商報論壇: 北望神州 分配改革堵塞「隱性收入」 : 叢詳

 
北望神州

分配改革堵塞「隱性收入」



近年來，隨中國民眾收入的大幅提高，各類消費品市場日趨熱旺。另一方面，由於貧富差距加大，社會矛盾加深，令國家的公共社會政策不協調，體制改革的問題日益突出。種種事實表明，內地當前的貧富懸殊和分配不公，同「隱性收入」有直接關係。這個問題將直接關係中國社會的穩定，同時緊扣各類社會矛盾。不認真解決將近20年來日趨嚴峻的貧富懸殊問題，收入分配改革就無法成功，這也是未來中國政治體制改革要首先切入的一大難題。



爭論揭發「 隱性收入」



早前，內地學術層面發生一場關於「隱性收入」問題的大爭論。爭論的一方是國家統計局官員，另一方則是學者。這在以往內地的爭論中十分罕見。據了解，首先是學者王小魯公開發表了一份研究報告，指出國家統計局在統計環節上遺漏了社會的「隱性收入」，數額高達9萬多億元，其中5萬億多元是「灰色收入」。報告發表後，國家統計局兩位官員王有捐、施發啟以專家個人身份在該局的官方網站上反駁。爭論的學者一方認為中國的「隱性收入」很高，是中國市場經濟不完善的產物，也是特殊利益集團操控經濟造成的社會不公。而統計局官員一方則不願意面對制度性的弊端，只滿足於為官方的數據辯解。



根據學者一方研究報告的統計，在包括了各類「隱性收入」之後，2008年與2005年相比，內地居民的可支配收入總額增長了近七成，與同期GDP的增幅接近。儘管收入增幅很大，但卻極不均衡。如按城鎮平均各收入層家庭一成分組，2008年城鎮最高的那一成家庭與最低的那一成家庭相比，人均收入相差65倍，而官方的統計則只有23倍。從現時內地各類工資與職務等級水平來看，家庭收入是不會差距那麼大的，很顯然，這就是巨大的「隱性收入」存在之緣故。正是龐大的「隱形收入」、「灰色收入」使貧富差距加大，分配不公平嚴重，官民衝突激化，成為了內地社會矛盾爆發的火山口。



市場與權貴的結合



從雙方討論的內容來看，學者一方認為「隱性收入」很高，凸顯了貧富差距加大；官員一方則認為收入被高估，只側重於統計方法上的澄清。事實上，到底存不存在「隱性收入」，早已不是一個學術問題。龐大的「隱性收入」如何計算出來，無疑有很多數據統計上要考究，但關鍵是它的產生，與市場和權貴的結合是否存在必然聯繫。



近年內地社會矛盾趨向尖銳化，各類主客觀原因固然很多，不少涉及體制上的滯後，非短時間內能夠解決。但社會分配的嚴重不公平，貧富差距的日益擴大，相信是其中一個重要原因。中國經濟雖然取得很大發展，已成為世界第二大經濟體，但由於地域遼闊，人口眾多，總體上說仍是發展中國家，屬人均中低收入國家。然而，今日的中國卻成為全球主要奢侈品消費大國，最大的汽車銷售市場，房價的漲幅居世界前列，這難道正常嗎？為什麼在大多數民眾的收入仍處中低水平的情況下，能支撐這麼龐大的奢侈品市場、汽車市場、房地產市場呢？



正視分配制度改革



事實上，「隱性收入」正是在市場經濟欠完善，體制改革不徹底的情況下的產物，正由於現行體制缺乏對股市、樓市、投資市場及各類經濟活動的有效監管，使少數人不合理獲得高收入，佔據了社會財富，攬括了經濟高速發展的成果，而廣大民眾卻未能享受到應有利益，造成了嚴重的分配不公平，加劇了貧富差距。



故此，近年中國政府已經注意到要手進行分配制度改革。今年3月全國人大、政協會議期間，溫總理的政府工作報告中，也首次提出政府要推進收入分配制度的改革，以改變日趨嚴重的貧富懸殊問題。而人大代表、政協委員的提案建議，更是大量涉及此域。



「隱性收入」問題的提出和討論，正是這一社會大環境下的公開表現。事實上，在現時法律制度不健全，社會監督不到位的情況下，「隱性收入」是很難控制的。收入越高，繳稅越少。因為公開性的工資收入是無法逃稅的，但非工資性的各類收入，雖不能說是非法收入，逃稅的空間卻很大，漏洞也很多。如何堵塞這部分「隱性收入」，正是未來中國收入分配改革的關鍵所在。

我爸是趙連海

我爸是趙連海

五歲的趙鵬潤已經懂得爸爸跟其他爸爸不一樣，我爸是趙連海，我愛爸爸，5288。只是想見爸爸一面，法院外武警兇狠地擋路，又推又鎖的。五歲的趙鵬潤哭叫爸爸啊，周圍的人心酸得不忍心喊他乖。這小傢伙，叫聲很大，可誰都知道，他爸是趙連海，他就是三十多萬個受毒奶粉禍害的腎結石寶寶其中之一。鵬潤是吃母乳的，周歲後，據父親趙連海的陳述，他們跟其他家長一樣，滿以為把孩子的營養搞好，得多多消費各種奶品，讓孩子發育得妥當，有助益。五歲的趙鵬潤跟其他結石寶寶一樣，被驗出腎功能出事，左腎結石，後遺症各方各面。一個五歲的人兒，做完了各種檢測，新聞報道完了，奶粉商人放了幾個屁，就沒事人一樣過日子了。這批懷抱住孩子哭腫了眼的家長，上告中央，要討個公允。趙連海牽頭喊了口號，原以為，影帝溫家寶就會老老實實，摸到結石寶寶之家，苦瓜伸手撫住鵬兒的臉蛋，用爺爺關愛的口吻哄：鵬潤啊，你放心啊，國家會照顧你們啊。天殺的，影帝沒影！趙連海卻被公安抓走，扣一條「尋釁滋事」罪，重判兩年六個月。

救災搶險的溫家寶今回，心太硬了，心結石，沒救了。張擇端翻生，叫他搞一幅當今中國河蟹上河圖動漫版，只要七分寫實都會犯禁。九百年前吃奶無罪，九百年後，吃到毒奶要坐牢！張擇端筆下除了衙差，老百姓個個都有機會是趙連海！
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
東方日報 2010-11-13 A31

劉夢熊：誰不政改誰下台
「結石寶寶之父」趙連海被內地重判入獄兩年半，在香港社會引起廣泛關注，除了泛民主派舉行遊行示威及準備在立法會提出動議，抗議有關判決及要求釋放趙連海，多名建制派人士亦紛紛表達不滿，炮轟判決。全國政協委員劉夢熊刊登全版黑白聲明，形容事件是「非法的法、無罪的罪」，強調「政改應由法治始，誰不政改誰下台」。

劉夢熊昨以「非法的法、無罪的罪」為題，於本報刊登全版黑白聲明，批評中央重判趙連海是「對中國公民憲制權利的踐踏、對執政黨『三個代表重要思想』的背叛及對人類無知的侮辱」，強調趙作為毒奶粉受害兒童家長，所作之事只是在行使自己的公民權利，與「尋釁滋事罪」風馬牛不相及。

直斥掩蓋行政腐敗
他批評法院判決是「以司法腐敗壓制民眾合理訴求來掩蓋行政腐敗」，揚言中央若連一個見義勇為的人也容不下，只會激發有良知的市民反抗，「政改應由法治始，誰不政改誰下台」。有關言論不是針對個別領導人，「唔係邊個下台問題」，強調今次是「撥亂反正」的好機會，促請中央不要再被經濟繁榮的表象迷惑，今後要重視政治體制改革。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

太陽報 2010-11-12 A42兩岸

結石寶寶家長聲援趙連海「陪坐牢把監獄填滿」



結石寶寶之父趙連海被重判入獄兩年半後，開始絕食抗議，其妻也因過度傷心，抱恙臥床。代表律師透露，下星期將正式提出上訴，堅持作無罪辯護。趙被重判消息，海內外引起莫大公憤，多名毒奶粉受害兒童的家長義憤填膺，聲言要陪趙連海坐牢，把監獄填滿！內地媒體也罕有地為趙抱不平，有網站發表評論，要求當局不要以維穩之名，阻嚇維權。

趙連海開始絕食

為毒奶粉受害人維權、前日被北京當局以尋釁滋事罪重判的趙連海，已被押往北京大興看守所，等候上訴，並開始絕食。趙的代表律師之一彭劍表示，今日將到看守所探望趙連海，商討上訴等問題，也勸趙不要無限期絕食，以免影響身體。彭續說，下星期會正式向法院上訴，「我們認為是一個很不公平的判決，總之我們會堅持，作無罪辯護」。

趙連海的另一名代表律師李方平昨指，趙妻李雪梅十分擔心丈夫絕食會影響身體，盼去看守所探望，由於她傷心過度，昨抱恙臥床。家屬們都為上訴作準備。

此外，大批毒奶粉受害兒童家長也不滿判決，部分人繼前日以行動到法院外聲援趙連海之外，網傳北京有結石寶寶的家長準備絕食聲援。

敢問大右派廣西亞龍能單憑努力可以解決他的問題嗎﹖

兩岸要聞 A24 1 . 蘋果日報
2010-11-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
專題報導CHI

6歲愛滋孤兒獨抗絕症　拒同住學校拒收只剩黑狗相伴

在廣西柳州市，一座深山，一間破屋內，六歲的愛滋病孤兒小龍過一個人的孤獨生活。他一個人餵雞養狗，一個人讀書認字，一個人拾柴、一個人洗衣做飯、一個人玩耍、一個人入睡。當其他六歲的小朋友在父母懷中撒嬌的時候，小龍連唯一可依靠的也不願同住。只有黑狗相伴，但小龍從來不覺得自己苦，儘管，他只有六歲。

小龍的家，位於柳州市馬鹿山腳的牛車坪村，隨意搭建的三間青磚小屋，連窗戶也沒有。他住的獨立小屋外有三塊青磚砌成的灶頭及裝了陶瓷便盆的「廁所」，另外兩間相連的平房，木門破爛不堪，小龍的父母去年雙雙因愛滋病發在屋內去世後，兩間房都荒廢。他爸爸是牛車坪村的村民，媽媽從外地嫁來。父母死後，小龍被證實是HIV病毒帶者，村內再沒有人敢靠近他家。更可悲的是，在其他家長的聯署反對下，馬鹿山小學不敢讓小龍入學。

小龍不知道甚麼叫「愛滋病」，他只知道，原來一起玩的小夥伴不敢再靠近他；手在煮飯時被燙傷，醫生不敢處理傷口；84歲的也說自己害怕，不願跟他一起住。一如既往跟他的，只有一條黑色的唐狗「老黑」。平時他經常摟老黑，望通往外界的山路發呆。

摘菜煲飯露天洗澡

去年，小龍還未識煮飯時，一日三餐都無落，雖然會來為他煮飯，但並不是每天都來。孤苦伶仃的他，肚子餓極只能跑到鄰居梁太家，站在門框邊張望，梁太和丈夫見況總是喚他拿碗筷來盛飯菜。在屋外的兩塊菜地種上菜心和韭菜，讓小龍每天都自己摘菜，掏米加水，用木柴和報紙生火煲飯，白飯裏丟幾條菜心，就是「豐盛」的一餐，沒油沒鹽，但他卻吃得津津有味，吃不完就給老黑吃。

氣溫驟降的秋天，小龍打了半桶泠水，再倒入一鍋煲滾的熱水，露天脫下衣服洗澡，小小的身軀直哆嗦。他說，衣服碗筷會自己洗。

村委會的人偶爾會送包子及餅乾給小龍，但長貧難顧。當地一對姓李的老夫婦曾經想收養但知道他是愛滋病毒帶菌者後，打了退堂鼓。小龍的命運能否改變，仍是未知之數。

廣西《南國今報》
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

明報  2010-11-07 星期人物

6 歲愛滋孤兒沒人養頑強求存

廣西柳州市6 歲的愛滋孤兒阿龍，父母親去世後，就獨自生活在深山小村內，一個人洗衣煮飯，一個人餵雞養狗，一個人讀書認字……雖然獨自快樂獨自悲傷，但他仍堅強地活下去。

父母病逝獨自煮飯養狗

阿龍生活在柳州市馬鹿山腳的牛車坪村，他住半山腰的3 間平房內，房內甚至連窗戶都沒有。其中一間獨立小屋是阿龍的臥室。另外兩間相連的平房，因父親在此去世，如今再無人靠近。小屋前的一片空地，是阿龍平時活動的場所。他最常做的事，就是抱那條叫「老黑」的狗，望通往外界的那條路發呆。

自從父親去年7 月過世後，阿龍就未再下過山。知情者稱，阿龍的母親和父親在去年先後去世，最終證實兩人患的是愛滋病。本來有人想收養阿龍，但因阿龍也被證實是愛滋病帶菌者，好心人退卻了，村民也害怕了。

不能上學玩伴嫌棄

阿龍不知愛滋病是什麼，他只知道，原來一起玩的童伴不再找他，眼看就要讀小一了，卻被告知「在家等通知」；手被燙傷，醫生也不敢處理傷口；就連唯一可以依靠的，也不願跟他一起住。

彷彿就在一夜之間，阿龍長大了許多。儘管接連遭遇家庭變故，阿龍卻未掉過眼淚。年僅6 歲的他，學會了煮飯洗衣，學會了看時間做事，學會了自讀自寫，學會了獨自活下去。當地村委會人員表示，阿龍的情令人擔心，但是村委能做的，只能是確保他衣食無憂， 「沒有吃的穿的，我們可以買，但在醫療、教育、撫養等方面，我們能做的並不多。」

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
名采論壇

E06 1 . 蘋果日報
2010-11-07
脫貧靠努力

美國中期選舉，共和黨大勝，重奪眾議院控制權，俄亥俄州眾議員John A. Boehner代替來自加州三藩市眾議員佩蘿茜做眾議院議長（Speaker）。呢位貝納先生係一位脫貧成功經典例子，佢有一位哥哥，十位弟妹，一家十四口住在一間兩睡房細屋，爸爸經營一間小鎮小酒吧，佢自學曉站立，行路開始，就幫爸爸在酒吧抹地、洗廁所、洗碗碟、企，長大後成為全家第一人考入大學（Xavier University），靠半工讀支持學業，佢經常講："I loved every job that I had, at least until I get the next one."（我鍾意每一份工，直至搵到第二份為止），絕不會做一份怨一份，騎牛搵馬之時，絕不偷懶。時下不少人打工，做份怨份，做冇乜心機，應該向貝納學習。

貝納今年競選時，到處講一個玩弄文字笑話，每次都引起哄堂大笑，選民受落。佢講：「昔日列根總統時候，我地有Bob Hope（卜合，大笑匠），有Johnny Cash（一代民謠歌手），現在奧巴馬做總統，我地冇希望，冇現金（We have no hope and we have no cash）」。列根總統在任之時，美國自由派知識分子睇佢唔起，認為佢冇知識，冇內涵，只識唸台詞做戲。但三十年後，列根被視為美國一位偉大總統，共和黨人之神聖偶像，一個政治人物之評價，會隨歷史變遷而改變。

點解要講呢位貝納先生？上星期飲茶，一位富豪第二代係美國名校畢業生，對我地講：「我近月參加志願團體之扶貧工作，做過六七次基層家訪，感到有悲觀，基層貧童冇電腦，唔識iPad，唔識講英文，未出過中環，佢地讀書點夠我個仔或者太古城兒童競爭呢？第日搵唔到好工喎。」呢類想法不止呢位公子有。睇報紙報導，一社工亦怨這怨那，怨政府唔理跨代貧窮。其實脫貧主要靠自己努力，靠父母鼓勵及灌輸正確態度，並非一味倚賴政府幫忙。上個月有一位媽咪讀者來函，稱左丁山為老師，愧不敢當。佢話夫妻兩人係外省人，唔識英文，帶五歲女兒來港之時，一切由頭做起，死捱死做，死慳死抵，從未申請過津貼，平時常睇蘋果名采專欄吸收知識，女兒成長時，教女每日讀左丁山激勵自己。現在長女已大學畢業，在投資銀行工作，所以有心情寫信。只要努力及有正確態度，窮家女讀書未必輸蝕畀有錢仔。

陳志武談中國經濟

看完陳志武教授的訪問稿，不得不佩服陳教授對國家的關懷﹑對中國時局的關心。

陳志武現時是美國耶魯大學金融學教授，但是原來早於一九八六年的時候，口袋中僅有幾十塊美元的留美學生，對金融學的認知完全是零。來自湖南農村的工程本科畢業生因為與朋友崔之元的對話，決定放棄國防大學讀研，而遠走美國，照書中所講，是憑藉當年一股對中國前途﹑特別是民主化的關懷而出發。當年是一九八六年，不知道國內的所謂的反資產階級自由化運動開始沒有，但是陳志武是在此背景下毅然出國。

做學術往往就是去解答坊間一些迷思，在心無旁騖﹑沒有政府的大棒指揮下的清靜的學術環境，陳教授以入世的態度，精闢地分析中國的經濟﹑政治問題，其中有三個現時很流行的迷思，此書的解說令人甚為獨到。第一：中國的改革開放的成就﹔第二：中印經濟模式的選擇﹔第三：北京共識。

本書指出中國的改革開發成就固然觸目，但是中國在晚清﹑民國年間，當時的政府其實亦有採用一九七八年十一屆三中全會的開放政策﹑招商引資﹑現代化產業結構，但最後都因為當時的國際政治﹑經濟秩序仍然處於以軍事力量行先﹑貿易保護主義為主導，以令到大清﹑民國當局的經濟現代化的努力泡湯。這個分析接到第二點，當大家見到印度連小小的英聯邦運動會都搞的一塌糊塗，中印政治﹑經濟模式的爭論似乎已經有了定論的時候，此書卻力排眾議，指出印度的民主政制固然令國家協調經濟力度比中國弱，但不會衍生大躍進﹑文革等令國民經濟停擺的政治事件，中國北京模式的出現某程度上是因為四九年到七八年期間國民經濟處於極低水平而促使了近三十年極好的後發發展水平。

作者之前訪問香港大學，我謹此向各位關心中國政經發展的香港人推薦陳志武教授﹑他的講座和陳志武談中國經濟一書。

國運1909

John Schrecher在〈帝國主義和中國民族主義︰德國在山東〉一書就觀察到“主權”最早在中國於一八六零年出現，而往往是在最弱的時候中國提得最多(為一九零九年即八國聯軍後九年，跟共和革命只有兩年)。

國運1909作者澳洲華裔的雪洱就選了這個年頭做這本書是引子。1908年慈禧太后﹑光緒皇帝駕崩，在常識中﹑在大家的歷史知識的認知中，大清的國運已經去到荼蘼。究竟1909年會否和1949年﹑1979年在歷史長流中，起了一樣大的作用？

讀歷史的人知道歷史沒有返轉頭，只能夠學習歷史﹑讓人汲取經驗，避開未來的可能遇到的挫折。有些學者負面的指學習歷史，是路徑依賴，會令國家陷入歷史的循環，因為大家學習同一版本的歷史，大家對時局的基本邏輯﹑分析會如出一徹。

雪洱做的可能就是突破這個中國人的思想瓶頸，時興平反，國運1909為極晚清的一干十九世紀八十後來一個平反。沒有操守的西方傳媒的渲染﹑被稱為恐怖份子的革命黨人的活動，妖魔化了晚清對中國現代化的貢獻。自 “走向共和”採納劍橋中國史的史觀，褒李鴻章﹑貶國父孫中山，似乎晚清史會是史學界的新潮了。雪洱嘗試平反慈禧太后﹑隆裕太后﹑八十後攝政王載灃。載灃在極右洋務派﹑極左類義和團派甚至在革命黨人中極力得到大清國的全民共識及主流話語體系的主旋律，摒棄”中學為體﹑西學為用”，因為多次的軍事挫折，證實此模式不行。政治改革﹑憲政是唯一的出路。不少憲政學者都寫過大清搞憲政的認真的，作者雪洱就道“1909年，開始的的宣統新朝，在統治者並非做作的努力下，開始了擴大政治基礎﹑權力分享的艱難歷程。後世無可否認，哪個年代所能達到的政治開明與寬容，都是後世人望塵難及”。

我會這樣評說，只怪可惜一切來得太少﹑來得太遲。

星島日報  每日雜誌  中國點點點 2010-10-20

中日結盟？可惜人類宿醉的時候往往比清醒的時候長得多.....

中日結盟？﹗

大家沒有眼花，中國和日本是應該結盟，從東亞戰略及地緣政治﹑歷史問題﹑文化﹑意識形態等客觀因素，都說明北京和東京是天生的政治﹑經濟﹑軍事的好搭擋。在冷戰已經結束近廿年﹑二次大戰結束近四分三個世紀，兩國的交戰歷史不應該成為兩個東亞大國在廿一世紀謀求長遠發展的羈絆。

東亞戰略及地緣政治

中華民族在十八世紀開始，外敵主要是海上而來，從倭寇﹑英人﹑八國聯軍﹑以至日本皇軍甚至現時的美國。日本﹑韓國﹑台灣都是中國近代外敵進入中國內陸的不沉航空母艦。在現時的戰略格局，要中部崛起﹑西部開發，一定要穩住東部沿海地區，日韓台海域再加上南海緊張，對中國海防有沉重負擔。就算中國國庫和老百姓能承擔三支航空母艦群，拱衛京津﹑滬寧﹑粤港地區，要守的代價同效益似乎不成比例，莫講還要兼顧台灣﹑東海﹑南沙﹑西沙。在現時美國海軍再加上日本的海空實力，藍海戰略幾成泡影，代價亦相當大。當年李鴻章海防派和左宗棠的彊防派的辯論，結果是中法﹑中日海戰，大清大敗而回，反觀彊防派起碼穩住了中國的大後方﹑打壓了沙俄﹑英國對彊藏的野心，有分析指今日中國版圖仍然是一張塊海棠葉，中國人要多謝左宗棠。況且，從現實政治出發，東亞周邊的真正朋友，大家心知肚明，平壤有反骨﹑河內對著幹﹑日韓菲有美國撐腰﹑還有不知何時統一的台灣地區。

歷史問題

歷史問題指大國崛起的歷史，Paul Kennedy看大國崛起分析了荷蘭﹑英國衰亡，是沒有龐大的腹地讓國家經濟以至軍事進一步發展，龐大的國土讓國家有軍事布局有迴旋餘地，看觀抗日時國民政府在重慶苟延殘喘，亦可以敗部復活。再者，近百年的西方稱霸的歷史，更說明中日無條件不結盟，Andrew Roberts 分析英語世界下的美英結盟的任何一場戰爭，從未輸過，這個是實證。歷史亦證明國際政治沒有永遠敵人，最好的例子是美英；英國是美國前宗主國，唯一曾經佔領華盛頓﹑火燒國會﹑白宮既不是德國人﹑日本人或者蘇聯人，而是英國人(1814年)，兩國理應有深仇大恨，但是經過近一世紀的和解，經歷一戰﹑二戰﹑冷戰﹑兩次伊戰﹑反恐，還有其他看不到的政經﹑外交﹑情報的合作，美英仇人成為鐵桿子拍檔。現時英國不可以沒有美國(看觀1952年蘇伊士運河危機，沒有美國，英法單獨行動即時不行)。同樣，英法亦有類似的所謂歷史問題，經過不只一個世紀，而是差不多上千年的鬥爭(聖女貞德﹑拿破崙的例子可以隨手沾來)，在1904年兩國簽訂友好協議，在一戰﹑二戰站在勝利的一方。

文化﹑意識形態

英國不可以沒有美國，日本不可以沒有中國(中國可以沒有日本這個朋友，但交惡則有老美支持，美國擔心的是中日大和解)。文化和意識形態上，中日其實都是東亞中心腹地起源(The East Asian Heartland)的文化，Lucian Pye指大家都是家長權威模式﹑Samuel Huntington指同屬泛儒家文明。舉一個實例，一九八九年六四後，西方向中國大陸實施制裁，大家對比一下日本和澳洲﹑日本和法國對中國實施的制裁力度和措施，大家就知道為什麼毛主席喜歡日本人。再者，從現今中國政府統治精英的想法，日本正是偽民主的良好示範，戰犯做首相﹑五五體制﹑反對派長期在野，不正合口味嗎？在最少的機會成本下達至政治民主化。在理性分析下，中日應該結盟，可惜人類宿醉的時候往往比清醒的時候長得多。

(Singtao 10 October 2010)

You can't handle the truth; China CAN!

“You can't handle the truth."

        Colonel Nathan in “A Few Good Man”

如果你不能夠承受真相，就不要問。當今的中國，有計﹗

2009年底一宗群眾事件，雲南省委宣傳部副部長伍皓把全國的眼球吸引到雲南。伍皓主動上網答覆網民，省委宣傳部更下發了一個通知，禁止給群眾貼上一向慣用的“不明真相”“別有用心”等標籤。類似的詞在香港七一的時候，我們都聽過。

這些辭彙給人官本位的感覺，視群眾為矛盾(希望仍然是人民內部矛盾吧)﹗。雲南省委宣傳部進一步透過建立網絡新聞發言人和媒體義務監督員等舉措，伍皓又以宣傳部官員的身份，施行“新聞新政”，嘗試推動黨和政府的信息公開與透明讚。這些努力結果如何﹖先看看這宗群眾事件的來龍去脈。

二零零九年八月二十六日，雲南省陸良縣一煤礦在施工過程中與當地村民群眾發生衝突，八名村民、三名煤礦企業員工和七名公安警在衝突中受傷住院，十一輛警車被毀。事件發生後，縣委、縣政府立即啟動突發事件應急預案，處理村民問題。群眾提出的問題中，大部份得到解決。針對群眾要求每人每月補償六百元生活補助和每株莊稼五元賠償的訴求，

內地評論指陸良案例”也許會成為政府應付群體性事件的教材案例。

以民為本的執政理念，轉變了政府在處置群體性事件的慣性思維，但問題是人高皇帝遠的地方政府會否執行從來都是中國政府的結。主觀希望中國政府在處理，群眾事件會認同群眾的大部分訴求都是合理。

回說因事件”曝”得大名的伍皓，今年四月廿二日在北京人民大學演講時被學生扔總值三十大元的五毛錢紙幣。中國的進步總令人有追不上的感，這次事件，令我再次感到中國真的強大了，不是因為了國庫多了美債﹑日債，而是連我國都有Spin Doctor和敢說不的類社民連的大學生。國家真的變了。

(RTHK 07 Oct 2010/ Singtao)

Greed is Good

If Hong Kong were able to hold a referendum on the HK Basic Law,, Article 5 would be passed straight away and unanimously. Recent debates on whether Hong Kong society at large hates the wealthy (e.g. land developers) and powerful (e.g. senior officials) and the values of the late 80s, as well as the so-called “Central Value (Chungwan)”, are off the mark and out of focus. People have alleged that such debates were the result of the League of Social Democrats (LSD) and other fledgling streams of leftist ideas. Both the observation and the analysis are inaccurate. First, the LSD does not have the clout to direct such trends. Second, HK people at large are still emotionally attached to capitalist ideas and the free market. So what do we actually care about?


Capitalist System and Way of Life

Article 5 of the HK Basic Law provides that the capitalist system and the way of life shall remain unchanged. What is capitalism? Or, what is NOT capitalism? When one particular group of economic elites gain crucial advantages, become too successful, and begin to collude with one another instead of competing, capitalism can easily turn into corporatism, or to use a more progressive term, cronyism, or should we wish to use neo-Marxist terminology, hegemony. No one doubts that HK is heading in such a direction. The corporatist setting has been manifested in the parochial installation of a functional constituency in LEGCO. Cronyism has seemingly been evident in the administration’s affirmative action on pedigree in statutory committee appointments. Hegemony has been seen everywhere, even without walking into PARK’N Shop, Watsons and other stores…. Corporatism, cronyism and hegemony are not capitalism. Likewise, unbridled capitalism is not capitalism per se. The free market, fair competition, and, more importantly, an impartial and bipartisan administration that regulates commercial activities, are the real essence of capitalism.


Regulatory Regime

Article 5 of the Basic Law also states that “Hong Kong maintains a free and open market economy with a free flow of capital, goods, intangible assets, and a freely convertible currency. People's lifestyle remains the same as before.” Gordon Gekko said “greed is good. Greed breeds energy, power and love and it progresses human development”. I would say, “the free market of Ideas and capital brings the entrepreneurship of opinions and the betterment of livelihood.” HK people, including the pseudo-socialists, readily accept that the market system is the best mechanism devised for creating wealth and innovation, and thus, have never thought of rolling back capitalism. Moreover, I trust that the Hon. Wong Yuk-man of the LSD would also concur. At the other end of the spectrum, in his 1859 essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that free speech is crucial to the pursuit of truth, because discussion of different opinions serves to challenge and clarify beliefs. As in an economic free market, competition gives rise to challenges to the status quo and breeds innovation. What the state should do is to regulate the market for the sake of fair competition and avoiding monopoly, to legislate against selling goods that are unsafe or non-compliant, and to legislate against goods-related assertions or manifestations by words or conduct that do not accord with the facts. An efficient, effective and responsible regulatory regime would also ban insider trading in the market. Hong Kong people do not expect the state to be a “nanny state” that takes over aspects of our private lives such as by helping those cannot afford to purchase property and to set up a family, or by banning chewing gum and fellatio.

We don’t hate the rich and the powerful; rather, if hatred exists, unbridled capitalism, cronyism, corporatism and hegemony are the real targets.

(SCMP 07 October 2010)

Sub-sovereignty is a necessary evil

If the 1999 Right of Abode case was the first debate on the autonomy of the HKSAR, the current debate is the second. This time, the discussion touches upon the external autonomy of the SAR.


Realpolitik Operation of International Law

Public international law operates on the basis of Darwinist realpolitik. No matter how vehement the protestations of idealists over the centuries, international law is a “winner takes all” and “first speaker” legal arena. Stephen Krasner even went as far as to comment that sovereignty is an “organized hypocrisy” in describing the oxymoronic nature of the concept in the post-Westphalian era. The USSR, in the course of negotiating with the US on founding membership of the UN, requested that all 15 Soviet Republics become member states. With the threat of its counterpart doing the same, Stalin withheld his much fantasized idea. Therefore, it was quite comical when it came to the author’s attention that someone had used “sovereignty” to criticize his own countrymen, whose late Qing ancestors were traumatized by the same pretext in the 1844 Opium War and the 1900 Boxer Rising. Genuine patriots should be more sensitive with this taboo.

Celestial Court under Heaven

Equality has never been our world view. Whether justified or not, China has claimed to be the celestial court under heaven. John Schrecher observed that the term “sovereignty” had mostly been used when the Chinese state was weak (i.e. in 1909 - 2 years before the Republican revolution). States have been flexible with the operation of “Equality” (“Compatibility”). if not, there would have been some faux pas. Deng Xiaoping was the vice-premier of China when he visited the US in 1979, ten years later, Comrade Deng, in his civil capacity, met General Secretary Gorbachev in Beijing. Also, it was not the GOP chairman met Secretary Gorbachev in the 1986 Reykjavík Summit. Nor would Colonel Gadaffi of Libya have been greeted by military officers when he paid foreign visits. Should the principle of equality be enforced in such a stringent manner that Manila would have no compatible counterpart to entertain calls from Sir Donald Tsang, modern diplomacy would not be able to operate day in and day out. At the end of the day, international politics is built on the realist calculation of power, and thus respect.

Domestic Intervention

In recent years, the Chinese government has become ever more sparing in its use of the term “sovereignty” (Charlson 2005). If we were obliged to adopt a doctrinal analysis of international law, one would find that domestic affairs are not totally immune from outside forces. In Nicaragua v United States of America ( [1986] ICJ Reports 14), the ICJ laid down four major principles reflecting the view that foreign governments cannot intervene in the home state’s choice of political, economic, social and cultural institutions, or in its foreign policy making. Operationally, one state must not seek to intervene in another state’s political affairs, nor support separatist movements and topple other states. There are reasons for intervention, such as enforcing international treaties, intervening on humanitarian grounds, protecting life and property, and preserving the state’s reputation. In any event, provided it does not violate Article 4 of Chapter 2 of the UN Charter — which stipulates the principles of non-violence, no threat of force and no compromise of local jurisdictional powers — intervention may be legal. In such a case, helping the local legal enforcement authorities to investigate and adopting other necessary means to protect lives and preserve the dignity of a state are clearly legal.

Delegation of Powers

However, these propositions all depend on whether (1) the HKSAR can undertake the aforementioned types of state behaviour on behalf of its sovereign, i.e. the PRC; (2) the HKSAR’s action falls within the scope of its delegated powers in accordance with the State Constitution and the Basic Law; (3) ultra vires action taken by the HKSAR (in this case, calling Arroyo without proper authorization from the CPG) can be ratified by the CPG on an ex post basis (otherwise, it would still be unconstitutional).

Furthermore, which party can ratify such action? According to Articles 17 and 18 of the PRC Legislation Law, the NPC is entitled to repeal and amend local laws, self-autonomy ordinances, and unilateral ordinances of local provinces and regions. This legislation does not cover executive action taken by local governments, nor is it applicable in HK. Neither the Constitution nor the PRC Legislation Law includes any specific provisions on this issue. If the SC were to complain, Audrey Eu may have to seek a remedy from the Supreme People’s Court by requesting that it issue a judicial interpretation on this case. Should we seek approval from the President of the PRC? After all, he represents the state in its activities. Alternatively, should we look to the NPCSC — the state’s highest power organ, constitutionally— or turn to the State Council, which issued and offered the appointment letter to CH and Yam-kuen?

If one adopts the principle of proportionality or reasonableness, one may very possibly accept that the President of the PRC can call the president of the US directly, though the State Constitution only stipulates the “performing state activity” provision.

As for Article 13 of the Basic Law and the possible application of Article 151, this really depends on whether the CPG adopts a hands-off or hands-on management style. There would be no question of constitutionality should the CPG be obliged to take care of all details, as this would imply that Yam-kuen has no power to call, whether or not the call is answered, because it is ultra vires all along. In that case, the CPG may have to consider whether or not to ratify Yam-kuen’s ultra vires action. Should we accept that delegated foreign-related behaviour is subject to ex ante CPG approval, ex post ratification may be the only remedy capable of redressing the illegality. An example is the PRC Ethnic Autonomous Region Law, which empowers the regional government to partially enforce or cease enforcing the CPG’s directives after seeking the superior organ’s ex ante approval.

Another example of this is the US War Powers Act. The US President is the commander in chief and the power to declare war rests with Congress. According to this Act passed in 1973, the president can send troops after the US has been attacked or is under serious threat of force. The president is required to inform Congress within 48 hours, and if the proposed action is not endorsed by the Hill, the president must withdraw forces within 60 days.

Possible Application of the Common Law Principle

Had the court been able to adjudicate the case and adopt a judicial activism approach, “Callingate” would have been constitutional. This prediction is based on the premise of Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher ([1980] AC 319), which held that our mini-constitution should be interpreted in a generous and purposive manner. Yet this case merely involved individual liberty and did not touch upon executive action per se. In the case of Ma Wai Kwan, J Patrick Chan stated that the principle laid down in Attorney General of the Gambia v Jobe ([1984] AC 689) and R v Sin Yau-ming ([1992]1 HKCLR 127) can be adopted to interpret the Basic Law. The Court of Final Appeal clearly stated in the Ng Ka Ling case that the Basic Law is a “living document” aimed at coping with changing circumstances. The courts must therefore avoid interpreting the law in a literal, technical or parochial manner. Should we have the luxury of the local courts adjudicating the issue, “Callingate” would not be found to have contravened Articles 13 and 151 of the Basic Law. Nonetheless, the foregoing discussion merely represents the author’s hypothetical projection which will not be tested in practice.

The Politics of Law

From the political perspective, Beijing would be best advised to act generously by allowing the demoralized chief executive to make the call when Hong Kong’s “subjects” are under threat overseas. Legally speaking, to transplant the agency law principle of commercial law, Yam-kuen was the agent of necessity who did the necessary thing (though it was ultra vires per se) in the case of absolute imminence, albeit without proper authorization from Beijing. Even under such circumstances, the court would perceive it as a legal and reasonable delegation and exercise of power under the doctrine of necessitous intervention.

In conclusion, “Callingate” was reasonable, proportionate and necessary.

《哈佛看中國———經濟與社會卷》

坦白說，買《哈佛看中國———經濟與社會卷》一書，心裏確實有點不踏實。不踏實在於看一班遠在美國西岸在象牙塔幹研究的書生論政，當然在下都算是「掹車邊」的讀書人，仍總是有「一日學識胡兒語、站在城頭罵漢人」之感。

讀這本書之前，總想哈佛大學之名如雷貫耳，Jeffery Saich教授當年為後蘇聯的俄羅斯經濟開出「大震盪」一劑猛藥，會否和此書各位專家學者一樣呢？答案是：否。看完這本書，你可能發覺他們比我們中國人，更關注中國的經濟與社會的整體發展。

與 JeffreySaich的「大震盪」藥方不同，哈佛大學研究中國經濟與社會的學者，似乎更相信通過政府解決經濟和社會問題。譬如︰珀金斯教授認為中國城市化的水平仍然稍為偏低，是因為人為控制的戶口制度問題，要長遠解決、減輕貧富差距的問題要通過累進稅制再分配收入。當然這個政策，內地新左派甚或非新左派的經濟學家都已經提過，不過關鍵是珀金斯教授是老外且是哈大教授！

分析內地社會經濟發展

反而屬於中國研究較為權威的懷默霆教授，就沒有其他經濟學教授、社會政策的研究者來的悲天憫人、走在社會的前綫了。可能因為本身是社會學家，懷教授看中國有幾分宿命主義、又有幾分相對主義。他說中國連續三十年取得百分之九點八的經濟增長，成功避過了重複蘇聯的命運，表明沒有「放諸四海皆準的發展體系」，又指市場化改革把農民二解放，生活只會更好。天呀，這個懷教授……「壞」書生曾經寫過文革有好東西，好在讓無產階級-工人、農民充權。好一個充權，在下就衝擊一下你這個壞「鬼」書生。

其他的經濟、金融專家，拯救了我對哈佛大學預期的失調。哈佛商學院副院長談中國的空氣、水源問題、血汗工廠，世界銀行中國代表處首席代表談社會穩定、公共健康、犯罪控制來實現經濟的均衡發展。

讀畢這本書，誰敢再說「逢商都奸」！

星島日報 2010-09-29

摘自香港電台第一台《中國點點點》之「好書在手」環節，由Roundtable Pioneers成員介紹內地出版的書籍，從中帶出相關的中國國情與發展概況。節目逢周一至周五下午三時至四時半播出；「好書在手」環節逢周四播出。

《中國模式︰經驗與困局》

鄭永年老師的《中國模式︰經驗與困局》是認真研究中國國情人仕在書櫃中的不可或缺的書。無可否認，現時是新加坡國立大學東亞研究所所長，之前在英國諾丁漢大學出任中國政策研究所教授。鄭老師能夠游走於海外各間大學，在海外中國研究由老外充斥的圈子中，可以說是一個異數。擦鞋的講完，鄭老師寫的東西雖然仍然是學術性，但是他在香港信報﹑星加坡聯合早報的專欄卻是學術之餘，對時政﹑對政局﹑對中國未來的發展有極為深入的分析﹑又反映出作者對國家發展的擔憂，展現中國傳統知識份子的真正高尚情操。

《中國模式︰經驗與困局》是鄭永年老師近年來在報章﹑在公開場合中的文章﹑言論的結集。當中篇篇都有真知灼見，絕無冷場。筆者選幾篇與香港的聽眾/讀者關心和大家分享。譬如︰在“政治改革與中國國家建設”中“一章中，提到有關國家民主化和中國民族主義之間的取捨。鄭永年提出幾個觀測和總結了幾個原則︰首先︰有海外的權威實證研究顯示民族主義同民主化不單可以並行不悖，甚至有互動。譬如︰民族主義的力量比較能夠集中力量建設國家。支持民主的朋友可能認為，國家建設？豈非要讓政治自由﹑個人自由給予國家和政府？且慢；國家建設在學術界的意思，和政治宣傳﹑以至大家心目中哪種—“毛澤東“式﹑”大躍進“計劃經濟型的建設是兩碼子的事。

在“國際視野中的中國經驗”中，鄭老師就解釋了幾個原則，例如︰社會政治秩序不可缺失，國際資本在社會失序的情況下，是不會進入中國。沒有FDI，遑論經濟發展。用菲律賓做例子，沒有社會政治秩序，表徵是公共行政制度大崩壞，貪污嚴重﹑官僚主義﹑政府法令無效﹑沒有解決危機的能力等等，外國人連旅行不會去，美國人不會因為菲律賓是民主國﹑講英文而在馬尼拉開舖做生意請人，最後的結局是菲國人要離鄉別去別國打工。沒有基本的政府能力，有民主是不可恃的，當火車﹑巴士不能準時定期送大家上班回家﹑警察未能及時解困﹑醫院不能及時治療死傷者，這個是香港政制可能沒有民主﹑但仍然可以引以為傲的優越制度︰政府的執行能力。這本書，我誠意向每個香港人﹑以至犯了民主幼稚病的人強力推薦。
(星島日報 9.9.2010)

電話門︰香港特區次主權和自主權的測試1

本文以基本邏輯﹑政治學﹑國際法學知識嘗試拋磚引玉，回應香港有沒有次主權的學術討論。由於各方的關注，一宗全香港為之動容的悲劇，引發自回歸後第二場關係一國兩制下香港作為中華人民共和國特別行政區的自主權問題(Autonomy:可譯為自治權或自主權，國內的民族自治區，官方英譯為Ethic Autonomous Region。為突顯Special Administrative Region的不同，本文採用自主權)。一九九九年的居港權爭議涉及對內自主權，今次無可避免將會是第二場自主權辯論，不過今次涉及的是對外自主權。本文主要有六點，分別為︰法律與政治的互動﹑國際公法的操作﹑國家政治的對等﹑干涉對內主權原則﹑授權問題。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
一﹑法律與政治的互動

不論中外，法律語言要精準明確，不論是西方資本主義的普通法﹑大陸法以至內地具中國特色社會主義法治，而近年來人大審議的合同法﹑侵權法﹑公司法，都向這方面較前進的美英﹑德日﹑台灣香港地區的有關原則參考。法律語言要精準，是為了讓法律條文能夠操作使用(除了各國憲法的前言部份，我國亦然)，當然無可避免地會有空隙讓超高時薪﹑為有錢人開山擘石的祟洋媚外大律師鑽空子。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

二﹑國際公法的操作

國際公法的操作有很大彈性，這個彈性基於一個殘酷的政治現實，當今國際政治舞台在幾百年來無論理想主義多努力，仍然是一個現實主義﹑弱肉強食的達爾文世界。忌強恃弱是生存原則，中外皆然，國際法不過是強國維持既有的國際秩序之合理化的工具。容我引用老外學術權威類新馬克思學派的國際關係學者Stephen Krasner，他曾經就用過集體作假 (“Organized Hypocrisy”)的概念來形容後西發利亞年代(Post-Westphalia-主權概念的開端)主權的應用。將主權原則轉化為可以操作的程序，往往是政治的考量﹑力量的比照。譬如︰蘇聯在聯合國成立時竟然提出全部十五個加盟共和國成為會員，最後在美國威脅當年全國的四十八個州都成為會員，莫斯科才減持至蘇聯﹑烏克蘭和白俄羅斯三個議席。再者，當年列強正就是用現代主權概念(如︰維護英人財產-鴉片﹗保護在華僑民)發動鴉片戰爭﹑八國聯軍侵華。今天如果我們堅持同一個原則，難免予人“一日學識胡兒語﹑站在城頭罵漢人”之感。至於“以大欺小”和有評論指出以色列的反面例子作為理由，本文反有 “寧贈友邦﹑不予家[奴]”之慨。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

三﹑國際政治的對等

“對等”從不存在於中國文化中的世界觀。我國是天朝大國，四方蠻夷戎狄豈有對等過？ “主權是舨來品”，中國傳統(鴉片戰爭前)的世界觀是殷海光形容的“天朝型模觀”，而John Schrecher (1971)在〈帝國主義和中國民族主義︰德國在山東〉(Imperialism and Chinese Nationalism: Germany in Shantung)一書就觀察到“主權”最早在中國於一八六零年出現，而往往是在最弱的時候提得最多(為一九零九年即八國聯軍前夕)。而當今主權國交往的對等原則，一向有彈性。以"對等"的原則作為不能逾越的天條，國務院總理不能見總統﹑國務卿只能在北京見外長，外交操作上不太可行。當年鄧小平以副總理身份出訪美國﹑以平民身份在京接待戈爾巴喬夫，如果當年美蘇以對等原則待慢鄧公，後果堪虞。“如果沒有菲律賓次主權代表人物，所以特首可能沒有對口單位，這個國內﹑國際上亦有對應方法，譬如︰接待朝鮮領導人時往往是用中國共產黨的名義﹑以蘇共總書記身份出訪美國的戈爾巴喬夫接待的不會是美國共和黨主席﹑相信利比亞卡達菲上校出訪，別國亦不會因此找個校級軍官接待吧。簡而言之，對等原則似乎是靈活和相對的；對等同主權原則一樣都是現實政治建構出來。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

四﹑干涉對內主權原則

中國政府在改革開放初期比較多講中國內政不容別國侵犯，伴隨中國經濟力量的崛起，國家近年在國際上信心日強，講的次數就愈來愈少(詳見Allen Carlson (2005). Unifying China, Integrating with the World: The Chinese Approach to Sovereignty During the Reform Era)。如果一定要用國際公法學說分析(doctrinal analysis) (詳細要另文說明)，國際法庭就有關內政不容侵犯論在Nicaragua v United States of America( [1986] ICJ Reports 14)一案中定立了原則，一國政府的政治﹑經濟﹑社會﹑文化制度的選擇與及外交政策制訂在該國內有絕對的自主權(“Absolute Autonomy”: 說明自主權一詞不代表完全自主)。因此運作上，不得干預別國政治事務﹑不得支持別國的分離活動﹑不能尋求推翻別國政府。而其他理由如︰履行國際條約﹑人道原因﹑人命財產保障﹑保存國家名譽，法理上在不違反聯合國憲章第二章四條之下﹑不涉及武力或武力威脅﹑不損害當地政府的司法管轄權，都可以算是合法的。用菲律賓做例子，如果國際社會認為菲律賓的管治能力有問題﹔特區可以中國香港名義於當地協助香港人，或馬尼拉政府在沒有武力威脅下邀請香港特區協助調查﹑搜證，都是是符合國際法和國際慣例(所以其實律政司應出動國際法律科出動輔以警務處)。聯合國憲章﹑聯合國2005年的World Summit Outcome都有此主張，在此不贅。當然這個論點的關鍵是，香港特區能否代表中國行使國際公法中的權利與義務，或者特區行為是否有合符國家憲法﹑基本法來自中央的授權﹐ (畢竟中國憲法規定中華人民共和國是單一制國家[unitary state]非聯邦制國家，地方權力需要中央授權)，又或者在沒有主權國授權下的特區越權行為稍後有沒有得到中央確認(否則依然不合憲)。

再進一步，誰能確認呢﹖中國的〈立法法﹜十七﹑八十八條指 “人大有權改變或徹銷超越權限﹑下位法違反上位法的法律﹑地方性法規和自治條例及單行條例”。但此法並無涉及地方行政行為(即打電話)，亦不在港適用。中國憲法無說明﹑立法法沒有說明﹑是否需要最高人民法院來個司法解釋(大狀們應該會放心一些，畢竟法官不能冒犯)？還是由國家主席(根據憲法，國家主席代表中國進行國事活動)﹑人大常委(法理上是國家最高權力的執行機關)或者國務院(特首的委任狀是國務院簽發)。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
五﹑授權問題


國家憲法的規定和演繹

在授權問題上，如果用“相稱”(proportionality)(註2) 或 “合理”(reasonableness)原則，看觀中國憲法中第八十一條 “中華人民共和國主席代表中華人民共和國，進行國事活動，接受外國使節…..”，國家主席可能不能夠代表中國打電話給美國總統，因為只可以 “進行國事活動，接受外國使節…..”。這個演繹荒謬﹑不合理，亦不相稱。又譬如︰中國憲法第八十九條(九)指國務院有“管理對外事務，同外國締結條約和協定職權”，因此可能國務院總理無權參與外交事務；憲法九十二條︰ “國務院對全國人民代表大會負責並報告工作…”，亦不是指國務院向全體全部人大代表問責，這是相稱的演繹。

基本法的規定和解釋

至於《基本法》第十三條："中央人民政府負責管理與香港特別行政區有關的外交事務……中央人民政府授權香港特別行政區政府依照本法自行處理有關的對外事務.”的條文，這涉及到中央的管理是”既管又理”的微觀管理還是”只管不理”的宏觀管理。如果中央要躬親庶務(意味特首無權)，這通電話不管接了還是沒有接，法律精神上中央可能要開會確認（或拒絕確認）特首的越權行為。如果經授權的對外交系，是事前必須經中央批准(比較接近的可參考《中華人民共和國民族區域自治法》第二十條︰自治區政府可以報經該上級國家機關批准，變通執行或者停止執行中央的命令)，事後確認是補救事前沒有得到合憲批准的唯一合法化程序。容許本文引用一個不倫不類的例子說明事後確認的應用，美國總統雖然是三軍統帥，但根據美國憲法宣戰權在國會，而根據戰爭權力法案(1973)，總統有權在受襲或在嚴重威脅下出兵，總統需要在四十八小時內知會國會；如果沒有國會授權宣戰，總統需要於六十日內撤軍(再加上三十日撤軍期)。當然上述這些可能從來和最後都還是政治解釋。

普通法原則的可能應用

如果法院能進行電話門的違憲審查(現實中應該不能)，從香港法院法官近年來的眾多違憲審查案件來分析，電話門應會通過測試。如果法院傾向司法積極主義(這要看馬道立大法官了﹗)，陳兆愷法官在《陳錦雅訴入境處長》一案引用樞密院Fisher案 [1989]AC319(註3)，指出法院應對基本法中給予的權利和自由一“寬鬆(generous)及目的論(purposive)的解釋，而同案的法官Mortimer更指如未能發現目的，仍須給予寬鬆的解釋。不過此案講的是個人權利，不涉及特首的行政行為。然，陳官在早一年即九七年的《香港特區訴馬維騉》案([1997]HKLRD 761)中(此案屬違憲審查)，就已經指樞密院Jobe案 (註4)和香港上訴法院的洗有明案(註5) 所主張的寬鬆和目的論解釋可適用於基本法。正如香港終審法院在吳嘉玲案([1999] 1 HKLRD)指出基本法是一份Living Document，旨在應付環境的需要，法院應該避免字面的﹑技術的﹑狹隘﹑生硬的方法來解釋基本法。不過，上述只是本文 What If式的推演，現實中不會發生。

本文誠然﹔在情，中央何不慷慨地(同樣是generous)讓特首在香港市民於海外受襲或在嚴重威脅下打一通電話。在法，借用商業法中代理原則(principal-agent/ 或曰Agency Law)，特首是緊急處理的代理(agency of necessity)，因緊急情況而無法請示被代表人(即中央或國家主席)而作出的越權利為，法院會確認此為合理合法的授權(doctrine of necessitous intervention)。.電話門事件似乎都是相稱﹑合情和合理。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

註釋︰
(1) 一個語理問題︰如果偽議題﹑偽概念都已經不是議題﹑不是概念。次主權﹑自主權已經不能視理解為“主權”。 “Quasi-state"不可以理解為完全意義的”State”一樣，又例如︰假男人不是男人；不能擁有全部男人應有能力的男人，又是否能稱為男人？這是觀感和理性分析的取捨，一個太監觀感上可以是男人，理性分析是人但一定不是男人。

(2)容許本文政治不正確的引用加拿大最高法院的案例 R v Oakes([1986] 1 SCR 103)。

(3)Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher ([1980] AC 319)的原則是在解釋憲法條文時，應注意有關憲法文件的性質和背景，並採取較寬鬆的解釋，保障權利和自由。


(4)Attorney General of the Gambia v Jobe([1984] AC 689) 中，樞密院引用了法律的合憲性推定原則(presumption of constitutionality)。

(5)R v Sin Yau-ming ([1992]1 HKCLR 127)，〈危機藥物條例〉違反人權法無罪推定原則。

評民主的細節

民主的細節一書由華裔劍橋大學政治系講師劉瑜所寫，她劉瑜博士曾經負笈美國的哥倫比亞大學﹑哈佛大學，大家當然會要求民主的細節一書是超出本港蔡子強式的分析﹑評論文章。

美國制度的虛與實

作者劉瑜強調透過故事引出美國憲政﹑公民社會﹑公共行政﹑政治文化等等政治過程，從而折射出美國政治制度的實與虛。

實在於美國立國以來對法治的堅持﹑對不論是自己人還是別國人的個人保障，虛在於雖然美國是資本主義大國的旗艦，但是很多方面從民間社會可以合法地對抗財雄勢大的大企業﹑以至根據憲法同政府行政部門對簿公堂，再有對中國人來說既驚又讚頌﹑但是英國人嗤之以鼻的侵權官司。這些美式民主的細節都反映美國政治過程的中真正賦予了無權﹑無產﹑無錢者自由的保障，而這些對東方人特別難以理解，因為在許多人心目中的叢林法則同資本主義中間是一個等號。

意識型態的取捨

在<選誰都差不多>，讀書可以開始何估量作者價值取向，在該章中，作者指民主﹑共和兩黨往往在趨向中間化，“差異雞毛蒜皮”，這些差異在書中指的是幹細胞研究和同性婚姻。本欄卻道雞毛蒜皮正好反映左右兩黨價值的反差。當然劉瑜亦有比較中美之間的差異，在 <哪怕只增百分之一的稅><比道德制高點更高的>< 上的記號>三個章節中，作者劉瑜抒發對內地地方公共財政﹑部份地方政府巧取豪奪，從而映襯出美國作為民主國家，對於公共財政﹑典章制度﹑吏治制度的純真。在意識型態的取捨中找到一個左右的公約數，劉小姐對中美兩國勞動階層似乎有比較深刻的體會，在<咱們美國工人有力量>﹑<怎樣保護弱勢群體>和<怎樣悼念死者>，中美兩國真正的意識型態差異﹑兩國文化的不同，剛好在兩地的勞動階層差天拱地的待遇顯示出來。而顯示出來的剛好都是兩國政治言辭的倒影。

褒右抑左

劉瑜批評美國學界長毛喬娒斯基(Noam Chomsky)﹑褒揚美國葉劉庫特(Ann Coulter)，抑奧巴馬挺麥凱恩，調侃美國自由派的政治正確為美式四個基本原則︰唯女人﹑唯少數族裔﹑唯同性戀﹑唯宗教人士屁股摸不得。在<控制石油的什麼>﹑<民主現實主義>﹑<美國的社會主義>，作者質疑美國軍工結合體發動戰爭的能耐，質疑私有化﹑市場化﹑全球化是否是美國新自由主義的全部，美國內部有無實行這些政策的底實，從而向讀者溫馨提示了華盛頓共識的虛與實。

正如劉瑜引用John Rawls<正義論>中無知之幕的比喻，如果讀者是對政治學左右是無知的，對自己的政治意識暫時失明，我會向你推介劉瑜的民主的細節。

香港 星島日報 九月一日

中國經濟缺什麼

此書係由幾名中國大陸的經濟及金融學家撰寫，再加上諾貝爾經濟學獎得主斯蒂格利茨(Joseph Stiglitz)就現今中國經濟下的藥方。總的來說，不管是體制內﹑體制外的專家學者都認同兩個事實，一.是國進民退，二.是體制問題︰中國經濟在現行的憲政環境下，發展並不健康。

國進民退？

作者上年同Roundtable去國家行政學院時就聽過某部委的官員指“國進民退”並不存在，認為是一個偽議題。”官進民退”，是關鍵在於現時中國經濟很大程度是來自政府投放的資金﹑四大銀行的貸款。正如其中一位作者耶魯大學大學教授陳志武所言，七萬億在金融海嘯後投放入市場，中國的經濟是要付出沉重代價的。民企的效益減低，銀行貸款大部份流向國有企業﹑大型民企﹑中央的款項流入俗稱 “鐵公基”的工程。款項不能為就業﹑市場經濟提升效率，反而令民企要戴上”紅帽子”，屬於體制外的天則研究所所長茅于軾更指，美國的金融海嘯對策目的是增加就業，國民生產總值的增長？—奧巴馬一個字都無提過。而太平洋的對岸，中國政府的重點在GDP的提承，就業反而次要。

 

體制問題

茅于軾在書中不厭其煩﹑語重心長地說 : “民間不富﹑國家不富”，稅收改革 (應該指減免民企和個人入息稅)和國企私有化是目前經濟金融改革政策的要點。前者涉及中央與地方收入分配﹑後者則涉及社會敏感的賤賣國有資產﹑國有資產流失的問題，兩者都不易上馬。但兩者結合相信能解決社會主義市場經濟市場化不足﹑國企壟斷市場﹑民企沒有活力﹑市場仰賴政策等富有中國大陸特色的經濟問題。陳志武教授在書中有一個大膽的提議，老實說(筆者)我都曾經想過，因為這個建議香港都有。類似現時還運行中的盈富基金，在中國大陸要實行的話，是要將國企的公有股份﹑非市場化股份，賣給私人投資者，甚至分配給農民﹑農民工等低收入人仕。一次過解決中國經濟結構問題，如︰官進民退﹑貧富問題﹑民企不濟。從而，制約中央集權制下，行政部門權力過大﹑金融﹑財政力量集中在政府的問題，令到私有經濟得以重生。

所以始終中國經濟缺什麼？雖然”中國經濟缺什麼”一書沒有明言，但睇完的讀者都會知道”憲政”是不二法門。

(星島日報 26.08.2010)

香港社區詞詞典

香港本土用語詞典

有理由相信<香港社區詞詞典>是為中國大陸駐港機構的工作人員而編，首先，書名已經稍為不地道，稱之謂 “社區詞”詞典。根據編者在序言的說法，社區詞是因社會制度﹑社會背景的不同而形成。不過對於不是此書目標讀者的香港人，”社區”一詞可以很”社工”﹑”社群”的。對於內地同胞來說；社區一詞應該接近港人口中的”街坊”。所以，如果要為<香港社區詞詞典>重新命名的話，姑且應叫<香港本土用語詞典>，再政治正確一點，可以叫<香港街坊用語詞典>。




雖然是一本街坊用語詞典，書中有不少香港本土政治組織﹑政府政策﹑社會團體的解釋以至英治時期，港英政府官銜﹑用詞等。高密度出現的有近二十年來香港曾有過﹑現在已經不存在的論政﹑參政團體或組織，香港特區政府有些政策﹑立法建議譬如何謂︰廿三條﹑白紙草案﹑藍紙草案。什麼是高官問責制﹑QFII﹑QDII﹑黑社會的術語﹑什麼是地區管治委員會亦可在這本詞典找到。



翻閱這本詞典，睇到發行商為了促進香港和大陸的溝通的誠意和苦心。不過偶有失諸交臂的時候，例如︰頁一已經誤將AO燉冬菇做行政主任。有些詞，對一個天天睇幾份報紙﹑熟悉港情的人都未必會聽過的用詞，例如︰暗室，一般人可能配詞做” 暗室政治”，同”黑箱政治”同義，詞典卻稱暗室是”情婦”。黑社會 “班馬”，詞典稱為”扯馬”﹑香港人習慣玩的”廿一點”，詞典卻稱”二十一點”﹑ 特首喜歡的”金銀膶”︰勞力士手錶，詞典指稱係較少人叫既”十蚊銀”的慣稱。最搞笑的莫過於是詞典將MC(司儀)同時賦予”女性月經”的意義﹑報章常用來形容老而疆堅的行業翹楚的”長春樹”，詞典叫做”青春樹’，又有一些從未聽過﹑或已經很久沒有在香港社會出現的詞，譬如︰香港九七前叫”太空人”來稱呼男人在港搵錢﹑女人在外地坐移民監的家庭模式，詞典叫做”香港蛙人”，還指是來自TVB的電視劇。可能筆者少睇電視劇，孤陋寡聞，從沒聽過。

星島日報 (18 August-2010)

〈做人難，做中國人難，做中國文人更難

拙作以《國社論》為名，當然不是國家社會主義的簡稱，實為「論國家社會關係」。國家者，包含民族（Nation）、國家/政府（State）、民族國家（Nation-state）等三重意義，三個概念你中有我、我中有你。中文的「國家」和「政府」概念，直翻為「State」往往 lost in translation。國家一詞是意識形態的產物，政府如果從馬克思的分析，更是統治機器、專政工具。


本書就是希望透過綜合近年來在媒體上發表的文章、言論作一個總結，從中建構一個國家社會關係的框架，去剖析中國、香港的政治和社會情況。本書的架構分為六個部份︰制度、文化、政治經濟、管治、公共行政、公民社會。制度是國家、政府的脊樑，正如新制度主義者所言，制度組織（structure）政治行為，而文化、政治經濟因素又往往影響一國的制度選擇。讀者可以用結構功能主義的角度去演繹現時中國的國家制度是全民共識、改良主義、共同價值的反映，然筆者更服膺於此乃路徑依賴、自我應驗預言的結果。此分析建基於中國國家社會關係的歷史背景南轅北轍，對個人、對社會的限制、對國家/政府的預期，大家有不同的理解。

綜觀本書，亦反映筆者研究的脈絡，當年本科學生年代的興趣是民主化（Democratisation），從 Lipset、Huntington、Dahl 到 Diamond，可以說是應對了後天安門事件的一種心結。這個情懷，由 1989 年小六到大學一、二年級上莊一直未釋。始終對 Lipset, Huntington 到 Diamond 等國際經驗，未有特殊的依付，很有可能在在港大學生會的經歷（稱之為歷練似乎又有點言過其實），開始對基層的論述有更深的體會、對比較研究的方法學，產生懷疑。這個懷疑令我選擇了研究中國大陸公民社會的發展作為哲學碩士論文題目，Civil Society 的研究老實說書看得多，寫了一個蒙混過關的論文，當中真正讓我想稍為有同感的是 Antonio Gramsci。最後亦以 Hegemony 總括當代中國大陸國家社會關係。

國家社會關係 （State-Society Relationship）

公民社會理論，往往以自由主義思想為核心，國家社會作為二元對立，是零和遊戲（Zero-sum），英美的三權分立概念某程度上亦源自這個傳統，對國家的懷疑、對政府的提防，而這個傳統孕育出資本主義（可能互為因果）、出產了有限政府（Limited Government）。東方社會（姑且這裹指英國以東罷），從法國、德國、俄羅斯到中國，愈東社團主義（Corporatism）的傾向就愈強，當中當然是蘇聯和十一屆三中全會前的前的中華人民共和國國家控制的範圍最為囑目。而文化上，不計中國這個筆者認為的特例，法德俄又確實比美英的人民對市場持更懷疑的態度、「食皇糧」（Public Sector）的比例、人民對政府在個人生活、經濟生活的容忍都較高。

將這個思考放在中國和香港，可以某程度解釋了中央和地方、政府和民間的張力和矛盾，是源自對國家社會關係不同理解的差異，某程度上又是文化的衝突。

政治經濟（Political Economy）

在研究公民社會的時候，思考了文化對國家社會制度的影響。這個慢慢引領了到另一個理論，新制度主義（New Institutionalism）的領域。在探討中國文化對民主化的影響、從思考有無中國文化、有的話是何許模樣，以至解答中國文化、東亞特殊論的時候，新制度的文獻解答了部份答案。當文化論、新馬的論述無法單方面解釋中國的特殊性，新制度主義有這個想像力解答了為什麼中國既然難以管治、為何不行聯邦制？為什麼憲政暫時仍然不是中國領導人的選項？以至今天國內特殊國情衍生的「國家民族主義」、香港特殊的意識形態光譜、香港中產對自由主義的熱衷等等。

香港政改可借用西班牙經驗

西班牙經驗

從一九七五年佛朗哥逝世至一九七八年，西班牙用了短短三年就成功由一個右派威權過渡至民主政體。在佛朗哥見證下成長的國王卡樂斯，成功將佛朗哥的威權制度和選舉機制透過立法轉型成憲政民主君主制度。國王在公開場合都開腔支持佛朗哥時代唯一的合法政黨國民陣線(前稱長槍黨)，暗地卻傾向民主制度和價值觀。第一任首相Arias Navarro因未能說服佛朗哥分子接受政改方案，再加上示威﹑工潮﹑恐怖主義活動。Navarro 諳然下台，由擔當過國民陣線秘書長長達二十年的Gonzalez Suarez出任首相，當西班牙人民以為民主無望的時候，Suarez運用他在佛朗哥集團的網絡﹑政治經驗成功控制官僚系統，並且說服在議會內的佛朗哥黨人放棄國民陣線集團的功能組別議席。在一九七六年九月十日Suarez公佈政改計劃，宣佈普選產生的兩院；經過他的協調下，在當年十一月，國民陣線集團控制的議會通過議案，將有社團主義色彩味道的議會制度摒棄。



從妥協走向大和解



反對者在一九七六年一系列的秘密會議，成立了聯合陣線(Coordinacio´n Democra´tica)(普選聯？) 和政府達成共識。一九七七年四月九日Suarez在軍方大力反對下宣佈西班牙共產黨合法化，國王向軍方說之而情避免了軍方干政。而西班牙共產黨亦投桃報李，承認君主政體﹑放棄共和的訴求。對於馬克斯主義者來說，是極大的讓步。西班牙的左派政黨當年放棄推翻佛朗哥政權﹑建立第三共和的遠景，讓步比今天香港的反對政改方案者要大，但是當時的西共領導Santiago Carrillo毅然接受談判同支持君主政體(不要忘記他們是共產黨人﹗)。Santiago Carrillo就曾說 ‘It is time to pact with the system’。



西班牙能，香港怎麼不能



當年的西班牙政治環境比香港複雜，有君主政體﹑教會﹑軍方以至加泰羅民亞﹑巴斯克等族群的民族問題。沒有流血﹑沒有驚天動地的建國儀式﹑沒有令人興奮推倒重來的氣魄，政治學家將西班牙的民主化過程形容為︰交易式轉型﹑協議式轉型﹑協定轉型以至聯盟民主。民主原教旨主義者(八十後反特權青年？)評價契約民主有違民主理念﹑保留現存社會經濟局面﹑培植腐敗同裙帶關係以至阻礙公民社會在民主過程的作用﹑限制政治競爭。



告別浪漫



沒有社會革命，沒有從下而上的社會運動推動的憲政改革是有限制的，但是憲制制約(君主制)和政治現實(佛朗哥支配了政權)的局限下，政治菁英如首相Suarez力求走出死胡同的嘗試，避免原地踏步甚至倒退至軍人干政﹑族群撕裂﹑左右雙派你死我活鬥爭的宿命，令政治﹑經濟改革胎死腹中。Moncloa Accord 直接促進了政治共識達至民主憲政。香港人要放棄美式公民社會的對抗性﹑競爭性﹑法國大革命式的浪漫，採取西班牙式協約民主，後六．二三的香港可以是西班牙的翻版。這個將會是中國近代政治改變中，是自一九一一年﹑一九四九年來的歷史突破。

不要墜入歷史的怪圈

學習歷史的怪圈



中國人實在有太多的學習歷史的心理包袱，在西方的社會科學術語中，有所謂的路徑依賴(path dependency)的概念。這個概念可以見諸於如︰馬國明君 廿七日明報《分秒必爭還是寸土必爭》﹑葉蔭聰君同日明報《何俊仁和他的時代分秒必爭還是寸土必爭》以至商台中國問題專家潘小濤廿三日都市日報《洞房前，為何不先擺喜酒簽婚書？》一文。



歷史限制制度創新



歷史的學習會限制制度的創新，中共近世的治國經驗﹑政策制訂的過程有不理性的過去，不能完全算在今天的領導層。當然從機構文化﹑組織行為上分析，歷史經驗確實可以作為參考，不過不能讓制度與政策結果都成為潛規則的囚徒(Prisoner of History)，形成路徑依賴。筆者同幾位對中國近代歷史的認知無大差異，不過問題的關鍵是，是否需要慣性地﹑懶惰的將中國的政策制定過程用中共建黨﹑建政的的歷史脈絡(historical context)去引證中國政府的不信守承諾的歷史。這個定性能討好一向恐中﹑恐共因避秦南來的香港人，強化香港人對中國的不信任，對香港民主化亦無幫助。其實北京自九十年代，意識到國內政策制訂以及公務員制度有極大需要與國際接軌，開始與亞洲發展銀行等國際組織合作研究相應的行政改革，開始理性政策制訂﹑管治方式步向專業化、公開化、科學化的方向。況且從民主化理論的視角，協商比革命，更能鞏固民主，透過憲政手段﹑立法確定政治承諾，對於中國近代政治改變中，是自一九一一年﹑一九四九年來的歷史突破。



以美國﹑法國﹑俄羅斯為師，必然流血



在Eric Hobsbawm 筆下的 The Age of Revolution (1789-1848)，法國在十八世紀發生驚天動天的流血革命，統治階層因沒法解決初始工業化帶來的階級衝突，原有制度因此崩分離析。美式建國模式觸動當代的革命運動，法國大革命引發一系列大國秩序的重新洗牌，俄羅斯更於一戰後兩度爆發革命，兩度政權易手。

透過社會運動﹑通過流血革命達到政治自由，確實令人響往，搞革命對於社運人士從來是浪漫而有型的事，但是對象以中產為主體因的香港，革命意味失去工作和生活。



憲政手段的不吸引



為憲政改革緩慢且要容忍原有統治階層繼續在議會篤眼篤鼻。透過和平手段﹑不用內戰或受到外國侵略來完成民主化的過程，在近世歷史中，以西班牙的經驗最為人樂道。在一九七五年後佛朗哥的協商民主化的過程中，當年後佛年代的第二任首相(Gonzalez Soarez)的政治手腕﹑西班牙共產黨的妥協可堪今天香港市民借鏡。



香港人要放棄美式公民社會的對抗性



一九七七年四月九日Suarez在軍方大力反對下宣佈西班牙共產黨合法化，國王向軍方說之而情避免了軍方干政。正如香港的民主黨同中央宣稱承認基本法﹑全國人大零七年的決議﹔甚至公民黨創黨時，放棄平反六四的訴求一樣，當年的西班牙共產黨向Suarez投桃報李，承認君主政體﹑放棄共和的訴求。對於馬克斯主義者來說，是極大的讓步，比公民黨放棄平反六四要更大勇氣(﹗)。如果香港人願放棄美式公民社會的對抗性﹑競爭性﹑法國大革命式的浪漫，採取西班牙式協約民主，後六．二三的香港可以是西班牙的翻版。

NOW新聞台國際評論

NOW新聞台國際評論

"I wanted to put a smile upon Chinese faces. Anything to take their minds off what was happening, was a good thing."

Remember Paris
Michael Chang reminisces about '89 French Open win, Tiananmen Square

By Kristin Green Morse, Si.com.  (五月 21, 2004)

It's hard to believe it has been nearly 15 years since Chinese army tanks rolled through a student protest in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. The photograph of the lone man standing defiantly as military tanks crept toward him is ingrained on our collective memories. As the events progressed in China, one 17-year-old Chinese-American kid from Southern California was playing tennis in Paris and doing his best to give hope -- even just a little -- to Chinese citizens throughout the world.

The events in Beijing weighed heavily upon Michael Chang and his parents, Joe and Betty. After a day of tennis at the French Open they would return to their hotel and watch events unfold in China on CNN. "My heart was breaking," says Chang, 32. "I wanted to put a smile upon Chinese faces. Anything to take their minds off what was happening, was a good thing."

Tanks entered Tiananmen Square on Saturday, June 3, 1989. Two days later, 15th-seeded Chang took on top-seeded Ivan Lendl, a three-time French Open champion, on Center Court at Roland Garros. It was the round of 16 at the French, and no one gave Chang much of a chance. Those who did believe in him certainly lost hope once Lendl, 29 at the time, won the first two sets 6-4, 6-4. Suddenly, the momentum shifted. Chang won the next two sets by resorting to the dreaded moonball, topspin lob strategy to disrupt Lendl's rhythm.

At the outset of the fifth, though, the kid's legs started to cramp. Looking back, Chang remembers he was thisclose to retiring at 2-2 in the fifth. He even started to walk to the service box to tell Lendl and the umpire that he could not go on. "But for some reason, my heart said, 'Don't do it,'" says Chang. "The Lord was telling me that this match was not about winning or losing. My goal was to finish the race."

A deeply religious person, Chang believes that a higher power helped him persevere through the cramps and dehydration and willed him to victory over Lendl. After a four-hour, 38-minute match, Lendl -- visibly distracted by his opponent's decision to stand within a few feet of the service line to return serve -- double-faulted on match point. Chang fell to the dirt and cried. It would be the first of only two times in his career that he shed tears on a tennis court. (The other time was his final French Open match last year after he lost to Frenchman Fabrice Santoro in the first round.)

When Chang reminisces about his lone Grand Slam victory, his first instinct is to talk about the Lendl match, not the final against Stefan Edberg. " Lendl set the tone, for sure," says Chang. "That match taught me to fight to the end."
Chang went on to beat Ronald Agenor and Andre Chesnokov before finally eliminating Edberg in five sets in the final.


In much the same way a nominated actor arrives to an awards ceremony with prepared words, Chang showed up to the final with notes for his post-match stadium interview. "I didn't want to be thinking about my speech during the match," says Chang. "I planned to share a little about China regardless of whether I won or lost." And although some in the French crowd booed as Chang credited the Lord for leading him to victory, the determined teen said what he wanted to say: "God bless each and every one of you, especially China."

Chang retired from tennis last year at the U.S. Open, an event overshadowed by the retirement extravaganza for Pete Sampras. The U.S. Open was important to Chang -- it was where he started his career at age 15 and it was where he wanted to end it. "It was special for me to address the crowd one last time," he says. "And to say thank you to Pete, Andre [Agassi] and Jim [Courier]."

政局筆記  HKEJ 5th June 2010 江麗芬

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
張德培 法網六四
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
一九八九年六月十二日，六四後的八天，美籍華裔網球手張德培贏了法國網球公開賽。當時年僅十七歲的他，成為歷來最年輕的法國公開賽冠軍。當年的張德培對於奪魁感到高興，而得獎於他而言，還有深一層的意義，那就是透過這一個獎項，透過流中國人血統的他取得這個錦標賽大獎，希望能撫慰遠在他方、剛被坦克車輾碎了的幾許中國民主夢。

六四鎮壓，雖然事過二十一年，但對於不少中國人，不論是親歷過還是只是遙遠地看見的，對於當天的事件還是歷歷在目。今年年初，張德培來香港時，談起他當年得獎的所感所想，便說當年他參加法網，由初賽至決賽的那兩個星期內，透過電視看到了八九年五月底至六月初那翻天覆地的一場學生運動，讓他更明白到他為什麼是中國人，為什麼他在這兩個星期可以一直打下去，直至決賽、直至贏得這項大滿貫。

他說：「我經常對朋友說，上帝是要我贏得一九八九年的法國網球錦標賽……希望可以讓世界上不同角落的中國人臉上再展露一點微笑，因為那時候的中國民族實在難展歡顏。（… and be able to put a smile upon the Chinese people's face around the world during a time where there's not a whole lot of smile for Chinese race.）」像張德培那樣對六四未忘的有多少人？答案該是很多、很多。至少在香港，從昨晚維園那十五萬點燭光可以見到，六四距今二十一年，還有不少人是未敢忘記、不會忘記。翻看中國民主運動資料中心編印的《八九中國民運報章廣告專輯》，從那一個又一個悲憤廣告可以見到當時香港人對於內地參與民運學生的同情以至對北京當局鎮壓的憤怒。

給爸爸的情書

信報財經新聞
2010-06-04
副刊．文化
麗都美識 By 陳頌紅
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
「傳說，女兒是爸爸上輩子的情人。」有一天，媽媽給我寄來一份剪報，就是以此作為開端。

文章是講述一對父女情深，女兒在任何情況，好的、壞的，想到的、掛念的，都是爸爸。爸爸犯錯，又會為他找最合理解釋，結果惹得那個當媽媽的打翻醋罈子。剪報上，有我媽媽以控訴一樣的血紅原子筆眉批，寫「想想看，我家父女又何嘗不是這個模樣？」兒時往事，叫我最難忘的，是爸爸背我在露台唱歌的情景。小時候我經常生病，但是每次生病我都感到很快樂。因為，無論我發熱感冒，還是肚痛嘔吐，爸爸例必會背我，在家中小露台來回踱步，一邊哼唱一首他自己創作的「囡囡歌」，一邊哄我入睡。爸爸的歌聲是世上最動聽的，爸爸的背部也是全世界最溫暖、最安全的地方。

還有，爸爸煮的湯、煮的粥是天下間最好喝的，爸爸弄的醉雞也是宇宙最強的。總之，爸爸做的一切一切，都被我列入「最最最」的類別，無人能及。

如果我是爸爸上輩子的情人，我們一定是一雙臭味相投的情人。吃多士要烤得發黑，喝奶茶要兩個茶包，不甜不膩的東西都不放進嘴巴，吃巧克力永遠不能停口，煮菜又總愛下麻油和燒酒。如果我是兒子，我就是倒模出來的「小爸爸」。

爸爸，我在美國的時候可有親口告訴過您，每當我感情受創，我就會想，男人之中，大抵只有爸爸不會傷害我、背叛我，只有爸爸可以不求回報，不顧一切地愛我？我可有親口告訴過您，這個世上，我只相信爸爸向我許下的所有承諾，從不擔心您會信口開河？幸好還有爸爸，我才會繼續相信愛，繼續追尋一個起碼像你對媽媽那麼專情專一的男人。

爸爸，您要乖，要努力，要加油。治療可能痛苦磨人，但正如您在電話中說，既來之，則安之。我明白，生病，尤其是癌症，是命運對熱愛生命者的殘酷虐待。不過您一定可以熬過去。

爸爸，你在我心目中，向來都是一個一諾千金的好爸爸。小時候您答應過我，您會長命百歲，記得嗎？爸爸，我信您。

Theda Skocpol is correct!!!

How Democracy Has Failed Thailand's Poor


As gun battles raged, killing dozens on the streets of Bangkok these past few days, it has become increasingly painful to remember that just over a decade ago, Thailand seemed the most stable and modern democracy in Southeast Asia. Thais boasted a new, liberal constitution and the first freedom-of-information law in the region. The Thai press was self-assured and free, and local nongovernmental organizations were preaching the gospel of democracy and human rights to their neighbors.

As a Filipino journalist traveling to Thailand in the second half of the 1990s, I marveled at the confidence of Thai politicians, activists and journalists. They saw themselves at the crest of the democratic wave sweeping Southeast Asia, especially after the fall of Suharto in Indonesia in 1998. Filipinos felt the same way: Having ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, they considered themselves the pioneers of democracy in the region.

How things have changed. Today Thailand and the Philippines demonstrate democratic decay rather than renewal; the optimism of the 1990s is now a mirage. Since then, these two countries have been shaken by corruption scandals, antigovernment conspiracies and violent mass protests staged by followers of populist and anti-democratic leaders.

The problems are rooted in the contradictions of the democratic enterprise. In the Philippines and Thailand, democracy has largely been an elite and middle-class project. In 1986, Filipino businesspeople, lawyers, teachers and university students joined nuns and priests as they prayed in front of tanks manned by soldiers loyal to Marcos. The troops refused to fire, forcing Marcos and his family to flee the country.

In Thailand in 1992, well-off protesters used mobile phones to coordinate massive demonstrations against army commander Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon, the leader of a military coup that had ousted the civilian government. The protests were brutally crushed, prompting the king to intervene, thereby ending the violence and paving the way for the return to civilian rule.

These two events showed the potency of out-of-power elites and a politicized middle class straining at the leash of authoritarian rule. The urban pro-democracy movements led by the educated and affluent set the stage for the enactment of new constitutions guaranteeing civil liberties, competitive elections and other reforms.

Those who were relatively well-off in the cities benefited from the democratic space. But they failed to institute a more inclusive politics, and now both countries have higher levels of income inequality than Indonesia and Malaysia.

It was really only a matter of time before populist politicians came along — Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra and the Philippines’ Joseph Estrada — and tapped into the growing resentment among the poor, who were denied a seat at democracy’s table. They were elected by landslides because they appealed to the poor.

Both men were eventually ousted from power through undemocratic means. Reeling from corruption scandals, Estrada fell in a second “people power” revolt in Manila in 2001, just halfway through his term. Thaksin hung on a while longer but was overthrown in a military coup in 2006.

Today there is an impasse on the streets of Bangkok. Thaksin’s Red Shirt followers are using the weapon of mass protest that the elites now in power wielded in 1992 — and again, a decade later, in their attempts to oust Thaksin. The future of Thai democracy seems precarious. Neither side will accept elections or street protests as the ultimate arbiter of who gets to run the country.

In the Philippines, electoralism has triumphed. Benigno Aquino III will soon assume the presidency. Estrada has chosen to contest power through the polls. He polled second to Aquino, but his populist vice-presidential running mate — Makati City Mayor Jejomar Binay — appears to be winning.

If he does, then the country will have a president from the hacienda and a vice president from the slums. The former is an untested political heir; the latter, an Uzi-wielding local boss — as good an indication as any of the electoral choices Filipinos have.

Forty years ago the president-elect’s father, then-Senator Benigno Aquino Jr, famously said: “The Philippines is a social volcano.” One need look no further than Congress and local governments to understand what he meant. Today, a few hundred families control elective posts. Some of them, like the new president’s own clan, have been in power for four generations.

For the poor in the Philippines and Thailand, democracy has not meant liberation. It was simply the new face of domination.

The crisis in Thailand and the recent election in the Philippines offer fresh opportunities for renewal. Both countries need a new social contract, one that guarantees what democracy has thus far failed to provide: a voice for the majority of citizens and accountability for those who wield power.

Sheila S Coronel
South China Morning Post May 20, 2010


Theda Skocpol is correct!!!

In terms of long term impact, her emphasis of the importance of the state (visible in the very title of the book) and (that's one of the crucial points Skocpol differs from Marx) the conception of the state as an independent actor within society and partially autonomous from other interests has been important in shaping later thought in political science.
The book is structured as a comparative historical analysis of the French Revolution of 1789 through the early 1800s, the Russian Revolution of 1917 through the 1930s, and the Chinese Revolution of 1911 through the 1960s. Skocpol argues that these three cases, spread over about a century and a half, are fundamentally similar instances. By analyzing how the social institution of the state changed and influenced the social change, the book can also be placed within the historical institutionalism paradigm.


Rich-poor divide underpins Thai crisis By Kevin Voigt, CNN

(CNN) -- A rift between Bangkok's economic elite and the growing clout of Thailand's rural poor is feeding a unique divide in a country that is no stranger to political turmoil.


"We have had conflicts in 1973, 1976 and 1992, but this is unlike anything we've seen before," said Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the governor of Bangkok, as government troops moved on the area near the city's business district where thousands of protesters have been encamped since March. "Those conflicts were more political, but here they go right into the heart of society."

Past divisions where more a clash of political personalities than a class division, said Paul Quaglia, a former CIA officer and head of PSA Asia, a Bangkok-based security firm. Access to affordable telecommunications across Thailand also is helping transform the nature of this conflict.

"It's impossible to overstate how important the ability of the rural poor to communicate beyond government censors has been in this protest," Quaglia said. "Everyone has cell phones, everyone has access to the Internet, to Twitter; the community radio stations in rural areas have been very active."

Moreover, the health of the nation's revered king has raised questions over the future role of the monarchy in Thailand, Quaglia said.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 82, has been hospitalized since September after complaining of fever and fatigue. King Bhumibol, the world's longest reigning monarch, wields little direct political power, but serves as a stabilizing force in Thai society. "We may be coming to a time when there is a sea change in the unofficial control the monarchy has on society," Quaglia said.

"It's becoming more about why 2 percent of the population gains 80 percent of the GDP," Quaglia said.

Class barriers and class differences are now at the heart of the conflict, the Bangkok governor told CNN.

"In Thailand, there is a great deal of social mobility, especially mobility upwards ... this is one of our strengths," Sukhumbhand said. "I think we have to go back to the traditional values of our society and build from the ruins we have witnessed today and are continuing to witness."

Indeed, the street scenes of dark smoke rising against the backdrop of tanks and gunfire is hard to reconcile with Thailand's reputation as the tolerant "land of smiles." The Southeast Asian nation draws millions of visitors to its pristine southern beaches and to tribal areas in the mountains north near the Laos and Myanmar border.

Thai Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij told CNN that outside of the areas directly affected by the protests and military crackdown business continues in most of Thailand. However, he acknowledges the damage that the conflict has done to tourism, which accounts for just over 6 percent of the country's total economic output.

Many foreign companies have moved executives and their families out of the center of Bangkok and closer to the international airport in case they need to evacuate, said Quaglia, the security specialist.

There also has been a sell-off in Thai stocks by foreign investors. The Stock Exchange of Thailand closed after its morning session Wednesday due to the escalating conflict on Bangkok streets.

"Investor sentiment is shot," said Korn, the Thai finance minister. "However, our stock market is robust -- in fact, it went up yesterday (Tuesday)."

"Thailand is an open economy ... we will recover from this," Korn said. "The economics I'm less concerned about ... What I'm worried about is the political division and social division."

He said the government has done a poor job communicating all it has done to subsidize rural farmers, bolster education and increase the social safety net for aging citizens.

"This message has not been received sufficiently at the rural level -- the perception is that we haven't done enough for the rural poor, although the reality is something different," Korn said.

The Second Most Important Job 與 一個七十前財相

"I have been privileged to learn much about the very best in human nature and a fair amount too about its frailties, including my own.

As I leave the second most important job I could ever hold, I cherish even more the first - as a husband and father. Thank you and goodbye.

"Above all, it was a privilege to serve. And yes, I loved the job not for its prestige, its titles and its ceremony - which I do not love at all. No, I loved the job for its potential to make this country I love fairer, more tolerant, more green, more democratic, more prosperous and more just - truly a greater Britain.

就是離別過　就是懷念過　便清楚愛怎出錯

便清楚你真的愛我　但往日我很傻

就是常做錯　就是求自我　未珍惜身邊一個

在此生再不想錯過　從年月裡　能全部看清楚
由始至終　只有你一位　難以代替　愛得多仔細
靜看著對方無言語　仍然是覺安慰
明天世間　怎去作估計　和你默契　愛一生一世
是你令人生能完美　誰人及你　等於我一切

Osborne's close friendship with Cameron has led to comparisons with the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the Labour Party in the mid-1990s. Responding to this comparison at the LSE in February 2006, Osborne said that there had been "no deal" between him and Cameron and he has repeatedly denied ambitions beyond the Chancellorship.

Asked whether or not he would be willing to sack a close colleague such as Osborne, Cameron stated, "With George, the answer is yes. He stayed in my shadow cabinet not because he is a friend, not because we are godfathers to each other's children but because he is the right person to do the job. I know and he knows that if that was not the case he would not be there."

Here is the final verdict: Duffy is a bigot!

Brown invited me to No 10 - but he won't be there


News

Isabel Oakeshott Deputy Political Editor

514 Words

02 May 2010

The Sunday Times

THE WOMAN labelled a "bigot" by Gordon Brown has told how he desperately appealed for her forgiveness in a 45-minute private meeting in her home. Gillian Duffy, the pensioner whose chance encounter with the prime minister on the campaign trail in Rochdale plunged Labour's election campaign into turmoil, says Brown invited her to visit him and his wife Sarah in No 10 in an attempt to make amends.

He went to her house after he was recorded dismissing her as "just a sort of bigoted woman" when he accidentally left a microphone on his lapel after getting into his car. His insult followed an apparently amiable public exchange with the pensioner, during which she questioned him about immigration.


Of his offer for her to visit Downing Street, she says: "I didn't like to say it, but all I could think was, 'I don't think you'll be there'."


In an interview in The Mail on Sunday published today, Duffy reveals how she refused repeated entreaties from the prime minister and his aides to pose with him on her doorstep for a photograph showing them shaking hands. She paints a picture of a premier shellshocked by the enormity of his blunder, which plunged Labour's beleaguered election campaign into total disarray on the eve of the final televised leaders' debate last week.

She tells how he asked her whether she had a family despite having discussed her grandchildren during their public exchange less than an hour earlier. Apparently rambling and confused, he also asked if she had met his wife, who was not accompanying him that day.

Duffy was a lifelong Labour voter, but says she will not vote on Thursday. In a blistering attack on the premier, she says: "I'm sorry for you, Gordon, because you have more to lose than me. I'm very sorry that this has happened but it's you who's going to lose out, not me."

Duffy says she was more hurt by being labelled a "woman" as opposed to a "lady" than being called a bigot, and attacks the difference between Brown's public and private persona exposed by their pavement conversation.

"He was smiling when he spoke to me but he was thinking that. What else is he thinking when he smiles?"

Brown's disastrous gaffe came after Labour spin doctors decided he needed to spend more time meeting "real" voters on the campaign trail. It followed Tory criticisms that the prime minister was "being moved from safe house to safe house under armed guard" to prevent potentially difficult encounters with disillusioned voters.

However, Duffy says: "If you're going to go and talk to people, you should have answers, shouldn't you? You don't just go there and shake their hands and tell them how well they're doing. All I did was ask questions. Does that make me a bigot?" Duffy: rejected Brown's pleas

Is Nice Clegg a True Liberal?

Nick Clegg has had sex with 'no more' than 30

 UK's JFK?!

The Daily Telegraph 01 Apr 2008


Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has spoken unusually frankly about his romantic past, admitting to sleeping with "no more than 30" women and revealing how he fell in love at first sight with wife Miriam.

In a no-holds-barred interview with magazine GQ, Mr Clegg recalled being "pretty gobsmacked" on first meeting the Spanish senator's daughter when they were both studying in Belgium.
After first wooing her in French, he learnt to speak Spanish for her sake, he said.


Pressed to reveal more, the Lib Dem leader said he had been in love twice before meeting his wife - once in an "unrequited" passion and once with a childhood sweetheart - but "definitely" regarded her as the love of his life.

And he went on to respond to a series of increasingly personal questions from interviewer Piers Morgan, who asked whether he saw himself as "good in bed".

"I don't think I am particularly brilliant or particularly bad," said the Lib Dem leader.

"Since the only judge of that is my wife..."

Mr Morgan insisted that there had been other women in his life and he replied: "Yes OK, well, not for a very long time."

When Morgan asked to know how many, Mr Clegg attempted to brush off the question by answering: "Not a list as long as yours, I'm sure".

But the interviewer would not be deflected, asking: "How many are we talking: 10, 20, 30?" "No more than 30," replied Mr Clegg.

"It's a lot less than that."

PM: "Ever had any complaints?"

NC: "Oh God yes, of course."

PM: "What would your wife say?"

NC: "I think she'd be very content and happy."

PM: "Would you ever be unfaithful to her?"

NC: "I certainly hope not."

Remembering his first meeting with Miriam, he said: "We were at the same college in Belgium. She was leaning against a wall outside an induction lecture, and that was that...

"I was pretty gobsmacked when I first saw her... Her English was rubbish and my Spanish non-existent. So we got by in French for a bit but then I learnt Spanish."

Mr Clegg is not the first politician to be subjected to a grilling on his personal life by GQ.

Former Conservative leader William Hague famously told the magazine in 2000 that he drank as many as 14 pints of beer a day while delivering drink to pubs in a student holiday job.

The Lib Dem leader was asked about his own alcohol intake, and said he did not drink every day and was last drunk "probably last summer... drinking wine with my family in France".

The alcoholism of his predecessor Charles Kennedy was "very difficult and unpleasant, for him and the party", said Mr Clegg, who said it would be "pretty hard" to run the country as an alcoholic.


A lot less than 30 is how many?



By CRAIG BROWN
05 April 2008

The Daily Telegraph


Calculators at the ready, and no conferring. It would take a skilled mathematician to work out what exactly Nick Clegg meant by "a lot less than 30''. Obviously 29 could never be called a lot less than 30; I'd say that 25, though less than 30, could not be termed a lot less. To my mind, the highest figure that could nevertheless be called a lot less than 30 is 24. But then one is also a lot less than 30, and so, too, is zero. But I don't suppose zero is an option, as Nick Clegg is married with children.

You know that a week has been uneventful when the news that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has admitted sleeping with "a lot less'' than 30 women is given its own headline. Paddy Ashdown became known to one and all as Paddy Pantsdown after admitting sleeping with less than three women, but more than one; now it seems that Nick Clegg will be known for the rest of his life as Nick Cleggover. At least we never had to come to terms with Sir Fling Campbell.

Every now and then, one famous person or another makes news by totting up his conquests and boasting about the score. In 1977, the Belgian crime writer Georges Simenon announced: "I did the sum a year or two ago and, since the age of 13?, I have had 10,000 women.'' As he was 74 at the time, this gave him an unlikely average of a different woman every day for 60 years.

If he was telling the truth, Simenon makes the Romanian tennis ace Ilie Nastase seem monastic. In his autobiography, Nastase wrote: "I think I've slept with 2,500 women.'' A year or two ago, the high-waisted TV personality Simon Cowell claimed in an interview: "I've had between 70 and 100 women, if I were to hazard a guess.'' Meanwhile, in his bumptious autobiography, The Living Legend, the chirpy DJ Tony Blackburn boasted: "Sex is very important to me. I adore making love. I've made love to about 250 women.'' All in all, Nick Clegg has a lot of catching up to do. You may attempt to argue that leaders of the main political parties and Tony Blackburn have different aims and values, but there you would be wrong. There is in fact an intriguing love-line, detailed in the invaluable 1987 reference book Who's Had Who, that links President Reagan with Tony Blackburn in just eight bed-hops.

For your interest, the chain goes Ronald Reagan - Nancy Reagan - Clark Gable - Ava Gardner - Frank Sinatra - Carol White - Richard O'Sullivan - Tessa Wyatt - Tony Blackburn. (Incidentally, another chain linking high politics to low pop goes like this: Eva Peron - Porfiro Rubirosa - Ava Gardner - Sir Gordon White - Vanessa Llewellyn - Dai Llewellyn - Tessa Dahl - Peter Sellers - Britt Ekland - Les McKeown of The Bay City Rollers.)

Generally speaking, politicians like to underestimate their conquests, while showbiz and arts figures prefer to overestimate them. The only exception is Jimmy Carter who decided to give an interview to Playboy just before the 1976 presidential election so as to jazz up his rather goody-goody Baptist image. "I've looked on a lot of women with lust,'' he confided, just as the interview was winding down. "I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognises I will do - and I have done it - and God forgives me for it.'' The admission (or was it a strange sort of boast?) seemed to pay off, as two weeks later Carter was elected President.

Other presidents have taken the more traditional less-than-two-but-more-than-none route, even when their truer total might have run to double or even triple figures. "Move over, this is your president,'' LBJ said, a mite bullishly, having entered the bedroom of a female aide at his ranch in Texas.

When Kennedy became President in 1961, an aide predicted, "This administration is going to do for sex what the last one did for golf'' - and so it transpired. There are obviously many possible bed-hopping lines to be traced to and from JFK, but one of the most colourful goes: JFK - Marilyn Monroe - Frank Sinatra - Jill St John - Robert Wagner - Natalie Wood - Warren Beatty - Joan Collins - Ryan O'Neal - Farrah Fawcett Majors - Sylvester Stallone.

The only prime ministerial chain that Britain can offer in competition is, it must be admitted, somewhat pitiful, with just two stops. It goes like this: John Major - Edwina Currie. At a stretch, it could, I suppose, be extended to three: John Major - Edwina Currie - Steve Norris, and then from "Shagger'' Norris to heaven-knows-where.

Mrs Currie has in the past suggested that she and Norris got together when they were sixth-form students in Liverpool, though Steve Norris rather ungallantly pooh-poohs the very idea. "For reasons best known to herself, Edwina has since chosen to suggest that our relationship was rather more developed'', he wrote in his 1996 autobiography. "She may, I suppose, have imagined a brief fumble under her school blouse behind St George's Hall to be an orgasmic experience, but I fear I was less impressed.'' Who are we to believe - Norris or Currie? There are some things that are too painful to contemplate. Either way, Edwina Currie and Steve Norris are a far cry from Marilyn Monroe and Jack Kennedy.

Now that Ken Livingstone has entered the fray, announcing that he has five children by three women, the question is raised: should we be any more interested in the sexual appetites of politicians than we are in the political appetites of sex symbols?
I doubt the news that Jordan voted for three different parties in five different elections would merit much of a headline. Yet whenever a politician claims to have had sex, we find ourselves eager to read on. Ten, 20, 30?

Do I hear an advance on 30? And how many children does that make? At the moment, only Ann Widdecombe is not prepared to join in the fun.

For too long, party fund-raising at the constituency level has been restricted to guessing the weight of a chocolate cake, or the number of boiled sweets contained in a glass jar. The Lib Dems could raise a small fortune by getting their members to place their bets on the exact number of their leader's sleepovers. If it really is more than 20 but "a lot less'' than 30, my fiver would be on 22, but who's to tell?

Lib Dem leader admits his pillow talk was all a bit of a distraction


15 April 2008
The Daily Telegraph

NICK Clegg expressed regret yesterday at discussing his prowess as a lover in an interview with a men's magazine.

Mr Clegg, who pledged when he became Liberal Democrat leader to make political life as "open and accessible'' as possible, was asked by Piers Morgan how many women he had slept with. "No more than 30,'' he replied.

After four months of trying to make an impact as leader of the third party Mr Clegg's claims in GQ magazine catapulted him into the limelight.

However, he conceded yesterday that he had attracted attention for all the wrong reasons. "If I have any regrets, it is that it serves as a distraction from the things that I passionately care about, which [are] that I think there are far too many families who are over-stretched [and] hard-pressed, [and] we don't yet have local authorities which are as environmental or as tough on crime and anti-social behaviour as I think we can be,'' he said.

In the interview, Mr Clegg gave a modest appraisal of his bedroom skills when he said: "I don't think I am particularly brilliant or particularly bad''. The remarks irritated Lib Dem MPs and heaped embarrassment on their leader, underline his inexperience. Mr Clegg, 41, who is married with a child, has been an MP since 2005.

In the ensuing furore, he was dubbed "Nick Cleggover'' by the tabloid press.

重慶文強案評論

重慶文強案評論

......我想起Lucian Pye...

有來有往的朋友，當然還包括當年才俊團的成員。提起才俊團，飛哥忽爾說：「跟你講個笑話！」原來，他早前跟李國能、李柱銘等碰面，李國能突然問他：「幾時帶我地去北京見世侄！」世侄者，正是現時主管香港事務的國家副主席習近平也。當年他們到北京見的那位書記習仲勛，就是現今不少香港政客事事要逢迎的習近平之父！當然，一向幽默兼且早已沒有回鄉證的李柱銘也來湊興，插嘴問：「係囉、係囉，幾時帶我地去見世侄？！」「李國能宣布退休之後，個人都輕鬆哂！哈哈！」早已退下政壇的飛哥，當然明白到無官一身輕的道理。

(Kong. HKEJ 24 April 2010)

Research Article




The State and the Individual: An Overview Interpretation (CQ-1991-Issue 127, 443-466 Cambridge University Press)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lucian W. Pye

It could be that no people have ever outdone the Chinese in ascribing moral virtues to the state or in deprecating the worth of the individual. First Confucianism and then the Chinese version of Leninism went all out in extolling the importance of rulers and society and in minimizing the rights of individuals. The gap between the moral worth and the recognized rights of state and citizen in China was and remains huge both because of the way the Chinese have consistently given paramountcy to the state and the ways in which they have subordinated the individual to the group. The extraordinary imbalance in the relations of the state and individuals provides both the structural and the cultural bases for the human rights practices which are now the most contentious issues between China and the west, especially the United States. What is outrageous to Americans can be for most Chinese normal expectations – although since Tiananmen a majority may feel that the state has gone too far.

(Also look at: 69 Foreign Aff. 56 (1989-1991) China: Erratic State, Frustrated Society; Pye, Lucian W.)

The Price of Admission .....攀附﹑冷言冷語﹑獻身 ﹑默默忍受......荊棘滿途、悲劇收場..

明報

2010-04-20
MP+觀點
By 吳志森

泛民一廂情願繼續自動獻身

紙上女星，攀附豪門，放出聲氣，要跟富家二世祖「溝通」。半山豪宅，門高狗大，守衛森嚴， 「溝通」云云，只是自說自話，一廂情願。女星非常努力，到處打聽「溝通」門路。今天，找到了聲稱替富豪門衛熟稔的一位朋友，談起來十分投契，開記者會宣布，與富家子「溝通」的計劃，大有進展。明天，約好了替富豪清潔的阿嬸，也能無所不談，對嫁入豪門，女星表現得信心滿滿。

正當女星到處放風，說婚期已近，下半生將盡享榮華富貴之際，富家子突然宣布婚訊，與舊愛共諧連理。拍拖多年，舊愛深知二世祖脾性，絕不逆其意懂得百分百遷就，亦深明豪門規矩，不會有半步行差踏錯。消息傳出，紙上女星十分錯愕，含兩泡眼淚，在記者面前訴苦，但口風一轉，又聲言絕不放棄，會繼續「溝通」，希望終有一天，富家子能回心轉意。阿嬸門衛，也出來發話，叫女星不要灰心：富家子只想測試女星是否真心，有沒有誠意，即使真的結婚了，新娘不是你，只要繼續堅持，說不定將來富家子會回頭找你。聽了這番話，女星頭頂泛起了一片金黃的陽光，心中又再充滿了希望……

這不是娛樂版的八卦消息，而是政情版的嚴肅新聞。事前毫無徵兆，特區政府突然宣布一個保守得驚人的2012 政改方案，在主張「溝通」的溫和民主派瀕臨反之際，無論民主派內部，還是所謂直通天庭的南來探子，抑或是有名有姓的中南海紅人，都以權威口吻，通過各放風渠道，勸說「不要絕望，繼續溝通」，但傳出來的信息，有些不用細想就知道是不值一哂的歪理，有些卻比佛偈還要深奧難明，想半天都無法理解。例如： 「不要急於反，可能只是想測試溫和民主派是否真正想溝通，是否真的有誠意。」又例如： 「溝通之門剛剛打開，不是關上，切勿誤讀。」再例如一位接近天庭的香港人，以一貫苦口婆心的語調說： 「門未開，亦未關……將來如何發展仍未知道……」

泛民還留在幼兒園階段

玄之又玄的猜謎遊戲不停上演，港人暈頭轉向。似是而非的所謂消息論據，也使溫和民主派如墮五里霧中，東南西北都無法搞清楚。五一六臨近，泛民自亂陣腳，當然無法搞出什麼名堂。7 月立法會就政改方案投票，也可能臨時拋什麼小恩小惠的所謂讓步，而方寸大亂。泛民雖然在香港爭取民主幾十年，但與阿爺比較，政治鬥爭政治謀略，還留在幼兒園階段。

紙上女星，被導演用三寸不爛之舌，誘騙剝了光豬，拍了全裸三級片，女星一把眼淚一把鼻涕哭訴被人欺負。小事一樁，導演派人到女星耳邊講了幾句，女星馬上破涕為笑，自動獻身，今後任何高難度動作，都依足導演的吩咐，答應照辦……


MP+觀點 明報 湯家驊

2010-04-22


窮家女的故事

早兩天，資深評論員吳志森寫了一篇「紙上女星攀附豪門」的文章，細緻描述女星一心想嫁入豪門，到處打聽「溝通」門路，卻被富豪的清潔阿嬸和門高狗大的門衛欺騙，自取其辱。文章結尾時，吳志森更指女星被導演「誘騙剝光豬拍全裸三級片」，尊嚴盡喪，悲劇收場。

吳志森的故事情節可能有點誇張，表面上是真實的。只是他並沒有耐性尋求故事背後的真相罷了。其實女星出身於貧困家庭，父母早喪，遺下了兩男一女。女星排行第二，上有一位哥哥，下有一位幼弟。幼弟剛進幼稚園，女星很希望他能升讀名校，憑自己努力，尋求上進，造福社會；唯獨這學校的校董正是富家子弟之家族成員。女星的哥哥也希望幼弟能出人頭地，但他生性偏激，只懂得終日在學校門前嘈吵擲物，試圖引起校董注意，打開入讀大門。但他的行動愈激烈，校董愈反感，甚至敕令即使幼弟成績卓越也絕不取錄。


女星有見及此，別無他法，唯有含辛茹苦、忍辱負重，甚至出賣色相，為的並非希望嫁入豪門，而是只求能與校董一見，訴之以情、說之以理，令幼弟有機會能出人頭地。當然，出賣色相與玉石俱焚的心態都是要不得，最終可能同樣是徒勞無功，但冷嘲熱諷、大肆咆哮、甚至作出人身攻擊的旁觀者又有什麼良謀上策，可令幼弟推向上進之途？要論犧牲，若言艱苦，女星所做的，可能比哥哥門外不停叫嚷更為痛苦，更不獲同情和諒解。今天世態炎涼，捧高踩低的冷言冷語，女星也只好默默忍受。吳志森的文章正是鐵證。

不少人對女星早存不屑之心

更重要的是，女星可能因此一役而永難尋找良眷、一生歸宿盡。她只希望她的努力和苦心終有一天會為幼弟所理解；這對女星來說，已是足夠的認同和回報了。當然，吳志森先生未能全面掌握故事的真相是情有可原的。要理解女星的苦心和努力，必須先對中央與港人在政治權力上之強弱懸殊、香港政治力量的分佈形勢、港人對爭取普選相對於對中港關係的看法，及是否認同要以激烈行動衝擊制度等問題有某一程度的了解、分析和思考。在這方面，坐在冷氣房內安家評天下，和站在最前線、每天要與政治對手博弈之同時亦要面對選民是有很大分別的。最重要的，是不少人本身對女星早存不屑之心，以至她的一舉一動也看不過眼。女星一生注定荊棘滿途、悲劇收場亦與此不無關係。