看過了施永青先生於利嘉閣網站發表的兩篇短文有感
<<向上流動力為何少了>>
<<移民發奮 下代嬌生>>
最直接的感覺是, 施先生真的很擅長以可掬的笑容、親切的態度, 去發表他長篇大論的歪理...
在他尊貴的眼中, 重慶大厦裡面住的印巴籍人士, 都是非法入境者; 這一代富不起來的人, 都是不肯用功的人...
我沒有尊貴的眼睛, 但恰巧看到社會的另一面。
我認知的, 是香港有一群飽受壓制的小數族裔人仕, 他們很多擁有香港身份證, 卻沒有正常的接受教育機會; 他們跟我們一樣擁有健全的體格跟心智, 卻難以找到同等的就業待遇。
我認知的, 是香港這個富裕城市裡面, 有近百萬的人活在三餐不繼的赤貧生活底下。他們的孩子, 有的父母沒能力幫他們付上學的書簿費; 有的為了幫補家計要跟嫲嫲每天上街撿紙皮。"富裕"在他們眼中可能只是在春節的時候, 能夠買一雙最普通的新球鞋。
施先生, 這些人, 叫"弱勢社群"。
我們追求公平, 不是要每個人得到一模一樣的東西。公平是讓更多的人得到類似, 或是相對接近的機會去追求理想, 去得到合理的生活水平... 看施先生的文時, 我像看到一個拿著手槍的人在跟另一個手無寸鐵的人搏鬥, 後者打不贏, 就被那持槍者說他"不努力", 還要在身上多開幾槍似的。
我明白商業理論上, 所有人的原動力, 都是來自改善自身生活環境的欲望。但... 那就是人類的全部價值了嗎? 人們對政府的控訴, 對制度的不公的反感, 都只是為了自己嗎? 我自己對曾蔭權的能力及態度是絕對的反感及不認同, 但不見得那是只為了我自己。曾班子對社會公義的無視, 對公民社會發展方向的無能, 對環保概念和政策的無知... 皆是我鄙視他們的原因。我深信與我有類似想法的同志是大有人在。
雖然曾氏無能, 但我也不倒曾, 準確點說是不去浪費心神去倒曾。為什麼? 因為現行的假民主制度, 是一個選出無能者的制度。無能者沒有政黨, 做了什麼功績, 皆不會對已方有正面影響, 為下次選舉舖路; 相反做了什麼錯事, 也完全沒有相應的後果要承擔。董建華下台, 換一個曾蔭權上台。曾蔭權下台, 換另一個曾蔭權上台... 這樣的權力接棒, 對我們的社會發展有任何意義嗎?
所以我們要做的, 就是推動全民雙普選。只有相對更民主的制度, 才有機會選出對社會有承擔的首長, 才有機會吸引有才能的人仕加入角逐, 才能推動社會制度的持續改善。
眼下五區總辭不知道結果如何, 但無論如何, 請大家把握自己能表態的權利(諸如投票, 諸如上街抗爭)。勿讓當權者, 既得利益者以含糊不清的邏輯, 淡化我們改革社會的熱情, 操控我們的未來。
2008年11月7日 星期五
09年美國十大事件
新世代，新氣候。黑人當上美國總統，證明只要有信念，夢想可成真。就讓我對09年美國大事作胡亂猜測，實行亂估一通。
宣佈美國非法移民合法化
美國非法移民問題存在已久，對於這有錢的移民國家更是家常便飯。由於美國缺乏基層勞動力，造成非法移民充撐這勞動缺口。偷渡赴美，實為眾多外來非法移民實現美國夢的第一步。20多年來無特赦，在07年非法移民大遊行反映事情嚴重積壓至不能不解決之地步。若美國宣佈非法移民合法化，將為國家提供新的、充裕的廉價勞動力(但很可能薪金等於最低工資)，部分低技術製造業有可能回流美國。由於邊疆遼闊、社會富裕，偷渡往美國仍將持續，抓非法入境者已成為政府沒完沒了的開支，惟合法化將對社會及就業起了正面作用。
簽署京都協議書
