Every five years or so, China gathers its overseas diplomats in the capital for an important meeting to chart the country's foreign policy in the coming years.

The recent session, which ended on July 20, seemed to be a particularly important one as it was attended by all members of the Politburo, and President Hu Jintao's speech showed a clear departure from the previous guidelines laid down by Deng Xiaoping two decades ago.

At the time of Deng's proclamation, China was only 10 years into its reform and opening-up policy and was still weak and poor, and isolated following the 1989 Tiananmen incident.

Deng instructed the Chinese government to lie low in the international arena and not stick its neck out.

This policy avoided many conflicts with the West, notably the United States, and paved the way for a peaceful and stable environment for the next two decades of rapid development.

This year, China will probably overtake Japan to become the second-largest economy in the world, after the US.

With the Western world now beginning to advocate a G2 - China and the US - and demanding that China play a bigger role in international economics and politics, it is no longer possible for the nation to keep a low profile.

Internally, events over the past two years, especially those related to Tibet and Xinjiang , have alerted the entire country to international influence in China's domestic affairs and its image abroad.

China's global interests also dictate that it cannot avoid sticking its neck out. One example is escorting its merchant ships through the troubled waters near the Horn of Africa and protecting them from heavily armed Somali pirates.

China's policies, both domestic and foreign, are guided by some basic tenets. If the underlying principles remain unchanged, the policy, on the whole, stays intact and actions are only piecemeal. The changes in important guidelines are always announced in high-level meetings.

At the diplomats' meeting, Mr Hu called on China's overseas representatives to play a bigger role in serving the country's reform and national interests, as China is seeking stable and rapid development amid the global economic downturn.

What the Western media did not pick up, as it was not reported in the Xinhua English release, was Mr Hu's exaltation to increasing the country's influence in politics, its competitiveness in economics, its congeniality in image, and its poignancy in morality.

A few years ago, in the report to the 17th Party Congress, Mr Hu, in the capacity of party general secretary used the phrase soft power for the first time in Chinese official documents.

The new diplomatic guideline can be regarded as an extension and a natural development along this line of thinking. It signifies a clear departure from the guidelines to lie low. It is also a new mission statement of what role the country would like to play in the international community, and how it wants to be received.

China now feels a need to proactively project its newly acquired big power status in international affairs, and not have its image distorted and demonised by the usually hostile Western media.

It all boils down to the old saying: We come in peace. The emerging China is definitely not a threat to anyone.

Taken this way, the world will soon find it is a new blessing.

As a firm believer in transparency, I honestly think that failing to pick up on this important message is a big mistake on the part of the Western media, and a big loss to the Western world.

香港人心思亂還是人心思定？

在以前，我會很容易有一個比較肯定的答案，如人心一般穩定，不會出大亂子之類。今天我不能有很簡單的答案。

反對派自我封閉

「七一」遊行之後，中大香港亞太研究所分別就有參加遊行和沒有參加遊行的人做了抽樣調查，發覺兩者對關心的問題和感受等，都有十分明顯的差異。【註一】一方面，沒有參加遊行的沉默大多數，在經濟不景中不滿情緒不高，努力工作，尋求安定。另一方面，一小撮參加遊行的，則對現實充滿怨憤不安。後者總的來說，年紀較輕，學歷也較高。

最近我留意好幾個反對派組織的論壇，發覺台下一定有一班鼓噪的年輕人，不時以口號、謾罵、甚至粗口去打斷他們不 喜歡的發言者。同一現象的伸延，就是陳一愕被討伐、無綫新聞被圍攻。這些年輕人，根本就不想與人作辯論、討論、以至溝通。他們完全把自己封閉起來，只懂發 洩情緒。

我也留意到反對派從不出席非我族類的論壇，反對派的媒體也從不傳播不同的聲音和意見。大部分反對派政黨，甚至禁止黨員和建制派 人士來往，如有接觸，規定事後要寫報告交代。這種自我封閉的態度，更強化反對派內部的意見統一、單調，和非理性。自命自由、民主的人，竟然走向自由、民主 的相反一端，成了一種宗教狂熱。

這些人，嚴格來說，都應該去尋求心理輔導。很明顯，像其他情緒病患者一樣，他們自己都不會承認有問題，需要協助；而社會上也沒有廣泛協助他們的途徑和資源。這是很值得遺憾的一回事。

思亂小撮拒絕調和

若以較學術的表達方法，就是香港最近出現了「二元社會」（dual society），分化得十分嚴重。簡單地說，香港大部分人心思定，一小撮人心思亂。亞太研究所提出：「如何調和遊行參與者與主流民意之間的重大差距，將 是今後特區政府和各界的一項重大挑戰。」

