霸權主義 恃機凌人

霸權主義 恃機凌人



最新型的 B-52H 空中堡壘美國現存 95架，中國設立防空識別區，美國就高調派了兩架飛來，並且來回飛航兜了幾圈。



B-52 Stratofortress Bomber 的研發過程


B-52 同溫層空中堡壘戰略轟炸機 Stratofortress Bomber，是美國為了對抗當年蘇俄而建造的轟炸機，美蘇兩國爭霸三十多年冷戰二十多年，美國靠借去維持軍力，國債升至十七萬億（Ceiling 永遠可以不斷加），國債債台高築美國在所不計，但也同時拖垮了蘇聯。


蘇聯解體後的剩下俄國，俄國國內重新執過位，沒時間與美國全球性紏纏，剛巧中國在亞洲崛起，美國就把中國妖魔化，成為美軍敵對假想敵，美國繼續 舉債 維持超級軍力做惡霸，更把爭霸焦點轉到來東亞。

八個引擎的 B-52 戰略轟炸機


【維基百科】The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is a long-range, subsonic, jet-powered strategic bomber. The B-52 was designed and built by Boeing, which has continued to provide support and upgrades. It has been operated by the United States Air Force (USAF) since the 1950s. The bomber is capable of carrying up to 70,000 pounds (32,000 kg) of weapons.

Beginning with the successful contract bid in June 1946, the B-52 design evolved from a straight-wing aircraft powered by six turboprop engines to the final prototype YB-52 with eight turbojet engines and swept wings. The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952. Built to carry nuclear weapons for Cold War-era deterrence missions, the B-52 Stratofortress replaced the Convair B-36. A veteran of several wars, the B-52 has dropped only conventional munitions in combat. The B-52's official name Stratofortress is rarely used in informal circumstances, and it has become common to refer to the aircraft as the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker).

可以在五萬呎高空狂轟猛炸快過疴蛋 B-52 的炸彈如雨下作地氈式轟炸


【維基百科】The B-52 has been in active service with the USAF since 1955. As of 2012, 85 were in active service with nine in reserve. The bombers flew under the Strategic Air Command (SAC) until it was inactivated in 1992 and its aircraft absorbed into the Air Combat Command (ACC); in 2010 all B-52 Stratofortresses were transferred from the ACC to the new Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC).

Superior performance at high subsonic speeds and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in service despite the advent of later aircraft, including the canceled Mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie, the variable-geometry B-1 Lancer, and the stealth B-2 Spirit. The B-52 completed fifty years of continuous service with its original operator in 2005; after being upgraded between 2013 and 2015, it is expected to serve into the 2040s.

空中加油加強續航力


【維基百科】The B-52 shared many technological similarities with the preceding Boeing B-47 Stratojet strategic bomber. The two aircraft utilized the same basic design, such as swept wings and podded jet engines, and the cabin included the crew ejection systems. On the B-52D, the pilots and electronic countermeasures (EDM) operator ejected upwards, while the lower deck crew ejected downwards; until the B-52G, the gunner had to jettison the tail gun to bail-out.

The ability to carry up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear missiles was added to G and H models, starting in 1971. To further improve the B-52's offensive ability, air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) were fitted.

After testing of both the air force-backed Boeing AGM-86 and the navy-backed General Dynamics AGM-109 Tomahawk, the AGM-86B was selected for operation by the B-52 (and ultimately by the B-1 Lancer). A total of 194 B-52Gs and Hs were modified to carry AGM-86s, carrying 12 missiles on underwing pylons, with 82 B-52Hs further modified to carry another eight missiles on a rotary launcher fitted in the aircraft's bomb-bay.

To conform with SALT II Treaty requirements that cruise missile-capable aircraft be readily identifiable by reconnaissance satellites, the cruise missile armed B-52Gs were modified with a distinctive wing root fairing. As all B-52Hs were assumed modified, no visual modification of these aircraft was required.

