zhixin 的个人资料广州大道中照片日志列表更多 ![]() | 帮助 |
|
8月28日 信报:對後奧運中國,香港還有百年功用信報財經新聞 洪清田2008-08-28情思香港 對後奧運中國,香港還有百年功用
奧運成功,舉世都合理相信,中國自認和公認的現行「中國模式」(或稱「北京模式」),中國是不會改的,中國不會隨別人的調子起舞(經濟開放改革和奧運後政治體制改革,融入世界現代文明、個人實體和自由的普世價值)。 按中國的思維邏輯,這次奧運成功,一如經濟開放改革的成功,只會反過來雄辯證明現行的「中國模式」是對的,沒錯的,不可能錯的,不必改;不但不必改,還加大力度鞏固,強化,發揮更大功效。這是中國「以我為主」的文化的理性和邏輯。彭定康說中國官員的反應「非理性」,我說中國官員有自己的理性系統。按中國官員的理性系統,奧運是「尊重自己的傳統、按自己的國情、走自己的路」的成功,不能丟,一定要堅持下去。 檢驗派變成凡是派 中國自以為找到無懈可擊的奧運模式(張藝謀說開幕禮「英人難以超越」),一如九七前後十多二十年中國「以我為主」,自以為找到超越英人「治港」的秘方。這次奧運和「凡是派」相同的是,開放改革派「住」於成功,「住」於現有的狀態、體制和路向,不再自我反省和檢驗,「檢驗派」變「凡是派」。全國全民變是開放改革派,「住」於開放改革,變成全國全民「凡是派」。 歷經千辛萬苦的成功,對一個人、一個企業、一個組織(宗族、國家、民族、文化)可以有兩種截然相反的作用,一個可能是上上下下把心理和情思的注重點放在困難和客觀規律,視困難為必然和自然,繼續不斷自我反省和檢驗經驗,看看成功是改變了自己什麼缺點和掌握事物的什麼規律而取的,從而求取更大成功,按這邏輯和標準組織和管理,理解、判斷和決策。 另一個可能相反,是上上下下把心理和情思的注重點放在「成功」,視之為「我」的優越本質的證明,以前「未成功」是優越性被壓抑,被歧視,看看成功是堅持了自己什麼優點和掌握事物的什麼規律而取的,加大力度發揚,從而從勝利走向勝利,按這邏輯和標準組織和管理,理解、判斷和決策。 後者比前者難享受更大的成功快感,付出的代價是自我膨脹,先是堅守成功模式,繼而堅守「以我為主」,漸陷入主觀唯心的險灘也不自知,知時己太遲,或被淘汱也永遠不知什麼一回事。 中國「走向世界、世界接受」,但今天中國對世界的接受還不及明治維新時的日本。有了三十年開放改革的成功底氣,中國「走向世界、世界接受」其實是「走向(中國)世界、世界接受(中國世界)」。北京奧運是三十年開放改革的總檢閱,開幕禮以「後孔秦漢」的中國文化對抗、檢驗西方主導的「現代化和現代性」。中國自以為找到跨越中西古今的獨步秘方。 中國、中國人有意、自覺為全人類找出路,香港卻無意間、不自覺地為中國找出路。香港百多年的自由、多元和開放,不但銜接西方現代世界,也銜接中國「先秦先孔」世界。香港在「試管」裏處理好這些中西方糾纏不清,也不知不能糾纏得清的問題,死中求生,還創出奇迹。香港在中國「走向世界、世界接受」中的巨大意義,過去百年不算什麼,往下百年才可能見真章。香港是全中國最合適跨越中西、全面探索京奧正反面的。 為中國提供香港視角 由京奧開始,香港可以為中國提供一個現代世界和香港的視角,審視和檢驗各課題: 怎樣解釋京奧、超越京奧、從京奧更大得益,京奧和「中國模式」(或稱「北京模式」),「後奧運」中國的國運,香港角色;這次給世界一個怎樣的「中國、中國人、中國社會、中國文化、中華民族、中國黨政軍單一制」?向前看:前面世界的現實和空間、路是什麼,要達到什麼?需要做些什麼? 德日南韓「後奧運」的國運是怎樣的,有什麼可以觀照和啟示?(傳統原創性本體性文化在現代化和現代性中的轉型,「質」的再造和文化生命的再生)。這次京奧要不要「找不足」、「看反面」、發掘「深層次矛盾和問題」和再發展(新)空間?可以從「找這次京奧要的不足」、反面、深層次矛盾和問題」中得到什麼? 中國要「走向世界、世界接受」,可以從「找這次京奧要的不足」、反面、深層次矛盾和問題」中得到什麼啟示?「現代化和現代性、質的再造和文化生命的再生」是什麼:(動物)生存、個體實體性為基礎的集體和人文主義存在美學(多元、自由、開放和公正仁德,共同身認同和歸屬)。 如何把這次京奧變成一個「知識體系」(從知識論、方法學和本體性看京奧)?如何從這次奧運審視和檢驗中國今天和明天,可以怎樣「走向世界、世界接受」。由京奧到倫奧這四年,中國可以由香港審視、檢驗和學習英國。 當年中國通過東洋學不到太西洋,往下百年,中國「走向世界、世界接受」,香港可以起這類「匪夷所思」的歷史新作用。這或許是上天對中國和世界的眷顧。 8月27日 Fwd: Counting the Medals: The Olympics Are Still Not Flat原来金牌、奖牌统计还有那么多的门道,美国人玩数字真有一套。:-) Counting the Medals: The Olympics Are Still Not Flat
By Charles E. Morrison
(Note: This opinion article originally appeared in The Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 24, 2008)
Whatever its shortcomings, the modern Olympics is one of the most successful experiments in strengthening international understanding. Everyone can appreciate the fine performance of individual athletes or team, regardless of nationality. But the loudest cheers are always for fellow-nationals because of the continuing strength of national identity.
Only two or three nations can ever aspire to see their countries at the top of the Olympics medal count. This time China and the United States were in a category by themselves. China had a commanding 51 to 36 lead in gold medals, and the United States led 110 to 100 in overall medals. Both were victorious on the measures that matter most in their societies. China targeted gold medals, and the United States is one of few nations to traditionally give strong attention to overall medals.
But there are other ways of looking at medal counts that give many other countries something to cheer about. Some smaller countries, such as Jamaica and New Zealand, for example, have far better records than either China or the United States in relationship to their populations. Other nations may be below average even on a per capita basis, but have done better than in the past or have one star athlete or niche sport that places them on the Olympics map.
Australia has 21 million people, a 15th that of the United States. But it has won 40 percent as many medals. South Korea has about 4 percent the population of China, but almost a third as many medals as do the Chinese. On a per capita basis, the Bahamas top the medal count with a medal for every 115,000 citizens. Jamaica's boasted a superstar athlete in Usain Bolt and had a total of 11 medals for 2.7 million people or one medal for every 245,000 people. Sport-minded Australia had one for every 465,000, Cuba one for each 470,000, and South Korea one for every 1.5 million. This compares with the United States at one for every 2.8 million and China at one for every 13 million.
The medal counts illustrate that the world of the modern Olympics is not yet "flat." Some nations seek to tilt the field to their advantage. In a manner reminiscent of the old Soviet and eastern European programs, China's seven-year-old Project 119 used huge subsidies and military-like discipline to ramp up capabilities in Olympic sports where China had been weak, such as track and field events, swimming, rowing, and cycling.
Most other developing countries are largely under-represented at the Olympics, hobbled by fewer athletes, inadequate coaching, poor training facilities, and lack of funds to send large teams to the games. Two developing countries with huge populations –Pakistan, and Bangladesh, each with about 160 million people – have not a single medal between them. Neither does the Philippines, with 90 million people. India with 1.l billion people had only three medals. Africa as a continent had 39, below Germany's 41. South America had but 26, Central Asia 23, the Middle East 12, and South Asia only 4. In fact, China is the only developing country in the top tier of the medal count.
Economic development, as well as government programs, helps account for the rise of East Asia in Olympic medal counts. Led by China, and with strong South Korea and Japanese performances, East Asia won 176 medals, more than the 163 count for North America, including the Caribbean. At the previous Olympics held in Asia in Seoul in 1988, the U.S. total alone exceeded that of all Asia, and before that East Asia was hardly a force in Olympics competition.
But Europe continues to dominate the medal totals, a fact often obscured by the high individual country totals for China and the United States but obvious to many television viewers. Europe as a whole has led the medal count by far in every modern Olympics except those in the United States in 1904 and 1984, the former before air transport and the latter distorted by the withdrawal of the Soviet bloc. In Beijing, the 27 nation European Union (EU) collectively secured 279 medals, almost as many as China, the United States, and Russia combined. When Russia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Norway and other non-EU European nations are added, European continent had 442 medals. On a per capita basis, Iceland won one medal for its 320,000 people; Slovenia had a medal for every 400,000, Norway one per 480,000, Estonia one per 650,000, and Denmark one for every 785,000.
Clearly the Olympics are not perfect, although many of the individual competitors seem near perfection. But even the countries way far down the medals list may have much to be very proud about. In air rifle shooting, Abhinav Bindra won India's first individual gold medal in 100 years of Olympic competition. Bahraini runner Rashin Ramid brought home his tiny country's first gold medal. Thousands of Mongolians celebrated in the spirit of national unity when 24-year-old Tuvshinbayar Naidan, a son of herders, won Mongolia's first-ever gold in judo. A virtually unknown athlete from Togo, Benjamin Boukpeti, snagged his country's first ever medal, a bronze, in the kayak slalom. We can all take great delight in such individual stories that may mean so much to the countries that are not Olympic powerhouses.
Charles E. Morrison is the President of the East-West Center, an education and research organization on Asia Pacific issues located in Honolulu, Hawaii.
## The EAST-WEST CENTER is an education and research organization established by the U.S. Congress in 1960 to strengthen relations and understanding among the peoples and nations of Asia, the Pacific, and the United States. The Center contributes to a peaceful, prosperous and just Asia Pacific community by serving as a vigorous hub for cooperative research, education and dialogue on critical issues of common concern to the Asia Pacific region and the United States. Funding for the Center comes from the U.S. government, with additional support provided by private agencies, individuals, foundations, corporations and the governments of the region. |
|
|