毓民的火氣轉成英文會係點?

The League of Social Democrats:
Our Response to Ms. Anson Chan's Announcement

On October 19th, Ms. Anson Chan has deliberately sent a press release from abroad, bestowing vehement criticism upon the act of political struggle and protest carried out by the 3 legislators of our League. In deepest regret to her criticism we propound the following responses:

1) The elderly have pleaded for an increase of the non-means-tested `fruit money’or old age allowance for years, and as early as the era of Mr. Tung Chee Wah, the government has already pledged to do so. However, on Oct. 15, 2008, after eight years of shameful & unapologized procrastination, the Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang has delivered a policy address indifferent to the public plight, which brought immediate disappointment to the common elderly poor on the `fruit money’. Shame on Donald Tsang in his dealing with the elderly! It has all conscientious people enraged beyond imagination, rousing all to rebuke of the cold-bloodedness of this government. Our 3 legislators carried out actions of political struggle and protest within the Legco, criticizing Donald’s subversive misdemeanor, to ventilate the grievance of the common folk and to struggle for the rightful benefit of the elderly. This also signify that the League of Social Democrats have formally inaugurated the political struggle we have promised during the election.

2) Ever since the handover, there has not been an inch of progress in democracy, and the Legco degenerates into an odious pond of dead water, with the pro-establishment gang showing monstrous face and egregious behaviour. The pan-Democrats, apprehensive of slander and smear, pathetically lack the courage to thrust the unjust system. Undaunted by the power that be, our 3 legislators will continue to challenge council meeting rules and by-laws to carry on political struggle inside. This is the expectation and mandate that we received from the electorate, and will surely invite sharp railings and even slandering and intimidation from the opportunist political brokers, the flattering columnists, and the totalitarians and their protégés. As for the pan-Democrats camp, there are also some who would not agree to our struggle inside the Legco.

Ms. Anson Chan has all along served the political absolutism before and after the handover, and her sudden democratic turn has bewitched Hong Kong people as all can see. Now this high profile rebuke our 3 legislators’ legitimate political struggle within the Legco is tantamount to an oppression of fight for justice, and an obvious obscurantism towards the SAR government’s gracelessness towards the plight of the elderly, very much in the manner that she handled the Kwok Ah Lui incident. Does she as an elderly herself not feeling any sense of guilt or shame?

The League of Social Democrats is a clear-cut opposition and has already announced of our intention to carry out political struggle inside and beyond the Legco. We have propounded “No struggle, no change” as our election motto. We have broadened the political spectrum, and have garnered 10% of the vote. The unreasonable reproach from Ms. Anson Chan is a snobbish and insolent despise of the will of 10% of the electorate. Her appeal for “the Legco chairman and all the Legco councilors regardless of party affiliations to refuse such actions unanimously” would just be an act of empty toiling and end up in no avail.

Ms. Anson Chan’s deeming of political struggle “pretext for those who have all along declare that Hong Kong people are not ready for universal suffrage” is a blown up exaggeration of a prejudice to mislead the mass. It betrays her ignorance and stupidity, and her ill intention in relegating responsibility for the backtracking of Hong Kong’s democracy on the party that most clearly fight for democracy, namely, the League of Social Democrats. This is, in short, a shameless act. Let us propound to Ms Chan solemnly: To be praised by those in power is the shame of an opposition. To be treated contrarily is, paradoxically, our glory.

The League of Social Democrats

Do not be mismatched (unequally yoked) with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

看完這邊箱所謂香港良心的聲名隕歿,再來一篇被一評論人指為被毓民出賣的民主教父看其怎樣看事件:

[李柱銘： 10月21日 明報]

○四年十月，梁國雄（長毛）首次晉身議會，其別具一格的議政作風，惹來社會非議。當時，筆者曾撰文指出，立法會內有不少規範、掣肘，使立法會難以監察政府施政，故不排除立法會將有更多長毛出現。
四年後新一屆立法會，長毛的「戰友」果真增加了。上周三，特首曾蔭權發表施政報告期間，社民連三位議員先後以行動宣示不滿，該黨主席黃毓民更把三隻香蕉擲向特首站立的主席台前。相信有不少市民不認同他們表達意見的方式，但筆者卻非常明白，何以他們要這樣做，因我亦曾在同一位置多年，親嘗那強烈的無奈感。
多份批評黃毓民等人的報道，皆提及台灣立法院的粗暴議會文化。筆者約在二十年前，曾與台灣打罵議政的始祖前立委朱高正在港會面，他告訴我，他在立法院內搶咪，是由於根據編配，立委每年只可發言一次。理解其原委後，我說：「如果立法局都是每年只可發言一次，那我都可能會去搶咪了！」不合理的限制，迫使議員以非一般方法表達意見，台灣、香港都一樣。
《基本法》對議員提案範圍的限制，及分組點票機制的掣肘，再加上立法會的不民主組成，永遠都屬少數的民主派議員，在議會內可謂舉步維艱，無法代表民意，監察政府，改善施政。議員面對此困局，很自然會感無奈和政治無力，有的便因而採取激烈行動，雖不足以打破困局，但起碼能喚起社會對問題的關注。
假如特區推行民主，獲多數市民支持的民主派議員，能夠取得與支持度相應之議席的話，那議員就毋須出「蕉」了！