校園規劃四宗罪
Four
Problems in Campus Planning
誰不想在理想校園環境學習、生活？誰不想我們第二個家的規劃可以更完善？既然有份使用校園，那麼對校園規劃有要求、有寄望，亦是人之常情。實情是，校園規劃一直都有很多不如人意的地方，的確容易惹來諸多不滿。規劃毛病多多，乃基於以下四個累積已久的弊端：部份設施低效用，擺姿態，如同裝飾擺設，此其一；設計不便利使用者，校方對使用者需要了解有限，此其二；校方漠視民意，了無顯著改善，此其三；校方當年短視，欠缺長遠、永續的校園規劃，又沒堅持定下的規劃方針，此其四。下文將列舉種種例子，加以說明，予以佐證。眾例乍聞似是天方夜譚，可惜科大的校園規劃往往比小說更離奇，怎一個怪字了得。
Who does not want to
study in an ideal campus environment? Who does not hope for a better planning
of our second home? It is ordinary that we users have requirements and
expectations towards campus planning. The truth is, however, that many
disadvantages have existed in the campus planning, arousing much
dissatisfaction. They are based on the following four problems accumulated
long. Firstly, some facilities are of low efficiency and like decorations.
Secondly, the designs are non-user-friendly due to the University’s
insufficient understanding about users’ needs. Thirdly, the University has been
ignoring students’ opinions, making no prominent improvement. Fourthly, the
University was short-sighted that it lacked a long-term and sustainable campus
planning, without insistence of the objects of the planning. Below a number of
examples would be listed to illustrate and prove the above problems. They may
sound ridiculous, but they are still much less ridiculous than UST’s campus planning
is.
擺姿態的擺設
Decorations Only
科大人把北閘巴士站和火雞之間的路，稱為「青蛙路」，單憑這個暱稱，已添了多少生氣，而夾道綠油油的大樹，雖不至於參天，卻也送你郊野的氣息，一路伴隨。驟眼看來，地靈人傑；遠眺廣場正中央，便是鮮紅色的日晷，艷陽天下的「火雞」，何其奪目耀眼，直至你發現……
Imagine seeing the
bright red sundial on the center of Piazza walking on the path between Piazza
and the bus stop at North Gate, refreshed by green and trees alongside. You are
enjoying the scenery until you find that…
停車亭對出有一塊小小的「安全島」，位於雙程路的中央。島上有一條用好些磚頭鋪成的小徑。「希望本是無所謂有，無所謂無的。這正如地上的路；其實地上本沒有路，走的人多了，也便成了路。」魯迅此言甚是。你對同學自求我路、自強不息的精神敬佩萬分，且在小島上走出了更小的路，足見同學平凡中見不平凡。你本想叫它「行健路」，呼應「天行健，君子以自強不息」，自信遠勝「囍歡里」、「街坊街里」之流；但念及同學都懷着前程錦繡的盼望，而「路」又不及「道」得體，所以姑且命名為「康莊大道」。同學在小島上走出了「康莊大道」以後，校方可能出於敬意，或是為了紀念，便替它鋪上磚頭，但卻不種草，不知校方對小徑是出於愛惜，還是吝嗇，反正就是摸不透校方做事的方式。但出乎意料的是，「康莊大道」的使用率不高，但願這並非預告畢業後的出路。不過坦白說，鋪了磚頭，也不見得改善了甚麼，除了上述的勵志作用，此徑一無功德，實乃多此一餘。同時，你猜不透校方為何不在更大風的海傍興建風力發電柱，偏獨鍾情此處；你看不透樹木遮了陽光以後，太陽能發電裝置還可以發揮多大的功用。在北閘一下車，沿途仰俯，皆見低效用的設施，你該慶幸，它們不是「大白象」，只是「小而無當」。
There is a small “safety
island” opposite to the Entrance and between two-way roads, with a path paved
with several bricks. It was students who paved their way. The Univeristy then
did not grow grass there to make there green again but instead paved bricks on
that “Broad Road” - the smaller path on the small “safety island”. You don’t
know whether the University would like to treasure it or they were mean -
anyway you never get the way they do. Moreover, it might be beyond their
expectation that the usage rate of “Broad Road” has been low. One can say that
it has no use at all and is redundant. Meanwhile, you do not understand why the
University did not build the wind turbine on the windier seafront; you do not
understand how much the utility of the solar power devices is as the trees
block some of the sunlight. Although these facilities near North Gate are of
low utility, you should be glad that they are not white elephants but are still
in a small scale.
但是呢，同學，低效用的設施不只限於「青蛙路」沿途啊──這倒不值得慶幸。
But, our fellow
students, there are more low-utility facilities besides those mentioned – that
is not rejoicing.
例如，每年Atrium 總會舉行不少表演，校方亦會借出台板，作為表演用途。若然筆者告訴你，同學不准在新台板上跳躍，所以跳繩表演之類，一律禁止，相信諸君都會認為不可思議。可惜這偏偏是真人真事：校方聲稱新台板脆弱，經不起表演者跳繩所帶來的壓力，所以予以禁止。竟有雷同，實屬不幸。然而眾所皆知，台板本身用作形形色色的表演，常人都會預料到，表演形式包羅萬有，包含跳躍動作亦是正常；校方購入之際，亦理應確保安全可靠，能承受表演者的壓力，否則買來又有何用？抑或所謂「台板」中看不中用，只是裝飾藝術，為同學表演錦上添花而已？
For example, many
performances take place in Atrium every year. The University would provide
stage boards for performances. If you are told that students are not allowed to
jump on new stage boards and performances like rope skipping are forbidden, I
believe you may think it is unimaginable. It is a pity that it is real: the
University claimed that they were too fragile to support the pressure brought
by the rope skipping performers, so it was forbidden. That is unfortunate to
have such a coincidence. Everyone knows that the stage boards are used for various
forms of performances and it is normal to include jumping motions sometimes.
The University should have checked if they were safe and reliable to bear the
pressure from performers when they bought. Otherwise, what is the use to buy
them? Or are they just decorations in performances as icing on the cake?
