Wednesday, 17 September 2014

電視 政治 香港

那天跟英國人亂說無聊話,他說了一句自大的話(已忘了是什麼),我便說:"Your ego is bigger than our marriage!" 他聽罷說:「你這句是哪裡抄來的?簡直就像 TVB 電視劇的對白!」我說:「你又知 TVB 電視劇的對白是怎樣!」他說:「不用聽得明,也知道盡是俗不可耐的貨色。他們每齣劇都大同小異,人人住大屋,無論在哪都衣著光鮮,即使剛睡醒都頭髮亮麗;要不就是很優雅地在酒吧或咖啡店談話;要不就是一幫人圍在飯桌吃飯,某人說了什麼,然後其他人總是臉露很驚訝的神情;要不就是激動地掌摑對方;要不就是槍林彈雨……來來去去都這樣。」
這是基於他每星期有一晚在我爸媽家吃過飯後坐在沙發陪他們看無線電視劇,而得出的結論。相當精準。
我和英國人平日幾乎不看電視,只是在爸媽家吃飯那天晚上,才看一點無線電視劇。爸媽多年來習慣長開無線,一邊吃飯一邊看,飯後整晚的節目還是繼續看。最近,我興起搬回娘家住了幾天,那幾天無可避免地斷斷續續看了相當時數的劇集;來去都是那幾張面孔,都是浮誇的演技,牽強的巧合,婆媽的男女糾結,俗不可耐的對白,毫不幽默的爛笑話。這真是我的感覺--再看下去的話,體內的什麼就要腐爛了。於是便到睡房保持冷靜。
有時我會訝異,英國人比我大幾歲,卻似乎懂得的比我多很多,思想比我成熟很多,胸襟比我開闊得多。想想其實很合理--他是看 BBC 大的,我是看 TVB 大的。
為什麼香港人不可以有正常質素的電視節目?是我們不配嗎?作為普通市民,我舉腳贊成引入競爭發牌給香港電視。可是,作為普通市民,我沒有選舉領導人的權利,梁振英何須理會我的意願。
很多人以為有沒有民主對他們的生活沒有什麼影響。事實呢,人民沒有權利選舉當權者,意味着當權者無論如何惡名昭彰,都可以大刺刺地繼續掌權。他們根本不必理會平民的意願,繼續大模斯樣地官商勾結,將地都賣給發展商建豪宅,懶理貧窮線下一百萬人的住屋問題,盡心盡力保衛少數富豪的利益;制定各種政策方便內地人來香港落地生根,無視中港矛盾,滲透香港人口;蠶食司法獨立,下令要法官愛國;繼續鬼話連篇,說中共是香港最大的民主派、說泛民能活着證明了國家多包容;扼殺言論自由,令幾乎所有報章和電視台都成為政府喉舌;縱容無線一台獨大,在沒有競爭的情況下(亞視不算是競爭)繼續製作劣質節目。
由無線說到民主,並沒有拉得太遠。生活大小事都與平民擁有多少政治權利有關。我和英國人,最近幾乎說起大小事情,都不期然討論起香港的政治和(假)民主進程。他關心香港的政治比我尤甚,看盡了英文報導後,還要看中文台的新聞,要我用英文概括給他聽。最近又買了有關香港歷史的書來讀,說:「我大概會在這裡住很久,當然要認識她的歷史。」
朋友曾形容英國人像一尊佛,總是很平和、滿足、慈祥的樣子(慈祥!)。他的確 EQ 很高。平日十之八九是我情緒低落,他來開解我的。難得有一次感到他鬱鬱不歡,我大為緊張,以為發生了什麼大悲劇連這尊佛也鬱悶起來。
原來他有感來香港三年多了,廣東話學來學去都進步不大,很沮喪。我說:「你下班後只剩那少少時間和精神,沒有放棄已很難得。比起很多鬼佬,你的廣東話已經很好!」他說:「那是因為你們對鬼佬的期望太低,只要聽到我們說一句唔該或早晨,就嘖嘖稱奇。以我的進度,我真的看不到自己究竟何年何月才能聽得明你們說的話!」
為此如此懊惱,因他真的很希望融入這城。當所有人都說香港已死,身邊有個人卻這麼誠懇地喜歡這地方,竟真的令我安慰。他分得很開,認為把這城弄到死氣沉沉的是那些當權的人,但當權者並不代表這個地方和她的公民。他說:「我也不希望別人看到卡梅倫,就誤以為英國就是這樣。」
他覺得像香港一個這麼小的城市,很難得這麼 dynamic;有山有海有郊野有石屎,有很戲劇化又有趣的歷史,有這城多年來賴以成功的人民素質;還有基建、交通,和最重要的美食,都是他喜歡住在香港的原因。
和這尊佛去旅行,有一件事很有趣。在外地遇到好人好事良辰美景,他會讚嘆這地方的好;當遇到偷呃搶騙無理對待,他會讚嘆香港的好。彷彿無論遇到什麼事,他都看到好的一面。
早前我們與爸媽到北京四人行,被的士司機騙去二百元人民幣,我發現後當然生氣又氣餒。當我變成了氣的氣球,英國人說幸好這些事不會(極少)在香港發生。沒錯香港的的士司機當中,不乏會扮唔識路、走白路、說髒話、超速飛車等。雖然他們名聲不算好,但卻很少會像大陸司機那樣猖獗,偷呃搶騙。
而在北京,就算甘願冒險上賊車,想找輛的士坐卻根本一點不易。有時與其站在馬路邊吸塵等車,不如坐地鐵。
北京地鐵好像有十五條線(對着五顏六色的鐵路網絡圖,要數數有多少條線,也不是一時三刻數得清),轉線幾乎是每次乘地鐵必經的事。須轉線本來已經不便,更麻煩的,是每每轉線都要行幾條街,上完又落,落完又上,究竟到未?我們其實只坐兩個站,由燈市口到王府井,但轉線時走路花的時間,比乘車的時間還長幾倍。
當我們在討論究竟還要走多遠才到月台時,英國人說,我們在香港習慣了由這邊月台行過對面月台轉線只消幾秒鐘,只有鰂魚涌站最例外--在那裡由港島線轉乘將軍澳線,要行的路已嫌太多。卻原來在外地搭地鐵,這是多麼普遍的事。
不愧為佛,無論遇到什麼事,他都會想,香港真好。
我就想,在這陰霾密佈的香港,有他在身邊,真好。

Thursday, 21 August 2014

三種「落閘」法

獨白是 monologue,對話是 dialogue,可是,很多時兩個人看似在對話,其實是在自說自話,只是兩段 monologues 在同時發生。A 只想把獨白說完,無論 B 說什麼回應,A 都只會繼續說那段獨白。
你唔明
讀書時認識一個人,她每年考第一。某年失手考了個第二,傷心到對我說不想做人。我說:「其實考第二已很令人羨慕,而且最重要是你已很努力,別把名次看太重。」她哭着說:「你未考過第一,你唔明架啦!」我無話可說。
一路成長,身邊總是遇到人愛說:「你都未試過 XYZ,你唔明架啦!」A 發現台灣藉男友有外遇而痛不欲生,當我勸說長痛不如短痛,她說:「你都未試過同台灣男仔拍拖,你唔明(他有多好)架啦!」B 日夜埋怨工作令她不快樂,當我鼓勵她跳槽,她說:「你都未試過做到這個位置,你唔明架啦。」C 因為媽媽和老婆相處不來而極為苦惱,我建議他暫時不要讓兩個女人天天相見(他們每晚回母親家吃飯),他說:「你未試過做夾心人,你唔明架啦!」D 生了一對孖女後幾乎足不出戶,天天在家照顧孩子,但同時總是埋怨「快屈死」;我勸她間中將孩子交給家人,給自己一些時間放鬆,她說:「你未做過人阿媽,你唔明架啦。」
無論任何情況,只要你不認同對方,只一句「你都未試過,你唔明架啦」,就可以令對方無話可說。說這話的人,似乎沒有聆聽對方的意見,而是在為溝通「落閘」。
這樣子「落閘」確實容易又方便。說到底,任何人在經歷的任何一個境況,都獨一無二。以 A 為例,即使我告訴她,我曾與台灣男人拍過拖,她也會說:「但我和他在一起六年了,你唔明架啦!」即使我再告訴她,我與我那位台灣男友也是拍拖六年,她也會說:「但,是他帶我入這一行的,他對我影響很深,你唔會明架啦!」無論如何都會找到「你唔會明」的理由。
以這邏輯,是不是只有曾經經歷與她一模一樣處境的人,便能真正明白她?她是假設任何人都沒有能力設身處地去體諒別人處境;她似乎一邊廂渴望得到別人的諒解,但另一邊廂,無論別人說什麼,卻說對方不會明白。
既然世上沒有兩個處境是完全一樣的,那麼一來,ABCD 君不必說那麼多,只要一句:「你唔係我,你唔明架啦」,已足以「落閘」。
無資格
另外一種「落閘」法叫「無資格」。他們不是假設你不明白,而是說,你不在我身處的境況,則「無資格說三道四」。
早前寫了一篇文章,講到社會把單身女士叫作 spinster 這現象。有一個女子留言說:「你都嫁人了,又不是 spinster,還寫這個幹嗎!」認真想想,嫁作人妻,是否就「無資格」討論單身女人所受的壓力?推而廣之,國際評論員既不是身處北韓的人,就「無資格」就北韓的政局「說三道四」?香港評論員既沒有做過特首,就「無資格」就特首的施政「說三道四」?我們還有可能讀到可信的評論嗎?
認識了一個本土派人士,篤信香港的任何政策、設施、文化活動都應以香港人優先。我說不贊同,我認為一個多元社會,其政策和法律應該保障住在這地的人,包括新移民、外傭、外藉人士。例如,我認為最低工資亦應保障外傭。又例如,既然終審法院裁定居港滿七年才可申領綜援的規定是違憲,那麼,我認為未住滿七年的人亦可申領,是合法合理。
我表達過這些觀點後,那人說:「你說的容易,你隨時可跟你老公移民到英國,香港的資源對你來說當然不那麼重要了。」後來,我在他的 Facebook 看到他寫了這一句:「有移民後着的人,沒資格就本土主義說三道四。」
身處香港,任何人只要有決心,其實還是有方法可移居外地。身邊有朋友就隻身走到倫敦,在簽證到期前瘋狂找工作,終於找到僱主聘用,留在那裡生活。拜託,不要把自己說得那麼可憐--「我無得揀,我只可以一世留在香港。」說這話之前,你有試過找方法嗎?
你和我都一樣,留在香港,是選擇,並非迫於無奈。而命運使然,我嫁了一個英國人,但不代表我對這城的感情比你薄弱。
身邊的確有很多朋友鼓勵我跟英國人移居英國,尤其近日香港的政治環境愈來愈灰暗,他們都問:「有得走,為什麼留?」
我對一個朋友說:「身邊愈來愈多香港人想移民,但我真的很慶幸,英國人卻那麼喜歡香港!」朋友不假思索就回答說:「那因為他是過客,香港的將來對他沒影響呀。若然一個男人明知不必對身邊的女人講將來,而只是共處一段日子的話,當然會覺得那女人特別可愛,亦會對她特別包容。」典型的港式 cynicism
在這裡居住三年多、學廣東話、全職工作、結婚買樓、關心政治--如果這樣子還是過客,或許任何人也只是任何地方的過客吧。
說到底,是本地人也好是過客也好,是中國人也好是埃塞俄比亞人也好,只要是以事論事,都可以評論本土主義。為什麼不?
有咩用?
最近還見識到另一種「落閘」法,就是:「任何不跟從我方法的,都是壞方法,都沒用。」
近日這種政治氣氛下,很多人都用不同方法、在不同平台發表意見或發起行動。間中遇到一些人,對任何不是他們發起或主張的行動都批評為--「欺騙無知市民的技倆、浪費時間、自我麻醉、無用」。爭取平反六四無用,參加燭光晚會無用,在網上平台揭露社會不公義也沒用,在政府諮詢期提交意見更無用,六二二公投無用,七一上街無用,佔領中環無用。
那麼,你認為怎樣做才有用?他們卻說不出具體做法。他們頂多只說還在找尋,或正在試驗他們的方法;然後,繼續聲嘶力竭叫我跟隨他們,「不要做其他那些無用的事」。
跟這些人對話,他們是必勝的。因為他們是自己的信徒。
我欣賞有很多人認真思考「有什麼事可以為香港做」這個問題。只要目標是公義,即使方法不同,都應該予以鼓勵。相反,互相排斥、互相指「你這樣做無用」,不但不會令任何事情變得更有用,更會削弱本來方向一致的群眾力量,只會令當權者暗笑。無論如何,沒有權力的公民都在這裡拼命掙扎,你還以這種「落閘」法潑冷水,這就是你可以為香港做的事嗎?
「勿以善少而不為」,即使明知效用不大,只要是公義的事就做。我也欣賞「知其不可為而為之」,明知做不到卻堅持去做。兩者都是指那些不求結果、但求過程的行動。假如,要等到一個大家也認為「有用」的方法才去行動,那麼,當權者想要為所欲為的話也就太容易了。
我的人生裡,如果我從來只會做有用、有效果、有結果的事,那麼,讀中學時就不會有那一場暗戀、我亦不會讀那些小說、寫那麼多信給朋友、大學時也不會多花一年到美國做交流生、畢業後不會做記者、後來也不會讀法律、也不會免費幫小朋友補習、一路以來不會寫文章、現在也不會寫這篇文。

Thursday, 31 July 2014

7 Myths of Mao

Since I left school, I hardly ever wrote about the books I read. This time, though, I feel the urge to write about one I've just finished - Mao: The Unknown Story written by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. I have this urge because I hope more people would read it. To be more precise, I think everyone should read it.
When we hear stories about Mao Zedong, it is very difficult for us to distinguish propaganda from myth, rumour from reality. For example, while it is public knowledge that there were catastrophes under Mao's reign, kind-hearted people will tend to assume that at least Mao's intentions were good.
The authors of this book resolve some of these mysteries. Instead of doing a book review, I am going to let the book speak for itself by citing seven key excerpts (in italics below). I then leave it to you to decide whether you would also take the time to read the book.
1. Private Life
Mao married four women in his life. His first marriage was arranged by his father, though Mao never regarded the woman as his wife. His second wife, after giving birth to three sons for Mao, he abandoned. She was later executed, a direct result of Mao's attacking her city, Changsha. Barely four months after he left her, Mao married for the third time. Through all his marriages, he also had numerous affairs, lovers and girlfriends, including orgies with young dancing girls and actresses, till his very late years. He tended to see women only in terms of what they could do for him, only to later dismiss them when they had stopped being useful.
"For Gui-yuan (his third wife), Mao's flagrant womanising was the last straw. Over their marriage of nearly ten years, she had had to live with her husband's heartlessness. She was particularly hurt by his callousness towards her painful pregnancies and childbirth - including one on the Long March - and by his crack that she gave birth to babies 'as easily as a hen dropping eggs'. And she was bitter that although he was indifferent to children, and had not cared when four of theirs had died or been abandoned, he repeatedly made her pregnant. Their fifth child, a daughter called Chiao-chiao, was born in 1936 in Baoan, where conditions were appalling, with scorpions and rats running all over the place. A year later, Gui-yuan was pregnant again, which plunged her into depression. Repeated child-bearing in harsh circumstances had severely damaged her health, without the compensation of family life. Now, on top of this, her husband was openly sleeping with other women…
[Mao’s] girlfriends provided him with sex, and served him as maids and nurses... Meng, the former actress, longed to leave, and asked her fellow nurse Yu-feng to put in a plea for her, saying that she was nearly thirty years old and wanted to spend some time with her husband so that she could have a child. 'Wait till after I die and then she can have a child,' was Mao's reply."
2. The Long March 
Mao has long been portrayed as the courageous hero who led the Long March. The real story, according to the book, was very different:
"[Officers] voiced bitter feelings about the way their leaders had abandoned the wounded, and turned ordinary soldiers into 'sedan-chair bearers' for the VIPs and their wives... Mao and the other leaders had 'sat in sedan chairs' all through the March... Not having to walk made the difference between life and death... While the elite all survived, sheer exhaustion killed many of their much younger litter-carriers, nurses and bodyguards, who were often in their teens - and some as young as twelve or thirteen."
3. Rule by Terror
In the 1940s, a large number of passionate young volunteers flocked to Mao ready to serve the country, with equality as the core of their idealism. They were soon disillusioned by witnessing the privileges the leaders enjoyed over the others. When the enthusiasts spoke up against the inequalities, Mao suppressed them with torture and terror.
"For month after month, life in Yenan centred on interrogations - and terrifying mass rallies, at which some young volunteers were forced to confess to being spies and to name others in front of large crowds who had been whipped into a frenzy... All forms of relaxation, like singing and dancing, were stopped. The only moments alone afforded no peace either, consumed as they were in writing 'thought examinations' - a practice hitherto known only in fascist Japan. 'Get everybody to write their thought examination,' Mao ordered, 'and write three times, five times, again and again... Tell everyone to spill out every single thing they have ever harboured and is not so good for the Party.' In addition, everybody was told to write down information passed unofficially by other people - termed 'small broadcasts' by the regime... Through forcing people to report 'small broadcasts', Mao succeeded to a very large extent in getting people to inform on each other. He thus broke trust between people, and scared them off exchanging views not just at the time in Yenan, but in the future... Information starvation gradually induced brain death - assisted vastly by the absence of any outlet for thinking, since one could not communicate with anyone, or put one's thoughts on paper, even privately. During the campaign, people were put under pressure to hand in the diaries. In many a mind, there also lurked the fear of thinking, which appeared not only futile but also dangerous. Independent thinking withered away.”
4. The Great Leap Forward 
Instead of making China an advanced economy, the Great Leap Forward's real goal was militaristic. Mao extracted food from the population to pay other countries in return for arms and military technologies. His ultimate goal was to establish China as a military superpower. What's more, while other counties took generations to achieve this, he wanted to do it within his own lifetime. And he did this in full knowledge that millions of his own people were literally starving to death. These millions meant nothing to him - in fact, he was ready to sacrifice many more millions to achieve his aim.
"His guideline for the cities was 'Production first, Life takes second place'... The urban meat ration declined annually from 5.1 kg per person in 1957 to an all-time low of just over 1.5 kg in 1960. People were told to eat 'food substitutes'. One was a green roe-like substance called chlorella, which grew in urine and contained some protein... That year (1960), the regime's own statistics recorded, average daily calorie intake fell to 1534.8. According to a major apologist for the regime, Han Suyin, urban housewives were getting a maximum 1200 calories a day in 1960. At Auschwitz, slave-labourers got between 1300 and 1700 calories per day. They were worked about eleven hours a day. and most who did not find extra food died within several months. During the famine, some resorted to cannibalism... While all this was happening, there was plenty of food in state granaries, which were guarded by the army. Some food was simply allowed to rot... But the order from above was: 'Absolutely no opening the granary door even if people are dying of starvation'... Close to 38 million people died of starvation and overwork in the Great Leap Forward and the famine, which lasted four years... During the two critical years 1958-9, grain exports alone, almost exactly 7m tons, would have provided the equivalent of over 840 calories per day for 38 million people - the difference between life and death...
Although slaughter was not his purpose with the Leap, he (Mao) was more than ready for myriad deaths to result... At the May 1958 congress that kicked off the Leap, he told his audience they should not only not fear, but should actively welcome, people dying as a result of their Party's policy...
[Mao] had said, 'We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the victory of the world revolution.' That was about half the population of China then. Indeed, Mao told the Party congress on 17 May 1958: 'Don't make a fuss about a world war. At most, people die... Half the population wiped out - this happened quite a few times in Chinese history... It's best if half the population is left, next best one-third...'"
5. Cultural Revolution
Despite the name, real target of Mao’s Cultural Revolution had nothing to do with culture, nor revolution. It was to get rid of anyone in the Party who had shown any resistance to him. He proceeded in stages.
"In June, Mao intensified the terrorisation of society. He picked as his first instrument of terror young people in schools and universities, the natural hotbeds for activists. These students were told to condemn their teachers and those in charge of education for poisoning their heads with 'bourgeois ideas' - and for persecuting them with exams, which henceforth were abolished...
After terror in schools, Mao directed his Red Guards to fan out into society at large. The targets at this stage were the custodians of culture, and culture itself... They 'confiscated' valuables, and beat up the owners. Bloody house raids swept across China, which People's Daily hailed as 'simply splendid'. Many of those raided were tortured to death in their own homes. Some were carted off to makeshift torture chambers in what had been cinemas, theatres and sports stadiums... Some families who had been raided were exiled to villages, escalating a process which Mao had already initiated in order to turn cities into 'pure' industrial centres. In Peking, nearly 100,000 were expelled in less than a month from late August...
By mid-September, the country was thoroughly terrorised and Mao felt confident enough to start stalking his real target: Party officials... the old enforcers who had shown distaste for Mao's extremist policies. Mao aimed to get rid of them en masse, and the call went out to attack them right across China... The first senior official tortured to death was the minister of coal, on 21 January 1967. Mao hated him because he had complained about the Great Leap Forward - and about Mao himself. He was exhibited in front of organised crowds, and had his arms twisted ferociously backwards in the form of torment known as being 'jet-planed'. One day he was shoved onto a bench, bleeding, shirtless in a temperature well below freezing, while thugs rushed forward to cut him with small knives. Finally, a huge iron stove was hung round his neck, dragging his head down to the cement floor, where his skull was bashed in with heavy brass belt buckles."
6. Extravagance
While Mao cracked down on bribery, tax evasion, pilfering state property, cheating, and stealing economic information (the "five-antis"), he himself was exempt.
"Mao himself did not embezzle in the conventional way... he treated the funds of the state as his own, and used them however he wanted... Mao liked villas. During his twenty-seven-year rule, well over fifty estates were created for him, no fewer than five in Peking. Many he never set foot in. These estates were set in enormous grounds, mostly in gorgeous locations. So, in many places of great beauty, the whole mountain, or long stretches of lakes, were cordoned off for his exclusive use... When he flew, every other plane in China was grounded. And when his special train moved, always setting off at a moment's notice, the country's railway system was thrown into chaos, as other trains were not allowed to be anywhere near his."
7. Mao's Mistreatment of Chou En-lai
Chou En-lai served Mao for decades, since long before he came to power until his very late years. In spite of all this loyal service, Mao denied Chou treatment when he was diagnosed cancer in 1972.
"The doctors had to report first to Mao. They requested immediate surgery for Chou, stressing that the cancer was at an early stage, and that prompt action could cure it. On 31 May, Mao decreed: 'First: keep it secret, and don't tell the premier or [his wife]. Second: no examination. Third: no surgery...' One reason Mao did not want Chou to go to hospital and be treated was in order for Chou to be available to work round the clock to deal with foreign statesmen... But entertaining visiting statesmen was not the sole, or even the principal reason why Mao vetoed surgery for Chou. Mao wanted Chou around in the short term, but he did not want him cured, as he did not want Chou, four years his junior, to outlive him. This was miserable reward for decades of service, which had involved a care for his master's health that reached far beyond the call of any duty. Chou had even tested some of Mao's medicines on himself, and tried out Mao's eye-drops - 'to see whether this stings', as he put it...Chou himself then practically begged, via the four top leaders designated by Mao to supervise his medical 'care'. At this point, Mao reluctantly gave his consent... It was only now that he was allowed his first proper operation, two years after his cancer had been diagnosed. This delay made sure that he died nineteen months later, and before Mao."
Closing Thoughts
As I read the book, I felt very thankful to the authors for having taken the tremendous amount of time and effort in doing the research and putting it into writing. They interviewed hundreds of people who were close to Mao, many very aged and ready to open up for the first time. They also delved deep into archives that opened up following the fall of the Soviet Union, in order to tell a story of Mao that previously was genuinely unknown.
I was also thankful to get hold of the book, which remains unavailable on the Mainland. Its Chinese edition was published only in Hong Kong, as the plan to release a Taiwanese edition was abandoned. According to the authors, during the civil war some leading Nationalists had actually been covert Communists. One such "sleeper" was Hu Tsung-nan, a senior National Revolutionary Army general. When the book was about to be published in Taiwan, Hu's son objected to this description, and his threat of legal action led the publishers to abandon the release of the book.
As for the Mainland, naturally enough, the book is banned altogether. After Mao's death, his successor Deng Xiao-ping gave an official verdict about him, saying that Mao had been 70 percent correct and 30 percent wrong. Despite any flaws, Deng said, Mao had kept the country on the right path. Visitors still see Mao's portrait dominate Tiananmen Square as the main national symbol.
To me, this makes the book all the more powerful. History this may be, but it’s not all in the past. While the CCP remains in charge and continues to venerate this man, it casts a long shadow over our future. As a Hong Konger, and especially at this time, I feel very strongly we are still living with the consequences.

