我還記得我在讀A-Level的時候，有一次，我們中國語文及文化科的老師問我們覺得香港是否有思考的土壤？我們個個立刻頭大了半吋，什麼是思考的土壤？不要說土壤了，連思考是什麼我們都覺得有點迷茫。有很多的時候，我們還以爲我們是在思考，但其實只是將自己的偏見重覆的對自己肯定。到了中六七的時候，才發覺原來自己是不懂得應該如何的思考，思考是需要方法的。香港的教育部門需要香港的學生如何如何獨立思考，批判思考。但是，我回想我的中學生涯，回想不起有人曾經的教我們如何獨立而批判的思考。
是的，思考是需要方法的，不是一個人埋頭的苦思，就會懂的。可能，有的人會天生的懂得如何去思考，但是在教育的角度，我覺得起碼要給學生一個基本的認識。人的能力或有高低，但如果有一個方法的跟從的話，我想應該會有一個整體的提升。這也是對香港的競爭力的一個整體的提升。在以前英國管治的時代，作爲一種管治的手段，我會明白她們是不會令香港的學生太懂得如何去思考，因爲便於去管治。但是，現在是時候去想想這一個問題了。
是否有方法便行？我記得曾經有一個思想家說過這麼的一句話：寧靜是思考的土壤！我覺得非常的重要，由其是對香港的人來說。不論外在的環境，還是自身內在，香港都是一個較爲不寧靜的環境。當然，內心的寧靜是相對的重要，但是不要忽略外在的環境有很多的時候都要影响到內心的寧靜。我小時候很愛去釣魚，去得一個非常需要寧靜的環境中，心會自然的平靜下來，會想到很多平時會忽略的問題，以及聽自己內心真正的想法。這都是平時不會聽到的聲音。在這一刻，我都會想到這句說話，寧靜是思考的土壤！
大家有没有找到自己的土壤？那怕是小小的一塊，都希望大家可以找到並埋下種子，然後好好的栽種這一株小小的幼苗。
2007年5月3日 星期四
當他們旅行
自己是背包族，出發時手中定會有本LONELY PLANET。一本實用的旅遊工具書，翻起來每頁密麻麻，就像黃頁般的厚度及深度，令人昏昏欲睡(還好，可以做枕頭)。但旅遊時帶著這盲公竹，自己便會登上LP旅行團，進入LP式的世界。
對參加旅行團的人來說，背包族旅行往往是一次歷險，又是表現自己放蕩不覊的時候。其實，背包族旅遊是最原始、最能體驗當地居民生活的旅遊方式。若國內同胞買本LP遊香港，出現買假貨事件的機會便減少了。
過去一些甚過癮的旅遊經驗仍難以忘懷:在金馬倫高原加哩店與一眾馬來人觀看馬來西亞隊的國際羽毛球賽，緊張萬分、嘩聲四起；在黃山與其他旅客吹著中國經濟發展、西部開發等牛皮；在列車上認識一旅客，同遊楊朔龍脊，在月光下單騎趕路，細看美麗的螢火蟲在漆黑中飛舞；在成都青年旅社被同房的旅客拉著談呀談，為他解決了很多英文的不明白，第二天早上還未睡醒被拉著握手，對我說"郭兄，保重!有緣再會"(其實他年紀比我大很多)，還過時過節還短訊送上親切的問候。大呼過癮!
書中的兩位主角，過著浪漫的生活:偶然一天在公園相遇，相戀，用一年時間把臂同遊歐亞之路，最後更以自己的愛好踏上創業之路，成為當今跨國出版企業。試問，誰又可以在公園找到另一半?放棄工作，用一年時間全職旅遊?讓自己的愛好成為青雲路?難。
雖然如此，讀此書，至少我們可以透過他們，讓自己可以在腦海旅遊一下。
書名:當我們旅行:LONELY PLANET的故事。Tony Wheeler and Maureen Wheeler ，生活讀書新知三聯書店。
年輕人... 都在幹什麼?
