Time: May 15, 2010
Location: Tent on the Huangpu River, Bund, China
Designer: John Galliano
Yulia Kharlapnova
Fei Fei Sun
Alla Kostromichova
Vlada Roslyakova
Kasia Struss
Heloise Guerin
Lais Ribeiro
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Christian Dior Resort 2011 Show
Christian Dior Resort 2011 Show
Time: May 15, 2010
Location: Tent on the Huangpu River, Bund, China
Designer: John Galliano
Yulia Kharlapnova
Fei Fei Sun
Alla Kostromichova
Vlada Roslyakova
Kasia Struss
Heloise Guerin
Lais Ribeiro
Time: May 15, 2010
Location: Tent on the Huangpu River, Bund, China
Designer: John Galliano
Yulia Kharlapnova
Fei Fei Sun
Alla Kostromichova
Vlada Roslyakova
Kasia Struss
Heloise Guerin
Lais Ribeiro
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Death Vs. More Deaths
Today is World Day Against the Death Penalty. and surprise! all talks on China again~ By the way, China has just ruled out taking organs from dead prisoners.
According to Amnesty International, only 25 countries carried out executions in 2006, 91percent of them in just six countries: China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the USA (or rather 38 states of USA). The argument against the death penalty couldn't be stronger: The Universal Human Right-
Nearly 250 years ago, Marquis Beccaria in his Of Crimes and Punishments wrote:
An additional argument against death penalty would be: the current judicial system is capable of making mistakes, and in the case of death penalty, such mistakes are indeed deadly.
Being a debater, I've seen motions on death penalty countless times, and I've argued for and against death penalty in a number occasions. But there really isn't a best way out. Does death penalty 100% effective from preventing the inmate committing crimes? You bet it does, they are dead. Does death penalty enough a deterrence? Honestly I don't know; China has death penalty, yet murder still happens, but I don't know what else we can do to deter if death penalty couldn't do the trick. (I'm not naive enough to say showing leniency or mercy could somehow miraculously transform these people.)
So the trade-off is, are you willing to take the risk of having criminals that have committed, say, murder alive to trade with, umm, the ideal of human right? And there is also the practice debate. The situation in China is that they simply don't have enough prisons and personnels to keep all these criminals in. What shall we do then, reduce all the punishment to make room in prisons for those committed serious felonies? Well maybe we should. I just can't see how this could be possible in our generation.
Get more information about death penalty in USA
Sign the petition here
PS: Of course, it's also the day Taiwan celebrates its "national" day, on which date in 1911 the revolutionists overthrew China’s last imperial dynasty. Taiwan celebrates it with a huge military parade, China responses with a state-of-the-art Art Defense. On this China-Taiwan issue, there's little I could say except I like the status quo, but I have no doubt whatsoever that if Taiwan makes an aggressive move, China would launch a war.
According to Amnesty International, only 25 countries carried out executions in 2006, 91percent of them in just six countries: China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the USA (or rather 38 states of USA). The argument against the death penalty couldn't be stronger: The Universal Human Right-
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. - Article 3It is questioned whether anyone, or so-called system, has the right to take another person's life. And another question is whether it is really necessary to execute someone to achieve the deterrence needed for similar crimes, and whether it is too much of a retribution. Because that's what any penalty is all about: deterrence and retribution.
Nearly 250 years ago, Marquis Beccaria in his Of Crimes and Punishments wrote:
The death of a citizen cannot be necessary but in one case: when, though deprived of his liberty, he has such power and connections as may endanger the security of the nation; when his existence may produce a dangerous revolution in the established form of government. But, even in this case, it can only be necessary when a nation is on the verge of recovering or losing its liberty, or in times of absolute anarchy, when the disorders themselves hold the place of laws: but in a reign of tranquillity, in a form of government approved by the united wishes of the nation, in a state well fortified from enemies without and supported by strength within, and opinion, perhaps more efficacious, where all power is lodged in the hands of a true sovereign, where riches can purchase pleasures and not authority,
there can be no necessity for taking away the life of a subject.
An additional argument against death penalty would be: the current judicial system is capable of making mistakes, and in the case of death penalty, such mistakes are indeed deadly.
Being a debater, I've seen motions on death penalty countless times, and I've argued for and against death penalty in a number occasions. But there really isn't a best way out. Does death penalty 100% effective from preventing the inmate committing crimes? You bet it does, they are dead. Does death penalty enough a deterrence? Honestly I don't know; China has death penalty, yet murder still happens, but I don't know what else we can do to deter if death penalty couldn't do the trick. (I'm not naive enough to say showing leniency or mercy could somehow miraculously transform these people.)
So the trade-off is, are you willing to take the risk of having criminals that have committed, say, murder alive to trade with, umm, the ideal of human right? And there is also the practice debate. The situation in China is that they simply don't have enough prisons and personnels to keep all these criminals in. What shall we do then, reduce all the punishment to make room in prisons for those committed serious felonies? Well maybe we should. I just can't see how this could be possible in our generation.
Get more information about death penalty in USA
Sign the petition here
PS: Of course, it's also the day Taiwan celebrates its "national" day, on which date in 1911 the revolutionists overthrew China’s last imperial dynasty. Taiwan celebrates it with a huge military parade, China responses with a state-of-the-art Art Defense. On this China-Taiwan issue, there's little I could say except I like the status quo, but I have no doubt whatsoever that if Taiwan makes an aggressive move, China would launch a war.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Pollution causes increase in children born with deformity in China
Main cause of deformity: pollution
0.8 to 1.2 million children born with deformity in China every year, that is every 30 seconds, a child would be born with heart disease, nerve canal deformity, chilognathopalatoschisis or Mongolism. This is effecting 1/10 of Chinese families, leading to a 1.33 billion financial strain.
750,000 Chinese die from air and water pollution every year.
from BBC China
中国每年出生缺陷儿数量高达80万-120万人，每30秒钟就会诞生一个缺陷儿，污染是主要原因。
据官方新华社报道， 中国是出生缺陷高发国，每年有80万至120万出生缺陷儿诞生，占全部出生人口的4%到6%。
这个数字中包括约22万例先天性心脏病，10万例神经管畸形，5万例唇腭裂及3万例先天愚型。
为遏制出生缺陷发生率的上升，中国将9月12日定为全国"预防出生缺陷日"。
今年9月12日是中国第二个"预防出生缺陷日"。卫生和妇幼保健当局开展了宣传活动。
出生缺陷是指婴儿出生时就存在各种身体结构、智力或代谢方面的异常。全世界每年大约有500万缺陷婴儿出生，85%是在发展中国家。
中国日报引述国家妇幼保健中心的专家说，造成出生缺陷发生率上升的主要原因是污染、不健康生活方式以及晚育。
报道说有三分之一缺陷婴儿出生后不久死亡。
中国卫生部估计，出生缺陷儿影响着全国十分之一家庭，每年造成10亿人民币（1.33亿美元）的财政负担。
英国《金融时报》今年7月报道称，中国政府要求世界银行删除一份关于中国环境污染研究报告中的敏感内容。
被认为是"敏感"的内容包括：中国每年有75万人因为空气和水污染而早亡；其中最为主要致命因素是城市污浊的空气，每年有3540万人因此早亡，而且大城市的问题尤为严重。
0.8 to 1.2 million children born with deformity in China every year, that is every 30 seconds, a child would be born with heart disease, nerve canal deformity, chilognathopalatoschisis or Mongolism. This is effecting 1/10 of Chinese families, leading to a 1.33 billion financial strain.
750,000 Chinese die from air and water pollution every year.
from BBC China
中国每年出生缺陷儿数量高达80万-120万人，每30秒钟就会诞生一个缺陷儿，污染是主要原因。
据官方新华社报道， 中国是出生缺陷高发国，每年有80万至120万出生缺陷儿诞生，占全部出生人口的4%到6%。
这个数字中包括约22万例先天性心脏病，10万例神经管畸形，5万例唇腭裂及3万例先天愚型。
为遏制出生缺陷发生率的上升，中国将9月12日定为全国"预防出生缺陷日"。
今年9月12日是中国第二个"预防出生缺陷日"。卫生和妇幼保健当局开展了宣传活动。
出生缺陷是指婴儿出生时就存在各种身体结构、智力或代谢方面的异常。全世界每年大约有500万缺陷婴儿出生，85%是在发展中国家。
中国日报引述国家妇幼保健中心的专家说，造成出生缺陷发生率上升的主要原因是污染、不健康生活方式以及晚育。
报道说有三分之一缺陷婴儿出生后不久死亡。
中国卫生部估计，出生缺陷儿影响着全国十分之一家庭，每年造成10亿人民币（1.33亿美元）的财政负担。
英国《金融时报》今年7月报道称，中国政府要求世界银行删除一份关于中国环境污染研究报告中的敏感内容。
被认为是"敏感"的内容包括：中国每年有75万人因为空气和水污染而早亡；其中最为主要致命因素是城市污浊的空气，每年有3540万人因此早亡，而且大城市的问题尤为严重。
Hosting the Olympics, How?
Germany Vs. Japan, Women's World Cup in China
The Chinese audience embraced the Japanese players with nothing but boos. At the end of the game, however, the Japanese team presented a huge banner with the words "Thanks, China"(in English) written on it.
Is this how the Chinese audience would treat other nations in the Olympics? With extreme nationalism?
Or is it true, as some Chinese netizens have suspected, that it was a just a show by the Japanese team, after all, why did they write the words on the banner in English instead of Chinese if they really want the Chinese to see?
