Weblog of xuefei

This afternoon we had a meeting which is also about communication brainstorm and Munro challenge fundraising.

So at 3:00 pm, Poppy who is involving sustainable consumption program organizes the meeting and she asks everyone how sustainable consumption program should be and what kind of report it should be written.

At the same time, she brings a tin of biscuits and a big cake so that everyone can eat but at the same time a box for donation. So everyone can donate some coins into the box at the same time to taste the cake and biscuit.

During the meeting, everybody speaks up about what kind of consumption future should be. Definitely it should be different and better than now and it should be greener and healthier.

She asked about communication, information and the public. Sue says it should be TV-involved and Kay says celebrities should involve. Harriet says there should be a sense that people start to have sustainable consumption tendency, it's not just up suddenly.

I suggest she will provide more content about local food, product or tourist attractions and so on, so that the local sourced producted is really known and available to people.

And about supermarket, many people admit that a few years ago when the super market appears, people were against it, but now the four major super market in the UK completely occupy the whole market and leave the people no other choice now. Therefore, local, organic and fair trade products may provide more choices and better choices for people.

To promote sustainable consumption, defenitely the young people should be the target. And that will help to shape future consumption trend.

Five people have died of menigitus in East China's Anhui province.

It's reported that 11 cities in Anhui have found menigitus cases.

7 people have been isolated and 60 people have recovered. Doctors are giving treatment to those patients who felt like a cold or a fever, but in fact, if they were not treated within 24 hours, there is a danger to die.

Last summer, Anhui also found some cases of SARS.

So far no reports about the cause of the disease have been reported. A lot of people start to be vaccinated.

Here is some personal reflection. Today I went to church and a woman pastor whom I believe was from America by accent, gave a speech about new wineskin.

As the saying going, new wine should be held in new container, but not in the old one. That is to say, there should be change. She mentioned that when she joined the Singaporean church, it was fewer people and people were not in high spirit. That was not exciting. So when she came she stepped out in the front of the street and gradually made that church alive.

Similarly, she is calling for a change, a transformation and not just reform, but kind of revolution and even change the blood.

Thinking of this, I recall that in China we always change  our policies during our cultural revolution. And people were afraid of change back and forth.

So sometimes when we think of change, we feel it is not worth it. The present is not ideal, it needs some change. But the case is always that the change this time lasts very short time and it needs to change again. So some people got used to it and always likes to change, but some people like me tend to be conservative and even though not satisfied with present situation, but not strive for big change either.

So gradually, I became lazy and seldom think of making any further  progress.

If we think open-mindedly with a positive attitude, then things will change for the better.

Naomi said attitude decides destination. I fully agree. For millions of times we emphasize that people should have a good attitude towards work, love, life and performance.

A good attitude is the most important quality a person can have. With a good attitude, you can learn a lot of things and you can win a lot of experiences and achieve a lot positively with a good attitude.

A bad attitude can be harmful and disastrous.

And bad attitude is usually because you cannot humble yourself and always think of yourself as someone. In fact, you are just another person whom in this world there are many.

On the other hand, a good attitude can also mean that you are positive and can perform actively and enthusiastically and in the end achieve what you want.

So it's better to have a positive attitude and overcome all the obstacles, strive for your goal and you will end up success.

I used to think that you shouldn't strive for something with any price, you got to calculate your price and pay less to achieve more. That's sustainable idea I guess. But Naomi said you got to achieve your goal with all your strength, all you have and any price.

What do you think?

When we mention sustianable development, people often think of environment only.

In fact, it's not just about environment. It's a whole lot of new concept, It's a framework and it's applicable in our economic, political and daily life.

Sustainable development provides a framework for redirecting our economies to enable everyone to meet their basic needs and improve their quality of life while ensuring that the natural resources on which they depend are maintained and enhanced, both for their benefit and for that of future generations.

China's economic growth is real and sustainable judging from the past 20 years of experiences.

Professor and economist Justin Lin from Beijing University concluded during his one hour lecture in London School of Economics Thurday evening.

Professor Lin said even though many western economists predicted Chinese economy would collapse or recess for many times since late 1980s, Chinese economy safely survived every recession or slowdown and kept stable and high rate of growth. Name it like in early 1990s, bubbles in Hainan's real estate gave people great worries for the whole nation's economy, in 1997, Asian financial crisis, worries about China's famine in late 1990s and in 2001 global economic slowdown, Chinese economy has kept an average of 9.4 % over the past 26 years.

No doubt our chief architect Deng Xiaoping gave a great instruction for bolder steps forward because China  has long been restricted with spiritual and leftist thought and were afraid of bourgeois or capitalism or materialism.

During Jiang Zemin's leadership, China stepped up the pace of further development by greater government investment in infrastructure.

And there is never any doubt that China has the potential for further development because the overall economy is still characterised by imbalance of development while the eastern areas enjoy high growth and the western area sacrifice their resources. They also provided market for consumption and production.

Remember when Jiangsu start to popularize color TV, they still produce black and white for sales in inland areas.

It's this imbalance that provides great chances for development in the coastal eastern areas.

Professor Lin predicts that Chinese economy will keep its dynamic high speed of growth in the next two decades.

He argues that the deflation occured in China till 1999 and energy consumption decreased in 2002.

But since 2002, the real estate and car industry has become the pillar driving force for economic growth. And in 2004, all the large cities in China were affected by a shortage of electricity, petrol and water. People have a little more money, and they have to spend much more to buy water, electricity and petrol. 

These are the daily basics for people. Experts say our energy efficiency is very low. If we don't take measures to deal with these issues, will it really sustainable?

By the way, sustainable means we develop and provide better life for this generation without compromising for next generation. So we got to save something for our next generation, otherwise, when the growth is saturated, they will lose jobs, they will have mental problems.

Professor Lin insists that with high economic growth, China will solve the problem of pollution or other issues.

No one has any doubt about economic development for China, but the question is can we try to pay a lower price, by reducing costs and less pollution to achieve our goal? Otherwise, we got to pay back to the nature about what we have damaged.

Development is a process and during the process, there will be this or that problems. But we have to consider what's the best way to truely improve people's quality of life.

And there is great potential for thinking in a sustainable way instead of simply playing with the numbers.

We have to think that our land is just 9.6 million square kilometers and there are more and more deserts. Obviously shortage of water in north China will be a huge issue to deal with. If at the beginning of 21st century we talk about if we should have diversion of water from the Yangtze, just five years later, we have to say that we have to or we are forced to divert water from the yangtze because otherwise, we have no choice. Or another way maybe people from Beijing move to other places. Several rivers in Bejing have dried over the past few years.

If no effective measures are taken, the trend will be disastrous.

Then people got to ask, what can we do?

Well, the answer is to truely implement a sustianable development strategy which will help save energy and increase production, improve people's life quality and ensure the development and economic growth sustainable--or in other words last as long as possible.

Sustainable development is a way to keep capitalism for the right purpose.

Jonathon Porrit said sustainable development is not negative to development, it's positive and it is a way out of problems of capitalism.

In an interview with forum scholars, he said he couldn't see the sustainable development could achieve in his life. So possibly he will do this all his life.

But he sees sustainable development is the only choice for further development.

It's not just about environment it's about many aspects of society, politics and economics. In fact, it can help business to do better business. Help the government do good deeds and help civil society to do something good too.

Jonathon said a leader should have a great passion and great energy.

It's the war in Democratic Republic of Congo that dragged Zimbabwe down. It's that war that made Zimbabwe become so contraversial. Obviously the west didn't like it even though President Mugabe said he was helping DRC government to fight against invaders.

We know the results now in the DRC government that the rebels are still rebels and when the old rebels join the government, there are new rebels prefer to fight. It's the fighting that obstruct that used to be rich country from developing.

And it's war that makes the US notorious. Even though America has always made money out of war because they could force the other to sign unequal business deals. For example, they can destroy Iraq and then contracted big projects to rebuild that country.

Is that sustainable? No, it's called without difficulty, we should create some to overcome.

Also America has lost trust and admiration from people around the world. Nobody appreciates the bully's action.

And with war, there is no space to talk about human rights or development. War only makes people more barbarious.  War creates hatred for the future.

So the only way out now is that the American troops withdraw from Iraq immediately. Even though after their withdrawal, there will be no news in the world, I am fed up with that type of news everyday somebody died of bombing. Isn't it sad for this world?

14 January 2005

Anti-war activists are demanding an equality of pity between Iraqis and the victims of the Asian tsunami.

Terry Jones, filmmaker, actor and 'Python', says he was 'bewildered' by the world reaction to the tsunami. Not because he thinks it odd that many in the West should express sympathy and solidarity with the thousands devastated by the tidal wave in south Asia. No, 'it's the inconsistency that has me foxed', says Jones. He wants to know why 'nobody is making this sort of fuss about all the people killed in Iraq, [even though] that is a human catastrophe of comparable dimensions'. 'Are deaths caused by bombs and gunfire less worthy of our pity than deaths caused by a giant wave?' asked the 'truly baffled' Python in the UK Guardian (1).

This has been a common response from anti-war types: why don't people care as much about Iraqis as they seem to about tsunami victims? Veteran left-wing writer John Pilger wrote a piece entitled 'The other tsunami', about the hypocrisy of Western leaders showing sympathy for south Asians while continuing to occupy Iraq (2). In the Boston Globe, anti-war commentator Derrick Jackson complained that, unlike for the tsunami victims, 'no flags have been flown at half-staff for Iraqi civilians'. In response to US secretary of state Colin Powell, who said after visiting south Asia that 'I have never seen anything like this in my experience', Jackson wrote: 'Yes he has. It was in Iraq. The tsunami was us.' (3)

No doubt some in anti-war circles consider this a clever and radical critique, comparing the Bushies and their British supporters to a giant tidal wave that left sorrow and destruction in its wake - only, where it was 'weather of mass destruction' that wreaked havoc in south Asia, it was Bush and Blair's weapons of mass destruction that did so in Iraq (4). But in fact, this critique points to an opportunism on the part of the anti-war movement, and exposes a sense of powerlessness behind today's anti-war sentiment.

Some have bent over backwards to demonstrate that, in the words of Terry Jones, Iraq and the tsunami are 'catastrophes of comparable dimensions' - even if that has meant bandying about unclear stats. Jones claims that '...Iraqi deaths since the war began number more than 100,000. The tsunami death toll is in the region of 150,000' (5). This 100,000-dead-in-Iraq figure comes from the Lancet, which in October 2004 published research conducted by Johns Hopkins and Columbia Universities in the USA. Yet this research was an estimation, based on interviews about deaths before and after the war carried out in 33 clusters of households selected randomly across Iraq. Even the report's authors admit that the final figure for Iraqi dead could be anywhere between 8,000 and 195,000 (6).

Of course the war in Iraq has been a disaster for Iraqis, and the tsunami was a disaster for south Asians. But the two cannot be compared. One was a war in which thousands of people have been killed in fighting over a period of two years; the other was a freak of nature in which thousands were killed in the space of three hours. By trying to compare like with unlike, anti-war writers are partaking in a grisly competition, effectively pleading that the Iraq disaster is as big as that other disaster, so why don't we fret for and sob over and give cash to Iraqis too? Instead of trying to make a political issue of Iraq, which is what it ought to be, they point to its dead and destitute in an attempt to ride the post-tsunami wave of international handwringing and stoke up some disaster-style sorrow for the pitiless victims of the 'man-made quake' in Iraq.

This says a lot about how some in the anti-war camp view the war in Iraq - as something akin to a natural disaster, which we might not be able to stop but we can at least express moral outrage over. The Bush administration becomes the unstoppable juggernaut sweeping aside everything in its path, Iraqis the hapless saps unable to do anything about this 'other tsunami' ruining their lives, and the rest of us mere spectators whose role is to dig deep in our emotions and our pockets because Iraqis are also 'worthy of our pity' (7). As one writer put it, in an article headlined 'Tsunami hits Iraq', 'Massive political plates shifted.... Megatons of pressure, built up from decades of internal strife, sent gargantuan waves hurtling towards Iraq.... Entire cities have been levelled and tens of thousands left homeless....' (8)

Some view the war as an unnatural natural disaster This sense that the war was some terrible force that could not be stopped, an unnatural natural disaster, if you like, has been prevalent in anti-war circles for the past two years. On the anti-war marches of late 2002 and early 2003, before the war kicked off in March 2003, many declared that 'there isn't much we can do about the war, it's gonna happen' (9). As the Christian Science Monitor reported in October 2002, one big difference between the 'Vietnam generation' and the 'Iraq generation' is that today's protesters don't think they can alter the course of the war: instead, they see 'war with Iraq as probably "inevitable", and [believe] that no amount of marching or chanting or drum-beating will likely change that' (10).

Indeed, the rallying cry of the Iraq generation - 'Not In My Name' - perfectly captured this sense of incapacity. That slogan summed up how anti-war protests were not so much about politically challenging Bush and Blair, and maybe even trying to stop them in their tracks, but more about expressing an individual, moral revulsion to war. Resigned to the fact that the war would happen, protesters merely washed their hands of it, with mass protests becoming a way to declare your whiter-than-white credentials and to demonstrate to onlookers that you had cleared your own conscience. It is fitting that some of these activists should now talk about Iraq in tsunami terms, with their emotion shifting from one of revulsion to war to pity for its victims.

What does the tsunami-talk reveal about the anti-war view of Iraqis? In the Iraq-as-natural-disaster scenario, Iraqis are reduced to flotsam and jetsam, tossed about by 'wave upon wave [geddit?] of tanks, hellfire missiles, helicopter gunships and F16s' (11). They are not, it seems, people to whom we should offer political solidarity, but rather victims who require our sympathy; they are, as Jones writes, as 'worthy of our pity' as those in south Asia.

This is an anti-war view based, not on the belief that Iraqis ought to have self-determination, but rather that they should be felt sorry for - that they, like the tsunami victims, should have flags raised to half-mast in their memory, minutes of silences for their suffering, and presumably cash collections in supermarkets and streets to help ease their plight. Where anti-war activists in the past might have called for equality of sovereignty, for nations to be left to determine their own affairs, today's call for equality of sorrow, between Iraqis and Sri Lankans, Indonesians and Thais - and for more 'humanitarian interventions' for these kinds of people.

Having failed to win active public opposition to the war, some anti-war activists now cynically feed off the international response to the tsunami, hoping that they can tap into what one writer calls 'hidden solidarities' around the globe (12). In response to a natural disaster like the tsunami, sending emergency aid and feeling sympathy for the victims is pretty much the best we can do. You cannot, after all, win an argument or build a political campaign against a natural disaster. A war, however, is a different matter.

I'm glad right now our visitors number reached 2000. I know it doesn't mean that there are 2000 people are visiting right now, but I guess at least there are some people starting to care about it.

Thank you very much for your care and also like to hear your opinions. I try to enlarge this to more catergories, but it's difficult for me. So currently it's just a pile of stories piling up here. But it's brief and easy and I'm used to this. So even though I change to www.xuefeic.modblog.com for a few days, I changed back to this one when I knew it was still working.

I hope this will be a forum for everybody.

Agains thanks to you all.

Date: Thursday 27 January 2005
Time: 5:00pm
Venue: Shaw Library, sixth floor, Old Building
Speaker: Professor Justin Lin
Chair: Professor Paul Johnson

Professor Justin Lin is director of the Center for China Economic Research (CCER) at Peking University.

The CCER is the LSE partner delivering the China Summer School and a worldwide known centre of research excellence in China.

This event is free and open to all with no ticket required.  Entry is on a first come, first serve basis. 

For further information contact Gabi Lombardo: email g.lombardo@lse.ac.uk or phone 020 7107 5229.

If you are planning to attend this event and would like details on how to get here and what time to arrive, please refer to Coming to an event at LSE

Whilst we are hosting this listing, LSE Events does not take responsibility for the running and administration of this event. While we take responsible measures to ensure that accurate information is given here (for instance by checking that the room has been booked) this event is ultimately the responsibility of the organisation presenting the event.

I have to say something about my supervisor too.

I think she is a good leader too.

She doesn't know everything, but she knows what she wants to be. And she is practical. She is not talking big either.

She just ensures that we are making progress and making progress. And things move on.

She is good at mobilizing people to do things.

I feel I learnt a lot by working out the corporate responsibility action plan. Tomorrow will be a good day. I will try to interview Jonathon and then or before that complete the draft of the plan.

In the afternoon I will contact with another two organizations and send email to them. If there is any reply, I will arrange one or two meetings with Harriet.

One of my jobs in Sustainable Development Commission or SDC is to observe how the leadership was exercised.

On January 14th, Thursday we had a whole day meeting. The meeting was chaired by Jonathon Porrit.

I was impressed by his cheerful, humourous and sonorous voice.

He is everywhere and everywhere people are anticipating his coming.

He tries to attend every meeting and whenever he arrives, the atmosphere of the meeting room becomes warm immediately.

I don't know if it's my feeling or it's the truth. My impression is that he is a person people respect highly and people feel glad to work with him.

Perhaps there are more women under his leadership. But there are also quite a few men expressed that they like to work here long.

Jonathon is an actor, he can perform very well. He is a chair because he can adjust the time and keep an eye on it so that the meeting will deliver whatever purpose it should deliver.

He is good at keeping time. One of the colleagues said.

He let everybody speak and obsorb their opinions about the strategy. He knew where need more change or where needs less. He had a good idea what he is talking about.

So he is a big tree, under it people like to stay, or he is a lighthouse where people understand that is the correct direction.

He is a solid man. With a huge blue jacket, he looks huge from back. On of the journalist describes his hair as the worst hairstyles in the world. Yet people likes to hear what he says.

Radio 4 and Radio 2 and other media pour in calls to interview him. He is a great spokeman.

He is a good leader who can inspire people because his coloquial word is excellent and good.

I happened to get an email of Jonathan. Here I don't want to show any secret, but only to show what kind of leader he is.

Dealing with the Regulators
Thanks for your note about this. I want to do this one
myself, as and when the timing is right.
But as I mentioned to you in my last e-mail, I don't
believe we're actually ready to have the kind of
meeting that I would be looking for here. Until we've
actually done some base line research as to the
current remit of the regulators (as regard sustainable
development), and thought through what we would like
to see as regards the future remit of those
regulators, then we're actually on very shallow
ground. All I could say to all of them would be that
we "want you to do more about sustainable
development". To be honest, that's hardly worth
saying, and if we are going to press ahead with this
one (which I very much hope we will), then we're going
to have to commit some real time to get this case
right. Without that case, we're just not properly
placed to make the kind of difference we need to make.

Best wishes
JONATHON

Again I was impressed because he is not that kind of blabla empty talk-type of man, he is down to earth and really want to make a change.

He is not the type of person that I just want to get one project done and get some funding and finished. He wants to create an important impact on a positive direction. He is serious about what he is doing.

He is not simply a big mouth.

I will try to interview him. What kind of questions shall I ask him?

I will let you know tomorrow.

welcome to comment

www.sd-commission.org.uk 

Weblog of Xuefei ranks top at travel catergory of the weblog. But in fact, the weblog is promoting sustainable development strategies.

It aims to become a top web on sustainable development in China.

It believes that sustainable development strategy is a key direction and main method of getting people to the road of living a better and quality life.

Sustainable development doesn't mean high figures of economic growth. It means how much that figure really means for the people. Do they have more money but buying the same amount of goods? Or do they buy shoddy products with the prices for real products?

It means people will live a balanced life between work and life and enjoy a better natural environment.

It means there will be enough pure clean drinking water without spending too much money. It means the people can find ways to improve their life and they can really do something about it.

It means the people will have the right to decide how to improve their lives with informative information and sufficient technology and resources.

It doesn't mean the rich gets richer, the poor poorer. It means the gap will be smaller and smaller or even disappear.

China has put up forward the goal of narrowing the gap between the urban and rural areas even since Mao Zedong was alive. But the gap has been bigger, not smaller. And the rich and the poor in cities also have a big gap between them.

So the challenge is to find a proper lever to measure the life of people and narrow the gap.

In the past, China implemented extreme equality policy which was so-called communism and that proved to be wrong and people's enthusiasm was low. Majority of people live in poverty.

After 1978, after reform and opening up thanks to Deng Xiaoping, many people start to work for themselves and farmers enthusiasm turned to be high and they work harder and earned more.

After 27 years of reform and opening up, China has achieved unprecedented progress in improving people's lives. People's food and clothes problems have been solved.

But does it mean the end of our task? No, when the communist party of China set up the goal of building a well-off society in an all round way, it means that CPC is determined to improve people's life quality.

It's not just about food and clothes, it's about many other things such as culture, sports, tourism, entertainment and healthy mentality. If you work your guts out and under great stress  everyday and in the end forces your family breakup, that doesn't mean your life quality has improved.

As Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has said in his inauguration, if he lifts the poverty line in China a little higher to 800 Yuan which is 100 US dollars from the current 600 yuan or less than 80 US dollars a year, then Chinese people who live under poverty line will be more than doubled the present 30 million. In township and towns, new poverty appears as many people lost their jobs there and they don't have any land to plough either. It's those people who have become the minor or weak group in China.

Medicare and social security have both in a transitional period which make people have great worries about their future as China is entering a senier age society.

Once I read a netizen's words saying that he or she was crying to see that in the US the poverty line was 16000 US dollars while in China it was only 80 Dollars. True, that's gap. But again, we have to compare the real quality, but not the number or the figure itself.

As I experienced in Sweden where people have to spend 30 yuan only for a sanwich or a meal for 70 yuan in any shop or restaurant while in China you only spend 30 yuan you might order two good dishes. Of course their income is ten times of ours.

What can we do? We will work hard to achieve a relatively satisfactory life. As long as we are happy about where we are, that will be our success!!!

Sometimes I can't help thinking of life in the 1980s when we were full of hope and our life was much cheaper and poorer than now. But we were happier and we said Hello Xiaoping from the bottom of our heart.

Now we have even better life but we are not happy and we are angry sometimes. Why? Because there is lack of social justice and there is a distorted social mentality which is quite snobish and corrupted. People don't trust each other any more.

If you have no trust in your life, what a miserable life it will be? If people can't trust government, or it can't trust business, or it can't trust any individuals such as your neighbor, then what life it will be?

Can't we stop for a moment and think it over? What are we striving for? Can't we live better with proper efforts than have to be forced to work day and night without satisfaction?

Isn't it something wrong with our society? Isn't it that we are too much driven by the market force or profit-only culture?

Think it over, is this really what we want? Is this really what we strive for? Do we work to live or do we live for work?

I remember we asked this question in the 1980s because at that time our workload was not enough and many people work extra hours because they were so conscientious and also energetic I guess. We discussed a lot about in addition to 8 hours of workload.

I think at that time, I prefer to work more because I was young and I prefer the rule that if I work hard, I will get more.

I still think so. But the market force drives the gap between the management and workers into a big gap which hurt workers' well-being. In the long run, this is not sustainable.

And it's the government's duty or responsibility to improve the people's life.

It's the government duty to stimulate economic growth. But it's also the government's duty to put our resources on a better scale to weigh them, should we pay a high price for single figures or we pay a relatively cheap price to achieve a comprehensive development without damaging too much of our environment which are the source for further development?

Again, I like to repeat my view, the fundamental way to solve the problem is that the CPC and the government should really put people's interest into their agenda and change the leader's achievement indicaters into comprehensive ones including environment and social justice in stead of solely economic growth.

Think of the industrial pollution which caused the damage, if that price was deducted from the economic growth, I guess their progress will be substantially reduced.

Welcome to more comments. 

