Ruminate

After a moment of silence, I asked, "My dear, how about the teaching evaluation of your hospital? I suppose it's all plain sailing?"

"Yes and no. It took probably two minutes to go through the feedback of my hospital, and the only solid suggestion that the students put up is we should give them fewer free sessions during the attachment."

"How could that be? I think all students like some leisure time? How did you respond?"

"I told the students that they are expected to make good use of the free sessions and see patients in the ward."

"That sounds reasonable but, if I were you, I would give a figurative answer."

"Which is...?"

"By choosing to become doctors, the students are expected to lead a life of donkey or cow, and they need time to ruminate after feeding!"

Absent

(My lunch-time discussion with Vivian continued.)

"My dear, I suppose feedback meeting of this kind is just a formality, isn't it? What keeps you so late?" I asked.

"Not this time. The consultant surgeon from Portland Street Hospital was obviously irritated and gave a lot of comments. Em... I think he has good reasons. You know, many students assigned to his hospital did not turn up. On several occasions, only one or two students, out of ten in the group, attended a bedside tutorial!"

"Alas... All I could say is my friends VM and JW would be very happy to hear this news - the problem is not restricted to our own students!"

My wife gave me a cold stare and went on, "It's not only a problem of attendance but, more importantly, attitude. You know, the student representative was not at all apologetic. He kept putting up excuses, one after another, to justify their poor attendance rate. In fact, towards the end of the meeting, the student representative and the consultant were literally discussing with their fists!"

Meeting

Lunched with Vivian in Central on a Saturday.

You may wonder, as my wife works in Kowloon and I north to the Lion Rock Tunnel, why the two of us ended up in the other side of the Harbour. The explanation is simple: Vivian had to attend an academic meeting in our sister medical school and, by the time everything was finished, it was well after two o'clock.

But, what brought my wife to the academic meeting? Again, there's little mystery: She is involved in the teaching of medical students from the other side of the Harbour.

************************
When the two of us finally settled in the Loyal Dining of Wellington Street, it was close to 3 PM.

"My dear, what meeting are you actually attending?" I asked once after making the order.

"Mid-term teaching feedback. In short, representatives from each and every hospital that helps in the teaching are there to discuss the performance of their students. At the same time, there are representatives from each group of student so that the department could also listen to their feedback about the arrangement of the teaching program."

I must say that sounds a good idea.

Tattoo

During a casual chat, I found that a few of my senior nurses were obviously not happy with the quality of the new generation doctors and nurses.

"You know, looking at how competent they are and how they treat the patients, I am tempted to make a tattoo on my chest - Don't touch me." one of them said.

"Alas, do you mean no CPR?" Another nurse asked. (For visitors with no medical background, CPR stands for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.)

"Yes, of course. If I fell unconscious, just let me die. I don't want to be tortured by them." She explained.

"No, you mean more," I laughed, "What you really want to say is Don't touch me, because I want to live longer."

Everyone looked at me - none seemed to disagree.

刀削麵

自費城返港前中午有空，天色清朗，卻仍極寒冷，便又逕自往唐人街吃麵。

這次是午飯時間，加之是週末，四處人頭湧湧。好不容易在內街找了間外表企理卻仍有空位的店子。雖要搭枱，亦無關宏旨。店稱是拉麵店，但看看四週，大多本地人卻是吃刀削麵，便依樣畫葫蘆，叫了一個。

麵旋踵便上，份量便如前次般大。喝一口湯，極熱而略油，濃兼帶葯味，是台式紅燒牛肉麵的湯底。夾一塊牛肉，卻是半潮半港式的鹵牛展，炆得夠腍而入味，只嫌切得較薄，少了食趣。再吃麵，是真箇山西刀削版本。雖略有粗幼不一，卻有咬口而富麵粉香，是極有水準的。其實刀削麵吸湯不多，講究的便是麵彈牙而湯可以分開喝，這裡做是對辦的。

一頓麵不過二十分鐘，倒也吃得溫暖飽足。埋單是七塊半，非常合理。其實嚴格來說，這麵也不過拉雜成軍，難言正宗。只是每一部也恰如其分，亦無須吹毛求疵。

Dress

In another dinner gathering, I met BL, a senior physician from Scandinavia. As always, he has all sorts of humorous stories to tell.

