5紀律部隊訪京 曾偉雄坐近張德江
【明報專訊】在警隊執法備受爭議、執勤時被挑釁之時，港澳協調小組組長、全國人大委員長張德江昨日會見由保安局長黎棟國率領的紀律部隊訪京團，其中警務處長曾偉雄更獲安排與張德江同坐中央位置。會面中張德江公開高調讚賞香港紀律部隊在「維護國家及特區安全」發揮重要作用，作風優良，同時表明「堅決支持」、肯定特首梁振英及特區政府施政。
(4.9.2013 明報節錄)
近來警察的執法及地位頗具爭議，把曾偉雄坐的位置也暗示反映支持程度就有點那個。這則新聞的標題邀請讀者作不必要的聯想，官員坐甚麼位置，是有一定根據的。政府總部禮賓處(Protocol Division Government Secretariat) 訂立香港特別行政區排名名單(Precedence List)，下面是我從中抽出來的排位，不是你想friend那一個就拉他坐近自己的。當然，講話內容當作別論。
7. 其他行政會議成員
Other Members of the Executive Council
黎棟國議員, SBS, IDSM, JP
The Hon LAI Tung-kwok, SBS, IDSM, JP
保安局局長
Secretary for Security
8. 其他主要官員
Other Principal Officials
曾偉雄先生, PDSM
Mr Andy TSANG Wai-hung, PDSM
警務處處長
Commissioner of Police
白韞六先生, SBS, IDSM
Mr Simon PEH Yun-lu, SBS, IDSM
廉政專員
Commissioner, Independent
Commission Against Corruption
孫德基先生, BBS, JP
Mr David SUN Tak-kei, BBS, JP
審計署署長
Director of Audit
張雲正先生, JP
Mr Clement CHEUNG Wan-ching, JP
海關關長
Commissioner of Customs and
Excise
陳國基先生, IDSM
Mr Eric CHAN Kwok-ki, IDSM
入境事務處處長
Director of Immigration
(4.9.2013 明報節錄)
近來警察的執法及地位頗具爭議，把曾偉雄坐的位置也暗示反映支持程度就有點那個。這則新聞的標題邀請讀者作不必要的聯想，官員坐甚麼位置，是有一定根據的。政府總部禮賓處(Protocol Division Government Secretariat) 訂立香港特別行政區排名名單(Precedence List)，下面是我從中抽出來的排位，不是你想friend那一個就拉他坐近自己的。當然，講話內容當作別論。
7. 其他行政會議成員
Other Members of the Executive Council
黎棟國議員, SBS, IDSM, JP
The Hon LAI Tung-kwok, SBS, IDSM, JP
保安局局長
Secretary for Security
8. 其他主要官員
Other Principal Officials
曾偉雄先生, PDSM
Mr Andy TSANG Wai-hung, PDSM
警務處處長
Commissioner of Police
白韞六先生, SBS, IDSM
Mr Simon PEH Yun-lu, SBS, IDSM
廉政專員
Commissioner, Independent
Commission Against Corruption
孫德基先生, BBS, JP
Mr David SUN Tak-kei, BBS, JP
審計署署長
Director of Audit
張雲正先生, JP
Mr Clement CHEUNG Wan-ching, JP
海關關長
Commissioner of Customs and
Excise
陳國基先生, IDSM
Mr Eric CHAN Kwok-ki, IDSM
入境事務處處長
Director of Immigration
18. 常任秘書長、副局長及 、首長級第六級或以上官員
Permanent Secretaries, Under Secretaries and Officials of Directorate Grade 6
Rank and above
........
單日堅先生, CSDSM
Mr SIN Yat-kin, CSDSM
懲教署署長
Commissioner of Correctional Services
陳楚鑫先生, FSDSM
Mr Andy CHAN Chor-kam, FSDSM
消防處處長
Director of Fire Services
有必要的聯想:
回覆刪除http://thehousenews.com/politics/%E6%9E%97%E5%92%8C%E7%AB%8B-cy%E9%9C%80%E4%BA%A4%E4%BB%A3-%E6%98%AF%E5%90%A6%E9%BB%A8%E6%8C%87%E6%8F%AE%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E8%AD%A6%E9%9A%8A/
Sterling,
回覆刪除談話的聯想，不是排位的聯想。
Of course. But in such a short "report" that you have quoted in full, it's also a question of your choice of topic 的聯想.
回覆刪除Excuse me, is there complete (or logical) argument / reasoning in Lam's words which leads to the conclusion "猶如將香港紀律部隊收編"??Do you mean "接見" is equivalent to "收編"?? Even 劉銳兆 doesn't have such conclusion......
刪除Why there are so many people (even a so-called "Expert in Chinese Issues") in Hong Kong interested in "distorted thinking" and do not consider it is a problem?
Sterling,
刪除The title of my article and the content of the very short text speak for themselves.
William,
ST (Sterling) is a good friend of mine though we did not meet in the last few years because he was in Canada and so is he now. We have known for over 25 years. He is one of the few people I will meet when I go back to HK for short visit. He always tries to test my ability by making comments in the style he does. He was a very good barrister before he stopped practising. I have all my patience reserved for him when he criticises me. You can, of course, pitch in at any time.
First of all, my title also speak for itself. William has missed the point ALTOGTHER. But since William Lam wants to discuss Willy Lam, I'd oblige. I have read all his books and numerous articles by him (have you?). I have never found any absence of logic in his analysis, whether or not I agree with them. And this is because unlike you or pure math, I do not think logic works like those maze in kiddies fun books with only one way streets that leads to the treasure in the centre.Your "logical" "complete" argument aginst him was to change what he said-- from "猶如將"---to "接見" is equivalent to "收編"??, stems from either a linguistic handicap or a 偷換概念技量. This was a commentary not a news report. You have distorted what he said by using a rhetoric of "Does he mean". You used the word equivalent and that word here in context would mean 等如. Of courese he did not mean that.
回覆刪除Incidentally what's your take on this high profile meeting then?
I can't even begin to uderstand what you meant when you said "Even 劉銳兆". I read and listen to him lots of times, but at the same time I find his past and background dubious. In any event I try not to 偏聴, at least not to the extent of declassifying him to the rank of "so-called Expert in Chinese Issues".
Hey, my dear friend. I see more than smoke here. There is fire too. I did not comment the meeting any further because I agree the high profile meeting can lead people to many reasonable conclusions while I do not know what profile it really was in the past. Were the HK disciplinary personnels seen by the same chairman of NPC or by a different one in the past? Was there any difference in personal style as we can see the press was allowed to stay and record the meeting? My narrow discussion is confined to the protocol aspect arising from seating arrangement and I said no more than that. It meant to provide information rather pass any judgement.
刪除The term "so-called Expert in Chinese Issues" is to Mr. Lam, not Mr. Lau......
刪除I did not misunderstand you. Your term "so-called Expert in Chinese Issues" is to Mr. Lam, I know.
刪除As a matter of syntax, I cannot understand how you misunderstood me to have misunderstood you.
That sentence was a sarcasm on how you demoted Willy Lam by reason of your diagreeing with him.
i could not have picked apart Mr. Lau's conclusions because they were just "....." not EVEN paraphrased by your good self.
More importantly, your choice of describing him as EVEN 劉銳兆 (my capital lettering) baffles me. What position does Mr. Lau hold in the world or in your head?
Silly Billy. I was talking to Willy.
回覆刪除Sterling,
刪除I know who you were talking to. I just replied to questions you raised alongside your reply to William.
Guys, let me jump in here real quick. If we go by the article on the House News by Mr. Lam, all we can say is that his conclusion is based primarily on association, and in logic we have association fallacy. His premises, if there was any, did not soundly support the conclusion. Going by his argument alone, we should have no reason to believe him.
刪除Now, moving to the real issue, if the meeting was so unprecedented and high profile, we can suspect something is going on behind the gesture, and we know CCP's style of governance is all about gestures. All of these move us to having "reasons to suspect", but we cannot be certain whether the Mr Lam accusation is true. One can simultaneously hold the positions of "being very concerned" and "not believing that particular accusation", and that would be my position on this issue.
That said, I don't think we need to be concerned because of the meeting; HKSAR is part of China and the regime of course is going to put pressure on the government and government officials would inch towards CCP. What they are doing now is completely logical and I would do the same if I were them. What are we gonna do about it, that is the real question.
If there is no official announcement which may lead us to panic, I would simple disregard the meeting. It is nothing more than a normally bump heads. It is not necessary to over-interpret the meaning. Why do we need to interpret the meeting is the first question I would ask. That is why when there is unwarranted association of the seating arrangement, I dug out the protocol list and did not go on to say anything else. If no one tried to decipher the meeting (maybe I should say it is all guesswork), the meeting would not connote more meaning than it was supposed to be.
刪除To me, the crux of Bill's and mountwithin's argument is that the "anti-establishment" commentators' standard of proof is often too low.Maybe so at times. However your expressed required standard is too high, so high that it is impossible to meet. In matters of politics, whole truth will never be known. Not even after 30 years when official documents are released. This is because the power that be know this rule too, so are they going to leave fingerprints all over for history to vilify them?
刪除That is why learned, world class,renown historians are still writng books and thesis on topics reaching into distant past to present.
