One way of explaining the UK Government’s policy on ‘troubled families’ is to ask people to think about the trouble extremely wealthy families must have – how to keep up their stratospheric status, manage their tax returns, stop relatives fighting over their inheritance. Conveniently, the Sunday Times Rich List identifies the 1,000 families most troubled by these problems.
Next think about the troubles caused by families responsible for crime and anti-social behaviour such as fiddling taxes on a massive scale, speculating with other people’s savings, or running businesses that harm the economy and the environment. These families protect their own and persist in their wrongdoing regardless of the consequences for the rest of society. Most of these families are likely to be rich, and since we do not have any reliable data on who they are exactly, we could just use the top 1,000 families on the Sunday Times Rich List as a proxy and target ‘interventions’ at them. The Government would dismiss such an approach as wrong-headed, mixing up the use of the term ‘troubled’. Yet this is what the Government has done with poor families.
They have used data relating to 120,000 families which were troubled by five or more of these conditions:
a) no parent in work
b) poor quality housing,
c) no parent with qualifications,
d) mother with mental health problems
e) one parent with longstanding disability/illness
f) family has low income,
g) family cannot afford some food/clothing items
There is nothing here about criminality. We don’t know if 50%, 25%, or 5% of these families have been more or less involved in any form of undesirable activities compared with the average population (whereas we at least know, for example, that 25% of those on the Sunday Times Rich List donate to the Conservative Party).
Yet the Government insists that they are concerned with these 120,000 ‘troubled families’ because, in the absence of any evidence apart from interviews with 16 selected families, it claims that their “children are not at school and family members are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour.” And they will target them to make them more responsible.
Instead of targeting criminals, this approach fires blame indiscriminately at poor people. But should poor people complain if the Government is prepared to spend nearly £450 million to help those classified as ‘troubled families’? Apart from wondering what ‘help’ is forthcoming on the basis of being branded criminals, poor people’s abilities to hold their families together are severely undermined by the Government’s decision to place the greatest burden of public service cuts on the poorest in society. The tax credit changes alone would deprive working couples with children (earning less than £17,000 a year) £848 million a year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/05/tax-credit-changes-bleak-friday-poor-families. Overall, the poorest 10% in the UK will by 2012-1013 lose 30% of their household income as a result of the Government’s policies (that is 15 times more than the richest 10% who would lose just 2%: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/how-cuts-will-make-britain-more-unfair). In that sense, they really are in trouble.
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Your Power, Your Government
Power is not evenly distributed in society. And history provides a constant reminder that those who manage to get away with amassing ever more power over others will have growing opportunities to take unfair advantage over the rest. Power struggles between individuals only perpetuate the structure of dominance.
The only way to break out of the cycle of arbitrary control by the powerful is where society invests its collective power into a government over which it exercises democratic control. Through their government, citizens can then ensure no individuals or groups can be so powerful as to harm others without being held to account by a public authority to which they must submit.
Unfortunately in practice, not all those who bid for political power will necessarily serve the common good. Some have an impressive command of rhetoric, matched only by their lack of competence in tackling real problems. Others are adept at deceiving the public when their goal is to exploit the reins of government to help themselves and their friends. But sweepingly curtailing the power of government would hamper those who have an effective plan to secure a just order for all, and unwittingly help private oppressors who can only be deterred by a robust state.
To live in freedom, we have to shoulder the responsibility for distinguishing between contenders for political office – between those who will maintain a balance of power that will enable all to interact without fear or inferiority; and those who will accentuate power differences by handing even more power and resources to the already strong to lord over their fellow citizens.
We need to expose self-defeating cynicism that dismisses all government activities, and increase public understanding of political words and deeds. If you would like to help ‘Question the Powerful’ by writing about political leaders and the impact of their actions, get in touch and we will send you a simple set of specifications for your contributions. Whatever country you live in, your government exists to exercise collective power on your behalf. The more is known if that power is actually used for the common good, the less likely would it be misused for private gains.
[If you want to get involved, email Henry Tam: hbt21@cam.ac.uk]
The only way to break out of the cycle of arbitrary control by the powerful is where society invests its collective power into a government over which it exercises democratic control. Through their government, citizens can then ensure no individuals or groups can be so powerful as to harm others without being held to account by a public authority to which they must submit.
