[文章推薦] 梁啟智：劉曉波獲諾貝爾和平獎－－致在港內地留學生

歡迎同學留下你們的政治宣言。吳老師

你們好！我是一位在香港的大學工作的教職員，今天想和各位談談劉曉波獲諾貝爾和平獎的事。雖然我在香港的報章上有我的專欄，但我想在這兒和各位分享會更為直接。我要談的事情，借梁文道的說法，本來其實都是常識。只是在特定的社會環境之下，這些常識變得需要刻意說清。

昨天晚上我和學生上課，課程的題目是「中國公共政策和區域發展」。我有一個習慣，就是上課前和學生談談近來的中國新聞。學術論文的討論通常都有數年的滯後，總得和最新的情況相呼應，這天就有學生選了劉曉波獲獎為討論題目。相對於城鄉差異、區域失衡等的題目，在課堂上花時間談民主運動也是好事。畢竟，課堂的意義在於擴闊我們的視野，無論談任何題目也是殊途同歸。

我很少會在課堂上談我自己的立場，因為我更想鼓勵同學們談自己的意見。不過這次我破了例，談了不少個人觀感。或者我在這兒再補充一下。

我發現在不少中國政治的討論當中，都存在各式各樣的陰謀論。我常常提醒學生要當心這些陰謀論，因為它們在學術上是懶惰的：它們趨向把那些我們情感上難以接受的事物，給予一些無需驗證的解釋。這對客觀地理解事物無助，不該是學者所為；而我認為，當我們踏進教室，我們每一個人都該以學者為我們的第一身份。

在劉曉波獲諾貝爾和平獎這件事上，我就聽到不少的陰謀論，說諾貝爾和平獎成為了西方霸權的政治工具，旨在詆毀中國，為不明白中國實際情況的人製造攻擊中國的機會。站在此立場上，劉曉波獲獎並不值得中國人高興，更該予以譴責。

讓我們以一個學者的目光審視上述的觀點。首先，這屆的諾貝爾和平獎有沒有被利用為政治工具呢？回顧歷史，每一屆的諾貝爾和平獎都是政治工具，並非本屆獨有。九零年頒獎給戈巴契夫，九三像頒獎給曼特拉，二千年頒獎給金大中，零七年頒獎給戈爾，每一次都是諾貝爾委員會作政治宣言。事實上，無論是上述的任何一人，獲獎時在當地都引起過爭議。然而就我的理解，從來沒有在國內聽說過因為頒了給戈巴契夫、曼特拉、金大中或戈爾，於是「和平獎變成了政治工具」，所以需要聲討。

宏觀點說，世上無事不是「政治工具」。今天我在這兒說話，這文章就是政治宣言；如果你選擇在下面回應，你的留言也會是政治宣言。套用女性主義者的說法：個人的就是政治的。當有人用「別把XXX政治化」來批評別人時，其實他忘了這句話本身就是政治。換句話說，那些批評劉曉波獲獎是一個陰謀的人，也可以被理解為在散播另一種的陰謀論；從邏輯上看，他們自己倒毀了自己的公信。

要評論劉曉波獲獎是否合適，無需理會背後有什麼陰謀或政治意圖，而只需看其理據是否充分。如果理據充分的話，我們不能怪別人，只可以怪自己為什麼製造了這樣的一個機會，讓那些「陰謀或政治意圖」能夠「得逞」。

劉曉波獲獎的理據是什麼？據諾貝爾委員會的介紹，是表揚他多年來為中國基本人權的非暴力奮鬥。委員會特別提到，劉曉波參與八九天安門抗議，和身為《零八憲章》的執筆人。

中國的人權有沒有問題？當然我們不容否定，在過去的數十年來，中國的人權狀況有明顯的改善。但就劉曉波一人的遭遇來說，我們看到中國的人權狀況仍然有巨大的缺憾。

劉曉波於零九年因煽動顛覆國家政權罪被判有期徒刑11年，原因是他發表了多篇批評一黨專政的文章。任何的以言入罪，都是對人權的踐踏。莫論他的立場是否正確，他的主張是否合適中國國情，任何人也不該被以言入罪，這是現代法治國家最基本的要求。就算他鼓吹所有中國人都該把頭髮染成藍色也好，你可以不同意他的立場，但這不等於他沒有權利這樣說。畢境，他說話的權利，在共和國憲法當中寫得清清楚楚。

事實上，劉曉波的主張也不見得和共產黨的主張有很大距離。他提出的「聯邦共和國」，在中國共產黨的「二大」中就有，「七大」的黨綱又重申了一篇。別說那麼遠，總理溫家寶一週前接受美國記者訪問，同樣提到言論自由和政治體制改革的重要。

劉曉波寫文章會使得中國動亂起來，破壞中國的社會和諧嗎？如果寫寫文章就足以挑起社會情緒，那麼這個社會本身一定已經累積了許多無處宣洩的怨忿。若果我們批評基於這些怨忿寫文章的人，而不去批評那些製造這些怨忿的始作俑者，是否本末倒置了？真正破壞中國社會和諧的，不是劉曉波，而是各種不公義的社會制度。

如果我們認同中國的人權有迫切需要改善，而劉曉波又是一個以非暴力手段提倡改善中國人權的人，那麼他獲得諾貝爾和平獎就是一件值得慶賀的事情。劉曉波獲獎，可以鼓勵更多人關心中國的人權發展，這對中國老百姓的褔祉來說，當然是一件好事。

