Generation 40s – 四十世代

Good articles for buddies


Leave a comment

愈要教 愈反感

Hong Kong Economic Journal
A14 | 時事評論 | 政局筆記 | By 江麗芬 |
2012-07-21

跟一位只談政治的學者提起國民教育,他說起當年受教於殖民地年代,港英政府就是刻意不讓學生談政治,法例也嚴格限制老師把任何政治話題或政治性物品帶入校園;可是,回歸以後的特區政府,卻刻意要學生來談政治來,先有通識教育,現有國民教育。

受過殖民地教育的人也該會知道,港英年代的教育從來都不談什麼愛黨、愛國、愛政府這些形而上之事,一切像培訓工兵般,只求實用。於是,我們既沒有在課堂上被要求學生崇洋、愛英女皇,也沒有在教材上滲透多少反共思想。

至於說到該是國民教育一部分的中國歷史,遠至夏、商、周朝代至明、清朝代,到民國歷史,大家大可照讀,只是一到了1949 年以後的近代歷史,幾近行人止步,要讀麼?便要修讀西史,把近代中國史「宏觀」地與世界歷史結合一併念。

港英年代刻意在課堂上不讓大家談政治,甚至曾一度透過《教育條例》禁止學校內懸掛帶有政治性的旗幟,連課本、教材都有嚴格限制。說到底,這與處理中國歷史科的目的同出一轍,就是以防香港人對一河之隔的中國熱愛,而敵視、挑戰殖民地政府的權威。

於是,在殖民地年代,我們常常聽到的是「政治冷感」這四個字,大家不許政治頭腦發熱。可是,這是否真的能阻止香港人愛國嗎?卻又未必。看過往香港人對於內地發生的大事,每每抱着惻隱之心,並在有需要時施以援手。像1989 年的六四前後,香港人對內地學生運動的支援和關注是為一例,而後的1991 年華東水災,香港人義不容辭捐款予內地災民,可見國家有難、香港一呼百應。那血濃於水之情,不是愛國又會是什麼來!

只是,香港人的愛國,從來都不是內地所想所要的那一套。

就是不相信

近幾個星期,國民教育的討論鬧得沸沸揚揚,就連帶平日把子女交託學校而後專注職場搏殺的家長也站起來,要喝停國民教育。他們擔心國民教育說穿了其實不過是一場只許歌功頌德、不許是其是、非其非的「洗腦教育」。

國民教育是否淪為「洗腦教育」?根據教育局的計劃,課程於9 月新學年才正式推行,官員亦不斷強調學校老師有權自選教材,說得有多寬鬆、有多自由。可是,對於這一個未來式的課程,教師與家長還是有揮之不去的憂慮。

歸根究底,是因為大家多多少少對於內地的國情還有一點認知,當大家看到艾未未、李旺陽、陳光誠等等個案,見到內地說真話隨時便身陷牢籠、甚至要賠上性命,誰會真心相信在一國之下的國民教育會容許學生有多少批判。

先天不信任,已令大家對國民教育的後天信心不足,縱使在兩制之下,有人還會疑中留情:就看香港的教育官員如何做出一個可以是其是、非其非的國民教育來。可是,打開教育局今年4 月出版的〈國民教育課程指引〉,強調的學習目標,通篇都是什麼「建立」、「鞏固」國民身份認同,給予的延伸學習內容舉隅,就如要認識國家主席、國務院總理等國家領導人作出「努力和貢獻,以及面對的困難和挑戰」等等,如此種種,令人耳畔恍惚響起了「東方紅、太陽升……」。

而後,以納稅人辛苦掙回來的白花花公帑資助出版的《中國模式—國情專題教學手冊》被揭出來,內裏像內地政府文宣多於教材的資料,此時音樂又再響起:「中國出了個毛澤東……」。

新任教育局局長吳克儉雖然要跟這份惹火的《手冊》來一個切割,在秘密訪京跟內地教育部官員見過面以後,公開說《手冊》在3 月份推出,較教育局的指引還要早;言下之意,它與政府無關啊!可是,《手冊》的資金既是從政府撥過來,又怎能完全切割掉?

再者,再看各個地區資助的國民教育活動以至國情資料,其實跟《手冊》類同,脫不掉「正面」看內地國情的「歌功頌德」樊籬,政府事後怎補鑊、怎來切割,也難讓社會有信心日後推行的國民教育不會是洗腦教育!

兩種愛國態度

這麼多年來,不時都會聽到消息指北京不滿香港回歸而人心仍然未回歸。於是,看到了國家主席胡錦濤在回歸十周年訪港之時,強調要重視對青少年進行國民教育,加強香港和內地青少年的交流, 「使香港同胞愛國愛港的光榮傳統薪火相傳。

」去年,港澳辦主任王光亞訪問香港時也說過,要讓香港人對內地「歷史、文化和對中國國情基本情況的了解,這樣才能更深地體會到1997 年以後,香港回歸了,身為一個中國人(的感受)」。國民教育在中央眼中,有如必須推行的一課。

如果國民教育是一個中性代號,旨在要讓學生更深入認識國家、了解國家,大抵香港沒多少人會反對。可是,香港人的愛國,好像跟內地所說的永遠有着鴻溝。

內地的愛國就像是一條單程路,只許讚、不許彈。但站在香港人而言,愛國不是盲目的,還有批判,看六四燭光晚會,大家時唱《我的中國心》、《勇敢中國人》,時叫「平反六四」口號,可見香港人的愛國是絕對責之切。只是這一切都並不是內地的愛國一套來。

如今香港官僚卻說要推行國民教育來,還加上一位余老師,在大庭廣眾跟學生仔辯論國民教育、面紅耳熱拍枱罵人而後再露出那輕蔑的一笑。國民教育未能令人信服,只怕愈推愈惹人反感。

江麗芬

Advertisements


Leave a comment

University hopefuls must go beyond exam scores

South China Morning Post
2012-08-23
Opinion

Dou Wenyu says that, increasingly, university applicants must go beyond exam scores and learn to distinguish themselves in interviews by demonstrating critical thinking

The “3+3+4” education reform (three years of junior secondary, three years of senior secondary and four years at university) has undoubtedly been the most talked-about issue related to the “two-track” academic year.

It is plain to me and my colleagues that students are mainly worried about their academic results when it comes time to apply to university, sparked in large part by their frustration at the lack of clarity in admissions requirements.

Many who have taken the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education examination believe that their results are their only bargaining chips at application time.

Although they might know that colleges are looking for all-rounders, the process, from their perspective, remains largely unchanged. What they do not understand is that the admissions requirements have become more comprehensive for the four-year degree curriculum.

Whole-person development is our main criterion at the College of Business, where our key graduate degree is the Bachelor of Business Administration.

This comprehensive approach has enabled us to look not only at students’ academic results, but also at their attitudes towards education and their spontaneity, through interviews.

During our large-scale interviews held early last month, we met more than 10,000 students over the course of eight days. We found the “human touch” and face-to-face approach yields the most promising candidates and, eventually, we believe, the best industry professionals.

When collecting feedback from students to improve the process, we learned that the approach put them at ease. Many said they valued the group discussion about current events in particular as a more realistic approach in assessing their analytical skills than an exam paper.

As for the information talk before the interview, it allowed prospective students to meet the professors and better inform themselves about our Bachelor of Business Administration programme before looking again at their application choices.

The admission interview is a means not only for the college to observe the applicants, but also an opportunity for each applicant to present himself or herself as a unique individual rather than simply an application number.

Most applicants agreed that a more diversified process that prompts them to demonstrate their ability to think critically allows them to show their true talents and uniqueness – characteristics that do not show up in test results.

We foresee that this “human-based” assessment criterion will undoubtedly be useful, as a complement to exam scores.

Textbook-based knowledge is the basic element to survive in this competitive world, but it is becoming more apparent by the day that having a wide range of applicable skills in a diverse range of contexts is also essential in the business world.

Employers consider a candidate’s academic results as well as their individuality, and so do we.

Professor Dou Wenyu is vice-principal of the College of Business at City University of Hong Kong


Leave a comment

教育企劃多爭論

Hong Kong Economic Journal
C01 | 今日焦點 | 忽然文化 | By 占飛 |
2012-07-21

今時今日,中產階級大多是一孩、頂多是兩孩或三孩家庭。昔日家庭以老為尊,至少是父母中心,今天卻是以孩子為中心,不再講「家教」,而是講親子關係。生、養、教、育孩子變成「企劃」,用內地的術語來講,孩子是「發展項目」。由是,怎樣才能令孩子成才,引起許多爭論。

簡而言之,「家教」(parenting)有兩派做法。一是傳統的「嚴師出高徒,棒頭出孝子」。父母自小嚴加管教孩子,為他安排一切,孩子則絕對服從父母指揮,虎媽、狼爸、鷹爸乃至「怪獸家長」,都是這個傳統的產物。父母犧牲親子關係的和諧,孩子犧牲童年應有的快樂,換來比同齡孩子更優秀的學業成績,更好的事業前途。

另一派是是開明派,相信以「愛」及「榜樣」(role model)──即是《世說新語》中謝安說的「我常自教兒」的身教──孩子既可快快樂樂地成長,也可以成才。就算孩子未能出人頭地,成為社會精英,但至少身心健康,平凡而快樂。

開明vs傳統

開明派被視為正道,抨擊傳統派虐兒、不人道。開明派則被指責寵壞孩子,只求孩子「平凡而快樂」,沒大志。你問一般家長:他們期望孩子將來做個怎樣的人?對孩子有什麼期望?

他們大多只會說:希望孩子可以快快樂樂的,無災無難過一生。反之,傳統派卻自小向孩子灌輸,他們必可勝過他人,嚴苛的訓練會有回報。他們受盡苦楚,是值得的,日後他們會出人頭地,名成利就,比一般人過着更好的生活!

純從效果着眼,兩派都有孩子成才。誰都不能否認,美國虎媽蔡美兒和內地狼爸蕭百佑的孩子確實出人頭地,或進入名牌大學,或成為專業人士,用世俗眼光看來,都能成才。你可以大罵這種教導兒女的方式不人道,但不能說它無用。

回顧歷史,許多名人童年時都曾給父母虐待折磨,最後都成才。最好的例子便是貝多芬。貝父約翰是個典型的「怪獸家長」,經常醉酒,脾氣暴躁,嚴厲地教貝多芬彈鋼琴,彈錯就毒打,還半夜三更把兒子叫醒,要他彈琴。慘受苛虐的貝多芬,八歲就登台,十一歲就在劇院樂隊演出,十三歲就成為風琴師。當然,你可以反駁,以貝多芬的天才,沒有如此「地獄式訓練」,一樣會如椎之在囊,甚至成就可能更高。貝父揠苗助長,其實害苦了貝多芬。這類假設性反駁,是耶非耶,誰能評說?

另一方面,開明派也可舉出莫扎特作例子,他與父母兄姊關係和睦,沒受過貝多芬「地獄式訓練」,一樣天才橫逸,六歲能作曲。孟子錯了,成就大事的人,不一定要「苦其心志,勞其筋骨,餓其體膚,空乏其身,行拂亂其所為」的。

以此觀之,兩派的爭拗只是意識形態之爭,沒有客觀標準可以定奪誰對誰錯。

孩子的成長,受太多因素影響,「家教」只是其中之一。備受父母關心愛惜的孩子,就不會長大成為壞蛋奸人罪犯了嗎?當然不是。

互吻vs互敬

親子關係只有一條正道,其他就是旁門左道了嗎?父母子女之間,非要「大力擁抱,互吻面頰一下,你說一聲『孩子,我愛你』,我說一句『媽媽爸爸,我愛你』」才算關係良好親暱嗎?父母子女之間,一定要有這樣的「愛」嗎?

大家君子之交,互相尊敬,會不會已足夠?

撰文:占飛

「雙綁」孩子大不幸

傳統派其實是尼采式「人上人」(Ubermensch——這個詞一般譯作「超人」,占飛則認為譯作「人上人」更貼切)的信徒。尼采說:「你到女人那裏去?

別忘帶你的鞭子!」傳統派家長則是「你到孩子那裏去?別忘帶你的鞭子!」這類「家教」危險的地方是:不成功,便成仁。孩子在如此嚴苛的環境長大,分分鐘成了「破損性格」(damaged personality)的人。「破損性格」的人不一定是失敗者,還可能是不世出的天才,如貝多芬,如喬布斯,但不成才的話,便大有可能成了「越軌者」(socialdeviant),為害他人,也為禍自己。

開明派有個好處,家長若要成為孩子的「榜樣」,必先做個好人,勤奮好學,不嫖不飲不賭,不吃垃圾食物、有愛心、有公德心、環保……愈多家長相信這個理論,實踐這個理論,社會便愈多好人,有益世道人心。

外表開明 內裏傳統

問題是:社會上哪有這麼多好人能成為孩子的「榜樣」?徒惹來憤青的痛罵:「唔識教仔女,就唔好生啦!」父母不能成為「榜樣」,孩子會認為父母律己以寬,律他卻嚴,自己做一套,對孩子卻要求另一套,是之謂偽君子。

現代社會愈繁榮,離婚率便愈高,便愈多孩子活在沒有「愛」的家庭裏。今天離婚率已接近百分之五十,等於說在大部分家庭裏,父母之間都欠缺「愛」。就算為了孩子而沒離婚,父母貌合神離,是騙不到孩子的,這樣的父母如何以「愛」教孩子呢?孩子怎能以父母為「榜樣」呢?假若i世代青少年接近一半在破碎家庭或父母無真愛的家庭長大,他們變得自我中心及自私,就不純是他們的錯矣!

開明派「愛」與「榜樣」的理論,說的很動聽,邏輯亦無懈可擊,但陳義過高,難以實行。成為社會主流價值,以此為圭皋,徒令家長內疚,孩子鄙夷父母而已!

為害最大的是外表開明、內裏傳統的「怪獸家長」。他們不打不罵子女,卻假愛之名,嚴密監控孩子,永不讓孩子離開他們的視線,偷看孩子的手機、用假名跟孩子在面書做friend,寵孩子到認為孩子永遠是對的,不斷投訴教師、校方、教育局或傳媒教壞孩子,安排孩子學「藝」沒一刻空閒等。

傳統派「怪獸家長」只求孩子聽話成才,並不壓迫孩子愛他們。「怪獸家長」卻「雙綁」(double bind)孩子,既要孩子聽話,又要孩子愛他們。有家長如斯,才是孩子的大不幸!


Leave a comment

Cost of knowledge

South China Morning Post
Feature
2012-08-14

Chinese research authors are trying to encourage a boycott of journal publisher Elsevier, which they say charges far too much for access to academic papers
Stephen Chen

Returning from an international conference held in Washington Yuan Yaxiang, one of the mainland’s best-known mathematicians, felt bad.

“I have been ripped off,” he said in an interview, still bitter more than two months after the meeting. “For all these years I have not realised it, and still most scientists in China have not realised it – and that hurts me most. It is time for Chinese scientists to stand up, unite and say no to this scandalous practice.”

Yuan, 52, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, was not nagging about overpriced hotels or substandard airline food but that some of the world’s biggest publishers of academic journals, including Elsevier and Springer, had charged “absurdly” high prices for academic journals whose contents were written, reviewed, edited and mostly purchased by academics themselves.

“If you are a mathematician in Guizhou (the mainland’s poorest province) and you are interested in one of my recent papers, you will need to download it from the website of the journal’s publisher. The price for a three-page article can exceed US$30, which can be more expensive than a 300-page textbook,” Yuan said.

“The money would not come to me – my salary is paid by the taxpayers of China. The money would not go to the journal’s referees or editors, who are mathematicians just like me and who work as volunteers. The money goes to the publisher, whose contribution in this process cannot be justified by the prices they charge.

“Researchers are ripped off, taxpayers are ripped off and knowledge, which should be freely available, has been fenced in and become a cash cow of a few big publishers.”

Yuan said that as the world’s economy was heading into recession, the prices charged for academic and scientific journals was going up. Even researchers in emerging economies such as China, which had rapidly growing research funds, were feeling the burden of having to subscribe to such journals. Most of them had no idea why the prices were so high.

Like most scientists on the mainland, Yuan knew little about the business of academic publishing in the West until recently. Earlier this year, after facing budget cuts amid economic recession and the soaring prices of research journals, some of the world’s leading mathematicians started a movement, “the cost of knowledge”, to boycott Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers.

Influential academics, including the Fields medal winners Timothy Gowers, Wendelin Werner and Terence Tao, decided to challenge the paradox of low publishing costs and high journal prices with a call on researchers around the world to stop submitting, refereeing or editing papers for journals published by Elsevier, a subsidiary of the Anglo-Dutch company Reed-Elsevier.

Reed-Elsevier is listed in London and the Netherlands and last year reported net income of £767 million (HK$9.3 billion) on turnover of £6 billion. Elsevier, its Amsterdam-headquartered subsidiary, says on its website that it employs more than 7,000 people in 24 countries, and claims “a global community of 7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members, 300,000 reviewers and 600,000 authors”.

It also claims to “provide free or low-cost access to science and health information in the developing world” and that “we have fostered the peer-review process for more than 130 years … We publish around 2,000 journals and close to 20,000 books and major reference works.”

Gowers and his colleagues said they chose Elsevier for their campaign as “a good initial focus” for their discontent against all commercial publishers.

At the mathematicians’ conference in Washington, Yuan found that the hottest topic in tea breaks was not the new proof of an old maths conjecture, but “the cost of knowledge” campaign. A friend of his from Germany explained in detail the large profits that big publishers extracted from the research community and Yuan became one of the first Chinese scientists to join the movement.

As soon as he returned to China, the former head of the academy’s Institute of Computational Mathematics and Scientific/Engineering Computing began spreading the message at conferences and gatherings.

This week, the movement’s website thecostofknowledge.com had more than 12,500 signatories, dozens of them from China, many of whom said that they had signed up in response to Yuan’s call.

Wen Zaiwen, associate professor of mathematics with Shanghai Jiaotong University, said: “I attended a seminar and academic Yuan’s speech on the boycott Elsevier movement that left me with a very deep impression.

“I was disturbed by the knowledge that big publishers charge readers so much for our academic works, and my anger doubled after I went to the website and read overseas colleagues’ comments on the publisher’s large profit and extravagance.

“Boycotting Elsevier might cause some inconvenience, but I signed my name without hesitation because it is the right thing for a scientist to do.”

At least 20 academics from Hong Kong universities have also signed up to the website.

The Chinese scientists’ participation in the boycott has drawn a response from Elsevier. In an e-mail, Tom Reller, Elsevier’s vice-president of global corporate relations, said it hoped to improve communications with Chinese researchers to reach mutually shared objectives.

“And we can do this in China, a particularly important market for Elsevier – the largest publisher of Chinese research output,” he wrote. “The number of signatories to the boycott is actually relatively small within the context of the global research community, but even one is too many for us.

“We see a future of incremental change while retaining the ability to charge fairly negotiated prices for our value-added products and services, but accept that there are growing numbers of advocates that expect more rapid change to business models and greater free access to information,” he added.

Reller said that among all papers Chinese authors published internationally, about one third were published with Elsevier journals.

“From 2005 to 2010, we doubled our Chinese-based editors and editorial board members to approximately 600 editors and 1,300 editorial board members,” he wrote. “In addition, Chinese researchers gain great access to research articles from our flagship database ScienceDirect, the usage of which from China has been growing at 20 per cent each year over the past 10 years.”

The Chinese scientists’ complaints raised eyebrows at large publishers because China has surpassed the United States and has become the world’s largest producer of academic papers. Though most of the papers are not considered top quality, the large quantity means business opportunities for every major academic publisher.

Mathematicians started the movement but now other disciplines have voiced their support.

Professor Wu Biao, a physicist with Peking University’s International Centre for Quantum Materials, said that he joined the movement after receiving a notice from the university library earlier this year informing him that owing to the rising prices of academic journals and budget constraints, the physics department would need to cut a number of journals to which it had subscribed.

Peking University is one of China’s most prestigious, with research funding envied by other schools on the mainland.

“If Peking University is feeling the pressure, other schools must have had their backs broken already,” Wu pointed out.

Chinese physicists contributed more than a third of the papers published on some Elsevier academic journals, he said.

“If we all join the boycott we will not only force Elsevier to lower their prices but force other publishers such as Springer and Wiley to follow suit,” added Wu.

“Most Chinese scientists agree with me on the principle of the boycott movement, but most of them don’t want to stand out or make a noise because they have no confidence in their individual power,” he said.

“But if we can hold a nationwide meeting on the subject, I am sure that we will achieve an explosive growth of participants. I just hope that someone can organise such an event someday soon.”

However, Professor Chen Guoqiang, a biologist at Tsinghua University’s School of Life Sciences, said he doubted many mainland scientists would join the movement because of practical concerns.

“Most open-access journals require a fee on submission. In comparison, most journals published by Elsevier and other big publishers do not charge the author anything.

“They just charge relatively higher prices on subscribers, mostly libraries,” he said.

“Most Chinese scientists are not willing to dip into their own shallow pockets to publish a paper.”

Some Elsevier journals, such as The Lancet, are so influential that most scientists in the field are unable to avoid or ignore them, Chen added.

Elsevier says that Chinese scientists joining the boycott had been misled by some flawed assumptions about its business.

The company now publishes 23 open-access journals and provides author-funded options in more than 1,200 others, according to Reller.

He says the publisher offers Chinese scientists more services than just publishing their papers.

“There are legions of new scientists entering their careers that benefit from free author workshops that we provide and by publishing in our journals.

“Elsevier journals are attractive to Chinese authors because of their impact and reach.

“The impact factor of a journal is a key criterion when selecting where to submit a paper and Chinese researchers are increasingly evaluated and promoted based on where they publish versus how much they publish – quality versus quantity,” he wrote.

“Open access journals levy an author publication charge (APC) that in many cases cannot be paid by Chinese authors. ‘Traditional’ journals are therefore essential options for authors in nations where a US$1,500 or US$3,000 APC is simply not possible financially.

“Libraries in many Chinese schools have very small budgets. Because of this, our pricing policy in China is similar to other developing nations whereby access is provided to all key institutions at very heavily discounted prices to ensure affordability,” wrote Reller.


Leave a comment

港式比例代表制如何締造四分五裂政局

Ming Pao Daily
2012-08-23
觀點

蔡子強

今屆立法會選舉已是九七回歸選舉制度改用比例代表制最大餘額法之後第5屆選舉,究竟這種選舉制度的來龍去脈如何﹖結果又產生了怎樣的影響﹖很多年輕同學對此都一片空白,但在新高中學制之下,他們又有需要知道,筆者且嘗試在這裏作一個簡單的回顧。

引入比例代表制的原因

香港在1991年於立法會引入直選議席,最先採用雙議席雙票制,到了1995又改用單議席單票制,但無論如何改,當時在八九年六四事件的陰霾,以及一片恐共的政治氣氛下,民主黨民主派的主要旗艦,在選舉中都所向披靡,橫掃大多數議席,例如在1995年,民主黨取得42%選票,並取得20個直選議席中的12個,即60%。親中媒體和政黨,把問題歸咎於選舉制度偏幫民主黨。

1996年1月,香港特別行政區籌備委員會成立。這個由北京委任產生的委員會,負責籌備成立香港特別行政區的有關事宜,以及規定第一屆特區政府和立法會的具體產生辦法。在其第一屆立法會產生辦法小組的工作報告中,討論到單議席單票制這種制度,當中沒有提到它任何優點,反而批評它:(一)容易導致個別政黨取得議席與其得票率很不相稱的情,造成立法機關的「一黨獨大」,既不公平,也不符合均衡參與的原則;以及(二)隨覑以後直選議席逐屆增加,選區勢必愈劃愈小,議員代表性很低,難以反映香港社會的整體和長遠利益,實際上是「民主的倒退」。相反,在討論到比例代表制時,卻提到其優點為(一)比較公平,並可使少數派也有代表參政的機會,有利於各派力量的均衡參與;以及(二)為世界各國廣泛使用。

從中可見,特區政府當初引入比例代表制,目的是要制約民主黨,以免它可以在選舉中贏得大多數議席。那麼,至今已經超過10年,這個選舉制度又能否達到最初預期的效果呢﹖

成功打擊了民主黨

結果,民主黨的得票率及所佔直選議席比例,均出現持續下跌,得票率由起初的四成,跌至如今的兩成;議席比例更由起初的六成,跌至如今的兩成,跌幅可謂十分驚人。

民主黨直選議席數目的下跌,可以概括分為兩個原因。首先是因為選舉制度改變,該黨再無法得益於在單議席單票制下讓大政黨超出選票比例贏得議席的槓桿放大效應,而第二個原因,就是其得票率的持續下跌。

那麼,民主黨之得票率又為何會持續下跌呢﹖是否因為1997年後人心起變,變得比以前更愛國、親中央政府,選票因而大幅度倒向親建制陣營的懷抱呢﹖

答案並非如此,回顧1997年後4次的立法會選舉,雖然經歷多次重大政治事故,例如董建華以及曾蔭權的政權更替、2003年7月1日50萬人上街,又或者特區政府民望的高峰與低谷等,原來,民主派的票源,大致上保持覑一個十分穩定的比例,大概上是六成,隨覑投票率的高低起伏,也只會有不超過5%的上落。這可說是港式選情的「基本盤」,也是筆者在2004年立法會選舉後,收集選票數據,在《明報》本欄撰文分析,首次提出的所謂香港直選之黃金定律,輿論習慣把其簡化成所謂民主vs.非民主的「六四黃金定律」。

所以,在1997年回歸後,過去10多年,其實投票給民主派的選民,並沒有怎樣減少(至少在百分比上),民主黨的得票率持續下跌,只是因為民主派陣營出現了新的政團競爭,攤分了其選票。

「合則俱損,分則有利」

值得留意的是,這些新興的民主派政團,有一些是從民主黨中分裂出來的,例如社民連。為何一些派系和黨員會選擇退出民主黨,這裏除了路線、意識形態等層面的分歧,以及個人意氣爭鬥之外,選舉制度的影響也是一個重要關鍵。

比例代表制固然是一種對大政黨不利的選舉制度,而香港採用的最大餘額法,更是當中尤其對大政黨不利的一種變種。面對如此一種對大政黨不利的選舉制度方程式,大政黨如果希望在選舉中能扭轉不利情,它有一條路可以選擇,那就是分拆成不同名單參選。

1998年,民主派政團前铫在新界西分裂出李卓人和梁耀忠兩張名單參選,結果卻同告勝出,但如果當時兩人集合在一張名單出選,最終的選票卻只夠一人勝出。

如果這還算是一次陰差陽錯的話,那麼到了2000年的立法會選舉,從上次選舉汲取了教訓後,那便成了一種深思熟慮的策略性部署。例如民主黨在新界東分拆成兩張分別由鄭家富和黃成智帶隊的參選名單;而在新界西就分拆成3張分別由何俊仁、李永達、陳偉業帶隊的參選名單,並以劃分地域來「配票」,目標是在這兩個選區,爭取分別贏得兩個及3個議席。憑覑這個安排,黃成智在新界東僅僅壓過梁國雄,取得該區最後一個議席。

當然,泛民中亦有試過頑固不信的,箇中的表表者,首推2004年於新界東出現的「鑽石名單」。當時泛民所有政黨都集中在同一張名單出選(除梁國雄外),當時他們相信,組成這樣一張星光熠熠的名單,不單可以互補長短,更可以加強號召力,讓上、中、下不同階層支持民主派的選民,都把目光聚焦,集中投票給同一張參選名單,「坐四望五(席)」,但結果卻鎩羽而歸,反而只得3席。到了2008年,「鑽石名單」中的各個泛民政黨,索性各自修行,「分頭搵食」,卻反而取得4席,這說明了比例代表制最大餘額法的制度邏輯:「合則俱損,分則有利」。

「分拆」和「配票」成了關鍵

因此,從這個「六四黃金定律」的穩定選票結構出發,無論是民主抑或親建制陣營,一般的選舉工程,想要在短短幾個月內增加自己陣營的得票份額,從而贏得更多的議席,難度都十分之高,成效也十分有限。於是,在比例代表制最大餘額法下,無論是民主抑或親建制陣營,最重要的選舉工程,就是在不同名單下「配票」,以便在既有的固定票源下,獲取最多的議席。

如今任何一個政黨要在香港直選選區中拿到第二個議席,有相當難度,要拿到第三個議席,更是有點癡人說夢。於是這種選舉制度,就為大型政黨的發展,套上一個讓他們窒息的樽頸,反而為小型、中型政黨的生存,提供了足夠的土壤。

尤其是隨覑如今直選議席進一步增加,只要在選區中拿到一成選票,就有機會博得一席,於是不少政圈中人都躍躍欲試,嘗試另立山頭由自己掛帥,一試身手。或許,各個政黨的分裂與重組,都各有前因,也有不少新仇舊恨,但這種結構性因素、制度性因素,卻為這種細胞分裂,提供了大氣候。

民主派和建制派均出現大分裂

在這種大思路之下,無論是民主抑或親建制陣營,在過去幾年,都有新的政黨相繼成立,又或者從原有的老牌政黨中分拆出來參選。

先說民主派陣營,除了老牌政黨如民主黨和民協之外,近年新成立、新參選以及分裂出來的政團包括:受到中上階層歡迎的公民黨、走勞工路線的工黨、扎根新界東的地區政團新民主同盟、走激進路線的社民連和人民力量。

再看建制派陣營,除了老牌親中政黨民建聯,以及工商界政黨自由黨之外,近年新成立、新參選以及分裂出來的政團包括:另一個工商界政黨經濟動力、走勞工路線的工聯會、專注中產階級的新民黨,以至以獨立候選人面貌出現和籠絡地區勢力的建制派如梁美芬、龐愛蘭和謝偉俊。

從中可見,無論是民主抑或親建制陣營,在過去幾年,都或主動或被動,或情願或不情願的,因應選舉需要,化整為零,按階級、政治路線、地區基礎,以至特定的社群訴求等,分拆成不同的政團,務求在選舉中取得最好的成績,亦因此製造了一個四分五裂、政黨林立的局面。

特區政府自食惡果

很多人會指出,一個四分五裂議會,對特區政府最為有利,因為沒有了一股主要勢力,相比起殖民地末代政府(即95至97立法會),來自議會的威脅可說是大大減低,能夠讓政府實行「行政主導」,發揮得更為淋漓盡致。但實情又是否如此呢?

近年,很多問責局長為了要「箍票」,不單要對各大政黨低聲下氣,更甚至要造訪各大政黨的黨部,出席黨團會議,費盡唇舌,他們都戲稱自己在「乞票」。試問如果未來議會進一步變得零碎,三數議員便成一組合,那麼這些局長,還可以跑到幾多個政黨黨團去游說﹖政府難以管治、寸步難移的苦,只會比今天尤甚。

相應而來互扯後腿的局面,不單在議會內發生,也存在於行政立法機關之間。其後遺症便是在面對社會、經濟危機時,又或是政府需要推動重大改革的關鍵時刻,行政立法之間的不咬弦,往往使施政陷於膠覑狀態,造成了當年國務院總理朱鎔基批評的「議而不決,決而不行」的局面。

而另一方面,當小黨取得大量的生存空間時,一些激進的聲音和政治力量,也迅速冒起和抬頭——例如社民連和人民力量這些左翼組織,便是箇中的表表者,這也是政府另一要嚥下的苦果。

特區政府引入比例代表制的目標,其實十分短淺,那是盡量減少民主黨在直選中取得的議席數目,因為比例代表制可以削弱大黨在選舉中「超額贏得議席」的效應。但結果議會變得四分五裂,政治光譜愈切割愈碎,激進和極端力量冒起的苦果,卻是他們最初沒有想到的。

(立法會選舉系列之一)

蔡子強

中文大學政治與行政學系高級講師