近年來，香港教育界大力推行生命教育。這絕對是一件好事，因為這挑戰一個過份強調智性發展和以競爭力為導向的教育。相對於香港，台灣有關生命教育的發展比香港早。再加上台灣政府教育局的支持，台灣的生命教育漸有成績，並成為香港教育界的參考模式。有見及此，我也跑到台灣一趟取經。
我從不否定老師們和學校們對生命教育的熱忱，但基本問題是：生命教育是一種適應性教育還是一種顛覆性的教育？適應性教育就是對現時的教育制度充耳不聞，只著重提升學生的道德價值和生活技能。表面看來，這是對個人的充權，但查實，這可能只是一種「鴉片」式教育，因為道德價值可以是一種管治教育。在溫柔和溫馨下，學生被教育成為良好公民，但卻沒有質疑秩序的基本假設。此外，教師被賦予更高的召喚，即生命的師傅，但對一個不正義的教育制保持沉默。或以一句應然與實然之別，輕輕帶過。為了得到教育局的支持，學校也主動將生命教育量化。生命的抗逆力增加了，但在沒有挑戰不合理的制度下，這抗逆力只是適應力吧了。
我不反對生命教育需要教育學生對天人物我的感情和尊重，但生命教育的重要性，不是眾多課程之一，而是在於它挑戰整個教育理念和制度，回復學生和老師生命的尊嚴。生命教育需要讓學生和老師認識那使他們不能有豐盛生命的教育和考試等官僚制度。相對於學生，老師應有更大的醒覺和社會意識。可惜的是，在生命教育之名下，他們已被拖入另一場身心消耗的戰線中。例如，對當下教育制度以量化為主和種種不同形式對老師的要求（例如，達標）等等已沒有能力回顧了。
學生需要生命教育，老師也要，但我們要的，不是適應性的生命教育，而是能挑戰那使人不能有豐盛生命的制度。當我們聽見老師因工作壓力而發的呻吟時，生命教育可能是反生命的教育。
(來源 http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=54)
2010年7月23日 星期五
一個沒有靈魂的書展
如往年一樣，香港書展再次面對「靚模」的挑戰。「靚模」是否應該可以出席其寫真集的簽名會？香港貿易發展局（以下簡稱貿發局）所講的理由（即健康，老少合宜）是合理嗎？
第一，表面上，香港書展是一項文化活動，但事實上，這只是一項商業運動。從參展商以「散貨」的做法和會場的主要位置如何被大出版社控制來看，我就很難接受書展不是一項商業活動。若書展的尊貴理想只是一個口號的話，貿發局基本上找不到一個好理由拒絕「靚模」的申請。不像其他出版社懂得包裝，「靚模」就直接了當跟你講錢。
第二，若要健康和老少合宜才可以在書展擺買，我不見得某些有關投資的書很健康。我不反對投資，但投資很多時只是投機的美化詞。當全民都參與所謂投資，不務正業時，這些軟性毒品的投資書藉可能比寫真集更破壞性。因為前者是不可見，後者還是可見。
第三，「靚模」之所以得到如此的重視是拜傳媒所賜。例如，我對於近月來的《明報》娛樂版完全失望，因為內容和其中刊登的照片只集中女性身體。傳媒比顧客更留意「靚模」。「靚模」是透過傳媒共同製造出來。若我們可以以平常心看待「靚模」，她們在書展中出現又何需報導和追訪呢！
第四，我從沒有將書展視為神聖之地，所以，若7-11和路邊的報紙檔也有寫真集買時，書展不需要道德清洗，反而有勇氣反映生活世界的現實。家長不要太擔心「靚模」在書展出現會教壞孩子，因為他們已在其他地方已遇上「靚模」了。
按以上所說，我似乎贊同書展應接受「靚模」，但我的重點不是可以與否，而是不需花太多時間去討論她們。相反，我期望貿發局不應只為攪書展而有書展，反要認真計劃每年書展的焦點，擴闊閱讀世界，引介被忽略的內容和作者。令人奇怪的，今年書展的焦點卻是電子書。這焦點真是「笑死人」。這正說明一個已沒有靈魂的書展只會留意「靚模」。
(來源 http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=46 )
第一，表面上，香港書展是一項文化活動，但事實上，這只是一項商業運動。從參展商以「散貨」的做法和會場的主要位置如何被大出版社控制來看，我就很難接受書展不是一項商業活動。若書展的尊貴理想只是一個口號的話，貿發局基本上找不到一個好理由拒絕「靚模」的申請。不像其他出版社懂得包裝，「靚模」就直接了當跟你講錢。
第二，若要健康和老少合宜才可以在書展擺買，我不見得某些有關投資的書很健康。我不反對投資，但投資很多時只是投機的美化詞。當全民都參與所謂投資，不務正業時，這些軟性毒品的投資書藉可能比寫真集更破壞性。因為前者是不可見，後者還是可見。
第三，「靚模」之所以得到如此的重視是拜傳媒所賜。例如，我對於近月來的《明報》娛樂版完全失望，因為內容和其中刊登的照片只集中女性身體。傳媒比顧客更留意「靚模」。「靚模」是透過傳媒共同製造出來。若我們可以以平常心看待「靚模」，她們在書展中出現又何需報導和追訪呢！
第四，我從沒有將書展視為神聖之地，所以，若7-11和路邊的報紙檔也有寫真集買時，書展不需要道德清洗，反而有勇氣反映生活世界的現實。家長不要太擔心「靚模」在書展出現會教壞孩子，因為他們已在其他地方已遇上「靚模」了。
按以上所說，我似乎贊同書展應接受「靚模」，但我的重點不是可以與否，而是不需花太多時間去討論她們。相反，我期望貿發局不應只為攪書展而有書展，反要認真計劃每年書展的焦點，擴闊閱讀世界，引介被忽略的內容和作者。令人奇怪的，今年書展的焦點卻是電子書。這焦點真是「笑死人」。這正說明一個已沒有靈魂的書展只會留意「靚模」。
(來源 http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=46 )
2010年7月18日 星期日
Do not sin again
John 8 is a very inspiring story. It talks about God’s forgiveness and acceptance, and the sinfulness of people. It arouses our curiosity of what Jesus is writing on the ground. Today, I would like to draw your attention to one Jesus’ particular saying, that is, ‘Do not sin again’. What Jesus means or what he is thinking when he says not to sin again.
Apparently, the issue is adultery, and therefore, not to sin means no adultery anymore. I have no objection to it, but this understanding is chiefly from the perspective of the condemners. In other words, adultery is serious in the eyes of the condemners, and this is why they bring the woman to stone, but this may not be the case of the woman. It is good that the woman would not commit adultery anymore, but it means nothing to her if this is not what she is concerned most. My observation has to be taken into account, because the reaction of the woman suggests that she does not mind to be stoned. She has no intention to defend her accusation by arguing that there is no another adulterer being caught. Her indifference is not necessarily because she has confessed what she has done and is willing to be punished, but rather because she does not find any meaning for survival. She is not waiting for justice to be done, but meaning to survive. Death is not a threat to a person if she is already in a mode of life with no soul (走肉行屍). If this is the situation of the woman, understanding not to sin as equivalent to not committing adultery has no meaning to her at all. I do not believe that what Jesus concerned most is morality, but rather it is the person whom Jesus cares most. We do not have enough background of this woman in order to understand her existential struggle, but we can get insight from a poem, Tomlinson, written by R.Kipling.
…And a Spirit came to his bedside and gripped him by the hair…
And they came to the Gate within the Wall where Peter holds the keys.
‘Stand up, stand up now, Tomlinson, and answer loud and high
The good that ye did for the sake of men or ever ye came to die --
The good that ye did for the sake of men in little earth so lone!’…
‘O I have a friend on earth," he said, "that was my priest and guide,
And well would he answer all for me if he were by my side.’…
But now ye wait at Heaven's Gate and not in Berkeley Square:
Though we called your friend from his bed this night, he could not speak for you,
For the race is run by one and one and never by two and two.…
The Spirit gripped him by the hair, and sun by sun they fell
Till they came to the belt of Naughty Stars that rim the mouth of Hell…
The Devil he sat behind the bars, where the desperate legions drew,
But he caught the hasting Tomlinson and would not let him through.
‘Wot ye the price of good pit-coal that I must pay?’ said he,
That ye rank yoursel' so fit for Hell and ask no leave of me?...
And Tomlinson looked down and down, and saw beneath his feet
The frontlet of a tortured star milk-white in Hell-Mouth heat.
‘O I had a love on earth," said he, "that kissed me to my fall,
And if ye would call my love to me I know she would answer all.’…
But now ye wait at Hell-Mouth Gate and not in Berkeley Square:
Though we whistled your love from her bed to-night, I trow she would not run,
For the sin ye do by two and two ye must pay for one by one!…
And Tomlinson took up the tale and spoke of his sin in life: --
Once I ha' laughed at the power of Love and twice at the grip of the Grave,
And thrice I ha' patted my God on the head that men might call me brave."
The Devil he blew on a brandered soul and set it aside to cool: --
‘Do ye think I would waste my good pit-coal on the hide of a brain-sick fool?...
Go back to Earth with a lip unsealed -- go back with an open eye,
And carry my word to the Sons of Men or ever ye come to die:
That the sin they do by two and two they must pay for one by one --
The story of Tomlinson tells us one important thing. Sin is not just simply what one has done. Nor is a good person who does good works. Rather sin is that one fails to be oneself. Firstly, failure to be oneself is one fails to recognize and fulfill one’s destiny. In Christian understanding, it is calling. We are called to be human beings, the one to reflect God’s glory. Tomlinson’s story reminds us that even though a person may have done something good, he can still fail to be himself, for the good he has achieved is the good of others. His life is the life of other, not his life. Secondly, failure to be oneself is to put blame on his misfortune. I steal because I am poor. I behave badly because my parents are indifference to me. There may have truth in it, but this gives oneself away, for he only sees excuses, and fails to see himself as the agent. Thirdly, failure to be oneself is to give oneself up. I have sympathy with those in great difficulties choose to end their lives, and I would not condemn those who see life as a burden. It is always our responsibility to bring color to life and make life easier.
What is the existential situation of the woman? I have no clue, but according to what I have elaborated, not to sin should not be superficially reduced to a matter of no adultery, no homosexual, and no gambling. Rather it is to affirm that you should not let yourself being without yourself, for God would not give you up.
Apparently, the issue is adultery, and therefore, not to sin means no adultery anymore. I have no objection to it, but this understanding is chiefly from the perspective of the condemners. In other words, adultery is serious in the eyes of the condemners, and this is why they bring the woman to stone, but this may not be the case of the woman. It is good that the woman would not commit adultery anymore, but it means nothing to her if this is not what she is concerned most. My observation has to be taken into account, because the reaction of the woman suggests that she does not mind to be stoned. She has no intention to defend her accusation by arguing that there is no another adulterer being caught. Her indifference is not necessarily because she has confessed what she has done and is willing to be punished, but rather because she does not find any meaning for survival. She is not waiting for justice to be done, but meaning to survive. Death is not a threat to a person if she is already in a mode of life with no soul (走肉行屍). If this is the situation of the woman, understanding not to sin as equivalent to not committing adultery has no meaning to her at all. I do not believe that what Jesus concerned most is morality, but rather it is the person whom Jesus cares most. We do not have enough background of this woman in order to understand her existential struggle, but we can get insight from a poem, Tomlinson, written by R.Kipling.
…And a Spirit came to his bedside and gripped him by the hair…
And they came to the Gate within the Wall where Peter holds the keys.
‘Stand up, stand up now, Tomlinson, and answer loud and high
The good that ye did for the sake of men or ever ye came to die --
The good that ye did for the sake of men in little earth so lone!’…
‘O I have a friend on earth," he said, "that was my priest and guide,
And well would he answer all for me if he were by my side.’…
But now ye wait at Heaven's Gate and not in Berkeley Square:
Though we called your friend from his bed this night, he could not speak for you,
For the race is run by one and one and never by two and two.…
The Spirit gripped him by the hair, and sun by sun they fell
Till they came to the belt of Naughty Stars that rim the mouth of Hell…
The Devil he sat behind the bars, where the desperate legions drew,
But he caught the hasting Tomlinson and would not let him through.
‘Wot ye the price of good pit-coal that I must pay?’ said he,
That ye rank yoursel' so fit for Hell and ask no leave of me?...
And Tomlinson looked down and down, and saw beneath his feet
The frontlet of a tortured star milk-white in Hell-Mouth heat.
‘O I had a love on earth," said he, "that kissed me to my fall,
And if ye would call my love to me I know she would answer all.’…
But now ye wait at Hell-Mouth Gate and not in Berkeley Square:
Though we whistled your love from her bed to-night, I trow she would not run,
For the sin ye do by two and two ye must pay for one by one!…
And Tomlinson took up the tale and spoke of his sin in life: --
Once I ha' laughed at the power of Love and twice at the grip of the Grave,
And thrice I ha' patted my God on the head that men might call me brave."
The Devil he blew on a brandered soul and set it aside to cool: --
‘Do ye think I would waste my good pit-coal on the hide of a brain-sick fool?...
Go back to Earth with a lip unsealed -- go back with an open eye,
And carry my word to the Sons of Men or ever ye come to die:
That the sin they do by two and two they must pay for one by one --
The story of Tomlinson tells us one important thing. Sin is not just simply what one has done. Nor is a good person who does good works. Rather sin is that one fails to be oneself. Firstly, failure to be oneself is one fails to recognize and fulfill one’s destiny. In Christian understanding, it is calling. We are called to be human beings, the one to reflect God’s glory. Tomlinson’s story reminds us that even though a person may have done something good, he can still fail to be himself, for the good he has achieved is the good of others. His life is the life of other, not his life. Secondly, failure to be oneself is to put blame on his misfortune. I steal because I am poor. I behave badly because my parents are indifference to me. There may have truth in it, but this gives oneself away, for he only sees excuses, and fails to see himself as the agent. Thirdly, failure to be oneself is to give oneself up. I have sympathy with those in great difficulties choose to end their lives, and I would not condemn those who see life as a burden. It is always our responsibility to bring color to life and make life easier.
