Thursday, October 11, 2007

葉劉沒有意義的道歉

一個推銷員上門,拙劣地向你推銷一件爛貨,結果被你當面拒絕了。隔幾天,他又登門造訪,說要為當日的「推銷手法」道歉,你會覺得怎樣?相信一定會感到莫名其妙,因為你拒絕的其實是那件爛貨,而不是他的「推銷手法」﹔推銷員若只為「推銷手法」而道歉,對象理應是他的老闆。

葉劉淑儀便是那位推銷員。她在宣佈參選當日向廣大市民就當年推銷廿三條的「手法」道歉,部分傳媒額首稱慶,認為可以減輕市民「昔日不愉快的記憶」。如果認為當年五十萬人上街原來只為反對葉劉的「推銷手法」,那無疑是把香港人看得太扁。

當年葉劉推銷廿三條無疑是惡形惡相、手法拙劣,但五十萬市民抵著炎熱上街反對的,主要卻不是葉劉或她的推銷手法,而是當時政府制訂的廿三條法案本身。大家都記得,廿三條法案條文嚴苛,當中包括容許警察入屋搜查前不需向法官申請搜查令,嚴重打擊港人對基本人權和言論自由的信心。

事實上,大部分市民對《基本法》規定要為廿三條立法這個大原則,基本上並無異議,但卻恐懼藏在具體條文細節內的魔鬼。如果葉劉仍然堅持廿三條的風波只是一個「推銷手法」的問題,實在是對當年上街港人智慧的一種侮辱,同時亦令人更加確信,她近年的所謂「轉變」,其實也只不過是一種「推銷手法」而已,如同她改變髮型一樣,非常表面。

為「推銷手法」而道歉,就算多麼有真誠也是沒有意義的,因為這顯示了她的政治理念仍然和當年一樣,沒有改變過。政治理念之所以如此重要,是因為現在要選的是立法會議員,而不是政府官僚,推銷手段或辯論口才或許有用,但最重要的還是日後在立法時,在各種政治議題上的投票取向。葉劉最近的道歉,其實只是用掩眼法來迴避一個大家心中都希望她回答的問題﹕如果她當選了立法會議員,而政府又把當年的廿三條法案,原封不動的再提交立法會表決,她會如何投票呢?

要知道,特首曾蔭權雖然曾說過在任期間內,為廿三條立法「不是優先處理的項目」,但有關立法始終是《基本法》的規定,難保他日不會將類似03年的條文,重新包裝再提交立法會。究竟葉劉是否仍然會支持像03年般嚴苛的條文呢?沒有人知道。我們只知道,她自美國學成歸來的時候,已曾說過毋須就推行廿三條而道歉,而在最近道歉之後,亦強調自己的道歉只不過是針對自己的失言罷了。

在這次選戰中,部分選民可能因為對泛民多年來的左傾政治感到失望,而有求變之心,但在廿三條這個關乎個人自由的大是大非問題,卻不應掉以輕心。葉劉雖然擁有「星級團隊」的支持,她的政治辭鋒亦大有進境,但在廿三條之上仍然左右言他,難以令人信服。

就算真的只談「推銷手法」,當年葉劉硬銷廿三條,曾向市民宣稱那條惡法必須在那年七月九日通過,呼籲大家「一定要信葉太」,但結果市民卻發現事實並非這樣,有關立法其實完全沒有逼切性。這種「推銷手法」,顯然並非只是葉太道歉時所說般「無心快語」冒犯市民那麼簡單,當中實在有欺騙市民之嫌。

葉太希望藉「推銷手法」的道歉,把陳方安生和泛民最具攻擊性的武器「中和」(neutralize),但許多當年曾走過上街、反對過廿三條的市民卻並不如此容易上當。對他們來說,候選人在廿三條的立場,仍然是一個重要的試金石。如果葉劉真的認為當年只是因為她的「推銷手段」低劣,才會激起民憤,破壞了廿三條立法好事的話,那麼她道歉的對象,應該是董建華和黨中央,而不是普羅市民。

15 comments:

庖丁 said...

黃牛用「硬銷廿三條」來論葉劉道歉無意義,是拗字眼吧。

黃牛先把葉劉淑儀定義為推銷員,又批她推銷手法拙劣,但這不是問題核心。事實上公務員是行政上的技術官兵,只應倡導立法,不可「推銷」立法,因為「推銷」立法是表示含有關聯利益的意思,如果葉劉為此道歉是有很大意義,但我看她的道歉原意(沒有為利益關聯避嫌)並非如此。

potato said...

庖丁:

葉劉淑儀當年「推銷」廿三條時,已是政治任命的問責局長而非純粹「技術官僚」的公務員。她當時固然是倡導根據廿三條立法,但亦同時大力「推銷」有關法案的內容。

我認為黃牛指出的,主絕是問題核心

米生 said...

The best article have ever seen about Yip Lau! Support!

庖丁 said...

potato:

賣花讚花香似好合理,賣米田共就唔同...

嗱,有個米生「推銷」黃牛篇文,如果黃牛「推銷」自己篇文,咁就夠晒名實相符政治不正確叻。

奇芬 said...

從庖丁的發言, 可見其人專拗牛頸.

VC said...

但我們
不重分析、嘩眾取寵的傳媒所著重的;
不求甚解、甘於被牽的群眾所介意的-

是葉劉的髮形、氣炎、不理聽者情緒反應的言論;
而不是23條的內容、正反面不同版本的分析比較。

VC said...

黃牛兄, 對於某方所言,

民主派於資詢期內的意見已盡收最後版本內,泛民仍強調應不立法, 是輸打贏要、是移後龍門。

你認為如何?

VC said...

葉劉的形象確令人討厭, 但不及陳義高的愚民政客可惡。

講句黃牛不中聽的說話,
如你站於群眾面前,你有Guts說你所信嗎? 如你說了, 傳媒和群眾怎反應?

Anonymous said...

I refer to your article
'大家都記得,廿三條法案條文嚴苛,當中包括容許警察入屋搜查前不需向法官申請搜查令,嚴重打擊港人對基本人權和言論自由的信心。'
I agree that this is the most concerned area and attracts most attack for the article 23. But do you know there are many ordinance including Copyright Ordinance, Dangerours Drugs Ordinance, ICAC Ordinace and many other ordinance also have similar power conferred to law enforcement officers. The obvious reason is because practically a law enforcement officer may not have the time to apply for a warrant before the evidence is destroyed. That is the spirit of the law. You can imagine a drug trafficker can easily flush all drugs into the toilet when the police is waiting at the door for a warrant. Similarly, when police officer suddenly received reliable information that somebody had done something which affected the National's safety and that person knows Police is after him and is going to destroy the evidence at his home, what can the Police do. Isn't the National's safety is more important than copyright, corruption and even dangerous drugs? But why S.23 receive so many attacks? Obvious because it touches on the media as the the media in Hong Kong like to make up stories without restriction (you may or may not agree but since this forum is called Hong Kong Media Buster, I think you may agree), and with the legislation of S.23, their 'freedom' of making up story and report anything without considering others (it is evidenced just couple days ago when you see TV artist Fei Fei was in critical position but was still not 'let go' by the reporters on the way to hospital) may cause them toubles, the media has to use every effort to object the legislation. Why HK people also objects S.23? Mrs. YIP was definitely correct in saying that " will the people (I cannot remember what she actually said but I remember what she meant was people from the grass root level) go through the ordiance and come to argue with me? Although you may not like her attitude but I think you should agree with what she said. Even you had read the Ordinance, ask people around you how many of them had read. HK people just learnt the S.23 from the newspaper which always 斷章取義in order to protect their interest. What HK people know about S.23 was from the newspaper which definitely is not in a neutral position. In order to destroy S.23, the media needed to destroy the image of Mrs. YIP and focus on her bad attitude. But if you look at the attitude of those 'Democrats' like LAU Wai-hing, CHEUNG Man-kwong, TO Kun-sun in the Legco, they were even worst. S.23 is not 爛貨 if you read it neutrally and not affected by the media.

Anonymous said...

Refer to the above article,

It's simply a matter of trust and the impression to the Government during 2003 and the article 23 legislation.
I remember the impression of Mrs. Yip was really bad that time, something like no matter what you say or what you do, she would go her way and the law would go thro'.
And the other point is that the reputation of Mr. Tung's government corupted at all - the re-interpretation of immigation rule, housing scheme, police & ICAC abuse and overpower etc. Nobody would believe the government will restrain its enforcement of right giving to him, or even thought the government was over-power or abuse of power. The era before 97 was gone for long.

VC said...

Bravo! Mr.Anonymous

真小人 said...

甘要唔要葉劉刺腹自盡, 以謝天下. 然後再被民主派及生果報"便"屍三日, 甘先叫大快人心?

VC said...

作為部下, 對老細(董建華和黨中央)最有意義是辭職。

She did do it!

yellowcow said...

VC, good point.

分奇 said...

從奇芬所言,可信其人專錫牛鞭