香港新浪網MySinaBlog 精選話題工具
« 上一篇 | 下一篇 »
diumanpark | 16-Jun-06, 02:21 | 知無不言.蟹無不拑, 港聞刁視 | (5715 Reads)

平均分: 9.33 | 評分人數: 3

葉一知

霍金來港,幾乎無人願意接待。特區政府不接待,也不接機。丘成桐說:政府冷待科學天才!

誰叫霍金虛有其「名」,不懂生金,也不懂向香港揮「霍」資「金」呢?如果是Bill Gates,我相信煲呔會領三司十一局齊齊接機——只要Bill Gates肯買下數碼港這個前朝爛攤子。

現在只由科大獨力支撐,其名頭忽然升格了。沒法子,政府眼光短淺,不願做「蝕本生意」——霍金身患頑疾,接待他來港成本既高,又沒有帶來金錢經濟效益。反而,四季酒店對這個大人物分毫不收,商家竟然還比政府有情。

拜金主義(不是霍金的金),輕視人才,視野狹窄,香港政府這次表露無遺——對於一個必將於時間長河裏佔一席位的人物,我們還只是計較那是不是蝕本生意,而忽視其無形價值嗎?

霍金之名,註定不朽,不單因為他屬愛因斯坦級的大師,更因為他一身頑疾,令他成為輪椅上的巨人。他開闢了時空的新天地——黑洞,但偏偏他自己的身體也身處一個命運的黑洞——不斷收縮,不斷被鯨吞蠶食。任何光線進入黑洞,怎樣逃也逃不出來,霍金樂天知命,反而逃出魔掌,為世界帶來智慧之光,把從黑洞中窺見的秘密帶返人間。

不朽的名聲,往往靠傳奇成就——愛因斯坦小時候不懂說話,被認為是個自閉學生;貝多芬三十二歲時開始失聰,到四十五歲時完全失聰(常聽「他晚年失聰」,不實),還可以創作出不朽的第九交響曲《快樂頌》;莫扎特被喻為天堂派到人間的天使,帶來天籟千闕,卻於35歲返回「家鄉」;李小龍也在人生高峰時嘎然而斷。而霍金,身體被困黑洞,思想仍能超越,正是其不朽的傳奇。

其他偉人,成就未必比不上他們,只是那天工的傳奇,為他們的名字漆上眩目的異彩。

如果平凡的領導人和全球首富值得接待,霍金沒有理由給冷待,因為前者只是一個記錄,後者是一頁歷史,永垂千古,一世紀也未必能遇上一個。正如邱吉爾說:

We make a living by what you get, but we make a life by what you give.


[1]

真係人不可以貌相啊!


[引用] | 作者 阿金 | 16-Jun-06 02:34 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[2]

應該是[四季酒店]先啱

政府雖然冷,但民間幾熱烈,都幾多人講,香港人還是有希望的.


[引用] | 作者 米奇 | 16-Jun-06 02:47 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[3]

我地個政府就係咁啦…
佢地宜家忙緊應付七一,唔得閒


[引用] | 作者 poonwinghang | 16-Jun-06 02:51 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[4]

唔好鬧政府啦﹗嘥氣﹗政府鬼得閒理呢啲嘢咩﹗

都有好幾個BLOGGERS寫霍老呀﹗我都睇咗幾篇耶﹗

霍老也不宜高調﹐我覺得佢會好辛苦囉﹗

偉人名人好多時都會身不由己﹗不知霍老是否也一樣呢﹗﹖

我淨係覺得佢好叻﹗不單是學術上的叻﹗人生重叻﹗"病"呢家嘢最磨人﹗少啲意志都頂唔順呀﹗

哈哈﹗我係咪喺度讚緊自己呢﹖﹗


[引用] | 作者 靚媽 | 16-Jun-06 03:42 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[5]

不知從那裡飛來一柄匕首,匕首上附上一張字條,上面寫著...

數仰慕葉兄文采,故傳來一tag望兄笑納.其將之流傳於世,銘感在心.


[引用] | 作者 CK | 16-Jun-06 08:53 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[6]

政府冷待,政黨同樣鴉雀無聲,無他,對選票毫無幫助,此之謂:『一丘之貉』。


[引用] | 作者 Sum | 16-Jun-06 10:04 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[7]

真係無留意時事, 唔講唔知咁差tim


[引用] | 作者 沛兒 | 16-Jun-06 10:48 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[8] Re:
阿金 :
真係人不可以貌相啊!

當然啊! ha, 你也是阿金!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 10:59 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[9] Re:
米奇 :
應該是[四季酒店]先啱
政府雖然冷,但民間幾熱烈,都幾多人講,香港人還是有希望的.

