BBC 紀錄片：末代港督彭定康

95歲的郝柏村參觀中國人民抗日戰爭紀念館: 「紀念館有沒有共赴國難宣言？」

郝柏村嗆陸：蔣委員長領導抗日

by 特派記者 林克倫

07.08.14 - 06:25 am

台灣前行政院長郝柏村7日前往「七七事變」爆發地北京盧溝橋參觀，對於抗日的正統性，郝柏村直嗆陸方：「抗戰歷史要講明，到底是誰領導的？是蔣委員長！」立場明確、不慍不火，遠較慣跟中共杯觥交錯的黃埔學弟們有guts。

現年95歲的郝柏村，7日先前往中國人民抗日戰爭紀念館參觀，一踏進館內即先聲奪人，鏗鏘有力地說：「抗戰歷史要講明，到底是誰領導中華民族抗戰的？紀念抗戰歷史，必須要明確知道，八年對日抗戰是誰領導的？是蔣委員長領導的！」

鐵錚錚事實一語戳破中共的抗戰宣傳論調，令館方頗為尷尬；而在參觀館藏抗戰文物時，郝柏村又客氣地詢問說：「紀念館有沒有共赴國難宣言？」簡扼一句問話，又再度點中陸方「要害」，現場一片靜默。

「共赴國難宣言」寫於1937年，中共在宣言裡表明，願意服從三民主義，為實現三民主義奮鬥，且願取消推翻國民黨的暴動政策、取消蘇維埃政府等承諾；中共不願陳列、避談宣言，原因即想獨攬抗日功勞。

結束紀念館行程，郝柏村一行來到盧溝橋，儘管大陸曾宣傳肯定國民黨在抗日的「正面戰場」作用，然眼見為憑，關鍵史料依舊闕如。或是有感於抗日戰績竟被宿敵中共「收割」，郝在盧溝橋上再度重提：「是蔣委員長堅持抗戰，才能得到最後勝利！」

國共和解、物換星移，郝柏村此次大陸行仍維持低調、不與官方接觸的私人行程原則，隨行人員多由黃埔學弟退役將領權充「保鑣」，陸方僅協助安排行程，也沒有大陸各級官員乃至解放軍將領陪同之政治禮節。

較之部分台方退役將領慣與中共杯觥交錯，「郝大學長」仍捍衛著黃埔精神，就如同眾多老兵般，堅守著「我是中國人，但我恨共產黨，因為共產黨讓我家破人亡」的信念；老兵退將，獨守軍魂一絲猶在！

不過大陸媒體並未報導郝柏村的上述講話，只報導郝柏村強調「我是一個抗戰的老兵」。據報導，「七七事變」時，郝柏村正在軍官學校讀書，從黃埔軍校12期砲科畢業後他參加了抗日戰爭，曾先後經歷1938年的廣州之役、1939年的皖南戰役，後又隨孫立人將軍所率領的中國遠征軍38師赴緬甸作戰。

報導說，郝柏村登上盧溝橋，望著橋上見證烽火硝煙的石獅時感慨萬千吟詩，「可憐無定河邊骨，猶是深閨夢中人」，以感歎戰爭的殘酷。「大家都知道，抗戰勝利是我們中華民族復興的開始。堅持抗戰到底，取消不平等條約，收復失土，保護國家領土主權完整，這才是我們今天一切幸福的根本，所以兩岸的年輕世代都應該要記得這件事」。
=================================================


[共赴國難宣言]

親愛的同胞們：

中国共产党中央委员会谨以极大的热忱向我全国父老兄弟诸姑姊妹宣言，当此国难极端严重民族生命存亡绝续之时，我们为著挽救祖国的危亡，在和平统一团结御侮 的基础上，已经与中国国民党获得了谅解，而共赴国难了。这对於我们伟大的中华民族前途有着怎样重大的意义啊！因为大家都知道，在民族生命危急万状的现在， 只有我们民族内部的团结，才能战胜日本帝国主义的侵略。现在民族团结的基础已经定下了，我们民族独立自由解放的前提也已创设了，中共中央特为我们民族的光 明灿烂的前途庆贺。

不过我们知道，要把这个民族的光辉前途变为现实的独立自由幸福的新中国，仍需要全国同胞，每一个热血的炎黄子孙，坚忍不拔地努力奋斗。中国共产党愿当此时机，向全国同胞提出我们奋斗之总的目标，这就是：

（一）争取中华民族之独立自由与解放。首先须切实地迅速地准备与发动民族革命抗战，以收复失地和恢复领土主权之完整。

（二）實現民權政治，召開國民大會，以制定憲法與規定救國方針。

（三）实现中国人民之幸福与愉快的生活。首先须切实救济灾荒，安定民生，发展国防经济，解除人民痛苦与改善人民生活。

凡此诸项，均为中国的急需，以此悬为奋斗之鹄的，我们相信必能获得全国同胞之热烈的赞助。中共愿在这个总纲领的目标下，与全国同胞手携手地一致努力。

中共深切知道，在实现这个崇高目标的前进路上，须要克服许多的障碍和困难，首先将遇到日本帝国主义的阻碍和破坏。为著取消敌人的阴谋之借口，为著解除一切 善意的怀疑者之误会，中国共产党中央委员会，有披沥自己对於民族解放事业的赤忱之必要。因此，中共中央再郑重向全国宣言：

一、孙中山先生的三民主义为中国今日之必需，本党愿为其彻底的实现而奋斗。

二、取消一切推翻国民党政权的暴动政策及赤化运动，停止以暴力没收地主土地的政策。

三，取消現在的蘇維埃政府，實行民權政治，以期全國政權之統一。

四、取消红军名义及番号，改编为国民革命军，受国民政府军事委员会之统辖，并待命出动，担任抗日前线之职责。

亲爱的同胞们！本党这种光明磊落大公无私与委曲求全的态度，早已向全国同胞在言论行动上明白表示出来，并且已获得同胞们的赞许。现在为求得与国民党的精诚 团结，巩固全国的和平统一，实行抗日的民族革命战争，我们准备把这些诺言中在形式上尚未实行的部分，如苏区取消，红军改编等，立即实行，以便用统一团结的 全国力量，抵抗外敌的侵略。
寇深矣！祸亟矣！同胞们，起来，一致的团结啊！我们伟大的悠久的中华民族是不可屈服的。起来，为巩固民族的团结而奋斗！为推翻日本帝国主义的压迫而奋斗！胜利是属於中华民族的！抗日战争胜利万岁！
獨立自由幸福的新中國萬歲！

