Reviews & Articles

圖片說明：
1. 香港，薄扶林：護土牆被刪除的塗鴉（圖片由作者提供）
2. 香港，金鐘：港鐵通風口被刪除的塗鴉（圖片由作者提供）
3. 香港，金鐘：電車站被刪除的塗鴉，（圖片由作者提供）
4. 香港，灣仔：法輪功在行人天橋上拉起帆布（圖片由作者提供）
5. 香港，銅鑼灣：交通燈控制箱被刪除的塗鴉（圖片由作者提供）

Captions:
1. Deleted graffiti, retaining wall, Pokfulam, Hong Kong (photo: John Batten)
2. Deleted graffiti, MTR airvent, Admiralty, Hong Kong (photo: John Batten)
3. Deleted graffiti, tramways shed, Admiralty, Hong Kong (photo: John Batten)
4. Falun Gong canvassing on pedestrian overpass, Wan Chai, Hong Kong. (photo: John Batten)
5. Deleted graffiti, traffic-light control box, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong (photo: John Batten)



(Please scroll down for English version)


特朗普有什麼不好說的事？他自大、小器又愚昧，他尊崇體制，破壞力十足。應該差不多了。還有，他毫無幽默感。任何擁有相當權力的領袖，都應該懂得運用幽默，更重要的，是懂得接受幽默，這些都是必須的平衡手段。特朗普過去犯了那麼多錯誤、走錯過那麼多路，他愛酸又愛炫，而且完全錯讀諷刺和反話，你可能會認為他得不到美國選民歡心，肯定沒有機會獲選連任，對嗎？還是有機會？即使如此，美國總統選舉的評論家均未有馬上完全否定他與民主黨的對手拜登之戰沒有勝出機會。

一廂情願從來都不是生活中的好策略，更遑論政治。希拉莉參與美國最高領導人選舉時，支持者已認清這事實，他們至今仍然吸牙切齒。上屆美國總統選舉，是希拉莉落敗多於特朗普勝出。要宣佈勝出選舉，參選人必須能吸引選民在投票當日把票投給自己。香港的立法會選舉將於9月6日舉行，還有不到兩個月的時間！泛民在上一輪區議會選舉中取得重大勝利，贏得超過90%議席，所以即將舉行的立法會，泛民本來必勝無疑。所有人在區選勝出那晚都這樣說。就連中聯辦也這麼認為！

隨著香港的反政府示威延續至2020年，北京也考慮以（其他）策略遏制示威。終極招數在幾星期前公佈，就是極速（在2020年6月30日晚上11時正）頒布及實施港區國安法。「一國兩制」的重點即時轉移到一國上。中央政府去年對政治接受程度劃下的絕對紅線：不能接受高呼香港獨立。現在，新的國家安全法包含了顛覆、分離、恐怖主議和勾結外國勢力。如果香港有就條例在立法會進行辯論和通過基本法23條，上述範圍本來可以由該條例涵蓋，而草擬時也會沿用普通法。新的國家安全法以內地的法律風格寫成，很多條文都有其含糊之處。

正在，政見不同的兩方都急不及待地告訴市民，他們眼中新法例下有什麼不合法。例如，政府很快指出高叫「光復香港，時代革命」 的示威者將會干犯新法例。然而，在香港，要決定某人是否犯法，仍有待獨立的司法制度下，經法院聽取證據後才有結論。對於一直行之效，容許最高至終審法院的普通法司法覆核制度，新法例的一大規限是最終決定權在內地手中。在任何意義不明的情況（又或對裁決有不同意的地方），人大常委將會是最終仲裁人，可以推翻香港法院所作的任何決定。

我們都處於含糊不清的狀況 –– 新法例的條文未經驗證，也沒有人知道界線何在。我們等待觀察警方如何執法，而法院又如在新國安法下提出檢控。也要静候觀察內地會否推翻任何香港司法決定。

與此同時，公眾的行為已受壓抑。憂心忡忡的使用者都把自己的臉書帳號換上化名， 而黃色經濟圈則紛紛在店面移除挑釁性標語。但是，資深的中央政府反對者卻有新的安排。法輪功繼續在灣仔前往入境處的行人天橋上拉起帆布，就如他們多年以來所做的一樣。但是他們所展示的不是舊橫幅，又或指控「邪惡政府」的口號。他們現在採用較低調的手法，簡單地說「法輪大法好」和「真善忍好」。香港很多行人天橋和行人隧道的牆上，還有一些黃色經濟圈的店內，寫有抗爭字語的便條紙換上了不同顏色的空白貼紙。空白標貼的沉默，就和它們所取代的文字般有力。同樣地，示威者現在於商場中「和你shop」時只使用白紙，當中的空白暗喻著言論自由正被壓抑，儘管受壓的範圍仍未經驗證。

諷刺的是，這種暗喻在城中很多牆上出現。官方以油漆蓋過口號的方法來清除反政府塗鴉，竟有類似的效果。口號可以輕易擦走，但在人們心中的卻不易抹去。

香港市民在2020年7月1日馬上察覺到政治形勢有所改變。但泛民政治人物呢？在國家安全法頒布前，泛民曾誓言如果能夠在即將舉行的選舉贏得大多數議席，便會全面阻止立法會運作，以迫使政府處理「五大訴求」。情況現在已不再一樣。

我懷疑公眾現在正尋求由理性、有力的泛民領導立法會，因為這是唯一一個合法的議事場合，容許參與者自由發言，同時監察政府。那些以不斷拉布、耍把戲和身體衝突為「策略」的日子要在立法會告終了。這是唯一一個可以相對安全地進行激烈辯論的地方，而且社會需要立法會來應對有強硬國安法支持，正再次活躍起來的香港政府。

泛民應連成一線，積極告訴選民他們已作出改變，將會擔任強而有力的反對派，就政府施政所有範疇提出其他政策選擇。否則，想再一次輕易重演近期區議會選舉的成功，將只是一廂情願。說容易從來都不容易！



原文刊於《明報周刊》，2020年7月9日



A new era of rational pan-democrat leadership?

by John Batten


What can’t be said about Donald Trump? His egoism. His petty silliness. His destructiveness of revered institutions. That covers almost everything. And, he has no sense of humour. Humour – to give, and more importantly, take – is a necessary leveler for any leader who has a bit of power. You would think that Trump, with his past mistakes, missteps, his sour demeanour, fondness for glitz and total misreading of satire and irony, would be off-putting to American voters. He surely has no chance to be re-elected for a second term, has he? Hasn’t he? American presidential election pundits, however, hesitate to entirely dismiss his chances against his Democratic rival, Joe Biden.

Wishful thinking is rarely a good strategy in life, let alone politics. Supporters of Hillary Clinton’s run to be the U.S. commander-in-chief still bristle knowing this! Clinton lost the last presidential election, rather than Trump winning it. To be declared a winner, voters must actually cast their vote for a candidate on election day. Hong Kong’s Legislative Council election is on 6 September – in a short two months’ time! After the great electoral successes by pan-democrats at the last District Council elections, winning 90% of seats, the coming Legislative Council was going to be a shoo-in for the pan-democrats. Everyone said so after that election night victory. Down at the Liaison Office, they also thought so!

So, as Hong Kong’s anti-government protests continued into 2020, (other) strategies to curtail the protests were being considered in Beijing. The ultimate strategic manoeuvre, announced just weeks ago, was to quickly enact and bring into force (at precisely 11pm on 30 June 2020) Hong Kong’s new national security law. Immediately, ‘one country, two systems’ suddenly shifted in weight towards one country. The absolute red line of political acceptability had previously been drawn last year by the central government: calls for Hong Kong independence were unacceptable. Now, the new national security law encompasses subversion, secession, terrorism and collusion with foreign powers. These areas would have been covered in the provisions of Article 23 of the Basic Law if Hong Kong had ever debated and passed that law through the Legislative Council, and, it would have been written with the common law in mind. The new national security law is mainland law-styled and many provisions are ambiguous.

Now both sides of the political divide have immediately jumped-in to tell the public what they think is and isn’t legal under the new law. For example, the government quickly declared that protesters chanting “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” would be infringing the new law. However, in Hong Kong, it remains that our independent judicial system, hearing evidence in court, will decide if any law has been broken by an individual. The great proviso to the time-tested common law process of judicial review up to and including the Court of Final Appeal, is that the new law has a mainland veto. In any cases of ambiguity (or disagreement with a decision) the NPC standing committee could be the final arbiter and override any decision by a Hong Kong court.

We are in murky waters – the provisions of the new law are untested and its boundaries are unknown. We wait to see how the police enforces and how our courts preside prosecutions under the new national security law. And wait, to see if the mainland overturns any Hong Kong judicial decisions.

In the meantime, public behaviour is being curtailed. Apprehensive users are changing their Facebook names to pseudonyms and yellow economy businesses are removing provocative signage. But, veteran opponents of the central government have a new choreography. The Falun Gong continues canvassing on the pedestrian bridge leading to Immigration Tower in Wan Chai, as they have for many years. Rather than showing older banners and messages condemning an “evil government”, they now appear to be employing a muted approach, simply saying that, “Falun Dafa is Good” and “Being Truthful, Kind and Patient is Good.” On the walls of Hong Kong’s pedestrian overpasses and underpasses, and in some yellow economy shops, written protest post-it messages have been replaced by blank post-it messages of different colours. The silence of the empty messages is as powerful as the text messages they replaced. Similarly, blank pieces of paper are now held aloft by protesters as they ‘shop’ in shopping malls: the papers’ blankness is a metaphor for the stifling of free speech. Although, the extent of that stifling is still untested.

This metaphor is ironically replicated on the city’s walls. Official efforts to clean anti-government graffiti has had the same result: painted-over slogans. The slogans can easily be erased, but what is in people’s hearts is not so easy to shift.

The Hong Kong public immediately recognized that the political landscape changed on 1 July 2020. But do pan-democrat politicians? Before the national security law was announced, pan-democrats had vowed, if they won a majority of seats at the forthcoming election, to completely block the work of the Legislative Council to force the government to deal with protesters’ ‘5 demands.’ It’s different now.

I suspect the public is now looking for rational, strong pan-democrat leadership in the Legislative Council, as it is the one legitimate forum that allows free speech and oversight of government policies. The days of such ‘tactics’ as continual filibustering, play-acting and physical confrontation are now over in the Legislative Council. It is the one place where vigorous debate is relatively safe and so necessary to tackle a re-energized Hong Kong administration that has the backing of a hardline national security law.

The pan-democrats should come together and vigorously tell their electorate that they have also changed, that they will be a strong opposition that will propose policy alternatives in all areas of government administration. Or else, it will be wishful thinking that they easily replicate their electoral success of the recent District Council election. Easy is never easy!


Originally published in Ming Pao Weekly, 9 July 2020. Translated by Aulina Chan.