"Educated"

hunger strike protest against national education

To watch the way the event unfold around "national education" is disheartening. How did Hong Kong come down to this.. these secondary schools students, not even 18 years of age, went on hunger strike as their last resort to put pressure on the government before schools reopen on 9/2. How can the government officials turn away from them and see only Beijing in their eyes? When will Hong Kong come together and stand behind these students?

A propaganda in disguise, the "national education" has a clear political mission. Some said, "every country has its own national education, what is wrong with having one in Hong Kong?" First and foremost, "national education" shall not be mistaken as "civic education". The aim of "civic education" is to educate students to become responsible citizens who appreciate, and work to protect the rights of others. And quite the contrary, "national education" at its core glorifies nationalism, justifies the wrong that the party has committed with logic that seems right on the surface or unrelated facts that has no empirical correlations (the country is too vast, and the people are too diverse for effective democratic governance...etc). Proponents of "national education" also defend "national education"  by claiming that "national education" introduces students to "alternative thinking" - one that deviates from the universal values of the West and fits into the "Chinese reality". And that again, is bull. The "Chinese reality" is the twisted reality where people are denied the right to speak the bare truth, the inconvenient truth against the party. Our children need to be taught how to differentiate the white from the black, not how to make excuse for the black. Proponents would probably say that people like me are brainwashed by the western ideals. I disagree. The values that I believe in, namely democracy, individual freedom and rule of law are all driven by wants and needs of human kind and that is, to love and respect others. These are universal values and I don't see any room for compromise.

I have had many chances to interact with students from the mainland in the past two years and I have always been extremely cautious in the beginning. They were all top students from the mainland, spoke good English and Japanese and were all extremely nice and eager to make friends. But I always found it shocking when our views on Chinese government's handling in different events differ by great length. From disaster responses to apparent man-made mistakes, most of them did not display any anger nor agitation against the government and they were ready to defend with "facts" (China being a developing country... etc). The only time when they seem to be slightly perturbed, and quick in correcting the rest of the class (though in very good manner) was related to territorial issues in China. The story goes like this, a group in our class made a powerpoint presentation with the map of China at the backgroun and on the map, Taiwan was not included. Immediately after the presentation in the Q&A session, a Peking University student pointed that out bluntly and said in an almost accusing fashion to the presenting group, "If you just want to find a symbol of China you could have used the Panda or something - you should not use the incorrect map of China" ... (the topic of the presentation was actually about Chinese foreign aid policy and so the map has nothing to do with the topic of the presentation) And at that point, I thought to myself, "so that is what it is like to be "educated"."

I don't think that patriotism can be taught just like how you cannot teach someone how to love. So please, just leave our children alone.

Global Justice:The Ultimate Goal of Globalization

 My Submission to the St Gallen Student Competition:

http://www.stgallen-symposium.org/Leaders-of-Tomorrow/Student-Competition.aspx

-------

Global Justice: The Ultimate Goal of Globalization

Introduction

The financial crisis has exerted a profound impact on the existing power balance. A relative decline in American power has weakened its world leadership as the economic center of gravity continues to shift from the West to the East. While a convergence in wealth gap can be seen as a welcoming sign as more people are lifted out from poverty, the rapidity of the rise of emerging economies and the redistribution of power associated with the transfer of wealth has naturally provoked some uneasiness in the West. In light of this change, it is important for us to note that the background of the discussion has changed substantially from the Cold War era to the new globalized world. We shall therefore shy away from the traditional model of “balance of power” in examining international relations. Instead, we ask whether a set of new guiding principles that transcend national boundaries shall be embraced when considering the redistribution of power in the global scene.

This essay contends that in the interconnected global society, it is a moral responsibility to accept global justice as a premise of discussions over inequalities among different nation states. The argument rests on the notion that globalization has bonded people of different states together and that the well being of a nation is now deeply dependent on the other states. Along the same line of reasoning, we examine where domestic injustice intersects with global justice and extends that as world citizens, not only should we be concerned over the large gap in living standards between the third and the rich world, we should also work towards a more egalitarian global society for both moral and practical reasons. Secondly, a general outline of what global justice should encompass of in the emerging global society will also be discussed in this paper. The attempt was deliberately general, aimed to provide a broad framework instead of specific policy recommendations. Lastly, the paper asserts that global justice relies on a just and sustainable institutional architecture and several features of what I believe to constitute to such a system are discussed.

Injustice at home - A case study of Hong Kong

Born and raised in Hong Kong, I shall use Hong Kong’s development as an example to illustrate the intertwined relationship between the distribution of economic and political power and how, a system without fair representation tends to exploit the bottom of the social classes.

“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.” – Albert Einstein

13 years have passed since the return to China, Hong Kong has found itself at a crossroad once again. Politically, the city is mandated to establish itself as an integrated and integral part of the authoritarian China without compromising on the progression towards full democracy. Socially, Hong Kong's wealth gap has increased markedly since the end of the colonial era. Its Gini Coefficient, a measure of inequality, is now the highest among the 27 advanced economies in the world[1]. The notorious cage living is an example of the deprivation that exists in one of the most modern cities in the world. About 100,000 poverty-stricken residents live one by one in a cage made of wooden planks and wire mesh of an area only large enough for a mattress and a few possessions. This growing social divide is mirrored by an equally uneven distribution of political rights and is inextricably linked to the struggle over universal suffrage. Only half of the 60 seats in the legislative council are elected through a system of universal suffrage, while the other half remains to be elected through ‘functional constituencies’, a small elitist circle compromising of special interest groups. The struggle over universal suffrage is not only a political struggle; it is a struggle over fairness in sharing the fruits of economic achievement.

Necessity to Accept Global Justice as a Premise

Moving the lens away from Hong Kong, the world we live in now is also characterized by glaring and excessive inequalities. One of every six person in our world is destitute. These one billion people live on less than a dollar a day and cannot secure basic needs such as food, clean water and shelter. Another 1.5 billion people live with less than 2 dollars a day with minimal health care and education[2]. Nevertheless, the problem of global injustice manifests itself outside of economic indicators. About 60% of the poorest countries experienced civil conflict of varying intensity and duration in the period 1990–2001[3]. Basic human rights are trampled and denied to billions of people. They live under oppressive regimes, are subject to arbitrary imprisonment and tortures, being raped and forced into prostitution with basic security threatened and dignity stripped away. They are deprived access to education and other means that can help them to live an autonomous and dignified life.

As John Rawls states in the Theory of Justice,

“The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.”

It is a fact that there exist innate differences between nations but what is unjust is how the system exploits such difference and marginalizes our world. The growing social contradiction in Hong Kong has illustrated that systematic inequality stems directly from an unjust institutional arrangement, which is tilted to protect the existing powers. Channels of upward mobility are capped for the impoverished states. They simply have no chance.

With unemployment hitting record highs and state finance at fiscal brink after the crisis hit, many in the rich world now see globalization as a threat to their living standard. Together with the dissatisfaction of the economy, exaggerated income inequalities and poor governance may spark social unrest and protectionism may be renewed in the midst of such depressing social mood. The effect will be devastating to the global poor if we shut down our borders. If domestic injustice, which has been amplified by the financial crisis, is not properly handled, injustice will be exported to outside of borders as the third world is cut off from accesses to resources. The connection between domestic and global justice, however, is not a one-way process. If we have a more egalitarian global world, it will in return empower the bottom social classes at home to fight for their fair share of resources. Global justice is therefore more than a moral assertion as it exerts real practical implications to domestic governances.

The Skeptics

Some argue that global justice is not possible because justice only concerns citizens living in the same state. Other states that a commitment to global society requires roots of common cultures and global justice is therefore impractical[4]. These views should be contested in the new globalized world.

Implications of Globalization

“In this interconnected age, our security and prosperity depend on the ability to bring others to the table to solve problems in their own countries and regions. We are stronger when we work together.” - Hilary Clinton

Globalization has transformed the economic landscape by significantly reducing production cost, opening potential markets, and by increasing flows of capitals and goods. It has assisted to lift millions out from poverty and open previously unimaginable possibilities to many. Multinational companies, with their supply chain now covers different states, are held responsible for the labor conditions of their suppliers. The firm’s social commitment is stretched beyond its region of domiciliary region. Apple, for example, has a Supplier Code of Conduct that asks its suppliers around the globe to fulfill a set of mandated labor standard and demands correction actions should violations are discovered.

Politically, new forms of global governance have emerged to regulate issues that concern all states and they operate outside the framework of state sovereignty. The UN has subsidiaries that touch upon various areas of global concerns. Its function is not limited to provide a platform for dialogues exchanges but also to mobilize common efforts to enforce and protect rights of member states. Similarly, institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, whose work has delivered significant impact to the livelihood of many across the globe, have the important responsibility to ensure the stability in the global financial system. Regional organizations such as the European Union, ASEAN have also played an increasingly important role in facilitating regional cooperation. These organizations link regions and interests together, creating a new and broader definition of cultural and regional identity that has blurred traditional national boundaries. The development of these new, outside-of-border institutions has important and extensive implications to human welfare.

What should Global Justice entail?

The pursuit of Global Justice needs to be coupled with realistic planning and a sensitive understanding of the deeper definition of justice. Here, I shall identify two areas that we need to address in the new era of globalization.

Basic Necessity

Access to basic necessities of a dignified life - such as clean water, food, shelter, education and healthcare should be ensured. It is morally unacceptable that we turn a blind eye to the socioeconomic deprivations of the third world when these are the basic rights that the rich world has taken for granted. As the world becomes more integrated, engagement should be extended to those who have been hitherto left behind.

Human Rights

Humans rights as basic security of human dignity should be protected in all societies. Everyone in the world should be protected against threats from tortures, arbitrary imprisonment, forced prostitution or marriage and compulsory labor. Many in our world still live in fear despite having done nothing to deserve such miseries.  

Institutional architecture designed for all

“Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.” - Blaise Pascal

In light of the changing political landscape, it is important to ask whether the current global institutional architecture is dynamic and fair enough to accommodate the increasing number of international players. The below outlines three main elements that I believe are crucial to ensure power is distributed in a fair, productive and sustainable way.

Unaccountable, Unchecked and Underrepresented Power is Unacceptable

The basic principle of Justice is that power holders are responsible for the people its power extends to[5]. In the new world order with more influential actors involved, we need to make sure actions of these actors are held accountable as impact of policies made by these global players are now far-reaching.

Every individual and every state matters. The only way we can ensure that no one is left behind is when powerful states or institutions set agenda on issues of global concerns, smaller states can have their opinions taken accounted to. In view of that, regionalization of states is likely to continue and should be encouraged.

Transparency and Independence

As global institutions become more relevant and powerful in the world, policy-making within these institutions needs to be more transparent. The independence of these institutions should also be cherished to make sure the delivery of service is efficient. Affiliations to any specific country of the global institutions would surely arouse suspicions and undermines the effectiveness of the organization.  

Built-in Incentives and disincentives

With a relative decline in American power, it has become more important to have strong incentives for cooperation and disincentives for detachment cemented in the instructional architecture to ensure that power is distributed in a sustainable manner. The new world order requires participations of all states to ensure the effectiveness of the solutions to shared problems such as environment and human rights.

A Call to Globalize Justice

The paper has stated the moral and practical grounds for the legitimacy of global justice. While the project of Global Justice is grand in scope and nature, it is in my belief that justice can be exported and imported just like other tangible products. If the poor in Hong Kong can be better protected, the influence will be felt across borders in Mainland China and to the other parts of the world. Unfortunately, it is also true that injustice will spread as the bottom class continues to be exploited domestically. In the relentless march towards global integration, we should recognize the responsibilities that come with the power and wealth we have accumulated in addressing the socioeconomic deprivations that exist within and outside of the states we live in. So let’s start from home, and globalize justice.  

---

[1] Einhorn, Bruce. Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor. Retrieved December 10^th, 2010 from http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107980/countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor

[2] Cohen, J. (2007) . Global Justice. Retrieved from http://globaljustice.stanford.edu/publications/global_justice/

[3] World's 50 Poorest Countries. Infoplease. Retrieved December 10^th 2010, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908763.html

[4] Maffettone, S. (2007). Universal Duty and Global Justice. Retrieved from 

http://globaljustice.stanford.edu/publications/21497/

[5] Cohen, J. (2007) . Global Justice. Retrieved from http://globaljustice.stanford.edu/publications/global_justice/

My 2 yen: the road ahead for Japan

This is actually my submission to the Economist essay competition:

Please select and discuss one of the following statements.

1. Because living standards are so high, Japan's economy no longer needs to grow

Walking on the streets in downtown Ginza, one can hardly find traits of an economy that has suffered from two decades of economic stagnation.Long lines await outside exquisite sushi restaurants and high-end department stores attract big crowds like always. Yet, talking to college graduates who are about to enter the workforce paints a different picture of the Japanese economy. Graduates’ employment rate hits record-low this year with only 57% have secured employment. More unsettling is perhaps the popularity of terms such as “NEET” (Not in Education, Employment or Training) and “Freeter” (Young people who take low skilled and low paid jobs), which has not only suggested the bleak employment scene but other related social issues.

