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？

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

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?

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？

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。

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...

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

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…

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。

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.

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。

花旗國要另起爐灶，是由於害怕由聯合國及156個國家通過的京都議定書。自己知自己事，當知道自己已成為世紀大黑豬，就害怕參加洗白白派隊，因驚多多錢都洗不淨。

作為地球村的一份子，看見一個只佔全球人口4-5%，但佔全球溫室氣體排放量25%的國家(註1)，我終於明解了自私的真諦。美國說，若執行京都協議書，將拖垮本土經濟，雖有其原因，但這不負責人的行為愧對其他地球村民呢。

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?

美國，muscle car的發源地(指那些排汽量大但性能表現不出眾的美國車)，去年美國銷量第一的是Ford F-Series，賣了接近80萬台。(註2)對!就是pick-up，入門級是4.2公升級的怪獸。以美國約接近1比1的人車比例，再加上各種浪費能源的方便生活，成就了美國榮升世界污染排行榜第一位。

美國跟澳洲政府均沒有簽署京都協議書條約，生怕環保成本拖垮經濟。但，作為以發展國家一員，更需要作發展中國家的榜樣，先進國帶頭推動環保，並不是另搞小圈子，空談闊論。怕環保拖垮經濟，難度不可以視為另一成功的創造性破壞?

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？

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！

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?

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。

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