佔領

【佔領】亂之自我實現 / 區家麟

IMG_6687

究竟佔領運動有多「亂」?若你周末假期到佔領區一遊,很多內地遊客,大開眼界,有人笑著搖頭說「看不懂」,有人要和習近平紙板公仔合照,有人仔細閱讀海報上一字一句;一切都是新鮮事,無論他們支持不支持,都是一道獨特風景線。香港無景點?真係講笑。

旺角佔領區,彌敦道金鋪如常營業,隔一條街,依舊遊人如鯽,早前幾次「亂」,主要源自惡棍挑撥動粗,他們不再群起生事後,大半月來,絕大部分時間很平靜。運輸交通,旺角佔領區本來就影響不大,現在新秩序已建立,也不見得很阻礙民生;綜合九龍區的士司機所講,大部分謂有「少少」影響生意,我倒碰過一位司機大條道理話塞車,二話不說就兜路,咪錶跳得多跳得快。

金鐘佔領區,堵了一條交通大動脈,無疑對民生影響相對較大,是故很多在灣仔中環銅鑼灣香港仔一帶返工返學的人,甚為火滾。而很多主流傳媒,以此大做文章,放大交通不便;新聞慣性,亦聚焦衝突場面,99%時間非常平靜,但一有紛擾,即直播重播無限loop,報道「混亂」、「騷亂」、「暴亂邊緣」;卻個多月來,幾近絕口不提佔領區的藝術、互助、手作文化、風力發電等正面訊息。

十月,訪港旅客增加了、樓價繼續升、股市逆勢又升,離開佔領區,除了部分地區交通稍為擠塞,香港一切如常;經濟投資大環境,影響因素多元,無論升跌,都不可能歸因堵了幾條路。然而,官媒與官員,為了政治需要,不停落藥,挑動矛盾,反反覆覆描繪「混亂」,說「法治受損」、「生意受影響」、「商店倒閉」。滬港通早前不通,梁振英明示暗示要同佔領運動拉上關係,結果現在宣布正式開通了,難道要多謝佔領?

中央電視台更以「亂」為要旨,無的放矢,論述「革命」、「港獨」。「四點鐘許sir」,把佔領區形容成鬼域一樣,日日落藥,電視台日日直播。有不少香港朋友,近個多星期來,落旺角望吓,才發覺「原來咁太平」。「四點鐘許sir」停播,明智之舉,佔領區小店重現希望。

講來講去,有些事不能忘記。當天佔中三子宣布啟動佔中,現場立即有一半人離去;「力挽狂瀾」的,是鷹派的87枚催淚彈、梁振英的五千萬「人工」、七惡警暗角練拳,給運動增添力量與柴火。長期佔領,確實不是辦法,但政府長期企硬,無讓過半步,才是死結。不讓之餘,更啟動輿論機器,渲染「亂局」,旅客是單純的,投資者會猶豫,反正有人信了,聽人講亂就覺得亂,到時「亂」與「經濟下滑」,就變成一個自我實現的預言,各位抗議生活受影響的,也應該問問,政府又做過甚麼?誰應問責?

***   ***   ***

(本文部分文字刊於晴報專欄《風起幡動》,本文為加長版。)

相關文章︰

分類:佔領

24 replies »

  1. 「運輸交通,旺角佔領區本來就影響不大,現在新秩序已建立,也不見得很阻礙民生。」You are not affected directly, of course you would think inpact is minimal. I drive my sons to school near the Mongkok occupation area everyday. It takes extra 10 minutes going but at least 25-30 minutes more heading back. And this is at roughly 7:30am! A friend of mine runs a small restaurant in Prince Edward and business is down more than 50%. These, and many more, are real stories. Doesn’t matter how you media people only give biased (and worse, fabricated) reports, the negative impact is all too real. And you know what, in the end, it is not the government or the big businesses that will suffer most, but the workers, sales, shop owners, etc, who will lose their livelihood.

    • 那你為甚麼不責難政府?政府收了市民的錢,負責管理香港,有人堵路影響市民生活,政府怎麼個多月來不去處理?你只會斥責堵路的亂民,但任由亂民無法無天的政府,你卻不敢吭一聲,你這是甚麼立場?

  2. 樓上的黃先生,如果閣下及閣下的兒子是殘疾人士不良於行所以日日要駕車返學那真的對不起。否則我對自私貪舒適貪方便不用公共交通不具反為社會製造廢氣和交通擠塞的駕駛人士沒有一絲同情。

  3. They used to take mini bus but it takes extra 30-45 minutes going and more than an hour extra back, eating up their study and rest time. I am just stating facts to rebut Mr Au’s false claims. You can save your sympathy for those losing their jobs and closing down businesses. And for those who could barely scrap by but now can’t.

  4. 路過看到這篇文字和前面兩位的迴響,忍不住想說幾句話。我很同情Joe Wong,家有小孩一定受影響至深。
    但是,政府的確利用傳媒機器,大肆誇張佔領的影響,分化市民和佔領人仕,以達市民強迫政府清場之效。之前,許Sir日復如是地罵佔領瀕臨暴亂邊緣,他自己都覺得是陳腔濫調,神情也納悶起來;結果呢,黑道或地方勢力離開之後,的確和平了一兩星期。再者,佔領真的那麼大影響,政府早應該清場;政府為了免被中央怪罪,一直拖到今天還未清場,若果真的造成「經濟倒退、民不聊生」,政府的責任也很大。
    再容許我說句「風涼話」:這個城市把時間、工作、學習看得太重了,大事情反而遭到忽略。我們要民主,是希望人民得到國家的尊重,不過,這種堅持為生活所迫,慢慢就被淹沒、被埋葬,真的很可悲。

  5. Akkanine, I totally agree that we should fight for democracy. No doubt about that. But what “democracy"? The “civil nomination" (公民提名) that the Federation, Scholarism, Prof Tai, Prof Chan, Rev Chu, etc, are fighting for is not an essential ingredient of “genuine democracy" according to the Occupy Central panel of experts, yet they continue to insist on it, and worse, misled the public to believe that’s what they should fight for. They should have focused on a more pragmatic route – democratisation of the nomination committee – from the very beginning and they might have actually achieved something. Unfortunately, every time I mentioned something to that line here – e.g. progressively increasing the voter base of the nomination committee – which by the way was judged to be “true universal suffrage" by the OC experts, I was labelled pro-China, red army, and many things worse. So, that’s why my take is always that I support the students, and I have students myself, but I strongly oppose the occupation, because I think they are fighting for something too extreme in a manner too extreme, and in doing that, they are shaping a very biased picture for the public’s understanding of democracy.

    • 人大常委的831決定,已經把所有可以令中共視為「反對派」的人當特首候選人的方案完全否定,831決定比民建聯、工聯會的建議更「趕盡殺絕」,你不是這般無知,不知道這事實嘛?你竟敢提那些中間派的方案,你是在裝蒜吧?

      公民提名只是「雙學」的要求,只因政府選擇跟學聯對話,他們當然是提出他們的主張,但政府亦無實質的反建議,更說831決定政府不能改,因為是中央的權力範圍,亦不會向中央轉達收回831的訴求,到學聯要到北京表達訴求,中央擺出來的姿態,是不會跟你會面。

    • 你是甚麼立場?從你的言論就已很清楚看到,你只會斥責堵路的亂民,但任由亂民無法無天影響市民生活的政府,你卻不敢吭一聲,沒責難半句,你這是甚麼立場?你是效忠特區的奴才,顯而易見!

  6. 真民主就是並非假民主。我們經常見到假民主的例子:阿媽迫個女,你自己揀,你一係就學鋼琴,一係就學小提琴,但係個女其實想學溜冰。公民提名的確並非真民主或真普選的唯一體現方式,但是絕對是防止假普選的有效方法。提名委員會民主化只是把毒藥包上糖衣的技倆砍而已。

    • 所謂提名委員會民主化,只是把公司票、團體票轉為個人票,把提名委員會的選民人數只增加一萬幾千人,增加後的總人數只是廿六、七萬,相對於全港五百萬選民,比例不到6%,而每名提名提委所代表的人數有幾百至一千倍的差別,這麼不公平,這樣的提名委員會算是民主化嗎?這顯然是指鹿為馬,提委會民主化不過是語言偽術而已。

  7. The students and OC have been ONLY fighting for civil nomination LONG before the 831 decision. Are you sure that there’s absolutely no way that refining the composition and election method can make the nomination method “closer" to “true universal suffrage"? People should wake up to the reality that the Standing Committee will not withdraw its decision and we are stuck with that framework for 2017. The Pan-democrats can go ahead and veto it and we will be stuck with the Election Committee, the same 1200 ppl, electing thr CE for us, not just nominating 3. The talk of getting a choice among CY, Robert Chow and Lee Sze Yin (don’t know how to spell her name) is no different from all those crap talk you accused the blue ribbons of. You can go ahead and disrupt all you want, well into next year, but what’s there left for democracy if such actions – forget about public opinion polls, forget about due process, forget about law and order – can force your way into what you want? Sorry, that’s not the democracy I want. And that’s certainly not the way how democracy should be won. The Pan-democrats, students, OC, called a bluff on out behalf, and lost. So take your loss and fight on for another day. Double or nothing is not gonna get you anywhere.

