我们时常听到沉默的大多数，倒底真的有沉默的大多数这么一回事吗？
请读这篇文章：-
柯思仁
《想象的沉默大多数》
对于那些声称代表“沉默大多数”的人，我总是不免带有一些怀疑的态度。
刚过的这个星期的国会，辩论最激烈的莫过于有关刑事法典第377A条文的存废课题。官委议员萧锦鸿向国会提呈请愿书，代表超过2000个签名者，要求国会废除刑事法典中的第377A条文。在这个条文下，男性之间的性行为，无论是在公共场所或私下进行，都被视为犯法。萧锦鸿用了30分钟在国会上发表演讲，陈情表示废除条文的出发点是为了维护对于每一个人的公平与公正。
两天的国会会议中，有十几名议员对此议题持反对意见。在这之前，英文的主流媒体也有不少反对的声音。有意思的是，过去的几年里，新加坡的三位总理都曾经公开表示承认与接纳同性恋者的存在，也表示接受同性恋者是天生的说法。反对者常用的理由是，绝大多数的新加坡人是观念保守的，而他们的反对是代表那些保守却沉默的大多数人。
沉默的大多数——这样的陈述，本身就不可避免的是一个具有内在矛盾的悖论式命题。
假设真的有这么一个群体叫做沉默的大多数，这些人的沉默，可能有两个原因。一个是他们对课题抱着不置可否的态度，并没有强烈的判断或意见。另一个原因则是，他们虽然有意见，不过没有表达的管道，或者他们的声音并没有被听到。如果是前者，那些声称代表他们的人，其实也没有什么意见可以代表，而只是借大多数人之名来表达自己的意见。如果是后者，既然没有声音或者发声的管道，代表者又怎么能够说是在代表这些大多数人的意见？
在一个社会中，这些代表者往往是属于精英阶层，受高教育、掌握资源、语言能力强、接受某一种道德观念或意识形态，也因此在社会中是权力掌握者与既得利益者。他们可能因为具有这些条件和能力，在民主社会的选举制度里，或者其他的社会机制中，成为群众的代表。当他们成为合法或合理的代表之后，就进入另外一个社会运作的空间，行使他们作为代表而被授予的权利与权力。
如果我们看一看现代中国的历史，20世纪初，那些被称为知识阶层的成员，接受来自西方的某种名为具有现代意义的意识形态，以充满道德感与使命感的态度，认为各阶层的中国人，都应该接受这种意识形态。这里所说的各阶层，尤其指市民、农民、工人等劳力阶层。他们挟持着富于叙述能力的文字，掌握意识形态塑造的话语权，把20世纪初书写为一个追求现代性的时代。这就是我们现在所知道的“五四时代”。
鲁迅在《一件小事》中，把人力车夫想象成一个伟大的形象。老舍在《骆驼祥子》中，带着怜悯和批判的态度想象洋车夫祥子。曹禺在《雷雨》中，把煤矿工人塑造成悲剧人物。很长的一段时间里，现代文学史又将这些书写奉为最高道德意识的经典。这些组成社会大多数的人，是存在于这些知识阶层的文字叙述与主观想象之中。他们的生活和感受，究竟是怎样的一种形貌，实际上并不存在于自己的认知与表达之中。
五四作家们的人数就是那么多，而他们为这些社会底层的中国人所进行的书写，成为自己无法发声的大多数人的代表。他们也许并不一定自认为这些人的代表，可是，当他们掌握书写的权力，通过书写的实践，而又在历史上被经典化之后，他们的代表身份已经俨然形成。我们今天看这些作为“代表”的作家，是不是也要问一问他们是怎样成为“代表”，而那些沉默的大多数人，又是怎样“被代表”的？
这的确不是一个容易思考的问题。既然这些大多数人都是沉默的，我们又怎么知道他们的意愿和想法？我们又怎么知道他们是不是愿意如此被代表？我们又怎么知道他们的沉默不是一种接受和确认？
Monday, September 8, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
民粹治国 V 专业治国
2009年财政预算案被一些人形容为具有政治议程。也有人说是亲民不亲商。
我想更贴切的说法应该是“民粹POPULIST”。
6/9/2008的联合早报有这样一篇不错文章：-
《天怎样才塌下来？》（2008-09-06联合早报）翁德生
君主时代偶尔出现爱民如子的皇帝，老百姓个个感激涕零，高呼“吾皇万岁”。而民主时代政府领导必须爱民如子，因为人民就是选票。爱民如子是应该的，关键在如何爱民，宠爱疼爱关爱溺爱都是爱，正确的爱最重要。
民主政治容易迫使政府溺爱人民，政府一旦溺爱人民就是掏空国库讨好选票。
严格说，民主体制和专业治国是格格不入的。
西方国家因民主而落入社会福利制陷阱，可见民主和福利制有其因果共生。社会福利制并非不好，毕竟它可以避免贫富悬殊，从而建设和谐社会。问题在于社会福利制一旦影响经济竞争力，代价就是由全体人民埋单。
影片《钱不够用》以市井眼光看国家社会课题，这类声音最容易取得共鸣。
任何有良知有能力的政府，都会希望做到让所有人开心，然而社会是不同人组成，所有政策都是顺得哥情失嫂意。试问有没有这种可能性：越坚持治国专业得面对越多责骂，反之就会越获得人民爱戴。果如此，谁还原意维持治国专业？
