(載〈蘋果日報〉2013年03月18日論壇版)
岳南的三部曲巨著，首部是《南渡》。在全書完卷前，他引了一個插曲。香港淪陷日寇手前一天，重慶派專機來，要接走滯港的一批重要人物，包括陳寅恪一家。結果不成事。據說是孔祥熙二小姐闖的禍；詳情到今天仍是個謎。可因為這樣，就牽涉上宋家的兩位姊姊，還有宋家上下人等的通信，又各自的觀點等。
收筆時，作者表示了自己的感慨：因為政見不同，結果幾年後，「大江大海」的來臨，使骨肉相殘。子文靄齡遠走北美，美齡赴台，慶齡留在新朝。隔海互轟；從此不相見。後來的事，大家都看到了：除慶齡外，其他的都客死他鄉。慶齡這位中華民國的國母，給「封」作中華人民共和國的名譽國家主席。歷史實在諷刺。岳君嘆道，遭此難堪下場的，又何止宋家呢！
固然不止宋家。起碼孫夫人蔣夫人沒有拿着手槍，「互射十二碼」，看誰先倒下。
近讀隋唐史，重溫「玄武門之變」。初中生大概都聽過這個名字，雖然內情都不了了。中學老師強調的，是開盛唐帝國的「貞觀之治」，其他的「中國的陰影」，只輕輕帶過。其實不好。呂思勉先生一代史家，可在他著的國史中，一字不提，只說可用《通鑑》作參考，但實情是不傳的。何故？不得而知。
按封建制度下，君位嫡長子繼承，是維持穩定的做法。不然的話，王子人眾，人人都要做太子，就麻煩了。但李世民一早覬覦帝位，已屬不妥。他要奪嫡，引起太子建成的戒心。建成和弟弟元吉聯手，份屬自然；但據史傳，他並無害世民之意。可世民卻聽信謀臣之計，認為不先下手為強，是無法登基的，就狠下了心。
玄武，是長安城北門，禁衞軍所在地。佔玄武，足以控京師。世民買通了守將，騙兄弟入朝。建成聽到風聲的，卻自恃，發覺中計要逃，太遲了。身為太子，給弟弟的伏兵亂箭射死。跟着世民與元吉拉弓互射，元吉也死。兄弟兩人的頭顱，都給割下。那還不止：他們王府中所有子弟，全給誅殺淨盡。
據說，事後世民入見父王（高祖李淵），「號慟良久」。據說，後來他主持祭事，一身白衣，站在城樓上「號哭」。然後「從善如流，知人善任」，把兄弟門下「收歸國有」。
我不知道，他是否我國古代最大的影帝；總在想：假使日後無「貞觀之治」，大家會怎樣評他？威震天下的天克汗？骨肉相殘的劊子手？
2013-03-13
Students, not institutions, will improve English classes
(Printed on South China Morning Post with title "It's a Matter of Attitude", 11 March 2013)
Learning English can be a parental obsession, a student's headache and a businessman's opportunity. Adverts strongly hint that Hong Kong students must have English to move ahead, yet the business and education sectors still complain about low standards. Naturally, both the government and the public are concerned.
In his budget speech, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah announced government plans to set aside HK$480 million for students receiving overseas training in English at college level.
From what we know, these are scholarships for top-notch middle school leavers who, after completing their education abroad, have to commit for two years to working for Hong Kong, presumably teaching English at the secondary level.
The targeted students are those who attend Ivy League schools, "Oxbridge" and other top schools in the English-speaking world. But why must they go to these universities?
Although Yale's English department is arguably the best, going to Yale is costly. There are plenty of other English departments that are good and cost a lot less. And if they need not be English majors, the field of candidates is even wider.
Just because they go to the best schools, does it mean they will bring back the best training? And how effective will this programme be if they teach for two years and shoot for more lucrative jobs after that? If the newly trained teacher commits for two years and then leaves, how much good will it do the school? The remaining English teachers will probably have to take up their "legacy", a task for which they may not be entirely capable.
Despite Hong Kong employers' love of big-name schools, my experience is that you don't need to study with E.B. White at Cornell. It depends on how hard you work, how willing you are to mingle with the locals, and so on. Having gone to a private liberal arts college for four years, and seeing many who went to North America but did not come back a "good English person", I came to the conclusion long ago that it didn't take a big name, but a big attitude, to train yourself.
As for leaving an impact on students or lifting our secondary standard as a whole, it takes a very long time to do that. You can't do it with a handful of starters who might find it hard to fit into our school system.
Come to think of it, it's embarrassing for our local universities; if their English departments were competent, we wouldn't need to send students out for training, would we? Am I being too hard on the government, or am I being cruel to our professors?
Learning English can be a parental obsession, a student's headache and a businessman's opportunity. Adverts strongly hint that Hong Kong students must have English to move ahead, yet the business and education sectors still complain about low standards. Naturally, both the government and the public are concerned.
In his budget speech, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah announced government plans to set aside HK$480 million for students receiving overseas training in English at college level.
From what we know, these are scholarships for top-notch middle school leavers who, after completing their education abroad, have to commit for two years to working for Hong Kong, presumably teaching English at the secondary level.
The targeted students are those who attend Ivy League schools, "Oxbridge" and other top schools in the English-speaking world. But why must they go to these universities?
Although Yale's English department is arguably the best, going to Yale is costly. There are plenty of other English departments that are good and cost a lot less. And if they need not be English majors, the field of candidates is even wider.