被民族主义狼奶毒化的中国愤青
刘晓波
2007 年世界女足世界杯在中国举行，十六支女足被分为四个小组，日本队与德国队、英格兰队、阿根廷队分在A组。9月17日，日本VS德国的小组赛在浙江杭州黄龙 体育场举行，上座率不错，有3万9千多人。比赛的结果毫无悬念，高居世界女足排名第一的德国队以2：0击败日本队。
我没看这场比赛的电视 直播，但今天在网上看到宁下力先生的文章《“爱国者”的嘘声和日本女足的感谢》（南方网）。文中写道：“打开网站，第一眼瞧到的就是日本女足打着感谢中国 的条幅的照片。……随后打开了天涯，这里听到的消息却是从始到至终，场内的国人一直在嘘日本女足，而将掌声全部给了德国女足，直到日本女足打出了这条感谢 中国的条幅为止。 ”
在宁先生的文字的引导下，我也上网看了那幅图片，具有常识的看了都会感动。尽管日本队输了，但对于主办国中国和到场观战的球迷，还是打出横幅、鞠躬致谢。这在世界杯赛场上是极为少见的。
为了证实宁先生对中国观众的所言不虚，我上网查看了相关资料，在“德国足球在线论坛”网站（http://bbs.dfo.cn/viewthread.php?tid=597559）找到了《现场观球：德国女足VS日本女足》帖子，中国观众的表现的确如宁先生所言。
该论坛的网友“埃米利奥”描述了现场观球的感受：
“这场比赛杭州黄龙简直成了德国队的主场，观众估计有8成以上都在为德国队呐喊，除了随着比赛起伏的鼓掌、欢呼、尖叫之外，看台上还多次整齐地响起‘德国队！加油！’的声音——这个让我等德国球迷都比较晕，那些姑娘们哪听得懂呀。。”
“不 得不提一下日本队。这是比赛全部结束后，日本姑娘们在球场中央打开的横幅——谢谢中国！同时一齐向球迷鞠躬——事实上这时看台上球迷已经走了大半——现在 重看这张照片，我的鼻子还酸酸的：这场比赛从头到尾，除了少部分的日本球迷，大部分观众都是在为日本队喝倒彩的，甚至连奏国歌的时候都嘘声一片，很多人甚 至都一屁股坐下了没站起来（这点实在很不礼貌！BS之！）比赛中也是一边倒地支持德国队。坐我们后面一哥们就说：‘怎么都不为日本队加油？人家姑娘儿也不 容易呀，好歹也是为我们亚洲争光’（我个人也不大理解为什么这么多人都偏袒德国队，我们是德国球迷那是自然的，可大部分人应该中立才是……）尽管如此，这 些姑娘们还是在比赛结束后郑重地感谢了球迷，先不论当时她们心里是什么想法，起码这个举动让我对这个国家肃然起敬。”
在“埃米利奥”发言 后面跟帖的网友，大多数对他的现场感受不以为然。对日本队被嘘，有人拍手称快：“对日本人就应该这样，‘嘘’得好。”有人认为：“小日本最虚伪，他越是表 面对你好，在心里算计的就越厉害！”有人还鸡蛋里挑骨头地质问道：“突然想起个问题：既然感谢中国，干嘛还要用英语写，直接写中文不就完了嘛。。。到底是 给中国人看，还是给外国人看？”甚至有人嘲讽道：“……日本女人都有受虐倾向吧，受到的待遇越不好，他们越兴奋，越高兴。”
当今世界，大 型国际体育比赛的胜负，在那些患有畸形民族主义综合症的国家，就不再仅仅是竞技场上的输赢问题，而是提升民族自尊和发泄民族仇恨的问题。2002年韩日世 界杯的韩国赛场，只要有韩国队的比赛，就会有黑哨和最为丑陋的“红海洋”。在中国，随着近年来民族主义情绪日趋狂热，几乎所有大型国际赛事的中日碰撞，都 会为中国爱国愤青提供发泄仇恨的机会。所以，中国球迷对日本女足的嘘声，绝非来自他们对德国队的热爱，而是来自一种狭隘而盲目的民族仇恨——对日本人的仇 恨。
在我的记忆中，中国球迷在足球比赛中对日本人宣泄仇恨已经不是第一次了。2004年亚洲足球锦标赛由中国举办，中国人的反日爱国的热，不仅表现为语言暴力的泛滥，而且发展为暴力行动。
在 那界足球亚锦赛上，凡是有日本队参与的比赛，无论在哪个赛区，反日爱国者都要发难，都会把足球比赛变成宣泄仇恨的狂欢。在开幕式上，中国球迷对日本队的不 文明表现，招致亚足联主席维拉潘的批评。令维拉潘没想到的是，他的几句批评却引发出中国球迷的强烈反弹，网络上和媒体上一片谴责之声，致使维拉潘不得不出 面道歉。
在分组赛中，日本队被安排在重庆赛区，重庆球迷不断上演盲目反日的民族主义丑剧。7月24日，当泰国队和日本队进行比赛时，重庆球迷对日本的嘘声、叫骂、投矿泉水瓶贯穿整场比赛。
比 赛开场前，奏泰国国歌时，全场近五万观众起立，向邻邦致意；但奏日本国歌时，近五万观众却一起坐下，全不顾及起码的礼貌。比赛开始，泰国队享受了“超级主 场待遇”，他们一拿球，观众席上的声音立刻高八度，垒战鼓、吹喇叭、呐喊助威：“泰――国雄起！”“泰――国雄起！”而日本队一拿球，观众席发出整片的嘘 声和起哄声。
比赛进行到7分钟，日本进球，观众席上一片沉默，但裁判鸣哨表示犯规在先、进球无效，全场马上欢声雷动！10分钟，泰国队进 球，观众沸腾了，甚至比中国队进了球还要开心！中场休息，泰国记者在场边给重庆球迷摄像，受到球迷的鼓掌、欢呼、致意，而日本记者则遭遇球迷的嘘声、起哄 声以及铺天盖地的矿泉水瓶。那场比赛，支持日本队的观众已经少的可怜，即便如此，只要观众席上出现支持日本队的球迷的欢呼和挥舞太阳旗，就会遭到一片唾骂 和矿泉水瓶。有几个重庆小伙子还扑向日本队的支持者开打。
经过多场比赛后，真有点儿冤家路窄的必然，中国队和日本队进入决赛。在8月7日 中日对决中，中国队队员和中国球迷把反日狂热推向高潮。在开赛前的采访中，中国队守门员毫不顾及地使用“小日本”等污蔑性言词，刺激着中国球迷本来已经发 烧的仇日情绪，致使赛前气氛就充满剑拔弩张的紧张。为了防止球场骚乱，中国官方出动近五万名武警和公安，警戒着七万个座位的北京工人体育场，远远超出任何 国家在此类赛事中的警戒水准。即便如此，中国队的失利仍然导致上万狂热球迷的骚乱，他们不仅对日本球员大泼暴力语言和焚烧日本国旗，还聚众围堵日本球员大 巴，打碎日本使馆小轿车的后车窗……以至于，足球赛最后演变为外交风波。日本驻中国大使馆向中方表示抗议，北京市公安局不得不致电日本驻中国大使馆表示道 歉，中国驻日本大使武大伟也向日本外相川口顺子表示“遗憾”。
此次女足世界杯，多亏中日女足没有分到一个小组，也不会在决赛阶段相遇。因为，中日两队的小组赛排名都是第三，踢了两场的中国仅存一线进入八强的希望，而踢了三场的日本队已经出局。否则的话，2004年足球亚锦赛的反日狂潮极有可能再次上演。
当 下中国人狂热的政治民族主义，既是对中国体育和民族精神的双重伤害，也是对国际体育精神的亵渎，2004年足球亚锦赛后，中国人表现出的丑陋民族主义，引 起国际社会对北京奥运的质疑。如果这种畸形民族主义得不到矫正，那么这柄单刃毒剑就会越来越寒光四溅，然而，看上去是颇为威风的对外闪亮，实质上每一次向 外劈刺都将倒刺向中国自身。
2007年9月20日于北京家中
──《观察》
Wednesday, September 19, 2007http://www.observechina.net
The Chinese audience embraced the Japanese players with nothing but boos. At the end of the game, however, the Japanese team presented a huge banner with the words "Thanks, China"(in English) written on it.
Is this how the Chinese audience would treat other nations in the Olympics? With extreme nationalism?
Or is it true, as some Chinese netizens have suspected, that it was a just a show by the Japanese team, after all, why did they write the words on the banner in English instead of Chinese if they really want the Chinese to see?
被民族主义狼奶毒化的中国愤青
刘晓波
2007 年世界女足世界杯在中国举行，十六支女足被分为四个小组，日本队与德国队、英格兰队、阿根廷队分在A组。9月17日，日本VS德国的小组赛在浙江杭州黄龙 体育场举行，上座率不错，有3万9千多人。比赛的结果毫无悬念，高居世界女足排名第一的德国队以2：0击败日本队。
我没看这场比赛的电视 直播，但今天在网上看到宁下力先生的文章《“爱国者”的嘘声和日本女足的感谢》（南方网）。文中写道：“打开网站，第一眼瞧到的就是日本女足打着感谢中国 的条幅的照片。……随后打开了天涯，这里听到的消息却是从始到至终，场内的国人一直在嘘日本女足，而将掌声全部给了德国女足，直到日本女足打出了这条感谢 中国的条幅为止。 ”
在宁先生的文字的引导下，我也上网看了那幅图片，具有常识的看了都会感动。尽管日本队输了，但对于主办国中国和到场观战的球迷，还是打出横幅、鞠躬致谢。这在世界杯赛场上是极为少见的。
为了证实宁先生对中国观众的所言不虚，我上网查看了相关资料，在“德国足球在线论坛”网站（http://bbs.dfo.cn/viewthread.php?tid=597559）找到了《现场观球：德国女足VS日本女足》帖子，中国观众的表现的确如宁先生所言。
该论坛的网友“埃米利奥”描述了现场观球的感受：
“这场比赛杭州黄龙简直成了德国队的主场，观众估计有8成以上都在为德国队呐喊，除了随着比赛起伏的鼓掌、欢呼、尖叫之外，看台上还多次整齐地响起‘德国队！加油！’的声音——这个让我等德国球迷都比较晕，那些姑娘们哪听得懂呀。。”
“不 得不提一下日本队。这是比赛全部结束后，日本姑娘们在球场中央打开的横幅——谢谢中国！同时一齐向球迷鞠躬——事实上这时看台上球迷已经走了大半——现在 重看这张照片，我的鼻子还酸酸的：这场比赛从头到尾，除了少部分的日本球迷，大部分观众都是在为日本队喝倒彩的，甚至连奏国歌的时候都嘘声一片，很多人甚 至都一屁股坐下了没站起来（这点实在很不礼貌！BS之！）比赛中也是一边倒地支持德国队。坐我们后面一哥们就说：‘怎么都不为日本队加油？人家姑娘儿也不 容易呀，好歹也是为我们亚洲争光’（我个人也不大理解为什么这么多人都偏袒德国队，我们是德国球迷那是自然的，可大部分人应该中立才是……）尽管如此，这 些姑娘们还是在比赛结束后郑重地感谢了球迷，先不论当时她们心里是什么想法，起码这个举动让我对这个国家肃然起敬。”
在“埃米利奥”发言 后面跟帖的网友，大多数对他的现场感受不以为然。对日本队被嘘，有人拍手称快：“对日本人就应该这样，‘嘘’得好。”有人认为：“小日本最虚伪，他越是表 面对你好，在心里算计的就越厉害！”有人还鸡蛋里挑骨头地质问道：“突然想起个问题：既然感谢中国，干嘛还要用英语写，直接写中文不就完了嘛。。。到底是 给中国人看，还是给外国人看？”甚至有人嘲讽道：“……日本女人都有受虐倾向吧，受到的待遇越不好，他们越兴奋，越高兴。”
当今世界，大 型国际体育比赛的胜负，在那些患有畸形民族主义综合症的国家，就不再仅仅是竞技场上的输赢问题，而是提升民族自尊和发泄民族仇恨的问题。2002年韩日世 界杯的韩国赛场，只要有韩国队的比赛，就会有黑哨和最为丑陋的“红海洋”。在中国，随着近年来民族主义情绪日趋狂热，几乎所有大型国际赛事的中日碰撞，都 会为中国爱国愤青提供发泄仇恨的机会。所以，中国球迷对日本女足的嘘声，绝非来自他们对德国队的热爱，而是来自一种狭隘而盲目的民族仇恨——对日本人的仇 恨。
在我的记忆中，中国球迷在足球比赛中对日本人宣泄仇恨已经不是第一次了。2004年亚洲足球锦标赛由中国举办，中国人的反日爱国的热，不仅表现为语言暴力的泛滥，而且发展为暴力行动。
在 那界足球亚锦赛上，凡是有日本队参与的比赛，无论在哪个赛区，反日爱国者都要发难，都会把足球比赛变成宣泄仇恨的狂欢。在开幕式上，中国球迷对日本队的不 文明表现，招致亚足联主席维拉潘的批评。令维拉潘没想到的是，他的几句批评却引发出中国球迷的强烈反弹，网络上和媒体上一片谴责之声，致使维拉潘不得不出 面道歉。
在分组赛中，日本队被安排在重庆赛区，重庆球迷不断上演盲目反日的民族主义丑剧。7月24日，当泰国队和日本队进行比赛时，重庆球迷对日本的嘘声、叫骂、投矿泉水瓶贯穿整场比赛。
比 赛开场前，奏泰国国歌时，全场近五万观众起立，向邻邦致意；但奏日本国歌时，近五万观众却一起坐下，全不顾及起码的礼貌。比赛开始，泰国队享受了“超级主 场待遇”，他们一拿球，观众席上的声音立刻高八度，垒战鼓、吹喇叭、呐喊助威：“泰――国雄起！”“泰――国雄起！”而日本队一拿球，观众席发出整片的嘘 声和起哄声。
比赛进行到7分钟，日本进球，观众席上一片沉默，但裁判鸣哨表示犯规在先、进球无效，全场马上欢声雷动！10分钟，泰国队进 球，观众沸腾了，甚至比中国队进了球还要开心！中场休息，泰国记者在场边给重庆球迷摄像，受到球迷的鼓掌、欢呼、致意，而日本记者则遭遇球迷的嘘声、起哄 声以及铺天盖地的矿泉水瓶。那场比赛，支持日本队的观众已经少的可怜，即便如此，只要观众席上出现支持日本队的球迷的欢呼和挥舞太阳旗，就会遭到一片唾骂 和矿泉水瓶。有几个重庆小伙子还扑向日本队的支持者开打。
经过多场比赛后，真有点儿冤家路窄的必然，中国队和日本队进入决赛。在8月7日 中日对决中，中国队队员和中国球迷把反日狂热推向高潮。在开赛前的采访中，中国队守门员毫不顾及地使用“小日本”等污蔑性言词，刺激着中国球迷本来已经发 烧的仇日情绪，致使赛前气氛就充满剑拔弩张的紧张。为了防止球场骚乱，中国官方出动近五万名武警和公安，警戒着七万个座位的北京工人体育场，远远超出任何 国家在此类赛事中的警戒水准。即便如此，中国队的失利仍然导致上万狂热球迷的骚乱，他们不仅对日本球员大泼暴力语言和焚烧日本国旗，还聚众围堵日本球员大 巴，打碎日本使馆小轿车的后车窗……以至于，足球赛最后演变为外交风波。日本驻中国大使馆向中方表示抗议，北京市公安局不得不致电日本驻中国大使馆表示道 歉，中国驻日本大使武大伟也向日本外相川口顺子表示“遗憾”。
此次女足世界杯，多亏中日女足没有分到一个小组，也不会在决赛阶段相遇。因为，中日两队的小组赛排名都是第三，踢了两场的中国仅存一线进入八强的希望，而踢了三场的日本队已经出局。否则的话，2004年足球亚锦赛的反日狂潮极有可能再次上演。
当 下中国人狂热的政治民族主义，既是对中国体育和民族精神的双重伤害，也是对国际体育精神的亵渎，2004年足球亚锦赛后，中国人表现出的丑陋民族主义，引 起国际社会对北京奥运的质疑。如果这种畸形民族主义得不到矫正，那么这柄单刃毒剑就会越来越寒光四溅，然而，看上去是颇为威风的对外闪亮，实质上每一次向 外劈刺都将倒刺向中国自身。
2007年9月20日于北京家中
──《观察》
Wednesday, September 19, 2007http://www.observechina.net
Thursday, September 20, 2007
What Constitute Journalism
Begin today's post by my thanks to David for his comment.
