佔領

【佔領】五毛佳作範例 / 姚崢嶸

圖:幫港出聲。對不起,沒證據顯示本文與周融有關,只是想到「五毛」,自然想起他

圖:幫港出聲。對不起,沒證據顯示本文與周融有關,只是想到「五毛」,自然想起他

【有朋友問我:何以咁認真睇五毛文章?其實是姚太看到朋友分享,谷住道氣,我說:呢D粗重野,等我來吧。關德興師父話齋:家庭(滅毛)計劃,男子有責。】

我看到一篇五毛中的佳作(全文請看文末),在此公諸同好。何佳之有?

(一)用英文。唔好笑,第一,南華早報仍被很多人視為有公信力。第二,讀者群是保守中產專業人士,仍有不少人覺得「識英文 = 有學識 = 有道理」。第三,方便爭取外國人同情,外國人有幾多會讀過(甚至聽過)基本法?你都唔睇美國甚至偉大祖國憲法吧。所以,外國人,易呃。

(二)歪理道理夾雜。這點我沒有心理學根據,但我想,讀者讀到一些同意的論點時,戒心會鬆懈,容易被文中夾雜的歪理滲透。例如「容許特首有政黨背景」這點,學者評論員講了不知幾多年。又例如「減少功能組別的公司、團體票,擴大選民基礎」,也是正道——可惜只是遲了十幾年。香港現在應做的,是取消功能組別,不是慢慢「改良」到 2047。

現在來看看內文幾個「五毛」重點:

Protesters must clear the roads, or be cleared by force

單看條題,已經夠乞人憎了。只有心理變態的人,才會主張武力清場。就算題目是南早編輯所定,作者也在內文第一段寫得很清楚了。

Regrettably, the local media displayed only images of the firing of canisters but not what happened before. Hong Kong looked like a war zone.

這句話,「藍血」味十分重。甚麼「本地」媒體?星島大公頭條算嗎?係,知你醒啦,唔睇「本地」報紙,那麼「BBC」、「Guardian」、「Time」等,夠唔 Local 、夠 High 了吧?為何連外媒也把香港形容為「war zone」?那是因為政府放胡椒、放催淚彈,太過暴力,太過 Graphic 呀!(唔識自己搵,睇我的奇文共賞都夠了。)

It is legally flawed because it is unconstitutional. Article 45 of our Basic law is quite clear that the candidates are to be nominated by the nomination committee……(原文太長,已附本文最底,自己睇)

長篇大論,「懶」有法理,其實基本法根本無講明,提名委員會組成方法。你咁喜歡提委會,不如提委會成員全部由全港選民直選(真o個隻)產生,不用改基本法,制唔制?

Further, protest leaders’ desire to galvanise public pressure on the central government to back down from its declared position is a useless tactic. Beijing did not back down from Britain’s Iron Lady prime minister…

2004 年老董下台算唔算?反國民教育算唔算?咪講到中央好似你咁唔化好喎。

We must seize this opportunity to build a sound foundation for universal suffrage on the premise of the Basic Law.

請唔好再用「universal suffrage」來形容你的假普選了。你迫香港人食屎,我無辦法;但唔好迫人話屎係龍肉,好嗎?

Fourth, we must redraw the boundaries for geographical representation. Some of our legislators are elected by small numbers of geographical voters.

這點錯得離譜。無論怎樣劃區,在現行制度下,只要總議席數目不變,每個候選人所需當選票數,都係三萬幾左右,唔該用下計數機,或者讀下蔡子強馬嶽的書。現行的比例代表制(最大餘額法),是你保皇黨當日促成的,現在後悔了嗎?敢唔敢改回當初的單議席單票制?我第一個贊成,只要你唔怕輸甩褲。

Some advocacy is healthy and necessary, but not when it involves buying influence with money. Hong Kong can learn from other countries.

我贊成政治捐獻應全部公開。張曉明一幅唔知乜畫可以拍賣得成千萬,算唔算「買影響力」?

The leaders of this movement must be held accountable by law.

這個倒不用你擔心,叫得做公民抗命,人地一早話等警察拉了,唔需要勞煩你鼓勵暴力清場。


原文連結在此。為方便讀者,全文抄錄如下:

Protesters must clear the roads, or be cleared by force

Rick Tang says protesters’ conduct has been largely exemplary but their demands remain unrealistic. They should leave now – or be made to leave – so we can begin to build a solid democratic system within the Basic Law

PUBLISHED : Monday, 06 October, 2014, 5:33pm

UPDATED : Tuesday, 07 October, 2014, 4:11am

Rick Tang

The young people who have been occupying the main arteries of Hong Kong have acted in a responsible manner. Most of them exercise restraint. They keep the occupied areas clean. They remain calm. But they have overstayed their welcome. They must now clear the roads, or be cleared by force.

The police also have exercised the utmost restraint. They display first-class discipline. They plead with the protesters patiently again and again to clear certain areas. I dare say no other country has a police force which displays such self-control and chooses reconciliation over force. Hong Kong should be very proud of our police force.

Yes, tear gas canisters were fired over the protesters. Eyewitnesses have different accounts of what happened. Some say the police fired the canisters without warning, or that even with warning, they used excessive force. Others say the protesters charged at the police, who then used pepper spray to ward them off, but to no avail, leading to a decision to use the tear gas.

Regardless of what really happened, both the protesters and the police have exercised restraint thereafter. Hong Kong should be proud of both groups.

Regrettably, the local media displayed only images of the firing of canisters but not what happened before. Hong Kong looked like a war zone.

The leaders of this unlawful assembly must be held accountable for the chaos, loss of income, inconvenience and reputational damage suffered by the Hong Kong people.

They misled their followers from the start. Their main demand was that the candidates for the next chief executive election must be nominated by the public. Their demand is legally flawed and politically naive.

It is legally flawed because it is unconstitutional. Article 45 of our Basic law is quite clear that the candidates are to be nominated by the nomination committee. After such nomination, the chief executive is to be elected by the public, each person exercising one vote. The authority to nominate the candidates is solely vested in the nomination committee and not in the public. This point has been confirmed unequivocally by the well-respected Bar Association. Thus, meeting the protesters’ demand would require an amendment of the Basic Law, which is a serious matter and should not be done on a piecemeal basis.

Further, protest leaders’ desire to galvanise public pressure on the central government to back down from its declared position is a useless tactic. Beijing did not back down from Britain’s Iron Lady prime minister during the negotiation for the handover of Hong Kong, nor more recently from US attempts to contain the rise of China through its military bases in Asia and the Pacific.

Hong Kong must face the reality that universal suffrage is not going to be achieved in one go in 2017. We must treasure our right to vote our chief executive into office by the one-man, one-vote mechanism, even though the candidates are to be nominated by the nomination committee. We must seize this opportunity to build a sound foundation for universal suffrage on the premise of the Basic Law.

What, then, are the foundation stones with which to build a sound democratic system for Hong Kong?

First, we must eliminate corporate voting. Under the current system, tycoons who own multiple companies have exceedingly high voting power, through the companies they own, over other legitimate commercial enterprises. They put their favourites in the commercial sector of the Election Committee. This must be rectified.

Second, we must expand the voter base in the functional constituencies. For example, in the legal profession, paralegals or legal executives working for law firms do not have a vote to choose their representative. Likewise, law professors who are not members of the local Bar Association or Law Society do not have a vote. There are similar issues with the other professions as well.

Third, we must allow party politics. This means allowing the chief executive to be a member of a political party. Under the current system, the chief executive has no political backing in the legislature and cannot even form a coalition government. He is set up to fail. Most politicians habitually attack the executive branch but offer no alternative to any initiative. Unless this is changed, taxpayers’ money will continue to be wasted.

Fourth, we must redraw the boundaries for geographical representation. Some of our legislators are elected by small numbers of geographical voters. Their constant display of irresponsible behaviour is clear for all to see.

Fifth, we must formulate laws to regulate political contributions. As a democratic form of government is being developed, advocacy or political lobbying follows naturally. Some advocacy is healthy and necessary, but not when it involves buying influence with money. Hong Kong can learn from other countries.

These are pressing issues we must work on and they do not breach the Basic Law. Why don’t we start laying the foundation for our democratic system in preparation for the future?

The current unlawful occupation is getting out of control. The three Occupy Central leaders and the student leaders admit they have no say over the crowds. The occupants fight with each other depending on how confrontational they are. There have been increasing conflicts and fights between the occupants and ordinary citizens.

It is very questionable whether the so-called leaders, singly or jointly, have any influence over the protesters.

The consequence? We have a huge mob in the making.

To prevent deterioration of the current situation into mob violence, the police must clear the protesters by necessary force, sooner rather than later. Hong Kong has been hurt badly enough.

The chaos, injuries and damage to Hong Kong were all predictable. The leaders of this movement must be held accountable by law. I hope they will be humble enough to admit their gross error of judgment and surrender voluntarily to the police to be charged.

If not, they must be charged with inciting the public to unlawful assembly and other illegal activities.

Rick Tang is convenor of the China Rule of Law Forum

 

分類:佔領

2 replies »

  1. 破局:為人大方案注入民主

    筆者參考美國總統大選州分的選舉人票(Electoral College)制度,認為提名委員會的成員應為港島區、九龍東、九龍西、新界東和新界西五個選區。當選舉事務處收到候選人申請後,按現有分區讓所有合資格選民進行初選,每人三票。只要候選人獲得五區內的三區過半數支持,便可正式成為候選人。而如果不足兩人取得三區的過半數支持,則全港總得票最高三人可以出線。其後,以一人一票的方式選出行政長官,票高者勝。要是出選的為梁錦松、陳智思和成龍,最後成龍當選,而中央政府以國家安全或不符愛國愛港的理由拒絕認可是次選舉結果,可以否決結果一次。中央政府可以再提出心目中的理想人選,如梁振英。然後,梁振英再和梁錦松、陳智思再次以一人一票的方式進行選舉。但無論結果如何,中央必須認可第二次選舉的結果。以上內容僅供參考,歡迎轉載。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s