Just because they go to the best schools, does it mean they will bring back the best training? And how effective will this programme be if they teach for two years and shoot for more lucrative jobs after that? If the newly trained teacher commits for two years and then leaves, how much good will it do the school? The remaining English teachers will probably have to take up their "legacy", a task for which they may not be entirely capable.
Despite Hong Kong employers' love of big-name schools, my experience is that you don't need to study with E.B. White at Cornell. It depends on how hard you work, how willing you are to mingle with the locals, and so on. Having gone to a private liberal arts college for four years, and seeing many who went to North America but did not come back a "good English person", I came to the conclusion long ago that it didn't take a big name, but a big attitude, to train yourself.
As for leaving an impact on students or lifting our secondary standard as a whole, it takes a very long time to do that. You can't do it with a handful of starters who might find it hard to fit into our school system.
Come to think of it, it's embarrassing for our local universities; if their English departments were competent, we wouldn't need to send students out for training, would we? Am I being too hard on the government, or am I being cruel to our professors?
2013-03-04
通識天王？
(載〈蘋果日報〉2013年03月04日論壇版)
個人不主張學生補習。
我沒有權利阻止旁人。做父母的要送子女到補習社，有他們的自由。總以為，他們多少懂得計算，知利弊所在。這個「以為」，看來錯了。
撇開收費不說。平情而論，有些科目，你確可以有很精明的導師。比如數學。比如物理學。你可以有一些解釋明白、富經驗的教員，採「工多藝熟」、「業精於勤」等辦法，助學員操練。他們搜羅了過去多年的試題，使大家反覆練習，做到熟能生巧。你不能說沒有可能。有些學科，考試範圍歷年相若；要牢記的公式，比我當年的還少。那麼教師拿捏好技巧、記憶方法、可能的變化等，理論上他有可能幫助學生克服困難的。這樣，他們為招徠「顧客」，用「××科天王」自詡，未必全屬謊言。
他們的做法，也不一定跟學習原意相違背；起碼，在某些學科上是這樣。因為，學生應考時，要「解決」問題；他沒有甚麼「創意空間」可發揮，也不必參詳別人的見解。今天的制度下，多數科目不大要求個人意見的。
但不得一概而論。通識科創辦的目的，與上例背道而馳。你要多少有「創意」，要看不同的材料後，用自己的「獨立思考」，有條理去表達見解。你要「解答」問題，不是「解決」問題。你沒有公式可引用。道理上，十人可有十個相異答案，並沒有「模式答案」的。
所以看到「通識」廣告，直搖頭。
某報推出「通識天王」，說可在三小時內，「解構通識科三年課程」，提升寫作技巧。若然，各校大可取消該科矣！這個科，要考學生的「寫作技巧」？
今天的通識科，分六大單元，理論上層面廣泛。「天王」用兩節課，足使你「保命」，並有「通識過來人溫書計劃」。不久前才與教局友人談過，知他們計劃年年試題不一。那很對。如是，「過來人溫書」有何用？那不是扼殺了每個同學的「獨立思考、個人見解」是甚麼？
最後是一串空洞得可怕的東西：「高端思維模式配合框架及內容」，教你「拆題方向」云云。不知是跟誰說的。如果這是寫作技巧，那是中學會考作文都不該及格了。
別見笑，很多家長趨之若鶩呢！
可憐天下父母心。
個人不主張學生補習。
我沒有權利阻止旁人。做父母的要送子女到補習社，有他們的自由。總以為，他們多少懂得計算，知利弊所在。這個「以為」，看來錯了。
撇開收費不說。平情而論，有些科目，你確可以有很精明的導師。比如數學。比如物理學。你可以有一些解釋明白、富經驗的教員，採「工多藝熟」、「業精於勤」等辦法，助學員操練。他們搜羅了過去多年的試題，使大家反覆練習，做到熟能生巧。你不能說沒有可能。有些學科，考試範圍歷年相若；要牢記的公式，比我當年的還少。那麼教師拿捏好技巧、記憶方法、可能的變化等，理論上他有可能幫助學生克服困難的。這樣，他們為招徠「顧客」，用「××科天王」自詡，未必全屬謊言。
他們的做法，也不一定跟學習原意相違背；起碼，在某些學科上是這樣。因為，學生應考時，要「解決」問題；他沒有甚麼「創意空間」可發揮，也不必參詳別人的見解。今天的制度下，多數科目不大要求個人意見的。
但不得一概而論。通識科創辦的目的，與上例背道而馳。你要多少有「創意」，要看不同的材料後，用自己的「獨立思考」，有條理去表達見解。你要「解答」問題，不是「解決」問題。你沒有公式可引用。道理上，十人可有十個相異答案，並沒有「模式答案」的。
所以看到「通識」廣告，直搖頭。
某報推出「通識天王」，說可在三小時內，「解構通識科三年課程」，提升寫作技巧。若然，各校大可取消該科矣！這個科，要考學生的「寫作技巧」？
今天的通識科，分六大單元，理論上層面廣泛。「天王」用兩節課，足使你「保命」，並有「通識過來人溫書計劃」。不久前才與教局友人談過，知他們計劃年年試題不一。那很對。如是，「過來人溫書」有何用？那不是扼殺了每個同學的「獨立思考、個人見解」是甚麼？
最後是一串空洞得可怕的東西：「高端思維模式配合框架及內容」，教你「拆題方向」云云。不知是跟誰說的。如果這是寫作技巧，那是中學會考作文都不該及格了。
別見笑，很多家長趨之若鶩呢！
可憐天下父母心。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)