星期日, 1月 10, 2010

見工

試幻想你是面試官,眼前有位來見工的仁兄。

你問:「為甚麼閣下的expected salary,是市價的兩至三倍,履歷卻只得三兩行字,甚至講不出有甚麼技能?」

他答:「為了貴公司利益,聘請我是刻不容緩的事,你每遲一日請我,公司就會蝕幾十萬!」

你臉色絲紋不動,再問:「履歷說你是 educated in Stanford,到底你有無畢業?你在入面讀甚麼學系?」

那位仁兄抬起頭答:「Stanford是一所很優質的大學,受過Stanford教育自然是非常優質的,高等教育令人有批判能力,能知天下事 ... (下刪數分鐘不相干的對白)」

********

身為面試官的你,會否就上述的表現聘請這位仁兄呢?我就會很客氣打發他回家,因為他根本不尊重這場面試,薪金叫價高得不合理,最嚴重是不清楚自己在做甚麼。

上星期五,鄭汝華在立法會回應高鐵方案的表現,跟前文的仁兄同出一轍:顧此失彼,問東答西,完全under prepared。可是下星期五,我們要眼睜睜看著立會的舉手機器,通過這個問題百出的高鐵方案。請不要賴泛民玩拉布拖延,泛民是必定玩拉布的,政府無做好準備才是重點。

********



我不是反對高鐵的人,精確點說,我是屬於「有計傾」的組別。

這條片,列舉若干政府一直無解答的問題,又指出過往政府在計算成本效益的track record都很差。

陳雲這篇「反高鐵,保香港」,列舉若干政府方案衍生的問題 (例如大角咀舊區因高鐵工程變成危樓再被強行收地的疑慮)。長毛質疑的一地兩檢技術問題,似乎除了改基本法,亦無法解決。

有若干撐高鐵的blogger,解說居然比鄭汝華還要好。就算我不同意,至少我知道對方並非渣流攤是但嗡,大家可以坐低飲啖茶食個包,傾掂佢。

我明白任何政策總有得失,我亦不是LSD的用家,只要有若干合理的釋疑,我可以擺向支持政府一方,相信有一定數量游離民眾亦是如此。

很可惜,政府用大量警力借故拘捕陳巧文、修改網絡版權法例令獨立媒體噤聲、拒絕解釋高鐵方案的疑問、全力開動宣傳機器護航等等,令我想起數年前23條立法正在重演。深層次矛盾不是市民為反而反,是政府自己一手包辦,將市民推向對立點。

*********

八十後,可能是某些勢力想將社會議題淡化扭曲的手段。有貧富懸殊的示威?都怪八十後懶惰又要高人工。反對互聯網23條?是八十後電車男搞搞震。其他有份參與的四五六七九十後,就像警方統計遊行人數般,全部消失或者縮水。

再說,用「x十後」去討論事情,很易陷入中國式誅心的犬儒思維,魔術師轉貼的文章,正好代表這種犬儒。八十後搞社運,是妒忌和有私心。到底社運訴求是否正確、是否符合大眾利益?一句「有私心」和「妒忌」,大家就面紅耳赤繼續拗世代意識形態問題,把真正的議題忘在一邊。

CM拒絕談世代問題,現在我明了。

*********

回應魔術師和感想炒成一碟

夜了,明日忙,尾段比較亂望莫見怪,因為今日不寫,往後心境時機都不同,回應就變質了。

小弟網絡上「認識」魔術師都一段不短的時間,大家的立場論點,早已有個大概。粗略地陳述一下,魔術師的想法是「不要搞搞震,努力裝備自己改善前途」。至於如何面對社會問題?魔術師就沒有甚麼明顯意見,從字裡行間推斷,大概是要改變建制,必須用更強大的實力去改動 (例如加入建制從內動手,或者壓倒性的武力革命)

以上是小弟觀察揣測,如有錯望不吝修正。

對於年輕人進修裝備自己一說,我是很同意的。其實任何人、任何年紀都應該在某程度充實自己,只不過充實的定義母須等於職場技能的改進。例如幫貧苦小孩補習,在我來說是充實,甚至近年提倡的「慢活」,不少香港人會當成hea,其實也是一種充實。

扯得太遠,先講年輕人應不斷努力改善自己待遇這環,我只能同意一部份。為甚麼?許冠文早就用很簡明的文字陳述過:「勤力係無用架,新界隻牛都勤力啦!」

好了,就努力吧,原來又不夠通識,讀好書又夠通識了,原來又不夠賣命,無止境地追下去,可以推演到一個荒謬極端:「對面的同事已經賣血了,你想更上一層樓為何不考慮賣腎呢?人有兩個腎,賣了一個還可以活呀!你不肯犧牲,貧窮不怪得人...」

昨晚跟才子E吹水時提到:香港年輕人近幾十年的購買力畫成一個圖表的話,是持續下降的,而香港人的工時,早已名列全球首兩位,十年來薪金水平沒有大變,當然不得不提香港的堅尼系數是已發展經濟體系中,居然首位的城市。

換言之,整體上香港人以更長的工作時間換取更少人工,這是已經量化証實的問題。偶爾有幾位出類拔萃如魔術師的人材跑出,是警方常講的「個別事件」。其實很多人都明白,成功是努力加運氣、性格等多種因素的結果,可惜不少成功人士將自己的努力放得太大,看不到可能有人更努力,卻因為行業、政制或地域因素,下場有雲泥之別。

找幾個口齒不靈的年輕人批鬥很容易,鬧完自己感覺良好,跟高呼「一蟹不如一蟹」的阿伯無分別。

我認為問題徽結是地價過高,租金扯高人工和成本,不利中小企創業,遑論風險高的創意產業了。因為租金貴,行業發展方向單一。比方說,一萬港元設計一幅海報,在台灣或泰國,可以慢工出細貨,搞三兩個月都夠營運。在香港地就被逼快快完事接下一單,於是乎香港就很難發展纖細的設計風格,絕大多數都的本地設計被逼抄襲或速食。我遇過好些不明事理的前輩,喜歡指指點點說香港的年輕人創意低手藝差,忽略製作條件的差距。

租貴,又如何?高地價和低稅是鏡子的兩面。理不出頭緒,都係訓了。

12 則留言:

Snowdrops 說...
此留言已被作者移除。
Snowdrops 說...

Have been reading your blog for quite some time now, thanks for sharing the Youtube clips on HK's recent news.

Very much agree with the points you made in this blog-post. On the one hand I'm glad that finally people are waking up to the reality that social mobility is not a mere function of individual effort, but is closely tied to generational inequality and other systemic societal factors. On the other hand, it is rather disappointing for people to not realise then that such built-in inequalities are a feature of neo-liberal capitalism, and as HK is one of the exemplars of a neo-liberal economy, such inequalities are bound to persist until the powers-that-be are forced to change the status quo, and we all know how unlikely that is in the current HK political environment. (Actually the lack of possibility for systemic change is not merely a result of the lack of public participation in governance, but a lack of political education so that, as you mentioned, labels are bandied about with little regard to their content validity. What I'm concerned about is not only the generational-labelling discussed in your blog-post, but it seems that among the general HK population there is this rather unhelpful and erroneous confusion where progressive left-wing politics in the Continental European tradition is being miscontrued as a variant of Eastern communism. Just as liberalism is being perverted into the neo-liberal orthodoxy, so communitarianism is being maligned as being the same as communism. E.g. if one argues for minimum pay and employee protection, somehow one is being labelled as wanting to promote the old ways of Communist China where one would earn "36" whether one works or not (the lack of an actual social safety net in China notwithstanding in this flawed argument). Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. But until people get their concepts straight regarding political ideologies, the same kind of misattribution of political viewpoints would result in meaningless debates... But this is precisely what self-serving politicians with ulterior motives take advantage of, even though anyone with half a brain could see right through their shallow rhetorical tricks... as indeed illustrated by your Stanford analogy above)

Anyway, I digress (apologies for going off on a complete tangent there). I was wondering if there is such a thing as a Small and Medium-sized Business Association in Hong Kong? (I know I could google but am too lazy, anyway, wikipedia probably can't tell me if this organisation has any meaningful public role in HK even if it does exist). For Hongkongers to redress the power balance the only recourse left seems to be in the strengthening of civil society to exert extra-governmental pressure on the sitting administration. Whilst individual activists like Christina Chan could be suppressed by harassment tactics, the will of the populace are harder to ignore if those that still exert some economic influences, such as small businesses and self-employed professionals, spoke with one voice (the other means of course is to allow employees to unionise, but we know that in hyper-capitalist Hong Kong the voice of the mere employee is small indeed, even if they dare to band together). Of course, this kind of special interest group politics could potentially turn into the poisonous US situation whereby politics could be held hostage to interests and agenda of a small number of people and industries. But one could argue that this is indeed already happening with the current faux electoral system in Hong Kong, and having formalised groups representing the interests of those severely disadvantaged by the current system could be a step in the right direction of redressing the power imbalance.

阿甲 說...

都唔係好長唶,寫得幾好喔。

匿名 說...

如果可以好似facebook咁讚好就好了,因為唔知講咩好

篤篤篤撐 說...

關於青年人要充實, 我日常工仍搞好多,成日都要問:點樣先叫做充實 ?讀多d書攞多幾個學位 ?
實情是社會對充實自己早有一個定義: 學習可以賺取更高回報的工作技能。如果人人都有佢自己既life path, 點解一定要讀多d書先叫充實 ?

於是我地既行家develop左一個叫"生涯規劃"的概念, 從個人興趣/能力去規劃人生。
搞搞下, 我自己都有疑問, 點解十幾歲人就要開始規劃人生 ?

openaheart 說...

呢篇真係寫得好好
一直都解唔到比人聽點解唔一定又唔反又唔讚成
亦講唔到點解唔關係咪八十後既問題
你呢篇唔算長得黎又講到

我轉貼你post埋網址你唔介意架可......

小瓶子 說...

篇野唔长, 而且思路清晰.

塞米一條揚陸轟炸機 說...

"點解十幾歲人就要開始規劃人生 ?"

Good question.

還有的是,我們這地方很早就流行拿一切九唔搭八的東西來當作生財工具,例如人體可以拿來做廣告板,或是業餘興趣拿來當成專業水平。

浪子m: 說...

這篇已經成為blog界本周最好文章。抵讚. 期待魔術師出post回覆

Raymond WOO 說...

「只要有若干合理的釋疑,我可以擺向支持政府一方,相信有一定數量游離民眾亦是如此。

很可惜,政府用大量警力借故拘捕陳巧文、修改網絡版權法例令獨立媒體噤聲、拒絕解釋高鐵方案的疑問、全力開動宣傳機器護航等等,令我想起數年前23條立法正在重演。深層次矛盾不是市民為反而反,是政府自己一手包辦,將市民推向對立點。」

你說出很多市民的心聲,不是我們想上梁山,而是被迫上梁山。

C.M. 說...

黑人,咪係。世代問題不過枝節,除非有任何「組織」,無論朝廷或在野,故意製造標籤,毋足懼。

黑人 說...

> snowdrop

嘩,看來你真係有團火
感謝你寫了咁長的回應
其實大多數香港的乜乜公會都係廢廢地
包括小弟以前見識過的設計師公會,以及女友的會計師公會

至於最低工資和社會主義等香港人眼中的問題,只怪香港人中學年代啟蒙教育不足,長大後傾向以model answer去理解事情。對於泛民來講,蘋果就是他們的model answer,中間偏建制的市民信東方或明報,親建制教育水平略低的信太陽,當政見變成教派時,是不可理喻的。

> 阿甲

謝謝!今日終於有幸見到你真身,可惜時間太短

> 匿名
謝謝你的like

> 篤撐

這是degree inflation的後果。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVGKAIS7Q4g

這條片,極之值得看

> openheart

謝謝你轉載拙文!

> 浪子m
哇,不要這麼講啦!但這篇肯定成了敝blog近年最受歡迎文章,上一篇如此受歡迎的要算上兩年前上LB傳銷中心的記錄

> raymond

無計,星期五我應該會去見証一下發展。

> CM

唉,可惜小弟轉數慢你幾截,這麼遲才get到