归根结底，正确解读民主精神最重要。
民主是人民当家作主，人民可以委托和罢免政府，人民懂得好好利用这种权力则国泰民安，一旦滥用权力就是国家堕落的不归路。全球化地球村资金人才无边界，哪个国家地区最优惠吸引资金人才决定哪个市场最蓬勃。
讨好贵族是否意味忽略社会低层？但见许多地区政客炒作煽动此敏感课题，结果往往在帮国家倒忙。因为资本家一走全国就沦为劳动阶级。
人们一般上将好政府定义为：税收少少资助多多。果如是，那么全世界包括资源丰富国家也必破产无疑。好政府必须包括建立好机制，让社会每一份子成为国家资产而非负担。
我们周遭国家尽是政治上纷纷扰扰，并非偶然而是有其必然性。治国水平合理性无法满足社会大众，官逼民反是古今中外放诸四海，差别在激烈程度而已。
我想更贴切的说法应该是“民粹POPULIST”。
6/9/2008的联合早报有这样一篇不错文章：-
《天怎样才塌下来？》（2008-09-06联合早报）翁德生
君主时代偶尔出现爱民如子的皇帝，老百姓个个感激涕零，高呼“吾皇万岁”。而民主时代政府领导必须爱民如子，因为人民就是选票。爱民如子是应该的，关键在如何爱民，宠爱疼爱关爱溺爱都是爱，正确的爱最重要。
民主政治容易迫使政府溺爱人民，政府一旦溺爱人民就是掏空国库讨好选票。
严格说，民主体制和专业治国是格格不入的。
西方国家因民主而落入社会福利制陷阱，可见民主和福利制有其因果共生。社会福利制并非不好，毕竟它可以避免贫富悬殊，从而建设和谐社会。问题在于社会福利制一旦影响经济竞争力，代价就是由全体人民埋单。
影片《钱不够用》以市井眼光看国家社会课题，这类声音最容易取得共鸣。
任何有良知有能力的政府，都会希望做到让所有人开心，然而社会是不同人组成，所有政策都是顺得哥情失嫂意。试问有没有这种可能性：越坚持治国专业得面对越多责骂，反之就会越获得人民爱戴。果如此，谁还原意维持治国专业？
归根结底，正确解读民主精神最重要。
民主是人民当家作主，人民可以委托和罢免政府，人民懂得好好利用这种权力则国泰民安，一旦滥用权力就是国家堕落的不归路。全球化地球村资金人才无边界，哪个国家地区最优惠吸引资金人才决定哪个市场最蓬勃。
讨好贵族是否意味忽略社会低层？但见许多地区政客炒作煽动此敏感课题，结果往往在帮国家倒忙。因为资本家一走全国就沦为劳动阶级。
人们一般上将好政府定义为：税收少少资助多多。果如是，那么全世界包括资源丰富国家也必破产无疑。好政府必须包括建立好机制，让社会每一份子成为国家资产而非负担。
我们周遭国家尽是政治上纷纷扰扰，并非偶然而是有其必然性。治国水平合理性无法满足社会大众，官逼民反是古今中外放诸四海，差别在激烈程度而已。
阿末的嚣张-民政党也有份促成
AHMAD ISMAIL 在槟城商界，特别是经营房地产发展业，名字响当当！
他担任槟岛市议员时是呼风唤雨，几乎每个发展商都要认识他，同他打招呼，你在市议会的东西可以顺利得很多。
翻开市议会的纪录，你会发现到他从市议员做起，做完市议员后，被委任为上议员，上议员做完之后又重新回到市议会，意气风发，呼风唤雨。
前几年，当他的市议员资格因为报穷案而受质疑时，他同样的这么的嚣张，没有人可以对付他，简直把槟州政府不当一回事。
2008年选举时，升旗山国会及属下的四个州选区（3个民政，1个马华）都受到这为仁兄的“对待”，怎么样的对待请你们去问问有关的候选人。
在槟州政/商界每个人都知道子根是拿阿末没办法，讲得难听一点就是“怕”阿末，大家都这样的说：“子根的选区在BUKIT BENDERA属下的TANJUNG BUNGA，是要看AHMAD ISMAIL吃饭的。”
是对是错没有人知道，但是在民间言之凿凿。
好了，现在AHMAD ISMAIL又破口大骂子根，骂的很难听，连骗子这样难听的话都出来了，他还下逐客令，叫民政退出国阵。
子根，你要行动了，不然你在大家眼中真的是怕AHMAD ISMAIL，如果你真的怕AHMAD ISMAIL， 华人是不会原谅你，民政党还是收档了。
他担任槟岛市议员时是呼风唤雨，几乎每个发展商都要认识他，同他打招呼，你在市议会的东西可以顺利得很多。
翻开市议会的纪录，你会发现到他从市议员做起，做完市议员后，被委任为上议员，上议员做完之后又重新回到市议会，意气风发，呼风唤雨。
前几年，当他的市议员资格因为报穷案而受质疑时，他同样的这么的嚣张，没有人可以对付他，简直把槟州政府不当一回事。
2008年选举时，升旗山国会及属下的四个州选区（3个民政，1个马华）都受到这为仁兄的“对待”，怎么样的对待请你们去问问有关的候选人。
在槟州政/商界每个人都知道子根是拿阿末没办法，讲得难听一点就是“怕”阿末，大家都这样的说：“子根的选区在BUKIT BENDERA属下的TANJUNG BUNGA，是要看AHMAD ISMAIL吃饭的。”
是对是错没有人知道，但是在民间言之凿凿。
好了，现在AHMAD ISMAIL又破口大骂子根，骂的很难听，连骗子这样难听的话都出来了，他还下逐客令，叫民政退出国阵。
子根，你要行动了，不然你在大家眼中真的是怕AHMAD ISMAIL，如果你真的怕AHMAD ISMAIL， 华人是不会原谅你，民政党还是收档了。
Sunday, August 31, 2008
must read
油價讀與賭
沈雲驄（jessesam） 2008/09/01 08:39
石油上漲引發全球金融危機，許多人急著知道的卻是如何在危機中獲利。用「讀中帶賭」的習慣看油價，背後潛藏著不容輕忽的麻煩。
看在金融市場眼中，喬治亞與俄羅斯剛剛落幕的八月之戰，是場雙重的意外。一來，是沒有人預料到，雙方長期以來潛藏的矛盾，居然會趁著標榜和平的奧運舉辦期間攤牌；二來，俄羅斯是石油大國，喬治亞境內鋪著聯繫歐亞的重要油管，這場戰爭，居然沒有讓油價暴漲，害得那些在市場上狂賭油價會漲、紛紛下注的投機客們鎩羽而歸。
其實不只有投機客。從美國到台灣，這波石油危機與過去幾次危機最大的不同，就是當閱讀油價，愈來愈多人如今帶著一種「讀」中帶「賭」的心情。70年代那場石油危機爆發之後，政府也好，企業也好，都在關心石油的供需如何恢復平衡，人們在閱讀中企圖理解的是，該怎樣確保自己能取得更多能源、怎樣減少石油的消耗，避免危機重演。
但是這次，除了關心如何在生活中節約能源、節省開銷，看著危機步步進逼，更多人急著知道的，是怎樣在危機中獲利。這些人的心中同時都在問：油價會漲到多少？能源概念股能不能買？能源概念基金會不會賺？
這也就是為什麼，雖然幾年來出版市場上有多本跟石油有關的作品問世，但除了丹尼爾‧尤金的經典《石油世紀》之外，比較受到矚目、賣得比較好的，幾乎都跟投資有關。從高喊油價上100美元的《石油效應》，到進一步喊上200美元的《石油衝擊》，以及多本以能源概念為訴求的理財特刊，都抓住了人們這種讀中帶賭的心情。
問題是，石油市場並不如人們想像中的那麼容易預測。前陣子才不斷飆上歷史新高的油價，這陣子又快速滑落，別說一般散戶，就連華爾街上許多經驗老道的投機客都灰頭土臉，也讓我們看見，用「讀中帶賭」的習慣看油價，背後所潛藏不容輕忽的麻煩。
首先，沒有讀通就亂賭油價，對家庭財富的傷害，將遠高於報酬。就像那些滿懷發財期待走進賭場、最後卻一貧如洗的賭客，在石油市場上鎩羽的投機客，不是對自己贏的機率過度高估，就是壓根沒搞懂遊戲規則。石油怎麼生產的？怎麼運送的？全世界還有多少油？還夠用多久？答不出來，怎能期待自己賭對？雖然，康斯勒在《沒有石油的明天》中說，人類將「被石油的耗盡痛擊」，保羅‧勞勃茲（Pau l Roberts）也在《The End of Oil》中警告，石油的蘊藏量已經「敲響警鐘」，但多年來，從巴西到北極，新發現的油田、新發明的石油開採技術，卻不斷更新各種數據，油價也隨著這些數據的更新，在大漲與大跌之間不斷往返，誰說了準？
其次，石油目前為止仍是人類最倚賴的能源，半世紀來一場又一場的危機反覆在告訴世界：倚賴石油的風險正在提高，對人類的威脅也與日俱增。人們如今應該更關心的，可能不是短期的理財效益，而是長期的資產與經濟安全。倘若油價繼續維持目前的高檔，或是重演瘋狂飆漲的噩夢，你我的工作與生活會受到什麼樣的影響？又該如何因應？
面對這種情勢，埋首於投機市場中，一心只想著賭油價，企圖在漲跌之間賺到暴利，只會讓危機繼續坐大。傑瑞米‧瑞福金（JeremyR ifkin）在《The Hydrogen Economy》中，點出了能源與文明之間的關係，也提醒世人迎戰石油危機的重要性。如果沒有足以替代的新能源科技出現，他說，人類勢必得轉而仰賴更具污染力的能源，環境危機也將如骨牌效應般跟著惡化。
更重要的是，他呼應德國地緣政治學者恩道爾在《石油戰爭》中所說，石油是國際強權競相爭奪的資源，不管現有的石油蘊藏量還足夠讓人類用多久，可以確定，未來的地緣政治仍將繼續因石油而改寫。按照目前多個研究機構的預估，世界會有愈來愈高比率的石油，必須仰賴中東國家的供給。研究發現，20世紀的最後5年，美國與北海原油產區平均每年發現約114億桶，但在本世紀剛結束的前3年，則大幅滑落到只有68億桶。即便是最樂觀的預估，最慢約到了2020年，假如沒有新的替代能源出現，全球勢必更加倚賴中東石油輸出國家，倘若到時候西方國家與回教世界（特別是極端分子）的關係依舊如此緊張，想也知道，石油危機將會更加棘手。怎麼辦？
金融史上，油價向來是一面照映麻煩的鏡子。世界嚴重的麻煩（例如戰爭），往往伴隨油價的上漲；油價上揚，則通常也意味著人類的麻煩即將到來。政府也好，民間也好，都不能對麻煩視而不見，更不能輕率地下注豪賭油價，以為可以把麻煩丟給別人，自己則輕易地在投機市場上得到好處。
