It will be one of the numbers I will keep in my mind, my vein, until I die.
Just like 623 2016, 118 2016.
For a long time, I have tried very hard, very hard, not to talk about politics. I have been so afraid of myself being full of myself, fool of myself, talking politics, since 623, 714, 118. I know I used to be like that before those numbers, those dates. Being egotistic, I know I used to sound like, smell like, a left-leaning hypocrite. I know I used to sound like, smell like, I know a lot of things about politics, about society, about economy, about class, about votes. There used to be a twitter mate who I guess studied sociology and philosophy. He told me, at the crest of my pomposity about left-leaning ideologue about 2 years ago, that he didn’t see left leaning ideas would come back to hit any time soon. Traditional industries are not here anymore. Traditional sectors that can create a large horde of workers to work together, get a drink together, form a club together, form a bondage to each other, together, are long gone. At the time, I just heard something, but couldn’t listen to anything. Just can’t, have anything that could be put into my brain, except what I thought was true. That used to be me, until the numbers, 623, 714, 118.
So, I felt I was completely defeated by those numbers. When I felt defeated, I reflected, oftener than not the words from the keyboard of that socio-philosophist. Since then have I always remind myself, don’t talk about it. Don’t ever talk about it. Avoid it. Foil it. Not because I finally got a sense of remorse, but I just don’t want to be my laughing stock. So I stop.
Until a couple of weeks ago, that snap poll called by Theresa May, that woman who now still clings on in her parliament, who always takes for granted that Westminster is nothing but HER OWN parliament. Out of something I still can’t explain fully, I called that bet again, that I will have a table for 12 for anyone who comes, if SHE can take a majority larger than 3. That means, I just know, 328 out of 650. I just don’t know. I still don’t know, how I figured that bet. Like Labour, I was not very good at counting and maths. It might be just a gambler’s intuition, always bet on riskier side, always bet on weak, because if I lose, just a bet, while if I win, I win big.
It seems I did win. But that I won doesn’t explain anything about myself. So I am not going to give you explanation about how Labour won big. And literally they didn’t. They have just got back to where they used to be in 2010 under Gordon Brown, a hung, a stalemate, a tell-tale that there are still about a million people who feel alienated by Labour. And, to be most humble, I still don’t know what has been through. I just want to share my feeling, a tinkle of being a little smart ass when the result is all clear.
- I actually think that Labour was smart not ever taking strong view about Brexit. Some people used to blame Labour on their anaemic, or retreating, stance about Anti-Brexit, about Article 50, about Second Referendum against Brexit. From what I have heard from British saying, in TV show interview, in Radio Show, I have a sense many of them don’t feel pain about what they decided on 623. They are conscious they will have a hard time leaving EU. But they haven’t winced or wailed. That’s just not what they are. They just want to get it on. If my sense was right, that Labour sounded retreating about Brexit/ Anti-Brexit might be viewed by people as honouring a majority of people who made that decision, while they won’t be so high and hard sounding about severing any tie to EU at all cost, thus alienating the young voters. After all, Brexit as an issue to Labour is just “Not My Problem". Brexit is in all sense a Frankenstein invented by Tories and Tories themselves.
- “For the many, Not the few" was the campaign motto/ tagline of Labour in this election. It sounded quite silly to me when I first heard of it. But the message turned out ringing so ear-poppingly clamorous to voters, esp. those who have suffered the most in the last 5 years of austerity, the disabled, the people working in National Health Service, the singled parents, the people who have had their benefits and allowances cut to bare minimum. To them, the message pierced right through their mind to create pictures, movies of what they’ve been through, and their future, to the brink of something like clairvoyance. The message was proven today so powerful, like cannon that was shot right through the heart of where Labour voters used to be, Wales, Glasgow, Northwest, Northeast, Islington, Haringey, Bromley, Liverpool Tooting, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull. I have to confess even I underestimated him, and this message of his. I have never, even a minute, thought that it could be so powerful, so majestic.
This passage from New Yorker I read today is the one I like most among all the opinions I read: http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/how-jeremy-corbyn-moved-past-the-politics-of-2016?intcid=mod-latest?reload
“Rise, like lions after slumber / In unvanquishable number! / Shake your chains to earth like dew / Which in sleep had fallen on you: / ye are many—they are few!”
“For the many, not the few.” “protect this, defend that, support this person.” “Tonight is different….We’re not defending. We’re not defending. We don’t need to. We are asserting. Asserting our view that a society that cares for all is better than a society that only cares for the few.”
