636182.htm)
Let us see how “Linsanity” works out in dollars and cents, and in turn whether it makes sense:
(1) JL makes about $762, 195, or about $12,000 per game.
(2) The labor cost per pair of NIKE shoes made in China is $2.42. The market retail price is about $65. NIKE makes about $32.50/pair of shoes (APPENDIX I).
(4) If NIKE sells 1 million pairs of NIKE on account of “Linsanity”, that amounts to $32 millions of profit, net.
How do we make sense of this “Linsanity” NIKE transaction?
(1) NIKE (NBA) pays JL $762, 195/yr.
(2) Chinese people buy NIKE shoes in the millions.
(3) Chinese laborer gets paid $2.42 for making per pair of shoes.
(4) MIKE keeps $32.5 as profit.
(5) NIKE adds no value to the pair of shoes, other than promoting JL, a cultural product.
(6) NIKE MBAs are sipping cold latte in air condition offices in front of a computer, working 9/5 or flex hrs., with big pay checks, creating a wholesome image of JL.
(7) Chinese laborers are sweating in the factory 12 hr., a day, with subsistence wages, creating the shoes. (Average wage: $300 - 400)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
(8) Environmental, health and other social costs are extra.
If you are a NIKE executive, would you rather have the Chinese making money for you, or doing it all yourself?
In this NIKE case, all business actors are from China – Taiwan: marketing (JL), manufacturing (Chinese laboring), purchasing (Chinese consumers). Yet, NIKE - US makes most of the money in the process. A good deal?
Somebody is laughing to the bank. Brain power over sweat labor, every time.
Now you understand why JL is not (only) about celebrating JL, and Yao Ming before him, for their athleticism. It is about culture marketing, through and through.
The question is, if China, Taiwan, or Asia see through this, would they be buying JL – NIKE still? More importantly, if Asia is not an emerging market, would JL still be an overnight sensation?
AFTER THOUGHT
There is a good end for this critical piece.
So far this is a win-win situation for everyone involved: China gets her hero. Chinese youths get their shoes. JL gets to be famous. NIKE gets the money. US gets to reduce its trade balance. A fair trade, all round! Who is complaining?
APPENDIX
"What exactly is the labor cost of Nike shoes?
The cost of labor for Nike products varies slightly by model, volume and sources. As a general rule, labor represents about 15 percent of the price Nike pays the factory for the product. Because Nike's cost is about 25 percent of retail cost, labor accounts for about 4 percent of the retail cost. The breakdown is roughly as follows:
Let's say the consumer pays: $65
Retailer pays: $32.50 to Nike, and then doubles the price for retail.
Nike pays: $16.25 and then doubles the price to retailers for shipping, insurance, duties, R&D, marketing, sales, administration and profits.
The $16.25 price paid the factory includes:
Materials: $10.75
Labor: $2.43
Overhead + Depreciation: $2.10
Factory Profit: $0.97
Total Costs: $16.25
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Cultural lessons (life lessons) of Jeremy Lin
I am truly happy for Jeremy Lin becoming a NBA superstar. He worked hard for it. He deserves it. Apparently he is the first Asian American to have achieved the impossible “American dream” of playing for the NBA, dominated by African Americans. Many commentators have used Lin, a clean cut, respectful, smart, hard working student from Harvard, as a comparison between wholesome vs. unwholesome basketball players. The point: decent attitude and hard work pays. Success comes to those who are decent human beings, on and off the court:
“Lin is not beating his girlfriend with champagne bottles nor leaving dozens of illegitimate kids in his wake. Lin is also a Harvard grad which is a bit more than a GED. Lin is not doing anything like a lot of black players.”
In a more grandiose scheme and (not unrealistic) audacious claim:
“One of the best sports story in our time. He gives hope to a lot of people. If your government, parents, religion cannot give you hope, JLin will give that hope. His perseverance is incredible. Talk about challenges and opportunity combined, this is the best story. God works in mysterious ways. Linsanity continues with 13 assist in 20 minutes against the sacramento.”
“From New York to Asia, Lin is a hoops sensation, 2/16/12
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-lindescribable”)
We can all agree: Lin is a phenomenon, of yet unmeasured proportion. But, can Lin last beyond the 24/7 media cycle/circus? In performance (capacity) and love fest (attraction)? Only time will tell.
In this blog, I have more serious issues to attend to: is Lin a good role model for our kids?
It is evident, and has been so for a long, long time, distinguished and exceptional sports persons are admired by the public and in particular with young people (esp. lower SEC groups), world wide: Pele of Brazil, Bruce Lee in Hong Kong and Michael Jordon from the US. These stars are watched and followed. In the eyes of the admirers, they can do no wrong.
What do Ln teaches. A lot. Work hard in school (Harvard) and play hard in court (NBA). (This blogger’s teacher used was a NBA player before Yale and lawyering.) Success comes to those who are smart, focused and disciplined. Finally, all of a sudden, basketball is no longer off limits to the bright! Yes, basketballs (NBA), by extension footballs (NFL) and books (Harvard) do mix!! Yes, this is a humble beginning and there is a long, long way before NBA is populated with the book smart rather than street smarts people. (If truth be known, you do need to be smart, street or otherwise, to play in NBA) (In Jeremy Lin, a stereotype that should be celebrated http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-jeremy-lin-a-stereotype-that-should-be-celebrated/2012/02/15/gIQAEynYHR_story.html)
Now, let us discuss some of the not so good – wholesome lessons of J. Lin:
First, Lin was admitted to Harvard, against all odds (13.4 Asian vs. 17.2 White, 1990 data). He was given a place and a chance over other (more) qualified students (by motive of service) did not make it. In signing up at Harvard, Lin has made a pledge: “I will use my Harvard education for the benefit of society, mankind; not only myself.” Harvard education is not for everyone. It is a national treasure and public trust, for the few who made the lifelong commitment. As such, Lin has an obligation to make good, and contribute back to society, at the highest level his capacity and functions, endowed by parents and trained at Harvard. More importantly, Lin has a personal obligation to put his Harvard education to good use, i.e., befitting his intellectual capacity and academic training. Lin decided to play basketball instead. This is disappointing.
There is nothing wrong with playing basketball and be successful; satisfaction, fame and glory for himself, and even his family and ethnicity. But there is something wrong abut being trained in one area, intellectual pursue, and do another, playing basketball. (Here I assume that that entertaining millions on TV is not as important as helping one person’s life circumstances at Harlam or discovering a new cure for cancer world-wide.)
Lin’s fateful choice is a tremendous waste of resources, for himself, his family, Harvard and US).
The same thing can be said of West Pointers. West Pointers have to give back 8 years for the millions of dollars invested in them. (The larger question is why we as a nation use universities to groom the next generation of NBA, NFL stars, when lesser academically intense sports academy would do? Higher education is an expensive resource, and should not be used to train NBA or NFL players, at the expense of the needy and aspired)
Second, Lin sends a wrong message to the kids world-wide. The message is “be all you can be” – not in scholarship or public service, but in playing balls. More generally, playing balls is more important than any other things on earth, including helping other people in need and making the world a better place to live.
The message that is being sent to the minority kids in the most deprived area is this: basketball and football, not academic studies, is the only (best) way out of ones humble beginning and dismal circumstances.
In the case of deprived and depressed minorities, they are more afflicted by academic vs. NBA choices in life. They need all the help they can get, especially from role model.
In this regard, most minority NBA, NFL players have little to no choice to be academically successful. Due to life circumstances beyond their control, they are not academically prepared for educational challenges. If they want to get out of the project, they can only do so by playing balls (or joining the US Army. But even Army has standards these days).
Lin, however, has all the choices in the world. He chooses to be a basketball player, forgoing his Harvard education, and in time servicing (society) destiny. (He can always come back, yes. But will he? can he? How much is the missing years costing him, and the society?)
The bottom line: if Lin, who has all the choices in the world before him and can be successful in whatever he chooses to do, still chooses to be a NBA player and give up being a Harvard (trained) service professional, the message is loud and clear: basketball-financial reward, before scholarship – intellect satisfaction.
Intellectual pursuits are only second best to playing basketball. That is the reason we are not in competition with the rest of the world who put education before playing balls.
AFTERTHOUGHTS
In the end. what is a Ivy (more generally college education) for? What about having a Harvard (college) degree and be a star. (Jody Foster is from Yale, David Duchovny is from Princeton and Yale, Natalia Portman is from Harvard.
I want a happy ending, with uplifting messages, to this rather depression, some say unduly critical (cynical), blog
(1) In joining the NBA, J. Lin might be thinking about changing NBA, more so than,or at least not exclusively, for self serving reasons. With this line of thinking, any "public service" type of motive would be welcomed, including showing Chinese - Taiwanese are not only bookworm.
(2) Notwithstanding J. Lin's present circumstances and motive, but in line with Harvard's tradition, J. Lin and many others to follow, would transform the NBA industry, in a positive way, call this NBA version 2.
(3) In spite of J. Lin's present circumstances, playing in the NBA, J. Lin will have to retire one day. At that point, he can still use his Harvard education for public good.
(4) J. Lin, can make tons of money and donate it to charity.
Still, the above rosy endings do not take away the major thrust of this blog, i.e., there is an adverse culture lesson being promoted - making money is more important than other more worthwhile pursuit in life!
That is what capitalism is all about.
“Lin is not beating his girlfriend with champagne bottles nor leaving dozens of illegitimate kids in his wake. Lin is also a Harvard grad which is a bit more than a GED. Lin is not doing anything like a lot of black players.”
In a more grandiose scheme and (not unrealistic) audacious claim:
“One of the best sports story in our time. He gives hope to a lot of people. If your government, parents, religion cannot give you hope, JLin will give that hope. His perseverance is incredible. Talk about challenges and opportunity combined, this is the best story. God works in mysterious ways. Linsanity continues with 13 assist in 20 minutes against the sacramento.”
“From New York to Asia, Lin is a hoops sensation, 2/16/12
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-lindescribable”)
We can all agree: Lin is a phenomenon, of yet unmeasured proportion. But, can Lin last beyond the 24/7 media cycle/circus? In performance (capacity) and love fest (attraction)? Only time will tell.
In this blog, I have more serious issues to attend to: is Lin a good role model for our kids?
It is evident, and has been so for a long, long time, distinguished and exceptional sports persons are admired by the public and in particular with young people (esp. lower SEC groups), world wide: Pele of Brazil, Bruce Lee in Hong Kong and Michael Jordon from the US. These stars are watched and followed. In the eyes of the admirers, they can do no wrong.
What do Ln teaches. A lot. Work hard in school (Harvard) and play hard in court (NBA). (This blogger’s teacher used was a NBA player before Yale and lawyering.) Success comes to those who are smart, focused and disciplined. Finally, all of a sudden, basketball is no longer off limits to the bright! Yes, basketballs (NBA), by extension footballs (NFL) and books (Harvard) do mix!! Yes, this is a humble beginning and there is a long, long way before NBA is populated with the book smart rather than street smarts people. (If truth be known, you do need to be smart, street or otherwise, to play in NBA) (In Jeremy Lin, a stereotype that should be celebrated http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-jeremy-lin-a-stereotype-that-should-be-celebrated/2012/02/15/gIQAEynYHR_story.html)
Now, let us discuss some of the not so good – wholesome lessons of J. Lin:
First, Lin was admitted to Harvard, against all odds (13.4 Asian vs. 17.2 White, 1990 data). He was given a place and a chance over other (more) qualified students (by motive of service) did not make it. In signing up at Harvard, Lin has made a pledge: “I will use my Harvard education for the benefit of society, mankind; not only myself.” Harvard education is not for everyone. It is a national treasure and public trust, for the few who made the lifelong commitment. As such, Lin has an obligation to make good, and contribute back to society, at the highest level his capacity and functions, endowed by parents and trained at Harvard. More importantly, Lin has a personal obligation to put his Harvard education to good use, i.e., befitting his intellectual capacity and academic training. Lin decided to play basketball instead. This is disappointing.
There is nothing wrong with playing basketball and be successful; satisfaction, fame and glory for himself, and even his family and ethnicity. But there is something wrong abut being trained in one area, intellectual pursue, and do another, playing basketball. (Here I assume that that entertaining millions on TV is not as important as helping one person’s life circumstances at Harlam or discovering a new cure for cancer world-wide.)
Lin’s fateful choice is a tremendous waste of resources, for himself, his family, Harvard and US).
The same thing can be said of West Pointers. West Pointers have to give back 8 years for the millions of dollars invested in them. (The larger question is why we as a nation use universities to groom the next generation of NBA, NFL stars, when lesser academically intense sports academy would do? Higher education is an expensive resource, and should not be used to train NBA or NFL players, at the expense of the needy and aspired)
Second, Lin sends a wrong message to the kids world-wide. The message is “be all you can be” – not in scholarship or public service, but in playing balls. More generally, playing balls is more important than any other things on earth, including helping other people in need and making the world a better place to live.
The message that is being sent to the minority kids in the most deprived area is this: basketball and football, not academic studies, is the only (best) way out of ones humble beginning and dismal circumstances.
In the case of deprived and depressed minorities, they are more afflicted by academic vs. NBA choices in life. They need all the help they can get, especially from role model.
In this regard, most minority NBA, NFL players have little to no choice to be academically successful. Due to life circumstances beyond their control, they are not academically prepared for educational challenges. If they want to get out of the project, they can only do so by playing balls (or joining the US Army. But even Army has standards these days).
Lin, however, has all the choices in the world. He chooses to be a basketball player, forgoing his Harvard education, and in time servicing (society) destiny. (He can always come back, yes. But will he? can he? How much is the missing years costing him, and the society?)
The bottom line: if Lin, who has all the choices in the world before him and can be successful in whatever he chooses to do, still chooses to be a NBA player and give up being a Harvard (trained) service professional, the message is loud and clear: basketball-financial reward, before scholarship – intellect satisfaction.
Intellectual pursuits are only second best to playing basketball. That is the reason we are not in competition with the rest of the world who put education before playing balls.
AFTERTHOUGHTS
In the end. what is a Ivy (more generally college education) for? What about having a Harvard (college) degree and be a star. (Jody Foster is from Yale, David Duchovny is from Princeton and Yale, Natalia Portman is from Harvard.
I want a happy ending, with uplifting messages, to this rather depression, some say unduly critical (cynical), blog
(1) In joining the NBA, J. Lin might be thinking about changing NBA, more so than,or at least not exclusively, for self serving reasons. With this line of thinking, any "public service" type of motive would be welcomed, including showing Chinese - Taiwanese are not only bookworm.
(2) Notwithstanding J. Lin's present circumstances and motive, but in line with Harvard's tradition, J. Lin and many others to follow, would transform the NBA industry, in a positive way, call this NBA version 2.
(3) In spite of J. Lin's present circumstances, playing in the NBA, J. Lin will have to retire one day. At that point, he can still use his Harvard education for public good.
(4) J. Lin, can make tons of money and donate it to charity.
Still, the above rosy endings do not take away the major thrust of this blog, i.e., there is an adverse culture lesson being promoted - making money is more important than other more worthwhile pursuit in life!
That is what capitalism is all about.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Criminal record and credit score
Recently I read a news item on credit rating:
“7 Things You Didn't Know Affect Your Credit Score” (Feb. 14, 2012).
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-things-didnt-know-affect-210810566.html
This gets me thinking out loud.
From the earliest of time, ones reputation in the community matters. If you are a “bad” girl you cannot get married (moral reputation). If you are a “lazy” person you cannot get a job (professional reputation). If you are “dishonest” you are good as dead (integrity reputation). If you mixed with the “wrong crowd” you are shunned (social reputation). The worse that can happen to you is when you have a “criminal record” (CR) (personal reputation). With a CR you cannot find a job, have friends, and start a family.
In 20th century and within a consumerist world, the only thing that matters is your “credit score” (CS). No (low) CS, no (low) life. Without a good credit, your life - financial, social and professional, is not going anywhere.
CS is now the CR of old, a total measure of who you are as a person.
If you are not paying your bills on time or not at all, your reputation is ruined, and in turn livelihood suffers. With a low CS rating, you are deemed not dependable as a worker (professional), trustworthy as a friend (integrity) and worthwhile as a human being (personal). Bad things follow: you cannot get a job, you cannot get a loan, you cannot buy a house, you cannot start a family and you are watched over at workplace, by friends and agencies. You are a pariah. You are not welcomed as a person in the society. For example, in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Police has a strict and stiff policy for disciplining and firing officers with a chronic indebtedness issue. So much so that police officers do everything to dire their indebtedness, and ever killed themselves over indebtedness, if known. (Kwan Tung-lo, “Indebtedness of Hong Kong police officers: gambling or overspending” HKU, 2000)?
