Putin - Person of the Year vs Maslow Hierarchy

Actually this news has some impact to me.

Probably its nice to refresh our mind and re-adjust our mindset. I'm sure that what Putin has done actually improved the living standard of Russian people. Yet - is it the right thing to do?

To answer this I'd bring out Maslow Hierarchy.

According to Maslow Hierachy, People needs to get satisifed with their physiological needs before they step up for 'Safety' as such. I'd say in Western developed countries many people are at 'Self-actualization' or 'Esteem'. Its because the 'physiological' needs have been fufilled.

Russia, or even China, are different. Many people can't get enough bread and water. At this stage if we tell them about spiritual uplifting it might be in vain. However, having said that, we also couldn't deny that religious institutions do better in developing countries. Its because religion could give hope and spiritual support whilst people have less valuables with them whilst they still need some support in hearts. Probably that's why religion is not included in the hierarchy and I think we couldn't categorize religious needs in 'self-actualization' and 'esteem'. On the contrary, probably its something stand outside of this hierarchy, or in some situation, in the 'Love/belonging', 'Safety' & 'Physiological' needs.

haha - it went a bit too far but its an interesting topic. anyway. Let's read 'Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty''s article on Putin being chosen the 'Person of the Year' by 'Time'.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/12/d815db2e-74b2-435a-a314-8875eacc4ce4.html

Russia: U.S. Magazine Marks Putin's 'Grand Bargain'

By RFE/RL analyst Robert Coalson

The announcement that "Time" magazine has named Russian President Vladimir Putin its person of the year will come as little surprise to most Russians. "They say that Putin is the most successful figure of the 20th century," academic Leonid Polyakov told a roundtable in September. "I would pose the issue more broadly: Who in history has been more successful than him? Who accumulated such a potential of confidence after being in power just eight years?"
Or, as former First Deputy Duma Speaker Lyubov Sliska put it more succinctly in May: "Putin is our everything."

The newsweekly's editors are careful to note that the distinction "is not and never has been an honor." "It is not an endorsement," they continue. "It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world -- for better or worse." They correctly note that Putin's achievements have come "at significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize" and that it is far from clear whether "he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression."

And perusing the magazine's list of also-rans, including former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and British author J. K. Rowling, it is hard to argue that Putin does not deserve the recognition.

New Rules

In its appraisal of Putin, "Time" argues that he has brought Russia out of the chaos of the 1990s to a new stability from which most Russians are benefiting. "In his eight years as president, he has guided his nation through a remarkable transformation," the article contends. "He has restored stability and a sense of pride among citizens who, after years of Soviet stagnation, rode the heartbreaking roller coaster of raised and dashed expectations when [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev and then [Russian President Boris] Yeltsin were in charge. A basket case in the 1990s, Russia's economy has grown an average of 7 percent a year for the past five years. The country has paid off a foreign debt that once neared $200 billion. Russia's rich have gotten richer, often obscenely so. But the poor are doing better too: workers' salaries have more than doubled since 2003."

Although "Time" argues that this economic miracle is "partly a result" of high global energy prices, it would be more accurate to say that Putin has been phenomenally lucky that throughout his presidency revenues have flowed in at rates several times greater than the most optimistic projections of 2000. His greatest achievement in this regard has been that he bullied the Yeltsin-era oligarchs into accepting "new rules of the game," which included diverting most of the profits from high energy prices into the government's Stabilization Fund. That fund now contains some $150 billion -- even after being used, as "Time" notes, to pay off Russia's astronomical foreign debt.

Putin's other achievement in this regard has been that he placed capable economists, including Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin and former Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref, in charge of these assets, which so far has prevented them from being pillaged. In recent months, however, Gref has been removed from the cabinet and Kudrin has come under fierce attack from the siloviki -- people with ties to the military and security services -- in Putin's inner circle. In February, the Stabilization Fund is to be split into two new funds and the battle to spend those billions will be fierce, possibly to the point of rocking the "stability" for which Putin traded Russia's freedoms.

Many observers have argued that the energy-price windfall has encouraged Russia to put off major reforms and investments that are needed to create truly stable economic development. In the early years of Putin's presidency, he pushed through liberal and much-hailed tax and customs codes and rationalized many Soviet-era economic policies. But in recent years there has been little to boast of. The so-called national projects to improve agriculture, housing, education, and health care (projects that have been overseen by Putin's anointed successor, First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev) have yielded few results and have been attacked as bottomless money pits. Although energy exports account for more than half of Russia's state revenues, production is stagnant. During Putin's second term, old state-dominated monopolies have grown and new ones have been created, increasing the opacity of the economy and placing a premium on political ties and cronyism over sound management and innovation.

'Can Putin Really Be Wrong?'

"Time" writes that Putin established stability through authoritarian domestic policies. "His government has shut down TV stations and newspapers, jailed businessmen whose wealth and influence challenged the Kremlin's hold on power, defanged opposition political parties and arrested those who confront his rule," the magazine's appraisal notes. Kremlin-connected political analyst Sergei Markov perhaps put it better during a conference in August: "The personality of Vladimir Putin is more important to society than institutions of state." Or, to quote Central Election Commission Chairman Vladimir Churov, "Can Putin really be wrong?"
A key result of Putin's draconian domestic policies has been the elimination of all oversight and a consequent flourishing of corruption. To take one example, a study in October found that the country loses some $40 billion a year just on state purchases. Recently a Kremlin-connected businessman told "Kommersant" how the siloviki, led by deputy presidential-administration head Igor Sechin, are raiding lucrative private businesses by making them offers they can't refuse. "This isn't raiding," he said. "We don't take over enterprises -- we minimize their market value using various means. As a rule, these are voluntary-compulsory means. But, as a rule, people understand where we are coming from."

Former Duma Deputy Anatoly Yermolin, himself a retired Federal Security Service (FSB) colonel, told "Novoye vremya" earlier this month: "Putin is not fighting against corruption. He is using it to control the country." He added that "the genius of Putin's management of the country is that the president and his team have turned the main weakness of Russian state management -- corruption -- into its greatest strength."

During his interview with Putin, the "Time" correspondent asked about the corruption problem and received a "testy" response from the president. "If you are so confident, then I presume you know the names and the systems and the tools.... Write to us," Putin said. In a country with no independent law enforcement agencies and no legislative oversight, one that has virtually no independent media and no functioning NGOs, finding out "the names and the systems and the tools" is no easy task.

Although it is no "honor," "endorsement," or "popularity contest," Putin has clearly earned the distinction of person of the year. But it remains to be seen if he really has carried out a "grand bargain" of freedom for stability. The freedoms are gone, but the promised stability -- as the country's current political transition suggests -- seems far from certain. To use analyst Markov's phrase: Can a country where "the personality of Vladimir Putin is more important to society than institutions of state" really ultimately be stable?

看看過去的香港

http://my1510.cn/article.php?a14f8590c7d4ef1d

Its really really nice.

The original post is in Simplified Chinese. I converted it to Traditional one.

看看過去的香港

閭丘露薇

2007-12-16 23:08 閱讀(2252) 標簽: 犬儒主義, 生存法則, 香港, 戰后嬰兒潮, 回歸

最近流行申請聯合國非物質文化遺產，由香港的立法會議員准備下個星期三在立法會提出動議，成立一個委員會，要把香港的茶餐廳申請為文化遺產。茶餐廳，確實最能代表香港，而港式茶餐廳這些年已經遍布神州大地，隻是到了內地城市的港式茶餐廳，形象不似香港那樣的街坊和隨意，甚至是簡陋，隻是，在裝修精美的茶餐廳裡面喝奶茶，確實有點點奇怪的感覺。

說到茶餐廳，調查顯示，最有代表性的就是奶茶，菠蘿油和鴛鴦。奶茶的來歷，是因為香港人覺得英國人的西式紅茶味道太淡，於是創造出了絲襪奶茶，當然，用來過濾的不是真的絲襪，而是用棉襖的料子做的，隻是時間用久了，看上去，就好像絲襪一樣了，如果大家有機會到香港，一定要去中環結志街的蘭芳園，那裡的奶茶是出了名的，據說絲襪奶茶這是第一家。

其實奶茶還有鴛鴦（就是一半奶茶，一半咖啡），很有香港的特色，那就是把西方的東西拿來，改良成適合自己的東西。奶茶有了五十多年的歷史，那個時候的香港，充滿了來自各地的難民們的流離情緒，但是最著年輕一代的成長，也就是被大家稱為戰后嬰兒潮的一代人的成長，把香港當成家的感覺慢慢出現，而茶餐廳，就見証和參與了這批人，在殖民地統治下，用一種慢慢變成很香港的很獨特的方式生活的過程。

這些人就是現在香港的中堅力量，而他們在五六十年代的日常生活經驗，也形成了他們的生存策略，形成了獨特的香港文化。所以，要了解香港，必須要從香港的過去開始看起，不需要太遠，從五十年代開始看起，來了解現在的香港的文化，香港人的特性，特別是那種學者眼中的犬儒的，隻求目的不做其他考慮的工具注意的生存策略，是怎樣來的。

介紹香港的社會學學者呂大樂的一本書“唔該，埋單“，這是典型的廣東話，就是對不起，結帳的意思。這本書首次發表於1997年，十年之后，2007年，回歸十周年，增加了一篇后記，再版了。

書不厚，一個社會學家的香港筆記。分享一些讓我很有觸動的片段：

談香港從七十年代開始的民眾運動：

“長期在建制外扮演反對派角色的社會運動，在批判殖民地政府之時，卻發展出一種肯定市民有權表達不滿，提出訴求的觀念，而且更逐漸由批判者轉為基層組織者，代表市民和殖民地政府談判，口號也有意識形態批判轉為利益的爭取。這樣，官民之間的關系不再是互不相干的。”
談九七過渡的過程中，香港社會出現的政治“大執位”：

“本來是港英陣營的悍將，新扎師兄師姐，后來跳‘政治哈蘇’，一個轉身，成為殖民地主義的批判者，遲熟的民族主義者，緊靠中方路線；那些一直在惡劣環境下仍然堅持民族主義思想的，“忠誠”沒有幫他們一把，反而他們要赤膊上陣，靠群眾運動來找個政治位置。很多曾經主張續約，獨立，買島的意見領袖，經過一番“洗底”之后，今是昨非，以左派的姿態出現，擦去過往親近殖民地權貴的底細。”

談犬儒主義在香港的現實發揮：

“醒目主義是香港人，尤其是戰后嬰兒潮一代人的生存哲學之一。我們可以將好與壞，甚至是與非的問題暫時擱置，不問為什麼，也不探討終極價值，隻問怎麼辦，要投入幾多？又有多少回報？”

談香港因為七十年代開始的普及文化經歷了黃金時代之后，造成的香港人的不自覺地以自我為中心：

“表面上信心十足，躊躇滿志。實際上，香港人慢慢收窄了自己的視野。在感覺良好的背后，是一些舊有的空間概念的淡化。”

如何看待保持現狀，五十年不變：

“基本法的精神在於急凍香港，利用這份小憲章把香港社會的各個方面變為維持不變的條文。當時的想法也簡單不過，隻要把過去成功的元素都想辦法保留下來，到1997年之后遇上任何困難，都可以搬出這些發包來應付問題。於是，整個香港社會鎖定在八十年代中期的狀態……問題是，這是一種向后望的思維方式。而且更嚴重的事，這種向后望的思維，以八十年代中期的香港社會，文化，想象力為立足點，而他所展現出來的視野（例如，嚴重低估了內地和香港之間的互動),遠遠落后於二十一世紀的需要。”

“1997年至2007年，是不可思議的十年。有一個朋友這樣說：大大小小，不同的事情都發生了；像手上所有的東西倒在地上，不知如何收拾。九七前，香港故事不易講。九七之后，千頭萬緒，不知從何說起。回歸十年，是時候要好好執拾一下上世紀八十年代所遺留下的手尾……現在事后看來，保持現狀/不變，並不足以應付萬變”