荒唐言

How Hong Kong has come to this?  It is a sad day for Hong Kong that it has lost the power to enact a security law that was given to the government of the Special Administrative Region under Article 23 of the Basic Law.  Defining treason, sedition, subversion from the perspective of the People Republic of China will no doubt be very different from defining these terms from a Hong Kong perspective.  Article 23 has just one sentence and no ambiguity.  It says,

"The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."

Today (23 January), a week after I started my new job, I haven’t gone into work since last Thursday. Today, I heard in the news that the tube was crowded during rush hour; however, passengers using the tube were down by at least 70%, much lower number than when I was using it last week. Please explain to me why the trains were packed. I tell you why. case. The packed trains was a result of services being severely cut back. TFL should think carefully. Their decision of severely cutting back the service is fueling the infection. TFL is the culprit, not the people who only travel and use the underground because they need to.

I wrote the following passage immediately after the result of the General Election 2019.  

“Do you know what makes me really sad? At a stroke, we dashed the dream of millions of people in this country who still feel very strongly that remaining in the EU is a better option. At a stroke, millions of moderate voters have lost a sense of belonging. They feel that nobody can stand up and fight for them in this political climate.  Lib Dem has to bear a huge responsibility. The party decided to pursue a radical policy to revoke Article 50 without holding a second referendum. We were overconfident and arrogant in thinking that we would do well in a General Election because people did not trust Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn was too radical and woefully inadequate.  Lib Dem should have realised that a General Election was not the way to resolve Brexit.  We should not have made a pact with SNP to allow the Conservative government to get over the 2/3 threshold to hold a General Election under the Fixed Term Parliament Act. We should have kept Boris in the weak position he found himself in before the General Election. I can only say that I’ve not lost faith in democracy and this country will one day find the balance that it has now seemed to have lost. Boris Johnson is a formidable politician and the best hope is that he is only radical on Brexit but a moderate in his other policies. This is quite possible because he has now received many support from Labour voters and he has to listen to their needs.”

I still think that what I said above is largely correct but it was reactionary and I was too harsh on the Lib Dem.  On reflection, Labour must shoulder a much bigger responsibility for giving Boris Johnson a sizable majority.  Yes, they would argue that once the SNP and the Lib Dem got together to support a General Election, there was nothing that they could do to stop it.  I would argue that the problem started much earlier.  They, as well as other Remain MPs, should have recognised that a second referendum, though not ideal, was the only way to resolve Brexit.  A General Election was not.  

My Dear Friends,

As many of you know, I joined the Liberal Democrats as a member immediately after the 2016 referendum.  I joined because I was so shocked by the result and I shared their view that it is in the interests of this country to remain in the EU.  Lib Dems’ view on Brexit has not changed.   I have not been an active member until about 3 months ago.  I think you will agree with me that we live in a very uncertain time and I believe that we all have a duty to speak out whichever side we are on.  The result of this election will affect not only our generation but also many generations to come.   If you disagree with what I am going to say, I will be very happy to be persuaded by your arguments.

I have never joined any political party until after the 2016 referendum.   I always find party politics too tribal but I now have to accept that this is how, by and large, Western democracy operates.  Although I have known all of you for many years and apart from one or two of you, I don’t honestly know your political affiliation.  I assume that you are all Remainers.  It is a reasonable assumption because I don’t recall getting into any debates with any of you on Brexit before or after the referendum.

I have recently received a communication from the Lib Dems.  It says that if each member writes to 11 remain voters, we will reach every remain voter in this country.  This is the purpose of this email.  I hope to be able to persuade you to vote Lib Dems or vote tactically to minimise the prospect of a Conservative government which will take this country out of the EU.  Once we are out, it is most likely that we will stay out for at least a generation.  

Many of you will know by now that if Lib Dems is our next government, their stated policy is to revoke Article 50.  They are said to be undemocratic daring to ignore the will of the people who voted to leave in 2016.  Let me explain Lib Dems’ position on Brexit.  All along, Lib Dems have supported People’s Vote / 2nd referendum.  They put forward an amendment to have a 2nd referendum seventeen times in the Parliament but it soon became clear that there wasn’t a majority to support a 2nd referendum in this divided Parliament.  The arithmetic is simply not there.  The only other way to resolve this deadlock in the Parliament is by holding a General Election.  I completely accept that this is far from ideal to try to resolve Brexit especially given this first past the post electoral system.  However, this deadlock needs to be resolved so that the Parliament can resume its duty to govern.  If Brexit continues to dominate our political agenda, the whole country will suffer.

After 3 years and because all of you are intelligent people, I do not want to repeat the arguments of both sides why we should remain or leave the EU suffice to say that it should never be a binary decision.  I believe that on balance, it is more beneficial for this country to remain in the EU despite all its flaws. The real issue is on what terms we should remain in the EU.

May I offer you one unusual way to look at Brexit which has guided me to my decision?

It has always been my belief that in order to minimise the risk of making a wrong decision or in trying to make an informed decision, we ought to have as much information / facts as possible on the subject matter.  EU is a complex organisation and our relationship with the EU is a complicated one.  I accept that our relationship with the EU affects many aspects of our lives and the policies of our government but it is also safe to say that 99% of the population including myself do not have any direct dealings with the EU on a daily basis or really have a deep understanding on how the EU operates as an organisation or our relationship with it.  It is therefore difficult to argue that our decision on Brexit is an informed decision.

John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, all four of our living former Prime Ministers, have argued passionately that we should remain in the EU.  Although I am no fan of one or two of them and strongly disagree with some of them on many issues, I do not for one minute doubt their love for this country.  I do not for one minute doubt that all four of them genuinely want the best for this country.  These four people had spent a considerable amount of time sitting at the top table of this organisation with their counterparts arguing and cooperating on many important issues concerning Europe and the world.  They have a much deeper understanding of the EU and our relationship with the EU than most of us, including most of the politicians in power today.  I find it hard to convince myself not to follow their advice.  I accept that this is an unorthodox approach to such an important issue; nevertheless, it is not an illogical approach.  I also believe that it is wrong to base our decision on emotion no matter how passionately we feel about the issue.   None of them is a Lib Dem but I believe that Brexit should go beyond party politics because it affects both the short and long term interests of this country and the decision, one way or another, will bring serious unintended consequences.  

I hope you will forgive me for sending you this unsolicited mail and bringing up this emotive matter but I have enough faith in our friendship to believe that you will not doubt my sincerity and how strongly I feel about remaining in the EU.  I also have faith in you that you will forgive my impertinence and our friendship will continue to thrive whether you agree with me or not.

Lots of love,

我在八月七日在Tumblr 的第一篇文章提到政府應成立獨立委員會來調查整件事的起因包括處理手法。三星期後，我看到政府態度開始有一點寛鬆。我看到政府開始明白到要爭取市民的信任必須開始用對話才能去解決社會種種問題。 因為她給對話作出承諾和同意現在的困局是必須探討社會上各種不同的問題，我對獨立委員會有另一個看法。 

首先要表明: 警察不能濫權。他們如果犯了法，就要受到法律制裁，和其他市民沒有分別。 他們在處理這次反送中的示威用權是否洽當，權力有沒有被濫用，一定要受到審查。是否需要成立獨立委員會的第一先決條件是因為事情的嚴重性。表面看來，事態的確是嚴重 。 另一原因是前事不忘後事之師。 經獨立審查後，委員會會提出結論和指引，希望日後引以為鑑。 但成立獨立委員會的目的絕不能是尋找要清算的對象。 因下列種種原因，我認為獨立委員會未必是一個適合的方法和程序去調查這一件十分重要的題目。 

我曾經直接在香港參與過一個獨立委員會 (public inquiry): 從開始直至其終結。 香港在過去二十多年有兩個大形的獨立委員會：嘉利大廈大火 和 遷移至赤立角 新機場引起的問題。 這兩個獨立委員會有同一徵狀：十分䀚貴。如果現在成立一個獨立委員會去調查警方處理手法，單律師費便可能過億港元。 我不是說在任何情況之下都不應有獨立委員會和䀚貴便不應有。就以以上的兩個獨立委員會來看，我覺得一個是應有的，另一個是浪費金錢給律師賺錢。  嘉利大廈一場大火導致數十人喪命。香港有這麼多高樓大廈，成立獨立委員會去查出真相是必須的。政府可以從報告裏的結論和建議去立法訂例去防止慘劇再一次發生。新機埸獨立委員會是要找出誰應該負起責任但香港至少在未來的六七十年也不會再建新機場 (更可能赤立角是香港機場的永久居所)，試問這個報告書有什麼借鏡的用途呢？ 我懐疑有多少人真的去看這報告書尤其它出版時新機場已運作正常。 

除金錢外，另外一事須仔細考慮的是時間。由成立獨立委員會, 決定聆聽範圍，決定什麼人可以參加，收集及聽取証據至最後寫和呈交報告，可能需要兩至三年的時間。範圍廣的話，時間更長。 委員會出了结論和建議，又要有一段時間考慮。政府更沒有任何責任去一定將建議落實。 立法立例需要更多的時間。 如人所說這是一件極重要的事情 (我完全同意)，試問香港能否再等兩至三年才去考慮怎樣去應付香港警察問責的問題呢？

現在香港政府和示威者各執一詞。政府說警監會，香港現有的刑事和民事法制，已足夠保障市民的安全和福利。 法律之下人人平等。示威者則不受這一套。警監會沒有公信力。對它沒有信心。 警察的權力一定要作公正審查。我想有叧一個更好的解決方法。政府應成立一個小組，小組成員包括官員，不同政黨的代表，大學教授，巿民代表，學生代表，警方和其家屬代表再加上在警力和警權方面有深度的專家由他們更新和制定一個全面的警察守則要他們尊守。 這個方法更有效益和比獨立委員會快得多。他們得出的結論更有代表性和更尊業。 

如果這是一個不能妥協的訴求，我請大家考慮以下幾點。如果我是政府為了平息高漲的民眾情緒，這個訴求是最容易答應和是我第一時間會接受的。因為兩三年後，不知是什麼光景。林鄭月娥和一衆行政局議員及高級警官等可能已在享受他們的長俸，逍遙自在。這已不再是他們的問題。政治把戲很容易玩。要把時間拖得更長，便將範圍擴得更大。到報告出來時，媒體可能有四五天的熱衷。市民的熱衷將會更少。 當然她不會很明顯地去做場戲給大家看 (舉個不可能的例，叫何君堯或梁家傑去做這委會會的主席，從他們的角度來看問題，不用聽證據便知他們的報告結論是會偏向那一面。) 但，在現在時局，找一個政治取向偏保守和腰骨不太硬碩的資深律師和法官有什麼難。這些亦是那些要求一定要設立獨立委員會要認真考慮到的問題。 

終於前天(20/08/2019) 得以見到特首在她每星期的記者會的表現有進步。 雖然有很多人仍然對她極不信任和批評她所說的沒有新意，我所看到的是至少她有嘗試去接受一些提出了的問題和試圖找方法解決。 她雖然沒有提出什麼去滿足五大訴求，我覺得她向尋求解决方法走出了一小步。 社會很深的分岎不是一朝半晝可以解決。比起她一直以來在之前記者會的表現，她前天的表現沒有令社會更分化或令人覺得她更與現實脫節。 記者的提問雖然尖銳，也可能因為她的態度有點改善，對她也不是很敵視。

另一方面令我覺得有一點希望是她不只一次提到監警會主席梁定邦。我二十多年沒有見過梁先生。但從我跟他很短暫的接觸和如果他本質沒有變的話，我相信梁先生會持一個不偏不倚的態度去調查每一個投訴和他的結論和建議是會有一定的份量。 委派有賢之士去解决社會很深的分岎才能得到公衆的信任，不會被視為 whitewash (做場戲俾大家睇)。梁先生是一個起點。當特首説她願意設立平台跟社會不同機層對話和溝通，希望她也會拿出這個態度作為出發點 - 找一些有公信力，懂民情和有良知的人去探討社會上的問題。不然的話，得來的結論只能令社會更反感和更失望。

我更不希望見到的是設立對話平台只是拖時間來暫息民怨。香港社會上很多的問題是很明顯的。不須要平台對話也應知道這些是什麼問題。一個負責任和有管治能力的政府應該制訂政策來應對這些問題。這是政府的基本責任。特首應嚴重地考慮到在下一次施政報告時已制定有效的政策來解決這些社會問題。

22/08/2019

接下是續我前天寫的一篇文‘走出一小步’，我提到特首在八月二十日的記者會上的表現比前稍寛容。有朋友看過我的文章向我説我實在太天真，太樂觀。從她這幾個月的表現，林鄭月娥是不會變的。很多和她接觸過的人都說她很自視和她不容易去接受其他不同的意見。很多人對現况覺得很悲觀。我不認識她所以我可能真是很天真但我覺得應該給她一個機會（benefit of the doubt)。為什麼呢？ 如果我是錯的話，情況也不會比現在差。最多是原地踏步。如果她立即下台，誰接替她是一個大問號 (尢其在現時選特首的制度下）。

她能否將現時的劣勢扭轉在乎實際行動。  她要用行動和政策來證明她有誠意去實行她在那記者會對香港人的答允。空談是浪費時間。 

她能否付諸行動在乎（1）她有沒有智慧從今次的撤底失敗改變自己而真真正正的去聽社會不同的意見和知人善任，（2）她到底有多少決策權。 （1） 大部分是在乎她本人。受挫折當然難受但智慧在於她能否從挫折中上寶貴的一課，吸取經驗。（2） 在乎不同的外來因素，她的政治智慧和她的政治意志有多堅強。 不同的外來因素包括北京，經過這次之後，是否北京已從她手上剩下的決策權也要挪走。政治智慧是她有沒有能力周旋於不同的張力下而實踐她的政策。政治意志在乎她的意志有多強硬，能否承受得起種種不同的壓力。 

Many countries around the world have started to pay attention to the protests happening in Hong Kong which have lasted for over 2 months.  According to newspaper reports, even North Korea sees fit to comment.  It is their prerogative to speak out but how many of them genuinely care?  How many of them are in a postion to actually do something to resolve the impasse?  The answer is probably none.  Even if they have the will, there is very little in substance that they can do or are willing to do at their expenses. Altruism does not exist when it comes to foreign policies.   However, many countries see the current crisis as an opportunity to advance their own interests, to gain leverage over China, to curry favours from China.  They have their own agenda and will not hesitate to exploit the opportunity to advance their own interests.  They are like vultures circling in the sky waiting to take their share of the kill when the time comes.  Their opportunity will come when they see chaos, when they see that the governance of a society is breaking down.   If this situation is allowed to happen, Hong Kong people will suffer most.  We will be collateral damage. We will be sacrificed.  Once this has started, we will be powerless to stop the destruction.  We will be too busy pointing fingers at each other, playing the blame game. Take a look at some extreme examples, do we want to end up like Syria, Libya, Afghanistan or worse Yemen?  These countries can no longer control their destinies.  Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the Hong Kong government and the protesters find a way to resolve the current deadlock.  Let Hong Kong people alone find a solution.  I have seen many suggestions as to how the current crisis can be resolved but none seems better than reconciliation. Let the dialogues begin. In the meanwhile, the Hong Kong government must demonstrate to the world its ability to govern (I mean really govern).  This is the best way to ward off vultures.

