528，也是一部文學
小國中文大報的花蹤文學獎進入第九屆，528六年了，還未進入文學場域。周六大報舉行頒獎典禮之際，我坐在書店咖啡館的一角，沉浸在小説的思路裏邊。
“Utter silence. I knew at once that the experiment on which I was about to embark had something to do with that thing my profession had taken from me...“
頒獎禮現場一室冰冷，瀟瀟夜雨滿花蹤。文學精靈本著打破隔閡的用意，借用天使的弓箭，把一部528作品送上文學舞臺。
一報獨大者一時語塞。或曰：晨風驚乍起，不合時宜！
頓時，“完全沉寂。我即刻意識到，我近乎要開始（進行）的實驗（計劃），已被與我的專業（媒體）相關的東西所剝奪。“
上述英語文本置放在528作品出現時的語境，儼然是另一部作品的創作起點。日后華馬文學史或記載——這是花蹤劃時代的新養分。
當然，否認一報獨大者，就不能否認逃離文學政治者，在當前華人社會的脈絡與發展中，是528的背棄者。花蹤該不是逃離文學政治吧？
既然不是，與我的專業（媒體）相關的東西被剝奪后，承載文學作品的新聞媒介能否打破隔閡，建立反惡法和反壟斷的共識，恰恰是一部528作品帶來的衝擊。這是文學場域的撞擊，無關政治。
文本具有任意性，得以脫離小説原本的思路和框架，就此而言，文學打破隔閡的功能與意義也就不言而喻。
若然大報放棄用文學包裝壟斷，不用政治分化文學，媒體人和文學作家之間搭建的橋梁，就是對話和共識，而非隔閡。
相關：
1．蕭依釗〈文學，打破隔閡〉
http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/index.phtml?sec=833&sdate=&artid=200706020312
2．余福祺〈感谢星洲，这么多年来我就只认识陶杰。〉
http://erhc79.blogspot.com/2007/05/blog-post_29.html
“Utter silence. I knew at once that the experiment on which I was about to embark had something to do with that thing my profession had taken from me...“
頒獎禮現場一室冰冷，瀟瀟夜雨滿花蹤。文學精靈本著打破隔閡的用意，借用天使的弓箭，把一部528作品送上文學舞臺。
一報獨大者一時語塞。或曰：晨風驚乍起，不合時宜！
頓時，“完全沉寂。我即刻意識到，我近乎要開始（進行）的實驗（計劃），已被與我的專業（媒體）相關的東西所剝奪。“
上述英語文本置放在528作品出現時的語境，儼然是另一部作品的創作起點。日后華馬文學史或記載——這是花蹤劃時代的新養分。
當然，否認一報獨大者，就不能否認逃離文學政治者，在當前華人社會的脈絡與發展中，是528的背棄者。花蹤該不是逃離文學政治吧？
既然不是，與我的專業（媒體）相關的東西被剝奪后，承載文學作品的新聞媒介能否打破隔閡，建立反惡法和反壟斷的共識，恰恰是一部528作品帶來的衝擊。這是文學場域的撞擊，無關政治。
文本具有任意性，得以脫離小説原本的思路和框架，就此而言，文學打破隔閡的功能與意義也就不言而喻。
若然大報放棄用文學包裝壟斷，不用政治分化文學，媒體人和文學作家之間搭建的橋梁，就是對話和共識，而非隔閡。
相關：
1．蕭依釗〈文學，打破隔閡〉
http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/index.phtml?sec=833&sdate=&artid=200706020312
2．余福祺〈感谢星洲，这么多年来我就只认识陶杰。〉
http://erhc79.blogspot.com/2007/05/blog-post_29.html
posted by ooiheng at
6/03/2007
1 Comments:
The tragedy of the Chinese soul
Josh Hong
Jun 15, 07 11:12am
http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/68655
My Hong Kong friends and I used to patronize a barbershop, pompously named “Greater China” (Tai Chung Wah in Cantonese) in London’s Chinatown, for the simple reason that it offered poor students perhaps the most affordable haircut in the British capital.
But shouldn’t someone who salutes Dr Johnson for his disdain of patriotism and nationalism, calling them “the last refuge of scoundrels”, shudder at the hegemonic-sounding phrase of “Greater China”?
And again, why should I?
After all, “Greater China” carries, politically, culturally and economically, different connotations, the multifaceted complexities of which are often overlooked even by its critics.
For instance, I cannot see myself stand idly by if a movement was formed to fight for and safeguard freedom of expression across the Chinese-speaking world. Such development would be conducive to creating a space within Chinese communities around the globe that respects press freedom and human rights, a liberal agenda that one could ignore at one’s peril in the long run.
Sin Chew Daily, the biggest selling Chinese language newspaper in Malaysia, has been steadfastly advancing its pan-Chinese agenda over the last few years.
Its owner, Sarawak-based timber tycoon Tiong Hew King, has on several occasions reiterated his desire to see less cut-throat competition in the Chinese press industry. His solution? Having four major Chinese titles under his belt.
Dismissing criticisms of monopoly, Tiong has defended his expanding media empire by famously uttering that, if at all possible, he would be dying to see the Chinese press industry be monopolized by the “Chinese soul”.
Echoing the condescending argument of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Sin Chew too sees western media as being “hegemonic”, and has called for the Chinese-speaking world to “unite and counter it”.
Internally, it continues to play on the fear of the Chinese reader for Malay supremacy through the “beautification” as well as “sanctification” of the Chinese spirit of perseverance.
What is missing from all these efforts? A critical reflection on the state control of media, and the valour to fight against it.
Society of paradoxes
Hence, should Sin Chew hope earnestly that its noble idea of serving the pan-Chinese communities (or the Greater China region) would be taken seriously, it must first convince the reader that it can safeguard the interests and the autonomy of the press industry without fear and favour.
For one, the Paris-based World Association of Newspapers not only has the guts to chastise President George W Bush for his reckless and unilateralistic foreign policy, it has even outraged the Chinese leadership by standing in solidarity with the courageous journalists in China.
Can one expect Tiong, who is the serving President of the World Association of Chinese Newspapers, to call on the authorities in China and Singapore to end state control on media, as well as to denounce the Malaysian Chinese Association for its constant attempt to meddle in the editorial operations of the Chinese dailies?
Malaysia is a society of paradoxes. We are often deluded into thinking that the western media is always out there prowling and devouring the “developing world” like a lion, but Europe’s and America’s pursuit of and respect for media independence are really what many media professionals watch with a jaundiced eye.
It remains my firm belief a hegemon can never be overcome by another gigantic monster.
It indeed puzzles me to see Sin Chew, being also the Chinese newspaper with the largest readership in Southeast Asia, resort to the ludicrous “Chinese soul” argument to compete with its western counterparts, creating for itself a surrogate-ship to speak on behalf of the Chinese reader, rather than seeking to fight for a level-playing ground through freedom of speech.
There are signs that Sin Chew has abandoned the fight for greater press freedom in Malaysia. In a letter to its Communication Exchange early this month, a “media researcher” opined that it was a futile effort to talk about freedom of speech in a country where freedoms are restricted.
As always, the authenticity of the letter and the real identity of the writer are both open to question.
But the greatest harm that the Chinese soul theory can do is the sharpening of the 'Us vs Them' mentality of the Chinese Malaysian community, while weakening the idea of citizenship along the way.
Two modes of citizenship
In any modern state, the media’s fourth estate function is rooted within the pluralist liberal democracy model. A media that is unwilling to play such a role, but chooses to indulge in stoking up nationalist sentiments, will invariably be seen as failing its duty to raise the public awareness in regard to citizenship, which is detrimental to enhancing the contract between the state and the citizen.
There are two modes of citizenship.
In its active mode, citizenship encompasses the pursuit of public office, voting, political mobilization and organization, as well as developing and improving communal/ethnic rights.
In its passive mode, citizenship manifests itself through the granting of social welfare and benefits, and respect for law and order etc.
Any newspaper that aspires to safeguard ethnic rights, but refuses to address the pressing issues of public institution and checks and balances, can only be said, at best, to be a “community press” in a multicultural country.
It is perhaps slightly better than the diasporic publications of the early 20th century on which the Chinese communities in the Malay Peninsula relied for spiritual nourishment.
Such publications are still found in many countries, like the Chinese Commercial Press (Hua Shang Bao) published by mainland Chinese working and studying in Britain, and the Nangoku Shimbun read by the Japanese expatriate community in Malaysia.
But these publications are there predominantly for the consumption of the respective overseas communities.
Fifty years after merdeka and 44 years into the founding of Malaysia, Chinese Malaysians have made their mark in this country through sweat and blood, thereby claiming the Malaysian citizenship that is rightfully theirs.
It is unfathomable to me that a modern citizen should still appeal to the “Chinese soul”, revert him/herself to the identity of his/her forefather as “overseas Chinese”, and resurrect an atavistic illusion of pan-Chinese renaissance.
A narrow pan-Chinese agenda as such is, to me, incompatible with democracy for its dearth of political mission. It does acknowledge the evil law that constrains the nation’s mind, but lacks the courage to challenge it, indirectly telling the consumer to give up on the active mode of citizenship.
From a citizen, the consumer regresses into a subject. He/she is then haunted by the daunting task for political justice, and betrays his/her noble ideals of widespread democratic participation.
Such, is the tragedy of the Chinese soul.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home