Song from Goong.. Yes the show may be outdated, but I think this instrumental piece really penetrates the soul, or in Schopenhauer's words, it is “the will directly”. Spiritually uplifting, by beating you down...
2007年3月29日星期四
2007年3月28日星期三
文字的力量
文字，原来是这么宝贵的东西。它不只是思想的表达，而且还是把整个心挖出来给人看的工具。也正因为文字具有这么可贵的潜力，很多时候，我们必须学会珍惜它，不让它的神圣性被亵渎。做一个自由撰稿人，学会的就是如何惜墨如金，学会怎么真诚。所谓真诚，除了在写的时候学会把自己最想说的完整并正确阐述外，也包括在没有东西写的时候，学会把笔盖套上，不去刻意追求什么。文章的气，只有在胸口有东西堵住，并且心跳加速的时候，才可能在字里行间释放。至于观点幼稚，立场不够鲜明，这些就已经不是真诚问题，而是能力问题。不过，有真诚没能力，至少比有能力没真诚来得强。因为，真诚是学不来的，而且有能力的人，太善于用文字欺骗别人和自己，以至于已经无法体会什么叫做真诚。
在今天的社会，文字不再被我们看重。尤其当每个人都能够说话，而文章又是“我手写我口”的时候，加上每个人都把自己视为独特的个体时，我们总想说点什么。结果是，真心的人会应酬你一下，其他的人看了你的文章之后，几秒钟里就忘了你写什么。但是，文章仍得写，因为个体意识越强，辩论的需要也就更迫切。或许，我们已经习惯了辩论不了了之的格局，也可能我们因为不理解很多东西而对我们所写的没有自信，更可能，我们根本已经觉得debate是过时的、无用的东西，是和平时代所不该采取的姿态。但是，即使不开炮，我们也总得拿起木剑来比试比试。只有这样，才能知道自己懂多少，不懂多少，并把自己致命的盲点找出来。有时，自以为幼稚的问题，反倒会难倒那些有志之士。即使难不倒他们，至少也让他们确定自己的立场，对我们对他们都是好事。
在今天的社会，文字不再被我们看重。尤其当每个人都能够说话，而文章又是“我手写我口”的时候，加上每个人都把自己视为独特的个体时，我们总想说点什么。结果是，真心的人会应酬你一下，其他的人看了你的文章之后，几秒钟里就忘了你写什么。但是，文章仍得写，因为个体意识越强，辩论的需要也就更迫切。或许，我们已经习惯了辩论不了了之的格局，也可能我们因为不理解很多东西而对我们所写的没有自信，更可能，我们根本已经觉得debate是过时的、无用的东西，是和平时代所不该采取的姿态。但是，即使不开炮，我们也总得拿起木剑来比试比试。只有这样，才能知道自己懂多少，不懂多少，并把自己致命的盲点找出来。有时，自以为幼稚的问题，反倒会难倒那些有志之士。即使难不倒他们，至少也让他们确定自己的立场，对我们对他们都是好事。
2007年3月21日星期三
平静的随想
好久没感觉心里如此踏实，如此平静，尽管后脑勺还在为论文应该怎么接下去而不断思考着。看《早报》的副刊，在几篇文章中找到一个共性：在小小的人生体验中找到一个属于自己的大大的世界。不论是荆云谈在香港中文大学的“另一片天地”，或是孝忠对上海这城市的那种爱过于恨，还是吴庆康对距离所带来的“家的温馨”的意识，好像都在告诉我，其实生命如此简单。其实，并非我活得复杂，只是有时把自己看得太重要，不管我是否愿意承认。也许，我其实也是一个善于找寻内心浪漫的人，自己满足自己。而且，上面的三篇文章，似乎都跟我有些联系——在复旦找到自己的园地，在上海找到对乱和喧闹的欣赏，在离家十万八千里的地方感觉亲情的温度。感激、满足、舒坦，似乎都无法完全概括此刻的心情。似乎，现在是在进入沉睡之际，一脚跨过现实和梦境的门槛时的那种感觉——那种能隐约听到心跳声的感觉。
《盛夏光年》给我最大的启示是，我们人的情感，往往被我们惯性的类型化思维占领了，以至于爱成为了一个必须划分成零零碎碎的概念，无法以一个整体存在。或许，整体的东西，人的智慧无法理解。但是，既然爱是心的事务，又何必太苛求它被我们自己理解呢？经常梦见亲密友人受肉体或心灵的创伤，而自己总作为那个给予他们慰藉的角色出现在自己构造的情节里。或许，潜意识里，我需要以满足弱者的方式来得到快感。是否有博爱精神的人都如此呢？看，我又再寻求答案。可能，爱就是如此自然的东西，也因此我们依旧无法以数学公式来表达它。从小，一套套的伦理价值，似乎掩盖了一种真实的爱，让它难以被意识，或者如果被意识到也显得假，而表达更是显得虚伪。现在，终于能够和心直接对话。也许，我真的长大了。
《盛夏光年》给我最大的启示是，我们人的情感，往往被我们惯性的类型化思维占领了，以至于爱成为了一个必须划分成零零碎碎的概念，无法以一个整体存在。或许，整体的东西，人的智慧无法理解。但是，既然爱是心的事务，又何必太苛求它被我们自己理解呢？经常梦见亲密友人受肉体或心灵的创伤，而自己总作为那个给予他们慰藉的角色出现在自己构造的情节里。或许，潜意识里，我需要以满足弱者的方式来得到快感。是否有博爱精神的人都如此呢？看，我又再寻求答案。可能，爱就是如此自然的东西，也因此我们依旧无法以数学公式来表达它。从小，一套套的伦理价值，似乎掩盖了一种真实的爱，让它难以被意识，或者如果被意识到也显得假，而表达更是显得虚伪。现在，终于能够和心直接对话。也许，我真的长大了。
2007年3月19日星期一
[转载] 爱的能力
我没跟吴韦才见过面，但有好几次在《早报》上发表的评论，都是为了反驳他而写的。可以说，他经常让我有想拿起笔来喊几句的冲动。但是，这一次，我却被他的文字折服了。这篇文章，写到了我的心坎里。或许，在我的感情路上，有着太多的误解，也有着太多的限制，让我无法把心里的真话表达出来。似乎是迷茫，也似乎是缺乏勇气。所以，这篇文章，恰好就把我闷在心里的话写了出来。思绪永远是复杂的，很多事情到最后，或许也无法解释。但说真的，也无需解释。只要现在默默地守候，以后默默地祝福，其实，我不觉得我对不起任何人。
----------
● 吴韦材
几位朋友在我家，无意间谈起“爱”的话题。
都是30余，40余的年龄。我认为人活到这阶段来讨论“爱”，该是能交出一些“爱的心得”的。事实上，那晚我们谈得很好，时有观照，也时有启发。
但还真别说。有些人活到老死，一生往来于爱的公路上，却只是逢站必停。停停走走，看似爱情履历丰富，其实也没进入状态。
很多人停下来，是想找一家理想中的爱情超市。最好条件齐全，能凭自己需要精挑细选。但世上所有人类无论在物理外型上，心理品质上、智慧水平上，其实都无法全方位地去满足另一个人，爱情超市是不存在的。
就算破天荒出现这么一家超市，不等于顾客就不再挑剔，而顾客也不一定永远都是对的。
世上每天那么多人谈恋爱，所用频率最高是“我爱你”三字——但这样连写是有点误会的。应该是“我”、然后“爱”，最后才是“你”。
因为大多数人第一项最关切的，终究是他自己。我有没有“被爱”？我有没有“得到爱”？第二，这样的“爱”是否合乎我的要求？第三，那个“你”当然重要，因为那是一个容器，爱就装在里面。
但印度哲学大师奥修说得好，“每一个人都想要被爱，而那是一个错误的开始。”
他用小孩来诠释这个。
小孩一生下来，就是在获得爱的状态下成长。从父母、兄弟、姐妹、朋友及陌生人那里获得。而且一直都是获得。他就在这个最初体验里长大，潜意识里，他就认为自己一生必须获得爱。
而几乎大多数人都是在这个潜意识里长大的。人人都要求获得。给我爱。给我。我要。这种小孩对爱的需索状态，可以一辈子统治着人们对感情的领悟，限制着人们对感情价值的看法。确实有些人，都活到三四十岁了，仍然用他做儿童时的需要条件，套在“爱”上面。
爱是一份能量。不只要能接受，也要能提供这份能量，才能说这个人真正拥有爱的能力。
但能力仍然是有分高低的。我另位好友刘锦煌，就是一位对爱的能力有深刻感悟的人。他常在手机里放一句这样的话：“能不能爱？就视乎你能不能在毫无条件下依然无偿付出。”
是不是一定要在有拥有和有回报之下，才能付出呢？
我有过两次深刻的爱。也因为深刻，而选择“放走”了两个人。一些不能明白的朋友，至今提起还是无法接受，因为这两位被我“放走”的人，如今虽少相聚，但我们仍可以是互相关怀的好朋友。只不过客观事实，就是客观的事实。提升是不容易的。除了对感情的敏感度，还需有足够的意识来作支撑。
因为爱不是一成不变的。从不同的认识、不同的水平，逐渐提升上来，它最终可以是一份纯粹的善意、慈悲、寄托与祝福。并且，即便没有反馈，也不应该会影响这份能量的付出。
假如一定要有所反应才能去爱人，一定要以某个特定的价值或方式才能去爱人。那其实不是在真正爱他人，是在爱自己所要的“爱”罢了。
当人的情感成熟了，要真正感受爱，就要有这份过滤与沉淀的能力。
其实最好的爱，也是有榜样可以参照的，最靠近身边那就是我们的母亲。母性这份爱，可以不计较一切，不企求一切，不惊动一切，就是默默付出。
母性这份爱，也是一种宇宙的爱，无私的爱，你也能在人类许多不同宗教里看到它的不同表征方式。
假如我们能够去到这个意识，假如我们同时也能为我们爱的人付出这样的爱，那就是一个非常快乐的境界。
----------
● 吴韦材
几位朋友在我家，无意间谈起“爱”的话题。
都是30余，40余的年龄。我认为人活到这阶段来讨论“爱”，该是能交出一些“爱的心得”的。事实上，那晚我们谈得很好，时有观照，也时有启发。
但还真别说。有些人活到老死，一生往来于爱的公路上，却只是逢站必停。停停走走，看似爱情履历丰富，其实也没进入状态。
很多人停下来，是想找一家理想中的爱情超市。最好条件齐全，能凭自己需要精挑细选。但世上所有人类无论在物理外型上，心理品质上、智慧水平上，其实都无法全方位地去满足另一个人，爱情超市是不存在的。
就算破天荒出现这么一家超市，不等于顾客就不再挑剔，而顾客也不一定永远都是对的。
世上每天那么多人谈恋爱，所用频率最高是“我爱你”三字——但这样连写是有点误会的。应该是“我”、然后“爱”，最后才是“你”。
因为大多数人第一项最关切的，终究是他自己。我有没有“被爱”？我有没有“得到爱”？第二，这样的“爱”是否合乎我的要求？第三，那个“你”当然重要，因为那是一个容器，爱就装在里面。
但印度哲学大师奥修说得好，“每一个人都想要被爱，而那是一个错误的开始。”
他用小孩来诠释这个。
小孩一生下来，就是在获得爱的状态下成长。从父母、兄弟、姐妹、朋友及陌生人那里获得。而且一直都是获得。他就在这个最初体验里长大，潜意识里，他就认为自己一生必须获得爱。
而几乎大多数人都是在这个潜意识里长大的。人人都要求获得。给我爱。给我。我要。这种小孩对爱的需索状态，可以一辈子统治着人们对感情的领悟，限制着人们对感情价值的看法。确实有些人，都活到三四十岁了，仍然用他做儿童时的需要条件，套在“爱”上面。
爱是一份能量。不只要能接受，也要能提供这份能量，才能说这个人真正拥有爱的能力。
但能力仍然是有分高低的。我另位好友刘锦煌，就是一位对爱的能力有深刻感悟的人。他常在手机里放一句这样的话：“能不能爱？就视乎你能不能在毫无条件下依然无偿付出。”
是不是一定要在有拥有和有回报之下，才能付出呢？
我有过两次深刻的爱。也因为深刻，而选择“放走”了两个人。一些不能明白的朋友，至今提起还是无法接受，因为这两位被我“放走”的人，如今虽少相聚，但我们仍可以是互相关怀的好朋友。只不过客观事实，就是客观的事实。提升是不容易的。除了对感情的敏感度，还需有足够的意识来作支撑。
因为爱不是一成不变的。从不同的认识、不同的水平，逐渐提升上来，它最终可以是一份纯粹的善意、慈悲、寄托与祝福。并且，即便没有反馈，也不应该会影响这份能量的付出。
假如一定要有所反应才能去爱人，一定要以某个特定的价值或方式才能去爱人。那其实不是在真正爱他人，是在爱自己所要的“爱”罢了。
当人的情感成熟了，要真正感受爱，就要有这份过滤与沉淀的能力。
其实最好的爱，也是有榜样可以参照的，最靠近身边那就是我们的母亲。母性这份爱，可以不计较一切，不企求一切，不惊动一切，就是默默付出。
母性这份爱，也是一种宇宙的爱，无私的爱，你也能在人类许多不同宗教里看到它的不同表征方式。
假如我们能够去到这个意识，假如我们同时也能为我们爱的人付出这样的爱，那就是一个非常快乐的境界。
最后一次
最后一次
Lovynn Kan
在我最后一次 闭上眼睛之前
我想对你说我爱你
在你怀里 舍不得放弃
心里有千万语还没说给你听
我使劲全力 不想闭上眼睛
这次告别就不能再相遇 不能再陪你
但不要忘记
你曾经答应我你会好好活下去
先走了 去了好远的地方
不能再陪你看日出
等不到天亮
所有回忆没去 却并不容易
生死由天决定 不要太伤心
在我最后一次 闭上眼睛之前
我想对你说我爱你
在你怀里 舍不得放弃
心里有千万语还没说给你听
我使劲全力 不想闭上眼睛
这次告别就不能再相遇 不能再陪你
但不要忘记
你曾经答应我你会好好活下去
我永远爱你
I heard this song is written by a Singaporean girl for her boyfriend when he died in a car accident. 具有震撼力，而且换位叙述加上柔而带悲的旋律，让情感显得更有力量。如果完全进入审美的极限，突然就会看到人生的价值除了在于每一天的美满外，还有那条一辈子隐隐牵引着生者与死者（不论什么关系）的感情线。
2007年3月18日星期日
2007年3月15日星期四
Not forgetting one's humble beginnings
以上标题，再怎么也觉得难以翻译。因为在汉语里，凡是用“不忘本”的“本”字，或是用“源头”、“始由”等来形容一个人的童年，难免都带有一种伦理和道德意味。
以上这句话，如果直译，那就是“不忘记一个人卑微的（生命之）始”。虽然字句有些牵强，但意思可能更明确。（如果有谁能帮我翻译得更好，请留言）
人生长河中，从何而来，往往比到哪里来得更重要。尤其如果生长在比较恶劣或困苦的环境中，那会更加珍惜当下的一切。
爱，始于家。或许，小的时候并未觉得自己对父母有什么“燃烧的热情”，但长大了，才明白他们是怎么一路撑过来的，并且在已经走投无路的时候，依旧让自己在他们温暖而硕大的影子中感受到被疼爱的滋味。除了感激，还是感激。
尔后又有宗教因素的加入，把万事万物归结为上苍所赐的“命”。于是，开始把受之于人的爱，转而授之于人。在这样的过程中，缔结新的“缘”，而这也正是“命”的一部分。（纠缠的纠缠，还是不纠缠好，就说到这里吧。）
所以，爱上了教学，也爱上了做CIP。虽然教学需要的不只是爱和一颗育人的心，CIP也难免短暂而有时因其不彻底而显得做作，但总归是记得我从何而来，并在这源头的基础上，在人生的路上走下去。
也难怪，从柏拉图到黑格尔，都说起点就是终点。
以上这句话，如果直译，那就是“不忘记一个人卑微的（生命之）始”。虽然字句有些牵强，但意思可能更明确。（如果有谁能帮我翻译得更好，请留言）
人生长河中，从何而来，往往比到哪里来得更重要。尤其如果生长在比较恶劣或困苦的环境中，那会更加珍惜当下的一切。
爱，始于家。或许，小的时候并未觉得自己对父母有什么“燃烧的热情”，但长大了，才明白他们是怎么一路撑过来的，并且在已经走投无路的时候，依旧让自己在他们温暖而硕大的影子中感受到被疼爱的滋味。除了感激，还是感激。
尔后又有宗教因素的加入，把万事万物归结为上苍所赐的“命”。于是，开始把受之于人的爱，转而授之于人。在这样的过程中，缔结新的“缘”，而这也正是“命”的一部分。（纠缠的纠缠，还是不纠缠好，就说到这里吧。）
所以，爱上了教学，也爱上了做CIP。虽然教学需要的不只是爱和一颗育人的心，CIP也难免短暂而有时因其不彻底而显得做作，但总归是记得我从何而来，并在这源头的基础上，在人生的路上走下去。
也难怪，从柏拉图到黑格尔，都说起点就是终点。
2007年3月13日星期二
On the Streets - Sung Si Kyung
I think the chorus never fails to cause resonance in my heart. It's a love song, and the lyrics touch me a lot. Translation below:
【歌词】成时京-在街上
在没有你的街道上
我也没有可作的事
总是走著走著
无意中触碰到回忆
想起你的样子
我死灰复燃的思念
你不是一遍就能忘怀的人
再一次能感受到的一天
在哪里生活呢
过得又怎么样呢
试著走著 好像就有谁会告诉我
这曾经很熟悉的街道
我们的脚步曾并排走过
令人怀念的日子今天晚上又来找我
思念你 呼唤你 我的一天
虽然心焦也很高兴跟回忆相碰
望向呼唤我的声音的那方向
空荡荡的街道
不知不觉满满都只是你的身影
到达死胡同
靠著熟悉的那堵墙
街灯中明亮地照出
告白的我的心
浮现起那时的样子
重新燃起我的激动
不能一遍就忘怀的瞬间
又再一次感觉到的一天
她仍然会想起我吗
她还会再找我吗
试著走著 好像就有谁会告诉我
这曾经很熟悉的街道
我们的脚步曾并排走过
令人怀念的日子今天晚上又来找我
描绘你 呼唤你 我的一天
虽然心焦也很高兴跟回忆相碰
望向呼唤我的声音的那方向
空荡荡的街道
不知不觉满满都只是你的样子
澎涨的我的心 向著夜空呐喊
这街道在等待著你
描绘你 呼唤你 我的一天
虽然心焦也很高兴跟回忆相碰
望向呼唤我的声音的那方向
空荡荡的街道
不知不觉满满都只是你的样子
Tim - Sometimes Tears
Nice song, though I wasn't able to find this anywhere to download. If anybody knows tell me k..
Anyway Tim's a good singer.. Humble guy as well. Koreans say his pronunciation isn't good as he's an ABK and only went to Korea a few years back. In any case, since I don't know Korean that well, I pay attention to the tune. =)
[转载]赏析《陈瑞献寓言》 悲剧的根源
● 何乃健
原文：
“快手快脚，别让人看了！”
树上的小鸟告诫。
小猫挖好穴，把尸身尚暖的姐姐葬下，在藏经楼侧。
“菩萨哪会怪罪呢？会怪你的，只有人，快走！”小鸟催促。
——《陈瑞献寓言·厚葬》
赏析：
法国的莫泊桑曾经说过：“任何事物里，都有未曾被发现的东西；即使最细微的事物中，也会有未被认识过的层面让我们去拓掘。”在《厚葬》这篇寓言里，瑞献凭藉他对人类历史的敏感，以及对人性所曾做过的全面观照，巧妙地透过小猫为死去的姐姐挖穴埋葬这么微不足道的事情，以及小鸟叮咛小猫的两句话，委婉地传达出嗔恚怨恨，不辨是非，迁怒于人的心，是许多人类悲剧根源这个道理。这篇寓言的戏剧性很强，猛然拨动了读者联翩的浮想。
人世间的纷争，常因误解而让愤怒的情绪狂飚，伤害了无辜的人，也令自己深陷于无穷无尽的痛苦与烦恼。百喻经中有一则“割百补千”的寓言，叙述一个残暴无道，动辄杀人的国王，听信身边小人的谗言，误会一位耄龄大臣对他不忠，下令割去他背后一百两肉。事后经过详细调查，才发现这位老臣无辜受惩。为了表示对他无故受灾的歉意，国王还给老臣一千两肉，然而老臣仍然痛苦呻吟。国王讶然询问：“难道一千两肉不足以补偿被割去的一百两吗？”旁边一位忠臣大胆回应：“假如有人割下国王的头，然后再还给国王一百个头，王上觉得合理吗？”国王豁然大悟，愧恧不已。
小猫“把尸身尚暖的姐姐葬在藏经楼侧”。藏经楼里的佛经，基本内容着重于诠释世间一切的苦（苦谛），形成苦的原因（集谛），苦的灭除（灭谛）和灭苦的方法（道谛）。以上四大真理（四圣谛）所依据的根本论证是缘起性空。猫葬于藏经楼侧，暗示其死因是基于生老病死，成住坏空的自然规律，不应归咎，更不该找寻代罪羔羊。所以树上的小鸟说：“菩萨哪会怪罪呢？”
菩萨是梵文菩提萨埵(Bodhisattva)的简称，华译为觉有情，是慈悲智慧圆满，成就一切自利利他德行，并已解脱轮回的圣者。菩萨深入理解苦、空、无常和无我，因此不会怪罪无辜者，不像凡夫俗子，常因失去理智而犯杀戒。
美国的一篇小散文《基奇的故事》，叙述猎人威尔逊出门打猎之前，吩附忠实的猎犬基奇代为看顾半岁的儿子。三天之后，威尔逊回家时见到摇篮里的被褥撕碎，地上血迹斑斑，而浑身是血的基奇正摇晃前来。威尔逊大怒，端起猎枪打死了基奇。枪声响过，传来了婴儿的啼哭声，他忙扒开碎布，发现里面正躺着他的儿子，和一只被咬死的金钱豹。威尔逊立刻跪在基奇面前，泪流满面。
小鸟催促小猫“快走”，因为一旦让“会怪你的”人看见了，小猫很可能要面对猎犬基奇的悲剧后果！
原文：
“快手快脚，别让人看了！”
树上的小鸟告诫。
小猫挖好穴，把尸身尚暖的姐姐葬下，在藏经楼侧。
“菩萨哪会怪罪呢？会怪你的，只有人，快走！”小鸟催促。
——《陈瑞献寓言·厚葬》
赏析：
法国的莫泊桑曾经说过：“任何事物里，都有未曾被发现的东西；即使最细微的事物中，也会有未被认识过的层面让我们去拓掘。”在《厚葬》这篇寓言里，瑞献凭藉他对人类历史的敏感，以及对人性所曾做过的全面观照，巧妙地透过小猫为死去的姐姐挖穴埋葬这么微不足道的事情，以及小鸟叮咛小猫的两句话，委婉地传达出嗔恚怨恨，不辨是非，迁怒于人的心，是许多人类悲剧根源这个道理。这篇寓言的戏剧性很强，猛然拨动了读者联翩的浮想。
人世间的纷争，常因误解而让愤怒的情绪狂飚，伤害了无辜的人，也令自己深陷于无穷无尽的痛苦与烦恼。百喻经中有一则“割百补千”的寓言，叙述一个残暴无道，动辄杀人的国王，听信身边小人的谗言，误会一位耄龄大臣对他不忠，下令割去他背后一百两肉。事后经过详细调查，才发现这位老臣无辜受惩。为了表示对他无故受灾的歉意，国王还给老臣一千两肉，然而老臣仍然痛苦呻吟。国王讶然询问：“难道一千两肉不足以补偿被割去的一百两吗？”旁边一位忠臣大胆回应：“假如有人割下国王的头，然后再还给国王一百个头，王上觉得合理吗？”国王豁然大悟，愧恧不已。
小猫“把尸身尚暖的姐姐葬在藏经楼侧”。藏经楼里的佛经，基本内容着重于诠释世间一切的苦（苦谛），形成苦的原因（集谛），苦的灭除（灭谛）和灭苦的方法（道谛）。以上四大真理（四圣谛）所依据的根本论证是缘起性空。猫葬于藏经楼侧，暗示其死因是基于生老病死，成住坏空的自然规律，不应归咎，更不该找寻代罪羔羊。所以树上的小鸟说：“菩萨哪会怪罪呢？”
菩萨是梵文菩提萨埵(Bodhisattva)的简称，华译为觉有情，是慈悲智慧圆满，成就一切自利利他德行，并已解脱轮回的圣者。菩萨深入理解苦、空、无常和无我，因此不会怪罪无辜者，不像凡夫俗子，常因失去理智而犯杀戒。
美国的一篇小散文《基奇的故事》，叙述猎人威尔逊出门打猎之前，吩附忠实的猎犬基奇代为看顾半岁的儿子。三天之后，威尔逊回家时见到摇篮里的被褥撕碎，地上血迹斑斑，而浑身是血的基奇正摇晃前来。威尔逊大怒，端起猎枪打死了基奇。枪声响过，传来了婴儿的啼哭声，他忙扒开碎布，发现里面正躺着他的儿子，和一只被咬死的金钱豹。威尔逊立刻跪在基奇面前，泪流满面。
小鸟催促小猫“快走”，因为一旦让“会怪你的”人看见了，小猫很可能要面对猎犬基奇的悲剧后果！
Cher feels pain girl....
Read this testimonial on one of my ex-students' Friendster: "WHY U GO CUT YOURSELF BECAUSE OF ONE GUY? ASK YOURSELF LARH WORTH IT MAHH? NOT WORTH IT LORH HE'S NOT WORTH YOUR TEARS YOUR PAIN!!! ): "
Of all the words that are written in Caps, the word CUT sprung out (yes, literally "sprung"). Things I used to see in drama and reality TV are happening to my kids! I wonder if they learnt from these shows, or they are also able to "无师自通" when it comes to alleviating the pain in their hearts.
Kids have all sorts of problems. Some are big, some are small. Yet, the fact is any problem usually seems BIG in our eyes, so long as it's OUR own problem. Isn't it? Young teens going through puberty probably aren't that "philosophical" enough to see things from different perspectives (Well, this may be an over-generalisation, but still..), and it hurts me seeing them suffering in silence most of the time.
So when one girl decided to cut herself (in what manner i don't know), you can probably imagine my feeling. Yup, the word CUT felt like a razor, and left a deep scratch on my heart.
Whether as a teacher, a senior, a big brother or just a friend, I believe in sharing others' happiness and troubles. I've been through ups and downs too, and without my friends, I would probably have cut myself in May 2005 as well. Seldom mentioned this incident, but I just held a rusted penknife to my wrist as I sent an SMS to my Chinese friends and said, "how great if everything just ended". It was subconscious, and all of a sudden I've come to understand what suicide is all about.
Yet, for my kids, they were not trying to escape, just trying to find ways to come to terms with things. Some choose BGR as a way out of family problems and poor results, and end up hurting themselves more. When you have a group of people all with hearts either scratched, hurt, torn or broken, sometimes encouragement becomes a burden too.
The girl we're talking about - well, her friends criticized her for crying. Would you say the latter were not concerned? Definitely not. It's just the way they expressed themselves.
Sometimes, looking at these kids makes me ashamed. What are we adults doing to make them go through all these? Do they deserve these at all? While adults don't care much, they're finding thousand and one ways to deal with all the pressure, and move on with life...
To me, these kids are angels landed by accident into hell.
Over here in Shanghai, though all of us have Internet, nothing beats being by their side, listening to them relate their stories, and at least giving a pat on the back when I have no concrete solutions to suggest.
All I can do now is hope that they understand that their "Cher" here feels their pain, coupled with remorse for not doing enough.
"For those fighting their way out of the tunnel, it is important they know that adults have not given up on them. They do not need the support of many adults. Just one."
Of all the words that are written in Caps, the word CUT sprung out (yes, literally "sprung"). Things I used to see in drama and reality TV are happening to my kids! I wonder if they learnt from these shows, or they are also able to "无师自通" when it comes to alleviating the pain in their hearts.
Kids have all sorts of problems. Some are big, some are small. Yet, the fact is any problem usually seems BIG in our eyes, so long as it's OUR own problem. Isn't it? Young teens going through puberty probably aren't that "philosophical" enough to see things from different perspectives (Well, this may be an over-generalisation, but still..), and it hurts me seeing them suffering in silence most of the time.
So when one girl decided to cut herself (in what manner i don't know), you can probably imagine my feeling. Yup, the word CUT felt like a razor, and left a deep scratch on my heart.
Whether as a teacher, a senior, a big brother or just a friend, I believe in sharing others' happiness and troubles. I've been through ups and downs too, and without my friends, I would probably have cut myself in May 2005 as well. Seldom mentioned this incident, but I just held a rusted penknife to my wrist as I sent an SMS to my Chinese friends and said, "how great if everything just ended". It was subconscious, and all of a sudden I've come to understand what suicide is all about.
Yet, for my kids, they were not trying to escape, just trying to find ways to come to terms with things. Some choose BGR as a way out of family problems and poor results, and end up hurting themselves more. When you have a group of people all with hearts either scratched, hurt, torn or broken, sometimes encouragement becomes a burden too.
The girl we're talking about - well, her friends criticized her for crying. Would you say the latter were not concerned? Definitely not. It's just the way they expressed themselves.
Sometimes, looking at these kids makes me ashamed. What are we adults doing to make them go through all these? Do they deserve these at all? While adults don't care much, they're finding thousand and one ways to deal with all the pressure, and move on with life...
To me, these kids are angels landed by accident into hell.
Over here in Shanghai, though all of us have Internet, nothing beats being by their side, listening to them relate their stories, and at least giving a pat on the back when I have no concrete solutions to suggest.
All I can do now is hope that they understand that their "Cher" here feels their pain, coupled with remorse for not doing enough.
"For those fighting their way out of the tunnel, it is important they know that adults have not given up on them. They do not need the support of many adults. Just one."
2007年3月12日星期一
[Straits Times] Time for American forces to bid farewell to Seoul
By Doug Bandow, For The Straits Times
THE United States has kept troops in South Korea for more than a half century, during which the Republic of Korea has gone from an impoverished, authoritarian state to a prosperous democracy.
Yet America's commitment remains essentially unchanged. Why?
It is certainly not because Seoul appreciates Washington's efforts. President Roh Moo-hyun recently complained that 'clinging to the crotch of the US' pants and hiding behind the US' ass' suggests his nation is too dependent on America.
Very true. It is time for Washington to end its defence guarantee to Seoul.
The US has begun reducing troop levels, as well as moving the bulk of its soldiers out of South Korea. Also, Washington recently agreed to turn over wartime command responsibility to Seoul in 2012.
These steps are welcome, but remain inadequate half- measures. America should initiate a much more rapid drawdown of all its forces.
Alliances are created for specific geopolitical purposes.
For instance, there was reason for the US to intervene in 1950 to prevent the South from being absorbed by Kim Il-sung's North Korea.
South Korea was an economic and political mess and had been denied American heavy weapons because of its threat to attack the North. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was backed by China and the Soviet Union. With the Cold War raging, a geopolitical loss in Korea threatened to destabilise other nations.
The world looks very different today. The Cold War is over. Most East Asian states are allied to or friendly with the US. Moreover, South Korea has surpassed the North on virtually every measure of national power. Although Seoul's military is numerically smaller, it is qualitatively superior to that possessed by the North.
South Korea spends between three and four times as much as the DPRK on the military. The South's reserve capacity and potential support is even greater.
Why does the US still have troops in South Korea? The fact that it can well defend itself is reason enough to bring home US forces. But that is not all. As President Roh has indicated, many South Koreans now bridle at their dependence on Washington.
Moreover, most South Koreans no longer feel threatened by the North. The younger generation, especially, is more sceptical of America's role in North-east Asia, and more favourable towards China and North Korea.
Indeed, US officials have begun talks with Pyongyang intended to lead towards diplomatic recognition. After six years of refusing to negotiate with the North, the Bush administration's new Korean policy appears to be detente with its former enemy. War seems ever less likely, so America should reduce the chance still further by removing the only forces positioned to come into contact with Pyongyang.
For some alliance advocates, the defence of Korea long ago ceased to be an argument for defending the South from the North. Instead, they argue that US forces serve a 'dual use' function.
That is, a garrison that protects the South serves other purposes in the region.
But Japan is not going to attack either Korea. It is hard to imagine Washington sending its Korea-based army division to intervene in a small regional squabble. Rather, the only plausible alternative mission is 'containing' China.
It is a dubious goal. Whatever the course of US-China relations, American participation in a ground war against China seems inconceivable.
Nor is the South willing to become a base for US operations against China. Two years ago, President Roh said that Washington would require his government's permission to use its Korean-based forces elsewhere in the region, and that South Korea would not be drawn into a needless war. The conservative opposition seems no more likely to allow America to turn the South's nearby neighbour, a potential regional or global superpower, into a permanent enemy.
Indeed, the US has no need to 'contain' China, which is decades away from military equality with America. Moreover, if the two nations' interests clash, it will be over Washington's continued domination of East Asia, which is not worth a war.
It is up to America's allies to defend their own interests. The US need not be a constant meddler in East Asia, concerned with day-to-day geo-political controversies. Rather, it should look on from afar, prepared to back up allied states in the unlikely event that a hegemonic power threatens to dominate Eurasia.
The US-South Korea alliance has fulfilled its purpose. It no longer serves the interest of either country. It is time for Washington to schedule a geopolitical retirement party.
The writer is a former special assistant to ex-president Ronald Reagan and the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press).
THE United States has kept troops in South Korea for more than a half century, during which the Republic of Korea has gone from an impoverished, authoritarian state to a prosperous democracy.
Yet America's commitment remains essentially unchanged. Why?
It is certainly not because Seoul appreciates Washington's efforts. President Roh Moo-hyun recently complained that 'clinging to the crotch of the US' pants and hiding behind the US' ass' suggests his nation is too dependent on America.
Very true. It is time for Washington to end its defence guarantee to Seoul.
The US has begun reducing troop levels, as well as moving the bulk of its soldiers out of South Korea. Also, Washington recently agreed to turn over wartime command responsibility to Seoul in 2012.
These steps are welcome, but remain inadequate half- measures. America should initiate a much more rapid drawdown of all its forces.
Alliances are created for specific geopolitical purposes.
For instance, there was reason for the US to intervene in 1950 to prevent the South from being absorbed by Kim Il-sung's North Korea.
South Korea was an economic and political mess and had been denied American heavy weapons because of its threat to attack the North. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was backed by China and the Soviet Union. With the Cold War raging, a geopolitical loss in Korea threatened to destabilise other nations.
The world looks very different today. The Cold War is over. Most East Asian states are allied to or friendly with the US. Moreover, South Korea has surpassed the North on virtually every measure of national power. Although Seoul's military is numerically smaller, it is qualitatively superior to that possessed by the North.
South Korea spends between three and four times as much as the DPRK on the military. The South's reserve capacity and potential support is even greater.
Why does the US still have troops in South Korea? The fact that it can well defend itself is reason enough to bring home US forces. But that is not all. As President Roh has indicated, many South Koreans now bridle at their dependence on Washington.
Moreover, most South Koreans no longer feel threatened by the North. The younger generation, especially, is more sceptical of America's role in North-east Asia, and more favourable towards China and North Korea.
Indeed, US officials have begun talks with Pyongyang intended to lead towards diplomatic recognition. After six years of refusing to negotiate with the North, the Bush administration's new Korean policy appears to be detente with its former enemy. War seems ever less likely, so America should reduce the chance still further by removing the only forces positioned to come into contact with Pyongyang.
For some alliance advocates, the defence of Korea long ago ceased to be an argument for defending the South from the North. Instead, they argue that US forces serve a 'dual use' function.
That is, a garrison that protects the South serves other purposes in the region.
But Japan is not going to attack either Korea. It is hard to imagine Washington sending its Korea-based army division to intervene in a small regional squabble. Rather, the only plausible alternative mission is 'containing' China.
It is a dubious goal. Whatever the course of US-China relations, American participation in a ground war against China seems inconceivable.
Nor is the South willing to become a base for US operations against China. Two years ago, President Roh said that Washington would require his government's permission to use its Korean-based forces elsewhere in the region, and that South Korea would not be drawn into a needless war. The conservative opposition seems no more likely to allow America to turn the South's nearby neighbour, a potential regional or global superpower, into a permanent enemy.