在完結前，我想順帶提一提某種我自己也經歷過的留學生心態：在國內的時候，看見中國的種種體制問題，往往都會不留情面的破口大罵；在外面的時候，看見別人批評中國的情況，卻又反過來感到要立即為中國辯護。這種心態，或者是人之常情，卻很不要得。別人批評中國政治，不等於批評你，不需要覺得情感受傷。不卑不亢，實事求是就可以了。

得承認，許多批評中國現況的人，其實都不太瞭解中國的實際情況。然而話說回來，我們自己又瞭解中國的實際情況嗎？中國幅員如此遼闊，國內的信息流通又有限制，我們除了自身成長的環境之外，其他的可能往往都只有道聽塗說。如果我在江蘇長大，我對農村發展的想法就會和一位在甘肅長大的同學的很不一樣。所以，當我們聽到一些好像是要「詆毀中國」的言詞時，先不要忙回應。如果事情不屬實，那當然是「詆毀」；但如果事情屬實，則其實是個外國友人的善意提醒，根本沒有必要感到氣憤難平。要弄清事實，我們需要多聽多看。批評劉曉波獲獎前，何不先看看劉曉波其實寫了些什麼？在香港，你在網上要看什麼都可以，請不要浪費這個機會。

中國早晚都會成為一個超級大國，問題是中國要成為一個怎麼樣的超級大國。既為留學生，很應該作好榜樣，以理服人，才能受世人敬重。

網址：http://commentshk.blogspot.com/2010/10/blog-post_2885.html

Appendix：English translation by Alice Poon

Political or Not Political

A lecturer at one of Hong Kong’s universities wrote an open letter to his students who are from the mainland, expressing his views on some mainlanders’ reaction to Liu Xiao Bo being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here is my translation of the letter (slightly abridged):-

“I have come across some conspiracy theories about the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Liu Xiao Bo. Generally, it’s about the Prize being used by Western hegemonists as a political tool, with the aim of denigrating China and creating an opportunity for those with limited knowledge about it to mount attacks. In this respect, Chinese people should not rejoice over Liu’s award; they should, instead, condemn it.

Let us scrutinize the above view from the standpoint of a scholar. First, has this year’s Nobel Peace Prize been used as a political tool? Looking at past history, every year’s Nobel Peace Prize has functioned as a political tool, not only this year’s. The 1990 award to Gorbachev, the 1993 award to Mandela, the 2000 award to Kim Dai-jung, the 2007 award to Al Gore. In every instance, the Nobel Prize committee was making a political statement. In fact, as much as these winners did stir up some controversy at home, yet as far as I know, there has never been any talk in the mainland that because these people won the award, the Prize became a political tool and as such it should be condemned.

On a more macro level, nothing in this world is not political. Today when I speak here, this article is a political statement. When you choose to leave a comment below, your comment is also a political statement. Using feminists’ terminology, ‘anything personal is political’. When someone criticizes somebody else for ‘politicizing something’, he is actually forgetting that his own statement itself is political. In other words, those who degrade Liu’s winning the award to some kind of conspiracy can be regarded as perpetrating another kind of conspiracy. From a logical point of view, they have in fact destroyed their own credibility in the process.

In order to determine whether it is appropriate to award the Prize to Liu, there is no need to be bothered with whether there is any political background or conspiracy. We only need to be concerned with whether there is solid ground for the act. If there is solid ground, then we cannot blame others; we can only blame ourselves for affording an opportunity to those ‘conspirators or people with political intent’ to have the upper hand.

So, what is the ground for giving Liu the prize? According to the Nobel Prize committee, the award is to commend him for his years of efforts of fighting for China’s basic human rights in non-violent ways, highlighting his involvement in the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations and his capacity as the writer of the ’08 Charter’.

Is there a problem with China’s human rights conditions? Of course we cannot deny that in the past few decades, there has been obvious improvement in this respect. But from the experience of Liu alone, we can perceive that there are still humongous defects.

Liu was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment on charges of inciting sedition because he wrote several articles criticizing one-party rule. Incarcerating anyone on account of what he says is a trampling on human rights. Regardless of whether one’s stand is right or wrong or whether one’s suggestions are suitable for China’s situation, one should never be put into prison because of one’s words. This is the most basic requirement of a modern state that is governed by rule of law. If one advocates that all Chinese people dye their hair blue, you can disagree with him, but it doesn’t mean he has no right to speak thus. After all, his right of freedom of speech is stipulated clearly in the Constitution.

Can Liu’s writings really cause disharmony in society? If writing a few articles can stir up emotions in society, then this society must have already accumulated grievances that have failed to find outlets. If we put the blame on those who write about the grievances but not on those who brought about those grievances in the first place, are we not confusing cause with effect? What truly causes disharmony in China is not Liu Xiao Bo but all kinds of unjust social systems.

If we agree that China’s human rights conditions are in urgent need of improvement, and that Liu is someone who advocates non-violent means of bettering those conditions, then his winning the Nobel Peace Prize is something worthy of jubilation. His award can encourage more people to care about human rights in China, and this is certainly a good thing for Chinese folks.

Whenever we hear something that seems to be ‘smearing China’, we should not rush to respond. If that something is not based on facts, then of course it is a smearing remark. But if it is based on facts, then it is merely a friendly hint from our foreign friends. There is no call for feeling angry about it. If we want to know the facts, we must read more and listen more. Before criticizing Liu winning the award, why don’t we read more of what he wrote? In Hong Kong, you can access anything on the internet. So, please don’t waste this opportunity.

Sooner or later China will become a superpower. The question is: what kind of a superpower does it want to become? You, as mainland students in Hong Kong, should behave as role models and seek to persuade people in a rational manner. This way, you gain respect of the world.”