我們正「進入一個新的世界，」瑪格內莉在《無所不在的石油經濟》中說，就像「迷途的北極熊四處流浪，想要搞清楚腳下發生的地形變化。」想弄清楚，當然得繼續閱讀。至於賭，別鬧了。
沈雲驄（jessesam） 2008/09/01 08:39
石油上漲引發全球金融危機，許多人急著知道的卻是如何在危機中獲利。用「讀中帶賭」的習慣看油價，背後潛藏著不容輕忽的麻煩。
看在金融市場眼中，喬治亞與俄羅斯剛剛落幕的八月之戰，是場雙重的意外。一來，是沒有人預料到，雙方長期以來潛藏的矛盾，居然會趁著標榜和平的奧運舉辦期間攤牌；二來，俄羅斯是石油大國，喬治亞境內鋪著聯繫歐亞的重要油管，這場戰爭，居然沒有讓油價暴漲，害得那些在市場上狂賭油價會漲、紛紛下注的投機客們鎩羽而歸。
其實不只有投機客。從美國到台灣，這波石油危機與過去幾次危機最大的不同，就是當閱讀油價，愈來愈多人如今帶著一種「讀」中帶「賭」的心情。70年代那場石油危機爆發之後，政府也好，企業也好，都在關心石油的供需如何恢復平衡，人們在閱讀中企圖理解的是，該怎樣確保自己能取得更多能源、怎樣減少石油的消耗，避免危機重演。
但是這次，除了關心如何在生活中節約能源、節省開銷，看著危機步步進逼，更多人急著知道的，是怎樣在危機中獲利。這些人的心中同時都在問：油價會漲到多少？能源概念股能不能買？能源概念基金會不會賺？
這也就是為什麼，雖然幾年來出版市場上有多本跟石油有關的作品問世，但除了丹尼爾‧尤金的經典《石油世紀》之外，比較受到矚目、賣得比較好的，幾乎都跟投資有關。從高喊油價上100美元的《石油效應》，到進一步喊上200美元的《石油衝擊》，以及多本以能源概念為訴求的理財特刊，都抓住了人們這種讀中帶賭的心情。
問題是，石油市場並不如人們想像中的那麼容易預測。前陣子才不斷飆上歷史新高的油價，這陣子又快速滑落，別說一般散戶，就連華爾街上許多經驗老道的投機客都灰頭土臉，也讓我們看見，用「讀中帶賭」的習慣看油價，背後所潛藏不容輕忽的麻煩。
首先，沒有讀通就亂賭油價，對家庭財富的傷害，將遠高於報酬。就像那些滿懷發財期待走進賭場、最後卻一貧如洗的賭客，在石油市場上鎩羽的投機客，不是對自己贏的機率過度高估，就是壓根沒搞懂遊戲規則。石油怎麼生產的？怎麼運送的？全世界還有多少油？還夠用多久？答不出來，怎能期待自己賭對？雖然，康斯勒在《沒有石油的明天》中說，人類將「被石油的耗盡痛擊」，保羅‧勞勃茲（Pau l Roberts）也在《The End of Oil》中警告，石油的蘊藏量已經「敲響警鐘」，但多年來，從巴西到北極，新發現的油田、新發明的石油開採技術，卻不斷更新各種數據，油價也隨著這些數據的更新，在大漲與大跌之間不斷往返，誰說了準？
其次，石油目前為止仍是人類最倚賴的能源，半世紀來一場又一場的危機反覆在告訴世界：倚賴石油的風險正在提高，對人類的威脅也與日俱增。人們如今應該更關心的，可能不是短期的理財效益，而是長期的資產與經濟安全。倘若油價繼續維持目前的高檔，或是重演瘋狂飆漲的噩夢，你我的工作與生活會受到什麼樣的影響？又該如何因應？
面對這種情勢，埋首於投機市場中，一心只想著賭油價，企圖在漲跌之間賺到暴利，只會讓危機繼續坐大。傑瑞米‧瑞福金（JeremyR ifkin）在《The Hydrogen Economy》中，點出了能源與文明之間的關係，也提醒世人迎戰石油危機的重要性。如果沒有足以替代的新能源科技出現，他說，人類勢必得轉而仰賴更具污染力的能源，環境危機也將如骨牌效應般跟著惡化。
更重要的是，他呼應德國地緣政治學者恩道爾在《石油戰爭》中所說，石油是國際強權競相爭奪的資源，不管現有的石油蘊藏量還足夠讓人類用多久，可以確定，未來的地緣政治仍將繼續因石油而改寫。按照目前多個研究機構的預估，世界會有愈來愈高比率的石油，必須仰賴中東國家的供給。研究發現，20世紀的最後5年，美國與北海原油產區平均每年發現約114億桶，但在本世紀剛結束的前3年，則大幅滑落到只有68億桶。即便是最樂觀的預估，最慢約到了2020年，假如沒有新的替代能源出現，全球勢必更加倚賴中東石油輸出國家，倘若到時候西方國家與回教世界（特別是極端分子）的關係依舊如此緊張，想也知道，石油危機將會更加棘手。怎麼辦？
金融史上，油價向來是一面照映麻煩的鏡子。世界嚴重的麻煩（例如戰爭），往往伴隨油價的上漲；油價上揚，則通常也意味著人類的麻煩即將到來。政府也好，民間也好，都不能對麻煩視而不見，更不能輕率地下注豪賭油價，以為可以把麻煩丟給別人，自己則輕易地在投機市場上得到好處。
我們正「進入一個新的世界，」瑪格內莉在《無所不在的石油經濟》中說，就像「迷途的北極熊四處流浪，想要搞清楚腳下發生的地形變化。」想弄清楚，當然得繼續閱讀。至於賭，別鬧了。
Mass Tourism
Don't Go There
The whole world has the travel bug. And it's ravaging the planet.
By Elizabeth BeckerSunday, August 31, 2008; B01
Did you manage to find someplace for your vacation this summer where you could get away from it all and immerse yourself in nature, or whatever it is that you like to do with a free week or two?
I didn't think so.
It's getting harder and harder. The world has shrunk -- and the tourist legions have exploded. The streets of Paris and Venice are so crowded that you can barely move. Cruise ships are filling harbors and disgorging hordes of day trippers the world over. Towering hotels rise in ever-greater numbers along once pristine and empty beaches.
Thanks to globalization and cheap transportation, there aren't many places where you can travel today to avoid the masses of adventure- or relaxation-seekers who seem to alight at every conceivable site. I used to love going back to my old haunt in a Himalayan hill station where, as a student in India in 1970, I climbed those steep, silent paths and watched langur monkeys swinging in the trees outside my window. No longer. Now, Moussurie is chock-a-block with tourist lodges, garbage and noise; the monkeys are fleeing.
This problem goes far beyond a veteran traveler's complaint that things aren't the way they used to be, or annoyance at sharing the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal with thousands of other photo-snapping tourists loudly asking questions in languages the locals don't understand. What's happening today is of another magnitude.
The places we love are rapidly disappearing. Global tourism today is not only a major industry -- it's nothing short of a planet-threatening plague. It's polluting land and sea, destroying wildlife and natural habitat and depleting energy and natural resources. From Asia to Africa, look-alike resorts and spas are replacing and undermining local culture, and the international quest for vacation houses is forcing local residents out of their homes. It's giving rise to official corruption, wealth inequities and heedless competition. It's even contributing to human rights violations, especially through the scourge of sex tourism.
Look at Cambodia. The monumental temples at Angkor and the beaches on the Gulf of Thailand have made that country a choice destination, especially for Asians, who spent $1 billion there last year. But the foundations of those celebrated temples are in danger of sinking as the 856,000 tourists who every year crowd into Siem Reap, the nearby town of 85,000, drain the surrounding water table.
Meanwhile, Cambodia's well-connected elite has moved to cash in on the bonanza, conspiring with police and the courts to evict peasants from their rural landscape, which is being transformed by high-end resorts catering to wealthy visitors. Cambodia's League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights is compiling files that bulge with photographs of thatched-roof houses being burned down while police restrain their traumatized owners. And at night along the riverfront in the capitol of Phnom Penh, the sight of aging Western men holding hands with Cambodian girls young enough to be their granddaughters is ugly evidence of the rampant sex-tourism trade.
All this came as a shock to me. I've been writing about Cambodia for more than 35 years, but I never considered tourism there a serious subject. But when I went back last November, I couldn't avoid the issue. In three short years, tourism had transformed the country. In every interview, the conversation wandered toward tourism, its potential and its abuses. When I went up to Siem Reap, I found the great hall temple of Angkor as crowded, as a colleague said, as Filene's Basement during a sale. Forget tapping into any sense of the divine.
I began researching the global tourism industry and why journalists have allowed it to fly under the radar. Newspapers, the Web and the airwaves are filled with stories celebrating travel; few examine the effects of mass tourism. As Nancy Newhouse, the former New York Times travel editor, told me: "We never did the ten worst [places to visit], only the ten best."
Most people can't imagine that tourism could be a global menace. Even the word "tourism" sounds lightweight. And travel has always been surrounded by an aura of romance. For centuries, beginning with the first tourists on holy pilgrimages, travel has been about adventure and discovery and escape from the pressures of daily life.
It wasn't until the end of the 20th century that tourism was added to the list of industries measured in the U.S. gross domestic product. And the results were a revelation: About $1.2 trillion of the $13 trillion U.S. economy is derived from tourism.
Tourism has become the stealth industry of the global era. According to the United Nations, the international tourist count in 1960, at the dawn of the modern era of air travel, was 25 million. By 1970, the figure was up to 165 million. Last year, about 898 million people traveled the globe, and the international tourism industry earned $7 trillion. (And those figures don't include people who vacation in their own countries.)
The U.N. World Tourism Organization was established as a special agency five years ago with
the twin goals of keeping track of the tourism industry and figuring out how poor countries, in particular, can take advantage of the tourist boom without causing their own ruin. Geoffrey Lipman, the assistant secretary general of the new organization, has spent his life studying the industry. "Tourism," he told me, "is arguably the largest cluster of industrial sectors in the world" and needs to be included in any international discussions about eliminating poverty or protecting the environment. If properly conducted -- maintaining respect for a country's environment and culture, providing local jobs and a market for local goods -- tourism, the United Nations believes, is easily the best way for a poor nation to earn foreign currency.
There are several promising examples of this philosophy at work. The nonprofit British National Trust offers tourist rentals in restored cottages and historic mansions and then uses the money to buy more land and properties to preserve and protect. The African nation of Namibia, meanwhile, has created what it calls "community-based tourism," which manages more than 25 million acres of wildlife preserves, opening much of the land to tourism -- hunting or photo safaris, birding and white-water rafting -- that employs local residents and has dramatically reduced poaching.
Most of the tourism industry, however, is heading in the opposite direction. Tourism is now responsible for 5 percent of the world's pollution, according to a recent study. Cruise ships are one of the biggest culprits. These floating hotels create three times more pollution per passenger mile than airplanes. Years of cruises have helped spoil the water of the Caribbean, which, according to the United Nations, absorbs half the waste dumped in the world's oceans. Now these ships are venturing into already fragile polar waters. Last year, Norway banned all cruise ships from visiting its region of the Arctic Circle.
Beach erosion has been swift. After the South Asian tsunami in 2004, fishermen were told to move their homes away from the beaches, but luxury hotel chains with clout were allowed to rebuild near the water's edge. In the United States, the upswing in violent hurricanes hasn't put a dent in the number of vacation homes being built by the sea. "Essentially every tropical island is in danger," the National Geographic Society's Jonathan Tourtellot told me.
In poorer nations, unregulated tourist developments have put unbearable strains on scant resources, especially water. High-end tourists often waste more water in a day with multiple daily showers and toilet flushes than some local families use in a month.
Then there's the fear that over time, major tourist destinations will become virtual ghost towns. Residents of Venice went on strike last spring to block licenses for more hotels; the city of canals is now so expensive that many locals have been pushed out, helping cut the permanent population nearly in half. This summer, the British government issued a report on rural living that included a serious warning that the rich were buying so many vacation or second homes in the countryside that many local residents couldn't afford to live in their villages anymore.
But of all the ills brought on by mass travel, none is as odious as sex tourism. The once-hidden trade is now open and global, with ever-younger girls and boys being forced into prostitution. The Department of Justice estimates that sex tourism provides from 2 to 14 percent of the gross national incomes of countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.
The United States has taken a lead in attempts to eliminate sex tourism, but otherwise, it has stayed out of the tourism debate, mostly viewing tourism as a private matter. Now, however, says Isabel Hill, director of the Commerce Department's Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, the questions raised by mass tourism have become too large to ignore. She hopes that the United States, like so many European countries, will "recognize our limitations and how we have to regulate our resources."
Still, there probably won't be a U.S. secretary for tourism and the environment anytime soon. But don't be surprised if the next international agreement on climate change mentions the role of tourism, or if some countries start regulating tourism along with the environment, because the two go hand-in-hand.
In fact, you'd better hope that they do -- if you ever again want to find that cool vacation spot where you can get away from it all.
ehb47@msn.com
Elizabeth Becker, the author of "When the War Was Over: Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution," studiedmedia coverage of tourismat Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
The whole world has the travel bug. And it's ravaging the planet.
By Elizabeth BeckerSunday, August 31, 2008; B01
Did you manage to find someplace for your vacation this summer where you could get away from it all and immerse yourself in nature, or whatever it is that you like to do with a free week or two?
I didn't think so.
It's getting harder and harder. The world has shrunk -- and the tourist legions have exploded. The streets of Paris and Venice are so crowded that you can barely move. Cruise ships are filling harbors and disgorging hordes of day trippers the world over. Towering hotels rise in ever-greater numbers along once pristine and empty beaches.
Thanks to globalization and cheap transportation, there aren't many places where you can travel today to avoid the masses of adventure- or relaxation-seekers who seem to alight at every conceivable site. I used to love going back to my old haunt in a Himalayan hill station where, as a student in India in 1970, I climbed those steep, silent paths and watched langur monkeys swinging in the trees outside my window. No longer. Now, Moussurie is chock-a-block with tourist lodges, garbage and noise; the monkeys are fleeing.
This problem goes far beyond a veteran traveler's complaint that things aren't the way they used to be, or annoyance at sharing the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal with thousands of other photo-snapping tourists loudly asking questions in languages the locals don't understand. What's happening today is of another magnitude.
The places we love are rapidly disappearing. Global tourism today is not only a major industry -- it's nothing short of a planet-threatening plague. It's polluting land and sea, destroying wildlife and natural habitat and depleting energy and natural resources. From Asia to Africa, look-alike resorts and spas are replacing and undermining local culture, and the international quest for vacation houses is forcing local residents out of their homes. It's giving rise to official corruption, wealth inequities and heedless competition. It's even contributing to human rights violations, especially through the scourge of sex tourism.
Look at Cambodia. The monumental temples at Angkor and the beaches on the Gulf of Thailand have made that country a choice destination, especially for Asians, who spent $1 billion there last year. But the foundations of those celebrated temples are in danger of sinking as the 856,000 tourists who every year crowd into Siem Reap, the nearby town of 85,000, drain the surrounding water table.
Meanwhile, Cambodia's well-connected elite has moved to cash in on the bonanza, conspiring with police and the courts to evict peasants from their rural landscape, which is being transformed by high-end resorts catering to wealthy visitors. Cambodia's League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights is compiling files that bulge with photographs of thatched-roof houses being burned down while police restrain their traumatized owners. And at night along the riverfront in the capitol of Phnom Penh, the sight of aging Western men holding hands with Cambodian girls young enough to be their granddaughters is ugly evidence of the rampant sex-tourism trade.
All this came as a shock to me. I've been writing about Cambodia for more than 35 years, but I never considered tourism there a serious subject. But when I went back last November, I couldn't avoid the issue. In three short years, tourism had transformed the country. In every interview, the conversation wandered toward tourism, its potential and its abuses. When I went up to Siem Reap, I found the great hall temple of Angkor as crowded, as a colleague said, as Filene's Basement during a sale. Forget tapping into any sense of the divine.
I began researching the global tourism industry and why journalists have allowed it to fly under the radar. Newspapers, the Web and the airwaves are filled with stories celebrating travel; few examine the effects of mass tourism. As Nancy Newhouse, the former New York Times travel editor, told me: "We never did the ten worst [places to visit], only the ten best."
Most people can't imagine that tourism could be a global menace. Even the word "tourism" sounds lightweight. And travel has always been surrounded by an aura of romance. For centuries, beginning with the first tourists on holy pilgrimages, travel has been about adventure and discovery and escape from the pressures of daily life.
It wasn't until the end of the 20th century that tourism was added to the list of industries measured in the U.S. gross domestic product. And the results were a revelation: About $1.2 trillion of the $13 trillion U.S. economy is derived from tourism.
Tourism has become the stealth industry of the global era. According to the United Nations, the international tourist count in 1960, at the dawn of the modern era of air travel, was 25 million. By 1970, the figure was up to 165 million. Last year, about 898 million people traveled the globe, and the international tourism industry earned $7 trillion. (And those figures don't include people who vacation in their own countries.)
The U.N. World Tourism Organization was established as a special agency five years ago with
the twin goals of keeping track of the tourism industry and figuring out how poor countries, in particular, can take advantage of the tourist boom without causing their own ruin. Geoffrey Lipman, the assistant secretary general of the new organization, has spent his life studying the industry. "Tourism," he told me, "is arguably the largest cluster of industrial sectors in the world" and needs to be included in any international discussions about eliminating poverty or protecting the environment. If properly conducted -- maintaining respect for a country's environment and culture, providing local jobs and a market for local goods -- tourism, the United Nations believes, is easily the best way for a poor nation to earn foreign currency.
There are several promising examples of this philosophy at work. The nonprofit British National Trust offers tourist rentals in restored cottages and historic mansions and then uses the money to buy more land and properties to preserve and protect. The African nation of Namibia, meanwhile, has created what it calls "community-based tourism," which manages more than 25 million acres of wildlife preserves, opening much of the land to tourism -- hunting or photo safaris, birding and white-water rafting -- that employs local residents and has dramatically reduced poaching.
Most of the tourism industry, however, is heading in the opposite direction. Tourism is now responsible for 5 percent of the world's pollution, according to a recent study. Cruise ships are one of the biggest culprits. These floating hotels create three times more pollution per passenger mile than airplanes. Years of cruises have helped spoil the water of the Caribbean, which, according to the United Nations, absorbs half the waste dumped in the world's oceans. Now these ships are venturing into already fragile polar waters. Last year, Norway banned all cruise ships from visiting its region of the Arctic Circle.
Beach erosion has been swift. After the South Asian tsunami in 2004, fishermen were told to move their homes away from the beaches, but luxury hotel chains with clout were allowed to rebuild near the water's edge. In the United States, the upswing in violent hurricanes hasn't put a dent in the number of vacation homes being built by the sea. "Essentially every tropical island is in danger," the National Geographic Society's Jonathan Tourtellot told me.
In poorer nations, unregulated tourist developments have put unbearable strains on scant resources, especially water. High-end tourists often waste more water in a day with multiple daily showers and toilet flushes than some local families use in a month.
Then there's the fear that over time, major tourist destinations will become virtual ghost towns. Residents of Venice went on strike last spring to block licenses for more hotels; the city of canals is now so expensive that many locals have been pushed out, helping cut the permanent population nearly in half. This summer, the British government issued a report on rural living that included a serious warning that the rich were buying so many vacation or second homes in the countryside that many local residents couldn't afford to live in their villages anymore.
But of all the ills brought on by mass travel, none is as odious as sex tourism. The once-hidden trade is now open and global, with ever-younger girls and boys being forced into prostitution. The Department of Justice estimates that sex tourism provides from 2 to 14 percent of the gross national incomes of countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.
The United States has taken a lead in attempts to eliminate sex tourism, but otherwise, it has stayed out of the tourism debate, mostly viewing tourism as a private matter. Now, however, says Isabel Hill, director of the Commerce Department's Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, the questions raised by mass tourism have become too large to ignore. She hopes that the United States, like so many European countries, will "recognize our limitations and how we have to regulate our resources."
Still, there probably won't be a U.S. secretary for tourism and the environment anytime soon. But don't be surprised if the next international agreement on climate change mentions the role of tourism, or if some countries start regulating tourism along with the environment, because the two go hand-in-hand.
