大老不死,愚蠢不息

「真普選聯」的方案終於受到組織内部的質疑又一次證明山中算無遺策。如果預測政治問題能在廟街開檔,我早就賺得盤滿缽滿,新年上電視的就是我而不是風水佬。我感到奇怪的是,爲何這幫人現在才開口批評,做事總是慢幾拍?我早在五月已經説明選委是根本的問題,四月的時候李柱銘就已經因機構提名一事引火自焚。普選聯方案與李柱銘方案並沒有本質上的分別,怎麽可能現在才發現有問題?或許這就是李鵬飛說李柱銘的提案「具有策略意義」的原因,他雖然收回方案,但機構提名、選委會就一直陰魂不散,貽害萬年。

這樣的普選聯可以大退特退,留下只會讓普選聯大老有藉口說方案得到民主派議員的支持,結果是將民主派的政治資本全都賠進去(情況就如手上一對都沒有連撲克的遊戲規則都不知道就去晒冷一樣)。團結不是一幫烏合之衆聚在一起就叫團結,團結表示利害一致,共同進退,跟隨合理的策略。普選聯大老不用腦袋胡亂提出方案,就像不懂得航海的船長胡亂掌舵,會使輪船撞向冰山。見到這樣的船長應該及早跳船逃生,重新組織力量還有可能有轉機,如陳餘所言,「今必俱死,如以肉委餓虎,何益?」

普選聯認爲「在政治現實中要達到2016年全面取消功能組別這個訴求很困難,但真普聯已表明2020年的底線,[落實全面直選]」,這是個天大的笑話。你要抗爭,必然是一鼓作氣去擊倒對手。你要求有真民主,只有擊敗中共的政治力量才會出現;你有真普選就代表你已經勝利了,怎麽可能將功能組別這個問題拖到2020年?他們是想在2020年又在發動一次佔中?又一次重組普選聯?「一鼓作氣,再而衰,三而竭」,香港人有這個耐性跟你這樣玩到2020年?(足足七年啊!大老們!七年中我們要不斷重覆同樣的話題啊!)每一次失敗你的力量就會隨著減弱,五區公投到現在不是很好的例子嗎?為何各位大老、大律師、大教授連這麽簡單的道理都不懂?

This entry was posted in 政治與經濟 and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 則回應給 大老不死,愚蠢不息

  1. Bill 說:

    這裏包含一定的矛盾,首先沒有一個有腦的真大佬(我傾向用廣東話),可以振臂一呼,應者雲集。太多二流子各據山頭,未傾價錢,自打折扣。山中想做風水佬也無人幫襯,風水佬一樣有大佬,不用預測準確,最緊要有人信。

  2. 山中 說:

    問題就是這個政界只有「大佬」沒有「大腦」。劉邦雖然不學無術,但他的大腦們提供策略,他也聼得明白,懂得運用。現在這些人只看資歷而不考慮實際問題,張良、陳平復生也無助於事。

  3. C 說:

    The main issue is that 真普選聯盟 is not a true alliance — there are different ideas among its members. The government can sit back and watch how it disintegrates.

    My proposal:
    LegCo: 36 electoral districts, each district gets one seat, first-past-the-post wins.
    CE: Candidates nominated by 100,000 voters can get in the race, first-past-the-post wins.

    Do you think the government handled 五區公投 well? Sometimes I play the devil’s advocate and try to imagine how the government should counter the actions of the more radical groups.

    • 山中 說:

      That’s why I said they only have two options if they want to survive: be a real alliance or break off right now. They will all die if they keep on going this way.

      36 seats are not enough to accommodate the political participants. Political parties need to reward their members; that’s a pressing issue for them. That’s why I said they need to be ambitious and get into politics at the national level, democratically, of course.

      CE election is a piece of cake. Nonetheless, I am a supporter of the semi-presidential system.

      I didn’t think the government “handled" the “5 district resignation" at all, which didn’t actually materialize; rather, the “democracy camp" “handled" themselves with their in-fighting and ended with the Democratic Party having negotiation rounds with Beijing’s representatives.

      Strategists need to know how would the opponents react; devil’s advocate is what we do and I do it all the time. I have suggested ways of dealing with the opposition in my blog before. The best option is to initiate negotiations on separate issues with individual parties. This would intensify their in-fighting to the point that they would not be able to function at all. The government, however, will not take this course of action because it wants to dominate the political arena, despite not being able to do so.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s