2012年8月29日 星期三

(轉貼自天下雜誌專欄:五大再生老成) Tainan CityTaiwan's New Cultural and Creative Mecca


Of Taiwan's biggest cities, only Tainan has insisted on preserving its historical roots and using them to draw a more creative crowd. But will that be enough for the city to regain its vitality?
"Taipei is a lot like other international cities like London or New York. But Tainan has a completely different feel than Taipei. It's quiet and not flamboyant. It's a great place to live," says Englishman Patrick Wyton, sitting beside the remnants of an old stone wall in the Tainan Confucius Temple Historical Area.
Nearly 350 years ago, the Tainan Confucius Temple was built as the first site for Confucian studies on the island, earning it the moniker "Taiwan's First Academy." The foliage extending from four- to five-story hundred-year-old banyan trees provide plenty of shade for visitors to the park.
Sitting under one of the trees in a T-shirt and shorts, Wyton had come to the park with his family to walk around and get some exercise. When Wyton came to Taiwan 13 years ago, he decided to settle in Tainan and got married to a woman from the city.
"Tainan is a city that's continually on the rise. Taipei and Taichung will soon be overtaken," Wyton says, particularly appreciative of the city's historical tradition that is well-preserved to this day.
Tainan's population may be growing at only a gradual pace, but it has expanded consistently from year to year, helped by a positive net migration rate that has outpaced the city's natural birth rate.
The city was Taiwan's capital under the Qing Dynasty from the late 17th century to the late 19th century, and what appeals to outsiders is the old capital's historical feel, mixed with its steady stream of innovative businesses.

Linking Historical Sites through Stories
Walking from the old gate of "Taiwan's First Academy" on Nanmen Road toward Jhongjheng Rd., one passes by a building that was the Tainan Prefectural Hall during the Japanese colonial era and is now an important cultural center – the National Museum of Taiwan Literature. A left turn onto Jhongjheng Road after reaching a traffic circle reveals an old department store from the Japanese era currently under renovation.
All of the historical sites on this short walk have always been able to attract visitors on their own merit, but one year ago, the Tainan municipal government capitalized on the renovation of the Japanese-era department store to group the historical sites into a special cultural "zone."
Old Lin's Department Store, built in 1932, was one of only two pre-World War II department stores in Taiwan (along with the Kikumoto Department Store in Taipei) to have an elevator. It was five stories tall – a sight so rare at the time that the residents of Tainan simply referred to it as "the five story building."
"At one point on Jhongjheng Road, there were more than 30 department stores in the vicinity of Old Lin's Department Store," says Yeh Tse-shan, the director-general of the Tainan Cultural Affairs Bureau. "Along with the department store restoration project, many private interests have now begun to use those other old store structures."
"We hope to turn the renovated Lin's Department Store into a 'cultural and creative department store' designed to reflect Tainan's culture," says Wang Hao-yi, who is involved in the creative industry and promoting in-depth tours of Tainan. He is also in charge of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications' "International Spotlight" program for southern Taiwan.

"Tainan's historical sites already have different looks in different parts of the city. Old residences are scattered all over," Wang says. "What I want to do is to use stories to string together a series of historical tourism routes."
According to Wang, the political disposition of southern Taiwan (which leans more pro-Taiwan and anti-China) has left administrative heads in the region reluctant to show Chinese officials or tourists around. But he has insisted on introducing Tainan's culture to Chinese visitors.
Last week, when Wang welcomed a group of over 30 tourism and cultural officials from China, his main points of emphasis were historical sites such as the Confucius Temple and the city's many other temples.
"These are historical legacies shared by the two sides of the Taiwan Strait that resonate the most," Wang says. When he showed the visiting officials a plaque in the Koxinga Shrine with an inscription written by Chiang Kai-shek reading, "Revitalize the Chinese Nation," one of them exclaimed, "What we want to do now, Taiwan already did 40 or 50 years ago."
The Tainan government is also getting into the act. It has just completed a general survey of more than 700 Japanese-era official residences in the greater Tainan area and plans to revitalize these abandoned structures.
Tainan mayor Lai Ching-te rattles off with ease the names and current statuses of a number of these buildings. "The red-brick Japanese military officer residence in an alley off Gongyuan Road is now a memorial hall for painter Kuo Po-chuan. The residence for judicial officials across from the Ximen branch of Shin Kong Mitsukoshi Department Store will be converted into a cultural park."
"If we can attract 10 or 20 designers capable of developing smartphone apps or who are willing to use concepts from Tainan's cultural history to create new things, it will allow cultural and creative industries to slowly take root," Lai says.
The city's new young immigrants have gone a step further, applying their diverse perspectives to interpret life in Taiwan's old capital.

