关哲：彭定康最后的香港探戈

【本文由观察者网供稿，刊载于7月17日美国《赫芬顿邮报》旗下的《世界邮报》（World Post）。以下为中文译文。】

香港最有名的“探戈舞者”17年前乘坐英国皇家邮轮离开香港后，最近卷土重来翩翩起舞。

末代港督彭定康是跟中国吵架的老手，1997年放弃殖民统治把香港交还给中国前，每天都跟中国官员大打口水战。他当年被讽与民主派跳最后探戈舞，有“探戈舞者”的绰号。

《赫芬顿邮报》网站刊载本文截图

阔别多年，彭定康的探戈舞步似乎没有生疏。适值香港面临政治动荡、反对派未能争到心目中的普选便威胁“占领中环”时，彭定康男爵虽然离港后一直没有多谈港事，但也再战江湖加入战团。

彭定康日前撰文为香港的反对派助阵，抨击中国领导人没有在思想上“大跃进”，应认识到反对派的诉求其实不会危害国家福祉。他指中国贵为伟大国家与冒升强国，面对政治挑战远远不及处理经济事务般运筹帷幄。

他又断言：“纵使中国反对，香港人最终将获得要求的东西，因为自由总会胜利。”

《金融时报》最近也访问过彭定康，他表示因为中国发表的《白皮书》指香港法官应该“爱国”，所以他禁不住要出声。他更进一步指， 如果《中英联合声明》采用今天北京使用的字眼，伦敦是不会签署的。他说：“我们绝无可能签署一纸声明，内容表示联合声明其实只是宣言而已。”

英国与中国1984年签署《联合声明》，协议香港归还中国。用彭定康自己的讲法，协议保证香港的生活方式按邓小平的“一国两制”口号保持50年不变。为保持香港繁荣安定，法治与各种自由均不变。

可是，彭定康谈到十数万港人为自由游行时，让人以为“一国两制”早已沦陷。他说：“他们要求有公平与开放的制度来选举政府，并捍卫自由和法治，这些因素都是香港赖之成为那么特别、成功与真正自由的社会。”

彭定康所言跟真相天差地别。香港回归中国17年，如常活跃，法治与自由俱存。港人在英治下可以自由做的事情，1997年后一切照做如仪。试举一个细小但具意义的例子，就足以证明香港不是摇身变了中国的殖民地。虽然中国大陆禁制有点邪教色彩的法轮功，但它的信徒一直在特区自由公开活动。在繁忙的街头，很难逃过法轮功唯恐人看不见的横额标语。在港英年代，爱尔兰共和军连做梦也想不到可以如此走运！

说来讽刺，香港今天的政治争论焦点为普选，但此议题在香港155年殖民历史中，对末代港督及他前任27位总督而言，压根儿就不是问题。彭定康及反对派今天装模作样，也掩盖不了千真万确的事实：到了要撤离香港前，英国才突然对民主感兴趣。

华乐庭是港英时代的高官，八十年代初退休时为民政事务司司长，他一辈子见证了英国的虚伪（他于去年末过世）。他指英国姗姗来迟在港推行民主为“堂皇的假象”。华乐庭1985年在演讲中说：“我难以相信官方突然出人意表热衷于民主政治是出于诚意。那是因为在1951年至1981年我任公职的这30年间，‘民主’是个脏词。当时的政府官员认定，民主政治会是最快及最能拖垮香港经济的东西，并会破坏社会及政局安定。”

《联合声明》签署了30周年，今天又给彭定康奉为圣典。但如果要在其中寻找片言只字谈“普选”，肯定大失所望。就特区政府的领导层，协议只称“行政长官在当地通过选举或协商产生，由中央人民政府任命”其余欠奉。换言之，伦敦当年是接受特区行政长官，将由类似拣选港督的手法来任命的。

彭定康出任港督，只由当年的首相马卓安选出，然后由英女王伊丽莎白二世任命。由他今天来猛烈抨击中国不容许以民主方式选出他的继任者，真的是大言不惭。

普选的提法，首先出现于由北京草拟的《基本法》。《基本法》第45条载有类似《联合声明》的字眼：“香港特别行政区行政长官在当地通过选举或协商产生，由中央人民政府任命。”

但《基本法》向前更迈进：“行政长官的产生办法根据香港特别行政区的实际情况和循序渐进的原则而规定，最终达至由一个有广泛代表性的提名委员会按民主程序提名后普选产生的目标。”

请留意，如要“普选”此最终目标成事，《基本法》规定要遵从一些条件：必须根据“实际情况”、依照“循序渐进”的原则，并由“提名委员会”提名候选人。

香港历史首次有普选机会，反对派非但不额手称庆，又不同心合力制订最早于2017年普选的方案，反而企图不依章程便一步登天普选。试问究竟谁才是真正阻碍香港普选呢？彭定康闹错了对象。

彭定康再次大跳探戈舞，让反对派更难重归正途，按合法程序妥协出选举行政长官的方法。彭定康当年众多绰号中包括有“千古罪人”，香港真的可怜，直到今时今日还要受他的罪。

翻页见英文原文：

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.