In everyday life, CS is a good social control device. People are much, much more concerned with a low CS than a serious/lengthy CR. For one it is consider inappropriate to discriminate against a person with a prior CR, no matter how heinous “Oh! Give people a chance” or “He has pay his debt to society”. The US Constitution even offer up privacy protection for CR, e.g., concealment of juvenile records.
People would make allowance for bad crimes but not bad credit. If you have a poor CS, you are punished everyday through high prices on everything – from insurance to buying a house. As a result people would do everything and anything to keep their CS clean, good, low. This includes spending thousands to clean up their CS.
It is about time we pay more attention to the utility and limitations of CS as a social control device. If we do it right, may be it helps to predict, deter and reform undesirable conducts (crime) and persons (criminal).
“7 Things You Didn't Know Affect Your Credit Score” (Feb. 14, 2012).
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-things-didnt-know-affect-210810566.html
This gets me thinking out loud.
From the earliest of time, ones reputation in the community matters. If you are a “bad” girl you cannot get married (moral reputation). If you are a “lazy” person you cannot get a job (professional reputation). If you are “dishonest” you are good as dead (integrity reputation). If you mixed with the “wrong crowd” you are shunned (social reputation). The worse that can happen to you is when you have a “criminal record” (CR) (personal reputation). With a CR you cannot find a job, have friends, and start a family.
In 20th century and within a consumerist world, the only thing that matters is your “credit score” (CS). No (low) CS, no (low) life. Without a good credit, your life - financial, social and professional, is not going anywhere.
CS is now the CR of old, a total measure of who you are as a person.
If you are not paying your bills on time or not at all, your reputation is ruined, and in turn livelihood suffers. With a low CS rating, you are deemed not dependable as a worker (professional), trustworthy as a friend (integrity) and worthwhile as a human being (personal). Bad things follow: you cannot get a job, you cannot get a loan, you cannot buy a house, you cannot start a family and you are watched over at workplace, by friends and agencies. You are a pariah. You are not welcomed as a person in the society. For example, in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Police has a strict and stiff policy for disciplining and firing officers with a chronic indebtedness issue. So much so that police officers do everything to dire their indebtedness, and ever killed themselves over indebtedness, if known. (Kwan Tung-lo, “Indebtedness of Hong Kong police officers: gambling or overspending” HKU, 2000)?
In everyday life, CS is a good social control device. People are much, much more concerned with a low CS than a serious/lengthy CR. For one it is consider inappropriate to discriminate against a person with a prior CR, no matter how heinous “Oh! Give people a chance” or “He has pay his debt to society”. The US Constitution even offer up privacy protection for CR, e.g., concealment of juvenile records.
People would make allowance for bad crimes but not bad credit. If you have a poor CS, you are punished everyday through high prices on everything – from insurance to buying a house. As a result people would do everything and anything to keep their CS clean, good, low. This includes spending thousands to clean up their CS.
It is about time we pay more attention to the utility and limitations of CS as a social control device. If we do it right, may be it helps to predict, deter and reform undesirable conducts (crime) and persons (criminal).
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Studying Hong Kong Police Research
The study will be a part of my upcoming book, now in progress: POLICING IN HONG KONG (Florida: CRC - Taylor and Francis, 2013); final chapter? I will be using the 8-18 to look at how far the HKP has come in reform, or to some getting rid of the old ways. (This book has a different tone and textual than the on I just finished: POLICING IN KONG KONG (UK: Ashgate, 2012).
My overall approach to research in policing generally and as applied to HKP (or for that matter PRC "gongan") is that we should take an inside out and bottoms up approach. More importantly, we should get away the well beaten path of "best practices" as shaped and defined by the West. This is not to say that HKP or 中国公安 has nothing to learn from others, including the West (particularly UK or US). (三人行， 必有我师言。。。）But people ought to remember that HK is not UK and China is not US. Since Sir Robert Peel famously said: "The people are the police and police are the people." Policing cannot be fashioned away from the "expectations" of the people. (My theoretical rendition being: "The person who is closet to a problem - by impact and with resource - is the person to take care of the problem." Problem means "expectation denied". (Wong, "State Police Powers as a Social Resource Theory.")
I start with the proposition that ALL policing are local affairs, and in turn denominated by its culture and driven by its people. An elitist, top down, approach, in any other name (democratic, professional, legal policing), does not work, and would not last. Simply put: Professional policing - in the image of crisp uniform and polished car - is not policing in the raw, and certainly not people's policing.
In the study (reform) of PRC - HK police, I have argued elsewhere that consulting Mao ("群众伦“[mass line] on community policing & "矛盾伦“ [on contradiction] on fighting terror) is better than following what Peel. (I am now seeking to bring Mao up to date, and SCIENTIFICALLY.) By the same token, it is best to adopt 情，理，法 as justice principles than promoting legalism (legal fetish) as a rule
My overall approach to research in policing generally and as applied to HKP (or for that matter PRC "gongan") is that we should take an inside out and bottoms up approach. More importantly, we should get away the well beaten path of "best practices" as shaped and defined by the West. This is not to say that HKP or 中国公安 has nothing to learn from others, including the West (particularly UK or US). (三人行， 必有我师言。。。）But people ought to remember that HK is not UK and China is not US. Since Sir Robert Peel famously said: "The people are the police and police are the people." Policing cannot be fashioned away from the "expectations" of the people. (My theoretical rendition being: "The person who is closet to a problem - by impact and with resource - is the person to take care of the problem." Problem means "expectation denied". (Wong, "State Police Powers as a Social Resource Theory.")
I start with the proposition that ALL policing are local affairs, and in turn denominated by its culture and driven by its people. An elitist, top down, approach, in any other name (democratic, professional, legal policing), does not work, and would not last. Simply put: Professional policing - in the image of crisp uniform and polished car - is not policing in the raw, and certainly not people's policing.
In the study (reform) of PRC - HK police, I have argued elsewhere that consulting Mao ("群众伦“[mass line] on community policing & "矛盾伦“ [on contradiction] on fighting terror) is better than following what Peel. (I am now seeking to bring Mao up to date, and SCIENTIFICALLY.) By the same token, it is best to adopt 情，理，法 as justice principles than promoting legalism (legal fetish) as a rule
Whitney Houston and (Drugs) Addiction
On March 11, 2012, Whitney Houston sang her swan song; she died a premature death at her prime of 48. She has earned her keep. She will be remembered. She will be loved. She is the best of her kind – a church gospel singer transformed into an international; pop phenomenon, with grace and beauty to match.
Now some of Houston’s death fall outs. Most (all) cried over her departure. Many (some) blamed drugs for her downfall. A (vocal) few want Houston’s death to be a lesson to the younger generation – just say no to drugs.
I think it is a good idea to use Houston’s death as a teaching case, moment. She is truly a one of a kind “star” of unsurpassed proportion and unmatched achievements. She is not to be confused with or upstaged by many, many other to follow - “pretenders” ? “want to be”? “Clone” for mass marketing.
I write this blog entry for one simple reason. We need to use Houston’s death judiciously to teach the right lesson: Drugs do not harm, “addictions” of all shape and kinds do.
First, drugs, however potent, do not kill or even harm. In fact, drugs can be used to do good, from relieving pain, e.g., morphine for wounded soldiers, to helping improve performance, e.g., coffee before mid-term, to creating social atmosphere, e.g., before dinner drink in party. In essence, what, when, how we use drugs matter.
Second, drugs do not do anything in or of themselves. People use drugs to do all sots of things, to self and others. In America we have a drug (culture) problem. We use drugs to solve all our problems, large and small, a first resource and not last recourse. For example, we use drugs, not training, to improve performance. We use drugs to make us do things that we cannot or should not be doing, e.g., improving sex life beyond our prime. Finally, we use drugs to induce happiness or suppress unhappy moments, e.g., binge drinking. In the end, we believe the magic of drugs, over human effort and beyond human capacity. This is the real problem with drugs we have, the culture of drug use, not drugs, is the problem.
Third, ultimately, drug is not the problem, “addiction” to drugs is. Drug problem is really an “addiction” problem. To say that we are addicted to drugs is to say that we are no longer in control of ourselves, in what(ever) we do. We ignore the side effects of drugs, in order to get the desire effects – momentary high, at the expense of long term health issues. Thus, drug problems we have individually, and more so, as a nation, is one of lack of self discipline.
Fourth, in line with ("Third" above), we in the US have all kinds of addition problems, many of them much more serious than drugs. As a nation, we need to deal with “addiction” , not drugs, as the problem or all problems:
(1) We are addicted to conspicuous consumption. We keep buying, consuming and trashing material goods, at the expense of inner peace and contentment, otherwise known as happiness. In being addicted to consumption, we are no more different than the drug addicts – seeking a new high – a Ford Model T then and i-Pod 3 now, not realizing that things do not make people happy, beyond the momentary thrill of the moment. Happiness is something we have to discover for ourselves, not given to use, like drugs. We can only derive true and enduring happiness in finding, sharing and giving meaning to and of life, through contemplation, more commonly known as soul searching.
(2) We are addicted to war (in larger context, violence). We keep invading countries and killing people. No single country have fought more wars and kill more people than we do as a nation: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…just the big ones. War addiction gets us high, in the heat of battle, and in anticipation of peace (or pacification), only to start all over in a wild goose chase, wasting our nations precious blood and treasures, chasing meaningless one high after another.
(3) We are addicted to sex. Sex addiction gets us turned on, artificially (cosmetics, bikini), and manipulatively (marking, packaging). Sex addiction makes us desire sex, not love/romance which leads to sex. Sex addiction makes us marry for sex, and separate for lack of sex or in want of (novel) sex. More damningly, sex addiction, conditioned us to see others only as sex objects, for our utility, and momentary release, not as valuable human beings of their own right, fit for total involvement and destine for long term engagement. It makes us attracted to others for their outer appearance and not internal strengths/virtues. It makes us relate to each other on sexual groups, and not other mote important, multiplex, and enduring, human qualities.
(4) We are addicted to computer, virtual reality and social networks. Addicting to computer is a serious problem. Being addicted to texting means more accident on the road. Being addicted to e-mails and web surfing means we are not focused on our work. In the old days, hermits write books in ten and more years, now we cannot be engaged for more than 5 to10 minutes at a time. (That is the reason why we no longer produce classical books and enduring thesis.) Being addicted to social network and married to virtual reality takes away from everyday human intercourse, and human conditions, the soul of human existence, the fabric of life. The process makes us less and less human (quantity – speed and frequency - of communication do not make for quality – intimacy and intensity - of relations, less and less social (yes, social network is not social at all, not when we an cut people off at will and with a push of the mouse), we are dying a slow death, as person and collective. Our addiction to computer technology makes us part company with the collective and human society we live in, in search of a reality that only exits in the mind. It makes us all dreamers in a virtual world, where everything is possible and nothing is for real.
Now some of Houston’s death fall outs. Most (all) cried over her departure. Many (some) blamed drugs for her downfall. A (vocal) few want Houston’s death to be a lesson to the younger generation – just say no to drugs.
I think it is a good idea to use Houston’s death as a teaching case, moment. She is truly a one of a kind “star” of unsurpassed proportion and unmatched achievements. She is not to be confused with or upstaged by many, many other to follow - “pretenders” ? “want to be”? “Clone” for mass marketing.
I write this blog entry for one simple reason. We need to use Houston’s death judiciously to teach the right lesson: Drugs do not harm, “addictions” of all shape and kinds do.
First, drugs, however potent, do not kill or even harm. In fact, drugs can be used to do good, from relieving pain, e.g., morphine for wounded soldiers, to helping improve performance, e.g., coffee before mid-term, to creating social atmosphere, e.g., before dinner drink in party. In essence, what, when, how we use drugs matter.
Second, drugs do not do anything in or of themselves. People use drugs to do all sots of things, to self and others. In America we have a drug (culture) problem. We use drugs to solve all our problems, large and small, a first resource and not last recourse. For example, we use drugs, not training, to improve performance. We use drugs to make us do things that we cannot or should not be doing, e.g., improving sex life beyond our prime. Finally, we use drugs to induce happiness or suppress unhappy moments, e.g., binge drinking. In the end, we believe the magic of drugs, over human effort and beyond human capacity. This is the real problem with drugs we have, the culture of drug use, not drugs, is the problem.
Third, ultimately, drug is not the problem, “addiction” to drugs is. Drug problem is really an “addiction” problem. To say that we are addicted to drugs is to say that we are no longer in control of ourselves, in what(ever) we do. We ignore the side effects of drugs, in order to get the desire effects – momentary high, at the expense of long term health issues. Thus, drug problems we have individually, and more so, as a nation, is one of lack of self discipline.
Fourth, in line with ("Third" above), we in the US have all kinds of addition problems, many of them much more serious than drugs. As a nation, we need to deal with “addiction” , not drugs, as the problem or all problems:
(1) We are addicted to conspicuous consumption. We keep buying, consuming and trashing material goods, at the expense of inner peace and contentment, otherwise known as happiness. In being addicted to consumption, we are no more different than the drug addicts – seeking a new high – a Ford Model T then and i-Pod 3 now, not realizing that things do not make people happy, beyond the momentary thrill of the moment. Happiness is something we have to discover for ourselves, not given to use, like drugs. We can only derive true and enduring happiness in finding, sharing and giving meaning to and of life, through contemplation, more commonly known as soul searching.
(2) We are addicted to war (in larger context, violence). We keep invading countries and killing people. No single country have fought more wars and kill more people than we do as a nation: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…just the big ones. War addiction gets us high, in the heat of battle, and in anticipation of peace (or pacification), only to start all over in a wild goose chase, wasting our nations precious blood and treasures, chasing meaningless one high after another.
(3) We are addicted to sex. Sex addiction gets us turned on, artificially (cosmetics, bikini), and manipulatively (marking, packaging). Sex addiction makes us desire sex, not love/romance which leads to sex. Sex addiction makes us marry for sex, and separate for lack of sex or in want of (novel) sex. More damningly, sex addiction, conditioned us to see others only as sex objects, for our utility, and momentary release, not as valuable human beings of their own right, fit for total involvement and destine for long term engagement. It makes us attracted to others for their outer appearance and not internal strengths/virtues. It makes us relate to each other on sexual groups, and not other mote important, multiplex, and enduring, human qualities.
(4) We are addicted to computer, virtual reality and social networks. Addicting to computer is a serious problem. Being addicted to texting means more accident on the road. Being addicted to e-mails and web surfing means we are not focused on our work. In the old days, hermits write books in ten and more years, now we cannot be engaged for more than 5 to10 minutes at a time. (That is the reason why we no longer produce classical books and enduring thesis.) Being addicted to social network and married to virtual reality takes away from everyday human intercourse, and human conditions, the soul of human existence, the fabric of life. The process makes us less and less human (quantity – speed and frequency - of communication do not make for quality – intimacy and intensity - of relations, less and less social (yes, social network is not social at all, not when we an cut people off at will and with a push of the mouse), we are dying a slow death, as person and collective. Our addiction to computer technology makes us part company with the collective and human society we live in, in search of a reality that only exits in the mind. It makes us all dreamers in a virtual world, where everything is possible and nothing is for real.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
POLICE REFORM IN CHINA: A REVIEW
Prof. Kam C. Wong, J.D., Ph.D.
Department of Criminal Justice
Xavier University
Cincinnati, Ohio
USA
ABSTRACT: This article is brief review of “Police Reform in China” (CRC: Taylor and Francis, 2011) (“Reform Book”) and its major findings. The Reform Book, in seven chapters (introduction, obstacles, taking stock, legitimacy, reform, accountability, reflections), variously deals with current status, future prospect and research development of PRC policing. The Reform Book points to clear evidence of successful bureaucratization, professionalization and legalization of police work in the reform era, conducted in the spirit of Mao’s “mass line” political doctrine and in line with the scientific postulates and predictions of Wong’s (黄锦就) “State Police Power as a
Social Resource Theory” (“以国家警察作为社会资源伦”).
Some ten odd years ago, I started researching police reform in China and in 2002, I published my first article on this subject.[2] This was followed by Policing in China: History and Reform [3], a broad study giving an introduction to the origin, history, culture, education, reform and theory of policing in China.
In my 2002 article, I stated three conclusions about the current status, future prospects and difficulties about researching police reform in China. Due to the time that has gone by and the increased knowledge of the field, these subject matters deserve a second look.
