香港新浪網 MySinaBlog
燦榮 | 3rd Dec 2013 | 通識--中國

香港特派員李春/聯合報

中共十八屆三中全會閉幕半個月,解讀潮餘韻未絕,連中共自己也要組成「宣講團」,分赴各地解說文件。因為這份文件篇幅太長,有二萬字;內容太多,有十六大部分;再加上傳統八股與潮流新詞雜陳,意識形態與經濟學說齊飛,要想有所把握,實在不易。

讀不明這份文件,不能怨人們見識短,要知道這是四大組六十精英,在玉泉山閉門半年的成果。字如此文山,自難攻克。凡事總有去繁從簡之道。如果我們從「一條主線」、「二個機構」、「三個新」、「四個爭」、「五個進一步」、「六大改革」,去耍庖丁解牛之刀,也許可以看出點眉目。

首先看「一條主線」。這條主線,叫治理。依這條主線去理解,則中共三中決定,不是改革文件,而是治理綱領。

習近平去年十一月十五日,在中共十八大發表準「就職演說」,而中共三中決定文件,比傳統時間提前,於今年十一月十五日公布。其機巧之處,就是要對應習近平就職或中共新領導層到位一年。決定文件,相當於習近平或中共新領導層的治政綱領。

這是因為中共和「有中國特色」的政治制度,不論黨國,領導班子都是先上位後宣言,而且通常要有一年的時間,來展示自己的施政藍圖。用習近平自己的話來說,三中全會文件,是回答「舉什麼旗、走什麼路的問題」。至於因何施政要叫治理了,可參考諸多中共智囊文稿。

「一條主線」,主要由「兩個機構」護航。這兩個機構,即擬建的「國家安全委員會」和「中央全面深化改革領導小組」。這兩個機構,「國安會」雄崛國家政權機關,「深改組」潛隱在黨的組織之中,雖然細目還未亮相,但相信都掌握在最高權力核心之中。

「國安會」和「深改組」,一個在國一個在黨,一個形外一個實內,透露出的是習領導層的領政之重點,一在求穩的安全,一在求變的改革。因其深具不安全感,又深知要求得安全靠不得維穩,只能求變。在這層意義上,兩個機構的現身,遠比改革內容還重要。

對「一條主線」和「兩個機構」有點把握,後面的內容淺識即可。比如「三個新」,是中共決定文件起草的要求,有兩大「三個新」,一是內容上要成「新藍圖、新願景、新目標」;一是表現手法上要用「新思想、新論斷、新舉措」。這兩個「三新」是歷代中共領導人在登基之後搬出自己的執政綱領,都會提出這一要求。

「四個爭」比較有意思,即這份三中決定文件要解決重大問題,而在諸多「重大問題」中,有四個具爭議性問題,其中包括意識形態,也包括經濟學說。

這四個具爭議性的問題,首先是市場在資源配置中起決定性作用和如何發揮政府作用,解決政府和市場關係的問題;其次是如何堅持和完善基本經濟制度,解決公有、民營甚至外資的平等地位問題;其三是城鄉一體化的問題,要打散城鄉二元結構;四是司法體制和運行機制的改革,從體制上為推動中國大陸司法獨立動刀,從機制上對司法不公糾偏。

認識到治政的難點,解決重大爭議,要提出一個基本目標,這個目標就是「五個進一步」,即進一步形成公平競爭的發展環境,進一步增強經濟社會的發展活力,進一步提高政府效率和效能,進一步實現社會公平正義,進一步促進社會和諧穩定。在這「五個進一步」之外,還有一個「進一步提高黨的領導水平和執政能力」,那是與民無關的陳詞。

要實現這「五個進一步」的目標,最後就必須全面改革,也就是「六大改革」,即經濟體制、政治體制、文化體制、社會體制的改革,加上一個中共黨的制度建設的改革。這六大改革,分別可細分派生出諸多改革,是以可叫「全面」。至於這些改革何以叫「深化」,那只是尊重歷史的一種委婉。系列之一)


燦榮 | 17th Nov 2013 | 管理學 | (22 Reads)
醫療改革醫療改革和融資問題困擾香港,亦困擾美國。作為小巿民,究竟我們能做甚麼呢?有沒有想過,不少老人家都會不慎跌倒,影響大腿骨和髖關節。假如你只能選擇美國或瑞典做手術,你會選擇那一個國家呢?國際顧問兼醫生史提芬人拿臣告訴你,瑞典的平均水平遠高於美國,七年內病人要重做手術,美國多瑞典三倍。涉及的原因很簡單,大家做手術的方法不同,而瑞典的手法,比較全球其他願意拿出數據的國家都好,而最重要一點,是這些手法不涉及高昂費用,屬於可轉移學問。原來醫學界和大學學者漸漸意識到,假如全球願意共享醫療成敗,參加量度,自然會比較出高下,一經學習印正,全球都會受惠。其中一個大型計劃,正由美國哈大學和瑞典醫學界聯手進行。中提芬相信,單單是美國,每年可節省五千萬美元,相等於兩成的醫療開支。他指出,相關組織定下大計,明年會共同比較八種病症的治療成效,三年內,會擴大至包括四成的病。香港能否受惠,我們也拭目以待。

燦榮 | 27th Oct 2013 | 管理學 | (26 Reads)

I think we're all aware that the world today is full of problems. We've been hearing themtoday and yesterday and every day for decades. Serious problems, big problems, pressing problems. Poor nutrition, access to water, climate change, deforestation, lack of skills, insecurity, not enough food, not enough healthcare, pollution. There's problem after problem,and I think what really separates this time from any time I can remember in my brief time on Earth is the awareness of these problems. We're all very aware.

Why are we having so much trouble dealing with these problems? That's the question I've been struggling with, coming from my very different perspective. I'm not a social problem guy. I'm a guy that works with business, helps business make money. God forbid. So why are we having so many problems with these social problems, and really is there any role for business, and if so, what is that role? I think that in order to address that question, we have to step back and think about how we've understood and pondered both the problems and the solutions to these great social challenges that we face.

Now, I think many have seen business as the problem, or at least one of the problems, in many of the social challenges we face. You know, think of the fast food industry, the drug industry, the banking industry. You know, this is a low point in the respect for business.Business is not seen as the solution. It's seen as the problem now, for most people. And rightly so, in many cases. There's a lot of bad actors out there that have done the wrong thing, that actually have made the problem worse. So this perspective is perhaps justified.

How have we tended to see the solutions to these social problems, these many issues that we face in society? Well, we've tended to see the solutions in terms of NGOs, in terms of government, in terms of philanthropy. Indeed, the kind of unique organizational entity of this age is this tremendous rise of NGOs and social organizations. This is a unique, new organizational form that we've seen grown up. Enormous innovation, enormous energy,enormous talent now has been mobilized through this structure to try to deal with all of these challenges. And many of us here are deeply involved in that.

I'm a business school professor, but I've actually founded, I think, now, four nonprofits.Whenever I got interested and became aware of a societal problem, that was what I did,form a nonprofit. That was the way we've thought about how to deal with these issues. Even a business school professor has thought about it that way.

But I think at this moment, we've been at this for quite a while. We've been aware of these problems for decades. We have decades of experience with our NGOs and with our government entities, and there's an awkward reality. The awkward reality is we're not makingfast enough progress. We're not winning. These problems still seem very daunting and very intractable, and any solutions we're achieving are small solutions. We're making incremental progress.

What's the fundamental problem we have in dealing with these social problems? If we cut all the complexity away, we have the problem of scale. We can't scale. We can make progress. We can show benefits. We can show results. We can make things better. We're helping. We're doing better. We're doing good. We can't scale. We can't make a large-scale impact on these problems. Why is that? Because we don't have the resources. And that's really clear now. And that's clearer now than it's been for decades. There's simply not enough money to deal with any of these problems at scale using the current model. There's not enough tax revenue, there's not enough philanthropic donations, to deal with these problems the way we're dealing with them now. We've got to confront that reality. And the scarcity of resources for dealing with these problems is only growing, certainly in the advanced world today, with all the fiscal problems we face.

So if it's fundamentally a resource problem, where are the resources in society? How are those resources really created, the resources we're going to need to deal with all these societal challenges? Well there, I think the answer is very clear: They're in business. All wealth is actually created by business. Business creates wealth when it meets needs at a profit. That's how all wealth is created. It's meeting needs at a profit that leads to taxes and that leads to incomes and that leads to charitable donations. That's where all the resources come from. Only business can actually create resources. Other institutions can utilize themto do important work, but only business can create them. And business creates them when it's able to meet a need at a profit. The resources are overwhelmingly generated by business. The question then is, how do we tap into this? How do we tap into this? Business generates those resources when it makes a profit. That profit is that small differencebetween the price and the cost it takes to produce whatever solution business has createdto whatever problem they're trying to solve. But that profit is the magic. Why? Because that profit allows whatever solution we've created to be infinitely scalable. Because if we can make a profit, we can do it for 10, 100, a million, 100 million, a billion. The solution becomes self-sustaining. That's what business does when it makes a profit.

Now what does this all have to do with social problems? Well, one line of thinking is, let's take this profit and redeploy it into social problems. Business should give more. Business should be more responsible. And that's been the path that we've been on in business. But again, this path that we've been on is not getting us where we need to go.

Now, I started out as a strategy professor, and I'm still a strategy professor. I'm proud of that. But I've also, over the years, worked more and more on social issues. I've worked on healthcare, the environment, economic development, reducing poverty, and as I worked more and more in the social field, I started seeing something that had a profound impact on me and my whole life, in a way.

The conventional wisdom in economics and the view in business has historically been that actually, there's a tradeoff between social performance and economic performance. The conventional wisdom has been that business actually makes a profit by causing a social problem. The classic example is pollution. If business pollutes, it makes more money than if it tried to reduce that pollution. Reducing pollution is expensive, therefore businesses don't want to do it. It's profitable to have an unsafe working environment. It's too expensive to have a safe working environment, therefore business makes more money if they don't have a safe working environment. That's been the conventional wisdom. A lot of companies have fallen into that conventional wisdom. They resisted environmental improvement. They resisted workplace improvement. That thinking has led to, I think, much of the behavior that we have come to criticize in business, that I come to criticize in business.

But the more deeply I got into all these social issues, one after another, and actually, the more I tried to address them myself, personally, in a few cases, through nonprofits that I was involved with, the more I found actually that the reality is the opposite. Business does not profit from causing social problems, actually not in any fundamental sense. That's a very simplistic view. The deeper we get into these issues, the more we start to understand that actually business profits from solving from social problems. That's where the real profit comes. Let's take pollution. We've learned today that actually reducing pollution and emissions is generating profit. It saves money. It makes the business more productive and efficient. It doesn't waste resources. Having a safer working environment actually, and avoiding accidents, it makes the business more profitable, because it's a sign of good processes. Accidents are expensive and costly. Issue by issue by issue, we start to learnthat actually there's no trade-off between social progress and economic efficiency in any fundamental sense. Another issue is health. I mean, what we've found is actually health of employees is something that business should treasure, because that health allows those employees to be more productive and come to work and not be absent. The deeper work, the new work, the new thinking on the interface between business and social problems is actually showing that there's a fundamental, deep synergy, particularly if you're not thinking in the very short run. In the very short run, you can sometimes fool yourself into thinking that there's fundamentally opposing goals, but in the long run, ultimately, we're learning in field after field that this is simply not true.

So how could we tap into the power of business to address the fundamental problems that we face? Imagine if we could do that, because if we could do it, we could scale. We could tap into this enormous resource pool and this organizational capacity.

And guess what? That's happening now, finally, partly because of people like you who have raised these issues now for year after year and decade after decade. We see organizations like Dow Chemical leading the revolution away from trans fat and saturated fat with innovative new products. This is an example of Jain Irrigation. This is a company that's brought drip irrigation technology to thousands and millions of farmers, reducing substantially the use of water. We see companies like the Brazilian forestry company Fibriathat's figured out how to avoid tearing down old growth forest and using eucalyptus and getting much more yield per hectare of pulp and making much more paper than you could make by cutting down those old trees. You see companies like Cisco that are training so far four million people in I.T. skills to actually, yes, be responsible, but help expand the opportunity to disseminate I.T. technology and grow the whole business. There's a fundamental opportunity for business today to impact and address these social problems,and this opportunity is the largest business opportunity we see in business.

And the question is, how can we get business thinking to adapt this issue of shared value?This is what I call shared value: addressing a social issue with a business model. That's shared value. Shared value is capitalism, but it's a higher kind of capitalism. It's capitalism as it was ultimately meant to be, meeting important needs, not incrementally competing fortrivial differences in product attributes and market share. Shared value is when we can create social value and economic value simultaneously. It's finding those opportunities that will unleash the greatest possibility we have to actually address these social problemsbecause we can scale. We can address shared value at multiple levels. It's real. It's happening.

But in order to get this solution working, we have to now change how business sees itself,and this is thankfully underway. Businesses got trapped into the conventional wisdom that they shouldn't worry about social problems, that this was sort of something on the side, that somebody else was doing it. We're now seeing companies embrace this idea. But we also have to recognize business is not going to do this as effectively as if we have NGOs


燦榮 | 13th Oct 2013 | 通識--個人成長 | (27 Reads)
讚還是罵父母教子女,或上司對待下屬,有一個爭論不休的問題,就是應該要獎勵進步,還是要懲罰錯誤呢?一位以色列空軍教官堅持要用責罵的方法,因為根據他的經驗, 飛行官被稱讚之後,下一次往往做得差,但罵過之後,下一次就會變好。面對這種論調,諾貝爾經濟學獎得主康納曼教授有不一樣的看法,問題是如何簡短說明,令以色列空軍教官都服氣呢?他首先在地上畫了一個戰靶,叫每一個飛行官背向投擲兩次,然後計算離目標的遠近,第一次投擲成績排一個次序,第二次投擲也排一個次序。結果非常簡單,第一次較好,第二次就較差,第一次較差,第二次就較好。這只是一個簡單數學邏輯問題。但一經試驗,康納曼教授就證明了,一個人的兩次表現,不必罵,不必讚,自然會反方向調整。假如大家明白這個道理,也許應該明白,你的孩子怎表現,本身亦有自然調節的,用不著堅持懲罰。

