The Fall of Democrats
Mood:  sad
Reading the Newspaper today, I have found that several Democractic Members in Kwun Tong District Board were arrested by the ICAC. They are suspected of making false recipts so as to get fundings from District Board.

I feel stunned after reading this news. Being a Social Democract, I feel very unhappy as this event would likely to be used by those who oppose Democracy.

Probably this incident is only the tip of iceberg. Actually, the standard of Democracts become worsen in the last decade. They tend to be satisified with the position being an opposition Party, and have become more Bureaucractic. Democracy have become merely a slogan, which was used to protect their interest by retaining seats in different Representative bodies.

Actually the local Democracts have faced crises after Hong Kong was returned to China. The Big Brother of Democracts, the Democractic Party, have faced problem of intraparty division, and many have quitted the Party after a series of conflicts. The Democracts are dying. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the Government have proposed a bill for Article 23 of the Basic Law, and the subsequent July 1 March have saved Democracts from the fate of dying.

But the death of Democracts was only being delayed. The problem remain there. And now it is already 2 years after the July 1 March, and the July 1 effect is fading out. The current scandle of Democracts is only a sign of the chronic malaise of the Democracts.

Of course it do not mean that Hong Kong people have already forget about July 1, and have abandoned the Democracts. The Democracts are still being supported by around 60% of Hongkongers. Yet these Democract supporter are expecting more. Despite the number of Democractic LEGCO members remains in the similar level, we could see there is some change in recent years. The traditional Democracts have received diminished support. The Democractic Party was once the largest Party in LEGCO, it's now only the third. The most popular Democracts like Audrey Yu and Ronnie Tong are actually Political Supernovas, they have become active in Politics only after 1997, or even after July 1 March. What we can say is that even the most loyal supporters of the Democracts demand a paradigim shift.

Unfortunately, despite these political Supernovas do provide some hope, they are limited in number. These new Democracts do not have any formal Political party, they only have a Semi-party called Article 45 concern group, and as its name indicates it is an interest group rather than a hardcore Political party. We don't have enough political leaders to create a New Democractic party.

What would be sure is that to cure the Democractic malaise, we need a complete renewal of the Democracts. We need New Democracts like Audrey Yu and so on. However, the cure had not come yet. We are thirsty of new Political leaders. And for these new leaders, we'd better not to look at the existing Political parties. We probably need to find them in the Civil Society.

During the July 1 march, many had said that it should be the campaign to encourage citizens to vote for the Democracts. These kind of saying is short sighted. July 1 should be the sign of the growing of Civil Society, and should not be manipulated by any existing Political parties. Civil Society is NOT the tool of Political Parties, instead, it is the Mother of Political Parties. We need a Revolution, Civil Society should initiate a Revolution of the current Democracts. The traditional Democracts should be overthrown one day, and a new Democractic Party should be formed under the power of Civil Society.

Lost in Details
Mood:  caffeinated
After surfing in InMedia today, I found that there are many criticism on Choi Tsz Keung's recent article. In Choi's article, he suggested how Donald Tsang should do to increase his legitimacy. His article was therefore criticized as pro-establishment.

Recently I have read a book called Ten questions on Democracy which was written by several local Political Scientists. In some article some writers argued that Democracy would not lead to Welfareism, and would not act against the interest of Capitalism. I would like to ask why should they speak for Capitalism? Why should they speak against Welfareism? Why can't they see that the Social Establishment is already in favour of Capitalists? Why can't they see that there are so many inadequacy in Welfare System? I don't think we should please the Capitalist for their support in Democracy. They will not support anyway: Capitalism is in fact Anti-democractic!

In C.Wright Mill's The Sociological Imagination, he criticized on what he called "Methodological Restrictionism". The term is actually referring to theories which drills into details which may itself appear to be "Scientific" and "Technical". Yet by doing so, these theories lost their Power to criticize the wider Problems of the Society. They are actually getting lost in details, and eventually become Apologists of the Establishment.

Probably Choi and the mentioned writers are Political Scientists rather than Sociologist, they would focus more on details rather than the wider picture of Society. Yet as Social Scientists they should be aware of the effect of their theories on the Society. I don't mean that they have already become Apologists of the Establishment. I still believe that they do not wish to be so. Yet if they are really want to fight for Social Justice, they should learn to pick up what we called Sociological Imaginations!

On Rights
Mood:  caffeinated
Today I will continue the discussion on Steve's Biblical Theocracy. We will talk about Right today.

