Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act- A Shadow of Law

98121314 Hannah Ho

The Wangs’ houses in Shiln, Taipei, were forcedly demolished on March 28. This is the first case of a forced demolition by Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act since the Act was brought to implement on 1998. It had caused widely various reactions in the whole society, from the public to the government, from commonplace gossips to academic speeches, and from internet discussion to street protests. Among many debates, a basic question emerged, that is, what’s the matter with the Act? Is not a law set to help maintain the order? However, it seems that the Urban Renewal Act is the main target that was attacked. There are two issues worthy of careful consideration. One is the right to be silent, and the other is the legitimacy of majority of vote.

Many people questioned why Wangs did not even attend the public hearings once to express their position of objection. Therefore, they were responsible for being included in the urban renewal proposition, because no written objections had been presented. Their silence presumably meant their no objection, and no objection was equal to agreement. This is an obviously absurd inference. In this case, keeping silence has lost its historically meaningful inspiration both in India Sage Gandhi’s Non-cooperation Movement against England and Henry David Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government.

Another issue is the legitimacy of majority of vote. The threshold for acknowledging an urban renewal proposition varies. As the threshold varies in different countries, it reveals that the legitimacy of majority of vote in urban renewal propositions is controversial. Therefore, the legislators are obliged to be more careful when dealing with it. In Singapore, the threshold is of 90% resident agreement, in Korea, 80%. In Taiwan, it was 80% before 2007, but 60% after that. It apparently shows that people who live in Taiwan are more easily to be expelled out of their houses than People in Korea and Singapore. How comes this is the result as the government and legislators are supposed to work for the happiness of the people? 

Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act may be a law regarded by the government, some legislators and part of the public, but it is merely a shadow of law for others who expect a real one which would have resulted in a better solution on March 28, 2012.   


References
“張今鴞：公平社會是要付出代價的.” 今週刊2012, 04, 09. pp. 44-46.
“台北墻拆風波衝擊郝龍斌.” 亞週周刊, 15/4/2012. pp. 18-20.
“政府八次修法給建商合法拆屋令.” 商業周刊, 1272期. 2012.4. pp. 54-56.
“同意或拒絕改建住戶自保步驟.” 商業周刊, 1272期. 2012.4. pp. 58-60.
“有一絲勉強都更都是錯誤的.” 商業周刊, 1272期. 2012.4. pp.62-66.
"Wangs threaten to sue over demolition of homes in Shilin." The China Post. April 4, 2012.



       

Moderation In Obesity

98121314 Hannah Ho

As more people getting fatter and fatter, “Is a person’s weight his or her own business?” asked Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, in an article titled “Weigh more, pay more.”  His answer is “No.” Obesity is now an ethical issue, because an increase in weight by some imposes costs on others. Peter Singer invoked data of the research and proposal of Tony Webber, a former chief economist for the Australian airline Qantas to illustrate how obesity vastly increases the cost of flight and exacerbates global worming. Signer further pointed out obesity raises cost in public transportation, medical facilities, and additional health care which results in more costs for taxpayers and policyholders. Obesity also results in a tremendous productivity loss. Obesity is second only to tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable death. All these fact justify Signer’s assertion that public policies shall discourage weigh gain, such as taxing foods that are disproportionately implicated in obesity.

Some people may argue for human rights and insist that a person’s weight is his or her own business. However, as the private issue concerned public issues, it is no longer a private one. Though many obese people cannot help being overweight–they just have a different metabolism from the rest of us for genetic or acquired factors, more obesity is resulted from intemperate food intake and lack of physical exercise. That is, this kind of obesity resulted from intentionally wrong behaviors. Most of these obese people acknowledge that they should control their body weight, but their reason give way to their appetite which is driven by their spirit.

Apparently, most obese people can no longer be a good master of their own body. On the contrary, they become slavery of their appetite and spirit. Since one has lost the principle and ability of self-discipline in body weight control, governments should intervene and correct the out of control obesity issue to help their people, society, country, most of all, the earth.

Reference

Singer, Peter. “Weigh More, Pay more,” Project Syndicate. March 12, 2012. web: March 28, 2012.

〈肥胖正在傷害地球〉 ，《商業周刊》1270期2012.3. pp. 28-30.

               

Finding Socrates' Justice in Classic I-Shaped People

98121314 Hannah Ho

As time changes, the requirements of the workforce change from the classic I-shaped person into the modern T-shaped person. It reflects the changes of human life style and the way people interact with each other.  Nonetheless, no matter what kind the workforce people are, the goal is to have personal fulfillment and a flourishing society so that the justice can be realized. 

In ancient Athens, Socrates finds justice to be each person performing the task at which he excels. This idea is much the same like that of the twenty century I-shaped people. I-shaped people are those who have a "can do" and "have done" competence in their expertise. That is, they are firmly grounded in reality, not in abstract knowledge. I-shaped people have been fundamental pillars for human societies for centuries.

On the other hand, T-shaped people are those who have a deep understanding of their discipline and a broad understanding of the other disciplines so that he can collaborate with experts in other areas and to apply knowledge in areas of expertise other than his own. This concept of T-shaped people was first referred in 1991 by the CEO of the IDEO design consultancy for building interdisciplinary work teams for creative processes. Now it has been widely adopted by various institutions and establishments to advance their development. It sounds good to have the workforce full of T-shaped instead of I-shape. However, questions exist. T-shaped is highly desired, but not sufficient. Besides, T-shaped must have empathy, otherwise, he cannot figure out the real problem of his teammates. Moreover, If he had bad social skills, the result might be a disaster, and one can perform no task.

As T-shaped must be I-shaped, and the function of the cross bar of T-shaped can be compensated by more I-shaped in the field of communication and negotiation, I-shaped people remain the main characters in workforce. Apparently, Socrates’s argument of justice to be each person performing the task at which he excels stands firm in modern twenty-first century.  

References

Buxton, Bill. “Innovation Calls For I-Shaped People” Bloomberg Businessweek. July 13, 2009. web, March 28, 2012.    

Comparing Michael Pantalon's Instant Influence Conversation with Socratic Irony

98121314 Hannah Ho

Michael V. Pantalon, Ph.D. is a motivational coach, consultant, therapist, and award-winning faculty member at Yale University School of Medicine. Drawing on three decades of research, Dr. Pantalon's easy-to-learn method, Instant Influence, can create changes both great and small in 7 minutes or less in six simple steps.It works on people who know they want to change and are eager to get started, people who think they want to change but fear they can’t, and people who think they don’t want to change. It doesn’t really matter who uses it — Instant Influence just works. This method has proved scientifically effective in a number of places such as prisons, the emergency rooms. Nowadays, the American doctors need to learn it during their residency. 

Essentially, Instant Influence bases on a set of conversation which is well designed in six steps. 

     Step 1: Why might you change? (Or to influence yourself, why might I change?) 

     Step 2: How ready are you to change — on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “not ready at all” and
                 10 means “totally ready”? 

     Step 3: Why didn’t you pick a lower number? (Or if the influencee* picked 1, either ask the 

                 second question again, this time about a smaller step toward, change, or ask, what would it 

                 take for that 1 to turn into a 2?) 

     Step 4: Imagine you’ve changed. What would the positive 

                 outcomes be? 

     Step 5: Why are those outcomes important to you? 

     Step 6: What’s the next step, if any?

Comprehending these steps, one can see that there are several comparable points between Pantalon’s Instant Influence Conversation and Socratic’s Irony.

First, at the beginning of the conversation, the influencer uses a technique of “denigrating the messenger” to reinforce an influencee’s autonomy. That is, acknowledging the influencee’s resistance, the influencer belittle himself so that the influencee feel comfortable, and will be more willing to talk. This technique is much like that used by Socrates. Socrates pretended knowing nothing at the beginning of the dialogues, so that the opposites were encouraged to say what they thought. 
  

