EDT13 EDT By Alice Wu
2009-10-19
Hong Kong's last governor, Chris Patten, once said that the policy address was one of the more pleasant rituals of Hong Kong politics. Today, it is almost painful for everyone involved. As expected, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's address drew groans of discontent from the public. There were no handouts, fresh ideas or immediate solutions to our problems. But the policy address revealed more than meets the eye; it also showed up the harsh realities.
While Tsang may have resorted to crowd-pleasing giveaways when times got rough and his popularity hit the floor, he didn't choose the easy way out this time. Though sweeteners can placate a certain degree of social discontent, they are a double-edged sword. Like drugs, they are addictive and, in exchange for support, they harm both the government and the community.
The main problem - of diminishing returns - is that, over time, no amount of treats can suffice as they inevitably become entitlements. Having already spent HK$87.6 billion in handouts since early last year, the harsh reality is that the government can no longer afford a spending spree that cannot possibly be sustained.
Simple, short-term relief measures, by definition, cannot resolve the complex issues of unemployment, poverty, the wealth-gap and a vast array of other problems. It would be naive to believe that politicians who make the connection are dense; it is the oldest trick in the book - gaining political capital without paying for it.
Concessions paid out year after year carry a heavy price. For a city heavily dependant since our colonial days on income from land sales, governments past and present have paid for the sweeteners by ignoring calls for heritage conservation and environmental preservation. Tsang's decision to finally do the right thing with regard to the already overdeveloped Central district indicates that his administration has finally come to terms with the fact that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Conservation, with conviction, can be sustainable and the government should be praised - not slammed - for its first step in foregoing land premium revenue. Tsang also avoided his usual practice of grandstanding, which may be the most surprising element of this year's policy address. Policy addresses often have been used to roll out grandiose visions for the city that fail to resonate with the community.
Former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa's vision of building 85,000 affordable homes didn't exactly bring down the house, nor did his fancy ports (Cyberport, Chinese medicine port, and so on). Tsang's once-envisioned leadership by strong governance didn't do so well, either. An increasingly hard-to-please crowd has effectively turned the policy address into a what's-in-it-for-me event and a political slugfest, leaving little room for policies to be addressed.
Instead of continuing on the path of outshining his predecessor or even outdoing his addresses of previous years, Tsang seems comfortable with the fact that the work of the chief executive isn't necessarily about flexing political muscles or impressing others.
Many may have found this year's policy address lacklustre, but it covered the widest range of issues since the handover. Boring but important real-life issues like lowering carbon emissions, managing waste and the 30 paragraphs devoted to prioritising quality of life do matter. Real progress is more often a cumulation of small steps in the right direction. One may disagree with Tsang's choices of the six pillar industries to reinvent our economy, but they have far more substance than the years of empty rhetoric on the need for building on our economic strengths.
The policy address is by no means perfect; more should have been devoted to the monster issues of constitutional reform, competition legislation, minimum wage and health care reform. Given that Tsang is faced with an increasingly hostile legislature, focusing on the less controversial issues may be more politically practical and productive.
Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA. alice@thepros.com.hk
Copyright (c) 2009. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved
2009年11月2日 星期一
Embattled Tsang hits back at the media
南華早報 EDT1,EDT3 EDT By Ambrose Leung and Gary Cheung 2009/10/28
南華早報 EDT1,EDT3 EDT By Ambrose Leung and Gary Cheung
2009-10-28
標示關鍵字
Embattled Tsang hits back at the media
Embattled Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen yesterday launched a scathing attack on the media over allegations of favouritism to his relatives, which he described as "fabrications".
But his combative stance was questioned by lawmakers who said he should not casually dismiss public opinion, especially when some key questions remained unanswered.
Speaking to the media after the weekly Executive Council meeting, Tsang said there was a need for him to clarify things as his integrity and conduct had been under fire in the two weeks since he delivered his policy address.
"These were absolute fabrications and vicious attacks," he said, referring to allegations that he had favoured an in-law's light-bulb business with his plan to encourage the use of energy-saving bulbs, and had intervened in his sister-in-law's claim for compensation for her investment in failed Lehman Brothers minibonds.
"In recent days, there is a worsening trend for these unrestrained attacks, which were totally groundless and designed to weaken public trust in the government," the chief executive said. Expressing regret at the "twisting of the facts by individual newspapers", Tsang said: "I believe the public and any person who has a passion for the freedom of speech will not support this kind of action."
His remarks followed allegations of favouritism towards his elder son's father-in-law, Anthony Mok Kam-chuen, whose business distributes Philips light bulbs, in his policy address announcement of a voucher plan for energy-saving bulbs.
This was swiftly followed by the disclosure that his sister-in-law received 60 per cent compensation three months before 16 banks offered most other investors compensation for their investments in Lehman-Brothers minibonds.
Tsang has admitted raising the matter with officials but denied exerting pressure to speed up the compensation process.
Over the past two weeks, several Chinese-language newspapers have run daily front-page stories about the allegations, with some comparing him to former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian, who was jailed for corruption.
But Tsang yesterday reiterated his earlier stance that encouraging the use of energy-saving bulbs was part of the government's green-policy package, and benefiting his in-law was not his intention. "It is unfair {hellip} when someone twisted this open and transparent policy to a case of transferring interest."
Although he has yet to answer key questions - such as why Lam Suk-jing, the wife of his younger businessman brother - received her compensation earlier than most other small investors after seeking assistance from lawmaker Abraham Razack, Tsang dismissed allegations of his involvement as "totally groundless accusations".
"I did not know in advance of my relative's demands to the bank for compensation, and I have absolutely not exercised my power to affect the settlement agreement," he said.
Former security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, now an independent legislator, said Tsang's counter-attack on the media would not help improve his image.
"It was not a good strategy for Mr Tsang to respond in such a combative tone. Instead of appearing so angry, he should rebuild a co-operative relationship with the media," she said.
Ip Kwok-him, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said: "He can't satisfy the public only by expressing his feelings. He should calmly tell people everything about the incident."
Cheng Yiu-tong was the only Executive Council member to defend Tsang publicly.
"I believe these attacks on Mr Tsang are intolerable in a society under the rule of law," he said. "Frankly speaking, there have been repeated attacks on him. Tolerance has reached a limit. I support his hitting back."
A person familiar with the government position said the chief executive hoped to send the message that media comments should be based on facts.