When we talk about Basic Human Right, what do the word "Right" implies. In one sense "Right" simply means respect, dignity and equality among humans. In this sense "Right" could be a Christian value. However, "Right" could be interpreted in another sense. It could also be understood in the sense of "Property Right". In this sense, "Right" mean that we do OWN something, and we could manipulate in the way we like, while no others could interfere. This sense of "Right" is somehow contradict with Christian values. In John Woolman's The Plea for the Poor, he had analysed the meaning of "Right". He colcludes that everything are created and given by God, i.e. we own nothing but are given GIFTS. "Right" should refer to how we act right in our stewardship on what we are gifted, and not referred to how to enjoy and use what we get.

These two sense of Right seems to be similar, but they are not. There are great difference between the two, and they are contradictatory!

May be we should remember what had happened in Hung Hom Penisular. It is a Private property. In the sencond sense of Right, the landlord i.e. SHK holdings could demolish it and build whatever in its will. No doubt why a local Businessman, Mr. Chan, (sigh, he is a "Christian" who had studied Theology, now a leader of my former Church!) would say "Hong Kong is the most Communist place in China" under this understanding of "Right". But should SHK have this kind of "Right"? Though the land was reclaimed, the sand and the space are not human creation. The concrete and raw materials are natural resources. So do SHK really OWN Hung Hom penisular? Or it is own a steward of it? On the other hand, such Rights would certainly affect the "Right" in the first sense. The demolishment of Hung Hom Penisular would result in massive pollution, which the local residents would suffer. Such works would seriously the social life and health of the Locals. If they are being respected, and are treated as equal as the rich, There would be no point for SHK to insist on their "Property Right". Mr.Chan's criticism is ruthless and pointless. Even if it is Communism by protest against the demolishment of Hung Hom Penisular, I would saythat in this case being a Communist would be far more ethical and holy than being a selfish Capitalist!

If we use the second concept of Right as the basis of Human Right, we would have serious problem. If Right is referring to one's owning, then we are probably creating a self-centered atomized Society. And this could be a source of tyranny! If there are only "Private Rights", then how could we have a healthy community? If the analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville is correct, a self-centered Society with weak community would only lead to the road of Dictatorship.

In we use the second concept of Right, we would probably want to fight for the world where "Every one to be a King". It's impossible on de Tocqueville's term. I would like to add the it would be diasters on the way fighting for this. In Billy Bragg's revision on Internationale, it was said that "Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all". The fact is that on the way of fighting for Rights, some would surely benefits first. Those benefited first would become a privileged group, and they just want to continue their "membership welfare" but not continuing to fight for the right of others. It would be described as "Trade Union Consciousness". (In contrast with Class Consciousness.) Indeed, it was very common. Centuries ago, when many Trade Unions fight for the Marxist ideal of Socialism, they believed that the emergence of Women worker as a threat. In the aixs of Sex, Trade Union and Capitalist work together to oppress the new comer. See, organisation seeking for liberation now have become tools of oppression!

So if we really want to fight for Human Right, we should abandon the understanding of Rights in terms of Property Right. Property Right is the source of oppression, and how could its concept be used in movement fighting for respect, dignity and equality?

If we really hoped for a world without oppression, we should renew our conception of Rights. We should not say "Everyone to be a King", instead we should say "NOBODY would be a King". We are not fighting for the RIGHT of mankind, we are fighting for abolish the RIGHT for mankind to exploit and manipulate others. We don't aimed for a Society of self-fufilling atoms, we fight for a Community where every are respected and interacted equally.

On the other hand, we shoudl realized that the suffering of the Poor may not always because they lack of something. They suffered just because we who own properties exploit them. Poverty is not only economic, it is also a cultural thing. Not all the Poor's suffer are economical, and many are caused by discrimination rooted in the Hegemonic Culture manipulated by the Rich. To solve Poverty, we also need to fight a Cultural war to collapse the Hegemonic discourse. We should let the rich know that they and their wealth are NOTHING. Thou shalt not Discriminate on the basis of processions. If the Rich know nothing about respecting God as well as other human, we should point out that this poor wealthy guy does suffer from REAL ETERNAL POVERTY.

On Democracy
Mood:  spacey
I have scanned through Steve's Biblical Theocracy in last few days. Despite we may not agree with what he said, his points should be seriously considered, especially for Christians involved in Political concern.

In Steve's works he commented Democracy as "Devil's deception", while saying that human should have no "Rights" but have "gifts" from God. His conclusion is that Christians should strike for Biblical Theocracy, not Democracy.

It sounds odd and it seems that Steve do dupport some kind of "Theocracy" in Medieval Europe, or in the mind of G.W.Bush. It seems that Steve is anti-democractic and in favour of a totaltatian state. It is not the case, however.

On personal conversation Steve agreed that Democracy is still better than many other Politcal system, and so there should be no problem for Christians to fight for it. The matter is Democracy is STILL a human construct, and therfore it would be imperfect. The key concern of Steve is oppression, and there are STILL oppression in a Democractic system. Steve have quoted an example that Public opinion of a Democracy are influenced by the Media, while the Media is still in the hand of a few powerful people, and they would use their Media to manipulate Public opinion for their own good. This is what Radical Elitists called "Mobilization of bias". Another example would be shown in C.Wright Mill's The Power Elite. In Mill's masterpiece, he stated that despite USA is a Democracy, "Government by the People" is only something formal. The major History making decisions are not made by the ordinary, not even the Local elites. Major decision of America are made by the Power Elites: a triangle formed by the Military, the Business sector as well as Politicians in Congress Committees. While Hongkongers are waiting for Democracy, Steve is an American who had real experience in a Democracy, and experienced in the defect of it. My conclusion is that Democracy is a BETTER system, not the BEST system. So fighting for Democracy is an ESSENTIAL BUT NOT COMPLETE task of Christian Social Actions. So we have to ask: what will we do after we have Universal sufferage? If we fortunately could enjoy Democracy one day, it is not the end of the story, it would not be the beginning of the end. It would, probably, be the end of the beginning.

As a Christian Social Activitist our focus is not to fight for a particular Political system. It may be a very essential part of our action, but it is not the end by itself. Democracy is only a platform, which enable us to cope with problem of oppression more easily. Our work do not end by Democracy, and Democracy should not stop us from thinking of a better Political system. In Anthony Gidden's word, it is called a process of Democracization of Democracies.

This piece of message seems to be quite long at the moment. I think it is better for me to talk about the concept of "Right" in days later.

Silent victims of Heterosexual Hegemony: The Singles
Mood:  caffeinated
There was a hot debate on homosexual issues recently, especially within the Christian circle. Somwhow the debate is politicalized and polarized, and the discussions become simply yelling of one's view without much in-depth discussion. For example, the anti-gay side used the banner of "Family value protection". But what would they think about family and family values? I afraid they have nothing but slogans. (Frankly speaking, there're similar problem in the pro-gay camp. But I would not comment too much as I know little.)

While many activists argued against the "Heterosexual hegemony", they do not see the bigger picture of the whole situation. I have to say that Homosexuals are NOT the greatest victim of the Hegemony: they are few in number (not more than 10%, most likely around 2-3%), and at least they have partners. The greatest victim of the hegemony are the Singles: they are large in number, despite of their silence.

While watching TVB news today, I found that the Housing Authority have decided stricten the terms for Young Single applicants. Some citizens agreed with the proposal, saying that the young Singles should earn money for private housing, and not to "abuse" the public resources.

I feel stunned by hearing this. Many have forget that having a place to live is a basic human right, and Singles do need Government's protection as rents are so expensive in Hong Kong. Public housing is a Public welfare and NOT a privilege of the Married. But it seems that it is a public view that Singles are less complete than the married and they should have less right.

It is still a very common conception that it is good to have married, or at least having some kind of intimate relations. I have a friend who is in her 20's, having no intimate relationship after puppy love in College. Her mohter keep on murmuring on this fact, and always encourage her to find a boy friend as soon as possible. In social relations, Singles are often treated as abnormal, and they are always encouraged to start a relation. If a Single enter his or her 30's, he or she will soon feel that he or she is in crisis. If someone enter 40's without any relations, one would be considered as abnormal or psychopath.

Even the Singles discriminated against themselves. They would likely to think that they are so bad or atypical that they failed to enter a relation. They would consider their Single state as transitional and temporarily, and they would wished to quit the state as soon as possible. The Gays have Queer theory and could be prond to be a queer. Yet there are no equilivalent theories among the Singles.

This kind of Hegemony do have bad effects on the Married, too. Many married just enter their relation in fear of being single, and having a great expectation on the relations. The divorce rate rises recently, but the marriage and remarriage rate also remained high. This indicated that the crisis of modern family is not caused by the reduced respect of marriage. Actually the real cause of should be because people have a high expectation on marriage, and therefore greater disappointment. As a result, they get married, get disappointed and then divorced, and remarried again.

Personally I do believe that the solution of the problem of Modern Family relies on dissolving, rather than strengthening, the Heterosexual Hegemony. Only by realizing the benefit of remaining Single, and the formation of Single communities, we could have a more realistic view on Family and Marriage. Only by this we could expect healthy marriage, and therefore healthy Families.