對了… 我在二十世紀的時候是一名少年… 到了現在… 其實還是能自稱為年輕人的(汗…)。一個像我這樣年輕的人， 絕對適合跟大家談談香港時下的年輕人平常到底都在幹什麼的。以下說的種種，你未必全都做過，但至少有一些在大家成長的階段都會, 甚或經常做的(甚或成長後還有在做，放心，這是很平常的事…)
1. 買名牌 – 喔… 第一種就已經說中了你成長後還在做的事嗎? 別擔心… 你是正常的。有一位還未到20歲的女性朋友曾經跟我說過她家中的一件事，話說她家中放了一個她多年沒有再用的 “M Duck” 布袋，而她剛升上中一的小弟跟她母親嚷著要拿來用。友人不憤地對我道: “像他這樣的年紀，為什麼要用 ‘M Duck’ 呢? 像 ‘M Duck’ 這樣的袋並不是給他年紀這樣小的學生上學用的。” 我聽了當然連連點頭，忙著對呀對呀的回應到，而我的眼尾卻是瞟了她的 LV 袋一眼，心想: “像你這樣的年紀，為什麼要用 LV 呢? 像 LV 這樣的袋並不是給你年紀這樣小的女孩逛旺角時用的，我敢保証…” 其實買名牌本來並不是一件壞事，但要是衣不稱身的話，穿出來只會令人覺得貽笑大方，畫虎不成反類犬了… 我覺得要買的話，就要避免人家買什麼你便買什麼的心理，現在資訊發達，甚或可以上網看看品牌的網頁，了解一下該品牌賣的是什麼風格，講究的是帶出什麼氣質什麼性格，再找適合自己的，就不難穿出自己的品味來了。
2. 唱K – K 即日語karaoke 的簡化詞，在八十年代末傳入香港，經二十年的發展，形成了近幾年都以小廂房經營的模式。香港長大的年輕人應該很少沒唱過K 的… 筆者也很喜歡唱歌，但在中學的合唱團打滾多年，也沒發現認識的人之中有那麼多愛唱歌的啊，為什麼他們不去參加免費的合唱團而每週跑去付錢唱這個K 呢? 讓我們想想合唱團要的是什麼? 天份，當然不能少了，但更重要的是一週要作幾天的練習，沒熱情怎能完成呢? K房就不一樣，基本上它提供了一個空間，讓不太會唱的人也有表演的機會，而且大家會對你不佳的歌藝會特別的寬容 (基本上我沒聽過有人因為唱得不好而被友人拒之於K房門外的…)。這或多或少反映了即食文化如何影響我們的年輕人的影子… 雖然我不可抹殺K房供給大家的其他多樣用途如猜杖如喝酒如吃K Lunch… 但是就基本功能而言，唱K 是簡單的，沒責任擔子的，甚至可說是沒方向性的。簡單點說，說自己的興趣是唱K 跟說自己的興趣是唱歌的人有著很大的分別。說自己的興趣是唱歌的人，不拿起米高峰也會常常唱著喜歡的歌兒，他們會想著怎樣可以改善自己的歌技、擴闊自己的音域、增強自己的節奏感﹔但說喜歡唱K 的人，大概90%是指自己沒其他事可以做的時候會跑到最附近的K店，負出百多港元然候佔用那房間數小時的意思吧… 放心，你可能是另外那10%，就算是那90%... 你還是很正常的。
3. 落D – D 即英語 disco 的簡化詞，在我母親的年代已經很流行，在香港歷久不衰。強勁的節拍、燈效再加少許酒精的催化，伴著眾多俊少男、美少女的地方，的確是年輕人減壓的好地方，筆者偶爾也會跟好動的友人一塊去跳跳舞。提到D，像是一個公開的秘密一般，很多人會聯想到丸仔 (軟性毒品)。對啊，我認識的人之中也有聽我說落了D，卻沒吃丸仔感到很奇怪的人。對不起，我不知道有這樣的一種必然關係… 老實說，我是一個很容易natural high 的人，但要進入這境地原來是要某些基本素質的。第一，節拍感… 這… 對不起，是不是中國人都太含蓄呢? 中小學時大家都上過音樂課的，怎麼還沒學會呢? 第二是比較重要的，自信心… 對啦，原來你跟我說神智清醒時你是不能舞動你的身體的，噢那你可以放心，你吃丸仔high 了之後的舞姿也是難看死的，不過你不會知道的。我為你死去的腦細胞祈禱，阿門。
4. 玩手提電子遊戲機 – 我也是一個不折不扣的 “機迷”，最流行的兩部手提遊戲機我也有。每當有新的遊戲重頭作推出，身邊的人問我下載了沒有，我回答後，那人看著我的表情往往像忽然發現我是外星人假扮的地球人一般的驚訝… 其實我只是答了一句 “我玩正版的”… 對了，玩正版遊戲有那麼值得驚訝嗎? 是的買一個遊戲大概要接近300 大元，玩盜版的成本相對地低很多 (甚或接近零)，那麼你玩正版不是腦袋有問題嗎? 其實我跟很多朋友都解釋過了，玩正版的人的經歷Experience 跟玩盜版的相去甚遠。首先，我在買一個遊戲之前，我會做很多的資料搜集，問問友人哪一個遊戲比較好玩，到官網看看相關資料，到各大遊戲留言版討論區看看不同遊戲的風評等等。反正買回來的遊戲大多是我十分喜歡的。接著是遊戲買回來後要拆開了，那心情是多激動啊 (像極了小學時收到變形金剛玩具的心情… 哈哈…)… 我會把附帶的說明書等等都翻一遍，其實日本人的遊戲業有今天的成就，從它門對遊戲本身的包裝就可見一班，這不是玩盜版所能體會的。最後到玩的一部份了… 正因為付出了金錢… 我每個遊戲都會玩超過一個月或以上才放手的… 不像玩盜版的，不喜歡便換別個遊戲，結果每個遊戲都玩一會，說不上有一個是喜歡的。我也不是說玩盜版是罪大惡極的，但在你沒玩過正版前… 請考慮有機會時體驗一下並且… 不要再以怪物的眼光看玩正版的人了，功德無量功德無量。
