Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2015

Hope he sizzles well

Posted in Uncategorized on March 29, 2015| Leave a Comment »

I don’t like to rain on anyone’s funeral parade, but am I the only person in Hong Kong who thinks the posthumous adulation of Lee Kwan Yew is grossly excessive?

We are, since great antiquity, urged to say of the dead nihil nisi bonum. A pleasing convention. Also the passage of time lends a certain patina to the great figures of our youth, even if they were not particularly popular at the time. Most English people now look back in sorrow rather than anger at Harold Wilson, for example. Aged rabble rousers like Tony Benn are treated as national monuments as they enter their dotage, and earn praise from surprising quarters when they finally pop their clogs.  Longevity itself commands respect, so that people who have never liked a Cliff Richard song still concede that the lad has had an extraordinary career.

Having said which, I do not recall Mr Lee as one of the great figures of my youth. In fact from a safe distance, and seen through the sort of independent media he did not allow in Singapore, he appeared as an obnoxious little despot, bullying those he could bully and fawning on those he could not. Appreciation of his successive electoral successes was diminished by the amount of cheating and fixing going on. A slightly loony air was added to the story by warnings about chewing gum, tourists being refused admission if their hairstyles were unconventional, and scientifically illiterate concerns that the stupid were breeding more quickly than the intelligent. I do not know if it was ever true that you could be jailed for failing to flush the loo in Singapore, but it is significant that this was widely believed.

It is interesting that Mr Lee inspired so much praise, even when he was alive, from other political leaders, but this is a symptom of a phenomenom first identified, I think, by Conor Cruise O’Brien. He observed that over every gathering of international leaders hovers the odour of an Orwellian pigsty, and that the pigs have an instinctive fellow feeling for each other based on their shared love of power, however obtained. Mr Lee was, of course, not much more than a puffed-up Mayor by international standards, but he made up for this by virtually achieving power for life.

In some ways he reminds of those Renaissance princes who ruled Italian cities and followed the principle enunciated by Machiavelli that it is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved. Success is getting safely into your grave without being overthrown or invaded, with bonus marks for passing the job on to your eldest son.  Mr Lee would perhaps not mind being compared to Lorenzo the Magnificent. But where are the artistic masterpieces?

Mr Lee’s economic achievements seem a bit oversold. Other Asian entities managed to combine dramatic growth with a measure of civilisation and even democracy. He can be credited, perhaps, as an early observer of the fact that if you want foreign investment the easiest way is to provide international business with what it likes in a foreign country: a functioning phone system and a workforce with no rights.

The idea that Singapore is now a first-world country holds up if you look at per capita GDP. If you look at living standards it doesn’t. I read an interesting piece of research the other day by a Singaporean writer comparing his country with Norway, which happens to be similar in population, GDP, and the size of its sovereign wealth fund. He found that 80 per cent of Singapore’s population earned less than a cleaner on the statutory minimum wage in Norway. The Singapore people paid more in tax and compulsory savings than the Norwegian street sweeper, and got less for it. In Norway, to start with, education and health care are free.

Singapore does, on the other hand, have a surprisingly large number of millionaires. It’s a paradise if you’re rich, but most of the population isn’t. The fact that the Lee family is on the up-market side of the distribution makes it less acceptable, in my view.

I realise that some of the adulation now being bestowed on Mr Lee’s ghost comes from people who would like to recruit him as an early supporter of the view that Chinese people were so traumatized by four centuries of being ruled by foreign emperors that they have neither the ability nor the wish to rule themselves. If a Western person said this it would be an example of prejudice and discrimination. If a Chinese person says it then it’s a legitimate yearning for strong government. This is the political counterpart of those sexual tastes which run to leather straps, chains and whips. And in both instances, the enthusiast envisages himself as the one with the whip.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Strange fruit of academic thought

Posted in Uncategorized on March 19, 2015| Leave a Comment »

I find these days that the only part of the SCMPost with thoughtful and provocative writing on it is the back page of the Business section. But this week has seen a little epidemic of writers shooting themselves in the foot. First we had the former banker explaining that there was no need to worry about banks employing the offspring of their rich customers, because these rich kids did not have the pathological levels of greed necessary to succeed in the industry.  Consequently they would not reach positions of power. Very reassuring.

Then there was the lady who complained of the “parasites” who bought into index or tracker funds because they were too cheapskate to pay for the “research and analysis” needed to run a proper investment trust. Leaving aside the oddity of anyone in the financial industry accusing other people of parasitism, this seemed a perverse interpretation of what people were doing. After all someone who decides to invest in a tracker fund may not be a cheapskate at all. He may just be an alert investor who has read “A random walk down Wall Street,” “The Black Swan” and the relevant works of Michael Lewis. He is aware of the copious amount of research indicating that the “research and analysis” does not produce any worthwhile information on the future movement of prices, and that actively traded funds regularly and predictably produce worse returns than the simple index-following ones. Oddly enough the Post’s leader writer was making exactly this point on Thursday.

These offerings were just the warm-up for Wednesday’s effort, alluringly leadlined “Parallels with the Klan”, and decorated with an ancient picture of a Ku Klux Klan meeting. This piece started with eight reasonable paragraphs about the problems presented by mainland shoppers, parallel traders etc. and the possible solutions. At this point we are more than half way through the article and the Klan has not yet been mentioned. In the ninth paragraph we are told that parallel trading has had another “local impact”. Some members of radical groups “behave as hooligans under the guise of populist politics to protest against the traders.”  Well hooligans is a bit strong for what is after all verbal abuse, however obnoxious that may be, but let us continue. “Some features of their behaviour bear resemblance to other organisations in history that were motivated by political ideology. The best researched in modern times is the Ku Klux Klan, which was examined by economist Steven Levitt in Freakonomics.”

Now this is hogwash. The Klan is not the best researched organisation in history motivated by political ideology, a questionable honour which probably belongs to the Communist movement in its various manifestations, with the Nazi party and its off-shoots a close second. Freakonomics is a good book, but it covers a variety of topics; only one chapter is on the Klan. Our author summarises this chapter in his next five paragraphs but it is clearly dishonest to claim that he picked the Klan because of its international historic status. He picked it because it was handy and disreputable: a good stick with which to beat a group he disapproves of. And are we told what are the features which the Klan has in common with the unnamed hooligans opposed to parallel trading? No we are not. All we get is the limp conclusion that “the Hong Kong public should also be better informed about the myths and truths behind … local groups that advocate extremist ideologies.” No details are supplied of the extremist ideologies involved in protesting against crowds of tourists. No group is named, no ideology outlined, nobody is quoted. Prejudice floats free from any contact with evidence or reality.

After reading this offering one can only weep for the trees which were sacrificed to put this poisonous piece of propaganda on local breakfast tables. After all no local political organisation is in the same class as the Klan, which used to be anonymous and homicidal. They used to lynch people, for heaven’s sake. Odious comparisons can be offered about anyone if no evidence is required. Is the Voice of Loving Hong Kong like the SA? Is the Special Branch like the NKVD? Is the government information coordinator like Dr Goebbels? This sort of thing does not get us anywhere.

The only comfort I can draw from this sorry mess is that it was not perpetrated by a journalist. The author was one Richard Wong, who is described in the usual endnote as “Philip Wong Kennedy Wong Professor in Political Economy at the University of Hong Kong”.  He’s a teacher? Words fail me.

Read Full Post »

Dostoyevsky recruited

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , on March 9, 2015| Leave a Comment »

A touch of class from Alex Lo on Saturday. Mr Lo has appointed himself the posthumous spokesman of the Russian novelist Feodor Dostoyevsky, a literary star who died in 1881. Mr Lo’s latest effort started like this: “Study and politics don’t mix. That’s why Dostoyevsky recommends in Crime and Punishment that young university students should focus on their school work before trying to change the world”.

This makes a nice change from the usual run of local quote sources, but is open to several objections. There is some danger in supposing that anything written in a novel is intended to be a general statement of the author’s opinion. Novels are fiction. We should also note that being a great author is frequently compatible with holding ludicrous opinions on everyday matters, or indeed on others. Tolstoy was a religious nut. Conan Doyle believed in fairies. So it goes.

We must note also that while this may have been Dostoyevsky’s opinion he did not follow it very closely himself. He was still in his 20s when he was arrested for membership of a secret literary circle. What happens next illustrates why Dostoyevsky’s opinion on the matter should perhaps be taken in its historical context: along with several other members he was sentenced to death. The execution by firing squad was interrupted by the arrival of a reprieve from the Tsar, but it was replaced with ten years in Siberia. Dostoyevsky lived in a place and time when trying to change the world was a dangerous game. It involved confronting a despotic regime with a large secret police force. Penalties for subversive activities included death, and in response the subversive activities tended to drift into assassination plots. No other means of political expression were available. Clearly under the circumstances Dostoyevsky’s advice, if that was what he intended, was good. Politics was a game for adults, and perhaps not even for them. No doubt he wished he had followed his own advice. But that hardly justifies us in supposing that this principle should apply in Hong Kong, where the general population is entitled and expected to participate in public life and is often urged to do so. Dostoyevsky’s father was murdered by his own serfs. Times have changed.

The idea that study and protest do not mix has other supporters. Indeed shorn of its exotic association with unreadable novels it is a banal and boring observation which has been thrown at many students. In 1968, when a lot of protesting was going on and my appearance indicated fairly strongly, and accurately, that I was some kind of student, I was occasionally accosted in the street by complete strangers who wished to make the same point. So the implications of the idea were from time to time considered by many of us.

I noted that the “study and protest do not mix” line did not stem from a desire to see students spend their time in productive study, because other activities which also tempted us from our books never provoked the same response. Many of us, for example, drank in pubs. A few pubs refused to serve students, or refused to serve people with my kind of hair, but in none of them were we ever upbraided for neglecting our studies to slake our thirst. At the educational antique where I did my first degree the timetable was designed with a hole in it in the afternoon so that students were not impeded from the pursuit of a healthy body in which to cherish their healthy minds. This meant that you could, and I did, spend every afternoon rowing for six days a week. There was a rule – no doubt a religious relic – against rowing on Sundays. But on Sunday you could still sail in the winter and punt in the summer. So I spent a lot of time conspicuously floating up and down various rivers, and the odd canal. At no time did any of the numerous observers looking on from banks or bridges complain that we were floating when we should have been studying.

Indeed it seemed that objections to student politics were highly selective. People only objected to protests that they disagreed with. There were no complaints about students participating in elections on the teams of one of the major parties, for example. People who objected to demonstrations in favour of X were against X. Those who objected to protests against Y were in favour of Y. Sure enough, a complete stranger to Mr Lo’s past writings would discover, having got past Dostoyevsky to the local stuff, that he is still complaining about Occupy Central. And would, I fear, not be surprised.

Still, let us try to cheer him up on one point, which is his concern that “some [young people] end up joining movements or doing things they regret later or which mark them for life.” Well of course people sometimes change their minds as they get older, usually in a more conservative direction. There are numerous versions of a quotation, usually attributed to Clemenceau, to the effect that any man who is going to amount to anything is an anarchist at the age of 20 and a conservative at the age of 40. It must also be true that many young people do things which they regret later, usually I suspect on the amorous rather than the political front. More common, I think, is the discovery that living a full adult life does not leave much time for the changing of the world, and casting the occasional ballot is enough to discharge one’s obligations in that direction. My career as a student troublemaker lasted about 10 years (I started while still at school) from 1962 (Cuba missile crisis) to 1972 (arcane dispute about staffing in the English Department at the University of Lancaster). The intervening period was mostly occupied by the Vietnam War, though I remember Union Secretaries being instructed to write to all sorts of people – Idi Amin … Fidel Castro … Nicolae Ceausescu – about a wide variety of topics. These letters never seemed to produce replies. People may have changed their minds about some of the major issues. But I do not think they now look back and regard their positions as shameful. The Cuba crisis has had a goodish press lately, but it was not repeated, a fact which tells you something. The Vietnam War would not have ended differently if it had been warmly supported in the UK, or for that matter if the UK had joined in. If you are going to lose there is something to be said for losing quickly.

But after all politics is a rather small part of life. Anyone who is agonised by the opinions of his youth can perhaps be said to need a sense of proportion. Joining movements is more of a potential problem. I did wonder about people who joined the Communist Party while they were students, because there was something cultish about it. You weren’t exactly brainwashed but it became such a major part of your life that it was hard to leave. I subscribed for a while to a subversive (not Communist) publication whose offices were regularly burgled. Nothing valuable was taken; the management supposed that it was just the Special Branch updating its list of subscribers. I know at least one person who suspected he was denied a job on the government payroll because he was on the resulting black list, but you never know and they don’t tell you. Anyway all of the former playmates with whom I am still in touch managed to have normal careers and seem to look back without anger on their student activist phase. Two former sparring partners are still enthusiastic disciples of Trotsky, or one of that crowd, but I never got that far left.

Now defenders of Mr Lo may well object at this point that in some ways my experience is as alien from contemporary Hong Kong as Dostoyevsky’s. Nobody is going to face a firing squad here. But in my English youth there was no such thing as a certificate of no criminal conviction (there is now, but it’s aimed as sex offenders, not rabble rousers) and there was no mechanism for systematically victimising critics of the government. Indeed two of my more conspicuous rebellious contemporaries (Peter Hain and Jack Straw) eventually became part of a Labour Government. I never met Mr Hain. I saw quite a lot of Mr Straw, who inspired the prophetic suspicion that he might be for sale. Now as far as the usual criminal record nightmare is concerned (entry to the United States and other desirable destinations) I believe it is usual for offences of a political nature to be overlooked. The question of future government employment is a different matter. It does seem increasingly true that aspirants to official employment are being subjected to some kind of test. It transpired last week that the new chairman of the Council of the University of Science of Technology is an enthusiastic supporter of Lufsig. Some people may well have thought by now that it would be surprising if he wasn’t.

I do not think this has percolated down to more humble levels yet, so that yesterday’s student leaders find tomorrow’s applications for starter posts in the civil service  are peremptorily rejected. But if that is what Mr Lo is afraid of he should say so. Certainly it calls for a response. But whether that response should be to urge students to keep their heads down is another matter. I would not dispute that students tend to be impatient, overconfident and overly ambitious in their long-term hopes. I expect I was too. But students are entitled to agitate about the long term, because in the long term they will be here and we won’t.

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »