Cheng Lap: A Country Exists for "Barbarians"

A Country Exists for "Barbarians"

Translated by Karen L., Written by Cheng Lap
Original: http://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/6777/739442 

Source: Dennis Jarvis (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Regardless whoever you are or whatever ethnic group you are in, you, like anybody else, are born with a nationality. We have taken it for granted, membership of a country as an inborn package, that we somewhat forget to leave room wondering why it exists.

Outwardly it does not bother us at all without a stance of the existence of countries, while delving into the matter will you find an opposite answer to the initial expectation. It is expressly so since we have been in a democratic government -- though everyone of us is not directly holding the governance of one's country, every statement one voices and each vote one casts are influencing the country little by little.

Putting forward the idea, if we choose to ignore the consideration why countries are countries, it is natural for us to confuse with the roles for governmental positions. From the legislator to the president, how do we determine the right person -- functioning component of a country? Politicians, as well as bureaucracy are gearing and bearing -- with fair quality can they perform better.

We sometimes vote for a politician out of our perception of him/her being good, kind, competent, smart, or his/her healthy image, or the mutual stance with ourselves. Truly these are virtues, however here is the twist: embracing these advantages does not necessarily represent he/she is the proper one. Traditionally, being honest and having good manners are on our list of an able candidate, yet is it authentic? The answer to the presence of country lies on this question.

Western countries, if not all, refer to a country as "she" -- a goddess or a mother. It's not my intention to deny such figure of speech, but in my opinion, "it" would be more appropriate.

You mush have heard, more or less, the condition of international world remains anarchic where law is an empty recommendation. International law helps distinguishing right from wrong at most, whereas we could only pray to God for the effective implementation. Let's untie our mind shackles: What would happen if the entire judiciary, police together with judges, disappeared one day? If somebody was killed then, given that police existed no more, what could you possibly do?

The state of anarchy gives us the very answer. Politeness, reasoning, law, dogma, order of an international society -- EVERY social norm, natural as air, becomes faintly discernible. They are still there somewhere, yet no one is authoritative enough to enforce them. Yes, if someone simply wants your head down or wants to take over your possession, they should be wrong. But sadly the case in anarchy is that this someone could succeed and could get away from any of the punishment that he/she is supposed to receive.

Mere civilisation is unlikely to function in an anarchic world. Barbarity, inevitably as a consequence of such a world, can only be dealt with a new set of survival rule.

In a society of civilisation, you read and learn, in order to be qualified to meet certain criteria for a job. Then you make money in order to exchange for necessities of life, and if conflicts beyond personal level arises, you settle it rationally through lawful methods. One is regarded civilised to fulfill these situations.

In a barbaric world, reading and learning though available to one, there will be no examination to test one's capability. Conflicts are being settled not by reasoning and law, but by minimizing others' threat through conquering or governing. No one, in this case, will be hired for a job. It becomes one's responsibility to fight against each other by all means for resources so as to survive. Even so, dejectedly enough, law, if there is, does not provide you protection over your possession and anything else. Thus it narrows to the one and only way to let people know the price if they ever lay hands on you -- that is, violence, sufficient violence.

Those succeed in a barbaric world does not necessarily act in a barbarian manner, but it's a must for them to understand barbarity -- to use it as a means, to compete against it, to arrive at the level of barbarity as their counterparts. Anyone who could come through life in such environment must possess the ability to live despite the fact that the legal protection ceases to exist. These people are open-minded enough to realise that civilisation only stands when they can maintain their lives from barbarity.

Many of them who play by the rules and master the rules in a civilised society are talent, whereas they still could not get rid of the tag of "men in civilisation". To lead a country or excel in diplomacy, on a contrary, is more like hunting in the wild forest or fishing in the sea.

There is one thing about civilisation - either it stays through proper preservation measures obviously, or it will suffer, particularly so under the circumstance of barbarity. It is vital to understand how this barbaric world works. In other words, countries are there in the interest of the people's lives, their culture and dignity under the anarchic international environment. Or, we can put it this way -- Countries exist for barbarity.

This explains a country's need for violence. As a tiger protecting its cubs, a country has to be ready for others' deceitfulness, rampage or sneak attack from time to time and acts decisively to protect its people from harm. Two opposed measures are adopted, internally and externally -- one soft, one precautious and harsh, or else fatal aftermath will follow. The smaller country, the more resourceful it needs to be.

