//Requirements Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead set out the outer limits of the defence of fair comment in the Hong Kong case of Tse Wai Chun Paul v Cheng [2001] EMLR 31 CFA (HK):Importantly, the fifth proposition pushed aside the word ‘fair’ in favour of a requirement for honesty. Nicholls LJ said: ‘A comment which falls within the objective limits of the defence of fair comment can lose its immunity only by proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Honesty of belief is the touchstone. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence. However, proof of such motivation may be evidence, sometimes compelling evidence, from which lack of genuine belief in the view expressed may be inferred.’
first, the comment must be on a matter of public interest;
second, the comment must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact;
third, the comment must be based on facts which are true or protected by privilege;
fourth, the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made. The reader or hearer should be in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded; and
fifth, the comment must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views.//
After watch this f-bomb ladened debate in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, Some people may have a point in thinking Lawrence “F-bomb dropping” Ma Yan-kwok (馬恩國) may have single-handedly raised Leung Kwok-hung’s (長毛 Long Hair) approval ratings! Have a watch of this LegCo video recording of the heated exchange and decide for yourself.
Feel free to check out my first documentary Long Hair Revolution (長毛革命) which I’ve finally got it fixed and viewable on YouTube some weeks ago. Enjoy. For more info about Long Hair Revolution (長毛革命), read it here.
諾貝爾經濟學獎得主高斯(Ronald Coase, 科斯)今年101歲，他與亞利桑那州立大學(Arizona State University)的Ning Wang合作出版一本花了四年時間研究和撰寫的新書（How China Became Capitalist）(我臨時中譯成為《中國微革 走上資本主義之路》)。我很高興有機會訪問Ning。這裡是我跟Ning的英文訪問。(see note 1 re book’s temp Chinese title)
I appreciate very much professor Wang spending over an hour sharing his insight with me about How China Became Capitalist and answering questions I have related to the Chinese economy. The following are edited clips of the video interview. By the way, feel free to share your comments and questions. When I finish reading the book, I plan to arrange another interview with Ning to talk more. And I may be able to incorporate some of the comments/questions into my next interview.
I have edited the interview into 3 clips with a list of questions/themes. Enjoy.
*** Main interview (see below for list of questions/themes)
Main interview (list of questions/themes)
Q1) Can you talk about the Shenzhen stock exchange in mid-90s where it had 300 offices for people to buy or sell stocks when the stock exchange actually had NO official permission to allow for these trades?!
Q2) China is now the world largest producer of Ph.Ds. Yet Qian Xuesen (錢學森), a most respected Chinese scientist asked a sobering question before his death in 2009 and the question is known as the “Qian Puzzle”.
“Why have Chinese universities not produced a single world-class original thinker or innovative scientist since 1949 ?”
Q3) Quoting the book,
“After more than three decades, the Chinese legal system is still far away from where it can “guarantee the equality of all people before the people’s laws and deny anyone the privilege of being above the law.””
This is a tough assessment which I agree with very much. Can you share your thoughts?
Q4) So far I’ve only read parts of the book but I feel more pessimistic of the possibility in seeing China makeing positive changes. I’m feeling more constrained by the history I now know. Can you share your thoughts?
Q5) I love this quote in the book,
“Capitalism with Chinese characteristics is very much like traffic in Chinese cities, chaotic and intimidatingfor many western tourists. Yet Chinese roads deliver more goods and transport more passengers than those in any other country.“
Q1) China’s “Rule by Law” as opposite to the western practice of “Rule of Law“, that one word (“by” vs “of”) makes the difference of night and day! Can you share your thoughts? (see note 2)
Q2) “Do you see institutional arrangement as something culturally oriented or is base upon universally applicable principles? i.e. if every country is of certain uniqueness or that there exists a ‘one size fits all’ economic system?” [Thanks goes to my economist friend Wallace for this question.]
Q3) What is your and prof. Coase’s main discovery or new understanding gained from the years of research compare to the original understanding in 2008 when you started the research?
Q4) Can you talk about research topics that you and prof. Coase like to see more of? Any interesting puzzles worth further research?
Q2) I understand the book title has a history and may be traced back to 1982! Can you talk about it?
Q3) Given Ning’s Ph.D. wasn’t in Economics, how did he get to write this economics book and meet professor Coase?
Notes:
1) The book “How China Became Capitalist” currently does NOT have an official Chinese title. I originally translated “How China Became Capitalist” in a straight forward manner as “中國怎樣變成資本主義國家”. And then I found someone else translated it as “中國如何走向資本主義” which seems ok too. But I just realized that a good name can only come after reading the whole book which I haven’t done yet. I thought of using “中國微革 走上資本主義之路” You see, Marginal Revolution is an important concept in the book but its straight forward translation “邊際革命” doesn’t quite work for me. I like “微革” for Marginal Revolution but I am also coining a new term here. So I am not happy but settling for “中國走上資本主義 邊際革命之路” for now. If “資本主義” is too sensitive to be used, I am ok with “中國邊際革命之路” or “中國微革之路”.
Posted by kempton 
博客訂閱服務
