Generation 40s – 四十世代

Good articles for buddies


Leave a comment

無條件的愛

Hong Kong Economic Journal
C02 | 醫情醫說 | 德育相傳 | By 許芷茵 |
2013-08-31

早前獲某家長會邀請,主持一個每周一次、為期四周的家長分享會,最後一個聚會的主題,談到「無條件的愛」,有一位媽媽激動地表示:「十六歲的兒子好食懶非、一言九頂、曠課搗亂,今年還要留班呢!這樣的一個頑劣兒,我自問愛不下去,『無條件的愛』── 請恕我實在做不到!」

我看着這家長,微微笑:「這位媽媽,你誤會自己了。第一次自我介紹時,你說你是貿易行秘書,可見你必須向公司請假來出席這聚會,一連四周你從不缺席,而且往往是最早到場的一個,挑一個最前方的位置,聚精會神地投入所有內容……這樣的一個媽媽,會不愛孩子嗎?你很愛你的孩子,你只是不喜歡他的某些行為,這點你要弄清楚,千萬不要錯誤解構你的感情,自己誤會固然不好,最傷害的,是讓孩子也誤會自己是個惡劣得連父母也唾棄的人,那麼,他還有什麼動力去改善自己的行為呢?」

終生的過程

這位媽媽呆一會,隨即笑着擦眼淚:「我釋懷了!一直以來,孩子做出千萬種奇怪的事,我就覺得他討厭!然後我就會自責:我究竟是怎樣的一個媽媽,連自己的孩子也討厭!原來,我其實一點也不討厭他,我只是討厭他的某些行為……說到底,我還是一個不太壞的媽媽!」

養兒育女是個漫長甚至終生過程,父母責任重大,因愛故生怖,因愛故生憂,故此情緒波動也特別大。當孩子成為年輕人再成長為成年人,當中總有些時刻會把爸媽氣得暴跳如雷,或是以淚洗面。不論你們多麼痛心、洩氣,切莫誤會你們對孩子行為感到憤怒或失望。

討厭孩子某些行為,引申而來是管教甚至懲罰(給予後果),訣竅在「對事不對人」,你可冷靜中肯指出:「不可打弟弟!因你打弟弟,所以今天罰你取消打機時間。」或是:「不可對爸爸不禮貌!

如你選擇繼續駁嘴而不好好地說出你要求,我們的討論馬上中止,直至你想清楚如何表達為止。」

有些說話,是不表達你的真正立場、具傷害性,同時永遠不能說的,最具秒殺功能的,莫如:「如果你打弟弟/駁嘴/考試不盡全力/考琴再肥佬/偷偷上網/講大話……媽媽就不疼你!」當然,「媽媽不疼你」的非言語表達還包括趕孩子出街、罰他們站在家門外等,這些代表「拒絕」及「羞辱」的行為,深深印在孩子心中,會成為永久的陰影。

成年人採以上行動以為阻嚇性高,收效快,但據統計,就算被嚇的小朋友能收歛一段短時間,內心充滿不安、缺乏安全感甚至滿腔憤怒的他們,一半以上很快故態復萌,另一半比以前更「Hea」。

自律與他律

父母要明白,最長遠有效的管教是「自律」而不是「他律」,能叫孩子自動自覺做好只有一劑妙方:叫他們相信他們是被愛的,而且值得被愛。孩子必須肯定自己價值,才能活出其真正的價值,而他們的價值,很多時是來自父母給他們的評價。孩子的行為讓你看不過眼時,你可以告訴他:「我很愛你,可是你突然說出這些粗言穢語,實在叫我耳痛。」或是:「我知道你的數學成績不好,因為你像足媽媽這樣沒有數學頭腦!可是升不了班也不是辦法,讓我們一齊想想有哪些解決方法?」

永遠讓他明白你是站在他那邊的,他的缺點你看見了,你會跟他一起想辦法去解決,而不是擺出一副要離棄他的模樣,讓他覺得自己一無是處、何必努力、唔死都無用。

許芷茵
兒童教育工作者

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Student’s story indicative of how bitter cross-border war has become

South China Morning Post
Comment›Insight & Opinion
2014-04-25

Albert Cheng

Albert Cheng says online abuse Betty Wong received after telling her story sadly indicative of the social and cultural confrontations taking place

Betty Wong, an undergraduate at the University of Hong Kong’s medical faculty, has become the latest punching bag for the young and furious in Hong Kong who lash out at anything or anyone with a mainland label.

Nineteen-year-old Betty was born on the mainland to a parent with permanent residency in Hong Kong. Under Article 24 of the Basic Law, she would have been granted residency – if a Court of Final Appeal ruling on such matters were allowed to stand. But soon after the ruling, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee issued an interpretation of the clause that denied automatic permanent residency rights for people in Betty’s situation.
As the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens, youngsters in particular have found it increasingly tough to climb up the social ladder

In 2003, an eight-year-old Betty sneaked into Hong Kong alone but later reported herself to the immigration authorities. She said immigration officers gave her a hard time before granting her a “temporary permit”, commonly known as “going-out pass”, to stay in the territory.

For 11 years, she endured the discrimination and studied hard. Her efforts paid off last year when she was admitted to the elite medical school. The university then intervened on her behalf and she was eventually granted permanent residency.

She thought her story might inspire others having a difficult time. So she shared it on Facebook. She was wrong.

Betty was immediately mobbed online by netizens accusing her of abusing the Hong Kong system. Most comments left on her posting were negative; some were downright abusive. Many noted that she was not even a proper Hong Kong person when she applied for the university. They argued that HKU should have given her place to a genuine local student.

Betty would have been hailed as a role model back in the 1980s. Yet, given the current tension between Hongkongers and mainland visitors, she is seen by many as another example of how the mainlanders have advanced their self-interests at the expense of the locals.

Generations of illegal immigrants have contributed to Hong Kong’s phenomenal success. Tycoon Li Ka-shing, singer Roman Tam and novelist Ni Kuang are but a few of the many such notables. Betty could have been welcomed as a latecomer to this long list of distinguished self-made people from across the border.

Times have changed. The city’s streets are now packed with shoppers from the mainland, competing with the locals for resources, ranging from formula milk powder to residential flats and, recently, university places. On Monday, a group calling itself Hongkongese Priority chanted slogans at the City University demanding a curb on the admission of mainland students at all universities in Hong Kong. Mainland immigrants and visitors are now seen as a threat rather than an asset.

Betty is just another victim of this social and cultural confrontation.

As the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens, youngsters in particular have found it increasingly tough to climb up the social ladder. School leavers, including college graduates, are left struggling at the bottom of the social stratum. Upward mobility for them is as elusive as it is illusive.

Most young people can barely eke out a decent living, let alone plan for their futures. They point their fingers at the mainlanders. This cross-border war is getting out of hand.

This political time bomb was planted soon after the handover when ex-chief executive Tung Chee-hwa turned to the NPC for an interpretation of the Basic Law provision, which came after the top court’s landmark ruling in 1999 to uphold the constitutional right of children who were in a situation similar to the one Betty is in today.

Former director of immigration and later secretary for security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee was instrumental in cementing the NPC’s veto of the court’s judgment, warning that without the NPC’s intervention, the special administrative region would be flooded with mainland children whose fathers were Hong Kong permanent residents.

The pro-establishment camp in the legislature had rallied behind the administration. The Education Department even instructed schools not to enrol those children rejected under the NPC decision, lest it should become an incentive for them to come to Hong Kong illegally. Thus the seed of discrimination was planted, and we now have to stomach the bitter fruit.

Policymakers dismiss the growing public anger at the mainlanders as misguided. They apparently believe the problem will go away as they keep their heads in the sand. The only way out is for the people of Hong Kong to resume control over local affairs through meaningful democratic elections.

Only then, can we regain a sense of common purpose to work collectively to make Hong Kong work again.

Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator.


Leave a comment

帝國空戰留遺物

Hong Kong Economic Journal
C05 | 城市智庫 | 回眸英倫 | By 毛羨寧 |
2013-08-31

劍橋的天空,常常可以看到二次大戰時期的飛機在盤旋。因為附近的達克斯福德帝國戰爭博物館(Imperial War Museum Duxford),每年都會舉辦幾場世界有名的航空表演,例如在9月第一個周末舉行的飛行表演,展示不列顛空戰紀念戰鬥機(Battle of Britain Memorial Flight)、英國皇家空軍所用的高性能颱風戰機(RAF Typhoon)和「紅箭」(Red Arrow)等。

我第一次來參觀時沒有慶祝儀式,外面還烏雲密布,只好留在博物館內看收藏品,慢慢走過機場跑道旁兩公里長的八個展覽場地。其中最特別的是第一號館,陳列了近三十台飛機—— 在地面的、吊在半空的—— 包括第一次世界大戰的軍用飛機、協和超音速民用飛機、P-51野馬戰鬥機和巨大的B-52轟炸機。

陸戰武器廳則收藏了二戰時期所用的車輛、德國和前蘇聯生產的突擊炮,還有海軍飛機和小型潛水艇。其他的展品包括「英國戰爭展覽」和「被遺忘的戰爭展覽」,那一幕又一幕的戰爭場面,竟是離我們不遠的隔代回憶。

瘡疤vs戰績

來過這家歐洲最大的軍用飛機博物館以後,我開始找各國的飛機工場去參觀,去年便到了東京羽田機場ANA機體工場看維修人員工作、配置儀器和組件,可惜一字一句都需要日本朋友翻釋,上上落落的客機也欠缺了歷史戲劇性。畢竟,達克斯福德機場始建於第一次世界大戰期間,是最早的皇家空軍站之一,曾在1917 年專門培訓皇家飛行軍團機組人員。戰爭結束後,歐洲各個分遣艦隊便把機場轉成為基地,在二十年間加強作戰裝備如噴火戰鬥機(Supermarine Spitfire)。1940年9月15 日—— 被稱為「不列顛空戰日」的戰役中—— 德國納粹空軍襲擊瞄準倫敦,最終兩次被英國皇家空軍達克斯福德中隊擊退。到了1944年二次大戰諾曼第登陸日,所有第78戰鬥機大隊從達克斯福德橫渡英吉利海峽,為盟軍艦隊提供空中掩護。

二戰結束,政府認為達克斯福德距離海岸太遠,不再適合軍用,所以1961年7月完成最後一次軍事飛行。劍橋郡議會在1977 年買下了廢棄的機場跑道當作歷史遺址,定期與世界著名的航空展覽合作。

帝國戰爭博物館還設有倫敦總部,存儲及修復了更多軍事展品。我在〈別提起德累斯頓〉一文寫到這段歷史,看的角度是現今德國人想要忘記的瘡疤,這裏反過來成了英軍的輝煌戰績。

看飛機結構、讀軍事歷史,是不是不夠女性化?我記起兒時到表兄弟的家,用纖巧的指頭跟他們一起做模型,現在比模型龐大幾萬倍的飛機大炮我都親眼看過,真幸運!每次身處在洗擦亮麗的飛機旁邊,我還會想起從泰國來的中學同學Benjamas Thinphanga。

剛柔並重女性化

她自小在英國學校寄宿,為了讓同學和老師記得她的名字,便簡化了泰文作「Jup」。當我進校的時候,已知道她姐姐Pakamas 是舊生,成績名列前茅,考進了牛津Somerville學院生物系,畢業以後還獲得皇家泰國獎學金繼續念博士班。

聽校長和老師說,她們沒有預料到Pakamas會為校爭光,只想培養這文靜的姐妹倆「從女孩成長為獨立女性」。我問,什麼是獨立女性?事業有成、能自己駕車縱橫四海的算不算?「我和姐姐都不會駕車。」十六歲的Jup淡淡然對我說,「不過我們父親是泰國航空的機師長,所以姐姐懂得駕小型飛機。」原來,不畏懼天高地厚、剛柔並重的便是了。

毛羨寧


Leave a comment

World is watching the outcome of Hong Kong’s democracy fight

South China Morning Post
Comment›Insight & Opinion
2014-04-25

Anson Chan

Anson Chan says whether or not Hong Kong can maintain its freedoms and achieve genuine democracy is a matter of international concern – and a test of Beijing’s sincerity under Basic Law

When Martin Lee and I decided to undertake our recent trip to the United States and Canada in response to invitations from the Asia Society and the Asia Pacific Foundation, we knew to expect a barrage of criticism from the central government authorities and pro-Beijing forces in Hong Kong. It is nevertheless dispiriting that, yet again, Chinese state media are focused more on shooting the messengers than listening to the message.

Standing up for the promises in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy” does not mean we are standing against China. On the contrary, we made this trip because we both still feel passionately that “one country, two systems” – Deng Xiaoping’s inspired concept for reuniting Hong Kong with the motherland – is a unique form of governance that must be cherished and safeguarded at all costs. Being proud and patriotic Chinese does not mean that Hong Kong people must resign themselves to a creeping erosion of their core values and way of life so fundamentally distinct from those of the mainland.

The maintenance of “one country, two systems” and the achievement of genuine democracy in Hong Kong are not simply matters for China. The Joint Declaration is an internationally binding treaty, lodged with the United Nations, for which the United Kingdom and China solicited the widest possible international support.

While it is primarily the responsibility of the two signatories to ensure that its terms are strictly observed, it is also in the wider interests of the international community that Hong Kong’s special qualities and role as a bridge between the mainland and the world are preserved.

The United States and Canada, in particular, have enormous stakes in the special administrative region. Both have large numbers of their nationals residents here – more than 300,000 in the case of Canada – as well as substantial financial investments, trade and commercial interests, educational, cultural and family ties. Their close bonds with Hong Kong are founded on shared values: the rule of law, clean and accountable government, human rights, a level playing field for business, and the maintenance of key freedoms of assembly, religion and of the press.

During a packed schedule of appointments in North America we met senior government officials and politicians in Washington and Ottawa, briefed the editorial boards of leading newspapers, met with key think tanks and participated in stimulating exchanges with knowledgeable audiences at public seminars in New York, Washington, Toronto and Vancouver. Many we spoke to expressed deep shock at recent violent attacks on journalists and concern at other threats to press freedom as evidenced by abrupt sackings of high-profile editors and commentators and pressure on businesses to withdraw advertising from independent media.

In Toronto and Vancouver, we reached out to the local Chinese communities by means of media briefings, radio phone-ins and open public forums that attracted several hundred participants. During these forums, we were struck by the close emotional attachment Hong Kong Chinese Canadians still feel towards the territory and by how well informed they are about what is happening here. Many of the people spoke candidly of their concerns for the maintenance of Hong Kong’s freedoms, lifestyle and for the achievement of genuine universal suffrage.

In these briefings and discussions, we strived to present a balanced picture. We stressed that Hong Kong’s economy is doing well and that the rule of law still prevails – a factor vital to the maintenance of business confidence. However, we were forced to point out that the blatant interference by the central government’s liaison office, in all aspects of government and community life in Hong Kong, must give cause for concern as to how long our freedoms can hold out.

Such meddling is in direct contravention of Article 22 of the Basic Law, which states: “No department of the Central People’s Government … may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law”, something those people who habitually preach the importance of the strict observance of the terms of the Basic law would do well to remember.

Above all, our message was that Hong Kong is at a watershed in its history. If Hong Kong people’s aspirations for genuine democracy are thwarted once again, the city will not only become increasingly ungovernable but will face the possibility of serious social unrest.

A raft of proposals has been put forward in response to the government’s consultation. My own group, Hong Kong 2020, has sought to broker a compromise while ensuring that when Hong Kong people elect their chief executive by universal suffrage, in 2017, they have a genuine choice of candidates and the outcome of the election is not rigged by the screening out of candidates who do not meet with Beijing’s approval.

Almost without exception these proposals have been knocked back by parties who see their primary role as preserving their own vested interests at the expense of the general population. These parties need to understand that achievement of genuinely democratic government, as promised to Hong Kong people under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, is a crucial litmus test of China’s sincerity in honouring its international treaty obligations. The world is watching.

Anson Chan, a former chief secretary in the Hong Kong government, is convenor of Hong Kong 2020


Leave a comment

Yahoo網誌年底關門 網絡生態變淘汰成必然

Hong Kong Economic Journal
A11 | 獨眼香江 | 獨眼香江 | By 紀曉風 |
2013-08-31

“又有一個香港人的集體回憶將要消失!

老紀所說的,是在香港擁有逾百萬用戶的Yahoo 網誌服務。Yahoo 周五向用戶發出公告,表示經評估全球資源及整體發展方向後,宣布將於年底前關閉「Yahoo! Blog」,是繼2009 年終止Geocites 網頁服務後,另一影響大量網民的重大決定。

事實上,網界近期似乎掀起網誌(又稱博客) 「關門潮」,先有廣受歡迎的網上日記Xanga 早前宣布關閉,香港的「Yahoo! Blog」及台灣無名小站也將同期告別,似預示着一個時代的終結,令曾經風魔一時的寫blog熱,猶如已經走投無路了!

確實,當網絡世界進入Web 2.0 時代,資訊更講求互動性,因而令Facebook 在短短不足十年間大行其道,同時也令傳播方式較慢和單向的網誌之吸引力大減,網誌縱使未到絕路,相信也已步入黃昏期。

不過,雖然本地「博客已死」,但偏偏有人反其道而行,這些人士首推一眾梁班子成員,他們在「網誌」談政策更幾成慣技,箇中原因,恐怕是網誌欠缺即時互動,讓他們可以避過提問質詢,因而令缺點變成他們眼中的優點了。”

Yahoo 在周五下午於「Yahoo! Blog」首頁頂部位置,忽然貼出一則「重要公告」,劈頭即指網誌「將於2013年12月26日起關閉服務」。

而在內文的「致Bloggers」信中,Yahoo 先感謝用家多年來的支持,把生活點滴以文字、圖片滙聚成大家珍存的「Yahoo! Blog」,又形容網誌「毋用(庸)置疑是港人免費Blog 的集體回憶,大家在網絡上的成長印記」。至於關閉服務的原因,Yahoo方面解釋是,隨着互聯網一日千里的改變,經評估全球資源及整體發展方向後,決定停止部分無法有效整合全球資源以提升用戶經驗的服務,而「Yahoo! Blog」正是其中一項,故要為它的「歷史性任務不捨的劃上句號」。

為令用家不會失去珍貴的資料及回憶,Yahoo將分階段關閉服務,包括先由下周一起,開放用戶的資料進行備份及搬家的安排,於10 月30 日後,全站所有用戶將進入「唯讀模式」,即只可瀏覽;至今年平安夜,服務將正式終止。而在台灣,同屬Yahoo 旗下的無名小站,也一樣步上關門大吉的命運。

不過,雖然Yahoo 宣布關閉網誌服務,但其實不代表該入門網站巨擘提供網誌服務功能正作告終,因為在周中, 「Yahoo! Blog」的「小小小編輯」就曾「發文」,推介新的博客平台Tumblr。Tumblr 其實是Yahoo在今年中時砸下約80 億港元重金收購的公司,Tumblr 在美國極受青少年歡迎,但提供服務跟傳統網誌不同,屬「輕網誌」,用家的主要頁面是「Dashboard」,會顯示所有跟隨的更新,用家可操作文章成「喜歡」或「轉發」,模式跟Twitter 類似,而網站更可自動把用家更新的內容同步到Facebook 和Twitter去。而這一個模式,明顯已跟傳統的網誌有所不同。

其實,只要略為回顧科網史,不難發現傳統網誌有畫上句號的趨勢。今年6 月,在全球擁有4000 萬用戶的網誌託管服務的網站Xanga 出現財困,面臨倒閉危機,令網民自發提出集資拯救網站,老紀周五曾瀏覽該網站,首頁公告就顯示將會進行更新,網站將「移民」至「Xanga 2.0」,似乎代表網站成功獲救。但必須指出,網民拯救網站,其實出於情感多於實際需要,只欲把回憶繼續保留吧!

至於更早關門大吉的網誌服務商,其實多不勝數,例如早年的「鄉村部落格」(blogtw.com),就早在2006 年已經消失,而一度人氣甚盛的Blogspot,後來就被谷歌收購,但大家現時幾可聽到有人說自己在谷歌寫blog?就連微軟的Live Space 部落格服務,也因資源整合而在2010年尾關閉了。

網誌的沒落,正好是網絡世界一個時代終結的寫照。網誌的出現可由設立網站的沒落說起!當90 年代後期網絡開始大行其道,不少電腦用家紛紛架設個人網站,同時利用網頁空間發表個人意見,惟管理網站繁複,故當時Yahoo 等公司便推出Geocites 之類的網頁服務;隨着用戶追求更簡易的服務,網誌遂應運而生,取代網頁服務而成為一時的主流。

網誌傳播力遠不及面書

回顧「Yahoo! Blog」的歷史,早期確曾輝煌一時,曾以擁有不少明星博客見稱,而隨着微博等的興起,明星紛紛轉移陣地,當中原因,除因為微博可快速更新及留言較短外,也因有內地龐大市場支持有關,試問單靠本地市場,又如何可儲集逾千萬粉絲呢?然而,縱使明星色彩減退,Yahoo! Blog 仍是本地主流,定位亦較大眾化,在旅遊、飲食、親子等話題上,也有不少知名博客發表網誌,有人甚至可以寫網誌而當收入來源。

可惜花無百日紅,更何況Yahoo 近年業務未見有突破。當後起之秀谷歌已由發展搜尋引擎轉型成為提供五花八門的服務,甚至全面主導流動通訊市場半壁江山時,Yahoo卻仍停留在入門網站層面,自然令吸引力大減,再加上Facebook 極速流行,讓用家完全進入講求互動的Web 2.0世代,簡易例子,是用家的留言可被「讚好」及轉載,同時可即時互相回應,網誌式的單向分享,自然成了過時的產物。

數據更說明一切!根據「Yahoo! Blog」的系統排名,周五時排名最高的網誌「鬼嫁料理手帳」(按介紹是一名家住曼谷的女士,分享當地的生活及努力鑽研飲食的網誌),當天的瀏覽人次為9600 多人,而網站累計人次則逾180 萬人。比較之下,老紀在面書上的專頁,由8 月初起,一個月內增加了逾3000人「讚好」,而上周六的《十問個為什麼》,就可觸及逾60000 個用戶,兩者傳播力量之高下已可見一斑。此外,老紀又利用谷歌的趨勢調查服務比較Yahoo、谷歌及面書3 個網站的搜尋熱門度變化,面書自09 年後,已超越了Yahoo,現時的搜尋量是其5倍,由此可見,面書的大行其道,已令Yahoo 望塵莫及。

諷刺的是, 「有人辭官歸故里,有人漏夜趕科場」,當網誌年代已步入黃昏之期,偏偏有人卻反其道而行,去年上任的梁班子成員,他們為人詬病的問題太多,但其中之一,就肯定是不時化身「鍵盤戰士」,以鍵盤論政、施政,其中梁振英在8 月份就寫下了9 篇網誌(未計8 月31 日),打破上任後紀錄。由於他在8月同時休假了11日,而他在8月的第一篇及最後一篇網誌分別在5 號及16 號發表。換言之,他是在12天內發表9篇網誌,即平均1.33日就有一篇呀!

其實,上屆政府早已「與時並進」,加入了面書的世界,開設了「上亞厘畢道」專頁,不時在專頁上發放政府消息,雖然毀譽參半,但勇於創新的精神絕對可嘉。然而,在梁班子上任後,政府這個面書專頁即被取消,各局長連同特首反而重回網誌世界去。

為何以網誌方式傳布消息已屬落後,但反而能獲梁班子青睞,箇中原因,可能跟網誌的缺點可以變成他們眼中的「優點」有關。誠如老紀上文所分析,網誌之所以陷於被淘汰邊緣,原因之一,正是因為其方式跟受眾的互動性欠佳,而觀乎一系列的「官方網誌」,不約而同不設留言功能,因而令資訊傳播成了絕對的單向,市民閱後有任何意見,就得自行另覓途徑反映,以至如有任何的不認同,也不能即時提出質詢,故反對及負面的意見不費吹灰之力已能不見蹤影。原來一個網誌年代的終結,竟然在不經意之間,也透視了一個政府說好的「開誠布公」,其實是誠意欠奉呢!

紀曉風