謀殺案的檢控年限是十五年。十五年以後，已不能用法律制
然而，這件血案影響了很多人的生命。小女孩的親人、同學
小女孩當年鄰坐的同學，二十五年後當上了刑警，即使時效
這是日劇《三角迷蹤》的情節。
因為是劇集，我們都認同主角鍥而不捨的精神。我們不會嘲
二十年前的血案，至今仍懸而未決，真兇仍未招認。
真相未能大白，怎能原諒，怎能向前看？
包袱仍未卸下，怎能過真正的人生？
星期六, 6月 06, 2009
二十五年前的一樁血案
二十五年前，一名可愛的小女孩被殺。
謀殺案的檢控年限是十五年。十五年以後，已不能用法律制
然而，這件血案影響了很多人的生命。小女孩的親人、同學
小女孩當年鄰坐的同學，二十五年後當上了刑警，即使時效
這是日劇《三角迷蹤》的情節。
因為是劇集，我們都認同主角鍥而不捨的精神。我們不會嘲
二十年前的血案，至今仍懸而未決，真兇仍未招認。
真相未能大白，怎能原諒，怎能向前看？
包袱仍未卸下，怎能過真正的人生？
謀殺案的檢控年限是十五年。十五年以後，已不能用法律制
然而，這件血案影響了很多人的生命。小女孩的親人、同學
小女孩當年鄰坐的同學，二十五年後當上了刑警，即使時效
這是日劇《三角迷蹤》的情節。
因為是劇集，我們都認同主角鍥而不捨的精神。我們不會嘲
二十年前的血案，至今仍懸而未決，真兇仍未招認。
真相未能大白，怎能原諒，怎能向前看？
包袱仍未卸下，怎能過真正的人生？
星期二, 12月 02, 2008
「有强大祖国作靠山的海外游子是幸福的！」
嗱
中國 澳門 意大利 西班牙 呢D
咪叫做壞規矩囉
本來大家諗住等航空公司自己死掂佢
美國 英國 都只係比條熱線你打下
你知啦 跟大圍係政府特性 咁當然睇定D先啦
點知阿爺出手 - 但係又唔順便照顧港人喎
(香港人係中國公民黎架嘛)
而家攪到人人都要包機
咁好麻煩啫
附上 新華時評
新华网北京１２月１日电题：专机接回同胞彰显国家进步
记者黄冠
随着最后一批游客由泰国平安回国，我国政府组织的又一次大规模境外救援公民行动宣告顺利结束。
泰国曼谷两个国际机场，近日因示威活动关闭，造成大量外国人滞留，其中我国内地游客总数超过３５００人。紧急情况下，为保障公民生命安全，我国政府紧急协调国航、南航、东航等航空公司分别派出“特别航班客机”赴泰国接同胞回国，规模之大前所未有。
随着百姓家底殷实和国家对外交往深入，越来越多的中国人走出国门开展工作学习、探亲访友、旅游休闲。据统计，近年来每年因公因私出境的中国公民有１６００万左右人次。保障在国外公民的人身安全，成为政府的一项重要责任。今年以来发生的７名中国公民在伊拉克遭绑架案、韩国冷库爆炸案、中国工程人员在苏丹被害案等，我国政府的反应和举措在交涉相关事宜和善后处理等方面发挥了关键作用，赢得了国内民众和国际社会的普遍赞誉。
维护公民的利益和尊严，就是维护国家的利益和尊严。有强大祖国作靠山的海外游子是幸福的。刚刚经历了惊险“曼谷超期游”的一名游客说：“我们回来时，还有许多无奈地等着机会降临的欧美游客。看着他们羡慕的眼神，我们真的感觉很自豪！”
一个国家要成为身处海外公民的坚强后盾，没有一定实力不行。这种实力既包括能够及时派出飞机这样的硬实力，更包括能与相关国家妥善处理问题的软实力。这不禁令人感叹改革开放３０年给我国带来的巨大进步，感叹３０年前实行改革开放的战略决策不愧是决定当代中国命运的关键抉择！
中国在发展，国家实力在提升。即使面对当前严峻的金融危机影响，我们仍然能够感受到国家进步的坚实步伐。派专机接回在海外遇险的同胞，彰显的是国家的进步，坚定的是国民建设美好明天的信心。
星期四, 5月 29, 2008
副局長及政治助理(我第一次睇以為係Politcal Assassin) 風波，經過《信報》疑似《東方》上身8日後，隨著「心繫加國」的蘇錦樑忍痛放棄加拿大國藉 (蘇宣佈之時不忘提醒大家，他同時要放棄其加國執業律師資格)，相信亦會暫告一段落。
除了所謂雙重效忠問題 － 我就覺得沒什麼重要的，尤其由連回鄉証也沒有的民主派人士提出，更欠說服力 － 以外，外間對「進一步擴大政治委任制」的分析， 大多圍繞兩點。一是擴大政治委任制進一步削弱公務員權力，副局長與常秘及新聞秘書能否合作成疑；二則指被委任的十七人拉雜成軍，欠缺經驗。
兩點也有道理，但卻似乎難以同時成立 （一如自由黨於營養標籤辯論中，一時說有健康聲稱的食物已符合美國／歐盟標準，可以相信；一時說不放寬法例會影響印傭買營多撈麵，兩者都不無道理，但就不能同時講）。如果後者成立，則在實際運作上，這十七名「政壇新秀」能否削弱常秘權力，實成疑問。除非政務官有等退休之意或希望推副局長去死，否則這班政壇新貴大有可能如上一位新貴陳克勤一樣，成為政策局特別助理。反之，如果這一批政壇新貴真的能威脅一眾常秘，則必須要有 一定手腕，才可能治到具多年遊花園經驗的高級公務員。若然如此，這班新貴或可不似陳克勤而更似梁錦松。
當然，現時似乎難以估計那位會成為十萬月薪的影印員，待立會選舉後政府要推銷新政策時，才可知那位有機跑出。
除了所謂雙重效忠問題 － 我就覺得沒什麼重要的，尤其由連回鄉証也沒有的民主派人士提出，更欠說服力 － 以外，外間對「進一步擴大政治委任制」的分析， 大多圍繞兩點。一是擴大政治委任制進一步削弱公務員權力，副局長與常秘及新聞秘書能否合作成疑；二則指被委任的十七人拉雜成軍，欠缺經驗。
兩點也有道理，但卻似乎難以同時成立 （一如自由黨於營養標籤辯論中，一時說有健康聲稱的食物已符合美國／歐盟標準，可以相信；一時說不放寬法例會影響印傭買營多撈麵，兩者都不無道理，但就不能同時講）。如果後者成立，則在實際運作上，這十七名「政壇新秀」能否削弱常秘權力，實成疑問。除非政務官有等退休之意或希望推副局長去死，否則這班政壇新貴大有可能如上一位新貴陳克勤一樣，成為政策局特別助理。反之，如果這一批政壇新貴真的能威脅一眾常秘，則必須要有 一定手腕，才可能治到具多年遊花園經驗的高級公務員。若然如此，這班新貴或可不似陳克勤而更似梁錦松。
當然，現時似乎難以估計那位會成為十萬月薪的影印員，待立會選舉後政府要推銷新政策時，才可知那位有機跑出。
星期五, 5月 16, 2008
星期一, 3月 17, 2008
Tibet
A recent article in Foreign Affairs by Jerry Z. Muller states that, "whether politically correct or not, ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century".
The Tibet question is a prime example of ethnonationalism in the twenty-first century. While orthodox Chinese historical narrative says Tibet has been ruled by, or within influence of China since the 13rd century, and pro-independence Tibetans asserts the contrary, the fact remains that Tibetans is a different ethnic / national group than Han Chinese, and that means Tibetans are currently a minority in a nation not of their own.
It is quite rightly pointed out that the authoritarian nature of PRC makes Tibetans feel oppressed, and that if China is democratize, Tibetans and (Han) Chinese, as well as other ethnic groups, can formed a multi-ethnic nation, just like the U.S.
Jerry Z. Muller points out in his article that, the U.S. is a rather exceptional example in history. Being an immigrants' country, people arrive in the U.S. with the hope to start a new life, and with less attachment to the land, they are more ready to accept a new identity. In the rest of the world, where generations of people has been living on the same land for hundred of years,
the feelings cannot be more different. The separatist movement in Basque and Scotland highlights that, even if the country is a full-fledge democracy, the desires to form one's own nation won't die down so easily. The optimistic scenario of China being a federal democracy with the Buddhist Tibet and Muslim Xinjiang agree to form an union with other Chinese provinces seems to me as very unlikely.
The current Beijing strategy on Tibet is to encourage modernization of Tibetan society in the hope of reduce religious influence, and to accelerate assimilation of Han Chinese and Tibetans, in an attempt to create a heterogeneous Tibet which would make independence complicate. In the meantime, Beijing would simply sit and wait for Dalai Lama to die. Beijing understand well that Dalai Lama is an extremely charismatic leader who can draw international support. Regarded as a 'wise old man', most of us is able to forget that he is also a leader whose legitimacy come from divine source and faith of the followers. A religious leader with political ambition and a large followers - if the religion in question is Islam, perhpas Dalai Lama would be perceived as a threat. Beijing bet that the next Dalai Lama would be less successful, hoping that it will give them enough time to modify Tibetan society.
Beijing's hope that modernization and secularism would bring a less rebellious Tibet is somewhat misplaced. If history is a reliable guide, modernization, urbanization and economic growth lead to greater demand of nation-state, not less. It is because, as Ernest Gellner explains, when an agrarian society transform into a modern one, some ethnic group (in this case, the Tibetans) would find themselves lacking the ability to advance in society since all the key positions are occupied by another ethnic group (in this case, Han Chinese). The less endowed ethnic group would come to think that, if they have their own nation, they can be the boss.
The Chinese's control over Tibet is therefore not sustainable in the long run. This is why Beijing must prepare a plan B, a plan which will grant independence to Tibet whilst keeping Beijing's interest. Such plan should be based on a constitution agreed between Beijing and the Tibetan exile government. The constitution should include clauses that forbid stationing of foreign forces in Tibet and the separation of state and religion which places Dalai Lama as the head of state in a fashion like the constitutional monarchy in Japan, Thailand or the U.K.
The second point would be extremely difficult to push forward, given all the vested interests in the religious elites. However if Chinese is to left a positive legacy in Tibet, it would be to prevent it from returning to a theocracy state. Even when the unique character of Tibetan Buddhism is taken into account, I do think it is rather certain that a leader with divine right, unchecked by any sorts of parliamentary system, would not make a free society.
An independent Tibet would probably face the challenge of cultural transformation not dissimilar to what Tibet is currently underwent. The cause would of course be different. Instead of a "cultural genocide" by Beijing government, as some has described, the change would be brought by a new generation of returning Tibetan diaspora, who were exposed to western ideas while in-exile. The changes might be lamented by western observers as a destruction of a once utopian society, but that would be up to the Tibetans to decide.
*************************************************
I should address a few points that come up in most of the reports on recent violence in Lhasa.
1. Tibetans exiles and Beijing offer diverge number of fatalities. While the track record of Beijing government is rather poor on this regard, I think NYT's cautious approach of noting that neither of them can be independently confirmed is better than citing Tibetans exile's figure as fact, as some agency did.
2. Some reports cite the destruction of cultural artifacts during Cultural Revolution as evidence of cultural invasion. This is somewhat misleading as the cultural revolution attacked Chinese and Tibetan (and many more) traditions alike. A more proper evidence, in my opinion, should be the recent opening of Golmud-Lhasa railway.
The Tibet question is a prime example of ethnonationalism in the twenty-first century. While orthodox Chinese historical narrative says Tibet has been ruled by, or within influence of China since the 13rd century, and pro-independence Tibetans asserts the contrary, the fact remains that Tibetans is a different ethnic / national group than Han Chinese, and that means Tibetans are currently a minority in a nation not of their own.
It is quite rightly pointed out that the authoritarian nature of PRC makes Tibetans feel oppressed, and that if China is democratize, Tibetans and (Han) Chinese, as well as other ethnic groups, can formed a multi-ethnic nation, just like the U.S.
Jerry Z. Muller points out in his article that, the U.S. is a rather exceptional example in history. Being an immigrants' country, people arrive in the U.S. with the hope to start a new life, and with less attachment to the land, they are more ready to accept a new identity. In the rest of the world, where generations of people has been living on the same land for hundred of years,
the feelings cannot be more different. The separatist movement in Basque and Scotland highlights that, even if the country is a full-fledge democracy, the desires to form one's own nation won't die down so easily. The optimistic scenario of China being a federal democracy with the Buddhist Tibet and Muslim Xinjiang agree to form an union with other Chinese provinces seems to me as very unlikely.
The current Beijing strategy on Tibet is to encourage modernization of Tibetan society in the hope of reduce religious influence, and to accelerate assimilation of Han Chinese and Tibetans, in an attempt to create a heterogeneous Tibet which would make independence complicate. In the meantime, Beijing would simply sit and wait for Dalai Lama to die. Beijing understand well that Dalai Lama is an extremely charismatic leader who can draw international support. Regarded as a 'wise old man', most of us is able to forget that he is also a leader whose legitimacy come from divine source and faith of the followers. A religious leader with political ambition and a large followers - if the religion in question is Islam, perhpas Dalai Lama would be perceived as a threat. Beijing bet that the next Dalai Lama would be less successful, hoping that it will give them enough time to modify Tibetan society.
Beijing's hope that modernization and secularism would bring a less rebellious Tibet is somewhat misplaced. If history is a reliable guide, modernization, urbanization and economic growth lead to greater demand of nation-state, not less. It is because, as Ernest Gellner explains, when an agrarian society transform into a modern one, some ethnic group (in this case, the Tibetans) would find themselves lacking the ability to advance in society since all the key positions are occupied by another ethnic group (in this case, Han Chinese). The less endowed ethnic group would come to think that, if they have their own nation, they can be the boss.
The Chinese's control over Tibet is therefore not sustainable in the long run. This is why Beijing must prepare a plan B, a plan which will grant independence to Tibet whilst keeping Beijing's interest. Such plan should be based on a constitution agreed between Beijing and the Tibetan exile government. The constitution should include clauses that forbid stationing of foreign forces in Tibet and the separation of state and religion which places Dalai Lama as the head of state in a fashion like the constitutional monarchy in Japan, Thailand or the U.K.
The second point would be extremely difficult to push forward, given all the vested interests in the religious elites. However if Chinese is to left a positive legacy in Tibet, it would be to prevent it from returning to a theocracy state. Even when the unique character of Tibetan Buddhism is taken into account, I do think it is rather certain that a leader with divine right, unchecked by any sorts of parliamentary system, would not make a free society.
An independent Tibet would probably face the challenge of cultural transformation not dissimilar to what Tibet is currently underwent. The cause would of course be different. Instead of a "cultural genocide" by Beijing government, as some has described, the change would be brought by a new generation of returning Tibetan diaspora, who were exposed to western ideas while in-exile. The changes might be lamented by western observers as a destruction of a once utopian society, but that would be up to the Tibetans to decide.
*************************************************
I should address a few points that come up in most of the reports on recent violence in Lhasa.
1. Tibetans exiles and Beijing offer diverge number of fatalities. While the track record of Beijing government is rather poor on this regard, I think NYT's cautious approach of noting that neither of them can be independently confirmed is better than citing Tibetans exile's figure as fact, as some agency did.
2. Some reports cite the destruction of cultural artifacts during Cultural Revolution as evidence of cultural invasion. This is somewhat misleading as the cultural revolution attacked Chinese and Tibetan (and many more) traditions alike. A more proper evidence, in my opinion, should be the recent opening of Golmud-Lhasa railway.
星期三, 2月 06, 2008
網上擬似藝人淫褻照片
請先看著名改圖博客alpha623的這一篇：
網上擬似藝人淫褻照片 (到底是擬似藝人、擬似淫褻、還是擬似照片？)，可能是近年本港最大規模的公民抗命事件。
起初警方一如以往地將之定性為一「挑戰警方權威」事件，期望以高調的拘捕行動，警告市民，從而令照片停止流傳。
然而，警方的執法卻敵不過市民的好性心，照片繼續在網上發放傳閱。法庭反應過敏的決定更令官方失去道德高地，做就藉口及一眾(好奇的) 知識份子將事件化為言論自由的問題，逼得警方調整立場，表明照片在「朋友」間傳閱並不犯法，一時之間，網上一片和諧社會景象，互稱朋友之聲不斷。
可見，當市民有決心集體挑戰法律之時，警方亦不得不讓步。不要輕視一眾網民的色心，可能香港民主之路亦是由此起。1968年令戴高樂幾乎要逃亡的巴黎五月，起因也不過是學生領袖(就是現時歐盟議會綠黨的主席Daniel Cohn-Bendit) 要求校方容許男生進入女性宿舍而已。不過，以內地性方面的開明，如果在香港發生因打壓性自由而引起的社會運動，大概也不會是因為中聯辦的行為所致的。
網上擬似藝人淫褻照片 (到底是擬似藝人、擬似淫褻、還是擬似照片？)，可能是近年本港最大規模的公民抗命事件。
起初警方一如以往地將之定性為一「挑戰警方權威」事件，期望以高調的拘捕行動，警告市民，從而令照片停止流傳。
然而，警方的執法卻敵不過市民的好性心，照片繼續在網上發放傳閱。法庭反應過敏的決定更令官方失去道德高地，做就藉口及一眾(好奇的) 知識份子將事件化為言論自由的問題，逼得警方調整立場，表明照片在「朋友」間傳閱並不犯法，一時之間，網上一片和諧社會景象，互稱朋友之聲不斷。
可見，當市民有決心集體挑戰法律之時，警方亦不得不讓步。不要輕視一眾網民的色心，可能香港民主之路亦是由此起。1968年令戴高樂幾乎要逃亡的巴黎五月，起因也不過是學生領袖(就是現時歐盟議會綠黨的主席Daniel Cohn-Bendit) 要求校方容許男生進入女性宿舍而已。不過，以內地性方面的開明，如果在香港發生因打壓性自由而引起的社會運動，大概也不會是因為中聯辦的行為所致的。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)