2014年10月10日 星期五

佔領時刻:給爸媽的信



媽媽、爸爸:

由於佔中,我們的關係已走到決裂邊緣,你們甚至表示要跟我斷絕關係。我不知道可以說什麼,唯一最想說的,是對不起。

對不起,媽媽,爸爸。我道歉,不是認為我做錯了什麼,而是因為我知道你們的愛我,而我,也同樣愛你們。世事無常,如今,只因大家在一些事情上,有如此差天共地的理解,我卻選擇不聽從你們的命令,不去做違背自己信念的事,選擇忠於自己,這一點,我很對不起。

但,不用擔心,我已不是襁褓那個孩子了。我接受了很多教育,我知道,有什麼應該做,有什麼不應該做。每個人都有自己的信念,甚至可以對政治不聞不問,我都會尊重,何況,你們是我的至親,即使想法有很大距離,我也尊重你們,愛護你們,你們是無可代替的。同樣,我也真心希望你們可以尊重我,並以尊重我的方式愛我。我在做的從來不是傷天害理的事,我不期望你們站在我這邊,我只想你們可以,讓我做我想做的,這已是我如今最大的心願。

催淚彈發射當日,我一直看直播,一直坐不安,吃不下,睡不寧。我很少跟你們談政治,所以你們一直不明白我內心是多麼不滿,以為我突然轉性,或受人煽動,才走上街頭。不,不是這樣的,是因為你們的立場,因為我不想吵架,所以我不談,所以你們不知。樓價貴得瘋狂,自由行亂港,水貨走私,領匯霸權,地產霸權導致的通脹,國民教育,港視無牌而TVB一台獨大,港鐵狂加狂壞,還有畸型的議會制度,越來越腐敗的政府官員,很多很多。這些,你們都可能沒有意見,或者,一時三刻,你們不覺得自己的生活有什麼改變,但我,身為一個年輕人,我雙眼看見的,是無盡的黑暗。現在,那些學生如此艱辛,為未來爭取真正民主,我真心希望你願意理解他們。你們只要出來一晚,便知道這不是貪得意,貪新鮮,貪玩,或什麼有錢收,每一個走出來的人,都犧牲了時間、勞力、汗水、娛樂,還有很多很多。因為,我們都很害怕,今天不站出來,明天便站不出來。

我知道,有些能影響你們的親朋戚友,從小在大陸生活,習慣忌諱政治。或者,如何也改變不了他們,但他們至少也知道,大陸不公義的情況源於政府腐敗,這不正是他們當初要來香港定居的原因嗎?他們或許忘記了從前面對的不公不義,我卻親眼目睹眼前的不義不公,叫我如何眼白白看着香港變成大陸呢?如果這裏也變成跟大陸一樣,我還可以退避到那裏?我撫心自問,問了很多次,實在無法對這個充滿不公義的香港坐視不理,一如大部分年輕人都無法再沉默。

這是我的心聲,希望你會明白。你們明白與否,或是否接受,不要緊,但我會惦記着你們的愛,繼續愛你們,即使你們不再接受。集會這邊,經常響起Beyond的《海闊天空》,或者你們不明白這首歌說什麼,但Beyond有另外一首歌,你們一定會明白,最後我點這首歌給你們聽,以此作結。這首歌,叫做,真的愛你。

    無法可修飾的一對手 帶出溫暖永遠在背後
    縱使囉唆始終關注 不懂珍惜太內咎

    沉醉於音階她不讚賞 母親的愛卻永未退讓
    決心衝開心中掙扎 親恩終可報答

    春風化雨暖透我的心 一生眷顧無言地送贈

    是妳多麼溫馨的目光 教我堅毅望著前路
    叮囑我跌倒不應放棄

    沒法解釋怎可報盡親恩 愛意寬大是無限
    請准我說聲真的愛妳

    仍記起溫馨的一對手 始終給我照顧未變樣
    理想今天終於等到 分享光輝盼做到


P.S. 近日,聽說很多年輕人跟父母鬧翻,有人問我應該跟父母說什麼。有感,想像自己今天是個年輕人的話,我又會跟父母說什麼,筆錄於此。其實,說什麼並不重要,語言充滿缺陷,誤會易生,我認為最重要的,是愛,愛,從來不需言語。

我媽媽也是很多很多年前內地走難來港。她不多談政治,也不懂政治,我知道她是無法理解我的想法。但這都不重要,重要的是,她生前很愛護我。文中的歌,也送給天上的媽媽。

抗爭不罷學:民主通識課

今天出去旺角一轉,看見不少穿校服的學生。事實上,參與這場運動的,有很多還是中學生,未來,是他們的。這一代,覺醒了,便回不了頭。

常有人說,這群人被人利用,又或者說,他們也不知道自己爭取什麼。或者,有部分是的,但我相信大部分都不是,尤其高中生。我覺得這樣說,是中國人常有的成人傲慢,正所謂食鹽多過你食米。

可是,有些東西,是你上一代沒有得吃,但新一代已不斷在吃,因為兩代的教育和資訊普及 不同。在美國等民主國家,小學已教授權利與義務、民主普選等概念,對民主普選的認知和如何參與,是常識。但在香港,近年才有通識教育,而初中有沒有通識或 通識教不教公民權利民主普選等,視乎學校取態。民主普選與權力制衡等概念,在香港竟更像專業知識,彷彿大學不讀政治有關的學科,便不用認識般。

這也形成今天的兩代矛盾:上一代無法明白這一代在爭取什麼,為什麼有工開有飯食還要爭取;下一代無法說服上一代,也難以理解他們為什麼只有飯食便覺得滿足。當然,這是一條很大的題目,還包括上一代大多是俗稱上了岸的既得利益者,下一代則在畸型制度下看不見未來。

我想,教育是很重要的。抗爭路漫長,無論這次抗爭結果如何,一個無法推翻的效果,就是 一代人的覺醒。但我希望這一代人的覺醒不單是因為梁振英差,不要像十年前一役把董建華踢走便算,而是理解制度之惡。事情看來還會持續,所以我把過去在蘋果 日報、爽報、主場新聞有關政治社會參與的文章(包括權力分立、新聞自由、現行政制問題等)輯錄在此,以供參考,希望這些文章能陪伴有興趣的戰友,渡過漫長 的夜晚。

努力!




權力分立基本概念 

權力分立,互相制衡

民主制度完美嗎?

只有一人一票並非真普選(給學生的民主普選知識)

香港政制現況

由殖民管治到半民主化的香港

功能界別的政治原罪

2012立法會選舉民主程度增加了嗎?

權力與貪念共舞,損害核心價值

特首失誠信,何來管治威信?

政治組織有助提升管治效能嗎?

拉布有否損害市民利益?

表達自由及網絡世代的政治參與

新聞自由,不容侵犯

干預港台忍不忍?

建制外的政治參與及抗爭

讀政治參與,必修七一大遊行

「惡搞」的政治社會參與

公民抗命

2014年10月4日 星期六

Hong Kong Stands Up (限時閱讀,三日後刪除)

Why the territory’s fight for democracy is a challenge for China The typhoons that lash Hong Kong make quick work of umbrellas, the squalls twisting them into Calder sculptures of disarranged fabric and metal. On the evening of Sept. 28, prime typhoon season in this South China Sea outpost, flocks of umbrellas unfurled on the streets of Hong Kong. This time, they guarded not against rain and wind but tear gas and pepper spray. One of the world’s safest and most orderly cities—a metropolis of 7.2 million people that experienced just 14 homicides in the first half of this year—erupted into a battleground, as gas-mask-clad riot police unleashed noxious chemicals on thousands of protesters who were demanding democratic commitments from the territory’s overlords in Beijing.
As the first rounds of tear gas exploded in Admiralty, a Hong Kong district better known for its soaring bank buildings and glittering malls, demonstrators armed with nothing but umbrellas and other makeshift defenses—raincoats, lab glasses, ski goggles, milk and plastic wrap—defied the fumes and surged forward. The protests, drawing tens of thousands of people from all walks of life, were galvanized by mounting anger over Beijing’s decision in late August to deny locals the right to freely elect Hong Kong’s top leader, known as the chief executive (CE), in 2017.

When the onetime British colony was reunified with China in 1997, Hong Kong was promised governance under a “one country, two systems” principle that guaranteed significant autonomy for 50 years. But residents fear that, just 17 years after the handover, the freedoms that differentiate Hong Kong from everywhere else in China are eroding. Shocked by the volleys of pepper spray and tear gas, which injured dozens, the protest movement was energized by desperation. “We are not afraid of the Chinese government,” said Kusa Yeung, a 24-year-old copywriter helping to distribute water to fellow protesters just past midnight on Sept. 29. “We are fighting for a fair democracy.” The Umbrella Revolution had unfolded.

Hong Kong’s civil-disobedience campaign—which began Sept. 28 as the Occupy Central With Love & Peace movement, after the Central city district where it originated—soon occupied the city’s downtown, along with two key shopping and tourist districts. But while the sit-ins, with their umbrellas and yellow ribbons, captured the world’s attention, they will not topple China’s ruling Communist Party. The People’s Republic celebrated its 65th year of existence on Oct. 1 with a blaze of fireworks and militaristic pageantry in Beijing, a symbol of the party’s unquestioned grip on the country—though the fireworks were canceled in Hong Kong.

Still, the protests engulfing this tiny splinter of the motherland present China’s strongman President Xi Jinping with an unexpected dilemma at a time when the party is already facing scattered discontent at home. The side effects of three decades of unfettered economic growth—a poisoned environment, a growing income gap, rampant corruption—have contributed to an uneasy sense that, for all of China’s remarkable rise, things are not quite as they should be. “The Hong Kong protests are the last thing Xi Jinping wanted to see,” says Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a political scientist at Hong Kong Baptist University. “He has so many other problems to tackle.”

A canny nationalist, Xi and his coterie regularly blame “foreign forces” for fomenting social disorder in China. A scathing Sept. 29 online opinion piece in the People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, accused the Hong Kong protests of being orchestrated by “anti-China forces … whose hearts belong to colonial rule and who are besotted with ‘Western democracy.’” But, if anything, the mess in Hong Kong, along with other instances of social unrest, are self-inflicted by China’s centralized leadership, which has done little to win hearts and minds on the country’s periphery. In his National Day speech in Beijing, Xi proclaimed that China’s leaders “must never separate ourselves from the people.” Yet, at the same time, the authorities detained mainland activists who expressed solidarity with the Hong Kong protesters.

Instead of taking advantage of Hong Kong’s inherently pragmatic temperament, the Chinese government spent the summer rubbing the territory’s nose in its political powerlessness. First came a Beijing white paper that asserted the central government’s “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong and trod on treasured local institutions like rule of law. Then on Aug. 31 the Chinese government ruled that Hong Kongers could vote for their CE—but only after a Beijing-backed committee presented the electorate with two or three candidates it deemed suitable. (Currently, an electoral college selects the CE.) “Rejecting democracy in Hong Kong has dramatically backfired,” says Maya Wang, a Hong Kong–based researcher with Human Rights Watch. “People here have now lost confidence in the central government. Trying to clear the protests has just led to bigger protests.” Even if the demonstrators eventually disperse, this breach of trust fundamentally changes Hong Kong’s political calculus.
Protesters block the main street to the financial Central district, outside the government headquarters in Hong Kong
In a massive show of civil disobedience, protesters block the multi­lane thoroughfare leading to Hong Kong’s financial district. Carlos Barria—Reuters
The Umbrella Revolution
If the other democratic upheavals of recent years are defined by a single season or hue, the choice of an umbrella to symbolize Hong Kong’s dissent is as fitting as it is improbable. Umbrellas come in a riot of colors, matching a polyglot city that was birthed by quarreling Eastern and Western parents, neither of which gave much thought to gifting democracy to a few hunks of South China Sea rock.

Umbrellas are also a practical instrument, unsexy but vital, much like this financial hub that has long served as an entrepôt to the vast markets of mainland China. Efficiency is the city’s motto. This being Hong Kong, the protesters picked up their trash after the tear gas subsided. The volunteers who ferried in donated supplies even had sparkling water on tap, offering San Pellegrino to the parched hordes at nearly 3 a.m. on Sept. 29.
Neither the lingering memory of tear gas nor the advent of the workweek in this workaholic city diminished the crowds on Monday and Tuesday. As riot police withdrew amid a barrage of criticism for their tear-gas blitzkriegs, protesters further packed what are already some of the most densely populated places on earth, young families staking out spaces with bright parasols. William Ma, 47, brought his daughter Dorothy, 11, to one protest site on Sept. 30. “When I was young, democracy never came,” he said. “Maybe I’ll have died already, but she can have a better life, she can have democracy.”

The weekend’s anxious mood was replaced by a carnival gaiety, as stockbrokers mixed with the students who had helped kick-start the protest movement. High school kids did their homework on the pavement, squinting at their scientific calculators in the scorching sun. Some of the demonstrators admitted they were newbies, galvanized into political action by the heavy-handed police response. “[People] were just raising their hands without any weapons, and they used tear gas without any warning,” said Raymond Chan, a math teacher, who joined the movement on Monday. “But the fact that they did that just makes us stronger, more unified.”

