Before getting into the question, I would like to apologize in advance if I appear rude or provide some sub-standard arguments, by your standard, in this reply. After all, this is only a very humble opinion from someone who has a lot to be humble about. And for readers' and my convenience, I would refer to Mr. Leung Man-to and Mr. Leung Kai-chi hereafter as MT and KC respectively; I sincerely hope this would not appear disrespectful to anybody, though I have to admit that I am neither well-educated nor well-versed with the proper protocols of debating like a QC appearing before the Privy Council.

Whether Local "should be" Conservative or Progressive is not my focus here; it can be either, and I care not (Disclaimer: I might even incline towards "Conservative", depending on the situation). One of the real problems for discussions as such, in my humble opinion, is skipping the question of "what IS" and jumping to "what SHOULD" and, as I find in KC's and very often your case, going one step further to "what SHOULD NOT".

In this discussion between KC and MT, I do not find MT's charge in the words "一個社區眼看就要淪亡消逝了，你卻勸告他們將來不能排斥新移民，不要抗拒外來事物，這豈不是很沒意義的一件事嗎？" unconvincing: one has to wonder, is there really a "third way" on this issue? More obsolete, or, probably, just less sophisticated forms of community or neighbourhood are, indeed, being uprooted. New developments take over. In this issue, the only outcomes for the existing comunities/neighbourhoods are "move", or "stay", which are mutually exclusive. If the "old" stays, then no "new"; if the "new" is to be erected, then the "old" should be removed at best or destroyed at worst. The "third way" which would not engendering hegemony, regrettably, might be not necessarily available in this case. It is not complicated, and the wonderful, new skyscrapers and air-conditioned malls (which I enjoy to a certain extent, actually) emerging yearly, monthly and daily in this city, as well as the successful closure and demolition, just to mention, the Central ferry piers despite some minor and ineffective resistance from certain leftist "mob", offer the answer to the question "what IS": there may be an imbalance on the question of development and conservation, what "hegemony" we might actually have, and somehow someone has to address it. Jump over it three steps ahead, and the issue is missed and never to be resolved.

Of course, if one is perfectly comfortable with the balance we have now, there's no need to waste time on the issue; but if one can identify the said imbalance, skipping it and jumping three steps ahead to give an early warning about the danger of "hegemony" may be albeit overly cautious, if not something else. The folly of fighting a straw man while leaving the real existing target at-large should not be too difficult to comprehend, I suppose. And there's a lot for us to wonder when one warns about the hegemony of an already weak opposing side, while the hegemony of the other side is alive and well, not to mention dominant. In short, I see no concrete proof of the clear and present danger that justifies KC's very early pre-emptive warning - just tell me, how "hegemonic" it is? Am I going to be stoned if I stand for developmentalism? Is there a kangaroo court punishing people for choosing "development"? Is there anyone calling for blowing up IFC and Time Square and "dis-reclaim" the reclaimed land? Is a few blasts by a few "little commies" here in InMedia sufficiently damaging to ruin one's reputation and life? Are there "GreenGuards" or "GreenShirts" roaming on the streets rounding up developers for the trains to Kolyma? So far none of these questions justify an affirmative answer; hopefully someone can answer "yes" for each of these questions and provide me with some detailed facts and figures to justify this fear of "hegemony".

Going further into the question of "hegemony", one has to wonder about the merits of the pro-Local or pro-preservation arguments and what in such arguments aroused KC's fear; while I am not well-read at all on this issue, articles and points put forward in this very site have already offered a few perspectives to support the somewhat "anti-development" view, be it socio-economic, emotional/psychological, political, or whatsoever. Is there little worthwhile or even semi-useful from these arguments? As a very ordinary layman, I am not to judge the merits of such arguments; but supposedly the stuff I've come across so far has put forward enough "-isms" and jargons to score points in an one-upping Hongkong-style debate on current affairs; few arguments have been raised by the other side, and it leaves one wondering whether "development" is in itself a Commandment which should be obeyed but not questioned. The line you gave, "Perhaps many HK people believe honestly that Development and Preservation ought to be balanced; that some communities ought to give way to developmental needs; that, while the ambience, the life-style, the social world offered by those communities are no doubt valuable, it is attractive nonetheless to have a mall nearby, it being capable of developing into something equally lively and humane", is among the most earnest effort to defend "development" I have seen so far, though I have some reservations still: given the abundance of shops, restaurants and malls and the well-connected public transport network we have in the city's urban area, it would be helpful if development supporters can shoulder part of the burden of proof and tell us why "it is attractive nonetheless to have a FURTHER mall nearby", thus answering the question why "some communities ought to give way to developmental needs".

Another debatable issue regarding your "note" is the assertion that MT proposes a "hegemony" of "the little ones". While it's obvious that MT has taken a side in the discussion and the albeit stinging phrase "一個身居廟堂的學者" might be triggering fears of "class warfare", there is no explicit mentioning of erecting a "little one hegemony" which excludes others' rights to "write Hong Kong". Deeming something better is one thing; deeming something having a better claim than another for a certain action is another, supposedly. By mixing these two into one and charging MT of proposing a "hegemony", it may be a bit unfair a treatment for MT. And presumably there is no need for me to reiterate what is the prevalent "definition" of Hong Kong for the time being, at least in my eyes (according to my blogging experience and the sort of views/arguments I've come across in mainstream media throughout the years; thus entirely disputable in terms of accuracy and objectivity).

A basic understanding in Hong Kong and Chinese history is sufficient to tell us why the fear of anything leftist is so prevalent here; I myself shiver in fright as well whenever I read Maureen Dowd or Arianna Huffington. Yet at this point of time and in this place, for all the fears, questions or even charges raised by KC and you I fail to see anything concrete to substantiate them - the "progressive hegemony", the "little one hegemony", or whatsoever, appear more like a materialization of some intuitive fear that I can neither rationalize or come to terms with. Again, I have to apologize that I, a know-nothing simpleton, can only come up with such a clumsy and messy piece of litter-bin - and I can only pray that I had not made myself an embarassment laughter by writing up such a post. Thank you.

As I've been around long enough to witness some of your epic battles against the "home side" here, I have no illusion about the fact that I am a know-nothing simpleton compared to you (at least, I have to check the dictionary first before using words like priori, imumdate or morass) and my opinion can at best be addressed as "humble", if not outright rubbish. Anyway, in order to mitigate your suspicion, I am more than pleased to upgrade my self-identification and my opinion to "a mean, malicious and hostile John Doe" and "not humble at all opinion". So much for the issue here.

A question I would like to ask is why is it necessary to stick the label of "hegemony" on "championing the cause of the weak". As I am untrained in sociology or philosophy or whatsoever, I have problem identifying how and what "hegemonic"/"hegemony" it is - isn't hegemony the domination of one thing over others is the same sphere to the level of exclusion or, at least, suppression, without serious and generally accepted justification? To qualify the problems are:

(1) are mall-lovers being denied the right to write HK, speak out, or whatsoever, by the hegemonic "little ones"?

(2) is "HK" such a "small book" that its writing by one party from a certain preferred perspective of their own can be deemed "hegemonic", that other parties with other perspectives are not allowed to write on their own, and that a certain party which seems to be writing is obliged to include all other perspectives, as a demonstration of fairness? And,

(3) is there, actually, one unitary and official version "HK" that some party is actually attempting to write?

