• 理想與現實

    香港中文大學政治及行政學系榮休講座教授, 「理想與現實」

    各位同學,傳媒朋友 ,早安!我非常同情大家,在烈日當空下午聽我這個七旬
    老人講課,希望我今天說的話對大家有參考價值。因時間關係,我不會根據我
    準備的講稿和大家分享,我會只講開首和結尾, 然後讓同學發問。
    我想講的一個故事大家未必認識, 在工業已經息微的香港社會中,有一所社會
    企業正在從事高品質的毛衣織造,當年有一批來自不同行業的企業家, 和一位

    非常有理想的女士,作為整個項目的執行者,在屯門開設了一所工廠,命名為
    「L PLUS H」。
    剛才我忘了說她的名字,她叫A da H o,如果你上網搜尋一下「L PLUS H」,
    便會找到很多有關她的資料。她那間毛衣織造工廠站穩了腳賺到錢後,便成立
    了「L PLU S H FO U N D A TIO N 」。這個基金會的目的就是為社會上的青年提供

    一個品格教育的機會,她以此作為抱負,由2013年開始,A da便透過音樂劇
    培訓計劃招募了大約80名中學同學, 特別是成績不出眾、或有品行問題的學
    生,共同籌備一齣名為「The A w akening」的音樂劇,更邀請了好幾位在音樂
    戲劇界知名的專家,用四個月時間訓練這些學員。最後演出十分成功, 更多次
    重演,今年又籌備了另一齣音樂劇,兩星期前才在葵青劇院首次上演,劇名為
    「逆風」 。我會說一下當中主題曲中兩段最主要的訊息,在此之後我便會結
    束,接受同學提問。這主題曲叫作「豈可小看我」,歌詞如下:

    豈可小看我
    四面有人潑我冷水
    無白晝只有灰暗
    縱有美夢也要告吹
    但我靜心聽心裡的話
    既有志願 快去追
    高飛 高飛
    豈可小看夢想似太難
    看我有無鬥志之心
    讓我肯定夠努力
    鐵釬最後也會變成針
    為理想不怕困累
    哪怕血淚
    哪會變更
    高飛
    豈可小看我

    多謝大家!

  • 從佔中看兩種民主觀

    區龍宇「從佔中看兩種民主觀」

    大家可能一直以為民主就是人民作主,大家都有共同價值觀。但其實從來提及民主都有兩種立場和方向:一種是自上而下的民主,在巨大的群眾活動下,稍微開放政權,但這些永遠也不會是真民主。

    另一種的民主觀是自下而上,這種民主觀才是徹底的、充分的,由自己爭取而來的東西才鞏固。

    我演說的第一點:什麼才是教授?眾所周知,一位前教授說罷課沒有用,中央是不會聽。這些教授是否忘記孔夫子?孔子就是我們第一個教授,告訴我們要「知其不可為而為知」,這才算是真教授。昨天我到中大接受各同學的教育,有位同學說一時間的抗爭未必有用,但如果別人踐踏你的權利而不反抗,那不是更沒用嗎?

    其實同學都明白這道理,明白「知其不可為而為知」但我們的前校長很介意別人不稱他為教授,他真的不是教授,他沒有資格。

    第二點:請父權主義「收檔」,這承接第一點。很明顯,現在是年輕人為我們老一輩的人上了一課。我以前很多的戰友、同志、朋友都已認命。但年輕人卻說「抗命不認命」,是為我們上了一課。一直以來的教育、社會、文化都是充滿父權主義。父權主義的特徵就是我們是上一代,有經驗,年輕一代多學一點才說吧,正是前校長很喜歡稱學生為「小朋友」的原因,那已經是侏羅紀時代的口吻,現在已是21世紀。現代性的特點是變成下一代人要教上一代人,古代才是上一代人教下一代 ,因為那個年代,可能要幾百年才有一個發明,年青人永遠要向上一代人學習,所以父權主義當道。但現代性(modernity), 全世界每一天可能幾小時便有一個發明,現在是下一代人要教上一代人的時代。我跟不少中年人都曾經歷尷尬的時期,如詢問兒子怎樣上網。但其實這不單是技術,我們過去100年不再有皇帝、君臣、父子的概念,正因為每一代的青年都有新的願景(vision),新的社會發明不是技術上,而是政治、文化、社會、藝術等,這才會有見解、價值,這才有五四運動、60-70年代席捲全球的青年激進化運動,然後告訴那個時候的中年或老年人:性禁忌是不行的,所以從那時起,社會開放進步多了。有婦權運動、少數民族的運動、民權運動等發生,其實是當代年輕人做反做出來,所以我的第二點就是請年輕人出來領導我們。

