記者FAQ

(原於11/2/2008發表在小妺的臉書上，現轉載至網誌)

小妺（誤？）入新聞行業蓋兩年多以來，每天上班問不同的問題，下班被問相同的問題，前者幸而仍覺有趣，後者實不相瞞已有點不勝其煩。謹此列出「記者FAQ」，各位行內行外朋友遇過甚麼有關你們職業的奇難雜題、有甚麼妙答方法，歡迎分享。

xxx

我被問了成千上萬次的問題

不知道記者這職業對人們來說是否真的很神秘，但我幾乎每次跟行外人談及我的工作都會被問以下問題的其中數題：　　

1.你係咪要出去採訪？（我常常想，如果我答我是當老師的，會否被問「你係咪要教書」？如果我答我是當醫生的，會否被問「你係咪要醫人」？）
2.咁係咪要寫稿？定係你採訪完有人幫你寫？（有沒有人可以告訴我，香港記者的形象真的低落到被以為是不識字的嗎？）
3.你係咪拿住支咪？（這是「電視台記者才是記者」概念反映之一）
4. 你係咪要影相？（這個問題還算正常）
5.你係咪要24小時standby,隨傳隨到？
6.你係咪做到三更半夜？
7.你有冇假放？（這三個問題反映...哈哈，記者在部份人心目中還是敬業樂業的，值得欣慰。不過大家放心，記者也是人，要上班也要吃飯，也要睡覺，根據勞工法例也要放假。）
8.你係咪訪問過好多名人？／你訪問過邊d名人？（Well...點答？）
9.做記者咪要成日開車去出事現場，好危險？（突發記者才是記者？）
10.你係咪做娛樂版？（娛記才是記者？？？）

xxx

我最討厭的問題

1. 你喺邊度做嘢？（答：某報）哦，咁你唔係做記者吖嘛？
2. 喺電視台做人工係咪高過你地好多？
3. 點解你唔去電視台做？

我寫這些出來不是要挖苦甚麼人,有很多人的工作我都不明白,我也不期望所有人明白我的工作,只是覺得問這些問題的人無論要怎麼看不起別人的職業,也應該有一點禮貌而已。

xxx

朋友: 喂我地約咗x號晚出嚟食飯,你得唔得閒呀?
Fanny: 星期幾嚟架?
朋友: 星期x。
Fanny: 噢, 唔得呀, 我要返工呀, 你地玩得開心d啦。
朋友: 夜晚喎。
Fanny: 我知你講緊夜晚呀。
朋友: 你放左工嚟咪得囉。
Fanny: 我放得工嚟到你地都散場架啦。
朋友: 你幾點放工?
Fanny: 唔知架。
朋友: 咁大約呢?
Fanny: 好難講架,日日唔同。
朋友: 咁通常呢?
Fanny: 冇得通常架...我真係唔知會幾點放工。
朋友: 你返shift?
Fanny: 唔係。
朋友: 嘩你份工咁辛苦, 咁夜放工, 咁朝早幾點返工?
Fanny: 唔定架...　（救命！係朋友的就放過我啦！）

xxx

My Yunnan trip (Part 2): Hiking along the Ancient Tea Horse Road

September 26, 2010

Not as popularly travelled by tourists as the Silk Road, the Ancient Tea Horse Road preserves much tranquility and peace.

Dating back to the Han Dynasty and maturely developed in the Tang Dynasty, the passage was a major way for the old Middle Kingdom to trade tea, salt, sugar and other daily consumables for horses and herbs with its western neighbour Tibet, and extended further to Southeast Asian countries like Nepal and Burma.

We hiked for 10km along the Lameipo (臘梅坡) trail, which is reportedly one of the best conserved sections of the Ancient Tea Horse Road. A large stone craved with the words “Tea Horse Post” greeted us as we arrived at the starting point of the trail. Several nicely decorated houses juxtaposed at the foot of the hill, with maize hung outside the outer walls and laid on the terraces for drying under the sun, making colourful sights.

The upward slope was rather steep. But overall speaking the trail was manageable for an unskilled hiker like me. One of the oldest participants, the 70-year-old Mr. Cheung, was asked whether he really wanted to go with us. Unlike on the previous two days when we hiked on concrete lanes and when a van was available to pick up participants who lagged behind the team or needed some rest, the hill was not accessible by vehicles. The elder, however, insisted in walking for at least a while with the team. So he did it! After hiking up for some time, two members of our escort fire services team accompanied him going down the slope to the starting point. We are proud of Mr. Cheung’s effort!

The uphill section at the beginning was perhaps the most demanding part of the hike. But after taking a rest at the first pavilion we encountered, the way ahead was much flatter. We could see tea trees planted on terraces as we looked around. And as we approached the peak, we entered a big tea tree field! Blooming white flowers of tea trees greeted us with pleasant smell from both sides as we walked along the narrow path in the middle. A clear sky right above us brought us some more cheers.

Later we entered a forest. In contrast with the open space of the tea tree field, it was much dimmer as sunlight was blocked by tall trees. The ground was wet and slippery, apparently because rainwater which dropped on the day before had not yet dried up. I tripped while stepping onto a flat rock, so did some others. More participants tripped when we hiked downhill – it was really not that easy to balance there!

Mrs. Lam had an injury in her leg and was walking with noticeable difficulty. Hand in hand with her husband, who joined this trip to accompany her, she finally completed the whole route. We all gave her a round of applause at our subsequent sharing session at night.

After five hours of hike, I was excited to see a milestone with the number 1 painted on it – which indicated there was only one kilometer left before reaching the end of the trail. Despite my tired legs and the steep downward slope, I accelerated forward because… I was really hungry! We finally reached a village on the other side of the hill. Congratulations! Everyone made it!

(Photos by courtesy of my group-mate Mr. Tony Ho)

My Yunnan trip (Part 1): Visit to Da Zhai Primary School

September 24, 2010

We arrived in the town of Yixiang (倚像鎮) in two coaches, bringing schoolbags and stationery in a van. The road was narrow but the school was not too difficult to access. As our vehicles could not drive through the path leading to the campus, we got off somewhere in the village, walked for about 10 minutes and relayed the schoolbag and stationery packs to Da Zhai Xiao Xue (Da Zhai primary school 大寨小學) .

The 60-odd of us, in “uniform” T-shirts, queued up outside the school entrance, just like pupils waiting to enter their classroom. Children, all wearing red ties and some in colourful ethnic costumes, lined up along both sides of the path clapping their hands and welcoming us. But don’t expect to walk straight through! Despite greeting us with sincere smiles, the adult villagers blocked the school entrance with a long metal rod – one which looked like a gate arm which you would see at a toll station or a car park entrance. It’s the locals’ tradition to let visitors in only after drinking the wine they give. Well, I was told of this tradition beforehand, but could not imagine that the villagers would seriously set up a road block to make us drink! Two girls stood at the school entrance and handed each of us a fully filled, goat horn-shaped container. As a non-drinker I managed to escape it by pretending to sip a bit and then passing the horn to the participant behind me. My fellow hikers later told me that it was REALLY strong wine. A member of my group indeed fell a little unwell after the treat…

The school had about 200 pupils, from primary one to six. But we only had the chance to meet 30 of them who lived nearby because most others had gone home to reunite with their families for mid-Autumn holidays. With about 20 participants, I walked into one of the classrooms to visit 10 kids – They just looked at us quietly. My fellow hikers and I waved and said hello to the children but they didn’t seem very responsive. That made me a bit nervous. As a first-timer to take part in such a school visit, the quietness in the classroom suddenly made me feel I was an intruder. I greeted the class teacher Mr Wen and hoped he would give us some hints on what the pupils liked to play. There was some dead air at the beginning, as we were not well prepared beforehand. Luckily a cheerful hiker broke the ice by teaching the kids an Indonesian folk song. Then we continued with playing games.

Some of the children in the school were of the Han ethnic group (漢族) like us, some were of Miao (苗族) and others of Hani (哈尼族). The Miao girls, in bright pink dresses, were all talented dancers. Unlike the relatively shy or less warmed-up class we first visited, the second classroom was full of cheers and laughter. After brief greetings, the Miao girls quickly agreed to perform their ethnic dance to us. Later the Han pupils also sang together.

Wang Mei (王梅), 11, a Miao girl of primary five, told me she was a member of the Long Tan Fourth Team (龍潭四隊) in her village. Like her, several of the kids cited their residential affiliations when giving their self-introduction. Mei’s 17-year-old elder brother worked on a tea farm but she wanted to become a teacher after growing up. Huang Chen (黃晨), the only boy in the second classroom, was in primary one and did not have any idea of a career yet.

I don’t know how high the chance is for Mei to realize her dream. Yixiang’s party secretary Mr Tao Xiaoyue told us that the town had 14 primary schools but just one secondary school. There were 4173 primary school pupils and 1097 secondary school students, meaning only fewer than one received secondary education in the town they lived.

The teaching facilities in the school were better than what I had expected. The first classroom we visited was equipped with a desktop computer. But accommodation was far from satisfactory. There were six bunk beds in one of the classrooms we visited, placed behind pupils’ desks. This is where the kids lived - we could see their towels and toothbrushes on the beds. At night, more than 20 of them would sleep in the six bunk beds. The school used to have a dormitory, but it was found to be a dangerous building and was therefore demolished. It is applying for funding from Sowers Action to rebuild a safe new one.

Despite the cramped living condition, the children didn’t have a single word of complaint during my interactions with them. All seen on their faces were smiles and cheerfulness, and shyness on some of them. After some games and chats, the local government and the school treated us with a supper and a barbeque. The villagers set a big fire and danced around it, and later invited us to join. I am not a dancer but managed to enjoy the fun by following their steps and running with the little kids.

An observant participant among us, Mr Poon, ditched the barbeque and shared with us what he had found in the school tuck shop in a later sharing session. In a visited to the shop, he noticed that the bottled water sold there contained a high degree of additives. He told the boss of the shop that the materials would harm children’s health. She responded in her local dialect, which Mr Poon did not understand, and so we do not know whether she was aware of the harm at all.

The pupils may not understand what they were drinking every day. But they do know the fun of dancing and playing with their schoolmates and they know the happiness of being at school. Perhaps those at Da Zhai Primary School were already much better off than many others in remote hill areas. Perhaps there are still a lot more to do for the children in China. We moved on to hike on the Ancient Tea Horse Road the following day and the children moved on with their lives.

(Photos by courtesy of my fellow hikers Mr. Yiu-ming Lee and Mr. Tony Ho)

Let there be peace

Let there be peace.

Let hatred not spread.

It was already a tragedy for a former policeman to have turned into a gunman who shot civilians.

It was heartbreaking enough to see innocent travelers dying and being injured, and families losing their beloved members.

We do not need more obscenities of people hurling insults to each other.

As we blame Philippine policemen who were sent to the deadly scene unprepared, apparently ill-trained and without proper tools, some even not wearing a flak jacket and a helmet, think of it: Don’t they also have families as the victims do?

Aren’t they also victims of a corrupt government, which has failed to provide them with appropriate training and equipments?

If we had a family member whose work required him to fight an armed hijacker with such minimal protection for himself, would we have reacted in the same way as we do now?

True, the professional Hong Kong police might have put the situation under control in a few minutes. That is because we live in a blessed place.

I may be too optimistic, but let’s hope this horrible incident will exert pressure on those in power in the Philippines to revamp their governance under international watch.

Let’s hope those who lost their lives in this mayhem rest in peace, and those who survive live bravely thereafter.

Justice based on family background?

24 August, 2010

She is the niece of a top judge in the city. She has assaulted a policeman for the third time – and this time slapping an officer in his face right in front of a television camera, after her car veered into the wrong lane and clashed into a coach and she refused to take a breath test.




It came as no surprise that the trial of Amina Bokhary’s case caught much media attention.



And it would be reasonable for any member of the public to find it too light a sentence that she was put on one-year probation, fined HK$8,000 and disqualified from driving for one year for a total of three charges she was convicted of.



Had the defendant not been Bokhary, I would still find it too lenient a penalty on someone who had demonstrated such incivility and blatantly disregarded the rule of law.

Judging from the facts known so far, I see no evidence suggesting that the woman’s family tie with Court of Final Appeal judge Kemal Bokhary had led magistrate Anthony Yuen Wai-ming to favour her in the ruling. It would be too convenient to impute motives to the magistrate solely by seeing the defendant’s kinship. But Mr Yuen’s judgment did cast legitimate worries on anyone who cares about justice in Hong Kong.

In his own words, the magistrate has handed down the sentence taking into account the defendant’s “good background, a well-off family, good education and outstanding academic achievement with a first-class honour in bachelor of business administration," and “most importantly”, her “caring and concerned parents."

Does it mean a criminal who has challenged the law in the same way as Amina Bokhary did should be given a heavier sentence if he or she is an orphan and an underachiever at school? According Mr Yuen’s logic, the answer is yes. I would not try to argue that Bokhary’s mental problem was merely an excuse, for I believe people with genuine medical conditions which affect their behaviour in a way relevant to the offences they commit deserve more forgiveness than those who are healthy enough to master their own acts. But it is totally unconvincing to say someone with a well-off, warm family should be forgiven more than someone from a poor broken family for the same crime they have committed. Is it one’s fault to have a humble family background? It is equally disturbing to envisage an offender with a first-class honours degree treated more clemently than a secondary school leaver, who already has fewer opportunities in the society. Shouldn’t one be more civil-minded after receiving good education? If not, what is education for?



The appeal of the sentence on Amina Bokhary is important not just because a higher court will review the sentence in this particular case. It will hopefully be an occasion for a higher court to judge whether the reasoning behind Mr Yuen’s judgment should be upheld.

小記者的五年

五年了，是時候做一個小結。

五年前我剛踏足傳媒界時，讀了陸鏗先生的《大記者三章》，每個字都看得懂，以為自己看懂了。

今日再翻此書，對同一句說話的理解竟然截然不同。

還記得當時的我只是跑了新聞數個月，便接受了當時上司的建議，加入政治組，這一調動便奠定了我的工作範疇至現在。每當回想起來，總覺得有點遺憾，不是說我對政治新聞沒有興趣，而是我認為一個新聞記者應該經過一段全面的體驗，打好基礎後再專注一、兩個專長範疇發展。在這行業內，我見到一些涉獵新聞種類極廣的前輩，也有見過一些很資深，但只懂一樣事情的前輩。直至現在，我還是蠻喜歡做政治新聞的，不過不時也會恐怕若自己不趁年青接觸不同的事物，遲些（假設我仍留在這個行業的話）會成為一個光是年資增長而練歷沒有加深的記者。上周六，我被派往採訪一宗直昇機在維港緊急降落的突發新聞，竟尋回我首個星期做記者時的興奮！

我首兩年的工作是一個階段，從零開始，揣摩基本採訪技巧，沒有老師卻又當身邊每一位同事、同業、前輩都是老師。（我沒有後悔在大學不選讀新聞系，因為我從實踐中確認了新聞和新聞學是兩回事。）每天拿同一宗新聞，比較一下同業怎樣處理、自己怎樣處理，於是知道自己有甚麼不足，可以怎樣改進；偶爾找到一些獨家料子，雖不是甚麼驚天動地的消息，但對於一個新人來已是很好的鼓勵。次兩年，轉了報館，由於人手的關係，被編派了獨自負責政治組裏的一個範疇(sub-beat) ，當時的感覺是越級挑戰。有一次坐在小巴上，突然想到，如果《南華早報》的左派新聞做得不好，那就是我的責任了！頓時覺得責任很重，壓力很大。現在回看，其實是好事，因為當時的轉變迫我成長，例如迫我建立自己的人際網絡，做一些跟以前所做不同類型的新聞。

最近一年，開始有一些新的領悟，尤其在記者與採訪對象的關係方面。老師所教，書中所說，均指記者與被訪者有「合作」的關係，這點是我從前不太接受的。或許我對人與人之間關係的理解過於理想化吧。若陰謀論一點說，「合作」也可說成「互相利用」。某程度上說，我在記者工作上經常「利用」別人，因為所有採訪都是無償的，大部份時候對方都沒有義務回答我的問題，當然政府部門有責任公開資訊是例外。不過當事情倒過來，別人想「利用」我的時候，我便要加倍小心了，否則很容易成了某些人或機構的喉舌。幹這個行業，在工作上認識的不少友好在有意無意間想影響我的看法，是很自然的事。我只希望各位友好明白，我不一定認同你的立場，至少我不可能在每件事上都贊成你的意見，但我肯定有誠意了解你的看法；我不需要你跟我站在同一立場，只要你支持新聞採訪工作，我已經十分感謝你。

說出來或頗諷刺，其實我這個人，還是蠻不喜歡跟別人打關係的。有一段時間，我甚至因此懷疑我是否適合做記者。我喜歡交朋友，也很樂意認識新朋友，但不喜歡刻意的交際，如派對飯局酒會應酬那些場合，我便很少投入。有些同業會在立法會走廊跟議員們搭肩膊，咬耳朵，我從不這樣做，最多只請議員稍為移步和我談些問題。與合得來的朋友，單對單或三兩知己才可談得深入。跟相熟的採訪對象，我會投入地跟他們討論大家有共同關心的議題，但我不喜歡問及別人的私生活。我不是那種擅於談笑風生、營造氣氛的社交高手，也深知道自己不是。幸好有不只一位前輩提點過我，傳媒有交際型的記者，也有研究型的記者，鼓勵我尋找自己發展的道路。在行內也見兩面皆精的例子，我把這些前輩視為學習對象。當然，在這數年來我也領略到，即使有多高的交際手腕，也必須要對採訪的議題熟悉，才懂問有意思的問題，採訪對象也才能給你有意思的答案。

今天在新聞界的我仍是很新的。我們行業人員流失太多、臉孔轉變得太快了，有時讓一些同業或政界朋友有錯覺，遇見留下來的記者便以為他們已幹了很多年。有傳媒界和政界朋友跟我說我已是「資深」記者，我聽了只是感到很悲哀。持五年經驗，相信在大部分行業都不可稱為資深。明早上班，我還是一個新的記者，繼續希望有新的挑戰！

遊台過關有感

　　十二月三十一日，我乘飛機從香港到高雄，第一次踏足台灣。　　　　

　　過關手續非常簡便，由於我出發前已到中華旅行社拿了網上簽證，所以抵達時也不用排隊申請落地簽證，關員檢查我的證件時只問了兩個簡單問題。不消一分鐘我已順利通關。　　　　

　　有這種便利，大家自然很歡迎。回想二零零一年以前，港人赴台須先申請入台證，程序動輒數星期，更覺友善措施的可貴。去年馬英九在勝出總統選舉不久後，便承諾研究給予香港市民免簽證待遇，本港政界回應均十分正面。政府今年初「禮尚往來」，放寛台客多次往返香港簽證限期，以行動表明願意與台灣政府每人走前一步（雖然我們的步伐比對岸還是要慢）。

　　在簽證這事宜上，可發現本港各大政治陣營的對台立場都不約而同地隨着當地的政黨輪替而變化，而且這變化十分有趣。最值得留意的是民建聯，因其親北京背景使其對台立場特別具指標作用。該黨主席譚耀宗不但歡迎國民黨政府準備給港人免簽證的計劃，更在去年六月四日立法會會議上提出加強台港合作動議，包括爭取「雙向免簽證」安排，盡顯台港一家親的姿態。可是翻查零一年民進黨政府給予港人落地簽證待遇時的報道，當時的民建聯主席馬力指落地簽證措拖將「令兩岸關係再退步，而且更敏感」，該黨另一位立法會議員兼人大代表楊耀忠批評，要求港人用特區護照在台灣過關即「屈港人接受台灣為國家」。　　
　　
　　在立法會上述會議上提倡港府予台灣居民落地簽證的自由黨，當年仍屬該黨的人大代表李鵬飛斥台灣給港人落地簽證為「具挑釁性」行動。新興的公民黨在本年十四日立法會會議上，透過副主席梁家傑的質詢，促請特區政府與台灣商討互免簽證安排；未知他有否留意黨秘書長鄭宇碩當年以城市大學教授身份接受訪問時，直指落地簽證安排是「民進黨台獨政策」的一環？　　

