Future Imperfect

Democracy sucks.

It's inefficient. There's too much red tape. Nothing ever gets done because people spend most of their time arguing. And since when do people know what's best for them.

No one really knows what's the best way to live life, solve social problems, or be happier. We voluntarily engage ourselves in painful romances, have dessert when we it will make us gain weight, watch TV all day even if we know it's bad for us. Of course someone else should decide for us. Someone who's an expert. There's no better candidate than an expert to run the country. Let's all utilize our comparative advantage. Why think about Social Policy and Taxes when my strength is in computer programming? You shouldn't vote if you don't know anything about politics, right? Let the other people decide. I want to live my life. I don't have time for this bullshit...

And so it goes.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

We neglect all too often the Human Condition. Consider the following scenario: at a tea-restaurant in Hong Kong, two middle-aged man are swearing at the democratic icons like Martin Lee and Audrey Yu and one of them remarks, "I barely make enough money to live on, how can I be caring about democracy? Can I live on democracy? These politicians are not acting on their consciences, but simply their own interest."

Hong Kong people think like these two middle-aged men because they've never felt danger. Not danger like Bird Flu and SARS. That's nature. We're not talking about nature. We're talking about People. The last time HongKongers were oppressed by another group in the human race was probably in WWII by the Japs. If you've lived life through an oppressive government, you'll value your freedom. You'll start to understand the value of democracy.

The difference between the Pro-Democrats in HK and the rest is that they have Foresight. They can see ahead; they notice the dirty dealings within the CCP. They note how these guys trade with oppressive governments (being one themselves), mass murderers in the name of profit and progress. The CCP probably does the same things, only under the table. That is why the clairvoyants want to protect themselves. They want to protect themselves with a system, and to protect that system with media exposure. We don't have that much time left. 40 years, and the clock's ticking. Before you know it, 2046 comes around and the "50 year" deal is up.

The two men like their status quo. They are resistant to change. It's human nature. They are also protected, optimistic, and tend to believe in the good side of things, people and governments. When something is beyond your intellectual capacity, you want to simplify it. They are short-sighted. Their subconscious cost-benefit analysis is constrained to the short run. If you control for variables, these people probably also tend to gamble, have a low savings rate, and don't have pension plans (if it isn't becoming mandatory).

I don't follow HK politics close enough to advocate democratic change on a pragmatic and policy level. However, I support democracy in theory, even if I don't know when or how it should be implemented. Some people argue that the negative effects of trying to get there outweigh the positive effects of getting there, and some others are even skeptical about there being any positive effects (or difference) at all.

Others cite a survey conducted by HKU, where Anson Chan is leads Regina Yip by 5% for approval rate. They treat this as the dichotomy between "universal suffrage for democractic development" and "relatively pro-beijing/government stance" routes for Hong Kong, trying to show that there is a great divergence among HK people over the issue of implementing Universal Suffrage.

The statistic don't actually say much. It's a number. It would be rash to conclude that it means the HK population is divergent on the OneManOneVote policy. By being so reductionist about politics and society, it's hard to generate meaningful discussion.

It reminds me of Jason's radio debate this summer: the girl on the opposition cited that a majority of Taiwanese people don't want to "return to China", therefore it shouldn't. Political systems have never been implemented democratically. They're implemented by whoever has to power to. The public then conforms to it. If we had good emperors running the country, the lives of people aren't that bad. So why did we abolish that system? Because it is NOT sustainable. The CCP seems to be running China well at the moment. How long has it been? Less than 30 years since China open its doors. And Mao sucked before that.

Have Foresight. Think ahead. Stop Global Warming.

Are you homophobic?

Just got back from Beijing yesterday where Blogger is blocked, and procrastinating packing for my flight that leaves in 8 hours, I stumbled on a blog that had the following:

12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Homosexuality isn't natural...much like polyester, eyeglasses, and birth control.

2. Hetero marriages are valid because they produce children....Obviously, elderly couples and infertile couples are not allowed to marry.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children... because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful...because Britney's 2-day just for fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Hetero marriage has been around for a long time and never changed...women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts...because the majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion....In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed upon the whole country.

8. Hanging around gay people will make you gay...just like hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will cause all sorts of crazy behavior....People may even want to marry their pets, since dogs have legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can't succeed without a male and a female at home.... That's why single parents are forbidden from raising children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society.... We could never adapt to new social norms, because we haven't adjusted to cars or longer life spans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits with a different name, are better... Because "separate but equal" is always constitutional. Separate schools for blacks worked just as well as seperate marriages will be for gays and lesbians.

It's rumored that Mainland Chinese are more open to homosexuality than people in Hong Kong (at least in the big cities), which I didn't get to witness, but I do wonder if it could be true.

I don't think I've ever seen two guys holdings hands in this supposedly "diverse" city. Will our crappy legislative system ever go the way the California and Massachusetts court have?