   曾经听到过某高校特聘的外教女教师当堂给学生下跪的“奇闻”、“趣闻”，原因是这位真正可敬的女外教“请求”我们的同胞们不要在考试中作弊！一时间曾经被广大同胞引为谈资，似乎某电视台也曾经访问过这位外籍女教师。有人说，是这位外教大惊小怪，有人说是她哗众取宠，甚至有人说她是故作姿态，有意出中国人的丑……但是更多的人在反思，在思考，在惭愧。
   对这些评论，不想说什么，不管人家到底是出于什么目的，有一点是可以肯定地，那就是我们国家目前高校乃至其他学校甚至各种其他考试中普遍存在的作弊问题，实在已经是让外国人，尤其是不同文化背景不同种族背景不同价值观的人不可思议到了一定程度了，事实上也到了足以让我们的学生我们的考生们无地自容的地步了。
   不是危言耸听。
   考试，是用来检测一个学生对于过去所接受知识的掌握程度和发挥能力的一种测试；也是用来选拔可以晋级的人、确认有愿望进一部深造的人的申请资格的一种检验；也是对应试者，掌握知识、技能合格与否，是否够资格参与某种工作和研究的一种评定。这种方法，这种制度在目前位置一直上溯到更久远以前来说，无疑是科学的、客观的、也是极具可操作性的实事求是的方法。虽然现在我们围绕考试的教育和选拔似乎已经步入歧途、甚至陷入了泥沼，但是，不管对制度的意见如何，在还没办法改变的现行制度下严格执行目前标准，这是一个学生、一个人最基本的应该也必须要做到的，这毫不客气毫不过分地说，关乎到了一个人的诚实、操守、甚至人格、尊严的高度。
   作弊，无疑是一种欺骗行为，不单单是对出题者、监考者的欺骗，更多的其实是对自己的欺骗，十足的自欺欺人。同时也是对出题者、监考者的不尊重，更是对自己人生的不尊正，是对您所学所考知识的极度不尊重甚至是侮辱！也是对我们个人自身乃至整个社会、民族的极端不负责任。
   不是上纲上线。
   可是，看看我们现在的社会现实，套用一句忘记了是什么产品的广告词：作弊无处不在。各种资格考试、等级考试、成考、自考有人作弊，这都是公开的秘密；中小学生作弊，这似乎变成了无伤大雅、可以睁眼闭眼的“小事”；甚至连最需要严肃对待、关乎一个人一生前途的高考，有人作弊也都不是什么新鲜事。
   作弊的手法、手段也是花样翻新，从咱们小时候最基本、最初级的打小抄、看邻居一直到找枪手、代考、替考，再到现在的各种“专业”的“高科技”的手段：过去的BP机、现在的手机短信，甚至现在还有一种考试作弊专营的手机耳塞式耳机，话质清晰，隐蔽性好，价格便宜，专人解答，实时传送，准确率高，使用安全、环保，实在是各种考试，作弊抄袭，保障及格，确保成绩的必备佳品。
   而且似乎，这种全民作弊不单单刺激了消费、刺激了电子科研，甚至催生了一些全新的“服务行业”：比如什么职业枪手、专业代考一类的小广告，甚至还有颇具规模、实力雄厚的专业枪手公司；并且带动了一系列的相关副产业 ：什么代办身份证、代办各种证件甚至专业刻章一类的产业也是蓬勃发展。到最后，还带动了一些小型的印刷企业：什么各种准考证、身份证、学生证一直到最后的毕业证……等等等等。不仅搞活了一批中小型的企业，也富裕了一批个人，贯彻落实了“让一部分人先富起来”的方针政策，并且解决了相当一部分人的就业机会，减轻了社会的相当的负担。也替想要勤工俭学的贫苦学生们提供了一个简单易行的工作机会和方案。
   如此产业化、专业化、规模化、组织化、一条龙化的作弊产业，在我们的身边茁壮成长、日趋完善和分工日趋明晰，其中蕴涵的简直是商机无限啊。难怪今天央视二套的《经济半小时》要花那么大的篇幅介绍这种“新兴产业”了。
   这样的现状，这样的现实，我们到底该如何分说？该如何解决？甚至我们该如何面对啊？人家我们一向的对立面、“亡我之心不死资产阶级的洋知识分子”都看不下去了，要给我们的学生下跪恳求我们不要作弊，我们自己呢？却在大力发展这欣欣向荣的一条龙作弊产业，赚着这种置祖国未来、民族存亡于不顾的昧心钱！
   这是什么？能够单单埋怨制度、把所有责任都推给“考试”本身吗？外国人，某些精英们崇拜到极点的民主典范、教育天堂的国家里，一样有考试制度，并且人家的考试成绩同样不比我们的考试成绩来的不重要。可是居然人家都看不管我们的“全民作弊”了，我们自己却还是乐在其中。一说起来就理直气壮振振有词地什么：应试教育怎么怎么样，考试制度怎么怎么样，教育制度怎么怎么样……为什么不从自己身上找找原因呢？为什么不肯面对自己担负起自己应该担负的责任呢？制度固然有它的缺陷，但是我们自己呢？
   《经济半小时》采访公安大学的专家教授，教授无奈地说：呼吁人大立法吧，只有就作弊行为立法，让社会和执法机关有法可依才能够更好地处理作弊、打击作弊从而尽量杜绝作弊。
   这不只是教授面对采访时的无奈，更是我们社会和我们民族的无奈乃至悲哀，更加是我们每个参加过考试和将要参加考试的人的悲哀。
   同样，也是我们国家道德、素质教育的绝对悲哀。
                                                               空桑黯

If the government wants to do it, it can.

Alan from Forum for Future says.

He is commenting on the work we do that to encourage people to achieve carbon-neutral and avoid taking airplanes in stead of trains or coaches.

