Civic Dialogue / 公民對談

The role of a government

2008-12-16T14:21:00.001-08:00

政府在經濟發展應扮演的角色
雷鼎鳴 - 香港科技大學經濟系教授
經濟學家絕少會是無政府主義，他們深信政府有恰如其分的角色要扮演，例如，假設社會中沒有執法人員保護產權，經濟不可能會發達。政府既有角色，便必須用錢，所以零支出的政府不可能最好。另一極端是政府控制了社會中所有資源，歷史經驗早已證明這會帶來經濟災難。那麼，最適當的政府規模應多大？———雷鼎鳴
獅子山學會賜飯，並要我講述「政府在經濟增長中應扮演的角色」。席中，意外地見到一些城中知名人士，但更感高興的，是認識了一批對經濟學有濃厚興趣的年輕知識分子。獅子山學會近年以「蘋果批」及其他報刊作根據地，色彩鮮明地捍衛自由經濟理念，在評論界中早已形成一股新興力量。以我觀察，這批年輕人多半不是經濟科班出身，但其經濟學根基出奇的紮實，沒有經過自修苦學，不會有此功力。他們將來的影響力不可限量。
在講座中，我提出過一個觀點，在評論政策時，支持自由經濟的芝加哥學派並不喜歡某些評論人常說的「某某政策不對，因為它違反了自由市場原則」。芝加哥學派的核心思想是其對方法學的重視，而這又包含了它把實證研究及經濟理論的高度解釋力放在關鍵地位上。張五常晚年為其學說寫封頂之作，書曰《經濟解釋》，解釋什麼？自然是真實世界的現象。芝加哥學派一般不願建議政策，但卻不介意評論別人提出的政策。評論必建基於有針對性的具體分析，並要探求實證支持，未有分析結果前，避免先用抽象概念套在問題之上。不過，因為這學派中人對市場力量及政府行為有深刻的認識，所以分析論證後的結論往往是反對政府干預。在他們心中，結論是次要的，論證的嚴密性才是其最關注的。若沒有論證過程，便很易陷入一些胡亂相信政府力量的人士所常掉進的教條主義陷阱。
為什麼大政府對經濟不妙「政府角色」本來是一項務虛的理念問題，但因為經濟學中早已積累了大量有關的理論與實證，所以我也樂意介紹。政府應有所為有所不為，後者需要更大的智慧，因此我先作討論。曾特首說港府開支(應是公共開支)要限制在GDP的20%以下，便符合「大市場，小政府」原則。政府第一不應做的便是搞大政府，這點曾特首沒有錯。我們先不爭論20%是否早已過高，但卻要搞清楚為什麼大政府對經濟不妙。經濟學家絕少會是無政府主義，他們深信政府有恰如其分的角色要扮演，例如，假設社會沒有執法人員保護產權，經濟不可能會發達。政府既有角色，便必須用錢，所以零支出的政府不可能最好。另一極端是政府控制了社會中所有資源，歷史經驗早已證明這會帶來經濟災難。那麼，最適當的政府規模應多大？這問題因各國國情有別，不好回答，但哈佛的巴羅 (RobertBarro)十多年前的實證結果卻顯示，在當今世界中政府用錢愈多，經濟的長期增長率便愈低。這結果可理解為現在各國的政府都已經是過大了。限制其規模，對經濟增長大有好處。
大政府不利經濟的原因很多，這裏只說一點。政府掌控資源愈多，愈有可能把自己變為一塊肥肉，吸引各方利益團體跑來分一杯羹。肥肉如何分配，往往取決於利益團體各自投入了多少資源來搶奪，而不是基於有效率的資源配置。團體間的搶奪也會造成內耗，不利經濟。
開支小不代表小政府有反對者可以說，北歐國家政府用度驚人，但它們仍有很好的競爭力。我的一位新同事許成鋼教授，長期在倫敦政經學院執教，對歐洲經濟有深入研究。他告訴我，這些北歐國家有一樣極重要優點，就是對企業的管制十分寬鬆，而且人民教育水準極高，生產力遠超香港。在這些條件下，北歐的企業很懂得做生意，能夠賺錢，但因為稅率奇高，出不了多少富豪，經濟增長也平平無奇。不搞大政府雖是香港經濟成功的要素之一，但政府大小卻不一定只以開支來衡量。例如，政府可把土地廉價售予某企業，在帳面上，政府沒有開支，反有賣地收入，但明顯地，這並非「小政府」所應為。上述例子觸及政府對某些企業時會提供補貼。這是不少國家都有採用的所謂「工業政策」，亦即由政府判斷，哪種行業最有前景，然後付出資源補貼，試圖加快這些行業的發展。「工業政策」在理論及實證上都站不住腳。它的背後，是假設了政府比市場掌握更準確的資訊，所以判斷較準。但實情真是這樣嗎？
資訊在市場中是一種極有價值的商品，企業要賺錢會知道必須付出代價取得有用的資訊並判斷其真偽。資訊涉及企業的生死存亡，它們有足夠的誘因小心對待。政府在這方面遠遠不及，最易受騙。1998年我做了一項顧問研究報告，分析台灣的工業政策，其中一項發現是台灣工業補貼的最大得益者，並不是其引以為傲的電子工業，而是紡織業等夕陽工業。其原因十分簡單，負責分配津貼的委員會雖是由一些所謂專家學者所組成，似乎資訊充足，但既然這些委員會掌控資源，必屬兵家必爭之地，不同的利益團體有需要把自己的代言人安插在內。夕陽工業存在既久，勢力也大，它們在資源爭奪中能擊敗電子工業毫不為奇。事實上，台灣電子工業的發展，另有因由，篇幅所限，不贅。
香港自己也有著名的工業政策，迪士尼及數碼港便是突出例子。當年政府對這兩個項目提供或明或暗的補貼時，也曾雄辯滔滔，並提出了一大堆數字。我與不少評論員當時便對這些「論據」不以為然，但政府自以為掌握資訊，一意孤行，我們倒也無奈何。最近翻閱當年有關的官方論據，印象最深的是，事後證明，政府閉門造車弄出來的材料與事實差別竟是這麼大。我懷疑這倒非政府的分析員水平不夠，而是游說政府的利益集團功力非凡，在甜言蜜語構造出的宏圖大計下，政府遠比企業中人更易中招。
在商業發展方面，政府掌握的資訊並不可靠，那麼企業取得的資訊又如何？自由市場的優越性正正在於它所要求的資訊較低。企業決定增產或減產，不用懂得世界大事，只需知道市價是否夠賺錢便可。要判斷是否大舉進軍某一行業，可參考一些較願冒險的先行者是損手爛腳還是盤滿鉢滿。市場自身有發放有效信息的能力，這也是為什麼多項著名的研究都發現，不搞工業政策時期的香港，其生產效率的進步速度高於搞工業政策的國家(例如新加坡)。
宏觀調控？政府時會推行但其實對經濟不利的另一種政策，是宏觀穩定政策，中國近兩年所用的所謂「宏觀調控」是其中一個例子，穩定政策的目標是在經濟不景時用財政或貨幣政策刺激它，在「過熱」時冷卻它，但這有幾個問題：1.政策實施後，其效果通常很久後才出現，而政府一般也難以得悉什麼時候效果會突然浮現。這樣一來，擴張政策的效果往往要等到經濟需要冷卻的時候才姍姍來遲，穩定政策反而使經濟波幅更大。2.政府經常干預的話，人民會學懂「上有政策，下有對策」自我調節，趨吉避凶，政策的意圖效果，很易被人民的對策抵消掉，完全變了樣子。3.政府若突如其來，在人民沒有預期下推動某些政策，可能也會產生一定的效果，但人民被殺個措手不及，打亂了原本的計劃，這對經濟活動也沒有好處。
政府最好的宏觀政策，便是不要高估自己企圖調控經濟的能力，而是不管外邊風高浪急，我自巍然不動，採用可預期的穩定不變的政策。政府本身的穩定，正可減少一種不明朗因素。
政府到底應做什麼？以上說了一些政府不應該做的事。那麼，政府應做什麼？MIT有幾位經濟學家曾研究過去數百年來歐洲人建立殖民地時的策略。他們發現，若殖民地條件惡劣，不宜久留，殖民者便鮮會替這些地方引進什麼制度，他們搶掠後便可不顧而去。但若殖民地環境不錯，他們多會在此建設以保護私有產權為核心的法制，力求長治久安。這兩類殖民地後來的發展路向大異其趣，有良好法制的，發展遠為迅速。這點大可說明，政府最應做的，便是建設及保護優良的法制，而這些法制，又應是保護而不是阻礙自由市場的運作。在公用品(例如國防或治安)或有界外經濟效應的活動(例如污染)，經濟學家都知道政府可以合理干預。但即使在這些項目，政府也應盡量利用市場力量。從前美國搞的是強制性的徵兵制，弄得天怒人怨，現在用僱傭兵，效果便好得多。
世界上成功減低廢物的城市，也多是利用市場誘因，而非靠行政指令。就算是海中燈塔此等經典的公用品，在真實世界中，大部分也不是政府提供，而是私人擁有，可見市場不易失靈。教育是用掉政府資源的重要項目。政府搞教育，因它性好作無謂管制，所以問題極多，港人對此知之甚詳。但教育是重要的幫助社會流動的途徑，而且對生產力進步有重要影響，所以政府出錢搞教育，利通常大於弊。較好的方法仍然是多利用市場，學券制正是上佳的政策。不過，政府在教育上喜歡多管閒事的本性竟又使香港政府在提出學券制時，畫蛇添足地不准學券用於牟利學校，理由是讓政府的錢使牟利機構得益不合理。我不知這是什麼邏輯？若貫徹這思維，拿綜援的家庭都應禁止到牟利的商店購物！政府敢不敢這樣做？有些事政府就算有合理的角色扮演，也應經常自我審視是否做得太多，管得太過火。

