部分內容來自世代懺悔錄：香港前途考古札記，特此鳴謝。以下部分尚有未完全鍵畢之內容，現先提供已打之內容。
*******
學苑—香港大學學生會特刊
1967年5月17日
頁一
社論：我們要求安定
自從騷動發生後，某些報紙一致將香港政府維持治安的行動，報導為「政府包庇資方，壓制工人」或「政府血腥鎮壓工人和其他中國居民」。這種報導是失實的。
我們相信香港政府並無干涉工潮，亦無「包庇資方」，它只禁止居民非法集合和阻街，以防動亂。而在騷動期間內，政府的責任就是：維持秩序，保障市民的生命和財產。
不單是政府，相信全港的市民都需要秩序和安寧。我們都希望有著安定的生活，而痛恨任何顛覆社會的行動。我們反對那些企圖煽動居民參加騷動，企圖以口號及主義麻醉我們的理智，企圖造成社會動亂的勢力。
我們是中國人。我們愛自己的國家與同胞。但愛國並不等於愛一個政權，也不等於愛一個領袖或一個黨。國家是全部人民的國家，並不是一人一黨的資產。一個執政的人或黨派若得不到全人民的承認，我們決不認為它能代表整個國家。
我們非常同情勞工運動，只要是合理的，正當的。但任何勞工運動若染上了政治色彩，便不會再是為工人請命的運動，而變成動亂的藉口。而且，無論如何，以騷動來解決勞資糾紛的方法，我們決不贊同。
所以，我們並不會為報上的宣傳文字所愚。
我們願望能夠在香港安居樂業。我們向所有有關人士提出我們心中的要求：
接受我們保持社會安定的要求；
立即停止一切煽動的活動及宣傳；
我們更要求勞資雙方能衷誠談判，務求達到一個合理的協議。
***
1967年5月17日
頁一
WE WANT STABILITY
In the reports of certain local newspapers, since the riots began, police action, in maintaining order in the violent events of the week, has been described as a ‘bloody and violent suppression of the workers and the Chinese people’, and the police have been accused of siding with the ‘capitalists’.
We, of the Editorial Board, feel that such events are misleadingly reported. The police, we feel, have only fulfilled their duty as arms of the kaw in keeping order in a time of crisis, dispersing undesirable mobs in the streets, putting down violence actively to maintain and help restore the peace and stability of the Society.
We believe that not only the Government, but the majority of our citizens desire order and a peaceful existence, We therefore deplore all violent activity that disrupt the equilibrium of our everyday lives. We are against those who encourage our citizens to riot, who confuse and blind us with their slogans, who endorse disorder in our society.
We are Chinese, and we love our country and our fellow compatriots; but a love of cur country is not the same as the love of a particular authority; nor is it the loyalty to any political party, nor the fanatic devotion to any leader. A country belongs to all her people, and is not the ‘property’ of any one man or party. A leader or a political party that does not have the support of ALL the people cannot be said to represent the whole country.
We give our full sympathy to the Labour Movement — as long as it is reasonable and conducted within the boundaries of the law. However the moment such a movement is coloured with political overtones, its nature ceases to be a merely social/economic one and becomes an excuse for violent action and disorder, We therefore strongly object to rioting as a solution to a labour problem.
***
1967年5月17日
英頁一
Secondary School Students and the Riot —
Did they or did they not?
It was reported in some newspapers that a number of Secondary schools, such as: Queen‘s College, Belilios Public School, St. Mark's, St. Louis, New Method College, True Light Middle School, St. Paul's Boys College, St. Paul's Co-educational College, King’s College, Sacred Heart Canossian College etc. were supposed have lent moral or material support to the recent ‘Labour Movement’ or ‘riot’ that took place. These schools are not known to be of any political faction, yet their names appeared time and again in such newspapers. The Undergrad, believing that the majority of the students in Hong Kong are only interested in a peaceful existence and a quiet pursuit in their studies, launched an investigation into the matter. The principals of a number of these schools were interviewed and a questionnaire survey for the purpose of acquiring the knowledge of the attitude of the students towards the riot and the knowing of the attitude of the students towards the riot and the likelihood of their taking an active part either in pledging their moral or material support to such a cause was conducted in several of the schools mentioned.
Out of the 300 copies of questionnaires sent, the following results came out:
Only 14 out of 300 have read the papers that printed the above information.
3 out of 300 are sympathetic towards the riot.
14 out of 300 believed that there was an anti-Chinese Movement.
15 out of 300 would give either moral or material support.
15 out of 300 think their friends would give either moral or material support to such a cause.
Of the various Principals interviewed the general view was that they did not have any information on whether their pupils had taken part in such activities.
***
1967年5月17日
末頁
香港大學學生會議會對「騷動」事件之意見
我們對於合理而有秩序之勞工運動完全贊同。
但連日所發生之暴動，我們絕不認同。我們認為最近之工潮，已含有政治因素，絕非純粹之工人示威行動。
而我們相信廣大之香港市民，都絕對反對騷動，因為：
（一）騷動對香港經濟之發展，工業之促進與社會之繁榮，只有破壞而無建設。
（二）騷動之必然後果是資金外流及海外投資之縮減，極易導致普通之失業及經濟之全面崩潰。
（三）騷動引致生命傷亡、財物損失及民心之不安。
我們對於某些報章所刊載之言論及彼等對此騷動之報導，表示極端之懷疑。此等報章企圖將政府維持治安之正確行動，報導為對中國同胞之迫害，以造成民族間之誤會。我們認為該等報章只代表某派系之立場，決不能代表全港同胞心中之意見。
我們相信廣大香港居民需要安定之生活，我們並不偏袒任何派系或任何政府。我們只反對顛覆社會，造成紛擾局面之惡勢力。
我們呼籲各界人士，尤其學生及青年，堅定立場，不受任何派系或其言論所煽動，絕不參予擾亂社會安寧之行動。
我們更懇切盼望與我們意見相同之社人士，奮然而起，聯合一致反對任何顛覆社會之行動，使香港早日回復治安。
（一九六七年五月十七日由港大學生會緊急議會決案）
THE HONGKONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ UNION COUNCIL on THE RECENT RIOT
To a reasonable and orderly labour movement we do not disagree.
However to the series of riots took place during the last few days we totally disagree. We consider the recent labour movement not purely one of demonstration by labourers, but coloured with political overtone.
We sincerely believe that the majority of the Hong Kong citizens are against the riots because:
1. Riots will only breakdown the process of industrial promotion, prosperity and economic development of the place.
2. The obvious consequence of any riots are an outflow of capital, and a marked decrease in oversea’s investment in Hong Kong. This will easily result in a general unemployment and a total disintegration of the public economy.
3. Riots will also lead to uncalled for deaths, injuries (both physical and material), as well as instability.
Certain papers seem to suggest that the government in maintaining law and order is actually carrying out an anti-Chinese movement, so as to create the present national misunderstanding. Such newspapers, we feel, can only represent the standing of a certain party, but NOT, NOT, the general opinion of the people of Hong Kong.
Stability, we believe, is what the Hong Kong public asks for. We are not siding with any party nor the government. We are only against any influence that might mould this disorder, disturbing and upsetting situation.
We appeal to each, and every Hong Kong citizen, especially youth and fellow students to maintain their firm stand, not to succumb to any party or commentary and NOT TO, we stress again, NOT TO participate in any activities that may result in disturbing civic pence.
We sincerely hope that any civic-conscious person who feels as we do would rise up and join together in opposing any disruptive movement and uphold the peace that has always been Hong Kong's. (Passed by Emergency Council Meeting, 17th May 1967)
***
1967年5月17日（跨頁）
Student Opinion on RIOT
港大學生談騷動事件
The Executive Committee of the Union conducted hostel visits of the balls of residence on the 15th May, distributing the above statement for the examination of Union members. The Ex-Co requested comments, opinions aside from the ones expressed in the statement, and asked whether the ideas expressed were supported by Union members. Of the 191 copies distributed und returned, 108 approved of the entire draft, 10 were neutral, 43 were against paragraph 5 which has since been amended, 30 suggested rewording or added their own comments.
Moreover, posters have been put up about the campus, inviting student opinion on the rots. The following fs a cross-section of opinion gathered from Union Members in hostels and opinions sent to the Undergrad.
The danger in riots is in the case where disturbance and panic are spread. It easily gets out of control if incited in the first place, and the long-term effects even more important than the suffering caused at the time.
Lena Woo
I wish to voice my appreciation of the work of the Riot squadron, the Police Force in protecting the peace of the community. I appeal to each and every responsible Hong Kong citizen to exercise the greatest care in judging the moves of the Government and not be biased and blinded by rumours and propaganda. It is definitely high time that students, particularly students having the privilege of higher studies to show truly their concern for society and not fo turn away from opportunities to do something worthwhile under the excuse that those in charge or the general body, e.g. of the students are irresponsible.
Ho Ock Ling
My personal view is that the police should have more patience over the workers (or mobs) at the very beginning. I think there should be more persuasion and explanation before any action (or force) is to be taken.
N.K.L.
The riot is far from being a labour movement with political overtones. Social backgrounds of the concerned areas, with myriads of other factors are also concerned.
H.Y.
To say we condemn bloodshed and violence is good enough. I don't think we should take side in condemning newspapers of any kind.
A St. Johnian
Admittedly, our views, regarding the riot may be tinged by our belonging to the “middle class” but it is my firm belief that as the living standard of the labourers rises, their views will become more and more “middle class” with skills.
R. Ng
I strongly object to any unwise steps, such as riots, taken by the workers to enforce their demands. I would suggest that they should bring their grievances to the Public by open negotiation between employers and employees under the assistance and supervision of the Government. And if their demands are justified, any peaceful means will reap the same fruitful results, more honorable and more constructive. Any forceful means is uncivilized, destructive to lives and the prosperity of the Hong Kong economy, on which our livelihood lies.
Personally I side with the Government in its policy to deal with the riots to restore peace and equilibrium before the riot became widespread. If rioters cannot be bound by law, they have to be restrained by force. I would advise that the Government should maintain its firm stand in dealing with the effect of the riot and not to be softened by any threats, so that no further similar crisis will repeat itself again.
J. Lau
I think it has turned from a labour dispute into a political conflict which is very unfortunate indeed. So I suggest to all parties to keep calm and not to try by propaganda to expand the matter. The labour dispute can easily be solved on a conference table in a legal procedure. Any violent actions are only damaging the stability of society.
P. Yau
I do not think the Government should, or has to, give in to the unjust demands from Communist China. If British law cannot prevail in Hong Kong, Britain may as well give up governing Hong Kong. But it is amply clear that many people here are here because they do not want to be in Communist China, and these people, by far the majority of the population, know how the whole incident was incited and distorted, and these people will continue to support the Government against this new form of aggression.
David Faure
I believe that the police has done a very good job in the way in which it has brought the recent riots to an end, and I applaud the successful move of lifting the curfew on the third night, I cannot, under any circumstances condone violence as a means to settle disputes. However, I feel that the government should realise that healthy, well fed and satisfied workers will increase production and economic growth.
Jan de Boer
Apart from the political factor that played such a dominating role in this riot, we can hardly miss the fact that there have been intense hostility and hatred of the mob (most of them are of the lower class) towards the policeman and towards the government. They have been suppressed and insulted too many a time by government authorities for reasons that can hardly be justified. All they want is just security and a peaceful life. Yet they have been deprived of the human right of a minimum standard of living. They are just too anxious to grasp any opportunity to revenge, to express their discontentment, in however rude ways it may be; they have just no other better outlets.
H.C. Chow
我以為此次暴動者是被人利用的，這次的暴動是有人在幕後支持的，而我以為警察此次並未拘捕到真正的兇手。
孫偉光
我以為此次的暴動行為是沒有充份的理由支持的，暴動與工潮是兩回事，暴動的行為並不能因工潮發生而得到支持的理由，此次暴動並不代表一般香港市民的心願，香港正在經濟上開始復生的時候，此次暴動對投資香港的信心是大有打擊的。解決勞資問題是應當依著合法的正當辦法去進行，用暴力與渲染的宣傳並不是解決問題的方法，某種宣傳以民族尊嚴為基礎，但暴行與民族意義是毫不相干的。
文雲
某派人士利用十三四歲小童作騷動部隊發動搗亂，我很不以為然。勞資糾紛應依正常途徑解決，由勞工署處理，但現時工潮是受政治影響，以致變了質，這𥩳香港的安寧及繁榮，有很壞的效果。某些報紙不應就小小的事件，而牽涉到政治方面去，加以大力宣傳。香港警察的表現是盡量避免傷人事件，而某些報紙的字眼，如「血腥暴行」是言過其實的。
鄭天琴
這次騷動，我以為只是某派乘機擴大事件的無聊行動，無聊的行為是無從結束的，搞這些事件，實在正是「推石頭打自己腳」。
施祖祥
這些騷動後果只有害及中下層階級的生活。
梁錫權
「血債血償」，何謂「血償」？
Ｌｅｅ Ｐｕｎ Ｃｈｏ
我不贊成這次由勞資事件而演變成暴動，再被加上政治性質的行動，政府應該以嚴謹的態度來處理這事件，平靜社會的情緒。
香港警察並沒有特別主動傷害民眾，只是對聚集的群眾和擲石的暴動，採取應有的行動。
陳婉寶
本來我對政治是不感興趣的，但我十分不贊成ＸＸ份子的講法，他們不應使社會人士誤會全港大學生是支持這騷動的。
吳卓禧
(接頁一)
這次騷動的地區以徙置區域為主，假如徙置區的社會福利中心能夠灌溉多些社會意識使他們對社會情形多些了解，就可以避免這次盲目的發洩。
香港政府未能明瞭到普羅大衆，對他們日常生活情形的不滿，以致未能改善他們的生活，他們便被少部分搞政治活動的人利用。
潘超明
有些「港大學生」，以不署真實姓名的「公開信」方式，在五月十四日為新晚報、文匯報和大公報上抨擊港大學生會。我們要指出：所有學生會幹事，都是由港大同學在會員大會中投票選出來的，我們承認他們是港大學生的代表。學生會是本著會章為會員的福利服務，每年都貸款幫助經濟環境差的同學，今年已決定在九月辦賣物會籌款來捐贈五個慈善機構，至於學生會屬會，對社會亦有貢獻，最顯著的是社會福利服務團所辦的義學，和最近的義映籌款。以上是説明一切抨擊學生會無能或不照顧會員及社會福利的文字都是無根據的。
陳業誠 莫壽平 龍沛蒼
就這次騷動事件來看，使我對香港的持有政治立場（無論左派或右派）的報章，有著很大的反感。根本上，一份報章的新聞報導，是應該以忠實為主，而不應利用宣傳的文字和圖片；鼓動起社會情緒，以達成其政治目的，亦不應以報章發動冷戰式的筆戰，挑撥起無謂紛亂。
九龍這次騷動，都被雙方報章利用了，加以大事渲染，「武裝」起來，另成一個「文字騷動」。雙方報章不但都在爭取立場，更極力在爭取市民投入它們的立場，好來一次大鬥爭。這種只求目的，不顧大局的作法，全是大大超越報章責任的。
在此，謹向能保持報紙的義務而誠實的向市民報導這次騷動的新聞的報章致以萬二分的敬意。
陳業誠
勞資糾紛現在已演變成含有政治色彩，是不對的。某些報紙不將實在原因向市民分析，更且用煽動性的文字使事件擴大。受害者最終還是暴亂之人，政府當局已太寬懷，若能即時採取嚴謹行動，那些猖狂便可停止。
黃鈞黔
首先要批評的是本港某些報紙。他們要對那些煽動性的文章的刊出負起全部責任。在這類型的報章中，有一個現象就是把主力全放在這次騷動事件的上頭，而歸根到底的意旨似乎是在指出「港英暴行」這句話。舉個例說：某報的讀者來函一欄，刊登的信件格式都是千篇一律，我懷疑是可能出自同一手筆。
香港是殖民地，市民大部分是中國人，他們都有民族自尊，而勞動階層有被外人欺負的事件，當他們見到報章的報道，情緒便會很激動，便會很同情這些暴徒。
參加暴動的人物，性質很複雜的，大致上第一是無知小孩子的盲從附和，第二是有濃厚政治性的人物。
我反對以「法西斯手段」的惡名加諸香港政府。勞資雙方不妥協，可能是個偶然的機會，而迅速地加上濃厚的政治色彩，效法澳門，以期在政治上控制香港，而在香港經濟上佔優勢，例如可以排擠其他外物的市場。
我以為香港政府不會讓步，極力達至妥協，使香港恢復安定。
陳麗儀
***
1967年6月13日
英頁一
Editorial
The Big Question Mark
Before the recent riots, few people wanted to question the future of Hong Kong. During the riots, there seemed to be no future to many, and now that things are quieting down, this touchy question is again left alone. The impression one gets of the attitude towards the issue is that not many want to face the facts and that those who do not bury their heads in the sand do not want to talk about it either. Everybody remarks that the future is dark, and are satisfied to leave the issue so, dreaming that they will be out of Hong Kong when any serious change comes or that the change will never come at all.
Indeed, everything seems to be going back to normal. There is no serious threat from China at the moment. Left-winged newspapers are certainly making a lot of noise, but the almost empty Communist department stores show how Hong Kong people have turned against the source of our agitation. It hardly needs to be said that the agitation hit the poorer classes harder than anybody else, for the poor feel the rising cost of food, the inconvenience of the transport strikes, and the hawkers are the principal losers in a day’s strike at the market. In a time of crisis, everybody is rallying round the Government, we have the support of the Government in Britain, and there is still certainly much | confidence in Hong Kong, and this confidence, we believe, should continue.
But the question remains: What is the future like, and what can be done about it? It is very doubtful that there is any way at the moment to find out. But the riot should teach us a lesson, for the cause of the panic is largely that the people in Hong Kong are caught unprepared, While one still hears of attempts to teach people of self-government, one may wonder if it is too much to ask that the problem is concerning the future of Hong Kong be brought before the general public. We can raise just one question to start with: what is the attitude of the Foreign Office towards Hong Kong? We do not want a reply from the Foreign Office, but the question should be pondered on.
Or, is independence for Hong Kong really impossible? There are advocates for independence, but we need a critical study on the issue. The point which can be raised here is just that no study has actually been made, or if made, has not been widely publicised, about the possibilities of our future. Without this, can we safely talk of reforms, self-government? This is perhaps not a job for a Government Commission, but it is the sort of work local political organisations can carry out. The findings of such studies may turn many faces red, but at least we will know more of your chances and start preparing for it.
If, as many of our local politicians believe, the future is not all that grim, why should we be afraid of looking into it?
***
1967年6月13日
THE RECENT RIOT, THE MORALISTS AND THE LAW
(written on 24th May, 1967.)
Sir,
I do not intend here to pass comment on the recent riot from the point of view of moral and law, but instead, I shall use the recent riot as an extra example to comment on the moralists and our Legislative Councillors.
He goes almost without saying that morally is with regard themselves as saviours of the society. Only if people will listen to them and refrain from doing what they condemn, then salvation is there, the society will be good and redeemed from corruption and decay. They show no hesitation what they regard as a root of all evil are really so and they are the last people in lacking fervent to try to preach out of existence what they condemned. Now here is this riot, a concrete case of some evil that threats [sic] to shake the foundation of the whole society, to speak metaphorically. And hardly a case can be found where we can find so much and then unanimous agreement (except the Communists and our moralists, perhaps) that this, the riot, is undesirable. It is encouraging to see so many (more than 300 up to now) public organisations making public pronouncements to support the Hong Kong government to maintain law and order. It is surprising for us and shameful for the moral is that in face of the recent riot the moralists' ardour in condemning a beatnik’s life, beat music, and topless bathing suit etc., etc., shows the slightest tendency to be drained towards condemning the recent riot out of existence. I suppose more or less like the Roman Catholic Church and those Confucian societies would prefer the reason riot with mobs destroying properties to a few beatniks who do not interfere us. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is far from condemning the riot with the same indignation and with the same condescending air of bestowing grace as it condemns things it considers immoral shows that it is a SIN for women to wear provocative dresses and for young people to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage while it is NOT a sin to participate in this irresponsible riot which the Roman Catholic Church would presumably consider at the most as a very minor offence. What does it matter if your properties were destroyed by the mob since Jesus told you to give up all your properties to follow Him and what does it matter if you get killed by these rioters since you should this happen then you would go to heaven and live with God – what a grace! The Roman Catholic Church’s relative indifferent attitude towards the riot shows that sex is “dirty” while violence is quite "clean", only that it is not holy. All this shows that real evil and moral badness are two very different things. If Roman Catholic zealots have not been intimidated by the riot, which they should not be if they remembered that they had gone through the ceremony of confirmation in their church, and if this zealots have any genuine concern for people's well-being, they should organise a missionary team to go to preaching the rioters that their behaviour would arouse God's disapproval and they will go to hell if they do not repent, and preach the rioters with the same passion and persistence as they preach to me and other people to believe in their God and abide by their moral code. If they cannot do this I would like to tell them to shut up forever. The Roman Catholic Church is only one example among the whole pack of moralists. The same argument is of where have their preaching zeal gone in the face of this real, urgent, and evident evil – the riot – to counterbalance the companies' propaganda exploiting national feeling (or more correctly, chauvinistic feeling) applies to them all. It shows clearly that real happiness and well-being are to be found by first ignoring the moralists – what they persuade us to attain or not worth attaining at all while what is really undesirable, the moralists show the slightest concern to rid us off.
