INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE a ONE DOT THEORY INTERPRETATION

BUSINESS ECONOMICS IN A RAPIDLY-CHANGING WORLD

INTERNATIONAL (CORPORATE)
GOVERNANCE: A ONE-DOT THEORY
INTERPRETATION
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.


BUSINESS ECONOMICS IN A RAPIDLY-CHANGING
WORLD
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the Series tab.

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the E-books tab.

BUSINESS ISSUES, COMPETITION
AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the Series tab.

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the E-books tab.


BUSINESS ECONOMICS IN A RAPIDLY-CHANGING WORLD

INTERNATIONAL (CORPORATE)

GOVERNANCE: A ONE-DOT THEORY
INTERPRETATION

PETER KIEN-HONG YU
EDITOR

Nova Business and Management Publications, Inc.
New York


Copyright © 2011 by Nova Business and Management Publications
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site:
NOTICE TO THE READER
The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of
information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or
reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated
and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in
this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise
contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the

subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not
engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert
assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A
DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
International (corporate) governance : a one-dot theory interpretation /
editor, Peter Kien-hong Yu.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-61209-001-6 (eBook)
1. Corporate governance. 2. Industrial management. I. Yu, Peter
Kien-hong, 1953HD2741I5883 2010
338.6--dc22
2010041369

Published by Nova Business and Management Publications, Inc. † New York


DEDICATION
To my father, who went to Taiwan Province from Guangdong Province in August 1949
working on board the last ship of China Merchants Steam Navigation Company (CMSNC)
(the May 1949 ship transported gold from Shanghai Port to Jilong Port) and who had been
permanently settled down in the United States since December 1972.



CONTENTS

Preface

ix
Peter Kien-Hong Yu

Chapter 1

One-dot Theory and the Crab and Frog Motion Model
Peter Kien-Hong Yu and Chunli Zhang

Chapter 2

Management Diagrams: Consistently Converting Them in Terms of
a Series of Yin and Yang Diagrams
Peter Kien-Hong Yu, Chui Ching Ling, and
Bibiana Chiu Yiong Lim

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Redefining Global Business as International Regimes-related Trade

and Commerce: Navigating through an Ocean without Confusion by
Applying the One-dot Theory
Peter Kien-Hong Yu and George Kwang Sing Ngui

1

17

37

Three Theories Related to the World Trade Organization (WTO):
A One-dot Theory Conceptualization
Peter Kien-hong Yu

49

International Regimes and Non-regimes in Confucian (Corporate)
Governance: A Critique of Blue Ocean Strategy‘s Metaphor and
Methodology
Peter Kien-hong Yu, Kiat Sing Heng, Lisa Hua Ngui Lee, and
Mung Ling Voon

75

Marketing X as a University of Governance: A One-dot Theory and
Modified SWOT Model Application
Peter Kien-hong Yu and Shawn S. F. Kao

91

Can we Apply the International (Corporate) Governance Theory to
Study the Coca-Cola Company?
Peter Kien-hong Yu

103

Near-bankruptcy of the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation: What
Went Wrong?
Peter Kien-hong Yu and Jokull Johannesson

119


viii
Chapter 9

Contents
Business Success and Failure: Malaysian Bumiputras and NonBumiputras
Peter Kien-hong Yu, Jawed A. Mohammed and Jokull Johannesson

133

Chapter 10

Governing 1 Malaysia as One Dot?
Peter K. H. Yu

153

Chapter 11

Sugar Shortage: Analyzing Sarawak, Malaysia's Governance
Peter Kien-hong Yu, Asleena Helmi, and Vie Ming Tan

177

Chapter 12

The Study of Politics and Non-Politics
Should Begin with One Dot
Peter Kien-hong Yu and W. Emily Chow

191

About the Contributors

207

Index

211


PREFACE
In July 2010, I drafted a short article. Its title is "Issues in the Study of Social Science."
In the article, I said will discuss some important issues related to social science, including
the study of business and management.
At the outset, it should be pointed out that scholarship means to me the following criteria
in the order of importance: logic, contribution, consistency, preciseness, closeness to reality,
etc. In July 2010, I realized that I should have included the term, consistency. In spring