　　如果陳水扁政府搞落地簽證等於搞台獨，那馬英九政府搞免簽證怎麼是促進兩地友誼政策？如果台灣因不是國家而無資格檢查港客的特區護照、無資格給你落地簽證，那怎麼現在又有「主權」去豁免港人的簽證了？香港政府又有資格印簽證、發落地簽證或免簽證給台客嗎？這難道是搞港獨？還是企圖以中華人民共和國一部分的身分把台灣居民視為「外國人」的舉動？

　　當年有些本地報章急不及待斥責台政府的行為。平心靜氣對待此事的《香港經濟日報》則發表了一篇現在回看發覺是很有遠見的社論，指港府應同樣放寛台客入境限制，以達雙方互惠共贏。

　　兩岸關係緩和，連帶香港與台灣更睦鄰，是可喜的事。筆者認為，日後若再有便利兩地居民交流的措施，都應該支持。我更希望台港關係發展的路途上，各方有影響力的人士都能就事論事，而非就人論黨、就黨論事。勿忘記馬英九雖是香港出生的國民黨人，但他委任的陸委會主委是深綠陣營的台聯賴幸媛。如果特區內負責對台事務的官員只懂用藍綠顏色辨認台灣人，那恐怕未來數年繼續要鬧出很多國際笑話。

2008立法會選舉所見(之二)：周梁諉過發叔是輸打贏要

　　自由黨在今屆立法會選舉中受到重創，直選議席全軍覆沒。前副主席周梁淑怡在新界西落選不久後，公開指責同屬該黨的鄉議局主席劉皇發為民建聯名單助選，她在接受有線電視訪問時凝重地說：

　　「我已向自由黨正式投訴劉皇發。劉皇發是我們黨友，他幫一個跟我們直接競爭的黨拉票，甚至這些黨的領導然後出來多謝他，我覺得對我們的黨不起。」

　　自己代表黨參選，黨友卻去替對手拉票，最終對手高票當選而自己失掉議席，周太這個投訴怎樣看來都很合情合理。不過原來她在此兩星期前是這樣說：

　　「我向發叔了解，他說手掌是肉，手背也是肉，不過他想通了，他說現在根本有八個位嘛，八個位，那我們支持兩個是沒問題的。你看，民主黨也有三個人啦。」

　　這是她在NOW電視台舉辦的選舉論壇上回應主持李鵬飛提問時所答的。同一事件，同一個人前後截然相反的立場，煞是有趣。也許周太在回答飛哥問題時，根本沒想到兩星期後要和發叔公開反目。

　　劉皇發為排在民建聯名單第二位的鄉議局副主席張學明助選並不是投票當日才發生的事，而且他高調陪同張到新界各處拜訪選民也是傳媒一早廣泛報道了的，周太如覺這不妥，應當即時行使黨內機制阻止。當然，論壇上為黨友護短可能牽涉到不想在選舉期間給選民看見內訌的考慮。但若看看四年前，劉皇發同樣為，但四年來似乎也沒有人提出過有問題，便難免令人覺得周太其實是輸打贏要。如果她非因為輸了選舉，而是為了原則而投訴皇發違反黨紀的話，那為甚麼上屆不投訴呢？按道理，周太不但是當區受影響的候選人，而且當時是自由黨副主席，為甚麼早日不盡領導之責肅清黨紀呢？

　　劉皇發吃兩家茶禮，其政治誠信自受質疑。然而一個政黨可以容許成員未經黨同意為他黨拉票，根本就是完全無規無矩、管理不善的表現。中文大學蔡子強先生按鄉郊票站點票結果做了一些分析，指出即使周太在是次選舉中盡取上屆的鄉郊票，也無法轉敗為勝，其文已發表在《明報》，筆者在此不贅。我想一場選舉中成敗是由很多原因構成，周太在敗選後擺出責人寬己的姿態，對自由黨檢討失敗原因、痛定思痛是沒有好處。

2008立法會選舉所見(之一)：「投票率低不利於民主派」的邏輯謬誤

再一段長時間丟下了這博客──上次在這裏寫文章已是四個月前的事了。這四個月期間有意思的新聞不少，現趁着有幾天假期，只把我對在立法會選舉前前後後發生的事情的感想分若干篇文章盡量寫出來。
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~　　

　　回看三星期前的立法會選舉，就讓我從結果說起，畢竟結果是最引人興趣的事。

　　今次自由黨的慘敗、民主派支持者的自然配票成功、社民連高票當選、親政府派得票率增加、整體投票率下降等議題都有很多論者發表文章論述過，我想先談談有關投票率的一個根本問題。

　　「投票率低對民主派不利」這個理論，相信很多香港選民都聽過，不少政黨人士以致學者都經常把這個說法當作事實般論述。最近這次立法會選舉投票率較上屆大跌10.44%，投票人數比四年前少了260,157人，但民主派在地區直選贏得的議席卻不減反增，令不少人對感到驚訝。

　　究竟今屆選舉是否突破了上述「傳統智慧」呢？是否民主派用了新策略令低投票率不再不利於他們，還是本港政治趨勢已改變至選舉氣氛低沉才是有利於民主派、選舉氣氛熱烈就會有利親政府派？其實我們若能先撇開政治論述，從純邏輯看看這個「投票率低對民主派不利」命題，就會發現它根本站不住腳。

　　請問：甚麼是投票率呢？投票率就是在一次選舉中投票人數除以總登記選民人數得出的一個百分率。即是說投票人數越多，或登記選民人數越低，投票率就越高，反之亦然。

　　按照這個定義，「投票率低對民主派不利」，即是說投票人數低或者登記選民人數高便會對民主派不利。從過往的拉票信息、告急信息推斷，相信提出這個理論的人們都是以前者為假設。

　　那為甚麼投票人數低會對民主派不利呢？有人提出過這個解釋，就是民主派的支持者較為鬆散，例如好天就出來投票，下雨就躲在家裏，不像左派支持者般黨性強，無論如何選舉日都會出來投票給他們支持的候選人，即是所謂鐵票。這個若稱之為現象，或許有相當可信性，政黨或研究政治的學者大可求證一下是否有此現象存在，但若以此推演至「投票率低對民主派不利」，便是跌下了倒果為因的思考陷阱，因為這個說法是把投票率低與民主派支持者投票人數少直接劃上了等號。即使假設「下雨理論」成立，它的因果關係也應是如下：由於民主派支持者的投票意欲比左派支持者較易動搖，所以當有對整體投票率有負面影響的因素出現時（例如投票日下大雨，或整體選舉氣氛低迷），這些因素對民主派支持者的影響會較大，從而令民主派候選人流失票數較多。這與投票率低本身令民主派失利完全是兩碼子的事，一個候選人輸，就是因為投票給他的人數不足，而不是因為投給他與對手的票數一起整體下降。 簡單地說，在這種情況下，不是投票率低令民主派得票減少，而是民主派支持者投票減少拖低了投票率。

　　大學裏強調邏輯思考的學科，都會在基礎課堂提醒學生，甲現象和乙現象有關連，並不代表甲便是乙的原因 (Correlation doesn't mean causation.)。再舉一個同類實例，今年投票日，有報章指左派已指示大批支持者晚上八時後才投票，而當日選舉管理委員會每小時公布的投票率真的比上屆為低，於是有部分民主派人士便墮入了同樣的邏輯陷阱，向選民斷言「投票率沒有可能這樣低」，指左派控制支持者投票時間便是日間投票率低的原因。結果晚上十時半票站關門後，大家發現投票率真的是這樣低。我不知道左派是否有指示支持者晚上八時後才投票，但當日若見投票率低便認為這個說法得到證實，就是不求甚解。如果香港有二十六萬之多選民是如機器般可按一個掣便按時投票的話，那真是很恐怖。

做善事，也應謙虛點

　　今日《文匯報》頭條：「答本報記者提問 讚港人真誠相助令他深受感動　溫總：謝謝香港人民！」。

　　文章首段是直接覆述該記者說的一句話：「溫總理，您好！我是香港文匯報記者，香港的讀者想對您說，您辛苦了。香港人民謝謝您，想念您，您有什麼話對他們說嗎？」

　　相信讀者看到溫家寶總理這句感謝時已覺得很耳熟，這已國家領導人第三次通過香港媒體向本地居民在四川大地震的幫忙致謝。

　　小記者無意冒犯在災區冒着各種危險採訪的同行，更對他們的不畏艱辛的精神十分敬佩，但看到這樣的報道，實在不敢想象在場的人聽了會對香港人有甚麼印象。老實說，我捐了錢，然後問人：「你有甚麼話跟我說？」，這是甚麼意思？

　　在這場災難中，香港人以行動獻出關懷，有專家、搜索隊伍到現場協助，而廣大市民也慷慨捐輸，的確令人感動。其實這次的大地震中，不但全國各地的民眾都踴躍襄助，即使外國亦向中國提供了救災支援。各省市募捐、紀念行動不用多說，有經歷過大地震的唐山市民更不辭勞苦自發組成義工隊跑到遠遠的四川災場救人。那麼全國各省市記者豈不要圍着溫總搶問：「您有甚麼對廣東人民說？」、「您有甚麼對廣西人民說？」、「您有甚麼對上海人民說？」、「您有甚麼對河北人民說？」、「您有甚麼對唐山人民說？」不成？來自各國採訪災情的記者難道又要問：「您有甚麼對日本人說？」、「你有甚麼對美國人說？」

　　震後兩天，在災區採訪的香港電視記者首次有機會向溫總理提問，當時電子傳媒希望有一句具本地新聞角度的sound bite傳送回來尚可理解，但如一而再、再而三開口要人家多謝香港人，就難免讓人感到很「大香港」心態。

　　繼五月十四日溫總理在四川指揮救災工作期間向香港電視台說：「香港同胞無論採取何種方式對於我們災區進行支援、幫助，我們都感謝。」之後，十六日國家主席胡錦濤到災區慰問民眾時再回應本地電視台記者提問，說：「感謝香港同胞對內地救災的支援」。另外，港澳辦已通過新華社發出的新聞稿公開感謝港澳同胞在這次災難中的援助，中聯辦各官員在多次公開場合感謝捐錢的港人，而四川省政府亦已致信香港政府致謝。這樣多次的道謝是否還不夠，仍要好像溫總虧欠你一句多謝般做頭版報道，記者自己說的話更足以成為頭條首段，真令人費解。我相信大部分出錢出力的市民都是出於真正熱心，而不是為了討領導人一句多謝。以中國人傳統的謙虛美德，做了善事只會說聲「盡一點綿力而已」。

　　值得一提的是無線電視的同行在採訪當地協助搬送救援物資，或許還有其他同行做過這種善舉。

Shame on Hong Kong

　　上周五，一位同事說想寫有關奧運聖火在本港傳遞的文章，問我有甚麼題材建議。我告訴他創造國殤之柱的丹麥雕塑家高志活周六要來，預備在聖火傳遞期間抗議要求中國改善人權狀況，還會留在香港至五月初，提議同事可找他做訪問。

　　翌日休假沒回報社。萬想不到星期日起來看到報章的頭版，竟是高志活和他的兩個兒子在香港機場遭拒絕入境，已被趕回頭！

　　保安局局長李少光說，不歡迎藏獨分子來港「搞事」。高志活是否被當局列了作支持藏獨人士或同類人物，不得而知，但他表明這次來的目的是示威，也是事實。

　　為甚麼要示威就不可以進入香港？據高志活本人在他的行動網站上所說和支聯會負責人表示，他的計劃是加入支聯會在五月二日的抗議活動。眾所周知，支聯會示威並不是甚麼新鮮事，香港警隊和這班示威常客接觸多的是，根本知道他們沒有甚麼可怕，而事實上警方已正與包括支聯會在內擬在當日集會的組織開會，商討遊行路線等詳情。既然港府准許本地組織在聖火傳遞期間示威，也就很難合理地解說為甚麼外國人就不准在香港示威，甚至想參予示威的外國人，為甚麼便不能踏進香港境內。

　　當然，每個政府有其合法權力不允許任何外國人入境，也實在有些地方的入境政策控制得非常緊，例如美國便要求幾乎來自所有國家的旅客申請簽證，你申請不得要領的話也奈他不何。但這次高志活被拒入境引來這麼大反應，便正反映了大家一直都認為香港是一個自由開放的社會，想不到竟然連這個地方也會因一人準備示威便趕他走。奧運聖火傳送前夕加強保安、防範危險活動是理所當然，但請問當局究竟是收到情報指高志活以與參予支聯會示威為名，準備在港發動恐怖襲擊為實，還是在他行李中搜到危險物品呢？如果有的話，為甚麼情願蒙上不白之冤，也不願理直氣壯說出來？

　　除非政府要把這個社會原有的多元自由空間縮壓、把自己常標榜的美好國際形象摧毀，不然我想不到為甚麼要拒絕高志活入境。

A letter to the Hon Cheung Man-kwong

February 26, 2008

Dear the Hon Cheung Man-kwong,

I am writing to complain about your discriminatory comment on February 20 against non-degree holders who wish to apply for the position of Director of Broadcasting and to urge you to retract the remarks.

As an ordinary citizen, I can agree no more with Mr. Robert Chow Yung, B.B.S., that blatant discrimination on the grounds of academic qualification is serious in Hong Kong and the importance of work experience is often underweighted in employment situations. Taking the case on hand of headhunting for the Director of Broadcasting as an example, all 20 applicants in the first round of the recruitment exercise, who met the requirement of holding university degrees, were found by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, i.e. the biggest employer in the territory, as unsuitable for the post. This judgment seems to have been made regardless of candidates’ professional background, as one of the publicly known applicants, Mr. Tai Kin-man was ousted even he, being the present Assistant Director of Broadcasting and having worked at RTHK since 1982, must be the candidate with the closest working experience to that of the Director of Broadcasting, if not necessarily the most experienced one in the public broadcaster’s work among the contenders. It is reasonable to believe there must be at least some other veteran media workers among the 20 applicants too, since the requirements for the post are not low. To lay members of the public like me, it is difficult to find what all the first-round candidates have together done wrong to make them commonly unqualified, except that they have all studied at universities.

The government's discrimination against degree holders in this incident is intolerable. But on the other hand it is a good chance for Hong Kong, of which the government always boasts it as a "knowledge-based economy", to rethink what academic qualifications mean. Mr Cheung yourself, as the lawmaker representing the education sector, have raised doubt on the quality of qualifications. It was revealed by Secretary for Education Michael Suen Ming-yeung upon your request on the Legislative Council meeting on October 31, 2007 that more than 600 students admitted to associate degree programmes in the past four years had not met the standard requirements, i.e. passes in an A-Level subject and the English and Chinese languages. Yet Mr Suen defended that the phenomenon did not amount to an abuse of the admission system. The figure plus the education chief's position are convincing enough for the government to distrust academic credentials while hiring. How can the government's recruitment, especially of such an important person as the Director of Public Broadcasting whose decisions made at RTHK will be seen to mark Hong Kong’s freedom of speech and freedom of press, rely on such a peripheral criterion of a piece of paper showing one has been at university?

Hong Kong is a free and open society in which everyone should enjoy the opportunity to succeed with their merits and efforts. The story of our Chief Executive Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has demonstrated the Hong Kong way of success. Sir Donald, then Chief Secretary for Administration holding a Master's degree in Public Administration from Harvard University and honorary doctorates from the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, happily accepted the job as the Big Team Captain of Cleaning as assigned by his boss Mr Tung Chee-hwa in 2003. With his "I'll get this job done" spirit, Sir Donald had all streets in the city cleaned, and later took up the top job as the Chief Executive. If Sir Donald had been ousted from the colonial government's executive officer recruitment process because he then did not have a university degree, we would not see him leading the Special Administrative Region with strong governance now.

As Mr Chow, B.B.S. pointed out, academic qualification discrimination should by no means be accepted in such an advanced city as Hong Kong. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to you and other legislators that the Special Administrative Region should legislate against academic qualification discrimination. This can not only enhance equal opportunities in employment and other situations, but will also improve Hong Kong's international reputation with regards to human rights. A pioneering law to combat this kind of discrimination, which has been overlooked by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and other international agreements, will certainly make Western critics forget Hong Kong still does not have universal suffrage or a law against racial discrimination. This will hopefully help the city maintain high scores in investment environment ratings, thus attracting global entrepreneurs to conduct businesses here.

Back to your comments on March 20, perhaps now I should thank you instead of asking you to retract them because - according to Mr Chow, B. B. S., had you not made them, he would not have applied for the position of Director of Broadcasting, and the people of Hong Kong would therefore never learn the new concept of academic qualification discrimination.

Yours sincerely,
Little Reporter
A Hong Kong citizen and a Bachelor of Social Sciences from the University of Hong Kong

京城採訪手記

零八年二月三日
今日心血來潮，草下一點早前在京城採訪的點滴軼事，以作記念。

上訪人潮
　　從報道看過不少描述國內上訪風氣益盛、百姓蜂擁到有關部門申冤的報道，可是從沒親眼見識過。零七年末赴京採訪人大常委對香港普選問題決定的新聞，適逢社會民主連線代表羅就先生意外成功「闖關」（實在不是「闖」，他是持有回鄉證的），到了北京人大常委上訪處遞交請願信，於是便跟着他到了上訪處所在地採訪。
我和一位同行跟羅先生三人一起在信訪處外馬路的另一邊下了計程車，果然看到過百人聚集在門外，不是在排隊等進去，也不像在等誰，就是一群人站在那兒不知幹麼。我們也沒怎理會，就停在那裏打算等齊同行們就開始行動。
　　幾位攝影師拿着腳架準備，身旁開始有一些民眾問我們是從哪裏來的，有甚麼事。我們看他們像一群愛打聽的，便盡量少理會，免得被他們追問下去妨礙工作。
誰知我們越想保持低調，他們越有興趣，起初只是站在我們旁邊的幾個人在好奇，漸漸竟然連馬路對面的一群人看見了也蜂擁過來，一時竟來了近百人。電視台的同行們本來備在該處拍攝數個鏡頭，但攝影師一舉起攝影機、當記者一拿起米高峰便迅速被包圍着，然後有一些人開始向他們展示一些信件和文件，紛紛要求電視台報導自己的個案。我作為文字記者幸好沒有遭殃，但也不敢走得太近。同行們後來要上採訪車裏去躲避，我就看見一位攝影師大哥被一位大嬸死纏着，幾經辛苦才上到車關了門。群眾還是圍着數輛採訪車鬧哄哄了一段時間，電視台記者們原想在上訪處門外取景作幾句報道，最後還是不得不放棄了，後來就與羅先生相約到他住宿的旅店才做訪問。
　　這群人對我們來說真是麻煩，妨礙着工作。但想一想，或許國內的冤情實在太多了。

北京的的士司機
　　資深港區人大代表吳康民先生寫過有關北京的士司機的文章，說首都很多司機熟悉國家政情，跟乘客們非常健談。小記者還要附讚幾句，因我遇過的司機真的不少很有心。這次採訪期間我有一次在反方向路上登車，打算拐個彎前往目的地，沒留意對面方向的路堵得很。那司機向我指指對面馬路，說我打的的話肯定要延誤很多時間，建議我不如乘地鐵好了，還告訴我地鐵站在哪兒。
　　說到的士司機幫的忙，十一月那次與同行們同來採訪曾蔭權特首述職時，我們這班港客也是聽得司機解釋，才曉得溫家寶總理用以形容香港情況的「形勢喜人、形勢迫人」是內地流行用語。司機大哥說，大家都常用這兩句來形容生活情況，不過從領導人口中說出「形勢迫人」，便非同小可了。

「請到北京飯店去」
　　北京飯店每晚房租一千二百八十元人民幣，算是十分昂貴，但由於地理位置之便，港聞記者每年赴京採訪全國兩會新聞時大多住在那裏，而這次我採訪人大常委決定也是住在那裏。一步出首都國際機場登上的士，對司機說：「請到北京飯店去」，司機有點疑惑的樣子，問我道：「北京飯店是嗎？」，大概是不相信我這個看上去怎麼也不像豪客的小妺妺會有錢租那兒的房間。開車不久他忍不住問我：「你住在那兒嗎？」……
　　另一天晚上，吃過飯回飯店休息。北京飯店的正門有道旋轉門，我正準備進入時剛好有一群客人從狹窄的旋轉門出來，為免擠迫我便等他們都出來了才進去。那守門的看見我，竟然問：「你去那兒？」我沒理睬他便走進去。

煲呔曾與陳四萬的公關戰

零六年六月廿七日

七一前夕的星期六，前政務司司長陳方安生高調宣布決定參予民陣遊行，令她挑戰現任特首曾蔭權的意向更趨明朗化。這已是她離開政府後第二次打着爭取民主旗號上街，雖然她口裏不承認與曾蔭權對着幹，理解選舉委員會遊戲規則的人亦知道她能成為特首的機會是微乎其微，曾蔭權似乎毋需視她為對手，但從兩人近期在傳媒的曝光情況可知道，雙方明顯有衝着對方而來的行動，並已展開一場精心部署的公關戰。

陳太現身去年一二．四反政方案遊行之後，於曾蔭權宣佈修改方案的當天召開記者會，公開促請他爭取二零一二年普選及押後立法會就政改五號報告書表決，被視為公然與曾蔭權打對台。今年五月二十日，曾蔭權與陳方安生等一班前行政局成員赴澳門聚會，這次被外界稱為「濠江密會」的旅程，其實卻通過各大傳媒公告天下，曾特首還趁機表示自己常與陳太一起遊玩，傳達兩人關係友好的訊息，似是有意淡化二人的敵對形象。事實上，曾蔭權從不公開承認視陳太為對手，不過在各界包括曾班子心戰室也估計陳太明年可能會參選特首的情況下，二人的對峙最近已升級至公眾有跡可尋的層面。陳太自「密會」之後出席每個公開場合發表講話，都與曾蔭權發放軟性新聞的日子剛好吻合，一個很大可能的解釋是，其中一方陣營，甚至雙方陣營正在積極狙擊對方的每一個曝光造勢機會。

曾蔭權原是平民出身的政務官，他自上次特首補選工程起已不斷標榜「香港仔」的親民形象為賣點，而他最近的公關策略亦承接此路線，以軟功招架陳太。五月二十五日，彭博通訊社播放曾蔭權專訪，他在節目上說自己與陳方安生除政治外「無所不談」，又提到做特首的三項條件包括得到中央政府支持，有論者認為是暗示陳方安生無條件做特首；節目廣播當天的晚上，陳太在亞洲出版協會頒獎禮上呼籲傳媒維護新聞自由，又破慣例於晚宴席上也接受訪問，更拋下一句希望回歸十周年時見到政改時間表，與曾特首求諸中央祝福的表態盡顯迴異。本月十六日，曾蔭權趁父親節前夕主動發表文章，憶述亡父舊日與年少的他共讀周記，更勸勉為人子女者欣賞父母的囉嗦關懷，盡顯孝慈一面；同日出席加拿大商會早餐會的陳方安生則在演說中大談環保，促請政府與民間共同合作改善本港空氣，則表現出關心社會的形象。值得留意的是，陳太當日只講環保，對記者所提出的政治問題一概不答，與她僅數日後高調表態截然不同。二十四日，時值曾蔭權就任特首一周年，他再使出軟銷功，通過港台節目發表上任一周年感受，表明自己會「放下身段」與民溝通；這次陳太便老實不客氣，選定曾特首的就任紀念日宣佈參加七一遊行，除加強下戰書的氣勢外，亦成功搶奪主流報章的篇幅。回顧這三次陳太的公開發言，不但在時間上與曾特首的宣傳動作同步，二人言論內容的政治成分亦有相應，可見他們是有意與對方爭奪新聞戰場。

曾特首與陳太是敵是友原也不需公諸於世，但這些門面功夫現竟要做出來給市民大眾看。如果這台戲只是陳太單方面演出，那尚可猜測是她個人想搶搶風頭，未必有實際威脅。不過目前看到的，是堂堂在朝而且連任勝券在握的特首曾蔭權也要通過各大小動作應付一個在野的陳太，可知他認真視對方為對手，這背後反映陳太在政壇尚有的影響力和她的政治動向，仍是不可忽視。

單身女子

零六年四月十六日

我一位單身女朋友今天這樣說：蠢女人是較容易得到幸福。這個論調驟耳聽來有點酸葡萄味道，但幾位朋友聽到，都實在認同。傳統智慧說女強人會嚇怕男人，這也不無道理，不過更接近我們想法的解釋也許是這樣：越精明的女子，或越是從失敗中汲取過教訓的女子，對每一個迎面而來的愛情機會便越戰戰兢兢。這班別人總以為是因為要求高而找不到對象的女子，她們不想有差錯，快樂而失敗的愛情，比不上痛苦但成功的，所以她們即使尋找不到「幸福」，也寧願「不幸」。手中沒有香甜的橘子，也總比投入大堆心血抓到後才發現是酸溜溜的桔子好。她們要愛時便要愛得轟烈，所以絕不相信「漁翁撒網」，亦不願接受「給個機會，一試何妨？」的游說。男生們可能以為她們很高傲，但她們其實對男生們沒有看不起的意思，反而生怕自己浪費了別人的光陰。這種女子，錯入了感情關係會自責，親手放開的不會後悔。當然，她們和一般女子一樣，渴望找到完美的愛情。但現實是，完美是永遠觸不到的，所以她們繼續上路，繼續追尋她們的理想。

大陸客

零六年二月六日

一向自問是個反岐視者，近日卻不知怎的對公共交通工具上的大陸客產生反感。

某天，登上巴士，選了下層次後排一個反方向的位置坐下。過了數個站後，四名操類似普通話方言的中年男女踏進車廂，走到車子的末排座位，坐成一列。往後整個車程，那類似普通話但我聽不明白的對話一直高聲地由我正前方，從左至右、又從右至左傳來。瞟一下左方，其中一位女士把玉腿一伸，舒舒服服地踏住對面座位。我心想，我要是後來的乘客，一定極不願意坐那張椅！但見坐在那「天蠶腳」旁角落位置的女孩，更只一臉無奈。

另一回，在地下鐵路車廂中。一位操國語的太太和她的兒子坐在我正對面，小孩手裏拿住Häagen Dazs雪糕杯（是Häagen Dazs！），津津有味地享受着。一滴、一滴，小孩的褲子，以至地鐵的座位都慢慢與他分甘同味。太太沒有看，更遑論叫停兒子。實在不忍看下去的我，正準備掏一張紙巾給這位小朋友時，他們便站起來下車了。

在中環站下車，瞥見月台上一個候車者手上的報紙，今日《龍門陣》一篇題為《內地遊客的不文形象》。

重開博客

很久沒有在這博客貼文，原因起初只是一些很簡單的技術障礙，後來因工作忙碌少寫文章，重開之事便不了了之。現把博客閑置期間所草數篇一次過發表，希望自己日後更勤執筆。

作家的故事

某天，一位浪漫的作家毅然決定離開他生活的都市，浪跡天涯，尋找一個沒有人認識他的、最寧靜的地方。他隨便執拾個包袱，也沒有告別父母和愛人，就啟程遠去了。他踏破鐵鞋，看遍奇風異俗，歷盡千山萬水，數年後輾轉到了一個小島，島上見一位老先生坐在岸邊樹下垂釣，便上前跟他搭訕。作家問老人，你在島上的生活是怎麼樣，老人答：「這裏只我一個人住，我就是種一些果菜，有時造造手作，有時釣釣魚。每天有不同的鳥兒飛來，我跟牠們玩兒。我也造了一隻木筏，有時划出去遠一點的地方，看看對面的山水有沒有變色，便知道季節變化。」作家聽了，覺得這裏就是他要找的世外桃源，心裏非常高興。老人也問他從哪裏來，在那裏的生活是怎麼樣。作家答道：「我住在一個很遙遠的城市，看着歷史的巨輪、世間的風貌來寫故事，以筆創造一個個拋頭顱灑熱血的國家英雄、一個個父慈子孝的溫馨家庭、一對對愛得轟轟烈烈的情侶。」老人便問：「看來你在城市的生活很多姿多采哦，那你老遠跑來這裏幹甚麼呢？」作家微笑着，想到滿腹的大計便躊躇滿志地說：「那些繁囂已沒甚麼意思了，我要留在這裏，以後寫大自然的故事。」老人想了想，說道：「可是這裏只有我和你兩人，我又不識字，你寫了文章想給誰看呢？」「我寫了文章，想給……」作家一時答不上這問，島上真的沒有讀者，他寫故事給誰看呢？再想清楚，卻驀地哀傷起心來，「我寫了文章，最想給我的家人和愛人看。」然而，他不知道闊別了多年的父母還在不在，拋下了的愛人有沒有等他。於是，他提起了包袱，說：「謝謝你，老先生，我想我要趕快回家了。」

小記者看政改方案

政制改革第五號報告書究竟是如政府所說的民主進步，還是民主派所說的民主倒退？報告書中最矚目的是所謂「區議會方案」，當中包括兩方面改革，分別是讓全數區議員晉身選出行政長官的選舉委員會，和競逐立法會新增的五個功能組別議席，本文將對擴大選委會方面作一些分析。

現時無論政改的推銷者或反對派對選委擴大方案的輿輪焦點都似乎放在區議員入選委會的問題，官方口徑指五百多名區議員中有四百多名是由直選產生，建議中的新一屆特首選舉方法包括了間選成分，即由市民選出的代表來投票選出特首，因此添了幾分民主；而民主派的議論則咬着另外那一百多名委任區議員不放，指讓那些由特首委任的人士反過來選舉特首，即使非由曾蔭權個人「種票」也是政府種票，有違公平。站遠一點來看，雙方斟酌的區議會方案其實只是在五號報告書的選委會組成部分的其中一個環節。報告建議選委會由現時的八百人擴大一倍至一千六百人，新增的八百人當中包括工商及金融界別一百人、專業界別一百人、勞工、社會服務及宗教等界別一百人，以及包括區議會在內的「第四界別」五百人。

要討論五號報告書的選委會改組方案是否一個民主方案，筆者認為應全盤地檢視新的選委會是怎樣組成。無疑區議員中有五分之四即大多數是經民意授權的代表，但選委會吸納全數區議員之際，還有其他三個界別共增三百人，而這些按原有功能界別產生的選委，與現有常被詬病的為小圈子選委會並無分別，至少五號報告書只說要增加該等界別的選舉人數，而沒有說會改革產生選委的方法。再回顧遠一點，選委會之所以常被民主派形容為小圈子，一個重要原因是選委的產生大多來自團體票和公司票，有數個界別更由指定團體佔有當然席位，即是說哪些團體有票，哪些團體沒票，甚至哪些團體無需經過任何選舉便可理所當然地派他們指定的代表投票，都全掌握在政府手上。這種特權分配是由首屆特首選舉以來一直存在的不公平、不民主關鍵。按五號報告書方案在第一至三界別增加三百名，細看第四界別還增加鄉議局代表一名及港區政協兩名，即是增加由既有功能界別形式選出的選委共三百零二人，加上一百零四名直接由特首委任的區議員，即由政府直接或通過指定團體間接掌握的議席共添四百零六個；至於政府標榜為選委增加民主成分的民選區議員則有四百二十五個，方案說增加的十個立法會議席又是假象。（按：方案提議新增的十個立法會席位中，五個是由區議員互選的功能組別議席，而該五人又已通過區議會方案成為了當然選委；再者，下屆立法會選舉在二零零八年，故零七年選舉行政長官的新一屆選委會根本沒可能增加十個立法會議員席位，五號報告書中則以一註腳解釋「須就此於《行政長官選舉條例》訂出過渡性條文」。）換句話去解構政府所說的擴大選委，其實是在增加四百多經民意授權的間選票的同時，又增加四百多個政府有直接或間接控制的四百多票來「拌勻」選委的組成成分。除非以整體來說多了八百人參予為理由辯說純粹增大選委會規模本身已是民主進步，否則很難憑現時建議中的選委組成方法說服大家按此方案產生的選委具有代表性。一杯酸的檸檬茶，加了一點白糖，但又多加數片檸檬，結果也還是酸的檸檬茶。現在政府不斷強調為市民帶來了糖，所以這杯茶便是甜的了，還比以前更大杯哩，各位怎麼還不喝？這個道理說得過去嗎？

今次政府發表政改第五號報告書，似乎成功地轉移了市民大眾、傳媒甚至民主派議員的視線，政府高調向市民宣傳糖有多甜時，民主派卻沒有重點抓住那檸檬有多酸。如前所述，選委會不民主的一個重要原因在於由政府指定的組織可以團體或公司名義投票，這些選票操控在寥寥數人手上，更有全無民意授權的團體代表竟可坐享當然投票權。如今五號報告書發表以來，反對聲音中卻有不少是在斟酌該一百零四個委任區議員應否和四百多名民選區議員一同投票選特首，忽略問題的根源在於方案建議中的選委會整體來說仍是缺乏代表性；更有說一旦政府讓步抽起委任區議員的當然選委資格，民主派便可考慮支持方案。民主派對政改方案的攻擊，亦大多唇舌花了在「普選時間表」、「路線圖」，以及委任區議員入選委會有「種票」之嫌的問題，雖有「四條底線」之說，但這輪反對攻勢中對功能組別公司和團體票制度這條底線卻似乎只是輕描淡寫。其實試想即使政府抽起委任區議員的投票權，那然後又怎樣？那要加的一百零四個第四界別席位，難道轉讓給鄉議局和政協使他們坐享更多票數，那就會比現時的方案更民主不成？筆者以為是次改革的最大問題不在於那一百零四人，而在於整個方案有否真正增加整個選舉委員會的代表性。