韓寒
泰興幼兒園中的小孩也被人砍了，32人受傷，死亡情況不明。這個新聞因為離開上一次南平幼兒園襲擊的新聞太近，我甚至一度誤以為是同一個幼兒園。
在最近的變態凶手殺人事件中，他們都選擇了幼兒園和小學，相信在很多想報復社會的人心中，去幼兒園小學殺人成為了一種時尚，因為在殺人過程中，你將遇到最少的抵抗，殺掉最多的人，造成民間最大的痛苦的恐慌，是最有效的報復社會手段。除了楊佳以外，幾乎所有殺手都挑選了向弱者下手。這個社會沒有出口，殺害更弱者成了他們唯一的出口。我建議把全國地方政府門衛間裡的保安們抽調去保護幼兒園，孩子都保護不了的政府不需要那麼多人保護。
這些殺人事件的產生很大原因是這個社會不公正，不公平。是的，讓公平正義比太陽還要有光輝。但太陽不是每天都出。我們的陰天和黑夜是否稍微太多了一些？所以，提出讓公平正義比太陽還要有光輝並不偉大，做到讓太陽分分鐘都掛在你頭頂上才偉大。
在泰州幼兒園殺人事件中，新聞被控制了，這些孩子們生不逢時，死更不逢時。在相關部門的認識裡，在這喜慶的氣氛裡，這事當屬雜音。我們只知道，泰州幼兒園殺人事件中，受傷32人，政府和醫院一再強調，無一死亡，但是坊間又傳說，死了多個孩子。你說我應該相信誰呢？相信政府吧，那為什麼他們禁止家長見到孩子呢？至今還封鎖著醫院和新聞，沒有孩子的照片和視頻，況且一個殺人用刀劈了32個人，結果一個沒死，那他到底是在殺人還是在做手術呢，也太小心了。相信傳聞吧，畢竟傳聞都是喜歡往誇張了傳的，我們無圖無真相，也不能相信。於是我一搜索泰州，出現的新聞居然是——《泰州近日三喜臨門》，日期是4月30日。
我只是非常的詫異，泰州政府通過了封鎖消息，封鎖醫院，控制媒體，禁止探望，轉移視線，等手段，居然成功的將人們對於殺手的憤怒轉移到了自己身上，這是何苦。你以為他有什麼目的，其實不是的，除了要配合世博會《和諧歡歌》以外，這只是慣性，是政府處理類似事件的習慣，是七步曲：吃飯喝酒到一半，出事了—— 隱瞞，隔離，撤媒體，發禁令，發通稿，賠錢，火化——繼續吃飯喝酒。他們處理問題的手段不比凶手高尚多少，也難怪在網上看到有幼兒園掛出橫幅——冤有頭債有主，出門左轉是政府。
短短的一個多月內，五起校園凶殺案件，短短的一周以內，就發生了兩起，4月29日，泰州，4月30日，濰坊。我不想去探討其中的社會原因，只想告訴大家，也就在這裡，一個人衝進幼兒園砍了32個小孩是不能上社會新聞的，32個加起來才超過一百歲的孩子，你們被砍了，連個報紙都不給你上，因為在幾百公裡以外，召開了一個盛會，那裡光煙花就放了上億，同時在你們的家鄉泰州，要召開國際旅游節，經貿洽談會和華僑城開業典禮，正三喜臨門。
也許在那些爺爺們眼裡，你們，是掃興的。
但是，我們可憐的孩子們，奶粉毒害的是你們，疫苗傷害的是你們，地震壓死的是你們，被火燒死的是你們。就算是成人們的規則出了問題，被成人用刀報復的也是你們。我願望真的像泰州政府說的一樣，你們全部都只是受傷，無一死亡。年長者失職了，願你們長大以後，不光要庇護你們自己的孩子，還要讓這個社會庇護所有人的孩子。
2010年5月3日 星期一
2010年4月8日 星期四
The US: Friend No More
Mark Simon
Second Opinion
Next Magazine
08 April 2010
With our currency pegged to the US dollar, rule of law, long standing cooperation in international financial affairs and staunch support of free trade, no other trading partner offers more of what the United States claims it needs for the success of its people and companies in international commerce than Hong Kong does. At least that was the story until President Obama and his left leaning union-backed coalition came to power.
A US president who supports higher taxes, greater regulation,"fair" over free trade, and a belief that nations with"costs" below those of the US have an unfair trading advantage, means Hong Kong is about to taste the economic and trade agenda of the American left.
The shift in the US Democratic Party on trade has been taking place for some time, as unions, environmentalists and the usual collection of anti-capitalist elements have climbed to power within the party. Unions never forgave Bill Clinton for his pro-trade accomplishments which they saw as hurting US workers. President Obama secured union support in 2008 with a pledge to be more skeptical towards free trade. A pledge that he has undeniably lived up too as he has stopped signature-ready trade agreements with South Korea and Columbia, and made trade talks more about climate change than the exchange of goods.
The Democrat's anti-trade stance has consequences for Hong Kong. We are a city that lives on trade. If the dominant political power in our second largest market is turning protectionist, then Hong Kong will be harmed. Worse yet is when that trading partner is the US, and Hong Kong is seen as an economic threat based on the very system that has made Hong Kong prosperous.
Newsweek recently wrote that the only thing China accomplished at last April's G20 meeting was to block a US effort to name Hong Kong a tax haven. China may soon have another item to block. It is no coincidence that the Petersen Institute, a left leaning pro-Obama economic think tank recently called Hong Kong's currency undervalued. Is the US about to add currency manipulation to its charge of Hong Kong being a tax haven and opaque offshore banking center? And since Hong Kong hasn't made many changes to our banking system in the last twenty years, when exactly did we become the rouge system the US now wants to clamp down?
Hong Kong is not a money laundering center nor a city founded on tax evasion. We are a low tax trading hub. The fact that Hong Kong banking laws are under assault by the US Treasury and IRS has more to do with closing up a financial system which is far more competitive than the high-cost US rather than the IRS chasing deadbeat Americans. It did not go un-noticed in the US that Hong Kong eclipsed New York in IPO offerings as companies fled US over-regulation and high taxes. It is possible to become competitive by either cutting your own costs or by raising your competitor's costs.
The shift in the US position on Hong Kong is clear. Is there one item on the US-Hong Kong agenda that opens more trade or removes regulation between the two partners? The entire economic focus of the US on Hong Kong is negative and accusatory.
Hong Kong's response to this new hostility has been feeble. The US is calling Hong Kong a money laundering tax haven with poor banking laws. Hong Kong's response? A kowtow. While it is understandable that the government does not wish a fight with the US, one might ask what the alternative is if Hong Kong does not resist the US? Make no mistake the problem the American left has with Hong Kong goes much deeper than a few banking law changes. A protectionist agenda is forming in the United States and Europe, and part of that agenda is an attack on low-tax light-regulation nations. This means Hong Kong.
Donald Tsang and his government owe the Hong Kong people a defense of the Hong Kong system, not complicit adherence in helping the US raise the cost of Hong Kong by increasing regulation and reducing competitiveness. Some fights are worth having.
Mark Simon first lived in Hong Kong from 1992 to 1995. Since 2000 he has been an executive with the Next Media group in Hong Kong. He has written on free trade in the Asian Wall Street Journal, IHT, SCMP, and various international policy journals.
Second Opinion
Next Magazine
08 April 2010
With our currency pegged to the US dollar, rule of law, long standing cooperation in international financial affairs and staunch support of free trade, no other trading partner offers more of what the United States claims it needs for the success of its people and companies in international commerce than Hong Kong does. At least that was the story until President Obama and his left leaning union-backed coalition came to power.
A US president who supports higher taxes, greater regulation,"fair" over free trade, and a belief that nations with"costs" below those of the US have an unfair trading advantage, means Hong Kong is about to taste the economic and trade agenda of the American left.
The shift in the US Democratic Party on trade has been taking place for some time, as unions, environmentalists and the usual collection of anti-capitalist elements have climbed to power within the party. Unions never forgave Bill Clinton for his pro-trade accomplishments which they saw as hurting US workers. President Obama secured union support in 2008 with a pledge to be more skeptical towards free trade. A pledge that he has undeniably lived up too as he has stopped signature-ready trade agreements with South Korea and Columbia, and made trade talks more about climate change than the exchange of goods.
The Democrat's anti-trade stance has consequences for Hong Kong. We are a city that lives on trade. If the dominant political power in our second largest market is turning protectionist, then Hong Kong will be harmed. Worse yet is when that trading partner is the US, and Hong Kong is seen as an economic threat based on the very system that has made Hong Kong prosperous.
Newsweek recently wrote that the only thing China accomplished at last April's G20 meeting was to block a US effort to name Hong Kong a tax haven. China may soon have another item to block. It is no coincidence that the Petersen Institute, a left leaning pro-Obama economic think tank recently called Hong Kong's currency undervalued. Is the US about to add currency manipulation to its charge of Hong Kong being a tax haven and opaque offshore banking center? And since Hong Kong hasn't made many changes to our banking system in the last twenty years, when exactly did we become the rouge system the US now wants to clamp down?
Hong Kong is not a money laundering center nor a city founded on tax evasion. We are a low tax trading hub. The fact that Hong Kong banking laws are under assault by the US Treasury and IRS has more to do with closing up a financial system which is far more competitive than the high-cost US rather than the IRS chasing deadbeat Americans. It did not go un-noticed in the US that Hong Kong eclipsed New York in IPO offerings as companies fled US over-regulation and high taxes. It is possible to become competitive by either cutting your own costs or by raising your competitor's costs.
The shift in the US position on Hong Kong is clear. Is there one item on the US-Hong Kong agenda that opens more trade or removes regulation between the two partners? The entire economic focus of the US on Hong Kong is negative and accusatory.
Hong Kong's response to this new hostility has been feeble. The US is calling Hong Kong a money laundering tax haven with poor banking laws. Hong Kong's response? A kowtow. While it is understandable that the government does not wish a fight with the US, one might ask what the alternative is if Hong Kong does not resist the US? Make no mistake the problem the American left has with Hong Kong goes much deeper than a few banking law changes. A protectionist agenda is forming in the United States and Europe, and part of that agenda is an attack on low-tax light-regulation nations. This means Hong Kong.
Donald Tsang and his government owe the Hong Kong people a defense of the Hong Kong system, not complicit adherence in helping the US raise the cost of Hong Kong by increasing regulation and reducing competitiveness. Some fights are worth having.
Mark Simon first lived in Hong Kong from 1992 to 1995. Since 2000 he has been an executive with the Next Media group in Hong Kong. He has written on free trade in the Asian Wall Street Journal, IHT, SCMP, and various international policy journals.
2010年3月25日 星期四
內地半數飯盒含致癌物
明報
2010年3月25日
【明報專訊】內地不法商家以有毒化學物質生產塑膠飯盒的情况嚴重。有檢測結果顯示，這些飯盒含有工業碳酸鈣和工業石蠟等有毒化學物，當飯盒盛載有油或醋的食物時，化學物就會溶解入食物之中被人體吸收，輕則影響新陳代謝 系統，形成膽石、腎石，攝入過量更可能致癌。
《中國青年報》引述中國國際食品包裝協會的統計，中國每年消耗150億個飯盒，但大部分飯盒在生產過程存在問題，質量不合格，協會秘書長董金獅說，這些飯盒「合格率還不到一半」。
董金獅指出，曾將北京 兩間著名飯店「老邊餃子」和「東來順涮羊肉」所用的飯盒拿去檢驗，結果發現，飯盒所用物質溶解到食物中的比例超過國家標準20倍至150倍。董金獅稱，生產商為省成本，生產飯盒時混入工業碳酸鈣和工業石蠟等有毒化學物，令民眾用飯盒吃飯等於「服毒」。
2010年3月25日
【明報專訊】內地不法商家以有毒化學物質生產塑膠飯盒的情况嚴重。有檢測結果顯示，這些飯盒含有工業碳酸鈣和工業石蠟等有毒化學物，當飯盒盛載有油或醋的食物時，化學物就會溶解入食物之中被人體吸收，輕則影響新陳代謝 系統，形成膽石、腎石，攝入過量更可能致癌。
《中國青年報》引述中國國際食品包裝協會的統計，中國每年消耗150億個飯盒，但大部分飯盒在生產過程存在問題，質量不合格，協會秘書長董金獅說，這些飯盒「合格率還不到一半」。
董金獅指出，曾將北京 兩間著名飯店「老邊餃子」和「東來順涮羊肉」所用的飯盒拿去檢驗，結果發現，飯盒所用物質溶解到食物中的比例超過國家標準20倍至150倍。董金獅稱，生產商為省成本，生產飯盒時混入工業碳酸鈣和工業石蠟等有毒化學物，令民眾用飯盒吃飯等於「服毒」。
Silenced by a shoe and he still doesn't know why
Stephen Vines
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-25
Mr. Henry Tang's peculiar fixed grin indicates the terrible level of communication between Hong Kong's rulers and the ruled.
Almost a month has passed since the shoe throwing incident when the Chief Secretary Henry Tang demonstrated that he does a passable imitation of a lamp post but a poor imitation of a political leader.
When the unemployed Mr Man flung his shoe at Mr Tang during a youth summit the Chief Secretary looked startled, stopped reading the speech, which was anyway threatening to put people to sleep, and donned that peculiar fixed grin he favors when something is going on that he doesn't understand.
Mr Tang is far from being Hong Kong's brightest person and rarely ventures out alone without a script prepared by one of his officials so he is spared having to utter words that come out of his own head. Former US President George W. Bush had a similar problem when speaking in public and even had trouble reading out the scripts prepared for him but when, in 2008, a Iraqi protester gave him the flying shoe treatment he both managed to duck, unlike Mr Tang, and then managed to make a decent joke about the incident. Later, when back in the hands of his minders, he even managed to use the incident to make a telling point about America's aims in Iraq.
The best example of turning heckling to advantage was supplied by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev who was on a tour of the nation explaining why the Communist Party had decided the time had come to denounce the crimes of Josef Stalin.'We all knew what was going on back then but could not do anything', he told his audience.'Why not', shouted a man at one of these meetings. Khrushchev looked up from his speech and asked,'who said that?' Total silence followed.'Now you know', he triumphantly continued.
What is staggering about the Tang incident is not just that he was completely unable to respond in any way but that his handlers did not even bother to subsequently supply him with some words that would have made it possible to turn this insult into an advantage.
It seems to be official government policy to never let officials depart from their scripts and always to miss an opportunity to use an opportunity. Thus it is that despite repeatedly being subject to colorful disruptions of his rare addresses to Legco the Chief Executive Donald Tsang can do little more than grimace or share his Chief Secretary's habit of assuming a strange looking grin.
The not very lamented first Chief Executive of the SAR, Tung Chee-hwa decided that the best way to communicate with the people of Hong Kong was to copy the habits of the leadership on the Mainland and make toneless speeches punctuated by pauses at which point the handpicked audience were expected to break into polite applause. If anyone can remember a single word of any of these speeches please do not contact me, it only shows you have an appetite for the very dull.
This tells us a great deal about the state of political leadership in Hong Kong where charisma has been surgically removed from the picture and communication is largely carried out in ways that show an alarming disregard for the people who are supposed to be the recipients of this communication.
Lively rhetoric is almost absent from Hong Kong's political scene, indeed it is a struggle to think of any political leaders who can actually manage to inspire an audience. The ailing democrat Szeto-wah is an exception; he makes very moving speeches which are greeted with rapt attention. Lamentably the democrat camp has few other people who can perform in this way and the pro-government camp largely does not even bother to try.
This is not just a matter of performance but an indication of the terrible level of communication between Hong Kong's rulers and the ruled; as this is not acknowledged things can only get worse.
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-25
Mr. Henry Tang's peculiar fixed grin indicates the terrible level of communication between Hong Kong's rulers and the ruled.
Almost a month has passed since the shoe throwing incident when the Chief Secretary Henry Tang demonstrated that he does a passable imitation of a lamp post but a poor imitation of a political leader.
When the unemployed Mr Man flung his shoe at Mr Tang during a youth summit the Chief Secretary looked startled, stopped reading the speech, which was anyway threatening to put people to sleep, and donned that peculiar fixed grin he favors when something is going on that he doesn't understand.
Mr Tang is far from being Hong Kong's brightest person and rarely ventures out alone without a script prepared by one of his officials so he is spared having to utter words that come out of his own head. Former US President George W. Bush had a similar problem when speaking in public and even had trouble reading out the scripts prepared for him but when, in 2008, a Iraqi protester gave him the flying shoe treatment he both managed to duck, unlike Mr Tang, and then managed to make a decent joke about the incident. Later, when back in the hands of his minders, he even managed to use the incident to make a telling point about America's aims in Iraq.
The best example of turning heckling to advantage was supplied by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev who was on a tour of the nation explaining why the Communist Party had decided the time had come to denounce the crimes of Josef Stalin.'We all knew what was going on back then but could not do anything', he told his audience.'Why not', shouted a man at one of these meetings. Khrushchev looked up from his speech and asked,'who said that?' Total silence followed.'Now you know', he triumphantly continued.
What is staggering about the Tang incident is not just that he was completely unable to respond in any way but that his handlers did not even bother to subsequently supply him with some words that would have made it possible to turn this insult into an advantage.
It seems to be official government policy to never let officials depart from their scripts and always to miss an opportunity to use an opportunity. Thus it is that despite repeatedly being subject to colorful disruptions of his rare addresses to Legco the Chief Executive Donald Tsang can do little more than grimace or share his Chief Secretary's habit of assuming a strange looking grin.
The not very lamented first Chief Executive of the SAR, Tung Chee-hwa decided that the best way to communicate with the people of Hong Kong was to copy the habits of the leadership on the Mainland and make toneless speeches punctuated by pauses at which point the handpicked audience were expected to break into polite applause. If anyone can remember a single word of any of these speeches please do not contact me, it only shows you have an appetite for the very dull.
This tells us a great deal about the state of political leadership in Hong Kong where charisma has been surgically removed from the picture and communication is largely carried out in ways that show an alarming disregard for the people who are supposed to be the recipients of this communication.
Lively rhetoric is almost absent from Hong Kong's political scene, indeed it is a struggle to think of any political leaders who can actually manage to inspire an audience. The ailing democrat Szeto-wah is an exception; he makes very moving speeches which are greeted with rapt attention. Lamentably the democrat camp has few other people who can perform in this way and the pro-government camp largely does not even bother to try.
This is not just a matter of performance but an indication of the terrible level of communication between Hong Kong's rulers and the ruled; as this is not acknowledged things can only get worse.
2010年3月24日 星期三
陳雲：保育永利街 濫用「文化例外」
在高壓統治的地方，人民要記住失去的，而不是償還的。奪去頭顱，償還頭髮，是毋須感激的事。上環永利街之保存，是由中環的天星皇后碼頭之粉碎換來。偷走天星碼頭與大會堂之間的公共領域，還你永利街的私人蝸居，以獅子山精神迷醉市民，使愚民只問耕耘，不問收獲，為了養家活兒，打落牙齒和血吞，默默承受大財團的金融及地產掠奪，維繫香港的資產階級專政，是曾蔭權一伙鼠竊狗偷的長技。
筆者出任民政局研究總監期間，政府因西九爭議及旅港學者龍應台的挑戰，而授意民政局整理及陳述香港政府的文化政策。筆者草擬，修訂再三，二○○六年四月八日，民政局局長何志平在《信報》以官方身份發表「細說香港文化政策」。文章重點後來成為官方的文化政策陳述，在諮詢報告及政府網頁，乃至賽馬會創意藝術中心的牌匾，俱有公布。當中一段摘錄如下，以作歷史存照：
歷年來，本地的文化政策都是透過具體的公共文化措施，與民間互動而形成，而非透過文化辯論或意識形態辯論。政府在文化範疇的行政行為，亦採用一般的行政原則，如自由經濟、公民自主與維持公共服務的財政原則等，而不因為特殊的文化考慮而破格處理，即所謂「文化例外」（cultural exception）的方法，掌管文化的官員亦自覺抑制，甚少採取「文化英雄」、救急扶危的角色。
例如，過去在古蹟保護方面，政府遵從產權自主和城市規劃的一般原則，多於文化美學的特殊考慮。又例如，在自由貿易的大原則之下，香港的文化市場開放，沒有特殊的保護措施。至於推動創意工業，亦遵照自由經濟的原則。
公義不存，私義何用？
為此，同人在任期間，即使目睹天星皇后碼頭清拆而民眾的文化觀感逆轉，文化界視之為公共空間之萎縮，象徵特區政府不再秉持殖民政府在上世紀六十年代之後的公共政策承擔，同人身處官衙，由於曾蔭權政府不願退讓，另改藍圖以保留天星皇后碼頭，只能一言不發。前民政局局長兼古物總監何志平在落任之前，甚至親自出面，聲稱皇后碼頭並無古蹟的保存價值，甘願領受罵名而黯然下台。然而，二〇〇七年七月，古物總監轉移到發展局局長手上之後，綱紀蕩然，借口特事特辦，大開「文化例外」之先例。
政府若要真的開創「文化例外」的先例，使香港在回歸之後開展文化城市（cultural city）之建設，則應自天星皇后碼頭之原地保存或重置開始，而不是從永利街開始。而即使是文化例外，政府行使酌情權而暫緩工程之後，也要依循程序，重新諮詢及坦誠陳述，向民眾展開文化共識之辯論，向議會申請或確認撥款，而不是偷偷摸摸，不敢認頭，假借市建局做爛頭卒。
回歸之後，打從美國銀行大班梁錦松出任財政司司長而高唱「獅子山下」之後，註定香港的中小企業和中下階層走上惡運。政府厲行新自由主義之惡政，鬆懈市場監管，鼓吹弱肉強食及金融掠奪甚至欺詐（如雷曼迷債），並且部署退出公共承擔，推出或密謀推出強積金、私人醫療供款（強醫金）、教育產業化、隧道私有化、公屋商場私有化（領匯）等等，又停建公屋及居屋。
獅子山精神在和合石
獅子山下精神如要真的奏效，也須政府願意承擔公共服務及福利保障，並且維護市場公平。上世紀七十年代初，香港電台推出《獅子山下》之際，正是港英政府勇於承擔公共服務及社會福利之時，勇於為本地產業開拓市場及維護市場公平之時，令小市民及小企業無後顧之憂。天星碼頭、大會堂、政府總部及郵政總局的方正簡潔的官方建築風格，以及這些建築物之間的、絕少商業氣息的公共空間，是港英政府不辯自明的文化政治。
回歸之後，天星皇后倒下，政府總部搬遷，郵政總局及大會堂也終將清拆。整個公共空間將被商業盤據。「皮之不存，毛將焉附」？撤走了公共領域的公正與平等，私人領域還有什麼作為？二十元一個鐘，做夠十年，也是二十元一個鐘，而屋租、糧食、學費卻成倍上升。窮人都不信這套了，政府還向人灌輸死做爛做、多勞多得，努力奮鬥終有出頭天，不必向政府要求公義，饑寒交迫也不要申請綜援，欲以永利街之保存而高舉「獅子山精神」，可謂妙想天開。
今時今日，獅子山精神不在永利街，而在和合石，浩氣長存矣。
摘自信報
筆者出任民政局研究總監期間，政府因西九爭議及旅港學者龍應台的挑戰，而授意民政局整理及陳述香港政府的文化政策。筆者草擬，修訂再三，二○○六年四月八日，民政局局長何志平在《信報》以官方身份發表「細說香港文化政策」。文章重點後來成為官方的文化政策陳述，在諮詢報告及政府網頁，乃至賽馬會創意藝術中心的牌匾，俱有公布。當中一段摘錄如下，以作歷史存照：
歷年來，本地的文化政策都是透過具體的公共文化措施，與民間互動而形成，而非透過文化辯論或意識形態辯論。政府在文化範疇的行政行為，亦採用一般的行政原則，如自由經濟、公民自主與維持公共服務的財政原則等，而不因為特殊的文化考慮而破格處理，即所謂「文化例外」（cultural exception）的方法，掌管文化的官員亦自覺抑制，甚少採取「文化英雄」、救急扶危的角色。
例如，過去在古蹟保護方面，政府遵從產權自主和城市規劃的一般原則，多於文化美學的特殊考慮。又例如，在自由貿易的大原則之下，香港的文化市場開放，沒有特殊的保護措施。至於推動創意工業，亦遵照自由經濟的原則。
公義不存，私義何用？
為此，同人在任期間，即使目睹天星皇后碼頭清拆而民眾的文化觀感逆轉，文化界視之為公共空間之萎縮，象徵特區政府不再秉持殖民政府在上世紀六十年代之後的公共政策承擔，同人身處官衙，由於曾蔭權政府不願退讓，另改藍圖以保留天星皇后碼頭，只能一言不發。前民政局局長兼古物總監何志平在落任之前，甚至親自出面，聲稱皇后碼頭並無古蹟的保存價值，甘願領受罵名而黯然下台。然而，二〇〇七年七月，古物總監轉移到發展局局長手上之後，綱紀蕩然，借口特事特辦，大開「文化例外」之先例。
政府若要真的開創「文化例外」的先例，使香港在回歸之後開展文化城市（cultural city）之建設，則應自天星皇后碼頭之原地保存或重置開始，而不是從永利街開始。而即使是文化例外，政府行使酌情權而暫緩工程之後，也要依循程序，重新諮詢及坦誠陳述，向民眾展開文化共識之辯論，向議會申請或確認撥款，而不是偷偷摸摸，不敢認頭，假借市建局做爛頭卒。
回歸之後，打從美國銀行大班梁錦松出任財政司司長而高唱「獅子山下」之後，註定香港的中小企業和中下階層走上惡運。政府厲行新自由主義之惡政，鬆懈市場監管，鼓吹弱肉強食及金融掠奪甚至欺詐（如雷曼迷債），並且部署退出公共承擔，推出或密謀推出強積金、私人醫療供款（強醫金）、教育產業化、隧道私有化、公屋商場私有化（領匯）等等，又停建公屋及居屋。
獅子山精神在和合石
獅子山下精神如要真的奏效，也須政府願意承擔公共服務及福利保障，並且維護市場公平。上世紀七十年代初，香港電台推出《獅子山下》之際，正是港英政府勇於承擔公共服務及社會福利之時，勇於為本地產業開拓市場及維護市場公平之時，令小市民及小企業無後顧之憂。天星碼頭、大會堂、政府總部及郵政總局的方正簡潔的官方建築風格，以及這些建築物之間的、絕少商業氣息的公共空間，是港英政府不辯自明的文化政治。
回歸之後，天星皇后倒下，政府總部搬遷，郵政總局及大會堂也終將清拆。整個公共空間將被商業盤據。「皮之不存，毛將焉附」？撤走了公共領域的公正與平等，私人領域還有什麼作為？二十元一個鐘，做夠十年，也是二十元一個鐘，而屋租、糧食、學費卻成倍上升。窮人都不信這套了，政府還向人灌輸死做爛做、多勞多得，努力奮鬥終有出頭天，不必向政府要求公義，饑寒交迫也不要申請綜援，欲以永利街之保存而高舉「獅子山精神」，可謂妙想天開。
今時今日，獅子山精神不在永利街，而在和合石，浩氣長存矣。
摘自信報
2010年3月23日 星期二
2010年3月22日 星期一
We’re Having a Chinese CNN
Chip Tsao
HK Magazine
19 March 2010
After announcing his $2 billion acquisition of the ATV broadcasting station as a major shareholder, up-and-coming Shanghai property tycoon Wang Jing laid out an ambitious plan to turn the channel into “Asia’s CNN” in 20 years. A bold sound-bite, only eclipsed a little later the same day when the ICAC arrested the GM of competitor channel TVB, Stephen Chan, on corruption charges. It seems neither ATV nor Chan were born under a lucky star.
In order to truly create “Asia’s CNN” out of China, Wang would have a lot of work to do. Money is no problem, but it’s human resources that worry me. In order to present the other side of the news, the side not monopolized by Western media cultural imperialism, a team of local Hong Kong war correspondents would have to be urgently trained to deploy to countries such as Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan to provide round-the-clock news bulletins. There is very limited manpower available in Hong Kong. Most of the reporters recently swarming Premier Wen Jiabao at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing struggling to extract a word of comment on Hong Kong’s state of play or the performance of Donald Tsang, looked like teeny-boopers or amateur Japanese porn stars. Paparazzi lurking around Lan Kwai Fong hoping for a snapshot of Edison will be prevented by their parents from taking a high-risk job like an Afghanistan assignment; Hong Kong’s film starlets will never answer a question with a volley of machine gun fire.
Wang will have to recruit some brave candidates from China, which is never in short supply of surprises. But even if he’s lucky enough to find a Chinese Mike Chinoy, would that correspondent be allowed to beam back a live story about a riot in Urumqi if a government building was just rocked by an Islamic suicide bomber there? Would he be permitted to have the same urgency as when on September 11, 2001, CNN’s journalist uttered the famous lines live on air, “You are looking at obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That’s the famous World Trade Center, we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers”?
Would we get a program like “Crossfire,” anchored by hosts from both the left and right wing ideologies debating the issues of the day? Martin Lee locked in arguments with CY Leung on the prospects of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, watched by over 100 million Chinese households?
If this isn’t the case, the odds of any Hong Kong TV station becoming “Asia’s CNN” in 20 years is less likely than me becoming another Li Ka-shing in the next 20 months, or CNN evolving into America’s ATV if President Obama wins another term.
Chip Tsao is a best-selling author and columnist. A former reporter for the BBC, his columns have also appeared in Apple Daily, Next Magazine and CUP Magazine, among others.
HK Magazine
19 March 2010
After announcing his $2 billion acquisition of the ATV broadcasting station as a major shareholder, up-and-coming Shanghai property tycoon Wang Jing laid out an ambitious plan to turn the channel into “Asia’s CNN” in 20 years. A bold sound-bite, only eclipsed a little later the same day when the ICAC arrested the GM of competitor channel TVB, Stephen Chan, on corruption charges. It seems neither ATV nor Chan were born under a lucky star.
In order to truly create “Asia’s CNN” out of China, Wang would have a lot of work to do. Money is no problem, but it’s human resources that worry me. In order to present the other side of the news, the side not monopolized by Western media cultural imperialism, a team of local Hong Kong war correspondents would have to be urgently trained to deploy to countries such as Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan to provide round-the-clock news bulletins. There is very limited manpower available in Hong Kong. Most of the reporters recently swarming Premier Wen Jiabao at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing struggling to extract a word of comment on Hong Kong’s state of play or the performance of Donald Tsang, looked like teeny-boopers or amateur Japanese porn stars. Paparazzi lurking around Lan Kwai Fong hoping for a snapshot of Edison will be prevented by their parents from taking a high-risk job like an Afghanistan assignment; Hong Kong’s film starlets will never answer a question with a volley of machine gun fire.
Wang will have to recruit some brave candidates from China, which is never in short supply of surprises. But even if he’s lucky enough to find a Chinese Mike Chinoy, would that correspondent be allowed to beam back a live story about a riot in Urumqi if a government building was just rocked by an Islamic suicide bomber there? Would he be permitted to have the same urgency as when on September 11, 2001, CNN’s journalist uttered the famous lines live on air, “You are looking at obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That’s the famous World Trade Center, we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers”?
Would we get a program like “Crossfire,” anchored by hosts from both the left and right wing ideologies debating the issues of the day? Martin Lee locked in arguments with CY Leung on the prospects of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, watched by over 100 million Chinese households?
If this isn’t the case, the odds of any Hong Kong TV station becoming “Asia’s CNN” in 20 years is less likely than me becoming another Li Ka-shing in the next 20 months, or CNN evolving into America’s ATV if President Obama wins another term.
Chip Tsao is a best-selling author and columnist. A former reporter for the BBC, his columns have also appeared in Apple Daily, Next Magazine and CUP Magazine, among others.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
