A brief answer (opinion) to big questions?
Recently I stumbled upon some videos on Youtube about the political tension between China & Hong Kong. I was reminded on the hopelessly insoluble conflicts between China, Hong Kong & Taiwan.
My parents have been calling the Hong Kongese and Taiwanese activists "naive" on an economic standpoint. They think that Hong Kongese and Taiwanese are committing suicide gradually as the Chinese may stop their trade with Hong Kong & Taiwan due to their rebellion. Meanwhile, in the videos the "reformers" had propounded their strong arguments on democracy, liberty and the nations' "future".
Some principles
I do not know enough to have opinions about the situation. Coincidentally a friend of mine also spoke to me casually about this topic. That conversation enlightened me about the fundamental principles hold by the conflicting parties.
The conservatives say that Hong Kong and Taiwan originally belong to China, and for them any large-scale modification is an unacceptable betrayal, where are the respect and loyalty?
The "reformers" say that everyone should be given opportunity to try new reforms given that the proposed changes will give rise to good prospects, why are you resistant to changes? Do you admit that you are just a tyranny? We by all means oppose tyrannical regimes!
I do not know how long the Chinese can hold Hong Kong in the current shape and how long can the Taiwanese continue despising the Chinese. It's even harder to gauge what will happen to China if Hong Kong is given more freedom and Taiwan is being recognised.
"I know"
Political questions are always hard questions with too high a level of abstractions for humans to make good decisions, no matter how wise a person is. Yet humans like to treat big questions as if they are in the same class as repairing water pipes, cooking steaks or lifting weights. Politicians claim that they know what's happening. The "reformers" claim that the incumbents are stupid.
I bet Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler and Mao Ze Dong were all partly the beneficiaries/victims of certain circumstances, situations and environments. We then declare the heroes/victims ex post based on the end outcomes.
But there might be a possible solution: bottom-up politics.
Loss aversion
Why not let Hong Kong and Taiwan rule themselves for some period of time and let China rule them for some period of time? Then we compare the end outcomes so that there could be an official agreement and concession between the parties.
But of course practically this ideal might be a Sisyphean task. The main reason is that humans can't stand "bottom-up" approach in doing things. It's painful to see that the reality is not something we want but something we hate. It's even more painful to remain silent and endure patiently seeing what we hate is happening. We as humans can't stand that, we want to fix things fast and fix things now.
It is just a trial, an experiment. But the conservatives can't stand the country being turned into an anarchy (an exaggeration in the mind of conservatives). The liberals can't stand submitting to a fascist (an exaggeration in the mind of liberals). So they start doing something to stop/interrupt the "enemy". Then the entire thing degenerates into a top-down game again.
At the end the biggest enemy is our loss aversion.
My parents have been calling the Hong Kongese and Taiwanese activists "naive" on an economic standpoint. They think that Hong Kongese and Taiwanese are committing suicide gradually as the Chinese may stop their trade with Hong Kong & Taiwan due to their rebellion. Meanwhile, in the videos the "reformers" had propounded their strong arguments on democracy, liberty and the nations' "future".
Some principles
I do not know enough to have opinions about the situation. Coincidentally a friend of mine also spoke to me casually about this topic. That conversation enlightened me about the fundamental principles hold by the conflicting parties.
The conservatives say that Hong Kong and Taiwan originally belong to China, and for them any large-scale modification is an unacceptable betrayal, where are the respect and loyalty?
The "reformers" say that everyone should be given opportunity to try new reforms given that the proposed changes will give rise to good prospects, why are you resistant to changes? Do you admit that you are just a tyranny? We by all means oppose tyrannical regimes!
I do not know how long the Chinese can hold Hong Kong in the current shape and how long can the Taiwanese continue despising the Chinese. It's even harder to gauge what will happen to China if Hong Kong is given more freedom and Taiwan is being recognised.
"I know"
Political questions are always hard questions with too high a level of abstractions for humans to make good decisions, no matter how wise a person is. Yet humans like to treat big questions as if they are in the same class as repairing water pipes, cooking steaks or lifting weights. Politicians claim that they know what's happening. The "reformers" claim that the incumbents are stupid.
I bet Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler and Mao Ze Dong were all partly the beneficiaries/victims of certain circumstances, situations and environments. We then declare the heroes/victims ex post based on the end outcomes.
But there might be a possible solution: bottom-up politics.
Loss aversion
Why not let Hong Kong and Taiwan rule themselves for some period of time and let China rule them for some period of time? Then we compare the end outcomes so that there could be an official agreement and concession between the parties.
But of course practically this ideal might be a Sisyphean task. The main reason is that humans can't stand "bottom-up" approach in doing things. It's painful to see that the reality is not something we want but something we hate. It's even more painful to remain silent and endure patiently seeing what we hate is happening. We as humans can't stand that, we want to fix things fast and fix things now.
It is just a trial, an experiment. But the conservatives can't stand the country being turned into an anarchy (an exaggeration in the mind of conservatives). The liberals can't stand submitting to a fascist (an exaggeration in the mind of liberals). So they start doing something to stop/interrupt the "enemy". Then the entire thing degenerates into a top-down game again.
At the end the biggest enemy is our loss aversion.
Comments
Post a Comment