學生會架構和屬會還要面對如下的「小」煩惱：其往往要擔心信件丟失。諸君大可留意LG5 學生會辦公室斜對面的橫櫃，當中每個狹小的膠抽屜，乃分配予各架構和屬會作「信箱」。這種橫櫃通常見於一般寫字樓內，為職員自用；抽屜沒有鎖，任何人放東西、拿東西一拉便可，輕而易舉。不知情者，還以為用以分類放置瑣碎文件或單張。難怪本會幹事每每念及信件予取予攜的風險。試問如此「信箱」，是否不要也罷？小時候，父母、師長便教育我們，小事不「小」──莫以善小而不為、萬丈高樓平地起……凡因循苟且、馬虎了事，便不容姑息，亟待糾正。連小事也辦不好，徒添麻煩，成事不足，敗事有餘，又豈能辦好大事？但願魯迅短篇小說〈一件小事〉末句「獨有這一件小事，卻總是浮在我眼前，有時反更分明，教我慚愧，催我自新，並且增長我的勇氣和希望。」將會成為校方的寫照，自我鞭策，積極改善。雖然其他妙句終於得到更多引用，不教那「沉默」專美，但筆者仍怕其英魂太「忙」，受不住筆者再湊熱鬧。也着實辛苦魯迅了。
Bodies and affiliate societies of the Students’ Union have to face a
“little” trouble as well that they are often worried that they may miss their
mails. Their mailboxes are the
small plastic drawers of the cabinet near Students' Union General Office on
LG5. This type of cabinets is often seen in offices for staff use; it is easy
to put things in and take stuff out as one just needs to pull the drawers
without locks. Those who do not know the use of that near the Office may think
they are used to categorize and place minor documents or leaflets. We do also
often think of the risk of missing mails. Could they be called “mailboxes”?
When we were small, our parents and teachers taught us that small things
matter. It is hoped that the University will improve and understand that they
will fail in doing great matters if they do not do trivial ones well.
此外，縱使根據科大建築設計師關善明先生在某訪談中的說法，創校之初，校方不想科大如中大般在校舍內使用巴士交通，但近日有聞校方慮及商學院大樓偏於校園南面，欲改變初衷，正構思購入環保電動車作穿梭巴士。雖論校園的自然環境，科大、中大皆依山而建，大體相似，但問題是，當中科大地盤比中大的還斜，中大亦無科大獨有的那道長長的大斜彎，所以中大的安全顧慮不大，穿梭巴士才不成問題。放諸科大則不然：科大學習的地方在山上，宿舍在山下的海傍，區隔顯然分明，異於書院如小區般林立的中大。偏偏，撇除升降機，貫通山上山下的通道，就只有大斜彎一途，彎曲陡峭，絕非平直，易生險象，亦走得吃力。除此以外，環保電動車使用率亦高不到何處去。在中大，書院林立，轉堂之際，要乘車到其他書院，繼續上課；但科大課室、宿舍分隔兩地，住宿的同學，通常早上上課，又不想承受上山之苦，或會乘車；但傍晚同學未必乘車下山，可能還是走連接橋乘升降機，也有同學仍在Academic Building 逗留，甚至走出科大，沒那麼快回宿舍。繁忙時段的使用率不見得處於高峰，遑論其他時段，但其他時段的使用率根本無關政策目的，任它多高，亦無助於證明，穿梭巴士緩解步行上學之苦的成效，可謂矛盾。
In addition, according
to the claim of our campus designer Mr. Kwan Sin-ming in an interview, although
the University did not intend to use shuttle buses as transport in the campus
like Chinese University (CU) did, it is heard that the University would like to
change its mind by taking the idea of installing environmental electrical
shuttle buses into account. Though the natural environment of UST and CU is
similar that they are both built on the hill, the UST construction site in the
past was steeper than that of CU while there is no big steep curve in CU but
UST. For CU, there are fewer safety concerns and shuttle buses cause no
troubles. In contrast, UST with places for study on the top and halls at the
foot of the hill, which has a distinction, are different from CU with colleges
like districts. But except lifts, the big steep curve is the only passageway
though: accidents easily happen; it is tiring to walk along. In addition, the
utility of environmental electrical shuttle buses would not be high. CU students
have to go to other colleges by vehicles for the next lessons. Meanwhile, in
UST, classrooms and halls are divided into two sides. If hall residents have
lessons in the morning, they may take the buses in the morning to prevent from
suffering from walking upwards. But they may return via Bridge Link and lifts
in the evening, still stay in Academic Building or even go outside UST. So the
usage rate at peak hours may not be at peaks, let alone that at other periods.
Paradoxically, the usage rate at other periods is even not related to the aim
of such policy and thus is useless to prove the effort of these buses to
alleviate the pain and suffering in walking to attend lessons.
了解不足 帶來不便
Inconvenience Due to a Lack of Understanding
about Students’ Needs
設施理應要照顧使用者的需要。同學當然也是使用者，而且因為人數多，是最大的使用者。然而，校方在規劃之時，往往沒有真正明白其需要，所以建成以後，設施反而無法便利用家。筆者相信，如斯後果絕非校方本意，但卻諷刺得很。
Facilities should take
care of users’ needs. Students are also users indeed; they are the main users
due to a higher population. Nevertheless, the University does not really
understand their needs during planning, so the facilities built could not make
users feel convenient. It is believed that such consequence is not the
University’s intention and that is irony.
