Dot of the World

I am just a dot of this world, nothing more than a dot. However, in the eyes of God, I am a precious dot. 'Dream, Observe and Think' made up the DOT Philosophy.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Xin Nian Kuai le

Xin Nian Kuai le (Happy Lunar New Year)!!

I have already come back to Hong Kong for good. I miss my London life a lot. My previous homes, the places I have been to, and all the friends I met in London in the past few years, are always in my mind.

My special tributes have to be sent to you. Thank you for giving me a lot of unforgettable experience. I do remember the time we chat with each other, and the moment we had, wherever in GC, in CSSD, in LICC, in CIAC, in Playback, in restaurants, in pubs, in churches, in the community centres, or any other places.

My dear friends, how are you?

29 January 2006 is the first day of the year of the dog. For Chinese people, we usually visit our relatives at their homes with presents and red pockets. We have New Year food like turnip pudding, taro pudding, sticky sweet year-pudding, and fried dumpling stuffed with sugar and peanut. We would say some greeting words like “Gong Xi Fa Chai” “Long Ma Jing Shen” “Wan Shi Ru Yi” to greet each other. People love dressing in red or other bright colours, which represents good luck and joy.

I have not celebrated the Chinese New Year for three years since I went to London. It was a wonderful time to see my relatives again. We updated our own recent news and showed our love and care to each other. My aunts and cousins were glad to see me, as we have not had such a sharing for a long time.

The tradition I found outdated and boring, is now turning to be a precious moment that I treasure a lot. I realise that the familial bonding is very important to the Chinese people, most modestly, is meaningful to me.

I have just written a New Year poem (hehehehe), which I would love to share with you:

Visits were made in the past few days,
many greeting words I had to say.
“Gong Xi Fa Chai” I said the most,
for greeting each other to earn at most.

Grandparents, uncles, and aunts
with many cousins running around,
gathered merrily in a small place
to eat, to drink and to play.

My aunt handed me a cup of tea,
for greeting me “Wan Shi Ru Yi”.
She gave me a pair of red pockets,
and wished me to earn a full basket.

Amongst all the relatives I found
the smallest infant who was playing around
She giggled and showed me her purple coat
Asked me whether it was beautiful

Her lovely face always makes me drown
Nothing I can say but only kiss sounds
When she shouted “aunt, aunt”,
Such satisfaction I have never found.

In the Chinese New Year we should stay
with the family members in home places
To love, to share, and to greet
each other for the prosperous days.



Thursday, December 22, 2005

Make Poverty History vs WTO

MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY and the Trade Justice Movement statement on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong (18 December 2005)

NO END TO POVERTY AS RICH COUNTRIES REFUSE TO DELIVER TRADE JUSTICE

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong (13-18 December) could have been a turning point in making poverty history. Rich countries had the capability to correct some of the gross imbalances in world trade at a strategically important moment in the so-called Doha ‘development round’ of trade talks. But the potential for justice for the world’s poorest people was squandered.

The WTO meeting failed to deliver the trade justice deal needed in 2005 to make poverty history. The intransigence of rich countries means the agreement reached is far from just for the poor of the world.

The positions taken by the major developed countries in Hong Kong favoured the rich over the interests of the world’s poor.

Outrageously, the developed countries, particularly the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), tried to use the WTO meeting to aggressively push forward their agenda to open the markets in developing countries for the interests of their corporations. This shameful abuse of power showed no respect for poor countries’ right to decide their own trade policies to help lift millions of people out of poverty and stop environmental damage.

Rich countries did not end the dumping of their agricultural products in developing countries. The EU and US have retained domestic agricultural subsidies that damage poor and vulnerable farmers in developing countries. Given this, the agreed date for ending export subsidies of 2013 amounts to a symbolic gesture. Until the dumping of all subsidised crops and products on to poor countries’ markets is ended, small-scale farmers face worsening poverty.

In one area trade justice campaigners have been calling for, special measures to protect vulnerable farmers in poor countries from liberalisation, there was some useful progress.

Despite standing together, the demands and concerns of developing countries have been repeatedly sidelined. In Hong Kong, strong-arm tactics and pressures were used to obtain agreement to the market-opening proposals of the developed countries.

