comment 0

Notes from the Street: How were the People of the Anti-Occupy Central Demonstration different to July 1st

中文版本附於原文之後

編按:在這篇文章裏,方禮倫分享了他於八一七「反佔中」遊行中親身經歷的所見所聞,並將那批遊行人士跟他在七一為爭取民主之同路遊行人士相比。他發現兩個遊行的性質以及警方的應對截然不同。當中之弄虛作假,使他不禁扼腕長嘆。In this essay Evan shares his experience of being at the August 17th Anti-Occupy Central Demonstration and of the people saw and spoke to there, and compares them with those people he joined at the July 1st Pro-Democracy march. He notes the very different nature of the two demonstrations, as well as the police response, and find himself unable to hold back his shame at what he considers is the disingenuous nature of the event.

I first noticed the difference at Admiralty MTR station. Several large groups of 50 or more people, usually dressed in matching association shirts, were being shepherded by group leaders. Like a tour group the people congregated around a flag or some other marker. Their day as a group had started much earlier.

The people did not seem familiar with the MTR. Many held single-way tickets in their hands, so I can only presume they do not own an Octopus card.

A few women really stood out, and had clearly dressed up for the occasion. However no one was wearing branded clothes. This was an older generation of market shoppers. There was a familiar earthy smell about them, of stale sweat and herbal tea. These were not public housing tenants but rural villagers, a suspicion confirmed by their heavily tanned skin, short stature and accents laced with Hokkien. They had thick fingers that paled towards the fingertips from years of working with their hands in the sun. They did not mix among the other commuters but stuck very closely together. A clan on the move.

Young people were noticeable by their absence. A few of school age, usually in their early teens, were accompanying family. Like the younger July 1st crowd they spoke Cantonese without an obvious accent, but noticeably changed their tones when speaking with their family.

Compared to the crowds who had gathered for July 1st this crowd was much louder. People shouted. Yet there was also a distinct lack of energy or conviction. Many of the people seemed reluctant to be there, their posture and expression suggesting resignation at making up a crowd. Not once did I hear anyone mention politics, democracy or why they were there.

Most of the conversation evolved around directions – many seemed to think Victoria Park was in Central. The other popular topic was food and drink. Clearly these people had just come from a meal and had been promised another. They were expecting to be take; care of. Whilst most people carried a day bag, many did not have any water or at best a very limited amount.

Listening in to the conversation I also received my first shock of the day. A group of elderly men stood watching Caucasians in the station. Assuming I did not understand Cantonese they talked of their “shame” that “Chinese soil” should be polluted by “gweilos”. One said that foreigners used to be the enemy as another added that “a patriot would kill them”. This conversation was shouted and continued for several minutes, and surprisingly attracted no attention from either other members of their group or by-standers.

On July 1st I had joined a mass of individuals and families who only began to congregate in the streets around Victoria Park. There was a diversity of people present; a cross section of the Hong Kong street. Theirs was the sound of the city, and the tones of Hong Kong Cantonese. People kept to themselves, but they also seemed unfazed by what they saw. I felt part of a crowd.

Among the predominantly Chinese crowd there were a few Westerners and Eurasians. Some were familiar faces, people I know who were born here or who have devoted their lives to the interests of the city and the people that have become their new home. Many were there with local partners, with husbands and wives. Many of these mixed relationships were between professional and well-to-do people, who had nothing personal to gain and much to lose by being there. And yet they chose to come.

However on August 17th I felt isolated. I was an individual among groups; a foreigner among a crowd that saw me only as one. I was the only “gweilo” there, and I did not feel welcome. I felt watched.

A journalist from Ming Pao approached me for an interview. When he realised I was there also as an observer and was meaning to write on my experience, his demeanour changed and our exchange become a lot more light hearted, but also frank. “There are so many from the PRC”, he said, “this is not a protest but a gathering of associations”. “It’s a joke”, he laughed, a broken man resigned to his fate. He slapped my back and wished me well.

About a quarter of those present were clearly from the Mainland. I had expected this, as reports flooded in that morning of cross border buses being unloaded. One particularly disturbing photograph I had seen was the vandalized interior of one of these buses. The nature of the curses that had been left I have seen before among the very worst and criminal elements of our society.

These unverifiable reports were supported by messages I had received from friends around town. People I know and trust had seen buses being loaded in Yuen Long, the driver paying each passenger $250 for the day. Another friend had seen several busloads of Mainlanders with protest banners leave a hotel in Sheung Wan. Two other friends, including one working at Hong Kong’s leading English language newspaper, had informed me that members of their families had received messages from their employers threatening them if they did not join a group that was being formed to take them to Victoria Park, and that transport and meals had already been arranged.

I could tell most of the Putonghua speakers were from the Mainland. Their look, and the fact that many did not seem able to speak Cantonese and had heavy regional accents, betrayed them. They sat in groups. When I attempted to talk to them I was always immediately approached by a younger woman who spoke a little English. Each time they asked “what press do you write for?”. I said I did not write for the press and that I was merely curious. Each time I got the same response: “why should we speak to you if we do not know who you are?”, before being given the cold shoulder. Telling them my name and saying I was a curious Hong Kong resident clearly wasn’t enough.

Thankfully an intern at Asia Sentinel from Yunnan who was with me for the day had more success. Whilst the majority of Mainlanders were from across the border, including groups from Yunnan and Yangzhou, there were also those who live or study in Hong Kong. What they told her was that they had chosen to join the demonstration as they wanted there to be more “unity” between China and Hong Kong. Living and studying in Hong Kong they were disappointed to find Hong Kong people closed and unwelcoming. They were not here to demonstrate against Occupy Central but to advocate for a better relationship between the Chinese people. This is a sentiment I share, though I disagree fundamentally with what this protest is supposed to represent and the polarising effect it has had.

More open to talk were the many South Asians, Indonesians and West Africans who were present. All wore Chinese association shirts, yet formed their own small groups, usually of around 20 people. They did not mix, but always had an association minder.

A group of Sri Lankans told me that they had come because their boss had told them they must. When I asked what the protest was about, I was told “China is interfering with Hong Kong” and that “this is an anti-China rally”. When I asked them why there were so many people carry the China flag there was a sudden pause followed by silence. The group members turned to one another, before one man had the courage to say, “I think we’ve been told something different.”

It was a Nepalese man who provided the best anecdote. He and his group were there to support the DAB. His story was similar, but there was a knowingness to the way he told me his story I found most revealing. It was all about “friendship”. “Our friend supports the DAB”, he said, “our friend and his friends in the DAB help each other. They help us in Hong Kong”. He would not say what he did or describe the help they received, adding only “it’s good for business”. When I asked him why he thought so many people had joined the demonstration this was his reply:

“We don’t really understand politics. We don’t care. We’re all simple people here. All we want is a simple life.”

This really summed up the crowd. Looking around I saw a people bewildered by the experience of being in town, and being part of such a gathering. The groups stopped often to take pictures – always as a group, and always with a prepared banner. Many people seemed to take pride in recognising other groups as if viewing a parade.

Before I arrived I had expected there to be more conservative middle class people; more of the people who front the Alliance; more pro-China academics and journalists. I had also expected to see those ladies who play afternoon tennis at private clubs with their sun screen and brand name, dry-fit clothing, many of whom had in the days leading up to the demonstration attempted to rally support from my own family. It was not just that I did not see them on Sunday, but that I did not see how they would have fit in to the crowd. Perhaps they all got cold feet? Some, I was told, decided to play tennis.

By contrast the July 1st crowd stood patiently in the heat and rain. I was one of those who waited patiently for over 4 hours to leave Victoria Park. Packed tightly in to the space we did seek shade and a place to sit but stood in line. I was not part of any group but with a friend. We met because we both decided to go, not because we were asked. I received no food or drink or any gifts, but when the rain fell others shared with me their umbrella.

On July 1st the majority of the crowd wore their own shirts and waved their own home-made banners. Slogans called for democracy, justice and social justice. The groups present represented issues as well as communities. LGBT groups stood side by side with Catholic associations. The Hong Kong SAR flag was waved along with the Colonial Flag; and the Nationalist flag and the Communist flag. Mandela, Gandhi and Martin Luther King were quoted, and it was in their spirit that the crowd had gathered. Among the crowd I heard young students discuss Thomas Picketty. Not everyone may have agreed, and indeed a variety of opinions were represented, but these people were engaged in a debate.

On August 17th everyone I spoke to said they were doing someone else a favour. Conversation revolved around food, drink and, a question I heard repeated put to organisers, how long would they “need” to be here. Patriotism echoed in the marching bands, and the Communist flag flew beside SAR flags. When a nationalist flag was raised in provocation along the route a minor scuffle broke out. But why, if this was a Hong Kong demonstration on a Hong Kong issue, would this flag, representative of the historic allegiance of so many in our community, be a provocation?

On July 1st teams had been arranged to collecting rubbish for recycling. The Alliance, having erected support stations along the route distributing free bottles of water, made no such arrangement and the streets were littered with empty water bottles, broken banners and gifts handed out by the associations taking part. When I pointed out the rubbish to an elderly woman she replied that “it would be much worse if there were to be protests”. I asked her whether she had been to a protest in Hong Kong. She grew angry and refused to answer.

Then there was the police, who as always acted with a level or personal decorum for which this city should be proud. The decision to deploy a minimal police presence was welcome. There were no solid barriers erected, and the route was marked were necessary by police tape. Individual policemen walked among the marches, and small teams were present to provide assistance to both marchers and the general public at important junctions only. A security analyst I know described it as a “low security posture”. There were no major movements of resources around the demonstration, as if anticipating trouble, and the officers themselves, far more relaxed and standing noticeably less upright than they were on July 1st, were deployed in a manner to assist rather than confront. I very much hope the response is representative of a new approach the police will be adopting to all public demonstrations.

I also noted that the police seemed to be working alongside another policing force. These men wore yellow visibility vest similar to those worn by the police, but were in fact CCP volunteers. I noted on several occasions these volunteer teams seemed to operate in conjunction with police officers, and yet I also noted that I never once saw an officer give them a command. These volunteers, who greeted demonstrators with encouragement yet would not offer me assistance when I asked for directions, were clearly working for the event organisers. I again wonder if we will be seeing such self-policing arrangements in future?

I had anticipated a turnout similar to July 1st. It was clearly nowhere close. The Hong Kong University POP team placed the number at 80,000 people, or under half of the July 1st count. (The police estimate is 111,000 to 90,000 the other way.) Walking along the route there was no evidence of popular support. Unlike in July when streams of people both joined and would leave the rally along adjoining streets, those streets were now empty. The marchers all started from Victoria Park and marched to the official end point in Central. Here they were greeted with much fanfare by pseudo-models and Queen’s “We Are The Champions” playing on loudspeakers, and celebratory group photographs were taken. What exactly where they celebrating? It all felt like a sponsored walk.

Where July 1st felt like a popular protest, called by the organisers but made by the people, August 17th felt disingenuous and staged. The Alliance may claim to represent the silent majority but on evidence of this demonstration represent only an alliance of pro-establishment associations who have made a concerted effort to mobilise vast resources to gather a crowd. There was a lot of money that went in to staging this event. A lot of arrangements were made. Will questions be asked about this? Will our government release figures detailing the number of people brought across the border in the few days leading up to the demonstration? Will the organisers be transparent as to who paid for all the transportation that had been arranged and for all the drinks and other gifts that were distributed?

