The Bell on the Tiger 解鈴還須繫鈴人

VAL:  Thousands of young protesters have been arrested.  Their future greatly affected.  At least one person has been killed.  Many seriously injured.  Facilities have been damaged; businesses closed down; jobs lost; relationships broken.  Some people, including young people and police officers, will suffer psychologically for many years to come.   What can be done?

LI:  I was recently reminded of this story:  A Zen Buddhist master (法眼禪師 fǎyǎn chánshī - Method Eye zen teacher) asked his students: "There is a fierce tiger with a bell on its neck.  Who can undo the bell from the tiger?"  The monks looked at each other, but none could answer.  An uncouth young monk (法燈禪師 fǎ dēng chánshī – Method Lamp zen teacher) walked past.  Other monks looked down on him.  The master stopped the young monk and asked him the question.  He responded: "It is, of course, the person who tied the bell on the tiger."

VAL: That is the story of  解鈴還須繫鈴人 (jiě líng hái xū xì líng rén).  In other words, ‘To untie the bell, the person who tied the bell is needed.’   How does that relate to the Hong Kong situation?

LI:  The moral of the story is that the people who started the problem in the first place should be the ones to resolve the problem.

VAL:  The police started the problem, didn’t they?

LI:   If the demonstrations were lawful and non-violent, police hardly have to get involved.  Initially, young protesters were not involved as well.  So the police and young protesters, who are affected most by the current situation, did not start the problem in Hong Kong initially.  They are like the two ends of the string that ties the bell on the tiger’s neck.  They are not the ones who can untie the bell.

VAL:  Beijing is behind all this.  They are the ones who started the problem, aren’t they?

LI:  Hong Kong is a city of China; it is normal for China to want to have influence in Hong Kong.   It is also clear now that US, Taiwan and perhaps others, are interfering in internal politics of Hong Kong.  So there are outside influences.  But the problem of Hong Kong should be handled by Hong Kong people.

VAL: So who are the people responsible for starting the problem?

LI:  I think the Hong Kong politicians, going back to at least before the 2014 Occupy Central Protest who could not agree on the way ahead for Hong Kong, are primarily the people who started the problem.  It was their responsibility to lead.  They collectively failed.  Then there are the community leaders of the pro-democracy movement who promoted unlawful and violent demonstrations.  I believe these people got it wrong.  Unlawful and violent demonstrations are getting Hong Kong nowhere but down a destructive path to economic failure and social schism.  Along the way, many young people are greatly harmed.  These people, who promoted unlawful and violent demonstrations, have to recognize their mistakes.

VAL: I don’t support violence demonstrations, but I believe peaceful civil disobedience is reasonable; even though it is illegal, it is a valid form of protest.

LI:  I believe unlawful civil disobedience, in Hong Kong at least, led to violent demonstrations and the chaotic situation we have now in Hong Kong.  So I believe Hong Kong people need to re-establish their respect for law and order; and avoid illegal protest.  Nevertheless, we can agree to disagree on whether people should engage in civil dis-obedience protest.

VAL:  We do agree that there should be no violent demonstrations.  What do you think politicians and pro-democracy leaders should do?


LI:  If I have a magic wand, I would lock them up in a room until they come up with an agreement on how to resolve the current problem.  One obvious thing is to come up with a joint statement that all violent demonstrations should stop.

VAL:  That sounds reasonable and achievable.  Perhaps it is time that these politicians and community leaders who started the problem act responsibly, and let young people go back to schools and others back to work.

LI:  We are like the young uncouth monk 法燈禪師 who came up with the simple answer.
                                   
Note:  This is a fictional dialogue.   Photos are based on photos by Ian Robinson and Jarylle Adriane Paloma on Unsplash.  
                                       
         

Feeling, Opinion and Reality

LI:  If a person is trapped in an escape room for hours and can't escape.  He says 'he feels his only option is to destroy the room'.  Is that his feeling, or is that his opinion?  Does that reflect reality?

VAL:  I guess you are saying the escape room does have a way out.  But if the person feels his only option is to destroy the room, then that is his reality.

LI:  The person says 'he feels his only option is to destroy the room'.  This statement includes his feeling and opinion.  He feels he is trapped and confused.  Then he forms an opinion that there is no way out.  Based on false belief, the person concludes he needs to destroy the room.  His opinion is wrong though. There is a way out.

VAL:  OK.  I accept the reality is that there is a way out of the room.  However, if the person feels the outside world is still a prison, then isn't it true that his only option is to destroy the room?

LI:   Destroying the room does not make the world better, it makes it worse.  If the person feels the outside world is a prison, then by destroying the room, he creates chaos, but he will still feel trapped. 

VAL:  The person may believe that by creating more chaos, the people in power will change the world for the better.

LI:  There are others who do not share the feelings of that person though.  Those people may feel the world is a paradise and not a prison.  The person, by creating chaos, is destroying other people's paradise.  If the world is changed to what the person wants, then other people are entitled to do the same and the vicious cycle continues.  Therefore, by conflating feeling, opinion and reality, and by resorting to destruction as the way to change things, is a recipe for chaos.

VAL:  Can we separate feeling, opinion and reality?

LI:  For the situation of the escape room, the physical reality is that there is in fact an escape route.  People should recognise that it is natural that we can feel trapped and confused at times.  However, we need to gather facts, look at the evidence, and rationally determine what is real and what action, if any, should be taken.

VAL:  What if the person cannot trust the 'facts', nor can he accept what experts say, or the experts disagree?  Aren't there situations that the person has to rely on his feelings?

LI:  People should recognise that when reality cannot be determined objectively, there are other people who may feel differently about the situation.   People should accept that they do not know the reality in that situation.

VAL:  I agree that there are many things that we do not know; and feelings can be misleading.  A good salesperson can make us feel good and buy a terrible used car.

LI:  I hope more people recognise feelings can be misleading; whereas opinions and actions based on evidence and rational analysis of reality are much more likely to be correct.


Note:  This is a fictional dialogue.  Val and Li are fictional characters.  Val migrated to Australia some years ago but returned to Hong Kong last year.  She lives in Hong Kong now and visits Australia occasionally.  Li was a former resident of Hong Kong but makes Melbourne his home now.  Photos are by Andrik Langfield and Leon Liu on Unsplash.

   

Whose fault is it?

Val migrated to Australia some years ago but returned to Hong Kong last year.  She lives in Hong Kong now and visits Australia occasionally.  Li was a former resident of Hong Kong but makes Melbourne his home now.

LI:  Protesters have become increasingly violent in Hong Kong.  They set fire to buildings, vandalised train stations, attacked police with bricks, steel rods, petrol bombs and more.  A police officer was slashed in the neck with what looks like a box cutter from behind.  How can you still support this sort of violent protest?

VAL:  No.  I don't support violence.  However, I believe the crux of the problem lies in a mediocre and incompetent Hong Kong government, turning a group of ideally motivated citizens into mobs.

LI:  Are you saying it is not the violent protesters' fault?

VAL: It is the government's fault.  The young protesters feel that they don't have other options but to take up violent protest.  The government has ignored their plea.  They feel that violent protest is the only way that the government will listen.

LI:  A person's decision to do something is affected by many factors: his personality, his training, influences from friends etc.  Is it fair to say that the protester's decision to commit violence is solely caused by the government?

VAL:  I accept there are the other factors, but the government's behaviour was the deciding factor.

LI:  So you are saying in spite of the person's personality, training etc. when they were faced with the situation, they didn't have any choice.

VAL: Yes.

LI:  Shouldn't the same rationale apply to government officials?  According to your rationale, they could not have done otherwise.  They had to do what they did.

VAL:  Perhaps the situation is different - the protesters don't have options, while the government does have options.

LI:  Let's look at your argument.

Premise 1:  [Protesters] want [certain demands]
Premise 2:  [Government officials] do not agree to [certain demands]
Conclusion: [Protesters] feel they must resort to [violence]

For the government, a similar argument can be put.

Premise 1: [Government officials] want [extradition law]
Premise 2: [Protesters] do not agree to [extradition law]
Conclusion: [Government officials] feel they must resort to [pushing the bill through]
     
Similarly
     
Premise 1: [Government officials] want [peaceful protest]
Premise 2: [Protesters] do not agree to [peaceful protest]
Conclusion: [Government officials] feel they must resort to [suppression]

These arguments look the same.  If the first argument is sound, shouldn't the other two arguments be sound as well?

VAL:  I am not sure, but if we accept that people do not have free will, then all your arguments have to be true.

LI:  If people accept there is no free will, then it is easier for them to let go of hatred.  Why hate others when they have no choice?

VAL:  Let us hope there will be more kindness and less hatred in Hong Kong.

LI:  Perhaps some people in Hong Kong can draw inspiration from Laozi, who says:

"I treat those who are kind with kindness.
I treat those who are not kind also with kindness.
This is the kindness that is consistent with Dao."
" 善者吾善之，不善者吾亦善之，德善。"

Police Used Excessive Force?

Val migrated to Australia some years ago but returned to Hong Kong last year.  She lives in Hong Kong now and visits Australia occasionally [1].

VAL:  Hong Kong police blatantly used excessive force against young protesters.

SAM:  Why do you say that?  How do you know?

VAL:  I have seen videos of police beating up young protesters.

SAM:  You haven't been a police officer; you haven't experienced what Hong Kong police have experienced.  You don't fully understand the circumstances around those incidents; and you don't have the expertise in determining if excessive force was used or not.  How can you conclude, by just watching videos, that Hong Kong police had used excessive force?

VAL:  But they are not going to have an independent inquiry.

SAM:  Hong Kong already has an Independent Police Complaints Council that monitors the handling and investigation of complaints against the Hong Kong Police.  The IPCC has 29 prominent Hong Kong citizens, independent of the government and police, serving as members on the council.  Do you know any of them?

VAL:  Not really.  But I don't trust the IPCC.  I believe they are biased towards the police.  The IPCC was set up by the Hong Kong government.  Council members were all appointed by the Chief Executive.  The whole Hong Kong government and the Chief Executive are corrupt.  So I can't believe the IPCC can be fair and can properly investigate police violence.

SAM:  IPCC cannot hide the incidents you saw in the media.  They have been captured by media around the world.  However, IPCC may say after reviewing the circumstances around a particular incident, the behaviour of the Hong Kong police was justified.  If you claimed that the IPCC is biased towards the police, what you mean is that the criteria in deciding whether the police had used excessive force or not, is too lenient.  Isn't that right?

VAL:  Yes.  I think an independent inquiry will be fairer; and it can set a proper standard for police behaviour.

SAM:  Then that will be a different standard from the current one.  The police has been working under the framework of the existing standard.  If an independent inquiry reviews past events with a different standard, that will be unfair to the police.  Don't you think so?

VAL:  Yes.  I can see that.

SAM:  I have also seen reports of protesters violently attacking police.  You have not criticised violence committed by the protesters.  That is unfair to the police.

VAL:  The protesters are different from the police.  The protesters have no leaders.  The protest movement cannot be responsible for what some rogue protesters do.  The police is different.  They have a command structure.  So when some police use excessive force, the whole police force is responsible.

SAM:  Assuming some officers were guilty of using excessive force, but I suspect the Hong Kong police may still be much more restraint than police in other countries.  In July alone police in Rio killed 194 people – a rate of more than six a day [2].  In USA, 992 people were shot by police in 2018 [3].  In Hong Kong, no one related to the anti-government protest has been killed by police so far.

VAL:  It is difficult to compare police in different cities.  Each city's situation is unique.

SAM:  I think the statistics are quite convincing though.  Perhaps we can agree that violence in Hong Kong is increasing.  The saying “hate begets hate; violence begets violence” rings true.

VAL:  I agree that violence is increasing in Hong Kong.  The phrase was used by Martin Luther King Jr.  Perhaps some of Dr. King's teaching is relevant to the situation in Hong Kong now.  He says:

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love [4].

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that [5].

Note:  (1) This is a fictional dialogue only.  Picture file is sourced from Wikimedia Commons authored by Open Clip Art Library:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1Stop_police_violence_fav-555px.jpg
(2) The Guardian (Australia edition 16 Sep 2019):  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/16/rio-de-janeiro-police-violence-deaths-families
(3) Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/
(4) Famous quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. Washing State University web site: https://mlk.wsu.edu/about-dr-king/famous-quotes/ 
(5) Martin Luther King Jr. (1967). Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?. p. 62.

Democracy in Hong Kong

"Don't you support democracy?" my friend asked.   The implication is that being an Australian, I should support democracy, and therefore I should support the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

I do support democracy in Australia.   But do I know or believe democracy is the best form of government for everyone else?  I don't think so.   I support the Australian sports men and women.  Do I really believe that they are best in the world?  More virtuous than everyone else?  No.  I support them because they are Australians.  Similarly I support democracy in Australia because it is Australia's political system.  I don't know if democracy is necessarily the best form of government for every country in the world.

Plato famously discusses five types of regimes in the Republic. They are Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny. These five regimes progressively degenerate starting with Aristocracy at the top and Tyranny at the bottom.  Plato believes the best regime is Aristocracy ruled by a wise philosopher king.  Democracy is considered only the second worst regime.

We can think of dictators like Hitler, Pol Pot who have committed atrocities against mankind.  Perhaps when we compare them with wealthy democratic countries like Australia, we easily conclude that democracy is better.  However, are we simply comparing good democracy to tyranny? 

Theoretically, democracy can commit injustice such as those below just like a dictatorship:

• Illegal invasion of foreign countries and mistreatment of their citizens,
• Discrimination and persecution of minorities within the country, 
• Corruption and mismanagement of economy leading to widespread poverty, and
• Lack of action dealing with difficult issues like climate change, world population growth.

I was a resident of Hong Kong when it was still under British rule.  I left Hong Kong not because it was not a democracy. I left because I felt there was rampant corruption in government, including police, and I felt unsafe going out.  It was also difficult to get into universities in Hong Kong.  There was also a fear that something bad may happen after 1997 when Hong Kong would be handed back to China.

After 1997, many Hong Kong Chinese who migrated to Australia and other western countries returned to Hong Kong.  Many young girls from Philippines and Indonesia, both democratic countries, work in Hong Kong as servants for very low wages. The fact that Hong Kong is not a democracy does not concern them.  To earn more in order to have a good life is more important to them.

Democracy is not an end by itself.  Democracy is a means to good government only.  What do people in Hong Kong really want?   They, and other people around the world, want a stable life where their basic needs are met.  They want their basic human rights and individual freedom protected by law and order.  They want opportunities to improve themselves and earn a good living.

All these things are possible and to a large extent have already been achieved within the one country two system framework in Hong Kong.   However, full western style democracy, which I think, will inevitably lead to full independence of Hong Kong, is very unlikely to be achievable in Hong Kong.  Even if it is achievable, it is debatable if that necessarily is a good way to go for Hong Kong.

So do I support the pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong?  The idea that young people should risk their future and their lives to fight for a political system that is pretty much impossible in Hong Kong, in order to gain benefits which can be achieved by the current system, just does not make sense to me.

From Identity Politics to Dehumanisation to Violence

Hong Kong citizens seem to have to identify themselves with either the anti-government or the pro-government group.  The anti-government protest people are called Yellow Ribbons.  The pro-government people are called Blue Ribbons.

Recently a friend asked me: "which side do you support?"  She expected that I must support either one or the other side.  She expected that I could not be neutral or only support some aspects of one group.  I wasn't given a choice to be an individual with my own viewpoints.   

As the Hong Kong community becomes more divided, people identify themselves as one or the other group.  They feel that if you disagree with me, you are with the other side;  You are the enemy;  If you are not with me, you are against me.  As conflict continues, hatred deepens.  Many in Hong Kong have started describing those opposite as dogs, cockroaches.

People start considering others as sub-human.  That gives them the permission to treat others violently, cruelly.  That seems to be what is happening in Hong Kong now.  Sadly, deep hatred does not dissipate easily.   The anti-government protest will subside one day; but the hatred between people, between former friends, will remain for much longer.  Some people may never forgive.  For some, the wound never heals.

A way to avoid this is to treat each other as individuals.  I hope that people will see issues from different perspectives;  respect and value the opinions of others, even when they disagree;  critically analyse the right and wrong of each issue; decide what actions, if any, to take as individuals, not as part of a group they have to fit in.

Starting Post

Hong Kong is currently going through a difficult time.  I hope that this blog will contribute, just a little bit, to promoting peace in Hong Kong.  I believe activities such as those below will help.  I will try to do some of them.  I may even succeed at times in producing something sensible.  That is not enough though.   If you are interested in seeing peace in Hong Kong, will you join me in this Peace Movement?  If enough people join in, may be there will be a miracle.

• Analysis of truthfulness of claims by different parties;
• Capturing perspectives of conflicting groups in Hong Kong;
• Understanding current events in Hong Kong through historical and philosophical perspectives;
• Critical analysis of media reports and feedback to media organisations in order to promote fair reporting in media;
• Providing background information and recording of the current events relating to the protest movement in Hong Kong; 
• Communication with fair minded people who wish to promote peace in Hong Kong.