The conduct of the EU negotiators was in such direct contrast to their stated commitment to development, that the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (of which MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY is the UK arm) demanded Europe’s trade commissioner Peter Mandelson remove the white band he wore in Hong Kong.

EU decision-makers have been quick to echo the words of trade justice campaigners when responding to the demands of the general public in 2005 but they have not changed their policies and practices.

The eyes of the growing global movement for trade justice will remain focused on the decision-makers who were in Hong Kong. Trade justice is crucial to make poverty history. Campaigners, encouraged by the solidarity shown across developing countries, will continue to stand alongside people across the globe in calling for an end to unfair trade.

As the WTO reconvenes at its headquarters in Geneva, we will continue to press the UK Government to act on all issues we are calling for - not just agriculture – in order to deliver trade justice as negotiations continue. It is equally vital that the UK Government take the necessary action within the EU to deliver a fair deal in these talks. We are not satisfied with empty rhetoric and political posturing. We need to see that they have a concrete understanding of the issues and the actions they must take to deliver trade justice.

The end of the Hong Kong WTO meeting marks the start of a renewed call from millions of people around the world as part of a bigger and stronger global campaign for trade justice.

The responsibility for the WTO failing to deliver trade justice in Hong Kong rests with rich countries. In Hong Kong, rich country governments did not show willingness to deliver trade justice. They have to take responsibility for the fact that the WTO, once again, failed to make the necessary changes to the unequal world trading system.

In 2005 G8 and other rich country leaders made several statements of principle against forced liberalisation and economic policy conditions attached to aid and debt relief. For developing countries to be able to protect and cultivate their economies, these words needed to be turned into action in Hong Kong. The need for such action is even more urgent as negotiations on the rest of the WTO round continue.

The continuation of injustices in trade will perpetuate poverty for generations. The progress in 2005 through increased aid and cancellation of some debt will not make poverty history without trade justice being delivered and no longer delayed.

For further verdicts and reports on the WTO from Trade Justice Movement member organisations see www.tjm.org.uk.

The demands of the campaign

For the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Hong Kong (13-18 December 2005), MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY and the Trade Justice Movement called on the UK Government and its partners in the European Union (EU) to:

• Stop pushing poor countries to open their economies through world trade talks and respect poor countries' right to decide on trade policies to help end poverty and protect their environment

In particular, the UK Government was called upon to use its influence within the EU to:

• Allow developing countries to shape trade policies that protect vulnerable farm sectors and promote national industries
• Allow countries to choose the best policies for poor people and the environment in services such as water, health and education

Throughout 2005, MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY and the Trade Justice Movement demanded an end to the export and other subsidies that result in dumping, damaging the livelihoods of poor rural communities around the world.


Outcomes at the WTO Hong Kong meeting on the demands of the campaign

The right for developing countries to choose the best policies for poor people and the environment in services such as water, health and education

The services negotiations were one of the most contentious of the WTO meeting. Developing countries came under immense pressure to open up their markets to the developed countries’ multinational companies.

Despite their repeated rejection by developing countries, proposals put forward by developed countries continued to reappear in the declaration undemocratically. This result will threaten essential services throughout the world as poor countries will be pushed into negotiations that could see essential services such as water, health and education opened up to foreign competition. The outcome could also now impact drastically on the freedom of governments to choose pro-poor public policies.

The right to protect vulnerable farmers and promote national industries

The WTO meeting introduced the most extreme method of cutting the tariffs that stop industrial goods flooding into poor countries and destroying the sustainable development of their local businesses. This unfair competition from the established multinationals of rich countries raises the threat of massive job losses and lost revenue to poor country governments. What emerged in Hong Kong was the spectre of de-industrialisation rather than development.

There was some progress at the WTO in deciding the ways that farmers in poor countries might gain special protection. However, while useful, much remains unresolved and the threat to rural livelihoods in poor countries remains from liberalisation and products being dumped into their markets.

Ending the export and other subsidies that result in dumping

The EU and the US have retained the right to keep their domestic agricultural subsidies that damage poor and vulnerable farmers in developing countries. This means the dumping of agricultural products will still go on. In this light, a 2013 end date for the export subsidies is too late to be much more than a symbolic gesture. Until all dumping of subsidised crops and products on to poor countries’ markets is ended, poor farmers will be pushed further into poverty.