雖然美國汽車品牌巨頭多年來干擾美國社會發展，來到今天成了明日黃花，恐怕再無可用的手段來干預。本田、豐田等日本企業在美國設廠生產汽車，價廉物美，既是美國製造，又省油好力，比美國費油的muscle car環保多，PRIUS更創出業界新氣候。布殊政府害怕京都協議書影響親政府企業的既得利益，不敢簽署京都協議書；相反，奧巴馬大力支持再生能源，並於政綱表明要大力發展再生能源，推測有可能利用簽署京都協議書推動美國的環保進程。但是，在全球對炭排放商品普及化後，會否又產生新一次經濟泡沫呢？
伊戰鳴金收兵
奧巴馬反戰，反對伊拉克戰事，故對伊拉克收兵勢在必行。 要不然便是講大話。
鮑威爾任特別顧問
打破黨派界限，身為共和黨元老的奧維爾在選舉前在電視訪問節目上公開稱讚民主黨候選人奧巴馬為智者之選，奧氏能當上總統實為美國之福。鮑威爾四星上將為鴿派人士，是因他曾真真正正參與戰爭，第一身感受到戰爭的殘酷。奧氏屬反戰人士，高調反對03年伊戰。奧可邀請鮑威爾作特別顧問，為外交獻謀。
向聯合國交會費
欠了那麼多年的會費，真的不好意思。
第一寵物-George
要有寵物，才是完滿的第一家庭。George，挺帥。
黑人犯罪率突然降低，黑人學生上課率上升
奧巴馬當選美國總統成為黑人偶像，黑人莘莘學子努力學習，天天向上。
美國騎單車出外成為時尚，騎單車人數增多。
雖然小布殊總統為長跑愛好者，總不能感染國民跑步上班。政府在各大城市進行哥本哈根式單車道路改造，讓國民騎單車上課上班去。
將非洲傳統節日成為美國法定假期
？！
第十個，想不到了，不如您幫幫忙。
宣佈美國非法移民合法化
美國非法移民問題存在已久，對於這有錢的移民國家更是家常便飯。由於美國缺乏基層勞動力，造成非法移民充撐這勞動缺口。偷渡赴美，實為眾多外來非法移民實現美國夢的第一步。20多年來無特赦，在07年非法移民大遊行反映事情嚴重積壓至不能不解決之地步。若美國宣佈非法移民合法化，將為國家提供新的、充裕的廉價勞動力(但很可能薪金等於最低工資)，部分低技術製造業有可能回流美國。由於邊疆遼闊、社會富裕，偷渡往美國仍將持續，抓非法入境者已成為政府沒完沒了的開支，惟合法化將對社會及就業起了正面作用。
簽署京都協議書
雖然美國汽車品牌巨頭多年來干擾美國社會發展，來到今天成了明日黃花，恐怕再無可用的手段來干預。本田、豐田等日本企業在美國設廠生產汽車，價廉物美，既是美國製造，又省油好力，比美國費油的muscle car環保多，PRIUS更創出業界新氣候。布殊政府害怕京都協議書影響親政府企業的既得利益，不敢簽署京都協議書；相反，奧巴馬大力支持再生能源，並於政綱表明要大力發展再生能源，推測有可能利用簽署京都協議書推動美國的環保進程。但是，在全球對炭排放商品普及化後，會否又產生新一次經濟泡沫呢？
伊戰鳴金收兵
奧巴馬反戰，反對伊拉克戰事，故對伊拉克收兵勢在必行。 要不然便是講大話。
鮑威爾任特別顧問
打破黨派界限，身為共和黨元老的奧維爾在選舉前在電視訪問節目上公開稱讚民主黨候選人奧巴馬為智者之選，奧氏能當上總統實為美國之福。鮑威爾四星上將為鴿派人士，是因他曾真真正正參與戰爭，第一身感受到戰爭的殘酷。奧氏屬反戰人士，高調反對03年伊戰。奧可邀請鮑威爾作特別顧問，為外交獻謀。
向聯合國交會費
欠了那麼多年的會費，真的不好意思。
第一寵物-George
要有寵物，才是完滿的第一家庭。George，挺帥。
黑人犯罪率突然降低，黑人學生上課率上升
奧巴馬當選美國總統成為黑人偶像，黑人莘莘學子努力學習，天天向上。
美國騎單車出外成為時尚，騎單車人數增多。
雖然小布殊總統為長跑愛好者，總不能感染國民跑步上班。政府在各大城市進行哥本哈根式單車道路改造，讓國民騎單車上課上班去。
將非洲傳統節日成為美國法定假期
？！
第十個，想不到了，不如您幫幫忙。
2008年11月6日 星期四
The morning after...