In 1990, the stealthy AGM-129 ACM cruise missile entered service; although intended to replace the AGM-86, a high cost and the Cold War's end led to only 450 being produced; unlike the AGM-86, no conventional (non-nuclear) version was built. The B-52 was to have been modified to utilize Northrop Grumman's AGM-137 TSSAM weapon; however, the missile was canceled due to development costs.

Show off 演嘢


【維基百科】Those B-52Gs not converted as cruise missile carriers underwent a series of modifications to improve conventional bombing. They were fitted with a new Integrated Conventional Stores Management System (ICSMS) and new underwing pylons that could hold larger bombs or other stores than could the external pylons. Thirty B-52s were further modified to carry up to 12 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles each, while 12 B-52Gs were fitted to carry the AGM-142 Have Nap stand-off air-to-ground missile.[97] When the B-52G was retired in 1994, an urgent scheme was launched to restore an interim Harpoon and Have Nap capability, the four aircraft being modified to carry Harpoon and four to carry Have Nap under the Rapid Eight program.

The Conventional Enhancement Modification (CEM) program gave the B-52H a more comprehensive conventional weapons capability, adding the modified underwing weapon pylons used by conventional-armed B-52Gs, Harpoon and Have Nap, and the capability to carry new-generation weapons including the Joint Direct Attack Munition and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser guided bombs, the AGM-154 glide bomb and the AGM-158 JASSM missile. The CEM program also introduced new radios, integrated Global Positioning System into the aircraft's navigation system and replaced the under-nose FLIR with a more modern unit. Forty-seven B-52Hs were modified under the CEM program by 1996, with 19 more by the end of 1999.

B-52 經改裝後機腹內可以攜帶新的一代武器 智能炸彈 巡航導彈


【維基百科】Starting in 2016, Boeing is to upgrade the internal rotatory launchers to the MIL-STD-1760 interface to enable the internal carriage of smart bombs, which can currently only be carried on the wings.

For a study for the U.S. Air Force in the mid-1970s, Boeing investigated replacing the engines, changing to a new wing, and other improvements to upgrade B-52G/H aircraft as an alternative to the B-1A, then in development. Boeing later suggested re-engining the B-52H fleet with the Rolls-Royce RB211 535E-4.

This would involve replacing the eight Pratt & Whitney TF33s (total thrust 8 × 17,000 lb) with four RB211s (total thrust 4 × 37,400 lb)— which would increase range and reduce fuel consumption, at a cost of approximately US$2.56 billion for the whole fleet (71 aircraft at $36 million each).

A Government Accountability Office study concluded that Boeing's estimated savings of US$4.7 billion would not be realized and that it would cost US$1.3 billion over keeping the existing engines; citing significant up-front procurement and re-tooling expenditure, and the RB211's higher maintenance cost. The GAO report was subsequently disputed in a Defense Sciences Board report in 2003; the Air Force was urged to re-engine the aircraft without delay.

舊款的 B-52 機隊停放在 阿里桑拿州的露天停機坪


【維基百科】Further, the DSB report stated the program would have significant savings, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase aircraft range and endurance; in line with the conclusions of a separate Congress-funded study conducted in 2003. The re-engining has not been approved as of 2013.



B-52 與 隱形戰機 B-1 共飛都毫不輸蝕



其實多年來 B-52 不斷改進計有：X/YB-52，B-52A，B-52B，B-52C，B-52D，B-52E，B-52F，B-52G，和 B-52H 等等不同型號。



最新款的 B-52H


【維基百科】The B-52H had the same crew and structural changes as the B-52G. The most significant upgrade was the switch to TF33-P-3 turbofan engines which, despite the initial reliability problems (corrected by 1964 under the Hot Fan program), offered considerably better performance and fuel economy than the J57 turbojets.

The ECM and avionics were updated, a new fire control system was fitted, and the rear defensive armament was changed from machine guns to a 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon (later removed in 1991–94). A provision was made for four GAM-87 Skybolt ballistic missiles. The aircraft's first flight occurred on 10 July 1960, and it entered service on 9 May 1961. This is the only variant still operational. A total of 744 B-52s were built. The last production aircraft, B-52H AF Serial No. 61-0040, left the factory on 26 October 1962.

