就如花兒在春天盛開

在我和英國人的婚禮，我說了這樣的話：以前每段關係都無法開花結果，因為到了某階段我就問自己一個問題：我能與這個人共度餘生、數十年下來天天相對都不生厭、晚晚同床而不作嘔嗎？假如我無法確定，就知道是時候了斷。當然，有些情況是對方比我更早作出這種反思，而決定速逃。

也有想過，若然以後都答不出肯定的答案，那麼是否每段關係也無疾而終？又抑或，得在現實中取個平衡點，例如長遠只拍拖，不同居、不結婚，便沒那麼容易生厭；又例如，同住而不同房，以保留私人空間，保持新鮮感；再前衛一點，甚至思考過能否接受 open relationship，衝擊傳統價值，想一想，法定的一夫一妻制，限制人類未來幾十年只與一個人談戀愛，是不是有點虐待又自虐。

卻原來，當遇到那個對的人，根本不會去思考那問題，已知道答案。

一開始已相逢恨晚，就沒時間擔心他日互相生厭，也不需要找什麼平衡點。只拍拖、不同居，同住而不同房，open relationship 等都不在考慮範圍。相反，我只想每晚與他一起談天至入睡，也好想每早醒來張開眼睛，都看到這個人在我身邊。這種渴求是無法解釋的。所以當他邀請我跟他結婚，我想也不用想就說，好啊。

雖然不理性，但很慶幸擁有這麼一個讓我們勇往直前的起點。往後漫漫長路，發展下去是如何，沒人能預知。我們能做的，只有盡力協助對方記着這個起步點，但願不要忘記這初心。

對我來說，愈是重大的決定，原來愈不依理性而行，反而往往是憑感性、靠直覺、隨心而行。

今年，我做了人生中最重大的兩個決定，明知道兩件事對我的影響是一生一世，但都是以感性行事，壓根兒不需要（或不懂得）權衡輕重、計算成本、預算得失。第一件事，是和英國人結婚。

第二件事，是懷孕。

對於懷孕、生育、為人母親，我恐懼了那麼多年，可是跟英國人結婚第一年竟就樂意地懷孕了。面對新生命的來臨，我們輕易可列舉一百項擔憂，但我們從沒有坐下來權衡輕重、計算成本。那並不是衝動或魯莽。還是英國人形容得優美：就如這種花會在春天開、那種樹會在秋天結果子一樣啊，天時地利人和造就了最合適的天氣，讓我們的花兒在這個時候盛開，我們也就順勢而行，感覺是自然到不會去問為什麼。

假如要問為什麼，我們實在無法一一解答：你那麼愛自由，為什麼會生孩子？香港生活壓力那麼大，為什麼還要生育孩子，既苦了自己又苦了下一代？香港的教育搞成這樣，你還在香港養育孩子？看這種政治環境，為什麼還把孩子帶來這黑暗世界？為什麼？為什麼？為什麼？

有時做事，並不為什麼。

林夕曾就「徒勞無功」這樣說：「人生許多方向，要走許多路，唯一不會走失的，就是走向死亡。那，對於某些人來說，是不是生來一場，就是一株徒然草，不如什麼都別幹，等死就是唯一的活動？我們吃的是飯，拉出來的是糞便，是不是連飯都別吃好了，活得像大便一樣就好了，省得浪費資源？有功無功，還看對誰效忠；徒勞與否，千萬年太長，只看朝夕太短。」

假如一定是「為了什麼」才去做，假如人人在生兒育女這件事上都理性地權衡輕重、計算成本、預測果效，那麼，恐怕世上只有一小撮非常富貴的人才會生育吧。

假如有一天，樹木也忽然苦苦追問為什麼，一起問蒼天：「我們為什麼要不厭其煩地在樹枝製造果子，等果實成熟，吸引猴子爬上來採摘，等牠們把果實帶到別處去吃，還望牠們吐出種子，讓種子在泥土中生長成另一棵樹呢？不如讓我們簡單地終此一生，時候到就讓我枯死算吧。」厭倦繁殖的樹木，就此於地球消失……

況且，「徒勞與否，千萬年太長，只看朝夕太短」。我相信蝴蝶效應，一件表面上看來毫無關係、非常微小的事情，卻可能帶來重大的改變。就如我在這日誌寫過幾篇關於追夢的文章以鼓勵自己，怎想到有一天有朋友告訴我，那幾篇文章令他反思很多，令他更能下決心辭職去追夢（嚇了我一跳！）。又如周永康、岑敖暉或黃之鋒的父母，二十年前生這孩子時想必沒想過，他有一天會帶領一場公民抗命運動，令多少人對香港年輕人另眼相看。又如雨傘運動，表面上沒有爭取到什麼成果，但事情為多少香港人帶來多大的衝擊、反思與改變，無法測度。又如瑪拉拉（Malala Yousafzai）的父母在生這女孩時，想也沒想過她有一天會不畏危險地致力為兒童爭取接受教育的機會，並因而成為典範，成為一個為那麼多人帶來希望的孩子。

