香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "保樹立人行動記"

保樹黨

簡而言之，中大要擴展，校友要抗戰。於是，樹木變成犧牲品。

http://www.xanga.com/tommyjonk/456130476/item.html

we should clean our campus in place TOGETHER

dear both,
Just one remark i want to make here. I think it is not the problem with the workers, but the endless construction. We should concerns all beings in the campus. so why don't we set up trash and ash tray for our dear workers in a creative way? why don't we help pick up the tash when we see it? That reflect the campus is lack of social space for workers, those working hard to improve our environment (although all these plans are against our will).
also to share with you all another some afterthoughts on hk civil behaviour of yesterday Prof. Lung's seminar on Humanism and Civil Society.
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=101104&group_id=48

Leungpo- NA Fine Arts 1996

Litter left by construction workers

I very much agree with Mr Mark Sheldon's viewpoints, as quoted above.

He wrote, 'Those of us in the staff and professional ranks littered and left debris around in our buildings and offices like
these work crews do on campus -- be it trash, cigarette butts, cans, plastic bottles, metal and plastic items etc. -- we would be fired.'

He reminds us that construction workers leave a lot of rubbish on the campus. If all those unnecessary construction and renovation works are eliminated, we will have a cleaner campus. I can see that there are many cigarette butts and cans on the campus and I bet they are left over by some construction workers

I am very much impressed by Mr Sheldon's concern over the campus. Hope there are more CUHK staff express their opinions.

William :-)

Yale-China Association HK director 對校方的回應

Dear Michael,

I do hope there will be a review of this and other major construction
projects on campus. The green space and environmental destruction is truly
disheartening. As you know from our previous conversations, many of us
continue to be greatly concerned about the bricking, paving, guazing, and
wiring over of our campus. One cannot drive 50 meters without coming on
another boarded off area of "hillside maintenance" which we all know means
green space elimination of what have been lovely green areas that are safe.
There have not been landslips on campus of any major sort for a long period.
Plus, so many areas are being "improved," meaning digging and sledging our
sidewalks and causing disruption, noise and dirt to all campus users.
There's one such project going on outside my window here at NAC as I write
this email to you. When is it going to stop and when are all these sites
going to be managed better. If those of us in the staff and professional
ranks littered and left debris around in our buildings and offices like
these work crews do on campus -- be it trash, cigarette butts, cans, plastic
bottles, metal and plastic items etc. -- we would be fired. The campus is
really looking more and more blighted and we are actually doing it to
ourselves. As one long-time, loyal staff person who greatly treasures this
institution and who greets many local and overseas visitors, it is rather
disturbing and, at times, embarrassing, to receive visitors by finding our
way through these various construction sites and messes. When are the
interests of the campus users protected? Who speaks up for the natural
environment in all this "development." How does the policy process reflect
these interests? I would also suggest that senior management visit other
local institutions and see how their campuses are looking and improving
these days. I think any fair-minded person would recognize that our
counterpart institutions are doing a better job on facilities management,
managing the disruption of "campus development" sites an d providing signage
etc. to make it easier and smoother for users and visitors on their
campuses.

I personally feel it is time for a public meeting for interested campus
groups on the whole train station, plaza, and Chung Chi Road "development"
project -- before all the destruction starts again. Is it really reasonable
to have the major public entrance to the University disrupted in this way
for over two years? Has there been any evaluation or quality assessment on
the work done in that area to date?

Just some thoughts for the day. Thank you for your kind consideration.

All best wishes,

Mark

Mark L. Sheldon
Director, Hong Kong Office
Yale-China Association
New Asia College
Cheng Ming Building, Room G07
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shatin, N.T. Hong Kong, SAR CHINA

阿迪, 原來唔係剩係你無得瞓, 校方要啟動媒體戰了

禽晚, 大學公關, 開會開到半夜呢! 校方要啟動媒體戰了. 各大傳媒主管, 教育版, 準備有人 call out 吃飯, 但小心膽固醇過高! 請保重!

今天兩點半係snack bar見！

我今天逃課，會帶同樹的幽魂到會，誰想一起來，2點半係snack bar見。我會準備發言。

What's next?

I really appreciate the campaigns launched by you guys in protecting the trees. I hope that the next action is to oppose Professor Lau's (Vice-Chancellor) proposal of establishing the 5th College.

I believe that if a new college is built on the existing campus, many trees would be cut down to make way for the development. And, building a new college won't improve CU's academic reputation but it would waste the very limited resources on improving CU's research and teaching.

I am quite dissatisfied with Professor Lau. Last year there was the 'internationalization/English teaching' incident, and this year his proposal of 5th College is equally disappointing.

I doubt if he understands and respects the traditional values of CU. Of course some other CU management people may also have contributed to the present situation.

William (PSY alumus)

已把相關文章forward了給兩位教授

已把這裡的相關文章forward了給龍應台教授與李歐梵教授。

Re: talk on "公民意識和人文素養"

Yes Ar, the talk is rather important for our department Ga.

I wanted to go also, just i couldn't, for tomorrow I don't have time, too bad......

重要訊息: 要保大樹, 亦要保小樹

有中大朋友著我們注要, 目前 CDO (校園發展署) 在點數樹木時, 只點一些受本港環保法例規管的大樹, 所以在池旁路, 被釘上號碼的, 只有三十多棵, 可是實在影響的樹木, 如小棵的龍眼, 千層塔, 鴨腳木, 台灣相思等, 都沒有計算在內, 在重新植林時, 亦不會計上在內.

池旁路工程若真的動工, 受影響的大小樹, 超過一百棵!

所以, 當校方說, 校園樹林有增無減時, 其實是因為 CDO 的統計數據裡, 只有受保護的樹木數目, 小樹和外來樹(如很多台灣相思)都沒有計數在內. 可是在重新植林時, 小如掃把棍的樹苗卻算成等同幾十年的一棵樹!

職工, 同學和校友都在說, 樹在減少了, 但校方卻說樹的數目在增加, 這是因為 CDO 的數據的欺人!

所以大家不單要保大樹, 還要保小樹, 它們都是有生命, 是校園生態的一部份!

朋友轉寄過來中大老師對校方的回應

裡面有很多重要的訊息:
---------------------------------

刚刚读了许教授的信 (大概不是许教授写的).

其中内容失实处,不胜枚举 (容后详细列举).校园发展有成绩,不表示无问题.

学校其实可以采取比较审慎的态度,认真倾听师生的呼声,例如成立独立工作小组,研究大家的质问,以求改进. 在事情未弄明白之前,急急忙忙出来解释,将中大说成环保模范,怎可服众?

熟知中大历史的人都清楚, 马料水山坡(不包括崇基)由荒山变为绿树成荫,芳草处处的校园,是从1970年代至1980年中期,今天在中大从事校园发展的同仁,不可随便领功. 随大学扩建校舍,绿地缩减. 然而,最大的破坏始于近五,六年,校园内到处是地盘,校园风格由天然林园变街边花园.事情发生在我们眼前,师生怨声载道. 上周有同学组织校园关注组,几天内便有近两千人签名,认同他们对校园环境恶化及庸俗化的忧虑.

三月六日,烟雨朦朦的周一早晨,走在崇基路上的行人赫然看到路旁几十棵参天老树都绑上胶带. 得知学校准备拓路,数十株大树已背上"招子",将被砍倒,众人为之震惊. 这些树木庇护了几十年来,每日行上行下的师生, 维系着他们与大学浓厚的感情. 一群校友发起<保树立人>行动, 今天中午邀请大家到崇基路,在做了砍树标记的大树和路边栏杆上系黄丝带.听说有几位校园关注组的同学己经几天没睡觉. 原来我们中大还有这样的学生, 这样的校友!

今年一月十九日的大学通讯, 刊登了整两页对中大校园发展的赞歌, 也以"众志绿山城"为题.

仅摘一段:
"2002年以来,大学种植了约300株树,是因建筑和斜坡巩固工程而移走(不是砍掉,是移走了吗?)树木的五倍. 砍掉的树多高多粗,树冠覆盖面多大? 怎可与新种的小树用数量比? 前些年建(毫无文化可言的)文化广场,两棵罕见的紫色凤凰木"移"到哪里去了?

文中校园照片用1970年代和2006,为何弃用1980年代和1990年代的照片一齐来比较,以说明真像?

CDO的网站对每个工程做介绍时,不用砍树二字,而说成是"清理"了多少棵树.

大学是严肃的学术机构,负有培养人才的神圣使命,大学通讯和大学网站的内容怎可如商业广告般耍花腔,有意误导视听?

为校园工程正名很简单,请公布许教授信中提到的各项工程的环境评估报告及预算等财务报告.

11 號有個talk "公民意識和人文素養" !

咁既陣容,
有冇朋友會去撩起一下有關保育中大校園的討論??
(對不起,我明日全天要番工)
"挽下手"可能傾埋之後的行動添呀!!

Mar 11, 2006 Sat Mar 11, 2006 Sat
公民意識和人文素養
Time: 15:00-17:00
Organizer: 文化及宗教研究系文化研究學部
Speaker:
龍應台教授
李歐梵教授
黃慧貞教授
Venue: 祖堯堂
Admission: 免費
Enquiries: 26096470

Question

請問你們為了那自以為的環保，還要無視多少的事實，歪曲多少人的言論？

中大新聞組

這幾天我都將這兒有關的文章貼到中大新聞組去
( news://news.hkpcug.org/hkteen.university.CUHK ),
中間的一些言論, 對我來說是非常可怕的, 例如那些類似『塗鴉-破壞公物-可恥』之類的論調。一些我一直以為是接近常識的價值, 原來在這些大學生心目中, 根本沒佔上一點兒的位置。看看這些『激進』的校友, 再看看這些『守法』同學, 有點位置錯亂的感覺。

中大校友應該支持行動

任何發展都有利有弊，要好好平衡。八所大學都在互相競逐，華山論劍，因此都在密鑼緊鼓，大興土木，以高聳型的建築物，互相比拼。

這是我們的悲哀，還是全世界的悲哀？我也說不來。

少建一些建築物，不行嗎？我不知道。那天，我帶學生回母校參觀，從中藥園往上走到范記，那條的校友徑，卻未能喚起我的感情。我從前沒走過這條路，也不覺要走這條路。從前我從新亞，走到科學館，穿到一條辮路，跑到火車站，剛好兩分鐘，還趕得上柴油火車。我也不覺交通不便呢。沒有校車的年代，我也一樣這麼飛奔穿梭新亞和崇基。從范記沿馬路往下走，再轉入崇基舊宿舍，不見得比走新的校友徑慢多少了啊。我倒覺得還路好走一點。

我支持大家的行動，支持凱迪的行動，中大真要檢討一下，大學也不愛護樹木，又叫誰來愛護呢？