An Elucidating Analysis of the Generation Gap

The Umbrella Movement seems to have brought Hong Kong's older and younger generations to an irreconcilable position in terms of values and world views. This article is one of the best that I've read so far that has shed a light on the dichotomy between the two camps of thoughts. (See my translation of the salient passages further down).

Here's the link to the InmediaHK article

Here are the salient passages:-

[那班扮似「理性」「中立」之「沉默大多數」的世界觀，當然包含很多想法與立場，他等亦非人人一樣，但大概而言，總能找到某些共通想法。佔領爆發後，諸君必定聽過有人發表以下論述，均是基於那種世界觀：

一）同學如果真心要建設美好的香港，就讀好書，然後加入政府，在建制內帶來改變；
二）有理想是好事，但做人都要實際，要懂得妥協；
三）香港一直以來都繁榮穩定、自由開放，不要破壞社會和諧；
四）你們還年輕，被政客利用了也不知道；
五）特首很難做，不可能完美的，大家應該要寬容一點；
六）不要出去「搞事」吧，用心一點讀書，關心一下自己的前途；
七）佔領是犯法的，總之犯法就是錯，請不要再錯下去。

然後只要你到佔領區隨意問一位年輕人，對以上論述有何看法，相信其可以毫無困難地逐一反駁：

一）我等真心想香港好，因此希望改變整個政治制度。無在外抗爭而建制自行改革，歷史上從未有之；
二）我等確實有理想，但查實人人皆應有理想。我們不是不顧實際，而是嘗試打破現狀，建立更美好的家園。歷史告訴我們，現實是可以改變的；
三）香港七、八十年代經濟起飛，確實帶來繁榮穩定。但近年制度的漏洞逐漸浮現，貧富差距日益擴大。而北京政府肆意要赤化香港，打壓我們的自由，港府又無視港人的民主訴求，已經到了不得不反抗的地步；
四）我們很清楚自己在做甚麼，如果以為泛民政客可以煽動、利用我們，實在太天真。他們已經過氣了；
五）特首確實難做，但我們爭取的不是換特首，而是換制度。你們對擁有公權力的政府可以很寬容，為何對無權無勢的示威者卻如此嚴苛？
六）抗爭、佔領不是「搞事」，而是爭取公義、改變社會。自己個人的前途固然重要，但香港這個家園的前途更重要。讀聖賢書，所學何事？就是盡義至仁！
七）公民抗命本身就是要認罪的，不違反法治。犯法不一定錯，如果法律阻礙我們尋求公義，就不需守法。即使不談公民抗命，試問歷史上那一場追求民主之群眾運動，乃靠嚴守法律而取得成果？假若東歐群眾均不犯法，可有所謂「蘇東波」？

以上兩大套論述之衝突，就是本人所謂「世界觀」之衝突。當然每項論述均頗為粗疏，難免過分簡化。要深入討論，可逐一研究。然拙文的目的不是要爭論佔 領之對錯，而是展示當今之爭論，不是純粹的口舌之爭，或一般意義上的「政治爭拗」（「政治嘢，各有各講啦！」），而是兩套價值體系的衝突。「沉默大多數」 所秉持之信念乃「維持現狀」、「穩定」、「繁榮」；佔領者之旗幟則是「改變」、「自由」、「公義」、「自主」。有人說此乃世代之爭，大概而言也算準確。不 願變者， 不一定就是既得利益者。責罵年輕人、反對佔領者中，也有生活艱難的。不論貧富，那種世界觀就是固定在其心中，牢不可破。此種價值體系，何以建立？所有世界 觀、價值體系，均是知識、所受教育、所接收之訊息，加上個人經歷糅合而成。大家成長經歷不一，很容易煉成相異之世界觀。呂大樂的《四代香港人》大概有類似 論述，雖非嚴謹之作，仍值得一讀。明白了「世界觀」之衝突如何煉成，則不難明白為何佔領發生後，不少父母與子女爭論不休，大家彷彿活在平行時空裡：我看到 警察冤枉記者，你卻看到記者打警察。

