喧囂的二樓

Posted in Uncategorized by simonkan1018 on 三月 16, 2010

近來有關五區公投的聲勢大不如前,自己亦少了留意最新發展。難得林行止出文再起討論,實在應該支持。未登記成為選民的人,記得趕快登記!

————————

良心一票?投以白票!

林行止

一、

雖然內地近在咫尺,而香港也回歸有年,可是,香港人對北京政府的特性,似乎並未充分掌握;北京政府的特性是什麼?一句話,在中國共產黨的領導下,中國政府是全心全意地為人民服務。那等於說,政府所做的一切,都是為了人民的幸福着想,而政府集中全國精英所制訂的多元政策,全都出於良好動機和縝密部署,理應屬於無懈可擊。在這種「仁慈專制主義」理念之下,任何反對之聲均被「另眼相看」,老百姓在言文上關心本身的福祉、關懷社會的發展(遑論熱中於政治)而有各種各樣的意見,便已犯忌,因為那意味群眾對政府不夠信任、認為政府做得不夠好,站在「仁慈家長」的立場,那等於「受眾」不領情,反對之聲因而均被視為「搞事」、「破壞社會和諧」,輕者「犯禁」,重者「犯法」!

這種難容異議的背景令北京與香港存有先天性的不和諧因子!建基於《基本法》的香港,主權回歸表面看來是重投祖國懷抱,實際是回歸到中共治下的專制政權。有《基本法》的保障,不少港人以為香港和內地之間有了「絕緣體」、「安全網」,事實顯示這種想法過於「天真和簡單」。中英就香港問題進行談判、發生爭拗以至落實換旗的歲月,正發生於國際間共產主義理念式微而中共政經實力尚未堅實、須借「外力」發展的階段,因此很多原則性的問題都可商量。那時港人最害怕的是喪失自由、驚懼陷入「竹幕」;而中共當時最不願見到的是港人懼共拒共,對北京缺乏信心。七十、八十、九十年代香港掀起的移民潮,便是這種心態的具體反映!

口號式的「港人治港、高度自治」,是中、英(和香港)委曲(說香港人委「屈」也許更恰當)求全的產物,具體而微的《基本法》則機關算盡(再加上多年後港人才知道其解釋權完全操諸人大常委),以其為中共統治與特區政府之間的安全屏障,無疑是天開異想了。爭取到「港人治港、高度自治」的承諾和《基本法》的確立,可說是當年港人的「何伯遜選擇」(Hobson’s Choice;無可選擇的唯一選擇),港人當時只能希望北京「說話算數」,若不存此念,根本沒有留港的勇氣;然而,如果照單全收、信到十足,以為有此承諾及保障,便足以以港人意志為依歸,在英國殖民者留下的政治結構軌道上推動社會事務和政制改革,則是大錯特錯,因為一開始便被北方寒風吹得渾身發抖,而風力的強度隨中國「綜合國力」的日益壯大而不斷升級!

那是香港政治的死結。

二、

機關算盡的政制安排,令現行議會出現畸形的投票機制,有利當權派推動其欲推行的政策,反對其不願見到的提案;政制改革當然只會按照北京對《基本法》的解釋進行,議會生態受制於八面「紅」潮、裹足不前,彰顯了泛民議員在建制中無法動彈的窘態,總辭與變相普選的構思,是俚語所謂「趕狗(包括癲狗)入窮巷」定見反撲的切實形容、現實寫照!

在議事廳堂難抒「壯志」、在爭取政改中處處被包抄、受圍剿、上街則動輒被「依法」控告,社民連希望藉議員總辭然後通過補選營造普選的事實,是無路可走、無法可想下「鋌而走險」的掙扎,可惜一度積極爭取落實民主制度的民主黨不肯做「同路人」,而以較溫和的姿態希圖能獲中央「招降」,只有一向予人以比較理性的公民黨附和;有「大狀黨」之稱的公民黨所以同意社民連不按牌理出牌、以比較激進的方法爭取較合港人意願的政改,純綷是因為說理、遊行以至民調均無法「感化」中央及特區政府在政改中體恤民情,在再無言文方法可想之下,不如「起身」加入社民連陣營,希望以此刺激政改進度,讓選民有機會在補選中表達對政改的意願。

藉補選營造普選的活動不具「公投」意義,所有有關「公投」及「起義」的說法,不過是在冷靜與理性根本派不上用場後走偏鋒以期能夠動員更多人支持補選之詞。殊不知龍顏不悅,因為具全民表態意義的「公投」是專政者的「死穴」,擁權自重的政黨,最不願意面對的便是足以動搖其政治認受性的「公投」,在這種情形下,即使中央明知「公社聯」利用憲制漏洞搞出來的補選與「公投」沾不上邊,亦趁機群起而攻,在事事北望神州派與事事爭取香港有自主權派之間劃下更深邃的鴻溝,政壇分化更為明顯!

由於民主黨不介入的輾轉變化,結果只有五名議員放棄在直選中爭來的席位,令這次變相普選的代表性不全面,藉變相普選讓選民對政改表態的作用也大大降低;奇形怪狀的反應使整件事顯得非常荒謬,泛民議員的內耗,使人無言以對;民建聯大老的欲語還休與欲行又止,「皮影戲」動作的突兀不暢順,也失禮得令人嘆為觀止;行政長官公然表示不會投票,他的政府卻撥巨款「成全」補選—相信政治任命官員及公務員系統亦會杯葛補選,營造了此次補選活動既要推動又要拉韁的乖謬。不過,從行政長官表示不會投票而政府卻為補選撥出經費看,港府既要顧全特區的法律規定又要「擦」言辨色以免忤逆今上,其左右為難也有豬八戒照鏡般的難堪。

身處這場政治紛擾,香港選民應如何克盡公民權責、怎樣行使手中一票的權利?

筆者的簡單答案是:「投票日去投票!」補選名單中若有自己中意的人選,自然是投其一票,沒有的話,便投「白票」;假如在當局多方阻撓下投票依然熱烈,而「白票」又多於一切的話,那正好展示了港人珍惜投票權利,亦懂得發揮這一票的作用,即使當前迷霧重重,對變相普選弄得不湯不水又或對總辭五子都有不滿,港人仍會以白票方式表示我們重視投票的權利。我們希望政改步伐不再遠遠落後於港人的政治渴求和水平!

選民對手上的選票要當真,卻不能逼真;要藉投票擦出政改火花,卻要避免釀成火海!補選報名今天開始,希望有更多人加入戰團而選民稍後會積極投票,準備投白票的選民先要弄清楚怎樣才能避免要投的白票不會淪為廢票;謹慎投票,這回的白票是港人神聖而非神經的一票!

廣告
Tagged with: ,

Posted in news, review by simonkan1018 on 一月 24, 2010

The comments on this article, really made me surprised. Most of them condemned the Post 80’s and Pan-Democratic and so did the coming resignation of the 5 members of Lego. They thought HongKongers should shut up and focused on the economy since the others mainland cities were catching up, the competition was keen inside. And compare to the inland cities, HongKongers already received the greatest degree of freedom, thus shouldn’t demand more.  And of course, they said that democracy was not work in Asia countries, everywhere doing badly like Malaysia, Indonesia and even Japan, therefore democracy just made Hong Kong even worse.

Most of the points are very familiar, from the mouth of patriotism people and the China government. No wonder why the last few comment said that “CHINESE SOCIALISM HAS PROVEN TO THE WORLD THAT IT IS SUPERIOR TO YOUR MODEL OF ANGLO-AMERICAN DEMOCRACY."

Another things should be noted that these guys all writing in excellent English, I guess much better than me. Perhaps I also should start to learn English again. Fortunately, there was one who claimed itself Post 80’s HongKongers wrote a beautiful and rational reply to these guys amid the comments.

One more thing, though these guys advocated something doesn’t make sense, they did make a good suggestion to Hong Kong. One of them said Hong Kong should become a better place if they have more of Jackie Chans and less of Martin Lees.  What I think is, Hong Kong should have more of both!

———————-

Protest in Hong Kong

On track for confrontation

China for once does Hong Kong’s democrats a favour

Jan 21st 2010 | HONG KONG
From The Economist print edition

DEPENDING on your perspective, it was either a pointless bit of argy-bargy outside a milquetoast legislative council—or a soul-stirring “siege of Legco”. Thousands of Hong Kongers, young and old, came together on January 16th to make some noise about spending on public infrastructure. Their protests were in vain, but the noise was heard.

Despite them, Legco approved funding for a high-speed rail-link with Shenzhen and Guangzhou, over the border in China proper. On January 18th Donald Tsang, the region’s chief executive, condemned the protesters, warning them to reflect, lest they “suffocate peaceful and rational expression of opinion.”

Protesters organised by means of texting, Twitter and Facebook. On January 1st thousands of the same “post-80s” generation had marched in support of universal suffrage. This challenges both Mr Tsang, who was chosen by an appointed election committee, and Legco itself. Half of its 60 members are directly elected. The rest, including most of the 31 who backed the rail-link, are chosen by “functional constituencies”—unelected proxies for business and political interests, usually on China’s side.

It was this undemocratic set-up, rather than the improved connection to the mainland’s railways, that had stoked anger. The protesters see the oft-repeated promise of representative democracy receding into the future. Hong Kong’s government and officials in Beijing have reason to feel jumpy. In parallel to the rail-link fracas, some of Hong Kong’s democrats have been devising a new form of protest. Frustrated by the delays in implementing democratic reform, two political parties have declared that on January 27th they will quit five seats in Legco, one for each of the territory’s voting districts. The quitters plan to contest the same seats in by-elections. Their parties hope to turn these into a de facto referendum on democracy.

This will not be easy. The Democratic Party, the largest of the “pan-democratic” parties, has spurned the campaign. It found many voters disapproved of the idea, or did not understand it. A poll finds that 50% of voters oppose the by-election plan, and 24% support it. Kenneth Chan, who speaks for the campaign, concedes it will be hard work to cast the by-elections as a contest pitting democracy against business-as-usual. China’s government, however, is doing its bit to help. This week the State Council, or cabinet, accused the democrats of mounting a “blatant challenge” to the authority of the central government. This made the by-elections look like a real referendum rather than yet another futile protest.

Still, the democrats’ manoeuvre is a dangerous gamble. They hold only 23 of Legco’s 60 seats at present, so they risk falling below the one-third of seats that allows them to block constitutional reforms. But then, Mr Chan notes, what has this veto done for them lately?

Tagged with: , ,