An amazing victory for Barack Obama, and also for the American people, those who are, those who were, and those who will be. It was half a decade ago when Rosa Park took that seat reserved for Whites. That changed the course of history. Today Obama also took the seat that has been reserved for Whites, the one in the Oval Office. This shall also change the course of history.
I began my Nov. 4 by brisking through the roads of Cambridge to reach the hospital where I work. On my way I passed by the city hall, where I witnessed a scene that almost brought me to tears: a league of people of all walks of life lining up, awaiting their turn to cast their ballot. They were all perfect strangers but their goal was one, to choose their leader, their future. It was 6:53am.
I spent the evening watching the polls and projection reports at the Kennedy School of Government with three other compatriots from HK as well as hundreds of fellow enthusiasts. We rejoiced (and were relieved) when the map of Ohio turned blue. As attested by many, it was an unbelievably emotional moment when the words "Breaking News: Obama..." appeared on the screen. Since then till dawn, the streets were packed with youngsters celebrating, chanting, dancing, while cars passed by and joined in with their horns. The cynic in me, however, found this level of exhilaration still inferior to the night when the Red Sox took championships last year. Do people really see this particular event as qualitatively different than other televised competitions?
Obama's victory speech was powerful, but we've been spoiled to expect nothing less from him (and his speech writers). It was loaded with references that resonate with Americans' collective memory, especially the borrowed words from Martin Luther King's last speech. The moving story of the 106-year old Ms. Cooper juxtaposed with the highlights of the country's history shall be remembered by its people and memorized by schoolchildren for many generations to come. The anticipated "yes we can" slogan wrapped up the speech and reinforced the brand.
Now that he has won the race to the office, will Obama actually be able to live up to all the expectations and fulfill his promises, as the president, as an African American president, as the commander-in-chief, as the leader of the most powerful country, as a Messianic figure to millions who lost their homes recently, and to the many who lost their lives in different parts of the world due to the failures by both commission and omission of his predecessor? When he took office last year, Gordon Brown was arguably the Obama in Britain (I know this is a bit of a far-fetch, but you get the point). By it didn't take long for his people to become disappointed, disillusioned, and asked for his resignation. Will Obama's fate be the same, given all the odds he is against? How he build up his administration will be his first test.
While we savor this monment, let us not forget that by popular vote, Obama's victory was far from being a landslide (approximately 52%). What this means is that slightly less than half of the people preferred McCain over him. The country is as divided today as it was at the turn of the millennium. The new president has many more hearts to win.
So the bottom line is this: Obama's victory is monumental and no credit could be taken away from him in the history of the United States. Whether his significance and achievement will be beyond cultural, whether he is the next Lincoln or FDR, however, are of every one's guess.
Christian
Nov 5, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
I began my Nov. 4 by brisking through the roads of Cambridge to reach the hospital where I work. On my way I passed by the city hall, where I witnessed a scene that almost brought me to tears: a league of people of all walks of life lining up, awaiting their turn to cast their ballot. They were all perfect strangers but their goal was one, to choose their leader, their future. It was 6:53am.
I spent the evening watching the polls and projection reports at the Kennedy School of Government with three other compatriots from HK as well as hundreds of fellow enthusiasts. We rejoiced (and were relieved) when the map of Ohio turned blue. As attested by many, it was an unbelievably emotional moment when the words "Breaking News: Obama..." appeared on the screen. Since then till dawn, the streets were packed with youngsters celebrating, chanting, dancing, while cars passed by and joined in with their horns. The cynic in me, however, found this level of exhilaration still inferior to the night when the Red Sox took championships last year. Do people really see this particular event as qualitatively different than other televised competitions?
Obama's victory speech was powerful, but we've been spoiled to expect nothing less from him (and his speech writers). It was loaded with references that resonate with Americans' collective memory, especially the borrowed words from Martin Luther King's last speech. The moving story of the 106-year old Ms. Cooper juxtaposed with the highlights of the country's history shall be remembered by its people and memorized by schoolchildren for many generations to come. The anticipated "yes we can" slogan wrapped up the speech and reinforced the brand.
Now that he has won the race to the office, will Obama actually be able to live up to all the expectations and fulfill his promises, as the president, as an African American president, as the commander-in-chief, as the leader of the most powerful country, as a Messianic figure to millions who lost their homes recently, and to the many who lost their lives in different parts of the world due to the failures by both commission and omission of his predecessor? When he took office last year, Gordon Brown was arguably the Obama in Britain (I know this is a bit of a far-fetch, but you get the point). By it didn't take long for his people to become disappointed, disillusioned, and asked for his resignation. Will Obama's fate be the same, given all the odds he is against? How he build up his administration will be his first test.
While we savor this monment, let us not forget that by popular vote, Obama's victory was far from being a landslide (approximately 52%). What this means is that slightly less than half of the people preferred McCain over him. The country is as divided today as it was at the turn of the millennium. The new president has many more hearts to win.
So the bottom line is this: Obama's victory is monumental and no credit could be taken away from him in the history of the United States. Whether his significance and achievement will be beyond cultural, whether he is the next Lincoln or FDR, however, are of every one's guess.
Christian
Nov 5, 2008
Cambridge, MA, USA
2008年11月5日 星期三
CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE
陳兄越洋親身報導美國總統選舉盛況，本人也來湊湊熱鬧。
本人對奧巴馬的形象甚為討好，自他在民主黨內選舉時開始留意其動向。奧氏在黨內選舉開始至今，競選主題始終如一－改變(CHANGE)。
時勢造英雄，或是英雄造時勢，實在難以判斷。若在克林頓執政期間的歌舞昇平年代高呼「求變」的口號，恐怕難有今天龐大的擁護奧氏群眾；另外，若不是小布殊過去在任8年施行各項「德政」，包括：無謂地發動戰爭導致國債急升，油價曾升至每加侖4美元、經濟放緩令今夏旅遊計畫告吹，次按問題令業主無家可歸等，國民難以感受到切膚之痛，被迫求變。
有奧氏出現的地方，必有CHANGE字樣，這絕對是其競選宣傳的成功要素。希拉莉及麥凱恩不同，他們在講台上的廣告牌均顯示他們姓名；而奧氏則透過CHANGE字樣，向各選民顯示「有奧巴馬，有改變」的競選理念。經過多月來潛移默化，選民不難將奧巴馬與改變兩字聯繫起來。
在講台上的廣告中，純粹打出競選人或競選拍檔的名稱，對已認識他們的觀眾來說，這牌子變得沒有廣告價值；相反，對不認識他們的，牌子的作用只告訴他們是誰。
奧氏競選廣告團隊知道，當奧氏站台演說時，奧氏、講台及演講台上廣告牌均會在鏡頭中出現，並於全國新聞轉播數秒。他們知曉要細心利用這不大不小的廣告牌，排上以粗體、大寫CHANGE字，下沿印有以自己名字來命名的網站。讓奧氏告訴觀眾「他代表改變」、「我是誰？請到以下網站」。將這小牌子的廣告效力發揮極致，是奧氏有效宣傳「改變」理念的重要一環。而從黨內初選到今天當選演說Change has come to America，「改變」一字從未改變，仍代表競選核心思想。
曾在格琳美兩次獲得朗誦獎(Spoken Words Award)的奧氏，其演講技巧不用懷疑。而他對群眾有獨特的凝聚力，這是今屆其他候選人沒有的。留意競選拍檔在戶外進行演說，台上佈置不多，只有講者、演講台、高凳一張。在特邀講者演說時，奧氏便坐在高凳上，聽聽講者的看法、支持話。雖然戶外演講在安全上有重大風險，但這親民形象、與選民零距離接觸，俘虜了不少選民的心。在陽光燦爛的日子作戶外演講，奧氏總喜歡穿上白色恤衫、西褲，不穿西裝不打領帶，但摺袖。很有活力。
奧氏的英語口音與其他美國黑人不同，傾於英式英語(還需陳兄指正)，口音獨特，更引起美國人們留意他(另一講英式英語的知名人物為美國演員Samuel Jackson)。
曾有香港評論說，奧氏的Reclaiming the American dream演說，可與馬丁路德金的I have a dream相比。文章以小放大，自己真人演譯美國夢。
從奧氏得到349張選舉人票，大幅超於所需的270票的三成，可見奧氏的個人魅力、選舉團隊實力、競選經費財力均超越對手麥凱恩。更重要的，是選民有著「改變」的心態，投下奧巴馬一票。
傑出的演說家能否成為成功國際領袖，與各國共創和諧道路，還需拭目以待。
本人對奧巴馬的形象甚為討好，自他在民主黨內選舉時開始留意其動向。奧氏在黨內選舉開始至今，競選主題始終如一－改變(CHANGE)。
時勢造英雄，或是英雄造時勢，實在難以判斷。若在克林頓執政期間的歌舞昇平年代高呼「求變」的口號，恐怕難有今天龐大的擁護奧氏群眾；另外，若不是小布殊過去在任8年施行各項「德政」，包括：無謂地發動戰爭導致國債急升，油價曾升至每加侖4美元、經濟放緩令今夏旅遊計畫告吹，次按問題令業主無家可歸等，國民難以感受到切膚之痛，被迫求變。
有奧氏出現的地方，必有CHANGE字樣，這絕對是其競選宣傳的成功要素。希拉莉及麥凱恩不同，他們在講台上的廣告牌均顯示他們姓名；而奧氏則透過CHANGE字樣，向各選民顯示「有奧巴馬，有改變」的競選理念。經過多月來潛移默化，選民不難將奧巴馬與改變兩字聯繫起來。
在講台上的廣告中，純粹打出競選人或競選拍檔的名稱，對已認識他們的觀眾來說，這牌子變得沒有廣告價值；相反，對不認識他們的，牌子的作用只告訴他們是誰。
