戰鬥未完 仲有皇后
在呼籲前先講一件事，但到底我不是搞社運的，各位請原諒我以下行為的天真和無知：十二月十二日下午和E去了古物咨詢委員會（下稱「委員會」）的公開會議，在會議開始前我恭恭敬敬地寫了兩張便條，用跪地的語氣說，本人作為旁聽者也許沒有發言權，但希望委員會主席何承天先生能暫時放下「主席」的權力而用「人」的身份保障我的言論自由，而我也保證那只會是理性、禮貌、簡短的發言（其實根據〈古物諮詢委員會公開會議旁聽指引及規則〉，旁聽者不可「喧嘩或呼叫口號」但沒有提到不准「發言」；不過後來我發現，在他們的理解中，旁聽者發出的任何聲響都是喧嘩或口號。）。結果會議開始前，有位姐姐走埋黎細細聲說，真係對唔住喇，我地個規矩唔係咁，你聽下個會先啦。好，我聽。呆坐了個多小時候，終於到了「其它事項」環節，眼見各委員己經開始收拾文件準備離去，於是我舉手要求發言──對，我舉手，像個要搶答問題的聽話同學仔。
其實我想對何承天講的只有兩件事：一，作為咨詢團體，委員會有責任盡快召開新一輪公開、廣泛的咨詢，並應立即要求政府停止清拆天星，直到有咨詢結果；二，現在有許多傳媒人士和要求保留天星的朋友在中環天星等待何承天到現場聆聽他們的意見，希望他可以跟我們到天星一趟。第二個「建議」我都覺得好低級，由於和在場記者閑聊時，有的說會參預公開會議，而我想在記者面前他老人家應該比較難下台，所以想到了這個卑劣的手段；又，我關注的是何承天可以如何發揮他的功能（或，如何可以利用他的角色和功能)）暫緩清拆天星。對他示威或要求他馬上停止這個工程都是強人所難和於事無補的，所以乾脆讓他做當下能做的事。當然，我們的順從不是一種姿態，我的確曾經相信，只要能直接面對官員，市民便能真正和他們對話，到底他們都是人。
然而「他們都是人」的假設是錯的。何承天望了我一眼說，旁聽係唔可以發言架喎。無計，我求你你都唔俾我講，我唯有俾我自己講。這時周圍的數名職員一湧而上，在我們面前一字排開，不停打斷我們說話，由於缺乏示威吶喊經驗，我們連講一個完整句子都有困難。出動幾個人打斷兩個後生說話，唔通我地開口會噴火。何承天神色自若地收拾桌面，睇我唔到，直至我大叫「你媽媽無教你人地同你講野你要望住人呀！？」方才望了我們一眼──唉，有些人，真的要向他的媽媽問好才會有反應。後來越來越多職員阻止我們說話，最後另一位姐姐說，唔好咁，唔好咁，你地唔好逼何生啦，我地安排你地見面好唔好？
結果會面在會議室後面的密室進行。又由於經驗不足，我們竟然沒有影相和錄音。與何承天對話實在令我大開眼界，原來和有些人「對話」，真的要用打斷的方法來讓自己發聲，否則有人以為「獨白」也是一種溝通的方式。何承天說的大概是，委員會當年沒有支持清拆天星，而由於那個會議是按程序進行的，再加上當年的委員會主席不是他（即，唔關佢事），所以應該尊重那個決定。我當時目定口呆，竟然有人光天化日之下維護程序公義(procedural justice)。正如「政治正確」不是「正確」一樣，「程序公義」也不是「公義」，而是對程序的盲目遵守和濫用（abuse），把遵守程序視為唯一的正確性而無視程序本身的問題、執行過程的漏洞和結果的影響。「程序公義」是典型的官僚文化，但我以為官僚總會設法迴避這個說法，沒想到何承天竟然大剌剌地直認不諱。面對是非黑白在瞬間的顛倒，我不能言語，彷彿語言不再承載我所了解的含意。E在這時提出了世界各地幾個充滿創意的保育例子並問，咁你知唔知呀？何承天繼續大模斯樣地答，唔知，臉上再加上一個，「點呀？」的表情。我說了我要說的話，何承天說，我見左你地，咪見左大眾囉，我頭先見過傳媒，咪見左記者囉。會面就此打住。
之後回到天星。希望幻滅，真相大白真的不太好受，但覺悟總能讓人學懂如何自處。面對一個原始的政府，戰場就在公共空間－－權力的爭奪無處不在，但如果一個政府不能被理性說服和沒有感受的能力，市民和政府的權力拉扯只能是最原始的角力，手瓜大的便是贏家。當年五十萬人上街原來不是民主的勝利而是人數的勝利，這也解釋了為甚麼政府對民間團體、專業人士提出的可行保育天星方案，和市民對保留天星的訴求，充耳不聞。政府從幾個人擋推土機、十幾個人闖入工地和二百多人的遊行所了解到的「民意」是只有「一小撮」人反對清拆天星，而少數「應該」服從多數。當民意被量化，唯一表達的方式只有「身體」力行，佔據公共空間，進入大眾和政府的視野，尤其是面對一個會視若無睹的政府。為甚麼何承天要在密室和我們見面而不能在其他人面前（那些人甚至不是普羅大眾）對我們把說話講清楚？何承天能夠以職權濫用制度，但他不能夠控制一個空間內其他個體的思考，而他對公共空間的恐懼讓我仍然相信，人在做，天在看。世界上沒有最完善的制度，但最有效的監察機制也許是一個有活力、創意和社會關懷的公共空間，而公共空間的創造不是由政府規劃而要由民眾積極參預，以眾聲喧嘩來對抗獨白。
鐘樓被拆之後，好頹。我還寫甚麼。寫寫寫。寫咩寫。但對於一個除了寫字甚麼都不會的人，還可以做甚麼。我那天怎麼把何承天當人了，那天我怎麼沒有帶菜刀和炸藥。朋友突然問了一個很cliched 的問題，but don’t you think writings can inspire people，我很cliched 地答，yeah, and that was how I got inspired。然後我想起那打斷我們說話的人牆。真的，也許我們都有「噴火」的能力，讓天星之火燎原，傳得更遠更廣，就像自己曾經被一些文字和說話「點著」一樣。戰鬥未完，仲有皇后，這是在公共空間的戰鬥也是保衛公共空間的戰鬥。但為甚麼要為我城的公共空間戰鬥？我想起何慶基博士在回應別人問他為甚麼要入政府做事的說話，「因為哩度係我屋企」。