Such a movement in Hong Kong threatens the national unity Xi and Co. are so keen to maintain. For all of Beijing’s emphasis on enhancing national security—the surveillance apparatus gets more official funding than does the military—China’s fringes are fraying. Beyond Hong Kong, the vast ethnic enclaves of Tibet and Xinjiang are rebelling, with violence in the latter largely Islamic region claiming hundreds of lives over the past year. Taiwan, the island that Beijing has desperately wanted back ever since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists fled there after losing the civil war in 1949, has been assimilating economically with the mainland. But the Hong Kong crisis has spooked even ardent integrationists in Taiwan, making it hard for Xi to argue that “one country, two systems” can bring the island back into the fold. Even activists in tiny Macau, the former Portuguese outpost that slid back into Beijing’s embrace in 1999 even more eagerly than Hong Kong had two years before it, are demanding more latitude in choosing their local leader.

Hong Kong’s cry for freedom resonates far beyond its 400 sq miles (1,035 sq km); it directly challenges the narrative of a unified People’s Republic. “The truth is Hong Kong is more than ready for democracy,” wrote Anson Chan, Hong Kong’s former chief secretary, the No. 2 leadership post in the territory, in an exclusive commentary for TIME. “It is China that is not ready for a democratically governed Hong Kong it fears it cannot totally control.”

Alternate Universe
Three decades ago, when prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and Zhao Ziyang signed the Sino-British joint declaration setting the conditions for Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997, the then colony was considered an apolitical place, a striving city of businessmen and bankers who would obey whoever was in charge—as long as there was money to be made. Back then, it was communist China that was in the throes of political tumult. Five years later, tanks crushed the pro-democracy student protests at Tiananmen. Hundreds, if not thousands, of students and other peaceful demonstrators were massacred. Political passion was cauterized on the mainland, and the Chinese leadership learned the perils of allowing idealistic students to preach reform in public places.

Xi has used nationalism to argue for an even stronger central command. As China’s military chief, he has taken a more assertive stance on territorial disputes in regional waters, irritating China’s neighbors. Since assuming power in late 2012, Xi has also presided over a civil-liberties crackdown, detaining hundreds of human-rights defenders, from lawyers and bloggers to journalists and artists. He has shown no allergy to repression if it means protecting the party from the people. In September, Ilham Tohti, a moderate academic from the Uighur ethnic minority that populates Xinjiang, was handed a life sentence for separatism. His true crime? Calling on the Internet for China to respect its own regional autonomy laws.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong was busy finding its political voice. Each Tiananmen anniversary, tens of thousands gather for candlelight vigils in Hong Kong, the only place in China where such remembrances are allowed. In 2012 locals balked at a proposal to incorporate patriotic dogma into their education system; a protest movement actually succeeded in scrapping that school legislation.

At the same time, Hong Kongers discovered that their territory’s competitive advantages—unfettered courts, a vibrant press, financial transparency, a clean civil service and a welcoming attitude toward foreigners—were precisely what kept the enclave from becoming just another Chinese city. If Beijing threatened these core values, what were Hong Kong’s prospects? “Hong Kong is still unique, but we see the relentless downhill trajectory,” says Willy Lam, an adjunct professor at the Center for China Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

One Country, Two Systems
It’s easy, now, to track the seemingly inevitable collision course between Hong Kong and China, between these two vastly different systems trying to coexist in a single nation. Any attempt to narrow the gap looks clumsy. Leung Chun-ying, the unpopular, Beijing-backed Hong Kong chief executive, tried to bridge the disparity, amid calls for his resignation. “Hong Kong is a democracy within the context of ‘one country, two systems,’” he said on Sept. 28, before the pepper-spray charge began. “It is not a self-contained democracy.” Leung went on to characterize the chief-executive selection process as “not ideal, but it is better.”
Better isn’t good enough, particularly for the young generation that has taken to Hong Kong’s streets with the greatest numbers and the greatest passion. Like their counterparts on the mainland, these youths struggle with the realization that their material lives might not improve as expansively as their parents’ once did. Hong Kong’s prime method of wealth creation needs to diversify beyond real estate, just as the rest of China’s must. Housing prices have spiraled so high that ordinary young people in big cities must save their whole lives to afford their own homes.

Han Dongfang, a labor activist who was jailed for helping to organize the Tiananmen protests 25 years ago and who now lives in Hong Kong, says the territory’s young activists today “know more clearly what they want” than he did back when he was a youth leader. On Monday night, in the sweaty, swarming district of Mongkok, a 76-year-old tailor named To Fu-tat gave great consequence to Hong Kong’s students. “They’re the hope for China,” he said.

Yet student activists—no matter how much civility they display with their civil disobedience—are precisely what Beijing fears most. It is within the Chinese establishment’s political memory that the Tiananmen tragedy looms largest. Regina Ip was forced to resign as Hong Kong’s security chief in 2003 after half a million locals marched against the anti-subversion legislation she supported. Today she is a legislator heading the New People’s Party. “My own feeling is that the [Occupy] organizers have arranged the whole movement to replicate another Tiananmen incident in Hong Kong,” she says. “What about the interests of Hong Kong people like us? We want peace and stability. Issues … should be resolved through constructive dialogue not through street protests.”
Polls taken in Hong Kong show that a significant chunk—roughly half of the populace, by one estimate—is willing to accept Beijing’s electoral formula. Protests are bad for business and, for all the Tiananmen scare­mongering, it’s hard to imagine Xi ordering Chinese troops to crack Hong Kong heads. Still, given his antipathy thus far toward political reform, it’s equally hard to see him ceding significant ground to Hong Kong’s democratic forces. Even the protesters themselves don’t imagine their full demands—both the resignation of CE Leung and true electoral freedom to choose the territory’s leader—will be met. “It’s very unlikely that Beijing will reverse its position,” says Audrey Eu, chair of the Civic Party, which has supported the Occupy movement. “But the people of Hong Kong must stand up and defend themselves.”

The Umbrella Revolution has already gained a wider significance. “People in China think Hong Kong belongs to China,” says Julian Lam, a 20-year-old student. “But people in Hong Kong think that Hong Kong is part of China but belongs to the world.” With each Hong Kong citizen who emerged, coughing and crying, to face another round of tear gas, a conviction grew: a quest for liberty is not, as the Chinese government charges, some Western-imposed frippery designed to undermine Beijing’s authority, but a universal aspiration. Let the umbrellas of the world unite. —with reporting by Elizabeth Barber, Rishi Iyengar, Emily Rauhala and David Stout/Hong Kong


See Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Protesters Clash With Police

義憤填膺,聲討暴徒。執法不公,強烈讉責




筆者按:這是筆者草擬的聯署初稿。筆者沒有登報聯署的經驗,還望熟知程序的人協助登報。任何人也可以隨便使用本文內容,加以修改。筆者重申,本文版權屬於公眾。如果你贊同,也可以當作自己的聲明,加入自己的名字。(如果需要籌募廣告費,可預我一份。)

                                                           

我們是熱愛香港的香港人。就十月三日各地出現藍絲帶暴徒四處搗亂,我們悲痛不已,憤怒無比,並強烈讉責警方執法不公。



事件撮要如下:



1.      香港向來是文明社會,即使示威,向來理性平和。市民自發的和平佔領集會,由9月29日開始至10月2日,一直相安無事,並無發生任何暴力事件。市民面對警方,高度克制,即使於9月28日面對警方施以催淚彈,市民也沒有使用過暴力。可是,10月3日,一群懸掛藍絲帶的暴徒,突然於銅鑼灣和旺角的集會場地出現,不單辱罵留守者,更追打在場人士,有女士當場被非禮,暴徒還譏諷示威者「出來示威便預了遭人非禮」,對離場示威者大呼「回去當娼妓吧」。集會閃電惡化成暴力事件。

2.      文明社會尊重不同意見,但絕不容忍暴力。藍絲帶暴徒來歷不明,當中多人更戴上口罩出席,身份神秘。他們有權表達反對佔領的意見,但誰會接受他們對市民施以拳打腳踢、非禮和性騷擾?任何一個正直的市民,必須聲討這種種卑劣行為,以維持社會人倫和價值。

3.      有人說佔領者犯法在先,大家都是犯法,不值同情,更直指「如此局面是因為佔領引起」。這是歪理連篇:一. 佔領者犯法,只有執法者才能執法,藍絲帶暴徒有什麼資格代為執法?二. 佔領者被控,自有法庭判決其罪名和刑罰,什麼時候可以由藍絲帶暴徒代訂刑罰,施以暴力私刑?三. 佔領者犯的法只是佔領馬路,將之與暴徒犯下的罪行相比,就等於將亂過馬路、違例泊車與暴力襲擊、強姦非禮等嚴重罪行當成等同,是極端歪理。

4.      可是,面對以上種種嚴重罪行,警方執法明顯極為寬鬆,大有縱容暴力之嫌。相比起9月28日的示威,示威者即使毫無襲擊動作,還高舉雙手,警方卻多次出動胡椒噴霧,及後更發射87枚催淚彈;相反,10月3日暴徒亂港,警方連胡椒噴霧也沒有用上,網絡和媒體上出現大量警方釋放施襲者、消極執法的片段,令人懷疑警方執法已脫離不偏不倚的原則,另有政治考慮。連國際傳媒都以大字標題指「警察和暴徒合作」。香港竟由一個高度文明的社會,迅速降格為第三世界國家,國際形象大損,警方責無旁貸。



我們重申:



以上種種,皆激起香港人無比義憤。



我們重申,對於暴力、非禮此等嚴重罪行,絕不容忍,並在此聲討暴徒。

我們重申,絕不會因暴力而退縮,因為我們退無可退,我們真誠愛港,絕不願香港淪為警察與暴徒合作的野蠻國家。

我們重申,對於警方對和平示威者施放催淚彈、卻對襲擊非禮暴徒消極執法,極為憤怒,並予以強烈讉責。



香港市民



葉一知



2014年10月2日 星期四

選個代表,為醒覺一代注入抗極權疫苗



運動發展到這一天,戰事暫緩,卻到了最危險的時候。如果處理不好,一切前功盡廢。

正如前天的文章說過,現在運動的最大困難,是沒有一個獲得授權的領袖能代表所有人的意見。沒錯,市民都是自發的,因而造成極大機動性,用游擊戰成功奪下三大陣地。這是一個沒有話事人的運動,正如陶傑是日(3/10)蘋果日報所言,真正的領袖是資訊科技,是Facebook等社交網站。這種自發精神和公民質素極為可敬,舉世驚奇並讚頌,我也為香港人的公民質素如此之高而自豪。

但針無兩頭利,這種模式發展到如今局面,已成僵局,是否還可持續?我們是否仍要迷戀「沒有領袖」的運動而拒絕任何代表呢?這是需要各位同路人冷靜和理性思考一下。我能做的不多,只能以愚見抛磚引玉,希望各位有一個思考方向和基礎論據。

首先,「群龍無首」的民眾運動為什麼會在過去幾天如此成功呢?前文已指出,這是警方以武力對付學生和市民而促成,不以疏導而以堵塞之法而間接作出了「道德感召」,勾起全港人的義憤,致人潮滿瀉。過去幾天大家相安無事,因為大家有一個最大公約數――政府必須讓步回應,繼而談判,從而達到真普選的目標。為了這個最大的目標,不同勢力均能互相忍讓、互相支持。

但散兵游勇,難以持久。因為戰爭(我一直把這場運動當作一場戰爭看待,這是應有的心理準備)當中,最重要的是紀律和服從。什麼叫「散兵游勇」呢?那本指逃散無統屬的士兵,今日借用作不屬於團體而獨自行動的人。這種互不從屬、只憑一己喜惡的群眾,優勢在過去幾天已看見。但自昨晚開始,其缺點也表露無遺。

昨晚是一個轉捩點,因為政府願意接受學聯要求,委派林鄭月娥談判,最大公約數就此消失,各勢力的多種意見立即處於競爭狀態,諸如收不收貨、幾時談、接受什麼不接受什麼等,各種論述不斷競爭,本來這是好事,但可惜內鬥基因立時發作,在辯論時不時加插「你不代表我」、「你有咩資格代表我」、「學聯從此不代表我」、「你們是鬼」等等。由於沒有統屬也沒有表決程序,最終意見紛紜,任何行動也阻不住。

面對國家機器,任何行動理應深思熟慮,處處以大局著想。這需要智慧,需要學識,更需要的,是胸襟。這種人在現場有不少,但他們完全控制不了局面,因為即使有五千人支持某些人的決策,只要有一少部分人,哪怕是三四十人不同意,他們就大可以「自由意志」行動,五千人支持的結果無法落實,因為沒有一個授權組織,如果有人嘗試阻止,就一句「你憑乜代表我」――除了令人自覺很有型,也對大局具龐大破壞力。由於現在運動擁有這個特性,全心破壞的成本就極低,幾個間諜便可。

古往今來,大家不難看見,當共敵消失,便成諸候割據、軍閥互鬥之局面。秦朝破滅,即成劉邦項羽互爭;隋陽帝一滅,軍閥互鬥,最後才由李唐勝出;滿清一亡,雖有短暫民主,也很快進入割據時代。如今的局面完全可以由歷史預測,但最大分別的是,今天的敵人還「未亡」――梁振英未倒,普選未落實,但互鬥來得更快,原因就是這本是沒有領袖的運動,連各自行動的人都說「代表自己」,背後真的可以不從屬任何政團。

幸好,這種不斷循環的歷史,西方提供了一個暫時為止仍是最佳的解決方案,那就是民主程序。如果用民主表決,決定就是大眾的,而不從屬任何個體。

或者有人會說,用民主表決也不需要代表,大家一起投票便可。這是希臘城邦的直接民主,好處當然是不怕被「出賣」,但壞處是時間非常冗長,可能每一個細節都要投票,最終也是一事無成。例如,衝不衝出龍和道,又要投票;給政府的談判時限,又要投票;撤不撤廣東道,又投;讓不讓警察的早餐進場,難道又即時投票?

大規模的直接民主本就被歷史否定並改良,才出現代議政制。將之套用到今日的局面,任何正常人都知全不可能。事事直接民主,恐怕事件拖一年也沒有成事,民意勢必反彈。所以,現在其中一條可行的路,就是選出代表團,授權一班人去處理各種談判和行動。

如果怕代表團「出賣」,其實可以對其加以權力限制。例如,代表團的決策必須經訊息發布、諮詢、商討和投票表決,商討和投票表決可以有兩至三輪,確保最後決定並不是兒戲的;代表團的主席只是發言人,不能獨斷(參考陪審團制度);代表團有「試用期」,例如只有十四日權力,之後要再重選,如果大家滿意,可授權代表有更長的代表權力。

但必須謹記,民主制度背後,是大家有信任的共識和默契,代表團的決策未必符合所有人,但民眾絕不能輸打贏要,必須服從,不能不合心水就走出來說「我有行動自由」。你如何不滿也好,這是人類的限制,因為世上沒有符合每一個個體的決策,正因如此,才要用民主制度解決。如果大家接受民主表決卻又不服從,一切都會失敗。

這可以是將運動升華的一步,不單解決「互不代表、無法前行」的問題,也可以給全港市民上一課貨真價實的民主課,對於今天走出來已醒覺的一代人,是最快把民主這種抗極權疫苗注射給他們的方法。即使運動不幸以失敗收場,這種抗體將會深植身體,令他們在以後每場戰役中發揮效用,例如立法會投票。

這既然是一場追求民主的運動,便應以民主方式前進。我希望各位有識之士,學習英國人的智慧,思考英國大憲章是如何來的,思考美國獨立後為何要制訂獨立宣言和憲法,為什麼人家最終沒有出現各軍事勢力互相殺伐的局面。我希望,即使運動這一次真的不幸落敗,民主種子也能深植這一代每個人心中,這,才不枉多日內這麼艱辛走出來、流了那麼多汗、吸了這種多催淚煙的市民!

2014年10月1日 星期三

須將道德感召轉化為針對政制

由上星期五重奪公民廣場開始,至今已是第六晚,運動有點膠著。大家小休和策劃下一步時,不如回顧一下這場運動,從而認清事情的本質。

這場運動,本來是「罷課爭普選」運動,而與之差不多舉行的佔中運動,也是以爭普選為目標。但這兩場運動,號召到的人數相當有限,為民主普選而罷課和犯法,很多香港人都猶豫。

可是,事態有十分戲劇性的發展。首先,是黃之鋒被捕,一個只有十七歲的學生,只涉及很輕的罪名,大家都以為一如以往的案例,他很快便獲保釋外出。但,之後兩天,他一直沒有消息。

這燃點了第一條藥引。

到了星期日,黃之鋒還未獲釋。大批市民出來撐學生,一心想走入政總添美道一帶。但(我完全不明白當權者何以如此愚蠢),竟然不讓潮水般的人潮過去政總那邊,更蠢得用胡椒噴霧,將政總天橋上的市民驅散,迫他們退到統一中心那邊。大禹治水應該每個人都讀過,治水是不能用堵塞的方法,只能用疏導。

