Archive for January, 2011

Friends, lend me your ears

Posted in Speech on January 16, 2011 by loso

政務司司長出席青年學術會議致辭全文(只有中文)(附圖/短片)
******************************

以下為政務司司長唐英年今日(一月十五日)在香港兆基創意書院出席Roundtable研究所周年典禮暨青年學術會議的致辭全文:

Simon(沈旭暉)、Anthony(胡定旭)、各位Roundtable的朋友:

早晨!很多謝Roundtable邀請我這個既是五零後也是五十後,出席你們的周年活動。

既然是圓桌會議,我有三點希望:第一,希望我們大家處於一個平等的位置;第二,希望各位不要因為年紀或所謂世代的差異,尊稱我為「唐老」;第三,希望大家不要因為我是建制中人就先將我的話自動打一個折扣,不論我說得中聽不中聽,請大家都視之為一個熱愛香港、並且有幸能為社會做事的過來人一點肺腑之言。

今天這個學術會議的討論議題,有新世代與香港精神、網絡政治文化、教育與向上流、文化融合與西九、青年人的公共政策建議、內地與香港一小時生活圈。可謂虛實兼備、長短兼顧,與年青人息息相關,不少更是我目前工作上需要處理的問題,我很希望日後有機會與大家就這些題目作比較深入的探討和交流。

Simon很寬容,沒有指定我發言的主題,於是我可以自由發揮。學術演講並非我的專長,倒不如隨意談談對一些社會現象的看法。

回顧2010年,80後問題肯定是其中一個討論得最多的社會現象,分析和討論的角度也非常多樣化 ─ 人物剖析、抗爭手法、代表的理念、現象的成因、世代之間對遊戲規則和話事權的爭奪戰、與傳統政治勢力和媒體的互動、現代科技手段的實戰應用等等。

無可否認,80後現象成為熱門話題,相當程度上是媒體和網絡科技所造就的。引起大家注意的往往是80後比較出格的手法和一些抗爭場面,然後大家嘗試去歸納和總結80後的一些表徵和行為特質。但撇除這些,我更感興趣的是這個現象的成因和社會基礎,背後的理念,以及對社會發展的影響。

我知道不少青年朋友其實有點兒抗拒被簡單地歸類或標籤化,然後被套入某種固定的行為模式,更不願意外界將他們的動機解釋為因為上位難而通過社會運動去宣洩不滿或者試圖改變遊戲規則。

當我還是青年人的時候,同樣有那個時代的社會運動。兩個年代的具體訴求可能有所不同,表達的方式或抗爭的手段可能有所差異,但同樣是基於對理想的追求,同樣是出於對一些社會現狀的不滿。

社會運動許多時候促使我們對周遭發生的事情和存在的現象作出反思,可以是推動社會進步的力量,最起碼也是讓社會上一些怨氣得以釋放的閥門。雖然不少社會運動見到年青人的影子,並且因為他們的激情吸引到傳媒的焦點,但我們不能因此就簡化為年青人或者所謂80後現象,否則就很容易陷入一套世代鴻溝的簡單邏輯。

事實上,回顧近年來香港社會的一些變化,雖然起初有不少是由年青人去推動,但最終能夠形成氣候,主要還是因為具備了一定的社會背景,令跨世代、跨階層的公眾逐漸接受一些價值的改變。打一個譬喻,青年人就像是播種者,但必須有社會的土壤,種子才能夠茁壯成長。

我們看保育、環保、對本土文化的回歸、對經濟發展模式的反思、對如何分配社會資源和經濟成果的爭論,都能夠看到這種軌跡。

當然,凡事總有正反兩面,要辯證地看問題。在肯定社會運動積極一面的同時,我們也應該清醒地看到它們的另一面。

大部分時候社會運動的基調是爭取權益,爭取自己認同的理念,強調的是「我」或者「我們」。同時,香港社會高度自由,市民最珍惜的基本價值當中,「自由」在任何時候都是名列前茅。再加上我們實施的是市場經濟,企業追求的是商業利益的最大化。因此,社會的重心比較傾向於個體、個性。

在這個情況下,權利的另一面,即是責任,往往受到忽略。而我認為,一個真正成熟的公民社會,在重視權利的同時,必須自覺地承擔責任。這是多層次的,有公權力的就有責任確保權力不被濫用,有責任去妥善調和矛盾、分配資源。企業既有產權受保護的權利,就有責任守法經營,進而考慮承擔一定的社會責任。個人最起碼就是認識到權利並非絕對,必須尊重他人的自由和權利。

