香港新浪網 MySinaBlog
燦榮 | 21st Feb 2010 | 通識--個人成長 | (60 Reads)
Good morning, and thank you for joining me. Many of you in this room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me or you've worked with me or you've supported me.

Now every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each of you, simply and directly, I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.

I know people want to find out how I could be so selfish and so foolish. People want to know how I could have done these things to my wife Elin and to my children. And while I have always tried to be a private person, there are some things I want to say.

Elin and I have started the process of discussing the damage caused by my behavior. As Elin pointed out to me, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words; it will come from my behavior over time. We have a lot to discuss; however, what we say to each other will remain between the two of us.

I am also aware of the pain my behavior has caused to those of you in this room. I have let you down, and I have let down my fans. For many of you, especially my friends, my behavior has been a personal disappointment. To those of you who work for me, I have let you down personally and professionally. My behavior has caused considerable worry to my business partners.

To everyone involved in my foundation, including my staff, board of directors, sponsors, and most importantly, the young students we reach, our work is more important than ever. Thirteen years ago, my dad and I envisioned helping young people achieve their dreams through education. This work remains unchanged and will continue to grow. From the Learning Center students in Southern California to the Earl Woods scholars in Washington, D.C., millions of kids have changed their lives, and I am dedicated to making sure that continues.

But still, I know I have bitterly disappointed all of you. I have made you question who I am and how I could have done the things I did. I am embarrassed that I have put you in this position.

For all that I have done, I am so sorry.

I have a lot to atone for, but there is one issue I really want to discuss. Some people have speculated that Elin somehow hurt or attacked me on Thanksgiving night. It angers me that people would fabricate a story like that. Elin never hit me that night or any other night. There has never been an episode of domestic violence in our marriage, ever. Elin has shown enormous grace and poise throughout this ordeal. Elin deserves praise, not blame.

The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior. I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.

I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them.

I was wrong. I was foolish. I don't get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me. I brought this shame on myself. I hurt my wife, my kids, my mother, my wife's family, my friends, my foundation, and kids all around the world who admired me.

I've had a lot of time to think about what I've done. My failures have made me look at myself in a way I never wanted to before. It's now up to me to make amends, and that starts by never repeating the mistakes I've made. It's up to me to start living a life of integrity.

I once heard, and I believe it's true, it's not what you achieve in life that matters; it's what you overcome. Achievements on the golf course are only part of setting an example. Character and decency are what really count.

Parents used to point to me as a role model for their kids. I owe all those families a special apology. I want to say to them that I am truly sorry.

It's hard to admit that I need help, but I do. For 45 days from the end of December to early February, I was in inpatient therapy receiving guidance for the issues I'm facing. I have a long way to go. But I've taken my first steps in the right direction.

As I proceed, I understand people have questions. I understand the press wants to ask me for the details and the times I was unfaithful. I understand people want to know whether Elin and I will remain together. Please know that as far as I'm concerned, every one of these questions and answers is a matter between Elin and me. These are issues between a husband and a wife.

Some people have made up things that never happened. They said I used performance-enhancing drugs. This is completely and utterly false. Some have written things about my family. Despite the damage I have done, I still believe it is right to shield my family from the public spotlight. They did not do these things; I did.

I have always tried to maintain a private space for my wife and children. They have been kept separate from my sponsors, my commercial endorsements. When my children were born, we only released photographs so that the paparazzi could not chase them. However, my behavior doesn't make it right for the media to follow my 2½-year-old daughter to school and report the school's location. They staked out my wife and they pursued my mom. Whatever my wrongdoings, for the sake of my family, please leave my wife and kids alone.

I recognize I have brought this on myself, and I know above all I am the one who needs to change. I owe it to my family to become a better person. I owe it to those closest to me to become a better man. That's where my focus will be.

I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught.

As I move forward, I will continue to receive help because I've learned that's how people really do change. Starting tomorrow, I will leave for more treatment and more therapy. I would like to thank my friends at Accenture and the players in the field this week for understanding why I'm making these remarks today.

In therapy I've learned the importance of looking at my spiritual life and keeping in balance with my professional life. I need to regain my balance and be centered so I can save the things that are most important to me, my marriage and my children.

That also means relying on others for help. I've learned to seek support from my peers in therapy, and I hope someday to return that support to others who are seeking help. I do plan to return to golf one day, I just don't know when that day will be.

I don't rule out that it will be this year. When I do return, I need to make my behavior more respectful of the game. In recent weeks I have received many thousands of e-mails, letters and phone calls from people expressing good wishes. To everyone who has reached out to me and my family, thank you. Your encouragement means the world to Elin and me.

I want to thank the PGA Tour, Commissioner [Tim] Finchem, and the players for their patience and understanding while I work on my private life. I look forward to seeing my fellow players on the course.

Finally, there are many people in this room, and there are many people at home who believed in me. Today I want to ask for your help. I ask you to find room in your heart to one day believe in me again.

Thank you.
 

燦榮 | 8th Feb 2010 | 心理 | (27 Reads)
In 2009 my colleagues and I published evidence that birth order influences whom we choose as friends and spouses. Firstborns are more likely to associate with firstborns, middle-borns with middle-borns, last-borns with last-borns, and only children with only children. Because we were able to show the effect independent of family size, the finding is unlikely to be an artifact of class or ethnicity. The result is exactly what we should expect if birth order affects personality. Despite the adage that opposites attract, people tend to resemble their spouses in terms of personality. If spouses correlate on personality, and personality correlates with birth order, spouses should correlate on birth order.

燦榮 | 8th Feb 2010 | 心理 | (48 Reads)
Dozens of scientific studies illuminate how people fall in love — and hint at techniques for building strong relationships. Here are 10 kinds of investigations that are helping to inspire a new technology of love.
Arousal. Studies by researchers such as psychologist Arthur Aron of Stony Brook University show that people tend to bond emotionally when aroused, say, through exercise, adventures or exposure to dangerous situations. Roller coaster, anyone? See the Falling in love exercise on page 29.
Proximity and familiarity. Studies by Stanford University social psychologists Leon Festinger and Robert Zajonc and others conclude that simply being around someone tends to produce positive feelings. When two people consciously and deliberately allow each other to invade their personal space, feelings of intimacy can grow quickly. See the let Me Inside exercise on page 29.
Similarity. opposites sometimes attract, but research by behavioral economist Dan Ariely of Duke University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and others shows that people usually tend to pair off with those who are similar to themselves — in intelligence, background and level of attractiveness. Some research even suggests that merely imitating someone can increase closeness. See the Monkey love exercise on page 29.
Humor. Marriage counselors and researchers Jeanette and Robert Lauer showed in 1986 that in long-term, happy relationships, partners make each other laugh a lot. other research reveals that women often seek male partners who can make them laugh — possibly because when we are laughing, we feel vulnerable. Know any good jokes?
Novelty. Psychologist Greg Strong of Florida State University, Aron and others have shown that people tend to grow closer when they are doing something new. Novelty heightens the senses and also makes people feel vulnerable.
Inhibitions. Countless millions of relationships have probably started with a glass of wine. Inhibitions block feelings of vulnerability, so lowering inhibitions can indeed help people bond. Getting drunk, however, is blinding and debilitating. Instead of alcohol, try the Two as one exercise on page 29.
Kindness, accommodation and forgiveness. A variety of studies confirm that we tend to bond to people who are kind, sensitive and thoughtful. Feelings of love can emerge especially quickly when someone deliberately changes his or her behavior — say, by giving up smoking or drinking — to accommodate our needs. Forgiveness often causes mutual bonding, because when one forgives, one shows vulnerability.
Touch and sexuality. The simplest touch can produce warm, positive feelings, and a backrub can work wonders. even getting very near someone without actually touching can have an effect. Studies by social psychologist Susan Sprecher of Illinois State University, among others, also show that sexuality can make people feel closer emotionally, especially for women. There is danger here, however: confusing sexual attraction with feelings of love. You cannot love someone without knowing him or her, and attraction blinds people to important characteristics of their partner.
Self-disclosure. Research by Aron, Sprecher and others indicates that people tend to bond when they share secrets with each other. once again, the key here is allowing oneself to be vulnerable. See the Secret Swap exercise on page 29.
Commitment. We are not that good at honoring our relationship commitments in the U.S., but studies by researchers such as psychologist Ximena Arriaga of Purdue University suggest that commitment is an essential element in building love. People whose commitments are shaky interpret their partners' behavior more negatively, for one thing, and that can be deadly over time. Covenant marriage — currently a legal option only in Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana — is a new kind of marriage (emerging from the evangelical Christian movement) involving a very strong commitment: couples agree to premarital counseling and limited grounds for divorce. Conventional marriage in America can be abandoned easily, even without specific legal cause (the so-called no-fault divorce).

燦榮 | 7th Feb 2010 | 心理 | (21 Reads)
Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

燦榮 | 3rd Feb 2010 | 心理 | (26 Reads)
Here are some fun exercises, all inspired by scientific studies, that you can use to deliberately create emotional intimacy with a partner — even someone you barely know:
Two as One. embracing each other gently, begin to sense your partner's breathing and gradually try to synchronize your breathing with his or hers. After a few minutes, you might feel that the two of you have merged.
Soul Gazing. Standing or sitting about two feet away from each other, look deeply into each other's eyes, trying to look into the very core of your beings. Do this for about two minutes and then talk about what you saw.
Monkey Love. Standing or sitting fairly near each other, start moving your hands, arms and legs any way you like — but in a fashion that perfectly imitates your partner. This is fun but also challenging. You will both feel as if you are moving voluntarily, but your actions are also linked to those of your partner.
Falling in Love. This is a trust exercise, one of many that increase mutual feelings of vulnerability. From a standing position, simply let yourself fall backward into the arms of your partner. Then trade places. Repeat several times and then talk about your feelings. Strangers who do this exercise sometimes feel connected to each other for years.
Secret Swap. Write down a deep secret and have your partner do the same. Then trade papers and talk about what you read. You can continue this process until you have run out of secrets. Better yet, save some of your secrets for another day.
Mind-Reading Game. Write down a thought that you want to convey to your partner. Then spend a few minutes wordlessly trying to broadcast that thought to him or her, as he or she tries to guess what it is. If he or she cannot guess, reveal what you were thinking. Then switch roles.
Let Me Inside. Stand about four feet away from each other and focus on each other. every 10 seconds or so move a bit closer until, after several shifts, you are well inside each other's personal space (the boundary is about 18 inches). Get as close as you can without touching. (My students tell me this exercise often ends with kissing.)
Love Aura. Place the palm of your hand as close as possible to your partner's palm without actually touching. Do this for several minutes, during which you will feel not only heat but also, sometimes, eerie kinds of sparks.

燦榮 | 1st Feb 2010 | 閒話家常 | (45 Reads)

【明報專訊】在反高鐵的抗爭中,其中一樣較為矚目的,就是現場個別(我強調,只是個別)抗爭者對記者頗有怨氣,甚至出現了零星粗暴行為;而此外,即使是平和的大多數,對媒體也是不無怨言。有傳媒工作者便感言:「反高鐵運動期間,示威者和傳媒間的關係陷入空前惡劣。」

究竟,這裏是否反映了一點如今傳媒生態中的「深層次矛盾」呢﹖

抗爭群眾其中一樣最有意見的,就是無論他們當中絕大多數人士、絕大多數時間,都是如何和平理性的進行「快樂抗爭」,但媒體,尤其是電子媒體,總愛抽出最激那一小撮、最出位的行徑,加以渲染和報道,無論實際上人數是多麼少,時間是多麼短暫。所以,他們認為媒體是有心惡意中傷這場運動的。

當然行內人會說這是傳媒的規律,「和平不是新聞,只有衝突才是新聞」,大家理應見怪不怪。我只能說「冰凍三尺,非一日之寒」,抗爭者對媒體的不信任,有著更長遠的背景,他們覺得過去兩三個月,媒體已經成了官方spinning machine的一部分。

過去兩三個月,政府官員真的進行了很多spinning﹖這裏且舉一些例子。

鄭汝樺    的扭盡六壬

例如,1月8日,財委會第2次開會討論高鐵撥款。1月5 日,即是會議前3天,鄭汝樺為爭取公眾支持,與一眾傳媒親往乘搭武廣高鐵一等車廂,親身推介高鐵的種種好處。於是大家從電視熒光幕畫面看到的是,武漢高鐵的美輪美奐,車廂的寬敞舒適,車速達到時速336公里的火紅指標;翌日在報章版面看到,則是她娓娓道來,高鐵效率是如何的高,舒適度如何可媲美飛機,班次是如何的頻密,因此本港興建廣深港高鐵是如何刻不容緩等。

有「記者」更煞有介事,繪影繪聲的描述車廂中:「讀書看報打稿像在家中一樣平靜;如果放一支熒光筆在座位的可折疊小桌板,雖然時速350 公里,但,熒光筆屹立不倒, 車廂之平穩可見一斑。」究竟這些恭維說話,又是否有必要呢﹖

媒體成了官方spinning

machine的一部分﹖

又例如,1月15日,財委會第3次開會討論高鐵撥款。1月12、13兩日,也即是會議前兩三天,TVB新聞部一連兩天為鄭汝樺播出專訪,找了一個陽光明媚、視野開闊的西九「靚景」,讓鄭局長把興建高鐵的理據,從容不迫的一一娓娓道來。而有趣的是,較早之前兩三個月,我在TVB公共事務部當記者的一位朋友,在時間遠為充裕的情况下,三邀四請,也請不到鄭局長接受訪問。當然行內人都知道,新聞部所面對的局限,以及它與公共事務部在運作上的分別,而IO(新聞官)、心戰幕僚樣樣不缺的鄭局長,又哪會不知。

大家覺得時間安排上是否恰到好處呢﹖

鄭局長是否又真的如在電視熒光幕中所看到般的responsive呢﹖她私下為人恕我不知道,但至低限度,在過去兩三個月,她從未試過與黎廣德、朱凱迪等反對人士,面對面,認真的辯論過高鐵之種種數據和方案,讓真理愈辯愈明。即使是由《明報》所主辦的那一次,她也只是願意以「前後腳」的形式出席。

而1月7日,原本「心口掛個勇字」,運房局副局長邱誠武原先答允出席now電視台《時事全方位》節目,與朱凱迪辯論,但卻最後突然宣告「縮沙」。未知這又是否鄭局長的神機妙算﹖

當然,他們又不是真的如此忙得不可開交,在過去兩三個月,便帶著大堆資料,「盛意拳拳」的親臨媒體之中,作internal briefing,單方面述說他們版本的故事。

在整個漫長的過程中,大多數的媒體似乎都對這種遊戲甘之如飴,少有對此鞭撻。再加上,官府陣營財雄勢大,在報章不惜工本的持續賣著全版「嵌入式廣告」(即裝作是新聞報道的廣告),為興建高鐵造勢,這都讓反高鐵人士,覺得自己活在政府鋪天蓋地的虛假宣傳當中,並把媒體看成是官方spinning machine的一部分,共同組成了一道他們要對之擲雞蛋的高牆。

最後,到了《東方新地》偷拍陳巧文的私生活,嚴重侵犯其私隱時,更把他們這種對媒體的怨憤,推至另一個高峰。我也相信,如果我們怪責個別示威者粗暴時,這種偷拍行為的粗暴,更加應該譴責。

以穿梭香港會、國金中心、

政府總部為傲﹖

近日一個頗受歡迎的報章政情專欄,在它面世的那一天,劈頭是如此介紹自己的:

「江湖百曉生,穿梭於香港會與中國會,游走於銀行街與金融街,自出自入於政府總部,掂行掂過於國金中心,日日聯絡消息人士,時時check住BlackBerry,分分鐘望住部機,秒秒鐘睇住個市。總之,閣下無論是約了banker食brunch,抑或是約了高官食lunch,之前只需看一看我老紀,不但特別多叫人豎起耳仔的話題,更可通曉大局聞風趁勢!」

當然每個專欄都有權為自己定位,筆者沒有異議,但我只想指出一點:如果到了一天,報章版面充斥的都是類似專欄,那些不會出入香港會、中國會、銀行街、金融街、政府總部、國金中心的第四代人,他們還會如何看待香港的主流媒體呢﹖是「our media」還是「their media」呢﹖

Spinning的弔詭:主流媒體的衰落

當一眾高官沾沾自喜,認為自己在spinning的工夫上做得出神入化,霸佔了主流媒體的興論陣地,而一眾媒體對於這種遊戲又樂此不疲的時候,或許第四代人已經靜靜地起革命。不錯,他們沒有第二代人的江湖地位,不能佔據政經要衝,但他們卻可以腳來投票,以互聯網來打破壟斷,在網絡世界上開拓自己的新天地——一個沒有香港會、國金中心、政府總部、又或者立法會    長廊,新的公共議事空間。

近年網絡上民間媒體的冒起,如《獨立媒體》(Inmedia),以及其「民間記者」計劃,正逐漸衝擊著主流媒體。

或許從今之後,當報章在埋怨讀者流失,年輕人不再讀報時,亦應該反思一下,這未必是源於年輕人文化水平下降;反而,這場媒體的倒海翻江,是否由它們自己所一手一腳做成﹖

又當心戰室把主流媒體都操控於指掌之上,呼風喚雨的同時,它是否也在慢性摧毁著它們呢﹖

後記:馬國明    ,一位我甚為尊重的公共知識分子,周一在《信報》撰寫了〈選擇性譴責暴力〉一文,內文中點名提了我,以及上周本欄所發表的文章,提醒了我的片面和不足。結果,我寫了本文。我沒有改變自己對個別過火行為有所保留的看法,但同時提出這種過火行為出現的大環境,我相信才不致流於太過片面,「選擇性譴責暴力」。同時,也寄望能為上次提到的世代對話,起到些微貢獻。

作者是中文大學政治與行政學系高級導師


燦榮 | 1st Feb 2010 | 閒話家常 | (26 Reads)

信報          2010年1月25日

選擇性譴責暴力

「人生而自由,但卻總是帶着枷鎖。」雖然二百多年前說的話今日不幸地仍適用,但今日人們都不難明白為什麼人總是帶着枷鎖,要解決的問題反而是怎樣才可以解開枷鎖。向那些親手給他人套上枷鎖的人苦苦哀求固然無濟於事,對方不過是奉命行事而已。向更高層的人說明自由的可貴更是徒然,對方根本就是因為害怕人人自由的局面才下令要把枷鎖套在其他人身上。使用暴力打破枷鎖是否是唯一的方法?

1789年爆發的法國大革命有如教科書般將使用暴力打破枷鎖的好處和壞處清楚無誤地展現出來。法國大革命爆發時,國民議會中的資產階級另起爐灶,並隨即發表人權宣言的一刻,巴黎的無產階級奮起攻破性質跟北京秦城監獄相近的巴士底監獄。暴力革命帶來的解放是何等振奮人心,但對既得利益的階層而言卻又是何等震驚、何等震撼。他們立刻像鄭汝樺和保皇黨議員一樣,感到被圍困,紛紛逃亡國外。但法國王帝路易十六喬裝平民逃亡英國的計劃卻在最後一刻被識破而被押返回巴黎,逃亡的舉動更被巴黎民眾認定是賣國,最後被送上斷頭台。發展下去,被送上斷頭台的不計其數。在整個十九世紀裏,歐洲的思想家不斷爭論法國大革命這種暴力革命的好壞,Thomas Paine 的The Rights of Man 和Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution 這兩部著作可以說是代表着正和反兩派的意見。

十九世紀俄國思潮爭論激烈

不過從思想交鋒的層面而言,在整個十九世紀裏,爭論得最激烈,不同思潮之間互相牽扯產生的思想發酵(intellectual ferment)作用最熾烈的卻是位處歐洲最邊緣的俄羅斯。統治俄羅斯的羅曼諾皇朝是全歐洲最專制獨裁的政權,自從由參加平定法國革命戰爭時感染了自由思想的俄國軍官發動的十二月革命失敗後,俄羅斯的青年人便苦心思索推翻專制獨裁統治的途徑;有人選擇回歸俄國的鄉土,與俄國的農民共患難,期望有朝一日可以與農民一起改變不公義的社會;有人認同無政府主義,以為任何政權都會帶來壓制;有人選擇暗殺,以為把權貴們殺光,社會便不會再有不公義。屠格列夫的《獵人日記》刻劃俄羅斯的鄉土情懷,他的《父與子》則探索與無政府主義一脈相承的虛無主義。杜斯妥也夫斯基的《白癡》和《惡魔》刻劃當時俄國的思想交鋒和不同思潮之間的拉扯衝撞。《罪與罰》和《卡拉馬佐夫兄弟們》則探討理念思辯可能引發的暴力後果。

1月16日,特區政府不理社會上要求擱置興建高鐵的聲音,數夠票之後便要強行通過撥款的議案。反對撥款的人士發起萬人包圍立法會的行動,當議會通過後,在場示威者試圖圍繞立法會表達不滿。但警方立刻架起鐵馬,示威者當中有人試圖拉開鐵馬,再加上有在場警員使用胡椒噴霧,現場的新聞報道立刻不斷重播示威者拉開鐵馬的片段,但警員使用胡椒噴霧的情景卻好像未能攝入鏡頭。事件發生後,報章的社評大多集中討論示威者拉開鐵馬和包圍立法會大樓,令到鄭汝樺和一眾保皇黨議員不敢離開立法會這兩件事上。對於高鐵是否值得花669億元來興建,對於立法會的畸形組成根本不能有效監察行政機關這兩項示威者提出的問題卻完全不提。至於原本說要問一問自己是否變得保守的曾蔭權高調譴責示威者一事並不意外,令人意想不到是一些令人敬重的學者也加入譴責的行列。當然這些學者的動機和口吻有別於曾蔭權,他們都是善意地勸導示威者,不要超出和平抗爭的界線;他們提醒示威者,香港的主流社會只會接受和平理性的抗爭方式和行為。但這些諄諄告誡的言詞,在社會上產生的效果卻只會變成另一種針對示威者的無理譴責。

媒體沒理示威者為何拉鐵馬

這裏先以民主黨立法會議員張文光在1月22日《明報》論壇版發表的文章作例子,這篇文章的標題是〈一腔熱誠、萬千珍重〉,文章一開始便讚許反高鐵示威者反抗社會不公義的熱誠和勇氣,然後語重心長地說:「作為五十後的過來人,懷着真誠謙虛的心意,請他們在暴力邊緣劃線,連水樽也不應擲。如果他們追求的不是革命,和平理性非暴力就必須堅持。」編輯以克體突顯這段文字,這段文字的語氣也是全篇文章的語氣。張文光十分小心謹慎,以孔子那種循循善誘、誨人不倦的語調訓導反高鐵的年輕人。寫他那篇文章時,張文光不自覺地以長者自居,他似乎沒有想過他其實可以跟高鐵的示威者平起平坐,一起探討問題,完全毋須論資排輩。事實上,對高鐵的各種問題,恐怕張文光要向示威者請教。但最要命的是他那句「請他們在暴力邊緣劃線」,無形中把整個反高鐵運動描繪成到達暴力的臨界線。張文光的文章和主流媒體的報道一樣,完全沒有理會示威者為什麼要拉開鐵馬。至於擲水樽一事,現有的證據根本不能指證誰人擲水樽。現場除了有反高鐵的示威者之外,還有不少圍觀的市民,亦必會有一些扮作市民的便衣警察。在疑點歸於辯方的原則下,不應將責任歸於任何人。一句「連水樽也不要擲」卻清楚說明張文光已認定擲水樽的是反高鐵的示威者,人類社會到目前為止,即使科技突飛猛進,依舊極之不公平,強權往往凌駕於公義,因此暴力的形式層出不窮。拉鐵馬、擲水樽是暴力,警察使用胡椒噴霧和他日強行清拆菜園村不也是暴力嗎?大家當然知道有所謂合法和合適的暴力這回事,在一些人眼中監禁劉曉波不也是合法和合適的暴力嗎?

認定網上欺凌是年輕人專利

在一個不完美的世界裏,暴力無處不在,著名的學者和評論員蔡子強便在〈需要世代對話,而非世代戰爭〉一文中提出要關注網上欺凌這種暴力。蔡子強說得 對,不能對這種暴力視若無睹,他提出來討論是必須的。但他的文章卻有意無意間認定網上欺凌這種暴力是年輕人的專利,就如使用胡椒噴霧是警察的專利一樣。文章的題目或許是報章的編輯所加,但卻完全符合文章的內容。世代戰爭幾時開始了?

呂大樂的《四代香港人》不過像陳冠中的《我這一代香港人》一樣,將一些香港社會現象概括說明,不同的是說明的年代和範圍更廣泛而已。但不知何故卻演變成一種以偏概全的世代論,呂大樂是社會學家,他比任何人都明白相同年齡組群內必定存在各種源於家庭背景、階級、性別等差別。任何關於世代的論述都必定是高度概括,為了探討問題從事研究,這種概括是必須的,但千萬不要當真。像暴力的問題,面對以暴力革命得天下的中共政權,面對劉曉波及其他國內維權人士的監禁,面對基本法二十三條再一次立法的可能,年齡由零至一百的人處境都一樣。中共龐大的國家機器擁有使用各種暴力的專利,雖然香港暫時免於這些暴力,但威脅卻存在。香港當然不是十九世紀的俄羅斯,但杜斯妥也夫斯基對十九世紀俄國社會那種不同激進思潮拉扯衝撞的深刻描述正好是深化討論的材料。反高鐵的年輕人其實都是水平甚高的人,與其說什麼世代溝通,不如大家一起平起平坐,不分年齡,不要論資排輩,大家一起探討十九世紀俄國的青年怎樣面對專制獨裁的政權,這樣才不至於犯了選擇性譴責暴力的錯誤。

燦榮 | 1st Feb 2010 | 閒話家常 | (28 Reads)

公社盟把「五區總辭,變相公投」重新定位為「五區公投,全民起義」,引起北京的強烈反應,以至一些本來支持總辭的傳媒亦因此而轉軚。

 

從策略上而言,這句新口號確有過火之嫌。利用五區補選,變相去搞公投,始終是一種走法律罅的行為,一旦明言為「五區公投」,反而會名不正「行」不順,徒惹咬文嚼字的人,諸多挑剔;至於發動「全民起義」,更有號召人民起來與現政權全面對抗的含意,徒惹中央政府的警惕,引來全面的打壓。

 

公社盟似乎已知道這句口號確有訂得不當之處,因此,余若薇亦推說這是負責廣告的人設想出來的宣傳口號,旨在吸引注意,公社盟絕無搞武裝起義的意思。公社盟的一些支持者,雖然在不同的場合堅持「起義」一詞可另有解釋,但激進如黃毓民,亦已在近期的言論中避用「起義」一詞;可見這句口號的確有問題,公社盟也不得不把它偷偷地收回,不再大張旗鼓了。

 

不過,從另一個角度來看,公社盟提出「全民起義」是言實相符的。因為他們所做的,基本上是與現有政權對著幹,他們要達至的政治目標,是非起義不可能達標的。

 

北京擺出來的姿態十分明確,就是絕不會放棄對香港的話語權。而公社盟卻想奪取香港政制改革的「Final Say」。

 

北京認為特首應由中央政府任命,港人只能選中央可以接受的人;但公社盟要阻止中央政府有機會事前篩選特首候選人。北京認為保留功能組別有助平衡社會各方力量,令香港更能安定繁榮;但公社盟卻認為功能組別不符合公平與普及的原則,堅持非取消不可。現時雙方都看不到有妥協的打算,矛盾必會進一步激化。

 

在北京心目中,天下是他們用槍桿子打回來的,這是已獲人民認受的具體證明。要他們放棄對國家的領導權,除非有人能成功號召人民起義,以槍桿子把他們手上的權力奪取過來。這套信念是中共經過革命戰爭的殘酷洗禮而總結出來的,他們並不相信西方那套普世價值。

 

一涉及信念問題,就無法透過辯論或投票去解決。美國是派兵去阿富汗,而不是叫塔利班在阿富汗搞公投。因為無論公投的結果如何,只要與某方的信念不符,這一方亦一定不會接受公投結果;即使明知自己是少數派,也一樣會抗爭到底。

 

這是人類的悲劇,卻是歷史的事實。在人類歷史上,凡屬於基本性的信念上的矛盾,都甚少能夠以和平協商的方式解決的,最終多是訴諸武力,直到把反對派壓服為上。

 

因此,香港人在考慮未來香港的政制發展的時候,必須考慮到不同的持份者的取態,考慮到時空的局限,不然的話,就得有付出代價的準備。

(轉載自201021am730C觀點)


燦榮 | 1st Feb 2010 | 閒話家常 | (997 Reads)
明報-周日話題】呂大樂教授是我十分尊敬的長輩,也是牛津大學的師兄,

無論是學術還是道德水平,都是香港學界頂尖人選,我們尊之為呂老。

但呂老近一年來的文章,讓不少身邊的青年學者、學生、朋友感到鬱悶,

這主要還不是立場問題,背後其實是上一代學者忽略新興社會科學方法論,只使用陳年研究框架的根本問題。

呂老發表《衝擊立法會超出和平抗爭範圍》一文後,一些學術和媒體朋友說反正我將到美國短期訪問而暫不會遇見他,要我從純方法論角度回應,因為我們有責任讓大眾明白學術新思維,以免社會繼續以被淘汰的研究框架閱讀明天。其實呂老的同輩曾不斷跟我說,他們出道時,

最喜歡以更上一代的劉兆佳教授為學術稻草人,否則社會不會進步,我深信謙謙君子的他不會介懷理性討論。

作為呂老筆下的第四代,我嘗試從上文歸納五點,帶出五個其實不算新的理論,說明兩代學者做學問的分別。

政府忽然關注青年議題,固然很好,但假如繼續以舊思維、舊框條、舊人物閱讀新世界,

只延攬更多上一代學者當幕僚,或安排上一代思維持有者化妝易容,

是不可能明白問題所在的。

1.建構主義﹕

不存在「衝擊Vs被衝擊」

呂老說,「規範與秩序並不只是一方的壓迫工具,它同時也保障到另一方。它不單只會束縛我們,而是也可限制反對我們的人。全面否定規範與秩序,大家都要付出很大代價。」

在八十年代,這樣說是勉強可以的,但自從建構主義(constructivism)被Alexander Wendt等學者普及,學界基本上已認同了「規範建構」本身是每一刻都在改變的概念,也就是推翻了從前結構主義(structuralism)說的規範靜止不變。建構主義者認為,結構主義強調的僵硬物質結構和「工具理性」,無法解釋冷戰結束及其後一系列變化,這些變化都帶着濃厚的「價值理性」成分,所以社會現實是由不同個體和群體互動中「建構」出來的,只要我們對自身和外界認知發生變化,社會現實也會隨之變化。呂老論點停留在典型的靜態結構理論,然而在近月香港社會運動中,從來沒有人要全面否定規範與秩序,只是有人要建構新規範與秩序,而每一代人都在建構自己的規範倫理,從而希望「保障到另一方」,今天呂老接受的規範,就不是呂老上代人接受的規範。「衝擊Vs被衝擊」這個二元對立,早已過時二十年。

2.民主中介論﹕

不存在「議會民主Vs直接民主」

呂老說,「追求真民主的人,既以民主過程來爭取達成目標,亦接受民主程序、規範對自己的約束。」

這句話在八十年代也是主流,當時既沒有什麼建構主義,也沒有發展多元的民主化理論。社會大眾不一定認同Ernesto Laclau、 Chantal Mouffe等左翼學者那些通過抗爭爭取民主的基進理論,但也應參考近二十年大行其道的「民主中介論」,對此Richard Gunther、José Ramón Montero和Hans-Jürgen Puhle 合編的Democracy, Intermediation and Voting on Four Continents值得一讀。根據這理論,就是進行議會民主的國家,也已「接受一套新的民主程序、規範約束」,這套程序和規範就是「民主政治中介體」(Democratic Political Intermediation)的出現,這些中介除了大家熟悉的媒體,還有政黨、公民社會、網絡動員等「次生組織」,和以個人關係為主的「原生社交網絡」。上述研究涵蓋了主要洲份的民主經驗,驗證了當代議會民主何以必須經過中介體修正其程序和規範這定律;月前青年運動的動員模式,不過代表新興中介體之一。「議會Vs直接民主」這個二元對立,也過時二十年。

3.虛擬公共空間﹕

不存在「媒體報道Vs事實真相」

呂老說,「現實世界很殘酷,只要新聞鏡頭所見的情况並非虛構,社會便會以此來將整個行動定性」,而從他談及「所謂八十後或自發網民的一番熱誠與理想」的思路可見,在他眼中,「新聞鏡頭」和足以動員「自發網民」的互聯網是同級別的傳訊工具,由於他相信大眾媒體威力,自然不相信自發網民步向主流。

上述理論放在八十年代又是真理,但當互聯網出現,Henry Jenkins等西方社科學者早集中研究新媒體產生的新公民身分、公共空間、新民主和新社群,但香港學者除了勸說要讓世代對話取代對抗(這裏的世代又是靜止概念),就鮮有深化討論。究竟什麼是政治社會理論的互聯網公共空間?這裏我引一段Roundtable刊物《META》總編輯八十後李祖喬的分析﹕「互聯網不是一種科技,而是整套消費知識和建立價值的模式。互聯網幫助我們認清許多從前種下的刻板印象,而不是停留在電視畫面和報章頭條的sound- bite。我們認清許多自稱代表「中央」的人,跟我們在互聯網上認識的『中國』彷彿是兩碼子事;許多自稱代表『香港』的人,根本就只是坐在小小的辦公室,遠眺維港,卻自以為掌握小民生活。『八十後』一出生,便是在這樣的環境認識世界。」換句話說,就是「新聞鏡頭所見的情况並非虛構」,互聯網影響下成長的社會並不會「以此來將整個行動定性」;恰恰相反,由於互聯網不止是傳訊工具,也是產生新規範的有機體,八十後對新聞鏡頭先天抗拒,而總有一天,他們會成為社會主流。「媒體報道Vs事實真相」這個二元對立,同樣過時二十年。

4.後現代論述分析﹕

不存在「激進Vs保守」

呂老說,「我覺得發出這些廉價鼓掌聲的只是將參與者推向過激行動的邊緣,而不是真正分擔風險的同路人。」

這句話在剛度過文革、 Hippies時代的八十年代會有相當共鳴,當時習慣了以「激進」和「保守」相抗,但自從後現代主義衍生的「論述分析」(discourse analysis)方法論興起,一切又已改變。「論述分析」通過文本解讀分析表面文字以外的分布和含義,西方已生產出不同電腦程序予研究員使用,我常推薦 Christopher Hughes研究中國民族主義的文本分析,他發現內地網民強烈愛國的背後,不少文字隱藏對政權的質疑,那也是我從前博士論文的方法論之一。對支持反高鐵的「廉價掌聲」作文本分析,我們輕易發現嘉許其「過激行動」的極少,質疑中港融合的也不多,主要都是對可持續發展、保育等概念持肯定觀點的人。假如不作研究,單觀看新聞畫面,根據呂老的邏輯,同樣可以得出「我覺得發出這些廉價鼓掌聲的其實是在支持胡錦濤的科學發展觀和曾蔭權的進步發展觀的同路人」這樣相反的結論。以簡單形象推論「激進Vs保守」這個二元對立,亦過時二十年。

5.細胞組織理論﹕

不存在「責任組織Vs不負責組織」

呂老說,「如果大會不認同那百分之二的行為,那它便要防止這類事情的發生;假如大會不阻止所謂一時衝動的爆發,也就基本上認同了這種行動。」

在列寧式政黨還大行其道的八十年代,這樣說沒人多少人質疑,但在組織模式經過重重革命的全球化時代,前論彷彿古聲。筆者由於研究恐怖主義,閱讀了不少細胞組織理論,無論理論怎麼說,關鍵是今天的「大會」已被社會賦予新角色﹕哪怕那「大會」是拉登的蓋達,也只是負責建構鬆散的共同價值和身分認同,而不會、也沒有能力控制他號召出來的人;弔詭地,正因為這些成員有如此高的自主性,「大會」的行動看來才這麼成功。九一一後的蓋達十年迷思,核實了上述模型的成效,這是我設計中文大學全球政治經濟碩士課程時堅持要放進大綱的內容。要是我們不認為這模式與香港具可比性,還可參考美國總統奧巴馬的選舉工程。Facebook創辦人之一的Chris Hughes(與上述提及的學者Christopher Hughes不是同一人)是奧巴馬好友,協助其網絡競選,策略之一是決定開放其官方網站,讓任何人都可以通過《奧巴馬網站》自行舉辦活動,這在希拉里和麥凱恩的網站上是不允許的,因為後者的競選經理都是老一代人,相信「如果大會不認同那百分之二的行為,那它便要防止這類事情的發生」一類老觀念。奧巴馬的成功,印證了「責任組織Vs不負責組織」這個二元對立,也過時二十年。

說到組織,Roundtable數字上說可以說有數千會員,但使用的也只能是上述模式而已,而事實上,呂老主持的新力量網絡雖是以十數人為班子的傳統網絡,還不是使用同一模式為其前任主席史泰祖伙拍葉劉淑儀競選,成了組織內的「百分之二」,對此呂老也是不能預防的,似乎他也沒有「基本上認同這種行動」。起碼在當時。

《四代香港人》激起社會廣泛討論,這是難得香港學者發揮應有功用的契機。可惜呂老作為第二代學者,使用第二代方法論撰寫評論第四代的文章,導致結論充滿不必要的二元對立思維,才令社會引起一些誤會。第四代可不是這樣的。不久前,Roundtable和中聯辦合作組織了一個國家行政學院的培訓課程,作為團長的我觀察所及,不少學員在課程中提問極盡尖銳,回港繼續參與社會運動,在他們的觀念,中港融合、參與社會、支持或反對政府一類問題從不是零和遊戲,沒有根本衝突,支持政改方案的不一定支持高鐵,支持五區總辭的不一定反對高鐵。當中聯辦也有這樣的胸襟,上一代學者隨手捻來的舊框架卻得出二元結論,教人感慨。

我們都是《四代香港人》忠實讀者,知道呂老一度表示「作者已死」,謝絕相關論壇和公眾論述,感到十分可惜,也十分悲壯;近月喜見作者復活,名正言順以「四代香港人作者」身分評論第四代,有報道說還被特區政府中央政策組委託研究第四代,身旁那些接受新學術訓練而在當漂流講師、非高級導師、副學士老師、研究助理等恆河沙數的第四代學人,卻未免百感交集。我們讀書時,入門課教導我們說社會科學有若干基本研究範式,例如制度、性別、個人理性、行為規範、價值規範、論述等;《四代香港人》通過制度範式解釋世代論,作者最後卻以價值範式評論下一代,這樣的轉折,作為後輩的我不願說長者屈機,只能說,感到略不自在。忽然,想起《走向共和》的李鴻章和梁啟超有這樣的對話﹕時為八國聯軍入京後,梁啟超對李鴻章說,你有上中下三策可選擇,上乃改弦易轍,中乃劃江自保,下乃奉詔救駕,其實是在試探他思維的新與舊。李鴻章睿智又無奈地說,「一輩人一輩事,我明白你的意思,但我還是得上京救駕。」呂老和《走向共和》的李老都是慈祥長者,也許作出了同一時代選擇,一輩人一輩事,說到底,我由衷尊敬呂大樂教授。

燦榮 | 1st Feb 2010 | 閒話家常 | (24 Reads)

【明報專訊】一個人話說得不夠亮麗,並不代表他對信念、價值和理想沒有堅持,相反,他可以以胸襟和實際行動,來把之說得更加鏗鏘有力。

1986年,當時我是中大學生會副會長,有份參與遴選新校長,曾經與當時作為候選人的高錕會面。老實說,當時對他印象普通,並不特別欣賞。大家可以想像,學運中人,最愛把話說得慷慨激昂,最愛談信念、價值、理想等等,亦因而順理成章集中火力質詢他這些問題,而高錕就像不少「理科人」一樣,拙於辭令,不是那些侃侃而談,口舌便給之輩,甚至有點口吃,所以當時雙方並不投契。

拙於辭令 但以身作則

但後來的發展卻告訴我,一個人話說得不夠亮麗,並不代表他對信念、價值和理想沒有堅持,相反,他可以以胸襟和實際行動,來把之說得更加鏗鏘有力。

1987年,我續任中大學生會會長,與高錕校長續有交往,才慢慢發現,他與之前那些一臉威嚴,最愛訓示我們的校長十分不同,說話十分隨和,平易近人。

有同學曾目睹這位校長與太太溫馨的手牽著手,在校園內的超市購買朱古力;我亦曾在一個探討日本    黑社會暴力文化的校園電影觀賞和討論會中,看到這位校長靜靜的坐在一旁,默默參與(不是大鑼大鼓,剪綵主禮的那種);昨天亦有同事告訴我,有次在校內一個小小的社科研討會中,作為「理科人」的校長亦有出席,更舉手發問問題……這些小事都顯示,高錕校長當時真的很投入校園生活,而且全無架子。

但無論如何,那段時間是香港學運比較溫和、風平浪靜的時期,真正的考驗,出現在1989年六四    事件之後。六四之後,香港學運走向激進化,以批判、顛覆,以至衝擊權威為己任,與北京    更處於嚴重對立的狀態。

1993年3月31日,北京委任了高錕校長為港事顧問。當時港事顧問被視為北京為了對抗末代港督彭定康    而推出的統戰工具、政治花瓶,因此,消息公布之後,中大學生群情洶湧,在一個高錕應邀出席的學生公開論壇當中,出現了千人雲集烽火台,把會場包圍得水泄不通的場面,質疑他的聲音此起彼落,群情鼓譟。學生會會長更遞上紙製傳聲筒,諷刺他甘為中方傳話人。翌日,50多名港顧上京接受委任,來自中大、浸會、樹仁及嶺南的學生到啟德機場抗議,手持「反對為虎作倀」的標語在大堂內繞場遊行,並演街頭諷刺劇。

最受屈辱 反而最為寬懷

但更嚴重的對立,還在後面。同年10月,中大30周年校慶,舉辦了盛大的「開放日」來慶祝。當時學生組織最恨歌舞昇平,於是便執意要與校方對著幹。

在開放日那天,中大不單喜氣洋洋,更加冠蓋雲集,正當高錕校長要當眾致辭的時候,冷不防被激進的學生衝上主禮台,在眾多嘉賓、家長、同學,以及校友的眾目睽睽之下,誓要搶走校長手中的「咪」,以表達另類聲音,更拉開「兩日虛假景象,掩飾中大衰相」的橫額,結果令台上亂作一團,擾攘達數分鐘之久,令人覺得中大丟盡面子。學生又即場遊行和派發內藏傳單    的避孕袋,諷刺大學生形象,極盡挑釁的能事。

擾攘一番後,校長被迫步下禮台,我的一位朋友,當時為《中大學生報    》的記者,第一時間衝前採訪,他為示威的同學憂心忡忡,詢問校方會否懲罰學生,怎料校長卻一臉詫異的說:「懲罰﹖我為什麼要懲罰學生﹖」那位學生記者頓時為之語塞,對校長的答案和胸襟為之意外。

我記得很多年後,有一晚與老師關信基教授促膝談心,提起這件往事,他才透露,事後差不多各方都排山倒海的要求紀律處分該等學生,但卻有3人由始至終堅持反對,最後才能頂住了壓力。3人中的其中一位,原來就是本來最為丟臉、最受屈辱、最應意憤難平的當事人——高錕校長。

可惜當年中大的學生組織卻不領情,因為「港事顧問」這個心鎖,而一直與之對抗到底,例如出版學生報,大字標題刊出「港事顧問粉飾太平,中大校長一事無成」等辛辣、侮辱性字眼,令不少教授為之側目。但本應最為難堪的校長本人,卻始終一直以平常心待之,甚至對於這些一直敵視他,與他對著幹的學生組織中人,疼愛有加。

舉些例,他每年從個人戶口中拿出兩筆各兩萬元的款項,分別捐助學生會和學生報中有財政困難的同學;又每年都親筆撰寫書信,多謝學生組織對大學的貢獻;更幫助學生排難解紛,在一場教授與學生可能因教學評核而對簿公堂的官司中,為學生順利調解,他也有閱讀學生報,更常常把學生批評校方做得不好的文章,轉達有關單位,希望他們能作改善,當時為校園版工作的同學,向我坦言很有工作上的滿足感。

從中可見,那怕學生運動處處針對他,但他卻始終真心誠意鼓勵同學參與。

蔡元培的故事

1919年5月4日,北京大學    等高校學生3000餘人,齊集天安門    ,舉行示威遊行,掀起了我國波瀾壯闊的「五四運動」,但卻遭北洋軍閥政府鎮壓,32名學生被捕。不說大家可能不知,當時北大校長蔡元培,最初並不贊成學生外出示威,並且曾一度站於北大校門企圖出言勸止,惹來學生報以噓聲。但當他一知道學生被補的消息,便二話不說,全力投入營救被捕學生。他親自走到六神無主的學生面前,表示發生這些事,他當校長的應引咎辭職,但先一定把被捕學生營救出來,並說:「被捕學生的安全,是我的事,一切由我負責。」斬釘截鐵,毫不含糊。

在蔡元培的牽頭下,北京14所高校校長一起投入營救學生的運動當中,並且聯合發表聲明:「學生的行動,為團體之行動,即學校之行動,決定只可歸罪校長,不得罪及學生一人。」蔡自己更多次表示,如能釋放學生,「願以一人抵罪」。在社會各界的強大輿論壓力下,到了5月7日,北洋軍閥政府終於釋放被捕學生。

高錕校長和蔡元培的故事告訴我們,有時我們不能奢求校長與學生的政見盡同,但我們卻可以看到,什麼是真正的尊重和愛護。

風物長宜放眼量

高錕校長不是那些會為大學掙得很多捐款,也不曉得誇耀自己把大學建設成世界「第N大」的人,所以當年校內是有聲音對其領導能力有所質疑的。當時有人甚至揶揄說:「繼任校長可以在半小時內開完的教務會,他卻要開上3個小時。」我想今天回望,大家就明白到,這是包容、兼聽的代價。

所以,有記者問我,當年高錕校長是否很受愛戴,我只能遺憾的說:「有些人,就是如此,是要經過一段時間,有了一段距離之後,大家才能對他看得清楚。」

昨天,從電視新聞中看到當年有份上台「搶咪」的同學,今天終於能夠理解校長的一番苦心,我想這是教育工作者最大的欣慰。

關信基教授在接受報章訪問時說:「高錕是歷年曾合作的中大校長中,最自由開放的一位。」我想這是十分中肯和由衷的評語。

後記:

周二諾貝爾獎    公布當晚,有記者採訪我,聽我說了上述故事後,問我,今天回想,會不會覺得我們這些學生當年錯怪了校長。我想了一想之後,答說:「20年後的今天,我想當年反對校長出任港事顧問的學生,仍然會堅信自己的觀點是對的,所不同的是,我們應從校長身上,學曉處理不同意見應有的態度。」

我想對於日趨撕裂的香港社會,這分外有意義。

作者是中文大學政治與行政學系高級導師


Next