Here is a good one this time:

************************
In a dinner party, B meets a seductive woman, who is wearing an exquisite evening gown.

The woman comes to B and starts a conversation, "Hello, Mr B. It's been three or four years since we last met. Do you recognize me?"

"Yes, of course. You are Mrs M, aren't you?"

"Oh! You do remember me. How fantastic! You must have a very good memory for people's face."

"Not really. Just that you were wearing this same dress four years ago..."

Questions

(Our dinner conversation continued.)

"You know, there are three kinds of people - or three kinds of questions - that turn up in a scientific symposium," JP began his mini-lecture, "First, there are people who really want to ask something that they do not know. They are, unfortunately, in the minority."

"Yes...?"

"On the other hand, some people ask questions simply because they do not agree with the speaker and want to express their own opinion. Oh, sometimes they actually try to give another lecture to prove that the speaker is wrong."

"How horrible..."

"And, there are others who have nothing to ask. All they want to do is to say something in the public so that everyone know that they are there!"

We all laughed. The phenomenon that my friend described certainly happens outside America. After all, Homo sapiens is the only animal that has an obligation to prove their own existence.

Chairman

Take aside the horrible weather, my stay in Philadelphia was rather enjoyable.

One evening, I had the opportunity to dine with a group of American and European colleagues. After a bit of wine and sake (oh, we had so Japanese food), we were discussion what we were going to during the conference.

JP, a physician from Canada, said, "I have to chair two sessions, one tomorrow, the other on Saturday."

"Oh, how busy..."

"Alas! You know how difficult it is to be the chairman of a symposium," he sighed, "People just keep asking questions after a speaker has finished, and the program just overruns"

"Is it possible to ask the audience to submit their questions to the chairman for selection so that only a few interesting ones are asked?" One of us asked.

"Don't be silly. No one would agree with such an arrangement."

"Why?"

子羽

羊肉有六七件，有兩件是連皮帶肋的羊腩，其他則是脊肉連骨。吃一口，油脂豐腴而肉質嫩滑，反而羶味不重，大概是熬湯與放麵的是兩種羊肉，卻又難以引證矣。

吃著吃著，才發原先未開的一半麵餅被熱湯久浸，已完全熟透，此時才明白，如果麵上桌時皆軟硬恰當，吃了一半之後，餘下的便太過腍爛。忽然想起故老相傳，傳統廣府吞麵以兩三口為一碗，便是要平衡熱湯和幼蛋麵口感的矛盾，而正統日本拉麵並不容許「加底」，也是同樣道理。同一個問題，各地便有不同的解決辦法。而以貌取人，失之子羽，又一明證。

好不容易吃了大半碗麵，已是十二成飽，此時蔥油餅到，便只好打包，留作翌日早點。平心而論，此蔥油餅平平無奇，蔥下得少，油卻極多。只是天寒地凍，人在異地，有此窩心食物，不免要寬打幾分。埋單是十二美元，價錢合理。步回酒店時，寒風凜冽，身子卻極溫暖，論滿意程度，則車呔人星級食肆，亦難望項背矣。

羊肉麵

最近往美國費城參加會議。此前已來過兩三次，地方是十分熟悉。這次是黃昏到達，天氣初冷，匆匆在酒店放下行裝，便往附近唐人街，找了一間叫蘭州拉麵的店子醫肚。

店頗大，七時半來是半滿，侍者只有兩三個，倒像是家庭式經營。甫坐下，望望餐牌，順手便點了羊肉湯麵和蔥油餅。

麵不久就上，竟是出奇的大堆頭。其實這裡用的碗子與香港翡翠拉麵或霞飛路的無異，只是香港的碗大而麵只有一點，這裡的卻是全滿。湯極熱，撲鼻而來羶味十足。下箸略攪，麵碼大概有香港兩倍份量，心想花旗人食量驚人，且凡事好大，唐人店子入鄉隨俗，理所當然。奇怪的是麵有一半仍是麵餅狀態，彷彿未全淥透，心下一沉，唯有既來之則安之，慢慢夾起邊旁已散開的麵。