奧氏競選廣告團隊知道，當奧氏站台演說時，奧氏、講台及演講台上廣告牌均會在鏡頭中出現，並於全國新聞轉播數秒。他們知曉要細心利用這不大不小的廣告牌，排上以粗體、大寫CHANGE字，下沿印有以自己名字來命名的網站。讓奧氏告訴觀眾「他代表改變」、「我是誰？請到以下網站」。將這小牌子的廣告效力發揮極致，是奧氏有效宣傳「改變」理念的重要一環。而從黨內初選到今天當選演說Change has come to America，「改變」一字從未改變，仍代表競選核心思想。
曾在格琳美兩次獲得朗誦獎(Spoken Words Award)的奧氏，其演講技巧不用懷疑。而他對群眾有獨特的凝聚力，這是今屆其他候選人沒有的。留意競選拍檔在戶外進行演說，台上佈置不多，只有講者、演講台、高凳一張。在特邀講者演說時，奧氏便坐在高凳上，聽聽講者的看法、支持話。雖然戶外演講在安全上有重大風險，但這親民形象、與選民零距離接觸，俘虜了不少選民的心。在陽光燦爛的日子作戶外演講，奧氏總喜歡穿上白色恤衫、西褲，不穿西裝不打領帶，但摺袖。很有活力。
奧氏的英語口音與其他美國黑人不同，傾於英式英語(還需陳兄指正)，口音獨特，更引起美國人們留意他(另一講英式英語的知名人物為美國演員Samuel Jackson)。
曾有香港評論說，奧氏的Reclaiming the American dream演說，可與馬丁路德金的I have a dream相比。文章以小放大，自己真人演譯美國夢。
從奧氏得到349張選舉人票，大幅超於所需的270票的三成，可見奧氏的個人魅力、選舉團隊實力、競選經費財力均超越對手麥凱恩。更重要的，是選民有著「改變」的心態，投下奧巴馬一票。
傑出的演說家能否成為成功國際領袖，與各國共創和諧道路，還需拭目以待。
2008年11月2日 星期日
Yes they can?!
It is only four days before one of the most monumental democratic elections in our generation. I say this not only as a sojourner in the United States but also as a fellow citizen of Hong Kong, of this world. Who takes the top job on Nov 4 will have the potential to change the world for the better, or the worse. Some more prominent and eminent issues at stake include the two wars, relations with Iran, North Korea, and China, and global warming on the foreign policy front; and energy policy, the restructuring of the financial industry, health care, pension on the domestic front.
It is on the one hand quite absurd to see a political campaign lasting for this long (2 years) and exhausting so much resource (Obama's group raised approximately $640 million USD and spent probably about 90% of it). On the other hand, the ingenuity and level of excellence exemplified by the politicians in both camps and the political engineers (e.g., David Axelrod, who groomed Obama to stardom since his time in Chicago) are jaw dropping. The level of oration, the careful selection of words, syntax, and visual imagery, the issues that were left on and off the table, and the combination of pundit to include and exclude... everything we saw (spare the not-so-occasional gaffes and McCain's short-sightedness in picking Palin as his running mate) seems so meticulously thought through and calculated. The goal is to iterate what the voters want to hear, even before they figure out what they want to hear. The difficulty is to decide which voters you should strategically appeal to.