Indeed, the US has no need to 'contain' China, which is decades away from military equality with America. Moreover, if the two nations' interests clash, it will be over Washington's continued domination of East Asia, which is not worth a war.
It is up to America's allies to defend their own interests. The US need not be a constant meddler in East Asia, concerned with day-to-day geo-political controversies. Rather, it should look on from afar, prepared to back up allied states in the unlikely event that a hegemonic power threatens to dominate Eurasia.
The US-South Korea alliance has fulfilled its purpose. It no longer serves the interest of either country. It is time for Washington to schedule a geopolitical retirement party.
The writer is a former special assistant to ex-president Ronald Reagan and the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press).
2007年3月10日星期六
朋友及笔名
本已经对“友情是什么”这个问题麻木的我，今天竟然会写关于朋友的短文，是受了两个朋友的启发。一个，是近两三年较少联系的旧同学；另一个，是近两三年几乎唯一一个知道我的灵魂的兄弟。
前者令我感动的地方，是竟然肯花时间看我这网志上的“涂鸦”，并且正经地发邮件来质问我文章的内容。愿意进入自己之外的他人的世界，已经不简单。这位友人能从已经相当久以前的文章中的一句不经意的话中，看出更严重的问题，并且真心地规劝，不能说不是难得。如此的真诚，如此的认真，并且，和我一样如此为未来的华文教育和孩子着想，我实在该为有这样的朋友而感激上苍。
至于兄弟，从来不需要说什么。我们两人，仿佛是在沉默和不联系中，用心来沟通的。而且，更为难得的，是我们从来不对彼此抱有什么预设的期待（大家或许该想想，在你的社交圈里，有多少人是不会对你抱任何期待的？）。所以，寥寥数语，要表达的意思就已明晰，并且深刻。还有，《人物志· 八观》中第七观所言“观其所短，以知其所长”者，实为难觅得之伯乐，然我们俩却似乎已到这般程度。也因此，能够惺惺相惜。
有人问我，“素怀的玄想”是什么意思。从去年初，我就常用笔名“素怀玄士”，网志标题“素怀的玄想”便取名自此。
素者，白也；怀者，心也。素怀，取自鲁迅“白心于人前”之义，虽然近来看到宋代诗评中也曾用“怀素”一词。当然，要真正把一切心里话公开，基本上是“雪中蕉正绿，火里莲亦长”，或是“一树黄梅个个青，打雷落雨满大星，三个和尚四方坐，不言不语口念经”。
至于“玄想”，纯粹是为了对“素怀”，而碰巧“玄”在“黑”义之外，还有“玄之又玄，众妙之门”一义 （《道德经》乃我人生信仰支柱也），正合我那“不着一字，尽是风流”的“玄士”理想。
因此，此地所见之文，诚如观我其人也。
前者令我感动的地方，是竟然肯花时间看我这网志上的“涂鸦”，并且正经地发邮件来质问我文章的内容。愿意进入自己之外的他人的世界，已经不简单。这位友人能从已经相当久以前的文章中的一句不经意的话中，看出更严重的问题，并且真心地规劝，不能说不是难得。如此的真诚，如此的认真，并且，和我一样如此为未来的华文教育和孩子着想，我实在该为有这样的朋友而感激上苍。
至于兄弟，从来不需要说什么。我们两人，仿佛是在沉默和不联系中，用心来沟通的。而且，更为难得的，是我们从来不对彼此抱有什么预设的期待（大家或许该想想，在你的社交圈里，有多少人是不会对你抱任何期待的？）。所以，寥寥数语，要表达的意思就已明晰，并且深刻。还有，《人物志· 八观》中第七观所言“观其所短，以知其所长”者，实为难觅得之伯乐，然我们俩却似乎已到这般程度。也因此，能够惺惺相惜。
生命，也因有了这些挫吾之傲气、抚吾之脆弱、惜吾之本怀者，变得有价值。
有人问我，“素怀的玄想”是什么意思。从去年初，我就常用笔名“素怀玄士”，网志标题“素怀的玄想”便取名自此。
素者，白也；怀者，心也。素怀，取自鲁迅“白心于人前”之义，虽然近来看到宋代诗评中也曾用“怀素”一词。当然，要真正把一切心里话公开，基本上是“雪中蕉正绿，火里莲亦长”，或是“一树黄梅个个青，打雷落雨满大星，三个和尚四方坐，不言不语口念经”。
至于“玄想”，纯粹是为了对“素怀”，而碰巧“玄”在“黑”义之外，还有“玄之又玄，众妙之门”一义 （《道德经》乃我人生信仰支柱也），正合我那“不着一字，尽是风流”的“玄士”理想。
因此，此地所见之文，诚如观我其人也。
2007年3月8日星期四
中国鬼故事初探（待续）
研究中国古代的鬼故事，本来只是出于一种好奇心。但是，读得越多，就发觉其中有着那么多的奥秘。
一个最大的收获是，虽然我们现代人会觉得，历史车轮不断向前走，现在做什么可能都是白费，浪费力气和时间写文章更是无聊，但是，当我在研究中几乎不能听到中国四千年来百姓的声音的时候，我突然明白鲁迅所谓的“无声的中国”，更确信自己应该为后代留下些声音。虽然一个人的力量薄弱，但只要大家都有事没事喊几声，哪怕日后文章再如何散佚，总还有些“百姓话语”的蛛丝马迹可寻。
然后，揭开了很多的谜团。知道吗，中国鬼话中有个母题（motif），是死去的少女到处寻找夫婿，或是天黑的时候把坟墓“变”成房子来引诱那些碰巧路过借宿的年轻少年。很多的学者经常把这归根于“对自由恋爱的追求”，但我知道不是，因为有很多的故事是死去的妻子鬼魂回到人间，惩罚改嫁的丈夫，以及新的妻子（通常是鬼魂生前的表妹或丫环）。如果是自由恋爱，何必搞得如此凶神恶煞？
近来偶然读到末成道男的一段话：“父系女子成员，也就是女儿们，原则上在婆家大厅中与丈夫一起被祭祀，正如‘姑母不祀’所说，在娘家大厅祭祀是被禁忌的。因而，如果未婚姑娘与离婚回家的女子死在娘家，其家族难以处理。葬后不祭而不发生什么事的话，就会被忘掉。可是，得不到祭祀的魂灵，作为冥界饥饿的鬼魂，是极为危险的。而且并非无名的孤魂，她们有着明确的族谱关系，所以，灾难很有可能首先降临到娘家的家族头上。”
可能是出于一种自我安慰，中国鬼话当中才会出现上述的这种母题吧。虽说这是猜测，也不明确知道魏晋时期是否已经有了这种祭祀禁忌，但是，如陈寅恪指出的，魏晋实际上因政权更替等因素，形成了“儒教”与“非儒教”的对立。而鬼神在儒家思想当中的作用是极其大的，因为它本来就源于“庙堂”，以至于到了宋代之后，不断成为理学体系建构中一个棘手的问题。
（待续……）
一个最大的收获是，虽然我们现代人会觉得，历史车轮不断向前走，现在做什么可能都是白费，浪费力气和时间写文章更是无聊，但是，当我在研究中几乎不能听到中国四千年来百姓的声音的时候，我突然明白鲁迅所谓的“无声的中国”，更确信自己应该为后代留下些声音。虽然一个人的力量薄弱，但只要大家都有事没事喊几声，哪怕日后文章再如何散佚，总还有些“百姓话语”的蛛丝马迹可寻。
然后，揭开了很多的谜团。知道吗，中国鬼话中有个母题（motif），是死去的少女到处寻找夫婿，或是天黑的时候把坟墓“变”成房子来引诱那些碰巧路过借宿的年轻少年。很多的学者经常把这归根于“对自由恋爱的追求”，但我知道不是，因为有很多的故事是死去的妻子鬼魂回到人间，惩罚改嫁的丈夫，以及新的妻子（通常是鬼魂生前的表妹或丫环）。如果是自由恋爱，何必搞得如此凶神恶煞？
近来偶然读到末成道男的一段话：“父系女子成员，也就是女儿们，原则上在婆家大厅中与丈夫一起被祭祀，正如‘姑母不祀’所说，在娘家大厅祭祀是被禁忌的。因而，如果未婚姑娘与离婚回家的女子死在娘家，其家族难以处理。葬后不祭而不发生什么事的话，就会被忘掉。可是，得不到祭祀的魂灵，作为冥界饥饿的鬼魂，是极为危险的。而且并非无名的孤魂，她们有着明确的族谱关系，所以，灾难很有可能首先降临到娘家的家族头上。”
可能是出于一种自我安慰，中国鬼话当中才会出现上述的这种母题吧。虽说这是猜测，也不明确知道魏晋时期是否已经有了这种祭祀禁忌，但是，如陈寅恪指出的，魏晋实际上因政权更替等因素，形成了“儒教”与“非儒教”的对立。而鬼神在儒家思想当中的作用是极其大的，因为它本来就源于“庙堂”，以至于到了宋代之后，不断成为理学体系建构中一个棘手的问题。
（待续……）
2007年3月7日星期三
Of being a PSC scholar
All brands carry with them expectations. Sometimes, probably through our life, expectations remain high and somehow almost become a matter of honour.
A PSC scholarship was never something I dared to dream of even till the moment I entered the Board room. It was just.. fortuitous. Yes, it's a great honour - probably the best Mother's Day gift for my beloved mum when she was alive.
But yes, there are expectations too. The first being that we are made to see issues from more than one perspective. More often than not, what this results in is a frenzy indulgence in policy-making processes and politicial quotes. That is why I chose to take on another role as a Zaobao columnist. On one hand, I'm made to see the considerations at policy level; on the other I am "forcing" myself to become a critic of social, political, cultural, educational and international issues.
Doing a balancing act isn't easy, especially when you're not back home and just getting information about home from newspapers and friends. Yet, I'm happy with this state of existence.
What does piss me off though is the assumption that I am already THE BOSS around here. It started off as a jest among teaching scholars here. Then, as others got used to the joke, it manifested into a kind of regular "compliment" I have no choice but to accept. DGE, minister...
Then, when I indicated my "ultimate life value" to be education instead of family, one scholar rebuked, "HOW CAN YOU? Don't you see that directors are usually people with spouses and preferably many many children?" I never knew being a PSC scholar meant I HAD to get married and give birth to a soccer team.
Perhaps just thoughtless (and sometimes evil) jokes? Perhaps expectations? Maybe, to both.
Yet, I got really worried when one scholar who usually knows his limits said to me quite subtly, "The future of our Chinese education rests on you."
It's not that I am deterred by the challenges ahead. Neither am I not aware that there aren't many PSC scholars who would opt to do Chinese literature in university. What troubles me is the psychology underlying the casual statements made by my future colleagues. Perhaps, it has become a stereotype that PSC scholars are just people whose aim in life is to scale that ladder, just like the mentality most people have that young principals are always looking for opportunities to add "DD" onto their resumes. Or perhaps, ministry scholars feel stifled or even "suppressed" by someone who received, at the age of 18, a scholarship which is supposed to carry greater honour, thinking they'll never get the chance to go up in the Leadership Track?
Some may say, whatever I am writing here are just unneccessary worries that will go away once all of us are in the system. Is that so? At times, I wonder, if our scholars do not even bother to speak up when they have opinions about a certain policy, or do not dare to challenge presumed boundaries, what's going to motivate them into doing so when they are in the system, with more problems like politicking, CCAs, deadlines, results and parents to deal with?
Perhaps, everybody has their roles to play, and some are just comfortable working quietly behind the scene. Fine enough. But why is it that teachers are still complaining so much - to scholars and not to their superiors? Is it that everyone has gotten so used to changes that they just try to move with the flow without using their brains, and thereafter whimper and whine when they feel stress pulling them down?
Or is it that our system still isn't giving teachers enough room to voice out their opinions and criticisms, though MOE constantly advocates consultations and holds FGDs (focus-group discussions) after FGDs? Perhaps teachers on the ground know better. What I do know is that Chinese teachers have to submit their articles for vetting by superiors before publishing it on mainstream papers. Talk about freedom of speech.. Yes, policy makers will tell you, "Look, public confidence is important." Yet, when policies fail one after another, I wonder how confident the public can be in us. Of course, for now, generations have been fooled by the "tweak-debate-committee-review" system of policy-making and easily react with the usual stupefaction when mistakes arise. Yet, another generation or two, and people aren't going to dismiss any minor flaws as easily.