My articles on pulic policies

2008-12-16T14:19:00.000-08:00

明報網上民調結果顯示：華裔選票更能左右大局 (明報加西版)

2008-09-21T20:54:00.002-07:00

明報網上民調結果顯示：華裔選票更能左右大局 (明報加西版)
tags: poll, election, immigrant votes

This is an interesting move by Ming Pao in Vancouver. While the validity of the survey can be contested (because participation was voluntary), it was a first step in obtaining some understanding of the Chinese voters' views on the election. More work needs to be done - especially in scientifically validated fashion - to research about the political views of the Chinese voters, instead of simply relying on anecdotal accounts or party-based propaganda.

A Dark Day for Pakistan

2007-12-27T10:12:00.000-08:00

Benazair Bhutto's assassination represents a dark day in Pakistan. As the January election approaches, the purpose of this assassination is clear. Whoever the perpetrators are, their intention is to stop the election and Pakistan's road to democracy. In time, we may know the truth behind this, but for now, the world is watching as to what the Pakistani government will do to respond.

There is every reason to be afraid of rising internal conflicts in the country. No one would want to see an unstable Pakistan, one of the nuclear powers in this region, and we can only hope that at this time, the Pakistani people can come together and unite for the future of their country.

Find out more about Bhutto's assassination and Pakistan on CBC and CNN.

Global Conference on the Prevention of Genocide (McGill University, October 11 - 13, 2007)

2007-11-05T14:06:00.000-08:00

The McGill University Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism hosted the first major international conference of its kind on the prevention of genocide. From October 11th to 13th, 2007, in Montreal, Canada, The Global Conference on the Prevention of Genocide brought together from around the world survivors, witnesses, legislators, diplomats, activists and others whose lives have been forever changed by humanity’s most horrific invention. It represented the first major non-governmental conference on genocide since the United Nations, in 1948, first moved to label and criminalize what Winston Churchill once called “the crime that has no name.”

The Conference opened a dialogue between decision-makers and genocide survivors, between the leaders of this generation and those of the next, with the goal of exploring means of preventing genocidal violence, rather than focusing on ad hoc intervention.

The Conference was made possible by generous support from the Echenberg Family Foundation and is organized by the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism and the McGill University Faculty of Law.

All proceedings can be viewed online at the Conference's official website.

A Special Documentary about Darfur on CBC.ca

2007-11-05T13:57:00.000-08:00

You can watch "On Our Watch" - a special documentary about Darfur, Sudan - on CBC.ca.

To find out more about Darfur, go to Save Darfur Canada.

Bordertown: A Flim about Violence Against Women

2007-10-27T18:29:00.000-07:00

Amnesty International USA

Watch Bordertown and Take Action to End the Femicides in Mexico and Guatemala

Some films have the power to educate and prompt people to act. Amnesty International is proud to support Bordertown, starring Jennifer Lopez. This film tells the story of a reporter who is sent to Juarez, a city gripped with fear where hundreds of women have been brutally raped and murdered. Visit Amnesty's website and learn more about the film and find out how you can take action to end the killings of women in Mexico and Guatemala.

Here is a link to the Juarez Project if you want to find out more.
http://thejuarezproject.com/

Pics from Darfur

2007-10-20T14:14:00.000-07:00

You can find out more about Darfur's situation simply by googling with "Darfur Sudan".

Having a voice - not just a vote - in democracy

2007-10-14T20:50:00.000-07:00

World on Fire - A song/video by Sarah McLachlan

2007-01-18T21:16:00.000-08:00

The video for World On Fire opens with the claim of having cost $150,000, despite the ensuing low-quality footage of McLachlan in a plain room playing her guitar. The video continues to reveal it actually cost $15, then tracking (in animated and videotaped segments) how the remainder went to enriching lives all around the globe through charity donations.

It is one of McLachlan's most political songs, intended to graphically illustrate the impact that even relatively small individual donations might have on third-world poverty.

