世澤兄已經幫我答了絕大部份《選戰後感 2》的問題。我只想簡單回應。
我對政治的觀察，可沒有世澤兄那麼長，我亦沒有他那樣埋身政治。由九八年立法選舉至今，包括區會選舉，也有數次協助朋友競選的經驗。我見證不同選區，泛民一張又一張的選票，流失給對手之上，又因不同的立場，兄弟之間分道揚鑣，自己人打自己人，最後漁人得利。
我也見證過不少自稱民主支持者的混水摸魚投機之輩，今天是甲政黨的黨員，明天是乙政黨的代表，後天便已經是丙政黨的骨幹。我見證過有質素的棟樑意興闌珊，但也有不學無術之徒濫竽充數。只不過我進入醫學院後，選擇了我的專業繼續發展。但任何有十年以上支持民主派經驗的朋友都會認同，泛民其實是由盛轉衰。
贏了為什麼不可以找理由批評？那你請不要批評民建聯了。大大小小傳媒以及論者，甚至連參選者都認同，今次泛民有十九席，其實實屬僥倖，如果不是自由黨大敗，泛民至少會喪失兩至三席。我引數據時已經非常清楚指出，泛民在今次選擇其實是失票的，但民建聯以及保皇派，就算在投票率跌百分之十時，仍能在不同選區能夠成功增加票源。
泛民幾時比董建華曾蔭權變得更為神聖，連批評都不可以接受？泛民選戰前協調差劣，你看不少博客為如何配票憂心不已，難道這已經不可以被支持者批評？
我不是早已說過，為什麼作為關心民主的中產，我不支持張超雄的原因嗎？為什麼一個標榜中產的政黨，會得不到中產的支持？難道新界西真的連三萬五千張中差票也沒有嗎？定位問題是張超雄的死穴，如果他加入社民連，我會覺得他會更為心口相稱。這是INTERGRITY的問題。毛孟靜的問題就更嚴重，選民看到立法會可以少一個毛孟靜，卻不可以少一個黃毓民，這難道還不夠嗎？
現在公民黨和社民連勢力水火，但老實說，張超雄的風格和路線更似社民連，而毛孟靜和田北辰一樣，雷聲大雨點小，根據不能夠讓選民知道他們的定位何在。既然如此，那有不敗之理？
公民黨有大量律師、學者和專業人士支持，數年前更有能力競選特首，但今次選舉失利其支持者就以「成立時間短」來為她護短；一個永遠不願面對問題的群體，是沒有出色的群體。公民黨的支持者，幾時變得那麼沒有出色？你沒有當初「求變」的雄志嗎？
批評時一定要給一實質建議，這是董建華當年面對泛對派批評的回應。張超雄應該檢討今次假冒中產的過失，毛孟靜也應反省自己的「高貴」為什麼成為選民唾棄的原因。張超雄的政治光譜其實更像社民連，他和公民黨走在一起，就如勞永樂參加社民連，根本就是錯配。而毛孟靜輸了今次選舉後，對九西還什會有什麼承擔，大家都很想知道。
李華明、陳偉業、涂謹申、張文光、李永達和劉慧卿，你們亦應開始考慮接班人的問題。下次選舉時，你們就會變成擔任議員二十年的老人議員，是時候讓位給新人了。
16個回應
九月 12, 2008 at 1:04 am
先說數點事實:
(１）這次新界西的結果，無論怎樣配票，保皇黨也不能保送周梁入局，而不犧牲王國興或張學明的．
（２）同樣，這次香港島左派配票完全發神經，把葉劉及民建聯的票平均分配，最佳分配應是把葉劉推高至85000票，而民建聯只保留35000票左右（那是唯一辦法，因為大部份投給葉劉的中產保守票是不受配票操控的），這樣余若薇才會落敗．但由於葉劉及民建聯在港島的票源各有基本盤，所以這樣理想的配票連左派也是有心無力的．總之以這次公民黨，民主黨及何秀蘭的分配，余若薇是沒有敗理的．
（３）田北俊卻的確是左派內鬨的犧牲品．劉慧卿在正常情況下是應該輸掉這次選舉的．
所以即使這次左派配票較得宜，泛民損失的只是新東的一席．
再評肥醫生數個觀點：
（１）同意對張超雄及公民黨的觀察及批評；
（２）不同意毛孟靜是因為”高貴”的形象落敗．她是因為在電視辯論時表現差勁而敗的．若然她能出色地化解毓民對其黨參加功能組別的攻擊，她不會輸掉這麼多票數．說實話我對她差勁的表現實在驚訝．
（３）肥醫生多篇關於選舉的文章，給我的感覺是視立法會為一個擴大的區議會．所以你會問毛孟靜，敗選後對九西會有甚麼承擔．這或許是大多數香港人投票的考慮，但我卻認為這是一個惡劣的風氣．四年前的長毛及黃毓民選前在選區內有甚麼承擔呢？他們的勝選是因為政治論述，定位及辯論表現出色，並非因為對區內的承擔．即使毛孟靜敗選後沒有所謂承擔，若然她能在其他方面下功夫，她仍然有再次勝選的機會．
（４）肥醫生似乎認為新人是泛民重生的不二法門．對不起，這是一個myth．毓民及長毛能使民主運動注入新動力，不是因為他們新，而是因為他們掂．新人若然不掂，把他抶起，也是阿斗．為新而新是沒有甚麼意義的．
（５）肥醫生對資深議員讓位予新人頗見激賞，這我也是不明．像張賢登，甘乃威，胡志偉（較好）的演辯及論述質素，不客氣點說，看不到有甚麼前景．這樣的人有甚麼好讓呢？至於其他有能之士，若然民主黨大佬文化太盛，那便出來赤手空拳吧．從政從來都要靠自己earn成果回來的．世界及泛民並不欠你一個立法會席位的．所以我欣賞黎志強，雖然他這樣的質地，還是做回區議員算吧．
（６）肥醫生似乎還未答我劉慧卿有甚麼令你對她不滿．我說過，她有她的缺點，但以她多年的表現，整個民主黨退下也還輪不到她要退出．涂謹申仍然年輕，也不需要退．至於其他議員，也沒有所謂要培養接班人的責任．他們要培養是他們的問題，但民主運動沒有新血，只能怪自己年輕一代沒有有能者願意從政，不能怪在任者不給機會．
大放厥詞了．見諒．
九月 12, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thanks to dr stardust and dr fat. I am sure I cannot analyse the situation so well. I won’t be able to tell, given most readers would not have any experience in this kin dof movement. well done!
It would be good if any of you can help in the running of HKMA or HKAM or HKDU or any of the big Colleges. or comments on the health reform.
I would ask for you guys help if I was dr Leung KL.
九月 12, 2008 at 9:50 am
回阿C 2.3段：《加治隆介之議》裡邊有幾次眾議院選舉，加治隆介跟其他人爭論的其中一點，就是地區直選議員要投放多少予所屬地區的選民；加治並不妥協，堅持國先行，地區修橋補路的事沒做多少。雖幾次堅持理念後當選均是小說言，但若過度重視回饋選民，最極端的結果可能會是梁安琪對區議員的理解——自己選區的事才可以理才應該理，一離開選區嘛，對不起，不能評論。
反而說「地區工作」的話，想到的是另一種進路，就是營造全港或全國的口碑，再推動選區的選民支持，也就是以另一種日常的根抓住選民。粗略的說，長毛和黃毓民憑此勝，然龐愛蘭、張超雄和毛孟靜，甚至柳玉成蕭思江，都未能憑知名度或「知名度」贏出。
九月 12, 2008 at 12:23 pm
another doctor 你弄錯了．我不是星屑醫生呢！我只是他的老死．
我早知道我這樣沽名釣譽早晚會出事的．只是我在星屑那邊留言多，和肥醫生又曾有點交流，所以用這個網名好像會使肥醫生有點概念吧．現在我用回自己的朵－－４９仔．
星屑醫生選舉應沒我這樣熟（嘩往自己臉上貼金），但他的分析能力及廣濶知識卻是同儕中數一數二的．找他為醫學界做點事吧．其實他的演講及辯論能力更是高超呢，也許他將來可以從政，和肥醫生雙劍合璧呢？（哈哈）
說回選舉，肥力所說到地區與國的問題，其實是世界上每一個從政人的問題．個人認為與選區劃分及選舉制度有極大關係的．譬如英國的下議院選舉，是採用小選區單議席單票制的．這樣的制度下，候選人無可奈何下也是要做點地區功作來吸引選民的．不過由於英國行民主已久，所以選民多能分辨市議會及國會選舉的不同的．
香港的問題是，又於區議會沒有實權，所以選民還是希望有立法權的立法會議員為他們做點事．當然選民敎育也是一個問題．還有就是選區劃分的問題．現在的選區還是太小了．再加上這個扮比例代表制其實十足是多議席單票制的情況下，只要穩住大選區內的一個小區的票已經足夠當選了．這樣的情況在新界西是最明顯的．
又大放厥詞了．就此打住吧．
九月 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Sorry, a mistake, so it is 49 chai.
Well done, all you guys have such analytic power, congratulations. What you have written can be your own job reference.
I have been to many meetings (of some minor importance), most office bearers have stuffed minds and congested circuit.
–即使毛孟靜敗選後沒有所謂承擔，若然她能在其他方面下功夫，她仍然有再次勝選的機會．– like dr lo wing lok, he is working hard. We’ll see whether dr kowk kk, prof ho can do the same or not, that is what committment should be.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is 《加治隆介之議》? sounds like some japanese science fiction or cartoon to me.
九月 12, 2008 at 4:24 pm
立法會選舉「區議會」化，主要原因是區議會既無權，而本來有權的市政局又被殺掉。於是所有訴求就唯有提升到立法會了。
(幸好，還沒見到有立法會議員自稱「成功爭取街口綠燈延長3秒」)
另一問題是選舉制度，如果真的想以比例代表制反映政黨支持度，其實應該全港一起選(只得一選區)。以香港那麼小的地方，還要分區，根本只是為了想營造立法會長期分裂的局面，以利行政霸道。
(如果全港一區，隨時有某黨可以擁有過半數席位，以立法權牽制政府。不要說泛民，就是民建聯，中央亦不願如此。控制一個特首，不比控制一萬民建聯黨員容易﹖中央根本誰都不信。)
九月 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Let me further defend for Civic Party.
1. I agree that LSD performs well in the election. In particular, yukman’s performance is impressive. But bear in mind that both Long Hair and Chan Wai Yip are incumbent. The votes of Long Hair drops from around 60,000 in 2004 to 45,000 in 2008, and Chan remains the 8th in his region. Comparatively, Civic Party also gains one more seat in direct election, 3 -> 4. I doubt if you can use the good performance of LSD to justify the weak performance of CP.
2. I agree Ronny and Mandy made mistakes in their speech/action in the election, but I will regard them more as one-off mistakes. I don’t think joining the election of functional constituencies is a problem, but CP/Ronney should be wiser when dealing with those issues in election time. The failure of Mandy is more to do with her ability and the strong competitors. Well, maybe CP should put more emphasis on collective party discipline but this is not the only problem of CP, but also of DP, LP, Frontier. The fact is that it’s difficult to enforce party discipline when you encounter problem of survival or real conflict of interests in the context of Hong Kong politics, unless you get some Grandpa which possesses real authority over you and can give you some other interests for exchange.
3. I agree that Cheung Chiu Hung has a problem to position himself, but this is his problem in the election. Well, you can blame CP for him, but is he a major problem of CP? Actually and personally, I don’t think a middle class caring about minority interest invoke any integrity problem, but this stance obviously doesn’t particularly appeal to general middle-class. Also, his courage to move from election of functional constituency to direct election should be recognized. In the end, Cheung comes 9th and gets around 28,000. Comparing to DP Ho Chun Yan’s 36,500 and LP Selina Chow’s 21,500, is it really that bad? After all, I do agree that Cheung should be more broad-minded to accept his failure instead of blaming others.
4. Ok, Claudia Mo, 17,000 votes. Comparating, James To gets 30,000 and Tien gets 13,000, I think her result is still acceptable. The reasons for her failure is lack of local work, poor election preparation and relatively weak debate skill comparing to yukman. I wont doubt Mo’s commitment to Kwoloon West. Unlike Tiem who suddenly junp in this region, Mo has been PIC of CP’s KW Division. Probably she should do more and commit more in the future.
5. Now come to the overall position of CP. CP does not position inself as a middle-class party. Although the image of CP is professional and elite, their actual stance of policies is quite “left”. At least, CP is left to DP, for example, they support minimum wage and fair competition ordinance. That’s why they can accept Cheung, and maybe the presence of Cheung also reinforces their relative left stance. Also, unlike LSD who just focus on appealing to a particuly class/group of people, CP wants to position themselves as a party appealing to a wider spectrum of people. This do trigger the problem of vague position and CP doesn’t handle it well. But do we want all the parties just appealing to a particular class in society, like LSD? This will result in greater social cleavages. We need some bigger party which can integrate people together. This is difficult and hopefully CP can do better next time.
6. Lack of community work is one major real reasons for the failure of CP in this election. CP’s local network is weak. and they haven’t put enough effort on it. But this is difficult. Where do people, network, money and resources come for CP? Also, unlike other parties, CP is young and many local communities have been pre-occupied by the influence of other parties. You can imagine the difficulties.
7. Overall, CP is not that bad. There are not that many people in HK who are willing to commit to democratic movement. I still respect them. Besides what is mentioned, there are some more rooms for CP’s improvement. Some leaders of CP should considering devoting more time to their political work as full-time politicans and they should reduce their elitism and be more inclusive and open to other people or groups who supports democracy.
九月 12, 2008 at 10:37 pm
lwh:
It is glad to see your response as it clarified the issue. At this moment we have the consensus that CP have rooms of improvement, and that’s the most important goal of the discussion. I voted for CP in this election, and my criticisms (as well as most criticisms in this blog) were not hate-speeches. I am looking forward to a better CP which could ensure the survival of the democratic movement.
We have great expectations on CP, while as I know CP also expected a lot on themselves. Therefore I would not use Frontier or DP as reference groups, as they were known to be problematic. One of the major reason why voters would support CP is that many people who supported democracy were frustrated by the failure of DP or Frontier. They want an alternative which would free from these problem, and this was also the promise and expectation of CP. That’s why I would set a higher standard for CP.
Although I may not agree with all of your responses, I would agree that you could acknowledge the problem and did have your points. Being supporter of democracy, I would say that criticisms and debates are beneficial. The only thing that I would totally disagree is your view on the stand of CP. You said that CP aimed to be the all-dimensional party, as being a party for a single social class would only cause confrontations. I could not agree with this argument, and I believed that this all-dimensional approach created problems, rather than solving problem that it intended to solve.
One of the reason is that the current electoral system created disadvantages for large and all-dimensional parties. Small parties with solid support from a relatively narrow base were benefited from the system. Probably an all-dimensional party would be more ideal, but it simply not a viable option under the current system.
The contradictory demands from different class would worsen the problem. While the lower class would demand welfarist and redistribution policies, the middles class would like to have lower tax and therefore a more minimalist government. The position of an all-dimensional would likely to be a compromised one. The platform of this party would become less convincing if there are other parties which are single-class orientated.
I believed that some of the conflicts in the election compaign are caused by the all-dimensional approach. While CP cannot convince the lower class that it is their party, CP would became easy targets and would being accused as hypocrites. While the all-dimensional approach aimed at reducing class conflicts, it failed to do so. Class conflicts were not annhilated while a new conflict between those claimed to be honest and those being accused as liars began.
I am not a neo-classical economist but I believed that David Ricardo have a point. CP should turn right and became a middle class orientated party. CP could play the role as conservative democrats well. Although they may lost my vote as I am a left-centrist, I would still welcome their right-turn as it would ensure a wider support of the whole democratic camp. For me that is the most important.
Anyway, let me stop my response here. Sorry for my terrible English which is comparable to those of our honorable new legislator Gary Chan, as my changyi typing skill is poor.
九月 12, 2008 at 10:38 pm
BTW, although Lam Kay could be weird sometimes, he did have a point in this post:
http://plastichk.blogspot.com/2008/09/blog-post_10.html
九月 13, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I agree this election proves that CP’s inter-class position doesn’t work. This election method favors the survival of small party and it’s more realistic for a party to be clear and specific on its socio-economic position and target at a particular social class. But I doubt if CP will be willing to shift to a clear center-right position. Firstly, a sudden change of position will make them appear inconsistent and really draw criticism of integrity. Also, I don’t know what’s on those barristers’ mind, but I guess some leaders of CP, like those professors, are true believers in center-left position. Political belief is often what drive people to commit to politics. If it’s true, it’s their bottom line. A center-right positoon will also put CP a disadvantage postion in competition with LSD to recruit young supporters. Left-inclined young people have a higher chance to take part in politics because they want to “change” society. Right-inclined people often stick to their belief and devote to make money in free market. Actaully the existence position of CP is still quite safe as they still manage to get 4 seats in direct election. They won’t get much more seats even they change to center-right, but just gives LSD larger room to grow.
We need to think ahead and prepare for the possible universal suffrage in 2020. A branch of small parties is not constructive to Hong Kong politics. We also need a more united democratic force to resist the establishment force. Actually in years to come I think the pro-establishment force will actively establish a strong center-right party or quasi-party. DAB is strong and they are center-left. They may grow gradually over the next few years but you can’t expect much more from them. They won’t get over 50% of vote and you can depend on people like Hacken Chan to govern Hong Kong. The establishment needs a strong and high-quality third party so that together with DAB they can still be the majority in legislature in the era of universal suffrage. This third party need to be much more than LP. I think senior civil servants will be important constituents of this party. Imagine. If senior government officials like YipLau but without the burden of YipLau go to run the election of legislature, will they get a chance to win? We need a stronger and more united democratic force to resist the establishment, otherwise we have a high chance to be “Singaporised” even we have universal suffrage in the future.
九月 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm
好，又等我在《選戰後感４》回應…不過這一星期事忙，太多變化，太多衝擊…
九月 15, 2008 at 9:59 am
Wonder whether Prof Ho, KKK , LKL or Yeung CF heard of this as well?
弘兼憲史的政治最前線（加治隆介之議），描述加治隆介在父親及哥哥因不明原因而車禍身亡的突發事件，讓他繼承了父親的政治資源，投身競選參議員的選戰。他參選的地區是在農業城市，但卻因為父親手記裡的一段話：「人類最終的發展目標並不是無止盡的發展，而是人類之間能以最接近平等的方式和平共存。同樣的，政治家的最終目標亦即『全人類的幸福』 … 此等放眼世界的胸懷，正是我等政治家理應專心致志之最大課題。」讓他一直主張「地方事務交給地方議員，國家政務交給國會議員…..
Such high level of cartoon script, the local one are still indulging in fist fighting graphic or biological satisfaction.
九月 16, 2008 at 5:05 pm
………………贏了為什麼不可以找理由批評？那你請不要批評民建聯了。大大小小傳媒以及論者，甚至連參選者都認同，今次泛民有十九席，其實實屬僥倖，如果不是自由黨大敗，泛民至少會喪失兩至三席。……………
政治是成王敗寇,贏了就是贏了,沒有什麼僥倖,沒有什麼如果的, 事後批評,等於馬後炮,乜都你講0西啦!
輸左就可以事後批評,例如你可以批評自由黨點解全軍覆沒,咁先0岩邏輯
九月 16, 2008 at 7:24 pm
ｋｋ：贏左就唔可以批評？幾時泛民的支持者變得如此無理由？就算是泛民自己都說要進行內部檢討。何況我們批評泛民，已經不是今時今日的事。泛民贏了議席，但輸了選票，是鐵一樣的事實。只會沉醉在贏到議席，而不去問昔日的支持者為何感到失望，是政黨走向未路之始。
有真正落手幫忙選舉的朋友就會知道，重點問題不止於議席的得與失，而是每個選區投票支持各派的人數，這關乎整個選區的政治生態改變。
批評的目的是改進步。泛民如果有一天，變得比政府更怕批評，那泛民就會變成另一個納粹；如果泛民的支持者害怕別人批評泛民，那怕他們只會是不折不扣另一個保皇黨。
九月 17, 2008 at 3:10 pm
「政治是成王敗寇」，算是了；「贏了就（只）是贏了」，同意——如果要堅拒在「贏」之前加上「大」、「小」、「險」、「狂」等等等等的形容詞的話。
然而問題是，現在「寇」翻身的機會比以前多，「王」下馬的機會也比以前多。以前確多有爭權一敗則亡的故事，現在至少此地好像文明多了，頂多引退歸隱，也不少人待機再起。是故，勝後開開香檳一時抒懷無大礙，但最功利的說來，要自己繼續「成王」下去，對手敵人異己「港賊」繼續當他她的「敗寇」，自己最好還是好好準備，留長補短，自思以外聽人言。
或者肥榮並不服「贏者不得批評，敗者方可、該可批評」的邏輯，或者沒湊興（沒機會？）來祝祝酒，只是一貫的發發危言，故教人看不下去了。
九月 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm
o岩邏輯0既分析例子係:
1. 民x聯強勢參選, 阿爺谷起本地經濟,
奧運攪起氣氛,背後動員大量人力物力助選,
………..一切有利因素下,仍得不到
立會2/3大多數議席,通過重大議案
民x聯強勢敗! 可以分析
2. 新東泛民弱勢,民x聯票王十幾萬票風光,
結果議席是五對二
泛民弱勢勝! 可以分析
咁先係根據事實,作理論分析, 唔係以理論推出
不附事實的結論, 反指事實係由於僥倖, 好彩!