小试牛刀

初到苏州，不习惯的是连绵的雨，和雨后向四周漫溢着水气的石板路。雨通常就是那么随意的把周围的粉墙黛瓦化开了去，‘烟雨’，有人给它取了个这么不寻常的名字。人在这烟雨中，不知不觉地就沾染上了苏州水的习气。

不喜欢的还有声名远播的苏州园林，处处都沾染了苏州名商大贾的显赫和甩不掉的小家习气。直到后来，认识了苏中的春雨碧霞。这两池水是随意的，与人亲近的。身在其中，不自觉地蜕去了独在异乡的壳，又变得自由自在起来。水在红楼边，似乎也有了人的灵性，所以与其说是水与人亲近，不如说是苏中的人让人喜欢上了苏中的水。

虽然只是在黄池假山边上走了一遭，却一致认定了红楼是自己的囊中物，两汪碧水一座小丘便是自己家的后花园。颇有野心勃勃私生子的味道！一晃度过了三年的幼稚时光，几多失败的记忆，可是愁云惨雾之后，苏州的雨总能把一切洗得通莹透亮。

Review on 'The Soft Underbelly of China’s Growth'

by Jun Zhang - Director, China Center for Economic Studies, Fudan University, Shanghai.
The original text is found at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/zhang2

Seemingly complicated issue – export-lead growth leading to excess capacity and investment-growth nexus, which puts macroeconomic stability on the wane. Inward complexity arising from structural flaws, as exemplified by the immature capital market and the banking sector, which limits the growth of the private sector, was to the author the main culprit for a languid domestic economy. My knowledge of economic theories especially of the financial market is nil; need to study again. Is this currently the most pressing problem of China’s economy?
Furthermore, the author argues against globalisation as a means of avoiding inward complexity. He introduced the term ‘international balance of interests’, and cited Japan’s example in the 1980s as a failure of aggressive overseas expansion as a means to walk around domestic policy constraints.
The main challenge faced by China’s economy is therefore a government unwilling to sacrifice some short-term figures and stability for healthier and sustainable growth in the long run. Structural problems have to be tackled – they do not simply go away.

The End of Secularism?

Commentary by Ralf Dahrendorf, from Project Syndicate.
I am still very unsure of copyrights issues - hence only a little bit of the text is quoted. Interested people can visithttp://www.project-syndicate.org
Why has religion returned to secular and democratic politics?
The main reason is probably that the enlightened countries of the world have become unsure of their values, even of the Enlightenment itself. A moral relativism has spread, leading many to accept the taboos of all religious groups in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism. Cartoons of Mohammed are not published, and Mozart’s opera Idomeneo is not performed in order to avoid offending religious sensitivities; and when, in the end, the publication and the performance take place, they become a demonstration almost intended to offend. One can understand that enlightened believers in Islam (of whom there are many) find it upsetting that the world in which they want to live is in fact frail and vulnerable. But why politics and which area of politics is the author referring to? The replacement of the rule of law, by the rule of say the Ten Commandments, for example, should certainly by distinguished from the invasion into another country in the name of human liberty? Moral relativism should affect domestic political scene the most – like the case of stem cell research; but the prevalence of religion in international relations – an example of internal conflict spreading to the outside?
The author talks about the return of religion to politics, triggered by ‘moral relativism’ and a need for a new moral standard, and its consequence for liberty. He offered a solution of what Qian Mu would call ‘passive liberty’. I wonder whether some might call that ‘sin of omission’. 读过此文的诸君说不定会给我贴上危险人物的商标，也说不定会因此把我拒之门外了，大叔写文章写的真不是时候。接触了新事物，某些原则也要跟着改变，这本来是很正常的事情。如果西方真的讲政教分家，那所谓的moral relativism应该只对宗教信仰有影响。用政治手段维护宗教思想是对自己信仰缺乏自信的表现，而且法律如果用来维护道德就不能很好的维护自由了，如果Tinbergen Principle可以用在政治上的话。西方成天讲法制，说中国古代的人治的种种不是，其实无论道德也好宗教也好法律也好都是作为行为准则，当然有互相影响的地方，政治完全脱离宗教是不可能的。我觉得关键是要明确法律的目的，就是社会自由的最大化，其他别的目的当然只能为这个主要目的服务。这挺像佩恩说的政府是社会中的恶所衍生的，法律也是为了抑制它所存在的，而不是为了其他的任何目的。孔子说做事前要先正名，现在是时候为法律正名了。

The Problem with Russell's China

Our Western civilization is built upon assumptions, which, to a psychologist, are rationalizings of excessive energy. Our industrialism, our militarism, our love of progress, our missionary zeal, our imperialism, our passion for dominating and organizing, all spring from a superflux of the itch for activity.
While it is certainly true that the West has a greater crave and obsession with efficiency than the East, it is an over-generalisation to argue that the Oriental society has not a desire for progress. Is power maniac not present in the endless wars between the eunuchs? And as Russell later mentioned, only a small portion of the Chinese population are literate, hence the Confuciusian doctrine is less incorporated in the mass than in the elite. Whence come from the tolerance and ‘peaceable’ nature of the peasants? Certainly not from Confucius; it is in fact difficult to trace the root of such common sentiment, for there is little record about the lives of peasants in China, who almost invariably were assigned the lowest status. It is arguable that only until Ming dynasty was the general population sufficiently educated – which the rise of much easier novels like Shui Hu – making the point that the Chinese are inherently more peaceable an extremely contrived/strenuous one. I do believe that there should be something common in human nature – the desire for progress and not degradation, and even for better material comfort. It is again dubious whether the apparatus of Western progress is driven mainly by this ‘superflux of the itch for activity’, for what exactly it is that makes the Westerners more energetic has not been proven to be in existence. In fact, leaning my ears to Descartes’s ‘epistemological priority’, it is fairly obvious to me that human nature should be assumed to be uniform unless there is some internal or external stimulus that disturbs the uniformity. Many would then point to the environment – but if Russell is referring to environment as the ‘ultimate cause’, then he seems to be contradicting himself when he describes the Chinese people’s reaction to the Yellow River, as opposed to that of the Westerners, as a result of their peaceable nature, rather than the cause of it. Since it cannot be established that outside stimulus – environment or education - changes human nature in such a way that distinguishes the West from the Chinese, whether the West is any different from the East is open to further exploration. But if one were to assume supernatural design – then there is little room for doubt that Russell could still be right in examining the effect first, and then conjecturing the cause.

And at last I began to feel that all politics are inspired by a grinning devil, teaching the energetic and quickwitted to torture submissive populations for the profit of pocket or power or theory.

Oh please don’t say that. That is very disheartening to hear – for a future politician or something of that nature. But is he really referring to the study of politics here? Seems more like international relations to me. He seems to say, ‘leave the Chinese people alone, go home and clear up your own mess first! '

Whatever may be said against filial piety carried to excess, it is certainly less harmful than its Western counterpart, patriotism. Both, of course, err in inculcating duties to a certain portion of mankind to the practical exclusion of the rest. But patriotism directs one's loyalty to a fighting unit, which filial piety does not (except in a very primitive society).
The principal method of advancing the interests of one's nation is homicide; the principal method of advancing the interest of one's family is corruption and intrigue. Therefore family feeling is less harmful than patriotism.
Very impressive – the parallel drawn between filial piety and patriotism. Indeed, the common good might still be not good enough.

David Hume on a party-state democracy

‘An established government has an infinite advantage, by that very circumstance of its being established; the bulk of mankind being governed by authority, not reason, and never attributing authority to any thing that has not the recommendation of antiquity. To tamper, therefore, in this affair, or try experiments merely upon the credit of supposed argument and philosophy, can never be the part of a wise magistrate, who will bear a reverence to what carries the marks of age; and though he may attempt some improvements for the public good, yet will he adjust his innovations, as much as possible, to the ancient fabric, and preserve entire the chief pillars and supports of the constitution.”

China's Unresolved Issues

Something about the influence of Confucianism:
It embraces a secular worldview. Confucius believes that the world and its people are essentially moral, and that people should train themselves in benevolence and in humanity, and extend them to other people. His idea of morality starts from filial duty to fraternal submission to helping everyone. The government’s role is to teach people virtue and ceremonial rites.

It can thus be seen that Confucius’ ideals are practical, ethical, and orientated towards ‘now’, which contrast sharply with that of Plato or Aristotle, which are theoretical, metaphysical, and concerned about hereafter and the origin of life. The merchants are given very low status unlike in Western capitalism, which might explain why the attributes of Protestantism is not widely accepted by the Chinese population.

Confucius advocates a hierarchical organization. The nature of society should be family-based, and hierarchically organized. People’s fundamental loyalty and submission is to one’s family, not the state or the public. This kind of structure discourages independence and innovation.

The emperor is believed to serve as the connection of Heaven and Earth, and the humanity. Thus his right to rule is premised on his ability to maintain harmony between Heaven and Earth, him and his officials, and his officials and the people. To be able to achieve that, he must be morally upright, and perform ritual in the appropriate order. Revolution is permissible if the ruler is considered a mere commoner, and society then searches for the new ruler who is appointed by the Mandate of Heaven. This system permits a new ruler, but not a new system.

Birth forth from such a system is a group of educated elite which forms the scholar-gentry class. Officials and selected for their technical expertise as well as moral quality, which was evaluated via a nation-wide examination on the work of Confucius and his disciples. This system of rule by men, and not rule by law poses the question of how leaders should be appointed in the new age.

This is the day that the Lord has made!

I thought yesterday was just another day of doing community work. I was knocking doors, distributing flyers just as usual. Then this door opened in front of me and the uncle told me that he could not come to today’s event because of the haze, which according to the morning’s report caused the SPI to shoot up to 128. Then he said, ‘Xiao Mei ah, go back home lah, don’t come out running around, it’s bad for your health.’

‘for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;
‘I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
… 'And the King will answer and say to them, ‘assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

This is one of the instances that makes you feel that indeed the order is being slowly restored, and I could not help but anticipate with great joy the day the walls will be torn down and people will become reunited as one. Everyday as ordinary as it is could be, if we are willing, another day for you and me in paradise.

Common Sense.

Paine goes on to discuss the British form of governance, which brings forth one observation which I deem a self-evident truth that ‘only has to be stated so that it becomes obvious’.

The nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of things which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind.

His point is that the king is appointed by a power which people claim exist, but which in fact does not exist. And monarchy is often undesirable because it excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. By making the crown an overbearing part of the English Constitution, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in the possession of the key.

The next point that he adopted, concerning the nature and source of this special form of governance, is much more contentious:

It arises as much or more from national pride than reason. As a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in form of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

Common Sense

Common Sense
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine seems determined that the premises used in modern political philosophy are ‘common sense’ even to the layperson, although many other scholars would beg to defer. These premises generally concern the nature of man, which in the opinion of Auguste Comte, the father of the term ‘sociology’, should be absolute, such that it becomes possible for humanities to be studied as a science, and subsequently, lavoir pour prevoir et prevoir pour pouvoir, ‘from science comes prevision; from prevision comes action’.

Whether the stance adopted by Paine is the most appropriate for the study of political philosophy is open to debate, but the prowess with which Common Sense was written is indeed remarkable. It offers a break from the acrid observations of Krugman and the deeply controversial tone of Friedman; the reader is led to explore this serious discipline by a poet, who carefully selects his words as if he is composing a song, while maintaining the academic precision of a scientist. No more jokes about ‘anything calling itself a science is not a science’: whether science is to be defined by its empirical methods and epistemology, or simply the use of precise, economical language, political science should be justifiably called a ‘science’.

This particular field of study, however, is far from honest and upright as many others of its brothers and sisters claim to be. Government is a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world’.


Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness. The former promotes happiness positively by uniting our affections (for society emerges because ‘the strength of man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude’ – a rather rosy proposition, but sound in its own right), and the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is a necessary evil (just because it is born out of evil?).

We furnish the means by which we suffer, for government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence (a reference to the Biblical story).

The conclusion, therefore, is that security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.