You can watch the video at http://www.worldonfire.ca/
---

World On Fire

The worlds on fire its more then I can handle
Ill tap into the water try and bring my share
Try to bring more, more then I can handle
Bring it to the table
Bring what I am able

Hearts are worn in these dark ages
Youre not alone in these stories pages
The light has fallen amongst the living and the dying
And Ill try to hold it in
Yeah Ill try to hold it in

Chorus

I watch the heavens but I find no calling
Something I can do to change whats coming
Stay close to me while the skys falling
I dont wanna be left alone dont wanna be alone

Chorus

Hearts break hearts mend love still hurts
Visions clash planes crash still theres talk of
saving souls still colds closing in on us

We part the veil on our killer sun
Stray from the straight line on this short run
The more we take the less we become
The fortune of one man means less for some

Chorus

AM1470 Commentators' Events of the Year for 2006

2006-12-26T09:22:00.000-08:00

In case you have not had the opportunity to tune in, here are the Events of the Year (2006) chosen by the commentators on AM1470.

What is your pick? Share it using the Comments feature.

---
KK Wan: Defeat of the Liberals by the Conservatives
- it is important that we do not let one party stay in government for too long

Thomas Leung: Taiwan's presidential scandal
- despite democratic progress in Taiwan, there is much to be improved

Winnie Fong: Increase of crime and the importance of public safety
- the ordinary citizens feel most impacted by the lack of security in the society

Ronald Leung: Canadian identity and issue of "dual citizenship", sparked by the Lebanese incident
- who are Canadians and where does our loyalty lie?

Michael Yue: Time Magazine's Person of the Year - YOU
- a new civil society made possible by the new internet technologies, allowing ordinary citizens ("you") to express themselves and to connect with one another
- listen to my clip

Kenny Chiu: US mid-term elections and the victory of the Democrats in both houses
- significantly affecting the future policy directions of the Bush government, which can no longer dominate the houses

Nelson Tsui: Emerson's switch from the Liberals to the Conservatives
- a blow to our belief in democratic representation

Finella Sun: The Head Tax Redress campaign and its accomplishments
- consequence of the hard work of the Chinese community to ensure that the Canadian society remembers and will not make the same mistake again

Middle East Crisis

2006-07-15T00:01:00.000-07:00

The Middle East is again in crisis. The US, as usual, is backing up Israel, and this time, I suspect that Israel might have even been given the green light by the US before their military action. Now, Israel is calling Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah the "Axis of Terror", the language of the US in their war against terror. An open war seems eminent.

I believe that with US blessing, Israel is just using the kidnapping of their soldiers as an excuse to lauch the attack on Hezbollah. To what extent is the US behind the Israsli action is up to anyone's guess. I, for one, believe that the US is there every step of the time.

The Republicans are falling behind in public polls, and it seems that the Bush administration is taking a bold step of using a war to divert the American public's attention. What they have forgotten, though, is that the drop in support by the American public had everything to do with the mess they have created in Iraq.

History seems to repeat itself all the time. The suffering of innocent civilians is of no concern to the power-hungry politicians. Where should we stand in the brink of war?

我的評論方式

2006-04-26T23:10:00.000-07:00

經過一年半的電台評論，我慢慢找到自己的方式：

一. 用尊重的態度與聽衆直接對話，亦同時挑戰他們的觀點和思維方法。

二. 用人文主義的關懷，引導聽衆了解社會的不平及公義的重要性。

三. 緊持理性的認知，重視科學論證。

四. 強調對話的重要性。

能夠在空氣中擁有自我發揮的機會，應珍惜這個榮幸，用負責的態度，認真和公正地與大衆交流。

A Layman's Quest For Legal/Moral Foundation Of The Head Tax Redress Campaign

2005-12-05T21:46:00.000-08:00

I am not a legal expert, but I need to find a legal/moral foundation for the head tax redress campaign so that I can decide if the payees should be compensated for. My view in this matter is at best that of a layman who has a personal interest in legal/moral thinking. My argument may be totally off track, but I hope it at least reflects how I arrived at my conclusion that the Head Tax law was an unjust law, and that our courts today should address this injustice directly instead of leaving it to the political arena for resolution.

The basis for my thinking, not surprisingly, is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, specifically Section 15 that deals with Equality Rights.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Although the Charter was enacted in 1982, almost a century after the passing of the Chinese Head Tax Act in 1885, I would argue that the moral values as enshrined in the Charter - being universal - should not be bound by time. As a result of the universality of these values, such as Eqaulity Rights, laws that were enacted before the Charter can be judged retrospectively, and if deemed violating the Charter, be nullified.

This view, however, was not the view of the courts during the case (2001-03) involving head tax payees (Mack vs Attorney General of Canada). I do not pretend to know law better than the judges, but I do know that their judgements were not plainly accepted in the law circle.

In 2003, after the verdicts, the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto organized a conference called Achieving Human Rights in a Multicultural Society: Reparations, Human Rights and the Limits of Law. While the conference did not focus exclusively on the head tax verdicts, the case formed the basis for discussions. Like any conference of a similar design, there was obviously no consensus on how the courts' judgements should be interpreted. I had to admit that I did not understand a lot of the presented ideas (I watched the archived webcasts on the Faculty site), but one particular perspective caught my attention, which I re-presented in this article in my own, not at all legal, language.

In his paper for the conference, The Limits of Influence: Mack and the Influence of the Charter on Private Law, Mayo Moran (Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto) makes this conclusion which I think would best be quoted here in full as the ending of my little discource on the legal/moral foundation of the Head Tax redress campaign.

"The ultimate question in Mack and many other reparations cases thus seems to engage our attitude to the sovereignty of our own past. Why would we, judging in our own cause so to speak, be more deferential to our own past 'sovereigns' even when we acknowledge the acts they proclaimed in our collective name were profoundly wrong and invidious. Indeed, respect for our collective polity may be better expressed by frankly acknowledging now where we went terribly wrong and using our law - a formidable weapon in our wrongdoing - not as a shield to protect the unassailable sovereignty of the past, but rather as a means of rectifying now what we did wrong then. Periods in our history like that implicated in the Mack case are generally recognized as moments not only of collective political failure but also of the failure of law in particular. And so part of the task here, like in other cases of 'transitional justice', is to ask how law can best reassert the possibility of its moral meaning. Though the temptations to do so may be strong, it seems unlikely that this will be accomplished by ignoring its contemporary imperatives and 'blindly adhering' to the sovereignty of our own racist past. So while it may well risk the charge of 'activism', reasserting the primacy of law's own fundamental values and its substantive, now constitutionalized, commitment to equal human dignity seems more promising as a path towards the law's reconciliation with its own ignominious past." (p.27)

Citizens (book review)

2005-10-16T12:39:00.000-07:00

This book is part of the Canadian Democratic Audit series (9 volumes of publication), which includes Elections, Political Parties, Legislatures, Federalism, Advocacy Groups, Communications Technology, The Courts, and Cabinets and First Ministers. The Audit project aims at examining the state of Canadian democracy and considering where it is working well, where it is falling short, what the possibilities for reform are, and how it can be improved. As "citizens are at the core of the any meaningful definition of democracy, [...] they must be included in [such] an audit."

