第一種是遊客，在遊長城、故宮、頤和園之餘，吃烤鴨、涮羊肉、仿膳，是目不暇給、大飽口福的狂歡。

第二種是偶然來北京出差的人，他們搵食的問題也不大，因為可以重溫他們吃過而且喜歡的那一口。就以烤鴨為例，吃名氣的去全聚德，吃傳統的上便宜坊，吃新派瘦鴨的去大董，喜歡胡同的背包族可以摸去利群。另外，要吃羊肉的可去老牌東來順、可去新派鼎鼎香，甚至去連鎖的小肥羊 -- 北方的羊肉一般都能讓南方人愛不釋口。

對常來訪的人，北京是有足夠的好館子去滿足他們的。我會帶朋友去的地方有：長安一號﹝北京菜﹞、娃哈哈﹝杭州菜﹞、張生記﹝杭州菜﹞、蘇浙匯﹝上海菜﹞、俏江南﹝四川菜﹞、渝香人家﹝四川菜﹞、沸騰魚鄉﹝四川菜﹞、西貝筱麵村﹝西北菜﹞、湘鄂情﹝湖南湖北菜﹞，茶馬古道﹝雲南菜﹞、三個貴州人﹝貴州菜﹞、翡翠﹝潮州菜﹞、烤肉季﹝清真﹞等等。台菜、粵菜、西菜、日本菜、新馬泰越印度菜就不多說了。

有特殊要求的，也總有一兩家特殊餐館來讓大家高興：時髦一族去紫雲軒、四合軒，東方主義者去新紅資、中國會、梅府，喜歡地方特色者去各省政府駐京辦事處的附屬餐館，大款去天地一家、魚翅撈飯、阿一鮑魚、厲家菜、譚家菜，腐敗同盟去各種魚翅鮑魚店。

中午快餐可去老家肉餅、馬蘭拉麵，便餐可去連鎖的小土豆或任何陝西麵館。

總會有幾家館子可以打發各位第二種人。他們甚至會有一個印象，覺得在北京吃得很好。

第三種是像我這樣常住北京的人，我們都深深體會到，北京的館子，總體水平是不如上海、廣州、台北、香港。

北京最有地位、最有學問的玩家兼美食家是王世襄老先生，他對北京館子的總評是：絕望！肉沒肉味，菜沒菜味。我問過他夫婦倆平常吃點什麼，他說平常都不願上館子，躲在家每天吃泡麵！

我有次跟一個開国元老的第二代同桌吃飯，問他在北京有什麼好吃的，他也說：絕望。他說完全同意王世襄的說法。

在北京，老貴族對吃是失望透了，只有以前沒吃過好的新貴才吃得起勁。

平心而論，北京大部份館子的菜都是很難吃的，肉沒肉味，菜沒菜味，用的原料太差，就算濃油赤醬、辣麻亂投也無補於事。

老牌名店，特別是國營的，大都是名過其實、色香味俱不到位的。就算是門面光鮮的大飯館，十居其九似是而非，連味道都調不正。

當然，任何超大的國際城市總會有幾家好餐館，包括外來名店，好滿足遊客和商旅人士。但是，一個常在外吃飯的當地人，就算吃得起，也總不能只跑遊客店和名店，而不去上普通館子。可是在北京，只能如此。

北京好的普通館子太少了，而小食肆更完全靠不住。

一個地方普通館子的菜好吃不好吃，才真正突顯了該地方的膳食文明，更反映了當地人包括土著和外來移民的味蕾水平。北京這方面是偏低的。

怎麼辦？偶然可以去串門，每個北京人都說自己家的炸醬麵和餃子最棒而的確往往不賴，不過僅此而矣，大多數北京人廚藝都很粗。

最好自家做飯，北京市區內仍有早上的菜市，可買到新採摘的四季時令蔬果。另外，肉有好壞，譬如同一份量的本地雞翅，在同一家超市內，價格可以差三倍，因為質素不一樣 -- 一般餐館哪捨得用上好原料！

當然，館子還得上，那就湊合唄。  

 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/30/america/web.0430galbraith.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043000422.html

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=80925

简·雅各布斯 Jane Jacobs于2006年4月25日在多伦多逝世，享年 89岁。

她的1961年经典《美国大城市的死与生》改变了世界各地城市规划的理念，并教晓了大家去欣赏和喜爱城市混杂的高密度群居生活。《纽约时报》曾说该书“之于城市规划就如蕾切尔·卡逊《寂静的春天》之于环境保护运动，而且或许可说是20世纪最重要的写城市的书。”大卫·布鲁克斯有《BOBO族 -- 新社会菁英的崛起》里说：“深刻影响布波族对于组织和社会架构的观点，迄今无书能出其右……同时吸引了波希米亚左派和布尔乔亚右派的忠贞份子。”

该书要到2005年才有了中译本﹝译林出版社﹞。

除了这本成名作外，雅各布斯著作不缀，并积极参与公民行动。她是个好作家、出色的社会观察家、公共知识份子、自学学者、道德的人。

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/25/AR2006042501026.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/books/25cnd-jacobs.html

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145976509962&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Transcribed and translated from a Chinese speech byChan Koon-chung

I was born in Shanghai, but have no memories of the place. Indeed my earliest memories begin in Hong Kong. I lived in Hong Kong since I was a child, and all the way into my adulthood. I have always felt close to Cantonese culture, thanks to my domestic helper, who came from Panyu, and also to the old black and white Cantonese films.

Today’s topic is the cultural imaginary of the Pearl River Delta.

First let me give you an analogy. It will help us understand the cultural relationship between important cities on this Delta: Guangzhou and Hong Kong.

In the 19^th Century, Shanghai was like today’s Shenzhen. It had no cultural identity of its own. At that time Shanghai was a part of the Wu dialect cultural zone, yet the centre of that cultural zone was in Suzhou. Although the Shanghainese dialect was already widely spoken, the Shanghai novel A Chronicle of Flowers in the Sea was written in standard Wu dialect. That says so much about the situation.

In the 1870s, the early years of the Guangzu period, foreign trade had taken place in Shanghai for twenty years. Suddenly anything from Beijing was considered trendy in Shanghai. Commodities from Beijing and Beijing fashion became very popular. It was brought about by the success of a form of xiqu (Chinese opera). Sixty years after the Hui opera troupes entered Beijing to play in celebration of the Emperor’s birthday, a new form had been formed. It had been playing for a little more than two decades by the 1870s. People called it erhuang, xipi, pihuang, or even luantan, literally the “vulgar” opera. There was no unified way to call it in Beijing. Musically it was a mixture of kun opera and other regional innovations. Its orchestra included the strings, wind instruments and a percussion section. In Shanghai it was referred to as Beijing [Peking] opera. Shanghai people fell in love with it. Even when high-class prostitutes looked for lovers, they went for Beijing opera players as their first choice. Beijing opera troupes became more popular than kun opera troupes from Suzhou, the majority of which excelled in singing accompanied by the string section. Musically, Shanghai people now preferred erhuang tunes used in Beijng opera to the arias of Suzhou story-telling, which had previously been loved by the Shanghai people for a great many years. 

Some American scholars looked at this as Shanghai’s cultural challenge for Suzhou.

That was a process in which Shanghai, without its own cultural identity to start with, absorbed elements from the regional Wu culture, Beijing culture of the political centre of Qing Dynasty and the imported foreign cultures, and created something for itself. It was a process of negotiation, competition, transformation and acculturation. Shanghai made use of all these cultural elements and gave birth to its own brand of cultural hybridity.

There was a key issue: Shanghai did not have its own culture at the beginning. But once it became an economic centre, things changed. It has developed into something much more than a major city of cultural consumption. By the early 20^th Century, Shanghai had become the place where almost all cultural entities had to go through for further development and dissemination, because Shanghai was the city in which books, newspapers, magazines, films and music were produced. Shanghai’s economy had taken off, its cultural identity became well-defined. It became the cultural centre of the nation.

Shanghai’s and Beijing’s status of being the national cultural centre was changing all the time. The development of Beijing opera is the best demonstration of this:

In the few years immediately after Emperor Tongzhi’s death, xiqu performance was banned by the Court. The only thing for Beijing opera players to do was to move to the concession zones in other port cities to make a living. Shanghai became the main market for Beijing opera. In the last years of Qing Dynasty, players in Beijing complaint that “good artists can barely made a living; those who are not as good cannot make ends meet.” Therefore many of them looked upon Shanghai as the other centre outside the capital. They believed that “only when one has made it in Shanghai, he has really made it.” Mei Lanfang reminisced in his memoir Forty Years on Stage, “My first performance in Shanghai was the most important turn I have made in my entire stage career …  Everything was making advancement in the Shanghai theatres. They were already making their way to a new direction in the theatre.” After he went back to Beijing, he pioneered “modern plays in ancient costumes”, which created “a new shock wave in Beijing opera” (as described by Ouyang Yuqian). Obviously, there was some tension between this new trend and the traditional practice. It was also in Shanghai when this innovation of Mei was first recognised as a distinctive “Mei School”.

In 1927, the Central Government of the Chinese Republic was established in Nanjing. Beijing (literally the North Capital) was renamed Beiping (literally the “pacified” northern city). Some records of the time describe Beijing as “a city in decline. Its prosperity is no more to be seen. The number of performance has dropped. The only way for famous artists to make money was to go on tour. A tour to Tianjin can bring an income enough for them to live on for half a year. A tour to Shanghai brings an income to last them for a whole year.”

Surely, with such an overwhelming popularity, Beijing opera was also taking root in Shanghai. Shanghai people were developing their own Beijing opera. At first they were called the Southern School and did not receive as much respect. Then talents emerged. A good example was Zhou Xinfang. He merged Chinese and Western theatrical techniques in his performances, and built these on the conventions established by old masters. This resulted in a hybrid form of total theatre, often identified as the Zhou School of Shanghai style of Beijing opera. This was particularly popular among the common folks and young intellectuals.

Since 1949, the Central Government has been stationed in Beijing. The national cultural centre followed political powers and moved back to Beijing, and so did the centre of Beijing opera. Some critics observe that since the 1950s, Shanghai styles of Beijing opera have declined and Shanghai troupes have been playing in styles increasingly similar to Beijing styles. But this is yet another issue.

What does the story of Shanghai and Beijing opera tell us? I would like to draw your attention to three facts and a personal opinion of mine: 1. Cultural centres are mobile rather than fixed. 2. Cultural identity is not already formed and stable. It is constantly in the process of constructing and merging with foreign elements. It is changing all the time. It needs to be re-imagined and re-defined all the time. It is true for Shanghai culture. It is also true for Beijing culture. 3. The status of being the cultural centre and the cultural identity of a place are both affected by its political and economic power. Economic centres are often centres of cultural consumption. Often they are also centres of cultural production and dissemination. My personal opinion is: Outstanding talents such as Mei Lanfang and Zhou Xinfang facilitate historical developments of certain phenomena.

These three facts and one personal opinion are indeed applicable to Hong Kong. Guangzhou is an important historic city. It started trading with the West since the 16^th Century. It was already a sophisticated major city in southern China long before Hong Kong was developed. Hong Kong was not taken seriously by some British colonials even after it was ceded to Britain. But not long after that, in 1876 it was said among Chinese critics that since the rise of Hong Kong, four important Chinese cities had declined. It was followed by the comment that since the rise of Shanghai, Hong Kong had declined. There was a report in an English newspaper that the British merchants in Shanghai felt superior to the British merchants in Hong Kong. British firms in Hong Kong started new companies in Shanghai and focused on their business there. I do not think that Hong Kong had taken over Shanghai in terms of their economic status before 1949. Chinese culture in Hong Kong has already been closely related to Guangdong culture. The three major streams of Guangdong culture, namely Guangzhou (Canton), Chao-San (Chaozhou and Hoklo) and Hakka, have infiltrated deeply into the daily life of Hong Kong. Cantonese opera called themselves Guangzhou-Hongkong troupes, identifying themselves with these two cities in the south and north of the Pearl River Delta. The imaginary of a common cultural community of Guangzhou and Hong Kong was going very strongly in the last Century during the early Republic years. Possibly Guangzhou was still ahead of Hong Kong, since it was the stronger partner in terms of Cantonese culture. During the war with Japan, Hong Kong became the gathering point of the literati and cultural workers. But it only lasted for a short time with the beginning of the Pacific War.

Changes began to take place after 1949. The imaginary of a common cultural community of Guangzhou and Hong Kong did not disappear altogether, but it was much less prominent. Gradually Hong Kong developed into a regional economic centre, as well as a centre for cultural production. Even Cantonese opera and the Lingnan School of Chinese painting found sanctuary in Hong Kong and Macao. For example, Gao Jianfu, one of the most important masters of the Lingnan School, migrated to Macao in 1949 before he died there in 1951.

Hong Kong culture after 1949 was a hybrid entity merging different elements together. It was based on traditional Chinese culture, especially the indigenous Cantonese culture. It took in influences of the colonial English-language culture, contemporary national culture centering in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, and also of world cultures. The influence of cross-national cultures that flooded in after WWII was particularly significant. A unique hybrid culture with distinctive Hong Kong characteristics emerged. Popular music in Hong Kong has developed its own unique style of arrangement, lyrics and delivery. Some are even accompanied by Chinese instruments. This hybrid music has achieved a very unique style and has gained the label of “cantopop”.

During the years of China’s economic reform and opening up, Hong Kong popular music, films and TV soap operas had dominated the region for a very long time. The programmes of TVB, a Hong Kong television channel, had engaged 90% of the television audience. But Guangzhou and the Pearl River Delta have taken advantage of the economic reform and been strengthening their economic power as well as  cultural production. Now Hong Kong TV programmes only engage about half of the audience over there. Although they still dominate reception, it is experiencing a long-term decline. A dual-centres scenario is resuming.

One can see that the status and relationship of Guangzhou and Hong Kong also need to be re-imagined and re-presented every now and then. We have come to such a time again, because there is now anxiety on both sides: the wonderful old story of Hong Kong has been told and finished without a new one ready to come in place; the story of Guangzhou being the pioneer of reform has also turned into cliché; Shenzhen even starts to ask who have abandoned them. Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shenzhen are asking the same question: what is the next climax? One potential framework is the idea of a Region of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao . Some people prefer to think about a Greater Pearl River Delta, some a Pan-Pearl River Delta. I propose to an entity call Guangdong-Hongkong- Macao. I will talk about the details for such a region in the rest of this paper.  

Pearl River Delta today is a continuous built-up region of cities and towns. One easily feels the impulse for the imaginary of a regional community. For the time being, Pearl River Delta has only inspired the imaginary of an economic zone, with certain implications on the possibility of some form of administrative coordination. A cultural imaginary for the region is yet to construct. Can a region have its own cultural identity to facilitate a cultural imaginary of its own? I think so. Silicon Valley in the U.S. is an example of this. It is a production region, and also the general name for a loosely coordinated administration zone. It has developed its own culture and inspired the imagination in people all over the world.

There is one point worth notice: if there is a central city in Silicon Valley, it should be San Francisco which is located at the northern tip of Silicon Valley. However strong the cultural identity of Silicon Valley is, there is no way it can overwhelm the distinctive identity of San Francisco. The two identities are distinct. There is a regional identity, and there is an identity of the city. The two co-exist on a long-term basis. When we talk about Pearl River Delta, it is not necessary to eliminate the cultural identities of Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Macao. When Pearl River Delta becomes the theme of the new story, Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Macao will still need to tell their own stories. Among these three places, Macao has already found out how to start its own new story, and how to develop the brand name of the city.

There is another similarity in the comparison. Apart from San Francisco, San Jose in the southern tip of Silicon Valley also claims to be the capitol city of Silicon Valley. Although San Jose is trying very hard to find its own cultural identity by building its own sports centres, theatres and museums, it still lags a long way behind San Francisco. Many people go to San Jose, but only to watch matches or to repair their cars. At best San Jose is a tourist city for carnivals.

Can an economic zone accommodate two or even more cultural cities? I do not think there is a definite yes or a definite no. Guangzhou and Hong Kong already share much of their cultural content in an intimate past. Now there are their own advantages to think about. The question is not whether these two cultural centres can co-exist, but in what way they complement each other.

If we change some of the signs and extend our imagination a bit, we might be able to think about Guangdong instead of Guangzhou as a part of the common community. Instead of talking about Guangzhou-Hongkong-Macao, we could be talking about Guangdong-Hongkong-Macao. This region is small than southern China, or Lingnan (south of the Ridges), or Pan-Pearl River Delta, or even the Guangdong-Guangxi Provinces. But it is bigger than the Greater Pearl River Delta. If in our mind we envelop Pearl River Delta with an even greater imaginary called Guangdong-Hongkong-Macao, we will gain extra room in our imagination, because this entity has a more profound cultural content, more intimate shared history, and existing administrative structures to support this imaginary.

Why don’t we simply do our own things? What is the point of imagining a Guangdong-Hongkong-Macao community? One must bear in mind that the population of such a community is similar to the total population of the two Korea added up together, and larger than that of Britain, or France, or Germany. The GDP in this region is two and a half times of that of the Yangtze River Delta. As one single unit it is the Chinese region that has come closest to being a developed region. It is estimated that the average income per capita of Shenzhen will reach US,000 in 2020. This region now needs discourses and imaginations that go beyond the purely economic ones such as being the factory of the world, or representing shops at the front supported by manufacturing plants at the back, or having a boost in the GDP. At this stage, its production needs upgrading, the added value of its service industries needs to be raised. Moreover, its consumption pattern needs to change. More emphasis needs to be put on internal consumption of high-value good. The people demand their living standard to be improved. They are expected their rights to be fulfilled. This region is entering the stage of information economy, or even experience economy. It needs to develop human resources, social resources and cultural resources. In other words, the region has reached the stage of economic growth in which the singular economic thinking in the past is no longer enough. It needs much consideration on cultural value of the society. Creativity in the broad sense has to be put on the agenda in order to inspire new imaginations, or new visions, as in the title of this Guangzhou Triennale: the Imagination Beyond. We need to go beyond a singular economic imagination, to imagine beyond what is happening at present. Even for the economic imaginary of the region, we need to emphasise that this is a place where talents outside the region are welcomed, and that it is a friendly place for immigrants to create a career for themselves. Such imaginary is already proved valid in reality.

There are other “imaginations beyond” we should take seriously at this moment. Some of them are listed as follows:

1.      An imaginary of a common community of ecological sustainability: This region is not only the factory of the world. It does not only represent shops at the front supported by manufactory plants at the back. We are an ecological common community because pollution recognizes no borders.

2.      An imaginary of a highly livable common community: This should be a region where people settle happily. It should be a safe place to live in. Transportation should be well-organised and traffic smoothly flowing. The supply of high-quality local fresh produce should be reliable. No toxic vegetable or toxic fish is tolerated. There is no place for commodity piracy. There should be no low-quality architecture or unnecessary urban sprawling into the countryside.

3.      An imaginary of a harmonious and just civic common community: Social security, the rule of law and good administration should be ensured. Corruption and the gap between the rich and the poor should be narrowed down.

4.      An imaginary of a creative cultural common community: This is an insightful vision. It is also ambitious. This is to say that if Korea can do it, the region of Guangdong-Hongkong-Macao can do it on our own, without having to mobilize help from the entire country. The first task is to put into good organization the structure, policy and production chain of cultural creative industries of the three places. In time, this region will accomplished in its creative industries what Korea, Britain, France and Germany have achieved as nations. But there is one condition for this: Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao have to form a common cultural community.

There is already the precedent of economic zones. We should seek to create cultural zones before regional administration system emerges.

Once a region has established itself as a cultural centre, a unique local cultural identity will emerge from the process of exchange and transformation.

To end this paper, I will make a few more comments on creative industries: I have written elsewhere on the room for collaboration of the creative industries of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao. I will not repeat myself here. In short, the three places complement each other considerably.

However, like many things in China, to accomplish them you need government policies to back you up. I stress that creative industries in Guangdong and Hong Kong can become huge. They can consolidate the internal market of the region itself. They can also take in the national market. After this, they can reach out to do export. But the critical point is in Guangdong. All depends on whether the system and policy in Guangdong follow the scientific rules of development. To ensure this, we need the long-term commitment of the Central Government in a practice that has already been proved to be working miracles: To designate Guangdong as the trial place and pioneer of creative industries by implementing special policies there. The Governments of Guangdong and Hong Kong should collaborate to persuade the Central Government to abolish border control for creative industries between Guangdong and Hong Kong, so that the two places can facilitate flow and establish a common community in terms of their creative enterprises, capital, human resources, production chain, contents and markets. In such a way, economies of scale can be achieved. When two strong players forge a partnership, they will become even more competitive in the market.

At the same time, talents among the cultural workers of the three places can open up another space in the imaginary of their own habitat. They can draw a new mental map and assume a new cultural identity that goes beyond what we see today. We might start eradicating the psychological barrier we feel for the other two places because of the geographical distance and administrative difference between us. In this way, we can really construct, in the midst of competition, exchange and transformation, a common community of creative culture between Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao.

  創意產業

 在上世紀的80、90年代，香港的某些創意產業在華文地區有過稱得上「中心化」或主導化的輝煌，我們的廣告人員，促進了國內和台灣廣告業的轉型，我們的武俠小說風靡大陸，我們的電影拖垮了台灣當地的商業電影工業，並深深吸引了國內觀眾，我們的電視台幾乎獨佔了廣東的收視，電視劇傲視兩岸及海外華人市場，而我們的流行音樂也和台灣的同行一起在內地領導風騷。
 相對於那個時期，現在香港的創意產業是在一項一項的讓出主導的位置，譬如說：國內的廣告中心現在是上海和北京，對香港的依賴越來越低，跨境古裝電視劇的主導權已經在大陸，香港TVB在廣東收視仍可觀但份額變小，而粵語流行曲成了粵港的地區音樂，真的像是被邊緣化了。
 香港不再是華文創意產業的唯一中心，以後也不會是，不過我們依然可以是很耀眼的明星，依然有抗邊緣化的條件。以華人城市而言，香港的創意產業仍穩站在前三名。
 有些創意產業已經得益於國內市場的開放，譬如說各類設計行業忙著接國內項目，我們的著名商業設計師、室內設計師、建築師的業務量都增大了。在網絡和移動電話上的新生媒體，港資參與也比較多。這裡看到一個規律：能夠結合國內市場的創意產業將有實質的增長，那是個活門，裡面海闊天空，我們雖不是產業的獨大中心，但隨著國內市場的成長，我們的未來產值和實際收益可以比以前大。
 香港內部市場小，在美歐日韓以至國內的圍攻下，香港的創意產業如果不打出去一點，長期來說是有可能被進一步邊緣化、市場內捲化，以至內爆。
 香港創意產業的前景，一言蔽之，成也大陸、敗也大陸。
 現在的難度在於光是我們一方下決心還不夠，因為國內設了很多市場以外的障礙，不讓你輕易進場。譬如說國內的雜誌和圖書出版社名義上都是國家的，由港資真正擁有的絕無僅有，投資者只是承包商，等於付租金的房客，最終是沒有產權保障的，除了易生紏紛外，還減弱了作出大量投資和長線經營的決心。
 國內還有個「大市場、小生意」的悖論，就是消費者雖多，可合法回收的錢卻很少。國內電影院總票房去年是20億左右，已經算是近年表現最好的一年，比香港這個700萬人城市全盛期的票房多不了一倍。戲院票房的現象還不能全怪盜版，而是國內電影發行與播放配套系統嚴重不到位的問題。就是說，國內市場也受到本身體制和政策的限制而未能發揮潛力。
 國內不改好，香港也好不到那裡去。
 創意產業特別是媒體是中國的「開關」行業，一回開，一回關，權在官手，依據的不是市場理性，而是三方面的奇怪結合：意識型態控制、官僚自便與自保的習氣、國內產業利益集團的保護主義。
 所以問題不只是我們有沒有決心，或有沒有競爭力，而是我們不一定能夠有平等機會參與國內的發展。
 回歸進入第十年的今天，這正是香港特區政府應做的事 --  明白的作為香港的利益代表，與國內其他強勢利益集團或聯手或較勁，向中央爭取機會平等的准入政策。
 CEPA為香港電影界創造的條件，是一個開始，應推而廣之，讓港人能夠產權清楚的在國內成立圖書出版社、雜誌社、報社、電台、電視台、影視製作發行公司、動漫基地、網絡和移動電話服務提供、建築事務所……
 廣東是國內明白香港文化也深諳國內文化的唯一「雙向」地區，我一直寄望廣東能成為試點，讓粵港兩地的創意產業真正結合互補，因為廣東的創意產業也面臨著被邊緣化的問題，靠自己發展創意產業，不若跟香港聯手，雙翼齊飛，廣東弱的正是香港強的，香港弱的正是廣東強的，合則雙贏，分則俱敗，本是最佳拍檔，奈何貌合神離。  

香港文化

  文化的邊緣化意味著從中心位置向外移、靠邊站，或是有外力要把你替代掉。
 曾經有一度歐洲的共通語言是法語，後來英語崛起，法語可說相對的被邊緣化。
 台灣在光復後，政府曾強勢打壓台語文化，學校不准說台語，連傳統的歌仔戲都被禁演，我們可以說台語文化當時在台灣是被邊緣化了。
 香港文化一向身份鮮明，很有特色，但是在世界以至海峽兩岸，卻從來不曾佔過中心位置，故嚴格說現在不應有被邊緣化的焦慮 –  其他地方的人看我們的創意產品不等於認同我們的文化，就如香港人愛看美國片卻不表示他們像美國人。 
 香港文化只對某些海外華人的離散社會有相對主導的地位，至今在彼邦仍是與台灣文化、大陸文化並存而互不替代。港式文化在廣東和華南雖甚為流行，但說不上擠掉了當地民間文化或49年後強勢趨同的國家文化。
 此外，在香港內部，我認為至今也沒有任何強勢外力硬要把我們原有文化替代掉，故談不上被邊緣化。
 我認為值得提出的問題，倒是近年香港文化的內部變化，如何影響香港的發展，是不是在削弱我們的競爭力。
 香港文化不是一種單文化﹝mono-culture﹞，而是多元複合文化，不是一兩句話可以打發掉，我曾經用過至少五個維度來談香港文化的特色：CAN DO文化、工夫文化、半唐番文化、城市文化、世界主義文化，都是很容易被香港人理解甚至認同的，很豐盛的 -- 或曾經很豐盛的 -- 屬於香港的一部份。我認為這是香港的幸運，因為這些文化資本、思想DNA，如善加利用，是特別有利於香港在這個中國崛起的全球化時代的發展和競爭。
 可是，在過去十來年，我們的文化資本不單沒有增長，反而稍有萎縮，這五個維度沒有良性的進化，反而原地踏步甚至退化，文化優點沒有被發揚，反而常被遮蔽，缺點卻露出來了。
 以下我舉CAN DO文化與工夫文化為例來談香港的發展：
 
Can Do精神、工夫精神

 新加坡的李顯龍政府近年鎖定國策是「研究發展」﹝research and development﹞、「創業創意」﹝enterprise and creativity﹞。這都是關係到CAN DO文化與工夫文化的。新加坡很虛心的知道自己這方面的不足，李光耀資政就說過新加坡人缺乏創業創新的精神，所以現在要用大力氣去推動。
 創業創新 – CAN DO精神與工夫精神 -- 本來已經是香港文化的一部份，但我們卻讓之淍榭。有調查說在中國大城市中，香港人現在的創業意欲是偏低的。
 前財政司梁錦松和特首曾蔭權都提到CAB DO，我們的CAN DO精神去了哪裡？
 CAN DO是勇於猛進、敢於接受挑戰、不怕克難吃苦的精神，但基本上是一種樂觀的心態，表示只有在蛋糕越做越大、人人明天都會更好的時候，大家才會來勁，願意去do。如果阻力不可克服、沒有成功機會，再can do的香港人也會變得no can do。曾蔭權說香港高地價、高租金、高工資，這樣的長期營商環境，只有大企業和高價值的行業才受得了，誰願創業、誰敢亂do？
 何況現在創業不能只是勇字當頭、拍拍胸脯就做，今時今日的競爭環境，沒有幾下工夫能創出什麼業？創業要有創意，創業就是創新，沒工夫就白搭。但我們的工夫精神還在嗎？
 工夫，或作功夫，現在約定俗成可以通用，不過若按《說文解字》，則工者，巧飾也，像人有規距也，而功者，以榮定國也。 
 香港的常用語裡不乏工夫兩字： 
 考工夫，落足功夫，真工夫，好好工夫，手作工夫，練工夫，冇恁上下工夫點學人行走江湖，白費工夫，工夫茶。 
 北方話裡有：工夫不錯，下工夫，硬工夫，工夫到家，只要工夫深鐵柱磨成針，臉上工夫，桌上工夫，床上工夫，工夫在詩外。 
 明代冯梦龙的《醒世恒言》說到水磨工夫：掺水细磨，形容工作深入细致费时。
 有純指時間的工夫：冇幾耐工夫，沒工夫，一貶眼工夫，一箋茶工夫。 
 當然還有聞名中外的拳腳工夫、中國功夫，指武術、武功，是工夫的一種，廣東人說的打工夫，即打鬥的工夫。 
 可見工夫是香港人以至華人生活文化的一部份，是全民皆曉的常識。 
 工夫兩字的含義是非常豐滿的。當我們誇一個外科醫生的工夫好，這工夫其實包括著知識、理論、技術、鍛練、經驗、藝術、想像力、身心配合、執生、耐力、操守、修養、敬業樂業、專業傳承、團隊合作以至為人民服務精神。同樣地，不論是一個廚師、動畫師或管理人，他的工夫也應包括上述所有元素。政治家也如此，要有治大國如烹小鮮的工夫。 
 粵語裡還有很多跟這個廣義的工夫有關的詞，如工多藝熟、熟能生巧、藝高人膽大、細藝、子細、扎實、有諗頭、有章法、好手勢、好手尾、燃手、熟手、交帶。 
 可以說，香港人是能夠很直覺的明白工夫的道理的，我們以往的價值觀是尊重工夫的。關德興演的黃飛鴻電影，講仁義講道德，背後有高超的技巧﹝武功﹞做後盾。當然，那功夫是從扎馬開始苦練出來的。 
 但香港後來發生了什麼？後來淪落至周星馳電影《功夫》裡的「反工夫」：那主角不學無術，欺善怕惡，招搖撞騙，隨時犧牲他的唯一肥仔朋友，為向上爬不惜投靠斧頭匪幫，然後忽然發覺自己是真命天子，天生異稟，不勞而獲的變成武功蓋世。 
 這是一種中六合彩狂想，香港工夫精神的墮落。

  大創業、大創意

  廣義的創業，除了指創業家﹝entrepreneur﹞的新事業外，還指企業內部要有創業型幹部﹝intrapreneur﹞，以至政府和公共機構內部也要擺脫官僚習氣而推動積極創新的精神。
 廣義的創意、創新涵蓋面也越來越廣，由十幾個行業的「創意產業」，擴大至包括律師、會計師、企業管理人等知識工作者的「創意階層」，即每個行業都要有創意，再擴大至創意社會、創意經濟，即整個社會和經濟體都應該是學習型的、創新型的。中國政府新的五年計劃也把創新提到國策層面。
 國內有大文化、大藝術的說法，廣義的創業與創意可稱為大創業、大創意。
 創業要有CAN DO精神，但光是CAN DO沒用，還要有熬下去的克難工夫、有真材實料的創新工夫。創意創新更先要練好內功外功，所謂藝高﹝工夫﹞人膽大﹝CAN DO﹞。
 研究發展就是工夫加CAN DO，創業創意就是CAN DO加工夫。
 或許香港有些方面是應該向新加坡學習的。
 香港經濟和社會的進階發展，需要港人重拾原來就屬於香港的兩種精神：CAN DO與工夫，缺一不可，要同步發揚CAN DO文化與工夫文化。這不是懷舊，是前瞻。 

英国一群左翼思想家最近发表宣言，重申了一次他们认同的左派立场。由于一连串会议在伦敦尤斯登的一家酒吧举行，故称“尤斯登宣言”﹝Euston Manifesto﹞，作者以“尤斯登宣言小组” 自称，宣言摘要4月中刊登在英国《新政治家》﹝New Statesman﹞刊物和该刊的网站上http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/eustonmanifesto/2006/04/07/manifesto/ ，现并在网上广为流传。

该小组有两个成员署名写了个导言，一个是英国知名时政评论员Nick Cohen，另一个是曼彻斯特大学政府学教授Norman Geras﹝诺曼·格拉斯﹞ http://normblog.typepad.com ，格拉斯至今自称马克思主义者，同时严厉批判历史上的马克思主义，中国注意英国《新左评论》刊物和所谓“后马克思主义” 的思想界对格拉斯应不陌生。

 尤斯登宣言反映的是英国和美国部份进步人士对“左派” 的界定，目的是澄清左派应有之义。该宣言的主张，跟中国的新左派的自我理解大异其趣，反有点像秦晖所提出的“共同底线”加上国际主义。

 以下是摘要的选译：

 我们是民主人士和进步份子。我们这里提议重新作政治排列。

  我们之间很多人属于左派，不过我们订下的原则并不排他，反而是由社会主义的左派再延伸至平等主义的自由派和其他对民主毫不含糊的有承担的人士。

  支持民主。言论、集会、选举自由，三权分列，政教分隔。尊重自由的、多元的民主国家的传统、制度和善治。

  不为暴政说话。我们拒绝制造借口去沉迷的“理解”那些视民主为仇敌的反动政权或运动。我们要与那种为暴政找开脱说辞的左派或自由派声音划清界线。

  普世人权。我们坚决认为由联合国声明制订的基本人权确是普世性的，践踏这个权利者，要受到谴责，不分文化情境。我们反对那种认为基本人权不适用于某等国家的文化相对主义观点。

  反对“反美利坚主义” 。不能因为美国外交政策曾反对进步运动和政府，并曾支持退步和威权政权，而因此支撑笼统的对该国和其人民的偏见。

  联手对付恐怖主义。故意以平民作为目标是国际法的犯罪行为。

  新国际主义。有必要的人道干预不是否定主权。当到了非人道，国际社会有“保护的责任” 。

  吸取斯大林主义和毛主义灾难性罪行对左派的历史教训。左派的悲剧之一是有些还没有学到这一课。

  思想自由包括批评任何宗教的自由。

 拒绝去恐惧现代性、恐惧自由，拒绝非理性主义和对女性的压迫。我们重新肯定那些启发18世纪民主革命的号召思想：自由、平等、团结、人权和对快乐的追求。这些启发性的思想通过19、20世界的社会民主、平等、女权和反殖民转变，成了我们的传承。

 有论者称这个宣言的立场为“新进步主义” 。

 
   胡锦涛主席访美期间，与布殊总统午餐会谈的前几天，美国政治学者Michael T Klare发表文章认为现任的布殊政府和新保守派的全球战略是要歇制中国、围堵中国。Klare的文章先是在4月19日出现在著名美国自由派网站salon.com ，题目是『瞄准睡龙』﹝Taking Aim at the Sleeping Dragon﹞http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/19/klare，然后4月20日在一个重要的亚洲时评论坛Asian Times上再刊登，题目改为『歇制中国：美国的真正目标』﹝Containing China: The US’s Real Objective﹞http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad01.html 。

以下是该文大意摘要：

  布殊政府的大战略不是为了对付全球恐怖主义、流氓政权，或在中东散布民主，这些只是嘴巴工夫和眼下的关注点。从财政预算、军事布局和关键性的决策来看，真正的目标是要歇制中国。

 这个目标在布殊在任的头七个月是明确的，911之后被外界忽略，现在虽仍要处理伊拉克和伊朗问题，但布殊政府已经重新强调它的首要关注点是中国。这是会引起亚洲区的军备竞赛和其他严重后果的。

 布殊政府在2001年上台后，就表明要执行在苏联解体后发表的第一份正式美国战略文件：1994至1999财政年度『国防规划导引』﹝Defense Planning Guidance，简称DPG，由当时国防部副部长保罗·沃尔福感茨拟订﹞。据1992年泄露给媒体的初稿，美国会歇制任何在一个区域内取得足够资源、因此足以成为全球强国的对手。这叫永久称霸原则﹝Permanent-Dominance Doctrine﹞。

 当时美国国内和盟友都有批评说这是帝国式的傲慢﹝imper