"There are worrying phenomena among some media. In the past, media stopped targeting a public figure after making reports for one or a few days if they failed to find fresh evidence about him. But the recent negative reports about the chief executive have been lingering for two weeks, even if there was a lack of concrete evidence to support the accusations," the person said.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association said monitoring the government and public figures was the media's duty, but it would not comment on editorial decisions of individual media organisations.
Cheng Ming-yan, chief editor of Apple Daily, which compared Tsang to Chen Shui-bian on its front page last week, said he had no idea which newspaper Tsang was referring to, adding: "We have not fabricated anything."
In a poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong last week, public dissatisfaction in the policy address rose 14 percentage points to 45 per cent, just days after a similar poll was conducted between October 15 and 17. Those who said they were satisfied with the address rose by just 1 point to 20 per cent.
More than 41 per cent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the policy direction of Tsang, a 7-point increase from the previous poll.
The chief executive said yesterday that he respected such poll findings and the government always reflected on its performance.
Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a Chinese University political scientist, said Tsang's latest move would undermine his popularity.
"The fact that the media could keep the story on the front page for two weeks demonstrated that public mistrust towards Tsang had risen to a new high. But not only has he not recognised this, he has attacked the media."
南華早報 EDT1,EDT3 EDT By Ambrose Leung and Gary Cheung
2009-10-28
標示關鍵字
Embattled Tsang hits back at the media
Embattled Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen yesterday launched a scathing attack on the media over allegations of favouritism to his relatives, which he described as "fabrications".
But his combative stance was questioned by lawmakers who said he should not casually dismiss public opinion, especially when some key questions remained unanswered.
Speaking to the media after the weekly Executive Council meeting, Tsang said there was a need for him to clarify things as his integrity and conduct had been under fire in the two weeks since he delivered his policy address.
"These were absolute fabrications and vicious attacks," he said, referring to allegations that he had favoured an in-law's light-bulb business with his plan to encourage the use of energy-saving bulbs, and had intervened in his sister-in-law's claim for compensation for her investment in failed Lehman Brothers minibonds.
"In recent days, there is a worsening trend for these unrestrained attacks, which were totally groundless and designed to weaken public trust in the government," the chief executive said. Expressing regret at the "twisting of the facts by individual newspapers", Tsang said: "I believe the public and any person who has a passion for the freedom of speech will not support this kind of action."
His remarks followed allegations of favouritism towards his elder son's father-in-law, Anthony Mok Kam-chuen, whose business distributes Philips light bulbs, in his policy address announcement of a voucher plan for energy-saving bulbs.
This was swiftly followed by the disclosure that his sister-in-law received 60 per cent compensation three months before 16 banks offered most other investors compensation for their investments in Lehman-Brothers minibonds.
Tsang has admitted raising the matter with officials but denied exerting pressure to speed up the compensation process.
Over the past two weeks, several Chinese-language newspapers have run daily front-page stories about the allegations, with some comparing him to former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian, who was jailed for corruption.
But Tsang yesterday reiterated his earlier stance that encouraging the use of energy-saving bulbs was part of the government's green-policy package, and benefiting his in-law was not his intention. "It is unfair {hellip} when someone twisted this open and transparent policy to a case of transferring interest."
Although he has yet to answer key questions - such as why Lam Suk-jing, the wife of his younger businessman brother - received her compensation earlier than most other small investors after seeking assistance from lawmaker Abraham Razack, Tsang dismissed allegations of his involvement as "totally groundless accusations".
"I did not know in advance of my relative's demands to the bank for compensation, and I have absolutely not exercised my power to affect the settlement agreement," he said.
Former security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, now an independent legislator, said Tsang's counter-attack on the media would not help improve his image.
"It was not a good strategy for Mr Tsang to respond in such a combative tone. Instead of appearing so angry, he should rebuild a co-operative relationship with the media," she said.
Ip Kwok-him, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said: "He can't satisfy the public only by expressing his feelings. He should calmly tell people everything about the incident."
Cheng Yiu-tong was the only Executive Council member to defend Tsang publicly.
"I believe these attacks on Mr Tsang are intolerable in a society under the rule of law," he said. "Frankly speaking, there have been repeated attacks on him. Tolerance has reached a limit. I support his hitting back."
A person familiar with the government position said the chief executive hoped to send the message that media comments should be based on facts.
"There are worrying phenomena among some media. In the past, media stopped targeting a public figure after making reports for one or a few days if they failed to find fresh evidence about him. But the recent negative reports about the chief executive have been lingering for two weeks, even if there was a lack of concrete evidence to support the accusations," the person said.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association said monitoring the government and public figures was the media's duty, but it would not comment on editorial decisions of individual media organisations.
Cheng Ming-yan, chief editor of Apple Daily, which compared Tsang to Chen Shui-bian on its front page last week, said he had no idea which newspaper Tsang was referring to, adding: "We have not fabricated anything."
In a poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong last week, public dissatisfaction in the policy address rose 14 percentage points to 45 per cent, just days after a similar poll was conducted between October 15 and 17. Those who said they were satisfied with the address rose by just 1 point to 20 per cent.
More than 41 per cent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the policy direction of Tsang, a 7-point increase from the previous poll.
The chief executive said yesterday that he respected such poll findings and the government always reflected on its performance.
Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a Chinese University political scientist, said Tsang's latest move would undermine his popularity.
"The fact that the media could keep the story on the front page for two weeks demonstrated that public mistrust towards Tsang had risen to a new high. But not only has he not recognised this, he has attacked the media."
Tsang should allow facts to speak
明報英語網「雙語社評」
english.mingpao.com/critic.htm YESTERDAY Chief Executive Donald Tsang launched a high-profile attack on some media organisations, criticising them for the way they had reported allegations about his compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) policy and the compensation his sister-in-law had got for her investment in a Lehman Brothers product. He used strong words. Nevertheless, however strong it may be, such a reaction will not help ascertain the truth. It would instead intensify the situation. It is totally understandable for him to want to be treated fairly. However, there are reasonable grounds for suspicion about the two affairs. Neither what he says nor what any other invloved in either of them says would dispel it. In our opinion, Tsang should order that all information on the way his CFL policy was formulated be made public. As for the compensation his sister-in-law has received, the bank in question may be asked to disclose the information on her case. To win citizens' trust, Tsang should allow facts to speak.
Most of the legislators disapprove of Tsang's counter-attack on the media. That shows Hong Kong people are very jealous of their freedom of expression and they do not want public opinions to be uniform. Legislators may not approve of some media organisations' ways. What they have done shows what "I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" truly means. Furthermore, the government has been given to wearing political make-up and is more and more visibly desirous to influence public opinion. Few approve of such behaviour, which actually encroaches on the freedom of speech and that of the press. Now legislators think certain media organisation's ways of handling news stories are to a certain extent "acceptable". That may be their reaction to the government's manipulation of public opinion.
