解读陈硕茂议员的国会开场白

（早报言论2011-10-31）

吴大地

　　《联合早报》10月20日的社论 “国会辩论令人耳目一新”写道，“陈硕茂清晰地理清了数个关键政治概念，如爱国不是任何政党的专利；多元不会造成政治分裂，不包容的强权心态才会；培养独立精神与服从强势权力之间的矛盾；在野党有其反对和监督政府的正当角色等等。他的唐太宗与魏征的比喻，也形象地说明异议在政治上的重要性。他的这些观点，是对执政党的期待。”

　　我立刻去找了陈硕茂的国会发言中英全文来看。我的解读与早报社论不尽相同。这里，我谈谈个人的观感。

　　陈硕茂用华语发言时说，我国许多领导人认为新加坡有政治分裂，不利于团结与将来发展。他接着问，“各位想想，这分裂是怎么造成的？ 是因为社会出现了不同的声音，还是因为不能包容不同的声音才会造成分裂？”又说，“一个好的领导者，只要有信心，有正确的方向，有好的道德与能力把政绩做出来，人民自然会乐意跟着他走。不需要害怕国家分裂，强调团结。”

　　对我们这些出生于上世纪40年代，经过建国前后风风雨雨的老新加坡人来说，这样的说法未免天真。现实政治，真的有那么简单吗？只要政府交岀漂亮的成绩单，能够包容不同，国家就不会分裂？

　　试想一下，我们能够包容那些与我们“不同”的“回教基本教义者”或者“族群主义者”吗？只要把国家治理好，我们就可以让他们在这里公开散布他们的思想、招募信徒，而不必担心国家分裂吗？

　　凡是对群众“部落情绪”稍有体会的国人，相信都不会接受这种简单的治国理论。台湾的蓝绿、泰国的红黄、美国国会里的不顾全国利益的党争，都是活生生的现成教材。断层线纵横交错的新加坡，国小民寡，能经得起这样的折腾吗？对这类易发难收的星星之火，当政者能掉以轻心吗？我国政府在建国初期，如果像陈议员那么潇洒轻松，相信这个小岛早已四分五裂。哪里还有今天的新加坡。

书生议政不能当真

　　竞选时那种“只看旗帜，不讲道理/公义”的现象，企图撕裂新移民与本地人的言行，直到今天还在蔓延。唯恐天下不乱的言论，天天充斥网络。这种情势，能教人不担心吗？

　　所以有人说，书生议政，有时只能当他唱歌，纵然悦耳动听，却万万不可当真
    陈议员在他的中文讲词里，有意无意的替执政党披上“黄袍”。他用“贞观之治”的例子，把执政党喻为唐太宗，自贬为谏官魏征。同时又说了一些“党外无党，帝王思想。”，“爱国的权利不是任何一个政党可以独占的。”诸如此类的话。给人一种他在和一个专制君主对话的印象。

　　政治开放是我国的大方向，近年的步骤越来越快。鼓励民众参与讨论，欢迎不同的建设性意见，早已是社会的共识。记得在大选以前，总理和部长都公开说过，有建设性的反对党，对新加坡是件好事。他们也着手改变制度，以确保国会有更多的党外声音。同时大幅度放宽政治言论空间与媒体的管控。

　　而陈议员却在这里讲授民主政治101，“在民主社会里，有不同的意见，不同的建议，是很自然的事情。这也是好事。”

　　陈议员还煞有其事的劝告当政者，不必“防民如防贼”，仿佛这里是金正日的朝鲜。其实，只要看看网上那些天天出现，把部长骂成是狗、什么“乱臣贼子”的网络言论，就可以知道当政者的宽容程度。

　　陈议员对浅显的道理，似有偏好。 例如他说 “真正完整的人格、独立的精神，是不可能在一个凡事听从独大的执政党，凡事唯唯诺诺的环境生长。”这些路人皆知的道理，难道还有人不知道吗？

　　记得，公共服务委员会主席张赞成（Eddie Teo ）曾在《海峽时报》（2009年7月25日）发表的一封公开信中说过，有一些政府奨学金候选学生在面试时，言不由衷，企图揣测遴选者的心意，力求答案“政治正确”。他说这种做法是基于对遴选要求错误的理解。公共服务委员会要找的，不是那些没有原则的“应声虫”（yes-men），而是能独立思考，有道德勇气的未来公职官员。

