Simon's Unsubject Podcast Simon Lee

As a Hong Konger, I have witnessed firsthand how institutions can crumble when an authoritarian regime, such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), undermines and eventually erodes the institutions of a once free and open society. The CCP, often thinking of themselves as playing the long game, has systematically dismantled Hong Kong's freedoms and institutions. For years, the people of Hong Kong have struggled and fought for universal suffrage as a crucial safeguard of individual liberty.
We failed, so we hope Taiwan will flourish as a shining example of a Liberal Democracy.
While Taiwan has achieved universal suffrage, societal and political institutions do not operate in isolation or a vacuum. The interplay and intricacies of different institutions can reinforce or undermine each other, depending on whether their roles and functions are rationally reconciled. Therefore, progress toward constitutionalism is needed for this nascent liberal democracy to withstand the challenges from within and without. The political deadlock presents not a crisis but a window of opportunity to reflect on what will create long-term sustaining success for the island nation.
Recent Conflicts and Political Deadlock
Recent conflicts in Taiwan have highlighted the underlying tensions within its political system.
The two main opposition parties, the Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People's Party (TPP), which have enough seats for a majority, have joined hands to back changes that give parliament greater scrutiny over the government. One proposal is for lawmakers to punish officials deemed to commit contempt of parliament by making false statements or "withholding information."
However, critics argue that the legislative proposal also lacks a clear definition and that the move is more about partisan advantage than the public good.
This legislation has ignited protests from DPP supporters as there was little discussion on the bill. The deadlock reveals partisan bickering, which might leave some people disheartened about politics and public civil discourse.
Judiciary Oversight, Constitutionalism, and Separation of Powers
The Judicial Yuan, Taiwan's judicial branch, oversees all court systems, including the Constitutional Court, which interprets the Constitution and adjudicates significant cases. In the early years of Taiwan's democratization, when the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) dominated all branches of government, the Judicial Yuan was often perceived as merely an apparatus of the regime. However, it has gained much more respect over the years, especially regarding the judiciary's independence.
The rule of law requires a robust, nonpartisan, and independent judiciary to ensure that all institutions are subject to and accountable under the law. While parliaments are powerful and can legislate on a wide range of issues, their powers are not absolute. Judicial oversight means laws passed by the legislature must comply with the Constitution and legislative due process and ultimately serve to protect individual rights from potential overreach. If a law is found to violate constitutional principles or any procedural impropriety, the judiciary has the authority and responsibility to strike it down.
Instead of giving parliament the power to punish members of the executive branch, Taiwan should further empower its judiciary and guarantee its absolute independence to enhance its resilience as a democratic nation. An independent nonpartisan judiciary will not only be able to resolve political impasses, but even if the said legislation is passed, it will uphold the constitutional principles.
I am not advocating for judicial activism. However, it is far more desirable to take the issue to the court than to the street, especially when it comes to constitutionality, legality, and procedural propriety.
Partisanship, Parliamentary Customs, and Political Culture
Democracy is not just about electoral politics but also rational debate, which leads to consensus-building and u