「沉默的大多數」不願走出自己心中那安穩的世界（縱使其實那只是殖民地植入的、虛妄的安穩），不願當家作主。現在不是很好嗎，何必自找麻煩？只要有 人照顧餵飼（縱使那是惡徒），大家安安穩穩，那就好了。佔領人士和不少年輕人卻要成長，想要打破框框。成長是很痛苦的，但人必須成長，方能有明天。每當我 等適應了一環境，就不想改變，想留在那裡，直到永遠。但成長就是要跳出那comfort zone，自己前路自己揀，方能走得更遠。現在是年輕人想成長，而以中年人為主的「沉默大多數」卻拒絕成長。]

Brief Translation:-

The two opposing camps of thoughts (or values/world views) are:-

(From the Silent Majority camp):

1) If the students truly want to build a better Hong Kong, they should study hard and then find a government job and bring about changes within the establishment.
2) Having an ideal is a good thing, but one must also be pragmatic and be ready to compromise.
3) Hong Kong has always enjoyed prosperity and stability and is a free and open city; don't destroy the harmony.
4) You students are still young and can easily be misled and used by politicians/demagogues.
5) The Chief Executive's job is not easy - no one is perfect; we have to be more tolerant.
6) Concentrate on your studies and don't go out to stir up trouble; you should care more about your future. 
7) Occupying public space is illegal; an illegal act is wrong, period. Please stop your movement.

If you had a chance to stroll through any of the protest sites, you would most certainly hear these counter-arguments to the above points from any of the youngsters:-

(From the Umbrella Movement camp):

1) It is our cherished wish to make Hong Kong a better place. The only way is to reform the whole political structure. History shows us that the establishment cannot be expected to reform of its own will without being instigated by struggles from the outside.
2) It's true that we do have ideals. Everyone should have ideals. We are not being impractical - we are only striving to change the status quo and build a better home. History tells us that change is possible.
3) Hong Kong did enjoy prosperity and stability when the economy flourished in the 70s and 80s. But in recent years systemic weaknesses have become obvious and the wealth gap has been widening. At the same time the Beijing government intends to mainlandize Hong Kong and suppress our freedoms while the Hong Kong government plays deaf to our democracy demands. We have been forced into a corner where we have no alternative but to resist.
4) We are absolutely clear on what we are doing. If you think that the Pan-Democratic Party politicians are able to influence or use us in any way, you are just being naive. They belong to the past.
5) We know the CE's job is a difficult one. But it's not just about changing the CE - it's about changing the system. Why is it that you can be so tolerant of the government who holds all the power, but you are so harsh towards the protesters who are without power or wealth?
6) A protest or occupying movement is not an attempt to stir up trouble - it is a struggle for social justice and for change. Our own future is certainly important to us, but the future of our home city is even more important. This is what education is all about - we have to be civil humans who care about our community.
7) Civil Disobedience implies that participants are ready to admit their guilt - this does not contradict the spirit of rule of law. Committing an illegal act is not necessarily wrong. If the law impedes a citizen's pursuit of social justice, then he/she does not have to abide by that law. Civil Disobedience apart, is there any democratic movement in history that could have taken place effectively with participants strictly abiding by the law?

In sum, the stance of the "Silent Majority" is about keeping the status quo and letting stability and prosperity rule, while that of the protesters is about pursuit of change, freedom, social justice and autonomy.  All world views and values are formed from education, knowledge, receipt of information, combined with personal life experiences and backgrounds. They thus vary according to a person's growing trajectory.

It seems that the Silent Majority are the ones who refuse to leave their "comfort zone" to seek change and to grow, while the students and protesters are eager to change and grow. Change and growth entails pain, and that's why most people try to avoid it.

More Land Is the Answer, Or Not?

(Note - My recent idea was to blog about light-hearted topics like music, films and books on this blog, while keeping more serious subjects on my Asia Sentinel blog. But lately the Asia Sentinel has been undergoing a change of server, and links to my A.S. blog posts don't seem to work any longer. So I'm re-posting my two latest A.S. blog posts separately here for interested readers' convenience.)

