發文作者:kahoo | 四月 9, 2007

溫總叫煲呔「死而後已」, 你點睇?


Part 1 (starts at 16:00):


Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Source: Apple Daily (HK)



  1. (1) 如果你做唔掂,唔駛任滿,我實做瓜你。
    (2) 做唔掂,你死俾我睇!

  2. 煲呔個種折墮講出嚇鬼 (死俾溫總睇) 咪話無乜所謂

  3. Premier Wen, your talk betrays you.

    Premier Wen urged the ‘re-elected’Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Donald Tsang, ‘to diligently serve Hong Kong people until death’ during his official appointment of Tsang as the 3rd Chief Executive of Hong Kong for another term of 5 years. Unfortunately (maybe fortunately depending on one’s perspective), this directive may reveal some hidden attitudes as one of the top officials of China and his delicate personality, which he surely doesn’t want other people to know.
    1. His ways of thinking are still in the form of feudalism ideology. In today’s countries in which a system of retirement exists, no one including civil servants will think he has to work until death. To follow Wen’s directive, will Tsang have to work round-the-clock (not only 7/11 as Tung did) so that he will die during his term of service?
    2. Wen only put forward this idea like a parrot. The ex-premier, Zhu Rong Ji, did make similar brave words in a press conference. This reflects Wen will follow upon his predecessors’ like Zhu heels. Any expectations that Wen will take initiatives to make reforms will inevitably be proved to be extravagant.
    3. He is saying that holding an office in a communist government is very dangerous. Since combats in a communist group is very cruel, those who insists to carry out their policies may lose their lives if they are losers in the combats.

    温總理, 露出馬腳了!

    温總理在官式委任’獲選’連任第三任五年任期的香港特別行政區首長, 曾蔭權時, 勉勵他要勸奮服務港人, 死而後已. 不幸地 (視乎你的看法, 可能是幸運地), 這訓示可能揭露了他不絶想為他人知的作為中國高層官員的隠密心態和他柔弱的性格.
    1. 他的思維仍是封建的. 在現今世界有退休制度的國家中 包括公務員在內, 沒有人想他們要工作至死. 為遵行温總的訓示, 難道曾要不眠不休 (不只是像董建華的朝七晚十一) 工作, 使能在任期內死去?
    2. 温總只是鸚鵡學舌. 前總理朱容基, 在某個記者會中曾說過類似的豪語. 這反映温總只會蕭規曹隨. 任何對他主動作出改革的期望, 均無何避免被證明是奢望的.
    3. 他是在說在一個共產主義的政府任職是非常危險的. 由於在共產主義的群體內, 鬥爭是非常殘酷的. 如果鬥爭失敗, 那堅持推行他的政策的人, 有可能會喪失生命的.

  4. Further to my last entry regarding Premier Wen’s directive urging Donald Tsang to diligently serve Hong Kong people until death, I put forward some actions be suggested to Tsang to respond to Wen’s guidance.
    1. Knowing his superior’s ideology, he has to change the election slogan from “I’ll get the job done” to a motto “I won’t be a man of longevity”, meaning that Tsang will work very hard so that he will die before the end of term and the age at which he dies won’t qualify him to be named as a man of longevity. This is a normal concept of death to reciprocate his masters’bounty under a feudal regime.
    2. In order to help his successor follow this directive, he should not nominee John Tsang, Director of Chief Executive Office as the Chief Secretary of the new government since John Tsang looks too young and physically strong. Since Chief Secretary is usually viewed as an appointed successor of Chief Executive, the possibility of John Tsang will die during 2 terms of service for 10 years is comparatively low. He should persuade Refael Hui to hold the position of Chief Secretary and help Hui grab the throne of the 4th Chief Executive. Hui looks older and not able to bear high work pressure for long terms (he once expressly stated that the position of Chief Secretary cannot be held for too long, reflecting his ability to bear work pressure is comparatively low). The possibility he will die within his term of service to meet Masters’ expectation is comparatively high.

    繼我先前有關温總對曾特首”死而後已”的 訓示的愚見, 我給特首一些建議去回應温總的訓導.
    1. 既己知頂頭上司的思維, 他應將競選口號”我會做好呢份工” 攺為一座右銘 “我不會是壽星公”. 意思就是曾會辛勤工作, 以致在任內逝世. 他死時的年歲, 將不足以稱為壽星公. 這是在封建王朝以死回報主子的一貫概念.
    2. 為栛助繼任人履行死而後已的訓示, 他不應提名特首辦公室主任, 曾俊華, 為下任政務司因為他看來太年輕和健壯. 由於政務司通常被認為特首的指定接班人. 曾俊華會於十年兩任期內死去的可能性相對較低. 他應說服許仕仁留任政務司, 並協助他奪取第四屆特首的寶座. 許看來較老和不能長期承受大工作壓力(他曾公開表示政務司的職位不能做太久, 顯示他對工作壓力的承受能力較低). 他於任內死去以符合主子的期望的可能性相對較高.