2008 I cried like mad in MTR reading the victory speech of Barack Obama. The above speech is comparatively short. And I didn’t cry because of it. But it doesn’t mean it is anything less than Obama’s. At least it is what I think, at the moment. Comparatively, Corbyn’s is ridden of that academic snob of Obama’s, while adding a tint of Street smart. And, most of all, Corbyn’s is even more genuine. He has been standing in Islington, defending for whatever he thinks is worth a stand, a sit-in, for 30 years. Once again, his message pierced right through his supporters’ mind to create pictures, movies of what they’ve been through, what Corbyn’s been through, and their future, their common future, their calm and spirit even their future would be so uncertain (and it’s true), their not giving a shit of their lose come what may (as they’ve been losing for 30 years) to the brink of something like clairvoyance. How powerful, how majestic.
Irony is. He still hasn’t won.
So. I keep on what I have been doing, avoid it, eschew it. foil it. As I really don’t know much about politics, about society, about economy. And, above all, I did’t win.
Fight on, mate.
64 64 all gone and gone along the pathway from
Hayday, which ‘as been what, when?
1997? 1992? 1989? 1978? 1967? 1956?
What are they numbers? Fading in memory but not in tapes,
Teasing in some lips but honoured in scripts
Archived in history, the absurdities the atrocities the hysterical delusion that define me, and so many others who, year on year, year on year, fainting but still saintly shinin’ lights passing, year on year, year on year, together and union, become part of me, and part of my history, our history, mine history, ours history, interweaving into one and wholely, the light vs the dark, the repression vs the democracy.
So many used to stand up in the legislative hall, in Victoria, against authority, initaiting motion that that authoritarian barbarity, to admit what they did, as guilty, as history and witnesses have imputed with crystalline clarity, the atrocity. Year on year, being refused, scorned, mocked and teased, by all sides, even some of our side, but still stood up, year on year.
Because, it is the only one thing that defines our identity. Just one thing. Not money. But fear. We fled, we sit in, we protested, we shed tears, because of this
Fear. And anger. The hair straightener fear. And heart piercing anger that melts down into tears. Out of conscience. In front of such a massive criminal, who can crush anybody just for clinging on with power, money, jail, brutality, and anything that have defined what they always be.
So they were standing, year on year, until the last breath of the air. And we are, the heir.
So we still stand, even in such an circumstance, that some say there is no more stage for it to stand, to be so disheartening so futile to stand. But we stand. Coz’ we are the only heir.
This is the responsibility of being an heir. To stand in front of such a massive and filthy thing. To stand for showing, such grief such anger such fear such thing that solely defines us. Solely decide us.
So we stand. Always we stand. Repetitively we stand. In that place we stand.
Year on Year.
我真心好多謝一個朋友真是記得我在blog寫過的東西. 當然我的那位朋友記憶力超強, 很多人很多年前講過寫過的東西他都記得, 亦每隔一排就來掘墳, 殺過大家走避不及.
我應允我會寫我對現時Brexit的看法, 我寫. 但新工作令我時間不夠. 而現在看的新聞, 書籍, 都皆因顧及自己身心健康而不太涉及重要政事. 真是睇吓邊度有人放狗咬人俾人拉呀, 邊度火車罷工邊個屌人老母呀, 咁啫. 希望變成O豬的我的淺見, 朋友不要太介懷. 若唔啱聽. Scrap it, shred it, and forget it. Or just boom me comments / boxx / drolls / drills / trolls / missiles. I can stand it.
件事可以做個咁的比喻: 兩公婆, 各自都有D仔女. 本身都只因一時之快 (快乜真是唔知) 而上床, 閃婚, 結婚相 (仲要是走到北海道拍). 大禮又唔洗過. 大家各自都有背景過去, 亦不方便大排延席, 婚後亦從無一起住, 各自在各自的地方搵食. 但係D仔女呢, 得閒就去吓老豆度住幾個月, 得閒就去吓老母度放兩個月暑假. That’s it. 仲要關係一向都是鬧交冷戰多過攬頭攬髻, 結婚第二年就話想離婚.
就是咁, 婚姻以亮結燈的狀態一直維持. 經濟唔錯時還勉為其難一齊. 而家經濟有點困難. 唔忍了. 要爆了. 單方面決定分居, 兩年後離婚. 拖拖拉拉互相折磨的 onss (One Night Stand Syndrome) 由渣男/女主動劃上句號.