As a teaching scholar, PSC or not, my primary objective is in being a good teacher, and putting children first on my agenda. While some may argue that policy-making is something close to metaphysics, or put nation (and economy) before everything else, I prefer the Athenian philosophy of Humanism in classroom teaching and policies. As usual, some may view this declaration as hypocritical. I don't care what people think, so long as I know what is the key to my definition of a successful education career.
Only one who can overcome the matter of face (and honour), and meet expectations not set by others but by himself, can truly do something for a greater cause.
A PSC scholarship was never something I dared to dream of even till the moment I entered the Board room. It was just.. fortuitous. Yes, it's a great honour - probably the best Mother's Day gift for my beloved mum when she was alive.
But yes, there are expectations too. The first being that we are made to see issues from more than one perspective. More often than not, what this results in is a frenzy indulgence in policy-making processes and politicial quotes. That is why I chose to take on another role as a Zaobao columnist. On one hand, I'm made to see the considerations at policy level; on the other I am "forcing" myself to become a critic of social, political, cultural, educational and international issues.
Doing a balancing act isn't easy, especially when you're not back home and just getting information about home from newspapers and friends. Yet, I'm happy with this state of existence.
What does piss me off though is the assumption that I am already THE BOSS around here. It started off as a jest among teaching scholars here. Then, as others got used to the joke, it manifested into a kind of regular "compliment" I have no choice but to accept. DGE, minister...
Then, when I indicated my "ultimate life value" to be education instead of family, one scholar rebuked, "HOW CAN YOU? Don't you see that directors are usually people with spouses and preferably many many children?" I never knew being a PSC scholar meant I HAD to get married and give birth to a soccer team.
Perhaps just thoughtless (and sometimes evil) jokes? Perhaps expectations? Maybe, to both.
Yet, I got really worried when one scholar who usually knows his limits said to me quite subtly, "The future of our Chinese education rests on you."
It's not that I am deterred by the challenges ahead. Neither am I not aware that there aren't many PSC scholars who would opt to do Chinese literature in university. What troubles me is the psychology underlying the casual statements made by my future colleagues. Perhaps, it has become a stereotype that PSC scholars are just people whose aim in life is to scale that ladder, just like the mentality most people have that young principals are always looking for opportunities to add "DD" onto their resumes. Or perhaps, ministry scholars feel stifled or even "suppressed" by someone who received, at the age of 18, a scholarship which is supposed to carry greater honour, thinking they'll never get the chance to go up in the Leadership Track?
Some may say, whatever I am writing here are just unneccessary worries that will go away once all of us are in the system. Is that so? At times, I wonder, if our scholars do not even bother to speak up when they have opinions about a certain policy, or do not dare to challenge presumed boundaries, what's going to motivate them into doing so when they are in the system, with more problems like politicking, CCAs, deadlines, results and parents to deal with?
Perhaps, everybody has their roles to play, and some are just comfortable working quietly behind the scene. Fine enough. But why is it that teachers are still complaining so much - to scholars and not to their superiors? Is it that everyone has gotten so used to changes that they just try to move with the flow without using their brains, and thereafter whimper and whine when they feel stress pulling them down?
Or is it that our system still isn't giving teachers enough room to voice out their opinions and criticisms, though MOE constantly advocates consultations and holds FGDs (focus-group discussions) after FGDs? Perhaps teachers on the ground know better. What I do know is that Chinese teachers have to submit their articles for vetting by superiors before publishing it on mainstream papers. Talk about freedom of speech.. Yes, policy makers will tell you, "Look, public confidence is important." Yet, when policies fail one after another, I wonder how confident the public can be in us. Of course, for now, generations have been fooled by the "tweak-debate-committee-review" system of policy-making and easily react with the usual stupefaction when mistakes arise. Yet, another generation or two, and people aren't going to dismiss any minor flaws as easily.
As a teaching scholar, PSC or not, my primary objective is in being a good teacher, and putting children first on my agenda. While some may argue that policy-making is something close to metaphysics, or put nation (and economy) before everything else, I prefer the Athenian philosophy of Humanism in classroom teaching and policies. As usual, some may view this declaration as hypocritical. I don't care what people think, so long as I know what is the key to my definition of a successful education career.
Only one who can overcome the matter of face (and honour), and meet expectations not set by others but by himself, can truly do something for a greater cause.
2007年3月5日星期一
当今的中国
想说的是，当今的中国，已经没有办法再躲躲藏藏，把问题全扫到地毯下。任何的问题，在外国人的眼里，有时显得更清晰；任何的决策，在外国人的眼里，意图往往是欲盖弥彰。
去了几趟云南，就立即可以感受到问题。
农民有这样一个毛病：你不给他什么，他还能逆来顺受。一旦你让他有一个可以争取更好的福利的机会，他有时会饥不择食，甚至狮子开大口。资助教育事业，先是要求黑板桌椅，然后是小食堂，接着是教师宿舍楼；资助基础建设，先是水管，再来是桥，最后就索性希望有人给他铺条路。
固然，追求幸福是人的天性，农民也不是那种“活该贫穷一辈子”的阶级。但是，这里为我们揭示的一大问题是：贫困永远是个相对值，几亿农民永远会认为自己是最穷的。中央再怎么拨款，姑且不论金费到了基层就已经有一半“不翼而飞”，更严重的问题是，农村规划需要监督。你铺了10公里的路，到了中间5功里的地方来一条河，却不给人建桥，车通不过，农民还是得“跋山涉水”，有个屁用？
然后，乡村干部的素质，也是很大的问题。大家明明知道，10万人民币建一座桥，是天方夜谭；大家也能看到，周围是光秃秃的山，突然冒出三条路，而且都通向同一栋房子——书记的住宅，却没有人敢说什么。我们扶贫，不让书记碰一分一角，气得他连工地都不去，但我们心里爽快！
还有，当一个党委书记抱怨，做了24年的书记，工资还是800人民币的时候，你一方面会同情，另一方面你会明白，其实做基层干部的，面子问题很重要，捞油水也才能过活。一个书记养不起2个孩子，还要我资助，正是因为家里的妻子患了重病，自己却无法跟谁诉苦，只好一边做书记，一边去耕地，然后愤愤不平地告诉孩子：“你以后除非能做省级以上的官，否则别给我加入任何政党。”可悲？有一点。但也正好说明了，拒绝加入利益集团，坚持做个廉洁的官，最终只能是怨天怨地。《红楼梦》里“护官符”那一节，是中国政治的缩影，到今天还是如此。
有时，我们还真得问：农民起义是否有朝一日会卷土重来？农民工如果在城市罢工，会是什么样一种结果？ 农民虽然追求基本生存，但是如果你逼人太甚，他们会反咬你一口。中国政府的“智慧”就在于，当狗快要发怒的时候，丢一块抹了点香精的骨头让狗肯。然后，狗就甘愿被链子拴住，虽然偶尔会叫几声，月圆时会嚎叫，却从不咬人。这就是从封建时代遗留下来的“奴隶性”。
其实，新加坡人何尝不是如此？只不过我们的政府丢的是猪肉。而且，他不用铁链拴住你。他用石头磨平你的牙齿，让你最后就算发疯咬他，也不会痛。结果，你就心甘情愿地慢慢咀嚼你的肉，一辈子就甘愿吠两声。在“tweak—debate—committee—review”这种渐进式的政策制定循环过程中，我们已经习惯性地接受变化，却从来不会觉得问题能严重到哪里去。如果我们觉得问题严重了，那一定是因为总理在群众大会上给我们的提醒。似乎，我们的危机感，也是政治话语主导的。
还有，面对我资助的那些孩子，有些时候真的是束手无策。中国那么多的大学生找不到工作，有时会让我有一股冲动，跟这些孩子说，其实成功的路不只一条。但是，怎么忍心说出这样的话？这些孩子的父母，在他们身上所寄予的希望，其实都将以一个方式实现：看着自己的孩子上大学。但是，这些孩子要是为了圆梦，而进了些三流大学，有时是否比进入一流的技术学校来得更浪费时间，更没前途？我们必须看到，大学只是起点，不是终点。而且，有时开始的选择错了，以后是很难走回头路的。上了大学，所有人对你的期待会随之增加，而且一辈子保持在那个很高的程度。你就算是像印度那些拉人力车的研究生一样，也必须在别人面前摆出一副神气的样子。这就是大国的现实，这就是下层人民群众当中的现实。
所以，除了继续给孩子鼓励之外，我已经不知道该做什么了。或许，假使他们高考失败，我上面这番话能作为宽慰他们的劝解吧。
最后，回到中国的“软实力”问题。不否认，中华文化博大精深，其中的内涵也非比寻常。但是，孔子学院就是“软实力”？绝对不是。只有能够像韩国那样，社会虽然乱，经济也没有增长的余地，流行文化却能体现一种“酷”的形象，横扫整个亚洲的时候，这才是真正的“软实力”。况且，一个国家的文化形象，还得靠该国的当今社会情况而定。中国文化给人落伍的感觉，有部分原因就是因为中国人整体的世界形象是“大老粗”。我考虑了这个问题很久，发觉不是素质问题。因为，韩国人也随地吐痰，韩国人也大声喧哗，韩国人也不排队，韩国人也习惯性地相互推挤。但是，韩国社会的治安良好，整体的儒家氛围虽然偶尔令人窒息，却因此为混乱的政治和不文明的素质，带来一种调和的作用。
中国太乱，没有章法，没有信任；新加坡太安宁，太有章法，太有秩序。“软实力”其实或许需要一种“乱中有序”的大背景。韩国、台湾、日本，不都是这样吗？这就像喝酒：不喝无法high, 喝太多醉得晕头转向，吐得一塌糊涂。神智依然清醒，却能够打破某些防线时，那种才是最high的境界，才是最令人爽到极点的境界。
接着，转载2篇报章报道：
（1）《联合早报》：中共民主改革的压力与动力
● 叶鹏飞
中共将在今年下半年举行十七大，主要焦点在是否将决定下一代领导核心的人选，而另一个看点则是政治体制改革的进度。
去年底中共中央编译局副局长俞可平的文章《民主是个好东西》引起关注，由于他普遍被外界视为胡锦涛的文胆，文章的代表性以及出现的时机显得耐人寻味。
新华网2月26日刊登总理温家宝的长篇文章，更把外界对于中共是否将进行政治改革的讨论推向另一个小高峰。
有趣的是，这篇题为《关于社会主义初级阶段的历史任务和我国对外政策的几个问题》的文章，却引发了两种截然对立的解读。
一派从文章中发现了中共准备推动政治改革的信号，认为温家宝的意思是推动政治体制改革，经济才能持续、健康的发展；政治体制改革也能缓解国际社会对中国的误解、批评，甚至消除“中国威胁论”。
各种压力迫使中共进行政改
另一派则得出相反的结论，认为“我们必须坚持党在社会主义初级阶段的基本路线100年不动摇”这句话，暗示着中共在未来100年之内没有实行民主的计划。
政治改革（民主化）对中共而言是一个老问题，有比喻称政治改革犹如骑自行车，可以慢行，但无法停止，否则就要翻车。然而“不改革亡国、改革亡党”的两难却不是一时三刻可以化解。
各种内外压力正逼迫着中共进行政治改革。2005年中国《社会蓝皮书》说，中国群体性事件从1993年的1万起，增加到2003年的6万起，参与人数也从73万增加到307万。
有媒体引述公安部长周永康在2005年7月的话说，群体性事件的数量10年间增加了六倍多，特点是数量明显增多，规模不断扩大，涉及各个领域，行为方式激烈，组织化倾向明显。
群体性事件发生的原因大多数是政府或官商勾结侵害民众利益，尤其是在农村征地、城市拆迁、企业改制、移民安置等问题上更为突出。
从消极面说，政治体制改革是监督权力来根治腐败的良药，否则群体性事件持续激烈，最终将造成社会全面的动荡并威胁中共统治。
中国政府的税收自2000年以来每年都增长超过20%（2002年除外），也超过了国民生产总值的增幅，2006年入库税款共3万7636亿元（约7429亿新元），增长21.9%，增收6770亿元。
哈佛大学经济学家萨克斯和瓦尔纳从1971年到1989年对97个发展中国家的追踪调查发现，天然资源丰富的国家，政府可以靠攫取资源生存；缺乏资源的政府唯有通过向公民征税作为财政来源。
他们因而提出一个理论，政府要征税，就必须提供公共服务作为交换，在交换过程中政府也必须逐步回应公民的其他要求，包括责任究问（accountability），善治良政（good governance），最后进入到民主自由和选举政治。
换句话说，征税和代议政治的互动，是现代化国家的政府合法性的来源。按照这个理论，中共税收增长幅度越大，就越不能不顾及社会对它的期待，尤其是纳税人对自身权利的要求。这是政治体制改革积极面的压力。
另一个不能忽略的次要因素是台湾。民进党一直用民主作为对抗与大陆统一的理由，台湾的民主开放也对大陆知识界形成一定的吸引力，虽然台湾政局近来的发展已经削弱了台湾民主经验的光环，它依然挑战着中共统治全中国的合理性。中共推进政治改革不但可以缓解民进党的挑战，也能化解台湾民众的反感。
但是这些压力并不意味着中共就会选择政治改革，这涉及到中共自身的政治改革动力。
改革过程不能伤害集体利益。
中共最近精简地方党组织，规定一个书记配两个副书记。有统计指当局必须因此安顿10万个失去位子的干部，其中谣传的一个做法是把他们从地方党委转到地方政府去继续当官。
中共维系政权所依靠的干部队伍已经是个有独立生命的庞大利益集团，如何在改革过程中不伤害集团的利益，引起他们的抵制甚至反对，是中共展开政治改革必须面对的重要挑战。
中央党校最近公布的一份调查显示，只有8%的领导干部关注政治改革，与民生密切相关的问题也没有引起他们的重视，包括“失业”（6.3%）、“看病难看病贵”（5.4%）、“农民负担”（2.7%）、“教育不公平”（1.8%）等。
最得到领导干部关心的是“保持社会稳定”（67.9%），有分析认为这意味着中共党内缺乏改革动力，政治精英更关心自己的利益，也就是维持对他们有利的现状。政治体制改革如果削弱他们的权力，自然无法获得支持。
领袖的个人因素有时能决定历史，根据马玲和李铭合著的《胡锦涛新传》，胡锦涛有政治抱负，他改革的步骤是：先赢得民心，再稳住社会，最后进行深层次改革。
从现有的形势看，胡锦涛选择不改革，绝对可以平稳做满总书记任期，把问题留给接班人。政治改革必须承担很大的风险，无论结果，都是不朽的功业。
·作者是《联合早报》北京首席特派员。本文改写自作者在特派员论坛的讲稿。
（2）《海峡时报》：Dangers of false propaganda
By Lu Yiyi, For The Straits Times
CHINA'S propaganda officials no doubt derived much satisfaction when they watched news of Chinese New Year celebrations in major cities around the world this year.
The event is gradually becoming a global festival, with many non-Chinese joining in the celebrations.
In London, where the largest celebrations outside China took place, tens of thousands of people flocked to Trafalgar Square and Chinatown to watch a parade, arts performances and fireworks. The crowds were testament to the growing popularity and influence of Chinese culture.
Yet not all was good news for China's propaganda officials. One big China-related news item in the international media just before the New Year was the fate of the Chinese Aids activist Gao Yaojie. She had been put under house arrest in Henan to prevent her from travelling to Beijing to apply for a US visa. She had been invited by an American NGO to accept a human rights award in Washington.
Dr Gao became famous for exposing a tainted blood-selling scandal in Henan which infected many peasants with HIV. She had spoken out against local officials trying to cover up the crisis. Fear of international embarrassment appears to have motivated the attempt to stop her from going to the US. After her house arrest led to an international outcry and the intervention of US senator Hillary Clinton, who is an honorary co-chairwoman of the American NGO, Dr Gao was finally allowed to travel to the US. But not before Henan officials tried to make her tell her American host that she would not be able to attend the award ceremony due to poor health.
They also visited her to praise her good work and had the visit reported in the Henan Daily with a photograph while her detention continued. Naturally this move drew further criticism as a cynical ploy to fool the world about Dr Gao's true situation.
Without a doubt, this incident was badly handled and only reinforced the impression many people have of China as a country with a terrible human rights record. The officials desperate to avoid international embarrassment ended up handing a public relations coup to their critics.
An Aids activist quoted by Reuters said: 'Thanks to the Henan government, thanks to the police, thanks to them, we've had this drama that shows how hard it is for us to speak out about Aids.'
Unfortunately such blunders occur often enough to mar Beijing's efforts to improve China's world image.
A national conference on external propaganda and communication took place just a few days before the Gao incident. At the conference, Mr Liu Yunshan, head of the publicity department of the party's Central Committee, urged propaganda officials to use the 2008 Olympic Games to actively promote a positive image of China abroad. The government is now so image-conscious that Mr Liu listed the need to refine the manners of Chinese tourists overseas as an important area of work.
Paradoxically, the harder Chinese officials try to avoid negative news, the more likely they are to create such news. Unless they learn two important lessons from Dr Gao's case, more PR disasters are inevitable.
First, they must learn not to underestimate the world's knowledge of problems inside China and the speed and extent of information flows between China and the outside world.
A few years ago, after the spread of HIV/Aids in Henan through the tainted blood scandal first became known, an EU official visiting Henan asked a provincial official about the Aids situation. His host was surprised that the visitor knew about the problem, which in turn surprised the EU official.
It seems that this underestimation of others' knowledge continues to this day. Nothing Dr Gao can possibly say in Washington about the Aids problem in China or the inadequate government response will be news to those who have followed the situation.
The news in this case turned out to be the clumsy attempts by Henan officials to cover up Dr Gao's house arrest and pressure her not to communicate with foreign journalists, which were immediately reported to the outside world and encouraged more negative news stories.
An even more fundamental lesson for China is to avoid setting unrealistic targets concerning its international image. Mr Liu urged propaganda officials to strive to 'fully display the civilised, just, democratic and progressive image of our country'.
However, with numerous unfinished political and governance reforms, unsolved social problems and unmet economic challenges, it would be extremely difficult for China to project such an international image.
When the reality is far from perfect, any attempt to project a perfect image is bound to backfire. At this time, the best China's propaganda officials can hope to achieve, and indeed the best strategy for them, is not to hide problems China has but to demonstrate the complexity of the problems and the sincere efforts that are being made to tackle them.
Showcasing people like Dr Gao to the world is therefore not a bad thing. It will actually help to boost China's image, especially if the government is seen as supporting, not hindering, their efforts.
The writer is with the China Policy Institute at the University of Nottingham.
去了几趟云南，就立即可以感受到问题。
农民有这样一个毛病：你不给他什么，他还能逆来顺受。一旦你让他有一个可以争取更好的福利的机会，他有时会饥不择食，甚至狮子开大口。资助教育事业，先是要求黑板桌椅，然后是小食堂，接着是教师宿舍楼；资助基础建设，先是水管，再来是桥，最后就索性希望有人给他铺条路。
固然，追求幸福是人的天性，农民也不是那种“活该贫穷一辈子”的阶级。但是，这里为我们揭示的一大问题是：贫困永远是个相对值，几亿农民永远会认为自己是最穷的。中央再怎么拨款，姑且不论金费到了基层就已经有一半“不翼而飞”，更严重的问题是，农村规划需要监督。你铺了10公里的路，到了中间5功里的地方来一条河，却不给人建桥，车通不过，农民还是得“跋山涉水”，有个屁用？
然后，乡村干部的素质，也是很大的问题。大家明明知道，10万人民币建一座桥，是天方夜谭；大家也能看到，周围是光秃秃的山，突然冒出三条路，而且都通向同一栋房子——书记的住宅，却没有人敢说什么。我们扶贫，不让书记碰一分一角，气得他连工地都不去，但我们心里爽快！
还有，当一个党委书记抱怨，做了24年的书记，工资还是800人民币的时候，你一方面会同情，另一方面你会明白，其实做基层干部的，面子问题很重要，捞油水也才能过活。一个书记养不起2个孩子，还要我资助，正是因为家里的妻子患了重病，自己却无法跟谁诉苦，只好一边做书记，一边去耕地，然后愤愤不平地告诉孩子：“你以后除非能做省级以上的官，否则别给我加入任何政党。”可悲？有一点。但也正好说明了，拒绝加入利益集团，坚持做个廉洁的官，最终只能是怨天怨地。《红楼梦》里“护官符”那一节，是中国政治的缩影，到今天还是如此。
有时，我们还真得问：农民起义是否有朝一日会卷土重来？农民工如果在城市罢工，会是什么样一种结果？ 农民虽然追求基本生存，但是如果你逼人太甚，他们会反咬你一口。中国政府的“智慧”就在于，当狗快要发怒的时候，丢一块抹了点香精的骨头让狗肯。然后，狗就甘愿被链子拴住，虽然偶尔会叫几声，月圆时会嚎叫，却从不咬人。这就是从封建时代遗留下来的“奴隶性”。
其实，新加坡人何尝不是如此？只不过我们的政府丢的是猪肉。而且，他不用铁链拴住你。他用石头磨平你的牙齿，让你最后就算发疯咬他，也不会痛。结果，你就心甘情愿地慢慢咀嚼你的肉，一辈子就甘愿吠两声。在“tweak—debate—committee—review”这种渐进式的政策制定循环过程中，我们已经习惯性地接受变化，却从来不会觉得问题能严重到哪里去。如果我们觉得问题严重了，那一定是因为总理在群众大会上给我们的提醒。似乎，我们的危机感，也是政治话语主导的。
还有，面对我资助的那些孩子，有些时候真的是束手无策。中国那么多的大学生找不到工作，有时会让我有一股冲动，跟这些孩子说，其实成功的路不只一条。但是，怎么忍心说出这样的话？这些孩子的父母，在他们身上所寄予的希望，其实都将以一个方式实现：看着自己的孩子上大学。但是，这些孩子要是为了圆梦，而进了些三流大学，有时是否比进入一流的技术学校来得更浪费时间，更没前途？我们必须看到，大学只是起点，不是终点。而且，有时开始的选择错了，以后是很难走回头路的。上了大学，所有人对你的期待会随之增加，而且一辈子保持在那个很高的程度。你就算是像印度那些拉人力车的研究生一样，也必须在别人面前摆出一副神气的样子。这就是大国的现实，这就是下层人民群众当中的现实。
所以，除了继续给孩子鼓励之外，我已经不知道该做什么了。或许，假使他们高考失败，我上面这番话能作为宽慰他们的劝解吧。
最后，回到中国的“软实力”问题。不否认，中华文化博大精深，其中的内涵也非比寻常。但是，孔子学院就是“软实力”？绝对不是。只有能够像韩国那样，社会虽然乱，经济也没有增长的余地，流行文化却能体现一种“酷”的形象，横扫整个亚洲的时候，这才是真正的“软实力”。况且，一个国家的文化形象，还得靠该国的当今社会情况而定。中国文化给人落伍的感觉，有部分原因就是因为中国人整体的世界形象是“大老粗”。我考虑了这个问题很久，发觉不是素质问题。因为，韩国人也随地吐痰，韩国人也大声喧哗，韩国人也不排队，韩国人也习惯性地相互推挤。但是，韩国社会的治安良好，整体的儒家氛围虽然偶尔令人窒息，却因此为混乱的政治和不文明的素质，带来一种调和的作用。
中国太乱，没有章法，没有信任；新加坡太安宁，太有章法，太有秩序。“软实力”其实或许需要一种“乱中有序”的大背景。韩国、台湾、日本，不都是这样吗？这就像喝酒：不喝无法high, 喝太多醉得晕头转向，吐得一塌糊涂。神智依然清醒，却能够打破某些防线时，那种才是最high的境界，才是最令人爽到极点的境界。
接着，转载2篇报章报道：
（1）《联合早报》：中共民主改革的压力与动力
● 叶鹏飞
中共将在今年下半年举行十七大，主要焦点在是否将决定下一代领导核心的人选，而另一个看点则是政治体制改革的进度。
去年底中共中央编译局副局长俞可平的文章《民主是个好东西》引起关注，由于他普遍被外界视为胡锦涛的文胆，文章的代表性以及出现的时机显得耐人寻味。
新华网2月26日刊登总理温家宝的长篇文章，更把外界对于中共是否将进行政治改革的讨论推向另一个小高峰。
有趣的是，这篇题为《关于社会主义初级阶段的历史任务和我国对外政策的几个问题》的文章，却引发了两种截然对立的解读。
一派从文章中发现了中共准备推动政治改革的信号，认为温家宝的意思是推动政治体制改革，经济才能持续、健康的发展；政治体制改革也能缓解国际社会对中国的误解、批评，甚至消除“中国威胁论”。
各种压力迫使中共进行政改
另一派则得出相反的结论，认为“我们必须坚持党在社会主义初级阶段的基本路线100年不动摇”这句话，暗示着中共在未来100年之内没有实行民主的计划。
政治改革（民主化）对中共而言是一个老问题，有比喻称政治改革犹如骑自行车，可以慢行，但无法停止，否则就要翻车。然而“不改革亡国、改革亡党”的两难却不是一时三刻可以化解。
各种内外压力正逼迫着中共进行政治改革。2005年中国《社会蓝皮书》说，中国群体性事件从1993年的1万起，增加到2003年的6万起，参与人数也从73万增加到307万。
有媒体引述公安部长周永康在2005年7月的话说，群体性事件的数量10年间增加了六倍多，特点是数量明显增多，规模不断扩大，涉及各个领域，行为方式激烈，组织化倾向明显。
群体性事件发生的原因大多数是政府或官商勾结侵害民众利益，尤其是在农村征地、城市拆迁、企业改制、移民安置等问题上更为突出。
从消极面说，政治体制改革是监督权力来根治腐败的良药，否则群体性事件持续激烈，最终将造成社会全面的动荡并威胁中共统治。
中国政府的税收自2000年以来每年都增长超过20%（2002年除外），也超过了国民生产总值的增幅，2006年入库税款共3万7636亿元（约7429亿新元），增长21.9%，增收6770亿元。
哈佛大学经济学家萨克斯和瓦尔纳从1971年到1989年对97个发展中国家的追踪调查发现，天然资源丰富的国家，政府可以靠攫取资源生存；缺乏资源的政府唯有通过向公民征税作为财政来源。
他们因而提出一个理论，政府要征税，就必须提供公共服务作为交换，在交换过程中政府也必须逐步回应公民的其他要求，包括责任究问（accountability），善治良政（good governance），最后进入到民主自由和选举政治。
换句话说，征税和代议政治的互动，是现代化国家的政府合法性的来源。按照这个理论，中共税收增长幅度越大，就越不能不顾及社会对它的期待，尤其是纳税人对自身权利的要求。这是政治体制改革积极面的压力。
另一个不能忽略的次要因素是台湾。民进党一直用民主作为对抗与大陆统一的理由，台湾的民主开放也对大陆知识界形成一定的吸引力，虽然台湾政局近来的发展已经削弱了台湾民主经验的光环，它依然挑战着中共统治全中国的合理性。中共推进政治改革不但可以缓解民进党的挑战，也能化解台湾民众的反感。
但是这些压力并不意味着中共就会选择政治改革，这涉及到中共自身的政治改革动力。
改革过程不能伤害集体利益。
中共最近精简地方党组织，规定一个书记配两个副书记。有统计指当局必须因此安顿10万个失去位子的干部，其中谣传的一个做法是把他们从地方党委转到地方政府去继续当官。
中共维系政权所依靠的干部队伍已经是个有独立生命的庞大利益集团，如何在改革过程中不伤害集团的利益，引起他们的抵制甚至反对，是中共展开政治改革必须面对的重要挑战。
中央党校最近公布的一份调查显示，只有8%的领导干部关注政治改革，与民生密切相关的问题也没有引起他们的重视，包括“失业”（6.3%）、“看病难看病贵”（5.4%）、“农民负担”（2.7%）、“教育不公平”（1.8%）等。
最得到领导干部关心的是“保持社会稳定”（67.9%），有分析认为这意味着中共党内缺乏改革动力，政治精英更关心自己的利益，也就是维持对他们有利的现状。政治体制改革如果削弱他们的权力，自然无法获得支持。
领袖的个人因素有时能决定历史，根据马玲和李铭合著的《胡锦涛新传》，胡锦涛有政治抱负，他改革的步骤是：先赢得民心，再稳住社会，最后进行深层次改革。
从现有的形势看，胡锦涛选择不改革，绝对可以平稳做满总书记任期，把问题留给接班人。政治改革必须承担很大的风险，无论结果，都是不朽的功业。
·作者是《联合早报》北京首席特派员。本文改写自作者在特派员论坛的讲稿。
（2）《海峡时报》：Dangers of false propaganda
By Lu Yiyi, For The Straits Times
CHINA'S propaganda officials no doubt derived much satisfaction when they watched news of Chinese New Year celebrations in major cities around the world this year.
The event is gradually becoming a global festival, with many non-Chinese joining in the celebrations.
In London, where the largest celebrations outside China took place, tens of thousands of people flocked to Trafalgar Square and Chinatown to watch a parade, arts performances and fireworks. The crowds were testament to the growing popularity and influence of Chinese culture.
Yet not all was good news for China's propaganda officials. One big China-related news item in the international media just before the New Year was the fate of the Chinese Aids activist Gao Yaojie. She had been put under house arrest in Henan to prevent her from travelling to Beijing to apply for a US visa. She had been invited by an American NGO to accept a human rights award in Washington.
Dr Gao became famous for exposing a tainted blood-selling scandal in Henan which infected many peasants with HIV. She had spoken out against local officials trying to cover up the crisis. Fear of international embarrassment appears to have motivated the attempt to stop her from going to the US. After her house arrest led to an international outcry and the intervention of US senator Hillary Clinton, who is an honorary co-chairwoman of the American NGO, Dr Gao was finally allowed to travel to the US. But not before Henan officials tried to make her tell her American host that she would not be able to attend the award ceremony due to poor health.
They also visited her to praise her good work and had the visit reported in the Henan Daily with a photograph while her detention continued. Naturally this move drew further criticism as a cynical ploy to fool the world about Dr Gao's true situation.
Without a doubt, this incident was badly handled and only reinforced the impression many people have of China as a country with a terrible human rights record. The officials desperate to avoid international embarrassment ended up handing a public relations coup to their critics.
An Aids activist quoted by Reuters said: 'Thanks to the Henan government, thanks to the police, thanks to them, we've had this drama that shows how hard it is for us to speak out about Aids.'
Unfortunately such blunders occur often enough to mar Beijing's efforts to improve China's world image.
A national conference on external propaganda and communication took place just a few days before the Gao incident. At the conference, Mr Liu Yunshan, head of the publicity department of the party's Central Committee, urged propaganda officials to use the 2008 Olympic Games to actively promote a positive image of China abroad. The government is now so image-conscious that Mr Liu listed the need to refine the manners of Chinese tourists overseas as an important area of work.
Paradoxically, the harder Chinese officials try to avoid negative news, the more likely they are to create such news. Unless they learn two important lessons from Dr Gao's case, more PR disasters are inevitable.
First, they must learn not to underestimate the world's knowledge of problems inside China and the speed and extent of information flows between China and the outside world.
A few years ago, after the spread of HIV/Aids in Henan through the tainted blood scandal first became known, an EU official visiting Henan asked a provincial official about the Aids situation. His host was surprised that the visitor knew about the problem, which in turn surprised the EU official.
It seems that this underestimation of others' knowledge continues to this day. Nothing Dr Gao can possibly say in Washington about the Aids problem in China or the inadequate government response will be news to those who have followed the situation.
The news in this case turned out to be the clumsy attempts by Henan officials to cover up Dr Gao's house arrest and pressure her not to communicate with foreign journalists, which were immediately reported to the outside world and encouraged more negative news stories.
An even more fundamental lesson for China is to avoid setting unrealistic targets concerning its international image. Mr Liu urged propaganda officials to strive to 'fully display the civilised, just, democratic and progressive image of our country'.
However, with numerous unfinished political and governance reforms, unsolved social problems and unmet economic challenges, it would be extremely difficult for China to project such an international image.
When the reality is far from perfect, any attempt to project a perfect image is bound to backfire. At this time, the best China's propaganda officials can hope to achieve, and indeed the best strategy for them, is not to hide problems China has but to demonstrate the complexity of the problems and the sincere efforts that are being made to tackle them.
Showcasing people like Dr Gao to the world is therefore not a bad thing. It will actually help to boost China's image, especially if the government is seen as supporting, not hindering, their efforts.
The writer is with the China Policy Institute at the University of Nottingham.
2007年3月4日星期日
[The Sunday Times] Bringing literature to life for students
By Janadas Devan
I OFTEN receive e-mail from English teachers. An unusual number write about the difficulties they are having interesting their students in literature. Judging from the e-mail, our children are exceedingly lucky that they have teachers who are not only aware they aren't getting it, but also care that they don't.
Which novels and poems should they teach to interest their students, the teachers ask. Which would work best - 'local literature' or the English canon? How to sustain an interest in language, in literature, so students might be encouraged to read more than their assigned texts?
I received one such letter a month ago from a teacher in a top girls' school. She was teaching John Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men, she told me, and her students were having 'trouble understanding and grasping' its portrayal of migrant workers in 1930s America. She tried to liken the plight of these migrants to 'the foreign menial workers present in Singapore', but found that her pupils, mostly from affluent homes, remained unmoved. Of Mice And Men is different from the 'normal chic literature that they love to read', she said. Steinbeck might as well have written of creatures on a different planet. To all intents and purposes, he did.
'What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,/ That he should weep for her?'
Shakespeare's Hamlet asks that question upon hearing an actor recite the tale of Troy's fall. The actor had told of Hecuba seeing 'Pyrrhus' bleeding sword... make malicious sport' of her husband Priam's limbs, and wept as he recalled the scene. What's Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba, that he should weep for her? Because in that brief instant his own art had made Hecuba him, and he Hecuba, and it was only natural he should have wept for himself.
But art or no art, such identifications are never assured, as Shakespeare himself well knew. Take, for instance, the passage in Sir Thomas More, commonly ascribed to Shakespeare, where More, as Sheriff, tries to pacify a crowd of rioting Londoners demanding the removal of alien immigrants from their city. (Yes, there were 'foreign menial workers' in 16th-century England too.)
'Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,' More tells the rioters, 'Their babes at their backs, with their poor luggage/ Plodding to th' ports and coasts for transportation.' You think you can sit in judgment of them like kings, he demands. And what if you got your way? 'I'll tell you: you had taught/ How insolence and strong hand should prevail.' And 'other ruffians.../ With self-same hand, self reasons, and self right,/ Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes/ Would feed on one another.'
It is a remarkable piece of rhetoric. The key word in the passage is of course the first - 'imagine'. That is followed by the graphically imagined scene ('babes at their back', 'poor luggage', 'plodding') and the moral consequences of hatred ('men like ravenous fishes' feeding 'on one another'). All great literature grips us thus, replacing our familiar abstractions and simplifications with the concrete and the particular.
Shakespeare's More, after considerable effort, does succeed in convincing the rioting Londoners. But would making things similarly concrete, particular, suffice to make the unfamiliar interesting to middle-class Singaporean children? The teacher who wrote to me about Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men tried to be a More to her students. She failed. Why?
I don't think it is because Singaporean children are less pervious to reason, or more resistant to imagination, than More's 'ruffians'. I think the problem here is that our children have been captivated to such an extent by the imaginative world that has been specially created for them, that they find it difficult to interest themselves in little else, including the world as it is.
Television, movies, GameBoys, PlayStations, computers, the Internet, iPods, Harry Potter, etc - it is an incredibly engrossing world. And this world is not merely linguistic, but visual and aural as well - and in the case of PlayStations, virtual, tactile and three-dimensional too. What is Of Mice And Men next to this all-encompassing, multi-dimensional world? Even Shakespeare, if he were our contemporary, would have difficulty penetrating it.
One way one might penetrate it is to begin with novels more likely to appeal to teenagers than realistic fiction like Of Mice And Men. Why not Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, George Orwell's Animal Farm or William Golding's Lord Of The Flies instead? Why not the science fiction of H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clarke, Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany? Why not the fantasies of JRR Tolkien, the magical realism of Gabriel Garcia Marquez?