Now let me come to the law. It has been said (I cannot remember whom) that the law was like clothes which was made to fit the people. This is what the law should do. I think a parallel principle is equally valid – that laws are passed to fit the situation. This society is too complex and the full consequences of any important social action to multifarious for us to be able to anticipate all possible kinds of events that will arise. Therefore we cannot lay down some laws once and for all and believe that these laws are valid forever. We sometimes have to make special laws for a special occasion. I believe that the reason why it is one of such special occasions – labour dispute developed into a political disturbance and the original problem of labour dispute has been quite forgotten or otherwise used as an excuse only. The riot has been going on and off and on more than a fortnight since, and there has not been any signs that this disturbance, sometimes in the form of a violent mob and sometimes in the form of strikes, is going to quiet down soon. I suggest that our legislative Council should meet to consider making temporary special laws for only this occasion to goad and to enable the executive to put down this disturbance efficiently – that is, to consider things like setting up temporary local guards strong enough to disperse maps in a few minutes, to pass a bill to give the police power to use more drastic measures to deal with any mob, or to possibly all that organisers of strikes in the coming three months, say, will be penalised severely. If there were more disorderly and molesting gatherings in the future, I believe that those who organise a prompt the mob and smear walls slogans should be treated with the machine-gun, that newspapers that stir up sentiments for riot should be closed down and their editors arrested, and that properties of individuals and organisations that plan and arrange this disturbance should be confiscated. I hope that our Legislative Councillors would probably pass bills of some suitable kind with the aim to facilitate the executive to put down the disturbance quickly, and I asked no more than that they pass these bills with the same quickness and firmness of decision as they raised tax rates. The grave and to mediate as well as long-term economic consequences of this riot on many workers and hawkers and then factory management and owners is anything but too evident. Any Confucians’ and Roman Catholics’ conscience are unperturbed, ours are moved. It is a duty of our Legislative Councillors to try to do something about this disturbance.
To conclude, some energy of our society, i.e. the moralists' ardour and the Legislative Councillors' decision, has not been used when the present circumstance requires.
Yours, etc.
Lund Pui Chong
龍戰：今後我們所應該做的
一、關於我們的學生會
二、不要恐懼正當的勞工運動
三、香港的政治前途
四、思想的指導
編輯隨筆：反共不是反華
***
學苑—香港大學學生會特刊
1967年7月13日
英頁七
Has Hong Kong A Future?
by Al Bum
It is the writer’s hope to start the discussion ball rolling by introducing this topic which weighs, heavy on our minds, but which has never before been openly and frankly discussed. Is there a future for Hong Kong, a future in which we can live and let live, a future in which we need not live in fear of persecution; a future where we can live our daily lives in peace and progress? Can we make Hong Kong God’s little acre, or shall return to the Peoples’ Republic. In short, do we wish to choose a liberal or a communist government?
We still have a short thirty years to choose. In thirty years, many of us who are now studying here will have reached the peak of our chosen careers. In thirty years the New Territories lease expires with all the attached consequences. Are we, the fortunate few who receive a university career going to desert those less fortunate people who cannot choose whether they want to here or leave?
But do we really care when something happens, but which does not affect our family, and hence, indirectly ourselves?
Chinese people attach much value to their long and glorious tradition, and thus they may find it hard to accept revolutionary ideas but Chinese people in Indonesia, Singapore, and many other parts of the world have joined themselves into one great, cohesive family.
- The Meaning of Hong Kong -
Why are we here? We did not choose to be here, our parents did. Our parents came here when they fled from Communism and other forms of government and many are still fleeing over the border. But it is up to us to decide what form of government we want to live under.
What do we want to get out of this place? A degree, a nice well-paid comfortable job, and a nice, comfortable wife, and maybe lots of status, and are we to be blamed for wanting this? What do we want to get out of this place? An academic career may be, and the illusion that through study we can escape the reality of dirty politics, and from Hong Kong, when things get too hot. What ‘sentimental’ attachment do we have to it?
Our parents came here and built a new life from scratch, work which has enabled us to live the way we live, and to enjoy the things we like. It is their work, their struggle, and we can stake no claim to participation in their victory. Our parents have built something they can fight for and lock with pride on; as yet we have nothing to fight for, for we do not figure in their achievement.
Do we have nothing to look with pride on? I believe we do. We have fought, kicked and beaten our way to the top of rat race that is called Hong Kong education; we have studied so hard to reach the top that we have sacrificed things that might have been dear to us. We have shut ourselves away from the world outside to guarantee our own future but we must never forget that involvement with the outside world is as inevitable as death, and there is no way out.
We cannot conclude that Hong Kong means little or nothing to us. We can never explain away the fact that when we were homeless, Hong Kong housed us, when we were hungry Hong Kong fed us, when we were hopeless Hong Kong gave us hope and refuge, and a chance to start afresh. You can't escape it; Hong Kong is your home.
Can we achieve our aim of retaining Hong Kong's identity? If we accept that it is we who have to decide our future, we will have to surmount many obstacles. We will have to strive to achieve more active participation in politics, we will have to campaign for the allegiance of our youth, many of whom are at present being lured by the communists, we will have to stand in the open and tell the people of Hong Kong what we want. I feel that our universities should take a lead in guiding the youth.
To achieve more active participation in politics we need to reform our educational system and tackle the problems of the present inadequate examination system. Too much emphasis is placed on passing examinations, and this gives us no time to look around us and become well-rounded citizens who are interested in what goes on around them. To achieve educational reforms, we shall have to have a say in politics, and this can be done by joining one of the recognized political parties in Hong Kong, and taking part in elections. In this way I believe the youth of Hong Kong can emerge as a group the present government will have to reckon with in its deliberations. We must attempt to form a common bond amongst ourselves, so that in unity and numbers we may be strong. Again, our universities can take a lead, for we are more closely connected with the youth of Hong Kong than any other social group, by working for closer contact with our youth and their problems, Only by making their problems our own can we hope to achieve that degree of unity which is desirable. Once we are united in our wishes all else will, and I think, must follow naturally.
In conclusion, I feel that my discussion is inadequate and incomplete on many points, but I feel that somewhere a start must be made in discussing this, our most private problem, to see if we can make any headway at all in overcoming our difficulties, but the ultimate truth is that I am afraid for you, my friends.
***
***
1967年7月13日
英頁七
Bernacchi Confident
When speaking to reporters of the Undergrad, Brook Bernacchi, chairman of Reform Club, expressed confidence in the future of Hong Kong but stressed that “the future of Hong Kong rests with the young people. If the young people want Hong Kong to remain as it, or eventually as a free city, then I think Hong Kong has a reasonable chance of so remaining, If the young people want Hong Kong to go back to China, then sooner or later Hong Kong inevitably will go back to China.”
Whilst the communists were trying to increase their influence by having insurgents in schools and universities, Mr. Bernacchi pointed out that their every move was countered successfully by government propaganda and “other methods”.
- The Three Alternatives -
Concerning the more distant future of Hong Kong, Brook Bernacchi reminded us that the New Territories’ lease expires at the end of the century and that then there were three alternatives open to Hong Kong, one being that “Hong Kong has to give up the New Territories, and becomes another little Macao, but I don’t think Hong Kong would survive long under those conditions, the other is that with whatever government is in power at the time, either the Peoples’ Republic or any other government, they (the people of Hong Kong) negotiate for the return of the whole of Hong Kong, possibly with compensation. The final alternative is that an agreement acceptable to both sides can be reached where Hong Kong can keep its identity and not be under the British government, like a free city”. But would Hong Kong be able to sustain an independent form of government? To this question Mr. Bernacchi replied that Sir David Trench was holding discussions in London to arrange for indirect elections to be held via the Urban Council and this would in effect be a first, small step towards internal self-government.
- Youth and Politics -
On the problem of how the young people could be encouraged to participate in politics, and of how prepared the young people would be to face their responsibilities of choosing the kind of future Hong Kong wants, Mr. Bernacchi said “... basically, there are two problems, one, the family system, and secondly that family system which compels young people to work at a very young age to complement the family income. If the educational system, and particularly the examinations can be changed to put more emphasis producing more well-rounded citizens, we have taken a big step in freeing the student from the educational rat race. Again, universities, being closely connected with young people could take a lead in making Hong Kong's youth more aware of problems facing Hong Kong in all fields. Also, young people could participate more on the political field by joining one of the recognized political parties here.
In conclusion, Brook Bernacchi said that the best way for the man in the street to counter communist subversion, was to have the courage to inform the police of any threat or disturbance, for they were better equipped to tackle this kind of trouble.
***
1967年7月13日
英頁七
IS THIS YOU?
No, Hong Kong has no future. Hong Kong is doomed. I don’t want to meddle with it. I'll study, then I'll get my degree, then I'll go abroad, and when THE MOMENT comes, I won't be here.
