以心理史觀來看香港和中國未來的發展

現實是在中共的勢力日益上升,香港自由的空間愈來愈小是心理史觀上的必然,由1997到2007是中共錯估了形勢,又或者未夠時間去介入(和拉攏台灣有關?),然後就是全面介入及全面控制,這是它對台灣、香港及國內公民社會發展的回應,它首先肯定它自己一定是遊戲的一部份,然後理所當然要佔優,理所當然地用它的雄厚資源來做後盾。雄厚資源來自專政政治下人民的一切都是國家的資產,可隨意使用;資本主義下人民的反抗力量強一點(私產權),會懂得反抗一點,但政府要挪用永遠不會無辦法。人的天性,誰不想隨心所欲,不過一個後者有明文禁止,而中共為了統治方便而不明文禁止,如此而已。因為專政政治的內部規則,所以介入最後的結果一定是自由空間的壓縮,別忘記中共還有文化上的龐大影響力,任何人或物,不可否認的是只要生存便一定有影響力。

好了,在去政治化的社會,反而是泛政治化,一般人都沒有不參與的權利,不少香港中產階級及年輕人都在發夢,以為中共的勢力不會理他們,然而看看中共的三反五反、文化大革命,你以為這些平民人人都想搞政治麼?在專制下他們為了生存不得不如此而已,你以為他們真的很想搞鬥爭麼?好了,在香港,看看北京奧運中社會一點異議都不容、看看明報歪曲事實來支持中共的李柱銘(詳看林夕網誌)是漢奸說、看看以前的愛國論事件、看看每一次選舉中共如何或明或暗的干預、看看電視中一個個以時人時事為嘲笑的節目都消失、看看港台的前途堪虞、看看ICAC對處理黃玉郎的放慢板、看看陶傑的「斑馬天下」如何一點點被化約成一個旅遊節目、尤其是看看主播天下的西藏特緝!專制容不下任何異議的聲音,每年的六四、七一,中共都相當反感,派人來拍攝參與者的樣貌,你可知它心裏想的是什麼呢?

香港的知識份子要生存不可以冷膜,對抗中共及香港的代言人是生存的唯一出路。你看看陳冠希事件後香港政府的反應是什麼?是想盡辦法保證下次同類事件不再「出亂子」,下次奇拿未出手已經被西方國家以傷害他們在中國的利益為由而被拉,專制的統治不容有意外,這是中共的唯物觀,逆天而行是也!任何自由性格的人,其實都需要反抗中共,而如果他/她是中產,而且聰明、有知識、有創意、有點個人魅力,在互聯網時代下,破壞能力就驚人,他們是中共在香港的心腹大患,它不怕泛民主派因為泛民有完整的理念,行為可以預計,亦一早有對策。以它的本性及心理狀態,最怕的應年輕有知識、甚至有一點個人魅力的自由人如林夕,因他們隨時可以弄一個福佳出來,令香港政府及中共難堪。幽默、創意天生是專制的敵人(你看看「十六不搭喜趣來」的下場),97以前反智是因為殖民地統治需要,如今中共的本質,只是另一個宗主國,當然要反智。要是香港不反智, 天天出一個長毛,香港政府如何以最低的社會成本來統治?

看到電視節目中以時人時事的笑話節目愈來愈少,就是中共專制的陰影已經在香港生根的明證。它要如何控制我們,參看它如何接官西藏,它一定不會直接打壓自由主義者,因為要顧及國際形像,而且易激起反彈;它一定是由資本主義社會的劣恨性開始,一步步腐蝕它不喜歡的人的生存空間,如果可以的話,最好把「疑似異議人仕」一個個以各種名義「放遂」出國。香港自97以後自由不停向後倒退是事實(有數據證明),但因為政治制度被逼向更民主方向發展,結果香港社會的內秏一天比一天嚴重,投訴聖經事件正是其中一例,所以有人以為香港終會有暴動一天(約二年),因為世界自由化,中共反自由,香港夾在中間,文化衝突最烈。香港社會的核心問題在北京,提倡香港獨立者比其他人更需要想辦法反抗中共對香港的統治!

發生大衝突後,如果沒有特殊的外因,根本改變不了香港/中共國的政治生態,結果會如何?秋後算賬是也,中共可以用政治上的權力(代價較高),可以用經濟實力(如果他工作的公司在中共國有生意的話),可以用唯命是從的傳媒來殺人不用刀,可以用發自真心的暴民/憤青(代價最低),香港的知識份子頭腦要清醒一點,因為中國的前途在於你們肯站起來反抗。

如果不作有系統反抗,中國香港遲早一同船毀人亡!
(陳巧文小姐,你看到了沒有?今次香港的網民可以壓得住糞青的「姦殺令」,但再多5年後又如何?在中共國內又如何?如果你真心的想改變中國,還不快快留言加入我們!我不會公開任何有志之仕的資料的!)

泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用?

陳冠希的事件,真是一筆豐富的社會學資源,無論怎樣寫也寫不盡當中的社會/政治/經濟/心理互動。
其中一件我留意到的是香港似乎抱着「泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用」的精神,在情感上認同泛道德主義,但行為細節就依法治精神來做。因此,一般人都認同裸照中的女星是受害者,因為她們被無禮對待,赤身露體任人評頭品足;另外,奇拿的「俠義行為」亦被視為不道德,屬於不問自取,不禮貌地向公衆展示女星的性交照;陳冠希首先是有婚外性行為,後來因承擔責任而令公衆對他的印象改觀;都是屬於的泛道德主義的範圍。
而法治精神對於香港人以言,是該案例的處理手法是否合乎法治的程序,以及法例是否被濫用,因此是不屬於泛道德主義管理的範圍,所以網民上街遊行抗議社會不公義時,泛道德主義陣營連一句話都說不出。可見在泛道德主義者心中,泛道德主義和社會公義是兩碼事,泛道德主義者談的是人與人之間的道德,卻不是統治者行為的道德,似乎和泛道德主義祖宗的儒家思想的以仁德來治國的政治理想相去甚遠。為什麼不可以用泛道德主義來分析香港統治者行為?為什麼不可以同一思想、同一標準來看待陳冠希、他的性伴侶、香港警方、奇拿、英皇娛樂集團及上下載陳冠希性交照的網民?可見泛道德主義只是在情感上生效,在具體執行時卻和法治精神無關,泛道德主義是不是有道德而無法治?網民是不是有法治而無道德?為什麼網民不可以以政府行為不道德號召泛道德主義者?為什麼泛道德主義不可以用法治精神來捍衛網民的合法權益?

奧運去政治化及陳冠希事件

中共常說奧運是體育和政治無關,但是和政治無關的事卻是由中共最高權力代表胡書記接奧運聖火,而和政治無關的奧運卻無端端被中共拖進西藏暴動的政治事件,和政治無關的奧運在香港竟由和政府有密切關係的人仕來傳聖火,和政治無關的奧運在中共國內卻引發中共國內的反西方傳媒運動,和政治無關的奧運在中共國統一發稿,和政治無關的奧運在中共國拒絕中共國境內政治立場和中共南轅北轍,在香港的蘋果日報採訪,和政治無關的奧運在中共國底下成了關押異見份子的理由。奧運如果真的和政治無關,反對奧運怎可能成為異見份子癲覆國家政權的罪證?奧運和政治無關而是體育活動,為什麼反對國足貪腐/吹黑哨的人不見中共以同樣罪名拉他們坐牢?奧運和政治無關只是體育活動,為什麼香港的蘋果日報因為政治立場不同而不准入境採訪呢?
本來去政治化只是專制政體剝弱人們不滿的花招,意思大約是,中共國沒有政治,政治就是鬥爭,因中共國的管理永遠只從民生出發,因此中國無政治,人民無政治權利自是理所當然,你要政治權利就是想爭權,就是想搞政治鬥爭。政治因在泛道德主義的思想下成了負面名詞,從而令人民在本質上討厭政治。既然政治就是醜陃,民主化大可不必,其他地方如台灣的民主化成果亦是不值一文,中國只要經濟發展就可以了,中國沒有政治。
中國沒有政治,膚淺、功利及思想底子簿的香港人亦全盤接受,因為在香港心目中,政治的目的無非經濟發展,既然在現實的環境下中共國不喜歡政治發展,亦和它合拍,來過香港版本的去政治化。問題倒來了,如果政治只關經濟、民生非關意識形態,則每年選民用什麼去決定投哪一位侯選人一票?不用意識形態,如何去理解政府每一項經濟、民生的政策背後的理由?如何去理解各政黨的經濟、民生的政策背後的理由是什麼?如何去理解各政黨在每一次立法會會議投票背後的理由是什麼?如何去理解各政黨的投票行為模式?沒有意識形態,要民主選舉來幹什麼?不如每年來過民意調查,最高分數的議員自動留任?
去政治化不單使明明應由意識形態主導的政策討論欠缺深度,或把意識形態隱藏到所謂客觀的研究的假設背後;亦使香港政府無法明正言順以其意識意態去處理任何可以成為公衆關心的焦點事件,例如在陳冠希事件中,警方忘記了其實每一條法例都是政治產物,背後都有意識形態、心理學及經濟上的考量,其客觀效果亦會在不同的政治、經濟下有分別,警方不敢說出每一項行動背後的整體考量是什麼,有什麼目標,和想達到什麼效果,因為涉及其行為理念即意識形態。禁示色情資訊流通其實是右傾保守主義的表現,警方本能地防些社會的權威及道德價值受到衝擊,隱藏的社會秩序受破壞。很簡單,一字以敝之,就是像中共一樣怕社會大亂。誰知它發覺原來公衆對法例的理解和自己不同,又不可以引用意識形態來支持,結果只好由不懂法律背後的政治考量的人去把法例向對其有政治考慮的行動有利的方向解釋,破壞了法例背後的邏緝。因為法例背後的邏緝正是建基於意識形態,為什麼強姦的罪行和殺人不遑多讓?和女性主義的冒起,和英國是由女皇統治有無關係?法例背後的邏緝不能獨立於意識形態,否則單憑邏緝和事實是無法決定法例的內涵,如罪行的輕重就一定涉及價值觀,價值觀當然是由意識形態決定。香港警方想做的事,正是想單用邏緝和事實來臨時決定法例的內涵,這根本在邏緝上是無可能的事,破壞法例的邏緝性是必然的結果。
中共喜歡用去政治化的「純」法治是因這樣看來較文明,較合乎西方法治文化中程序理性,而且可以讓人民以為會有包青天為他們主持公道。既然政治無公平可言,但最少可以有機會在法例面前人人平等。卻忽略了如果立法的過程沒有人民以民主制度方式來參與,即中國無政治,再公平的執法亦不可以防止政府用法例名正言順剝削人民本來的權利。同理,因為香港政府並不是全由民主政治產生,欠缺正當性,在中共國的專政陰影下亦未必有可能發展正常的民主政治,因此唯有借鏡中共的去政治化下的法治,想用去政治化的法治來建立其正當性。它以為香港人一向對本港的法治有信心,因此任何政治的決定只要借法治的名義來行,所有政府官員包括警方只是執行法例,和政治無關,一定是公平公正的。誰說香港人民眼晴雪亮,一下子就理解到執法的公平公正不一定代表法例本身的公平公正,在不完全的民主制度下,怎可能保證法例一定是對各階級都是公平公正的?法治在去政治化變成缺乏邏緝基礎、自相矛盾的特色,在陳冠希案中表露無遺!

Thoughts On Independence Day

This is an article long overdue, I should have written this 8 years ago.
Independence Day is a movie which is too luck to receive the credit which it doesn’t deserve. The plot is rather simple and straight forward, the logic is childish and it attempted to whitewash the Republican(Old Bush?) overspending scandal. I can’t imagine when I was watching it in California, the audience stand and clipped their hand over 1 minutes. I then wonder if that has anything to do with the eco-political psychology of Californian in the moment? I would appreciate my appreciation of anyone shed light on that.
Psychologically, I guess it re-vitalize the long held American wish to acting as protector of humanity (Therefore earn a reputation for International Police). Such a mindset is also apparent in various other movies like ‘The Core’. White man always act as the leader of the national to be frontier in saving the humanity from extinction, because in this movie USA is hardly possible to save other nations. Therefore it set an example for others to follow, thus in a sense, American courage, optimism, creativity and sense of unity through Jewism has united the world. Notice that American love to see themselves as pioneer of the world in every aspects of humanity: culturally, technologically.
One thought provoking scene is the purpose of invasion for alien. I don’t know enough about insect to see if the alien are resemble Locust. Locust live by ripping of a place’s resource before it move on to another place. Bible use it in reference to the doomsday. It appears that the director want to use it for reference to the Chinese immigrant, while my impression is that the director is laughing at American themselves. Does the director want to kill two birds in one stone?
The Republican-excusing scene refer to the scandal which White House is accused of overcharging the cost of every item in the budget, so a toilet seat cost 10 times of its normal price. This movie try to excuse the old Bush from the alleged corruption charge by a lame lie: Those budget are used secretly to support the research of ‘Alien Weaponry’. I don’t believe US Military would have no money to spend on special projects like this during the Cold War, given psi-warfare research is well-documented. Does the movie plan to appease both Parties at the same time by projecting Clinton’s image into Pro-war Republican?

Game idea of today

Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:17 AM

1. Car racing in city: To hit the bad guy, avoid hit the good guy.

2. A maze that would respond to player’s action. In a sense player has to trigger the change of maze so to complete it.

3. Weather god: Use weather to achieve your purpose, military, economic or other.
Rumor has Tibet has monks that control the weather, could they use that in combination with solider to defeat invader.

4. Iraq: The aftermath.
Depending on how you complete a mission, it would trigger the software to alter your next mission. You have to be wise in order to choose the missions, otherwise you can never reach the ending scenario. The scenarios are like a maze for you to find an exit path.

5. Scandal Fixer: The dark side of US politics. Your mission is either to setup your rivalry party, or fix the potential scandal with resource at hand.

Return of the Repressed in Edison Chen’s scandal

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

(中文版)

It is often amazing to realize how accurate is Freud’s understanding of human psychology. In his book ‘Civilization and Its Discontent’, he talks about the displeasure as the price for modernization of society.
If we could analyze Edison Chen’s scandal, we can analyze the event along the line of Freudian psychology. We all understand that all dictatorship tend to repress the political will of the citizen, therefore it is not surprise that Hong Kong government is doing its best to de-politicalize Hong Kong. The theory is that politics means conflict against the goal of harmony and prosperity confessed by the bless of Beijing, so all government decision is made without regarding the political(partisan) consideration. Then use the remaking of election system to ensure that no political party could dominate the political system. Its disgusting of political party is so great that in 2000 election, political party are prohibited from displaying their name and symbols in the ballot. Moreover, it encourage all media to interpret current event from any perspective that is not containment by local politics. But how is it related to sexual repression?

It strike me as odd that why Hong Kong government would repress both sexuality of its citizen and expression of political will at the same time, while China has only sex as taboo. In Freudian theory, the political energy stream essentially from sexual energy of all citizen. Therefore, China’s decision made sense when they permitted expression of political energy of citizen in sexual arena. Hong Kong government’s policy is thus against the basic human Psychology. It is asking for trouble if Freud’s understanding if accurate. There are few ways to understand that.
It maybe that Hong Kong government’s political power require the support of organized religion, Christian being one of the most powerful force. Moreover, Hong Kong is a cross-breed between East and West, thus West would be best represented by Christian. The natural tendency for Christian to meet China is to find their common ground, which unfortunately that is sexual repression. Pan-Moralist from Beijing see sex as evil because of its relationship with political will, Christian see sex as evil because of doctrine from Bible. Therefore this hypothesis suggested this is just a historical coincidence sexual repression is becoming the norm in Hong Kong.
Another theory is stressing Hong Kong government’s active part in creating an environment to repress both expression of political will and sexuality of the mass. Hong Kong government try to imitate China’s cultural and political style out of both necessity and its influence-by-proximity. In a sense, Hong Kong government try to prove its ‘cultural heritage’ by outdoing China. So China repress only the political will of the people; and Hong Kong has to go one step further than China, because it is afraid that ‘excessive’ sexual energy of the mass would eventually seek outlet in political arena. Therefore, it try curb the root cause of all political-’unrest’: sexual energy. However, it doesn’t have enough resource nor understanding of Freudian psychology to diverted the repressed sexual energy of the mass from sex and politics to creative industry, therefore make the society as a whole a living bomb.

Liken complex in human psyche, this bomb would resolution whatever it sense the opportunity. Aggression against the rich/powerful/famous in the Internet has done much to reduce the explosiveness of this bomb. Therefore, Hong Kong government’s attempt to shutoff this ’safe’ outlet of aggression thus ultimately set off this bomb. Then as we observe in this social movement, the rebellion against sexual repression then going back to the root cause: Repression of political development in Hong Kong. One repressed object thus aligned itself of another repressed object in their quest to be acknowledged.
To Freud, all this is predicted by Freudian Psychology. Hong Kong government, along with China government, is keeping the lid tight on the political will of the mass; thus digging its own grave. Since when the pressure is suddenly drop of in the lid, explosion is what we expected!

從陳冠希案去再思考版權法

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

如果不是陳冠希一案,版權法和知識產權的慨念問題,在香港恐怕一百年也不會有人提起。
版權法和知識產權的法例的原意是:假設只要保護原創人的權利若干年,即剝削一般人的知情權若干年,以確保原創者可以由此賺取一定的利潤。因為收入有國家公器的保障,所以原創者會因此有強烈動機來生產受版權法和知識產權的產品,社會整體因此而得益。
問題當然是這個假設是否合乎事實:即版權法和知識產權的產品生產者的心理學,以及在法例操作的實際過達不達到法例的原意呢?是不是所有喜歡寫文章的人都會因為他/她寫的文章可以有機會去賺錢,所以更努力去寫文章?貝多芬是不是因為作曲可以賺錢就作曲?愛迪生因為發明有專利保障才去發明呢?另外,是不是所有受歡迎歌曲的作曲作詞人都收入豐厚?是不是所有在全港最高收視率的無線電視台為最受歡迎節目的編劇都因此而富有?是不是所有在全港最受歡迎電影的編劇都因此而富有?由此可見,一是法例在本質未必有作用,另外是法例在實質執行時未必達到法例理論上想達到的效果。
拿陳冠希一案來說,他根本不想發表這些相片,法例為什麼要去保障他不雅物品的版權呢?難道香港社會因他的相片而整體得益,所以要豉勵他更努力去為我們拍更類似的相片?剝削一般人對相片的知情權是如何傷害了陳冠希的商業利益呢?我不見香港政府如南韓政府去盡力改善創意工業的發展,想辨法令香港的文化產品風行世界,卻用盡心機去維護一個富家子有傷風化的知識產權!荒天下之大謬!
再想深一層,其實知識產權及版權是借用了實物經濟的「物以罕為貴」的公式來思考,但是一般物理實物生產及複製都要不低的成本,受知識產權及版權保障的產物生產成本說不定,作一流傳萬世的故事可能只是某人一杯雪糕,花重金禮騁的重頭劇卻可能叫好不叫座;此外,受知識產權及版權保障的產物在本質是一個念頭,如何去保護一個思想呢?如何去確保世上其他人都不可以同時有同一個思法呢?而且複製一個受知識產權及版權保障的產物卻是十分便宜,因此不會「物以罕為貴」。而且兩者的市場性質亦不同,戲可以百看不厭,但就算再富人的人都不會買一百部一模一樣的電腦吧?再拿陳冠希來做例子,到底他的不雅相片的「市場價值」是隨着產品的氾濫而增加,還是「物以罕為貴」?他是如何計算他的「經濟損失」呢?

A reflection of the idea of copyright in Edison Chen’s scandal

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

(中文版)

If not Edison Chen’s scandal, very few of us in Hong Kong would care about the issue of copyright. Many have taken for granted that it is self-evident that we can extent the concept of legal regulation of the physical goods to the realm of thought and ideas (Intellectual Property). Only after Edison Chen has made a mocking of the copyright law then we realize how shaky is the foundation of copyright law in Hong Kong.
Follow the analogy in ‘The symbolic meaning of Edison Chen’s case‘, any clever reader would discover that there are something uncanny when using cheese to represent Edison Chen’s indecent photos. Because cheese is a finite physical object that is limited in its nature, while his photos could be replaced easily and cheaply at will. So the analogy break down there. My point being, he has a case when we could use cheese as analogy, his case is broken when the analogy is broken. Therefore,logically, he shouldn’t have any case at all. However, only because the legal system is illogical then he has a case.
The purpose of copyright law is to encourage the production of non-physical product that is beneficial for the progressive of humanity. The theory is that the society would scarify the right to know of many of a limited period, and using the legal resource to protect against their right; while preserve the right of those making these product so they can make a decent living. Thus, the society as a whole benefit from this considerations. However, both the theory and in practice are broken.
The rationale against the theory is very simple: The theory make the wrong assumption when applying the economic consideration of physical goods to non-physical goods, since the reproduction cost of former is much higher than later. Cultural product clearly doesn’t subject to the law of scarcity as physical goods. Instead, the more popular is a song, the higher is its demand; thus any movie producer would rather his movie to be pirated then to be ignored. Moreover, the motivation behind the production of cultural goods are not necessarily money, so giving them cash incentive may not has the intended effect.
Applying the logic back to Edison Chen’s case, certainly the society doesn’t want to reward Edison for indirectly making available these photos. Let alone to protect his right for owning these photos until copyright expired. During the period when these photos is circulating in the Internet, the demand of it increased but not decreased; and businessperson are selling related video like hotcakes.

泛道德惡霸?

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

怪不得凡是有重大醜聞,如陳冠希事件,社會大眾的主流共識一定是我們要提倡道德,淨化身心;然則,暗地裏卻大罵泛道德主義者迂腐及不合時宜。口是心非,最後又回歸道德實用主義,道德不要過份,不道德者也不要太過份,中庸之道最緊要。
拿今次事件為例,泛道德主義者往往在討論熱潮冷卻期間,不知不覺間過了火位,激怒佔社會大多數的「中庸主義者」,結果是泛道德主義在每次爭論最後都成了輸家。我倒以為這是泛道德主義者的「無心之失」,這不是他們在意識層面所能察覺到的,自由派其實應可憐他們,為他們做一做心理分析治療,解除他們的泛道德主義心結。他們今次到底不知不覺期間做錯了什麼呢?
以自由派來論,今次他們在事件差不多告一段落時,有教師卻要對羨慕陳冠希「艷福無邊」的學生進行輔導,或日思想工作,正學生的不道德心態,或以泛道德主義者來論,是不正常的心態。大約泛道德主義者可能有一套非常態道德心理學,以為學生抱着這樣的心態做人,他日必成社會禍端。自由派看來,泛道德主義者如此的態度,比委內瑞拉的查維斯強行解散民間電台、美國打伊拉克來反恐和香港政府的「為私營化而私營化」還霸道!食色性也,人之大欲,是可以隨你說不許羨慕就連想都不可以去想的嗎?我相信孔子的態度亦未有這樣的彊化,而泛道德主義者(如明光社之流)根本是用逃避去解決泛道德主義的最根本困境,相近於基督教神學的「痛苦問題」:為什麼宇宙是由道德管理,不道德之人為何好像可以活得比不道德之人幸福、快樂,為什麼我們還要守道德?守道德的意義在什麼?
泛道德主義不能自圓其說,因此永遠以同一套行為模式來回應所有的社會爭議,而自由派亦因此愈來愈覺得泛道德主義者就是虛偽的化身。

明星裸照門的公衆利益辯解(II)

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

本文是依據最新對奇拿動機的理解來為任何被控上載/發佈不雅相片的人作辯論,奇拿的行為表面上是為打擊明星的聲望,但實則上是為了打擊陳冠希父親—「老左」的政治聲望,藉此打擊親建制派在九月立法會的選情;同時,亦是利用此事件,來令香港警方「親疏有別」的行為充份表露在香港公衆面前,泛民主派的支持者及黨友因而有所警剔,提高對香港警方的戒心,特別是在九月選舉時提防香港警方有所偏袒。
在任何社會/政治學的理論中,都提到民主普選和法制的公平性的關係,在邏緝上,我們很難期望一個只有八百人的選舉委員會,可以有民意上的代表性(如果如此普選就無需要了!)。要證明,最簡單的例子是選舉委員會在民主普選及特首投票中,沒有一次取向是和公衆民意一樣,例如上次梁家傑得100票,而曾陰權有700票;但民意調查中,曾陰權比梁家傑的支持度只領先不到20個百份點,為什麼得票可以相差近六部?不要忘記,梁家傑在民間特首選舉反而是勝出的。因此,選舉委員會不代表民意,反而因為制度漏洞,導政富商可以有選舉前成立大量空公司來間接操縱選舉;而特首本身不受ICAC管轄,因此有誘因而在政策及立法上和有錢操縱特首選舉的富人進行利益交換,而陳冠希的父親正是其中之一。我們有合理的理由去懷疑,香港警方在處理有關富人的案件時,可能有所偏袒,破壞法律的公平性,是為重大公衆利益。
另外,今次處理陳冠希的手法,尤其是先放主犯離港一月,才再收集證據,保證陳冠希一定有足夠時間毀滅證據,以及警方一定不可能成功起訴陳冠希任何罪行。反而把重心放在發佈的網民上,目的明顯不是為查出真相(例如不追究英皇集團發虛假聲明之責,又曾表明真相並不重要),只是要保護陳冠希本人的聲譽。否則為什麼要未曾經淫審處評審所有不雅相片就要大規模搬捕網民,製做白色恐佈,今天仍在控告網民上載不雅相片?除了警方不惜一切而保護陳冠希及其家人的聲譽外,沒有更合理的解釋。
為什麼要不惜一切保護陳冠希及其家人的聲譽呢?陳冠希的父親是老左,和民建聯等親建制政黨有密切關係,而陳冠希及其一衆性伴侶,如阿嬌,都是明顯的親建制派政黨支持者,曾支持葉劉—泛民主派的眼中針在港島區競選,又拍多套政府的宣傳片。如果公開的支持者的醜事被揭發,連帶所支持的親建制派政黨聲譽亦有一定的損害,影響它們在九月立法會選舉的選情。因此,特首為了維持其支持者,不得不去做點事去保護他們的利益。