燦榮 | 30th Sep 2013 | 通識--中國 | (12 Reads)

習近平在中央黨校2010年春季學期第二批入學學員開學典禮上的講話 2010051518:22 來源:《學習時報》  http://theory.people.com.cn/BIG5/11604837.html

中央黨校2010年春季學期第二批入學學員今天正式開學了。我代表中央黨校校委,對全體新學員表示熱烈歡迎。

黨的十七屆四中全會明確提出:“從領導機關做起,大力整治文風會風,提倡開短會、講短話、講管用的話,力戒空話套話。”中央黨校作為學習、研究和宣傳馬克思主義的重要陣地,在貫徹落實四中全會精神、樹立和倡導馬克思主義文風方面負有重要責任。到中央黨校來學習的同志,大都是黨的中高級干部,有些是思想理論戰線的骨干,講話、寫文章、參與文件起草,工作中都會遇到文風問題。因此,今天我就改進文風問題談一些體會和認識。

一、  為什麼要大力改進文風

文風不是小事。毛澤東同志指出:“學風和文風也都是黨的作風,都是黨風。”黨風決定著文風,文風體現出黨風。人們從文風狀況中可以判斷黨的作風,評價黨的形象,進而觀察黨的宗旨的貫徹落實情況。

我們黨是一個鄭重的馬克思主義政黨,特別是延安整風以來,一直為培育和弘揚馬克思主義文風而努力。延安整風的一個重要內容,就是整頓文風。毛澤東同志對黨八股進行了淋漓盡致的批判,號召全黨拋棄黨八股,採取生動活潑新鮮有力的馬克思主義文風。在這方面,他為我們樹立了榜樣。翻開《毛澤東選集》,鮮明朴實的文風扑面而來,生動活潑的語言引人入勝,深入淺出的論述讓人茅塞頓開。鄧小平同志歷來注重務實,反對不實風氣,粉碎“四人幫”以后他帶頭恢復黨的實事求是的思想路線,針對黨的優良文風在“文化大革命”中遭到嚴重破壞的現狀,大力倡導並率先垂范開短會,講短話、講實話、講新話。他反復強調:“我們開會,作報告,作決議,以及做任何工作,都為的是解決問題。”江澤民同志在黨的作風建設上明確提出了“八個堅持、八個反對”的重要思想,一再強調要糾正不良文風。他指出,有些文章翻來覆去老是那麼幾句套話,也有的嘩眾取寵,亂造概念,詞句離奇,使人看不懂,這種不良文風應加以糾正。黨的十六大以來,胡錦濤同志同樣重視文風建設,多次強調各級領導干部要發揚求真務實精神、大興求真務實之風,下決心從文山會海中擺脫出來,把心思用在干事業上,把精力投到抓落實中。他在黨的十七大報告中明確指出,要“改進學風和文風,精簡會議和文件,反對形式主義、官僚主義,反對弄虛作假”。

在黨中央的大力倡導下,全黨抓文風建設取得很大成績。改革開放30多年來,黨的優良文風逐漸得到恢復,並在新的歷史條件下有新的發展。文風與黨風同社會風氣是緊密相連的,弘揚優良文風、糾正不良文風是一項長期任務,不可能一蹴而就、一勞永逸。當前,在一些黨政機關文件、一些領導干部講話、一些理論文章中,文風上存在的問題仍然很突出,主要表現為長、空、假。

長,就是有意無意地將文章、講話添枝加葉,短話長說,看似面面俱到,實則離題萬裡。群眾形容說,這樣的講話有數量無質量,有長度無力度﹔這樣的講話匯集的書,有價格無價值,有厚度無深度。

空,就是空話、套話多。照抄照搬、移花接木,面孔大同小異,語言上下雷同,沒有針對性,既不觸及實際問題,也不回答群眾關切,如同鏡中之花,沒味、沒用。

假,就是夸大其詞,言不由衷,虛與委蛇,文過飾非。不顧客觀情況,刻意掩蓋存在的問題,夸大其詞,歌功頌德。堆砌辭藻,詞語生澀,讓人聽不懂、看不懂。

黨的歷史經驗証明,文風不正,危害極大。它嚴重影響真抓實干、影響執政成效,耗費大量時間和精力,耽誤實際矛盾和問題的研究解決。不良文風蔓延開來,不僅損害講話者、為文者自身形象,也降低黨的威信,導致干部脫離群眾,群眾疏遠干部,使黨的理論和路線方針政策在群眾中失去吸引力、感召力、親和力。可以說,一切不良文風都是不符合黨的性質、宗旨的,都是同黨肩負的歷史使命相背離的。大力糾正不良文風,積極倡導優良文風,已成為新形勢下加強和改進黨的作風建設一項重要任務。

二、  應該提倡什麼樣的文風

提倡什麼,反對什麼,是改進文風的首要問題。針對上面所說的不良文風的三個字,我想另外提出三個字,就是短、實、新。

一是短。就是要力求簡短精練、直截了當,要言不煩、意盡言止,觀點鮮明、重點突出。能夠三言兩語說清楚的事絕不拖泥帶水,能夠用短小篇幅闡明的道理絕不繞彎子。古人說“刪繁就簡三秋樹”,講的就是這個意思。毛澤東同志為人民英雄紀念碑起草的碑文,隻有114個字,卻反映了一部中國近代史。1975年,鄧小平同志負責起草周恩來總理在四屆全國人大一次會議上的報告,隻用了五千字。后來談到這件事的時候,鄧小平同志說:“毛主席指定我負責起草,要求不得超過五千字,我完成了任務。五千字,不是也很管用嗎?”江澤民同志和胡錦濤同志也有許多短小精干、言簡意賅、思想深刻的文章、講話。魯迅先生說過,文章寫完至少看兩遍,竭力將可有可無的字、句、段刪去,毫不可惜。現在,不少地方和部門按照中央改進文風會風的要求,提出以“能少則少、能短則短、能精則精、能簡則簡”為原則,盡可能開短會、講短話、發短文。這“三短”,就是我們應當大力倡導的風氣。

當然,也不是說長文章一概不好。有內容、有見解的長文章,人們也是喜歡讀的。文章長短要視具體情況而定,宜短則短,宜長則長。要堅持內容決定形式,有些非長不可、篇幅短說不明白的事情則可以長些。《庄子》上有這樣幾句話:“長者不為有余,短者不為不足。是故鳧脛雖短,續之則憂﹔鶴脛雖長,斷之則悲。”意思是說,野鴨子的腿雖然很短,給它接上一截它就要發愁﹔仙鶴的腿雖然很長,給它截去一段它就要悲傷。這個道理同樣適用於寫文章。就今天來說,把“野鴨子的腿加長”的文章太多了,提倡短文章、短講話、短文件是當前改進文風的主要任務。

二是實。就是要講符合實際的話不講脫離實際的話,講管用的話不講虛話,講有感而發的話不講無病呻吟的話,講反映自己判斷的話不講照本宣科的話,講明白通俗的話不講故作高深的話。這就要求我們的文件、講話和文章,力求反映事物的本來面目,分析問題要客觀、全面,既要指出現象,更要弄清本質﹔闡述對策要具體、實在,要有針對性和可操作性。要實事求是,有一說一、有二說二,是則是、非則非,不夸大成績,不掩飾問題。要深入淺出,用朴實的語言闡述深刻的理論。要有感而發,情真意切。毛澤東同志筆下的愚公、白求恩、張思德,我們今天記憶猶新,就是因為這些人在他的心靈深處產生過激烈震蕩,所以講出的話飽含深情、富於哲理,能深深植入人民心裡,引起共鳴。

這裡需要說明,一些關於黨和國家工作的總體性要求,事關全局,事關黨和國家前進方向及政策連續性,事關黨的團結和社會穩定,需要在重要文件和重要講話中反復強調。這和形式主義的套話、穿靴戴帽是兩回事。

三是新。就是力求思想深刻、富有新意,正所謂“領異標新二月花”。如果一個文件、一篇講話毫無新意,那麼制定這樣的文件、作這樣的講話還有多少意義呢?可以說,能不能講出新意,反映一個領導干部的思想水平、理論水平、經驗水平以及語言表達能力。這裡所說的新意,既包括在探索規律、認識真理上有新發現、前人沒有講過的話,又包括把中央精神和上級要求與本地區本部門本單位實際結合起來,在解決問題上有新理念、新思路、新舉措的話﹔既包括角度新、材料新、語言表達新的話,又包括富有個性、特色鮮明、生動活潑的話。需要指出的是,講出新意,並不是要去刻意求新,甚至搞文字游戲。更不能背離馬克思主義立場觀點方法,背離黨的路線方針政策去標新立異。

三、  怎樣大力改進文風

文風不正是多種原因造成的。克服不良文風、提倡優良文風,真正使講短話、講實話、講新話蔚然成風,需要多管齊下,標本兼治。這裡強調三條。

第一,各級領導機關和領導干部要起帶頭作用。文風問題上下都有,但文風改不改,領導是關鍵。從領導干部自身說,文風不正是不是主要由這樣幾個因素、幾種情況所導致的:一是有的干部由於知識、經驗都不夠,功底、能力達不到,故而難以講出新話、管用的話來。二是有的干部思想懶惰,不願去下深入調查研究和獨立思考的苦功夫,隻會在現成的文件、書本上討生活、照抄照講。三是有的干部認為隻有照講文件上的話、報刊上的話,才是同上級和中央在思想上政治上“保持一致”。這完全是一種誤解。四是有的干部認為講長話就是對工作重視和認真的表現,給哪個部門講的話長就是重視那個部門。這也是一種誤解。五是有的干部不負責任,別人寫什麼念什麼,寫多長念多長。明明知道用處不大,但照念不誤。六是還有的干部認為講大話、空話、套話、歌功頌德的話最保險,不會犯錯誤。其實這是個人患得患失的思想在作怪,本身就是錯誤的。

這些因素和情況,都與領導干部的素質能力有關。文如其人。作文與做人,與人的素質是緊密聯系的。領導干部改進文風,需要在兩個方面努力。一要學習。學習什麼?學習黨的基本理論,掌握馬克思主義立場觀點方法,以此作為政治上的望遠鏡和顯微鏡﹔學習新知識,了解新事物,不斷拓寬視野,提高自己的綜合素質﹔學習古人語言中有生命力的東西,充分合理地繼承和運用。理論功底扎實了,知識積累厚實了,肚子裡裝的東西多了,才能厚積薄發,言之有物、深入淺出地講話、寫文章。二要增強黨性修養。堅持以德修身,努力成為高尚人格的模范。隻有自己的境界高了,沒有私心雜念,才能做到言行一致、表裡如一,講出的話、寫出的文章人們才願意聽、願意看。如果言行不一、表裡不一,台上台下兩個形象,圈內圈外兩種表現,即使講得天花亂墜,也不會有人相信你。

各級領導干部要把改進文風作為一項工作要求,帶頭講短話、講實話、講新話,通過自己以身作則帶出好文風來。這裡很重要的是自己要親自參與重要文稿的起草。鄧小平同志說過,拿筆杆是實行領導的主要方法,領導同志要學會拿筆杆。現在各級領導干部的理論素養和知識素養在不斷提高,如果時間和條件允許,還是要盡可能自己動手。一些重要講話和文章應當全程參與,出思想、談看法、拿主意,在大的方面把好關。

第二,把改進文風同改進干部工作作風結合起來,尤其要加強調查研究、深入了解群眾呼聲。文風不實,反映出思想作風不純、工作作風不實。沒有調查就沒有發言權。寫文件、作報告、發表文章,都是為了解決問題。辦法從哪裡來?隻能從調查研究中來,從群眾的實踐和創造中來。胸有成竹才能出口成章,找准症結才能對症下藥,源於實踐才能指導實踐。領導干部改進文風,應當走出機關,深入基層,在實際生活中“望聞問切”,在充分佔有和分析第一手材料的基礎上概括出新思想、新觀點、新論斷、新舉措,把群眾的創造吸收到文件、講話、文章中來,使我們的思想和文字體現時代要求,符合實際情況,能夠解決問題。

群眾是真正的英雄,是創造歷史的動力。不能和群眾談心,你說的話群眾聽不懂,怎麼會有感召力?怎麼指導實踐、推動工作?一些地方開展作風整頓年活動,不少干部住村蹲點后感慨地說:“在老鄉家拉家常與在辦公室接待群眾來訪不一樣,睡在農家硬板床上考慮問題與坐在辦公室沙發上考慮問題不一樣,能夠發現平時在辦公室看不到、聽不到的問題,學到在辦公室學不到的新思想、新話語,拿出在辦公室想不到的新思路、新舉措。”這些體會給我們許多啟示。改進文風,必須從思想和感情深處把人民群眾當主人、當先生。群眾的思想最鮮活、語言最生動。深入群眾,你就來到了智慧的大課堂、語言的大課堂,我們的文件、講話、文章就可以有的放矢,體現群眾意願,讓群眾願意看、看得懂,願意聽、聽得進。

第三,把改進文風同改進黨風統一起來,特別要大力改進會風。不良文風的總根源,主要在於形式主義和官僚主義。形式主義和官僚主義的一個重要表現,就是會議太多,會風不正。現在以會議落實會議、以文件落實文件、以講話落實講話的現象依然存在,這對文風不正起了推波助瀾的作用。要改進會風,能不開的會盡可能不開,沒准備好的會堅決不開,能合並的會最好合並開,必須開的會也要能短則短,對會議的時限、數量、質量、規格等加以規范,提出明確要求。條件具備,會議可以直接開到基層,多利用現代通信和技術手段召開電視電話會議或者網絡會議。改進文風會風,要努力活躍黨內生活,擴大黨內民主,大力倡導獨立思考的風氣,創造鼓勵講真話、提倡講新話的寬鬆環境。

圍繞文風問題就講這些看法,與大家探討和交流。讓我們按照黨的十七大和十七屆四中全會關於改進文風的要求,身體力行、勉力而為,在弘揚優良文風上不斷取得新進步。

最后,祝全體學員在黨校期間學習進步、身體健康、生活愉快!


燦榮 | 27th Sep 2013 | 通識--個人成長 | (25 Reads)
在民主社會,很多事情的對錯,都交給事件的受害者及目擊證人,但有沒有想過,證人的記憶是否真實呢?美國有一宗真實案例,一個名為泰達思的31歲年青人,被受害人錯誤指證為強姦犯,結果失去工作,失去未婚妻,及後更因抑鬱,失去生命,而真實犯人,事後被證實,但已無補於事。專門研究錯誤記憶的加州大學科學家依利沙佰露芙達思說,心理學家曾經研究300多宗錯判案例,仔細分析才發現,有四份三是由於證人的錯誤記憶所致。為著證明人們很容易受外間因素影響,形成錯誤記憶,這位心理學家做了多項具體的實驗,比較分別,例如在一次模擬的交通意外,問受訪者,兩車觸及時的時速大概是多少,另一批人就不用觸及這字眼,改為撞擊,結果一如所料,受訪者聽到觸及這字眼,說是時速34公里,另一組雖然目擊同一組畫面,卻因為撞擊這個字,將車速形容為41公里,足足多了百分之二十。依利沙伯根據多次實驗後,結論是我們可以植入虛假記憶,亦可以改造記憶,重點有三個字,CDE, C是信心CONFIDENCED是指細節DETAIL, E是指帶有情緒EMOTION, 即聽眾很易受影響而不自知。大家知道之後,或許可以問問自己,你的記憶可靠嗎?

燦榮 | 10th Sep 2013 | 通識--個人成長 | (22 Reads)
假如你參加了一個測試,一班人要由996開始,每次減7, 次次都準確,而且要全部人都準確,一旦有一個人錯,就要由996重來,有壓力了吧。若果在參加這測試前,你還要在一批評判面前介紹自己,而這批評判,全部受過嚴格訓練,全部表現出極之不滿。夠慘情吧。這是史丹福大學心理學教授麥高尼加的研究,她指出,其實所有人都會經歷過壓力,也是正常的。但她希望大家真正要明白的,是壓力沒有令人致病,沒有令人死亡,而害怕壓力這種想法才是致命的根源。她引述美國的數據指出,過去八年,十八萬美國人死於對壓力的恐懼,假如數字準確,即恐病壓力,致死的影響比皮膚癌和自殺更嚴重。幸好還有一個值得留意的數據,原來人們遇上財政問題或家庭問題,的確會令死亡的風險增加三成,但在日常生活中經常關心人,這類人並不會因為相同遭遇而增加死亡率,換言之,關心別人,是抵抗壓力的有效武器,就是關心人。當然,大家能夠將壓力視為推動前進的力量,科學數據亦證明,這種人的心血管,在壓力期間,收窄程度,亦有異於害怕壓力的人,只要你信,生命絶對不一樣。

燦榮 | 2nd Sep 2013 | 通識--個人成長 | (31 Reads)
人工記憶古往今來的電影,不少都談過改造記憶,今天,或許是我們最接近成功的一天。美國一個研究團隊宣佈,他們已成功給小鼠的大腦植入虛假記憶,從實驗上證實了人為改造記憶的可能性。並且在《自然》雜誌上發表。兩位主要研究員,包括一位叫劉旭的華人和史蒂夫·拉米雷斯。他們首先將小鼠放在一個特定的環境A中,標記和環境A記憶有關的腦細胞,並使得這些細胞對光敏感。然後將小鼠放在一個完全不同的環境B中,並將鐳射通過光導纖維傳入大腦,啟動這些標記的細胞,從而喚起環境A的記憶。正當小鼠身處環境B,回憶環境A時,他們給予輕微的電擊,於是小鼠錯誤地認為它是在環境A中受電擊。當把小鼠放回環境A時,它們會因為這個虛假記憶而對環境A產生恐懼。簡單說,這個記憶的內容在現實中從未真正發生,是一個虛假的記憶。其實過去科學家亦有過類似的研究,但無法產生一個探測得到的虛假記憶,只是一個與真實記憶融合在一起,無法區分的混合記憶。劉旭說,他們下一步計畫通過選擇性地標記並關閉與某一個記憶有關的細胞,研究是否可弱化甚至抹除記憶。當然我們明白,這個科學突破,同時是機,也是危。我們應該問,甚麼才是真的呢? 

燦榮 | 31st Jul 2013 | 通識--香港 | (110 Reads)

【香港商報訊】《蘋果日報》及《爽報》今年3月派記者到小欖精神病治療中心,訪問大角咀弒父母碎尸案的被告周×亮后,於兩報刊登報道,由於報道涉及有待刑事審訊的謀殺案,律政司日前入稟高等法院申請許可,要求法庭批准其控告兩報章的總編輯及出版商藐視法庭,并判處入獄或罰款。

    涉刊登候訊謀殺犯訪問

    律政司發言人表示,政府絕對尊重新聞自由,但律政司司長同時有責任維護公眾利益,確保任何面對刑事起訴的人士均有公平審訊,律政司司長認為今次有必要啟動藐視法庭的司法程序,從而維護刑事司法制度的莊嚴性。

    律政司入稟狀指,4名答辯人:《蘋果日報》總編輯張劍虹、《爽報》總編輯李彭基、及出版商蘋果日報有限公司與爽報有限公司,在今年3月20日的《蘋果日報》及《爽報》,及《蘋果日報》網頁內一段影片,報道一宗有待刑事審訊的謀殺案,構成屬於藐視法庭,要求判處4人入獄或罰款及支付律政司的訟費。

    訪問中的主角周×亮(29歲),涉嫌於今年3月1日與友人謝×麒(35歲),在大角咀福澤街38號海興大廈3樓一單位內,謀殺父親周×基(65歲)及母親蕭×兒(64歲),案件稍后將轉介高等法院審理。

    資深大律師湯家驊表示,訪問未開審謀殺案的被告,并作出報道,可能會影響日后抽選出來的陪審團對被告的看法,即使案件由單一法官審理,亦有可能影響司法程序,仍有機會被裁定藐視法庭。

    《蘋果日報》藐視法庭已有前科,2000年該報報道5歲男童被殺案的聆訊時,指被告疑有孌童癖,但庭上沒有此證供,導致法庭要解散陪審團,最后《蘋果日報》被判罰款10萬元,當時的總編輯葉一堅則毋須罰款及入獄。


燦榮 | 27th Jul 2013 | 管理學 | (16 Reads)
The Four Drives That Underlie Motivation

Because the four drives are hardwired into our brains, the degree to which they are satisfied directly affects our emotions and, by extension, our behavior. Let's look at how each one operates.

  1. The drive to acquire. We are all driven to acquire scarce goods that bolster our sense of well-being. We experience delight when this drive is fulfilled, discontentment when it is thwarted. This phenomenon applies not only to physical goods like food, clothing, housing, and money, but also to experiences like travel and entertainment -- not to mention events that improve social status, such as being promoted and getting a corner office or a place on the corporate board. The drive to acquire tends to be relative (we always compare what we have with what others possess) and insatiable (we always want more). That explains why people always care not just about their own compensation packages but about others' as well. It also illuminates why salary caps are hard to impose.
  2. The drive to bond. Many animals bond with their parents, kinship group, or tribe, but only humans extend that connection to larger collectives such as organizations, associations, and nations. The drive to bond, when met, is associated with strong positive emotions like love and caring and, when not, with negative ones like loneliness and anomie. At work, the drive to bond accounts for the enormous boost in motivation when employees feel proud of belonging to the organization and for their loss of morale when the institution betrays them. It also explains why employees find it hard to break out of divisional or functional silos: People become attached to their closest cohorts. But it's true that the ability to form attachments to larger collectives sometimes leads employees to care more about the organization than about their local group within it.
  3. The drive to comprehend. We want very much to make sense of the world around us, to produce theories and accounts -- scientific, religious, and cultural -- that make events comprehensible and suggest reasonable actions and responses. We are frustrated when things seem senseless, and we are invigorated, typically, by the challenge of working out answers. In the workplace, the drive to comprehend accounts for the desire to make a meaningful contribution. Employees are motivated by jobs that challenge them and enable them to grow and learn, and they are demoralized by those that seem to be monotonous or to lead to a dead end. Talented employees who feel trapped often leave their companies to find new challenges elsewhere.
  4. The drive to defend. We all naturally defend ourselves, our property and accomplishments, our family and friends, and our ideas and beliefs against external threats. This drive is rooted in the basic fight-or-flight response common to most animals. In humans, it manifests itself not just as aggressive or defensive behavior, but also as a quest to create institutions that promote justice, that have clear goals and intentions, and that allow people to express their ideas and opinions. Fulfilling the drive to defend leads to feelings of security and confidence; not fulfilling it produces strong negative emotions like fear and resentment. The drive to defend tells us a lot about people's resistance to change; it's one reason employees can be devastated by the prospect of a merger or acquisition -- an especially significant change -- even if the deal represents the only hope for an organization's survival. So, for example, one day you might be told you're a high performer and indispensable to the company's success, and the next that you may be let go owing to a restructuring -- a direct challenge, in its capriciousness, to your drive to defend. Little wonder that headhunters so frequently target employees during such transitions, when they know that people feel vulnerable and at the mercy of managers who seem to be making arbitrary personnel decisions. Each of the four drives we have described is independent; they cannot be ordered hierarchically or substituted one for another. You can't just pay your employees a lot and hope they'll feel enthusiastic about their work in an organization where bonding is not fostered, or work seems meaningless, or people feel defenseless. Nor is it enough to help people bond as a tight-knit team when they are underpaid or toiling away at deathly boring jobs. You can certainly get people to work under such circumstances -- they may need the money or have no other current prospects -- but you won't get the most out of them, and you risk losing them altogether when a better deal comes along. To fully motivate your employees, you must address all four drives.

Previous Next