    第三點:自己報告自己做,不能請槍手。不像大陸的官員讀報告也會讀錯,因為那不是他們自己寫,而是「自己報告別人做」。我是自己做報告,因為我得到同學、學聯的教育,「自己政府自己揀」,我很注意這點。這理念是源自台灣的太陽花運動,有一個口號「自己國家自己救」,然後香港就變為「自己香港自己救」、「自己政府自己揀」。同學們,你們知道這口號很震撼嗎?「自己政府自己揀」是與18世紀的洛克產生共鳴的,民主的最基本意思就是政府的統治要得到市民的同意,人民才是老闆。你們常說香港主權是屬於我,但再追問國家主權是屬於誰的?我建議大家看電影《逆權大狀》,當檢察官在審訊學生破壞國家主權時,那個律師就質問國家主權是屬於誰的呢?憲法上寫那是屬於人民的。中國憲法亦是這樣寫的:主權屬於人民,不屬於一個黨。「自己政府自己揀」其實是在重覆洛克的說話,而由年輕人提出會令人更害怕,因為你們是呼應1968年法國學生運動在5月風暴的說話,他們提出「自己校園自己管」、「警察退出校園」,因為那時是反戰的年代,警察攻入學校毆打學生,於是學生罷課,提出警察退出校園,校園屬於學生。這個學生的罷課,引起1000萬工人大罷工,不能乘坐地鐵、飛機,癱瘓巴黎,更導致工人說「自己工廠自己管」、醫院裏的中級醫生也造反,「自己醫院自己揀」,一直涉及社會一切的領域,甚至足球員也說要打倒足球會。所以我是向你們學習,我沒有什麼能教你們,因為你們已經在教自己。

    第四點想要偷取學聯秘書長周永康的知識產權,在昨日的發言,他提及「只有民主和普選是不夠,我們還需要有全民退休保障、最低工資以外還要有標準工時,要有民生民主才會有保障。」所以第四點的題目是:「民主當飯吃」。民生就是民主,亦是呼應先賢的說話。盧梭有一本名著叫《社會契約論》,他看不起當時英國的代議民主,因英國人常說自己很自由,但只限於投票的那一刻,投完票就不自由,因為那些議員也可以出賣選民。還有,如果要實行民主,前提是我們要有真正的命運共同體,如果我們要一個命運共同體,我們就不能有超級富豪。因為有超級富豪的出現表示資源會被他們壟斷,那怎算是命運共同體呢?舉個例子,如果你很窮,那可能蛇齋糭餅也會影響投票取向。一個社會如果大部份人也是貧窮的,是不可能有民主的。在沒有大的特權,資本主義,民主才是有意思的。

    第五點:不要只有普選,要有民主憲章。因為30年民主路的公式很簡單:「民主=普選,普選=普選,A=A,A=A」,但其實大家忘了承接第四點,如果社會上大部分人是貧窮的,他們不會有時間、精神參與公共政治生活。要做到這樣,除了普選,我們還需要民生。有同學亦討論我們需要一個約章,用世界民主術語,我們稱之為charter,如南非1952年的黑人民權運動就提出自由憲章,那是一個綱領性的文件。除了爭取民主,還列出所有國家的財富應該共享,土地應該屬於人民,國家應該幫助小農發展,人人應該有工做,有集體談判權。所以今後的民主路,不能只說普選,我們需要的是民主民生的憲章。

    最後一點:希望在於人民,改變始於抗爭。民主從來都是從下而上的抗爭,我們說英國,說洛克,如果當時英國沒有在1640年展開巨大的從下而上奮鬥,英國是沒有可能有今天的民主。美國憲法的人民權利修正案是從哪裏來的?原來憲法制定者在討論憲制時竟忘記了這條例,但人民沒有忘記,是人民運動要求加入一個人權的條例,才會有人民權利修正案。所以學聯及同學的「改變始於抗爭」是至理名言,多謝各位!

  • Totalitarianism And George Orwell (Animal Farm and 1984)

    *David Lloyd Smith (72) "Totalitarianism And George Orwell (Animal Farm and 1984)"

    Thank you very much. It’s great to see you all in here today. I’m going to give my talk on totalitarianism, Hong Kong and two novels by a very famous British writer, Animal Farm and 1984.

    First of all, I want thank my friend, Benson Wong, for agreeing to give the interpretation. Now I have a second mic. That’s great. Thank you.

    I want to ask everyone a question: why are we here? We’re here because we feel that the communist Chinese government has betrayed the promise it gave to the people of Hong Kong—to give them meaningful universal suffrage, to give them real democracy.

    One should not be surprised. The history of communism since the Russian revolution of 1917 has been one long litany of such betrayals. And today, I want to talk about the story of communism and betrayal in history because, as pointed out, I am actually a lecturer in history. I am actually lecturing cultural history, which is why I am going to discuss it in the context of two famous novels.

    These novels are by a very famous British writer of the twentieth century, called George Orwell. In the 1930s, Orwell became utterly disillusioned with communism, particularly as it’s been practised in the Soviet Union of the dictator Joseph Stalin. In Orwell’s opinion, Stalin had betrayed the whole ideals of socialism, freedom, equality by creating one of the most nightmarish and terrible and oppressive societies the world has ever seen. A kind of society we call totalitarian.

    What actually is a totalitarian society? It’s one in which the individual lives in fear, where the individual is not protected by law, and where the state, the government has absolute power over your lives. Not only over your lives as citizens, but where the state controls the past, the present and even the future.

    In Stalin’s Soviet Union in the 1930s, many millions of peasants were allowed to starve to death or killed by the secret police for opposing the collectivisation of the land, for opposing their farms being taken away from them. Hundreds of thousands of intellectuals, party members, army officers, writers, artists were murdered by Stalin’s secret police.

    And it gets even worse. Many of those who were actually murdered were then completely removed from history. They were removed from photographs as if they had never existed. Their faces were airbrushed, “photoshopped” out, as if they had never been born and never lived. They were not living persons; they were not dead people; they were what George Orwell in his novel 1984 calls unpersons—not living, not dead, but unpersons.

    The craziness is revealing in one true story of an unfortunate man who was sentenced to 25 years in a labour camp. Why? What was his crime? He told a friend that he had a dream—he dreamt that Stalin had been murdered. That made him a potential terrorist. That is what we call political surrealism, a bad dream. Stalin’s totalitarian state of course would be the template, the model for Mao’s China. Mao too constructed the state where the individual is a victim, the victim of the capricious whim of one man, one tyrant.

    What we would like to focus on, though, is how George Orwell has been inspired by what he saw as the evil of communist totalitarianism to create two famous novels, two cautionary tales against those who want to take away our freedoms. hese novels are Animal Farm and 1984.

    Let’s begin, though, with 1984. In 1984, Orwell writes a story about the future. He actually wrote the book in 1948, but he set it in the future of 1984, Britain. The name of this society is not Britain; it’s Oceania. He creates a terrifying fictional totalitarian society, inspired by Stalin’s Soviet Union. In this society there is absolutely no freedom, only oppression, horror and lies. The society has many ways of keeping control. One of the more subtle ways of maintaining control, besides using a brutal, secret police force, torture, mass surveillance, and truth-distorting propaganda, is through a mental trick, a psychological skill which Orwell’s called “doublethink”.

    In creating doublethink Orwell was inspired by Western leftist intellectuals in the 1930s. For although they weren’t living in Stalin’s Soviet Union, they were living in Western countries, somehow able to train their minds to believe everything Stalin told them, however ridiculous and absurd it was.

    What actually is “doublethink”? Let me explain. According to Orwell, “doublethink” means the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accept both of them as true. In other words, to believe that two opposites, two contradictory things are both true at the same time.

    In Orwell’s actual words, it means, I quote, “... to say that black is white ... to believe that black is white ... to know that black is white and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. ... [T]he prevailing mental condition is controlled insanity.” It goes on. “In a party member, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. And if it is necessary to rearrange one's memories or to alter the written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so.”

    The slogans of Orwell’s totalitarian state Oceania are perfect examples of “doublethink”. They are “War Is Peace,” “Freedom Is Slavery,” and “Ignorance Is Strength.” The slogans of course are self-contradictory, but somehow, using doublethink, you have to accept them as true and rational, you need to discipline your mind to really believe that war is peace. Once you’ve cultivated the skill, you are then ready to believe every piece of nonsense that the party tells you.

    Let’s use one of Orwell’s examples of how doublethink works—just to give you guys an idea. How can you reconcile war is peace? How can you make it make sense? This is how: it’s really a matter of defining terms. If you define peace in terms of domestic social harmony, war can be seen as an excellent way of maintaining it. War keeps citizens too busy and frightened and poor to consider rebellion. War focuses the citizens’ attention and hatred on an external enemy. War, by deflecting their attention away from the deficiencies and injustices of their own society and government, focus on your outside enemies, not your inside enemies. Thus social harmony, the obedience of the masses of the state, is strengthened through war. Therefore, war is peace. It maintains social harmony at home.

    It’s similar to how some commentators occasionally accuse Chinese government of encouraging anti-Japanese sentiments in order to focus citizens’ hostility towards outsiders, in this case Japanese, rather than addressing problems and injustices within China itself. The Japanese are the enemy. The Japanese threaten us. Therefore we must unite against the external enemy.

    A related keyword to doublethink in Orwell’s 1984, something which just about means the same thing, is blackwhite. It could be used positively or negatively. If used negatively, it means like saying, “Hey man! You’re claiming the black is white, it’s contradictory to the facts, why are you talking this nonsense?” Or the blackwhite can also have a positive meaning. It can also be a term of praise. When applied to a good party member, it means a moral willingness to say blackwhite when party discipline’s demands it.