Here's the second last post "More Land Is the Answer, Or Not?":- 

Amidst Hong Kong’s clamoring for sky-high property prices to be reined in, there have been incessant calls for the SAR government to increase land and property supply. I, for one, was at one time besotted with the thought that releasing more land could eventually dampen prices, if still skeptical over the prudence of dishing out more land to the same cartel that is already sitting on huge land banks (because highest-bidder-wins-policy would ensure that deep-pocket developers would, more often than not, end up the winning bidders).

Having observed this year’s government land tender results, it seems the larger tracts, like always, have fallen into the hands of leading developers or State-owned mainland developer (to quote a few examples: a sizable Yuen Long lot went to Sun Hung Kai Properties; two large Tseung Kwan O lots went to Wheelock Properties, two Kai Tak lots went to China Overseas Construction). Owing to bidders being able to use nominee companies (whose parent companies may also be nominee companies) in land tenders, it is impossible to know from officially announced tender results who actually got the other sizeable plots.

As for the land tender prices, they are, as always, marked closely to the property market, where prices have barely fallen from the historical peak. The palliative buyer stamp duty and special stamp duty – the so called “piquant measures” – have so far only managed to reduce property turnover, but hardly the prices. But already property vested interests are nagging for a repeal of those measures, which have been introduced for only a few months.

It would seem that my earlier tinge of optimism about increased land supply being an effective impetus to eventually bring property prices down to more affordable levels seems misplaced. I unwittingly overlooked the crucial fact that the government and the leading developers have never ceded their firm grip on land and property prices, simply by virtue of their collective ownership of almost all of Hong Kong’s buildable land. They have a common interest in keeping prices high, though for different reasons. The former wants to maximize land sale revenue for its fiscal health, so that it can continue to trumpet to the world that Hong Kong has the unique advantage of a low-tax regime. The latter want to continue to fatten themselves with development profits and rents. They are no different from a clique of bakers who have monopolized the supply of wheat flour – they naturally have the power to manipulate the price of bread.  

It is apparent that, as long as the high land price policy that the Hong Kong government embraces with all its life force remains intact, no matter how much land is released into the market, it’s not going to have the desired impact on property prices, much less on the entrenched status quo. History shows that every market dip in the past was caused by an external event or internal chaos rather than an increase of land supply (of course the property cartel would try to dupe the public into believing the latter being the culprit). On the other hand, past experience has taught many of the older generations (including civil servants) that their best bet is “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Such an attitude towards buying and owning properties has been institutionalized over the years, and is deeply embedded in the social consciousness. Naturally, homeowners would want to see prices stay up, whose expectation can be self-fulfilling. Homeowners would rather use all their savings to buy more flats for their offspring than see property prices fall significantly for the greater and long-term good of society.

The only problem is, at least some clear-thinking and independent youngsters and individuals who have a sense of justice are finding that this game only favors those already with capital (equity in homes) and is grossly unfair to those without at the starting point. They can see that Hong Kong’s addiction to properties is stifling healthy innovation and creativity, the lack of which is taking a toll on its economic development. For those who are grassroots and those who by a stroke of bad luck have slipped onto the lower social echelons, living in decrepit sub-divided flats as well as enduring bitingly high rent is their only option until subsidized flats become within reach, if they ever will. These unfortunate have-nots, along with the haves, all need to pay a lot more than would have been necessary for their daily needs and consumer goods because of obscene rents.

The SAR government’s vacuous vows to increase land supply or to search for more land to build affordable flats are at best a feckless attempt to teach guileless Hong Kongers simple Economic theory about supply/demand equilibrium, and at worst a red herring aimed at diverting the public’s anger away from its perpetual collusion with the property cartel (which should now include powerful mainland developers).

Thus, CY Leung and his administration, knowing full well that the Gordian knot to Hong Kong’s social and economic ills (including the much condemned wealth gap) lies in the government’s high land price policy, its addiction to financing itself with land revenues and the regressive tax system but lacking the courage to touch them, can only put “band-aids on top of band-aids”, as one internet commentator jeered. At the same time, society’s institutionalized belief in the magic wand of properties is providing good excuses for inaction on government’s part.

一個令人嘆息的香港故事

剛收到一封電郵, 讀後不禁唏噓! 香港這個笑貧不笑娼社會, 對那些為非物質理想而奮搏的人始終最為殘酷; 政府可以用數百億去建像西九文化區之類的大白象, 但文化界老弱病者卻欠缺人道照顧, 是否一大諷刺?


電郵轉載:-


"前《兒童樂園》社長， 我們敬愛的張浚華女士，最近因骨傷入院，急需援手，

現懇請各方友好解囊，以濟燃眉!

張大姐1957年畢業於培道女子中學，1961年畢業於新亞書院哲學系。甫畢 業，她便進入友聯出版社工作，初任《中國學生週報》「快活谷」版編輯，63年轉任《兒童樂園》執行 編輯，職至社長。張大姐最為人津津樂道的是譯介《叮噹》並將之首刊於《兒童樂園》，及譯寫當代優秀 外國繪本等，她一心一意為兒童提供優秀的精神食糧，為一代又一代的兒童帶來歡樂、想像及創意。張大 姐為理想奉獻了人生最美好的歲月，那年代也是一個為理想拼搏、安貧樂道、薪酬微薄的年代。
1994年，《兒童樂園》停刊，張大姐亦退休了，夫婿李國鈞先生比妻子年 長，更早已退休；夫婦倆沒有退休金，膝下猶虛，只能憑積蓄過活。千禧年時，李先生在街上跌倒入院，社工 才得知夫婦倆的經濟狀況，於是為他們申領政府的各項援助，以解決生活困局。

張大姐與夫婿，相依相 扶，無怨無求，簞食瓢飲，未以為苦。惜兩月前，年近90的李先 生骨患復發；張大姐因扶起丈夫而雙雙跌倒，後引致脊椎骨塌陷。兩人因此先後入院。目前李先生在療養 院療養；張大姐雖住院兩月多，惟迄今仍需卧床，距自理之途仍遠。

香港公立醫院床位一直 短缺， 醫生囑張大姐及李先生日內出院。兩老入住公屋多年，上周我們首次往訪，發現全屋天花大片大片剝落，牆壁因兩人入院多時，苦熱及暴雨的天氣令四壁長滿霉菌， 嚴重影響健康；部份家具發霉，亦需從速更換。目前雖有社工協助他們申請安老服務，但輪候需時，短期內難 以解決居住和生活的問題。

有見及此困窘，孫述宇率先發起支援，並由韋惠英、 黃潔貞及胡惟忠，協商成立「兒童樂園之友」籌募善款，首階段的籌款目標是三十萬，先行解決大姐夫婦的居 住困局，及未來兩年的護理費用。

一生甘為孺子牛的張大 姐，雖年逾70，去年仍為在《兒童樂園》並肩作戰多年的羅冠樵 先生，出版復刻版《西遊記》及《小圓圓》，讓優秀的香港兒童漫畫，得以再度流傳。她勤奮一生，重情 念舊，只問耕耘， 不問收穫，貫徹「愛誠貞毅」的培道校訓，實踐「手空空， 無一物，艱險，我奮進，困乏，我多情，千斤擔子兩肩挑」的新亞精神，堪稱我輩典範。張大姐功在兒童教育，如今病倒在床，理應得到社會 加倍的愛護照顧，可是現實令人神傷。我們現懇切呼籲各位尊賢敬老，及時送暖。

捐款方法如下(見附註一)：

1. 恆生銀行代收

帳戶名稱：Wai Wai Ying Wong Kit Ching

帳號：368-397733-882

2. 郵寄支票

支票抬頭：Wai Wai Ying Wong Kit Ching

郵寄地址：香港九龍青山道696號時采中心1樓1室青田教育中心轉「兒童樂園之友 韋惠英」收

我們歡迎捐款者提供姓 名及聯絡資料，請填寫下附表格(見附註二)，連同支票寄上址； 又或是將表格連同銀行入數紙以電郵寄CPfriends2013@gmail.com存案。為減省人力，如果各位沒有提出要求，將不另 發收據。惟每年十月底，我們會將該年度的財務報告，由會計師核實後，上載於面書(Facebook)「兒童樂園」群組https://www.facebook.com/groups/21529462359/) 供捐款者省覽。

是類籌款因不能申請為 香港政府註冊公共性質的信託團體，故捐款未能向政府申請免稅，請捐款者見諒。我們感謝何 俊仁律師慨允擔任義務法律顧問，黃志明會計師仗義協助財務會計事務。如有垂詢，請以電郵和我們聯絡。敬謝垂注及支持!

「兒童樂 園之友」發起人 孫述宇(香港中文大學退休教授)

韋惠英(青田教育中心創辦人)

黃潔貞(香港教育學院講師)

胡惟忠(香港科技大學講師)

敬啟"

Housing Rent Needs Control

I was interviewed via email by an Apple Daily reporter last week, who asked for my comments on the housing strategy as laid out in CY Leung’s Policy Address.

This was my reply in full (in Chinese):-

梁特首施政報告中之房屋政策給我的印象係:長遠而言,土地房屋供應的陸續增加或會緩和地產霸權對市場的操控, 但弊處係遠水不能救近火!

我特別不明白他抗拒恢復租金管制的理由,他說租管可能產生反效果,但卻無解釋有何反效果;我曾聽過一些反租管人士所持論點,就係租管會令業主們不肯將手持單位放租,從而令整體出租單位減少及租金進一步上升,我祗想反問一個簡單問題,對物業投資者而言,少些租金收入還是完全無收入較為可取?我覺得反租管者祗從私利出發而對無殼蝸牛毫無同理心,亦可說是歪理連篇。

若要認真解决低收入人士之燃眉居住問題,最直接及最合理方法莫過於立刻實施針對中小型單位及劏房之租金管制。

紐約市自1969年以來施行租金穩定法例 (Rent Stabilization Law), 其目的在幫助低收入人士租住居所,一向行之有效,值得梁政府細心研究及仿傚。

Translated Version:-

The impression I get from the CE’s Policy Address on his housing strategy is that for the longer term, gradual increases in land and housing supply may perhaps serve to slightly loosen the property cartel’s tight grip on the property market; however, supply increase, which cannot happen overnight, is hardly an antidote for quenching the immediate housing thirst.

I am particularly puzzled as to why the CE resists reviving rent control. He kept saying that it might be counter-productive, but fell short of an explanation. People who are against rent control have a theory. They hold the view that rent control would discourage property owners from letting out their rental properties, which would thus put a squeeze on the number of available rental units and force up rents further. My only question is: from a property investor’s standpoint, which would be a preferable option: getting a little less rent or getting no rent at all? It seems to me that those rent control naysayers are just being selfish and totally callous towards the plight of people seeking (but not finding) affordable rental housing and their theory is flawed.

In order to help the low income group to get affordable shelter, the most direct and most rational solution would be to impose rent control targeting medium- to small-size flats and subdivided flats.

New York City (the bastion of capitalism not unlike Hong Kong) has been operating a Rent Stabilization Law since 1969, aiming to help low- to middle-income people get/remain in affordable rental homes. (One condition for the law to be operative is when the city’s rental vacancy rate is less than 5%.) That law may be worth studying.

Link for reference:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York

Postscript:-

In view of the stratospheric level of property prices and rents now prevalent, giving home renters some sort of protection against obscene rent increases and possible eviction would obviously be a more prudent measure than luring them into the trap of purchasing homes (even subsidized ones) beyond their means at or near a price peak. Longer term, renting should always remain an available alternative to purchasing with appropriate regulations giving tenants security of tenure and protection from unreasonable rent increases demanded by landlords. Obviously, the rent control regulations that served Hong Kong so well pre-1997 were abandoned at the behest of vested interests.

   

HKU Symposium Speech

Here's the link to my Asia Sentinel blog post containing a translated excerpt of my speech, which was delivered on November 14, 2012 in Cantonese to an audience of HKU students:-

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4989&Itemid=320

Condolences

My condolences to all who lost loved ones in the vessel collision off Lamma Island on the eve of October 1, and my best wishes for a speedy recovery to those injured in the accident.

It was a deeply tragic loss of lives. The unfortunate accident has sent a harsh blow to the lives of many families and calls for sympathy from all - not petty squabbles, nor unfounded accusations at this time of great sorrow. In the past, Hong Kong showed itself totally capable of dealing with grave accidents, and emerging therefrom a little wiser. This time, it should be no exception.