荀子社會控制思想略說

2011年04月21日 09:47:02 　來源： 光明日報

　　荀子生活的戰國末期，是新舊秩序交替的時期，諸侯割據的局面正在朝著中央集權、全國統一的新局面逐漸轉化。從這一現實出發，荀子提出了豐富、係統的社會控制思想。他認為，人的本性是惡的，人性惡決定了人們有共同的追求和無限的欲望，而財物又是有限的，二者之間的矛盾必然導致衝突和爭鬥。“欲惡同物，欲多物寡，寡則必爭矣。”（《富國》）因此，他認為必須對人惡的本性加以控制，並提出了三種社會控制手段：使群、隆禮、至法，以達到“至平”的社會控制的秩序目標。

　　使群：社會控制的組織手段

　　荀子注意到人類群體生活的生存特徵，他認為，人與動物的根本區別在于“能群”，同時又將“群”作為滿足和控制人們欲望的重要手段，“百技所成，所以養一人也。而能不能兼技，人不能兼官；離居不相待則窮，群而無分則爭。窮則患也，爭者禍也。救患除禍，則莫若明分使群矣。”（《富國》）

　　如何建立有序的社會組織結構？荀子提出“明分”的辦法。這是因為，“勢位齊，而欲惡同，物不能澹則必爭，爭則必亂，亂則窮矣”（《王制》），所以就需要“明分”，“以明分達治而保萬世也”（《君道》）。如何“明分”？首先，“明分”是要使社會群體各司其職，形成明確的社會分工和職業結構。荀子根據當時的社會狀況，劃分出四種職業類別，即“農農、士士、工工、商商”。他認為“農分田而耕，賈分貨而販，百工分事而勸，士大夫分職而聽，建國諸侯之君分土而守，三公總方而議，則天子共己而止矣”（《王霸》）。農民、商人、工匠、士大夫各行其是、各司其職，職業分工明確，就井然有序了。其次，“明分”是使各社會群體各得其所，形成等級分明的國家管理和倫理結構。荀子主張統治者要根據不同的社會群體的等級名分給以相應的治理和待遇。君主應當有把人組織為群體的能力，即“能群”。如何組織呢？荀子認為需要統治者“善生養人”、“善班治人”、“善顯設人”、“善藩飾人”（《君道》），實質上就是要有“明分”的能力和素質，具體來說，就是要善于用“明分”的辦法養育子民、治理朝廷、任用百官、分配飾物。

　　隆禮：社會控制的文化手段

　　“禮”是荀學中的核心字眼。在荀子看來，“禮”正是起源于人性惡的判斷，其目的就是為了調節人的欲望與有限財物間的矛盾，“人生而有欲，欲而不得，則不能無求，求而無度量分界，則不能不爭。爭則亂，亂則窮。先王惡其亂也，故制禮義以分之，以養人之欲，給人之求。使欲必不窮乎物，物必不屈于欲，兩者相持而長，是禮之所起也。”（《禮論》）在荀子的社會控制思想中，“禮”具有全面的社會控制功能和廣泛的輻射面。他說：“人無禮則不生，事無禮則不成，國家無禮則不寧。”（《修身》）“禮”既是個人修養的道德規范，又是社會成員的行為準則，也是為政治國的綱要根本。

　　“禮”是個人修養的道德規范。荀子反復論述要培養君子人格，“禮者，所以正身也。”（《修身》）他倡導從君主到普通老百姓都應遵守忠孝信義的道德規范，君主修身是為了樹立道德之威，成為臣民之表率；百姓修身則是為了“治達”、“和節”、舉止優雅。

　　“禮”是社會成員的行為準則。社會成員在交往中都要遵循禮義準則。首先，要用“禮”來確定人倫關係。“禮以定倫”（《致士》）；“禮者，貴賤有等，長幼有差，貧富輕重皆有稱者也。”（《富國》）“禮也者，貴者敬焉，老者孝焉，長者弟焉，幼者慈焉，賊者惠焉。”（《大略》）作為君、臣、父、子、兄、弟、夫、妻都應各自遵守相應的禮義。其次，人們的行為舉止必須符合禮義。此外，人們在祭禮、養生等具體事宜中也應當遵循“禮”的準則。在養生方面，“量食而食之，量要而帶之”（同上）。

　　“禮”是為政治國的根本。荀子說：“國無禮則不正，禮之所以正國也，譬之猶衡之于輕重也，猶繩墨之于曲直也，猶規矩之于方圓也。”（《王霸》）“禮者，政之輓也，為政不以禮，政不行矣。”（《大略》）“人之命在天，國之命在禮。”（《強國》）荀子將禮的重要性提高到了關係國家命運的高度。

　　至法：社會控制的制度手段

　　荀子從狹義的社會控制角度提出了“法”這一社會控制手段。也就是說，他只是將法作為禮的補充手段來對社會越軌者實施懲罰和重新教育。

　　荀子認為，法起源于禮之後，作用于禮所不能的范圍。“偽起而生禮義，禮義生而制法度”（《性惡》），人類最初是用道德教化調節自身行為，隨著“私”的觀念增強，階級、國家出現，才出現了法律政令。他還說：“厚德音以申之，時其事，輕其任以調齊之，如保赤子，政令以定風俗如一。有離俗不順其上者，則百姓莫不敦惡，莫不毒孽，若祓不祥，然後刑于是起矣。”（《議兵》）他認為當禮義不能調節人們的行為，或人們的行為違反禮義要求時，才能用到法。在這種認識基礎上，荀子對“法”在社會控制領域中的運用形成了三點主張。其一，“法”並非萬能。“無國而不有治法，無國而不有亂法”（《王霸》），每個國家都存在使國家得到治理的法令制度，也有使國家動亂的法令制度。“有治人，無治法”（《君道》），有能治理好國家的人，沒有必能治理好國家的法。所以，法不是萬能的。其二，要“明德慎罰”。荀子認為，由于治理方法不同，國家可以有四種不同的前途：“隆禮尊賢而王，重法愛民而霸，好利多詐而危，權謀傾覆幽險而亡。”（《強國》）在“王道”和“霸道”之間，荀子是主張王道的。因此，荀子在提出“禮”與“刑”是治國綱領的同時，主張“明德慎罰”（《成相》）。他說：“明德慎罰，國家既治四海平。”（同上）其三，在法與人的關係上，荀子更重視人的作用。他說：“法者，治之端也；君子者，法之原也。故有君子，則法雖省，足以遍矣；無君子，則法雖具，失先後之施，不能應事之變，足以亂矣。”（《君道》）

