Donald Tsang’s retreat on universal suffrage could be the spark to stir the public into action

History may record that the most unlikely of people, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, unwittingly proved to be the lightning rod that sent Hong Kong on the path to democracy by forcing the people to realise that the government will not deliver universal suffrage and that they will have to fight for it themselves.

This week, his administration flagrantly broke its seemingly unambiguous promise to settle the problem of democratic reform. And it had the audacity to suggest that the best way forward was to march backwards by reviving the old, colonial democracy-blocking device of increasing the number of functional constituencies in the legislature.

It has been suggested that the government’s current plans are little more than a modification of the failed 2005 plan for constitutional reform. This is incorrect; they are far worse, precisely because they so blatantly contradict assurances given by the chief executive on many occasions but most often during the farcical election campaign that brought him to office.

The public can now clearly see that the government has not the slightest intention of working towards universal suffrage. This produces a historic opportunity for mobilising the Hong Kong public; but it needs to be treated with caution because not only can things get out of hand but the aggressively intransigent nature of the government’s plans may invite intemperate action that will backfire.

It would, for example, be little short of suicide for democratic legislators to vote either for or against the bill that the government will eventually present to the chamber. A vote against invites accusations that the democrats are blocking reform, while a vote in favour gives endorsement to the unacceptable.

It would be far more effective to simply boycott the whole charade and allow the government to enjoy North Korean-style unanimity among its supporters in the Legislative Council. Those who are committed to the creation of democracy in Hong Kong have better things to do and need play no part in this farce.

While the government and its acolytes busy themselves with erecting new barriers to prevent the realisation of universal suffrage, democrats have no choice but to embark on the hard road of mobilising public support in the streets and everywhere else except Legco itself, where the cards are too heavily stacked.

There is already a mood of disillusion and anger surrounding the Tsang administration, which is seen as providing comfort to the very comfortable, favouring cronyism over popular participation and downright lying over its intentions.

We are probably not at the stage reached when a popular mobilisation was sufficient to thwart the Tung Chee-hwa administration’s oppressive anti-civil-liberties legislation, but democrats should take comfort from the Tsang administration’s arrogant stupidity.

It could easily have diluted discontent over its proposals by offering at least a few crumbs of compromise to those seeking democracy, such as abolishing some of the more flagrant rotten boroughs in the functional constituencies and by announcing some kind of vague timetable leading towards universal suffrage. Instead, it presents a destination sign board as a road map.

This is not a smart government; on the contrary, it seems almost determined to force a confrontation, no doubt hoping that its opponents will be even dumber than it is and will thus fall into the many traps that lie ahead. The crazy idea of democrats resigning from Legco to force by-elections no doubt gave them comfort in this regard.

However, a lack of smart tactics on behalf of the democrats is not to be taken for granted now that there is an open-and-shut case for mobilising the freedom-loving people of Hong Kong.

Given a stark choice between the continuation of a deeply flawed system of government and one that works in practically every civilised country, the people of Hong Kong will have little hesitation in making their choice.

By coincidence, these proposals have come forward on the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The unimaginable rapidly became reality.

Democracy in Hong Kong may be equally unimaginable today, yet nothing is forever. Change will not come without effort but, fortunately, this is a place where effort is part of the DNA.

Read the full version（原文刊於南華早報20/11/2009）: Here

奧巴馬當選美國總統一周年，其功過如何？且看看美國紐約時報給他的第一張成績單。

《Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and why it Matters for Global Capitalism (動物精神)》，聞說被美國《金融時報》封為「2009年商業金融好書」，但這卻不是我拿它來看的原因。實情是，但凡是反思當今主流經濟學的自大虛妄的，我都有興趣。

-reserved

解釋解釋解釋，人類最喜歡做的事情就是解釋。而本書作者就告訴你，世上發生的重要事件，幾乎全都是「黑天鵝效應」－－你不能完滿解釋、只能事後孔明的事情。它不是單純的「不可知論（Agnosticism）」。

中譯本很難讀，那些中文真的很難讀。

-reserved

承接《怪雞經濟學》，再以「經濟學」的（其中一種）視角，解釋種種日常社會現象。可是，在書還未正式開賣之前，已經被美國知識份子們批評為賣書而弄虛作假或斷章取義。書中最惹人非議的一章，是談到「全球冷化（global cooling）」的。

朋友都在等中文版，我卻想先睹為快。

-reserved

-reserved

終於買了他的碟。

都說對周秀娜沒甚興趣，當然亦沒有時間去聽那個講座。不過，據了解，當天整個talk其實都尚算成功，唯獨是低水平小記只懂以香港社會大眾那種標準，以八掛心態而觀之，故根本無法掌握講座要旨，結果才鬧出一段段白痴對白，弄得社會以偏概全地說三道四。當然，叫秀娜「梳理自己」故然有其問題，但卻正正點了「知識無限」這個題－－－「你班友仔唔知咩係「梳理自己」？而家就話你知。」

雖然如此，在批評聲音之中，林奕華的確是最有point的：解讀「秀娜現象」，不是應該問在場學生／市民大眾對秀娜的感覺才對嗎？構成「秀娜現象」，最主要有兩個elements：一，當然是學生大眾，但又怎能忽略第二個element，亦即是秀娜這個主體本身？

大學是開你眼界的地方，即使是同一個issue，take的也是人們日常生活不會take的angle。剛巧遇著只想炒作秀娜的傳媒跟八掛港人，「開你眼界」跟「滿足八掛」的這兩者，就顯得格外地風馬牛不相及。

這個talk，其實正是在「秀娜現象」之內的其中一個小事件。若然不攪這個talk，作為一眾市民欲望對象（Objects of Desire）的「秀娜」， 又怎能夠被聚焦分析解構？另一方面，傳媒作為其中一個在「秀娜現象」之中被分析的文化element，又怎會將自己的運行機制放大，放膽說秀娜「露底」，把自己如此赤裸裸地放在燈光之下，被文化研究者分析解構？就像到診所拉高上衣張開口「呀」一聲， 然後問「我有咩病？」一樣。沒有這個talk，又怎會叫港人慢慢地了解到，他們的欲望對象「周秀娜」原來「也有d腦」， 說「秀娜答得幾得體」？ 又怎會被一眾上班太疲累而生活無味的人亂說「周秀娜無腦」？

說這個talk無聊？請先明白每個人自己本身的局限，認清talk的主題「知識無限」，然後上網search一search主持教授的背景（文化研究），嘗試明白事情的來龍去脈。然後，我希望大家都學到野，然後一起跟我講一次，知識原來真係無限。

城中「才子」偷食，傳媒主導輿論煸風點火。「行為不檢點」、「未能符合社會預期」的「公眾人物（藝人）」又再成為港人的八卦素材。未能叫問責高官下台，卻能叫偷食賤男「問責分手」的傳媒，又再一次滿足到自己扮演「社會良心」的慾望。

縱觀這次偷食事件，真的可謂是「四嬴」：「賤男」認錯分手，佳人受到社會「力撐」，港人多了個話題可以八卦，傳媒又可以跟民意站在同一陣線嬴得民心。你說是不是「四嬴」？

我不是說笑的，因為偷食隨時可以攪出人命。看這齣由吳鎮宇扮演食家的《女人有毒（雙食記）》就知道。電影中，食家偷食被踢爆，女人佈局實行報復大計，最後不單只沒有「多嬴」，更只有「多輸」。我們香港這次「才子偷食事件」可以如此「愉快」地收場，都已經算是萬幸了，你說是不是？

我們的「才子」玩雙食，可以食到「四嬴」，又怎會是那些「才子」的損友所說般是「技術上不小心」？香港擁有這位「雙食技巧」高超（既做到再見亦是朋友，又可以繼續食）的「雙食才子」，香港人應該感到很高興，你說是不是？

我看著「才子」那篇漂亮的分手說詞，理解男方真心希望阻止傳媒繼續「公審」女方（表面上，傳媒是在「公審」男方，但男方真的不介意你公審他，才子的食物多的是，才子的面皮也有一定的厚度，所以，他關心的是這些「公審」會繼續影響女方），卻又不禁要說句，這又再一次印證了「男人真的是男人，分手也可以說得如此漂亮」。

另一齣講述男人偷食惹禍的港片是上年的《出埃及記》。在這個人人把偷食二字掛在口邊的時間，不妨「應節應景」一下，看看這些「偷食沒有好下場」的電影。