  5. 2007 年曾蔭權任內,中央又一次釋法:
    任重道遠 ,原來解死而後已。

  6. Keen observations, 一聽眾.

    What an ideological contrast between Tsang’s 「我會做好呢份工」and Wen’s 「仁以為己任,不亦重乎;死而後已,不亦遠乎。」! To Sir Donald Tsang, the Office of Chief Executive is just a job, nothing more and nothing less. Whatever his belief in General Election and the implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law is one thing, it is his “duty” to enact laws and carry political reform that can only be supported and approved by Beijing. Therefore, he does not necessarily have to act on his beliefs which do not matter anyway. So, his down-to-earth slogan has given us the clue that he would take the office of C.E as a job without any moral burden. Just in case Tsang ends up failing to please the general public of the H.K; don’t put blame on him because after all it’s just a job. Anybody with the exception of his predecessor would do the same.

    In contrast, Wen’s advisory to Tsang reflects a reality as well as a rift in philosophies and ideologies. He regarded Tsang’s appointment a mission rather than a job. That is, a mission with ideals that fits for his aforementioned quotation. What are Tsang’s duties (任)? How difficult and important (重) are they? Should Tsang try his best no matter far it goes (遠) till his last breath (死) ? Of course, Wen did not expect Tsang to meet the same fate as諸葛亮. But, Wen implied that Tsang had better off take it seriously as he stakes his competence and reputation, his future and those of the H.K people, and his family and country on the outcome of his “job”. However, Wen did not elaborate what Tsang duties and his own desires were? So far, it is up to the public to interpret Wen’s saying to Tsang to maintaining prosperity and welfare and harmony for H.K. Nothing is said about Article 23 or political reform. To me, the whole thing is like Wen’s riddle that can have more than one answer (interpretation).

    If the 21st century belonged to China, would one believe that some 2000 year old Confucian teachings like《論語》would work in nowadays China, especially when moral values are things of the past. Perhaps, Wen implicitly told the Chinese people that his job was even more difficult and dangerous than Tsang’s. In China, the provincial and regional governments have caused many social issues in economic development at the expense of the poorest peasants (i.e. peasant protests and riots become not so uncommon) that the Central government is left to handle. Another possibility with Wen’s quote is that being political ambiguous has its advantages. In light of internal power struggle with the pro-Jiang and Shanghai fraction, being political ambiguous is definitely a survival strategy in China, so the rivals could not easily use your quotes and comments against you at any point.

    The only potential problem is that if Tsang adopts the same mentality of his predecessor whose Confucian beliefs had turned H.K upside down. Tung, as I believe, took the office so seriously to the point that he though he could do an “extreme makeover” for H.K in areas like education, public housing, etc., and rid H.K of the colonial influences. Tsang, being more pragmatic than Tung, definitely would distance himself from Tung’s path and avoid the same mistakes. Instead of hoping Tsang could do a better job, I just wish Wen and Hu could be more open minded and see political reform is a natural outcome of political maturity of the H.K people.

  7. Cytodex,

    Although you once said that you had shortcomings in Chinese language, your analysis of Wen’s directive given to Tsang shows you have excellent mastery of Chinese’s most important school of philosophical thought, the Confucian. However, regarding the analysis, you seem to have overlooked a fundamental drawback. You may have forgot Wen is a communist. The conflicts between communism and Confucian beliefs are so intense that it seems to be inconceivable for Wen, a communist at top level of authority, asks his comrade, Tsang, to act in a Confucian way. One of the few similar concepts of communism and Confucian beliefs is classes. Communists have a core concept that people come from different classes. Confucians conceived ideas that each individual had a social status and there was a specific relationship between two individuals. To name a few, emperor and official; father and son; elder and younger brothers; husband and wife; master and servant, teacher and student, etc. As a hardcore communist, Wen quoted Confucian’s sayings to remind Tsang that Tsang was of a different class versus Wen who acted as a representative of communist central party in this context. Wu and Wen (collectively viewed as benefactor teacher) chose Tsang (viewed as student) as a top official of an important city of the country. Tsang has to strive to death to reciprocate even facing dangers.

    雖然你曾說你對中文不甚了了, 但你對温總給曾特首訓示的分析, 足見你對中國最重要的哲學學說, 儒家思想, 有深厚認識. 不過, 你的分析, 似乎忽略了一個基本漏洞. 就是你可能忘記了温是一個共產黨員. 共黨主義和儒家思想的尖銳分歧, 使温作為一個高層共產黨員, 要求曾蔭權同志, 用儒家的方法去處事, 是難以致信的. 階級是少數共產主義和儒家思想有近似的概念. 共產黨徒的核心觀念是人屬於不同的階級. 儒家則構想各有不同的社會地位, 而人與人之間有一種特定的關係. 如君臣, 父子, 兄弟, 夫婦, 主僕, 師徒等. 作為一個核心的共產黨員, 温在這範疇中引用儒家的說法是要使曾牢記曾與温作為共產黨中央的代表是不同階層的. 胡温作為恩師, 選擇了門生曾為國家一個重要城市的首長. 曾就算遇上什麼風險, 也要拼了命去回報了.



WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


連結到 %s


%d 位部落客按了讚: