反送中抗惡法運動來到這一刻，惡法未撤，人民不退。在這時候，不妨來一個中期回顧，在6.26及7.1兩次大型行動之前，檢討得失，展望將來。
歷史里程碑：
1. 6.9和6.16兩次大遊行，人數高達103萬及200 + 1萬人，打破了八九六四及零三七一的遊行人數紀錄，成為香港史上最大型的政治運動，其歷史意義相信不需要我多解釋。
2. 五月的真假法案委員會爭議，泛民團結一致以「繼續開會」行動回應專（建）制派及立法會秘書處無法無天地將石禮謙送上「主席」位。從政治文化角度言，那次行動的意義，在於泛民終於有勇氣打破虛擬自由主義之下的虛擬議會及虛擬遊戲規則，首次以人民之名及人民之實進行立法會會議。
3. 今次運動是繼陳毓祥在保釣運動身亡後，首次有人因為抗爭而死。與1996年那次不同的是，保釣是愛國運動，反送中抗惡法是反中、本土運動。另一不同的是，那次是意外，今次是抗爭者是為了運動目標本身以死相諫。回顧本地抗爭史，90年代的本土運動試過兩次（i.e. 石湖新村抗爭及荃灣天台屋抗爭）嘗試點燃石油氣以死相脅，但畢竟只是擺擺姿態，沒有來真。即使是在本土運動的火紅70年代，記憶中亦沒有出現同類抗爭模式（有心人可以再fact check）。今次義士犧牲的震懾力，在於勾起一股無分左中右的大眾情緒：悲憤。以悲憤作為運動的道德基礎及動員手段，是八九六四後首見，其動員威力在616大遊行可見一斑。
4. 前日包圍黑警總部，是繼2009年反高鐵快樂抗爭及2012年反國教大絕食之後，（我認為）攻擊力最強而又能保持和理非的行動。抗爭者憤怒而不狂躁，勇武而不躁動，這正正是對狂暴黑警最大的羞辱。怒屌而不亂衝，充分顯示抗爭者的克制和智慧。或者徐克拍完《智取威虎山》，不妨考慮一下拍一部《智取黑警穴》。另外，不得不提的是，另一個和理非得來又威力無窮的行動，當然是sing hallelujah to the lord了。這些行動在在說明，勇武和和理非並非對立，而是可以完美及有機地結合一體。
延續與轉化：
1. 到目前為止，特區政府未有讓步意圖，用對付雨傘運動的同一模式，以消耗戰來對付反送中運動。當然，這和呂秉權在《明報》文章〈修逃犯例——你要知的「習近平對港全景圖」（上）〉所提及習近平的治港方針有關。他引述習近平在2013年在「十八屆中央政治局第四次集體學習」的講話：「要引導全體人民遵守法律，有問題依靠法律來解決，決不能讓那種大鬧大解決、小鬧小解決、不鬧不解決現象蔓延開來，否則還有什麼法治可言呢？」可見，以「以法治國」仍然是對付示威的大方向。當然，這個「法」只是為政權服務，而且不會輕易後退。林鄭和鄭若樺道歉，自然只是針對個人的技術性失誤，而非政策調整。
2. 與2014年不同的是，今次香港的抗爭得到更多的國際關注和支持。這種支持不再是lip service，而是真的有可能在中美貿易戰的大環境下成為實質支持。2014年時，佔領者曾經寄望11月的APEC會議可能為運動帶來轉機，但最終甚麼也沒有發生。今年六月的G20會議同樣是爭取國際支持的關鍵時機，Trump已表示可能向習總提香港問題，且看626的大吹雞能否逼Trump真正打出香港牌。
3. 就行動模式而言，如果2014年的關鍵詞是「佔領」，今次運動的關鍵詞則是「流動」。簡單點說，就是前天抗爭者掛在口邊的「Be water」。這幾星期黑警的行動明顯是要殺盡所有大規模佔領的苗頭，同時抗爭者亦深明大規模佔領可能令民意反彈，所以佔領不再是可行之法，而取而代之的是機動堵路及遍地開花式不合作運動，例如612警民大衝突後的短暫佔領畢打街、616的小規模佔領夏愨道、逼地鐵行動、死火行動、621包圍黑警總部、以及當日辦公時間堵塞稅務大樓、入境事務大樓及政府合署。上述行動既是在黑警嚴密佈防下間接促成，亦是在「流動」的新行動邏輯下出現。這種新行動邏輯，一方比傘運時的鳩嗚團更具延續性及組織力，同時亦避免了警方的大規模攻擊及民意上的反彈，為日後政治行動提供重要參考。
行動方向：
我個人較為離地，所以戰述事宜留給前線抗爭者、連登仔及勇武派思考，以下集中討論論述及修辭（rhetoric）層面
1. 泛民主派一向不擅長製造貼地的論述，或用貼地的修辭向大眾解釋理念和行動。相反，專（建）制派則是這方面的能手。一個建立入屋話語的方法，就是將主流或對手的話語「據為己有、拿為己用」（appropriation）。可能是基於（無謂的）道德堅持，泛民從來不會這樣做，而只不斷重覆一般（偏藍）市民不會知你嗡乜春的「法治」、「公義」、「核心價值」等話語。舉個例，目前「黑警」和「警暴」兩套修辭已經較傘運或魚蛋事件時成功入屋，但對一般（偏藍）市民來說，可能仍會覺得是你班示威者抵死或示威者挑釁在先。更好的話語方式，是挪用專（建）制派及政府由朝講到晚的「守法」修辭，以「犯法」及其他類似字眼直接套用於譴責黑警暴行之上，突顯「執法」之不當正正在於其「違法」，而不單單止是過份暴力。因為暴力是相對的，可以人言人殊，但違法與否則有相對清晰的界線，能直接地引起一般市民關於黑警的印/想像。
2. 2003年七一之後的區議會選舉，泛民成功令專（建）制派大敗而言，但由於輕視地區工作，幾年之後專（建）制派完全收復失地。今年11月區議會選舉臨近，可以預期泛民會較上次區選成功，但如何避免當年的錯，就是應該由現在開始，將「反惡法 = 爭普選」的論述，在社區內落地生根。相信沒有人比14年後在社區工作的傘兵更明白這項任務的重要性和迫切性了。
3. 最後，每出一次政治post都要講一次，請不要再叫建制派做「建制派」，而是「專制派」，要由這一刻開始叫，一直叫到11月區議會選舉。「建制」在香港的語境是中性，「專制」才能真正突顯這班奴才的特徵，更重要的是將「建制派」在一般市民心目中「建設」的形象置換為「專橫霸道」。正如專制派會叫民主派做「反對派」，道理其實是一樣的。一字之差，media framing的效果可以差天共地。689和777的例子說明，政治行動的第一步，是幫對家改個好名﹗
《立場新聞》轉載：
