2011年1月25日 星期二

Derek Bok: The Official Pursuit of Happiness

我們的快樂與政治有何關係?如有興趣,各位可看下面這篇哈佛大學校長的文章。我以前曾有類似網誌,談及GNH(gross national happiness)及「時間貧窮」,可見:http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/our_wch/article?mid=5919

The Official Pursuit of Happiness

Derek Bok


CAMBRIDGE – In a time of tight budgets and financial crisis, politicians nowadays look to economic growth as the centerpiece of their domestic policy programs. Gross domestic product is taken to be the leading indicator of national well-being. But, as we look ahead to 2011 and beyond, we should ask ourselves: is it really wise to accord such importance to growth?

Granted, many studies have confirmed that wealthier nations tend to be happier than poor ones, and that rich people are generally more satisfied than their less affluent fellow citizens. Yet other findings from several relatively well-to-do countries, such as South Korea and the United States, suggest that people there are essentially no happier today than they were 50 years ago, despite a doubling or quadrupling of average per capita income.

Moreover, in a recent Canadian study, the happiest people turned out to reside in the poorest provinces, such as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, while citizens in the richest provinces, notably Ontario and British Columbia, were among the least happy. Since happiness is ultimately what people want the most, while wealth is only a means to that end, the primacy now accorded to economic growth would appear to be a mistake.

What seems clear from such research is that people do quite poorly at predicting what will make them happy or sad. They focus too much on their initial responses to changes in their lives and overlook how quickly the pleasure of a new car, a pay increase, or a move to sunnier climes will fade, leaving them no happier than before. It is hazardous, therefore, for politicians simply to rely on opinion polls and focus groups to discover what will truly enhance people’s happiness.

In the findings to date, however, two conclusions have emerged that seem especially useful for policymakers to ponder. First, most of the things that do bring enduring satisfaction for individuals are also good for other people – strong marriages and close relationships of all kinds, helping others, engaging in civic affairs, and effective, honest, democratic government. Thus, policies that promote individual well-being tend to benefit society as well.

Second, experiences that bring lasting pleasure or unhappiness do not always command a high priority in government circles. For example, three medical afflictions that create especially acute and enduring distress – clinical depression, chronic pain, and sleep disorders – are all conditions that can often be treated successfully, to the vast relief of sufferers. But such people are frequently underserved by health-care systems.

The natural response to all this is to ask whether happiness research is really reliable enough to be used by policymakers. Researchers have paid close attention to this issue, and, after much testing, have found that the answers people give to questions about their well-being seem to correspond fairly well to more objective evidence.

People who claim to be happy tend to live longer, commit suicide and abuse drugs and alcohol less often, get promoted more frequently by their employers, and enjoy more good friends and lasting marriages. Their assessments of their own well-being also align quite closely with the opinions of friends and family members.

So, overall, statistics about happiness seem to be as accurate as many of the statistics regularly used by politicians, such as public-opinion polls, poverty rates, or, for that matter, GDP growth – all of which are riddled with imperfections.

Of course, happiness research is still new. Many questions remain unexplored, some studies lack sufficient confirmatory evidence, and still others, like those involving the effects of economic growth, have yielded conflicting results.

Thus, it would be premature to base bold new policies on happiness research alone, or to follow the example of tiny Bhutan by adopting Gross National Happiness as the nation’s principal goal. Yet the findings may be useful to lawmakers even today – for example, in assigning priorities among several plausible initiatives, or in identifying new possibilities for policy interventions that deserve further study.

At the very least, governments should follow Great Britain and France and consider publishing regular statistics on trends in the well-being of their citizens. Such findings will surely stimulate useful public discussion while yielding valuable data for investigators to use.

Beyond that, who knows? Further research will doubtless provide more detailed and reliable information about the kinds of policies that add to people’s happiness. Someday, perhaps, public officials may even use the research to inform their decisions. After all, what could matter more to their constituents than happiness? In a democracy, at least, that should surely count for something.

Derek Bok, President of Harvard University from 1971-1991 and from 2006-2007, is the author of The Politics of Happiness (Princeton University Press, 2010).

Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences, 2011.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bok1/English


2011年1月20日 星期四

2011年1月19日 星期三

雅濤閣派利是封和揮春

年尾是我做「禮物先生」的時候,今晚派利是封、揮春等禮物派到雅濤閣了,哈哈:


2011年1月17日 星期一

香港仔寫揮春 Calligraphy for Lunar New Year

昨天我們繼續派發揮春及財神掛曆,這次是到香港仔中心。

We went to Aberdeen to  write calligraphy for the coming Lunar New Year yesterday.




