On truth in politics

How many of us can claim that our beliefs have remained constant and unchanged throughout our entire lives? I would guess the the answer to that question is very few, if not none at all. For the insistence to hold the same belief in the light of new, conflicting evidence would be a kind of dogmatism. If dogmatism prevails, science would never progress and debates would be ultimately fruitless. In the most extreme form of dogmatism, nothing can be learnt from any enquiry or reasoning activity. Hence, it seems that there is nothing wrong or problematic about revising our beliefs when we come across new and credible evidence which demonstrates to be inconsistent with what we originally believe. In fact, it seems to be the rational thing to do. 

If this conclusion holds true, then the question of what evidence we choose to expose ourselves to is highly important. One may ask the following question, ‘Surely if one is to maximise the chances of attaining the truth, one must be exposed to ALL available evidence?’ That is a valid point. However, faced with the physical constraint of possessing finite resource and time, and that the sum of all knowledge in the world is of such an unimaginably huge quantity (if not infinite), how is it possible for us to realistically expose ourselves to ALL available evidence? 

If it is established that possessing complete awareness of all available evidence is impossible, then the overall balance of the evidence we access becomes an important issue. If it is not possible to become aware and to comprehend all the literature against, say, wealth redistribution, then the least that one can do is to ensure that one is exposed to the evidence provided by both sides of the debate. Whether any debate can be simplified into two clearly distinct sides is another issue, but staying open-minded in what we read and listen to seems to be the best approach of preventing ourselves from falsely believing in lies. 

To judge what is true and what is false, in politics, is an extremely difficult task. In contrast to philosophy, or in the natural sciences, there is a huge interest to deceive and to create exaggerated, if not downright false reports. A false report of a scandal, or perhaps the taking of a certain individual’s words out of context, for instance, can be of extreme benefit to a particular party. Even statistics can be interpreted, or should I say distorted, in ways which could advance a particular political end. How can we judge whether we are learning or whether we are being brainwashed by false ‘knowledge’?

‘Reason’ - may be the typical response to this question. But is reason infallible? Even the cleverest person in the world, it seems, is vulnerable to making mistakes. Even IF we concede that the cleverest person in the world is capable of avoiding all possible mistakes in reasoning, then it would seem that the average person must at least be vulnerable to some error in judgment. I understand that excess scepticism can debilitate action; but it seems that if we wish to hold true beliefs, or simply to avoid holding false beliefs, we must be sceptics to some extent. I also acknowledge that being overly sceptical can prevent us from fully committing to a cause; but perhaps this is only because a full commitment, when lacking a balanced knowledge ‘around a subject’, is rarely an embodiment of rationality. What this further entails is that perhaps one should always think carefully before making any claims about what they know or believe with certainty, particularly when the belief in question concerns politics.

Is there any reason to think that God is omnipotent?

Omnipotence, typically understood as the property of being all-powerful, is one of the unique properties of God in the classical theistic conception. Here, I shall examine two common objections raised against the view that God is omnipotent. Although the objections may sound persuasive at first glance, I shall argue that none of them are effectively knock-down arguments against the omnipotence of God. Hence I shall attempt to sustain the view that it is reasonable to think that God is omnipotent.
Since the conception of God is hardly univocal, I shall limit this discussion to the God of classical theism – the God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and depends on nothing for His own existence. 
In this brief entry I shall examine two distinct objections of the following type: the first objection aims to demonstrate that omnipotence as a concept is incoherent, and the second objection that omnipotence cannot be reconciled with God’s other divine attributes.
The first objection is often formulated as a question. Similar forms such as this have often advanced by the sceptic: ‘Is God able to lift a rock so heavy that He himself is unable to lift it?’ This creates a paradox for theists: either way, God cannot be omnipotent because (1) if he can create such a rock, he is not powerful enough to lift it, and clearly the case (2) if he cannot create such a rock.
The most satisfactory response so far known to this paradox is to offer an alternative definition of ‘omnipotence’. With this definition, God is not plainly ‘all-powerful’; God is ‘all-powerful, but bounded by the laws of logic’. The second step of this response is to then, point out that ‘a rock so heavy that it cannot be lifted’ is a concept which is logically incoherent, and hence one cannot reasonably ask God to create such an object. It would be akin to asking God to create, for instance, a married bachelor or a square circle, which are all logically impossible ‘objects’.
I find this response valid. To consider the alternative – as held by Descartes - that God is all-powerful and is unlimited by logic - is itself an incomprehensible view, and hence unsustainable. It would be meaningless to employ reason and logic in arguing for the existence of God; for how could any comprehensible conclusion be reached if God is beyond the realms of reason? Moreover, the ‘heavy rock’ concept is one that does not seem to be conceivable, and it seems justify to describe it as a logically impossible concept.
The second objection which I plan to look at attacks the incoherence between omnipotence and another divine attribute: omnibenevolence, or all-good-ness. Again, the objection is most efficiently phrased in a question: can God do evil? This objection seems to place the proponents of theism in a dilemma: if God is omnipotent, then it seems definite the case that God can do evil; however, being all-good, it seems that God cannot do evil. Thus, the objection seems to place theists in a dichotomy where one of the aforementioned attributes must be rejected.
One possible response to this objection is to employ some analysis of the idea of omnibenevolence. The property of being all-good does not necessarily have to be an intrinsic property in the sense that it can limit God’s power; God can simply be all-good because all the actions which stem from God are good, in a somewhat Sartre-esque sense. While this may entail problems which come with the metaphysical view that an external, objective value of ‘good’ exists beyond God, it does demonstrate that God is indeed all-powerful in his nature. I admit that this response is not ideal as it cannot demonstrate that God is all-powerful in effect; but it seems to be more sustainable than its alternatives e.g. redefining ‘omnipotence’ as ‘all-powerful but bound by the laws of logic and morality’.
But is it reasonable to think that God is omnipotent? Although some reasonable theistic responses have been elucidated, admittedly, I don’t think my defence of theism has completely removed the force in its critics’ objections. It is, I think, no longer possible nor consistent to hold ‘omnipotence’ in its original starting definition.

Statistical Analysis on UK Elections 1997-2010

An Overview

This brief analytical study of the statistics in 4 recent UK general elections (1997-2010) may have many implications for the entry-level politics student. The 2010 general election saw the end to the dominance of the Labour Party (and New Labour?) as well as the first successful bid of the Liberal Democrats to Whitehall as a result of a hung parliament – only the second one to occur since 1945. Statistics from these 4 general elections also reveal an increasing share of the vote by minor parties (suggesting the end to the 2-party system?), as well as the lowest turnout percentages since the Second World War (voter apathy! Or an improving standard of living?). No new or major thesis is being put forward in this analysis, but it is hoped that these numbers will help readers understand more about the UK system of elections (and government).

The Labour Party

Out of the four general elections in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010, the Labour Party is relatively successful in producing a majority of seats. Although the party saw a gradually declining majority from 1997 to 2005 (from 179 to 66), in 1997 and 2001, under the leadership of Tony Blair, the party was still able to produce “landslide” majorities of 179 and 167 respectively. The Labour Party won all general elections under Tony Blair, whereas with Gordon Brown the party lost the 2010 election with only 258 seats, which was 67 seats short of a majority.

In none of the general elections was the Labour Party able to secure a majority of the popular vote: it was most successful in 1997 in securing 43.2% of the vote, and least successful in 2010 in securing only 29% of the vote. In all its “victorious” years, Labour’s mandate (i.e. right to govern) was lowest in 2005, only winning 35.3% of the vote.

The Conservative Party

In contrast to Labour, the Conservatives only won 1 out of the 4 elections between 1997 and 2010. Its victory in 2010, however, was not entirely a satisfactory one, as it was still 20 seats short of winning a majority despite winning 36.1% of the popular vote (more than Labour’s 35.3% in the 2005 g.e.). The 2010 general election was David Cameron’s first victory as the leader of the Conservative party.

