2014年6月4日星期三

六四畢屈

六四那一年,小畢已經在香港做律師。他現在也毋忘六四,他當年也大罵共產黨,因為樓市垮了,他入不敷支。他也上街,因為無生意,不如上街看下熱鬧,他上街溜躂,看遊行的人遊行,遊行的人看他溜躂。街上有人向他募捐,他摸下口袋,立即説捐過了,隨即就罵幾句共產黨,把人打發了。他罵的心情跟遊行的人想著的屠城完全不同。小畢為了錢去投誠或去屠城或者從古井淘寶,他都做得出。

到了今天,當人們在談六四,畢律師就說大家為他們祈禱,God bless you,慶幸自己君子不近危城。究竟為誰祈禱呢?他們是誰?不信上帝的人上帝也庇蔭嗎?畢律師搞不清聖經怎様講。如果他真的讀法律而獲得一點心得,那就是認識含糊的好處,ambiguity的美德,法律不能訂立得過份詳盡,否則就會寫得太死沒有迴轉的空間。寫得過分詳盡清晰也一様可能有遺漏之處,有點含糊大家都可各說各的,律師才可揾食,對住客仔講有得打,贏硬,不過律師講的時候也刻意含糊,沒講清楚,其實必贏的是律師,輸的是客仔。誰勝誰負,都要靠法官超凡的智慧。法官頭上的法官就是法律的上帝,你有罪,你是罪人,看你蛇頭鼠眼,言詞閃縮,你講大話,你呃人,罪人就進了去。

小畢頭上不是耶和華,而是畢太的光環,自從屈小姐委屈了小畢變成畢太,畢太便成為小畢的主子,擺佈著小畢,控制著他的靈魂和軀體。

又到六四,今年悉值25週年,畢屈伉儷悉逢其會回港探親。探親自然會會友,在酒樓訂了一席酒。

「老畢,你不老啊,悉尼空氣好,人傑地靈,看你跟10年前一樣。畢太越來越青春,你們吃了防腐劑,抑或打botox?」

容醫生跟畢律師在同一間小學、中學讀,就是在校內派煽動傳單而坐監,後來做了補償局長那人的同一間,雖然補償來得遲,也是安慰獎,説溜了嘴便成慰安局長。

「容老闆,10年無見,你發福又印堂發光,你的纖體美容中心越開越多,還賣養生產品,香港的錢給你賺清光了。」

容醫生不喜歡人叫容醫生,所以索性開發醫療副產品及纖體業務,而不做普通科醫生。他也沒有入錯行,人如其姓,庸醫一個。以前做屋邨醫生,病人都沒有錢,為了增加收入,大做「老同」生意,成為數一數二的「丸仔」醫生,因此積聚了一些財富。可是好景不常,過於出名惹起醫務衞生署關注,醫務衛生署到他醫務所巡查,發覺他保存精神科藥物的記錄不清,於是檢控他。他請了枝大砲去認罪求情,罰錢不是問題,律師費都廿幾萬,但罰款多過一萬就要開醫委會紀律聆訊。他不幸遇到個辣手判官,偏偏就要罰到開board。終於停牌18個月。在停牌期間,他就索性籌辦了美容纖體中心,標榜自己是皮膚護理專家。

「你老哥見笑,我在替地產商打工,賺到的都送到他們手裏,筲箕打水一場空。唯有叫伙計hard sell套票,穩住客仔。」

「我知,搞團購大平賣。」畢太不甘寂寞,總想講兩句展示智慧的話。她有點像董太,不是長相,而是智慧及常識。畢太就喜歡出風頭,又胡說八道,像董太SARS期間那名句,兩件事等如四件事,究竟兩件事怎能變四件事,恐怕她自己也不曉得。

容醫生在心裏笑她無知,硬銷真的要有偷呃拐騙的手法才行,職員可賺取額外佣金才會落力,團購那行。

「容兄,我剛才在樓下見到有人在擺檔説六四解放軍無殺學生,是甚麽一回事?以前沒有這東西?」

「這些是宣傳手法,以前只有一面倒的紀念六四,要求平反。現在打對抗宣傳戰,所以有愛字頭的人出來。不再挨打,是對打,策略性改變。」

「怎樣毫無合理疑點去證明解放軍開槍清場,那陳淨心講的也有道理呀!」畢太又插嘴。

「對呀,指責的人有舉證責任。」老畢同老婆同嘴型,同様白癡。中國大陸行continental law,不是普通法呀。

「飲杯,不要談六四,放下這包袱,梁愛詩所言,放下六七八九,隨著共產黨的心意走,飲完茅臺飲紅酒。」容醫生又勸酒。

有人奠酒,有人敬酒,過了四份一世紀,悼念六四的人,念天地之悠悠,獨愴然而涕下。









37 則留言:

  1. 可以咁快又寫出一篇應景小說,真係唔多覺你好辛苦才寫到一篇,標少真識講笑。
    加油!

