取得公共资讯：这是你的权利！
遊德國憂香港
《环球邮报》（Globalpost）文章: 自焚者与达赖喇嘛不同之处
兆賢及龍緯汶唱遊非洲鼓
為什麼三百個飯盒也不足夠派發？
你在我心里不停打滑
要就地高考，拒绝异地高考
抑郁症
八鄉錦田地區報十二月號專題：「我執狗執到怕！」動物遺棄垃圾站收容場艱苦經營
人类史上两大最残酷的教训
提防DDoS聲東擊西
我們能做哈比人嗎？
荒唐的2012
微信阅读的压力
4800 宗與SSRI 類藥物相關事故彙整
为什么不告诉我？爱情里的禁忌、欺瞒与逃避
Jared Diamond专访
王力雄有关藏人自焚文章之英文译文
回顧2012︰香港點解搞成咁？（上）從〈這是我家〉到〈難忘時刻〉
部門聯手封殺街站食環署：不如擺灣仔道

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 12:28 PM PST

虽然在公共行政单位手上的资讯事实上应该是属于公共大众的，但是有时候想要获得来自他们的讯息、数据和文件，不一定是件容易的事。实际上，想要取得公共资讯其实有许多阻碍，像是会违反国际条约，例如欧盟理事会的公众获取官方文件条约、以及全世界超过九十三个有关公众获取资讯的法规。

这也就是其中一个动机，使得一些民间组织建立了一系列允许民众自公共机构取得资讯的线上平台，这些组织致力于支持公开透明化的行动。在欧洲，AsktheEU.org平台的主要目的是向欧洲机构传达要求，而由非政府组织Access Info Europe和Fundación Civio[西语]共同合作创建和经营的平台Your right to know[西语]，则是专注于西班牙的机构。这些平台允许任何民众直接向目标行政单位传送获取资讯的要求，不论这些行政单位是地区性的、独立自治的、或是国家级的行政单位。这个想法来自于由MySociety创建且以free software called Alaveteli为基础的英国网站WhatDoTheyKnow?。类似的工具也存在于巴西、德国、智利、科索夫和乌拉圭，还有最近受争议的网站What do you know?[西语]。

在这些平台上，每一个人寄给政府机构的资讯要求都是公开的。这使任何人都能够追踪这些要求，而且看到对应的答覆。此外，这样的系统使得公共机构能够节省时间，因为他们不需要重覆回答相同的要求；另一方面，也让实际使用者可以直接得到那些已经被回覆的答案，而不需要等待。因此它增加了资料的透明化，也更有效率。不论是否对回覆的答案觉得满意，使用者都有机会表达他们的意见。如果在设定的截止日期前，使用者尚未取得要求的资料，其他使用者甚至可以提供资源。

Graph with results of Astheeu.org platform after one year.

Astheeu.org 平台，使用一年之后的结果图表。

平台的使用结果在每个国家各有不同，主要受每个国家实行的资讯取得相关法律影响。在西班牙，法规将许多资讯排除在法律的范围之外，而且允许行政机构保持缄默，也就是说，如果他们没有回应，就表示他们拒绝那个取得资讯的要求。西班牙是欧盟唯一一个人口超过百万但却没有透明化法律的国家 (除了有关环境材料)。虽然相关法案目前正在议会中等待修改，但是已研读过法案的专家表示它是不够的，而且它低于国际标准[西语]。如果透明化法律以它现有的内容被通过，对于目前透明化的缺乏将没有太大帮助。

也有其他类似前面所讲的行动，它们使用网际網絡的优势来取得资料，要求"知的权利"，而且刺激了公共机构的义务。例如，TweetyourMEP、Tweetminster和TweetCongress促进了经由推特(Twitter)传送讯息给欧盟代表或其他政治家的可能性，而这些人正是使用者想要对话的对象。

取得资讯是一个和言论自由有关的基本权利。资讯是形成公众意见的关键，公民也因此而能参与产生决定的过程。公共机构必须要回应这些要求，不只是因为他们的义务，而且因为他们这些代表公民的人可以因而重拾公民对他们的信心。如果公共机构能够更透明化而且对他们的行为负责，那在公民和机构之间的分歧将能有很大的改善。一个CIS报告[西语]指出，每四个西班牙人就有一个认为政府管理出了问题。这个情况发生在西班牙不是一个巧合，从西班牙并未实施欧洲人权公约(European Convention on Human Rights)的第十条就可见一斑，这一个法条保护了"取得或传递资讯或思想的自由"。在2009年4月，欧洲人权法庭(the European Tribunal on Human Rights)承认言论自由的权利包含了取得公共机构所拥有资讯的权利[西语]。

在以下的影片中，非政府组织Access Info Europe的负责人Helen Darbishire解释了如何使用以及为什么要使用Asktheeu.org平台：

校对者：Portnoy

作者 Elena Arrontes · 译者 Yu-Jung · 阅读原文 [es] · 则留言 (0)
分享: HEMiDEMi · MyShare · Shouker · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

遊德國憂香港

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 10:21 AM PST

近十年那「偉大國家」財大氣粗了，加上對岸的民國不像民國、香港日趨大陸化、海外老華僑相繼凋謝
不知是否太久沒有出外，此次遊德國，赫然驚覺那「偉大國家」趁此時機在海外用盡一切手段，結果令外國人日漸以為︰

中文字＝殘體字
漢語＝「煲冬瓜」﹝已忘記或不知漢語其他方言，如︰廣府話、客家話、潮州話及台山話等﹞
老毛裝是中國人的傳統衣著﹝註︰與從前的「傅滿州」﹝Fu Manchu﹞形像同樣不堪﹞
香港——及澳門——只是那「偉大國家」的地方城市而已﹝越來越多外國人忘記了港、澳是特別行政區，有自己的政府、制度、貨幣、對外代表等——姑勿論那「偉大的國家」在背後干涉了多少﹞﹝註︰當然，英國人絕不會忘記他們的「帝國斜陽」﹞
他們那已破壞殆盡、完全扭曲人

性的一套才是正統、真正的中華文化

結果，外國友人不明白我這個香港人為甚麼︰

自稱來自香港
說粵語也是中文
用英文名介紹自己
寫或讀英語，不讀﹝或寫﹞殘體字——雖然我懂殘體字
當他們說「Nǐ hǎo」，我不會感到興奮

不過，台灣友人諒解、體會香港的景況，澳門友人則感同身受

後記︰
在法蘭克福期間，偶然看見一不知所謂的海報﹝就是附在本文那個馬戲團廣告﹞，幾乎氣死
我氣的不單是在全球化時代，外國人仍不知中國人——其實中國人也仍不知西方人、印度人、中東人及日本人；我更氣的是原來那「偉大國家」在背後有支持這馬戲團﹝詳細資料︰﹞，那不是再說人家不瞭解中國人了，但我更担憂外國人可能以為連香港人都是那個模樣……

《环球邮报》（Globalpost）文章: 自焚者与达赖喇嘛不同之处

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 10:01 AM PST

Self-immolators and the Dalai Lama: what they don't have in common

分析：很多自焚者呼喊达赖喇嘛回归图伯特。但他们同时也要求独立。

作者：约书亚•伊顿（Joshua Eaton）*
翻译：更桑东智（@johnlee1021）
原文发表：环球邮报2012年12月27日
转自："说，还是不说？"博客

11月7日，达赖喇嘛致信奥巴马总统，祝贺他竞选连任成功。从各个方面看，这都只是一封不引人注目的官方信函。但是，对于细心的图伯特政治观察者而言，信件的最后一段则相当值得关注：

如您所知，我向民选的图伯特领导人移交政治权力已经时逾一年……我非常感谢您对我们"中间道路政策"的支持，我依然相信这一政策是有利于藏汉双方的（解决西藏问题的）最佳方案。

自1979年被以达赖喇嘛为首脑的图伯特流亡政府（即现在的"藏人行政中央"）采纳以来，"中间道路政策"一直在有关图伯特的国际对话中占主导地位。就在图伯特境内外民众对这一政策日益感到失望的形势下，尊者在致奥巴马的信件中对其加以重申。

"中间道路政策"寻求在中华人民共和国之内获得更大的自治而不是政治独立。这类似于在香港和澳门实施的"一国两制"政策——作为中国的一部分而享有经济和政治自治。1988年，流亡博巴（藏人）举行的全民公决正是接受了"中间道路政策"，而流亡议会也在1997年再次批准了这一政策。

流亡博巴中的年轻政治活动人士尽管对达赖喇嘛有压倒性的支持和尊重，但是他们当中有很多人在总体上对"中间道路政策"和藏人行政中央越来越不抱幻想。有迹象表明同样的情况也出现在图伯特境内的民众当中。

现在还无法获知大多数图伯特境内民众的想法和感受。最近没有西方新闻记者活动在那个地区。言论自由、新闻自由和集会自由这样的基本权利在那里是不存在的。各种致命的打压手段更加强了这些限制：失踪、酷刑和草率的处决。

自2009年2月以来席卷图伯特高原的自焚浪潮——迄今至少发生了95起——是图伯特普通民众用及其勇敢的方式表达自己的政治愿望。这些自焚者经常留下录音、字条或小册子解释他们的动机，在自焚时几乎都举着标语或喊口号。

最为常见的要求包括，让达赖喇嘛回归、保护图伯特语言以及停止对宗教自由的限制。不过，也有很多自焚者要求图伯特独立。实际上，在已经报道出来的45名左右的自焚者的遗言中，有30人明确要求图伯特独立。

有一个例子是2012年10月4日自焚的43岁的图伯特诗人和博客作者古珠。在他自焚前的几个月，他令人心酸地写到他关于图伯特独立的感受：

"达赖喇嘛尊者提倡非暴力中间道路政策，努力争取自治权利，为此境内外600万藏人也一直遵从尊者的教言长期期盼，但中共政府不仅不给予支持和关注，反而提及藏人福祉的人都会遭到监禁和无尽的酷刑折磨，更严重的是污蔑达赖喇嘛，只要不承认西藏是中国的一部分，将会遭到暗杀或失踪，藏人的福祉利益根本置之不理，因此，为了见证和宣传西藏的真实状况，我们要把和平斗争更加激烈化，将自身燃烧呼唤西藏独立之声。"

这样的声明在自焚者的遗愿中并不少见。有些甚至更加直接。在2011年10月15日自焚时，19岁的诺布占堆（Norbu Damdrul）呼喊道："图伯特要自由"、"图伯特独立"。"18岁的朗卓（Nangdrol）在2012年2月19日自焚前留下的遗言表述得更加简单明了："祈愿藏民族脱离汉魔。"还有很多类似的例证。

在世界各地有很多很多的博巴，甚至一些自焚者，都支持中间道路政策。但是，那些要求独立而不是自治的声音在报道中很少有人提到。这不完全是出于偶然。

多年来，一直有人批评藏人行政中央的高层领导人对那些表达支持独立观点的图伯特媒体、活动人士和组织进行言论审查。其中包括一些卓越的、资金雄厚的图伯特支持团体，而西方政治家和新闻记者正是依靠这些团体和组织获得来自图伯特境内所发生的事情的客观消息。

最近，长期支持图伯特事业的共和党议员德纳•罗拉巴切指责藏人行政中央高层迫使自由亚洲电台（RFA）藏语部主任阿沛•晋美（Jigme Ngabo）辞职，原因是他允许支持独立的活动人士参加节目。这一事件使得对"藏人行政中央"的批评声浪达到了一个高峰。RAF藏语部40名雇员中的37人签署了一份支持阿沛的信件，一些著名的图伯特知识分子也声言反对解除阿沛·晋美的职务，但是到目前这些呼吁还没有产生任何作用。

当然，达赖喇嘛有权表达自己的观点，而且他的观点总是更有分量。藏人行政中央的官员们也有权表达自己的观点。但是，图伯特境内外普通民众的观点同样需要被聆听和被尊重。至少95名博巴用最可怕的方式献出了自己的生命，以此向外界表达他们的诉求。在此时刻，我们尤其应当聆听和尊重他们的声音。

奥巴马总统应该聆听达赖喇嘛的意见，但是同时也应该倾听古珠的声音。

*约书亚•伊顿（Joshua Eaton）是报道有关宗教和政治事务以及图伯特、中国、社会正义运动和美国南方等等方面新闻的记者。

兆賢及龍緯汶唱遊非洲鼓

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 09:01 AM PST

兆賢及龍緯汶唱遊非洲鼓

在參加完南方民主同盟於石硤尾賽馬會創意藝術中心舉行的音樂文藝工作坊第一回：非洲鼓（該活動由深水埗區議會贊助，社區文化發展中心承辦）後，4歲的兆賢及龍緯汶於2012年12月29日下午在石硤尾賽馬會創意藝術中心 L216室唱遊非洲鼓。