As opposition

The Conservatives have managed to retain a minimum of 30.7% of the popular vote (1997) out of the 3 general elections which they secured their position as the largest opposition party. Popular support, measured in votes, was highest in 2005 at 32.4% under the leadership of Michael Howard, increasing by roughly 1% each year from 1997 in the general elections which the Conservatives were in opposition. The Conservatives ran the 3 general elections under 3 different leaders: John Major in 1997, William Hague in 2001, and Michael Howard in 2005. The 2010 general election under David Cameron saw a 3.8% increase in the popular vote for the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats

An increasing share of the popular vote for the Liberal Democrats could be observed in the four general elections in 1997-2010. Beginning with only 16.8% of the vote in 1997 under the leadership of Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrats managed to win nearly a quarter of the popular vote at 23% in 2010 under Nick Clegg, an increase of roughly 6.2 percentage points. The biggest increase in percentage points between elections, however, occurred in the 2005 general elections which saw the Liberal Democrats’ share of the popular vote rise roughly 3.8% from 18.3% to 22.1% in four years.

In terms of seats, the Liberal Democrats actually saw a fall in 2010 despite consistently increasing in the years 1997-2005. Seats won by the Lib-Dems in the House of Commons fell from 62 in 2005 to 57 in 2010, although having won a bigger share (approx. 1%) of the popular vote. This was, however, still a considerable increase from the 1997 result, where the Lib-Dems only managed to win 46 seats under Paddy Ashdown.

Within the period, Charles Kennedy was the only leader who led the Lib-Dems to run for more than one election (2001 and 2005). Nick Clegg was the only leader who managed to lead the Liberal Democrats to form a (coalition) government.

Minor Parties

Minor parties (excl. Labour/Conservatives/Liberal Democrats) saw their apex in the share of the popular vote in 2010, which constituted a significant 11.9%. This contrasts with results in 1997, where small parties only contributed to 9.3% of the total vote. Comparing with historical statistics, the average popular vote in % for minor parties from 1945 to 1992 was only 3.35%, which demonstrates how significant the increase has been for the recent general elections. It is also worthy to look at a few case studies: while in 2005 the UKIP failed to gain any seats despite winning 2.2% of the vote, the Green Party gained its first House of Commons seat in 2010 with merely 1% of the vote. Also, in 2010, 35% of the voters supported a party other than Labour or the Conservatives.

Turnout

The turnouts in % for the four recent general elections were also considerably low. Turnouts from 1945 to 1992 average a respectable 76.7%, but the closest figure to that in the ensuing four general elections was 71.4% in 1997. Most notorious was the turnout in 2001, in which only 59% of the registered electorate voted in the general election. Between 2001 and 2010 a gradual improvement could be witnessed, with 65.1% of the electorate voting in 2010 general election.

Proportionality

The FPTP (First-Past-the-Post) system used for the UK general elections is known for creating interestingly disproportional results. In 2005, Labour won 55% of the seats in House of Commons with a mere 35.3% of the popular vote. In 2010, the Conservatives won 36.1% of the popular vote, yet had only managed to win 46% of the seats. Between 2005 and 2010, the Liberal Democrats saw an increase of about 1% in their share of the popular vote, but a fall of 8% in their share of seats. UKIP won 2.2% of the vote in 2005 with no seats, but the Green Party won one seat with only 1% of the vote in 2010.

On Democracy in Hong Kong

Hong Kong is one unique place where you can find such a high degree of economic freedom at the same where a commonman does not possess the political right to vote for the Head of Government. Both the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation has ranked Hong Kong as the world’s freest economy for a consecutive 15 years, and on the accounts of GDP per capita Hong Kong is certainly one of the most prosperous and well-developed cities in the world. Yet, does it make any sense that people should enjoy economic prosperity and freedom while being in possession of no genuine political rights?

Firstly, it is probably a good idea to clarify to what extent residents of Hong Kong are deprived of their political rights. Hong Kong’s unicameral legislature, the Legislative Council, is made up of 30 elected members and 30 “functional constituencies” (“elected” by trade and labour unions in Hong Kong). Hong Kong’s Head of Government, the Chief Executive (who is Donald Tsang atm), is elected by a group of electors of about 400 people of which the government in China grasps many by the balls.

Obviously, compared to other notable democracies like the USA and the UK, Hong Kong residents have little influence in politics: Americans get to vote for their Presidents once every four years, on top of Congressional elections which happen once every two years; Britons cast a vote once every four to five years (depending on when the incumbent Prime Minister wishes to call general election) for a MP (Member of Parliament) belonging to a party, and the leader of the party holding 50% of the seats in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister.

However, it is far from ideal to use (according to many leading “Democrats” in HK) the USA or the UK model in its exact form for Hong Kong. The reason for USA’s frequent elections is because of the Founding Fathers’ intent to create a system of checks and balances in a federal system (where individual states pool their sovereignty to the federal government instead of a central government giving power to local governments), so that no alliance of interests could take control of the whole system of government in a country so diverse and large. As a region where efficiency is held in such high priority, greater checks and balances would only serve to magnify the legislative inefficiencies of the current system. Being small and having a relatively homogeneous society, what Hong Kong needs is a flexible government, rather than one which has to work with its hands tied together. Just see how Hong Kong people would react if it takes two decades to pass healthcare reform.

In my opinion, UK’s system of government is more appropriate for Hong Kong’s application, but similarly to U.S.’s system, it is neither perfect nor exactly the best fit for Hong Kong. UK has a bicameral legislature, which means that it has two separate Houses in Parliament. Like Hong Kong, not all of the UK Parliament is elected; the Upper chamber, the House of Lords, is made up of appointees called Peers/Lords, and as a collective the House of Lords has the legislative power to delay bills up to 12 months. Hong Kong’s “functional constituencies” can be pretty much seen in the same light. Even though “functional constituencies” are not elected, they have a function of providing expertise to a piece of law, and ensure that some laws are not passed merely to win the votes of the public. Policies like tax hikes, building airports and laying down railway tracks are often unpopular measures which have to be pushed forward for the benefit of all. As Plato argued, a ship can only sail properly when it is guided by a captain, and not by its whole crew. Democracy shouldn’t be blindly pursued as a social objective; rather, it should be considered as a means to improve the welfare of society.

I am not arguing that Hong Kong has the perfect political system, or that it is sufficiently democratic. I agree that “functional constituencies”, despite their contributions, need to be reformed and reduced in power; the electors voting for the Chief Executive need to be increased in both numbers and diversity, and people should be allowed more say in determining who are the electors. Lastly, the entire system should be made more accountable and democratic through devices like referendums and focus groups.

It must also be understood that Hong Kong isn’t as democratic as many liberals would like it to be because of its relationship with the PRC (People’s Republic of China). Hong Kong’s current position as an economic powerhouse and an international financial centre is both being safeguarded and upheld by the PRC’s own international economic presence. Whilst every effort should be made to resist conceding on Hong Kong’s present political freedom, pushing the boundaries too far by demanding radical constitutional reforms will only result in severe and lasting destruction to Hong Kong’s present economic success. Laissez-faire and huge financial transactions don’t mean jackshit when you are under unstable politics. Politicians/political activists should be wise enough to realise this.

In Defence of the Yuan

The Sino-US currency crisis has ascended to another level.

On the 24th of March 2010, Harvard university and historian Niall Ferguson called on the Treasury to label the Yuan and other Asian currencies as currency manipulators. Most open economic sources, notably the Economist's "Big Mac" index, indicated that the Yuan was indeed - undeniably - undervalued, pretty much contradicting President Hu's opinion last week. While there is plenty of evidence to confirm that the Yuan IS indeed undervalued, U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner has today curiously delayed publishing of the currency report which many had speculated the U.S. would brand China as a currency manipulator --- surprise, surprise? ..so what the hell is going on?

Asking several questions would probably clear things up:

--- Is the Yuan really undervalued? ---

(This is a pretty certain yes)

--- Did the Chinese manipulate the Yuan? ---

(Not that obvious - certainly China's cheap labour has contributed to China's trade surplus by creating very cheap exports - but capital restrictions imposed by the Chinese government do create a lot of distortions which would depress the Yuan. So to a certain extent yes. )

--- If the Chinese did manipulate the Yuan, to what extent is it "the Chinese reaping the fruits of the Americans"? ---

(The mainstream thought is that the Chinese had artificially suppressed the Yuan so that Chinese exports to the U.S. will be cheaper (hence more) and imported goods to China from the U.S. will be more expensive (hence less) - creating more real income for the Chinese at the U.S.'s expense, as well as the trade surplus-deficit parity between China and the U.S. .

However, there are at least 3 main factors that we should probably take into account before jumping to this conclusion.

Firstly, although the U.S. does import a huge amount from China, China is essentially in lack of raw materials which in turn, in order to fund its own production, China has to import raw materials from the U.S.; hence, increasing the value of the Yuan does not necessarily benefit China's exports as much as it is commonly perceived -- net trade values are often ignored in such calculations. Also, the U.S. trade deficit had long existed before the Yuan was considered as an undervalued currency - so an undervalued Yuan is perhaps not quite as significant for the U.S. economy as the U.S. right-wing media has portrayed it to be.

Secondly, China currently has overtaken Japan as the biggest buyer of U.S. Treasuries - its enormous foreign reserves is one of the reasons why the Yuan is currently so undervalued. Even though China is in the process of replacing U.S. gilts with gold reserves, the easiest way to inflate the Yuan would be for China to sell its U.S. Treasuries. Surely appreciation of the Yuan would not be so good for the U.S. economy...not when the yields of U.S. gilts sky-rocket and investors are "crowded" with high interest rates.

Thirdly, perhaps a minor point - but many of U.S. supermarts, Walmart, Carrefour, etc. have been vocally against Yuan appreciation as it would lead to an inevitable increase in its input costs. Undeniably, U.S. customers are indeed benefiting from a greater choice of goods as cheap Chinese exports provide them with cheaper necessities (despite questionable quality); there are always two sides of a coin when it comes to currencies. But it's probably true that you can't blame governments and big businesses for not taking consumer welfare into account - as usual.

Maybe, a fourth point: even if China was depressing its currency in order to boost its exports, it will necessarily create a negative externality somewhere else - and we all know inflation can bring about very deadly consequences. China's inflation rate can perhaps guide us as to how seriously undervalued the Yuan is. In my opinion, there is perhaps too much anxiety to pressure the Chinese government to appreciate the Yuan - as soon as their inflation rate shows signs of going through the roof, it will then become necessary and automatic for the Chinese to revalue the Yuan. )

Of course, all of this is history in the making - never in the annals of economics has a still pretty much state-controlled economy had such a inter-dependent love-hate relationship with such a free-market economy - not even between the USSR and U.S.A during the Cold War... whatever the outcome will be, it will surely be one that we cannot afford to ignore.

Eating Dogs.

A health hazard warning may be necessary for dog-lovers who are about to read the following.

The question is simple: Is it wrong to eat dogs?

Most people will answer, "Well not really - but would you eat one?"

Personally I rather enjoy the company of dogs, and I would refuse to eat a dog even if I enter a restaurant and it's the only dish on the menu (I think I'd turn out and leave). I think I speak for a lot of people when I say dog-eating is quite a disgusting thing to do; to some it would almost be like eating your own brother or friend.

Yet, on some level it doesn't make a lot of sense when we complain about people who eat dogs. How are dogs different from other animals? Just because cows and pig and sheep aren't "man's best friend", we're allowed to eat them? Just because chickens and turkeys do not perform fancy tricks like dogs do, it is justified to eat them?

Some vegetarians may argue: Don't eat meat at all, because it's wrong altogether!

That's debatable, but it still doesn't solve the dog-specific problem we are looking at here: If we are meat-eaters and we justify eating meat on the usual reasons (e.g. men are born carnivores; survival of the fittest; I don't care about animals), does that mean it is also right to eat a dog? If it is not wrong to eat a dog, aren't we being inconsistent when we complain about people being immoral when they eat dogs?

Perhaps the biggest reason why we find eating dogs disgusting is because there is a "emotional bridge" between humans and dogs. To some extent, there is a relationship. People who keep animals like chicken or pigs as pets would tend not to eat chickens or pigs. It is an element of human emotion that we feel disgusted if we commit harm to things we love for a more trivial cause (e.g. satisfying your stomach), and human emotions constitute a part of morality. The very same reason why most (I genuinely hope I can replace "most" with "all") would say eating a human being is wrong.

Of course, this argument is based on a lot of challengeable assumptions. For example, it may be under different circumstances and for different reasons why someone may eat a dog. But meanwhile, we can perhaps settle with the conclusion that eating dog is wrong; but inconsistent for a meat-eater to hold at the same time.