警隊寫六七暴動史 切勿屈從政治壓力

<轉載自2015年9月16日 明報 社評>

警隊更新網頁，新版淡化了六七暴動內容，雖然警隊強調不存在政治目的，但有一些基本事實也刪改了，似乎並非精簡內容和訂正語句那麼簡單。其實，舊版描述六七暴動的一些內容，偏離了警隊角色，本有值得商榷之處，只是這些內容若貿然改動自然會引起猜疑，特別是社會早有定見的情節，卻見淡化操作，很難令社會淡然看待。警隊今次舉措即使無政治目的，但是做法草率，並未顧及此事於此特定時空的敏感性，應該切實檢討改善。

警更改網頁內容 有淡化暴力之嫌

警隊的歷史網頁，簡述了170多年以來警隊的變遷，包括歷來工作、演變和貢獻。按此框架，哪些素材入史、怎樣表述、表達什麼觀點等，都涉及不同程度的抉擇；此所以有當權者寫歷史，成王敗寇的說法。六七暴動持續約8個月，暴徒放置的真假炸彈超過9000個（真炸彈1167個），警隊在平亂鎮暴擔當重要角色；若要詳細記錄，肯定不乏素材。舊版警隊網頁以約600字描述六七暴動，是經過高度濃縮和篩選，雖然反映了整個暴動的一些事實與認知，但是肯定並非事實的全部。

這場左派大規模暴動，釀成的總體傷亡嚴重，說明血腥鬥爭極其激烈。不過，舊版和新版於此着墨不多，只記錄了內地武裝力量向本港邊境開火，5名警員中彈身亡，9名警員受傷。除了這次邊境衝突，在暴動中約800人受傷，46人死亡（其中5名為警員），新舊版網頁都無提及，其中有暴徒被捕拘留或在監禁期間遭虐打死亡，更是付之闕如。這一點說明：無論新版舊版的警隊六七暴動史，只是片面呈現，都經過取捨抉擇。

對照新舊版內容，一些刪改隱沒了事實，主要有三處。首先，「大批揮動毛語錄及叫喊口號的暴徒遊行往港督府」，在新版被精簡為「大批暴徒遊行往港督府」；當年左派對港英鬥爭，揮動毛語錄和叫喊口號是指定動作，新版刪減這個元素，使遊行示威片段變得蒼白。其次，「暴徒在左派學校的課室內製造炸彈，然後在街上隨處放置，更成立鬥爭委員會，策劃與政府展開鬥爭」，新版刪節為「暴徒……在街上隨處放置自製炸彈，與政府對抗」；六七暴動期間，左派學校在課室製造炸彈，成立「港九各界同胞反對港英迫害鬥爭委員會」都是事實，而且是暴動的重要元素，新版的做法使暴動血腥一面和領導暴動的組織架構變得模糊，這涉及隱沒歷史事實。

另外，「事件中共產黨民兵從中國邊境開火」，新版改為「內地槍手從沙頭角邊境開火」；「共產黨民兵」的稱謂或許不存在，可是當時開火的是內地武裝力量應無異議，「內地槍手」的提法卻淡化這次邊境衝突的官方性質，與事態真象對照，有調低嚴重性之嫌。綜合而言，新版在這三點隱沒或刪改一些歷史事實，性質並非精簡內容和訂正語句；警隊否認有政治目的，然而這是偏離正確面對歷史的做法，完全不應該也沒有這個必要。

不過，新版有一處刪改卻是恰當的：「但不久便發現沒有鬥爭首領願意往中國參加造成死傷無數的全國性鬥爭運動；而支持動亂的富商、即所謂『紅色肥貓』，則將子女送往他們極鄙視的英美兩國讀大學」。由於這兩點描述是否屬實，警隊難以拿出佐證，而官方網頁在沒有真憑實據下表述這兩點，不免草率；即使屬實，與警隊在六七暴動的角色又有何干？還有，這兩點顯示警隊有取態和立場，偏離了政治中立的要求。因此，刪節了這兩點，是修正了舊版的不恰當之處。

血腥暴行性質嚴重 六七暴動不能翻案

關於六七暴動，迄今仍然是敏感議題，且看曾任鬥委會主任的楊光獲頒贈大紫荊勳章時，就曾經觸發極大爭議；到他病逝，部分輿論仍然咬住不放，充分說明六七暴動在主流社會的認知。回歸之後，一些左派人士對當年受到的待遇感到「委屈」，要求政府做一些事讓他們「平反」。不過，六七暴動的暴力性質極其嚴重，破壞社會治安，無辜市民要付出沉重代價甚至生命（例如北角清風街兩名小姊弟在寓所外玩耍時被炸彈炸死）；當年暴徒的暴行，不可能因為回歸而變為放炸彈有理、殺人有理的行為。這一段歷史已經有定論，不能改、也不應該改。

警務處長盧偉聰表示，擔心更新網頁會失掉部分信息，因此正整合更全面、「原汁原味」的警隊歷史，完成後將連結上載網站。「一哥」應對迅捷，相信可以阻止此事繼續發酵，消弭一場風波。盧偉聰既然有言在先，則警隊怎樣炮製更全面和原汁原味的警隊歷史，備受矚目。其實，警隊只要回歸史實，直接描述當年發生過的事，呈現警隊在應對暴動的角色和職能，就可以免卻爭議；倘若屈從政治壓力，修改歷史紀錄，則將必然觸動主流社會反彈，引發抗爭。警隊須好自為之。

Police must not give in to political pressure

THE POLICE have updated their official webpage. The new version contains a toned-down description of the 1967 riots. Though the police stress that the amendments are not politically motivated, some basic facts of the riots have been deleted or rewritten. It seems what the police have done is more than simplification and amendment. In fact, in the old version, some of the descriptions of the riots were not relevant to the role of the police, and their inclusion was itself debatable. However, it will naturally arouse suspicions if such descriptions are rashly changed, especially if events on which society has already formed its views are toned down. Society simply cannot be indifferent to such changes. In this light, when the police did that, even if they had no political axe to grind, they acted rashly and failed to take into account the sensitivity of the issue in Hong Kong today. The police ought to have a review and make improvements in earnest.

The webpage in question is about the police's history. It outlines the changes the police have undergone, the tasks they have performed and the contributions they have made over the past 170-odd years. Such a framework means that the writer made choices of different levels as to what should be included, how events should be presented and what views should be expressed. The 1967 riots lasted around eight months. The rioters planted more than 9,000 bombs (of which 1,167 were real). The police played an important role in quelling the riots. If the police want to record the events in detail, there will certainly be no lack of materials. In the old version of the police webpage, the 1967 riots are recorded with about 600 Chinese characters. It was a sifted and highly condensed account. The old version is certainly not the whole truth although it includes some facts of and some views on the riots.

The leftist riots were conducted on a large scale. They caused heavy casualties. That shows the bloody struggles were extremely fierce. Neither the old version nor the new describes the casualties in detail. They only mention mainland militants opened fire on the border, killing five policemen and injuring nine. Neither the old version nor the new mentions that, in the riots, about 800 people were injured and 46 were killed (of whom five were policemen). They fail to mention that some rioters were beaten to death when they were in police custody or in jail. This shows both the old and the new versions of the police's history of the 1967 riots are only partial accounts that involve deliberate omissions.

Police Commissioner Steven Lo has said he is worried that certain information will be missing in the updated version of the webpage and, for that reason, a more comprehensive, "original" version of the police force's history is being compiled and will be uploaded to the website on completion. We believe the top cop's prompt reaction will stop the affair from fermenting and help end the trouble. As Steven Lo has made such a promise, it is worth our attention how the police force will write a more comprehensive and original history of itself. In fact, to avoid controversy, the police need only base their account on historical facts and write exactly what happened and what roles and functions they played in dealing with the riots. If the police give in to political pressure and alter historical records, they will certainly provoke a backlash from the mainstream of society and trigger a confrontation. The police must mind their step.

警隊寫六七暴動史 切勿屈從政治壓力

警隊更新網頁，新版淡化了六七暴動內容，雖然警隊強調不存在政治目的，但有一些基本事實也刪改了，似乎並非精簡內容和訂正語句那麼簡單。其實，舊版描述六七暴動的一些內容，偏離了警隊角色，本有值得商榷之處，只是這些內容若貿然改動自然會引起猜疑，特別是社會早有定見的情節，卻見淡化操作，很難令社會淡然看待。警隊今次舉措即使無政治目的，但是做法草率，並未顧及此事於此特定時空的敏感性，應該切實檢討改善。

警隊的歷史網頁，簡述了170多年以來警隊的變遷，包括歷來工作和貢獻。按此框架，哪些素材入史、怎樣表述、表達什麼觀點等，都涉及不同程度的抉擇。六七暴動持續約8個月，暴徒放置的真假炸彈超過9000個（真炸彈1167個），警隊在平亂鎮暴擔當重要角色；若要詳細記錄，肯定不乏素材。舊版警隊網頁以約600字描述六七暴動，是經過高度濃縮和篩選，雖然反映了整個暴動的一些事實與認知，但是肯定並非事實的全部。

這場左派大規模暴動，釀成的總體傷亡嚴重，說明血腥鬥爭極其激烈。不過，舊版和新版於此着墨不多，只記錄了內地武裝力量向本港邊境開火，5名警員中彈身亡，9名警員受傷。在暴動中約800人受傷，46人死亡（其中5名為警員），新舊版網頁都無提及，其中有暴徒被捕拘留或在監禁期間遭虐打死亡，更是付之闕如。這一點說明：無論新版舊版的警隊六七暴動史，只是片面呈現，都經過取捨抉擇。

警務處長盧偉聰表示，擔心更新網頁會失掉部分信息，因此正整合更全面、「原汁原味」的警隊歷史，完成後將連結上載網站。「一哥」應對迅捷，相信可以阻止此事繼續發酵，消弭一場風波。盧偉聰既然有言在先，則警隊怎樣炮製更全面和原汁原味的警隊歷史，備受矚目。其實，警隊只要回歸史實，直接描述當年發生過的事，呈現警隊在應對暴動的角色和職能，就可以免卻爭議；倘若屈從政治壓力，修改歷史紀錄，則將必然觸動主流社會反彈，引發抗爭。警隊須好自為之。