六四悼念處境艱困 爭取平反矢志不渝

<轉載自2018年6月4日 明報 社評>

今天是六四事件29周年，維園燭光再度燃起，悼念八九民運死難者。本港六四悼念活動，正處於近年最艱難時期。這邊廂，有人聲稱高喊「結束一黨專政」可能違憲，甚至影響參選資格；那邊廂，部分年輕人則基於身分政治，拒絕傳承燭光，不再參與六四紀念活動。香港與內地關係無法切割，是客觀政治現實，當內地的「道路自信」愈來愈強，港人愈需要堅持平反六四，呼籲世人毋忘歷史。八九民運是一場愛國民主運動，不應遭到暴烈鎮壓，平反六四是為了維護普世價值，還歷史一個公道，不應該囿於身分政治框框。

薪火相傳陷困成內憂 結束專政口號惹施壓

十年河東十年河西，當日上街抗議六四鎮壓的年輕人，如今髮鬢漸白，不少死難者的父母已含恨而終，家屬多年來堅持要求當局公布真相、道歉及賠償，迄今未有回音。由遇難者親屬組成的「天安門母親」，近日發表公開信，提到29年來已有51位難屬過世。明年便是八九民運30周年，六四一日未獲平反，始終無法叫人釋懷。

歷來維園燭光晚會被視為一國兩制的一個體現例子，然而走到今天，這場民間自發的本土運動，正處於內外交困的艱難時期，既要面對承傳內憂，又要面對外部政治壓力。

過去數年，港獨思潮冒起，新一代對內地愈益疏離，不少年輕人對悼念六四無感，甚至認為六四事件是「鄰國」的事，「事不關己」，反對悼念。悼念六四薪火相傳，需要兩代人坦誠溝通建立共識。上一代無法將他們的愛國情懷強加於年輕人，不過新一代也有必要擴闊思考方向。有年輕人認為，悼念六四不是香港新一代必然的道德政治責任，也不相信「中國有民主，香港有民主」等論述。年輕人有自己一套想法，十分正常，然而看問題是否透徹，有討論空間。

部分年輕人強調港人意識，抗拒中國人的身分。他們從身分政治角度看待悼念六四，看到的是責任、枷鎖乃至「與我何干」，然而這不過是其中一個角度。六四鎮壓粗暴殘忍，有違人道，平反六四是要還歷史一個公道，這絕對可以成為上一代和新一代的共同出發點。新一代即使缺乏愛國熱情，仍然可以換個角度，以利害持份者身分，以政治現實主義代替愛國情懷，結合人道主義普世價值，延續爭取平反六四的志業。

香港是中國一部分，不可能當內地「透明」，這是無法否定的政治現實，並非高談身分政治理念就可以改變。爭取香港民主，跟內地民主發展沒必要扯在一起，可是兩者亦並非互相牴觸。堅持平反六四，不僅是為了死難者，亦是希望內地政治變得更為開放包容，這對香港來說也是好事。凡是符合人道精神、有益香港的事，就應該去做；想不到悼念活動有何新意，就撒手不做，這個道理很難說得通。

道路自信須直面歷史 悼念者減少無損正氣

今時今日，當權者仍然不想多談六四。今年初內地修憲，訂明中共領導是中國特色社會主義的本質特徵，有人便針對六四悼念活動高喊「結束一黨專政」，聲稱這個口號「可能違憲」，甚至影響參選議員的資格，云云，明顯有政治施壓意味。隨着港獨思潮冒起，近年中央對港事務愈益強調底線思維。一國兩制是香港唯一活路，諸如反對港獨等紅線，確有需要守住，然而對於一些不合理兼損害兩制的「紅線」，港人有必要大聲說不。不能繼續在香港高喊「結束一黨專政」，與不准悼念六四一樣，都是衝擊一國兩制，甚至象徵着一國兩制終結。

去年，外長王毅為《中國人權新成就（2012─2017）》一書作序，形容中國在滅貧、法治、人權等方面取得可觀進展，例如通過《民法總則》、全國4260萬份裁判文書上網，以及糾正數十宗冤假錯案等。國家主席習近平也將發展協商民主，納入新時代中國特色社會主義基本方略，在地方層面鼓勵民眾參與討論和制訂公共決策。誠如國際特赦中國人權事務研究員倪偉平（William Nee）所言，中國人權狀况不能說是沒有改進，外界應該多去理解，可是內地嚴厲監控網絡信息、高壓打擊維權律師等，都反映內地人權問題仍然嚴重。過去20多年深化改革的成就，令內地的「道路自信」和「制度自信」愈來愈強，然而當局必須面對歷史，承認當年六四鎮壓手法太暴烈，不應將整件事淡化為「1989年春夏之交一場政治風波」。

去年維園六四燭光晚會，大會宣布有11萬人出席，是2009年以來人數最少的一次，不少人關注今年出席者會否進一步減少。本港悼念六四活動，28年以來起起伏伏，有高潮亦有低潮，然而平反六四的大是大非性質，參與市民都是為了大義和公道而來，即使人數下降，也無損這股浩然正氣的高潔。

Persisting in June 4 remembrance despite hard times

TODAY marks the 29th anniversary of the June 4 Incident, and Victoria Park will once again be lit up by candles in remembrance of those killed in the 1989 Democratic Movement. June 4 commemorative activities in Hong Kong have run into the most enormous difficulties in recent years. On the one hand, some have claimed that chanting slogans of "ending one-party dictatorship" may be against the national constitution, and shouters of such slogans may even risk being considered unqualified to run in future elections. On the other hand, some young people have refused to take up the torch of remembrance and chosen to stay away from the commemorative activities because of identity politics. It is an objective political reality that Hong Kong cannot sever itself from the mainland. The more the mainland shows its "self-confidence in the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics", the more Hong Kong people need to insist on demanding an official rehabilitation of people involved in June 4 and on battling historical amnesia. The 1989 Democratic Movement is a patriotic democratic movement that should not have been cracked down forcefully and cruelly. Vindicating June 4 is for the sake of safeguarding universal values and doing justice to history. That should never be bound by identity politics.

The Victoria Park vigil has always been held as a manifestation of "One Country, Two Systems". A local movement, it was started by civil society itself a long time ago, but today it is having a difficult time, troubled internally by the question of who will "take up the baton" and externally by political pressure.

Some young people put strong emphasis on their awareness of being Hongkongers and resist the Chinese identity. Viewing the commemorative activities from an angle of identity politics, they see in June 4 responsibilities, shackles and something that is "none of my business". But this is not the only angle from which one can look at the incident. The forceful and cruel June 4 crackdown was against humanity. To seek rehabilitation of those who perished is to do justice to history, which can of course become common ground for the older and younger generations. Despite the new generation's lack of patriotic passion, they can still look at the incident from a different angle and as someone whose interest is at stake. They can substitute political realism for patriotic feelings. By merging this with the universal value of humanitarianism, they can still carry on the mission of seeking vindication of June 4.

Today, the authorities are still reluctant to touch on the topic of June 4. Early this year the mainland revised the constitution, stipulating leadership by the Communist Party as a fundamental nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Then some people accused the popular slogan of "ending one-party dictatorship" shouted during June 4 commemorative activities of being "probably unconstitutional". It was even suggested that past records of chanting this slogan may affect someone's candidacy in future Legislative Council elections. Such comments obviously carried overtones of political suppression. It is a fact that amid the emergence of Hong Kong independence thoughts, the central government has increasingly emphasised the necessity of upholding a red line in dealing with Hong Kong affairs. Since "One Country, Two Systems" is the only road for Hong Kong's survival, it is indeed necessary to uphold some red lines against notions like Hong Kong independence. Nevertheless, in the case of "red lines" that are both unreasonable and detrimental to the "Two Systems", Hong Kong people must state their opposition with a loud voice. Prohibiting Hong Kong people from chanting the slogan of "ending one-party dictatorship" is the same as banning people from remembering June 4. They will both deal a blow to "One Country, Two Systems" and even signal the end of it.

The mainland's achievements through its deepening reform over the past two decades have fostered its increasing "self-confidences in the path and system of socialism with Chinese characteristics". Still, the authorities must face history and confess the excessive force and cruelty of the June 4 crackdown. The incident should never be played down as "a political storm that happened between the spring and the summer of 1989".

六四悼念處境艱困 爭取平反矢志不渝

今天是六四事件29周年，維園燭光再度燃起，悼念八九民運死難者。本港六四悼念活動，正處於近年最艱難時期。這邊廂，有人聲稱高喊「結束一黨專政」可能違憲，甚至影響參選資格；那邊廂，部分年輕人則基於身分政治，拒絕傳承燭光，不再參與六四紀念活動。香港與內地關係無法切割，是客觀政治現實，當內地的「道路自信」愈來愈強，港人愈需要堅持平反六四，呼籲世人毋忘歷史。八九民運是一場愛國民主運動，不應遭到暴烈鎮壓，平反六四是為了維護普世價值，還歷史一個公道，不應該囿於身分政治框框。

歷來維園燭光晚會被視為一國兩制的一個體現例子，然而走到今天，這場民間自發的本土運動，正處於內外交困的艱難時期，既要面對承傳內憂，又要面對外部政治壓力。

部分年輕人強調港人意識，抗拒中國人的身分。他們從身分政治角度看待悼念六四，看到的是責任、枷鎖乃至「與我何干」，然而這不過是其中一個角度。六四鎮壓粗暴殘忍，有違人道，平反六四是要還歷史一個公道，這絕對可以成為上一代和新一代的共同出發點。新一代即使缺乏愛國熱情，仍然可以換個角度，以利害持份者身分，以政治現實主義代替愛國情懷，結合人道主義普世價值，延續爭取平反六四的志業。

今時今日，當權者仍然不想多談六四。今年初內地修憲，訂明中共領導是中國特色社會主義的本質特徵，有人便針對六四悼念活動高喊「結束一黨專政」，聲稱這個口號「可能違憲」，甚至影響參選議員的資格，云云，明顯有政治施壓意味。隨着港獨思潮冒起，近年中央對港事務愈益強調底線思維。一國兩制是香港唯一活路，諸如反對港獨等紅線，確有需要守住，然而對於一些不合理兼損害兩制的「紅線」，港人有必要大聲說不。不能繼續在香港高喊「結束一黨專政」，與不准悼念六四一樣，都是衝擊一國兩制，甚至象徵着一國兩制終結。

過去20多年深化改革的成就，令內地的「道路自信」和「制度自信」愈來愈強，然而當局必須面對歷史，承認當年六四鎮壓手法太暴烈，不應將整件事淡化為「1989年春夏之交一場政治風波」。