To my beloved Christina Chan

Dear Christina Chan:

I am Euler, a social activist within the Humanist/Atheist circle(related to to the Bible Complain incident), now would like to openly declare my admiration of your beauty as a whole and propensity of endearment with you. I think we are the best match you can found in Hong Kong, not merely because I am a honor graduate from a US-University with a major close enough to Philosophy: Psychology, and the majority of my friends are living oversea so my English is much better than Chinese, but also we are both intelligent persons with a heart for Chinese. With the intelligences of both of us combined, there is nothing we can’t achieve in the world: Democratizing China, solving the energy crisis are just a few items in the list. If you want objective proof of my creativity, vigor and intelligence, just take a look at the entries of this blog and the other blog. How does it compare in quality to other narcissistic-exhibitionist who care only about themselves(like this one)? As you can see, these entries couldn’t be coming from anyone who has a lower level of education, nor someone read less than a thousand books(With libraries record in Hong Kong and USA as a proof ), nor anyone who is excellent in inventing(Again with proof in my email). I am confident that once you truly know what I am and what my plan is, you will not think of anyone else anyone.

Would you like to give yourself a chance to a walk in heaven? There is one chance in your life you can make a real difference not just in my mind, but for China and the world!

Love,
The Author of euletruthbible.wordpress.com

(Christina Chan, you can leave a message here, I would contact you at my own discretion. As you can see here, I have little trust in people.)

Comparing Afghanistan and Iraqi

Comparing Afghanistan and Iraqi is, in a sense, like comparing oranges and apples. Although they are both Muslims country, it is too much a simplification that American generals done in orchestrating the overthrow of their governments and the transition to civilian ruling. In the eye of American, they are both ruled by ruthless dictators, however, the subtle difference lies in the form of dictatorship it is taking. Also in the eye of American, their people enjoy little freedom as those in other Muslims country, but the subtleties lies in what way their people are deprived of their freedom, as well as the altitudes of governed toward their native government. These subtle difference resulted in great difference in the consequences.
In Iraqi, as much as American like to imagine, it is one of the few secular countries(other include Turkey and Iran) among its Muslims neighbor. Thus, in a sense, the Iraqi citizen are enjoying unprecedented freedom compare to those of their neighbor. Is that more likely Iraqi citizen compare themselves to other neighbor or to America? It appears to me that American has a habit of taking everything from USA as granted without putting it into historical context, and assuming the whole world think like USA citizen. Moreover, it maybe that the freedom could be exercised by Iraqi citizen is far less than what is stated in the constitution, but it is much better than the theocracy in Afghanistan. Another important factor is that the economical condition of an average Iraqis is far better than an average Afghanistan citizen, therefore the dissident are mostly political in nature. As wicked as Saddam Hussein be, his political party has come to power via a process that at least has some legitimacy, thus the root of legitimacy lies in political system.

Now, for Afghanistan, the struggle between Taliban and Northern Alliance is seen by many as power struggle between Arabs and native Afghanistians. Thus Taliban’s only sense of legitimacy come from its political ideal of moral-theocracy, but not its performance in managing the national economy, and its non-native root is never forgotten by its citizen. Therefore, USA is choosing the right stragety in toppling Taliban through aiding its proxy. However, the invasion of Iraqi could NEVER be right in the eye of Iraqis unless its toppled by revolution incited by USA. To them, it is United States invading Iraqi using the excuse of freedom and liberation, since lack of freedom wasn’t a concern for Iraqis big enough to rebel against a secular government. This government wasn’t a good one, but Iraqis fear more of the rule by religion as in other non-secular Muslims states. How much freedom that USA could bring to Iraqi purposefully rather than it take away unintentionally?
Therefore, it is not a surprise to anyone that rebellion resulted after USA declared its victory, it is as much as Saddam Hussein’s masterminded plan as much as a normal reaction to the political situation there. Since the original government is toppled, it is thus nature for every political/religion fraction to struggle for power there. Since Iraqi has little or no tradition of representative democracy, the easiest cost way to power is through violence and guns(In part because USA doesn’t have the military might/political will to fight every fraction in Iraq). USA should have known that Iraqis is perhaps the most militarized civilian in the world, and bullet cost much less than ballet.
What has happened now should be predictable beforehand. Is that American who are naive and stupid or they have other things in mind when invading Iraqi? Is that regardless of the situation in Iraqi, USA could make some gains from this invasion?

泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用?

陳冠希的事件,真是一筆豐富的社會學資源,無論怎樣寫也寫不盡當中的社會/政治/經濟/心理互動。
其中一件我留意到的是香港似乎抱着「泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用」的精神,在情感上認同泛道德主義,但行為細節就依法治精神來做。因此,一般人都認同裸照中的女星是受害者,因為她們被無禮對待,赤身露體任人評頭品足;另外,奇拿的「俠義行為」亦被視為不道德,屬於不問自取,不禮貌地向公衆展示女星的性交照;陳冠希首先是有婚外性行為,後來因承擔責任而令公衆對他的印象改觀;都是屬於的泛道德主義的範圍。
而法治精神對於香港人以言,是該案例的處理手法是否合乎法治的程序,以及法例是否被濫用,因此是不屬於泛道德主義管理的範圍,所以網民上街遊行抗議社會不公義時,泛道德主義陣營連一句話都說不出。可見在泛道德主義者心中,泛道德主義和社會公義是兩碼事,泛道德主義者談的是人與人之間的道德,卻不是統治者行為的道德,似乎和泛道德主義祖宗的儒家思想的以仁德來治國的政治理想相去甚遠。為什麼不可以用泛道德主義來分析香港統治者行為?為什麼不可以同一思想、同一標準來看待陳冠希、他的性伴侶、香港警方、奇拿、英皇娛樂集團及上下載陳冠希性交照的網民?可見泛道德主義只是在情感上生效,在具體執行時卻和法治精神無關,泛道德主義是不是有道德而無法治?網民是不是有法治而無道德?為什麼網民不可以以政府行為不道德號召泛道德主義者?為什麼泛道德主義不可以用法治精神來捍衛網民的合法權益?

An idea on public boardcasting in Hong Kong

Sat, May 12, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Hong Kong is in the midst of debate on the future of RTHK, what people concern is how to provide and preserve a medium that act as a tool for the interest of public, much like BBC in United Kingdom.
I was thinking why can’t RTHK truly become a public medium by being a medium of medium? Why can’t RTHK become a public foundation that is act as a gateway for various online broadcaster? The only role it play is to facilitate the growth of online radio station by providing it air time, and aid amateur online broadcaster with various resource?

My Disappointment on Christianity in HK

Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 10:59 AM

The recent current events has led me to grave disappointment of local Christianity, and I will no longer associated with any of them in HK.
The events I refer to is Bible incident after CUSP incident, the official Christian reaction I got is ‘We are on the morally superior side, and we don’t care about the injustice, we care only about the intergity of Bible’. It appears to me that as long as the system serve the goal of Christian dominating the definition of morality, they don’t care about injustice system and its victim(as long as they are not the victim.) Worst, they are working against the reform of censorship system since they have the upper hand, which is against the public good.
The decline of HK Christianity(Protestant, not Catholic) begin when Communist China grant it the power to elect CEO of HKSAR. Since then Christianity become part of the national machinery working to repress people’s urge for freedom and democracy: For instance, boycott demonstration of Universal Suffrage when there’s open GLBT participation. And now is in close collaboration with a bigot organization like Society of Truth and Light, whose all activities seems to incite greater hatred between majority and sexual minority. It is thus not surprised when STL member is also in the biggest Pro-Beijing political party: DAB, as well as rank-and-file government position: Chief Justice. It is not unjustified to consider STL as Neo-Nazi or hate-monger, and it is profiting from hitting the GLBT hard. How would the non-Christian thought of the Christian here? Nazi-Catholic?
Now, the precious little freedom left in the media is constantly being attacked by STL as immoral and damaging to minor. That is the excuse HKSARG use to prosecute those with biggest dissenting voice: CUSP(except the allege indecent question is all about critize the HKSARG), MingPao(not Pro-government), Appledaily(famous for dissenting voice and call for greater democracy), Inmedia(famous social activist site). The worst part is STL actually participate in some of attack of above list.
The latest news it is seeking to shut down an Anti-STL website using copyright as weapon, which put itself in the category as Microsoft(vs Lindows), SCMP and other copyright horder. Of course, it has warchest funded by Christian community here. None of its action could be consider righteous(including slandering about GLBT for 23 days in newspaper advertisement), but most of them are not severely criticized by local Christianity. It appears to me their philosophy is ‘The end justify the means’.
These are Christian making idolatry of Ten Commandants and Bible, and siding with the powerful authority to prosecute the poor and powerless. Soon people would see Christian in the same level of fanatic. And within 2 years we would expect street-fighting between Christian and non-Christian.
It is so ironic that I live in the most secularized region of most secularized nation when we have religion wars.