    Ray

    回覆刪除
  2. Ray兄,

    做得一樣就要放下另一樣, 這篇也無可觀之處。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 但我覺得可觀在攪笑得嚟,又可啟發一般人對事或人都不要只看表象或被其包裝所迷惑的寓意。
      標少加油!

      Ray

      刪除
  3. 神棍狀棍...什麼棍在標少筆下可憐可笑也可悲, 聚焦照妖鏡 KKC

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 在我們週遭充斥著不少這類人, 我們有沒有縱容他們呢? 我們也有責任。 姑息養奸, 所以大姐你也要明白我有必要罵人的時候。

      刪除
    2. 我明, 有些人罵他可以制止罪行, 有些不是立心作惡的人, 不如勸解他, 有些瘋癲的人, 越罵他越瘋. KKC

      刪除
  4. 有無興趣講六四?我想知係我有問題,定係好多人有問題。或者你地可以指示我思考嘅盲點。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有何不可,只要心中還有一團火。

      刪除
    2. 咁我索性直入話題,不用開場白。覺得值得討論的,我地可以去facebook人文再講。我覺得六四悼念若不包括軍人,我們離事實和平反的路只會愈來愈遠。「愛字頭」今年所做的,理應褒多於貶,至少我們知道多一點hard facts。

      刪除
    3. 我不在香港,看不到愛字頭的展品。 悼念學生(及其他在場人士)和軍人是兩碼子事。軍人有一定職業上的責任及風險, 因工殉職值得敬佩,學生追求民主及反貪腐而死, 是極不相同也不能比較的。軍方人員如在暴亂中死傷, 涉及部處及裝備的問題, 學生沒有裝備並非對等的對抗, 面對真鎗實彈、坦克大炮, 遭到屠殺, 怎去褒愛字頭, 煲了他們的狗肺就差不多。

      刪除
    4. 另一角度去多謝愛字頭, 他們引發更多人出來悼念六四. 因為高達彬叫港人要體諒中國政府, 放下六四包袱, 不要記仇年年出來....早前還說六四天安門沒有人死中聯辦多得佢唔少.
      我都知道木樨地死得人多, 天安門廣場少, 軍人也有被平民打死. 不用愛字頭來宣傳. 不管死多少人, 單是之前過失到現在都不認錯, 高達彬還叫港人體諒中國政府, 豈能不引起怒斥. KKC

      刪除
    5. 對不起,標少,可能會忍不住在這裡開罵戰。

      上面的匿名,是不是悼念六四,不誤導不說謊你們會死。

      「天安門廣場少」:你和高達彬是同一類人。你只需說你知道事實,高達彬涼薄,不同意放下六四包袱,沒有必要有意無意說謊誤導。很多西方傳媒,都已報導天安門廣場沒有屠殺,我們至少可以說,沒有人親眼目睹天安門屠殺。不信,可看以下連結:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057762.stm

      http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/12/magazine/china-update-how-the-hardliners-won.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

      唔好同我講無人見過唔等於無嘅廢話。你都可以講外星人出現殺咗啲軍人救咗啲平民,一樣無人見過。想悼念六四,甚至打擊中共,請從事實出發。

      anon@6/5 2.38

      刪除
    6. 無所謂,寓開戰於討論,好事喎,我也乘機學習下。可能我對愛字頭有偏見,因為他們紀錄太差,妖行昭彰。有人可以游説我改變對他們的觀感也是好事,但恐怕是mission impossible.

      刪除
    7. 咁要搵番白馬非馬係點拗。

      anon@6/5 2.38

      刪除
  5. 還好,至少我們持相反意見。

    愛字頭暫時可以不理,褒還是煲,可以遲點再談。

    悼念學生(及其他在場人士)和軍人是兩碼子事。不過同樣地,和平靜坐反貪追求民主,和六四凌晨六部口、木墀地出現的軍民衝突(或血腥鎮壓)也可以是兩碼子事。廣場內的學生沒有裝備,但也沒有遭到屠殺。長安街的「學生」(我相信學生的比例應該很少)是否真的和平和手無寸鐵?你可以接受不一定融為一談嗎?即是,和平佔中加人民力量佔中,究竟是和平還是力量?能分開的便應該要分開。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 同意你的態度, 聲稱民主的人, 手法未必民主, 有的心態和手法同極權的政權相差不遠, 人民力量只是一小撮人的群組, 既不代表人民, 遑論是他們的力量。 當一個在自由社會裏舉行的社會活動, 不是私人活動, 就難以控制個別人士或群體的參與, 怎去防止被騎劫或擾亂, 關乎舉辦者的組識能力及部署。

      共產政權缺公信力, 紀錄太差, 沒有發放有關資料, 就算發放, 可信性也低, 與人無尤。

      刪除
    2. 我想我已經得到我的答案。

      六四定位和香港爭取民主一樣,應該會遙遙無期,理由是「道德角度」淹沒了「科學角度」。從「道德角度」出發,只要能「道德定位」,其他的都不重要。就如爭取民主,只要喊着民主口號,手法多鄙劣也不成問題。

      六四亦一樣。單單用中共敵人如西方傳媒的資訊,都已經可以重組當日發生了甚麼事。只不過根據hard facts所推斷的畫面,和每年維園晚會的人所想像的畫面有很大出入。你懂怎樣製造Molotov cocktail嗎?在一個和平的運動受到鎮壓時,你有時間和材料立刻製造cocktail反抗嗎?如果你是歷史官,你能接受「坦克駛進廣場,爭取民主的學生遭血腥屠殺」這不付責任的描述嗎?

      換個角度,若我寫成,軍人清場,天安門廣場學生和平離去,木墀地六部口發生嚴重衝突,軍民互有死傷(歡迎再加非對等對抗的描述),是否更忠於事實?平反六四再改成平反四一五運動,悼念六四事件死者(包括軍人),相信更易為中共接受。

      刪除
    3. 就是因為「六四死了很多爭取和平的學生」這不能反駁的道德,令不盡不實的六四版本流傳了廿五年。對想推翻共產政權的人,可能這誤會是一個很好的方便。不過,以謊言對抗敵人,未見其利,先見其害:

      1. 道德比事實重要沒有了底線。對於像我這種amoral和過份scientific的人,香港開始變成了地獄。我覺得這是一個嚴重的香港社會問題。
      2. 平反六四變成了打擊建制的無敵武器。廢民主人可以當選議員,好官好建制議員(假設有)得不到應有評價,就是不對六四說實話。香港政府便只會愈來愈多廢人。
      3. 共產黨繼續掌權,因為不盡不實的報導,成為它們清除異己,排斥溫和派的藉口。

      刪除
    4. 你要談六四,可能找錯平台,標少沒有研究六四,這篇小説只是用諷刺手法寫社會現象,不是學術文章。況且標少也非名筆,讀者有限,也無影響力,在這裏發偉論未必有回嚮。還有,道德角度和科學角度都不是全部的角度,法庭審案,主要的處理方法也非科學角度,這二分法有問題。

      刪除
    5. 對不起,無意在這裡踩場,只是想借討論了解一下自己對六四感覺有否盲點。不竟,能理性討論六四的人不多,我能尊重的blogger也少。結果是,很多時只會preaching to the choir。

      同意道德科學角度不是全部角度,我的二分問題,應該是sloppy writing。不過,我是傾向事實邏輯科學多於平衡利益或道德考慮或其他,就當我是愚蠢學者吧。

      刪除
    6. 不竟 -> 畢竟

      相信錯白字不少,改正可能變得多餘。

      anon@6/5 2.38

      刪除
    7. 也無需挑手民之誤,畢竟討論看法而非校對。我不覺得是踩埸,致於事實邏輯要看你用甚麽標凖。資訊很多時靠多個不同來源及一向的可靠及凖確性來判斷真偽,超乎個人的邏輯思考能力。涉事人及參與者現身説法,就會是你信不信他們的問題,如果他們的講法沒有漏洞,你還有甚麽邏輯可講?如果死者家人出來指責當局指家人在顉壓/暴亂中死了,當局否認,但死了的人又沒有再出現,那麽那人不是死了那他去了那裏?這大概已是你講的邏輯科學方法吧?我從來都沒有平衡甚麽人的利益,而是考慮怎樣去判斷事實。

      刪除
    8. 最終,事實還是重要,關鍵是如何判斷罷。不過首先,是否要剔除有漏洞和不可靠的資訊?這便是我每年六四都很有火的原因,我們連第一步都異常抗拒。

      anon@6/5 2.38

      刪除
    9. 英軍在北愛鎮暴有死傷, 北愛人是否要悼念英軍軍人才會可以平反?
      美軍在菲律賓鎮暴有死傷, 菲律賓人是否要悼念美軍軍人才有事實?

      用雙重否定來試圖模糊事情也掩飾不了六四是有屠殺, 雖然不是在天安門

      刪除
    10. 那裡是雙重否定?

      anon@6/5 2.38

      刪除
    11. 美軍和英軍的例子,和雙重否定有甚麼關係?

      anon@6/5 2.38

      刪除
  6. I just wondering why the alternative version of events only "resurrect" after 25 years' time. Taking the alternative version as "it is", then there is nothing to hind or nothing cannot be said.

    Why then "4 June" still a taboo in mainland China?







    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. No need to wonder, it is just a propaganda. There is always an official version but it is so unconvincing that China never said out loud. There is every reason to hide because even the spokesman will blush when making such announcement. So, let the puppets do the show. Isn't it that simple?

      Don't forget, hiding and twisting of facts is a norm employed by most governments especially the communist. There are too many instances of impropriety China is unable to cope with. Dodging and suppressing is the only way out. After all there is no check and balance.

      Let the puppets steal the show. China can distance and disassociate with them when need be.

      刪除
    2. There is every reason to hide because even the spokesman will blush when making such announcement - very funny!

      不過,這最多是狼來了的PRC version,不能當成廿五年誤傳的藉口。

      刪除
    3. To the other anonymous:

      The truth has always been out there. I guess the original tape recording by Chai Ling was so convincing that no one wanted to believe otherwise. And the "fact" that many students were bulldozed by tanks was so disheartening that no one really wanted to re-study the incidence again, therefore strengthening the prevailing version. It took me five years at least before I finally got to watch the documentary about Tiananmen by the Spanish reporters after I bought the VCD.

      Why then "4 June" still a taboo in mainland China? - this is a typical case of spurious relationship. "June 4th" still a taboo in mainland china does not necessarily imply China wants to suppress discussion about June 4th. In fact, most authoritarian governments like to suppress most sensitive discussion regardless. the right question to ask is therefore "why then almost everything still a taboo in authoritarian governments". and 標少 has kind of addressed this question. "june 4th" being a taboo in china should be really seen as arguments to invalidate authoritarian government instead of justifying the non-facts about june 4th?

      刪除
    4. The truth has always been out there, hidden.

      Yes most of us got were piecemeal information (including news footage on that morning) and the PRC government should have some most accurate images and maybe videos (like CCTV images) on what was happening there that night. By classifying those files we could have a clearer look at the incident. However most Hong Kong people did watch the news on June 4, 1989, which showed shootings and armor vehicle crushing...

      I really can't understand "does not necessarily imply China wants to suppress discussion about June 4th". Go and find about June 4 in China in libraries, you got nothing. Go and find about it in baidu, you got hidden. Go and talk about it openly, you got jailed. Go and talk about it at home, you got detention. If this is not suppression, what is suppression?

      刪除
  7. More like the truth has always been out there, IGNORED.

    So you are implying that if PRC government had released information, you would have believed in them? That would really be my joke of the day and make you my joker of the year! Let me tell you what I read too 25 years ago. Mingpao 6th June, 1989 - Li Peng was shot. 華橋日報 6th June, 1989 - Wang Dan was stabbed and killed. Think you need to learn how to distinguish facts from untruth first before we discuss further on this. You can start by reading the famous quote by Abraham Lincoln, "don't believe everything you read on the internet"

    What I meant was that China probably intended to suppress all discussions about democracy and June 4th was only a subset. I should have written "June 4th" still a taboo in mainland China does not necessarily imply China wants to suppress discussion about June 4th IN PARTICULAR and has a lot to hide about June 4th". It was sloppy writing on my part.

    If you started hypothesis about PRC leaders molesting their own kids, you probably would be detained too and such discussion would be suppressed. That does not directly imply your hypothesis is credible. It just means that PRC does not allow you to speak freely. Similarly, "June 4th" being a taboo in mainland China cannot be used as an evidence or argument to substantiate the inaccurate version of "June 4th Tiananmen massacre" because of its logical fallacy.

    anon@6/5 2.38

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I may be overlooked. But can you tell me where to find the phrase "June 4th Tiananmen massacre" in all the above postings (saved yours)?

      刪除
    2. Just looked up how to use quotation marks on the internet. In addition to identifying direct speeches, quotations can also be used for "scare quote". (and the quotation marks around "scare quote" and the quotation marks just now are being used for coined expression). Think I used the quotation marks correctly but I don't really care, as long as I can get the message through. Good exercise though as I just learnt something new about usage of quotation marks.

      anon@6/5 2.38

      刪除
    3. Anon

      What I imply is that if the PRC government did release information like the South African government, we will have one more source to view the whole incident, not just from the exiles or the pro-government NGOs.

      It would be interesting to learn that the discussion about June 4 was being suppressed because China would like to stop people from talking about democracy. It is well-known that China would like to suppress any voice about June 4th incident, which is infamous for the crackdown instead of a democracy or democracy-related movement.

      It was a smart move by using a double negative to try to blur things up, but not in this case which the general public has a broad idea about what was going on. Your massacre doesn't work, anon.

      刪除
  8. First and second paragraphs are just repeating your same frail arguments. Repeating the same ideas over and over again does not make your arguments more sound.

    Where is the double negative?

    anon@6/5 2.38

    回覆刪除
  9. Adjournment sine die. May be the debate will heat up again when June 4 approaches next year.

    回覆刪除