「文化政策與公民社會─香港有甚麼可能？」

原帖由 238X 於 2006-10-22 12:09 發表
I even don't expect so.

What I think is, if they don't like culture, then don't let them participate.
That is no use to them.

What I oppose to you two is that you two are forcing them to touch
something they don't like, and those things are not related to discipline
and moral standards.  And as a matter of fact, when I say "don't let them
participate", it's a punishment to them for their lack of discipline.

Develop their discipline *first*...

What do you mean by discipline in respect of culture?

I don't think we are forcing people to do what they don't want to do,
but rather asking the government to do something that they should be doine,
just that the people might not be so interested in it.

Why is it so?
If government can do nothing about something that the people are not interested,
and as the interests of the minority would never be a concern of the people in most cases,
then nobody would be working towards the interests of the minority,
such as we would see nothing as social welfare at last,
and the procedures of the law would never be the interests of the people as well.

If your position is something like that,
then perhaps it won't be necessary to have a government after all,
because government is supposed to be doing something that the people in general are not that interested,
or even not interested in it at all.

原帖由 307 於 2006-10-23 18:51 發表

But I think you have put the cart before the horse.

Why I say so?
Is it the population in general who think that culture is not important,
or is it that the government thinks that first?

Such dichotomy is not created by the people but the government,
and the leading acts of this trend are actions from the government,
while the developers are just encouraged by the government for doing what they are doing.

其實究竟係 "市民" 定係 "政府" 冇所謂既文化, 或者破壞緊所謂既文化?
呢個係一個好問題.

但正如之前嚮回應 旅遊發展果度都有提過.
不管係香港人本身唔重視, 定係政府令香港人唔重視,
一個"好"既政策, 如果實行上得到政府支持係會事半功倍!

而家個情況, 政府既不推動, 民間亦不踴躍.
難得地, 利東街曾經係一個令人充滿期待既機會, 最後公民參與被政府所破毀.
但呢個係唯一既情況嗎? no!
香港人, 有幾多個會諗 "文化"???

你睇下周梁淑怡呢條粉皮, "政府合署好核突" "都唔夠50年樓齡" 呢d說話都講得出......
香港人贊成佢多定唔贊成佢多? 我諗係前者 (雖然極不希望如是).

原帖由 238X 於 2006-10-23 09:27 發表


Then return to my first sentence, "If we don't think so we will be knocked out".

P.S.  For the status of the discussion, I have no face of resigning from
my attitude, even if I  ...

其實我唔多明你想講咩~~~

原帖由 monkey_bsw 於 2006-10-24 00:24 發表
其實究竟係 "市民" 定係 "政府" 冇所謂既文化, 或者破壞緊所謂既文化?
呢個係一個好問題.

但正如之前嚮回應 旅遊發展果度都有提過.
不管係香港人本身唔重視, 定係政府令香港人唔重視,
一個"好"既政策, 如果實行上得到政府支持係會事半功倍!

而家個情況, 政府既不推動, 民間亦不踴躍.
難得地, 利東街曾經係一個令人充滿期待既機會, 最後公民參與被政府所破毀.
但呢個係唯一既情況嗎? no!
香港人, 有幾多個會諗 "文化"???

無錯，我完全認同你的看法...
因為根本個問題就係在於到底政府點樣去做。
就算果樣野係人民無興趣，
但只要政府有心搞的話，
根本就不成問題，
反觀我地就見到好多市民有心，但政府無意的，
有好多野最後就必死咁滯....

不過，都要提提你，
尤其見你係咁有質素的新板友，
呢度就盡量唔好用d咁激的字眼喇...

原帖由 238X 於 2006-10-22 16:21 發表

But if we don't think so we will be knocked out.

These two are not conflicting issues.
Many places earn real money on preserving their histories and culture.
(And by "culture", I do mean lifestyle, tradition and such.  I didn't have any misunderstanding!!).

By being knocked out, do you mean that when HK is no longer concerned with money?

You have put it quite right,
but unfortunately this is not the case in the eyes of HKSARG.
To them, money can never equate with preservation,
while preservation, in their eyes, only causes further expenditure before any income might come in.

I think if Boardmate 238X said the sentence like that would be better:
"If we don't think, then we will be knocked out."
Should this be better to you?

Return to the topic:
Unfortunately, culture and money cannot exist together because the economical reason is much important.  For example, because the Tsim Sha Tsui East Station is built, the clock tower wanted to be destoryed.  By the way, is the clock tower still existing?

原帖由 hp7629 於 2006-10-24 14:36 發表
Return to the topic:
Unfortunately, culture and money cannot exist together because the economical reason is much important.  For example, because the Tsim Sha Tsui East Station is built, the clock tower wanted to be destoryed.  By the way, is the clock tower still existing?

But unfortunately the clock tower is still there while Tsim Sha Tsui East Station has been in use for years,
and who is the one saying that money and culture cannot coexist?

As you are living in the states, I think you know very well about the ground zero point at Manhattan, NYC.
This is part of American history, but has it been destroyed? NO.
That example might be too recent, then should we go and see the remains of naval base at Hawaii,
is it still there after some 60 odd years? YES. Has it been destroyed? NO.

And go to European continent, where you can find more examples of this kind.
This is not a problem of the choice between money and culture,
but of determination, or the lack of it.

Oh, luckily, the clock tower is still here.

However, will the clock tower be saved in the future?  Because it may destroyed if the Tsim Sha Tsui Star Ferry Plaza is rebuilded.

Anyway, thank you for you correction and examples.  Furthermore, I beleive that the historic buildings can be saved if the government takes action to keep them.

原帖由 hp7629 於 2006-10-25 08:18 發表
Oh, luckily, the clock tower is still here.

However, will the clock tower be saved in the future?  Because it may destroyed if the Tsim Sha Tsui Star Ferry Plaza is rebuilded.

Anyway, thank you for you correction and examples.  Furthermore, I beleive that the historic buildings can be saved if the government takes action to keep them.

I don't think that could be counted as fortunate, but rather it's unfortunate that its survival seems more like to be a blessing, rather than something that should be almost certain.

It is also true that Tsim Sha Tsui Star Ferry Bus Terminus has long been a part of history of Hong Kong,
while it is very different from simple preservation as it is very functional to both local residents and foreign visitors...

Should it be moved anyway? I doubt.