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.