Should I call you smart or stupid? You've left me speechless this time.
So Hu Jia was arrested on Dec. 27, 2007, as the world learned immediately via the media. Some called you smart, since that date coincided with Benazir Bhutto's assassination, when everybody looked to Pakistan, shocked. But that sounds to me like a real big exaggeration of your intelligence, and prescience, because the arrest actually took place hours before the assassination.
And Jinyan's MSN Space has stopped updating, making me really concerned about her and their newborn baby. Her other blog, supposedly a mirror image of her MSN Space, keeps updating, yet it's not her style anymore. Apparently some colleague has taken over.
Assuming one of your big aims of hosting this Olympics is to boost your, no, our image around the world, just don't do this anymore. Whatever has been achieved is offset by this matter. You are not just offering ammunition to those who crave to denigrate you, but also hurting the feelings of all the kind-hearted people who cares deeply about human dignity, and justice. And you know what, it will cost you many times more efforts to erase it from people's memories than to commit this violation, and it will be talked over and over and over again, with disgust, like what appears in today's New York Times.
So stop shooting yourself on the foot, because in my dictionary, that's called stupid, super.
On top of all that, I, for one, will hold you responsible should anything happen to my classmate and the baby.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Reaction to Kristof
Target article: Nicholas Kristof's Thursday column on the New York Times, Jan 24, 2008.
My comment can also be found on his blog.
Mr. Kristof invites readers to offer suggestions on how to alleviate the Darfur situation; yet it now increasingly resembles a well-crafted field research of free-flowing public opinion. Subjects under discussion cover a vast ground of international affairs, and controversies seem endless.
It is overwhelming to read all the comments before offering my own. To sum up, some posts are governed by clear logic and relatively accurate knowledge, of which some are even brilliant (such as #115 by Damien); while many posts are simply reflections of deep-seated biases and misunderstandings. Most Chinese readers are shocked, sickened or saddened by this notion of "Genocide Olympics", even though it's not the brainchild of Mr. Kristof. Opinions from those whose names and writing styles are more suggestive of an American background seem more diverse and well-reasoned. But be cautious before you conclude that Americans are more sophisticated than the Chinese. Many Chinese, even those who have the guts to voice their opinions on this website are not particularly well-versed in English. This is not a level playing ground -- Americans are at enormous advantage here, which you may never realize until someday you have the luxury of debating in a foreign language with some native speaker on a complicated issue like this. A fair-minded debater should restrain her sense of superiority boosted by the rhetoric advantage.
Back to the issue itself. Regrettably, although this highly sensational notion of "Genocide Olympics" has been advanced for more than a year now, I still find very few hard facts that establish the link between China and Genocide on solid grounds. To say that buying oil is supporting genocide is ridiculous, particularly when China's whole economic security is hinged on oil supply. Domestic economy is indisputably the top priority of any government on earth. China's stop buying Sudanese oil will be catastrophic at best and suicidal at worst [unsubstantiated claim that needs further research], while killings in Sudan would very probably just keep going, perhaps carried out with more primitive tools. Killings are caused by hatred, not some reasons you wishfully assign to be. Most arguments, including those presented by Mr. Kristof here, are stretched, hollow and hearsay-based.
American are sometimes so paranoid with China's growth figures that they fail to appreciate the myriads of internal priorities of China per se. They seldom realize that China could be led into crisis if things were even slightly mishandled. Premier Wen Jiabao's repeated statement that "we are overwhelmingly preoccupied by our domestic affairs" is not an excuse or pretense; it is the real situation. People in the developed world may never fully realized how stringent the constraints are for developing countries.
Many solid counter-arguments have been made and I shall not repeat here.
For those who play on this notion that "Mr. Kristof has a Chinese wife", a caution is that Sheryl WuDunn is a third generation Chinese American, not the stereotypical "Chinese wife" like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. In terms of emotional bond and vested interest, Ms. WuDunn herself is perhaps many times more American than Chinese, forgive me for this bold guess.
I do not intend to challenge Mr. Kristof's knowledge about China since he has been to every province of China, whereas I have only been to less than one third of all Chinese provinces. Yet I do believe that Mr. Kristof's motion here is unwise. This notion is deeply offensive, ill-conceived and misleading, and will undoubtedly hurt the Chinese people's goodwill and alienating them.
Any provocative notion has to be backed by serious research and comprehensive scholarship, which is acutely insufficient in this whole heated debate.
— Posted by Lawrence Zhang
My comment can also be found on his blog.
135.
Mr. Kristof invites readers to offer suggestions on how to alleviate the Darfur situation; yet it now increasingly resembles a well-crafted field research of free-flowing public opinion. Subjects under discussion cover a vast ground of international affairs, and controversies seem endless.
It is overwhelming to read all the comments before offering my own. To sum up, some posts are governed by clear logic and relatively accurate knowledge, of which some are even brilliant (such as #115 by Damien); while many posts are simply reflections of deep-seated biases and misunderstandings. Most Chinese readers are shocked, sickened or saddened by this notion of "Genocide Olympics", even though it's not the brainchild of Mr. Kristof. Opinions from those whose names and writing styles are more suggestive of an American background seem more diverse and well-reasoned. But be cautious before you conclude that Americans are more sophisticated than the Chinese. Many Chinese, even those who have the guts to voice their opinions on this website are not particularly well-versed in English. This is not a level playing ground -- Americans are at enormous advantage here, which you may never realize until someday you have the luxury of debating in a foreign language with some native speaker on a complicated issue like this. A fair-minded debater should restrain her sense of superiority boosted by the rhetoric advantage.
Back to the issue itself. Regrettably, although this highly sensational notion of "Genocide Olympics" has been advanced for more than a year now, I still find very few hard facts that establish the link between China and Genocide on solid grounds. To say that buying oil is supporting genocide is ridiculous, particularly when China's whole economic security is hinged on oil supply. Domestic economy is indisputably the top priority of any government on earth. China's stop buying Sudanese oil will be catastrophic at best and suicidal at worst [unsubstantiated claim that needs further research], while killings in Sudan would very probably just keep going, perhaps carried out with more primitive tools. Killings are caused by hatred, not some reasons you wishfully assign to be. Most arguments, including those presented by Mr. Kristof here, are stretched, hollow and hearsay-based.
American are sometimes so paranoid with China's growth figures that they fail to appreciate the myriads of internal priorities of China per se. They seldom realize that China could be led into crisis if things were even slightly mishandled. Premier Wen Jiabao's repeated statement that "we are overwhelmingly preoccupied by our domestic affairs" is not an excuse or pretense; it is the real situation. People in the developed world may never fully realized how stringent the constraints are for developing countries.
Many solid counter-arguments have been made and I shall not repeat here.
For those who play on this notion that "Mr. Kristof has a Chinese wife", a caution is that Sheryl WuDunn is a third generation Chinese American, not the stereotypical "Chinese wife" like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. In terms of emotional bond and vested interest, Ms. WuDunn herself is perhaps many times more American than Chinese, forgive me for this bold guess.
I do not intend to challenge Mr. Kristof's knowledge about China since he has been to every province of China, whereas I have only been to less than one third of all Chinese provinces. Yet I do believe that Mr. Kristof's motion here is unwise. This notion is deeply offensive, ill-conceived and misleading, and will undoubtedly hurt the Chinese people's goodwill and alienating them.
Any provocative notion has to be backed by serious research and comprehensive scholarship, which is acutely insufficient in this whole heated debate.
— Posted by Lawrence Zhang
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Perfect Day
By Lou Reed, originally featured in the 1972 album Transformer.
Just a perfect day
Drink sangria in the park
And then later, when it gets dark, we'll go home
Just a perfect day
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later a movie too, and then home
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
Just a perfect day
Problems all left alone
Weekenders on our own
It's such fun
Just a perfect day
You make me forget myself
I thought I was someone else
Someone good
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
Just a perfect day
Drink sangria in the park
And then later, when it gets dark, we'll go home
Just a perfect day
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later a movie too, and then home
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
Just a perfect day
Problems all left alone
Weekenders on our own
It's such fun
Just a perfect day
You make me forget myself
I thought I was someone else
Someone good
Oh it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
Friday, January 18, 2008
Gordon Brown and Wen Jiabao made joint appearance at Renmin University
Friday, January 18, 2008. During his State Visit to China, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to Renmin University of China with Premier Wen Jiabao to talk with Chinese and British citizens.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
George Loewenstein is fantastic
I'm taking George Loewenstein's Behavioral Economics seminar this semester. George is really fantastic, not just an outstanding researcher, but a great teacher -- although he seems quite modest about his teaching abilities. Talking about the tenure system of American universities that put overwhelming emphasis on publishing research papers, he said something like "If you are good at teaching, that could be a curse, because when you are best at doing something, even just marginally better than doing anything else, you tend to do it more and more, and getting rewards intrinsically." This is not nearly well-versed as his original sentence. I like these casual and witty remarks.
It's been a long time since I learned so much from a single lecture -- and this is just the beginning of an exciting adventure!
At the end of this seminar I wish I would become so familiar with George that I can finally ask: Are you really the grandson of Sigmund Freud? Although several credible sources confirmed that, I'm still a skeptic. Although it's not unusual to meet great thinkers in leading American institutions, they are all living people, and Freud sounds...really distant and awesome. Not sure how that sort of awe got imprinted in my head.
Will post a paragraph from Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759), which George dug out to show how behavioral economics actually started from Smith.
It's been a long time since I learned so much from a single lecture -- and this is just the beginning of an exciting adventure!
At the end of this seminar I wish I would become so familiar with George that I can finally ask: Are you really the grandson of Sigmund Freud? Although several credible sources confirmed that, I'm still a skeptic. Although it's not unusual to meet great thinkers in leading American institutions, they are all living people, and Freud sounds...really distant and awesome. Not sure how that sort of awe got imprinted in my head.
Will post a paragraph from Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759), which George dug out to show how behavioral economics actually started from Smith.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
James Fallows: The $1.4 Trillion Question
Another stunningly insightful and well-written article by James Fallows:
The $1.4 Trillion Question, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2008.
The excitement I had when first read his article "China makes, the world takes" (The Atlantic Monthly, Jul/Aug 2007) last October is still vivid. The "Trillion Question" article tackles an entirely different question, yet as significant if not more. I recommend it for several reasons:
First, Fallows has an outstanding ability of explaining economic problems in plain, easy-to-access language. In response to my (unusually) harsh criticism of "Currency Wars" (货币战争), a demagogic, charlatan work that ascended to the best-seller throne in China, some readers on Douban rebuked me by saying that "If you think this is rubbish, then provide us with a better story of your own; otherwise shut up". Well I am certainly not taken back by such bitter and unreasonable (just think about the good film critics who do not make films themselves) rebuttal, but I do realize the necessity of at least introducing some authors whose works I resonate with. Though not an economist himself, Fallows did study economics in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. I know this is a repetition of his background, just to help the readers come up with some reasonable guess of his credibility.
Second, beyond the scope of his specific articles, I see a person with an admirable attitude toward international affairs, an attitude that I believe represents the essence of the American spirit. An attitude that is at the same time fair, open and objective, as well as empathetic, passionate and patriotic. Fallows' writings are free of the ideological biases typical of many American reporters in China, yet I can still sense his strong conviction in the best part of American values: liberty, equality, democracy and so on; as well as his readiness to defend and preserve these values.
Third, the role played by the likes of Fallows. I think he certainly goes beyond the conventional limitations of a journalist. How to precisely define his occupation? An appropriate counterpart in the Chinese vocabulary might be "writer", but that word is too prosaic for someone like him. After all, there is not too much utility in defining him precisely. What's the use of defining Walter Lippmann, or Bob Woodward? The most innovative persons always defy any ready-to-fit frames. There is no doubt that Fallows himself is part of the elite core of the U.S. That status grants him the opportunities (though probably not as abundant as those of John Thornton) of directly talking to many key decision makers in the government and corporations, a privilege that even a Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter (such as Joseph Kahn) may not enjoy; yet his official occupation as a reporter allows him to live and travel freely in China, as just another normal foreigner, without invoking too much attention. That combination of freedom and celebrity is simply marvelous.
Back to the issue -- China's gigantic and ever-growing foreign exchange reserve -- Fallows dug into that question in depth, from an American perspective, and I'll leave it to you to judge. The article alerts me to the seriousness of this question -- that is, a precarious balance, or "the balance of financial terror" between the US and China, in Lawrence Summer's words as cited. I was astonished that elite Americans see this balance as worrisome as the "nuclear balance" during the Cold War, and the logic behind such concerns seems sound to me. I want to highlight the closing remarks of Fallows and put my own question and uncertainty on the table:
"Years ago, the Chinese might have averted today’s pressures by choosing a slower and more balanced approach to growth. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they would in fact choose just the same path—they have gained so much, including the assets they can use to do what they have left undone, whenever the government chooses to spend them. The same is not true, I suspect, for the United States, which might have chosen a very different path: less reliance on China’s subsidies, more reliance on paying as we go. But it’s a little late for those thoughts now. What’s left is to prepare for what we find at the end of the path we have taken."
My question is: Could the United States really have chosen differently? What could the alternatives be?
P.S. I updated one link on my homepage: China in the American Eyes (美眼看中国). As you'll find, I've been very selective. Interestingly, all three articles I chose came from bi-monthly journals.
The $1.4 Trillion Question, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2008.
The excitement I had when first read his article "China makes, the world takes" (The Atlantic Monthly, Jul/Aug 2007) last October is still vivid. The "Trillion Question" article tackles an entirely different question, yet as significant if not more. I recommend it for several reasons:
First, Fallows has an outstanding ability of explaining economic problems in plain, easy-to-access language. In response to my (unusually) harsh criticism of "Currency Wars" (货币战争), a demagogic, charlatan work that ascended to the best-seller throne in China, some readers on Douban rebuked me by saying that "If you think this is rubbish, then provide us with a better story of your own; otherwise shut up". Well I am certainly not taken back by such bitter and unreasonable (just think about the good film critics who do not make films themselves) rebuttal, but I do realize the necessity of at least introducing some authors whose works I resonate with. Though not an economist himself, Fallows did study economics in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. I know this is a repetition of his background, just to help the readers come up with some reasonable guess of his credibility.
Second, beyond the scope of his specific articles, I see a person with an admirable attitude toward international affairs, an attitude that I believe represents the essence of the American spirit. An attitude that is at the same time fair, open and objective, as well as empathetic, passionate and patriotic. Fallows' writings are free of the ideological biases typical of many American reporters in China, yet I can still sense his strong conviction in the best part of American values: liberty, equality, democracy and so on; as well as his readiness to defend and preserve these values.
Third, the role played by the likes of Fallows. I think he certainly goes beyond the conventional limitations of a journalist. How to precisely define his occupation? An appropriate counterpart in the Chinese vocabulary might be "writer", but that word is too prosaic for someone like him. After all, there is not too much utility in defining him precisely. What's the use of defining Walter Lippmann, or Bob Woodward? The most innovative persons always defy any ready-to-fit frames. There is no doubt that Fallows himself is part of the elite core of the U.S. That status grants him the opportunities (though probably not as abundant as those of John Thornton) of directly talking to many key decision makers in the government and corporations, a privilege that even a Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter (such as Joseph Kahn) may not enjoy; yet his official occupation as a reporter allows him to live and travel freely in China, as just another normal foreigner, without invoking too much attention. That combination of freedom and celebrity is simply marvelous.
Back to the issue -- China's gigantic and ever-growing foreign exchange reserve -- Fallows dug into that question in depth, from an American perspective, and I'll leave it to you to judge. The article alerts me to the seriousness of this question -- that is, a precarious balance, or "the balance of financial terror" between the US and China, in Lawrence Summer's words as cited. I was astonished that elite Americans see this balance as worrisome as the "nuclear balance" during the Cold War, and the logic behind such concerns seems sound to me. I want to highlight the closing remarks of Fallows and put my own question and uncertainty on the table:
"Years ago, the Chinese might have averted today’s pressures by choosing a slower and more balanced approach to growth. If they had it to do over again, I suspect they would in fact choose just the same path—they have gained so much, including the assets they can use to do what they have left undone, whenever the government chooses to spend them. The same is not true, I suspect, for the United States, which might have chosen a very different path: less reliance on China’s subsidies, more reliance on paying as we go. But it’s a little late for those thoughts now. What’s left is to prepare for what we find at the end of the path we have taken."
My question is: Could the United States really have chosen differently? What could the alternatives be?
P.S. I updated one link on my homepage: China in the American Eyes (美眼看中国). As you'll find, I've been very selective. Interestingly, all three articles I chose came from bi-monthly journals.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
To My English-speaking Readers
* This article was written as a prelude as I re-opened this blog after a dormancy of one and half years.
Welcome to Prometheus. You might have been directed here from my homepage "Odyssey", and you might be disappointed that there are not too many entries on this blog. Well, thank you so much for your interest. If you happen to have browsed my MSN space, which runs mostly in Chinese, you probably know that I've blogged much more actively there since two and half years ago.
Then why still link to Prometheus? And why is it called Prometheus? I set up this place in June 2006, after my PhD qualifiers in economics at Washington University. It was named "Prometheus" because I used this blog to post articles composed by some sharp Chinese thinkers yet often blocked by China's "Great Firewall" (GFW) at that time. I wanted these very insightful articles, mostly on democracy and political reform, to be read by my friends in China, yet I didn't want my MSN space blocked. MSN space was such a popular blogging tool among Chinese students that we use it to share life experiences and carefully foster close-knit communities, often against the curse of distance. I didn't want it politicized. I believe that democracy is just a matter of time for China, and I hope everybody in my generation to be mentally prepared and do the smart thing, ahead of time, as soon as possible. Therefore I set up this place, posted "sensitive" articles, and provided a link on my MSN space.
Many more young Chinese, home and abroad, did similar things to get around the GFW. But it wasn't long before I realized that I didn't have to do this anymore. From January 2007, foreign journalists were allowed to travel, interview and report freely in China. There used to be a lot of restrictions on foreigners' movement in China, despite the fact that they are always treated exceptionally well. These journalists often have learned Chinese for many years, and are extremely capable and enthusiastic. To someone who reads the New York Times and Wall Street Journal everyday like myself, the change is palpable. Reports are much deeper, more detailed and cover a much wider range of topics. The marriage between Western journalism and China's intriguing social changes has borne fruits.
Meanwhile, almost all of a sudden, I found that the Chinese themselves are talking about "democracy" more and more frequently. The first noticeable change happened when President Hu Jintao visited the United States in the spring of 2006 -- he got out of his way to talk about democracy at each stop. But the talk was really just that, and I was under the impression that "democracy" was still a "key word" in the unfathomable, random working of the GFW. And then Yu Keping, a higher-profile adviser of President Hu published "Democracy is a Good Thing" in one of the key journals of the Communist Party. The outspoken newspapers in South China's Guangdong Province, Hong Kong's neighbor, didn't wait a second in grasping this golden opportunity to discuss democracy -- to face up to our own oddity in this globalized world. And then again, all of a sudden, I found so many people talking democracy openly, in China, not just about the ideology, but down-to-earth practical issues. None of these changes escaped the eyes of John Thornton, the Goldman-Sachs-Chairman-turned-Tsinghua-professor, who published the article "Long Time Coming -- the prospect for democracy in China" in the Jan/Feb 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs.
Somehow I feel that the relaxation of restrictions on foreign journalists and the open talk of democracy are really two sides of one coin. I'm not suggesting that democracy will come anytime soon in China -- it's just not such an easy thing as you might think -- but with so many people talking and thinking, I feel both hopeful and a little lost -- how can I still call my little blog "Prometheus"?
Luckily we've got so many more meaningful things to do in today's world. I bet there are at least as many people in the world who are interested in China as the Chinese interested in the world. Then why not use this blog to communicate with English-speaking folks? After all, I already have a blog mainly in Chinese, and I can write in English reasonably well. More importantly, I can write BETTER.
So, here I am again -- still "Prometheus", just for history's sake.
Oh, was I talking about democracy just now? Final words on this issue: if you are American, the word is "patience", if you are Chinese, the word is "change".
Welcome to Prometheus. You might have been directed here from my homepage "Odyssey", and you might be disappointed that there are not too many entries on this blog. Well, thank you so much for your interest. If you happen to have browsed my MSN space, which runs mostly in Chinese, you probably know that I've blogged much more actively there since two and half years ago.
Then why still link to Prometheus? And why is it called Prometheus? I set up this place in June 2006, after my PhD qualifiers in economics at Washington University. It was named "Prometheus" because I used this blog to post articles composed by some sharp Chinese thinkers yet often blocked by China's "Great Firewall" (GFW) at that time. I wanted these very insightful articles, mostly on democracy and political reform, to be read by my friends in China, yet I didn't want my MSN space blocked. MSN space was such a popular blogging tool among Chinese students that we use it to share life experiences and carefully foster close-knit communities, often against the curse of distance. I didn't want it politicized. I believe that democracy is just a matter of time for China, and I hope everybody in my generation to be mentally prepared and do the smart thing, ahead of time, as soon as possible. Therefore I set up this place, posted "sensitive" articles, and provided a link on my MSN space.
Many more young Chinese, home and abroad, did similar things to get around the GFW. But it wasn't long before I realized that I didn't have to do this anymore. From January 2007, foreign journalists were allowed to travel, interview and report freely in China. There used to be a lot of restrictions on foreigners' movement in China, despite the fact that they are always treated exceptionally well. These journalists often have learned Chinese for many years, and are extremely capable and enthusiastic. To someone who reads the New York Times and Wall Street Journal everyday like myself, the change is palpable. Reports are much deeper, more detailed and cover a much wider range of topics. The marriage between Western journalism and China's intriguing social changes has borne fruits.
Meanwhile, almost all of a sudden, I found that the Chinese themselves are talking about "democracy" more and more frequently. The first noticeable change happened when President Hu Jintao visited the United States in the spring of 2006 -- he got out of his way to talk about democracy at each stop. But the talk was really just that, and I was under the impression that "democracy" was still a "key word" in the unfathomable, random working of the GFW. And then Yu Keping, a higher-profile adviser of President Hu published "Democracy is a Good Thing" in one of the key journals of the Communist Party. The outspoken newspapers in South China's Guangdong Province, Hong Kong's neighbor, didn't wait a second in grasping this golden opportunity to discuss democracy -- to face up to our own oddity in this globalized world. And then again, all of a sudden, I found so many people talking democracy openly, in China, not just about the ideology, but down-to-earth practical issues. None of these changes escaped the eyes of John Thornton, the Goldman-Sachs-Chairman-turned-Tsinghua-professor, who published the article "Long Time Coming -- the prospect for democracy in China" in the Jan/Feb 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs.
Somehow I feel that the relaxation of restrictions on foreign journalists and the open talk of democracy are really two sides of one coin. I'm not suggesting that democracy will come anytime soon in China -- it's just not such an easy thing as you might think -- but with so many people talking and thinking, I feel both hopeful and a little lost -- how can I still call my little blog "Prometheus"?
Luckily we've got so many more meaningful things to do in today's world. I bet there are at least as many people in the world who are interested in China as the Chinese interested in the world. Then why not use this blog to communicate with English-speaking folks? After all, I already have a blog mainly in Chinese, and I can write in English reasonably well. More importantly, I can write BETTER.
So, here I am again -- still "Prometheus", just for history's sake.
Oh, was I talking about democracy just now? Final words on this issue: if you are American, the word is "patience", if you are Chinese, the word is "change".
Saturday, July 01, 2006
龙应台：民主的陷阱
近几年来华人世界对台湾的民主发展高度关注，但是关注的焦点总是激烈的政争和耸动的选举，静水流深的事情却很少人看见，譬如在二零零五年二月一日台湾所通过的「广电三法」。广播电视法，有线广播电视法，卫星广播电视法规定：政府、政党不得直接或间接投资民营广电事业。政府、政党、党务人员、甚至公职人员都不得担任广电媒体董监事等职务。政府、政党捐赠成立的财团法人和受托人同样不得投资广电事业。党务、政务和民意代表的二等血亲、直系亲属若是投资广播、电视事业，在同一家媒体的持股不得超过总股数的百分之一。更重要的是，广播电视的主管机关将脱离政府，不再由新闻局主管，而由地位独立超然的「国家通讯传播委员会」负责。委员会成员由各政党依比例派代表组成。
也就是说，党、政、军，彻底退出媒体。
这个法案的通过，非常尖锐地凸显了台湾和中国大陆在二十一世纪之初，核心价值的最重大的差异。
中国有两千三百多家报纸，八千七百种杂志，无数的广播电台，但是至今没有「新闻法」，只有头痛医头、脚痛治脚的种种「规定」和「通知」，譬如一九九零年的「报纸管理暂行规定」，界定了报纸的管理权力级别。一九九五年的「报纸品质管制标准」，不合所谓「品质管制」标准的，可以撤销登记。二零零一年，新闻出版署发出文件要求「审读」工作「制度化」。所谓「审读」，就是文字的检查。
林林总总的「规定」其实都属于一个性质：管控媒体。而维护媒体权利、保障人民知的权利、保障新闻工作者的职业尊严和人身安全的规定，一条也没有──当然，除了「宪法」三十五条，明订公民有言论和出版的自由。可是，中华人民共和国的「宪法」，是仅供参考的。
管理新闻法律位阶最高的是一个位阶很低的「条例」，一九九七年通过的「出版管理条例」，规定只有国家机关，以及同属于国家权力体系的机构，譬如工会、共青团、妇联、党报集团等等，才有办报的权利。也就是说，媒体，属于国家权力。《解放日报》的社论更一点儿也不遮掩地说：「我们的媒体，是『社会公器』么？不是的。我们的媒体，是党、政府和人民的喉舌。」
还有比这更突兀的当代对比吗？台湾在二零零五年正式立法，规定党、政、军退出媒体，而二零零五年的中国，媒体继续为党、政、军服务。不同的是，从前只是作为，现在经由「现代化」的驱使，作为写成法律条文，有了「法治」国家的外貌。
如果广电三法代表台湾民主又往前进了一步，那么台湾的媒体是不是令人「额手称庆」呢？很多人会苦笑。民主进程像乌龟爬树，上两步要倒退一步半。党、政、军退出媒体吗？「置入性行销」却从后门进入媒体。台湾的政府，根据不正式的估计，每年大约花五亿港币在媒体宣传上。「置入性」的意思是，政府想要「行销」的讯息，不只以广告的方式光明播出，还可以偷偷被写进戏里，让你不知不觉；还可以被当作「新闻」播出，而你以为是公正报导。政府用纳税人的钱，购买了新闻媒体。掌权执政者，更以这样的手段，为自己取得曝光率、知名度，把国家的公资源累积成私人或私党的政治成本。政府，已经成为媒体的最大「客户」。
台湾和中国大陆的民主进程，不在一个平台上。但是，站在台湾的高平台上，你也无法放松，更不觉自豪──民主的陷阱，何其多也。
2005年02月25日 苹果日报
也就是说，党、政、军，彻底退出媒体。
这个法案的通过，非常尖锐地凸显了台湾和中国大陆在二十一世纪之初，核心价值的最重大的差异。
中国有两千三百多家报纸，八千七百种杂志，无数的广播电台，但是至今没有「新闻法」，只有头痛医头、脚痛治脚的种种「规定」和「通知」，譬如一九九零年的「报纸管理暂行规定」，界定了报纸的管理权力级别。一九九五年的「报纸品质管制标准」，不合所谓「品质管制」标准的，可以撤销登记。二零零一年，新闻出版署发出文件要求「审读」工作「制度化」。所谓「审读」，就是文字的检查。
林林总总的「规定」其实都属于一个性质：管控媒体。而维护媒体权利、保障人民知的权利、保障新闻工作者的职业尊严和人身安全的规定，一条也没有──当然，除了「宪法」三十五条，明订公民有言论和出版的自由。可是，中华人民共和国的「宪法」，是仅供参考的。
管理新闻法律位阶最高的是一个位阶很低的「条例」，一九九七年通过的「出版管理条例」，规定只有国家机关，以及同属于国家权力体系的机构，譬如工会、共青团、妇联、党报集团等等，才有办报的权利。也就是说，媒体，属于国家权力。《解放日报》的社论更一点儿也不遮掩地说：「我们的媒体，是『社会公器』么？不是的。我们的媒体，是党、政府和人民的喉舌。」
还有比这更突兀的当代对比吗？台湾在二零零五年正式立法，规定党、政、军退出媒体，而二零零五年的中国，媒体继续为党、政、军服务。不同的是，从前只是作为，现在经由「现代化」的驱使，作为写成法律条文，有了「法治」国家的外貌。
如果广电三法代表台湾民主又往前进了一步，那么台湾的媒体是不是令人「额手称庆」呢？很多人会苦笑。民主进程像乌龟爬树，上两步要倒退一步半。党、政、军退出媒体吗？「置入性行销」却从后门进入媒体。台湾的政府，根据不正式的估计，每年大约花五亿港币在媒体宣传上。「置入性」的意思是，政府想要「行销」的讯息，不只以广告的方式光明播出，还可以偷偷被写进戏里，让你不知不觉；还可以被当作「新闻」播出，而你以为是公正报导。政府用纳税人的钱，购买了新闻媒体。掌权执政者，更以这样的手段，为自己取得曝光率、知名度，把国家的公资源累积成私人或私党的政治成本。政府，已经成为媒体的最大「客户」。
台湾和中国大陆的民主进程，不在一个平台上。但是，站在台湾的高平台上，你也无法放松，更不觉自豪──民主的陷阱，何其多也。
2005年02月25日 苹果日报
Thursday, June 29, 2006
龙应台：10年后…我还是不选择新加坡
(2003-7-21)谢燕燕
1983年，我和我先生…他是德国人，手拉手走在台北街头时，一名男子突然跑到我面前吐了一口痰，然后说：‘妈的，你能跟他，就不能跟我？’。今天在台北是不会碰到这种事了，这里头有个进程。
联合早报创刊80周年讲座“名人谈名城”
龙应台:10年后…我还是不选择新加坡
1983年，我和我先生…他是德国人，手拉手走在台北街头时，一名男子突然跑到我面前吐了一口痰，然后说：‘妈的，你能跟他，就不能跟我？’。今天在台北是不会碰到这种事了，这里头有个进程。
12年前，龙应台来过新加坡，9年前，她写了篇文章说“还好自己不是新加坡人”。12年后重访狮城，龙应台虽然认为新加坡的管理文化比台湾成熟，但是，她还是不会选择新加坡。
 “最好把新加坡和台北合成一个国家…因为台北缺的是管理方法，而这正是新加坡的长处。新加坡的短处是文化厚度不够，而这正好是台北的长处，所以，如果能把这两个城市合为一个国家，我认为就是最理想的国度。” |
在世界多个地方生活过，问她心目中理想的城市在哪里？她毫不犹豫的说：台北加新加坡！原因是台北欠缺的，新加坡有，新加坡欠缺的，台北有。
本报昨天在“名家谈名城”论坛结束后，和龙应台做了个半小时的访问，谈她这段日子来的变化，对当官的想法，以及下来的计划等。
台北＋新加坡
十年后的龙应台，经过岁月和官场生涯的磨炼，语气虽温和些，却依然庆幸自己不是新加坡人，只不过，如果所住的酒店半夜发生火警，那她不希望自己在西安，不希望在上海或台北，宁愿自己在新加坡！
但是作为文化人，特别是以华文为媒介的文字工作者，她绝不可能选择在新加坡，因为这里没有她生存的文化土壤，也没有她重视的自由空间。因此，龙应台客气的表示，自己还是“不太适合住在新加坡”。
她指出：“作为表演艺术家也许不一样，但作为文字工作者，要很厚的语言土壤，要非常自由的思想空间，这两个是必要条件，却刚好是新加坡所欠缺的。”
“但是如果半夜发生火警，我就希望自己是在新加坡的酒店里。”她补上了这么一句。
昨天的访问，是她辞官半年来，第一次接受媒体访问。龙应台思路敏捷，很清楚自己要些什么，说话也非常直率。比如和本报记者一起访龙应台的《海峡时报》记者想“刺探”她的政治立场时，龙应台马上迸出一句：“你是想问我是不是台独？”
接着她很快的说；“政治上，我主张台独…我不单主张台湾独立，我还主张上海独立，我甚至主张湖南也应独立，因为那样是最理想的状态，是比较有效的管理方式！”
不过文化上她反对任何割裂，因为文化是一条大河，要纳百川才流向大海。
在谈到台湾目前所面临的各种难处时，记者脱口而问：“你认为台湾下来要怎样走下去？”
龙应台很快像球般弹回来：“我不知道，我不想当总统，我不要思考这个问题！”
对某些问题，龙应台的看法非常坚决，比如她坚信没有政治权力，就不必谈文化权力，更不用谈加强文化厚度的问题了。以下是这次访问的内容：
●问：当官前和当官后，对政治文化的看法有何不同？
◆答：当然不一样了。比如说，以前看到一个钟表，看的是表面上的指针，也就是现在几点钟了。现在会思考钟表后面的齿轮是怎样运作的，它的大小如 何，齿轮如何转等，当然是不一样了。对于权力的游戏，也看得更清楚一些。比如说我这次来看滨海艺术中心，我就不是像一般人来看它的音乐厅和剧院，我会向潘 传顺（滨海艺术中心总裁）了解他的预算如何处理，人员如何管理，节目如何制作，观众如何培养，都是幕后的东西。
●问：是指硬件方面？
◆答：对，材料啊，音响效果啊。
●问：如果有机会重新做选择，你还是会选择当文化局局长吗？
◆答：当然。对一个在野的作家而言，有这样的上课机会、去了解钟表背后的齿轮怎样运作，那当然是很可贵的机会了。大家今天就可以看出两组人的差别，对不对，有实务经验和没有实务经验的不同。这是很可贵的经验。
 “我说家长带孩子去孔庙读书，那不是谁营造的，也不是政府办的，那是台湾走过一段搜寻过程。父母亲本来是把孩子送到英语幼稚园，后来送孩子去幼稚园的同时，也送孩子去念唐诗。这是父母对自己与现代化关系的一种搜索和思考后的动作，是完全民间自发的。” |
●问：你说新加坡缺乏文化厚度，那么，要如何加强这方面的厚度呢？
◆答：很难咯。没有政治权力，就没有文化权力。没有政治权力而想开拓文化工作是一种幻影，因为文化权力来自政治权力。你问我要如何加强文化厚度， 这个问题很难，总不成要新加坡人上街。来到这一步，就要靠新加坡人自己找答案，自己找出路。马来西亚的情况也一样，政府的钱来自纳税人，钱如何分配，什么 人得多少，应该有个公平合理的安排，这就是政治。你说华人占人口百分之四十，那么，华人的文化活动和建设有没有得到纳税人百分之四十的分配呢？我这么一 问，就是政治问题了。
●问：你现在似乎比过去温和，是不是日趋成熟稳重？
◆答：八十年代写《野火集》时，面对的敌人不一样。那时敌人很清楚，目标很明确，就是国民党的极权政府，你唯一要做的就是打倒它。现在面临的问题 不一样，你根本不清楚敌人长得什么样，现在的政府是身边的人直接选出来的，所以你不能直接打倒它。现在的问题要比面对国民党时复杂十倍。如果还取八十年代 的做法，就表示你没有进步。问题不一样，当初是面临不自由，那我们争取解放，可是解放后，发现它不等于自由，是有区别的，那你就要很小心的去区分两者。
●问：你对民进党的看法…
◆答：民进党非常混乱，非常缺格局，缺见识。但这不能怪民进党，也要怪国民党五十年的一党专政。
●问：那台湾下来要怎么走？
◆答：我不知道，我不想当总统，我不要思考这个问题。
●问：你本身在很多地方生活过，你觉得比较理想的居住城市在哪里？
◆答：就是新加坡加台北啊。你知道欧洲有种说法，如果把一丝不苟，干净得不得了的德国人，和紊乱、随性的南方意大利人结合起来，就是最理想的民族性。去找呢？有人说法国刚好在两者之间，所以我觉得，新加坡加台北就刚好。
●问：你当台北文化局长时，在保留古迹时曾引起不少争议，能谈你对保留古迹的想法吗？
◆答：保存文化古迹是文化对政治做某种程度的反抗。你知道明朝时，郑成功以台湾为基地，郑成功走了，来了新的统治者，这之间来了西班牙统治者，然 后葡萄牙人来了，然后明政，然后清朝，然后是日本人，之后是蒋介石。每一个来统治台湾的人，都会把前人的历史记忆抹掉，这是出自政治动机。
但我觉得，不管你喜不喜欢，你都得尊重历史，包括日本人统治台湾。如果我在的话，我就不会去拆掉那个日本神社。你喜不喜欢是一回事， 但它毕竟发生过，毕竟存在过。我认为用文化的力量去保存这些记忆，就是诚实的面对自己的历史。要尊重前人的历史，不要用后来人的权力去抹煞掉前人留下的感 情。台湾要变成成熟文化，这样的历史累积和尊重是很重要的。
台北不好看，但是很好玩…
在龙应台眼里，在华人世界里，台北是中华文化保存得最完整的一个城市。她昨天的“名人谈名城”的论坛上，向观众阐述了台北为何“不好看但很好玩”。
尽管当文化局长的三年里遇到一些挫折，龙应台还是非常“护台”，对台北的“不好看”，她有一番解说，而台北的“好玩”，却令她兴奋不已。
演讲开头，她引用了一名上海人的话：“香港好看不好玩，台北好玩不好看，上海是即不好看又不好玩”。
那新加坡呢？龙应台说：“你们自己去想想看，但新加坡一定是好看的。”
她说台湾的好玩和新加坡不一样。新加坡是“水自清者无鱼”，台北则是一池混水，很好摸鱼，混水摸鱼时不知道会摸到到什么，可能是鱼，可能是蛇，可能是其他东西，故而好玩。
龙应台说，台北，新加坡，香港和上海都有殖民历史，都面向海洋，又是移民城市，也经济相对发达。
台北的管理文化不比新加坡成熟，国际化方面不如新加坡和香港。许多人到台北时，会惊讶于它的老旧、杂乱和不整洁。
【为什么不好看？】
她说台北坐落在一个湖面上，香港挖两米便能碰到岩石，台北却要挖100米。她前两天参观了新加坡的克拉码头，而台北有河却没有河岸文化。
但这背后有原因，那是因为台湾东西两岸才100公里，最高的山却有4000米，河川是轰然而下，非常急，经常有水灾。台北人为了保命，建起了像柏林围墙那么高的墙，围住河岸。
台湾有海岸线，台湾人却没有沙滩文化，不到海边游泳，这种文化处境的荒谬，源自38年的戒严时期，那时候，提着枪的宪兵在海边防守，海岸线是危险的军事地带。
至于建筑的难看，那是因为台湾被日本统治50年，多数时候在对抗日本统治，有建设的时间才二三十年，国民党来了之后，一直把台湾当成反攻大陆的跳板，当然就不会做长期规范。一直到30年后，国民党才意识到“大概回不去了”。
| 龙应台说台北是华人世界里，中华文化保存得最完整的一个地方，并以台北的父母，星期天会送孩子去念四书五经为例，还指出台北一年出版4万种新书。 一名来自中国的年轻女学生，提问时不服气的说：“你提到台湾是中华文化保存得最好的地方，我觉得父母每星期带小孩去孔庙读四书五经，却不能让他们真正理解内容，这样的文化是很肤浅的营造出来的，而不是真正的文化。” “你谈到台北一年出版4万种新书，你去隔壁伊纪国屋看看，台湾出的很多书都是烂书，没有价值去读的，这样自由的出版，是不是在制造文化垃圾？文化垃圾的泛滥是很严重的，而且台湾的肥皂剧也是很让人受不了。” 小女孩还说：“你自己说小时候读论语时是不能理解其中内容，要等到几十年以后才理解其中内容，这又有什么必要呢？” 龙应台回应说：“别着急，你可以记住今天的谈话，然后20年后再回来看看，会很有意 思，好不好？刚才说中华文化在台北保存最完整，我是没有加入价值判断，因为你也可以说中华文化是最糟糕的，最封建的，最专制的，最保守的，那你保存最完 整，所有劣根都在里头，所有，我并没有加入价值判断。” |
【为什么好玩？】
尽管如此，龙应台认为台北是四个城市中最好玩的一个。她认为台北是中华文化保存得最完整的城市，比北京上海还完整。
她说，台北非常传统，不曾全盘“苏化”，也没有文革时的全盘割裂，更没有因殖民统治而欧化。
她当文化局长时跟着大家去祭孔，回去后翻《儒林外史》，发现80％的仪式和过去一样！
台北的父母星期天会带孩子去读《四书五经》，犹如古代私塾。她小时候也读过《论语》，念过《古诗十九首》，她认识的同龄北京朋友，却是在长大后才回过头读这些书，读后如醍醐灌顶。
另外，台湾的自由度很高，没有不可讲的话，不可写的文章。至于沙斯期间，台湾表现很烂，她不同意外界所说的——强势政府更能处理好危机，而认为台湾的乱七八糟，纯粹是因为管理文化不成熟。
龙应台还以台北的出版文化做为指标，指出台北一年出版4万种新书，而整个中国大陆，只出版8万种。
龙应台：今天这一课：品格
今天这一课：品格
● 龙应台（台北）
光荣的一日
今天，是一个光荣的日子。将来的历史会写到，在2006年6月27日这一天，台湾人行使罢免权，督促一个总统下台。
不论今天的罢免结果如何，台湾人民又在华文世界的民主进程和宪政史上，竖立了一个全新的里程碑。
表面上，台湾一片动荡；人们每天看见、听见，被铺天盖地包围的，是电子媒体的夸张和耸动、街头巷尾的挑衅和喧嚣、丑闻弊案的揭发或遮盖、领导人物的尊严扫地、意见菁英的各说各话。民主似乎堕落成只剩下政治操作的尔虞我诈；价值的混淆，是非的颠倒，社会互信的严重腐蚀，使人开始怀疑，这一切是否值得。
但是，你不能不看见，在这喧嚣混乱的同时，人民在集体补课，补修在威权时代里不准你修的公民课。
每一件贪腐弊案的揭露，都使政府的权力运作增加一分透明。每一篇对金融勾结的报道，都使人民对公共政策多一份警惕。每一次政治人物的演出，都使人民更熟悉他的伎俩，看穿他的破绽，认清他的品质。不要小看了台湾人民，台湾人民在弊案中累积他对权力本质的认识，在喧嚣中磨利他对政治人物的判断，在纷纭中加深他对公共政策的理解，在混淆中培养他对真伪价值的辨识。
他挣脱了权威的束缚，实践过选举，实验过公投，现在，他再跨出一步，敢于尝试罢免。罢免可以不成功，但是人民已经给政治人物一个清清楚楚的警告：我可以选你，就可以罢免你。
世界上没有人能否认：台湾有的，是整个华人世界里政治敏感度、成熟度、自主性最高的公民群体。
补课的代价可能很高，可是成熟的过程没有不痛苦的；今天，我以身为台湾公民为荣。
足球不只是足球
每个国家都有自己的历史负担。昨天，收到一封电邮，作者是一个17岁的德国少年：
“麦茵河中央搭起一个大得不能再大的电视屏幕，两边都可以看到球赛现场转播。河两岸挤满了人，新闻说，起码有30万人聚到河边来，隔着中间的河水，两岸对看。
马路上、河岸边、广场上、酒馆里，挤满了人，各色人种……最奇怪的是，每个人都在微笑，都在拥抱，都在唱歌。我从来没见过德国人对彼此那么友善，对陌生人那么热情，我从来没见过德国人那么喜悦，那么开怀。
我也从来没见过这么多德国国旗同时出现——几千几万幅国旗在人们的手里挥舞飘动。我从来没见过德国人那么以自己的国家‘自豪’，其实，我从来没见过德国人以自己的国家‘自豪’过——这真是第一次。大家在挥舞国旗为德国队加油的时候，好像纳粹的阴影真的消失了，好像人们突然发现——我们是德国人，是一体的。
我这才发现，这次主办足球世界盃，对德国人的‘认同’是多么、多么重要的一件事。我很吃惊。”
这个17岁的德国青年以一种最天真的方式认识了政治领袖们非常明白的一种规则：成功地主办国际体育竞赛可以给国民带来自豪感以及向心力。在全世界的注目之下，把盛会办得风光，人民会以他所属的国家为荣；国际竞技所带来的“同舟共济”和“同仇敌忾”的情感，又能加深人民的国家认同和社会凝聚。每一个有能力的国家都铆足了劲在竞争重大国际竞技或博览的主办权，除了经济考量之外，这“凝聚认同”、给国人光荣感的政治考量，是一个核心因素。
元首不只是经理
一个国家的元首，在我的理解，有四个核心的责任：第一，不管国家处境多么艰困，他要有能耐使人民以自己的国家为荣，使国民有一种健康的自豪感。第二，不管在野势力如何强悍，他要有能耐凝聚人民的认同感，对国家认同，对社会认同，尤其是对彼此认同。第三，他要有能耐提得出国家的长远愿景。人民认同这个愿景，心甘情愿为这个愿景共同努力。第四，他不必是圣人，但他必须有一定的道德高度，去对外代表全体人民，对内象征社会的价值共识。小学生在写“我的志愿” 时，还可能以他为人生立志的效法对象。
以这个标准来衡量带领台湾人进入21世纪的这位元首，是的，他近乎灾难性地不及格。
当他在空中做外交“迷航”的时候，当他让霸气的美国政府直接或间接羞辱他的时候，台湾人没有自豪感可言，只有沈默的屈辱。当他用充满暴力暗示和诱引冲突的语言对人民说，“我愿意牺牲，扣扳机吧”的时候，台湾的社会是被精心设计地撕开割裂，而不是和解和凝聚。当他对一件又一件的弊案无法澄清，前后矛盾，而同时又拒绝反省的时候，他不是一个道德典范，他是一个典范的颠覆与嘲弄。
至于可憧憬的愿景——谁说得出什么是台湾的愿景？这个社会，已经有好几年，没有人在谈愿景了。举国的力气，投掷在对一个人的争执上。一个应该是解决问题的枢纽，变成问题的来源。
我们赋予元首的任务，是让他以超出我们的道德力量去做教育孩子的人格典范。是让他以高于我们的眼光，为我们找到方向，指出梦想之所在。是让他以远比我们开阔的胸襟去把那撕裂的，缝合；使那怨恨的，回头；将那敌对的，和解；把那剑拔弩张的，春风化雨。
他回报我们的，却正好是一切的反面。
这个是非，在我眼中，是分明的。元首不是一个公司的总经理，只需谈执行绩效和法律责任。对于元首，法律责任只是最低要求、最末端的一件事；他第一要担起的是政治责任和道德责任。政治责任和道德责任都不是依靠法律条文来规范的。
规范政治和道德责任的，是一个社会的整体文明和教养。
谁教过他“品格”？
当一个元首成为“千夫所指”时，一个深层问题必须追究的是，这样的元首和他的裙带集团，究竟是怎么产生的？
他们的家庭和小学教育，有没有教过他们，一介不取是基本操行，诚实是第一原则？他们的中学教育，有没有教过他们，公和私的界线要严格分明，人要为自己的行为负责？
元首的大学法律系教育，有没有教过他：最大的权力必须以最大的谦卑来承担？有没有教过他韩愈在1200年前说过的话：“有官守者，不得其职则去”？有没有教过他萨穆尔·斯迈尔斯在130年前说过的话：“一个伟大的国家领袖在他身后留给国家的财富是，一个毫无瑕疵的生活楷模，是所有后人在形成自己品格时仿效的榜样”？
他所一路成长的社会环境——父母、长辈、老师、社区、媒体、整个教育系统，有没有给过他一种熏陶，一种教训，告诉他：没有品格，权力可能就是灾难？
培养了他的政党，在台湾民主进程上曾经做过伟大贡献的这个党，有没有认识到，人民当初是因为对这个政党的品格有所信任才将权力交给了它，而将来人民还迫切地需要它，重建清新的品格力量，去监督和对抗下一轮可能腐败的新的执政者？
今天拼命为他辩护的人，是为了什么而为他辩护？品格和道德, 在民主政治里, 究竟还算不算数? 今天反对他的人，又是为了什么而反对？是真正原则的坚持，还是党派权力的便宜计算？
如果我们的家庭、学校、社会、政党，从来就不曾把品格和教养看做教育的关键内容，如果我们的政府，从来就没把公民素养看做国家的教育大计，如果有了民主制度，但是制度里的人民本身是一个对于品格根本不在乎的群体，那么选出一个无能、无识又严重缺乏耻感的总统，我们为什么惊异呢？
任何一个政治人物，都是社会的整体文明与教养的产物。检讨他、批判他的同时，这个社会本身的公民教育和品格培养，恐怕更值得我们深深、深深地思索。
一点也不差
所以，罢免通过不通过，哪里是真正的意义所在呢？罢免的真正历史意义其实在于，透过罢免的提出，台湾人民用无比清晰的声音做出宣示：民主不是民粹，自由不是放任，容忍不是抛弃原则，人民长大，不代表不需要典范。透过罢免的提出，人民在考验自己对大是大非有多少坚持，对社会进步的力量有多少信心，对不该忍受的行为他如何决断，对值得奋斗的目标他如何执着。
一课一课地上，一关一关地过；一路走来，台湾人，你一点也不差。
·作者是作家、台湾清华大学教授、香港大学兼任教授
● 龙应台（台北）
光荣的一日
今天，是一个光荣的日子。将来的历史会写到，在2006年6月27日这一天，台湾人行使罢免权，督促一个总统下台。
不论今天的罢免结果如何，台湾人民又在华文世界的民主进程和宪政史上，竖立了一个全新的里程碑。
表面上，台湾一片动荡；人们每天看见、听见，被铺天盖地包围的，是电子媒体的夸张和耸动、街头巷尾的挑衅和喧嚣、丑闻弊案的揭发或遮盖、领导人物的尊严扫地、意见菁英的各说各话。民主似乎堕落成只剩下政治操作的尔虞我诈；价值的混淆，是非的颠倒，社会互信的严重腐蚀，使人开始怀疑，这一切是否值得。
但是，你不能不看见，在这喧嚣混乱的同时，人民在集体补课，补修在威权时代里不准你修的公民课。
每一件贪腐弊案的揭露，都使政府的权力运作增加一分透明。每一篇对金融勾结的报道，都使人民对公共政策多一份警惕。每一次政治人物的演出，都使人民更熟悉他的伎俩，看穿他的破绽，认清他的品质。不要小看了台湾人民，台湾人民在弊案中累积他对权力本质的认识，在喧嚣中磨利他对政治人物的判断，在纷纭中加深他对公共政策的理解，在混淆中培养他对真伪价值的辨识。
他挣脱了权威的束缚，实践过选举，实验过公投，现在，他再跨出一步，敢于尝试罢免。罢免可以不成功，但是人民已经给政治人物一个清清楚楚的警告：我可以选你，就可以罢免你。
世界上没有人能否认：台湾有的，是整个华人世界里政治敏感度、成熟度、自主性最高的公民群体。
补课的代价可能很高，可是成熟的过程没有不痛苦的；今天，我以身为台湾公民为荣。
足球不只是足球
每个国家都有自己的历史负担。昨天，收到一封电邮，作者是一个17岁的德国少年：
“麦茵河中央搭起一个大得不能再大的电视屏幕，两边都可以看到球赛现场转播。河两岸挤满了人，新闻说，起码有30万人聚到河边来，隔着中间的河水，两岸对看。
马路上、河岸边、广场上、酒馆里，挤满了人，各色人种……最奇怪的是，每个人都在微笑，都在拥抱，都在唱歌。我从来没见过德国人对彼此那么友善，对陌生人那么热情，我从来没见过德国人那么喜悦，那么开怀。
我也从来没见过这么多德国国旗同时出现——几千几万幅国旗在人们的手里挥舞飘动。我从来没见过德国人那么以自己的国家‘自豪’，其实，我从来没见过德国人以自己的国家‘自豪’过——这真是第一次。大家在挥舞国旗为德国队加油的时候，好像纳粹的阴影真的消失了，好像人们突然发现——我们是德国人，是一体的。
我这才发现，这次主办足球世界盃，对德国人的‘认同’是多么、多么重要的一件事。我很吃惊。”
这个17岁的德国青年以一种最天真的方式认识了政治领袖们非常明白的一种规则：成功地主办国际体育竞赛可以给国民带来自豪感以及向心力。在全世界的注目之下，把盛会办得风光，人民会以他所属的国家为荣；国际竞技所带来的“同舟共济”和“同仇敌忾”的情感，又能加深人民的国家认同和社会凝聚。每一个有能力的国家都铆足了劲在竞争重大国际竞技或博览的主办权，除了经济考量之外，这“凝聚认同”、给国人光荣感的政治考量，是一个核心因素。
元首不只是经理
一个国家的元首，在我的理解，有四个核心的责任：第一，不管国家处境多么艰困，他要有能耐使人民以自己的国家为荣，使国民有一种健康的自豪感。第二，不管在野势力如何强悍，他要有能耐凝聚人民的认同感，对国家认同，对社会认同，尤其是对彼此认同。第三，他要有能耐提得出国家的长远愿景。人民认同这个愿景，心甘情愿为这个愿景共同努力。第四，他不必是圣人，但他必须有一定的道德高度，去对外代表全体人民，对内象征社会的价值共识。小学生在写“我的志愿” 时，还可能以他为人生立志的效法对象。
以这个标准来衡量带领台湾人进入21世纪的这位元首，是的，他近乎灾难性地不及格。
当他在空中做外交“迷航”的时候，当他让霸气的美国政府直接或间接羞辱他的时候，台湾人没有自豪感可言，只有沈默的屈辱。当他用充满暴力暗示和诱引冲突的语言对人民说，“我愿意牺牲，扣扳机吧”的时候，台湾的社会是被精心设计地撕开割裂，而不是和解和凝聚。当他对一件又一件的弊案无法澄清，前后矛盾，而同时又拒绝反省的时候，他不是一个道德典范，他是一个典范的颠覆与嘲弄。
至于可憧憬的愿景——谁说得出什么是台湾的愿景？这个社会，已经有好几年，没有人在谈愿景了。举国的力气，投掷在对一个人的争执上。一个应该是解决问题的枢纽，变成问题的来源。
我们赋予元首的任务，是让他以超出我们的道德力量去做教育孩子的人格典范。是让他以高于我们的眼光，为我们找到方向，指出梦想之所在。是让他以远比我们开阔的胸襟去把那撕裂的，缝合；使那怨恨的，回头；将那敌对的，和解；把那剑拔弩张的，春风化雨。
他回报我们的，却正好是一切的反面。
这个是非，在我眼中，是分明的。元首不是一个公司的总经理，只需谈执行绩效和法律责任。对于元首，法律责任只是最低要求、最末端的一件事；他第一要担起的是政治责任和道德责任。政治责任和道德责任都不是依靠法律条文来规范的。
规范政治和道德责任的，是一个社会的整体文明和教养。
谁教过他“品格”？
当一个元首成为“千夫所指”时，一个深层问题必须追究的是，这样的元首和他的裙带集团，究竟是怎么产生的？
他们的家庭和小学教育，有没有教过他们，一介不取是基本操行，诚实是第一原则？他们的中学教育，有没有教过他们，公和私的界线要严格分明，人要为自己的行为负责？
元首的大学法律系教育，有没有教过他：最大的权力必须以最大的谦卑来承担？有没有教过他韩愈在1200年前说过的话：“有官守者，不得其职则去”？有没有教过他萨穆尔·斯迈尔斯在130年前说过的话：“一个伟大的国家领袖在他身后留给国家的财富是，一个毫无瑕疵的生活楷模，是所有后人在形成自己品格时仿效的榜样”？
他所一路成长的社会环境——父母、长辈、老师、社区、媒体、整个教育系统，有没有给过他一种熏陶，一种教训，告诉他：没有品格，权力可能就是灾难？
培养了他的政党，在台湾民主进程上曾经做过伟大贡献的这个党，有没有认识到，人民当初是因为对这个政党的品格有所信任才将权力交给了它，而将来人民还迫切地需要它，重建清新的品格力量，去监督和对抗下一轮可能腐败的新的执政者？
今天拼命为他辩护的人，是为了什么而为他辩护？品格和道德, 在民主政治里, 究竟还算不算数? 今天反对他的人，又是为了什么而反对？是真正原则的坚持，还是党派权力的便宜计算？
如果我们的家庭、学校、社会、政党，从来就不曾把品格和教养看做教育的关键内容，如果我们的政府，从来就没把公民素养看做国家的教育大计，如果有了民主制度，但是制度里的人民本身是一个对于品格根本不在乎的群体，那么选出一个无能、无识又严重缺乏耻感的总统，我们为什么惊异呢？
任何一个政治人物，都是社会的整体文明与教养的产物。检讨他、批判他的同时，这个社会本身的公民教育和品格培养，恐怕更值得我们深深、深深地思索。
一点也不差
所以，罢免通过不通过，哪里是真正的意义所在呢？罢免的真正历史意义其实在于，透过罢免的提出，台湾人民用无比清晰的声音做出宣示：民主不是民粹，自由不是放任，容忍不是抛弃原则，人民长大，不代表不需要典范。透过罢免的提出，人民在考验自己对大是大非有多少坚持，对社会进步的力量有多少信心，对不该忍受的行为他如何决断，对值得奋斗的目标他如何执着。
一课一课地上，一关一关地过；一路走来，台湾人，你一点也不差。
·作者是作家、台湾清华大学教授、香港大学兼任教授
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