第二點就是不要搞思想壟斷。這個世界是豐富多元的,我們應該有包容的胸襟,尊重他人的想法和意見,而不是對持相反意見的人動輒口誅筆伐。我一直相信,人類重要的美德就是謙恭(humility)和自我反省(self-reflection)。剛愎自用加上勇往直前,最後很容易車毀人亡。

由此引伸出的第三點,可能是很多原則性極強的朋友所鄙視或者不屑為之的,就是「妥協」。當然我們可以想一些更順耳的字眼,例如「策略性讓步」、例如「曲線前進」等。不論用甚麼說法,必須承認,妥協是民主的產物。香港要走民主化的道路,就是不能關起門來當皇帝,自己說了算,而是要學會如何折衷互讓,以各退半步去尋求最終大家能夠共同進一步的結果。

第四點是避免將複雜問題簡單化。很可惜,按照現實世界有bite有mic的遊戲規則,要聽眾耐心聆聽和用心理解複雜枯燥的問題,已經是愈來愈困難的事情。一個很常見的例子就是,不問青紅皂白,甚麼事情只要涉及政府、商界,就必然會得到官商勾結、利益輸送的結論,人物、時間、地點只成為填充題。總之,零乘以任何數都是等於零。

這裏面當然有其成因,有所謂「深層次問題」,但如果凡事都套用這個方程式,只會走向另一個極端,成為懶於理性思考的借口,對真正解決問題幫助不大。

最後,關於抗爭手法問題,有一些朋友認為,衝擊是吸引注意力、擴大影響力所必需的,而香港社運的手法與西方社會相比,並不能算過激。我不否認這一點,但香港社會對近期一些衝擊手法並不認同,因為我們普遍接受的是和平理性的一套。近日我們看到美國一宗槍擊事件所觸發對於政治和暴力關係的反思,很值得我們去深思。我相信香港人絕對不願意看到政治或社運引致流血,當底線不斷被衝擊、不斷倒退,我們就有可能走上一條不歸路。

這些是一位五十後的想法。交棒是歷史規律,你們很快就會「接棒揸庄」。你們期望接手的是一個怎樣的香港,跨世代的溝通是我們雙方的共同責任。有人說,政客用得最少的器官是耳朵。我一直引以為戒,也希望與大家彼此說一句:Friends, lend me your ears。

Thank you。

2011年1月15日(星期六)
香港時間12時52分

 

Value of Opposition

Posted in HK Pan-Democrats, Speech on January 10, 2011 by loso

Minority Rights in Governance: The Value of Opposition
Alan Kah-Kit LEONG
Leader, Civic Party, HKSAR

Hong Kong has been mourning the passing of Mr. Szeto Wah, an icon of the city’s democratic movement since the 1970s.  Hong Kong people mourn not only Mr. Szeto’s demise, but also our inability to restore some fairness to distribution of political powers and some balance in government policies for social justice after more than 3 decades of pursuit of democracy.

The Status Quo

Legislators associated with the democratic movement like myself have since about 5 years ago been called “the Opposition” by the government.  The word ‘’opposition’’ has a bad reputation, especially in Eastern cultures where conformity and unity are regarded as much more virtuous. “Opposition” is deemed unnecessary and is often seen only in a negative light. So much so that, in politics, opposition parties are often crushed, sidelined, or made irrelevant and unattractive by those in power. Some electoral systems are purposely designed to contain opposition, render them electorally ineffective. The system is designed so that the oppositions are unable to perform the function to act as the “check and balance” of executive power – the most basic function which one would expect them to perform in a modern society.

Hong Kong is no stranger to such a political system.

The presently constituted Legislative Council has 60 members, 30 of whom are directly elected from 5 Geographical Constituencies with an electorate of a total of 3.4 million voters.  The other 30 are elected from Functional Constituencies when only about 220,000 companies, organizations and individuals belonging to a designated sector can vote.  The rights to nominate and be nominated are also exclusively reserved to them.  All private bills and motions must obtain half the votes of the Functional Constituencies legislators before they are passed.  For an extreme example, there can be 45 votes in support of a private motion and yet cannot have it passed, if only 15 Functional Constituency Members abstain from voting.  This effectively gives them a veto power over every important issue that matters to the Hong Kong People.  Or, 3.4 million can be vetoed by 220,000.

Our Chief Executive is elected by a small circle of elites of 800, and it is they who decide the fate of Hong Kong’s politics.  Opposition parties in Hong Kong are seen by those in power as an obstacle to effective governance, as a nuisance and distraction.

Universal Suffrage: Is the promise honoured?

Since Hong Kong ceased to be a British colony in 1997, we have been promised in the Basic Law, our mini constitution, universal suffrage for the elections of our Chief Executive, who is head of the Administration, and all members of the Legislature.

In our first 60-member Legislative Council after the reversion of sovereignty, there were 18 directly elected seats; those increased to 24 in the second council and 30 in the third.  While we were expecting such gradual progress to deliver us, if not universal suffrage in 2008, at least more directly elected councilors to at least outnumber those returned by the functional constituencies, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee resolved in 2005 that the status quo should be kept so that directly elected councilors cannot be more than those elected by the businesses and professionals.  In 2007, when Hong Kong was expecting progress in 2012, the NPCSC dictated to us, yet again, that the proportion between Geographical Constituencies and Functional Constituencies Members should still be retained even for 2012.

For election of the Chief Executive, the People of Hong Kong has yet to see or hear about any arrangement that respects our right to nominate and be nominated for the office.
Will the Promise be honoured?

In the 2007 decision of the NPCSC, it was mentioned that Hong Kong could elect its Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 at the earliest and that similar arrangements could be adopted for the Legislative Council afterwards.  Our Chief Executive has interpreted that to mean universal suffrage for election of the Legislative Council in 2020 at the earliest.

Will that happen?

The government just introduced two bills into the Legislative Council making provisions for elections of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2012.  One thing is clear: the Central People’s Government wants to firmly control the rights to nominate and be nominated for half of the seats in the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive.  What the People of Hong Kong might be allowed to enjoy is just the right to vote.

2012 will be the last Chief Executive Election (once every 5 years) before 2017 and the second last Legislative Council Election before 2020 (once every 4 years).  Given what we saw of the government’s proposed electoral models for elections of the Chief Executive and Legislative Council, there are practically no way that Hong Kong can see universal and equal suffrage implemented for elections in 2017 and 2020.

What the Opposition did?

Given the political status quo in Hong Kong, minority rights, whether it be the ever-widening rich-poor gap, the right to a reasonable living, the right to freedom of expression, the right to demonstration and assembly, the right to religious belief or the right of ethnic minorities to have equal education and employment opportunity, continue to be insufficiently provided for or safeguarded, and sometimes even neglected and ignored, by the government.  The Opposition plays the guardian of minority rights and does everything to strive for universal suffrage in the election of political leaders.

In 2007 I decided to enter the election for Chief Executive of Hong Kong to run against the incumbent, Donald Tsang, so as to bring about a contested election.  The contest produced 2 live television debates that lasted for a total of 3 hours and could be watched not only by the 7 million in Hong Kong, but also the 110 million in the Pearl River Delta.  Through that election, Hong Kong people saw the value of opposition parties.  We also saw the value in having the competition of ideas in public policies.

In 2010, 5 legislators of the Opposition resigned from their Geographical Constituencies seats to trigger territory-wide by-elections.  It was a social movement that lasted for 6 months.  During this time, Hong Kong people were focused just on how unfair and prejudicial Functional Constituencies have been in bringing about political domination by sectorial vested interests.  Having gone through with this movement, people began to see clearer than ever the acutely unfair distribution of resources and wealth in Hong Kong, which is often described as the “deep-seated conflict”, could not be sufficiently tackled and resolved without the mandate of the people from the ballot box in truly democratic elections.

I believe Hong Kong took two important steps towards achieving genuine democracy by what the Opposition had done.

The Value of Opposition

Speaking as a political party leader and as a politician, I treasure my role in opposition, and I think I can do no better than to quote the former British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in how he saw the value of being in the opposition.  He said

“I think the young men – and the older men – who came into Parliament as part of a huge Labour majority didn’t get the training we got. It’s a good thing for leaders of the House of Commons to have sat for some time in Opposition. Not too long. Too long a period of Opposition stales the mind. That was the trouble with the German Social Democrats: they had to criticize for so long they lost the faculty for being constructive.

If you could plan these things, I think it would be a good thing for everybody to start in the House of Commons in Opposition. I think the Labour M.P. who starts off on the Government side misses something, and the man who starts off virtually as a Labour Minister, as several did just after the war, misses much more.

It’s useful to have to sit in Opposition for your first few years, but it is particularly good for people to have to sit there unable to say very much while the ex-Ministers and Privy Councillors are being called on all the time. Young chaps like me had to just sit there and keep quiet; but we could listen and watch points. Very important. Whoever the man is, and whatever his gifts of leadership, he needs a great deal of experience of the House of Commons.”

Of course we get to do much more than to just sit and watch in Hong Kong’s legislature. We actively use our position as opposition to hold the government to account.

Being in the Opposition, as Attlee pointed out, is essential for any politician and political party. Most importantly, it humbles oneself, and humility is the most important quality of leadership; for it enables oneself to see one’s mistakes. Good political judgment only comes from the capacity of learning from one’s mistakes.

To me, the most interesting part of Attlee’s quote however is that one cannot be in Opposition for too long a period of time, for it “stales the mind”.

This is precisely why, even in Hong Kong’s current political system, where there is no hope in us being elected to power anytime soon, the Civic Party, founded in March 2006, always thinks from the perspective of being the Party in government. For we know that we cannot let the opposition mindset saddle us with irresponsibility and irrationality. We must constantly remind ourselves of the need to be constructive in our politics. Most importantly, Hong Kong’s political development has advanced to a stage where the people expect much more from the Opposition.

They expect us to show leadership and vision where the Government is blind.

They expect us to lead where the Government fails.

They expect us to take on the challenges of the 21st Century where the Government lacks foresight.

They expect us to bring forth and defend a free and open society where the Government is weak.

It is indeed a coincidence that the Hong Kong People comes to expect so much from the opposition parties in a system where the Opposition is supposed to be irrelevant and ineffective. This is not what the designer of our political system had in mind.  But ironically, it is precisely because of the imperfections in our political system which brought about the best in the value of opposition in Hong Kong politics.

What next to watch in Hong Kong?

Hong Kong needs a fairer political system for minority rights to be better protected.  Hong Kong needs a Chief Executive who has a clear mandate from the people and votes in the Legislative Council to build a city on a vision shared by all, expressed by a political consensus built through policy research, rational debates and popular advocacy.  Hong Kong needs a legislature that deliberates for the best interest of its 7 million people, and not just to continue the political domination by the most powerful few who make their fortunes from land development and property investment.

The 2 Bills making laws for the 2012 Elections are now making their way through the Legislative Council.  The Civic Party will try to introduce amendments to the Bills in order to make it fairer.  Most importantly, we want to make sure about the laws, once passed, would be conducive to achieving the goal of truly democratic elections of the Chief Executive in 2017 and all members of the Legislative Council in 2020.

I shall be just too glad to keep you posted on democracy building in Hong Kong in these interesting times.

 

Hon Alan Leong SC
January 10, 2011
Taipei

 

公民黨新任黨魁梁家傑對黨員的話

Posted in HK Pan-Democrats, Speech on January 9, 2011 by loso

2011年1月9日發出

公民黨新任黨魁梁家傑對黨員的話

梁家傑昨日(1月8日)在黨周年大會當選公民黨黨魁,今天以電郵方式,向黨員補發昨日因議程緊迫而未能向黨員發表的3000字講話(詳見下文)。此外,梁家傑以黨魁身分的第一個活動,是今天下午前往台北,應Heritage Foundation邀請明早在一個論壇演講,主題是“Democracy Building in Interesting Times”

主席,各位黨員,黨友

未來兩年將是香港民主運動,以致公民黨發展的一個重要里程。際此關鍵時刻,黨的兄弟姊妹委我以黨魁重任,實深感榮幸,亦知任重道遠。要有余若薇舉重若輕的從容;要在複雜多變的政治角力中履險如夷,不能沒有大家不時提點和糾正。眼見越來越多黨員願意為黨和民主運動作無償的付出,我深信未來兩年當黨魁之路,會因有大家作伴而不會孤單。

香港的深層次矛盾,在於資源和財富分配不均。在既得利益透過功能組別繼續壟斷政治權力的情況下,這深層次矛盾只會有增無減。面對通脹和日益擴大的貧富差距問題,有權無票的政府顯得怯懦。對於做成深層次矛盾的核心問題視若無睹,連作長遠社會規劃和投資也不願。天天只在見火撲火,見招拆招。儼如跛腳鴨看守政府般,做一日和尚敲一日鐘,拖得就拖。拖延不會令社會問題消失;到問題大得解決不來,香港也就會被拖垮!

我黨一直堅信,政黨政治,一人一票選特首,一人一票選全體立法會議員是唯一出路。當我們的特首有充分的政治認受性,有權亦有票時,他才能經充分考量各方意見後作出平衡,以香港整體福祉作依歸,切實提出更好、更公道的方案為香港解困。

可惜,去年6月立法會通過的2012政改方案,跟這方向背道而馳,使香港出現普及和平等選舉的機會更形渺茫。最近,基本法委員會副主任梁愛詩表明經改良的功能組別可符合普選原則;全國政協常委陳永棋亦指由功能組別選民先選出2-3名候選人,再開放予全民普選的安排已獲商界支持。經他們放話後,中央只放投票權,卻牢牢緊握提名和參選權,讓功能組別可以千秋萬世的格局,大致定下來。我黨有責任向香港人講清楚,走這條路與真普選南轅北轍,深層次矛盾做成的不公和分化,將繼續是香港人的夢魘,讓大家知所警惕。

我黨一直堅守原則,據理力爭,反對不能達致投票、提名與參選三權歸一的假普選方案。在以五區公投作啟蒙的「新民主運動」中,充分表現出信任選民,願意動員選民的堅定立場。在2011年的區議會和選舉委員會選舉,及2012年的特首和立法會共4個選舉中,我黨必須延續「新民主運動」,動員香港人,繼續清楚表態,要求打破特權壟斷,廢除功能組別。這4個選舉,將會是我黨發展的重要里程,亦是考驗我黨能力的關鍵時刻。

我黨的能力,尤以動員能力最受考驗。

我黨的首要任務,將是動員年青人、中產者、勞動階層、中小企業和一眾冇權、冇票、冇錢,老、弱、傷、殘和被邊緣化的弱勢社群,以理性務實的態度,憑公民自救的覺醒,用專業溫和的手段,參與建設一個「我們所要的香港」。

年青人在特權壟斷格局中首當其衝,成為最令人痛心的犧牲品。正因為特權壟斷,年青人憑創業突圍的機會變得渺茫。從守護天星、皇后碼頭到反高鐵、護菜園;從反對屏風樓、完善城市規劃到反對官商勾結、建立「與民共議」文化,年青人都能投入參與,分析並批判社會的不公義,盡顯魄力和創意。在以五區公投作啟蒙的「新民主運動」中,年青人更以堅韌的勇氣,為香港這個他們安生立命之所作出承擔,為新民主運動做應該做的事!香港要有希望,年青人必須能以知識脫貧,自強不息,透過公平競爭,得享自力更生的成果。我黨要與年青人和關心他們的父母站在一起,爭取完善基礎和大學教育,打破地產霸權壟斷經濟之局,改變年青人只能為它們服務和進貢利潤的宿命。

中產者是現今香港最受壓的一層。他們上有父母,下有兒女。由於社會政策未能做到老有所養,教育政策亦未能使父母一心一意讓兒女在本地就學,結果稅是納了不少,但還是要自掏腰包,支持父母的生活和醫藥費,保送兒女到外國讀書。這是不可接受的。我黨要與中產者站在一起,爭取減低中產者負擔社會成本的比例,投放公共資源在基礎社會建設,減輕他們肩上的擔子,改善他們的生活質素。

勞動階層在工時長,人工低,福利少,法例保障不足的境況下工作,香港是個崇尚仁愛公義的社會,我們不能對此坐視不理。我黨要與勞動階層站在一起,爭取還工人以應有的尊嚴。

中小企業的營商環境日趨困難。地貴、租貴,盈利稍有增長即隨時面臨幾倍的租金加幅;同時,因為大財團壟斷之局難破,競爭往往絕不公平。60年代由經營小本生意起家終成世界級富豪的例子,現在幾乎已成絕唱。我黨要與中小企業站在一起,爭取改善營商環境,使小本經營者能獲得應有和合理回報。

我黨也要與一眾冇權、冇票、冇錢,老、弱、傷、殘和被邊緣化的弱勢社群站在一起,爭取全民退休保障早日實行,做好香港人口老齡化的準備,完善綜合援助制度和對殘障人士的照顧。務使香港經濟的蓬勃發展能惠及每一個香港人。

要動員群眾,除了靠一個清晰的願景和可以付諸實行的政策外,還得靠牢固的社區支援網絡。公民黨必須加倍努力做好緊貼民生的工作,扎根地區。具豐富服務社區經驗的黨員,應透過黨內資源和經驗分享平台,與有志服務街坊的地區發展者多交流,形成一支強大的地區工作團隊,務以「街坊要幫忙,梗有公民黨?左近」作目標。

公民黨要贏得香港人信任,並增加動員能力,就必須秉持自創黨以來,以執政思維作指導,進行社會政策研究的方向;用專業、務實、講理性、重原則的態度,向選民闡釋並推動一直持守的香港願景和價值,透過不懈的辯論和廣泛的倡議,用摩登政黨的方法,在各不同利益集體之間建立跨階層的社會共識,爭取最大的民眾支持。

越接近選舉,政治形勢越波譎雲詭,凶險非常。我黨上下,必以正直誠實自持。我們當然要提防擺明車馬的親建制政黨,但更須警惕的,是那些以理性溫和做幌子,不惜魚目混珠、混淆中產價值,用似是而非的手段蒙騙香港人的政治勢力。我黨必須時刻提醒香港人,這些政治勢力最終還是服務權貴,向既得利益靠攏。在關鍵時刻,它們都會選擇作高牆,不會站在雞蛋的一方。

民主派只有團結的需要,沒有分裂的條件。民主派中不同政黨,對形勢的研判,可以因黨而異,因人有別,沒甚麼大不了。在選舉時進行公平競爭,擺事實,講道理,爭支持,亦屬必然。透過公平、公開的積極競爭,我們有理由相信可以擴闊民主派的光譜,吸納更多的支持者。但千萬要恪守的底線,是不能惡言相對,互相攻訐,損害民主同路人的情誼,讓別人可拉一派打一派,乘機進行分化。不同的民主派朋友間,要透過不歇溝通,務求達致互相明白和諒解,求同存異,團結最多數的同路人。只要是透過理性辯論,以理服人,最終結果就取決於選民的意向了。

一如既往,公民黨將繼續尋求與中央主管香港事務者溝通。只要沒有前設條件和無需放棄原則,我黨隨時準備好跟中央官員討論共同關心的議題。我們亦會繼續發展跟台灣和國際友人的網絡,讓他們明白公民黨在香港爭取普及和平等選舉的立場,以及遇到的困難。

在香港爭民主,吃力不討好,付出不一定有回報。我們仍樂此不疲,是因為對平等、公道、民主等普世價值有所追求;對保障人權、自由、法治的制度有所執著。讓我們憑著這份追求和執著,互相扶持和鼓勵,繼續我們追求理想的路!

未來兩年,是香港民主運動的關鍵時刻。民主運動需要公民黨;公民黨需要你們每一位。自創黨以來,你我在黨的旗幟下,一齊經歷了2006年的選舉委員會界別選舉;2007年的特首選舉,港島區補選和區議會選舉;也經歷了2008年的立法會選舉及2010年的五區公投運動。大家都付出了很多,犧牲了不少。黨員和黨友,加上支持我們的人,正是公民黨最能倚靠的資源。亦是因為我們的願意付出,公民黨才能一步一腳印的走到今天。過去5年的路不容易,前面的2年更荊棘滿途;但有你同行,我一定不會孤單。

我明白自己有很多不足之處,但我向你們承諾將盡我之所能,在黨主席的領導和各位兄弟姊妹的提點下,做好黨魁的工作。為民主運動薪火相傳,為公民黨承先啟後,貢獻我能做的。

現在距離區議會和選舉委員會界別選舉只有11個月的時間。公民黨將要持續推動「新民主運動」,鼓勵全民參與,誠任重而道遠。就讓我們同心同德,一起落區、一起管理好我們的團隊,與公民社會肩並肩,與民主路上的朋友手牽手,從容面對未來的挑戰,為香港和中國的民主、法治、人權和自由,做我們應該做的,做我們可以做的。好讓我們向下一代負責,向歷史承傳作交待!多謝。

 

%d bloggers like this: