29.5.06

盛勢

董建華最大的一件德政,相信是找到盛智文做海洋公園主席。

  唔到你唔服,有一些職位是要鬼佬擔正,才可以化腐朽為神奇。海洋公園本來奄奄一息,極速老化,再遇着迪士尼,一心以為死路一條,誰不知入場人次反而創新高,絕處逢生。

  老化的企業,最啱是由創業者型入主救亡,最好是外行人,以一個毫無經驗、一切由零開始的心態,幫企業起死回生。

  但為什麽要鬼佬?因為鬼佬夠投入,玩得。水母館開幕,盛智文就扮隻水母出來見記者,瞓身幫海洋公園博宣傳。見報率事小,上下員工見到主席紆尊降貴,為求事成乜都肯制,又怎會不受感染,出盡全力。

  另一邊廂,會否是迪士尼都有份幫上海洋公園一把?我不敢亂講,但假如迪士尼負面新聞不絕,海洋公園卻人去人讚,可能現在倒轉是迪士尼要諗計對付海洋公園。

  諗計要趁快,海洋公園因為迪士尼來勢洶洶,哀兵求變。問政府銀行科款五十五億加建,2008年及2010年分兩期完成。迪士尼一役,政府被人搵笨的形象太根深蒂固,要再夾錢擴建,絕無可能。要抗衡加料版海洋公園,迪士尼要動動腦筋。

  我有橋,只要迪士尼撬走盛智文,掉轉槍頭幫手對付海洋公園,一定掂。不過,到時蘭桂坊之父要粉墨登場都全無用武之地。迪士尼所有figure是真身,並非人扮,除非盛主席上米奇老鼠身。

12 comments:

van said...

海洋公園賣 d野個原創性肯定好過迪士尼喎. 成日都巴斯光年米老鼠, 唔悶既咩~

同埋, 唔知各位看倌會唔會覺得海洋公園係繼荔園之後, 香港人集體記憶既一部份?

另: 以毒攻毒咁諗, 上海起迪士尼都唔係壞事 - 起碼香港果個一定唔會再逼爆. 鬆動番 d, 可能個評價先高番.

vitrine said...

咦你睇完u magazine篇訪問稿黎呀?

Anonymous said...

Where can I buy U magazine?

整餅怪人 said...

前幾日有人同我講, 想令內地房地產巿場降溫其實好簡單, 只要做一件事.

委任董建華做房屋政策專員...

Anonymous said...

"委任董建華做房屋政策專員..."

非也。答案應該是委任不懂得如何處理97金融風暴的任總為中行行長。只要把隔夜息抽高百多二百厘,包保樓市立刻進入冰凍期,功效比「八萬五」更快更有效。

人人只懂談阿董,卻沒有人談任總,奇怪。

Anonymous said...

比起陳水扁的貪污腐化,董建華便好得多了.

香港人,包括林行止和孔少林等,真的要對董建華公允一點.

Anonymous said...

上面那位anonymous,

我生活在台灣﹐不是反對批評﹐但實在很多香港人把身在福中視為理所當然。

台灣人最羨慕香港甚麼?不是迪士尼樂園﹐不是購物天堂﹑不是香港美食﹐是---香港有廉政公署ICAC !

雖然有人話ICAC其實不是做得那麼好﹐公關強而已﹐但你不能否認它的功效。

要董太還是要炒股票﹑用別人送的SOGO禮券﹑對政府機關用人安排指指點點的扁嫂? 你話呢!

PCCW said...

上面那位anonymous,

你放心啦,香港的ICAC都唔敢拉大陸的高幹,佢地下面D o靚人就敢請飲咖啡。

台灣好快追過香港的............

Anonymous said...

It is really pointless to deny the works and contributions of ICAC. Anyone who has lived through the pre-ICAC period understands and appreciate the contributions of ICAC.

"香港的ICAC都唔敢拉大陸的高幹" -- do you have evidence? If so, please show us. If not, then stop putting out unfounded accusations.

Anonymous said...

匿名者提到香港較好因有icac, 其實官商勾結仍無日無之,例子俯拾皆是,如紅灣半島事件、鍾麗國事律、甚而特首哥哥退休後亦在大地主公司工作,.....天下烏鴉一樣黑.....然而.....香港勝在資訊較自由,

Anonymous said...

"天下烏鴉一樣黑"

Indeed, the 官商勾結 situation is even worse--in fact, much worse--in the United States. Just witness Dick Cheney.

I think some people have a naive, simplistic black/white mindset. They are idealists, expecting a place to have zero cases of corruption. Unfortunately, those places never exist in the world--not even in the most democratic countries in human history.

In matters of human affairs, things occur in "degrees", not in absolutes.

Taiwan has the same--if not more--free flow of information as in Hong Kong. But the corruption cases in Taiwan are surely much more rampant than those in Hong Kong. Why? The answer is simple: ICAC.

For some reasons, some people just choose to turn a blind eye toward something plain and obvious, something right under their nose. They simple want to deny the contributions of ICAC.

Just an interesting thought: If Donald Tsang decided to close down ICAC tomorrow (to save taxpayer money), would these people come out and applaud BT's decision? Or would they object to it?

Anonymous said...

People talk about 官商勾結 all the time without really thinking through what they mean by 官商勾結. They have a tendency to confuse "ethical" issues with "legal" issues.

Consider these three cases, cited above by a blogger:

-紅灣半島事件
-鍾麗國事律
-特首哥哥退休後亦在大地主公司工作

It is perfectly fine if the blogger believes those cases are "unethical". We are all entitled to our own opinions. At the same time, we must not forget that ethical judgement is very personal. One person's "ethical" behavior might be viewed as "unethical" by others.

However, Hong Kong is a place that is governed by the rule of law. So the key question about the above three cases should be: Are these acts "illegal" ?

Obviously, according to the current law, these are legal acts. (If not, Martin Li and the Big Four, not to mention Long Hair, would have filed lawsuits already.)

So, should ICAC step in and file charges in the above cases? Should we fault ICAC because they do not take action in the above three cases?

Don't forget, ICAC is not in the "ethical" business. Rather, they are in the legal, law-enforcement business.

If the blogger really believes those three acts should be made illegal, he should send his appeal to the Legco. For the Legco members are the ones who have to power to set down a law out-lawing the above acts.

Without a relevant law to back its actions, ICAC has no power to make any move. Hence, your criticism of the ICAC--at least in the three cases you cite above--is misplaced. You should put your blame, if any, on the Legco, not the ICAC.