It remains to be seen how the "war" between Tsang and the media will unfold. However, doubts persist about the two affairs he is involved in. The allegations are no smoke without fire, even less fabrications (as he has called them). There are reasonable grounds for suspicion.
For example, whether Tsang meant the CFL policy to profit his son's father-in-law depends on how it was made. He has already announced it. How it was made need not remain secret. The government should make public the information so that citizens will know what role Tsang played in each of the stages of its formulation. If there is no evidence of any desire to "transfer benefit", the matter will end, and there will be nothing about it any reporter or critic can write or talk about.
As for his sister-in-law's compensation, Tsang accused media organisations of acting on unsubstantiated evidence. What Lehman Brothers product did she invest in? Why did she get compensation with the help of lawmaker Abraham Razack when banks were prepared to settle only with Lehman Brothers minibond investors who were senior citizens? These questions are such that one cannot help but suspect Tsang's capacity may have been an influence.
What citizens think about the two affairs depends wholly on facts. If Tsang produces substantiated evidence that he did not mean the CFL policy to profit his son's father-in-law and he had nothing to do with his sister-in-law's compensation, citizens will come to a fair judgement.
Tsang heads the SAR. As lawmaker Regina Ip has said, he ought to be honest and clean - "whiter than white". What one says may not be a fact. People's mouths cannot be stopped otherwise than with substantiated evidence.
明報社評 2009.10.28 猛批傳媒無助澄清真相 曾蔭權最好讓事實說話有關慳電膽和弟婦雷曼產品賠償兩宗事件，行政長官曾蔭權高調反擊個別傳媒的報道處理，措辭嚴厲。不過，無論曾蔭權的回應再強烈，都無助於釐清真相，反而起激化事態的效果。曾蔭權要求得到公平對待，完全可以理解，但是就這兩件事，確有合理懷疑之處，政府、曾蔭權和相關人等僅靠一些說法，不可能完全釋疑。我們認為，就慳電膽事件，曾蔭權應該下令公開決策全過程，至於其弟婦的雷曼產品賠償，則可情商銀行公開相關資料。讓事實說話，以取信於民。
就曾蔭權反擊個別傳媒，證諸立法會內不同黨派議員的反應，大多不予苟同，說明香港人亟亟於維護言論自由，不願見到香港輿論出現千篇一律的情。議員們對於個別傳媒的做法可能不盡贊同，但是他們的表現，充分說明「我雖然不同意你的意見，但是我會誓死保衛你發表意見的權利」的真義。另外，近年政府沉溺於政治化妝，製造輿論愈顯，其蠶蝕新聞自由和言論自由的實質，許多人都不以為然，現在個別傳媒的做法在議員之間獲得一定程度「接受」，可能是對政府操控傳媒的反彈。
曾蔭權與個別傳媒之間的「戰事」如何演變下去，且待觀察，不過，迄今他所涉及的兩件事疑團未釋，並非無風起浪，更絕非他所說的「無中生有」，而是有合理懷疑之處。
例如慳電膽事件，曾蔭權是否有圖利姻親，關鍵在於決策過程。基於此事已經公開，決策過程再無秘密可言，有關文件和資料應該可以公開，讓市民審視由醞釀到建議到結論到拍板整個過程，曾蔭權在各個階段的角色，清楚呈現出來後，若不涉利益輸送，事件就終結，傳媒和輿論就沒有文章可做了。
至於曾蔭權弟婦的雷曼產品賠償事件，他批評個別傳媒「捕風捉影」，但是，他的弟婦涉及的是雷曼哪一種產品？為何在銀行只與老弱迷債事主和解之時，他的弟婦在立法會議員石禮謙在協助下可以得到賠償？這些問題，不無使人有「曾蔭權的身分和角色」在起作用聯想。
市民的取態完全取決於事態真相，若曾蔭權拿出有確實資料支持的事實，證明並無給姻親利益輸送，與弟婦的雷曼產品賠償無關，則市民就會有公正的評斷。
曾蔭權是特區之首，他的誠信和操守正如立法會議員葉劉淑儀所說，應該「比白紙更白」。事實是什麼，不能口講便了，要拿出真憑實據才能堵塞悠悠之口。
Glossary
encroach /In'krt/ intrude (especially on another's territory or rights).
unfold /n'fld/ develop.
influence
a thing (or person) that affects the way a person (or another) behaves or thinks.
每周一音標
《明報英語網》逢星期二推出「每周一音標」，以視像短片模式教授國際音標，真人發音，歡迎瀏覽網址﹕english.mingpao.com
english.mingpao.com/critic.htm YESTERDAY Chief Executive Donald Tsang launched a high-profile attack on some media organisations, criticising them for the way they had reported allegations about his compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) policy and the compensation his sister-in-law had got for her investment in a Lehman Brothers product. He used strong words. Nevertheless, however strong it may be, such a reaction will not help ascertain the truth. It would instead intensify the situation. It is totally understandable for him to want to be treated fairly. However, there are reasonable grounds for suspicion about the two affairs. Neither what he says nor what any other invloved in either of them says would dispel it. In our opinion, Tsang should order that all information on the way his CFL policy was formulated be made public. As for the compensation his sister-in-law has received, the bank in question may be asked to disclose the information on her case. To win citizens' trust, Tsang should allow facts to speak.
Most of the legislators disapprove of Tsang's counter-attack on the media. That shows Hong Kong people are very jealous of their freedom of expression and they do not want public opinions to be uniform. Legislators may not approve of some media organisations' ways. What they have done shows what "I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" truly means. Furthermore, the government has been given to wearing political make-up and is more and more visibly desirous to influence public opinion. Few approve of such behaviour, which actually encroaches on the freedom of speech and that of the press. Now legislators think certain media organisation's ways of handling news stories are to a certain extent "acceptable". That may be their reaction to the government's manipulation of public opinion.
It remains to be seen how the "war" between Tsang and the media will unfold. However, doubts persist about the two affairs he is involved in. The allegations are no smoke without fire, even less fabrications (as he has called them). There are reasonable grounds for suspicion.
For example, whether Tsang meant the CFL policy to profit his son's father-in-law depends on how it was made. He has already announced it. How it was made need not remain secret. The government should make public the information so that citizens will know what role Tsang played in each of the stages of its formulation. If there is no evidence of any desire to "transfer benefit", the matter will end, and there will be nothing about it any reporter or critic can write or talk about.
As for his sister-in-law's compensation, Tsang accused media organisations of acting on unsubstantiated evidence. What Lehman Brothers product did she invest in? Why did she get compensation with the help of lawmaker Abraham Razack when banks were prepared to settle only with Lehman Brothers minibond investors who were senior citizens? These questions are such that one cannot help but suspect Tsang's capacity may have been an influence.
What citizens think about the two affairs depends wholly on facts. If Tsang produces substantiated evidence that he did not mean the CFL policy to profit his son's father-in-law and he had nothing to do with his sister-in-law's compensation, citizens will come to a fair judgement.
Tsang heads the SAR. As lawmaker Regina Ip has said, he ought to be honest and clean - "whiter than white". What one says may not be a fact. People's mouths cannot be stopped otherwise than with substantiated evidence.
明報社評 2009.10.28 猛批傳媒無助澄清真相 曾蔭權最好讓事實說話有關慳電膽和弟婦雷曼產品賠償兩宗事件，行政長官曾蔭權高調反擊個別傳媒的報道處理，措辭嚴厲。不過，無論曾蔭權的回應再強烈，都無助於釐清真相，反而起激化事態的效果。曾蔭權要求得到公平對待，完全可以理解，但是就這兩件事，確有合理懷疑之處，政府、曾蔭權和相關人等僅靠一些說法，不可能完全釋疑。我們認為，就慳電膽事件，曾蔭權應該下令公開決策全過程，至於其弟婦的雷曼產品賠償，則可情商銀行公開相關資料。讓事實說話，以取信於民。
就曾蔭權反擊個別傳媒，證諸立法會內不同黨派議員的反應，大多不予苟同，說明香港人亟亟於維護言論自由，不願見到香港輿論出現千篇一律的情。議員們對於個別傳媒的做法可能不盡贊同，但是他們的表現，充分說明「我雖然不同意你的意見，但是我會誓死保衛你發表意見的權利」的真義。另外，近年政府沉溺於政治化妝，製造輿論愈顯，其蠶蝕新聞自由和言論自由的實質，許多人都不以為然，現在個別傳媒的做法在議員之間獲得一定程度「接受」，可能是對政府操控傳媒的反彈。
曾蔭權與個別傳媒之間的「戰事」如何演變下去，且待觀察，不過，迄今他所涉及的兩件事疑團未釋，並非無風起浪，更絕非他所說的「無中生有」，而是有合理懷疑之處。
例如慳電膽事件，曾蔭權是否有圖利姻親，關鍵在於決策過程。基於此事已經公開，決策過程再無秘密可言，有關文件和資料應該可以公開，讓市民審視由醞釀到建議到結論到拍板整個過程，曾蔭權在各個階段的角色，清楚呈現出來後，若不涉利益輸送，事件就終結，傳媒和輿論就沒有文章可做了。
至於曾蔭權弟婦的雷曼產品賠償事件，他批評個別傳媒「捕風捉影」，但是，他的弟婦涉及的是雷曼哪一種產品？為何在銀行只與老弱迷債事主和解之時，他的弟婦在立法會議員石禮謙在協助下可以得到賠償？這些問題，不無使人有「曾蔭權的身分和角色」在起作用聯想。
市民的取態完全取決於事態真相，若曾蔭權拿出有確實資料支持的事實，證明並無給姻親利益輸送，與弟婦的雷曼產品賠償無關，則市民就會有公正的評斷。
曾蔭權是特區之首，他的誠信和操守正如立法會議員葉劉淑儀所說，應該「比白紙更白」。事實是什麼，不能口講便了，要拿出真憑實據才能堵塞悠悠之口。
Glossary
encroach /In'krt/ intrude (especially on another's territory or rights).
unfold /n'fld/ develop.
influence
a thing (or person) that affects the way a person (or another) behaves or thinks.
每周一音標
《明報英語網》逢星期二推出「每周一音標」，以視像短片模式教授國際音標，真人發音，歡迎瀏覽網址﹕english.mingpao.com
Anti-CE papers assert exclusive domain over freedom of expression
中國日報香港版 P04 Hong Kong By Ho Leong-leong
2009-10-31
By Ho Leong-leong
Scathing and continuous attacks on Chief Executive (CE) Donald Tsang by several widely circulated local Chinese-language newspapers since October 16 through sensational front-page news stories, headings, and commentaries have become the talk of the town. So has the CE’s public rebuttal of these allegations on October 26.
The newspaper attacks all started on October 16, as if orchestrated, as they arose from the CE’s policy address delivered on October 15. Instead of commenting on the policy address as a whole, those newspapers picked on a relatively minor issue – the measure to promote energy-saving light bulbs. The newspapers claimed that Tsang proposed the initiative with the intention to benefit his son’s father-in-law, Mok Kam-tsuen.
They focused on this charge and blew it out of proportion, even comparing Tsang to former Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian, who is well-known for his corruption.
Such comparison was sensational enough, but Hong Kong people have their own judgment. Is Tsang another Chen Shui-bian? The vast majority of them would say “no”.
Mok later made a public statement, giving the community a more complete picture of the issue.
Frankly speaking, the measure to promote the use of energy-saving light bulbs has left room for discussion and improvement. But to interpret the policy as the CE’s attempt to use his power to achieve some private purposes is not only incongruent with the facts, but also reflects the extent to which some newspapers are willing to go in their politically charged anti-Tsang campaign.
Seeing that the light bulb accusation has failed to create enough trouble for Tsang, those newspapers have made another “revelation” – Tsang’s sister-in-law, who was a victim in the Lehman Brothers mini-bond issue, was able to receive compensation much earlier than others who like her purchased minibonds.
This has triggered outrage among the minibond holders who have been led to believe that Tsang’s relatives enjoyed special privilege in this matter.Subsequently a legislator came forward to explain that he had helped Tsang’s sister-in-law without Tsang’s knowledge. Since then the attack on the CE has been unable to gather further momentum.
When he returned to Hong Kong from an overseas vacation, Tsang made a strong criticism against the groundless accusations hurled at him.
As a CE, he must provide explanations and clarifications over issues raised by the public and media concerning his integrity. Otherwise those newspapers attacking him would think he was weak and could be pushed around, and would even believe that the public is also disappointed. We can see that effect recently in the relationship between American President Barack Obama and FOX TV.
Instead of responding to Tsang’s charge that the accusations printed in the newspapers were “groundless”, the hostile newspapers alleged that Tsang was trying to suppress press freedom.
This is weird logic. Is there such a kind of press freedom under which only the press have the right to criticize other people but those criticized do not have the right to respond?
Why is fighting back against those who blow up minor issues in order to slander others considered to be suppression of press freedom?
Attacking Tsang serves two purposes: First it is to interfere with the constitutional reform consultation beginning in November. Second it is meant to sway public opinion in favor of the opposition camp ahead of the 2012 CE election.
But I believe the majority of Hong Kong people would not have their sensible judgment on the CE and the SAR’s general situation clouded by those unfounded claims.
The author is a political commentator of the Phoenix Satellite TV
2009-10-31
By Ho Leong-leong
Scathing and continuous attacks on Chief Executive (CE) Donald Tsang by several widely circulated local Chinese-language newspapers since October 16 through sensational front-page news stories, headings, and commentaries have become the talk of the town. So has the CE’s public rebuttal of these allegations on October 26.
The newspaper attacks all started on October 16, as if orchestrated, as they arose from the CE’s policy address delivered on October 15. Instead of commenting on the policy address as a whole, those newspapers picked on a relatively minor issue – the measure to promote energy-saving light bulbs. The newspapers claimed that Tsang proposed the initiative with the intention to benefit his son’s father-in-law, Mok Kam-tsuen.
They focused on this charge and blew it out of proportion, even comparing Tsang to former Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian, who is well-known for his corruption.
Such comparison was sensational enough, but Hong Kong people have their own judgment. Is Tsang another Chen Shui-bian? The vast majority of them would say “no”.
Mok later made a public statement, giving the community a more complete picture of the issue.
Frankly speaking, the measure to promote the use of energy-saving light bulbs has left room for discussion and improvement. But to interpret the policy as the CE’s attempt to use his power to achieve some private purposes is not only incongruent with the facts, but also reflects the extent to which some newspapers are willing to go in their politically charged anti-Tsang campaign.
Seeing that the light bulb accusation has failed to create enough trouble for Tsang, those newspapers have made another “revelation” – Tsang’s sister-in-law, who was a victim in the Lehman Brothers mini-bond issue, was able to receive compensation much earlier than others who like her purchased minibonds.
This has triggered outrage among the minibond holders who have been led to believe that Tsang’s relatives enjoyed special privilege in this matter.Subsequently a legislator came forward to explain that he had helped Tsang’s sister-in-law without Tsang’s knowledge. Since then the attack on the CE has been unable to gather further momentum.
When he returned to Hong Kong from an overseas vacation, Tsang made a strong criticism against the groundless accusations hurled at him.
As a CE, he must provide explanations and clarifications over issues raised by the public and media concerning his integrity. Otherwise those newspapers attacking him would think he was weak and could be pushed around, and would even believe that the public is also disappointed. We can see that effect recently in the relationship between American President Barack Obama and FOX TV.
Instead of responding to Tsang’s charge that the accusations printed in the newspapers were “groundless”, the hostile newspapers alleged that Tsang was trying to suppress press freedom.
This is weird logic. Is there such a kind of press freedom under which only the press have the right to criticize other people but those criticized do not have the right to respond?
Why is fighting back against those who blow up minor issues in order to slander others considered to be suppression of press freedom?
Attacking Tsang serves two purposes: First it is to interfere with the constitutional reform consultation beginning in November. Second it is meant to sway public opinion in favor of the opposition camp ahead of the 2012 CE election.
But I believe the majority of Hong Kong people would not have their sensible judgment on the CE and the SAR’s general situation clouded by those unfounded claims.
The author is a political commentator of the Phoenix Satellite TV
Stranger than fiction
南華早報 EDT11 EDT
2009-10-31
From the light-bulb scandal to the recent report that a lawmaker helped his sister-in-law get early compensation for losses on Lehman Brothers minibonds, beleaguered Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has been under vicious media attack for more than two weeks. Allegations of transfer of benefits and claims of favouritism have dominated the front pages, with no sign of abating.
It was reported that legislator Abraham Razack assisted Lam Suk-jing, Tsang's sister-in-law, to secure an early compensation deal to recover no more than 60 per cent of her Lehman investment several months before most other victims were made an offer. Even though Tsang had earlier told a government meeting that he had a relative who had bought Lehman products, the media chose to ignore his explanation.
Tsang has set an unenviable personal record for being hounded by the media for such an extended period. We can assume that this will carry on for some time. The light-bulb saga involves claims that Tsang conferred favours to his son's father-in-law when he proposed in his recent policy address to subsidise the purchase of energy-saving light bulbs.
Tsang seems to be caught in a wave of sensational and negative news reports that are based on false allegations. Sensational news has a market not only because of mounting public discontent, but also because some media organisations have a preset agenda. They want to go after Tsang and the administration on the assumption that they are the common public enemies.
The media will continue to have the upper hand as long as the government is perceived to be incapable of solving the most basic social issues such as a widening wealth gap, rising property prices and high unemployment.
In the face of escalating media attacks, Tsang decided to fire back at his critics earlier this week, calling their allegations malicious rumours and wilful distortions. He said the accusations were groundless and intended to undermine the integrity of the government. His response earned both sympathy and rebuke.
Some said his counter-attack might have been perceived as an interference in press freedom by government.
But, it was understandable why Tsang retaliated. The fact is that some newspapers have crossed the line and this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated in a society that is ruled by law. And, more importantly, Tsang shouldn't be denied the right to express his feelings just because he is the chief executive.
Unfortunately, he made a mistake by focusing his response mainly on his personal feelings rather than the facts. Facts speak volumes and, if there is no truth in these allegations, the public will become tired of these reports and will ultimately dismiss them. The truth is that there is no transfer of benefits in the light-bulb case because his in-law's company is not the sole distributor of energy-saving light bulbs in Hong Kong, plus the market is highly competitive. And we shouldn't forget that his in-law holds only 30 per cent of the shares of the company, thus the amount of the so-called benefits would be negligible.
His sister-in-law's case raised suspicion because she secured an early settlement in the minibond fiasco in April. Hence, the media assumed that she was given preferential treatment. The media further alleged that many of the early settlement cases mostly involved older retirees, and she was certainly not in that category.
According to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, by mid-May, it had received 6,736 applications for voluntary settlement on minibonds, of which 4,970 cases have been dealt with, representing about 20 per cent of the number of investors qualified for compensation. Only a small percentage - 2,554 cases - involved elderly investors. This means Lam is not an exceptional case because, for every five investors, one has opted for voluntary settlement and has been compensated accordingly. There were also more than 3,000 voluntary settlements by the end of February, long before Lam's case. So, these allegations can easily be dismissed. Unfortunately, fact is often stranger than fiction.
2009-10-31
From the light-bulb scandal to the recent report that a lawmaker helped his sister-in-law get early compensation for losses on Lehman Brothers minibonds, beleaguered Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has been under vicious media attack for more than two weeks. Allegations of transfer of benefits and claims of favouritism have dominated the front pages, with no sign of abating.
It was reported that legislator Abraham Razack assisted Lam Suk-jing, Tsang's sister-in-law, to secure an early compensation deal to recover no more than 60 per cent of her Lehman investment several months before most other victims were made an offer. Even though Tsang had earlier told a government meeting that he had a relative who had bought Lehman products, the media chose to ignore his explanation.
Tsang has set an unenviable personal record for being hounded by the media for such an extended period. We can assume that this will carry on for some time. The light-bulb saga involves claims that Tsang conferred favours to his son's father-in-law when he proposed in his recent policy address to subsidise the purchase of energy-saving light bulbs.
Tsang seems to be caught in a wave of sensational and negative news reports that are based on false allegations. Sensational news has a market not only because of mounting public discontent, but also because some media organisations have a preset agenda. They want to go after Tsang and the administration on the assumption that they are the common public enemies.
The media will continue to have the upper hand as long as the government is perceived to be incapable of solving the most basic social issues such as a widening wealth gap, rising property prices and high unemployment.
In the face of escalating media attacks, Tsang decided to fire back at his critics earlier this week, calling their allegations malicious rumours and wilful distortions. He said the accusations were groundless and intended to undermine the integrity of the government. His response earned both sympathy and rebuke.
Some said his counter-attack might have been perceived as an interference in press freedom by government.
But, it was understandable why Tsang retaliated. The fact is that some newspapers have crossed the line and this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated in a society that is ruled by law. And, more importantly, Tsang shouldn't be denied the right to express his feelings just because he is the chief executive.
Unfortunately, he made a mistake by focusing his response mainly on his personal feelings rather than the facts. Facts speak volumes and, if there is no truth in these allegations, the public will become tired of these reports and will ultimately dismiss them. The truth is that there is no transfer of benefits in the light-bulb case because his in-law's company is not the sole distributor of energy-saving light bulbs in Hong Kong, plus the market is highly competitive. And we shouldn't forget that his in-law holds only 30 per cent of the shares of the company, thus the amount of the so-called benefits would be negligible.
His sister-in-law's case raised suspicion because she secured an early settlement in the minibond fiasco in April. Hence, the media assumed that she was given preferential treatment. The media further alleged that many of the early settlement cases mostly involved older retirees, and she was certainly not in that category.
According to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, by mid-May, it had received 6,736 applications for voluntary settlement on minibonds, of which 4,970 cases have been dealt with, representing about 20 per cent of the number of investors qualified for compensation. Only a small percentage - 2,554 cases - involved elderly investors. This means Lam is not an exceptional case because, for every five investors, one has opted for voluntary settlement and has been compensated accordingly. There were also more than 3,000 voluntary settlements by the end of February, long before Lam's case. So, these allegations can easily be dismissed. Unfortunately, fact is often stranger than fiction.
2009年11月1日 星期日
Warping reality
Warping reality
Squabbles between governments and the media are nothing new. Almost every American president has complained about the press in one way or another. Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger went as far as accusing one newspaper of committing treason. Recently, the Obama administration basically declared war on Fox News Channel, with White House communications director Anita Dunn announcing that they are going to treat the news network as an opponent rather than a media institution.
On this side of the Pacific, former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa's distrust of the press is practically a known secret. Unsurprisingly, after Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen - reacting to recent attacks on him and his family - unleashed harsh words of his own against unnamed individual newspapers, it drew even more fire from the usual suspects. The obsession that a number of our city's Chinese language dailies have with the chief executive has risen to a new level. But their ferocious headlines over the past two weeks may speak more about their own dysfunction than the current state of political affairs.
While Fox News responded to Dunn's statement by saying that the average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page, our problem appears to be that the city's three best-selling Chinese-language newspapers do not seem to be able to tell the difference. With verdicts and judgments masquerading as headlines, and the news more commentary than reporting, their lack of media ethics and respect for journalism hurt the public more than all the mistakes of the Tung and Tsang administrations combined.
The responsibilities of a free press in a free society are enormous. It must serve as a quasi-public-service institution, keeping the public informed and the government honest. The vast powers society bequeaths to the media require that it delivers credible facts and information in return. The judging is left to an informed public, and conclusions are drawn. Creative interpretations of facts belong only to the opinion pages.
A questioning and vigorous press adheres strictly to principles of truthfulness, objectivity, fairness and public accountability. A press that coerces perception and judgment, and sensationalises and trivialises information, does not act in the public's interest.
It is all too easy to blame audience taste and hide behind a perverted rationale of freedom of speech whenever a news organisation is criticised; but the onus of protecting a free press and free speech falls not only on governments and its citizens. If we are to hold our public officials to high standards of behaviour, integrity and scrutiny, then the media must also be subject to the same high ethical and professional standards.
When any one media institution rejects its social responsibility to professionalism, it makes its power to define reality and determine the political agenda vulnerable to manipulation, whether by corrupt governments or business interests. The famous dictum of Lord Acton, that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, holds as true for the press as it does for politicians. We enjoy our freedom to freely criticise the government and that freedom must be protected at all costs.
While we may have got used to all the sleaze, blood and gore that dominate the city's best-selling but - according to the Chinese University's media survey - lowest-credibility-rated Chinese dailies, their increasing affinity towards character assassination and away from news reporting cannot be condoned. When malicious cynicism and sensationalism become the norm of journalism, reality is warped: all public policies have ulterior motives and every person is suspected of wrongdoing. Journalism of this kind ultimately undermines the credibility of the press and is a disservice to civil society.
And this may be the one thing the government cannot be blamed for.
Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA.
Squabbles between governments and the media are nothing new. Almost every American president has complained about the press in one way or another. Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger went as far as accusing one newspaper of committing treason. Recently, the Obama administration basically declared war on Fox News Channel, with White House communications director Anita Dunn announcing that they are going to treat the news network as an opponent rather than a media institution.
On this side of the Pacific, former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa's distrust of the press is practically a known secret. Unsurprisingly, after Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen - reacting to recent attacks on him and his family - unleashed harsh words of his own against unnamed individual newspapers, it drew even more fire from the usual suspects. The obsession that a number of our city's Chinese language dailies have with the chief executive has risen to a new level. But their ferocious headlines over the past two weeks may speak more about their own dysfunction than the current state of political affairs.
While Fox News responded to Dunn's statement by saying that the average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page, our problem appears to be that the city's three best-selling Chinese-language newspapers do not seem to be able to tell the difference. With verdicts and judgments masquerading as headlines, and the news more commentary than reporting, their lack of media ethics and respect for journalism hurt the public more than all the mistakes of the Tung and Tsang administrations combined.
The responsibilities of a free press in a free society are enormous. It must serve as a quasi-public-service institution, keeping the public informed and the government honest. The vast powers society bequeaths to the media require that it delivers credible facts and information in return. The judging is left to an informed public, and conclusions are drawn. Creative interpretations of facts belong only to the opinion pages.
A questioning and vigorous press adheres strictly to principles of truthfulness, objectivity, fairness and public accountability. A press that coerces perception and judgment, and sensationalises and trivialises information, does not act in the public's interest.
It is all too easy to blame audience taste and hide behind a perverted rationale of freedom of speech whenever a news organisation is criticised; but the onus of protecting a free press and free speech falls not only on governments and its citizens. If we are to hold our public officials to high standards of behaviour, integrity and scrutiny, then the media must also be subject to the same high ethical and professional standards.
When any one media institution rejects its social responsibility to professionalism, it makes its power to define reality and determine the political agenda vulnerable to manipulation, whether by corrupt governments or business interests. The famous dictum of Lord Acton, that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, holds as true for the press as it does for politicians. We enjoy our freedom to freely criticise the government and that freedom must be protected at all costs.
While we may have got used to all the sleaze, blood and gore that dominate the city's best-selling but - according to the Chinese University's media survey - lowest-credibility-rated Chinese dailies, their increasing affinity towards character assassination and away from news reporting cannot be condoned. When malicious cynicism and sensationalism become the norm of journalism, reality is warped: all public policies have ulterior motives and every person is suspected of wrongdoing. Journalism of this kind ultimately undermines the credibility of the press and is a disservice to civil society.
And this may be the one thing the government cannot be blamed for.
Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA.
葉蔭聰﹕特區皇朝治亂興衰的循環
2/11/2009
【明報專訊】最近曾蔭權 、一眾官員甚至他們的親戚，捲入了「慳電膽」、「工廈」及「雷曼」等利益輸送的是是非非，媒體以至網上民怨沸騰。