.533 isn't a girl's softball hitting percentage

Quite a lot of people in Hong Kong like to say that there is no need for the city to have Universal Suffrage. A typical argument runs like this: "Hong Kong's economy is growing just fine; why are we making such a big fuss when there aren't any problems?"

Tom Legg puts it nicely,

when the folks in Zhongnanhai screw up, the ones to be punished for the mistake are anybody but the folks in Zhongnanhai.

There's also the other tiny problem of increasing income inequality

The wealth gap between the rich and poor has widened further with the overall Gini coefficient, representing income disparity, at its highest since the figures were recorded. ...Last year the figure stood at a record high of 0.533, compared with 0.518 in 1996.

For comparison,

While most developed European nations tend to have Gini coefficients between 0.24 and 0.36, the United States Gini coefficient is above 0.4, indicating that the United States has greater inequality. Using the Gini can help quantify differences in welfare and compensation policies and philosophies. However it should be borne in mind that the Gini coefficient can be misleading when used to make political comparisons between large and small countries (see criticisms section).

Our new Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, says this:

Ceajer Chan, however, said last year's figure, with taxation and social benefits considered, had dropped to 0.475, taking it as an "indication for a reduction in the spread of income disparity."

While it may be true that disparity among the population's real income (after tax/benefits) is less than that of the gross income (before tax/benefits), that definitely does not infer automatically that income disparity has reduced.

The comparison of figures over the years (2006 being the highest since we started collecting data in 1971) would not have any siginificance unless calculated in the same manner, and I would hope to believe that the Census Department has considered gross income all along and not switch somewhere on the road.

Hong Kong's tax code hasn't changed dramatically in recent years (to my knowledge), so it seems ludicrous for Ceajer to claim such a thing. No wonder all the legislators launched fire at him after the assertion.

So is this really a problem for Hong Kong? Let's look at the data:

For individual workers, the median monthly income for the two lowest groups, or the poorest 20 percent of Hong Kongers, fell by 12.5 percent to HK$3,500.

That translates to almost 1,400,000 people whose income fell in the past year.

We believe in a free market and free trade because we believe that economics is not a zero-sum game. Some people can fare better without making anyone else worse off. That's the cornerstone of trusting in a free economy. I'm fine with rich people getting richer as long as the poor people aren't getting poorer, but it looks like they are.

The hope that hard work will eventually get us somewhere (Hong Kong's "American Dream) only survives when the belief is true. Don't screw it up, government. And don't just tell me it's a short-run thing and sit back. It's the worst we've got for 37 years. Do something about it.

Marching for Democracy

Two days ago, I took part (for the first time) in Hong Kong's July 1 Marches.

I believe this is the first time that I actively exercised my civic right to gather, to protest, to express a wish to the government. In 1989 when I was barely 4, I went with my parents to protest against the inhumane measures by the CCP in the Tiananmen Massacre ("Incident"). Now that I'm almost 22, I'm proud to declare a longing for democracy at home, and a will to act on it.

The Economist saw this coming:

Hong Kong would be a good place to try an alternative way of dealing with dissent. On Sunday, after the fireworks have fizzled and China's and Hong Kong's leaders have told each other how well they are doing, tens of thousands of Hong Kongers will take to the streets to demand their democratic rights. It is fair to predict that they will do so without violence and with considerable good humour. They should be cheered on by everybody who wishes China well.

"Rally turnout highest for 3 years," say organiser. But not many of my friends at home participated in this march. It wouldn't be far from the truth to say that most of them believe Hong Kong isn't yet ready for democracy. I don't blame them; my family and I would agree. Most people are indifferent to politics until it infringes upon their profits and interests.

What then is my rationale for marching? I believe in substantiating a public voice, the voice that Democracy (universal suffrage) is crucial and inevitable. A simple and powerful reason.

Many people may disagree on when to implement full democracy in Hong Kong, but almost no one would claim that it is unnecessary. This is mainly driven by the fear that CCP's promise of "One Country, Two Systems" will expire in 2047 and drive us from our "undemocratic but free" society towards an "undemocratic and unfree" land.

The CCP's dictatorship will not be contested in Mainland China until it causes widespread hardship and a significant portion of the population is educated. Like in Hong Kong, economic prosperity (or progress) manages to keep a lot of people content and passive.

Although the current government succeeds in maintaining a vibrant economy, our leaders are not chosen by the people. They are appointed by the CCP in a faux democratic manner, resulting in a system that can screw up really bad without an insurance policy. Perhaps the people in the Politburo don't believe in "shock therapy", in that case I'd really like to hear how the "gradualism" plan is like. It feels like the government is performing all sorts of trickery to delay that process.

Hong Kong may not yet be fully mature for democracy, but without taking that first step, it never will be.

Check out these photos, they awakened my social conscience.

The Pigeon Among the Cats

It's peculiar how homecoming can be such a novel experience, when familiar sights seem strange and memory of the foreign familiar.

I've been studying abroad for 5 years now, and although I have been returning to my home city regularly, it pains me to admit that the concept of home is now foreign. This has been particularly true in the past year, when junior year schoolwork and campus job duties occupy almost the entirety of my time. I used to be able to allocate time to reflect, write, and connect with friends back home and around the world, but at a mysterious point in time, it ceased.

The how is simple enough: procrastination, or with slightly more novelty, mismanagement. The when is difficult to pinpoint. As for the why... as the Bard would say, therein lies the rub.

I have a theory.

Getting away from home prevented me from stepping into the Chinese mold I was brainwashed to prepare for. I was exposed to a myriad of issues, subjects, and interests that opened my eyes to the rich library of knowledge and questions around me. Five years ago, I was a young, innocent and admittedly naive and ignorant idealist. I imagined (much like John Lennon) that problems had solutions, the world was scientific and every question leads to an answer; it's easy if you try. Right.

I learned. Slowly.

Fun in early high school years came at a cost I hoped I was able to rectify. I realized that I have an insatiable curiosity, a trait certain to be the root of my "ADD". I discovered my nascent self. I am fascinated by aesthetics, intrigued by theories, and troubled by social issues. I also grew confused. I stumbled into grey areas, wandered aimlessly through spectrums, and got lost in moral striations.

While I circled in marshy waters, my friends at home marched ahead in their paths. When they clearly separated work (an intellectual endeavor) and play (a entertaining pursuit), I attempted to merge intellect with entertainment. At home, I switch back and forth from this new role and the old, trying foolishly to relive my 16-year-old years whilst moving forward. I have become the pigeon among the cats.

I led myself into a frenzied state of paralysis. Insecure, different, and lost. I'm a pink ice statue in a corridor of scurrying commuters, frozen in memory. Peering through the frost, I recognize, but never correct my defects. Where is that helpful passerby with the expertise? Or must I break the ice myself and start anew?

A Stroll in my Backyard

I last blogged in November. It's been so long.

I'm finally back home in Hong Kong and Andy's here to visit. Today we walked first from Causeway Bay to the Golden Bauhinia Plaza in Wanchai, and then roamed on foot from Central to Sai Wan via the Central-Mid-Levels escalators. The trudge took about 3 hours, but was a fruitful sociological voyage with some quality photos as proof.

It's a Sunday and Father's Day so it was more crowded than usual on the streets, but a special thing about Sundays in Hong Kong is the sudden appearance of a large Domestic Helper population. The group is overwhelmingly foreign and female, consisting mainly of Filipinas but with increasing numbers of Indonesians and Thais. On their day off, they pour out onto the streets to form their once-a-week community, conglomerating at the city's scarce public spaces, seeping into the nooks and crannies of Hong Kong's financial district, the place where their congregation causes the least nuisance.

The world-renowned HSBC bank design by Norman Foster includes a ground floor plaza open to public even when the bank is closed (a concept I took note of in my studio project). Consequently, the entire space is neatly populated every Sunday without fail, yet leaving ample pedestrian space for people like us to pass through. It's almost a sociological exhibition to stroll around Central on a Sunday.

The plaza space is theoretically lightened up by mirrors that direct sunlight through a giant atrium space, but I don't think I've ever seen it work very well. The idea seems similar to Solatube, a natural lighting solution for interiors that have few windows, but the latter seems more successful in its execution. Granted though, it is limited to structures that have a roof, not a privilege shared by many Hong Kong spaces.

As we moved further away from the glass and steel of the commercial district, we progressed from lumps of high-rises sprinkled with old buildings to conglomerates of tenement housing speckled with tall ugly beasts. The two extremes of Hong Kong architecture depict the severe and ongoing problem of income disparity in the city. Nonetheles, most HK people are lucky (relative to the world); most of them have a home, a job and enough to live on despite the minimal amount of social security support from the government.

Other urban problems persist. The lack of open/public/green space is a big issue that is difficult to tackle. Land is gold in this city. 7 million people occupy 1000 square kilometers, with three-quarters of that land actually being the country parks. Green oases are a breathing relief in this wonderful but suffocating concrete mess, but their future is bleak while the government envisions 10 million people to live in this city. That said, green parks or public plazas are rarely found and if so, only utilized by the elderly. The younger public clusters in air-conditioned malls (perhaps rightly so in the hot and humid weather), subconsciously engaging in conspicuous consumption.

This theory of leisure is shaped in large part by structural factors that are controlled disproportionately by politics and economics. You need a committed, charismatic and insistent political leader to fix this externality. Or instill a Pigovian subsidy for architectural designs that provide widely accessible open/green spaces. The sky is still visible, yet the concrete plague advances slowly but surely.

Perhaps we need to begin to follow in Chicago's footsteps.

(Not) All photos courtesy of Andy Chen.