回應
何承天大頭相是我加的
出自立法會網頁：http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr98-99/chinese/members/chst.htm
親身感受
很多事情要親身體驗才會明白程序公義(procedural justice)和法律灰色地帶如何被官僚及有心人玩於股掌之上，及市民/人民的無力感與憤慨，這亦是為甚麼社會運動份子會對掌權者不信任和於行動時拼發出「激情」。
celeron 快來
「我說了我要說的話，何承天說，我見左你地，咪見左大眾囉，我頭先見過傳媒，咪見左記者囉。會面就此打住。」
在密室與兩個人說幾句便代表「見左大眾囉」，celeron 快去和何承天玩玩你的遊戲。
That is why I proposed to also take our officials/committee memb
Merry X'mas to you all.I want to share with you my thoughts on certain strategy and tactics. But first let me express my appreciation and support for all those who took part in the protection of the Star Ferry to preserve our cultural heritage and a sense of history about HK. I believe they understand very well the core causes behind the issues of天星碼頭-->皇后碼頭-->灣仔囍帖街、藍屋-->荃灣舊區清拆後變成一座座屏風樓-->旺角波鞋街-->油麻地廟街及古老警署,. In many of the gatherings, these core causes have been brought up time and again. They are 1. Poor or no policy (天星碼頭. .. . 警署. . are results, among other things, of poor city planning, outdated Antiquities & Monuments Ordinance, and the lack of people’s voice in the related committees; West Kowloon is partly caused by the lack of a cultural policy.) and significantly 2. Donald Tsang’s equaling “強政” to not submitting to people’s demands and sentiments (We also must not underestimate the adverse effect on him of the Central Government’s famous criticism on the former administration --- “議而不決,決而不行”.). I am glad to find more and more banners on these broader core issues as the struggle progresses. Unfortunately, hitherto, they still remain in the background as explanations only. The main focus stays with the specific cases like囍帖街, and Star Ferry etc., And once we lost the Clock Tower and Star Ferry we move on to another specific case --- the Queen’s Pier ---- though admitting the common causes of both cases. This will get us nowhere and will wear out our will and energy if we keep on moving from one case to another without developing it into a sustained movement. We will be unable to gather enough momentum to effect changes not to mention that by responding to government’s actions we are led by them. I propose the following strategy and tactics;
Strategy:
make these core issues the targets of our struggle without undermining specific case.
