Pearl Report on 28 June 2009

I can't help but share with you this video which sent shiver down my spine before I will write to discuss:

http://mytv.tvb.com/news/pearlreport/30542

Besides the "creationism" issue we talked about earlier, another annoying thing happening around is the rise of Christian Right in Hong Kong, which was also discussed in the programme.

I will write an article ASAP on the rise of Christian Right, stay tuned!

假如這是真的……

假如政府決定在你居住的社區建厭惡性設施，如焚化爐或堆填區，你會贊成或反對呢？反對！這是「別在我家後院」(Not in my back yard) 的心態使然。

於是，有人提出有新技術(1)可令廢物轉化成燃料，不但可取代焚化爐和堆填區，而且比燃媒對空氣造成的污染更少，你又怎麼說呢？哈哈，你大概會笑著說還用問嗎，當然是舉腳贊成吧。

但是，現實往往令人料想不到。我想，常人第一次聽到這種新技術，很可能會問這是否真的，並說假如這是真的，一定是好事啦。不過，實情是無人討論。上至政府環境局，下至民間環保組織，我聽不到任何討論的聲音。

政府一直漠視環保，只顧開徵膠袋稅，成效存疑之外，又變相鼓勵生產商預製可攜式膠袋包裝，未見其利先見其弊。其實，立法強制改變市民的生活方式，結果往往事倍功半。倒不如停止卸責，從新科技中認真探尋可行之道。

環保組織也忙於嘩眾取寵，大搞開燈熄燈活動，以噱頭取代理性的反思。堆填區不好，焚化爐不行，那麼既可循環再用又可減少污染的方法又如何？為甚麼默不作聲？不要說從源頭減少廢物，你年紀老邁的奶奶都知道「吃飯拉屎」的道理，吃多吃少，糞便都要處理。

或許，我們應放棄發展科技，重回農耕作息，過著抬頭滿天繁星，低首排溺在田的美好時光。

註：

(1) 參看2009年6月25日莊善敦《容許私企參與環保發展》。

What image could be damaged if our coppers take to the street this Sunday?

Someone has to enlighten me regarding the remarks made by our CE Donald Tsang, our Honourable Henry Tang and Ambrose Lee, the chief of administration and chief of security in Hong Kong.

They, alongside our Honourable yet entirely negligible Legco Exco member Lau Kong Wah, claimed that the police officers will "bring impact to the positive image of the police force" by protesting in the street this Sunday concerning their pay structure review.

Although I still hold my belief that all civil servants are overpaid, and certainly don't want to see the money I got ripped off every year under the name "tax" goes to their blundered pay cheques, I am at the same time puzzled by the remarks made.

Why our coppers could damage their image by taking to the street?

Does the Hong Kong Police Academy (yes, Academy!) teach them how to surrender their freedom of expression?

Again, our overpaid government officials tried to hypnotise us with their moral myth, that there is an image of the police force that could be damaged by a street protest.

Alas! The myth goes like this: whenever people march on the street, the police officers should be the marshals around the corners. The whole picture will be terribly wrong and unpleasantly portrayed if the places are switched. That is THE image!

I couldn't take that myth. To me, having an informant raped inside a police station is what really damaged the image of the police force.

Let us not fail liberty again. A call to arms

My fellow Libertinian! Liberty herself is once again being threaten! Do we dare sit and do nothing while she is being taken away from our very eyes?

If you are aware of the situation in Iran, then you are aware that a revolution is on! bitches!

But yet tyranny has struck, with the arrest of Edrahim Yazdi and violent crack down on the protest, the revolution is going thought a dark phase


Other voices of dissent Maziar Bahari and Mohammad Ali Abtahi were arrested as well, click to see Jason Jones's interview with them to get to know them better. nice blokes. really.


Now if there is one thing that yours truly really hate to see, is to see the man/tyranny/the bad guys/etc.. win, yeah but what could one do?


Here Ebrahim Yazdi's son explained on the Daily Show how his father is fearing for this fellow countrymen, and also plead for the general public to write their Iranian Embassy demanding explaination from the Iranian Goverment, as it seem internation spotlight would be an idea tool to help our fellow humankind in Iran. Please watch.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230713&title=ebrahim-yazdis-arrest

Still think there's nothing you can do? think again.

Let us DARE to show our support for liberty!
Are you really just gonna sit there and let liberty wither again? Or you gonna be one of those who that gonna tell their grandkids that, YOU WERE PART OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION?

Is this not for the same reason you sit in Victory Park holding candle on every 4th June??

Write a letter, send an email, u can give them a call too if that's what gets you off. Demand an explanation from them, ask them what are they doing to their people.

Consulate of Iran
Rooms 4010-12, 40/F, Office Tower,
Convention Plaza, 1 Harbour Road, Wanchai
(852) 2845 8002
irancghk@netvigator.com

thank you.
Here is a list of Iranian Embassy around the world, and their contact.

http://www.irantravelingcenter.com/embassy.htm

Did you really think you were in charge??

Are you boys and girl having fun watching the Iranian election clusterfuck? I sure am!! Nothing more entertaining than seeing a foreign angry mob desperately trying to hold on to democracy, while at the same time not realizing the results really is as irrelevant as Darth Vader appearing on American idol (What?).

Forgive me if I seem ignorant (I am), but yours truly is failing to see the point in having a president when you have a appointed supreme leader at the same time? Say whatever you want about Ahmadinejad and his non-tie wearing ass, isn’t it really the guy with the crazy beard and sexy black turban(1) who is in charge. For fuck sakes! He has been since 1989!

Anyway, the Iranian has really outdone themselves I say! Last time an international election fraud that gain so much publicity had no burning cars and the police sure as hell weren’t shooting at the losing sides!(2) While some of you might have been too young/drunk /doped up/downloading music from Napster/licking your dot.com bubble burst wounds to remember what happened in 2000, I was wayyy too impressed by the drama 9 years ago.

Let us recap on what happened, shall we?

The year is 2000, after 2 successful(3) terms as the King of Freedom aka the President of the World, William ‘Bill’ Clinton left office and it is election season for the great country of USA !! Woot woot! Enter the red white and blue balloons and super cool rock star touring buses(4)!!! Roll over real news! Here come months of non-stop important election coverage on your news networks(5)!!!

Long story short, after months of primaries that filtered out unpopular/under-funded/ ugly/gay candidates, it was a contest between a future noble prize winner(6) and a post turtle(7)

It was a close election, closer than most would like to admit today (you voted for who in 2000? Prepared to be judged and called a redneck by the ‘righteous’ people!!! ) How did it end? Well, the candidates with the most popular vote ended up losing(8) that’s how it went. Shits happened right? RIGHT?!?!????

Cue the butt-hurts recounts and the mass media tomfoolery outrage, and the rest, as they say, were history/comedy.

Here, have some Colbert/Bush classic!!! Almost didn't happened becoz of Gore!

The US of A, at the pinnacle of democracy, yet with no national standard for conducting elections, states and municipalities are free to oversee voting as they see fits, ancient voting equipments(9), a confusing as fuck electoral college system(10), some would say the election was ripe for rigging. They would never admit it, but then they still haven’t admitted to the fact that they lied about Iraq neither.

While populist in Hong Kong are shouting for general election for the position of chief executive, it would be sensible to consider the fact that, the government of Hong Kong will always have a Supreme Overlord, and while it would seem to have achieved something to the extent of getting a win over your supreme overlord by having a general election. Just remember, having the right to vote does not necessary mean you have the power in your hand.

Footnotes from hell: (Are you enjoying reading this article up and down?? It just a trick I use to make it looks professional and meaningful!)

(1) Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is sexy by default, as all Ayatollah are. No comment from him regarding his relation to the Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla (rumoured to be Chris Jericho). Yet.

(2) As much as Dick Cheney would’ve like to.

(3) No comment on political success, entrainment wise it was a damn resounding success never seen before, until George W. Bush opened his mouth and tried to address the nation.

(4) (www.bushlegacytour.com/page/-/bushlegacytour/images/BushLegacyBus-Ext.jpg). Come on, dudes, you know you want a bus like that too.

(5) http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2008/04/21/campaigning-in-the-world-of-warcraft/ Elections for nerds. Btw the author thinks The Daily Show is a real source of news. The author is also mildly mentally handicapped.

(6) For making a giant Power Point presentation about weather. blah..and they never give one to Ghandi (!)Fuck u Noble!

(7) You see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there; he can't get anything done while he's up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down

(8) True Fact!! (The only one in this article!) Gore 48.38% Bush 47.87% http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm I wouldn’t bullshit you!!! I might bullshit you with moral myth-busting theories, but not election results!!!!! Friends just don’t do that to each other man.

(9) Almost two million ballots were ‘disqualified’ in the 2000 election because they registered multiple votes or none when run through vote-counting machines.PCCW take note, vote planting is just too complicated for this day and age.

(10) Help yourselves--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College. Fucking hard to understand, but bloody excellent for interactive chart making on 24-hours news network. Here’s John King from CNN trying to make sense of what’s happening in the HDTV world of politic http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/22/arts/television/cnn.span.jpg

Are we heading to an American Justice?

Came across this BBC report on Facebook.

Bunch of sex offenders have to camp under a bridge in Miami "because of a law which prohibits those who have sexually abused minors from living within 760m of anywhere children congregate". That means nowhere within the city of Miami but under that bridge.

People coming out of their correctional services because of the offense were dropped there. Some even got their driving license issued with the bridge as their address.

They are "imprisoned" in a place with condition worse than a proper prison. There is no water supply, no electricity, no sewage, no nothing.

Does that sound familiar to our fellas in Hong Kong?

Those from Mui Wo want Christian Zheng Sheng College nowhere near their home. Admit it, a local school for Mui Wo kids is an excuse. Somebody got their degrading comments taped (Our expat friend suggested searchlights to be installed!!!).

But you guys out there denouncing the Mui Wo people, make pretty sure that you are not only a hypocritical ass. Be prepared not to eat your own words when Zheng Sheng comes around your neighbourhood.

If most of us are only being hypocritical in this incident, than we can easily imagine that Zheng Sheng students will end up living in squalor like those sex offenders under the bridge.

If you want to live in a utopian society, now you got another choice besides Singapore, Miami welcomes you!

Coco Chanel just finished picking her nose and thinking about what to do with the stuff she found...

Like the creationism issue we talked about earlier, SCMP was the first newspaper having reported on another absurdity happened in this great city. Ming Pao's report came as late as today.

Of course, I'm late as well. Since I read the news from SCMP while taking shit days ago, I have spent some good time thinking about what to write about that. I finally decide that I should let you see it yourself.



Above is the original Hong Kong version movie poster.


Above is the "righted" version after our anti-smoking activists launched their complaint. I couldn't find the Hong Kong version, so I uploaded the French one. I saw the Hong Kong version in other places, and it's the same as the French one above.

Is the Coco in the second poster playing with what she picked out of her nose or something?

I have nothing against anti-smoking activists nor the various bans on smoking. But the above just looked so ridiculously odd.

I understand that the law bans any mentioning or presentation of smoking or tobacco in the public, hence, they did what they did above.

Hong Kong was not the first place to have made such a move. Paris did that in April. But even their health minister and the politician behind their smoking ban law said that "the rules are taken too ridiculously far" and that "the ban shouldn't be extended to their cultural heritage."

I hope we can be less panic on these kinds of things. I started smoking not because I had seen any celebrity holding a cigarette instead of picking his or her nose. I was curious as a young kid and it was readily available from my buddie. It's as simple as that.

If a kid could be influenced by the mere look at a cool picture, the kid will go for a puff eventually for any other reasons. You don't have to worry.

It might be ok to ban tobacco advertisement, but the above poster is definitely not a tobacco advertisement. It is only taken to be one by the definition of the law.

輿論

原本打算寫一篇故事，諷刺梅窩居民以子女跨區就讀為藉口，反對正生書院遷入。不過，昨天同事有趣的問題，令我停一停，想一想：「每區都有空置學校，既然大家認同正生書院的理念，願意給予學生機會改過自新，何不各區投票表達意願，意願最高的地區主動邀請正生遷入？」

有趣有趣，也請你停一停，想一想，回答了才看下去。

假若真以投票表決，我相信大部分地區都耍手擰頭。為甚麼呢？因為我們習慣基於片面的猜想，對實況妄下判斷。有誰知道正生採近似封閉式管理，學生不能隨意出入社區？有誰知道正生持戒毒院舍牌照及教育牌照，校內並無戒毒設施？有誰知道正生長洲分校開學十四年來，未有影響環境治安？

我當然不認同口不對心的做法，明明南約區中學07年被殺校前缺乏學生理睬，被殺校時少有家長惋惜，被殺校後並無辦學團體問津；現在竟祭出希望「原區就讀」的旗幟，借此阻止正生書院的遷入，實在於理不合。

但是，任何公開的論述，為了爭取大眾的認同和支持，無可避免要搶佔道德的高地。這大概是因我們打從心底裏，並不相信理性的討論和溝通，能帶來真正的理解和共識。唯一的捷徑，就是煽動民情，以道德的制高點主導輿論，迫使對方就範。這使我想起英國首相邱吉爾的一句說話:

"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."

Kick creationism out of our science classroom

I have no better arguments to offer here, it's as clear as day.

Keep the teaching of creationism or intelligent design out of our science classroom.

Recently, some schools in Hong Kong have stated that they're going to include the teaching of creationism in the biology class. A bunch of scientists launched a sound complaint to the Education Bureau.

A worrying event came after. A group of 62 people, including school principals, teachers, scholars which included "scientists" of universities, submitted their letter to the Legco, claiming that the inclusion of creationism in the biology curriculum is ok.

Those principals and teachers are just, well, principals and teachers.

But I am extremely disappointed by those university "scientists" among them. I even think that these "scientists" should have their research grants and lectureships reviewed for their comments made. The respectable Professor Michael Reiss had to quit as director of education at the Royal Society just because of his misquoted advocacy for the teaching of creationism in classroom. I seriously think that the respective parties should check if these "scientists" deserve the name and most importantly, the financial resources they received intended for genuine scientific research.

Professor Reiss' true view, which I think is very sound, can be found in this 2007 BBC report.

What have happened around the issue in Hong Kong can be found at the website of the Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education.

I read their website carefully and agreed to most, if not all, of their arguments there. Therefore, I am not going to repeat here.

You might ask why. Isn't it better to include as much information as possible in the classroom, hence, giving our students a broader horizon on things?

But the fact is, we have different disciplines of knowledge with different natures. And it is important for our students to be taught the proper differentiation among these different knowledge disciplines. Different methods should be used in different types of knowledge.

For example, it is hopelessly stupid to ask students to appreciate a piece of literature by mathematical method. And you do not ask for a laboratory report in poetic form.

Creationism itself is not a problem. But disguising a teaching of faith as a scientific theory is what irritates me.

Students could be given the chance to discuss, read, and think about issues regarding faith and religion in school for sure. But never in the science classes.

It gives our young kids the impression that creationism is a scientific theory, which is undoubtedly wrong.

I urge the Education Bureau to look into this matter seriously, though I am pessimistic as usual on those bureaucrats there.

I signed the online petition by the Concern Group. I think you should do it, especially if you are a parent. Please do it before 30 June noon.

