【禁闻】港立法院被冲击 惊叹号与问号

FacebookPrintFont Size繁体

【新唐人2014年11月21日讯】香港占中运动突然爆出抗议者冲击立法会事件,让香港社会震惊。不过,持续了50多天的非暴力抗争,为什么会突然出现冲击事件,其中的疑点,也引发外界关注。

19号凌晨1点多,10多名示威者,部分人戴着口罩,分成几批,用金属路障“铁马”、沟渠盖、地上的砖块,不停敲打立法会大门玻璃,至少三道玻璃大门被击碎。期间,工党立法会议员张超雄尝试阻止,批评这是破坏占中运动,但被示威者拉开。

大约十分钟后,大批警察手持盾牌、警棍以及胡椒喷雾赶到,示威者随即离开。

突如其来的冲击事件,在立法会外留下一地玻璃渣,也给香港社会留下了一个大大的惊叹号。

香港公民党领袖梁家杰:“这些行为,与雨伞运动一直强调以和平、非暴力的精神,争取真普选的原则,背道而驰。对于雨伞运动产生负面的影响,我们感到非常的心痛。我们呼吁所有真普选的香港人,不要忘记初衷。”

社民连立法会议员梁国雄19号说,事件是因为有人用阻止立法会审议“网络23条”的虚假目的发起的。发动的动机是假的,冲击的理由是假的。他认为这个做法不能接受,只能带来反效果。

“香港专上学生联会”19号也就冲击立法会玻璃门事件发表声明,表示还没有完全理解这次行动的像征意义,同时批评带头人士冲击过后又四散,不负责任。“学民思潮”也认为冲击行动并不适当,谴责冲击者完全没有沟通的态度。

但同时,在长达53天的抗议中,一直和平理性的占中人士,为什么突然有冲击立法会的举动,也引发了许多问号。

原《香港联合报》专栏作家张成觉:“两个可能性我都觉得不能排除。一个就是,还是属于社民联,或者是占中里面,很少一部分,非常偏激的人。但是也不能排除中方这边搞事,通过黑社会或者通过什么途径,让他们以占领者中,所谓激进的一部分人,这么一个面目,就戴了口罩,作为一个标志,来搞事情。”

目前外界认为比较大的疑点,一是在于香港警方的做法。“学民思潮”召集人黄之锋形容,事件发生时,警方人力比平时少,而且也没有立即阻止冲击者的行动。

大陆知名维权人士胡佳:“确实是比较奇怪的,就是当时,(冲击者)拿铁马去砸窗户的时候,旁边没有什么警察去进行控制和阻拦。这和警察以前的风格是不一样的。”

其次的疑点,是冲击者“冲过就散”的做法,和占中发起者一贯提倡的“尊重法治”相反。之前,“占中三子”和几名学生领袖都曾表示愿意“自首”,承担法律责任。

张成觉:“占中一开始是定位为‘公民抗命’,虽然是违反现行的法律,但是他是要自己承担法律责任的,而且是比较理性的。这种冲击立法会,砸烂玻璃,把墙也搞烂。我认为,同原来占中的目的,根本是相反的。”

另外,中共媒体在冲击事件后的表现,也是外界质疑的原因之一。对占中消息一向不怎么报导的新华社、中通社、中新社等,昨天都发出多条稿件报导事件,尤其是中新社,在冲击事件发生后两小时,就出了报导。

胡佳:“中共从来否认本身对于香港这些公民抗命的示威者,频繁的动用暴力,频繁的使他们流血。它只要是你出现一点点情况,破了这块玻璃的话,那它整个宣传机器就开动起来了。党国的喉舌们开足了马力,对于这件事情大肆渲染。”

目前警方逮捕了六名冲击者,正在进行调查。在占中问题上各持己见的香港各界,对这次冲击事件难得的表现出了一致态度,批评暴力,呼吁坚持和平理性。

采访/朱智善 编辑/尚燕 后制/黎安安

Shocking: Hong Kong Legislative Council Is Attacked

Amongst the Occupy Central movement came the shock
of clashes of protesters with the police
in the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

Why this sudden clash after more than 50 days
of non-violent protest?

At 1:00 am local time of Nov. 19, about 10 protesters,
some in masks, used metal barricades, ditch covers, and bricks
to break down a side door of the Legislative Council building.
At least three glass doors were shattered.

Legislative Council member, also the vice-chair of Labor Party,
Fernando Cheung tried to stop the protesters, pointing out it will
devastate the Occupy Central movement, but was only
dragged away by the protesters.

About ten minutes later, police arrived with
shields, batons and pepper spray.

The protesters left immediately.

The unexpected move has left the Legislative Council building
with broken glass and disbelief within society.

Hong Kong Civic Party leader Alan Leong: “It’s against
our peaceful and non-violent fight for true universal
suffrage.

I am very sad about its negative impact to the Umbrella
Movement.

I call on all Hong Kong people who support genuine universal
suffrage not to forget our original intention."

Legislative Council member Leung Kwok-hung said someone
has initiated the incident to stop the Legislative Council from
discussing Internet Article 23.

The motivation and reasonings are all fake.

He can’t accept this because it can only bring the opposite
effect.

Hong Kong Federation of Students also stated that
they can’t understand the meaning of the action
and criticized the irresponsible act of those who
conducted the attack and ran away after the incident.

Scholarism also condemned the inappropriateness of the attack
and the attitude that allows no communication.

Questions also arise as to why this sudden attack on the
Legislative Council after 53 days of peaceful demonstration
by the students.

Hong Kong writer Zhang Chengjue: “I suspect two possibilities:
One is that members of the League of Social Democrats
or some extremists are among the protesters in the Occupy Central.

The other possibility is Chinese Communist Party (CCP) utilizes
the triads or other means to manipulate the extremists
among Occupy Central participants, with the masks as a symbol
to create chaos."

Currently, the biggest question rests with Hong Kong’s police.

Scholarism leader Jushua Wong said police manpower
was less than usual during the incident and did not immediately
stop the action.

Human rights activist Hu Jia: “It is really strange because
there was no police to stop them from breaking the window
with barricades.

It’s different from the previous police style."

Second question is the attackers’ disappearance after the incident.

It is contrary to the consistent advocacy of
respecting the law by Occupy Central organizers.

Organizers and the student leaders have all expressed earlier
their willingness to hold the legal liability.

Zhang Chengjue: “The Occupy Central has positioned itself
as civil disobedience.

Although it is in violation of the existing laws,
they will take legal responsibility which is more rational.

I believe the purpose of the act to smash glass and the wall
is opposite to the original purpose of Occupy Central."

In addition, the CCP media’s reaction towards the incident
is also questioned.

Rather neglecting the Occupy Central, media such as
Xinhua News Agency, China News Agency, China News
Service, etc. have all issued a number of reports on the incident.

In particular, CNS reported in just two hours after the incident.

Hu Jia: “CCP has always denied its frequent violent and bloody
way on this civic disobedience protest in Hong Kong.

However, their whole propaganda machine started to operate
with some minor issues such as the broken glass.

The CCP mouthpiece hyped it at full capacity."

Currently, the police have arrested six attackers.

Hong Kongers, though arguing on Occupy Central in various
aspects, have finally showed a consensus this time,
i.e., criticizing the violence, calling for peace and rationality.

Interview/Zhu Zhishan Edit/ShangYan Post-Production/Li Anan

相关文章
评论