One of this week's major news was about metal figurines of animals being auctioned by Christie's and Sotheby's in Hong Kong. China claimed that those were works of art looted from its Summer Palace in Beijing during the Opium War of 1860. A government related company with links to the PLA reportedly paid US$4 million to buy back 2 of the pieces.
If the Chinese government claim (which I am sure can be independently verified) is true, then the auction is a blatant insult and challenge to the Chinese government and its people. It appeared to me that it was like an owner having had valuables stolen from his house found a few years later (except that this is a span of 140 years) that a high class salesman was trying to sell the items back to him in his own front yard! And no one says anything, not including the governments of the countries where the thieves originated. Although the individuals that stole the items are long dead and the 'prizes might have pass through many hands', it does not deny the fact that the original perpetrators committed their crimes under the cover of certain countries that still exist today. Surely those governments must feel some obligation to help the Chinese recover them.
While those governments' silence and the international community's disinterest in this is itself unacceptable to me, it also may be a sinister and brazen challenge to the Chinese government to see if it seizes the items and therefore end up interfering with the 'rule of law' in HK and its promised one country 2 system policy.
I am sure many Chinese must have felt the same and will remember this well into the future. Quietly but surely they will.
Note : Forwarded above note to Straits Times Forum but not published.
Saturday, April 15, 2000
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
Just Another Colonial Story - Cecil John Rhodes
Recently there were news reports of black people of Zimbabwe (formerly known as Rhodesia) robbing land belonging to white people. White people who represent 1% of the population occupies 50% of arable land. The British government announced plans to help evacuate 50,000 people threatened by the action of the blacks. According to yesterday's report, the British government 'feels responsible for those white people given the history linkage'.
I took a look at website of Slate magazine and found this historical background. A review commentary by contributor to Slate on a film made by BBC on Rhodes:
Rhodes' story is an inherently implausible one: a sickly, asthmatic vicar's son from Bishop's Stortford, England, heads to South Africa for the sake of his health and ends up the richest man in the Western world and the colonizer of a vast tract of Africa. Rhodes had three simultaneous careers in his 49 years--diamond magnate, politician, and imperialist. His big idea was to "save Africa from itself." Only after his death, in 1902, did the dizzying extent of his imperial fantasy become apparent. In his will, he left a fortune for the establishment of a "secret society" modeled on the Jesuits, with the aim of extending British rule throughout the world.
He was one of few men in history, apart from Simón Bolívar, who managed to get a sizable mainland country named after himself--two countries, actually, Northern and Southern Rhodesia. Only one person topped that, the Italian-born explorer Amerigo Vespucci, who claimed an entire continent. Of course, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia in 1964. And when "Southern Rhodesia" was jettisoned for "Zimbabwe" in 1980
His most enduring legacy in the post-apartheid world is the De Beers cartel, which he set up to manipulate the world diamond market.
But somehow this shabbily dressed buffoon, with his falsetto giggle; this fidgeting, bumbling public speaker who was once described by a senior Colonial Office mandarin as "grotesque, impulsive, school-boyish, humorous and almost clownish - not to be regarded as a serious person" rose to become a business colossus and the prime minister of the Cape Colony, and ran rings around the British government. Lord Salisbury, the British prime minister, eventually granted Rhodes his royal charter to occupy the north. "Take all you can--and ask afterwards," was his typically wimpish advice, as Rhodes' pioneer column trekked into the interior. So, like much of British imperialism, the conquest of Rhodesia was a private-sector colonization, costing the British taxpayer nothing, at least initially.
All that remained in the way of Rhodes' imperial vision of controlling the African interior was "one naked old savage," as Rhodes called King Lobengula. The story of how the ruler of the Matabele, a tribe that lives in what is now southern Zimbabwe, was cheated of his lands is truly a sad one, and one of the most affecting parts of the miniseries. A pair of binoculars here, a few hundred Martini-Henry rifles there failed to do the trick. So Dr. Jameson, Rhodes' sidekick (played by Neil Pearson), treats Lobengula for his gout by turning him into a trembling morphine junkie, prepared to sign anything put in front of him for his next fix. As Rhodes announces to his shareholders in London that shares in the Charter Company have risen 1,500 percent, Lobengula, defeated, his people reduced to servitude, kills himself.
The film leaves the impression, too, that had it not been for Rhodes' invasion of Mashonaland and Matabeleland, they would somehow have been spared the terrible subjugation of colonization. Hardly: Paul Kruger and the Transvaal Boers were already eyeing the territory north of South Africa avariciously, as a haven to which their trekkers could escape from British domination. And the Belgians, Portuguese, and Germans were also scrambling for African territories.
Rhodes and the white pioneers in southern Africa did behave despicably by today's standards, but no worse than the white settlers in North America, South America, and Australia; and in some senses better, considering that the genocide of natives in Africa was less complete. For all the former African colonies are now ruled by indigenous peoples, unlike the Americas and the Antipodes, most of whose aboriginal natives were all but exterminated.
I took a look at website of Slate magazine and found this historical background. A review commentary by contributor to Slate on a film made by BBC on Rhodes:
Rhodes' story is an inherently implausible one: a sickly, asthmatic vicar's son from Bishop's Stortford, England, heads to South Africa for the sake of his health and ends up the richest man in the Western world and the colonizer of a vast tract of Africa. Rhodes had three simultaneous careers in his 49 years--diamond magnate, politician, and imperialist. His big idea was to "save Africa from itself." Only after his death, in 1902, did the dizzying extent of his imperial fantasy become apparent. In his will, he left a fortune for the establishment of a "secret society" modeled on the Jesuits, with the aim of extending British rule throughout the world.
He was one of few men in history, apart from Simón Bolívar, who managed to get a sizable mainland country named after himself--two countries, actually, Northern and Southern Rhodesia. Only one person topped that, the Italian-born explorer Amerigo Vespucci, who claimed an entire continent. Of course, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia in 1964. And when "Southern Rhodesia" was jettisoned for "Zimbabwe" in 1980
His most enduring legacy in the post-apartheid world is the De Beers cartel, which he set up to manipulate the world diamond market.
But somehow this shabbily dressed buffoon, with his falsetto giggle; this fidgeting, bumbling public speaker who was once described by a senior Colonial Office mandarin as "grotesque, impulsive, school-boyish, humorous and almost clownish - not to be regarded as a serious person" rose to become a business colossus and the prime minister of the Cape Colony, and ran rings around the British government. Lord Salisbury, the British prime minister, eventually granted Rhodes his royal charter to occupy the north. "Take all you can--and ask afterwards," was his typically wimpish advice, as Rhodes' pioneer column trekked into the interior. So, like much of British imperialism, the conquest of Rhodesia was a private-sector colonization, costing the British taxpayer nothing, at least initially.
All that remained in the way of Rhodes' imperial vision of controlling the African interior was "one naked old savage," as Rhodes called King Lobengula. The story of how the ruler of the Matabele, a tribe that lives in what is now southern Zimbabwe, was cheated of his lands is truly a sad one, and one of the most affecting parts of the miniseries. A pair of binoculars here, a few hundred Martini-Henry rifles there failed to do the trick. So Dr. Jameson, Rhodes' sidekick (played by Neil Pearson), treats Lobengula for his gout by turning him into a trembling morphine junkie, prepared to sign anything put in front of him for his next fix. As Rhodes announces to his shareholders in London that shares in the Charter Company have risen 1,500 percent, Lobengula, defeated, his people reduced to servitude, kills himself.
The film leaves the impression, too, that had it not been for Rhodes' invasion of Mashonaland and Matabeleland, they would somehow have been spared the terrible subjugation of colonization. Hardly: Paul Kruger and the Transvaal Boers were already eyeing the territory north of South Africa avariciously, as a haven to which their trekkers could escape from British domination. And the Belgians, Portuguese, and Germans were also scrambling for African territories.
Rhodes and the white pioneers in southern Africa did behave despicably by today's standards, but no worse than the white settlers in North America, South America, and Australia; and in some senses better, considering that the genocide of natives in Africa was less complete. For all the former African colonies are now ruled by indigenous peoples, unlike the Americas and the Antipodes, most of whose aboriginal natives were all but exterminated.
Risk Taking
To wake up is to risk spoiling a dream
To dream is to risk missing out on reality
To be realistic is to risk being mediocre
To be mediocre is to risk not achieving the best
To be the best is to risk missing out on other things in life
To enjoy things in life is to risk not making enough money
To make more money is to risk missing out on sleep
To sleep is to risk not waking up
(return to top)
To dream is to risk missing out on reality
To be realistic is to risk being mediocre
To be mediocre is to risk not achieving the best
To be the best is to risk missing out on other things in life
To enjoy things in life is to risk not making enough money
To make more money is to risk missing out on sleep
To sleep is to risk not waking up
(return to top)
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
How Some Good People Are Helping the Poor
I read a Straits Times article a few months back about a small but quite popular tourist area somewhere in India. It is on some mountainous area with good view etc. Just like all other places in India including the large cities like Delhi and Mumbai, there were many poor people making a living by scavenging and begging. Poor parents and children spend their time rummaging through the rubbish dumps and streets just to find enough to survive.
As this place was quite popular, there was a lot of trash thrown all over the place. A man who was either a university professor or someone with some government body came up with an idea to both rid the area of rubbish and give the poor people a decent income. The idea was for the poor to be organised into teams that will collect thrash like plastic containers and cans from the various parts of the area and sell them to recycling plants. He got the recycling plants to agree to the plan. He also got the local hotels and shops to place their garbage for collection by these teams of poor people. Apparently the program worked very well and a man who used to beg was quoted as saying that he now finds a decent income and could afford to send his children to school. To him it was a wish that would not have been possible without this idea and effort from this one gentleman.
Mobile Phones Give New Hope to the Rural Poor
Today I read this acticle about a bank in Bangladesh that gives small loans to small farmers and business people (micro credit). The Grameen Bank was founded by a 'celebrated banker of the poor' Professor Muhammad Yunus. The company also has a phone company of the same name that pioneered the sale of mobile phones at subsidised rates to village women. The women were selected from their track record as the bank's borrowers. The villagers then used the phones to get in touch with markets in towns which were far away from their village. In that way, middle men cannot cheat the farmers anymore. The phone company conducts a day long training session before issuing the phones. The only condition is that at least one member of the family must recognise the English alphabet.
It was really nice to know of such people and what they were doing for the poor in their countries. What contrast it is to compare that to what I hear about what happens in the different countries:
Malaysia : I hear so many similar stories from different relatives and friends from all over Malaysia that there must be quite a lot of truth to it. PM Mahathir himself was reported in Malaysian newspapers recently to have complained that the government has to review its student loan policies. That's because the students were not appreciative of what the government did for them and were supporting the opposition. He said that all of them get study loans when they go the university (Malays go in under a quota system) and the first thing they do with the money was to buy motorcycles to go round with. They were not interested in studying but politicking.
There was also a story that my cousin in Simpang Rengam (in Johore Malaysia) related to me. There was a Malay couple about to retire as teachers (most teachers in the last 20 years were Malays as part of the government program to promote their involvement in all aspects of the economy). Apparently in Malaysia, a retiring government employee can borrow about 30 thousands dollars each from the government as seed money to help them start whatever business they choose. So everyone does it (the Malays that is, since they makes up 80 to 90% of the civil service). They will get some wood to build a cart and sell something (whatever) and apply for the loan. Once the loan is obtained, the money will be used first to buy a car or motorcycle which they will parade through town. The supposedly new business almost always never take off and the loans not returned. Apparently, the couple went round the small town bragging to the others that they will get 50 over thousand Ringgit just like that when they retire.
Talking about teachers, PM Mahathir also commented about the rising number of non-Chinese students in Chinese schools and the government was looking at increasing the size of those schools. That was just before the Malaysian general elections of 1999. He said the reason why the other races are sending their children to Chinese schools was not because they wanted to learn Chinese. Just that the teachers there are 'more committed'. I guess he meant what everyone knew for decades. The teachers in government schools who are mostly Malays were useless.
Singapore : The government has just topped up S$250 into the CPF account of each Singaporean. There was a long queue of old people in the CPF today to collect the 'bonus'. Only people above 55 years old and who meet criteria like having more than the minimum savings are allowed to withdraw the money. It was quite refreshing to know that the Singapore government appreciated the plight of the older generation who needs the money more than the younger ones.
As this place was quite popular, there was a lot of trash thrown all over the place. A man who was either a university professor or someone with some government body came up with an idea to both rid the area of rubbish and give the poor people a decent income. The idea was for the poor to be organised into teams that will collect thrash like plastic containers and cans from the various parts of the area and sell them to recycling plants. He got the recycling plants to agree to the plan. He also got the local hotels and shops to place their garbage for collection by these teams of poor people. Apparently the program worked very well and a man who used to beg was quoted as saying that he now finds a decent income and could afford to send his children to school. To him it was a wish that would not have been possible without this idea and effort from this one gentleman.
Mobile Phones Give New Hope to the Rural Poor
Today I read this acticle about a bank in Bangladesh that gives small loans to small farmers and business people (micro credit). The Grameen Bank was founded by a 'celebrated banker of the poor' Professor Muhammad Yunus. The company also has a phone company of the same name that pioneered the sale of mobile phones at subsidised rates to village women. The women were selected from their track record as the bank's borrowers. The villagers then used the phones to get in touch with markets in towns which were far away from their village. In that way, middle men cannot cheat the farmers anymore. The phone company conducts a day long training session before issuing the phones. The only condition is that at least one member of the family must recognise the English alphabet.
It was really nice to know of such people and what they were doing for the poor in their countries. What contrast it is to compare that to what I hear about what happens in the different countries:
Malaysia : I hear so many similar stories from different relatives and friends from all over Malaysia that there must be quite a lot of truth to it. PM Mahathir himself was reported in Malaysian newspapers recently to have complained that the government has to review its student loan policies. That's because the students were not appreciative of what the government did for them and were supporting the opposition. He said that all of them get study loans when they go the university (Malays go in under a quota system) and the first thing they do with the money was to buy motorcycles to go round with. They were not interested in studying but politicking.
There was also a story that my cousin in Simpang Rengam (in Johore Malaysia) related to me. There was a Malay couple about to retire as teachers (most teachers in the last 20 years were Malays as part of the government program to promote their involvement in all aspects of the economy). Apparently in Malaysia, a retiring government employee can borrow about 30 thousands dollars each from the government as seed money to help them start whatever business they choose. So everyone does it (the Malays that is, since they makes up 80 to 90% of the civil service). They will get some wood to build a cart and sell something (whatever) and apply for the loan. Once the loan is obtained, the money will be used first to buy a car or motorcycle which they will parade through town. The supposedly new business almost always never take off and the loans not returned. Apparently, the couple went round the small town bragging to the others that they will get 50 over thousand Ringgit just like that when they retire.
Talking about teachers, PM Mahathir also commented about the rising number of non-Chinese students in Chinese schools and the government was looking at increasing the size of those schools. That was just before the Malaysian general elections of 1999. He said the reason why the other races are sending their children to Chinese schools was not because they wanted to learn Chinese. Just that the teachers there are 'more committed'. I guess he meant what everyone knew for decades. The teachers in government schools who are mostly Malays were useless.