The strength of the campaign for trade justice

Campaigners in the UK and global civil society demanded throughout 2005 that rich countries fundamentally change their approach to trade talks for trade justice to be delivered and a genuine pro-poor trade deal to be reached.

2005 has been a unique year in the global fight for poverty eradication. Trade justice has the potential to play the leading role in making poverty history. Changes in international trade policy could dramatically improve the lives of millions of the world’s poorest women, men and children.

Over 35 million people worldwide took action this year to demand changes in international trade through the groups and alliances worldwide that are working together in the Global Call to Action Against Poverty alliance that includes MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY.

Campaigners across the world called for trade justice – for trade rules and policies that ensure the right of developing countries to pursue their own development agendas, putting their people’s interests first.

Ahead of the December 2005 WTO meeting Nelson Mandela said: “In Hong Kong there is a chance to make decisions that will lift billions of people out of poverty. Trade can be part of the solution to poverty but at the moment it’s part of the problem. Hong Kong is a chance that must not be missed. The whole world will be watching.”

The world was watching. But rich countries did not make the decisions that would start to lift millions of people out of poverty. Instead they chose unjust trade policies.

The global campaign for trade justice continues into 2006, galvanized by both the need to win against such resistant opposition and the strength of the campaign so many more millions joined in 2005. Political leaders will see increased pressure on them to not act undemocratically against the interests of the world’s poorest people but to finally deliver trade justice. We will not give up until this victory is won.

UK Government

In 2005 the UK Government changed the language it uses on trade justice. This included positive public statements on reducing European agricultural subsidies, a changed policy position on conditionality (the strings attached to financing) and new important statements on stopping forced liberalisation. The Trade Justice Movement and MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY urgently called for these statements, particularly that of no forced liberalisation, to be put into action at the WTO ahead of and at the Hong Kong meeting.

In April Prime Minister Tony Blair signed the Africa Commission report which states: 'Forcing poor countries to liberalise through trade agreements is the wrong approach to achieving growth and poverty reduction in Africa, and elsewhere.' Labour's 2005 election manifesto stated: "We do not believe that poor countries should be forced to liberalise." However, these words have been frequently contradicted by the actions of the UK Government and the EU in trade negotiations at the WTO.

In services negotiations, the UK Government verbally committed itself to opposing mandatory approaches. Yet the EU continued to demand mandatory targets for the liberalisation of trade in services at the WTO in direct opposition to the explicit call of developing countries that this was unacceptable. This was just one example, amongst many, of how the promise of a ‘development round’ turned into a betrayal by rich countries of the needs of poor countries.

Did the UK Government do anything to stop the forced liberalisation agenda of the EU on industrial goods and services in Hong Kong? There is certainly no evidence that it did. The UK did support the right of developing countries to protect key farm products. This was a direct result of pressure from MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY and the Trade Justice Movement.

The Government’s promise to the UK electorate on no forced liberalisation was undermined by the EU’s favouring of corporate interests at the expense of both the millions of people living in poverty around the world and of the environment.

The UK Government’s commitment to making poverty history through trade justice and no forced liberalisation will be tested immediately in 2006 as trade talks move back to the WTO headquarters in Geneva.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Life In The 1500's

AN EMAIL SENT BY A FRIEND, VERY INTERESTING:

The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how Things used to be.

Here are some facts about the 1500s:

These are interesting...

Most people got married in June because they took their Yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they Were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the Body odour.

Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.

Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all The other sons and men, then the women and finally the children Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it.

Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath.It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof.

When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."

There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.

The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt.

Hence the saying "dirt poor."

The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing.

As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway.

Hence the saying a "thresh hold."

(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)

In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while.

Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."

Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon."

They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."

Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death.This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.

Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the
loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."

Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a "wake."

England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a "bone-house" and re-use the grave.

When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive.So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it
through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the "graveyard shift") to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be "saved by the bell" or was considered a "dead ringer."

And that's the truth... Now, whoever said that History was boring?!!

Educate someone...Share these facts with a friend