But like the Ming Pao journalist I find myself laughing in pain. As Hong Kong person it hurts me to see non-resident and foreign recruited not only to influence but to claim to “represent” the “majority” view of my people. It hurts me to see the bigotry, racism and intolerant nationalism of some of our elderly people who were defined in a very different time stoked by those who seek to manipulate the political scene. But most hurtful is the shame I feel that there are people within our society, people of influence and respect, who could organise an event like this and be so disingenuous as to suggest it is representative of Hong Kong.

I do not know anyone who wants to occupy Central. The majority have many very legitimate concerns. But this does not mean Hong Kong people, especially those who engage in the political debate, are against it per se. The overwhelming majority of Hong Kong people are more united than those behind this demonstration are prepared to admit: we are united in our desire for democratic reform and for there to be less interference in our internal affairs. The Alliance has played to these wishes not by stating what they represent but by demonising the opposition as unpatriotic, undemocratic and violent. Instead of appealing to the moderate ground they have chosen to embrace bigotry and to resort to the worst kind of shameless manipulation that has and continues to blight our politics.

Originally published on Asia Sentinel


街頭直擊:「反佔中」與七一遊行人士有何不同

我首先留意到「反佔中」與七一遊行人士不同的,是在金鐘地鐵站裡。幾組大約由五十人或更多、穿著相襯社團T恤的人群,在隊長帶領下出現了。就像旅行團般,人群在旗幟或其他標誌物旁聚集。而他們的「遊行團」在更早之前經已開始。

這些人似乎並不熟悉地鐵。許多人手持單程票,所以我只好假設他們並沒擁有八達通卡。

幾位女士穿著突出,顯然已為配合場合作好準備。但當中沒有一個人穿著品牌衣服。他們是去菜市場買餸的上一代。在他們身上,散發出一種熟悉但陳舊、汗水與涼茶攪合的基層氣味。從他們黝黑的膚色、短小的身段及閩南口音,可以看出他們並非公屋居民,而是由鄉村來的農民。那些粗大的手指,泛白的指尖,都是長年在陽光底下工作而留下的印證。他們緊隨隊伍,並與港鐵裏其他乘客清楚分隔。好一隊整妝待發的族群。

青年人是當中的異類,因為他們基本上都缺席了。廖廖數位十來歲的少年隨他們家人而來。跟七一時的羣眾一樣,他們都能說地道的港式粵語。但當他們轉向家人時,腔調卻明顯變了。

跟七一的人群相比,這些人的聲浪更猛。有些人甚至在大聲叫囂著。但他們當中明顯缺乏了一股能量或信念。好多人似乎很不情願身在其中,站姿表情都顯出不甘在這烏合之衆裡濫竽充數。他們當中沒有一個提到政治、民主或爲何而來之類的話題。

話題多數圍繞著「方向」——好多人好像以為維園是在中環。其他熱門的話題則是圍繞著吃與喝。看得出他們才剛飽頓一餐,並已經期待著下一餐的兌現。他們顯然期待被照料周道。雖然多數人都拿著背包,但很多人都是一身輕裝,甚至連水也沒帶。

他們一些人的談話給了我這天第一個打擊。一群老人站在一旁,觀看著站內經過的白人。他們以為我不諳粵語,所以肆無忌憚地說著。有的說中土被鬼佬污染是國家的奇恥大辱。也有的説外國人向來是國人的共敵,然後再有人加了句愛國者必欲先除之而後快!他們大聲地説着,直到幾分鐘後才停止,而其他隊員或旁觀者竟然好像對此毫不在意。

七一那天我在維園旁的街道上,加入了在那裏開始大批聚集的人群。黑壓壓的人群中,有個人參與的,也有整家出動的。像是「香港街」的縮影,在那裡能找到各式各樣的人。以廣東話作主旋律, 他們代表了我城的聲音。人們互不干犯,但也怡然自得。我感到自己是人群中的一份子。

在那以華人為主的人群裏,有好幾個西方和歐亞混血人士。有些是熟悉的面孔。他們有的生於此長於此,有的一生為此城謀福祉,有的則離鄉來此落地生根。與本地妻子、丈夫、伴侶同來,他們默默地站在人群中。許多混血婚配的都已事業有成,遊行不會為他們帶來什麽個人利益,甚至反而會冒著失去很多的風險。但那天,他們都選擇站了出來。

可是,在八一七那天,我卻感覺到自己完全被孤立了。我是人群外的孤單個體、一個外國人。在眾目睽睽下,我這個格格不入的「鬼佬」,再也感受不到家的感覺。

一位明報記者走過來想採訪我。當他發現我也只是在那裡觀看,並打算將看到的撰寫報告後,他立刻就變得輕鬆愉快起來,而我們的交談也更加坦誠。「有這麼多來自國內的人,」他說:「這哪裏是抗議,簡直就是社團的聚會」。「真是個笑話。」他笑了,笑裏帶點苦澀,像一個認命的糟老頭。他拍了拍我的背,祝我好運後就走開了。

大約四分之一的人顯然是來自內地。由於當天早上已有大量新聞報道跨境巴士落客的消息,我對此一點不感驚訝。但令我特別感到不安的,是一張過境巴士内部被毀壞的照片。在巴士留下的詛咒,可說有著我們社會裏最底層、最黑暗的罪惡氣息。

以下這些無法證實的報告是我在朋友圈子裏得到的。一位可靠的朋友看到一些人在元朗下了車,而司機向每位乘客支付了250元。另一位朋友看到了幾輛帶著抗議橫額,滿載内地客的旅遊車,離開了上環一間酒店。另外兩個朋友,其中一個是香港某著名英文報紙的前雇員,告訴我他們家人被雇主威逼加入往維園遊行的隊伍,而交通工具和餐飲都已安排妥當了。

大部分講普通話的人應該都是來自內地。這能從他們的外表、不懂粵語和濃厚鄉音幾方面可以看出。他們群坐一起。每當我試圖和他們交談,總會有一個略通英語的年輕女人立刻走了過來。每次她們都問:「你是哪家報館的?」我解釋自己並非為報館工作,只是好奇而已。每次我都得到了同樣的答覆:「如果我們不知道你是誰,幹嗎要跟你說話?」他們的回應冷漠。吿訴他們我的名字以及我是一個好奇的香港居民顯然是不夠的。

猶幸跟我一起的還有一個在「亞洲哨兵」(Asia Sentinel)刊物實習的雲南女生。她的運氣比我好得多了。雖然大多數的内地人都是跟隨國内各地,包括遠至雲南、揚州等地的社團前來香港,但當中也有一部分正在香港攻讀的内地生。他們告訴她,加入示威是希望中國與香港之間變得更「團結」。在這裡學習、生活之後,他們很失望地發現香港人固步自封和不歡迎内地人。他們並不是在這裡「反佔中」,而是想促進中國人相互之間的和諧關係。雖然我完全可以體會他們的感受,但基於這次運動所代表的意義加上它導致了社會更加兩極分化,故對他們的參與從根本上完全無法認同。

遊行中的一些南亞、印尼及西非人士對接受訪問顯得比較沒有顧忌。他們全都穿上了華人團體的T恤。他們往往各自形成20人左右的小組,不跟其他團員混合,而靠團體代表來維繫彼此之間的關係。

一群斯里蘭卡人告訴我,他們在此是因為老闆告訴他們必須參加。當我問及這次抗議活動的目的時,有人告訴我:「因爲中國干涉香港」、「這是個反中集會」。我接著問他爲何有這麼多人拿著中國國旗時,他頓了一頓,然後靜默下來。那男人轉向其他組員,這時才有一個人鼓起勇氣說,「我想我們被告知的或許跟事實並不一樣。」