I agree with Bill that it's guesswork, at best inspired guesswork or "educated" guesswork.
I also agree with mountwihin's statement that CCP's style of governance is all about gestures. This then begs that question of why 4 seats in the middle of the u-shape arrangement? The answer may be still potentially puncture Bill's limited and partial explanation of protocol.Lack of space, too much space, aesthetics, accoustics?
My original intention of my 1st two inputs here was to hopefully over time draw Bill's attention to his loopdsided choice of topics under his monomaniacal theme of people over-reaching when they critcise the establishment. Despite his claim to have no political stance, readers will impute one. Like you guys have imputed one (as it happens correctly) on me,even though I did not say I agree with Willy(not William)Lam. All I said was 有必要的聯想 stressing 有必要 and 聯想.
If you examine the blog I wrote, you can see my focus was on the very narrow topic of seating association. I ended it with 講話內容當作別論. If you still feel that I am lopsided, what more can I say. In my blog, I did not even venture to comment/guess/refute the implication of the meeting. Should that be considered monomaniacal when I ended it up with such a statement which suggests there can be lot of other associations? What if the Commissioner of Police is Gordon Li (the ex)? Would people still guess the hidden meaning of seating?
刪除If you examine my last comment, you can see my focus was on your lopsided CHOICE of topic, not the content in this particuler blog.
刪除In this blog, you said "這則新聞的標題邀請讀者作不必要的聯想", so message was the article overreached as wrong and therefore 不必要.
Hence my original point was: why not talk about "會面中張德江公開高調讚賞香港紀律部隊在「維護國家及特區安全」發揮重要作用，作風優良".
Then we all got distracted.
Anyway here is a good video of the seating arrangement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RD1fBxZlE
You can see Mingpao's point about Tsang being close to 張德江, not just as a matter of sequence pre-determined by protocol but Tsang was "center-staged-close".
To make my secondary point abundantly clear, were you aware of the seating arrangement as seen in the video or did you think Mingpao was just referring to sequence closeness?
刪除My dear friend, compare the 2 Secretary for Security's renditions of the meeting. Lai played it down and Ip-Lau reaffirmed the guesswork of most of the commentators, including your good self. Lai shows his wisdom when he played down the implication but Ip-Lau on the contrary showing her usual political wisdom deficiency.
刪除If a young kid speaks foul language for the first time, as a parent, what do you think is the best way to deal with it. I would bear a dismissive attitude and educate the kid some other time instead of jumping up and pointing my finger at the kid when the foul language was uttered.
The purpose of writing my blog, don't just guess I put up all sorts of pretexts to defend myself, was to snub the idea of easy association. If you want to repeatedly reaffirm the implication of high profile praising the police then you just keep criticising. Criticising can get the undesired resulting of solidifying the view. I am playing down this high profile view intending to bear a dismissive attitude instead of affirmative attitude otherwise my blog will pitch in writing something in line of what Ip-Lau said. Do you see my ultimate purpose here? If no one gives a damn and guess too much about the seating and the speech, would there be any effect or intending effect at all? Don't turn yourself into a Golden forum participant, or rather degenerate yourself into one of them.
Ist of all as a matter of fact I had actually encouraged my son to use more foul language eat more ice cream and finish to the end of video games. He is now not doing much of the above now.
回覆刪除Your strategy while 高深 and noble maybe have the inadvertent effect of appearing to pandering to the "conservatives" and then become 温牀 for 五毛黨. Don't think your blog is not on their radar.
Adopting the attitude of drowning your son with foul language, whether you deliberately encourage him to use or discourage him from using that kind of language as part of his vocabulary is not the subject of our discussion here, why can't you let these people who either praise the police or denounce the implication of the meeting continue to talk. There is no need for you to react in the way you did. Is it inconsistent with your motto then?
刪除I do not give a damn whether my point of view has become a breeding ground for the conservative or 五毛. Who do you think I am? I am only a piece, a very minute piece of dust. Who do you think they think I am/was? They cannot quote me using a loud hailer to propagate their bullshit. They can only paraphrase the famous professor, big pen and large mouth but not me. You have overstated my ability. I am flattered.
Shouting: 警察大哂! 網主大哂!
刪除That is enough.
刪除Are you suggesting Lai was made use of and was 人在江湖 ?
回覆刪除No. Lai is part of the government team. He speaks on the stance of a government official. I am saying he made wiser comment than Ip-Lau.
刪除http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20131008/51794477
回覆刪除胡亂猜測,為恐天下不亂,豈有些理. This was in accordance with Protocol Division Government Secretariat. And they did not even seek a view from so-called Philippines experts!
What can I say?窩囊！
回覆刪除