我是一個hku year 2 學生.

1. 對於學生會無積極推動, 我想是角色的問題 - 幹事會贊成動議, 但又要/想扮中立, 以顯示這是群眾的決定. 最後就搞到唔拖唔水.

2. 不足一成的投資率反映的是"學運"根本已不存在於港大同學的心中. 部份是時代的問題, 但更大部份是學聯的問題. 我想, 學生運動的方式是多樣性的, 不只是搞一下示威, 遊行, 聯署/在友好團體的聲明上署名. 這些方法在其他社會可能管用, 在火紅的年代可能管用, 但在今日的香港? sorry, NO. 學聯有否認真批判過現時的運動模式的效能? 成效過低的事, 今日九成九的大學生是沒有那麼浪漫會去做的. 如果還想著要回到火紅年代, 就難怪學運毫無寸進. 大學生在現今公民社會中的新方向在哪裡? 他們的力量在哪裡? (這是很重要的, 雖則"得把口"比不發聲好; 但若能認清學界的力量, 則能集中火力處理學界有影響力的議題, 又比"乜都得把口"而無實際作用好得多.) 繼而, 學運的新定位又在那裡? 學聯身為學界的先鋒, 是有責任引發並帶領這方面的思考的. 不處理這些問題, 學聯只有像台灣政局一樣空轉內耗; 學聯只會繼續是一小圈子人的學聯 (示威來來去去只得一些委員到場).

3. 話雖如此, 今次公投, 我投了反對票. 我認為大專間互相溝通的平台是重要的. 學運冷淡期不應是殺掉溝通平台的時間. 在無較具體的另設溝通渠道的方案前離開是不負責任的. 可能我對學聯及其運作所知有限, 但至今我對學聯仍是有盼望的, 我亦不認為學聯已完成其歷史任務. 希望今次的事件可以作為學聯內部和社會對學聯反省的機會, 而在未來可以看見學聯對香港公民社會的承擔與貢獻.

學聯話代表大專同學，港大學生會又話代表同學。結果是，無論是學聯搞甚麼，都沒有幾多個大專同學認為代表了自己。於是，港大學生會就話自己代表同學，反對學聯，但結果，港大同學也不知他們的學生會反對些甚麼。港大學生會對學聯，就好像是盲眼的笑跛腳的殘廢----賤鬥賤。

冷漠的年代，難道大學生們就只剩下影子與影子打架的餘勇？

真肯面對學運空洞化，學生組織脫離同學的勇士們，為甚麼只敢單挑學聯這一塊呢？真有破釜沉舟，作英勇的虛無主義最後戰士的，為何不一死以謝天下，串連、號召所有大專院校的沉默大多數起來，一起解散八大院校學生會與學聯，激起所有大專同學及全港輿論關注學運前景呢？

我從來最反對學運小官僚任意盜用民意，沉溺於小幫派互鬥的自戀遊戲，然後誤導大眾，令人以為這幫小官僚比另一幫小官僚好。

今天的學運小官僚，就是明天官場、政商各界的真正官僚或者政客。你今天看到小官僚們那副偷雞摸犬的樣子，也大概就是他們他朝上位的樣子。

學運官僚體制，欺世盜名，綁架正義，積習深遠。

不在沉默中爆發，就在沉默中死亡！

"另外，自「保密協議」爆出，再加上學生會作風日漸「走左」的情況下，港大學生會被認為未能延續以往對學運的堅持。再加上這一事件，很容易令人將之視作與親中有關、打擊學聯另起爐灶的舉動。"

One Question, which I think must needs be put to many a sympathetic observer in the present controversy, is this: Does "延續以往對學運的堅持" preclude from the outset the possibility that the political radicalism of 學聯, in the past few years, may be judged wrong and objectionable?

Prof. 葉蔭聰 has on another occasion pointed to the larger question of what form shall student social movements in HK in the future take. But I suppose that heed need be paid not only to form, but also to content; and reflection be had not only on the unhappy act, but also on that which has conduced thereto.

The said Professor, and Prof. Choi of CUHK as well, have invited observers to remember what contributions 學聯 has made to social movements in the past; it is a pleading for sympathy, an urge to try to see the matter from the angle of 學聯 itself; in this unfortunate moment, this is certainly to be desired.

And yet, when sometime ago HKU student representatives accepted an invitation to visit Beijing; when on return they argued for a different position on political matters; on that controversial day, had the representatives from 學聯 shown a similar sympathy, and tried to understand what reasons the HKU students had for the change? No. They made much haste to clap what usual appellations one could imagine on those who paid the visit; as if only their radicalism was the one true way.

I do not know whether Prof. Choi meant to argue that, since 學聯 was in the right a number of times in the past, it must by default be so on every occasion. In criticizing others, in recent years I mean, 學聯 has been most unreserved, neither moderation nor compromise being part of its vocabulary. If the representatives from HKU now believe, tacitly perhaps, that that position amounts to little more than dogmatic opposition, not worthy the supporting; then they are, I submit, not to blame.

It is no doubt - and here I do not mean to insinuate the two Professors - quite marketable in HK to identify not-so-anti-government, 走左, 親中, and all such like as one and the same thing, a thing intrinsically objectionable, every denunciation thereof being deemed progressive and befitting a student. I think this is wrong.

As I mentioned elsewhere, while students are eager to hold others accountable, who are there to hold them accountable in turn? I do not mean such undertakings as managing a function or providing student welfare, which many other students would have much to concern with and, in the case of insufficiency, to object to; but I mean public statements, denunciations, open letters, which tend to trigger the most heated arguing and most relentless name-calling; in cases as these, who are to hold the radicals to account? Who are to take them to issue for their very injurious descriptions and unsympathetic caricatures? When Fate, by some small happenings, is pleased to set them back, what right have the radical students then to demand sympathy?

Sympathy is won by those who are willing to show it. The past few years seemed to prove that this simple thought is no longer so widely recognized by students eager to assume a public stand. One can do a study of it, marshalling some social or sociological theories for the explicating; yet the mentality, from where it came I know not, does deserve a serious review.