一手交一手
香港其實一直都有銷售稅，只不過是集中在奢侈品上，例如汽車煙酒。樓宇房屋一樣有銷售稅，以地價為名稱，向各位預先間接抽稅。現在所講的銷售稅，只不過往下伸延，向日用品進攻。
理性討論銷售稅已經多至令人發悶，就讓我從感性出發。
最強烈反對銷售稅的理由，是我們信不過這個政府。幾年前，檢討稅基的那份顧問報告，用OECD國家作比較，反映香港太倚重收入利得稅以及房屋銷售稅，瓣數太少。但是顧問只睇表面，沒有提及OECD的先進國家都有民選政府，假如政府倒行逆施，總有文明方法對付。
但香港沒有這個福分，一旦將另一個搖控器交給政府，到時添馬艦總部內的財政司司長，左手一個薪俸稅搖控，右手一副銷售稅搖控，愈撳愈興奮，將吸力扭至最大，司長這份工即時變成優差，毫無煩惱。
量入為出是要紀律，但睇餸食飯就是中國人自幼庭訓。銷售稅一開，政府日日斬料加餸，只會變成時刻開會動腦筋，度橋如何用盡手上的「畢直」。到時政府的改革大動作，包保日日出籠。
要記住，政府問責官員是單身上陣，而且是仕途頂點。其他國家有政黨血脈九代單傳，假如這屆政府揮霍無度，會連累同黨後輩下屆失利，所以是內外受到制衡。香港政府是鋪鋪清，今屆玩完，下屆全新人馬由頭來過，與上一手沒有血緣關係。換言之，上屆亂使錢，不會影響下屆；而新一屆上場，又會要錢大展拳腳。久而久之，政府開支愈使愈大。
不是說政府開支將會控制在GDP 20％以下嗎？銷售稅一出，GDP這個大餅，便會水漲船高，到時政府開支又可以加碼，這一招最毒。
要推銷售稅，得，但要一手交一手，換一個民選政府過來。
62 comments:
在香港推行銷售稅是政治自殺~
看來如果笨政府一意孤行又會變成百萬人上街遊行已!
sam
方生今日所言差矣.
陳水扁政府正是民選政府, 且不計六千億台幣購美國過期武器, 政府日常營運已經令台灣國債五年內倍升, 債留子孫, 阿扁也沒眼見. 以基層佔絕大多數的社會, 政黨慷他人之慨去討好選民撈取選票, 那管你甚麼百年遠景, 最重要是眼前利益.
任何以「結果」來 justify 民主選舉的，一定失敗，因為民主選舉，並沒有任何機制，可以保證選民一定會作出「理性」抉擇。
民主選舉唯一的 justification, 是「民擇自負」。台灣人被阿扁所騙，選了一個大混蛋當總統，是活該，只能怪自已，由人無尤。
其實選舉和買股票，談戀愛一樣，沒有人能保證有皆大歡喜的結局。支持民主選舉唯一的原因，是因為它是成年人應有的權利而已。
至於方生今天所舉的理由，與事實不乎，樓上總幹兄已有評論，不贅。
方生和信報各高人，尤其是獨排眾議的 羅家聰，不如研究下生果報李兆富提倡的 taxpayer bills of rights 在香港實施的可行性。
方生說,有民選的政府, GST 便不會被濫用,真是 naive 得可愛。這種民主萬能論,最是騙人。連孔少林都不得不承認,有民選的國家,不一定就百業興旺,天下太平。孔少林也只能說,香港有足夠條件,令普選不會令香港變亂而已。
方生在他的賭神一文內如是說 :
Game Theory要用得着，有賴對手都是不相伯仲，有咁上下聰明智慧。遇着傻佬，出牌毫無章法，theory就會即時失靈。做人更慘，身邊總是有一大群傻佬出現，令你空有一身武功，得物無所用。
套用在民主選舉上, 就是說選民平均水平不要相差太遠, 大家也「有咁上下聰明智慧 」. 整日高談闊論香港已有成熟條件去普選的人, 除了政客外,要嗎是不吃人間煙火的隱士, 要嗎是 「何不食肉糜 ? 」的智障者
無可否認GST對從來不用交稅的自僱人士和窮而有骨氣的人影響最大。但請要怪政府，要怪就怪D又懶又窮的少數綜援户和以社會福利賄賂選民的議員愈來愈多，而客觀敢言的議員愈來愈少。
我係曾特首就等派哂庫房d錢至算。等兩屆後的特首自已想辦法。何必得罪市民，擺自已上枱呢？
Zazou 上
上星期五信報的楓葉國隨筆題為[ 惡人當道的民主政治] 就有感而發. 文中有句話說得極好 : 選舉制度只是工具之一, 不應被當為社會的終極追求.
香港淺薄的政客就終日鼓吹把普選作為終極目標.