2008, when I first drafted the chart, as shown in the first chapter, I only mentioned logic,
contribution, preciseness, closeness to reality, etc.
Academics must put logic in the first place. One should convince oneself first before
persuading others to accept your description, explanation, and inference of certain
phenomena. Logic may have to do with inductive method, deductive method, a hybrid of
inductive and deductive methods, etc. In April 2010, one of my colleagues said, in the study
of business, we should rely on logics (as opposed to logic). I have been in the trade for many
years, and what I heard was an eye-opener.
However, after pondering for a few weeks, I realized that my one-dot theory, which is
accompanied by my crab and frog motion model, has logics. My response accordingly is as
follows: We have to be consistent in whatever we do. Logics could be the following: taking
the inductive method at time/space sequence (1); a hybrid of both inductive and deductive
methods at time/space sequence (5); and the inductive method at time/space sequence (1,000)
again. What the researcher had non-dialectically done is tantamount to do the following from
Kuching to Singapore in summer 2010. In the non-dialectical first leg, he or she swam to the
shore of the city-state. In the second leg, the person walked for a few miles. In the final
phase, the same person hitchhiked to the flooded Orchard Road. In short, applying logics
implies that one must be dialectical. Non-dialectically, it cannot be done, because it
emphasizes cause and effect or portrayed in terms of deduction or a linear thinking.
Contribution means one has to come up with something that nobody has done before.
The two co-authors of the best-seller, Blue Ocean Strategy, succeeded in doing that, almost.
However, by taking both the classical and applied ways, they failed to properly acknowledge
that they did not do a good job in taking the classical way, which is a representation of certain
phenomena (as opposed making or generating something for a company, for instance, in
1
applied way), and, more importantly, a version of the Yin and Yang diagram.
1

Conversation with D. P. Dash, dated April 13, 2010, in his office.

x

Peter Kien-Hong Yu

When an academic applies a model or theory to describe, explain, and infer or predict
certain phenomena, he or she should use it consistently. One cannot apply a different model
or theory for a different paragraph, section, or chapter.
Preciseness, as opposed to accuracy, is called for when we conduct research and writing.
The choice of words is particularly important. If we are precise, we can be closer to reality.
What should we do to further enable us to be closer to reality? One of the basic things to
do is to choose your unit of analysis. In the study of political science or international
relations/affairs, it is usually the country. However, when we study business, we usually have
to rely on the unit of analysis of company. It is better for us to adopt both units of analysis.
This is because sometimes a company is at the mercy of a central government. In that
context, we have to first understand the latest policy of the government. For example,
business style would certainly be affected, when in the late 1970s, mainland China gradually
changed its economic structure from the central planning to that of market economy with
Chinese characteristics.
There are other issues that we can discuss. First, if one does not apply a model or theory
in their study, one can be easily labeled as a pseudo-scientist. However, if one does do that, a
researcher (as opposed to a practitioner) can be easily tautological.
Fairness is another problem. We can only choose a classical way to make a critique of a
publication, whose author(s) had chosen the same classical way. It is not fair, if one selected
the classical way to make a critique of the applied way and vice versa.
Third, many academics are trying to challenge others, to the extreme of decimating the
same. I can give one example. After World War II, many American political scientists began
to quantify political science or the study of politics. Before that, we were told that politics is
an art. The major, influential academic journal was firmly in the hands of those political
scientists who subscribe to the quantitative method. If you do not apply mathematical

formulas, your paper will be immediately rejected by the editor(s) in the first round of review.
Only in recent years, did we see qualitative papers being published in that journal. Why is
that so?
Well, those academics who think that only quantification of politics can be scientific
finally realized that it is not possible for them to beat a qualitative study of politics. For a
long period of time, this kind of struggle has also taken place between traditional Chinese
herbal medicine, which is holistic, and Western medicine, which is applied. A May 2010
2
news report carried this headline: Traditional medicines making a comeback. In other
words, traditional or complementary medicines are fast regaining their popularity among
Ibans, because, for certain sicknesses, taking certain herbs and roots are more effective and do
not give any side effects. What I am saying is that compromise must be made between
different camps. They should learn to cooperate and coordinate in their research and writing.
This means adopting both the classical way and the applied way, so as to be closer to reality
in generating their findings.
In sum, before entering the world of social science, one must ask oneself the following
tough question: Do you want to spend your time, energy, etc. on doing something that will
never enable you to find a law, as the law in natural science? Don't forget: 1) Everything in
social science can be falsified, and, if you choose the applied way, you will realize that a
2

Borneo Post (hereinafter BP)(Sarawak, Malaysia), May 21, 2010, p.D2. The headline of another edition carried
―Chinese Traditional Medicine Gaining Acceptance.‖ See ibid., July 13, 2010, p.14.