    I don’t think I really need to tell you that Beijing leaders, journalists, academics and their supporters in the Hong Kong government are experts in practising both blackwhite and doublethink. Let’s take an example from the mainland. What is the official name of China’s economic system? Socialism with Chinese characteristics. Let me repeat that, Socialism with Chinese characteristics. What actually does that mean? Socialism is usually defined as a society based on equality and social justice. In its communist form, it most specifically means state ownership of the means of production—farms factories, banks, businesses and so on. Is that remotely a description of China today—a land of social justice and equality, where the means of production are solely controlled by the state. Of course not, China today is a land of rampant capitalism, and capitalism of the worst kind, where party membership, family ties, guanxi (關係) mean everything. A society with no rule of law to protect the poor and vulnerable, where the gap between the rich and poor is getting worse and worse. This is not socialism in any conceivable form. If anything, it is the opposite, the antithesis of socialism. And yet somehow, so long as the Party puts the word “Chinese characteristics” after the word “socialism,” everything’s alright. There are no longer any contradictions here.

    Orwell would, I think, have been heartbroken to see how such doublethink flourishes throughout China. Having said that, let me be a little bit fair. Doublethink is everywhere. It’s not just found in China and Hong Kong; it flourishes and can be found in Washington, Tokyo, London, Paris, Moscow. It’s a worldwide disease, not just a Chinese one.

    But it’s important to emphasise that Orwell said that doublethink is not just hypocrisy. Party intellectuals have to train their minds to reconcile these opposites, to actually believe such nonsense. So it is actually possible for a Mainland Chinese official to actually believe in something called socialism with Chinese characteristics, even though his or her eyes and ears reveal the opposite. Actually it’s possible. It really is. Unfortunately though, I don’t have time to explain right now because the explanation is rather complicated and requires some knowledge of Marxist theory.

    Anyway let’s move on. Elsewhere in 1984, Orwell has his hero Winston Smith, Smith got the same name as me. He is a dissident, a secret rebel against the totalitarian state. Winston Smith writes something very interesting in his secret diary. He writes, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.” What does it mean by this? They are saying that although the state may always lie and twist the truth, although the state may always take away your freedom, it can’t be violate logic. It can’t violate the most pure form of logic, there is, mathematics. Therefore the state doesn’t have absolute power over everything, it can’t control logic, or can it? Well later on, Winston Smith, is now a prisoner, is being tortured and brainwashed by the secret police. They do in the end break his spirit. They break his spirit by finally getting him to believe that, in fact, if the Party says two plus two equals five, and not four, then yes, two plus two equals five.

    Thus the Party controls logic too. Actually, Orwell wasn’t quite making this up. Interestingly, he got the idea from Stalin’s Soviet Union, where “two plus two equals five” was a popular slogan. It was a slogan referring to the State’s five-year economic plan to increase production. It originally meant that the goals of the five-year plan could be achieved in four years if the people would try hard enough—so although they were given five years, if they worked hard enough, they could do the job in four years instead, therefore “two plus two equals five.”

    Okay, let me now cite a Hong Kong example of this kind of distortion of plain facts and logic. I’m afraid it’s a few years ago. It’s about nine years ago, it’s an article by the Hong Kong journalist Frank Ching, which was published in South China Morning Post in March 2005. In this article by Ching is definitely inspired by George Orwell’s 1984. And he gives what he thinks is an example of doublethink from the Hong Kong government. In this case, the Hong Kong government is not saying, “two plus two equals five”; rather, it’s saying, “two equals five.”

    The subject of Ching’s article was what was going on in Hong Kong at the time. It’s when the first Chief Executive Tung Chee-Hwa resigned his post, if you remember, for health reasons. Maybe you remember it. Beijing of course then handpicked Donald Tsang as his replacement. But as Tsang was a former civil servant under the colonial British government, Beijing wasn’t yet 100% sure he was loyal. So Beijing came to a decision: they decided that his term of office should only be two years although the Basic Law clearly says the term of office should be five years.

    In this article, then, Ching openly references Orwell’s 1984 to satirise the Hong Kong government on this issue. I am going to quote at length what he writes here. The article was entitled “When Black Is Really White.” “It is now generally assumed that the central government has given its blessing to Mr Tsang and that he will be chosen as the next chief executive in July. And that the term of office will be for two years, contrary to the clear wording of the Basic Law of a five-year term. [T]he Hong Kong government, too, has changed its position to conform with that of Beijing. Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie acknowledged that the government has ‘adjusted’ its understanding of the Basic Law.”

