只守自以為是的「法」

前一天的網文〈搞成咁,可以點?〉,幾乎只將兩天《明報》長短不一的文章上載,僅略說「感想」,沒有點出每篇文章的重點,主要因為力有不逮沒法「撮要」,也因慵懶。這篇網文也基於同一理由,將兩篇來自同一媒體同一作者的文章上載,再加上要問一直問過而沒有答案的問題。

這兩篇文章都是《晴報》社論,且由《香港經濟日報》創辦人石鏡泉所寫。《晴報》是香港經濟日報集團所辦免費派發刊物。石鏡泉是誰,維基百科有介紹,論「篇幅」,其著作之「等身」字數量,多於以下的簡介﹕

石鏡泉為《香港經濟日報》創辦人之一,現為該集團的執行董事、副社長兼研究部主管,曾從事貿易及製造業。現為該報撰寫《經濟與投資》專欄,及香港電台第一台逢星期六 09:20 – 11:00與鄺民彬主持「投資新世代」直播節目。

簡單而言,石鏡泉是「經濟人」多於「法律人」。什麼是經濟人什麼是法律人,「不言而喻」。這兩篇「社論」談的主要不是經濟,而是「法」律或法治的法。

經濟,我不懂;法治或法律,我也不懂。有些想法,這兩篇「社論」都與我有相同之處。也即,我的想法不是「獨一無二」的。老實說,看過好些評論,出自法律界翹楚,也有記者,有學者,當然不乏「評論界」,都有我認同和大有疑問的。

我就先提兩個疑問﹕

(1)有人極力反對篩選,為什麼這次「公投」只有三個「小圈子」篩選後的選擇;

(2)有人聲稱為「正義」而公民抗命,也即那些人認為「現有」的「法」不公義,是惡法。但你的「正」是真正的正嗎,還是「小數人」以為的正,為什麼這些人認為是正的就是正。

以上問法可能有字眼上的「偏差」,也不要罵我是不是「梁粉」,還是好好讀一下那兩篇「社論」,再問自己可有用同一標準「質疑」別人(是語言偽術)而「寬待」自己的同一做法(為正義)。

我只服理,誰能就這兩篇文章的問題說服我,我就聽誰的。但請不要跟我說,我為公義,就是無理也是理。

2014年6月23日《晴報》

2014年6月23日《晴報》

2014年6月24日《晴報》

2014年6月24日《晴報》

廣告

17 thoughts on “只守自以為是的「法」

  1. Your two questions aren’t easy to answer, especially when you want 理 . I don’t think I will really go in that direction. I will just say something about what I think (for question 1) and something about what I’ve learned here (for question 2).

    1a. I think they did something bad about 這次「公投」. I don’t like the outcome that there are only 3 “similar" choices either. (So, I’m not really trying to defend that.) They could have done better than that. They could, in the first place, have a set of categories, for examples, A. left, B. moderate, C. right, whatever left, moderate, and right mean. (Can be 5 categories or whatever number.) There are one or more choices in each category. After the first round pick, no matter what the final 3 choices are (or final 4 or whatever), in the second round people can still vote for what category they like first and then vote for the choice they like, if it survives, in that category. Even if their choice isn’t in the final 3, they can still pick a category; they just cannot pick the choice they like most. They can pick another choice if they want or just pass. In this way, the negative impact of 篩選 should be relatively little. And it can reflects what people want better.

    1b. Let’s agree or assume that 這次「公投」有篩選. Now, the question (there can be some other questions, but I have time to talk about this one only) may become which kind of 篩選 one likes better. It’s like picking the lesser of two devils. There can still be reasons to support one over the other. I suspect that there are quite a number of people who don’t like 這次「公投」的篩選 but go to vote in the second round (6.22). They probably just don’t like the other 篩選 more.
    Refraining from going to vote because of or given the bad 「公投」的篩選 may not be the best thing to do, if one thinks that the other 篩選 is worse. Politics sometimes is complicated.
    What if I want the middle-of-the-road choices? (I do want to have those choices too though I cannot come back and vote.) I hope they can do something about it that could make the situation better. But unfortunately, it seems that there may not be enough time to do something about it or that it’s difficult to make things better given the situation we are already in.

    2. will be in another post.

  2. 2a.
    Let’s not talk about 正義 and 公義 for now and leave them until a bit later.
    In a democratic system like the one we have here in the states, 小數服從多數 is not the only thing there. Of course, some proposed law getting passed or not depends on the final vote counts or 小數服從多數 in the Congress. In the process, there are ways that the 小數 can do something about it.
    But let me talk about the Congress first. The Congress consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The House has a number of representatives. Each state takes up a certain number of representatives. That number is approximately proportional to the population of that particular state. So, in the sense of number of people, each person who has the right to vote in the country is equally represented in the House. The Senate is another story. There are 100 senators in the Senate, 2 from each state. So, each state is equally represented in the Senate.
    So, there can be situations that some proposed laws getting passed in the Senate do not reflect the majority of people in the country. And there can be situations that some proposed laws getting passed in the House do not reflect the majority of states. The good news (or bad news) is that any proposed laws have to get passed in both the Senate and the House before they become laws. However, the President can veto. So, we make it (多數) difficult.
    Let me go back to the point that the 小數 can do something about it. (The set up of the Congress isn’t about what the 小數 can do.) One thing they can do is filibuster. That’s is similar to 拉布 in HK. We don’t do filibuster that often though. We don’t have to rely on it too much. But HK isn’t really democratic and 建制派 is always the majority, what can the 小數 do but 拉布? (Does HK’s Legislative has a bicameral system?) The reason we allow filibuster is that in a democratic system some proposed laws that are very unfair to some minority group can get passed, and filibuster is there so that in some cases it can send the proposal back to discussion and may change some parts of them before voting or even throw the whole thing out.
    For example, (though it is unlikely that it will happen today, but imagine that it was 120 years ago) imagine that there is a proposed law that the minimum wage for Chinese American workers is half of that of white American workers but they have to pay twice the income tax. Imagine that in both the Senate and the House most congressman are white and not that many congressmen like Chinese Americans. They pass the law. Well, it is 小數服從多數. Now, imagine that a congressman who is a friend to Chinese Americans. He uses filibuster, trying to stop the law from passing. He may or may not succeed. But at least he has a tool to use.

  3. 2b
    Other things the 小數 can do is to go on demonstrations and get help from the media. Again, these may not work all the times, but it works some times.
    Demonstrations can get to a point that they become civil disobedience. Though it didn’t happen that many times, especially for big ones, in American history. The most famous one was the civil movement in the 1960s, where Martin Luther King was the leader, though there were many unsung heroes doing a lot of things to support that movement. The people in this movement, though many in number, were the minority in number (小數) compared to the majority who didn’t support that movement then.
    We can ask the question you ask: their「正」是真正的正嗎? How can we answer that?
    First, it is case by case. So, we cannot have a one-size-fit-all answer to all cases. Second, sometimes we have to let the history unfold and let people learn and think about it. It may take years or decades before some different but 正的 consensus or majority view about it to come up. Today, not that many people think the civil movement in the 60’s isn’t 正. Back then, the majority view may not have been kind to the movement.

  4. zpdrmn chang﹕

    你果然有研究;但我真的對此興趣不大,有時看一些評論,也只能看最簡單直接的講法,也不能不敢多想。

    • 研究? Nothing like that. It’s just that through these years I’ve picked up some knowledge about the American political system and American history a bit here and a bit there. And I use it as a comparison to what’s happening in HK.

      I have something more to say about the question #2 of yours. I’ll try to keep it short.
      What if their「正」isn’t really that good. Again, that could be picking the lesser of two devils when there is no other better choice. Both are not that good. Which one is not as bad as the other?
      In America it is not necessarily a big problem. Even if this time we don’t get it quite right or what is proposed is not perfectly 正, we can do it better next time. When something turns out not right or as good as expected, we can propose changes or new laws. The Congress, the legislative branch, can make proposals and then see if they get passed as laws. So, we can regard some particular proposal, voting on it to see if it get passed as law, or new law, as a small part of a long process.
      In HK, it’s different. The legislative branch can’t make proposals of new laws. Correct me if I get it wrong. It’s ridiculous to me. The legislative branch is crippled. It’s function to check and balance the power of the other two branches is mostly gone. Sad.
      Also, many people see (the Chinese government never said otherwise) that whatever they get from 政改 this time around is the final deal and can never or nearly impossible to change anything later. (Another outcome is standing in place or 拉倒.)
      In such political setting, maybe one would ask the question you asked: Their「正」是真正的正嗎? If so, to me it is kind of sad too. (Because of the political setting.) I’m not saying that you asked the question with that on your mind.
      I’ll stop here. Hope that it didn’t bore you to death.

  5. 622 其實不是一次公民投票。公民投票是要就著一個富爭議性的議題要求公眾作出選擇。但這次所謂公投給投票者提供幾乎完全一樣的選項,連『其他』(即所有選項都不選)的選項也沒有。投票人投票時就只有支持發起「公投」者。所以,這次所謂公投,其實是一次跟簽名運動一樣的活動,投了票就等如簽名支持主辦者的訴求。主辦者其實是要求公眾簽名支持他們,而不是要知道公眾的選擇。Blog 主給主辦者的語言偽術混淆了,所以才會有你的第一項疑問。
    不過,中央那份我是主人、你是蟻民的白皮書,實在氣人。八十年代中英談判時,港人被中共拒於談判門外的那份屈辱和無助感,也即時由塵封了的角落,湧上我這老油條的心頭,何況是那些80後的民主憤青。難怪有數十萬人投下他們的抗議票。

  6. potato﹕

    你的分析我大致贊同。所以我認為這次所謂的公投是表態多於其他意義。至於那份白皮書,本來有點感想,只是對很多「前因」不熟悉,寫來有太多不成熟的地方,還是算了。

  7. zpdrmn chang﹕

    我的貧乏理解是,香港到底只是個城市,雖然有自己的「小憲法」《基本法》,但始終「受制」於「一國」的憲法,所以要完全跟其他「國家」來比附,多少有點難。我真的不懂選舉這一套,更難多說。有些想法或疑問,大都來自別人的評介,很可能有偏差。

    • It’s not 要完全跟其他「國家」來比附. Different democratic countries have different systems. I don’t know much about other democratic systems. But there are similarities, like check and balance of power. Even though in other countries it may be called differently, the idea is the same. I just use the American system to illustrate some of those points. And by comparison it is easier to see whether what’s unfolding in HK is going in the direction of becoming a democratic system, though it may be different in details from that of the US or other democratic systems.
      「受制」is about limiting the power. 憲法 is also about limiting the power. Well, in practice, the Chinese 憲法 isn’t really about that. So, I should talk about democratic systems. (I don’t consider “中國式民主" as it is today is really democracy.) What power needs to be limited? Not that much for the one who has teeny tiny power, but the one who has great power. The idea of check and balance the power of each other between the 3 branches of the government is to limit their power. (It’s not just 三權分立, it is also互相制衡 which is very important.) The election system in some sense is to limit the power of 2 branches. Well, the media is there to help limit the power of the government too. 憲法 is about limiting the power of the government. (It also states what rights the people has. In a sense, that also limits the power of the government.)
      It’s true that 香港到底只是個城市, but it is special in that we are promised “one country, 2 systems." 「一國」的憲法 has bigger power over 《基本法》. One is for the country, most part of it, that is. The other is only for a small city. 《基本法》in about limiting the great power of 「一國」的憲法 or limiting the extension of the power of 「一國」的憲法 into HK. How successful it is in practice is another story. So, 「受制」 can be seen the other way around. That is, in some aspects, to certain degrees, 「一國」的憲法 「受制」於 《基本法》.
      Of course, in some aspects, to certain degrees, 《基本法》「受制」於「一國」的憲法 too. However, if the aspects become too numerous or the degrees become too high, that is, 「一國」的憲法不「受制」 anymore, it will destroy 兩制 and the promise is broken. Many people in HK say 唔制 when they see something suspicious from 「一國」.
      Let’s see how these 「受制」, 兩制, 不「受制」, and 唔制 play out. And see if it will become 兩邊都唔制 and then 「一國」 tells HK people that 唔制都要制.

  8. zpdrmn chang﹕

    按我的粗淺理解,香港基本法只能受制於中國憲法,也即根據中國憲法,即(藉修改)中國憲法可修改基本法,反過來則不可。要說這兩者的關係,與其說中國憲法會受制於基本法,不如說中國憲法受制於中英聯合聲明,不可以任意修改基本法的大原則。白皮書最令香港人不順氣的,大概是那種「氣焰」,就是香港其實沒有本身的高度自治權,而是由「一國」即中共中央給多少有多少。

    • 愛國的要求則令人失笑, 継而抓不著头腦. 試想像一位民主國家的法官須要宣誓愛國 (patriotic), 真是笑話. 似乎在那英文版本他們不敢這樣寫.
      不用修改中國憲法啦. 強國人做事不一定受制於中國憲法, 有法不依, 他們愛橫行也拿他們沒法. 修改中國憲法就真是非常非常的給香港人靣子. 不用妄想.

  9. zpdrmn chang﹕

    梁愛詩(大意)說,律師能不偏不倚好好執行自己本份依法辦事,就是愛國了。就是如此簡單還是她自己太「簡單」?

    • 實際情況是…? 她說了算? 可否將她的「律師能不偏不倚好好執行自己本份依法辦事,就是愛國了」立法? 跟著可否在這"寬鬆"限制的基礎上,談談競選特首者怎樣是愛國? 然後立法?

      要暫停! 有攪作? 想休息? 那就後會不知期.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s