Preface

xi

model or theory discovered by you cannot last for a long period of time; and 2) politicians

and business people do not put logic in the first place. Can we come up with a law in social
science, when we the researchers have already distorted reality, unless one has already found
a suitable model or theory to rationalize everything? Here, we can insert the term, Occam‘s
razor (―the simplest explanation is usually the correct one‖).
To digress, I would like to mention a few other things. First, in February 2010, my
school head in an email to me and others said the term, international (corporate) governance
[i(c)g], is ―VERY SIGNIFICANT [sic].‖ That phrase has emboldened me to choose i(c)g as
the book title. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever coined the term, which is
integrated from three other terms, international governance, international corporate
governance, and corporate governance. One has to learn to rationalize the seemingly
contradictory terms. This can be done only dialectically.
Second, the chapter, entitled International Regimes and Non-regimes in Confucian
(Corporate) Governance: A Critique of Blue Ocean Strategy‘s Metaphor and Methodology,
was an invited talk for the international conference, Accelerating Economic Revival through
Innovation and Reform, at Women‘s Christian College, University of Madras, Chennai, India,
February 5-6, 2010. I would like to especially thank the following academics, namely, Anita
Rajendran and Margaret Ratha Rani, who permitted me to reprint the research paper on
Confucian (Corporate) Governance and Blue Ocean Strategy (BOS). I also would like to
thank the Cengage Learning Australia for using the diagrams, which were originally
published in the third Asia Pacific, 2009 edition of Danny A. Samson and Richard L. Daft‘s
3
Fundamentals of Management, plus the editor of International Journal of Business and
Management (IJBM) (Canada) for the permission to reprint the slightly updated paper on the
high speed rail in Taiwan Province, Republic of China (ROC) and the publisher of Oxford
Academic Publishing (U.K.) for the permission to reprint the paper on The Study of Politics
and Non-Politics Should Begin with One Dot. To follow the footstep of Yadong LUO in his
Global Dimensions of Corporate Governance (2007), I would like to state the following:
Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the
use of copyright material. The lead author apologizes for any errors or omissions in the book
and would be grateful if notified of any corrections that should be incorporated in future

reprints or editions of this book. Last but not least, I wish to thank Lisa LeeHua NGUI for
helping me to take out the term, Buddha, from that pure circle and to add that curve in the last
page of this Preface, which can help a reader to better understand my writings or a researcher
to structure his or her writing logically, systematically, and coherently at both the macro- and
micro-levels. In passing, it should be noted that, in September 2010, I suddenly realized that
the Yin and Yang diagram can be twisted or flipped standing up in the shape of the JOO/ZHU
diagram, as readers will see later in the Preface.
Third, I wish to thank Director WANG Su Chen for copy-editing my article on the World
Trade Organization (WTO).

3

Specifically, ―p.92; p.118; PowerPoint slide on Mechanistic versus Organic Organizations, which accompanies the
textbook; p.217, p.260, p.450, p.454, p.483; p.576; and the cartoon from the PowerPoint slide, which accompanies
the textbook.‖ From SAMSON, D. Fundamentals of Management, 3E. © 2008 Cengage Learning Australia, a part
of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.


xii

Peter Kien-Hong Yu

Fourth, in the last few years, Taipei-based books like Win Join Book Company, Ltd. and
Ta Tong Book Company have partially supported my One-dot Center, which was first created
in April 2007. I am grateful to them.
Fifth, I thought of including the chapter on levels of international (corporate) governance,
which was presented at an international conference of Fudan University, Shanghai, in July
2010, but I did not do so. Therefore, readers are urged to read the paper which has a
possibility to be published in Zhenglai DENG and Sujian GUO‘s China’s Searches for Good
Governance: Inside and Outside China. The edited book has a good chance to be published

by Palgrave Macmillan (New York) in spring 2011. This writing attempts to offer a fuller
picture of what governance is all about. It is very important that readers must have a whole
picture first. In passing, this book is related to the one-dot theory. If readers want to read my
paper, Redefining Company as an International Regimes and/or Non-International Regimesrelated Artificial Person: A One-dot Theory Interpretation, and Making Sense of the
Regime‘s Dimension of Investment, plus my other paper, Conceptualizing Taiwan, Xinjiang,
Tibet, etc. as One Dot: Contrasting and Testing Three One-dot Theories, which was
presented at Harvard University in November 2010, please contact me.
Sixth, to be honest, when I graduated from New York University (NYU), I was not well
versed in methodology. After reading and writing over the last few decades, I think I am
pretty confident about research methods, both dialectical and non-dialectical, because I made
the following statement in late 2004 after applying my one-dot theory and the crab and frog
motion model: A dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a nondialectical/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at
best, they must meet half-way.
Seventh, each chapter is either related to the title of the book or the sub-title. If one
challenges me, saying he or she does not see the application of the one-dot theory in a certain
chapter, my reply is simple and straightforward: Look at the entire chapter, and you will see
a dot. Come to think of it, each word or a section in a chapter is but a partial dot of a larger or
fuller dot, whatever that is.