Singapore : The government has just topped up S$250 into the CPF account of each Singaporean. There was a long queue of old people in the CPF today to collect the 'bonus'. Only people above 55 years old and who meet criteria like having more than the minimum savings are allowed to withdraw the money. It was quite refreshing to know that the Singapore government appreciated the plight of the older generation who needs the money more than the younger ones.
Friday, April 07, 2000
Another Example of Endless Human Greed
Some months ago I received an e-mail from someone asking people to give support to a center for stray animals known as Noah's Ark Lodge. Apparently the land occupied by the center was leased from the Singapore government and the lease was about to end. The man who ran the place applied for an extension but was rejected and the e-mail was an appeal for public support for the extension appeal. I remember seeing somewhere in Noah's Ark Lodge's website that the Primary Production Department (PPD) cited the reason for not extending the lease as the need for ensuring 'best use of the land through the process of bidding'.
My thought then was that it was quite ridiculous to consider the extension solely on that basis. I therefore put in my little piece in Noah's Ark Lodge's website suggesting an appeal to PM Goh since he appear to me to be one who may 'have more in his heart than just making money'.
In today's Straits Times is a report that said that the current operator of Noah's Ark Lodge, a Raymond Wee, has 'lost the bid' for the land. An ex-pet shop owner, he setup the center because he wanted to have 'a more humane way of handling the strays other than to put them down". He had reportedly sold his shop house and spent $1.5 million dollars of his own money and the last 7 years running the center. The winning bidder is a pet businessman who will use the land for business and had offered to accommodate the stray animals as long contributions for their upkeep continue to come in. The chief executive of the Food and Veterinarian Authority of Singapore, a Mr Ngiam, was quoted as saying that 'other animal lovers concerned about the welfare of the animals can also help by adopting the animals and contributing to their upkeep'. I guess that was probably stated in light of public concern for the closure. Prompted by the news report, I took a look at Noah's Ark Lodge website today. In its message section are expressions of disappointment from some people and there were some really nasty messages with four letter words.
I was thinking about this whole story, the public official statements and what they really meant. It is clear that many people were saddened by what happened. And may be unable to reconcile the outcome to their hearts, some good intentioned people have resorted to foul languages to express their exasperation at the failure of a nation to make a difference for some helpless animals and to let a man with the willingness to help them to continue to do so.
It was clear that settling the issue by determining best use of a land by bidding meant that the land should go to one with the highest dollar return. It would not take much for anyone to appreciate that 'humanitarian' work cannot be valued the same way as running a business. Otherwise Mr Wee would have made instead of spent a million dollars doing it. Many people including GIC would be doing it! Surely they also do not expect the animals to earn their right to live as they have done for millions of years (and, unlike humans, taking only what they need and no more) by producing revenue for humans! When it is only fair that animals should have some right to a decent existence, we humans in our usual selfishness have somehow assumed that humans have the right to every inch of space on earth. After that, we in our arrogance try to insist that everything under the sky should follow the rules that some of us had dictated. Our insatiable greed concealed in nice sounding man-made concepts (and taught by governments and schools) like "free market" and "maximum returns" have blinded us to the fact that those concepts are not laws of nature. To top it up, when an issue like this concerning the life of other life forms should perhaps be a whole nation's concern, a public official obviously with some responsibility for wild-life has taken the presumptuous liberty to tell all his countrymen that it is essentially not his business. He probably does not realise that what he was really implying was that while a whole nation has collectively deprived other animals a space for continued survival only those few with the heart and desire to help the animals should pay for that 'robbery'.
When a country claiming to be a 'first world' nation with highly schooled people and top officials pegging their salaries to 'the best' cannot seem to appreciate the above, it is indeed a frightening future for the world.
Sent the above note to the Straits Times the day the report was published hoping that it will get onto their Forum page. They must have thought that I was being ridiculous. It was not printed.
