(there was something wrong with the poll java script. it is now redone, please vote again)
This will be something anyone with a sense of humour will surely miss. I wonder if those activists who are camping out of Queen's Pier in HK care to sit out for this piece of collective memory / 集体回忆 for us. Perhaps not, they only care about the colonial nostalgia and where their old colonial masters landed.
But no worry, our neighbour, the Japanese, now come to the rescue
FYI, "asspara" is not a para-para dance with the bottom. it is a vegetable that we all know, translated into Japanese Katagana with some truncation in phonetics and translated back to Engrish again losing some more fidelity. (like compressing a picture file into jpeg and then to gif and back to jpg again -- if that makes it easier to understand) As for "Shrimp and cock soboro hammering out pasta curry cream", I will leave your imagination to figure out what it is. All I can say is that I know how to distinguish male lobsters from female ones, but I have never been able to identify the same part of the body for shrimps.
黑幕內定各有其論，不過最一針見血的莫過于把前任落選港姐的評語斷章取義來讀，“ 好多網友淨係睇樣同身材，我審美係會睇埋邊，最初睇佢個個人履歷，知道佢加拿大返，識英文已經對佢有好感，睇佢寫文字仲知佢係有內涵 ”
the result now is 3 2 2 1.
so i addition to linking to this OP, i am copying the whole html down here as well. and try to boost the laggers a bit
below is the OP:
繼續連結榮豐！繼續推！Search 鍾斌銓 As of this moment, 3rd result.Search 鍾金榜 As of this moment, 5th result.Search 鍾燊榮 As of this moment, 6th result.Search 鍾斌盛 As of this moment, 1st result. 1st!要揭榮豐(063)無良大股東的所作所為！認識他們的人，告訴他們這個後果！
The Weimar Republic was a democracy, so is the USA. (caveat here) The people in USA are definitely mostly peace-loving and benevolent, anyone who studied the history of the last century knows how USA has saved the world, twice. But look at what a mess it has created in Iraq today.
India is said to be the largest democracy in this world, look at how many wars it fought against Pakistan, how Sikkim, Goa, and the Andaman Isles were annexed, and how it detonated a nuke with no provacation or threat.
Now back to Japan. Read this IHT coverage of its remilitarisation.
Japan has accumulated the the economic power and the technology such that it can modernize militarize in just a few years whenever it wants to (or it has already done so), perhaps even faster that how Hitler has militarized Germany in the early 1930s.
The reason I think we should not worry about Japan's re-militarization is as below
- If it wants to build an aggressive force. It can always do it in a few years
- If it is doing it too early before it acts, the chances are that these resources are most likely wasted (as I explained in an earlier post regarding China), and be turned into obselete equipment in the future. Less than optimized timing in investment in military often lead to less than optimal deployment of resources, and hence affect its over economic progress (and generalized "power" per Paul Kennedy), a la USSR in 1970-80s
For years Japan has been able to flourish under the umbrella of US protection. Let it waste its resources if it chooses to do so. The gap between Japan and its neighbour is much narrower than it was in 1937 or 1941. Moreover, it is very unlikely that US would let Japan bully around.
Yes, there is concern on Japan's re-militarization, but the country that should most worry about Japan should be the one which has been most active in encouraging it to do so, because that country has humiliated Japan 62 years ago and nuked two of its cities. If you watch the pop arts (manga, animation, movie) you will understand why this is so.
What we really need to take out from Japan is, its enormous stockpile of Uranium and Plutonium, and make sure that US has the ability and the reason to "contain" Japan when it went out of control (i.e. to the right wing such as Isihara).