歡迎登入＜龍緯汶的音樂世界＞，重溫＜兆賢及龍緯汶唱遊非洲鼓＞：

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IboByrOMtLE

影像串流:

See video

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

為什麼三百個飯盒也不足夠派發？

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 08:41 AM PST

今天我們參與了平等分享運動，這次活動派發了三百個飯盒。派發了所有的飯盒後，還有很多沒有籌的無家朋友也希望能取得飯盒，想有一個溫飽的肚子去應付寒冷的天氣，但飲盒只有三百個，沒有多也沒有少，在這刻我們是不是應想想為什麼三百個飯盒也不足夠派發呢。離開後我和拍檔到深水食飯，在途中我們看見街上有一位坐輪椅的無家朋友，拍檔買了一枝熱牛奶給他，同樣的道理，三百個飯盒不夠派的原因除了政府施政不佳外，其他我們還可以在日常生活中去實踐施比受更為有福的道理，行公義好憐憫去暫時彌補施政缺失。

我們並不善於用文字表達自已，我們相信用相或許更能表達自已其他作品：Website Facebook

你在我心里不停打滑

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 08:01 AM PST

一周语文｜2012（53）｜2012-12-24-2012-12-30

左为本周单字"嬛"，"甄嬛"的"嬛"。本周，《咬文嚼字》编辑部"2012年十大语文差错"颁布。据记者石剑锋报道，"自2006年以来，《咬文嚼字》编辑部都会在年底公布'年度十大语文差错'，纠正国人在当年常犯的'语文差错'，也从一个角度回顾当年的热点事件。"

"'2012年十大语文差错'包含了常读错的字'酵'，也有媒体常会搞混的'酒驾'和'醉驾'，还有明星们经常犯的错，比如大S误用的'贱内'等。被几亿国人念错的'嬛'的'嬛'字（应读xuān），因其日常实用性不高最终躲过了'十大'榜单，《咬文嚼字》总编郝铭鉴开玩笑说，'人家还要拍第二季，就不泼冷水了。'"

"在郝铭鉴看来，每年评选'十大语文差错'就是给全民上一堂语文公开课，看看哪些字用错了、念错了。对于造成各类'语文差错'层出不穷的原因，在《咬文嚼字》总编郝铭鉴看来，这跟现代人的语言态度有关……很多人的语言态度粗俗，音不准、形不辨、意不究、典不检；对待语言，很多人觉得趣味至上；传统文化缺失；以及规范意识淡泊。"《说文解字》未收"嬛"，仅有与之相关"睘"字可查。"嬛"为多音字，有huán、xuān、qióng三种读音。

"郝铭鉴认为，从剧情看，甄嬛是大理寺少卿甄某的长女……自报闺名'甄嬛'。皇帝问她是哪个'嬛'。甄嬛答：是'嬛嬛一袅楚宫腰'的'嬛'。皇帝说：那是取自宋代蔡伸的词喽，并赞美她：'柔桡嬛嬛，妩媚姌袅。你果然当得起这个名字！'可见，'嬛嬛'在这里是形容女子婀娜妩媚之姿的。甄嬛既自陈其名是来自蔡伸的《一剪梅》，那'嬛'字就应是形容女子柔美轻盈之义。这个'嬛嬛一袅楚宫腰'的'嬛'，理应读作'xuān'"……不过，网友朗玛看世界认为，"《集韵-删韵》中就明确指出'嬛，胡關切。女字。'就是说女名用字就该念huán"，看来多音字果真麻烦。

—————————————————————————————————————————

【辨丑】

来自经济观察网报道，原题"大众'辨丑'，视觉审美的觉醒"。报道说，历时3个多月，首届由网友票选"全国十大丑陋雕塑"评选结果近日出炉。这次参加评选共计59件雕塑作品，参加票选的总投票数近500万。这个以"辨丑"为主题的网民票选被认为是"一件重大的文化事件，它不仅反应了官方意识与大众审美的背离，也在一定程度上反应了大众视觉审美意识的觉醒"……依照朱光潜的审美主观说，世上确乎没有天下共赏之美。但当大多数接受者共愤其丑时，创作者似乎应有警醒。

【再不冷就没有机会了】

语出诗人俞心樵新近微博："这天气那个冷啊，可是，再不冷就没有机会了，泥马，这天气就像贪官呐，再不捞就没有机会了"……与其说诗人的这声"感叹"选用的是模拟句式，不如说他在套用模拟心态，常言所谓"屁股决定脑袋"、"59岁现象"之类，其要害也是心态。

【性奴隶】

语出作家马家辉财新网专栏，原题"当然都是性奴隶"。文章介绍《南京大屠杀全史》主编张宪文教授在该书编辑中一律以"性奴隶"三字取代"慰安妇"三字，并认为，这个特别更换的命名细节才是真正的彰显正义。马家辉说："美国国务卿希拉里于今年7月指示美国国务院，所有官方文件提及'comfort women'处，必须一律改为'sex slaves'，以示正名……张教授的建议和希拉里的指示，必是2012年里发生的最好事情；正义迟来总比永远不来好得多。"

【前方是星河，腹中有红楼】

语出作家叶三微博："又下雪。假装吃鹿肉，假装登顶吟诗，假装替您喝半杯酒。前方是星河，腹中有红楼。晚安。"叶三笔下的这句段除首句"下雪"为实指外，或全为暗码式个人经验投射个人情感体验？尽管如此，那些动词名词仍给人遐想之美……有时，读不懂更好，因为有时破译就是破坏。

【姓氏光环】

来自财新记者陈沁报道，原题"女总统如何走出姓氏光环"。报道说，"韩国首位女总统朴槿惠身上有着太过鲜明的父辈痕迹。她的名字前亘古不变的定语是'前总统朴正熙之女'，许多人说'看到她的脸就看到朴正熙的脸'……此番朴槿惠能够重返9岁即随父入住的青瓦台，'朴正熙效应'功不可没。但是，未来五年，朴槿惠若想真正如她竞选时所言成为'民生总统'，'开启国民幸福时代'，仅仰仗父亲的余荫远远不够。若不能兑现承诺，走出有自己风格的执政道路，水能覆舟也只是时间问题。"

【他的这样也不对那样也不对的倦意很迷人】

语出作家黄昱宁。谈及作家苗炜新作《寡人有疾》，学者洛之秋感觉它"给读者的药量要再猛一点，药不能停。这是真心话，尤其是每天看完国内社会版的新闻"，而黄老师则认为："我倒觉得药太猛就有点不那么苗师傅了。苗师傅不是那种奥威尔或者鲁迅式的气质，他的'这样也不对，那样也不对'的倦意很迷人"……黄昱宁的观点除更倾向于文学审美外，也带有鲜明性别特点。

【文化麻将】

语出学者朱大可微博："查看百度百科关于'诺贝尔奖'的词条，出乎意料地发现，华人获奖的已达11位之多，其中文科的都源于大陆，正好凑成一桌'莫派文化麻将'……背负自卑情结的国人们，委实可以弹冠相庆了。"

【脑中空空敲一下都能听到回声】

来自网友闻道ing本周推荐，语出电视主持人柴静。新近主持人柴静新书《看见》出版，网友闻道ing转引书中文字与网友分享："钱钢老师是另一种风格，不训人，也不指点人，只是不论谁做得好，他总能看在眼里。我跟他哭诉，说自己除了课本，只看过言情小说，脑中空空，敲一下都能听到回声。他乐了，说不用急，好香是熏出来的。"

【玛雅愚人节】

来自阿联酋《海湾时报》网站的一张漫画，漫画中，玛雅长老手拿写着"2012年12月21日"的纸条，自言自语说："把它当做玛雅人的愚人节，我们愚弄了人类"……这个带有特指意味的"玛雅愚人节"会在时隔一年循环出现？

【我希望它们围绕在我身边】

语出作家麦克尤恩。接受采访，麦克尤恩回忆写作人生、70年代及新作《甜齿》。新近搬家，麦克尤恩说，他还是把一些他自己喜欢的纸板书搬了过来："他花了好几天时间把装箱打包的藏书从盒子里搬出来。'是的，把它们放在书架上，宛如重新讲叙你依旧存在的故事，'他说。'这些发脆、泛黄的平装书全是我在17岁时买的。我不会再重读它们，但我也不会把它们扔掉。'他环抱了一下自己，尽量让我看起来他有些神经质。'我希望它们围绕在我身边，再好的电子书也不能给我这种感觉'"……一种热爱被转换为一个动作是这个句子的打人之处，如同柴静将一种贫瘠转换为一种声音。

【妒女症】

语出作家南桥博文，上为文题。博文里，南桥先生从美国护照申请表拟将"父亲"（father)、"母亲"（mother)改为"父母甲" （parent one)、"父母乙"(parent two)的传说聊起，将源自女权主义者卡伦-霍纳的"子宫妒忌"转"译"为"生殖羡慕嫉妒恨"，简称为"妒女症"，为一个专业词组披上了两件马甲，殊为有趣。原文谈资属性甚浓，在这儿。

【数码文本就像海星和水螅】

来自记者石剑峰推荐，语出某杂志转引美国SLATE杂志文章，文章原题是"电子阅读并非阅读"。文中的一个比喻说，假如书籍从本质上讲是"有脊椎的"，那么数码文本更像是无脊椎的。从某种根本意义上说，数码文本就像海星和水螅，总是逃避我们的把握。

【12语文第十二季】

→板蓝根泡面——药（要）面子。（9度秋裤自制歇后语）
→被遗忘是某种意义上的死亡，当我们被人类共同追求的美好价值遗忘时，也是某种意义上的死亡。（宋石男转昂山素季）
→不对井下这些文革鬼魂下足够的石头，中国迟早会完蛋。（连岳）
→"大裤衩"虽被正式命名为"央视总部大楼"，但此俗称之惯性已恐难改矣！我问旧时同事二愣子："你们搬进大裤衩了吗？"他连想都没想就回答道："快了，靠里边那条裤腿。""领导们呢？""嗨，人家高，都在裤裆那儿。"（骆新）
→姑娘们，为什么结婚一定要找富二代呢？在2011年找富二代，无异于在1891年找八旗二代，在1921年找财阀二代，在1951年找革命二代，在1981 年找国企二代。其婚后十到二十年里就会面临辛亥革命、解放反右、文革和国企下岗。和你爱的人在一起吧，有爱陪伴都不怕！（网友转）
→寒冰夜有饭蔬可食热茶待饮，一路棕榈紫荆树影垂落纷纷。我尚有梦，又爱人生，在异乡也阔绰。（晚宁）
→喝红酒必须要懂红酒吗？我就是光喝不行吗？就像吃卤煮需要知道猪的品种和年份，猪圈的土壤和气候吗？猪生前的光照时间够不够？手掌的温度会不会影响韭菜花的口感？需要区分哪个产区的肥肠色泽浓郁，哪个季节的肺头强劲厚实吗？你别走，你倒是告诉我啊！（地下天鹅绒）
→看《吸血鬼日记》我最大的感想是，希望我能遇见吸脂鬼，我给他供货一辈子！（如小果）
→看到一句很励志的话————干掉熊猫，你也不是国宝。（冬季向日葵转）
→老师：小明同学，解释一下什么叫"四舍五入"？小明：卖了iPhone 4，再买一台iPhone 5！老师：……（佚名）
→旅行的意义，在于发现旅行毫无意义。（温晨）
→"没有之一"是我现在最讨厌的词句，没有之一。（鲍合洋）
→每次进入北京地铁，看到安检设备前贴的那句口号"为了您和他人的安全"……就想到，"安全"是个多么好的侵犯权利的借口啊。（胡泳）
→你就属于那种开导室友安慰朋友，别人爱情里孰是孰非心里清清楚楚。判断分析犀利到自己都要拍手。像你这么懂爱情的人……一定没有男朋友（贱妮转）
→牛顿提出万有引力定律，即"质量大的物体吸引力也大"，此定律后来被胖子推翻了。（LuYi ZZ ）
→三大预言：1. 2012年12月22日紧急避孕药将热卖；2. 2013年2、3月各大医院人流手术高峰期；3. 2013年处女座出生率创历年新高。（左堂堂）
→上帝先是创造了旅行，然后才是疑虑和乡愁。（拿铁匠）
→生命，会自己找到出口，败家，会自己找到借口。（佚名）
→书真便宜，贵的是时间。（王悦蒙）
→特要脸综合症是这样一种不治之症：在无人欣赏的表演中，耗尽了自己的生命。（丁小云）
→我们爱回忆，不是因为回忆里都是美好，是那些伤和痛已经确定，我们不会再恐惧，而未来是那么的不确定。（7姑娘）
→我期待的不是末日，我期待的是末日审判。（这个演员）
→我在想，一个一天发二十条微博评论五十条微博的人劝人要多读书，是不是一个精神分裂患者。（方希）
→我最厌恶大陆喊出的"口号"。我不在乎血浓于水，我在乎的是文明刻度。你这大国怎么对待你的弱势与少数，怎么包容异议份子？如果我们对于文明的尺度完全没有共识，如果对于普世价值观没有共识，那么，根本无法对话，"血浓于水"有意义吗？（咬指头转龙应台）
→无聊的人脸上好像都长着秒针，提醒你时间过得有多慢（左堂堂转詹仁雄）
→一个民族要正常生存，要有一点基本的信仰。因为人性有贪婪、腐恶、仇恨的原罪，信仰是约束人性阴暗面的白血球。当然，信仰若趋向极端，就如同白血球过多，开始变成血癌。（考拉）
→一老汉在唐宁街10号滑了一跤摔倒在地，正值大卫-卡梅伦出门来准备上车。卡梅伦就上前去将老人搀扶起来。 "谢谢啊。"老人道谢。"您要是真想谢谢我，"卡梅伦说，"只要下次选举时投给我和我的党派就可以了。" "听着，哥们儿，"老人说，"我摔的是屁股，可没摔着脑袋！" （朱大可转网络段子）
→用什么播放器听《最炫民族风》才显得更有国际范儿？（老刘不忙）
→有的人把"躲起来"叫"逃避"。可是，我却觉得这是在疗伤。（马冇冇）
→知识分子只向权势低头，是一个多年以来的惯性，有权势者造成这样的态势，实际上是把知识分子打造成了婊子。（张鸣）
→"著作等身"其实并不难。你要是霍比特人，就更好办了。（金融界人贩子）

