剛剛完成世紀婚禮的沈旭暉，一手促成了香港一時佳話。可一不可再的賓客陣容，星光熠熠，任何派系任何界別的人都畀面出席祝賀，這是名符其實的畀面派對。大部分人都認為，沈旭暉是個優秀的學者，後生可畏，跟同是一介才俊兼日前也舖張完婚的蔡加讚，判若雲泥。
事實上，蔡加讚「成功需父幹」，沈旭暉也不見得不是。沈旭暉這樣一個名字，驟看就知道，沒有不成材的可能。旭者，旭日始旦，晨曦嶄露，暉者，君子之光，輝彩照耀，只是名字已經很不普通。連名字都帶有家長的寄望，而非甚麼狗屎垃圾家明子俊，這已經是成材的先兆。一般日出而作，日入而息的平民，大抵連旭字何義都不知道。毋庸置疑的是，家教不是一切，不是有期望就一定不失望，自身長進也重要，但是，一位任職教授的父親能夠提供的家教，絕對是一般人提供不了的。一個小朋友的人生觀和學習態度如何定型，家庭教育影響一生。物種起源論支持者，認為遺傳與環境，即是人們常言的先天與後天，能夠解釋所有人的性格與行為。在一般人眼中，性格與行為以外，還有很多因素影響一個人的成敗，然而，所謂際遇或運氣，其實往往也離不開性格與行為。
性格與行為的陶造和形成，有人認為，基因遺傳佔泰半，起跑線是一切，有人認為，後天可以補救，不應認命。聲稱不要認命的，又多數是智力有限的草根。沈旭暉的父親是香港大學的教授，外祖父則是《大公報》高層，母親亦緊隨黨的腳步，效力同一份報章。如此基因出品，壞極有限，就算沈旭暉懶散馬虎，不學無術，誤入歧途，也比較大機會的，能成為一個聰明的､能講英文的､能籌謀劈友戰術的MK小頭目，率領其餘公屋劏房出身的低等MK。世界之組成，就是不同大小貴賤的階級，MK當然也有級數可分。
根據《壹週刊》的訪問資料，「沈的父母分別為香港泛民主派與建制派的支持者」。如此背景，在一般家庭之中，並不常見，一般星斗市民，根本不談不懂不理甚麼政治立場。政治的談論，當然不一定對小朋友的成長有利，因為談論的質素也有高低之分，維園文生大抵不能啟蒙其子孫，可是，沈旭暉的父親，在幾十年前大學生仍然韾香的時代，便已取得如此高學歷，而母親又是識字女性。在今時今日，中產家庭出身的顯貴孩子，其雙親是醫生律師的話，孩子多數英語能力特別好，學習能力也特別高，因為醫生律師是學識及財力的保證，就算孩子蠢鈍如豬，他們還是會比公屋出來的眼界更闊。更加重要的是，醫生律師有同行的朋友，這批朋友的子女又是不平凡的一堆，中產後代跟中產後代玩，自然墮落不下去。在沈旭輝的孩提時代，他的父母難得的學養，自然比今日滿街都是的醫生律師的還要優秀，所以，不難想知的是，沈旭暉也受到了與眾不同的教育。他能從家人身上學到其他同學廿歲出頭也未曾聽聞的知識或道理，能跟皇仁的同輩或父母朋友的子女一起長大，所接觸的知識，即使無關正規課程，也必然有助其學業發展。鶴立雞群，是積少成多的成果。
基因的遺傳是狹義的遺傳，遺傳的實際影響，無遠弗屆。尤其在香港這種社會裡，遺傳——亦即是「家庭給予孩子甚麼」的重要性，尤其大得嚇人。曾經讀過一篇文章，題為《生女當如趙海珠》，寫文的人認為趙海珠的際遇很好。其實，際遇也隱含了遺傳因素。要不是相貌娟好，怎麼那麼輕易的，以日本研究學士學位的出身，擔任新聞報道的主播？相貌娟好是父母的良好因子使然，際遇也是先天埋了種子種出來的芽。身邊有些家境極度清貧的友人，人不是不大方的，可是「幼承家訓」的「不得體」，對錢銀耿耿於懷，買件衣服買貴了也會戚戚然，跟朋友之間又不得不斤斤計較，自然少不免因此傷及手足感情。而現實中的所謂交際手腕，其實也是中產以上人士的專利，因為窮人跟富人之間只有賒借貸還的距離，而富人跟富人之間才可有投資玩票的親暱。社會資本的互相利用功能之中，怎麼可能只有低級的一方不停向高級的一方予取予攜？巴結和擦鞋，不等於交際。就算很理想化地，我們不講錢，只講投不投契，人家十八歲就飲盡紅酒之中的精品，考獲車牌可以駕駛Daddy的波子，你又投甚麼契？法國酒莊，你到得了嗎？那是一道從圖書館借讀一百本紅酒入門書籍也跨不過的門檻。
認識一位年紀不輕的前輩，幾十年來可謂平步青雲，如今生活無憂無慮，將近退休安享晚年之齡。她聰明大體，性格是心思慎密，做事講求完美，滴水不漏。這麼一個人的成功，也不是完全沒有可能是無關家世的，畢竟公屋都有會考狀元嘛對不對——後來我才知道，原來其父是香港首位法醫，一手創立了香港法醫部門，而且她自幼就移民了加拿大，家境非常好，如今聯姻的丈夫也是名人之後。她的流利英語，頭頭是道，處事感度嚴謹，以及人脈廣頭腦靈，瞬間全部都有了解釋。她還倖倖然的說，她力求完美的性格，是行醫的父親迫出來的，少時覺苦，如今自然是不勝感激。沈旭暉的人生，從一開始誕下已經贏了，能夠當上博士，當然也有自己的辛勞之處，但是世紀婚禮之架勢，自然算不是甚麼奇事了。
逆嘶亭 
以父母家庭環境評論其成就，實膚淺也
有多少香港大學教授之子能有此世紀婚禮?
俾面派對背後之真正原因只為俾面而已?
社會資本建立同累積，同家世教育有莫大關係，冇香港大學教授呢個父親同任職大公報的娘家，係咪同樣出到一個學者，絕對成疑。在指出別人膚淺之前，唔該你講野表述清楚少少，反問好空洞。
玲瓏剔透, 名利場中, 眾人皆醉你獨醒。眾生如此, 就讓尋常百性如我, 隨喜別人的福報吧。
‘百姓’才是。
空洞與否，在於有否了解反問背後之深層意義，
此舉旨在指出沈之家庭背景乃其今日成就之充份而非必要條件，
以反問表述此概念較易理解。
然筆者將他人之成就簡單地歸功於家世教育，
未曾了解背後真正原因已妄加判斷，
實為輕率膚淺，
當中以名字分析人之成就尤甚，
曰家明子俊者則為垃圾?
貽笑大方也。
旭暉呢類名字唔係一般學識不多的父母會改，合邏輯到震，先生你係咪真係叫家明子俊所以反應咁大？
With all due respect to the author, I think the idea implicit in this article – i.e. the notion that our future is largely shaped by the social status of our family – is counter-intuitive, border-lining dangerous if one is to apply it to reality.
To substantiate my point, let me briefly state my situation. The university that I am currently attending has a pretty high reputation within the academia and the international policy-making field. Contrary to what your article would suggest however, many of my classmates are poor and come from conflict zones around the world – including but not limited to occupied Palestine, West Sahara, Iraq, Nepal etc. Despite their poor background and the violent upbringing, they still made it all the way to one of the more reputable institutes, and are among some of the brightest and most popular students we have here at the university, learning about how to contribute back to the society. Examples from people such as these would rebut all those claims that persons from more deprived household have worse learning capability and social awareness. In fact, quite the contrary, these people are way more aware of the world outside precisely because they are so affected by it, which in turn created that desire within them to change the society for the better. Likewise, they also spend much more time studying – or to improve their capacity to learn –because they know that education is precious and important for social mobility. On the other hand, it should also be said that there is also no guarantee that well-off kids will not be despised by the society. The Princelings in China, or terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, would be the cases in point.
So please, do not suggest for one second that upbringing is essential to a person’s future. It is at best only an enabling factor, and definitely not an essential one. To suggest that it is all that is important for future success is not only to deny facts on the ground, but also constitute an insult to those (such as my friends) who are doing their best to exercise that natural rights of pursuing happiness.
Leaving the counter-intuitiveness aspect aside, I fear that the idea implicit in the article is also dangerous to the society. If upbringing is essential to the success of the children, then it is only natural that parents – in their drive of providing for their kids- will do their utmost to create that environment for them to grow. In fact, this is already happening, when thousands of HK children are forced to attend extra classes and CV-boosting activities for the sake of having a “good upbringing". The problem with this is that, on this altar of building a solid foundation for later life, what are being sacrificed are the children’s innocence and a chance for them to explore the world on their own terms. More tragically, by participating in the competition and be told about what to do in order to “stay in the game”, our children are at risk of losing a precious opportunity at learning how to live and think free, and consequently are deprived of an important tool for them to figure out what life would mean for them. The implication of this is catastrophic. Too often at my university for example, I have seen HKers who are not sure about why they are in the university in the first place, other than the fact that their parents, as part of their drive to create the good environment, told them that university education is “essential for their future". At some point many of them would find themselves at a lost with what to do with life, and thereby losing that motivation to move further. Just like you can’t force a house of card to stand permanently, you can’t force someone to continuously work towards something without them first believing it. But this is exactly what the rhetoric “good environment = successful future” do. In their drive to fulfill this simplified equation towards success, parents will force the kids to do something they do not entirely agree with, and thereby destroying the future and freedom of their children without even knowing it.
I can go on and on about all these, but the point that I want to get across is that the rhetoric – “good upbringing = successful future” – is a myth and danger to our future generation. I am sure the author means well when he/she writes this article, but for moral sake, and for truth’s sake, this is not a rhetoric that we want to or should be promoting any further. Instead of feeding that idea of “I am a loser because I do not have well-off parents”, we need to find ways that can get people motivated to explore all possible avenues and definitions to success; and if such enterprise is proven not possible, then at least do their utmost to change the system. The rhetoric that “we all ultimately are responsible for our own future" is the one that we need. It is the one that is right.
Slight Correction: in the first paragraph the idea that I am referring to is the notion of “Good upbringing = Successful future". A scrutiny of this particular idea would be the subject of my comment
「旭暉呢類名字唔係一般學識不多的父母會改」是一個命題，只有真假之別，沒有合不合乎邏輯的問題。論其真假，旭暉二字有何特別？「旭日初升，晨暉初現」，小學生也懂得寫吧？又，「連名字都帶有家長的寄望……這已經是成材的先兆」，這個推論的邏輯又在哪裡？一個帶有父母寄望的名字，對成材有什麼幫助？
整篇文章最大的問題，不是那個「上一代的出身決定下一代的命運」的論點，而是借了沈旭暉的成功穿鑿附會。父母親是知識份子，又分別是香港泛民主派與建制派的支持者，但到底在他成長的過程中，遺傳的聰明才智有多重要？家庭的教育有多重要？有沒有啟蒙老師啟發了他？有沒有特別的經歷改變了他？他有沒有反叛的時候？父母的身份有沒有帶來額外的壓力？片段地抽取「他的家庭背景很好」及「他現在很成功」來論證兩者的關係，對當事人並不公允。