　　陈议员在国会殿堂上“教老奶奶吸蛋”，他的目标听众（target audience）相信不是国会里的政治精英吧？比较有可能的，是那些不耐烦听复杂理论的民众，或者是那些对新加坡没有深入了解的人/外国人。

　　陈议员的英语讲辞的话语氛围与其华语版本，不大一样。用英语发言时，他赞赏地引用杨荣文与总统的话以及施政报告。虽然他的目的是在为反对党的操作空间打拼，不过也显示了他对政府包容多元的大方向，是认同的。

　　纵观全文，他与政府的看法，可说是相当一致的。例如，他大篇幅的谈论人力资本的投资，呼吁“投资于新加坡人。投资在新加坡的未来。（Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.）”。这正是行动党当政以来的施政强项。也是今日新加坡成功的主要原因。

　　陈先生这篇开场白，似乎没有什么创新的具体建议，只在重申与演绎那些大家早有共识的政治哲学与公共政策。所以有论者说他徒发空言，不是完全没有道理的。

     我个人觉得，反对党人公开背书政府的公共政策，是件好亊。不过如果他们肯下点功夫，深入研究，提出一些实质的建议或者批评，那才比较像世界级的反对党。

THE FIERCE IMAGINATION OF HARUKI MURAKAMI

Sam Anderson in the New York Times Magazine:

I prepared for my first-ever trip to Japan, this summer, almost entirely by immersing myself in the work of Haruki Murakami. This turned out to be a horrible idea. Under the influence of Murakami, I arrived in Tokyo expecting Barcelona or Paris or Berlin — a cosmopolitan world capital whose straight-talking citizens were fluent not only in English but also in all the nooks and crannies of Western culture: jazz, theater, literature, sitcoms, film noir, opera, rock ’n’ roll. But this, as really anyone else in the world could have told you, is not what Japan is like at all. Japan — real, actual, visitable Japan — turned out to be intensely, inflexibly, unapologetically Japanese.

This lesson hit me, appropriately, underground. On my first morning in Tokyo, on the way to Murakami’s office, I descended into the subway with total confidence, wearing a freshly ironed shirt — and then immediately became terribly lost and could find no English speakers to help me, and eventually (having missed trains and bought lavishly expensive wrong tickets and gestured furiously at terrified commuters) I ended up surfacing somewhere in the middle of the city, already extremely late for my interview, and then proceeded to wander aimlessly, desperately, in every wrong direction at once (there are few street signs, it turns out, in Tokyo) until finally Murakami’s assistant Yuki had to come and find me, sitting on a bench in front of a honeycombed-glass pyramid that looked, in my time of despair, like the sinister temple of some death-cult of total efficiency.

More here.

Untitled | Flickr – Condivisione di foto!

drawings - Connor

I do not envy people who think they have a complete explanation of... - but does it float

this isn't happiness™ (Heath Killen) 

This new plastic idea will ignore the particulars of appearance - but does it float

 Piccsy :: pretty awesome

Fear.Less on the Behance Network

札记 - 陈硕茂的国会发言2

回复 #19 小民 的帖子

我的帖子有下面几个重点：

        陈先生认为，当政者只要把国家治理好，能够包容不同，就不必担心国民分裂。我指出了这种过度简单理论的谬误。

        “鼓励建设性的辩论，民众参与”，早已是我国社会的共识。政府早已说过，新加坡有建设性的反对党是好事。而且着手改变制度，拓宽空间以容纳更多不同的党外声音。而陈先生似乎听不到总理部长说过的话，也看不到政府的作为，时至今日还若有所指的说那些什么“爱国权利不是任何一个政党可以独占”，“党外无党，帝王思想”，“民主社会里，有不同的意见，是好事”如此这般的普通常识。如果不是无的放矢，那就是自设稻草人，然后煞有其事的加以攻击。

        陈先生还说什么“真正完整的人格、独立的精神，是不可能在一个凡事听从独大的执政党，凡事唯唯诺诺的环境生长。”仿佛政府不知道这些大家都知道的道理！公共服务委员会主席张赞成（Eddie Teo ）在海峽时报（7月25日09年）发表的一封公开信中说，有一些政府奨学金候选学生在面试时，言不由衷，企图揣测遴选者的心意，力求答案“政治正确”。他说这种做法是基于对遴选要求错误的理解。公共服务委员会要找的不是那些没有原则的“应声虫”（ YES-MAN ），而是能独立思考，有道德勇气的未来公职官员。

