You can't handle the truth; China CAN!

“You can't handle the truth."

        Colonel Nathan in “A Few Good Man”

如果你不能夠承受真相，就不要問。當今的中國，有計﹗

2009年底一宗群眾事件，雲南省委宣傳部副部長伍皓把全國的眼球吸引到雲南。伍皓主動上網答覆網民，省委宣傳部更下發了一個通知，禁止給群眾貼上一向慣用的“不明真相”“別有用心”等標籤。類似的詞在香港七一的時候，我們都聽過。

這些辭彙給人官本位的感覺，視群眾為矛盾(希望仍然是人民內部矛盾吧)﹗。雲南省委宣傳部進一步透過建立網絡新聞發言人和媒體義務監督員等舉措，伍皓又以宣傳部官員的身份，施行“新聞新政”，嘗試推動黨和政府的信息公開與透明讚。這些努力結果如何﹖先看看這宗群眾事件的來龍去脈。

二零零九年八月二十六日，雲南省陸良縣一煤礦在施工過程中與當地村民群眾發生衝突，八名村民、三名煤礦企業員工和七名公安警在衝突中受傷住院，十一輛警車被毀。事件發生後，縣委、縣政府立即啟動突發事件應急預案，處理村民問題。群眾提出的問題中，大部份得到解決。針對群眾要求每人每月補償六百元生活補助和每株莊稼五元賠償的訴求，

內地評論指陸良案例”也許會成為政府應付群體性事件的教材案例。

以民為本的執政理念，轉變了政府在處置群體性事件的慣性思維，但問題是人高皇帝遠的地方政府會否執行從來都是中國政府的結。主觀希望中國政府在處理，群眾事件會認同群眾的大部分訴求都是合理。

回說因事件”曝”得大名的伍皓，今年四月廿二日在北京人民大學演講時被學生扔總值三十大元的五毛錢紙幣。中國的進步總令人有追不上的感，這次事件，令我再次感到中國真的強大了，不是因為了國庫多了美債﹑日債，而是連我國都有Spin Doctor和敢說不的類社民連的大學生。國家真的變了。

(RTHK 07 Oct 2010/ Singtao)

Greed is Good

If Hong Kong were able to hold a referendum on the HK Basic Law,, Article 5 would be passed straight away and unanimously. Recent debates on whether Hong Kong society at large hates the wealthy (e.g. land developers) and powerful (e.g. senior officials) and the values of the late 80s, as well as the so-called “Central Value (Chungwan)”, are off the mark and out of focus. People have alleged that such debates were the result of the League of Social Democrats (LSD) and other fledgling streams of leftist ideas. Both the observation and the analysis are inaccurate. First, the LSD does not have the clout to direct such trends. Second, HK people at large are still emotionally attached to capitalist ideas and the free market. So what do we actually care about?


Capitalist System and Way of Life

Article 5 of the HK Basic Law provides that the capitalist system and the way of life shall remain unchanged. What is capitalism? Or, what is NOT capitalism? When one particular group of economic elites gain crucial advantages, become too successful, and begin to collude with one another instead of competing, capitalism can easily turn into corporatism, or to use a more progressive term, cronyism, or should we wish to use neo-Marxist terminology, hegemony. No one doubts that HK is heading in such a direction. The corporatist setting has been manifested in the parochial installation of a functional constituency in LEGCO. Cronyism has seemingly been evident in the administration’s affirmative action on pedigree in statutory committee appointments. Hegemony has been seen everywhere, even without walking into PARK’N Shop, Watsons and other stores…. Corporatism, cronyism and hegemony are not capitalism. Likewise, unbridled capitalism is not capitalism per se. The free market, fair competition, and, more importantly, an impartial and bipartisan administration that regulates commercial activities, are the real essence of capitalism.