    Now Ching quotes Elsie Leung, “In the past, she said, the government had thought that, generally, clear and unambiguous provisions should be interpreted according to their literal meaning. But now, having listened to mainland legal experts, she has seen the light and realises that the law should be interpreted in a way contrary to its literal meaning. So now, while the Basic Law still says five years, it really means two years. Five is two. Black is white. George Orwell would feel right at home in the Hong Kong of 2005.”

    And then Ching goes on to say, “Hong Kong is moving rapidly into Orwell's 1984, where he introduced the term blackwhite. The term, he explained, means not only a ‘loyal willingness to say that black is white when party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary’.”

    And this is how Ching concludes, “If Orwell is right, Hong Kong still has some way to go. At present, the government still says it used to think that five years meant five years, while now it knows it means two. In future, to be absolutely politically correct, the government will have to say that it always knew that five years meant two.” Ching’s article then, I think, shows clearly the relevance of Orwell’s 1984 to contemporary Hong Kong.

    We have truly been offered universal suffrage with Chinese characteristics. A democracy with only marginally more than democracy than North Korea. In North Korea there is also universal suffrage where everyone can vote so long as they vote for their beloved leader. Relating to this another quotation of Orwell I’d like to share with you, one that I think rather well sums up doublethink. Orwell says, “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.”

    I now want to discuss Orwell’s second famous novel attacking totalitarianism, Animal Farm. I also ask if it, too, can offer any lessons for Hong Kong in its struggle to achieve real democracy. Animal Farm was published four years before 1984 in 1945, just at the end of the Second World War.

    On the surface, it is a fairy tale for children, because it’s a story about talking animals. But below the surface, it is a history of the Soviet Union from the Russian revolution right up until the end of the Second World War. In short, it is a satire or an allegory in the guise of children’s story. The novel is set on a farm in England called Manor Farm. The farmer is an incompetent drunk. The farm animals, sick of the laziness, exploitation and cruelty of the farmer driving from the farm. They take over the farm. It is an animal revolution.

    Now that they control the farm, the animals attempt to create a utopian society based on the principles of animal equality, freedom, social justice, and animals not being corrupted by human values. They create an ideology outlining these principles called Animalism.

    Animalism includes slogans which summarise its principles, expressed in language simple enough for even the least intelligent animals to understand. The two most important slogans are: “All Animals Are Equal” and “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad.” These slogans are painted on the wall of a barn.

    It seems natural for the most intelligent animals to take control, and the most intelligent animals are the pigs. Eventually the animals—the pigs—begin to corrupt the ideals of the revolution. They become oppressive tyrants which exploit, terrorise and even kill the animals that either oppose them or potentially could oppose them in the future. One of the pigs named Napoleon becomes the absolute leader, a dictator. He wields total power (42:35), he is treated almost as if he is a God—he is all-wise, he is all-powerful, he is everywhere. The pigs therefore have betrayed the animal revolution. Betraying the revolution means betraying the principles of Animalism.

    Animalism forbids animals to be like humans. For instance, animals are forbidden to stand on two legs. They are not allowed to live in houses, or sleep on beds; they are not allowed to wear clothes or drink alcohol. And yet over time, the pigs start to do all of these things. They walk on two legs, they dress like humans, they live in a house, they sleep in beds, they drink alcohol. There are animals, though, eventually remember that the slogans on the barn wall prohibited such behaviour. But when they go to confirm this, they discovered that the slogans have been rewritten.

    Instead of reading “All Animals Are Equal,” the slogan on the barn wall now reads, “All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others.” Let me just say that, of course, this is a satire in Communism wherein Communism, everyone is equal, but the reality is, of course, in Communism, in practice, there is no equality at all.

  • 論自由

    香港中文大學政治與行政學系副教授周保松,「論自由」

    Chow Po Chung, Associate Professor, Government and Political Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, “On Liberties"

    大家好,我是周保松,中文大學政治系的老師,我教政治哲學。開始之前,我想感謝大家在這麼炎熱的天氣下,仍然走出來參加政總外的公民課。這是很有意義的活動。我亦想感謝主辦單位,包括陳允中、葉寶琳及其他義工同學,讓我們給他們一些掌聲。他們花費了很多心思籌備這次史無前例、共108位老師的公民課,這是香港從所未見的創舉。

    今天,我的講題是「論自由」。在香港,一個非常普遍的講法或論述是:「香港有自由,而無民主」。根據這說法,自由是香港的核心價值,而自由與民主是沒有直接或必然的關係。概念上而言,自由是一個概念,而民主是另一概念;但我覺得這講法難以成立。民主本身隱含自由一個很重要的面向;這概念上的區分最早在1958年由英國哲學家以賽亞‧伯林(Isaiah Berlin)提出。在一篇名為〈兩種自由的概念〉(Two Concepts of Liberty)的文章,伯林指出,自由很重要,但我們不應將自由與民主混淆,這是第一點。從這概念上的區分,我們可以推敲出一個道德判斷:自由很重要,而民主雖然也很重要,但兩者之間沒有誰更重要。如果為了追求民主而要付出很大代價的話,那是否代表我們可以緩行、或者循序漸進,也就是時下流行的「袋住先」?你們明白我想說的嗎?香港人會認為自由是我們的核心價值,我們可以為了自由而上街抗議,例如2003年50萬人的反23條遊行。大家直覺地認為,自由很重要。如果在民主和自由兩者之間作概念上的切割,那麼在爭取民主的道路上,我們就會認為民主爭取沒有捍衛自由來得重要。我認為這說法是不成立的。