What is the existential situation of the woman? I have no clue, but according to what I have elaborated, not to sin should not be superficially reduced to a matter of no adultery, no homosexual, and no gambling. Rather it is to affirm that you should not let yourself being without yourself, for God would not give you up.
保業還是公義
執筆之際，《最低工資條例草案》還未知會如何被通過。說回來，最低工資對受保障的工人是福還是禍？我認為這是一個屬於於兩惡擇其輕的問題，但也是一個公義的課題。公義就是讓人的基本生活需要得到滿足，以致他們可以追求自己的生活理想。當一個人要每日工作十小時而收入仍不能滿足其基本需要時，這是不公義。
第一, 工人得合理工資是合理的。合理不只是由供應和需求決定，更是由人的生活所需來決定。這要求不是對市場的干擾，因為社會不是市場。社會需要有願景，而最低工資就是邁向願景的實現。然而，最低工資的爭議並不只是限於僱主和僱員的關係，更牽涉到對香港社會整體結構的檢視。例子之一，地產、租金和高地價政策等。
第二，有僱主說，若最低工資定得太高時（指每小時$27以上），他們會結束某些利潤不高的門市。有酒樓老闆說，他們只好不計算員工在兩更之間的休息時間，即變相減薪。也有學者說，香港競爭力將會削弱，影響整體就業。綜合來說，最低工資是好心做壞事。若人是自私的話，我相信有僱主會用種種方法減低其承擔。
第三，反過來說，若最低工資定得太低時，整體社會就需要承擔低收入人士的生活。當企業將他們的責任轉移給社會時，這是不公義，因為社會反支助企業。那麼，最低工資不是僱員對僱主的要求，也是社會拒絕承擔企業要負的責任。
要保就業還是要有合理收入？如何制定最低工資的平衡點，以致僱員的生活有改善，僱主不裁員和不結業？$24、$27還是$30、$33？一方面，這是一個兩惡擇其輕的問題，即找一個中間點。另一方面，這所謂稍輕的惡如何反映向公義邁向多一點。即支持$24或$27者需要向公眾解釋這時薪如何體驗更多的公義。
(來源 http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=43)
第一, 工人得合理工資是合理的。合理不只是由供應和需求決定，更是由人的生活所需來決定。這要求不是對市場的干擾，因為社會不是市場。社會需要有願景，而最低工資就是邁向願景的實現。然而，最低工資的爭議並不只是限於僱主和僱員的關係，更牽涉到對香港社會整體結構的檢視。例子之一，地產、租金和高地價政策等。
第二，有僱主說，若最低工資定得太高時（指每小時$27以上），他們會結束某些利潤不高的門市。有酒樓老闆說，他們只好不計算員工在兩更之間的休息時間，即變相減薪。也有學者說，香港競爭力將會削弱，影響整體就業。綜合來說，最低工資是好心做壞事。若人是自私的話，我相信有僱主會用種種方法減低其承擔。
第三，反過來說，若最低工資定得太低時，整體社會就需要承擔低收入人士的生活。當企業將他們的責任轉移給社會時，這是不公義，因為社會反支助企業。那麼，最低工資不是僱員對僱主的要求，也是社會拒絕承擔企業要負的責任。
要保就業還是要有合理收入？如何制定最低工資的平衡點，以致僱員的生活有改善，僱主不裁員和不結業？$24、$27還是$30、$33？一方面，這是一個兩惡擇其輕的問題，即找一個中間點。另一方面，這所謂稍輕的惡如何反映向公義邁向多一點。即支持$24或$27者需要向公眾解釋這時薪如何體驗更多的公義。
(來源 http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=43)
2010年7月10日 星期六
今年七一
七一是慶祝香港回歸的日子，但也是港人爭取港人治港的日子。所以，七一結合了慶祝與抗議、擁護與反對。但今年的七一有別於以往的七一，因為民間社會因著民主黨對「2012年政改方案」的支持而變得緊張起來。即一個支持和爭取民主的政黨最後竟支持一個沒有普選方向的政改方案。務實還是妥協？一方面，我們擔心在七一遊行中反政改與民主黨人士有過激的衝突。另一方面，七一遊行可以讓不同意見的泛民聚焦，走出「2012年政改方案」的議程，重建互信。
今年七一遊行可以如期進行本身是一件很難得的事，因為有民陣成員曾表達要求民主黨不參加七一遊行。若民主黨不退出的話，它們就退出。若真的如此發生，這不但帶來泛民的分裂，更將民陣變得政治性。當有民陣朋友問我對這事的立場時，我說，「七一遊行屬於人民，所以，不同團體在這日有各自訴求。七一絕不是單一議題，也不是屬於政黨。表面看來，民陣是主辦團體，但它只是一個服務團體。」經過六小時會議後，民陣以很大勇氣和包容決定仍舉辦七一遊行。就此，我鼓掌。雖然其中有成員仍存在很大心結，但不讓此滲入民間社會各層面就可以了。
除了民間團體彼此間的關係外，今次的七一帶出一個值得留意的議題。因著80後的出現（特別在反高鐵一事上反映出來），我們需要對民主在香港有新的認識。即昔日以選舉方式和人權，甚至民生作為對民主的解釋已不足以反映80後對民主的理解，因為80後所強調的民主是與土地、文化、身分和保育等有關。這是80後所講新民主運動的特性，而不是對議會文化的不信任或抗爭模式。80後擴闊了民主運動的內涵，拒絕將民主只等同選舉或民主即民生。然而，這是當下民主派、社運人士和政府等還未掌握。
（來源：http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=31）
今年七一遊行可以如期進行本身是一件很難得的事，因為有民陣成員曾表達要求民主黨不參加七一遊行。若民主黨不退出的話，它們就退出。若真的如此發生，這不但帶來泛民的分裂，更將民陣變得政治性。當有民陣朋友問我對這事的立場時，我說，「七一遊行屬於人民，所以，不同團體在這日有各自訴求。七一絕不是單一議題，也不是屬於政黨。表面看來，民陣是主辦團體，但它只是一個服務團體。」經過六小時會議後，民陣以很大勇氣和包容決定仍舉辦七一遊行。就此，我鼓掌。雖然其中有成員仍存在很大心結，但不讓此滲入民間社會各層面就可以了。
除了民間團體彼此間的關係外，今次的七一帶出一個值得留意的議題。因著80後的出現（特別在反高鐵一事上反映出來），我們需要對民主在香港有新的認識。即昔日以選舉方式和人權，甚至民生作為對民主的解釋已不足以反映80後對民主的理解，因為80後所強調的民主是與土地、文化、身分和保育等有關。這是80後所講新民主運動的特性，而不是對議會文化的不信任或抗爭模式。80後擴闊了民主運動的內涵，拒絕將民主只等同選舉或民主即民生。然而，這是當下民主派、社運人士和政府等還未掌握。
（來源：http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=31）
死人無家可歸
死人無地葬是香港社會奇事之一。這與香港地少人多沒有必然關係，反而因為活人不想與死人為鄰。再加上，接近龕場的住宅單位的樓價可能受影響。在順從民意下，政府遲遲沒有覓地興建龕場。事實上，反對在其鄰近興建龕場者又非無道理，因為政府從沒有計劃過在港島半山區建龕場。按政府數字，每年約有四萬四千人火化。又活人會成為死人，但死人仍是死人。面對只有增加，不會減少的情景，有人提出海葬和在墓地撒灰，並以環保為由支持他們的建議。我不反對人選擇這安葬的方法，但這與環保沒有關係。我甚至說，環保不是「大晒」。相反，我擁護維持墓地式安葬（包括骨灰位）。
第一，墓園不只是一處個人對死者追思之地，更是一處以異域（heterotopia）形態出現。按傅柯（M.Foucault）理解，異域是一處有別於日常生活世界，並因其不同，挑戰生活世界的正常性。例如，在墓園，身分與地位重新再被界定。當墓園被活人世界逐漸排斥時，生活世界將失去被挑戰和被反省的機會。
第二，墓園的失去也帶來非物質文化遺產的失落，因為我們已沒有地方可以進行拜祭。非物質文化遺產不只是對歷史的保留，更是讓當下生活的人不會成為文化孤兒。按麥金泰（A.McIntyre）所言，現代人的生活陷於一種破碎，因為他們已沒有共同故事。當中國政府重新訂清明節和重陽節為公共假期時，接近六十年對文化的破壞使當下中國人已不懂怎樣過這些節日。
第三，傳統上，中國人的拜祭是全家，甚至整條鄉參與的活動。但當海葬或在墓地撒灰成為未來的趨勢時（甚至網上拜祭），紀念漸變得很私人化，而死亡也是如。
死不只是個人，也不只屬於死者。沒有死亡痕跡的活人空間是不明白生之本意。
（來源：http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=37）
第一，墓園不只是一處個人對死者追思之地，更是一處以異域（heterotopia）形態出現。按傅柯（M.Foucault）理解，異域是一處有別於日常生活世界，並因其不同，挑戰生活世界的正常性。例如，在墓園，身分與地位重新再被界定。當墓園被活人世界逐漸排斥時，生活世界將失去被挑戰和被反省的機會。
第二，墓園的失去也帶來非物質文化遺產的失落，因為我們已沒有地方可以進行拜祭。非物質文化遺產不只是對歷史的保留，更是讓當下生活的人不會成為文化孤兒。按麥金泰（A.McIntyre）所言，現代人的生活陷於一種破碎，因為他們已沒有共同故事。當中國政府重新訂清明節和重陽節為公共假期時，接近六十年對文化的破壞使當下中國人已不懂怎樣過這些節日。
第三，傳統上，中國人的拜祭是全家，甚至整條鄉參與的活動。但當海葬或在墓地撒灰成為未來的趨勢時（甚至網上拜祭），紀念漸變得很私人化，而死亡也是如。
死不只是個人，也不只屬於死者。沒有死亡痕跡的活人空間是不明白生之本意。
（來源：http://www.penlives.com/article.php?id=37）
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)