He says some local government is so powerful that if they want to buy any piece of land, they can buy it by changing the law.

And if the government wants to achieve sustainable development why can't they change the law saying people shouldn't have more than one cars or more than one houses? The question is the government doesn't want to change it.

He believes the law willwork better than individual behaviour.

But I think if we want others do something, we can do it ourselves and then influence people to change.

Current situation is that the business sector or market force is too strong to make any healthy change. And we are trying to change before it becomes catastrophic. That obviously makes a few people not convinced. But I am confident that the right trend will take the lead in the future.

After reading Economist's articles about CSR---The Good Company, I feel the writer is defending the business and saying not clearly but somewhat like CSR is unnecessary for business.

I'm not sure what it is really talking about, it sounds like that even though many people talk about CSR, it is not necessarily good for society or public interest.

But my understanding of CSR is in fact just a redivision of wealth in society. As my classmate used to say or as Karl Mark used to say that imperialists just occupy lands and property when they were strong. And that was between developed countries and developing countries.

In the western world, religious force used to be very strong, and then the government was strong. Now the government sometimes especially the British government feels powerless considering what the business is doing to this country or to society.

Maybe the government is too pessimistic or exaggerated the diminishing of their power, but in deed, people admit that government power is much weaker than business now.

So the whole society is more or less controlled by business. And that's why now the government has great sympathy with non-governmental organizations and either fund them or cooperate with them to find a better way to rule the society.

Some religious groups now also seek cooperation among themselves to revigorate their power. Why?

Because the social power is not evenly divided between the government, business and civil society. Thus many side-effects of the business appear in people's lives, too much stress, too much pressure for finance, too much pressure from society and no time for family and so on.

So now the government and non-governmental organizations now persuade or help the business to find a way to better themselves as well as the society. The whole purpose is to be good to environment and to its workers. Why? Because if not, sooner or later, another revolution will start, or a breakdown in natural resources will cause business greater price or even cause the collapse of the earth.

If the power can be balanced, people might live a better and balanced life. Otherwise, the social programs are increasing.

So if the business realizes this and do the right things, it will continue to make profit, but maybe as great as before, but it will last longer. Otherwise, when people get too much pressure, there would be more problems for them and more price will be paid. Surely large successful companies are usually doing good in their corporate responsibilities as they can attract better people and allocate better benefit to them too.

Of course the CSR purpose is not just for business, it's for all the government, non-government and business, thus it's for the common good of the society.

By the way, Forest Gate is the place where I live. It is in east London and a relatively cheap area.

The area is populated by a lot of ethnic groups, Asians, Africans and Carribeans. The shops are mostly opened by Indians. There are two or three Chinese take-away restaurants.

There is a clinic here and a train station. There are many churches here, methodist, emmanuel, muslim mosque and so on.

Emmanuel is just across the street from my flat. So I visited twice.

I care too much about the environment here because I find that everyday the garbage are blowing everywhere. Especially on Thursday when the garbage bags are out for collecting, the whole street is like a garbage site.

I think it has something to do with the city council's less frequent collection, but largely it has great to do with people's behaviour because some garbage bags are not well-shut. And some people are just free to litter wherever they are.

Thus I call on people to take care of our area because in the end, it is ourselves living here in this area and if we don't care about our own place, no one else will care. If we can't clean our our house, nobody will clean it.

If we stop littering, I guess the garbage will reduce and if we put the garbage bag properly, I guess the blowing will reduce to minimum.

Let's do it and improve our environment.

For the first time I see Christians and Muslims sit together and talk.

On Sunday, a group of ten Christians from Sweden visited a Mosque in Forest Gate east London.

Together with them are the host of Emmanuel Church vicar Patrick and a dozen of others from the local area.

Led by Bishop Bengt from a parish belonging to church of Sweden, the team came to investigate how the local Christian church and muslim mosque deal with their relations.

Bengt said there are some problems between different muslims groups and christian groups in his area and he found it difficult to communicate with different muslim groups.

He has exchanged ideas about issues such as young people are not as active as their parents in coming to the church and mutual converted of beliefs.

The Mosque Imam expressed welcome to the Swedish guests and also local Christian churches to visit them.

They promised to visit each other again.

Bishop Bengt asked the Imam about Tsunami disaster again and the later answered that was the warning from God that man got to behave, otherwise, they will be punished.