- Fri
- Oct 4, 2013
- Updated: 12:55am
My Take
Monday, 03 June, 2013, 2:32am
'Beautiful souls' blinkered to reality
Some people see mainland China as leaking badness and contaminating Hong Kong with corrupt officials and 'locust' visitors. Photo: David Wong
A distinctive Hong Kong identity politics is emerging. As it is still developing, it is hard to pin down and put your finger on. But one important aspect seems clear enough: demonise China, idealise Hong Kong. Yes, yes, I know. How can that be when the city is part of China? But it's that very inclusion since the handover that is being called into question.
At its most obvious, this involves accentuating the negatives on the mainland while ignoring the positives. And doing the reverse when it comes to Hong Kong. So there is this uncritical celebration of local culture and so-called core values, which can mean anything depending on who you ask: Cantonese language, rule of law, open economy, tolerance (unless you are a Filipino maid or a South Asian) and what not.
Hong Kong is the fountain of goodness, our young activists think. Across the border, it's bad land. And it is leaking badness and contaminating Hong Kong with corrupt officials and "locust" visitors, sometimes literally, like urinating and defecating in public, or spreading a potential flu pandemic.
An expat critic of mine thinks Hongkongers have a bad - and accurate - impression of the mainland because of hands-on experience - by making regular visits there. This elderly retiree has obviously not kept up with current surveys such as those by his former Baptist University colleague Michael DeGolyer, who finds that younger people - incidentally those most prone to identity politics - rarely visit the mainland, if at all. They do, however, read the corrosive, rabble-rousing Apple Daily.
For these people, the state power of the central government is incurably corrupt and dirty. Hong Kong is that little island of light and goodness constantly under threat from that monster. I am not defending Beijing, but we are getting a tad paranoid. You try governing 1.3 billion people with dozens of different ethnic groups. Or at least imagine the immense challenge that it entails.
"Beautiful souls", Hegel calls them, those good and pure critics of power, idealists who play an easy moralistic game. They represent a type that recurs in politics everywhere. For the Hong Kong variety, the Chinese state is pure evil. The mainland is another country; we certainly don't want to dirty ourselves with it.
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as 'Beautiful souls' blinkered to reality
Share
- Google Plus One
-
31Comments
After reading this article, people also read
whymak Jun 6th 2013
12:29am
12:29am
Reader Johnyuan: You have to understand what Einstein actually meant by this. Without doubt, he knows that without counting no human civilization exists as we all know it.
Even infinite quantities can be counted in a manner of speaking. Georg Cantor showed us the way. There are denumerable infinities and non-countable ones. Among infinities, some are greater (denser) than others.
The Bose-Einstein statistics that we use to count states in quantum physics is an example of denumerables. Superfluids, superconducting magnets and COUNTLESS examples of critical phenomenon originate from the way we count phonons, photons and particles of even spin -- not to be confused with claptrap of English speaking spinmeisters and charlatans.
Now you know that it's hard to stop this 腐儒 once you get him started.
Even infinite quantities can be counted in a manner of speaking. Georg Cantor showed us the way. There are denumerable infinities and non-countable ones. Among infinities, some are greater (denser) than others.
The Bose-Einstein statistics that we use to count states in quantum physics is an example of denumerables. Superfluids, superconducting magnets and COUNTLESS examples of critical phenomenon originate from the way we count phonons, photons and particles of even spin -- not to be confused with claptrap of English speaking spinmeisters and charlatans.
Now you know that it's hard to stop this 腐儒 once you get him started.
whymak Jun 6th 2013
12:11am
12:11am
Reader jve said, "Reader whymak seems to make the curious assumption everybody in China knows each other. Would he care to elaborate on his basis for this?"
If one doesn't know schoolboy algebra and simple calculus, how do you explain a more rigorous treatment of political science? And I don't mean the touchy feely, dogmatic Democracy assumed in Op-eds written by political science academics for 8th grade readers.
I answer this question strictly for the benefit of readers who are intellectually curious.
In economics, one uses preference (utility) function for all matters of choice, e.g., consumption, production, etc. Each preference represents the choice a subset of one or more objects (variables). And each point of this function for a group is some average of individual preferences. And for each average there is a probability density associated with this average. Each individual interacts with one another through the probability distribution. Comprendre? Kapish?
Of course, yours truly is ignorant about many things. I stand to be corrected. But "jve" has contempt for knowledge, facts, science, logic and reason.
My criticism of economists is they often aggregate individual preferences - the micro - into a group one - the macro. The "law" for peer-to-peer interaction hasn't been discovered. For expressed consumer choices or satisfaction with a government, group preference is not the sum of its parts. This is what's wrong with pseudo scientific surveys.
If one doesn't know schoolboy algebra and simple calculus, how do you explain a more rigorous treatment of political science? And I don't mean the touchy feely, dogmatic Democracy assumed in Op-eds written by political science academics for 8th grade readers.
I answer this question strictly for the benefit of readers who are intellectually curious.
In economics, one uses preference (utility) function for all matters of choice, e.g., consumption, production, etc. Each preference represents the choice a subset of one or more objects (variables). And each point of this function for a group is some average of individual preferences. And for each average there is a probability density associated with this average. Each individual interacts with one another through the probability distribution. Comprendre? Kapish?
Of course, yours truly is ignorant about many things. I stand to be corrected. But "jve" has contempt for knowledge, facts, science, logic and reason.
My criticism of economists is they often aggregate individual preferences - the micro - into a group one - the macro. The "law" for peer-to-peer interaction hasn't been discovered. For expressed consumer choices or satisfaction with a government, group preference is not the sum of its parts. This is what's wrong with pseudo scientific surveys.
jve Jun 6th 2013
7:48am
7:48am
Reader whymak has so far only conclusively demonstrated that the square root of nonsense is idiocy, compounded by an inability to use the Reply button.
1. 'Each individual interacts with one another though the probability distribution [of utility preferences].' No they don't. They interact with the distribution. A change in preference of or an action by one person alters (ever so slightly) the distribution, and by proxy this will influence others' preferences (and actions). But this does not mean they interact with one another directly. They interact, but not with one another. When I dive into the swimming pool, a perceptive person at the other end of the pool might notice the ripples and an (ever so slight) increase in the water level, but that does not mean we interact with one another.
2. Reader whymak's assumption that there are [Combinations (2, 1.3bn)] direct relationships in China therefore remains false. China has more people. Its markets (implicit and explicit) and their utility probability distributions hence contain more information, sure. But this is a linear relationship, not an exponential one. It is a matter of increasing scale, not one of increasing complexity. In fact, I would go so far as to argue there is a marginally declining influence of a single individual's preferences/actions on the whole. A larger scale therefore would imply that a single individual could have more freedom, not less, without having much impact on society as a whole.
1. 'Each individual interacts with one another though the probability distribution [of utility preferences].' No they don't. They interact with the distribution. A change in preference of or an action by one person alters (ever so slightly) the distribution, and by proxy this will influence others' preferences (and actions). But this does not mean they interact with one another directly. They interact, but not with one another. When I dive into the swimming pool, a perceptive person at the other end of the pool might notice the ripples and an (ever so slight) increase in the water level, but that does not mean we interact with one another.
2. Reader whymak's assumption that there are [Combinations (2, 1.3bn)] direct relationships in China therefore remains false. China has more people. Its markets (implicit and explicit) and their utility probability distributions hence contain more information, sure. But this is a linear relationship, not an exponential one. It is a matter of increasing scale, not one of increasing complexity. In fact, I would go so far as to argue there is a marginally declining influence of a single individual's preferences/actions on the whole. A larger scale therefore would imply that a single individual could have more freedom, not less, without having much impact on society as a whole.
whymak Jun 7th 2013
11:10am
11:10am
You have already demonstrated ignorance in the exponential law of network connections (to the power 2 in the example quoted) and your inability to do a simple problem in arithmetic progression, which is middle school algebra. Right this moment, you're still arguing it's linear while at the same time making a contradictory statement to your spurious claim. Just reread what you wrote. I rest my case. No more arguments. You have no place in my freshman class, let alone a graduate seminar.
One last point to satisfy my curiosity with your reasoning style of Sarah Palin, an English native speaker. Aside from the irrelevance of your examples in the discussed model, all your examples given as analogs to this "debate" are scientific nonsense, e.g., swimming pool, information, etc.
Do you know the scientific meaning of a unit of information? What is meaning of more information as opposed to less? What kind of mathematical function is a utility function? Once when you could answer these questions, you would realize your ostensibly fluent statements in English convey nothing but contradictions from a logician and scientist point of view. In Chinese we call this 狡辯.
One last point to satisfy my curiosity with your reasoning style of Sarah Palin, an English native speaker. Aside from the irrelevance of your examples in the discussed model, all your examples given as analogs to this "debate" are scientific nonsense, e.g., swimming pool, information, etc.
Do you know the scientific meaning of a unit of information? What is meaning of more information as opposed to less? What kind of mathematical function is a utility function? Once when you could answer these questions, you would realize your ostensibly fluent statements in English convey nothing but contradictions from a logician and scientist point of view. In Chinese we call this 狡辯.
jve Jun 6th 2013
7:41am
7:41am
3. Regardless of the issue of whether a larger population also necessarily means greater complexity (it doesn't, but moving on...), reader whymak still fails to demonstrate any theoretical link, let alone empirical proof that such a larger (allegedly more complex) population needs stricter 'governance' and can't afford to have the same freedoms a smaller population has.
Again I note there is nothing that supports this. Reader whymak is conveniently ignoring that we have 2000+ years of longitudinal data and a current cross-sectional dataset of 180+ countries. There is no correlation between population size and degree of freedom. Not over time, and not comparatively. If reader whymak thinks there is, let him demonstrate this please.
There are plenty of relatively small (by population), oppressive countries in the world (North Korea, Cuba, Syria etc). There also plenty of small, very liberal countries (Luxembourg, Finland, South Korea, New Zealand etc). Likewise for big, populous country, with China and India being the most obvious contraposition.
It is a mystery why reader whymak, with his fanfare about the scientific method and mathematical rigour, completely ignores this data. Furthermore, the real lunacy begins when not only he claims there IS a relationship (based on his flawed understanding of political-economic theory, see above), but even reaches a prescriptive conclusion: China is big, therefore it must oppress its people's freedom.
I rest my case.
Again I note there is nothing that supports this. Reader whymak is conveniently ignoring that we have 2000+ years of longitudinal data and a current cross-sectional dataset of 180+ countries. There is no correlation between population size and degree of freedom. Not over time, and not comparatively. If reader whymak thinks there is, let him demonstrate this please.
There are plenty of relatively small (by population), oppressive countries in the world (North Korea, Cuba, Syria etc). There also plenty of small, very liberal countries (Luxembourg, Finland, South Korea, New Zealand etc). Likewise for big, populous country, with China and India being the most obvious contraposition.
It is a mystery why reader whymak, with his fanfare about the scientific method and mathematical rigour, completely ignores this data. Furthermore, the real lunacy begins when not only he claims there IS a relationship (based on his flawed understanding of political-economic theory, see above), but even reaches a prescriptive conclusion: China is big, therefore it must oppress its people's freedom.
I rest my case.
silent is the night Jun 5th 2013
12:57pm
12:57pm
India is a big country with 1.2 billion people living on a land which area is not as large as half of China yet India has long been a democratic country---the largest democratic country in the world indeed.So the so-called theory of that 'whymak'---or just a nasty group's name which is sent from the North to attack local democrats and their supporters here in this Comment forum---that as a nation of more than 1.3 billion population,Mainland China should be governed by an authoritarian regime such as the Chinese Communist Party ! it is absolutely nonsense.The autocratic rule of the crony capitalism on Mainland is just for the greatest interests of dozens of powerful families (like Li Peng's; Deng Xiao-ping's and of course,President Xi Jin-ping and the disgraced Bo Xilai's and others) only ! Once a democratic political system is launched and universal suffrage is held on Mainland,these powerful and super-rich families can no longer enjoy their vested interests and privileges just like the aristocrats of late Qing Dynasty yet now it is the Party Dynasty instead.The nature of both is more or less the same---rampant corruption, injustice, inequality in the distribution of national wealth and harsh measures taken to suppress the people they govern so as to strengthen their rule on the excuse of so-called maintaining stability(e.g.several national guards guard the lodge of jailed Liu Xia-bo's wife and now 10 guards surround Ms Li Xinling's(whose son was killed in June 1989).
silent is the night Jun 5th 2013
12:42pm
12:42pm
In Alex Lo's article,he clearly points out that 'beautiful souls' means the idealists who play an easy moralistic game and represent a type that recurs in politics everywhere----such as the protesting students in Tiananmen Square from mid-April to early June in 1989 in Beijing where they were later brutally gunned down by the curfew troops or rolled over by tanks in hutongs (alleys) near the Square. In more and more Hong Kong youngsters' eyes and minds, the so-called Chinese state/emerging empire ruled by the autocratic Chinese Communist Party is pure evil------using violence:assault rifles carrying fatal bullets against her unarmed people (including young students ) which was an anti-human crime and should be tried in the international court or at least condemned and seriously punished in the underworld after their death---maybe it explains why Short Deng Xiao-ping's body was burnt to ashes and poured into sea or his hometown---Szechuan for fear that one day his tomb (if any) would be broken open and his body whipped and tortured by furious people or their descendants ! Right ? The Mainland is another country, and we (more and more Hong Kong young people just don't want to dirty ourselves with it !
johnyuan Jun 5th 2013
6:50am
6:50am
Between the arguments and insults, I am reminded by two quotes.
“Everything can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” – Albert Einstein
“A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable.” Louis Kahn
I learned Einstein’s quote most recently through a colleague which it was used as a company’s website byline. Without having lived my life for some time, I might never appreciate Einstein’s quote. Know the distinctions and live correctly and efficiently by sparing the superfluous; difficult but necessary to set my thinking free. I learned Kahn’s idea of the measurable and the unmeasurable in my architecture school days whom Kahn’s architecture are much admired. I surmise that without letting my work going through sequentially starting with the unmeasurable, I may never argue that the unmeasurable quality exists in my work at the end. And, no great architecture.
“Everything can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” – Albert Einstein
“A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable.” Louis Kahn
I learned Einstein’s quote most recently through a colleague which it was used as a company’s website byline. Without having lived my life for some time, I might never appreciate Einstein’s quote. Know the distinctions and live correctly and efficiently by sparing the superfluous; difficult but necessary to set my thinking free. I learned Kahn’s idea of the measurable and the unmeasurable in my architecture school days whom Kahn’s architecture are much admired. I surmise that without letting my work going through sequentially starting with the unmeasurable, I may never argue that the unmeasurable quality exists in my work at the end. And, no great architecture.
Pages
In Case You Missed It
23 Sep 2013
Login
SCMP.com Account
or
Log in using a partner site
Log in using your Facebook account. What's this?
Don't have an SCMP.com account? Subscribe Now!