2013年9月2日星期一

林慧思的噩夢

林慧思:經常發噩夢

今日開學,寶血會培靈學校林蔓慧思老師請假在家休息,她表示,背人垂淚,壓力佷大,經常發噩夢。

林慧思接受香港電台訪問時表示,今日開學,未能回到學校,記掛學生。她表示,經常背人垂淚,感到壓力很大,經常發噩夢,在夢中上學時被很多人騷擾。


她表示,希望有機會上學,與學生見面,但她在這刻尚未決定是否繼續下去。她希望學生勇敢面對,她希望有機會向學生講述今次的經歷。至於有人到培靈學校示威,她表示,以平常心面對。
(2.9.3013 明報即時新聞)

林慧思事件不單只使她本人發惡夢,事件本身就是香港的一場噩夢。林慧思這小學教師確實難以承受這件事帶來的沉重壓力,從報導看,她很明顯還不知道怎樣阻止噩夢繼續發下去。我不說夢話,也非解夢人,卻能看到夢魘的來由。

林老師夢見上學時被很多人騷擾,因為事實上確有一班會這樣做而智力異常低的人,不過,同時又有另一班看似學識很高,其實智力也嚴重出問題的人對她不停鼓勵。表面上看夢魘來自辱罵她、騷擾她的人,林老師看不見的是,那幫把光環强加在她頭上的人,也是噩夢的泉源。林老師要消除噩夢,就要放開懷抱,別再當自己是聖母。繼續在自己facebook發表偉論,去街頭發動簽名送去白宮,這件本來不值得發展成這樣,她不會偶發成女英雄的一樁小事,只會拖拉落去。傳道書第三章講凡事都有定期、 天下萬務都有定時,她自己不放手,就只有噩夢連綿,自己也在逼迫自己。不再夢想自己是仗義執言的女英雄,就不會夢見被騷擾,心經所謂遠離顛倒夢想。

林老師大概不服標少所言,請撫心自問,如果當日黑社會劈友,你會大義凜然,空手奪刃,制止打鬥?或者交通失事,捨身相救會被撞倒的弱小?你的仗義執言,是警察在場,打秋風式,毫無人身安全問題的罵警,如果肯這樣做,香港有幾百萬人做得到。如果你的身分事後沒有給抖出來,你當晚回到家裏,可能最擔心的是有沒有自己的學生或家長,湊巧在場看到。

不想再發噩夢,就除下那其實也是緊箍咒的光環,平實做個普通人。那些撐她的人,也不要繼續害她吧!那些罵她的人,就自然會放手。






42 則留言:

  1. 回覆
    1. 同意標少的觀點,特別是最後那一句!

      刪除
    2. 謝謝,希望有人告訴她這看法。

      刪除
    3. Cannot agree more.

      I have quoted your views in Lam's fb. I do hope that she / her followers can learn something from it....Although I think that she'll almost stick to her own principles for certain.

      刪除
    4. Haha, I hope that you also ask her to read from July 29 onward. I discussed about the legitimacy of the police's inaction in the incident. She should humbly learn the law from different perspectives.

      刪除
    5. It would be very interesting to know what will be her response to Bill's view......However, being a political radical for many years and a woman who do not have enough knowledge of law (or even logic), I don't think she would have a clear mind on even a gentle admonishment.....(she may not even understand what 標少 was talking about)

      Mr. 匿名, I'm afraid it may not be a wise action to throw a firecracker into a snake cave. As you know, it may provoke those fanatics and internet rascals against 標少......標少, I suggest you to backup all the data in this blog, as they may simply launch hacker attacks on the blog and even your computer in order to make you silent......

      刪除
    6. William,

      I do not expect people who just bury their heads in the sand will spend time reading what I have written. After all, I am not a famous writer or somebody who has earned his fame by his name instead of any substance in the writing. Silent me? It is only a wishful thinking. By hook or by crook, no way and one can. Firecracker is of no use. People are deaf, dumb and blind.

