辛亥革命後逃脫的管治DNA—「社會」主義

中國歷代開國皇帝多數非皇族出身，推翻前朝，登上皇位後，受萬民景仰，同時也必遵守由文武百官規管的宮廷律例及制度。皇帝擁有至高無上的權力，但其行為也受宮廷制度約束，自由受到限制。這種矛盾的權力制約是如何維持？中國幾千年來採用的政治制度，以皇帝為核心，而「帝制」 的基石是「天子」的神聖地位。皇帝乃「天子」，名正言順，天與人歸，百姓必須服從，但同時「天子」亦深信自己能登上此位乃是天命在身，其言行自然也應當從規蹈矩。此乃孔子儒家思想中的治國理念，配合君臣父子的倫理道德規範，建構所謂可以長治久安的社會。

中國幾千年歷史已告訴我們，事實並非如此！歷朝歷代都免不了經歷興衰週期，人民總有對政權不滿的聲音，也總有官府以外的民間團體，即所謂「黑社會」在運作，而當政權開始腐敗，管治能力衰落到了極點時，必有民間團體出來反對朝廷，最終某派「黑社會」成功推翻朝廷，改朝換代！這黑幫首領，搖身一變，成為「天子」，一個時代又從新開始！朱元璋如是，魯爾哈赤如是，最終都接受帝制的教化，從黑社會龍頭老大蛻變成名正言順的天子。而本來的黑社會亦升格為朝廷，朝廷等同國家，剷除異己既是保衛國土安全之神聖責任，也同是保障皇親國戚（原來的黑社會群體）永享榮華富貴的合法舉措。夏、商、周、秦、漢、三國、晉、南北、隋、唐、宋、元、明、清，循環不息。

直至公元1911年，以孫中山為首的「黑社會」推翻滿清，同時廢除皇帝制度。問題在於帝制被廢除後，無規可範，惟繼續以「黑社會」模式經營和管治。經歷一百多年的優化過程，規模宏大，「龍頭老大」改稱「主席」，「紅棍」叫做「總理」，「黑社會」模式亦正名為「社會主義」，但基本元素卻保留至今。例如，傳統「黑社會」要求各環頭從上到下必須絕對忠誠，上級向下級洗腦，各環頭大老利益割據，時不時出現激烈和殘酷的內鬥，元老們在背後仍有話事權，可以指點江山，提拔自己人上位等等；現代「黑社會」大老的夫人們還必需擁有外國護照，身家存放於境外銀行，後路常開以保家人平安等等。

從歷史角度看，自辛亥革命後，中國人的管治DNA逃出了幾千年的帝制樊籠，中國特色的「社會主義」模式得以弘揚，人民也終於獲得真正的中國式「民主」和「自由」！但從演進過程的角度來看，一百年、甚至兩百年也只是短暫的過渡期，中國特色「社會主義」能否持續，達致長治久安，亦有待証明。

2021年12月30日

英式優雅—II

話說英國「耆英」雜誌本年7月曾致函英女皇的私人秘書 Sir Edward Young，欲頒發「年度耆英」 (The Oldie of the Year) 名銜予英女皇。其後，女皇的私人秘書助理 Tom Laing-Baker 於8月回覆，婉拒接受該獎項。民間媒體引述回覆，稱女皇不認老，不願意接受「耆英」稱號！

翻查紀錄，以往獲頒此銜的知名人士，都不外乎是藝人、慈善家、政客等，若「年度耆英」能蒙英女皇接受，身價必定大幅攀升。所以，說要授予女皇一項榮譽，到頭來究竟是誰叨誰的光？英女皇乃一國之君，雖無實權，但身份尊貴，區區一個民間銜頭，她怎會稀罕？女皇拒絕接受，實屬意料中事！令人佩服的是 Laing-Baker 代表女皇的回覆，盡顯皇室的素養和風度，既要傳達準確信息，同時亦須保持恰當的親民形象。

且看 Laing-Baker 的回覆如何巧妙。一開始來個英式幽默，說女皇相信「你覺得你的年紀有多大就有多大」（you are as old as you feel)！即是說女皇有多老與你何干！這裡的 "old" 字可以解作「老」，但亦可解作「年紀」。英文 "how old？" 是問你的年紀，不一定是問你有多老。Laing-Baker 在這裡巧妙的利用 "old" 字的雙重意義，表面上給你解釋女皇對年齡的看法，卻幽默地透露女皇「不認老」的信息。接下來便順理成章的指出，由於女皇不覺垂暮，故不能接受「年度耆英」之稱號。雖然明顯是要拒絕接受，卻謙稱「女皇不相信她能符合獲獎的條件 」(Her Majesty does not believe she meets the criteria ...) ，自貶不配，暗表不願！

Laing-Baker 借用女皇不認老的個人意見（是真是假並不重要），幽默之餘，乾淨利落的婉拒了「耆英」的邀請。若尊重女皇的，就不必多問，總之大家心知肚明：女皇對老人獎不感興趣！但 Laing-Baker 的回覆卻非常友善，依然風度十足，祝願主辦機構「早日找到一位能配上此榮譽的賢士」 (Her Majesty hopes you will find a more worthy recipient)。這裡用上 "worthy" 一字來抬舉將獲獎的人，同時藉此與主辦機構保持友好關係。結尾時，還不忘給主辦機構送上「女皇至親切的祝福」 ( ... Her Majesty's warmest wishes)。

此信曝光後，讓百姓茶餘飯後取笑95歲的女皇「不認老」，同時令女皇的形象倍加可愛，是公關高招。短短數十字的回覆，盡顯英式優雅。

2021年10月24日

Rogers LS3/5A still the best choice

BBC originally designed the LS3/5A as a studio monitor speaker, and the shoebox size loudspeaker produces impressive sound and has become the best mini loudspeaker in the world despite being a bit pricy, which is understandable as BBC is still imposing a 10% levy from each and every pair sold.

I bought my first pair of Rogers LS3/5A back in 1992, and it fit perfectly in my midget home. Partnering with ROTEL's pre-amp and power amp, the baby loudspeakers have kept making all my friends feel astonished how dramatic yet clean and clear sound could be produced from the small walnut wood boxes. The vocals were the most natural and the midrange was sublime. Compared to my old AR94 which was big and any other model I have listened to, this small British-made loudspeaker has cut the mustard in its brilliant midrange and stereo imaging, except for the very low-range as limited by its woofer size. But I am not a fan of sub-bass or synthesized sounds, and definitely don't feel a loss with less intense bass.

In recent years, my Rogers seemed to begin to lose its magic, and after rounds of primitive tests including replacing cables, trying out different versions of recordings, and eventually installing a new Roksan Blak amplifier which I was told can support the Rogers fantastically, all didn't seem promising!

A psychological unshakable assumption must have prevented me from thinking in terms of the speakers themselves. For years, I kept exploring new suspects, including my own ears. Eventually, I asked my son if the speakers sounded strange to him, and his response resolved all the puzzles. He said he thought I knew they were bad! Then I realized they had aged, and nothing can revert it.

So, I bought a new pair of the exact same Rogers LS3/5A in walnut wood. The moment they got connected up, the first batch of notes from Yoyo Ma's Bach Cello Suites was lively and real, with the low-side midrange sound of the amazing evenness of Ma's playing filling the room. You simply couldn't stop listening until the very end. Then, I switched to Latin American jazz. The vibrant and democratic collaborations of piano, trumpets and drums were all right in front of me, with every instrument so awesomely distinguishable, and again real!

Thank God! All my favourite music, from classic, jazz, to Jacky Cheung's, has now returned!

September 12, 2021

性別、認同、性取向與歧視

性別歧視在上世紀80年代開始受到關注，當時針對的僅是「生物性別」的歧視，即基於生物性別定義對男性或女性在某場合、角色、工作崗位等受到的不公平對待。而同性戀人士所受到的歧視，就一般不納入性別歧視的範圍，甚至有政府官員、議員、宗教團體帶頭歧視，視同性戀者為不道德、反倫理的異類。而事實上，我們的所謂道德標準，是基於對少數人的誤解和對科學的無知，認定他們的行為和取向離經叛道、違反道德倫理。上世紀50年代，著名電腦科學家 Alan Turing 的經歷是典型的歧視例子，他被強迫接受治療，蒙受極大的精神及身體虐待，至2009年英國首相Gordon Brown才正式代表國家向已故 Turing 作公開道歉。

過去數十年，科學研究對人的性別問題有了更清晰的了解，證明人的「性別」是不能單憑「生物性別」可以定義出來的。事實上，生物性別、自我性別認同、和性取向是三個獨立的屬性。這些屬性是與生俱來，無法改變，莫論後天培養。不少人於對三個獨立屬性存在根本性的誤解，譬如說，一個人生出來擁有男性生殖器官，生物性別是「男」，就理所當然認為他必定認同自己是男人，但事實上，他對自己的性別認同可以是「男」或「女」。換言之，他自我感覺是男性或女性，跟他的生物性別無關，是遺傳因子決定的，不能改變。然而，他的性取向（即他喜歡男生或女生）也是另一獨立屬性。

所以，嚴格來說，「性別」可以有8種不同組合*（生物雙性暫不計算在內），這是上天給予我們的，無對錯可言，你也只可接受！雖然大多數人（估計90%）是屬於8種性別中的兩種，即是擁有「男」的生物性別，同時認同自己是「男」性，喜歡「女」性；和擁有「女」的生物性別，認同自己是「女」性，喜歡「男」性。不少屬於這兩種主流性別的人，基於不了解或無知，對其他6種性別的人士產生歧視和敵對的態度。既然是與生俱來，就不存在「鼓勵」和「鼓吹」某種性別和取向。試問若然你的性取向是喜歡女生的，誰能成功「鼓勵」你去喜歡男生？

歧視，無論是出於偏見、無知或自私，是多數人對少數人的欺凌和侮辱，為少數人帶來痛苦。相比殘障人士受到的歧視，性小眾要面對道德責罵和沈重的社會壓力，長期自我壓制的心理狀態，可想而知。他們一般被稱為同性戀者，但事實沒有這麼簡單，他們對性別有不同的自我認同和取向，在尋找合適的伴侶時，要比主流性別的大眾難上千倍，還要承受社會對他們的誤解和歧視。

香港常以國際大都會自居、以文明先進見稱，但主流社會依然漠視小眾應有的權利，把少數性別人士說成一群不道德、毒害年輕人、甚至「危害國家安全」的社會毒瘤。殘障人士、精神病患者、性小眾都不是罪犯，他們沒有大多數人的幸運，沒有可以去歧視他人的優勢，只有默默承受被歧視的痛苦。

有些極端宗教人士認為，按聖經的教導，一男一女才可結合，同性戀是違反聖經的教誨，所以理直氣壯的譴責同性戀行為。他們忽略了聖經作為歷史文獻的基本背景，舊約聖經大部份是以預言體寫成，並非事實的描述，是鑒於兩千多年前猶太的社會環境和有限的科學知識，給予人們基本及具權威性的行為規範。然而，新約聖經卻對少數人的平等權利作出了補充，耶穌在講述義人與君王的故事時說：「凡你們對我這些最小兄弟中的一個所做的，就是對我做的！」（瑪竇福音25 : 40）這是聖經對「反歧視」最明確的闡述，耶穌說的「最小兄弟」就是受壓迫的小眾。

每一個人都應該有良知和同理心，以往對少數人的誤解，可能是基於對科學的無知。現在還找各種藉口來歧視他人的人，在文明社會已難以立足。香港平等機會委員會前主席周一嶽醫生也曾提出考慮立法保障小眾權益，可惜由於未達社會共識，政府遲遲未有具體行動。最近，某建制議員還高調發表歧視言論，尖酸刻薄，罔顧科學，令人沮喪！政府實在責無旁貸，必須盡快採取行動，雙管齊下，宣傳教育和立法規管，為下一代締造更和諧和公平的社會環境。

2021年7月20日

_________________________
*性別的基本屬性包括 (1) 生物性別、(2) 自我性別認同、和 (3) 性取向。
(1) 生物性別是「男」的，編碼為「0」；「女」的為「1」。
(2) 自我性別認同是「男」的，編碼為「0」；「女」的為「1」。
(3) 性取向是喜歡「女」的，編碼為「0」；「男」的為「1」。如果以三種屬性作編碼分類，可能性是 000，001，010，011，100，101，110，111，共8種。最常見的「男」性是 000，而最常見的「女」性是 111。 Gay 是 001， 010，011 的統稱，而 lesbian 是 101，110，100 的統稱。由於自我認同不能從外表看出來，導致性取向可能出現對男和女都同感興趣，如果把 bisexual 分開編碼，性別組合就多了8種，即共16種。

The Inefficient Court

The first trial under the Beijing's imposed national security law has attracted overwhelming attention of the city. Today is the fourteenth day of the on-going trial. Discussions of the transcriptions have appeared in online media. The lengthy debates between the prosecutor and the expert witnesses have been most educational, and in a way quite entertaining*. The focus has been the meaning of the slogan "Liberate HK, revolution of our times" and its relation with separatism or independence, which is crucial to establishing the intention of the defendant in "inciting others to overthrow the regime", a speech crime allegedly committed by the 24-year-old suspect who carried a flag with the slogan in public. The world heard how the two professors analyzed the words in multi-dimensional contexts involving Chinese history, world history, linguistics, social science, media and communications, and even psychology. And the courtroom became a classroom where the professor explained to students (the humble judges, counsels, and spectators) the statistical concept of 'correlation coefficient' and how it was used to assess the correlation between the slogan and separatism.

Hong Kong is still lucky, having its court open and allowing debates to be heard by the public. Although conviction seems likely, based on the way this Beijing imposed 'law' is written, members of the public could still follow the trial and make their own judgement on this speech crime.

Very soon, the government will become impatient watching such trials and being embarrassed by the prosecutor's lack of better logic. When it has come to a point where this British style common law practice is no longer tolerable to Beijing or simply not efficient enough to achieve a 99% conviction rate, trials in Hong Kong will rapidly adopt the more efficient Chinese way: suspects will be arrested, denied bail by default, locked up, treated (in ways nobody knows exactly what happens), and made to publish an open confession admitting all alleged offences. Courts won't conduct open trials but claim to act according to the law. Of course, everything complies with the law. Members of the public would only need to be informed of the verdict.

Hong Kong will be ruled according to the law (依法辦事), though not necessarily abiding by the rule of law（法治).

July 15, 2021

______________________
*第 14 日審訊　辯方專家證人李立峯繼續作供
**選櫻桃的人 – 譚蕙芸

Who should get vaccinated first?

Vaccination no doubt creates hope for a rapid recovery of our severely impacted economy and resumption of normal life from the long painful fight against the pandemic. The questions that concern most of us are which vaccine is more effective and whether the side effects are tolerable. Moreover, of greater interest to the policymakers is who should get vaccinated first, and which order of priority would result in the shortest time to herd immunity and/or the use of minimum resources. The point is that we don't have to vaccinate the weak or more vulnerable groups in order to protect them, but rather to vaccinate the spreaders in the community and hence protect the entire community. An elderly person could safely live in her nursing home if there were no infected caretakers or visitors!

In February 2021, Hong Kong government began offering free vaccine to the more vulnerable groups, including the elderly, medical and healthcare workers, and then teachers, taxi drivers, restaurant workers, etc., the rationale being the need for protection. However, taking a more scientific approach, the entire community is actually a network of people. Each individual has his or her own contacts. Some have more and some have less. An elderly person living in a nursing home under intermediate care would typically meet with three or four people (mostly caretakers or a couple of family visitors) daily. On the other hand, a cashier working in a convenience store could be in contact with hundreds of customers per day. In terms of the likelihood of spreading the virus, people having more contacts (technically called "degree" in a network) should more likely be the key spreaders.

A more effective approach may be to classify different groups according to the statistical average of the contact links per day. For instance, a taxi driver carries an average of 300 passengers a day; a restaurant waiter serves an average of 100 patrons a day; a teacher interacts with 50 students a day; and so on. Then, if we prioritize our order of vaccinating different groups in our community according to the average contact number of the groups, we should theoretically reach the nerd immunity state much quicker.

This is a research topic worth studying!

March 22, 2021

英式優雅

Harry 皇子和 Meghan 皇妃在 Oprah Winfrey 的一個電視訪問中，大說英國皇室的不是，言之鑿鑿，指控皇室成員種族歧視。英美媒體廣泛報導，網民加鹽加醋，煽動仇視皇室情緒，若處理不當，可釀成憲制危機。 事態嚴重，女皇也急忙發表聲明反駁，短短六十一字，優雅得體，但棉裡藏針，訓示兩個不肖子孫勿再造謠生事，毀皇室清譽。

女皇淡然一句「 recollections may vary」（記憶也許存在出入），彷彿指著 Harry 和 Meghan 說「你兩條友仔咪亂噏廿四」；然後再溫馨提醒他們這些家事「將 (應) 在家裡私下處理」（will be addressed by the family privately），也就是跟他們說「有嘢就返來講，唔好喺外面唱我」。英式英語之強乃在於器量的展現。雖然給 Harry 和 Meghan 公開罵了兩小時，身為他們祖母的英女皇還在聲明開端代表皇室「對他們過去幾年面對的挑戰表示痛心」(The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.)，最後還說「Harry 和 Meghan 永遠是她至愛的家人」(will always be much loved family members.)，如此溫文大方，令人佩服！

若以當今中國特色語言來表達，Harry 和 Meghan 必定是「受外 (美) 國勢力操控惡意中傷皇室」，接受「別有用心的媒體訪問」，並「嚴重傷害英國人的人民感情」，英國全體人民必定「堅決反對」，要求 Harry 和 Meghan 「立刻停止抹黑以女皇為核心的英國皇室的錯誤行為」，英國將「追究到底」，要他們「付出沈重代價」，英國政府將保證「這些反英圖謀不會得逞」。

單憑表達不滿時所用的語言，可以反映一個人 (國家) 的器量和自信（也許說話的實際對象有異）， 同時也是軟實力的一種體現。英式英文，對比當今中國特色的中文，高下立見。

2021年3月18日

疫苗保護率的謬誤：統計學101

昨日，明報刊登了一篇以「稱有效率五成≠半數人有效 劉澤星：科興2/3接種者受保護」為題的報導*，引述負責審核新冠疫苗的顧問委員會召集人劉澤星先生指科興疫苗能有效保護三分之二的接種者。

按明報引述科興的數據，接種人數及接受安慰劑人數各約為5000人。前者當中85人受感染，後者168人受感染。劉先生基於 85：168（大概 1：2）的比例，推出 2/3 接種者受到保護！依照劉先生的算法，5000 這個參與者數目（採樣人數）並無任何意義！ 事實上，在某個群組所錄得的感染人數是受到許多因數影響，故需要增加採樣數目才能保證統計數字的可信性。況且，85和168是兩個群組的感染數字，很難理解如何單憑這兩個感染數字來推出疫苗的保護率。正式來說，在5000+5000 = 10000名參與者中，2/3感染者是沒有接種疫苗的。劉先生反過來說成 2/3接種者受到保護，肯定不正確。再加上，如果採樣數目不是5000，而是100萬的話，85和168、甚至1000的感染人數基本上沒有太大區別。從統計學角度看，採樣數目是非常重要的參數，絕對不能忽略。

按基本數學邏輯，5000名接種者當中有 4915人未受感染，而5000名接受安慰劑的人士當中有 4832人未受感染，這也並不代表疫苗在接種者身上可提供 4915/5000 = 98.3% 的保護率，因為接受安慰劑的也有4832/5000 = 96.64%不受感染。我們只可以估算疫苗“相對”的保護率大概為50.43% （科興的50.66%應該是基於更準確的數字和統計方案）。

劉先生的2/3保護比例的說法有誤導公眾之嫌，必須予以修正。

2021年2月19日

____________________
*「稱有效率五成≠半數人有效 劉澤星：科興2/3接種者受保護」— 明報 2020年2月18日

How time flies: Predicting when your life shall end

Every summer vacation in primary school was like a never ending holiday, and in my mind, still, the six years in primary school were very long, and definitely much longer than the seven years in secondary school. My memories of the days in the 2000s and 2010s are like yesterday, but those of my primary school days are much older history, disproportionally older! One thing for sure is that the perception of time duration gets shorter as one becomes older! In other words, time moves faster when you get older! So, depending on how old you are, your perception of a 10-year duration can be quite different!

The perceived absolute time also changes as one gets older! When you're young, you felt things that happened 40 years ago were like ancient history! But as you get older, things that happened 40 years ago seemed really not that long ago to you!

You probably still find the music of the 2010s pretty good. Way back, when you're a kid, your perception of the music that your mother loved was like ancient tune! The perception of time clearly changes as you grow older! That seems to be unavoidable, and you can do nothing to revert it. The question is not why, but how fast? Can we possibly work out how fast our perceived time shrinks? If you know the answer, you probably know how rapidly you age and perhaps also when your life shall end (disregarding accidental life-threatening events).

Taking another perspective, if our life ends at the time when our perceived time has shrunk to zero, or in practice shortened to a threshold point that life becomes almost meaningless, then one could possibly predict his own lifespan based on his own perception of time while he still lives and continues to age. This in theory should work!

Suppose your perceived time is Tperception while the actual time is T. A simple first order law that describes how rapidly your perceived time shrinks with time is:

Tperception = T exp( –T / τ )

where the parameter τ determines how fast (by how much) your perception of time would shrink over a fixed time lapse. Experience suggests that time perception shortens by half at the age of 25, around the time when one finishes college and gets to the real world. This means τ is roughly 37, because exp(–25/37) ≈ 0.5.

Hong Kong's average lifespan is 88 for women and 83 for men, say 85 for any average person. Thus, our perceived time has shortened to around 10% of the actual time at the end of our life, since exp(–85/37) = 0.1. We may say that if one perceives time as 90% shorter than it actually is, life is no longer meaningful!

If you know how rapidly your perception of time shortens, i.e., the value of τ, you should theoretically know when your life shall end.

January 16, 2021