Furthermore, asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas are the spirit of both Pantalon’s Instant Influence Conversation and Socratic irony. It seems that an influencer and his influencee should be opposite, but Pantalon’s influencer and influencee are more like comrades who work together to solve the issue. In Socratic Irony, the Socrates role seems to debate with his opposites, but he is much like a guider who is a member of an expedition. 

The function of Pantalon’s influencer is the same as that of Socratic guider who leads the opposite to the conclusion that he intends to lead to. On the other hand, Socratic guider is an influencer who successfully spreads seeds of new thought in the influencee’s mind. 

Thirdly, both the influencees in Pantalon’s Instant Influence Conversation and Socratic Irony personally participate in the conversation, motivated by their own desire.hey are not forced to join the conversation. Therefore, they are not convinced, they have found a way to convince themselves.  So the changes in belief or behaviors will last longer.

To sum up, these comparisons make clear that it is better to belittle oneself and avoid edifying when one try to persuade others to make a change. Learning to encourage the opposites to join in an effective conversation is a necessary lesson for every one, for there is always something that needs change daily.  
  

Reference

Pantalon, Michael V. Instant Influence--How to Get Anyone to Do Anything--Fast   

 http://www.michaelpantalon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Instant_Influence_Intro_fm.pdf

《七分鐘 立即讓人改變壞習慣》。商業周刊 1269。pp. 148, 150, 152. 

    

When Justice is Serving the Interest of the Stronger

98121314 Hannah Ho

Justice is serving the interest of the stronger. This is Thrasymachus’s well known assertion in Plato’s Republic I, 338c-347e. Whether Socrates had successfully refuted it or not, law of the jungle (弱肉強食）is applied in human societies as usual. The totalitarian rulers or capitalists wear the mask of justice, make the world operate and benefit themselves. However, the weaker is not always in a vulnerable position. They will unite, collaborate, and fight for their rights. The flare up of 2010 Arab Spring and 2011 Occupy Wall Street are good examples of the weaker striving for their deprived interest.

As human societies come to a global village, the application of “Justice is serving the interest of the stronger” has become more complicated, but it is all the same as the jungle law. That is, in the negotiation tables, the stronger country has more power to threaten the weaker one and get most interests, leaving a few for the weaker. The weaker sometimes will fight back fiercely. 2008, there were 2300 times protests in South Korea against the open door policy for U.S. beef. Ironically, South Korea imported U.S. beef more than any other country on the first season 2010. It seems that the South Korean are not merely against the controversial U.S. beef, but mainly against the threat from U.S. Parliament.
   

March 2012, as law of the jungle moves on, Taiwan government and people face the dilemma of opening door for ractopamine-containing （瘦肉精） U.S. beef.  Disapproval and approval come from opposite campaigns. Official documents and scholars’ opinions differ. Under this circumstance of the multi-wrestling, do the weaker civilian population only have one pattern of behaviors: feeling furious first, then being disappointed, finally accepting it? Is it possible for the weaker to challenge the stronger as the Egyptian did on 2011 revolution? The answer is: Yes. If it is possible in Arab Spring,  it is possible around the world. Here comes the question: how is it possible?

In my opinion, as justice is serving the interest of the stronger, the weaker have to reverse the situation. That is, the weaker need to educate and train themselves to be the stronger. In twenty-first century--internet world, the stronger cannot hold the resources all in their hands. Take the issue of 

opening door for ractopamine-containing U.S. beef as an example. There was a piece of CNN news on  March 13, 2012. titled “Too much red meat may shorten lifespan.” This is a research of Harvard School of Public Health which encouraged people to avoid eating red meat in order to live longer and healthier. The research results surely would give people more knowledge in selecting food. This kind of practical knowledge will help the weaker get strength and become stronger, so that they may not be sacrificed under law of the jungle.