The Dreamer

living in her own fantasy

500 days of Summer 26 九月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 12:30 am

This is a fabulous movie which I found from Q’s facebook note… and this is exactly the scene which I thought about when Bread told me about furniture stores… it’s all a coincidence… a pleasant surprise

 

抱恙 13 九月, 2009

Filed under: 聚.散 — carrielaw @ 2:52 pm

盡情地玩了個多月(真的,今天已是九月十三日,距離我辭職已一個月了),終於捱不著病倒了。幸好只是感冒,多休息應該會好起來吧…

昨天是Anita的婚禮,地點剛好是家裡附近的葵盛圍。下課後乘小巴轉地鐵,只需五十分鐘。德德好靚女啊…我一直不知道她的中文名,原來最後一個字跟我一樣…新郎依稀是當年學整月餅時見過的人,他在我們快焗好月餅時出現,又跟德德拍照。恭喜有情人終成眷屬!

見到其他IBM同事,兩位姊妹都是我們batch的trainee--Gladys和Rity,還有見到Arthur,同埋好似係HR的Kelvin…(點解佢會出現既?我都唔太清楚)。Arthur同Rity都話我封goodbye letter怨氣很深…哈哈,我現在都寫不出那樣的信…

坐在師父旁邊觀禮。她說會介紹她的男朋友讓我認識(叫他做甚麼好呢?師父的太太叫師母,那師父的先生呢?從來沒有想過…索性叫名字就算…)想起師父的母親不喜歡她的男朋友,自己其實算幸福,爸媽從來沒有給壓力,只想我快點拍拖,只是我懶而已…

 

Badminton court 28 八月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 8:51 am
 

總辭公投 21 八月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 3:25 pm

今日才在inmedia看到這篇「總辭公投」的討論,以及讀者的回應

相當同意馬嶽的說法。深明社民連上位的辦法,但要冒上這樣的風險,很不值得。在這種不景氣之下,其實更應該把資源投入去搞好經濟民生,向市民證明泛民同樣可以有政績,不只是「搞事分子」。

馬嶽﹕「總辭公投」 泛民可以贏什麼?

(明報)2009年8月11日 星期二 05:05

【明報專訊】泛民突然熱切討論「5區總辭、變相公投」之議,鬧得沸沸揚揚。筆者有很大疑惑:這樣做泛民可以贏什麼?

「總辭公投」之議一出,坊間最有興趣的竟然是泛民能否全取回5席,非常奇怪。選舉結果往往取決多項因素:政府提出的方案是什麼、泛民在何種政治氣氛 下總辭、傳媒對補選的論述是怎樣,都會非常影響選舉結果。補選在各區變成單議席競賽,候選人質素影響很大;在兩陣營都未定候選人的情况下,現在說誰勝誰負 都只是靠估,意義不大。

原則上,如果泛民把這當成公投,便是交予選民裁決,不能說保證贏才去做,輸掉也只能承認失敗。衡量應否發動總辭公投,不應以選舉勝算考量,或者某些人說的「夠不夠『吉士』(膽量)去總辭」,而是這樣做能否促進香港民主發展。有「吉士」而盲動,可能弄巧反拙。

筆者對「總辭公投」的第一個懷疑是:這樣做想證明什麼?想證明香港市民支持民主派 ?證明市民支持2012雙普選 ? 對筆者來說,廿多年來的民調和立法機關普選部分的結果已經證明:香港長期有五成多至六成的市民或選民支持盡快民主化,時間參考點可能因時勢轉移而有不同。 1987年時,大約六成人支持88直選,04年約六成人支持07/08雙普選,而當07/08普選被否決後,便有約六成人支持2012雙普選。民意從來清 楚不含糊,不需要再多一次選舉來證明。

變相公投 從民意高地退卻

民主派一直的立場,不是說主流民意支持雙普選麼?用總辭搞一次變相公投,反而是從一直佔據的民意高地上退卻,變相承認民主派自己搞不清民意是否支持 2012雙普選,要多投一次票來證明。縱使民主派5區各辭1席又全部再選上,拿回大約六成選票(只要建制派認真應戰,我想泛民不會多六成票很多了),那麼 贏了什麼?

有人會說再清楚表達意願一次,會給中央壓力。但憑什麼說中央會因此讓香港2012年普選,或者給一個較民主的中途方案?民主派2004年立法會 選舉時,也說過那是有關普選的公投。2007年陳太 對葉太的補選,也說是對普選的公決,是「光明和黑暗的最後決戰」。2004年泛民得票六成,陳太也以不俗的票數差距贏了,但中央何曾改變半分?