- 理 想
- 作 為 廣 播 和 娛 樂 事 務 監 管 機 構 ， 本 處 以 充 分 滿 足 市 民 需 要 和 社 會 期 望 為 己 任 。
- 使 命
- 我 們 承 諾 ， 必 定 會 -
- 緊 密 依 隨 社 會 的 品 味 和 道 德 尺 度 考 慮 各 有 關 事 宜 ， 並 據 此 準 則 作 出 決 定 ；
- 有 效 監 察 廣 播 服 務 和 刊 物 ；
- 就 電 影 檢 查 、 娛 樂 中 心 /遊 戲 活 動 發 牌 ， 以 及 本 地 報 刊 註 冊 工 作 ， 提 供 快 捷 妥 當 的 服 務 ；
- 協 助 推 動 電 影 業 發 展；
- 確 保 本 處 監 管 機 制 可 充 分 配 合 社 會 需 要 、 科 技 發 展 ， 以 及 海 外 的 做 法； 和
- 不 斷 提 高 本 處 專 業 水 準。
- 信 念
- 言 論 自 由 與 社 會 責 任
- 專 業 水 準
- 公 正 不 偏
- 透 明 公 開
- 積 極 回 應
- 優 質 服 務
- To be a broadcasting and entertainment regulatory agency that fully satisfies the needs and expectations of the community.
- We are committed to -
- following closely standards for taste and decency accepted by the community and reflecting them in our decision making;
- effectively monitoring broadcasting services and publications;
- providing an efficient service for film censorship, entertainment centre and gaming activity licensing, and local newspaper registration;
- facilitating the development of the film industry;
maintaining the relevance of our regulatory framework with regard to community needs, technological development and international practices; and
- continuously enhancing our professionalism.
- Freedom of expression with social responsibility
- Quality Service
要根本解決TELA的問題。政府應該重新考慮TELA的使命和價值（“信念”）宣言，回歸憲法（基本法？），和依法辦事（presumed innocent, 依據判例,如前些年大衛像）。否則，香港在國際社會出洋相的日子，無日無之。
I had been puzzled about the Bancroft's family's complaint about Murdoch from the start. Haven't they been in the same camp all the time? Fox and the op-ed pages. This comic tells all. There is no question that there will be a deal.
related: the shameless defense for Wolfowitz on WSJ.
好文不怕百回看：李斯 - 諫逐客書
The ugly fact under the Education Institute Controversy
Is Christine Luk stupid, or ?
Stephen Cheung: why Han Chinese is incapable of expansionism
The Seven Waves of Immigration in Taiwan
釣魚城 (scroll down)
Made in China (slide show via ESWN)
Taiwan Lesson: 1988
Everybody loves Salinger (in Chinese)
Related: from Big Picture
US teaches the Chinese Capitalist Party Economics 101:
- "Mortgage-backed securities yield a higher rate of return than a traditional U.S. Treasury bond with [the] same credit risk," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson said.
Anyway, this is the most entertaining piece of news of the day.
1) Michael Sesit of Bloomberg wrote about takeover hypocrisy.
2) look at the charts there.
China Is UrgedTo Invest MoreIn Ginnie Mae (WSJ)
By AARON BACKJuly 16, 2007
BEIJING -- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson Friday encouraged China to increase its investments in mortgage-backed securities in the U.S., especially Ginnie Mae securities, which are fully backed by the U.S. government.
"Mortgage-backed securities yield a higher rate of return than a traditional U.S. Treasury bond with [the] same credit risk," Mr. Jackson said.
The Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, is a U.S. government-owned corporation. It issues mortgage-backed securities that are fully backed by the U.S. Treasury.
China is seeking to earn a higher return on its massive foreign-exchange reserves, which reached $1.33 trillion at the end of June. Beijing is in the process of creating an agency that will invest $200 billion of those reserves in higher-yielding assets overseas.
China has invested its reserves mainly in U.S. Treasury bonds, and that has helped to keep down U.S. interest rates, making housing and other loans more affordable.
According to U.S. housing-department figures, Chinese investors held less than $3 billion in U.S. mortgage-backed securities in June 2003, but by June 2006 that number had risen to $107.5 billion. The June 2006 total includes securities issued by Ginnie Mae and those issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, which are overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development but not backed by the U.S. Treasury.
Figures weren't available on what portion of the securities held by China are issued by Ginnie Mae, but Mr. Jackson said "we have not been a major player in that area."
Mr. Jackson was speaking to reporters during a visit to China, where he met government officials, including the heads of the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Construction.