謝謝指證, 已改!

就係咁先攪笑, 民間熱烈, 但政府竟然冷待!!!!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:00 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[10] Re:
poonwinghang :
我地個政府就係咁啦…佢地宜家忙緊應付七一,唔得閒

七一仲有咩好應付.., 我諗今年都好少人, 除非老董復位!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:00 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[11] Re:
靚媽 :
唔好鬧政府啦﹗嘥氣﹗政府鬼得閒理呢啲嘢咩﹗
都有好幾個BLOGGERS寫霍老呀﹗我都睇咗幾篇耶﹗
霍老也不宜高調﹐我覺得佢會好辛苦囉﹗
偉人名人好多時都會身不由己﹗不知霍老是否也一樣呢﹗﹖
我淨係覺得佢好叻﹗不單是學術上的叻﹗人生重叻﹗"病"呢家嘢最磨人﹗少啲意志都頂唔順呀﹗
哈哈﹗我係咪喺度讚緊自己呢﹖﹗

你直頭係自讚!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:02 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[12] Re:
CK :
不知從那裡飛來一柄匕首,匕首上附上一張字條,上面寫著...
數仰慕葉兄文采,故傳來一tag望兄笑納.其將之流傳於世,銘感在心.

ha? 又tag, 唔係係嘛, 好少接架喎!咩tag呀1


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:03 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[13] Re:
CK :
不知從那裡飛來一柄匕首,匕首上附上一張字條,上面寫著...
數仰慕葉兄文采,故傳來一tag望兄笑納.其將之流傳於世,銘感在心.

嘩, 三十幾條題目, 拒接!!!! 唔好tag我啦, 嗚...


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:08 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[14] Re:
Sum :
政府冷待,政黨同樣鴉雀無聲,無他,對選票毫無幫助,此之謂:『一丘之貉』。

政黨冇乜智慧架嘛!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:08 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[15] Re:
沛兒 :
真係無留意時事, 唔講唔知咁差tim

都算好架啦, 係老霍最後一日遊港, 煲呔同佢傾偈! 可能叫佢寫普選時間簡史!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:09 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[16] Re: Re:
葉一知 : 沛兒 :真係無留意時事, 唔講唔知咁差tim 都算好架啦, 係老霍最後一日遊港, 煲呔同佢傾偈! 可能叫佢寫普選時間簡史!
煲呔同霍金好難有計傾,一個只想著『連任、連任』,另一個已經超越肉體,翱遊太空.....^.^。


[引用] | 作者 | 16-Jun-06 11:26 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[17]

或者天才洩漏得太多天機,所以唔係短命就命途多桀。傳說愛因斯坦死後更俾人分屍──其他科學家將佢個大腦分為好多份用作收藏或研究,諗起都毛骨悚然.....
至於政府冷待天才,一早預左喇。接待霍金,本來就應該由民政事務局或工商及科技局黎做,而呢兩個局o既局長,哈哈,唔好意思,係雙平(何志平同王永平)。咁你話o勒,政府會做到d乜野出黎丫?


[引用] | 作者 | 16-Jun-06 11:33 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[18] Re: Re: Re:
:
葉一知 : 沛兒 :真係無留意時事, 唔講唔知咁差tim 都算好架啦, 係老霍最後一日遊港, 煲呔同佢傾偈! 可能叫佢寫普選時間簡史!煲呔同霍金好難有計傾,一個只想著『連任、連任』,另一個已經超越肉體,翱遊太空.....^.^。

煲呔話會同霍金講"科普", 唔知係咪指"科學普選呢"...


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:54 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[19] Re:
:
或者天才洩漏得太多天機,所以唔係短命就命途多桀。傳說愛因斯坦死後更俾人分屍──其他科學家將佢個大腦分為好多份用作收藏或研究,諗起都毛骨悚然.....至於政府冷待天才,一早預左喇。接待霍金,本來就應該由民政事務局或工商及科技局黎做,而呢兩個局o既局長,哈哈,唔好意思,係雙平(何志平同王永平)。咁你話o勒,政府會做到d乜野出黎丫?

愛因斯坦個腦, 好似係佢自己捐出來吧? 我都唔肯定!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 11:55 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[20]

睇新聞片裏的霍金,比睇書裏面的他親切得多,原本在我心目中他只是個物理學界的巨人,但現在他的笑面和智慧的說話,也會印在心坎裏去。霍金鼓勵斌仔的說話,相信斌仔也會永誌難忘,希望能夠成為他的坐右銘,真正積極面對自己獨有的人生! =)


[引用] | 作者 紫水晶 | 16-Jun-06 12:16 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[21] Re:
紫水晶 :
睇新聞片裏的霍金,比睇書裏面的他親切得多,原本在我心目中他只是個物理學界的巨人,但現在他的笑面和智慧的說話,也會印在心坎裏去。霍金鼓勵斌仔的說話,相信斌仔也會永誌難忘,希望能夠成為他的坐右銘,真正積極面對自己獨有的人生! =)

是啊, 真係好令人敬仰的大師!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 12:31 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[22]

古典經濟學早已指出政府與私人機構分別在於, 簡單講,一個慢三拍, 一個高瞻遠足。 所以早已唔指望政府。完全自由主意者更叫政府唔好理咁多野。所以, 政府今次唔理事, 樂觀啲講, 可能對霍金仲好。離題一下, 政府又何嘗做過啲似樣的show呢?

未睇過霍金的理論/書, 但佩服佢面對命運的勇氣同意志。揾一日要克服睡魔睇睇先。


[引用] | 作者 Ronald | 16-Jun-06 17:17 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[23] Re:
Ronald :
古典經濟學早已指出政府與私人機構分別在於, 簡單講,一個慢三拍, 一個高瞻遠足。 所以早已唔指望政府。完全自由主意者更叫政府唔好理咁多野。所以, 政府今次唔理事, 樂觀啲講, 可能對霍金仲好。離題一下, 政府又何嘗做過啲似樣的show呢?
未睇過霍金的理論/書, 但佩服佢面對命運的勇氣同意志。揾一日要克服睡魔睇睇先。

HEY, 唔做野, 係放手俾人啫, 但接待一個貴賓, 唔使"高瞻遠足"掛.....那是政治決定非經濟決定啊!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 16-Jun-06 17:39 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[24] Re:

i think if developing a high-tech economy is virtually more than a beautiful saying, then the government should do something to improve the cultural respect to science. Hospitaling outstanding scienst would be profitable in this sense.


[引用] | 作者 K4kant | 16-Jun-06 21:10 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[25] Re:
Ronald :
古典經濟學早已指出政府與私人機構分別在於, 簡單講,一個慢三拍, 一個高瞻遠足。 所以早已唔指望政府。完全自由主意者更叫政府唔好理咁多野。所以, 政府今次唔理事, 樂觀啲講, 可能對霍金仲好。離題一下, 政府又何嘗做過啲似樣的show呢?
未睇過霍金的理論/書, 但佩服佢面對命運的勇氣同意志。揾一日要克服睡魔睇睇先。

只是純粹指出錯別字: 高瞻遠矚.


[引用] | 作者 cr | 16-Jun-06 23:07 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[26]

cr 兄:

多謝指正


[引用] | 作者 Ronald | 16-Jun-06 23:32 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[27]

以前都覺得佢好遙遠, 今次嚟香港才發現佢亦常人, 但更是偉人、巨人。
港府? 算罷啦!


[引用] | 作者 bj | 17-Jun-06 07:31 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[28]

慚愧,
無知的我到今天仍對科普沒興趣.
大抵因為讀了多年填鴨式理科.
生厭.
唯一有興趣的,只是看雜誌"Popular Science".
haha.


[引用] | 作者 crab | 17-Jun-06 13:52 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[29] Re:
crab : 慚愧,無知的我到今天仍對科普沒興趣.大抵因為讀了多年填鴨式理科.生厭.唯一有興趣的,只是看雜誌"Popular Science".haha.
原來唔係得我一個怪人, 讀緊理科班, 郤走去睇埋睇埋d唔等使嘅書, 經濟和歷史。講真, 填鴨式理科嘅生活, 真係幾討厭, 最記得要背誦果個元素表, 好想死。emoticon


[引用] | 作者 Ronald | 17-Jun-06 23:56 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[30]

廣告: 我終於的起心肝, 開左一個blog, 以後會不定期update, 歡迎賜教。

http://ronald_pou0914.mysinablog.com/index.php


[引用] | 作者 Ronald | 18-Jun-06 02:14 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[31]

我們的政府和那些政黨,太少看科技對經濟的影響~! emoticon

霍金
肌萎縮性側索硬化症,一般而言此病由症狀發生至死亡大約是2~5年,但他患這個病已有四十多年~!


[引用] | 作者 gato | 18-Jun-06 14:58 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[32] Re:
Ronald :
廣告: 我終於的起心肝, 開左一個blog, 以後會不定期update, 歡迎賜教。
http://ronald_pou0914.mysinablog.com/index.php

恭喜晒! 努力!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 18-Jun-06 22:11 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[33] Re:
gato :
我們的政府和那些政黨,太少看科技對經濟的影響~! 霍金患肌萎縮性側索硬化症,一般而言此病由症狀發生至死亡大約是2~5年,但他患這個病已有四十多年~!

是啊, 當初醫生也說他只有幾年命!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 18-Jun-06 22:11 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[34] Contact

The movie and book 'Contact' inspired me a lot.

Science is like a miracle......

Don't depend on HKSAR Govt La!!!


[引用] | 作者 Frostig | 19-Jun-06 11:53 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[35] Re: Contact
Frostig :
The movie and book 'Contact' inspired me a lot.
Science is like a miracle......
Don't depend on HKSAR Govt La!!!

sigh, 我仲未睇"contact", 聞說好好睇!

政府靠唔住, 才要批評指正啊...大家不是死晒心或歸晒邊吧..., hahha,


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 19-Jun-06 11:56 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[36]

论规格,政府其实没有冷待霍教授,只是不够热情,但想想,霍教授身体虚弱,确实受不了热情款待啊!

再说,重点不在政府,而是香港其实有很多高素质的人,他们用不着政府告诉他们要听谁的说话,霍教授这次到港已经令学术界震动,感动了不少人,特别是年青人.

听到一个女生说能够见到霍教授已是死而无憾,虽然她可能只是随便的说,但我听到已经觉的很安慰,香港人还是挺可爱的:)


[引用] | 作者 Albert | 19-Jun-06 12:24 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[37] Re:
Albert :
论规格,政府其实没有冷待霍教授,只是不够热情,但想想,霍教授身体虚弱,确实受不了热情款待啊!
再说,重点不在政府,而是香港其实有很多高素质的人,他们用不着政府告诉他们要听谁的说话,霍教授这次到港已经令学术界震动,感动了不少人,特别是年青人.
听到一个女生说能够见到霍教授已是死而无憾,虽然她可能只是随便的说,但我听到已经觉的很安慰,香港人还是挺可爱的:)

冷待和熱情, 其實有時是相對的, 如果政府一視同仁, 人人不冷待, 自是不同, 所謂"冷待霍金", 正如文中所說, 是從其對富人和政要的差別而生之慨! 而我認為, 霍金比起他們所有人, 更值世仲敬仰.

另, 接機, 也不算熱情款待啊, 只是一個禮數而已.

香港高質素人去接待, 和政府支持是兩回事. 香港那麼多人熱情接待, 才發覺他們對科普很有興趣, 但港府特別是教育界, 偏偏好像看不到, 沒有回應這種間接民意, 卻只管搞金融經濟, 嚴重忽視科學教育, 那才是更大的問題.

是啊, 我都很安慰, 原來年青人的偶像不一定是f4或twins, 還可以是形貌絕不合格但越卓一個時代的霍金!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 19-Jun-06 12:34 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[38] Re: Re:
葉一知 :

冷待和熱情, 其實有時是相對的, 如果政府一視同仁, 人人不冷待, 自是不同, 所謂"冷待霍金", 正如文中所說, 是從其對富人和政要的差別而生之慨! 而我認為, 霍金比起他們所有人, 更值世仲敬仰.
另, 接機, 也不算熱情款待啊, 只是一個禮數而已.
香港高質素人去接待, 和政府支持是兩回事. 香港那麼多人熱情接待, 才發覺他們對科普很有興趣, 但港府特別是教育界, 偏偏好像看不到, 沒有回應這種間接民意, 卻只管搞金融經濟, 嚴重忽視科學教育, 那才是更大的問題.
是啊, 我都很安慰, 原來年青人的偶像不一定是f4或twins, 還可以是形貌絕不合格但越卓一個時代的霍金!

微軟CEO Steve Balmer即將訪港,到時我地咪可以睇到政府o既嘴臉囉。


[引用] | 作者 | 19-Jun-06 15:40 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[39] Re: Re: Re:
:
葉一知 :
微軟CEO Steve Balmer即將訪港,到時我地咪可以睇到政府o既嘴臉囉。

係咩? 多謝提醒.....

聽人講, 上星期係街聽到有人講電話, 話:我抽到飛聽柏金呀....


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 19-Jun-06 15:45 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[40] Re: Re: Re: Re:
葉一知 :
葉一知 :
微軟CEO Steve Balmer即將訪港,到時我地咪可以睇到政府o既嘴臉囉。
係咩? 多謝提醒.....
聽人講, 上星期係街聽到有人講電話, 話:我抽到飛聽柏金呀....

死o勒,原來係過期料,唔好意思呀.....

http://www.microsoft.com/hk/presspass/chinese/2006/05/20060523_2.mspx


[引用] | 作者 | 19-Jun-06 16:19 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[41]

霍金這位大師中的大師,咱們政府不接待,也毫無損其偉大。當然,他值得我們國賓式對待,但如上面博友所說,沒票數,沒$$$收益,又不能得到政治本錢(正如接待某些人會等於愛國一樣),這個政府會去接才是令人驚奇的呢!

我倒想知,在港大物理系那幾個崇拜霍老得五體投地的教授們,有沒有去接機,抑或是覺得顏面何存當看不到?!


[引用] | 作者 live | 19-Jun-06 21:28 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[42] Re:
live :
霍金這位大師中的大師,咱們政府不接待,也毫無損其偉大。當然,他值得我們國賓式對待,但如上面博友所說,沒票數,沒$$$收益,又不能得到政治本錢(正如接待某些人會等於愛國一樣),這個政府會去接才是令人驚奇的呢!
我倒想知,在港大物理系那幾個崇拜霍老得五體投地的教授們,有沒有去接機,抑或是覺得顏面何存當看不到?!

yes, 一定無損了大師的級數, 反而貶低了政治家-to-be的級數!

我也不知道, 連中大都或蝕本生意唔肯包底, 真慘!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 20-Jun-06 00:47 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[43]

港人數來多短視,多著重短期眼前利益,霍金雖然抓起一個小熱潮,但真正心領神會的人又有幾多?我覺得很多人是以追明星的心態看霍金

最好笑是d官,唔接待不特止,仲要講話要年青人學下咩咩霍金精神同毅力。如果班官係真心,唔該先檢討教育制度。空口講白話,同日日講求學不是求分數有乜別?自我陶醉但脫離現實


[引用] | 作者 無奈 | 20-Jun-06 08:10 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[44] Re:
無奈 :
港人數來多短視,多著重短期眼前利益,霍金雖然抓起一個小熱潮,但真正心領神會的人又有幾多?我覺得很多人是以追明星的心態看霍金
最好笑是d官,唔接待不特止,仲要講話要年青人學下咩咩霍金精神同毅力。如果班官係真心,唔該先檢討教育制度。空口講白話,同日日講求學不是求分數有乜別?自我陶醉但脫離現實

今次追明星的比例較少, 因為霍金並不符香港人典型偶像的條件 - 唔靚仔又唔係富豪. 當然有些人也只是慕名而來, 但看到不少真心視他為偶像的年青人, 很不錯!

政府? 乘機吹水兼抽水, 又唔使錢嘅!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 20-Jun-06 10:29 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[45] Re: Re:
葉一知 :
政府? 乘機吹水兼抽水, 又唔使錢嘅!

抽水? 潮流興嗎!
(迷之聲: 你好似都係到抽緊水喎!
Ronald: 多事!)


[引用] | 作者 Ronald | 20-Jun-06 22:19 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[46] 政府與公民社會的責任

由一個做了幾十年殖民地高官的人帶領的特區政府,你想它的眼光要幾遠大?有幾多獨立自主的創意?眼光遠大,有獨立思考能力,以人民為福祉的公務員又怎可以受殖民地統治者重用?這類人最容易做反,用得多此等人,連治權也不保。

吸煙吸了幾十年可以戒掉,吸毒也可以戒掉,適合做公務員的人,而且可以升為高官的,就是與生俱來的殖民地官員的材料。與生俱來的內在天性、行為、思維、教養等特質,而且用了六十年,如何改變?沿木求魚是也!所以要民主,就不要在前殖民地官員裡找領袖。

所以,冷不冷待霍金,與曾蔭權何干? 是父母親的遺傳,他也是殖民地教育及統治的犧牲品。

再回頭評閣下發表的偉論。我們大部份港人與"民主精英"不是一向標榜民主,將自己與港人的人權與價值觀繫於歐美自由民主主義之上,以批評特區政府的認受性,內地的人權引以為榮嗎?那麼,為何霍金來港卻拖了政府落水?我們不是要學術自由嗎?霍金是科大請來的,與特區政府何干,此事政府插手就祇會是沒有貢獻而強行領功勞。為何不批評其他大學不效法科大?為何不思想六十萬換來一朝的哄動,以後如何去持續這六十萬與霍金的精神?港式的假大空文化,西九如是,廸士尼如是,添馬艦政府總部如是,完全缺乏可持發展的思維,批評人的同時,也請自己反思。

再者,活躍與強大的公民社會,才是民主的必要條件,民主要由下而上才能堅固,為何這學術交流也要為政府馬首是瞻?"閙"政府的同時,請思想一下自己想要什麼。君不見美國的名牌大學不是清一式靠企業與私人捐助嗎?君不見特區目前的教育與學校體制不是給政府高官越搞越亂嗎?

香港的公民與民主意識,何其薄弱?我想,這才是中央不敢放膽給特區直選特首的關鍵。試問一群不肯為保障國家安全的法例也不肯立法的一群,歸屬感與國家認同有多大?我想,假如選出一個陳水扁,到時香港重亂,冇眼睇!

也順帶一提,李家成一心捐款港大,卻引來商界與學界對抗,是否捐錢做善事都要受清算?港人真的要改變港大命名事件、盧少蘭事件等思為,少猜忌,多持感謝之心,不以自己的狹隘利益為依歸,多思想社會的共同利益。


[引用] | 作者 Jane Tse | 25-Jun-06 16:29 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[47]

Hi Jane, it's nice to read your thorough comments on the topic, but whilst I agree with your general point that Hawkings as a guest speaker for HKUST really doesn't and shouldn't require any welcoming intervention from the HKSAR government (thus the reason I haven't participated in this thread until now), as well as your argument for sustainable policies rather than once-off grandstanding gestures, there are quite a number of points in your essay that I heartily disagree with.

"由一個做了幾十年殖民地高官的人帶領的特區政府,你想它的眼光要幾遠大?有幾多獨立自主的創意?眼光遠大,有獨立思考能力,以人民為福祉的公務員又怎可以受殖民地統治者重用?這類人最容易做反,用得多此等人,連治權也不保。"

I seriously dispute your assertions that civil servants who worked under the UK colonial administration necessarily lacked independent thinking and the interest in serving the public good. You failed to acknowledge the many policies initiated pre-1997 that made HK the international financial centre it is today (the rule of law, state-sponsored free primary and secondary education, low taxation, subsidised social housing, infrastructural development, etc. etc.) No matter how hard you tried to spin otherwise, these are solid achievements that HK people should be proud of, and these are precisely the kind of far-sighted policies created and implemented by 殖民地公務員. Don't knock everything we've ever achieved in the past just because you happen to think it's in the best interest for HK to follow the Chinese Communist Party's line. Compared to what CCP has done for its own people in Mainland China, with rife poverty and corruption even to this very day, HK people have done themselves proud. Somehow you forgot that those civil servants you're so disparaging about are actual HK people.

"再者,活躍與強大的公民社會,才是民主的必要條件,民主要由下而上才能堅固,為何這學術交流也要為政府馬首是瞻?"閙"政府的同時,請思想一下自己想要什麼。君不見美國的名牌大學不是清一式靠企業與私人捐助嗎?君不見特區目前的教育與學校體制不是給政府高官越搞越亂嗎?"

While I whole-heartedly endorse your point that democracy needs to be developed from the bottom-up and that this starts with encouraging citizen participation, I completely disagree with the way you've illogically applied this argument to your assertion that universities should be solely funded by the private sector.

Your cited example of U.S. universities is extremely telling actually. The U.S. third level education system with its polarisation of state-funded community colleges and expensive private Ivy League education is precisely the kind of thing that we do NOT want to see happening to the HK universities. The situation in the U.S. resulted in an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor not only in terms of actual material ownership but equality of opportunity for quality education.

What you failed to note is that the many top quality universities in Europe are largely state-funded, where there is an explicit political doctrine for social progress as well as economic progress. Equal access in education for all is not something that would be provided under a private-sector-funded education system - I know, because I have experienced both the European and the U.S. top universities first-hand. The top U.S. schools requires their students to pay fees up to tens of thousands of dollars a year; while some Scandinavian countries have free third-level education and in Ireland we have highly-reduced fees because of government funding (and if you're a citizen from other EU countries who come to Ireland to study you'd not have to pay fees either). This will NEVER happen in a private-sector-funding scenario.

The reason for the above is that you didn't to understand there are actually different models of democratic capitalism - the liberal democracy of the Anglo-Saxons and the social democracy of Continental Europe. And when you actually examine the extent to which there is genuine civic participation in societies, the European model of social democracy wins - just compare the current situation in the U.S. and the U.K. where voters are disenfranchised; to the situation broadly in Europe where an active citizenry is not only allowed but actively encouraged, where the tripartite model allow business, trade unions and the government to work in partnership on economic matters.

"香港的公民與民主意識,何其薄弱?我想,這才是中央不敢放膽給特區直選特首的關鍵。試問一群不肯為保障國家安全的法例也不肯立法的一群,歸屬感與國家認同有多大?我想,假如選出一個陳水扁,到時香港重亂,冇眼睇!"

I laughed out loud when I read the above line: "香港的公民與民主意識,何其薄弱?我想,這才是中央不敢放膽給特區直選特首的關鍵" When has the CCP ever want to concern itself with democracy?????? When has the CCP ever done for its own citizens in Mainland China to develop their 公民與民主意識???????? You're not too brainwashed are you that you forgot 1989 Tianamen massacre where innocent and PEACEFUL student protestors were slaughtered because they demanded freedom and democracy?????? And you're not too blinkered to notice the iron grip on free-flow of information and the limit on press freedom CURRENTLY still exercised by the CCP???????

