Sunday, October 2, 2011

不要把「五區公投」私有化。

「五區公投運動」總發言人余若薇在運動啟動之初,清楚說明:「五區公投運動唔係屬於(公社)兩個黨,係屬於香港市民」。


公佈辭職議員名單記者招待會(余若微於3分52秒的講話):


既然主角是香港市民,任何成就這個運動的朋友,不是幫助梁國雄或陳淑莊,也不是協助公民黨或社民連。我們皆是運動的一部份,無分高低尊卑,沒有個人得失。


那些「恩將仇報」、「敵我不分」等說法,徹底侮辱了「五區公投運動」。


回顧2010年的政制發展,特區政府在之前一年已經提出兩個選舉辦法的草案,並明言在2009 - 2010的立法年度完結前,提交立法會進行表決。


就這個立法時間表,「五區公投運動」的每一個階段:包括運動啓動、議員辭職、參選名單等等在方案表決之前,按時序進行。


縱使「五區公投運動」是多麼的波瀾壯闊,史無前例,我們必須承認它只是去年政改方案而衍生的政治動員;一節教育香港市民政制的課堂。


「五區公投運動」是枝,政改方案才是根。


人民力量在今年的區議會選舉,打著「票債票償」的旗號,向那些支持政改方案的所謂民主黨派討回公道是理所當然;因為只有於政改方案中的投票取態才有憲制上的影響,直接左右香港未來的政制走向。


於外國成熟的政治體制,一個政黨作任何重大的政治決定後,必須面對選民的決擇。如一個政黨作了重大的政治轉向,留下來的黨員必須承擔其後果,責無旁貸。所以,一些不支持「五區公投運動」,但投票反對政改方案的議員,並不置身於「票債票償」運動的目標範圍。相反,支持「五區公投運動」,而支持政改方案的黨派,則難逃被「票債票償」的命運。


這是政治, 眾人之事。請不要注入私人感情,把它私有化。

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Gregory Peck

Gregory Peck 在《To Kill A Mockingbird》。
是男主角的稱呼,也是 Oliver Peoples 在 2011 年復刻版本的名稱。
我的購物慾又來了。

Monday, September 5, 2011

Do we have some bacon and eggs?

四個公務員團體發聲明,譴責部份示威人士違法,破壞社會秩序。
這就是香港令人擔心的地方。一班行政人員毫無國際視野,井底觀天。
只懂想著黃毓民、長毛就是示威的指標,其實他們有看國際新聞嗎?搶咪叫喊司空見慣。
加州前州長亞諾舒華辛力加,被示威群眾用雞蛋掟中後,反說:「此人現在欠我煙肉了。」
亞諾之後也未曾舉傘出席公開場合。

Sunday, July 3, 2011

喜歡?!

你喜歡雅典嗎?

你喜歡倫敦嗎?

你喜歡溫哥華嗎?

她們都是一級城市,景靚、人正、空氣好。同意嗎?








希臘雅典
剛過去的星期三,希臘通過緊縮開支的法案時,五萬名示威者,包圍國會,其中有人擲汽油彈、煙花、玻璃樽、石頭、垃圾。

英國倫敦
英國修改公務員及老師的退休計劃。早兩天,數十萬人罷工,至少四成學校需要停課。

加拿大溫哥華
6月15日,溫哥華的Canucks輸掉了Stanley Cup。引至超過二萬名市民隨處放火、搶掠、破壞建築物。

相比香港,數百或千人在街頭靜坐,阻礙幾小時的交通,何足掛齒呢?!

朋友,不要小學雞,不要井底蛙,不要梁振英!

Thursday, April 21, 2011

愛妹妹

愛一個人,可能就等同自殺。
這是一個發生在內地的故事。
你明白就好。

Monday, March 7, 2011

打小人。遊行。隨筆


想到什麼寫什麼,沒打算修飾。
  • 無論你在那面旗幟下,還是感謝所有走過的人。
  • 在【人民力量】及【香港人網】隊伍中的朋友,看見你,真的感動。我敢說我們是人多勢眾的一群。
  • 我喜歡有趣的政治行動,今天我們真的做到了。
  • 我為醫生感到自豪。失言了,便直截了當地道歉,不閃不避。
  • 看見朱凱迪穿最平實的布鞋,用最簡單的手提。深感佩服。
  • 思考了一個晚上,還是認同在皇后大道中解散的決定。衡量各方因素後,這是【人民力量】成熟的表現。我們的隊伍數以千計,在沒有周詳的計劃下,而帶領群眾面對有可能發生肢體衝撞的可能,是不負責任的行為。一對夫婦在突發時侯,也可能大唱反調,更何況是數個團體在目標未明,沒有共識的情況下?!我們當中有老有嫩,扶老攜幼,不是每個人也善於衝擊。
  • 【人民力量】的個別成員選擇自發留守,我以你為傲。
  • 完全不明白,為什麼要惡意指責別人不留守?
  • 更不明白,為什麼我們要活像黑社會般?公民黨的誰誰誰在,民主黨的誰誰誰也在,就是不見【人民力量】的人!是否現在每個「社團」要「交人」?我們當中的成員有自己意願,留與不留,我們同樣尊重。我誓不信公民黨或民主黨會官式派譴某某黨員留守。
自我提醒:從前是群眾運動的參與者,現在是群眾活動的策劃者。

Sunday, March 6, 2011

蘋果:不是欺騙,而是催眠。

Facebook中流傳一篇文章,名為《我對蘋果哲學的理解 - 蘋果的騙局》。閱後,感覺是作者的偏見,多於是蘋果的騙局。

現今社會,資訊發達,一間公司推出的產品,所用配件,採用科技,全部公開。中文英文,有關電腦的消費雜誌與網站無數,消費者可自行直接比較,何來隱瞞?!

Steve Jobs在發佈會內會自傲,但他揶揄對手之處,全是客觀事實,例如:銷售數字。如不是事實,自認某配件是冠絕全行,他不會做,他亦不可做,因為別人大可告他虛假陳述。

商業機構以賺錢為前題,主要技倆是推出產品時,放棄採用最新科技,而是在每次更新時,逐部提升。電腦業如是,汽車業也是。Samsung如是,Audi也是。但是,在博奕的商業社會裡,誰也不會過分「落後」。


消費者是理性動物,我們會按各自所需滿足自己。電腦市場不同股票市場;一個人置身股票市場中,單一目標就是賺錢。一般情況下,小投資者不會明知賠本也買貨。可是,當你決定買那台電腦,卻有自己的原因。你的,未必跟我的一致。

如在尖沙咀臨海那些摩天大廈眺望港島,你不難發現對岸那些大型廣告牌,絕大多數被電子產品,或金融機構所佔據。我的理解是,這兩行業,不論來自那間公司的產品均大同小異。主要驅分就是品牌。

蘋果的至勝之道不是科技。它是在賣設計,賣品味,賣風潮。那年代,當所有公司以小為賣點之時,iPod卻突圍而出。


蘋果曾在低谷,被微軟打得一獗不振,能夠斧底抽身,就是憑實力與眼光。它改變了流動音樂的市場,也創做了平板電腦的領域。它既沒有佔用公共資源,也沒有受盡保護。在公平競爭的環境下,爭取勝利。蘋果沒獨門秘方;它做的,其他公司也能做到,只是它們做不來吧。

我是投訴老手。信我!蘋果的售後服務,在任何一界別也無人能及!

據聞蘋果在IFC已掃十個鋪位,準備在今年年尾在香港插旗。我們不是大慈善家,不會盲目貢獻荷包內的錢。若然說蘋果在欺騙,倒不如說它在催眠。

我甘心被催眠。

Thursday, February 17, 2011

2,485

這晚真爽!
先有上半場的自我娛樂,加有人落疊的music show
接著下半場就有我們的2,485。
歷蘇、小欣和我,還有看不見的 on cow cow。


歷蘇要堅著三點式喔。我冇寫錯,係曆蘇 -__-"

Saturday, February 12, 2011

發現號

韓寒在《1988我想和這個世界談談》有一段是這樣寫的:


流沙說,你怎麼能反抗我。我要吞沒你。

我說,那我就讓西風帶走我。

於是我毅然往上一掙扎,其實也沒有費力。我離開了流沙,往腳底下一看,操,原來我不是一個植物,我是一隻動物,這幫孫子騙了我二十多年。作為一個有腳的動物,我終於可以決定我的去向。我回頭看了流沙一眼,流沙說,你走吧,別告訴別的植物其實他們是個動物。


看似是踏實的沙土,卻是飄流的。一點點也承受不起;依靠著它的,除除的,往下沉,直至不見陽光,永不超生。


動物、植物皆有生命,難逃一死。可是,我不會不戰而死。


我是動物,因為我有思想。思考後,發覺流沙虛有其表,並不可靠。


最忐忑最困難的時候,從來在下決定之前。當你跋足起動後,發現一切不過爾爾。


你不需待人給你灌水方能存活,你也可自行遠征一遍。


他們一心走出錯地點,幹下遠征一遍。

Thursday, February 10, 2011

選民力量 @ New York Times

那天,Herald Tribune 的記者突然造訪,我們就在年宵攤位內和 Didi Tatlow 傾談了一句鐘。報導在今天的 The New York Times 刊出。

In Hong Kong, Market for Flowers and Democratic Ideals

By DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW

Published: February 9, 2011


Politics as well as the scent of spring blossoms was in the air last week at the traditional Chinese New Year’s Eve flower market in Victoria Park.

Under thousands of light bulbs that lit up the night sky and illuminated mandarin orange trees, narcissus blooms and pussy willows, a drama played out that revealed a city in a state of high political flux. Young people, frustrated by a lack of progress toward democracy 14 years after the end of British colonial rule, are seizing the initiative from established parties and beginning to reshape the agenda.

Since the 1997 transfer to Chinese rule, the Democratic Party has led a campaign for democracy in the face of resistance from Hong Kong’s conservative, Beijing-appointed leaders and the Communist Party.

The task is Sisyphean, and the Democrats have little to show for it.