This volume attempts to answer 2 key questions about democratic citizenship in Canada:

How engaged are Canadians in the country's democratic life?
Which Canadians are most - and least - engaged?

The audit of citizen engagement (or participation) is presented in the various chapters that deal with how much attention Canadians pay to politics, what Canadians know about politics, whether Canadians can get by with less information, how much Canadians participate in politics, and how civic-minded Canadians are. The authors make use of available data from major surveys (including the Canadian Election Studies; National Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participting; and World Values Survey) and localized studies to find answers to these questions.

The authors conclude that a core group of highly engaged Canadians are at the forefront of casting their ballots during election times, volunteering their time with and donating to community non-profit organizations, learning about politics and social issues, and joining community and political organizations to exert their views and values. Of the rest of the Canadian citizenry, many have been less or never engaged, notably the younger generation, women, visible minorities, and the poor of our society. So while there is something to cheer about Canadian democracy (based on the persistence of the "core group"), there is indeed much to be worried in terms of "democractic deficits or divides".

One thread surfaces out of this volume of assessing the civic engagement of Canadians - the interrelatedness of civic/political awareness, knowledge and participation. The ultimate question is how to make social and political issues relevant to people's lives. Much remains to be done to bridge the "gaps" of participation. There is no simple solution to this, and we need to try diverse methods and assess the impact of these experiments on enhancing civic engagement.

Labour Movement At A Turning Point?

2005-10-04T23:10:00.000-07:00

The BC Liberals government, as predicted by many, has passed a legislation to stop the teacher strike. Not surprisingly, the BCTF and other unions have pledged to continue their resistance. This war between a right-wing government and the left-wing unions started the day when the NDP was driven out of power by the Liberals, and we are not even close to seeing an end to it. All evidence indicates that the government has no intention to step back; it has been a clear policy of the BC Liberals to "crush" the powerful unions. With legislative weapon in their hands, and not a bit hesitating to use it, the BC Liberals seem to be winning the various battles so far. Is labour movement in BC at a turning point? Or is this only a temporary political setback, until the NDP returns to power?

Installation Speech of Michaelle Jean, 27th Governor General of Canada

2005-09-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

Michaelle Jean was installed as the 27th Governor General of Canada yesterday. I am posting her speech (taken from the Governor General website) here for all those who missed listening to it on TV. It is a great speech.

You can watch the speech at CTV.ca.

----
Monsieur le Premier ministre, Prime Minister,

It is with tremendous pride and deep emotion that I am responding today to the call of destiny which sometimes takes us in a direction we might never have imagined. I am proud of the confidence you have placed in me by choosing me as the 27^th Governor General of Canada. Here today, before all of you, I am turning a significant page in my own story as I set off on this new adventure with hope and determination.

Let me begin by speaking about hope. During the 22^nd visit to Canada by Queen Elizabeth II last May, Her Majesty reminded us that we can “make a difference” for those who will come after us. “If we make an effort in our own lives and in our way of improving the world around us,” she said, “we will have every reason to be proud of what we have accomplished.” That observation is a perfect reflection of the woman who is deeply concerned about the fate of humanity, whom I had the honour of meeting at Balmoral. It is an expression of hope that parallels my own.

Hope has been a beacon for me since childhood and into my adult years. It is embodied in this country with its unlimited possibilities – this country that we sometimes take for granted. My own story begins as a young child in another country, one “draped in barbed wire from head to toe,” in the powerful words of the Haitian poet in exile, René Depestre, who is also my uncle. The story of that little girl, who watched her parents, her family, and her friends grappling with the horrors of a ruthless dictatorship, who became the woman standing before you today, is a lesson in learning to be free.

I know how precious that freedom is, I know what a legacy it is for every child, for every citizen of this country. I whose ancestors were slaves, who was born into a civilization long reduced to whispers and cries of pain, know something about its price, and I know too what a treasure it is for us all.

Every Canadian woman, every Canadian man prizes that freedom and would defy anyone who tried to take it away – of that I have no doubt. From Signal Hill to Vancouver Island, from Baffin Land to Thetford Mines, the freedom that is ours unites us all. Freedom has marked our history and our territory, it has marked our summer breezes and our howling winter winds. It has helped create the spirit of adventure that I love above all in this country, this country where each and every one of us is able to participate fully in the ongoing task of building it.

More than four centuries ago that spirit of adventure drove women and men to cross the ocean and discover a new world elsewhere. That spirit also led the First Nations to pass on to those new settlers the essence of this generous land. And it encourages people from all over the world to share in our prospects or to take refuge here and make a fresh start, safe from tyranny and violence. It inspires our artists, our scientists, our peacekeepers and our institutions as they work to spread our know-how and our message of hope. Today, we are the sum of those adventures.

Think about it. To set off for terra incognita with the hope of putting down roots in a new land. To take one’s inspiration from the encounter with the first population of these wide-open spaces and their age-old customs. To open oneself to the entire world, which comes here inspired by the ideal of a society in which the rights of all citizens are equal. Our history speaks powerfully about the freedom to invent a new world, about the courage underlying those remarkable adventures.

Let me add that my appointment to the position of Governor General of Canada is proof of that. We are encouraged to believe that everything is possible in this country and my own adventure represents for me and for others a spark of hope that I want kept alive for the greatest number.

Today we are reaping what we have sown and the harvest is bountiful. We have designed measures to foster new talents who send out our voices to the world. Now, in the first years of a new millennium, Canada can rely on two priceless resources : our land and our population. Every one of us rekindles in his own way the sense of belonging to this space that we all share, a space that contains the world. Never has it been so urgent to ensure the ethical and ecological integrity of this world for the generations to come. It is a moral obligation.

I know that our planet is fragile, and that natural disasters like the one that recently assailed our American neighbours, are a brutal reminder of that fragility. And we have seen so many lose their possessions. And as is universally the case in such circumstances, we have seen emerge entire segments of a population, among the most destitute, men and women who had nowhere to go. Dispossessed, with no points of reference, facing sheer devastation, even utter dismay. Such images we have seen before – from Darfur, from Haiti, from Niger. And this time they came from New Orleans, from the margins of an affluent society.

Other changes have come, changes that sometimes leave us perplexed. Redefining national boundaries and the violent upheavals that sometimes accompany it, the opening of markets, the speed and convergence of our systems of communication, mean that the map of the world is changing day by day, before our eyes, and that some countries may be wondering about where they fit in. The stakes are high: they include taking part in increasing globalization while at the same time protecting features that enrich humanity with our own perceptions of the world.

As a journalist, the profession I practiced with passion and resolve, I have been a privileged witness both of a good many upheavals and of an unprecedented opening onto the world. I pledge that I will go on listening and that my curiosity will remain keen. We are at a turning point in the history of civilization and more than ever before, our future rests on those who are forcing us to imagine the world of tomorrow. Those women and men are today showing us the vast range of what is possible for us. They are etching upon our memories the breadth of our aspirations. They are holding out a mirror that reveals the gap between what we are and what we aspire to be.