      刪除
    7. Bill & William,
      As expected, neither Ms Lam nor her followers showed any response to my post up to this moment. I am inclined to believe that they have chosen to turn a deaf ear to all comments not in support of the act. Nevertheless, I think it is a good thing to let them know what some others thought, particularly in the legal perspective. Hopefully, they would not be stupid enough to blind themselves to conclude that Bill is a 五毛.

      By the way, William, I do think that Bill's voice should be heard. Follow your logic, nobody will dare to say anything in the internet, and the city will be dead.

      刪除
    8. 匿名,

      Never mind if Ms Lam does not respond. It is always hard to swallow and admit failure or accept wrong doing especially after confidence is inflated unproportionately. She does not want the matter to go so that she can still enjoy to be a victim of harassment.

      Never mind if my voice is heard or not. I am only an ordinary person who enjoys writing comments and shares them within my circle of friends. It just accidentally attracts readers who bump into my blog by chance. I rarely post comments in other people's blog or forum. I never once send my articles to newspapers or open forums. Never mind if people call me 五毛 or communist or atheist or whatever names they can think of. I do not try to propagate anything.

      刪除
    9. Hey, I am an atheist and atheists are good people, and handsome too!

      刪除
    10. Empty words are not persuasive. If you are going to sell a product, at least there is a photo to let people see.

      By the way, your skin is now thick enough and you are closer to become a politician if not a McDonald professor.

      刪除
    11. Mr.匿名, I am sorry for my cowardice......

      BTW, Ms. Lam and her followers keep on enjoying being "fighters of righteousness"......

      http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=18409320&category_guid=4104&category=daily&issue=20130905
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcWntUTJE-g

      刪除
    12. William,

      You are just being considerate. I am never afraid of this kind of warfare. In this era, people apply their own value judgement and enjoy what they see as just and right and on the other hand, it would be best not to complain about nightmares. Her nightmarish days will continue to haunt over her head alongside her heroism celebration.

      刪除
    13. William, what you have quoted is again outdated...coz the development is too fast. She is asking all those who support her to show up at 5:30 this afternoon to Taipo Police Station as she claimed to have received a death threat letter along with a rusty razor. She is really enjoying the show.

      http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1303928/primary-school-teacher-involved-row-police-gets-death-threat

      刪除
    14. Oh! It sucks!(Sorry for my foul language.....)

      刪除
    15. Her new case should be investigated by Mong Kok Crime Squad because this team is assigned to handle the Mong Kok incident. So matters arising should also be consolidated. Tell you what, a defendant threatened to shoot me if he had a gun and this was reported in the newspapers. I did not bother to do anything about the bluffing. It was 10 odd years ago before my migration.

      刪除
  2. 林老師及其支持者似乎視"愛字頭"收手為一大勝利, 不見得她想醒.....
    現在只能贈她一句: 凡事去得太盡, 緣份誓必早盡.....

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 從一個距離看自己的事情真不容易,自己沒有嬴面就更應得些好意須回手。

      刪除
  3. Bill, I agreed with what you wrote. Since July 97, the policemen seemed to very humble and kind. During the mongkok demonstration between pro-police and pro-Ms. Lam,I happened to be there after having tea. I found the policemen acted just like lambs. They only tried to take photos and crowd control. I think all of them are afraid to get complaint and try by members of Complaint against police organisation led by barrister Jat. I think it is better to let members of Civil Aid Service to perform and they are better at crowd control.(a joke) That is why Ms. Lam acted so aggresively to provoke policemen. She got an iron bowl job with the back-up of Professional Teacher Association. You can see how she got so lenient punishment. Last Saturday, at Mongkok, I got a pamphet from a woman and asked me to sign a name to suuport Ms Lam for under political persecution. I did not sign. She said saying foul language is minor matter and only murder and arson is serious. I think she is also a teacher. I am really afraid of my grand child who is two years old may unluckliy receive education by such teachers.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Let me put the record right here. If there is a complaint against the police, it is investigated by the police internally. If the complaint comes from outside, then the complaint will be received and handled by the Complaint Against Police Office (CAPO). If the investigation is about misconduct initiated internally, then the Internal Investigation Office (IIO) will handle. Cases handled by CAPO will end up in the Independent Police Complaints Council chaired by Jat Sew Tong, SC. The Council will not be involved in the actual investigation but only oversee the partiality of the handling of complaints.

      It is always very easy to call names and make allegations. I do not see the wisdom in the use of political persecution to rally support here for Ms Lam. When Ms Chan Yuk Fung was arrested and prosecuted, she also alleged that it was a political prosecution. There are quite a number of people in Hong Kong suffering from the Persecution Complex or it is just a ploy to attract sympathy when they take the role of the victim or martyr.
      .

      刪除
  4. 回覆
    1. I saw this news yesterday after writing the blog. You should give her some free consultation to rid her of her stupidity.

      刪除
    2. No, I should pay her, so that she could stop showing up on the news.

      刪除
  5. 我認為她不應教書,不是因為說粗口,是因為她不明白如何自處。不要說為人師表,不令天真小學生迷惑就好了

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 對於一個小學教師,我沒有很大期望和要求,從她一路的表現,顯示她只不過是很平凡的一個人。平凡人沒有不妥,我自己也自知是極平凡。杖義執言或潑婦罵街都好,不應再喋喋不休地講,這樣做就跟自己過不去,她也極度偏聽,把耳朵關掉,不肯聽客觀批評,只陶醉於陳雲及教育界一些人的立論,是這件事癥結所在。撇開這件事不講,她可能是一個很稱職的小學教師。希望她懂得閉嘴的美德。

      刪除
    2. maybe there was never any moment in her ordinary and mundane life that she received so much attention, that's why she enjoyed the spotlight and did not want the whole thing to go away.

      刪除
    3. She has to pay the price to stay in the limelight then. Her heroism obsession is haunting over her head. To many ordinary people, accidentally become a hero is not easy to digest. I know how it feels. Her life is bland without seeing herself in the media report. Her supporters are actually dragging her towards her demise.

      刪除
    4. 是的,小學老師若是是真英雄出山無可厚非,否則便應自知而低調平凡。無自知之明出來獻世丟假不止,攪到是非不清,自以為是,点教學生?老師應以身作則也,唯恐世界不亂?

      刪除
    5. 她沒有這能力和魅力,都是那班滿口公義和大道理的人,爭先恐後撐她才導致她兩眼迷濛。喪失理性的發展,歸功於這些名嘴名筆名教授。我由7月29日開始寫這件事,共寫了22篇,留言反駁我的也不少,但沒有一個從法理依據指出我論點的錯處。

      刪除
  6. Bill少,想請教林慧思以外但關於香港的問題 (我已受夠了那喋喋不休的爭論)

    關於單程證的審批,假設中國政府放手,香港政府是否有權去做?還是會因莊豐源案限死了令至無法控制?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Yau,

      你真無陰公,問的咁難嘅嘢,講林慧思唔使用腦,你要我講administrative law,我不太熟。Off hand咁答你,希望無講錯。

      單程證的審批,以子女而言,關乎吳嘉玲案,父或母是香港人,所以子女有權申請來港居留。莊豐源案涉及雙非兒童,不受單程證的審批限制,因為他們在香港出生而父母是中國籍的。

      「關於單程證的審批,假設中國政府放手,香港政府是否有權去做?」,香港政府照單全收,處於被動,不能拒絕發永久居民身分證給他們。

      刪除
    2. 單程證不等如自動擁有香港居留權或申請香港身份證,對嗎?

      刪除
    3. My understanding of one way permit is that when it is issued by China, it means the holder can use it to go to either Hong Kong or Macau and to become a permanent resident there. The person has the right of abode in either Hong Kong or Macau and then he/she applies for the one way permit to go there. Applying for ID card is only a formality.

      刪除
    4. I think someone with a one-way permit still has to "ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years" before he is entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong unless he is a Chinese nationality and born of a Chinese permanent resident of Hong Kong. If he is so, he is entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong without the 7 years' residing requirement in accordance with Article 24(3) of the Basic Law. A person with a one-way permit has only the right to stay in Hong Kong and not the right of abode. If he has left Hong Kong for a considerable period of time before completing the 7 years' residing requirement, he may not be able to stay in Hong Kong permanently again.

      potato

      刪除
    5. Thanks. But, Article 24(3) of the Basic Law only says "Persons of Chinese nationality born outside HK of those residents listed in categories (1) and (2)". It does not stipulate about residing not less than 7 years like 24(2).

      刪除
    6. Article 24(3) of the Basic Law does not stipulate about residing not less than 7 years. This means that if someone issued with a one-way permit and is a Chinese nationality (which is very likely to be the case) and born of a Chinese permanent resident of Hong Kong (i.e. meeting the status mentioned in Article 24(3)), he does not need to reside in Hong Kong for 7 years before getting the right of abode. If he is only issued with a one-way permit and not meeting the status mentioned in Article 24(3), he can only get the right of abode by meeting the residing requirement stipulated in Article 24(2), assuming of course someone issued with a one-way permit is always a Chinese citizen.

      potato

      刪除
    7. Thanks again. May be I have a misconception about the one way permit. I just think it is issued for people who are covered by the Article 24(3)) scenario. What the Immigration Dept does is to verify the eligibility of these people and once verified, a permanent resident status will be issued. There are other permits to cover other status e.g. elite migrant and investment migrant.

      Another type of one way permit holder should be family reunion type e.g. spouse etc. In such case, Article 24(2) of the Basic Law applies. Schedule 1 of the Immigration Ordinance Cap 115 has a clearer explanation.

      刪除
  7. Mr. Bill,

    How do you explain why there are so many people which we used to think are clever and sane have chosen to support Lam's act. e.g. 林夕、李怡 Sometimes I do wonder whether they are really deceived and blinded by their political inclination (coz they should be clever enough to know what justice is!) Or do you think that there are other reasons for this? I really want to share your views.

    回覆刪除
  8. Please, no Mr. I cannot speak for them. You can see my discussion with readers in the comments. montwithin and I always emphasize the importance of independent thinking. Many people jump to conclusion too fast without thoroughly think or not even have the knowledge to draw any conclusion. That is the problem. If people think thoroughly and possess the knowledge to make judgement, though we may not be in agreement, I respect the freedom of different views. I don't know what 林夕 has said, but from a quotation brought to me by a reader about what李怡 has said, I can see that he does not have knowledge of law to pass a fair comment. People in the legal profession may have different views on interpretation of the law arising from the incident. Others without the knowledge just think randomly and boldly jump to their own conclusion from wishful thinking. If you don't have the knowledge, you should ask or do not enter into the discussion.

    I will not simply say what I think without citing the law or legal precedents if the subject matter is a legal discussion. From Ms Lam's incident, you can see people just criticise the non-enforcement of the law or query why not arresting Ms Lam for Obstructing the Police or Disorderly Conduct. Did you see many of them actually argue in a professional manner? Many people just asked why not arrest .. blah blah blah without the mindset of a prosecutor as to whether certain people transgressed certain criminal law.

    There are a lot of capable people who can write rhetorically but it does not mean they are logical thinkers or have the knowledge to discuss specific issues. I am not saying I am apolitical. What I try to do is not let subjective thinking get the better of me. I try to think from different angles.

    回覆刪除
  9. Plebgate的英國國會議員Andrew Mitchellin 在19/09/2012辱罵警員因此不得不引咎辭織。香港小學教師用粗口辱罵警員只得到學校的口頭警告。

    回覆刪除