With respect to current status (2000) of police reform, I said then:
“The Chinese public security system is changing in fundamental ways. It is in the process of re-generating itself. The impetus of reform has come from within as well as without the organization. The forces of change have been both economic and social, though political considerations have invariably played a part. The direction of reform has been towards more rationalization, institutionalization and legalization of police service.”
With respect to the future prospects of police reform, I raised the follow questions:
Less clear is: what does the future hold for police reform in China? In this regard there are two questions that are of most concern: the durability of past changes and the direction of future reform. For example, will the police reform process sustain itself? How fast, how deep and how comprehensive will the reform process be? In what direction and manner will the reform process move in the short and the long term? More significantly, what will the public security system "with Chinese characteristics" look like?”
With respect to the problems of research, I made the following observation:
In this first attempt to investigate police reform in China we find that: we know more about stated objectives and espoused purposes than unarticulated priorities and hidden agenda; we know more about public commitments than private ambitions; we know more about what the Party and central government wanted than what the professional officers and local administrators desired; we know more about official pronouncements than common understanding; we know more about theory, policy, laws and regulations than social reality, street practices and individual idiosyncrasies; and last, but certainly not least, we know more about reported compliance and noted successes than hidden defiance and undisclosed failures. In sum, we know more about the formal and official aspects of the reform, to the exclusion and at the expense of the more important (for our purpose of analysis) unofficial and informal accounts of changes that transpired. An informed and balanced judgment on the future prospect of the current reform process has to wait for more objective information and properly conducted surveys: not to mention an enlightened perspective and seasoned analysis.
In this short review essay, I will revisit the above three observations on (A) “Status,” (B) “Future” and (C) Research of police reform in China, in the light of current research findings reported in my “Reform Book”.
A. Status
Much that was said about the status of police reform in 1990s still holds true today, i.e., the Chinese police has changed in “fundamental ways” and is in the process of “re-generating itself.” “The direction of reform has been towards more
rationalization, institutionalization and legalization of police service.”
The “Reform Book” is an extension and elaboration of the 2002 study theme, but with a different focus and approach.
The 2002 study is an overview of police reform in China. There I reported on what is known about police reform in China in a systematic way, i.e., mission, values, power structure and status, organization and process, and leadership.
The “Reform Book” builds upon the 2002 study. It seeks to lay the necessary foundation for the healthy development of a Chinese police research and discourse field, by debunking myths, proposing methods, offering perspectives, raising issues and supplying data.
First of all, the “Reform Book” is dedicated to revealing how little we know about Chinese policing, in theory and especially in practice (Chapter 3 “Taking Stock”). For example:
We know very little about the theoretical and empirical relationship, necessary or contingent, between Chinese political-ideological development, leadership - personality transition, and social – economic change vs. MPS strategy, PSB policing tactics and frontline officers’ behavior. For example, how does a shift in political ideology from revolutionary communism (Mao) to socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng) impact upon the direction of police reform? (“Research agenda and issues (1995 – 2010)”, Chapter 3)? How do changes in successive generations of political and police leadership affect police work (“Leadership footprints”, Chapter 1)?
We know very little about what Chinese-style policing is all about (“Conceptualizing policing with Chinese Characteristics”, Chapter 5)? In what way is it similar and to what extent is it unique when compared with other Asian police agencies, such as those of Hong Kong?
We know very little about what Chinese people “think” and “feel” about their police (e.g., on corruption, Chapter 5). In the study of policing, understanding what people “think” or “feel” matters, it being more important to understand the latter than the former. In theoretical terms, a bottom-up understanding of the police from the people’s perspective is more important than a top-down understanding based on the state’s pronouncements.
We know very little about how police “insiders” view police reform from “bottom up” (police on O/T, Chapter 3, “32 Classical Police Sayings”, Chapter 6). What is the role of frontline PSB officers in the formulation of MPS strategy? What is the impact of police reform on police officers (“Impact of police reform”, Chapter 1)?
Second, building upon Policing in China: History and Reform (Chapter 1) I propose to change the way we investigate and in turn to understand Chinese policing in a particular way. Specifically, I argue that at the present stage [4] of Chinese police study development, we need to adopt more of cultural–anthropological approach[5] rather than a scientific–survey approach to the study of Chinese policing. This means investigating into Chinese history, culture and social conditions, what Chinese called “guo qing” (literally “national circumstance”) in order to provide context,[6] and more importantly to make sense of what is going on.[7]
Finally, in studying Chinese policing it is best to adopt an inside-out, bottom-up approach. Research projects should be driven by an indigenous perspective (“qing-li-fa”, Chapter 1) and informed by empirical data.[8] Researchers should have a bicultural orientation, if not qualifications, e.g. language facility and cultural emersion.[9] Research should focus more on data collection than theory development, more on description than evaluation, more on analysis than on proselytizing, and more on understanding than critique.
What has been achieved in police reform at the end of 2000s over that of 1990s is perhaps as follows:
First, the discovery of a secular police reform ideology. Over the years, there has been a gradual but distinctive shift of political ideology from Deng’s “two hands” (development vs. stability) reform doctrine to that of Hu’s “scientific development outlook” with its harmonious and humanistic approach (“The “fourth generation” leadership: background, vision and mission”, Chapter 1). This turns police reform from a reactive to pro-active mode.
Second, the evidence-based policy-making process embraced by policing that draws upon Marx’s dialectical materialism philosophy, Mao’s “in-practice” action learning theory, and Deng’s “seek truth from facts” thinking. These put police reform policy-making on a factual - rational basis, amenable to factual disputation, accessible to logic analysis, and capable of empirical assessment, away from ideological straightjackets and into policy analysis (“MPS decided that the year of 2002: Change of work-style year, investigation year”, Chapter 5).
Third, the consolidation of the police reform plan, linking political ideology with police reform strategy and policing operation measures under the “Decision regarding strengthening and improving public security work” (November 18, 2003). Police ideology now has to come to terms with grounded problems and emerging issues in a systemic, comprehensive and coherent manner.
Fourth, with scientific study and through trial and error, the Party and MPS leaders are becoming seasoned reformers with experience and confidence to match. Chinese police reform is moving into a new phrase, i.e., from fighting bush fire to conducting plan change.
Fifth, police reformers have to come to terms with the structural “contradictions” besetting the reform process, with no end in sight, e.g. the spread of mass incidents. (“Mass Rebellion Against Police Authority”, Chapter 4).
Sixth, the single most important achievement of police reform is the actualization of rule police by law (“yifazhi jing”). Since 1990, the focus has been on the stringent enforcement of police law. The effective implementation of the legal supervision of the police began by educating people and officials to the importance of the law, i.e. building up a legal culture.
Finally, in terms of accountability, the most significant development has been the discovery of public opinion supervision by Internet. On December 4 2009, in a year-end review of notable media related events, Internet public opinion supervision emerged as one of the most important media stories. To many people in China Internet public opinion supervision is democracy in action.
To the socially aggrieved, economically oppressed and legally wronged, Internet enables the “public supervision” of officials and “virtual justice” by netizens.
B: Future
With respect to the future of police reform, two issues present themselves:
Ideologically, Chinese-style policing has yet to be clearly and definitively articulated. This remains an unfinished but on-going police reform project. If it is ever happens, Chinese-style policing is likely to be defined bottom up rather than top down, with the top providing the necessary leadership and the bottom setting the basic parameters. Furthermore, in order to be meaningfully understood, Chinese-style policing needs to be contextualized within a specific time-space milieu. That said, consistent with CCP governance philosophy and mass-line policing theory, it is anticipated that under the broad rubric of Chinese-style policing, there would be many varieties of Chinese-style policing (region by region, e.g. coastal vs. interior; city by city, e.g. Shanghai vs. Beijing vs. Shenzhen) that defy a single approach by policy makers and warrant different research strategies from academic researchers.
Philosophically, can revolutionary policing exist side by side with professional policing? It is now clear that Chinese leadership, especially during the Hu-Wen era, has been seeking to re-invent the police by adopting a bureaucratic – legal – professional paradigm (“professional” policing), without explicitly reconciling it with the revolutionary model. Three assumptions are at work to support this marriage of convenience between “revolutionary” ideals and “professional policing”: (1) The Party leadership considers “professional” police to be an instrumentality of state to serve revolutionary ends, without inherent conflicts, as in the case of the resolute suppression of Falun Gong and negotiated peace-making with “mass incidents”. (2) With the Chinese Party in the lead, neither “bureaucracy”, “law” nor “profession” is allowed to stand above the Party and the mass, as autonomous institutions, with entrenched values and culture to match. In this way, a “professional” officer is first and foremost a “revolutionary” cadre. For example, a “professional” officer is one who is responsive, responsible, fair, competent, good mannered and who works selflessly for the people, just as Lei Feng would. (3) Inasmuch as “revolutionary” policing is a strategy and style and “professional” policing is an organizational principle, there is no conflict between the two. For example, “yanda” can be carried out by professional police according to law.refom”)?
C: Research
Of all the areas of police reform, Chinese police research and publication has made the most improvement (Chapter 3). Reading through national and provincial police journals reveals an increase in the output and quality of police research. We learned that since as early as 1992, MPS has been collecting survey data on the public fear of crime. Over the years, Chinese government research institutes (CASS), police think tanks (MPS Fourth Research Institute), police colleges (PSU), police scholars (Wang Danwei) and academic units (Wuhan – Law School:. Center for Protection for the Rights of Disadvantaged Citizens) have been conducting theoretically driven empirical studies on various aspects of policing in China, from extended detention (Chapter 6) to public opinion on torture. In essence, there is no shortage of data and empirical findings to allow us to make a preliminary assessment of police reform in China. What awaits is for China bound police researcher to provide a (re)analysis of such data (“A case study of ED in a mid-China province, Chapter 6) contextualized with case studies (“A case study of ED: The Cheung Tse-keung case”, Chapter 6).
Conclusion
I would like to close this essay with a review of the book by David Bayley:
“With a rare understanding of Chinese materials, K.C. Wong painstakingly describes efforts to reform the Chinese police during the past decade, courageously exploring sensitive issues of policy and performance. Written in an engagingly personal manner, it is a fundamental book for anyone interested in how modern China manages law enforcement and public order.”[10]
________________________________________
Kam C. Wong, J.D., Ph.D. is Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio; Faulty Fellow, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York (Albany); Visiting Professor of Law, City University of Hong Kong, National Law School (Orissa), India and Chinese People’s Public Security University, PRC. Professor Wong has published 9 books and 100 articles/law reviews/chapters, in 10 countries. His most recent books are: Cyberspace Governance in China (Nova Science Publication, 2011), Policing in Hong Hong (Ashgate, 2012) (Foreword: Distinguished Professor Peter Manning), One Country Two Systems (Transactions Publisher, 2012) (Foreword: Distinguished Professor James Acker), and Policing in China (Pakistan Criminology Society, 2011). He is working on: Policing in Hong Kong: History and Reform (N.Y.: CRC Taylor and Francis, 2013)
[1] Police Reform in China (N.Y.: CRC Taylor and Francis, 2011) (“Reform Book”). http://www.amazon.com/Police-Reform-Advances-Theory-Practice/dp/1439819696
[2] “Policing in the People's Republic of China. The Road to Reform in the 1990s,” Br J Criminol 42 (2): 281-316 (2002).
[3] Policing in China: History and Reform (N.Y.: Peter Lange, 2009).
[4] We need both qualitative as well as quantitative research to understand policing in China. But when beginning to build a Chinese police study discipline, it is more important to provide a more particularized (thorough case study) and contextualized (historical and cultural) study of China in order to improve our understanding of China sufficiently to answer general research questions and help interpret research data. See Chapter 2-3 in Policing in China: History and Reform (Peter Lang, 2009).
[5] Llewellyn and E. A. Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence (Norman, OK. University of Oklahoma Press, 1941).
[6] Philip C. C. Huang, "Theory and the Study of Modern Chinese History: Four Traps and a Question," Modern China, 24.2: 182 – 208 (April 1998).
[7] “Cultural Cognition Project Study Examines Why “Scientific Consensus” Fails to Create Public Consensus,” Yale Law School, September 13, 200
[8] Kam C. Wong, “Studying China Policing: Some Personal Reflections,” International Journal of Sociology of Law, Vol. 35(3): 1 – 20 (2007).
[9] Philip C. C. Huang, "Biculturality in Modern China and in Chinese Studies,” Modern China, 26.1: 3 – 31 (January 2000).
[10] David H. Bayley, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany (12 January 2011).
Department of Criminal Justice
Xavier University
Cincinnati, Ohio
USA
ABSTRACT: This article is brief review of “Police Reform in China” (CRC: Taylor and Francis, 2011) (“Reform Book”) and its major findings. The Reform Book, in seven chapters (introduction, obstacles, taking stock, legitimacy, reform, accountability, reflections), variously deals with current status, future prospect and research development of PRC policing. The Reform Book points to clear evidence of successful bureaucratization, professionalization and legalization of police work in the reform era, conducted in the spirit of Mao’s “mass line” political doctrine and in line with the scientific postulates and predictions of Wong’s (黄锦就) “State Police Power as a
Social Resource Theory” (“以国家警察作为社会资源伦”).
Some ten odd years ago, I started researching police reform in China and in 2002, I published my first article on this subject.[2] This was followed by Policing in China: History and Reform [3], a broad study giving an introduction to the origin, history, culture, education, reform and theory of policing in China.
In my 2002 article, I stated three conclusions about the current status, future prospects and difficulties about researching police reform in China. Due to the time that has gone by and the increased knowledge of the field, these subject matters deserve a second look.
With respect to current status (2000) of police reform, I said then:
“The Chinese public security system is changing in fundamental ways. It is in the process of re-generating itself. The impetus of reform has come from within as well as without the organization. The forces of change have been both economic and social, though political considerations have invariably played a part. The direction of reform has been towards more rationalization, institutionalization and legalization of police service.”
With respect to the future prospects of police reform, I raised the follow questions:
Less clear is: what does the future hold for police reform in China? In this regard there are two questions that are of most concern: the durability of past changes and the direction of future reform. For example, will the police reform process sustain itself? How fast, how deep and how comprehensive will the reform process be? In what direction and manner will the reform process move in the short and the long term? More significantly, what will the public security system "with Chinese characteristics" look like?”
With respect to the problems of research, I made the following observation:
In this first attempt to investigate police reform in China we find that: we know more about stated objectives and espoused purposes than unarticulated priorities and hidden agenda; we know more about public commitments than private ambitions; we know more about what the Party and central government wanted than what the professional officers and local administrators desired; we know more about official pronouncements than common understanding; we know more about theory, policy, laws and regulations than social reality, street practices and individual idiosyncrasies; and last, but certainly not least, we know more about reported compliance and noted successes than hidden defiance and undisclosed failures. In sum, we know more about the formal and official aspects of the reform, to the exclusion and at the expense of the more important (for our purpose of analysis) unofficial and informal accounts of changes that transpired. An informed and balanced judgment on the future prospect of the current reform process has to wait for more objective information and properly conducted surveys: not to mention an enlightened perspective and seasoned analysis.
In this short review essay, I will revisit the above three observations on (A) “Status,” (B) “Future” and (C) Research of police reform in China, in the light of current research findings reported in my “Reform Book”.
A. Status
Much that was said about the status of police reform in 1990s still holds true today, i.e., the Chinese police has changed in “fundamental ways” and is in the process of “re-generating itself.” “The direction of reform has been towards more
rationalization, institutionalization and legalization of police service.”
The “Reform Book” is an extension and elaboration of the 2002 study theme, but with a different focus and approach.
The 2002 study is an overview of police reform in China. There I reported on what is known about police reform in China in a systematic way, i.e., mission, values, power structure and status, organization and process, and leadership.
The “Reform Book” builds upon the 2002 study. It seeks to lay the necessary foundation for the healthy development of a Chinese police research and discourse field, by debunking myths, proposing methods, offering perspectives, raising issues and supplying data.
First of all, the “Reform Book” is dedicated to revealing how little we know about Chinese policing, in theory and especially in practice (Chapter 3 “Taking Stock”). For example:
We know very little about the theoretical and empirical relationship, necessary or contingent, between Chinese political-ideological development, leadership - personality transition, and social – economic change vs. MPS strategy, PSB policing tactics and frontline officers’ behavior. For example, how does a shift in political ideology from revolutionary communism (Mao) to socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng) impact upon the direction of police reform? (“Research agenda and issues (1995 – 2010)”, Chapter 3)? How do changes in successive generations of political and police leadership affect police work (“Leadership footprints”, Chapter 1)?
We know very little about what Chinese-style policing is all about (“Conceptualizing policing with Chinese Characteristics”, Chapter 5)? In what way is it similar and to what extent is it unique when compared with other Asian police agencies, such as those of Hong Kong?
We know very little about what Chinese people “think” and “feel” about their police (e.g., on corruption, Chapter 5). In the study of policing, understanding what people “think” or “feel” matters, it being more important to understand the latter than the former. In theoretical terms, a bottom-up understanding of the police from the people’s perspective is more important than a top-down understanding based on the state’s pronouncements.
We know very little about how police “insiders” view police reform from “bottom up” (police on O/T, Chapter 3, “32 Classical Police Sayings”, Chapter 6). What is the role of frontline PSB officers in the formulation of MPS strategy? What is the impact of police reform on police officers (“Impact of police reform”, Chapter 1)?
Second, building upon Policing in China: History and Reform (Chapter 1) I propose to change the way we investigate and in turn to understand Chinese policing in a particular way. Specifically, I argue that at the present stage [4] of Chinese police study development, we need to adopt more of cultural–anthropological approach[5] rather than a scientific–survey approach to the study of Chinese policing. This means investigating into Chinese history, culture and social conditions, what Chinese called “guo qing” (literally “national circumstance”) in order to provide context,[6] and more importantly to make sense of what is going on.[7]
Finally, in studying Chinese policing it is best to adopt an inside-out, bottom-up approach. Research projects should be driven by an indigenous perspective (“qing-li-fa”, Chapter 1) and informed by empirical data.[8] Researchers should have a bicultural orientation, if not qualifications, e.g. language facility and cultural emersion.[9] Research should focus more on data collection than theory development, more on description than evaluation, more on analysis than on proselytizing, and more on understanding than critique.
What has been achieved in police reform at the end of 2000s over that of 1990s is perhaps as follows:
First, the discovery of a secular police reform ideology. Over the years, there has been a gradual but distinctive shift of political ideology from Deng’s “two hands” (development vs. stability) reform doctrine to that of Hu’s “scientific development outlook” with its harmonious and humanistic approach (“The “fourth generation” leadership: background, vision and mission”, Chapter 1). This turns police reform from a reactive to pro-active mode.
Second, the evidence-based policy-making process embraced by policing that draws upon Marx’s dialectical materialism philosophy, Mao’s “in-practice” action learning theory, and Deng’s “seek truth from facts” thinking. These put police reform policy-making on a factual - rational basis, amenable to factual disputation, accessible to logic analysis, and capable of empirical assessment, away from ideological straightjackets and into policy analysis (“MPS decided that the year of 2002: Change of work-style year, investigation year”, Chapter 5).
Third, the consolidation of the police reform plan, linking political ideology with police reform strategy and policing operation measures under the “Decision regarding strengthening and improving public security work” (November 18, 2003). Police ideology now has to come to terms with grounded problems and emerging issues in a systemic, comprehensive and coherent manner.
Fourth, with scientific study and through trial and error, the Party and MPS leaders are becoming seasoned reformers with experience and confidence to match. Chinese police reform is moving into a new phrase, i.e., from fighting bush fire to conducting plan change.
Fifth, police reformers have to come to terms with the structural “contradictions” besetting the reform process, with no end in sight, e.g. the spread of mass incidents. (“Mass Rebellion Against Police Authority”, Chapter 4).
Sixth, the single most important achievement of police reform is the actualization of rule police by law (“yifazhi jing”). Since 1990, the focus has been on the stringent enforcement of police law. The effective implementation of the legal supervision of the police began by educating people and officials to the importance of the law, i.e. building up a legal culture.
Finally, in terms of accountability, the most significant development has been the discovery of public opinion supervision by Internet. On December 4 2009, in a year-end review of notable media related events, Internet public opinion supervision emerged as one of the most important media stories. To many people in China Internet public opinion supervision is democracy in action.
To the socially aggrieved, economically oppressed and legally wronged, Internet enables the “public supervision” of officials and “virtual justice” by netizens.
B: Future
With respect to the future of police reform, two issues present themselves:
Ideologically, Chinese-style policing has yet to be clearly and definitively articulated. This remains an unfinished but on-going police reform project. If it is ever happens, Chinese-style policing is likely to be defined bottom up rather than top down, with the top providing the necessary leadership and the bottom setting the basic parameters. Furthermore, in order to be meaningfully understood, Chinese-style policing needs to be contextualized within a specific time-space milieu. That said, consistent with CCP governance philosophy and mass-line policing theory, it is anticipated that under the broad rubric of Chinese-style policing, there would be many varieties of Chinese-style policing (region by region, e.g. coastal vs. interior; city by city, e.g. Shanghai vs. Beijing vs. Shenzhen) that defy a single approach by policy makers and warrant different research strategies from academic researchers.
Philosophically, can revolutionary policing exist side by side with professional policing? It is now clear that Chinese leadership, especially during the Hu-Wen era, has been seeking to re-invent the police by adopting a bureaucratic – legal – professional paradigm (“professional” policing), without explicitly reconciling it with the revolutionary model. Three assumptions are at work to support this marriage of convenience between “revolutionary” ideals and “professional policing”: (1) The Party leadership considers “professional” police to be an instrumentality of state to serve revolutionary ends, without inherent conflicts, as in the case of the resolute suppression of Falun Gong and negotiated peace-making with “mass incidents”. (2) With the Chinese Party in the lead, neither “bureaucracy”, “law” nor “profession” is allowed to stand above the Party and the mass, as autonomous institutions, with entrenched values and culture to match. In this way, a “professional” officer is first and foremost a “revolutionary” cadre. For example, a “professional” officer is one who is responsive, responsible, fair, competent, good mannered and who works selflessly for the people, just as Lei Feng would. (3) Inasmuch as “revolutionary” policing is a strategy and style and “professional” policing is an organizational principle, there is no conflict between the two. For example, “yanda” can be carried out by professional police according to law.refom”)?
C: Research
Of all the areas of police reform, Chinese police research and publication has made the most improvement (Chapter 3). Reading through national and provincial police journals reveals an increase in the output and quality of police research. We learned that since as early as 1992, MPS has been collecting survey data on the public fear of crime. Over the years, Chinese government research institutes (CASS), police think tanks (MPS Fourth Research Institute), police colleges (PSU), police scholars (Wang Danwei) and academic units (Wuhan – Law School:. Center for Protection for the Rights of Disadvantaged Citizens) have been conducting theoretically driven empirical studies on various aspects of policing in China, from extended detention (Chapter 6) to public opinion on torture. In essence, there is no shortage of data and empirical findings to allow us to make a preliminary assessment of police reform in China. What awaits is for China bound police researcher to provide a (re)analysis of such data (“A case study of ED in a mid-China province, Chapter 6) contextualized with case studies (“A case study of ED: The Cheung Tse-keung case”, Chapter 6).
Conclusion
I would like to close this essay with a review of the book by David Bayley:
“With a rare understanding of Chinese materials, K.C. Wong painstakingly describes efforts to reform the Chinese police during the past decade, courageously exploring sensitive issues of policy and performance. Written in an engagingly personal manner, it is a fundamental book for anyone interested in how modern China manages law enforcement and public order.”[10]
________________________________________
Kam C. Wong, J.D., Ph.D. is Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio; Faulty Fellow, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York (Albany); Visiting Professor of Law, City University of Hong Kong, National Law School (Orissa), India and Chinese People’s Public Security University, PRC. Professor Wong has published 9 books and 100 articles/law reviews/chapters, in 10 countries. His most recent books are: Cyberspace Governance in China (Nova Science Publication, 2011), Policing in Hong Hong (Ashgate, 2012) (Foreword: Distinguished Professor Peter Manning), One Country Two Systems (Transactions Publisher, 2012) (Foreword: Distinguished Professor James Acker), and Policing in China (Pakistan Criminology Society, 2011). He is working on: Policing in Hong Kong: History and Reform (N.Y.: CRC Taylor and Francis, 2013)
[1] Police Reform in China (N.Y.: CRC Taylor and Francis, 2011) (“Reform Book”). http://www.amazon.com/Police-Reform-Advances-Theory-Practice/dp/1439819696
[2] “Policing in the People's Republic of China. The Road to Reform in the 1990s,” Br J Criminol 42 (2): 281-316 (2002).
[3] Policing in China: History and Reform (N.Y.: Peter Lange, 2009).
[4] We need both qualitative as well as quantitative research to understand policing in China. But when beginning to build a Chinese police study discipline, it is more important to provide a more particularized (thorough case study) and contextualized (historical and cultural) study of China in order to improve our understanding of China sufficiently to answer general research questions and help interpret research data. See Chapter 2-3 in Policing in China: History and Reform (Peter Lang, 2009).
[5] Llewellyn and E. A. Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence (Norman, OK. University of Oklahoma Press, 1941).
[6] Philip C. C. Huang, "Theory and the Study of Modern Chinese History: Four Traps and a Question," Modern China, 24.2: 182 – 208 (April 1998).
[7] “Cultural Cognition Project Study Examines Why “Scientific Consensus” Fails to Create Public Consensus,” Yale Law School, September 13, 200
[8] Kam C. Wong, “Studying China Policing: Some Personal Reflections,” International Journal of Sociology of Law, Vol. 35(3): 1 – 20 (2007).
[9] Philip C. C. Huang, "Biculturality in Modern China and in Chinese Studies,” Modern China, 26.1: 3 – 31 (January 2000).
[10] David H. Bayley, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany (12 January 2011).
One Country Two Systems - Version 2012
Recall the purpose of "One Country, Two Systems" (OCTS) design was to promote and facilitate the integration of two entirely different social, economic, legal, and at the end of the day, convergence of divergent cultural systems. http://www.amazon.com/One-Country-Two-Systems-Cross-Border/dp/1412846234
Since day one, if my reading of HK history is correct, the focus has been on sorting out and bridging law and political differences between PRC vs. HKSAR, one issue at a time, incrementally, imperceptibly. The challenge was whether HK can survive the return of sovereignty as an (relatively) autonomous political and legal systems with the help of OCTS. To this end and for such purposes careers of many (most?) HK politicians, - opportunists, zealots..... - were made, in the street, on TV, at US - for own glory or public interests?
There was never a concern about cultural integration, certainly not with economic discrimination as a spoiler, acting as a "Hong Kong Wall". Indeed, the visionary OCTS and foresighted Deng never contemplated that the battle for the hearts and mind of HK people would be fought along economic, culture lines. The thinking then as now (before Professor Kong and MTR incidents) in China as in HK is a simply, and most pragmatic (realistic) one, one, "money talks", and talks the loudest - over politics, law, and anything and all things in between; to old HK hands in new Chinese hearts. The assumption is money speak in a different - universal language that heal wounds and joint adversaries.
The ever savvy (naive?) Chinese political leadership has since used money strategically, to buy (reward) loyalty (street people, nationalists who dream of united China than distinctive Hong Kong) and corrupt (soften) oppositions (intellectuals, western trained liberals who knows more about Hobbes than Menzhi), in search for a conversion (never mere convergence). The perennial self-assured (cocky?) Hong Kong people never stop thinking (dreaming?), often out loud, that economic is their field and finance is their game. In time Mainland will come into their fold (not the other way around).
What come next in this sage of "clash of civilization" no one can tell, or dare say. Judging from what transpired in the Professor Kong - HK people exchanges of late, and more to come, we are opening another Chapter to OCTS saga, and depending on your orientation - beginning of OCTS integration or end of OCTS as an integrative tool, the fortunes of Hong Kong, laurels of China and legacy of Deng rests.
Whatever your take, Hong Kong, as we know it (HK people) and wish it to be (PRC leadership), for better or worse, will never be the same again.
Since day one, if my reading of HK history is correct, the focus has been on sorting out and bridging law and political differences between PRC vs. HKSAR, one issue at a time, incrementally, imperceptibly. The challenge was whether HK can survive the return of sovereignty as an (relatively) autonomous political and legal systems with the help of OCTS. To this end and for such purposes careers of many (most?) HK politicians, - opportunists, zealots..... - were made, in the street, on TV, at US - for own glory or public interests?
There was never a concern about cultural integration, certainly not with economic discrimination as a spoiler, acting as a "Hong Kong Wall". Indeed, the visionary OCTS and foresighted Deng never contemplated that the battle for the hearts and mind of HK people would be fought along economic, culture lines. The thinking then as now (before Professor Kong and MTR incidents) in China as in HK is a simply, and most pragmatic (realistic) one, one, "money talks", and talks the loudest - over politics, law, and anything and all things in between; to old HK hands in new Chinese hearts. The assumption is money speak in a different - universal language that heal wounds and joint adversaries.
The ever savvy (naive?) Chinese political leadership has since used money strategically, to buy (reward) loyalty (street people, nationalists who dream of united China than distinctive Hong Kong) and corrupt (soften) oppositions (intellectuals, western trained liberals who knows more about Hobbes than Menzhi), in search for a conversion (never mere convergence). The perennial self-assured (cocky?) Hong Kong people never stop thinking (dreaming?), often out loud, that economic is their field and finance is their game. In time Mainland will come into their fold (not the other way around).
What come next in this sage of "clash of civilization" no one can tell, or dare say. Judging from what transpired in the Professor Kong - HK people exchanges of late, and more to come, we are opening another Chapter to OCTS saga, and depending on your orientation - beginning of OCTS integration or end of OCTS as an integrative tool, the fortunes of Hong Kong, laurels of China and legacy of Deng rests.
Whatever your take, Hong Kong, as we know it (HK people) and wish it to be (PRC leadership), for better or worse, will never be the same again.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Oakland Riot vs. Egypt Revolution?
A riot happened in Oakland California yesterday (1/28/12): “Riot police fought running skirmishes with anti-Wall Street protesters on Saturday, firing tear gas and bean bag projectiles and arresting more than 200 people in clashes that injured three officers and at least one demonstrator? … Officers were pelted with bottles, metal pipe, rocks, spray cans, improvised explosive devices and burning flares," “Police fire tear gas at Oakland, 200 arrested http://news.yahoo.com/police-smoke-grenades-occupy-oakland-protesters-000545184.html
The Occupy Wall Street (Oakland) tactics of disturbance and Oakland PD strategy of control recalls many other government vs. public confrontations all over the world, at least at this early stage – except in scale and degree of violence. Hong Kong 1967, Beijing 1989, Egypt 2011, Syria 2012. Grievance , protests, control, escalation.
The only difference is perhaps how the “Western world” sees it: legitimate dissents in undemocratic (oppressive) states (China, Egypt, Syria) and lawless disturbance in Western (liberal) democracies.
With this understanding, it is OK to use violence (destructive conducts) to fight off government suppression (attempt to enforce the law and bring order to the street). Failing that, it is necessary to topple the government, with encouragement and armed support of foreign countries. Finally, when “dictatorial” governments fall, with thousands killed and prosperous cities ruined, foreigners – outsiders applaud. We called this Arab, China Spring. The cycle repeats itself.
Now that Arab Spring comes to the US, in the form of Occupy Wall Street. Should we call this Oakland Spring?
Or, should we consider Oakland protesters as:
(1) Unruly mob? http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/occupy-oakland-demonstrators-run-over-fence-attempt-escape-photo-084403616.html
(2) Terrorists?(FBI define terrorism: " The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/oakland-city-police-officer-stomps-burning-american-flag-photo-042653441.html
Conversely, should we consider Oakland PD’s actions to bring back law and order as abusive police brutality or measured crowd control?
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/group-police-officers-various-law-enforcement-agencies-arrest-photo-084403679.html
Finally, is the Oakland dissenters/rioters exercising civil disobedience or attempting a violent revolution? http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/occupy-oakland-protestors-burn-american-flag-found-inside-photo-051149600.html
If violence escalates, should other nations, e.g., newly liberated Arab states or established human rights institutions such as UN, be in the position to lecture US on how to deal with Oakland Spring.
Failing that should the UN adopts a resolution condemning police violence or Arab league send in monitor to pacify the uprising?
In the end what is the difference between angry mobs here (Wall Street, Oakland) and violent demonstrators there (Beijing, Egypt, Libya, Syria)? More important, what is the role of government and functions of the police in maintain order, protecting life and securing property, in Egypt vs. US? "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WEK6HgXBsQ
“Before we correct other, we need to reflect on ourselves.” (A Chinese proverb)
The Occupy Wall Street (Oakland) tactics of disturbance and Oakland PD strategy of control recalls many other government vs. public confrontations all over the world, at least at this early stage – except in scale and degree of violence. Hong Kong 1967, Beijing 1989, Egypt 2011, Syria 2012. Grievance , protests, control, escalation.