Even though DPP look wrecked these day, I am veyr skeptical of Ma Ying-jeou's ability to win the election in 2008. The reason couldn't be better put by what Luqiuluwei said in her blog.
- Chen Shui Bian accused Ma was on the wrong side with history while he studied at Boston, when Ma was the editor for a (Chinese) journal called Boston Communication. The journal accused those involved with the Formosa incident, and criticized the lifting of martial law. While Chen himself was on the "right side" with history.
- But the problem is, making a mistake in the past does not neccessarily mean one is wrong today. On the contrary, making it right is the past does neccessarily mean one is right today. The shame for Ma is he does not have the courage to reflect. As a matter of fact, admitting a mistake in the past, does not neccessarily mean that one has to pay for it now. The political leaders who cannot face his own history will be cause of concern for the people in Taiwan. How can a leader as such lead Taiwan to the future?
Well, Ma has a lot of baggages to disown. Not just those of himself. His own mistake can be explained, but the consequence is that he would have opened a whole can of "worms", i.e., there are a lot more he needs to explain and that might put off the old guards in KMT.
Ma is carrying the baggages of Soong, Lien, KMT, and even that of Chiang Kai-shek. He needs to disown them one by one. He should not have the illusion that defending the wrongs of the old Chiang dynasty will help with his political career or increase a single vote for him, or distanting or even disowning the traditional KMT values will cost him a single vote. Precisely the opposite, the old guards in KMT ("deeo Blue") have no better choice than voting for him, even if he is courageous enough to criticize Chiang.
Unless Ma does that, DPP may win the next election again in 2008. Because DPP is right, that the alternative is not to be trusted. Moving to the middle (between Blue and Green) is the right strategy. But that is not enough.
Ma Ying-jeou needs to listen to Luqiu, and do the right thing. Let the old guards go to PFP, they will not vote for DPP because you denounce the wrong's of the Chiang dynasty.
1) Twofish's comment on some issues in DeLong's post, which I largely agree
2) Commentator Bobby Fletcher alerted me that DeLong actually said "red cat". Well, we might as well just change that saying with DeLong's, since there are still people who refer to China (the government, the Chinese Capitalist Party, and often a blanket statement toward all its citizens) as the "Chinese Communist", apparently in an attempt to instill certain type of McCarthyistic terrorism bu more likely simply being confused.
via ESWN comes this link - a must read for any one who is interested is China, its economic "miracle", or even those who thought he already has understood China.
It is such a great one that I would make it a separate post (vs on the reading list up the right corner).
DeLong prasied Deng Xiaoping in such words!
- "And in 1978 China had its first piece of great good luck in a long, long time--perhaps the first time some important chance broke right for China since the end of the Sung dynasty. China acquired as its paramount ruler one of the most devious and effective politicians of this or indeed any age, a man who was quite possibly the greatest human hero of the twentieth century: Deng Xiaoping. Deng sought to maintain the Communist Party oligarchy's control over China's politics while also seeking a better life for China's people, and he is guided by two principles: (i) be pragmatic ("what matters is not whether the cat is red or white, what matters is whether the cat catches mice), and (ii) be cautious ("cross the river by feeling for the stones at the bottom of the ford with your feet")."
I may not go so far as DeLong about Deng. I still cannot forgive him for what happened in 1989. But I could only concur. A great man is still a great man even if he has done something terrible.
The 2 points Delong mentioned was indeed the essence of Deng'ism. The cat principle and the feeling stone principle. A few centuries from now, these 2 principles will be honored in the same rank as Sun Zi's "Winning a 100 battle is not the best, the best of the best is winning without fighting". The cat principle is about strategy, and putting a simple criteria on what good strategy should qualify for. The stone principle is about execution, the execution instruction for someone who has no idea what lies ahead of him. Therefore, these 2 principles are universal, and eternal.
And it is probably the only thing the other hero of the past century, Lee Kuan Yew, might not be able to reach.
Related: 炎黄春秋 头条文章批当局搁置邓小平政改
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
My respect for Mr Lee is not only from what he has accomplished, but also from how he has reasoned and what he has deduced. There are critics who discounted Lee's achievement by saying that Singapore is easy to manage because it is small. I do not agree. If you read what he writes and hear what he says, you would know that he makes decision based on reasons. Reasoned decision making goes a long way. It will bring him success whereever he is.
Since Lee has also openly asked for US presence in the area, continuously, it make his analysis on China's strategic objectives even more credible (especially to the "China-skeptics").
Below is an essay Mr Lee has written on Forbes about a month ago. He has explained why China's strategic's objective is in improving the country's general economic and technological (which are related) competitiveness, and why it does not make sense to challenge US militarily. He then backed it up with his conversation with different generations of Chinese leaders who had demonstrated that they understand this.
The example of the USSR was quoted. The reasoning is actually quite simple, especially after the lesson of the USSR, so simple that I do not think anyone would disagree, as follows,
- Technology determines modern warfare, investing in military means investing in technology
- Technology changes fast, and becomes obsolete quickly
- It does not make sense to invest in military technology if you are not going to use it soon (this is like buying the top of the line PC and put it into storage for a few years)
- Therefore, one should only invest in technology know-how, and where technology could bring you more wealth/resources so that you could further improve on your technology
In other words, the traditional Chinese proverb of "enrich the country and strengthen the army(富國強兵)" is one that is probably mis-understood by most. What it really mean is "only after one enriches the country and can one strengthen the army(先富國而後能強兵)". It has never meant to be two parallel objectives (except, perhaps when it was "pretended" to convince a king who is eager to defend his country). If you read the original writing in the Spring-Autumn era such as Shang Yang, you would see the logical sequence of the two. In other words "strengthen the military" is only a secondary objective, or a result of "enriching the country". With the current speed in technology advance, it cannot be "pretended" any more.
That is why the increase in China's military spending has mainly gone into paying for salaries of its staff (they are underpaid) and a small portion in keeping abreast of modern technology (in the spirit of marginal return, analogous to buying a low end PC "just in case"), or low (but strategic) investments such as 'shooting down its own satellite from the ground'.
What my readers (or the China-skeptics) may not agree is probably that the leaders in Beijing are rational in their judgment. Lee said they are, through his personal experience with them. IMO It would be ignorant to think that the Chinese leaders do not understand this basic element of ancient Chinese "statecraft". Read the whole essay below.
Contest for Influence in Asia-Pacific
Lee Kuan Yew
18 June 2007
Volume 3 Issue 11
China has been courting its neighbors, and although the Chinese did not coin the phrase "soft power," they have exercised it with consummate skill. Only the U.S. and Japan have expressed concern and asked China what its intentions are regarding its increased military spending and its firing of a missile into space to shoot down one of its own satellites. China's other neighbors appear unconcerned, a measure of its soft-power success. Most of these countries are focused on China's growth, anticipating the economic benefits in trade and investment it will bring them. For example, China's voracious appetite for energy and other natural resources is feeding an economic boom in Australia, and, like other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia wants China's growth to continue without disruption by conflicts over Taiwan.
China has concluded a free trade agreement with the ASEAN countries. But because of domestic pressures, Japan and India have so far been unable to match the ASEAN-China FTA. China's decision making is based on strategic considerations that override such competing domestic interests as importers versus exporters and agriculturists versus industrialists. China wants ASEAN countries to link up, to ride its boom and hitch their economic futures to China's, but Japan's and India's decision-making processes don't allow their governments to override such internal conflicts of interest.
China has been taking steps to avoid conflicts and improve relations with its neighbors. For instance, Premier Wen Jiabao visited Japan and addressed the Diet, knowing that Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, wants to remove pacifist clauses in the constitution so Japan can adopt a more assertive foreign policy. Using warm and conciliatory language, Wen invited Japan to join with China in realizing a "peaceful coexistence, friendship for generations, mutually beneficial cooperation and common development." The Japanese media hailed his speech as "historic." Premier Wen told Chinese residents in Japan: "I did a lot of preparation. [I wrote] every sentence myself, and I did all the research work. Why? Because I feel our nation's development has reached a critical moment. We need to have a peaceful and conducive international environment."
Despite these words, Japan and the U.S. worry that China's increased military spending heralds a more aggressive foreign policy. However, I don't believe China will blunder into competing against the U.S. militarily.
In the mid-1990s China's General Liu Huaqing, then deputy chairman to Chairman Jiang Zemin at the Central Military Commission, told me that he had gone to Leningrad in the 1950s to learn how to build a navy. I commented that the Soviets made clumsy weapons. He corrected me, saying that the Russians made weapons that were as powerful as any made in the West. The Soviets' mistake, he said, was in investing too much in military technology at the expense of general technology and the civilian economy. Hence, the U.S.S.R.'s collapse. Vice Premier Qian Qichen underscored this view in his memoirs, Ten Episodes in China's Diplomacy, when he cited a former Soviet Central Committee leader, Yegor Ligachev, as saying that the Soviet Union had "wasted large amounts of capital on strengthening national defense and assigned its best brains with the best equipment and materials to this unproductive sector."
Striving for Competitive Advantage
To become competitive China is focused on educating its young people, selecting the brightest for science and technology, followed by economics, business management and the English language. Its goal: to become a modern technological power by the second half of this century. But China knows it is well behind the U.S. in R&D and lacks the entrepreneurial culture that drives a creative and dynamic economy.
Other leaders in Asia believe that the U.S. economy will remain the world's most powerful and vigorous economy and that its technology will remain the most advanced. They believe the balance of power will not change. However, because they expect China to become the world's biggest economy by 2030--with India not far behind--they want to avoid antagonizing the two giants.
In the competition for economic and political clout the U.S. has enormous strengths. Although its population (300 million) is less than a quarter of China's (1.3 billion), U.S. GDP ($12.4 trillion) is six times China's ($2.2 trillion). Moreover, private consumption constitutes 70% of U.S. GDP but only 38% of China's. More FTAs would further open the U.S.' more attractive market. However, the recent protectionist mood in Congress will likely hobble the Administration once President Bush's fast-track Trade Promotion Authority expires July 1.
注：《政治市》主要借了Fortune雜志一編質量不高的報道，Gates in China，進行其跳躍性的“論證”。Fortune的‘真知灼見’，及其預測能力，已是有目共睹。微軟在中國的戰略，一般認為是有計劃的(1)，而且是非常成功的。這之中涉及了如何在外在環境改變（版權無法得到保護、價格策略需要重新評估等）了的情況下的應變，并從而最大化其長遠商業利益。這恰恰就是HBR, Mckinsey Quarterly 探討的問題。也是新媒體時代（特別是與版權法、BT、網上媒體相關領域）的一個重要案例。
在穩定成熟的市場，需要HBR和Mckinsey Quarterly的地方不多。在內地這世界上變化最快，競爭最激烈的市場，戰略的考量才有其用武之地。至于所謂的“十七大與胡錦濤時代 ，中南海秘聞等等”，那是給炒消息股的財經演員看的，不是實實在在做生意人需要的。借張五常的說法，大陸開放27年，若以政治市為主，不可能有今天的成績。
(1)Fortune原文：“Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft's best long-term strategy. That's why Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China's 120 million PCs. "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," Gates says. "Are you kidding? You can get the real thing, and you get the same price." ”
筆者也曾常年是魚翅公司的鑽卡會員，只是最近由于魚翅公司的盧溝會社(marco polo club)太摳，才轉到北京奧運同盟(one world one dream)的美航去，由是藍寶卡以上，則所有同盟公司里程一律雙計。因此，我想我應該有資格來說兩句吧。
實話實說，換回本地空服，感覺的確是親切多了。可是，服務質量態度的問題，也隨之而來。港女港男在魚翅當空服員的工資與原籍地（香港）其他工作機會的工資的距離比率，比起菲印泰籍空服的低多了。魚翅付出的溢價（premium - 所獲人才的能力高于所付薪資）不高，當然不能奢望獲得同樣的服務質量。近幾年魚翅的頭等倉服務，比起911前的商務倉還不如。最近幾年的商務倉服務，也是參差不齊。有朋友反映，連空姐的姿色也如是。這指的是平均大略，例外當然不缺。
Cheung Man Yee (see below) may win the Eulogy Prize of the year with this, but as "the saying" goes, Good writing is not very conducive to good logic.
Ms Cheung, this is not about "Good night and good luck". Let Simon or Roland run RTHK. Either one of them has much better sense than you or Mr Chu. Or, consider the Golden commentator who said,
- 「 點 解 老 細 去 滾 ， 港 台 員 工 會 話 打 擊 士 氣 … … 上 司 出 醜 ， 正 常 計 ， 成 個 Office 都 笑 唔 停 就 真 ， 應 該 係 士 氣 大 振 。 」 ─ ─ 到 此 一 遊 （ 高 登 討 論 區 ）
This is not about the morale of RTHK, or the staff of RTHK. It is the morale of those who support the continuing independent operation of RTHK receiving full funding from the government.
I am not sure why RTHK must not be privatized. The way Mr Chu adn RTHK repsonded to this media fiasco has a lot to do with the culture of such a white elephant. In a commercial company, this will not happen.
My view on the RTHK controversy is quite simple.
Privatize RTHK, make it a commericial company, supported by advertisement/etc. Allow it to be operated like Commerical Radio, while reducing its funding by 25% (or 33%) per year. OR simple sell it through an open auction
張 敏 儀 致 港 台 員 工 信 件 全 文 如 下 ：
致 港 台 同 事
連 日 來 我 們 驚 訝 、 痛 心 ， 為 朱 培 慶 擔 心 ， 也 擔 心 港 台 形 象 受 損 ， 擔 心 士 氣 受 打 擊 、 擔 心 失 去 市 民 支 持 。 但 今 天 朱 培 慶 作 出 了 決 定 ， 以 他 一 貫 的 紳 士 風 度 ， 衣 袖 一 揮 ， 不 再 糾 纏 下 去 。
我 們 不 說 「 退 一 步 海 闊 天 空 」 這 種 空 話 ， 人 誰 無 過 ？ 朱 培 慶 用 漂 亮 的 英 文 說 “ Alcohol is not very conducive to good behaviour. ” 我 笑 了 ， 寬 慰 地 笑 了 。 我 們 的 處 長 還 是 見 得 人 的 。 他 向 記 者 說 “ Drink less （ 少 喝 烈 酒 ） . ” ， 咀 角 帶 一 絲 微 笑 ， 正 是 天 涼 好 個 秋 。
下 一 步 ， 向 前 看 。 再 說 一 次 ： 做 好 節 目 才 是 我 們 的 本 份 。 有 一 支 筆 、 一 個 咪 、 一 部 攝 影 機 ， 還 有 一 個 心 、 一 個 腦 ， 做 好 本 份 ， 一 定 繼 續 得 到 支 持 。
香 港 電 台 已 經 是 一 個 機 制 ， 一 個 信 念 ， 也 是 一 國 兩 制 的 象 徵 。 曾 經 參 與 ， 繼 續 參 與 ， 都 值 得 珍 惜 。 大 家 不 會 忘 記 朱 培 慶 的 貢 獻 ， 一 定 有 機 會 江 湖 再 見 。
Good night, and good luck!
張 敏 儀
Stories has that back in the crazy era of 1999-2000, every major strategy consulting firm has been engaged in the bidding 'strategy' for the 3G license in Europe. The business was so good that some prestigeous firm worked for 2 rival consortia for the same bid. Of course, there were Chinese Walls among the teams and the teams worked from different cities.
A few months after the bid, people met and were allowed to talk about the non-sensitive details in the aftermath. The valuation from the two teams turned out to be about 10 times apart, based on completely different assumption of which level of the value chain the operator can capture.
Of course, we now know which team did the best service to its client. For the winning consortium, the difficult choice is to redo its business plan and recognize the reality. it took more than 7 years for Hutchison to do so, but it is better late than not getting there.