2011年1月13日 星期四

黃竹坑寫揮春 Calligraphy for Lunar New Year

又快到農曆新年了,新年前我們當然一如以往,應一應節,邀請了我很尊敬的前立法會議員楊森博士,也是我的前老細,為街坊寫揮春。昨天上午還下了雨,可謂是天寒地凍,我本以為晚上繼續下雨的話,活動會被逼取消,也算是幸運吧,下午停了雨,晚上雖然還是很冷(今年是楊博士寫了這麼多年最冷的一次!),但我們還是一如計劃,外出派發揮春和財神。

以前的新年活動,可見:http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/our_wch/searchblog_art?p=%E6%8F%AE%E6%98%A5&my=1

Though it was very cold, we'd invited Dr Yeung Sum went out to write calligraphy for the Lunar New Year, it's a traditional way to celebrate the lunar new year.

Ref: http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/our_wch/searchblog_art?p=%E6%8F%AE%E6%98%A5&my=1



2011年1月11日 星期二

轉載:孩子,這是你的罪孽和福祉

近期不只是司徒華華叔逝世,而且還有一位我喜歡的散文作家史鐵生在2010年最後一日逝世了。我中學時在網上讀到史先生的名作《我與地壇》,他的文字是那麼平易,心態又是那麼平和,他的真情實感讓我覺得他是一位活生生的人在喃喃自語,藉文字與讀者分享對命運和生死的種種體會。他對生命的感悟令我深受感動,而以前,只有深郁乃至激越的文字和激情才能擊起我的共鳴。現在看來,這種個人品味的轉變是自我成長非常重要的階段。

New Express Daily 
A43  |   一周網論  |   By 羽戈
2011-01-08
Highlight Keywords
Highlight keyword(s) and click to start search

史鐵生:“孩子,這是你的罪孽和福祉”

  F一周焦點

  ■ 羽戈

  死神沒有節假日,不只聖誕節和新年,它連一年的最後一個日子都不願休憩,放手讓世界平安滑翔。2010年12月31日,史鐵生先生溘然長逝,同行者還有我的一位詩人兄長。

  如果說兄長的死,像一把冰刀,刺穿我倦怠的靈魂,讓我重新領略什麼叫勇氣,什麼叫恥辱;那麼史鐵生的死,猶如時光傳輸帶,突然停滯了,我被迫留在中山西路的拐點,任萬物掠過,任繁華飛馳,我的記憶,我的精神,卻一步步後退,退到地壇一角,一個殘缺的身影之側,在他身後,則是一個時代的寂寞縮影。

  網言

  文學之光來自日常生活下面

  騰訊網友:史鐵生的作品幫助我在大學時代慢慢理解了文字和文學的區別,讓我逐漸體悟到文學之光究竟來自何處:不是來自日常生活的表面,而是來自日常生活的下面。

  苦難時代史鐵生會愈加沉重

  騰訊網友:在輕閱讀流行的年代,史鐵生注定是一位暢銷不起來的作家,即便在他最具盛名的年代,他也從未走上最受關注作家的行列,這是因為,在苦難的時代讀史鐵生會愈加沉重,在泛娛樂的時代讀史鐵生是自討苦吃。

  分析

  已回不去的地壇

  這也許構成了一代人共同的閱讀經驗:在那個青黃不接的迷惘年頭,誰知道是怎樣的鬼使神差呢,讓我們貧乏的眼睛遭遇了史鐵生的散文《我與地壇》。

  我是在一本散文選里讀到它,第一感覺是,真長。後來才曉得,那只是節選,只是一場花開的一個時分,就像作者的生命,充滿了無限的殘缺。然而,這殘缺的軀體內部則是一種靈魂的完滿,這遍佈省略號的選本仍能令一個讀者飢渴的心魂如受電擊。

  此前,我所讀到的有營養(這是彼時很流行的一個詞,似乎每一本書都是一個麵包,一塊肥豬肉,一瓶補腦液)的散文,唯有魯迅之作———我的啟蒙讀物,是魯迅文集與尼采的《查拉圖斯特拉如是說》,後者的文體,與其說像散文,倒不如說是福音書,那一口聖人不仁的語氣,則與文學無涉。

  魯迅最好的散文,一是《野草》,二是寫故鄉生活的系列:對於前者,剛發蒙的我明知其好,卻說不出所以然;對於後者,哪怕有千般的好,都被初高中語文老師的僵化教育壓榨成一杯乏味的苦水。

  所幸,我在高二那年讀到了《我與地壇》。比郭敬明還要瘦小的馬姓同學把那本淺灰色封面的散文選借給我一周,交換條件是期中英語考試我幫他作弊。不曾想,那本書在我的枕頭邊躺了近一年,因為一周後,我對馬同學說,書里有一段話,你在下面畫了紅線,我也很喜歡,然後便將此段文字背誦下來:

  “但是太陽,他每時每刻都是夕陽也都是旭日。當他熄滅著走下山去收盡蒼涼殘照之際,正是他在另一面燃燒著爬上山巔布散烈烈朝輝之時。有一天,我也將沉靜著走下山去,扶著我的拐杖。那一天,在某一處山窪里,勢必會跑上來一個歡蹦的孩子,抱著他的玩具。”

  馬同學很感動,答應我可以無限期借閱此書。他說,恁多篇目,他不曉得史鐵生《我與地壇》到底好在哪裡,只覺它與眾不同。

  現在來看,上一段引文並無出奇之處,甚至還不如結尾一句剛烈、決絕,如尼采筆下的箴言:“宇宙以其不息的慾望將一個歌舞煉為永恒。這慾望有怎樣一個人間的姓名,大可忽略不計。”但將其置入《我與地壇》之全文,與世界孤獨的對話,或者說喃喃私語的盡頭,呈現了作者對待殘缺的生命的鮮明態度———我當時想到的用以形容閱讀快感的語詞,其實並不怎麼恰當:絢爛。人們常說,絢爛之極,歸於平淡;殊不知,平淡之極,則是一種繁花怒放的絢爛。

  史鐵生的文學成績,絕不限于《我與地壇》,絕不限于散文,他的小說有一種散文所缺乏的和煦之美,似春日午後的陽光,他的散文同樣如太陽迸發,卻是冬季的中原,那種冷冽乃至蒼白的陽光,打在臉上,令人焦灼。

  然而,對我而言,《我與地壇》就是我心中的作家史鐵生的全部,“但是太陽……”就是我與文學青年們的接頭暗號。與此相應的一個案例,是一些迷阿城《棋王》的人,相認的暗語是小說主角腳卵的那句感慨:“蠻好,蠻好,你的棋蠻好。”

  我對地壇的記憶,並非因為它是皇家的祭壇,民間的廟會,而僅僅源於史鐵生的長篇散文。不妨說,我眼中的地壇,就是史鐵生所寫的地壇。沒有史鐵生的地壇,則輕不過一本陳舊的散文選。

  史鐵生的家人深知地壇對於史鐵生的意義,所以他們想把作家的骨灰播撒在地壇,卻遭拒絕。遠離了作為生之家園、死之歸宿的地壇,不知史鐵生的靈魂將飄向何方?

  中國式救贖書寫

  也許,在所有作家當中,史鐵生談論生死最多,卻將生死看得最淡。

  “死是一件無須著急去做的事,是一件無論怎樣耽擱也不會錯過了的事,一個必然會降臨的節日。”早在寫作《我與地壇》之時,他就參透了死之涵義,後來所作《說死說活》,論述“唯有生,可使死得以傳聞,可使死成為消息”,更像是《我與地壇》的一個注腳。能寫出《我與地壇》,即是史鐵生對生之意義的最佳詮釋。

  對暴死的恐懼,是死神壓在世人頭頂的最大威脅。祛除了這種恐懼,你就可以陪死神喝酒下棋。如果相信有來世,有天國的召喚,死亡則不足以令人恐懼,反倒是一種超脫。此中路徑,叫信仰,或謂救贖。寫作,只是救贖的外形。

  我不知史鐵生是否為基督徒。毋庸置疑的是,史鐵生和北村的作品,都具有濃重的基督教色彩。相比之下,後者狂亂,前者溫情。這種溫情的書寫,也許取決于他對存在的追索,他的信仰的終極方向,他的神、他的國並不在天上,而在人間;救贖不是朝向彼岸,而是捍衛此岸的意義。

  在一個無神論的國度,救贖何其艱難。因為始終缺乏一種超驗的緯度提升世俗的欠然,缺乏一種高貴的神性彌補人性的幽暗。中國知識人的救贖書寫,立足點並不是對神的呼告與吁求,而是對神所拋棄的此岸的追問與悲憫。由此而言,史鐵生的上帝,的確不能等同于諸多基督徒的上帝:“上帝不許諾光榮與福樂,但上帝保佑你的希望。人不可以逃避苦難,亦不可以放棄希望———恰是在這樣的意義上,上帝存在。命運並不受賄,但希望與你同在,這才是信仰的真意,是信者的路。”

  史鐵生這樣的信者,終究寥寥。另有一些信者,企圖超越民族倫理,追尋普世的上帝之光。還有一些信者,如史鐵生的好友劉小楓,則從個體的救贖,轉向國家政治建設,論朝鮮戰爭,談大國崛起,卻不知“龍戰于野,其血玄黃”的吶喊,能否為當年的命題“拯救與逍遙”開出一個心安的解答?

  這是你的罪孽和福祉

  史鐵生曾自嘲“職業是生病”,在他受病魔糾纏最殘酷的時刻,每天只能寫幾行字,就這樣,他寫出了《病隙筆記》。假如他健康如常人,可否創造更具重量的作品呢?自然,某些人要說,正是基於身體的殘缺,他窺見了生命的圓滿。正如《我與地壇》所言:“……孩子,這不是別的,這是你的罪孽和福祉。”

  但是,無論如何,有一個好身體,才是沉思、書寫的根本。史鐵生哀悼路遙42歲就絕塵而去,寫作是一種病,路遙是被過度寫作寫死了。至於史鐵生自身,同樣未活到60歲。這不能不說是一大悲劇。

  所以,在祝福史鐵生靈魂安息的同時,祝願在世者,身體是革命的本錢,也是反革命的本錢,至少,它是寫作的本錢。


2011年1月10日 星期一

愛書才會羸  Book Donation

多謝街坊繼續捐書給我們!從第三張照片可見,我們可說是快要書滿為患了,所以要再請救世軍來我辦事處收一些書才行。不過我當然還是歡迎大家繼續捐贈書籍給我們,一來可以增加我這個社區圖書館館藏,也可轉贈給其他有需要的居民,方便又環保。

第一二張照片可見書籍收拾得很整齊,這要非常感謝一位居民朋友不僅收拾得很整齊,更幫我們整理了一份捐贈書單(稍後我可以放上來,方便有興趣的朋友索閱或交換)。

賣個小小廣告:我辦事處的社區書館可是南區第一間呢,現在南區好像已有七或八間社區圖書館了。可見:http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/our_wch/searchblog_art?p=%E6%9B%B8&my=1

Thanks to resident for their book donation to the community library in my office! I get more and more donation so need to re-donated some of them to the Salvation Army. Ref: http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/our_wch/searchblog_art?p=%E6%9B%B8&my=1





2011年1月6日 星期四

Stiglitz: New Year’s Hope against Hope

I share with you the following essay by a Nobel laureate. It'll be interesting and inspiring to listen to more economists who are not in the free-market main stream, we have heard too much of the later in HK. 

New Year’s Hope against Hope

Joseph E. Stiglitz


NEW YORK – The time has come for New Year’s resolutions, a moment of reflection. When the last year hasn’t gone so well, it is a time for hope that the next year will be better.

For Europe and the United States, 2010 was a year of disappointment. It’s been three years since the bubble broke, and more than two since Lehman Brothers’ collapse. In 2009, we were pulled back from the brink of depression, and 2010 was supposed to be the year of transition: as the economy got back on its feet, stimulus spending could smoothly be brought down.

Growth, it was thought, might slow slightly in 2011, but it would be a minor bump on the way to robust recovery. We could then look back at the Great Recession as a bad dream; the market economy – supported by prudent government action – would have shown its resilience.

In fact, 2010 was a nightmare. The crises in Ireland and Greece called into question the euro’s viability and raised the prospect of a debt default. On both sides of the Atlantic, unemployment remained stubbornly high, at around 10%. Even though 10% of US households with mortgages had already lost their homes, the pace of foreclosures appeared to be increasing – or would have, were it not for legal snafus that raised doubts about America’s vaunted “rule of law.”

Unfortunately, the New Year’s resolutions made in Europe and America were the wrong ones. The response to the private-sector failures and profligacy that had caused the crisis was to demand public-sector austerity! The consequence will almost surely be a slower recovery and an even longer delay before unemployment falls to acceptable levels.

There will also be a decline in competitiveness. While China has kept its economy going by making investments in education, technology, and infrastructure, Europe and America have been cutting back.

It has become fashionable among politicians to preach the virtues of pain and suffering, no doubt because those bearing the brunt of it are those with little voice – the poor and future generations. To get the economy going, some people will, in fact, have to bear some pain, but the increasingly skewed income distribution gives clear guidance to whom this should be: Approximately a quarter of all income in the US now goes to the top 1%, while most Americans’ income is lower today than it was a dozen years ago. Simply put, most Americans didn’t share in what many called the Great Moderation, but was really the Mother of All Bubbles. So, should innocent victims and those who gained nothing from fake prosperity really be made to pay even more?

Europe and America have the same talented people, the same resources, and the same capital that they had before the recession. They may have overvalued some of these assets; but the assets are, by and large, still there. Private financial markets misallocated capital on a massive scale in the years before the crisis, and the waste resulting from underutilization of resources has been even greater since the crisis began. The question is, how do we get these resources back to work?

Debt restructuring – writing down the debts of homeowners and, in some cases, governments – will be key. It will eventually happen. But delay is verycostly – and largely unnecessary.

Banks never wanted to admit to their bad loans, and now they don’t want to recognize the losses, at least not until they can adequately recapitalize themselves through their trading profits and the large spread between their high lending rates and rock-bottom borrowing costs. The financial sector will press governments to ensure full repayment, even when it leads to massive social waste, huge unemployment, and high social distress – and even when it is a consequence of their own mistakes in lending. 

But, as we know from experience, there is life after debt restructuring. No one would wish the trauma that Argentina went through in 1999-2002 on any other country. But the country also suffered in the years before the crisis – years of IMF bailouts and austerity –from high unemployment and poverty rates and low and negative growth.

Since the debt restructuring and currency devaluation, Argentina has had years of extraordinarily rapid GDP growth, with the annual rate averaging nearly 9% from 2003 to 2007. By 2009, national income was twice what it was at the nadir of the crisis, in 2002, and more than 75% above its pre-crisis peak.

Likewise, Argentina’s poverty rate has fallen by some three-quarters from its crisis peak, and the country weathered the global financial crisis far better than the US did –unemployment is high, but still only around 8%. We could only conjecture what would have happened if it had not postponed the day of reckoning for so long – or if it had tried to put it off further.

So this is my hope for the New Year: we stop paying attention to the so-called financial wizards who got us into this mess – and who are now calling for austerity and delayed restructuring – and start using a little common sense. If there is pain to be borne, the brunt of it should be felt by those responsible for the crisis, and those who benefited most from the bubble that preceded it.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in Economics. His latest book, Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy, is available in French, German, Japanese, and Spanish.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz134/English


2011年1月5日 星期三

新年禮物:107加密班次及爭取通宵小巴 Rt.107 Bus Service and Minibus Service

72A及75巴士近期脫班情況稍有改善,但我仍偶爾會收到居民相關投訴,希望脫班問題不會因我們近期給署方及巴士公司很大壓力才有改善,因為經驗告訴我,再過一段時間,如果給他們的壓力小了,問題就會死灰重燃,故我還需努才跟進才是。

另加一份小小新年禮物:107加密班次。詳情請見單張及下圖我在紅磡展開南區巴士班次調查。雖然只是增加一班車,但對於疏導繁忙時段的乘客相信應有幫助,起碼能改善很多居民因107巴士滿客而「望車興歎」的問題。我在大的節假日總能為居民爭取一些改善項目(可見:http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/our_wch/searchblog_art?p=%E7%A6%AE%E7%89%A9&my=1),所謂禮輕情義重,希望大家能看到我的心意。

另,我會繼續爭取通宵小巴:這是上次選舉時本已可成功爭取的項目,但小道消息指當年有政黨認為如果讓「徐遠華成功爭取則會幫他勝出選舉」,故反對方案;而署方給出的官方原因則是人口太少。我想兩項因素並存吧,但熟悉我的人會知道,我可不是輕言放棄的人。

The Rt.107 bus service will be improved by increasing frequency in morning and afternoon peak hour, because there are more and more people working in Kowloon Bay, where more offices are moving in because the area is changing into a new commercial area. The improvement will be implemented this month, but I still don't know the exact date yet. This is my little new year present to you.(See: http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/our_wch/searchblog_art?p=%E7%A6%AE%E7%89%A9&my=1)

And I've working to fight for the minibus service from Causeway Bay to Shum Wan. I made two suggestions for the TD, one is to have new minibus route to serve Shum Wan, and the other is to extend the existing service of N4C to via Shum Wan. A lot of work need to make it come ture, but I will work hard for it.