    其實,今天我想利用這30分鐘時間,闡述自己的觀點,然後公開讓大家討論。由於時間關係,我只能簡單的講述,如果你真覺得不夠,可以參考我剛出版的新書(編註:《政治的道德:從自由主義的觀點看》,2014年由香港中文大學出版社出版。)。我今天的講課會分為幾個部分,第一個問題是:自由是甚麼?我們天天都會接觸自由這個字,但其實自由這概念是甚麼意思呢?很多時候,我們認為自由這個概念隱含的意思是,當一個人能夠自由行動(free to act)的時候,必然代表他免於一些外在的限制(free from interference)。自由意味著限制的存在;如果你能夠不受限制的制約,即免於外在限制(free from interference)、免於強制(free from coercion)、免於束縛(free from constraints),並做你自己想做的事。當我們提出自由的概念,其實是有這個意思。自由總是在講一些能夠免受外在的、制度性、人為的、強加的限制。所以當我們談及思想自由的時候,其實亦是說你免受政府的限制;談及信仰自由的時候、或遊行集會自由的時候,意思是你能夠免受警察和政府的限制,能夠自由的坐在這裡,進行集會。這亦是我們所說關於自由最基本的理念。

    當我們明白這最基本的理念,第二點就是:自由是一個眾數,而不是一個單數。即是說,我們並沒有單純的自由(freedom as such)。由於自由總是免於某一種限制,所以你必須叩問,究竟那是一個甚麼限制。所以我們可以區分信仰的自由、言論的自由、政治自由、甚至隨地吐痰的自由、看色情片的自由,你會有各種各樣的自由,是因為生命中有各種各樣的限制。如果我們要共同生活,就必須接受很多的限制。只要你處身於社會裡面,其實就已經需要接受法律等制度限制。當我們談自由的時候,並不是說所有自由都是同樣重要。所謂自由並不是說,我們能夠為所欲為;我們應該重視的是自由的基本,自由社會最重要的是能夠保障我們作為公民的基本自由。這些基本自由並不特別,皆列於1948年聯合國的《世界人權宣言》或不同國家的憲法,也包括香港的《基本法》。其實很多民主國家的憲法都說明,公民能夠享受怎麼樣的自由,這當然包括我們平時所說的公民與政治自由,例如:遊行集會自由、結社、信仰、言論思想等自由。這都是屬於我們的基本自由。

    但是,當我們說香港是一個自由社會,當我們說香港雖然沒有民主卻有自由的時候,我們究竟在說甚麼?我們自覺在香港享受著不同形式的自由,包括我們今天坐在這裡。而且我們深知一旦跨越羅湖邊境,這自由就不復存在。在大陸,我們沒有遊行集會的自由,也沒有表達意見的自由。最近,我幾乎每天寫微博,但幾分鐘後就會被刪除,連「香港」也變為網絡敏感詞,所以我只能寫「HK」。這標誌著我們表達意見的自由被剝奪。但在此刻,我們還能自由地表達自己的思想,而不用擔心會被警察拘捕。所以當我們說香港是自由社會的時候,指向了這些我們能夠享受的基本自由:言論、集會、結社、信仰、良知、選擇職業、擁有私有財產。這一系列的自由,構成了所謂的自由體系。這自由體系定義了公民的基本權利。所以,權利和基本自由相關。當我們視某些自由為基本權利的時候,意味著被視為權利的東西具有十分重要的道德份量。同時,我們在制度上給予它極高的優先性。所以人權法往往是優於其它的法律。當所有其他法律與人權法有所牴觸的時候,人權法有絕對的優先權,它保障著我們的基本自由。所以,很多人會覺得香港始終是個自由的社會,縱然它沒有民主。這就是我所謂「有自由,無民主」的意思。

    我們接著可以開始論及民主。我們普遍對民主的理解是「一人一票」,在政治社群裡面平等的公民決定,就可以為社會裡面的公共事務做集體決定(collective decision)。通過行政長官或總統的選舉、通過立法會代議政制,為我們立法和進行決定,這是一般人對民主制度的了解。問題是:民主和自由之間,有何關係?一般人會察覺到兩重關係。第一,完善而良好的民主制度需要這些自由的支持與支撐。很多時候我們談及自由民主(liberal democracy),其實正是指向兩個概念:民主指向剛才提及的投票過程,而自由則指向自由的權利。在自由民主社會裡面,除了投票以外,我們亦應該享有一系列的基本權利,而這些基本權利都受到憲法的保障。你會明白,當我們論及民主制度的實踐時,我們需要例如結社的自由。如果不能結社,就沒有政黨出現,沒有政黨就沒有政黨競爭,也就沒有多黨制。民主制度的實踐其實必須預設結社的自由。當然,新聞自由與言論自由同樣重要。沒有新聞與言論自由,社會議題會被特定的政黨決定,反對的聲音難以得到彰顯,而不同的候選人亦難以在公開的平台上進行辯論。沒有自由,我們得到的只會是受損的民主。

    另一個面向是,如果沒有民主制度,我們所享有的基本自由,將隨時受到威脅。這正是沒有民主制度的香港現在所面對的問題。在以往的殖民時期,我們一直享有相當高的自由。問題是,一旦不民主的政府不受任何約束,當它基於政治目的而壓制我們的基本權利時,我們會發現自己無能為力。沒有民主,我們就沒有選票或其他制衡政府的機制。在這層面上,民主制度對於香港基本自由的保障是非常重要。沒有民主制度,我們現在所享受的自由將岌岌可危。2003年的23條立法,或即將來臨、基於國家安全的打壓,都再再顯示,在沒有民主授權的政府管制之下,自由是脆弱的。自由與民主,存在著互相支持的關係。

    至此為止,我們的論述都沒有甚麼爭議處。下一步我們回到最初的問題:究竟民主本身是否與自由沒有關係?我認為答案是否定的。當年梁家傑競選的口號是:「有得揀,才是老闆」。其實民主制度最核心的概念無非是選擇。我們可以選擇,我們坐在這裡,希望爭取的無非是每個人都有自由選擇自己特首和立法會議員的權利。民主的精神在於選擇,這正是與香港只有小圈子利益集團才有權利選擇的政治制度不同。歸根究柢,民主制度包含了自由精神的核心部分。在影響我們每個人的政治制度底下,民主制度實際上要求我們每個人都有選擇的權利。這選擇並非可有可無,不是咖啡與奶茶之間的選擇。我們所說的選擇,是一個政治的選擇;我們選擇將管制香港這地區的問題交託給一小部分人,我們選擇將自己的權利交託給他們。我們之所以強調選擇的必要,是因為握有權力的人,能夠從最根本意義上影響我們的生活。坐在立法會裡面的人,其實決定了我們生命中所能夠享有的種種,包括福利制度、土地分配、教育政策、養老金、醫療等政策。我們生命每一層面,其實都被坐落在大家後面兩棟建築( 編註:應指政府總部與立法會。)裡的人所決定。既然影響如此巨大,我們作為自由個體,能夠正當地提問:「梁振英,你憑甚麼可以坐在辦公室裡面,除非你得到我們的認受?」我們也要問,為甚麼一部分有錢人可以支配七百萬人的生命和福祉?我覺得這是一個正當的質問。作為獨立平等的香港公民,這是自然不過的問題。當你提出這個問題,已經觸及到由法國大革命以降整個現代政治最核心的精神。這精神是:政治權力的正當性,必須得到人民的同意,或人民的授權。

    我們常說,從董建華、曾蔭權到梁振英,香港回歸以來面對一個很嚴峻的認受性危機。問題不一定是這幾位特首的無能,而是他們的權力基礎,並沒有得到在座每一個人的授權。當管制者將自己的意志強加於我們身上,我們當然會反彈、會抗議、有不滿和憤怒。我們的憤怒得不到回應的時候,我們會走出來上街。過去十多年,香港政治的死結正是在於我們沒辦法解決這認受性危機(legitimacy crisis)。這時候,有人會問:「你們那麼著緊爭取民主,為甚麼回歸之前看不見你們著緊,現在你們起碼能夠選擇,不是已經比以前進步嗎?」這問題很有趣,我們應該反問自己。其實回歸十多年來,香港人的政治意識和對於政府的要求提升不少,這或許是有些人所說的的「主體意識」。我們要反問自己,為甚麼我們這麼關心,這麼在乎選擇需要?我們今天抗爭的核心,無非是想爭取選擇的權利。其實在中國傳統社會裡,並沒有自由選擇的傳統。從春秋戰國以降,從來沒有人說,皇帝必須得到大家的選擇。中國人沒有這個傳統。相反,中國帝皇的授權來自於「天」,所以從來不需要詢問人民的意志。同理,西方君主制長期也沒有選擇自由,西方君主的權利來自神,亦即所謂的「君權神授」。但這講法到了盧梭(Jean-Jacques Rousseau)開始被打破。盧梭在《社會契約論》(Du contrat social, 1762)第一篇開宗明義指出,「人是生而自由的」(men is born free)。這是一個非常重要的範式轉移(paradigm shift),他為洛克(John Locke)等哲學家提供了一個全新的政治制度理解方式。於是,權力的來源再也不是來自天或上帝,而是來自於我們,來自於我們大家生而自由的平等個體。這是個最根本的改變。我們不會再覺得自己先天受制於某個主人或傳統。我們就是政治社群裡的主體,我們每個人都是自由與平等的。這亦是整個現代政治和民主最大的推動力。

    那麼,道德的力量從何而來?簡單的回答是:我們希望支配自己的人生。我們認為人生是屬於自己的。我們的選擇未必最好,即使有民主制度,亦不代表我們能夠選出比梁振英更英明神武的特首。台灣也推舉了一個陳水扁出來,不是嗎?所以民主當然不能解決所有問題,但它可以讓你扭轉錯誤,四年後可以改選另外一個人。選擇的精神體現著我們每個人都是自由的主體,讓我們重奪自由,成為自己的主人,將主動性交回自己手上。這正是自由社會最基本的精神,自由的背後是一個自主(autonomy)的概念。我們之所以這麼關心選擇的自由,選擇職業的自由、談戀愛的自由、婚姻的自由、信仰的自由、性傾向的自由,全因為我們自覺生命屬於我。我希望自己支配自己的人生。即使我的選擇可能錯誤,即使我的道路沒有人認同,但這是我自己的選擇。選擇背後假設著我是一個能夠對自己負責的理性主體。這也是一個比較複雜的概念,我們不是一個非理性的個體,我們是可以做出理性而道德評價(rational and moral judgment)的個體。我們必須明白,民主精神最深的動力來自人對自主性的追求,而民主制度背後,我們追求的毋寧是一種集體的自主(collective autonomy)。在平常生活裡,我們可以自由選擇,我們可以自己負責;但在民主裡,我們需要作出集體決定,決定一個統一的民主制度,必須要能夠適用所有公民,否則國家將面臨分裂。民主制度的理念是希望,當有一天香港成為民主社會的時候,我們作為自由而平等的個體,能夠共同決定自己所屬的政治社群的未來。我們共同決定誰有權去統治我們,其實這是一個集體自主(collective autonomy)的精神。集體自主的概念,正是與自由息息相關。個人對自由的重視,離不開對個體自主的重視;如果你重視個體自主,你很容易認同在政治制度上作出集體自主的重要。

    其實大家可以回憶一下,當8月31日李飛公佈人大決定的時候,不少朋友均深感憤慨、痛心,不受尊重、受到歧視。大家覺得,我們都是香港人,憑甚麼一千二百人的選舉委員就有權決定香港的未來,而我們卻被排除在外。香港本該是我們的家,我們是生活在其中的個體,但我們卻被這政治權力以如此赤裸裸的暴力排除於外。理論上主權在民,我們應該覺得後面的政府總部屬於我們,我們應該共同擁有這大樓。但現實是,大家坐在這裡,卻對著這大樓深感陌生;它的特權與我們所能夠享有的,毫無關係,它無需接受問責、無需與我們溝通。在這情況下,你會有種異鄉人的感覺,這裡明明屬於港人的廣場,卻需要向政府申請。我們沒有共同體的感覺,我們難以感覺這個決定我們命運的管制團隊與我們有何關係。我們被排除在外,產生異鄉人的感受,然後我們發現,我們很難對這個地方產生歸屬感。這意味著,我們公共生活最重要的部分被切割分開。長期以來,我們並沒有嚴格意義的公共生活;我們並沒有權利參與影響我們生活的公共決策。我們過去二十多年到中環遊行,政府總是官腔回應:「聽到市民的聲音」,但之後一切行禮如儀,等待下一次遊行。無怪我們都覺醒起來(disillusioned),覺得無力。我們的無力,來自於我們無法參與、無法選擇。我們爭取民主的時候,其實背後最深的信念就是,我們要爭取自己做自己的主人、我們希望自己可以控制自己的生活、我們希望過一種集體自治式的公共生活。為了這美好的生活,我們即使來自不同的背景、不同職業、不同信仰,我們有不同的人生計劃,捍衛民主價值卻是我們共同的利益。只有在民主政制之下,我們才有在家的感覺;這感覺對我們而言更加重要,而且是根本地重要,因為我們沒有人想當異鄉人。

    總括今天的發言,我認為民主與自由息息相關。如果你認為自由是香港的核心價值,那就更加有理由追求民主,因為民主不單保障今天我們珍惜的自由,同時民主參與本身就是實踐我們最基本、最重視的政治自由。謝謝大家。

    1) 編註:《政治的道德:從自由主義的觀點看》,2014年由香港中文大學出版社出版。