我突然想起五六十年代的西方馬克思主義論辯。新左翼政治學家米利班（Ralph Miliband）強調人際關係，乃構成國家政權的資本主義特性的關鍵，政府由一群與資產階級關係密切的精英統治控制。細心的研究者可以把每一個政治精英的親戚朋友系譜關係圖畫出來，會發現上層政治人物總聯繫上大財團家族，統治階級，就是一個無形的大家族。
不過，米利班的理論很快被許多後來者質疑，例如，高舉結構因素的普蘭察斯（Nicolas Poulantzas）便指出，資本家要令國家政權為自己服務，是否真的需要跟政治精英拉關係、認親戚呢？還是不管誰當家，國家政權都要照顧資本主義穩定，向資本家的經濟利益傾斜？放在香港的處境，我們可換一個說法：在劇情有趣，但規模不大的利益勾結故事以外，香港又是否真是公正公義的社會？
這讓我想起標榜幻想世界的迪士尼 樂園。法國 思想家布希亞（Jean Baudrillard）曾認為，它固然是複製擬像（simulation），但卻有另一個更大的功能，在於它令我們誤以為，樂園以外的世界是真真實實，睡公主只在樂園內的城堡，樂園以外的世界真實，沒有人製作童話故事來哄騙我們，我們也沒有人幼稚地相信童話。不過，我們總忘記，樂園以外的真實世界是更大的樂園。同樣道理，有關曾蔭權的醜聞故事，可能只是遮掩香港更大的不公不正。
腐敗在更無聲無色的地方發生
即使你檢查全港的「慳電膽」，翻開所有特區官員親戚的存摺賬簿，也不會找到多少特區政府 的腐敗證據（最多不就是幾億港元），因為，腐敗在更無聲無色的地方，以更駭人的規模發生。隨便舉幾個例子已足夠明白，全港有多少工程公司發夢也想著那七百億的高鐵「大白象」工程？小市民對未來西九缺乏興趣，但坐擁西九的地產商卻對未來的超級西九站興奮雀躍。放寬工廈重建的限制真的益了邱騰華 的兄弟？還是幾個坐擁大量工廈的地產商？這些都是明明白白的，不用查看官員的申報資料，不用「無間道」爆料，也已知曉的。
媒體的鎂光燈早已射不穿這些「真實」，射穿了也不夠劇情豐富與震撼，引不起市民注意，燈光只能滑到「小兒科」得多的故事。不過，話分兩頭，小醜聞充斥報章新聞頭條，除了跟媒體的後現代文化邏輯之外，也有一些本地政治因素。
上星期，偶然之間，看到澳門 議員吳國昌在網上留言：
「特區小圈子推舉的地方政府領導人，其管治危機爆發於管治末期（上任之初各方土豪都嘗試靠攏分享特權，到管治末期，土豪各尋新主，不僅冇人睇佢，而且插佢唔使本）董建華 如是，何厚鏵 如是，曾蔭權如是……」
這可謂當頭棒喝。在大家高唱「電燈膽」之時，對岸澳門的特首何厚鏵在年底任期結束前，爆發一宗更嚴重的涉嫌利益輸送案：新銀河娛樂 不用競投獲批一片44萬平方米的土地興建酒店為主的設施，不足30億的溢價金被認為賤價。此事不只引起當地民主派 聲討，連建制議員也不忘過來踹兩腳。
從前歷史老師說的中國皇朝興衰治亂，最少也要經歷一二百年，今天竟然可以高度壓縮，在每一位特首任期之中循環反覆出現。回頭看來，董建華即使不是被50萬人上街弄至「腳痛」提早下台，也終會慘淡收場，結束他在香港的政治生命，對岸澳門的何厚鏵也正在步進他毫不光彩的最後一程。曾蔭權連串小醜聞的發生背景，恐怕也是如此，稀奇古怪的內幕消息，究竟來自媒體的扒糞還是上層有人放料？連行政會議 成員都「驚佢唔死」，乘樓價飈升，出來作反，要求復建居屋。
一切禍端應該都在「特首」這個制度設計中可以預見到，這也算是一個結構因素。《特首選舉 法》中訂明，特首不能是政黨成員，那麼，他代表了哪個集團，哪種利益呢？特首是小圈子選舉委員會選出來的，除非你相信他真是選委會外香港人的利益代表，否則，你也不禁會問，他代表選委會內的利益？北京 政府？還是有錢能通鬼神的特權階級？當一個特首的政治生命將盡，擁在身邊的利益集團為何還要支持他？未來領導人是誰未知，各種明箭暗箭便亂發，中箭的當然最主要還是沒有利用價值的末代特首。
如果真要理論化香港的國家政權與資本主義關係，大概不能不考慮這個特首制度的結構特點，尤其是這個「特首政治循環」。特首對資本家（甚至對北京政府亦然）來說，不單是政治代理人，還是一個可以用過即棄的工具，反正他無黨無派，一個特首下去，一切又可以重來，這樣，嚴重傾斜的香港經濟與社會制度，可以避開的各種質疑。真正掩蓋更大不公不義的，不單是這些小醜聞，還有特首自己本人。
作者是嶺南大學 文化研究系助理講師
【明報專訊】最近曾蔭權 、一眾官員甚至他們的親戚，捲入了「慳電膽」、「工廈」及「雷曼」等利益輸送的是是非非，媒體以至網上民怨沸騰。
我突然想起五六十年代的西方馬克思主義論辯。新左翼政治學家米利班（Ralph Miliband）強調人際關係，乃構成國家政權的資本主義特性的關鍵，政府由一群與資產階級關係密切的精英統治控制。細心的研究者可以把每一個政治精英的親戚朋友系譜關係圖畫出來，會發現上層政治人物總聯繫上大財團家族，統治階級，就是一個無形的大家族。
不過，米利班的理論很快被許多後來者質疑，例如，高舉結構因素的普蘭察斯（Nicolas Poulantzas）便指出，資本家要令國家政權為自己服務，是否真的需要跟政治精英拉關係、認親戚呢？還是不管誰當家，國家政權都要照顧資本主義穩定，向資本家的經濟利益傾斜？放在香港的處境，我們可換一個說法：在劇情有趣，但規模不大的利益勾結故事以外，香港又是否真是公正公義的社會？
這讓我想起標榜幻想世界的迪士尼 樂園。法國 思想家布希亞（Jean Baudrillard）曾認為，它固然是複製擬像（simulation），但卻有另一個更大的功能，在於它令我們誤以為，樂園以外的世界是真真實實，睡公主只在樂園內的城堡，樂園以外的世界真實，沒有人製作童話故事來哄騙我們，我們也沒有人幼稚地相信童話。不過，我們總忘記，樂園以外的真實世界是更大的樂園。同樣道理，有關曾蔭權的醜聞故事，可能只是遮掩香港更大的不公不正。
腐敗在更無聲無色的地方發生
即使你檢查全港的「慳電膽」，翻開所有特區官員親戚的存摺賬簿，也不會找到多少特區政府 的腐敗證據（最多不就是幾億港元），因為，腐敗在更無聲無色的地方，以更駭人的規模發生。隨便舉幾個例子已足夠明白，全港有多少工程公司發夢也想著那七百億的高鐵「大白象」工程？小市民對未來西九缺乏興趣，但坐擁西九的地產商卻對未來的超級西九站興奮雀躍。放寬工廈重建的限制真的益了邱騰華 的兄弟？還是幾個坐擁大量工廈的地產商？這些都是明明白白的，不用查看官員的申報資料，不用「無間道」爆料，也已知曉的。
媒體的鎂光燈早已射不穿這些「真實」，射穿了也不夠劇情豐富與震撼，引不起市民注意，燈光只能滑到「小兒科」得多的故事。不過，話分兩頭，小醜聞充斥報章新聞頭條，除了跟媒體的後現代文化邏輯之外，也有一些本地政治因素。
上星期，偶然之間，看到澳門 議員吳國昌在網上留言：
「特區小圈子推舉的地方政府領導人，其管治危機爆發於管治末期（上任之初各方土豪都嘗試靠攏分享特權，到管治末期，土豪各尋新主，不僅冇人睇佢，而且插佢唔使本）董建華 如是，何厚鏵 如是，曾蔭權如是……」
這可謂當頭棒喝。在大家高唱「電燈膽」之時，對岸澳門的特首何厚鏵在年底任期結束前，爆發一宗更嚴重的涉嫌利益輸送案：新銀河娛樂 不用競投獲批一片44萬平方米的土地興建酒店為主的設施，不足30億的溢價金被認為賤價。此事不只引起當地民主派 聲討，連建制議員也不忘過來踹兩腳。
從前歷史老師說的中國皇朝興衰治亂，最少也要經歷一二百年，今天竟然可以高度壓縮，在每一位特首任期之中循環反覆出現。回頭看來，董建華即使不是被50萬人上街弄至「腳痛」提早下台，也終會慘淡收場，結束他在香港的政治生命，對岸澳門的何厚鏵也正在步進他毫不光彩的最後一程。曾蔭權連串小醜聞的發生背景，恐怕也是如此，稀奇古怪的內幕消息，究竟來自媒體的扒糞還是上層有人放料？連行政會議 成員都「驚佢唔死」，乘樓價飈升，出來作反，要求復建居屋。
一切禍端應該都在「特首」這個制度設計中可以預見到，這也算是一個結構因素。《特首選舉 法》中訂明，特首不能是政黨成員，那麼，他代表了哪個集團，哪種利益呢？特首是小圈子選舉委員會選出來的，除非你相信他真是選委會外香港人的利益代表，否則，你也不禁會問，他代表選委會內的利益？北京 政府？還是有錢能通鬼神的特權階級？當一個特首的政治生命將盡，擁在身邊的利益集團為何還要支持他？未來領導人是誰未知，各種明箭暗箭便亂發，中箭的當然最主要還是沒有利用價值的末代特首。
如果真要理論化香港的國家政權與資本主義關係，大概不能不考慮這個特首制度的結構特點，尤其是這個「特首政治循環」。特首對資本家（甚至對北京政府亦然）來說，不單是政治代理人，還是一個可以用過即棄的工具，反正他無黨無派，一個特首下去，一切又可以重來，這樣，嚴重傾斜的香港經濟與社會制度，可以避開的各種質疑。真正掩蓋更大不公不義的，不單是這些小醜聞，還有特首自己本人。
作者是嶺南大學 文化研究系助理講師
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)