Then, back to journalism. As a student of this field, I've been following closely on the Zhao Yan case, a New York Times researcher in China recently released after completing his three-year jail term. He was firstly charged with leaking national secrets, a charge that may put him in life imprisonment, and in China, may very well be death penalty. What national secrets you may ask, well it's non other than the information that the former chairman Jiang Zemin has wrote his resignation letter, which is something all Chinese somewhat already knew by then and the information was soon "officially" released in all Chinese media in two weeks after the New York Times article. Of course no evidence was found that Zhao Yan was the leak, so then he was charged with fraud, considering some article he wrote years back.
Now the question is why is he arrested since the so called secret is no national secret at all?
Many say it's because for a foreign press to release such information about Chinese leaders before any Chinese media did was a humiliation and shame on the Chinese media, and since Chinese media is largely controlled by the government, it was a shame on the Chinese government.
Almost anyone with some knowledge about the case would agree that Zhao Yan was merely a scapegoat for the grudge the Chinese government has always been holding against the foreign press. After all, who would actually believe a researcher would get hold of such "national secret", about the resignation letter of the chairman?
And if you probe into the matter, looking into the interest group, who benefit from the release of such information? Zhao Yan? Certainly not. New York Times? No. The only one gaining from the news being public is the current leader Hao Jintao, who made sure that Jiang Zemin could not regret his decision if his resignation became public. Maybe THAT is what the dirty secret all about.
But why punish Zhao Yan for it?
Let me take a wild guess. The Chinese government has long been troubled with the foreign media digging into China's problems, unveiling the incompetency, or the dirty laundry of them, and since they can't get their hands on the foreign reporters (for most times, that is, there were at least 25 arrest, threatening cases against foreign journalists in 2006 alone, according to Reporters Without Borders), arresting Zhao Yan serves as a deterrence for Chinese who work for the foreign media. I've got to say, this technique worked beautifully. The foreign professors in our university, for instance, stopped recommending students to foreign bureaus. Without Chinese citizens help, reporting in China became more difficult for the foreign journalists.
Another thing the Zhao Yan case reminds me of is the arrests of Chinese reporters for reporting something truly "secret" and important, such as the fact that some AIDS patients were actually infected from blood transfusion, which means the blood bank is contaminated! These are the news the people needs to know yet they can't because the journalists got punished for warning them. So how about less focus on Zhao Yan alone, ask for freedom of press on things that do matter, like about blood and life?!
Hong Kong press remains relatively free these days, however the big question is, which way is it going? Is mainland press going to be more like HK press or is it other way round?
Another question would is there such thing as patriotism when it comes to political reporting? Would a Chinese citizen helping the American public to know about the back deals in the Chinese political arena considered unpatriotic, even a betrayer? When the professor asked similar questions to the class today, many students replied yes, and said they would not cover political news for a foreign media. I was surprised by the unsurprising.
This has much to do with what journalists work for. A journalist don't report for a country, or a state department, or any other authorities. A journalist reports for humanity, the people, above anyone else. And since people have a right to know, and people are sure to have different opinions, it is therefore the reporter's duty to lay out the good as well as the bad, as long as it's the truth. A journalist serves no country but truth. Of course, no journalist would be stupid enough to publish where our troops are stationed or where our nuclear power plants, they can't get such information in the first place and even if they do get the accurate information, the whatever enemies out there wouldn't be stupid enough to base their strike on a report they saw on Sunday Times. Journalists do have their boundaries, but their realm is almost unlimited.
Such talks are purely idealistic however. I've tried the system myself. I've been punished when I argued for our elected next chief editor who was arbitrarily replaced by an appointed one who had no previous experience in newspaper. My paper has been turned back when I briefly mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen case. I've been called a rebel, a "liberal democrat" - yeah, these are "bad names" here in China. I've been censored for questioning the school's environmental damage cost by the rebuilding of campus; I was called "naive" when I retorted the school's refusal to put up posters of our classical music concert while occupying the board with four huge Pepsi ads; I was further called "selfish" when I question our school for spending 20,000 RMB on a gigantic billboard display of "The University's Achievements" while refusing to give 500 RMB to fund our "help children in AIDS pandemic villages" program. Such is the value and administration philosophy of one of the top universities in China, such are the conscious judgment of the high educated, forgive me for being pessimistic.
Then, back to journalism. As a student of this field, I've been following closely on the Zhao Yan case, a New York Times researcher in China recently released after completing his three-year jail term. He was firstly charged with leaking national secrets, a charge that may put him in life imprisonment, and in China, may very well be death penalty. What national secrets you may ask, well it's non other than the information that the former chairman Jiang Zemin has wrote his resignation letter, which is something all Chinese somewhat already knew by then and the information was soon "officially" released in all Chinese media in two weeks after the New York Times article. Of course no evidence was found that Zhao Yan was the leak, so then he was charged with fraud, considering some article he wrote years back.
Now the question is why is he arrested since the so called secret is no national secret at all?
Many say it's because for a foreign press to release such information about Chinese leaders before any Chinese media did was a humiliation and shame on the Chinese media, and since Chinese media is largely controlled by the government, it was a shame on the Chinese government.
Almost anyone with some knowledge about the case would agree that Zhao Yan was merely a scapegoat for the grudge the Chinese government has always been holding against the foreign press. After all, who would actually believe a researcher would get hold of such "national secret", about the resignation letter of the chairman?
And if you probe into the matter, looking into the interest group, who benefit from the release of such information? Zhao Yan? Certainly not. New York Times? No. The only one gaining from the news being public is the current leader Hao Jintao, who made sure that Jiang Zemin could not regret his decision if his resignation became public. Maybe THAT is what the dirty secret all about.
But why punish Zhao Yan for it?
Let me take a wild guess. The Chinese government has long been troubled with the foreign media digging into China's problems, unveiling the incompetency, or the dirty laundry of them, and since they can't get their hands on the foreign reporters (for most times, that is, there were at least 25 arrest, threatening cases against foreign journalists in 2006 alone, according to Reporters Without Borders), arresting Zhao Yan serves as a deterrence for Chinese who work for the foreign media. I've got to say, this technique worked beautifully. The foreign professors in our university, for instance, stopped recommending students to foreign bureaus. Without Chinese citizens help, reporting in China became more difficult for the foreign journalists.
Another thing the Zhao Yan case reminds me of is the arrests of Chinese reporters for reporting something truly "secret" and important, such as the fact that some AIDS patients were actually infected from blood transfusion, which means the blood bank is contaminated! These are the news the people needs to know yet they can't because the journalists got punished for warning them. So how about less focus on Zhao Yan alone, ask for freedom of press on things that do matter, like about blood and life?!
Hong Kong press remains relatively free these days, however the big question is, which way is it going? Is mainland press going to be more like HK press or is it other way round?
Another question would is there such thing as patriotism when it comes to political reporting? Would a Chinese citizen helping the American public to know about the back deals in the Chinese political arena considered unpatriotic, even a betrayer? When the professor asked similar questions to the class today, many students replied yes, and said they would not cover political news for a foreign media. I was surprised by the unsurprising.
This has much to do with what journalists work for. A journalist don't report for a country, or a state department, or any other authorities. A journalist reports for humanity, the people, above anyone else. And since people have a right to know, and people are sure to have different opinions, it is therefore the reporter's duty to lay out the good as well as the bad, as long as it's the truth. A journalist serves no country but truth. Of course, no journalist would be stupid enough to publish where our troops are stationed or where our nuclear power plants, they can't get such information in the first place and even if they do get the accurate information, the whatever enemies out there wouldn't be stupid enough to base their strike on a report they saw on Sunday Times. Journalists do have their boundaries, but their realm is almost unlimited.
Such talks are purely idealistic however. I've tried the system myself. I've been punished when I argued for our elected next chief editor who was arbitrarily replaced by an appointed one who had no previous experience in newspaper. My paper has been turned back when I briefly mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen case. I've been called a rebel, a "liberal democrat" - yeah, these are "bad names" here in China. I've been censored for questioning the school's environmental damage cost by the rebuilding of campus; I was called "naive" when I retorted the school's refusal to put up posters of our classical music concert while occupying the board with four huge Pepsi ads; I was further called "selfish" when I question our school for spending 20,000 RMB on a gigantic billboard display of "The University's Achievements" while refusing to give 500 RMB to fund our "help children in AIDS pandemic villages" program. Such is the value and administration philosophy of one of the top universities in China, such are the conscious judgment of the high educated, forgive me for being pessimistic.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
A Smoking Hot China
So it says: "No country in history has emerged as a major industrial power without creating a legacy of environmental damage that can take decades and big dollops of public wealth to undo." Along with the soaring economic growth, China's environmental problems have raised global concern. New York Times recently published a series of articles, multimedias, round-table talks addressing the impact of this issue.