In KC's eyes and yours, I suppose, mall-lovers are so excluded, insulted, tortured and persecuted to the level of being confined to unspeakable sufferings like endangered animals that they require specific protection and their voice/cause must be specifically made to be heard, if they do not make it, as a balancing act. But, if this is KC's and your own observation from daily life experience, then I can only say that we may be living in some different communities that are very distinct from one another, and thus the huge differences: for every jeer heaped on mall-lovers or development supporters or whosoever, as observed by KC and you, I see a possibly similar, if not more, amount of jeers piled on the "mobilizers" (e.g. "阻住地球轉" or "食飽飯冇屎屙", just to quote two I've been hearing more often). So where's the hegemony, after all? Anyone really silenced by some midnight knocks on the door? Or, is it generally the overall picture in the public sphere of speech and discussion that "每當有人站出來說逛商場也是香港經歷的一部分時，迎接的是蔑視，是恥笑，難聽的說話與反日憤青的往往有過之而無不及", without circumstances happening the other way round? And, who are these "mobilizers", with their meager number and resources other than a few blogs and a platform or two like InMedia but no power to inflict material damage on those opposing them, to qualify as "hegemons"? Their justifications may not be generally accpeted; their view in itself may be excluding other elements; but do they IN ACTUALITY EXCLUDES, SUPPRESS AND DOMINATE OTHERS FROM THE DISCUSSION? Without actual domination, where's "hegemony"? Mud-slinging between both sides there may be, but not quite a hegemony of something as KC or you perceive.

Then we have the issue of "writing HK". While it can be acknowledged that "Local" has its diversity and that "逛商場也是香港經歷的一部分" (just to mention, I've been to IFC, Festival Walk, Golden Computer Centre last weekend), is it a must that this diversity be reflected by "writing HK" in only one certain manner, that is, the Hong Kong people writing it simultaneously as a uniform group AND put forward anything seen, heard, tasted, felt and thought, at once s hegemonic only if one perspective crowds out others and forbidding other perspectives. What about different parties with different perspectives write theirs on their own? Is HK so small and official a "book" that when non-mall-lovers write their own version of HK, the mall-lovers are eternally banished from any version of HK? Is there one and only one orthodox way to have HK "written", and that a preference of one thing over some other competing choices that comes with the rejection of and absence of acknowledgement to those competing choices is "hegemonic"? Welcome, then, to the "hegemony of presentation of diversity" - and I would be very amused if some day a Pepsi ad is required to present Coca's side of the story at the same time.

In fact, these are only peripheral issues; as I look at your statement that

"I took the position that the mobilizers had failed to tell us, why the mall-lovers must not have the same right to write HK."

I have to wonder what MT or the mobilizers had to tell us, if they didn't even assert that "mall-lovers must not have the same right to write HK". MT's question "Who has the right to write HK?" was asked, but at least he himself did not slip in any answer. Did he imply those like "南美原住民" or "澳洲原住民" having a right to write xxx? Very likely yes. Did he imply the "stories" of "南美原住民" or "澳洲原住民" more valuable than those of "石油公司" or "白人政權"? Likely as well. Yet did he say "xxx HAS LESS RIGHT TO WRITE BLAH-BLAH-BLAH"? "Inundate it in a morass of many other things" (too lazy to come up with my own version, my apologies), but please think of these statements:

(a) I prefer A to B.
(b) I think B has more right than A does.

(i) 我會選陳太，唔會選葉劉。
(ii) 陳太比葉劉更有權獲選。

(一) 我鍾意聽李克勤唱歌多過陳奕迅。
(二) 李克勤比陳奕迅更有權唱歌。

Similar statement pairs for comparison can go on and on and on; and the same goes for the assertion that MT or the mobilizers generally "reject the claims of the mall-goers a priori, but speak of "the HK people" in the grand collective" - though you may argue that the mobilizers' use of tags like "Local" or "People(s)" is already generalizing and thus these people are guilty as charged. Yet, in MT's article, you can just try, and see whether anyone is crying "nay" over your statement that "a mall-lover should, without further reasons to the contrary, be encouraged to write HK as he experienced it as well". And see, whether he was citing that "DEMOCRATIC ASPIRATION" which under your description is not unlike populism, or actually vice versa which calls for leaving a bit of scraps for the "minorities". People like MT or me might prefer to see an increased portion of blah-blah-blah in "the writing of HK" and that some other elements are already having a pretty established, if not dominant status, in the sphere that we see no need to give them further acknowledgement or credence; it is not necessarily moral, but at least I myself would like to say "thanks but no thanks" for the powerful tag of "hegemony" though it makes me feel very flattered (never in my life have I been so empowered).

