不高興的十二年

原載《都市日報》2009年6月30日〈都市博客〉專欄

說白了，兩個極端，不是太「蠢」就是太精；不是太愛國就是太投機；個人不是太無求就是太攻心計。而且，至今未見有比較像樣的中庸人選，可以在三年後接任。

　　今天是回歸日前夕。回顧特區過去這十二年，我不敢說乏善可陳，但用內地話說，「港人不高興」。自六年前起，每逢回歸日，遊行的遠多於巡遊的，延續着回歸前「抗議之都」的「美譽」。

　　回歸後，先後兩位特首都差強人意。董建華任內第七年的頭一天，被五十萬市民上街痛斥，上主震驚，以致未做滿八年就「腳痛」回歸家園。

　　曾蔭權以政府內排名的第一順位接任。小市民憎死「老懵董」，最愛「曾至叻」，對董去曾來額手稱慶。但不到兩年，民意就開始轉向。四年後的今天，甚至有人懷念其前任。

　　現在回過頭來看，香港的隱憂遠過於個別特首的成敗。首先，香港有點撞邪。回歸的同一日，泰銖受衝擊，開始引爆亞洲金融風暴。三個多月後，股匯海嘯殺到。可幸財金部門果斷、中央誓為後盾，中環方得免沒頂。緊接着，香港縱使農業早已式微，卻成為全球第一個禽流感令人致死的地區。這都發生在回歸頭半年，風水佬會說是「天譴」。

　　最後致老董於死地的，無疑是二十三條立法和零三年的沙士。前者首先是他的政治弱智，次之是下屬的AO式傲慢。連港人「怕甚麼」(趙紫陽在位時，問港人為甚麼怕回歸) 都不知道，又怎樣領導市民？至於同期內的世紀疫症，雖然內地才是源頭而中央初期隱瞞，但特區優柔寡斷，成為全球死亡人數最多的地區，罪無可恕。
　　
　　但有現任特首作對比後，大家開始明白：老董生於豪門，戇直執着，不諳民情，單靠好心和勤力，只能當慈父。換個位置，為香港做的事可能更多。小曾則相反，出身基層，明白下情，體察上意，高度street-smart。但打工心態，隨風擺柳，只求紮職，是上好的助手，但同樣並非領袖人選。

　　說白了，兩個極端，不是太「蠢」就是太精；不是太愛國就是太投機；個人不是太無求就是太攻心計。而且，至今未見有比較像樣的中庸人選，可以在三年後接任。

　　不怕說，我比較悲觀。十二年來，政經發展停滯、基建慢過蝸牛，靠CEPA支撐局面。原先還有四大產業，現在逐漸獨沽一味金融。但在野的只爭權益不講自強，在朝的缺乏道德動員力，無法說服市民提升競爭力。

　　近日最明確的警號是，由於金融海嘯觸發全球經濟危機，金融資產損失最慘，香港百萬富翁人數的跌幅高踞全球之冠。換言之，我們靠數字上的「虛」火發達，很少工廠、產品、專利等「實」業，隨時上天，也隨時落地。

　　誠然，港人因為金融而倒下，也會靠金融再爬起來。但金融周期短、起落幅度大，香港沒有實在的資產，也就永遠在過山車裏顛簸。苦的是押下退休老本的小市民。

　　目前的悶局看不到出路。我有一個搞攝影的朋友，沙士那年，上完街後毅然移民。但此後每年七一都專程回港。他這樣「神心」，雖說出於專業，但他並不隸屬任何機構，而純粹是自費回來用相機作見證。曾蔭權應當自省。


translation posted
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1958&Itemid=334

Unhappy Hong Kong
Tag it:Written by Alice Poon
Saturday, 04 July 2009

Translation of a blog post by Hong Kong blogger and media worker Tsui Sio Ming (崔少明) entitled "Unhappy for Twelve Years" (original column published in Metro Daily).




Here is my translation of the blog post:-


"Looking back at these past twelve years, I wouldn’t say there’s a lack of significant happenings, but I would say, to mimic a Mainland way of saying: 'Hong Kongers are unhappy'. Starting six years ago, on every handover day, we have been seeing more participants in protest marches than in handover parade ceremonies. Hong Kong has kept her reputation of 'the City of Protests' since before the handover.


On the lst day of Tung Chee-Hwa’s 7th year of governance, 500,000 protesters went to the streets to give him an earful, which led to his being let go on grounds of ill health. Then Donald Tsang took over. Citizens were so disgusted with Tung that they showered their love on Tsang. They were ecstatic about the change. In less than two years though, people began to have a change of heart. Today, some even start to miss Tsang’s predecessor.


Now that people have had a chance to compare the two, they have come to understand this: Tung was born of a wealthy family, is blunt and stubborn by nature, was unable to detect public sentiments, and only relied on his good heart and diligence to do his work. He was made out to be a good father. Were he placed in another position, he could have perhaps accomplished much more for Hong Kong. Tsang is just the opposite – he came from the grassroots level, he understands the needs of the lower social stratum and can also see what his bosses want of him, he is extremely street-smart. But he takes the approach of a paid employee, is spineless, and all he aims for is his own career advancement. He would make a super assistant, but, just like Tung, he also lacks the qualities demanded of a leader.


Thus analysed, it is a case of two extremes: one is too daft and the other is too crafty; one is too patriotic and the other too speculative; on a personal level, one is too selfless and the other too manipulative. Moreover, up to now there does not seem to be a presentable average candidate who is qualified to take over the reins in three years’ time.


Frankly, I am rather pessimistic about the future. In the last twelve years, political and economical development has been stagnant with the progress of infrastructure projects at a snail pace, relying solely on the support of CEPA initiatives. The original four pillars of industry have been reduced to just the finance industry. But those in the political opposition are only concerned with power and benefit grabbing without seeing the need for self-improvement; those in the administration lack the morals to motivate the civil workforce; none of them is able to convince the citizens of the need to make Hong Kong more competitive.


The latest sign of warning is the global financial tsunami, which has sparked off the global economic crisis. Financial assets have seen a bloodbath and Hong Kong leads the world in the drop of the number of millionaires. In other words, we rely on 'empty' figures for our well-being, but we have no solid industries like factories, product manufacturing and product patenting etc.


Granted, if Hong Kongers can take a fall in finance, they can also rise up again in finance. But the problem is that financial asset cycles are short and volatile. Without real industries, Hong Kong can only forever stumble forward inside a roller coaster. The only losers are those citizens who bet their retirement funds in the market.


No one can see a way out of this impasse. I have a photographer friend who emigrated in the year when SARS broke out after joining in the street protests. Since then, he has been coming back every year to take photos of the July 1st protests. He does not belong to any groups and he pays for the trips out of his own pocket – he merely wants to keep track of the movement. This may be something for Tsang to reflect on."