世事之奇，往往如此。 麵身細嚼之下，倒是十分好吃。富彈性，淥得剛好而有咬口。呷一口湯，清鮮而不油，也沒有下多少師傅。冬夜飲來，實在是暖洋洋的無比受用。再看看湯四週浮著一些綠色蔬菜，一時間也認不出是什麼。試吃一口，竟然是塘蒿，倒真個意料之外，情理之中。

Precious

"You know, although Patrick is physically thousands of miles away, we actually meet more often than when he was in Hong Kong." Nixon said.

"Why?"

"We are all busy - Patrick, Pat, and I. When my son is around, we just say hi and bye. Knowing that we have a lot of time together ironically mean that we don’t find a need to sit down and talk. No, there’s nothing serious that we need to discuss. But, as a father, I want to know how he is doing in the school, what friends he is making, what books and movies that he recently watched, and how he find those friends and books and movies. I believe Patrick also wants to know the same things from me. But, when he is around, we feel no urge to talk. We always say next time, and that next time never seems to come.”

I nodded, cannot agree more.

“And now, we have a regular 15 to 30 minutes each week. That’s the precious time that the three of us do make an effort to sit down together and do that little talk. I must say I know my son a lot better since he went to the States!”

Patrick

(Our lunch chat continued.)

"How's Patrick? He is now 22, or 23? Has he graduated from the University?" I asked. Patrick is his elder son, whom I met a few times when he was a toddler.

"Great memory, Szeto. Yes, he is now in the States and is going to graduate next summer."

"He's such a bright boy ever since he's a kid. Do Pat and you fly to the States often and visit him?"

"Not really. He's rather busy, and so am I - until recently." Nixon paused for a moment, looked as if he was brushing aside something from his mind before he went on, "The three of us have a regular Skype chat of 15 to 30 minutes every Sunday. You know, the world is so small now and we feel he is always with us. But, at the same time, he has the freedom to be out there and do things that he likes. Every young man has his own plan nowadays."

"So were we, wasn't it?" I laughed.

I was actually about to say my friend may find himself becoming grandfather very soon.

Nixon

Had the rare opportunity of lunching with Nixon.

After all the scandals and charges and rebuttals, everything seems to have settled. To say the least, he had the mood to ask me out for lunch.

"How's everything?" I asked.

"Alas, life has to go on," the resigned president sighed. His eyes remained sharp and tone no less incisive. Nonetheless, he looked relaxed - something that I had not found in him for many many years. For a moment I had an urge to tell him to get away from lawyers, but I decided to talk about something more fundamental - literally, "How's Pat doing?"

I mean his wife.

"She's much better now. Less stressed, doing some exercise, and eating more. Actually she put back on a bit of weight"

"Great." I said to myself. Whoever is on the right, everyone suffered a lot.

型銷

My recent bedtime reading is 《型銷》 of Tsui Yuen (徐緣).

To begin with, there is no formal English title of this paperback. I wish to call it Stylish Marketing but the author may not agree.

And, more importantly, that title is not entirely appropriate because the book is not really about marketing. There is a sea of colorful pictures and many brilliant examples of successful adverting strategy, mixed with Tsui's personal view on local political issues. It could well be an entertaining leisure reading, but you could hardly lean anything about marketing from it.

PS. I learn all my marketing theory from Steven Silbiger. That's certainly not enough for any practical purpose.

Caption

Before we go further and discuss other arguments, please allow me to talk something about fair and just.

It goes like this. The following picture is extensively shared by my Facebook acquaintance:

Looks simple and convincing, eh?

What if I tell you the caption of the two pictures are reversed by mistake?

Remember, justice means all people have to obey to the same set of rules. Fairness means that everyone should have the same treatment and benefit.

**********************
My point is simple. Doubt everything - including your own belief.

鬆‧嶽

While reading the news about umbrella movement from the Internet, I was horrified to see two remarkable names:

• 梁錦鬆
• 林建嶽

Of course they are typos. In reality they are referring to Anthony Leung Kam-Chung (梁錦松) and Peter Lam Kin-Ngok (林建岳). 

And it shouldn't take long to imagine how the mistake comes along. Their names were typed in simplified Chinese and then translated (my god, I could not think of a more appropriate verb to describe this action) into the traditional one by computer software, which could not differentiate a pine tree (松) from loose (鬆), or the peak (岳) from the whole mountain (嶽).

By trying to hide any trace of his origin, the author ironically makes his identity more conspicuous than ever.

Metamorphosis

A caterpillar says to a butterfly, “Don’t sneer at us. You won’t live long. Your future is in our hands.”

The butterfly smiles and replies, “Is it? By that time, you would have become a butterfly.”

PS. This entry is deliberately short. As the principle of Chinese calligraphy states:

筆劃少處力量要足以當多，瘦處力量要足以當肥。

Unified

On the first glance, you may think referendum is a good way of gathering our opinion and facilitate a unified stand of the Medical Association.

But no. A pitfall of logic there. Why should the Medical Association need a unified stand if the topic is about our society as a whole? Every doctor could have their own opinion, and every one of them is equally important. We are not a special group of people that, if we could come up with a unified opinion, our view should have an extra weight. You want to do away with the Functional Constituency (功能組別), don’t you?

In fact, it is actually easy to spot the flaw in the logic: We can, and we are likely to, belong to more than one organization. For example, which side I should claim myself supporting if the Medical Association supports the blue while the Teachers’ Union go for the yellow?

The only existence that needs a unified stand and conclusion is our society.

Split

While I was considering the reasons for and against the umbrella movement, a hot debate came up in the Hong Kong Medical Association.

I don’t think I need to elaborate on what happened. Vivian was obviously not happy with the decision by the Association.

“Why don’t they even have the guts to go for a referendum within the Association to see the majority of our opinion?” She grumbled.

“My dear, in this occasion I could see the frustration of Dr Shih,” I shook my head, “What’s the point of a referendum? If 51% of the doctors support the yellow side and 49% the blue, would the latter ones accept the result and support a unified decision of the Association to support the umbrella movement? Impossible. Same thing if the poll result is the other way round. All that a referendum would show is our opinions are splitted – and so is the medical profession!”

Prince

What should a ruler do to get reputation and support when his kingdom is acquired with the forces of others and with good luck?

Go bribe his supporters – financial and military ones.

Yes, but that’s not enough. Since his reign does not come from the ordinary people, he could only gain their support (or avoid their fierce opposition) by bribing them. Giving out quick money is an easy way. Even if he has the vision, nothing would be done for long term benefit if there is short term compromise of the common people. The country would not prosper.

PS. Discerning visitors may notice the first sentence of this discussion sounds old and familiar.

Go read Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince.

Necessary

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against pursuing democracy. (Not by the argument that I put up yesterday, to say the least.) What I am trying to get at is our city has a complex disease, or, more likely, several co-existing diseases, and democracy per se is not a sufficient condition to save the place.

The question is, therefore: Is democracy a necessary condition?

I must say I am not sure, and shall leave it to your decision.

(If you have no idea about the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions, go read Lee Tin Ming.)

**************************
Along this line, an argument against democracy that is recently put up by some famous Leung is this:

If our society makes decisions by simply democracy, we will have all policies favouring the poor people.

That sounds perfectly logically.

However, like many other logical theories, it has very little to do with reality.

Let me explain tomorrow.

