近日天氣寒冷, 上週六晚我應邀到朋友的生日派對, 市區也只得幾度。
在前往車站的路上, 我穿著剛買不久的簇新大衣, 跑到便利店買了一盒熱維他奶一邊喝著, 耳朵邊聽著iPod 放送著的音樂。盡管北風呼呼, 我仍為此刻的溫暖閒適而不禁踏著輕快的腳步…
走著走著, 覺得自己好像滿幸福似的。
派對現場真的坐無虛席, 席間少不免多喝了點酒。盡歡散席時, 駭然發現小弟的簇新大衣竟然不翼而飛, 想必是哪位喝醉的大哥拿錯了。我又慌又忙地找了又找, 邊想著 iPod 也一併放在袋裡去… 這次可慘了。最後我的物品還是去如黃鶴, 我為此當然是有點不忿有點無奈。
回家的路上, 我只穿著單薄的衣服, 先坐地鐵火車後再從火車站走十分鐘回家, 耳邊再沒有音樂, 換來的是刺骨的風嘯。為了少吹點風, 我三步併作兩步走, 但還是冷得起了雞皮疙瘩。
走著走著, 覺得自己的幸福好像全消失了。
回到家裡雖然已是清晨, 但是我好像倦意全失似的坐在家中輕嘆: 原來我的幸與不幸, 只在那件漂亮的新大衣跟iPod嗎?
我回想著, 學生時代的我, 穿的大衣多是家中表兄, 舅舅穿過的 “二手” 貨色; 我自小喜歡音樂, 但要到了中六那年, 自己用替鄰居小孩補習賺回來的錢才買了第一部 MD player… 長大了投身社會, 物質的入手變得輕易。被大財閥任意操控的傳播媒體灌輸給我是扭曲的價值觀, 教我“心情好買鞋, 心情唔好買鞋”, 買袋, 買大褸, 買褲子, 買電話……
物質的富足跟奢侈品的累積使我們變得麻木。我想穿得暖吃得飽, 不單讓我們忘了人間疾苦, 還讓幸福的定義變得愈來愈模糊。
為此我十分懊惱, 再三反問自己是不是變得不會珍惜, 變得腐敗。
跟朋友談起, 她有不同的看法: “人不懂珍惜,怕不是物質的關係; 是習慣,是善忘; 人心很快習慣幸福, 然後忘記、覺得應份、糟塌…可能要得到幸福, 先要勿忘幸福”…
我試著這樣詮譯: “幸福” 因為 “習慣”了而忘記, 其實是幸福的定義因為經歷而慢慢改變。 “勿忘幸福”, 應可說成不要讓幸福的定義改變了。物質不是問題的根本, 也至少是我們對幸福的定義改變的催化濟吧?
再說, 不讓幸福的定義改變,難道不是小學老師常常教我們的知足常樂嗎?
原來那麼多大道理, 我們還小時已一早學過了, 但是我們之中又有幾個做到呢?
2008年1月29日 星期二
On conviction
It is Sunday night and my lonesome roommate invited me to Chinatown for some wholesome, homesick remedy. After dinner, we decided that the night was still young, so we trekked through the snow to the nearest cinema and saw the Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton. Despite the clever script and splendid acting, the film wasn’t so brilliant that it is off your typical Hollywood chart. Nonetheless, some of the messages are worth pondering on. Though not the main focus of the film, we are reminded that behind the glamour and prosperity of corporate America likely lies something awfully wrong. Michael Clayton reiterates the existential theme that human lives and dignity are nothing but liabilities to other people’s profit and gain.
Not a novel theme; any average movie watcher could give you a long list of recent motion pictures that depicts something along that same vein. George Clooney’s earlier Syriana is probably a more remarkable one. The more classic Devil’s Advocate or The Firm are two other examples. This kind of Hollywood production has its merits: Their fictional stories have the potential to unveil the dark reality of seemingly desirable, or even neutral, nature of certain professions.
These films are accolade-worthy also because they elicit a much-needed sense of suspicion and awareness about the power holders in our society. Less partisan than Michael Moore’s documentaries (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), these Hollywood dramas can reach a broad crowd, and generate discussions beyond the fictitious scenarios used in the films. However, the flip side to such awareness is the possibility of habituation—a fancy way of saying “numbing”. That is, although these films can promote critical thinking and hopefully encourage us to question, too much of the same rhetoric could overwhelm people to a point that they rather treat it as merely a film, as mere entertainment. To be honest, how can one burden themselves with so many causes? It is hard enough to be told that this is a messed up world. Harder still is to accept one’s role and responsibility in them. What we might end up with is a mentality that goes like this: well, since the world and humanity are so doomed, there isn’t much I could do about it. So I might as well don’t. Another possibility: “oh, how horrible _____ is… now let’s decide what to watch next…” Good films change lives; too many of them change nothing.
I suppose the same sentiments are also shared by many “activists” and concerned citizens. As we are increasingly aware of the happenings in the world, we are also increasingly aware of the tragedies that take place EVERYDAY around the globe. Not too long ago we heard about the genocide in Darfur, which was described as the “next Rwanda”. Today, something strikingly similar is occurring in Kenya. Wouldn’t it be a fair bet that there will be another Kenya and another and another? And if so, how could anyone concern and devote themselves wholeheartedly to so many causes, all at once? How can an average Hong Kong activist equip and educate him or herself enough to campaign against all the horrible human-made tragedies, with conviction? Without conviction, how can any action be truly successful and meaningful? At the end of the day, is activism just another fancy form of entertainment? Just as we easily jump from one cinema to another watching different films about different weighty issues, do we also hop from one social justice problem to another? Is that fair to those who are suffering and dying?