以上當然只是香港年青人的一小部份常做的事而已，但從這些嗜好也能窺視他們缺乏的東西… 當然包括我自己了 (因為我出生成長都是在這城市的吧…)
· 缺乏自我形像
· 缺乏追求、探究精神
· 缺乏美學、藝術的陪養
· 缺乏自信心
· 缺乏接受不同的可能性的思維
嗯… 作為這個城市長大的孩子，當然要為我們自己辯護一下。導致這些缺乏難道不是教育制度的不完善之過乎? 是的，但那又是另一個大題目了。想來我也得趕在我 “還年輕” 這數年把這些缺乏了的東西找回來了… 希望我所說的，太家不會太反對… 或是太反感。
1. 買名牌 – 喔… 第一種就已經說中了你成長後還在做的事嗎? 別擔心… 你是正常的。有一位還未到20歲的女性朋友曾經跟我說過她家中的一件事，話說她家中放了一個她多年沒有再用的 “M Duck” 布袋，而她剛升上中一的小弟跟她母親嚷著要拿來用。友人不憤地對我道: “像他這樣的年紀，為什麼要用 ‘M Duck’ 呢? 像 ‘M Duck’ 這樣的袋並不是給他年紀這樣小的學生上學用的。” 我聽了當然連連點頭，忙著對呀對呀的回應到，而我的眼尾卻是瞟了她的 LV 袋一眼，心想: “像你這樣的年紀，為什麼要用 LV 呢? 像 LV 這樣的袋並不是給你年紀這樣小的女孩逛旺角時用的，我敢保証…” 其實買名牌本來並不是一件壞事，但要是衣不稱身的話，穿出來只會令人覺得貽笑大方，畫虎不成反類犬了… 我覺得要買的話，就要避免人家買什麼你便買什麼的心理，現在資訊發達，甚或可以上網看看品牌的網頁，了解一下該品牌賣的是什麼風格，講究的是帶出什麼氣質什麼性格，再找適合自己的，就不難穿出自己的品味來了。
2. 唱K – K 即日語karaoke 的簡化詞，在八十年代末傳入香港，經二十年的發展，形成了近幾年都以小廂房經營的模式。香港長大的年輕人應該很少沒唱過K 的… 筆者也很喜歡唱歌，但在中學的合唱團打滾多年，也沒發現認識的人之中有那麼多愛唱歌的啊，為什麼他們不去參加免費的合唱團而每週跑去付錢唱這個K 呢? 讓我們想想合唱團要的是什麼? 天份，當然不能少了，但更重要的是一週要作幾天的練習，沒熱情怎能完成呢? K房就不一樣，基本上它提供了一個空間，讓不太會唱的人也有表演的機會，而且大家會對你不佳的歌藝會特別的寬容 (基本上我沒聽過有人因為唱得不好而被友人拒之於K房門外的…)。這或多或少反映了即食文化如何影響我們的年輕人的影子… 雖然我不可抹殺K房供給大家的其他多樣用途如猜杖如喝酒如吃K Lunch… 但是就基本功能而言，唱K 是簡單的，沒責任擔子的，甚至可說是沒方向性的。簡單點說，說自己的興趣是唱K 跟說自己的興趣是唱歌的人有著很大的分別。說自己的興趣是唱歌的人，不拿起米高峰也會常常唱著喜歡的歌兒，他們會想著怎樣可以改善自己的歌技、擴闊自己的音域、增強自己的節奏感﹔但說喜歡唱K 的人，大概90%是指自己沒其他事可以做的時候會跑到最附近的K店，負出百多港元然候佔用那房間數小時的意思吧… 放心，你可能是另外那10%，就算是那90%... 你還是很正常的。
3. 落D – D 即英語 disco 的簡化詞，在我母親的年代已經很流行，在香港歷久不衰。強勁的節拍、燈效再加少許酒精的催化，伴著眾多俊少男、美少女的地方，的確是年輕人減壓的好地方，筆者偶爾也會跟好動的友人一塊去跳跳舞。提到D，像是一個公開的秘密一般，很多人會聯想到丸仔 (軟性毒品)。對啊，我認識的人之中也有聽我說落了D，卻沒吃丸仔感到很奇怪的人。對不起，我不知道有這樣的一種必然關係… 老實說，我是一個很容易natural high 的人，但要進入這境地原來是要某些基本素質的。第一，節拍感… 這… 對不起，是不是中國人都太含蓄呢? 中小學時大家都上過音樂課的，怎麼還沒學會呢? 第二是比較重要的，自信心… 對啦，原來你跟我說神智清醒時你是不能舞動你的身體的，噢那你可以放心，你吃丸仔high 了之後的舞姿也是難看死的，不過你不會知道的。我為你死去的腦細胞祈禱，阿門。
4. 玩手提電子遊戲機 – 我也是一個不折不扣的 “機迷”，最流行的兩部手提遊戲機我也有。每當有新的遊戲重頭作推出，身邊的人問我下載了沒有，我回答後，那人看著我的表情往往像忽然發現我是外星人假扮的地球人一般的驚訝… 其實我只是答了一句 “我玩正版的”… 對了，玩正版遊戲有那麼值得驚訝嗎? 是的買一個遊戲大概要接近300 大元，玩盜版的成本相對地低很多 (甚或接近零)，那麼你玩正版不是腦袋有問題嗎? 其實我跟很多朋友都解釋過了，玩正版的人的經歷Experience 跟玩盜版的相去甚遠。首先，我在買一個遊戲之前，我會做很多的資料搜集，問問友人哪一個遊戲比較好玩，到官網看看相關資料，到各大遊戲留言版討論區看看不同遊戲的風評等等。反正買回來的遊戲大多是我十分喜歡的。接著是遊戲買回來後要拆開了，那心情是多激動啊 (像極了小學時收到變形金剛玩具的心情… 哈哈…)… 我會把附帶的說明書等等都翻一遍，其實日本人的遊戲業有今天的成就，從它門對遊戲本身的包裝就可見一班，這不是玩盜版所能體會的。最後到玩的一部份了… 正因為付出了金錢… 我每個遊戲都會玩超過一個月或以上才放手的… 不像玩盜版的，不喜歡便換別個遊戲，結果每個遊戲都玩一會，說不上有一個是喜歡的。我也不是說玩盜版是罪大惡極的，但在你沒玩過正版前… 請考慮有機會時體驗一下並且… 不要再以怪物的眼光看玩正版的人了，功德無量功德無量。