The only difference is perhaps how the “Western world” sees it: legitimate dissents in undemocratic (oppressive) states (China, Egypt, Syria) and lawless disturbance in Western (liberal) democracies.
With this understanding, it is OK to use violence (destructive conducts) to fight off government suppression (attempt to enforce the law and bring order to the street). Failing that, it is necessary to topple the government, with encouragement and armed support of foreign countries. Finally, when “dictatorial” governments fall, with thousands killed and prosperous cities ruined, foreigners – outsiders applaud. We called this Arab, China Spring. The cycle repeats itself.
Now that Arab Spring comes to the US, in the form of Occupy Wall Street. Should we call this Oakland Spring?
Or, should we consider Oakland protesters as:
(1) Unruly mob? http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/occupy-oakland-demonstrators-run-over-fence-attempt-escape-photo-084403616.html
(2) Terrorists?(FBI define terrorism: " The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/oakland-city-police-officer-stomps-burning-american-flag-photo-042653441.html
Conversely, should we consider Oakland PD’s actions to bring back law and order as abusive police brutality or measured crowd control?
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/group-police-officers-various-law-enforcement-agencies-arrest-photo-084403679.html
Finally, is the Oakland dissenters/rioters exercising civil disobedience or attempting a violent revolution? http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--1316130479-slideshow/occupy-oakland-protestors-burn-american-flag-found-inside-photo-051149600.html
If violence escalates, should other nations, e.g., newly liberated Arab states or established human rights institutions such as UN, be in the position to lecture US on how to deal with Oakland Spring.
Failing that should the UN adopts a resolution condemning police violence or Arab league send in monitor to pacify the uprising?
In the end what is the difference between angry mobs here (Wall Street, Oakland) and violent demonstrators there (Beijing, Egypt, Libya, Syria)? More important, what is the role of government and functions of the police in maintain order, protecting life and securing property, in Egypt vs. US? "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WEK6HgXBsQ
“Before we correct other, we need to reflect on ourselves.” (A Chinese proverb)
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sailing around the world
Sailing the oceans of the world vs. negotiating the sea of humanity
The news headline reads “Teen ends globe-circling voyage in St. Maarten” (http://news.yahoo.com/teen-ends-globe-circling-voyage-st-maarten-185846639.html).The young lady sailor, Dekker (15-16), claims she is the youngest sailor to complete a round-the-world voyage, in a small boat (11 meters).
As with many, I am much impressed with her achievement. The message is people can conquer the world, if they are committed to the cause, and in this case brave the weather and risk the high sea.
The question I have for Dekker is this: Why bother? For example, why a journey around the world at the high sea? Why not negotiate and sail the sea of humanity (or life)?
If Decker is looking for a real adventure and challenges, as a way to test oneself, and learn how to deal with the real world, it seems that the better way is to negotiate the sea of humanity, in everyday life, than try the waters of the great oceans.
Negotiating the sea of life is better because: (1) Negotiating life is real. (2) Negotiating life is much, much more difficult, challenging and educational. (3) Negotiating life is meaningful, because it deals with people, not fishes, unpredictable temper tantrum, not chartable storm. (4) Negotiating life admits no grandstanding. There is no rainbow at the end of the struggle. People do it for survival, not glory, still less movie contract and TV interviews. (5) Negotiating life does not impose on others, from satellite tracking to rescue mission. (6) Lessons from negotiating life is useful. (7) Negotiating life is free. Sailing around the world takes and make money. (8) Negotiating life is required. Sailing around the world is by choice (9) Lastly, and most importantly, negotiating life is a 24/7 career, and sailing the ocean is a onetime journey. (10) Negotiating life has no end, and cannot be stopped mid-stream. Sailing across the ocean has an day, and like social network, one can drop out at will.
This note is dedicated to all those who is negotiating life and sea of humanity without fanfare. They are the unsung heroes, many times over, than Decker, could every be, or want to do. She has abandoned collective life for solitude at sea. Why should Decker be getting credits for the second, when she would not or cannot do the first, by choice? Why should Decker be able to claim credits (youngest person to negotiate high sea) when other who are more (at least equally) deserving in negotiating the sea of humanity not be mentioned (youngest person 6,7,8, negotiating life, in India, China, Burma) ?
The news headline reads “Teen ends globe-circling voyage in St. Maarten” (http://news.yahoo.com/teen-ends-globe-circling-voyage-st-maarten-185846639.html).The young lady sailor, Dekker (15-16), claims she is the youngest sailor to complete a round-the-world voyage, in a small boat (11 meters).
As with many, I am much impressed with her achievement. The message is people can conquer the world, if they are committed to the cause, and in this case brave the weather and risk the high sea.
The question I have for Dekker is this: Why bother? For example, why a journey around the world at the high sea? Why not negotiate and sail the sea of humanity (or life)?
If Decker is looking for a real adventure and challenges, as a way to test oneself, and learn how to deal with the real world, it seems that the better way is to negotiate the sea of humanity, in everyday life, than try the waters of the great oceans.
Negotiating the sea of life is better because: (1) Negotiating life is real. (2) Negotiating life is much, much more difficult, challenging and educational. (3) Negotiating life is meaningful, because it deals with people, not fishes, unpredictable temper tantrum, not chartable storm. (4) Negotiating life admits no grandstanding. There is no rainbow at the end of the struggle. People do it for survival, not glory, still less movie contract and TV interviews. (5) Negotiating life does not impose on others, from satellite tracking to rescue mission. (6) Lessons from negotiating life is useful. (7) Negotiating life is free. Sailing around the world takes and make money. (8) Negotiating life is required. Sailing around the world is by choice (9) Lastly, and most importantly, negotiating life is a 24/7 career, and sailing the ocean is a onetime journey. (10) Negotiating life has no end, and cannot be stopped mid-stream. Sailing across the ocean has an day, and like social network, one can drop out at will.
This note is dedicated to all those who is negotiating life and sea of humanity without fanfare. They are the unsung heroes, many times over, than Decker, could every be, or want to do. She has abandoned collective life for solitude at sea. Why should Decker be getting credits for the second, when she would not or cannot do the first, by choice? Why should Decker be able to claim credits (youngest person to negotiate high sea) when other who are more (at least equally) deserving in negotiating the sea of humanity not be mentioned (youngest person 6,7,8, negotiating life, in India, China, Burma) ?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Arab Spring and Wall Street Autumn
2011 was an eventful year for politics. We witnessed the arrival of Arab Spring in the Middle East and Wall Street Autumn in America.
Arab Spring registers signs of optimism (at least relief) – better days on the horizon. Power to the people; Egypt, Libya, Syria. One after another oppressive powers fall.
Wall Street Autumn emits evidence of despair (at least trouble) – weary road ahead. More power to the overlords; Wall Street, military complex, professional politicians.
Democracy is dead. Money talks. Reasons walk.
What happened, and why?
What happened is that we have forgotten our founding fathers’ pledge and quests:
We the people have the right and ability to solve any and all problems confronting us. In theoretical terms, and modern day practice: “The person who is closest to the problem, by impact or with resource, is the person to solve the problem?” (Kam C. Wong)
This means:
(1) People, not the government establishment or Washington experts, decide what the problem facing this country is or is not. For example, minority interests, bankers, should not trump or dictate national interests.
(2) People’s voices should be heard, not silenced by force and arms – forced eviction in Wall Street, pepper sprayed in UC-Davis.
(3) Power back to the people. A majority of the people has no faith in their government, e.g., politicians, Party or Congress. Changing political leadership every so often does not seems to help, e.g., Obama acts more or less like Bush! Most people are not happy with the direction our nation is heading.
(4) As a people, we should take responsibility for our own actions.
(4.1) Be realistic. Live within our means. Bigger things (NFL stadium) is not better. More rights (without corresponding duties) is not good. Material goods do not bring happiness.
(4.2) Be wise. Spend appropriately. A few basketball players get paid thousands per game. Thousands of teachers make hundreds per month. Thousands of lawyers get rich by creating disputes and destroying relationships. Millions of construction workers starved to keep roof over the lawyers' head allowing their families to live happily thereafter. A 20 something makes billions in an air condition office after a few months/years to buy bigger and better video games. A nation of laborers sweat under the sun for life to put bread on the table
(4.3) Be honest. Stand up for our principles. No double standards or empty talk.
(4.3.1) We cannot invade other nations and kill other nationals, in the name of fighting terrorism.
(4.3.2) We cannot begin to tell other nations/people what to do, when we do not know their history, speak their language, or understand their culture. For example, Ms. Clinton, Secretary of State, lectured China on human rights, when she has little facility with Chinese.
(4.3.3) Ms. Clinton declared virtual war to disrupt China to advance free internet when our government is monitoring all e-mails in and out of the US.'
(4.3.4) Our (few) soldiers cannot rape and kill other nationals but not be held responsible to other nations' law. Many in fact get away with murder (for cooperating with prosecution) by plea negotiation in US military courts. They should be held responsible to the same degree as if they had kill and rape in the US.
(4.3.5) We cannot keep invading other countries and building more advance weapons, and other people to love peace and forgo arms,
(4.4) Be fair. Pay everyone the same. Why should brainy people enjoy intellectual property's rights for years, after their intellectual labor is done, and laborers do not enjoy laborer's right in like manner and degree. Pay up when you ride a car made by a laborer!!!
(4.5) Be visionary. Live for the future. As a nation we cannot keep supporting big military with deficit spending (more bombs and plans) and keep weakening education by starving our teachers (less bread & butter).
(4.6) Be strong. Stand up for what we believe in. Learn from Arab Spring. Do not take no for an answer.
In the end, might (economic, political, military ) does not make right. Or, do they?
Arab Spring registers signs of optimism (at least relief) – better days on the horizon. Power to the people; Egypt, Libya, Syria. One after another oppressive powers fall.
Wall Street Autumn emits evidence of despair (at least trouble) – weary road ahead. More power to the overlords; Wall Street, military complex, professional politicians.
Democracy is dead. Money talks. Reasons walk.
What happened, and why?
What happened is that we have forgotten our founding fathers’ pledge and quests:
We the people have the right and ability to solve any and all problems confronting us. In theoretical terms, and modern day practice: “The person who is closest to the problem, by impact or with resource, is the person to solve the problem?” (Kam C. Wong)
This means:
(1) People, not the government establishment or Washington experts, decide what the problem facing this country is or is not. For example, minority interests, bankers, should not trump or dictate national interests.
(2) People’s voices should be heard, not silenced by force and arms – forced eviction in Wall Street, pepper sprayed in UC-Davis.
(3) Power back to the people. A majority of the people has no faith in their government, e.g., politicians, Party or Congress. Changing political leadership every so often does not seems to help, e.g., Obama acts more or less like Bush! Most people are not happy with the direction our nation is heading.
(4) As a people, we should take responsibility for our own actions.
(4.1) Be realistic. Live within our means. Bigger things (NFL stadium) is not better. More rights (without corresponding duties) is not good. Material goods do not bring happiness.
(4.2) Be wise. Spend appropriately. A few basketball players get paid thousands per game. Thousands of teachers make hundreds per month. Thousands of lawyers get rich by creating disputes and destroying relationships. Millions of construction workers starved to keep roof over the lawyers' head allowing their families to live happily thereafter. A 20 something makes billions in an air condition office after a few months/years to buy bigger and better video games. A nation of laborers sweat under the sun for life to put bread on the table
(4.3) Be honest. Stand up for our principles. No double standards or empty talk.
(4.3.1) We cannot invade other nations and kill other nationals, in the name of fighting terrorism.
(4.3.2) We cannot begin to tell other nations/people what to do, when we do not know their history, speak their language, or understand their culture. For example, Ms. Clinton, Secretary of State, lectured China on human rights, when she has little facility with Chinese.
(4.3.3) Ms. Clinton declared virtual war to disrupt China to advance free internet when our government is monitoring all e-mails in and out of the US.'
(4.3.4) Our (few) soldiers cannot rape and kill other nationals but not be held responsible to other nations' law. Many in fact get away with murder (for cooperating with prosecution) by plea negotiation in US military courts. They should be held responsible to the same degree as if they had kill and rape in the US.
(4.3.5) We cannot keep invading other countries and building more advance weapons, and other people to love peace and forgo arms,
(4.4) Be fair. Pay everyone the same. Why should brainy people enjoy intellectual property's rights for years, after their intellectual labor is done, and laborers do not enjoy laborer's right in like manner and degree. Pay up when you ride a car made by a laborer!!!
(4.5) Be visionary. Live for the future. As a nation we cannot keep supporting big military with deficit spending (more bombs and plans) and keep weakening education by starving our teachers (less bread & butter).
(4.6) Be strong. Stand up for what we believe in. Learn from Arab Spring. Do not take no for an answer.
In the end, might (economic, political, military ) does not make right. Or, do they?
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Reforming US and China: The Case of Obama vs. Deng
Reforming US and China: Obama vs. Deng
OBAMA THE REFORMER
President Obama was elected on a platform of radical- economic, political, social, and in time cultural - changes.
Thus far, Obama appears to be serving up much of the same policies as Bush did – protective of the financial industry, aggressive on the anti-terrorism front and dismissive of citizens’ rights, etc.
One of the major complaints with the democratic party base is that Obama has not kept faith with his campaign promise of being ideological pure as a reform leader
A closer look at Obama’s legislative performance and policy actions show that he has been working slowly but methodological, in principle minded and disciplined ways, to advance his agenda; to bring about changes in America, from the bottoms up. The more noteworthy achievements are: the health care reform (much diluted), military withdrawals (much delayed) and legalize anti-terror fights (much compromised).
The question remains, why did President not act in a more resolute, speedy, and radical, or more simply, ideological way to change America in a more fundamental way. As a result, Obama looks weak and indecisive.
The answer is a simple one: as a person Obama holds admirable ideals, as a President Obama is acting pragmatically.
This commentary offers up another way of looking at Obama’s (lack of) performance in office. It argues that before we judge Obama, weak or strong, successful or unsuccessful, we should compare Obama with one of the most successful reformer in the world, i.e., that of Deng Xiaoping of China.
DENG AS A REFORMER
Deng Xiaoping, the putative father of Chinese reform, is credited with transforming China from a primitive economy to a developed one.
In terms of historical background, PRC governance is ideologically anchored, centrally planned, and personality driven. The Chinese modernization reform has effectively destroyed Communist ideology, eroding Party leadership and diminishing personality cult in the process.
The ideology and leadership void left by Mao is filled by Deng Xiaoping’s thought. Deng Xiaoping’s thought provided direction, e.g., securing “people democratic dictatorship” (“renmin minzhu zhuanzheng”), inspiration, e.g., reforming through “liberating the mind” (“jiefang sixiang”), doctrine, e.g., social reconstruction by “progressive policy decision making” (“jian jin juece”), and methods, e.g., hold elected officials accountable to “mass line” (“qunzhong luxian”). Specifically, Deng advocates "building socialism with Chinese characteristics".
Other relevant Deng’s doctrines guiding reform include: “emancipation of the mind” (from old) and “seeks truth from facts” (to new) to liberate new China from the stricture of old ideology in search of new ideas of all kinds, “democratic dictatorship” to put class enemies in check, “crossing the river by touching the stones” in calling for incremental and experimental reform, and “white cat, black cat, and the one that catch the mice is a cat” to conduct reform with pragmatism, i.e., by result.
In pursuing reform, Deng sought radical departure from old way of thinking and doing and preached bold new approaches to established ways and means.
Deng is a doer, not thinker. He is a consummate politician, not a romantic ideologue. He is a practitioner, not theoretician. Deng articulated a number of ideas on how to reform China, but offered no comprehensive theory or master plan to achieved them. In this, Deng is a pragmatist not an ideologue.
Except for insisting on stability and dictatorship, Deng’s theory of reform is open to all kinds of ideas and willing to experiment with anything that might work. Deng’s lack of ideological interest and attachment to pragmatic practices leaves the people in the dark as to what to expect, other than love the Party and money talks.
Deng’s reform policy, justified on pragmatic grounds, is not properly anchored ideologically or clearly explained theoretically. It is difficult to comprehend, still more to apply in practice. This has led a Chinese observer to observe, “In the case of contemporary China, the regime’s ideology is bankrupt. The transition from a socialist to a quasi market economy has created a great deal of social unrest. And the regime relies heavily on coercion to repress political and religious dissent.”