Regulatory Regime

Article 5 of the Basic Law also states that “Hong Kong maintains a free and open market economy with a free flow of capital, goods, intangible assets, and a freely convertible currency. People's lifestyle remains the same as before.” Gordon Gekko said “greed is good. Greed breeds energy, power and love and it progresses human development”. I would say, “the free market of Ideas and capital brings the entrepreneurship of opinions and the betterment of livelihood.” HK people, including the pseudo-socialists, readily accept that the market system is the best mechanism devised for creating wealth and innovation, and thus, have never thought of rolling back capitalism. Moreover, I trust that the Hon. Wong Yuk-man of the LSD would also concur. At the other end of the spectrum, in his 1859 essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that free speech is crucial to the pursuit of truth, because discussion of different opinions serves to challenge and clarify beliefs. As in an economic free market, competition gives rise to challenges to the status quo and breeds innovation. What the state should do is to regulate the market for the sake of fair competition and avoiding monopoly, to legislate against selling goods that are unsafe or non-compliant, and to legislate against goods-related assertions or manifestations by words or conduct that do not accord with the facts. An efficient, effective and responsible regulatory regime would also ban insider trading in the market. Hong Kong people do not expect the state to be a “nanny state” that takes over aspects of our private lives such as by helping those cannot afford to purchase property and to set up a family, or by banning chewing gum and fellatio.

We don’t hate the rich and the powerful; rather, if hatred exists, unbridled capitalism, cronyism, corporatism and hegemony are the real targets.

(SCMP 07 October 2010)

《哈佛看中國———經濟與社會卷》

坦白說，買《哈佛看中國———經濟與社會卷》一書，心裏確實有點不踏實。不踏實在於看一班遠在美國西岸在象牙塔幹研究的書生論政，當然在下都算是「掹車邊」的讀書人，仍總是有「一日學識胡兒語、站在城頭罵漢人」之感。

讀這本書之前，總想哈佛大學之名如雷貫耳，Jeffery Saich教授當年為後蘇聯的俄羅斯經濟開出「大震盪」一劑猛藥，會否和此書各位專家學者一樣呢？答案是：否。看完這本書，你可能發覺他們比我們中國人，更關注中國的經濟與社會的整體發展。

與 JeffreySaich的「大震盪」藥方不同，哈佛大學研究中國經濟與社會的學者，似乎更相信通過政府解決經濟和社會問題。譬如︰珀金斯教授認為中國城市化的水平仍然稍為偏低，是因為人為控制的戶口制度問題，要長遠解決、減輕貧富差距的問題要通過累進稅制再分配收入。當然這個政策，內地新左派甚或非新左派的經濟學家都已經提過，不過關鍵是珀金斯教授是老外且是哈大教授！

分析內地社會經濟發展

反而屬於中國研究較為權威的懷默霆教授，就沒有其他經濟學教授、社會政策的研究者來的悲天憫人、走在社會的前綫了。可能因為本身是社會學家，懷教授看中國有幾分宿命主義、又有幾分相對主義。他說中國連續三十年取得百分之九點八的經濟增長，成功避過了重複蘇聯的命運，表明沒有「放諸四海皆準的發展體系」，又指市場化改革把農民二解放，生活只會更好。天呀，這個懷教授……「壞」書生曾經寫過文革有好東西，好在讓無產階級-工人、農民充權。好一個充權，在下就衝擊一下你這個壞「鬼」書生。

其他的經濟、金融專家，拯救了我對哈佛大學預期的失調。哈佛商學院副院長談中國的空氣、水源問題、血汗工廠，世界銀行中國代表處首席代表談社會穩定、公共健康、犯罪控制來實現經濟的均衡發展。

讀畢這本書，誰敢再說「逢商都奸」！

星島日報 2010-09-29

摘自香港電台第一台《中國點點點》之「好書在手」環節，由Roundtable Pioneers成員介紹內地出版的書籍，從中帶出相關的中國國情與發展概況。節目逢周一至周五下午三時至四時半播出；「好書在手」環節逢周四播出。

