Tuesday, July 31, 2007

再談皇后碼頭



其實,我也會支持保衛皇后碼頭。不過,是上圖的那個皇后碼頭。當年拆掉那古典建筑的港督,才是造成今天我們普羅大眾對皇后碼頭漠不關心甚至鄙視的源頭。

硬要說建筑美感不重要,回憶才要緊的保皇黨,就如要香港小姐選內在美,比學歷一樣,正硬膠也。回憶在心中就夠了,拍一張照片,存在博物館、甚至網站,不就成就了你們的集體回憶了嗎?
要香港小姐選學歷?我們每年都有10A、6A的狀元,雖然試卷水平參差,總算也客觀公正,難道那幫選美評判的學歷更高,“內在美”無人可及,具備窺視人家內在的超能力?

明明知道皇后碼頭沒有任何美感好言,卻搬出似是而非的理由硬辯,不可能得到民心。 硬要把具體的事物(建筑)抽象化("歷史價值"),就如去了皮的毛,“毛之焉附”?

其實保皇黨真正想要的,是一個宣傳工具。他們要讓目前對皇后碼頭沒有印象的人、或者現在還沒出生的人,也有他們的“集體記憶”而已。所以,才覺得博物館和照片圖書不夠說服力。不過,這不是把自己的意愿強加在別人身上嗎?這不正正就違反了人家自由選擇的權利嗎?

今天,蘋果日報的尹思哲說的最好。 我的看法大致相同:
  1. 皇后碼頭該拆
  2. 而且要越早拆越好
  3. 同學們的精神可敬,希望以后繼續
  4. 下回挑一個真正能引起我們共鳴的題目,比如臭名昭章的“強迫金”

Why the Economist is so lovable

It has written what I have long wanted to write.
In Asia we do not have drinkable tap-water, but the boiled water from your mom's kitchen is even cleaner and healthier.

There are cases I have bought bottled water, mainly for convenience. But I have always been puzzled by why people would prefer a bottle, potentially with more bacteria and impurities, than the alternatives. I wonder why Green Peace never mention about this, and why the HK government is not imposing a 'plastic bottle tax' :)

Drink less bottled water, save the money and subscribe to the Economist.

---
Bottled water and snake oil

Jul 31st 2007
From Economist.com
Is bottled water proof that consumers are daft?

SO THE emperor really isn’t wearing any clothes. Last week PepsiCo announced that the label on its Aquafina brand of bottled water will soon carry the words “public water source”, instead of simply the innocent looking “P.W.S.”. That’s right: Aquafina is to all intents and purposes tap water. Coca-Cola is under pressure to follow suit with its Dasani brand, though so far it is refusing to do so. “We don’t believe that consumers are confused about the source of Dasani water,” Diana Garza Ciarlante, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman, said. “The label clearly states that it is purified water.”

No doubt Coca-Cola still remembers what happened in Britain in 2004, when the press made a stink over the fact that Dasani was simply filtered tap water. The company became a laughing stock, as readers were reminded of an episode of a popular TV comedy, “Only Fools and Horses”. In it Del Boy, a decidedly dodgy businessman, decides to bottle tap water, selling it as “Peckham Spring”, named after the unprepossessing inner-London borough. No sooner had the initial furore died down than Coca-Cola discovered that some of the water had been contaminated betwixt tap and bottle, and decided to admit defeat. Dasani was axed in Britain a mere five weeks after it was launched.

Will Pepsi’s new label have a similarly disastrous impact on sales of Aquafina, which is now the market leader in bottled waters in America? It is by no means inevitable.

The success of bottled water is in many ways one of capitalism’s greatest mysteries. Studies show consistently that tap water is purer than many bottled waters—not including those that contain only tap water, which by some estimates is 40% of the total by volume. The health benefits that are claimed for some bottled waters are unproven, at best. By volume, bottled water often costs 1,000 times the price of tap water. Indeed, even with oil prices sky high, a litre of bottled water can cost more than a litre of petrol. And on top of that, there are the environmental costs of transporting bottled water and of manufacturing and disposing of the bottles.
Yet sales of bottled water have been booming. In 2006 Americans spent nearly $11 billion buying 8.25 billion gallons (31.2 billion litres) of the stuff, an increase in volume of 9.5% on a year earlier. The average American drank 27.6 gallons of bottled water last year, up from 16.7 gallons in 2000.
AFP Quite a business model

In Britain, despite the failure of Dasani, sales of bottled water have soared from 990m litres in 1998 to 2.28 billion litres in 2006—worth $3.3 billion and accounting for 15% of the total soft-drinks market. Its share is forecast to rise to 21% next year.

Moreover, drinks companies are betting heavily on the future growth of bottled water, including popular new varieties with added “healthy” ingredients. In May Coca-Cola paid $4.1 billion for Glaceau, the company that makes vitaminwater.

To many, all this is the ultimate proof that consumers are daft and easily manipulated by retailers to buy things they don’t need. Indeed, a campaign, “Think Outside the Bottle”, is now under way in America, aiming to wean the public off bottled water. It is winning influential converts. Having successfully popularised gay marriage, San Francisco’s charismatic young mayor, Gavin Newsom, is now trying to achieve the opposite impact on bottled water: his ban on the use of city funds to buy the stuff took effect on July 1st. Other mayors are starting to follow his lead.

Even so, there may be good, rational reasons for the popularity of bottled water. It is convenient, much more portable than a tap. Also, some consumers suspect, perhaps correctly, that there is a “last mile” problem with tap water. It may be pure as driven snow when it is tested at the plant, but is it still so virginal once it has passed through old pipes in homes and offices?

Above all, consumers may be buying bottled water because they believe it is fundamentally safer, less likely than tap water to become contaminated—a growing worry nowadays, thanks to terrorists. And, if it is contaminated, that contamination is likely to be spotted and neutralised faster and more effectively by a bottler than by government regulators or a water utility.

The contaminated Dasani water in Britain brought bad publicity, but the dirty water never reached the public. Likewise, the impressive way that Perrier handled its benzene contamination scare in 1990—immediately recalling its entire output of bottles—is a case study in how to manage such a problem.

Perhaps the popularity of bottled water is an indictment of the waste inherent in capitalism. On the other hand, maybe it is testimony to the good job that capitalism, in the form of bottled-water producers, has done in developing quality controls and safety protections that are more reassuring than those put in place by our governments and regulated utilities. The difference may be small—but big enough to get those who can afford it to pay a substantial premium for what is, after all, the stuff of life.

Monday, July 30, 2007

萬惡的GFW

Total pageviews:

Site visits in a week in June (3rd-9th)


萬惡的GFW就如Voldermot, 墙還在,心不死,終于在6月20日左右復辟。

Site visit in a week in July (8th-14th)


註:此圖不顯示臺灣的數據

---

Good old days (all time stats for mainland China)


Taiwan (all time stats)


"自由中國" in July 2007 (其實過去只有澳門才是真正的自由中國。自稱‘自由中國’的臺灣直到1987年才解嚴,香港一直有迫害當地左派)

Saturday, July 28, 2007

What Queen's Pier? 反對重置皇后碼頭

想來想去,實在想不出皇后碼頭有甚麼價值。四個平庸的毛筆字,同樣平庸的鐵欄、石柱,為甚麼要浪費我們納稅人的血汗錢來重置?港人對這件事已經越來越不理性,假如皇后碼頭要重置,鵝頸橋公廁是不是也要重置?

即使從歷史的角度來看,有多少人去過皇后碼頭多少次,都去那里干了甚麼事情?就本人了來說,以前游船上落點都是在天星的左邊,到卜公碼頭之間。直到回歸后才在皇后碼頭登了一兩次船。在盲目跟從媒體和所謂保育人士的宣傳之前,是否先想想,自己到底對這個地方有甚麼回憶?

我支持拆卸皇后碼頭,反對浪費納稅人的金錢去重置。

政府應該對人民有信心,就來一次民意調查或公眾投票,看看這是多少人的集體回憶。

要重置可以,政府也應該配合。不過應該由這些希望保留的人出錢買地和重置。畢竟,這是你們的集體回憶。

要進行民意調查也不難,先在此做一個網上投票。


(there was something wrong with the poll java script. it is now redone, please vote again)

相關連接:皇后碼頭的困局

light reading: Engrish menu in Japan

We have heard enough about bad/mechanical translation of Chinese menu into Engrish, and that Beijing has launched campaigns to clean this "racist park" fun away from us, preparing for the Olympic.

This will be something anyone with a sense of humour will surely miss. I wonder if those activists who are camping out of Queen's Pier in HK care to sit out for this piece of collective memory / 集体回忆 for us. Perhaps not, they only care about the colonial nostalgia and where their old colonial masters landed.

But no worry, our neighbour, the Japanese, now come to the rescue



FYI, "asspara" is not a para-para dance with the bottom. it is a vegetable that we all know, translated into Japanese Katagana with some truncation in phonetics and translated back to Engrish again losing some more fidelity. (like compressing a picture file into jpeg and then to gif and back to jpg again -- if that makes it easier to understand) As for "Shrimp and cock soboro hammering out pasta curry cream", I will leave your imagination to figure out what it is. All I can say is that I know how to distinguish male lobsters from female ones, but I have never been able to identify the same part of the body for shrimps.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Miss HK Will Hung 香江小姐孔慶翔

香江小姐選美,選出一個女版孔慶翔

黑幕內定各有其論,不過最一針見血的莫過于把前任落選港姐的評語斷章取義來讀,“ 好多網友淨係睇樣同身材,我審美係會睇埋邊,最初睇佢個個人履歷,知道佢加拿大返,識英文已經對佢有好感,睇佢寫文字仲知佢係有內涵

噢,原來這一次選的是絕對內在美。去年選的可能也是內在美。1988年選的絕對是外在。前年呢?明年呢?反正每年有新的評判,自然選的標準不一樣。務必讓你們這些蟻民無可適從。內定又如何,又不是你們在選,各位看官,你們只有看的份兒。“吹咩!”

我們特區還有一個八百人的評判團,成員與各次選美多少有重疊之處。都是名流仕紳,達官貴人,社會精英是也,且大都身懷絕技,掌握某些能人所不能的特異“功能”。選出來的特區代表如出一(車撤),都是傾城之貨色

有好事者,謂來年香港選美必重現1988之輝,以應本年成為郭隗千里馬頭骨蓋之典,戲言矣!由來唯客觀不變難以爭辯之基準能成長久之計,比如一號一票之SMS公投。只有公平、公開的規則標準,才能保證最有實力競爭者的勝利,也因而能鼓勵最有實力的競爭者來參賽。胡主席也理解只有社會公平才能持續發展。

不能把800個傀儡拉下馬,未來我們這些蟻民也免不了再遭建華之殃,者我們無能為力。可是,讓大家一起決定甚麼是美總可以吧?

連內地都可以一號一票選出超女快男,而這邊廂欣賞的美卻被牽著鼻子內外亂晃,難道這就是一國兩制?

泛民諸公,該是給三色臺施加壓力的時候了。

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

的士價格管制方法"板凳刻"

年多前本博已曾建議香港的的士價格計算方法需要改變了。

今天知日部屋提出了京都的板凳刻(benchmarking),其實并不新鮮,比如雅加達(Jakarta),便有銀鳥、藍鳥(此二鳥同屬PUKASA公司)等'的',價格各不一樣。北京的士起步價和每公里價也有多種選擇(跟公司無關)。吉隆坡(KL)也有Premier Taxi。有選擇有競爭當然好。可是這些改變沒有根治香港的士價格的根本問題。

香港的的士定價的問題出于其忽略了的士接客過程所需的固定成本,而形成了目前的不合理性。也就是說,的士每接一客,中間所費的時間空轉及其相關油費租金成本沒有反映在計價系統內。難怪司機會拒載短程客。

大家可知道,當你打的送朋友回家的話,假如要在朋友家門寒暄幾句的話(超過一分鐘),重新叫一輛的士比讓同一的士等待較省錢?(假如附近不難找的士的話)因為的士的起步價($15/2km)比起每公里價($7/km)相差無幾。(除非你家離朋友家的距離是在2公里內)

因此,價格改革的關鍵在于使這固定成本能反映到價格系統里。例如以下方案,就同時解決了長途的士折扣和短途拒載的問題。



其實上表的計價方法非常簡單,只是把每公里價按里程往下調。每增加一公里則新增公里價格減低一毫,直到略比邊際成本高一點為止。更重要的是,根據價格彈性的計算,的士司機的總收入其實增加了。詳細解釋見年前拙文,恕不贅述。

以前電腦技術昂貴,的士計價表只能用簡單的計價方法。現在,要做到上述的計價表成本是幾乎相同的了。是電腦技術為我們解決了經濟問題,請運輸處諸公,不要墨守成規,也不要等甚麼顧問公司的研究。這些三流顧問公司,不是McKinsey,BCG,很難靠他們真正解決問題。

Monday, July 23, 2007

A google bomb experiment to promote corporate governance (on 鍾斌銓 鍾金榜 鍾燊榮)

the result now is 3 2 2 1.

so i addition to linking to this OP, i am copying the whole html down here as well. and try to boost the laggers a bit

鍾斌銓 3 鍾金榜 2 鍾燊榮 2

below is the OP:

---

對付無良大股東 初見成效
繼續連結榮豐!繼續推!Search 鍾斌銓 As of this moment, 3rd result.Search 鍾金榜 As of this moment, 5th result.Search 鍾燊榮 As of this moment, 6th result.Search 鍾斌盛 As of this moment, 1st result. 1st!要揭榮豐(063)無良大股東的所作所為!認識他們的人,告訴他們這個後果!

Sunday, July 22, 2007

How I learned to be not troubled by the re-militarization of Japan

It is not because I know that most people in Japan are peace-loving, or that Japan is a democracy or things like that.

The Weimar Republic was a democracy, so is the USA. (caveat here) The people in USA are definitely mostly peace-loving and benevolent, anyone who studied the history of the last century knows how USA has saved the world, twice. But look at what a mess it has created in Iraq today.

India is said to be the largest democracy in this world, look at how many wars it fought against Pakistan, how Sikkim, Goa, and the Andaman Isles were annexed, and how it detonated a nuke with no provacation or threat.

Now back to Japan. Read this IHT coverage of its remilitarisation.

Japan has accumulated the the economic power and the technology such that it can modernize militarize in just a few years whenever it wants to (or it has already done so), perhaps even faster that how Hitler has militarized Germany in the early 1930s.

The reason I think we should not worry about Japan's re-militarization is as below
  • If it wants to build an aggressive force. It can always do it in a few years
  • If it is doing it too early before it acts, the chances are that these resources are most likely wasted (as I explained in an earlier post regarding China), and be turned into obselete equipment in the future. Less than optimized timing in investment in military often lead to less than optimal deployment of resources, and hence affect its over economic progress (and generalized "power" per Paul Kennedy), a la USSR in 1970-80s

For years Japan has been able to flourish under the umbrella of US protection. Let it waste its resources if it chooses to do so. The gap between Japan and its neighbour is much narrower than it was in 1937 or 1941. Moreover, it is very unlikely that US would let Japan bully around.

Yes, there is concern on Japan's re-militarization, but the country that should most worry about Japan should be the one which has been most active in encouraging it to do so, because that country has humiliated Japan 62 years ago and nuked two of its cities. If you watch the pop arts (manga, animation, movie) you will understand why this is so.

What we really need to take out from Japan is, its enormous stockpile of Uranium and Plutonium, and make sure that US has the ability and the reason to "contain" Japan when it went out of control (i.e. to the right wing such as Isihara).

原來影視處官僚都是小和尚

影視處(其實主要是旗下的淫審處)最近似乎越來越白癡 ([068])。其處長鄭美施一出面就更越描越黑

鄭當然犯了推卸責任的錯誤。可是,作為一個傳統的AO官僚Technocrat,他們到底是無能,是無知,是盡責,還是顢頇?

---
這里是TELA網頁里的“使命”(mission statement)

  • 理 想
  • 作 為 廣 播 和 娛 樂 事 務 監 管 機 構 , 本 處 以 充 分 滿 足 市 民 需 要 和 社 會 期 望 為 己 任 。
  • 使 命
  • 我 們 承 諾 , 必 定 會 -
  • 緊 密 依 隨 社 會 的 品 味 和 道 德 尺 度 考 慮 各 有 關 事 宜 , 並 據 此 準 則 作 出 決 定
  • 有 效 監 察 廣 播 服 務 和 刊 物 ;
  • 就 電 影 檢 查 、 娛 樂 中 心 /遊 戲 活 動 發 牌 , 以 及 本 地 報 刊 註 冊 工 作 , 提 供 快 捷 妥 當 的 服 務 ;
  • 協 助 推 動 電 影 業 發 展;
  • 確 保 本 處 監 管 機 制 可 充 分 配 合 社 會 需 要 、 科 技 發 展 , 以 及 海 外 的 做 法; 和
  • 不 斷 提 高 本 處 專 業 水 準。
  • 信 念
  • 言 論 自 由 與 社 會 責 任
  • 專 業 水 準
  • 公 正 不 偏
  • 透 明 公 開
  • 積 極 回 應
  • 優 質 服 務

In English

  • VISION
  • To be a broadcasting and entertainment regulatory agency that fully satisfies the needs and expectations of the community.
  • MISSION
  • We are committed to -
  • following closely standards for taste and decency accepted by the community and reflecting them in our decision making;
  • effectively monitoring broadcasting services and publications;
  • providing an efficient service for film censorship, entertainment centre and gaming activity licensing, and local newspaper registration;
  • facilitating the development of the film industry;
    maintaining the relevance of our regulatory framework with regard to community needs, technological development and international practices; and
  • continuously enhancing our professionalism.
  • VALUES
  • Freedom of expression with social responsibility
  • Professionalism
  • Impartiality
  • Openness
  • Responsiveness
  • Quality Service

---

似乎TELA的問題根本出在其“使命書”上。“緊密依隨社會的品味和道德尺度考慮各有關事宜”,其實是很難做好的一件事。TELA是應該"緊密依隨社會的品味和道德尺度"去放行呢?還是要"緊密依隨社會的品味和道德尺度"去限制?很明顯,目前TELA選擇了后者。這就跟只要陪審團里只要有一票認為被告有罪,就得判死一樣。若凡事都要討好社會各方的“品味和道德角度”,而且還要“緊密地”,勢必會變得所有事情都不可為。而且,所謂的“社會的品味和道德尺度”,根本是無法進行客觀定義的一件事。

(影視處據聞乃廣管局的行政部門,為何兩者的使命完全不一樣?)

更可怕的,是其“信念”里的第一項,把“言論自由與社會責任”來了一個大捆綁。前者比較容易理解,可是"社會責任"卻一點不簡單。每個人對社會責任都有不一樣的定義。比如說,有些人就認為船頭尺說了一句“福佳”就毀滅了我們的社會。

要根本解決TELA的問題。政府應該重新考慮TELA的使命和價值(“信念”)宣言,回歸憲法(基本法?),和依法辦事(presumed innocent, 依據判例,如前些年大衛像)。否則,香港在國際社會出洋相的日子,無日無之。

---

話說回來,影視處官僚冤不冤?也不全冤。

  • 使命不是包括“配合科技發展”嗎?為什么連超連接都要告?
  • 不是說“公正不偏”嗎?為什么都偏向了明光社?

是不是有無間道進入了淫審處?

---

這里我想起了這麼一個故事,色由心生也。。。

  • 一個老和尚帶著一個小和尚過河,發現河邊也有一名年輕女子正在發愁如何過河。老和尚二話不說,抱起女子就過了河。過河後老和尚放下就走,跟在老和尚後面的小和尚非常納悶,對師父的做法百思不得其解。終於,小和尚忍不住問師父:「我們是出家人,你平常教導我不應該近女色,可剛才你怎麼能抱她呢?」
    老和尚驚訝道:「我已經把她放下了,你怎麼還抱著?」

讓老和尚掌管TELA吧。TELA 諸位官僚,還有明光的神棍們,大概自己是小和尚,便想當然地以為廣大民眾也是小和尚吧?

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Pushing Ginnie Mae to China (當中國系水魚)



Related: from Big Picture

US teaches the Chinese Capitalist Party Economics 101:

  • "Mortgage-backed securities yield a higher rate of return than a traditional U.S. Treasury bond with [the] same credit risk," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson said.
Mr. Jackson must have thought that with the GFW China is not aware of the housing bubble and the sub-prime problems in US, and that all the Chinese who understands the relationship between risk and return are already hired by Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. Or is the 'credit risk' Mr Jackson referred to a different concept from what we would normally refer to as 'risk'?

Anyway, this is the most entertaining piece of news of the day.

Related
1) Michael Sesit of Bloomberg wrote about takeover hypocrisy.
2) look at the charts there.

-----
China Is UrgedTo Invest MoreIn Ginnie Mae (WSJ)

By AARON BACKJuly 16, 2007

BEIJING -- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson Friday encouraged China to increase its investments in mortgage-backed securities in the U.S., especially Ginnie Mae securities, which are fully backed by the U.S. government.

"Mortgage-backed securities yield a higher rate of return than a traditional U.S. Treasury bond with [the] same credit risk," Mr. Jackson said.

The Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, is a U.S. government-owned corporation. It issues mortgage-backed securities that are fully backed by the U.S. Treasury.
China is seeking to earn a higher return on its massive foreign-exchange reserves, which reached $1.33 trillion at the end of June. Beijing is in the process of creating an agency that will invest $200 billion of those reserves in higher-yielding assets overseas.

China has invested its reserves mainly in U.S. Treasury bonds, and that has helped to keep down U.S. interest rates, making housing and other loans more affordable.

According to U.S. housing-department figures, Chinese investors held less than $3 billion in U.S. mortgage-backed securities in June 2003, but by June 2006 that number had risen to $107.5 billion. The June 2006 total includes securities issued by Ginnie Mae and those issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, which are overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development but not backed by the U.S. Treasury.

Figures weren't available on what portion of the securities held by China are issued by Ginnie Mae, but Mr. Jackson said "we have not been a major player in that area."

Mr. Jackson was speaking to reporters during a visit to China, where he met government officials, including the heads of the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Construction.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

The problem of Ma Ying jeou

闾丘露薇一語中的
  • 至于陈水扁,他批评马英九,当年在美国读书的时候,编辑“波士顿通讯”,批评美丽岛事件的当事者,还批评解严,站在了历史错误的一边,而他和谢长廷当年站在了历史正确的一边。但是问题是,当年站在历史正确一边,并不意味着之后就不会犯错,而曾经站在错误一边,并不意味着现在所站的地方是正确的。只可惜马英九缺乏反省的精神,其实承认自己过去的错误,并不会因此付出代价,不敢面对历史的领导者,才会更让台湾民众担忧,这样的领导人会带领台湾怎样走向未来

Even though DPP look wrecked these day, I am veyr skeptical of Ma Ying-jeou's ability to win the election in 2008. The reason couldn't be better put by what Luqiuluwei said in her blog.

  • Chen Shui Bian accused Ma was on the wrong side with history while he studied at Boston, when Ma was the editor for a (Chinese) journal called Boston Communication. The journal accused those involved with the Formosa incident, and criticized the lifting of martial law. While Chen himself was on the "right side" with history.
  • But the problem is, making a mistake in the past does not neccessarily mean one is wrong today. On the contrary, making it right is the past does neccessarily mean one is right today. The shame for Ma is he does not have the courage to reflect. As a matter of fact, admitting a mistake in the past, does not neccessarily mean that one has to pay for it now. The political leaders who cannot face his own history will be cause of concern for the people in Taiwan. How can a leader as such lead Taiwan to the future?

Well, Ma has a lot of baggages to disown. Not just those of himself. His own mistake can be explained, but the consequence is that he would have opened a whole can of "worms", i.e., there are a lot more he needs to explain and that might put off the old guards in KMT.

Ma is carrying the baggages of Soong, Lien, KMT, and even that of Chiang Kai-shek. He needs to disown them one by one. He should not have the illusion that defending the wrongs of the old Chiang dynasty will help with his political career or increase a single vote for him, or distanting or even disowning the traditional KMT values will cost him a single vote. Precisely the opposite, the old guards in KMT ("deeo Blue") have no better choice than voting for him, even if he is courageous enough to criticize Chiang.

Unless Ma does that, DPP may win the next election again in 2008. Because DPP is right, that the alternative is not to be trusted. Moving to the middle (between Blue and Green) is the right strategy. But that is not enough.

Ma Ying-jeou needs to listen to Luqiu, and do the right thing. Let the old guards go to PFP, they will not vote for DPP because you denounce the wrong's of the Chiang dynasty.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Brad Delong on China: No matter if you are a RED cat or white cat...

Update
1) Twofish's comment on some issues in DeLong's post, which I largely agree
2) Commentator Bobby Fletcher alerted me that DeLong actually said "red cat". Well, we might as well just change that saying with DeLong's, since there are still people who refer to China (the government, the Chinese Capitalist Party, and often a blanket statement toward all its citizens) as the "Chinese Communist", apparently in an attempt to instill certain type of McCarthyistic terrorism bu more likely simply being confused.

---
via ESWN comes this link - a must read for any one who is interested is China, its economic "miracle", or even those who thought he already has understood China.

It is such a great one that I would make it a separate post (vs on the reading list up the right corner).

DeLong prasied Deng Xiaoping in such words!
  • "And in 1978 China had its first piece of great good luck in a long, long time--perhaps the first time some important chance broke right for China since the end of the Sung dynasty. China acquired as its paramount ruler one of the most devious and effective politicians of this or indeed any age, a man who was quite possibly the greatest human hero of the twentieth century: Deng Xiaoping. Deng sought to maintain the Communist Party oligarchy's control over China's politics while also seeking a better life for China's people, and he is guided by two principles: (i) be pragmatic ("what matters is not whether the cat is red or white, what matters is whether the cat catches mice), and (ii) be cautious ("cross the river by feeling for the stones at the bottom of the ford with your feet")."

I may not go so far as DeLong about Deng. I still cannot forgive him for what happened in 1989. But I could only concur. A great man is still a great man even if he has done something terrible.

The 2 points Delong mentioned was indeed the essence of Deng'ism. The cat principle and the feeling stone principle. A few centuries from now, these 2 principles will be honored in the same rank as Sun Zi's "Winning a 100 battle is not the best, the best of the best is winning without fighting". The cat principle is about strategy, and putting a simple criteria on what good strategy should qualify for. The stone principle is about execution, the execution instruction for someone who has no idea what lies ahead of him. Therefore, these 2 principles are universal, and eternal.

And it is probably the only thing the other hero of the past century, Lee Kuan Yew, might not be able to reach.

Related: 炎黄春秋 头条文章批当局搁置邓小平政改

Sunday, July 15, 2007

They came first for ...(淫審處,吹咩!)


I saw the Black Book finally, on the flight. What a great movie!

And then I was reminded of this quote by Imagethief's post.

In Chinese, there is a much more concise saying, 唇亡齒寒. The teeth feels the chill when the lips are gone.
So I feel the urge to post this link. what if everybody also post such a link? 淫審處,吹咩!

China's strategic objective: 富國!強兵?

The brightest politican of the modern era is perhaps Lee Kuan Yew. It is a major shame that he was only allowed to run the tiny city state of Singapore. Had he been given the mandate to run Malaysia, or ASEAN, or even China, I wonder how different this world will be today.

My respect for Mr Lee is not only from what he has accomplished, but also from how he has reasoned and what he has deduced. There are critics who discounted Lee's achievement by saying that Singapore is easy to manage because it is small. I do not agree. If you read what he writes and hear what he says, you would know that he makes decision based on reasons. Reasoned decision making goes a long way. It will bring him success whereever he is.

Since Lee has also openly asked for US presence in the area, continuously, it make his analysis on China's strategic objectives even more credible (especially to the "China-skeptics").

Below is an essay Mr Lee has written on Forbes about a month ago. He has explained why China's strategic's objective is in improving the country's general economic and technological (which are related) competitiveness, and why it does not make sense to challenge US militarily. He then backed it up with his conversation with different generations of Chinese leaders who had demonstrated that they understand this.

The example of the USSR was quoted. The reasoning is actually quite simple, especially after the lesson of the USSR, so simple that I do not think anyone would disagree, as follows,

  1. Technology determines modern warfare, investing in military means investing in technology
  2. Technology changes fast, and becomes obsolete quickly
  3. It does not make sense to invest in military technology if you are not going to use it soon (this is like buying the top of the line PC and put it into storage for a few years)
  4. Therefore, one should only invest in technology know-how, and where technology could bring you more wealth/resources so that you could further improve on your technology

In other words, the traditional Chinese proverb of "enrich the country and strengthen the army(富國強兵)" is one that is probably mis-understood by most. What it really mean is "only after one enriches the country and can one strengthen the army(先富國而後能強兵)". It has never meant to be two parallel objectives (except, perhaps when it was "pretended" to convince a king who is eager to defend his country). If you read the original writing in the Spring-Autumn era such as Shang Yang, you would see the logical sequence of the two. In other words "strengthen the military" is only a secondary objective, or a result of "enriching the country". With the current speed in technology advance, it cannot be "pretended" any more.

That is why the increase in China's military spending has mainly gone into paying for salaries of its staff (they are underpaid) and a small portion in keeping abreast of modern technology (in the spirit of marginal return, analogous to buying a low end PC "just in case"), or low (but strategic) investments such as 'shooting down its own satellite from the ground'.

What my readers (or the China-skeptics) may not agree is probably that the leaders in Beijing are rational in their judgment. Lee said they are, through his personal experience with them. IMO It would be ignorant to think that the Chinese leaders do not understand this basic element of ancient Chinese "statecraft". Read the whole essay below.

---
Contest for Influence in Asia-Pacific
Lee Kuan Yew

18 June 2007
Forbes Asia
Volume 3 Issue 11

China has been courting its neighbors, and although the Chinese did not coin the phrase "soft power," they have exercised it with consummate skill. Only the U.S. and Japan have expressed concern and asked China what its intentions are regarding its increased military spending and its firing of a missile into space to shoot down one of its own satellites. China's other neighbors appear unconcerned, a measure of its soft-power success. Most of these countries are focused on China's growth, anticipating the economic benefits in trade and investment it will bring them. For example, China's voracious appetite for energy and other natural resources is feeding an economic boom in Australia, and, like other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia wants China's growth to continue without disruption by conflicts over Taiwan.

China has concluded a free trade agreement with the ASEAN countries. But because of domestic pressures, Japan and India have so far been unable to match the ASEAN-China FTA. China's decision making is based on strategic considerations that override such competing domestic interests as importers versus exporters and agriculturists versus industrialists. China wants ASEAN countries to link up, to ride its boom and hitch their economic futures to China's, but Japan's and India's decision-making processes don't allow their governments to override such internal conflicts of interest.

China has been taking steps to avoid conflicts and improve relations with its neighbors. For instance, Premier Wen Jiabao visited Japan and addressed the Diet, knowing that Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, wants to remove pacifist clauses in the constitution so Japan can adopt a more assertive foreign policy. Using warm and conciliatory language, Wen invited Japan to join with China in realizing a "peaceful coexistence, friendship for generations, mutually beneficial cooperation and common development." The Japanese media hailed his speech as "historic." Premier Wen told Chinese residents in Japan: "I did a lot of preparation. [I wrote] every sentence myself, and I did all the research work. Why? Because I feel our nation's development has reached a critical moment. We need to have a peaceful and conducive international environment."

Despite these words, Japan and the U.S. worry that China's increased military spending heralds a more aggressive foreign policy. However, I don't believe China will blunder into competing against the U.S. militarily.

In the mid-1990s China's General Liu Huaqing, then deputy chairman to Chairman Jiang Zemin at the Central Military Commission, told me that he had gone to Leningrad in the 1950s to learn how to build a navy. I commented that the Soviets made clumsy weapons. He corrected me, saying that the Russians made weapons that were as powerful as any made in the West. The Soviets' mistake, he said, was in investing too much in military technology at the expense of general technology and the civilian economy. Hence, the U.S.S.R.'s collapse. Vice Premier Qian Qichen underscored this view in his memoirs, Ten Episodes in China's Diplomacy, when he cited a former Soviet Central Committee leader, Yegor Ligachev, as saying that the Soviet Union had "wasted large amounts of capital on strengthening national defense and assigned its best brains with the best equipment and materials to this unproductive sector."

Striving for Competitive Advantage
To become competitive China is focused on educating its young people, selecting the brightest for science and technology, followed by economics, business management and the English language. Its goal: to become a modern technological power by the second half of this century. But China knows it is well behind the U.S. in R&D and lacks the entrepreneurial culture that drives a creative and dynamic economy.

Other leaders in Asia believe that the U.S. economy will remain the world's most powerful and vigorous economy and that its technology will remain the most advanced. They believe the balance of power will not change. However, because they expect China to become the world's biggest economy by 2030--with India not far behind--they want to avoid antagonizing the two giants.

In the competition for economic and political clout the U.S. has enormous strengths. Although its population (300 million) is less than a quarter of China's (1.3 billion), U.S. GDP ($12.4 trillion) is six times China's ($2.2 trillion). Moreover, private consumption constitutes 70% of U.S. GDP but only 38% of China's. More FTAs would further open the U.S.' more attractive market. However, the recent protectionist mood in Congress will likely hobble the Administration once President Bush's fast-track Trade Promotion Authority expires July 1.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Longing the next media? 壹傳媒可持有乎?然。

蘋果日報近期的財經版質量突飛猛進,看來已遠遠超越東方。其中金手指案內人,還有蘋果批,素質比起信報有過之而無不及。臏雖不能完全同意這些專欄評論的所有觀點,他們敢于挑戰“傳統智慧”,促進本港讀者獨立思考,不畏權威的精神,卻令臏敬佩不已。尤其可喜的是,版面基本上重新容許不同的聲音,少了焦標廖建之流,甚至連無處不在的一些才子都收斂專注,回歸其所擅的搔癢發泄散文。臏本不看財經專欄,最近不得不刮目相看。終極奧運概念股之說,我是完全同意的,因此先此申報利益:"this author has no financial interest in the next media group at this point of time. however, this author is considering to become an individual shareholder of the group."

'罵者愛也',就像老鼠愛大米,oops,說錯了,應該說就像港女罵港男。所以臏也特別愛罵蘋果,固在此提一些意見:
  • 是不是能客觀一點的報道貴報老板宗教的新聞?是不是可以在這方面真正地做到編審自由?
  • 像昨天的《政治市》的跳躍思維,是否可以減少一點?拜托,請不要把財經評論淘潔化,好不好?

---

注:《政治市》主要借了Fortune雜志一編質量不高的報道,Gates in China,進行其跳躍性的“論證”。Fortune的‘真知灼見’,及其預測能力,已是有目共睹。微軟在中國的戰略,一般認為是有計劃的(1),而且是非常成功的。這之中涉及了如何在外在環境改變(版權無法得到保護、價格策略需要重新評估等)了的情況下的應變,并從而最大化其長遠商業利益。這恰恰就是HBR, Mckinsey Quarterly 探討的問題。也是新媒體時代(特別是與版權法、BT、網上媒體相關領域)的一個重要案例。

該文中提到有關國內的一些問題,都是事實,卻都與微軟的成功和失敗關系不大。也并非能左右眾多在內地投資的港商的成功的因素。而文中關于"歷史任務消失"的討論也是對的,不過這只意味著既有競爭優勢的消失而已。

在穩定成熟的市場,需要HBR和Mckinsey Quarterly的地方不多。在內地這世界上變化最快,競爭最激烈的市場,戰略的考量才有其用武之地。至于所謂的“十七大與胡錦濤時代 ,中南海秘聞等等”,那是給炒消息股的財經演員看的,不是實實在在做生意人需要的。借張五常的說法,大陸開放27年,若以政治市為主,不可能有今天的成績。

(1)Fortune原文:“Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft's best long-term strategy. That's why Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China's 120 million PCs. "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," Gates says. "Are you kidding? You can get the real thing, and you get the same price." ”

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Mapping China's provinces



Where have I been and where should I visit next?
Map creator here for Chinese provinces, (then right click to save image) via WXF




For the world map: Blue=Have been, Green=want to, Dark brown= have lived

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The economics behind flight attendents: 侍者与空姐

看到有關侍者與空姐的討論,最近沸沸揚揚

筆者也曾常年是魚翅公司的鑽卡會員,只是最近由于魚翅公司的盧溝會社(marco polo club)太摳,才轉到北京奧運同盟(one world one dream)的美航去,由是藍寶卡以上,則所有同盟公司里程一律雙計。因此,我想我應該有資格來說兩句吧。

先為侍者說句公道話。控辯雙方須各打五十大板。首先,侍仔(者)是否一個很失禮的職業?為何先受尹君奚落,後為空服菲薄?當然,空服并不只是會說外語會飛的侍者,空中安全應變訓練等,還有不少要求。尹君所言,空服職業生命較短,因此NPV或比侍者還低,也不完全正確。只要能放棄歧視,放下架子,空服員退役後起碼也可重新當侍者吧?

扯遠了,回歸正題。各位應該記得,昔,魚翅之空服員,以菲泰印籍居多。千禧以降,魚翅管理因應市場調研,逐步把空服轉回港女港男主導。這其中包括經濟原因。蓋90年代以降,本港工資有升無降,外籍員工成本低廉。以相同的工資,可以聘得外籍空服的能力、外表、敬業態度皆有過之而無不及。而且員工流失率也低。若非碰上建華之亂,使得本港工資一落千丈,魚翅未必有機會改變其空服招聘策略。

實話實說,換回本地空服,感覺的確是親切多了。可是,服務質量態度的問題也隨之而來。港女港男在魚翅當空服員的工資與原籍地(香港)其他工作機會的工資的距離比率,比起菲印泰籍空服的低多了。魚翅付出的溢價(premium - 所獲人才的能力高于所付薪資)不高,當然不能奢望獲得同樣的服務質量。近幾年魚翅的頭等倉服務,比起911前的商務倉還不如。最近幾年的商務倉服務,也是參差不齊。有朋友反映,連空姐的姿色也如是。這指的是平均大略,例外當然不缺。

可是說句公道話,魚翅的空服水平,還是世界一流的。要飛歐美,除了魚翅,不作二選。難道要我去受那些聯航奶奶(Untied Nana)們的氣?不過,在亞洲市場,情況可不一樣了,港龍新航的服務,非常穩定,貫切始終比起魚翅有過之而無不及。國內的南航國航東航,也逐步趕上。特別是南航。只可惜港龍給鯊魚一口吞去,不留痕跡。即使對個人來說,來年港龍里程也可以累積了,壟斷對我們消費者從來不是甚麼好事。

亞洲航空公司的服務水平相對高,也有其經濟原因。發展中國家工資普遍較低,造就了上述的空服員溢價,使得亞洲航空公司輕易獲得最好的員工。歐美公司,由于工會的阻撓,根本不可能外聘空服(一些國外航線部分配額例外)。加上空服員的薪酬資歷,一般以飛行里數時間算,資歷老的員工有優先選擇輪班的權利(長途航班多為所占),沒有升遷努力的積極性,結果如何,坐過臭名昭張的聯航的,“有口皆碑”,有目共睹。英航的頭等艙空服員,全是白發蒼蒼年逾花甲的老太太。雖然英航的頭等服務態度比美國公司的好多的,比起英航的商務倉也有天淵之別,不過怎么忍心對這些老太太作過分的要求?