把事情說得有點過於偉大了。只是一年將盡，回想這一年做了人生中最重大的兩個決定，彷彿很神勇；再想真一點，其實我們並沒有刻意經營過什麼。只是非常幸運地，在適當的時候，遇到對的人，結婚懷孕也就變得那麼自然，自然到壓根兒不必權衡輕重、預算得失，只是一股腦兒憑感性、靠直覺、再加一點傻勁，就讓事情發生。

就如這種花會在春天開、那種樹會在秋天結果子一樣。

那不合常理的信心、勇氣和傻勁

爸爸告訴我，祖父母是盲婚啞嫁下結成夫妻的。祖母嫁給祖父前，只知道他家務農。當時不流行拍照，也沒有事先看看對方的樣貌。然後就擺酒，洞房，下半生就對着對方。

想起就滴汗。如果我生於要盲婚啞嫁的年代，我多半會逃之夭夭。陪我共度下半生那人是誰，影響我一輩子，怎能不讓我選擇？

最近驚覺，有一件事比起盲婚啞嫁更盲、更啞、更不文明。

受父母之命嫁娶，我們至少可打聽打聽對方的背景、職業、外表、性情，但一旦懷孕，我們可說是連打聽都沒得打聽，只有等孩子在母腹內一路成長，不斷到醫院檢查，才略略估計得到他會不會出現某類狀況，可是，還要待九個月後，到他出生一刻，才真正知道他是否健全，長個什麼模樣。至於性情，更須花很長一段日子與之相處，才能領悟得到。

生育孩子，父母事前對孩子毫無頭緒，但一旦小生命在女人肚腹中成形，就已闖進了她的人生，成為她一輩子須承擔的責任。同樣，孩子也是毫無選擇，無從知道父母將是什麼樣的父母，他們會怎樣對待他、供應他；一出生就被決定了，他是這個家庭的一員，沒有權利選擇。

一切都不在誰的掌握中。

很多人認為結婚是人生中最重大的決定，能夠與另一個人立下那誓言，都需要很強的信心、勇氣、傻勁。那麼，在對孩子一無所知的情況下決定生育，所需的信心、勇氣、傻勁，不是更強大得近乎不合常理嗎？

以現代一般男女關係來說，一對情人決定結婚，會一起選擇婚禮的日期、地點、形式、舖排；亦會共同計劃婚後生活、相處方法等。但一對男女決定生育，不但無法選擇何時才成孕，對於成孕後那九個月的事態發展更是毫無話事權。女人懷孕期間由體形、髮質、膚色、口味、精神和健康狀況都可能出現翻天覆地的變化；孕吐嚴重的人，感覺更猶如病重數個月，足不出戶，對什麼都失去興趣。而生產過程中得承受哪種程度、持續多久的痛楚，更是無從預測。

千辛萬苦誕下孩子，面對的仍是一籃子的未知之數。他的抵抗力、安全感、睡眠質素、胃口、腸胃、視力聽力、活躍度、學習能力、專注力、表達能力、破壞力……你都一無所知，但每一項都影響父母未來十多二十年。而無論孩子是小羔羊還是小魔怪，父母都只有照單全收，不得退換，無法修訂。

終於守護孩子到他長大成人，他究竟是會繼續依賴、勞役父母，抑或願意照顧、孝順他們？做父母的依然無從掌握、不敢奢望。

這個長達數十年的過程中，為人父母的除了盡心盡力養育孩子，一廂情願盼望他們懂得感恩之外，可以說，其他一切都不在他們掌握之中。而他們付出的，幾乎是一輩子的心血、時間和積蓄。

若然以一宗交易來看，生孩子是無論如何都划不來。成本太大，風險太高；回報率毫無保證，即使有回報，也是三十年後的事。人生苦短，精明的投資者才不會這樣折騰自己的人生。

然而現實是，一對又一對男女還是爭相一頭栽進這無底深潭，義無反顧，不計得失，不退縮，不反悔。當中那種不合常理的信心、勇氣、傻勁，究竟從何而來？

Are There Really Always Two Sides to Every Story?

In Journalism School, we were taught to always report on both sides of the story. That's what most media organisations do.

In many local newspapers and TV channels, after reporting how the police used pepper spray and tear gas against peaceful demonstrators, they quoted government officials or allies who said the police have exercised "appropriate degree of force".

In a recent BBC programme, the host interviewed former Chief Secretary Anson Chan and Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules the World. While Anson Chan explained the students were fighting for the right to elect and to be elected, Martin Jacques claimed the 1200-strong nomination committee in Hong Kong was broadly representative of Hong Kong people.