  8. Universal suffrage is only one of the ways to achieve and practice democracy. And yes, that takes many forms across the world. We have the US model , the UK model and a number of their variations and adaptations. The US model of course is far from perfect, but I don’t see the federal government making laws – without paying heed to public opinion, as the Standing Committee did –to lay down restrictions on who can run, how they can run, and how many can run. Yes, the major political parties “screen” their candidates, but they need to answer to people who vote for them. So to say the US also screens its presidential candidates and therefore there’s nothing wrong with the 831 decisions is only an unfounded argument in an attempt to point us in the wrong direction.

    And what about other successful democracies in the world: Australia, the entire continental Europe, Japan, Scandinavia, most of the South American countries? They never get mentioned by the pro establishment camp. Why can’t we be like these countries? Because we are part of China? Being Chinese doesn’t get us the right and the respect we deserve as other human beings on this planet do? So we are up against not only Beijing, but a bunch of people (not a small one) who say things that please Beijing, things tailored to be in line with Beijing’s propaganda, things that preventing us from seeing the truth.

    The students and other groups who support civil nomination championed it right from the start because they saw it coming: Beijing slamming the door shut. They braced, prepared for it, and fought bravely against it. Yes, they lost, in getting the continuous support of the people who are too pragmatic to stand by universal principles, people who in fact should be thankful to the students for having tried to grab and hold on to something that’s so precious to this society.

    Now, back to what the students should do. Change of strategy and tactics seems to be the right thing to do now. They have already tried this, and they need to remember that a war cannot be won in one single battle. They must, we must, fight on, no doubt about it, because this isn’t just about democracy, but also about the hope for a freer, fairer and brighter future for HK.

    • 831決定的核心就是要令被中共視為「反對派」的人不能成為特首候選人,所以Joe Wong把「公民提名」並非唯一量度普選的標準來爭拗,只是在自知理虧下將問題中的其中一點反覆糾纒,吹毛求庛。

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks Ankanine for finally someone who is willing to debate on reason instead of dishing out personal attacks.

        I support neither the HKSAR govt nor Beijing. But sorry, I really can’t bring myself to support the pan-democrats as well. I admire the students’ courage, but not their tactics nor demeanor. I made it clear numerous times that there are enough people criticizing the HK and Central gov’ts here so there’s really no need for me to repeat more of the same. On the other hand, there’s really no self-criticism voice to speak of so I took up this role ever since I started following this blog. But unfortunately, to some people, if you don’t chant the same chant loud and often, you are the enemy! Sounds incredibly Maoist to me.

        I never said the US screens presidential candidates, but in a way it does – only those with, or have obtained, an obscene amount of money can run (I mentioned the numbers in another reply). I have also never said I oppose democratic elections, as I accept it as the only practical way to implement democracy – a kind of republic through representative democracy. The point I was trying so desperate to get through is that having “true universal suffrage” guarantees nothing (hence the examples of inequality in US, just because it is the easiest target and I spent all my college years there) thus we must in parallel put some thought into a system that allows us, the public, to continue to participate BETWEEN elections. Sadly, people are only obsessed with participating DURING elections. How often do you hear any of the elected Legco members soliciting your views before going on with their negative tactics? Or on other issues for that matter? Pan-democrats and Pro-Beijing alike?

        Most other democratic countries – Australia, UK, Continental Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada, etc, adopt a parliamentary system. So there’s really no direct nomination to speak of.

        My reservations on civil nomination come from two different angles:

        1) The main justification for CN is that it ensures equal rights to be nominated. However, CN is not really open to everyone under any of their current proposal because you need huge resources to campaign just to get enough nominations. So in the end, only those with strong backing of political parties or commercial interests can get nominations through this route. With the proposed 35,000 threshold (1% of electorate), just the cost of printing, distributing and sending out promotional leaflets would be prohibiting to the vast majority of the public. So unless the threshold is dropped to say, 500-1000 (5-10 times of that required for Legco elections), a number that can be handled without the need to mortgage your home if you actually own one, CN is not really as open and equal as advertised. It is open only to established politicians and business interests. This is my “ideological angle,” which kind of contradicts with my “pragmatic angle”…

        2) My second reservation ties in with the number of nominees and the fear is that CN would be too open (told you it’s contradicting). My view is that the higher the number of nominees – the so-called free choice or real choices – the higher the chance of a pro-establishment figure getting elected. If CN becomes an accepted route for nomination without any further interim screening, there will be TOO MANY nominees. Take for example, Alliance of True Democracy’s “3-route proposal”: We can stick with the 2-3 nominees through Nomination Committee (Route 1). You can add probably 3-4 legitimate candidates to that through Civil Nomination (Route 2). Then maybe another 3-4 nominees through Political Party Nomination (Route 3). Who do you think these CE candidates are? My guess is that the pro-Beijing camp, proven to be much better coordinated, will field no more than two, actually exactly two, candidates through Route 1 and 3 (they can’t support Route 2). The pan-democrats on the other hand, with all those on-going in-fighting and rivalry will end up making up the rest of the field, say 6-8 candidates (DP, CP, LSD, students, etc). These 8-10 candidates will all go in for one-person-one-vote. Using the historical 40-60 voter split, the pro-Beijing candidates will each get around 20% of the public votes, while the 6-8 pro-democracy candidates will split 60%. Almost all current proposals call for a run-off vote between the top two vote-getters if none of the candidates receive more than 50% of the votes. Who do you think will go through? Do you still want no limitations on the number of nominees?

        Far-fetched? Maybe. But I always prepare for the worst. And that’s exactly what happened in the last District Council election with the radicals turning against DP and other parties failing to coordinate effectively. The results? Pro-Beijing camp won 301 seats to the pan-democrats 103 (something like that).

        So on the one hand, I worry that CN is actually not helping to open up nomination to everyone (or to the “right person”), but on the other, I also worry that CN will inevitably open up nominations too much and the pan-democrats will end up fielding too many candidates, which will spread their votes too thin. We can only hope that the latter wise-up.

        The democracy I aspire to embraces different views, both in agreement and disagreement, and encourages people to readily drop their own views when another perspective that has a chance of bringing more collective public good emerges. Sadly, it is clearly not what some people here believe in and practice.

        • 理屈詞窮,無言以對,無根無據就說人身攻擊,誰在人身攻擊,這𥚃的留言可為證。

          你在公民提名言方式上鑽牛角尖,在區議員和立法會議員的選舉上,候選人如得不到下限票數,是要充公保證金,如果一個人得不到很多人提名,那是因為他寂寂無名,以往各屆的特首候選人有誰是寂寂無名的?

          現時要過半數提委支持才能當特首候選人,那候選人只要得到上、中層社會的支持,無須基層,就能入選,反之只有基層支持的人,就不可能入選,但基層(月入低於萬四元者)是佔社會的大多數,這樣的提名制度公平嗎?

        • 庇理兄, thanks for pointing out my perpsective are too narrow and gave me additional points to support my views:

          Your first point helped illustrate that civil nomination is only viable for those already well-known, so in principle, it is NOT about giving equal rights to be nominated/elected to all. DC and LC elections on the other hand requires 10 and 100 electorate endorsements respectively, which can be achieved without much campaigning. Even if you already have the 35000 names secured due to your popularity, collecting the forms alone would require much resources.

          Your second addressed precisely the nomination committee composition problem – lack of representation of lower-income and underprivileged groups.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Ankanine, read your response again. I totally support that we should learn more about the democratic systems practiced in other countries. Part of my frustration comes from the poor job both sides are doing on this, especially the pan-democrats. One common theme in many of the countries you mentioned is the (re?)emergence of the extreme rightist. HK has the unique opportunity to establish a democracy, but unlike those countries, it is not a sovereign democracy. No one is getting any closer to a solution if they all insist on their views and refuse to give a step.

    However cosmetic, the HK govt did give a tiny step. Actually two. And the students’ response? They demanded more and threatened more drastic action. It takes both sides to move towards the middle. The students had always chanted “HK problem HK resolution" and “Political problem political resolution." They already betrayed the first by attenpting to go directly to Beijing (or is it a political show?). Can they follow the second and accept the political reality that even if the HK govt agrees to initiate amending the Basic Law to allow civil nomination, it cant be achieved in time for the 2017 CE election?

    Opinions polls conducted by universities up until now, after the 831 decisiion, after the heroics of the occupation, actually shows those who want to “pocket first" climbed slightly and never dipped below 50%, without any actual changes to the nomination committee. The pan-dem, students, OC should really focus at least some of their efforts on deconstructing the nomination committee and start fighting the battle there.

    • 如果要講民意,就要政府搞公投,民調只是抽樣,公投是數人頭,但中共素來對公投怕得要死,它敢搞公投嗎?因為它是民眾的敵人!

      • I agreed totally on a public vote. Benny Tai promised to do it before initiating Occupy Central but didn’t. Emily Lau said the DP will vote against any govt proposal regardless of the results of a public vote. I hope too that govt will take this up.

    • 你要別人去接受的,就是中共有強權無公理這個現實,縱然是不公平、不合理的提名制度(要過半數提委支持才能當特首候選人,而大多數提委是社會上、中層。),都要委屈求全,不得不接受。

      Liked by 1 person

      • I didnt ask you to accept my views. It’s the reality. You can continue to deny it. Or you can work positively to make the most of the situation and plan the next round actions.

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