Living in Beijing, I don't have to have others telling me how bad China's environment is, though I have not encountered problems with polluted drinking water yet, (that's for sure, I drink mineral), the air pollution in Beijing almost chokes me. It's like there is never a sunny clear day here. Always a haze.
Are the authorities blind of these obvious problems? Do they not know that their children is poisoned by lead and got all kinds of respiratory illnesses because of the air pollutants? The truth is they know and they do care. That's why Wen Jiabao introduced "Gree G.D.P." in 2004 in the hope that it would curtail regional governments' vigorous industrial development which is always at the expense of the environment. As the article pointed out, this plan demised because of the lack of enthusiasm, if not hatred for this concept. I would further argue that in some cases, it is exactly the Green G.D.P that is harming the environment: provincial leaders, in the desperate attempt to make up for the loss in G.D.P cost by the estimation of Green G.D.P would venture further to put a strain on the local industrial production.
In addition, let us not forget the huge demand of the cheap products from the developed countries such as the U.S.. While pointing fingers at the human rights violation such as child labor in Chinese factories and it's shoddy products, let us not forget it is because of the demand that such industry still prospers and to continue prosper, it is not likely they would abandon the old methods that cut the price and keep their products on the cutting edge. Such as in the event of large recall of Chinese toy products, a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. business that sell those products as well as the U.S. government also bear responsibility.
For any multifaceted issues, especially one such as environmental pollution, it is never enough to count on the efforts of one party. The pressure of the international community should not only lay on the Chinese government, but on the foreign businesses as well, and more importantly, to hurt, to condemn, or even to boycott, is never as feasible and rational as providing expertise: in terms of policy shaping, technology, etc. Aside from governmental cooperation, civil side as business and NGOs could take a stance in these issues, and in my opinion, these cooperation and assistance could be even more effective than high-level talks.
Living in Beijing, I don't have to have others telling me how bad China's environment is, though I have not encountered problems with polluted drinking water yet, (that's for sure, I drink mineral), the air pollution in Beijing almost chokes me. It's like there is never a sunny clear day here. Always a haze.
Are the authorities blind of these obvious problems? Do they not know that their children is poisoned by lead and got all kinds of respiratory illnesses because of the air pollutants? The truth is they know and they do care. That's why Wen Jiabao introduced "Gree G.D.P." in 2004 in the hope that it would curtail regional governments' vigorous industrial development which is always at the expense of the environment. As the article pointed out, this plan demised because of the lack of enthusiasm, if not hatred for this concept. I would further argue that in some cases, it is exactly the Green G.D.P that is harming the environment: provincial leaders, in the desperate attempt to make up for the loss in G.D.P cost by the estimation of Green G.D.P would venture further to put a strain on the local industrial production.
In addition, let us not forget the huge demand of the cheap products from the developed countries such as the U.S.. While pointing fingers at the human rights violation such as child labor in Chinese factories and it's shoddy products, let us not forget it is because of the demand that such industry still prospers and to continue prosper, it is not likely they would abandon the old methods that cut the price and keep their products on the cutting edge. Such as in the event of large recall of Chinese toy products, a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. business that sell those products as well as the U.S. government also bear responsibility.
For any multifaceted issues, especially one such as environmental pollution, it is never enough to count on the efforts of one party. The pressure of the international community should not only lay on the Chinese government, but on the foreign businesses as well, and more importantly, to hurt, to condemn, or even to boycott, is never as feasible and rational as providing expertise: in terms of policy shaping, technology, etc. Aside from governmental cooperation, civil side as business and NGOs could take a stance in these issues, and in my opinion, these cooperation and assistance could be even more effective than high-level talks.
Friday, August 10, 2007
"One World, One Dream" and Universal Human Rights
"One World, One Dream" and Universal Human Rights
An Open Letter to Chinese and World Leaders on the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Hu Jintao, President, People's Republic of China
Wu Bangguo, Chair, Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China
Wen Jiabao, Premier of the State Council of China
Jacques Rogge, Chair, International Olympic Committee
Doru Romulus Costea, President, United Nations Human Rights Council
Louise Arbour, High Commissioner, United Nations Office for Human RightsLeaders of democratic states concerned about promoting freedom and human rights International NGOs concerned with human rights; members of the communities of sports, arts and entertainment, academe, and business around the world.
Respected Leaders and Fellow World Citizens:
Upholding the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit, including "respect for universal fundamental ethical principles" and "the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society
concerned with the preservation of human dignity" (Olympic Charter, Preamble); Taking note of the Chinese government's official 2008 Olympic theme
"One World, One Dream" and the Beijing Olympic Committee's stated objectives of hosting an "Open, Green, and Humane Olympics"; and mindful of the growing number of questions and criticisms in our own society and from around the world about the violations of the human rights of Chinese citizens in the name of the Beijing Olympics We, the undersigned citizens of the People's Republic of China, here voice our concerns and to propose changes in the ways in which our government is handling its preparations for the Olympics.
Today, August 8, 2007, marks the start of the one-year count-down to the 2008 Summer Olympics, a mega-event for China and the world. We, as citizens of the People's Republic of China, ought to be feeling pride in our country's glory in hosting the Games, whose purposes include the symbolization of peace, friendship, and fairness in the world community. We also ought to feel uplifted by the watchword chosen by the Beijing Olympic Committee: "One World, One Dream." Instead we feel disappointment and doubt as we witness the continuing systematic denial of the human rights of our fellow citizens even while--and sometimes because--Olympic preparations are moving forward. We hear "One World" and wonder: What kind of world will this be? "One Dream"?
Whose dream is it that is coming true? We are gravely concerned about the question of whether authorities in our country can successfully host the Olympic Games in an authentic Olympic spirit so that the 2008 Beijing games can become an event of which China and the world community can be proud.
As the one world that we share "globalizes," lives and dreams are becoming increasingly intertwined. One person's "world dream," especially if it is implemented with unchecked power, and with endorsement from the
world community, can turn into misery and nightmare for others. "One world" can still be a world where people suffer discrimination, political and religious persecution, and deprivation of liberty, as well as poverty, genocide, and war. Millions of people who survived such miseries and disasters in the 20 the century have come to appreciate, and to pursue, human rights.
Universal human rights have become the bedrock concept in pursuing lasting peace, sustainable development, and justice. If "one dream" is truly to belong to all cultures and communities it must involve protection of basic rights and liberties for all. Even the powerful, the rich and privileged might be punished unjustly tomorrow if fundamental rights are not assured today. The government that rules our country has pledged to the Chinese people and to the world to protect human rights. It has acceded to obligations under numerous international human rights conventions and treaties,
including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it has amended the Chinese Constitution to include guarantees of human rights. In order to avoid misunderstanding, and in order to alert the international community to un-Olympic conduct that tarnishes the true spirit of the Games, we, the undersigned citizens of the People's Republic of China, endorse the government's Olympic slogan with the following vital addition: "One World, One Dream, and Universal Human Rights."*
Without promoting human rights, which are the fundamental principle of universal ethics in China and elsewhere, it is gratuitous to promote "One World." Without the protection of the human rights of all Chinese
citizens equally--i.e., without abolition of the rural-urban residential control system, without an end to discrimination against women and sexual, ethnic, and faith minorities, and without ending the suppression of political dissent--it is senseless to talk about "One Dream" for all of China. China's government has promised the International Olympic Committee to "promote human rights" and has pledged to the United Nations Human Rights Council to "uphold the highest standard of human rights." On paper it has taken certain steps toward improving human rights--in 2003, for example, abolishing the arbitrary detention system known as "Custody and Repatriation" and in 2004 adding "human rights protection" as an amendment to China's Constitution. We believe that the government should be able to do much more.
Little has been done, in practice, to carry out the promises that have been made on paper. On the contrary we have experienced and witnessed violations of human rights many times--in press censorship and control of the Internet, in the persecution of human rights defenders and of people who expose environmental or public health disasters, in the exploitation of poor or disadvantaged social groups and in retaliation against them when they protest, and even in abuses by corrupt officials who are involved in the construction of Olympic facilities and city beautification projects that are aimed to prepare for the Olympics. All of these actions violate not only international standards but provisions of the Chinese constitution as well.
We find no consolation or comfort in the rise of grandiose sports facilities, or a temporarily beautified Beijing city, or the prospect of Chinese athletes winning medals. We know too well how these glories are built on the ruins of the lives of ordinary people, on the forced removal of urban migrants, and on the sufferings of victims of brutal land grabbing, forced eviction, exploitation of labor, and arbitrary detention.
Out of deep affection for our motherland and our sense of duty as citizens of the world, we will do our best, and urge leaders in China and in the world community to join hands with us, to make the Beijing Olympics a turning point in China's rise to greatness. China has the opportunity to use the Games to build true harmony on the basis of respect for human dignity and freedom and to become a respectable member of the community of civilized nations--not by loud rhetoric or brute force, but by taking actions to promote human rights at home and in the world.
In the "one world" in which we live, the dreams that are coming true in China today will significantly shape everyone's future. Therefore, in order to promote a successful Olympics consistent with human rights, we propose the following measures:
1. Declare amnesty for all prisoners of conscience so that they can enjoy the Olympic games in freedom.
2. Open China's borders to all Chinese citizens who have been forced into exile for their beliefs, expression, or faith, so that they can re-unite with their loved ones and celebrate the glory of the Olympics in their motherland;
3. Implement the government ordinance to allow foreign journalists to conduct interviews and reporting without pre-approval by authorities before October 17, 2008, granting Chinese journalists the same access and independence.
4. Provide fair compensation to the victims of forced evictions and land appropriations that have been done in order to construct Olympic facilities, and release people who have been detained or imprisoned (often violently) for protesting or resisting such actions.
5. Protect the rights of workers on all Olympic construction sites, including their right to organize independent labor unions; end discrimination against rural migrant laborers and give them fair compensation.
6. End police operations intended to intercept, detain, or send home petitioners who try to travel to Beijing to complain about local officials' misconduct; abolish illegal facilities used for incarcerating, interrogating, and terrorizing petitioners; end the "clean up” operations aimed at migrants that demolish their temporary housing and close down schools for their children.
7. Establish a system of citizen oversight over Olympics spending and provide public accounting and independent auditing of Olympics-related expenditures; make the process of awarding contracts to businesses transparent, and hold legally accountable any official who embezzles or wastes public funds.
We further suggest setting up an independent Beijing Olympics Watch Committee, composed of independent experts and representatives of non-governmental organizations and affected communities such as migrant laborers and people who have been forcibly relocated. This Committee would oversee the implementation of the above proposals. It should be allowed to operate independently, to examine plans, to interview freely, and to release its findings to the public. Citizen participation is key to a successful Olympics.
If proposals even as straightforward as the foregoing cannot be adopted, we feel certain that the Beijing Olympics will not go down in history as the glorious events that everyone wishes them to be. We do not want to "politicize" the Olympic movement. However, pushing the Games through in ways that violate human rights and that hurt people who are forced into silence, all in the name of a "dream" that belongs only to "some" people, not our whole world, will only plant seeds of resentment that will exacerbate the crises in China and affect the future of the world.
Sincerely yours,
Signed (name followed by location of residence and profession):
DING Zilin, Beijing, professor, leader of "Tiananmen
Mothers"
LIU Xiaobao, Beijing, writer, president of independent
Chinese PEN
BAO Zhunxin Beijing, historian
YU Haocheng, Beijing, legal scholar
DAI Qing, Beijing, writer/journalist
BAO Tong, Beijing, former member of CCP Central
Committee
JIANG Peikun , Beijing, professor
ZHANG Xianling, Beijing, engineer, leading member of
"Tiananmen Mothers"
JIANG Qisheng, Beijing, scientist/writer
CHEN Ziming ,Beijing, scholar
ZHANG Zhuhua,Beijing, Scholar
LIAO Yiwu, Sichuan, writer
WANG Yi, Sichuan, scholar
JIAO Guobiao, Beijing, scholar/writer
CHEN Xiaoya, Beijing, scholar/writer
LIU Junning, Beijing, scholar
XU Youyu, Beijing, scholar at Chinese Academy of Social
Science
HE Weifang, Beijing, professor, Beijing University
XIA Yeliang Beijing, economist
AI Xiaoming, Guangzhou, professor
ZHANG Hong Shanghai, professor
YU Jie Beijing, writer
YU Shichun Beijing, scholar/writer
MA Bo Beijing, writer
FU Guoyong, Zhejiang, writer
RANG Yunfei Sichuan, writer
GAO Yu Beijing, journalist
ZAN Aizong, Zhejiang, journalist
PU Zhiqiang Beijing, lawyer
TENG Biao Beijing, lawyer
ZHUANG Daohe Zhejiang, lawyer
XIA Lin Beijing, lawyer
HU Jia, Beijing, independent activist
WEN Kejian, Zhejiang, writer
ZHAO Dagong, Shenzhen, writer
QIN Geng,Hainan, writer
WANG Debang, Beijing, writer
Sunday, July 22, 2007
政治人物的道德問題
From 香港独立媒体
--梁文道
我本來以為廣播處長朱培慶辭職只是香港這小茶杯裏的風波而已，沒想到原來有不少內地媒體也很關注這事，不只報道，並且評論。它們的角度自然是要突出香港媒體的自由與發達，香港社會民意力量的強大，以及香港人對官員道德水平的高度要求。的確，同樣的事件要是發生在內地，首先就不會有媒體擅自發布甚至拍攝一名高官與性工作者把臂同遊的照片。其次，所謂的「民意」也可能根本發作不起來，如果不是大家早就見怪不怪不以為意的話。最後，官員更是犯不為了這點小事就自行求去，除非是上級有壓力。所以朱培慶的醜聞反倒見證了香港體制的優點。
可是再細想下來，香港社會對官員道德水平的要求難道就絕無可議之處嗎？更根本的問題是，我們到底該如何要求公職人員的道德水準？它該高到哪個程度？我們又有什麼方法確保公職人員不會失德呢？
回顧關於這次事件的討論，可以發現其實有不少人贊同朱培慶的解釋，覺得他在公餘時間自己花錢冶遊是他自己「私人生活」的問題，與「公務」無關；所以他沒有理由向公眾交代詳情，在這事上真正該問責的其實是他的太太。但是與此同時，很多人又覺得他主動請辭是正確的決定，因為他的形象已經受損，而「社會對於官員道德水平的要求是應該比一般人要高的」。
為什麼當官的人一定要比普通人的道德高呢？這其實是一個沿襲傳統但未經推敲的共識，好像從政者都該是聖人，不只比一般人聰明能幹、刻苦耐勞，還要比一般人更能抵得住欲望的誘惑，在道德操守上堪為天下表率。我相信任何人只要靜下來想一想，都會覺得這種要求是不合理的。從政治權術的角度考慮，如果一個政治人物不只從政成績優秀，還恰巧是個大善人，那麼他的聲譽和威信自然更能令人拜服。但萬一他只是個普通人，齊備了普通人皆有的七情六慾，而且不時有踰矩的行為，那麼他是否就此喪失了從政的資格呢？我們該記住即使是孔子，也曾盛讚私德不夠檢點的管仲，說他有功於天下。難道我們竟然要比孔子還講究道德嗎？
但這又不表示政治家或者公職人員在操守上只要和一般人看齊就行了，因為他們佔據了特殊的職位享有非常的權能，與社會大眾有特定的關係。所以我們不應該抽象地要求他們具有更高的道德水平，而要從他們的職位和權能裏推導出一組特定的道德規則。我們不能說官員的地位高所以品德也一定要高；我們該說因為官員佔有特別的職位權能，和公眾有特別的權責關係，所以才要有相應的倫理信條。簡單地講，從政者該遵守從政的專業倫理。如果一個官員破壞了這套專業倫理，他不只對不起他的職位權能，更會傷及公眾利益；這才是我們應該睜大眼睛盯清楚的。
就以朱培慶這件事為例，他犯的錯誤大概有三條：一是光顧聲色場所；二是被記者拍照時驚惶失措；三是事後透過屬下香港電台的公關發表聲明，說當晚他身邊那名女子只不過是朋友的女伴。
第一條錯誤就像他自己所說的，是私生活的事，既與公眾無關也與其權能職位無關。如果我們接受性工作是正常的工作，性交易是正常消費活動的話，他甚至根本沒有犯錯。
第二條錯誤就更只是公關反應的技巧問題了，我們可以說他處理得不夠機智不夠成熟，破壞了他一貫的穩重形象，但這實在也和道德扯不上邊。
直至目前為止，香港傳媒與大眾最關心的就是這兩條了。朱培慶被記者拍到的醜態固然是市民訕笑的題材，當晚他和那名女子到底幹了什麼事更是愈挖愈細，大白於天下。可是那第三條錯誤卻被大家輕易放過了，恍如過眼雲煙。
若按照前面所說的從政專業倫理來看，這第三條錯誤才是最嚴重的。首先，這是一個謊言，那名女子根本不是朱培慶口中的「朋友的女友」，而是他花錢請來的性工作者。政治人物公然說謊，當然會令人聯想他是否也會在關涉公眾利益的事務上欺瞞大家了。其次，就算我們採取最寬鬆的態度，覺得這個謊言與公眾無關；但它還是一個很重大的錯失，因為這個謊言是透過政府部門——香港電台的公關發出的。
換句話說，朱培慶冶遊也好，失儀也好，都和他的職位權能無關；反而他事後回應的方法才是真正違反了公職人員的專業倫理，因為他利用職位和政府機器去撒了一個謊，與濫權無異。
為什麼我們不把這個謊言看作焦點，卻都跑去關心他那些私人生活的作風問題呢？除了朱培慶擔任公職30 年來建樹頗多，盡忠持重，大家不忍多加追究之外，這裏還有一個更廣闊的社會背景。且以美國戰後兩次著名的彈劾總統案為例，第一次是尼克遜，第二次是克林頓。在尼克遜案裏，彈劾的理由分別是他隱瞞水門事件的竊聽內情，以及動用中央情報局和聯邦調查局等國家機器去針對政敵；在克林頓案裏，彈劾的理由則是他在和萊溫斯基的性醜聞上公然撒謊。
任何人都能明顯地看出，尼克遜所犯的罪行要比克林頓嚴重多了，他濫用職權破壞了美國的國家體制，而克林頓犯的卻是一個嚴格來講與公眾無關的「私德」錯誤。為何在短短20 多年間，美國議會彈劾總統的理由會有這麼大的差別呢？
首先，從美國開始，最近30 年來世界上許多地方的社會氣氛都有道德保守化的傾向，公眾對道德問題的興趣愈來愈濃厚。香港就是一個明顯的例子，與性有關的議題近來動不動就成了社會分歧的引爆點。更準確地說，這還不是道德的保守，而是道德的偏向。因為我們雖然很關心包括政客在內的公眾人物有沒有嫖妓，有沒有婚外情；但卻從不理會他們有沒有同情心，是否仁善公正。對一些力倡道德重建的團體來講，一個政治家是同性戀的罪惡甚至比他毫不關懷弱勢群體的麻木不仁還要重。一個議員可以言而無信，實際投票結果與他事前所言截然兩樣；但他卻絕對不能有婚外性行為，彷彿他的性生活和公眾更有關係似的。莫非只有性才是道德領域的議題嗎？
其次，媒體的瑣碎化與相應的「政治化妝術」（spin）也有一定程度的責任。報刊雜誌固然愈來愈喜歡政治人物的小故事，說說他們放假去何處旅行，孩子又在什麼地方上學工作。同時政治人物也愈來愈不介意公開一點自己的私生活，好營造一個立體的人格形象，讓百姓覺得他很親民。加起來的效果就是把公眾視線從更嚴肅的政治議題轉向至政客的個人身上，如果今天的政客比從前少了私隱，狗仔隊像追蹤明星一樣跟隨他們，這也實在是大勢所趨，咎由自取。
說回中國政治的現實。我們歷來就很關心政治人物的道德操守，直到今天，中央政府仍不時三令五申，要官員端正品行，可是各級幹部腐敗失德的事還是層出不窮。原因之一是許多品德的要求陳義過高，沒有從官員實際擁佔的職權出發，反而像是要先找一個君子才請他當官似的，非常不切實際。更重要的是這些道德要求沒有被翻譯變化成具體的制度制約，根本就難以操作。例如我們都不想再看見官員為了一己私慾就大興土木，為自己修築豪華辦公樓，為地方鋪張大而無當的形象工程，可叫他們放棄浮誇的作風就管用了嗎？其實這並不是什麼品德的問題，而是預算如何編訂如何管控的權力監督的問題；與其奢言道德，還不如貫徹分權制衡的精神。比起內地，香港或許勝在相對自由的傳媒；但是說到官員道德水平的準則，大家在觀念上都還有很長的路要走。我們對政治人物操守的要求有多空泛，這條路就有多遠。
--梁文道
我本來以為廣播處長朱培慶辭職只是香港這小茶杯裏的風波而已，沒想到原來有不少內地媒體也很關注這事，不只報道，並且評論。它們的角度自然是要突出香港媒體的自由與發達，香港社會民意力量的強大，以及香港人對官員道德水平的高度要求。的確，同樣的事件要是發生在內地，首先就不會有媒體擅自發布甚至拍攝一名高官與性工作者把臂同遊的照片。其次，所謂的「民意」也可能根本發作不起來，如果不是大家早就見怪不怪不以為意的話。最後，官員更是犯不為了這點小事就自行求去，除非是上級有壓力。所以朱培慶的醜聞反倒見證了香港體制的優點。
可是再細想下來，香港社會對官員道德水平的要求難道就絕無可議之處嗎？更根本的問題是，我們到底該如何要求公職人員的道德水準？它該高到哪個程度？我們又有什麼方法確保公職人員不會失德呢？
回顧關於這次事件的討論，可以發現其實有不少人贊同朱培慶的解釋，覺得他在公餘時間自己花錢冶遊是他自己「私人生活」的問題，與「公務」無關；所以他沒有理由向公眾交代詳情，在這事上真正該問責的其實是他的太太。但是與此同時，很多人又覺得他主動請辭是正確的決定，因為他的形象已經受損，而「社會對於官員道德水平的要求是應該比一般人要高的」。
為什麼當官的人一定要比普通人的道德高呢？這其實是一個沿襲傳統但未經推敲的共識，好像從政者都該是聖人，不只比一般人聰明能幹、刻苦耐勞，還要比一般人更能抵得住欲望的誘惑，在道德操守上堪為天下表率。我相信任何人只要靜下來想一想，都會覺得這種要求是不合理的。從政治權術的角度考慮，如果一個政治人物不只從政成績優秀，還恰巧是個大善人，那麼他的聲譽和威信自然更能令人拜服。但萬一他只是個普通人，齊備了普通人皆有的七情六慾，而且不時有踰矩的行為，那麼他是否就此喪失了從政的資格呢？我們該記住即使是孔子，也曾盛讚私德不夠檢點的管仲，說他有功於天下。難道我們竟然要比孔子還講究道德嗎？
但這又不表示政治家或者公職人員在操守上只要和一般人看齊就行了，因為他們佔據了特殊的職位享有非常的權能，與社會大眾有特定的關係。所以我們不應該抽象地要求他們具有更高的道德水平，而要從他們的職位和權能裏推導出一組特定的道德規則。我們不能說官員的地位高所以品德也一定要高；我們該說因為官員佔有特別的職位權能，和公眾有特別的權責關係，所以才要有相應的倫理信條。簡單地講，從政者該遵守從政的專業倫理。如果一個官員破壞了這套專業倫理，他不只對不起他的職位權能，更會傷及公眾利益；這才是我們應該睜大眼睛盯清楚的。
就以朱培慶這件事為例，他犯的錯誤大概有三條：一是光顧聲色場所；二是被記者拍照時驚惶失措；三是事後透過屬下香港電台的公關發表聲明，說當晚他身邊那名女子只不過是朋友的女伴。
第一條錯誤就像他自己所說的，是私生活的事，既與公眾無關也與其權能職位無關。如果我們接受性工作是正常的工作，性交易是正常消費活動的話，他甚至根本沒有犯錯。
第二條錯誤就更只是公關反應的技巧問題了，我們可以說他處理得不夠機智不夠成熟，破壞了他一貫的穩重形象，但這實在也和道德扯不上邊。
直至目前為止，香港傳媒與大眾最關心的就是這兩條了。朱培慶被記者拍到的醜態固然是市民訕笑的題材，當晚他和那名女子到底幹了什麼事更是愈挖愈細，大白於天下。可是那第三條錯誤卻被大家輕易放過了，恍如過眼雲煙。
若按照前面所說的從政專業倫理來看，這第三條錯誤才是最嚴重的。首先，這是一個謊言，那名女子根本不是朱培慶口中的「朋友的女友」，而是他花錢請來的性工作者。政治人物公然說謊，當然會令人聯想他是否也會在關涉公眾利益的事務上欺瞞大家了。其次，就算我們採取最寬鬆的態度，覺得這個謊言與公眾無關；但它還是一個很重大的錯失，因為這個謊言是透過政府部門——香港電台的公關發出的。
換句話說，朱培慶冶遊也好，失儀也好，都和他的職位權能無關；反而他事後回應的方法才是真正違反了公職人員的專業倫理，因為他利用職位和政府機器去撒了一個謊，與濫權無異。
為什麼我們不把這個謊言看作焦點，卻都跑去關心他那些私人生活的作風問題呢？除了朱培慶擔任公職30 年來建樹頗多，盡忠持重，大家不忍多加追究之外，這裏還有一個更廣闊的社會背景。且以美國戰後兩次著名的彈劾總統案為例，第一次是尼克遜，第二次是克林頓。在尼克遜案裏，彈劾的理由分別是他隱瞞水門事件的竊聽內情，以及動用中央情報局和聯邦調查局等國家機器去針對政敵；在克林頓案裏，彈劾的理由則是他在和萊溫斯基的性醜聞上公然撒謊。
任何人都能明顯地看出，尼克遜所犯的罪行要比克林頓嚴重多了，他濫用職權破壞了美國的國家體制，而克林頓犯的卻是一個嚴格來講與公眾無關的「私德」錯誤。為何在短短20 多年間，美國議會彈劾總統的理由會有這麼大的差別呢？
首先，從美國開始，最近30 年來世界上許多地方的社會氣氛都有道德保守化的傾向，公眾對道德問題的興趣愈來愈濃厚。香港就是一個明顯的例子，與性有關的議題近來動不動就成了社會分歧的引爆點。更準確地說，這還不是道德的保守，而是道德的偏向。因為我們雖然很關心包括政客在內的公眾人物有沒有嫖妓，有沒有婚外情；但卻從不理會他們有沒有同情心，是否仁善公正。對一些力倡道德重建的團體來講，一個政治家是同性戀的罪惡甚至比他毫不關懷弱勢群體的麻木不仁還要重。一個議員可以言而無信，實際投票結果與他事前所言截然兩樣；但他卻絕對不能有婚外性行為，彷彿他的性生活和公眾更有關係似的。莫非只有性才是道德領域的議題嗎？
其次，媒體的瑣碎化與相應的「政治化妝術」（spin）也有一定程度的責任。報刊雜誌固然愈來愈喜歡政治人物的小故事，說說他們放假去何處旅行，孩子又在什麼地方上學工作。同時政治人物也愈來愈不介意公開一點自己的私生活，好營造一個立體的人格形象，讓百姓覺得他很親民。加起來的效果就是把公眾視線從更嚴肅的政治議題轉向至政客的個人身上，如果今天的政客比從前少了私隱，狗仔隊像追蹤明星一樣跟隨他們，這也實在是大勢所趨，咎由自取。
說回中國政治的現實。我們歷來就很關心政治人物的道德操守，直到今天，中央政府仍不時三令五申，要官員端正品行，可是各級幹部腐敗失德的事還是層出不窮。原因之一是許多品德的要求陳義過高，沒有從官員實際擁佔的職權出發，反而像是要先找一個君子才請他當官似的，非常不切實際。更重要的是這些道德要求沒有被翻譯變化成具體的制度制約，根本就難以操作。例如我們都不想再看見官員為了一己私慾就大興土木，為自己修築豪華辦公樓，為地方鋪張大而無當的形象工程，可叫他們放棄浮誇的作風就管用了嗎？其實這並不是什麼品德的問題，而是預算如何編訂如何管控的權力監督的問題；與其奢言道德，還不如貫徹分權制衡的精神。比起內地，香港或許勝在相對自由的傳媒；但是說到官員道德水平的準則，大家在觀念上都還有很長的路要走。我們對政治人物操守的要求有多空泛，這條路就有多遠。
Friday, July 13, 2007
Ophelia
John Everett Millais. Ophelia, 1852
Ophelia, the love of Hamlet, daughter of Polonius. Drowned after Hamlet's "insanity". Here's the passage in Hamlet of her death:
Ophelia, the love of Hamlet, daughter of Polonius. Drowned after Hamlet's "insanity". Here's the passage in Hamlet of her death:
There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;
There with fantastic garlands did she come
Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples
That liberal shepherds give a grosser name,
But our cold maids do dead men's fingers call them:
There, on the pendent boughs her coronet weeds
Clambering to hang, an envious sliver broke;
When down her weedy trophies and herself
Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide;
And, mermaid-like, awhile they bore her up:
Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes;
As one incapable of her own distress,
Or like a creature native and indued
Unto that element: but long it could not be
Till that her garments, heavy with their drink,
Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay
To muddy death.
Eugène Delacroix. The Death of Ophelia, Lithograph, 1843
Eugène Delacroix. The Death of Ophelia, Oil Painting, 1853
Chinese Translation: 中文翻译：
溪上有斜柳 叶影却苍白见她款款来 身怀满芬芳他人曰怀春 伊人谓之亡携裙攀上枝 缘木身轻伏欲将手中花 成环柳前挂断木非有意 人随花而落落花随流水 肉身却难杭裙裳托将起 轻展似浮莲送目渺云间 唇动吟轻籁人似幼灵兽 不知死将至可怜身上布 密水添厚重挂拖西施臂 入泥为藕肥Alexander Cabanel. Ophelia, 1883Diana Elliott. Ophelia, 1999
Sunday, July 1, 2007
你可能不知道的香港
From 南方周末 2007-06-28 15:52:29
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, may its culture retain liberty and democracy.
□本报记者 张悦 发自香港
香港回归中国已经10年了，有越来越多的内地居民来到香港，然而即便是如本报记者这般多次踏足港九大地，仍然会不时有文化休克的感觉。
平民化的市政大厦
1997年有一个叫艾敬的沈阳女歌手，曾经唱了一首很火的歌曲《我的1997》，“他可以来沈阳，我不能去香港”、“1997快些到吧”等歌词当时在内地耳熟能详。然而这首歌传唱到香港后却造成了一定程度的恐慌——如果13亿内地人都可以随便到香港，香港秩序会不会乱啊。
香港回归中国已经10年了，从2003年“自由行”开始，也确实有越来越多的内地居民来到香港，然而即便是如我这般多次踏足港九大地的内地人，仍然会不时有文化休克的感觉。
一出红火车站，就会看见一大堆标语，看得初到香港的内地人胆战心惊。在天星码头，也会有人向你散发海报、小册子。在香港随处可以看到这样的一些在内地鲜见的异议人士。这证明香港是享有言论自由的，你只发表政治意见，不搞行动颠覆，香港是可以无视你的存在的。
除了这些表面的“西洋镜”，如果仔细体味，还会有很多进一步的深层震动。
这次来到香港的第一天，由内地来到香港大学做研究学者的南方周末前总编钱钢请我们到一处能体现“香港特色”的大厦吃饭。
那处大厦竟然叫“市政大厦”。然而却没有任何公务员在这办公。这是政府用公帑提供完善设施以服务该区域市民的大厦。
香港18个区，每个区根据面积大小和发展程度均有几座这样的“市政大厦”，格局也大抵相似：底层是一个菜市场和杂货市场，从鸡鸭鱼肉到针头线脑一应俱全，楼上还会有一层“大排档”，众多餐铺汇聚在一起。
后来还参观了另一处耗资逾4亿港元建筑的市政大厦，这座大厦获得了香港建筑师学会的优异奖。除了上述街市，还有现代化的全天候攀石墙、健身室、游泳池等多项文娱设施，有免费供放学后的孩子来做作业的“修习室”；还有公共图书馆。收费的娱乐设施也很便宜，问了一下，一个羽毛球场地一小时才30港元，比北京、上海的同类场地要便宜。
另一方面，市政大厦并不会因为其服务普通市民的性质而显得低档和无秩序。豪华谈不上，但至少现代化、干净、安静。很难想象，在内地除了标志性建筑或者豪华政府大楼，政府会那么花大力气去建设那么多漂亮现代的“便民设施”。
钱钢说，到香港不能靠原来的判断来认识社会主义和资本主义的不同。这个市政大厦就是标准的社会主义啊。
规则大于潜规则
香港人遵守规则是出了名的。即便在双休日的高峰期，市政大厦的游泳池中也不会有拥挤而混乱的感觉，因为香港人在水里也“排队”：泳池拉开了几条泳绳，不仅有“快游池”、“慢游池”，还有“循环池”，不管大人孩子，就如同在路上那样遵守交通规则———沿着泳绳边左去右来，首尾衔接，循环往复。
驻港部队的军车也许是中国最遵守交通规则的军车了，这些开着“ZG”牌照的军车司机可能一句粤语都不会说，在他们第一次驾车进入香港之前，就已经背熟了香港的交通法规。熟悉香港的每一条交通干线，对香港近200种交通标志滚瓜烂熟。
以前英国军车享有“隧道内执勤免费通行”的权力，解放军放弃了，让香港的规则变得更纯粹。
凤凰卫视的时事评论员曹景行曾说起一件事，2000年年初，一位开货柜车的老兵在香港超速行驶，香港警察给驻军寄去一张罚单，上级立即收回他的“往来香港特别通行证”，停止驾车半年。
凤凰卫视的另一位名嘴梁文道跟我们聊天的时候则抱怨香港新颁布的不准在所有室内场所抽烟的规定，让他这杆老烟枪非常憋屈。
但是抱怨归抱怨，一旦新规定立法通过，香港人都会遵守。连记者住的宾馆都会在房间里贴出禁止吸烟的标志，香港一些露天的公共场所也被辟为禁止吸烟区。比如维多利亚公园，一次万人活动过后，我看到偌大一块场地果然没有一个烟头，实在让人感慨。
这一切，是因为在香港，无论是政府官员还是媒体和市民都有强烈的规则意识，规则是一种制度性的文化，在这种文化环境里，规则大于潜规则，扼杀潜规则于摇篮之中，使潜规则没有生存的土壤，遑论非规则。
这次去香港之前，我做过重庆“最牛钉子户”的报道，香港的记者朋友看到过报道自然就讨论起来，之后就说起香港的一起曾经轰动一时的“钉子户事件”。
奇怪的是，当时内地媒体讨论了诸多日本、德国、英国的钉子户，偏偏遗漏了近水楼台更可资比照的香港。
后来我专门查了一下当时的报道，更加称奇：
香港一位八旬农妇与女儿挑战香港的地产大鳄李兆基名下的恒基集团，为一块位于新界大埔翡翠花园邻近，面积有12万平方英尺(一平方英尺约为1／10平方米)的土地，双方展开了一场旷日持久的争地行动。结果2006年1月5日，香港终审法院裁定作为香港真正的草根阶层的农妇母女胜诉，并没有给地产大鳄留下任何一点特别的情面。
一方是人微言轻的老妪，一方是财大气粗富可敌城的地产大鳄，我很难想象，将这一事件搬到内地会是什么结果。在重庆，我看到了太多的从全国各地赶来寻找媒体帮助的“钉子户”和失地农民，在香港，没有人上访，也没有人会哭着把上诉材料塞到记者手里。
两极分化和福利保障
香港的贫富差距之大同样是我们难以预料的。内地来港走马观花的游客会注意香港的门脸———或者在太平山顶俯瞰灯火璀璨的港岛，或者在中环大道仰望中银大厦的瑰丽，但没有人会看到深水街上那些神情困顿的失业工人、观塘和元朗那些可能从没去过中环的新移民，700万香港人中有112万人生活在贫困线下 (2004年，香港社会服务联会发表了一份报告，将全港200万居民分为10组，收入最低的组别人口占到112万，平均月收入2977港元)
在今年香港特首的竞选宣言中，两位竞选者均承诺要解决不断加大的贫富差距，曾荫权还称之为“一个严重的社会问题”。
凤凰卫视梁文道说，10年前，李嘉诚叫李超人，是我们的偶像，代表着只要你努力就有机会成功的“香港梦”。而现在，出租车司机也会骂李嘉诚是混蛋，搞垄断，官商勾结。香港人过去觉得有钱人有钱是靠他自己，现在也出现了仇富心理。
他认为，回归前后，为了香港保持经济活力，更多注重的是商人的利益，忽略了中产阶级和普通人。比如说800人的选举人团多是商人出身，垄断了香港的经济资源，现在又垄断了政治资源，原来的殖民统治中的这部分被保留了，港督执政的时候也是考虑这批商人的利益。
这其中既有值得吸取的教训，也有可资借鉴的经验。
但香港在贫富差距加大的社会环境中，仍然提供给穷人有尊严的生存下去的制度保障。除了公屋制度，还有医疗保障、教育保障等等。避免了社会的不稳定。
香港的公屋是一个非常成功的经验，它保障穷人的基本住房权利，使得他们有机会从底层社会发展到上流社会。曾经主管公屋的香港房委会主席叶国谦说他自己小的时候一家七口人，住在不足20平米的房间中，叠床架屋，三叠床。
现任律政司司长黄仁龙也是在这样的环境下成长起来的。香港有一半居民不进入商品房市场，而是存身于政府提供的房屋中，比如公屋、廉租房，其中，占总人口30％以上的穷人住在“公屋”里。
“公屋”从外表上看很像封闭的大厂房，只是比厂房更高，一般都有近二十层。“公屋”因为由政府统一建造，一般只分大、中、小三种号型：大号的有20平方米出头；中号的16.5平方米；小号的只有10平方米左右。一些三代同堂甚至8口之家就住在这样的逼仄空间内。
叶国谦当房委会主席的时候，每周都有一天要从早上8点半讨论到下午2点，“一年批五六万单位，高峰期7万，现在是2万多。”
这样的保障制度甚至吸引了内地人来香港当穷人。
今年1月份我到香港采访“内地孕妇来港产子”的现象，在入境处办理申请延期的窗口看到了内地孕妇排队的长龙。
来自广州增城的黄广大夫妇的孩子一出生就享受到香港的医疗福利。“小孩出生后身体不好，医院很负责任，不让他出院，两个白天三个晚上，才交了150港元。要是我们内地人在香港这样生病就是7500港元。”
各种福利制度还将伴随着他儿子的成长：九年免费教育，每年有两三千港元书报津贴；在公立医院急诊只需100港元，普通专科60港元，住院每天100港元；如果儿子独自在港，可以申请每月1930港元基本生活补助、1280港元住房津贴。孩子从一出生每月可以拿到三千多港元，比多数内地工人的工资还要高。
香港政党的“担当”
采访叶国谦的第二天，6月12日，民建联就要开党员大会，这是一个历史性的大会。被港人视为爱国爱港的党派，民建联之前拥有党员9969人，新有一百多人申请入党。“明天我们一开会就成为万人政党了，这是香港第一个万人政党。”
1991年，香港立法局首次引入直选，催生了一些“政党”组织，这些组织有自己的“党纲”、“党魁”。
“我们是一批在香港土生土长的，觉得对香港社会要有所承担的群体。”叶国谦说。
回归前香港政府官员是根据《英皇制诰》由英国委派，本地政党不可能“以执政为职志”。香港回归后，特区政府是直辖于中央政府的地方政权，基本法第十五条规定：“中央人民政府依照本法第四章的规定任命香港特别行政区行政长官和行政机关的主要官员。”基本法这一规定事实上已否定了香港“执政党”的存在。
香港以行业、界别、阶层为活动平台的社会团体很多，市民已习惯于依托这些社会团体为自己争取权益、表达诉求，且可避免政治化，因此并不热衷于加入某个政党。香港规模最大、人数最多的团体不是哪一个政党，而是工联会。
民建联现在是立法会中的最大党，但并不意味着它会成为“执政党”。
尽管如此，在香港，政党的发展空间依然是广阔的。政党可以为社会各阶层的政治参与提供组织、秩序和渠道：可以反映民意、监督政府；可以成为培养政治人才的摇篮，等等。
6月的第一个周一。香港晴天，有云。在雨季中，这样的天气殊为难得。于是出了铜锣湾的地铁口，就有立法会议员高举着“咪”卖力地推介自己的理念，周围各种政党或者社团在热情高涨地进行募捐，路两旁的栏杆则挂满了各政党议员的宣传海报。
遗憾的是，我这次又没赶上香港的选举活动。只能看钱钢饶有兴致的撰文记述：
那些区议员候选人，手持“咪”(即麦克风)，一遍遍详细解释，如果当选他将有何作为。例如，游说交通管理部门将某路巴士延伸到某处；阻止开发商拆除某老人活动场所；保护某处的某一株古树，等等。选情激烈，一男一女两位候选人难分高下。最后时刻，双方都宣布“告急”，派出助选员到各幢公寓“洗楼”(挨家挨户拉票)。结果，男候选人以微乎其微的劣势，在他的“票仓”失利。
那个夜晚我看到了这位失败的男候选人。约摸十一点，一个路口的街心安全岛上，他在谢票。这位年约半百、身材瘦削的先生，通过“咪”，一遍遍喊话：“各位选民！各位街坊！我是xxx。我以六十四票之差，在区议会选举中落败。我承认失败。但是我不甘心。在这个地区，我已经为街坊们服务了二十年。我会继续努力，继续为大家效力！谢谢各位对我的支持！谢谢大家，谢谢大家！……”
凉风拂动花白的头发，声音已经沙哑。即使路上行人渐稀，他还在久久伫立，面对高耸的楼群，努力呼喊，呼喊。有一段时间，整个街区似乎只剩下他和我。
这位当年在凉风中独自谢票的失败者就是民建联的副主席叶国谦。我问他你当了十几年的区议员，突然被选民抛弃了，你为什么还要这样做？
彼时侃侃而谈的叶国谦突然变得有些动情：“那是2003年，当时的政治气候对民建联是非常差的，只输64票来之不易，这个区区议员我从1991年就开始当，和选民有非常紧密的联系、深厚的感情，这个输是因为很不正常的政治环境，但我一定要回报他们对我的支持，我非常珍惜。”
他说他那次走了整整两天，把这个叫做中西区的选区走完。
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, may its culture retain liberty and democracy.
