尋常原則
AK 提起權宜，勾起我一段小往事。
那年少不更事，隱約察覺新採購計劃可能有人受收回佣，上報尋求指示，問：「若質量能夠上升，你會如何？」老闆略有所思，道：「羊毛出在羊身上，若知道有人這樣，便必須除之後快。」言畢，不了了之，因為根本無法根查。
無法套用原則，唯有權宜。
近者權宜，遠者原則？
為所愛慶祝生辰，自然鵝肝鮑魚分子菜，暫把遠方的難民血鑽凍死骨抛諸腦後。
遠者權宜，近者原則？
權宜與原則，在每個人身上不斷交替運用？
波老闆出現正生疑惑。
作為關心正生書友的一人，對於正生管理層被揭財務情況引起社會懷疑，莫名憂慮之餘，還泛起當年老闆的無奈。
書友們，不要管成年人之間的腥風血雨，要堅守原則。
下定決心權宜，正是我等隔岸觀火無心插柳左顧右盼者所能耍的原則。
29 comments:
CM
"無法套用原則，唯有權宜。"
將社工調離大澳，都算是權宜吧？！
唔捐正生, 都可以捐其它會, 如浪茄的互愛中心,20幾年前就己經好努力做得好好了。
怕的是大家都把最美好的意願投射到正生, 助長了ngo們最緊要響朵而不受監管大花筒的習慣。
如果正生的行為真的有問題, (我是覺得真的有問題), 就讓他們曝光, 等社會自行判斷..
我都覺得正生有問題。
林希聖巧言令色，非可信之人！
I think NGOs certainly have an important role in the society by taking over the burden of HKSAR gov. Yet I noticed that since the lump sum grant policy was introduced, NGOs have run out of control because they thought they need to be competitive and make money to feed the staff. Yet, what they do is not driven by knowledge-based moves, but by a survival instinct + HK ideology "get the money quick by whatever means". They introduce all the new-age stuff (via some kind of professional's mouth) and HK people got the impression that things organized by NGO must be good due to its close-association with the gov and their helping tone (sales in fact) - because in people's mind, they are not profitable therefore they feel that they are cheap and reasonable and their words must be selfless (i.e. not business oriented). But then, what is wrong with business-oriented, it might not be evil if the profit generated is to channeled into more research and more scientific service. Whereas superficially 'non-profitable' organization can make use of accounting rules and regulation to hide the profit in buying larger asset (so become debt), etc. Easy money breed a attitude that no improvement or progress needed, as after all, they also receive huge donation from company and the lump sum grant.
Anyway... NGO is here it is benefiting the society in some way, let accept what it is and try to relate with it - you are right, CM. how to form alliance with them is important, but it is not easy, as there are virtually nothing they can't do themselves.
(22/8/09 12:33 anonymous is not the same as 21/8/09 23.34)
CM: 權宜耶？原則耶？不外乎取捨而矣。幹大事應不拘小節，唯小節亦可壞大事。正生一事，若問罪，正生或須有，但政府失職更大。不應見其小不見其大，輕政府而重正生也。
篤撐：然。正論也。
匿名：以貌取人，唯心斷罪，為鄉民則可，於法治社會則有害。
波老闆：
上次Karen提過呢單野，今次到你提我先至去check下發生咩事，睇左兩則新聞，無睇評論，我覺得，呢單野有唔少疑點。
個人覺得出現最大問題既唔係政府（雖然我都唔對阿局長存有信心），而係女青會高層，其次係鄉事委員會。
我個睇法係鄉事委員會比壓力，而女青會受唔住壓力。政府早排已經風聲鶴唳，我唔想信會敢出新搞作。
篤撐兄：
小弟上次同今次一樣，支持正生會對人既方針，亦同上次一樣，希望書友們唔好理會成人之間既廝殺，最重要係佢地自己。
NGO經常出現財政問題，我覺得廉署介入對於正生會的將來是好事。
21/8/09 23:34 匿名朋友：
你認為「有問題」的地方是哪裏？
Nic:
Some of my friends who worked in NGOs (govt-funded in particular) with very close understanding and work relationships with financials had been telling me the seamy side of their orgs.
To me, NGOs aim to eliminate customers as opposed to "create customers" in profit firms. A common cognitive dissonance is terrorizing NGOs' managers and the public.
As an indirect beneficiary of NGOs, I (wish to) take another perspective to understand and interpret financials of NGOs and social enterprises.
For me, my goal is to increase customers by curing problems, since unsolved problems are immense in number (just people let them be there to brew into big troubles). As long as I can develop more and more solutions to different problems by R&D, for each problem cured, it will generate one credibility unit, ie. people will realize I can solve their problems in different areas of their lives, and bring more to me. I believe that once the individual's problem ( from cognitive disorder, emotional, personality, and even career, relational problems ) are genuinely solved, the society will reduce its number of tragedy and increase its productivity. Since when you save one person from committing suicide (not just temporarily find a counselor to persuade one to withhold the decision) and solve his personality and even cognitive problems, that one person may help to prevent numerous family problems and increase HK productivity as a whole. In long run, HK will be more a knowledge society, I hope.
To me, I think there is a major role for them, although the core problem may not be solved, since it is inside each individual's mind (not in the system). For me, the faster I solve a problem, the more customers will come to realize that there are so many problem left alone before can be solved by me, so I don't have any cognitive dissonance at all.
Win(me)-win(client)-win(society) situation
i.e. Their unit is no. of needy people using their service, hence the no. is at odds with the goal of eliminate customers.
Whereas, mine is no. of problems amenable to be solved, hence services can progress with the level of sophistication of the person = so reducing the number of needy does not translate into fewer customers, but the opposite.
正生的辦學理念是好的,而正生機構的經營手法亦應調查清楚,清者自清, 不足亦可改善之.
>>林希聖巧言令色，非可信之人！
信焉？
Kenka:
嗯，若以陰謀論，政府多月前的倉促咨詢，只是讓正生自暴其短之策，卸責之法。若以負面社會文化論，現正生之境可謂無可避免。但正面看，經歷挫折，乃進步之始。
Nic,
Good to see you don't. I presume some of those in the special circles in you field are struggling vigorously against it.
The effort of eliminating customers shall be overdone to a margin that it becomes the effort of creating customers.
富媽：
贊同！
匿名朋友：
我倒覺得他市井。
既是"原則", 便不應有權宜的彈性.
想有權宜這些"行政之便", 就不要唱高調美名之為原則吧.
問題, 不出在遠近, 出在自欺呢.
Hi C.M.,
Because BM is limited to mechanical learning, so does all those low sophistication ideas e.g. "pinning", "aerobic exercise/crawling/swimming/climbing", they never be able to eliminate customers, but increase it inadvertently - because it creates a full-time housewife (long-term carer, usually with some personality issues after taking on this role) to administer the BM in all walks of life - but after 16 years, they are as still as special in disguised.
For the reason above, none in the special circle can do that ["struggling vigorously against it"], because once they are bited by the bats, they are entrenched with the ominpotent BM, and devoted all the time and energy to do it on their own even they no longer cling to organizations. i.e. the burden of the society is increased no matter special circle stay with the orgnanization or not.
怒眼妹：
猜謎你最醒！
不過，人生欠了點自欺，是否缺了點生趣？=D
Nic,
I day by day see your picture clearer and clearer.
Re: struggling vigorously against it
I got your point. But I usually leave some rooms for (my) maneuvers when it is seemingly an undoubted collective behaviour out there. Why they are converted because they are convertible! (Am I too naive? =p)
哥呀, 我呢, 中意欺人多D, 嘿嘿~
唔好講咁多，讚我靚仔先！
拿, 我既"原則"係欺人必利己, 咁讚你靚仔呢回事...
算, 呢次豪俾你囉, 阿靚仔 :P
又, 咁都無損我原則既, 我都幾愉快, 算利己既. 哈哈!
唔洗豪比我喎，比jetso你又點話丫，靚女。
they are convertable because BM suit the deep need of denial - the majority, despite forced to have the label, will have anger and reluctant to face. Once they accept treatment, it implies they have deficits. They inherited the belief that "only something has gone wrong" e.g. not enough crawling during baby, not enough swinging, not enough climbing, etc. or else the brain should be basically alright. Similarly, they like BM because the philosophy implies very brain is the same when reward/punish correctly (as I have said they assume the brain as blackbox), this exactly comfort them and feed into their magical thinking that train like hell will eventually cure and surpass their buddies.... So there is a intrinsic need to reject the connotation that the brain is the focus because brain in Chinese almost like their esteem. Rather die still protect from talking about the brain, almost like the whole family feel shameful when one got mental illness. Even genuine treatment method is in front of them, they would rather thinking that simple tutoring or teaching will do - just like other kids.
市井可以出忠肝、出義膽。
林生該不是！
Nic,
Thanks for the details. Um, I don't really know I am doing anything to help, but I would like to elaborate my (this) theory of cognitive dissonance, which is very much like a folk theory.
(By assumptions) people tends to choose by own's values/principles/ expectation/preference 原則. While "preference" is meant preset and intuitive choice elicited by a need, such need may never be fulfilled. Here then comes dissonance (i.e. discrepancy between reality and preference). Trade-off 權宜, would then evolve as a secondary option (preferences being the primary) to bridge the dissonance.
The focus of this theory is not how dissonance occurs. I would spotlight how frequent this kind of trade-off is yielded.
If as 怒眼妹, trade-off (in this post as an example) is just self-deceit 自欺, I would argue that this self-deceit happens so frequently that we have never had enough belief in ourselves. In other words, I doubt if people (excl. psychopath) can avoid making trade-off.
But I am not saying "trade-off" has anything to do with good or bad, I wish to emphasize that every conduction of principles comes with a price. Trade-offs are put forward to "optimize" the price.
Get back to the special circle in your field (or whatever situation). Yes, the opponents are strong, but I do strongly believe there are "weak links". I don't believe all people are firm believers in BM, though they really act like one, but they may not think like one.
People needs to be awakened and needs to see the genuine thing.
匿名朋友：
這個我倒不知曉。
Actually, what is valuable is the cross-over of ideas between in-field and out-field, as in-field persons must have a lot of blind spots.
Let you know that my OSA is partially fixed (now keep changing mask to avoid leakage).
Tired, get back to you later. Thanks for your ideas.
Nic,
Thanks for sharing. In simple words I would like to say:
Giving out options would interfere preferences. So, don't worry.
C.M.,
You are unwell, aren't you? Take care my friend, Nic.
Nic, thanks. Getting better today.
Post a Comment