In a radio interview, Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai explained their campaign and updated the strategies. Then, spokesperson for the anti-Occupy Central group Robert Chow said the majority of Hong Kongers were opposed to Occupy Central, citing the apparent 1.5 million people who signed his group's "Peace & Democracy" petition.

After seeing and reading many of these news reports, I have started to question the saying "there are always two sides to every story".

Are there really always two sides to every story? When one side is made up of blatant lies, are we still obliged to consider that a fair side? Are we still obliged to give that side of the story an equal weight?

Perhaps it is the tradition of media organisations to report on both sides of the story, so as to be seen as balanced. So be it.

However, when individuals commented on Occupy and the recent actions of the government and police, some have said, "Well, there are always two sides to every story." I've asked, "What is the other side of the story?" One of them replied, "I don't know. But there are always two sides to every story."

Another way of putting it is "not everything is black and white". Of course! But sometimes, some things are so morally wrong that there is no grey area. Even if there is, all the more reason to cut through the mist with an honest view.

Such "two sides" and "black and white" sayings would sometimes become an easy default position for people who don't want to be seen as "sided" with anyone. Some even go further saying, "I just want to remain neutral." "I support the students. But I also support the police who are doing their jobs." "I support democracy. But I also support maintaining an orderly society so students should disperse and go back to school." 

They may mean it when they say it. But I find it confusing as to what they really believe in and where they stand. Do they really think "each side" is of equal worth? If so, it would help if they are willing to explain what they like about each position.

Sometimes people say, yes, they support democracy (in an abstract sense) but then decline to say exactly what kind of democracy, so it's impossible to know what it is they really support. Or they say, "I support the protestors' aims but not their methods," but then refuse any invitation to suggest any alternatives. I'll call this the Robert Chow school of logic.

An alternative strategy some people use, which I'll call the "gobbledygook", is that they uncharacteristically say a lot of words and ask a lot of questions which lead to confusion. In the end, you are lost as to what they mean and what the points they are making. It's like voluntary Aphasia.

It is as if people are not willing to take a stance. Maybe they don't wish to reveal their true view. Maybe they have an excessive regard for political correctness. Or maybe they just prefer to wait until it's clearer which way the wind blows, then align themselves with the winning side.

But if people are unwilling to state their real views, how as a city or society could we make any progress? How can we show each other genuine respect and dignity?

For the sake of Hong Kong, especially it's young people, I hope more people will speak up. In that spirit, let me give my view. Personally, I hope people would favour a peaceful transition to democracy and show the demonstrators their support. But if that's not their preferred goal, then at least I hope they would give us their honest view.

Someone once said that, "All that's needed for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing". Or, I would add, say nothing. In times of moral crisis, if I stay silent or remain neutral, I risk abetting or condoning something that in my heart I know is wrong. 

Let's go back in time when advocates were in the movements of suffragettes, civil rights or the abolition of the slave trade. It would not be surprising if some people back then had said they supported both the "for" and "against" sides with regards to these rights. I would hope that, if I had lived in those eras, I would've identified with what we now know clearly to be the "right side". 

But I didn't live then. I live now. This is our time, this is our place, this is our issue. I see the violence carried out on peaceful protestors, first by the police, then by thugs with police's acquiescence. I feel a deep wrong is happening in Hong Kong. One that will scar us for generations. I hope more people speak out against it.

我們沒有將警察妖魔化

很多人出來維護警察，說：

1.          警察都是香港人

2.          警隊中都有好人、有有良心的人、有盡心盡力的人

3.          警察最近日夜工作，很疲累

4.          警隊為香港做了很多事，多年來令香港治安良好

5.          警察要服從上司命令

上述每一點都對，相信大家都不反對。只不過，警隊用過分的暴力去對待大部分和平的示威者，是不爭事實，亦不能因為以上一二三四五點而變得可以接受。根本一二三四五點與他們早前濫用武力，是兩回事，不能混為一談。如果一個男人打老婆，你可不可以對他老婆說：「其實他平日都有給你家用，又幫手煮飯，你就體諒一下他吧。」

有接觸過示威者的人，都知道他們並沒有將警察妖魔化。他們不會平白無事在街上見到警察就破口大罵。相反，他們繼續尊重警員，當某警員說了人話，示威者還拍手叫好。

任何群體都有好人有壞人，就如阿媽係女人一樣。好的警察我們都尊重，但我們亦親眼看到有個別警員兇殘對待示威人士，例如叫示威者轉身讓他正面近距離向他噴胡椒噴霧，這實在不是純粹在服從命令。

這都是個別例子，實在無意一概而論。大家最不滿的，亦不是個別警察做了什麼，而是背後指示警隊使用過度武力的人。

Ten Sayings about the Protesters that Struck Me

This is an English translation of the Chinese article posted on 27 Sept


I am not blindly supporting the students. I am simply supporting anyone who fights for justice. I have heard of a number of sayings about the protesters and the students, and I would like to respond to them one by one.