The time of the “two solitudes” that for too long described the character of this country is past. The narrow notion of “every person for himself” does not belong in today’s world, which demands that we learn to see beyond our wounds, beyond our differences for the good of all. Quite the contrary: we must eliminate the spectre of all the solitudes and promote solidarity among all the citizens who make up the Canada of today. As well, we must make good use of our prosperity and our influence wherever the hope that we represent offers the world an extra measure of harmony.

And that is how I am determined that the position I occupy as of today will be more than ever a place where citizens’ words will be heard, where the values of respect, tolerance, and sharing that are so essential to me and to all Canadians, will prevail. Those values, which are paramount for me, are linked inextricably with the Canada I love. Along with my husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond, I hope to rally our creative forces around those values that unite us all and that are universal in scope.

There is an observation by Montesquieu, a philosopher of the Enlightenment, that has a particular resonance for me and I would like to share it with you. It states that “The duty of the citizen becomes a crime if it makes him forget the duty of the man.” To this, I would of course add “the duty of the woman,” because we want recognition as full-fledged citizens in our own right. That statement inspires me and comforts me, for me it is a rampart against the barbarism that afflicts so many in this world. And it reminds me how fortunate we are to be citizens of a country that’s not afraid to tear down walls of prejudice, one whose generosity is its finest attribute in the concert of nations. As Governor General I shall place special emphasis on the generosity that Canadians have shown throughout our history, from our veterans and our Canadian Forces, who have often sacrificed so much, to the many volunteers in humanitarian actions, who often work in the shadows in the name of a peaceful ideal of freedom and justice.

Most of all, I want our young people to be our standard-bearers. I want them to dip into the enormous treasure trove that is Canada. I am the mother of a little girl whose story opened my eyes to certain very harsh realities that we must not ignore. My daughter, Marie-Éden, has changed my life. She has taught me that while all children are born equal, they don’t all have the same opportunities to flourish. This is as true for children here as it is for children in the third world.

I think of Joshua, a young Cree whom I met not long ago in Nemaska, which I was visiting as a journalist. While most of his friends had dropped out of school and a number had even taken their own lives, this boy was curious to know what someone like me was doing in his community. He asked about my work in the media and, somehow, my experience inspired him to pursue his own interests in that field, in spite of all the obstacles along the way.

Nothing in today’s society is more disgraceful than the marginalization of some young people who are driven to isolation and despair. We must not tolerate such disparities. After all, our young people are helping to redefine the great family we all belong to, in a world that is less and less impermeable, more and more open. They are the promise of our future and we have a duty to encourage them to join us in this reinvention of the world. We must communicate to them the spirit of adventure that our ancestors, regardless of their origins, have passed on to us. We must give our young people the power and, even more, the desire to realize their full potential. I shall do everything I can to see to that and I invite each and every one of you to help me in this vital task.

I am eagerly looking forward to meeting my fellow-Canadians very soon. I am convinced that Canada will continue to accomplish great things if we work together for a better quality of life - for our own population and for all humanity. Our country is vast and it is blessed with a wealth of colours and the varied music of its tongues and accents. Many have not had the good fortune of measuring its full extent. I know how privileged I am. And knowing it makes me impatient and eager to meet you and to begin the dialogue that I consider to be the founding principle of this country.

I already have some sense of the wisdom of the First Nations; of the legendary hospitality and humour of people in the Atlantic provinces; of the flourishing culture and the generosity of spirit of Quebeckers, of the resilience of Francophones outside Quebec; of the impressive economic vitality of Ontario; of the sense of honour of residents of the West where, I’m told, it is still possible to conclude a business deal with a handshake; and of the spectacular geography of British Columbia. I have a sense of some of this country’s splendours, but there is still so much for me to discover at your side. I look forward to visiting you in your communities, your towns, your villages, your homes, and to listen as you talk about your faith in this land of freedom which is an inexhaustible source of renewal.

Every level of government, every community in this country, every body that oversees its development, the institutions that represent the best of it, the women and men who are at the core of its very existence - all have a responsibility to kindle in us the spirit of adventure with which I undertake today, with pride and determination, to assume the office of Governor General of Canada. I hope with all my heart that together, we can call upon the vigour of our shared history to realize our dearest and most ambitious wish: to make a better world.

Thank you.

A Conference on Human Rights and Social Activism

2005-09-25T07:07:00.000-07:00

I just attended a 2-day conference called Human Rights and Social Activism: Rethinking the Legacy of J.S. Woodsworth at the Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre (Vancouver, BC). The panels of speakers presented their papers and speeches about the following broad topics:

Globalization, Institutions and Social Policy
Woodsworth and Contemporary Labour Legislation
Human Rights and Social Activism
The Erosion of Woodsworth's Legacy: Perspectives on Vancouver
Aboriginal Rights and Justice
University and Community Activism
Immigration/Multiculturalism
Human Rights and Future Policy Discourse

All of the above are fitting topics in the tradition of social democracy, which is a backbone in the development of the Canadian society and politics.

It was not a large conference by any standards, as about 70 people attended, including professors, graduate students, activists, and ordinary citizens. But the topics were well chosen to represent the wide range of issues and challenges that face "social democrats" of our time.

Highlights:

Linda Hancock (Social and International Studies, Deakin University, Australia) speaks about the erosion of the Australia welfare state as neo-liberalism becomes the dominant ideology in governance and policy development. She also refers to the "poor" rating of Australia as a global citizen (according to How Ethical is Australia? An Examination of Australia as a Global Citizen). She also observes that there are parallels between Australia and Canada.
Eric Tucker (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Canada) and Jim Sinclair (President, BC Federation of Labour) speaks about labour rights and the conditions of labour movement in the present time. While they come from different spheres of discourse, they are both making reference to the impact of globalization on local labour movements and rights. One particular challenge is how labour organizations in the world can work together to ensure that they are not broken by the globalized forces of neoliberal market strategies and powerful multinational corporations. Jim Sinclair points to global solidarity and institutional consolidation that today are even more critical for the labour movement than in the older days of capitalism.
Gwen Brodsky (Co-Director, The Poverty and Human Rights Project, Vancouver, Canada) speaks about the "poor" and argues that poverty is indeed a "violation of human rights". In BC, the rolling back of the social safety net in the last few years has left the most vulnerable helpless. She urges for the development of a set of national standards for social programmes, so that the provinces have to be accountable to what they are doing with the federal money.
Daniel Coleman (English, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada) speaks about the lingering of "white supremacy" in how Canadians define "civility". He argues that as Canada partakes in a liberal modernity, we are also caught in a paradox whereby the universality of human rights that we have defined for ourselves also includes an exclusion from that universality of those who are non-white. He points to what John Porter has called the Canadian vertical mosaic as an illustration of how Canadians believe that we are an equal society despite the constant presence of an elite class.
Sven Robinson (former MP, currently BC Government and Service Employees Union) speaks from is personal experience the struggle for equality legislation in Canada. He talks about the efforts of discriminalizing abortion, legislating gay/lesbian rights, and adding anti-hate propaganda legislation into the Criminal Code.