Problems

Although there is little doubt that our government policies are not uncommonly skewed, we should ask: Is it the only (or, the major) reason that our city is dying?

No, it's certainly not the only reason, and I doubt very much it is the major reason. There are, to say the least, two compelling and equally important explanations:

1. The efficiency of our government is close to a paralyzed snail; it takes ten days for them to go through a weekly report.
2. Our economic structure has changed. In the terms of Adam Smith, our city has little Produce of Land or industry. We earn money by financial services and tourism, and our GDP is sustained by the ever-expanding projects on the infrastructure.

The sobering truth is neither of these problems would disappear with a democratic system. If anything, the situation would become worse, at least in the first few years.

Just like what Danton and Robespierre faced when they took over the National Convention of First Republic.

Problem

A remarkable scene that I encounter in Schama's Citizens is the (literally) bread-and-butter problem of France faced by the revolutionists. To put it simply:

"...the Republic was confronted with a disturbing truth. The Revolution had started with a crisis of fiscal incapacity, but the new regime was no nearer to solving its problems than the old..."(Part Four, Virtue and Death, Chapter 16, Enemies of the People? Winter - Spring 1793, Part III, Paltry Merchandize, March to June)

And that brings us back to the fundamental question that I skipped some days ago: Is democratic system an effective means to achieve a just and harmonious society?

On the face of it, many of us would say yes. The current system results in governmental policies that are usually skewed and tend to favour financial tycoons - or so is it usually concluded.

But, hold on. Don't jump to the conclusion so fast. Our government is unfortunately similar to the France Kingdom under Louis XVI, and, in reality, most privileges go to the clergy and few end up in the pocket of the nobility. Commoner? It is the educated way to call slaves.

PS. You may think it inappropriate to call communists the clergy. However, communism is, for practical purpose and by all probability, a religion. As Hercule Poirot said (in Murder on the Links), if you do not see this, you could not understand the whole process.

Citizens

While thinking about the umbrella movement, my recent leisure reading is Simon Schama's Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution.

Believe it or not, I started reading it in the evening when we had tear gas in Admiralty (oh, purely by coincidence), and I'm surprised to learn that I actually finish with this 976-page classic before the movement is over. In fact, as an amateur student of history, the book is quite a challenge, but I am fortunate enough to be able to apply the methods of Masaru Sato (see http://ccszeto.blogspot.hk/2014/07/technique.html) and did some preparatory reading several months ago (see http://ccszeto.blogspot.hk/2014/08/europe.html).

To me, the book is quite interesting after Louise XVI was arrested. Although the personality as well as historical details are remarkably different, I could not help myself from comparing the unfortunate King of France to Puyi (溥儀), the last Emperor of China. Along that line, when I read about Jean-Paul Marat, Georges Danton, and Maximilien Robespierre, the stories of Liao Zhongkai (廖仲愷), Wang Jingwei (汪精衛), and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) flashed through my mind.

My god. Are we still seeing these people around?

Consequence

There is another reason – a less disturbing but equally important one – to go against civil nomination.

The consideration is simple. Just imagine: If civil nomination becomes a reality and, as it is often proposed, anyone nominated by 0.5% or 1% of all eligible voters could become a candidate, which of the followings would turn up and run for the next CE?

1. someone from the Pigeon Party
2. someone from the Lawyers’ Party
3. the Long Hair
4. the Mad Dog

Yes, all of the above, of course.

And, you see? That’s exactly the problem. With civil nomination, the Third Estate would be fragmented and the chance of winning an election is actually reduced because the clergy and nobility are more organized and their action well coordinated.

Nomination

My point of this lengthy discussion is simple: Even if we take aside the group that is probably paid to join the blue ribbons and some Communists' toadies, people going against the yellow campus is a heterogeneous group. A few are truly against democracy, some do not support universal suffrage, others do not agree with civil nomination, quiet a number just do not think the tactic of Occupying Central is a good move.

What is my stand?

Simple. I am against civil nomination.

And I could summarize my argument as this: If I were in charge of Zhongnanhai, I shall insist to have civil nomination in order to have a better grip on this delinquent southern city.

Why? Because civil nomination is, in reality, a system of open voting. As a factory worker, your manager or boss will come around and say, "Hey man, I nominate Mr Wolf as the next CE. Come, sign on this, you should nominate him as well..."

In that case, I do not only lose the right to vote for the one I prefer. I lose the right to remain silent.

PS. It is important to note that being against civil nomination does not necessarily mean that I support the other aspects mentioned in the first paragraph. However, since I have a dominating reason in this discussion, I could remain comfortably silent on other items.

Definition

Once you recognize universal suffrage does not necessarily require civil nomination, the immediate question that you face is: What is mean by a genuine universal suffrage?

(In other words, for those who put up those attractive banners on Lion Rock or our student hostel, do you know what you are asking for?)

You may say my question is silly. You may not be able to give a cut-and-dry answer in words, but, when you see a system, you could immediately tell whether it is genuine or not.

But, deep in your mind there is probably a presumption: Asking for something genuine from a strong country is no different from asking a habitual liar to tell you the truth: I could tell you are lying because your lips are moving.

As a result, no proposal from the other side is going to be acceptable because, by definition, what they say – or what they could agree upon – is not genuine. Any mutual agreement is, therefore, logically impossible.

Suffrage

You may find it difficult to accept when I said some people do not support point #1.

However, there are several possibilities in this regard:

1. They do not support democracy per se.
2. They do not support universal suffrage (普選).
3. They do not support civil nomination (公民提名).

Let's take aside possibility #1 for the time being. (A serious omission, I dare say.) When the story of Occupy Central first began, the yellow campus was fighting for civil nomination. In fact, it remains the latest stand point of Hong Kong Federation of Students (香港專上學生聯會) and Scholarism (學民思潮). On the other hand, people who put up that remarkable banner on Lion Rock or a similar one outside the hostel of our students are asking for a (genuine) universal suffrage.

However, in the jargon of logics, is civil nomination a necessary condition for universal suffrage? 

Apparently not. Most of the countries that we agree being democratic do not have civil nomination. 

Of course, we have to consider the possibility that in the scenario of Hong Kong (under the substantial influence of several invisible hands), a genuine universal suffrage is only possible when there is civil nomination.

What do you think?

Aim

Following the discussion in the past three days, the inevitable conclusion is: If we are going to support the umbrella movement, it is because the yellow ribbon is pursuing democracy.

Again, to make this argument work, we need to fulfill the following criteria:

1. democracy is a good system
2. the proposed system for CE election is not acceptable (because it is not really democratic)
3. umbrella movement is an effective means of coming up with a better system

On a casual look, the consideration is simple. There seems little dispute for points #1 and #2, and the only sensible reason for not supporting the yellow campus is Occupying Central could hardly achieve the aim of getting a better system. (Or, in a more general term, the risk-to-benefit ratio of this campaign is too high.)

But, hold on. Let's face it. There do exist people (which may have the remote possibility of including some malicious nephrologist) who do not agree with point #1, and many die-hard left-wing supporters don't think #2 is a problem.

Justice

Another major argument for supporting the umbrella movement is the remarkable government and CE we have. Many public policies are unjust and obviously skewed towards the rich and powerful people, and we must stand up and voice out our concern.

I have little doubt about the above phenomenon. However, to go from this statement to supporting the yellow side, there are, theoretically, two possible links:

1. We use the umbrella movement itself to reflect our sentiment and frustration; or
2. we think a truly democratic system is the effective means to achieve a just and harmonious society, and the umbrella movement quests for democracy.

The first link is, unfortunately, a straw man. The movement aims at and originates from the method of nomination and election of our CE in the future. It is not meant for expressing our dissatisfaction with our government - an aim that we have many other ways to achieve.

For example, the regular parade on every First of July.

I shall put the second link aside for the time being.