Heather Du Quesnay
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-18
Hong Kong kids need more than processing skills to make it in the modern world. They have to be able to solve problems by working in teams, to share resources and materials, to express themselves using modern media. They need to build their confidence by playing music, acting, debating, and taking on leadership roles.
I came to Hong Kong five years ago to run the English Schools Foundation(ESF). From the start I was spell-bound by the beauty of the city. After the most difficult of days, I could step out of my office, then on Stubbs Road, and lose myself in the bowl of jewels that was Happy Valley at seven o'clock in the evening.
The can-do culture is a joy to an incoming Brit. I wanted a silver ring to match a necklace I had been given when I left my last job.'We'll have it in your size in two hours.''You need a book-case?''We'll deliver it and put it up for you tomorrow.'
Hong Kong is amazingly effective also in educating its children. When the Organisation for Economic Development does its PISA(Programme for International Assessment) tests, Hong Kong is regularly near the top. Hong Kong kids can calculate and perform maths functions faster than a machine. And their brains, wired over generations to learn full-form Chinese characters, are fast, sharp, spatially aware; they're learning from the cradle to make deals and to be good at business, whether it's investment banking or hawking goods in the street.
But processing skills are no longer enough. Modern, developed societies are recognising the importance of educating their young to be curious, inventive, intuitive and questioning. Kids need to be able to solve problems by working in teams, to share resources and materials, to express themselves using modern media. Kids need to build their confidence while in school by playing music, acting, debating, and taking on leadership roles(in the class, in the sports team, in the house or the Student Council).
My impression from talking to parents, teachers and university lecturers is that some local schools still see a culture of top-down teaching and compliance as the ideal. No doubt when classes had more than 40 students in small classrooms that was necessary. But it is neither necessary nor appropriate now, if Hong Kong is to grow its children into Asia's world citizens, equipped with the skills, qualities and confidence to make Hong Kong a hub of entrepreneurial enterprise to match its successes in finance and trade.
The government has invested its money and its hopes in the senior secondary reforms. Parents don't understand them. The government needs to work even harder to explain these changes to parents and convince them that 334, Liberal Studies, the freeing up of the medium of instruction and the rest of the package will work for their children. It's urgent; the changes have already started.
As it redesigns the system, government needs to look at how things work from top to bottom. For too long smart, savvy Hong Kong kids have been turfed out of school after Form 5, forced like beggars to go in search of a Form 6 place. What a waste of teen-age talent at a time when the birth rate is among the lowest in the world! Will Asia's world city find university places for all who have earned them when the reforms are implemented in 2012?
Early years education needs attention too. The introduction of kindergarten vouchers two years ago was something, but the sector remains a Cinderella. It is under-valued and neglected in some respects, but madly over-regulated when it comes to teacher qualifications to the extent that Hong Kong risks driving good teachers away. Creativity and confidence begin when we are very young, not when we get to secondary school.
And government could be doing a lot more to build partnerships with the excellent international and local ESF schools right here in its midst. Children who are well educated in Hong Kong schools are increasingly staying on at Hong Kong universities; at least that is the ESF experience. These young people are part of a new Hong Kong generation, born and raised here, speaking at least some Chinese, committed to Hong Kong and bursting with entrepreneurial potential. These youngsters are Hong Kong's future; we need to value them.
Heather Du Quesnay is the Chief Executive Officer of ESF. She has lived in Hong Kong for five years. Before coming to Hong Kong, she was the founding Chief Executive of the National College for School Leadership in England.