As a result of it, one will gain an insight into the origin why western culture describes a country with a feminine pronoun. But then if the object isn't within the inner circle, the soft side has to make way for the beastly nature -- it is monstrous creatures that it has to face. That is what we need for the leader of a country, not some perfectly graceful gentlemen.

Extraordinary leaders, if not all, are far from "normality": Napoleon was sort of a "bodgie"in the days of military school if we depict him in today's terminology, and the artilleries he led back in the days did not start off as the best given that cavalry dominated; Adolf Hitler was an unemployed young man living below the poverty threshold and failed to get into his dream school; Emperor Gaozu of Han was a hooligan until his mid-life kicks in; Bill Clinton was a draft dodger and enjoyed Mary Ann.

In the eye of mainstream, the background of these figures are out of orthodoxy, but it happens to be this unique personality formed -- disobedience to the general thought -- that make them stand out from the crowd and be able to deal with the outside world.

We have seen many successful figures who start off impish or mischievous and end up being owners of companies while those behaved turns out to be senior employees. Somehow our society gets overly attentive to the latter one, but for the former one, it has not given weight to foster certain talents. It throws light upon the phenomenon in our society -- everyone wants to get a job, and no one creates enough jobs to balance the demand. One started to lose count of conformity, but it remains short of leaders. The ones who attempted to be leader and failed should reflect on their customary being in the comfort zone of a highly civilised society.

In the core value of mainstream, ironically, it is conveniently found that those challenged the norms are labelled as worthless. The leaders of the future are screened out too early before we realise.

Wing Wing: Not Emulating Virtues nor Introspecting Oneself

Not Emulating Virtues nor Introspecting Oneself

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/09-12-2014/18788 

(Photo Source: Steve Harris via flickr)

Steven, a Shanghainese, went to Sydney, Australia to start his café this year earlier, and recently posted a hiring ad for barista on newspaper. Nilson, a Australian citizen who has lived in Sydney for 9 years, went to apply. Steven said he would not hire Nilson given the fact that Nilson is black.

Followed by media's spread, Australians started to boycott this café. There were some other friendly bosses who invited Nilson to work for them. It is learnt that the Fair Work Ombudsman's investigation is underway right now. And Steven's business was suspended a week later that incident.

I once wrote about this incident (translator's note: attached is the translated version for English readers). This article received a comment below that catches my attention:

"Weird enough. It seems like there's no Chinese be discriminated ever. Why is it a problem when Steven doesn't want to hire someone black? He is a boss. Surely he has to think for his business. As long as he doesn't disclose his opinion, it's fine. Overseas Chinese are often being discriminated, yet who pays attention?" (Translator's note: The source text is in Simplified Chinese)

Confucius once said this: "seeing a man of virtue, I try hard to become his equal; seeing a man without virtue, I examine myself to have not the same evil in me." In other words, we should improve ourselves and learn from good role models, rather being tainted in terms of bad habits and attitudes.

However this reader applied Confucius's words upside down as "seeing a man without virtue, I try to become his equal; seeing a man with virtue, I examine not".

For the first half of the altered version, proof is as such: the phenomenon that "overseas Chinese are often being discriminated" is certainly not a delighted issue, whereas he stands, in the point that "People do bad things. It's reasonable enough for me to act the same". Exactly the opposite of Confucius's moral philosophy as I mentioned earlier.

He then added, "what's wrong of Steven for not willing to hire black people? It's a must for a boss to value one's own business." As I mentioned there were café owners inviting Nilson to work there, I can't help but wonder if there's one and only one café in Australia and solely Steven alone as a boss in the whole nation to that reader's world view. Seeing no discrimination from others to Nilson, this reader rather made up an alibi for that Steven to justify what he have done, but not reflect upon his own attitude towards the issue. Above, it fills also the blank of proof of the second half.

Where does this reader come from? I mean, if one learns from the culture of his/her own country.

Imagine if the logic in argument exists as a normality in his nation, that land must have been hell. Elaboration will be that the more the nationals get exposed to other nation's unhealthy behaviours and attitudes, the higher the chance they will imitate them, while the good ones to them, fairly or even exceptionally, won't inspire a slight introspection, let alone to be treated as moral study object. Eventually, followed the plot, it's inevitable for the story to lead a complete dark page filled with despicable means. By that time, kindness and righteousness, what we regard as good qualities one should possess, can never be found from a single person.