除了薪酬的溢價,眾所皆知的是旅游見識溢價了。在較窮的國家地區,出外旅游的費用相對收入水平為高,使得空服員更增加了一層無形的溢價。七、八十年代的香港大概如此。可是,當旅游不再是富裕階層的專利,空姐職業也失去往日的光環了。這個行業,也失去了它往昔固有的吸引力。香港的今天,就是這種情況。

說了這麼些故事,實在是要為我們的魚翅公司提點建議:
  • 放棄大量招聘本地空服員的策略。航空公司投資與空服身上的培訓很高,一般都有數月培訓才能上機。一次員工流失的成本很高。估計魚翅的本地空服員流失率遠高于來自其他東南亞的員工。
  • 若為了語言膚色的親切感,可以考慮到國內(甚至廣東)去招考,以魚翅航空的待遇,要多漂亮有多漂亮,要多英俊有多英俊,服務態度更是不用費心。君不見,國內餐館的服務態度早已超越香港,乃全世界最最好的。可憐的是民工侍者,備受頤指氣使,一聲也不敢吭,而且培訓不足,侍者犯錯非戰之罪,那是題外話
  • 有了這些競爭優勢,是不怕比不上歐美公司的。我認識的老外,除了沒見識過亞洲公司服務水平的,沒有不是以魚翅新航為首選的
  • 說到國內的東航國航,目前在共用航線上的占有率遠落后于歐美競爭對手。因此航班對開權利是對等的,不過國內公司并不能開足。假如國航魚翅,東航新航這些聯盟鞏固了,則國內公司的飛安地勤空服水平得以改善,隨時可以把中美和中歐航線的競爭局勢逆轉。這才是這幾家公司長遠的價值所在,也是一眾投資者所該留意之處。

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Good writing is not very conducive to good logic




人前人後,高下立見

Why these smart people talk (/write) like idiots? They certainly are not. Do they think we are idiots? Are they trying to insult us?

Cheung Man Yee (see below) may win the Eulogy Prize of the year with this, but as "the saying" goes, Good writing is not very conducive to good logic.

Ms Cheung, this is not about "Good night and good luck". Let Simon or Roland run RTHK. Either one of them has much better sense than you or Mr Chu. Or, consider the Golden commentator who said,


  • 「 點 解 老 細 去 滾 , 港 台 員 工 會 話 打 擊 士 氣 … … 上 司 出 醜 , 正 常 計 , 成 個 Office 都 笑 唔 停 就 真 , 應 該 係 士 氣 大 振 。 」 ─ ─ 到 此 一 遊 ( 高 登 討 論 區 )

This is not about the morale of RTHK, or the staff of RTHK. It is the morale of those who support the continuing independent operation of RTHK receiving full funding from the government.


I am not sure why RTHK must not be privatized. The way Mr Chu adn RTHK repsonded to this media fiasco has a lot to do with the culture of such a white elephant. In a commercial company, this will not happen.


My view on the RTHK controversy is quite simple.


Privatize RTHK, make it a commericial company, supported by advertisement/etc. Allow it to be operated like Commerical Radio, while reducing its funding by 25% (or 33%) per year. OR simple sell it through an open auction



---

張 敏 儀 致 港 台 員 工 信 件 全 文 如 下

致 港 台 同 事

連 日 來 我 們 驚 訝 、 痛 心 , 為 朱 培 慶 擔 心 , 也 擔 心 港 台 形 象 受 損 , 擔 心 士 氣 受 打 擊 、 擔 心 失 去 市 民 支 持 。 但 今 天 朱 培 慶 作 出 了 決 定 , 以 他 一 貫 的 紳 士 風 度 , 衣 袖 一 揮 , 不 再 糾 纏 下 去 。

我 們 不 說 「 退 一 步 海 闊 天 空 」 這 種 空 話 , 人 誰 無 過 ? 朱 培 慶 用 漂 亮 的 英 文 說 “ Alcohol is not very conducive to good behaviour. ” 我 笑 了 , 寬 慰 地 笑 了 。 我 們 的 處 長 還 是 見 得 人 的 。 他 向 記 者 說 “ Drink less ( 少 喝 烈 酒 ) . ” , 咀 角 帶 一 絲 微 笑 , 正 是 天 涼 好 個 秋 。

下 一 步 , 向 前 看 。 再 說 一 次 : 做 好 節 目 才 是 我 們 的 本 份 。 有 一 支 筆 、 一 個 咪 、 一 部 攝 影 機 , 還 有 一 個 心 、 一 個 腦 , 做 好 本 份 , 一 定 繼 續 得 到 支 持 。

香 港 電 台 已 經 是 一 個 機 制 , 一 個 信 念 , 也 是 一 國 兩 制 的 象 徵 。 曾 經 參 與 , 繼 續 參 與 , 都 值 得 珍 惜 。 大 家 不 會 忘 記 朱 培 慶 的 貢 獻 , 一 定 有 機 會 江 湖 再 見 。

Good night, and good luck!

張 敏 儀

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Back to basic - give back 3G what 3G was designed for

Hutchison's 3G finally decided to face the reality, to sell 3G as what it should be, i.e. mobile data transmission... and was rewarded by its customers, and shareholder's.

Stories has that back in the crazy era of 1999-2000, every major strategy consulting firm has been engaged in the bidding 'strategy' for the 3G license in Europe. The business was so good that some prestigeous firm worked for 2 rival consortia for the same bid. Of course, there were Chinese Walls among the teams and the teams worked from different cities.

A few months after the bid, people met and were allowed to talk about the non-sensitive details in the aftermath. The valuation from the two teams turned out to be about 10 times apart, based on completely different assumption of which level of the value chain the operator can capture.

Of course, we now know which team did the best service to its client. For the winning consortium, the difficult choice is to redo its business plan and recognize the reality. it took more than 7 years for Hutchison to do so, but it is better late than not getting there.