The art and science behind this American (marketing) tradition is admirable, especially in the stark contrast to our own politicians in HK. Unlike the televised “political debates” we were bombarded with in August and September this year, the ones shared by Obama and McCain did not consist only of attacks on personal integrity but also on policy and vision. Unlike the laughable lexical awkwardness uttered by our Legco members, the two president hopefuls appear to be articulate, compelling, and yet unpresumptuous. It is without doubt some of Obama's speeches would make it into future textbooks of speechwriting, among the ranks of Churchill and King.
However, the flip side to such work of assiduous engineering is that it becomes unclear who is contesting for presidency. Behind the content and method of delivery of each political statement is a group of seasoned professionals, the cream of the crop, who could be on either side and do a similarly impressive job. American voters are not choosing between Obama and McCain, but rather two enormous, well-established machines: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This is unfortunate, and quite ironic, considering both candidates chose "change" as their sound bite. By choosing to play by the rule and selecting one of the two men, by default one is NOT choosing for real changes. As promising as he is, judging from his track record of adhering to the party line, Obama might not be radically different from any liberal president. Not to suggest that radicalism is necessary what the US needs or is ready for, but as many respectable critics (e.g., Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky) have argued, many progressive social movements require a leadership that has much less ties with the current power structure/hierarchy.
With that said, it is certainly very exciting to see a multiracial man from a background of hardship and activism rising to presidency in a country with such class and race divide. This is unthinkable just a decade ago, let alone forty some years ago when the civil right movement was beginning to make baby steps.
If the unfortunate thing--that the Republicans steal the election like they did in 2000--happens on Tuesday, you’ll be seeing me in person a lot sooner than I had planned. And I bet many foreigners and even locals will follow suite.
Christian
Nov 1, 2008
Cambridge, MA
2008年7月1日 星期二
七．一 我們幹了什麼
由於多月來 五家．豪談 都沒新文章, 故此, 小弟決定今天要發炮轟炸這個寧靜和平的國度!
小弟 - 自命為入門級的左翼, 民主信奉者 - 今天下午到了維園加入了爭取民主的遊行, 我明白民主不是完美的政治制度方案, 也不保證有了民主大家每一天都過得好, 但卻深信民主機器是現今唯一持久可行, 對社會大眾有最基本保障的制度。我也要跟你說, 如果我不愛港, 不愛國, 我是不會在三十幾度的一天跑出去白流汗的。
安非他命 - 自稱中立派, 她認同的是 "中庸" 的政策管理觀 - 今天下午在上網 web surfing。 晚上跟她談起, 她似乎最信奉的是一套叫 "主權民主" 的理念 (小弟也是剛從她那裡學會)... 即是在這個國家先有一個主權(集權)實體, 再由這個政治體把 "民主", "自由" 及 "人權" 分給國家的人民。 她強調這概念不是來自中共, 是來自俄羅斯...... 對不起, 我能接受的是每人有自己的看法, 而不是把錯誤的邏輯當成正確... "民主" 是不能由他人來分配的。
地獄小飛俠 - 自稱中間偏民主派 - 今天下午在家的電腦看電影。平時跟他談政制問題, 他總會有很多意見。但他不是"行動派" 的, 總是在要作行動或決定時有所保留。六四跟七一遊行小弟也有找他, 可是總拉他不動的。在我們社會太多沒思想的人, 但如果連有思想的也都不去行動, 我對香港的未來真的十分不安。
溫高雄 - (筆者寫此文時未能聯絡到他本人) 不折不扣的資本家(這是小弟硬加的) - 七．一? 資本家怎會上街呢? 資本家的計算機只能計算到跟金錢有關的東西。(溫高雄兄如有澄清請自便)
X'ian - (他人在外地, 筆者未聯絡他本人) 比筆者更為左的左翼份子 - 不在香港所以不會去了遊行了, 相信他本人一定會說這一句: '我在香港的話一定會去。' 當然大家可以質疑: 他出身富裕家庭, 怎知民間疾苦? 他讀 "番書" 長大, 怎知不是受了外國思想荼毒, 洗腦以亂我中華? 這些恕我不能為他辯解, 因為我也很想聽聽他對自己的身份(或指家國)認同是什麼...
這裡的幾個人, 思想行為都差異甚多, 奈何對對方寫的文章都 "留一手" (或 "藏拙"?)... 還是... 我們根本對自己所住的這個小島, 這個國家的政制發展莫不關心? 要是這樣, 難怪五家．豪談混不下去了...