https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%8F%8D%E9%80%81%E4%B8%AD%E9%81%8B%E5%8B%95%E7%9A%84%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2%E6%84%8F%E7%BE%A9-%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95%E6%A8%A1%E5%BC%8F%E8%88%87%E6%9C%AA%E4%BE%86%E6%96%B9%E5%90%91/
2019年6月22日 星期六
反引渡條例運動前路
此文寫於2019年6月16日：
黑警選擇唔清場，說明政府再一次想靠打消耗戰，所以我地必須汲取傘運教訓，以免流失民意：
1. 雖然人數已達200萬，但香港地，港豬多，必須立即落區，說明不完全撤回的後果，以免公眾對運動拖長產生厭惡
2. 因為黑警暴力及烈士犧牲，民意已一面倒傾向運動，要留住大多數，就要「和理非」，我們不需用憤怒，亦不需將運動快樂抗爭化，目前的悲憤作為社會主流情感，是前六四後前所未見的，這種情感就是運動的道德基礎，正如鄺神話齋，不要我們做先動手一方，而是要用溫柔對抗暴力
3. 但運動必須盡早升級，民陣必須盡快重提三罷，用目前小規模佔領的空間爭取時間，令林鄭一星期之內（目標依難度排列）：撤法、撤暴動定性、查黑警、撤被補人士控罪、問責下台，否則23日再大遊行，然後該星期啟動三罷，到七一再大規模動員
4. 進一步而言，在論述層面上，應著手建構「反惡法 = 爭取普選」的關係
5. 每出一次政治post都要講一次，唔好再叫建制派做「建制派」，係「專制派」，要由呢一刻開始叫，叫到11月區議會選舉
運動要贏，就必須汲取傘運教訓，運動節奏、運動的形象面貌、戰述的多樣性要掌握得更好。
黑警選擇唔清場，說明政府再一次想靠打消耗戰，所以我地必須汲取傘運教訓，以免流失民意：
1. 雖然人數已達200萬，但香港地，港豬多，必須立即落區，說明不完全撤回的後果，以免公眾對運動拖長產生厭惡
2. 因為黑警暴力及烈士犧牲，民意已一面倒傾向運動，要留住大多數，就要「和理非」，我們不需用憤怒，亦不需將運動快樂抗爭化，目前的悲憤作為社會主流情感，是前六四後前所未見的，這種情感就是運動的道德基礎，正如鄺神話齋，不要我們做先動手一方，而是要用溫柔對抗暴力
3. 但運動必須盡早升級，民陣必須盡快重提三罷，用目前小規模佔領的空間爭取時間，令林鄭一星期之內（目標依難度排列）：撤法、撤暴動定性、查黑警、撤被補人士控罪、問責下台，否則23日再大遊行，然後該星期啟動三罷，到七一再大規模動員
4. 進一步而言，在論述層面上，應著手建構「反惡法 = 爭取普選」的關係
5. 每出一次政治post都要講一次，唔好再叫建制派做「建制派」，係「專制派」，要由呢一刻開始叫，叫到11月區議會選舉
運動要贏，就必須汲取傘運教訓，運動節奏、運動的形象面貌、戰述的多樣性要掌握得更好。
The Umbrella Movement 2.0: The 2019 Anti-Extradition Protest in Hong Kong
This article was written on 13/6/2019:
In September 2014, hundreds of thousands of protesters in Hong Kong went onto the street, standing up against the Chinese National People’s Congress’s decision to bar Hong Kong from having a free and fair universal suffrage. Protesters occupied the roads around the Hong Kong government headquarters and confronted the police. After a tense day of stand-off, the police fired tear gas at the protester. The strategy to disperse the protesters, however, backfired and provoked mass anger among Hongkongers. Enraged by the police’s excessive use of violence, over a million ordinary citizens turned up and joined the protest, thereby producing the historic Umbrella Movement. The Beijing government, Hong Kong’s sovereign master, nevertheless, stayed adamant and refused to give in. No fruitful outcome was achieved and the protesters’ goal to strive for universal suffrage failed. Yet on the last day of occupation, a big banner was left on the occupied zone, which wrote: “We Will be Back.”
Five years later, the Hong Kong protesters, once again, besieged the government headquarters. This time, the protesters were fighting against a controversial extradition bill with China. On 9 June 2019, 1.03 million people from all walks of life marched on the street to voice their disagreement with the bill. Yet the Hong Kong government refused to withdraw the bill and even tried to push for passing it before July, forcing the protesters to escalate their action. Three days later, the day to start the second reading of the bill in the Legislative Council, tens of thousands of protesters, who are mostly at their early 20s, seized control of the area around the government headquarters. However, they succeeded only temporarily. Compared to the Umbrella Movement, the policing strategy was a lot tougher this time. Not only tear gas but also plastic bullets were fired. Trying to stop another large-scale occupy movement from happening, the Hong Kong police attacked protesters and even journalists aggressively. The protesters had no choice but to retreat to some narrow streets. So far, more than 70 protesters were injured and some of them were in serious condition.
Despite increasing police violence, many youngsters still choose to stand in the frontline. Many of them see it as a desperate fight against the authoritarian Chinese government. As some of them call it, this is an endgame. What makes the young protesters feel the hopelessness and urgency to make the last roar? Over the past five years, political rights and civil liberties in Hong Kong have been on a rapid decline. In 2015, a local bookseller who sells books critical of the Chinese leaders was abducted and detained in China. In 2016, Edward Leung, a pro-independence young activist, was barred from running in the Legislative Council election because of his political stance. In 2017, six pro-democracy and pro-independence legislators were removed from their posts after the Beijing government unusually re-interpreted the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of Hong Kong, and claimed that the oaths they made during the commencing ceremony of the new legislative term were unqualified. From 2017 to 2019, several leading activists of the 2014 Umbrella Movement were sentenced to jail. Pro-independence activists, including Edward Leung, who were charged with initiating a “riot” in 2016, faced the same fate and they got a much heavier sentence. Two of them are now forced to seek asylum in Germany. For many Hong Kong people, the city is no longer the one they are familiar with. The proposed legislation of the extradition agreement with China in recent months came to be the last straw.
The extradition bill, formally known as the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Amendment, was tabled after a Hong Kong man murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan and then returned to Hong Kong last year. Since there has been no extradition agreement between Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Hong Kong government claimed it was a loophole to be plugged. An amendment to the current Fugitive Offenders Ordinance was therefore proposed in February 2019, which would allow for extradition requests from authorities in mainland China, Taiwan, and Macau for criminal suspects. Once the amendment is adopted, anyone, including permanent Hong Kong citizens, businessmen, journalists, and visitors of whatever nationalities, could be accused to have violated Chinese laws in Hong Kong and extradited to China. Since the Chinese government often uses non-political charges to prosecute political dissent, and since there is no fair trial in mainland China, it is deeply worrying that this would pose another great threat to the human rights of Hongkongers. Although the Taiwanese authority has stated its concern about the possibility that Taiwanese citizens in Hong Kong could be extradited to mainland China, and although it is possible for the Hong Kong and Taiwanese governments to make a one-time extradition agreement, the Hong Kong government insisted on pushing forward the current version of amendment. Worse still, the government argued the urgency required to handle the current murder case allowed for only 20 days for public consultation.
Rejecting the extradition bill amendment, the civil society of Hong Kong, which had been low in morale after the failure of the Umbrella Movement, has become vibrant again. The fragmented relationship between the moderate and the radical flanks has been glued. Apart from the demonstration and the occupy action mentioned above, there were 3,000 lawyers, prosecutors, law students, and academics marching in silence to request the government shelve the bill earlier this month. University and secondary school students and alumni, overseas students, and many other civil society groups also started hundreds of petitions to protest against the amendment. More actions are going to be held in coming days, including a creative action to “occupy” the cars of the underground train—a non-cooperative action attempting to paralyze the city without confronting the police directly. Also, more petitions are going on locally and internationally, such as the one to request the U.S, British, and Australian governments to block or reject the visas of the Hong Kong officials and the pro-China legislators—many of whom claim themselves as patriotic, loyal Chinese while holding a second nationality and lots of assets in the West. We do not know what will work, but as Lu Xun, a leading Chinese writer, famously said, “although originally there was no path on the ground, as more and more people walked through, it became a path.”
If you are willing to support us, please join the petition.
If you want to get the latest news, please follow these links:
https://www.facebook.com/HongKongWatch1/?fref=pb&hc_location=profile_browser
https://www.facebook.com/hkantiextradition/?fref=pb&hc_location=profile_browser
https://www.collaction.hk/discovery/project?q=%E5%8F%8D%E9%80%81%E4%B8%AD&fbclid=IwAR3UUw2pgpaCMEjBJId8QQvx2MwvHfZ0_bpB-aT_Yh2YVWTxqPkth5Q34t8
If you agree with our action, please spread our message far and wide. Monitoring from the international community is the best way to avoid bloodshed in Hong Kong.
In September 2014, hundreds of thousands of protesters in Hong Kong went onto the street, standing up against the Chinese National People’s Congress’s decision to bar Hong Kong from having a free and fair universal suffrage. Protesters occupied the roads around the Hong Kong government headquarters and confronted the police. After a tense day of stand-off, the police fired tear gas at the protester. The strategy to disperse the protesters, however, backfired and provoked mass anger among Hongkongers. Enraged by the police’s excessive use of violence, over a million ordinary citizens turned up and joined the protest, thereby producing the historic Umbrella Movement. The Beijing government, Hong Kong’s sovereign master, nevertheless, stayed adamant and refused to give in. No fruitful outcome was achieved and the protesters’ goal to strive for universal suffrage failed. Yet on the last day of occupation, a big banner was left on the occupied zone, which wrote: “We Will be Back.”
Five years later, the Hong Kong protesters, once again, besieged the government headquarters. This time, the protesters were fighting against a controversial extradition bill with China. On 9 June 2019, 1.03 million people from all walks of life marched on the street to voice their disagreement with the bill. Yet the Hong Kong government refused to withdraw the bill and even tried to push for passing it before July, forcing the protesters to escalate their action. Three days later, the day to start the second reading of the bill in the Legislative Council, tens of thousands of protesters, who are mostly at their early 20s, seized control of the area around the government headquarters. However, they succeeded only temporarily. Compared to the Umbrella Movement, the policing strategy was a lot tougher this time. Not only tear gas but also plastic bullets were fired. Trying to stop another large-scale occupy movement from happening, the Hong Kong police attacked protesters and even journalists aggressively. The protesters had no choice but to retreat to some narrow streets. So far, more than 70 protesters were injured and some of them were in serious condition.
Despite increasing police violence, many youngsters still choose to stand in the frontline. Many of them see it as a desperate fight against the authoritarian Chinese government. As some of them call it, this is an endgame. What makes the young protesters feel the hopelessness and urgency to make the last roar? Over the past five years, political rights and civil liberties in Hong Kong have been on a rapid decline. In 2015, a local bookseller who sells books critical of the Chinese leaders was abducted and detained in China. In 2016, Edward Leung, a pro-independence young activist, was barred from running in the Legislative Council election because of his political stance. In 2017, six pro-democracy and pro-independence legislators were removed from their posts after the Beijing government unusually re-interpreted the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of Hong Kong, and claimed that the oaths they made during the commencing ceremony of the new legislative term were unqualified. From 2017 to 2019, several leading activists of the 2014 Umbrella Movement were sentenced to jail. Pro-independence activists, including Edward Leung, who were charged with initiating a “riot” in 2016, faced the same fate and they got a much heavier sentence. Two of them are now forced to seek asylum in Germany. For many Hong Kong people, the city is no longer the one they are familiar with. The proposed legislation of the extradition agreement with China in recent months came to be the last straw.
The extradition bill, formally known as the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Amendment, was tabled after a Hong Kong man murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan and then returned to Hong Kong last year. Since there has been no extradition agreement between Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Hong Kong government claimed it was a loophole to be plugged. An amendment to the current Fugitive Offenders Ordinance was therefore proposed in February 2019, which would allow for extradition requests from authorities in mainland China, Taiwan, and Macau for criminal suspects. Once the amendment is adopted, anyone, including permanent Hong Kong citizens, businessmen, journalists, and visitors of whatever nationalities, could be accused to have violated Chinese laws in Hong Kong and extradited to China. Since the Chinese government often uses non-political charges to prosecute political dissent, and since there is no fair trial in mainland China, it is deeply worrying that this would pose another great threat to the human rights of Hongkongers. Although the Taiwanese authority has stated its concern about the possibility that Taiwanese citizens in Hong Kong could be extradited to mainland China, and although it is possible for the Hong Kong and Taiwanese governments to make a one-time extradition agreement, the Hong Kong government insisted on pushing forward the current version of amendment. Worse still, the government argued the urgency required to handle the current murder case allowed for only 20 days for public consultation.
Rejecting the extradition bill amendment, the civil society of Hong Kong, which had been low in morale after the failure of the Umbrella Movement, has become vibrant again. The fragmented relationship between the moderate and the radical flanks has been glued. Apart from the demonstration and the occupy action mentioned above, there were 3,000 lawyers, prosecutors, law students, and academics marching in silence to request the government shelve the bill earlier this month. University and secondary school students and alumni, overseas students, and many other civil society groups also started hundreds of petitions to protest against the amendment. More actions are going to be held in coming days, including a creative action to “occupy” the cars of the underground train—a non-cooperative action attempting to paralyze the city without confronting the police directly. Also, more petitions are going on locally and internationally, such as the one to request the U.S, British, and Australian governments to block or reject the visas of the Hong Kong officials and the pro-China legislators—many of whom claim themselves as patriotic, loyal Chinese while holding a second nationality and lots of assets in the West. We do not know what will work, but as Lu Xun, a leading Chinese writer, famously said, “although originally there was no path on the ground, as more and more people walked through, it became a path.”
If you are willing to support us, please join the petition.
If you want to get the latest news, please follow these links:
https://www.facebook.com/HongKongWatch1/?fref=pb&hc_location=profile_browser
https://www.facebook.com/hkantiextradition/?fref=pb&hc_location=profile_browser
https://www.collaction.hk/discovery/project?q=%E5%8F%8D%E9%80%81%E4%B8%AD&fbclid=IwAR3UUw2pgpaCMEjBJId8QQvx2MwvHfZ0_bpB-aT_Yh2YVWTxqPkth5Q34t8
If you agree with our action, please spread our message far and wide. Monitoring from the international community is the best way to avoid bloodshed in Hong Kong.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)