2010年3月18日 星期四
2010年3月17日 星期三
三聚氰胺你可以不吃，但疫苗你的孩子能不打嗎？
植入病毒是什麼感覺？請讀王克勤勇爆山西疫苗黑幕！
2010年03月17日09:47 中國經濟時報
山西，近百名兒童不明病因致死、致殘或引發各種後遺病症。家長傷心欲絕、四處求治、負擔沉重。導致如此慘劇的病源何在？鍥而不捨的患兒家長紛紛質疑：“接種了乙腦疫苗怎麼又會得乙腦？”“急性播散性腦脊髓炎難道不是接種疫苗所致？”……矛頭直指用來保障人民生命健康的——疫苗！
問題究竟出在哪里？難道真的和每個人都必須接種的疫苗有關？
在山西，事關千千萬萬兒童生命安全的疫苗到底出了什麼問題？
■本報記者 王克勤
山西疫苗高溫暴露問題能夠浮出水面，49歲的山西省疾控中心原資訊科科長陳濤安成為最關鍵的人。
三年舉報30餘次
2007年初，陳濤安在省疾控中心正在建設的新辦公大樓裏，發現了有許多生面孔的人在給疫苗盒上貼標籤。“感覺很異常。”
陳濤安還發現配送中心分發二類疫苗使用企業票據；新來的田建國主任轉移了配送中心分發二類疫苗的財政收入；“衛生部部屬企業”帳戶替代了省疾控中心基本帳戶；山西二類疫苗批發企業告狀，指責華衛公司特權標籤壟斷了全省疫苗市場；山西二類疫苗價格不搞市場競爭，由田建國的配送中心定價；省衛生廳不斷發佈檔推銷標籤疫苗等不正常的情況。
從2007年5月25日開始，陳濤安向山西省人民檢察院、山西省紀委、衛生部、山西省藥監局及太原市人民檢察院實名舉報“山西3500萬人民生命健康保障權被官員出賣的一系列問題”。
三年來，陳濤安向有關部門舉報、復議、信訪山西疫苗問題30餘次。
2007年9月14日，山西當地媒體刊發了《這個“權”能被“託管”嗎》，將山西全省疫苗管理權出賣給私人老闆的問題第一次公開曝光。
10月12日，由山西省紀委派出督察員參與的省衛生廳調查組正式開始調查。
這個調查組正式開展工作的第三天，田建國及華衛公司便“突然失蹤了”。
山西疾控中心科長三年舉報問題疫苗30餘次
2008年1月7日，山西省衛生廳召開會議通報了《關於對反映省疾控中心主任栗文元貪污受賄洗錢等問題的初核報告》，結論是：
關於省疾控中心第二類疫苗供應合作方式，省衛生廳已向省政府作出答復，認為符合《疫苗流通和預防接種管理條例》等有關規定；
省疾控中心原生物製品供應站經營二類疫苗的國有資產沒有流失；
華衛公司抵押在省疾控中心的本田雅閣車未在雙方固定資產賬上體現；
省疾控中心在財務管理債權、債務處理以及用轎車抵押風險保證金等方面的問題，栗文元負有一定責任。
“不可理解的是，對栗文元、田建國制售高溫疫苗問題置之不理。”陳濤安這樣對記者說。
隨即，陳濤安將多篇揭露山西高溫暴露疫苗問題的舉報材料發佈在網路上，引起了社會各方面廣泛關注。
受到質疑的官方調查
2008年5月，山西省洪洞縣萬安鎮村民易文龍找到了陳濤安。易文龍的女兒接種流腦疫苗後，患上“急性播散性腦脊髓炎”，最後落下了“繼發性癲癇”。
醫學常識讓陳濤安意識到：“急性播散性腦脊髓炎”又稱“接種後腦炎”，與接種疫苗關係密切。
這讓陳濤安高度警惕，並開始懷疑——省疾控中心院內大量高溫曝光的疫苗，是否就是引發孩子病症的禍根呢？
陳濤安隨即又向有關部門反映這一問題，未引起重視。
其間，山西各地許多家庭開始信訪、要求復議，質疑他們的孩子接種疫苗後得病，甚至致死、致殘，與疫苗存在因果關係。
對此，2008年7月，山西省紀委立案重新復查；當年11月，衛生部監察局也立案開始調查山西疫苗問題。
“相關部門在調查高溫疫苗過程中，又發生了一系列匪夷所思的事情！”陳濤安這樣講。
“專家鑒定違反回避原則”
在易文龍等部分質疑家庭不斷上訪、申訴後，從2008年8月28日開始，山西省衛生廳委託山西省預防接種異常反應和事故鑒定小組對其中5戶當事人提出的質疑作出了鑒定結論：“與接種疫苗無因果關係”。
這些質疑家庭當事人接到山西省衛生廳的檔後，發現省衛生廳對上訪所涉材料進行討論分析的7名鑒定專家，未按《預防接種異常反應鑒定辦法》的有關規定由受種方在專家庫中隨機抽取，且7名專家中有3名是省疾控中心人員，違反了有利害關係的人員應當回避的原則。
2008年12月8日，易文龍、王明亮向衛生部提出行政復議申請。2008年12月下旬，他們收到了衛生部不予受理的決定書。
2009年1月20日起，王明亮、易文龍等7個家庭，相繼向太原市迎澤區法院投遞了訴狀，狀告山西省疾病預防控制中心、北京華衛時代醫藥技術有限公司制售“山西疾控專用”標籤高溫暴露疫苗致使其子女被傷害，要求人身損害賠償。但該法院至今不予立案也不駁回。
被改動的患兒接種史
2008年9月23日，太原市小店區西溫莊鄉東溫莊村10歲女孩莉莉的父親高徑向省衛生廳送去“控訴書”。
2008年11月7日，高徑被通知來到省衛生廳，衛生廳《關於對高徑信訪回復的函》內寫著：“西溫莊鄉東溫莊村防疫員證明，莉莉在東溫莊村衛生所僅於2006年9月接種乙腦疫苗(有記錄)。接種後1年零7個月出現有關症狀與接種省疾病預防控制中心高溫曝光變質疫苗無因果關係。”
高徑立即回村找到了村防疫員，詢問這是為什麼。村防疫員答，“上面找了我多次，不能隨便提供接種史，如果不聽話就不要幹了。”
高徑給記者展示了一張紅桃3撲克牌，上有如下文字：“流感06.10.20、07.10.25流腦07.11.28”。高徑告訴記者，這是給省衛生廳提交材料前，找村防疫員時，對方隨手在一張撲克牌上寫的莉莉疫苗接種史。
於是，高徑向省紀委、省檢察院、衛生部紀檢組舉報，“山西省衛生廳調查結果嚴重失實，存在舞弊問題。”
對此，本報記者採訪了該村防疫員閆勝豔，閆勝豔告訴記者：“我在撲克上寫的，便是這孩子接種疫苗的情況。當時他們找上門來，我順手便在一張牌上寫了接種情況。”“後來，省衛生廳來人調查，也是這樣講的，是什麼就是什麼！”
“虛構衛生部調查結果”
山西省疾控中心2009年第四期《中心會議紀要》記載：“2009年3月17日，山西省疾控中心召開了中層幹部會議。”衛生廳紀檢組長李雙才在會上談到，“針對舉報山西省疾病預防控制中心疫苗存在曝光變質問題，廳紀檢、省紀委配合衛生部監察局對此事進行了調查。衛生部監察局對存餘疫苗的四個縣進行了取樣監測，檢驗結果全部合格，表明疫苗是安全的。”
對此，2009年3月18日，陳濤安向衛生部監察局快遞了《關於山西疫苗問題情況的反映》，監察局立即派出關躍進副局長及兩名隨行人員，來到山西太原與陳濤安進行了兩個多小時的談話。
陳濤安提供給記者的談話錄音中，關躍進對陳濤安講：衛生部監察局是調查疫苗案中的行政違法、違規問題，疫苗抽檢鑒定屬業務問題，不是我們的調查範疇，我們既沒有在山西的縣區抽樣送檢，更沒有出具“曝光標籤疫苗是安全的”調查結果。
“由此證實，山西省疾控中心會議紀要發佈了虛構的衛生部監察局調查結果。又一次實施欺上瞞下的伎倆！”陳濤安說。
陳濤安認為，該《會議紀要》中“對存餘疫苗的四個縣進行了取樣監測”的陳述，表明山西省疾控中心承認山西高溫暴露疫苗客觀存在，直到2009年3月以前，山西人民仍在接種質量可疑的高溫暴露疫苗。
記者 王克勤
2010年03月17日09:47 中國經濟時報
山西，近百名兒童不明病因致死、致殘或引發各種後遺病症。家長傷心欲絕、四處求治、負擔沉重。導致如此慘劇的病源何在？鍥而不捨的患兒家長紛紛質疑：“接種了乙腦疫苗怎麼又會得乙腦？”“急性播散性腦脊髓炎難道不是接種疫苗所致？”……矛頭直指用來保障人民生命健康的——疫苗！
問題究竟出在哪里？難道真的和每個人都必須接種的疫苗有關？
在山西，事關千千萬萬兒童生命安全的疫苗到底出了什麼問題？
■本報記者 王克勤
山西疫苗高溫暴露問題能夠浮出水面，49歲的山西省疾控中心原資訊科科長陳濤安成為最關鍵的人。
三年舉報30餘次
2007年初，陳濤安在省疾控中心正在建設的新辦公大樓裏，發現了有許多生面孔的人在給疫苗盒上貼標籤。“感覺很異常。”
陳濤安還發現配送中心分發二類疫苗使用企業票據；新來的田建國主任轉移了配送中心分發二類疫苗的財政收入；“衛生部部屬企業”帳戶替代了省疾控中心基本帳戶；山西二類疫苗批發企業告狀，指責華衛公司特權標籤壟斷了全省疫苗市場；山西二類疫苗價格不搞市場競爭，由田建國的配送中心定價；省衛生廳不斷發佈檔推銷標籤疫苗等不正常的情況。
從2007年5月25日開始，陳濤安向山西省人民檢察院、山西省紀委、衛生部、山西省藥監局及太原市人民檢察院實名舉報“山西3500萬人民生命健康保障權被官員出賣的一系列問題”。
三年來，陳濤安向有關部門舉報、復議、信訪山西疫苗問題30餘次。
2007年9月14日，山西當地媒體刊發了《這個“權”能被“託管”嗎》，將山西全省疫苗管理權出賣給私人老闆的問題第一次公開曝光。
10月12日，由山西省紀委派出督察員參與的省衛生廳調查組正式開始調查。
這個調查組正式開展工作的第三天，田建國及華衛公司便“突然失蹤了”。
山西疾控中心科長三年舉報問題疫苗30餘次
2008年1月7日，山西省衛生廳召開會議通報了《關於對反映省疾控中心主任栗文元貪污受賄洗錢等問題的初核報告》，結論是：
關於省疾控中心第二類疫苗供應合作方式，省衛生廳已向省政府作出答復，認為符合《疫苗流通和預防接種管理條例》等有關規定；
省疾控中心原生物製品供應站經營二類疫苗的國有資產沒有流失；
華衛公司抵押在省疾控中心的本田雅閣車未在雙方固定資產賬上體現；
省疾控中心在財務管理債權、債務處理以及用轎車抵押風險保證金等方面的問題，栗文元負有一定責任。
“不可理解的是，對栗文元、田建國制售高溫疫苗問題置之不理。”陳濤安這樣對記者說。
隨即，陳濤安將多篇揭露山西高溫暴露疫苗問題的舉報材料發佈在網路上，引起了社會各方面廣泛關注。
受到質疑的官方調查
2008年5月，山西省洪洞縣萬安鎮村民易文龍找到了陳濤安。易文龍的女兒接種流腦疫苗後，患上“急性播散性腦脊髓炎”，最後落下了“繼發性癲癇”。
醫學常識讓陳濤安意識到：“急性播散性腦脊髓炎”又稱“接種後腦炎”，與接種疫苗關係密切。
這讓陳濤安高度警惕，並開始懷疑——省疾控中心院內大量高溫曝光的疫苗，是否就是引發孩子病症的禍根呢？
陳濤安隨即又向有關部門反映這一問題，未引起重視。
其間，山西各地許多家庭開始信訪、要求復議，質疑他們的孩子接種疫苗後得病，甚至致死、致殘，與疫苗存在因果關係。
對此，2008年7月，山西省紀委立案重新復查；當年11月，衛生部監察局也立案開始調查山西疫苗問題。
“相關部門在調查高溫疫苗過程中，又發生了一系列匪夷所思的事情！”陳濤安這樣講。
“專家鑒定違反回避原則”
在易文龍等部分質疑家庭不斷上訪、申訴後，從2008年8月28日開始，山西省衛生廳委託山西省預防接種異常反應和事故鑒定小組對其中5戶當事人提出的質疑作出了鑒定結論：“與接種疫苗無因果關係”。
這些質疑家庭當事人接到山西省衛生廳的檔後，發現省衛生廳對上訪所涉材料進行討論分析的7名鑒定專家，未按《預防接種異常反應鑒定辦法》的有關規定由受種方在專家庫中隨機抽取，且7名專家中有3名是省疾控中心人員，違反了有利害關係的人員應當回避的原則。
2008年12月8日，易文龍、王明亮向衛生部提出行政復議申請。2008年12月下旬，他們收到了衛生部不予受理的決定書。
2009年1月20日起，王明亮、易文龍等7個家庭，相繼向太原市迎澤區法院投遞了訴狀，狀告山西省疾病預防控制中心、北京華衛時代醫藥技術有限公司制售“山西疾控專用”標籤高溫暴露疫苗致使其子女被傷害，要求人身損害賠償。但該法院至今不予立案也不駁回。
被改動的患兒接種史
2008年9月23日，太原市小店區西溫莊鄉東溫莊村10歲女孩莉莉的父親高徑向省衛生廳送去“控訴書”。
2008年11月7日，高徑被通知來到省衛生廳，衛生廳《關於對高徑信訪回復的函》內寫著：“西溫莊鄉東溫莊村防疫員證明，莉莉在東溫莊村衛生所僅於2006年9月接種乙腦疫苗(有記錄)。接種後1年零7個月出現有關症狀與接種省疾病預防控制中心高溫曝光變質疫苗無因果關係。”
高徑立即回村找到了村防疫員，詢問這是為什麼。村防疫員答，“上面找了我多次，不能隨便提供接種史，如果不聽話就不要幹了。”
高徑給記者展示了一張紅桃3撲克牌，上有如下文字：“流感06.10.20、07.10.25流腦07.11.28”。高徑告訴記者，這是給省衛生廳提交材料前，找村防疫員時，對方隨手在一張撲克牌上寫的莉莉疫苗接種史。
於是，高徑向省紀委、省檢察院、衛生部紀檢組舉報，“山西省衛生廳調查結果嚴重失實，存在舞弊問題。”
對此，本報記者採訪了該村防疫員閆勝豔，閆勝豔告訴記者：“我在撲克上寫的，便是這孩子接種疫苗的情況。當時他們找上門來，我順手便在一張牌上寫了接種情況。”“後來，省衛生廳來人調查，也是這樣講的，是什麼就是什麼！”
“虛構衛生部調查結果”
山西省疾控中心2009年第四期《中心會議紀要》記載：“2009年3月17日，山西省疾控中心召開了中層幹部會議。”衛生廳紀檢組長李雙才在會上談到，“針對舉報山西省疾病預防控制中心疫苗存在曝光變質問題，廳紀檢、省紀委配合衛生部監察局對此事進行了調查。衛生部監察局對存餘疫苗的四個縣進行了取樣監測，檢驗結果全部合格，表明疫苗是安全的。”
對此，2009年3月18日，陳濤安向衛生部監察局快遞了《關於山西疫苗問題情況的反映》，監察局立即派出關躍進副局長及兩名隨行人員，來到山西太原與陳濤安進行了兩個多小時的談話。
陳濤安提供給記者的談話錄音中，關躍進對陳濤安講：衛生部監察局是調查疫苗案中的行政違法、違規問題，疫苗抽檢鑒定屬業務問題，不是我們的調查範疇，我們既沒有在山西的縣區抽樣送檢，更沒有出具“曝光標籤疫苗是安全的”調查結果。
“由此證實，山西省疾控中心會議紀要發佈了虛構的衛生部監察局調查結果。又一次實施欺上瞞下的伎倆！”陳濤安說。
陳濤安認為，該《會議紀要》中“對存餘疫苗的四個縣進行了取樣監測”的陳述，表明山西省疾控中心承認山西高溫暴露疫苗客觀存在，直到2009年3月以前，山西人民仍在接種質量可疑的高溫暴露疫苗。
記者 王克勤
2010年3月11日 星期四
粵菜農被揭用高毒農藥 監督部門難檢測 毒菜或已流入香港
Apple Daily
2010-03-11
港人食用內地蔬菜要特別小心！自海南省出售含高毒農藥的豇豆、節瓜引起全國恐慌後，廣東媒體揭露，當地部份蔬菜基地亦違禁使用高毒農藥。當地監督部門所使用的快速檢測法，只能測出殘留農藥是否超標，卻無法測出是否使用高毒農藥。大量有問題的蔬菜流入市面，不排除亦流入香港。
甲基異柳磷、蘇化 203、甲拌磷……這些瓶身上標有「高毒」字樣、是國家禁止用於蔬菜生產的多種高毒農藥，在中山港口鎮西街蔬菜基地田間隨處可見。港口鎮是中山的蔬菜生產重鎮，生產的蔬菜除運到港口市場，還供應廣東和香港等地。
「每種一批菜，都會用一次甲基異柳磷。」一名江西籍陳姓的菜農坦認，因甲基異柳磷殺菜田地下蟲很有效果，所以會在種菜之前或在屬菜苗時使用。另一名菜農莫先生亦承認，菜農使用高毒農藥於由來已久，一方面因為高毒農藥比低毒農藥殺蟲效果好，另一方面使用合法低毒的農藥，成本比高毒農藥高兩到三倍。該鎮農藥殘留檢測站工作人員坦言，他們無法檢測蔬菜中的高毒農藥。有關專家指出，像甲基異柳磷等高毒農藥能直接通過口腔進入體內，或通過皮膚滲透和呼吸道等途徑進入人體，令人中毒。市民吃了少量含殘留高毒農藥的蔬菜，未必出現嘔吐等中毒病徵，但它在身體積聚後，會引起慢性中毒。因此建議民眾處理蔬菜一般要：一洗、二浸、三燙、四炒，這樣可保證去除逾 95%的殘留農藥。
廣東《南方都市報》
2010-03-11
港人食用內地蔬菜要特別小心！自海南省出售含高毒農藥的豇豆、節瓜引起全國恐慌後，廣東媒體揭露，當地部份蔬菜基地亦違禁使用高毒農藥。當地監督部門所使用的快速檢測法，只能測出殘留農藥是否超標，卻無法測出是否使用高毒農藥。大量有問題的蔬菜流入市面，不排除亦流入香港。
甲基異柳磷、蘇化 203、甲拌磷……這些瓶身上標有「高毒」字樣、是國家禁止用於蔬菜生產的多種高毒農藥，在中山港口鎮西街蔬菜基地田間隨處可見。港口鎮是中山的蔬菜生產重鎮，生產的蔬菜除運到港口市場，還供應廣東和香港等地。
「每種一批菜，都會用一次甲基異柳磷。」一名江西籍陳姓的菜農坦認，因甲基異柳磷殺菜田地下蟲很有效果，所以會在種菜之前或在屬菜苗時使用。另一名菜農莫先生亦承認，菜農使用高毒農藥於由來已久，一方面因為高毒農藥比低毒農藥殺蟲效果好，另一方面使用合法低毒的農藥，成本比高毒農藥高兩到三倍。該鎮農藥殘留檢測站工作人員坦言，他們無法檢測蔬菜中的高毒農藥。有關專家指出，像甲基異柳磷等高毒農藥能直接通過口腔進入體內，或通過皮膚滲透和呼吸道等途徑進入人體，令人中毒。市民吃了少量含殘留高毒農藥的蔬菜，未必出現嘔吐等中毒病徵，但它在身體積聚後，會引起慢性中毒。因此建議民眾處理蔬菜一般要：一洗、二浸、三燙、四炒，這樣可保證去除逾 95%的殘留農藥。
廣東《南方都市報》
Lights On Hong Kong
Mark Simon
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-11
Green groups that support"Lights Out Hong Kong" have little regard for the economic impact on the people of Hong Kong.If they are at all serious about keeping our skies clear, they should engage China in discussions about exporting pollution to Hong Kong.
Driving home each night along Hong Kong's Eastern Corridor the spectacular night skyline is always a magnificent view. Except on the nights I can't see the skyline due to pollution.
Yet, it is this wonderful night skyline the World Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, along with other environmental groups have identified as symbolic of Hong Kong's air pollution problem. As such, later this month we will be asked to turn off the lights for thirty minutes, including lights in our homes, in the fight against air pollution.
But rather than putting so much effort in the gimmick, i.e."Lights Out Hong Kong", might it be better to move away from feel good gestures and start dealing with the main source of our air pollution, China.
When the Japanese and Taiwanese complain about air pollution coming from China and winds from the north along with mainland holiday periods offer a respite for our lungs, haven't we come to the point where those peddling the story of Hong Kong creating its own air pollution can be doubted? China is the world's factory and pretending there is no smoke coming from that factory is a delusion.
The mere suggestion that the vast majority of air pollution flows south over our border from China is met by whispers of subversion by government and attempts at diversion by green groups.
Now, the Chinese are right that many in the West use the pollution argument to dampen China's competitiveness. Some of the biggest backers of pressure on China over environmental conditions are Western labor unions and the politicians dependent on those unions. The first envoy from the Obama administration to visit China was transition chief and strident labor union ally, John Podesta. His visit was focused solely on global warming and getting China to cut emissions, i.e., raising the cost of production in China.
But, Hong Kong is part of China, and our complaints about air pollution from the mainland are no more subversive than asking your taxi driver to stop smoking when you enter his cab. Many in government say things are getting better, I am not certain. But what would benefit the people on both sides of the border is if we started discussing the problem like it was one.
For Hong Kong's environmentalists, diverting attention from China is too self-serving to be explained away as simply being misguided. For the diversion away from China and focus on Hong Kong is driven by a fear of a loss of funding, a desire to be seen as having a solution, and more sinister, an ideology that is at odds with the success of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong business avoids controversy and any tension with China. The sheer number of large companies that have signed up for"Lights Out" is a sure sign this event is low on action and high on feel good.
Green groups also need to stay relevant in the eyes of their supporters. Make Hong Kong the issue and that market need is satisfied.
In addition to the obvious marketing rationale for diverting the air pollution issue to Hong Kong there is a deeper ideological problem the green movement has with Hong Kong, one that will not clear if our skies do.
Hong Kong is a city built on consumption, both our own, and those we export to. No city or business community could be in greater conflict with the core rationale of the green movement, which holds that consumption is the driver of all environmental degradation. By moral suasion, tax, regulation or restriction of trade, the green movement seeks to stifle consumption, which stifles Hong Kong.
Green groups that support"Lights Out Hong Kong" have little regard for the economic impact on the people of Hong Kong, which is obvious because they undertake an effort that is designed more to raise their fundraising profile rather than engage China in the serious discussions that will clear our skies.
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-11
Green groups that support"Lights Out Hong Kong" have little regard for the economic impact on the people of Hong Kong.If they are at all serious about keeping our skies clear, they should engage China in discussions about exporting pollution to Hong Kong.
Driving home each night along Hong Kong's Eastern Corridor the spectacular night skyline is always a magnificent view. Except on the nights I can't see the skyline due to pollution.
Yet, it is this wonderful night skyline the World Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, along with other environmental groups have identified as symbolic of Hong Kong's air pollution problem. As such, later this month we will be asked to turn off the lights for thirty minutes, including lights in our homes, in the fight against air pollution.
But rather than putting so much effort in the gimmick, i.e."Lights Out Hong Kong", might it be better to move away from feel good gestures and start dealing with the main source of our air pollution, China.
When the Japanese and Taiwanese complain about air pollution coming from China and winds from the north along with mainland holiday periods offer a respite for our lungs, haven't we come to the point where those peddling the story of Hong Kong creating its own air pollution can be doubted? China is the world's factory and pretending there is no smoke coming from that factory is a delusion.
The mere suggestion that the vast majority of air pollution flows south over our border from China is met by whispers of subversion by government and attempts at diversion by green groups.
Now, the Chinese are right that many in the West use the pollution argument to dampen China's competitiveness. Some of the biggest backers of pressure on China over environmental conditions are Western labor unions and the politicians dependent on those unions. The first envoy from the Obama administration to visit China was transition chief and strident labor union ally, John Podesta. His visit was focused solely on global warming and getting China to cut emissions, i.e., raising the cost of production in China.
But, Hong Kong is part of China, and our complaints about air pollution from the mainland are no more subversive than asking your taxi driver to stop smoking when you enter his cab. Many in government say things are getting better, I am not certain. But what would benefit the people on both sides of the border is if we started discussing the problem like it was one.
For Hong Kong's environmentalists, diverting attention from China is too self-serving to be explained away as simply being misguided. For the diversion away from China and focus on Hong Kong is driven by a fear of a loss of funding, a desire to be seen as having a solution, and more sinister, an ideology that is at odds with the success of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong business avoids controversy and any tension with China. The sheer number of large companies that have signed up for"Lights Out" is a sure sign this event is low on action and high on feel good.
Green groups also need to stay relevant in the eyes of their supporters. Make Hong Kong the issue and that market need is satisfied.
In addition to the obvious marketing rationale for diverting the air pollution issue to Hong Kong there is a deeper ideological problem the green movement has with Hong Kong, one that will not clear if our skies do.
Hong Kong is a city built on consumption, both our own, and those we export to. No city or business community could be in greater conflict with the core rationale of the green movement, which holds that consumption is the driver of all environmental degradation. By moral suasion, tax, regulation or restriction of trade, the green movement seeks to stifle consumption, which stifles Hong Kong.
Green groups that support"Lights Out Hong Kong" have little regard for the economic impact on the people of Hong Kong, which is obvious because they undertake an effort that is designed more to raise their fundraising profile rather than engage China in the serious discussions that will clear our skies.
2010年3月10日 星期三
2010年3月4日 星期四
Hong Kong Needs A Culture of Safety
Mark L. Clifford
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-04
Amy Coxall was killed when her scarf was caught in a go-kart. To cut down on accidents like this, Hong Kong needs a new awareness of safety.
Our family's idyllic Chinese New Year's holiday at the Olympics in Whistler was shattered by the news that an Island School student had died in a go-kart accident in Tuen Mun. I got the news on an achingly beautiful alpine morning in Whistler as the best athletes in the world, only a few years older than our 15-year-old son, were getting ready to ski, as full of life as anyone can ever be.
I had to give our son the heartbreaking news that Amy Coxall, who had just appeared in a school play with him a few weeks earlier, had been killed in an altogether preventable accident when her scarf was caught up in a go-kart. It was devastating to break this news to our son and, although I don't know the Coxall family, unbearable for me as a parent to think of their pain.
Amidst the predictable finger-pointing after Amy's death there were calls for more regulation. But that simple response misses the point that, for all the talk about a caring society, we are a slipshod city that simply doesn't have a developed-world ethos when it comes to safety. The Hong Kong Kart Club overseeing Diamond Coast Go-kart Track proclaims that its mission is to"Promote safety[sic] driving via professional training for karters; Educate a correct concept of road safety and proper driving habit[sic] for the next generation;[and] Encourage participation by providing easy access for both junior and senior karters." Yet no one in Tuen Mun could keep a 15-year-old girl from wearing a scarf while taking part in a high-speed motor sport?
We have lots of regulations. What we really need is safety consciousness. Why weren't the operators trained to really enforce an ethos of safety? Why didn't they insist that people not wear scarves before operating these cars?
This horrible death got me thinking a friend of mine who was run over and killed by a bus in Central in August 2002. Juanito Ocba was on his way to church on a Sunday afternoon and, yes, he was jaywalking. But, still, to be mown down by a New World bus at the corner of Pedder Street and Des Voeux Road, one of the busiest pedestrian corners in Hong Kong on a crowded Sunday afternoon? No charges were filed against the driver and New World management never made the slightest gesture, let alone an apology, to his widow.
The killing goes on. On March 1, two more pedestrians were killed, one by a minibus and one by a taxi. How many more Hong Kong people need to die before citizens say they've had enough to a homicidal driving culture?
Thanks to the virtual ban on cars in Whistler during the Olympics, I've taken a lot of buses during the last two weeks. The safety consciousness of these drivers-- and I had bus drivers who came from places as far apart as China and Quebec-- is extraordinary, and a striking contrast to Hong Kong's kamikaze commercial drivers. Simply put, in Canada no one drives a bus in a way that's likely to run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk. In Hong Kong we have nicely painted zebra crossings framed with charming orange lights. But these are museum relics from the colonial era. Anyone who thinks these are protected pedestrian zones is brave or foolish.
For all the talk about the bankruptcy of Western values, when it comes to caring for strangers in a crowd, Hong Kong could learn something from Canada.
Our population is aging. More than ever, we'll need to watch out for the safety of people we don't know, the anonymous faces in the street who are all someone's mother or someone's son. This isn't something that comes naturally. But it can and must be taught.
Let's marry Hong Kong's can-do spirit with more care and compassion, and above all more thought on the part of everyone from go-kart track attendants to bus drivers. Let's learn from the deaths of Amy and Juanito and so many others.
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-04
Amy Coxall was killed when her scarf was caught in a go-kart. To cut down on accidents like this, Hong Kong needs a new awareness of safety.
Our family's idyllic Chinese New Year's holiday at the Olympics in Whistler was shattered by the news that an Island School student had died in a go-kart accident in Tuen Mun. I got the news on an achingly beautiful alpine morning in Whistler as the best athletes in the world, only a few years older than our 15-year-old son, were getting ready to ski, as full of life as anyone can ever be.
I had to give our son the heartbreaking news that Amy Coxall, who had just appeared in a school play with him a few weeks earlier, had been killed in an altogether preventable accident when her scarf was caught up in a go-kart. It was devastating to break this news to our son and, although I don't know the Coxall family, unbearable for me as a parent to think of their pain.
Amidst the predictable finger-pointing after Amy's death there were calls for more regulation. But that simple response misses the point that, for all the talk about a caring society, we are a slipshod city that simply doesn't have a developed-world ethos when it comes to safety. The Hong Kong Kart Club overseeing Diamond Coast Go-kart Track proclaims that its mission is to"Promote safety[sic] driving via professional training for karters; Educate a correct concept of road safety and proper driving habit[sic] for the next generation;[and] Encourage participation by providing easy access for both junior and senior karters." Yet no one in Tuen Mun could keep a 15-year-old girl from wearing a scarf while taking part in a high-speed motor sport?
We have lots of regulations. What we really need is safety consciousness. Why weren't the operators trained to really enforce an ethos of safety? Why didn't they insist that people not wear scarves before operating these cars?
This horrible death got me thinking a friend of mine who was run over and killed by a bus in Central in August 2002. Juanito Ocba was on his way to church on a Sunday afternoon and, yes, he was jaywalking. But, still, to be mown down by a New World bus at the corner of Pedder Street and Des Voeux Road, one of the busiest pedestrian corners in Hong Kong on a crowded Sunday afternoon? No charges were filed against the driver and New World management never made the slightest gesture, let alone an apology, to his widow.
The killing goes on. On March 1, two more pedestrians were killed, one by a minibus and one by a taxi. How many more Hong Kong people need to die before citizens say they've had enough to a homicidal driving culture?
Thanks to the virtual ban on cars in Whistler during the Olympics, I've taken a lot of buses during the last two weeks. The safety consciousness of these drivers-- and I had bus drivers who came from places as far apart as China and Quebec-- is extraordinary, and a striking contrast to Hong Kong's kamikaze commercial drivers. Simply put, in Canada no one drives a bus in a way that's likely to run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk. In Hong Kong we have nicely painted zebra crossings framed with charming orange lights. But these are museum relics from the colonial era. Anyone who thinks these are protected pedestrian zones is brave or foolish.
For all the talk about the bankruptcy of Western values, when it comes to caring for strangers in a crowd, Hong Kong could learn something from Canada.
Our population is aging. More than ever, we'll need to watch out for the safety of people we don't know, the anonymous faces in the street who are all someone's mother or someone's son. This isn't something that comes naturally. But it can and must be taught.
Let's marry Hong Kong's can-do spirit with more care and compassion, and above all more thought on the part of everyone from go-kart track attendants to bus drivers. Let's learn from the deaths of Amy and Juanito and so many others.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