Yet Hong Kong is changing, in ways that are spurring calls for democratic reform from new corners. Money is flooding in from a booming mainland Chinese economy, creating wealth but also sharpening inequality and, in some circles, fueling resentment at the opacity of China’s business and political system.

Against this background, seeking perhaps to end a long, frustrating stalemate, the Democrats last year accepted a Beijing-approved constitutional reform package. The deal increases the number of seats in the city’s Legislative Council that are directly elected by the public from 30 to 40, out of a new total of 70 seats. (The other seats are elected under a “functional constituency” system, chosen by a small circle based on professional affiliation.)

The government presented the deal as a first step toward possible direct elections of the chief executive in 2017 and a fully directly elected Legislature by 2020. Chief Executive Donald Tsang called the deal “a triumph of reason.”

But critics denounced what they saw as a betrayal of the pro-democracy camp’s longstanding goal of a fully elected Legislature by 2012. In response, dozens of feisty voices have sprung up on online radio shows that draw tens of thousands of listeners, and at least three new political parties have been formed since December.

Hong Kong is still the freest place in China. At the New Year’s market, alongside the flowers and the Year of the Rabbit-themed merchandise, were stalls displaying the range of civic activity here.

The Falun Gong spiritual movement, banned on the mainland, had a stall. The Roman Catholic Church was there, as were defenders of China’s claim to the Diaoyu Islands, disputed by Japan, which calls them the Senkakus.

Albert Ho, chairman of the Democratic Party, was writing traditional calligraphy for fairgoers, in return for donations to his party, at a stand belonging to the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, a group set up in the wake of the 1989 crackdown around Tiananmen Square.

He said he had been wielding the brush for six hours straight. “People ask for all sorts of things,” he said. “Good health. Democracy in China.”

A young woman requested a traditional proverb: “Study deeply and achieve reason.”

“This is really interesting,” Mr. Ho enthused. “Really interesting.”

There was a hint of sadness as well. In January, Szeto Wah, arguably the city’s most loved democracy campaigner and the alliance’s founder, died of lung cancer, at the age of 79. Mr. Ho, determined to carry on his mentor’s calligraphic tradition, was taking “Uncle Wah’s” place.

But the new democracy advocates were also well represented.

“We don’t depend on politicians. Everyone can take part in politics!” said Ka Lok, 21, at a stand he ran with a friend, Ma Jai, 17. They were selling T-shirts showing Mr. Tsang’s deputy, Henry Tang, sporting devil’s horns. Mr. Tang is especially unpopular among young activists for comments that they could meet “a tragic end.”

Farther down, through crowds so dense a visitor could only inch forward, was a stall occupied by the Web radio station hkreporter.com, and a new political party called Power Voters. High-spirited democracy advocates joshed the crowd, offering wares that made clear their differences with the Democratic Party: blow-up cudgels showing the party’s vice chairwoman, Emily Lau, as a fake “Goddess of Democracy.”

A red-and-yellow cushion mocked Ms. Lau and seven other Democratic Party leaders, including Albert Ho, as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

“The Democratic Party betrayed us,” said Christopher Lau, 34, of hkreporter.com. “They said they would fight for universal suffrage in 2012, but they didn’t.”

“The political landscape in Hong Kong is shifting,” said his colleague Anthony Lam, 34. “No one knows where it’s going.”

The Web site, founded by the filmmaker Stephen Shiu, has a staff of just five, as well as about 30 hosts paid a small amount per show. Google’s Alexa rankings list it as Hong Kong’s 23rd most popular Web site.

Mr. Lam said they considered themselves part of the online, global network of youth-led protest. In December, their Web site posted what it said was a still-unreleased WikiLeaks document claiming to show 5,000 private Swiss bank accounts belonging to senior Chinese leaders — “evidence,” if true, of major corruption among top Communist Party officials.

The specter of China, powerful and unaccountable, haunts many young people.

“A younger generation is starting to succumb to the fact that they have no choice to the economic power of China,” Mr. Lau said. “But we have a profound sense of alienation. It’s a scary place.”

What do they want? “Immediate democracy in Hong Kong,” he said.

Of the new political parties, two — the NeoDemocrats and Power Voters — are explicitly taking on the Democratic Party.

A third, the conservative New People’s Party, led by former security chief Regina Ip, was also represented at the park. Ms. Ip has hinted that she would like the job of chief executive.

“She stands for the knowledge economy and democracy,” said a woman wearing a New People’s Party T-shirt, gathering contact names and e-mail addresses on a clipboard. “It’s true she is not in the pan-democratic camp, but she does want democracy in Hong Kong.”

As for the Democratic Party, it holds that a step-by-step approach serves Hong Kong well and will ultimately increase democracy. Its chairman, Mr. Ho, looking up from his calligraphy, considered its critics.

People like Mr. Lau and Mr. Lam, he said, “are left-wingers, just like Sartre or Camus in France in the 1960s.”

“They want constant revolt against the government. But we are not going to allow them to lead the agenda.”


Thank you Didi for her professionalism. It was a nice chat.