濕疹殺人？

　　昨天讀到一名年輕女子懷疑受濕疹困擾情緒而自殺及殺父母的新聞，想寫點甚麼發表，但想一下，又不敢寫。

　　想寫，是因為我也曾經患濕疹（現在好了，大家讀到這裏不用為我擔心）。雖然我比案中主角幸運，病情比她輕微很多，但也令我對她多了一份同理心。

　　不敢寫，是因為過往發作經驗告訴我，每當我提起濕疹之苦，不少沒有患過的朋友們反應都是專家上身，即使不認識這個病，都會立即教我要怎樣怎樣做。這種反應令我害怕「出櫃」，我從沒在臉書上提過自己有濕疹，是因為恐怕朋友們排山倒海的建議，徒添煩擾。

　　我深信這些朋友給意見都是出於善意，但他們往往受過坊間片面資訊影響，在誤解之下教患者怎樣做。例如誤以為濕疹等於食物敏感，因聽過朋友甲說，戒掉奶類後皮膚就不痕，於是苦口婆心勸我戒奶類食品；又例如誤以為成人濕疹與小兒濕疹是同一回事，因聽過朋友乙說他的孩子怎樣怎樣，就勸我怎樣怎樣......也有很多朋友不知道濕疹是有遺傳因素，而且成因眾多，每個患者的誘發因素都可以不同。

　　上述類型朋友最多只是煩，但令我難堪的還是一些喜歡勸酒的人們。每當我在社交場合禮貌地解釋為甚麼我不能飲酒後，他們總以為我只是在作藉口，甚至拿我所講的皮膚問題來開玩笑。也試過有相熟的朋友在眾人面前聽完我解釋後，私下問我：「其實你剛才是否說謊？你只是不想和他們飲酒吧？」連家人都不相信我試過飲酒後幾乎全身痕了數天。

　　其實我只是皮膚不能承受酒精而已，為甚麼要把我看成大話精？

　　唯一表示過理解的，是我的皮膚科醫生。

　　昨天的新聞引來很多留言，很多不理解濕疹的人們說，說濕疹有得醫，然後建議各種坊間聽來的方法，說為甚麼她要死？亦有很多人似乎沒考慮她除了濕疹外，有沒有受精神健康問題影響，罵她自己死就好，為甚麼要殺父母。

　　我們不可能要求人人都是專家，即使醫生，也未必熟悉世上所有病症。我說這些，只是希望大家當聽到別人有健康問題時，無論是大病或小病，生理上的病還是心理上的病，若你不熟悉那個病的，做過聆聽者就很足夠了。聆聽，可能已經是對患者最大的支持。

In Memory of Mike

                  

  When I joined the South China Morning Post as a green reporter in 2007, I had received no prior training in English news writing. It would not be an exaggeration to say that I have learnt much of my English news writing skills by comparing my raw copies with products polished by our respected chief copy editor Mike Simms.

  Mike was a highly professional and intelligent journalist whose wit impressed everyone around him. A native of New Zealand, he lived in Hong Kong for years and I would say his knowledge about the local society and politics was unmatched even by many who grew up here.

  He was not a talkative member of the newsroom but if you have the chance to chat with him you would enjoy his sense of humour and pleasant personality. As in all newsrooms, when he approached a reporter in the evening it would mostly be for something that he sought to clarify, or an error that the reporter had made. Despite the pressure to both meet tight editorial deadlines and ensure accuracy, Mike would never let go a story with a single sentence that did not make sense. He would also quickly find better words that writers might not have thought of and make complicated subjects comprehensible to readers without compromising accuracy and depth of our news reports.

  Before the time when everybody had a smartphone and we reporters could proofread edited copies on the way home, we were left with the choices of either staying in the newsroom till late at night after a long day or risking seeing a newly introduced mistake in the newspaper the next morning. Worse still, the latter could mean receiving complaints from interviewees and readers. Call me lazy but whenever I saw my stories in Mike’s hands, I would just happily go home!

  On several occasions I realised my oversight only when Mike asked me a very simple but sensible question. Those mistakes did not only concern language but also numbers - I confess my mathematics is poor! A knowledgeable senior, he never talked to young reporters in a “Let-me-teach-you” manner and never tried to embarrass anyone who made mistakes in their writing. He would never change a word for the sake of changing it either as he very much respected the originality of reporters’ work. As our gatekeeper he was extremely committed to guarding the quality of our publication and that earned our respect for him.

  Mike was our human Babelfish and Google Translation but he certainly did a much better job than them. I remember very well a day when I was still newbie at the Post, there was a Chinese word of which I could not think of an English equivalent. I asked every bilingual colleague whom I knew and all scratched their heads. When I approached my editor Quinton Chan for help, he had no idea what the word should be but told me: “Why don’t you ask Mike? He is fluent in Cantonese.” Problem swiftly solved! Unfortunately I can no longer recall the word which gave me a hard time. But since that episode I knew whom to turn to when I was lost in translation. In years to follow, I have suggested some of my younger colleagues seeking Mike’s advice in such situations. Regrettably I have never had an opportunity to find out how fluent his Cantonese was. Another big regret is that the humble Mike refused to show off his Cantonese proficiency when invited to sing at a karaoke party to send Quinton off……

  When I left the Post for the first time in 2011, I went to Mike and personally thanked him for bearing with my poor writing and saving my errors for years. His response surprised me: “In fact I have made a mistake in one of your stories.” My eyebrows were raised. He would not tell me which story it was and the truth remains a mystery…...

  Mike was so devoted to journalism that he did not want to retire when he reached the company’s official retirement age. As far as I understand the Post extended his job contract for some time. Although it was widely rumoured that his seat in Leighton Road had bad fung shui - unscientifically proven by the multiple injuries he suffered in his last few years of employment, he insisted on staying where he was. One day I heard that he was really retiring. I asked him about the news and he said, “No, I am not retiring. They are retiring me.” Again, a very precise use of words!

  Some time after being retired, Mike set up a website called Good Language and he explained his philosophy of “Good language is better than bad language” there (See http://www.good-language.com/p/home.html). On his Facebook account we would from time to time read posts titled “Tautology of the day” with nonsense in news articles that he frowned upon. When we found a mistake in the paper, my colleagues and I would moan: “We should have Mike back!” In such a challenging time of online journalism when instant news is king and multiple deadlines in a day have replaced a deadline (or at most two) per night, a gatekeeper of quality journalism as Mike will be dearly missed.

  Goodbye, our beloved Mike. I will always think of you when I see a tautology in the newspaper. May you rest in peace.

港英政府冷待宋王臺？與陳蓓教授商榷

　八月四日拜讀陳蓓教授刊於《信報》鴻文，指九龍城宋代考古遺址「改寫了殖民時代編寫的香港歷史 」，晚輩斗膽在此商榷。

　　文章談及港鐵沙中線九龍城段工程範圍發掘出宋代遺跡，該項考古發現位於現宋王臺公園附近，已在各大傳媒廣泛報道，詳情在此不贅。我想談的是，以目前已公開的資料而論，這次考古並非改寫歷史的發現，反而是確立了前港英殖民政府所編寫對九龍城的官方史觀。

　　當沙中線工程範圍內找到宋代文物的消息引起一陣熱議時，部份傳媒在報道間稱是次於鬧市發現古物改寫了香港歷史，對這種粗疏的論調，即使對香港歷史只有皮毛常識的人也能馬上質疑：既然那裏叫宋王臺，也有石刻紀念宋末二帝逃難到的歷史，那麼九龍城一帶在宋元時期不是應有人居住的嗎？這次掘出宋朝人們的遺跡應該是佐證了九龍城的故事吧，怎麼變成改寫故事了？

