香港式不合作運動芻議
【原載自 2009 年 2 月 2 日《李銳華 。 啓文 。 雜思》】 (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 US License )
到此時此刻， 大家應該看得很清楚。 在香港有著既得利益的保守派人士， 以曾蔭權政府作馬前卒， 以北京政府為後盾， 是不會主動把民主賦予给香港人的。 但另一方面， 我們又清楚的看到， 香港的各種社會矛盾， 大部份的最後死結都是纒在香港的崎形假民主制度之上。
這時， 我們可以做的， 有兩條路。 一是繼續死忍， 並祈求上天， 香港的社會矛盾， 不會來一個總爆發， 以社會暴動， 人命傷亡為代價， 來促成下一個社會改革的契機。 另一條路， 就是主動出擊， 在總爆發來臨前， 以理性、和平但更堅定的手法來爭取民主， 使香港有一個更合理的機制來疏導社會上的利益衝突。
堅定， 不代表暴力抗爭。 它可以是和平、理性的。 印度聖雄甘地的不合作運動， 和美國民權領袖馬丁路德金的民權運動， 可以作為借鏡。
筆者提議的， 是由泛民主派議員主動為政改定下時間表， 如果保守派繼續採用拖字訣， 泛民的籌碼， 是全體泛民立法會議員辭職（總辭）， 作為對保守派拖延政策的最強烈抗議， 並引起國際社會的關注。
總辭後的泛民議員， 不是從此退出江湖；相反， 是組成「香港人議會」， 以影子立法會和影子政府的身份繼續為民主和公義與保守派人士抗爭。 這將會是香港民主團隊的延安時期， 也是香港民主團隊的 Valley Forge (按：美國獨立戰爭時期， 華盛頓帶領軍隊退守 Valley Forge， 渡過冬天， 重新嚴格訓練部隊， 奠定日後打敗英國人的基礎)。
到下一屆立法會選舉， 泛民議員依樣參選， 他們參選時的選舉履歷，將會包括了他們在「香港人議會」時的工作政績， 而選民也以選票來表達他們是否肯定（或否定）這批「以總辭來抗爭， 以影子政府監督政府」的「香港人議會」議員。 當選後， 泛民議員將會再用總辭來作為籌碼， 再次要求保守派人士和政府落實民主， 如是者直到爭取到真正的民主為止（*）。
換言之，泛民是以相對公平的香港選舉制度，來接受選民的授權；但以總辭，來拒絕合作於不公平的、被「分組投票」和「功能組別」兩大金剛箍廢了武功的立法會議；也拒絕合作於小圈子式的市長（特首）選舉。此為之香港式的不合作運動！
（* 不要相信保守派人士和政府的承諾， 以為 2017/2020 真的會有真正民主。 筆者估計， 到時， 保守派人士又會想出各種「妙計」， 比如一個極高門檻的提名程序之類， 來箝制真正的民主。 大家可不要忘記立法會議「分組投票」機制的沉痛教訓啊！）
「香港人議會」由香港人捐款資助成立。 筆者估計， 香港有堅定的核心民主派三萬到五萬人（就是這群人， 1989 年時在八號風球下， 也去維園支援北京學運的。 也是他們， 廿年來從不間斷的每年出席六四燭光晚會）。 而支持民主派的至少有五十萬人（就是這群人， 在 2003 年七一上街， 把董建華和葉劉諔儀拉下台）。 再加上外圍同情民主派的二百多萬人（就是這群人，在多次立法會選舉中把票投給泛民主派的參選人）。 以這樣的基礎， 要每月籌措約五百萬港元以上的經費， 支援總辭後的民主團隊的議員和職員們繼續全職參與「香港人議會」的工作， 這雖然不是一件容易的事， 但郤是有可能實現的。
曾經有國際象棋大師說過一句名言：「威脅有時比實際運用更有效」。 筆者在此提出的， 也不是泛民議員現在就立即全體總辭；相反，是要泛民以總辭作為皇牌， 增加談判的實力。 事實上， 除了這一張牌， 筆者也想不到泛民還有那張牌可以打了。
爭取社會的變革和進步， 從來都是要有犧牲的。 以前的仁人志士， 要拋頭顱， 洒熱血。 今天的香港， 已經是以中產人士為主的理性型社會， 我們大概不需要像過往的革命先烈那般捨身成仁， 殺身取義了； 但是， 某種程度的犧牲， 看來還是不可避免的。 泛民議員， 若以全體總辭為談判籌碼， 要有一定的政治勇氣； 而香港爭取民主運動的市民， 若要長期承擔「香港人議會」的運作經費， 也會考驗他們的決心。 但沒有勇氣和決心， 民主制度不會自動從天上跌下來。
我們準備好了嗎？ 香港真的值得有民主嗎？
── 完 ──
搜尋
回應
香港人議會
Interesting concept... a few thoughts.