The argument that Japan’s economy needs not to grow anymore due to the high living standard it has attained should be contested in different ways. In Japan’s high growth era, the fruits of astonishing economic development was shared by the population with an extraordinary degree of equality. In contrast, the last two decades of almost zero growth has left the Japanese society diverging into two polars with a growing portion of low-income population and a group of highly skilled or specialized workers flying above the rest. Growth has always been the magic word in the Japanese model to bring about a general, across-the-broad raise in living standard. However, the growth-oriented strategy is handicapped by the decling workforce in today's Japan. With the population expected to shrink to just 100 millions by 2050, unless Japan’s productivity rises faster than its workforce declines, the Japanese economy is bound to shrink. Japan’s young will suffer the most in this trend with diminishing economic opportunities and a huge burden to support the pensions of the retired. The question then becomes, how can Japan maintain and potentially lift the average living standard that is already decaying with a smaller economy? I would argue that as an extremely developed country, there is no reason for Japan to chase after organic growth if it has come to see the limit of its resources. Rather than trying to boost the overall GDP, GDP per capita at purchasing power parity should be emphasized to maintain and improve the living standard of the future generations.

The seemingly high living standard in Japan, as measured by average income, is marred by the high cost of living. With the agriculture industry closely guarded by the politically powerful interest groups, consumers are forced to pay a high premium for the local grown products while being limited to a meagre selection. Japanese policy making has traditionally focused on the benefits of producers rather than that of the consumers. What is good for Toyota, the old saying goes, is good for Japan. Average disposable income of Japanese citizens, a more direct indicator of how wealthy consumers perceive themselves, was only ⅔ of that of United States in 2005[1]. Moreover, the still relatively high nominal income is a result of substantial economic development in the 60s and 70s but income has not risen in real terms the last two decades.

To increase the GDP per capita at purchasing power parity and thereby raise the living standard, the government can work on lowering the cost of living and thereby makes its citizens feel wealthier, or to increase the nominal income following the long-term growth trajectory. Japanese government has hitherto adopted the latter. Numerous fiscal stimulus packages have been rolled out to fill in the gap left by the retreat of private investment. Yet, the result was far from promising. Public debt soared to an alarming level and sent the public mood to south. Fiscal expansion readily funded by savings of the older generations is unsustainable, and the economy needs investment from the private sector to engine growth. Investment from the private sector, however, is endogenous to growth. The Japanese population alone is no longer big enough to support perpetual growth, and local businesses including the agricultural sector should reorient themselves and look outside of the borders for growth opportunities, particularly in the emerging Asian markets. What Japan also needs is innovations. Most Japanese innovations till now have been developed in large electronic and manufacturing corporations, which is one reason why Japan has been lagging its western counterparts in the software, Internet and other value-added service industry. To facilitate a higher GDP per capita, Japan needs entrepreneurs and start-up companies to open unexplored market.

The irony of Japanese economy is that its strong social and industrial foundation has been working to its disadvantage in an era of globalization. Globalization is a two-blade sword and Japanese economy has been hurt from it so far. Large corporations face intensified competitions and are struggling to keep their cost low, resulting in sluggish income growth and lackluster hiring activities domestically. On the other hand, the semi-closed nature of Japanese market makes it difficult to bring in cheaper and potentially better alternatives from overseas. As a result, both producers and consumers are hurt in the tide of globalization. Some argue that Japan's markets are fairly open. Aside from agricultural goods, the tariff rates are about the same as those of other industrial countries and there are only few import quotas established. But this is only on paper. It is no secret that foreign companies find it extremely hard to penetrate into the Japanese market. Statistics also shows that Japan spends less than half as much as of its income on imports of manufactured goods as any advanced nation[2]. Caught in the middle of globalization and a declining workforce, Japan should further deepen its trade dependence on both exports and imports to utilize its human resources more efficiently.

Japan’s economic strength will recede, but that does not translate to a decline in living standard. Small countries like Luxembourg and Switzerland manage to prosper by achieving a high GDP per capita. Japan will have to go through some soul searching to adopt to this unfamiliar position in the world but it simply cannot afford another rudderless decade. 

My research proposal for MEXT (Monbusho) scholarship

Asian Salad has so far been a mere dumping ground for my random thoughts. The content, for that reason, made absolute no use for my readers. So, in an effort to broaden my readership, I decide to start writing some "how-to" or "know-how" articles which hopefully can connect me to people that I don't know but nevertheless, should meet.

And here is a short perface for the following article: I have been awarded to MEXT research scholarship through the university recommendation by Todai. While the application process might differ from the route through the embassy, I believe the application form and the supporting documents required is the same between the two. So here you go, the following is my research proposal written specifically for MEXT. It is meant to serve as a resource/reference to prospective MEXT applicants who find the application guidelines confusing and frustratingly vague.