“One man one disease!” was one of the diagnostic principles taught
by medical professors while I was a medical student. It was not until I graduated and went into
practice for a few years before I realized the beauty of this principle. Of course in real life, one man could suffer
from more than one disease. But if we
tried to explain different symptoms with several diseases causing each, such as
influenza for fever, trauma for splinter haemorrhage, mitral valve prolapse for
heart murmur and urinary tract infection for haematuria, then we might miss the
important diagnosis of infective endocarditis. This principle reminded us that in a
diagnostic process, we should try to connect everything, to think hard for THE reason behind. It was after such careful consideration that
we could then talk about a patient with two diseases, or better an acute
disease in a patient with a chronic condition.
I loved this diagnostic principle
so much that I tried to generalize it for everyday life activities, particularly in speculating
human behavior. There was a reason
behind why people acted in a one way rather than the other. Again, there ought to be many underlying
causes for an action. It could be out of
animal instinct, it could be just by chance, or it could aim at something, or
actually it could be a result of all the reasons, known and unknown. But first considering whether there was A reason served its purpose. In Singapore, while you mocked at your local
friend who carried an umbrella in a sunny afternoon, the next moment you got
drenched. In 1997, some people realized
too late why others stayed away from the stock market.
It was difficult to preach with
theory alone. So I translated the theory
into practical terms: “When you think
others are stupid, first consider whether you are the stupid one.” It was far too easy to think that others were
stupid. As you gained in experience and
intelligence, it became more and more true that some people were real stupid. You might see no reason why people acted in
such strange manner, or more frequently, there were smarter ways to tackle. However, follow my principle if you cannot
afford to be the stupid one. In Chapter
28 of Jin Yong’s (金庸) famous novel The Heaven Sward
and Dragon Saber (倚天屠龍記), Zao Min was able to decipher
the plot to escape of a council member of the Beggars’ Association by noticing
his strange stance and posture. Both of
them were not stupid.
In real life, a candidate of the
Chief Executive Election deliberately exposed her ignorance. She did not know how to ride an MTR. She described in detail her failure in
tackling an obstacle of lacking toilet paper. People from all walks of life regarded her
stupid, or at least unskillful both in problem solving and in PR. Guided by my principle, I searched for a
reason behind. It would be negligence
for a candidate and her PR team to show clumsiness and ignorance in an arena of
election activities. It was not
difficult to rehearse an MTR tour nor to proof-read a blog diary. For election activities, apart from the consideration
of sending what sort of messages, another concern was the target group. It would be logical to deduce that the
candidate tried to identify herself with the second-generation-tycoons who, in
the mindset of her and her team, were deficient in the knowledge of MTR and
toilet paper purchase. By careful
calculation, the side-effect of annoying the public was tolerated.
Working out the reason behind an
action led to the question of whether we could make use of our finding. If a candidate was willing to scarify her
public image in exchange of potential votes, would it be possible for members
of the Medical Subsector or Pan-democratic members of the Election Committee to
negotiate for favorable terms and policies?
If we went back 5 years ago, CY
was desperate for votes. He got
many crucial votes from our medical colleagues because he “was willing to
listen to us and to consider our needs and concerns”. What happened then was history. Our concerns were addressed with policies
trying to realize our nightmares.
Knowing the reason behind did not
mean that you could make the quantum leap and get something useful out of it. In the “Heaven
Sward”, Zao Min could not stop that hypocritical beggar from gaining power
even though she spotted out his hidden agenda. Willing to identify oneself with the rich did
not necessarily mean that one would negotiate with doctors. Skillfully designed promises with calculated
ambiguities built-in were just fantasies. We could not sue the CE for breach of contract
even if a real promise was made. In a
system where an orchestrated majority could be secured, there was hardly any
say for third parties.
It is just mind-game.
(Source: HKMA News February 2017)