Renovating Old Houses, Fulfilling a Dream
Writer and director Looloo Lu, born in 1980, made his name with the 7-minute short film "Poetic, Taipei." The premiere screening of his "Life of Never End Co. Ltd." – set in Kaohsiung – was completely sold out. But it was while filming that movie that he would often return to Taipei and stop for a rest in Tainan, and gradually fell in love with the city.
In 2010, Lu and his wife, designer Ayo Hsu, were about to have a child, and they decided to settle down and open a business – designer handbag company "La Yoo" – in Tainan.
"We spent NT$1 million to buy this three-story storefront building and just over NT$2 million to buy the apartment where we now live," Lu says. "For less than NT$4 million, I was able to start a business and live in Tainan, and I had more time for my family."
Lu's new life does have its pitfalls. The old house he bought leaks, but he seems uninterested in covering the roof with sheet metal to solve the problem. "I've spent more than six months just looking for an old craftsman who can repair the roof tiles," he says. "I want to live in a house that's organic, because we have come here to find happiness."
The couple decided to make handbags because Hsu became obsessed with handmade handbags when she was pregnant. In Tainan, they have a rich cultural palette from which to draw inspiration for new products.
"Our first Confucius Temple bag made use of the Tainan Confucius Temple's cornices and curved lines," Lu explains. "After it went on sale, Tainan consumers suddenly discovered that Tainan's culture could be represented in this way."

But finding talented artisans to make handmade bags was as big of a chore as tracking down experienced craftsman to fix old buildings. The couple went through every listing in their local Yellow Pages before finding an elderly woman in Sinhua – a small town east of the city – who had crafted bags for more than 40 years and was willing to help produce them and guide new employees.
Today, this veteran bag maker leads a team of 20- to 30-year-old employees recruited by Lu, teaching them how to sew by hand and by machine.
"Taiwan's cultural and creative products face a major fault line when it comes to production. We hope that we can hand down these techniques and enable traditional needlework to develop along the lines of Japan's shokunin," Lu says, referring to Japan's class of master craftsmen.

Urban Renewal Encroaching on Historical Feel
Tainan has the potential to become a world-class old capital blending the old and the new, but it still has a long way to go to fulfill such a vision.
Because the Tainan government has faced funding shortfalls since becoming a special municipality at the end of 2010 (resulting from the merger of what was Tainan City and Tainan County), it has opted to bump up permissible floor area ratios to encourage private-sector participation in urban renewal. The initiative allows developers to put up new buildings with far more floor space than previously existed on the same plot of land. But at least one scholar, Wu Yu-cheng, who teaches architecture at Tainan's most prestigious school – National Cheng Kung University – has his doubts about the plan's feasibility.
He cited the example of a 24-story structure suddenly sprouting up in a neighborhood of old four-story residential buildings because of the relaxed floor space ratio, destroying the old capital's cityscape.
"Urban renewal should not be just about selling space and selling land," Wu said. "The urban renewal I have in mind for Tainan focuses on solving the problem of inadequate infrastructure rather than giving communities large-scale facelifts."

A Barrier to Cultural Expansion
Though the city is betting on a cultural reawakening as the foundation of its development, it faces a serious challenge.
The city's growth has always been concentrated in the old part of town, unlike Taipei and Kaohsiung, which have seen their centers of gravity move eastward, and Tainan has suffered for it, preventing it from engendering a broader cultural population that can support an expansion of the arts. As a result, the Yanfen District Art Camp, a unique fixture in Tainan for 30 years, was discontinued recently, and the renowned Tainan Jen Theatre Group has decided to leave its old Tainan home.
Even more troubling, many renovated old residences that were designated to be used as performing arts or exhibition venues have not been able to attract a proportionately sized audience. A photo exhibition called "Once Upon a City" by noted photographer Chu Yin-hua, currently on display at Art Square Taiwan, across from Chin Men Theater, rarely draws a soul on weekday afternoons.
Venues similar to Art Square are found in almost every alley near Fujhong Street, a pedestrian street just across Nanmen Road from the Confucius Temple that has gradually emerged as a key cultural and creative cluster in the heart of the city.
Paul Chuang, who runs Art Square, says candidly that he wants to diversify Tainan's arts and culture but has yet to find a suitable operating model. "Fortunately, the rent and living expenses are cheap, so I can continue on," he says, but the problem he faces results from a vicious circle, according to National Cheng Kung University's Wu.

"Without broader and more diverse development, you can't cultivate cultural and creative businesses. Without those businesses, you can't support a lot of people," Wu explains. "Tainan still has to make a major effort if it really wants to use the old capital's cultural assets to develop the cultural and creative sector."
When Taiwan's economy took flight in the 1970s and 1980s, Tainan did not ride the development wave to expand and modernize as did other major cities, instead preserving many of the old sites and relics for which the city has become known.
But tour developer Wang Hao-yi remains optimistic. "Over the years, we've seen Kaohsiung get bigger, Taichung get broader, and Taipei get taller. Only Tainan has preserved some of its old flavor, which has inspired people to come here to dream."
But whether those dreams can be fulfilled and the city's old tunes can hit new notes will depend on Tainan's residents and their ability to instill new life into their cultural assets and inspire newfound creativity.