1. "One person one vote is already an improvement. Why don't we take it?"

Let's say your parents are so liberal and merciful that they allow you to enjoy the freedom to choose your own bride. The pre-requisite is that they limit your options to just two women chosen by them. In the event you like neither of them, sorry, tough luck. Do you see this as "freedom to choose"? Would you take it?

2. "It's OK even though there is no real democracy. It has nothing to do with my life."

Many people think that even though there is no real democracy, it doesn’t impact them personally. That is not true. Without the right to elect your own leaders, it means however notorious the people in power are, they can remain in power as long as they like. They do not need to care about the needs of ordinary people. They would continue to collude with the business tycoons, and do their best to defend their interests. They would come up with every possible policy to facilitate the migration of mainlanders to Hong Kong so that they could "dilute" the Hong Kong population, despite the fact that intense conflicts have grown between the two peoples. They could continue to erode Hong Kong's judicial independence by ordering the judges to be patriotic to China. They could continue to bullshit, saying things like, the CCP is the largest democratic force in Hong Kong, and that the fact that the democrats can stay alive proves China's inclusiveness. They continue to stifle the freedom of speech, turning almost all the newspapers and TV channels into government mouthpieces.

Perhaps you would still think all these do not bother you. But they are important to people who pursue justice. Please, at least do not pour cold water on them.

3. "Students VS the CCP? Students are bound to lose. What can students do? All will be fruitless!"

It has never been easy to fight for what you want in front of those in power. Back then, how many people had said to Martin Luther King and Gandhi respectively, that "civil disobedience will not work out"? If they had given up, what kind of life would African-Americans and Indians be living today?

If everyone obeys the authorities because they think they would in no way achieve anything by fighting against the government, there will be no human rights, justice or democracy in the world. Ordinary people would be slaves for the rich and powerful for ever and ever.

4. "They are making Hong Kong chaotic, undermining our economy, damaging HK's international image."

Whenever people fight for their political rights they displease those in power. Are you really calling them trouble-makers for that?

Those who said that Occupy Central would severely damage Hong Kong's economy have always been the government, its allies and the rich and powerful. How exactly would protesters affect the economy? No one could really tell. Even if it may have an impact, is the economic growth or justice more important?

Freedom, judicial independence and a clean government have always been the qualities which uphold Hong Kong's international image. It is the authorities who more and more blatantly undermine these qualities, while the people are defending them in their own ways. Who are the ones who are actually undermining Hong Kong's international image?

There are a lot more demonstrations, protests and marches in London than in Hong Kong. These protests have not seemed to cause any damage to London's economy or its international image.

5. "They broke the rules. It's not right."

For decades these pro-democracy campaigners have abided by the rules, hoping they would reach a solution through dialogue. Only after it has long proven fruitless, they have finally resorted to civil disobedience.

Is it always right to abide by the laws and rules? The reasons behind having laws and rules are to uphold fairness and justice in the society. However, under an unjust system and totalitarian rule, it is sometimes necessary to reach a bigger goal by breaking some rules.

Needless to say, not all the rules in the world are worth being followed. Let's use the same example. What would you think if your parents say to you, "I've chosen two women for you and you can opt for one as your wife. This is my house rule. If you don't do as I say, if you want to meet another girl of your choice, I will punish you as you broke my rule!"

The meaning behind civil disobedience is to break some so-called rules in a non-violent way. The participants are clear that they may be arrested, which may have tremendous impact on their future. And yet they are still willing to take the risks. This is the kind of sacrifice not anyone is ready to make.

6. "They are violent. It's not right."

If you have not been to the scene, please do not trust the reports by most Hong Kong-based media like TVB news. People who have been there could all see how violent the police force was, and how restrained the students were.

Yes, the students climbed through an open fence to reach Civic Square, and pushed down the barriers under the flags so that they could sit down in the square. If you see these actions as violence, let me ask you this: "A woman, while being molested by a man, screamed and pushed him away. Would you call her violent and disobedient?" When injustice is around us, it is our duty to resist.

7. "The students were either manipulated, having fun, or playing heroes. They don't know what they are doing."

Have you been to the scene to meet the students and communicate with them before saying this?

For days, many have lived outdoor under the baking sun, lacking sleep. They have not eaten properly and it has even been inconvenient to find a loo. Many of them face a lot of pressure from their parents and schools. Some were trapped by the police for more than ten hours. They are taking the risks of being arrested and having a criminal record. What they’ve been doing is admirable. Not many people could do as much.

If you cannot do what they have been doing, please at least keep quiet and don't show disrespect.

8. "They are just making noise. Why can't they negotiate rationally or do something more constructive?"

Before saying that, please spend some time to research what the campaigners have done in trying to "negotiate rationally". Please research how many proposals on political reform they have submitted in a hope that the government will consider. Any negotiation is two-way. If one side has already shut the door, how could the other side continue to "negotiate rationally"? After doing the research, please ask yourself: "If I were them, is there anything I could do to continue the rational negotiation?"

Please also do some research on what they have done all the way through to be constructive. Only then, ask yourself: "On top of all these, is there anything I could do to be constructive?"

If you cannot come up with a proper answer, please don’t criticise these people as "unconstructive".

9. "The Occupy Central people are so irresponsible and hypocritical!" "After all this, the students will just go back to school as usual. What could they achieve?" "What's the point of striving for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party’s rule. Why don't they simply launch a coup d’état against the CCP?"

Some people are opposed to the government and the CCP rule and yet have disdained those fighting for justice. They’ve blamed the pan-democratic legislators for having betrayed Hong Kong people. They’ve blamed the Occupy Central leaders for not being forward enough. They called the students' actions impulsive and useless.

There is not much use in discussing anything with these people. I just want to ask them:

Ø         After criticising almost everyone else, what is your better solution?

Ø         After blaming everyone else, aren't you going back to work and living your life as usual? Or are you planning to launch a coup d’état in Tiannanmen Square instead?

Even if I could do more than the protesters, I would never criticise them for not doing enough, as everyone has his own limitations. And, in any case, the fact is that I would never be able to do more than what they have done. I will never criticise them for not doing enough, not being determined enough, or not having sacrificed enough. When others do what they can, I must at least appreciate and admire.

10. "I am not interested in politics. What are they actually fighting for?" "I know nothing about politics. I don't have a stand."

Believe it or not. A good number of people still choose to live in their own bubbles, burying their heads in the sand. They do not bother to ask any questions or make any statements. They are survivors who just want to live their lives.

The problem is that Hong Kong is a building on fire. The alarm is on. And yet you who live on the 30th floor say to yourself, "I will be fine. The fire won't spread to the 30th floor."

It is no longer a situation where you can simply say "just leave me alone". The CCP is boiling a frog. They are bit by bit breaking the promise of "one country, two systems" to Hong Kong people. If everyone chooses to bury their head in the sand, the CCP would gladly speed up totalitarian rule in Hong Kong. Very soon, Hong Kong would then be no different to the rest of China.

If, one day, your loved one was imprisoned, tortured and killed only because he had criticised the government, would you still be able to say, "I am not interested in politics. I have no stand."

Today, you may still think that politics is abstract. Tomorrow, when you finally realise that politics is affecting your everyday life, it may be too late.


An edited version of this article was published on SCMP.com

令我不安的十種講法

我不是盲目支持學生，只是支持追求公義的人。最近聽到或讀到很多人對抗爭人士的種種評論，一次過講我的想法。

1.「一人一票選特首已經是進步，為何不袋住先？」

你父母大發慈悲准你自由戀愛，前提是由他們去選定兩個女人給你選擇，假如你喜歡的是其他人，Sorry，沒有這個 option。這樣算不算自由戀愛？你會否袋住先？

2.「沒有真正民主又如何？對我沒有影響。」

很多人以為有沒有民主對他們沒有影響。事實是，人民沒有權利選舉當權者，意味着當權者無論如何惡名昭彰，都可以繼續掌權。他們根本不必理會平民的意願，繼續官商勾結，盡心盡力保衛少數富豪的利益；制定各種政策方便內地人來香港落地生根，無視中港矛盾，滲透香港人口；蠶食司法獨立，下令要法官愛國；繼續鬼話連篇，說中共是香港最大的民主派、說泛民能活着證明了國家多包容；扼殺言論自由，令幾乎所有報章和電視台都成為政府喉舌。

或許你還是覺得以上對你都沒有影響，但對很多追求公義的人來說，卻很重要。即使你不支持他們，也不要因為事情影響不到你自己，而向爭取的人潑冷水。

3.「學生鬥共產黨，一定輸。學生做得到什麼？無用的！」

面對掌權的一方，要爭取任何事情從來都不是容易的。當年，馬丁路德金和甘地身邊多少人亦說：「公民抗命無用的！」假如他們因而中途放棄，非裔美國人和印度人會有今天的權利嗎？

如果人人都認為平民「鬥不過」政府而甘願做順民，這世界就不會有人權、公義、民主；平民百姓永遠只會是當權者和少數有錢人的奴隸。

4.「他們搞亂香港、影響經濟、破壞香港在國際社會的形象，是他們不對。」

為了爭取政治權利，而做一些當權者看不順眼的事，就是「搞亂」香港？

佔領中環對經濟的「影響多大」，一直只是政府、權貴、親政府人士說的。抗爭人士究竟如何影響到香港的經濟，誰人說得準？就算有影響，經濟重要還是公義重要？

香港在國際社會的形象，本來是靠自由、司法獨立、廉潔等質素去維持的。在當權者愈來愈明目張膽地漠視這些素質的同時，是公民繼續用自己的力量去保衛它們，究竟是誰人在破壞香港在國際社會的形象？

倫敦每年的示威遊行抗爭，比香港更多更洶湧；那不見得影響到倫敦的經濟或國際形象。

5.「他們犯規，是他們不對。」

就因為守規矩守了很多年都無用，想透過對話解決問題但對方不聆聽，人民才去抗命。

守盡法律、循規蹈矩，是否一定是對？設定法律和規矩的目的，本來是維持社會公平和公義，但在一個不公義的制度和極權的統治下，有時有必要透過違反一些規矩，去爭取更重要的目標。

況且，世上並不是所有規矩都值得遵守。用同一例子，你父母說：「我選定兩個女子給你，你就得從二選一娶老婆，這是家規，你若不遵從，逕自走去私會別的女子，就是犯規，要嚴懲！」

公民抗命的意義在於用不暴力的方法去違反所謂的規矩。抗命者明知可能會被檢控而影響前途，仍甘願冒險，不是人人做到的。

6.「他們暴力，是他們不對。」

沒有到過現場，請勿輕信無線新聞的報導。在現場的人，都看到警方多麼猙獰，學生多麼克制。

假如你認為爬過鐵欄走入公民廣場、把鐵馬推在地上（然後他們才可以坐在旗杆下）也算暴力的話，我只能問你：如果一個女人被男人非禮時高呼並推開他，你會怪她暴力、不合作嗎？－－「當不義成為事實，反抗就是任務。」

7.「學生或是受人唆擺，或是貪得意，或是想做英雄而已，根本不知道自己在做什麼。」

說這話的人，有了解過學生嗎？有親自到現場與他們溝通嗎？

日曬雨淋、連日欠缺睡眠、連吃飯和如廁都不方便、面對家長和學校施壓、有的被困十多小時、面對被捕或留案底的可能……這一切都是值得敬佩的，實在不是人人做得到。

既然你做不到他們在做的事，就請你尊重自己，少說自以為是的話。

8.「只懂吵吵鬧鬧，可否理性討論？可否做些有建設性的事？」

說這話的人，請認真了解不同意政府決定的人，一路以來用過什麼不同方法嘗試「理性討論」；請認真了解他們提出過多少方案，希望政府會考慮。「理性討論」是相向的；假如一方已經落閘，另一方又如何繼續「理性討論」？了解過後，請自己問自己：如果我是他們，我還有什麼方法可以繼續「理性討論」？

亦請認真了解他們一路以來用過什麼不同方法嘗試去「建設」。了解過後，請自己問自己：除了這種種，我還有什麼有建設性的事可以做嗎？

假如你想不到，請別再這樣批評抗爭的人。

9.「佔中班人溫溫吞吞，虛偽！」、「學生出來衝，傷幾個拉幾個，過一排還不一樣乖乖照常上學！」、「如果要爭取，就應該直接推翻共產黨，在中國治下爭取民主有屁用！」

有一類人，同樣反對政府、不滿中央，但是，他們同時亦對其他抗爭的人非常不屑，罵泛民議員賣港、罵佔中發起人不夠狠、罵學生衝動沒用。

跟他們討論什麼都不會有結果。我只想問他們：

-          批評了所有人的所有方法後，請問你有什麼更好的方法？

-          你罵過一個又一個人之後，明天又不是如常上班嗎？

-          難道你就真的會到天安門廣場高舉「推翻共產黨」的旗幟嗎？

即使我能夠做得比他們多，我也不會批評他們做得不夠，畢竟各人有各人的處境。更何況，我根本無法比他們做得更多更好，就絕對沒資格坐在家中批評他們去得不夠盡、做得不夠徹底、沒有死而後已的決心。別人在盡力做他們能力所及的事，我只會欣賞和敬佩。

10.「我對政治無興趣，其實他們為什麼要抗爭？」、「我不懂政治，沒有立場。」

的確還有一大批人，繼續甘願做一舊雲，或一隻駝鳥，不聞不問，但願可以明哲保身。

問題是，今天的香港是一幢著了火的大廈，警鐘響起了，在三十樓的你還對自己說：「沒事的，不會燒到三十樓來的。」

情況已不再是「人不犯我，我不犯人」那麼簡單。中共溫水煮蛙，已在一步一步推翻「一國兩制」的承諾。如果人人做駝鳥，他們還不樂於加快步伐、盡快極權治港？很快，香港就與中國其他地方無異……假如有一日，你的摰親因為發表了不滿政府的說話而被禁錮、被虐打、被自殺，你還可以說「我對政治無興趣，我沒有立場」嗎？

今天，你還以為政治很遙遠，明天，當你發現原來政治影響每一個人的生活大小事，或許已經太遲。

English translation of the same article

北京騙案

上一篇提及在北京旅遊時被騙去二百元，現寫出事發始末，讓大家引以為鑑。

我和英國人與爸媽到北京四人行，某天遊過北海公園後，又熱又累，便打算坐的士回酒店，等了很久才有一輛的士停下來，問過我們的目的地，才肯開門載客，真巴閉。

到了酒店，他沒有駛進門口，卻在附近小路停車。車費三十元，車未停定他便給坐在身旁的英國人七十元找贖，示意我們給他一百元。

我當時只想讓爸媽盡快回酒店休息，便快快拿出一張一百元。司機拿着紙幣看看，指那紙幣中間裂開了一點，不肯收。我取回鈔票，給他另一張。這次他看了看又說，不收舊鈔，要新的。我取回紙幣，心想這張一百元怎會舊？他也不耐煩說：「算了算了，你給我三十元。」我在錢包拿了三十元給他，他便取回起初給我們的七十元找贖。

下車後，我問英國人：「你覺得那個司機有可疑嗎？」他說：「他是有點奇怪，但應該沒可疑吧。」

同日晚上，我們約了北京的朋友 Robin 吃飯。我結賬時，侍應發現其中兩張一百元紙幣是偽鈔。起初我很驚訝，因我的人民幣全都是從香港銀行取得，何來偽鈔？我們將下午坐的士的遭遇告訴 Robin，他一聽就知道，那司機神不知鬼不覺就將我先後遞給他的兩張一百元移花接木，換成偽鈔，「還給」我們。Robin 還解釋，司機故意不在酒店門前停車，因他知道酒店職員會記下他的車牌和姓名，他就是要避開這手續，到你們發現他行騙，也無法追究。

原來這陣子北京流出很多一百元偽鈔，所以商店和餐廳結賬時都會逐一查看。Robin 還提醒我們，假如在北京用櫃員機提款，亦應避免那種可存款又可提款的，因為有人將偽鈔存進櫃員機後，你提款時便很容易中伏。

真相大白。那短短十分鐘的車程，我們付了 230 元人民幣。破財事小，被騙的感覺才糟透。

我對 Robin 說，香港很多朋友已不再到內地旅遊，有些是因為政治環境，但有更多是因為曾在內地有類似遭遇，感到內地不安全。那騙子這樣劫走我二百元，是迫我加入我朋友的行列，叫我不再遊內地。他這樣子每天都在車廂中盤算如何騙財，晚上還睡得着嗎？

Robin 想必覺得我太天真，語氣非常肯定地說：他們根本不會想這些，他們只是想自己的錢包。

電視 政治 香港

那天跟英國人亂說無聊話，他說了一句自大的話（已忘了是什麼），我便說："Your ego is bigger than our marriage!" 他聽罷說：「你這句是哪裡抄來的？簡直就像 TVB 電視劇的對白！」我說：「你又知 TVB 電視劇的對白是怎樣！」他說：「不用聽得明，也知道盡是俗不可耐的貨色。他們每齣劇都大同小異，人人住大屋，無論在哪都衣著光鮮，即使剛睡醒都頭髮亮麗；要不就是很優雅地在酒吧或咖啡店談話；要不就是一幫人圍在飯桌吃飯，某人說了什麼，然後其他人總是臉露很驚訝的神情；要不就是激動地掌摑對方；要不就是槍林彈雨……來來去去都這樣。」

這是基於他每星期有一晚在我爸媽家吃過飯後坐在沙發陪他們看無線電視劇，而得出的結論。相當精準。

我和英國人平日幾乎不看電視，只是在爸媽家吃飯那天晚上，才看一點無線電視劇。爸媽多年來習慣長開無線，一邊吃飯一邊看，飯後整晚的節目還是繼續看。最近，我興起搬回娘家住了幾天，那幾天無可避免地斷斷續續看了相當時數的劇集；來去都是那幾張面孔，都是浮誇的演技，牽強的巧合，婆媽的男女糾結，俗不可耐的對白，毫不幽默的爛笑話。這真是我的感覺－－再看下去的話，體內的什麼就要腐爛了。於是便到睡房保持冷靜。