It is time to foreground the core issues that link all the cases together so that we can garner supporters of different stakeholders (not just activists, legco members, and professionals like architects who have already taken part in many of the cases but ordinary stakeholders and even the public whom the broader issues may affect). These core issues can be very concrete especially when we link them with the specific cases on hand. From these cases we bring forward the core issues and concretely demand, for example, a review of government policies and composition of some government agencies. In the present case, they include city planning and Antiquities & Monuments Ordinance.
Tactics :
To challenge government policies and break into the policy making process while demanding an immediate termination of demolition work, we ask concrete questions on specific case like why the city planning policy allows the Star Ferry and the Clock Tower to be demolished? What is wrong in the policy making process and then we demand to participate in reviewing and making it (That was why in one of the gatherings while I appreciate the education value and support the idea of involving citizens in making our own plan for the waterfront project I also pointed out that this is low level involvement /participation in terms of breaking into the policy making process of the state apparatus. This alone can hardly achieve anything significant because we are just complying with government’s flawed “consultation” system and not tackling the real issues. In this game, government has the right to turn down the proposal or, if they are smart, change and adopt an insignificant part of it rightly claiming that changes are necessary in terms of the project as a whole. For the general public, this is comon practice in consultation and we will lose our voice. In fact, this citizen’s waterfront development plan or the H15 proposal are not the first time that citizens made their own plans. There were quite a few precedents like the West Kowloon project. Government can just reject them or accept them without adopting them).
To challenge “強政” (of course this involves the issue of democracy and the lack of credibility of a Chief Executive not elected by the general public. But that is a long term struggle), we ask which official/department/ should be responsible for the demolition. This will lead us to officials and committee members in the “Antiquities & Monuments Office”, the “Town Planning Board”, the “Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau” and Seun among others. We demand an apology from Seun for his arrogance and for ignoring citizens demand. We ask a dialogue with him. If he refuses we will sit in front of his office and his house and follow him everywhere he goes. If we can succeed in bringing a couple of officials to their knees we can undermine Donald’s “強政” a bit and make his administration more responsive to citizens. While Central government criticized the former administration for “議而不決,決而不行” she also stressed a “Harmonious Society”. Although this is meant for the pan democrats still it will cost Donald heavily if our movement targeted at the government not to mention the rumor that Tien Pei-chun may compete for Chief Executive. With the democrats garnered over 130 votes and Tien may get more, it is questionable if Donald will get over half of the 800 votes. So he would be really worried if we targeted at his administration.
I believe I have made my points clear. I hope these can help us to really achieve something besides learning together with the public through the process.