小弟 - 自命為入門級的左翼, 民主信奉者 - 今天下午到了維園加入了爭取民主的遊行, 我明白民主不是完美的政治制度方案, 也不保證有了民主大家每一天都過得好, 但卻深信民主機器是現今唯一持久可行, 對社會大眾有最基本保障的制度。我也要跟你說, 如果我不愛港, 不愛國, 我是不會在三十幾度的一天跑出去白流汗的。
安非他命 - 自稱中立派, 她認同的是 "中庸" 的政策管理觀 - 今天下午在上網 web surfing。 晚上跟她談起, 她似乎最信奉的是一套叫 "主權民主" 的理念 (小弟也是剛從她那裡學會)... 即是在這個國家先有一個主權(集權)實體, 再由這個政治體把 "民主", "自由" 及 "人權" 分給國家的人民。 她強調這概念不是來自中共, 是來自俄羅斯...... 對不起, 我能接受的是每人有自己的看法, 而不是把錯誤的邏輯當成正確... "民主" 是不能由他人來分配的。
地獄小飛俠 - 自稱中間偏民主派 - 今天下午在家的電腦看電影。平時跟他談政制問題, 他總會有很多意見。但他不是"行動派" 的, 總是在要作行動或決定時有所保留。六四跟七一遊行小弟也有找他, 可是總拉他不動的。在我們社會太多沒思想的人, 但如果連有思想的也都不去行動, 我對香港的未來真的十分不安。
溫高雄 - (筆者寫此文時未能聯絡到他本人) 不折不扣的資本家(這是小弟硬加的) - 七．一? 資本家怎會上街呢? 資本家的計算機只能計算到跟金錢有關的東西。(溫高雄兄如有澄清請自便)
X'ian - (他人在外地, 筆者未聯絡他本人) 比筆者更為左的左翼份子 - 不在香港所以不會去了遊行了, 相信他本人一定會說這一句: '我在香港的話一定會去。' 當然大家可以質疑: 他出身富裕家庭, 怎知民間疾苦? 他讀 "番書" 長大, 怎知不是受了外國思想荼毒, 洗腦以亂我中華? 這些恕我不能為他辯解, 因為我也很想聽聽他對自己的身份(或指家國)認同是什麼...
這裡的幾個人, 思想行為都差異甚多, 奈何對對方寫的文章都 "留一手" (或 "藏拙"?)... 還是... 我們根本對自己所住的這個小島, 這個國家的政制發展莫不關心? 要是這樣, 難怪五家．豪談混不下去了...
2008年3月13日 星期四
觀後感：No Country for Old Men （中譯：二百萬奪命奇案）
故事簡介
故事講述主角Moss無意中在一輛棄置荒野的貨車上，發現多具屍體、一些海洛英，還有200萬現金，貪念頓生，他決定把巨款據為己有，想不到卻因而觸發一連串離奇事件，引來奪命追殺……
導演 : 高安兄弟
演員 : 湯美李鍾斯, 查維爾巴頓, 活地夏里遜
片長 : 123 分鐘
級數 : IIB語言 : 英語 (中文字幕)
（取自 http://www2.cinema.com.hk/revamp/html/list_detail.php?lang=c&movie_id=3310）
說真的，我非常喜歡片名
貪念人皆有之，聖人也不能幸免！就好像片中的獵人一樣，突然發現有二百萬元美金，動了貪念也是情理之中。雖然，他曾經見死不救的留下案發現場的一個生還者，但是當晚他也良心發現，回到現場，希望帶一些水給那個生還者。但是也因此被人發現，受到追殺。令我不禁的想，如果他沒有返回現場的話，是否就可以避過一劫？好心沒有好報，或者，這就是貪心的現眼報？
但是，片中的一個雞販的老伯伯，在公路上遇到了要追回二百萬元的殺手。見殺手的汽車沒有電池，好心的想替他充電…雖說片中沒有明示那老伯怎樣，但是下一幕就是那冷血的殺手在清洗老伯的車子。又在想，是否不應在公路上幫人？