我冇打算離婚. 但亦同人分過手. 會記憶一些很老土的廣告, 或對白, 如:再見亦是朋友. 又如: 愛難留情仍繫, 請準時交膳養費/扔煲費. 老土到呢….分過手, 離過婚, 偷過食的, 都會知, 以上的廣告, 或對白, 講的啫….你對上一次找你ex是幾時? (除執劑出火除外)
Brexit正正就是咁….呢….之前嗰D你應該仲欠我50億呀…..我每年比你350億呀…..屌你同第二個上床開左我支smirnoff呀…..還錢呀….咪就係嗰D囉…..情一斷, 就是咁挖爛面, 就是咁不顧舊情, 就是咁賤格的.
House of Lords 其中一個amendments就是想逆天而行, 不如離婚都顧下D細吖…. 唔好要佢地跟死老豆老母吖….離婚你都有個好爸/媽吖….Come on…經歷過離婚的小朋友們, 請告訴我, 你們當時的爸媽, 有否放你們在第一位, 不把你們作籌碼? 有的….就唔離婚啦….離婚, 就是談判….談判, 就是everything’s under the table. Nothing is not on the table 的嘛…..
所以我反而欣賞May 姐….當初唔同意都好, 盤野我睇的, 我就賤到尾. The woman you can count on, you can trust, to fight for you as nasty as you can imagine.
放棄吧, 朋友….冇得返轉頭的. 你愈想返轉頭, 對事對人對自己, 只會更糟…..
The third drama in three years. And it’s the best one so far.
Long ago when I decided which drama I would be watching in Art Festival Hong Kong 2017, around July-August 2016, I read the brochure and I chose this one, over Arthur Miller’s. It’s because I knew at the time this drama was about election in America. I knew at the time it’s about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. So I said, “I’m going to watch it". And I watched it just now.
it’s about Donald Trump?
A Yes and No. No, because that name was not mentioned even once in the whole drama. Yes, because the characters mentioned many names, Clinton, Meg Kelliane ( sorry I don’t know how to spell it), Berns, all those who pulled our thread in the mind to the result on 8 November 2016, and the devil who made that history. Glory or Gory, depending on which way you have come from, and which way you want to go.
No, because the story was more than that. It was, according to the playwright, in troubled and troubling times, …a portrait of the confusion, and an articulation of the ambiguities, doubts and fears of its time. The playwright also explained, in his introduction, the function of the theatre is not to argue, but an effort to create and portray human complexity, which we then share with the audience, at the same time, at the same space; human being to human being.
But yes, because in one of the most unforgettable moments in the story, the playwright did point to a hint of what happened at particular point that has led Americans to where they are today, here and now. In that Act, the son, the remaining son of the Gabriels’ family in Rhinebeck, John (maybe George is the correct one, forgive my shit listening please) recalled a guy who said, “all we’ve been through, can lead back to one single Act, on a small kitchen table, in the Oval Office, with a Pizza, and a felacio…" Everyone in the theatre, even I and my wife who are nearly ignorant of anything in US, knew he was alluding to Bill Clinton and his near impeachment.
I recalled my memory in high school, when, about the same period as the congress debate about his impeachment, our Chinese teacher led a debate/discussion about his affair and aftermath in the class. Her question then was simple, “do you think American people should support the impeachment, or indictment, of the President because of his moral slippery/mistakes/corruption?" I cannot recall much detail about the debate/discussion at the time. But I do recall one point my teacher pointed out, “Americans decided not to support his impeachment, because they valued a President’s competence over his moral integrity. They valued their country more as a representation of economic prowess than they did a holder of moral standard."
Maybe she was right. I don’t know. Because I did not read news much at the time. But now, 20 years later, in hindsight, I think that, if she was right, it explains so much what happens today. It explains why we can’t stop the man, who was videotaped bragging about his ability of grabbing whoever he wants because he is rich and powerful, carrying on his path to brazen grab of zenith power in the White House. If a president who so thoroughly insulted the White House, the Oval, so shamefully abused his power, by having felacio with his intern/interns, even could not be impeached, how could then Americans stop a man who just bragged about grabbing puzzies from striding towards the Oval? If Americans long gave up morality as a criterion to judge the suitability of a man as their president, how could they pick up such a thing again to judge against another moron while not feeling hypocritical? If there already come a consensus among Americans that success over everything else, success excuse their president from everything else, how could they fight a man whose brand has always been success? (a lot of bankruptcies disregarded)
In short, the story spoke my word. Or, more correctly put, the story spoke what I had in mind, just much clearer. Americans deserve what they have right now. One of the main reasons is they forgave something they should not forgive. The one who holds the highest post should at least uphold the strictest and highest moral standard. And they have degraded it from sine qua non to quid pro quo. I don’t want to elaborate along the line as I don’t want to offend anybody; and I am not in a position to meddle with others’ politics. I am Chinese after all.