Jimmy Choi
好報導
極好的民間報導，把一個被政府吸納的有頭有面人物，繪聲繪影地寫出來．
加油，互勉．
睇漏左
冇野，問錯野，編輯得閑請 delete
好傳神的報導…
因工作關係也常要跟若干政府部門的職員打交道，看了這篇報導，我發現基本上何承天用來回應你們的說詞，我全部都曾經從各不同政府部門的職員嘴裡聽過…
有事出了錯，責任不在他們或他們所屬的部門，一定是別的部門的責任；當時的負責人已調職，所以唔關現在的負責人事……這些說詞全都是他們的口頭蟬。
上樑不正就下樑……你知啦。
我們不是小數﹗
看完了報導，很憤怒
我有份走入地盤，呆呆被扣留廿小時的，如果何先生說見了作者就是見了市民，見了記者就見了傳媒，那麼我算不算市民？一起站在推土機上的為何不是市民？
不過，曾也不肯見市民，只喜歡玩公關，上週末看報紙時知道這個委員會改組，何先生走馬上任，我也沒有期望。因為，所謂的「改組」，只是改變一下委員會的組合，人事上的改動，不是制度上的轉變，委員會依然停留在政策低級機構，沒有影響政策的能力。面對這個殖民地老政府，市民可以點？
很多人認為，被吸納入政府所設立的委員會，就可以造成改變，但殖民地歷史告訴香港人，咨詢也是政治把戲，香港人其實沒有什麼介入政治的途徑，政府才有充耳不聞的「合法性」，看見作者勇敢在何先生面前提出質問，這是很有尊嚴的行動，而且記錄了政府代表即時的反應，公開展露於人前，我們的政府是否知醜？曾蔭權幾時才有勇氣行出來見市民？
回應s
多謝朱凱迪張圖。頭先一開inmedia主頁，嚇得我。
多謝jimmy詳細的回應。的確，公開、周全的文化／文物保護政策是重要的（我一直想寫一篇關於我搜集「中環第三期填海工程」資料的過程的文章，全文的重點在於，面對這麼大型的工程，在缺乏清析和有系統的政策和統籌之下，一個市民要了他／她的解政府，便要靠Google做整合資料的工作……），但經此一役，我始終覺得是人的問題，這些人會濫用任何制度。但好在，我們的政府比較原始，係要靠嚇的。如果今次有一千人齊齊係皇后表示反對（唔係十五萬人同天星拜拜果種），政府一定有反應。同閣下回應的標題相反，我其實暫時不寄望於任何政府人士。所以，煽風點火既工作好重要呀。
（唉，好老套。其實我又唔鐘意「集體」行為，又唔鐘意人多蝦人少。唔係講道理架咩……）
聰頭過獎。其實我仲係後悔果日無帶菜刀。
領男＆Nightmare，如何搞社運和如何跟政府打交（道），真係要跟兩位學習。我下次唔會咁無知。
程序公義和jimmy策畧
我記得余志穏當年向重建居民承諾了賠償優於七年樓齡的價值及賠償可在同區重置七年樓鹷,面積相若的單位,可是現在一件也不能對現,余志穏調職後,他再不理會自己的承諾是否對現,再者市建局現在則辯稱它已按程序和專業規則估價.官員是人,但政府有自己的規距,也有專業知識合理化它的規距,居民哪有聲音,那些官又根據什麼要幫你,結果居民及支援人士哪會再期望那些官(甚至議員和專業人士)呢?
jimmy的分析可能對,但問題是在行動上還有什麼選擇呢?當你批評制定政策的程序有問題,有幾多份報章會報導呢?最後最能觸動別人的心是集體回憶和"天星見證香港歷史"等.
學者議員等有要寫的東西已寫了,講論述大家都曉講.但外界要有相應回應才可行,現在唯一可以做的是阻止它拆皇后和保護天星那塊地,往後再看那些論述是否真的work.
A Question to M.L.
I have, as you know, put a number of questions to the Editors of Inmedia a few weeks past, respecting, among other things, the way front-page treatment is given to some but not other articles. The Editors first offered, if not irrelevant, then contradictory responses; and quickly resorted to complete silence. Two readers, tsw and U-beater, asserted that the Editors had already made an answer; none of them, however, succeeded in pointing to specific passages where an answer were to be found. One Editor, 阿藹, made a second (but also last) attempt to answer, only to demonstrate her own confusion on a very simple point.
I am not sure, whether I would receive a similar praise as "極好的民間報導，把一個被政府吸納的有頭有面人物，繪聲繪影地寫出來," should I diligently write out my experience in petitioning to the Editors. But, M.L., I pray you say, how best is it to describe the experience of not being answered?
//對於一個除了寫字甚麼都不會的人，還可以做甚麼。//
loser。
//我那天怎麼把何承天當人了，那天我怎麼沒有帶菜刀和炸藥。//
暴民。
to YT
I think the editors (particularly Ah Oi)have made a lot of effort and have taken much time to respond to your queries. I don't see you ever attempting to understand and to look at what the editors are trying to do through Inmedia, the reason being that you do not agree with them. I don't think the editors are obliged to answer every doubt or every query you have in mind. And I think all the readers of Inmedia by now knows what your stance is with regard to what Inmedia is trying to do, so there is no need for you to keep repeating it just like what Celeron or Hevangel have been doing. As a reader I would like to say, I have enough of it, thank you.
No need to repeat......
Ahchoii, I agree with you, and that's it.
Maggie Leung, I am also with you, and I heartily thank you for what you have just done for OUR lovely Star Ferry Pier. Can't imagine how such heartless people actually can LIVE on Earth.
To move forward
Thanks for your responses. Taking our officials and eventually Donald Tsang to task is exactly the opposite of 寄望於任何政府人士. We are asserting people's right to monitor our government and undermine the twisted concept of "Strong Government". My proposal is a more solid and radical one because it goes beyond 批評制定政策的程序which we have done a lot to actions against some of the administration's poor governance. It is time not to just telling them their policy has big problems but, at the same time, to demand reviewing it with them. For this we need drastic actions of which we have already employed some (hunger strike and sit-in in front of Suen’s house). I won't doubt the effects of the actions we have taken to protect the Clock Tower but we are just dealing with the results not with the causes. I think you can tell the difference of a hunger strike asking to review city planning police with citizen participation from a hunger strike targeted at stopping the demolition of the Clock Tower. Don't get me wrong. I support the hunger strike but why can't we foreground and target at the core causes too so that Suen cannot frame our action as nostalgia and leads citizens to think we are making a big fuss? Now the Clock Tower is gone. We lost our target and moved on to a new one. It is true that the same spirit continues within us but we are just endlessly led by all these "symptoms" of lacking a sense of history (genuinely or purposely) in our government and poor policy or governance. We can better sustain our action exposing and aiming at the core issues. "Education" value has been mentioned in many of the gatherings. It is a cliché. You can, if you will, find education value in every social action. It is important but it is the Lowest Common Factor only!!! The past actions are all meaningful. They have grouped together people with similar concerns and raised the awareness of some. It is a shame if we let the core issues slip away.
mistake
Sorry Maggie and Plato
I meant LCM (lowest common multiple) not LCF (factor).
好正的報導
我都要寫番篇與孫明揚對質的報導, 雖然遲咗啲, 但係原來好多人都唔知(連 inmedia 的核心成員)當日的情況.
好期待你下一篇的報導呢!
to jimmy
有日我同朋友講我要去天星工地擋車。佢話,都係既,要係當下改變現實,你一係去擋車,一係去做國家總理。
熊永逹老師(佢真係,好得,唔叫聲「老師」唔得)整左個雙贏既P2路計劃。呢個己經唔係同政府一齊評核政策決定("reviewing it with them" as you put it, hope i didn't understand it wrongly),而係**幫政府諗埋點做**,係我地個政府係無反應咋……
我好同意閣下所講既--如果唔係,我點解會去搵古物咨詢委員會呢,仲一開始咁尊敬佢地?我以為佢地會肯同市民合作呀嘛。如果要政府出力,可能真係要閣下咁既有心人入去政府先做到事。香港其實都有d民間智庫,但係政府似乎無乜理佢地既意見。
前幾年講普選,咪好似有人話香港人未成熟,未可以選自己既特首既?其實,我諗,係我地個政府未夠成熟去接受一種新既民主政治。
To Y.T. and ahchoii, an oberservation
Greeting. I have not been an active writer or commentator to Inmedia lately, i am still yet a loyal reader to this supposed to be a 'liberal', or rather, multitudinous, media. Given this, I hereby express my opinion with respect to your comments, particularly to ahchoii's.
As a READER (you are at liberty to insist that i am of particularity), i would like to see that those 'focused' articles to be of different VARIETY, rather than of one kind; to wit, the battle(s) of the 'activists'. I am by no means saying that their reports and actions are of no importance; to the contrary, I respect and appreciate their deeds. Nevertheless, I think it would not be at all amiss to say that the whole forum, at least, its front page, is TOTALLY dominated by the articles written by, or related to, the activists. Regarding this, it is inevitable for me to agree with the questions raised by Y.T. in his column, and enquiring of the editors' standpoint and attitude of 'ranking' articles.
As a result, my 'impression' of Inmedia (recently, at least) is that it is highly political, which is absolutely fine. However,what concerns me is that other 'non-political' writers and readers would, most likely, not be motivated. I believe that the editors would have taken the feedback of Y.T., whom is a fruitful contributer to this media, positively, rather than treating it as 'challenge'(initially or eventually). Taking this into account, I think that the editors had not indeed responded to Y.T. adequately. Thus, if ahchoii, as a reader, could claim that
"And I think all the readers of Inmedia by now knows what your [Y.T.'s] stance is with regard to what Inmedia is trying to do, so there is no need for you to keep repeating it just like what Celeron or Hevangel have been doing. As a reader I would like to say, I have enough of it, thank you."
I would likewise point out, firstly, that not ALL the readers here would believe that Y.T.'s arguments are unintelligible; and secondly, that I have NOT enough of it. Similarly, for argument's sake, i could also suggest that I have enough of the monotonous reports on the same subject matter dominating the front page, which, most importantly, draws the attention of the public or new readers immediately.
I understand that my arguments are based on the assumption that Inmedia is not merely a radical and political media and that it promotes different kind of article and voice, both in form and in subject matter. Otherwise, my endeavour is indeed in vain.
Many thanks.
to Maggie Leung
向我學習如何同班衰人打交(道)....完全係不敢當，我怕我自身難保。
我對上一次留言可能偏激0左0的....我無意令人以為所有公務員都係咁衰，不過可以肯定每個政府部門中...如報導所述推卸責任的官僚"梗有一個0係左右"。
只不過我之前都好似各位咁天真，以為高級0的0既官不會有膽將"卸肩"的混帳話說得如此不加掩飾。
基本上，呢個政府係欺善怕惡0既，做順民的話佢根本懶得理你，一定要0的人大大聲嘈、落手落腳有行動佢先會有0的反應，就好似今次天星事件咁。
To Jimmy
The following is the core issues or causes you mentioned. That might be the most controversial issues in practice. The first one is a bit controversial. It needs to clarify it with more evidences. e.g. how poor the current planning system is? Ironically, every planner in public and private sector practices it. The second diagnosis frame is probably shared by a lot of activists,(because some activists have already paid emphasis on "People Participation" or "People Planning" by criticising the current top down planning. however it seems not well resonant with dominant culture. Check the newspaper (which reflects the dominant culture) and see if the frame works or not.
--
About tactics, I don't know which tactics are better. we just try... Probably it varies wih the nauture of "organizing" or "organization". As you mention, be focused is key. In my opinion, if we could preserve Queen Pier or the land for Clock tower, then something become more possible, e.g. "people planning" frame. If we can't, then the prospecty for "people planning movement" gets dim, no matter how loudly we shout against poor top down governance.
--
**They are 1. Poor or no policy (天星碼頭. .. . 警署. . are results, among other things, of poor city planning, outdated Antiquities & Monuments Ordinance, and the lack of people’s voice in the related committees; West Kowloon is partly caused by the lack of a cultural policy.) and significantly 2. Donald Tsang’s equaling “強政” to not submitting to people’s demands and sentiments (We also must not underestimate the adverse effect on him of the Central Government’s famous criticism on the former administration --- “議而不決,決而不行”**
To ahchoii
"I think the editors (particularly Ah Oi)have made a lot of effort and have taken much time to respond to your queries. I don't see you ever attempting to understand and to look at what the editors are trying to do through Inmedia, the reason being that you do not agree with them."
I see the contrary: Editors, disagreeing with me, have not answered my queries at all. If you are so sure that they have, why not simply point to SPECIFIC PASSAGES in their writings, where an answer you think may be found?
I invited both tsw and U-beater to do just this; none of them did it. And now, ma'am, you are third in the line, repeating that editors have already answered, while giving NO instance of an answer at all. Ah Oi's last and very brief reply, if you remember, was founded on a miserable misunderstanding on her part (which I duly clarified). You would not think THAT to be an answer, would you?
I have very clearly stated the Seven Difficulties and the Contradiction. If you think you do see an answer somewhere, you may enlighten other readers, as well as myself, by juxtaposing one item from my challenges, against one passage from the Editors which you think answers it. Then, if I still think that it is no answer, the burden of proof will naturally fall upon me; and I shall be glad to discharge that burden. But before that, it is he who lines up to say there is an answer, to substantiate what he says. Otherwise, everybody can simply repeat some irrelevant things, and declare to the world that he has already answered whatever he need answer; everybody, including the Government.
Lastly, hevangel has just put up an article, in Chinese, on the Star Ferry Incident. I would readily disagree with some of the points he made; but at least he made some arguments, in a way (I believe) no worse than some authors whose articles have repeatedly enjoyed front-page treatment. Hevangel's article can certainly arouse discussion, even if only in the form of attacks; and it is certainly concerned with the Incident in a direct manner. We shall see whether any pair of editors would care to put it in "Focus."
Hello Maggie
this is ger
I will have a interview in commerical radio on Sat, talk about those organic nature in these movement. Can I talk about your report as an example, of course, most importantly, is to make more people know these "官"'s 嘴臉.
人在做，天在看啊
to Ger
hi Ger, please just go ahead and i hope it helps. just that this is no 'report' by nature as i myself was one of the subjects/acting agents in the whole thing so i just feel like i can't (meaning, am not able to and should not) re-tell the thing from an "objective" perspetive (which is, to me, something non-existent). Good luck!
Dear Maggie and Plato
Maggie, you put it well ". . . 幫政府諗埋點做**,係我地個政府係無反應咋. . . " This is exactly what I am suggesting --- deal with "我地個政府係無反應" TOO. It is important and useful to protect the Clock Tower and have our own plan(s). But it is also important to deal with and foreground the core issues.
Plato,you are right. If we succeeded in protecting the Clock Tower etc., it may provide us a chance to review and revise the policy making process. So I have no problem with this tactic. The only problem is that it usually does not work unless we have tens of thousands of supporters on the street. In fact we always loose. We have lost Lee Tung Street, West Kowloon (partly), the Clock Tower and many more. I am not optimistic. I have already explained the problem of focusing on individual cases so I won't repeat. I don't think foregrounding the core issues will blur our focus. On the contrary, it can bring other similar cases together in focus and reveal to the public what lurk behind all these cases and that we don't just feel nostalgic about the Clock Tower or Pier. We are also dealing with our government's insensitivity towards history and with her way of governance. This can better justify and sustain us to move from one battlefield to another.
天星之火，可以燎原
天星一劫，能觸動年輕人的神經，引起全港文化學術界及政黨的關注，實屬可喜；而曾特首的專橫和虛弱，亦在以武力清場一役之中，表露無遺。如今，民智已然喚醒，只要多加培育和引導，這點星火就能延續下去，迫令政府停止暴行，還市民一個真正值得留戀的家。
戰後「嬰兒潮」時期出生的一代，現已成為社會的骨幹，雖然大部分都是土生土長的香港人，但他們對生於斯長於斯的香港，有多少歸屬感呢？有條件的專業人士，大部分都擁有外國護照，對他們來說，單是國籍身份已是模糊不清，怎談家國認同？
年輕的一代接受了九年免費教育，識字率是提高了，但獨立思考能力卻欠奉，思想比較自由奔放的一小撮，在傳統的教育建制中生存都不易，更遑論發揮潛能。大學生的比例大幅提升，但人民的素質有沒有跟著提升呢？青少年的社會認同感和責任感，有沒有感恩於社會的栽培而有所增加呢？說到底，他們在香港現政權的操弄之下，能扮演甚麼角色？
香港本來就是由一班「過客」所組成的，要建立真正的歸屬感，恐怕非要兩三代的時間不可。香港回歸「祖國」，究竟是幸還是不幸，暫難預料。但現實的問題是，我們老中青三代經歷了文革、六四與近年內地經濟起飛的衝擊，思想上卻好像還未能完全適應過來。千年文化的認同，共產政權的現實，加上世界民主自由的大趨勢，中國新生一代，能如何走出這矛盾重重的困惑呢？
稍為關心香港事務的市民，都不難察覺特區政府有逐步摧毀本土文化和迎入大陸文化的趨勢。徒具國際視野的特區官僚，其思想與行事作風，卻早跟大陸接軌，完全失去大家風範。所謂「強政勵治」，猶如「一黨專政」這最高國策，以高壓行使權力，試問在如此政治環境之下，有智之士能有容身之所嗎？
社會上出現任何爭議，都是源於不公平和不公義，民怨沒有出路，就會愈積愈深。政府的假諮詢、真侵略，市民一一看在眼裏，如果沒有觸發的火點，大家都只有啞忍，徒嘆奈何！其實，市民反對拆天星碼頭，並非始終今天，但當局有理會過嗎？他們有尊重過市民的感受嗎？
香港是一個高消費城市，在此生活，沒有多少人能逃得過金錢的奴役。高樓價政策就已經把人民的咽喉緊緊索上，連呼吸都不容易，還能發聲嗎？幸好還有一班身段比較輕盈，沒有太大包袱和負累的熱血青年，勇敢地走出來，為那些快要被無奈淹沒的人們，吹出了第一聲號角，擦起了一點閃亮的火花。
古今中外，一切民間運動，都是由年輕人引發的，沒有他們那一般無畏無懼的精神和勇氣，又怎能對付專權的政府？但有勇無謀，或勝驕敗餒，就肯定會失敗告終。社會各界持有不同的見解，實屬正常，負面的批評和意見，其實更能加深大家的討論和了解，對整個運動來說，基本上有益無害。
大家只要保持一個堅定的共同信念，為香港，為我們的下一代，爭取一個更具人性的社區，就必定能夠凝聚廣大市民的心，達至最後的成功。拒絕接受政府的愚弄，不墮入盲目發展經濟的圈套，才能看清真相，走對方向。
年青人，你們的未來就在自己手中。不必害怕，也不好退縮，別人的攻擊，是幫助你們成長的要素，小心分析，謙虛學習，自然能走出困局。你們的心血不會白費，今天播下的種子，一定會有收成的一天。
（My blog：http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/dr_choisukmui/）
蔡淑梅小姐
相信蔡淑梅小姐的回應是善意的，不過在下有兩點意見：
1.用字問題：雖然蔡小姐的回應是善意的，但有些字眼還是有點惹人不安。首先，你說「古今中外，一切民間運動，都是由年輕人引發的，沒有他們那一般無畏無懼的精神和勇氣，又怎能對付專權的政府？但有勇無謀，或勝驕敗餒，就肯定會失敗告終，社會各界持有不同的見解，實屬正常，負面的批評和意見，其實更能加深大家的討論和了解，對整個運動來說，基本上有益無害。」，有害無害，我想要仔細與具體一點看。其次，所謂的「有勇無謀，或勝驕敗餒」，這些字眼未免太容易了，蔡小姐能再說多一點，保衛天星的市民是幾有勇，幾無謀嗎？這是搞清楚事實的問題。
2.保衛天星也關你事：蔡小姐的回應是善意的，不過，在下還是不開心，你說：「年青人，你們的未來就在自己手中。不必害怕，也不好退縮，別人的攻擊，是幫助你們成長的要素，小心分析，謙虛學習，自然能走出困局。你們的心血不會白費，今天播下的種子，一定會有收成的一天。」，新一代當然有精力去作社會改變，可是，保衛天星也關你的事，無需要苦口婆心將「年青人」掛在口邊吧，那給人一種想保持距離的感覺
回度力圖
度力圖君，
如果我的言詞令你不安，我深感抱歉！
我是由衷地欣賞和佩服天星行動中每一位勇士的，他們讓我感動，進而產生了一絲幻想，希望這真是民主運動的一線曙光。
我沒能親身參與，但也不能說與我無關。他們如今為的是公益，是每一個香港的人的份內事，所以，任何人的關注也值得尊重。
我因為看到不少攻擊保衛天星行動的批評，擔心你們受到傷害，才提出一點點愚見，給你們參考和反思。接受與否，完全是你們的自由。
前面的道路，艱險難行，沒有充足的心理準備，恐怕會堅持不來！請接受我的祝福，有志者，事竟成！
蔡淑梅