Unfortunately in practice, not all those who bid for political power will necessarily serve the common good. Some have an impressive command of rhetoric, matched only by their lack of competence in tackling real problems. Others are adept at deceiving the public when their goal is to exploit the reins of government to help themselves and their friends. But sweepingly curtailing the power of government would hamper those who have an effective plan to secure a just order for all, and unwittingly help private oppressors who can only be deterred by a robust state.
To live in freedom, we have to shoulder the responsibility for distinguishing between contenders for political office – between those who will maintain a balance of power that will enable all to interact without fear or inferiority; and those who will accentuate power differences by handing even more power and resources to the already strong to lord over their fellow citizens.
We need to expose self-defeating cynicism that dismisses all government activities, and increase public understanding of political words and deeds. If you would like to help ‘Question the Powerful’ by writing about political leaders and the impact of their actions, get in touch and we will send you a simple set of specifications for your contributions. Whatever country you live in, your government exists to exercise collective power on your behalf. The more is known if that power is actually used for the common good, the less likely would it be misused for private gains.
[If you want to get involved, email Henry Tam: hbt21@cam.ac.uk]
Saturday, 28 July 2012
Can the NHS Stay in the Race?
In the wake of the heartfelt celebration of the NHS at the Olympics opening ceremony in Britain, it is vital to remind everyone that the goal posts for the survival of our public health service have been moved to favour private competitors.
The UK Conservative-led coalition Government has been telling voters that although they had previously promised they would not subject the NHS to another costly top-down reorganisation, they had changed their mind because they had come to believe that the NHS was too inefficient in saving lives and it would only improve if the private sector was given a much bigger role in delivering health services as it does in the US.
However, voters may have serious doubts about the government pressing ahead with reforms estimated to cost between £1.3 billion and £2.5 billion (Dept of Health and Treasury’s estimates respectively) when they learn two key facts.
First, Professor Colin Pritchard, whose research has been praised by the government, has undertaken a study (with his colleague, Mark Wallace), ‘Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries’ efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality’ (published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports). Out of the 19 countries examined, the UK with its NHS system came 2nd in terms of cost effectiveness in saving lives. The US with its heavy reliance on the private sector came 17th. The UK has in fact a much more efficient health service when it is far less dependent on the private sector like the US.
Secondly, the Government’s insistence that injecting a much greater dose of profit-motive into the NHS would have positive rather than negative effects becomes less convincing when the widespread suspicion that profit-seeking would undermine healthcare is being confirmed. In its report, ‘Private hospital told doctors to delay NHS work to boost profits’, The Independent newspaper [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/private-hospital-told-doctors-to-delay-nhs-work-to-boost-profits-7962582.html 22 July 2012] revealed the practice by a private hospital of deliberately delaying operations it has been contracted to carry out for the NHS in order to nudge patients towards signing up for private healthcare which would give the hospital a bigger profit.
As the Government pushes ahead with steering NHS hospitals to do much more private work, the profit-motive would spread faster and wider, and hospital administrators would increasingly weigh money-making opportunities more and more against caring for patients who do not pay. The only prospect of halting this is for the Government to have a change of heart, or for the UK to have a change of government.
[For a report on the unlikelihood that the substantial reforms costs would lead to any long term savings, see: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23e48198-e845-11e0-9fc7-00144feab49a.html#axzz21NdPGcFo; for a PDF version for Pritchard and Wallace’s study: http://shortreports.rsmjournals.com/content/2/7/60.full.pdf+html]
The UK Conservative-led coalition Government has been telling voters that although they had previously promised they would not subject the NHS to another costly top-down reorganisation, they had changed their mind because they had come to believe that the NHS was too inefficient in saving lives and it would only improve if the private sector was given a much bigger role in delivering health services as it does in the US.
However, voters may have serious doubts about the government pressing ahead with reforms estimated to cost between £1.3 billion and £2.5 billion (Dept of Health and Treasury’s estimates respectively) when they learn two key facts.
First, Professor Colin Pritchard, whose research has been praised by the government, has undertaken a study (with his colleague, Mark Wallace), ‘Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries’ efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality’ (published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports). Out of the 19 countries examined, the UK with its NHS system came 2nd in terms of cost effectiveness in saving lives. The US with its heavy reliance on the private sector came 17th. The UK has in fact a much more efficient health service when it is far less dependent on the private sector like the US.
Secondly, the Government’s insistence that injecting a much greater dose of profit-motive into the NHS would have positive rather than negative effects becomes less convincing when the widespread suspicion that profit-seeking would undermine healthcare is being confirmed. In its report, ‘Private hospital told doctors to delay NHS work to boost profits’, The Independent newspaper [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/private-hospital-told-doctors-to-delay-nhs-work-to-boost-profits-7962582.html 22 July 2012] revealed the practice by a private hospital of deliberately delaying operations it has been contracted to carry out for the NHS in order to nudge patients towards signing up for private healthcare which would give the hospital a bigger profit.
As the Government pushes ahead with steering NHS hospitals to do much more private work, the profit-motive would spread faster and wider, and hospital administrators would increasingly weigh money-making opportunities more and more against caring for patients who do not pay. The only prospect of halting this is for the Government to have a change of heart, or for the UK to have a change of government.
[For a report on the unlikelihood that the substantial reforms costs would lead to any long term savings, see: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23e48198-e845-11e0-9fc7-00144feab49a.html#axzz21NdPGcFo; for a PDF version for Pritchard and Wallace’s study: http://shortreports.rsmjournals.com/content/2/7/60.full.pdf+html]
Sunday, 15 July 2012
Pyramid Hockey
Welcome to pyramid hockey. The rules are simple. One team permanently occupies the top of the pyramid and hits as many balls as they please down the sides. The other team based at the bottom half has to try to stop the balls hurtling down with nothing but a teaspoon. If just one ball reaches the ground, then all those below lose and have to do the bidding of the winners. If anyone on the lower reaches should exhibit the rare but otherwise useless skill of catching a ball with a teaspoon, carrying it up the slippery slope, and throwing it through a 2 square inch goal, then that individual, not their team, would be rewarded with being moved to the top.
You may wonder who apart from those granted a top position would agree to play such a game. Wouldn’t people refuse to accept these patently lopsided arrangements? The odds are stacked against them, and however hard they try, the great majority of them would remain humiliated losers.
But the organisers of pyramid hockey have a few tricks up their sleeve. They tell the losers that the whole pyramid would collapse and crush them if they do not abide by the rules of the game. They impress on those low down that they should always defer to the winners who deserve all their advantages. And they encourage the lowly occupiers to play a mini-version of the game where they can easily defeat the even more marginalised groups stranded at the very bottom, who would then be at their mercy.
If the delusion takes hold, the majority of people will come to accept it as the only game in town. Many of them will form a deep attachment to it as ‘their’ tradition. They find it odd, if not irritating, that some people should question the basis of the game. Some may even become immensely hateful towards anyone who dares to try to replace pyramid hockey with some fairer sport where, on a level-playing field, the winner does not take it all.
Judging by the vitriolic attacks on the efforts of progressive reformists everywhere, the spirit of pyramid hockey is alive and well across the world (not least in the US in the run-up to the Presidential Elections). For people fearful of not having a mighty elite in whose reflected glory they bask on bended knees, and even more in dread of being denied victims below them to tread on, there could be nothing worse than the prospect of being deprived of their favourite game. Yet for their own sake, not to mention those who have already seen the outrageous rules for what they are, it is time for it to end.
Let us remind them that in every sphere of life, today and throughout history, allowing anyone to get away with having too much power – as military, political or business tyrants – is bound to end up with arbitrary commands subjugating everyone else to their whims. The only remedy is to share power out more evenly, democratically, cooperatively.
With wiser rules, we can produce more sustainable outcomes, and share the fruits of our labour in line with criteria everyone has signed up to. A better future awaits all, except for the few who want to hang on to their winnings in the unapologetically nasty game of pyramid hockey.
[Follow Henry B Tam’s updates on Twitter]
You may wonder who apart from those granted a top position would agree to play such a game. Wouldn’t people refuse to accept these patently lopsided arrangements? The odds are stacked against them, and however hard they try, the great majority of them would remain humiliated losers.
But the organisers of pyramid hockey have a few tricks up their sleeve. They tell the losers that the whole pyramid would collapse and crush them if they do not abide by the rules of the game. They impress on those low down that they should always defer to the winners who deserve all their advantages. And they encourage the lowly occupiers to play a mini-version of the game where they can easily defeat the even more marginalised groups stranded at the very bottom, who would then be at their mercy.
If the delusion takes hold, the majority of people will come to accept it as the only game in town. Many of them will form a deep attachment to it as ‘their’ tradition. They find it odd, if not irritating, that some people should question the basis of the game. Some may even become immensely hateful towards anyone who dares to try to replace pyramid hockey with some fairer sport where, on a level-playing field, the winner does not take it all.
Judging by the vitriolic attacks on the efforts of progressive reformists everywhere, the spirit of pyramid hockey is alive and well across the world (not least in the US in the run-up to the Presidential Elections). For people fearful of not having a mighty elite in whose reflected glory they bask on bended knees, and even more in dread of being denied victims below them to tread on, there could be nothing worse than the prospect of being deprived of their favourite game. Yet for their own sake, not to mention those who have already seen the outrageous rules for what they are, it is time for it to end.
Let us remind them that in every sphere of life, today and throughout history, allowing anyone to get away with having too much power – as military, political or business tyrants – is bound to end up with arbitrary commands subjugating everyone else to their whims. The only remedy is to share power out more evenly, democratically, cooperatively.
With wiser rules, we can produce more sustainable outcomes, and share the fruits of our labour in line with criteria everyone has signed up to. A better future awaits all, except for the few who want to hang on to their winnings in the unapologetically nasty game of pyramid hockey.
[Follow Henry B Tam’s updates on Twitter]
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Democracy's Debt to Young People
We’ve heard plenty about the nation’s financial debt (which in the UK the richest 5% can pay off by parting with just 5% of their wealth). What we never hear about is the democratic debt we owe young people.
Each new generation is told the story of the Second World War – how authoritarian oppression was defeated to make it safe for democracy to thrive. No more subjugation of the weak and vulnerable by anyone possessing such power that their commands were irresistible. All citizens would be equal. All would have the opportunity to work and earn a decent living. Where businesses fail to deliver, the democratic state would provide a safety net. Dignity is guaranteed for everyone, from cradle to grave.
The implication is that in far off countries where there is no democracy, people might have to resort to uprising and revolution to secure an equal say in how their life-chances are determined. But in an established democracy like the UK or the US, the young should be grateful for what has been put in place for them – a democratic system under which each counts for one and no more.
But has the promise of democracy been fulfilled? In the post-war period, there was for a time a sense of collective endeavour. A guarantee of the basic wellbeing of all was a universal badge of civilization, not a target of vilification by the ‘I’m alright Jack’ brigade. The needs of woefully neglected groups – women, gay, ethnic minorities, the disabled, etc – were addressed in the name of equal respect, not derided as a fringe obsession. But as plutocratic forces regrouped, power was once more concentrated in a tiny elite.
From the late 1970s on, the wealthiest 5% set about buying and exercising more influence over who would be elected to government; what laws would be passed or repealed; how an ever greater share of society’s resources would flow to them; how urgently required environmental actions would be held back to protect their profits; and how public services would be handed to profit-seeking bodies subservient to the priorities of those with the most money.
Democracy, far from becoming an integral part of our society, has been pushed further away from the reach of citizens. Most young people have no say about the key decisions affecting them in schools or universities. If they were fortunate enough to get a job, unless it is with a worker cooperative or partnership, they would have to go along with whatever their employer chooses. Their local government continues to lose power to large commercial interests (through privatisation and deregulation). At the level of national government, corporate wealth ensures candidates supportive of their agenda are more often elected than those who are opposed. And when the rich won’t pay their taxes, their friends in government respond with plans to scrap housing benefits for the under-25.
Plutocratic politicians never tire of telling young people they must be ‘work ready’ and eager to serve business goals. But if we are ever to have a true democracy, young people must be given what is owed them: the power and responsibility to have an equal say about decisions that affect them – one citizen, one vote, at school, the workplace and every level of society, with no distortion by wealth or status.
[Follow Henry B Tam’s updates on Twitter]
Each new generation is told the story of the Second World War – how authoritarian oppression was defeated to make it safe for democracy to thrive. No more subjugation of the weak and vulnerable by anyone possessing such power that their commands were irresistible. All citizens would be equal. All would have the opportunity to work and earn a decent living. Where businesses fail to deliver, the democratic state would provide a safety net. Dignity is guaranteed for everyone, from cradle to grave.
The implication is that in far off countries where there is no democracy, people might have to resort to uprising and revolution to secure an equal say in how their life-chances are determined. But in an established democracy like the UK or the US, the young should be grateful for what has been put in place for them – a democratic system under which each counts for one and no more.