But I can't go abroad right away. I'll have to make some money first — unless of course, I am so brilliant that I can become an academic and get a job in a foreign university, But of course, staying just a short while longer is not going to do any harm. I'll still be away when the time comes.
I'll stay, let's say, five years. Hong Kong will last that long at least.
By then I'll be married. I'll be tied down with a job. Even doctors are less well-paid abroad. I suppose I'll still te able to get a job there though.
Troubles. Oh God! Must leave now. But I've got to get my degree and I've got those books to go through for my exams. Oh dear, Mr. Chan has already booked his aeroplane ticket.
Thank goodness, the trouble has died down. But I must try to leave now. No, let me get through some of my business first.
Trouble again, Oh dear!
Thank goodness, it’s died down.
Trouble...
Gosh... Thank God.
More trouble........Something must be done.
There just simply aren't enough aeroplanes or ships. There's nothing to move the people out! I can’t go!
O.K. We'll stay. We'll make a stand. Why, there’s not so much trouble after all.
Hey, look here. It’s dying down again. It looks as if Hong Kong can go on for quite a while, if the international political scene continues like this.
The future is gloomy, but the “future” is not coming for quite a while yet.
By Me
***
1967年7月13日
頁一
龍戰：我們還有話說
最近，港大的同學一定收到很多措辭溫婉的所謂一羣愛國港大學生的信，近三四天，也一定看到一份港大鬥委會印發的宣言，裏面說話似乎義正嚴辭，既有些勸又有些責的味道，總之是向我們說話，也可以算是恐嚇，彷彿暗示：你們不覺悟，將來民族紀律是不會輕容你們的。輕容不輕容倒是將來的事，但裏面內容卻似乎說：真理是我們的，錯誤是你們的，你們應該沒有話說了罷。但看完後，第一個反應是：我們還有話說。
我們不只還有話說，而且還要慢慢說，說得溫婉一些也無妨，翻一翻舊帳也可以。鬥委會的宣言上說這次的鬥爭是一個民族尊嚴之戰，又說，反共不是反華可以嗎？這兩點最重要，我們就拿來談談。
我們看事不能含糊不清，不能把兩件事情亂混在一起，這次的所謂「反迫害」是怎樣起的，自然是勞資糾紛，但不知後來怎樣，忽然把這些糾紛和民族尊嚴拉在一起了，今天一句「你們一個也逃不了」，明天則說「解放軍行動了」，後天又說「港英搬起石頭打自己的腳」，總之把人們弄到一團胡塗，不知所從。我們總無法明白：人造花廠的勞資糾紛怎會和民族迫害混在一起，又為什麼大叫大喊，彷彿如喪考妣似的。
這裡先要表明態度，在這次勞資糾紛之中，我們是同情勞方的，因為事實擺得很清楚，資方的手段跡近剝削，而且絕對無理。這種剝削情形的存在是香港的一個大污點，世界上所有文明國家，對於「剝削」這種情形差不多已經剷除淨盡，對於勞工的福利是逐日改善，逐日進步。英國工黨走社會主義國不必說了，就算是現在所謂頭號「資本主義」的美國，對勞工福利也是頂重視的，「剝削」應該是一個歷史性的字眼了。這次香港從血與混亂之中得到的教訓是最重要也是最簡單的：改革資本家的剝削手段，全力推行勞工福利的運動。
以上的勞資糾紛是一件事。民族迫害又怎麼樣？就單以這次看，說什麼也談不到民族迫害的。如果要算一百多年來的血債，也已是無從算起。如果我們不看歷史，不看歷史環境，亂說話也可以，但事實上，如果別人和我們算算元朝的「黃禍」又怎麼樣？我們不能老是活在仇恨鬥爭之中，也不能撇開歷史背景不談。一百多年前，迫害我們的英國人現在活著的還有多少，我們如真要報復，向誰人報復？香港是一個殖民地，裡面自然有種種不平等的事情，我們要剷除這種種不平等，但手段決不是恐嚇、威脅和流血。此次最重要的考驗並不是一些人口說的民族尊嚴，而是個人生死存亡的抉擇，是自由與奴役白刃戰的一剎那，也是中華兒女智慧發揮的時候。中國人在亂世之中能不能獨立不倚，能不能作出一個最理智的決定？中國人在動盪和山河破碎之際，能不能為中國未來的遠景留下一片曙光？還有，中國人在顛沛流離的慘痛時刻裡，能不能為中國優秀的文化傳統劃下不可抹煞的一筆？這些才是我們民族面臨最艱鉅的考驗。
「反共不是反華」是學苑上期編者隨筆的題目，於是鬥委會便問：反共不是反華可以嗎？最後又說什麼「蔣家皇朝」之類的談話。我們不妨說明白，毛澤東所領導的中國共產黨正是一個破壞國家團結，破壞民族抬頭的真正兇手。共產黨為着達到目標，可以不擇手段，所以他們可以改寫歷史，甚至改寫地理。中共說領導中國抗戰的是共產黨，但這是一個謊話；中共在一九四九年三月以後的國共和談中說國民黨違背孫中山先生指示，是國家民族的罪人，也是一個謊話。
抗戰期內，國民政府徵兵一千多萬，傷亡三百多萬，國民政府在抗戰勝利後，接受日軍的投降，這到底是誰領導抗戰。毛澤東在一九三八年一月十七日在延安附近瓦窰堡的羣眾大會上喊出第一聲「蔣委員長萬歲」，又同年國民政府任命周恩來為軍事委員會政治部副部長和最高國防委員會委員是否就是共產黨領導抗戰的證明。一九三八年十月中共中央委員會宣佈蘇聯社會主義制度在現階段的中國不適合，是否便是他們領導抗戰的手段？
中共不只在抗戰中不肯出全力，還處處牽制國民政府的軍隊。一九四一年一月的皖南事變中共自然稱為皖南慘案——越境與國軍衝突。此外又陰謀擴充軍隊，一九四五年元月，朱德曾請求美國借款二千萬美元，名義上是充作策反偽軍之用，但真正作用不問可知，事實上這次請求是失敗了。
中共又披上了土地改革者的外衣。加上史太林對美國力證，「所謂中國共產黨，事實上並非共產黨」，再加上太平洋關係學會中一班人，如拉鐵摩爾之流的從中挑撥，導致後來中美兩國的情感的破裂，抗戰勝利後，中國一躍而為四強之一，但中共卻破壞統一，阻撓接收，破壞金融，接受蘇俄在東北的裝備，再由東北燃起內戰之火。
後來又有所謂政治協商，組織聯合政府，這是國民黨在四面楚歌下所作的最重大讓步，也可以說是為挽救國家主權統一的最大犧牲，可是中共沒有膽量在政治上交鋒，仍然全力製造叛亂。
平心而論，國民黨對於當時的政治和社會混亂並不能推卸責任，但若以百分比來計算，國民黨只負百分之四十到四十五，而共產黨則要負百分之五十五到六十。歷史是無情的，也是冷酷的，無論我們怎樣裝假作偽，到最後，歷史總不能改變原來的面目。
我們若不了解近數十年的中國歷史，我們便只有被人瞞騙的份兒。毛澤東是中國民族的罪人和叛徒，並不是什麼革命英雄，中國共產黨是陷國家與民族於不義的兇手。毛澤東和他的黨徒竊據中國大部份的土地，但我們不承認他真正能代表中國人民，也不承認中國共產黨是中國國家的政策執行者。
中共自然在國內進行過一些建設，也試爆了氫彈，因此一般人說中共把中國聲望抬高了。但我們不得不指出，這種聲望是建立在威嚇和武力之上的，現在的文化革命，紅衛兵運動弄到中外騰笑，中國的聲望到底抬高了到哪一個程度？中國的立國目的應該是爭取友邦心悅誠服的敬，而不是換來四鄰的怕，敬和怕相差是如何的遠！
中共燃起內戰，最無恥的是驅使平民作他們的先鋒，淮瀋戰役，徐蚌戰役等重大的戰役都是如此。他們利用「中國人不打中國人」的口號迫使國軍束手，利用國軍的不肯濫殺中國平民百姓，再加上戰略有失在幾個重大的戰役中獲得勝利，其中徐蚌戰役中的六十萬國軍就如此全軍覆沒。
一九五零年十一月，毛澤東為了彌補史太林估計錯誤的過失，下令林彪四野十三兵團領先的志願軍進入韓國，把大好中華兒女的生命無端犧牲在荒山野嶺和冰天雪地的韓國土地上，從雲山到黃草嶺，從照陽江到傷心嶺，都流有中國男兒和淚。在第五次戰役第一階中，彭德懷還正式使用人海戰術，以人海對火海，總結中共軍隊在韓國損失的官兵超過百萬人。
在國內，毛澤東宣佈一面倒向蘇俄，出賣民族利益，一面進行三反五反，濫殺無辜。後來又推行大躍進，而至現在的文化革命，這十幾年來，中共的統治就是一本血史，我們本著人類的良知，不得不反對中共，本著中國人的傳統愛好和平的美德，不得不反對中共，本著做人最低限度的尊嚴，不得不反對中共，為著熱愛自己的國家，熱愛自己的民族，不得不反對中共！
這就是我們還要說的話。
六七、七、五深夜
***
1967年7月13日
頁一
西窗：向正義的工友們致敬！
當一小撮人物要動員全港九工人舉行大罷工，要粉碎他們所謂港英法西斯統治，要搗亂香港社會安寧之際，我一清晨跑出街道上去，卻看見一輛輛寶青色的電車如一隻隻昂着頭兒向前邁進的螳螂，緩慢卻堅定地來回往復地流動着，那棕紅色的巴士在晨曦中顯得怪神氣的，如穿着護身甲的壯士，正在向着兇殘無理的敵人挑戰着，當時我心中興奮之情，大約是香港大部份市民都同樣感受過而認識到的。
當我再小心點留心觀察時，我便發現在我這些交通工具上勤勞地工作着的員工，他們仍是穿着他們那殘舊的制服，那龐大的帽子，仍是低低地垂在額上，滾熱的汗在他們那跳動着的肌肉更積聚成無數的沼澤，除了因乘客特別擠迫而使他們的工作特別繁忙外，他們跟往日似乎並無不同，或緊緊地壓着旋轉舵，或一上一落地在售票，他們並不向社會要求什麼的感謝和同情，他們只是堅持着他們的崗位，把持着自己的理想，這真是我感動的幾乎流下淚來。
「我們要為社會服務」，「我們要謀求大眾的福利」，「我們要抵抗一切破壞我們理想的侵襲」，這似乎是每一個人都懂得的真理，但在危急之際，能夠不受誘惑，不受恐嚇，能夠站得起放得開的英雄又有幾人？但今天，因為一位工友向着社會大眾顯揚出他們浩然之氣了，他們向着那些少數不擇手段，強姦民意的投機分子，喊出他們抗戰的口號，是靜默的口號，又是多麼驚天動地的口號。
同學們！你們不是常常誇示自己是知識分子嗎？你們不是常常說自己能夠明辨是非嗎？但在這幾星期一連串是非分明的事件中，你們曾否為這「是」盡過力而抗拒那「非」呢？你們想到：「我們不能迷信，我們反對盲目崇拜」，但你們曾否為這「不能」「反對」下過功夫？在這些盡力為「是」的工友面前，你們是否覺得慚愧？有人說：「知識是逃避現實的最好媒介！」你們是否願意為一逃避現實的假知識分子？
我們不能否認現在的社會是充滿了不平等，充滿了不道德之思想，人與人間的關係是日趨淡薄，但在我們面前的是否一個不平等，不道德的抗戰，還是挑撥民族仇恨，爭權奪利的鬥爭呢，在他們大聲疾呼要反對現有經濟制度之際，他們是否仍是利用此經濟制度慣用的手段來強迫小販罷市、賄賂工人罷工？
最後，我得提醒你們，電燈傳出來的明亮是工友們靈魂的光輝，水喉流出來的甘泉是工友們體中的鮮血，煤氣爐透出來的熱是工友們心懷的勇氣，讓我們一起肅立，向正義的工友們致一衷心衷心的敬意。
***
1967年7月13日
頁二
吉水：無題！
最近，左派仁兄發動一連串的鬥爭行動，用以打擊港英政府。這一行動，左派仁兄自誇有四百萬香港市民的支持，本人不知是否有幸被計算在內，假如有的話，最好以後左派仁兄得要將小弟除名，相信在偉大的紅太陽照耀下；多一個或少一個並不算多大影響，作為一個香港居民我需要的是和平與安定——不論這一需要是由於自己沒有「血性」，沒有「骨氣」或是受了「奴化教育」的結果。我喜愛的仍然是和平與安定。
不錯，「英帝國主義一百多年來侵佔香港，掠奪九龍，攫取新界，奴役我同胞，麻醉我青年學生」（1）但一百年來英帝國主義亦把香港從一個荒蕪的海島轉變成一個現代化的港口。在港英的統治下，我們得來了安定與繁榮。撇開以前一切不談，我們不能抹殺英帝國主義這一成就。假若我們真的要指責英帝國主義的話，我們應先自反省，究竟中國有沒有走帝國主義路線？一九一一年，孫中山先生宣佈正式成立中華民國，但漢民族本身只得中國本部十八省，為擴展中國的版圖，增加中國的人口，孫先生於是宣佈漢、滿、蒙、回、藏大結合，就是這樣，中國平白增添了數倍土地，漢族高高地騎在一些少數民族的身上。這不是帝國主義是什麼？當祖國仍然推行帝國主義的時候，當這些少數民族仍然受壓迫時，我們無理由指責英美帝國主義。
無可否認，近百年來中華民族受盡了英美等「列強」所欺侮，血淚斑斑，喪權辱國。但翻開有高度文化的中國歷史一看，我們的祖先又何嘗不是一樣的欺侮別人。每一朝代鼎盛的時候，還不是一樣的去橫征討伐，擴張版圖，五千年來，中國究竟欺壓了多少民族，使多少人民權喪國辱。數千年的舊賬，數千年的仇恨，人家還沒提起，而我們的「紅太陽」竟然向英美算起百年舊賬來了。要是真的要算舊賬，也應暗中地來：只要「紅太太陽」不照英美兩地便是，他們沒有光和熱，不認罪才怪。何必要發動這一連串的鬥爭，令到兄弟相爭的「中國人紮中國人的炮」。
×××
一九四九年六月十五日在新證據協商會議籌備會上，毛主席澤東曾說過： 「中國人民將會看見，中國的命運一經操在人民自己的手裡，中國就將如太陽升起在東方那樣，以自己的輝煌的光焰普照大地⋯⋯建設起一個嶄新的強盛的名副其實的人民共和國。」（2）但不幸得很，毛主席這一預言，只說中了一部分。今天，我們確實得有一個新而強的人民共和國，但究竟是否「名副其實」則難以批評。我們亦都看到一個紅太陽從東方升起（中國在東方），以「輝煌的光焰普照大地」，本來一切都是美滿的了，不幸的是這個紅太陽並不是「中國」本身，而是我們「親愛的，偉大的舵手」毛主席。
盤古初開時，我們曾經有過九個紅太陽（九個或是十個，忘記了。）由於九個太陽都爭著以自己的光輝普照大地，遂弄到大地荒蕪一片，民不聊生，幸好當時得一姓后名羿者以箭射下八個紅太陽，只剩一個，大地才得以甦醒，於是百花齊放，欣欣向榮，人民亦得以安居樂業。想不到在火箭時代的二十世紀，東方竟然又出了另外一個紅太陽，於是兩個太陽互相輝映，結果是自一九五八年起的大躍進，五年計劃接二連三的失敗，演變成一九六六年的文化大革命的奪權鬥爭（3）「在全國傳播毛澤東思想宣傳毛主席的無產階級路線，組織無產階級的革命隊伍，有力的衝擊了資產階級的反動路線。」（4）這個革命隊伍，發動了「真正的力量」弄到神憎鬼厭，在亞非地方，興波作浪，結果，受害的，還不是那些無辜的華僑。
得益的，是誰？
后羿，你何時再來？
附註：
1. 新晚報一九六七年六月廿六日第五版