以上當然只是香港年青人的一小部份常做的事而已，但從這些嗜好也能窺視他們缺乏的東西… 當然包括我自己了 (因為我出生成長都是在這城市的吧…)
· 缺乏自我形像
· 缺乏追求、探究精神
· 缺乏美學、藝術的陪養
· 缺乏自信心
· 缺乏接受不同的可能性的思維
嗯… 作為這個城市長大的孩子，當然要為我們自己辯護一下。導致這些缺乏難道不是教育制度的不完善之過乎? 是的，但那又是另一個大題目了。想來我也得趕在我 “還年輕” 這數年把這些缺乏了的東西找回來了… 希望我所說的，太家不會太反對… 或是太反感。
2007年5月1日 星期二
從蒙特梭利到草原的教學方法
在髮型屋等待的時間, 從一堆過期八卦雜誌中隨手拿起一本. 翻到其中一頁親子版, 內容主旨是一位母親如何運用蒙特梭利教學法(Montessori), 令到年僅四歲的小女兒已懂得四位加減運算, 個千的英文生字與及培養出高自律又愛秩序的性格.訪問中該位母親又提及在自懷胎十月始已不停張羅女兒出生後的成長安排, 從搬到名校網內, 至搜集各種對有幫提昇幼兒成長發展的教材玩具, 甚至至親自報一些專業的育兒課程.總之所做的一切就是為了女兒的發展及將來.而文章的尾段, 是目光遠大的母親為了令女兒的能早適應兩文三語的交替運用.不惜實行全方位多元化不停站無間斷學習方法, 安排女兒早上到國際學校上課, 而下午則到本地的填鴨幼稚園上課.希望小腦袋不會浪費半點時間空間.在這個充滿競爭的世界裡, 早日穿好出戰的裝備, 等待出發.
口中不期然嘆出冷冷的一口氣.這位母親是為了眼前的女兒, 還是她心目中理想的女兒呢? 我不是母親, 也許沒有資格說什麼, 我那一刻我倒感興趣的是:「呀…除了蒙什麼的教材及食樹皮益智成長光碟外,不知道那個小女孩有沒有看過<放學ICU>及呢」無可否定的是父母都想將最好的給予自己的子女,的確年幼的小孩不會為自己打算,父母親需擔當起指導的角色,令兒童得到合適的教育及成長.從而發揮所長.但過猶不及,子女不過在這個充滿廢氣的世界活了不過是四萬三千八百多個小時, 已不停安排連成人都吃不消的興趣班,補習班...實行星期一,三,五去學奧數,英語及圍棋, 星期二,四,六就學游水,珠算及畫畫,星期日不是家庭日, 而是面試班及禮儀班.而過份的催谷及付出,往往令父母急於看到成效,因而不適用盡一切方法又哄又疼的,希望子女會循自己的安排的計劃中一步步向前邁進及做出成績.而小孩就在這種一早已安排的人生上行到三十歲.因自小就在父母已清除一切障礙的平坦道路上行走.當日後稍遇挫折時即不知如何處理,甚至一跌不起…說到這裡, 就讓我想起早年看到一篇關於一名剛出來工作,成績優異的本科畢業女生,因不懂操作辦公室內的影印機,令到影印機不停吐紙,而女生則嚇得嚎啕大哭直至呼吸不順需要送院的汗顏報導.望子女成材,出人頭地似乎是大多中國人家庭養育子女的最大心願.但孩子的心裡的想法是怎樣,什麼都不缺甚至過多的生活是否等於開心,而子女們的天賦是否真的有機會發揮出來.父母們又有否有確實的體會及了解? 在網上搜尋器隨意輸入<親子>的關鍵字, 出現的是一堆: 如何令子女默書取滿分?增強子女記憶力十種方法,防止子女看電視方法及小一面試前準備及試題必讀等等...這是什麼的親子啊?
還記得上年中的一個悠閒週日,賦閒在家看到國際台播出一套紀錄片,是一個外國家庭將年幼的女兒寄養到非洲一個土著的部族裡半年.讓她感受另一種生活文化及體驗.而攝製隊則將小女孩的生活拍攝紀錄下來,鏡頭下的小女兒與土著每天都在無際的原野上生活,學習與大自然共存的生存法則,半年後母親與女兒坐在樹蔭下閒聊, 女兒興奮地說著,原野上各式各樣動物的習性,跟土著打獵的情況,分辨野果及表演騎大象等.看見小女孩一面童真滿足的笑著,就可感到她這半年所得著的遠比你跟我在鏡頭前看到的更多,也比坐在課室渡過同一段歲月光陰的小孩有著一段不可多得的人生.也是那些在玩螞蟻就即刻被父母打手板的香港小孩永遠不會知道及感受到的精彩人生閱歷.
每個人都只可經歷一次童年, 誰可以決定人的童年應怎渡過呢?怎樣的童年才是精彩無撼呢?要從理性的心智發展及感性的童話童真取得一條中線不容易.但今天的事今天做,明日愁來明日當.今天所作的周全計劃,誰可保証將來一定如願實現?若童年只得一次,請好好讓我們下一代的也感受一下童年,發揮你我都已去不返的童真吧.
口中不期然嘆出冷冷的一口氣.這位母親是為了眼前的女兒, 還是她心目中理想的女兒呢? 我不是母親, 也許沒有資格說什麼, 我那一刻我倒感興趣的是:「呀…除了蒙什麼的教材及食樹皮益智成長光碟外,不知道那個小女孩有沒有看過<放學ICU>及
還記得上年中的一個悠閒週日,賦閒在家看到國際台播出一套紀錄片,是一個外國家庭將年幼的女兒寄養到非洲一個土著的部族裡半年.讓她感受另一種生活文化及體驗.而攝製隊則將小女孩的生活拍攝紀錄下來,鏡頭下的小女兒與土著每天都在無際的原野上生活,學習與大自然共存的生存法則,半年後母親與女兒坐在樹蔭下閒聊, 女兒興奮地說著,原野上各式各樣動物的習性,跟土著打獵的情況,分辨野果及表演騎大象等.看見小女孩一面童真滿足的笑著,就可感到她這半年所得著的遠比你跟我在鏡頭前看到的更多,也比坐在課室渡過同一段歲月光陰的小孩有著一段不可多得的人生.也是那些在玩螞蟻就即刻被父母打手板的香港小孩永遠不會知道及感受到的精彩人生閱歷.
每個人都只可經歷一次童年, 誰可以決定人的童年應怎渡過呢?怎樣的童年才是精彩無撼呢?要從理性的心智發展及感性的童話童真取得一條中線不容易.但今天的事今天做,明日愁來明日當.今天所作的周全計劃,誰可保証將來一定如願實現?若童年只得一次,請好好讓我們下一代的也感受一下童年,發揮你我都已去不返的童真吧.
2007年4月30日 星期一
In the beginning there is injustice
Prologue
In this blurb I would like to explore the idea/notion of global justice. Justice, both its philosophical definition as well as everyday application, warrants numerous doctoral dissertations and I shall not embarrass myself in attempting to elucidate it. Global justice is arguably a task that is as formidable but no less important. Its scope and complexity are beyond my imagination and, quite frankly, intellect. As a young adult and your peer, I believe it would be more valuable and appropriate, and hopefully helpful, to offer nothing but my own limited, personal, subjective, and, inevitably, ill-informed view. I would rather make mistakes than to remain silent. It would be beneficial for us, and this blog, to see this essay and the ones to follow as a journey and an open-end exploratory discussion, rather than an exhaustive report.
In the beginning there is injustice
In order to understand and contribute to global justice, we must first know where we stand today as a community. Let me open with a clear and present example of global injustice—without which I fear that any discussion would be purely academic and rhetorical and futile.
Darfur (達爾富爾), a region in western Sudan, is witnessing genocide at this very moment. Since 2003, over 400,000 people have been killed; 2.5 million displaced from their homes, and even more are now relying solely on foreign aid (when there is any) to survive. It is estimated that a person is killed in Darfur in every 5 minutes. Living in mass refugee camps with no means of defense, African Sudanese are facing constant threat of murder, rape, and destruction and terrorism of all sorts. Their perpetrators are the Sudanese government and their hired gun, militant groups collectively known as “Janjaweed”. We are perhaps too young to remember the gruesome tragedy in Rwanda but suffice to say that the current plight of Darfur is at least as horrific as the 1994 genocide. When even survival is questionable, any discourse on human rights becomes a humorless joke. With this picture in mind, let us disentangle our assignment in understanding and relating ourselves to global justice in general, and the vast injustice of Darfur in particular.
Global justice is ultimately a process of redeeming and loving oneself and others. It is a process because it entails, if you will, a constant struggle. If there is one thing we could learn from history, it would be that suffering has always, and will always, existed. From the day we were born, we are struggling to survive, to procreate, to gain acceptance, to love and be loved, to find meaning amid meaningless, to dig for hope in endless hopelessness, and—the mother of all struggles—to deal with our inevitable mortality.
Moreover, our survival and existence are not unrelated to the suffering and struggle of others’. From materialistic demands (basic or luxurious) to emotional burden we inflict on each other (greed, pride, ego etc.), we are constantly creating more and more pain and suffering. One more tree we chop means one less tree for someone else. A gloomy, pessimistic picture it is, but I believe this realization is the first essential step towards the understanding of the importance and necessity of establishing and maintaining what we call justice. Knowing that we are not innocent is a crucial first step. Global justice is an ongoing process, it is an ideal we can aspire to but perhaps never can be achieved completely.
Obviously we also bring joy and happiness to each other. In fact, global justice in particular and justice in general is about—besides self-redemption—loving oneself and others. This necessitates the awareness of the relationship between oneself and others. It entails knowing that the person living next to you is as valuable as you are, as deserving as you are. Hence the “golden rule,” presumed to be the best moral standard our ancestors have derived and hence the law elucidated in the Christian bible, love your neighbor as yourself. Equally valuable in what sense and as deserving as what, are on the other hand questions that require further exploration and extended negotiation. In any event, the answers to these queries must be agreed upon or at least acknowledged collectively—as dyads, as a community, and as a family. I am mindful that this might be a controversial viewpoint, especially in our post-modern era in which a one-size-fit-all solution usually elicits strong reprehension. Allow me to rewind and explain what I mean.
Human beings are not equal. We probably were meant to be, but the established societal system has created a reality of inequality: Some of us are born more privileged than others, some of us are more fortunate than others, some of us are stronger, wealthier, faster, smarter, and so forth. Survival the fittest, some might argue as the bleak reality, but we must recognize that not everyone was placed on the same beginning line. While we, citizens of Hong Kong, enjoy the things we can easily take for granted—basic necessities, education, and even life—the chances of surviving and thriving for a young adult of our age in Darfur are a mere tiny fraction of ours—recall the 5-minute/life stat. The differences we are talking about include whether or not you need to worry daily that you or the person sleeping next to you will be still alive the next morning; whether or not your village will be raid and burned while you are asleep; whether or not your newborn son/daughter will survive to witness their first birthday. Is this just?
Obviously not. So what brought about such injustice? Perhaps it is useful to explore two of the fundamental limitations of our world that have been preventing us from reaching the noble goal.
Resources are scarce, or at least that is the basic tenet underlying most, if not all, practiced economic theories. As the logic goes, there is only so much resources out there and therefore allocation is necessary. Little would argue that how resources are distributed is a large perpetrator to global injustice (hint: Marx). The 19th and 20th Centuries witnessed a number of experiments in finding the “right” way to allocate resources. And as you know, these experiments are called communism, socialism capitalism, and everything along that spectrum. Our parents and grandparents were fiddling around with the competing ideas of whether to share everything equally or to let people fight for their own resources. In other words, they were debating the definition and practice of “fairness” and “justice” (I am well aware of my crime of over-simplification). What is currently happening in Sudan is that resources are controlled and allocated by a government that is not representing the interest of the people, let alone the oppressed. Sudan is actually a oil-producing country, with the potential of developing into a well-off nation. While importers of Sudanese crude oil enjoy the privilege of energy and modernity—and those in power enjoys the wealth that comes with it— locals in Darfur are scavenging daily for leftover branches to make fire. Women too often become victims of gang rape and brutal slaughtering as they go out to search objects to burn so that they could cook and look out for themselves at night. Is this just?
Besides resources, another often-quoted contributor of global injustice is the “us and them” mentality. Humans have a fundamental tendency to categorize—to distinguishing things from one another (e.g., person vs. animal vs. plant vs. object; like-me vs. not like-me). This process arguably is not necessarily evil per se. Even stereotypes can be helpful from time to time; they ease the cognitive burden in making deliberate decisions every moment. However, as we are well aware of, prejudice and discrimination are too often the consequences of separating people into groups (e.g., black vs. white, rich vs. poor). Sudanese distinguishes themselves from one another not by their skin color as they all have dark skin, not by their religion as the majority of people is Muslim, but by their ethnicity and, as a proxy, mother tongue. The main struggle between the Arabic- and African-Sudanese and the most salient indicators of one’s group identity is how one self-identifies and whether one speaks Arabic as a first or as a second language. And the consequence is life and death. Is this just?
Put together these two powerful mechanisms—economy and identity—we find ourselves in situations where we have to make difficult and often painful decisions such as who do we favor, who do we hire, who do we share our limited resources with. After all, we can only feed so many people with our scarce resources; after all, it is only “natural” that we first ensure the survival and well-being of those we love and those who love us. I believe this is partly how injustice and indeed global injustice came about. We should be fair to acknowledge that there could be an abyss between justice and equality (or injustice and inequality, for that matter): There is not an equal sign between the two ideas, or is there? Does equality = justice? Equity = justice? Fairness = justice?
We, as a society, a people, and specie, must establish what we consider as just. Some might decide that equality (at least in certain circumstances, to a certain extent) is the ultimate goal, while others might value meritocracy as the only fair rule. We could choose to engage in a lengthy discourse on the pros and cons of each value systems (e.g., religion, philosophy) from which justice is delineated before we make our decision. Or, we could choose one to endorse and adhere to before we begin our debate about justice. I favor the latter because I believe a common ground and understanding is a necessary immediate goal. We must establish a stance or even a working hypothesis because we cannot afford to remain neutral when it comes to something so pertinent to something as basic as survival (c.f., Howard Zinn). However, this begs the next question: do we really get to choose our destiny even if we had established the guidelines of morality and justice? Clearly, victims of Darfur suffer not because they chose to, but quite contrarily, the choice is not in their hands. In other words, some of us are born with more privilege of choice than others and some will suffer as a result. How did this come upon? Is this just?
As established above, human beings in the world as it is are not equal, which is at least in part the result of how civilization (or the lack of it) is structured and evolved. The interconnectivity of our world today obscures the idea of “local” justice—there is no such thing as purely local anymore. Some recent examples of global connectivity include the domino effect occurred during and after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which not only destroyed the livelihoods of numerous East and Southeast Asians but is also closely related to the melt down of the economies in Latin America (especially that of Argentina) as well as Russia (see Joseph Stiglitz’s book “Globalization and Its Discontents” for an elegant introduction and discussion). It is almost impossible for us to live a day without affecting the well-being of others on the other side of the planet—just consider where your jeans, coffee, fruits, and indeed wealth come from (Naomi Klein’s “No Logo” provides an excellent discussion on our involvement in the current economy and political reality). In other words, everything and every event are in one way or another global. And indeed, even we—citizens of Hong Kong—are responsible for the genocide in Darfur. How? Recall mentioned above that Sudan exports oil. The major buyer of Sudanese oil is China (e.g., PetroChina). In other words, the cash we pay for gas and everything that was manufactured using energy from Sudan funds the genocide in Darfur. In other words, every dollar we (or our fund manager on our behalf) invest in PetroChina goes to finance an oppressive tyranny. Is this just? Are we just?