這燃點了第二條藥引。越積越多的「潮水」如缺堤般,湧到馬路。

最後一條藥引,不用多說,就是那87枚催淚彈。

三條藥引,先後爆出金鐘、銅鑼灣和旺角據點,造成今日的局面。

正如筆者很久前說,參考很多歷史故事,你會發現幾乎所有政治改變和運動都不是精心策劃出來,而是因為一些你沒有預計過的事情而爆發。(所以很多人互相傾軋,說誰廢誰廢,但這場運動根本沒有人主導誘發,其實一樣「廢」吧)

梁振英政府是睇死香港人沒有佔中這份熱誠和膽色,才決定採取強硬和快刀斬亂麻的方式解決。其實梁振英政府沒有看錯,如果為民主普選,我也相信沒有這麼多人有這份熱誠和膽色。

但,香港人有一個優良的性格:有義憤。

催淚彈未發射前,很多人都不贊成佔領行為。有些人支持民主普選,但反對佔中。可是,催淚彈發放後的兩三小時,Facebook頭像是以幾何速度轉為黃絲帶,因為對手無寸鐵、一直沒有襲擊行為甚至還高舉雙手的市民和學生發射催淚彈,即時勾起全港絕大部份正常人的義憤。

因此,佔領行為得到最大的民意支持,三個據點迅即形成,卻竟然聽不到很大的反對聲音。

簡單來說,運動超出所有人預期,包括學生和佔中三子,是因為沒有人預計到,運動最終不是以爭取真普選為號召,而是戲劇性地發酵為道德感召,並生成「遮打運動」。

遮打運動不同佔中,佔中是以追求政治制度改革為目標,但遮打運動是出於義憤,其意義不是出於追求理想,而是表態讉責。

這很可能是運動膠著的原因。運動原來的主事人是希望爭取政治改革,但運動變成道德譴責,那麼,如何將這份道德感召轉化為追求政治改革的熱誠,是最考功夫的一步,也就是如何把行動升級而不失民意的最大難關。

我一向認為,在行動升級之餘,必定要鞏固民心。我昨天在facebook建議大家向受影響市民致歉並解釋清楚行動的最終目標,是基於這場運動本質而來。義憤、激情都會冷卻,當一班本來不是支持佔領爭普選的市民因為義憤變相促成佔領行動,而政府一直冷處理事件,這群人的義憤慢慢會熄滅,而當佔領對香港的影響漸大,有很多人未必能堅持下去。

即使能堅持下去,也不可能成長期佔領,因鬥志必被虛耗。因此,行動需要升級,但採取什麼升級行動呢?難道不守和平原則嗎?那麼示威者的暴力會變得跟警察一樣,道德感召立即消失。

擴大戰線,影響更多人的生活,究竟因為原來的道德感召而來的市民,願不願付出代價,改而投向爭取制度變革?義憤是出於惻隱之心,是一種自然反應,除了在一些思想被政權荼毒的國家,大部分人都自然而然生出義憤。但政制改革並非一種情緒,而是一種知識,是需要用理性去理解。

升級行動,便意味將道德感召轉投政治變革的力量,所以我說升級跟輿論戰同樣重要,如果無法令更多人明白當前目標如何重要,市民因佔領受影響的時間越長,民意逆轉的可能便越高。加上對手推波助瀾,運動很容易走下坡。

還有,運動沒有領袖。很多人迷戀沒有領袖的運動。自發運動是可敬的,有其優點,但自也有其缺點。領袖不一定是「搶光環」的(這是十分Chinese的看法,跟維園阿伯說「搞乜搞物果啲都係想出風頭」根本沒有兩樣),還可以是承擔責任的角色。如果有人衝動行事,領袖可以負全責,把責任推在他身上,換一個領袖,還有機會令運動得以持續。正如曾偉雄今天可以背了催淚彈的黑鑊,警隊不會散掉。但沒有領袖,敵手的論述便是「責任全歸於群眾」,一場運動便很易失去輿論支持。有些人還會反駁,輿論支持不重要,但你的運動不是推翻政權,而是爭取民主,你卻說輿論支持不重要,又如何交代?

所以,現在運動的最大困難,
就是沒有一個獲得授權的領袖能代表所有人的意見,卻要把行動升級,卻要把行動升級,又不知能否把道德感召轉化成針對政治改革的理想。

如此龐大的運動要成功,從來不易,特別你的對手背後有一個極權政府。在大家情緒高漲的時候,本人經常說唔啱聽的說話。但我相信會有人明白我的用意。