But has the promise of democracy been fulfilled? In the post-war period, there was for a time a sense of collective endeavour. A guarantee of the basic wellbeing of all was a universal badge of civilization, not a target of vilification by the ‘I’m alright Jack’ brigade. The needs of woefully neglected groups – women, gay, ethnic minorities, the disabled, etc – were addressed in the name of equal respect, not derided as a fringe obsession. But as plutocratic forces regrouped, power was once more concentrated in a tiny elite.
From the late 1970s on, the wealthiest 5% set about buying and exercising more influence over who would be elected to government; what laws would be passed or repealed; how an ever greater share of society’s resources would flow to them; how urgently required environmental actions would be held back to protect their profits; and how public services would be handed to profit-seeking bodies subservient to the priorities of those with the most money.
Democracy, far from becoming an integral part of our society, has been pushed further away from the reach of citizens. Most young people have no say about the key decisions affecting them in schools or universities. If they were fortunate enough to get a job, unless it is with a worker cooperative or partnership, they would have to go along with whatever their employer chooses. Their local government continues to lose power to large commercial interests (through privatisation and deregulation). At the level of national government, corporate wealth ensures candidates supportive of their agenda are more often elected than those who are opposed. And when the rich won’t pay their taxes, their friends in government respond with plans to scrap housing benefits for the under-25.
Plutocratic politicians never tire of telling young people they must be ‘work ready’ and eager to serve business goals. But if we are ever to have a true democracy, young people must be given what is owed them: the power and responsibility to have an equal say about decisions that affect them – one citizen, one vote, at school, the workplace and every level of society, with no distortion by wealth or status.
[Follow Henry B Tam’s updates on Twitter]
Friday, 15 June 2012
What kind of people are we?
[Having been repeatedly told that we must re-examine our cultural identity, perhaps it is time we put forward a few questions to help ascertain what kind of people we really are.]
Do we gaze upon the rich and mighty, and rejoice that all is splendid and well?
Or do we see the weak and deprived, and decry injustice gross and obscene?
Do we bow down to people with money, happy for them to buy control wherever they go?
Or do we insist all citizens are equal, livid that so few have a real say over how their workplace and country are run?
Do we crave to cut the benefits of the sick and the poor, suspecting most claimants of fraud?
Or do we want to tackle above all the wealthy tax dodgers, knowing they cheat us out of billions more than anyone else?
Do we blame immigrants for taking low pay jobs others reject, and for diluting our traditions?
Or do we object to people not being paid a living wage, and welcome immigrants for enriching our culture?
Do we seek to dismantle public services so the corporate elite can make more money at the expense of others?
Or do we aim to build collective provisions so that none would end up at the mercy of the affluent few?
Some say we need to define who we are as a people,
Some say we should just be free to have fun.
Some say one religion should characterize us all,
Some say to each their own worship of god, moon or sun.
Some say ideological differences should matter,
Some say ‘Right/Left’ are mere labels to be spun.
But when at last we’ve had enough of navel-gazing,
When all has been proverbially said and done,
We are either creatures who stand aloof from the common good, or
A people who stand in solidarity as one.
Do we gaze upon the rich and mighty, and rejoice that all is splendid and well?
Or do we see the weak and deprived, and decry injustice gross and obscene?
Do we bow down to people with money, happy for them to buy control wherever they go?
Or do we insist all citizens are equal, livid that so few have a real say over how their workplace and country are run?
Do we crave to cut the benefits of the sick and the poor, suspecting most claimants of fraud?
Or do we want to tackle above all the wealthy tax dodgers, knowing they cheat us out of billions more than anyone else?
Do we blame immigrants for taking low pay jobs others reject, and for diluting our traditions?
Or do we object to people not being paid a living wage, and welcome immigrants for enriching our culture?
Do we seek to dismantle public services so the corporate elite can make more money at the expense of others?
Or do we aim to build collective provisions so that none would end up at the mercy of the affluent few?
Some say we need to define who we are as a people,
Some say we should just be free to have fun.
Some say one religion should characterize us all,
Some say to each their own worship of god, moon or sun.
Some say ideological differences should matter,
Some say ‘Right/Left’ are mere labels to be spun.
But when at last we’ve had enough of navel-gazing,
When all has been proverbially said and done,
We are either creatures who stand aloof from the common good, or
A people who stand in solidarity as one.
Friday, 1 June 2012
Kuan's Wonderland: a political fable
Can popular fiction engage parts of the citizenry that dense political arguments have not been able to reach? In Kuan’s Wonderland, a mirror is held up to the absurdities that dwell behind the façade of 21st century civilization, with the help of “a fantasy universe unlike any that has come before” (President, the Independent Publishers Guild).
The novel opens with a ten-year old boy being captured and sent to the strange realm of Shiyan, where no one is what they appear to be. Threatened with torture, Kuan is told to reveal a secret he does not even know he possesses.
At birth he had been taken away from China by his father to live in a remote part of the world. Oddly, every now and then he would show signs of intelligence far beyond his years, but to his father’s immense disappointment, most of the time he behaved simply like an ordinary child. But life could not go on as before once he was snatched from his home. As he waits in vain to be rescued, he begins to wonder if he will have to make his own way back if he is ever to reunite with his father.
As Kuan struggles to flee Shiyan, he has to make sense of the many ambivalent characters who may help or hinder him. He discovers that the agent who interrogated him has a dark secret of his own. He desperately wants to trust the red-haired doctor working for his captors even though he knows nothing about her. He is brought before the enigmatic Chairman, the most powerful figure in Shiyan, whose intentions towards him remain uncertain. And there is the mysterious being called Amo, also caught up in Shiyan against her will, but capable of leading them both to safety if she manages to keep herself alive for long enough.
Like a set of Chinese Boxes, as more plot-twists are unpacked, more are revealed within Kuan’s Wonderland. Through the disturbing experiences he endures with Blessing, Elephantium, the Purgoratory, and the dreaded Potokans, Kuan edges ever closer to a confrontation with the real enemy in Shiyan. Finally, he realises what he must do, even if it means facing up to the secret about his father that has been kept from him all those years.
The dark fable concludes its journey as the soothing illusions of the prevailing world order fall away, revealing the grotesque treatment of the vulnerable perpetrated in the name of peace and prosperity.
It leaves us with a choice: find escapist comfort and pretend that all is well; or escape from unjust acts by rallying opposition to end them.
[Kuan’s Wonderland, by Henry Tam, is available from Amazon.co.uk; or Amazon.com.
Customer reviews can be found at: Kuan’s Wonderland (Reviews)
The Kindle edition can be downloaded to any device including PC, Mac, iPad, Android, provided it has received a free Kindle reading app. The Amazon page for the book will indicate how to obtain the app.]
The novel opens with a ten-year old boy being captured and sent to the strange realm of Shiyan, where no one is what they appear to be. Threatened with torture, Kuan is told to reveal a secret he does not even know he possesses.
At birth he had been taken away from China by his father to live in a remote part of the world. Oddly, every now and then he would show signs of intelligence far beyond his years, but to his father’s immense disappointment, most of the time he behaved simply like an ordinary child. But life could not go on as before once he was snatched from his home. As he waits in vain to be rescued, he begins to wonder if he will have to make his own way back if he is ever to reunite with his father.
As Kuan struggles to flee Shiyan, he has to make sense of the many ambivalent characters who may help or hinder him. He discovers that the agent who interrogated him has a dark secret of his own. He desperately wants to trust the red-haired doctor working for his captors even though he knows nothing about her. He is brought before the enigmatic Chairman, the most powerful figure in Shiyan, whose intentions towards him remain uncertain. And there is the mysterious being called Amo, also caught up in Shiyan against her will, but capable of leading them both to safety if she manages to keep herself alive for long enough.
Like a set of Chinese Boxes, as more plot-twists are unpacked, more are revealed within Kuan’s Wonderland. Through the disturbing experiences he endures with Blessing, Elephantium, the Purgoratory, and the dreaded Potokans, Kuan edges ever closer to a confrontation with the real enemy in Shiyan. Finally, he realises what he must do, even if it means facing up to the secret about his father that has been kept from him all those years.
The dark fable concludes its journey as the soothing illusions of the prevailing world order fall away, revealing the grotesque treatment of the vulnerable perpetrated in the name of peace and prosperity.
It leaves us with a choice: find escapist comfort and pretend that all is well; or escape from unjust acts by rallying opposition to end them.
[Kuan’s Wonderland, by Henry Tam, is available from Amazon.co.uk; or Amazon.com.
Customer reviews can be found at: Kuan’s Wonderland (Reviews)
The Kindle edition can be downloaded to any device including PC, Mac, iPad, Android, provided it has received a free Kindle reading app. The Amazon page for the book will indicate how to obtain the app.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)