　　至平：社會控制的秩序目標

　　荀子通過“使群”構建社會組織結構、以“禮義”作為社會成員的價值規范和行為準則、用“至法”作為制約社會越軌行為的制度性手段，形成了一套完備的社會控制模式。其最終的目的則是為了形成良性的社會運行秩序，即所謂“至平”。

　　何謂“至平”？“仁人在上，則農以力盡田，賈以察盡財，百工以巧盡械器，士大夫以上至于公侯，莫不以仁厚能盡官職，夫是之謂至平。”（《榮辱》）“故賞不用而民勸，罰不用而民服，有司不勞而事治，政令不煩而俗美；百姓莫敢不順上之法，象上之志，而勸上之事，而安樂之矣。故藉斂忘費，事業忘勞，寇難忘死，城郭不待飾而固，兵刃不待陵而勁，敵國不待服而詘，四海之民不待令而一，夫是之謂至平。”（《君道》）解讀荀子的理想社會，有這麼幾個特點：第一，統治者要有道德之威，實行德治。第二，它是個“群道當”的社會。第三，它有明確的社會分工和等級差別。第四，這個社會中，各個群體的相應欲望分別得到滿足。第五，各個群體各安其事、各負其責，井然有序。

　（趙秀芳  作者單位：山西師范大學政法學院）

CNN Transcript: Interview with Margaret Thatcher June 30, 1997

Transcript: Interview with Margaret Thatcher

June 30, 1997
Web posted at: 6:49 p.m. EDT (2249 GMT)
On Sunday, June 29, CNN's Bernard Shaw talked with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

---

Shaw: Lady Thatcher, from America to India to Jamaica, points in between and, now, Hong Kong. Your thoughts on losing another British colony?

Thatcher: Particularly sad, the circumstances are unique, all the other things that you mentioned we did rule over for a time and brought each to independence, because we were able to do that. What's different, you'll say with Hong Kong? Hong Kong is the subject of three agreements made many years ago. First, 1842, when we acquired the small island of Hong Kong - freehold - that is only about 4 or 5 per cent of the present land, followed by another treaty for the strip of land on Kowloon, the other side of a small bit of sea. Together these only make up 8 per cent of the present day Hong Kong. Then we went back and said that's not enough for our trading purposes; we wanted to keep a 
big trading base. They wouldn't let us have any more land freehold and they gave us a large piece of land on lease, a 99 year lease and that lease ends the 30th June, 1997. So, there we are. We always knew that was a lease and I now naturally could wish our forebears had negotiated freeholding. So by international law that land reverts to China on the 30th of June. Only, it's not barren land. It is a prosperous, thriving community; it is Chinese talent, British administration, liberty, justice and rising democracy - has been wonderful for Chinese people.

Shaw: Lady Thatcher, in the scenario you just painted, you make it sound as if all of this was with China's consent. The fact of the matter is you fought two wars, you came in and you took Hong Kong.

Thatcher: We did indeed take two wars, yes. We were, in fact, trading. There was, I'm afraid, some trade in drugs. None of us would defend that now. We have learnt a great deal in the 100-150 years 
and I can only wish that Mainland China had so much. If so we would never have had Tiananmen Square. We would never have had a cultural revolution.

Shaw: How is Prince Charles taking all this?

Thatcher: I imagine with sorrow and dignity, and we are all concerned - of course we are. 'One Country Two Systems' was Deng's idea. The question is will they really let the people of Hong Kong have the full measure of a life of liberty, of a rising democracy.

Shaw: Nearly 13 years ago, when you signed the Joint Declaration with Deng Xiaoping, you spoke of a stroke of genius. You said "One party two systems" was an ingenious idea. Do you still think so?

Thatcher: Yes, it was an ingenious idea. But ideas have to be worked out in detail. And we spent two years negotiating and Geoffrey Howe was in charge of the negotiations - he was quite brilliant - and 
he did it, and all of the provisions are there. The question is will they be fully honoured. I am afraid one has been broken. They did not like it when we decided here to have what are called the functional constituencies or occupational groups being allowed to decide who should represent them on the Legislative Council. They regarded that rather differently from the way we regarded it, and it has led to them saying that the Legislative Council which is partially elected will end with the handover and be replaced by a nominated council for a year. Obviously, that concerns us deeply.

Shaw: You said you have mixed feelings about this handover. There is this business about the troops rolling into Hong Kong-will it further scramble your feelings?

Thatcher: I think it is not so much the troops as the manner of their coming. We had from time to time, something like 9,000 troops here. Obviously, Hong Kong is a long way from home so we had to have measures to protect Hong Kong. We had 9,000 troops. Now you'll say quite likely that British troops are very different from Chinese troops. But the real trouble is they are going to come in in high publicity with armored personnel carriers. Now that is just totally insensitive. Because it was armored personnel carriers that were present at the terrible events at Tiananmen Square and immediately that raises problems with us. So that is, it is not their having troops here - although troops are usually only to defend the country against outside attack. The internal order is kept by Hong Kong Police. So there are two points. Will the troops be used for things that only the police have the authority to do? And the second is - why armoured personnel carriers? It is not right.

Shaw: The soon-to-be Chief Executive here, Mr. Tung Chee-Hwa says yes to peaceful demonstrations in memory of the Tiananmen Square massacres. He says no to any public demonstrations in support of Tibet or Taiwan. Is this a cause for apprehension?

Thatcher: To us, yes. Of course it is. Because we have a right of peaceful demonstration. You'd usually have to apply to an authority to tell them when and where you want to demonstrate and the numbers. But we would have the right for peaceful demonstration. And I think in the declaration that we agreed, the full freedoms of associations are protected there. He is now saying you can't do anything internal to China, but Taiwan of course is quite different. Taiwan is separated from Mainland China by sea and she has her own independent government, so I would not include Taiwan in that at all. But to us it is very different from our law of peaceful demonstration. Yes, that does concern us.

Shaw: Do you fear Britain's rule of law legacy is threatened?

Thatcher: It is again specifically protected, one of the things that Deng Xiaoping understood. When he said two systems, he did not like the idea of democracy at all, that wasn't in his mind. He was quite clear. He said you can keep your capitalist system and its economic liberty that has produced prosperity and he knew because he had traveled the world, that the communist system only produced poverty. So it had to go to capitalism and he accepted that. And he also knew that there was something rather wonderful in the British rule of law. So he said that you can keep those two things. For 50 years, that is what is in the Declaration - capitalist system with British rule of law, with British independent judges. And I hope, I believe, that will last. It is the greatest bulwark of liberty that we have ever known.

Shaw: Mr. Tung says he is not Beijing's puppet. Do you believe that?

Thatcher: Mr. Tung? Mr. Tung has lived in Hong Kong, he knows Hong Kong, and I think Hong Kong people are very much happier with Mr. Tung obviously than maybe with anyone from mainland China. And I think you'll find that they can go and talk to him, I think he may not be as entirely free as we would wish, but I think he'll have the well-being of Hong Kong people very much in mind and their way of life. And he lives here, he has lived here for a long time, and he is a man who'll wish to do his best for the people among who he lived for so long.

Shaw: You think he is up to the task?

Thatcher: I think he is a very significant person and he will rise to what is required.

Shaw: In monitoring Hong Kong, should China's leadership be held up to an international checklist?

Thatcher: China's leadership will be. The eyes of the world are on Hong Kong. Look at the number of people who are coming for the handover. The eyes of the world are going to watch that China honours her treaties. She may have had one or two breaches at the moment. If China doesn't honor this treaty then there is never any point in making a treaty with China. If you break one, you will break another. So it is significant to China that she is seen in the eyes of the world to keep Hong Kong a prosperous and free country and with a rule of law. And the penalties for not doing it would be that she would drop severely in the eyes of the world, get severe censure and people would not do business with her in the way that they otherwise would because they would lack the confidence. So there is that for saying that China will most probably keep her treaties in very large measure.

Shaw: Was Chris Patten's leadership here too out front, too aggressive for this culture?

Thatcher: No. Just remember when Chris came here, there had been Tiananmen Square in 1989. That shocked the world. It particularly shocked Hong Kong because they knew full well that the end of the lease was coming and something extra special was expected of Chris. He couldn't just carry on as a Governor as if Tiananmen Square had not taken place. So, yes, he did make changes, He did give them extra confidence particularly to make the arrangements for them to decide who should represent the occupational groups. And he was right to do so. And any Western country would have understood that. And here you come up against the most fundamental differences - really only countries you and I know - where the government is elected by the people and its purpose is to serve the needs of the people under a system of liberty and law. And a communist or fascist system when government is rule over people without any rights of the law that we understand, and they can just take you off the streets or they can, in fact - infringing, for saying what you like of the government as we have an opposition to do that. They can, in fact, do what they did to Mr. Wang and Mr. Wei - put them in 
prison for exercising freedom of speech, put them in prison for 14 years' sentence. And eventually they have now got economic liberty in China, because Deng Xiaoping understood that if you wanted prosperity you have to go to the capitalist system. The history of the world is that personal and political liberty will follow and it will. But it may take longer, a good deal longer.

Shaw: In your judgement, why does China have such paroxysms over the concept of human rights?

Thatcher: Because human rights is part of regarding each and every individual as being important. Human rights really come from the biblical view. In the Old Testament, the 10 Commandments are addressed to each person - each person matters. We have the biblical view of the Old Testament that each person matters and the biblical view of the New Testament of mercy and redemption. And also of true Islam of course, comes to accept the old and new testaments. It is a fundamental foundation belief - sometimes it comes from philosophies, but that is what human rights is: each and every person matters. It doesn't matter to the communist system. Communism is a system. Take all planning to government and do what you can - you order the people about. They are not significant in a communist or fascist system. To us each and every person matters - it is a sanctity at the end of it, and the differences are as basic as that.

Shaw: Is it conceivable the Hong Kong fever will spread across China's triggering social reform regardless of whether the Chinese leadership wanted them?

Thatcher: Yes. That is the hope. It is just like putting one little crystal in a big solution. You know all of the rest of the solution -in chemistry- crystallises onto the one crystal. Hong Kong: Chinese people will come to Hong Kong, they'll see and they'll say why is it different, and what is the difference? It is the same people, the same talents, but here there is a rule of law founded on the belief that each and every person matters in personal lives and they have a British administration. So they will know that if you transfer that to China, the kind of administration, the kind of rule of law, the kind of respect for the individual, they too could be a massive Hong Kong. So Hong Kong will be an example. She, I suppose, really, in a way is the flag ship of what the China people can do.

Shaw: What is the difference between negotiation, say, with the Russians and the Chinese?

Thatcher: Well, right now, Russia proved what we always said would happen, although it came quicker than we thought. We knew the communist system eventually would collapse. You can't ignore human rights eventually, without the system collapsing, particularly in the modern world where they can't keep out information on the Internet about what's happening to other countries. And also, Mr. Gorbachev - he doesn't get enough credit - realised the communist system wasn't working economically, was not producing prosperity, was meant to be the system that produced the greatest prosperity because it was all planned. It doesn't produce prosperity because it offers no stimulus or incentive to people to build up their own prosperity. So it came faster in Russia. China has no history of liberty at all. She has always been under tyranny. She went from being under Chiang Kai Shek and Kuomintang, to come under communism in 1949. It will eventually collapse also.

Shaw: Do you think this system of government here in China...

Thatcher: Communsim will eventually collapse. Indeed, it is starting. Deng Xiaoping realized it couldn't go on. So he said right - economic liberty. You can start up your own business. If you produce more than your target in the factories you can set out to sell it. They are born traders the Chinese. Beijing is so different from what it was in 1977. It has got the economic liberty. It has not yet got a full rule of law, although they are having to supply now and create a law of contract so that you can in fact enforce your own contract. Law is coming too, to China, initiative is coming to China, enterprise is coming to China. It won't stop.

Shaw: Might things have been better had there been better chemistry between you and Deng Xiaoping? During the 1982 talks, referring to you, Mr. Deng said "that woman should be bombarded out of her obstinance."

