Archive | 八月 2017

故事 – 50 Years

This was story, or history, or anecdote, I don’t know.  It happened in a place that used to be called Hong Kong. But now, I am not sure if she still has a name. Or, she still has a name. Just no one cares to call it. Or, no one ever dares to call it since the Event 50 years ago.  Since then people here, there, anywhere, have sparsely called her name that everyone has wiped that name in her/his memory, bit by bit, like dementia. Until a nameless time, we all lost it. And now people just call her Island (島).

Technically this name is problematic.  There is only one island that is big enough to be called island, where no one has lived since the Event, except the most villainous criminals.  They sinned so diabolically according to the Government that they should be sentenced to hell right away.  However,  the Government was bounded by its pledge to honour humanitarian values to every individual, even those who are lower than dogs.  The Government cannot execute them.  So, the Government send them in, where they will die anyway because of the severe nuclear pollution there.  A prison and sepulchre in one go.   From a few history bibliography that survives the Look, and folk stories casually but stealthily shared by some very old people here, that only island that is big enough to be called island used to be called Hong Kong Island.

Ironically, Hong Kong has been a name that literally does not exist, in the sense that the name carries no meaning to most of people in the world, as the name Judah, or Jerusalem,  did to Artaxerxes the king of Persia when Nehemiah mentioned them in his plea.   Even someone kept preaching the name Hong Kong Island, people would simply skip the clumsy meaningless words and call it Island.   All of us live in thousands of small islets, natural or man-made, that spread a thousand miles in diameter. But our place is named based on a prison-sepulchre-vallains Island, a waste dump. This is irony.

I am telling this history in English, not because I am any good at it.  English is the only way that what I write can, I hope, survive the Look. I really want to tell you this story. This was story, or history, or anecdote, I don’t know.  It happened in a place that inherits a name carries no meaning.

廣告

點然回首,你嗡乜鳩。。。。

回看這篇文章

https://lakeso.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/%e9%bb%9e%e7%84%b6%e5%9b%9e%e9%a6%96%ef%bc%8c%e9%82%a3%e4%ba%ba%e5%8d%bb%e5%9c%a8%e3%80%82%e3%80%82%e3%80%82%e3%80%82/

才發覺,老友,你點搞架…標題第一個字都寫錯。是默然回首,唔係點然回首。

技術上,這是一篇回首我的回首。真係…..我自己都唔知自己嗡乜鳩。總之,今次是講地理的。

上面那篇文章是我回想自己看Jane Jacobs Death  and Life of American Cities的一些反思。那時是自BASH自己靠左的思路,希望自己從頭來過,做一個較以前中肯持平溫和靚仔的人。但最近看了BBC Documentary一套達個半鐘的Jane Jacob回顧。

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b090c4f8

今次大家都可以看,沒有Licence所限。而我今次推薦,因為編輯用了一個更跨越地理及規劃的角度。而集中去看Jane Jacobs 和當時紐約市重建統領 Robert Moses 的對決。當然,那幾場仗Jane Jacobs動員了當區的居民,社運團體,成功阻礙了幾個指標性的重建項目,包括穿越Washington Square Park的公路,Green(定West?) Village (即珍妮住的地頭)的重建項目。情況有點似你們保衞菜園村,問why not 橫洲的個案相似,分別只是你們得不到相同的結果。

當然我亦看到這套紀錄片是非常偏頗的,把Rober Moses描成城巿的大魔頭,其實我相信他只要真心想改善紐約市當時大量的內城貧困及罪案等問題。以下這篇文章你們可以參考。

https://savingplaces.org/stories/a-tale-of-two-planners-jane-jacobs-and-robert-moses#.WZuIIVH-uUk

這兩個著名人物最強烈的反差就只是,如何才能改善住在這裡的人的生活。只是Robert仔是當時的現代主義學院派。用一句非常Catching的田生廣告以概之: 沒有舊,哪有新?在片中,Robert仔被Quote幾次他的比喻 –舊城區的貧窮問題就像癌症,你冇其他辦法架,就只有Chemo的啫。而Chemotherapy,又有一個非常好的比喻,在我最近看的一套無聊劇Ill Behaviour內那個女醫生的解釋 (Chemo is basically killing you. And I keep killing you once every single week for three months, hope you rebuild a new life)。就是咁 –I fucking evict you, kick your fucking arse out of ere, demolish your every shit (literally) here, and I will build something new. And everyone will then be fucking better! Fucking better. Everyone.

記住,我講上面嗰段野是真心,完全冇Cynicism成份的。而只有文學及新聞訓練的珍妮,則認為用Bulldozer 的城巿重建,對當區巿民的生活影響力太大,尤其是你get em the hell out of ere. 佢就返唔到原來的地方了。好地地你搞佢做乜?

從前的我看Jane的書,真的覺書中的她人很浪漫,全無政治。但這太天真了。那齣紀錄片中的珍妮,卻是政治動員的能手。亦深曉只有超棒的政治動員,才能逃離單一城巿軌跡的命運。即舊的必然被新的取代。她不是城巿無政治化,卻是local politics的始祖。即地理-城巿-政治密不可分。因為城巿實是一個連誰人有權話事都是case by case的contingency。這令我想到我現在看的書

https://books.google.com.hk/books/about/For_Space.html?id=xgrVr6Y_3ZcC&redir_esc=y

嗱老實,都是左膠讀物。不過現代一點了,不再無產階級必勝。但真是頗艱深,不能如Tempo一樣做書評 (總不能在書評上寫其實我唔知她嗡乜7的)。但她提到的,無論是資本主義,共產主義,以至後現代的結構主義,都傾向看世界再沒有歷史,亦沒有了地理。話之你是巴黎定是越南小巴黎,只要你開放巿場,你就會變成另一個紐約。香港是亞洲國際都巿,上海是亞國際都巿,Bangalore只要肯努力,最後都是會變成亞洲國際都巿。再沒有地理的分別,再沒有文化的分差,再沒有時空的交纏。One World One Dream。Doreen就是說,這不是很悶嗎?為甚麼不看世界每一個local都是story-so-far?為甚麼我們所有城巿的命運都是這樣沉悶地相連?為甚麼我們不能構造不同的結局?

放諸城巿重建就是:可不可以再不問是Robert Mose遇是Louis Mumford還是麥理浩還是Jane Jacobs才是對呢?是不是沒有領展,所有公共房屋的商場就會更好?那太和街士多了很多人買餸你又怎解釋?但頌安街巿仲係咁撚廢又點解釋?有一些地方如十三街 45J 等舊區,是否真的能如珍妮說的,Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them…….? 入面的居民居住環境去到索馬里級數還怎樣Dance a ballet dance呢?是不是唔同的地點唔同的人唔同的歷史組成,就應有唔同的策略呢?

本書我去到看以公共空間商品化變成大商場,削弱其開放的程度。Doreen在這裡跟珍妮有點唱對台,問一個問題,原來的public open space其實是否真的完全open?open 得好像某乘客airdrop其賓州一樣呢?還是在所謂的public open space定一誰有權用,跟其他城巿物件一樣,連誰有權定權去決定誰使用都政治,都有討論的需要?商場加多幾張凳不就解決香港熱到仆街36度的特有問題嗎?但誰有權要信和在商場加多張凳呢?

我很希望我已如我所願變成一個較以前中肯持平溫和靚仔的人,但如果未如願,亦止少明白,即使做左膠,都可以做一個比較冇咁黑人憎的人,不需要因為我是左膠就走去擁抱Maduro,而不去說,屌你老母你走啦。不需要因為我是左膠就說UBER萬惡,全力支持世上服務質素最撚標青的的士佬 (honestly, I enjoy Uber so much)。每件事都一單還一單。No single trajectories. All on contingency.

我望我能做到。

Read This Aloud

POETRY BEYOND

I’m hanging loose,

You said i seek compilation

Gave me no choice so i had to choose,

I said no more dark, tension

Always in seek of light,

Unlike one beneath the Atlantic

My candle won’t go off my sight,

Taught me what is unique

Never pointing fingers on my faults,

Deep inside never to shy

(away)

Or even hide in fancy clothes,

Dear grandma;

I’m sorry

You got pushed away for years,

Abandoned in that old farm

But still, I’ll keep calling your name

No more sad songs.

.KAI

View original post