【你在我心里不停打滑】

语出作家庄雅婷微博。上周末至本周，全国多地气温骤降大雪纷飞，北京下雪的那天傍晚，庄老师在微博里写："爱人，整个北京都在下雪。你在我心里不停打滑"……虽则那个打滑的"你"不得其详，可那"打滑"却比某个抽象名词更具体，更撩人。

【创意差评】

来自编辑杜然本周推荐。所谓"创意差评"，指网购时当遭遇无良商家且不便给差评时，用给好评的方式表达愤怒，也即"创意差评"。其创意处在于，"大肆夸赞店家附赠各种莫须有福利，吸引不明真相买家购买，因卖家根本无法提供被虚拟的福利，最终借其他买家之手给卖家增加差评"……杜老师认为，"创意差评"与网络俗词"高级黑"所用修辞法基本一致。

【赢家多是最后输的输家】

来自财新主编王烁。末日头天，王主编在微博写："如果把每天都当最后一天来过，就算末日到来，也没什么关系，连遗言都不用留。在这个特殊的日子，再自荐博文《如何避免失败的人生》"。所荐"如何避免失败的人生"是王烁2012年11月21日所刊博文。文中从纳什均衡说起步，讨论无论输赢都要付费的博弈怎么玩。其中一段说："以人生来付费，以输赢定结果，常常就是这样惨烈：时间不可逆，弃我去者昨日之日不可留。一旦参与，每一步都有强大的理由加大投注，即使最后胜出，收益与付出不成比例。赢家多是最后输的输家。"

（2012一周语文收工，明年见）

要就地高考，拒绝异地高考

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 06:24 AM PST

要就地高考，拒绝异地高考

杨支柱

最近上海无户籍辍学少年占海特的父亲因为走上街头要求平等的受教育权并且不服从警察的劝说，而被上海警方以涉嫌妨碍公务的罪名刑事拘留（据许志永说已经释放回家）。这一事件将近年来愈演愈烈的高考平权运动推向了风口浪尖，许多大名鼎鼎的知识分子纷纷就此发表自己的看法。

但是在我看来，"异地高考"这个词完全被他们用错了。"异地高考"本质上是就地高考！因为未成年人的住所理所当然就是其父母的住所！

就地高考成为争论本身就是一种国耻！因为未成年子女跟父母一起生活的权利是最基本的人权，而不能就地高考逼迫他们高中阶段（大部分时间尚未成年）只能留在法律人为制造的户籍所在地当留守儿童，导致骨肉分离！

此外，无论是从跟本地户籍孩子受教育权平等的角度看，还是从父母纳税义务和子女受教育福利对地方财政的对应性角度看，也都应该让孩子们就地上学、就地考试。

在现行按省划分名额的体制下，无当地户籍孩子就地高考客观上会分享京津沪本地户口学生的高考特权，这会产生高考移民，防止这种移民的办法大概就是要求考生具备在当地接受高中阶段教育的完整学籍了。但是这将剥夺考生父母自由迁徙的权利：无论另一个省的城市提供一个多么富有吸引力的工资或工作条件，只要孩子在读高中，父母都必须放弃自己的机会，否则孩子将无法参加高考！因此学籍限制并不比户籍限制具有更多的合理性。

分享特权不能作为反对无户籍孩子就地高考的理由，除了跟父母一起生活的权利是更基本的人权之外，也因为反对特权的正当方式决不可能是死死地维护特权不被他人分享，而是直接取消特权者的特权，或者通过普惠的方式变相使特权消失。

但是分享高考特权却使得这一诉求不能取得多数民众支持，而靠就地高考呼吁者的力量根本就不是户籍既得利益集团的对手。如果要求就地高考的人们把农村留守儿童的利益结合进来，在呼吁就地高考的同时也呼吁"我不要离开爸爸妈妈"，立即就能获得数量大几倍的盟军，也在道义上立于不败之地。那些要求"放开二胎"的人也犯了同样的错误——撇开同盟者而指望单独跟利益集团媾和。

因此要求就地高考的孩子们及其父母应该站到公共利益的立场上，要求取消按省分名额的传统，实现分数面前人人平等——无论是全国统一高考还是高校自主命题都可以做到这一点。这在技术上比在各省市自治区之间分配名额不是更复杂，而是更简单。按成绩录取同时也是保证学生有相当知识和智力基础、提高高等教育质量的内在要求。

用照顾西部落后地区来为按省市自治区划分名额辩护，既没有事实证据（还不如照顾京津沪多），理论上也不成立。对西部省区的照顾政策实际受惠者是西部的大城市，那里的教育条件远高于湘西农村！游牧者连初中都毕业不了怎么可能享受到高考优惠？照顾的结果则是这些地方的智力外流！扶贫应该从基础教育开始，而不是搞高考名额优惠！

青春就应该这样绽放游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！你不得不信的星座秘密

抑郁症

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 03:31 AM PST

最近一些抑郁症的倾向，读了很多书，文学社会历史都读，感觉所了解到的越来越使人抑郁。

历史：我一直喜欢历史，发现历史神本谎言太多。

信仰。以前信的那一套崩溃了。

哲学观。高中很喜欢马克思主义哲学的。

社会。了解了一些不好的甚至邪恶的。

常识。我认为的一些常识竟然只是小众，让我诧异，我的常识哪来的？

大众。我了解的大众是我要为他们牺牲的大众吗？

政府。揣着明白装糊涂，制造矛盾，拖延，不善良。

理想。很难。

城市和人。失望。

真相。是不是真相？不知道！

人生。不尽美好，有残酷。

只能说明不够成熟。幼稚的理想主义遭到打击，需要重新认识。

不要再抽烟了好不好？不要每次我迟到都一副理所当然的样子好不好？不要每次都等到我伤了累了想放弃了，才来安慰我秀秀我好不好？我们多想告诉对方、跟对方讨论，但21.8%的参与者仍担心，这样的讨论会让彼此吵架，选择忍耐不说。

6. 说出自己的难过感受(Negative self disclosure)

所以，也有人选择把伤心打碎掩埋，不说出自己在意难过的事情。17.2%的人害怕说出难过会遭致不好的后果，所以总是忍气吞声、委曲求全。

这些话题为什么是禁忌话题呢？Baxter在所有的禁忌话题中发现了一个共同的担忧是：我说了这些，会不会威胁到我们之间的关系 (relationship threat) ？会不会让原先不明确的友情变得连朋友都当不成？会不会让看似平静的感情激起难以收拾的巨浪？如果会，那我为什么要说？

情人与「普通朋友」，担心有所不同

但是，所谓的「普通」朋友(cross-sex friendships)与男女朋友所回避的话题(Topic avoidance)，还是有些不同。Afifi等人几年后重新验证了Baxter的论点，他们调查了111对认识两个月以上的男女(其中1/3是情人，2/3是异性好友)，结果发现十年来我们还是没什么长进，不敢谈的话题依旧是无法触及，只是－－男女朋友之间比较不敢谈到自己的旧爱和红粉知己李大仁，「普通」异性朋友最怕聊到的却是两个人目前究竟是什么关系(Relational state)、行为的界限又在哪里(Relational norms)^{[ 3 ]}。

不敢说的馒头曲线

「哎呀，那有什么不敢说的。我跟她什么都嘛摊开来讲，根本没有什么禁忌话题！会不会是你想太多了啊？」我第一次跟朋友分享这系列研究的时候，他不以为意地摊开手，豪迈地一口灌下金牌，一副就是君子坦荡荡，小人才会藏鸡鸡的模样。当时我也觉得，或许我们观察到的只是一部分做贼心虚的人，像他们这些「正直」的情人们应该不会有这般的隐忧。

但后来读到Knobloch等人的文章之后，才发现根本不是这么一回事。研究发现，92%的情侣承认他们曾经骗或隐瞒过另一半^{[ 4 ]}。我们之所以不敢跟对方说这些事情的主因，并不是自己花名在外、养了小三小四，或是同时和许多人走很近怕对方伤心，而是「不确定自己和对方的关系」 (Relational uncertainty)。

【示意图，请看橘色部分。欲知细节，请参阅原文】

Knobloch等人调查了216个恋爱中的受试者，并测量各种指标结果发现，亲密程度(intimacy level)和逃避的话题的倾向，呈现一个「馒头状的曲线相关」：一开始，两个人越走越近，反而有多不知道该说或不该说的话题；但若已经好到像老夫老妻，其实没有什么话是不能说的──如果两人的感情没有淡掉的话^{[ 5 ]}。

Knobloch指出，重要的不是你跟他交往了多久，而是你们之间存在多少不确定的感觉。这段关系对你有多重要？在他心目中，你是独特的人吗？是永远的唯一吗？你们的未来会怎么样？你们的爱怎么了？是他变了吗？还是你变了？他是不是还爱着她？或是陪着你的时候在想着他？你跟他之间的爱，会消失吗？如果你担心所有的想像都只是你的以为，如果这些问题一再地困扰你，如果你对爱情对关系充满了这些种种的不确定，那么就表示你跟他之间，或许存在着「各种或许」 (看来过去许多成名歌曲，都打中了我们心里担忧的这些或许)^{[ 6-8 ]}。

不确定的自己，无法掌握的感情

为什么我们会在说与不说之间挣扎？Solomon提出了一个「关系动荡模型」(relational turbulence model) [ 9 ]来解释上面这些这些事情。该模型指出，当我们逐渐跟一个人变得亲密时，其也会增加对自己、对对方、以及对关系的不确定性^{[ 3 , 9 , 10 ]}。这些不确定的感觉增加了，所以我们不敢说的事情也变多了。

那么，为什么不确定感会随着越来越熟而越来越多？这不是很吊诡吗？

可能的答案是，恋爱是一个重新定义自我的历程。原先你可能还满清楚你喜欢或讨厌什么，但是跟他在一起之后、关系渐渐变好的那几个月，你开始认同他喜欢的东西、开始替他着想、开始会跟他一起看球赛或逛网拍，开始把他的一部分纳进你的自我概念里面、甚至开始在买相机的时候把实用性列为第一考量(尽管原先你对3C产品都是外貌导向)──于是，你对自己的喜恶，开始模糊了起来。

接着，你们可能会遇到需求冲突(goal interference)、遇到你需要让步的时候，因此这个过程必然会产生一些自我怀疑：我要的究竟是什么？我是在顺从他的决定吗？还是这是我原先就希望的结果？这种现象在从朋友刚变成情人，或是徘徊在暧昧不明时的恋人未满最为严重。

【修改翻译自原论文图片】

幸好，关系动荡模型也发现，当两人继续交往一段时间之后，亲密感持续增加，不确定感会由升转降。在一起久一点之后，你变得逐渐知道什么是你要的、什么是他要的，什么是你的地雷、什么是对方的爆点。当彼此的模样都变得清晰，这种焦虑的感觉也会渐渐降低。而降低不确定感比增加亲密感更为重要^{[ 11 ]}。

简单地说，倘若你跟他素昧平生，根本没有什么不好说出口的(这就是为何有些不可告人的秘密反而容易跟陌生人开口)；相反地，如果你们已经交往非常长的一段时间，过了馒头曲线的顶点、在他身边常常能感到温暖安全，也没有什么不敢说的。真正东躲西藏、堆积于心坎却不愿意开口的，往往是那些正在进展当中的关系，或是已经走到了膏肓的末路，深怕踏错一步就会粉身碎骨^{[ 12 ]}。

可是，尽管知道了这些，我们还是常常无法谅解对方的隐瞒与欺骗。

为什么他要骗我

「我那时不跟你说，其实是为了我们好。我怕你听到了，会很伤心……我真的不是刻意要隐瞒你的，只是我……其实瞒着你，我也不好受… …」他说，低着头双手环抱着机车安全帽，像是被雨淋湿的小犬一样软化下来道歉，可是我却听不进任任何一句解释。这已经不是第一次了。我真的不知道，该不该再傻傻地相信他？

答案是，那你得看他是否真的爱你、在乎你。DePaulo日记研究(Diary)的方式调查77个大学生和他身边的人的亲密互动，结果发现如果说谎者的出发点是出于关怀(caring)或为了维系关系(per social interaction)，而和身边亲密的人说谎，其实真的会很难受^{[ 13 ]}。事实上DePaulo也发现，我们对身边朋友、伴侣说的谎，大多数是善意的谎言，而不是为了自己(self-serving)──至少相对于陌生人来说。

可是你可能还是会纳闷：为什么他要骗我？为什么他不跟我说实话？我们可以平静地好好谈阿？这里提供大家一个思考点：难道你没有骗过他吗？

事实上，这些恋爱中的欺骗都是其来有自的。Cole曾进行一个研究，他邀请128对伴侣以问卷方式调查他们的相处情形、是否欺骗与信任对方，结果发现尽管他骗你的原因、欺骗或隐瞒的内容百百款，但主要还是脱不了三个关键：以牙还牙(reciprocal exchange of information)、怕会被骂(the desire to avoid punishment)、与缺乏安全感(individuals' attachment beliefs)[ 14 ]。

Cole指出一个讽刺的现象是：如果你越觉得对方常骗你，他也「真的」会常常骗你。同样的，如果你越常骗对方，也会觉得对方常常在说谎。总之，如果你们的关系信任基础已经动摇，很可能整段感情都充满隐瞒与猜疑──而且，你也得负起一部分的责任。或许你也可以问自己，为什么他「需要」骗你呢？

欺骗与「不敢说」相同，有时只是为了维持和谐。或许他担忧你会生气、怕你会伤心，所以选择粉饰太平。但Cole也发现，粉饰并不见得会真的太平。如果被发现了，对关系的重伤将是无法估计的；但如果没被戳破，也无法让两个人更为恩爱<2>。一段关系如果失去了信任，接下来会失去更多的东西。

还有一种可能是，他非常缺乏安全感。他说他在忙，可能只是一种善意的谎，因为他是逃避依恋者，不喜欢与你太黏太亲近；吵完架，她说她心痛地快死掉，现在站在大马路中央等车撞，或许只是因为她是焦虑依恋者，很需要你去安抚他，听她说话。这些缺乏安全感的人，倾向说更多的谎，还换取一个舒服的心理空间，或是跟你见上一面。

是为你好，还是为我好？

「每次你都说，当初不告诉我是为我们好。我一开始也都相信你……可是今天，在我们经历了这么多事情之后的今天，我已经不知道，你究竟是在替我们着想，还是只为你自己着想……我是只想知道……你口中的『我们』，会不会跟本只是自私的『我』而已。」我终于把心里的担忧和难过一股脑地说出来，一直以来的忍耐、一直以来的自怨自艾，我希望能得到一个解答。冷风在朵的耳边呼啸，他却静静地不再说任何一句话。

逃避话题或隐藏伤心，真的有「助」于两人的关系吗？Finkenauer指出，在每次都实话实说，对两人的关系不见得有帮助。他调查结婚三年以上的夫妻发现，在关键的点上适时地讨论或回避一些话题的人，整体来说婚姻比较美满^{[ 15 ]}。比方说，体贴的太太不会在先生刚被解职的时候，跟他说这个月的开销又赤字了；EQ高的先生不会在吵架的时候说出自己已经忍耐对方很久了，因为他知道此话一出一定招来更多腥风血雨。

讲这么多，到底是说好还是不说好？重点不是说不说，而是对方是不是有感觉到你在「逃避问题」^{[ 16 ]}。Caughlin等人发现，如果你的另一半「觉得」你在逃避(不论这是不是事实)，他的关系满意度会比较低。如果对方知道你对他有所隐瞒，会有种排拒在外的感觉。我们住在一起，但是心并没有系在一起。这种感觉会让双方更不愿意调整彼此，也更不想为彼此的冲突付出、处理两人的差异，为关系埋下了未爆弹^{[ 17 ]}。

好，问题还是没有解决。憨人都知道我们该见人说人话，见鬼说鬼话，在适当的时候表达，在关键的时刻闭嘴，但究竟什么时候该说，什么时候又不该说？

这与说话的时间点可能没有太大的关系，而跟你的动机(Motivation)有关。Caughlin等人指出，当你说谎或逃避话题时是真的为了两个人的关系(protect relationship)，而不是只为了自己，逃避的负面效果会比较小^{[ 18 ]}(但并不是比较好)。

在说与不说之外：三条可能的出路

写到这里，似乎还是要提供一些建议，大家才不会觉得空手而来，又带两串蕉回去。面对这些担忧矛盾的说与不说、遇到许多秘密不知道该如何开口、甚至是不确定目前的状态适不适合谈这些话题的时候，还是可以把下面三件事情放在心里，细细思量：

(1) 尽量减少隐瞒

人生在世，我们所求何物？从自我决定论(Self determination Theory, SDT)的观点来看，主要是三件事主导我们的幸福：你是否能自由地选择自己的人生与未来(Autonomy)？能不能作一些感到有意义、能胜任、让自己感觉很棒的事情呢(competence)？最后，你能与人建立良好的人际关系吗(Relatedness)^{[ 19 , 20 ]}？

隐瞒伴侣，将会一次打垮上面三个最基本的需求(thwarted basic needs)^{[ 21 ]}。首先，说一个谎，要拿更多的谎来圆，你变得常常无法跟对方说真话、无法「自由地选择自己的语言」。于是，你被自己的谎言绑住了自由。再来，每一次的隐瞒，就是对自己加一块罪恶的砖头。从欺骗当中我们无法得到成就感，反而会觉得自己很糟，才无法跟对方说实话。最后，我们很可能从中失去伴侣的信任，也失去这段关系。

(2) 由衷地信任

没错，与某房仲广告一样，各种恋爱心理学的研究都倡导信任的重要^{[ 17 , 22-24 ]}，「信任」甚至可以抵挡隐瞒、暂时不说、甚至善意欺骗造成的伤害。当你打从心里信任对方的时候，对方说多说少都没有太多影响；但当你对他失去信任，他又什么事情都不跟你说，你就更容易疑神疑鬼、偷看她的手机简讯、趁他洗澡时偷偷浏览他的脸书讯息。而这些窥探(snoop)的动作虽然一时缓解了你的好奇与担忧，却往往会让彼此的裂痕更加深厚^{[ 25 ]}。

(3) 真心地关怀对方

「我怕我跟他说我之前的经历，他会觉得我很烂、很脏、很随便。可是在他每次问我为什么我这么抗拒身体接触时、在他说想抱我拒绝时，我都从他落寞的眼神中感觉到他的难受……可是我真的不知道该怎么办才好……」

我当然知道要说啊！可是，我就是说不出口嘛！

的确，对于低自尊的人对伴侣说出自己的缺点或负面的经历时，通常会感到更糟糕^[26]。但给予对方安全的感觉，是一种可能的解套^[27,28]。你的关怀与无私的回应，将让他愿意说更多^[29]──虽然这可能还是需要一些时间和等待。

所以，如果你的关系还算健康安全，还是找一个适当的时间，和对方谈谈说说比较好。说出自己的伤心难过、指出对方的缺点、甚至试着面对当前的问题，虽然可能会造成一些不愉快，但同时也会让这段关系变得更为强壮^{[11 , 30 , 31]}，他也才能知道哪里是你的底线、哪里又是彼此不能越过的界限。减少越多的不确定性，两人的感情才能走得更稳定！

很多事情不做，很多话不说，以后或许还有机会说，但届时的感受与体会必定已经有所不同。

如果你总是跟自己说，过些时候再跟他说，那么他或许永远没有真正属于你的时候。如果你总是逃避面对你们之间的问题，那么你与他的关系可能会面临更大的问题。踏出一步或许需要非常多的勇气，但是那一个人不是在爱情里，挑战更多的自己？

注解

很多人绝口不跟伴侣提起做爱的经历、或是讨论爱要怎么做等等，是因为不知道要怎样开口怎样说。从学习心理学的角度，学者发现透过「电视教学」的楷模学习，可以让在做爱前后更想跟你讨论，实际上也增加了做爱前的沟通[ 32 ]。
这边采用的是承诺(commitment)与关系满意度(Satisfaction)两个指标。
使用恋爱研究常常采用的伴侣互依模型进行分析(The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model，APIM)，想了解更多请读这篇^{[ 33 ]}。
文中的统计数字与性别差异，均只描述平均值。尚须注意个别差异。
为顾及隐私与行文顺畅顾，文中所有个案与章首末故事均已经当事人同意改编重新缮写并经模糊化处理，无可供指认之虞。
本文插图引自这里。

参考文献

1. Baxter, L.A. and W.W. Wilmot, Taboo Topics in Close Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1985. 2(3): p. 253-269.
2. Anderson, M., A. Kunkel, and M.R. Dennis, "Let's (Not) Talk About That": Bridging the Past Sexual Experiences Taboo to Build Healthy Romantic Relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 2011. 48(4): p. 381-391.
3. Afifi, W.A. and J.K. Burgoon, "We never talk about that": A comparison of cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Personal Relationships, 1998. 5(3): p. 255-272.
4. Knox, D., et al., Sexual lies among university students. College Student Journal, 1993. 27: p. 269-272.
5. Knobloch, L.K. and K.E. Carpenter-Theune, Topic avoidance in developing romantic relationships - Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research, 2004. 31(2): p. 173-205.
6. Knobloch, L.K., Relational Uncertainty and Relational Information Processing: Questions without Answers? Communication Research, 2005. 32(3): p. 349-388.
7. Knobloch, L.K., et al., Relational uncertainty and message processing in marriage. Communication Monographs, 2007. 74(2): p. 154-180.
8. Knobloch, L.K., The content of relational uncertainty within marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2008. 25(3): p. 467-495.
9. Solomon, D.H. and J.A. Theiss, A longitudinal test of the relational turbulence model of romantic relationship development. Personal Relationships, 2008. 15(3): p. 339-357.
10. Weger, H., Jr. and M.C. Emmett, Romantic intent, relationship uncertainty, and relationship maintenance in young adults' cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2009. 26(6-7): p. 964-988.
11. Theiss, J.A. and D.H. Solomon, Parsing the Mechanisms that Increase Relational Intimacy: The Effects of Uncertainty Amount, Open Communication About Uncertainty, and the Reduction of Uncertainty. Human Communication Research, 2008. 34(4): p. 625-U159.
12. Hanason. 友情限界. 2011 [cited 2011 Oct, 23]; Available from: http://www.wretch.cc/blog/hanason/11473459.
13. DePaulo, B.M. and D.A. Kashy, Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998. 74(1): p. 63-79.
14. Cole, T., Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2001. 18(1): p. 107-129.
15. Finkenauer, C. and H. Hazam, Disclosure and secrecy in marriage: Do both
contribute to marital satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2000. 17(2): p. 245-263.
16. Caughlin, J.P. and T.D. Golish, An analysis of the association between topic avoidance and dissatisfaction: Comparing perceptual and interpersonal explanations. Communication Monographs, 2002. 69(4): p. 275-295.
17. Finkenauer, C., et al., Living Together Apart: Perceived Concealment as a Signal of Exclusion in Marital Relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2009. 35(10): p. 1410-1422.
18. Caughlin, J.P. and T.D. Afifi, When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 2004. 30(4): p. 479-513.
19. Deci, E.L. and R.M. Ryan, The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987. 53(6): p. 1024-1037.
20. Deci, E.L. and R.M. Ryan, The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 2000. 11(4): p. 227-268.
21. Uysal, A., et al., The Association Between Self-Concealment From One's Partner and Relationship Well-Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2012. 38(1): p. 39-51.
22. Crocker, J. and A. Canevello, Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008. 95(3): p. 555-575.
23. Holmes, J.G. and J.K. Rempel, Trust in close relationships, in Close relationships, C. Hendrick, Editor. 1989, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 187-220.
24. Wieselquist, J., et al., Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999. 77(5): p. 942-966.
25. Vinkers, C.D.W., C. Finkenauer, and S.T. Hawk, Why do close partners snoop? Predictors of intrusive behavior in newlywed couples. Personal Relationships, 2011. 18(1): p. 110-124.
26. Cameron, J.J., J.G. Holmes, and J.D. Vorauer, When self-disclosure goes awry: Negative consequences of revealing personal failures for lower self-esteem individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009. 45(1): p. 217-222.
27. Marigold, D.C., J.G. Holmes, and M. Ross, Fostering relationship resilience: An intervention for low self-esteem individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2010. 46(4): p. 624-630.
28. Murray, S.L., J.G. Holmes, and N.L. Collins, Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 2006. 132(5): p. 641-666.
29. Forest, A.L. and J.V. Wood, When partner caring leads to sharing: Partner responsiveness increases expressivity, but only for individuals with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2011. 47(4): p. 843-848.
30. Theiss, J.A. and D. Haunani Solomon, A relational turbulence model of communication about irritations in romantic relationships. Communication Research, 2006. 33(5): p. 391-418.
31. Theiss, J.A., et al., Relationship Characteristics Associated with the Experience of Hurt in Romantic Relationships: A Test of the Relational Turbulence Model.

Jared Diamond专访

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 12:13 AM PST

Jared Diamond即将出版一本新书，《The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?》。不久前他接受《American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene》专访，下面是这个专访的部分内容：

DUNAVAN: "Was this your most personal book?"

DIAMOND: "Not just my most personal … but most practical book which people can use to modify their lives [in terms of] danger, bringing up children, getting older."

DUNAVAN: "I want to hear about your first contact with a traditional society. What was it like?"

DIAMOND: "I grew up in Boston, my parents didn't camp out, I had an unadventurous life. From a friend at Harvard I learned to camp out but neither of us had been to the tropics. After we both got our PhDs, and I returned to Boston, John and I immediately began asking ourselves: where can we go in the tropics? Our first trip was to Peru. Afterwards we said, 'Peru was wonderful,' now what's the wildest, most adventurous place we can go? Of course it was New Guinea at the time. My dad had mentored and supervised Carleton Gadjusek who recognized kuru as an infectious disease. I had met Carleton and was fascinated by his stories …"

"Before John and I went out there [in 1964], I was really naïve. I knew New Guineans were primitive people, meaning that they had primitive technology. I thought there would be something distinctive about their personality and cognition and so on—I fantasized for example, that New Guineans could read minds and that, in a few weeks, I could learn how to read minds. That just shows you how naïve I was."

"My first night in New Guinea … a [local] physician in the kuru area was eager to get me and John out of his hands as quickly as possible. Instead of easing us in our first night by letting us stay in his house, he told us a bit and drove us to a native village and left us there! So my first night was spent sleeping in a hut in a village with New Guineans who did not speak English. I did not speak Fore, I did not yet speak Pidgin English (neo-Melanesian). I was tired from the long plane flights from the US, so I slept late the next morning. When I woke up there was the scene that I describe in the book about the little boys playing war. War had ended in this area in 1959. So they were not playing hopscotch, it was serious, it was very realistic. They were using small bows and arrows, they were darting back and forth, they were doing what the adults do in war. It was clear that this was training. This was my first morning in the New Guinea highlands."

"The second night I went down to the village stream to brush my teeth and a New Guinean was there. I had already on that first day started asking the names for things in Fore and I saw a frog and I pointed and the person said "dakwo." So I got the word "dakwo" for frog. On the second night I heard a frog croaking, [saw the man at the stream], and thought: 'Aha! Human bond! I've learned a word of his language!' 'Dakwo!' I cried. The man shook his head [vigorously] in response. 'Ibisaraya!' It was not a dakwo; it was a different frog, an ibisaraya. This was my first exposure to New Guinean knowledge of natural history."

DUNAVAN: "Were you ever scared?"

DIAMOND: "No. I was with my friend John. People in this area had been pacified, hadn't attacked Europeans in quite a while. But, in retrospect, it was more dangerous than I realized."

DUNAVAN: "Examples?"

DIAMOND: "One time we were deserted by our carriers in the jungle with a half-ton of equipment. We had shotguns (we didn't use them) … but it was difficult to get to another village and get carriers. There was a situation where I found that natives were stealing birds from our mist nets and then re-selling them to us. I suspected this and I finally got proof. I was angry. I was alone in camp surrounded by New Guineans. We could not operate if they were going to steal birds from our nets. In the presence of other New Guineans, I took a bow and arrow and broke them over my knee. I got away with it … but I would never do that now."

DUNAVAN: "As a doctor's son, you must have been aware of the heavy burden of disease."

DIAMOND: "Whatever I learned from Dad … was wiped out by the fact I was 26, full of bravado, and ignorant. In fact, my hygiene standards were not as paranoid as now. Consequently, I collapsed with dysentery and fever two weeks after arrival. I got malaria on my third trip after sleeping under a bed net with a hole in it. Today I would not sleep under that tent without patching it. Claire, I did not really learn until a near-fatal boat accident. By that time, I had been visiting New Guinea for more than 15 years. I was a slow learner."

DUNAVAN: "Do you feel a desire to help or any moral imperative when you meet traditional people and see vast disparities in their quality of life [as compared to ours]?"

DIAMOND: "No, because I would consider such a moral imperative on anyone's part a bad idea. Because well-intentioned policies so often backfire, I would consider it a mistake not just on my part but on anyone's part to try to change a society."

"I don't know what changes are going to work out well. I've just seen so many changes in New Guinea that have backfired. Here's an example. What could be more obvious than providing education? The Australian colonial administration put a lot of effort into education. It' not that one shouldn't educate New Guineans; of course you should educate New Guineans. But the approach of the Australians consisted of requiring all young New Guineans to have a few years of primary school—a noble, worthy ideal, but it backfired."

"The tragedy … was a double tragedy. The first tragedy was that a few years of primary school do you little good: they don't let you get a job. But a few years of primary school do take you out of the gardens when traditional New Guineans are learning to become farmers–and learning to become a farmer really is difficult. New Guinea friends of mine who went to school told me that when they came back to their villages, they didn't know what sweet potato to plant on what slope. The tragedy was that a few years of universal education were not enough to provide jobs but it was enough to undermine their ability to operate in New Guinea society."

DUNAVAN: "Let's look 50 years hence. Obviously languages are disappearing; the world will no longer exist in such a way that people can remain isolated. What will it be like for traditional societies?"

DIAMOND: "There's a huge spectrum of possible outcomes. One possible outcome: if we in the first world mess up our own society, mess up the whole world … and you ask yourself who is going to be left after 50 years, well all of us here who don't know how to make stone tools, don't know what to gather, all of us here are going to starve to death. The places in the world where people will survive are the places where—within living memory—people have been living in the forest and making their own gardens."

"So, in one scenario, 50 years from now, New Guinea and parts of the Amazon will be the best functioning places in the world because the rest of us will be dead or incompetent."

"Other scenarios? New Guinea is developing. There's a big natural gas project of which Exxon Mobil is in charge, so a lot of money is flowing in. In Papua New Guinea as in other countries where lots of money is [now] flowing in, the social mechanisms for making use of money are not in place and the money is not paid to individuals but to village leaders. But village leaders do not have 3000 years of experience of state government that says that village leaders are supposed to represent their people, so a lot of money gets wasted … It's therefore possible that in Papua New Guinea as in many other parts of the world, the hope people feel now will not materialize."

DUNAVAN: "Do you see remnants of stateless societies in so-called modern settings?"

DIAMOND: "Yes, they are all around us in rural areas of the United States. In Montana, for example, if neighbors have a dispute, they don't hire lawyers; they deal with disputes by tribal mechanisms. Here's another example. When I went to England in the 1950s, much of village life was essentially tribal. Everyone knew everybody. Everything was in public view. Many people spent their lives within one or two miles of where they were born. That's why the title 'World Until Yesterday.' Much of yesterday is still with us."

王力雄有关藏人自焚文章之英文译文

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 11:20 PM PST

《阳光时务周刊》总第035期、总第036期发表王力雄两篇文章：<燃烧的遗言——藏人因何自焚？>、<不自焚，能怎么做？>。年轻的流亡藏人Ogyen Kyab将这两篇文章译成英文，发在他的脸书上。在此转载。

Last-words analysis – Why Tibetans Self-immolate?

Written by Wang Lixiong

Translated by Ogyen Kyab

Now, the question of Tibetan self-immolations involves multiple issues that nobody knows how to handle.

Firstly the increasing frequency of the self-immolations – 97 cases in Tibet (excluding 5 outside Tibet) so far (till December 11, 2012), out of which 1 in 2009; 12 in 2011 and 84 in 2012, 28 Tibetans self-immolated in November alone. Calls to stop self-immolations have not worked, nobody knows what to do.

Secondly it is a dilemma – so many people have set themselves on fire, so negating the self-immolations would be unfair to the self-immolators and hurt their families; on the other hand, reporting, praising, holding prayer ceremonies, paying condolences and donations etc would be seen as encouraging more to self-immolate.

Thirdly the government criminalizes the self-immolations which have been caused by its own repression, and keeps repressing and even intensifing it. This makes those who try to stop self-immolations on humanitarian grounds find themselves tangled with the government.

Fourthly outsiders sympathize the self-immolators but they cannot understand it as they cannot see self-immolations effective. After the initial shock, with increasing cases of self-immolations, they become numb.

Fifthly the Tibetan elites complain about the silence of the international community and Chinese intelligentsia. This is actually due to lack of theoretical support to the self-immolation movement. However, the Tibetan elites besides merely affirming the self-immolations subtly, they lack the substantial insight to lead.

Sixthly all governments take evasive stands towards the Tibetans for their own selfish interests. In a world where economy rules, it is not surprising to see such rationale of economized men. Though Tibetans get a lot of attention as compared to the other nationalities (condition of the Uyghurs is worse), the feeling of being abandoned is never less.

……

To resolve this issue, or at least to know how to respond, we have to first know what are the aspirations of the self-immolators and what they are seeking. There are different interpretations regarding this, people even interpret the way they want. I think with no ample information available about the self-immolators, a statistical analysis would enable us move closer to seeing a complete picture of the self-immolations.

Since the first self-immolation by Tabey in Tibet in 2009, Woeser has always been simultaneously recording each and every case of the self-immolations, consolidating all the cases and updating her blog Invisible Tibet every now and then. In this article, information used in my statistical analysis has been taken from her record.

Another thing to clarify here is that the main responsibility for the self-immolations lies with the Chinese government and there is no doubt in this. I'm not going to repeat this fact; instead, I want to do some constructive discussions.

Distribution by number of self-immolators and months

When the monthly number of self-immolations for 2012 is shown (see the graph below), we see two tallest bars for March (10 cases) and November (28 cases).

In March, there were many anniversaries such as Tibetan National Uprising Day (March 10), anniversary of 2008 pan-Tibet protests (March 14), anniversary of mass killing of protesters in Ngaba (March 16), the Chinese government-invented "Serf Emancipation Day" (March 28), so we can reasonably suspect that the tall bar for March has to do something with these occasions, generally they were protests against the Chinese ethnic policies. To protest was the main motive.

Self-immolations by Tibetans inside Tibet for 2012

The tallest bar falls in November in which the 18^th Party Congress of CCP was held. The bar before that, for October, is as tall as for March, 10 cases each, this should also be related to the Party Congress, which was widely rumored to be held in October. Frequent self-immolations around the Party Congress can be understood as inducing the new generation of Chinese leaders to change its policy on Tibet, making self-immolations as actions to push for change – this should actually be the key to understanding the self-immolations.

Classified analysis of self-immolators' last-words

Analyzing the self-immolators' last-words is another way to further understand their motives and aspirations. All the last-words I'm going to analyze were left behind by the self-immolators before self-immolating, which were manually written pieces, voice recordings and also those that were verbally told their relatives and friends. So far last-words of 26 self-immolators are known. Besides this, slogans shouted by many self-immolators have also been recorded and these slogans are more or less consistent, most of them are "Let the Dalai Lama return to Tibet", "Free Tibet" etc. Comparatively, the last-words left carefully before self-immolating are more comprehensive in contents than the slogans shouted while burning; hence they are worthier of special analysis.

I have classified the last-words into seven categories by contents (see the table below). Each last-word may not necessarily have only one type of content, there are different types in many of them (a more detailed classification can be seen in the notes at the end of this article). This is my approach to attempt understanding the self-immolations; anyone is free to use one's own approach to do the same.

Classification table of last-words

Last-word classification		No of last-words involved	No of self-immolators involved	Ratio of no of self-immolators to no of self-immolators who left last-words (%)
1	Because it's unbearable	5	5	19%
2	Expressing courage and responsibility	8	9	35%
3	Protests and demands	5	5	19%
4	Demanding attention from the international community	1	1	4%
5	Praying for the Dalai Lama	9	10	38%
6	Demanding Tibet's independence	5	5	19%
7	As an action	12	14	54%

Note: As there are cases of 2 self-immolators leaving 1 last-word, so the no of self-immolators who left last-words is not the same as the no of last-words

From these classifications, we can derive the following:

· Self-immolations are actually not out of desperation

Commonly interpreted – including the officials of the Tibetan government-in-exile – that the self-immolations are desperate acts caused by the unbearable conditions, we cannot deny this claim, but it's only 19%, the weightage falls in the lower part in the seven classifications.

· The self-immolators inside Tibet are not invoking support of the international community

Another widespread view is that the self-immolations are acts of appealing for the attention of the international community. However, except writer Godrup, none of the last-words mentioned this and so this has the least weightage in the list. This reveals that the Tibetans inside Tibet do not actually rely on the international community as people think for granted. In fact, it is the self-immolators outside Tibet (not included in the table above) who seek international support, Jamphel Yeshi mentioned it twice in his last-words and Sherab Tsedor called for international attention for the Tibet crisis. To seek the support of international community has actually always been the main objective of the Tibetans outside Tibet; it is where they focus even today. This is the major difference between the Tibetans in and out of Tibet.

· Protests and demands in the self-immolations are known

19% of the last-words express protests and demands, but while self-immolating, those who shouted slogans like "Let the Dalai Lama return to Tibet", "Free Tibet", "Release the 11^th Panchen Lama", "We want language rights" etc, are also expressing protests and demands and thus should also be counted. Besides, majority of the self-immolators, though have not left any last-words, the acts of self-immolations in themselves are acts of protests and demands, this cannot be clearer.

· Those that best reflect Tibetan national spirit and courage

Out of all the last-words, 35% express courage and responsibility. This category is actually not directed towards others (neither the authorities nor the international community), but rather more of a reflection of heroism in the personality itself, it is a nirvana-like self-sublimation performed by defending dignity, sharing pain, inspiring courage and expressing solidarity. Typical last-words are "setting on fire for the dignity of the Tibetan nation" (Bhenchen Kyi), "They think we are afraid of the repressions, they are mistaken" (Phuntsok) etc, reflect the most precious power of spirit of the Tibetan people.

· As acts of religious dedication

Self-immolations as acts of praying for the Dalai Lama (meanwhile protests against the authorities) account for 38%, second in the list of classifications. There are cases in this category that also have elements of expressing courage and responsibility; these are dedications and offerings with religious nature. For example: Sopa Rinpoche said in his last-word that he would be offering his life and body to the Dalai Lama and even the entire sentient beings. It is not easy for non-religious people to understand this – setting one's own body on fire as an offering for nothing else but merit.

· About Tibet's independence

Four self-immolators clearly call for independence of Tibet in their last-words, another one says to "defend the country Tibet" by self-immolating (Tamding Thar), this category has 19%. Several others also shouted for Tibetan independence while self-immolating. Since 2008, sense of independence has spread widely among the Tibetans. However, the Tibetan exile writer Jamyang Norbu equates all those who demanded for return of the Dalai Lama with demand for Tibet's independence (see MAKE IT A BURNING ISSUE), the analogy is far-fetched.

· Self-immolations as actions

14 self-immolators in 12 last-words call their immolations as actions. This category has the highest weightage (54%), like the most frequent cases of self-immolations during the 18^th Party Congress, the self-immolators expected that their sacrifices would help realizing the goal, not merely express protests and desperations. They were actually not sure if the self-immolations would really help realizing their goal; Tenzin Phuntsok says in his last-words that he "cannot live to wait in vain". These really sad words should actually be the key to understanding the self-immolations, worth thought over.

Tibetans inside Tibet have finally realized that the struggle has to be on their own

The Tibetan issue has not got any progress for so many years, Tibetans have always been hoping that others would do something for them – Tibetans inside Tibet pinned their hope on those outside Tibet and those outside Tibet initially pinned their hope on the international community and then on the Chinese government, the basic strategy has always been hoping that the international community to put pressure on the Chinese government to make concessions.

The Dalai Lama's success in seeking the support of the international community has been widely acknowledged. He has become a universally celebrated global star and people in the West are overwhelmingly sympathetic of Tibetans. But as far as seeking support of the outside world is concerned, this is all, no more can be expected. Even when China was in dire need of western assistance in 1980's, it did not make any concession on the Tibetan issue, the chances are slim to expect the west to put pressure on the today's already "risen" China to make concessions.

China resumed the stalled Sino-Tibetan dialogue in 2002 and thereafter held series of talks with the Dalai Lama's envoys till 2008 but that was, from the start, China's design to appease the western world for the successful hosting of the Olympic Games. However, the exile Tibetans took it as a rare opportunity finally arrived and expected excitedly to obtain some substantial progress out of it. Tibetans in Tibet too patiently waited in optimism. Eventually at the eve of Beijing Olympics, the Dalai Lama announced in his speech on the occasion of March 10 Uprising Day, "My envoys held six rounds of talks with the Chinese government, but sadly, no substantial result has come on basic issues, in contrary, the Chinese government has even intensified its repression on the Tibetans in Tibet."

The Dalai Lama's announcement should be his last attempt to call for international pressure on China before Olympics, but anyone who knows the CCP would know that there would be no concession on Tibetan issue even if the Olympics could not be hosted. As expected, the subsequent actions by the west proved ineffective, even the toughest French softened its stance in the end. These inconveniently prove that the Tibetan exile government's strategy – to gain concessions through international community – has never worked.

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama's announcement awakened the Tibetans inside Tibet. Their patience finally wore out in their endless waiting, during which Panchen Lama was imprisoned, Karmapa fled, the Dalai Lama were constantly defamed and demonized, and so many years of waiting had produced "no substantial outcome" in the end. When the Sera monks first heard the announcements, someone immediately said, "We must rise up now", and the monks took to the streets of Lhasa with snow-lion flags in the hands and started shouting slogans. This was the first cry of the 2008 pan-Tibet protests. In the afternoon of March 10, hundreds of Drepung monks protested and the Chinese so-called "March 14 Incident" that rapidly spread across the Tibetan plateau.

According to Woeser, the current self-immolation protests are continuations of the 2008 pan-Tibet protests. In fact, continuations of the first Sera monk who stood up and said, "We must rise up now".

How Self-immolation becomes movement

People who are not organized and lack in resources cannot do much, what we can imagine is the kind of 2008 street protests. When the public is frustrated, a tiny spark can ignite a raging fire of mobs to quickly converge and expand. In small-scale societies, adequate scales of mob protests may be able to force out changes, but in such huge-scale societies like China, minorities cannot achieve this. In 1989, when tens of millions of Chinese took to the streets in many parts of China, the regime did not hesitate with repression and shed blood, Tibetan population merely accounts for a tiny fraction of Chinese, how could they be an exception? When soldiers and policemen are deployed everywhere to suppress, public protests become all the more difficult and "must rise up" can only be an individual behavior. How can a tiny individual resist the mighty power of the state? After the 2008 Tibetan protests ended in repression, many lone Tibetans continued to take to the streets, shouting slogans and distributing leaflets, the outcome was always the same – they all quietly disappeared. How can individual actions burst out of this disappointing submersion? That is to resort to more extreme ways of protests, as the writer Godrup says in his last-word, "Let's intensify our peaceful struggle." Self-immolation is the most extreme act of struggle an individual can resort to.

The frequency of self-immolation cases is indeed rising with an alarming speed. The self-immolations are seen throughout the world and reported, recorded, prayed for, paid condolences, and the other Tibetans see this and think that this is an effective individual action to protest and thus follow the examples, with more and more Tibetans setting themselves alight, it becomes a self-immolation movement.

Like monks leading the 2008 Tibet protest, self-immolation movement was also started by monks. Since Tapey from Kirti monastery setting himself on fire in February 2009, all the initial 12 self-immolators were monks (Note: I consider those who were expelled from their monasteries after 2008 pretests as monks). It was in December 2011 that the first layperson self-immolated. In the first quarter of 2012, 15 out of those 20 self-immolated were monks; in the second and third quarters, laypersons were already in majority; in the first 70 days of the fourth quarter, 50 self-immolated and 43 of them were laypersons.

When I was thinking why the ordinary Tibetan people joined the self-immolation movement, I recalled what a Tibetan woman once said to me, "Except giving birth to couple of more children, I'm not capable of doing anything else for our nation." Similar feelings can be seen in the last-words of Tenzin Khedup and Ngawang Norphel – "We are neither able to contribute anything for our culture and religion, nor do we have the ability to help the Tibetan people economically, so we …….choose to self-immolate."

61-year-old Dhondup repeatedly called for the monks and young Tibetans not to self-immolate and retain lives so that they could contribute to the nation's cause in future, signaling only the older generation should self-immolate. Once the ordinary people come to know that apart from knowledge and wealth, self-immolations too work for the cause, they would be aroused to resist the authorities and courageously go forward to self-immolate.

At such times, it is not surprising that Karmapa Rinpoche's appeal to them not to self-immolate due to life being precious did not work, as they exactly wanted to sacrifice what were most precious to them; Woeser, Arja Rinpoche and the poet Kathup Tsering also attempted to call Tibetans not to self-immolate and said that being alive could only be possible to do something effective, their attempt too failed because the self-immolators did not know what they could do by being alive but self-immolations could at least break the prevailing silence. Therefore these brave Tibetans need to be told what they could do besides self-immolations, not to be asked to remain alive to be merely mute spectators waiting in vain.

Self-immolations are not only protests against the oppressors, but also criticisms against the leaders

I don't feel comfortable about what I'm going to discuss now, digging out the in-depth meaning of the self-immolations should actually be done among the Tibetans themselves, but seeing so many lives being burnt, I have no option but to leave my own concerns aside.

In the battlefield, blaming the enemy for killing is not wrong but useless. To win, the more valuable thing to do is self-reflection and improvement. Sacrifices of the self-immolators become wastes if they are dealt with by merely confining on condemning the oppressors. Tibetans in Tibet are waiting for the exile government to do something; they are coming forward and setting themselves on fire one after another, the exile government should at least realize from this that the path it has been taking should be reviewed.

The path that the older generation took might be necessary during their times, but now the Tibetans in Tibet are pleading through self-immolations to the new exile leaders not to repeat the same path.

So far, there is no sign that the exile administration realizes this. When Sikyong Lobsang Sangay was answering a question asked by the Asia Weekly in an interview that if he was confident of resolving the Tibet Issue through negotiations with the Chinese government, he said, "Of course I'm confident, there was a Chinese scholar who once said that Tibet issue could be immediately resolved if there'd be an open-minded person who figures out how to deal with the issue, I too think that way." This outdated way of thinking makes people recall the times of 1980's. After Lobsang Sangay took office, he has been travelling around the world, meeting political dignitaries, giving interviews to media, attending meetings; everything that he has been doing is absolutely tracing the same path of gaining international support by putting pressure on China to make concessions. As for winning support of the international community, the Dalai Lama has already done it all. It's ok for once and may be even twice, but not the third time, 1989 and 2008, after hitting twice on the wall, the exile government is repeating the same for the third time.

Anyway, perhaps the self-immolation movement in Tibet is seen as a new opportunity, a Tibetan called Weirang wrote at a site overseas, "Tibetans did not self-immolate in vain, recently there were many large-scale Tibetan protests in Amdo, these are the results of the self-immolations……I believe, one day, like 2008, a massive protests will again sweep across Tibet." So he criticized those Tibetans who appealed not to self-immolate and said. "This is ridiculous, in case the appeal succeeds to stop the self-immolations, then our compatriots have died in vain and our struggle will be halted."

The way Weirang thinks is indeed worrisome. When self-immolation is considered as a means to achieve a political end, one would naturally wish more Tibetans to set themselves on fire. Forget about the moral right and wrong, what Weirang thinks disregards the "moral high ground", as if in politics, only achieving goal should be considered and that goal can be pursued through any means – even if we think in terms of achieving a political goal, self-immolations won't achieve it. Suppose self-immolations can lead to pan-Tibet protests like that of 2008 (given the prevailing tense situation, it is difficult now), and then what? They could ruthlessly suppress the 2008 protests, how could this time be any different?

However, politicians, to whom the end goal means everything, may indeed expect such a repression to repeat. Because such repressions would draw international attention, when more blood is shed, more pressure would be put on China by the international community. However, here we've come back to the previous argument, self-immolation is just a different incentive, the outcome would again be the same. An authoritarian power neither would care about the self-immolations, nor scared of shedding blood. The international community didn't turn tough on China for June 4^th massacre, this time on Tibet too, they wouldn't. In nutshell, whatever is happening in reality, none is not confirming this very fact – relying on the international support to resolve the Tibet issue is no more than an illusion.

Just because of the increase in the number of self-immolations, it has drawn attention of the international community, but all the governments are avoiding offending the Chinese government, however, meanwhile, they are also giving more support to the exile Tibetans to balance morality and appease their own peoples. But in this case, only the exile Tibetans can enjoy this support. However, although getting something is better than nothing, I don't believe that it is this support that makes the exile Tibetans to expect more self-immolations by the Tibetans in Tibet.

Tibet needs to get out of the crisis, for this Tibetans outside Tibet need to command the struggle for freedom to make the millions of Tibetans inside Tibet become the main force to join the struggle; when Tibetans in Tibet know where the path is, they would live and advance towards the promising future, not jump into the flames.

Note: Detailed classification of self-immolators' last words

1. Because it's unbearable

Phuntsok – I can't go on bearing the pain in my heart, I'll show the world a signal on March 16, 2011

Rangdol – Unable to continue staying under this harshness, can't tolerate this torture without trace.

Tsering Kyi – Nobody wants to live this way.

Tamding Tso – It's really difficult for us Tibetans, if we can't even keep His Holiness' photos, then we don't have any freedom.

Sangdak Tsering – Tibetan has no freedom, His Holiness is not allowed to return, Panchen Rinpoche has been imprisoned; besides, so man martyrs have self-immolated, therefore, I too don't want to live, there's no meaning in living.

2. Expressing courage and responsibility:

Phuntsok – they think that we'd be afraid of oppression, they are mistaken.

Tenzin Phuntsok – All the khenpos and monks of the Karma Monastery would rather die.

Sopa Rinpoche – All the other self-immolators are also like me, sacrificed their lives for truth and justice ……. I'm too willing to offer my body to support and respect.

Rangdol – Hold your heads high for Rangdol's dignity.

Choepak Kyab & Sonam – Setting on fire for the basic human rights of Tibetans and world peace; for the nation's freedom, prosperity of Dharma and happiness of all sentient beings.

Rikyo – Willing to endure pain for all the suffering sentient beings.

Khenpo Thupten Nyendak – Told his family prior to his self-immolation that he would soon make a grand offering to those who had self-immolated for the common cause of Tibetans.

Bhenchen Kyi – Said to her friend before self-immolation, "We have no any freedom. I'm self-immolating for the dignity of Tibetan nation."

3. Protests and demands

Tapey – New York Times reported Tapey "has left a piece of paper, saying that he would commit suicide in case the government banned the religious ceremony".

Lhamo Kyab – A Tibetan in Tibet wrote an article saying that Lhamo Kyab had asked prior to his self-immolation that "when would the 18^th Party Congress be held?"

Nyingkar Tashi – Release the Panchen Rinpoche, let His Holiness the Dalai Lama return! I self-immolate to protest against the Chinese government.

4. Demanding attention from the international community

Godrup – Unbiased peoples around the world please pay attention to justice; I wish people of the world support us.

5. Praying for the Dalai Lama

Rickyo – For His Holiness to return to Tibet.

Sopa Rinpoche – I want to offer my life and body. It is for the long life of leader of the heaven and earth His Holiness the Dalai Lama and all other spiritual leaders, I offer my life and body as madala to them; may the merit and power of this offering enable all sentient beings attain the Buddhahood in future.

Rangdol – May His Holiness the Dalai Lama live long!

Tamding Thar – May His Holiness the Dalai return home!

Tenzin Khedup & Ngawang Norphel – We self-immolate for the Tibetan nation, especially for His Holiness the Dalai Lama to live long and return to Tibet as soon as possible.

Godrup – To greet His Holiness the Dalai Lama to return is the weal and woe all people of this snow land share and our collective goal.

Samdup – May His Holiness the Dalai Lama live long; may the light of happiness shine on the land of snows.

Kelsang Jinpa – For equality of nationalities, freedom of Tibet, promotion of Tibetan language, and for His Holiness the Dalai Lama to return, I've decided to self-immolate.

Nyinkar Tashi – Let His Holiness the Dalai Lama return to Tibet.

6. Demanding Tibet's independence

Godrup – After regaining independence for Tibet, to greet His Holiness the Dalai Lama to return is the weal and woe all people of this snow land share and our collective goal.

Nyinkar Tashi – Tibet needs freedom, independence.

Tamding Thar – To defend the country Tibet, I'm self-immolating.

Rangdol – May the Tibetan nation break away from the Han monsters!

Sangay Dolma – Tibetans need freedom and independence.

7. Self-immolation as an action

Tenzin Phuntsok – When I think of Tibet and this year's sufferings of the Karma Monastery, I can't live to wait in vain, when I think of the plight of the khenpos and monks, what is the use of worrying? Let's rise up!

Sopa Rinpoche – Support and respect by offering my flesh and blood.

Choepak kyab & Sonam – Self-immolate for the suffering of Tibetan nation having no basic human rights and for realizing world peace.

Rikyo – For His Holiness the Dalai Lama to come back to Tibet.

Tamding Thar – To defend Tibet country, I'm self-immolating.

Tenzin Khedup & Ngawang Norphel – We are neither able to contribute anything for our culture and religion, nor do we have the ability to help the Tibetan people economically, so we self-immolate for the Tibetan nation, especially for His Holiness the Dalai Lama to live long and return to Tibet as soon as possible.

Godrup – To testify and propagate the true situation inside Tibet, we need to intensify our struggle, self-immolate to call for Tibet's independence.

Dhondup – Always appeal to the monks of Labrang Monastery and the local young Tibetans not to self-immolate, they should retain lives to contribute to the nation's future ……. Only he and other older people should choose to self-immolate.

Samdup – I self-immolate for Tibet.

Kelsang Jinpa – For equality of nationalities, freedom of Tibet, promotion of Tibetan language, and for His Holiness the Dalai Lama to return, I've decided to self-immolate.

Kalsang Kyab – Before self-immolation, called his cousin brother on the phone and said, "I'm going to self-immolate today for our nation's cause."

Lobsang Gedun – Told on the phone before self-immolation, "I have a wish, people from all the three regions of Tibet get united, stop infighting and disputes, only then our wishes will come true."

Note: This article Last words Analysis – Why Tibetans Self-immolate by Wang Lixiong was published on the 035^th issue of the SunAffairs Weekly.

What Else If Not Self-immolation?

Written by Wang Lixiong

Translated by Ogyen Kyab

The statistical analysis of the self-immolators' last-words reveals that "self-immolation as an action" has the highest weightage; the highest frequency of self-immolation cases around the 18^th Party Congress of CCP too shows that the self-immolators expected their actions would persuade for a resolution to the Tibet Issue. We should also see from this that for Tibetans, self-immolation itself was not their objective, it was related to not knowing what else could be done except self-immolations by those who wanted to act. So, had there been a course of action that involves the participation of each and every ordinary Tibetans and that would bring concrete results, no more Tibetans would see the need to continue self-immolating.

Change to the ethnic policy, realizing Middle Way, struggle for independence, etc, these lofty goals can hardly have the participation from the ordinary people on daily basis. Popular people's movements require large-scale social coordination networks, an authoritarian country wouldn't allow to establish such networks. To realize such lofty goals, there has to be equally large coordination networks, otherwise, the scattered actions of the people would be easily crushed by the regime. Therefore, in the absence of such coordination, people have to either wait passively for the elites to command, or to "intensify their own acts" – such as self-immolations – to let their individual actions to come out to the fore.

The Dalai Lama's Middle Way hasn't gained any progress for so many years, the consequent frustration among Tibetans made independence to increasingly gain significant grounds – if compromise doesn't work, then do the opposite to fight, thus at least there would be dignity. There is no nation in this world that doesn't want to be independent, but the question is how to succeed? The only obstacle to the Middle Way is the government, but to independence, obstacle expands to more than a billion Han Chinese. The government as an obstacle will be eliminated with Chinese democratization, but the Chinese people as an obstacle will become even stronger with democratic system under which majority rules. Therefore, I don't object the rights to national independence, but from the point of view of avoiding the massive expense and sacrifice, I don't think that's the most suitable solution to the Tibet Issue. Slogans will not lead to independence, even after paying a heavy price of sacrifice, with the huge disparity in power between the Tibetans and Chinese, Tibetans may still fail to realize independence. Dying for independence is worth respecting, but getting freedom and not dying is better – this is exactly what the Dalai Lama has opted for.

Struggle for independence of Tibet is a long journey, but fight for freedom can begin right from here and now. The Dalai Lama's goal of genuine autonomy for Tibet, when seen as a lofty goal looks distant, but when this goal is decomposed into smaller goals like pursuing for the autonomy for each village, it is not that distant. As per current Chinese law, village autonomy is legal. Although an authoritarian regime wouldn't enforce law, but when village autonomy is set as a goal, the requisite coordination networks and the network of the social lives of the villagers overlap and thus no need to build anew, the authoritarian power cannot block it either, all villagers can participate and be drawn into action. When all the villagers reach a consensus through the internal coordination network within a village and rise up to common action and institutionalize it, village autonomy can be realized.

Since the smaller goals are composed by decomposing a bigger goal, realizing the smaller ones means doing the same to the bigger ones. In the process of realizing the smaller goals, everyone can take part in them and can always see the efforts bringing results, realization of every small goal is a step towards the bigger goal, when all the realized small goals are put together, it is a big step towards the big goal.

The Dalai Lama's goal is to realize genuine autonomy for Tibet. If this autonomy for the entire Tibet is sought outright from the start, it is only upto the government's consent which is already proven an illusion with so many years of effort. However, the coordination network village autonomy relies on is naturally formed and the authorities cannot control or block it, village autonomy determined by the villagers doesn't require consent from the government as long as the villagers themselves can persist with their own decisions. Power, after all, is a question of being agreed on. The power of a village is vested with what the villagers agree. When the villagers don't agree with power of the government, don't obey the authorities dispatched and appointed by the government, and only agree with their own autonomy, obey their own elected leaders, power of the village would eventually be vested in their own hands.

Of course, this will not be a process without problem. Government suppression is known; especially the initial phases will be full of obstacles and difficulties. However, village autonomy conforms to the Chinese law, so legitimacy will be on the villagers' side, it will be suppression that's illegitimate. The only way the authorities can respond that we can guess would be arresting the village head and the village committee members. But that lacks legal basis and so how will they be convicted? How severe will their crimes be? Thus, comparatively speaking there is less risk in fighting for village autonomy and so can withstand with certain amount of courage. After arresting, the coordination networks would enable the villagers to quickly convene and elect new leaders to keep the village autonomy undisturbed. Authorities may arrest again, and the villagers will elect again – this is the actual practice of "fill the prisons" of the non-cooperation tactic of non-violence. The effect of such games is to see which side can hold longer. Unless the authorities have enough prisons for the entire villagers to be locked up, otherwise, as long as the villagers can persist, village autonomy can survive.

If multiple villages do this simultaneously, it has to be first the authorities that cannot hold. How many prisons are required to accommodate all the villagers? How shameless they have to be to withstand the consequent scandalous reports by the global media? At such times, as long as the villagers can adhere to their own resolve, never give up, never back down, it has to be the authorities that have to concede in the end like what happened in Wukan Village in Canton.

Indeed, courage is a key. People would say that it's risky, what Chinese can do cannot be done by Tibetans, who would be charged with "separatism". But the question is – is that the reason not to do anything at all? Unless not doing anything, there would be suppression otherwise. Even in the case of self-immolations, haven't the authorities already started arresting and sentencing? However, having said that, the Tibetans also have certain advantages over the Chinese, they have more courage – not even afraid to self-immolate, how come afraid of the suppression resulting from fight for village autonomy?

Currently, the Tibetan government-in-exile expressing solidarity, holding prayer ceremonies and engaging in different activities, are good but not exactly the need of the time. Those do not constitute an overall impact on the Tibetans in Tibet, who actually want the exile Tibetans to thoroughly research and prove theories by carefully experimenting and deducing mature tactics; by organizing and training volunteers to promote and propagate these tactics. It is not possible for Tibetans in Tibet to do these preparations under repression but the exile Tibetans have organization, base, resources, freedom, knowledge, associations and media, and also international support, the foundation that the Dalai Lama has established all his life should now be built upon. This is the most effective start-up and implementation of the Dalai Lama's Middle Way Policy.

In the past, the exile Tibetan government used to hesitate to participate in activities inside Tibet, fearing that the Chinese government would blame them for instigating hostility between the Tibetans in Tibet and the Chinese government. For promoting village autonomy, they can get out of this kind of blames, as whatever they do regarding village autonomy – research programs, experimentation, training, promoting inside Tibet – all are helping China to implement its own laws, cooperating with the Chinese government and not opposing it. Certainly, we cannot expect the government to be grateful of this, but at least it cannot find excuses; meanwhile, Tibetans will gain sympathy and support from the Chinese people, because they are also fighting for the same autonomy.

Starting with promoting village autonomy inside Tibet has another benefit – as the decomposed smaller goals are not directly related to the big question of nationality, each village will deal with specific local issues and thus can also bypass the nationalist differences which can easily be manipulated and become hostile to each other. Common pursuit of village autonomy and joint safeguarding of rights and interests will enable the Chinese and Tibetans to unite and blend into a democracy movement or human rights movement, thus will get the support from the general Chinese public and also draw Chinese people into the struggle for Tibet's freedom. This will not only help realizing village autonomy for Tibetans and expanding their freedom, but also paving way for resolving the Tibet issue, understanding and reconciliation among nationalities after Chinese democratization.

Real autonomy should start from the grassroots level. From village autonomy to regional autonomy and then to national regional autonomy, are combinations with different scales and upgrading the levels – When majority of villages in a township attain village autonomy, the elected village heads can come together and form township committee to involve in decision-making and elect a chief for the township to realize township autonomy; when majority townships in a district achieve autonomy, the township heads to form Township Committee to make decisions and elect district head to achieve district autonomy …… till national regional autonomy is realized. Of course, completion of this entire process depends on historic opportunities and also the process of China's democratization, but, village autonomy is exactly the foundation and starting of this process and besides, it can be started outright from now.

December 17, 2012

回顧2012︰香港點解搞成咁？（上）從〈這是我家〉到〈難忘時刻〉

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 10:41 PM PST

序
捱過了世界末日，又來到年晚。回望過去十一個月，關於香港的我只記得全民退保、光復上水、南丫海難、新界東北、國民教育、特首跑馬仔。但其實2012原來是香港回歸十五周年，我居然對此沒甚麼印象，只記得領導人來港前，灣仔架起比人還要高的水馬。大家對反國教和六四晚會的投入，遠比慶祝回歸來得熱烈。從貪曾到狼英，香港人對政府的信任一度一度下跌。從失望走向絕望，香港點解會搞成咁？

城市與歌
近日冷觀立會對梁振英的不信任動議，每天回家繼續與水客狹路相逢，再多不堪入目的種種，我不能否認一種心痛的情緒。複雜得難以用三言兩語梳理，陳腔濫調地概括大約是既愛且恨的糾結。想到此，我記起n年前，小學合唱歌演出過的一首歌──〈這是我家〉。即使我們對香港有多少不滿，始終無可擺脫的還是「這是我家」的事實。

搜尋之後才知道〈這是我家〉的製作背景，原來是早於1986年英女皇第二次訪港時，大匯演上用以代表香港的作品。回歸之後，遇有大時大節政府還是會傾力支持演藝界歌唱香港。十五周年回歸大匯演上，歌曲除了十五年如一的〈龍的傳人〉，還有新作〈難忘時刻〉。後者更被網民多次改篇成不同版本，甚至你在Google search〈難忘時刻〉的歌詞，首兩頁盡是改篇版本的作品；在Youtube上，改篇版的播放次數更是原裝的一倍，可見其瘋傳程度的深和廣，也反映出市民認為原版未能反映回歸十五周年「難忘時刻」的現實。

歌代表了甚麼？
四首歌的歌詞分別可見：〈這是我家〉、〈龍的傳人〉、〈難忘時刻〉、〈難忘時刻〉（改篇版）

接近三十年之後，再看〈這是我家〉的歌詞，不禁又要再一次稱讚霑叔的詞。雖然歌詞的內容多少有點過時（橫頭磡今日不過是新區了），但很喜歡文字中的紮實感覺。歌詞不是沒有口號式的呼喊，「Hong Kong，我愛Hong Kong」簡直是肉麻到痺的一段。霑叔同時靈活地將大家日常生活的地名和交通基建入詞，例如：「尖沙嘴散步，筲箕灣眺望」、「大埔長洲樹向上，橫頭墈新區心向上，維園自由唱」、「地鐵飛奔到觀塘，纜車開上山上，大鐵管通過海床，東區快車湧去走廊」等等，勾起受觀與生活的關係，共鳴之餘讓呼喊有回憶得以充實，情感才不至空洞虛假。

反觀今年那首〈難忘時刻〉，全篇都是勤勉的說教，一句「回頭像夢中，青蔥歲月」蓋過了十五年的高低起跌和悲喜離合。只是念茲在茲地說「Believe in our dreams」，叫又理性又實際的香港人如何信服或感動。最致命的是離題，「難忘時刻」的歌詞，居然在難忘時刻的元素上留白。我理解這種用作歌頌繁華的作品，無法點出種種悲慘現實，那麼換個標題也不算太難吧？

民間製作的版本，沒有政治唱紅的包袱，包涵更多市民的集體回憶。「像地鐵和電，盈滿卻加價錢，有加不減」、「物價上漲未停止」、「難敵領匯，而店舖迫遷」、「人人在夢想，安居置業，樓價貴像痴了線」，從民生的角度概括小市民生活一天比一天困難的情況。又宏觀地點出政治、社會上的結構性問題，例如：「貧富差距甚殊，靠官商掛勾寫故事」、「貪曾」和「兩制告急存亡」。撇開這改篇詞產生於鼓勵市民於七一上街的背景，光是從文字手法上看歌詞，已經比原裝版本更有層次和深度。

最詭異的要算〈龍的傳人〉，你們可知道這首感覺看似「很紅」的作品，是出自台灣詞人侯德健的手筆，成篇於1978年美國與退守台灣的中華民國斷絕外交關係之背景下。歌曲傳到香港，被多位紅星熱唱之後，才傳揚到中國大陸。每次大匯演主辦方面都很愛用這首歌，強調血濃於水、心繫家國之意，想到這，不禁暗忖一下究竟歌唱哪家哪國？

這首近半世紀前的作品，加上創作於大時代的背景，流露出本質性的身份認同條件。「黑眼睛黑頭髮黃皮膚」是生物上的相同；「黃河」、「長江」是對土地的感情。對於生活在全球一體化，人流物流縱橫的廿一世紀，鄉土和髮膚不一定是能勾起身份認同的印記。文化理論家Stuart Hall指出，一個人的背景(background)是建構身份的要素。放在香港的語境下，居民那裡來不是重點，關鍵在於他們都在香港生活過。如是觀之，〈這是我家〉那種「中西客，香港客，攜手合唱」更有具現代國際都會的開放氣度。

這樣說來，我們是回到八十年代了嗎？

>>>繼續......

（本部分完整可見吉暝水的部落格：　http://movingfromhere2there.blogspot.hk/2012/12/2012.html）

部門聯手封殺街站食環署：不如擺灣仔道

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 09:15 PM PST

圖：今年七一獨媒在軒尼詩道設立的街站

獨立媒體（香港）作為一個小型的民間團體，過去幾年六四、七一都會擺街站籌款，以資日常運作經費。筆者過去兩年均代表團體向食環署申請臨時小販牌照，一次地點在灣仔軒尼詩道298電腦城外，一次在軒尼詩道及天樂里路口，均順利獲發牌照。

將2013年1月1日舉行的元旦大遊行，警方早已表示街站「阻塞」遊行路線，揚言會禁止街站，更將有關條款列於民陣等三個申請遊行的團體的「不反對通知書」上。香港人權監察的聲明已說得相當清楚，街站是遊行多元表達的方式之一，警方禁止街站屬過度行使權力。獨媒依據七一遊行設街站的做法，向食環署申請牌照，結果是申請與七一同樣地點卻遭到拒絕，我們立即反提議四個其他沿軒尼詩道的地點，食環署竟表示「可以話俾你聽，面向軒尼詩道既牌照申請都好大機會唔會批。」又提議我們申請天樂里及灣仔道或莊士敦道英皇集團中心外的臨時小販牌照，署方建議的兩個地點均不在遊行路線上，荒謬之極。

「公眾安全」馬路街站申請不獲批
昨日下午六時，作為申請人的筆者收到食環署通知，表示基於「公眾安全」的考慮，已否決獨媒申請於軒尼詩道及天樂里交界的行車路上的臨時小販牌申請，獨媒過去幾年也成功申請牌照，我們已要求署方以書面答覆。

食環署負責人梁先生反建議我們於行人路上擺檔，或許會獲得批准。於是我們反建議四個街站的地點，包括遊行期間將會封路的天樂里路口，以及軒尼詩道近北海中心一帶的三個位於行人路的街站位置，待署方回應。

圖：紅色標示為被否決申請的街站，綠色為四個反提議的街站。

傳真補充文件不足十五分鐘後，食環署另一位黃小姐來電，表示四個地點均「面向軒尼詩道」，很大機會不會獲得批准。筆者反問如果不面向軒尼詩道，難道是背向軒尼詩道。黃小姐無作回應，只表示這些地點並非地政總署恆常會批准的地點，「會多一重手續」，我著她找一些可行的地點。爾後食環署再度來電，表示找到兩個位置，分別是位於天樂里及灣仔道交界，以及莊士敦道英皇集團中心外，我表示這兩個地點均不在遊行路線上，擺街站有何意義，黃小姐沒有回覆，只表示我們補充提供的四個街站地點「面向軒尼詩道」，很大機會不會獲批。

圖：紫圈為食環署建議的擺站地點，遠離軒尼詩道遊行路線（紅線）

盡用權力打壓街站
在筆者與食環署人員對話之中，似乎各部門均已緊隨警方的步調，用盡一切方法收緊權力，包括禁止一切在遊行沿線的街站牌照申請，只會容許團體申請一些「地政總署劃定的位置」，而這些位置很多均遠離遊行路線，令團體知難而退。

警方處理遊行就如疏導人潮一樣，希望人群盡快散去不要停留街上，不少遊行搞手都知道，警方常常好像趕羊般要求遊行人士盡快出發，「行快D」，盡快完成遊行，這便是警方嘗試把遊行「去政治化」的小動作。以此「疏導人潮」的邏輯，便可明正言順掃除沿路街站這些阻礙物，就如獨媒一樣，不少小團體依賴遊行街站籌募日常經費及將各種議題介紹予市民認識，打壓街站的客觀效果，便是「陰乾」民間團體。

筆者想起今年六四，支聯會一致通過決議不讓其他團體在天后入口擺站，筆者希望支聯會中人如今能夠看清楚街站對於公民社會的意義。

山寨牛脖

Saturday, December 29, 2012

相关日志

相关日志

男女间的六大禁忌话题(Taboo Topic)

情人与「普通朋友」，担心有所不同

不敢说的馒头曲线

不确定的自己，无法掌握的感情

为什么他要骗我

是为你好，还是为我好？

在说与不说之外：三条可能的出路

注解

参考文献

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive