今早在商台聽到何濼生教授比較完整地解說他反對佔中運動的理由：香港未有選舉上的平權(equity) ，但其他方面的「實質平權」狀況其實勝過很多民主國家，這是要珍惜的。爭取普選是應該的，但不可以損害其他人的利益為手段。珍惜平權包括不損害他人珍惜的東西。
問題是「佔中」對香港的經濟損害真有那麼大嗎？何濼生教授對此有嚴謹態度，承認涉及個人判斷。我欣賞這個態度，不識得欣賞周融指佔中三子向甘地「抽水」那種輕浮sound-bite。「幫港出聲」廣告煞有介事地曲解「破窗理論」；周融「講D唔講D」地說甘地只會和平紡織、馬丁路德•金只需作動人演說，都經不起討論。
順著何濼生教授的思路，有值得進一步討論的問題，第一個問題是：我們為什麼而憂？
怎樣回答，也涉及個人判斷。
3 則留言:
爭取普選是應該的，但不可以損害其他人的利益為手段.
珍惜平權包括不損害他人珍惜的東西。
I am confused. Asking for the right
to vote means taking away the power
of the privileged few and that must
hurt their interest, as it means
the privileged few will now have to
share that power.
我認為「佔中」三子用甘地和馬丁路得金做比較的問題不是有沒有「佔領」行動，而是香港現時所面對的所謂不公義，根本不可能和這些偉人那時所面對的不公平和歧視相比。這些比喻是抬高自己到偉人的層次，况且政改方案還未出爐，公民抗甚麼命呢？
就算要佔領，為什麼是中環？如果不公義的是選舉問題，為什麼不佔領選舉事務處？
Quote from Prof. Ho Lok-sang at china daily.com.cn (HK Edition) on 13.8.2013 :
"The "Occupy" group cited Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Gandhi as pioneers in using civil disobedience to achieve their political goals. However, what they were facing represented gross injustice and even oppression either on a racial group or on all the nationals of the country under the rule of colonists. Their acts of civil disobedience did not hurt their fellow citizens unfairly, and the situations truly represented gross injustice. No one in his fair mind would liken Hong Kong today to the situation these two honorable human beings faced then."
張貼留言