Thatcher: Well, that is what he'd want to say, wouldn't he? If you had argued with him you are obstinate. He was obstinate - he argued with me. But I didn't complain about that. We survive on argument, that is how come to the right conclusions. Yes, I was obstinate and because of that at any rate we didn't get a good agreement because of dependent detail. Because he knew we produced prosperity and he didn't and he started to change. Why? Of course, I am obstinate in defending our liberties and our law. That is why I carry a big handbag.

Shaw: Following the Falklands War, did hubris from having won that war make you believe that you could persuade the Chinese that Britain should continue administering Hong Kong with an umbrella of Chinese sovereignty?

Thatcher: No, there was no hubris in Falklands, only a fantastic relief that our people were once again free and we were not going to have an aggressor taking over British land and British people. And we don't like aggression anywhere in the world, that is why we believe in strong defense.

Shaw: Well, Sir Percy Craddock, Britain's Ambassador to China said that you had to be persuaded, that you had to be told, that there was no way Britain was going to remain an administrative force of Hong Kong with the Chinese being the mere sovereigns.

Thatcher: Well, that Deng Xiaoping told me. I'll tell you what he told me. I have written it. I said that we have done so well for Hong Kong, for Hong Kong people, that can we not have another lease say for another 50 years? He reacted very quickly. He said no. I said can we not have another lease? I said we have done so well on a territory which I know will eventually return to you. Wouldn't you really let us have...it would be an act of sovereignty to give us a management contract?

Shaw: They were outraged. Is that when Mr. Deng told you that if the Chinese wanted to they could walk right in here and take Hong Kong?

Thatcher: Oh yes he said he could. But I know that I didn't need to be told. That is why I had to ask him. But, he said to me, which really rather shook me: I would rather recover Hong Kong poverty stricken than let the British have another period of administration over Hong Kong. Now, that shows you the communist mind- not concerned about the prosperity, about the well being of the people.

Shaw: You don't trust him, do you?

Thatcher: I don't trust a communist, do you?

Shaw: I can't answer that, I am the reporter asking questions.

Thatcher: It is interesting that you asked it. No Just make an assessment of the person you are negotiating with. What I had to do was - I knew that Hong Kong was valuable to him. I knew that they could do a lot through Hong Kong that they couldn't do otherwise. And so eventually he agreed. And when he said to me: I could take it over - I could take it over this afternoon, I said yes, you could. And it would become poverty stricken, because there would be alarm, people would leave, and the world would know it was the dead hand of communism that ruined it. So, he said, what did you have on that piece of paper, Mrs. Thatcher? And I had written out a possible communique which said that we had decided to negotiate about the future of Hong Kong. Perhaps not that we'd negotiate that we'd have a series of meetings about the matters that would come up. This is 15 years, because we could not get any loans from banks for properties -anyone - in less than 15 years, so we had to negotiate. And we did the communique which I had drafted and the negotiations started and it took two years.

Shaw: At these historic ceremonies, will you be fighting back tears?

Thatcher: I hope the tears won't flow. My mind and heart will just be very full for the people of Hong Kong. And just tremendous hope that all will be well, and a determination that, along with other democratic countries in the world, we observe very carefully what is going on in Hong Kong. And we don't hesitate to speak out for the people of Hong Kong and do what we can to see that that international agreement I made with Deng Xiaoping, registered in the United Nations, is fully observed and upheld.

如果「民主最重要的是協商」，那政治最重要的就是適時的幽默和適度的妥協

［轉載］: 為甚麼80萬票也不能依？

「全民普選行政長官方案」網上投票報稱有80萬人；七一遊行稱有逾50萬人，發起組織都覺得，既是大多數人的訴求，社會便應以此決定整體社會未來的發展。 我們則認為解決問題不應只重人數，還要講理。這就是為甚麼我們認為80萬票也不能依，除非你能服「眾」之外，更要服「寡」。

以少數人否決大多數人 的意願是獨裁，那大多數人替少數人決定了一切，以票選暴力「踩住」少數人，不也是「一言堂」？這就是大多數人的獨裁（Tyranny of the Majority）。這正是泛民議員經常狠批建制派操控議會的「控罪」，亦是他們所深惡痛絕的。但近日泛民言行卻正是他們一直痛恨的翻版。他們說今時議會 已被建制派把持操控，只需要「數夠票」就要乜有乜，又會以立法會財委會審議新界東北發展計劃前期撥款申請為例，說通過得「粗暴」，不依議事規程。我們想指 出的是，現在反而是泛民想唔通過乜都「得」，還說「得」到普遍港人支持，佔道德高地。其實，無論建制泛民如此「人頭論英雄」，都是「沒有道理的事」，粗 暴，大家都有，正如臨陣退縮的逃兵，是退五十步與退一百步之別。

當大家「粗暴」地做這些「人多蝦人少」的事時，要着眼的不是要服「眾」（大多數 人）而是服「人」，其中關鍵還是講理。無論那些人是眾或寡，都要用講道理的方式，使其口服心服。如果我們做決策時，能尊重並照顧到不同持份者或利益社群的 聲音，便是上上大吉。這正是近日我們在討論一系列民主議題時，反覆強調諾貝爾經濟學獎得主阿羅（Kenneth J. Arrow）教授的觀點-即使得到大多數人的支持，但仍要兼顧少數人的利益。可惜，今時已發展到大家「紮馬」：你講嘅，我一定唔聽；你做嘅，亦一定唔啱。 只有我的是正確。港人對普選的訴求無疑清晰，只是普選任何人出任特首，當一「眾」的願望大部分得以達成「寡」的利益和意願又能否被照顧到？我存疑。這就 是為甚麼有學者認為，投票並不代表真正民主的理由。

民主最重要的是協商，而不是舉手數夠票或數夠人頭就可去馬。獨裁政治固然不理想，但民主也不見 得一定會為我們帶來幸福。美國是公認的民主國家，卻一直受民生問題困擾，最後亦有找唔到數之虞。1935年，羅斯福總統推出社會保障計劃，旨在為65歲或 以上的退休工人提供穩定收入。推出近80年，今時卻因種種原因，美國竟宣布其社會保障計劃「有破產的可能性」！一個運作了近80年的計劃，人民一世靠政 府，現或會落得老無所依的下場，這亦因西方政客空口講白話，託「民主」之名，為上位而說盡謊言。這樣的政客、這樣的民主，港人需要嗎？

曾提出溫和 方案的湯家驊最近表示不會再就政改提其方案，言談間頗為意興闌珊，這正是很多港人憂慮所在：唔跟（隨）你（激進派）嘅就不民主，唔聽（從）你嘅就係錯，而 你就永遠正確，十足我們「偉大主席」！永遠正確，實行人民民主專政，一百個農民，鬥十個地主， 大多數人要你跪低，大多數人才會快意，這是我們想要的嗎？口 講「反共反共」，自己做出來的就「共」到今時連共（產黨）也不做的事，你有無向歷史學習，汲取教訓？

==========================

獨裁政治固然不理想，但民主也不見得一定會為我們帶來幸福。] <<<<==== 看看今天的伊拉克, 連最基本的"國家統一"也做不到 !