I do not intend to paint an overly critical picture of our world. But as I maintained in the beginning of this essay, the realization of such tragic reality is a step, a necessary one, towards global justice. If we are ignorant of what is happening right now—that the world is vastly unjust and we are part of the reason why—how can we even begin to explore what it means by, and what it takes to bring about, global justice? This is the beginning.
Other than the ones mentioned above, interested readers are referred to the following sources for more information:
On Darfur:
http://www.msf.org.hk/big5/news/special_detail.php?id=415
http://www.amnesty.org.hk/chi/modules/appealletter/index.php/1
http://www.savedarfur.org/content
http://www.genocideintervention.net/index.php
On politics/global justice in general:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
Christian Chan
Cambridge, MA, USA
[This entry was modified from an essay the author wrote for lampful.com in March 2007]
In this blurb I would like to explore the idea/notion of global justice. Justice, both its philosophical definition as well as everyday application, warrants numerous doctoral dissertations and I shall not embarrass myself in attempting to elucidate it. Global justice is arguably a task that is as formidable but no less important. Its scope and complexity are beyond my imagination and, quite frankly, intellect. As a young adult and your peer, I believe it would be more valuable and appropriate, and hopefully helpful, to offer nothing but my own limited, personal, subjective, and, inevitably, ill-informed view. I would rather make mistakes than to remain silent. It would be beneficial for us, and this blog, to see this essay and the ones to follow as a journey and an open-end exploratory discussion, rather than an exhaustive report.
In the beginning there is injustice
In order to understand and contribute to global justice, we must first know where we stand today as a community. Let me open with a clear and present example of global injustice—without which I fear that any discussion would be purely academic and rhetorical and futile.
Darfur (達爾富爾), a region in western Sudan, is witnessing genocide at this very moment. Since 2003, over 400,000 people have been killed; 2.5 million displaced from their homes, and even more are now relying solely on foreign aid (when there is any) to survive. It is estimated that a person is killed in Darfur in every 5 minutes. Living in mass refugee camps with no means of defense, African Sudanese are facing constant threat of murder, rape, and destruction and terrorism of all sorts. Their perpetrators are the Sudanese government and their hired gun, militant groups collectively known as “Janjaweed”. We are perhaps too young to remember the gruesome tragedy in Rwanda but suffice to say that the current plight of Darfur is at least as horrific as the 1994 genocide. When even survival is questionable, any discourse on human rights becomes a humorless joke. With this picture in mind, let us disentangle our assignment in understanding and relating ourselves to global justice in general, and the vast injustice of Darfur in particular.
Global justice is ultimately a process of redeeming and loving oneself and others. It is a process because it entails, if you will, a constant struggle. If there is one thing we could learn from history, it would be that suffering has always, and will always, existed. From the day we were born, we are struggling to survive, to procreate, to gain acceptance, to love and be loved, to find meaning amid meaningless, to dig for hope in endless hopelessness, and—the mother of all struggles—to deal with our inevitable mortality.
Moreover, our survival and existence are not unrelated to the suffering and struggle of others’. From materialistic demands (basic or luxurious) to emotional burden we inflict on each other (greed, pride, ego etc.), we are constantly creating more and more pain and suffering. One more tree we chop means one less tree for someone else. A gloomy, pessimistic picture it is, but I believe this realization is the first essential step towards the understanding of the importance and necessity of establishing and maintaining what we call justice. Knowing that we are not innocent is a crucial first step. Global justice is an ongoing process, it is an ideal we can aspire to but perhaps never can be achieved completely.
Obviously we also bring joy and happiness to each other. In fact, global justice in particular and justice in general is about—besides self-redemption—loving oneself and others. This necessitates the awareness of the relationship between oneself and others. It entails knowing that the person living next to you is as valuable as you are, as deserving as you are. Hence the “golden rule,” presumed to be the best moral standard our ancestors have derived and hence the law elucidated in the Christian bible, love your neighbor as yourself. Equally valuable in what sense and as deserving as what, are on the other hand questions that require further exploration and extended negotiation. In any event, the answers to these queries must be agreed upon or at least acknowledged collectively—as dyads, as a community, and as a family. I am mindful that this might be a controversial viewpoint, especially in our post-modern era in which a one-size-fit-all solution usually elicits strong reprehension. Allow me to rewind and explain what I mean.
Human beings are not equal. We probably were meant to be, but the established societal system has created a reality of inequality: Some of us are born more privileged than others, some of us are more fortunate than others, some of us are stronger, wealthier, faster, smarter, and so forth. Survival the fittest, some might argue as the bleak reality, but we must recognize that not everyone was placed on the same beginning line. While we, citizens of Hong Kong, enjoy the things we can easily take for granted—basic necessities, education, and even life—the chances of surviving and thriving for a young adult of our age in Darfur are a mere tiny fraction of ours—recall the 5-minute/life stat. The differences we are talking about include whether or not you need to worry daily that you or the person sleeping next to you will be still alive the next morning; whether or not your village will be raid and burned while you are asleep; whether or not your newborn son/daughter will survive to witness their first birthday. Is this just?
Obviously not. So what brought about such injustice? Perhaps it is useful to explore two of the fundamental limitations of our world that have been preventing us from reaching the noble goal.