倘失一席 民主派將陷被動

由於沒有法律效力,「變相公投」的政治意義完全取決於當時的公眾論述。選舉期間傳媒如何詮釋補選意義和競選議題,選舉後如何詮釋投票結果,都非泛民 可以控制,不能一廂情願的以為香港傳媒會配合民主派,把整件事宣傳為公投,然後選後宣布民主派大勝全民支持普選。(《明報》本周一的社論已預警了他們不會 替泛民打邊鼓。)長毛 在上周一個電視論壇中,堅持5席贏4席也算是贏。筆者倒非常有信心,如果5區總辭民主派輸掉1席,親建制的香港傳媒必然會詮釋為民主派的失敗,反而令民主派在民意上陷於被動。

下一個問題是:縱使泛民總辭後5區全勝,拿回六成選票,但中央政府仍「我自巍然不動」,那怎辦?繼續譴責中央違反香港民意?那不是做過很多次了嗎? 那和未總辭前的位置有什麼不同?如果2012政制繼續原封不動,變成2012仍在用2002選特首和2004選立法會的制度,在總辭補選投票支持民主派的 選民會很失望,反而影響民主派的公信力,為繼續推進民主發展造成障礙。

我明白民主派要做點事情,顯示他們會繼續爭取2012雙普選,但也要衡量行動會否有反效果,是否真正有利推進民主政制發展。筆者認為5區總辭民主派 「陷於不勝之地」,最多只能再證明自己有主流民意支持,搞不到便民心盡失。民主派中有人對「公投」有某種迷戀,彷彿認為這才是實踐民主的理想。真正的「公 投」當然有直接民主的認受性和全民參與的某種浪漫情懷,但作為創制或決策的機制,西方民主國家和民主理論中都有頗大存疑,因為公投容易將事情變得「非黑即 白」,難以探討不同的政策可能性,不一定是最理性的決策模式。

香港政制發展踟躕不前,關鍵並非沒有主流民意支持,而是香港的主流政治價值和中央的政治考量有很大的落差。推動政制向前,關鍵是縮窄落差。民主派的 民意支持是主要談判籌碼,但只懂重複操弄這籌碼,多年下來未見有效推進政制,更不應抱著「敵人反對我便去做」的心態。讓你激得對手暴跳如雷,不一定代表你 便是贏家了。

作者是香港中文大學 政治與行政學系副教授



試回應馬嶽教授有關5區總辭的文章

 

Combining odd and even pages of PDF 18 八月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 12:34 pm

I have a scanner which produces single-sided scans, but I have plenty of double-sided documents to print. So I had to scan the odd pages first, and then the even pages.

How did I merge them? I used pdftk (http://www.accesspdf.com/pdftk/), a free command line tool for tweaking PDF. However there is no straightforward command to merge the two files, and I had to use brute force.

Let the two files be book1p.pdf and book1q.pdf respectively.

In the command they will be called A and B respectively.

1. Copy the files to the directory where pdftk.exe is located

C:\installer\pdftk

2. Create page number series with Excel

A1 A2 A3 …

B1 B2 B3 …

3. Concatenate the series.

CellA1&” “&CellB1

gives

A1 B1

and the series become

A1 B1 A2 B2 A3 B3 …

4. Open command line

Start > Run > type “cmd”

In command line, go to the directory where pdftk.exe is located.

cd C:\installer\pdftk

5. Type the command and press enter

pdftk A=book1p.pdf B=book1q.pdf cat A1 B1 A2 B2 A3 B3 output c.pdf

6. The combined file with filename c.pdf will be found in the directory

 

18 八月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 10:28 am

Beautiful TV commercial brought to our class by Prof Pound

“I’ve been to cities that never close down,
from New York to Rio and old London town,
but no matter how far or how wide I roam,
I still call Australia home.

I’m always travelling, I love being free,
and so I keep leaving the sun and the sea,
but my heart lies waiting over the foam,
I still call Australia home.

All the sons and daughters spinning ’round the world,
away from their families and friends,
but as the world gets older and colder,
it’s good to know where your journey ends.
Someday we’ll all be together once more,
when all of the ships come back to the shore,
I realize something I’ve always known,
I still call Australia home.”

Sad to know Qantas uses it whenever there are accidents or union actions…

 

Nothing’s gonna change my love for you 15 八月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 10:44 pm

乘小巴上學途中,聽到這首熟悉的旋律…原來是方大同重唱這首歌。歷久常新呢

第一次聽到這首歌時,我還在中大唸書。好像是透過eMule download的:-P 但聽了一次以後,就迷上了,特別是歌手清澈的聲線,簡單而情深的歌詞,銘記在腦海中。事隔多年,耳邊再度響起這首旋律時,心裡既甜蜜,又苦楚。

 

《樹木法》 27 七月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 6:56 am

收到Vivian發的fb group invitation,其實不是很想參予…一來不想讓政黨乘機撈一筆政治本錢,亦不覺得單憑立法可以拯救所有樹木,並涉及許多有關私人產權的問題,因而猶豫。我當然很想保存鬼樹,亦明白香港那種急功近利的心態,把城市發展等同於推土機一切破舊立新的畸型思想,一定會令更多樹木生靈塗炭。自己不是見證過李達三外的幾棵大樹齊腰而斷的淒慘情景麼?為甚麼仍是拖拖拉拉呢?我不知道。或許是因為覺得立法未必能解決到燃眉之急,還是研究技術去穩固鬼樹比較實際…我知這想法自私,可是對於立法會實在是沒有信心,而且如果寫得太死,又會帶來許多不必要的麻煩和意想不到的後果。

 

Open letter from Sister Jeanne 19 七月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 9:52 am

Dear Maryknollers,

I write to you to let you know that we understand your love of the pine tree. Yes, it is an icon that brings memories and stories to the fore. It is also a landmark for the many people who walk or ride by. We are blessed to have a beautiful campus.

However, the Sisters and some SMC members have been concerned over the tall leaning tree and asking the Primary School Principal, Mrs LO to remove it two years or so ago. However, Mrs LO, like many of you, saw it as an icon for our school and stalled while keeping a close watch on it via the gardener.

Then matters came to a head in October 2008 when Lands Department referred to our school a complaint letter about the tree. Mrs LO immediately set about getting experts to examine the tree. In sum, the sequence is as follows:

- On 20 November 2008, manager of Conservancy Association and a certified arborist Mr KS SO advised that “the tree was low in failure potential but the school had to closely monitor the tree and the root system, and to measure regularly the cracks and the degree of leaning and ground lifting”.

- On 10 December, also a certified arborist Mr Sammy AU advised that “the rooting space was inadequate to support a tree of that size and might lead to instability of the tree in strong wind. The resin exudation in many parts of the tree suggested that the tree had been attacked by insects or termite. The internal attack would weaken the tree in terms of structural integrity. The tree was considered a Hazard tree and was recommended for removal”.

- On 5 February 2009, Mr SO returned and advised that “the tree had no significant internal structural problem. However, the amount of cracks and dried resins significantly increased. Daily monitoring was to be carried out”.

- On the mention of “termite”, Mrs Helen YU suggested to Mrs LO that we get a pesticide specialist in to test the tree. Here is where Mr David LEE of Pesticides Services Co Ltd and Professor CY JIM of HKU are introduced to the school.

- About March or so, Mr LEE came and advised that the tree was free from termite but seemed to be spitting much resin. In any case, he considered close monitoring against termite attack advisable.

- On 9 March, Professor JIM examined the tree and on Mrs LO’s arrangement, met AMO officers (who happened to be at the school for a meeting). In my view, this is quite appropriate as Professor is the expert on living heritage and AMO on architectural & cultural heritage.

Professor JIM advised against grounding support for the tree for fear of damaging the roots. He suggested holding the tree with strong cables anchored to the walls of the school building. AMO opposed this straightaway as it would ruin the walls in case the tree fell. Professor proposed the alternative of placing a large cement supporter on the roof nearby for holding the cables. AMO undertook to check the loading.

- On 22 May, AMO advised that a large cement supporter might ruin the structure of the building. As the authority for monuments, they would not approve it and advised consideration of other options or removal of the tree.

- On 31 May, Sister Jeanne met Mrs LO and said that the tree was seen to be increasing its degree of leaning. This was a serious problem and the tree had to be removed: if it fell on the building, it would ruin the heritage monument; if it toppled over Waterloo Road, cars and passers-by could be endangered and there could be heavy casualties.

These circumstances have led to Mrs LO re-visiting the SMC view some two years ago. In that context, she addressed the District Lands Office since the Lands Department had raised the matter with the school in 2008. The rest is history: I must emphasise that the MCS Foundation Council and FSA learned the sad news and had no role in the developments cited above.

If you look at the cover of ‘Forever be True’ and walk or ride by the school, you will see how much the tree is tilting after 70 years. I walk to school everyday. I have been looking at the tree for the past several years. There has been a decided change in the leaning of the tree. Typhoons are natural disasters that cause severe damage. Our concern is that the tree might be in the path of a typhoon. Trust me that removing the tree was one of our saddest decisions to make.

I hope each of you understand how carefully we have cared for MCS primary building and grounds. After the tree is removed, another tree will be planted in the similar spot, and students can witness its growth. In thirty or forty years’ time, the tree will be about the same size today, but with better harness and supports in place.

Yours,

Sister Jeanne Houlihan

 

Ghost Pine 18 七月, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — carrielaw @ 9:54 am

從報章得悉校方改變初衷,重新考慮保育鬼樹,深感欣慰。衷心感謝為此事奔走的校友、同學,和其他社會人士。

師生的安全,的確是首要考慮,但總不能削足適履、因噎廢食,把所有潛在危險都一一解除。兩者必須作出平衡,這不僅就今次事件或保護樹木而言,而是人類與環境長遠共存之道。況且砍樹並非唯一的選擇。為師生提供合理的保護,以鋼索固定樹身,未嘗不是一個兩全其美的方案。如果要以校舍作為支點,校舍表面不免受損,但畢竟是死物,強不過拯救活生生的樹,希望各方能考慮一下!

我以為,今次校友會和校友組織保樹,目的並非要凌駕校方決定,而是發揮著諮詢的功能,讓校方作為參考。報道字裡行間,透露校方砍樹的決定以顧問意見為依歸,並未尋求獨立專業意見。在校友協助下邀請港大教授和長春社為鬼樹翻案,成為事件的轉捩點。母校歷史悠久,作育英才無數,社會上各行業都有我們的校友,加上人脈廣博,可以聯絡幫忙。在母校接受教育,最珍貴之處,在於培訓獨立思考的能力;以之回饋母校,是我們最大的驕傲!