Insights

There have been many inspiring moments/conversations/people these days.

I was very pleased today to have a very engaging debate with the participants of my workshop (which takes place every Saturday morning at my old school). It was probably the most engaging debate of my entire time with them this year and last year - a testimony to their improvement :) It was on the motion, 'Functional constituencies should be abolished.' I was very impressed by the depth of their ideas and the quickness of their rebuttal. More importantly, their brains were set in motion and the arguments both sides put forward kept advancing as the debate went on. That was a proper exchange of views and clash of ideas - very thought-provoking indeed. ^^

It started off on a rather superficial level regarding purely the representation of the interests of the industries in the legco. But we later debated on deeper questions like how the interests should be represented (by a secure vote or other ways?) and what kind of political system Hong Kong really needed (a completely democratic system with universal suffrage or a continued dwindled role of functional constituencies) and discussed the compatibility between functional constituencies and universal suffrage. It was a very dynamic debate. I'm very proud of them They are doing what I couldn't have done when I was their age. :) They are now debating in English comfortably with some scant notes. Maybe I was being too pessimistic about the change of times and all the generation comparison prejudice. Please forgive me if I have been in any way too mean.

I joined in as well to fill the numbers and it was a lot more fun getting involved myself. I hope I gave them helpful guidance without being intimidating or too much of a bully. They inspired me to think a lot and set my mind working. I was still quite rusty but debating reminded me of my days in HKU Debate team. I realised that though I didn't fully grasp the techniques then, a lot of the good models I had seen had somewhat mellowed these few years ad I matured a bit more. It's a good feeling to see that I've made some progress these years. My thinking is slowly taking shape now. I hope I can pass it on and am helping them to improve.



Another inspiring conversation was at a very congenial dinner with a very harmonious and accommodating family after my informal and non-professional attempt of legal consultation to Mr R. W. R shares a similar background to mine and their family prepared a seven dish meal for 5 people - goodness me what a tremendous effort it must have taken his mom. I have always enjoyed seeing relatives of my friends because that helps me to see where they come from - what makes them how it is now :) His family is very intelligent and observant. I couldn't believe they could actually prompt me to make a tirade and withstand it all. And I was talking about what many people find boring eg my time in oxford and all the academic struggles, as well as my Finland project and Scandinavian systems etc. It was a very sweet time and I understand a bit more now.

I guess it left me thinking about myself and comparing this experience to my own family. We're both going after a very similar route with very similar goals. We've been feeding off our families and it's our time to contribute in return for their kindness. I wonder what it will be like in ten years' time.

A new beginning

So I've finally refurbished my blog with a nicer picture that symbolises the breadth of a whole new world out there to explore.

I can feel that I'm reawakening now lol. The last few weeks since I came back to HK from oxford, and then the exams, and the trip, and a two-week void, I think I've been worn out somewhat. The previous year has indeed spent all my energy and enthusiasm, and all this is really my post-oxford syndrome. The actual workload has physically increased my headaches and the readjustment is slowly coming by now - yes i'm settling in HK again (though I'm about to leave again)... A chat with Ray has clarified this stage that i'm going through - a feeling of being constricted and stifled within the confines of HK (its lifestyle, mentality, climate, physical conditions etc). There's been pressure from different sources which I haven't had to deal with for a long time when I was abroad, and now all of it came together. In other words my excuses of being abroad and having finals to work towards (amongst others) are gone.

I am also feeling that what I have acquired and learnt, all the insights and beliefs seem to be slowly fading away - yes already in such a short time. I really don't want my passions and ideas to die away, so I must revamp this blog and recreate a new world. It doesn't have to sound so cheezy but I like this phrase, and it sounds better lol.

This blog was originally dedicated to intellectual exchange of ideas and sharing of experience. I have evidently not done enough to promote this blog, let alone having abandoned it for so long. But I agree that the internet is the way to go, and it's 21st century after all... I'm in particular interested in education (and predisposed towards ranting about my life), but anything is welcome here.

PLEASE WRITE.

Maybe life is really like that

A friend of mine used to repeat all the time, 'life is like that.' I had thought that it is up to the person in a way - even for the darkest clouds, there's a silver lining. If you catch that chance and go for the opening, you might be able to escape from the cage. Of course experience only tells me that the chance doesn't show itself as "EXIT" or "AUSGANG"; even if it does, there are usually enough hurdles in your way and the chance disappears soon enough.

Youth has an appeal. A friend told me last night, 'your niche is your youth.' I keep wondering what i means. Maybe it's because I can start the race a bit earlier, and logic tells you that in a marathon, the earlier you take the lead, the easier it is to win the game. Maybe it's because I have the energy of a young man. Maybe it means every decision I make is not laden with the same burden that an older man in the same position would. But is that true?

I'm feeling rather annoyed because every decision I make now feels a lot heavier than before. The room for change is getting reduced, and every spare day is a luxury of time. Every decision has a much stronger impact, and the pressure against change is ever greater. Lets say I plunge into the legal profession as soon as I graduate, everyone tells me I won't ever be a teacher again. If I get married to someone now, I'll have to get divorced if I want to make love to someone else legally. Is the decision worth making? I don't really like commitments.

Maybe that's what is going wrong with the society nowadays. People fear commitments. And only commitments can produce some lasting relationships between people and things. And only lasting relationships will establish a meaningful product and a continuity of traditions.

It's a vague thought and a massive generalisation. But it may be the time to take things a bit more seriously.

Teaching

We've all been taught and might have even taught others ourselves. But what exactly is teaching?

Some say teaching is about passing on knowledge, but others say it's about getting others to think in response to some sort of inspiration. The idea really is about getting the student to learn 'actively'.

I haven't tutored for three years now and I'm feeling very rusty to start again after a long break. I'm slowly getting back into it now - yes after a few rather lame and boring lessons. Teaching is meant to be interactive and I think the best teaching should be responsive to the needs of the student. Thats what I'm trying to do with my students.

When I first began teaching, I used to keep imposing my own thoughts onto my students especially when I get impatient with them. (very often I'm not very impressed by what they have to say in their writing)

But I'm making more of an effort to hold back my judgment and ask them to reflect themselves first on their own reading alound and writing, for example.

This is however nothing compared to the way the Finnish teachers apparently teach. All they do is to help the students to find the answers themselves. Their students can have their own schedules in their schooltime - any age, any level, anyone. Each student has their own agenda and quietly does their own work, at their own progress in the classroom every day. I really can't picture that in my mind.

Will write more on Finland later.

I'd better pull myself together again.

After a long break

It's been a while since I last wrote here. A few things have happened.

1. finals
2. leaving ox
3. conversion exams in HK
4. graduation trip with family in ox, london, Paris and Berlin
5. got a chance to go back to ox for the BCL
6. my little education project about HK and Finland

I've come back to HK for a week now and it's probably the first real break i've had for a rather long time. All along the last couple of years, there's been quite a lot of (very normal) pressure on me regarding studies and job-hunting. In the back of my mind I knew that there was something I had to do and time was a scarcity. I have been sleeping loads these days and am feeling lazier than ever - so sluggish that I don't want to do anything, see anyone, or even the easiest things like making calls. I'm only teaching students out of necessity, and my passivity becomes dominant again. My motivation for everything has dwindled except sports, reading and teaching perhaps. Maybe it's also because I had been alone for too long - I am finding it difficult to actually get used to the lifestyle in HK and seeing my old friends again. There are always plenty of excuses. I hope this doesn't mean i've become an irritable snob who has alienated everyone. I'm just feeling a bit weird, nothing seems to interest me at all. Everythings a spot of bother.

I should describe this syndrome as mental disorder, not very creative. I think I need a proper break away from everything. I need to get away! ARGH!

I NEED TO GET BACK MY DRIVE AND MOTIVATION.

Debating achievement

Amidst a lot of rather depressing news about the china earthquake, the burma cyclone... and the death of the little bird just hatched as the nest was blown apart, I just got some amazing news about the debating achievement of my high school team this year.

They made it to GRAND FINAL of the Singtao competition. I'm SO PROUD of them. That's such amazing achievement, and I'm so glad that their potential is being fulfilled.

Also, there is the new record of HKU English Debating Team's achievement at Worlds - they made it to Semi-finals :)

I'm really happy for you all high achievers. Though I dont think i can really achieve anything in debating lol, and the teams have moved on since i left. I should work harder.

Donation for Earthquake in China 地震捐款

Please do what you can to help the victims of the earthquake.


Online donation to Red Cross

Online Donation to Oxfam

1. By direct payment By direct payment. Please send the bank-in slip to Oxfam Hong Kong HSBC bank account: A/C : 001-537000-012 Bank of China account: A/C: 012-874-0010515-7 2. By cheque Cheque payable to “Oxfam Hong Kong” and write “Earthquake in Mainland China” at the back. To get a donation receipt for tax deduction, please mail the original bank receipt together with your name, address and telephone no. to Oxfam Hong Kong, 17/F,China United Centre, 28 Marble Road, North Point. 3. PPS payment To donate by PPS payment (applicable to Hong Kong only), please click here for more details.

Disconcerted

I've been meaning to avoid thinking but I guess the point has finally come when I just couldn't help but break out of the invisible box. The last couple of months have been a fairly routine period for me with my mind singularly focused on law, and pretty much law alone for the most part. And I could only achieve that by consigning my autonomous reasoning and free emotions to a quiet corner. Everything has been plain and ordinary, to the extent that it no longer feels plain or ordinary any more because the standard of comparison is lost.

Probably I haven't quite succeeded in dispelling the distracting summons because in the back of my mind it just cant help wandering off to some random territories.

It is this little greeny boy looking at the beautiful world. As I listened to the rustling leaves and gently blowing wind, wondered about the shining moon and my guiding stars, I realised this dream was probably coming to an end soon.



Yeah I implied that law has been a prison of thought for me in many ways, and it's not entirely negative to break free from this restrictive spell--or dream.

A teacher has given me some insight about 'burdens'. What he said precisely wasn't the point, but he led me to realise that there are three reactions to 'burden'. You are (1) unable to take the burden, or (2) unable to release the burden, or (3) about to take up the burden. 不是負擔不起, 而是這個擔子我發現自己是放不低, 唯有鍛煉身體, 撐住. 我說的是未來前景的問題.

I don't like the present me at all. After finals I'll have to reexamine myself.





thats an interesting expression.








That's the sign of life - the leaves sprung out in merely a week's time.

That's by the way the view from the window of my room. I'm very grateful that there's this endearing tree just outside.

The point of studying law

One of the jokes people here like to make about me is that I'm studying law because my surname is Law - fair enough, given Law is a rare surname for the English people.

As I've been spending the last four years studying law, and pretty much dedicated most of my time to it, I feel the need to justify the point of this endeavour - especially as that would give me an additional motivation for the coming exams.

To put it in hefty/idealistic/perhaps pretentious (to some)/natural lawyer's language, studying law isn't really about the professional career in itself; rather, it is the common good served by law. I still believe that legal training is very useful -

1. I can play a part in the legal services sector.
2. I can apply the wisdom of law across a broader range of fields in society.
3. I believe in the Rule of Law in the central sense.

Brilliant. I've become a massive geek and sounding as annoying as I can...

Other reasons: £? self-preservation? not exploitation of others...

Now back to the law.

With thoughts of different people, past memories and visions about the future.....

Should education be a privilege or a right?

This is another question that has continually reverberated in my head.

This is a very difficult question because education itself has varied meanings - for different ages, of different quality, and the provision of education requires a 'positive' act on the part of the State, meaning the State has to provide something and take action to secure this facility. And this in general involves a question of distribution of resources.

(positive obligations are contrasted with negative obligations, which merely require the State not to infringe rights, eg right to life would require the State not to impose a penalty that kills. It is generally easier to find negative obligations than positive obligations.)

I'd like to discuss this question in the context of special education and associate degrees in Hong Kong.

I read in the news that the provision of special education in English in Hong Kong is very limited, and a lot of expat families with children who have special educational needs have had to wait for at least one or two years to get a place, and many have chosen to leave Hong Kong.

We've also seen a proliferation of associate degrees in Hong Kong. And now many of them are complaining about the lack of jobs for them, and lack of recognition.

These two issues boil down to our answer to this question: are these aspects of education a matter of privilege or right? The problems have arisen primarily because there's been some confusion over this issue.

Should all children with special educational needs get special education which meets their (language) needs? Should all students who don't get admitted to university get some other form of education and qualification ie associate degrees?

My argument is that only basic education up to age 15 should be a right. Beyond that, it should be a privilege.

Firstly on the problem of associate degrees, I think the root of the problem is the lack of diversity in society. When we have a massive number of students who don't make the grades to universities, they are however not quite ready or willing to go to society. That's largely because society hasn't really developed itself to make the most of the labour resources. I believe that every individual has his own strength and weakness, and that includes the academic respect.

The whole idea of selection process for university means that there is a condition that everyone must meet before they can get a chance to go to university, and there are limited places. And I think there should indeed be limited university places, because university is for those who are suitable to receive that kind of training. What I'm saying is no more than 'some people are better at studying, some aren't as tuned in.' To allow only a small group in university is merely to acknowledge this fact.

The dilemma arises when one considers the value of educational qualifications. In my opinion, the root of the problem is the disproportionate over-valuation of educational qualifications, which arises from a distorted social structure in favour of university graduates (eg emphasis on professional qualifications). Society values university graduates more--and so much more that non-university graduates become at such a massive disadvantage that they don't get a fair go in the real world.

I'm not saying who deserves more resources in society, but I'm just pointing out the fact that it is not the idea of selection on the basis of academic merit itself that gives rise to the problem. The problem lies in the additional background fact that non-university graduates are put at a real disadvantage/have no other option.

What went wrong with the policy on associate degrees is that this merely exacerbates the problem because this drives more people in the wrong direction - a place which is simply not for them. It is very easy for the propaganda to argue by virtue of 'right to education' that there should be 'associate degrees' to cater for more people... With due respect, the right solution in my view is to develop more industries and (non-academic) options in society AND to give them the same degree of recognition as other more qualification-based jobs.

Because this has all been misdirected, we get a problem of inadequate recognition of 'qualifications' - which seem to be a paradox in itself.




As for special education, the case can be dismissed more easily. There is a central resource distribution issue. On the one hand, we can't accommodate anyone whatever their language needs. Say some family who speaks Russian can't expect HK education to provide special service for them. This is what minority groups have to suffer. On the other hand, part of the importance of social welfare is to cater for the needs of the minority, particularly 'substantial' minority groups like English expat families, given HK's colonial history. So in my view, they do have a strong case for arguing for an expansion of special education (and indeed general education) in English for this group of people.

I myself have come across some South Asians in Hong Kong which are quite a substantial minority. They are different from a lot of 'expats' in that they can't really afford the fees of international schools, but they don't speak Chinese. They are forced to go to Chinese schools and inevitably most of them underperform because of language barriers.

Well we can expect them to adapt to the Chinese way - when in Rome do as the Romans do. And indeed, a lot of British born Chinese don't expect to get education in Chinese in Britain. That's fair enough.

But the idea about it being a 'right' connotes a 'free' or relatively low-cost education. If there are not those insanely expensive international schools in HK, I'd be happier with this fact as everyone should come to accept. But when there is indeed recognition of the need for this service for English minorities in Hong Kong, I'm not happy with the fact that it is only available in private education, and if you can't pay for it, you'll have to stick with your bad luck. That's so wrong.

Education-related Blogs

Just a note to express my agreement on the overriding importance of 'blogging' - in education!

Some very interesting blogs relating to education:

What's common about them is the dedication to education.

Rural China blog

(An organisation that has been doing a lot for rural education in mainland China, with a very inspiring philosophy as well as strong commitment and dedication)

An expat educator in Hong Kong

(Paul has written many interesting articles on aspects of education that I have often neglected)

The Latest happenings in Educational Technology

(there are podcasts on some interesting discussions of use of technology in education)

Ms. Cecilia Lee

(a friend who is very enthusiastic about education)

Edublog

A community of education bloggers...

Dealing with expectations

I found myself writing this to a friend...

"we expect, and we also expect not to get what we expect. When we actually expect not to get what we expect, we do inevitably expect, in some way or the other.

But whats wrong with expecting? Even if you don't get what you expect, you do get to have the 'expectation'..."

There's one line which has affected me a lot for my entire time in oxford. That's what my cousin told me the night when I left:

'Rely only on yourself, and no one else.' I guess a mild way of putting it is 'don't expect anyone to help you'. Since then, every now and then, especially when I left the evil HK airport, I would remember this, and a twinge of pain would follow.

Life is all about expectation really - the creation of expectations (self-induced/induced by others/both) and the reaction to expectations (by yourself/by others) - in whatever area (relationships, financial matters, academic matters, emotional matters).

I've left out one possibility which is the 'absence' of expectations, which is also a massive residual group which govern a lot of our behaviour. To put it simply/metaphorically, for example, we don't expect pigs to fly, so we don't check out of the window to find a flying pig. In realistic terms, this means we don't do what is unrealistic.

But mind the 'residual' nature of 'absence' of expectations - we do have expectations most of the time, and that can be realistic or unrealistic, reasonable or unreasonable.

There are some good and bad adjectives about a person (eg greedy would tend to connote a lot of unreasonable expectations) Here we come to a different territory --> an evaluative one where we think about what our expectations SHOULD be. This is where the standard of reasonableness comes in.



So having set the ground work, what should we do to feel better in dealing with expectations?
1. have no expectation
2. get to know our expectations
3. react to our expectations properly (eg adjust our expectations internally OR take action externally to secure what we'd like to get)

It gets more complicated when there are more dimensions

4. when others induce an expectation in you?
5. when you have harboured an expectation about what others should do?

These are all questions about degree, and the equation is about a very subtle balance. Very often the balance is not struck, however, and thats why we rarely feel an optimum state.




Just to add some literary flavour, Charles Dickens has written a book about 'Great Expectations' - i probably should reread it to understand it better, but i remember reading it before coming to Ox. He explored the idea of expectations from various angles, which was very interesting, though I dont remember a thing about it now.

What I do remember now is some law relating to expectations.

The most obvious candidate is promissory estoppel/proprietary estoppel. Fun stuff because you can basically keep arguing how an expectation has turned into a legal right, in very flexible ways.

Say I promise you I'll give you all my money after I die (hypothetical), if you walk around the globe three times and you set off your lifelong journey, but I leave the lovely world before you finish the long march, and more importantly I haven't actually bequeathed/passed the money to you in my will - i've passed it to my secret lover instead.

You can probably bring a claim against my estate to claim the money in the name of 'promissory estoppel'. So be careful about what you say to others. It is ok to have expectations, but when expectations turn into something more substantial it can be a big deal.

Should we mind our own business?

The individualist:

Of course, that's the ground rule of human relationships, particularly when you're in England.

It is not right for an individual to interfere with the life of another individual. This is to respect the autonomy and privacy of another individual.

The central case of this argument could be gossip - the secret love affairs or someone's grades have nothing to do with you. Others have the right to keep whatever they like to themselves, and who the hell are you to expect me to tell you everything on my mind.

If I earn lots and buy big houses, that's how it is. Conversely, if I fuck up, I fuck up. I lead my own life; so do you.

And that's how some people experience culture shock when they ask their English friends 'how much do you earn?' or 'What do your parents do?'


Another perhaps intuitively more defensible example would be seeing your friend take drugs. Shall I stop him and give him a good lecture on the basic precepts of well being of life? Drugs are no good, my friend. Regardless of utility (as my friend might either ignore me or actually bother to pay attention), by giving advice, you're intruding into the internal sphere of someone's life. You have NO claim to impose your own values on others - within the confines of my own world, I am free to believe and think whatever, and whether you agree or disagree, my thinking should be independent of any external influence, and least by stupid morals.



The busybody/the Good Samaritan:

We are not alone in this world; we live with and for each other. Living with each other doesn't mean living separately and exclusively doing our own things. We don't live for everyone else, but there's certainly a plausible argument that we do live for people closer to us in some way, and we have some claim to others' lives.

Let's start with the stronger example as above: I'm a helpful friend and I don't want to see my friend land in drug rehabilitation centre or jail or do silly things and waste his life away. This is for sure an assertion of my own values over my friend, but that is not necessarily the same as 'imposition'. We want to help, and we don't force them to stop. We only argue for the justifiability of offering help, as opposed to doing nothing. That's a minimum intrusion in the autonomy of others because it is up to them to decide whether to take your hand. Even if it involves persuading my friend to believe in my set of values, that is still distinct from imposition because my rational friend has changed his mind after my convincing arguments, and his adoption of my set of values is an act of his free will. And that degree of influence is acceptable.


Now that's the superficial bit. But if we think a bit more deeply, what does 'help' actually entail?

There are always people less lucky than you - people who don't survive wars, people who starve, people who have lost their loved ones, people who have no money, and people who have been blighted by the recent snowstorm in china...and countless examples of people who 'need' your help.

To go to a different level, there can also be a 'people' eg the Albanians in Kosovo who 'need' international humanitarian intervention on the brink of severe human oppression. We've seen (arguably) successful examples of UN intervention eg in El Salvador, maybe Bosnia...

There's always so much one could do, but why should one intervene? Are we doing it out of concern for well being of others? Is that merely a matter of principle regardless of the actual effect? Or is that a pragmatic choice - if half of the money is going to be wasted by useless NGOs, why bother donating money?

And even if we come down to a statement of principle, is that concern really justified? There are a couple of fundamental assumptions in the argument for intervention:
1. we should do what is better.
2. what we advocate is better than the status quo.

I talked about universality of human rights with a friend before, and yes indeed that's part of the debate. How far does one set of values apply? Does it apply across the board? Does it apply only in a small cross-section of society? Or does it only apply to you yourself?

Is that what a culture/society is about - an environment in which people can share the same set of values?

Let's say, we all think killing is evil, and execution is a bad idea. Any state that still practises execution should be universally condemned, not least by Amnesty International.

But who is to judge which is better? And is it actually practicable to change anything? Sending a few boxes of aid to the children in Somalia will probably give them good food for a few weeks, and what's left next? Teaching rural children for two weeks will leave them with some arguably fresh input, but they still never manage to leave the village to get to a decent university and do what 'we consider to be decent education'.

So why the bother. Mind your own business, ladies and gentlemen.

Breakthrough

Very pleased :) finally won a game against this thinking machine.

If you like a game yourself, go to

http://turbulence.org/spotlight/thinking/chess.html




These days haven't really updated much mainly because of the engulfing nature of the legal beast. I wish there was some similar breakthrough with my revision - now it's April, and only 7 and a half weeks to finals. It will all be over very soon - that's three years...

I hope my friend can get through this challenge as well. may the force be with you.

THE LAKE DISTRICT

Grasmere lake




























































































A wonderful place

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.