2012年8月26日 星期日

(轉貼自天下雜誌英文版:社會企業家Yunus) Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus:Build a Social Business that Outlasts You

Even though forced to retire, he has refused to slow down. In this exclusive interview, Muhammad Yunus speaks of unleashing the creativity latent in us all.
He was the first economist to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in its 111-year history.
Muhammad Yunus invented the microcredit business model and founded a "bank for the poor," not only changing the destinies of millions of people, but also proposing a new paradigm for capitalism.
Thirty-six years ago, Yunus borrowed US$27 and gave it to 42 poor Bengali women, allowing them to start their own businesses and support their families. Today, 8.5 million people around the world have received micro-loans from "banks for the poor." In other words, Yunus has created over eight million jobs.
The 72-year-old Yunus may have been compelled by his government to retire, but he remains decidedly active. Dressed in a long, green checkered shirt, he insisted that whenever he encounters a problem in society, he leaps in to solve it. Starting a new enterprise to address every problem he sees, he has established 60 companies to date.
In mid-August Muhammad Yunus sat down for a chat with CommonWealth Magazine. Following are highlights from this exclusive interview.
------------------

Q: You often encourage young entrepreneurs. What is your main concern?
A: All societies care for their youth, because it is the youth that build the future. Caring for the young is common human behavior. But I bring an extra point to this common behavior. I think this generation of young people is probably the most powerful young generation in human history. They are not qualitatively different. But from the beginning of their lives, they are blessed with enormous advances in technology, and technology has become a part of them. They enjoy advanced communications technology, so they can contact each other globally. They can communicate effortlessly and instantly. It's never happened before in human history.

And one other thing: they have access to information and knowledge. They can find the latest information and knowledge on anything effortlessly. Think about previous generations that didn't have books – how difficult was it for them back then? And those that didn't have libraries. Then libraries became the most important source of information, and so the best ones were private. Now every child anywhere can access any information they want. They just go online and ask the question. It gives you tremendous power. Previous generations wasted so much time looking for information, and now you don't have to. You have extra time and creative power. Young people, like always, have lots of creativity, and now this creativity can be explored faster.

So, if you have the power, what will you do with it? It is the overwhelming question we are dealing with now. And that's why I raise this question, that this generation is not like any before it – they are very different. And the next generation, and the next, should be even more powerful, but this is the generation we are dealing with now.

Q: And yet all over the world the young generation is facing unemployment. They are called the "Screwed Generation." Some say they are hopeless. How can we help?
A: They have to help themselves. We the older generation cannot help, because our minds are set. It's difficult for us to think of new things.
The way I see the question of unemployment, I say, look at any young person in the world. He is able and capable of working, he is intelligent and creative, but the system doesn't let him use this capacity. The system throws him in the trash can. And whose fault is this? Is it the person's fault he cannot use this capacity? Or is it the system that doesn't know how to make use of these resources? My answer is, it's always the system's fault. And if the system doesn't work, we should change it, don't let it change you.
So who built this system? We did, the older generation did, and so we don't know how to undo it. The younger generation can, because they are not part of it. So they can design a new system. I think there is no reason anyone should be unemployed. It doesn't make sense. I have this little joke: Have you heard of an unemployed animal? No, of course not. So how can human beings, with all this technology, why is he unemployed?
So what is the problem here? It's because it's not natural. The system we created made a natural thing disappear, and that natural thing is my right to contribute to society. A system that makes such a thing disappear is wasteful and painful structure. So if we can design a place where no one is unemployed, then even the word "unemployment" will lose meaning.
And if we do not have unemployment, we won't have poverty, because everyone can take care of themselves, and the problem of poverty will become obsolete. But can humans build such a system? Of course we can. Look at all the software we designed. Of course we can design such a system. If we can make high-tech gadgets usable even for a normal person, even a stupid person; if anyone can pick it up and master it; then why can't we create a better system? If you can design a system that takes us to the moon and back, without actually going there, how can we not build a better system for the society?
If you can design such a system, that's great. But we will need to replace the old system with this new system. Right now we are pushing an old cart, a cart that's a couple of centuries old, and we are adjusting the margins, trying to make it go faster. But we should design an entirely new cart, a cart that can fly! This old one will never fly. It will go from 5 to 10 to 20 miles, but it will never fly. We need a machine that flies.

Q: Do you have any example?
A: There are lots of ideas. When there is competition, there will be lots of ideas. I say, don't wait for the economists to design a new system. Anyone can design it. All you have to do is find the objective and go for it. Don't go to the economists and say, we have a machine that doesn't work, can you fix it? Fixing it by a little bit is not an achievement. Don't say we have reduced unemployment by a certain percentage, when the number of people unemployed should be zero.
In poor countries, you don't have employment numbers in the news, because it's a foreign concept to them. We have that in the developed world, because it's a luxury. In poorer countries, people are making their own livings. That's an animal living, living just for today. Human beings are much bigger. We have a bigger purpose than living just for today.

Q: Your speech mentioned that the most difficult problem is creating jobs?
A: I should say, human beings have not mastered the technique of creating jobs, because they have never tried the correct way. Our starting point should be different. It's not about making more jobs, and getting more investments. We should make a new system where no one should be unemployed.
Employment is a conceptual thing. Economists assume that out of all the people on earth, some can become entrepreneurs, because they are a special people, they are the ones who will decide the investments. And the rest of us, normal people like you or me, will only be able to follow them, to look for jobs. This is where they went wrong! If we assume all human beings are entrepreneurs, then we have created a newer and better system. Because entrepreneurship is a basic human quality. Some may have discovered some new concept, but others never had a chance under this system, because in this system they were told to work hard, to get a degree, to get a job. They were never told to figure out what you can do with yourself!
Once you change the system, you change the concept of employment. Then businesses will have to work hard to persuade people to come with you. Businesses will have to persuade me – why should I have to go work for you? If it's not creative, then it is not natural thinking. So my thinking is, I have my own thinking. If you want me to work for you, you have to persuade me very hard. Why I should go to work at 9 and work to midnight? Why should I work for you? I'm not a slave. The current idea of employment came from this slavery tradition, the need to control somebody. It's not a free human idea.

Q: How can social businesses play a role?
A: That's another conceptual error. The present system is based on the idea that businesses must make money. It's the only type of business the current system can tolerate. So by accepting it, we all run for money. It's all we can do. Businesses make money, we hire more people to make more money, and that's where all the problems began. In this system the human being is misinterpreted. We are not robots. This system converted us into robots. The only thing we exist to do is to make money. It's a money-centric world we live in. It's not a natural way, but our framework made it so, and so money became an obsession. This obsession created all the problems. We no longer have time for anything else, and so everyone becomes me-centric. The current economy has no center of attention other than making money.
So, if everyone is making money, who solves the common problems? We say, the government! So we dump all our problems there, because we give them taxes. We feel we can say, "I'm busy with making money – you have to solve the problems. All I can do is to send you some of my money." It's a very wrong interpretation of human life. We are not robots. We have other dimensions and creative power. We can use our creative power to solve problems, and we can do so more efficiently than the government, because the government works through bureaucracy. Every government ministry was created to solve one problem, and then they have certain budgets, so we are just throwing money into problems. And the government tries to solve problems by charity, by giving money to different people. But it's not effective. It's passive, and it takes the initiative from the people they are helping.
Society should help people by lifting their energy, by teaching them to solve problems. Charity takes away initiative. So you should ask yourself, to what extent are you helping this person? Are you making him more active? Are you putting him into an exploratory mode, rather than sleeping mode, where we take care of you, you just take it easy? Because that is not solving the problem.
And why can't the people do that? I'm not saying that charity or philanthropy is not good, but there's a more effective way, and that is through business. Not conventional businesses that make money, but social businesses that solve problems, that use the money and creative power and contacts all businesses have to solve problems.
A single person may not be able to solve a problem, but we as a social business can, and it makes them happy and solves their problems, and I get my money back, I recycle it and solve more problems, and so helping others becomes self-sustaining rather than depending on external infusion of money. This is what we call a social business. Then it makes more sense, because we are not robots, we can use our human capacity to solve human problems, rather than coming up with clever ideas to make money. Again, making money is not bad, but the same creative power can be used to solve problems. But today that door is closed. We have taken different kinds of human beings and made them into money-making robots. That's why they say, "Business is business." We have no other room for human behavior. We behave like machines. You may be my father, son or daughter, but I make no exceptions for anyone, because all we do is make money. That is the concept behind the phrase, "Business is business." But there should be a variety of businesses, and social business is the second type. This is a business without dividends.

Q: You are 71 years old. Right now, the baby boomers are retiring. How do you think they can contribute to today's youth?
A: I'm glad you didn't use the word "older" people. You said "retired" people. Again, that's the terminology – retired. It's used with an idea that you no longer work. Because there's only one kind of work: You work for a company or the government, and when you stop working for them, that's it. But most of the time, that kind of work is a drudgery. You don't like it, but you need to make a living. And when you retire, that means you are free from work and the boss. But that doesn't mean you can't work. It just means now you work for yourself. So there are so many options. What you could not do before, you can do now. Before, you did things you didn't like, but you had to do it, because it was the best-paying, best-located job for yourself that you could find. But you never liked it. It didn't suit you. But you must make a living, so you did it.
But when the time comes when you are not employed, you can use yourself the way you want. So retired doesn't mean old, though the two phrases get mixed up. You are still active, but not in the old routine. Now you can make your own routine. You are very flexible. You can enjoy doing what you didn't have time to do before. It doesn't mean going on a world cruise 50 times to look for adventure. The first time may be fine, the second time won't be as exciting, and the third time will be boring. So you go through excitement very quickly if retiring just means leisure. You should be busy doing things that please you. So all the things you think that can be done, can actually be done.
We need institutions to help "retired" people put their time to good use. It's common for people in developed countries to celebrate their 95th or 100th birthdays. And even then they can do things. They are not bedridden. You have a lot of time between 95 and when you retired at 65. A lot of useful and creative time. All the unfinished agendas you had, this is the time. So what can we do with that time? One way is to volunteer oneself to charity, or to use our accumulated wealth in a meaningful way. But I say there is another way – to build a social creative business that will outlast you. Philanthropy will disappear, because the money you donate is not coming back. But a social company, like all companies, will keep growing and growing, so that 100 years after you are gone, you are still doing good things, and the company bears your name, and people remember you changed the world. That's the creative power to solve problems. That's what retired people can do. To retire means to start a new life. It's not the end of my life, but the beginning of the life that belongs to me, a life not as an employee, not as a CEO or a division head. Those job titles were slots I fitted into, roles I acted according to the script for the slot. But now I have my own script, I write and rewrite my script every moment of every day, and I live as I am.