2. 毛澤東選集第四卷第一四七零至一四七一頁
3. 毛主席自己說：「世界上一切革命鬥爭，都是為著奪取政權，鞏固政權。」——黑龍江省紅色造反者革命委員會第一號通告(人民日報一九六七年二月二日)
4. 人民日報一九六七年一月一日社論。
1967年7月13日
頁二
史干：談愛國的幾個問題
關於愛國這個問題，很多很多人都已經討論過了，作者相信，在這個動蕩的局面，重提這一個問題或許有特殊的意義。
今天，多數人都不會問：「你為什麼愛國？」抗戰前，很多人懷疑愛國的意義，或視為狹隘，落後，或是為反動，但是經過八年的抗日，八年的血的事實，我們的先輩感到國家之真實性，及愛國的現實意義，我覺得愛國是一種自動自發的情感，記得胡菊人談過他少時的經驗，一，提起國家或國旗時，便覺得全身沸騰，感覺到國家的崇高偉大的存在及國民的責任，我相信很多人也會如此。
我覺得我國非常可愛，我愛那錦繡的山河，壯麗的江山，遼闊的領土，更愛我們勤儉樸實廣大的人民，他們幾千年來，在如畫的江山裡，創造出偉大的文化，延續著整個民族的生命，在大地上，孕育著我們的祖先，他們說著汁【原文如是】，辛勞著，創造著，歡笑著。
國家有四個要素，一是人民，二是土地，三是政府，四是主權，而國家的目的是追求人民的利益，保障領土，而國家之工具便是政府，政府是以給予人民幸福，護衛領土，延續整個國家的生命，政府一旦脫離人民幸福，便應該予以改革，以重新適應廣大人民的需要，否則，人民只有起而革命，推翻政府。湯誓曰：「時日曷喪，予與汝偕之，」此種偕亡的決心是每一個政府應該考慮及注意的。
人民並不需要愛政府，當然人民需要服從一個好的，為人民的幸福的政府，但是人民有權推翻，有權反對，有權要求改革一個殘暴的政府，或是一個剝削的政府，政府只是一個工具，當這一個工具是不適宜或落後的時候，我們可以提出或採用另一個工具。
所以反對政府並不等於不愛國，更可能反對政府就是愛國。總之，誰站在人民那邊，為廣大的人民請願，為廣大人民的幸福而奮鬥，他就是為這整個民族，人民的延續及生存而奮鬥，他就是愛國。反之，離開群眾，離開人民，一味獨斷獨行，強將自己的意志作為人民的意志，他就是叛國。
一個領袖或一個政府不是一個國家的必然條件，他們只是工具，而不是目的，假使他們真正為人民服務，他們便會被人民載量，反之則與人民為敵，自沒有很好的下場：人民的眼睛是雪亮的，不易永遠受騙的。
***
1967年7月13日
頁二
山美：話說夠了！
日來左派暴徒所施的恐怖手段，已遠遠的超過了市民所能容忍的限度。假若這些殘暴行為不能盡快被制止，行兇歹徒仍然逍遙法外，那香港居民的性命、財產，還有什麼保障？
眼看左派發動了「大罷工」 「罷市」 「文鬥」 「武鬥」，我們還是在像局外人般大發空言，在批評，推測，觀望，或切齒，或痛心。這種態度並不是應付暴力的方法。
中國人的弱點是有著「各家自掃門前雪」的錯誤觀念。在恐怖事件中死難及受傷的警務人員及正義工友，都是為了廣大市民的利益，而盡忠職守的。難道我們市民卻自私的不肯盡一分力嗎？難道我們無能到只能哀悼他們的死亡？我們所有的只是同情的熱淚與痛心的嘆息？
目前我們需要的並不是舉辦什麼追悼會，而是以實際的行動接受瘋子的挑戰！
我們每個人都感激警察，消防員，救護人員們在暴亂中的表現和貢獻，但不要只是感激，讚賞，要明白，他們也是血肉之軀。長時間的精神上與體力上的負擔，是一種磨折。疲勞與體弱都予以歹徒們可乘之機。
我們精神飽滿，慷慨英雄，輔助警察，後備消防員，民安隊，香港軍團與及各機構如郵政局等的公務人員的職位，正需要我們去參加；維護社會安寧的責任，正需要我們分擔。
香港的興亡，我們都有責任。
「暴動」意見調查結果
直至截稿時，學生會已收回五百二十四份「暴動」意見調查表。港大學生中同情暴動者二十九人（其中十三人同時憎惡暴動）；完全支持暴動者五人；憎惡暴動者四百三十七人（其中十三人同時同情暴動）；對暴動不感興趣者五十三人。
***
1967年7月13日
頁二
河濤：港大學生鬥委會置疑
聞說，香港大學最近有愛國學生組織鬥委會，反對港英迫害，申斥奴化教育，提倡三視運動等，其真實性雖未被證實，不過左派報章屢有登在鬥委會之消息，言之鑿鑿，似亦未必虛構，或許港大有三五自以為自覺之學生，欲發起一些翻雲覆雨的運動亦未可知，不過筆者到有幾點問題，希望鬥委會人士注意：
第一、鬥委會有多少會員？根據港大學生議會憲章，一個學生團體之能稱為「會」，起碼要有會員四十人，現在都委會人數不得而知，其名不見與學生議會會社名單，故此港大學生鬥委會之存在實值得懷疑；又港大學生鬥委會所發表之文章，對港大一切可謂仇視至極，又勸人不可貪圖學位等等，驟看去一派清高之言，筆者到要問一下港大同學鬥委會諸君，閣下入港大至目的，難道只是為宣傳革命而已？鬥委會諸君會不停口說毛澤東思想；但若要他們現在回大陸去，從頭毛主席的懷抱，筆者懷疑諸君中有多少人願意。
第二、鬥委會諸君往往為港大各方面做事不夠光明磊落，讓人名不正，言不順，這個所謂港大同學鬥委會，會員多少不得而知，誰是主席，誰是秘書，亦屬罔聞；以一個這樣見不得光的組織，在報紙上亂罵，真是沒有什麼意思，至於主席一名，並非資產階級的標誌，共產國際有偉大的毛主席，而國人目之為心中的紅太陽，又古語有云：「蛇無頭不行。」若然港大同學鬥委會沒有主席，個個平等，那麼會員便是烏合之眾而已，烏合之眾有什麼力量？況且，筆者亦很懷疑港大同學鬥委會有沒有會員。
最後，港大鬥委會之會址，亦不得而知，縱有熱心愛國的港大學生欲加入，亦恐有不得其門而入之嘆。總之，這個所謂港大愛國學生反對港英迫害鬥爭委員會的一切，都是一個疑問，行動鬼祟，卻仍要處處說，他人不夠光明磊落，所謂「有諸己然後求諸人」，現在其身不正，還鬥什麼？
***
1967年7月13日
頁二
丁七：奇文共賞
近日，很多同學收到不敢署名的怪信。信是用普通的粗劣紙張和字體做就的，大概作者不敢讓人知道他是誰，怕得要死的緣故。我很同情。這些人那種「怕得要死」的勇氣，所以義務的替他們抄出其中的幾段。
「一群香港大學同學」這樣寫： 「香港大多數中學都是一貫執行香港殖民地主義教育，無論身心方面，對學生都進行麻醉和摧殘。方法可分：一、考試枷鎖——宣揚分數掛帥，古曲名利競爭，使同學或則養成眼光短小的自大狂。在考試、測驗、問書的重重危險下，同學們都……對祖國毫不關心…… (下略)四、奴化教育——學校當局長期以來一種種方法（包括退學，記過，當眾斥責等），樹立起校長的無上權威，使學生對她不敢正視，在她面前，不敢大聲說話，使同學有理不敢伸，養成一種妥協畏縮的奴才性格。」
相信這群廣大學生正如他們所說「眼光短小」得很。據我所知，英國以及一般進步國家，都是以分數為升級標準，但在「重重威脅」之下，沒聽說過，他們對自己的「祖國」毫不關心。所以說，香港學生都因要考試，而對國家不關心，是無稽的理論。
他們又說，香港的教育制度是「奴化教育」，我們願意給他們看看真正的奴化教育是怎樣的——
政府當局長期以來以種種方法（包括下放，思想批判，以及最近的遊街，等等）樹立起主席無上權威。凡不以主席為心中紅太陽的，凡說主席半個不對的，凡不讀主席語錄的，悉數當成走狗，漢奸視之。使同胞有理不敢伸，養成一種妥協畏縮的奴才性格。
這群港大同學又以為：「他們沒有認識自己是中國人，認識自己國家的自由。」這也是非常可笑的話。誰也不能制止他們去照鏡，看看自己是不是中國人。誰也沒有宣傳英國是香港同胞的祖國。任何一個人稍微看一下大公文匯報，便知毛主席是誰了，為什麼會沒有人認識國家的自由？
我還再從這群學生的口中，知道英籍職員的月薪「最起碼」也有「三千元左右」，這個笑話，我未聽說過。寫這些東西的人大概要看一下香港年鑑了。
據說什麼都不用知道的人，只要會喊幾句口號，變成了前進醒覺分子，這群「港大同學」大概也是這種醒覺分子吧！
No comments:
Post a Comment