　　當然，陳教授並非指遺址改寫了歷史，而是指它改寫了「殖民時代編寫的香港歷史 」。文章中提出的理據是，前港英政府刻意冷待香港的文物，遲遲沒有把在英國本土採取的文物保護政策引入香港，「目的在於藉此減低香港人的文化認同，削弱身份意識的建立，從而方便管治和發展經濟」。文章並引述上世紀三、四十年代的三項著作，包括陳公哲1938年的書籍《香港指南》、許地山1941年文章《香港與九龍租借地史地探略》和1949年陸丹林文章《香港九龍史蹟探索》為例，以證宋王臺之歷史價值為「民國文化人 」所推崇。

　　那麼答宋王臺一帶遺跡有否「改寫了殖民時代編寫的香港歷史 」呢？要回答這個問題，我們就先得看看殖民地政府是怎樣編寫九龍城歷史的。原來現代九龍城與宋朝歷史的淵源,不但沒有被殖民地統治者冷待,卻剛剛相反，是由港英政府首次給予官方確認！根據鍾寶賢教授在《九龍城》一書中的查證，在港英年代之前，無論官方或民間對九龍地方的記載都無甚與宋史扯上關係，至1840年代九龍城寨開發初期，清廷的文獻仍極少提及與宋史有關資料，僅有一條小目提到宋王臺石刻，遑論把它奉作古蹟保護。

　　現代九龍城與宋室「歸宗認祖」，要數到1898年，當時英國「租」得新界九十九年後，開始規劃港、九、新界的發展，期間採納立法局華人議員何啟建議，保留當時的宋王臺用地作公共空間，以為這個新的殖民地冠上一具「古遠的歷史光環」(“a respectable halo of antiquity)。有關討論，見諸立法局1898年八月三及和十五日的會議紀錄，現時在網上也能找到。港英政府更為此專立《宋王臺保留法案》(Sung Wong Toi Reservation Ordinance)，據殖民地部向倫敦提交的立法報告記載，當時的宋王臺石碑已差點被一名採礦者爆破摧毁，幸被及時阻止，殖民地部認為應立法保育宋王臺，最主要原因是回應立法局所通過動議，保留在當時的香港被視為罕有的歷史文物的訴求。此舉甚有籠絡華人民心之意味，可見當年英國統治者雖未把整套文物保育法例引進香港，但最少在處理宋王臺一事上，卻以其政治智慧刻意借尊崇文物向本地人示好，而非借冷待文物「藉此減低香港人的文化認同，削弱身份意識的建立」。不過初期的港英政府對香港歷史似乎所知甚少，以為宋王臺石刻是本地是絕無僅有的文物，直至1920年代的公務員John Schofield等以業餘身份在香港開始考古發掘，經過近一個世紀數代研究人員的努力，如今我們已知道香港境內比宋朝更早期的石刻大有其在，已出土的文物更遠至石器時代，豈只一個宋王臺！

　　至於借1930-40年代「民國文化人」對宋王臺的推崇來論證它的歷史地位，亦恐有所偏頗，我謹在兩個層面解釋。第一，要問本港民間何以流傳宋王臺是紀念宋帝昰、帝昺逃亡至九龍的故事，實與以陳伯陶為首的一群清末遺老的推動甚大關連，他們在1911年清帝國覆亡後來到當時已進入英國殖民時期的（而非「民國」）香港，把「遺臣節氣」情懷投射於九龍史的研究上，於後人對九龍城的史觀有深遠影響，到了較後期學者簡又文、饒宗頤與羅香林把九龍城歷史研究推進一步，其中以宋皇後裔自居的香港趙族宗親總會出資資助簡又文的研究，更深化二帝駐驆「聖山」的說法。宋王臺的歷史價值到了近百年備受推崇，即使歸功也似乎應歸功於這些人士。第二，歷史研究講求嚴密的考證功夫，嚴謹的歷史學家要斷定一個說法是史實還是傳說，是已證實還是尚存疑，必然要追溯至說法的一手源頭，不可因有一千個人說同一個故事便當了是史實。宋末二帝來港短住九龍城的說法，雖在民間及業餘歷史愛好者之間已廣為流傳，但在學術界仍有爭論，這並非本文重點，在此謹省略詳情，但是以三名文化人的推介而非以宋王臺本身的歷史考證來斷定它的歷史地位，邏輯無異於以三名食家推介某餐廳來斷定那裏食物的營養價值。

　　是次考古發現激發了民間對香港歷史和保育政策的一番討論，應為好事，唯今社會討論似乎熱情有餘，科學不足。愚見以為，當我們面討論歷史時，不須囿於某些年代某些權威確立的史觀，應大膽疑問，雖然我們業餘人士不是歷史學家，但也大可以開放心態查找資料和看看較新的研究有否提出不同說法。古人雖死，但歷史學是一門活的學問，就像今次在鐵路工地上找到數百年來的文物，或又為未來的史書提供更豐富的材料！

(陳蓓教授文章《香港的文物保護與文化身份》見諸2014年8月4日《信報》，

http://www.hkej.com/template/dailynews/jsp/detail.jsp?dnews_id=4078&cat_id=6&title_id=703157)

Hong Kong Customs & Excise Staff General Association's statement? Or Wen Wei Po's editorial?

On July 7, 2014, the Hong Kong Customs & Excise Staff General Association, a member organisation of the Federation of Trade Unions, issued a statement in support of the police's handling of the sit-in protest in Central which ran from the night of July 1 till the morning of the following day. A comparison of this statement with an editorial of the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po newspaper on July 3 shows that the two texts are extremely similar. The text highlighted in yellow in the images below show the wording which appear in both texts.

My Year in Bristol

    Before commencing my postgraduate studies in public policy at the University of Bristol, I was a Hong Kong-based political journalist. I returned to student life having in mind the goals of learning more about public policies and exploring different cultures. Now one year has passed and what I have gained proved to be beyond my expectations.

   During the whole time there my academic studies mingled with everyday life in Bristol, my travels in the UK and other European countries as well as my continued pursuit in journalism. Occasionally I found time to write column articles and report for Hong Kong newspapers and a website. This allowed me to share with readers what I saw abroad and also widened my scope of writing.

    Soon after settling in Bristol, I had the luck to witness the first-ever mayoral election there. It was an exciting real-life case for my study of city governance under the Masters of Public Policy course. Later throughout the year, the abundance of civil organisations of various natures in Bristol offered me ample learning opportunities outside of classes, either directly relating to my areas of study or otherwise. While taking a course on poverty and social exclusion, I joined the local branch of RESULTS UK, a charity campaigning against global poverty. As a newbie in the area I received very kind support from other volunteers and in fact learned more than contributed. Working along with a colleague, I helped with the publicity of an event and learned how to write to our local Member of Parliament as a common way of campaigning in the UK. Out of my interest in gender equality issues I also took part in workshops conducted by Feminist Archive South, a volunteer research organisation collecting materials which document the history of feminism both in and outside of the Britain. This furthered my interest in the area and I later wrote about the history of the British suffragette movement for a Hong Kong newspaper.

    Another policy field I read at Bristol University was urban development. Not at all planned to complement my course, I happened to have the chances to interview a group of German activists campaigning for the conservation of the East Side Gallery and its neighbourhood against the development of luxurious flats on my visit in Berlin during a holiday, and to interview Hong Kong's former Director of Public Works Mr. Michael Wright in London to hear his review of Hong Kong's housing and urban planning policies. I was happy to bring these discussions relating to development issues back to readers at home and to explore the policy area in which I was studying in different parts of the word.

    While I will not attempt to list everything I experienced during the year, I must say the rich cultural and community life in Bristol itself and the advantage of convenient connection to other parts of Europe are ideal for students to widen their horizons. The university has attracted many foreign postgraduate students, mostly from Asia, while the city has attracted many young people from European Union countries to work there. In this international environment I met new friends from various cultural backgrounds and have learned a lot from them. After completing my dissertation, I travelled to Montenegro to attend an academic conference on the global economy. This gave me yet another precious chance to exchange ideas with political science students from different countries and to learn about transitional democracy in the newly independent nation. Looking back I am really glad to have spent this extraordinary year and I feel truly grateful for the opportunity which the Bristol University Alumni Association's Hong Kong scholarship offered to me. At present I am back in Hong Kong and have returned to my full-time journalistic career.

黑山之旅(四)：差不多先生小姐們

　　我在黑山渡過了半個月，其中一個有趣的發現是當地到處都是「差不多先生」和「差不多小姐」。

　　首先觀察到這個現象的是同行的德國朋友，她在超市購物時，收銀員多找續了三毫（歐羅），於是她對收銀員說，對方回應指沒有兩毫零錢，所以就這樣。朋友非常誠實，指自己不應多收，於是很努力地掏錢包找零錢。收銀員堅持不用，爭持了一會後，朋友收下找續離去。起初她以為只是剛好這家店缺零錢才這樣，但翌日在另一家超市又遇到同樣情況。我們漸漸發現，原來當地店員找續經常會多一點或少一點，相差或一毛半毛，購物總數較大時或相差兩三毛，以多找續的情況較多，總之差不多便行了。老老實實，我也記不清楚第一位店員多給我朋友三毛錢還是多少，唯入鄉隨俗，以差不多的金額記載！

民宿主人Slobo與Ljubinka夫婦在自家釀製rakija酒

　　我想起早前一位本港的士司機因給乘客少找續港幣五毛錢而被告上法庭的案件，若然黑山人聽到，不知會有何反應？若有執着於五毛錢公義的遊客來到黑山，首先遇到的是給他少找續而非多找續的店員，恐怕已認定乃當地人狡猾存心欺騙外國人！

　　往後在巴爾幹半島另外三個國家的旅程也有偶遇「差不多找續」，但我始終對黑山人的不計較精神印象最深，他們就連做生意也不計較要「賺到盡」。我抵達布德瓦市(Budva)後首晚入住的旅舍收費九歐元，及後離開四天，再回到該旅舍時職員說因已過了旺季，所以只收八歐元。他明知我就算收費是九歐元也會光顧啊，怎麼不按資本經濟原則多賺我一歐元呢？讀君看到這裏可能認為他只是打工，不着緊老闆賺多少，那就讓我再說說餘下行程遇到的老闆們。

　　在科拉欣鎮(Kolašin)逗留一天後，朋友先回德國。我獨自繼續行程，因喜歡該鎮遠離煩囂，正好是我想找靜靜寫文章的好地方，於是向民宿主人一家提出多留四晚。我在訂房網站上查過單人留宿每晚收費十二歐元，正準備付款，豈料該家庭的兒子跟我說，十二歐元中有兩歐元是要繳給網站公司才收，所以我只須付每晚十歐元。其實該網站沒交代他們抽佣多少啊，他怎麼要告訴我，而不多賺我八歐元呢？兒子出去後，我向他的父母付款，遞上五十歐元鈔票，等待找續十歐元，他們給我找續三十歐元。這次不是差不多，而是差很遠！我說他們多給了，這對可愛的老夫婦竟硬要我收下三十歐元，略懂英語的太太還說當我是女兒，叫我不要跟她計較。天啊！我堅持說就算在家我也會給家用娘親，竟爭持了許久，他們才肯收回那二十歐元，真是奇聞，不過往後數天他們還請我吃了很多東西。不只是鄉村人這樣，及後我轉至首都波德戈里察(Podgorica)，旅舍老闆一模一樣地主動告訴我兩歐元網站佣金的事情，着我若續訂就由每晚九歐元減至只需七歐元，完全違反利潤最大化的原則。

　　或許有讀君還會說，他們反正淡季沒甚麼生意，給我一點好處讓我在訂房網站寫讚好評語，還是為他們生意宣傳，未必是不計較，那我就告訴大家我在遊歷上問路遇到的黑山人是怎樣。若你問到的當地人不懂得你想去的地方在哪裏，他們不僅會幫你查地圖（雖然通常都是地圖標示不清楚我才問路），或者幫你用當地語言問其他途人，若四圍沒有其他途人，他們還會四出打電話給親朋戚友替你問到為止！有一位大學生，知道我找的旅舍大概位置而問不到準確位置，怕我獨個迷路，他原本打算走路也請我坐順風的士。又有一次在我入夜問路時，遇上一位退休警員，他替我打電話給旅舍，去到樓下把親自我「送交」旅舍老闆，過了數分鐘後還再致電旅舍問我是否已安全到達！這是一個甚麼民族啊！或許「差不多」、「不計較」還是不足以形容黑山人，他們真是幫人幫到底，難怪旅舍老闆很有信心地對我說：「我們只會自己人打自己，對外國人一定絕無欺騙，你在這樣旅遊大可放心！」

黑山之旅（三）：小國外交

　　作為獨立只有數年的國家，黑山共和國政府目前在外交上首要的議程是爭取加入歐盟和北約。正如上文談過，她最大外資來源則是俄羅斯，另外主要貿易伙伴則是歐盟國家，軍事上則接受美國的援助。至於亞洲在其外交事務上並不佔很高位置，不過該國與中國的交往卻值得一提。

　　翻查黑山外交部的官方資料，她自2006獨立以來與85個國家建立了邦交，但暫時只在22個國家設置了大使館和領事館，當中絕大部份在歐洲，餘者在橫跨歐亞的俄羅斯和土其耳，以及美國和阿聯酋，而中國則是黑山唯一一個在東亞區域有使館的國家。

　　我們到科托爾市(Kotor)考察，當地以其中世紀所建的城牆、舊城區的建築和美麗的海灣聞名，整個科托爾峽灣(黑山語: Boka kotorska；英語: Bay of Kotor)區域獲聯合國教科文組織列為世界文化遺產，吸引絡繹不絕的遊人，有像我一般循陸路前往的背包客，也有乘坐遊輪抵達的豪華團。拜訪當地市政府，原本打算聽取一下他們如何平衡歷史文物與自然環境的保育和旅遊業發展，不料有另一有趣發現。不是市長Marija Catovic提起也不知，原來科托爾是「絲綢之路論壇」的成員之一，與中國古都西安更連結了成為姊妹城，兩個市政府於去年簽訂了合作備忘錄。

科托爾舊城牆與科托爾峽灣

　　雖然中國古絲綢之路並沒有延伸到黑山那麼遠，但科托爾為與西安因分別為兩國文化遺產古城之緣，簽訂了文物和教育方面的合作協議，主要包括兩地學校和青年組織的交流項目。該市積極對外推廣，連結對象也不只中國，她的姊妹城共有21個，分佈於21個國家。

　　中國現時是黑山進口貿易第三大來源地，緊隨希臘和鄰國塞爾維亞之後，這自然是因為中國產品出口規模龐大之故。若參考中國海關署2011的統計，中國往黑山出口貿易為黑山往中國出口貿易的超過37 倍，兩國人口懸殊，說實話彼此實在也談不上是對方的重要貿易推廣對象。雖然中國與塞爾維亞關係友好，而黑山是從「塞黑」聯邦獨立出來，但塞爾維亞在黑山2006年6月獨立公投後只有無奈接受結果，兩個前聯邦國亦迅速建交，因此中黑建交也不存此障礙。中國與多個國家一樣在公投的同月便宣佈正式承認該黑山為主權國，並很快與該國展開各項官式訪問活動，這與科索沃2008宣佈從塞爾維亞獨立後北京一直強烈拒絕承認成為極大對比。

　　話說開來，黑山外交史上有一段與中國有關的真實奇聞。1904年日、俄兩國為爭奪在中國東北和朝鮮的勢力在而在中國爆發戰爭，當時黑山因俄國盟友的身份，也向日本宣戰，不過弱小的她當然沒有力量真正參戰。戰事結束後，兩強在簽署停戰書時都忘記了黑山，因此黑山在法律上一直與日本為敵國。直到該國2006年宣佈獨立，日本才與她簽署和約，結束與這個巴爾幹半島小國長達一世紀的「作戰」狀態！

黑山之旅（二）：彩色的山

Biogradsko Lake

　　續遊黑山共和國，從西面倚着愛琴海邊的熱鬧都市轉到北部山區的幽靜鄉鎮，仿如跨越了兩個世界。

公寓樓下堆放着柴木

　　此國雖因黑色山脈得名，但這裏的山並不盡是黑色一片。我在科拉欣鎮(Kolašin)逗留了一周，這個小鎮建於翠綠的山腳下，秋季遊此，綠林之中又見片片橙色和黃色，景色非常秀麗。這裏的山也是滑雪地帶，但我未及看到白茫茫雪山風貌已要離去。鎮上大部份地方是村莊，至今家家戶戶仍燒柴做飯，遠望各農家小屋可見炊煙裊裊，走近人家則可見居民在斬柴或種田。有趣的是，這兒雖也發展了一些新式三層公寓，但大堂門外還是堆滿柴枝，構成一幅鄉鎮和城市生活之間的特別圖畫。

　　科拉欣就近Biogradska Gora國家公園，一年四季都可經此鎮前往那裏的森林和湖泊探勝。遊人夏天可從這裏到全歐洲最深的峽谷Tara River Canyon撐獨木舟，冬天則可去滑雪，地理優勢讓這兒發展有潛力發展旅遊業。

　　這個地方山明水秀，讓人心曠神怡，但她卻走過多段不堪回首的過去。數百年來歷土耳其奧斯曼帝國侵略、巴爾幹半島戰爭及兩場世界大戰，科拉欣鎮都不幸成為戰場，尤其在二戰軸心國入侵黑山期間更淪為重災區，因此這裏在1943年成為了黑山反法西斯運動的起源地。鎮中心佇立着多個紀念二戰期間犧牲的戰士和人民的雕像，提醒人們這段悲痛的歷史。

歐盟提供的垃圾車

　　今日的科拉欣在保留大自然和農村風貌的同時，也明顯可見當地嘗試開拓旅遊業，鎮上見到遊客資訊中心和與村屋相映成趣的現代化酒店，而這裏的旅遊建設與西方國家的推動有很大關係。黑山共和國接受歐盟、意大利、奧地利和美國等政體的發展援助，這些發展計劃在推展城市化中的小鎮似乎特別顯眼，就連垃圾車和公共垃圾箱上都見到歐盟旗幟和 “Provided by the European Union”的印刷大字。遊客資訊中心門外的牌標示着它是由奧地利和意大利的官方機構贊助（兩個分別在一戰和二戰攻佔科拉欣的國家，是有意還是純粹巧合？），而政府大樓門外則懸着美國提供的職員訓練計劃的簡介牌，處處可察這個地方正於這些外國政府的各項計劃下尋求轉型。

彩色的山

　　可是這裏的轉型發展項目管理有多成功，則成疑問。遊客資訊中心門外標示着它一周七天都開放，但我連續七天在它所述辦公室時間內到訪均吃閉門羹，詢問附近商店的職員，都說不知道它究竟幾時真的辦公。至於最接近鎮上巴士站那家大酒店，亦似關門大吉的樣子，門口貼上的告示說它暫停服務至2012年7月，但我在2013年10月經過時，它仍展示着這張告示。不過旅遊配套未成氣候也許未嘗不是好事，最少這個純情小鎮還未被成群遊客攻佔，我走在鎮上仍是一個罕有的外國人，仍可奢侈地在這裏享受一星期的村莊生活！