Preface

xiii

The Yin and Yang diagram

Source: 朱慧慈 /Judith JOO/ZHU
Huici LaoShi‘s
WuJiZhenYuan

12345ABCDE
time/space sequence (1)
time/space sequence (2)
………………………..
time/space sequence (n)
Source: 俞劍鴻/Peter Kien-Hong
YU‘s crab and frog motion
model, September 1994

Peter K. H. YU, Swinburne University of Technology, Austrlia, Sarawak Campus
December, 2010



In: International (Corporate) Governance
Editor: Peter Kien-Hong Yu

ISBN: 978-1-61122-645-4
© 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

ONE-DOT THEORY AND THE CRAB
AND FROG MOTION MODEL
Peter Kien-hong Yu and Chunli Zhang
ABSTRACT
This paper is an in-depth study of one dot by using different approaches and methods
in social science. Because one dot can be a theory, it must be accompanied by a model,
and the name of the model is called the crab and frog motion.
Arguably, everything can be simplified or compressed in terms of a dot. It is

suggested that we should apply the Yin and Yang diagram to describe and explain, if not
infer or predict, the one dot.
For the first time since September 1994, the second co-author has in August 2010
tried to apply mathematical formulas to shore up the verbal model.

Keywords: one dot, theory, model, dialectics, methodology

INTRODUCTION
In spring 2008, the lead co-author of this chapter, to his best ability, developed the
following methodology framework to study social science, which can be applied to
philosophy, science, paradigms, schools of thought, theories, and models. Because the term,
ontology, has been mentioned, we may have to include discussion on religion (divinity) or the
information, data, and analysis related to supernatural forces/power, such as God, Buddha,
and Allah, if and when necessary.


2

Peter Kien-hong Yu and Chunli Zhang

In this study, the whole framework will be applied to describe, explain, and infer one dot
as a theory from both dialectical and non-dialectical perspectives.4 Because a theory must be
accompanied by a model but not vice versa, the lead co-author will also describe and explain
my crab and frog motion model as time comes. Other synonyms for the term, crab and frog
motion, are dialectical and scientific from the Chinese Communist perspective.
4

See Peter Kien-hong YU, God is, by Inference, One Dot: Paradigm Shift (Boca Raton, Florida: UniversalPublishers, 2010), Chapter 1. In April 2010, this author was told that there are two ways of conducting
research and writing, classical way and applied way.

One-Dot Theory and the Crab and Frog Motion Model

3

THE ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY OF ONE DOT
What is ontology? Simply put, it is a metaphysical study of Being. Being is something
that exists somewhere in the abstract or non-abstract world that we know. Human beings live
in a three-dimensional world. However, an 11-dimensional theory exists, which unites all
string theories (and supersedes them).5 Thus, we can always ask: Does one dot exist? If it
does not, we do not have to continue our study. However, if it does exist, we have to touch
upon epistemology, which is related to validity and limits of looking at everything from the
one dot perspective.
The lead co-author can immediately come up with five examples, whereby academics
and experts had expressed the things that they want to show or conceptualize in terms of one
dot or within a circle, which is but a dot:






Power or power capacity by Gene Sharp;6
The global business environment model by John J. Wild, et. al.7
Three tiers of noncustomers depicted in terms of three overlapping circles;8
The little red dot, referring to the Republic of Singapore (ROS);9 and
Integration and Universality of Knowledge from the Islamic Perspective, especially
in the 21st century.10

Concentric circles/TongXinYuan are another good example. In short, many academics

and experts are fond of applying a dot or a circle, because everything can be easily described
and explained, if not inferred or predicted, as a dot or within a circle. It is, therefore, a valid
way of conducting research and writing. However, the way those authors had drawn or
conceptualize the dot or the circle cannot be more persuasive and even powerful than
applying the Chinese Yin and Yang diagram Plus the Five Elements:

