| 刊登日期: | 2014.10.24 | ||
執筆之際，香港的雨傘運動已經進行了二十多天，過程中學生和集會人士和平的表現令外國傳媒報導和一些外國政要讚賞，然而諷刺的是不少香港人只看片面和偏頗的電視新聞報導，或因交通受影響而對集會人士有不少怨懟。可惜，特首梁振英和香港政府官員久久不肯有誠意的與集會人士對話，激化警民矛盾。在這篇文章發表的時候，政務司司長林鄭月娥等幾位高官終於肯與學生代表會面，局勢會再有所改變。那麼，沒有享有集會自由的大陸人又怎麼看這場運動？
當然在消息封鎖的情況下，大陸人更無法全面了解這場運動。筆者所能接觸的大陸人也只限於維權人士和使用微博和推特的大陸人，有些更勇敢地親身在香港感受這個行動，所以也只能從能夠接觸到的大陸人去理解他們對這場運動的看法。至於，那些到香港來買名牌的大陸人，我不確定他們有多了解和關心。在抗議現場，特別是旺角，有不少人懷疑有不明背景操普通話的大陸人在煽動反對集會人士，甚至有維權人士透露有公安向他們承認，有公安來了香港參與處理集會情況，令人擔心大陸黑白兩道藉機滲入影響香港執法。
迄今為止，在中國大陸已有超過七十名維權人士和藝術家因為飯聚舉牌拍照、詩歌會或行為藝術來表達支持香港的佔領行動，被公安拘禁，部份更以「尋釁滋事罪」被刑事拘留，其中以北京的打壓情況最為嚴重，近六十人被拘禁，當中十多人是在北京宋莊區的藝術家（包括詩人王藏）和一名德國週刊北京辦公室的助理；其他被拘禁的人士分別在廣州、山東、安徽、上海、江西、重慶、江蘇和湖北。另外，逾六十位人士被公安「喝茶」被警告不要去香港。
其他維權人士除了呼籲關注這些被拘禁人士，他們每天都緊密關注香港的事態發展，無不十分羨慕我們香港人還能享有言論自由和集會自由，也對香港學生們挺身無所畏懼地走出來表達清晰的訴求表示十分支持和讚賞，也對香港警察以催淚彈、胡椒噴霧、警棍來對待手中只有雨傘的學生和集會人士表示震驚，紛紛認為香港警察已赤化，並說若香港也失守，那麼中國的民主發展前境更堪虞。
香港有些人荒謬地認為，因為我們享有太多自由所以才出現佔領行動，並大力讚揚警察強行清場。當大陸這些嚮往自由和民主的人士也為我們香港的前境而擔憂，我們確切地感受到如果香港也不能保住這些自由，大陸情況將更慘淡，香港有些人卻更關心甚麼時候交通正常，只想繼續過著前景模糊的生活，卻對將來漠不關心。這樣的差異，莫不教人心急如焚。
| |||
Thursday, 23 October 2014
大陸人如何看「雨傘運動」
Saturday, 26 July 2014
Is this Religious Freedom?
(updated
in July 2014)
Patrick
Kar-wai Poon
Committee
Member and Coordinator of China Affairs Group,
Justice
and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese
The
Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese
submitted a stakeholder’s report1
for the UN Human Rights Council’s second Universal Periodic Review
on China in 2013. The following presentation is roughly based on the
information we included in the report and I have also included some
updates in this presentation.
Catholicism
is one of the five recognized religions in China, the other four
being Protestantism, Buddhism, Taoism and Muslim. Since 1950s, the
Catholic Church in China has been sadly divided into two families –
the officially sanctioned Church registered with the government and
headed by the Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) and the Bishop
Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC) and the
underground Church community which refuses to register with the
government. According to Chinese government statistics, there are
about 7 million Catholics in China, while China observers estimate
that the figure should be much higher by including underground Church
members.
While
I would like to concentrate on the situation of Catholics in China, I
would also like to say a few words about the worrying situation of
human rights activists in China as freedom of religion and freedom of
expression are closely connected. Since Xi Jinping became president
of the People’s Republic of China, there have been increasing
crackdowns against human rights defenders, even including the
moderate ones who merely exercised their freedom of expression, in
the excuse of so-called “maintaining social stability”. To name a
few activists who have been recently detained, arrested and
sentenced, for example, the representatives of the New Citizens
Movement who initiated anti-corruption campaigns: Beijing legal
scholar Xu Zhiyong was imprisoned for four years and several other
representatives were also sentenced to 2 – 6.5 years imprisonments.
On 13 June 2014, human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was formally
arrested for “picking quarrels and creating trouble” and
“illegally obtaining personal information” after he attended a
gathering together with about a dozen other public intellectuals and
Tiananmen Mothers in early May to commemorate the 25th
anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. The situation of
Catholics hasn’t improved after Xi Jinping took power as many
bishops and priests of the “underground Church” remain detained.
I will give more details later in my presentation.
Restrictions
on Government-sanctioned Catholic Church
Although
the Catholic Church resumed activities in early 1980s after the
Cultural Revolution ended in 1976 and Beijing initiated the “open
door policy” in 1978, there have been endless disputes among people
who are concerned about the situations of the Catholic Church in
China. Experts on Catholic Church in China, such as Cardinal Joseph
Zen Ze-kun (retired bishop of Hong Kong Diocese) and Belgian scholar
priest Fr. Jeroom Heyndrickx, acting director of Ferdinand Verbiest
Institute of Catholic University of Leuven, have been strongly
debating how the government-sanctioned Catholic communities should
maintain their faith while dealing with the Chinese government’s
various restrictions on the Church in China and how the Vatican
should react. Cardinal Zen reminds Catholics in China and the Vatican
that we should firmly follow the Church’s principles and Canon Law
while Fr. Heyndrickx and some overseas China Church observers and
some clergies belonged to the official Church in China plead for
compromise in some principles for the sake of “development” of
the Church in China. We have to bear in mind that these disputes
actually manifest the effect of the Chinese government’s control of
the Catholic Church in China and it is exactly what the Chinese
government wants to see the splits within the Catholic community in
China and between those who support the Catholic Church in China.
Among
all the disputes, the most controversial issue, however, is the
appointments of bishops. Appointments of bishops can affect a local
diocese’s development for decades. If young clergies in their 40s
who submit to government control become bishops of their dioceses,
the local Church communities will encounter very difficult
situations. In some cases, the clergies and lay Catholics are split
among themselves on whether they should accept these new bishops and
attend Mass liturgies celebrated by them. Between November 2010 and
July 2012, four illicit ordinations occurred in Chengde (承德)
Diocese in Hebei province
(河北省),
Leshan (樂山)
Diocese in Sichuan province (四川省),
Shantou
(汕頭)
Diocese in Guangdong province (廣東省)
and Harbin (哈爾濱)
Apostolic Administration in Heilongjiang province (黑龍江省).
Some bishops of other dioceses were forced to concelebrate the
installation ceremony while some were lured by monetary rewards to
attend it. It also created distrust among the clergies and lay
Catholics in the diocese.
Another
event which created much distrust among Church people of the
government-sanctioned Church was the Eighth National Congress of
Catholic Representatives. Dozens of bishops were forced to attend the
meeting while some were lured to attend it as the government offered
to give them financial assistance to help their dioceses’
development, according to sources. It again created much distrust
within the government-sanctioned Church community, especially among
the bishops, the priests and lay Catholics in their dioceses who felt
very much confused on how to follow Catholic principles. By attending
such a meeting organized by the government-controlled Catholic
Patriotic Association, it sent a very wrong message to the Catholic
Church community in China and the Vatican that the bishops who
attended the meeting recognized the legitimate control of the
Catholic Patriotic Association. Afterall, we need to ask one
question: is it really religious freedom when the government has
exerted so much control on the administration of Church affairs?
Oppression
of the “Underground” Catholic Church
Since
bishops and priests of the “Underground” Catholic Church refuse
to be controlled by the government by refusing to register with the
Catholic Patriotic Association, many bishops and priests have been
subjected to crackdowns and harassments over the years. According to
information collected by the Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong
Kong Catholic Diocese, nearly 20 clergies in Hebei province have been
illegally detained, tortured or forced to join political “classes”.
The
horrible cases of torture and ill-treatment include: 1) In September
2007, Father Yu Zhongxun (宇中勛)
was hanged to a basketball stand overnight and he was subjected to
various torture, including being tied to a “Tigar Chair” (老虎櫈)
for more than 10 days, hurt by cigarette butts, forced to drink chili
water (灌辣椒水);
2) in June 2009, during the last six days of his six-month detention,
Father Liu Jianzhong (劉建忠)
was not allowed to sleep and he was made to stand in a pose a
soldier, squat and push up for more than 10 hours every day.
Hebei
province is traditionally a stronghold of the Catholic community in
China, especially “underground” Catholics, probably due to the
fact that many European missionaries preached in the area during Ming
and Qing Dynasties. 1) One of the most famous cases is Bishop Su
Zhemin (alias Su Zhimin) (蘇哲民)
of Baoding Diocese in Hebei province, who is now 82 years old. Bishop
Su was arrested at a lay Catholic’s house in Xinji city, near
Shijiazhuang on 8 October 1997. After the arrest, he was held in
detention in Qingyuan County, Baoding. For years, nothing was heard
of him. Bishop Su had previously been arrested for at least five
times and imprisoned for nearly 27 years.
2)
Another example is Father Lu Genjun (鹿根君)
of the same diocese. Father Lu and another priest Father Guo Yanli
were arrested when they were receiving a friend at Baoding railroad
station on 17 February 2006. Father Guo was sent to Xushui detention
center in Hebei and his current situation was not clear. Father Lu’s
whereabouts are still unknown.
3)
Bishop Shi Enxiang (師恩祥)
of Yixian (易縣)
diocese in Hebei, who is now 93 years old, had tried to hide himself
from being detained since 1996 but he disappeared after he was seen
in Beijing on Good Friday on 13 April 2001. Nothing was heard of him
since then. He has previously spent 30 years in prison.
4)
Bishop Zhao Kexun (趙克勛)
of Xuanhua (宣化)
diocese in Hebei, who is over 80 years old, has been hiding in
various places and cannot exercise his duty as a bishop publicly.
5)
In August 2004, Father Ma Yongwu (馬勇武)
of Baoding (保定)
diocese in Hebei was taken away when he was celebrating the first
anniversary of his ordination as a priest. He was later released but
was detained again when he took part in Father Chen Baidu’s (陳百都)
funeral. He has since been detained in Qingyuan county (青苑縣)
in Hebei.
6)
On 27 December 2006, Father Liu Honggen (劉紅更)
of Baoding (保定)
diocese in Hebei was taken away together with six other priests in
Xinanzuo village (西南佐村)
in Qingyuan county (青苑縣)
in Hebei. The other priests were later released by Father Liu remains
being detained.
7)
In 2011, three young priests in Hebei were taken away. In mid-March
2011, Father Wang Lifang (王立芳)
of Zhengding (正定)
diocese was cheated by plainclothes officers to perform sacraments
for the sick and he was then taken away. Another 40-year-old priest
Father Zhang Guangjun (張廣軍)
was taken away in mid-January 2011 and he was not allowed to sleep
for five days during detention and had been subjected to
ill-treatment and insult. He was briefly released during the Chinese
New Year in 2011 and then was taken away again on 8 March 2011. It
was believed that he was tortured again. His whereabouts remain
unknown. Father Chen Hailong (陳海龍),
a 32-year-old priest who was ordained in 2009, of Xuanhua (宣化)
diocese was taken away on 8 April 2011 by plainclothes when he was
travelling with two young people to visit Catholics.
8)
Auxiliary Bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin of Shanghai diocese announced at
the installation ceremony in July 2012 that he resigned from all his
positions at the Catholic Patriotic Association. He was taken away
that afternoon and disappeared for some time. He was later “arranged”
to stay at Sheshan Seminary in Shanghai. Until now, he still cannot
publicly and freely exercise his duty as an auxiliary bishop.
Support
needed
The
above-mentioned situations and cases are only the tip of the iceberg.
There might be more unknown situations of control on the
government-sanctioned Church and more unknown cases of harassments of
underground Church people. We, the Justice and Peace Commission,
together with other organisations and individuals will continue to
call for more attention and support to the Catholic Church in China,
both the open and underground Church communities. At the same time,
we also pay attention to the harassments of protestant house church
members and other faith communities.
________________________________________________
1
See the Commission’s report:
https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=121&file=EnglishTranslation
Friday, 7 March 2014
Boiling Frog in Warm Water? We are Right in the Boiling Water!
Patrick Poon the Naive and Stupid
Half a million people in Hong Kong took to street on 1 July 2003 to protest against the anti-subversion law proposed by the Hong Kong government based on Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law - Hong Kong's mini-constitution. The big turnout shocked not only the Hong Kong government, but also the generally politically indifferent Hong Kong public, since it was then only seven years after Hong Kong's handover from British colonial rule to China.
The mass turnout manifested Hong Kong people's fear of losing basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and Beijing's promise of maintaining "One Country, Two Systems" as highlighted in the "Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong" signed in 1984, which is also commonly known as "Sino-British Joint Declaration" and incorporated into Hong Kong laws.
One of the more obvious reasons was that a number of Hong Kong people used to flee from Mainland China in the 1950s - 1970s where they or their parents experienced a lot of hardships during the "Three Years of Great Chinese Famine", "Anti-Rightists Movement", and "Cultural Revolution". In addition, the Tiananmen Square crackdown on 4 June 1989 also fueled more fear of Communist rule among Hong Kong people.
Nevertheless, as ever people on the move, Hong Kong people are very pragmatic. Despite all these fears, most of us quickly became amnesiac and swiftly embraced doing business in China again, in particular through exploiting cheap labour in Mainland China and making hot money through the property market. History? Fear? Freedom? All these simply are not as sexy as the smelly RMB notes.
Nearly eleven years have passed. China has become the second largest economy in the world. What we have been hearing from the Chinese officials or those pro-Beijing figures in Hong Kong who are afraid of not pleasing the Chinese Communist Party enough to become a member of the small circle Election Committee of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong or gaining a place as a member of the Political Consultative Committee in Beijing or even in a small city in Guangdong. Being a rich, obedient and shameless pro-Beijing figure is considered to be more respectful that those who take to street to fight for freedom and democracy.
We can no longer rely on the elites who are in their 50s or 60s to fight for freedom and democracy as vested interests, either monetary or political, have eroded their passion for real grassroots pro-democracy movements. "Three Years of Great Famine"? "Anti-rightist Movement"? "Cultural Revolution"? "Tiananmen Square crackdown"? Come on, these people now just think they are "historical events". These "historical events" could be selectively studied in schools. But these people would complain why some people are so persistent in recalling these "historical events". To these people, money and economic interests are definitely always more important than "history" and "fact".
Most of us, who are in our 30s or 40s and well-educated, are having lots of excuses of being busy with family and providing the "best education" for children (or showing off to help children to enter international schools or elite schools?). Yes, many claim that they are "concerned" about "social issues" and "national issues" (don't know why just "national issues" but not "global issues - aren't we in Internet age? Are we still waiting for Columbus to explore the New World for us? Aren't we using WhatsApp, Facebook and/or Instagram, etc, to communicate with our friends all over the world?), BUT (oh yes, I need a capitalized "BUT" here as all these excuses - oh, sorry, I shouldn't say that these are excuses. I'm so mean and inconsiderate. Shame on me!) they cannot sacrifice their time of doing the realistic things, such as finding their children a really nice and elite schools, for doing something "unrealistic and naive", such as taking to street to fight for freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy are important to their children? Ah, yes. They might think they are, but it shouldn't be THEY who are so well-educated and better-off to take part in THESE ACTIVITIES. Some would even say: "Well, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. That's a fact. We can't do anything to change it. What's point of taking part in demonstrations? They are useless!!!!!"
So, what is left? Who can we rely on in our society who are not afraid or don't think too much about their own interests? Shamelessly, we relied on a large group of brave and selfless secondary school students to take the lead. Yes, they are students but they are more brave, knowledgeable and genuine than many self-sufficient adults like us. The most prominent among these students groups is "Scholarism". Such a good name. Many of them are brighter than many so-called scholars. Over the past two years, we relied so much on their efforts in reminding so many people in Hong Kong that we need to treasure the freedoms we used to them for granted.
So, it's now early March 2014. We have seen so much violence and increasing censorship against the media - the most recent one of Kevin Lau, former chief editor of Mingpao, who was stabbed at daytime and is now still lying in the intensive care unit. (Oh, well. Right. Some pro-Beijing figures would claim that it has nothing to do with media censorship. Do we really believe that shit? Excuse my lowly-educated language.) And, Beijing officials are telling us that there are such and such and such and such and such...pre-conditions for universal suffrage in Hong Kong. And, although China is still not yet a democratic country - no direct election, judicial independence and not to even mention separation of powers, Beijing officials, many of whom didn't even study law or international law, self-sufficiently tell us that many of us, Hong Kong people, don't understand the bloody (oh, yes, sorry for my language again and I'm not THAT "civilized" in the Mainland Chinese official sense as I didn't study Communism, Marxism and Socialism in China) HONG KONG BASIC LAW and the bloody (oh, sorry) INTERPRETATIONS of THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS (again, sorry for my bloody, er, sorry, lowly educated language that has degraded the "honourably" "bloody" (er, sorry again) and "respectable" "shitty" (oops, sorry!) "GRANDPA" - the Central Government).
So, "boiling frog in warm water"? Who invented this stupid phrase? (Oh, sorry, I'm so naive and stupid to be so cynical.) I'm spending so much time to write this shitty piece to try to understand if we are being "boiled in warm water"? No, I feel that we are JUST (sorry for the capital letters, I don't mean to be a drama queen...) right in the boiling water! Anyway, who care about this shitty piece and who care about freedom and democracy? Tomorrow will be another busy day for better-off parents to take their children to various weekend classes to gain points of swimming, dancing, painting or playing the piano, and another busy day for making money, and another busy day for us to listen to the shitty (oh, sorry, I'm just so shamelessly uneducated) speeches of the "honourable" Beijing officials and their servants.
Half a million people in Hong Kong took to street on 1 July 2003 to protest against the anti-subversion law proposed by the Hong Kong government based on Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law - Hong Kong's mini-constitution. The big turnout shocked not only the Hong Kong government, but also the generally politically indifferent Hong Kong public, since it was then only seven years after Hong Kong's handover from British colonial rule to China.
The mass turnout manifested Hong Kong people's fear of losing basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and Beijing's promise of maintaining "One Country, Two Systems" as highlighted in the "Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong" signed in 1984, which is also commonly known as "Sino-British Joint Declaration" and incorporated into Hong Kong laws.
One of the more obvious reasons was that a number of Hong Kong people used to flee from Mainland China in the 1950s - 1970s where they or their parents experienced a lot of hardships during the "Three Years of Great Chinese Famine", "Anti-Rightists Movement", and "Cultural Revolution". In addition, the Tiananmen Square crackdown on 4 June 1989 also fueled more fear of Communist rule among Hong Kong people.
Nevertheless, as ever people on the move, Hong Kong people are very pragmatic. Despite all these fears, most of us quickly became amnesiac and swiftly embraced doing business in China again, in particular through exploiting cheap labour in Mainland China and making hot money through the property market. History? Fear? Freedom? All these simply are not as sexy as the smelly RMB notes.
Nearly eleven years have passed. China has become the second largest economy in the world. What we have been hearing from the Chinese officials or those pro-Beijing figures in Hong Kong who are afraid of not pleasing the Chinese Communist Party enough to become a member of the small circle Election Committee of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong or gaining a place as a member of the Political Consultative Committee in Beijing or even in a small city in Guangdong. Being a rich, obedient and shameless pro-Beijing figure is considered to be more respectful that those who take to street to fight for freedom and democracy.
We can no longer rely on the elites who are in their 50s or 60s to fight for freedom and democracy as vested interests, either monetary or political, have eroded their passion for real grassroots pro-democracy movements. "Three Years of Great Famine"? "Anti-rightist Movement"? "Cultural Revolution"? "Tiananmen Square crackdown"? Come on, these people now just think they are "historical events". These "historical events" could be selectively studied in schools. But these people would complain why some people are so persistent in recalling these "historical events". To these people, money and economic interests are definitely always more important than "history" and "fact".
Most of us, who are in our 30s or 40s and well-educated, are having lots of excuses of being busy with family and providing the "best education" for children (or showing off to help children to enter international schools or elite schools?). Yes, many claim that they are "concerned" about "social issues" and "national issues" (don't know why just "national issues" but not "global issues - aren't we in Internet age? Are we still waiting for Columbus to explore the New World for us? Aren't we using WhatsApp, Facebook and/or Instagram, etc, to communicate with our friends all over the world?), BUT (oh yes, I need a capitalized "BUT" here as all these excuses - oh, sorry, I shouldn't say that these are excuses. I'm so mean and inconsiderate. Shame on me!) they cannot sacrifice their time of doing the realistic things, such as finding their children a really nice and elite schools, for doing something "unrealistic and naive", such as taking to street to fight for freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy are important to their children? Ah, yes. They might think they are, but it shouldn't be THEY who are so well-educated and better-off to take part in THESE ACTIVITIES. Some would even say: "Well, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. That's a fact. We can't do anything to change it. What's point of taking part in demonstrations? They are useless!!!!!"
So, what is left? Who can we rely on in our society who are not afraid or don't think too much about their own interests? Shamelessly, we relied on a large group of brave and selfless secondary school students to take the lead. Yes, they are students but they are more brave, knowledgeable and genuine than many self-sufficient adults like us. The most prominent among these students groups is "Scholarism". Such a good name. Many of them are brighter than many so-called scholars. Over the past two years, we relied so much on their efforts in reminding so many people in Hong Kong that we need to treasure the freedoms we used to them for granted.
So, it's now early March 2014. We have seen so much violence and increasing censorship against the media - the most recent one of Kevin Lau, former chief editor of Mingpao, who was stabbed at daytime and is now still lying in the intensive care unit. (Oh, well. Right. Some pro-Beijing figures would claim that it has nothing to do with media censorship. Do we really believe that shit? Excuse my lowly-educated language.) And, Beijing officials are telling us that there are such and such and such and such and such...pre-conditions for universal suffrage in Hong Kong. And, although China is still not yet a democratic country - no direct election, judicial independence and not to even mention separation of powers, Beijing officials, many of whom didn't even study law or international law, self-sufficiently tell us that many of us, Hong Kong people, don't understand the bloody (oh, yes, sorry for my language again and I'm not THAT "civilized" in the Mainland Chinese official sense as I didn't study Communism, Marxism and Socialism in China) HONG KONG BASIC LAW and the bloody (oh, sorry) INTERPRETATIONS of THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS (again, sorry for my bloody, er, sorry, lowly educated language that has degraded the "honourably" "bloody" (er, sorry again) and "respectable" "shitty" (oops, sorry!) "GRANDPA" - the Central Government).
So, "boiling frog in warm water"? Who invented this stupid phrase? (Oh, sorry, I'm so naive and stupid to be so cynical.) I'm spending so much time to write this shitty piece to try to understand if we are being "boiled in warm water"? No, I feel that we are JUST (sorry for the capital letters, I don't mean to be a drama queen...) right in the boiling water! Anyway, who care about this shitty piece and who care about freedom and democracy? Tomorrow will be another busy day for better-off parents to take their children to various weekend classes to gain points of swimming, dancing, painting or playing the piano, and another busy day for making money, and another busy day for us to listen to the shitty (oh, sorry, I'm just so shamelessly uneducated) speeches of the "honourable" Beijing officials and their servants.
Friday, 21 February 2014
應立即停止指鹿為馬
2014年2月16日發表於香港公教報「義筆容辭」專欄
博 德
特首梁振英因為民望低落，他所說的話經常成為笑柄，無法令人相信他的話能代表中央政府立場，因此經常出現如吳康民、譚惠珠和梁愛詩等親北京人物紛紛跳出來解釋中央對香港普選的立場。在現在的香港政府官員中，以政務司司長林鄭月娥民望最高，她當了多年政務官，當她在去年十二月為政府展開的所謂為期五個月的政改諮詢解說時，顯示的是官話連連，佯裝持平。一方面說要按基本法規定，普選要循序漸進；一方面強調要依從全國人大常委會的決定；一方面又說必須確保普選行政長官的產生辦法符合國家對香港的基本方針政策；然而，最動聽的是「兼顧社會各階層的利益」、「有利於資本主義的發展」、「適合香港實際情況」。
林鄭月娥作為最高級的政治任命官員，我們當然不要天真地認為，她在談論對政改看法的時候，只會考慮法律、政制和法治的問題，而沒有考慮如何取悅中央。不幸地，筆者感覺林鄭月娥的言論愈來愈像中國大陸的官員，內容空洞、官僚、只懂為中央政府說話，目的只是要香港人相信指鹿為馬的言論，若是在香港為香港人普選特首和立法會著想，何以看不見任何具體措施讓我們一般香港市民參與提名候選人，最近卻甚至說出三百萬人也並非有代表性的荒謬言論。在香港沒有像一般民主制度有政黨輪替的情況下，提名委員會如何能確保香港市民有提名權呢？自二OO三年五十萬人上街要求普選，多年來香港市民要求的還不夠清楚了嗎？要的是現在皇恩浩瀚的五個月所謂諮詢？香港人要的選舉權，在沒有政黨輪替作黨內初選情況下，選舉權應該包括提名權，現在的所謂諮詢卻以所謂符合《基本法》第四十五條規定限制為提名委員會，但以往幾屆特首都是小圈子產生，試問如何令市民相信這個提名委員會能有基本法同樣規定的「具有廣泛代表性」？五個月的諮詢能解決這個關鍵問題嗎？這不是硬要人相信指鹿為馬嗎？
在說出這些指鹿為馬的言論後，也請林鄭月娥不要自覺清高地說甚麼香港政府很有誠意，政府向市民表達不應是誠意，而應該是顯示誠信，否則不斷說出有如中國內地官員常見的虛偽和虛假的官話，像湖南政府說李旺陽是「自殺」，又或像最近山東曲阜政府說維權人士薛明凱父親薛福順在當地檢察院據理力爭時突然「跳樓自殺」，這樣如何取信於民？林鄭月娥最近向傳媒表示她無意參與二O一七年特首選舉，理應不會考慮自己的政治利益，若她不想成為像現任特首梁振英和發展局局長陳茂波那樣誠信破產，那她應該立即停止指鹿為馬的言論，具體說明如何確保市民在二O一七年普選特首有提名權，而非虛假的諮詢。
正義和平委員會
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)