The above is by no means an exhaustive list - there are many more fabulous fish in the sea of world literature. But my own experience with my 13-year-old son suggests that such novels are more likely to appeal to the young than straightforward realistic ones requiring some knowledge of societies unfamiliar to our children. My son adored Brave New World, for instance, for he found it a revealing portrait of his own world. He saw how Huxley's 'feelies' resembled, to an amazing extent, PlayStations. That helped his parents win the argument as to whether he should have a PlayStation of his own. Having read Huxley, he decided perhaps not.
The other thing we should be conscious about our children is that we need to work at introducing them to the world. Somehow, this introduction does not take place naturally or inevitably nowadays, especially among well-off middle-class children. I don't think simply having them read newspapers or Steinbeck on Californian agricultural workers in the 1930s would do the trick. One has to work at making them aware, work on having them acquire cultural and social literacy.
So why not, instead of just urging students to imagine the lives of foreign menial workers, have them find out about these lives on their own? Make a project, say, of collecting the oral histories of the foreign maids who work in their homes, the construction workers who build their homes, the sweepers who clean their streets, the security guards who protect their condos? Make a project of connecting these lives to Mice and Men (if that has to be the text) by way of a documentary, say?
Our children are comfortable with multimedia formats. Well, why not allow them to use this comfort to make the literature interesting to themselves? Every generation has done something similar; the literature of the past would not have remained news if each generation had not made it new in its own terms. So why not let our children do their own translation, acquire their own ownership of literature?
What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, that he should weep for her? If the Prince of Denmark were a 15-year-old today, I doubt a simple actor reading his lines, however effectively, would have moved the prince to ask such a question. We just have to let our children ask and answer such questions in their own way.
janadas@sph.com.sg
I OFTEN receive e-mail from English teachers. An unusual number write about the difficulties they are having interesting their students in literature. Judging from the e-mail, our children are exceedingly lucky that they have teachers who are not only aware they aren't getting it, but also care that they don't.
Which novels and poems should they teach to interest their students, the teachers ask. Which would work best - 'local literature' or the English canon? How to sustain an interest in language, in literature, so students might be encouraged to read more than their assigned texts?
I received one such letter a month ago from a teacher in a top girls' school. She was teaching John Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men, she told me, and her students were having 'trouble understanding and grasping' its portrayal of migrant workers in 1930s America. She tried to liken the plight of these migrants to 'the foreign menial workers present in Singapore', but found that her pupils, mostly from affluent homes, remained unmoved. Of Mice And Men is different from the 'normal chic literature that they love to read', she said. Steinbeck might as well have written of creatures on a different planet. To all intents and purposes, he did.
'What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,/ That he should weep for her?'
Shakespeare's Hamlet asks that question upon hearing an actor recite the tale of Troy's fall. The actor had told of Hecuba seeing 'Pyrrhus' bleeding sword... make malicious sport' of her husband Priam's limbs, and wept as he recalled the scene. What's Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba, that he should weep for her? Because in that brief instant his own art had made Hecuba him, and he Hecuba, and it was only natural he should have wept for himself.
But art or no art, such identifications are never assured, as Shakespeare himself well knew. Take, for instance, the passage in Sir Thomas More, commonly ascribed to Shakespeare, where More, as Sheriff, tries to pacify a crowd of rioting Londoners demanding the removal of alien immigrants from their city. (Yes, there were 'foreign menial workers' in 16th-century England too.)
'Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,' More tells the rioters, 'Their babes at their backs, with their poor luggage/ Plodding to th' ports and coasts for transportation.' You think you can sit in judgment of them like kings, he demands. And what if you got your way? 'I'll tell you: you had taught/ How insolence and strong hand should prevail.' And 'other ruffians.../ With self-same hand, self reasons, and self right,/ Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes/ Would feed on one another.'
It is a remarkable piece of rhetoric. The key word in the passage is of course the first - 'imagine'. That is followed by the graphically imagined scene ('babes at their back', 'poor luggage', 'plodding') and the moral consequences of hatred ('men like ravenous fishes' feeding 'on one another'). All great literature grips us thus, replacing our familiar abstractions and simplifications with the concrete and the particular.
Shakespeare's More, after considerable effort, does succeed in convincing the rioting Londoners. But would making things similarly concrete, particular, suffice to make the unfamiliar interesting to middle-class Singaporean children? The teacher who wrote to me about Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men tried to be a More to her students. She failed. Why?
I don't think it is because Singaporean children are less pervious to reason, or more resistant to imagination, than More's 'ruffians'. I think the problem here is that our children have been captivated to such an extent by the imaginative world that has been specially created for them, that they find it difficult to interest themselves in little else, including the world as it is.
Television, movies, GameBoys, PlayStations, computers, the Internet, iPods, Harry Potter, etc - it is an incredibly engrossing world. And this world is not merely linguistic, but visual and aural as well - and in the case of PlayStations, virtual, tactile and three-dimensional too. What is Of Mice And Men next to this all-encompassing, multi-dimensional world? Even Shakespeare, if he were our contemporary, would have difficulty penetrating it.
One way one might penetrate it is to begin with novels more likely to appeal to teenagers than realistic fiction like Of Mice And Men. Why not Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, George Orwell's Animal Farm or William Golding's Lord Of The Flies instead? Why not the science fiction of H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clarke, Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany? Why not the fantasies of JRR Tolkien, the magical realism of Gabriel Garcia Marquez?
The above is by no means an exhaustive list - there are many more fabulous fish in the sea of world literature. But my own experience with my 13-year-old son suggests that such novels are more likely to appeal to the young than straightforward realistic ones requiring some knowledge of societies unfamiliar to our children. My son adored Brave New World, for instance, for he found it a revealing portrait of his own world. He saw how Huxley's 'feelies' resembled, to an amazing extent, PlayStations. That helped his parents win the argument as to whether he should have a PlayStation of his own. Having read Huxley, he decided perhaps not.
The other thing we should be conscious about our children is that we need to work at introducing them to the world. Somehow, this introduction does not take place naturally or inevitably nowadays, especially among well-off middle-class children. I don't think simply having them read newspapers or Steinbeck on Californian agricultural workers in the 1930s would do the trick. One has to work at making them aware, work on having them acquire cultural and social literacy.
So why not, instead of just urging students to imagine the lives of foreign menial workers, have them find out about these lives on their own? Make a project, say, of collecting the oral histories of the foreign maids who work in their homes, the construction workers who build their homes, the sweepers who clean their streets, the security guards who protect their condos? Make a project of connecting these lives to Mice and Men (if that has to be the text) by way of a documentary, say?
Our children are comfortable with multimedia formats. Well, why not allow them to use this comfort to make the literature interesting to themselves? Every generation has done something similar; the literature of the past would not have remained news if each generation had not made it new in its own terms. So why not let our children do their own translation, acquire their own ownership of literature?
What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, that he should weep for her? If the Prince of Denmark were a 15-year-old today, I doubt a simple actor reading his lines, however effectively, would have moved the prince to ask such a question. We just have to let our children ask and answer such questions in their own way.
janadas@sph.com.sg
2007年3月3日星期六
妈妈，你此刻在哪里？
看完《元卓的天使》，掉泪了。感动，对一个失去了最爱的人来说，是撕心裂肺的沉痛。
忙忙碌碌，以为麻痹了自己。但是，越是走，就越觉得失去重心。忘了原初的心情，奋斗成了一种肤浅加清醒。然而，那心上的疤痕，永远的那么深。
重新听一年多不敢播放的《Baby Fly Away》，Corrin May的声音不断提醒我，自己已经是一个没有了母亲的孩子。
原来，刚刚失去，并不怎么痛。真正的悲，来自思念。
每天晚上抱着Alfred睡觉。有人说，我很幼稚，那么大了还抱小熊睡觉。可是，当自己在一条路上孤单地走着时，总需要扶持。从小到大，每晚因为能够听到妈妈轻轻的呼吸声而欣慰，因为知道她还在坚持活着而庆幸。如今，除非身心疲惫不堪，否则，心底深处总感觉有个空置的地方，需要找什么填补。
从来没有懂得什么是爱，直到真正的恋爱让我学会了这人生最宝贵的东西。只是，最爱自己的人，却已经不在了。到现在才明白，原来妈妈才是自己最大的知己。只有她会认真地一字一句阅读我所扔在垃圾桶里的一页日记，只有她能看穿我坚强外表下的脆弱，只有她会一辈子觉得对不起我……
在不知不觉中，怀念妈妈轻轻拨弄我的头发的感觉，怀念那种双手紧紧牵在一起的感觉。
也在不知不觉中，我竟然成了林黛玉，一辈子就为了偿还眼泪而活。
或许，会有那么一天，我和她总会再碰面。但是，此刻，我无法克制自己的思念。眼眶留下的一滴滴泪，俨如窗外那毛毛细雨，把心、把路慢慢地清洗干净。
妈妈，你此刻在哪里？Alfred是你的化身吗？身边的人，有谁是你静静附体的肉身吗？还是，灵魂就站在我的身后看着我打这篇日记？
如果你看得到这些文字，我最希望你看到的是：雄长大了，但是，我不能没有你。此刻，你或许已经知道我的所有秘密，也看到我在夜深人静时所流的那些咸咸的泪。那么多的心事想告诉你，那么多的悲喜想和你分享……
在江上徘徊的我，需要你的指引，走向大海……
" God to whom little boys say their prayers has a face very like their mother's.”
"Yes, Mother. I can see you are flawed. You have not hidden it. That is your greatest gift to me.”
忙忙碌碌，以为麻痹了自己。但是，越是走，就越觉得失去重心。忘了原初的心情，奋斗成了一种肤浅加清醒。然而，那心上的疤痕，永远的那么深。
重新听一年多不敢播放的《Baby Fly Away》，Corrin May的声音不断提醒我，自己已经是一个没有了母亲的孩子。
原来，刚刚失去，并不怎么痛。真正的悲，来自思念。
每天晚上抱着Alfred睡觉。有人说，我很幼稚，那么大了还抱小熊睡觉。可是，当自己在一条路上孤单地走着时，总需要扶持。从小到大，每晚因为能够听到妈妈轻轻的呼吸声而欣慰，因为知道她还在坚持活着而庆幸。如今，除非身心疲惫不堪，否则，心底深处总感觉有个空置的地方，需要找什么填补。
从来没有懂得什么是爱，直到真正的恋爱让我学会了这人生最宝贵的东西。只是，最爱自己的人，却已经不在了。到现在才明白，原来妈妈才是自己最大的知己。只有她会认真地一字一句阅读我所扔在垃圾桶里的一页日记，只有她能看穿我坚强外表下的脆弱，只有她会一辈子觉得对不起我……
在不知不觉中，怀念妈妈轻轻拨弄我的头发的感觉，怀念那种双手紧紧牵在一起的感觉。
也在不知不觉中，我竟然成了林黛玉，一辈子就为了偿还眼泪而活。
或许，会有那么一天，我和她总会再碰面。但是，此刻，我无法克制自己的思念。眼眶留下的一滴滴泪，俨如窗外那毛毛细雨，把心、把路慢慢地清洗干净。
妈妈，你此刻在哪里？Alfred是你的化身吗？身边的人，有谁是你静静附体的肉身吗？还是，灵魂就站在我的身后看着我打这篇日记？
如果你看得到这些文字，我最希望你看到的是：雄长大了，但是，我不能没有你。此刻，你或许已经知道我的所有秘密，也看到我在夜深人静时所流的那些咸咸的泪。那么多的心事想告诉你，那么多的悲喜想和你分享……
在江上徘徊的我，需要你的指引，走向大海……
" God to whom little boys say their prayers has a face very like their mother's.”
"Yes, Mother. I can see you are flawed. You have not hidden it. That is your greatest gift to me.”
2007年3月2日星期五
自己的梦 (backgrd music)
谁没有梦
谁不曾感动
天空是雨是风
还是绚烂彩虹
你们教我学会从容
时间的钟
分分钟在跳动
快乐还有伤痛
我知道你都懂
你们的笑容
融化所有泪水的沉重
拥抱每一个梦
总有颗星会为我闪动
困难再大我总会去碰
相信下一秒会变不同
编织每一个梦
总有些风会为我吹送
前路崎岖我不会放松
你们给的珍重一直在心中
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
