神奇配票論 :: organised voting

When the pan-democratic camp performed much better than many expected in this Hong Kong Legco election, they and some commentators said it was because the voters organised their votes so nicely.  Is that ever possible?  Can anyone really 'organise' a large number of votes to support a specific candidate?  Are we talking about the pro-democratic camp here?

......................................

很慶幸我大跌眼鏡。很慶幸。

不是說笑，直至投票當日我仍然以為（我素來支持的）泛民主派會大敗。觀乎他們選戰期間毫無默契（或許應該說是拒絕有默契），互爭票源，偶然唔覺意望下電視選舉論壇，又見自相攻擊不遺餘力，真是覺得今次唔輸至奇，冇眼睇。

結果不如所料，泛民沒有大敗，反而各人得票頗為平均，最後整體成績超出預期，都不知應該說是好彩還是奇跡。

評論的和當選的都說，是選民『自行配票』成功，贊嘆選民配票智慧之高，更勝他們的選舉工程的籌算；而某些名單第二位未能當選，又是因為配票未夠完善，諸如此類。

我對這種神奇配票論感到非常抓頭。更準確來說，其實我完全無法理解甚麼叫『配票』—— 好像有人手上控制著一大批選票，可以讓他隨時隨意按需要動用來支持誰一樣，你話神唔神奇？

那些一直傳說有『死忠票』、『鐵票』的陣營，我不敢說。

但是評論員啊評論員，學者啊學者，飯民啊飯民，請不要侮辱選民好嗎？多年來against all odds consistently支持民主派的，雖然未必很高學歷高收入更未必專業，但絕大部份都是讀多左幾毫子書，有意見有主見有態度有期望的，而且（根據中大政治行政系鬍鬚強計算）consistently佔了投票選民六成左右。

選民的行為，有如市場動向，除了難以預測，更是無法控制的，不是嗎？

如果有人試圖『配』我的『票』，我大概會投訴他企圖干預他人選舉、試圖賄選、或者破壞選舉秩序。

選舉，正常情況下，不是應該投票給我最想他勝出的那個人，就這麼簡單嗎？配甚麼票？

不過話說回來，這種令人費解的配票思維或者配票論，大概是那扭曲的比例代表制的產物。有畸形的制度、環境，自然造就畸形的思想、行為。這是我多年前讀我的心愛書Shantung Compound所學到的功課。

【票後胡言，之二】

小民的冷感 :: indifference of a nobody

The Legislative Council election in Hong Kong last Sunday marked the first time ever that I seriously thought of not voting -- for no special reason, simply because of the learned helplessness developed from the stifling political atmosphere.  No matter how we vote and who we vote for, it doesn't make a real difference.  This I believe is the crux of the low turn-out rate at the poll.

.....................................

自從1991年香港立法局/立法會開始有直選以來，我今年第一次認真地閃出過『不去投票』的念頭。

沒有很特別的原因，只是覺得好冇癮，冇心機。

我素來支持的泛民主派表現欠佳，甚至某些時刻令人心痛，是冇癮之一。

立法會整體表現冇乜，是更大的冇癮。

然而最核心的冇癮，是被面前這個政治死局吹脹，你投乜票都冇乜用。when it doesn't really make a difference, why bother？

這是過去多年來，尤其是 （尤！其！是！）回歸以來所累積的learned helplessness （學來的無力感）。

Learned helplessness的心理學實驗是這樣的：當一隻/一群白老鼠發現無論做甚麼，結果都一樣，無論怎樣閃來跳去，都避不開『被電擊』的命運時，他就會坐下來甚麼都不做，坐以待電，費事跳。

雖然我最終都決定投票，而且投給上屆支持的同一人，但我很明白傳媒在街頭訪問那些『投來冇用』的論調。

不論我選了誰，結果都是一樣的；不論民意如何，結局都是一樣的。話之你點武，政府打橫行，中央夾硬來。吹脹。

投票率低不是沒有原因的。

【票後胡言，之一】

書事 :: book matters

It appears that somebody out there is taking the course which I mentioned earlier and calls for help about the amount of readings -- and the amount of money needed to buy those books.  I would suggest that the basic biblionomics in these situations is to make use of library resources as much as possible.  What's more, as far as I know, the quantity of readings in that course can hardly be considered 'surprisingly huge' (as somebody claims).

.....................................

 

根據極可靠線報傳來消息，一名自稱『年輕有型的神學家』的人士上了我早前提及的那個神學課程，令有關那課程的部分資料在某個圈子裡曝了光，負責教的那個人的身份也稍為露了玄機。

我有理由相信，這位『年輕有型的神學家』極可能即是幾天前曾經在此留言的『風火劍塚』，因為兩者同樣提及『因著上司的介紹』，連用詞都一樣，沒有這麼巧合吧！

據他所說，那位教的人原來是位主教呢！嘩！(他說，『因著上司的介紹，今個學期上了一科前xxxx主教的神學課程。』See? WOW!)

不過那位朋友慨嘆，那科『Core Text books卻出奇地多』，恐怕買到窮，『戶口跌落得零元』，於是四出張羅借書。

說到這裡，不如『年老S嘜神學人』插插嘴吧。

有學者認為，按一般高級學位course descriptions的理解，那位前主教列出的core texts，應該是指整個課程的主要/基本參考，而不是用來當教科書（text books）那樣讀的，大可稍安。

一位曾經橫跨美蘇（格蘭）兩國數家學府、現從事研究和教學工作的神學人指出，如此數量的指定閱讀，在類似程度的碩士課之間，絕不能說是『出奇地多』，反而可算輕微地偏少；而且假如只有那些core texts，再沒有加上每周的指定或者推薦閱讀，那就是嚴重偏少了。咁點？請頂硬上好了。

書，其實也不用捧著書目就急於搜購，不如先盡量利用圖書館的資源，確認對自己有長久使用價值的，才投入巨款購入也無妨，這可說是買書的基本經濟學。回說那個名單裡面的書，其實除了一本因為出版了只不過兩三個月，圖書館還未及購入，其他的，就算中大暫時沒有，都在香港高校圖書聯網（HKALL）內可以找得到，別輕舉妄動啊！

G.T.Who?

Characteristics of good university teachers in relation to students:

(from Ken Bain, via Scot McKnight)

1. They do not display power but investment in the learning of the students. Good teachers want their students to learn and not just to do well on an exam.
2. The best teachers trust their students and their instinct, when things don’t go well, is to seek for a cause in their teaching instead of in the laziness of students.
3. The best teachers related to students openly — they create an environment of openness. They bring themselves to the classroom and to the students.
4. The best teachers create an interactive atmosphere.
5. The best teachers connect themselves and their students to the awe of discovery and of the grandeur of life and are humble because they know they are not gods. They create a bond with their students in a mutual journey of learning. The opposite model is an ego game. Thus, they are fellow students.
6. They exhibit an awareness that they and their students can do great things, make discoveries together and can accomplish something.

Am I, or will I be, or can I be one of them?

開學了 :: for whom the school bell tolls

The teaching term in Hong Kong is starting this week. 

This year, the Divinity School of Chung Chi College at the Chinese University of Hong Kong is offering two special courses, which are very unique (if not absolutely unprecedented) in East and Southeast Asia.  Seems interesting.  Just not sure if the guy who teaches them is capable. 

.............................................

香港中文大學崇基學院神學院這個學年開辦下列兩門全新的特別課程，都是在東亞/東南亞神學圈子中罕見的，似乎頗有趣，只是不知道教的人是否勝任。

 

RST 5224: Special Topic on Christianity and Society I:

Media, Popular Culture, and Christianity (媒體、普及文化與基督教)

(Semester 1, 2008-2009)

This course is a critical exploration of the intricate relationships between popular media culture and Christianity. While popular culture and the media have become the daily reality in many parts of the world over the decades, they have seldom been taken seriously in the theological arena, whereas the relationship between popular media and Christianity is often overlooked in academic studies until relatively recent time. We shall re-examine various manifestations of popular culture from Christian theological perspectives, and also probes into the subtle interrelatedness between media culture and Christianity as a an organised religion. This course engages with the wider academic context of the vigorously developing interdisciplinary study of media, religion, and culture (MRC), and attempts to focus particularly on the Chinese language popular media and Chinese Christianity in Hong Kong.

 

RST 5225: Special Topic on Christianity and Society II:

Cinema and Theology (電影與神學)

(Semester 2, 2008-2009)

This course considers the various religious and theological dimensions of contemporary cinema, and examines a range of approaches to such endeavours. Since the inception of motion picture in 1895, cinema and institutional religions (including Christianity) have always been interested in each other – numerous films have used religious themes and motifs as subject matters, while religious communities have been eager to harness the cinema by critiquing, censoring, or making use of films in their ministries. The study of film from serious academic theological perspectives, however, was scarce until the mid 1990s. In this course, we explore a number of approaches in which the theological study of film can take place. These include, for example, the study of explicit representation of religious materials, the 'uncovering' of implicit religious motifs, the use of film as resource for theological reflection and construction. Films to be viewed and discussed cover a broad range from foreign classics, Hollywood hits, to contemporary East Asian and Chinese language films.

 

The Instructor:

is an Honorary Research Associate at the Divinity School of Chung Chi College, who specialises in the interdisciplinary study of cinematic media and theology. His academic study is supported by ample experience in the creative-production and management across different media. He did his PhD in popular cinema and contextual theology at the University of Edinburgh, after pursuing theological study in Boston and communication study in Hong Kong.