一名尼泊爾男子說的故事最為精辟。他和他的組員在那裡支持民建聯。他的故事或許跟其他的沒什麽不同,特別的是他告訴我他故事時的那種曖味方式。這一切都是基於「友誼」。「我們的朋友支持民建聯。」他說:「我們的朋友和民建聯的朋友互相幫助。他們在香港幫助我們。」他不告訴我得到的「幫助」是什麽,只加了一句 「這對我們的生意有利。」我問他爲什麽這麽多人加入遊行,這是他的答案:「我們其實不懂政治,也不關心。我們是簡單的人,只想要簡單的生活。」

這句話真真切切地總結了這群人。環顧四周,有迷失於城市裏的農民,也有在聚會裏感到困惑的人。他們常常停下來,拿起事先準備好的大橫額拍攝團體照片。遇到其他相識的團體時,他們會驕形於色,簡直就像在觀看閱兵儀式一般。

來之前,我還以爲會看到多一些保守中產,大聯盟(注:舉辦八一七的遊行組織)骨幹,以及親中的學者記者。我也以爲會看到那些搽好防曬、穿上名牌乾洗衣服、下午在私人會所打網球的女士們。她們好幾個都在遊行前幾天主動來邀請我們參加遊行。我不僅沒在遊行看到她們,更無法想像她們會與這些人爲伍。也許他們都臨陣退縮了?有人告訴我,其中幾個當天決定打網球去了。

相反,七一那天,人群在高溫和暴雨下耐心地站立著。我是其中一個等待了超過四小時後才終於離開維多利亞公園的人。擁擠中,我們嘗試尋找陰涼的地方坐下,但從來沒有一刻離開遊行大隊。我不屬於任何團體,只有一個朋友作伴。相約是因爲我倆都決定了去參與這事,而並非是被人勉強。我沒有得到免費食物、飲料,或任何形式的禮物,但當大雨傾盆而下時,身旁的陌生人卻把他們的雨傘伸了過來。

七一那天,大部分的人穿著自己的襯衫,揮動著自製的橫額。標語呼籲民主、公平和社會公義。人群提出的問題代表了社會的聲音。同志團體與天主教團體並肩而立。特區區旗伴隨著殖民旗幟、國民黨旗和共產黨旗幟一起揮揚。路人談到了曼德拉、甘地和馬丁路德金。是他們的精神,驅使人群在這裡聚集。在人群中,我聽到一批年輕學生在討論皮凱提 (注:Thomas Picketty,當代法國經濟學家)的理論。不是每個人都持有相同的觀點,更多的是不同的見解,但他們都在熱衷地參與論辯。

八月十七日那天,每個人都告訴我他在幫別人的忙。話題圍繞著食物、飲品,以及一個反覆向主辦單位提出的問題:他們還「需要」留在這裡多久?遊行樂隊高叫愛國主義,共產黨的旗幟在香港區旗旁邊飛揚。路上,當沿途有人舉起國民黨旗向遊行人士「挑機」時,人群中爆發了些微騷動。但為甚麽呢?如果這是關於香港的問題,屬於香港人自己旳示威,舉起這代表我們社會不少人對歷史忠誠的旗幟,為甚麼會被視為挑釁呢?

七一那天,有團體和市民自發回收垃圾並循環再用。八一七的大聯盟在路上豎立了多個免費派發瓶裝水的支援站,但卻沒作回收安排。街道上到處散落著空水瓶、破爛的橫額和協會送出的禮物。當我向一名老婦指向垃圾時,她答道:「如果這裡將來有抗議,情況會糟糕得多呢。」我問她有否參加過香港的抗議時,她生氣了,再也不願作答。

然後是警察。一向以來,他們的舉止及個人的克制令這個城市的人民感到自豪。這一趟,他們明智地動用了最低的警力。他們沒有架起鐵馬,只用了路線標記划出了警戒線。個別警察在遊行隊伍間穿插,而一些小組則在重要路口為示威者和一般市民提供協助。一位我認識的保安分析員將這種情況形容為低度保安措施。跟七一不同,他們顯然並不預期會有麻煩,所以沒有調配大量資源來應付這次遊行,而那些警察人員的表情比起七一時都顯得比較輕鬆,站得也沒那麽筆直。他們對示威人士的態度像是在相互協助而不是對峙。真期待以後所有的公眾示威,警方都會採取這種新的態度。

我發現那些警察似乎跟另外一隊維持治安的人員合作。這些人身穿顔色鮮明,看起來像極警察的黃背心,但其實是他們是大聯盟調配的義工。我在多個場合留意到這些義工隊似乎在配合警察的工作,但卻從來沒有一次看到警察指令他們。這些志願者向示威者打招呼並給予鼓勵,卻不願在我問路時施予援手。顯然他們是在替大聯盟工作。不知以後我們又會否再看到這種自發糾察的安排?

本來我預期這次遊行規模跟七一的相若,但顯然相去甚遠。根據香港大學民意研究計劃的點算,參加遊行人數為八萬人,比七一的少了一半。相反,警方估計的數字是十一萬一千(七一的為九萬)。但無論哪裏我都看不到群衆洶湧而出的現象。七一那天,毗鄰的街道裏,新加入和離開遊行的人們川流不息,但八一七這天這些街道都是空蕩的的。遊行者都是從維多利亞公園開始,到中環的官方終點站結束。在終點,歡迎他們的是揚聲器里𡃁模的大張旗鼓和英國皇后樂隊「我們是冠軍」的歌曲,而他們則連忙拍攝社團慶祝照片。他們究竟在慶祝什麽?這是一個贊助步行活動嗎?

七一是得人心的抗議活動,雖有主辦單位的呼籲,但成事的是那些自發站出來的人民。但八一七卻給人虛假的感覺,一如編好劇本上演的「大龍鳳」。大聯盟聲稱他們代表了沉默的大多數,但在這次遊行中所得到的證據來看,這只是眾親建制團體携手合作,調動大量資源完成的民衆動員活動。為了舉辦這次活動,到底有多大量的金錢倒了進去?很多事情都巳早作安排。這些疑問將來會得到解答嗎?政府會發布數據,證明那幾天有多少人越過邊境,被帶來參加遊行?舉辧這次活動的組織又會否願意公開支付交通安排、餐飲款待及發放禮物的資金來源嗎?

但一如那位明報記者,我嗤笑之餘心裏卻隱隱作痛。身為香港人,看到這些非本地居民、在外地招募的遊行者不僅想要影響我們,而且還聲稱他們代表了我們的大多數,實在感到難過。在這有人企圖操縱政局之際,我很感概地在一些老人身上看到了缺乏包容的偏見、種族歧視和民族主義。但最令我難受的是,社會裏一些有影響力、備受敬重的人物,竟然可以組織這樣一場運動,還厚顔無恥地聲稱這代表了香港人的聲音。

我不知道有誰希望佔領中環。大多數人感到憂心忡忡,而他們的擔憂不無道理。但這並不意味著香港人,尤其是那些身處政治爭紛中之人,會因此反對佔中。舉辦這次示威的人或許不想承認,但絕大多數的香港人其實十分團結:我們團結在於渴求民主改革以及內部事務不受干擾。大聯盟非但沒有把香港人的這些願望表達出來,反而企圖以不愛國、不民主和暴力的罪名來妖魔化反對派。他們沒有站在中間路綫,反而選擇擁抱偏見,並訴諸於這種最無恥的操縱手法。很不幸,這一切已經開始,並會繼續摧殘著我們的政治生態。

譯:Sally Kwok。英文原文刋於 Asia Sentinel

Filed under: Society

About the Author

Posted by

Born and raised in Hong Kong, Evan is a writer, essayist and commentator. He has written and been published on a broad range of topics, from art, literature and aesthetic, to social and political commentaries, with a particular focus on issues of culture and identity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s