特首在二零一九年八月十三日記者招待會上被問及她有沒有自主權去決定能否用“撤回”一詞。她不肯用“撤回”是北京不允許或是她本人的政治尊嚴。記者請她回答是與否。 她沒有直接回應是與否但她的答案很明顯地顯示出她一定沒有完全的決策權。 這等於香港政府只是北京的(agent) 受委託代理。 換言之，香港現在的鬥爭是在和北京角力，根本香港特區政府連臨記也不如。 事事聽命於北京; 是北京政府的打手。

不知道這個比喻恰不恰當呢？

業主有一間房子 要出租，委託了一個經紀。他可以告訴 業主市值租金多少，替他找住客，找人去做簡單維修等等，但最後是業主去決定租金多少，租不租給這人，租約幾長，有冇提早終止條款。  經紀只是照指示辦事，對重要事項根本沒有話事或決策權。但有很多人說，經紀也是—個行業。做好了事便有佣收, 有什麼不好和不滿足。 還要諸多要求。 只可惜個業主愈來愈難服侍，什麼也要管, 又惡死。 還不只這些。在公司內有幾名金牌經紀，業主有事就召他們去訓話。回來後只會指指點點叫班細嘅做餐曚。不特止，佣金他們收一大份，剩下雞碎咁多就叫大圍去分。唔谷就其！ 唔內哄才怪！

如果還有香港人以為香港特首可以有主宰香港命運的權力而不用向北京預先請示, 請他們繼續發這個青天白日夢.  不幸地, 很多人已夢醒了而我們知道從更甜的夢醒過來, 再入睡後是不能再發同一個夢.  歷仼特首有沒有向北京力陳香港人的訴求或為香港爭取香港的權益, 我不得而知但政績有目共睹.  現任特首剛上任才二年多, 在當選前所說的一切例如她會盡力維護香港的利益和她不是北京的傀儡言猶在耳; 她的行為和政策有目共睹. 我從來沒有想過北京會給香港去主宰自己的命運.  我只是痛心為什麼歷任特首這樣失敗, 不能說服北京香港和中國的利益是一致的.  香港的得亦是中國的得, 香港的失亦是中國的失. 失敗有很多原因.  可能他們有嘗試過, 不過只是徙勞, 但我想失敗很大的原因是他們不是政治家.  出色的政治家需要懂得妥協, 要有說服力,懂民情. 從他們的表現作出裁判, 香港歷任特首有出色政治家的本色嗎?

冰封三尺, 今天的情景不是一朝一夕造成的. 反送中只是觸發點. 能否解決現時困局的關鍵在於香港人對政府還有多少信任.  很多人會十分悲觀.  這是可以理解因為回看這二十二年, 中國的金剛罩對香港只是愈收愈緊, 但悲觀不能解決困局.  歷史上有不少例子讓我們看到在更絕望的情形下, 對峙的兩方仍可以賺回亙相的信任.  就算不是絕對信任, 兩方亦能互相尊重而盡量合作令一個極分化的社會慢慢地變回正常.  南非和北愛便是很好的例子.  當然如果特首和行政局仍然堅持錯全不在己和不正視問题的啟端, 持這態度只會令社會更分化, 更難會賺回香港人對政府的信任.  

 如果特首真有誠意去嘗試解決現時的困局, 她應該: 

·         答應這任期滿後便退下. 

·         立即成立獨立委員會調查及報告這整件事的起因包括處理手法.  報告書在退任前三個月提交. 

·         在未來五年, 每年建120,000公屋單位. 

·         立即成立獨立委員會硏究及報告在基本法允許下不同的選舉方案.  報告書在退任前三個月提交. 

·         立即委派立法局不同政黨成員成立專責小組硏究及報告社會分化問題.

我不妄想政府會接納這些建議但我們還有其他更好的途徑去解決這對峙和互不信任的困局嗎?  我們有更好的途徑把很多香港人(猶其是年青人)從絕望帶回希望嗎? 政府可能覺得今次的結果會和2014雨傘運動一樣, 示威者會失去大衆市民的支持和在群龍無首下, 整件事就會失去動力繼而不了了之.  但雨傘運動不是給我們上了寶貴的一課嗎?  問題不得到解決, 下次來得會更狠.  這亦是一個機會給特首履行她當選前對香港人作出的承諾:  她一定會維護香港的利益.