Three Cheers for State Power

Three Cheers for State Power

With thunderous applause and loud cheers for the Beijing Olympic opening ceremony from all over the world, who can resist claiming honour as a Chinese? I doubt – not even for liberals who have been long time critics of CCP. Lam Hang-chi of the Hong Kong Economic Journal, for instance, could not deny the event as a recognition of wealth and ability of the State.
The glamorous demonstration of state power by our central government last Friday is highly instrumental. Thirty years ago, when the communist state was rusty and weary, Deng Xiaoping vowed to modernize the nation in four aspects. Thirty years later, with the golden opportunity to host an international event, it was hoped that 8888, supposingly the luckiest time in the era for Chinese, could mark the watershed success point in recent history. The immediate effect of the 4-hour show is encouraging – noises of ‘wow’ on the growing capacity of PRC as a party state, rallying peoples under the five stars flag, are rampant. Everyone’s eyebrows were raised about how far the state has reached.
In a confident democracy, a deliberate demonstration of state power is not common. The French military parade on the Elysees Avenue every 14th July might be an exception. The need is obvious. With 4 regimes after Napoleon yet no single victory in any war, it is not difficult to imagine the insecurity of the French.
The price to legitimize an authoritarian state is even higher. All the stools have to be managed. Yet, those who seek to please everybody please nobody. The recent implementation of the labour contract law was meant to be an honest broker between the evil capitalists and the vulnerable proletariats. While the pseudo “socialist” state attempted to delude itself and its subjects that it strived for the moral high ground to protect its workers, neither the employers nor the employees perceived the same.
The last minute reversal of the decision to support the compromise deal of import surge thresholds also reflected the paranoia. When it endeavored to use 15,000 performers to showcase the nation’s ancient history and its rise as a modern power, it did not have the courage to go for the long-expected Doha arrangement at the last moment – just because it could not take the risk of offending its 900 million of peasants. It was a declimax to the assertion of state power but it was still a calculated fair deal.
A Leviathan government can never walk side by side with a free society. However obscure, China has the most powerful bureaucracy in the world. No doubt, it can serve its people’s interest by satisfying their vanity with a perfect ceremony. At the other end, until 30 July 2008, it defied the spirit of fearless advocacy making lawyers liable to their statements in court, and also the right of the detained accused to privacy with their legal representatives. The sarcasm intensified when the omnipotent central state sought to set the wrong right by legislative amendment - granting lawyer’s immunity in court and accused the right to meet lawyers free from procuratorat surveillance – with the disapproval of the local criminal justice organs who refused to honour the amendment.
It is the obsession of state power that an atomic bomb and a hydrogen bomb are desired so much. General Chen Yi once said, “We prefer a nucleon (‘hezi’) to a pair of pants (‘kuzi’)”. This is one of the many experiences that Chinese have been preached by someone from the top that we should ‘stand up’ as if we were invertebrate.
Pundits put the phenomenon down to a cultural cause – the so-called ‘cultural institutionalism’ in the language of political scientists. Culture determines institutional choice. The late Li Shenzhi, Deng Xiaoping’s English secretary and Associate Director of the Chinese Social Sciences Academy, observed Chinese history to be a history of dictatorship. An Australian Historian, W.J.F. Jenner, in ‘The Tyranny of History: The Roots of China's Crisis’, attributed the root of China’s crisis to the Chinese populists’ obsession in state power. Whenever crisis arises, power centralization is always the answer. It works like a panacea to all the problems. A strong unitary state has long been taken as the icon of stability and prosperity amongst Chinese subjects (‘zimin’). Similarly, formidable military buildup and the successful hosting of an international event watched by millions acrossed the planet are viewed as tokens of ‘Strong Army, Rich Nation’.
Everyone is a patriot these days. One would for sure be proud of Director Zhang Yimou and his team for the incredible opening performance. One would be ecstatic if Yao Ming dunks on Kobe Bryant. The question is, putting this August aside, would one feel happier if the State respected workers’ rights by recognizing free labour unions, honoured right of the accused, and protected farmers from exploitation? Should this evolve from wishful thinking, the spontaneous applause filled in the air would definitely be accompanied by long-term appreciation, respect and trust.