校方更換了儲物櫃，還將申請費用由每年一百五十元而可免費續用，降至五十元而需每年支付相同金額續用，首年的申請費用少了兩倍，而更有彈性。此乃德政，筆者由衷讚賞。但原來校方打算在儲物櫃頭尾兩端各附亞加力膠板乙個，研究接受學生組織兩個月前預約，或向學生組織收取二百元訂金後，再供其放入A3 大小的宣傳海報，每週清理；如效果理想，會增置更多膠板。本還想讚不絕口，結果卻「讚不落口」。此損及財物擁有者和使用者權益，有損校容。若然另外有人在表面貼上宣傳單張、海報等，清潔人員除了每週清理膠板內的海報，還要清理外面的招紙，令工作量增加了不少。其他人可能冒險在外面貼上招紙，摶校方動作沒那麼迅速，逾一週也尚未清理；若然事成，更可省下使用膠板的訂金，變相鼓勵招貼行為。校方自找麻煩，甚為不智。縱容即使只得一天，也是縱容，正如政府也絕不容許貼街招。不加以遏止，反而助長歪風，種下禍根，萬一屆時欲罷不能，則回天乏術，無能為力了。更何況，教育者，教書育人、立德樹人。「大學之道，在明明德，在親民，在止於至善。」道出「大學」的宗旨。「大學」除了博學，更是「大人之學」，即「君子之學」；「明明德」，即發揚光明正大的品德；「親民」中的「親」應為「新」，全意即使人棄舊圖新；「止於至善」，意即使人達到至善境界，做到最好。堂堂學府，做壞規矩，不成方圓，有違大學之道，帶頭腐化道德，開先例、創濫觴，焉能成榜樣！校方此舉，荒天下之大謬，唯恐天下不亂。合乎常識的做法，是立即擱置，並增置告示板，方可治本。但據聞校方已特地訂購約二百個膠板，筆者只能拭目以待後事如何。總之，筆者謹此告誡：有些事，就節省一點吧；「派膠」之前，請三思。
The University replaced
the lockers. Also the application fee has decreased from $150 per year with
renew for free to $50 per year for new application and renew, showing more
flexibility. It is wholeheartedly appreciated. Nevertheless, the University
intends to atatch an acrylic plastic board each on both sides of the lockers
and plans to receive advanced booking 2 months before or deposit of $200 each
from student organizations for them to put posters of A3 size each, cleaned
onece a week. More plastic boards would be added if the outcome is ideal. Then
it is not worth compliments but criticisms. This will hurt the rights and
benefits of the users and owners and deteriorate the image. If any other poster
or leaflet is post on the surface, the cleaning staff would also have to clear
these and bear more workload. On the other hand, others may take the risk to post
them, hoping that the University would not be fast enough to clear them within
a week. If they succeed, they can save the deposit supposed to pay. Posting
will be encouraged in disguise. The University is so unwise to look for
troubles. A day’s connivance is still connivance; similarly, the government
forbids any post on public facilities in the street. If the University does not
stop this act but encourage this bad trend, it can’t be helped in the future.
Furthermore, education is to teach and nurture. “The Great Learning”
(“university” in Chinese) in the homonymous Confucian classic means more than
erudition; it also means a learning to foster gentlemen. "What the great
learning teaches, is to illustrate illustrious virtue; to renovate the people; and
to rest in the highest excellence." How could a university leading to
demoralize its students and acting against “the Great Learning” set a good
example? The University is going to ridiculously desire to stir up trouble in
the whole campus. Actually, a way with common sense is to lay it on the table
at once and add notice boards to get at the root of the problem. But it is said
that the University has already ordered about 200 plastic boards. We can only
wait and see.
科大卡增值機共有多部，位於一樓學生紀錄及註冊處（ARRO）對出之處、LG7百佳旁，以及Seafront裏，供同學以現金增值。然而，增值機卻一直為科大人詬病，不滿變相擾民，皆因增值機運作屢屢不順，紙幣不論殘破，還是新淨，都隨時遭到退回；甚至偶爾故障，上面貼上故障告示，也習以為常。設置增值機，本來是想方便同學在課閒經過Concourse、吃飯經過飯堂或者宿舍附近的Seafront之際，可以輕鬆增值科大卡，不必走到服務中心。但正因增值機運作不順暢甚至故障，同學往往要去另覓運作正常的增值機。尤其三部增值機各自相隔甚遠，在Concourse還可乘Lifts 17-18到五樓財務處；但在LG7，則陷入兩難，猶如置身人生交叉點，說不定會情難自禁，唱起「如果命運能選擇，十字街口你我踏出的每步更瀟灑」。急着付冷氣費，卻遇上Seafront增值機故障者，箇中焦躁、無奈、辛酸，別是一般滋味在心頭，更不消說了，欲語還休。校方如無能力維持增值機正常運作，大大減少故障，倒不如請同學直接往財務處或地下的紀念品中心，辦理增值事宜。順道增設八達通增值機乙部，相信更受同學歡迎。
Several UST Card Add
Value Machines are set up opposite to ARRO on 1/F, beside PARKnSHOP on LG7 and
in Seafront Cafeteria for students to add value with cash. These machines,
however, have been blamed by USTers: they disturb USTers as they often do not
operate well and banknotes, no matter broken or brand new, are rejected anytime;
they are even out of order and USTers are accustomed to see relevant notices.
The setting up of these machines was originally for students do not have to go
to Service Center and can just add value easily when they pass through
Concourse during lecture breaks and LG7 Canteen or Seafront Cafeteria near
halls when having a meal. But because of the malfunction, students have to find
other machines running well. Especially as the machines are so far from one
another. If in Concourse, you may still take Lifts 17-18 to Financial Office
(FO) on 5/F; if, however, on LG7, you will face a dilemma. One hurried to pay
the air-conditioning fee would feel impatient, frustrated and depressed
when the machine in Seafront Cafeteria is out of order. If the University
cannot maintain the normal operation of the machines and reduce malfunction
greatly, they may ask students to direcly go to FO or Souvenir Center on G/F.
Setting up an Octopus Card add-value machine as well may be more welcome by
students.
另外，細心留意，會發現，來往宿舍和Academic Building 的升降機有如此規律：據觀察，途中升降機每邊三個，晚上乘搭時，通常要等到一部在頂層，一部在底層，一部正在移動；有兩部在同一層，則不會同時載客移動。實況如何，同學不妨親身驗證。但若果然如此，效率何在？假如校方設計程式時，能將心比己，或會得出稍為人性化的規律。
On the way there are
three lifts each side to and fro halls and Acedemic Building. Based on
observation at night, their operation patten is like this: one has to wait
until one on the top floor, one on the lower floor and one moving; if two are
on the same floor, they would not carry passengers simultaneously. You may try
seeing how the reality is. So, how is the utility if the situation is so? If
the University had been in users’ shoes when designing the program, they might
gain a more human-based pattern.
順帶一提，宿舍裏，時常有三兩個同學，在所處樓層的休息室，或自娛，或細讀，或筆耕，或討論功課，或閒聊近況。臨近考試，休息室更會用作自修用途。他們都可能會接觸到露台的照明系統。不難發現，照明系統感應到人體動作才會啟動。用者久無動靜，便會自動關燈，也許是校方響應環保之故。惟麻煩的是，靜坐者動作幅度不會太大，所以系統亦難感應到其動作，因此靜坐者需不時擺動，照明方可維持。不知是否校方用心良苦，志在節能，之不過，假如本意如此，此舉則有違之：不時一開一關，也不見得節省多少能源，更可能耗損電燈、浪費資源。唯一的好處，便是能鼓勵同學多做運動，配合HLTH1010。
What’s more, students
often group together in their floors’ common rooms for entertainment, reading,
writing, homework discussion or just a chat. When exams come, common rooms
would also be used for self-studying. They may reach the illumination system of
balcony at the time. It is easy to observe that the lights are on only when the
system sneses the student’s movement, and turns off automatically if the user
stays still for a long time. Maybe the University is trying its best to be
environmental friendly, but here is the problem: people don’t move wildly when
they are sitting, so it is difficult for the system to sense their movement. As
a result, the sitting people need to move themselves regularly to keep the
lights on. The University fails if they adopt the system in order to save
energy: if the lights are frequently turns on and off, actually not much energy
can be saved. What’s worse, the life of light bulbs would be shortened, and
this is a waste in resources.
李兆基商學大樓興建以後，住宿的同學麻煩又多了，事關Hall 10 至12 尚未興建，第一至第九座宿舍與商學大樓相隔甚遠，山長水遠無捷徑。平日在北閘下車的同學，同受遠行之苦。除了構思中的穿梭巴士，配套欠奉。同學到商學大樓上課，諸多不便，要麼乘升降機到Academic Building，走到南閘；要麼行大斜鍛鍊身體，猶如新歲行大運，足以「來回地獄又折返人間」。也許效法當年中共所謂「二萬五千里長征」，堅信人定勝天，立志為先，再稍微改動毛澤東當年詩句如下：「學子不怕遠行難，萬水千山只等閒。」開解自己，意志彌堅。
After the establishment of Lee Shau Kee Building, it would be more
troublesome for hall residents. Hall X to XII haven’t been built yet, and the rest of the halls
are too far away from the Lee Shaw Kee building, without any shortcuts.
Students also have to walk a long way from North Gate. No supporting facilities
are provided except the proposed shuttle bus. To arrive at the building,
students either use the lifts to arrive at Academic Building first and then
walk to South Gate, or hike up the big slope to build up your body and
determination as well.
而商學大樓附近，也有未能便利用家的設計，好不了多少。校方在來往LTK對出迴旋處和南閘巴士站的樓梯旁，新建了一條樓梯，激窄情況稍有改善，使用者可同時上落，無須再置身一小樓梯並爭路；但校方加的，只是一條相同闊度的樓梯；更重要的是，上面的小徑竟無因應樓梯而加闊。平面來看，形如漏斗。簡言之，設計帶來的改善並不大，對使用者需要了解不充足，而未能對症下藥，根治問題。
Facilities near Lee Shau
Kee Business Building are also non-user-friendly. Additional stairs are built
between the roundabout near LTK and South Gate bus station. The situation has
slightly improved that users can go upstairs and downstairs simultaneously, but
the stair is just one with the same width while the path above has not been
widen according to the stairs. It looks like a funnel. In short, the design
does not improve much due to a lack of understanding about users’ needs.
漠視民意 了無改善
Negligence of Opinions Brings No Improvement
至於第三宗罪，則是校方一直的通病。下文所述，更見於本會早前詳盡報道，惟迄今仍見不足，絲毫未改，本會深表遺憾。在此不嫌繁複，再費筆墨細述，但願這次校方會正視問題，致使筆墨並無白費。
The third problem has
been the University’s mistake. We show our deep regret that the following can
be even seen in our earlier detailed reports, but they have still not been
corrected. Here the details would be retold. We hope that the University will
face the problem this time so that it will be worth reporting again.
Atrium頂蓋漏水，長年如是，可謂名副其實的「結構性問題」。細雨綿綿，飛雨紛紛，煙雨濛濛，本具幾分詩意。隔着頂蓋賞雨，煞是好看，乃距離之緣故。但由於上面是「（可能）有科大特色的頂蓋」，雨水不巧滴在頭上，難以不覺掃興，難以不感滋擾。本會早於一九九九年報道過，十四年間，歷多次維修，至今依然。
Water has been leaking
out of the cover of Atrium for years, causing a genuine “stuructual problem”.
It is poetic to see the fine rain fall down; it is especially great with a
distance, thanks to the cover. One would feel disappointed and disturbed when
raindrops drop on his or her head, though. The situation was already reported
in 1999. Now it is still so after times of repair during these 14 years.
除了「歷史遺留的問題」，還有新近的。約一年前的《振翅之高飛報20.2》〈南山有鳥，北山張羅──有關南閘的種種〉，列出南閘問題一籮籮。樓梯之外，其餘置之未理，可見校方無視同學聲音。其中數項，羅列如下：
There are recent ones as well. An article in “WINGS - High Fly Post
20.2” a year ago listed a lot about the South Gate. All remain unchanged except the stairs.
Obviously the University has ignored students’ voices. Some of them are listed
below:
第一，Academic Building 內雖有所謂「Skywalk」通往Lifts 31-32，但南閘沿途通道並無頂蓋，配套遠遜北閘，同學經過，須經歷「好天曬，落雨淋」，沒帶傘的，只能自求多福，何以至此？一言以蔽之，「南轅北轍」四字，正正能夠貼切形容南北閘配套情況。
First, although there is
“Skywalk” towards Lifts 31-32 in the Academic Building, the pathway at South
Gate is not covered, which is worse than that at North Gate. The sun would
shine upon students when they pass through. It would be more troublesome for
those without umbrellas in rain.
第二，小徑凹凸不平，下雨時凹陷處更會積水；之後須穿過停車場，卻無行人路，變相人車爭路，易生意外。校方如此違反常識的規劃，實在罔顧行人安全，沒考慮到行人也跟駕駛者一樣，皆為道路使用者，遂道路安全，亦包括行人安全。同學經南閘，不過希望平安回校、歸家，僅此而已；而非過五關斬六將，更不想以身犯險賠上性命，「生為科大人，死為科大魂」。若有事故發生，敢問校方能否擔當得起？到時又會如何交代處理？
Second, the path is
rough that rainwater would be accumulated when raining. After that, students
have to pass through the car park without any pavements and hence face a higher
chance to suffer from accidents. This planning without any common sense ignores
the safety of pedestrians and the fact that they are also road users and thus
road safety includes pedestrians’. What the students passing through South Gate
want is just to go to UST and home safely; they do not want to take risks. Can
the University take account for accidents, if any? How would the University
handle with them then?
第三，忽略殘疾人士需要。樓梯本身已經不妥，上文已述，此處不贅。然而，校方不但沒真正明白一般使用者的，亦忽視殘疾人士的需要。校方只設樓梯，卻不建斜波作為殘疾人士通道，加上小徑本身路面不平，試問不良於行之人又豈能暢順通過？「無障礙校園」的校園規劃不應如此；校方此舉亦有歧視之嫌。
Third, the needs of the
disabled are neglected. As mentioned, the stairs is one of the problems.
However, not only does the University understand the needs of general users
badly, but also completely ignore the needs of the disabled. No slopes are
built for a passageway for the disabled but stairs instead while the path is
rough, as mentioned above. So how can those who cannot walk well smoothly pass
through? A campus planning of an “obstacle-free campus” should not be like
this. Such act could be perceived as discrimination.
第四，南閘巴士站玻璃上蓋形同虛設。南閘巴士站有助疏通人流，舒緩北閘的壓力，確為分流、交通有所貢獻。但巴士站以玻璃為上蓋物料，儼如溫室抓住能量，出現「溫室效應」，令熱空氣下沉於地面，阻礙其流動。遇到猛烈陽光，用者在玻璃下，實難以乘涼。再說，上蓋如此狹窄，又豈能有效地遮風擋雨？堂堂香港科技大學，校園規劃卻竟無科學常識，實在貽笑大方，淪為笑柄。總言之，玻璃上蓋倒是非常符合南閘「好天曬，落雨淋」之所謂「通則」。
Fourth, the glass cover
of South Gate bus station does not perform any function practically. It does
contribute to transportation and division of crowd and alleviate the pressure
at North Gate. Using glass as the material of the cover would cause, however, a
“greenhouse effect” thot hot air goes down and its flow is hindered. In the hot
sun, users can hardly cool themselves under the glass. The narrow cover could
not efficiently keep out wind and rain either. Hong Kong University of Science
and Technology is exposing itself to ridicule with a campus planning without
scientific knowledge. The glass cover does meet the “general rule” of South
Gate that the sun shines upon users and the rain falls upon them.
差之毫釐 短視規劃難永續
A Short-Sighted Planning against Sustainable
Development
最後一項，源於規劃者之短視，或草創思慮不周，或擴建狗尾續貂，以致遺害深遠，不利校園格局的長遠發展。且概述之：
For the last, the
short-sightedness of planners of the initiation and extension of the
construction should be blamed for hurting the long-term development of the
campus. It would be briefly mentioned:
Atrium乃科大人頻頻路經之地，課閒更是川流不息。學生組織舉辦活動，自然欲聚集吸引人流，故此處成為兵家必爭之地。大型活動，少不免用到喇叭、咪和擴音器。但別忘了，Atrium 通風得很，聲音向四周擴散，不易集中。可擴散至Atrium 外，但是離場地稍遠的人卻未必能清楚聽見。更離奇的是，校方聲稱傳到G樓樓下的聲音不算集中，反而樓上的辦公室卻會受到滋擾；有同學親身測試，居高臨下，驗證從二樓室內能否聽到Atrium屬會的叫莊聲，卻感受不到半分。再說，科大又有何地可以成為寬敞、人多的公共空間？那個半荒廢的「羅馬廣場」？要讓大量學生參與，最能發揮喇叭、咪和擴音器的功用，除Atrium，實在別無他選。
Atrium is the place
USTers frequently pass through. It would be even crowded during lecture breaks.
This would be a place at which every student organization would like to hold
activities as they would like to attract the crowd. For larger-scale
activities, speakers, microphones and amplifiers would be often used. But don’t
forget, as it is ventilated in Atrium, sounds spread all around and are not
easy to concentrate. It can spread beyond Atrium while those a bit further from
the venue may not clearly hear. It is weirder that the University claimed that
the sounds spread down to G/F were not concentrated but the Office above would
be disturbed. A student tested in person to see if the voices of chanting at
Atrium could be heard indoors on 2/F and any bit could not be felt. Moreover,
where else in UST can be a wide public space with many people? That nearly
negelected amphitheater? There is no choice except Atrium to attract lots of
students to join and utilize speakers, microphones and amplifiers most.
至於另外一例，乃關於校園的全盤規劃，是全文至為重要的例子。論證之前，容筆者回溯創校之初，敘述當年建校藍圖的風波，作為背景介紹。
The other example is
about the overall planning of our campus and is the most important example in
this article. Before the analysis, some background information about the
disputes about the campus planning blueprint at the beginning of the
establishment of UST would be given.
一九八六年，港英政府決定興建科大，其後成立籌委會。翌年籌委會舉辦科大校園設計比賽，特設五人評審小組。連同主席陳乃強先生，有三位投票予冠軍作品，比數不算大；其餘兩位選了其他作品，其中Dr. R. L. Werner，曾任澳洲新州科技學院（the New South Wales
Institute of Technology，一九八八年升格為澳洲雪梨科技大學University of Technology, Sydney）校長，選的是亞軍作品。籌委會其後選取亞軍作品。事件因有疑點，引起各界爭議與懷疑。例如籌委會委員在連續兩日會議的態度出現戲劇性轉變，由意見分歧，變成一致傾向支持亞軍作品，棄冠取亞，有關人士則矢口否認期間曾經游說委員。
In 1986, the Hong Kong
Government decided to establish HKUST and set up a preparatory committee. The
following year, the committee organized UST Campus Design Competition and set
up a 5-person jury. Three of them, including the chairperson Mr. Nicky Chan
Nai-keong, voted for the champion’s work, with a small margin. The other two
voted for others; among them Dr. R. L. Werner, the former principal of the New
South Wales Institute of Technology (upgraded to University of Technology,
Sydney in 1988), voted for the first-runner-up‘s. The committee then selected
the first-runner-up’s. The incident sparked disputes and suspicion due to
doubts. For example, a dramatic change existed in the attitude of committee
members in the meetings in two consecutive days: they changed from holding
diverse opinions to tending to support the first-runner-up’s work unanimously.
Relevant persons denied firmly that they had persuaded committee members.
委員態度轉變之理由，眾說紛紜，各執一詞。筆者反而更易從相關的「造價超支事件」中理出頭緒。亞軍作品成本估算比冠軍作品略高百分之二。有論亞軍作品需要較多地盤平整工程，容易產生難以預計的工程問題，因而造價不只於此。不過各參賽作品成本估算皆十分粗略，沒有考慮到規格和環境的分別、通脹程度等，設計完畢後方有可靠預算。即使有意見認為冠軍作品「簡單、有效率及富彈性」，較有把握趕及於一九九一年前落成開課，但依照當初冠軍作品跟亞軍作品的成本估算，冠軍作品若經採用，實際成本亦同樣超出參賽時所作估算。另外，立法局當時一致通過35.48億元預算，其中19.28億由馬會提供，16.22億由立法局撥款，是參賽估算的一倍多，日後卻有議員猛烈批評；馬會在工程結束後公佈賬目，開支比立法局所撥的十六億餘元低了三億，即遠低於立法局的一致通過的預算和撥款。上述種種卻未為當時大眾所知，更令社會加深了「超支」誤會。
Arguments regarding the
reasons of the change of committee members’ attitude varied and every side
sticked to its own. It may be easier to look into “overspending of the
construction cost”. The estimated cost of the first-runner-up’s work was 2%
higher than that of the champion’s. It was said tat the first-runner-up’s
needed more site levelling and would easily generate unpredictable construction
problems, so the cost would be more. But the cost estimates of every works were
very rough that the difference between and the standard and the environment,
the degree of inflation, etc. were not taken into account. Reliable budgets
would be made only after finishing designing. Even though some thought that the
champion’s was “simple, efficient and flexible” that the university managed
more securely to begin before 1991, if it was adopted, its actual cost also
exceeded the estimate in the competition, according to the estimates of both
the champion’s and the first-runner-up’s. In addition, LegCo unanimously passed
the budget of $3.548 billion ($1.928 billion by Jockey Club and $1.622 billion
granted by LegCo), over one time of the estimate, but some councilors
criticized fiercely afterwards. Jockey Club announced the accounts after the
construction ended. The expenditure was lower than LegCo’s funding of over $1.6
billion by $300 million i.e. much lower than all budgets and funds LegCo
unanimously passed. The above was not known by the public then and thus the
misunderstanding of “overspending” was deepened.
不論如何，採用亞軍作品，已成定局。關善明在該訪談中表示，科大建築正如一般傳統建築，務實為先，美化外觀為後，故設計屬於密集式的、「一個天面（屋頂）的設計」，符合「有效運用土地」的要求，亦可節能。而善用空間，加上坐擁山水，亦造成奢華的錯覺。當初在往返學術大樓和Hall 1,2 的通道加設上蓋，成為連接橋，貫通兩地，原意乃便利來往之餘，同時遮陽擋雨。這種設計沒太多裝飾，卻充滿濃厚的人情味，乃「人性的表現」（關氏語）。創建藍圖之精神、立意，奠定立校基礎，並連同科大建築設計，傳承下去。設計造福將來的學生，使我們得益，前人種樹，後人乘涼，不忘感恩，將來回饋母校。筆者亦甚為欣賞、感恩。校方當初應該清楚，隨着科大規模漸大，名氣越高，聲譽益善，地位彌重，學生愈多，擴建即使分期，也勢在必行；及早預算籌謀，堅持務實作風，「Hands on the present
and eyes for the future」（恪工知遠），方為上策。但其後落成的宿舍以至商學院大樓，都沒顧及有蓋通道的元素，沒貫徹這原則，似有負創校時規劃者尤其關先生的美意。
No matter what, the work
of the first-runner-up has been adopted already. In the interview, Kwan said
that practicability came first and beautification of the appearance second for
UST’s buidlings, similar to general traditional ones, so the design belonged to
a dense, design “with a roofing”, in order to save energy and satisfy the
requirement to “use the land efficiently”, with a good use of space based on
the natural scenery bringing an illusion of luxury. The intention of building a
covered passageway between Academic Building and Halls 1-2 as Bridge Link is to
facilitate travel and keep out sun and rain. This design does not contain many
decorations but strong human warmth, which is “a performance of humanity”
(Kwan’s words). The spirit of the blueprint of building our campus laid the
foundation of our university and has been passed on with the design of UST’s
construction. The design makes the future students benefit and encourage them
to contribute to the University in reward. I appeciate it so much and feel
grateful too. The Univeristy should have known that as UST has been having a
greater scale, growing fame, nicer reputation, a more important status and more
students, the campus must be extended even by stages; it should plan as soon as
possible, insist in a pragmatic style and stick to the motto “Hands on the
present and eyes for the future”. It is a pity that the halls later built and
the Business Building all do not take covered passageways into account and are
unworthly of the good intenttion of the planners during the establishment of
our campus, especially Mr. Kwan.
建議
Advice
針對此等弊端，筆者先為校方提出如下建議：
Pieces of advice
specific to these problems are provided below:
一、資源運用涉及公帑，即涉及公共利益，故應用得其所，發揮最大效用，求取最大利益。若成效低下，中看不中用，則不免令人聯想起「面子工程」，亦無助提升科大形象。
First, as the use of
resources is related to public interest, so the expenses should be well spent
for the greatest benefits. Low-utility works cannot help much to improve the
image of UST.
二、規劃人性化，將心比己。何謂人性化？簡單之至：除了成本，亦應多為使用者着想，以便利用家，才符合長遠利益。
Second, campus planning
should not only be cost-efficient but also user-friendly. So the University
should be in students’ shoes as well.
三、廣納意見，從善如流。校政事關同學利益，同學也是校園設施主要使用者，校園規劃完善，同學亦可得益。廣泛諮詢，共同磋商，才可更了解使用者的想法，做到第二個建議。如此，才有利科大發展。
Third, the Univeristy should accept good advice. Campus affairs affect
students’ interests. They are also the major users of the facilities in the
campus; if the campus planning is running efficiently, they can benefit too. Only with broad consultations and discussions
the University can know more about users’ thoughts to fulfill the second advice.
By this mean, it will be favorable to the future development of UST.
展望
Expectations
同時，在此亦展望同學秉持校園共治。容筆者大膽引用沈智慧裁判官，於警司黃冠豪貪$4,000 一案判語：畢竟校方職員，「They are well paid for it!」是其是，非其非；「好要讚，唔好就要彈」。校園規劃重重敗筆，豈能置諸不理？同學同為科大的主人翁，既享有這個校園，也有義務改善我們的校園。因此同學亦應響應校方諮詢，甚或平日主動表達意見。你們想要怎樣的校園？說出來吧！
Here, fellow students are also encouraged and expected to keep on
co-governance of our campus. Staff
of the University are well paid for it. We should priase what is right and
criticize what is wrong. How can we turn our back upon such a flawed campus
planning? As the owners of UST, we enjoy the campus and also are responsible
for improving it, so we should respond to the University’s consultations and
even express our opinions actively. What is your ideal campus? Speak out!
活在囹圄？
Living
in jail?
二零一三年四月二十九日，科大學生事務關注小組以維護學生權益、實現校園共治為題，於賽馬會大堂舉行一場校政論壇，席間學生提出校方於宿舍加裝閉路電視的問題，惹起激烈爭議，多份報章亦有報導。學生一方指出，當初校方加裝閉路電視時，曾於會議諮詢學生代表，學生代表提出強烈反對，但校方卻於暑假期間於多座宿舍出入口增設閉路電視，而有關片段亦只由宿舍職員管理，縱有指引規限，宿舍職員仍可任意翻看片段，亦有傳有部分職員不當使用片段「打蛇」，學生私隱權可謂蕩然無存。校方於會上堅稱閉路電視是必要保安措施，並無任何職員用以管理宿舍或「打蛇」，後來小組跟進事件，多次與校方開會討論有關事宜，亦重新檢視現時所有閉路電視的位置。但當初於暑假期間突增設閉路電視的事件，幾近於今年七月再度重演。
On 29th April, 2013, UST Student Affairs Concern
Group held a campus affairs forum at Atrium about maintainance of students’ rights and interests and acheivement of co-governance of
campus. In the forum a student mentioned that the University’s
installation of CCTVs in halls sparked intense disputes while it was reported
in several newspapers. Students stated that when the University installed
CCTVs, student representatives consulted in a meeting showed stong objection.
The University, still, added CCTVs at entrances and exits of several halls in
the summer break whiel only hall staff could manage the videos and watch them
again despite regulations. It was also heard that some staff used the videos
improperly to check for illegitimate residents. Students’
privacy was gone. In the meeting the University affirmed that CCTVs were
necessary security measures and no staff used them to manage the halls or check
for illegitimate residents. After that the Group followed up, discussed
relevant matters with the University in several meetings and reviewed the
locations of all existing CCTVs. Still, the incident that additional CCTVs were
installed during the summer break almost repeated in July this year.
今年七月二十三日下午，有社一宿生發現各層告示板貼有新告示，內容更令宿生驚訝。告示表明，學生宿舍第一座會於二十六日起加裝多部閉路電視，以加強保安（Prevention of crime），及防止有人違規進入學生宿舍第一座（Prevent illegitimate
access），並指有關加裝計劃已獲學生宿舍第一座學生代表同意（The installation work
has been proposed and agreed by the Residence Master and UG Hall I
representatives in March 2013）。小組成員及多名社學生會代表立即約見學務長譚嘉因教授，於二十四日下午與校方討論事件，希望校方擱置有關計畫。引起爭議的主要有兩點：閉路電視安裝位置，及有否得到學生代表同意，即校方之誠信問題。
In the afternoon on 23rd July this year, Hall I
residents found that new notices were posted on the notice boards every floor,
which contents astonished them. The notice stated that additional CCTVs would
be installed in Hall I since 26th for “prevention of
crime” and to “prevent
illegitimate access” and “The installation work has been proposed and
agreed by the Residence Master and UG Hall I representatives in March 2013”. Members of the Group and several House Assocation
representatives immediately made an appointment with Professor Kar Yan Tam,
Dean of Students, and discussed the incident with the University in the
afternoon on 24th to urge the University to lay the plan on the table. Mainly
two points initiate the debates: the locations of the installation of CCTVs and
whether the student represntatives’ consent was given
i.e. the University’s integrity.
新增的閉路電視位於學生宿舍第一座十樓的出口，及多個逃生出口，以位置而論對防止罪案並無用處。十樓的出口只能由裏面打開，出口外邊本已有一部閉路電視，出口到晚上十一時更會上鎖，同學亦不能經由升降機到達十樓，直到翌日七時。而逃生出口更是甫推開便會警報大作，社一學生會如因活動要於任何逃生出口進出，亦要事先向宿舍職員申請，以解除警報。假設疑犯經由逃生出口離開宿舍，警報定會響起，暴露行蹤；如經由十樓逃走，其樣貌亦會被現有之閉路電視拍下，警方可按圖索驥，捉拿疑犯。
The CCTVs added would be located at the
exit on 10/F and emergency exits of Hall I. These locations are useless for
crime prevention. The exit on 10/F can be opened only from inside; one CCTV has
been installed outside; the exit would be lcoked at 11pm; students can not
arrive at 10/F via lifts until 7am the following day. On the other hand, alarms
would be activated after pushing the doors at emergency exits. House I
Association have to ask hall staff for application for deactivation of the
alarms if they organize activities that participants need to pass through
emergency exits. So, if the suspect leave the hall via emergency exits, the
alarms will ring to expose his or her whereabouts; if via 10/F, his or her
appearance will be captured by the existing CCTV for the police’s reference to catch the suspect.
會上亦有學生問及該座宿舍的罪案率及罪案類型，第一座宿舍生活導師表示，上學期發生多宗偷窺案件，因此加裝閉路電視。可是，於上述位置加裝閉路電視對防止偷窺是毫無用處。十樓是宿生常用的出口，不能因學生恰巧於該時段經十樓離開宿舍便將之列為嫌疑犯；同學亦質疑，是否過往發生罪案後，逃生出口警報曾被觸動，令校方認為逃生出口有必要加裝閉路電視，但校方亦不能提供往例或數字，證明犯人曾經由緊急出口逃逸無蹤。校方亦假設犯案者並非宿生，但此亦只是假設，並無任何實質證據支持其猜測。既然保安之說在情理上難以成立，校方於有關位置加裝閉路電視是何用意呢？筆者不願以小人之心猜度校方心思，就留與讀者自行思量。
In the meeting, the crime rate and crime types
of that hall were asked. A Residental Life Officer of Hall I answered that a
few voyeur cases happened in the previous term, so CCTVs would be installed.
But it was useless to prevent voyeur by installing CCTVs at the locations
mentioned. 10/F is the exit residents often use. Students should not be
regarded as suspects just because they leave the hall via 10/F at that period
of time. The attending students also suspected whether the University thought
that it was necessary to install CCTVs at emergency exits because the alarms
there were activitated in crimes in the past. The Univeristy could not provide
experience or numbers to prove so, though. The Univeristy assumed that the
criminal was not any student, but it was only an assumption without any
essential evidence. As security factors could hardly stand, what was the
purpose for the University to install CCTVs in these areas? I would rather let
readers think about this.
在諮詢學生方面，筆者想先談談個人經歷。在六月有人向筆者透露，學生事務處已訂購多部閉路電視，工程亦已排期於七月中安裝，因此筆者於七月初一次與校方高層商討有關宿舍問題的會議上，問及校方有關計畫。當時，校方非常肯定地表示未有相關計畫；前後不足半月，結果如何，大家有目共睹，也不必筆者細說。
I would like to share my personal experience
about consulation with students. In June, I was told that SAO has booked
several CCTVs and the installation would be scheduled in mid-July. So I asked
the University’s senior administrators about the plan
in a meeting with them about hall issues in the beginning of July. At that
time, they firmly answered that they did not have any relevant plan. It was
only less than half a month ago and everyone knows what the result is.
筆者當日見到該張告示，大為訝異，向社一幹事查詢，對方卻表示其驚訝程度絕對不亞於筆者，隨即將有關會議之過程向筆者娓娓道來。該次會議是於三月「新舊莊」交接期間進行，兩屆幹事也獲邀出席會議，但可能因為時間比較尷尬，上莊尊重新莊已當選，而會議上學生代表一方只有四名新莊代表；宿舍職員一方的與會者包括舍監、宿舍生活導師及七名Hall Tutors。社一幹事憶述，會議性質以通知為主，屬於正式會議，但並無任何文字記錄，當時的確有提及比較多人違規經十樓進入宿舍範圍，有人提議不同應對方案，而安裝閉路電視亦為方案之一，但最後在處理方案方面未有任何共識。截至七月二十四日的會議，社一幹事與宿舍職員並無其他任何形式之會議，而受影響的範圍亦由十樓出口擴至數個逃生出口。根據私隱專員公處發出的閉路電視使用指引，如切實可行，在安裝閉路電視前應先諮詢有可能受影響的人士，了解他們對安裝閉路電視有甚麼關注，並儘量減少他們的憂慮。但校方如此反其道而行，難免破壞校方與學生的互信。
Surprised to see that notice, I asked a House I
executive member feeling as surprised as I did and telling me the process of
the meeting. That meeting was held during the transition from the existing
executive committee members to the elected cabinet in March. Executive members
of both sessions were invited to attend the meeting. But maybe because the
timing is a bit awkward and the previous cabinet considered that the new
cabinet was elected, only four representatives of the new cabinet attended as
student representatives in the meeting. For hall staff, the attendees included
its Residence Master, its Residental Life Officer and seven Hall Tutors. House
I executive committee members recalled that the meeting was maianly to inform
and belonged to a formal meeting, but there were no literary records. At that
time it was certain that it was mentioned that quite a number of people
illegally entered the hall via 10/F. Various plans were suggestd and the
installation of CCTVs was one of them, but there was no concensus about
handling the plans. Until the meeting on 24th July, House I executive committee
members and hall staff members had had no meetings of any other form, while the
affected ranges extended from the exit on 10/F to several emergency exits.
According to Guidance Note on CCTV Surveillance Practices published by The
Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, if practicable, the
probably affected should be consulted before the installation of CCTVs to know
about what concerns they have about the installation. Nevertheless, the
University did the opposite and might break its mutual trust with students.
幸而，校方從善如流。經由約三十名學生反映，校方發現事件實屬溝通上有所誤會，亦接納同學的意見，會與同學商討研究安裝閉路電視的位置，並會諮詢全校學生，將有關決定交回學生手中，由同學決定會否設置閉路電視監察宿舍範圍，監察大家日常起居出入活動的地方。筆者深信，只要是科大的同學，就可以關心校政，有權就校方的措施發聲；在此，筆者請各位好好珍惜是次由三十多名同學努力爭取到的機會，踴躍向校方反映你們的想法，一起令這個地方變成你和我樂見的科大。
Fortunately, the University accepted the advice.
After reflection by about 30 students, the University found that it was based
on misunderstanding in communication while it accepted students’ opinions. It would discuss the locations to install CCTVs
with students and consult all students to let them decide whether CCTVs would
be installed to supervise the hall, the places where residents live and move
about. It is deeply believed that once you are a UST student, you can care
about campus affairs and have the right to voice out towards the University’s measures. Here, you are encouraged to treasure the
opportunity seized by those 30 students to reflect your thoughts actively to
the University, making this place become the UST you and I would like to see.
沒有留言:
發佈留言