Q: What kind of social businesses can we create?
A: Well, what kind of problems bother you? All social businesses are about solving problems. If it's not about solving problems, it's not a social business. So which problems should you try to address? It's the ones I know how to handle, the ones that always bothered me, so I create a business to address that problem. And if I know I can do it, I'm probably not thinking about it only after I retire. I've probably been thinking about it since the 1st day of my job at the company. I think about what to do when I retire, what to do when my prison sentence is over. I've been planning it since the 1st day I entered prison. I have labored for it, planned for the day when I am free, when I come out of the jail's gate. But I felt, first I had to go through the sentence.
So in my experience, I've always had creative ideas, just like anyone else. And I never worked for somebody else, so you can say I was retired a while back. I always did what pleased me. And every time I do it, I create a company, and this is where the idea for the social business came from – it was forming a company to solve problems.

Q: There is great inequality between the poor young and the rich old. How do you relieve the tension between the generations?
A: It all depends on how you look at the concept of rich and poor. I say, it's the "poor old" and the "rich young." They are rich with creative power, they have the technology to use that power with. The old don't even know how to use mobile phones. They fumble turning on little gadgets which are bread-and-butter for five- and seven-year-olds. That's the rich person you are talking about! Money doesn't mean anything. It's talent and ability that makes a person wealthy. So the young are rich; the old are poor.
But what should the young do with this rich ability? So I say, there is a mismatch between the old and young, because the young are far ahead of the old. But traditionally we say, "The older, the wiser." Today it's difficult to make that statement. It may be the younger you are, the wiser you are, because you have the information. The older people only have old ideas, which don't match the times. They are missing information, and they never checked for updates. The young, at the minute of doubt, can look it up with Google or Wiki, as it is right now, and not from an old book someone somewhere wrote a long time ago, filled with obsolete ideas. This is what old people do – they don't see anything new. The young are fresh and current, so a 10- or 12-year-old can give the final verdict on any problem in the family, because he checked it out on the Internet. He has the latest information.
So we shouldn't impose old ideas on the young. We shouldn't pull them back. We shouldn't say, "Don't do this," or "Don't do that." This is what slows the young people down. Better than imposing on the young, we should let them lead the way, to find a better answer and a clearer path.

Q: How can one person change the world – we are so small and powerless?
A: Changing the world needs only one person. It happened in the past. Most new ideas came from one person who came up with the idea to make the world different. So this isn't a new concept at all. The new thing I emphasize here is, anyone can do that – we don't have to wait for someone else. We always think we have to wait for someone to change everything, a political or business leader that transforms everything. But the power to transform is embedded in all of us. We do not pay attention to this power, because we were told a different story, that is to find a job, to be successful, to get the promotion before others, and we are only running from slot to slot. So we work extra hard to get the slot before anyone else. But we don't think we can do more than working for the company. We don't think we can change the world, because no one ever told us.
But young people get the message, they know each person can change the world, and we can all do it at the same time. So no one takes a chance. If someone invents something, you can do it a different way. Changing the world is not a big deal – that's something I want to emphasize.
You don't start with solving global starvation. Many people think, "Two billion people go to bed hungry – I have to solve that." You don't have to solve it. You start with two people. If you can take care of two, you can take care of two billion. Repetition of the good idea is someone else's job. My job is to start as small as you can get, even with one person. And if you can take care of two people, you have developed the seed, so now making the plantation is easy. So the task is developing the seed for any problem.
If you can make two or three or five illiterate people become literate, you can help billions. You don't need a school and a teacher. You can make a game. You get a lot of fun with learning that way. People love to play games and learn, it's so easy to do that now with touch screens. You have beautiful and colorful things coming towards you. And so we message each other, and we learn to read through playing with and understanding each other. An illiterate person is not stupid. He just hasn't learned to write down the things he can do in his mind. I don't need someone beating me over the head to learn. I can learn through having fun. And if I can do it for five people, I can do it for five billion people. That's the beauty of it.
It's the way I always worked. Everything I did, I started tiny. If it worked, I repeated it, and if it didn't work, I stopped.