Prudence is a virtue, but exaggerating dangers is another thing. If one has a sore over certain things proposed by certain individuals of certain views, it is his liberty to have it scratched or whatsoever; just don't spill over the venom on someone else. So much here, and I am not going to bother you further as I have run out of steam after turning out these two pieces of dung. Enjoy your day.

孟加拉對待窮人之道，本來不外乎救濟或高利貨，但尤努斯的農村銀行，就開出了第三條路．這需要知識（金融博士），實力（成功商人），勇氣，和一顆心．

這個比喻可能不當，但香港即使真的有第三條路，誰有真正實力把它走出來？笑第三條路是犬儒的，可能是看定了香港沒有這類人．果如是，香港真是沒前途可言．

在此先向梁教授致歉：先前沒有閱讀週六刊於《明報》的文章，不曾充分了解你的立場及論點便匆匆「下海」打咀炮，還扯上你的文章，不好意思。

於哲學、社會學之類認識很少，有關術語更是不甚了了 (不學之過)，所以只能大膽臆測梁教授你所指的「本質化」是甚麼：在下的理解是「根據若干特質，將比較龐大或複雜的事物簡化並定性為某種概念」，大概和 "generalization" 或 "essentialization" 差不多吧。回想「集體回憶」化為「爛 gag」的過程，你說的確有道理。涉及不同地區、社群的城市規劃問題，確實是難以一刀切用單一本質化的概念籠統包含；一擊不中，難免反噬，確實應該留意。只是在下沒有參與任何社運活動 (最「激烈」也不過七一遊行、天星碼頭前舉蠟燭)，之前對你所說的「上綱上線到任何的商場本質上都是損害香港」有點懷疑而已：你親身參與有關活動，也許在那些飯盒會研討會上親耳聽見不少人說「商場萬惡」，有感而發，固非在下所能知；我在這邊看貼文，倒沒有看見很多人作如是說，新舊新城市對照反而見過，所以看見你說的問題那麼嚴重險惡，覺得有點奇怪吧了。

在下不是 activist，人懶又沒創意，主張是沒有的，說了也和不說差不多；只是我常想，將個別個案各自獨立處理，只強調最「現實」的錢、就業生計、交通、污染，將「定義香港」之類的東西放在一旁，也許會易 sell 一點，大眾看起來較難反感或一頭霧水；可是這也不過是「社工/區議員」模式，幾十年來都有人如此去做，成效如何我不敢說。

而且，若涉及的事件是舊建築/古蹟保育，用「現實」角度基本上可 sell 的重點不多 - 以天星皇后為例，人家一句「唔填開唔搞工程邊有飯開呀」，即時「將死」，不然紮鐵工潮開始時，有社運中人現身其中時慘遭柴台。貼市講現實難 sell，但 sell 價值講「歷史」、「文化」，便難免「本質化」的問題 。「歷史」、「文化」，不定義不歸納，根本理解不了；不作若干程度的「排斥」，又不能「定義」 - 沒有選擇、沒有定義，多元及包容只會淪為不設防；英國人搞 "multi-culturalism"，落得今天英國人對「英國是甚麼」只能目瞪口呆 - 完全多元，便是「無」，沒有論述、沒有取捨，無所為、無所不為，根本就沒有 "cause" 去 "fight for"，和道長舉的「後現代」例子其實異曲同工。到了這個地步，商場不商場，舊區不舊區，還爭甚麼？動員甚麼？動員失效，「本質化」容或有責(儘管我對「本質化」的嚴重程度存疑，姑置不論)，但若然城中人對建一百座商場也留不下一個舊社區的事實始終視若無睹，甚至懶得理會甚麼「論述」、「本質化」(activists 不用開口，發展支持者便已經劈面一句「阻住地球轉」、「食飽飯冇屎屙」，才不理會本不本質化)，動員或許已不再是「本質化」與否的問題，而是涉及的「人」有沒有被動員的可能。收起「本質化」的口號，或許會有幫助 - 始終「本質化」捉錯用神，難免弄巧反拙；但最後有多少效用，在下不敢樂觀。

至於「第三條路」，尤努斯也好，紀登斯也好，「第三條路」不過是左右兩點之間的一點，靠的還是梁教授你說的「包容」。「包容」，即是大家講心，「捱義氣」/「蝕下底」；誰要「蝕底」多一點，看的不外是誰有心(韋言兄所指的勇氣和心)、有多少空間可以「蝕底」。講「心」，若按韋言兄舉例，尤努斯有知識、實力，在自由/市場經濟下他根本用不著搞這樁 「善事」(其實並非不用還錢，只是條件較寬厚)，因為他沒有責任這麼做(善事/「賺少啲」，純屬自願)，但他就是做得出這回事；在美國，畢菲特即使沒有真正做些甚麼，至少也會對胡亂減稅看不過眼，指斥其非；在香港，四叔公開「股神秘笈」已是最大的「善舉」，郭家兄弟平日少說話，已算「有品」，至於加乘、肥陳、Sir Gordon 之流，更不足道。香港的這群 "haves"，賺少一毫幾分已經如喪考妣，還說「蝕下底」？換了 "little ones" (Y.T. 很喜歡這用法)又有多少「底」可以「蝕」？市區舊樓拆了便要搬進天水圍將軍澳「邊疆之地」、小店「收皮」後便要打份牛工喪失自主。這邊沒有尤努斯畢菲特肯當「傻仔」，另一邊根本沒有本錢當「傻仔」，兩點之間已完全堵塞，何來第三條路？

須得承認，我沒有理想(前提：我沒有能力)；不認為第三條路是犬儒，但的確是「看定了香港沒有這類人」。如果「香港前途」化身為恆生指數，我會用一半身家沽期指，不斷加倉轉倉，直至退休為止；可惜現實中，根本沒有這種「期指」。

如果KC的第三條路，只是中間路線，我會非常失望，因為這只是死路一條．

正如尤努斯的農村銀行，跟本不是賺少了錢，而是開墾了一片新的市場，把窮人的經濟潛力發揮出來．借貨利息與抵押品掛鈎，是平衡風險的一貫做法，所以窮人才要受高利資之苦．理論上說這樣計算會高估風險，但看業績的銀行有無膽量去測試這個理論？尤努斯就是有這樣的勇氣去闖．我所說的勇氣，是指破舊立新的勇氣．

鰂魚涌的水族廣場，是一條有可能的第三條路，業主希望把金魚街的概念搬進商場內．成功與否，不語置評．但不可說香港完全無人嘗試，不過動機當然不是維護本土特色．

"任何的運動要成功，都需要普羅大眾的支持。"

為甚麼對這句近乎"阿媽係女人"的說法，你的反應會這麼大？

當然，如果把這句理解成　"任何的運動要成功，一開始便要普羅大眾的支持。"　就怪不得你扯火．

如果把這句理解成　"任何的運動要成功，最終都需要普羅大眾的支持。"　就說了等於沒說．

得到普羅大眾支持，未必表示運動會成功．文革，全民煉鋼，大躍進等，都是由上而下，槽榚之極的社會運動．（是呀，當年的人真的看成是社會運動呀！）

究竟KC是否真的對本土行動有敵意，我不知道．但你近期以乎頗為火爆，請保重身體．

一般對事件不瞭解的 "普羅大眾" 會對本土行動的誤會是完全可以理解的. 雖然我們花了 97 天的時間一面"解放皇后碼頭", 一面透過各種方式來解釋我們的訴求, 但是一般只看東方日報的香港人還是以為本土行動只是 "反發展" 而己. 或許我們應該更努力到處擺街站, 落區開居民大會 ... 等等. 有很多該做但沒有做的, 都應該檢討.

汽車碼頭不是一般市民, 他是以同一個領域 (i.e. 批判領域)的角度來 "本質化" 本土行動的. 這種惡意的扣帽子是很奇怪的事情, 當然不能接受囉.

以他聲稱對社會運動的瞭解 (相信他應該有去過皇后碼頭吧?) , 不應該會有那麼離譜的再現 (representation). 所以我才不明白到底在想什麼. 把本土行動本質化成 "反商" , 對他有何好處? 難道是為了 "講得不清不楚的第三條路 或 進步的發展觀" 舖路嗎? 是的話就快快把 "第三條路" 或 "進步的發展觀" 拿出來分享吧, 一直無厘頭的本質化本土行動, 再攻擊有什麼好處呢??

皇后碼頭運動有很多值得批判及檢討的地方. 本土行動也只是其中一個參與者, 還有很多其它團體及個人都參加. 既使如此, 有關本土行動做得不好或錯的地方, 我們當然可以會接受囉.

對於一般人的誤解, 我們會繼續解釋. 我們己經在碼頭很有耐性的解釋了97天, 當然會繼續解釋下去囉. 社會運動 = 不停不停的解釋及不停不停的反省. :)

最困難其實是要找出第三條路，可能根本是很易走的．尤努斯的農村銀行，不見得特別難成立，當然我們冇錢冇料就冇得講．

嘗試把一些傳統或舊有的東西於進商場內，總比阻住地球轉或消滅舊文化好一點吧．你可以肯定沒有一個商場找到突破點，由這些你認為左抄右抄的槪念到逹新的境界？

其實現在的高檔商場已經太多，如果本土行動有人能夠找到方法，勸服那怕是只有一個地產商改變發展模式，香港就可能出現新景象．畢竟香港是被地產商拖着鼻子走的．這個可能就是要找的第三條路．地產商一日不覺悟，很難想像香港政府會改變態度，

//天星皇后運動中, 本土行動反對的是建 400米長, 50米高的摩地大廈 (這是大摩地, 還有數個小摩地) . 在這個黃金地段蓋香港最大的高級商場, 您以為是會給 "普羅大眾" 購物的嗎? 我猜您或許不是普羅大眾, 所以在中環及金鐘的高級商舖逛街不會覺得有壓迫感.//

在黃金地段蓋高級商廈有什麼問題﹖難道你要在中環起公屋嗎﹖有限資源﹐價高者得﹐很合理。市中心土地有限﹐自然因成本效益要起回報大的建築物。

普羅大眾要逛商舖﹐為什麼一定要去中環和金鐘﹐他們不可以去旺角荃灣沙田逛商舖嗎﹖高級商舖不起在中環金鐘﹐難道應該起在天水圍阮朗嗎﹖

當然從城市設計的角度去看﹐市中心必須要有足夠的公共空間(如廣場和公園)﹐若我們看填海計劃﹐市中心的公共空間面積增加﹐已經乎合城市設計的要求。填海新得到的土地﹐一半用來增加公共空間﹐一半用來起新商廈﹐有什麼問題﹖為什麼公共空間有增加的前題下﹐還要堅持不可以起商廈﹖

汽車碼頭君

實在希望看到你認真回應yc，從中學習，縱使你認為他程度太低，至少也該指出其觀點的拙劣處，解釋你不屑回應的原因，這也是一個讀書人(至目前為止，你仍未說服到我你達至學者的應有水平)對普通讀者起碼的尊重吧。

八月十一日，馬傑偉教授於專欄內這樣說：

//汽車碼頭的作者，就是在保育的前提下，對本土行動的批評與反省。但希望「讓公眾知道同路的人也有不同取向。這樣，只對個別的抗爭者不滿，而非否定整場運動的理念，才能成為公眾的一個選項。」抗爭者是否合理？保育有何具體的對話可能？下一步應怎麼走？這篇短文不能說得清楚，但請關心本土文化的朋友，到汽車碼頭看一看，異見之中的異見，把保育討論推往更多元化的方向。//

可見他對你是有所期許的，你更沒道理在這時候守口如瓶吧。

另外，我想問，你說"獨媒不是一個沉實討論問題的好地方。"，這算不算是一種本質化的定義？

嗱, 唔好話我偏幫 Y.T, 作為粉絲係理所當然的. 難得佢中英一齊嚟, 版面亂七八糟都咁多箭飛嚟飛去, 淨係呢個場面, 都要上下焦點, 梁文道嗰篇行埋一邊啦.