[曾 提出溫和方案的湯家驊最近表示不會再就政改提其方案，言談間頗為意興闌珊，這正是很多港人憂慮所在：唔跟（隨）你（激進派）嘅就不民主，唔聽（從）你嘅就 係錯，而你就永遠正確，十足我們「偉大主席」！永遠正確，實行人民民主專政，一百個農民，鬥十個地主，大多數人要你跪低，大多數人才會快意，這是我們想要 的嗎？口講「反共反共」，自己做出來的就「共」到今時連共（產黨）也不做的事，你有無向歷史學習，汲取教訓？ <<<<==== wahaha well-said !

“佔 中公投”從开始就被操縱為“未投先勝”的公投，只需等待公佈結果。仔細看看投票方案，“公民提名”開始就被“佔中”發起人操作安排為“立於不敗 ”、“未投先勝”的公投，只需等待公佈結果。“佔中”發起人表示希望表決得出壹個“政改方案”。但是如何操縱的呢？先由主辦單位聘任的“專家團”選出以泛 民為主的15個方案，再由2000-3000個簽署“佔中”同意書的參與者在“全民商討日”(D-Day 3)選出全部含有“公民提名”的3個方案，結果就是“全民投票日”投票者只能限於不同3個“公民提名”方案之中做出取舍。這非但 不符合《基本法》有關提名辦法的規定，也基本排除了其他反對“公民提名”的市民的選擇。投票選項未設“棄權”項，不過“佔中”發起人宣稱，無論棄權、白 票、廢票的數量及佔比多少，只會以3個方案中得票最多的方案作為支持及推動方案。簡言之，如果3個“公民提名”方案只獲少數支持，其余絕大多數都不贊同因 而投棄權或者白票廢票，得勝方案始終都是3個“公民提名”之一。有贏無輸的結果早就寫在牆上，一直都操控在“佔中”組織者的股掌之中。

在 投票人數方面，按國際通行標準，真正的“全民投票”投票率一般要求達到50%，支持率亦要超過50%，兩者缺一不可，否則就會宣布失效。事實上，一直配合 “佔中”並負責今次“佔中公投”的香港大學民研總監鐘庭耀，也不得不承認國際公投有此兩項標準。但是，制定了10萬人投票目標，如果30萬人投票就是理想 結果，即使如此，投票人數也只佔香港全部登記選民3%和10%。本次“佔中公投”兩個標準都不具備，何談公投? ...

話 說回來, 有些東西一旦爛掉了，即使暫時能夠勉強禁得住外部環境的衝擊，最終也禁不住自身的崩坯瓦解。 ＂家長式管治＂再有效也要與時並進，不同年代，父母對子女的管教方式都有所不同，＂十七年＂來都掌握不到溝通管教的有效辦法，＂十七年＂後＂子女＂都長大 了，才來說：不管怎樣，我們是＂父母＂，給＂養＂給＂住＂給＂吃＂供＂書＂教＂學＂，你們要知感恩！我們說甚麼就是甚麽，你們說甚麼歸說甚麼，＂管治權＂ 還是不可能讓給你們。這種＂家長式管治＂又怎會不讓＂黑社會＂向＂子女＂招手呢？25年前李鵬好醜都可以跟吳爾開希坐下對話，25年後梁振英用：「我們罵不還口，扔東西不還手，不口出狂言，我們仍然是好言相向、好言相勸、好言相對。我們的立場和理念是，繼續希望與所有黨派立法會議員，一起齊心一意，為香港做好服務。」這種心態做特首是不是好倒退？

石先生的文章說：[民主最重要的是協商]，那政治最重要的是甚麽？
是適時的幽默，是適度的妥協。

做特首怎可以連基本的溝通能力都無，記不記得連董伯伯當年都會叫：「早晨！早晨！」呀！那天面對包圍特首辦的青年不理不睬，你特首又為年青人傳遞一個怎樣的訊息呢？梁振英應該向彭定康學習那種天馬行空講完都不知他講乜的政治答辯藝術，我覺得英國佬在這方面真是好有天份。

還 有那天特首被人掟玻璃杯，連譴責的說話都說不出，自己受襲擊，報了警卻沒人被捕，還說請立法會和社會正視，小怨婦請老太爺主持公道一樣，無形中也鼓勵了反 對派暴力升級，掟你的那個不就叫你去死了嗎？之後還是襲擊者主動上差館，不是差人找上門，但是交500元就出得來了，議會暴力升級的成本這麼低，你個政府 有甚麽辦法不被癱瘓？必須讓每次行使暴力的付出沉重到他們付不起的代價 ！而不是搞甚麽「駡不還囗，扔東西不還手，好言相向、好言相勸、好言相對⋯」…哂氣啦! 梁振英你是做特首，不是做紅軍呀！

"民既不能安其生，君亦豈能獨安厥位乎？"

國內政府多年來控制網絡輿論已經相當到位，變成不再聽到有理智的民意，只有政府想聽的聲音才會在網絡出現，這種做法又廣泛影響了民間的思維，真理和 新的思維無法再從民間的辯論與及交流過程產生，惡性循環，政府能夠聽到的民意也僅限於政府接受的聲音，然後這些聲音又變成政府行動的民意基礎。

習胖脂肪壓倒腦袋, 只有興趣除異己，拉知識份子，去北方吃包子，去南方吃麵條，這兩年每有天災完全不見人； 人禍呢, 烏市最近一次大屠殺，捉幾個南疆的"麥麥提", 警車20分鐘後才到，還指望操軍政黨權於一身的習胖打仗？

不踏實搞好國內的事務，為了嘩眾取寵，又話要走去改革海軍以抗日。本來日本對中國的所謂"威脅"，是汪澤民當年因為搞唔掂, 要轉移民間視線，而打出反曰的民族主義口號，廿多年之後，習胖居然以此為改革海軍的基礎就真喺好好笑。

為什麼漢武帝, 成吉思汗打到去歐洲都沒發展海軍，朱元璋統一這麽大的疆土版圖之後都沒有去打琉球，這些都是很有軍事經驗的大帝，尚且沒有東張西望，專心搞好陸軍，守好中土。朱元璋看得好透，朱元璋說：「得其地不足以供給，得其民不足以使令，徒慕虛名，自弊中土。」

正當習胖亳不掩飾自己的軍事野心之際，美國已悄悄搬走不少生產基地返美國，靠販賣中國廉價產品賺得盤滿鉢滿的沃爾瑪更以創造美國就業機會的名義登報紙邀請美國本土生產製造商洽談把美國本土產品放上沃爾瑪的貨架去，一個2500億美元買美國貨不買中國貨的十年計劃。

今天打沉越南漁船，國內極端民族主義分子叫好，跟當年布殊炸阿富汗美國人的歡騰沒有甚麽分別，以為自己上了集結號，其實上了強國"歲月號"。經濟越搞唔掂 就越希望對外發動戦爭來挽扶起自己的名聲，越對外發動戰爭就越＂自弊中土＂。到時，美國己經完成＂深挖洞＂，＂廣積糧＂的部署，再出來打你被軍事野心拖垮 的中國，出師有名, 事半功倍。

「萍姐」 - 鄭翠萍

前言：我這輩的移民中，特別是九十年代從中國大陸偷渡來美國的同胞，多多少少都會記得她，她幫過不少人潛入美國，十幾廿年來，有人成功，有人落敗，但是沒了她，許多閩籍鄉親就連嘗試的機會都沒有，歷史是人民寫的，美國華人婦女歷史應該好好記住她！比起加州那個被起訴走私軍火與貪污腐敗罪名的華裔州參議員餘胤良，都是為銭，但是那個更為人民服務？所以，我對萍姐的歷史地位是肯定的。在我的中國歷史筆記中，為萍姐入冊留名！

萍姐：＂自由＂了，一路走好！

--------------------------------------------------
來源：http://www.worldjournal.com/printer_friendly/24997324

有「偷渡皇后」之稱的「萍姐」鄭翠萍，因罹患胰腺癌、搶救無效，於24日在德州聯邦監獄轄下的醫院去世，得年65歲。據親友透露，萍姐的遺體將於近日運回紐約，出殯儀式初定在曼哈坦華埠舉行，家人25日已前往勘察墓園，下葬地點將在紐約上州。

萍姐家鄉福州市馬尾區亭江鎮盛美村的眾多旅美鄉親，25日已在流傳萍姐去世的消息。對於她去世的病因說法不一，有說她是因長期的糖尿病和高血壓等慢性病惡化而不治，也有說她罹患肝癌或胰腺癌末期。萍姐去年從康州的聯邦女子監獄被轉至德州聯邦監獄，原因就是當時已確診癌症，德州聯邦監獄系統的醫院擁有更好的治療技術與條件。

不過由於德州距離紐約十分遙遠，萍姐的女兒等親友前往探監的成本陡增，每次都要乘飛機前往。有親友透露萍姐對德州的氣候也不很適應。預計萍姐的葬禮，將在紐約的福建社區引起廣泛關注，甚至有閩籍社團人士預計會有大批鄉親自發前往送行。

萍姐入獄後，先生張亦德等親友繼續在曼哈坦華埠經營榕信酒家。女兒及親友會定期前往監
獄探視，並向她提供金錢，使萍姐在獄中仍能保持仗義疏財，受到獄友的尊重。

萍姐原名鄭翠萍，被稱為「偷渡皇后」、「蛇頭之母」，出生於中國福建省福州市亭江鎮盛美村，1974年移民香港，七年後再移民美國。

1993年夏，萍姐出資的偷渡船「金色冒險號」在紐約海岸擱淺，286名中國偷渡客被逼跳入洶湧波濤的大海，導致10人溺斃，震驚美國。她於2006年被美國聯邦法院判刑35年，被關押在康州監獄。但在福建甚至多倫多、紐約唐人街的福建籍華人圈子中，萍姐被奉為民間英雄、新時代的綠林豪傑。

萍姐1949年出生於福州盛美村的一個貧窮家庭，初中畢業後便輟學謀生。1974年，與丈夫張亦德一同移民香港。1981年她從香港移居美國，翌年將丈夫和孩子接到美國。在之後的13年中，萍姐在紐約東百老匯路做小本服裝生意，並經營一家福州小吃店。

萍姐文化程度不高，自1980年代初起，就策劃人口走私活動，並漸漸在全球建立了偷渡網。
早先，她親自回中國組織非法移民，向每人收取偷渡費1萬8000美元，1994年漲價至3萬美元。根據檢方起訴書，萍姐在十多年的人口走私生涯中，至少獲利4000萬美元。

1989年，她花300萬元在紐約華埠東百老匯大街買下一幢大樓，為非法收入洗錢。還為非法移民開設了把美元轉回家鄉的「匯款業務」，允許人蛇借貸偷渡費，每年收取30%的高利。她還將非法移民償還的偷渡費作為活動經費，並繼續向人蛇發放高利貸。這棟大樓正好與中國銀行華埠分行相對，地下銀行的高效率，使中國銀行的生意變得十分蕭條。

1980年代末，萍姐的名聲如雷貫耳，成為唐人街響噹噹的人物。在閩籍社團裡，大多數人都欠她錢。她和她的丈夫以同鄉會的名義，用1萬美元買了一間辦公室，很快成為人口走私活動的中心。

萍姐於1994年遭美國政府通緝，2000年4月在香港被捕，當年9月被引渡回美國受審。

萍姐大事紀

1949年

出生於中國福建長樂一個鄉村。

1981年

從香港偷渡到紐約。

1989年3月

試圖將三名外國人從加拿大多倫
多偷渡到美國時被捕，被控犯偷
渡共謀罪，判刑六個月。

1992年

被遞解回中國後又返回紐約。

1993年6月6日

近300名偷渡者乘坐「金色冒險號」

在紐約長島海灘擱淺，十名偷渡者

溺斃，她被指控為偷渡案主謀。她

逃離美國，引發國際大追捕。

1998年

組織百餘名中國人偷渡，貨船在

瓜地馬拉海岸「卸載」時遭遇暴

風雨，14人喪生。

2000年4月

在香港機場被捕。

2003年7月

被引渡到美國。

2005年

紐約南區聯邦法院裁定萍姐的「串

通合謀」、「投資人口走私的匯款(即

洗錢)」和「代蛇頭收受走私勒索人

質贖金罪」三項罪名成立。

2006年

法官判其最高刑期35年監禁。

2007年11月

聯邦第二巡迴法院否決萍姐上

訴，維持南區聯邦法院做出的35

年監禁的原判。

2008年5月

萍姐代表律師向聯邦最高法院提

出上訴，作最後一搏。

2008年11月3日
上訴請求遭聯邦最高法院駁回，刑

期定讞。

2014年4月24日

因癌症醫治無效，在德州聯邦監

獄轄下的醫院中去世。

------------------

打印

金色冒險號事件 萍姐命運大轉折

by 中國新聞組／綜合26日電

04.27.14 - 06:05 am

1993年6月6日凌晨2時，「金色冒險號」(Golden Venture )從泰國經肯亞、好望角，在112天航行了17萬英哩。未料在快抵達紐約時，船長被船內偷渡者劫持，致船擱淺在皇后區洛克海灘外。美國海巡署接報，遣海空巡邏隊包圍。船上的286名中國偷渡客，由於每人都是花了2萬至3萬美元的代價上船，因此不甘就此被移民局遣返，故奮不顧身的跳進冰冷的海中與死神奮鬥，最後十人溺斃，六人逃脫，其餘的偷渡者未經審判下，被移民局押解到美國各地的監獄拘留。

「金色冒險號」事件中有35人後來取得美國的政治庇護、兩人獲得藝術家簽證、14人因未成年由法院監管，另有116人被遣返中國、50人被送到中南美的國家，其餘53人在被關了42個月後，於1997年獲得柯林頓總統的「人道保釋」，並准許他們重新申請工作許可。其中有一人在2001年突然被驅逐出境。其他人仍在為他們的在美國的合法身分繼續打拚。

「金色冒險號」事件的發生，讓被指控組織偷渡的「萍姐」的命運從此大轉折，她被聯邦調查局(FBI)調查、追緝、從香港引渡，最後於2008年被聯邦最高法院判決入獄35年。

「金色冒險號」船則成為佛羅里達州棕櫚灘的魚礁。1999年佛州棕櫚灘郡買下這艘船，在清潔消毒後，於2000年沉入海底。鹿野灘一家潛水店主說，「金色冒險號」如今已成為當地最美的魚礁之一，潛水客可看到各種美麗的魚類、梭魚和珊瑚等生物。

「金色冒險號」事件發生以來的20年間，大紐約華人社區也發生了巨大變化。在曼哈坦華埠，第一代閩籍華人人口逐漸超過傳統的粵籍移民；華人經濟地位和參政議政積極性也因選民增加明顯提高；同時隨著閩籍華人增加，華人社團數量也成倍增長；閩籍華人聚居的區域從傳統曼哈坦華埠擴展到了皇后區和布碌崙。

經過20年的累積，福建移民把餐廳開到了美國的各個角落，當年的那批移民都已在這邊有了自己的事業，很多人自己開餐館當老闆，經濟地位和20年前已不可同日而語。

閩籍華人人數的增加，讓華埠僑團的數量迅速增長。除了傳統的廣東僑團，20年前閩籍僑團只有屈指可數的幾個大僑團，包括福建同鄉會等。在近十年左右，閩籍僑團有如雨後春筍般冒出來，據非正式統計，目前設在曼哈坦華埠東百老匯大街上的閩籍僑團達100多個，活躍的僑團就有40多個。

20年間，華人聚居的曼哈坦華埠、皇后區法拉盛和布碌崙八大道，也因福建移民湧入而不斷擴張。

http://www.worldjournal.com/printer_friendly/24999938
------------------

華人憶萍姐：通人情講義氣

by 記者李玥／紐約報導

04.27.14 - 06:05 am

26日早晨，紐約曼哈坦華埠東百老匯街上所有報攤或雜貨店內，「世界日報」都被一搶而空，大家爭先恐後閱讀頭版頭條「偷渡皇后，萍姐病逝」的新聞。閩籍雜貨店店員阿咪因為晚到店鋪，店內報紙都沒有了，需要去報攤再購買一份閱讀，當她得知「萍姐」去世的消息時，感到非常痛心。她曾經在「萍姐」的店裡打工，雖然當時「萍姐」身在監獄裡面，但她
能感覺到大家仍受「萍姐」的影響，她似乎從未離開過這間店，「萍姐」全家也都對員工不錯。

來自福建的曾先生說，美國閩籍僑社凡偷渡來美的人，至少九成當年都是靠「萍姐」偷渡過來的，在他們眼中，稱她「巾幗英雄」甚至「活菩薩」並不為過。曾先生回憶，1980年代偷渡最盛行的時候，不少偷渡客被餓死、被毒打，女人還會被強姦等。可是只有透過「萍姐」安排來美國讓人感到安全。

曾先生的一位親戚就是被「萍姐」帶來紐約的，當時親戚到達紐約後，身上錢不夠，「萍姐」打電話給曾先生，讓他先把親戚領回家，等以後籌夠錢了再還給她，也可每月打工慢慢還，她一點都不擔心被騙錢。若真的遇到賴帳的，她也不會過度追究。曾先生說，她這樣做感動了很多鄉親，很少聽說有人真的不還錢給她。

26日在紐約的美國福建同鄉會還有人提到，這些年「萍姐」雖繫獄，卻仍掛念著社區同鄉的新聞，她常看報紙，與福建同鄉會保持密切聯繫。同鄉若遇到困難，發生車禍或災難，她還會常讓家人捐助。比如兩個月前布碌崙發生福建家庭遭滅門慘案，她還通過福建同鄉會捐款2000元資助受害家庭。

「萍姐」的家鄉社團盛美聯誼會表示，26日接到無數鄉親們打來的電話，詢問關於她病逝的消息，都希望能出席她的葬禮，表達他們的哀思。不少閩籍僑領表示，萍姐做人有義氣，做生意不做傷天害理的事。

「萍姐」的女兒和女婿已從德州趕回紐約，為她準備後事，將按福建人風俗擇日舉辦葬禮。她的遺體將於下周迎回紐約。

http://www.worldjournal.com/printer_friendly/24999944

-------