奧運去政治化及陳冠希事件

中共常說奧運是體育和政治無關,但是和政治無關的事卻是由中共最高權力代表胡書記接奧運聖火,而和政治無關的奧運卻無端端被中共拖進西藏暴動的政治事件,和政治無關的奧運在香港竟由和政府有密切關係的人仕來傳聖火,和政治無關的奧運在中共國內卻引發中共國內的反西方傳媒運動,和政治無關的奧運在中共國統一發稿,和政治無關的奧運在中共國拒絕中共國境內政治立場和中共南轅北轍,在香港的蘋果日報採訪,和政治無關的奧運在中共國底下成了關押異見份子的理由。奧運如果真的和政治無關,反對奧運怎可能成為異見份子癲覆國家政權的罪證?奧運和政治無關而是體育活動,為什麼反對國足貪腐/吹黑哨的人不見中共以同樣罪名拉他們坐牢?奧運和政治無關只是體育活動,為什麼香港的蘋果日報因為政治立場不同而不准入境採訪呢?
本來去政治化只是專制政體剝弱人們不滿的花招,意思大約是,中共國沒有政治,政治就是鬥爭,因中共國的管理永遠只從民生出發,因此中國無政治,人民無政治權利自是理所當然,你要政治權利就是想爭權,就是想搞政治鬥爭。政治因在泛道德主義的思想下成了負面名詞,從而令人民在本質上討厭政治。既然政治就是醜陃,民主化大可不必,其他地方如台灣的民主化成果亦是不值一文,中國只要經濟發展就可以了,中國沒有政治。
中國沒有政治,膚淺、功利及思想底子簿的香港人亦全盤接受,因為在香港心目中,政治的目的無非經濟發展,既然在現實的環境下中共國不喜歡政治發展,亦和它合拍,來過香港版本的去政治化。問題倒來了,如果政治只關經濟、民生非關意識形態,則每年選民用什麼去決定投哪一位侯選人一票?不用意識形態,如何去理解政府每一項經濟、民生的政策背後的理由?如何去理解各政黨的經濟、民生的政策背後的理由是什麼?如何去理解各政黨在每一次立法會會議投票背後的理由是什麼?如何去理解各政黨的投票行為模式?沒有意識形態,要民主選舉來幹什麼?不如每年來過民意調查,最高分數的議員自動留任?
去政治化不單使明明應由意識形態主導的政策討論欠缺深度,或把意識形態隱藏到所謂客觀的研究的假設背後;亦使香港政府無法明正言順以其意識意態去處理任何可以成為公衆關心的焦點事件,例如在陳冠希事件中,警方忘記了其實每一條法例都是政治產物,背後都有意識形態、心理學及經濟上的考量,其客觀效果亦會在不同的政治、經濟下有分別,警方不敢說出每一項行動背後的整體考量是什麼,有什麼目標,和想達到什麼效果,因為涉及其行為理念即意識形態。禁示色情資訊流通其實是右傾保守主義的表現,警方本能地防些社會的權威及道德價值受到衝擊,隱藏的社會秩序受破壞。很簡單,一字以敝之,就是像中共一樣怕社會大亂。誰知它發覺原來公衆對法例的理解和自己不同,又不可以引用意識形態來支持,結果只好由不懂法律背後的政治考量的人去把法例向對其有政治考慮的行動有利的方向解釋,破壞了法例背後的邏緝。因為法例背後的邏緝正是建基於意識形態,為什麼強姦的罪行和殺人不遑多讓?和女性主義的冒起,和英國是由女皇統治有無關係?法例背後的邏緝不能獨立於意識形態,否則單憑邏緝和事實是無法決定法例的內涵,如罪行的輕重就一定涉及價值觀,價值觀當然是由意識形態決定。香港警方想做的事,正是想單用邏緝和事實來臨時決定法例的內涵,這根本在邏緝上是無可能的事,破壞法例的邏緝性是必然的結果。
中共喜歡用去政治化的「純」法治是因這樣看來較文明,較合乎西方法治文化中程序理性,而且可以讓人民以為會有包青天為他們主持公道。既然政治無公平可言,但最少可以有機會在法例面前人人平等。卻忽略了如果立法的過程沒有人民以民主制度方式來參與,即中國無政治,再公平的執法亦不可以防止政府用法例名正言順剝削人民本來的權利。同理,因為香港政府並不是全由民主政治產生,欠缺正當性,在中共國的專政陰影下亦未必有可能發展正常的民主政治,因此唯有借鏡中共的去政治化下的法治,想用去政治化的法治來建立其正當性。它以為香港人一向對本港的法治有信心,因此任何政治的決定只要借法治的名義來行,所有政府官員包括警方只是執行法例,和政治無關,一定是公平公正的。誰說香港人民眼晴雪亮,一下子就理解到執法的公平公正不一定代表法例本身的公平公正,在不完全的民主制度下,怎可能保證法例一定是對各階級都是公平公正的?法治在去政治化變成缺乏邏緝基礎、自相矛盾的特色,在陳冠希案中表露無遺!

