I wandered lonely as a cloud, by Wordsworth

I wandered lonely as a cloud:
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars
that shine and twinkle on the Milky Way,
They stretched in never-ending line
along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
in such a jocund company:
I gazed - and gazed - but little thought
what wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

好文章

其實本人一直很喜歡推卸責任，一直在香港都不喜歡看報紙，原因是，質素太不濟。

以下的社評就感到香港報業的一些弊端。

這都是個人意見，而且我也可以理解其中的原意，當中的許多政治敏感的議題。

基本上，香港報紙的社評的選材和分析總是流於一些表面，大衆化，毫無爭議性的論點。

下面關於西藏的報道，一開始我以爲也是一樣，雖然它沒講出一些比較重要的西藏獨立問題，但站與它的立場，而這次的新聞自由這議題上，其實有很多值得贊許的地方，寫得很ｓｕｂｔｌｅ　ａｎｄ　ｉｒｏｎｉｃ，尤其是紅色的那幾段。我相信讀者們也有自己的傳譯。

先很諷刺的講中國這種驅趕記者的做法其實在某一個程度上已經是一個進步。然後將民間媒體的角色是去“證實＂官方媒體的報道。一切都很政治正確，卻帶有言外之意。

然後在ｒａｔｉｏｎａｌｉｓｅ這次中國訊息封鎖的過人之處，雖然媒體一直指摘武力鎮壓，但證據欠奉。

In legal terms, China is keeping the benefit of the doubt - now what's clear is merely the rebellion activity within Tibet, no one can say for sure whether China has actually used force, and how much force it has used.

That's actually a very common tactic of many countries in suppressing internal rebellions, or dealing with terrorists or revolutionaries - they refuse to pass any information to international tribunals on the ground of 'national security', and that will stifle any judicial investigation and fact finding process.

It's not entirely wise to leave this image to the west, but what's clever about this manoeuvre is how, given that it has already decided to suppress the internal rebellion, China has presented its actions in the best light.

What this editorial has achieved is to making a mild claim against China on press freedom which is pretty uncontentious, but it's actually said a lot more than that. Well done.

透明執法可堵攸攸之口 逐記者離藏乃一大敗筆 (明報) 03月 18日 星期二 05:05AM

【明報專訊】西藏 爆發1989年以來最大騷亂，全球關注中國政府如何處理這次事件。最新發展是：西藏當局暫停批准外國人入藏，已到西藏的也被勸喻離開，本港5個電子媒介的記者，被「安排」離開，沒收拍攝到武警或公安片段的錄影帶或記憶卡，並強行刪除記者電腦內的相片等。這個封閉而不透明的做法，不但失去一個有力地反駁「鎮壓和平示威」的機會，反而倍添外界「關門打狗」的惡劣印象。

容許採訪有助取信天下

上周五發生騷亂之後，官方新華社 和中央電視台很快便報道了有關消息，雖然欠完整，但是與過去遲報或不予報道比較，這是一個進步；在北京 出席兩會的西藏官員，就事態也坦然回答記者提問，到昨日，西藏自治區主席向巴平措在記者會上，詳細講述騷亂經過。可以說到這個階段，西藏騷亂和連帶甘肅 等 地藏人的一些動態，外界從正常渠道知悉，公開而透明度較高。正如其他國家、地區發生類似騷亂一樣，官員所披露和官方傳媒的報道，都是官方說法，如果容許民 間傳媒透過採訪，「證實」官方說法就是事態真相，則官方的公信力自然大大提高。今次中國政府本來有這樣的機會，可惜沒有好好把握。

達賴喇嘛 在印度 召 開記者會，就這次西藏騷亂，指摘中國政府以武力鎮壓和平示威，西方傳媒基本上也是這種口徑。但是中國政府用什麼武力去鎮壓這次騷亂呢？從迄今所有報道，沒 有見到過有公安、武警對付、毆打暴徒的鏡頭和照片，如果有這樣的鏡頭或照片，相信一定已經廣泛流傳，西方傳媒也會鋪天蓋地報道，中國政府就此事所承受的國 際壓力，肯定沒有現在的相對輕微。現在人們從影像上所了解的西藏騷亂，都是暴徒持棒握刀的打、砸、搶、燒畫面，暴徒放火燒學校、燒民居、在通衢大道眦商 舖，連平民百姓駕電單車經過，也被截停，暴徒眦車毆人等等。

因此，從這些畫面表明，這是一次騷亂，並非和平示威；而從畫面 所見，人們也得不出公安、武警武力鎮壓的結論。事實是戳破偏見的最有力武器。但是就在當局一再強調局勢已經穩定、拉薩市面復歸平靜，包括學校照常上課之 際，當局開始「驅趕」外人，包括香港記者。今日零時以前，是當局呼籲參與騷亂的人自首，爭取寬大處理的最後時限，因此時間上，當局的做法，予人「關門打 狗」的印象。從事態本質而言，這樣的印象，不但完全可以避免，如果處理得當，還可以改變部分外國人、特別是西方傳播媒體的偏見。

當局迄今未見武力鎮壓，什麼開槍、出動坦克等都是沒有事實支持 的流言，整個騷亂過程，沒有什麼值得隱瞞，當局應該讓記者自行採訪，使得事態透過民間媒體，向世人報道真相，以取得更多認同和理解。現在西藏沒有外國人、 也沒有記者了，就算當局並無什麼陰謀詭計，但是一定會引來諸多猜測，認為「鎮壓」現在才開始。事實上，從畫面所見，一些暴徒的行為，確實應該繩之於法，但 是類似西藏騷亂這類含有政治意義的事件，應該在讓人見得到公平的情下執法，否則會被指為「秘密鎮壓」。由此觀之，西藏對「外人」堅壁清野，完全不恰當、 也無必要。

應糾正驅趕記者的做法

當局對外暫時封閉，可能是因為西藏事態十分敏感、複雜，不准外人和外國人留藏、入藏，是恐怕混入的人會組織煽動暴亂，使得事態進一步惡化。當局的憂慮可以理解，但是若反應過度，效果會適得其反。

正如新華社的報道說，達賴去年訪問歐美時多次聲稱：「2008年是關鍵的一年，奧運 會也許是藏人的最後機會了，呼籲有關國家在與中國打交道時，把『西藏問題』與北京奧運會 聯 繫起來。」今年1月接受記者採訪時，達賴進一步要求其支持者在北京奧運會期間舉行示威遊行，並藉此宣揚藏人的請求。因此，達賴藉北京奧運攪局，應該在當局 意料之內，對於所有人而言，這個並非新議題。國際人士、特別是對中國有偏見的人，現在就看中國政府如何處理這次西藏騷亂，如果過猛踰度，則所謂打壓西藏人 權，甚至達賴所謂「滅絕西藏文化」的罪名，更加難以洗脫；另外對北京奧運造成的衝擊，也不能低估。

西藏騷亂這類突發事件的應對和處理，考驗覑中國歷經改革開放，經濟上取得舉世矚目成就之後，是否已經有足夠的自信。我們認為如果當局能夠糾正驅趕記者的做法，掃除「關門打狗」的疑慮，則是逐步走向成熟的表現。

英語教育

現在比較冷靜,可以進行理性的討論:

我本身對孫公的政策最大的不滿是,所謂的語言彈性政策，根本不能對症下藥。他所提出的是改善港人英語的大方向。我對這目標毫無異議，而且是深表贊同，因爲港人的英語太瀾了。

但我覺得很失望，因爲政策層的人，所想所計劃的，似乎從來沒考慮到問題的核心，和與現實的配合。

我覺得這大方向是不能僅僅以改變語言政策來改善整體的英語水平，因爲語言的學習不是這麽簡單。

我的主要論點是：

第一，英語教學的學校不一定能提高學生的英語水平。

第二，英語水平的提升不一定需要用全英語教學的政策。因爲語言是需要有效的培育，而現在港人英語水平的主要問題來源，依我所見，不是EMI或CMI的區別，而是學生怎樣學英語的問題。



第一，英語教學可以讓學生的英語有一定程度的提升，這一點我不否認。譬如說，大部分的EMI學校的學生認識的詞彙量比CMI學校的學生大。

可是，很多英語學校的學生的英語仍然強差人意，有些連寫一個通順的句子都不能，甚至不會講很簡單的英語。我沒有數據，都是一個general observation，我講的不是全港最佳的二十家學校，而是其他比較一般的學校。

這是一個笑話，因爲用英語念了五年書，居然不能講英語， 他們一直怎麽學，怎麽學英語，怎麽學他們本身的學科，怎麽混過去的？學校做了什麽？香港人這麽笨，學不會英語嗎？


第二，我想講的是，重要的是學生怎樣學英語，中中的學校還可以孕育出出類拔萃的學生，原因是，這一些學生特別聰明，並能掌握學習語言之道。教育政策如果真得想提高英語水平，應該重新想一下何謂學習語言之道?

ＴＨＥ　ＷＡＹ　ＯＦ　ＬＥＡＲＮＩＮＧ　ＥＮＧＬＩＳＨ

口號式的政策最簡單不過，四多：多讀，多寫，多講，多聼。very cliched, but very true. 但是，在政策層面來説，這未免流於簡單，究竟學校怎樣配套，怎樣把這一個　＂道＂實踐？我覺得這才是問題的關鍵。


我覺得學英語有幾點是最重要的：

第一，提升學生的興趣，讓學生喜歡英語，有一種ｉｎｔｒｉｎｓｉｃ　ｍｏｔｉｖａｔｉｏｎ自發性的動機去學英語。

第二，扶助比較弱的學生，因爲一旦學生過了一年的ＥＭＩ洗禮后，發現自己跟不上，很多學生從那一刻開始，有兩個後果：

１　他們可能會放棄，因爲英語差，阻礙了學習其他科目，反正怎樣都跟不上。老師說的聼不明白，書本寫得太艱深，問題想到，卻寫不出。

２　如果他們想努力，盡力的話，他們也無從着手。因爲英語一開始學不好，過了一個黃金年齡（一般人的十六嵗左右），就永遠都學不好，因爲ｎｏｔｈｉｎｇ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｅｖｅｒ　ｍａｋｅ　ｓｅｎｓｅ。

第三，要創造一個英語的環境，讓學生可以活學活用，真正能把英語運用於生活上。


要做到這幾點，政策層面需要配套的是：

第一，培訓師資，提升老師英語水平。好的英語老師是必要，因爲學生學錯的英語，對他們的發展有很大的障礙。

第二，重新檢討課程，因爲很多英語書實在太悶，大部分學生根本提不起勁去翻。

第三，檢討教學的方法，應該多注重運用，而不是死記硬背；文法重要，但更重要的是ｅｘｐｏｓｕｒｅ，讓學生可以真的四多。



在此作一些澄清：

１　有朋友跟我講，香港一直都用中文教英語。

我對此有這樣的看法：

香港人的母語是中文，最初用中文學是無可口誹的。

但語言能學好，歸根到底，都是得用哪种語言去思想才能學好，如果整天都是翻譯，是不可能學好的。

而ｅｍｉ的層面來説，其他學科應該用中文教，英語課本嗎？我覺得用中文教是一個折衝的辦法，畢竟，學生，老師的水平根本不能達到這樣的程度。

我所提出的建議是：如果學生能一開始有足夠的援助，讓他們都可以有效用英語溝通，這是ｅｍｉ的先決條件，但政策卻一直忽視這一點。




２　另一位朋友說，學生英語學不好，多是自己不想學，如果真正想學，就能學好。

我不否認學生的責任，但我覺得教育的本意，是鼓勵，引發學生的興趣。如果學生不想學，教育政策應該針對這個問題，對症下藥，讓學生提起興趣，喜歡學英語，讓他們不會覺得學英語是不可能的。




３　第三位朋友說，教育局這是一個ｄｉｓｇｕｉｓｅｄ　ｅｌｉｔｉｓｔ　ｐｏｌｉｃｙ，讓一少數人說很好的英語，放棄其他的。

可能吧，但我只想說，ｔｈｅ　ｅｌｉｔｅｓ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｅｖｅｎ　ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ　ｆｏｒ　１％ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｔｕｄｅｎｔ　ｐｏｐｕｌａｔｉｏｎ，and that means failing the most part of the next generation.


整體來説，我還是覺得無論ＣＭＩ或ＥＭＩ，最重要的問題不被正視，永遠不會改善。

Shifting and Swinging Medium of Instruction

Seeing the education bureau's proposal of a massive shift in the policy on medium of instruction, i just feel really annoyed and disappointed - what now with this bunch of idiots again...

Firstly i'm declaring my biassed view because of my personal grudge (because my year was the first year to 'receive' this kind of two-tier allocation system when it was introduced in 1998 in magnificent propaganda) - and also how i have witnessed how this divide has failed so many students in hong kong. ARGH

Going back to the subject matter of the language policy - Chinese or English or EITHER?

I can see there are many reasons why this massive shift again 10 years on.

1. Allowing more schools to turn to EMI on certain criteria will generally raise English standards.

2. This gives schools more discretion to do what's best for their own students in their view (ideally if that's the school's primary concern).



But I feel very disappointed about this model. I'm in favour of reform - but not reform in this manner.

1. English standards will not simply be raised just because schools use English as the medium of instruction 'in theory'.

This is blatant self-contradiction for the education bureau - ten years ago they said students can still learn great English in CMI schools, now they seem to have come to admit defeat and that they messed up 10 years of students' English for a mistaken point of view.

I'm saying EMI in theory because most EMI schools - i'm speaking of the best ones now - they can't actually use English as the medium of instruction, although they claim to. Teachers teach in Cantonese and use English textbooks. This actually doesn't help a student to use English.

Okay, why is EMI not enough?

A. The effectiveness of a system depends on the way it is put into practice. There are not the resources to support such a language policy. The English standards of teachers in general (even English teachers) are falling, and I personally have had half of my teachers who just don't speak English. (no offence, but just as a matter of fact). When you demand from someone what is impossible, this is what I call unrealistic. Those teachers who cannot speak English but nonetheless try to play along with the system, they have my full admiration, but their poor English actually doesn't help students to learn English properly.

B. I'm not personally against an EMI system - but I think it can only be successful on a very essential condition: the students and teachers are given the HELP to acquire a sufficient level of English proficiency to be able to use English on that high level to learn in English, think in English, chat in English.

For me, it is all about creating an English environment in school that promotes its use in school as well as helps students with special English needs. Especially the first year secondary school students should get A LOT OF additional help with learning in English in order to make the transition - that is the very premise of the success of this system. I can't see that happening now, and thats why many students from EMI schools can't even speak English after having gone through these five years of education in English, in theory.

So I think the key part to the reform is not about whether every subject should be taught in English, but how English itself is taught in school. It is that which will make the difference to students' English standards.

I'm glad the authorities say they will look at Finland and Netherlands' examples for comparison - i hope they won't again fail the students of Hong Kong and impose their myopic views upon the next generation.




As regards the discretion of school argument, I'm not convinced that will help because most schools are more concerned about their own reputation and 'status' - EMI schools generally attract more students, and will help their schools to do better. They won't be as concerned about whether their students can catch up, and learn effectively in English.



This language policy is annoying me quite a bit, I'm afraid. I'll probably rant more later.

Meaning of life

After bouts of negative emotions, light seems to be emerging at the end of the tunnel. (just to sound more sentimental). There are always bad days, and they will pass.

My sister wrote an email to me about her reflection on the meaning of life - actually I didn't consciously write about it.

My sister says it's a purpose driven life.

And she has given me a lovely quote from the Bible.

'You are the light of the world. A city on hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on the stand, and gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.'
matthew 5:14-16


I'm not a philosopher though I'd quite like my learned friend to enlighten me on the underlying philosophical debate.

But to me, I believe in determinism too, and life is not really up to us to control. An individual's life is only set in the wider context of fate and destiny - depending on, amongst others, where you are born, raised etc, who you meet in life, what you see the first time your reason has started to function...

We're all influenced by our environment and I think to the extent that all our 'choices' and 'purposes' are not really our own - they are all conferred or actually imposed upon us. Sometimes I think, ah this is an 'epiphany' - i know what i'm going to do now, as if there was a breakthrough. But actually if you think back, that comes from some day, somewhere, or someone.


I really dont know what life is about because this is all too complicated.

Everyone has different values and it is these values that inform us what we think life ought to be about. And many people who dare to stick their head out to say 'i have a different opinion' - they always seem to me to either have an extraordinary source of support in some way, or they withdraw from society.

It's not easy to be in the minority, and when you think everyone else has got it wrong.

It's even harder to express your stance clearly and tell everyone that they are fucking idiots.

It's however very easy to conform and go with the flow. That's probably the meaning of my life. To be driven by the leading stream of this chaotic era.

無論如何

到了牛屎彿後學到的是，把生活的一切都放棄，因爲你在這裡就是接受一種機械式的訓練．

本來，這就是一個很珍貴的機會，但無可奈何，這機會背負一個沉重的代價．

可能是一種提早被現實捆綁的困境．無論明天發生什麽事，世界不會為你而停下來．適者生存，弱肉強食，你不夠強悍，是自找的苦，但在這個生活節奏這麽快的社會，還是那一句：ｔｉｍｅ　ｗａｉｔｓ　ｆｏｒ　ｎｏ　ｍａｎ．

心裏很不舒服，因爲這個學期挺多事情發生了。剛剛知道一個好友的親友去世，最近我香港最好的朋友決定退學，我的姥姥和阿姨進醫院了，我自己的一塌糊塗，與友人的爭執，還有最近一連串的負面新聞，内地雪災，這失聰女教師自殺等等。

情緒很不穩定，總是起伏不定，因爲我還是太不成熟了。

有很多事情值得我開心，安慰，感動，甚至，我以爲這一個月自己重拾自己的理想，目標，人生的方向，慢慢把從前的那一股勁抓回來。

可是，我卻這麽軟弱。


在這裡只是想說，無論如何，重新站起來，勇敢繼續把路走下去，好好的走出一條漂亮的路。

我也跟自己說，無論如何，撐住，一定沒問題的。

凝望

凝望就是那為自殺女教師的部落格。有空去看一下，原來她已透露了自殺的念頭。

希望大家多關心身邊的人，讓這種悲劇不會再發生。

An end

失聰女教師留書跳樓亡
受歧視苦讀成才 國際棋賽屢獲獎

I feel really sorry for this incredible teacher and chess prodigy. A very tough life indeed - to get used to deafness, and stand up from all the pains and discrimination, and to overcome all the difficulty in studying to get a degree and go abroad.

It seems no one would find out what was really going on in her mind apart from the letter. She probably kept everything to herself, poor thing.

She has been holding on to it all her life, and it was at that point she could not carry on any longer. Something enormous must have happened to make her take her life away.

kosovo - an alternative (more authoritative) analysis

It came to light that a professor here seems to know a lot about the issue of kosovo independence, and I've had the privilege to listen to his extemporaneous discussion on the topic. (I will keep his name anonymous but his view is different from mine)

Essentially, he disagrees that the Kosovo Albanians have the right to self-determination. His main disagreement is that the Kosovo Albanians do not qualify as a people but only a minority. To be honest I am not sure if I completely understand it, but I think there are two main points:

Firstly, what about the Albanians in Macedonia and Albania?
Secondly, the Albanians had been a minority enjoying autonomy in Serbia.

I personally don't entirely agree that this is settled; rather, i think it's fairly arguable both ways. The mere fact that one ethnic group is present in more than one territory surely cannot deny their right to self-determination, given the current trend of globalisation and the massive ethnic migration during the dissolution of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But this is probably a lot more complicated than i envisage.



He has also advanced a major policy argument against recognising Kosovo as an independent State because this would encourage minorities to provoke their own national States to commit human rights abuse against them, and get international intervention, after which they can proclaim independence. Basically he emphasised the fact that the Kosovans started it in the discriminatory policy against the Serbs driving them out of Kosovo in the first place - though Serbia responded in a fairly disproportionate way. And also, there had been a previous political solution to the problem by giving Kosovo autonomy as part of Serbia - meaning independence had been rejected as an option already. That can't change merely by reason of international intervention.


There is also another issue of State responsibility for intervening in matters of other States leading to secession - it is possible that those NATO states that give recognition might incur responsibility. But i think that is contingent upon Kosovo not having a right to self-determination in the first place, and it is also arguable whether recognition constitutes a sufficient intervening act.

找到關於羅志華先生的一個網誌--

Be kind rewind *, 羅志華version

今我又感動又悲哀。有這麼一個人為書的着迷，夢想，而且不僅是個人的，而是集體的。這都在這網誌上表露出來，去看一看吧。