In fact, you'd better hope that they do -- if you ever again want to find that cool vacation spot where you can get away from it all.
ehb47@msn.com
Elizabeth Becker, the author of "When the War Was Over: Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution," studiedmedia coverage of tourismat Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
人在马华，心在安华
在巴东埔补选期间，接到一位朋友来的短讯：“马华助选员，人在马华，心在安华”。
的确，在补选的十天里面，国阵内的马华同民政党的党员是辛苦的，他们辛苦，不是因为为补选奔波，身疲力倦而苦。他们苦是因为看到巫统种族主义意识高涨，充满种族对立、挑衅。
巫统在补选期间，在马来甘榜，由巫青团主导，说什么槟城已经成为了新加坡共和国、马来人在槟州什么都没有了、说什么民联成立“猪内阁”、说什么反对开放UiTM、说什么华人是在这里寄居。真她妈！
总之，巫统就是这么张牙舞爪，在这种情形下，全力投入助选，不就是爪牙了吗？
我们拒绝成为张牙舞爪的爪牙，虽然说是人在马华，心在安华，这里的“安华”是心想如何“安华人的心”，此“安华”非彼“安华”也。
但是，以目前的情形看来，马华在过去“安华人的心”的做法可能已经不再适合了，过去“安华人的心”很多时候是在被动，特别是和巫统的关系很多时候是处于主从的关系。
马华不可以再这样了，我们要走自己的路，要真的向巫统说“NO”！
的确，在补选的十天里面，国阵内的马华同民政党的党员是辛苦的，他们辛苦，不是因为为补选奔波，身疲力倦而苦。他们苦是因为看到巫统种族主义意识高涨，充满种族对立、挑衅。
巫统在补选期间，在马来甘榜，由巫青团主导，说什么槟城已经成为了新加坡共和国、马来人在槟州什么都没有了、说什么民联成立“猪内阁”、说什么反对开放UiTM、说什么华人是在这里寄居。真她妈！
总之，巫统就是这么张牙舞爪，在这种情形下，全力投入助选，不就是爪牙了吗？
我们拒绝成为张牙舞爪的爪牙，虽然说是人在马华，心在安华，这里的“安华”是心想如何“安华人的心”，此“安华”非彼“安华”也。
但是，以目前的情形看来，马华在过去“安华人的心”的做法可能已经不再适合了，过去“安华人的心”很多时候是在被动，特别是和巫统的关系很多时候是处于主从的关系。
马华不可以再这样了，我们要走自己的路，要真的向巫统说“NO”！
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
从政者的道德
最近，老翁的“道德污点”论引起了广泛的讨论，我是支持他的论点的。
当然，反对他这个论点者把道德一分为二，提出了“公德”和“私德”论，简单的说，色情光碟只是私德，不影响担任公职。
在支持与反对声中，我想到了在英文中有一句子，叫者“MORAL HIGH GROUND”，翻译成为华文，应该可以说成“道德制高点”。
有道德污点者，不管是私德公德，又怎么会具备“道德制高点”来处理众人的事情呢？
在我国的政治体制里，不管是国阵还是民联，种族气氛浓、又少不了宗教色彩，很多棘手的课题，往往是被赋予“敏感”的标签，需要领袖关起门来私下解决，在这种情形下，参与私下解决问题的领袖的公信力就很重要了。
有道德污点者，即使是私德这方面，无论你怎么“漂白”也不会让人民觉的是有公信力的。
在民间，很久以来就已经有这样的一个流传，历任首相手头上皆握有其内阁成员的“X-FILE”，他就凭者手上的这张王牌，驾驭下面的内阁成员，让他们乖乖的听话。这些X-FILE只是在一个人的手上，就这么具有威力，那么请问当“污点”被烧成CD，广为流传，担任领袖者又有什么MORAL HIGH GROUND来面对同僚、属下官员、人民老百姓？
奉劝那些响往党职、公职高位者，学学陈群川，被私人业务案件缠身后，不只是引退，在往后更不问政事，这样才对嘛！
当然，反对他这个论点者把道德一分为二，提出了“公德”和“私德”论，简单的说，色情光碟只是私德，不影响担任公职。
在支持与反对声中，我想到了在英文中有一句子，叫者“MORAL HIGH GROUND”，翻译成为华文，应该可以说成“道德制高点”。
有道德污点者，不管是私德公德，又怎么会具备“道德制高点”来处理众人的事情呢？
在我国的政治体制里，不管是国阵还是民联，种族气氛浓、又少不了宗教色彩，很多棘手的课题，往往是被赋予“敏感”的标签，需要领袖关起门来私下解决，在这种情形下，参与私下解决问题的领袖的公信力就很重要了。
有道德污点者，即使是私德这方面，无论你怎么“漂白”也不会让人民觉的是有公信力的。
在民间，很久以来就已经有这样的一个流传，历任首相手头上皆握有其内阁成员的“X-FILE”，他就凭者手上的这张王牌，驾驭下面的内阁成员，让他们乖乖的听话。这些X-FILE只是在一个人的手上，就这么具有威力，那么请问当“污点”被烧成CD，广为流传，担任领袖者又有什么MORAL HIGH GROUND来面对同僚、属下官员、人民老百姓？
奉劝那些响往党职、公职高位者，学学陈群川，被私人业务案件缠身后，不只是引退，在往后更不问政事，这样才对嘛！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