Your second question about linking the national security legislation with patriotism is the SAME KIND OF RUBBISH that's propagated in the U.S. by the Bush administration who tried to equate criticisms of its nefarious policies (such as the highly restrictive and liberties-destroying Homeland Security Legislation) with an unpatriotic, ungrateful populace. When in fact, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is an EXTREMELY PATRIOTIC thing to do to hold your own government to account, and to NOT allow the government to pass legislations that curb civil liberties in the way that the 國家安全法 is trying to do.

If you're serious about protecting and enabling 公民與民主意識 then you would NOT be supporting 國家安全法 as it currently stands. In the same way that the US and the UK populace are currently vociferous in decrying the terrorism laws that their current morally-bankrupt governments are trying to pass.

"也順帶一提,李家成一心捐款港大,卻引來商界與學界對抗,是否捐錢做善事都要受清算?港人真的要改變港大命名事件、盧少蘭事件等思為,少猜忌,多持感謝之心,不以自己的狹隘利益為依歸,多思想社會的共同利益。"

Nobody is preventing corporate philanthropy, but the tags and conditions that comes with it. If Lee Ka Shing is a true philanthropist, then he would have just made an anonymous donation, rather than try to change the name of the university and influencing the academic agenda. The billions that he gave then is not philanthropy so much as soft money trying to buy academic freedom.

盧少蘭事件 is another curious example that you cite if you're indeed serious about protecting and enabling 公民與民主意識 and arguing for 民主要由下而上才能堅固. What's wrong with protesting against privatisation plans that have NOT gone through proper public consultation with the very residents of those social housing that are to be privatised? Shouldn't the residents have a say in how things are run for their very own homes?

Your problem is that you've equated promoting the private sector with promoting democracy. The two are NOT the same. In fact, far from it. A business-driven administration is not democracy - it's simply corporate plutocracy, the kind of thing we're seeing happening in America right now.


[引用] | 作者 snowdrops | 25-Jun-06 19:35 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[48]

(Sorry I have to re-post this comment again because of the many typos I've made and which is amended in this new post):

Hi Jane, it's nice to read your thorough comments on the topic, but whilst I agree with your general point that Hawkings as a guest speaker for HKUST really doesn't and shouldn't require any welcoming intervention from the HKSAR government (thus the reason I haven't participated in this thread until now), as well as your argument for sustainable policies rather than once-off grandstanding gestures from the government, there are quite a number of points in your essay that I heartily disagree with.

"由一個做了幾十年殖民地高官的人帶領的特區政府,你想它的眼光要幾遠大?有幾多獨立自主的創意?眼光遠大,有獨立思考能力,以人民為福祉的公務員又怎可以受殖民地統治者重用?這類人最容易做反,用得多此等人,連治權也不保。"

I seriously dispute your assertions that civil servants who worked under the UK colonial administration necessarily lacked independent thinking and the interest in serving the public good. You failed to acknowledge the many policies initiated pre-1997 that made HK the international financial centre it is today (the rule of law, state-sponsored free primary and secondary education, low taxation, subsidised social housing, infrastructural development, etc. etc.) No matter how hard you tried to spin otherwise, these are solid achievements that HK people should be proud of, and these are precisely the kind of far-sighted policies created and implemented by 殖民地公務員. Don't knock everything we've ever achieved in the past just because you happen to think it's in the best interest for HK to follow the Chinese Communist Party's line. Compared to what CCP has done for its own people in Mainland China, with rife poverty and corruption even to this very day, HK people have done themselves proud. Somehow you forgot that those civil servants you're so disparaging about are actual HK people also.

"再者,活躍與強大的公民社會,才是民主的必要條件,民主要由下而上才能堅固,為何這學術交流也要為政府馬首是瞻?"閙"政府的同時,請思想一下自己想要什麼。君不見美國的名牌大學不是清一式靠企業與私人捐助嗎?君不見特區目前的教育與學校體制不是給政府高官越搞越亂嗎?"

While I whole-heartedly endorse your point that democracy needs to be developed from the bottom-up and that this starts with encouraging citizen participation, I completely disagree with the way you've illogically applied this argument to your assertion that universities should be solely funded by the private sector.

Your cited example of U.S. universities is extremely telling actually. The U.S. third level education system with its polarisation of state-funded community colleges and expensive private Ivy League education is precisely the kind of thing that we do NOT want to see happening to the HK universities. The situation in the U.S. resulted in an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor not only in terms of actual material ownership but also in terms of equality of opportunity for quality education.

What you've failed to notice is that many top quality universities in Europe are largely state-funded, where there is an explicit political doctrine for social progress as well as economic progress. Equal access in education for all is not something that would be provided under a private-sector-funded education system - I know, because I have experienced both the European and the U.S. top universities first-hand. The top U.S. schools require their students to pay fees up to tens of thousands of dollars a year; while some Scandinavian countries have free third-level education and in Ireland we have highly-reduced fees because of government funding (and if you're a citizen from other EU countries who come to Ireland to study you can pay these significantly-reduced fees also). This will NEVER happen in a private-sector-funding scenario.

The reason for the above is that you didn't understand there are actually different models of democratic capitalism - the liberal democracy of the Anglo-Saxons (i.e. US and the UK) and the social democracy of Continental Europe. And when you actually examine the extent to which there is genuine civic participation in societies, the European model of social democracy wins - just compare the current situation in the U.S. and the U.K. where voters are disenfranchised; to the situation broadly in Europe where an active citizenry is not only allowed but actively encouraged, where the tripartite model allow business, trade unions and the government to work in partnership on economic matters.

"香港的公民與民主意識,何其薄弱?我想,這才是中央不敢放膽給特區直選特首的關鍵。試問一群不肯為保障國家安全的法例也不肯立法的一群,歸屬感與國家認同有多大?我想,假如選出一個陳水扁,到時香港重亂,冇眼睇!"

I laughed out loud when I read the above line: "香港的公民與民主意識,何其薄弱?我想,這才是中央不敢放膽給特區直選特首的關鍵" When has the CCP ever wanted to concern itself with democracy?????? When has the CCP ever done for its own citizens in Mainland China to develop their 公民與民主意識???????? You're not too brainwashed are you that you forgot 1989 Tianamen massacre where innocent and PEACEFUL student protestors were slaughtered because they demanded freedom and democracy?????? And you're not too blinkered to notice the iron grip on free-flow of information and the limit on press freedom CURRENTLY still being exercised by the CCP???????

Your second question about linking the national security legislation with patriotism is the SAME KIND OF RUBBISH that's propagated in the U.S. by the Bush administration which tries to equate criticisms of its nefarious policies (such as the highly restrictive and liberties-destroying Homeland Security Legislation) with an unpatriotic, ungrateful populace. When in fact, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is an EXTREMELY PATRIOTIC thing to do to hold your own government to account, and to NOT allow the government to pass legislations that curb civil liberties in the way that the 國家安全法 is trying to do.

If you're actually serious about protecting and enabling 公民與民主意識 , then you would NOT be supporting 國家安全法 as it currently stands, in the same way that the US and the UK populace are currently vociferous in decrying the terrorism laws that their current morally-bankrupt governments are trying to pass.

"也順帶一提,李家成一心捐款港大,卻引來商界與學界對抗,是否捐錢做善事都要受清算?港人真的要改變港大命名事件、盧少蘭事件等思為,少猜忌,多持感謝之心,不以自己的狹隘利益為依歸,多思想社會的共同利益。"

Nobody is preventing corporate philanthropy, but the tags and conditions that come with it. If Lee Ka Shing is a true philanthropist, then he would have just made an anonymous donation, rather than tried to change the name of the college and influence the academic agenda. The billions that he gave then is not philanthropy so much as soft money trying to buy academic freedom.

盧少蘭事件 is another curious example for you to cite if you're indeed serious about protecting and enabling 公民與民主意識 and arguing for 民主要由下而上才能堅固. What's wrong with protesting against privatisation plans that have NOT gone through proper public consultation with the very residents of those social housing that are to be privatised? Shouldn't the residents have a say in how things are run for their very own homes?

Your problem is that you've equated promoting the private sector with promoting democracy. The two are NOT the same. In fact, far from it. A business-driven administration is not democracy - it's simply corporate plutocracy, the kind of thing we're seeing happening in America right now.


[引用] | 作者 snowdrops | 25-Jun-06 19:54 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[49]

Oh I meant "which ARE amended..." It's very bad when you write without an edit function that you could go back and forth to express things in a different way and then easily forgot to correct the grammar of what you had before...


[引用] | 作者 snowdrops | 25-Jun-06 19:57 | [舉報垃圾留言]

[50]

TO Jane Tse

基本上, 唔係好明你講咩, 我蠢!

"批評人的同時,也請自己反思。" 你意思係咪即係叫所有人唔好有批評..., 好土共的詭辯啊!


[引用] | 作者 葉一知 | 26-Jun-06 00:13 | [舉報垃圾留言]

Next