金錢令人瘋狂，連我們的青年人也是也不能幸免。同樣的，片中兩個主人翁，獵人與殺生都在不同時間，不同地點的遇到不同的青年人。他倆分別的向他們買衣服，那二班青年人都是遇到一個在受傷的人。遇到獵人的青年人們，眼見獵人身上有傷，完全沒有問他需要怎樣的協助。最後，獵人以五百美元買了一個青年的風褸，當再想他們給他一樣啤酒，有一個青年立即問他以多少錢買。殺手遇到的，雖然起初沒有收殺手的錢，但是他最後也是收下。當他的同伴想分享他的錢時，他立即予以拒絕。這就是我們未來的主人翁，難怪我們只有越來越瘋狂的世界！
要數瘋狂，當然要以片中的那個追殺獵人的殺手了。以一枝氧風樽加一個噴咀的空風槍，及一樣加了滅聲器的散彈短槍。就好像告訴我們，瘋狂是以靜悄悄的來到我們身邊一樣。目無表情及隨意的殺人，雖然內裏似是自有他自己一套的殺人邏輯，就好像他在士多的那時候，強迫老闆要選擇銀幣的公字去決他生死。在電話中，與獵人的談判，冷靜的告訴獵人，他是一定要死的，只是如果將錢交出來的話，可以免他妻子一死。說到尾也只是瘋子的邏輯罷！到後段他受傷了，為了要得到藥物，引爆一輛一部停在路邊的汽車以引開別人的注意，以取得藥物。這令我不禁的想，好像有那一個國家，也在做同樣的事情。以自己的意志，自己的邏輯的去引爆這，引爆那，為的只是那些藥物一樣。其實，你正正常常的到藥店去買藥，那有人知道你受的是槍傷呢？經常要以自己的邏輯去強加在人家的身上，給你一個不能拒絕的選擇。
有沒有挺身而出的人？在片中，分別可以見到兩隻狗，一隻貓。在案發現場中，有一隻狗的屍體，另一隻是在追獵人的時候，被獵人槍殺了。我們人類的好朋友，在需要它的時候，它會挺身而出…那隻小貓呢？在殺手追到獵人投宿的旅館時，它的主人，旅館的主人被殺的時候，它一直在那，到獵人逃離旅館的時候，它還在靜靜地吃它的…
最後，穿插在整套戲的探長，在快要退休的時候，極力的想去幫助獵人，但最後目睹獵人的屍體時那種無力感… 那時候，我想起謝安琪的一首歌，<神奇女俠的退休生活>。
<神奇女俠的退休生活>
爆裂 散落 折翼墮下
正跌向對面大廈 就撞爛大廈
而樓下 有群男共女
以摺凳菜刀打架 聽不見他
幾秒後 滿地是血花
而模糊的受害人 一早猜想到嗎
誰人才 終極失去了他
有病 有毒 市面混濁
氧氣裏正在孕育 極厲害病毒
全城就快齊齊病發 個個照逛街睇戲
不知退縮 於市內網巷夜店中
誰人從粉末藥囊 針筒之中找到
如遊魂魔域 那份滿足
可惜我已經退休 一早已養尊處休
坦克再駐守 只可高叫快走快走
不可以插手 青春些會救到亞洲
歐洲與美洲 今天怎強出頭
可惜我已經退休 將這裏轉交你手
即使你錯手 摧毀一切炸出缺口
不可以插手 只可打氣拍手
恭賀人類 生出殺手
就是這樣 家產給你接收（總要去的不要留）
就是這樣 終生可以退休（歡送爆開的汽球）
氣候 變壞 雨大浪大 浸過了購物大道
像越鬧越大 而何時救援還未到
正派往遠方打仗 不可上街
管理層滿是實戰派 誰和誰慘被沒埋
不可多嘴表態 繁榮和安定正在瓦解
可惜我已經退休 一早已養尊處休
坦克再駐守 只可高叫快走快走 不可以插手
青春些會救到亞洲 非洲與澳洲 今天怎強出頭
可惜我已經退休 得一副老骨老手
只可以間中 幫乖仔去買煙買酒 幫新袍餵狗
幫子孫贖了樓 觀望時代 天天變醜
可惜我已經退休 一早已養尊處休
坦克再駐守 只可高叫快走快走
不可以插手 青春些會救到亞洲
歐洲與美洲 今天怎強出頭
可惜我已經退休 將這裏轉交你手
即使你錯手 摧毀一切炸出缺口
不可以插手 只可打氣拍手
恭賀人類 生出殺手
就是這樣 家產給你接收（總要去的不要留）
就是這樣 終生可以退休（歡送爆開的汽球）
2008年2月12日 星期二
幸福的反思
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?
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
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！
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