5

accessed on June 29, 2010. According to a British scientist, it is not
possible for human beings to understand the complex and complicated universe. See ShiHua Daily News
(hereinafter SHDN)(Sarawak, Malaysia), June 14, 2010, p.13.
6
Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 2006).
7
John J. Wild, et. al. International Business: The Challenges of Globalization, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, Pearson
and Prentice Hall, 2008), p.xv and pp.29-31.
8
W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, Blue Ocean Strategy (Boston, MASS.: Harvard Business School Press,
2005), p.104.
9
Tommy Koh and Chang Li Lin, eds., The Little Red Dot: Reflections by Singapore’s Diplomats (Singapore: World
Scientific, 2005). See also ZHENG WenHui, Singapore: The Little Red Dot (Singapore:
LanDianTuShuSiRenYouXianGongSi, 2009). In August 1998, the then president of the Republic of Indonesia
(RI) referred to the city-state as a red dot.
10
Education and Social Development (Bangi, Selangor: Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
1998), p.64, as cited in Nazaruddin Hj. Mohd Jali, et. al., Malaysian Studies (Harlow, England: Pearson and
Hall Prentice, 2007), pp.277-278. A ―Balanced and Harmonious Human Being‖
model has also been shown.

4

Peter Kien-hong Yu and Chunli Zhang

It looks simple yet it is profound. we will elaborate on the diagram immediately after the
next paragraph.
Conceptually, we can think of a longhouse, high-rise, or a train as a dot. If we look at
each one of from a distance, it is definitely a dot. However, can a dot be a line, house, air,
water, and even God? It is possible to regard a dot as a line, assuming that a small insect is
looking at a human being, for example. However, the same creature is not a line for sure, if
we look at it at a close range, unless we are talking about an even smaller insect looking at it.
A dot could be the diagram as depicted above. However, it is not a pure dot, because
there are something in the dot. A pure dot is like talking about the term, universe, whereas a
non-pure dot is cosmos, which refer to order plus chaos at the same time. We see, for
example, one small, black dot in the white portion of the whole dot and another small, white
dot in the black portion of the whole dot. In other words, if a dot is to be pure, it must be
presented in terms of a circle, with nothing inside. It should be a blank, white circle, assuming
that white is pure. Otherwise, we will be confused, when we talk about, for example,
Singapore as a little red dot. Several questions can be asked. Is red pure? In Blue Ocean
Strategy, red means bloody or competition. Are we talking about the whole dot in red?
Obviously, we are not, because the whole dot is consisted of two-half dots, with at least two
colors. Or are we talking about the little (red) dot in the white portion of the whole dot or the
little (red) dot in the black portion of the whole dot? Obviously, we are not, because only
Singapore is mentioned. However, if we say Singapore in the context of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or in the context of the relationship between Singapore
and its giant neighbor, the Republic of Indonesia (RI) or the Federation of Malaysia (FOM),
then we are closer to reality or the diagram itself. Furthermore, what does the curved line,
shaping like a snake, in the diagram refer to? Obviously, it is not the red dot. It actually
reflects the middle way or what Confucius had said about the ZhongyongZiDao/middle way?

We can, if we use the following drawing, which in the Chinese Daoist parlance is called
WuJiZhenYuan and which is but a version or, to be more precise, a simplification of the Yin
and Yang:

That is to say, the middle way is that dot in the middle, which could be or could not be
red, depending on the context.


One-Dot Theory and the Crab and Frog Motion Model

5

In sum, the Yin and Yang diagram can rationalize the five examples. Can each example
rationalize the other four examples plus the Yin and Yang diagram? It is very doubtful.
Indeed, everything can be regarded as a dot, including God, by inference. We ought to
ask the next epistemological question: What are its limitations, if any? A human being exists.
It is a dot. This is a fact. In the context of God, the human being is a partial dot, because we
are part of Him and because most Catholics and Christians believe that God is everywhere.
He is omnipresent. If there is a partial dot, by inference, the fuller dot must be something else,
if not God. The only question is that no one has met God. That is the only and sole limitation.
If a person is a Buddhist, he or she can accept the fact that Buddha is a dot, when looking at
the Buddha statute. A statute is a dot. In this connection, he or she may say that it was
Buddha who first created everything. If so, this means that God is a late comer. However,
how did Buddha create God? Has Buddha ever met or shook hands with God? When facing
an issue, who has the final say? Nobody has the answers or can answer those tough questions.
To an atheist, both God and Buddha do not exist. If so, there is no limitation at all him or her
to regard everything as a dot. The limitation simply does not exist.
Since we are studying the dot at the social science level, we just need to be logical, not
religious, metaphysical, etc. As such, we can proceed to the approaches and methods.

