Monthly Archives: January 2012

National Education in Hong Kong Delayed

The South China Morning Post reported today that plans for a “national education” have been shelved for a few more years,  until 2015. Without too much exaggeration, the purpose of the curriculum was to make Hong Kong students feel more Chinese. Specifically, a version of Chinese-ness inspired by the Politburo Standing Committee in Beijing. The idea was proposed by Mr Bowtie after Hu Jintao remarked “on the importance of giving Hong Kong children a better understanding of China’s development and identity.” A puppet knows where his strings lead.

Harry Harrison's cartoon of the topic

This would be done primarily with learning to “sing the National Anthem, understand the Basic Law, attending national flag raising ceremonies, supporting national sports teams, and appreciate and understand Chinese culture.” Unsurprisingly, many have called this brainwashing. At issue is that Hong Kong Chinese are a very different type of Chinese than Mainland Chinese, as Cam McMurchy recently wrote at depth on. The most clear measurement of this has been the increasing number of Hong Kongers who identify themselves first as Hong Kongers and second as Chinese. Which, of course, the Standing Committee in Beijing ridicules as “unscientific.”

As a relatively recent guest in Hong Kong and a former long-term guest of the People’s Republic (but I repeat myself?), I have mixed feelings. I instinctively react negatively to Beijing dictating anything to Hong Kong. But I don’t automatically sympathize with the locals because I don’t think they’ve got a much better idea. A post-colonial identity needs to be constructed, but it needs to be the product of a territory-wide discussion about what our current and historical experience has been.

I think, in many ways, Hong Kong is too localist. I’ve written before that I have strong feelings against the rise of Cantonese as a Medium of Instruction in Hong Kong. I think Hong Kongers don’t really know what it means to be a citizen of Hong Kong. They forget that they are mostly the progeny of relatively recent migrants, mostly because of how quickly they dropped other regional dialects for Cantonese. Hong Kong, as far back as paleolithic times, was a rocky outpost with people from around the region coming in and out. The arrival of the British and the increase in trade brought in migrants from around China and the world. I have a Portoguese/English friend on my island whose family been in the region for six generations. That’s longer than many of my “local” friends. I don’t think there’s an intertwining unique history of a unique people, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

Gordon Mathews, a scholar on Hong Kong identity at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, says that “the greatest fear Hong Kong people have is Hong Kong becoming just one more city in China.” I fear that for most of Hong Kong sees their city as a cleaner Guangzhou – cleaner government, cleaner streets, cleaner subways – with a colonial legacy. Most of us attracted to Hong Kong see something altogether different: arguably Asia’s only truly global city. Hong Kong needs to forge a common post-ethnic identity that comes to terms with 2047, when handover to the PRC is complete. An identity that doesn’t cringe at the thought of Filipino domestic helpers being one of “us.”  With an identity like that, Hong Kong can move forward on a lot of other educational problems – like where to place non-Chinese students in Hong Kong. Until then, the “us vs them” will remain Mainland vs Cantonese-speaking Chinese. I don’t know exactly what it would look like, I only hope that it begins and that it eventually includes ethnic minorities, permanent/long-term expats, and even the arrivals from the Mainland as well as the other 90% of Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong. Together, we’re constructing a unique identity that we need to put to words and ideals.



Filed under Culture, Education

Wade Davis on Language Extinction

I admit to not being the strongest advocate of linguistic rights in education. In Hong Kong, for instance, I’m a strong advocate of removing Cantonese as the medium of instruction in schools in favor of Putonghua and English. It’s not lost on me that those happen to be two languages I speak. I think Putonghua as a language of instruction in urban and ethnic Han China is an absolute necessity. But in these places, local dialects are still going strong. Children in Guangzhou learn and use Putonghua in the classroom but I can’t imagine the Cantonese language in crises in even my grandchildren’s lifetime.

But it’s not always like that, as most languages are in a grave crises. We’re in an age of biocultural diversity loss through extinction. In the mountains of Tibetan Sichuan I was horrified to see a language die in front of me. In the villages surrounding Danba (map, my photos) I learned only monks could read Tibetan writing, only adults could speak the local Tibetan dialects, no one could understand the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan, and children would listen to their parents speak their local dialects but responded in Putonghua. The NGO I was working with wouldn’t, and couldn’t, touch that issue with a mile-long pole. The village we were in was “safe”, with  the houses we visited with the most extreme propagandistic posters I’ve ever seen in China. I’m pretty sure I remember seeing a painting of Hu Jintao riding on a white horse. Less than 150 miles away monks are setting themselves on fire in protest of the culturecide happening around them.

I recently finished Wade Davis’s The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World. He makes an extremely strong case for linguistic diversity:

No biologist, for example, would suggest that 50 percent of all species are moribund. Yet this, the most apocalyptic scenario in the realm of biological diversity, scarcely approaches what we know to be the most optimistic scenario in the realm of cultural diversity.

The key indicator, the canary in the coal mine if you will, is language loss. A language, of course, is not merely a set of grammatical rules or a vocabulary. It is a flash of the human spirit, the vehicle by which the soul of each particular culture comes into the material world. Every language is an old-growth forest of the mind, a water- shed of thought, an ecosystem of spiritual possibilities.

Of the 7,000 languages spoken today, fully half are not being taught to children. Effectively, unless something changes, they will disappear within our lifetimes. Half of the languages of the world are teetering on the brink of extinction. Just think about it. What could be more lonely than to be enveloped in silence, to be the last of your people to speak your native tongue, to have no way to pass on the wisdom of your ancestors or antici- pate the promise of your descendants. This tragic fate is indeed the plight of someone somewhere on earth roughly every two weeks. On average, every fortnight an elder dies and carries with him or her into the grave the last syllables of an ancient tongue. What this really means is that within a generation or two, we will be witnessing the loss of fully half of humanity’s social, cultural and intellectual legacy. This is the hidden back- drop of our age. 

I’m reminded of Stephen Meyer’s thesis in The End of the Wild. Like the biodiversity loss around us, most of these languages and cultures around us are going to die. And quite similarly, it’s not the case that there’s nothing we can do about it, but rather there’s nothing we will do about it. The task of ahead, I think, is a managed fall – choosing to keep as many languages as possible as “ghost” or “relic” species. On the margins and far from vibrant, for sure, but still around. We need to be able to identify the “weedy” language species that are filling in the cultural gaps left in the wake of diversity collapse. These are the Englishes, the Tagalog’s, the Putonghua’s, Spanish, and even the Cantonese’s of the world. It’s easy to forget how many Chaozhou migrants left their language and customs at the border when they came to Hong Kong in masse two generations ago. Or today when move come to Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

Watch an interview with Wade Davis here:


Filed under Diversity

Complexity, Inequality, and the 99%: A Response to Clive Crook

I appreciate that Clive Crook is talking about inequality in an intelligent, serious way. I think that’s rare on both the left and the right. My experience living in China left me thinking that inequality wasn’t nearly as important as absolute poverty reduction and people’s quality of life improving. I have several friends in China who grew up eating meat only a few times a month and didn’t get electricity in their homes until the mid-90’s. They drive cars and own their own electronics businesses now. It would seem on an intuitive level that the kind of economy that lets them increase their own livelihoods so quickly would also produce a few billionaires in the process. I also have issues with the way we calculate and compare inequality.  Richard Wilkinson, however, recently convinced me relative poverty is one of the most important issues of our time – even in wealthy economies.

In Look Past Taxes to Fix Global Puzzle of Inequality, Clive Crook makes a number of very good points with a few weak points worth rebuttal. It’s a good place to go through some of my own thoughts on the issue.

What I think Crook gets correct is that this 99%/1% sloganeering is problematic.  Our “obsession with the peak of the income pyramid is much too simple-minded,” as we should be more concerned about our income distribution patterns overall.

US Wealth Distribution (2003)

The super-rich only make up one side of tail of a distribution where the other tail has 46 million Americans in poverty. Important for me, and less for him, is that this tail is far longer than the top tail. Though he doesn’t make the point explicitly, just taxing the 1% more won’t make a only a small dent in inequality or our budgetary problems.

Second, tackling the inequality problem is going to be difficult:

inequality isn’t one issue but a writhing bundle of issues. Unpack it and you see there’s no easy remedy. It demands more thought and humility than most politicians can muster.

In complex systems theory the idea of power laws inside critically self-organized systems is amongst the most overlooked insights that I know of. Compare human heights with power laws and normal distributions : if human height followed a power law distribution, most of us would be incredibly short but at least one of us would be over 8000 feet tall and the median height would still be the real-world median height. In reality, heights are normally distributed bell-curves with only a few Kobe Bryant’s and Peter Dinklage’s.

Our global economy is, without a doubt, critically self-organized and produces power law distributions with market shocks and wealth distributions (see chart to the left). Disentangling the global economy and uncovering its feedbacks and the paths that led to our current state of affairs might take decades.  And after that we’ll likely have to wait decades more before politicians listen to academics who propose strategic decouplings to make economic systems healthier. I am almost certain that the things that bring the most instability to our systems are also the most lucrative – like the financial industry in the US and real estate markets in China (and the US from the late 90s until 2008). I can’t help but think of the global warming debate all over again.

Scott Page asks us to think of earthquakes, whose distributions relative to size and frequency also follows a power laws when analyzing how to harness the lessons of complexity. Perhaps the best way to bring these geophysical systems out of criticality is to intentionally set off smaller earthquakes to release pressure at critical places and times. Doing that might gives us a bell-curve with more small/medium-sized quakes to stop the large ones from happening. In the same way, finding the things that bring our economic system to a critical state would help prevent the kind of market shocks we’re seeing in financial markets,

Earthquakes also follow a power law distribution. Flip this 90° right for it to look like the US inequality distribution

commodity prices, and income distributions. The Chinese government’s experiments with free market economics limited inside special economic zones like Shenzhen  springs to mind as an cordoned-off economic outlet that contains the excesses of capitalism but can still spread the rewards through the system. Ultimately, a healthy system is one where only a few people are doing very badly and they exist in near equal proportion to people doing phenomenally well – where private jets and food insecurity are equally rare. We couldn’t be further from that today with 1 in 6 people in America food insecure.

Crook’s solution is that we need a host of policies to address the problems, including taxing the “middle class”:

An enlightened liberal agenda should include higher taxes on the rich — and higher taxes on the middle class as well. That agenda needs those revenue streams not to punish the 1 percent but to pay for low-wage subsidies, other supports for the working poor and a more effective safety net. It would prioritize K-12 education, vocational training and other main avenues of opportunity for the less well-off. It would attack rent-seeking, broken corporate governance and hidden subsidies to industries that don’t add value.

His use of “middle class” is problematic, as (like most Americans) he seems unable to see past his own nose to choose his terms more carefully. He goes on to says “American liberals find high incomes more upsetting than poverty.” It’s a silly statement and  the problem is much deeper because – as a society – Americans have mostly agreed that “real” poverty doesn’t exist here except in a few isolated cases. Mentally disturbed homeless people come to mind but your typical Wal-Mart employee doesn’t. In the colloquial sense America only seems to have three economic classes: the homeless, the middle class, and now the 1%. Everyone, apparently, is the 99%. Meaning everyone is middle class. Every time anyone from Boehner to Obama speaks about the economy it’s about the middle class. Every tax cut, jobs bill, stimulus or trade bills are all either for (or against) “the middle class.”

But this is by self-identification and something a professional policy wonk should see past. A professor and friend of mine once asked an American freshman class of 200+ students to raise their hand if they thought they were upper class. One or two people raised their hands. He asked who thought they were middle class. Everyone else rose their hand. Poor? Nobody. This despite the recent census showing that fully 15% of the population live in poverty.

Where Crook and I might agree is on the numbers. Who he calls the middle class I would probably call rich and would have quintile statistics behind me. I think we’re probably both talking about the top 10-20% of the country. The salient issue, for me, is that the discourse of “middle class” is even more problematic than his critique of obsessing over “the 1%”.

I think Crook is most wrong when he focuses on income taxes having gotten slightly more progressive and argues that the wealthy are paying their share. Instead of breaking out the charts, it’s self-evident to say that people’s income classes can be broken down into weather they make money from wages, salary, or from profit. The most pernicious effect of the Bush Tax Cuts was the reduction of capital gains taxes and other profit-earning taxes. As a high school teacher in Florida, I was paying something near 35% of my income in taxes*. Warren Buffett recently disclosed that he only paid 17.4% of his income in taxes.

Crooks insistence that “rich Americans contribute a greater share of taxes than do their peers in other industrialized nations” is rubbish. The issue today isn’t how progressive our taxation because we have a regressive tax system now that needs to be fixed. It’s like asking how best to redecorate the kitchen when all the doors of a new home are missing. In the meantime, the two biggest tax policies we should be pursuing is (a) getting the Buffett’s of the world to pay, at minimum, what other works are paying by looking at more than just their salaries, and (b) simplifying the tax code enough to make it both easier on everyone else and much, much more difficult to cheat on.

* state sales tax + federal income taxes on $33,000/yr. Like most lower middle class earners, I spent every dollar I made.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized