關哲：彭定康最後的香港探戈

【本文由觀察者網供稿，刊載於7月17日美國《赫芬頓郵報》旗下的《世界郵報》（World Post）。以下為中文譯文。】

香港最有名的“探戈舞者”17年前乘坐英國皇家郵輪離開香港後，最近捲土重來翩翩起舞。

末代港督彭定康是跟中國吵架的老手，1997年放棄殖民統治把香港交還給中國前，每天都跟中國官員大打口水戰。他當年被諷與民主派跳最後探戈舞，有“探戈舞者”的綽號。

《赫芬頓郵報》網站刊載本文截圖

闊別多年，彭定康的探戈舞步似乎沒有生疏。適值香港面臨政治動盪、反對派未能爭到心目中的普選便威脅“佔領中環”時，彭定康男爵雖然離港後一直沒有多談港事，但也再戰江湖加入戰團。

彭定康日前撰文為香港的反對派助陣，抨擊中國領導人沒有在思想上“大躍進”，應認識到反對派的訴求其實不會危害國家福祉。他指中國貴為偉大國家與冒升強國，面對政治挑戰遠遠不及處理經濟事務般運籌帷幄。

他又斷言：“縱使中國反對，香港人最終將獲得要求的東西，因為自由總會勝利。”

《金融時報》最近也訪問過彭定康，他表示因為中國發表的《白皮書》指香港法官應該“愛國”，所以他禁不住要出聲。他更進一步指， 如果《中英聯合聲明》採用今天北京使用的字眼，倫敦是不會簽署的。他説：“我們絕無可能簽署一紙聲明，內容表示聯合聲明其實只是宣言而已。”

英國與中國1984年簽署《聯合聲明》，協議香港歸還中國。用彭定康自己的講法，協議保證香港的生活方式按鄧小平的“一國兩制”口號保持50年不變。為保持香港繁榮安定，法治與各種自由均不變。

可是，彭定康談到十數萬港人為自由遊行時，讓人以為“一國兩制”早已淪陷。他説：“他們要求有公平與開放的制度來選舉政府，並捍衞自由和法治，這些因素都是香港賴之成為那麼特別、成功與真正自由的社會。”

彭定康所言跟真相天差地別。香港迴歸中國17年，如常活躍，法治與自由俱存。港人在英治下可以自由做的事情，1997年後一切照做如儀。試舉一個細小但具意義的例子，就足以證明香港不是搖身變了中國的殖民地。雖然中國大陸禁制有點邪教色彩的法輪功，但它的信徒一直在特區自由公開活動。在繁忙的街頭，很難逃過法輪功唯恐人看不見的橫額標語。在港英年代，愛爾蘭共和軍連做夢也想不到可以如此走運！

説來諷刺，香港今天的政治爭論焦點為普選，但此議題在香港155年殖民歷史中，對末代港督及他前任27位總督而言，壓根兒就不是問題。彭定康及反對派今天裝模作樣，也掩蓋不了千真萬確的事實：到了要撤離香港前，英國才突然對民主感興趣。

華樂庭是港英時代的高官，八十年代初退休時為民政事務司司長，他一輩子見證了英國的虛偽（他於去年末過世）。他指英國姍姍來遲在港推行民主為“堂皇的假象”。華樂庭1985年在演講中説：“我難以相信官方突然出人意表熱衷於民主政治是出於誠意。那是因為在1951年至1981年我任公職的這30年間，‘民主’是個髒詞。當時的政府官員認定，民主政治會是最快及最能拖垮香港經濟的東西，並會破壞社會及政局安定。”

《聯合聲明》簽署了30週年，今天又給彭定康奉為聖典。但如果要在其中尋找片言隻字談“普選”，肯定大失所望。就特區政府的領導層，協議只稱“行政長官在當地通過選舉或協商產生，由中央人民政府任命”其餘欠奉。換言之，倫敦當年是接受特區行政長官，將由類似揀選港督的手法來任命的。

彭定康出任港督，只由當年的首相馬卓安選出，然後由英女王伊麗莎白二世任命。由他今天來猛烈抨擊中國不容許以民主方式選出他的繼任者，真的是大言不慚。

普選的提法，首先出現於由北京草擬的《基本法》。《基本法》第45條載有類似《聯合聲明》的字眼：“香港特別行政區行政長官在當地通過選舉或協商產生，由中央人民政府任命。”

但《基本法》向前更邁進：“行政長官的產生辦法根據香港特別行政區的實際情況和循序漸進的原則而規定，最終達至由一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名後普選產生的目標。”

請留意，如要“普選”此最終目標成事，《基本法》規定要遵從一些條件：必須根據“實際情況”、依照“循序漸進”的原則，並由“提名委員會”提名候選人。

香港歷史首次有普選機會，反對派非但不額手稱慶，又不同心合力制訂最早於2017年普選的方案，反而企圖不依章程便一步登天普選。試問究竟誰才是真正阻礙香港普選呢？彭定康鬧錯了對象。

彭定康再次大跳探戈舞，讓反對派更難重歸正途，按合法程序妥協出選舉行政長官的方法。彭定康當年眾多綽號中包括有“千古罪人”，香港真的可憐，直到今時今日還要受他的罪。

翻頁見英文原文：

  Chris Patten’s Last Tango in Hong Kong

SHANGHAI -- Seventeen years after sailing on Britain’s Royal Yacht away from Hong Kong, the tango dancer is on the move again.

Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, was no stranger in picking fights with China. Before relinquishing the colonial administration to China in 1997, he was fighting daily battles, mostly verbal, with Chinese officials. One of the labels he received from his opponents was “tango dancer,” a reference not to his slinky charms on the dance floor, but to a comment he had made about whether or not there would be further talks with Beijing, namely that it took two to tango. Tango dancing has made Governor Patten’s head dizzy and speech incoherent, his critics said.

The tango dancer’s steps do not seem to have gone any rusty after all these years. Just when the former British colony is encountering political turbulence as political opposition groups threaten to occupy the central business district if they don’t get universal suffrage according to their formula, Lord Patten, who has generally avoided commenting on Hong Kong since the handover, has entered the fray.

In an article in The WorldPost, Lord Patten criticized China’s rulers for not taking a giant step forward by recognizing that the Hong Kong opposition’s aspirations are not a threat to the country’s well-being. He wrote that China, “a great country and a growing power, is handling its economic affairs with more sophistication and a surer touch than it is addressing its political challenges.”

“Eventually, Hong Kong’s people will get what they want, despite China’s objections; freedom invariably wins in the end,” he proclaimed.

In an interview with the Financial Times recently, Lord Patten also said he felt compelled to speak out because of a recent Chinese “white paper” that said Hong Kong judges should be “patriotic.” He went further and claimed London would never have signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration had the language been the same as Beijing is now using. “We couldn’t possibly have signed a white paper which said that the joint declaration is really a single declaration,” he told the paper.

The Joint Declaration, signed between London and Beijing in 1984, provided the terms under which Hong Kong was returned to China. In Lord Patten’s own words, that agreement “guaranteed Hong Kong’s way of life for 50 years under Deng Xiaoping’s slogan ‘One country, two systems.’ The rule of law and the freedoms associated with pluralism -- due process and the freedom of speech, assembly, and worship -- were to remain the bedrock of Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability.”

Lord Patten made it sound like the “One country, two systems” arrangement has collapsed by noting that tens of thousands of Hong Kongers were demonstrating for liberty recently: “They want a fair and open system for electing their government, and to defend the freedom and rule of law that make Hong Kong so special and successful, a genuinely liberal -- in the classical sense -- society.”

Nothing is further from the truth. Seventeen years into Chinese rule, Hong Kong remains very vibrant under the rule of law with all its freedoms intact. Nothing that the people of Hong Kong could freely do under British rule has become untouchable since 1997. One tiny but telling example perhaps should dispel any notion that Hong Kongers are losing freedom under Chinese rule. While Falun Gong, a spiritual movement of a cultist bent, is banned inside China, its followers have been operating freely and openly in the Special Administrative Region. No one can avoid Falun Gong’s in-your-face banners in prime locations all over Hong Kong.

Ironically, the focus of the political debate in Hong Kong today -- universal suffrage -- was not even an issue for the last governor or any of his 27 predecessors to lift a finger with during the entire 155 years when Hong Kong was a British colony. A hard truth, which Lord Patten and the opposition conveniently ignore today, remains a fact: London didn’t bother with democracy until the very final years of its rule in Hong Kong.

The late John Walden, director of home affairs in the colonial government until the early 1980s, lived through this British hypocrisy most of his life. Calling the late introduction of democracy to Hong Kong a “grand illusion,” Mr. Walden said it all in a speech in 1985: “If I personally find it difficult to believe in the sincerity of this sudden and unexpected official enthusiasm for democratic politics it is because throughout the 30 years I was an official myself, from 1951 to 1981, ‘democracy’ was a dirty word. Officials were convinced that the introduction of democratic politics into Hong Kong would be the quickest and surest way to ruin Hong Kong’s economy and create social and political instability.”

If one tries to search for any mention of “universal suffrage” in the Joint Declaration, signed 30 years ago and now deemed sacred by Lord Patten, one would be terribly disappointed. It is not there. On the issue of political leadership in the SAR, the document only stated “The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.” That’s all. In other words, London accepted that chief executives of the SAR could be selected in a similar manner as how governors were appointed by the British.

For Lord Patten, who was selected as governor by no one but then prime minister John Major and appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, to be lambasting China for not allowing his successors be democratically elected, is laughable to say the least.

The notion of universal suffrage was in fact first introduced in the Basic Law drafted by Beijing. Article 45 of this mini-constitution of Hong Kong carries similar language from the Joint Declaration: “The Chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government.”

However, the Basic Law goes further: “The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

Please be reminded that for “universal suffrage” this ultimate aim to materialize, the Basic Law has stipulated a number of criteria: it has to look into the “actual situation,” to follow the “principle of gradual and orderly progress,” and to nominate candidates by a “nominating committee.”

Instead of celebrating the first ever opportunity of electing the chief executive by universal suffrage in Hong Kong’s history and trying to work out the details of the election as early as 2017, the radical opposition is attempting to destroy legal procedures for the sake of an overtly partisan agenda. Who actually is blocking universal suffrage in Hong Kong? Lord Patten has been barking up the wrong tree.

With this latest dazzling performance by the tango dancer, it’s even more difficult for the opposition to see the light and follow the legal and proper steps to reach a compromise on the election of the chief executive.