The specter of the Cold War continues to haunt us.
In an essay written in 1945, George Orwell introduced the term "Cold War" with prescient clarity, capturing an era where nuclear arsenals promised mutual destruction and rendered total conquest impossible. This led to perpetual tension, a world caught in a seemingly endless cycle of suspicion and power play. This idea inspired his creation of the dystopian reality in "1984."
And here we are, in the Cold War that never ends.
We have unwittingly stepped into its sequel. Those of you familiar with television dramas know that the second season always builds on the past, yet twists the plot in unexpected ways. The collapse of the Soviet Union was such a twist; it was a catalyst that awakened the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the indispensable power of global financial influence. One year after the Soviet dissolution, Deng Xiaoping addressed the CCP, saying, "reform, or perish" (誰不改革誰就下台); his statement aims not at any particular individual CCP cadre but at the collective ethos of the Party.
This is what the CCP wants: to remain in power at all costs. To do that, it must curtail Western influence in China, Asia, and beyond.
From the CCP's vantage point, 1991 was not just about the Soviet collapse. The subsequent democratization of South Korea and Taiwan, and the social upheavals in Central Asia and the Middle East, were signs of Western encroachment. Putin's Russia and the CCP coined the term "The Color Revolution," reflecting their deep-seated anxiety.
With Russia's diminished stature, the CCP sees a need to fill the void. A strategic outline emerged around 2000. Joshua Cooper Ramo, a director of Kissinger Associates, dubbed the idea the "Beijing Consensus." It was a blueprint for advocating for less developed economies to adopt an alternative approach to development, one that includes the right of sovereign nations to remain authoritarian and to resist the economic and political paradigms enforced by the West.
So, who heeds the CCP's call? Look no further than Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Belt and Road cohort; this is the region once influenced by Soviet presence, now courted by China. The CCP's outreach is strategic, not coincidental. It leverages the vacuum left by the USSR, inserting itself as the new center of gravity.
While many people like to understand the CCP through the lens of political realism, anxious over geopolitics, I prefer to analyze their behavior as if they are rational agents with simple motives: to stay in power and to maximize personal interests over collective ones. Ideological labels, such as socialism, nationalism, or "whateverism," are mere convenient veneers for the CCP's survival.
Nationalism is the CCP's most potent strategy, but it is a double-edged sword. The CCP is acutely aware of the make-or-break nature of nationalism but has no choice but to deploy it, especially as its economy falters and the regime fails to deliver on its promise to lift six hundred million Chinese in rural areas out of poverty.
Some of us in the free world view China merely as a competitor, but the CCP perceives everything that exists, domestically and globally, as an existential threat. This is why the CCP rejects a rule-based global system and convinces itself and others that the status quo is nothing but a Western ploy to maintain dominance.
For years, we in the free world harbored hopes that China's economic liberalization would bring political freedom. The CCP sees this as how the West weaponizes economic might against it; therefore, it is doing exactly the same thing to the rest of us, weaponizing economic might to advance its political agenda.
From 1986 to 1989, we witnessed how the CCP closed the "Narrow Corridor" for liberalization. The Tiananmen Square crackdown and the Soviet demise solidified the CCP's resolve to fortify its control, especially over the financial system.
Under the façade of "One Country, Two Systems," the CCP accesses th

This morning, I came across a news report about Li Ka-Shing.
The Singaporean authority filmed Li Ka-Shing for the centenary commemoration of Lee Kuan Yew's life. Li Ka-shing's participation was a textbook example of public relations, and it made perfect sense for him to honor the Lee family of Singapore. After all, it's reasonable to assume that Li’s values align closely with Lee Kuan Yew's values.
On a related note, I've observed that the Singaporean authority, particularly Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, excels at leveraging the internet and social media for political propaganda. If you browse YouTube, you'll likely encounter videos where Lee Hsien Loong discusses Singapore's governance strategies and achievements.
Let me be clear: I'm not singing praises of Singapore or elevating Lee Kuan Yew. I simply admire their mastery of public relations and strategy. Unlike Hong Kong, which has nothing but empty slogans, Singapore's propaganda is the real work of masters.
To reiterate, I'm not lauding Singapore. When I initially created my YouTube channel, I had a video discussing Singapore that surprisingly attracted many viewers, including Singaporeans. Some comments suggested that comparing Hong Kong to Singapore was unfair—not out of humility, but because they felt Hong Kong couldn't measure up.
One more thing: I generally avoid discussing individuals. I dislike personality-focused debates and don't want to fall into the trap of thinking that "great men" shape history. In reality, circumstances often create heroes. Some people, like Li Ka-shing and Lee Kuan Yew, happened to be in the right place at the right time to seize these opportunities.
So, when Li Ka-shing participates in a video commemorating Lee Kuan Yew's centenary, it carries potent symbolic significance.
If you were to ask Chinese people worldwide who best represents Singapore, most would say Lee Kuan Yew. Conversely, if you asked who epitomizes Hong Kong, the likely answer would be Li Ka-shing.
The collaboration between these iconic figures for the centenary celebration is laden with profound implications.
When Li Ka-Shing posed a question to ChatGPT comparing Singapore and Hong Kong, he received a diplomatically balanced answer, stating that the two cities are both competitors and collaborators.
Li Ka-Shing found this response "interesting," but anyone familiar with Generative AI knows that it is very common for machines to churn out generic, ambivalent responses.
What caught my attention was Li Ka-Shing's subsequent commentary. He reflected on Lee Kuan Yew's early policies in Singapore, which some might consider authoritarian today. He said, "In the context of their era and historical backdrop, there was no room for laxity. The focus was on improving people's livelihoods and building the future. This, in essence, was the most humane approach, and I deeply admire him for that."
In the 1960s, Lee Kuan Yew initially aspired to lead his compatriot to govern the “Great Malaya” but he was ultimately compelled to make Singapore stand on its own. Few recognize Singapore's meticulous efforts in racial integration, ever since its founding. It was a response to Malaysia's racial policies that led to their separation.
While many post-colonial societies veered towards nationalism, Singapore built a multi-ethnic society from scratch. This was groundbreaking, especially considering that in the same period, the U.S. was still grappling with civil rights issues.
Singapore's policies, such as its housing policy, are not just about housing but also aim to foster racial integration and social harmony.
Can Hong Kong undergo a similar transformation? To change Hong Kong's system, we must also change its social culture and civil society. Beijing has long considered adopting the "Singapore model" for Hong Kong. However, unlike Singaporean officials who have the autonomy to address issues, can Hong Kong achieve the same level of independence?
Li Ka-shing concluded, "The lim