□本报记者 张悦 发自香港
香港回归中国已经10年了，有越来越多的内地居民来到香港，然而即便是如本报记者这般多次踏足港九大地，仍然会不时有文化休克的感觉。
平民化的市政大厦
1997年有一个叫艾敬的沈阳女歌手，曾经唱了一首很火的歌曲《我的1997》，“他可以来沈阳，我不能去香港”、“1997快些到吧”等歌词当时在内地耳熟能详。然而这首歌传唱到香港后却造成了一定程度的恐慌——如果13亿内地人都可以随便到香港，香港秩序会不会乱啊。
香港回归中国已经10年了，从2003年“自由行”开始，也确实有越来越多的内地居民来到香港，然而即便是如我这般多次踏足港九大地的内地人，仍然会不时有文化休克的感觉。
一出红火车站，就会看见一大堆标语，看得初到香港的内地人胆战心惊。在天星码头，也会有人向你散发海报、小册子。在香港随处可以看到这样的一些在内地鲜见的异议人士。这证明香港是享有言论自由的，你只发表政治意见，不搞行动颠覆，香港是可以无视你的存在的。
除了这些表面的“西洋镜”，如果仔细体味，还会有很多进一步的深层震动。
这次来到香港的第一天，由内地来到香港大学做研究学者的南方周末前总编钱钢请我们到一处能体现“香港特色”的大厦吃饭。
那处大厦竟然叫“市政大厦”。然而却没有任何公务员在这办公。这是政府用公帑提供完善设施以服务该区域市民的大厦。
香港18个区，每个区根据面积大小和发展程度均有几座这样的“市政大厦”，格局也大抵相似：底层是一个菜市场和杂货市场，从鸡鸭鱼肉到针头线脑一应俱全，楼上还会有一层“大排档”，众多餐铺汇聚在一起。
后来还参观了另一处耗资逾4亿港元建筑的市政大厦，这座大厦获得了香港建筑师学会的优异奖。除了上述街市，还有现代化的全天候攀石墙、健身室、游泳池等多项文娱设施，有免费供放学后的孩子来做作业的“修习室”；还有公共图书馆。收费的娱乐设施也很便宜，问了一下，一个羽毛球场地一小时才30港元，比北京、上海的同类场地要便宜。
另一方面，市政大厦并不会因为其服务普通市民的性质而显得低档和无秩序。豪华谈不上，但至少现代化、干净、安静。很难想象，在内地除了标志性建筑或者豪华政府大楼，政府会那么花大力气去建设那么多漂亮现代的“便民设施”。
钱钢说，到香港不能靠原来的判断来认识社会主义和资本主义的不同。这个市政大厦就是标准的社会主义啊。
规则大于潜规则
香港人遵守规则是出了名的。即便在双休日的高峰期，市政大厦的游泳池中也不会有拥挤而混乱的感觉，因为香港人在水里也“排队”：泳池拉开了几条泳绳，不仅有“快游池”、“慢游池”，还有“循环池”，不管大人孩子，就如同在路上那样遵守交通规则———沿着泳绳边左去右来，首尾衔接，循环往复。
驻港部队的军车也许是中国最遵守交通规则的军车了，这些开着“ZG”牌照的军车司机可能一句粤语都不会说，在他们第一次驾车进入香港之前，就已经背熟了香港的交通法规。熟悉香港的每一条交通干线，对香港近200种交通标志滚瓜烂熟。
以前英国军车享有“隧道内执勤免费通行”的权力，解放军放弃了，让香港的规则变得更纯粹。
凤凰卫视的时事评论员曹景行曾说起一件事，2000年年初，一位开货柜车的老兵在香港超速行驶，香港警察给驻军寄去一张罚单，上级立即收回他的“往来香港特别通行证”，停止驾车半年。
凤凰卫视的另一位名嘴梁文道跟我们聊天的时候则抱怨香港新颁布的不准在所有室内场所抽烟的规定，让他这杆老烟枪非常憋屈。
但是抱怨归抱怨，一旦新规定立法通过，香港人都会遵守。连记者住的宾馆都会在房间里贴出禁止吸烟的标志，香港一些露天的公共场所也被辟为禁止吸烟区。比如维多利亚公园，一次万人活动过后，我看到偌大一块场地果然没有一个烟头，实在让人感慨。
这一切，是因为在香港，无论是政府官员还是媒体和市民都有强烈的规则意识，规则是一种制度性的文化，在这种文化环境里，规则大于潜规则，扼杀潜规则于摇篮之中，使潜规则没有生存的土壤，遑论非规则。
这次去香港之前，我做过重庆“最牛钉子户”的报道，香港的记者朋友看到过报道自然就讨论起来，之后就说起香港的一起曾经轰动一时的“钉子户事件”。
奇怪的是，当时内地媒体讨论了诸多日本、德国、英国的钉子户，偏偏遗漏了近水楼台更可资比照的香港。
后来我专门查了一下当时的报道，更加称奇：
香港一位八旬农妇与女儿挑战香港的地产大鳄李兆基名下的恒基集团，为一块位于新界大埔翡翠花园邻近，面积有12万平方英尺(一平方英尺约为1／10平方米)的土地，双方展开了一场旷日持久的争地行动。结果2006年1月5日，香港终审法院裁定作为香港真正的草根阶层的农妇母女胜诉，并没有给地产大鳄留下任何一点特别的情面。
一方是人微言轻的老妪，一方是财大气粗富可敌城的地产大鳄，我很难想象，将这一事件搬到内地会是什么结果。在重庆，我看到了太多的从全国各地赶来寻找媒体帮助的“钉子户”和失地农民，在香港，没有人上访，也没有人会哭着把上诉材料塞到记者手里。
两极分化和福利保障
香港的贫富差距之大同样是我们难以预料的。内地来港走马观花的游客会注意香港的门脸———或者在太平山顶俯瞰灯火璀璨的港岛，或者在中环大道仰望中银大厦的瑰丽，但没有人会看到深水街上那些神情困顿的失业工人、观塘和元朗那些可能从没去过中环的新移民，700万香港人中有112万人生活在贫困线下 (2004年，香港社会服务联会发表了一份报告，将全港200万居民分为10组，收入最低的组别人口占到112万，平均月收入2977港元)
在今年香港特首的竞选宣言中，两位竞选者均承诺要解决不断加大的贫富差距，曾荫权还称之为“一个严重的社会问题”。
凤凰卫视梁文道说，10年前，李嘉诚叫李超人，是我们的偶像，代表着只要你努力就有机会成功的“香港梦”。而现在，出租车司机也会骂李嘉诚是混蛋，搞垄断，官商勾结。香港人过去觉得有钱人有钱是靠他自己，现在也出现了仇富心理。
他认为，回归前后，为了香港保持经济活力，更多注重的是商人的利益，忽略了中产阶级和普通人。比如说800人的选举人团多是商人出身，垄断了香港的经济资源，现在又垄断了政治资源，原来的殖民统治中的这部分被保留了，港督执政的时候也是考虑这批商人的利益。
这其中既有值得吸取的教训，也有可资借鉴的经验。
但香港在贫富差距加大的社会环境中，仍然提供给穷人有尊严的生存下去的制度保障。除了公屋制度，还有医疗保障、教育保障等等。避免了社会的不稳定。
香港的公屋是一个非常成功的经验，它保障穷人的基本住房权利，使得他们有机会从底层社会发展到上流社会。曾经主管公屋的香港房委会主席叶国谦说他自己小的时候一家七口人，住在不足20平米的房间中，叠床架屋，三叠床。
现任律政司司长黄仁龙也是在这样的环境下成长起来的。香港有一半居民不进入商品房市场，而是存身于政府提供的房屋中，比如公屋、廉租房，其中，占总人口30％以上的穷人住在“公屋”里。
“公屋”从外表上看很像封闭的大厂房，只是比厂房更高，一般都有近二十层。“公屋”因为由政府统一建造，一般只分大、中、小三种号型：大号的有20平方米出头；中号的16.5平方米；小号的只有10平方米左右。一些三代同堂甚至8口之家就住在这样的逼仄空间内。
叶国谦当房委会主席的时候，每周都有一天要从早上8点半讨论到下午2点，“一年批五六万单位，高峰期7万，现在是2万多。”
这样的保障制度甚至吸引了内地人来香港当穷人。
今年1月份我到香港采访“内地孕妇来港产子”的现象，在入境处办理申请延期的窗口看到了内地孕妇排队的长龙。
来自广州增城的黄广大夫妇的孩子一出生就享受到香港的医疗福利。“小孩出生后身体不好，医院很负责任，不让他出院，两个白天三个晚上，才交了150港元。要是我们内地人在香港这样生病就是7500港元。”
各种福利制度还将伴随着他儿子的成长：九年免费教育，每年有两三千港元书报津贴；在公立医院急诊只需100港元，普通专科60港元，住院每天100港元；如果儿子独自在港，可以申请每月1930港元基本生活补助、1280港元住房津贴。孩子从一出生每月可以拿到三千多港元，比多数内地工人的工资还要高。
香港政党的“担当”
采访叶国谦的第二天，6月12日，民建联就要开党员大会，这是一个历史性的大会。被港人视为爱国爱港的党派，民建联之前拥有党员9969人，新有一百多人申请入党。“明天我们一开会就成为万人政党了，这是香港第一个万人政党。”
1991年，香港立法局首次引入直选，催生了一些“政党”组织，这些组织有自己的“党纲”、“党魁”。
“我们是一批在香港土生土长的，觉得对香港社会要有所承担的群体。”叶国谦说。
回归前香港政府官员是根据《英皇制诰》由英国委派，本地政党不可能“以执政为职志”。香港回归后，特区政府是直辖于中央政府的地方政权，基本法第十五条规定：“中央人民政府依照本法第四章的规定任命香港特别行政区行政长官和行政机关的主要官员。”基本法这一规定事实上已否定了香港“执政党”的存在。
香港以行业、界别、阶层为活动平台的社会团体很多，市民已习惯于依托这些社会团体为自己争取权益、表达诉求，且可避免政治化，因此并不热衷于加入某个政党。香港规模最大、人数最多的团体不是哪一个政党，而是工联会。
民建联现在是立法会中的最大党，但并不意味着它会成为“执政党”。
尽管如此，在香港，政党的发展空间依然是广阔的。政党可以为社会各阶层的政治参与提供组织、秩序和渠道：可以反映民意、监督政府；可以成为培养政治人才的摇篮，等等。
6月的第一个周一。香港晴天，有云。在雨季中，这样的天气殊为难得。于是出了铜锣湾的地铁口，就有立法会议员高举着“咪”卖力地推介自己的理念，周围各种政党或者社团在热情高涨地进行募捐，路两旁的栏杆则挂满了各政党议员的宣传海报。
遗憾的是，我这次又没赶上香港的选举活动。只能看钱钢饶有兴致的撰文记述：
那些区议员候选人，手持“咪”(即麦克风)，一遍遍详细解释，如果当选他将有何作为。例如，游说交通管理部门将某路巴士延伸到某处；阻止开发商拆除某老人活动场所；保护某处的某一株古树，等等。选情激烈，一男一女两位候选人难分高下。最后时刻，双方都宣布“告急”，派出助选员到各幢公寓“洗楼”(挨家挨户拉票)。结果，男候选人以微乎其微的劣势，在他的“票仓”失利。
那个夜晚我看到了这位失败的男候选人。约摸十一点，一个路口的街心安全岛上，他在谢票。这位年约半百、身材瘦削的先生，通过“咪”，一遍遍喊话：“各位选民！各位街坊！我是xxx。我以六十四票之差，在区议会选举中落败。我承认失败。但是我不甘心。在这个地区，我已经为街坊们服务了二十年。我会继续努力，继续为大家效力！谢谢各位对我的支持！谢谢大家，谢谢大家！……”
凉风拂动花白的头发，声音已经沙哑。即使路上行人渐稀，他还在久久伫立，面对高耸的楼群，努力呼喊，呼喊。有一段时间，整个街区似乎只剩下他和我。
这位当年在凉风中独自谢票的失败者就是民建联的副主席叶国谦。我问他你当了十几年的区议员，突然被选民抛弃了，你为什么还要这样做？
彼时侃侃而谈的叶国谦突然变得有些动情：“那是2003年，当时的政治气候对民建联是非常差的，只输64票来之不易，这个区区议员我从1991年就开始当，和选民有非常紧密的联系、深厚的感情，这个输是因为很不正常的政治环境，但我一定要回报他们对我的支持，我非常珍惜。”
他说他那次走了整整两天，把这个叫做中西区的选区走完。
Friday, June 29, 2007
Cute Chinese Design - Tuzki
These bunnies known as Tuzki (兔斯基), are the latest to steal the hearts of Chinese netizens.
Simplistic, noseless and mouthless, these bunnies have been hot on Chinese internet, particularly with QQ and MSN users since the beginning of 2007. Wang Momo, a student in animation department of Beijing Broadcasting Institute created this popular lagomorph.
Wang Momo created this character to be able to write her diary in a graphic form. Her friends and classmates always nicknamed her “rabbit” as well. The first Tuzki was very simple, and just waved his arms and shook his head. Then Momo created more pictures and small animations for this character based on her real life experiences. To date, Tuzki has 39 different expressions. And thanks to the 150,000,000 Tecent QQ users and 20 million MSN messenger users in China, the popularity of Tuzki also generates income for this young woman. She is now designing Tuzki posters and postcards, which will take the rabbit beyond the definition of an internet idol.
The use of cartoon icons when chatting with others via MSN Messenger is considered an internet phenomenon started by the younger generations in China. At first it started with Yoyo & Cici (悠嘻猴), a launch by Chinajoy at the beginning of 2006, driven by commercial purposes. Later in 2006, the cartoon Onion replaced the Yoyo & Cici Monkeys to be the most popular internet icon. Currently, Tzuki is the new fad.
[Extracts from Shanghaiist]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