1) Good thing about the Forum:
- It's definitely a great idea to have a Forum to actually discuss merits of policies (as oppose to drawing the dividing line between pro-democracy and loyalist). It can serve as a way for the pro-democratic camp to unite without unification. Decision on policies can be debated and decided democratically at the Forum and reflected in the voting at the official LegCo (even though it doesn't matter.) This can also help alleviate some of the pointless power struggle in certain political party by redirecting those energy to the debate of actual differences in political ideology. The Forum can also be used as a training ground for new political leaders.
- In addition to public policies, I think this forum should have a even wider scope. This forum should also discusses and examines constitutional issues to include higher ideals, and purposes. For example, in the United States Declaration of Independence, there is this line:
And in the Canadian Constitution, there is this line regarding the role of parliament:
Certainly both statement can be applied quite universally (they are nothing special by themselves). The point is that, these values and purposes are deemed so important that they are singled-out and inscribed in the key document of those nations. I am sure there's a set of values that most people of Hong Kong hold true to, they are just not written in stone for all to reference and used as a guide. I don't think the Basic Law (the closest thing we have to a constitution) contain anything like that (correct me if I am wrong.)
High ideal doesn't feed hunger, I know, but it is something that needs to be established for everything else to make sense. Without a purpose, a constitution is merely a elaborate way to redistribute power "practically" (and often very cynically) which, much like most practical things, are short-sighted as they must fit the reality of the time. Without overarching and enduring high ideals/values/purposes, a constitution will crack under the pressure of accumulating contradictions that are generated over time as reality evolve. With a purpose, discussions on subjects like constitutional reform will actually be meaningful (i.e. how does the form of the legislature _serve the purpose_ of the government and the society) as oppose to a trivial selection of options from menu A, B or C (i.e. bicameral vs unicameral, proportional vs. mixed member proportional vs. first-past-the-post.)
2) Problems with the Forum... money will be the least of the problem
- It will need the support of all of the pro-democratic legislators, which could be a problem as existing legislator would worry about open policy discussion that may come back to haunt them during the official election.
- It will need support from media to report on the debate and discussion...
- It will need a lot of volunteers to support all the activities and all of this with the understanding that this exercise won't matter in the immediate/practical sense. You'll need another Obama :-).
- the chinese government/loyalist could misinterpret or smear this into a form of secession and call it an act of treason even when it's not.
要有魅力型領袖
Ken,
I agree with most of what you said, especially the need of a charismatic leader -- someone like Obama (actually I would say more like Martin Luther King, Jr or Mahatma Gandhi)
However, there is one clarification. In my proposal, the members of the "Hong Kong Council" (*) have to be popularly elected in an election first (and then later resigned from their seat). In other words, they have the endorsement by the electors, they just choose to resign and fight in another arena.
換言之，泛民是以相對公平的香港選舉制度，來接受選民的授權；但以總辭，來拒絕合作於不公平的、被「分組投票」和「功能組別」兩大金剛箍廢了武功的立法會議；也拒絕合作於小圈子式的市長（特首）選舉。此為之香港式的不合作運動！
Thanks!
(* I do not seem to like a name like "Hong Kong People's Council" -- I guess the name "People" has been tainted with communist and totalitarian ideas that it does not convey its original meaning any more ...)
正中下懷？
『到下一屆立法會選舉， 泛民議員依樣參選』
怕的是到時的參選程序已經被留下的立法會議員改到天番地覆，甚至可能以後加入立法會也再不用參選？！
How about this...
Instead of having elected member only, this shadow council could also include those who are in the election but didn't win a seat. The seat distribution and composition of this council would be according to the result of the official election. In essence, when a voter cast a ballot for the pro-democratic camp, they are using it to 1) support pro-democratic legislator AND 2) reflect their political ideology/values by affecting the composition of the shadow council. For example, say the pro-democratic camp has 3 tickets and each with 3 candidates. And let further assume that the shadow council for this particular district has a total of 6 positions. After the official the three tickets have the following ballot count:
Ticket A - 1000
Ticket B - 666
Ticket C - 333
and only Ticket A and B gathered sufficient ballots to win a seat in the LegCo. So with this scenario, the pro democratic camp will have 2 legislators in LegCo. In the shadow council, the positions would be distributed according to this election result, which means all 3 candidates in Ticket A will be in the shadow council, then 2 candidate from Ticket B and 1 candidate from Ticket C. That means the shadow council will have 2 elected member and 4 non-elected member with the elected member reflecting the wishes of the decision made in the shadow council.
I totally understand where you come from on the concept of "withdrawal" but I think this idea of shadow council can work with the current system as well. This way, the shadow council can remain democratic without needing the resources to run their own election. The LegCo representation will also maintain even if there is a shift of political ideology in the public. Let say Ticket A in the above example represent political left while Ticket C represent political right. There will still be 2 LegCo member if the public support more right leaning policies (as long as they still believe in democratic HK of course).
Obviously there's still quite a bit of problem. For one thing, the non-elected members still have to be paid some how if they are going to spend all of their time on the shadow council. And the elected member may get very busy to serve at both council (but then again, time spent on the shadow council can be use as a prep for LegCo.)
I am not picky on the name... I just used the word "Forum" as the english translation because I don't want to have confusion with the official LegCo.
Let's innovate
Good try! (I'm in a hurry now, can't comment much. Also, shall need some time to digest this idea. Anyway, good try.)
Hong Kong Citizens' Council
想了許久。。。也許「香港人議會」的英文名應該叫做 Hong Kong Citizens' Council－－我不太喜歡把它叫做 Hong Kong People's Council
「人民」－詞，已被極權主義騎劫了，成為極權專政的代名詞，可惜可惜。。。
「總辭」是最後皇牌。能不用自然更好。
@mt, 您說的的確有可能發生。但建制派要考慮的是，如果真的這樣做的話，有可能激起更多人支持民主。
另外，我強調「總辭」是最後皇牌。能不用自然更好，但必須要有真會用的可能，才有震攝力（有點像核打擊後的核還擊）。
＠Ken Ho, Thanks for your inventive suggestions. However, I still think the qualification of membership to "Hong Kong Citizens' Council" must include
1. the person was popularly elected into LegCo in a recent election
2. the person has joined the general resignation from LegCo in protest of the no-progress of democracy development.
You suggestion has the risk of "water down" the sacrifice that is need to make Hong Kong Citizens' Council morally superior. Also, operationally there is a difficulty -- in your model, how do we handle those failed candidates who do not really support democracy (e.g. DAB's candidates)? If they want to join HKCC, can they?
Thanks!
Nope...
if everyone can join, then there's no different from the original LegCo with expanded membership. Since we have a difference in the idea, I will refer to mine as the "Forum" (so that I won't hijack your HKCC term.)
The point for the "Forum" is this: it allows clear separation of public policy discussion from the discussion of constitutional reform. As you probably aware, the continuum of political spectrum exists in both the "pro-democratic" camp and the "loyalist" camp. By establishing the Forum for the pro-democratic camp, we can systematically manage the differences in political ideology within the camp. This can also give HK people an opportunity go through the democratic exercise and demonstrate to the other 40% of the population the merit of the system. (I was referring to the usual 60-40 split between the two camp during election.)
I don't think we necessarily need to use moral superiority here... and I doubt pragmatic HK people put too much weight in moral superiority anyway. The only 'rule' for joining the Forum is their support for universal suffrage. Actually, I shouldn't say no to your question... if DAB actually supports universal suffrage, they can join too :-).