Why HK, China must end the protest well

BLOOMBERG
OCTOBER 3, 2014
The protests that have rocked Hong Kong for the past week have sparked
understandable fears of a Tiananmen-style crackdown. The more likely worst-case
scenario is that the unrest will peter out, having done nothing to ease peoples
many frustrations with their government. Both sides would be wise to work towards a
better ending.
While Hong Kong officials and their superiors in Beijing want to get the Umbrella
Revolution off the worlds TV screens, protesters must know that time is not on their
side.
Large crowds were expected on Wednesday and last night, both holidays in China.
However, many demonstrators will inevitably drift back to their offices and
universities, and sympathy for the idealistic young core of protesters will be
replaced by frustration with blocked roads and lost sales.
EASING FRUSTRATIONS OF the PEOPLE
The authorities, for their part, should not think it will be enough to simply wait out the
demonstrators. The tens of thousands of Hong Kongers who have flooded the
streets are expressing anger not only at Chinas decision to restrict candidates for
the citys top political post in 2017.
They are driven also by frustrations over soaring inequality, unaffordable housing
and a general sense that the local administration caters to the citys tycoons rather
than its struggling middle class.
A government that disregards these concerns will find its legitimacy under constant
challenge.
At home, ironically, the Chinese regime seems to understand this perfectly well.
In recent years, Chinese leaders have sought to peacefully resolve most of the
estimated 180,000 mass incidents (demonstrations involving more than 500
people) that take place on the mainland every year.

In most of these cases, of course, the protests have to do with local grievances and
the ill deeds of petty officials. By showing themselves to be responsive, the higherlevel authorities have enhanced the legitimacy and popularity of the Communist
Party and central government.
In Hong Kong, in contrast, the activists are challenging decisions made by top
Chinese leadership, in full view of the world.
Chinas President Xi Jinping seems less inclined than his predecessors
to pacifysuch opposition. He has made it clear that he believes a tougher leader
a real man, in his phrase might have been able to prevent the collapse of the
Soviet Union.
And Mr Xi has displayed no tolerance for criticism whether from microbloggers or
constitutional lawyers and professors.
Still, even if the party never admits its mistakes, it often tries to correct them.
In Hong Kong, a huge march in 2003 prompted the authorities to withdraw
adraconian security law. In 2012, protests pushed the government to roll
back plans to introduce pro-China patriotic education to local schools.
Mr Xi, who took power soon afterwards, reportedly disagreed with the latter decision.
However, he has not publicly ruled out replacing Hong Kongs Chief Executive Leung
Chun-ying, who is a focus of protesters ire.
Although that may not happen for a while, officials could find other ways to ease
public frustration.
At the least, Mr Leungs administration could commission an independent
investigation into police use of tear gas and pepper spray over the weekend.
That action, more than anything else, infuriated ordinary Hong Kongers and the
government has every reason to show concern for the feelings of this moderate
majority.
Officials could also work harder to start a conversation on ways to improve the
electoral system after 2017, including by making the legislature fully elected and the

candidate-nominating committee more representative.

This falls far short of protesters demands, but would at least demonstrate some
degree of flexibility.
Mr Xi is unlikely to push any of these measures on his own.
However, the Hong Kong tycoons who recently met the Chinese President should
recognise that an uncompromising line will only fuel future tensions.
That will erode Hong Kongs still-critical reputation for stability and the rule of law
and further alienate the Taiwanese, who are growing more wary of Chinas
embrace.
The possibility should give the authorities in Hong Kong and Beijing alike reason to
see that the Umbrella Revolution ends well.
http://www.todayonline.com/chinaindia/china/why-hk-china-must-end-protest-well?
singlepage=true

Read and learn new words!

posted Jul 19, 2014, 9:57 AM by Mizz Abe

Putting on veil of ignorance for a just society

BY TEH HOOI LING
JULY 18, 2014
We live in a diverse world one that always has been, and always will be diverse. Today,
communities are made up of people with different cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs and
value systems.
How do we negotiate our differences so that everyone can live with respect and equality, and
is valued as individuals free to make informed and responsible choices about their lives?
Going with the majority is not always a wise approach. In ancient Rome, some Christians
were executed as common criminals some were fed to the lions in the Colosseum to much
delight and amusement of the crowd for refusing to revere the Roman gods.
If we were to live during ancient Roman times, no doubt we would want to be able to practise
a faith different from the majority, should we choose to, without being persecuted.

Minorities in all shapes and forms exists in our society, be they ethnic or religious minorities,
people who are physically or mentally challenged, homes with single or divorced parents,
sexual minorities.
Whether it is through circumstance or by choice, in a fair and inclusive society that Singapore
aspires to be, those who find themselves being the minority should not be made to
feel marginalised,discriminated against, or oppressed.
According everyone the right to live with respect and equality is not only the just and moral
thing to do, it is also a good thing to do because it increases the well-being of the entire
community. Nobody is better off in a feuding, fragmented society soaked in tension, in the
words of Magdelene Sim, in her letter Preserve common space or regress to a feuding
society to TODAY on July 12.
Numerous studies have shown that if a society is oppressive, or if there is a
big discrepancy between incomes, the people are on the whole less happy than those living
in an open, relaxed and equitablesociety.
One such study is by Dr Ed Diener, professor emeritus of psychology, and his colleagues at
the University of Illinois. Among other things, they found that people have higher life
evaluations when others in society also have their needs fulfilled. This indicates that
happiness is not only an individual affair, but depends on the quality of life in our community.
FORGING A JUST SOCIAL CONTRACT
How then do we ensure that we have an open, relaxed and equitable society? American
philosopher John Rawls proposed this moral framework. To ensure justice for all, the social
contract that governs our collective life should be arrived at under a veil of ignorance.
It is a mental exercise that requires us to come up with a social contract on the assumption
that we do not know our class or gender, our race or ethnicity or our religious convictions.
Neither do we know their advantages or disadvantages in life whether we are frail or
healthy, young or old, highly educated or a school drop-out, born to a supportive family or to
a broken family.
Under those conditions, as rational, self-interested persons, what kind of social contract
would we come up with?
We definitely would not choose to go with the majority rules, because we may end up as a
minority and get fed to the lions. We may not want to have a purely laissez-faire system
where there is no social welfare because we may be born with disability to a poor family.
Rawls believes two principles of justice would emerge from this exercise. The first provides
equal basic liberties for all, such as freedom to religion, freedom of thought, freedom to make
informed and responsible choices, freedom to love etc.

The second principle concerns social and economic equality, where inequality is permitted
only if it works to the advantage of the least-well-off members of the society. One example is,
we can pay doctors more than plumbers, if by doing so we attract more people to become
doctors so more poor people can get access to affordable healthcare.
Harvard law professor Michael Sandel, who presented this idea in his book, Justice: What is
the Right Thing To Do?, thinks Rawls proposal represents the most compelling case for a
more equal society that American political philosophy has yet to produce.
That, I think, would be an ideal approach to negotiate differences in all civilised societies,
Singapore included. After all, human beings aspire to happiness and shun suffering. We do
not want to be oppressed, neither do we want to see others oppressed. There is evidence to
suggest that one clear path towards happiness is through pro-social behaviours, for example,
voluntary behaviour to help ease the suffering of others and to bring happiness to them.
This ties in with the research mentioned above that says we are happier when others in our
community are happy.
As one of the greatest minds, Albert Einstein, puts it: But without deeper reflection, one
knows from daily life that one exists for other people first of all for those upon whose
smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many,
unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Teh Hooi Ling, a partner in a Singapore-based boutique fund management company, was an
award-winning investment columnist with The Business Times.
Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/putting-veil-ignorance-just-society?
singlepage=true

Read and learn new words!

posted Feb 13, 2014, 5:48 PM by Mizz Abe

Is Singapore truly multicultural?

NAZRY BAHRAWI
14 FEBRUARY 2014
The passing of cultural theorist Stuart Hall on Monday may not have garnered as much media
attention as that of the actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, but it is an event that
should prodSingaporeans to take stock.
Hall has been hailed as the godfather of multiculturalism, and Singapore has often prided itself

on being a good example of multiculturalism at work. Would Hall have agreed?

If Singapore epitomises multiculturalism, it is one with limited inclusivity. Our multiculturalism
ispremised on respecting differences that conform to neat categories of race and religion.
Yet human cultures are much more complex. First, not everyone professes race or religion as
his or her primary identity marker. Second, members of a certain racial or religious group will
have varied wants and behaviours, making it hard for anyone to speak on behalf of a community.
Given these, Singapores multiculturalism should not be seen as a national strength. In fact, it is
a trait unbecoming of a self-professed global city. If we wish to stay sustainable, then we need
to rethink our monolithic multiculturalism.
To be clear, multiculturalism here does not refer to an airy-fairy concept to be debated by
academics, or a government buzzword to shape policies. Rather, I am talking about
multiculturalism as it is lived out as an everyday reality in Singapore.
Consider the recent row over the Health Promotion Boards (HPB) online brochure on sexuality.
The brochure, which recognises multiple sexual orientations, has come under fire because
some believe it dangerously promotes homosexuality. Indeed, Singapores lived
multiculturalism denotes that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) folks cannot be
considered a viable minority in the same manner as Malay-Muslims, a category that checks both
the race and religion boxes.
This is not to say that our version of multiculturalism is the sole cause of the HPB row. There are
other motivations behind it, probably the most cited being that the teachings of Christianity and
Islam forbid it. But even here, Singapores lived multiculturalism falls short.
According to a recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey, more than three-quarters of
Singaporeans are iffy about sexual relations between adults of the same sex and gay marriages.
With Muslims and Christians collectively making up less than a quarter of Singaporeans aged 15
and over, according to the 2010 census, the IPS survey suggests that opposition to same-sex
relationships must have also come from believers of supposedly more inclusive religions such as
Buddhism and Taoism.
This means that religious identity does not have an essentialised nature, as assumed by our
lived multiculturalism. In the same way, it is ridiculous to assume all Malay-Muslims are against
LGBTs, or agree that the hijab is a compulsory Muslim practice.
Addressing the importance of multiple identities, Hall writes that the multicultural question for
any society must be how it envisages the future of peoples from very different backgrounds,

cultures, contexts, experiences and positions. This question is especially valid for Singapore.
Perhaps the way forward is to live according to another ideal cosmopolitanism. Unlike
multiculturalism, there is no need to uphold neat categories or essentialised natures. According
to Hall, cities are the best place in which cosmopolitanism can naturally occur because they
bring elements together and establish relations of interchange and exchange. Singapore as a
global trade and travel hub qualifies as such a city.
To be fair, cosmopolitanism has had its detractors. Some say only the rich, who have the means
to travel the world, can afford to be cosmopolitan. To this, one can counter that cosmopolitanism
should not be an ideal defined by the number of places one has visited. Rather, it is the spirit of
being open to someone or something vastly different from oneself.
The Indonesian author Andrea Hiratas semi-autobiographical novel The Rainbow Troops (2005)
best demonstrates this. Recounting the childhood experiences of poor children from Belitung
Island, the novel outlines countless instances in which these children were able to connect with
foreign and local influences without even leaving town.
Singaporeans can be just as inclusive. The pervasiveness of the Internet and global media here
can facilitate a cosmopolitan existence without our having to leave home. Now that is something
to be celebrated.
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-truly-multicultural?singlepage=true