Resources are scarce, or at least that is the basic tenet underlying most, if not all, practiced economic theories. As the logic goes, there is only so much resources out there and therefore allocation is necessary. Little would argue that how resources are distributed is a large perpetrator to global injustice (hint: Marx). The 19th and 20th Centuries witnessed a number of experiments in finding the “right” way to allocate resources. And as you know, these experiments are called communism, socialism capitalism, and everything along that spectrum. Our parents and grandparents were fiddling around with the competing ideas of whether to share everything equally or to let people fight for their own resources. In other words, they were debating the definition and practice of “fairness” and “justice” (I am well aware of my crime of over-simplification). What is currently happening in Sudan is that resources are controlled and allocated by a government that is not representing the interest of the people, let alone the oppressed. Sudan is actually a oil-producing country, with the potential of developing into a well-off nation. While importers of Sudanese crude oil enjoy the privilege of energy and modernity—and those in power enjoys the wealth that comes with it— locals in Darfur are scavenging daily for leftover branches to make fire. Women too often become victims of gang rape and brutal slaughtering as they go out to search objects to burn so that they could cook and look out for themselves at night. Is this just?
Besides resources, another often-quoted contributor of global injustice is the “us and them” mentality. Humans have a fundamental tendency to categorize—to distinguishing things from one another (e.g., person vs. animal vs. plant vs. object; like-me vs. not like-me). This process arguably is not necessarily evil per se. Even stereotypes can be helpful from time to time; they ease the cognitive burden in making deliberate decisions every moment. However, as we are well aware of, prejudice and discrimination are too often the consequences of separating people into groups (e.g., black vs. white, rich vs. poor). Sudanese distinguishes themselves from one another not by their skin color as they all have dark skin, not by their religion as the majority of people is Muslim, but by their ethnicity and, as a proxy, mother tongue. The main struggle between the Arabic- and African-Sudanese and the most salient indicators of one’s group identity is how one self-identifies and whether one speaks Arabic as a first or as a second language. And the consequence is life and death. Is this just?
Put together these two powerful mechanisms—economy and identity—we find ourselves in situations where we have to make difficult and often painful decisions such as who do we favor, who do we hire, who do we share our limited resources with. After all, we can only feed so many people with our scarce resources; after all, it is only “natural” that we first ensure the survival and well-being of those we love and those who love us. I believe this is partly how injustice and indeed global injustice came about. We should be fair to acknowledge that there could be an abyss between justice and equality (or injustice and inequality, for that matter): There is not an equal sign between the two ideas, or is there? Does equality = justice? Equity = justice? Fairness = justice?
We, as a society, a people, and specie, must establish what we consider as just. Some might decide that equality (at least in certain circumstances, to a certain extent) is the ultimate goal, while others might value meritocracy as the only fair rule. We could choose to engage in a lengthy discourse on the pros and cons of each value systems (e.g., religion, philosophy) from which justice is delineated before we make our decision. Or, we could choose one to endorse and adhere to before we begin our debate about justice. I favor the latter because I believe a common ground and understanding is a necessary immediate goal. We must establish a stance or even a working hypothesis because we cannot afford to remain neutral when it comes to something so pertinent to something as basic as survival (c.f., Howard Zinn). However, this begs the next question: do we really get to choose our destiny even if we had established the guidelines of morality and justice? Clearly, victims of Darfur suffer not because they chose to, but quite contrarily, the choice is not in their hands. In other words, some of us are born with more privilege of choice than others and some will suffer as a result. How did this come upon? Is this just?
As established above, human beings in the world as it is are not equal, which is at least in part the result of how civilization (or the lack of it) is structured and evolved. The interconnectivity of our world today obscures the idea of “local” justice—there is no such thing as purely local anymore. Some recent examples of global connectivity include the domino effect occurred during and after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which not only destroyed the livelihoods of numerous East and Southeast Asians but is also closely related to the melt down of the economies in Latin America (especially that of Argentina) as well as Russia (see Joseph Stiglitz’s book “Globalization and Its Discontents” for an elegant introduction and discussion). It is almost impossible for us to live a day without affecting the well-being of others on the other side of the planet—just consider where your jeans, coffee, fruits, and indeed wealth come from (Naomi Klein’s “No Logo” provides an excellent discussion on our involvement in the current economy and political reality). In other words, everything and every event are in one way or another global. And indeed, even we—citizens of Hong Kong—are responsible for the genocide in Darfur. How? Recall mentioned above that Sudan exports oil. The major buyer of Sudanese oil is China (e.g., PetroChina). In other words, the cash we pay for gas and everything that was manufactured using energy from Sudan funds the genocide in Darfur. In other words, every dollar we (or our fund manager on our behalf) invest in PetroChina goes to finance an oppressive tyranny. Is this just? Are we just?
I do not intend to paint an overly critical picture of our world. But as I maintained in the beginning of this essay, the realization of such tragic reality is a step, a necessary one, towards global justice. If we are ignorant of what is happening right now—that the world is vastly unjust and we are part of the reason why—how can we even begin to explore what it means by, and what it takes to bring about, global justice? This is the beginning.
Other than the ones mentioned above, interested readers are referred to the following sources for more information:
On Darfur:
http://www.msf.org.hk/big5/news/special_detail.php?id=415
http://www.amnesty.org.hk/chi/modules/appealletter/index.php/1
http://www.savedarfur.org/content
http://www.genocideintervention.net/index.php
On politics/global justice in general:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
Christian Chan
Cambridge, MA, USA
[This entry was modified from an essay the author wrote for lampful.com in March 2007]
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
