漸入深秋，日短夜長，增加點點淒清感覺。發展十五年的天水圍，上月發生駭人的家庭慘劇，官員草草趕往聆聽居民聲音，一半為收集意見、安撫民眾，一半為透過鏡頭提高官員曝光率。會議過後呢？當然是「積極跟進」。
不知從何時開始，天水圍區被標籤為「悲情城市」(推算是報章化題)，令這小社區更添憂愁。究竟，這區需要甚麼？這區又欠缺甚麼？
本月，去了一趟香港濕地公園，亦觀察了天水圍。
區內最早的一條屋村於92年落成，區內居住樓宇大部分屬於政府興建的居屋及公屋，私人屋苑屬少數。由於佔地廣，故樓宇建得高，與將軍澳相比，亦感覺較開揚。屋苑設施設計多以公共屋村作中心，有商場、街市、多層停車場，居屋則多與公屋作資源共用，可應付日常所需；屬於私人樓宇的嘉湖山莊，則有大型商場。當然，想作時尚購物或買西裝，則可能要請移玉步往屯門或元朗購買。
交通是一項較為頭疼的問題。區內走動，居民大多以單車代步，問題較少。由於部分生活設施需要依賴屯門或元朗的，路程遠，騎單車太遠，故居民需以巴士或鐵路接駁。大多數區內居民需要出區外工作，交通費用佔開支比例較高，亦找不到其他替代，變成SUNK COST。車程長，在香港工作普遍超時的情況下，加上每天花兩三小時在交通上，更進一步佔據了生活時間。
由於政府房屋分配政策(太多空置單位)使然，令區內多有新移民家庭、老夫少婦家庭。無工做，家庭出現問題，與香港的語言不通，沒有同鄉的互相扶持，造成問題越滾越大。縱使看見別人用錯誤的方法去解決問題，但自己又未能找到自己問題的正確方案，又找不到傾訴對象，令其產生連鎖反應，不幸接二連三的發生。
難判斷是誰跟誰的責任。但發現以前香港人特有的自強不息、默默耕耘的磨毅精神消失了。
深水步，是香港窮區之一，仍有居民住在板間房、靠拾荒維生，但他們那自力更生的堅強信念則重未中斷。(當然，多年來仍是窮區非好事一則)
抑或，是否中港婚姻的禍？香港男子到國內尋偶，大多打扮成小資本家的模樣，在國內女友面前大灑金錢，女方難免不信以為真，加上電視劇集渲染香港偏地黃金、發大財的機會順手拈來。結果女子抱著一切美好的憧憬橫過羅湖橋，接著幻想隨之破滅。
張立先生說得好，從儉進富每個人都適應，但從富入儉則非每人能吃得消；不適應的，不是溫飽問題，而是價值觀問題。
2007年11月23日 星期五
Thanksgiving? Or Day of Mourning?
Today is Thanksgiving Day, one of the most important and commonly observed holidays in the United States. Typically families would get together to have a lavish feast consisting of turkey, cranberry sauce, and sweet potato. This day is said to be the worst time to travel, as millions of people rush (fly, drive, ride) to return home at the same time. It goes without saying that this holiday is accompanied by drinking, football (American football, that is), and shopping.
Historically, Thanksgiving commemorates and celebrates the first harvest of the earliest settlers from England who landed in now Virginia and Massachusetts almost 400 years ago. As legend has it, in 1621, the English pilgrims—nay, colonizers—invited a group of Native Americans (Grand Sachem Massasoit and Wampanoag), who taught them how to fish, grow crops, and survive the harsh winter, to celebrate their first harvest and to give thanks to God. The English fed their guest for three days and the Native Americans in return brought 5 deer as gifts. History books tell us that the two peoples were grateful and respectful to each other and the feast was a manifestation of their mutually generosity and friendship.
And yet to Native Americans, Thanksgiving Day represents something very different. It is insulting and derogatory; it is a reminder of history, but not the one taught in history books written by the colonizers. Native American and their allies observe Thanksgiving as a day of mourning. They mourn the rape of their land and the massacre of their ancestors. It symbolizes the beginning of centuries of genocide, slavery, and injustice; it reminds them of the hideous crimes of their “generous and grateful” colonizers. The fact that it is a day of celebration is ironic, to say the very least.
Many would defend that the meaning behind the holiday has changed; that it is about giving thanks to one another; that it is a rare occasion when families would go out of their way and put aside conflicts to gather; that it is no longer associated with the tragedies and wrongdoings of the past. Some might also say that it is exactly because of the past conflicts that we should highlight the positive events between the two cultures/peoples; that we should celebrate friendship not again and again remind how wide the fissure between the Natives and the European-Americans is; that we should move on.
But move on how and to where? Can the victors unilaterally tell the victims to let go of the past and move on and celebrate the friendship they once shared? Can we and should we strip away the meaning and history of such an important holiday? Can we celebrate when others mourn? Can we forget before we were forgiven? Can we reconcile when the injustice from the past is yet to be reconciled and in fact still exists in a different form, described with a different language?
Certainly no one would admit that they are celebrating the massacre of millions of Native Americans with millions of turkey (46 millions each year, to be more precise). But when your neighbor, from whom you took the land you now live on, is still mourning and grieving their lost and still suffering, isn’t it only respectful to not commemorate it with joy (and unnecessary bingeing)? Shouldn't this be a time to solemnly remind ourselves the true history of this country, and the tragedy behind the prosperity of the New World? Shouldn’t this time be spent on reconciling with the victims of colonization and the subsequent “inner colonization”? Shouldn’t this be a time to eradicate similar oppressions perpetrated here and elsewhere?
If we were to give thanks on this very day, we should be giving thanks to those who have forgiven us. Their forgiveness is a grace that contemporary United Statsians do not deserve.
Christian Chan
Day of Mourning, 2007
Cambridge, MA
Historically, Thanksgiving commemorates and celebrates the first harvest of the earliest settlers from England who landed in now Virginia and Massachusetts almost 400 years ago. As legend has it, in 1621, the English pilgrims—nay, colonizers—invited a group of Native Americans (Grand Sachem Massasoit and Wampanoag), who taught them how to fish, grow crops, and survive the harsh winter, to celebrate their first harvest and to give thanks to God. The English fed their guest for three days and the Native Americans in return brought 5 deer as gifts. History books tell us that the two peoples were grateful and respectful to each other and the feast was a manifestation of their mutually generosity and friendship.
And yet to Native Americans, Thanksgiving Day represents something very different. It is insulting and derogatory; it is a reminder of history, but not the one taught in history books written by the colonizers. Native American and their allies observe Thanksgiving as a day of mourning. They mourn the rape of their land and the massacre of their ancestors. It symbolizes the beginning of centuries of genocide, slavery, and injustice; it reminds them of the hideous crimes of their “generous and grateful” colonizers. The fact that it is a day of celebration is ironic, to say the very least.
Many would defend that the meaning behind the holiday has changed; that it is about giving thanks to one another; that it is a rare occasion when families would go out of their way and put aside conflicts to gather; that it is no longer associated with the tragedies and wrongdoings of the past. Some might also say that it is exactly because of the past conflicts that we should highlight the positive events between the two cultures/peoples; that we should celebrate friendship not again and again remind how wide the fissure between the Natives and the European-Americans is; that we should move on.
But move on how and to where? Can the victors unilaterally tell the victims to let go of the past and move on and celebrate the friendship they once shared? Can we and should we strip away the meaning and history of such an important holiday? Can we celebrate when others mourn? Can we forget before we were forgiven? Can we reconcile when the injustice from the past is yet to be reconciled and in fact still exists in a different form, described with a different language?
Certainly no one would admit that they are celebrating the massacre of millions of Native Americans with millions of turkey (46 millions each year, to be more precise). But when your neighbor, from whom you took the land you now live on, is still mourning and grieving their lost and still suffering, isn’t it only respectful to not commemorate it with joy (and unnecessary bingeing)? Shouldn't this be a time to solemnly remind ourselves the true history of this country, and the tragedy behind the prosperity of the New World? Shouldn’t this time be spent on reconciling with the victims of colonization and the subsequent “inner colonization”? Shouldn’t this be a time to eradicate similar oppressions perpetrated here and elsewhere?
If we were to give thanks on this very day, we should be giving thanks to those who have forgiven us. Their forgiveness is a grace that contemporary United Statsians do not deserve.
Christian Chan
Day of Mourning, 2007
Cambridge, MA
2007年10月15日 星期一
Love thy neighbor, not thy wealth
This snapshot is showing something utterly disturbing. I view it as more than just a coincidence that the headlines of today’s news consist of these two apparent themes. Rather, it is a microcosm, a reflection, an epitome of the well-being of our city.
On the one hand, we are flood with wealth and the vanity and greed that come along with it. On the other, tragedy is happening way too often to our neighbors. And the most tragic thing is, these tragedies are not inevitable or unpreventable. They are indicators of something truly messed up in our priorities, to say the very least. Enmeshed in wealth and the pursuit of it, have we forgotten about the things that are truly important? Is Hong Kong winning the world and losing its soul? Instead of theorizing (which is a crime I know I commit all the time), let us grieve and reflect on OUR responsibility.
Christian Chan
October 14, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA
2007年9月23日 星期日
變變變生命力：舞池奇觀
去clubbing算不上是我的嗜好，沒有那種一週不去，就仿如「麻雀友」手痕的感覺。在以前學生的年代，我算得上是那種差不多「絕跡如江湖」的隱型人。不是說沒有去過，只是偶然會到一到，坐一坐，真的可算是瀟瀟灑灑走一回，是絕對的「走一回」，是白走的那一種。那時候，最令我最納悶的，要算是看著人家玩得高高興興的，而自己不明白有什麼好玩！
看到場中的紅男綠女，火辣的裝束、不住扭動的身軀、興奮的神態、忘我的表情。令我聯想到國家地理雜誌的一個節目，是有關非洲的巫醫和戰士他們的儀式。他們就是在近乎一樣的神情和精神狀態下跳著舞。究竟是什麼原因造成這種狀態？是燈光？酒精？音樂？還是藥物？還是渾合了多種因素下的產物。望著舞池中扭動的身軀，我覺得有種非常原始的情感在空氣中激盪著，叫我完全投入不到其中。
這時，望著場中的一對女生在舞池中跳著我稱之為「扭扭樂」的舞。漸漸地，她們的附近開始有異動。多名男生都在一邊裝著漫不經心，而另一邊又開始漸漸的靠近著她們。接著，那數名男生施展渾身解數的在那二個女生的身邊在跳著舞。有一二個男生更加邊跳邊擋著其他男生的加入。最後，當那兩名女生發覺了身邊的「求偶者」後，便消失於人群中。看到那一幕後，我極力的去想那和我在國家地理頻道中看到那些求偶的昆蟲在雌性面前跳舞有什麼不一樣的。我想，最大的不同是，昆蟲會在最後選擇一隻最好的雄性去繁衍後代。但是人類在這方面的本能，沒有昆蟲那麼的強烈，起碼，那兩個女生最後選擇離開舞池。
究竟，在科技已經那麼先進的廿一世紀，我們還有多少祖先留給我們，他們生活智慧的痕跡？想知道的話，下次去clubbing要多飲幾杯！
看到場中的紅男綠女，火辣的裝束、不住扭動的身軀、興奮的神態、忘我的表情。令我聯想到國家地理雜誌的一個節目，是有關非洲的巫醫和戰士他們的儀式。他們就是在近乎一樣的神情和精神狀態下跳著舞。究竟是什麼原因造成這種狀態？是燈光？酒精？音樂？還是藥物？還是渾合了多種因素下的產物。望著舞池中扭動的身軀，我覺得有種非常原始的情感在空氣中激盪著，叫我完全投入不到其中。
這時，望著場中的一對女生在舞池中跳著我稱之為「扭扭樂」的舞。漸漸地，她們的附近開始有異動。多名男生都在一邊裝著漫不經心，而另一邊又開始漸漸的靠近著她們。接著，那數名男生施展渾身解數的在那二個女生的身邊在跳著舞。有一二個男生更加邊跳邊擋著其他男生的加入。最後，當那兩名女生發覺了身邊的「求偶者」後，便消失於人群中。看到那一幕後，我極力的去想那和我在國家地理頻道中看到那些求偶的昆蟲在雌性面前跳舞有什麼不一樣的。我想，最大的不同是，昆蟲會在最後選擇一隻最好的雄性去繁衍後代。但是人類在這方面的本能，沒有昆蟲那麼的強烈，起碼，那兩個女生最後選擇離開舞池。
究竟，在科技已經那麼先進的廿一世紀，我們還有多少祖先留給我們，他們生活智慧的痕跡？想知道的話，下次去clubbing要多飲幾杯！
2007年9月16日 星期日
蘭桂芳的十字路口
Clubbing這個詞彙在近這十年的時間突然被泛濫使用. 還記得由小時侯電視撈飯的時代開始看著<壹號皇庭I,II,III,VI,V....>至到<妙手仁心I,II,III>, 劇中一眾中產律師醫生返工前收工後都要clubbing聚一聚, 蘭桂芳十字路口場境出現次數簡直比手術室法庭來得更多!!
另外同時坊間一眾報刊雜誌一窩蜂盲目標題:
遊歷網絡世界, 走訪過過不少素未謀面的網中人的部落格, 當中有些人以Clubbing為生為死. 一幕幕哭過笑過愛過傷過醉過醒過輸過贏過就隨著杯起杯落永不止息. 每篇記盡的就是上星期clubbing識了某富貴達人, 這星期clubbing穿得如何華麗/少布而成為焦點, 昨天clubbing因失戀而酩酊大醉, 今天clubbing誓要還以顏色等等...嘩.....現在是去Clubbing還是去了人肉/慾市場?
又剛巧昨天看到報章的一篇新聞, 說到外國人眼中的中國女生愈來愈開外大膽及功利.她們會主動上前跟老外搭訕, 入到吧內三句可跟你做朋友, 一杯酒就可給你電話號碼....主動得連一眾老外遊客也嘆為觀止. 因為即使在美國, 如想以一杯酒就取得電話, 換來的多是一記耳光吧...
在這裡我並不是想做什麼德育說教或審判(這些留給明光社吧...) 我信悉心打扮去派對是尊重場合的表現, 廣交朋友共歡暢飲是社交禮儀之道, 而更重要的是出席者的心背後抱著什麼目的而出現. 這也可能是我們在看clubbing時跟外國的文代差異嗎?!
2007年9月10日 星期一
聲效部
香港clubbing地方我不熟，但此屬熱門社交活動。香港很可能是clubbing好地方，選擇多，但未有深入研究。然而，經常與香港比較的新加坡，clubbing讓人驚喜，發現前所未有的新天地。
新加坡出名煙酒皆貴，遊客可帶一公升烈酒、一公升餐酒及一公升啤酒外，香煙雪茄通通不能帶入境。在這小國家內，M牌一包煙(20支裝)要成接近60港元，在便利店小瓶啤酒則40-50港元，貴到飛起。難怪當地兵哥愛軍隊，因為在軍營裡喝啤酒才有香港價。
新加坡積極轉型，大力吸引國際大型金融企業開設總部，跑到星洲工作的金融才俊，當然是千金散盡還復來，加上犯罪率極低、社會安寧，令各女士們放心消費，娛樂場所老闆們安心投資。
Clark Quay成為獅城蒲點，其中來自英國Ministry of Sound更是當中佼佼者。以個字－大，兩層的士高內有扶手電梯連接，四個不同主題無池，TECHNO, R&B, 70’s,還有一區一進去全是圓形床，讓你跟大班朋友談天，過癮嗎？跳舞又得，到樓上看人家跳舞又得。還有VIP區(有時候區內比區外還人多，點跳？)
生於熱帶地區的新加坡少女，熱情爽朗，在中產國家、物質富裕環境下長大，週末派對為指定動作，亦甚懂得禮儀之道，出席派對均悉心打扮，可見她們非常重視此社交活動。
在鼓勵飲奶多過飲酒的國度裡，不乏大開芝華士、白蘭地的與會人士。豪飲，除了表現膽色外，更表現個人財力的最佳證明，故在芝華士旁定有幾位美女相伴，似洋酒廣告嗎？
在那裡發現有種雞尾酒特別飲法，值得一提。比如說，來渣(Jar)manhattan，酒保便拿出量杯，倒進適當份量的whisky(當然不會多給你，酒精比例少得離譜)，然後注入大量可樂，再插四支飲管，完成！
我想，佢地真係甘口渴？
新加坡出名煙酒皆貴，遊客可帶一公升烈酒、一公升餐酒及一公升啤酒外，香煙雪茄通通不能帶入境。在這小國家內，M牌一包煙(20支裝)要成接近60港元，在便利店小瓶啤酒則40-50港元，貴到飛起。難怪當地兵哥愛軍隊，因為在軍營裡喝啤酒才有香港價。
新加坡積極轉型，大力吸引國際大型金融企業開設總部，跑到星洲工作的金融才俊，當然是千金散盡還復來，加上犯罪率極低、社會安寧，令各女士們放心消費，娛樂場所老闆們安心投資。
Clark Quay成為獅城蒲點，其中來自英國Ministry of Sound更是當中佼佼者。以個字－大，兩層的士高內有扶手電梯連接，四個不同主題無池，TECHNO, R&B, 70’s,還有一區一進去全是圓形床，讓你跟大班朋友談天，過癮嗎？跳舞又得，到樓上看人家跳舞又得。還有VIP區(有時候區內比區外還人多，點跳？)
生於熱帶地區的新加坡少女，熱情爽朗，在中產國家、物質富裕環境下長大，週末派對為指定動作，亦甚懂得禮儀之道，出席派對均悉心打扮，可見她們非常重視此社交活動。
在鼓勵飲奶多過飲酒的國度裡，不乏大開芝華士、白蘭地的與會人士。豪飲，除了表現膽色外，更表現個人財力的最佳證明，故在芝華士旁定有幾位美女相伴，似洋酒廣告嗎？
在那裡發現有種雞尾酒特別飲法，值得一提。比如說，來渣(Jar)manhattan，酒保便拿出量杯，倒進適當份量的whisky(當然不會多給你，酒精比例少得離譜)，然後注入大量可樂，再插四支飲管，完成！
我想，佢地真係甘口渴？
2007年9月3日 星期一
Put an end to an overly massive mass media
Whether we like it or not, the mass media—namely, TV, cinema, newspaper, the Internet, as well as the billboards on the street etc.—are part of our being, an integral part of the modern psyche. We grow up consuming the media and in return allowing it to consume us. Just think about how much information, both factual and fictional, both consciously and unconsciously, is conveyed to us daily via the mass media.
Mass media itself is not evil. After all, we do need to rely on others to inform us with the happenings that are beyond our scope of sensory. When positioned in the right place, granted the deserved attention and power, the mass media can be an indispensable tool for the well-being of both the individual and the society. It can, for example, promote health as well as democracy, to any corner on this planet.
What is problematic with it is the kind of messages we are bombarded with, often times against our will, as well as the power the media had appropriated—the power to define what is truth and what is important. Worse still is the “corporatization” of the media. The nested interest of profit is often mixed in with the dissemination of information, and of “truth”. The average person probably recognizes more corporate logos than national flags, remembers more celebrities than their own teachers, and spends more time watching TV than nurturing familial relationships. By the principle of “mere exposure”—that a positive attitude toward a previously neutral object will gradually form when one has been exposed to it for an enough number of times—our values can be quite easily manipulated. This is a scary thought.
The media one way or another informs us how other people are living their lives. For instance, with the domination of Hollywood, we probably know more about the United States (and particularly California) than any other country, say Mexico. To be more accurate, we are exposed to the life of the US as depicted on the silver screen. In addition, because of its vast marketing power, we very likely are more familiar with the Hollywood than Bollywood, even though the latter produces more film per year than the former.
What probably concerns me the most is this: the media helps fueling the social unrest created by economic and political disparities. The value system (often traditional) that keeps a society intact—in our case, arguably, Confucism—is now in competition with the value system offered by what we see on TV and the Web. We learn how wonderful life is (or at least seem to be) of those who are rich and famous, and we quite inevitably compare that with our own miserable, mundane life. And we are often fooled to believe that the former is attainable and we are tempted do so by all means, immediately. Disparity is nothing new; recall the aristocrats existed (and some still existing) in almost every civilization. What is new is the mobility of information: Now a farmer can readily observe the glamour of the city and the materialistic life of his urbanite counterparts. It is no wonder that we hear about so many different doggy businesses going on in the developing world. It is also not a misery why crime—both commercial and violent—are occurring at an increasingly rate and magnitude. Why should someone adhere to the virtue of perseverance, of diligence, of community, of self-sacrifice, of respecting the elders, of preserving the environment, of frugality, of fidelity, when one can exploit others and the environment in exchange for all the material goods the media tells us we ought to have? With the sneer population and purchasing power of China, and its market connectivity with the world, crooks only need to commit one crime and earn enough. Hence the fake eggs, fake fish, faulty toys, and, yes, fake hopes and dreams—Macau.
The choice is ours
We live in a time of abundant temptations. And it is becoming harder and harder to fend them off. But the beauty of it is we also have abundant choices. With all the miracles of the Web, we now can get our needed dose of entertainment and information and news of our own choice. Previously, in our parents’ generation, for example, we could only subscribe to a limited selection of media. These information providers, in order to survive, must cater to a large proportion of the local population and hence is constrained by their demands, interest etc. Now, however, even a niche market can have a large enough clientele to sustain a form of media, especially when it is online. And, as a result, we see the proliferation of alternative voices that may have previously been subdued by mainstream media enterprises. In this sense, the Internet provides a relatively democratic form of mass media: anyone can be a reporter, commentator, and star. The bottom line is this: the choice is out there and it is ours. It is most often just a matter of seeking them out or having the time to create our own.
The media, mass or otherwise, must be democratized or at least made accountable to the public. In the past, we’ve seen the atrocities made possible by a government controlled mass media (i.e., propaganda); in today’s world the power of defining what is fact is still by large in the hands of a few corporations. We, the consumers of the media, must then uphold a sense of discernment and fight for a fair, as bias-free as possible news source. And one way to do it, quite ironically, is through consuming. Consuming wisely, that is.
Christian Chan
Sept 2, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA
Mass media itself is not evil. After all, we do need to rely on others to inform us with the happenings that are beyond our scope of sensory. When positioned in the right place, granted the deserved attention and power, the mass media can be an indispensable tool for the well-being of both the individual and the society. It can, for example, promote health as well as democracy, to any corner on this planet.
What is problematic with it is the kind of messages we are bombarded with, often times against our will, as well as the power the media had appropriated—the power to define what is truth and what is important. Worse still is the “corporatization” of the media. The nested interest of profit is often mixed in with the dissemination of information, and of “truth”. The average person probably recognizes more corporate logos than national flags, remembers more celebrities than their own teachers, and spends more time watching TV than nurturing familial relationships. By the principle of “mere exposure”—that a positive attitude toward a previously neutral object will gradually form when one has been exposed to it for an enough number of times—our values can be quite easily manipulated. This is a scary thought.
The media one way or another informs us how other people are living their lives. For instance, with the domination of Hollywood, we probably know more about the United States (and particularly California) than any other country, say Mexico. To be more accurate, we are exposed to the life of the US as depicted on the silver screen. In addition, because of its vast marketing power, we very likely are more familiar with the Hollywood than Bollywood, even though the latter produces more film per year than the former.
What probably concerns me the most is this: the media helps fueling the social unrest created by economic and political disparities. The value system (often traditional) that keeps a society intact—in our case, arguably, Confucism—is now in competition with the value system offered by what we see on TV and the Web. We learn how wonderful life is (or at least seem to be) of those who are rich and famous, and we quite inevitably compare that with our own miserable, mundane life. And we are often fooled to believe that the former is attainable and we are tempted do so by all means, immediately. Disparity is nothing new; recall the aristocrats existed (and some still existing) in almost every civilization. What is new is the mobility of information: Now a farmer can readily observe the glamour of the city and the materialistic life of his urbanite counterparts. It is no wonder that we hear about so many different doggy businesses going on in the developing world. It is also not a misery why crime—both commercial and violent—are occurring at an increasingly rate and magnitude. Why should someone adhere to the virtue of perseverance, of diligence, of community, of self-sacrifice, of respecting the elders, of preserving the environment, of frugality, of fidelity, when one can exploit others and the environment in exchange for all the material goods the media tells us we ought to have? With the sneer population and purchasing power of China, and its market connectivity with the world, crooks only need to commit one crime and earn enough. Hence the fake eggs, fake fish, faulty toys, and, yes, fake hopes and dreams—Macau.
The choice is ours
We live in a time of abundant temptations. And it is becoming harder and harder to fend them off. But the beauty of it is we also have abundant choices. With all the miracles of the Web, we now can get our needed dose of entertainment and information and news of our own choice. Previously, in our parents’ generation, for example, we could only subscribe to a limited selection of media. These information providers, in order to survive, must cater to a large proportion of the local population and hence is constrained by their demands, interest etc. Now, however, even a niche market can have a large enough clientele to sustain a form of media, especially when it is online. And, as a result, we see the proliferation of alternative voices that may have previously been subdued by mainstream media enterprises. In this sense, the Internet provides a relatively democratic form of mass media: anyone can be a reporter, commentator, and star. The bottom line is this: the choice is out there and it is ours. It is most often just a matter of seeking them out or having the time to create our own.
The media, mass or otherwise, must be democratized or at least made accountable to the public. In the past, we’ve seen the atrocities made possible by a government controlled mass media (i.e., propaganda); in today’s world the power of defining what is fact is still by large in the hands of a few corporations. We, the consumers of the media, must then uphold a sense of discernment and fight for a fair, as bias-free as possible news source. And one way to do it, quite ironically, is through consuming. Consuming wisely, that is.
Christian Chan
Sept 2, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA
2007年8月30日 星期四
蒙羅麗莎式的香港
香港回歸了差不多十年了，究竟我們的社會是更加的開放了， 還是倒退了？香港成為一個更加國際化的城市，或是更加本地化呢？我想這個問題，大家或者可以從大眾的媒體方面，給我們一些真知灼見。
還記得大概在小學生的時代，那時候，應然還未到每天都會讀報紙，看新聞的年紀。但是，閒來無事，總會取爸爸讀完的報紙看看。現在回想起來，那時在報紙頭版多數是國際的新聞。例如，巴解組織的阿拉法如何如何、又或者是英國、美國怎樣怎樣！
但是，現在香港的報紙，他們寧可多放一些香港（我稱之為雞毛蒜皮）的新聞在頭版，也不會將一些在國際上很重要的新聞，放在頭版。（即是所謂的Ａ1新聞）為什麼會有這麼大的改變？我們的香港，還是否人家（比如：前特首-董建華先生）所說的亞洲國際都會？作為傳媒，當然想將大眾最有興趣的新聞、消息報導給我們！這是否意味著，現在的香港人，對國際上發生的事根本就漠不關心！城市是由人組成的，一群對國際上發生的事，漠不關心的人，所組成的香港，還可以算是國際化的城市嗎？
早前，香港的一個免費電視台於星期日下午，播放一套經典的港產片『秋天的童話』。其後，廣管局收到投訴，指片中有粗言穢語。以後播放的時候，要將部份內容刪剪，該電視台稍後於深夜時份重播該片的完整版本，可見該電視台的立場。香港為什麼變了這樣？該片一無色情，二無暴力。偶有的，可能是較為市井的一些對白，但是，小孩子在街上聽到的或他們父母口中的說話，會是完全經過刪剪的嗎？相比之下，我覺得以前的電視台還比較開放。我記得在我小學讀下午校的時候，曾於早上看到一套大概是七十年代的電視劇，片中有一場是毫不修飾的性愛場面。雖然片中絕對沒有裸體的鏡頭，但是尺度絕對比現今的香港開放不知多少倍！很多人可能會不同意筆者的講法，因為，看看我們的報紙。當中多少報紙都有夜遊指南，論意識的話，相當開放，而報紙亦是小朋友其中最容易接觸到的媒體之一。
十年過後，香港變成如何？是開放？是封閉？是國際化？或是本地化？我下不了結論！我只覺得，香港，越來越畸型……
還記得大概在小學生的時代，那時候，應然還未到每天都會讀報紙，看新聞的年紀。但是，閒來無事，總會取爸爸讀完的報紙看看。現在回想起來，那時在報紙頭版多數是國際的新聞。例如，巴解組織的阿拉法如何如何、又或者是英國、美國怎樣怎樣！
但是，現在香港的報紙，他們寧可多放一些香港（我稱之為雞毛蒜皮）的新聞在頭版，也不會將一些在國際上很重要的新聞，放在頭版。（即是所謂的Ａ1新聞）為什麼會有這麼大的改變？我們的香港，還是否人家（比如：前特首-董建華先生）所說的亞洲國際都會？作為傳媒，當然想將大眾最有興趣的新聞、消息報導給我們！這是否意味著，現在的香港人，對國際上發生的事根本就漠不關心！城市是由人組成的，一群對國際上發生的事，漠不關心的人，所組成的香港，還可以算是國際化的城市嗎？
早前，香港的一個免費電視台於星期日下午，播放一套經典的港產片『秋天的童話』。其後，廣管局收到投訴，指片中有粗言穢語。以後播放的時候，要將部份內容刪剪，該電視台稍後於深夜時份重播該片的完整版本，可見該電視台的立場。香港為什麼變了這樣？該片一無色情，二無暴力。偶有的，可能是較為市井的一些對白，但是，小孩子在街上聽到的或他們父母口中的說話，會是完全經過刪剪的嗎？相比之下，我覺得以前的電視台還比較開放。我記得在我小學讀下午校的時候，曾於早上看到一套大概是七十年代的電視劇，片中有一場是毫不修飾的性愛場面。雖然片中絕對沒有裸體的鏡頭，但是尺度絕對比現今的香港開放不知多少倍！很多人可能會不同意筆者的講法，因為，看看我們的報紙。當中多少報紙都有夜遊指南，論意識的話，相當開放，而報紙亦是小朋友其中最容易接觸到的媒體之一。
十年過後，香港變成如何？是開放？是封閉？是國際化？或是本地化？我下不了結論！我只覺得，香港，越來越畸型……
2007年8月27日 星期一
報紙
在大城市裡，可以買到的報章種類通常較在小城鎮裡的多，在西歐發達國家，更是五花百門，全國報章、地區報、金融報章、小報、娛樂報、評論報，任君選擇。畢竟外國人口大，流動人口亦較大，半美元便有份全美五大報章之一的LA TIMES，大可悠閒地消磨整個上午。
香港報業於二十多年前仍是陽光燦爛的日子，香港有日報、晚報，讀者選擇較現時多，香港多位健筆於大報駐紮，報章成為市民吸收知識的主要途徑。然而，由於傳媒種類增多，令讀者及廣告商流往他處，加上香港銷售市場小，晚報已經失蹤，日報數目亦逐漸減少。
除了量變，香港報業亦出現質變。自蘋果日報以資訊娛樂化的小報報導風格推出市面，讀者當然是取易不取難，側重報導富娛樂性的資訊，可以把娛樂新聞變成要聞，並放在A1版，這是蘋果報業的成功之處，亦令傳統報章的新聞處理手法造成莫大的衝擊。
蘋果日報有一流的攝影記者，在新聞攝影比賽屢次獲獎。畢竟，由於評論文章愛太少，報導亦太少，除了幾位大師專欄外，新聞通常以娛樂式報導居多。
香港為國際金融中心之ㄧ(去年為全球最大認股證市場)，但本土財經報章未能彰顯此金融重地。求知若渴的讀者，需要靠國內外勢力才行。
本地評論型中文報章，只有信報一家。當然，報紙裡看不到突發新聞版及娛樂版，報章風格甚有英國金融時報的影子，政治及經濟評論文章、不同立場的文章均刊登報上，讓讀者自行比評。當然，文章多、文字多，那就犧牲了貼圖的版面，若初次閱讀信報，恐怕吃不消；反之，若喜愛的話，只嘆早上閱報時間太少。
值得一提，國內有兩份評論型金融報章，具高度可閱性，這分別為「21世紀經濟評論」及「第一財經日報」。採訪、審編人員多、資源充足，對政經熱點則邀請學者作專題研討，討論的深度、寬度均令人驚喜(政治問題則另論)。更重要的是，就算講玩都非常專業，比如我曾在21世紀經濟評論，讀過一篇關於國際帆船賽的專題報導，對船、主辦單位、贊助單位等各環節均一一分析，頓然覺得自己在看一本外國中產雜誌；我也閱讀過第一財經日報中的一篇建築設計文章，詳述巴西人瑞建築師Oscar Niemeyer的建築風格，厲害嗎。
「21世紀經濟評論」及「第一財經日報」最難得的是，每週均有2整頁的書評，看了書評，便減省了許多買書的煩惱(又可能增加了許多買書的意慾)。在香港報章，則難得一見。
有需求才有供應，從報章可反映該地區讀者的閱讀取向。
2007年8月17日 星期五
淺見數則：商業要理性、文化重共融
事件的起因，各位看官可以看溫高雄的文章，在此不再多詳述。
在此事件上，筆者認為：
1）在故宮內，應否有星巴克咖啡店的問題，是價值觀與及文化取向的問題，是應否在故宮內有其他與中國文化有別的商店，或者是我們應否大玩crossover，還是保護傳統文化的統一性？與星巴克咖啡店在國外是否代表次級飲食文化好像沒有多大的相關性，芮主播的言論好像有些過份針對了星巴克咖啡，況且也與討論的內容無關。
2）在故宮內開設的商店，筆者也認同是要小心的選擇，收入雖然重要，但是也應當留意理境的協調性。筆者也認為，在故宮內開咖啡店是有些格格不入的。雖然筆者是酷愛咖啡的一族。因為，假如筆者去故宮的話，也希望可以猶如置身明清年間的紫禁城，我想明清年間不會有咖啡店吧？故宮的維修費是應當要考慮，但是可以從提高入場費或者參設入場費那裏去著手。實在不用要靠租金的收入！
3）芮主播的言論有些過於偏激，在故宮內開星巴克咖啡店，確之然會有格格不入的感覺，但是說是「對中國傳統文化的糟蹋」，會否過於嚴重。筆者認為，在故宮內應否開設咖啡店，確是應該討論，但是過激的言論，會否影響理性的討論，說是對中國傳統文化的糟蹋，未免太過豐感情色彩了。
後話；
其實，筆者有一件不明的事，就是星巴克不是隨意的就可以在故宮內開業的。那麼，芮主播為什麼會那麼大力的批評星巴克咖啡店，還要去信給人家的CEO那裏。他應該跟有關當局提出意見，畢竟是當局準許人家在這裏開業的，與人何幹？去信人家，說什麼什麼'人家侵略你的文化、糟蹋你的文化… 假若我是星巴克的CEO的話，真的要抓頭說句："What the fxxk!"
在此事件上，筆者認為：
1）在故宮內，應否有星巴克咖啡店的問題，是價值觀與及文化取向的問題，是應否在故宮內有其他與中國文化有別的商店，或者是我們應否大玩crossover，還是保護傳統文化的統一性？與星巴克咖啡店在國外是否代表次級飲食文化好像沒有多大的相關性，芮主播的言論好像有些過份針對了星巴克咖啡，況且也與討論的內容無關。
2）在故宮內開設的商店，筆者也認同是要小心的選擇，收入雖然重要，但是也應當留意理境的協調性。筆者也認為，在故宮內開咖啡店是有些格格不入的。雖然筆者是酷愛咖啡的一族。因為，假如筆者去故宮的話，也希望可以猶如置身明清年間的紫禁城，我想明清年間不會有咖啡店吧？故宮的維修費是應當要考慮，但是可以從提高入場費或者參設入場費那裏去著手。實在不用要靠租金的收入！
3）芮主播的言論有些過於偏激，在故宮內開星巴克咖啡店，確之然會有格格不入的感覺，但是說是「對中國傳統文化的糟蹋」，會否過於嚴重。筆者認為，在故宮內應否開設咖啡店，確是應該討論，但是過激的言論，會否影響理性的討論，說是對中國傳統文化的糟蹋，未免太過豐感情色彩了。
後話；
其實，筆者有一件不明的事，就是星巴克不是隨意的就可以在故宮內開業的。那麼，芮主播為什麼會那麼大力的批評星巴克咖啡店，還要去信給人家的CEO那裏。他應該跟有關當局提出意見，畢竟是當局準許人家在這裏開業的，與人何幹？去信人家，說什麼什麼'人家侵略你的文化、糟蹋你的文化… 假若我是星巴克的CEO的話，真的要抓頭說句："What the fxxk!"
最根本的環保
評之評 - 一小步一小步走出大段路
筆者愛看記錄片，還記得多年看過一個國家地理雜誌制作的一個節目，是講述有關蝗蟲的生活和習性。蝗蟲只有一種，但是會有兩種狀態：獨居和群居的。獨居的，顏色是綠色，溫和，不會飛，食量較少。群居的，黃色，有攻擊性，會長距離飛行，食量大。很多人都以為它們是兩種不同的物種，但是看過這個記錄片之後，才知道它們根本是同一種生物。
片中做了一個有趣的實驗，將一隻獨居的蝗蟲，放在一個箱子裏，內有數個細少的圓球。然後，不停的搖動箱子，那麼那些小圓球就會不停的打到那一隻溫和的蝗蟲的腳。數個小時之後，尤如變戲法一般，那隻溫和的小蝗蟲就如幪面超人變身一樣，從綠色的變成黃色的，即是從溫和的變成有攻擊性的，獨居的變成群居的，不會飛的變成會飛的，但是最重要的是從食量較少的變成食量驚人的。
科學家發現，原因是當蝗蟲的後腳有一個類似感應器的器官，每當受到過度刺激的時候，就會令蝗蟲變身。這說明什麼? 即是說，每當野外的蝗蟲，生活的空間過如擠擁的時候，後腳會被其他的蝗蟲踏到的時候，它們便會一起的變成群居的，食量驚人的。然後，飛到其他的地方去覓食。做成蝗禍！
這令大家想到什麼，令筆者想到香港的情況。擠擁的生活空間，浪費的生活，就尤如蝗蟲、蝗禍一般！在世界地圖上，可能連一粒芝麻的大小也沒有的地方，以使地球資源來說可以名列前茅的城市，筆者也說不上可否說是香港人的驕傲！
特首還說要將香港打造到有一千萬人口，也是的，不是這樣的話，蝗蟲少了，如何還可以推動經濟，經濟是要利用浪費去推動的，不是嗎？
筆者覺得用少些飲管，膠袋，飯盒…無錯是會有幫助的，但是可能只是短時間，還有要靠全民一齊去努力才有望成功。但是可能嗎? 一小步一小步無疑可以走出一大段路，但是方向要正確才成。
與其，要現在浪費慣了的香港人用少些，不如長遠的將那些浪費的香港人減少來得跟有效。地球太多人了，一個城市人一生浪費了多少的地球資源。中國以朝是天朝大國，地大物博，資源豐富，但要知道，晚清的時候，中國只有大概二億多的人，現在是有十多億，就算如何的資源豐富，也應付不了這麼多的人罷！
說回蝗蟲的故事，餂說當年美國也是會有蝗蟲的發生，但是為何蝗蟲在美國絕跡? 專家估計，成體的蝗蟲，要消滅它們，真的是難如登天，但是在它們幼蟲的時候是相當跪弱的。專家認為，是當年美國的西部大開發，相當多還在泥土裏的蝗蟲卵，在開發翻土的時候被消滅了。
如果各下真的認為不可以不用膠袋的話，也可以！不過，也請多用些避孕袋罷！
筆者愛看記錄片，還記得多年看過一個國家地理雜誌制作的一個節目，是講述有關蝗蟲的生活和習性。蝗蟲只有一種，但是會有兩種狀態：獨居和群居的。獨居的，顏色是綠色，溫和，不會飛，食量較少。群居的，黃色，有攻擊性，會長距離飛行，食量大。很多人都以為它們是兩種不同的物種，但是看過這個記錄片之後，才知道它們根本是同一種生物。
片中做了一個有趣的實驗，將一隻獨居的蝗蟲，放在一個箱子裏，內有數個細少的圓球。然後，不停的搖動箱子，那麼那些小圓球就會不停的打到那一隻溫和的蝗蟲的腳。數個小時之後，尤如變戲法一般，那隻溫和的小蝗蟲就如幪面超人變身一樣，從綠色的變成黃色的，即是從溫和的變成有攻擊性的，獨居的變成群居的，不會飛的變成會飛的，但是最重要的是從食量較少的變成食量驚人的。
科學家發現，原因是當蝗蟲的後腳有一個類似感應器的器官，每當受到過度刺激的時候，就會令蝗蟲變身。這說明什麼? 即是說，每當野外的蝗蟲，生活的空間過如擠擁的時候，後腳會被其他的蝗蟲踏到的時候，它們便會一起的變成群居的，食量驚人的。然後，飛到其他的地方去覓食。做成蝗禍！
這令大家想到什麼，令筆者想到香港的情況。擠擁的生活空間，浪費的生活，就尤如蝗蟲、蝗禍一般！在世界地圖上，可能連一粒芝麻的大小也沒有的地方，以使地球資源來說可以名列前茅的城市，筆者也說不上可否說是香港人的驕傲！
特首還說要將香港打造到有一千萬人口，也是的，不是這樣的話，蝗蟲少了，如何還可以推動經濟，經濟是要利用浪費去推動的，不是嗎？
筆者覺得用少些飲管，膠袋，飯盒…無錯是會有幫助的，但是可能只是短時間，還有要靠全民一齊去努力才有望成功。但是可能嗎? 一小步一小步無疑可以走出一大段路，但是方向要正確才成。
與其，要現在浪費慣了的香港人用少些，不如長遠的將那些浪費的香港人減少來得跟有效。地球太多人了，一個城市人一生浪費了多少的地球資源。中國以朝是天朝大國，地大物博，資源豐富，但要知道，晚清的時候，中國只有大概二億多的人，現在是有十多億，就算如何的資源豐富，也應付不了這麼多的人罷！
說回蝗蟲的故事，餂說當年美國也是會有蝗蟲的發生，但是為何蝗蟲在美國絕跡? 專家估計，成體的蝗蟲，要消滅它們，真的是難如登天，但是在它們幼蟲的時候是相當跪弱的。專家認為，是當年美國的西部大開發，相當多還在泥土裏的蝗蟲卵，在開發翻土的時候被消滅了。
如果各下真的認為不可以不用膠袋的話，也可以！不過，也請多用些避孕袋罷！
2007年8月10日 星期五
Café Starbucks Coffee and I
To me, a self-proclaimed, self-respecting coffee drinker, Starbucks is another icon of the detestable USA imperialist “cultureless” culture, along side with its compatriots McDonald’s and Gap. In other words, it is not worthy of my patronage. It is disconcerting that its overpriced and unexciting coffee, global scale and uniformity, marketing strategy and corporate culture, and half-heartedness in its devotion to fair trade is becoming (if not already) the synonym of coffee (i.e., “Let’s go get a cup of Starbucks” as opposed to “let’s go get a cup of coffee”).
As a corporate chain, Starbucks has stringent quality control. Besides the unalterable taste of the coffee, they go so far to forbid their employees from wearing any fragrant/perfume, fearing that it would distort the aroma of their product. From the view of running a company, these measures are neutral, if not brilliant. But, like wine, one of the more interesting aspects of coffee drinking is its variability and diversity. Many coffee addicts might agree that the slight unpredictability and occasional surprise in their daily cup helps to spice up their otherwise mundane life (it also gives them something to complain/compliment about). The chain model ensures the quality and standard of the coffee, but it takes away the possible excitement from coffee drinking. Another problem with the international coffee company is the uniformity of its décor. A Starbucks in Seattle looks (and smells) exactly the same as the one formerly in the Forbidden City. Again, diversity is jeopardized.
One of the secrets behind the success of Starbucks as a chain is in its clustering model. What they do is that they would pick a neighborhood and flood it with their cafes. In other words, you’ll likely see more than multiple Starbucks in an area. I remember when I was living in Tokyo I would walk to Akasaka for dinner with my dorm mates. We were always amused by the number of Starbucks coffee we saw on our way. My last count was four, and they were about 5 minutes away from each other. Another telling illustration is in Robson Street, Vancouver. In one intersection (i.e., four corners) there are three cafes, two of which are Starbucks, diagonal from each other. Interestingly, the earnings of each individual Starbucks would drop and eventually some would shut down. The main goal of opening more retails than the market needs is to wipe out other competitors in the neighborhood. When they successfully dominate the market in the area, the redundant outlets will be purged. Local cafes cannot compete with Starbucks’ multimillion dollar marketing budget (i.e., everyone) become the immediate victim. Coffee drinkers are also victims in the long run. They loose diversity, relationships, social capital, and many different ways. Recall the story of Robson Street. The third, non-Starbucks coffeehouse is now gone, leaving the twin Starbucks brothers dominating the busiest intersection in downtown Vancouver.
Another problem with the corporate model is its profit-driven principle. To maximize profit, cost is usually cut by 1) paying employee less and 2) paying less for sources. Full-time Starbucks employees are guaranteed all sorts of generous benefits (health insurance etc.). But behind this seemingly benevolent practice is the fact that most employees are denied sufficient work hours to reach full-time status, preventing them from those benefits. The company is also allegedly against union (http://www.starbucksunion.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Labor_disputes).
While Starbucks might sell fair-trade coffee in their chains, they sell even more non-fair-trade coffee, even though the cost of a liter the former is only slightly more than the latter. The logic of selling both fair and not-so-fair trade coffee is strange (around 0.25 USD, according to a storekeeper I spoke with a few years ago). Can you sell both rotten and fresh produce and convince people that your food is fine? Can you sell both sweatshop-free and sweatshop-made clothes and claim that you are an ethical brand?
I haven’t bought a cup for Starbucks coffee for over 5 years. I thank Montreal for teaching me the above lessons. Montrealers are proud coffee drinkers. Not only do they respect and value their daily fix, it is a part of their lifestyle. They would spend a good chunk of time enjoying the bitter drink while socializing in a café own by a neighbor. They would meet their friends to chat, smoke (no longer permitted by the law), study, play chess, read, gossip, and most importantly, complain about the weather and their politicians. Hours would go by as the social ties between people strengthen. Walk down the streets of Montreal you’ll see many interesting looking and decorated coffeehouses. In fact, many cities take pride in their vibrant and often historic cafes and they have long become important tourist attractions (e.g., Paris and Vienna). The relationships built in these cafes arguably are important aspect of the social fabric. One can be absent for years but when you return you’ll see the same owner who would remember that your order, the same old chess partner would be sitting in the same seat awaiting the next game. People know you by your name. Of course chains exist in any metropolitan, but they are not dominating in places like Montreal by any means. In fact Café Starbucks Coffee (by law both English and French must be present) is extremely hard to locate.
It is until we recognize the beauty of diversity and the importance of social relationships between people—between customers and storeowners and between customers—could we truly appreciate the crime and deleterious effect of Starbucks.
Christian Chan
August 9, 2007
Vancouver, BC, Canada
As a corporate chain, Starbucks has stringent quality control. Besides the unalterable taste of the coffee, they go so far to forbid their employees from wearing any fragrant/perfume, fearing that it would distort the aroma of their product. From the view of running a company, these measures are neutral, if not brilliant. But, like wine, one of the more interesting aspects of coffee drinking is its variability and diversity. Many coffee addicts might agree that the slight unpredictability and occasional surprise in their daily cup helps to spice up their otherwise mundane life (it also gives them something to complain/compliment about). The chain model ensures the quality and standard of the coffee, but it takes away the possible excitement from coffee drinking. Another problem with the international coffee company is the uniformity of its décor. A Starbucks in Seattle looks (and smells) exactly the same as the one formerly in the Forbidden City. Again, diversity is jeopardized.
One of the secrets behind the success of Starbucks as a chain is in its clustering model. What they do is that they would pick a neighborhood and flood it with their cafes. In other words, you’ll likely see more than multiple Starbucks in an area. I remember when I was living in Tokyo I would walk to Akasaka for dinner with my dorm mates. We were always amused by the number of Starbucks coffee we saw on our way. My last count was four, and they were about 5 minutes away from each other. Another telling illustration is in Robson Street, Vancouver. In one intersection (i.e., four corners) there are three cafes, two of which are Starbucks, diagonal from each other. Interestingly, the earnings of each individual Starbucks would drop and eventually some would shut down. The main goal of opening more retails than the market needs is to wipe out other competitors in the neighborhood. When they successfully dominate the market in the area, the redundant outlets will be purged. Local cafes cannot compete with Starbucks’ multimillion dollar marketing budget (i.e., everyone) become the immediate victim. Coffee drinkers are also victims in the long run. They loose diversity, relationships, social capital, and many different ways. Recall the story of Robson Street. The third, non-Starbucks coffeehouse is now gone, leaving the twin Starbucks brothers dominating the busiest intersection in downtown Vancouver.
Another problem with the corporate model is its profit-driven principle. To maximize profit, cost is usually cut by 1) paying employee less and 2) paying less for sources. Full-time Starbucks employees are guaranteed all sorts of generous benefits (health insurance etc.). But behind this seemingly benevolent practice is the fact that most employees are denied sufficient work hours to reach full-time status, preventing them from those benefits. The company is also allegedly against union (http://www.starbucksunion.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Labor_disputes).
While Starbucks might sell fair-trade coffee in their chains, they sell even more non-fair-trade coffee, even though the cost of a liter the former is only slightly more than the latter. The logic of selling both fair and not-so-fair trade coffee is strange (around 0.25 USD, according to a storekeeper I spoke with a few years ago). Can you sell both rotten and fresh produce and convince people that your food is fine? Can you sell both sweatshop-free and sweatshop-made clothes and claim that you are an ethical brand?
I haven’t bought a cup for Starbucks coffee for over 5 years. I thank Montreal for teaching me the above lessons. Montrealers are proud coffee drinkers. Not only do they respect and value their daily fix, it is a part of their lifestyle. They would spend a good chunk of time enjoying the bitter drink while socializing in a café own by a neighbor. They would meet their friends to chat, smoke (no longer permitted by the law), study, play chess, read, gossip, and most importantly, complain about the weather and their politicians. Hours would go by as the social ties between people strengthen. Walk down the streets of Montreal you’ll see many interesting looking and decorated coffeehouses. In fact, many cities take pride in their vibrant and often historic cafes and they have long become important tourist attractions (e.g., Paris and Vienna). The relationships built in these cafes arguably are important aspect of the social fabric. One can be absent for years but when you return you’ll see the same owner who would remember that your order, the same old chess partner would be sitting in the same seat awaiting the next game. People know you by your name. Of course chains exist in any metropolitan, but they are not dominating in places like Montreal by any means. In fact Café Starbucks Coffee (by law both English and French must be present) is extremely hard to locate.
It is until we recognize the beauty of diversity and the importance of social relationships between people—between customers and storeowners and between customers—could we truly appreciate the crime and deleterious effect of Starbucks.
Christian Chan
August 9, 2007
Vancouver, BC, Canada
2007年8月2日 星期四
逼宮
上兩週看信報一財金專欄，刊登了北京故宮星巴克事件。首先簡述一下事件經過：
北京故宮有間星巴克(應該是位於賣工藝品、菲林的商店附近)，在6年前開業，是故宮招商引資的，多年來相安無事，店鋪裝修有點CROSSOVER的玩味。今年1月，中央電視台英語頻道主播芮成鋼，於其博客發表了「請星巴克從故宮裡出去」文章(連結1)，並去信星巴克全球總裁兼CEO(連結2)，要求星巴克搬離故宮。他的理由是「星巴克…終究是美國並不高級的飲食文化的載體和象徵，在西方已經成為一種符號…但開在故宮裏面，成為世界對於中國紫禁城記憶感受的一部分，實在太不合適。這不是全球化，而是侵蝕中國文化」。此言帶來全城議論，要求星巴克離開的呼聲越來越大，最後星巴克於7月關閉故宮分店(連結3)。
北京故宮於6年前邀請星巴克來開咖啡店，而不邀請麥當勞、必勝客、或是本土的全聚德、小肥羊等餐飲企業，反映故宮是曾考慮企業是否適合在故宮開業。讓商人在故宮裡租舖開餐飲，當然是想增加收入。若以爭取最大利潤為目標，為何不搞個公開招標，這更簡單直接。
故宮更看重的是，在五百多年的建築物裡開商店，怕因盈利之事小失歷史建築群之事大，試想想四川麻辣火鍋或者是小肥羊在「百年老店」內，火鍋沸騰，對木結構破壞甚大。簡單講，茶座是博物館裡普遍的餐飲服務，不用炊具，簡單、快捷。
故宮要開源，當然是將新增的收入投放於保護文物及故宮推廣工作中。但要找到既有穩定租金收入，又不會破壞文物建築，這並不容易；要加上芮氏提出不讓外國餐飲企業參與，更難。最終，那舖位可能變成吉舖，或變成另一間紀念品店，店員終日打蒼蠅。若引入中國餐飲企業，又可能因餐飲水準不穩定、衛生情況不大理想，又是店員終日打蒼蠅。或者可以邀請「上海星巴克」加盟(一笑)。
坦言，難以理解芮氏受著「故宮星巴克」文化衝擊。試想，在漫天風雪的故宮裡，與另一半在咖啡店裡，呷一口mocha，靜看故宮雪景，或是帶著熱呼呼的咖啡，手拖手漫遊白色故宮，多浪漫！
芮氏表示「我與我無數的中外朋友們都認為它和中國故宮的氛圍極不協調，有礙觀瞻」，又說「侵蝕中國文化」，這種排他性的文化思維，很難在不過三十的朋友中找到。世界各國均提倡文化共融，互相尊重不同文化，這才是地球村的意義。若將芮氏的思想伸延，柯達菲林、可口可樂等商品都不應在故宮裡售賣，因為「和中國故宮的氛圍極不協調，有礙觀瞻」。
潮流興玩CROSSOVER，不但日本美國香港朋友愛玩，北京朋友玩得更出色，包括798藝術區及鬼佬甄妮(YANNI)、三大男高音在故宮演出，演奏會好票難求，未知芮氏會否覺得「和中國故宮的氛圍極不協調，有礙觀瞻」。
星巴克實為CROSSOVER能手，將故宮分店變身為具有中國特色的星巴克；本人亦去過成都錦里星巴克分店，內有中式屏風、酸枝家具，佈置得甚有味道。
故宮裡的星巴克，體現了文化融合、合而不同的特質，能為故宮、租戶及遊客提供三贏的方案。當然，現在星巴克被逼搬走，遊客可找另一替代品、星巴克只是少了一間分店，但故宮可能損失了一項甚為豐厚的租金收入。
與其說將美國咖啡標誌影響故宮形象，倒不如想想應否在故宮範圍內開設商店。
在巴黎羅浮宮的玻璃金字塔下，是有商店的，還有一間VIRGIN MEGASTORE。
北京故宮有間星巴克(應該是位於賣工藝品、菲林的商店附近)，在6年前開業，是故宮招商引資的，多年來相安無事，店鋪裝修有點CROSSOVER的玩味。今年1月，中央電視台英語頻道主播芮成鋼，於其博客發表了「請星巴克從故宮裡出去」文章(連結1)，並去信星巴克全球總裁兼CEO(連結2)，要求星巴克搬離故宮。他的理由是「星巴克…終究是美國並不高級的飲食文化的載體和象徵，在西方已經成為一種符號…但開在故宮裏面，成為世界對於中國紫禁城記憶感受的一部分，實在太不合適。這不是全球化，而是侵蝕中國文化」。此言帶來全城議論，要求星巴克離開的呼聲越來越大，最後星巴克於7月關閉故宮分店(連結3)。
北京故宮於6年前邀請星巴克來開咖啡店，而不邀請麥當勞、必勝客、或是本土的全聚德、小肥羊等餐飲企業，反映故宮是曾考慮企業是否適合在故宮開業。讓商人在故宮裡租舖開餐飲，當然是想增加收入。若以爭取最大利潤為目標，為何不搞個公開招標，這更簡單直接。
故宮更看重的是，在五百多年的建築物裡開商店，怕因盈利之事小失歷史建築群之事大，試想想四川麻辣火鍋或者是小肥羊在「百年老店」內，火鍋沸騰，對木結構破壞甚大。簡單講，茶座是博物館裡普遍的餐飲服務，不用炊具，簡單、快捷。
故宮要開源，當然是將新增的收入投放於保護文物及故宮推廣工作中。但要找到既有穩定租金收入，又不會破壞文物建築，這並不容易；要加上芮氏提出不讓外國餐飲企業參與，更難。最終，那舖位可能變成吉舖，或變成另一間紀念品店，店員終日打蒼蠅。若引入中國餐飲企業，又可能因餐飲水準不穩定、衛生情況不大理想，又是店員終日打蒼蠅。或者可以邀請「上海星巴克」加盟(一笑)。
坦言，難以理解芮氏受著「故宮星巴克」文化衝擊。試想，在漫天風雪的故宮裡，與另一半在咖啡店裡，呷一口mocha，靜看故宮雪景，或是帶著熱呼呼的咖啡，手拖手漫遊白色故宮，多浪漫！
芮氏表示「我與我無數的中外朋友們都認為它和中國故宮的氛圍極不協調，有礙觀瞻」，又說「侵蝕中國文化」，這種排他性的文化思維，很難在不過三十的朋友中找到。世界各國均提倡文化共融，互相尊重不同文化，這才是地球村的意義。若將芮氏的思想伸延，柯達菲林、可口可樂等商品都不應在故宮裡售賣，因為「和中國故宮的氛圍極不協調，有礙觀瞻」。
潮流興玩CROSSOVER，不但日本美國香港朋友愛玩，北京朋友玩得更出色，包括798藝術區及鬼佬甄妮(YANNI)、三大男高音在故宮演出，演奏會好票難求，未知芮氏會否覺得「和中國故宮的氛圍極不協調，有礙觀瞻」。
星巴克實為CROSSOVER能手，將故宮分店變身為具有中國特色的星巴克；本人亦去過成都錦里星巴克分店，內有中式屏風、酸枝家具，佈置得甚有味道。
故宮裡的星巴克，體現了文化融合、合而不同的特質，能為故宮、租戶及遊客提供三贏的方案。當然，現在星巴克被逼搬走，遊客可找另一替代品、星巴克只是少了一間分店，但故宮可能損失了一項甚為豐厚的租金收入。
與其說將美國咖啡標誌影響故宮形象，倒不如想想應否在故宮範圍內開設商店。
在巴黎羅浮宮的玻璃金字塔下，是有商店的，還有一間VIRGIN MEGASTORE。
2007年7月26日 星期四
香港－文化堆填區
評之評－10 years, countng…
閱畢，突覺筆者感到香港在過去十年原地踏步，在經濟、民生、文化等有各樣缺失，不知是人家跑的快、追得貼，或是自己倒後跑，無論是整體或是每樣範疇分開來看，總是令人不愉快。
經濟民生問題，有自身原因，也有地區因素，經濟氣候時有順景逆景，變數大，難講；這次我想談談香港文化。
筆者舉例，說香港街頭甚少遇到街頭音樂者，其演出質素也難以保證，在平民百姓的樂手已經不多，能夠衝出香港的更是少之有少。這讓我聯想起年前的屯門公園事件。
話說在屯門公園有一班退休長者，熱愛生命，更熱愛歌唱舞蹈，每天風雨不改，自發地在公園內舉行各項文藝活動，種類包羅萬有，由傳統的中國舞、社交舞、中樂、西樂、粵曲、歐美流行曲、卡拉OK，在公園不同角落裡，搞不同主題的文化天地，實行何而不同，來個文化大雜燴。試想像，各路耆英各求所好，跳舞的跳舞、唱歌的唱歌、演奏的演奏，自得其樂。
忽然一天早上，康文處連同保安人員，阻止演藝長者繼續大唱遊，原因是接獲音樂聲浪太大投訴，處方要取締此類型活動。結果傳媒大播、長者力爭，結果處方那出措施，進行「雙規」(在規定時間、規定地點內)演出，在演出地點更有保安人員維持秩序(或監察)。
可笑嗎！長者在白天建設演藝天地，純粹是娛己娛人，又不是向政府拿資源，更不是在公園賭錢，這健康開心的民間活動，政府為何不適當扶持，反而處處壓制？晚上唱歌擾民且說得過去，白天唱歌擾民真的未聽過。純為興趣的樂手們竟然要在這狹小的表演空間求存。若有人投訴馬場在賽馬日噪音擾民，不知政府如何處理？
從屯門乘坐西鐵往旺角，到處均是即食文化，連書展亦由文化活動變為潮點。貿發局舉辦的書展，經常強調入場人次，甚具營商意識。確實，近兩年書展加入了不同主題的講座，邀請知名人士及作家交流讀書心得，講座亦場場爆滿。但書展過後，大家對閱讀的那團火未得以延續，手中的書本又變回原本所持的NDS、PSP。忽然閱讀，這行為均指定在每年暑假的某一個星期出現，令人驚嘆。
若HARRY POTTER能對港人閱讀有起死回生的本事，實為港人之福。眼見巴士地鐵內，甚少乘客拿起書本閱讀閱讀，相對於英美或內地城市，在地鐵內十有六七位乘客均是車內閱讀，而國內讀者求知慾甚旺，索性在書城蹲著打書釘。究竟是港人重現實，或是外國及國內讀者愛文字、愛幻想，不得而知。
有時候，文化難免是由金錢催生出來的：筆者說上海各項娛樂場所均是世界頂級之數，將香港比下去。上海有高質素的樂手，很可能是老闆疊水，願意大灑金錢聘請一流人才，視為娛樂場所重要資產，要重點投資，令爵士樂場在浦東浦西均有；很不幸，香港的爵士樂場仍在艱苦生存。
自從有西九龍文化區這諗頭後，各地產商都「忽然」文化起來，大發銀彈去營造自己是醉心文化的企業，雖事出「突然」，畢竟企業資助文化活動，港人也能受惠。若「忽然」能轉化為「可持續發展」，實為港人之福。
後話1
說起香港即食文化、愛立標，很可能這是大都市的特色之一，此舉未必等於商業化或急功近利，但難免讓半桶水的單位有機會蒙混過關。
最近知道體藝校歌改歌詞，由普通話變為英語。這「改牌匾」動作，有甚麼含意？會否像國泰新上任的CEO對記者說「現時首要工作，是對現時所推行的政策作全面檢討」？抑或，為要標榜自己是英文中學，需要透過校歌作公關手段，推行大型的形象工程？倒轉來看，是否唱唱英文校歌便等於學校上下、所有成員的英語均了得？在香港，中英文均為法定語文，為何不能讓中英文歌詞並存？至少，尤德夫人唱過中文版。
本人甚為欽佩首任校長的前瞻性思維，在八十年代末勇敢地選上普通話來填詞。在同學們日唱夜唱的校歌中，是否在潛移默化地告訴唱者－要學好普通話，與內地十三億人民溝通？
後話2
從電視得知「九龍皇帝」曾灶財離世的消息，讓我回想起多年前香港曾爭論他的奏接是否屬藝術之列。
很奇怪，(希望我沒有記錯)管藝術的政府部門曾舉辦論壇，討論曾氏墨寶是否藝術，當時藝術館長說「不是藝術」。
那，甚麼是藝術？單憑一個人的說話便能鑑定哪是藝術？至少，他的書法是香港獨有，寫了多年，書寫風格始終如一，內容甚能反映香港歷史，作品更曾於威尼斯雙年展中展出，就算不能說是書法(CALLIGRAPHY)，也肯定可收入「香港字體集」內(FONT TYPE)，成為香港特有文化。為何港府不願正面評價曾氏的作品，難到舶來品先至正貨？
2007年7月17日 星期二
十週年干撈粗底事?
阿爺重掌後花園種植權十週年, 合家歡騰。阿爺行走江湖之久, 靠的並非三腳貓功夫, 而是獨門絕學門面功。 阿爺此門面功起手式一出, 後花園頓時(或暫時)變得花團錦簇, 舞有得跳, 馬有得跑。一眾乖孫們, 當然不甘後人, 他們最會做的就是在阿爺使出門面功時, 再在阿爺門面貼金。對阿爺歌功頌德不在話下, 更重要的是吐出忠貞不異的肺腑之言。
我等受殖民地愚民教育長大之屋村仔, 每天坐著大巴小巴趕上班去捱騾仔之時, 定必在半夢半醒之間 享受 著那碟撈粗的精神訓練(或折磨)… 最近有一次多得那碟撈粗撈著油菜心十蚊斤晚會完滿舉行, 使得當天小弟雖然已在巴士上闔上眼晴, 但當聽到一眾城中猛人發表感人至深的言論, 也不得不精神為之一震, 抬頭瞪眼以示我對那幾位講者的遠大目光的欽佩。以下是節錄自其中一些撈粗嘉賓之慷慨陳詞:
- 後花園傳說中的三當家震英: 『不知不覺間香港已經回歸十週年, 十年過去, 所有我們回歸前擔心的事情全部都沒有發生過, 所以我們真該好好慶祝一下…』
對呢, 我們在回歸前擔心的包括南下的同志隨地吐痰以致各室內地方需敬備衛生痰罐; 維多利亞公園易名為鄧小平公園等都不曾發生。但我們不曾擔心過的樓市股市直插谷底, 八萬五, 奸商賣假魚, 教育制度朝令夕改, 西九茶餘飯後笑話區, 維港巨星匯, 摘天星, 滅皇后… 都先後發生了。 … 原來這種高官說話技巧跟國粹變臉戲法是同一路的障眼法, 說句話, 來一個招牌笑容, 把東西說得似有還無, 就蒙混過去了… 所以我們真該好好慶祝一下。 - 傳媒大亨二世祖咩見鱷: 『中國的發展一日千里… 我在此希望香港能成為中國的火車頭… 啊… 特別是經濟上, 娛樂事業上的火車頭, 一定要做到… 對啊… 一定會做到。』
小弟書讀得少, 自然不太明瞭富豪子弟說的這句話背後是為了表達什麼了, 是對香港的期許? 是疑問? 還是對香港能力的肯定? … 不過我在懷疑, 是否全香港都在希望經濟上, 娛樂事業上做中國的火車頭… 難道我們要幫這位先生重震他的家族事業嗎? 怎麼他不說希望香港成為全中國民主自由, 學術研究, 思想文化上的火車頭呢… 這位林先生要全香港人跟他一起背負上那麼膚淺的責任也未免太看得起我們了。 - 撈粗老闆娘某不知名之 “名媛” 女仕: 『在這個撈粗撈錯花旗蔘十周年晚會, 我們真的很高興, 十分之的高興, 因為在不知不覺間…(停頓, 思考半秒) 呢…(停頓, 思考半秒) 我們已經回歸給阿爺…(停頓, 思考半秒) 了。』
喔! 為甚麼明明大家都是本地人我卻聽不懂她說的廣府話在表達甚麼?… 難道回歸十年後, 他才發現"我們已經回歸"了? 此話聽得我冷汗直冒, 想著自己可能太市井才聽不懂上流人士的話… 還好在不知不覺間…(停頓, 思考半秒) 呢…(停頓, 思考半秒) 我坐的巴士已經到站…(停頓, 思考半秒) 了。
我但願什麼撈粗撈飯, 少點搞這種反智的(或嘉賓都不知道自己在說什麼的)晚會。反之應多點製作引起各界基層市民廣泛討論的專題反思/回顧特輯, 好讓大家能檢討過去兩地政府的得失和正視中港當前面對的問題… 那麼我們坐巴士時, 是會變得更有意義的。畢竟巴士是要靠司機大力踩油門, 而不是靠拍馬屁推動的。
2007年7月10日 星期二
10 years, counting...
Being a Hong Konger living abroad, the most common question I get asked is whether life has changed much since the 1997 handover. My answer has been changing over the decade, perhaps more so than life in Hong Kong itself.
We live in an exciting time. Hong Kong is in effect a huge experiment (which probably make us lab rats)—a former British colony and now a Chinese city under Deng’s “one country, two systems” ideology—with an open hypothesis. But the excitement can perhaps be described as bittersweet. We as a city survived 150 years of bowing down to the Queen and submitting to a government led by her lords and knights. We also survived the shame inflicted and cultural sabotage brought by the white man. We were made to believe that we were subjects/subordinates of the better, taller, and wiser. And unfortunately many of us internationalized such propaganda and helped perpetuating the oppressive power structure. July 1, 1997 marked the end to this injustice and self-governance once again became within reach. For that we ought to celebrate; but the bitter aftertaste lingers on.
10 years went by; the bowtie replaced the bagpipes, but the arrogant face and way of governance stays unchanged. The city we call home is still under rules we did not ask (and vote) for; full democracy is still a fantasy we hear and talk about frequently but cannot realize just yet. Our post-handover leaders somehow think that they are now the better and wiser (but probably not taller), telling us when we need what and what we are just too naïve to be given. We are forced to rely on our blind faith, if there’s any left.
The first decade of HKSAR was more eventful than anyone would have anticipated: the 1997 Asian financial crisis, followed by the epidemics of bird flu and SARS shocked the entire globe. These BBC-worthy news stories coincided with other more “domestic” turmoil such as the ridicule of Article 23, the flop (and scam) of various government-sponsored infrastructural schemes (Cyberport, Disneyland, West Kowloon Cultural District, Ngong Ping 360, and our favorite—Star Ferry, just to name a few). To paint an even more pessimistic picture: pollution is worsening everyday, unemployment rate is up, so is the cost of living (Hong Kong is ranked number five in the world, while New York is #15), and the Gini index. Sure we are financially rich as a city, but the disparity between the wealthy and poor is only growing, which, as history reminds us, eventually shall lead to massive social upheavals; the various government-lead reforms (and re-reforms) are seemingly going nowhere, our social safety net is thin and flimsy (e.g., poor public health care system); the quality of our politicians as well as their “visions” is a joke; and perhaps the most devastating of all, the quality of our cultural life is utterly pathetic.
Hong Kong is probably the only metropolis I’ve seen/been that does not have a vibrant street culture. Street musicians are extremely rare and quality not guaranteed. In contrast, other “world cities” such as London, NYC, Montreal etc. all have audition systems to ensure that they are offering their citizens and tourists good performances. Our Museum of Art, both its architecture and exhibits, is provincial at best. Our three most widely read newspapers are better labeled as tabloids. And please name me one internationally known musician/band we have produced locally? Iceland with the population of 200,000 has at least half a dozen—clearly, quantity is not correlated to quality. Our public radio station is restrained by politics, defeating the purpose of its original existence; our school system is archaic and driven by blind guesses, as opposed to empirically driven theories; our clubs and bars are expensive meat markets (Shanghai’s babyface hit the world’s top 50 clubs list, Hong Kong, “Asia’s world city” has zero); our skyline might be impressive, but as individual buildings, they are better described as hideous (except I. M. Pei’s) and many of them remind us of Freudian complexes. The past decade has recurrently assured us that our city cares more about infrastructure than what is in them; hardware over software; institutionalized culture rather than grass root and local art; top-down rather than bottom-up.
Hong Kong, where are you heading?
One of the most telling and yet disturbing facts observable during the make-believe HK CE election was that our politicians have a fixation on maintaining HK’s financial status, at all cost. The rhetoric that was most prominent, coming out from the mouths of both Mr. Tseng and Mr. Leong, was their vision on how to ensure that comparative advantage of our city will perpetuate. We ought to strive to become, as they have decided, Asia’s financial center with a world-class state-of-the-art cargo hub, IT and services. Asia’s world city, Donald’s wet dream.
This vision of prosperity may warrant our support but it becomes lamentable when it is made the number one priority, sacrificing other needs of our city. Financial success should be viewed as a bonus of good governance, which should emphasize on people’s overall well-being. Shouldn’t a governing body first care about its people before it meddle the financial health of others? Hong Kong is often praised as the freest economy in the world. But it has a bad record in economic disparity. It seems that the well-worshiped model of trickle down economy is no more than an excuse for the rich to take advantage of the poor. Essentially, we are governed by the rich and powerful and they don’t seem to care much about the less fortunate. Or at least that seems to be the case thus far.
But there is hope
In 2003, we witnessed 500K people demonstrating peaceful for freedom and democracy. Thankfully we have made the July 1 march a tradition that is both highly symbolic and a good reminder of our identity as a city—a city of china. It should be no surprise that the best that comes out of a place, be it a nation or a city, is more often than not results of something that is spontaneous and not institutionally organized. The most memorable movements and music events and art are product of a public with a conscience, with a conviction, and with hopes and dreams.
Instead of more hardware, what our city needs is a lot more non-actions from the government. We need to unlearn our phobia for social disorganizations so that there will be more freedom and space for people—the true steward of the city—to use their creativity and skills. We need less ready-made commodities that do not contribute to the long-term economic success but a more affordable, organic city to LIVE in. That means we probably should stress less when our GDP growth is staggering, that our inflation rate is dropping, that buildings are not reaching their occupancy rate. A “decaying” city, when positioned properly, is conducive to great revitalization because it encourages bottom-up entrepreneurship. To have a vibrant “world class” art scene, for instance, we need audiences and an affordable climate and freedom, not more galleries and museums and cultural district. Sure Vienna has a museum quarter, but the best “cultural events” occur on the streets; the best artists (not necessarily the most famous) are attracted to a heterogenous city in where they could live and interact with each other.
What can I do for this city?
Perhaps the most important thing we as a city must do is to accept ourselves as who we are. As one of the many metropolitans in China (the population of Shanghai will soon be our three-fold, the population of Nanjing, an arguable second-rated city, is pretty much identical to ours), perhaps we need to humble ourselves and realize that we need not fight to become number one, or more bluntly "Asia's world city". We just couldn’t afford to sacrifice more of our heritage and potential for an ideal that does not necessarily benefit the common people.
We as a people, hence, must reevaluate what is important and reconsider our way of life. Once we've made our priorities straight, we could then demand our government to govern accordingly. Let’s hope that changes—life style, aspiration, vision etc.—is what we see as HKSAR reaches its adolescence.
Christian Chan
July 9, 2007
New York, USA
We live in an exciting time. Hong Kong is in effect a huge experiment (which probably make us lab rats)—a former British colony and now a Chinese city under Deng’s “one country, two systems” ideology—with an open hypothesis. But the excitement can perhaps be described as bittersweet. We as a city survived 150 years of bowing down to the Queen and submitting to a government led by her lords and knights. We also survived the shame inflicted and cultural sabotage brought by the white man. We were made to believe that we were subjects/subordinates of the better, taller, and wiser. And unfortunately many of us internationalized such propaganda and helped perpetuating the oppressive power structure. July 1, 1997 marked the end to this injustice and self-governance once again became within reach. For that we ought to celebrate; but the bitter aftertaste lingers on.
10 years went by; the bowtie replaced the bagpipes, but the arrogant face and way of governance stays unchanged. The city we call home is still under rules we did not ask (and vote) for; full democracy is still a fantasy we hear and talk about frequently but cannot realize just yet. Our post-handover leaders somehow think that they are now the better and wiser (but probably not taller), telling us when we need what and what we are just too naïve to be given. We are forced to rely on our blind faith, if there’s any left.
The first decade of HKSAR was more eventful than anyone would have anticipated: the 1997 Asian financial crisis, followed by the epidemics of bird flu and SARS shocked the entire globe. These BBC-worthy news stories coincided with other more “domestic” turmoil such as the ridicule of Article 23, the flop (and scam) of various government-sponsored infrastructural schemes (Cyberport, Disneyland, West Kowloon Cultural District, Ngong Ping 360, and our favorite—Star Ferry, just to name a few). To paint an even more pessimistic picture: pollution is worsening everyday, unemployment rate is up, so is the cost of living (Hong Kong is ranked number five in the world, while New York is #15), and the Gini index. Sure we are financially rich as a city, but the disparity between the wealthy and poor is only growing, which, as history reminds us, eventually shall lead to massive social upheavals; the various government-lead reforms (and re-reforms) are seemingly going nowhere, our social safety net is thin and flimsy (e.g., poor public health care system); the quality of our politicians as well as their “visions” is a joke; and perhaps the most devastating of all, the quality of our cultural life is utterly pathetic.
Hong Kong is probably the only metropolis I’ve seen/been that does not have a vibrant street culture. Street musicians are extremely rare and quality not guaranteed. In contrast, other “world cities” such as London, NYC, Montreal etc. all have audition systems to ensure that they are offering their citizens and tourists good performances. Our Museum of Art, both its architecture and exhibits, is provincial at best. Our three most widely read newspapers are better labeled as tabloids. And please name me one internationally known musician/band we have produced locally? Iceland with the population of 200,000 has at least half a dozen—clearly, quantity is not correlated to quality. Our public radio station is restrained by politics, defeating the purpose of its original existence; our school system is archaic and driven by blind guesses, as opposed to empirically driven theories; our clubs and bars are expensive meat markets (Shanghai’s babyface hit the world’s top 50 clubs list, Hong Kong, “Asia’s world city” has zero); our skyline might be impressive, but as individual buildings, they are better described as hideous (except I. M. Pei’s) and many of them remind us of Freudian complexes. The past decade has recurrently assured us that our city cares more about infrastructure than what is in them; hardware over software; institutionalized culture rather than grass root and local art; top-down rather than bottom-up.
Hong Kong, where are you heading?
One of the most telling and yet disturbing facts observable during the make-believe HK CE election was that our politicians have a fixation on maintaining HK’s financial status, at all cost. The rhetoric that was most prominent, coming out from the mouths of both Mr. Tseng and Mr. Leong, was their vision on how to ensure that comparative advantage of our city will perpetuate. We ought to strive to become, as they have decided, Asia’s financial center with a world-class state-of-the-art cargo hub, IT and services. Asia’s world city, Donald’s wet dream.
This vision of prosperity may warrant our support but it becomes lamentable when it is made the number one priority, sacrificing other needs of our city. Financial success should be viewed as a bonus of good governance, which should emphasize on people’s overall well-being. Shouldn’t a governing body first care about its people before it meddle the financial health of others? Hong Kong is often praised as the freest economy in the world. But it has a bad record in economic disparity. It seems that the well-worshiped model of trickle down economy is no more than an excuse for the rich to take advantage of the poor. Essentially, we are governed by the rich and powerful and they don’t seem to care much about the less fortunate. Or at least that seems to be the case thus far.
But there is hope
In 2003, we witnessed 500K people demonstrating peaceful for freedom and democracy. Thankfully we have made the July 1 march a tradition that is both highly symbolic and a good reminder of our identity as a city—a city of china. It should be no surprise that the best that comes out of a place, be it a nation or a city, is more often than not results of something that is spontaneous and not institutionally organized. The most memorable movements and music events and art are product of a public with a conscience, with a conviction, and with hopes and dreams.
Instead of more hardware, what our city needs is a lot more non-actions from the government. We need to unlearn our phobia for social disorganizations so that there will be more freedom and space for people—the true steward of the city—to use their creativity and skills. We need less ready-made commodities that do not contribute to the long-term economic success but a more affordable, organic city to LIVE in. That means we probably should stress less when our GDP growth is staggering, that our inflation rate is dropping, that buildings are not reaching their occupancy rate. A “decaying” city, when positioned properly, is conducive to great revitalization because it encourages bottom-up entrepreneurship. To have a vibrant “world class” art scene, for instance, we need audiences and an affordable climate and freedom, not more galleries and museums and cultural district. Sure Vienna has a museum quarter, but the best “cultural events” occur on the streets; the best artists (not necessarily the most famous) are attracted to a heterogenous city in where they could live and interact with each other.
What can I do for this city?
Perhaps the most important thing we as a city must do is to accept ourselves as who we are. As one of the many metropolitans in China (the population of Shanghai will soon be our three-fold, the population of Nanjing, an arguable second-rated city, is pretty much identical to ours), perhaps we need to humble ourselves and realize that we need not fight to become number one, or more bluntly "Asia's world city". We just couldn’t afford to sacrifice more of our heritage and potential for an ideal that does not necessarily benefit the common people.
We as a people, hence, must reevaluate what is important and reconsider our way of life. Once we've made our priorities straight, we could then demand our government to govern accordingly. Let’s hope that changes—life style, aspiration, vision etc.—is what we see as HKSAR reaches its adolescence.
Christian Chan
July 9, 2007
New York, USA
2007年7月4日 星期三
5256000
踏入六月起, 香港四周各處的慶回歸活動, 愈見沸騰熱鬧, 各式各樣大大小小的宣傳活動以鋪天蓋地形式的密集地進行, 政府政黨電視媒體每時每刻都优如洗太平地一樣的洗腦. 一片太平盛世歌舞昇起, 不單馬可照跑舞可纖體還有波可賭煙花每晚放新股日日上奧運有你份國寶獻給你. 如斯人間樂土, 差點我以為自己去了天堂, 不用去馬爾代夫.... 面對這種國產廣告硬銷模式, 我們這等二十世紀老餅最不受這套....
同時受過港英殖民地教育及心繫家國教育的我們; 由每天坐在課室看著黑板頂前的英女皇畫像發呆, 後至在早會打著呵欠唱國歌看昇旗的日子. 回歸的十年前後, 原來我們經歷了許多, 也改變了許多.
香港人?! 中國人?!
在回歸前, 香港市民牽起一片「身份危機」, 普遍人們都不願承認自己是中國人的身份, 眼看不少同學每年填寫個人資料時. 國籍一欄總是要填英藉; 當有人問起:「你是什麼人?」, 總是尷尬的回答: 「我是香港人.」. 在九七前一窩蜂的跑去申請BNO, 那怕只是一個連二等公民都不配的英國海外屬土公民的旅遊護照...慢慢過渡的十年, 當特區護照的免簽証待遇愈來愈多, 當人們發現原來持著特區護照可走入國外中國大使館尋求保護時. 當中國慢慢在世界舞臺佔一席位時, 當中國都射了個太空人上太空, 當姚明在NBA站穩了腳, 當劉翔飲過蒙牛嬴了金牌...... 向來會計數的香港人, 又那會介意及執著那個沒有國籍的<香港人>身份?
金融風暴 / 沙士
對於過慣紙醉金迷生活的香港人,一場金融風暴令香港經濟走入谷底. <負資產>成了香港一個新名詞. 面對經濟受重創的香港, 政府一連串重大基建政策方案還未止血見效時, 香港又再面臨一次世紀疫情--沙士, 不單奪去數百人命, 更將還未回過氣的香港再狠狠埋入地底....面對重未如此惡劣環境, 香港人難免都失去信心. 社會盡是抱怨沸騰, 獅子山下維港兩旁都光芒暗淡,不復當年閃耀....但是在這個窘境下, 卻使香港人留意到幾十年來一直都忽視了的東西, 經濟不境, 卻使一家人一起圍臺共坐家常便飯的機會增加了, 原來一家人全在一起吃餐飯也是一件得來不易的事啊 ; 沙士橫行的日子, 才發現原來我們都是這麼緊張關心身邊的人, 人與人之間的關懷也比之前繫得更緊了. 原來生活就是這樣的一回事....原來你我心中最重要的也就是平常眼看不到的事....
十年, 人生沒有幾個十年, 當中的樂與悲, 笑與淚, 自豪與後悔, 都充實著我們共同的十年, 日子過得如何, 是苦或甜, 全在你如何衡量得與失, 不論回首過去總結如何, 你是反共還是愛黨..親中還是范民. 住後的十年, 仍請多多指教!!
2007年7月2日 星期一
回歸十年
轉眼間，回歸已有十載！香港其間經歷了許多的風風雨雨，雖然筆者在這十年中，有過半的時間都不在香港，但是身在彼邦亦感到香港的動盪和不安。其中最重要的莫過於在ＳＡＲＳ的其間，常常都與香港的家人聯絡，雖然父母不斷叫我專心讀書就可以了，但是在通話中都感到香港不安的情況，心裏也難免有些焦急和擔心。幸好雨過天睛，愁雲慘霧過去，香港又再出現睛天！
看過温高雄的文章，心內亦有些感想。香港提出爭取普選的呼聲漸高，弄得全城沸騰的。但是，如果真的有普選的話，我們可以選出一些什麼的人來？我們的選民有没有充夠的能力，去選出一個好的特首？我見到很多的示威，大部份人都是爭取他們團體的權益！我個人認為，合法的去爭取自己的權益是完全没有問題的。只是，會不會其實大部份的香港人根本不會關心誰去當特首？有幾多爭取普選的，都是跟隨別人去示威？又或者，認為如果可以有普選的話，可以選到一個會為他們去爭取權益或者利益的人？
有很多的人都說，香港有一個很好的公務員制度，有很多的專才。但是，從没有人說香港有很多政治的人才。要知道，攪政治的，亦需要有政治的教育和訓練。公務員不等於是政治的人才！儘管，香港有人不同意共產黨的理念，但是他們亦會有黨校，有系統的去培養人才。在英國，在大學也有黨的青年團的在好像牛頓劍橋的大學裏。但是，在香港，好些爭取普選的黨裏，他們所謂的第二梯隊，第三梯隊，好像也是在訴說他們要有出頭的機會。
還記得，小時候聽香港電台的一個講佛學的節目。其中有一個故事令我有很深刻的印象。故事的名稱叫做《起二樓》，故事是講有一個人，他想起一層樓。但是，他只想要有二樓，而不要地下的一層。每個人也說怎麼可能，没有可能只起二樓而不起一樓的。不可能只有二樓浮在半空中的！但是，固執的主角不聽別人的說話，堅持己見。没有工匠肯接他的工作，他還是自己一個人獨力的去建他的二樓。最後，他當然是被磚頭和瓦片埋在地裏。
有很多的事情，我們小時候巳知道的。只是，大部份我們都忘了。還記得嗎？小學畢業的時候，有很多的同學都很喜歡寫一句：萬象高樓從地起，讀書應在少年時。第二句，我相信很多人都做到了，因為很多中年人及老年人都不會讀書了。但是，我們不應忘了第一句，萬象高樓從地起！願香港不要做第二個天空之城！
看過温高雄的文章，心內亦有些感想。香港提出爭取普選的呼聲漸高，弄得全城沸騰的。但是，如果真的有普選的話，我們可以選出一些什麼的人來？我們的選民有没有充夠的能力，去選出一個好的特首？我見到很多的示威，大部份人都是爭取他們團體的權益！我個人認為，合法的去爭取自己的權益是完全没有問題的。只是，會不會其實大部份的香港人根本不會關心誰去當特首？有幾多爭取普選的，都是跟隨別人去示威？又或者，認為如果可以有普選的話，可以選到一個會為他們去爭取權益或者利益的人？
有很多的人都說，香港有一個很好的公務員制度，有很多的專才。但是，從没有人說香港有很多政治的人才。要知道，攪政治的，亦需要有政治的教育和訓練。公務員不等於是政治的人才！儘管，香港有人不同意共產黨的理念，但是他們亦會有黨校，有系統的去培養人才。在英國，在大學也有黨的青年團的在好像牛頓劍橋的大學裏。但是，在香港，好些爭取普選的黨裏，他們所謂的第二梯隊，第三梯隊，好像也是在訴說他們要有出頭的機會。
還記得，小時候聽香港電台的一個講佛學的節目。其中有一個故事令我有很深刻的印象。故事的名稱叫做《起二樓》，故事是講有一個人，他想起一層樓。但是，他只想要有二樓，而不要地下的一層。每個人也說怎麼可能，没有可能只起二樓而不起一樓的。不可能只有二樓浮在半空中的！但是，固執的主角不聽別人的說話，堅持己見。没有工匠肯接他的工作，他還是自己一個人獨力的去建他的二樓。最後，他當然是被磚頭和瓦片埋在地裏。
有很多的事情，我們小時候巳知道的。只是，大部份我們都忘了。還記得嗎？小學畢業的時候，有很多的同學都很喜歡寫一句：萬象高樓從地起，讀書應在少年時。第二句，我相信很多人都做到了，因為很多中年人及老年人都不會讀書了。但是，我們不應忘了第一句，萬象高樓從地起！願香港不要做第二個天空之城！
2007年6月29日 星期五
黃金十年
十年，等於兩個五年計畫的年期，亦等於20年期的長期發展計畫的一半路程。對港人來說，過去的十年心路歷程好像走得特別漫長，但財富收入增長竟出奇地絲毫不動。
港英政府年代，政府內的華人精英份子，多年受著英國政府派來的特使管理，擔任「你講點做，我就點做」及「只做不問」的執行者角色，只追求完成項目任務及如何有效率地完成任務。由於各項任務都有指引，故，按本子辦事即可。
回歸後，未知是香港叻人全部下海營商，或是過去高官甚少決策力訓練，又或者被「積極不干預」的金剛咒玩殘，政府未有按香港的競爭優勢，從而制定長期發展策略，以提高在區域內的競爭力。過去十年，香港未能把握良好的基調再作改良，任由各方面的競爭優勢慢慢腿色。
港口業便是一個例子。長遠而言，香港港口業會因國內貨櫃碼頭增多而被逐漸取代，言而，透過與珠江三角洲內各政府合作，並降低貨櫃經香港出口的費用及時間，加上興建相關基礎設施以提高吞吐量，香港可作為內河船－遠洋船貨櫃中轉樞紐，讓香港港口繼續有貨物進出轉港，周邊地區亦不需浪費大量金錢在重複建設的港口基建上。但，過往特區政府未有定下明確方針，以實際性行動鞏固港口業競爭優勢，結果浪費了黃金十年。
與香港相比，新加坡及上海政府則有著積極及進取態度，兩府大力發展有利社會發展的產業，並提供優惠政策去招攬外國相關行業在本土投資，比如新加坡博彩及旅遊業、製藥業、金融業，上海金融業及高新科技事業。在香港，數碼港項目不見得吸引外國IT企業，最終結果變了地產項目。
香港剩下金融業這張皇牌，在這主張「大市場、小政府」、「積極不干預」(或是「放任」政策？)的政府裡，能否保留這行業的區域競爭優勢至下個十年？
2007年6月26日 星期二
Obscured vision & lost vocation
As alluded to in the earlier entries, personal goals and aspirations do seem to have evolved to become nothing more than products of a socially constructed value system. What is considered to be good, worthwhile, respectable, and noble can hardly escape the distortion and corruption of the dominant culture. It is easy and sometimes comfortable to lose sight of one’s connection with the world and give up one’s calling—something that is quite unique to you—which is a complicated cocktail of your talents, passion, beliefs, vision, and social context.
In our city, vanity, entertainment and materialism is the name of the game and making money is the rule to play by. This is more often than not translated into sacrificing time and talent (and life) for a career that is about nothing but generating more and more profit—not so much for oneself than for those who are already rich, at the expense of the poor. We are fooled to believe that we are doing fine (“hey, how is it not good to be rich?”) and are rewarded with the drug we were made addicted to (“hey, look at my ______ [fill in the blank]”). The biggest tragedy is when those external forces, no matter how deviant from one’s innermost believes and desire and calling, are internalized and eventually believed in and worshiped. Usually the justification goes like this: if you can’t fight the system, be part of it, or, everyone else is doing it, why shouldn’t I?
The primary purpose of staying alive is thus to sustain the system that is, in turn, sustaining you and allowing you to consume more junk and generate more waste. So at the end of the day, we are still alive and are still buying more stuff disguised as happiness. We, the mass, are but a sad, mindless, powerless tool (see Marx, or if time doesn’t permit, watch the Matrix).
Certainly life is bigger than one’s job and we probably shouldn’t judge a person by his/her career. But can we frankly isolate our being and values (or soul, if you will) from something we spend half (if not more) of our time doing? Can we fool ourselves to believe that a job we go to everyday is just a job and what we do in our “leisure” is more defining of our being? Can we devote our weekdays in harming others while spending our weekends saving people? Sure this might sound extreme, but when was the last time you checked where the money you are making for your company or saving to your bank account is going to? We are not that innocent.
True, life is seldom a romantic script with a happy thereafter plot—we all face numerous demands and expectations, both realistic and imagined. Similarly, it is only moral for us to fulfill the duty and obligations of our roles—assumed or imposed. In fact, what roles to attend to is exactly a moral question in itself. For instance, Confucius delineated a system that gave us some clues: as parent/child, as sister/brother, as husband/wife, as boss/subordinate, and as king/subject—he included a moral code that would fit right into the harmonious and functional society he envisioned. The end product is allegedly a good life. Capitalism also has a set of guidelines for us: If we are smart enough, work hard enough, tough enough, and selfish enough, we too can live a good life. What does those two ideas of good life entail is, on the other hand, a different question. So yes, certain people might feel obligated (and rightly so) to sacrifice their hopes and dreams for their families, especially when basic necessities are in question. But once that threshold is passed, we have less excuse to not question our priorities. It is easy to follow the herds and do what seems (again, a function of social pressure and popular opinion) to be right. It is difficult to go against the current and seek out that dream or calling that is greater than you (and those around you), even though doing which will fulfill and actualize you as a being. Happiness might not be guaranteed but meaning is. Well, it is your choice: the red pill or the blue pill?
Perhaps Confucism is archaic, perhaps not; regardless, it serves to give us a starting/reference point. And perhaps more importantly, Confucius, like many respectable thinkers in the past, reminded us that we do not live in a vacuum and the bottom line is that we don’t, can’t, and ought not to live “our” lives for ourselves.
To be or not to be isn’t the question
Most likely there isn’t one right way to live or one right lifestyle to pursue. The question is thus less about what we do than why we do what we do. A person could be doing the right thing for the wrong reason (for personal gain/ego) or do the wrong thing for the right reason (sure, some—and only some—people are meant to be bankers). The moral question is more about our motivation behind our actions. What are you willing to die for, and why?
Great power comes with great responsibility—something Socrates, Confucius, and Spider Man would agree on. With all the wealth and talent we’ve accumulated individually and as a city, and with so many clear and present crises happening as I type and as you read, can we really stay neutral and pretend that our goals, aspirations, and hopes and dreams are truly ours and ours alone?
Christian Chan
June 26, 2007
Storrs, CT, USA
In our city, vanity, entertainment and materialism is the name of the game and making money is the rule to play by. This is more often than not translated into sacrificing time and talent (and life) for a career that is about nothing but generating more and more profit—not so much for oneself than for those who are already rich, at the expense of the poor. We are fooled to believe that we are doing fine (“hey, how is it not good to be rich?”) and are rewarded with the drug we were made addicted to (“hey, look at my ______ [fill in the blank]”). The biggest tragedy is when those external forces, no matter how deviant from one’s innermost believes and desire and calling, are internalized and eventually believed in and worshiped. Usually the justification goes like this: if you can’t fight the system, be part of it, or, everyone else is doing it, why shouldn’t I?
The primary purpose of staying alive is thus to sustain the system that is, in turn, sustaining you and allowing you to consume more junk and generate more waste. So at the end of the day, we are still alive and are still buying more stuff disguised as happiness. We, the mass, are but a sad, mindless, powerless tool (see Marx, or if time doesn’t permit, watch the Matrix).
Certainly life is bigger than one’s job and we probably shouldn’t judge a person by his/her career. But can we frankly isolate our being and values (or soul, if you will) from something we spend half (if not more) of our time doing? Can we fool ourselves to believe that a job we go to everyday is just a job and what we do in our “leisure” is more defining of our being? Can we devote our weekdays in harming others while spending our weekends saving people? Sure this might sound extreme, but when was the last time you checked where the money you are making for your company or saving to your bank account is going to? We are not that innocent.
True, life is seldom a romantic script with a happy thereafter plot—we all face numerous demands and expectations, both realistic and imagined. Similarly, it is only moral for us to fulfill the duty and obligations of our roles—assumed or imposed. In fact, what roles to attend to is exactly a moral question in itself. For instance, Confucius delineated a system that gave us some clues: as parent/child, as sister/brother, as husband/wife, as boss/subordinate, and as king/subject—he included a moral code that would fit right into the harmonious and functional society he envisioned. The end product is allegedly a good life. Capitalism also has a set of guidelines for us: If we are smart enough, work hard enough, tough enough, and selfish enough, we too can live a good life. What does those two ideas of good life entail is, on the other hand, a different question. So yes, certain people might feel obligated (and rightly so) to sacrifice their hopes and dreams for their families, especially when basic necessities are in question. But once that threshold is passed, we have less excuse to not question our priorities. It is easy to follow the herds and do what seems (again, a function of social pressure and popular opinion) to be right. It is difficult to go against the current and seek out that dream or calling that is greater than you (and those around you), even though doing which will fulfill and actualize you as a being. Happiness might not be guaranteed but meaning is. Well, it is your choice: the red pill or the blue pill?
Perhaps Confucism is archaic, perhaps not; regardless, it serves to give us a starting/reference point. And perhaps more importantly, Confucius, like many respectable thinkers in the past, reminded us that we do not live in a vacuum and the bottom line is that we don’t, can’t, and ought not to live “our” lives for ourselves.
To be or not to be isn’t the question
Most likely there isn’t one right way to live or one right lifestyle to pursue. The question is thus less about what we do than why we do what we do. A person could be doing the right thing for the wrong reason (for personal gain/ego) or do the wrong thing for the right reason (sure, some—and only some—people are meant to be bankers). The moral question is more about our motivation behind our actions. What are you willing to die for, and why?
Great power comes with great responsibility—something Socrates, Confucius, and Spider Man would agree on. With all the wealth and talent we’ve accumulated individually and as a city, and with so many clear and present crises happening as I type and as you read, can we really stay neutral and pretend that our goals, aspirations, and hopes and dreams are truly ours and ours alone?
Christian Chan
June 26, 2007
Storrs, CT, USA
2007年6月24日 星期日
志願何價?
早陣子跟朋友談話間, 談到他重遇了中學時代的某位高材生同學的事。談話內容大概如此:
友人認真地道: “今天下午在街上遇到一位中學同學, 嘩你猜他有多利害?”
“喔, 有多利害呢? 願聞其詳。”
“真不簡單啊, 他正受聘於 Morgan Stanley 旗下, 正在做 trader 的工作!”
“嘩...” 我酸溜溜地道 “那真的是很了不起喔...”
“當然啦, 人家會考拿九優的啊!”
“噢... 那...”
“什麼?”
“坦白說, 是有點大材小用了...”
“你別理...” 友人有點不屑 “最低限度人家是賺到很高的薪水啊...”
“嗯...” 說到這裡我把話題拉到了別處, 但其實心中另有想法, 只是當時沒有說出口。
尤記得當年高考時還設有中國語文及文化科這一必修科, 在此暫且把課程內容的質素擱之一旁, 只記當時有一課的內容是論述人禽之別的... 當中的大綱是: 當人能滿足了生存的基本需要 “物理層” , “物質層” 之後, 便要開始追求較高層次的東西 “思想層”, “價值層” 的東西, 這才是人之所以有別於動物。
對於 “滿足生存的基本需要” 也許每人有不同的演譯, 但於小弟來說, 只要三餐溫飽並有安身之所已算達成了上述條件。那麼對於一個會考九優生來說, 有沒有別的工作比大摩的trader 更有意義呢?
我在幻想如果有一天, 會考放榜後的新聞報導你都聽見九優十優生說, 他們的志願是去做發明家, 政治家或哲學家... 那麼這個香港, 這個世界將會變得更有意思的...
“你的志願是什麼? 每月拿四萬塊薪水? 噢那我的志願比你偉大得多了, 我要拿八萬塊!” 這樣的思想說了出來未免唐突, 但難道不就是我們的普遍價值嗎?
友人認真地道: “今天下午在街上遇到一位中學同學, 嘩你猜他有多利害?”
“喔, 有多利害呢? 願聞其詳。”
“真不簡單啊, 他正受聘於 Morgan Stanley 旗下, 正在做 trader 的工作!”
“嘩...” 我酸溜溜地道 “那真的是很了不起喔...”
“當然啦, 人家會考拿九優的啊!”
“噢... 那...”
“什麼?”
“坦白說, 是有點大材小用了...”
“你別理...” 友人有點不屑 “最低限度人家是賺到很高的薪水啊...”
“嗯...” 說到這裡我把話題拉到了別處, 但其實心中另有想法, 只是當時沒有說出口。
尤記得當年高考時還設有中國語文及文化科這一必修科, 在此暫且把課程內容的質素擱之一旁, 只記當時有一課的內容是論述人禽之別的... 當中的大綱是: 當人能滿足了生存的基本需要 “物理層” , “物質層” 之後, 便要開始追求較高層次的東西 “思想層”, “價值層” 的東西, 這才是人之所以有別於動物。
對於 “滿足生存的基本需要” 也許每人有不同的演譯, 但於小弟來說, 只要三餐溫飽並有安身之所已算達成了上述條件。那麼對於一個會考九優生來說, 有沒有別的工作比大摩的trader 更有意義呢?
我在幻想如果有一天, 會考放榜後的新聞報導你都聽見九優十優生說, 他們的志願是去做發明家, 政治家或哲學家... 那麼這個香港, 這個世界將會變得更有意思的...
“你的志願是什麼? 每月拿四萬塊薪水? 噢那我的志願比你偉大得多了, 我要拿八萬塊!” 這樣的思想說了出來未免唐突, 但難道不就是我們的普遍價值嗎?
我的志願...作文題目?
從小到大，不知有多少次作文的題目都是我的志願，對我來說，這真的是一個作文題目。因爲，每一次，我都是要費盡九牛二虎之力，才可以交得出數佰字來給老師。然而，每次都有一個不錯的分數，爲什麼? 因爲我都知道老師都需要我們有什麼的志願。當老師、警察(包括所有紀律部隊)、醫生、律師等等...... 都是老師的至愛，比較易容批改的題目。試想像一下，老師要怎樣去改一個小朋友的作文，而那個小朋友的志願是没有志願的。
年少的時候，曾有機會看到老子的道德經。不是看得太深入，我想看就算看得深入亦未必看得明白。但是，記得的就是一句..... 老死不相往來..... 講的是理想的生活，一種社會型態。小型的社會，村與村之間，也是没有往來。我想不是說大家不理睬大家，只是可以的話，盡量將生活安排得比較簡單一點，没有太多的人與事。簡簡單單、安貧樂道。也許，平凡就是美，簡單就是福。
這就是老子理想的國度，原來在現代的社會要做到，也殊不容易！也許更是不可能的事，如可開口對人家說，你的志願没有志願？現在慢慢想來，說來好像不困難，但是也一點都不容易。身邊太多人與事都在左右的你的決定、想法。有多人真正的可以做到自己想做的，太多的人都是去做別人想他們做的，大家都認爲是應該做的事。很多人的志願，其實是他們父母的志願、老師的志願又或者是朋友的志願。
簡單的事，未必簡單。複雜的事亦未見得一定困難。小學生的作文題目，原來大有深意。想來，我的志願是没有志願，那麼你的呢？
年少的時候，曾有機會看到老子的道德經。不是看得太深入，我想看就算看得深入亦未必看得明白。但是，記得的就是一句..... 老死不相往來..... 講的是理想的生活，一種社會型態。小型的社會，村與村之間，也是没有往來。我想不是說大家不理睬大家，只是可以的話，盡量將生活安排得比較簡單一點，没有太多的人與事。簡簡單單、安貧樂道。也許，平凡就是美，簡單就是福。
這就是老子理想的國度，原來在現代的社會要做到，也殊不容易！也許更是不可能的事，如可開口對人家說，你的志願没有志願？現在慢慢想來，說來好像不困難，但是也一點都不容易。身邊太多人與事都在左右的你的決定、想法。有多人真正的可以做到自己想做的，太多的人都是去做別人想他們做的，大家都認爲是應該做的事。很多人的志願，其實是他們父母的志願、老師的志願又或者是朋友的志願。
簡單的事，未必簡單。複雜的事亦未見得一定困難。小學生的作文題目，原來大有深意。想來，我的志願是没有志願，那麼你的呢？
2007年6月21日 星期四
快車男
可以分開兩個階段來講吧，第一階段是在十歲前，跟著就是十歲後。雖然是兩個不同階段，但夢想只有一個，都是跟車有關的。
兒時聽得父親說得多，加上不知何解對車有著濃厚的興趣，漸漸將的士司機成為我的志願。當時想法比較天真(可能有部分是受到父親誤導)，每位的士司機都是車主(哈哈，係就發達囉)。既然車子是自己的，有可以合法經營客運生意，那就可以白天做生意，晚上接家人放工，或是一家人開車到西貢食海鮮，多好。當然，在白天的工作時間裡，為省下寶貴的營業時間，具有專業的賽車技巧是必須的。簡單說，「的士速遞」便是我的投射。用最短的路徑及時間將客人送抵目的地，除了表現我的專業駕駛技巧外，更能有效地將車子(無論是性能上，或是財務上)運用到最高水平，用得多，整體成本便減少，沒想到當時便有點商業頭腦。
在日常接載乘客的的哥生活中，難免會加插了警匪追逐、要為乘客逃離黑老大的追捕等等，為沉悶的生活加添精采。
但是，有些細節是未曾想過的，例如：當時的士是軚波棍波，轉得波多手都跛；當時柴油的士根本開不過120km/h，大大增加被黑老大截獲的機會；搵食車日日開十多小時，車頭難免有頭暈身熱，有可能上山水滾之虞；更重要的，是逐漸發現的士經營權大多是由大型公司持有，甚少有又是車主、又是司機的市民，各種各樣的社會現實，使我預計此夢想難以實現，催使第二階段的志願誕生。
我的第二階段志願是做房車/越野車賽車手。
自約小四開始，每年澳門大賽車是我的大節目，除了由於香港及鄰近地區缺乏賽車體育活動外，在家裡看賽車亦是少數得到父親批准收看的節目，每年風雨不改地在家收看兩天賽事。第一天賽事是電單車及新手房車賽，第二天為東望洋房車賽及三級方程式賽車。由於自小對電單車不敢興趣，亦對方程式賽車的賽車造型難以理解及代入(試問誰會開方程式賽車返工)，新手房車賽又是永遠的豐田鬥本田(近年更是清一色CIVIC或是INTERGRA)，故東網洋房車賽是我的喜愛。
小時候缺乏物理及幾何學知識，故每逢鏡頭瞄準東方灣及水塘灣時，看見車子從路的右邊飄到左邊，甚難理解為何車子會高速橫行。最具官能刺激的是車群在第一圈殺入葡京灣，總有變成碰碰車。令各位車迷留下深刻印象，肯定是當年東望洋賽車德國車手Joachim Winkelhock大戰英國Kelvin Burt的一場寶馬對豐田賽事，至今仍是最精采的賽事之一(看看 )。
除了每年一次澳門大賽車外，在年初偶爾有555港京拉力賽，有深刻印象的應該是在中二三的時候，在香港昂船洲做開步禮及第一個特殊路段，是一條軍方使用的封閉石屎路，跑一個來回，轉折點放了一個油筒。記得一部三菱EVOLUTION3(不記得車手是否ERIKSON)車頭緊貼油筒圓周做HANDBRAKE TURN，立即成為當天下午民記師兄弟的話題。越野賽車刺激無比，雖然只是與時間作賽，但由於路面環境變化萬千，需與領航員有良好默契，鬥智又鬥力，技術比場地賽車更高。
然而，當長大後，始知道外國很多車手都使從小玩KART培訓，到塞車學校深造，還有是要大量財力支持成長，發現與賽車夢越來越遠。還好，到外國的TRACK DAY及賽車課程，能一解相思之苦。
2007年6月20日 星期三
你的自願=我的志願
家裡的五歲小妹被問及將來長大後想做什麼, 小腦袋在想啊想, 良久終於想出來,高興的走過來大大聲跟我們說: 「我大個要做農夫!」
語畢即被我家老爸當頭訓話, 說她沒大志, 沒腦袋又沒用, 養得大後真的去做耕田就真是浪費米飯.還不好直接去新界買條牛養大不用勞氣.....(下刪5千字...)小妹在明與不明之間又跳開了.
慢著慢著......剛開始時不是你們先問人家長大後後想做什麼嗎? 到底你的問題是<我的志願>, 還是<你的志願>?幹嗎人家答了後你又不滿意?!這種普遍<假民主>令不小香港小孩們的天真的想法從小就被不知不覺間操控規限著...啊...原來志願是一定要成為乜師物師的,原來志願少過年薪百萬元會被不可以的.原來志願....不是有志就能如願的.難怪香港多年來也未見得出了幾個土生偉人, 每年會考高考放榜,訪問十優天子有何志願時,可悲的是十個有八個答你的都是想做一般的乜師物師等...難以寄望再有更上一層更有遠境的大志向.告訴你想為社會為世界做點什麼.....而大學每年發出的畢業生就業情況也是如薪酬掛鉤的,而幾間大學之間連薪酬也要比個高低,即使平均薪酬只高你不過是那四十大元,也要登報大事張揚....卻無人考究當中畢業生的職位及專業範疇等等, 搞不好下一年畢業生中有十個買老翻,廿個買k 仔,三十個走私,四十個打劫的計起來總薪酬比往件要高的,是否也值得高興也是否等同有錢就如勝了這世界?
在前天一個港台電視節目, 講及有關智利及香港的赤貧家庭的生活態度, 其中一名港式小孩提及將有長大後想做什麼, 小孩即說要做有錢人,因為有錢人會捐錢給窮人.請恕我欠缺同情心,那一刻我只是在冷笑.這是一個什麼無理想空洞的志願啊? 從小孩第一句要做有錢人來說, 是否只要有錢, 打家劫舍殺人放火小白臉小混混你也去做?這當然不可怪責一個只有十歲小童的童言,要怪及心痛的也只有是這個光怪陸離的社會, 讓這種崎型思想荼毒下一代吧...
語畢即被我家老爸當頭訓話, 說她沒大志, 沒腦袋又沒用, 養得大後真的去做耕田就真是浪費米飯.還不好直接去新界買條牛養大不用勞氣.....(下刪5千字...)小妹在明與不明之間又跳開了.
慢著慢著......剛開始時不是你們先問人家長大後後想做什麼嗎? 到底你的問題是<我的志願>, 還是<你的志願>?幹嗎人家答了後你又不滿意?!這種普遍<假民主>令不小香港小孩們的天真的想法從小就被不知不覺間操控規限著...啊...原來志願是一定要成為乜師物師的,原來志願少過年薪百萬元會被不可以的.原來志願....不是有志就能如願的.難怪香港多年來也未見得出了幾個土生偉人, 每年會考高考放榜,訪問十優天子有何志願時,可悲的是十個有八個答你的都是想做一般的乜師物師等...難以寄望再有更上一層更有遠境的大志向.告訴你想為社會為世界做點什麼.....而大學每年發出的畢業生就業情況也是如薪酬掛鉤的,而幾間大學之間連薪酬也要比個高低,即使平均薪酬只高你不過是那四十大元,也要登報大事張揚....卻無人考究當中畢業生的職位及專業範疇等等, 搞不好下一年畢業生中有十個買老翻,廿個買k 仔,三十個走私,四十個打劫的計起來總薪酬比往件要高的,是否也值得高興也是否等同有錢就如勝了這世界?
在前天一個港台電視節目, 講及有關智利及香港的赤貧家庭的生活態度, 其中一名港式小孩提及將有長大後想做什麼, 小孩即說要做有錢人,因為有錢人會捐錢給窮人.請恕我欠缺同情心,那一刻我只是在冷笑.這是一個什麼無理想空洞的志願啊? 從小孩第一句要做有錢人來說, 是否只要有錢, 打家劫舍殺人放火小白臉小混混你也去做?這當然不可怪責一個只有十歲小童的童言,要怪及心痛的也只有是這個光怪陸離的社會, 讓這種崎型思想荼毒下一代吧...
2007年6月19日 星期二
Preserving the environment (and your soul)
Recycling the past
I do not recall when the idea of environmental conservation was planted in my head. My earliest relevant memory was a debate I had with a friend in 6th grade. I made an accusation of him being wasteful and he responded by challenging me to use only one ply of paper each time I do a number two. Of course I did not experiment with that possibility but the moral of the story is that a sense of ecological responsibility stuck with me from an early age. In fact, it has become a personal mission of mine to fight for the betterment of our (dying) environment.
In that sense, moving to Boston/Cambridge was like a dream come true. In this city eco-friendly products are abundant. From biodegradable toothpaste to biodegradable detergent; from recycled garbage bags to recycled paper, things I had to painstakingly seek out while living in Japan (I didn’t even bother trying in Hong Kong), are readily available here, literally just around the corner. True, this country consumes up to half of the natural resources of our planet and is responsible for a similar share of waste, but it is at the same time encouraging to see cities like San Francisco where the recycling rate is as high as 69%. Certainly, there are much we Hong Kongers can learn; obnoxious slogans about a non-existence blue sky just wouldn’t do the job. It is unfortunately that putting a price tag on environmental conservation still seem to be the most effective way out; too many of us just wouldn’t care unless there are financial incentives. Damn capitalists!
Complexity & Complicity
It has always been quite clear to me what to root for: big corporations are bad, tiny local business is good, sweat shops are bad, fair trade is good, genetically modified products are bad, organic produces are good, cars are bad and bikes are good etc. While many of these contrasts still hold true as far as I am concerned, the picture seems to have gone a lot more complicated. For instance, a recent BBC documentary entitled "the great global warming swindle" compellingly debunks the popular consensus that human-made greenhouse gases are directly responsible for global warming (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html). The documentary argues that the anti-global warming movement is based on motives that are more political than scientific.
In the same vein, “organic” is becoming more and more like a brand than a way to help keeping the earth and our bodies healthy. It has become clear that the energy require to deliver and disseminate organic goods outweighs its benefits (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html). Equally perplexing is the fair trade movement—there are so many brands out there that have different standards. Their implications and true outcomes are often too difficult for an average consumer to decipher. Worse, as the rumor has it, many fair trade farmers/advocators are turned off by the restrictive labels and membership systems and rather do their own thing without joining a larger fair trade club.
While renewable energy is in urgent demand, other more traditional, albeit environmentally damaging, forms of energy are desperately needed, especially in developing countries. Whether we like it or not, coal might still be the most efficient and readily available source of power. The question is how to eliminate the pollution caused.
An interesting article in the latest issue of SEE (http://www.project-see.net/) discusses the importance to look beyond energy conservation. The author argues that some energy-efficient products would actually be more harmful to the environment when the whole life cycle is considered. How and where the product was made and what kind of waste it will create when disposed (e.g., mercury inside CFLs) should all be considered.
So when we look at the bigger picture, things seem no longer be as straight forward as we (and Mr. Gore) might want them to be. With that said, the principle of three R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) should still be upheld as the golden standard.
Reduce, Reduce, Reduce
While we invest much effort in recycling, we must not forget that it is in a sense the last resort. Recycling exhausts energy and often times require more energy than producing the same product from raw material. Thus, we should aim to reuse what we already have, creating less waste and consuming less energy. Better still, we should try our best to reduce our consumption all together. But obviously this is easier said than done. After all, we were taught to strive for more and better and bigger, only through such practices will we be truly happy, will the economy continue to grow. Only an enlightened few could go the opposite way and reduce their needs, and indeed consumption—something commonly promoted by the Buddhists, Christians, and Taoists etc.
The moral question of responsibility need not be an abstract or religious one and could be boiled down to a question my mother asked me when I was young(er): lifestyle and life—which one would you rather sacrifice?
Christian Chan
June 18, 2007
Storrs, CT, USA
I do not recall when the idea of environmental conservation was planted in my head. My earliest relevant memory was a debate I had with a friend in 6th grade. I made an accusation of him being wasteful and he responded by challenging me to use only one ply of paper each time I do a number two. Of course I did not experiment with that possibility but the moral of the story is that a sense of ecological responsibility stuck with me from an early age. In fact, it has become a personal mission of mine to fight for the betterment of our (dying) environment.
In that sense, moving to Boston/Cambridge was like a dream come true. In this city eco-friendly products are abundant. From biodegradable toothpaste to biodegradable detergent; from recycled garbage bags to recycled paper, things I had to painstakingly seek out while living in Japan (I didn’t even bother trying in Hong Kong), are readily available here, literally just around the corner. True, this country consumes up to half of the natural resources of our planet and is responsible for a similar share of waste, but it is at the same time encouraging to see cities like San Francisco where the recycling rate is as high as 69%. Certainly, there are much we Hong Kongers can learn; obnoxious slogans about a non-existence blue sky just wouldn’t do the job. It is unfortunately that putting a price tag on environmental conservation still seem to be the most effective way out; too many of us just wouldn’t care unless there are financial incentives. Damn capitalists!
Complexity & Complicity
It has always been quite clear to me what to root for: big corporations are bad, tiny local business is good, sweat shops are bad, fair trade is good, genetically modified products are bad, organic produces are good, cars are bad and bikes are good etc. While many of these contrasts still hold true as far as I am concerned, the picture seems to have gone a lot more complicated. For instance, a recent BBC documentary entitled "the great global warming swindle" compellingly debunks the popular consensus that human-made greenhouse gases are directly responsible for global warming (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html). The documentary argues that the anti-global warming movement is based on motives that are more political than scientific.
In the same vein, “organic” is becoming more and more like a brand than a way to help keeping the earth and our bodies healthy. It has become clear that the energy require to deliver and disseminate organic goods outweighs its benefits (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html). Equally perplexing is the fair trade movement—there are so many brands out there that have different standards. Their implications and true outcomes are often too difficult for an average consumer to decipher. Worse, as the rumor has it, many fair trade farmers/advocators are turned off by the restrictive labels and membership systems and rather do their own thing without joining a larger fair trade club.
While renewable energy is in urgent demand, other more traditional, albeit environmentally damaging, forms of energy are desperately needed, especially in developing countries. Whether we like it or not, coal might still be the most efficient and readily available source of power. The question is how to eliminate the pollution caused.
An interesting article in the latest issue of SEE (http://www.project-see.net/) discusses the importance to look beyond energy conservation. The author argues that some energy-efficient products would actually be more harmful to the environment when the whole life cycle is considered. How and where the product was made and what kind of waste it will create when disposed (e.g., mercury inside CFLs) should all be considered.
So when we look at the bigger picture, things seem no longer be as straight forward as we (and Mr. Gore) might want them to be. With that said, the principle of three R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) should still be upheld as the golden standard.
Reduce, Reduce, Reduce
While we invest much effort in recycling, we must not forget that it is in a sense the last resort. Recycling exhausts energy and often times require more energy than producing the same product from raw material. Thus, we should aim to reuse what we already have, creating less waste and consuming less energy. Better still, we should try our best to reduce our consumption all together. But obviously this is easier said than done. After all, we were taught to strive for more and better and bigger, only through such practices will we be truly happy, will the economy continue to grow. Only an enlightened few could go the opposite way and reduce their needs, and indeed consumption—something commonly promoted by the Buddhists, Christians, and Taoists etc.
The moral question of responsibility need not be an abstract or religious one and could be boiled down to a question my mother asked me when I was young(er): lifestyle and life—which one would you rather sacrifice?
Christian Chan
June 18, 2007
Storrs, CT, USA
2007年6月18日 星期一
規劃署 -" 規"得有道理
感謝規劃署,在我渺無頭緒不知該寫什麼好的時候為我題供了寶貴資源…
(本來環保這個議題應有很多可以談,但思緒大多反而不知從何說起…)
規劃署助理署長趙達萊表示，屏風效應現時並沒有確實的定義，難以就限制屏風樓立法，而政府已就改善樓宇通風發出指引，相信發展商興建樓宇時會在布局及設計作考慮。
屏風效應也許沒有確實的定義… 儘管以現代的超級電腦加上用流體力學等等科學方法, 人類對空氣流動(也就是風)的法則所知的也不多… 也許規劃署是想在幾十年後, 人類科技再有重大突破後才再考慮受影響的空氣質素的問題吧?
這難道不是延續香港官府的短視習性嗎? 不是的, 曾特首很有遠見, 正打算把香港打做成一個一千萬人口的亞洲經濟中心! 對, 一千萬, 一個完完全全違反 “可持續發展” (sustainability) 原則的數字… 試問要增加近 50% 的人口… 我們不在源海地帶建滿一式一樣的摩天住宅, 商厦又怎容得下呢? 所以我們為什麼還寄望規劃署的人會立法阻礙我們的基建發展?
我們的政府是金錢掛帥的, 搞環保? 對不起, 環保在香港連政治工具都談不上, 所以你不會看見唐英年有一天扮著喬治布殊跟你咧著嘴說我們要大搞減排二氧化碳等等的… 因為這樣做並不能為他多拿幾張選票。 作為小市民的我們難道要等那些大地產發展商良心發現? 對不起, 港產無良奸商只會做賣假魚 (油魚) 這等勾當。想呼吸新鮮空氣的大家還是自求多福吧…
(本來環保這個議題應有很多可以談,但思緒大多反而不知從何說起…)
規劃署助理署長趙達萊表示，屏風效應現時並沒有確實的定義，難以就限制屏風樓立法，而政府已就改善樓宇通風發出指引，相信發展商興建樓宇時會在布局及設計作考慮。
屏風效應也許沒有確實的定義… 儘管以現代的超級電腦加上用流體力學等等科學方法, 人類對空氣流動(也就是風)的法則所知的也不多… 也許規劃署是想在幾十年後, 人類科技再有重大突破後才再考慮受影響的空氣質素的問題吧?
這難道不是延續香港官府的短視習性嗎? 不是的, 曾特首很有遠見, 正打算把香港打做成一個一千萬人口的亞洲經濟中心! 對, 一千萬, 一個完完全全違反 “可持續發展” (sustainability) 原則的數字… 試問要增加近 50% 的人口… 我們不在源海地帶建滿一式一樣的摩天住宅, 商厦又怎容得下呢? 所以我們為什麼還寄望規劃署的人會立法阻礙我們的基建發展?
我們的政府是金錢掛帥的, 搞環保? 對不起, 環保在香港連政治工具都談不上, 所以你不會看見唐英年有一天扮著喬治布殊跟你咧著嘴說我們要大搞減排二氧化碳等等的… 因為這樣做並不能為他多拿幾張選票。 作為小市民的我們難道要等那些大地產發展商良心發現? 對不起, 港產無良奸商只會做賣假魚 (油魚) 這等勾當。想呼吸新鮮空氣的大家還是自求多福吧…
2007年6月17日 星期日
絕望真相 VS. 世紀大謊言
最近，看到一個ＢＢＣ製作的電視節目，談到有關全球暖化的問題。現在，普遍的言論與大部人都認爲全球暖化跟兩氧化碳的排有很密切的關係。但是，這節目的觀點是否定有關的理論，認爲人爲的二氧化碳排放跟全球暖化是没有直接的關係。
其中，有很多的天氣學家跟有關的科學家都認爲，反而是全球暖化引致二氧化碳的排放加劇。因爲，地球本身是全球最大的二氧化碳的排放來源。例如，火山的排放就比全球的工業和人爲的排放總和都要來得多。加上，地球有七成以上的地方都是海洋，而海洋是有着最多的二氧化碳。地球温度的轉變都會影響海洋排出或加入二氧化碳。這是說，人爲的二氧化碳的排放不會對地球二氧化碳有重大的影響。
但是，爲什麼會有了這樣的理論出來？節目中，提到當年英國的戴卓爾夫人因爲考慮到英國能源的問題，爲了不受中東局勢的影響，所以考慮到建核電廠，以穩定英國的能源問題。而爲了能更加順利的爭取大衆的支持。戴卓爾夫人資助英國皇家科學院做研究。核電跟煤和石油發電的不同在於在過程中不會排出二氧化碳或相對非常少的二氧化碳。如果有研究顯示二氧化碳會影響全球暖化的話，這會對爭取支持興建核電廠有很大的助力。
原來很多大家都認同的理念或者看法，都不一定是對的。我不是在下定論，而是很多的東西都會有正反兩個，是需要大家的深思，不要盲目的去相信一定是真理。好像，在我看到這個節目之前，是從來都没有懷疑到二氧化碳會影響全部暖化只是一個理論。理論不一定永遠是對的，所以我們都要抱有懷疑的心，批判精神。
不過，不論理論是否真的，無疑二氧化碳是會在很多的工業活動中排放出來。而過多的工業活動會排放出大量的化學物，很多都巳經是證實會對環境做成破壞。對我來說，雖然二氧化碳不一定是對全球暖化做成影響，但是作爲一個指標，限制二氧化碳的排放，在某程度上都是環境保護有幫助的。人的慾望無限，而地球的資源是有限。爲了地球的可持續發展，各國作出限制二氧化碳，我相信都是會對環保有幫助的。
其中，有很多的天氣學家跟有關的科學家都認爲，反而是全球暖化引致二氧化碳的排放加劇。因爲，地球本身是全球最大的二氧化碳的排放來源。例如，火山的排放就比全球的工業和人爲的排放總和都要來得多。加上，地球有七成以上的地方都是海洋，而海洋是有着最多的二氧化碳。地球温度的轉變都會影響海洋排出或加入二氧化碳。這是說，人爲的二氧化碳的排放不會對地球二氧化碳有重大的影響。
但是，爲什麼會有了這樣的理論出來？節目中，提到當年英國的戴卓爾夫人因爲考慮到英國能源的問題，爲了不受中東局勢的影響，所以考慮到建核電廠，以穩定英國的能源問題。而爲了能更加順利的爭取大衆的支持。戴卓爾夫人資助英國皇家科學院做研究。核電跟煤和石油發電的不同在於在過程中不會排出二氧化碳或相對非常少的二氧化碳。如果有研究顯示二氧化碳會影響全球暖化的話，這會對爭取支持興建核電廠有很大的助力。
原來很多大家都認同的理念或者看法，都不一定是對的。我不是在下定論，而是很多的東西都會有正反兩個，是需要大家的深思，不要盲目的去相信一定是真理。好像，在我看到這個節目之前，是從來都没有懷疑到二氧化碳會影響全部暖化只是一個理論。理論不一定永遠是對的，所以我們都要抱有懷疑的心，批判精神。
不過，不論理論是否真的，無疑二氧化碳是會在很多的工業活動中排放出來。而過多的工業活動會排放出大量的化學物，很多都巳經是證實會對環境做成破壞。對我來說，雖然二氧化碳不一定是對全球暖化做成影響，但是作爲一個指標，限制二氧化碳的排放，在某程度上都是環境保護有幫助的。人的慾望無限，而地球的資源是有限。爲了地球的可持續發展，各國作出限制二氧化碳，我相信都是會對環保有幫助的。
2007年6月15日 星期五
一小步一小步走出大段路
快餐連鎖店的每日即棄餐具消耗量一直都招人垢病, 簡簡單單點一個快餐,最少包括 :
墊盤紙
食物包裝紙/盒
紙杯
膠杯蓋
飲管連紙套/膠套包裝
膠餐具連膠套包裝
餐巾
若是加上需要外賣的,還要用上最少兩個或更多紙袋膠袋….每次用餐後,這一批最少十二件即棄品就會完成他們在世上短短不過三十分鐘的使命,然後長埋黃土地下長存不朽..
在最近各大快餐店終於開始正視這個問題, 亦著手減用部份即棄餐具. 如肯德基已陸續轉用可循環使用的餐具.而麥當勞則使用環保紙包裝及訂立無飲管日.然而,環保意識是雙向及互相支持的.只單靠某一方面,成效不容易做到.在麥當勞實行<無飲管日>第一日, 有食客並不受落不用飲管的日子.更稱只單單不用飲管並不能為環保做什麼,而同樣小小一枝飲管對環境的影響也微不足道,所以當天並沒有支持行動, 繼續要求提供飲管.
其實環保不是什麼驚天動地大工程, 也不是一定要以立法,監管,或是什麼創新發明才可做到.在我們日常生活中, 只要作出小改善.成果就會一點一點累積下來. 就以理財的角度來看, 每天儲起五十元用作年度交稅用, 總比要一次過拿萬多元出來容易得多. 不要小看這一支膠管,要是這樣簡單的一個動作也做不到, 更何來有能力談更遠更高的理想?
還記得小時侯看過一個較深刻的電視廣告, 廣告有一把可愛的小女孩聲在說「從前有個地球先生。他本來很健康，很快樂。不過有些人唔識愛惜佢，整到佢污糟邋遢，還臭得很…… 到最後, 地球先生病左喇, 佢會唔會好番呢?」當時的感覺只有是個廣告的地球先生很可愛, 就再無其他了. 但現在再想起這個廣告時, 卻湧起一陣陣不安及害怕. 因為我們的地球先生真的病倒了. 而且還在發高燒不退…人病倒要看醫生, 對症下藥方可康復. 所以千萬不要待到病入膏肓, 變成不治之症時就恨錯難返了.
墊盤紙
食物包裝紙/盒
紙杯
膠杯蓋
飲管連紙套/膠套包裝
膠餐具連膠套包裝
餐巾
若是加上需要外賣的,還要用上最少兩個或更多紙袋膠袋….每次用餐後,這一批最少十二件即棄品就會完成他們在世上短短不過三十分鐘的使命,然後長埋黃土地下長存不朽..
在最近各大快餐店終於開始正視這個問題, 亦著手減用部份即棄餐具. 如肯德基已陸續轉用可循環使用的餐具.而麥當勞則使用環保紙包裝及訂立無飲管日.然而,環保意識是雙向及互相支持的.只單靠某一方面,成效不容易做到.在麥當勞實行<無飲管日>第一日, 有食客並不受落不用飲管的日子.更稱只單單不用飲管並不能為環保做什麼,而同樣小小一枝飲管對環境的影響也微不足道,所以當天並沒有支持行動, 繼續要求提供飲管.
其實環保不是什麼驚天動地大工程, 也不是一定要以立法,監管,或是什麼創新發明才可做到.在我們日常生活中, 只要作出小改善.成果就會一點一點累積下來. 就以理財的角度來看, 每天儲起五十元用作年度交稅用, 總比要一次過拿萬多元出來容易得多. 不要小看這一支膠管,要是這樣簡單的一個動作也做不到, 更何來有能力談更遠更高的理想?
還記得小時侯看過一個較深刻的電視廣告, 廣告有一把可愛的小女孩聲在說「從前有個地球先生。他本來很健康，很快樂。不過有些人唔識愛惜佢，整到佢污糟邋遢，還臭得很…… 到最後, 地球先生病左喇, 佢會唔會好番呢?」當時的感覺只有是個廣告的地球先生很可愛, 就再無其他了. 但現在再想起這個廣告時, 卻湧起一陣陣不安及害怕. 因為我們的地球先生真的病倒了. 而且還在發高燒不退…人病倒要看醫生, 對症下藥方可康復. 所以千萬不要待到病入膏肓, 變成不治之症時就恨錯難返了.
2007年6月13日 星期三
健碩的黑豬
上週，花旗國旗主布殊在德國召開的G8高峰會中，提出各國對抗全球溫室效應的建議，說各國可自身情況制定未來減少溫室氣體排放的路線圖。他說，將自今年秋季起邀請各大國領袖在美國召開小圈子會議，共襄大業。
多年以來，各國皆以美國式生活為奮鬥目標，要擁抱美國夢，當然更要享受美國式生活。但，依我觀察，美國式生活除了代表民富國強外，同時亦代表以浪費推動經濟。比如，在美國，有一項很得意的傳統，學生在每年開學前，家長會買一個新書包給子女，就算去年的書包沒破沒爛，仍要扔掉。即是說，在子女12班畢業後，已棄掉11個仍可繼續使用的書包。浪費嗎?
2007年6月11日 星期一
Walk the talk
在社會不斷有聲音批評人們的道德水平不斷下降的時候, 街上隨處可見報攤上充斥著一份份標題誇張的報刊讀物; 週六日假期, 銀行大閘上一張張肉肉肉肉的海報向你獻媚; 電視廣告裡不停鼓吹一種欠債無罪, 再借有理的觀念, 或是造就一種過度美化廋身整容的需要, 從而令肥人受排擠及處於失敗的一個局面等等. 試想每天處身這樣的社會環境, 人們對道德價值及理解慢慢都變得麻木, 及甚至被動搖. 在人們心目中對道德的價值有所轉移時, 往往都會即時與世界在變, 社會在進步等扣上帽子使而成為令自己心安的理由. 道德的定義及標準也就這樣慢慢的<被合理化>地變樣了.
但在此的同時, 在被視為歪曲扯低社會道德水平的一眾媒體, 他們也是跟其他人一樣接受一樣的教育吧. 在指責傳媒是令道德下落的始作俑者之同時, 到底教育界又是否需要負起一部份的責任呢? 而最近看到一篇新聞, 內容大致如下:
一名有多次遲到記錄及操行被評為欠佳的學生, 被校方勒令禁止回校上課三個月, 即使那名學生回到學校, 也只會被安排留在空置的課空內. 被隔離學生生活, 因此學生求助傳媒. 校方知悉後再與學生談判, 稱應允讓學生回校上課, 條件是要將事情保密不提, 然而在傳媒的壓力底下, 事件因而公開及更被討論....
教與學除了是靠課堂上的書本傳授以外, 學校及教員以身作則的身教也是對學生起了重大的影響, 試想像要是學生看到老師手拿著彩票從投注站步出, 那又如何能說服學生認同<賭博的壞處>? 連教者都未能身體力行告知學生道德是什麼, 卻只會在課室內空談道德理想, 有講沒有實踐, 學生只會覺得講者無聊甚至虛偽, 愈聽愈抗拒反感. 這樣的教育是否有點荒謬？
但在此的同時, 在被視為歪曲扯低社會道德水平的一眾媒體, 他們也是跟其他人一樣接受一樣的教育吧. 在指責傳媒是令道德下落的始作俑者之同時, 到底教育界又是否需要負起一部份的責任呢? 而最近看到一篇新聞, 內容大致如下:
一名有多次遲到記錄及操行被評為欠佳的學生, 被校方勒令禁止回校上課三個月, 即使那名學生回到學校, 也只會被安排留在空置的課空內. 被隔離學生生活, 因此學生求助傳媒. 校方知悉後再與學生談判, 稱應允讓學生回校上課, 條件是要將事情保密不提, 然而在傳媒的壓力底下, 事件因而公開及更被討論....
教與學除了是靠課堂上的書本傳授以外, 學校及教員以身作則的身教也是對學生起了重大的影響, 試想像要是學生看到老師手拿著彩票從投注站步出, 那又如何能說服學生認同<賭博的壞處>? 連教者都未能身體力行告知學生道德是什麼, 卻只會在課室內空談道德理想, 有講沒有實踐, 學生只會覺得講者無聊甚至虛偽, 愈聽愈抗拒反感. 這樣的教育是否有點荒謬？
淺談道德教育
甚麼是道德?
"... ... 在西方，"道德" 二字，是解作 "正確的行為"，是在倫理學的範疇。" 道德" 的標準，在不同的文化上，哲學上，宗教上等也有不同的觀點，但普遍相信人類世界有很大部分的道德觀點也是相同的。道德很多時候跟良心一起談及，而良心就是推動作出良好行為。
在現代的用法中，道德則合禮教的意義相近，是指一種在社會生活實踐中形成和發展，主要依靠社會輿論、風俗習慣和良心指導和約束，可以用善惡標準進行評價的個體和社會意識，人格品質規範和調整人與人、人與自然關係的行為規範；它是與這類意識和規範相聯繫的行為活動；以及通過這些活動所結成的社會關係的體系。"
Extract from: http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%81%93%E5%BE%B7&variant=zh-hk
法律就是對社會裏的人，作出一個基本的規範。因爲每個社會對同樣的一件事都可能有不同的看法，所以每個地方都有相應的法律，而有別於其他的地方。就算在同一個社會或國家都可能有不同的民族，而有不同的規範。所以，法律只會是道德規範的最小公倍數。
尤記得多年，黃子華先的的一個楝篤笑表演裏，談到有關狗仔隊。而其中，他提到很多香港人都會在自己犯了錯（指超過普遍的社會道德規範），而會講的一句話。”犯法呀？”..........
的確，很多的時候，我們做的事情，未必是犯了香港的法例。但是，是否就是說我們是做對了呢？很多人都認爲，没有犯法的就等於可以做，但這是否對？我想信，我們的教育制度，還没有差到只會教一個小朋友只要不犯法就可以了。但是，制度没有錯的時候，是誰的錯？
人的錯！我還記得小時候的一個中國傳統的故事。在古時候，一個母親不斷的想教好自己的兒子，但是小孩子的父親就相反的什麼也没有做。做母親的，終於忍不住問他的丈夫。爲什麼你什麼也不做？養不教，父之過。但是，小孩子的父親說，我一直都有在教他。小朋友都是以大人爲模仿的對象，我做好自己本身，就是對他最大的教育，亦是最好教他的方法。言教不如身教！
各位父母，不要再一邊用粗言污穢言去罵你小孩子，爲什麼講粗口？也不要一邊教他如何去瞞騙老師，又責罵小朋友講大話去騙你... ... 有樣學樣，一家人呀！
"... ... 在西方，"道德" 二字，是解作 "正確的行為"，是在倫理學的範疇。" 道德" 的標準，在不同的文化上，哲學上，宗教上等也有不同的觀點，但普遍相信人類世界有很大部分的道德觀點也是相同的。道德很多時候跟良心一起談及，而良心就是推動作出良好行為。
在現代的用法中，道德則合禮教的意義相近，是指一種在社會生活實踐中形成和發展，主要依靠社會輿論、風俗習慣和良心指導和約束，可以用善惡標準進行評價的個體和社會意識，人格品質規範和調整人與人、人與自然關係的行為規範；它是與這類意識和規範相聯繫的行為活動；以及通過這些活動所結成的社會關係的體系。"
Extract from: http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%81%93%E5%BE%B7&variant=zh-hk
法律就是對社會裏的人，作出一個基本的規範。因爲每個社會對同樣的一件事都可能有不同的看法，所以每個地方都有相應的法律，而有別於其他的地方。就算在同一個社會或國家都可能有不同的民族，而有不同的規範。所以，法律只會是道德規範的最小公倍數。
尤記得多年，黃子華先的的一個楝篤笑表演裏，談到有關狗仔隊。而其中，他提到很多香港人都會在自己犯了錯（指超過普遍的社會道德規範），而會講的一句話。”犯法呀？”..........
的確，很多的時候，我們做的事情，未必是犯了香港的法例。但是，是否就是說我們是做對了呢？很多人都認爲，没有犯法的就等於可以做，但這是否對？我想信，我們的教育制度，還没有差到只會教一個小朋友只要不犯法就可以了。但是，制度没有錯的時候，是誰的錯？
人的錯！我還記得小時候的一個中國傳統的故事。在古時候，一個母親不斷的想教好自己的兒子，但是小孩子的父親就相反的什麼也没有做。做母親的，終於忍不住問他的丈夫。爲什麼你什麼也不做？養不教，父之過。但是，小孩子的父親說，我一直都有在教他。小朋友都是以大人爲模仿的對象，我做好自己本身，就是對他最大的教育，亦是最好教他的方法。言教不如身教！
各位父母，不要再一邊用粗言污穢言去罵你小孩子，爲什麼講粗口？也不要一邊教他如何去瞞騙老師，又責罵小朋友講大話去騙你... ... 有樣學樣，一家人呀！
隨想 - 六四事件想到道德教育
一九八九年六月四日的天安門事件發生時, 筆者還只是個不懂世情的小學生, 但當時一幕幕的新聞畫面: 激昂的大學生、無情的坦克戰車、血淋淋的事實到今天還是歷歷在目、心有餘悸… 無論目的如何, 結果如何, 當年死傷人數如何, 殘害國人者也是千古罪人, 說是遺臭萬年絕不為過。
權力永遠像最誘人的果實… 一旦吃過第一次, 人就不能再坦率自然。歷史上多少原本幾近聖賢, 盡得人心的領導者, 一旦得到權力後良心就被扭曲磨滅。這所謂權關, 是人性道德最大的一道屏障。雖然能涉獵權關的人不多, 但做成的傷害卻可以很深。就像六四事件正是戀棧權位的當權者毀滅反對聲音的極端行動。
權關之後是什麼? 之後大概是名關。得到名譽的人, 我們會叫他們 “英雄”, “思想家”, “偉人”… 名人受人尊重, 愛戴跟擁護, 可想而知名關也是很難過的。可肯是名譽跟道德本質上並不是對立的, 追名的人或多或少也會做 “好事”。雖然背後的動機是難以看透的。
十八年後的今天, 我們的學生在面對哪一關呢? 當年天安門廣場上的小伙子, 沒有權-不用過權關, 也不見得全都不愛名譽地位的名關… 但甚肯定的是, 他們為了爭取民主中國的理想, 大都可以 (至少於當時) 放下了自身的安危利益 – 就是放下了 “利” 這一關。
筆者曾經跟一位天子門生, 剛在港大畢業不久的友人談過這麼一個有代表性的問題: 你會否覺得自己是一個 “讀書人”? 這個年輕人的口中給了我一個肯定的答案: “不覺得”。大家聽了, 或許也有同感, 這個滿街是大學生的年代, 即使大學畢業了怎能就在人前自稱讀書人?
如果大家明白…古聖賢對於那些明白人生的道理, 遵守某個道德水平的人, 都列作讀書人, 那麼大家或許可以明白為何在現代認定自己是讀書人是這麼難的一回事。當這個社會是逢股必“炒”, 非“老翻”不玩, 逢政治不理, 逢“蝕底”不幹… 當大家都只看見短期的個人利益而從不明白讀書人本應該肩負的社會責任與道德責任… 那麼你跟我說… 我們的教育制度裡 (不論是香港還是祖國) 是不是缺少了極重要的什麼呢?
權力永遠像最誘人的果實… 一旦吃過第一次, 人就不能再坦率自然。歷史上多少原本幾近聖賢, 盡得人心的領導者, 一旦得到權力後良心就被扭曲磨滅。這所謂權關, 是人性道德最大的一道屏障。雖然能涉獵權關的人不多, 但做成的傷害卻可以很深。就像六四事件正是戀棧權位的當權者毀滅反對聲音的極端行動。
權關之後是什麼? 之後大概是名關。得到名譽的人, 我們會叫他們 “英雄”, “思想家”, “偉人”… 名人受人尊重, 愛戴跟擁護, 可想而知名關也是很難過的。可肯是名譽跟道德本質上並不是對立的, 追名的人或多或少也會做 “好事”。雖然背後的動機是難以看透的。
十八年後的今天, 我們的學生在面對哪一關呢? 當年天安門廣場上的小伙子, 沒有權-不用過權關, 也不見得全都不愛名譽地位的名關… 但甚肯定的是, 他們為了爭取民主中國的理想, 大都可以 (至少於當時) 放下了自身的安危利益 – 就是放下了 “利” 這一關。
筆者曾經跟一位天子門生, 剛在港大畢業不久的友人談過這麼一個有代表性的問題: 你會否覺得自己是一個 “讀書人”? 這個年輕人的口中給了我一個肯定的答案: “不覺得”。大家聽了, 或許也有同感, 這個滿街是大學生的年代, 即使大學畢業了怎能就在人前自稱讀書人?
如果大家明白…古聖賢對於那些明白人生的道理, 遵守某個道德水平的人, 都列作讀書人, 那麼大家或許可以明白為何在現代認定自己是讀書人是這麼難的一回事。當這個社會是逢股必“炒”, 非“老翻”不玩, 逢政治不理, 逢“蝕底”不幹… 當大家都只看見短期的個人利益而從不明白讀書人本應該肩負的社會責任與道德責任… 那麼你跟我說… 我們的教育制度裡 (不論是香港還是祖國) 是不是缺少了極重要的什麼呢?
2007年6月6日 星期三
談德育課
仍記得在中一時，校長在每週循環周會為各班中一生上一節德育課(ethics)，雖然已將課上的知識歸還給校長，但仍依稀記得當時上課情況：校長寫呀寫，學生抄呀抄，還要交少量功課，由校長親自批改，可謂用心良苦。(註)
觀察所見，中學裡甚少為學生推行道德教育，除了基本科目外，便是課外活動，對於道德教育，通常是透過早會、週會，偶然舉行公民教育周、追求卓越周、中文周、英文周等活動，較多是動態活動，較少是激活思維的討論、小組研究等活動(可能多數少年都是坐不定的)。對教師來說，他們把握其主打科目已經透不過氣來，加上領導課外活動、校內外比賽等各環節，已經將時間表排得密麻麻。若加上每周一堂的德育課，自己在學時又未讀過，又不知如何討論。結果，在校方不需、學生不要的情況下，老師當然是求仁得仁了。
其實，德育課中討論的事情，可以是日常中接觸到的，例如:如何才是beautiful life；如何才是quality of life；金錢對你有多重要，如何取捨金錢與物質，在決定重大事情而只有你一人處理時，應如何判斷；對環境、種族、宗教等認知及專重；性、愛的問題與衝突等等。題材可以非常生活化，隨手拈來。還有，可以透過專題研習、小組討論等方式來訓練學生思維，提高演說及書寫技巧。
唸大學時，校方規定每位學生均需完成中國文化科課程，雖然題材嚴肅，但教法生動有趣。如探討中國戲曲發展時，便戲曲大師或中樂家來校演出；適逢世界盃，便即興討論中國古代足球源起及演變。記得在課程中需提交一項有關香港古老行業專題研習，其中有一小組訪問了香港殯儀業鉅子，探討該行業的發展。
有趣嗎?雖然德育課會碰到古老問題，但教法不同，學生的興趣及投入程度也會不同。
註
偶然收看英國BBC拍攝的商管節目「上司下凡」(中文譯稱，亞視國際台播出)，節目主線是對剛上任的高管人員到前線崗位工作一週，體察前線人員民情，來個真正的"身同感受"，從而拉直高層與前線溝通，找出前線人員在工作上的困難及改善之處。故事包括足球經理到小食部賣汽水雞脾、監獄長搜囚室、派飯、救護分區一哥開救護車等等，娛樂與知識並重，值得一看。
觀察所見，中學裡甚少為學生推行道德教育，除了基本科目外，便是課外活動，對於道德教育，通常是透過早會、週會，偶然舉行公民教育周、追求卓越周、中文周、英文周等活動，較多是動態活動，較少是激活思維的討論、小組研究等活動(可能多數少年都是坐不定的)。對教師來說，他們把握其主打科目已經透不過氣來，加上領導課外活動、校內外比賽等各環節，已經將時間表排得密麻麻。若加上每周一堂的德育課，自己在學時又未讀過，又不知如何討論。結果，在校方不需、學生不要的情況下，老師當然是求仁得仁了。
其實，德育課中討論的事情，可以是日常中接觸到的，例如:如何才是beautiful life；如何才是quality of life；金錢對你有多重要，如何取捨金錢與物質，在決定重大事情而只有你一人處理時，應如何判斷；對環境、種族、宗教等認知及專重；性、愛的問題與衝突等等。題材可以非常生活化，隨手拈來。還有，可以透過專題研習、小組討論等方式來訓練學生思維，提高演說及書寫技巧。
唸大學時，校方規定每位學生均需完成中國文化科課程，雖然題材嚴肅，但教法生動有趣。如探討中國戲曲發展時，便戲曲大師或中樂家來校演出；適逢世界盃，便即興討論中國古代足球源起及演變。記得在課程中需提交一項有關香港古老行業專題研習，其中有一小組訪問了香港殯儀業鉅子，探討該行業的發展。
有趣嗎?雖然德育課會碰到古老問題，但教法不同，學生的興趣及投入程度也會不同。
註
偶然收看英國BBC拍攝的商管節目「上司下凡」(中文譯稱，亞視國際台播出)，節目主線是對剛上任的高管人員到前線崗位工作一週，體察前線人員民情，來個真正的"身同感受"，從而拉直高層與前線溝通，找出前線人員在工作上的困難及改善之處。故事包括足球經理到小食部賣汽水雞脾、監獄長搜囚室、派飯、救護分區一哥開救護車等等，娛樂與知識並重，值得一看。
2007年6月5日 星期二
As we blow the annual candle -An immediate reaction to the 18th June 4 vigil
Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif did a classic social psychological study in the 1950s to show that group conflict can be effectively overcome by the need for cooperative attention to a higher superordinate—or, in plain English, common—goal. The Sherif’s demonstrated this by randomly setting up two conflicting groups of boys at a summer camp. The two groups were pretty quick to develop all sorts of prejudices and hostility against one another, as they engaged in different within-group and inter-group tasks. The “us vs them” mentality was very salient until the two groups had to collectively overcome a problem. The enemies became friends almost instantaneously.
Let's zoom forward in time. 18 years have passed since the massacre of Tiananmen Square. Tonight’s vigil was somber and moving as usual. I still have vivid memories of seeing and hearing those horrific gunshots and spackles that cut across in the dawning of June 4, 1989 on TV. I was eight. Ever since, I don’t recall a year when I didn’t do something to commemorate that fateful night when flesh and blood of young men and women covered the biggest open public space in the nation. The appreciation of the magnitude of the historical event became only much more greater as I grew and began to participate in civic movements. June 4 shall be a scar that reminds us the plight of those who suffered and are still suffering in China.
And yet the this year’s annual gathering at Victoria Park as well as the conversations I had with people soon after conveyed a couple of notable themes that might deserve our attention and suspicion.
Mr. Ma Lik (馬力) of the DAB made an outrageous comment a few weeks ago about his skepticism of the details of the June 4 as well as his discontentment about how it might be taught in schools with biases. The city immediately condemned the Legco member; hatred towards him was readily felt at tonight’s meeting of 55,000 people. While I was amused by the rhetoric used to slam Mr. Ma and his comrades (“馬力之流”), I was soon to be reminded how sensational the vigil was.
While a memorial service is meant to be emotional, this annual gathering, especially as time passes, also serves the function of educating the next generation so that they could take on the cause and continue to fight for democracy and liberty of the Chinese nation. In fact, this agenda was made rather clear throughout the night. Passing the sadness and burden and hatred and frustration down is good and necessary but what is perhaps equally important is providing a factual perspective for the younger generation—like the background of June 4, the chronological order of events, who said/did what, the verified facts according to available resources. If Mr. Ma has doubts about the degree of atrocity made that day and night, then let’s confront him and his comrades with facts and figures—however limited they may still be.
The earlier-mentioned Sherif’s Robbers’ cave experiment taught us that it is sometimes efficient just to create a common goal to unify people, even when they might not like each other. Applying this perspective, Mr. Ma is the convenient scapegoat and rebuking him is the superordinate goal. While this strategy—deliberate or not—may be effective in introducing or amplifying the sense of solidarity among participants, it is not particularly conducive to good education for the young ones.
What are we trying to teach them? While it is imperative to sustain the passion for June 4, it is equally important for us to teach the kids how to think and how to think about history and politics. While it is a noble thing to inherit a strong sense for justice and democracy and equality, it is also worthwhile to show our successors how to think critically for themselves, and how to question—especially the opinion of the majority. Essentially, I believe, people MUST process for him/herself why justice, democracy and equality/equity are desirable. Otherwise the outcome of any initiative would be futile and unconvincing.
I do not wish to come across as a sympathizer of Mr. Ma (in fact I have fantasies of how poorly he would be treated if he return to HK), I must say I can see why some people boycotted this year’s vigil because of its focus on attacking Mr. Ma. Sure, his act was insensitive, inconsiderate and just blatantly stupid (politically and otherwise). But it is totally another issue to use that as catalyze for social cohesion and education. What China’s democracy needs is not just a large group of pissed off slogan chanters (and yet I’ll be first to admit that I’m proud of being one), but also a generation that is bold enough to question, to engage in checks and balances, even when the questions might be unpopular and uncool.
It is of little doubt that a new generation of social activists and socially and political conscious citizens is in much demand, especially in the endeavor of democratizing China. While a picture with a clear friend and enemy distinction would make life much easier, we should not shy away from appreciating and dealing with the complexity and gray areas. Because more likely than not the "bad guys" are not purely bad and the "good guys" are not 100% good. And that's why humans are interesting.
Christian Chan
June 5, 2007
Hong Kong
Let's zoom forward in time. 18 years have passed since the massacre of Tiananmen Square. Tonight’s vigil was somber and moving as usual. I still have vivid memories of seeing and hearing those horrific gunshots and spackles that cut across in the dawning of June 4, 1989 on TV. I was eight. Ever since, I don’t recall a year when I didn’t do something to commemorate that fateful night when flesh and blood of young men and women covered the biggest open public space in the nation. The appreciation of the magnitude of the historical event became only much more greater as I grew and began to participate in civic movements. June 4 shall be a scar that reminds us the plight of those who suffered and are still suffering in China.
And yet the this year’s annual gathering at Victoria Park as well as the conversations I had with people soon after conveyed a couple of notable themes that might deserve our attention and suspicion.
Mr. Ma Lik (馬力) of the DAB made an outrageous comment a few weeks ago about his skepticism of the details of the June 4 as well as his discontentment about how it might be taught in schools with biases. The city immediately condemned the Legco member; hatred towards him was readily felt at tonight’s meeting of 55,000 people. While I was amused by the rhetoric used to slam Mr. Ma and his comrades (“馬力之流”), I was soon to be reminded how sensational the vigil was.
While a memorial service is meant to be emotional, this annual gathering, especially as time passes, also serves the function of educating the next generation so that they could take on the cause and continue to fight for democracy and liberty of the Chinese nation. In fact, this agenda was made rather clear throughout the night. Passing the sadness and burden and hatred and frustration down is good and necessary but what is perhaps equally important is providing a factual perspective for the younger generation—like the background of June 4, the chronological order of events, who said/did what, the verified facts according to available resources. If Mr. Ma has doubts about the degree of atrocity made that day and night, then let’s confront him and his comrades with facts and figures—however limited they may still be.
The earlier-mentioned Sherif’s Robbers’ cave experiment taught us that it is sometimes efficient just to create a common goal to unify people, even when they might not like each other. Applying this perspective, Mr. Ma is the convenient scapegoat and rebuking him is the superordinate goal. While this strategy—deliberate or not—may be effective in introducing or amplifying the sense of solidarity among participants, it is not particularly conducive to good education for the young ones.
What are we trying to teach them? While it is imperative to sustain the passion for June 4, it is equally important for us to teach the kids how to think and how to think about history and politics. While it is a noble thing to inherit a strong sense for justice and democracy and equality, it is also worthwhile to show our successors how to think critically for themselves, and how to question—especially the opinion of the majority. Essentially, I believe, people MUST process for him/herself why justice, democracy and equality/equity are desirable. Otherwise the outcome of any initiative would be futile and unconvincing.
I do not wish to come across as a sympathizer of Mr. Ma (in fact I have fantasies of how poorly he would be treated if he return to HK), I must say I can see why some people boycotted this year’s vigil because of its focus on attacking Mr. Ma. Sure, his act was insensitive, inconsiderate and just blatantly stupid (politically and otherwise). But it is totally another issue to use that as catalyze for social cohesion and education. What China’s democracy needs is not just a large group of pissed off slogan chanters (and yet I’ll be first to admit that I’m proud of being one), but also a generation that is bold enough to question, to engage in checks and balances, even when the questions might be unpopular and uncool.
It is of little doubt that a new generation of social activists and socially and political conscious citizens is in much demand, especially in the endeavor of democratizing China. While a picture with a clear friend and enemy distinction would make life much easier, we should not shy away from appreciating and dealing with the complexity and gray areas. Because more likely than not the "bad guys" are not purely bad and the "good guys" are not 100% good. And that's why humans are interesting.
Christian Chan
June 5, 2007
Hong Kong
2007年5月27日 星期日
細看情色版
中大學生報情色版事件曝光後, 各界均議論紛紛。當中有有支持者, 但更常見的是市民, 教育界人士, 傳媒以至宗教界人士對中大學生報編委會的種種口誅筆伐。那麼他們指責的 “不雅” 到底是什麼呢?
不雅罪名 追本溯源
要探討這問題, 好像是要從了解編委會被指的罪名開始。我在這裡作出一個假設, 就是大部份指責該報不對的市民大眾跟部份宗教界人士, 甚至是學者們, 都沒仔細閱讀過那些被指不雅的頁面的原文 (這當然是大膽假設, 但基於筆者對香港人的理解, 當知道該報是關於性的題材, 普遍也不敢大大方方的在別人面前看的, 因為怕被人白眼。也基於香港人有限的求真, 探究的精神令我更確信大部份人根本沒看過)。那麼, 那些罪名的來源是那裡呢? 相信大家也不敢否定是來自傳媒的手筆, 而其他人或許就是先入為主… 甚或盲從附和了。
那麼傳媒為該報加諸了什麼罪名呢?
從所看過的報導得到的印象, 情色版被指的大概是他們鼓吹亂倫、 群交、 S/M, 而行文的用字粗俗, 低級趣味難登大雅之堂。素來在人前充滿正義感的香港人, 聽畢以上的名詞已覺毛骨悚然, 當然立刻群起攻之。
不雅罪名 言之鑿鑿
工商及科技局長王永平曾就這件事表示:「哪些可能是淫褻, 可能是不雅, 大家也是正常人, 也有常理, 可以作出判斷」。對了,大家也是正常人, 但誰跟誰, 有或沒有對這件事以 “常理” 作出過 “判斷”, 王局長能說清楚嗎?
傳媒說該報 “內容涉及亂倫、 群交、人獸交、 S/M”, 作為讀者不難被誤導為該報在 “鼓吹” 這些王局長口中 “正常人” 能 “判斷” 出是淫褻的行為。但是到底情色版內文是怎樣的 “涉及”這些行為呢? 是仔細的陳述亂倫、 群交、人獸交、 S/M的過程? 還是跟讀者們暢談亂倫、 群交、 S/M 的樂趣? 我們聲討該報的大眾中, 有幾多人說得準呢?
另外, 曾辦《中大學生報》的新亞書院校友召集人兼資深傳媒人香樹輝說, 中大學生報的情色版用字粗俗, 「他們只是把成人雜誌的內容搬入學生報, 完全不適當, 不單不能引起討論, 而且是低級趣味」。受到校友先進的這種批評的確是十分嚴峻, 的確在今次事件裡, 中大內部校方、師生以至校友們的反應可算是最激烈, 也最負面的。
聽到許多許多一面倒的意見, 我們應怎樣看這件事呢?
為編者們說幾句公道話
為了釐清這些指控的真確性 (當然也基於我是個心智成熟加上有 “常理” 的 “正常” 成年人), 我花了好一點時間看了手頭上辛苦找來共十頁的情色版原文。
看畢資料後, 可以簡單的歸納出以下各點:
不雅罪名 追本溯源
要探討這問題, 好像是要從了解編委會被指的罪名開始。我在這裡作出一個假設, 就是大部份指責該報不對的市民大眾跟部份宗教界人士, 甚至是學者們, 都沒仔細閱讀過那些被指不雅的頁面的原文 (這當然是大膽假設, 但基於筆者對香港人的理解, 當知道該報是關於性的題材, 普遍也不敢大大方方的在別人面前看的, 因為怕被人白眼。也基於香港人有限的求真, 探究的精神令我更確信大部份人根本沒看過)。那麼, 那些罪名的來源是那裡呢? 相信大家也不敢否定是來自傳媒的手筆, 而其他人或許就是先入為主… 甚或盲從附和了。
那麼傳媒為該報加諸了什麼罪名呢?
從所看過的報導得到的印象, 情色版被指的大概是他們鼓吹亂倫、 群交、 S/M, 而行文的用字粗俗, 低級趣味難登大雅之堂。素來在人前充滿正義感的香港人, 聽畢以上的名詞已覺毛骨悚然, 當然立刻群起攻之。
不雅罪名 言之鑿鑿
工商及科技局長王永平曾就這件事表示:「哪些可能是淫褻, 可能是不雅, 大家也是正常人, 也有常理, 可以作出判斷」。對了,大家也是正常人, 但誰跟誰, 有或沒有對這件事以 “常理” 作出過 “判斷”, 王局長能說清楚嗎?
傳媒說該報 “內容涉及亂倫、 群交、人獸交、 S/M”, 作為讀者不難被誤導為該報在 “鼓吹” 這些王局長口中 “正常人” 能 “判斷” 出是淫褻的行為。但是到底情色版內文是怎樣的 “涉及”這些行為呢? 是仔細的陳述亂倫、 群交、人獸交、 S/M的過程? 還是跟讀者們暢談亂倫、 群交、 S/M 的樂趣? 我們聲討該報的大眾中, 有幾多人說得準呢?
另外, 曾辦《中大學生報》的新亞書院校友召集人兼資深傳媒人香樹輝說, 中大學生報的情色版用字粗俗, 「他們只是把成人雜誌的內容搬入學生報, 完全不適當, 不單不能引起討論, 而且是低級趣味」。受到校友先進的這種批評的確是十分嚴峻, 的確在今次事件裡, 中大內部校方、師生以至校友們的反應可算是最激烈, 也最負面的。
聽到許多許多一面倒的意見, 我們應怎樣看這件事呢?
為編者們說幾句公道話
為了釐清這些指控的真確性 (當然也基於我是個心智成熟加上有 “常理” 的 “正常” 成年人), 我花了好一點時間看了手頭上辛苦找來共十頁的情色版原文。
看畢資料後, 可以簡單的歸納出以下各點:
- 鼓吹亂倫、人獸交、群交 – 在我看的十頁資料裡, 勉強說得上涉及亂倫、群交及人獸交的內容, 就是最備受爭議的那份 “情色版問卷”。第一期問卷中的三條問題原意大概是 “你可有想過跟家人亂倫” 、“你想跟什麼動物性交” 跟“你可有想過要跟多於一個人性交”。 的而且確這些問題是問得十分直接(絕對有別於港人習慣對待性事物的習慣), 但再看之後一期的回覆, 你會發現所刊出的讀者對頭兩條問題的答案, 比你想像中的更 “正常” 更保守。 基本上, 讀者們都說沒想過跟家人亂倫 (有也是只閃過腦際一刻, 絕不會想真正的實行); 至於最想與之性交的動物, 答案全都是 “女人”… 反之看第三條問題, 答案是比較多說想過跟多人同時性交, 但對於我個人看, 多人性交在道德上跟法律上都明顯比前二者來得輕。
如果這些問題可以被指為 “鼓吹” 以上的不正常性行為。那麼我問你 “你可有想過在便利店不付錢拿東西走” 跟 “你可有想過在路邊小便” 便等同鼓吹你在犯以上的法律了。 - 鼓吹S/M – 說及S/M 的, 是那個由學生(非專家) 作答的 STEPHY信箱。看過的報章中, 都說該報鼓吹人 “不妨嘗試在性幻想中幻想一下自己是個施虐者, 看看會否有另類的快感”。但可知這篇聲稱由讀者跟篇者間的問答的整體內容主旨並不只是在 “施虐” 這部份呢? 如果你看過原文, 就可知道討論的是大部份人認為S/M 就是指男性向女性作出的性虐待以得到另類的快感這個不正確的想法。小弟以前曾經在大學時上過一科關於性的選修科, 教授在第一課簡介時已說明了真正的S/M 可以跟性交完全扯不上關係的… 那麼何來淫穢可言呢? 究竟是文章內容不值一題, 還是看倌們先入為主, 聞 S/M 而色變?
- 用字粗俗 = 低級趣味? – 如果大家有看過那份情色版問卷, 大概會同意文章的用字十分生活化, 甚至是流於粗俗的。但以我的認知, 用字粗俗並不能推論文章的內容是無的放矢、不知所云的。而假如文章是有背後的中心思想, 為的也不是只求博敢你的低級笑聲, 那麼我們能指它是低級趣味嗎? 以我看該報的各章, 背後的寫作目的大都為帶出某種社會各界對性的偏向思想, 而不是像尹光的歌一樣可有可無的, 所謂的低級趣味。
總括而言, 我只能說報章的引文蓋偏不蓋全, 是斷章取義, 曲解了文章的原意… 使沒看原文的大眾(或許是守護道德的衛道之士)以為編者們十惡不赦, 但是沒有細看原文的人的意見還能作準嗎?
從淫審處說到傳媒
最不巧的是, 中大學生報踫上了淫審處, 一個能力智商跟香港民智在 "伯仲之間" 的司法組織。這組織在傳媒輿論壓力底下速速表態大力聲討, 還在未審理案件前先有委員向傳媒放風要把情色版列不雅物品, 須知一列不雅物品, 網上報上再不能看到轉載, 道理, 還說得清麼?
淫審處人員的能力若何? 為何被外間指未審先判呢? 可看以下引文:
(05月 09日, 明報) 淫褻物品審裁處審裁委員張民炳認為，「情色版」內容接近二級不雅物品，「由於該報是公開發布，任何人都可以接觸得到，但有關內容的意識過分大膽和敏感，亦不存在任何學術及教育價值，有混淆視聽之嫌。」
一個有 “正常判斷力” 的人應知審裁前說這些說話明顯是失當 (除非是活在大清帝國寧枉莫縱的年代的人)。 我們做一個初中生都懂的文字練習, 如改成:
某淫審員表示:「任何刊物如公開發布，任何人都可以接觸得到，但有關內容的意識過分大膽和敏感，亦不存在任何學術及教育價值的話, 可被列作二級不雅物品。」
如改成這樣的話, 人家還能說他有欠公允嗎? 淫審人員之能力真可見一班!
對的, 淫審人員也是一個市民, 所以能力水平跟香港民智如出一轍是可以理解的。但一個地方的民智從何而來呢? 其實說到底也是來自傳媒。少點炒作, 少點誇大, 少點斷章取義, 多些真相探知, 多些多角度思考… 我們的下一代, 以及下一代的淫審, 是可以更有希望, 更堪信賴的。
致逆境中的年輕編輯們
現在這件事已發展至此, 但有些話是還能勸勉一下這群年輕人的。其實面對這次的逆境, 令大家上了人生寶貴的一課, 而有很多東西我們還是可以改進的。
學生報的編輯們曾表示:
「性的題目毋須權威去作答，否則會阻礙學生自由發表意見」。
我個人當然同意發表意見的自由是萬分可貴, 亦會捍衛自己與及社會大眾這個自由的, 但 “多元” 論述中難道不包括專家們, 權威們的 “元”?
如果在情色版現有的專欄外再加入專家的討論和意見, 會不會令整份報章更見全面呢, 我想是會的。現有的專欄提供了開放式的思考空間, 而專家們的意見將會提供知識性的資料供不同人仕參考。
說到言論自由, 回歸到基本, 自由是如何定義的呢? 大家在思考問題時, 跟外界討論時是有否濫用了 “自由” 一詞? 另外也值得一題的是, 大家在面對反對的聲音跟負面的批評時, 是用什麼手腕去處理呢?
中文大學輔導長何培斌形容該批學生多為一年級生，剛進入大學校門。傾談了3晚後，他認為，學生具防衛態度（defensive）及不明白社會如何看待此事。對於學生未能回應社會的疑問，他感到有點失望，並說﹕「他們不一定要道歉，但應該思考，應想想為何（情色版）會引起不安呢？」
雖然旁人無法得知輔導長跟大家說了什麼, 但要留意的是:
- 如果從沒有考慮讀者會否不安或反感情緒而就刊登了這份刊物, 是否在侵犯他人自由情況下達成自己目的? 是否已違反了自由的基本原則?
- 被社會各界批評, 校方跟同學的劃清界線, 雖然此心可昭日月, 但是否就要表現出一幅寧死不從的外表? 帶著受害者的身份繼續應對各方的攻擊?
- 情色版製作的原意, 旨在開闊社會大眾的眼界, 帶領大家以開放, 開明的新角度去看事物。但大家在面對跟自己想法不同的人時, 可有保持著接受任何思考挑戰的開明開放態度呢?
可幸的是, 本次事件的多位編輯們年紀尚輕, 只要能從今次事件中吸取經驗, 改善缺點, 他們之中, 定有我們明天的不一樣的人物。情色版也許也能再放異彩。
2007年5月26日 星期六
體弱多病的香港人
香港的空氣質素，一向都爲人所垢病。以致很多港人或多或少亦有呼吸的毛病，本人在幼兒的時候
亦有哮喘病，幸運地慢慢地病情好轉。但是到現在，敏感的症候，亦不時有出現。本以爲只是自己體弱，所以才會有鼻敏感的。但是，原來敏感在香港是那麼的普遍，這是我萬萬的想不到。
只是我們的一些也許還未成熟的大學生所寫的幾編文章，竟弄致滿城風雨。所引起的漣漪，竟然那麼的波瀾壯闊。我曾經問過母親，爲何我會有鼻感敏？根據我母親大人的傳統智慧，應該是我小時候食得太多的西醫，所以現在的身體太敏感了．．．不只是我，原來香港人亦是那麼的敏感，可能以前殖民地時代的政治冷感，重藥之後，巳經到了現在的政治敏感。我才疏學淺，記不起誰曾說矯枉必需過正。怪不得，我們香港現在有這樣的症候了。小小的事情，亦被人放大到要用放大鏡去看。
社會轉變了！不知是向好還是壞的方向，總之，是改變了。我小時候，住在屯門的公屋。還記得那時候鄰里之間都是很融洽的，間中或有爭執，但是都是私底下商量解決的。未聽聞過有鄰居因爲不滿另一鄰居，而去投訴人家的，更加未有聽聞會有聯群結黨的去圍攻人家的。記不起是何時，香港人變得那麼的愛投訴？是因爲每次投訴都能得手？我不知道．．．見到不平事，理應頂身而出。但是，還有没有其他更好的解決辦法呢？還有，就是那是不是真的不平？
由我住公屋的時候到在現在，很多東西都改變了，但有一樣東西是没有變的。就是，香港人還是那麼的忙碌，現在，還要忙着用放大鏡的去照人家的錯處，但亦可能因此治好了自身的近視。不過，都是因爲矯枉過正，他們又有遠視啦！嚴重到連自身都看不到啦。所以，他們可能隨身袋着一兩本龍虎豹，然後又忙着跟別人一起的擲石頭，還擲得蠻起勁的。不過，君不見他們是有兩袋的？你們以爲那是幹嘛？當然是袋着另一副的眼鏡的。不過，這也不是什麼稀奇的事，大多數的人都是有兩副眼鏡的。看人家用一副，看自己？當然是用另外的一副。不然，幹嗎要兩副眼鏡？大家看不到眼鏡店開得成行成市的嗎？你就知道這是一個大市場啦！
香港人，放鬆吓啦！還有，不要再用放大鏡去望人了，如果真要用的話，也用用你枱頭前的鏡子，望望自己，看看有什麼不同？
亦有哮喘病，幸運地慢慢地病情好轉。但是到現在，敏感的症候，亦不時有出現。本以爲只是自己體弱，所以才會有鼻敏感的。但是，原來敏感在香港是那麼的普遍，這是我萬萬的想不到。
只是我們的一些也許還未成熟的大學生所寫的幾編文章，竟弄致滿城風雨。所引起的漣漪，竟然那麼的波瀾壯闊。我曾經問過母親，爲何我會有鼻感敏？根據我母親大人的傳統智慧，應該是我小時候食得太多的西醫，所以現在的身體太敏感了．．．不只是我，原來香港人亦是那麼的敏感，可能以前殖民地時代的政治冷感，重藥之後，巳經到了現在的政治敏感。我才疏學淺，記不起誰曾說矯枉必需過正。怪不得，我們香港現在有這樣的症候了。小小的事情，亦被人放大到要用放大鏡去看。
社會轉變了！不知是向好還是壞的方向，總之，是改變了。我小時候，住在屯門的公屋。還記得那時候鄰里之間都是很融洽的，間中或有爭執，但是都是私底下商量解決的。未聽聞過有鄰居因爲不滿另一鄰居，而去投訴人家的，更加未有聽聞會有聯群結黨的去圍攻人家的。記不起是何時，香港人變得那麼的愛投訴？是因爲每次投訴都能得手？我不知道．．．見到不平事，理應頂身而出。但是，還有没有其他更好的解決辦法呢？還有，就是那是不是真的不平？
由我住公屋的時候到在現在，很多東西都改變了，但有一樣東西是没有變的。就是，香港人還是那麼的忙碌，現在，還要忙着用放大鏡的去照人家的錯處，但亦可能因此治好了自身的近視。不過，都是因爲矯枉過正，他們又有遠視啦！嚴重到連自身都看不到啦。所以，他們可能隨身袋着一兩本龍虎豹，然後又忙着跟別人一起的擲石頭，還擲得蠻起勁的。不過，君不見他們是有兩袋的？你們以爲那是幹嘛？當然是袋着另一副的眼鏡的。不過，這也不是什麼稀奇的事，大多數的人都是有兩副眼鏡的。看人家用一副，看自己？當然是用另外的一副。不然，幹嗎要兩副眼鏡？大家看不到眼鏡店開得成行成市的嗎？你就知道這是一個大市場啦！
香港人，放鬆吓啦！還有，不要再用放大鏡去望人了，如果真要用的話，也用用你枱頭前的鏡子，望望自己，看看有什麼不同？
2007年5月25日 星期五
1:99 消毒了的象牙塔
中文大學成立裁決小組於5月10日向外界發表聲明, 認為「中大學生報-情色版」的內容不雅, 超出社會可接受的道德底線, 令人不安, 及損害校譽, 並會考慮處分有關編委. 因而引來社會不同階層的聲音及迴響.
一直以來, 大學教育都是肩負作育英才, 培育社會棟樑的重任. 但今天我們的社會對英才及棟樑的定義是否只是那些金融才俊, 律政群英, 醫療先鋒等等的成功人仕? 而對於勇於站出來敢言立新,或以另一角度眼觀社會,關心世界, 即謂”有事就出來聲援示威; 無事就在計劃招風起浪”的”滋事一群”, 就是那一堆恨鐵不成鋼, 浪費納稅人金錢, 令師長”痛心疾首”的不良學生?
大學校園是一個提供教學和研究條件的高等教育機關, 除了為學生提供不同專業上的知識外. 也是一個帶動社會, 經濟, 學術及科研向著人類尚未踏足的新領域前進的入口. 在這裡幾多不同的學說論証創新研發社會運動就是由此開始, 一直無息不止推動世界. 而由古至今, 又有幾多曾經被世人/社會視為瘋狂, 離經叛道, 極具爭議, 篾視道德. 荒唐無奚的論說發明及革命, 成就了今天你我處身的世界?!
在此我無意評論是次中大學生報的內容是否會為社會帶來什麼衝擊或什麼新思維、所用手法及品味高底等問題, 只是若是連大學本身也欠缺包容各種形式的想法, 思維及觀點, 甚至以打壓的手法扼阻發表的空間及機會, 在這一抹白色恐慌的環境下, 我們還能要求學生站出來, 提出不一樣的聲音, 以另一個角度去推動及帶領社會發展及運行嗎? 如果連大學本身的視野也不過是與社會一般的平齊, 甚至是跟著社會的步伐調速, 那又如何指望學生可以有高瞻遠足的眼界及勇於表達革新, 締造新世界的理想?
而就是次中大極速與學生報「劃清界線」, 並高調回應社會評論及對學生報的評價以保校譽. 難免令人將現今香港對大學教育的資助及捐款風氣扯上關係. 大學為保障對校園得到的資助, 令善長放心捐款, 也可能只好附和社會的要求、標準及期望. 卻因而捨棄了作為一所大學本身最核心的立場與風骨. 如此下去, 香港還有機會出現多幾個張韻琪和陳敬慈嗎? (註1)
註:
張韻琪和陳敬慈, 香港大學學生(已畢業), 兩人為學聯代表.曾就要求修訂<公安條例>發起大型的示威及抗議及因而被補. 也是較為人熟悉的少數香港學運人物.
張韻琪現為綠色和平項目主任, 而陳敬慈現參與許多社區中作及為香港全球化監察編委.
一直以來, 大學教育都是肩負作育英才, 培育社會棟樑的重任. 但今天我們的社會對英才及棟樑的定義是否只是那些金融才俊, 律政群英, 醫療先鋒等等的成功人仕? 而對於勇於站出來敢言立新,或以另一角度眼觀社會,關心世界, 即謂”有事就出來聲援示威; 無事就在計劃招風起浪”的”滋事一群”, 就是那一堆恨鐵不成鋼, 浪費納稅人金錢, 令師長”痛心疾首”的不良學生?
大學校園是一個提供教學和研究條件的高等教育機關, 除了為學生提供不同專業上的知識外. 也是一個帶動社會, 經濟, 學術及科研向著人類尚未踏足的新領域前進的入口. 在這裡幾多不同的學說論証創新研發社會運動就是由此開始, 一直無息不止推動世界. 而由古至今, 又有幾多曾經被世人/社會視為瘋狂, 離經叛道, 極具爭議, 篾視道德. 荒唐無奚的論說發明及革命, 成就了今天你我處身的世界?!
在此我無意評論是次中大學生報的內容是否會為社會帶來什麼衝擊或什麼新思維、所用手法及品味高底等問題, 只是若是連大學本身也欠缺包容各種形式的想法, 思維及觀點, 甚至以打壓的手法扼阻發表的空間及機會, 在這一抹白色恐慌的環境下, 我們還能要求學生站出來, 提出不一樣的聲音, 以另一個角度去推動及帶領社會發展及運行嗎? 如果連大學本身的視野也不過是與社會一般的平齊, 甚至是跟著社會的步伐調速, 那又如何指望學生可以有高瞻遠足的眼界及勇於表達革新, 締造新世界的理想?
而就是次中大極速與學生報「劃清界線」, 並高調回應社會評論及對學生報的評價以保校譽. 難免令人將現今香港對大學教育的資助及捐款風氣扯上關係. 大學為保障對校園得到的資助, 令善長放心捐款, 也可能只好附和社會的要求、標準及期望. 卻因而捨棄了作為一所大學本身最核心的立場與風骨. 如此下去, 香港還有機會出現多幾個張韻琪和陳敬慈嗎? (註1)
註:
張韻琪和陳敬慈, 香港大學學生(已畢業), 兩人為學聯代表.曾就要求修訂<公安條例>發起大型的示威及抗議及因而被補. 也是較為人熟悉的少數香港學運人物.
張韻琪現為綠色和平項目主任, 而陳敬慈現參與許多社區中作及為香港全球化監察編委.
2007年5月24日 星期四
中庸大學之道?
中大學生報事件，事情發展之快，牽涉人物之廣，確實矚目。本身討論主題亦在極具爭議性(在香港)，第一身在社會亦具矚目地位，故引起連番劇鬥。
當校方知道學生報被拿到淫審處鑑別時，首先責罵學生的不是，但，校方代表肯定未有看那些情色版(這點，我稍後再談)。然後，甚麼警告，黃紙呀，全出動了，以為執行家法便可社會進一步討論，減少在報章報導。那，是否天真點?
大學作為培訓社會尖子的地方，當然是高處不勝寒。大學向社會取資源，是否等於不能離開出資人的思維?大學裡人才匯集，是否有責任帶領社會開發新思維，讓社會對各家論說均有了解?若大學法掘了一些鮮人為知的事情，那將對社會大有脾益。大學應有對學術研究的方針及保護措施，若要看社會的反應來調校方針，那就缺少了大學特有的專業性及傲骨。
2007年5月21日 星期一
An inconclusive blurb on the ongoing CUHK Student Paper incident
While open discourse is valuable, especially in a university setting, fiasco is inevitable when it is intertwined with potential legal and, worse, bureaucratic battles. The incident of the CUHK Student Paper (SP) unfortunately became an opening can of worm; it is only a matter of time before a scapegoat is sacrificed for a crime it did not intend to commit.
As a curious observer/fellow HKer living thousands of miles away, I congratulate the SP for pushing the envelope, especially after reading their manifesto/open letter. After all, diversity is always good, a space for alternative voices is always good, and an open discourse on whatever topic (and in this case, sex) is always good. Or is it? I have some reservation about the published material as well as the editors’ underlying intention.
Perhaps few would fail to see the need and necessity for a platform for students to discuss and process issues, especially those stigmatized by the larger society. After all, it is through this kind of campus forum that many grass root movements gained their momentum and many positive societal changes were conceived (we need not look as far back as May 68, just recall June 89).
Sexuality has always been a highly polarized and tabooed topic in Hong Kong. Many of us still recall and lament the embarrassing one-hour long sex ed we received in P.6, which involved funny looking cartoon characters with odd looking body anatomy. That was the extent our teachers were willing to enlighten us about what we would eventually find out through distorted, and often violent, portrait of sex offered by various level of (foreign) provocative films. (The fact that I am reluctant to use the word pornography is perhaps a telling piece of evidence of the kind of oppression—if you will—we went through.) So a huge vacuum exists between the P.6 ETV and Form-whenever porn; who is to fill the gap, especially for those who do not fit into mold of the middle-class, heterosexual, able-body, Japan-philia male? Who is there to tell us that our fantasies and thoughts need not always elicit a sense of guilt or an urge to enact upon? Discovery Channel certainly comes to mind, but many would argue that the SP was exactly attempting to play that perfect rescuer?
Even many conservative critics praised the effort of the SP, but with the condition of grieving their inadequacy in fulfilling the noble goals. They say that there is an abyss between the objectives and the method used. The former is applauded but the latter (especially the content) made many uncomfortable and thus the paper should be subject to public scrutiny.
But isn’t the mission of the enlightened person (especially youth) to disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed? Isn’t providing a voice to the voiceless the calling of the activist? Shouldn’t a university provide a safe ground for students, budding leaders of tomorrow, to test out ideas and experiment with ideologies? Isn’t the young intellectual the promise for the fallen, corrupted, old world of the adults? Sure. These are all praiseworthy motives but do they not become problematic when one is fighting for fighting sake, arguing for arguing sake, being radical and controversial and vocal for sake of doing so? Perhaps a more fundamental question must be asked, who are the editors responsible for?
Obviously a student paper does not need to be responsible for the college administrators. Less obvious is whether or not a student paper needs to consider its legacy and its future and be responsible for the generation of editors/authors ahead and to come. As editors of a student paper hold office only for a transient period of time, should they be responsible and accountable for the “name” of the paper, for their predecessors or successors? What if the paper collapses altogether or looses its readership, will they be held responsible?
This seemingly tangential list of questions are relevant because the editors of the SP are entrusted to carry on something greater than themselves, with something they did not create in the first place. Besides being responsible for the paper, the editors must also be responsible for their clientele—their boss, in other words. On the other hand, CUHK students also should take on the responsibility of offering check and balance to their SP. They should make sure that their SP follows its mandate. If it is to be the voice of the student body, then it should be made sure that the paper is not only representing a minority few—be it sexual minorities or class minorities. If, on the other hand, the paper’s job is to allow various less vocal voices be heard, make sure it is doing so deliberately: Let the authors write about their opinion about sex and retell their fantasies, but also publish the, if any, disagreeing voices—whether it is from the college principal or from the freshmen student reading gender studies. Let the public be the judge and let the letter section be the evaluation tool. The ownership as well as responsibility of the SP should be made clear.
Push the envelope, aye, but nay if it is done irresponsibly and irrationally; aye to an open forum with the heart to serve, but nay to vanity and the personal glory.
Christian Chan
Cambridge, MA, USA
May 21, 2007
As a curious observer/fellow HKer living thousands of miles away, I congratulate the SP for pushing the envelope, especially after reading their manifesto/open letter. After all, diversity is always good, a space for alternative voices is always good, and an open discourse on whatever topic (and in this case, sex) is always good. Or is it? I have some reservation about the published material as well as the editors’ underlying intention.
Perhaps few would fail to see the need and necessity for a platform for students to discuss and process issues, especially those stigmatized by the larger society. After all, it is through this kind of campus forum that many grass root movements gained their momentum and many positive societal changes were conceived (we need not look as far back as May 68, just recall June 89).
Sexuality has always been a highly polarized and tabooed topic in Hong Kong. Many of us still recall and lament the embarrassing one-hour long sex ed we received in P.6, which involved funny looking cartoon characters with odd looking body anatomy. That was the extent our teachers were willing to enlighten us about what we would eventually find out through distorted, and often violent, portrait of sex offered by various level of (foreign) provocative films. (The fact that I am reluctant to use the word pornography is perhaps a telling piece of evidence of the kind of oppression—if you will—we went through.) So a huge vacuum exists between the P.6 ETV and Form-whenever porn; who is to fill the gap, especially for those who do not fit into mold of the middle-class, heterosexual, able-body, Japan-philia male? Who is there to tell us that our fantasies and thoughts need not always elicit a sense of guilt or an urge to enact upon? Discovery Channel certainly comes to mind, but many would argue that the SP was exactly attempting to play that perfect rescuer?
Even many conservative critics praised the effort of the SP, but with the condition of grieving their inadequacy in fulfilling the noble goals. They say that there is an abyss between the objectives and the method used. The former is applauded but the latter (especially the content) made many uncomfortable and thus the paper should be subject to public scrutiny.
But isn’t the mission of the enlightened person (especially youth) to disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed? Isn’t providing a voice to the voiceless the calling of the activist? Shouldn’t a university provide a safe ground for students, budding leaders of tomorrow, to test out ideas and experiment with ideologies? Isn’t the young intellectual the promise for the fallen, corrupted, old world of the adults? Sure. These are all praiseworthy motives but do they not become problematic when one is fighting for fighting sake, arguing for arguing sake, being radical and controversial and vocal for sake of doing so? Perhaps a more fundamental question must be asked, who are the editors responsible for?
Obviously a student paper does not need to be responsible for the college administrators. Less obvious is whether or not a student paper needs to consider its legacy and its future and be responsible for the generation of editors/authors ahead and to come. As editors of a student paper hold office only for a transient period of time, should they be responsible and accountable for the “name” of the paper, for their predecessors or successors? What if the paper collapses altogether or looses its readership, will they be held responsible?
This seemingly tangential list of questions are relevant because the editors of the SP are entrusted to carry on something greater than themselves, with something they did not create in the first place. Besides being responsible for the paper, the editors must also be responsible for their clientele—their boss, in other words. On the other hand, CUHK students also should take on the responsibility of offering check and balance to their SP. They should make sure that their SP follows its mandate. If it is to be the voice of the student body, then it should be made sure that the paper is not only representing a minority few—be it sexual minorities or class minorities. If, on the other hand, the paper’s job is to allow various less vocal voices be heard, make sure it is doing so deliberately: Let the authors write about their opinion about sex and retell their fantasies, but also publish the, if any, disagreeing voices—whether it is from the college principal or from the freshmen student reading gender studies. Let the public be the judge and let the letter section be the evaluation tool. The ownership as well as responsibility of the SP should be made clear.
Push the envelope, aye, but nay if it is done irresponsibly and irrationally; aye to an open forum with the heart to serve, but nay to vanity and the personal glory.
Christian Chan
Cambridge, MA, USA
May 21, 2007
2007年5月19日 星期六
紅男綠女十不同
- 女人的眼淚可以換來憐憫與同情; 男人的眼淚只會換來鄙視與嘲笑.
- 男人變心是他對愛情不忠誠,是千古罪人; 女人變心是因為男人對他不好,辜負了這女人.
- 女人錯入了男廁, 只需要一句「對不起」加一個笑容就可以全身而退; 男入錯入女廁隨時惹上官非, 若再加一上一個笑容的話, 一定死無全屍.
- 男人總希望成為女人一生中第一個男人; 女人總痴想成為浪子一生中最後的一個女人.
- 女人親熱時要關燈因為要幻想你是畢比特; 男人親熱時要開燈是因為避免叫錯你的名字?!
- 男人偷窺是為了滿足無止盡的幻想; 女人偷窺是為了停止胡思與亂想.
- 愛睡的女人會令人想起睡公主,甚至令人想做白馬王子偷吻一下; 愛睡的男人會令人想起蛀米大虫, 甚至令人想拖出去打一身.
- 男人的妒忌心是出於佔有慾; 女人的妒嫉心是出自憎恨.
- 女人最怕男人沉默不發一言,因為不知道有什麼惹怒他了; 男人最想女人可以靜下來,不要整天都叨叨不休.
- 一班人聚會中, 男人會圍在一起討論哪個女生最漂亮; 女人會圍在一起排擠那個最漂亮的女生.
男女真的大不同？
首先，先要跟我們的管理員及各位讀者說聲抱歉！因爲小飛俠最近成日(個心，又稱遊雲！)都飛來飛去，所以遲了交稿。
男與女當然是有所不同，我相信應該是没有人會否認的事實，亦没有討論的必要。最主要以及最基本的，當然是身理上的不同。除此之外，還有就是心理的不同。但是實際上，究竟有多大的不同呢？有人說：男與女就像是兩種不同的物種，生物學家應該將男女分開來研究！這當然是戲言，但亦道出一些人對異性的不理解情度，去到一個怎樣的地步。
男女之間的不同是當然的，但是否如我們所想的那樣不同？當然，在身理上，男與女的不同是不用置疑的。但是，心理上是否亦如我們所想的那麼不同呢？我想不是的！
我認爲除了天生的不同之外，其他的一切也是環境使然。物競天擇，適者生存。早期人類的社會，生活條件較差。在這情况之下，要養活一個嬰兒是很困難，對於你的族群來說亦是非常重要。所以，如何去了解一個嬰兒的需要是很重要的，因爲這有助於好好的照顧好一個嬰兒，而這會令你的族群可以繼續下去。所以，當男性對一個嬰兒手足無措的時候，而女性總好像知道嬰兒需要什麼似的，儘管嬰兒不懂說話。因爲，在我們的祖先中，那些女性較懂得了解嬰兒和跟嬰兒溝通的，他們的族群才可以存活下來。到了我們現在，我們看到的都是女性是較懂得與人溝通的那一個，這亦是因爲早期的人類社會，女性是會在家的那一個，男性總是外出打獵，持家的都會是女性，很多很多家庭的爭執都是要女性去解決，去照顧到。所以，發展下來，女性是精於溝通和可以同一時間處理很的事情的人(Multi-tasking)。同樣的道理，早期的男性出於生存的需要，要出外的去探索週圍的環境，以提高生存的機會，所以專注力和旺盛的好奇心是重要的。一路發展下來，現在的女性不明白爲何男性到了中年爲何還是那麼有好奇心和男性只可以single-tasking。以上的只是其中的一二個例子。
再看看現在的社會，我們再慢慢的思索一下現代社會的男女之間的角色。我們現代的生活跟早期人類的生活比較之下，有了很大的轉變，慢慢的，男女之間的角色扮演遊戲也會有所改變。看看現在高收入的職業女性，和在街上見到的在照顧嬰兒的爸爸，這都是以往的人所想像不到的。物競天擇，適者生存。所以，由此可見，環境的影响有多麼的大。男女真的那麼大不同？可能．．．．．．只是一開始的分工做成今日的不同，難保他朝有一日，可能會來一個大逆轉。到時候，男性做着以前女性做的事，女性亦是一樣的做着男性以前做的事，那麼到時候，我們還可以說：男女真的那麼大不同嗎？
男與女當然是有所不同，我相信應該是没有人會否認的事實，亦没有討論的必要。最主要以及最基本的，當然是身理上的不同。除此之外，還有就是心理的不同。但是實際上，究竟有多大的不同呢？有人說：男與女就像是兩種不同的物種，生物學家應該將男女分開來研究！這當然是戲言，但亦道出一些人對異性的不理解情度，去到一個怎樣的地步。
男女之間的不同是當然的，但是否如我們所想的那樣不同？當然，在身理上，男與女的不同是不用置疑的。但是，心理上是否亦如我們所想的那麼不同呢？我想不是的！
我認爲除了天生的不同之外，其他的一切也是環境使然。物競天擇，適者生存。早期人類的社會，生活條件較差。在這情况之下，要養活一個嬰兒是很困難，對於你的族群來說亦是非常重要。所以，如何去了解一個嬰兒的需要是很重要的，因爲這有助於好好的照顧好一個嬰兒，而這會令你的族群可以繼續下去。所以，當男性對一個嬰兒手足無措的時候，而女性總好像知道嬰兒需要什麼似的，儘管嬰兒不懂說話。因爲，在我們的祖先中，那些女性較懂得了解嬰兒和跟嬰兒溝通的，他們的族群才可以存活下來。到了我們現在，我們看到的都是女性是較懂得與人溝通的那一個，這亦是因爲早期的人類社會，女性是會在家的那一個，男性總是外出打獵，持家的都會是女性，很多很多家庭的爭執都是要女性去解決，去照顧到。所以，發展下來，女性是精於溝通和可以同一時間處理很的事情的人(Multi-tasking)。同樣的道理，早期的男性出於生存的需要，要出外的去探索週圍的環境，以提高生存的機會，所以專注力和旺盛的好奇心是重要的。一路發展下來，現在的女性不明白爲何男性到了中年爲何還是那麼有好奇心和男性只可以single-tasking。以上的只是其中的一二個例子。
再看看現在的社會，我們再慢慢的思索一下現代社會的男女之間的角色。我們現代的生活跟早期人類的生活比較之下，有了很大的轉變，慢慢的，男女之間的角色扮演遊戲也會有所改變。看看現在高收入的職業女性，和在街上見到的在照顧嬰兒的爸爸，這都是以往的人所想像不到的。物競天擇，適者生存。所以，由此可見，環境的影响有多麼的大。男女真的那麼大不同？可能．．．．．．只是一開始的分工做成今日的不同，難保他朝有一日，可能會來一個大逆轉。到時候，男性做着以前女性做的事，女性亦是一樣的做着男性以前做的事，那麼到時候，我們還可以說：男女真的那麼大不同嗎？
2007年5月17日 星期四
確不同?
究竟，男女本應是相同?或本應不相同?
- 在香港，平等機會委員會曾建議香港教科書，修改部分有關男與女的外表描述，認為這有助推廣男女平等觀念。例如，在小學或幼兒園的教科書中，女孩子穿褲子，有男護士出現。但，女孩子穿裙子是由於男女生理有別，而讓小朋友認識男穿褲子、女穿裙子，確實有助小朋友分辨男女。若在幼兒教科書中，女孩子以短髮穿褲子視人，小朋友就更難分別誰男誰女。
- 洗手間-若要全速推動男女平等，那男界女界便是萬惡之源，就需要全面開放男女共用洗手間，男女共浴更好!
- 70年代女性解放運動，曾有人提出解放胸圍行動，指為何男性可以赤裸上身、只穿短褲便可自由行走，而女性則內有胸圍、外有襯衣，不可跟男性一樣，赤膊上陣。結果，有部份女性坐言起行，讓大咪咪呼吸自由平等的空氣。坦白說，男性對此無任歡迎，但此舉又未能充分體現男女平等之道理。設有天體海灘的一些西方國家，能否代表男女平等?非洲又如何?
- 過去幾十年，女權在國際間獲得大大提昇。原來在上世紀30年代，美國有某些州法律指明已婚女性打工是犯法的，直至二次大戰期間，美國本土需要大量人力來生產軍事物資，女性才能合法地打工。在地球的另一方，新中國成立後，第一條通過的法案是婚姻法。
- 除了生理構造外，男與女本應是相同，抑或是不同?若本應是相同的話，為何現今女性地位及權力仍未能與男性平起平坐?是人口問題、體力問題、腦力問題、或是荷爾蒙問題?若本應是不同的話，女性透過成功爭取與男性同工同職位，是否等於體現男女平等?女性美軍在前線執勤，肩負危險任務，表現是否能與男性士兵相近?為何女性消防員至今仍是小數?若男與女按照自有的性別特點，各施其職，整體團隊表現會否更好?總結而言，若男與女雙方素質、潛質及能力相類近的，是應該提倡機會平等的；但若雙方相距太大，硬要高舉機會平等旗幟，是否有點好事變壞事?只有一小批女性勝任某些男性的工作，是否就等於男女平等?或只是小部份的男女平等?或者在某些範疇是不可能達致男女平等的?
- 為何在討論男女平等時，總是由女方提出、爭取，甚少由男方提出(如陪產假期)?是否男方處事能力較強?忍耐力較高、較難喊?或是有難言之忍、男人之苦?
2007年5月16日 星期三
男女, 由不同到尋找認同
與生俱來, 男生跟女生就有著很多很多生理上跟心理上的分別。對於女生的生理結構, 我個人是樂於常常研究的, 但由於取樣的數據 sampling data 太少故此不能在這裡公開分析的結果。至於心理上的分別, 雖然也沒什麼學術上的研究, 但或許能從現今男女的行為看到一點有趣的東西。
女為悅己者容
打從九十年代末開始, 香港女性就興起了纖體瘦身的浪潮。女士們大灑金錢, 吃藥抽脂排毒搽減肥膏去纖體中心... 減肥的方法五花八門。至於什麼才算標準體型呢? 五呎三吋的女孩一百一十磅? 喔那水平是不行的... 一百零五磅? 你的手臂有 “拜拜肉” 啊, 不行... 一百磅? 接近了, 但要是有九十五磅的才能算 perfect!
女性追求這一種纖瘦體型背後是為了什麼呢, 最普遍的答案絕對是: “貪靚”。但是為什麼人會愛美呢? 尋根究底, 這正是所謂女為悅己者容, 是一種為了吸引異性而產生的行為, 可說是動物本能。但是女仕們在減肥前... 可有問過男仕們的想法呢...
作為一個中等身形的男性, 如果要我選心目中的標準體形女性, 我會覺得有點圓潤的女性並不難接受 (雖然我不會虛偽的跟你說會選很胖的女生), 反正是合乎比例又感覺健康的就好。偏偏在女生眼中的唯美體型, 對於大部份男性來說已是接近病態(可能是病態美...)了。
那麼說來, 女性的這種行為背後是基於一種對男性的觀點的錯誤了解吧? 嗯嗯, 那麼各位兄弟們得回去訓示一下女朋友們了嗎?
不是的, 男生們不是也在做同樣的事嗎? 君不見每逢週未跟每天下班的時間各大健身中心也都濟滿著一眾熱愛健身的男仕? 對的, 男仕就是愛健身... 說到這裡 “師兄” 們會說 (做健身的男仕普遍以 “師兄” 相稱): “健身是一種我最喜愛的運動!” ... 是的, 我不排除有很喜歡健身運動的男仕... 就像愛打籃球足球之類的一樣。但是老實說啊, 在我們男孩的成長過程中, 有哪個沒想過... “如果有一身橫練的肌肉, 那該能吸引多少女事們青睞的目光?” 如果有想過的, 不論已經擁有或沒有一身橫練肌肉的你, 可有問過有多少女生是特別喜歡滿身肌肉的男生呢? 以我所認識的女生之中, 大概不太多...
異性目光也直接影響性別的構造
看來我們很多時候會對異性的觀點有不正確的推敲, 但是其實異性的觀點卻的確在不知不覺之間為我們日常的行為跟價值觀作了很大的影響。認識我的朋友, 也許知道我很喜歡顏色鮮艷的衣服的。像紫色, 粉紅色的甚或大花圖案的襯衣或 tee-shirt 我也有數件。這些顏色跟圖案的男性衣服在今天的香港街頭並不罕見, 但若是時光倒流三十年, 你穿著一件相同的衣服走上街的話很可能會被看作是奇裝異服。不止這些, 現在我們男生也會 “護膚”。潔面膏、潤膚乳、保濕精華甚至是高級面膜等也會用上; 你也會在大學生影畢業照時看到男生抱著很大一隻毛娃娃在拍照... 等等, 這些或許也是幾十年前不能想像的畫面。
甚麼驅使男性有這種結構性的行為轉變呢? 其實不是男性本身, 而是來自圍繞我們身邊的女性的目光。基於種種因素 (部份可能來自於男性與女性的社會地位愈趨平等), 女性對於男性的形象的要求是改變了。有些以前不受重視的東西諸如皮膚質素... 今天可能成了女仕擇偶的其中一種傾向; 而一些以往被認定為女性專用的東西 (特定的顏色或物品), 今天也被認定為兩性共用的了。如此一來, 為了迎合身邊的女性, 近代男性的形象便被慢慢地塑造成今天的樣子了。所以這種變化是合理的。
拿這個觀點再反過來一看, 其實是可以舉一反三, 推想到現代女性的思想行為是如何塑造的。所以男生們, 當身邊有人說 “港女” 有多不溫柔, 多不會處理家務, 他大概是還未察覺 “港男” 於這短短的二三十年所發生的變化而已! 請你跟他說, 如果香港的女孩突然變得很溫柔的時候可能你會覺得很不習慣的......
女為悅己者容
打從九十年代末開始, 香港女性就興起了纖體瘦身的浪潮。女士們大灑金錢, 吃藥抽脂排毒搽減肥膏去纖體中心... 減肥的方法五花八門。至於什麼才算標準體型呢? 五呎三吋的女孩一百一十磅? 喔那水平是不行的... 一百零五磅? 你的手臂有 “拜拜肉” 啊, 不行... 一百磅? 接近了, 但要是有九十五磅的才能算 perfect!
女性追求這一種纖瘦體型背後是為了什麼呢, 最普遍的答案絕對是: “貪靚”。但是為什麼人會愛美呢? 尋根究底, 這正是所謂女為悅己者容, 是一種為了吸引異性而產生的行為, 可說是動物本能。但是女仕們在減肥前... 可有問過男仕們的想法呢...
作為一個中等身形的男性, 如果要我選心目中的標準體形女性, 我會覺得有點圓潤的女性並不難接受 (雖然我不會虛偽的跟你說會選很胖的女生), 反正是合乎比例又感覺健康的就好。偏偏在女生眼中的唯美體型, 對於大部份男性來說已是接近病態(可能是病態美...)了。
那麼說來, 女性的這種行為背後是基於一種對男性的觀點的錯誤了解吧? 嗯嗯, 那麼各位兄弟們得回去訓示一下女朋友們了嗎?
不是的, 男生們不是也在做同樣的事嗎? 君不見每逢週未跟每天下班的時間各大健身中心也都濟滿著一眾熱愛健身的男仕? 對的, 男仕就是愛健身... 說到這裡 “師兄” 們會說 (做健身的男仕普遍以 “師兄” 相稱): “健身是一種我最喜愛的運動!” ... 是的, 我不排除有很喜歡健身運動的男仕... 就像愛打籃球足球之類的一樣。但是老實說啊, 在我們男孩的成長過程中, 有哪個沒想過... “如果有一身橫練的肌肉, 那該能吸引多少女事們青睞的目光?” 如果有想過的, 不論已經擁有或沒有一身橫練肌肉的你, 可有問過有多少女生是特別喜歡滿身肌肉的男生呢? 以我所認識的女生之中, 大概不太多...
異性目光也直接影響性別的構造
看來我們很多時候會對異性的觀點有不正確的推敲, 但是其實異性的觀點卻的確在不知不覺之間為我們日常的行為跟價值觀作了很大的影響。認識我的朋友, 也許知道我很喜歡顏色鮮艷的衣服的。像紫色, 粉紅色的甚或大花圖案的襯衣或 tee-shirt 我也有數件。這些顏色跟圖案的男性衣服在今天的香港街頭並不罕見, 但若是時光倒流三十年, 你穿著一件相同的衣服走上街的話很可能會被看作是奇裝異服。不止這些, 現在我們男生也會 “護膚”。潔面膏、潤膚乳、保濕精華甚至是高級面膜等也會用上; 你也會在大學生影畢業照時看到男生抱著很大一隻毛娃娃在拍照... 等等, 這些或許也是幾十年前不能想像的畫面。
甚麼驅使男性有這種結構性的行為轉變呢? 其實不是男性本身, 而是來自圍繞我們身邊的女性的目光。基於種種因素 (部份可能來自於男性與女性的社會地位愈趨平等), 女性對於男性的形象的要求是改變了。有些以前不受重視的東西諸如皮膚質素... 今天可能成了女仕擇偶的其中一種傾向; 而一些以往被認定為女性專用的東西 (特定的顏色或物品), 今天也被認定為兩性共用的了。如此一來, 為了迎合身邊的女性, 近代男性的形象便被慢慢地塑造成今天的樣子了。所以這種變化是合理的。
拿這個觀點再反過來一看, 其實是可以舉一反三, 推想到現代女性的思想行為是如何塑造的。所以男生們, 當身邊有人說 “港女” 有多不溫柔, 多不會處理家務, 他大概是還未察覺 “港男” 於這短短的二三十年所發生的變化而已! 請你跟他說, 如果香港的女孩突然變得很溫柔的時候可能你會覺得很不習慣的......
2007年5月14日 星期一
On mating
My academic training necessitates that I become a proponent of social biology. That is, I have long been subjected to the preaching that many, if not most, human behavior and tendencies are results of evolution and natural selection: only those that are adaptive—good for survival and reproduction—would be passed on and only those who possess these traits would survive and procreate. As the theory goes, our ancestors were hunter-gathers; gender roles and responsibilities and expectations were formulated in accordance to ancient ecological demands. Men were expected to find food and provide protection while women were to work in the field and to bear and raise offspring. Because of the unconscious desire to pass on one’s genes and the biological constraints in humans, courtship became an important part of life. Men wooed women with good promises of fertility while women sought resourceful men. This simple equation is translated into all sorts of complicated and both sophisticated and not-so-sophisticated behaviors and “human nature”, such as the chase after money and power (enhances one’s chances of mating); war (winners gain money and power and mating partner); fashion and the cosmetic industry (to increase attractiveness and thus “market value”); athletic and/or intellectual pursuit (again, market value); and even helping behavior. An extremist of this view would claim that fundamentally all human behaviors are one way or another related to survival and reproduction and that feelings such as love are but byproducts that facilitate the evolutionary goals.
My political beliefs, on the other hand, necessitate that I keep in mind that truth and reality are often socially constructed. That is, many so-called truth are only so because we collectively say and believe it is. Many “facts” are constructed by the powerful and resourceful to sustain the existing social hierarchy and in effect perpetuate social inequality. By this token, attributing mating behavior to solely biological factors is justifying the status quo of male dominance and the oppression of women--since it is a “scientific” truth that women are meant to be primarily mothers, it is only fair to keep them at home and let men take care of business. And this is not just about division of labor. More power to matriarchy.
A related and equally perplexing issue is our desire to have children. It is fascinating to see how women (and, to a lesser extent, men) become more and more obsess with the idea of bearing children as they age. I do not recall ever overhearing my female friends/classmates discussing with passion about having their children when I was younger. But it almost seems like once women reach 25 or so, boom, babies become so much cuter and more desirable. Friends and colleagues alike become more flirtatious with the procreation drive. It is as though the closer women get to 30, the more of a priority getting their eggs fertilized is. Perhaps the desire emerged a lot earlier (after all our grandparents’ generation started mating in their late teens), but social norms and cultural constraints play the role to subdue it. The ticking of the biological clock seems to be harder to ignore with time.
The problem is, our world is too crowded. In fact it has never been in history as populous. Most of the catastrophic crises we anticipate are associated with over-population. The last thing planet earth needs from us is more energy-consuming, environment-destroying, unemployed (and thus angry) people. Babies are cute but, sorry, we as a species simply can no longer afford them, at least not at the current rate. With this perspective in mind, it becomes particularly ludicrous for governments to encourage procreation on the bases of rescuing the economy. Here’s the paradox: while there are more babies created per minute now than ever in history, the number orphans is also increasing, perhaps even more rapidly. So it is not that we lack cute babies in the world, but rather what we lack are cute babies bearing our genes. And this is the challenge we collectively face: can we resist the temptation of our selfish gene and refrain from creating more lives?
If we truly possess the ability to love and that it isn't just a byproduct, then let’s spread it to those who already need them desperately instead of creating more needy receivers of our love (and resources). It is about time to drop the “us vs them” mentality but, pessimistic as it may sound, I can almost guarantee that only a noble few can succeed in this endeavor.
Christian Chan
May 14, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA
My political beliefs, on the other hand, necessitate that I keep in mind that truth and reality are often socially constructed. That is, many so-called truth are only so because we collectively say and believe it is. Many “facts” are constructed by the powerful and resourceful to sustain the existing social hierarchy and in effect perpetuate social inequality. By this token, attributing mating behavior to solely biological factors is justifying the status quo of male dominance and the oppression of women--since it is a “scientific” truth that women are meant to be primarily mothers, it is only fair to keep them at home and let men take care of business. And this is not just about division of labor. More power to matriarchy.
A related and equally perplexing issue is our desire to have children. It is fascinating to see how women (and, to a lesser extent, men) become more and more obsess with the idea of bearing children as they age. I do not recall ever overhearing my female friends/classmates discussing with passion about having their children when I was younger. But it almost seems like once women reach 25 or so, boom, babies become so much cuter and more desirable. Friends and colleagues alike become more flirtatious with the procreation drive. It is as though the closer women get to 30, the more of a priority getting their eggs fertilized is. Perhaps the desire emerged a lot earlier (after all our grandparents’ generation started mating in their late teens), but social norms and cultural constraints play the role to subdue it. The ticking of the biological clock seems to be harder to ignore with time.
The problem is, our world is too crowded. In fact it has never been in history as populous. Most of the catastrophic crises we anticipate are associated with over-population. The last thing planet earth needs from us is more energy-consuming, environment-destroying, unemployed (and thus angry) people. Babies are cute but, sorry, we as a species simply can no longer afford them, at least not at the current rate. With this perspective in mind, it becomes particularly ludicrous for governments to encourage procreation on the bases of rescuing the economy. Here’s the paradox: while there are more babies created per minute now than ever in history, the number orphans is also increasing, perhaps even more rapidly. So it is not that we lack cute babies in the world, but rather what we lack are cute babies bearing our genes. And this is the challenge we collectively face: can we resist the temptation of our selfish gene and refrain from creating more lives?
If we truly possess the ability to love and that it isn't just a byproduct, then let’s spread it to those who already need them desperately instead of creating more needy receivers of our love (and resources). It is about time to drop the “us vs them” mentality but, pessimistic as it may sound, I can almost guarantee that only a noble few can succeed in this endeavor.
Christian Chan
May 14, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