General characteristics

Crew: 5 (pilot, copilot, radar navigator (bombardier), navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer)
Length: 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m)
Wingspan: 185 ft 0 in (56.4 m)
Height: 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m)
Wing area: 4,000 sq ft (370 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 63A219.3 mod root, NACA 65A209.5 tip
Empty weight: 185,000 lb (83,250 kg)
Loaded weight: 265,000 lb (120,000 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 488,000 lb (220,000 kg)
Powerplant: 8 × Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofans, 17,000 lbf (76 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 47,975 U.S. gal (39,948 imp gal; 181,610 L)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0119 (estimated)
Drag area: 47.60 sq ft (4.42 m²)

B-52 戰略轟炸機 H-型號



Maximum speed: 560 kt (650 mph, 1,047 km/h)
Cruise speed: 442 kt (525 mph, 844 km/h)
Combat radius: 4,480 mi (3,890 nmi, 7,210 km)
Ferry range: 10,145 mi(8,764 nmi, 16,232 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 6,270 ft/min (31.85 m/s)
Wing loading: 120 lb/ft² (586 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.31
Lift-to-drag ratio: 21.5

Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan cannon originally mounted in a remote controlled tail turret on the H-model, removed from all current operational aircraft in 1991

Bombs: Approximately 70,000 lb (31,500 kg) mixed ordnance; bombs, mines, missiles, in various configurations.



美國本土的飛機發燒友拍到的 B-52H


【維基百科】B-52H 現存 95架的最新型，結構與組員組成與 B-52G相同，但將 J-57更換為 TF-33渦扇引擎，新的引擎不但可以提供更大的推力，並且較 J-57更為省油。是故換裝新引擎的 B-52H航程加大15%。


另外加配防電戰系統和自衞防禦系統，還有衞星連結能力可以攜帶幾乎所有美軍彈械，2006年通過驗證可以使用合成燃油減低燃料成本，此為全球軍機首創。


The only active operational model of the B-52 is the B-52H. It is currently stationed at two USAF bases, flown by three wings:


2d Bomb Wing - Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
11th Bomb Squadron (B-52H, Tail Code: LA, Gold Tail Stripe)
20th Bomb Squadron (B-52H, Tail Code: LA, Blue Tail Stripe)
96th Bomb Squadron (B-52H, Tail Code: LA, Red Tail Stripe)


5th Bomb Wing - Minot AFB, North Dakota **
23d Bomb Squadron (B-52H, Tail Code: MT, Red Tail Stripe)
69th Bomb Squadron (B-52H, Tail Code: MT, Black Tail Stripe)


307th Bomb Wing (AFRES) - Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
93d Bomb Squadron (B-52H, Tail Code: BD, Blue/Gold Chex Tail Stripe)）
343d Bomb Squadron


**
2004年美空軍第 5轟炸聯隊的首批 B－52轟炸機，從北達科塔州前移至，位于日本關島的安德森空軍基地。第 5空軍轟炸聯隊指揮官稱，將有 6架 B－52H 轟炸機和大約 300名空軍官兵被派駐安德森空軍基地，每 3個月後輪換（嗜悲 加註：在關島還有 B-2 隱形轟炸機）。


2013年中國訂立東海防空識別區，其實日本早於 44年前，也是從未曾諮詢中國，就經已單方面設立防空識別區，並伸延至離中國沿海海岸線僅僅 130海哩，日方今次卻惡人先告狀，說中國未經諮詢日方不予承認，至於一向偏袒日方的美國，就高調派出兩架 B-52H來華尋釁滋事。


日本政壇 安倍晉三 的自民黨，在十二月做了很多的大動作，直程就是挑戰中國的底線到底有幾低，見中國唔想打熱戰，就繼續更變本加厲刺激中國，無他為了撩仗打可以去得好盡。前些時的國有化釣魚台列島是陽謀，最近的計有：拉攏東盟圍堵中國（擴大中國威脅論），向在蘇丹的韓國維和部隊送子彈（突破禁止輸出武器），通過《特定秘密保護法》（以保密為由矇騙國民實行黑箱作業），安倍親自參拜靖國神社（明目張膽歌頌崇拜軍國主義）。。。。。美國作出小責罵卻實在是大幫忙，有誰保證和相信沒有美國在幕後擺佈，臨近歲末還漏出美國對台灣售武，輸出魚叉導彈專門針對中國航母！


2014年是清日甲午戰爭的 120週年，1894年（清光绪二十年，日本明治二十七年）清日在黃海爆發海戰，清北洋艦隊不堪一擊清朝戰敗。 120年後中日在東海的對峙，加上美國的刻意偏袒，2014年將會是凶險的一年 。。。。。。。。。解放軍以往打過的都是陸地上人海戰術，海面、海面上空、和海面底下的高級科技戰，只有理論沒有一丁點半點實戰經驗，若習近平等沉不著氣，或是壓不著鷹派解放軍求戰，大家等著朝 120年後亦終於難逃一敗再敗！



增記：

120年後的 2014年，美國這隻 ”無形之手“ 無時無刻 Unintentional to play a part 的幕後黑手，繼續在全球指指點點，如今更把第二次大戰發動太平洋戰爭的死敵，偷襲珍珠港的日本人擁抱，並推出來當爛頭卒，劍指當年的盟友中國。


《明報 12月 22日 社評》：安倍國防外交瞄準中國 幕後玩家美國若隱若現


【明報專訊】最近 10天（按 12月 22日計），日本首相安倍晉三在外交和國防兩條戰線動作頻仍，連串都是衝着中國而來，先是日本與東盟在東京舉行峰會，發表聯合聲明「確保飛行自由」，雖然聲明沒有提到中國最近的東海防空識別區，但針對中國已是不言而喻。

另一就是安倍內閣通過「國家安全保障戰略」，提出三個方向，包括加強與東盟及韓國、澳洲的戰略合作關係，以至有意修改一直是禁區的武器出口政策，做法兼具圍堵及備戰意味。

連串外交角力 美日東盟聯線
東海防空識別區在美日兩國多番表示不滿之下成立快一個月，至今客觀上既成事實，北京不可能收回，美日心裏也會作如是觀。下一個針鋒相對的戰場，是形勢更加複雜的南海，這裏有馬六甲海峽，是日本和韓國的海上生命線，附近一帶更是美國自從二戰以來70年的禁臠，以美國的說法是「保障航行安全」。美國副總統拜登早前訪華，長時間的會談，重點在於表達美國不欲中國在南海也有類似的防空識別區。

若是人們把這一連串外交角力接連來看，便很清楚看出之間有着極其緊密的聯繫<-->美國呼籲中國不要在南海空域設識別區，日本與南海之內的東盟發表確保飛行自由的聲明，之後是日本國家安全保障戰略把目標放在東盟<-->日本的動作隨着美國指揮棒變化調整，予人互相配合的觀感：美國身影若隱若現，既要牽制中國，但又不欲令中國感到美國在為日本撐腰，這種掩耳盜鈴做法不見得高明，尤其是在日本的野心愈來愈大的當下。

儘管有說東盟在峰會上只答應發表沒有提到中國的確保飛行自由聲明，有着不欲事情鬧大至組成日本<-->東盟聯盟對付中國的潛台詞，這種說法其實未必盡然。東盟 1960年代成立時就是冷戰包夾中國及蘇聯的產物，美國對東盟的影響力從未消減，東盟不願公開點中國的名，只是冀圖兩邊得利。

但客觀闡明他們仍然願意站在美國和日本的保護傘底下，菲律賓人質事件至今天菲方仍未願意正式道歉，若是說中間沒有美國撐腰對付中國的因素，恐怕難以說得通。東盟其他一些國家本來就與中國有南海主權糾紛如越南，也是因着同樣原因到東京參加峰會。