Q: You've been called the world banker to the poor…
A: The poor don't have financial services, because no one will touch them. They are called the Untouchables, because they are not credible. But they are more than touchable – they are huggable. It's no problem. We proved it can be done. There's no reason to deny them financial services. It's where we started from.
And I'm not saying my way will work forever. Nothing is best forever – it's only best at that time. That's the power of human creativity. Someone will always come up with a better idea. It's the definition of progress. The first automobile ever invented was a sensation. Now you couldn't possibly sell it. It's like a toy. The first plane that really flew was a sensation, and now it's hanging from a ceiling in the Smithsonian museum. People laugh at it now, but it created a revolution once. So this is how it is – someone makes the first breakthrough, then someone makes it ever better and better.
Right now, banking to the poor is a footnote in the entire financial services. But it doesn't have to be, it can potentially cover more people than any other bank. This system should be the driving force, not just a footnote. But because our minds are set, we are stuck with it. They don't talk about it in the media, because it's a side story, a tiny story, if a story at all.

Q: How do we make capitalism more human? Many institutions are now redefining what is progress. What is a prosperous society to you?
A: Like I said, capitalism solved many problems, but it created more problems we could not solve, like poverty and unemployment, poor health and unnecessary death, income disparity and environmental hazards. Its problems are built into the system. It's not the individual's fault – the system pushed us in the wrong direction and made the problems worse. We must undo the system. This is what we talked about at the start of this interview. We must make a better system. I say, trash the current system that made all the problems. Throw this system into the garbage. Don't let the system throw me away, because I cannot accept the punishment when I'm not responsible for it. We don't solve the problem by making little changes here and there, by making little exceptions to the rule. These are small amendments trying to take care of a problem created by the system. It's the failure of the system you are trying to cope with, but the ways you cope are not good. It takes initiative from humans. It makes people part of a human zoo. They are not the same animal they were in the forest. You feed me and take care of me, but I'm not the creative, active human being I used to be. It's like bringing a lion or elephant into the zoo. You can take care of it, but it's not what it used to be. I enjoyed my old life. You take it away, you put me into a cage, and now I don't even know what a tree looks like. So it's the same with humans, I don't really know what work is. You put me in this slot, and I make money, and I buy groceries and pay the rent, but I don't feel like I really did anything. So we need to change the current system – there's no debate! Little reforms here and there are temporary solutions. It only delays the progress of another crisis. We didn't change anything. It's an old car that doesn't work. You fix it here and there, so the old car goes for another 20 miles and then it breaks down again, because we didn't change the engine. We need a new engine, rather than to fix the old.
So social business is my suggestion of change. Capitalism is standing on one leg right now, because you have misinterpreted humans as robots. You must change it. Give us back the human element, the need to do things for others. So I have a social business to balance the system, so capitalism can stand on two legs rather than one. And maybe we will need to discard it later, but right now social business is the solution. You can make money and solve problems at the same time. If you can do this, you can solve more and more problems. Social business brings us a new dimension, a new kind of capitalism. And someday we might move on to the next phase, to solve the problems that social businesses cannot solve. But within the framework we have, this is the right direction.

Q: Last question: What is well-being? How do you suggest young people or older people achieve well-being and happiness?
A:Well-being is a physical thing that can be solved with medical science. Science will always progress. But will the fruits of science come to me? If a child has a troubled heart, it may be easy to fix. But is it available to the poor child? Science gives the solution, but no one brings it to him. Science keeps moving. It can keep you alive beyond 100 years. But is it affordable and available to everyone? That's the problem the economy and the society must solve, not science. That's the shortcoming of the capitalist system: Inequality will become more acute, because the lucky will have everything, and the unlucky will not have even an aspirin, even to save his life. So availability and affordability is key. Solutions are not available because you want to make money. Who cares if you die? If you pay me, then I will operate and give you medicine. It might cost me 10 dollars to produce the pill, but I want 1000 dollars for it, because I want to make huge money. So I won't give it to you for 10 dollars, even to save your life.
Happiness is another issue. What is it? One way I express it is, to some people, making money is synonymous with happiness, it's a measure of happiness. To some people it is so – money is happiness, success makes you happy. That is understood and established, that is okay. But I think making other people happy is also happiness. I think it's super-happiness. But because most people are not allowed to taste it, they don't know what it's like. Why can't we open the door? If you taste it and like it, then you can move in its direction. If it makes you happy, why not do it and be happy? We have to open the door, but now there is only one kind of door, only one kind of happiness. I think there are two sources, you can make yourself happy by centering everything towards you, be me-centric. Or you can be happy by making others happy. Choose some of the two, combine them the way you want in any mix. I think when you have super-happiness, you will forget about yourself. But it depends on what makes you happy. I want to make an impact on the world and others. We are all here only for a short period. And I want to make a signature. I want people to remember I was here. That's happiness. I'm happy, super-happy doing what I do, or I wouldn't do it.