Wing: "Post-80s" Again? Cover something else!

"Post-80s" Again? Cover something else!

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by 翼雙飛 (Wing Wing)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/06-09-2014/16086 
As original sources are in Chinese, I am not gonna re-link them.

(Post-80s Decoration Workers: Earn 15k per month and save 10k)
(Source: Screen capture of Sky Post)

According to EVCHK, since 2010, the society has started coining the phrase "Post-80s" for youngsters who were born in 1980s, labelling them as "rebellious, self-centred, lazy and irresponsible". Up to now, 2014, nearly half of the "Post-80s" have entered the journey of the age of 30 or 30 something. But still, the media just cannot let go and keeps judging this group of people for no reason. 

Cases are many. Post-80s graduates require $11,000 as monthly salary while Ming Pao quoted analysis from their human resources consultants, criticising the graduates "having a high requirement". Ta Kung Pao quoted analysis from a university professor, indicating that graduates cannot find jobs because they prefer not to work in construction sites or wash dishes. Fine, in such situation, some graduates go for grassroot jobs instead. Doing exactly what these media ask them to, that's good, huh? Yet, nothing gets better. Sarcasm from a big title on Apple Daily read, "U-Grads Grabbing Jobs from Old Security Guards", but the fact is that these graduates don't get paid more because of their identity. Their salary depends on the nature of job, grassroot jobs, grassroot wages. Not to mention they have to take care of their parents, repay tuition debts and pay for transportation and meals, which is known as heavy burden living in Hong Kong. Thus the only choice they have is to live with their parents. HKET, however, said "When is the end of youngsters sticking to their parents?", criticising that the youngsters "sorely focus on entertainment and are not willing to carry the responsibilities to be independent."

How can dish washers or security guards afford such skyrocketing rent in Hong Kong? Okay, if they are not allowed to stick with their parents, as what the media assumes, then maybe they could find another way out, like applying for public housing (PRH). But it doesn't shut the media's mouth. Sky Post quoted a professor's words, "PRH is originally designed for grassroots. Graduates' applications for them are bad for their personal development and the overall societal development." Hey, just awhile ago Ta Kung Pao said youngsters should not hate grassroot jobs! Now graduates do grassroot jobs as they wish. Then what makes the problems for them applying for grassroot welfare? Their identities being graduates are not helpful at all to earn a relatively handsome salary compare to other grassroot job workers. It's not making any sense for these judgments.

Some said, "Hey, they are just trash. If they are competent enough to be like doctors, then they would not be judged in that way." People who possess that thought are wrong. Few days ago, Sky Post again introduced a Post-80s doctor with $60,000 monthly salary, and after all, he is not a spendthrift! Isn't he perfect? But this one's perfection is then claimed as useless by a HKU professor, "Lack of social life and interpersonal skills ruin everything." How far-fetched! People not willing to talk to someone doesn't make them dumb people; People not willing to entertain others doesn't necessarily make them "lack of interpersonal skills". Completely forced and fabricated are this professor's speech.

Some other people then suggested that "Post-80s" should not study in universities, which save a lot of troubles, and that they can simply be blue-collar workers instead. This is just too naive for them being hopelessly optimistic about the media's ability to criticise. This time, Sky Post griped this tiny problem and covered a story of a "Post-80s" decoration worker who did not go to university. This one saves $10,000 while he earns $15,000 each month, as he wants to save more money to buy a flat in the future. But his story doesn't appeal other media, which judged him along with that doctor as lack of social life. All because he wants to save money! If he has to build social connection, it got to spend money and a flat he dreamed to possess have to be postponed... the story followed will be not hard to guess. HKET may probably ask him "why are you sticking with your parents?" and may even suggest him to find part-time jobs during his holidays!  

Here comes my conclusion: in the eyes of the media, whatever the "Post-80s" do are wrong, and so they have to find things to nit-pick on by whatever means - whether they choose to go to university; whether they take up grassroot jobs; whether they have a handsome salary; whether they make social connection; whether they save money... There are many other things worthwhile to cover! "Post-80s" here and "Post-80s" there... OH JEEZ, CUT ME SOME SLACK!