THE APPROACHES
To simplify everything at the outset, we can say that there are two approaches: dialectical
and non-dialectical. So, a researcher must decide on either one of them, because we want to
be closer to reality when we conduct research and writing. If he or she decides to conduct a
comparative study, then the researcher can use both approaches. For example, in chapter two,
he or she applies the dialectical approach and, in chapter three, the other approach. And, in
the fourth chapter, he or she would compare and contrast the findings, reminding the readers
that the study has been relying on the same source materials, which is very important.
Indeed, there is a striking difference between the two approaches. After testing more than
60 cases on China and other topics, this is what the lead co-author would say and have been
repeatedly saying it: A dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a nondialectical/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at
best, they must meet half-way. One can easily rationalize non-dialectical things by applying
the dialectical approach, whereas it is more difficult the other way around.
To elaborate, on the one hand, what is a dialectical approach? Basically, it can be traced
back to the Chinese Yin and Yang Plus the Five Elements. Although many, if not most, nonChinese find it hard to understand, Karl H. Marx applied dialectics. Hence, we see terms like
thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. Things constantly change. As a result of having a dialogue
or clash between thesis and anti-thesis, a synthesis eventually emerges. After that, the
synthesis, if it still exists, could break down into thesis and anti-thesis again. A pattern would
be flowing that way, until the synthesis becomes extinct one day, and the process ends.
Marx must have been heavily influenced by the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang, so
were MAO Zedong, ZHOU Enlai, DENG Xiaoping, CHIANG Kai-shek, after retreating to
the Taiwan area, CHIANG Ching-kuo, LEE Teng-hui, etc. To some extent, Dr. SUN Yat-sen,
the founder of the Republic of China (ROC), sometimes also applied dialectics. This is
unavoidable and inevitable, because many, if not most, Chinese idioms are structured in terms


6

Peter Kien-hong Yu and Chunli Zhang

of Yin and Yang. It is easier for a group on the same side to speak the same language, so as to
communicate well. We must not forget that Chinese scholars, including Confucius, since
ancient times tried to correlate almost everything in terms of Yin and Yang. The Nobel Prize
winner, YANG Zhengning, vehemently opposes that way of conducting scientific research
and writing. Yet, when he said there is no clash between science and religion eventually, even
if there is now, he had been dialectical, because he is talking about two things at the same
time.
On the other hand, what is a non-dialectical approach? We may say that it is just the
opposite or 50% of dialectical approach or anything that is not related to dialectics. However,
in the real world, it is difficult to find a writing, however short and brief, which does not
apply at least what one academic called inner dialectics. In other words, the non-dialectical
approach at the macro-level is not dialectical. Yet, to organize one‘s writing, he or she must
be dialectical sometimes within the writing at the micro-level. For example, we often hear
people say ―on the one hand‖ and ―on the other hand‖ within an essay. By doing that, the
author has already been dialectical, because the author is talking about two or more things at
the same time, which may be different. If so, the two things may engage in a dialogue or even
clash, resulting something else after a period of time.
Take game theory as another example. The theory itself can be non-dialectical. However,
when we proceed to look at the matrix, we see plenty of inner dialectics at work: There are at
least two players; there are two numbers in each box; one box may be chosen to against
another box, etc.
Before the lead co-author prove that a dialectical remark is just the opposite of a nondialectical remark, or, at best, they must meet half-way, let me describe and explain his crab
and frog motion model, each number, letter, word, or term of which is part of his one-dot
theory.
The following model, which, if looked at from far away, could be two half-dots (1 2 3 4 5
as the first half-dot and A B C D E as the second half-dot) or simply one dot if we look at its
entirety11:
12345ABCDE
time/space sequence (1)
time/space sequence (2)

………………………..
time/space sequence (n)
1 means 100% of a concept or whatever;
3 means 50% of a concept or whatever;
5 means 1% of a concept or whatever.
E means 100% of a concept or whatever;
C means 50% of the concept or whatever;
A means 1% of the concept or whatever.
11

Zheng, fan, shun,ni, zhen, and wei. There are many dots in the world. For example, each of a Polka dot means
―each of a number of round dots evenly spaced to form a pattern on fabric.‖ See Oxford Student’s Dictionary,
p.792.


One-Dot Theory and the Crab and Frog Motion Model

7

The 1 2 3 4 5 spectrum is equivalent to what the lead co-author call the safe zone, and the
A B C D E spectrum, the danger zone. 5 is the middle way/golden mean/road/path/line/track
in the safe zone and A, the middle way/golden mean/road/path/line/track in the danger zone.
When one makes a move at any time/space sequence, he or she is thinking of only one
most important Number or Letter, and, therefore, there will be no contradiction whatsoever.
In the course of making moves, the dialectician is performing a crab or side-ways motion.
For example, he or she began at 5. In the next time/space sequence, he or she may go to A.
At the third time/space sequence, the same dialectician may move back to the safe zone and
stay at 1. In this connection, the phenomena of the negation of negation, the affirmation of
negation, the affirmation of affirmation, and the negation of affirmation will appear before
time/space sequence (n) is reached. This process is known as the sub-dialectical game. It

should be pointed out that there are three basic stages [or (nodal) points] of development:
nascent, ascendant, and mature for the Numbers and mature, descendant, and moribund for
the Letters. In other words, 5 is nascent; 3, ascendant; and 1, mature. On the other hand, E
is mature: C, descendant; and A, moribund. Last but not least, a series of other, relevant
dialectical, theoretical models must be applied, in order to amply describe, explain, and
infer (or predict) more phenomena. When a dialectician no longer applies the first crab and
frog motion model constructed by him or her, he or she is said to have leaped or jumped
from the first crab and frog motion model to second or another crab and frog motion model.
At this juncture, a caveat should be added, that is, whenever we use the word, versus, it
means that dialectics is involved and that the concept or whatever on the left extreme, say Yes
or 1 will eventually defeat, co-opt, absorb, etc. the concept or whatever on the right extreme,
say No or E at time/space sequence (n). However, in the process, the following arrangement
may be necessary, such as flexibly positioning Yes at 1 and No at 5. In other words, a
contradictory or even adversary relationship between Yes and No at the beginning has been
transformed into a non-contradictory, non-adversarial relationship later on, meaning that
whoever chose Yes or whoever opted No should learn to tolerate the existence of each other,
because they are both in the safe zone spectrum.
In sum, a crab and frog motion player performs two roles when playing games, that of a
crab by moving side-ways12 and a frog by leaping or jumping from one model to another
model as he or she sees fit. Such is the magic beauty of dialectics.
To demonstrate that it is easier to rationalize everything by applying the dialectical
approach, the following five examples are basically taken from Chapter 1 of the lead coauthor's earlier publication, God is, by Inference, One Dot: Paradigm Shift.13

12

13

Crabs can also have xiaoshuibu (quick short steps). In other words, they can move straight forward. See United
Daily News (UDN)(Taipei), February 12, 2007, p.A10. In Yilang County, Taiwan Province, Republic of China
(ROC), there is a crab museum. Not all crabs can be eaten, because some of them are poisonous. Poison could

be dangerous. See Formosa Television (Taiwan, ROC), dated February 7, 2008.
See Peter Kien-hong YU, God is, by Inference, One Dot: Paradigm Shift (Boca Raton, Florida: UniversalPublishers, 2010), pp.25-29.


8

Peter Kien-hong Yu and Chunli Zhang

Example 1
Non-dialectical, linear thinking, with no inner dialectics: A yes is a yes is a yes. A no is a
no is a no. In other words, the two like water and fire cannot mix. For example, when a father
in the morning tells his children that in the afternoon they will go to watch a movie directed
by LEE Ang, which immortally shake the souls of movie-fans, he encounters a contradiction
when he decides not to go to the same theater to watch the same movie. This is because in his
mind he is non-dialectically thinking (at least) two contradictory concepts at the same time,
even if an earthquake struck in the afternoon, which can enable the father to make up an
excuse or to have a justification, pointing at the collapsed theater, not to go: both yes and no.
However, there would be no contradictions when he, applying the lead co-author's crab and
frog motion model, is thinking of ―yes‖ at a particular time/space sequence, to be followed by
another ―yes‖ or ―no‖ at the next time/space sequence, to be followed by another ―no‖ at the
third time/space sequence. By the same token, he would face a contradiction, by not applying
the lead co-author's crab and frog motion model, when he said ―no‖ in the morning and ―yes‖
in the afternoon regarding watching the same movie. In a word, non-dialectically, the father
simply cannot dissolve the contradiction, when even a five-year old child may sense
something is wrong, if not illogical.
However, dialectically, the father can dissolve the ―yes‖ and ―no‖ contradiction, if he
applies any one of the following models: Yes at 1 and No at E; No at 1 and Yes at E; Yes at 1
and No at 5; No at 1 and Yes at 5; etc. The crucial, key point is that whenever making a
move, the dialectician would think of only one concept, be it Yes, No, or its mixture (such as
3, if Yes is 1 and No is 5) at any time/space sequence. As such, there would be no

contradiction whatsoever.

Example 2
Many, if not most, Chinese idioms should be understood in terms of dialectics, as
mentioned earlier. This is because one‘s understanding of the idiom could be more precise
and closer to what the dialectician who originally coined the idiom had in mind or, simply,
reality.
At this juncture, the lead co-author proposes to dialectically and non-dialectically analyze
the Chinese term, Sheng (birth), Lao (age/getting older), Bing (illness), and Si (death). This
idiom is a good example of both a dialectical and non-linear thinking as well as a nondialectical and linear thinking. Indeed, we are born, even if it means by the cloning
technology. Then, on the next split second or half-a-second, we become older at time/space
sequence (2). As we become older, we can sometimes get sick. Death comes when our
heartbeats stop. However, a question ought to be asked: Is this linear pattern precise or closer
to reality? The answer is no, unless we construct a dialectical model, because not all human
beings follow that pattern due to the fact that each one of our experience could be different. In
other words, the linear thinking can be easily faulted or the taken-for-granted pattern theory
falsified.
Birth can be positioned at 5 and age, 4. Illness can be put at 2 and death, 1. 3 could be
regarded as a mixture of both 1 and 2 as well as both 4 and 5. At time/space sequence (1), a
baby is born. He or she is at 5 in the safe zone, to begin with. If everything does not flow


One-Dot Theory and the Crab and Frog Motion Model

9

smoothly, he or she may die. In other words, the baby does not have to go through the
extensive age and illness phases or process. Needless to say, it would be best, if public
opinion polls were conducted--and dialecticians like MAO would certainly welcome that--to
find out how many people followed the taken-for-granted pattern as mentioned in the Chinese

idiom and how many did not normatively move from 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 and, finally, to 1. In life,
it is a fact that many of us move back and forth, like a crab, between 4 and 2.
Some babies could die in mothers‘ bodies. For those babies, they would be placed in the
Non-Birth, Age, Illness, and Death spectrum or the danger zone. This makes sense, because
they are not related to the birth, age, illness, and death spectrum, each one of which can be
observed outside of their mothers‘ bodies.

Example 3
When the People‘s Republic of China (PRC) was created, there were roughly 550 million
people. In June 1953, the Chinese mainland (NeiDi)/China proper completed its first census. A
little over 600 million people were registered. In July 1979, the then PRC Vice-Premier
endorsed the one-child policy, which was first adumbrated by DENG earlier in the same year.
Beijing began to implement its one-child policy initially at some provinces and later to the
whole country. To circumvent the rather-inhumane policy, a couple gave the same Chinese
name to their five children. The following model perhaps was in their mind: One Name (at 1)
versus Many Names (at E). Another way of saying the same thing is: Each Number in the
spectrum refers to each child. The eldest child would be positioned at 1, whereas the youngest
child at 5, each having the same name. This has been logically presented, because the eldest
child was born first at time/space sequence (1), to be followed by the second child at time/space
sequence (2), etc. At least the couple had dissolved the contradiction, and this is certainly
acceptable to the Chinese mind.

Example 4
The summer 2008 Olympic torch relay and related remarks can be analyzed. First, let me
provide some facts:
1. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), Lausanne, Switzerland; Chinese Taipei
Olympic Committee (CTOC); and Beijing Organizing Committee for the XXIX
Olympiad (BOCOG) are involved.
2. In February 2007, both Taipei and Beijing reached a consensus in writing on the
relay route.

3. In April 2007, Beijing announced the route, mentioning that the torch would arrive in
Chinese Taipei from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) on April 30, 2008 and
that Taipei, Hongkong Special Administrative Region (SAR), and Macao SAR are
designated ―as in its domestic leg relay.‖ Beijing demanded an extra condition,
saying the CTOC ―is responsible for coordinating all relevant parties to not use any
flag, emblem, or anthem other than those [described by the IOC] during the torch
relay.‖