銷售稅是否應該徵收，很多時都是雞同鴨講。撇除任何價值及道德判斷，只看擴闊稅基的話，自然會贊成銷售稅。如果從社會公義角度去看，自然不會輕易贊成，尤其是按目前政府公布的安排，李嘉誠、霍建寧等人極可能在開徵銷售稅獲得減稅，一般市民想到能者少付這一點，條氣已經唔順！
思辯兄指出，台灣人被阿扁所騙，選了一個大混蛋當總統。
連李遠哲，林行止等十分「理性」和飽學之士，都被陳水扁所騙,其他人更不用說了。
如果他日香港出了一個港版陳水扁，香港人也不見得會比台灣人理性，一樣會選像陳水扁這種騙子為特首。
民進黨是民主選舉上台，不足六年，便由清廉象徵變為腐敗化身。由民進黨這一例子，便可推翻方卓如的膚淺見解，說只要有民主選舉，政黨便不敢亂來。
民進黨正正給了方卓如和民主萬能論者一紀響亮的耳光！
普選不是萬能是事實，但目前香港的四不像政制也不見得好，政府沒有選民的mandate，事事受制肘，推行政策事倍功半。
我的看法剛剛相反，正是因為政府沒有選民的mandate，所以它的政策，一定要得到民意支持和市民認同，才能通過，不能自恃有選民mandate，便把一些惡法，如 GST 等，在議會中強行通過。
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried".
How about the Hong Kong model (ruled by A.O.), as practiced by the pre-1997 government? In many ways, it could be argued that the Hong Kong model is better than democracy as practised by a number of countries (say, for example, Taiwan).
Or the Singapore model. The government is clean, effective, efficient--much better than Taiwan, too.
Even Taiwan, its economy took off precisely during the reign of 蔣經國, which was definitely not a democracy. Now, Taiwan is facing a huge crisis (social, political, economic) when democracy was in full force in the past six years.
Hence, it appears that we cannot take Churchill's quote at face value. In some places, at some times, there could be some forms of government that work better than democracy.
All this means that we must not look upon democracy as a panacea -- as advocated by many supporters of general election. Democracy has its pros and cons, and we should look at both squarely, without hiding its less favorable sides using false logic (like Mr. Fong's claim in his article).
講起李遠哲,林行止等,被阿扁所騙,令人既心痛,又心寒.自問學識比李林兩位,差一大截,如果香港有陳水扁,我也可能和李林一樣,投阿扁一票.令天民進黨的全國黨代表大會,主調依然是挺扁,問你服未！最可笑的,陳水扁還有顏面批評香港.如果要在今日的香港和台灣,二者選其一,我會選擇香港.你呢?
林行止批評董建華，可謂不遺餘力。
可是林行止對陳水扁這種光棍騙子，卻不敢有半句批評。
古語有云：秀才遇著兵，有理講唔清。
今人有云：秀才遇光棍，聲都唔敢聲。
唉，秀才，真是可悲。
Contrary to what ebin says, the facts speak otherwise.
Taiwan people do not like Chen Shui-bien, but they cannot kick him out of office, even though he and his family and cronies are corrupt and incompetent. So what is the advantage of democracy?
By this criteria, one can even argue that a place without democracy is more efficient. By all accounts, C.H. Tung is a much better person (at least ethically and personally) than Chen Shui-bien, yet he got replaced by Beijing simply because Hong Kong people did not like him. So in this case, we can even argue that without democracy, Hong Kong is actually more "efficient" in disposing a disliked leader.
The crisis of Chen Shui-bien is all of his making. His crisis arises soley from his corruption. It has nothing to do with the U.S. and China. In fact, Chen Shui-bien got a lot of "help" from the U.S. and China in terms of rallying support from the "Green" voters.
In terms of freedom of speech, Singaporeans should be their own judges. In fact, quite a number of Hong Kong people emigrate to Singapore and enjoy living there. They don't see the need to pick on the government constantly and endlessly. Actually, to some people, Hong Kong-style "freedom of speech", as exemplied by the media, may more accurately be said to be "abuse" of speech.
Furthermore, it is clear that Singapore has much less corruption than Taiwan. So what is the advantage of democracy if democracy means corruption? Is democracy not supposedly to be "superior" to all other forms of government? If so,, how come corruption can be so rampant in Taiwan, where democracy thrives so spectacularly? (Don't tell us that corruption runs deeply in Taiwan because of the U.S. or China.)
The whole debate is about the supposed "superiority" of democracy. Ebin fails to show how the Hong Kong model compares less favorably than the model practised by Taiwan today. Hong Kong enjoys as much freedom of speech as Taiwan. Hong Kong has much less cases of corruption than Taiwan. Hong Kong could kick out its detested leader much faster than Taiwan. Hong Kong's economy and stock market perform much better than Taiwan. So why should Hong Kong people throw away the status quo, adopt an unknown new system, and take a risk that it will become the next Taiwan?
On John Howard, Ebin says: "In 2001 he was elected again and he is still in power today. If GST was that bad John Howard would not be in power today."
That is quite a simple-minded remark. Voters make their decisions based on many factors and issues, which are unique to each individual country. Australians may elect John Howard in spite of, and not because of, his position on GST.
Furthermore, even if it is true that Australians do not mind GST, it does not mean that other voters in other countries will not vote down a candidate because of his/her position on GST.
Ebin should understand that each country is different. What works for one country may not work for another. Democracy, for example, may work wonderfully in one country but disastrously in another country. If Ebin has time, he/she might want to take a look at Amy Chua's book, "World on Fire", in which Chua investigates cases in which democracy wrecks disasters in some countries.
(Incidentally, Amy Chua is a Yale law professor and an editor of Yale Law Journal.)
Generally, Hongkongers hold quite favorable views of all post-WWII governors in Hong Kong. Even today, almost 10 years after leaving the office, Chris Patten is much remembered and welcomed by the public. Yet, importantly enough, none of the governors was democractically elected. If democracy is necessarily the best form of government, how come Hongkongers accord such a high degree of recognition toward the former British rule--so much as that even today, all the leading candidates (Donald Tsang, Anson Chan) come from the A.O. system developed by an undemocratic government?
The fact is: the Hong Kong model works better than quite a number of countries that practise democracy today (for example, Taiwan, Philipines, etc.). Hence Churchill's statement -- "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried" -- cannot stand up to the test of facts. Democracy, as with other forms of government, may work in some places and at some times, but no one has offered any proof that it is necessarily the best form of government for all places and for all times. Hence if ebin wants to prove the superiority of democracy, he/she should provide some logical proofs, not just an empty quote from Churchill. Remember, a quote is not a proof. It is just one person's opinion. No more. No less.
Oh, by the way, for those who admire Winston Churchill and look up upon him as an idol, I forgot to mention one thing: Churchill was a die-hard defender of the British Empire and colonial rule. He actively despised Gandhi and he fervently opposed the independence of India. When he talked about democracy, he was referring to Britain. He never believed that democracy could work in places like India. So for all admirers of Churchill -- including Anson Chan -- take note.
I just went to google and typed in a couple of key words -- "Churchill", "independence of India", "Gandhi" -- and already I got many responses. Here are just two I got immediately:
http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/06/19/stories/2005061900060300.htm
http://www.mises.org/story/1450
In an article "The Real Churchill" (by Adam Young, posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 in the mises.org site), Young made the following comment:
"But if one was to sum up Churchill's passion, his overall reason for entering politics, it was the empire. The British Empire was Churchill's abiding love. He fought to expand it, he defended it, and he created his decades-long hatred of Germany because of it. The Empire was at the center of his view of the world. Even as late as 1947, Churchill opposed Indian independence. When Lord Irwin urged him to bring his views on India up-to-date by talking to some Indians Churchill replied "I am quite satisfied with my views on India, and I don't want them disturbed by any bloody Indians." So much for democracy."
**************************
So if you want to prove the superiority of democracy, please offer logic and arguments, not just a quote from Churchill, who does NOT believe that democracy is for all places and for all people.
It is clear by now that ebin is incapable of providing any convincing logic and arguments to support his or her view (other than a quote by Churchill).
About GST, why need a referendum? It is obvious by now that the Hong Kong model works beautifully. Seeing that the public does not support GST, ALL political parties say No to GST. Even without democracy, Hong Kong has an effective mechanism in place to prevent the government from carrying out a poor policy. The Hong Kong model works. Hurrah!
Oh, incidentally, ebin did not offer any response or rebuttal to my criticism of his simple-minded comment on John Howard and GST. I thought ebin would be a worthy adversary in debate, but I obviously over-estimated his ability to defend his view and position.
Also, it is courtesy and intellectual honesty to cite a full quote and not skip any important part. This is what I said:
"By all accounts, C.H. Tung is a much better person (at least ethically and personally) than Chen Shui-bien, yet he got replaced by Beijing simply because Hong Kong people did not like him."
Ebin purposely skipped the comparison between C.H. Tung and Chen Shui-bien. Ebin also said earlier: "I think you cannot blame Taiwan crisis solely on Ah Bian. Taiwan is too heavily influenced by the policies of the Mainland and the US."
Well, I don't see how U.S. and Mainland policies have anything to do with corruption by Chen Shui-bien and his group. Could ebin please explain the logic to us?
只用台灣和印度作例子，以顯示民主制度的不足，實在以偏蓋全，南韓一樣實行民主制度，情況不算差，有多少南韓人會贊成回到全斗煥年代？
香港目前這套四不像政制看似可行，是受不少特殊因素影響。如果香港不是國際金融中心，能夠為國企集資，所以不能漠視外國的意見，廿三條才有可能收回。假如香港只是一個無關重要的小島，中共早就可以為所欲為，反正外國傳媒不會注視。
四不像政制暫時仍然可以維持一個脆弱的平衡，但絕非長治久安之計，社會環境已變，群眾愈來愈懂得要出聲保護自己的權益，要回到港英的仁慈專制年代已經不可能。透過有效的選舉制度平衡各方利益，才能減低將來因為貧富懸殊引起的亂局。
It looks like ebin has thrown up his hands and quitted offering any logical arguments to support his view. That is okay. Hope ebin has a better understanding of Churchill's real position on democracy after our exchanges.
(Incidentally, it is really childish to write remarks such as "Looks like I have attracted the writer of "KungFu Tea" of the Oriental Daily here. Apologies to 方卓如." Your time is better spent thinking up and writing good arguments to support your views--or reading up on how democracies actually work in other countries.)
********************
To the Anonymous blogger above:
It is perfectly correct to say: 只用台灣和印度作例子，以顯示民主制度的不足，實在以偏蓋全. At the same time, it is also 以偏蓋全 to say that democracy is the best form of governments for ALL countries at All times simply because democracy works in countries such as the U.S. or South Korea.
The Anonymous blogger might want to take note of my comments in my response to ebin:
"Ebin should understand that each country is different. What works for one country may not work for another. Democracy, for example, may work wonderfully in one country but disastrously in another country. If Ebin has time, he/she might want to take a look at Amy Chua's book, "World on Fire", in which Chua investigates cases in which democracy wrecks disasters in some countries."
As the above quote clearly states, I did not deny that democracy could work in some countries. I only posited that democracy does not necessarily work in all countries.
The Anonymous blogger said: 香港目前這套四不像政制看似可行，是受不少特殊因素影響。That precisely is my point. Each country or place is different. Hence the political system should adapt to the unique situation (特殊因素) faced by each place. For example, the A.O. system has proved to be working well in Hong Kong, so why change it? However, can we then conclude that the A.O. system should be adopted by other countries? Of course not. We should not blindly copy a political system from outside without taking a hard look at the unique conditions facing one's own place.
Incidently, even the Anonymous viewer admits that 這套四不像政制看似可行. So the system does work, at least for now, and the Anonymous viewer is honest enough to admit that. Also, whether a system is 四不像--that is soley a judgment call. The Hong Kong model might look like 四不像 to the Anonymous viewer, but to me, the current system is beautifully constructed, evolved naturally from the unique history, culture and situations faced by Hong Kong.
The Anonymous viewer also said: 假如香港只是一個無關重要的小島，中共早就可以為所欲為，反正外國傳媒不會注視。
Indeed, but the fact is, Hong Kong is NOT a 無關重要的小島. Hence the system in place is effective enough to prevent the government from passing laws such as Article 23 or the GST. The facts speak for themselves, and yet the Anonymous viewer chooses to turn a blind eye towards the facts right under his nose.
Another comment of the Anonymous viewer: 透過有效的選舉制度平衡各方利益，才能減低將來因為貧富懸殊引起的亂局。This is just wishful thinking. The Taiwan example and other cases cited in Amy Chua's book clearly shows that there is NO inherent guarantee that democracy can necessarily 平衡各方利益. In fact, Hongkongers have such a high regard for the pre-1997 days because the then non-democratically elected governors and governments managed successfully to 平衡各方利益 through its policies (e.g. housing for the poor; recruitment of HSBC banker and others in the Exco for the rich and elite; setting up the ICAC for practically everybody.)Hence to 平衡各方利益 does not necessarily require democracy, and Hong Kong through its history and example has proved just that.
Let me tell you my position on democracy or direct election. I do not object to democracy or direct election at all. For I agree with 孔少林 that 香港有足夠條件,令普選不會令香港變亂. What I do object to is false claims by many people that with direct election, all sorts of problems will go away, as if by some forms of miracles.
Furthermore, I do not believe that we should accept the grand-sounding rhetorics about the benefits of democracy blindly. The merits of the Hong Kong model (or the Singapore model) have not been given their due credit fairly, while the supposed merits of democracy have been grossly over-exaggerated. Many people (in Hong Kong as well as in Taiwan and other places) have somewhat looked upon democracy naively as a cure-all and a miracle drug. And as people in Taiwan learn through the hard way, democracy in itself does not guarantee anything. It does not guarantee a corruption-free government. It does not guarantee economic progress or prosperity. It does not gurarantee social harmony or stability. It does not guarantee peaceful relations with neigboring countries.
Advocates of direct election should be honest with themselves and their audience. They should not put forward false claims and arguments (as Mr. Fong did in his article on GST.) Instead of exaggerating the merits of democracy, why not be honest. Just say this: I love democracy. I like direct election. That is an end itself. Even if direct election brings about corruption, even if it brings about a welfare state, even if it exacerbates social conflicts, even if it leads to war, I am willing to bear any and all costs--for democracy is an end in itself, not a means.
If ebin and the Anonymous viewer put out the above "declaration" (instead of offering false claims about the merits and benefits of democracy), I will support them 100 percent.
為了反世貿,南韓農民在韓國和香港都有很激烈的示威,可見就算在南韓,民主化亦不一定能平衡各方利益.在全球一體化和世界經濟為西方國家主宰下,不管你有冇民主,窮人都一樣受苦.
有論者說:「假如香港只是一個無關重要的小島，中共早就可以為所欲為，反正外國傳媒不會注視。」
如果香港真的只是一個無關重要的小島,難道有了直選後,中共就不可以為所欲為?
那位論者可能忘記了,89年時,全世界的傳媒,都雲集在北京,中共還不是照樣清場.
論民主可以,支持直選可以,但不用過於誇大它的作用,以免日後失望.
如果中共要文明，你有冇民主，中共都會文明。
如果中共要野蠻，你有冇民主，中共都會野蠻。
以為民主可以抗共，實在太天真了。
其實陳水扁可以學香港咁，經濟唔好賴亞洲金融風暴、及泛民主攪到抗。
即國民黨時期經濟泡沬化，國民黨攪對抗，社會不和諧咪得囉！
獨裁社最好...........
看來支持民主直選的，除了口號和一些不知所云的評論(如 pccw)，及一些站不住腳的的見解(如方生的GST評論)，便再沒有一些更有水平的論點，支持民主直選，在香港應儘快實行。
由此可見，泛民在民主理論上，真的要做多一點功夫。
Ebin said: "Before you provide your lengthy comments I have considered them all."
Oh, that's odd. If so, why did Ebin cite Churchill's quotation and use it as a "proof" that democracy is the best form of all governments. Did Ebin know about Churchill's attitude about Gandhi and the Indian independence movement before I told him so? I don't think so.
If Ebin has considered all the points, why would he make simple-minded remarks about John Howard and GST and failed to defend those remarks when being challenged?
If Ebin has considered all the points, why did he make remarks such as “I think you cannot blame Taiwan crisis solely on Ah Bian. Taiwan is too heavily influenced by the policies of the Mainland and the US.” (By the way, we are still waiting to see what logic Ebin can offer for his comment on Ah Bien’s crisis.)
It is sad to see that the so-called supporter of democracy can make false statement openly—that he has considered all the points—and do not feel a shed of shame or embarrassment.
I shudder to think what Hong Kong will be like when after direct election is finally implemented, we will have voters with thinking capacity and intellectual honesty like Ebin. Ebin is the type of voters Chen Shui-bien loves the most. Full of hot air, empty slogans, easily persuaded by high-sounding rhetoric and sweet-mouthing politicians, but unable to think independently, and not humble enough to learn.
Maya, you really is a laughting stock.
Maya 的論點，好像至今還沒有網友，能從邏輯和論證上，有所駁斥。空空泛泛的批評，如「Maya, you really is a laughting stock. 」，只會給人一種辭窮的感覺。
一個 Maya, 便能把眾人，駁得啞口無言，厲害，厲害。其實，民主的局限，只要對世界大事，有所留心的人，都會知道。上一兩個星期，在討論中東局勢時，連林行止先生都說，「阿拉伯式的民主，要來何用。」（由於沒有儲存報紙的習慣，不能引述評論日期，請見諒。）
Ebin asked: "Is the economy and stock market performance of HK better than TW because "HK model is better than TW's"?"
Of course. Investors hate instability and uncertainty. The Hong Kong model is stable, transparent and running smoothly. In contrast, Taiwan is full of uncertainties because no one knows what it will do or where it will go. Even Bush is concerned and has to ally with Beijing to rein in Chen Shui-Bien. In the face of all these uncertainties and instability, many foreign investors are exiting Taiwan or stop putting in new investment there. As a result, Taiwan's economy and stock market performance suffer.
Ebin asked: "China is not a democracy, it has more corruption than Taiwan. How do you explain that?"
It is easy to respond. This is what I said in my earlier posting: "And as people in Taiwan learn through the hard way, democracy in itself does not guarantee anything. It does not guarantee a corruption-free government."
I NEVER said that corruption will NOT occur in any other countries or any another forms of government. I simply pointed out that democracy is not a miracle drug, and that even with democracy running in full force, a country can still be plagued by rampant corruption, like Taiwan and Philippine and Indonesia and other countries in South America, etc.
The final question from Ebin: You mentioned "Hence the system in place is effective enough to prevent the government from passing laws such as Article 23 or the GST." What precisely is the system that you referred to and how did this system worked in the Article 23 saga?"
Well, I am surprised by the question. For it is obvious that I am referring to the political system that is operating in Hong Kong today. Frankly, I do not have time nor intention to educate Ebin about the political structure and system of Hong Kong. If Ebin has difficulty understanding Hong Kong's political system, that is his problem, not mine.
I think my exchange with Ebin has been long enough. So far, I have answered each and every one of Ebin's question fully. And yet Ebin still fails to answer my question, as I raised in my earlier posting: "I don't see how U.S. and Mainland policies have anything to do with corruption by Chen Shui-bien and his group. Could Ebin please explain the logic to us?"
Also, Ebin fails to answer the following question: "If democracy is the best form of all governments, why is it that corruption is so rampant in so many countries that are practising democracy, whereas corruption is not a problem in places like Hong Kong and Singapore?"
Also, Ebin fails to respond to many points I raised in my previous postings, such as:
1. his remarks on John Howard and GST are simple-minded.
2. that democracy in itself is not a cure-all and does not guarantee anything. It does not guarantee a corruption-free government. It does not guarantee economic progress . . . etc.
3. that Churchill's quote is just one person's opinion, not a proof.
4. that Mr. Fong's claim in his article on GST is not supported by facts.
Should I take it that Ebin has conceded to those points, for he is not able to offer any rebuttal? If so, then it looks like Ebin and I have quite a lot in agreement!
To 中豬:
It is nice to hear that someone finally is brave enough to come out and agree with me that "Each country or place is different."
中豬 says we need to think about the "next generation". Sorry, none of us has a crystal ball. We don't really know what is good or bad for the next generation. Times change, often in a very dramatic, unpredictable way. Each generation has its own issues and challenges to deal with. Let the next generation do what they think is best for them.
As for my remark about the types of voters which Chen Shui-Bien loves to have, what is wrong with that? Why should I feel "ashamed" about it? Is it not true that politicians like Chen Shui-Bien loves to have voters who are full of hot air, empty slogans, easily persuaded by high-sounding rhetoric and sweet-talking politicians, incapable of independent thinking and not humble enough to learn?
If you are not one of those voters, you don't need to feel offended by the above remark. If you indeed are one of those, the shame should fall on you, not me.
By the way, your blogger name, 「中豬」, is pretty offending to the Chinese people. According to your logic, are you not "ashamed" to pick 「中豬」as a blogger name?
中豬 said: "The only "pros" and "cons" of democracy is that you have your own "right" to face your vote no matter it is good to "you" or not! "
Thank you, Mr. 中豬, for agreeing with me that all the other claims about the supposed benefits of democracy (e.g. it will prevent the abuse of GST; it will bring about a responsible government, etc., etc.) are misleading and not supported by facts.
As I said in one of my earlier postings, I support 100 percent those who truly believe that democracy is an end in itself, not a means. I appreciate your choice of word: "The ONLY "pros" and "cons" of democracy . . ." The word "ONLY" is excellently chosen, and that is the crux of my argument. Again, Mr. 中豬, thank you.
Maya 兄有心人也，提醒我等，不要重蹈台灣覆轍，誤以為台灣有了民主選舉，便諸事大吉，安枕無憂，從此台灣便能自動「向上提昇」(李遠哲語)。
如今空回首，悔恨當日過於樂觀，對民主及民進黨，寄望過深，致使台灣空轉數載，現在荊棘滿途，連前路也找不到。
對民主選舉盲目寄予厚望者，當以台灣為戒。
It looks like I have got two lengthy responses from Ebin and 中豬. I do not have time at the moment to respond to a full list of questions, so I have to wait and will do it some time later today.
(By the way, it looks like this time round, Ebin does not mind debating with the writer of "KungFu Tea" of the Oriental Daily, and he does not see the need to offer an apology to 方卓如 anymore. Odd, isn’t it? When Ebin could not come up with anything to say a couple of days ago, he said his opponent was the writer of "KungFu Tea" of the Oriental Daily. Now, when he manages to come up with a lengthy comment, he does not see any problem debating with "KungFu Tea".)
I just want to address one issue raised by both Ebin and Mr. 中豬, which is my comment about the choice of the blogger name 中豬.
That is really odd. Mr.中豬 pointed a finger at me and questioned me in his posting yesterday: “Will you FEEL SHAME after you made this comment?” Hey, are supporters of democracy not supposed to be defenders of freedom of speech? Why should I “feel shame” about expressing my view?
I PURPOSEFULLY put in the remark about the blogger name中豬because I KNOW perfectly well that it is within Mr. 中豬 ‘s right to choose any blogger name he wants. I just want to see whether Mr. 中豬 is a person of integrity or whether he is a person with double standard (隻重標準，有口話人，冇口話自已)。 If I SHOULD “feel shame” about expressing my view on the type of voters Chen Shui-Bien loves to have because my remark may offend some people (probably supporters of Ah Bien), why should Mr. 中豬 NOT “feel shame” about choosing a name that may offend many Chinese people? If Mr. 中豬 does not see any reason to “feel shame” about choosing his blogger name, why should I “feel shame” about criticizing the types of voters Ah Bien loves?
Another note. hhh 兄 made this comment yesterday: “ Maya, You take the discussion too personal.” I did not respond because it is within hhh’s right to express his view. However, in his response to me today, Mr. 中豬 said, “I know you are a "selfish" one.” And in an earlier response, Ebin said: “Looks like I have attracted the writer of "KungFu Tea" of the Oriental Daily here.”
I guess hhh is still following this heated debate. And so, hhh, should you also issue a similar statement to Mr. 中豬 and Ebin? I hope hhh is not a person of double standard, too.
As I said, I have just enough time to make a response on my remark regarding the blogger name. For all other responses, I have to do it later today. So stay tuned. I won’t let you down.
I have learnt a lot from the discussions and see the pros/cons, merits and demerits of both sides which I have not think of, which fruitful for me to deciding on issues like "whether to join the rally for 1 July", etc.
My understanding on history is that, politicans/country leaders make decision on a issue with specific target. Yet, often turn out that the results are out of expectations. Why?, Because the reactions & interaction of stakeholders are really hard to predict (maybe Game theory could help), together with changing environment and ad hoc events like SARS, economic crisis, causes the outcome hard to predict.
I belive, the benefit of discussion often come not from the conclusion (which rarely found for unanimous agreement), but a thorough though of the issue, which let us have a list of merits/demerits in mind and have a better response.
There is no absolute right or wrong answer.
借 hhh 的句子一用：
中豬, Ebin 兩位,
You take the discussion too personal.
This response is to Mr.中豬.
中豬 said:“Frankly, I do not know who you are and where are you, however, I know you are a "SELFISH" one.”
Using the exact words used by Mr. 中豬 yesterday, my response is:“Will you feel shame after you made this comment?”
I appreciate Mr. 中豬's explanation of why he chose this blogger name. (Whether he is telling the truth, to be honest, only God knows.) But anyway, it really doesn’t matter. Even if he chose the name with the express purpose of offending the Chinese people, it is perfectly within his right to do so. (At the same time, it is perfectly within others’ right to criticize such practice, too) Anyway, I do not see any reason why Mr. 中豬 should “feel shame” about choosing the blogger name, just as I do not see any reason why I should “feel shame” about issuing remarks about Chen Shui-Bien’s preferred voters.
Oh, by the way, if you look carefully at what I wrote yesterday, I said:“According to your logic, are you not "ashamed" to pick 「中豬」as a blogger name?”
See? I said“According to your logic...” and I was using the question mark. It is a QUESTION, not a statement or assertion. I thought you could catch that. It appears from your response that you missed the hint.
中豬 said:“If you agree, please retrieve your comment on "second generation.” Now, Mr. 中豬, I do not see any reason why I should retract my comment. The problem with this world is that each generation THINKS it knows what is best for the world, and so they want to impose their will not only on their own generation but on generations thereafter. That is EXACTLY the reason why we have Marxism, Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism and all kinds of ideologies. Each and every one of them believes earnestly that what they were doing were for the welfare of mankind and the benefits of the “next generation”. See what we got: The Holocaust, the Killing Field, the Khmer Rouge, and countless atrocities and sufferings.
The thing is, you might THINK your belief is “perfect”, that the political system you advocate is the best possible form for the world. Since you are a supporter of your belief, it is human nature that you turn a blind eye to or underplay its defects.
As an illustration, assume we turned the clock back and went back to 2000. If I did not support 民進黨 back then, I am pretty sure that Mr. 中豬 would criticize me for being selfish and un-democratic and would ask me to change my position (because民進黨 represented democracy and progress, as its party name suggests, so every “moral” and “unselfish” person should support 民進黨—Right?). Could you, Mr. 中豬, predict back in 2000 that Taiwan would become a place like it is today? Could you predict that in just six years, 民進黨, which is the loudest supporter of democracy and clean government, would degenerate into its current abominable state? If you cannot even predict what happens in just five to six years, what makes you think that you can predict what is good for the “next generation”.
Mr. 中豬: Never, never, never forget the lessons of Marxism, Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism and all other high-sounding ideologies. Millions of people pay their lives to teach us a dear lesson: Don't listen to sweet-talking politicians. Don't listen to pie-in-the-sky promises. Don't let high-sounding rhetoric and ideology make you turn a blind eye to its faults and defects.
All I have been saying is simply this: Democracy is not the miracle drug as claimed by its many advocates. That's all. Also, I said explicitly that I support 100 percent anyone who truly believes that democracy is an end in itself, not a means. And I said very clearly that I agree with Mr. 中豬 's words: “The ONLY "pros" and "cons" of democracy is that you have your own "right" to face your vote no matter it is good to "you" or not!” It appears that Mr. 中豬 and Ebin always dance around the core points of my argument. If they can concede gracefully to the above points, then we are in agreement. What is the issue?
(Sorry, Ebin, be a good boy or gal. You have to wait for your turn.)
It is great to hear that both 中豬 and Ebin see it fit to stop the discussion.
Hope we all learn something from these exchanges.
Have a nice day.
精彩，精彩。雖然各方鳴金收兵，不能再看 Maya 有理有節的反駁和嚴密的邏輯論證，但小弟已獲益良多，對民主直選的爭論，有了深一層的了解。
To Mr. Anonymous above:
Thanks for the kind words about my postings, “Maya 有理有節的反駁和嚴密的邏輯論證.”
What a relief it is to see that 中豬 and Ebin proposed to put an end to the debate. It saves me a lot of time writing up rebuttals to their comments and arguments. If my postings can help anyone to take a closer and harder look at democracy and its faults and limitations, I will have achieved my objective.
After careful thoughts and consideration, we may still support democracy and direct election, but at least we will have more realistic expectations and will not be let down when the over-optimistic promises are not fulfilled.
Thanks again for your kind words. Have a nice day.
哈哈，當初我也覺得奇怪，點解 Maya 會如此魯莽，批評「中豬」的網名，心想「中豬」和 Ebin, 一定會以此為借口，對Maya 狂攻。
估唔到原來係個「局」，用來反駁「中豬」的 Will you feel shame after you made this comment? 批評。如此佈局，的確精奇，佩服。
今日(星期二)信報第十二頁，刊有鄭赤琰（前中文大學政治系主任）的文章《倒扁聲浪大，為何扁未倒》。文章末段有這一句話：「結果是多少國家，政府，領袖借民主殘民以自肥」。大家如把鄭文細看，當有體會。
經過這場大辯論，民主萬能論，可以体矣。
民主，已經取代宗教，成為現代人的「鴉片」。
就如在台灣，年年都是選舉，台灣人便活在選舉亢奮中，最終被政客所操控，族群撕裂，藍綠對立，方向迷失，向下沈淪。
現代人已把選舉，視為圖騰。大勢如此，夫復何言。唯有自求多福，祈望台灣之劫，不會降臨香江，則萬幸矣。
辯證一件事有多個方法，最常用就是邊緣化對方論點，找個exception 作例對方的立論就不能成立。所以問口埋口就用 "萬能" "絕對" "永遠" 等字就等於專業自殺。當年萬試萬靈既救命仙丹盤尼西林，今日都 out 啦，
不過就算你唔專業自殺，對手都會迫你埋牆，話你有咁既暗示，於是就列舉反証，判你死刑。 個個都知冇野係萬能，絕對，所以最醒目就梗係話，冇絕對架，要睇情況，不能一概而論，所以要幾時轉軑就幾時轉，有晒Background.
醒 !
p.s. 小弟絕對相信民主永遠不是萬能，各位人人君子如有見過有任何萬能之制度或方法，煩請相告，重酬。
有不少甚有份量的評論員(包括毓民)都說「批評者的責任，只須要指出問題所在，沒有責任提出解決方法。提出解決方法，是被批評者的責任。」樓上仁兄冇聽過咩？
現在有人提出民主普選的不足，亦能舉出如台灣，菲律賓等不少國家為佐證。至於解決的道，自應由支持民主普選者提出，豈應由批評者提出。如樓上匿名君能提出解決普選不足之良方，煩請相告台灣與菲律賓等國人民，重酬。
既然世界上冇任何萬能之制度或方法，香港現在的制度，清廉而有效率，比台灣和菲律賓等實行民主的地方，優勝百倍，為何泛民卻對香港現行政體，百般排剔？
對自已所喜的政制，百般寛容，對其弊端，視而不見。對自已所不喜愛的政制，便百般排剔。這難道是客觀持平的態度嗎？
上文「挑剔」誤植「排剔」，合此更正。
唉，同泛民講「客觀持平」，簡直浪費時間。對泛民而言，民主直選，已是一種宗教，一個圖騰，如何能有客觀，如何能會持平。
如果認為"批評者沒有責任提出解決方法", 我想信"批評"是較"被批評"容易得多 ---- everything should have pros and cons!
學習 "批評" 及 "被批評" 是令我們得以進步的其中一種方法.
樓上的，冇與趣同你拗。有本事,同毓民去拗。
「我相信"批評"是較"被批評"容易得多」
對，對，對。用係泛民身上，最貼切不過。唔怪得咁多人想做泛民，因為只雖要「批評」，真係好容易做。
有一個疑問，在小弟心中，長期不解，今日終於豁然明白。
民主普選，雖然不是毒藥，但亦不見得是靈丹妙藥。何以泛民各方，對普選如此執著，如此堅持。
小弟今天終於有了答案。
原本在支持者心中，普選是一種信仰。既然是信仰，當然不需要任何理由。
和世間一切宗教一樣，它的「存在」，便是原因，便是道理，不需要任何解釋。
「信者自信，不信者自不信。」這句話，無論是對宗教或普選，同樣適用。
"樓上的，冇與趣同你拗。有本事,同毓民去拗。 "
毓民代表黑社會定係真理代言人？同佢拗，拗贏左 証明乜野呀？
香港就係太多呢D icon, 亞乜水係人民喉舌，亞乜水講就啱，亞乜水係香港良心，所以要幫佢揸住把風扇上街，撐佢！
開口埋口quote 亞乜水講過乜幾時可以有獨立思考呢？
再者"客觀持平" 本身就係一個主觀立場。如果批評者只須要指出問題所在，沒有責任提出解決方法，咁極其量只可算是個不負責任既批評者。可以無需理會更不屑與之討論。
癲狗, 娘心, 抬棺材代表真理, 所以提起普選我就打冷震
「如果批評者只須要指出問題所在，沒有責任提出解決方法，咁極其量只可算是個不負責任既批評者。可以無需理會更不屑與之討論。 」
好少人會鬧泛民鬧得咁應,咁狠.兄台,好嘢!!我支持你.
呢位兄台亦唔使借位插泛民，小弟既不支持邊個icon 或者政黨，亦唔覺得有人永遠都對，更唔信有邊個制度萬能，可以解決所有問題…
上面大家列舉既"民主非萬能例子"唔通冇普選繼續委任制就會自動解決？
再者話提起普選就打冷震，小弟只覺得惺惺作態！
You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it » » »
Post a Comment