Friday, 6 March 2020

To mask or not to mask? My take on the face mask question

Summary: Most experts from Geneva to Hong Kong agree that masks offer some imperfect protection to the wearer, but they do stop carriers of the coronavirus from giving it to anybody else.

Global supply of masks is limited. Governments and societies must choose between (i) trying to get a mask on everyone's face to prevent transmission and (ii) accepting an outbreak will come and save stock up for healthcare staff and the sick.

****

First of all, the facts. They don’t conflict with each other as they may first appear.

1) CDC and WHO advise that wearing a face mask improperly won't protect the wearer. Of course. Hooking your sunglasses on your top won’t protect your eyes from the sun either.

2) Wearing a face mask alone won't fully protect the wearer: the eyes are still unprotected and can come into contact with infected droplets.

3) Many governments (eg Singapore’s) recommend people showing symptoms to wear a mask so they wouldn’t infect other people e.g. when they cough or sneeze.

4) This coronavirus is known to have an incubation period. For up to 14 days, an infected person could be going about their life before any symptom show up.

5) If everyone's wearing a mask, then those who have caught the virus but haven't been showing symptoms have a much lower chance of infecting others: droplets can infect people through their eyes, but they almost certainly come out of noses and mouths which face masks would cover.

This is the approach publicly recommended by health experts in Hong Kong eg Prof Pak-Leung Ho as the FT quoted. It is also the approach a large proportion of Hongkongers chose to follow despite what the government said.

Indeed, it was on the same ground Prof Ho recently advised against wearing a certain type of N95 masks that filters air that goes in but not the air that goes out.

6) This is summarised succinctly by Dr Michael Ryan, WHO’s executive director for emergencies: “masks don’t necessarily protect you, but they do - if you have the disease - stop you from giving it to anybody else.”

****

So, where does the world stand now? We may want to observe the following:

7) If a government advises universal mask-wearing, its people may expect it to secure supply at price similar to pre-crisis levels.

[This is, of course, against economics. Who’s paying for overtimes? If new factories were built, who is paying for the capital costs? And what about risk premium in investing in new factories?]

8) The world can produce around 40m face masks per day before Jan. China accounts for around half of that. Taiwan was 3rd largest and is now 2nd largest producer. Both have effectively stopped exports. So did major producers like Thailand and South Korea.

To put things into context: Taiwan’s population is 23m; China’s 1,386m.

9) Therefore I can understand why many governments want to reserve limited supply for their medical staff and discourage mass use of face masks. Singapore is one of the few that has been honest with its citizens on this.

10) When governments in Mainland China, Taiwan and now Korea recommended universal mask-wearing, they also introduced measures to ramp up production.

11) Taiwan’s fellow market democracies may learn more from studying its case than China’s. The government there bought mask-making machinery and then gave them to existing manufacturers in return for face masks of the same value. Effectively, a government-brokered financing lease. This way it managed to expand daily production from 4m to 10m within a month.

12) Hong Kong’s government never officially recommended universal face mask wearing. Its leader Carrie Lam even tried to tell civil servants not to wear them "unless they feel unwell" - but the next day, if my memory served me well, half of the officials at a press conference she chaired donned a mask. Hongkongers chose to listen to experts, not unelected politicians.

They learnt it the hard way: Hong Kong saw 299 or 38.6% of the global death toll from 2003 SARS. Once bitten, twice shy.

13) As a Hongkonger myself, I wish no other country had to learn lessons the same way.

14) So how has Hong Kong been getting its masks? Its own production - run by the prison service to supply government agencies - was a paltry 50,000 per day for a population over 7m. But when prices skyrocketed from pre-crisis $1 (HKD, same henceforth) each to $10-20 each, the private sector and civil society came to the rescue.
  • Small pharmacies got them overseas, probably at a higher price than usual wholesale price, and sold them with a high margin.
  • Large pharmacy chains like Watson's sourced them overseas and sold them at cost, earning praise and brand value.
  • Politicians and activists of all shades sourced them from around the world. Did Joshua Wong, that activist of international fame, not bring masks back from Honduras? There’s no better time to prove to the people that your lot is more competent than the other.
Benefits - of political, brand, or immediate monetary kinds - mobilised the private sector and civil society groups and they brought face masks back to Hong Kong. Charities then bought them for the poor. Prices have since gone down to a more reasonable $5 each. Adam Smith’s invisible hand works.

15) Therefore, unless France has enough productive capacity for its own medical staff, I think its decision to requisition face masks will only exacerbate the shortage in that country. Now, no supplier in their sound mind will want to route their deliveries through France.

When incentives are right, market and individuals are usually better at buying stuff and bringing them home.

16) Admittedly, many of these masks bought by Hongkongers at higher-than-usual prices were baseline stock held in other countries eg Germany, Honduras, UAE, Turkey. Now they may need them a lot more than they thought.

17) Hong Kong is a relatively rich place. As the coronavirus goes global, it (and other East Asian countries that chose universal mask-wearing) may have priced medical staff in poorer countries out of essential protective gear. That’s apparently also why the WHO does not advise universal mask-wearing.

****

What about here in London?

18) Back in early Feb, my friends and I were trying to buy face masks for re-export from UK wholesalers. Most were already telling us they had no stock to sell us because their order books have already been block-filled by the NHS.

I get that the UK government / NHS might have wanted to appear inactive so that they don’t stoke a panic. But, in fact, they don’t seem to be that inactive.

19) Because the NHS has been stocking up, I suspect whatever you can still get on the high street these days are parallel-imported overseas. You probably won’t be competing with the NHS.

20) So, to wear or not to wear? I’m no health professional. All views in this note are that of a layman, ie my own.

My take is that wearing a mask wouldn’t hurt you. If you’ve never worn one, it’ll be good to find and watch a video online that teach you how to wear it properly beforehand. It probably would reduce the risk you face more when you’re on a plane or in the tube. In any case, a face mask almost certainly keeps some of the air pollutions in the tube out.

But a humble surgical mask won’t make you virus-proof. It wouldn’t and shouldn’t replace good hygiene either.

P.S. I’ll try my best to stay at home if I show symptoms. If I have to go out, I’d wear a mask to avoid infecting others, even if at the end it turns out to be just common cold.

A woman at Green Park station on the London Underground tube network wearing a protective facemask. PA Photo. Picture date: Wednesday March 4, 2020. See PA story HEALTH Coronavirus . Photo credit should read: Kirsty O'Connor/PA Wire
A mask-wearer at a London airport. Source: Sky
****

Also on Facebook

Original inspiration:


Wednesday, 4 March 2020

The coronavirus approaches Britain

My kind friends in Hong Kong read on social media that shelves went empty in UK supermarkets and asked if it's their turn to ship health supplies over.

So I took stock this morning. I still have 47 surgical masks (which went out of stock in major pharmacies here.. a month ago?). I intend to reserve them for higher-risk situations, eg on a plane or when worst comes to worst. That should hopefully last a month or two.

Hand gels are locally made here in the UK. When they last ran out in late Jan, most pharmacies managed to restock in a week or two. Boots even did a buy-2-get-1-free sale on them. I have 2 medium bottles and hopefully that should last till stock returns to normal.

I also checked out my local Sainsburys this morning and found it pretty well stocked. BBC did report supermarket shelves going empty in the West Country due to good old British "wintry conditions". My heart is with people there.

As usual, too much context is lost in translation. This applies to both Far Eastern news as reported in Western outlets, and the other way round as well.

As a precaution to any short term supply disruption I'd start maintaining a stock of non-perishable necessities at 2-4 weeks' usual run rate. For now most if not all can be sourced here in the UK locally.

Stay safe & healthy, my friends

Well-stocked Sainsbury's in Stratford Centre, morning of 4 March 2020. Hopefully this will last... 
Also on Facebook

Sunday, 23 February 2020

買罩者言:「積極不干預行之有效」去咗邊?

[聽新加坡共和國工貿部陳部長振聲先生發言有感]

呢幾日,有段據稱話係新加坡工貿部長陳振聲嘅錄音,話香港人買防疫用品嘅行為「醜怪」、「低能」,諸如此類。我就唔明喇,新加坡離中國大陸遠過香港,人口又少過香港,但個案多過香港(今日:新加坡89,香港74),有咩資格咁講嘢?

簡單啲嚟講,香港社會亂中有序咁達成嘅共識(唔關香港政府事,係大家SARS之後嘅經驗),係要預防社區爆發。所以,就全民戴口罩嚟減低傳播風險。唔夠口罩?自由市場,價錢上升,有利可圖(無論金錢、商譽定政治),自然就各施各法搵罩返嚟:建制嘅可能返大陸搵,黃之鋒搵到去洪都拉斯,黃店阿布泰去返泰國搵,屈臣氏買到返嚟省招牌,啲藥房亦都買到返嚟炒……競爭帶嚟進步,市面口罩供應多返。比起兩三個禮拜前,口罩市價已經開始回落。有心人亦都買得到口罩,再轉讓俾弱勢人士。

(記得張五常好似寫過,八十年代曾經邀請過大陸官員去參觀某交易所,只見眾多trader走來走去,時不時大叫,問點解咁亂.... 答曰,睇落唔亂,就唔係有效嘅自由市場啦。港人毋須妄自菲薄。)

新加坡呢?似乎佢哋嘅策略,就係等運到,等其他地方搵到有效嘅藥或者疫苗。如果等唔到,其實已經打定輸數,覺得遲早會有社區爆發。買唔到足夠口罩,市面供應又唔夠,咪唯有優先儲備喺醫院應對囉。咁嘅做法,除咗啲政府官員出嚟講嘢望之似人君,真係不敢恭維。

(當然,更深一層嘅計算就可能係:新加坡政府受內部採購守則所限,一時間買唔到好多口罩。但靠民間去做,就會顯得官府無能。於是政府跟從世衛嘅建議,唔呼籲全民戴口罩。)

以上所講嘅兩地分別,其實都係八十年代以來嘅老生常談。星洲政府高效有為,由產業政策,到房屋,到文藝,政府都介入扶持;香港自命「積極不干預」,政府集中提供必要嘅服務,除此以外就由得民間社會自由蓬勃發展。無論係訊息流通,定係付諸行動,都係倚靠本地商界、各色非政府團體、同埋各種人際網絡,反應往往快過官方。

今時唔同往日之處,在於政府唔再高舉「積極不干預」嘅旗幟,出嚟讚揚本地商界同公民社會係自由體制下各師各法,同心應付危機云云;而本港評論界亦再冇張五常之流,指出「去中心化」嘅香港模式,更加能夠調動全民各盡所能,善用大家嘅能力、網絡抗疫,效果更勝「大政府」單打獨鬥嘅新加坡。

明明星洲政策等如賭博,個部長講嘢直頭無禮,數字上香港自由社會抗疫嘅成效亦唔見得差過新加坡,但香港輿論唔係贊同陳振聲部長,就係當聽唔到。呢個象徵住本港社會上下左中右,都已經對香港人、「香港模式」、本港獨有優勢冇晒信心。

呢樣先至可悲。

臉書連結

File: Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters, as used by Al Jazeera

註:

(1) 星島:「陳振聲認為,若新加坡學香港,一人一日一口罩,每日就要五百萬口罩;但疫情可能持續數月,這樣的需求根本無法滿足,所以新加坡必須有策略地使用口罩,分優次保證口罩的供應,首先是醫護人員,其次是的士司機、巴士司機或其他前綫服務人員。他承認,不全民戴口罩或許是一場賭博,但可以確保有足夠的儲備。」

(2) 世衛之前話防疫物品價格飆升,呼籲各國唔好囤積,以免窮國買唔到之類;但新加坡人均GDP仲高過香港,冇出唔起市價嘅考慮。並附圖來源

(3) 原流出錄音見此

(4) 多謝穆琳醫師討論斧正。如有錯漏,全屬本人疏忽。

Saturday, 8 February 2020

聽陳輝陽嘅女聲合唱嘅時候 諗到嘅嘢

一、

聽緊《明日有明天》嘅時候,無啦啦諗起有朋友話,佢已經唔記得六月之前嘅世界係點。

多得現代科技,我可以答佢,我哋五月尾仲講緊係喺沙田嘅大英博物館藏品特展

 // 流過多少眼淚也不必沮喪 至少也比黑雨浩瀚
    玫瑰得到眼淚才特別茁壯 在絕嶺中怎可以不盛放
    全靠試過絕望才珍惜開朗 每天都享樂便忘記了快樂 //

二、

近月發現林夕《人來人往》一句歌詞原來有兩個解法:

    (a) 「(說你男友有事忙)是借口」:個借口係女主角嘅
    (b) 「說(你男友有事忙是借口)」:個借口係女主角時任男友嘅

三、

黃偉文曾經寫過,《日與夜》入面「最好全部記憶收起,總會淡忘你的臉」一句,係陳輝陽嘅「神來之(敗)筆」。 

陳生對文字嘅熱誠、多才多藝嘅風格,似乎亦都延續到佢嘅女聲合唱裏面:《人來人往》有「剛升職的你舉杯到凌晨還未足夠」[本來係「還未夠」]就冇乜所謂啦,只係多咗個字。至於《火鳥》嘅「我不變 / 怎改變一個人」改咗做「我不知 / 怎改變一個人」,都未必唔好㗎。正如王小波可能會話,太過着緊改變自己,就改變唔到他人,更加唔能夠改變世界啦。

四、 

粵文仲係寫得生硬,希望大家多多包涵。不過諗起朱自清當年寫白話文嘅勇氣,我諗可以原諒自己....掛?

五、 

其實明知cap圖上載,Facebook就會當係原創內容,就會多啲人睇到。至於想連結嘅嘢,大可以喺文字部分出。但諗諗吓,又覺得有啲多此一舉。

臉書連結

=========

陳輝陽x女聲合唱 明日有明天

陳輝陽x女聲合唱 人來人往

陳輝陽x女聲合唱 火鳥

Thursday, 24 October 2019

見陳同佳放監有感

(一) 臉書上唔少朋友攞返三年前嘅石棺藏屍案出嚟對比陳同佳案,想論證逃犯條例本來就冇需要修訂。但兩件事其實幾唔同吓,事實都係搞清楚先好。

首先,石棺案三疑犯係涉嫌喺香港犯案嘅香港人。台灣方面當時只係話佢哋簽證到期,將佢哋遞解出境,遣返香港。而香港警察呢,其實並冇「喺空橋交接」疑犯。佢哋法律上只係純粹搭同一班機返香港,到咗赤鱲角先正式逮捕佢哋。呢個安排,當年嘅報紙都搞得清楚。

而陳同佳就好唔同:佢係涉嫌喺台灣犯案嘅香港人,而家身處香港。佢唔係台灣人,所以冇得「遣返」佢去台灣。

(二) 陳同佳已經服完香港刑期,喺香港係自由之身。如果佢唔想去台灣,香港政府不單止冇可能「遣返」佢去台灣,更唔應該用任何方法去「勸」佢去台灣。

管浩鳴鍾意做啲咩,當然係佢嘅自由。但政府點可以帶頭製造輿論壓力,要一個喺香港已恢復自由之身嘅居民,用自己嘅方法,去一個同香港冇引渡/司法互助協議嘅地方受審?如果大家可以接受咁樣「勸」人去台北嘅話,咁下次如果係「勸」人去德黑蘭呢?再下次「勸」人上深圳呢?

(三) 其實,而家陳同佳仲有冇人身自由?

(四) 咁潘曉穎沉冤未雪喎!即係咁,2019年都過咗大半,如果你仲關心呢樣嘢,我唯有咁答你:眾所周知,廉署成立後,呂樂總探長去咗台北,一住就住咗三十幾年,到死都冇返嚟香港受審。唔通搵洗頭艇接佢返嚟先叫公義?

或者咁講:唔係所有「窿」都係漏洞嚟架。落地玻璃容易被賊人打爛入屋,唔通全屋啲窗都要搵紅毛泥封實?

(五) 台灣當局覺得陳同佳案應該由香港司法系統處理,話謀殺係所謂「萬國公罪」,有冇法律界人士解釋吓?我知道某啲地方(例如法國)嘅法庭係無論件事喺邊度發生,都會受理其中一方係本國人嘅刑事案嘅,但香港就唔會。呢個係法系嘅分別?定係只係台灣、法國係咁?

臉書連結

Tuesday, 1 October 2019

時窮節乃見

起初留意才子沈旭暉,在下還在中學。那時他在明報寫《咫尺地球》專欄,有點曲高和寡,卻是我留意當代國際政治的啟蒙。

後來,沈博士也許發覺世人並不力求完美,成本效益更重要:佳作雖仍偶有,卻開始生產有如維基百科平凡中譯的文章。再後來,他化身網路名人,不時以國際花邊新聞吸引人流。他直言是「引誘losers去通過回應,去推高演算式賦予我們的影響力」;話以至此,我等後輩若不想自列losers,唯有只讀不回、只追蹤而不讚了。

沈博交遊廣博,從其全城左右紅藍綠政商名人皆為座上賓的婚禮可見。其人近年更不只專注於學術,對各行各業均有涉獵投資,粵諺「百足咁多爪」之謂也。可是,正因為一人分飾多角,有時難免讓人感到面目模糊。他本人在蘋果專訪的說法是,「『我真身如何思考,身邊朋友很清楚,但為了以上角色,每一句說話都要戴頭盔,不時要做一些主旋律行為儲血,留待扣血所用,很累,也挺討厭自己。』並笑說在北京眼中,《蘋果》訪問會扣很多血。」。但我等無緣成為其身邊朋友 ,無從判斷他在文匯儲血、蘋果扣血,抑或在蘋果儲血、文匯扣血,唯有存疑。

但隨著愈加頻繁的直線抽擊,不時出現的「國際關係邏輯題」,沈博的面目又好像清晰了一點。也許,成為網絡紅人,是為了積聚人氣、影響力;走出學界,涉獵各行各業,是為了分散風險,免得仗義執言時生計受威脅;至於之前令人取態中間著墨,也是為了在關鍵時刻帶領輿論。之前種種舖排,現在都彷彿在相互效力。

不過這三個幾月下來,在運動中顯露真性情的,又豈止一人。有些朋友此前因故或無故漸漸變得疏遠,卻因類近的看法而重新connect。又有性格特立獨行,常成為友儕間八卦主角者,大節無虧,教人自愧弗如。相反的例子,當然也有。古人謂「時窮節乃見」,信哉。當然「相濡以沫,不如相忘於江湖」,但恐怕很難回得去了。

昨晚見到朋友臉書寫着「起來,不願做奴隸的人民」,既感動又慚愧;想過轉發,但人在國外,實在沒有這樣的資格。

黎明來到,希望勇氣、智慧在香港永不滅。諸君保重。

臉書連結

Friday, 26 July 2019

香港北愛化的又一步

那是2016年的夏天。旺角騷亂已經過了幾個月。梁天琦,以及另外數位參選人,剛被禁止參選將於同年稍後舉行的立法會選舉。我正閱讀McKitrick和McVea著的《理解北愛動盪》(Making Sense of The Troubles)。在那陣子前後,我忽爾領會到,香港越來越像北愛爾蘭。

德里/倫敦德里紀念民權運動的壁畫。起先大致非暴力的示威活動,在雙方各自訴諸武力後,演化為三十年的動盪。來源:維基百科;CC BY-SA 2.0
我和Deryck討論過後皆認同這點,也皆希望事實將證明我們是錯的。以下是對話。自此以降,三年過去。

(E:在下;D:Deryck。

由於是即時通訊對話,有時候Deryck剛回了訊,我還在順著之前的思路打字回覆,所以紀錄有時讀來有點突兀,敬請留意。)
E:Hey
E:你點睇梁天琦
E:我同啲frd子傾過,我希望自己完全錯哂,但呢個就係我地睇到新聞時嘅反應
(對話大意:政府好撚蠢,有人覺得梁天琦司法覆核會勝訴{譯按:唉}。而E則擔心咁落去,基進非建制或會更趨激進:例如佢哋或者會諗,公務員會為咗升職賣屎忽,但唔會為升職賣命,然後就可能諗到暗殺,好似北愛爾蘭咁。)
D:我原則上同意
D:我由2012年起就開始講香港北愛化啦
D:建制唔願妥協,各走極端就無可避免
E:我遲過你
E:我去到2015年中至feel到北愛化
D:我估我諗到呢個比喻,係我發現2012年香港立法會嘅政黨光譜同北愛好似嗰陣。每個社經立場,無論左右,都有個泛民黨,有個保皇黨,就好似響北愛無論政治上嘅左右翼,都有聯英派、共和派之分一樣。
E:而我亦同意建制到時會滿手鮮血。
D:以前選管會、法庭,我哋都會視為中立。我地已失去咗選委會。可能呢個係最危險嘅倒退。
E:Well,我地都失去咗廉政公署。
E:都係呢幾個月嘅事。
E:法庭暫時守得住。但守到幾耐呢?
D:有啲厭世咁講,我預測,就選舉管理委員會決定嘅司法覆核,會係壓垮駱駝嘅最後一條稻草。
E:況且只係法庭守得住未必夠。北愛動盪嗰時,英國上議院(嘅受理上訴委員會)一直係北愛嘅最高法院,但唔見得平息到衝突。
E:同意。
E:環繞司法覆核嘅爭議可以拖低成個司法機構
D:香港會爆得比北愛更暴力。原因好簡單:暴力起事通常唔少得對現狀失望嘅後生仔。但香港後生除去大陸之外無啶去,連1970年代嘅北愛後生都不如。佢哋起碼可以揀搬去大不列顛或者愛爾蘭共和國,即係呢好似我喺倫敦時嘅房東一樣。
D:我最驚嘅唔係香港北愛化,而係香港加沙化。
E:如果司法系統拖低咗,就再冇人可以企係兩邊嘅激進派之間調和。
D:一旦社群暴力爆發,中國建制只會更排斥香港人,就好似佢地對待藏人、維吾爾人咁。逼到冇埞走,本來中立嘅青年都會希望幻滅,逼成暴力分離主義者。加沙嗰種Style。
E:咁都有樣嘢令我冇咁驚:我地嘅人口結構唔係加沙嗰種。
D:Hmmm,兩邊嘅激進派?香港改革派邊邊個激進?
E:香港人口中位歲數係43,我記得加沙好似係19。
D:加沙啲老人家去哂邊?:(
E:作為一個社會,香港單純地冇咁多可以訴諸暴力嘅青春活力。
E:我諗係因為加沙公共衡生差,生育率又高掛
D:我唔認同。睇下2014同魚蛋革命幾有活力。
E:比起2011 倫敦騷亂,都係小菜一碟啫。
E:或者同今年法國勞工改革爭議時,我哋巴黎睇到嘅嘢比起嚟。
D:我覺得似巴黎多過倫敦
E:真,倫敦暴動只係一班無組織無目的嘅暴徒。
E:流變方向好明確。由2003年無可挑剔嘅和平遊行,到2014年嘅佔領運動,我哋只係花咗11年。
E:而由整體上和平嘅佔領運動,去到明確針對警察嘅暴力,只用咗420日。
D:2003、2012:我哋相信法律框架下,目標明確嘅政治行動可以促成正面嘅變化。
E:呢條思路最後一次成功,係2012
E:國民教育
D:2014:屌你啦建制,屌你啦佢地啲法律。我地自己訂規矩,再跟嗰啲規矩做嘢。
E:Well
E:最後一次見到呢條思路嘅火花,係2014嘅九月同十月
E:隨著佔領失敗,呢條思路基本上等同死咗
D:2016:屌你啦規距。建制都唔守規距,以牙還牙,我地都唔守。
D:響2014至15時,我曾經希望夏慤村嘅動能,能夠創造一個茁壯嘅公民社會同社會企業圈。佢哋可以補政府嘅不足,就好似英國慈善界響新工黨同保守黨金馬倫時代所做到嘅咁。
E:Well,我會話響2014時,社運人士講「屌你啦建制嘅法律」時,佢地嘅意思其實係「用我哋嘅道德標準為指引,一齊寫下我地自己嘅抗爭底線」。
D:但我認同政府嘅信用破產得太快,呢個大社會好難及時走到位補空隙
D:係,我同意你對2014年嘅睇法
E:依家唯一淨低嘅道德準則似乎係,當社運人士面對政府時,佢地應該共同進退,響同伴有危險跌入警察手中時執番佢地番嚟。無論佢哋本身嘅政見係咪一樣。
D:⋯⋯呢個基本上係自1990年起嘅中國大陸公民社會嘅定義。
E:但依家連對抗爭底線嘅共識都冇。
D:哪有抗爭底線。點解要俾敵人知道你嘅規矩、底線呢?
E:啱呀,而家就係咁。
昨晚,在元朗這座市郊新市鎮,這城市大概又朝著暴力往下走了一步。一群身著白衣、手持武器的流氓無差別地攻擊所有他們在車站裏發現的人,其中包括兒童與孕婦。許多,但並非所有乘客都是自市中心歸來、身著黑衣的示威者。數小時過後,警察方到達現場,碰巧就在流氓離開後。

而這種事,當然,不是新事。在2014年的佔領運動初期,同樣有表面上與政府毫無關係的流氓攻擊示威者。至於公眾與攻擊者理論,或是哀求他們停手,換來同樣朝向臉的一拳,也是同樣的。不幸地,這已算不上新的一步。

然而,在某些片段中,黑衣人竟拿起他們在現場檢到的隨便甚麼棍狀物,奮起還擊,將白衣人打退——這倒是以前沒見過的新事。香港又越過了另一個心理關口:當市民對制度喪失信心,便會自行伸張心中的正義。

不過五年前,抗爭者還那麼信任制度,甚至在面對胡椒噴霧、催淚彈時,仍高舉雙手,彰顯自己並無暴力意圖,彷彿這樣訴求才更有機會實現。現在回想起來,真是難以置信,恍如隔世。

市民對制度存有信心,並非自有永有的事。是七八十年代官府掙回來的,又為此後歷任主事者繼承。2012年,政府把一個又一個原先應該中立的公共服務機關拖入政治。市民此前累積對制度的信心,被一點一點花掉,換取短期的政治利益。香港已經駛離熟悉的水域;此後的事,我們只能用猜的。

殖民地時代最後二十年,英國政府對香港管治的方針一言以蔽之,大概就是「別讓時任主事的內閣大臣難堪」。左修右補,搭出個現代社會。其根基看來精緻,實則脆弱。在這現代社會的核心,是貌似中立、去政治化的政府,以其高效惠澤社群,博得港人為之自豪。公眾諮詢亦做得細緻,展現得廣納民意。民主制度既然不能實現,便把以上種種包裝成代用品,一時間也彷彿有民主制度的效果。

累卵正立於高牆之上。一旦失去平衡,摔在地上,就可能永遠無法復原了。

現狀本就要細心拿捏分寸才維持得來,很難寄望每一任主事者都做得到。政府開始玩火,只是時間問題——有時甚至並不自知玩火。

(Translation Exercise 2.5 / 翻譯練習 2.5)

後記:多謝穆琳不吝撥冗賜教,翻譯了原文大半。譯得差的地方,都是我的。

=====

臉書原文
Original in English