更大的挑戰是思亂的一小撮，根本就是拒絕調和。這群人連疆獨暴亂殺人，也稱讚為「沒有抗爭，那有改變」，進而 聲稱「種（正字為縱）使血流披面，甚致（正字為至）捐軀，也在所不計」。【註二】

我不相信這一撮「憤青」，在一般情況之下會有很多人願意「捐軀」。但是只要這種情緒存在，在某些群體事件當中，只須要有一個人做出某些過激行為或號召，其他人很容易便被氣氛所感染，一時之間喪失了理智，很可能不知不覺之間，便「血流披面，甚至捐軀」，隨之而來的很可能是一場不大不小的騷亂。

我們可以想像一下，往後在回歸以來平均一日數起的示威當中，一兩個情緒高漲示威者衝擊警察，遭警察「適度暴力」制服時受傷，觸發群情洶湧，相互暴力升級，終致不可收拾。長夏炎炎，類似的場面隨時都可能發生。

由於香港是二元社會，絕大部分人心思定，少數人的暴力事件不會得到廣泛市民的同情和支持，反而因為他們破壞繁榮穩定而被唾棄。這小撮即便流血「抗爭」，也難以得到「改變」的結果。歷史上多少先例顯示，這樣下去，脫離群眾唯一的結果是這一撮人愈來愈小，卻愈小愈激，走上不歸之路。但是香港的形象肯定會因而 大損，經濟多少也必然會受損失。

這是一個標準的雙輸局面，年輕人入世未深，自己不懂，但是他們後面的「阿頭」是成年人，自己亦有子女，當知這不是引導年輕人該走的道路。「七一」當晚，據說是黃毓民兄夫婦電話分別力勸年輕人回家。

我們的年輕人被「快餐文化」荼毒至深，以為不用深入群眾做細緻的工作，幾個人以表演式的作其「激進抗爭」，就能促使社會往良好的「改變」。這只是不切實際的幻想！

左傾幼稚病註定失敗

Radicalism以前譯做「激進」，近年才改譯為「基進」。這新的譯法其實更接近本意，因為 radical 是根源的意思。真正左派是從整體和發展中看事物的，「官商勾結」一定有其基本的結構性原因，才能如此猖獗。我們如不從基本的批判功夫做起，針對問題的結構性根源，不扎根群眾，是患了捨本逐末的「左傾幼稚病」，不足言左派。這裏沒有快餐和捷徑，左傾幼稚病者註定失敗收場。

但是另一方面，我們主流社會能坐視社會不公的現象繼續惡化下去嗎？香港社會不公至甚：貧富懸殊、壟斷嚴重、社會流動性下降，年輕人沒有出路，更有一些不安分的高官，向財團輸送利益…這都是我們需要直面和改變的。我對此深惡痛絕，在這裏已不知罵了多少次。

但是同樣道理，我也深知寫文章罵也是不能改變這現狀的。我們鼓吹市民要有承擔，我們應該明白到，正如有義務便有權利一樣，有承擔便有要求。市民有承擔，便會要求政府有所作為；青年人如果放棄「搵快錢」，他們也會厭惡財團巧取豪奪的作風。

上述的「憤青」，能有憤怒，背後其實就是對社會的期望和隨之而來的失望。而聲言不計犧牲，從某角度看，也是一種承擔的表現，只是他們還未找到積極體現承擔的方法和途徑而已。所以承擔是兩面刃，它是可以很具顛覆性的。對於缺乏承擔的人來說，很可能是他們的噩夢。

對未來要有願景

對別人有要求，對人家犯錯作零容忍，破口大罵，示威遊行，走到極端，就算在香港搞一場「文革」，都證實沒有好效果。我們不妨先從對自己有要求，對社會有 承擔，對未來有願景做起。如果這一新態度、新作風能慢慢成為共識，形成風氣和潮流，我相信不須很久，整個社會都會改變。它不能不變，因為沒有承擔的人，很 快便會成為過街老鼠，待不下去的了。

社會的大多數漠視社會的不公，這本身就反映了這社會缺乏承擔。大眾有承擔，這個社會才能朝良性可持 續發展。人心思定的大多數，因而需要積極地改變社會因為沒有承擔，只取不予的各種短期行為，和從而衍生的種種不公。今天「憤青」的增加，是社會不公持續惡 化的結果，不直面這根本問題而片面的追求穩定，是絕對不可能成功的。

從我做起，使社會不公減少，期望和現實的反差縮窄，本來已經是少數的思亂「憤青」也自然會減少，至不成氣候。到那時候，我們可以很有信心的說：人心思定。

註一：「七一遊行」參與者與非參與者政經態度調查結果摘要，中文大學香港亞太研究所 。

註二：引自http://www.hkreporter.com/talks/thread-786678-1-1.html

Fifty residents of a village in the northern New Territories have vowed not to move to make way for a maintenance yard, part of the high-speed rail line linking Hong Kong to the rest of China.

The issue is gathering momentum and gaining support from a growing number of non-governmental organisations and pro-democracy politicians, some of whom have pushed the matter to the moral high ground of spatial democracy - that is, the democratic distribution of facilities and services to all urban areas.

Except for the NGO involvement, the protest sounds familiar. Similar demonstrations have taken place many times in the past, and were invariably solved when the stakes were raised to the protesters' satisfaction.

Those who shout: I don't want your money usually mean: I want more. If, with the intervention of the NGOs, this incident were to escalate into a moral issue in the realms of democracy and justice, there would be no room for compromise, no deal and, in the end, no money. This bargaining strategy is very bad for business.

But, if the villagers backed down when sufficient incentives were offered, the NGOs would appear to have been sold out, resulting in a tremendous loss of credibility. To the public they would look gullible, rather than righteous.

Of course, they would justify their retreat with excuses like: We have helped the villagers gain better compensation from the government, but that would ring hollow all the same.

I am all for conservation and helping vulnerable groups, provided they have a case. But apart from the I don't want to move argument, I see no justification here.

I agree that, in many instances, people are treated worse than butterflies, for example. At least when the habitat of the latter is endangered, it becomes a conservation area. We cannot reason with butterflies and persuade them to move, but we can do so with our fellow humans. Moreover, the butterflies' offspring will also thrive in their reserve; there is less reason to be optimistic about the descendants of present-day villagers living there for long.

So, if the fact that someone is unwilling to move is a good enough reason to win the moral support of citizens at large, then the development of our entire city will be put on hold.

Dissident politicians entered this dispute to gain exposure. One claimed that the construction of the high-speed rail link would only serve to bring more mainland visitors to Hong Kong. Coming from the mouth of a trade union leader, such a statement is alarming. It seems he must have forgotten that more tourists mean more employment, especially for vulnerable, uneducated and unskilled workers.

The dissidents also forget that many Hong Kong citizens travel north. Will they not benefit? With the completion of the initial phase of the high-speed rail network on the mainland, by 2012, major cities will be much more interconnected.

Hong Kong started late and will only be able to plug into the system by 2014. If we don't hurry, we risk being left out in the cold. We will then become a lonely island in the South China Sea, which would clearly be detrimental to our future development.

Our dissidents have yet to learn from the disappointing turnout for the July 1 march that being anti-government without a real cause is not a very good rallying point for voters.

The protesting villagers in the New Territories will be much more grateful if the pan-democratic politicians can help them get off their high horses and get higher compensation instead. And if they don't get in quickly, pro-establishment lawmakers like Lau Wong-fat will do a much better job.

I had the occasion to travel through many large cities in western Europe and Japan recently, searching for the true meaning of modernity. The past three decades of reform and opening up have pushed China further up the Western modernization ladder.

Official assertions of not becoming totally Westernized notwithstanding, we are invariably drawn toward Western standards of living as defined by per capita GDP and lifestyle, so much so that the look of our cities and costumes, and our modes of transport show there is very little Chineseness left in the country. But we still feel we are not modernized, that is Westernized, enough. We still use the West’s benchmarks to judge our life and society.

There is a growing frustration because we have realized that no matter how hard we try, we will never be truly modernized because we can never be truly Westernized. The Japanese have tried hard during the past so many years to modernize itself, and in our eyes (as well as that of the rest of the world) they seem to be extremely successful. In many fields such as robotics, consumer electronics and railways, they have even surpassed the West. After the global financial crisis struck, Western governments began talking about quantitative easing and “bad” banks. These are in fact Japanese inventions. But to the West, Japan is still not Western.

Then is Westernization with Chinese characteristics the right model of modernization for China?

First, we should know what is modern and what is Western? Are trams modern? We banished trams from cities because they were considered outdated. By blindly following the West, we started building light-rail systems in cities and around the country without realizing they were just the “modern” name for trams. In many European and Japanese cities, as well as in Hong Kong, century-old tram systems are still operating successfully. The modern light-rail system is a new technology, no doubt, to save energy. But what about the good old bicycles, which most of our cities gave a silent burial because they were deemed backward? The irony is bicycles are making a comeback in the West and in Japan.

Traveling in western Europe will prove there is no such thing as a unified West. The West is unified by the cultural tradition of the Roman Empire and Christianity. Traveling through Switzerland from Germany to Italy, the look and layout of cities will show the diversity in uniformity. The cultural differences become profound if we compare western Europe with central or eastern Europe.

If we leave the definition of modernity to Westerners, our struggle to achieve it will be like shooting at a moving target. Japan’s experience shows that even if China followed the West’s path, the West would never accept it as Western.

This means we have to redefine modernity or even forget the over-simplistic notion about it and set new objectives for our development. The new set of objectives has to be internal rather than external. A people-oriented philosophy should be a good starting point. We have to do certain things or adopt certain policies not because they are modern in the Western sense of the term, but because they would be good for our people.

For example, Western fast food should be restricted not because the West has just started the process, but because low-nutrition, high-fat junk food is not good for health. Most of the people in the West are addicted to cars. But that does not mean we have to follow their example. Hence, we should put an early brake on the development of our car industry, and start planning communities where 90 percent of long-distance travel is by railway and 90 percent of short-distance commuting is by bicycle or on foot, though no Western country, not even Japan, has achieved that. We have to push ahead because it is healthy, environmentally friendly and in line with our policy of a frugal society and a circular economy. Our aim should not be to build a modern society as the West sees it, but a modern society with Chinese characteristics.

We have to go back to the basic idea of modernity. Advancement of science and technology has empowered humankind to create a more people-oriented society. We have to see modernity as a continuation of the Renaissance. The Europeans got off to a wrong start because early industrialization was highly inhuman. That process continued until the adoption of socialist measures. Inheriting the Hellenistic and Roman traditions, the Europeans achieved internal modernity through conquests and colonization of other countries. It continued through hegemony over hard and soft power until the environment cried out for help and forced the West to follow a more humane post-modern society since the 1980s.

The essence of modernity is humanity. The existing Western model of modernity is something we cannot and should not follow. By going back to the basics, we will be able to find our path to a truly post-modern and humane society that will be the model for other countries searching for modernity to follow.

Chinese culture, with its rational Confucian ethical system — which is humane but without the accompanying imperialistic ambitions — is a good starting point to achieve a new model of modernity.

Or, should we go one step further and discard the outdated concept of modernity altogether, and just be progressive with a clear humane and harmonious objective?

最近有年青人告訴我，時下年青人男的都想做 Tony、女的都想做 Isabella。一聽之下，初時真有點反胃；再想深一下，這兩位的確是香港「人辦」，非常全面而豐富地集中代表了香港社會文化的所有優點和缺點。年青人如以這兩位為模仿偶象（role model），客觀地說，非常合理之至。世上並無問題兒童及青少年，只有問題成人；如要怪責，只好怪責我們自己！

過去二十年，香港主流社會不斷鼓吹「食腦」，講求「轉數快」的「精仔」文化；人人「搵快錢」，「食快餐」，為求一夜發達。而傳媒更推波助瀾，宣傳物質至上和炫耀性消費，對少數有能力住豪宅、開名車、從頭到腳都是歐洲名牌人士的揮霍行徑、富豪的奢淫生活，和花費以億計的「世紀婚禮」等，天天都以羨慕的態度作誇張的繪影繪聲。我們期望年青人會有怎樣的反應？當然會以此為榜樣。

滿街都是「精仔」

年青人會問我們：援交有什麼問題？問題只在他╱她們還未找到富翁富婆而已。我們主流社會不是明顯偽善地抱着雙重標準嗎？更有趣的是一些自命基進人士，索性改名為「性工作者」，包裝為弱勢社群，進而為他們「維權」。問題是今天香港已經黑白不分，連從事公眾事務的政客和ＮＧＯ都為求「出位」，以「抽水」為務。「正生事件」一出，全校師生的水在最近數周都被傳媒、政客、官員們天天抽，幾乎抽到全部乾竭。至於為政者，長期以來有困難的事情都不敢碰，議題有爭議的就擱置起來，出現了問題便貼膠布止血，大事化小，小事化無、但求民望高企，做完任期。這等於把垃圾掃到桌下，眼不見為乾淨；分明又是「精仔文化」，「食快餐」的另一種表現。

在今天香港這個人人都追求以最少的投入，最短的時間達到最大的產出的社會，我們如不從這裏入手，徹底的把它扭轉，再出發，是絕對沒有其他更好結果的。問題是主流社會認為最少的投入、最短的時間達到最大的產出是好事，完全毋須改變。不然的話，難道最大的投入，最長的時間達到最小的產出才是好事嗎？所以文初兩位「人辦」，的確是港人中之龍鳳。不信，且看「o靚模」現象，後邊排隊的人多着呢。如今「o靚模」在某些人精心策略之下，竟然要出書，藉書展的人氣出位；有關人等一時之間，完全不知道如何對待這些新人類。

當二百多家工業股的總利潤都不如一家地產股的時候，還繼續「笨星」地從事工業的，背後自有他們的理念和承擔。到今天，還能堅持從事工業，而不把賺得的利潤炒地產的少數「笨星」港商，大多已經成功提升和轉型，你不會聽到他們的聲音。至於那些長期吃走私、漏稅、污染的「精仔」港商們，則淘汰的淘汰，剩下來的大叫大嚷，於浮沉之間等「着數」或等結業。

這說明人人都是「精仔」，沒有老實做事的「笨星」的社會，是不能長久的。幸而，世上任何社會從來都有「笨星」，只是香港「精仔」特別多而已。正生書院的校長陳兆焯之感人，不在於他今日成了明星，天天見報，而在於他多年甘於當「笨星」，長期從事「厭惡性工作」。正生書院背後的教會，到今天依然埋首在幕後，默默耕耘，更加是值得我們敬佩的大「笨星」。我們試想一下，如果連這些「笨星」都沒有了，香港會是一個什麼社會？

香港需要「笨星」

目前少做工夫，多作表演，但求上位的做人處事態度如不改變，還有人大力歌頌它，為它作包裝和「教路」，結果滿街都是「精仔」，而「笨星」們要嗎就開竅改行，加入「精仔」行列，不然就只有死心離開這「精仔國度」，到別處發展。可以想象，一個滿街都是「精仔」，卻沒有「笨星」的香港，會是什麼樣子。

時至今日，香港已經讓「精仔」的短期行為、形式主義、花拳繡腿、吹捧拍托、投機倒粑、門面工夫弄得一塌糊塗，奄奄一息。再往下去，香港能不碰一些有爭議、有困難的問題嗎？掃在桌子底下的陳年垃圾，堆積成山，已經發酵，膠布之下的傷口已經發炎，開始臭不可言，肯定會陸續出事，絕非危言聳聽。

香港需要更多對香港有看法、有承擔，願意抱長遠和整體眼光，願意多付少取的「笨星」，而不是要從香港盡快拿得多少就多少的「精仔」。香港「精仔」已經太多，需要更多「笨星」。就算真正的「精仔」，也需要不時支持「笨星」，因為只有這樣，香港才有前途，才能繼續提供土壤給「精仔」發達。

雖然以最少的投入，最短的時間達到最大的產出的要求，在邏輯上是永遠沒有錯的，但是實際上卻一定慘痛收場。在國家的層面，「大躍進」時代片面追求「多快好省」，想走現代化捷徑，結果是數年飢荒，並且為往後「文革」的「十年浩劫」埋下伏線。

時下流行稱各種社會問題為管治問題，並且一股腦的往特首和特區政府方向推。無可諱言，他們的問題同樣是對香港缺乏理念和承擔，特首和特區政府確實有責任去改轅易轍。但是我們市民繼續缺乏理念和承擔，指指點點，不願付出，只求「着數」，特首和特區政府獨力難言良好管治。

《香港再出發宣言》從市民個人層面出發，強調承擔和付出，我希望特首在下一份施政報告中，也能讓市民看出他和他的政府對香港未來的承擔和付出。全港上下都拿出誠意，並且付諸實際行動當中，香港堆積多年的問題才有可能得到解決。不然的話，光靠任何一方努力，都無際於事。特首單方面「強政勵治」，而市民繼續缺乏承擔的話，一定落空；即便把曾蔭權轟下台，誰上台都照樣失敗。而市民積極承擔，自然對特首和特區政府有期望和要求，官方如不予以配合，一定會成為積怨，最後動亂收場。

再回到個人的層面，先不說什麼社會承擔─因為對社會有承擔的前提，是對自己個人有承擔，自愛、自重，踏實做個頂天立地的人─我們如不為自己未來作出承擔，致力投資未來，就不可能有美好的未來。「懷才不遇」固然痛苦，但還可以怨天尤人；「懷遇不才」則只能怨自己，只會更加痛苦。短期炒賣的技倆，不要再吹捧宣傳了吧！

我們這個社會，應該開始提倡「反求諸己」的態度，以及誠、敬的工夫，這對官和民都同樣有效。