Tuesday, 24 June 2014

大衛與歌利亞的九年耐力戰

除了在髮型屋為了打發時間外,平日我已經不看娛樂雜誌。那天在媽媽家裡卻拿起《明周》,翻到內頁把一篇張崇德、劉美娟的訪問,由頭到尾細讀了一遍。
那一期的《明周》以彭順的婚外情為封面故事,但,第 52 頁那篇張崇德、劉美娟的訪問,才是我心中的封面故事。那篇報導沒有娛樂圈新聞的風花雪月,而是關係到一個大家都應重視的問題。
張崇德兒子張天藍的夭折案,經過九年折騰終於有判決,婦產科醫生蔡明欣因專業失德被判停牌兩年。驟眼看這幾頁文字說的不過是一件案、一些數字,和很多的醫學名詞。然而我看到的,卻是張崇德夫婦那非一般的堅毅。他們以雞蛋拼高牆的決心,以九年寶貴時間,為亡兒尋求真相;實在值得我們停下來感受一下,這兩個人九年來所經歷的痛。
雖然我不是媽媽,但也想像到懷胎十月會與體內嬰孩產生那種程度的親密感。滿心期待誕下兒子,他活了 26 小時就離世。驗屍報告說死因是頭部出血,但不用開死因裁判庭。但,為什麼會頭部出血?沒有答案。他們去信衛福局及醫委會投訴,不獲受理。醫委會推說資料不足。
劉美娟誕下兒子後,像其他媽媽一樣都會坐月。但,那是沒有孩子的坐月。
除了哀悼,他們花了人生寶貴的九年,停掉工作,賣掉物業以支付七位數字的律師費,好不容易透過民事訴訟取得醫報告,於 2009 年終於有足夠資料向醫委會投訴,再經過千絲萬縷的手續,聆訊才在 2014 年開始;前後經歷十次聆訊、重複翻看令人抑鬱的錄影帶和資料、重複經歷兒子的生和死。
這九年間,劉美娟再誕下一子一女,身邊很多人都勸說:「放下吧」、「原諒吧」、「向前看」、「已獲得賠償,拿了錢,還搞什麼」、「都有一子一女了,還求什麼」。
難道在哀悼亡兒的同時,花盡心力、金錢、時間去與龐大的醫療體制拉据,在荒謬的申訴制度下尋找真相,是件賞心樂事嗎?張崇德和劉美娟,如果想生活更易過,早已選擇放下。忘記,是多麼吸引人的選擇。可是,假如連他的父母都不去追究,世上就沒有人會為張天藍追究。
因為爸媽,我近年接觸公立醫院的經驗多了。2012 年,媽媽因病在東區醫院留院四天。當我看到大病房環境擠迫,便要求讓媽媽轉往私人病房。我花了三天時間向不同醫護人員作出同一要求,他們卻以不同理由,或拖延或勸說,令「轉病房」這件看似簡單的事,困難重重。
一個護士說,轉房要等醫生決定,但卻說不出醫生何時可決定。另一職員卻說,私人病房沒有床位。第二天,當護士再說要「等醫生決定」,我便請他叫醫生寫清楚不能轉病房的理由,但他說他沒資格吩咐醫生做事。翌日,當醫生單獨見我媽媽時,他說在大病房有更多醫護人員看守,對病人保障更大,勸她不要轉病房。後來護士忽然說私人病房有床位了,但媽媽婉拒--醫生的恫嚇相當有效。
醫院白紙黑字寫明病人有權要求轉往私人病房,但原來,那只是紙上談的權利。
媽媽出院後,十月十日我給醫院和醫管局一封投訴信。一星期後,他們回覆說醫院的目標是於收信後六星期內回覆。我想,花六星期去回一封信?怎料六星期過去,毫無音信。九星期後,醫院終於給我一個 Interim reply,內容是:收到信件,正在調查。我問,為什麼要花九星期去寫一個 Interim reply?醫院冷淡回覆:我們收到你的電郵,相關部門正在跟進。
翌年一月十六日,足足 14 個星期後,醫院終於給我一封回信,花了相當篇幅去重複醫護人員說過的話,指大病房有更多更有能力的醫護人員看守,病人會得到更佳照顧。
私人病房的設立,不是希望讓病人得到更佳環境和照料嗎?醫院卻告訴我:你媽媽住進私人病房的話,有起事上來分分鐘無人理架。雖然在信中他們這樣說:"We sincerely sympathize the distress you and your mother experienced in the ward",但,過程中我完全感受不到他們的 sincerity sympathy
我雖然不滿醫院花了 14 星期去調查後得出的結論,不過,人生苦短,我沒追究下去。
最近,爸爸病發被送到東區醫院,病情反覆,留院達五晚。五天以來,我們多次要求主診醫生與我們通電話或會面,向我們解釋他的病況,但一直不得要領。
留院期間,我們有幸見到醫生,都只是在探病時驚鴻一瞥。例如某天,他為爸爸抽脊髓液化驗時見到媽媽,向她解釋了為什麼要化驗,便匆匆離開。我們只能向護士查詢病情,而護士亦只是憑閱讀醫生寫的記錄去解答。假如在文件上找不到答案,護士也只會說:「要再問醫生。」我請他替我去問,但到第二天探病時,已不是這位護士當值了,作為家屬實在很無奈。
我曾趁醫生巡房時親身到醫院,希望醫生能解答我的疑問,但職員說醫生沒可能逐一會見病人家屬。她甚至解釋,以那位醫生的脾氣,他不喜歡病人家屬等他。於是我前後三次留下手機號碼,請護士着醫生致電給我,但我一直沒有接到他的電話。
出院那天,醫院着我們下午二時三十分接爸爸,我和媽媽到達後呆等一小時。護士說,醫生未準備好文件,請你們六時後再來。
當你的摰親在醫院煎熬了五晚,病情反覆,你們日夜擔心,天天探病,幾乎心力交瘁了;好不容易等到出院,護士卻一副理所當然的語氣,說「你們六時後再回來吧」。是很不合理,但那一刻,你已經沒有力氣去跟那龐然大物周旋。
爸爸出院後,每每想到他住院五晚,但醫生竟沒有花過十至十五分鐘去認真向家屬解釋病況,我覺得很荒謬。我提起精神再一次致電醫院,要求醫生打電話給我。職員說,我會轉達你的口訊,但我不能確保醫生會打電話給你。
至今,我沒有收到他的電話。
比起張崇德夫婦的喪子之痛,我所受的對待,算是什麼。可是,面對龐大的醫療體制、無底深潭一樣的申訴程序(而所謂的程序還是由醫院那方定的),我有感自己是個手無寸鐵的文弱少年,而在我面前的,是歌利亞。
不難理解,無論在醫院受到什麼對待,很多人都因為忙於照顧病者或養病,只會默默承受,任人魚肉。就算像我這樣花時間跟進的,十之八九,都會被醫院的拖字訣、繁複手續、官腔回覆而打沉,說句「算吧」就把事情了結。正中下懷。
醫院處理投訴的手段,幾乎是必勝的。平民百姓,跟這龐然大物鬥長命、鬥資源、鬥官僚,點鬥?正正因為現實如此荒誕,更突顯張崇德夫婦過去九年,活出了大衛的堅執和勇氣。即使旁人不理解、即使人人都勸他們放下,他們還是忍着喪子之痛,堅持下去。
兒子失去生命,醫生承擔的後果是停牌兩年,劉美娟認為判決是不公平的。我不知道他們還會不會繼續追究下去,或者還有沒有渠道追究下去;無論如何,對於兩位為了追尋真相而甘願在過去九年承受漫長的折磨和孤獨,我打從心底裡感到敬佩和感動。他們才是我心中的巨人。我相信張天藍有這樣的父母,一定很驕傲。


文章亦刊於主場新聞

Wednesday, 4 June 2014

被消失的歷史

今年五月底六月初,我和英國人帶父母遊北京。
一名當地土生土長的廿六歲男子阿駱帶我們遊長城。他載我們由長城回酒店的時候,我們見到每道穚上都有公安駐守,便問他原因。阿駱立刻關上所有車窗,才說:「因為很快就六月四日,保安很嚴。」
我們告訴他,每年六月四日,香港都有很多人聚集在一起。阿駱一頭霧水,問:「真的嗎?我不知道啊。」
再問他,有一張相片,顯示當年有一個手無寸鐵的男人站在坦克車面前,擋着一列坦克的去路,你知道嗎?他說,不知道。
旅途的首兩天,我們都用手機 Google 找想到的景點或餐廳。但到第三天,Google 失靈了。阿駱說:「因為太接近六四了,他們停了 Google。這很平常,Google 在這裡是經常『被失靈』的。」
每天吃早餐,英國人都拿一份 New York Times 來讀。那天,他讀着一篇長文,由第六頁橫誇到第七頁,但卻發覺第七和第八頁都消失了,下一頁已是第九頁。他到報紙架拿另一份 New York Times,發現所有 New York Times 的第七和第八頁都消失了。
後來與阿駱提及這件事,他說:「那是給抽起了。那很普遍,很多香港報章來到內地,都會有一兩頁消失了,我們就知道那是政府不想本地人讀到的東西。」
用這種千軍萬馬的力量去堵截任何相關資訊,讓一個廿六歲的中國人,對一件廿五年前在北京發生的事,一無所知。他只知道,那是禁忌,最好不要談,談起的話最好先關好所有門窗。
每次由內地回到香港,我都覺得回家真好,可以用 Facebook,可以用 search engine,可以找回「被消失」的報章來讀,可以討論六四,可以上網找到有關六四的資料、圖片和紀錄片。
可是,這些日子還剩多少?
在北京遇到的這些事件,令英國人更加理解,為什麼香港人每年六月四月晚上,無論是熱死辣辣抑或傾盤大雨,都走出來向世界宣示我們不會忘記。
就是這麼簡單:歷史不應被埋沒,做過的事應該坦承,做錯事更得道歉。在幼稚園學過的道理,我最記得。