Here is a song, called “I Am A Thousand Winds”, to sooth the grieving families:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR05T2m4yGM

Lyrics of “I Am A Thousand Winds”:-

Please do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there, I do not sleep
I am the sunlight on the ripened grain
I am the gentle autumn rain

I am a thousand winds
I am a thousand winds that blow
I am the diamond glint on snow
I am a thousand winds that blow

Please do not stand at my grave and cry
I am not there, I did not die
I am the swift rush of birds in flight
I am the stars that shine at night

I am a thousand winds
I am a thousand winds that blow
I am the diamond glint on snow
I am a thousand winds that blow

Please do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there, I do not sleep
I am the sunlight on the ripened grain
I am the gentle autumn rain

I am a thousand winds
I am a thousand winds that blow
I am the diamond glint on snow
I am a thousand winds that blow

I am the diamond glint on snow
I am a thousand winds that blow

Caixin Media Interview 財新媒體專訪

Here's the link to the interview text titled "潘慧娴：香港被地产商操控背离市场经济":-

http://special.caixin.com/2012-04-28/100383246.html

Su Shi's "Nian Nu Jiao" (Reminiscing Red Cliffs)

In a previous post I briefly touched on the Three Kingdoms’ romantic history as depicted in Du Mu’s (杜牧) “Red Cliffs” (“赤壁”). I thought that bit of crucial background history might be helpful to non-Chinese speakers in reading Su Shi’s (蘇軾) lyric poem (ci 詞) “Nian Nu Jiao: Reminiscing Red Cliffs” (“念奴嬌 赤壁懷古”), which I’ve attempted to render into English.

The original Nian Nu Jiao: Reminiscing Red Cliffs:-

大江東去, 浪淘盡, 千古風雲人物。

古疊西邊, 人道是, 三國周郎赤壁;

亂石崩雲, 驚濤裂岸, 捲起千堆雪;

江山如畫, 一時多少豪傑。

遙想公瑾當年, 小喬初嫁了, 雄姿英發;

羽扇綸巾, 談笑間, 強虜灰飛煙滅。

故國神遊, 多情應笑我, 早生華髮,

人生如夢, 一樽還酹江月。

My rendition:-

The Great Yangtze scurries forever east,
Many an ancient hero buried in its sweep.

West of the old forts, they say, 
Was fought Zhou Yu’s Battle of Red Cliffs;

Rampant cliffs that pierced clouds, 
Angry waves that ripped shores, churning up snowy foam.
Such a picturesque country, 
So full of gallant men in times of old.

Thinking of Zhou in that distant past,
He must've looked valiant, with Xiaoqiao his new bride;

Feather fan in hand, hair tied in silk, 
His enemies crushed to dust as he joked.

Such was my dreamy tour; mock me as maudlin,
But I’m just a young white-haired bloke.

Life is but a dream; let me offer wine to the river moon.

[Note: This lyric poem was written during the time when Su Shi was serving as a junior official in Wang Zhou (黃州) (in Hubei Province), to which he was banished after his release from prison. His imprisonment had been brought about by his writing a politically-incorrect poem called Crow Terrace Poem (烏臺詩). Nian Nu Jiao: Reminiscing Red Cliffs reflects his dramatic change of outlook on life after experiencing the near-death trauma (as imprisonment could well turn into a death sentence on a momentary whim of the emperor). The “Crow Terrace Case” was an incident in which Su Shi’s Crow Terrace Poem was deliberately taken out of context by his adversaries to make it sound like an offending accusation against the emperor. The whole incident made him feel not only wronged, but also helpless within the then prevalent officialdom where knavery and chicanery thrived. His cherished ideal of serving his country was wrecked by the incident.

Thus, the tone of the lyric poem is one of unfulfilled mission and ruefulness. In recalling Zhou Yu’s (a handsome and gallant general of the Three Kingdoms period) once heroic and romantic deeds, which had nevertheless evaporated into the time river of no return, the poet was trying to express his own helplessness and the heartbreak of unrequited love for his country and his emperor. By implication, the poet wanted to say that as admirable and noble as Zhou, he had only lived a short life of 36 years. So, what right did he have, being a much less accomplished person than Zhou, to complain about petty failures? The undertone is sad (about the vicissitudes of life) though redemptive (because of his unchanging love for his picturesque country).]

Du Mu's "Red Cliffs"

In one of Du Mu’s (杜牧) seven-character quatrains, a whole swathe of ancient Chinese history is condensed into just four rhyming lines. The poem is called “赤壁” (“Red Cliffs”) and the story told is very similar to that depicted by Su Shi’s (蘇軾) sentimental lyric poem “念奴嬌: 赤壁懷古” (“Nian Nu Jiao: Reminiscing Red Cliffs”). In my humble opinion, Du Mu’s sparse use of words (28 characters in total) in painting the romantic story of the Three Kingdoms period exemplifies the absolute magic of the Chinese language.

The Poem “赤壁” (“Red Cliffs”) by Du Mu (杜牧):

折戟沉沙鐵未消,

自將磨洗認前朝。

東風不與周郎便,

銅雀春深鎖二喬。

Please do not expect me to translate this poem per se, as it is just too hard, if not impossible. Instead I’ll try to narrate the piece of history that is told in the last two lines.

 The first two lines merely express the poet’s nostalgic feelings that were evoked on a visit of the historic site where the deciding river battle (called Battle of Red Cliffs) giving rise to the formal establishment of the Three Kingdoms (220 – 280) (Wei (魏), Shu (蜀), Wu (吳)) was fought. During the tour, he discovered a piece of broken antique weapon buried in the sand and decided to clean it up and verify its vintage. Satisfied that it belonged to the Three Kingdoms period, he let his mind wander back in time to dwell on that historic river battle and the romances of the iconic people involved.

“東風” (“East wind”) in the third line brings out the story of that deciding battle in which the learned sage and navy commander of Shu (蜀), named Zhuge Liang (諸葛亮), who was well versed in astronomy and reading the elements, relied on a brewing east wind to set off a big ring fire which ultimately engulfed and destroyed the enemy’s enclosing fleet of warships on the attack. The enemy’s navy was under the command of Cao Cao (曹操) of Wei (魏), an aggressive and cunning Machiavellian type of ruler who had kidnapped the Han emperor, had assumed ruling power over several provinces in the north and was attempting to defeat the remaining two ruling empires in alliance, Shu (蜀) (ruled by Liu Bei (劉備)) and Wu (吳) (ruled by Sun Quan (孫權)).

“周郎” (“Master Zhou”) in the same line refers to Zhou Yu (周瑜), the handsome, brainy and arrogant general of Wu (吳), whose ruler was Sun Quan (孫權), a highly intelligent and charismatic man.

The third line effectively says that had it not been for the help of the east wind that the sage, Zhuge Liang (諸葛亮), had accurately predicted would blow, Zhou Yu’s (周瑜) navy would have been in troubled water. There’s a hidden mockery here targeted at Zhou, as the egoistic general had always engaged in dead rivalry with Zhuge the Sage on war strategies.

In order to understand what the fourth line tells, it is necessary to dig into the love story of these two chivalrous gentlemen.

One day, Sun Quan (孫權) and his general Zhou Yu (周瑜) went on a hunting trip and happened to come upon two beautiful and well groomed sisters of the Ciao (喬) family. It was love at first sight and the two men were instantly bewitched by their charm and talent. Soon after, Sun married the elder sister while Zhou married the younger.

“二喬” (“The two Ciaos”) in the fourth line refers to the two Ciao sisters.

“銅雀” (“The brass bird”) in the same line is a symbolic term used to refer to Cao Cao (曹操). The term is the name of a high platform used for distant viewing, rituals and entertainment which Cao Cao ordered to be built as a symbol of imperial authority.

In its entirety, the fourth line says, following on from the third line, if Wu and Shu hadn’t been victorious in the Battle of Red Cliffs, the wives of Sun and Zhou would have been captured by Cao Cao and locked away in the deep corners of Cao’s palaces.

So, now you see why I said at the beginning that it’s impossible to translate this poem!