有時我會訝異，英國人比我大幾歲，卻似乎懂得的比我多很多，思想比我成熟很多，胸襟比我開闊得多。想想其實很合理－－他是看 BBC 大的，我是看 TVB 大的。

為什麼香港人不可以有正常質素的電視節目？是我們不配嗎？作為普通市民，我舉腳贊成引入競爭發牌給香港電視。可是，作為普通市民，我沒有選舉領導人的權利，梁振英何須理會我的意願。

很多人以為有沒有民主對他們的生活沒有什麼影響。事實呢，人民沒有權利選舉當權者，意味着當權者無論如何惡名昭彰，都可以大刺刺地繼續掌權。他們根本不必理會平民的意願，繼續大模斯樣地官商勾結，將地都賣給發展商建豪宅，懶理貧窮線下一百萬人的住屋問題，盡心盡力保衛少數富豪的利益；制定各種政策方便內地人來香港落地生根，無視中港矛盾，滲透香港人口；蠶食司法獨立，下令要法官愛國；繼續鬼話連篇，說中共是香港最大的民主派、說泛民能活着證明了國家多包容；扼殺言論自由，令幾乎所有報章和電視台都成為政府喉舌；縱容無線一台獨大，在沒有競爭的情況下（亞視不算是競爭）繼續製作劣質節目。

由無線說到民主，並沒有拉得太遠。生活大小事都與平民擁有多少政治權利有關。我和英國人，最近幾乎說起大小事情，都不期然討論起香港的政治和（假）民主進程。他關心香港的政治比我尤甚，看盡了英文報導後，還要看中文台的新聞，要我用英文概括給他聽。最近又買了有關香港歷史的書來讀，說：「我大概會在這裡住很久，當然要認識她的歷史。」

朋友曾形容英國人像一尊佛，總是很平和、滿足、慈祥的樣子（慈祥！）。他的確 EQ 很高。平日十之八九是我情緒低落，他來開解我的。難得有一次感到他鬱鬱不歡，我大為緊張，以為發生了什麼大悲劇連這尊佛也鬱悶起來。

原來他有感來香港三年多了，廣東話學來學去都進步不大，很沮喪。我說：「你下班後只剩那少少時間和精神，沒有放棄已很難得。比起很多鬼佬，你的廣東話已經很好！」他說：「那是因為你們對鬼佬的期望太低，只要聽到我們說一句唔該或早晨，就嘖嘖稱奇。以我的進度，我真的看不到自己究竟何年何月才能聽得明你們說的話！」

為此如此懊惱，因他真的很希望融入這城。當所有人都說香港已死，身邊有個人卻這麼誠懇地喜歡這地方，竟真的令我安慰。他分得很開，認為把這城弄到死氣沉沉的是那些當權的人，但當權者並不代表這個地方和她的公民。他說：「我也不希望別人看到卡梅倫，就誤以為英國就是這樣。」

他覺得像香港一個這麼小的城市，很難得這麼 dynamic；有山有海有郊野有石屎，有很戲劇化又有趣的歷史，有這城多年來賴以成功的人民素質；還有基建、交通，和最重要的美食，都是他喜歡住在香港的原因。

和這尊佛去旅行，有一件事很有趣。在外地遇到好人好事良辰美景，他會讚嘆這地方的好；當遇到偷呃搶騙無理對待，他會讚嘆香港的好。彷彿無論遇到什麼事，他都看到好的一面。

早前我們與爸媽到北京四人行，被的士司機騙去二百元人民幣，我發現後當然生氣又氣餒。當我變成洩了氣的氣球，英國人說幸好這些事不會（極少）在香港發生。沒錯香港的的士司機當中，不乏會扮唔識路、走白路、說髒話、超速飛車等。雖然他們名聲不算好，但卻很少會像大陸司機那樣猖獗，偷呃搶騙。

而在北京，就算甘願冒險上賊車，想找輛的士坐卻根本一點不易。有時與其站在馬路邊吸塵等車，不如坐地鐵。

北京地鐵好像有十五條線（對着五顏六色的鐵路網絡圖，要數數有多少條線，也不是一時三刻數得清），轉線幾乎是每次乘地鐵必經的事。須轉線本來已經不便，更麻煩的，是每每轉線都要行幾條街，上完又落，落完又上，究竟到未？我們其實只坐兩個站，由燈市口到王府井，但轉線時走路花的時間，比乘車的時間還長幾倍。

當我們在討論究竟還要走多遠才到月台時，英國人說，我們在香港習慣了由這邊月台行過對面月台轉線只消幾秒鐘，只有鰂魚涌站最例外－－在那裡由港島線轉乘將軍澳線，要行的路已嫌太多。卻原來在外地搭地鐵，這是多麼普遍的事。

不愧為佛，無論遇到什麼事，他都會想，香港真好。

我就想，在這陰霾密佈的香港，有他在身邊，真好。