If you're interested in a success story about the subscription economy, look no further than Apple Daily.
We launched our subscription model in 2019, and within just three months, we skyrocketed from zero to nearly 800,000 subscribers. For context, it took the New York Times almost five years to reach one million paid subscribers.
When we started Apple Daily in 1995, we soon adopted a hybrid model—Hong Kong's best-selling newspaper, with the city’s busiest website.
However, 2014 proved to be a critical year for us. Online advertising revenue began to decline, largely due to competition from social media. Our print business struggled, and it became clear that advertising was no longer a viable business model for us.
Apple Daily needed to transform.
I had discussed the potential of transforming the organization with Jimmy Lai since late 2016. But it wasn't until 2018 that I was brought in again to explore a subscription-based model.
We knew we would no longer be selling "paper," as such transactional models were becoming obsolete. However, we had no clue how to generate revenue from subscriptions.
In the subscription economy, everyone claims to focus on customers rather than products. But what do Netflix and Spotify sell besides movies and music? Aren't those products too?
Apple Daily had a clear advantage, one that even Netflix and Spotify didn't possess: we defined and drove Hong Kong's culture. We had lasting relationships with our customers that no one else had.
I insisted that we call our customers "members" instead of "subscribers." We were not only building a business but also a community of Hong Kong people. Our vision was to transform ourselves into a platform from which other content and service providers could benefit due to our massive reach.
However, this vision diverged significantly from our origins as a newspaper company. I faced considerable internal resistance, with many colleagues questioning why a news organization needed a department for events or services. Fast-forwarding a few years, I could have told my colleagues that our vision resembled Patreon or Substack.
Transitioning from a product-centric to a customer-centric mindset is challenging, especially for a news organization with many strong egos. We were aware of potential issues and risks, such as subscription fatigue. It wasn't an easy exercise. To this day, no other media organization in Hong Kong has taken the risk of overhauling its media business into a subscription model, besides us.
In hindsight, the subscription model was a natural evolution for us, and we were well-positioned to adopt it. The technology was ready, and consumers were becoming more accustomed to the concept. Most importantly, we were confident that Apple Daily represented the voice of the people. If Apple Daily had survived, we could have united other like-minded Hong Kong people to create a pro-democratic movement harnessing the power of the platform economy.
We might have transformed Hong Kong's public sphere. Perhaps that's why the Hong Kong government went to great lengths to shut us down.
Apple Daily ceased operations on June 24, 2021.
Yet, many Hong Kong people refused to delete the Apple Daily app from their phones, turning it into a symbol of nostalgia, a reminder of what Hong Kong once was.