Overall, the conference was an intellectually and emotionally enjoyable experience. On a personal note, I think there is much work to be done in the local (Vancouver) Chinese community about human rights education. In one of the presentations about Human Rights Commissions, the speakers pointed to the minimal reaction from the ethnic communities when the BC Human Rights Commission was closed down. I sat there agreeing that the Chinese community certainly did not say much. What is even more worrying is that there is now a strong voice in the Chinese community arguing that there is too much emphasis on human rights in Canada, and that this has led to the proliferation of irresponsible behaviours that include drug addiction, prostitution, gambling, etc. Such "misinterpretation" of human rights must be challenged with appropriate education in the community.

The Next Canada (book review)

2005-09-17T08:11:00.000-07:00

In The Next Canada: In Search of Our Future Nation, Myrna Kostash traveled aross Canada and talked to young people in all walks of life to find out how they view this country and their own life, and how all this reflects the future of our nation.

Myrna's book reflects a strong social democratic tradition in Canada. The young people she interviewed included frontline community activist, technoligical wunderkind, ecologist, sexual dissident, social philosopher, experimental artist, entrepreneur, McJobber, and fisher. While not done through any kind of scientifically orchestrated random sampling process, they do represent a very diversified cross-section of the new generation.

The book is divided into the following chapters.

The New World Order - about work, unions, money and the dignity of labour

Culture - about cyberspace, arts, rebuilding cultural community

Beyond Identity Politics - about the decline of conventional politics, social resistance, and the disadvantaged

Homeplace - about shrinking of public ownership, creating new values, Quebec, and reclaiming the public good

In the final chapter, Myrna concludes with one big question and its answer:

How is it possible, I wanted to know, that my interviewees, who live in so many radically new circumstances that could not have been foreseen when the various elements of Canada's social safety net were being woven together, who seem to have assumed the burden of the "new" consciousness of contingency and multiplicity, and the normalization of the transnational globe, who have no illusions about the long-term survivability of a specific Canadian identity, who have been handed the apparatus of theory that warns them social cohesion is a romance of the Old Narrative - how is it possible that, when I asked them not ujust whether they were Canadians but how they knew thet were, they almost to a person answered some version of "I know I am a Caandian because I believe in social compassion."

Myrna believed that she has found, through the "myriad of conversations" she had with these young people, a narrative of pure desire - a desire to dig deep enough to strick their own roots. "The next Canadians are right here, they are at home, and they call it Canada."

A Disappointment

2005-08-06T13:56:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, Paul Martin formally appointed Michaelle Jean as the next Governor-General. The major mainstream newspapers (including Vancouver Sun, a local publication in itself) all devoted much space to report on this development, and mostly with a very positive tone. The news, of course, was already leaked out on Thursday.

On both days, however, none of the Public Affairs phone-in programs on AM1470 and AM1320 (at 5-6 pm) chose this as a topic. Was it not chosen because other news were more locally relevant, or was it because the program hosts thought their listerners might not be interested? But the appointment of a new General-Governer, regardless of one's view on the value of this traditional institution, should at least deserve to be a point of discussion. In this particular case, the appointment of Michaelle Jean was widely praised as a positive move. One columnist even argued that this appointment for a traditional institution reflected the arrival of a New Canada.

Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. If we look back at the topics discussed on the shows, the majority of them were understandably local, to match the interests of the listeners. National topics were far and between, and often, a smaller number of listeners would call in. Granted, AM1470 and AM1320 are not the CBC, but should they not take on some responsibility to help listeners expand their vision by learning more about national affairs?

In a previous article, I was arguing that the Chinese media ironically created a cultural enclave for the community. I think by not choosing to discuss about Michaelle Jean's appointment, the program hosts are once again helping to strengthen this cultural enclave.

抗衡「泛道德主義」、走向「多向度思維」

2005-08-06T13:46:00.000-07:00

一直以來，華人社區內都有人認定加拿大社會已變得太自由，個人主義過度膨脹，而道德的約束力日漸式微。由同性婚姻、大麻非刑事化、安全注射屋、到賭場博彩的爭議，以至近日有關娼妓合法化的初步探討，都有不少社區中人從「傳統道德」的角度，反對各種政策的「自由化」趨勢，更甚者，政府被認為包攬「黃、賭、毒」三大害。批判的矛頭亦指向教育制度，認為學校缺乏為下一代提供道德標準的能力和勇氣。簡括而言，這種觀點描述的社會，正走向自我滅亡。從日常觀察所得，這種觀點甚有市場價值；它的支持者固然不遺餘力地透過公共媒體傳達訊息，同時，它亦成為批評政府－－包括政客、官僚等－－的利器。

上述觀點的基礎是意識形態而不是客觀分析的。事實上，前述種種問題，各有其前因後果，亦屬不同的社會範疇，當中涉及人權、法治、醫療健康、社會安全、及商業利益等價值的互動和衝突；籠统地定性為「道德淪亡」的後果，不只阻礙理性的討論，對問題的解決也起不了作用。這種泛道德主義的傾向，支持者中不乏社區有識之士，能夠利用其影響力，將觀點推而廣之。

華人社區內提供討論空間的公共平台〔public platform〕極為有限，商業團體及服務機構固然不少，但缺乏文化、教育或論政的民間團體，總令人覺得社區內產生不了多元化的發展。另一方面，日漸壯大的華語媒體，雖然對社區極有貢獻，又反過來令社區人士減少接觸非華語媒體的機會和意欲，慢慢形成「內困的文化圈」〔cultural enclave〕，使某類觀點能佔據這個具其影響力的平台，不斷循環再造〔recycling of viewpoints〕。

要抗衡這種影響，大概可從兩方面着手。個人方面，只要能力許可，最直接的是多接觸非華語媒體上的觀點，擴闊視野及從不同的角度分析問題。同時，多跟同輩討論，從互動中理解問題的複雜性，走出「單向度思維」〔one-dimensional thinking〕的局限。群體方面，有心人大可組織起來，成立論政及各類文化、教育團體，爭取或發展表達意見的平台，達致「多向度思維」〔multi-dimensional thinking〕的目標。

因互聯網技術的發展，每個公民都可以利用網上的平台表達自己的意見，這絕對是簡單易行的第一步。例如近年出現的網上日誌〔weblogs〕，提供一個快捷的途徑，使任何人都可擁有自己的平台，與別人交流，只看我們是否加以利用。更進一步看，多元化網上電台的方興末艾，絕對有利「多向度社會」的發展，壓制「泛道德主義」的擴散。

「反恐戰爭」的合法性問題 (Issue of Legitimacy)

2005-07-30T08:28:00.000-07:00

只要我們願意客觀地分析「恐怖主義」／「反恐戰爭」這個問題，不難察覺對事情的理解絕不能只從單一的觀點出發。可惜，我們習慣了從西方傳媒獲取資訉，而不自覺地採納了某種角度來審視現狀。這個發展其實是極為危險的，最終令我們無條件地接受了政府「反恐政策」，忘記了作為自由民主社會的公民，我們有責任監察政府行為的合法性(legitimacy)，在社會安全(security)和人權(rights)之間取得合理的平衡。最近的倫敦爆炸案便是一個「合法性」的典型例子，我說的當然是無辜被英國便衣警察錯殺的巴西青年。

