My response to 曾特首's comments on Friday

Our Chief Executive Sir Donald Tsang was interviewed by RTHK on his policy address. The following questions and answers were about our constitutional reforms between the host of the show and our Chief Executive.

… … … … … … … … … … … …

Host :

I was struck by one phrase at the end of the policy address, towards the end of the conclusion, you say, we promote democratic development without compromising social stability or government efficiency, that kind of implies that democratic development does compromise social stability or government efficiency?

… … … … … … … … … … … …

Sir Donald Tsang :

It can, it can, if we go to the extreme, people go to the extreme, and you have a cultural revolution, for instance, in China. When people take everything into their hands, then you cannot govern the place.

… … … … … … … … … … … …

Host :

But Cultural Revolution wasn't really an extreme example of democracy.

… … … … … … … … … … … …

Sir Donald Tsang :

What is it? People taking power into their own hands! Now, this is what it means by democracy, if you take it to the full swing. In other democracies, even if you have an elected person, then you overturn the policy in California, for instance, you have initiative number, number, number what, then you overturn policy taken by the government, that's not necessarily conducive to efficient government.

… … … … … … … … … … … …

特首講英文 番書仔繙譯

如果「曾特首」（2005）係隻股票，佢經過上禮拜初施政報告大幅上揚後，喺禮拜五股價狂瀉。原因，相信大家都知，曾特首嗰日上過番文電台，講過嘢。不過可能係番文，好多人聽完，完全唔明，更加唔知點解要講。

今日，孫柏文想同特首曾蔭權講：「全特區得我明你想講乜。」

大家可能會話：「你明因你係番書仔。」大家啱得一半，因為通街都有番書仔。其實，得我明特首嘅原因，係因為特區得兩個「政治家」。一個就係曾蔭權，一個就係我（當年參選立法會，有咁樣叫過自己），所以得我明。

作為一個「政治家」，一個社會裏面嘅「政府」同其他機構唔同嘅地方，就係「政府」係唯一一個機構，可以強迫市民，做啲佢哋唔會自願做嘅嘢。即係有monopoly power of coercion。例如，如果我迫你畀錢我，就叫做打劫，「政府」迫你就叫做抽稅。

如果一個政府唔能夠行使強迫市民嘅專利權，例如抽你稅，你唔畀都冇事。
或者唔能夠保護強迫市民嘅專利權，例如我收陀地，你唔畀就有事。
對一個政治家嚟講，嗰個政府就係failed state。阿富汗就係個好例子，抽稅冇人畀，通過條「不可謀殺」嘅法例，冇人遵守，不過又拉唔到人。個例子係咪好extreme？係。不過特首嗰日係講 extreme。

政府失去強迫專利權

咁點解要無端端講文革？因為當時祖國政府失去咗強迫市民嘅專利權，好多市民一叫自己做「紅衞兵」，就可以到處殺人。政府頓然喪失殺人嘅專利權。甚至去到政府不能阻止市民殺其他人。個例子係咪好extreme？係。不過特首嗰日係講 extreme。無端端提文革，被人批鬥都係好自然嘅事。

咁點解曾特首又無端端講花旗國加州？用佢做個「極端」嘅例子？我相信特首講緊03年嘅加州。當年，就連《經濟學人》都寫咗篇題為「Is the Golden State governable？」嘅文，因加州嘅財政完全失控。篇文話，加州州政府嘅代議政制representative democracy制度，面臨崩潰，因為佢哋用嘅direct democracy制度出問題。作個比喻，就有如今日特區市民進行公投，決定立法將彌敦道由三線變四線。不過點收樓、路點起等等，由行政機關搞掂。

如果咁「極端」，又唔見加州當時陸沉？呢個就係政治家會諗嘅問題。加州市民面對嘅政府，有聯邦政府、州政府同市政府。因政府嘅強迫專利權分散，所以就算有一環完全崩潰，都唔會陸沉。《經濟學人》當時話如果加州係個國家，IMF一早進駐。

解釋完畀大家聽之後，我想問特首：「你知唔知我哋要嘅係代議政制全面普選，要嘅係立法會同行政長官普選。加州嘅公投制度，關乜春事？」最後，相信曾特首你睇完呢篇文章之後，一定覺得孫柏文係副局長嘅材料。不過，我相信你唔會搵我。因為，始終一山不能藏二虎，一代不能容兩個政治家！這就是歷史的殘酷定律。