        陈先生的英语发言，赞赏的引用了大量的杨荣文、总统，总理的话以及政府文告。并大谈人力资本的开发。振声呼吁“ Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.”什么的。 就是没看到什么新鲜的观点。更不要说有创意的具体建议了。

看到早报社论对他的激赏，提高了我对他的期待。后来读了他的讲词，是一个反高潮。

BE AFRAID

BE AFRAID

In the Economist:

IN DARK days, people naturally seek glimmers of hope. So it was that financial markets, long battered by the ever-worsening euro crisis, rallied early this week amid speculation that Europe’s leaders had been bullied by the rest of the world into at last putting together a “big plan” to save the single currency. Investors ventured out from safe-haven bonds into riskier assets. Stock prices jumped: those of embattled French banks soared by almost 20% in just two days.
But those hopes are likely to fade, for three reasons. First, for all the breathless headlines from the IMF/World Bank meetings in Washington, DC, Europe’s leaders are a long way from a deal on how to save the euro. The best that can be said is that they now have a plan to have a plan, probably by early November. Second, even if a catastrophe in Europe is avoided, the prospects for the world economy are darkening, as the rich world’s fiscal austerity intensifies and slowing emerging economies provide less of a cushion for global growth. Third, America’s politicians are, once again, threatening to wreck the recovery with irresponsible fiscal brinkmanship. Together, these developments point to a perilous period ahead.
Most of the blame for this should be heaped on the leaders of the euro zone, still the biggest immediate danger. The doom-laden lectures from the Americans and others in Washington last week did achieve something: Europe’s policymakers now recognise that more must be done. They are, at last, focusing on the right priorities: building a firewall around illiquid but solvent countries like Italy; bolstering Europe’s banks; and dealing far more decisively with Greece. The idea is to have a plan in place by the Cannes summit of the G20 in early November.
That, however, is a long time to wait—and the Europeans still disagree vehemently about how to do any of this.

The Feynman Series (part 1) - Beauty

HUMAN EVOLUTION: NO EASY FIX

Humans are undeniably complex, and proud of it. No case, we believe, needs to be made for our biological superiority. Our biological functions are exquisitely regulated and resilient to external variations, owing to complicated webs of interactions. Unlike other species, we seem to be endowed with willpower and intellect, hence we are capable of modifying the environment to buffer the effects of our decreasing fitness.
Be that as it may, we may be doomed as a species precisely because of the way in which our complexity arose.

Paraphrasing the science writer Philip Ball, nature seems to have activated a time bomb, and our complexity is only a short-term fix.
To grasp the nature of the problem, we need to examine how humans are made at the molecular level, and contrast our constitution with that of other species that we often call “rudimentary,” such as unicellular organisms. This analysis leads us to examine proteins – our cellular building blocks and the executors of biological functions – across vastly different species. Proteins with common ancestry belonging to different species, termed “orthologs,” offer solid ground for comparison.
It has been generally recognized that the basic “fold,” or shape, of a protein must be conserved across species, because there is a tight correspondence between structure and function. Proteins that retain the same function across very different species – generally the case with orthologs – are expected to keep the same fold.
But the sequence of amino acids that make up the protein chains in these orthologs can vary significantly. Sometimes the extent of sequence identity between two orthologs can be as low as 25-30%, and yet their folds remain strikingly similar, attesting to the robustness of function to evolutionary change.

Ariel Fernandez in Project Syndicate:

Yang Lan 杨澜: The generation that's remaking China

飘浮术

飘浮术 Levitation performed by a Buddhist monk.

飘浮术
Levitation performed by a Buddhist monk.

Discovery Channel Video

老和尚打坐离地轻轻浮起视频！

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-videos/

大傻 发表于 2011-9-29 21:07 随笔南洋网

社会: 英国内政大臣建议取消人权法

bonnae1982 写道 "据BBC报道，英国内政大臣特蕾萨·梅表示她“个人”希望取消人权法，因为人权法给内政部带来了太多的麻烦。特蕾萨·梅在接受《星期日泰晤士报》采访时说(paywall)，从内政部的角度来看，现行的人权法使英国很难将那些可能是罪犯或恐怖分子的人驱逐出境。她说，人们已经看到，由于人权法的限制，一些外国罪犯躲过了被驱逐出境的命运。英国的人权法就是将欧洲人权公约写入了英国法律。联合政府副首相、自民党领袖克莱格在自民党代表大会上刚刚表示，人权法“不会变更”。自民党内阁能源大臣胡恩则警告说，如果保守党坚持要取消人权法，将会遭到联合政府中自民党的强烈反对，他说，自民党和保守党在这一问题上的分歧有可能对联合政府构成威胁。英国联合政府已经成立了一个包括人权专家在内的委员会，讨论是否有可能在今年底制定一个新的人权条例以取代现行的人权法。在今年八月伦敦发生骚乱后，英国考虑骚乱时关闭社交网站，此举亦得到中国官方媒体《环球时报》的称赞。"

• 阅读更多... 

• blackhat 发表于 2011年10月03日 14时08分 星期一 

一劑迷幻藥也許造成持久的人格改變

Single dose of hallucinogen may create lasting personality change
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-09-dose-hallucinogen-personality.html

September 29, 2011

根據進行一項新研究的 Johns Hopkins 研究者表示，單一劑高劑量的迷幻劑 psilocybin（二甲基-4-羥色胺磷酸，賽洛西賓，「神奇蘑菇 ／magic mushrooms」中的活性成份）足以為近乎六成的參與者（總共 51 人參與研究）帶來可測量的、持續至少一年以上的人格變化。

科學家表示，持久變化可在一部分的人格中發現，那稱為開放性（openness），包括與想像、美學、感覺、抽象概念以及一般心胸寬大相關的特徵。在這些特徵中的改變（使用一種廣泛使用且在科學上經過驗證的人格量表進行測量），其幅度比一般在健康的、超過數十年生活經驗的成年人身上所觀察到的變化來的大。在這個領域中的研究者表示，在三十歲後，人格通常不會如此顯著地改變。

"一般來說，如果有所區別的話，當人們變老，開放性傾向減少，" 研究領導者 Roland R. Griffiths 表示，一位 Johns Hopkins 大學醫學院精神病學與行為科學教授。

這項研究，獲 Johns Hopkins 的 Institutional Review Board 認可，部份由 National Institute on Drug Abuse 所資助，並已發表在 Journal of Psychopharmacology 期刊上。

研究參與者完成二到五次 8 小時的 drug sessions（給藥階段）每一次有間隔至少三週的連續階段。參與者在其中一個 drug session 會被告知他們將接受「中等或高劑量」的 psilocybin，但參與者或階段監控者都不知道是何時。

在每個階段期間，參與者會被鼓勵躺在長椅上，使用眼罩遮住外部視覺上令人分心的事物，戴上播放音樂的耳機，並迫使他們注意在其內在體驗上。

人格在篩檢時會被評估，時間是每個 drug session 之後一到二個月以及最後的 drug session 後約 14 個月。Griffiths 表示， 他認為在此研究中所發現的人格變化很可能是永久性的，因為許多人都持續超過一年。

在這項新研究中，近乎所有的參與者都認為他們自己在精神上活躍（spiritually active，固定參與宗教服務、祈禱或靜坐冥想）。有超過一半以上的學位為研究生。在這些階段中，其他非法迷幻劑都受到密切監控，而且志願者都被認為在心理上是健康的。

"我們並不知道這些發現是否能一般化到規模更大的人口，" Griffiths 說。

Griffiths 告誡表示，某些研究參與者報告，在他們一整天的 psilocybin sessions 中，有部份時間感到強烈的恐懼或焦慮，然而沒人報告歷久不衰的有害效果。然而，他警告，如果迷幻劑在監控設置不完善的情況下使用，可能的恐懼或焦慮反應會導致有害的行為。

Griffiths 表示，持久的人格變化很少被視為實驗室中單一不連續體驗的作用（a function of a single discrete experience）。在這項研究中，這種改變尤其會發生在那些經歷過某種「神秘體驗」的人身上，那以問卷驗證過。此問卷是由早期迷幻劑研究者所開發，並經由 Griffiths 去蕪存菁以用於 Hopkins。他將「神秘體驗」定義為：「一種與所有人之間相互聯繫（interconnectedness）的感覺以及伴隨著神聖與敬仰感覺的事」。

人格以廣泛使用且經過科學驗證的人格問卷測量，那包含開放性以及心理學家認為構成人格的其他四種主要領域：神經質（neuroticism）、外向性（extroversion）、親和性（agreeableness）、自覺性（conscientiousness）。

Griffiths 表示，他認為 psilocybin 也許具有治療用途。他目前正在研究迷幻劑是否能幫助癌症患者應付伴隨診斷而來的憂鬱與焦慮，以及是否能幫助老菸槍克服他們的菸癮。

"那裡可能有我們目前所無法想像的應用，" 他說。"無疑值得進行系統性研究。"

※ 相關報導：

＊ Mystical Experiences Occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin Lead to Increases in the Personality Domain of Openness
http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/28/0269881111420188.abstract

Katherine A MacLean, Matthew W Johnson, and Roland R Griffiths
J Psychopharmacol, September 28, 2011;
doi: 10.1177/0269881111420188

＊ 大麻對於嗎啡癮的驚人效果
＊ 研究者進行古柯鹼疫苗的研究
＊ 增進『精神力量』的藥物是好是壞？

WHAT IS OBJECTIVITY?

by Dave Maier
A most interesting book I've been reading lately is The Influencing Machine: Brooke Gladstone on the Media (comix art by Josh Neufeld). Gladstone's main point so far seems to be that while the (news) media have an obligation to be "objective" in the sense that what they tell us must be true (or at least aim at truth, employing fact-checkers and so on), they also hide behind that obligation. As I would put it, one sense of the term "objectivity" is "fairness," which can make it seem that media should not "take sides" on any of the contentious issues on which they report. This leads to the sort of he-said-she-said, "scientists say earth is round; others disagree" news reporting Gladstone is complaining about. According to her, journalists justify their failure to stick their necks out, even when what they (should) say is true and documented (and thus "objective" in this sense), by saying that journalistic "objectivity" requires them to stay out of political battles. Gladstone finds this ideal perverse, and this book is dedicated to combating it.
Gladstone invokes numerous historical and cultural figures in the course of her argument. In a remarkable drawing which I will not attempt to describe here, Gladstone's avatar proclaims: "Few reporters proclaim their convictions. Fewer still act on them to serve what they believe to be the greater good. Even now, arguably another time of profound moral crisis [that is, besides the ones she's already discussed], most reporters make the Great Refusal."
This last, she has already mentioned, is Dante's term (Inferno, Canto 3) for a renunciation of one's responsibility to take a stand. I had forgotten this part, but apparently (ironically enough given our context) Dante has prudently omitted to identify the particular shade he takes to exemplify this sorry lot. An internet commentator fills us in:
"From among the cowardly fence-sitters, Dante singles out only the shade of one who made "the great refusal" (Inf. 3.60). In fact, he says that it was the sight of this one shade--unnamed yet evidently well known--that confirmed for him the nature of all the souls in this region. The most likely candidate for this figure is Pope Celestine V. His refusal to perform the duties required of the pope (he abdicated five months after his election in July 1294) allowed Benedetto Caetani to become Pope Boniface VIII, the man who proved to be Dante's most reviled theological, political, and personal enemy. An alternative candidate is Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who refused to pass judgment on Jesus."
Gladstone's first mention of this Dantean term occurs when she quotes W. B. Yeats's bitter denunciation of journalists: "I hate journalists. There is nothing in them but tittering, jeering emptiness. They have all made what Dante calls "The Great Refusal." The shallowest people on the face of the earth" (this from a letter to Katherine Tynan dated August 30, 1888, when the poet was 23).
Now comes the puzzling part. After representing "most reporters" as making the "Great Refusal" ["Dante would say the hottest places in Hell are too good for them"], she continues: "On the other hand, an important poem penned in the devastating wake of the First World War and the Bolshevik revolution fervently asserts: Deeply held conviction leads to mayhem." And after quoting the poem (the familiar lines from The Second Coming): "Damn you, Yeats! Pick a side! [...] Yeats is the typical news consumer. On any issue -- where one person sees moral courage, another sees culpable bias."

Continue reading "What is objectivity?"