2012年8月23日 星期四

(轉貼自作家小野文章+心得) 年輕人不是用來操的

註:我想我的部落格很多都是年輕的學生。筆者蠻同意作家小野的說法,我們的大環境不佳,讓許多年輕人失業率變得很高,學歷不值錢(看筆者的部落者就知道),就業考試變得非常夯。大環境的不佳短期內無法改變(這是很肯定的),但我想有一技在身(不管是哪條路),絕對不怕沒出路。與各位同學共勉之! 如果你是初入社會的新鮮人,把工作當成學一技之長(小野作家描寫的組織問題到處都有),心裡就會很坦然。

這些年我常常接到一些莫名奇妙的電話。

一家很著名的電視台傳來一個很生嫩的聲音,想邀請我接受訪問,我問了一些問題對方都說不知道。她解釋說:「我只是幫忙打電話的。」「你說的不清楚,要我如何答應呢?」我婉拒了對方的請求,對方還傻傻的追著說:「那我等一下去請示一下上面。再告訴你。」「什麼是上面呢?」「就是這個案子的承辦人呀。」我猜,這又是一個大公司外圍的派潛人力或是工讀生。

一家開銷很大的公司養了很多正職的員工,一個比一個大牌,一個比一個懶惰,最後在第一線工作的全是這種拿很少酬勞又沒有福利又沒機會升遷,也無法累積年資的派遣人員、臨時助理、工讀生或是公務機關的替代役男。如果在過去,同樣一件事情,不會用如此粗糙的方式進行,把每個人都當成可替代的「物件」來處理。

我一方面很同情這些被派在第一線工作的年輕人被草率的對待,一方面也對這種充滿官僚氣息和不平等待遇的工作倫理和文化感到憤怒。我為了維持起碼的尊嚴都不會答應這一類的邀約,不管那是多麼偉大的機構。我知道沒有我的參與,每件事情都會繼續下去,也都會完成,但我就是不想浪費時間在這些人和這些工作上面。我沒有必要去忍受這些荒謬的現象,到底問題出在那裡?

我想起自己在一家電視公司當經營者的故事。剛到公司,幾乎天天都要處理一些因為公司轉型所衍生出來的許多問題。有一天辦公室門口吱吱喳喳來了一群看起來像大學生的女孩子,她們要求要當面見我。我請她們坐在我的辦公室的會議桌前聽她們的抱怨。

她們原來是隸屬於我們公司一個教學頻道的工讀生,大部份都是來自南部,靠著助學貸款讀著北部的大學的窮孩子。她們爭先恐後的算給我聽她們在台北的生活開銷,還學貸、繳房租、伙食、寄回去的家用。按照公司過去的傳統,這些工讀生都會成為正式的員工,她們說,她們是這個部門最忙的,也是待遇最低的。我看著這些大學剛畢業的窮家孩子,和人事部門商量後,每人加薪三千元。我無法解決社會大問題,但至少先解決自己看到的小問題。

同一年,女兒拿到義大利米蘭工業設計學院的碩士文憑回到台灣,我沒有替她打電話拜托朋友找工作,她開始到處碰璧。後來她試著不寫最高學歷,一再降低對薪資的要求還是沒機會。有一天,她遇到了一個過去認識的小男生,兩個人聊了起來,才知道目前職場的悲慘狀況。小男生學的是廣告設計,利用暑假在一家廣告公司打工,他在這家公司的工作從美編、排版、修圖、修電腦到打掃清潔,是全公司最忙的。他說將來就算是畢了業,起薪也只有一萬八。那個小男生原本對美術設計還懷著夢想,還沒畢業就看到自己的未來。他無奈的說:「反正我們很好用,什麼都會,又耐操。我們這些年輕人註定是要被操到死的!」

四個月後女兒找到一家正要擴大生意的網路公司當動畫設計師,果然開始了沒日沒夜的加班日子。不到一年又被挖角到一家報紙副刊當主編,但是她很快又決定去一家提琴店當店長,之後,又轉換跑道到一家出版社工作。短短五年內換了四份完全不同性質的工作,唯一沒變的是活在自己的奇幻世界,寫她的長篇奇幻小說,並且學會拉大提琴。她曾經很不平的對我說:「這個環境會把滿腔熱血的年輕人變成了自我價值毀壞的卑微小動物,大人們卻又怪罪我們年輕人驕縱不耐操。其實我們很努力!」

年輕人是要教的,是要讓他們發揮創意的,不是拿來當機器人操的。讓年輕人站在我們的肩膀上,讓他們能看得更高更遠,而不是將他們踩在腳底下突顯大人們的權力和威風的。

年輕人生在這樣一個爛時代,已經夠倒楣了,多給他們一些機會和舞台吧。

2012年8月20日 星期一

(轉貼自中國時報)觀念平台-沒有人才 還是沒有伯樂?


就像是千里馬般雲遊四海,只要找到自己的
興趣與專長,你就是一個人才。
備註: 各位同學好,轉貼一篇文章給大家閱讀。我覺得只要找到自己興趣,發展為自己的專長就是人才。所以,要趁現在好好去發掘,不要人云亦云,天無絕人之路的。若你對英語有興趣,就往下發展紮根,最後總會有一片天的。

2012-08-20 01:03 中國時報 【張瑞雄】
國科會召開「科學技術發展諮議會」,其中一個重點是人才問題,朱敬一主委說:「台灣人才斷層,再無作為,死狀甚慘。」但前一陣子媒體才批評說台灣博碩士太多,已將近一百萬人,難道這一百萬人中都沒有人才?台灣沒有人才,還是人才無法被發掘和利用?

大家都聽過伯樂幫楚王相馬的故事,一匹拉著鹽車的瘦馬,只有伯樂看得出是千里馬,楚王看到伯樂牽來的馬瘦得不成樣子,認為伯樂愚弄他,有點不高興,伯樂說:「這確實是匹千里馬,只不過用錯地方,又亂養,所以看起來很瘦。只要精心餵養,不出半個月,一定會改觀。」果然不久,馬變得精壯神駿。楚王跨馬揚鞭,但覺兩耳生風,瞬間已跑出百里之外。

因此韓愈說:「世有伯樂,然後有千里馬;千里馬常有,而伯樂不常有。」政府高層用人,如果你不認識總統或行政院長所倚重的那少數關鍵幾個人(伯樂),你就不可能獲得推薦,即使你是再棒的人才也英雄無用武之地。大家周遭朋友一定都會有很多超棒的人才,比起檯面上那些官員也不遑多讓,但他們沒身世沒背景沒人脈,所以永遠不會被列入人才。

政府機關如此,私人企業亦然。沒有裙帶關係,沒有認識高層,一個人不管再怎麼的努力和有能力,能做到部門經理就很難了,遑論接掌一個企業。雖然很多老闆嘴巴說傳賢不傳子,能做到者幾希?

比爾蓋茲創辦了微軟,楊致遠創辦了美國雅虎,現在他們都退下來,也沒有把微軟或雅虎當作一個家族企業來看,用人唯才。例如雅虎最近挖了前谷歌的一位女主管去當執行長,這位女執行長和雅虎並沒有任何關係,事實上她也和谷歌的創辦人沒有任何關係,純粹是因為其能力而做到主管級。

國家對於很多人才有時「策之不以其道,食之不能盡其材,鳴之而不能通其意」,然後才大聲疾呼說:「『天下無馬』。嗚呼!其真無馬邪?其真不知馬也!」所以國家或公司對於人才一定要想出辦法來請其做事,然後給適當的薪水,最後當人才在反映意見時,一定要仔細地聆聽,否則永遠只會說:「天下無馬。」

每次內閣改組,誰上誰下都變成媒體的猜謎遊戲,為什麼我們不能有一個自我推薦的辦法和公開的評比,或許政府就會發掘許多人才。如果各個公私立單位用人能多些管道徵才,就不會小圈子用人,也能有更多元的人才。

很多人才是還未發覺自己的才能,這就是教育所要發揮的功能;另外有些人才是找不到機會,這就是國家要檢討如何創造更多的舞台讓人才來發揮,否則人才不是默默以終,就是龍困淺灘。

人才不是沒有,端看政府和企業如何來發掘人才,如何對待和善用而已。(作者為台灣觀光學院校長)

2012年8月19日 星期日

公告:清寒,單親學生以5折優待

本教室希望能效法社會企業(social enterprises)的部分作法,針對清寒,單親學生以5折優待(從下學期開始),希望所有想學英文的莘莘學子都可以學到英文.
歡迎與我們連絡 06-2582612
cchuangenglish@gmail.com

註:本班保留接受與否權利

2012年8月6日 星期一

一個留英學生的午餐

筆者6年前教的一個留英高中生幾天前回台灣了我約了這位同學P去吃了午餐P全程用英文與我對談我非常的高興P可以將英文練得很棒 (暗暗高興自己也有一絲絲的功勞)我相信到英國5年應該是他英文進步最多的時候特別對一個高中生,學習能力正是非常高的時候

幾乎全程都是他在發言But it is ok with me because I was so happy with his British pronounciation and aggressive attitude (我很高興他有英式發音與非常西方式的主動態度)特別是他言談中間的態度非常的積極與東方的小孩完全不同我想態度上的學習應該是他到英國學到最多的(除了語言之外)他的視野(vision)也幾乎與現在幾乎不出國的台灣學生完全天差地遠

他告訴我:他畢業之後不想在台灣想在香港或上海.我說為甚?他說這些才是國際化的都市台南太local了沒有國際化的思維培養不出國際化的人才這幾乎讓筆者想起15年前的我也是如此的期許自己但是筆者更想講的是:台灣談了這麼久的國際化不但沒有改變還越來越鎖國了

教學相長不就是如此? P希望您未來的路越走越遠成為國際化的人才!

推薦給同學兩個網站1. New York Times  http://www.nytimes.com/
                                    2. BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/