Thus, one of the more challenging problems confronting and confounding Chinese reformers is in seeking an understanding of what “socialism with Chinese Characteristics” portents and entails, in theory and practice. This creates problems in planning and implementing, researching and validating, explaining and understanding, assessing and improving Chinese reform.
OBAMA AND DENG COMPARED
As far as bringing about changes to America, Obama acts more like Deng, than Bush (single minded (America right or wrong), narrow perspective (do not read newspaper, I do not discuss invading Iraq with my father on earth, but father in heave), dogmatic personality ("I am the decider", inflexible approach (no precondition to negotiation with Korea).
Obama as with Deng speaks the language of an ideologue but act the role of a pragmatist: making changes incrementally, experimentally, and above all else with stability and continuity in mind. Compromise is the game, concession is the rule, and middle ground is the objective.
As reformers, Deng and Obama understand, people love to dream big (to have hope), thus talking up ideology is as important in China (socialism) as in the United States (democracy).
But Deng and Obama also understand, perhaps more so Deng than Obama, people everywhere need bread and butter (“minsheng” in China or a "good life" in the US ) more so than democracy and rights; what good is having rights when people do not have a job.
If you are a social scientist, seeking to proof “good life” is more important than “right governance” you do not need to go too far:
People in China want to be a Party member less (or not) so because they believe in the socialist cause but because being a Party member provides them with power and with it money (corruption).
Turning to America, people in the street know at heart that all the talk about ideology (democracy and equal rights) does not hold up against the reality of the market economy
People need a job for survival. People rarely need the government to do things for them; nowadays all major functions of government are privatized, from security, to ambulance, to mail etc.
Government can be replaced and lawmakers have term limits, but corporations last and last.
One can talk back to the government but never, ever, against the boos. Yet more people are happy with working for dictatorial corporations than being served by democratic government!
AFTERWORDS
The purpose of this commentary is to provide the readers with a new perspective in understanding President Obama as a reformer; to clear up some misconception. Instead of faulting Obama for not delivering as promised or not doing as much as as he can, one should realize what people (all over the world) really want of their government - ruler.
The truth of the matter is: "Man do not live by words alone." In the ultimate analysis and in the real world, Obama is to be judged by deeds (job growth), and not by words(spreading democracy).
Roses are for dating, bread and butter keep a family going. In China there is a saying: "Firewood and rice makes for a marriage." I concede that they are necessary but not sufficient conditions to keep any marriage going.
Now perhaps you understand why Romeo and Juliet is doomed to fail (and fell out of love), and arranged marriages have a higher success rate (in providing for security). In China, as a male, if you do not have a job, a car and a house, you do not get a date, much less getting married. That simple.
OBAMA THE REFORMER
President Obama was elected on a platform of radical- economic, political, social, and in time cultural - changes.
Thus far, Obama appears to be serving up much of the same policies as Bush did – protective of the financial industry, aggressive on the anti-terrorism front and dismissive of citizens’ rights, etc.
One of the major complaints with the democratic party base is that Obama has not kept faith with his campaign promise of being ideological pure as a reform leader
A closer look at Obama’s legislative performance and policy actions show that he has been working slowly but methodological, in principle minded and disciplined ways, to advance his agenda; to bring about changes in America, from the bottoms up. The more noteworthy achievements are: the health care reform (much diluted), military withdrawals (much delayed) and legalize anti-terror fights (much compromised).
The question remains, why did President not act in a more resolute, speedy, and radical, or more simply, ideological way to change America in a more fundamental way. As a result, Obama looks weak and indecisive.
The answer is a simple one: as a person Obama holds admirable ideals, as a President Obama is acting pragmatically.
This commentary offers up another way of looking at Obama’s (lack of) performance in office. It argues that before we judge Obama, weak or strong, successful or unsuccessful, we should compare Obama with one of the most successful reformer in the world, i.e., that of Deng Xiaoping of China.
DENG AS A REFORMER
Deng Xiaoping, the putative father of Chinese reform, is credited with transforming China from a primitive economy to a developed one.
In terms of historical background, PRC governance is ideologically anchored, centrally planned, and personality driven. The Chinese modernization reform has effectively destroyed Communist ideology, eroding Party leadership and diminishing personality cult in the process.
The ideology and leadership void left by Mao is filled by Deng Xiaoping’s thought. Deng Xiaoping’s thought provided direction, e.g., securing “people democratic dictatorship” (“renmin minzhu zhuanzheng”), inspiration, e.g., reforming through “liberating the mind” (“jiefang sixiang”), doctrine, e.g., social reconstruction by “progressive policy decision making” (“jian jin juece”), and methods, e.g., hold elected officials accountable to “mass line” (“qunzhong luxian”). Specifically, Deng advocates "building socialism with Chinese characteristics".
Other relevant Deng’s doctrines guiding reform include: “emancipation of the mind” (from old) and “seeks truth from facts” (to new) to liberate new China from the stricture of old ideology in search of new ideas of all kinds, “democratic dictatorship” to put class enemies in check, “crossing the river by touching the stones” in calling for incremental and experimental reform, and “white cat, black cat, and the one that catch the mice is a cat” to conduct reform with pragmatism, i.e., by result.
In pursuing reform, Deng sought radical departure from old way of thinking and doing and preached bold new approaches to established ways and means.
Deng is a doer, not thinker. He is a consummate politician, not a romantic ideologue. He is a practitioner, not theoretician. Deng articulated a number of ideas on how to reform China, but offered no comprehensive theory or master plan to achieved them. In this, Deng is a pragmatist not an ideologue.
Except for insisting on stability and dictatorship, Deng’s theory of reform is open to all kinds of ideas and willing to experiment with anything that might work. Deng’s lack of ideological interest and attachment to pragmatic practices leaves the people in the dark as to what to expect, other than love the Party and money talks.
Deng’s reform policy, justified on pragmatic grounds, is not properly anchored ideologically or clearly explained theoretically. It is difficult to comprehend, still more to apply in practice. This has led a Chinese observer to observe, “In the case of contemporary China, the regime’s ideology is bankrupt. The transition from a socialist to a quasi market economy has created a great deal of social unrest. And the regime relies heavily on coercion to repress political and religious dissent.”
Thus, one of the more challenging problems confronting and confounding Chinese reformers is in seeking an understanding of what “socialism with Chinese Characteristics” portents and entails, in theory and practice. This creates problems in planning and implementing, researching and validating, explaining and understanding, assessing and improving Chinese reform.
OBAMA AND DENG COMPARED
As far as bringing about changes to America, Obama acts more like Deng, than Bush (single minded (America right or wrong), narrow perspective (do not read newspaper, I do not discuss invading Iraq with my father on earth, but father in heave), dogmatic personality ("I am the decider", inflexible approach (no precondition to negotiation with Korea).
Obama as with Deng speaks the language of an ideologue but act the role of a pragmatist: making changes incrementally, experimentally, and above all else with stability and continuity in mind. Compromise is the game, concession is the rule, and middle ground is the objective.
As reformers, Deng and Obama understand, people love to dream big (to have hope), thus talking up ideology is as important in China (socialism) as in the United States (democracy).
But Deng and Obama also understand, perhaps more so Deng than Obama, people everywhere need bread and butter (“minsheng” in China or a "good life" in the US ) more so than democracy and rights; what good is having rights when people do not have a job.
If you are a social scientist, seeking to proof “good life” is more important than “right governance” you do not need to go too far:
People in China want to be a Party member less (or not) so because they believe in the socialist cause but because being a Party member provides them with power and with it money (corruption).
Turning to America, people in the street know at heart that all the talk about ideology (democracy and equal rights) does not hold up against the reality of the market economy
People need a job for survival. People rarely need the government to do things for them; nowadays all major functions of government are privatized, from security, to ambulance, to mail etc.
Government can be replaced and lawmakers have term limits, but corporations last and last.
One can talk back to the government but never, ever, against the boos. Yet more people are happy with working for dictatorial corporations than being served by democratic government!
AFTERWORDS
The purpose of this commentary is to provide the readers with a new perspective in understanding President Obama as a reformer; to clear up some misconception. Instead of faulting Obama for not delivering as promised or not doing as much as as he can, one should realize what people (all over the world) really want of their government - ruler.
The truth of the matter is: "Man do not live by words alone." In the ultimate analysis and in the real world, Obama is to be judged by deeds (job growth), and not by words(spreading democracy).
Roses are for dating, bread and butter keep a family going. In China there is a saying: "Firewood and rice makes for a marriage." I concede that they are necessary but not sufficient conditions to keep any marriage going.
Now perhaps you understand why Romeo and Juliet is doomed to fail (and fell out of love), and arranged marriages have a higher success rate (in providing for security). In China, as a male, if you do not have a job, a car and a house, you do not get a date, much less getting married. That simple.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Art of War and Art of Politics
THE ART OF WAR (孫子兵法) AND ART OF POLITICS
US IS WINNING TERROR WAR
A recent news headline reads: “Bin Laden documents sharpen US aim.” It then proceeds to tell us blow by blow how the FBI – CIA is processing the captured information from the Bin Laden raid: “The new information is the result of five weeks of round-the-clock work by a CIA, in real time-led team of data analysts, cyber experts and translators who are 95 percent finished decrypting and translating the years of material and expect to complete the effort by mid-June, two U.S. officials say.”
The news report also inform us what was discovered: “A law enforcement official briefed on the process said investigators have been analyzing raw digital data found on multiple hard drives and flash drives, and that some of it consists of sequences of numbers. Investigators were trying to discern potential bank account or phone numbers that might point to al-Qaida contacts in the United States or elsewhere, or codes that could produce other leads, said the official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the analysis and spoke on condition of anonymity.Especially useful in the communications between bin Laden and his followers from Asia to Europe to Africa is the light they shed on the personalities of known al-Qaida operatives and what drives the various terrorist commanders who corresponded with bin Laden, officials said..” “(Bin Laden documents sharpen US aim,” AP June 8, 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110608/ap_on_go_ot/us_bin_laden_trove)
All in all it makes for interesting reading. Like a James Bond movie.
The feeling I got, as a citizen – reader, is that: (1) We are winning the war against al Qaida (AQ). (US IS WINNING. AQ IS LOSING.) (2) Our government is really working hard to protect us from another attack. (CIA-FBI IS WORKING HARD.) After I read many of the comments (851 comments, as of 6.48 am, June 9, CT), I found that most people feel that way. (“This is just fantastic . While I am sorry they could not take the creep alive at least the SEALS brought back what may become worth more than gold . Againg my complements to the professionalism of the SEALS . All thier training and the risks they took may very well save thousands of lives and not in this country alone !)
Then it suddenly dawn on me that such disclosures of intelligence gathering is penny wise pound foolish:
Why do we tell our enemy what the source and method, ways and means, in this terror fight? More importantly, what are we trying to achieve? (“For those of you who think they're divulging too much info...maybe this isn't even a fraction of what they actually know. Just relax, the top Al Qaeda members are going to start dropping like flies, just watch.”)
THE ISSUE: RIGHT TO KNOW VS. OPERATIONAL SECRECY
As a citizen I am for freedom of inform (FI) to a fault. Transparency helps with public decision making. Transparency is a check on abuses. No democratic nation can do without. The more information the merrier.
As a legal aid lawyer, time and again, I mounted FOIA suits against the government for with holding public information.
As a professor, I have written about, and condemned, the Bush-Cheney as one of most secretive administrations in US history (Impact of USA Patriot Act on American Society (2008).
As a police commander, I am for secrecy of military operations, to a fault. Sun Tzu (722–481 BC), the greatest war strategist in China, wrote the classics THE ART OF WAR, now a required reading at West Point, called for secrecy in military operations. (McNeilly, Mark R., Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare, (Oxford University Press (2001).
Sun said “知彼知己, 百戰不殆, 不知彼而知己, 一勝一負, 不知彼, 不知己, 每戰必殆 “ (“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”)
In this the Bush administration got it right. Keep your enemy guessing. Bush imposed total blackout of investigation, arrest and detention of terror suspects after 9/11. (“Ten days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a memo to all immigration judges requiring them to close proceedings to the public and press whenever the Justice Department advised them to do so. The order was challenged in two lawsuits, which came to opposite conclusions.” http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/immigrants.html)
I do not agree with Bush on many issues, especially the use of 9/11 for political gain (expose of a CIA agent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame_), but I support President Bush’s decision to keep information out of the hands of would be terrorists, bent on attacking USA.
In fighting terror (or any other war) secrecy is the golden rule.
POLITICS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
If information is so important in fighting – winning (terror) war, why is it that the Obama administration is conducting a public briefing in prime time on the Bin Laden documentary – intelligence finds? Part of the answer might be that President is a true believer of FI. I have little doubt on this.
But I am equally convinced that the bigger reason is for President Obama to show off his military – anti-terror achievements for political gain, i.e. to enhance his election prospect. (In this regard, we can also ask about timing of Bin Laden execution.)
If indeed the President Obama is motivated by making himself looks good in the public eyes as a fierce, unrelenting and effective terror fighter, at the expense of national security, then he is not doing his job in keeping the nation save. (I like Obama, and still do.)
My research shows that coincidentally, the Bush administration has also done the same thing – politicizing the war on terror. President Bush – Cheney has raised the color coded terror warning signals a number of times, whenever it is to their advantage, politically, e.g., renewal of USA Patriot Act. appointments of intelligence staff, or in election year.
AFTERWORD
Sir Robert Peel, father of modern policing, was once asked. How do we know that police are doing their job. Peel replied, famously: “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”
The less we hear about CIA – FBI – Navy Seal, the better for the nation.
US IS WINNING TERROR WAR
A recent news headline reads: “Bin Laden documents sharpen US aim.” It then proceeds to tell us blow by blow how the FBI – CIA is processing the captured information from the Bin Laden raid: “The new information is the result of five weeks of round-the-clock work by a CIA, in real time-led team of data analysts, cyber experts and translators who are 95 percent finished decrypting and translating the years of material and expect to complete the effort by mid-June, two U.S. officials say.”
The news report also inform us what was discovered: “A law enforcement official briefed on the process said investigators have been analyzing raw digital data found on multiple hard drives and flash drives, and that some of it consists of sequences of numbers. Investigators were trying to discern potential bank account or phone numbers that might point to al-Qaida contacts in the United States or elsewhere, or codes that could produce other leads, said the official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the analysis and spoke on condition of anonymity.Especially useful in the communications between bin Laden and his followers from Asia to Europe to Africa is the light they shed on the personalities of known al-Qaida operatives and what drives the various terrorist commanders who corresponded with bin Laden, officials said..” “(Bin Laden documents sharpen US aim,” AP June 8, 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110608/ap_on_go_ot/us_bin_laden_trove)
All in all it makes for interesting reading. Like a James Bond movie.
The feeling I got, as a citizen – reader, is that: (1) We are winning the war against al Qaida (AQ). (US IS WINNING. AQ IS LOSING.) (2) Our government is really working hard to protect us from another attack. (CIA-FBI IS WORKING HARD.) After I read many of the comments (851 comments, as of 6.48 am, June 9, CT), I found that most people feel that way. (“This is just fantastic . While I am sorry they could not take the creep alive at least the SEALS brought back what may become worth more than gold . Againg my complements to the professionalism of the SEALS . All thier training and the risks they took may very well save thousands of lives and not in this country alone !)
Then it suddenly dawn on me that such disclosures of intelligence gathering is penny wise pound foolish:
Why do we tell our enemy what the source and method, ways and means, in this terror fight? More importantly, what are we trying to achieve? (“For those of you who think they're divulging too much info...maybe this isn't even a fraction of what they actually know. Just relax, the top Al Qaeda members are going to start dropping like flies, just watch.”)
THE ISSUE: RIGHT TO KNOW VS. OPERATIONAL SECRECY
As a citizen I am for freedom of inform (FI) to a fault. Transparency helps with public decision making. Transparency is a check on abuses. No democratic nation can do without. The more information the merrier.
As a legal aid lawyer, time and again, I mounted FOIA suits against the government for with holding public information.
As a professor, I have written about, and condemned, the Bush-Cheney as one of most secretive administrations in US history (Impact of USA Patriot Act on American Society (2008).
As a police commander, I am for secrecy of military operations, to a fault. Sun Tzu (722–481 BC), the greatest war strategist in China, wrote the classics THE ART OF WAR, now a required reading at West Point, called for secrecy in military operations. (McNeilly, Mark R., Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare, (Oxford University Press (2001).
Sun said “知彼知己, 百戰不殆, 不知彼而知己, 一勝一負, 不知彼, 不知己, 每戰必殆 “ (“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”)
In this the Bush administration got it right. Keep your enemy guessing. Bush imposed total blackout of investigation, arrest and detention of terror suspects after 9/11. (“Ten days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a memo to all immigration judges requiring them to close proceedings to the public and press whenever the Justice Department advised them to do so. The order was challenged in two lawsuits, which came to opposite conclusions.” http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/immigrants.html)
I do not agree with Bush on many issues, especially the use of 9/11 for political gain (expose of a CIA agent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame_), but I support President Bush’s decision to keep information out of the hands of would be terrorists, bent on attacking USA.
In fighting terror (or any other war) secrecy is the golden rule.
POLITICS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
If information is so important in fighting – winning (terror) war, why is it that the Obama administration is conducting a public briefing in prime time on the Bin Laden documentary – intelligence finds? Part of the answer might be that President is a true believer of FI. I have little doubt on this.
But I am equally convinced that the bigger reason is for President Obama to show off his military – anti-terror achievements for political gain, i.e. to enhance his election prospect. (In this regard, we can also ask about timing of Bin Laden execution.)
If indeed the President Obama is motivated by making himself looks good in the public eyes as a fierce, unrelenting and effective terror fighter, at the expense of national security, then he is not doing his job in keeping the nation save. (I like Obama, and still do.)
My research shows that coincidentally, the Bush administration has also done the same thing – politicizing the war on terror. President Bush – Cheney has raised the color coded terror warning signals a number of times, whenever it is to their advantage, politically, e.g., renewal of USA Patriot Act. appointments of intelligence staff, or in election year.
AFTERWORD
Sir Robert Peel, father of modern policing, was once asked. How do we know that police are doing their job. Peel replied, famously: “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”
The less we hear about CIA – FBI – Navy Seal, the better for the nation.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Duties Over Rights
THE FACTS
A person is jilted by his girl friend. (We were not told the reason. In fact much is unknown about the case, including identity of the lady involved or actual disposition of kid to be. “Something tells me the reporter is once again giving only half of the story.”).
To take revenge (I do not know the motive), he put up a billboard on a main thoroughfare with the man (35-year-old) holding the outline of an infant, with the sign: "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!."
The ex-lady friend now sued for harassment and breach of privacy. Who is in the right? (“Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard,” AP June 5, 2011.)
After reading many of 2,569 Comments (as of 4.3 am, central time, June 6, 2011, USA). I find that most of the comments were about right vs. wrong, winning and losing in court.
Some argued that there was no privacy claim to truth telling. (“The rule has always been that you are free to publish or speak derogatory statements about others as long as they are true. I don't know where the privacy twist gets into it.”)
Others suggested that the person has no right to cause intentional emotional harm to others. (“The bad thing is, he put her name on the sign and told that it was meant for her. In any case, he sounds like a jerk since he admitted he isn't even sure she had an abortion. “)
Still others thought it was best to engage in safe sex. (“A box of condoms is cheaper than a billboard.”) Each to his/her own. All make for good discussion, debate.k
My comments make/elaborate on one point that some commentators alluded to, but have not been taken seriously. Why right? Why not responsibility? (“Rights, rights, rights. What about responsibilities?“)
THE DISPUTE
The dispute in the case is classical American – who has the right to do what to each other: right of privacy vs. right to free speech, both constitutional rights of the first order.
Ultimately, who is in the right, or more right than the other.
THE REAL ISSUE?
The real issue in this case? Why everyone is insisting on his/her right, no one is seriously talking about his/her duty.
If we were to start to discuss the role of duty in this case, the narrative suddenly changes:
What is the duty of the man to the lady? I submit that we as humans have a universal duty to not cause harm to others, even when we have a right to do so. Police officers is a good example. Just because they have a right to shoot to kill, does not mean that they should, in every case. That is what discretion is all about. That is also why good judgment is so, so important in policing. However, increasingly, US police training has been titled towards shoot (now taser) first and ask question later. UK police do it differently. Every effort is made to avoid using force, even in the face of violence, and warranted by the situation. Sir Robert Peel, father of modern policing, famously said: "Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient." That I believe is call sensibility and compassion, both duties of the most fundamental kind if we are to have a sustainable - harmonious society. (Later on substainability of society.) Why heap on pain, when the love is gone? (Here again, I “assume” that having baby is about love, not one night stand.)
What is the duty of the lady to the man? We as sex partners (or simply partners) have a duty to discuss with each other whether we want to have a kid before sex, and how to take care of him/her after. This is basic parenting. More simply, being responsible, to self and others. No one should have kids, accident or otherwise, if they do not want to assume their duties as potential parents.
What is the duty of both to the kid to be? (There is sure to be a debate abut when life starts/ends.) We as potential parents, have a duty to give birth to and take care of babies we made together. Alternative, as parents, we need to think about the future best interest of the kid. For the man, why have (unprotected) sex, if there is no common understanding that the kid would be taken care of. For the lady, if no baby is wanted, then she has a duty to tell the man so, before, not after sex. Alternatively, take precaution.
DUTIES OVER RIGHTS
In the US Military Academy (USMA), 18 years old are taught about: Duty, Honor, Country.
In America society, everyone is expected to look out for number one: my rights first and last. Worse, my rights first, your rights last (or not). (Wall Street I: “Greed, in lack of a better term, is a good thing!”)
USMA taught our kids to sacrifice ones most precious thing (life and limb) in service of a nation. An “others – collective” welfare is ones dominant concern mentality. That is what a duty bound society requires. Pat Tillman exemplifies this world-view. He gave up millions to live a Ranger’s challenge. The nation applauded.
US society (corporation really) taught us all that in order to be rich, famous and happy we need to walk all over others. A “me – individual” interest is ones exclusive consideration attitude. That is what a right based society promotes. Sarah Palin personifies this life perspective. She earned millions by selling a Cinderella presidential dream. The public demurs.
WHY DUTIES OVER RIGHTS
I start with a few simple suppositions:
A RIGHT to do things, does not make it right to do certain things, and in a certain way.
A RIGHT tells us what things we can or cannot do, not whether we should or should not do certain things (in certain way).
RIGHTS without corresponding DUTIES bring out the worse in humans:
The sub-prime crisis is an example; in the name of profit, wall street bankers sell “junk” papers and defrauded the nation, world, with many kids doing without their first breakfast and last milk and still more seniors having to do more to make ends meet, in their twilight years. MBAs with huge mansions and fast boats, makes billions. MISs (man in street) with obligations and debts, lose everthing.
Our war effort in Pakistan is another; in the name of pre-emptive self-defense (Bush doctrine) we invaded Pakistan and killed thousands. US security paid with life and blood of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Muslim people.
A MANIFESTO OF DUTIES
In the US we have a Bill of Rights. In China (actually all around the world, known by different name) we have a Manifesto of Duties. We know a lot about Bill of Rights. We know little about Manifesto of Duties.
A Manifesto of Duties would read something as follows:
(1) People are born to duty and with duties, not rights.
(2) Duty comes before right.
(3) Duty trumps right.
(4) Right is contingent on duty.
(5) Rights are created by man, and enforced by law.
(6) Duties reside in nature, and compelled by morality.
(7) As humans we have the following duties to our fellow human beings:
(7.1) We have the duty to do the right thing.
(7.2) We have a duty to do good, not evil.
(7.3) We have a duty not to cause harm to people and damages to thing.
(7.4) We have a duty to create happiness and utilities.
(7.5) We have a duty to not to create suffering and do harm.
(7.6) We have a duty to help others to pursue life, liberty and happiness, the way they want it.
(7.7) We have a duty to think about others, first and last, before we think about ourselves.
(7.8) We have a duty to think about collective interests, more so than individual rights.
(7.9) We have a duty to think about the future interests, not just present rights.
(7.10) We have a duty to think about peaceful resolution of disputes.
(7. 11) We have a duty to avoid the use of violence, unless for self-defense, and then only as a last resort.
(7.12) We have a duty to leave the world a better place to live, work and play than when we found it.
AFTERWORDS
If the above sounds familiar to you. It is. It is so because you (as parents, neighbors, friends, strangers) are already embracing duties not asserting rights, every day,willingly and instinctively. (That is also why the news story is so hair raising.)
Duty is in our blood, naturally, until wall street, military industrial complex, and politicians come along.
We need a Manifesto of Duties to safeguard our national heritage.
Again, long, long before we invented rights, we are born naturally with and to duties.
A person is jilted by his girl friend. (We were not told the reason. In fact much is unknown about the case, including identity of the lady involved or actual disposition of kid to be. “Something tells me the reporter is once again giving only half of the story.”).
To take revenge (I do not know the motive), he put up a billboard on a main thoroughfare with the man (35-year-old) holding the outline of an infant, with the sign: "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!."
The ex-lady friend now sued for harassment and breach of privacy. Who is in the right? (“Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard,” AP June 5, 2011.)
After reading many of 2,569 Comments (as of 4.3 am, central time, June 6, 2011, USA). I find that most of the comments were about right vs. wrong, winning and losing in court.
Some argued that there was no privacy claim to truth telling. (“The rule has always been that you are free to publish or speak derogatory statements about others as long as they are true. I don't know where the privacy twist gets into it.”)
Others suggested that the person has no right to cause intentional emotional harm to others. (“The bad thing is, he put her name on the sign and told that it was meant for her. In any case, he sounds like a jerk since he admitted he isn't even sure she had an abortion. “)
Still others thought it was best to engage in safe sex. (“A box of condoms is cheaper than a billboard.”) Each to his/her own. All make for good discussion, debate.k
My comments make/elaborate on one point that some commentators alluded to, but have not been taken seriously. Why right? Why not responsibility? (“Rights, rights, rights. What about responsibilities?“)
THE DISPUTE
The dispute in the case is classical American – who has the right to do what to each other: right of privacy vs. right to free speech, both constitutional rights of the first order.
Ultimately, who is in the right, or more right than the other.
THE REAL ISSUE?
The real issue in this case? Why everyone is insisting on his/her right, no one is seriously talking about his/her duty.
If we were to start to discuss the role of duty in this case, the narrative suddenly changes:
What is the duty of the man to the lady? I submit that we as humans have a universal duty to not cause harm to others, even when we have a right to do so. Police officers is a good example. Just because they have a right to shoot to kill, does not mean that they should, in every case. That is what discretion is all about. That is also why good judgment is so, so important in policing. However, increasingly, US police training has been titled towards shoot (now taser) first and ask question later. UK police do it differently. Every effort is made to avoid using force, even in the face of violence, and warranted by the situation. Sir Robert Peel, father of modern policing, famously said: "Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient." That I believe is call sensibility and compassion, both duties of the most fundamental kind if we are to have a sustainable - harmonious society. (Later on substainability of society.) Why heap on pain, when the love is gone? (Here again, I “assume” that having baby is about love, not one night stand.)
What is the duty of the lady to the man? We as sex partners (or simply partners) have a duty to discuss with each other whether we want to have a kid before sex, and how to take care of him/her after. This is basic parenting. More simply, being responsible, to self and others. No one should have kids, accident or otherwise, if they do not want to assume their duties as potential parents.
What is the duty of both to the kid to be? (There is sure to be a debate abut when life starts/ends.) We as potential parents, have a duty to give birth to and take care of babies we made together. Alternative, as parents, we need to think about the future best interest of the kid. For the man, why have (unprotected) sex, if there is no common understanding that the kid would be taken care of. For the lady, if no baby is wanted, then she has a duty to tell the man so, before, not after sex. Alternatively, take precaution.
DUTIES OVER RIGHTS
In the US Military Academy (USMA), 18 years old are taught about: Duty, Honor, Country.
In America society, everyone is expected to look out for number one: my rights first and last. Worse, my rights first, your rights last (or not). (Wall Street I: “Greed, in lack of a better term, is a good thing!”)
USMA taught our kids to sacrifice ones most precious thing (life and limb) in service of a nation. An “others – collective” welfare is ones dominant concern mentality. That is what a duty bound society requires. Pat Tillman exemplifies this world-view. He gave up millions to live a Ranger’s challenge. The nation applauded.
US society (corporation really) taught us all that in order to be rich, famous and happy we need to walk all over others. A “me – individual” interest is ones exclusive consideration attitude. That is what a right based society promotes. Sarah Palin personifies this life perspective. She earned millions by selling a Cinderella presidential dream. The public demurs.
WHY DUTIES OVER RIGHTS
I start with a few simple suppositions:
A RIGHT to do things, does not make it right to do certain things, and in a certain way.
A RIGHT tells us what things we can or cannot do, not whether we should or should not do certain things (in certain way).
RIGHTS without corresponding DUTIES bring out the worse in humans:
The sub-prime crisis is an example; in the name of profit, wall street bankers sell “junk” papers and defrauded the nation, world, with many kids doing without their first breakfast and last milk and still more seniors having to do more to make ends meet, in their twilight years. MBAs with huge mansions and fast boats, makes billions. MISs (man in street) with obligations and debts, lose everthing.
Our war effort in Pakistan is another; in the name of pre-emptive self-defense (Bush doctrine) we invaded Pakistan and killed thousands. US security paid with life and blood of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Muslim people.
A MANIFESTO OF DUTIES
In the US we have a Bill of Rights. In China (actually all around the world, known by different name) we have a Manifesto of Duties. We know a lot about Bill of Rights. We know little about Manifesto of Duties.
A Manifesto of Duties would read something as follows:
(1) People are born to duty and with duties, not rights.
(2) Duty comes before right.
(3) Duty trumps right.
(4) Right is contingent on duty.
(5) Rights are created by man, and enforced by law.
(6) Duties reside in nature, and compelled by morality.
(7) As humans we have the following duties to our fellow human beings:
(7.1) We have the duty to do the right thing.
(7.2) We have a duty to do good, not evil.
(7.3) We have a duty not to cause harm to people and damages to thing.
(7.4) We have a duty to create happiness and utilities.
(7.5) We have a duty to not to create suffering and do harm.
(7.6) We have a duty to help others to pursue life, liberty and happiness, the way they want it.
(7.7) We have a duty to think about others, first and last, before we think about ourselves.
(7.8) We have a duty to think about collective interests, more so than individual rights.
(7.9) We have a duty to think about the future interests, not just present rights.
(7.10) We have a duty to think about peaceful resolution of disputes.
(7. 11) We have a duty to avoid the use of violence, unless for self-defense, and then only as a last resort.
(7.12) We have a duty to leave the world a better place to live, work and play than when we found it.
AFTERWORDS
If the above sounds familiar to you. It is. It is so because you (as parents, neighbors, friends, strangers) are already embracing duties not asserting rights, every day,willingly and instinctively. (That is also why the news story is so hair raising.)
Duty is in our blood, naturally, until wall street, military industrial complex, and politicians come along.
We need a Manifesto of Duties to safeguard our national heritage.
Again, long, long before we invented rights, we are born naturally with and to duties.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Who is parenting Hong Kong kids?
HONG KONG TIGER PARENTS?
The headline of a news report reads: “Hong Kong's 'tiger parents' face the pressure,” (AFP June 5, 2011). The story line is tried and a bit old – Hong Kong people are driven to success (economically) and place high expectation on their kids (academically), with higher still pressure to match. “So as parents climb the ladder in one of the world's most competitive economies, they and their children must also contend with the academic equivalent.”
The term “tiger parent” refers to a certain style of parenting (by Chinese) made famous by a Yale Law Professor Amy L. Chua in her book: BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER (2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/books/20book.html?_r=2
The book distinguishes Western vs. Chinese parenting style (free choice vs. disciplined), content (rounded vs. academic) and goal (happiness in life vs. academic success). As summed up by Professor Chua: “Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be “the best” students, that “academic achievement reflects successful parenting,” and that if children did not excel at school then there was “a problem” and parents “were not doing their job.”
The book started a cultural war of sorts: “Refreshingly, and perhaps uniquely, Chua instead catalogs the various ways she tortured her two young daughters, all in the name of Chinese tradition and the goal of reaching Carnegie Hall (or at least the Juilliard precollege program). “http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/books/review/Dominus-t.html?ref=books)
I am originally from Hong Kong, and have taught and visited with many of the universities there, now and then. I know Hong Kong.
The story has a ring of truth to it, at least with its central thesis: Hong Kong people work very hard in a competitive economy. Parents try very hard to mold their kids to be successful in life, academically and otherwise.
But as with most news stories these days, the above story (with catchy headline) is written to sell papers, more so than giving us the whole picture of parenting in Hong Kong, in a balance, nuanced and insightful way. For example, not all Hong Kong parents are “tiger parents” nor children are geared towards academic study. As Professor Chau said: not all American parents are alike.
As counter point - fact checks to the story, when I started teaching in Chinese U. of Hong Kong some 25 years ago, only top 5% made universities, now it is 18%, with many other opportunities for getting ahead, e.g., one can be a police officer (including being inspector without going to college. Though in reality, a university degree is still the golden standard for success in life, and as a person.
I do not want to get into a cultural world between East vs. West, a no win exercise, I certainly do not want to take sides, at least not within the confine of this blog (1000 words).
This blog offers up a simple observation (a question really) that should add more fire to the debate of what is proper patenting – goal, style, content – for Hong Kong kids.
“TIGER MOM” vs. “HELICOPTER DAD”?
In order to do parenting, good or bad, we need to apent time with the kids, less mining their business and more having their interest in mind, in a most personal, intimate, and above all else, involved ways. Practically, being a parent is a 24/7 job. Parenting takes time.
In the US “soccer patents” come to mind. (Of course I am being political correct here. It really should read “soccer mom” because mothers all over the nation still assume most of the child rearing responsibilities, as they struggle with economic security at home, even before the most recent sub-prime crisis!)
In Hong Kong, if truth be known, most of the parents are not there when the kids need them, the daily sort of way – “dad can we read a book/take a hike together?” Not just a “helicopter parent” – hovering around in all sort of ways, to keep an eye on the kids.
Ironically, “helicopter parenting” now has a new meaning – JIT (just in time) parenting., or MBA parenting if you like. Parents drop in JIT for the kids concert performance or HS ball game., to show concern, to allay guilt, to keep up with the Jones? Here I am surprised and amused that N.J Governor did not excite another culture war, this time between rich vs. poor parents. Gov. Chris Christie can afford spending $2000 plus for a state helicopter ride to attend his son's high school baseball game, when the working poor cannot afford a car to drive the kids to the park.
(Still recall the $25,000 dress, for a NJ HS pomp night.)
WHO IS RAISING HONG KONG KIDS
If HK parents are too busy to parent their kids, who is doing the job of real parenting, again day in day out (the “first in the morning” and “last in the day” test) , in the most minute sort of ways (from ironing the uniform to cooking the meals).
The answer is: domestic helpers: foreign and locals.
“In 2010, there were 284,901 foreign domestic helpers in the city, of which 48% were from the Philippines, 49.4% from Indonesia, and 1.3% from Thailand. They usually live in their employer's residence and perform various household duties such as cooking, cleaning, and child-minding.: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_domestic_helpers_in_Hong_Kong
If there were 284,901 foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, here were at least that many in local helps (who worked illegally). That makes for 500,000 helpers. (One study show that nearly all (99%) domestic helpers are foreign, with 1% from China or locally, legally).
In 1996, there were about 1.8 million households. Of those about 1.1 millions have income between $15,000 to $45,000 (government income eligibility for hiring is $15,000; real life actually income is $17, 300) making them economically affordable for them to hire foreign help. In essence one out of 2 affordable families have a live in help.
IMPACT OF FOREIGN “SHEEP” PARENTING
If indeed many of the Hong Kong rich families’ kids are raised by domestic helpers, half of them from abroad, it would be interesting to ask: How do “foreign parenting” affects the net generation of Hong Kong ideas?
(1) The impact of the blood parents is much diluted by the presence of live in helpers who for all intent and purposes are the kids’ psychological parents. (Both of my kids were brought up by Pilipino maids).
(2) Since helpers are not there to maintain discipline, at least not acting as “tiger”, the kids are not really disciplined, beyond in the presence of their parents. In essence, we have “tiger parenting” by absentee parents and “ sheep (following order of price/princess) parenting” by daily routine domestic helpers.
(3) The kids will be affected by the language, education and cultural background of the domestic helpers of which 41% has post secondary education. (The most educated are the Pilipino.) For example, many of the kids now speak better English than my generation, less because of school but because of live in help.
AFTERWORS
The moral of the story is that it take more than “tiger parents” to turn out “tiger” kids. Education and molding kids happen in many ways, some planned, most happened by accident and by default.
Internet parenting, anyone.
The headline of a news report reads: “Hong Kong's 'tiger parents' face the pressure,” (AFP June 5, 2011). The story line is tried and a bit old – Hong Kong people are driven to success (economically) and place high expectation on their kids (academically), with higher still pressure to match. “So as parents climb the ladder in one of the world's most competitive economies, they and their children must also contend with the academic equivalent.”
The term “tiger parent” refers to a certain style of parenting (by Chinese) made famous by a Yale Law Professor Amy L. Chua in her book: BATTLE HYMN OF THE TIGER MOTHER (2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/books/20book.html?_r=2
The book distinguishes Western vs. Chinese parenting style (free choice vs. disciplined), content (rounded vs. academic) and goal (happiness in life vs. academic success). As summed up by Professor Chua: “Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be “the best” students, that “academic achievement reflects successful parenting,” and that if children did not excel at school then there was “a problem” and parents “were not doing their job.”
The book started a cultural war of sorts: “Refreshingly, and perhaps uniquely, Chua instead catalogs the various ways she tortured her two young daughters, all in the name of Chinese tradition and the goal of reaching Carnegie Hall (or at least the Juilliard precollege program). “http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/books/review/Dominus-t.html?ref=books)
I am originally from Hong Kong, and have taught and visited with many of the universities there, now and then. I know Hong Kong.
The story has a ring of truth to it, at least with its central thesis: Hong Kong people work very hard in a competitive economy. Parents try very hard to mold their kids to be successful in life, academically and otherwise.
But as with most news stories these days, the above story (with catchy headline) is written to sell papers, more so than giving us the whole picture of parenting in Hong Kong, in a balance, nuanced and insightful way. For example, not all Hong Kong parents are “tiger parents” nor children are geared towards academic study. As Professor Chau said: not all American parents are alike.
As counter point - fact checks to the story, when I started teaching in Chinese U. of Hong Kong some 25 years ago, only top 5% made universities, now it is 18%, with many other opportunities for getting ahead, e.g., one can be a police officer (including being inspector without going to college. Though in reality, a university degree is still the golden standard for success in life, and as a person.
I do not want to get into a cultural world between East vs. West, a no win exercise, I certainly do not want to take sides, at least not within the confine of this blog (1000 words).
This blog offers up a simple observation (a question really) that should add more fire to the debate of what is proper patenting – goal, style, content – for Hong Kong kids.
“TIGER MOM” vs. “HELICOPTER DAD”?
In order to do parenting, good or bad, we need to apent time with the kids, less mining their business and more having their interest in mind, in a most personal, intimate, and above all else, involved ways. Practically, being a parent is a 24/7 job. Parenting takes time.
In the US “soccer patents” come to mind. (Of course I am being political correct here. It really should read “soccer mom” because mothers all over the nation still assume most of the child rearing responsibilities, as they struggle with economic security at home, even before the most recent sub-prime crisis!)
In Hong Kong, if truth be known, most of the parents are not there when the kids need them, the daily sort of way – “dad can we read a book/take a hike together?” Not just a “helicopter parent” – hovering around in all sort of ways, to keep an eye on the kids.
Ironically, “helicopter parenting” now has a new meaning – JIT (just in time) parenting., or MBA parenting if you like. Parents drop in JIT for the kids concert performance or HS ball game., to show concern, to allay guilt, to keep up with the Jones? Here I am surprised and amused that N.J Governor did not excite another culture war, this time between rich vs. poor parents. Gov. Chris Christie can afford spending $2000 plus for a state helicopter ride to attend his son's high school baseball game, when the working poor cannot afford a car to drive the kids to the park.
(Still recall the $25,000 dress, for a NJ HS pomp night.)
WHO IS RAISING HONG KONG KIDS
If HK parents are too busy to parent their kids, who is doing the job of real parenting, again day in day out (the “first in the morning” and “last in the day” test) , in the most minute sort of ways (from ironing the uniform to cooking the meals).
The answer is: domestic helpers: foreign and locals.
“In 2010, there were 284,901 foreign domestic helpers in the city, of which 48% were from the Philippines, 49.4% from Indonesia, and 1.3% from Thailand. They usually live in their employer's residence and perform various household duties such as cooking, cleaning, and child-minding.: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_domestic_helpers_in_Hong_Kong
If there were 284,901 foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, here were at least that many in local helps (who worked illegally). That makes for 500,000 helpers. (One study show that nearly all (99%) domestic helpers are foreign, with 1% from China or locally, legally).
In 1996, there were about 1.8 million households. Of those about 1.1 millions have income between $15,000 to $45,000 (government income eligibility for hiring is $15,000; real life actually income is $17, 300) making them economically affordable for them to hire foreign help. In essence one out of 2 affordable families have a live in help.
IMPACT OF FOREIGN “SHEEP” PARENTING
If indeed many of the Hong Kong rich families’ kids are raised by domestic helpers, half of them from abroad, it would be interesting to ask: How do “foreign parenting” affects the net generation of Hong Kong ideas?
(1) The impact of the blood parents is much diluted by the presence of live in helpers who for all intent and purposes are the kids’ psychological parents. (Both of my kids were brought up by Pilipino maids).
(2) Since helpers are not there to maintain discipline, at least not acting as “tiger”, the kids are not really disciplined, beyond in the presence of their parents. In essence, we have “tiger parenting” by absentee parents and “ sheep (following order of price/princess) parenting” by daily routine domestic helpers.
(3) The kids will be affected by the language, education and cultural background of the domestic helpers of which 41% has post secondary education. (The most educated are the Pilipino.) For example, many of the kids now speak better English than my generation, less because of school but because of live in help.
AFTERWORS
The moral of the story is that it take more than “tiger parents” to turn out “tiger” kids. Education and molding kids happen in many ways, some planned, most happened by accident and by default.
Internet parenting, anyone.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
How to fight a war on drugs and win!
INTRODUCTION
War on drugs is a failure. That is a given. The question is why? That is not so clear.
“Global war on drugs a failure, high-level panel says”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110602/wl_nm/us_drugs_commission
Of course, the remaining question is can we fight a war on drugs and expect to win (at least reduction in drug use).
This commentary address the above questions in turn.
WHY WE FAIL IN WAR ON DRUGS?
Depending on whom you ask, there are many reasons why we fail in war on drugs.
For prohibitionist, it is because we are not punishing harsh enough. But China has zero tolerance for drugs, with capital punishment to match. China still has a drug epidemic on hand, and growing fast.
For liberals, it is because we are punishing too much. But drug rehabilitation program has proven not as successful as people claim, though it is certainly more effective than punishment.
The issue with fighting a successful drug war is much more complicated. Let me explain.
WHAT IS A DRUG WAR?
When we are launching a war on drugs, what are we fighting against? It is certainly not about fighting drug use per se. Drugs are any chemical that induce physical – psychological changes. Since we use drugs every day, from Red Bull to beer to coffee, we can hardly do without. In essence, we need to be more specific about our war objective.
The war on drugs is a war on harmful addiction of all kind, of which drug addiction is consider the most prevalent and harmful, to self, to others.
WAR ON ADDICTION
The American Society of Addiction Medicine has defined “Addiction” as:
“Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction can involve cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.”
Fighting addiction (of drugs, alcohol, texting) is thus a fight against a personally rewarding “habits” – more generally a “high” experience.
If fighting “addiction” is fighting a “high” experience, we need to do one of the two things (or both):
(1) Reduce the “high” experience, at least link the “high” with the “low”. This cannot be achieved by punishment alone, as we have learned so far. The reason is a simple one. After habituated, getting “high” is not a logical process; it is an automatic response that deny rationality of choice. (That is why the Internet craze is so bad on our students. They cannot concentrate without checking their text every second. For executives, it is the e-mail.) The only hope we have is perhaps to link “high” with “low” experience sufficient to rid people of bad habits. Many people get out of alcohol because of the morning after hangover. With technology today, we can induce the same reaction when people drink or use drugs. (By making this proposal, I am not arguing for such drug reduction policy. There are other weighty issues involved, such as paternalism and privacy. However, I am offering up a workable solution, if society so chooses. )
(2) Substitute the “high” experience (with harmful consequences) with other equally “high” experience. (with little consequences). I once posed the question that few can give me an answer. If smoking (illegal) marihuana give people high and drinking (legal) beer get people high, why do people still the first, and not the second. Inherent in the question is this idea – fight illegal drugs with legal drugs. While I am not so sure that all drug users will shit to using alcohol as a substitute goods, overnight, but I am dead sure that with enough education people will use legal drugs instead of illegal one, at least in the margin. That way, we still have a drug problem, but it is of a lesser magnitude, by health effect (doubtful) or social costs (most certainly, reduce demand on illegal drugs, generate tax etc.)
(3) Sight people from physical “high” to mental (spiritual, psychological) “high”. This is by far the best and most effective way to get people from addiction. Empirically, people who are happy until themselves – mentally ‘high” – have no need for drugs. In our society (US) we do not educate people to understand the two kinds of high end/high grade “high” (e.g., spirituality, achievements) and low end/low grade high (e.g., sex, drugs, gambling). This possibly is the better way to do to get ride of destructive addictions of all kinds, from drugs to media attention.
War on drugs is a failure. That is a given. The question is why? That is not so clear.
“Global war on drugs a failure, high-level panel says”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110602/wl_nm/us_drugs_commission
Of course, the remaining question is can we fight a war on drugs and expect to win (at least reduction in drug use).
This commentary address the above questions in turn.
WHY WE FAIL IN WAR ON DRUGS?
Depending on whom you ask, there are many reasons why we fail in war on drugs.
For prohibitionist, it is because we are not punishing harsh enough. But China has zero tolerance for drugs, with capital punishment to match. China still has a drug epidemic on hand, and growing fast.
For liberals, it is because we are punishing too much. But drug rehabilitation program has proven not as successful as people claim, though it is certainly more effective than punishment.
The issue with fighting a successful drug war is much more complicated. Let me explain.
WHAT IS A DRUG WAR?
When we are launching a war on drugs, what are we fighting against? It is certainly not about fighting drug use per se. Drugs are any chemical that induce physical – psychological changes. Since we use drugs every day, from Red Bull to beer to coffee, we can hardly do without. In essence, we need to be more specific about our war objective.
The war on drugs is a war on harmful addiction of all kind, of which drug addiction is consider the most prevalent and harmful, to self, to others.
WAR ON ADDICTION
The American Society of Addiction Medicine has defined “Addiction” as:
“Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction can involve cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.”
Fighting addiction (of drugs, alcohol, texting) is thus a fight against a personally rewarding “habits” – more generally a “high” experience.
If fighting “addiction” is fighting a “high” experience, we need to do one of the two things (or both):
(1) Reduce the “high” experience, at least link the “high” with the “low”. This cannot be achieved by punishment alone, as we have learned so far. The reason is a simple one. After habituated, getting “high” is not a logical process; it is an automatic response that deny rationality of choice. (That is why the Internet craze is so bad on our students. They cannot concentrate without checking their text every second. For executives, it is the e-mail.) The only hope we have is perhaps to link “high” with “low” experience sufficient to rid people of bad habits. Many people get out of alcohol because of the morning after hangover. With technology today, we can induce the same reaction when people drink or use drugs. (By making this proposal, I am not arguing for such drug reduction policy. There are other weighty issues involved, such as paternalism and privacy. However, I am offering up a workable solution, if society so chooses. )
(2) Substitute the “high” experience (with harmful consequences) with other equally “high” experience. (with little consequences). I once posed the question that few can give me an answer. If smoking (illegal) marihuana give people high and drinking (legal) beer get people high, why do people still the first, and not the second. Inherent in the question is this idea – fight illegal drugs with legal drugs. While I am not so sure that all drug users will shit to using alcohol as a substitute goods, overnight, but I am dead sure that with enough education people will use legal drugs instead of illegal one, at least in the margin. That way, we still have a drug problem, but it is of a lesser magnitude, by health effect (doubtful) or social costs (most certainly, reduce demand on illegal drugs, generate tax etc.)
(3) Sight people from physical “high” to mental (spiritual, psychological) “high”. This is by far the best and most effective way to get people from addiction. Empirically, people who are happy until themselves – mentally ‘high” – have no need for drugs. In our society (US) we do not educate people to understand the two kinds of high end/high grade “high” (e.g., spirituality, achievements) and low end/low grade high (e.g., sex, drugs, gambling). This possibly is the better way to do to get ride of destructive addictions of all kinds, from drugs to media attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)