Between Tibet’s riot, Beijing Olympic and Taiwan election(II)

This article is the sequel to my first article on the same issue. I am going to update my understanding on the relationship as events progress as an exercise of psychohistory.

Tibet’s riot has initialize a storm of criticism of China’s human rights issue. Given that Communist China has an extremely poor image in European’s mind. In a sense, Tibet is often seen as the world capital of Buddhism. There is an inherent tension between China Communist’s atheism and Theistic Buddhism in Tibet. To be seen globally, Tibet is like the last castle of religion in an Atheist empire. Thus when this stereotype activated, Beijing would have little friends left in the Western world. Like it or not, Beijing’s image-building effort with Olympic has already been ruined.

The effect on Taiwan election is likely to be minor, since the common ground between the Democratic Progressive and Nationalist Party is that Communist China is a violent regime ruled by force. As huge number of Taiwanese operating business in Communist China, they already got use to the incivility of communist China in their daily life as compare to Taiwan. So that only reinforce what they have in mind. However, the call for unification by any Taiwan political parties would become a taboo.

From the perspective of Beijing Olympic, Tibet riot is unlikely to produce the friendly image that Communist regime would like to project into the world. The world is more likely to see that as gigantic whitewashing exercise, and foreign media more likely to try to dig the dirt out of this event to make news(For instance, how many citizen are forced out of their place to make room for Olympic, how many lands has took over by government using illegal means, how many unwelcome peasant from other peasant are denied work and place of resident, how many factories are forced to halt their operation to make a clear sky.)
Taiwan election has an uncertain effect to the Beijing Olympic. Because it would elicit the wish of the deeply repressed political will of the mass at one side, while the certain victory of  Pro-Unification Nationalist Party would elicit a nationalist feeling, warmth and acceptance toward the Taiwanese as Chinese. If manage right, Beijing Olympic could be an ideal outlet for nationalistic feeling. However, it is difficult to the need for Beijing to appease Westerns’ increased appetite to protect human right while satisfying the local population’s need to glorious feeling.

Taiwan’s election would have excited the nationalistic feeling of Tibetan, since Communist China love to portray Taiwan as a sedating province. So, in Tibetans’ mind, it is a part of China electing their own president democratically; while the People’s Congress in China is commonly seen by Hans, Tibetans, Mongols, Manchurian and Muslims as rubber stamp. The victory of Nationalistic Party would likely elicit the uneasy feeling in Tibetan, while the victory of Democratic Progressive Party almost certainly guarantee a riot in Tibetan.

Communist China intend to use Beijing Olympic event as pull for the Pro-unification force in Taiwan politics.  While some Taiwanese seen it as glory for Chinese as a race, other see that as a reminder of face-building politics of Progressive Democratic Party now and Nationalist Party during the martial rule. It thus likely to polarize the electorate as a whole.

Peace and War across the Taiwan Strait-11

In the TV program ‘Peace and War across the Taiwan Strait’, Taiwan Independent activist is portray as irrational, shortsighted, provoking compare to the proposal of unification by Chinese Communist Party as rational, far-sighted and peaceful. Although, this TV program gave fair coverage as to the history of Taiwan Independent movement, it never give us an perspective from their sides, nor it evaluate the advantage and disadvantage of the unification model of choice: ‘One Country, Two system’; and whether this system is suitable for the current political/economic/social development in both countries. While Chinese Communist Party fond of using terms like ’smooth, success’, but how to define the terms such as smooth and success?

One objective method is using political/economic/social development of Hong Kong before and after 1997 as an index. Politically, there are no dispute that Hong Kong has regress since 1997. Because before each of the citizen could cast three votes, and now they can only cast two votes. The political influence of individual citizen thus decreased. Economically, it took Hong Kong 10 years after 1997 to recover its post-1997 GDP, while the income disparity between the rich and poor has been steadily increasing. In terms of speech freedom, the easiest way to compare is the level of diversity of opinion in media such as newspaper. It is well known that the diversity has reached a new low. For instance, while 60% of population support universal suffrage, only one newspaper openly endorse this proposal. How free is your speech freedom if no media would present your side of story at all? In the matter of 2008 Beijing Olympic, absolutely none of any media voice any dissenting voice at all. Now do you believe that Hong Kong citizen, which once fully behind the university student in June 4 incident, all suddenly become ‘patriotic’? So this is Beijing’s model of successful adaptation of ‘One Country,Two System’? How would a fully democratized Taiwan would develop trust and confidence in that system?

Another often ignore issue is what would unification do to Taiwan people? Would its economic booming because a closer tier with Communist China? I fail to see any tendency for Taiwan not to develop closer tie with Communist China given the current trend, unification or not! Politically, there is nothing Communist China could contribute to Taiwan except corruption and dictatorship, while ‘One Country,Two System’ is designated to halt the influence of Taiwan to Communist China. How would it be different from the existing status except the name is different? Militarily speaking, Communist China would not send one solider to Taiwan, would Communist China then remove all its missile targeted Taiwan? Culturally speaking, what does unification added to their cultural isolation since the difference of character set? In sum, what could be done in unification couldn’t be done without under the name of unification, if Communist China has a heart to Taiwan Chinese? So what is the point of unification if it doesn’t intend to change anything?
I would rather China to be united under a federal system under a democratic republic, but is that what Communist China willing to do?

Peace and War across the Taiwan Strait-１０

One of the recommendation by the TV program ‘Peace and War across the Taiwan Strait’ in case of aggression China’s against Taiwan is to apply an ‘Decapitation’ strategies. This article talked about the effect of this strategies in both Taiwan and China(in a theoretical level).
We all know China is a country ruled with centralized political/ economic and military authority. Generally, people ruled are used to take order from superior instead of making their own decision. Therefore they have to constantly using public announcement to neutralize the effect of any rumor concerning the health of superiors(Like Mr. Deng’s sickness make a big news.) Such a feat is unimaginable in democratic republic like Taiwan or USA. Because the political/economic and military authority tend to higher in its level of decentralization compare to former. Thus we could imagine this strategy would have less an effect in social psychology of Taiwan than to China. The result of the success of such a warfare would almost certain Balkanize Taiwan, since now each one under the authority of the behead superior would be free to choose his/her own loyalty. I consider a better stragety would be force a surrounding by kidnapping the president or the general in chief. It would almost certainly effective in China, but the result is less predictable in the case of Taiwan.

Peace and War across the Taiwan Strait-９

Although the TV program ‘Peace and War across the Taiwan Strait’, i.e. propaganda from Chinese Communist Party has successfully complete its mission; the tension between Taiwan Strait is unlikely to reduce due to election Mr. Ma. It is also very unlikely that Chinese Communist Party would sign a Permanent Peace Treaty with Taiwan. This is the only card Chinese Communist Party have in its end to force Taiwan’s hand. If China has dropped such a card, then it follow that Taiwan could delayed the talk of unification indefinitely.
Last time the TV program talked about the role of nuclear weapon, I agreed with it that nuclear weapon has no practical usage during the war, only act as a deterrence from foreign intervention. However, the great damage it inflict on enemy would ensure those who use it to become the target of public wrath domestically and internationally. A total war between China and USA would almost certain if any side who are bold to utilize it first.
A topic which Communist China strive to avoid it at all time in this nuclear issue is when China threaten to utilize it on US cities like L.A., New York or San Francisco, it has ignored that these cities has a large Chinese immigrants. Since Communist China wage war against Taiwan under the flag of Pan-Nationalism of Han, how is the life of Han Chinese compare to the unification of Han’s nation? What is the logic behind scarifying twenty thousand oversea Han Chinese supporter for the sake of bigger China?
Therefore, my conclusion is that nuclear weapon hardly has any practical effect in the issue of military confrontation between China and Taiwan, However, an interest point must be raised is that this TV program seems to suggested Taiwan may already in possession of similar technology, and if the Progressive Democratic are in power, they may unleash it just like any irresponsible dictators. The trouble with this implication is that the same program also suggested Taiwan can’t even afford to acquire advance military technology because of its budgetary constraint, and unlike Iraqi, Taiwan has no local supply of uranium; how is it possible to afford nuclear weapon which is the most expensive military technology?
Now assume that Taiwan is indeed have nuclear weapon technology in its sleeve. Unlike China which has the seat in UN and recognize universally as the representative of China; Taiwan has a much harder publicity battle to fight in case of war. It has to continually earn the sympathy of international community in order to survive. Therefore, how much weight in Taiwan’s shoulder in the consideration of using the most destructive weapon of all time? Moreover, China is much bigger than Taiwan. Unless Taiwan has a way to deliver a nuclear bomb straight into the Zhongnanhai in Beijing, otherwise there are no point in using nuclear weapon. Is Taiwan, a democratic republic; would be more daring than People’s Republic of China, which a General openly announce that China could allow 300 of its cities to be nuked in the case of unification warfare(in case of USA intervention)?