This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com

The 15th-century introduction of the printing press led to the increased distribution of literary works, prompting writers to seek protection for their intellectual property. In 17th-century England, the Licensing Act of 1662 granted limited rights to authors, providing them exclusive control over the printing and distribution of their works. This early form of copyright protection marked a significant step in recognizing the value of creative works and the importance of providing authors a means to profit from their intellectual endeavors.
As we enter an age of AI and abundant information, adaptation and embracing new ideas become crucial.
Advertising vs Subscription: The Two Basic Media Business Models
The emergence of advertising as a business model coincided with the 20th-century rise of mass media. Advertising-based business models shaped the media landscape by generating revenue for content creators and providing audiences with free or subsidized access to information and entertainment.
Subscription and paid models have persisted as alternatives, particularly for media outlets catering to niche audiences. These models deliver exclusive, high-quality content, charging subscription fees or requiring direct payment, ensuring a sustainable revenue stream.
AI and the End of Media Business As Usual
The proliferation of AI-generated content presents a new challenge.
The resulting flood of information will cause advertising "real estate" to skyrocket, leading to a decline in the average advertising dollar, and making traditional content production less viable. The overload of information has already caused a deficit in attention. Google and Facebook are busy fighting the massive inflation of content created almost at zero cost.
As AI becomes adept at creating diverse and engaging content, the perceived value of paid, exclusive information may diminish. Algorithms themselves cannot be copyrighted as they are considered mathematical formulas or abstract ideas. Copyright law protects original creative expressions but does not extend to ideas, facts, systems, or methods of operation.
There is debate on whether machine-generated content cannot and should be copyrighted. The prevailing viewpoint agrees that granting machine-generated content copyright could potentially result in numerous claims, overwhelming the legal system and hindering innovation by restricting access and reuse of machine-generated works.
Copyrights protect intellectual property, while paywalls monetize that protected content by limiting access to paying subscribers. If contents are not copyrightable, will audiences be willing to pay for subscription services?
Non-copyrightable content will definitely "sneak" out of the paywall.
Remember this: “information wants to be free.”
Focus on Ideas and Experience, Not Information
What will drive the information and entertainment industry in the future?
The game industry is on the path to dominate the time we spend, especially when machines will greatly increase our productivity, thus leaving us with more time to experience life. Sports will be another area where people find excitement and participation.
Unlike mere information, ideas provide purpose, values, and motivation to act. In this post-copyright era, understanding and coming up with new ideas become increasingly important.
In my line with work, the answer to what I can do in the future lies in ideas.
Good ideas are rare, and great ideas are even rarer. To come up with new ideas, I actively seek out different perspectives, appreciate why people think differently, and evaluate ideas based on the evidence available.
It is not just the ideas or viewpoints, but how I interact and engage with my audience. Do I understand my audience’s state of mind? What kind of experience I am providing? This is why I am presenting the work myself, and polishing my presentation every day.
Most importantly, am I providing any value with fresh, different ideas?
While technol

Throughout history, our understanding of the world has shaped the technology available to us. As our comprehension of reality evolves, so too does our potential for innovation. This is why it is crucial to study metaphysical problems, as they can provide us with valuable insights that guide the development of new technologies.
Human beings have always been driven by a need to classify and organize people, things, and ideas. This fundamental way of thinking has enabled us to identify patterns, make predictions, and develop systems of knowledge that have fueled technological progress. The tendency to classify stems from a fundamental human desire to create order and find meaning in the world. By categorizing and organizing information, we can better understand the relationships between different elements of reality and develop a more coherent picture of the world around us.
Our understanding of the world has undergone a remarkable transformation. Let us use the study of biology as an example. In the days of Aristotle, the subject focus on the classification of species. Modern biology, nevertheless, is more interested in ecological interconnectedness and evolutionary processes. This contemporary worldview acknowledges the world is a complex network of interconnected systems that are constantly in flux.
This shift in perspective has given rise to groundbreaking technologies such as the internet, the blockchain, and eventually networked money. These innovations represent a new paradigm in which decentralization, transparency, and trust take center stage. Blockchain technology allows for secure and efficient value exchange, while networked money like cryptocurrencies enables the creation of new economic structures that better accommodate the complexity of our interconnected world.
The concept of network changes how we understand money, value, and obligations. Rather than viewing money as a static object, we now see it as a dynamic system of value exchange that fosters cooperation and collaboration between individuals, institutions, and communities.
As we continue to deepen our understanding of the world and embrace the complexity of the networks that surround us, we will unlock new possibilities across disciplines. We will see the world differently. We will have totally different way of organizing society. We will have different needs for technology. Even our preferred enjoyment, human relations, and material values will be different.


This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com