This story also struck my memory flash, that around November, I heard a radio podcast, The State of the Union Songbook. In which a songwriter interviewed different people from different states in US in 2015. The transcripts of the interviewees were made lyrics of his song, verbatim, in his concert in 2016 before the election. When I heard it hard, I felt the smell of my failure, my doom, my pain, my forbearance, as a social democrat. Now I want to share with you readers.
Judaz by Amos Oz has just been finished. I couldn’t stop reflecting my view about it before. I used to have one serious and raucous brawl with one Twitter, a dead pan Israel supporter, a couple of years ago when Israel bombarded Palastine and Ramallah for a month in the name of killing all Hamas and Hezbollah. In him, I was but a simpleton Muslim pacifist idiot. In me he was a ruthless and pitiless pomp pomp of Natanyehu. And both of us were in Hong Kong and from Hong Kong. You see how stupid it is. More stupid is I blocked him permanently because of the fight. Stupid self. Stupid me.
I read some interviews of experts about the issue, afterwards. They pointed out one thing I couldn’t understand at the time, that “ones have to understand two fundamentals before looking at these two states, or two races under one state. 1. The reciprocal animosity between the two; and 2. The existential threat Israelis have been feeling since AD 1, and esp. after Nazi killing of Jews en masse.
After finishing reading this book, I at least begin to understand the second. Gershom Wald, one of the characters in the book, asked, what would you do if you had 20000 heads in your troop, protecting less than a million men of your race against the siege of 1 million strong troops who wanted to kill you all in an instant. Would you still fight the fight, war the war? Even if you can withstand those 1 million, what if they brought in 1 million more to exterminate you? How long you supposed you can withstand? But you still fight?
Such questions beautifully and cruelly sum up the 2nd point above. And I still don’t know how to grapple with the issue. Too strange to me as an Asian. So, I will read more maybe. Today I read this:
One thing I am definitely sure. I won’t fight anymore. Coz’ I don’t know nothing. If I still cannot give a view of those seven policemen under sentence because of violence causing injuries to a protester who instigated the fight first hand, where the justice should be struck, I think I can’t give you anything. All I say is,
The Judge judged it, and we have nothing else but witnessed it. And that’s it. Bye.
認為應該要嗰幾百個選委, 甚麼300+, 投白票的朋友. 我講一個好有趣的故事, 雖然未必關你事, 但肯定唔關我事.
其實我想講的是, 我突然想到. 嗰幾百個入圍的選委之所以可以入圍好大程度上是因為protest vote, 所謂對已稱霸的制度, 的一種憤慨的宣洩. 是非常emotional的. 可以沒有特定的原因的, 可以是沒有特定的政策要求的, 如減稅、增加土地供應、港人港地、Kill the XL Pipeline、Burn those coal….但又好奇怪, 暴燥的選民又不是很喜歡那些巧言怜色的政客口號, 唔喜歡all talk, 要在政客的政綱上看到他是實實在在的幹的. 選民的矛盾和政客的計算,就成了很微妙的game theory了. 如何用比較易完成比較實在比較有指向的政策對應/包攬最多最大圍散亂的選民情緒及指望. 而呢個matching最經典的例子, 而我知的就是Brexit. 所以左膠們, 客觀講, 唔好只話Brexit政客講大話. it’s more than that. Brexit正正是一個比較具體的方案去match最多Protest Voters的情緒/信念/期望.
可是更有趣的事還在後頭. 當政客藉著這些protest vote 撈到油水, 上到檯一刻, 他們就會看見所謂protest vote會自己變質的. 變成非常實在的願望. 實在得令他們不得不照這實在的願望去行. 因為政客是主動的去把protest voters用那個具體政策連起來的. 或簡化概括起來的. 再抽象一點就是, 未投票時, 準備投票, 到投完票那刻, 都可以是protest vote. 但選票結果一出現那刻, 那種有,或被方向化的protest vote就不再是protest vote, 而變成mandate, 變成合約, 令藉此勝出的政客們不能不跟那個合約去做. 所以衞報的左翼記者/稿人, 今次我是不同意你的. Labour怎可能反其道而行, 去對抗這個mandate呢. 那些認為Labour四分五裂是因為某人的領導能力, Brexit正是一個很好的路標,或指南針, 去把各有喜好的選民清析的分類出來. 代表們的政客, 變相簽了這份同意書, 又怎會有不分裂的本錢/本事呢:
更有趣的是: 有人會問的. 投Brexit的既然是protest vote, 咁即係他們未必是同意Brexit啦? 那猜想有理. 有點賴皮, 但都不重要了. 因為偉大的Game Theory又來了. 票就投左了. 就正因為Brexit是一個比較具體的方案去match/summarise最多Protest Voters的情緒/信念/期望. 有誰又有能力去決定/猜測有多少投Brexit的人是真心, 有幾多是一時性充血呢? 你去估啦, 出問卷啦. 又點呢? 結果即使顯示有超過60%的Brexiter是其實不想脫的, 你是否就有信心充足的講, Brexit不是他們所想呢? 那個60%有幾多機率是錯誤的呢? 萬一真是信60%這個數而出事, 個風險有多高呢? 投了票的選民亦一樣面對這些很困難的選擇. 我當時即使是protest vote, 即使是一時意氣. 我有否這個勇氣去講我講過唔算數呢? 好樣衰喎. 尤其是我怎樣知道有幾多講吓算唔係真是咁想做脫星的志同道合呢? 但如果個政客真是話唔脫啦, 因為知道選民很多不是真是想做脫星的, 選民又會否覺得那個政客誠信不夠, 會否其他事未來都是講左唔算呢? 那樣會否更危險呢?
再簡單一點: 頭已濕. Too much is at stake.
看似唔太關那300+選委事. 但300+選委會否清楚投你的protest vote當時是match緊一個具體的政策願望呢? ABC? ABC2.0? 定ABC3.0 (Anyone /Anything But those from the election Committee)? 而入去投白票又是否能反映到那些散亂而複雜的情緒呢? 如果人地冒住生命危險來投你, 他的願望變成mandate, 你做唔到, 你又會否覺得是too much is at stake呢?
我真是唔知. 因為我真是唔多睇報紙. 你們想吓啦. 唔啱睇真是可以唔睇的.
真心好多謝Alan的稱讚，說我正正經經寫個blog出來是always refreshing的。當然我聽得出句子隱藏的說話－條友成日寫on9 blog。你不能怪我。要認真寫個blog要嘔血。年紀大要錫身。寫一寫DJT，已谷起隱藏在體內的怒火，搞到生暗瘡生到落條頸。
他話，他無權阻止DJT來英國國家訪問，但國會是他本人的地頭，他絕對不會邀請他來演講。我呢D對人對事都充滿成見的粉人當然覺得非常激勵。但有些議員講得很客觀。人地冇話想來講野喎⋯⋯所以你雅雅炸炸的話唔俾人來有點唔知他想點。你只可以話如果他要來，我就唔俾他來。A big if。
我在facebook看香港的那個John不斷的PR Stunt引來很多的談論。尤其一班某網友不恥的所謂論述左膠，不斷評擊支持本地John的朋友。有些甚至問你那樣支持本地John，那你有甚麼資格討厭梁振英。而那位評擊論述左膠的朋友亦曾經問我如果我有票我會支持哪個。A big if。
這令我想起曾經看香港小姐競選，甚至音樂頒獎禮競選，好多人問我如果我選我選邊個。個個爭鳴討論。又all in 又盛。說得好像自己在選老婆，又真是有得㨂咁。A big if。而其實我唔知幾時開始變得那麼消極，那麼老油條，那麼沒夢。張秀文又好鄭秀雯又好張明敏亦好。我都冇資格揀。咁有乜好講呢。I feel silly of myself even to talk about it. It’s too big a if to even talk about it. I can talk about my bet in tomorrow lottery, or match. Because I can bet. But the chosen one to run, or the chosen one to represent TVB, I can’t. I really can’t.
但總有一點可以講的。在這兒所謂代表香港，睇住他地頭的那幾個人中，如果大陸要來指指點點，又呢又路時，有誰好像英倫John一樣，會企出來講。在我地頭，no way。本地John的二十三條告訴我。即使那個big if成真，哪一個John都未必能堂堂正正講呢個是他地頭，就選未來民選真的出現，這個難題都解決不來。因為這裡真的不太像是任何一個John的地頭。
至於那個英倫JOHN，你真的overstepped了。那個DJT是民主的彰顯。人地揀個閪出來，關你甚麼事。Democracy is coming to the USA吧。
OK. I am fine with that. I have done that for nearly 3 years, and I am still here. 雖然呢種與世界隔離的態度，原來會反映在工作時與人接物的反應上。有人被大老闆捉入房苦口婆心，又話看見我眼神已經無晒火，對世界失去passion云云，叫我要重新振作。但⋯⋯
I am still here.
唔好講呢啲。擦邊球擦了三個多月，今天來一口點直的。某程度上，我是知本地和世界發生甚麼事的。特首選舉嘛。特朗普就職嘛。英國May姐決定hard on嘛。梁振英家庭理由退出今屆選舉嘛。John Tsang to run嘛。林鄭嘛。葉瘤公開了幫西環含吹奶啜後個客射到一面都係然後一腳踢佢出房嘛。我知的。只是，我找不到應該說什麼話。有人在facebook twitter 等社交網站笑談覺得Johnny PR得體，親和，消氣。帶給人團結、希望。有人在同一樣的平台笑那些笑談的人真正港豬、斯德哥爾摩，被人強姦得多，細力啲就覺得人生多了點希望。更有說真民主的距離一點都沒有近過開舍個心。我覺得兩面都有道理。有人話John Tsang其實曾經講過38萬個月叫中產條氣好唔順。仲係頂住。他又有道理。但撇除這些，也得讚他事前的準備功夫做得相當好。我還在猜想誰是軍師。早在幾個月前親民到在高登腦場打卡買Hard Disk。我一個月五皮那般卑微，都不會去高登買Hard Disk。一個38萬一個月竟然勞司動眾到深水埗買Hard Disk，還擺出一臉鬆容。還未計得閒落葯支持香港足球隊。在經合會議現場打叫勁抽。廣東人有句，叫老狐狸。就係呢啲。但能每每把握最好的時機，做到落葯的效果，比之姓葉的天天擺出葉準的備戰狀態，開口每句夾著痢，真是高手很多很多倍。兩三年前被問會否角逐，還說只想做到退休，笑裡藏刀，後發先至。這是金庸筆下頂級高手的劍術。假得嚟我都甘拜下風。但我依然找不到合適的話說。
又撇除真民主與否，斯德哥爾摩與否，我經常在問。你有甚麼能耐可以叫香港人團結，不考慮移民？現在外面立立亂，都然留港是公廁這麼多格最可去的一格吧。但就憑你一個特首，以我們香港人見過歷年來這麼多風浪，失望，挫折，鬥爭，起錙，迎難而上，DQ，Shout at them，你有什麼能耐，可以對這種中港對敵來個改變，even 微調呢？難道你有能力唔DQ?你有能力唔執行基本法23條？你有能力不以玩殘香港殘餘民主勢力為任？大陸要來港捉個季明海，砍個劉進圖，執個D100，你又有權阻頭阻勢嗎？我嘗試再概括一點。在如日中天的中共極權下，要以你為首的香港政府去對香港作進一步的高壓，就憑你一句團結休養生息就能抗衡嗎？你當你自己是誰？看得自己那麼高？
但以上的事，香港總算能夠頂住。每次都就只要多加一絲壓力就會崩潰，都總算頂住。至少，梁振英的高壓下，每個持反對聲音的人都度日如年，但就這樣捱下捱下又捱五年，還可以捱到佢收皮。那是誰的力量？這三個月總不是甚麼都沒有看的。如Albert Woodfox被獨自囚禁達四十年的故事 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/16/how-albert-woodfox-survived-solitary； 又如 Shepard Fairey ‘We the People’ 籌期籌夠上頭版的故事 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/shepard-fairey-we-the-people_us_58823e2ce4b070d8cad21172?ybh2auf7zptd42t9§ion=us_arts ； 又如美國捍衛女性權益的組織號召空前的就職當日的示威的故事 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/21/protests-around-world-show-solidarity-with-womens-march-on-washington。然後我又回想，香港一班搞社會運動的人，不誰黨派，不論組織有多鳩屎，不論日日吵吵嚷嚷，烏合之眾，但總算在這五年間組織回歸以來最頻密及具威脅的反合作姿勢。不知是否運動。但可叫姿勢。總之，到梁振英自我收皮之際。they are still there。覺得他們幾膠都好，都要講句，要不是大家，香港早就完蛋了。多謝。那我想到，對未來的任何一個領袖的一句話：
Let’s see who stay here longer。中文好一點：又睇下今次邊個收皮先？