社會

移民的理由 / 區家麟

行政會議成員、前教統局局長羅范椒芬謂,朋友間聽聞,近來移民人數增加,「不是怕共產黨,而是怕年輕人。」

既然「聽聞」也能大書一番,我又說說一位朋友的真實移民故事。他們一家四口,有穩定工作,半年前匆匆賣樓,移民加拿大,全副身家剛夠買一幢平房安頓;人生路不熟,一切重頭開始,忍受最低工資都不如的兼職時薪。

為何如此決絕?都是為了小朋友學業。在香港,頻頻撲撲,始終找不到心儀學校,再加上國民洗腦教育陰魂不散,於是把心一橫,放棄香港的優差,冒險一回,到彼邦找尋新生活。

同輩中產一族,幾十歲人,有甚麼風浪未見過,聽到的移民理由,都同孩子前途有關。近來常聽到的講法,是世道昏亂,在上位者顛倒是非,亂噏廿四,「日日睇電視,唔知點教仔」。

常聞網民批評高官,為何都把自己的子女送到外國讀書,卻不讓他們留港接受本地優質教育?筆者從不參與批評,因為,稍有遠見又能負擔又捨得子女獨自生活的家長,這是應有之義,高官也是家長,也是人。

籌備經年的中學通識科,據說已「異化」要大改;翻雲覆雨的教育改革,又留不住新一代港孩,又應該找誰問責?

今時的局面,是共業。要把責任集中在一位前局長身上,也許並不適合,不過,聽到羅范椒芬談移民的理由、由她來批評通識科,我覺得好好笑。

至於移民是怕甚麼?我又記起一位往美國深造的內地同學的感嘆︰「我所有到美國讀書的朋友,讀完後,沒有一個回國,一個都沒有。」

他們也許不是怕,只是人同此心,正常人,還是有基本的鑑賞能力。

至於那些移民「不是怕共產黨,而是怕年輕人」的香港人,如果真的存在,那是個人選擇,不需苛責。但是,在香港,有為數不少的一群,不去質疑那些離港棄港又往往把「愛國」掛在口邊的人,卻去埋怨那些留港建港,努力爭取的年輕人,這叫本末倒置。

image(原刊於晴報專欄《風起幡動》,本文為加長版。)

***   ***   ***

相關文章︰

另一個移民故事︰七一那天,她在銅鑼灣的洪流中消失

分類:社會, 政治

10 replies »

  1. 我太太的朋友,丈夫是教師,太太是社工,有三名子女,都是因為不滿香港教育制度而搞移民,並非怕了年輕人

  2. What she said is true. She didn’t say all emigration are due to the same reason. But it is true I am hearing now cases due to 年輕人. So as an ex-reported, you should be objective,instead of trying to rule her out by ‘generality’!

    • 香港有Mark Wing 羅飯之流,相信很快就見新一輪移民潮。年輕人都沒有機會參與香港管治,或者根本不可能有機會參與(加入禮義廉當橡皮圖章舉手機器除外)就話怕了年輕人要移民,這是什麼樣的思維@@ This city is dying….香港不可能是紐倫港,相反很快會變成廣深港。

  3. 羅太其實巳經說漏了嘴,共產黨是應該叫人懼怕的,否則哪來「不怕共產黨,只怕年輕人」?梁特首聽了她這麼說應該不會太高興吧。
    至於共產黨是否真的那麼恐怖,對於勇於歌誦共產黨偉大的林新強前會長,一定另有一番體會。不過,他前幾天向傳媒說,自己唸書時在歐洲遊歷,趕飛機的時候因為自己是華人遭歧視,只差20米便到閘口,地勤卻立刻關閘,上不到飛機,他的愛國心就是這樣來的;但愛國和認為共產黨偉大似乎有很大距離,況且,如果兩者真的能扯上關係,那國民黨也應該是偉大的吧‧?

  4. If I am reading this right, no one here is saying what 羅太 said is not true. No one is ruling out what she said her friends told her did happen. But I actually heard what she said on radio. She said she got a friend, and then she backtracked and said she got friends, who told her this reason for emigrating. So it seems to me she was trying to generalize, by trying to imply this thinking was actually quite common.
    And the problem here is not whether her friends really told her that. What matters is, assuming the argument is valid: that young people is the reason people are emigrating, we need to look at why young people are behaving in a way that causes the problem. Young people are more scary than the communists? There must be a reason for that, right?
    And the answer is so so obvious. Our society is too unfair. The way young people are treated is too unfair. They are not to blame, we are. We didn;’t create a just and fair society so that everyone in it sees a future for them. That is why.

  5. What’s unfair and unjust against the young people in HK compared to other societies / countries, especially “democratic" ones? Can someone enlighten me? And how can universal suffrage solve such unfairness and injustice?

  6. Yes, universal suffrage may not be able to solve all that unfairness and injustice by itself. But isn’t the point this? True universal suffrage has now been unfairly and unjustly taken away from us. That is what’s wrong with Hong Kong now. We are not being respected by those in power. Our political rights are not being respected. Our right to participate in the running of the government is not being respected. Our right to say we are not happy with who can participate in the running of the government is not being respected.
    As to the question of our treatment of our young people compared with other countries, I don’t know the answer. But is that really important? The comparison? We asked our general election of the CE to be in line with international standards, and then what happened? Beijing telling us there are no such international standards. Beijing always tell us we need to take into account our nation’s situation. Well, here’s the situation: Hong Kong’s young people not happy with how they are being treated. We need to deal with it. If we try to look at other countries and take comfort in our city being a little superior *(for argument sake, assume this is true) , does that solve the problem we face now?

  7. Nobody can take away from you something that you don’t have to start with. And that’s not an exclusively youth issue.

    I can agree with you that our right to participate in governance is not being respected – but that can be attributed to not just the government or the pro-Beijing camp, but worse, to the pan-democrats, who kept on brain-washing the public into believing that democracy is only about free elections. That as long as you elect the “right person," you only need to worry when the next election swings around. NO! I want to be involved ALL THE TIME! If all you fight for is universal suffrage, and nothing else, then I would say that you are not respecting MY RIGHT to “participate in the running of the government."

    I don’t know what’s worse really, Beijing telling you that there’s no “international standard" on universal suffrage (which is kind of true no matter how much you don’t like it), or the students and OC organisers deliberately distorting “international standard" to equate it with civil nomination knowing very well that the OC’s own panel of experts judged many proposals without civil nomination also satisfied “international standards." It makes me angry every time I remember that “fighting for civil nomination" was the main excuse the students used to ram Legco “Civic Square" and ended up starting OC.

    BTW, I don’t take comfort in looking at other democratic countries’ problems, unfairness and injustice, I TAKE CAUTION.

  8. To start with, dear Joe Wong, that last sentence is a nice one. But I don’t think we should take comfort in other societies’ unfairness and injustice. I merely meant would it help to know if we were better.
    Same problem. You said the pan-democrats kept brain-washing people into believing democracy is only about free elections. Is that true? Did they really say democracy is ONLY about free elections? The fact that they are screaming about for true universal suffrage is a far cry from claiming democracy is only about free elections. And also, I fail to see how the fact we are only fighting for universal suffrage would affect your participating in the running of the government. I only know that true general elections allow everyone interested to take part, while a fake one doesn’t.
    I don’t remember anyone saying intermational standard means only civil nomination. Civil nomination is only the means to make sure the general election we r getting is not one whose outcome is controleed by the nomination committee, who in turn will be controlled by Beijing. I don’t blame the protestors for wanting civil nomination, given the concern above.

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