Leung's unkind remarks

IN politics, change is eternal. Though change is constant in politics, some requirements people in politics ought to meet do not and should not change. One of them is that one must respect others,including one's rivals. This is a requirement not only those in politics but also ordinary people must meet.Leung Kwok-hung is good at verbal violence. Hisverbal abuse is too frequent to surprise some.

However, he has openly called Szeto Wah (who suffers from stage 4 lung cancer) "Szeto Old Dog" andsaid cancer cells have spread to his brain. That is unmistakably past ordinary people's endurance.

Leung has said he will deal with this matter between him and Szeto privately. It is wrong for him to do so. Szeto was against the "five-constituencyresignations and de facto referendum" campaign and endorses the Democratic Party's modified plan. He is worlds apart from the League of Social Democrat(LSD). Conceivably, that is why Leung has abusedhim. Because Leung has bashed Szeto over hispolitical choices in relation to public affairs rather than what concerns only them, it is not open to him to settle the matter privately. If he finds a remedy, he ought to tell the public what it is.

Most people judge Leung's remarks against basicprinciples of good behaviour rather than any general principles of politics. It is unkind and inhuman to use the condition of a person who has terminal cancer asammunition to attack him politically. Such behaviour is by no means acceptable in any civilised society. No ingenious explanations Leung can come up with wouldserve to hoodwink the discerning public. Instead ofracking his brains to blur the issue or divert attention,he should say he ought not to have made thoseremarks, retract them and apologise to Szeto. By doing so he might salvage some respect. He will only be held more in contempt if he persists in using sophistry to gloss over his fault.

Leung said in the legislative chamber thoseremarks were his own and had nothing to do with the LSD. That indirectly shows those remarks are improper and he does not want to be a liability to his party.Though it is he that has made those remarks, it seems clear from what has happened that his behaviour isessentially and substantially in line with the LSD's ways of struggling.

In 2008 the LSD grabbed three Legislative Councilseats. Regarding radicalism as its political capital, itdeclared it would put up fights in the legislativechamber. Its attitude is similar to that Ju Gau-jengadopted about twenty years ago when he became adangwai (outside-the-party) member of Taiwan'sLegislative Yuan. Ju, who said he would put up fights in the legislature, is known for his violent behaviour. Hetook part in several brawls among legislators. LSDmembers' behaviour in the legislative chamber is nowhere near as violent as Ju's. We have no intentionwhatsoever to encourage LSD members to emulate Ju. It remains to be assessed whether Ju's radicalismhas promoted or inhibited Taiwan's democratisation.

We only what to point out that what Ju did then wasthe worst of foul politics. Some have jokingly said that,if LSD members do in Hong Kong what Ju did inTaiwan, one may say the "Taiwan poison" has got intotheir brains. It depends on how sensible Hong Kong people are whether the LSD's radicalism will win it more political capital. Nevertheless, one cay say for certain that foul politics would in no way profit theSAR.

明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm

2010.06.25明報社評

梁國雄人身攻擊司徒華 偏離文明社會基本要求

政治，變幻原是永恒。不過，縱使「變」是政治的定律，但是對從政者的要求，有些事不會變、也不應該變，其中——對別人（包括對政敵）的尊重，應屬其一，因為這不但是對從政者、也是對人的基本要求。

梁國雄擅於操弄語言暴力，許多人或許見怪不怪，不過，他這次在公開場合指司徒華為「司徒老狗」、又說患第四期肺癌的司徒華「癌症上腦」，明顯超過一般人所能容忍的極限。

梁國雄表示，他與司徒華之間的事，會私下了斷。這不對。較早時司徒華反對「五區請辭，變相公投」，和近期支持民主黨的改良方案，都與社民連背道而馳，相信此乃梁國雄言辭攻擊司徒華的背景，並非為了私事，而是涉及公共事務的政治選擇。所以，此事不能私了，若梁國雄要處理和補救，必須公告周知。

許多人對梁國雄言辭是非曲直的判斷，其實不着眼於什麼政治大道理，只是從做人的基本出發——對於身患末期肺癌的病人，梁國雄竟然以此做政治攻擊的彈藥，太過乖離人性和人道了，不可能為文明社會所認同及接受。現在梁國雄無論怎樣解釋，都無法蒙蔽公衆雪亮的眼睛。梁國雄與其費盡心思轉移視線，模糊焦點，不如承認失言、收回言辭，向司徒華道歉，說不定還可以掙回一點尊重。梁國雄若繼續強詞奪理，文過飾非，只會使公衆更不齒其所為。

昨日，梁國雄在立法會發言時，說有關言論只屬個人，與社民連無關。此舉起碼反證了有關言辭的不恰當，梁國雄不想拖累社民連。不過，梁國雄的不當言辭，可能出於個人，但是回想過去一些事，他的做法，與社民連的鬥爭手段、精神和實質都有契合之處。

2008 年，社民連在立法會選舉攻下3 席，視激進為本錢，表明將在立法會搞抗爭，這個取態，與大約20 年前台灣以黨外人士身分成為立法委員的朱高正相若。當年朱高正在立法院搞抗爭，以「暴力問政」風格聞名，曾多次捲入立法委員互毆事件。社民連在立法會搞抗爭，暴烈程度較諸當年的朱高正，差之遠矣。我們絕非鼓勵社民連要趕上朱高正，朱高正的激越，在台灣整體民主進程起到積極抑或消極作用，還待評斷，我們只是指出，朱高正當年的作為，是惡質政治的極致，社民連若將之搬來香港，有人謔稱為「台毒上腦」。社民連的激烈，能否掙得更多政治本錢，就看香港市民的質素，但是惡質政治生態，對香港無益，這是可以肯定的。

G lossary

bash /baʃ/severely criticise.retract /rI'trakt/If you retract a remark you have made, yousay it is wrong or you did not mean it.profitbe beneficial to.