A week after the news report, the message function in Noah's Ark Lodge website was closed. Message on the site was "We have also decided to close this message board. While there were many constructive and well intentioned feedbacks, there were also a lot of immatured, shallow and irresponsible messages. Perhaps it is due to the anonymity of the Internet, many had based their criticism on superficial observations. One or Two had been using this message board as a vehicle for personal attacks, hiding behind fake identities. No wonder it took the government so long to allow the "Speakers' Corner". Even then, judging from the messages on this "virtual soap box", we are probably still not quite ready for it yet."
My thought then was that it was quite ridiculous to consider the extension solely on that basis. I therefore put in my little piece in Noah's Ark Lodge's website suggesting an appeal to PM Goh since he appear to me to be one who may 'have more in his heart than just making money'.
In today's Straits Times is a report that said that the current operator of Noah's Ark Lodge, a Raymond Wee, has 'lost the bid' for the land. An ex-pet shop owner, he setup the center because he wanted to have 'a more humane way of handling the strays other than to put them down". He had reportedly sold his shop house and spent $1.5 million dollars of his own money and the last 7 years running the center. The winning bidder is a pet businessman who will use the land for business and had offered to accommodate the stray animals as long contributions for their upkeep continue to come in. The chief executive of the Food and Veterinarian Authority of Singapore, a Mr Ngiam, was quoted as saying that 'other animal lovers concerned about the welfare of the animals can also help by adopting the animals and contributing to their upkeep'. I guess that was probably stated in light of public concern for the closure. Prompted by the news report, I took a look at Noah's Ark Lodge website today. In its message section are expressions of disappointment from some people and there were some really nasty messages with four letter words.
I was thinking about this whole story, the public official statements and what they really meant. It is clear that many people were saddened by what happened. And may be unable to reconcile the outcome to their hearts, some good intentioned people have resorted to foul languages to express their exasperation at the failure of a nation to make a difference for some helpless animals and to let a man with the willingness to help them to continue to do so.
It was clear that settling the issue by determining best use of a land by bidding meant that the land should go to one with the highest dollar return. It would not take much for anyone to appreciate that 'humanitarian' work cannot be valued the same way as running a business. Otherwise Mr Wee would have made instead of spent a million dollars doing it. Many people including GIC would be doing it! Surely they also do not expect the animals to earn their right to live as they have done for millions of years (and, unlike humans, taking only what they need and no more) by producing revenue for humans! When it is only fair that animals should have some right to a decent existence, we humans in our usual selfishness have somehow assumed that humans have the right to every inch of space on earth. After that, we in our arrogance try to insist that everything under the sky should follow the rules that some of us had dictated. Our insatiable greed concealed in nice sounding man-made concepts (and taught by governments and schools) like "free market" and "maximum returns" have blinded us to the fact that those concepts are not laws of nature. To top it up, when an issue like this concerning the life of other life forms should perhaps be a whole nation's concern, a public official obviously with some responsibility for wild-life has taken the presumptuous liberty to tell all his countrymen that it is essentially not his business. He probably does not realise that what he was really implying was that while a whole nation has collectively deprived other animals a space for continued survival only those few with the heart and desire to help the animals should pay for that 'robbery'.
When a country claiming to be a 'first world' nation with highly schooled people and top officials pegging their salaries to 'the best' cannot seem to appreciate the above, it is indeed a frightening future for the world.
Sent the above note to the Straits Times the day the report was published hoping that it will get onto their Forum page. They must have thought that I was being ridiculous. It was not printed.
A week after the news report, the message function in Noah's Ark Lodge website was closed. Message on the site was "We have also decided to close this message board. While there were many constructive and well intentioned feedbacks, there were also a lot of immatured, shallow and irresponsible messages. Perhaps it is due to the anonymity of the Internet, many had based their criticism on superficial observations. One or Two had been using this message board as a vehicle for personal attacks, hiding behind fake identities. No wonder it took the government so long to allow the "Speakers' Corner". Even then, judging from the messages on this "virtual soap box", we are probably still not quite ready for it yet."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)