I dare not offer any advice or insight on this matter as I also find myself finding new battles to fight before the one I’m engaged in is over. (Just look at the topics covered in my previous entries.) But I can suppose this: one must have a sense of conviction in whatever he or she choose to fight for, in order to stay true to it, or simply stay with it.
Conviction—a deep sense of belief—comes from within and it is very personal. How strong do/can I, a Hong Konger, really feel about the tragedy in Kenya in particular? Do I really “feel convicted”? It isn’t impossible but someone like Barack Obama would be a lot more convincing when speaking for the civil-war laden African country, not so much because he is a president-hopeful in the US than because of his Kenyan roots.
Conviction is a huge idea. It is a manifestation of who we are as an individual. It is connected to our history, personality, culture, aspirations, and faith. Sure, we could always be distracted, but I believe nothing would ever be able to take away that subtle tingling feeling in our heart. Conviction sustains us even when the world tells us we are wrong; it whispers to us when we stray.
We live in a post-modern world filled with too many post-modern possibilities and, indeed, anxieties. What 1984 was able to achieve six decades ago, no film could today—no matter how brilliant it may be—simply because there are too many of them. Likewise, we have witnessed too many 1989s in too many regions in the world. Such abundance results in the numbing of our mind and soul. We must therefore more actively cultivate our hearts so that we too can be attuned to that deep sense of personal conviction, which should inform us what are the areas we should act—act effectively—to bring about a better world. Conviction is not a burden, but a fuel for purpose, meaning and growth.
Christian Chan
January 27, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
Not a novel theme; any average movie watcher could give you a long list of recent motion pictures that depicts something along that same vein. George Clooney’s earlier Syriana is probably a more remarkable one. The more classic Devil’s Advocate or The Firm are two other examples. This kind of Hollywood production has its merits: Their fictional stories have the potential to unveil the dark reality of seemingly desirable, or even neutral, nature of certain professions.
These films are accolade-worthy also because they elicit a much-needed sense of suspicion and awareness about the power holders in our society. Less partisan than Michael Moore’s documentaries (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), these Hollywood dramas can reach a broad crowd, and generate discussions beyond the fictitious scenarios used in the films. However, the flip side to such awareness is the possibility of habituation—a fancy way of saying “numbing”. That is, although these films can promote critical thinking and hopefully encourage us to question, too much of the same rhetoric could overwhelm people to a point that they rather treat it as merely a film, as mere entertainment. To be honest, how can one burden themselves with so many causes? It is hard enough to be told that this is a messed up world. Harder still is to accept one’s role and responsibility in them. What we might end up with is a mentality that goes like this: well, since the world and humanity are so doomed, there isn’t much I could do about it. So I might as well don’t. Another possibility: “oh, how horrible _____ is… now let’s decide what to watch next…” Good films change lives; too many of them change nothing.
I suppose the same sentiments are also shared by many “activists” and concerned citizens. As we are increasingly aware of the happenings in the world, we are also increasingly aware of the tragedies that take place EVERYDAY around the globe. Not too long ago we heard about the genocide in Darfur, which was described as the “next Rwanda”. Today, something strikingly similar is occurring in Kenya. Wouldn’t it be a fair bet that there will be another Kenya and another and another? And if so, how could anyone concern and devote themselves wholeheartedly to so many causes, all at once? How can an average Hong Kong activist equip and educate him or herself enough to campaign against all the horrible human-made tragedies, with conviction? Without conviction, how can any action be truly successful and meaningful? At the end of the day, is activism just another fancy form of entertainment? Just as we easily jump from one cinema to another watching different films about different weighty issues, do we also hop from one social justice problem to another? Is that fair to those who are suffering and dying?
I dare not offer any advice or insight on this matter as I also find myself finding new battles to fight before the one I’m engaged in is over. (Just look at the topics covered in my previous entries.) But I can suppose this: one must have a sense of conviction in whatever he or she choose to fight for, in order to stay true to it, or simply stay with it.
Conviction—a deep sense of belief—comes from within and it is very personal. How strong do/can I, a Hong Konger, really feel about the tragedy in Kenya in particular? Do I really “feel convicted”? It isn’t impossible but someone like Barack Obama would be a lot more convincing when speaking for the civil-war laden African country, not so much because he is a president-hopeful in the US than because of his Kenyan roots.
Conviction is a huge idea. It is a manifestation of who we are as an individual. It is connected to our history, personality, culture, aspirations, and faith. Sure, we could always be distracted, but I believe nothing would ever be able to take away that subtle tingling feeling in our heart. Conviction sustains us even when the world tells us we are wrong; it whispers to us when we stray.
We live in a post-modern world filled with too many post-modern possibilities and, indeed, anxieties. What 1984 was able to achieve six decades ago, no film could today—no matter how brilliant it may be—simply because there are too many of them. Likewise, we have witnessed too many 1989s in too many regions in the world. Such abundance results in the numbing of our mind and soul. We must therefore more actively cultivate our hearts so that we too can be attuned to that deep sense of personal conviction, which should inform us what are the areas we should act—act effectively—to bring about a better world. Conviction is not a burden, but a fuel for purpose, meaning and growth.
Christian Chan
January 27, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
2007年11月29日 星期四
天水圍
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。
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
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