一篇週記

快樂的一天　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　六月十四日

今天早上，我和媽媽到梅窩體育館，參加居民諮詢大會。途中見到很多叔伯姨嬸，他們手裏拿著自製的紙牌和橫額，上面寫著「出外返學四小時，原區就讀最適宜」，一行人浩浩蕩蕩，好不熱鬧。

到達後，媽媽叮囑我一會兒拿著寫上標語的紙牌，待講者準備發言時便衝到台前，把手上的紙牌高高舉起，給他們一個下馬威。媽媽的說話，我自然牢記在心，心裏忍不住帶點緊張和興奮。她拍了拍我的肩膀，示意我放鬆下來，待會兒只要照著做就可以了。這時，我發現隔壁的小珍也跟著她的爸爸來了，手裏還拿著和我一樣的紙牌呢！

轉瞬間，主持宣佈書院講者將發言時，我和小真、還有其他小朋友，都急不及待地走到台前，在姨姨的指引下，把講者們團團圍住，然後舉起手上的紙牌，活像人造的圍城。台下觀眾看見我們威風的樣子，歡呼聲響個不停，我開始時雖然有點緊張，但現在也非常開心呢！

回到座位裏，講者的發言經常被叔叔伯伯的叫喊聲蓋過，尤其是胖伯伯聲若洪鐘，主持拿著麥克風也不是他的對手。我們大伙兒看著好玩，也跟他一起叫喊，時而「學額供不應求，爭取原區就讀」，時而「不要吸毒仔，不要吸毒妹」；此起彼落的口號令他們手足無措，尷尬的模樣逗得我和小真頻頻發笑。

歡樂的時光過得特別快，我們帶著愉快的心情回家，就這樣渡過了快樂的一天！

註：根據教育局的數字，截至2009年 4月底，離島區公營小學學額空缺為 620個，中學空缺 538個。

The Libertines Pub, Hong Kong Chinese name and tagline Competition

The Libertines Pub, Hong Kong invites you to suggest a Chinese name and tagline!

If the name or tagline you suggested are brilliant enough for us to really use it, you get a cold pint of beer on the house, and the chance to meet our contributors in person.

Enter by making comment on this entry.

讓我說一個故事

讓我說一個故事。

有間學校將舉辦一年一度的秋季旅行，照慣例成立20人的籌備委員會。其中10人由全校學生投票選出，另外10人由教師指派成績最好的同學出任。

學校有些奇怪的規定。例如開會討論的內容只能由校方提出，委員只能通過、否決或修訂；表決的原則不是全體過半數即獲通過，而是分開「投票選出」和「指派出任」兩組同學，各須過半數方能成事。唯一具實質意義的就是每年旅行的收費，須經委員會的審批。

不過，由於每年的秋季旅行都順利舉行，故此從來沒人質疑這些奇怪的規定。學生們批評的對象，反而是熱衷參選的同學。有說他們發言千篇一律，了無新意；有說他們開會遲到早退，經常開小差；更有對課外活動冷感的學生，狠批他們不務正業，無心向學。

直至今年的選舉，一位參選學生令情況起了變化。他是閒來無事便舉起中指，堅稱中指不能屈只能伸的鍾志仁。他鮮明的形象，迅速地受到全校初中學生的歡迎，當然，成績最好的學生除外。

終於在競選擂台上，一些眼紅他的高中生發難，質詢鍾志仁終日無所事事，游手好閒，只懂擺擺姿態，作作樣子，不辦實事，全無建設可言。假若你是他，你會有何回應？

鍾志仁思索了數秒，以帶點狡黠的幽默道：「如果有賊搶你的錢，我阻止而不讓他得逞，你會說這不是實事，毫無建設嗎？」台下的聽眾似明非明，不過擁躉卻欣喜若狂，如痴如醉，大叫中指中指我支持你；眼紅者則茫然相視，雖啞口無言，卻仍然憤憤不平。

唯獨靜立一旁的學生－程柱暗暗點頭，不屑支持和批評者的無知與愚昧，心想：「這是制度問題，蠢才們！」

"You're so disgusting!!" But, do you mean it?

Face it, we are all dirty.

As an open libertine and an aggressive asshole, there're innumerable times where I made people around speechless, by openly challenge their comments on others' "sexual morality".

"It's so gross!!"

"You're such a sexual pervert!!"

Back in their bedrooms, do they all fuck in missionary position only, and even say a prayer beforehand?

I suspect not. I even suspect it's not in the bedroom...

I hope that our prolific psychologists will one day invent a kind of abnormality called hypocrisy. Setting heavenly "moral" standards for oneself and others publicly while letting anything goes privately sounded perverted to me.

I asked, with my perfect sincerity, why they think that something or certain person is perverted or gross. I respect the few of them who gave me their grounds for their comments, or their religious values behind their remarks. I only pity them for their lack of fun in life.

But the others are simply dumbfounded. They simply picked up the comments and judgements from others. Or, they thought that they ought to make such remarks, everybody does!

But I suspect the true reason is that they don't mean it.

If we all stop being sexual hypocrites, maybe the society as a whole could start meaningfully discuss sexuality, people could start seeking help openly when needed, and we can all stop being so perverted.

Of course I'm not saying that there is no sexual abnormality. There are people who are sick sexually and who needed help; there're clinical definitions for abnormality. But they are not immoral people. You don't morally condemn a cancer patient for being sick, the person is simply sick.

I wonder since when abnormality became a value-laden weapon for the hypocrites.

一條選擇題

一條選擇題。

假設你要從三個候選人中投票揀出領袖，你會選擇那一個？

「候選人A──跟一些不誠實的政客有往來，而且會諮詢占卜星相者。他有婚外情，抽了幾十年煙，每天喝8至10杯馬天尼。
候選人B──有過兩次被解僱記錄，每天睡到中午才起床，大學時抽過鴉片，每天喝一夸特（quart）威士忌。
候選人C──一位受勛的戰爭英雄，擅長繪畫，素食主義者，不抽煙，偶爾喝一點啤酒，沒有婚外情。」

答案似乎明顯不過？如果你是這樣想的話，你大概揀了候選人C吧。恭喜你，你遵從了歷史的選擇，投票選出引發第二次世界大戰，並進行種族清洗的德國希特勒當你的領袖。

至於候選人A和B嘛，你很可能不恥他們的私生活而拒絕投票，不過若然沒有他們，歷史的文明進程將會不一樣。他們是與希特勒同時代的領袖，美國總統羅斯福和英國首相邱吉爾，戰勝並結束了第二次世界大戰。

我無意漠視現實生活的各種複雜情況，就如我們投票選領袖時，當然會考慮很多「道德」以外的不同因素。然而，簡化的例子往往有助帶出易於被忽略的事實，一些我們慣於隱藏卻羞於承認的事實。

註：「」內文字引用自2009年4月30日蘋果日報李怡的一篇文章「經驗不一定可靠」。

Sympathy for the devil? Or is there any in the Nina Wang battle of wills?

How I wish the Nina Wang court case ends immediately.

Every morning my redneck colleagues will start cursing Tony Chan for at least an hour from 0915, after reading the reports on the case which might only go well with their stinky breakfasts. Most people made a judgement before the court does, which deems the court battle so meaningless.

Almost all of them think that Tony Chan is the greedy man who ripped Wang off her fortune, and that the assets should goes to the Chinachem Charitable Foundation run by members of her family.

What if Wang and Chan were really romantically in love? Why not? It is for the court to settle the issue of Wang's wills; until the judgement says that Chan is lying, I don't see any ground for us to condemn him at all.

Just because Chan is 20 years younger, they're deprived of the right to be romantically in love and to intimately and sexually caress each other? Even if Chan was a gigolo who set himself a high standard in terms of money return and if Wang gladly and happily accepted the service, what bothers you guys at all?

The last one is really the question, why do we care?

Our curious fellas of course won't admit that they're just nosy. They say, because the estate can be better used as charity.

Do we know anything about the Chinachem Charity Trust, run by siblings of Wang, yet? Charity trust or foundation, just like any company or organisation, can also be run badly.

I do not intend in any sense or to any extent to suggest that the Trust was, is, or will be run badly. I actually do not know. I tried to google about the Trust, but found no website or whatever information about the Trust. I only want to bust the myth most of us have, that is, being charitable means being good. If a charitable organisation or trust is run badly, it can mean that every dollar you gave, only 10 cents or less will finally reach the hands of the needed.

So having a charitable trust on one side of the battle doesn't automatically ground their side a victory.

Could we shut the fuck up from now on and let the court do its job?