因警方格殺勿論政策而身亡的青年，原來跟恐怖活動一點也沒有關連。但英國以至西方傳媒只是輕輕報導警方及政府的道歉，與及少數聲音對政策的批評；至於青年遠在巴西的家人的感受及巴西政府的抗議，着墨更少。如果我們硬要比較，巴西青年一條命和倫敦市民的五十多條命，孰重孰輕？看遠一點，911死難者的人數跟伊拉克人民在戰爭中死亡的數字又如何比較呢？到底數字上的比較，直的有意義嗎？

「格殺勿論」的做法必要嗎？它的「合法性」真是無可置疑嗎？從西方反恐戰爭的角度來看，這些可能都不是問題。而我們，因個人及社會安全的顧慮，除了說聲無奈，大概對問題都不太深究了。

有關社會安全(security)和人權(rights)的探索，可參考國際特赦組織網頁：
www.amnesty.ca/realsecurity

公平貿易 (Fair Trade)

2005-07-29T21:05:00.000-07:00

作為資本主義世界的一分子，我們自然地接受了它的生存準則，也同時間認可了它內在的矛盾。所謂「自由貿易」所造成的矛盾便是極為有力的例子。作為勞動者，我們希望得到最大的回報，因此，我們绝不願受到資本家的剝削。但作為消費者，我們卻希望購買價廉物美的產品。可惜，要達到後者，必定建基於對勞勳者的剝削。於是，先進工業國家的勞動者在不知不覺間，認可了對發展中國家勞動者的剝削。「自由貿易」到底只是「不公平貿易」的代名詞。

近年發展起來的「公平貿易」運動 (Fair Trade Movement)，致力於為第三世界的勞動者建立一個平等、合理的貿易平台，使他們穫得最大的回報。因此，當他們的勞動製品分銷至先進工業國家時，會定出較高的市價，但賣點不單在其品質，而是對公平貿易的認同。

若想了解「公平貿易」，可參考以下網頁。

Vancouver Fair Trade Coffee Network
Make Trade Fair
Trans Fair Canada
International Fair Trade Association
Fair Trade Federation
Fair Trade Campaigns
Ten Thousand Villages
Putumayo World Music

Supporting Same Sex Marriage

2005-01-26T10:58:00.000-08:00

There are two articles in this posting about same sex marraige. They are different in focus, but together form a supporting argument for same sex marraige. Both articles have been published in the Ming Pao Daily's Bilingual Forum.

The first article takes a sociological perspective on same sex marriage, while the second one approaches this topic from a human rights perspective.

---
Article One

SAME SEX MARRIAGE WILL NOT DESTROY FAMILY AS A FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL INSTUTITION

The issue of same sex marriage has divided this country. Is it a matter of protecting human right, as the supporting camp has argued? Or is it a matter of protecting family as a social institution, as the opposing camp has argued? As a supporter of same sex marriage, I would argue that the legal recognition of same sex marriage will not destroy family as a fundamental social institution. On the contrary, this institution will be strengthened by an expanded definition of marriage, as proposed in the revised Marriage Act.

Family is a fundamental social institution. Both the opposing and supporting camps, I believe, will agree on this. This institution, however, has always manifested itself in many forms, beyond what the opposing camp likes to define as “nuclear family”. While marriage is mostly the beginning point of a family, the resulting structure of the family may vary. We have everything from single-parent families to nuclear families to extended families. Families may be headed by a man, a woman, a man and woman together, or more than one man and/or one woman (extended families or polygamous families), regardless of how marriage is defined and conducted, or at all. It is clear therefore that there is really no such thing as the “best” form of family. As a fundamental social institution, it is as much a cultural as natural product of humankind.

The opposing camp is deeply concerned that the legal recognition of same sex marriage will destroy the family. Their major argument is that same sex marriage cannot result in procreation, which is the key to the continuation of not only our family institution, but also human society as such. I have tried very hard to look at the potentially negative impacts same sex marriage has on the continuation of the family. I have to say that I cannot understand how extending the right of marriage to homosexuals can harm or nullify the family or heterosexual marriage. The only way imaginable that this happens is over time, more and more humans “become” homosexuals and thus overwhelm the heterosexual minority. But then, we are still not seeing the end of family, as procreation is still possible as long as humankind is biologically composed of the two sexes. So not to dwell too much on absurd futuristic conjecture, I can only conclude that the fundamental fear of the opposing camp is not warranted.

Beyond procreation, a family serves many more significant functions, including the protection and nourishment of family members (inclusive of but not limited to children). I am sure that if we lay all the available research findings in front of us, we can neither prove nor disprove the capability of same sex couples to protect and nourish their family members, at least not worse or better than their heterosexual counterparts. And their heterosexual counterparts are not always doing a fine job any way. Marraige has never been permitted based on projected capacity of couples to become adeqaute parents.

By extending the right of marriage to homosexuals, Canada will become a more inclusive society. It takes tremendous courage to take this step, as it requires that we embrace new forms of family with which many of us are not familiar and of which many of us may never have first experience. It is natural for human beings to fear the unfamiliar, and it is through open and trusting dialogue that we may be able to overcome our fear. Let us show the world that we are not a culture of fear and hatred, but a culture of love and mutual respect.

---
Article Two

SAME SEX MARRIAGE - MISCONCEPTIONS IN THE OPPOSING ARGUMENT

As the Canadian parliament is going to decide on same sex marriage, I would like to critique the essential misconceptions in the opposing argument. I believe that these misconceptions, having to do with our understanding of the democratic system in which the issue of same sex marriage plays out, have not been challenged and debated openly in the Chinese media.

---
1. Same sex marriage is not a human rights issue.

This misconception lies at the core of the opposing argument, suggesting that marriage is not a right, but a privilege. On the other hand, the same argument states that marriage is an essential, perhaps the most critical, human institution, without which our society - or human civilization - will no longer exist. Here lies the illogicality of this argument. If marriage (and its associated institution - the family) is a core human institution, how can one argue that it has nothing to do with human rights?

The right to marriage is dealt with in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the rights to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

While same sex marriage might not have been included explicitly in the original conception of Article 16, it nonetheless affirms that marriage is a human right - essentially because it belongs to the most basic of human institutions.

2. The will of the majority (referring to supporters of heterosexual marriage) should prevail over that of the minority.

To those opposing same sex marriage, since homosexuals represent the minority of the human race, they should submit themselves to the will of the majority, the heterosexuals. It is true that the principle of "the majority rules" is an important foundation for democracy. But let us not forget that the majority principle is about governance, while the minority principle is about human rights. And marriage is not an issue of governance.

A democratic system's major contribution to human existence is in protecting the rights of the minorities, so that they are able to live side-by-side with the majorities without the fear of oppression. This is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all about.

3. The courts have been too eager to impose their "liberal" position on the Canadian society.

So far, many provincial courts of appeal have ruled in favour of same sex marriage, charging that the federal law is not constitutional, in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the amendment of the federal law is in the hands of the parliament. The opposing argument has been criticizing the judges to be too active in imposing their "positions" on the Canadian society, a phenomenon labelled as "court activism". Imagine that the courts had ruled in favour of the opposing argument, would their proponents be making the same accusation?

Living in a democratic society, we must be very careful not to fall into a self-fulfilling trap of supporting the system only when it favours our interests. If we agree to the rules of the game, sometimes we win and sometimes we don't. The courts in Canada are fair, and historically, like courts in other respectable democratic system, have played an important role in ensuring that the rights of the Canadian people are protected in accordance with the rule of law (the Constitution). In this kind of system, it is the people's right to bring their discontent to the court and ask for a verdict. The homosexual couples who wish to marry like every other Canadian have done so.

This is not to say that our judicial system is perfect and requires no improvement, but it is counter-productive to accuse the courts of activism simply because one's position has not been favoured.

Natural Disaster, But Also Human Catastrophe

2004-12-28T10:50:00.000-08:00

As I am writing this, the death tolls of the tsunami catastrophe in South Asia has reached 40,000, and the number keeps rising. While the deadly force of nature does not discriminate, it is clear that often the poor and disadvantaged suffer the greatest from such catastrophe, not only when it occurred but also in the aftermath.

South Asia (around the arc of the Indian Ocean) still remains one of the poorer regions of the world. Governments in the region are relatively ill equipped in dealing with natural disasters, a factor that often adds to the destructive outcomes of such events. In this case, we now know that there is no tsunami warning system around the Indian Ocean. And the reasons of course are not hard to find.

While all of our efforts - individual, organizational and governmental - must now be given to the rescue and recovery work of the catastrophe, let us not forget that much needs to be done for people living in this region to ensure that human casualties will be reduced in future when nature strikes again.

The Supreme Court Has Spoken On Same Sex Marriage

2004-12-09T18:17:00.000-08:00

I am pleased that finally the Supreme Court of Canada has given its opinion on same sex marriage. As expected, the Court indicates that human society has evolved to the point where we can no longer take away the rights of gay couples to marry.

Opponents of same sex marriage are clearly unhappy and some accuse the Liberal Party of using political means (appointing Supreme Court judges who support same sex marriage) to direct the ruling of the Court. This is pure non-sense, as several provincial Courts of Appeal have ruled supportively on same sex marriage, without any influence from the federal ruling party.

Opponents who fear that same sex marriage will destroy our social institutions are simply living in a dream world, and their fear should not be taken seriously.

The last stage of this drama will be the casting of votes by the MPs when the Liberal government takes the same sex marriage bill to the parliament. I am sure the opposing camp will pull their last forces together to stop the bill. Supporters of same sex marriage, therefore, must not be complacent.

Once in a while in human social evolution, we need to take a bold step, and the issue of gay marriage is such an occasion. Let's show the world that we are a civilized society and that we will use our best democratic institution to settle the dispute.

When will China be a"superpower"?

2004-12-08T17:34:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I was at a forum that discussed the question: Will China be the next superpower?

The 4 speakers in the panel were relatively positive about China's development in the last few decades, and were cautiously optimistic about China's future. The discussion focussed much on economic accomplishments, and touched on the military prowess and political development of China.

My own concern, however, was not addressed at this forum. To me, it's really not so important for China to become a "superpower" - often defined in economic and military terms, and to some extent in political terms, particularly in relation to democratic development. To me, it's more important that China becomes a country respected by the rest of the world - respected because China contributes to the common good and because Chinese people conduct themselves appropriately as "global citizens".

The economic achievements of China in the last few decades have been the result of overwhelming self-interests by the Chinese people, realized in the context of a more open market economy. Read CAPITALISM in its early stage.

Some argue that the economic self-interests in this rising country have developed rapidly into "selfishness". The evidence lies strongly in the expanding gap between the rich and the poor, the cities and rural hinterlands, and the elite minorities and ordinary majority. Incidents of malpractice, negligence, corruption, etc., in business and government affairs are just the symptoms of a much deeper problem.

A strong economy that is built on the suffering of its own people, or people in other economies, is not worth having. When a people's vision is limited to economic profits and self-interests, no matter how great their achievements have been, they do not yet deserve the respect of other peoples.

How can the Chinese people take on the role of responsible "world citizens"?

A Very Dark Day for the Chinese

2004-11-18T20:10:00.000-08:00

Last night, I attended a forum organized by CBC Radio One about China. The panelists were generally positive about the future of this rising power. On the same day, the Chinese national soccer team defeated the team from Hong Kong in a stunning 7-0 victory, but China was still kept out of the next World Cup. While accusations against the HK team were flying, it was the behaviour of the Chinese soccer fans that saddened me.

Before and during the game, Chinese fans were urging HK to lose the game, so that China could enter the World Cup Final Weeks the 2nd time. How disgraceful? And how ironic when I was sitting in the forum listening to diplomats, academics and journalists who sympathetically expressed their relative optimism about this country? We all know what makes a great culture/civilization is not so much about economy, military might, or political influence; but it has everything to do with the quality of its people. This time, the Chinese soccer fans have proved their "nationalism" is of such a low level that they should be ashamed of themselves in the eyes of an international community. Just on the basis of their behaviour, I am grateful that they are shut out of the opportunity to go to Germany in 2006.

Granted, international soccer hooliganism is a much bigger phenomenon, and the behaviour of many soccer fans around the world makes the Chinese fans' behaviour seem plain and even harmless. Should we aspire to higher standards of behaviour, or should we be contend that we are better than the worst? I think the answer is too clear.

US Presidential Election - How Do You Choose?

2004-10-30T22:23:00.000-07:00

In 2 days, the US Presidential Election will happen. The battle has been a fierce AND close one. Who will win?

Is the split in poll results reflecting a country divided into 2 opposing camps? In the post-911 era, it seems that people can no longer stand on the line. A position is almost expected of anyone. But I do understand that it is unavoidable. The world has changed, and we are into a very different time than before. Which side are you going to choose?

I, for one, will not choose a president who is going to take a warring approach to solve the threats of our age - the threats of global terrorism. It will be unfair to claim that terrorism as we know it now is the result of such a warring approach taken by the world's strongest nation. However, this approach is certainly not going to get us out of the terror we are now facing.

The concern for human security must go beyond the simplistic dualism now used by the US in her foreign policy - the 'us' and 'them' dualism which in the past had put them into very difficult human conditions. I am just bewildered by the fact that so many US citizens did not seem to have learned from their own country's history.

We must look towards the wider international community to come up with collaborated strategies and mechanisms that focus on the improvement of human security. This is not a task that any single country should take on its own.

A blog for civic dialogue

2004-10-30T22:10:00.000-07:00

This blog is created to provide a platform for civic dialogue. It is meant to be a conduit for a community of citizens to exchange their views on civic matters, public affairs, and any issues related to our society in general.

First and foremost, of course, I hope that my own postings will generate comments from readers of the blog.