日本要組建東盟統一戰線，就必須有所表示，這在安倍內閣的國家安全保障戰略可以看到。這份3個部分的戰略大綱，除了日本建構奪島部隊以及斥巨資購買更多美國軍事裝備，其中有一條是日本可能修改以往禁止輸出武器的3原則。這一點是整份大綱的核心。

這是日本遵守超過 40年的原則，1967年，時任首相佐藤榮作提出武器出口的「三不」：不向共產國家出口、不向被聯合國禁運武器國家出口、不向發生國際爭端或可能發生國際爭端的國家出口。前兩條已無甚意義，在第三條，菲律賓和越南都適用，事實上目前也是這兩個國家在南海主權糾紛上與中國齟齬最多，日本一旦武器出口、而且若是去這兩個國家，就必須如大綱所說那樣要「修改3原則」了。

修改武器出口原則 日本利誘東盟諸國
對外國出售武器絕對不是單單是一盤生意而是深遠的戰略考慮，即從表面來說，是把購武國視為盟友而非敵人。日本的電子科技精良，美國導彈系統不乏日本元件。

再說，日本海上軍力有其長久傳統，軍事專家把日本海上自衛隊實力列為僅次於美國的世界第二強，其獵潛實力更是世界之冠，爭逐南海，不論中美日抑或菲越等國，都把提升海上軍力視為頭號大事，若日本可以出售軍艦等設施，美<-->日<-->東盟的關係就會更呈緊密，換言之，共同抗中的實力會有所增強。安倍內閣的計算極可能是以精良的軍事產品，換來同盟關係。

中日之間的關係已然進入磨拳擦掌的狀態，遠比當年參拜靖國神社的小泉純一郎年代緊張。從目前的情况來看，中日不可能在中短期內修好，就是安倍晉三下台，新任首相也不可能一下子扭轉局面。

中國對兩國關係好轉所抱的期許正在高速收縮，儘管戰爭全面爆發的可能此刻仍不算太高，然而 1980年代中日友好時期「日中不再戰」的善頌善禱已無大意義，尤其這不僅是中日紛爭，更重要的是，美國的黑影正把這種關係推向難以修補的地步。



中國若戰必受美日東盟三方夾擊，俄國必將效法韓戰越戰時蘇聯趁機攞著數，然而中國怎去平復國內主戰的軍方鷹派，和另一方面也要向國民交代，改革開放多年的成果，會否在 2014年一鋪清袋，看看中國人的彩數矣！




後記：


美國國防部長訪華，被邀請上 ”遼寧艦“後，再在北京被 習總 以柔制剛罵了一頓後。


美军驻冲绳最高司令官兼第三海军远征军司令惠斯勒：美军不用登陆就可消灭登钓鱼岛解放军


【新浪網】美军驻冲绳最高司令官兼第三海军远征军司令惠斯勒表示，假如中国军队武装“占领了钓鱼岛”的话，美国海军陆战队甚至不用登岛，就有充分的能力夺回岛屿。这是美军高级司令官首次在公开场合表明美军将会在中国军队攻占尖阁列岛之后，会采取直接介入的军事行动，帮助日本夺回这一岛屿。

这是惠斯勒司令官在11日于华盛顿举行的记者恳谈会上作出上述表示的。他说：“如果(美国政府)下达夺回尖阁列岛命令的话，我们将能迅速执行这一任务。”他同时指出：“钓鱼岛是由一群极其狭小的的岛屿组成，也许不需要派兵员登陆就可以扫除威胁。”表明不需要派出海军陆战队，只需要从海空实施攻击，就可以消灭中国军队。

惠斯勒司令官还表示，虽然日中双方都已经表现出了自制，但是现场发生判断错误引发武装冲突的可能性依然存在。

针对日本组建水陆机动团问题，惠斯勒司令官表示欢迎。他说，这不仅有利于在整个亚太地区的救灾作战，也会成为美国海军陆战队的强大的伙伴。


解放軍 中将批狂妄美军：我军若把钓鱼岛当靶场请有准备


【新浪網】近日，美军驻冲绳司令兼海军陆战队第三远征军司令威斯勒声称，“如果接到命令夺回钓鱼岛，我们能拿下吗？当然可以。

并且不需要登岛，只需海空进攻的方式即可消除威胁”。美军太平洋总部一个驻地区的指挥官如此越权发声、口出狂言，明确以中国人民解放军为敌，是近些年所没有的。美军驻冲绳司令的战争恐吓，是想吓住中国人民、政府和军队吗？期望值恐怕是高了。

与威斯勒同级别的我军指挥员，鉴于我军外事纪律，不便于直接回应威斯勒的挑衅言论。笔者作为一个已经退出指挥岗位的原战区指挥官，想对威斯勒表明以下态度：

第一，常万全部长在与贵国哈格尔防长的联合记者会中说，中国军队肩负着维护国家主权、安全和领土完整的使命，做好了应对各种威胁和挑战的准备，只要党和人民需要，就能召之即来，来之能战，战之必胜。所以，不论你如何叫嚣，在钓鱼岛问题上我国的政策方向不会变，我军作战方向和任务也不会变。

第二，钓鱼岛当面是我华东地区，在国防安全上由我南京战区管辖。在东海上与贵部“管辖”范围重叠。钓鱼岛距我岸不足 400千米，在军事地理上属于近海范畴。笔者可以负责任地告诉你，仅凭我战区武装力量，管控钓鱼岛还是绰绰有余的，我区战役火力能够覆盖钓鱼岛海域和空域。作为军人，我们都知道“护航”这个军语，过去的兵力护航，现在已经发展到火力护航。所以不要威胁在我钓鱼岛海域、空域执行任务的公务船、公务机。否则自身安全也会受到威胁。提醒你在动武前，好好研究一下兵力对比和战场环境，再搞一下兵棋推演或计算机仿真，看看胜算几何？否则可能收不了场。

第三，据说钓鱼岛曾作过驻日美军的航空兵靶场。我区航空兵和其他远射火力兵种，在这个距离上正好也缺这样的一个靶场。好处是我战区三军部署不需要前推，在原地只要调整射向，修订一下射击诸元和发射参数，即可使用。哪天我军宣布钓鱼岛为我战区靶场，你要有心理准备。

第四，请你明白，我军熟悉钓鱼岛的军事地理环境，如果成为战场，守军是没有任何生存条件的。所以我军对钓鱼岛的行动，与贵军“无需派兵登岛，即可消除威胁”的做法所见略同，还请你将这一做法转告日方，请勿妄动。借此还要提醒一下将军，你的部队部署是否过于靠前了？如果要确保贵军的安全距离，建议你们退到第二岛链之外，那里暂时还是安全的。

最后还要说明一点，笔者作为曾经的战区指挥官，本应与你的上级 —— 太平洋总部指挥官对话。当下与你对话，是对你的尊敬。笔者当年曾与你的老上级 —— 参联会主席佩斯和太平洋总部司令基廷，就中美两军感兴趣的话题单独聊过，并留下美好记忆。请你向你的老上级学习，不要动辄以武力相威胁，请对曾经在抗美援朝战争中打败过贵军的中国军队放尊重些。还要建议你好好学习历史，对当年的太平洋战争和中国的抗日战争认真补课，搞明白日本军国主义是什么东西。


《为梦想领跑》 六分四十二秒鐘宣傳片




論口水戰中國十三億人口的口水，一定浸死只得三億多人口的美國。但這是沒用的，硬得起來的才是 “真有撚用”！！！



伸延閱覽：
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 同溫層堡壘轟炸機 維基百科
B-52 Stratofortress 同溫層堡壘轟炸機 基地和編隊 維基百科
黃海海戰 (1894年) 維基百科
台灣購入美軍魚叉反艦導彈 有線新聞
幕後玩家美國若隱若現 新浪新聞網
美军高官：美军不用登陆就可消灭登钓鱼岛解放军 新浪新聞網
解放軍中将批狂妄美军：我军若把钓鱼岛当靶场请有准备 新浪新聞網





我的舊文：
美國靠借延續霸權
霸權主義 11個航母戰闘群 耀武揚威
日本最新最大準航母 出雲號 下水
Unintentional to play a part

落難的王子

落難的王子



要詠出可供傳世的詩詞，南唐 李煜（李後主）前期是王孫公子，過的是食飽無憂米的歡樂日子，到後期去國歸降，哀怨中惶惶不可終日，除了必須要有天賦，再加上後天的環境，才有這一份意境 。。。。。無奈，李後主最終還是被宋太宗毒殺。


《清平樂》李煜

別 來 春 半，觸 目 柔 腸 斷。

砌 下 落 梅 如 雪 亂，

拂 了 一 身 還 滿。

雁 來 音 信 無 憑，

路 遙 歸 夢 難 成。

離 恨 恰 如 春 草，

更 行 更 遠 還 生。


【維基百科】李煜（937年－978年），或稱李後主，為南唐的末代君主（因為其父南唐中主李璟在位時，已向後周皇帝柴榮稱臣，去了帝號），祖籍徐州。李煜原名從嘉，字重光，號鐘山隱士、鍾峰隱者、白蓮居士、蓮峰居士等。




政治上毫無建樹的李煜在南唐滅亡後被北宋俘虜，在開封被封為違命侯，拜左千牛衛將軍。宋太祖暴死，弟弟趙光義繼位為宋太宗，改封隴國公。李煜最後因寫「故國不堪回首」，「一江春水向東流」等等之詞句，而被被宋太宗用牽機毒殺。


先再來一首 李煜李後主的詞


《搗練子令》李煜

深 院 靜，小 庭 空，

斷 續 寒 砧 斷 續 風。

無 奈 夜 長 人 不 寐，

數 聲 和 月 到 簾 櫳。



命運的逆轉，令南唐李後主 李煜 的創作，前中後期迥然不同，讓我想起 Oscar Wilde："Life imitates art far more than art imitates life." obviously in this context 李煜的命運反映在他的作品上。粵劇都有《李後主》 其中之 去國歸降 也有（任白的 版本）。


顯然是 "Art imitates Life." 那我應該沒有誤解了 王爾德 吧！？？？！！


本年度 十二月南非 孟德拉 去世，在 AM730 讀到一則關於：Mandela 文章


文：黃世澤 《推動種族平等的王子》


【AM730】有現代南非國父之稱的曼德拉，在2013年12月5日與世長辭。很多香港人透過Beyond的遺作《光輝歲月》，略知他為反對惡名昭彰的種族隔離政策而鬥爭的歷史。曼德拉傳奇際遇，既是殖民主義以及東西方冷戰所造成的悲劇，但沒有曼德拉過人的戰略和毅力，亦沒有今天的民主南非。


由王子走上抗爭之路
在歐洲人開拓非洲前，非洲有很多部落的王國，而曼德拉的祖父本來是其中一名「國王」，只不過，由於這些部落的土地都被歐洲人奪去，曼德拉並沒有享受王子所享有的榮華富貴。

1948年於南非，英裔人士為主的聯合黨(United Party)更考慮提出循序漸進放寬種族隔離政策，爭取不同種族的支持，但該善意主張，卻令聯合黨輸掉1948年的大選，以荷裔人士為主的再團結國民黨(Reunited National Party)贏得大選。

當時十分不安的荷裔人士不單未有放寬種族隔離政策，相反一上台便推出連串瘋狂立法，包括《禁止跨種族婚姻法》(The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act)、禁止跨種族戀愛的《背德法》(The immorality Act)、劃出禁止黑人居住地區的《集團地區法》(The Group Areas Act)、禁止黑白人混合使用公共設施的《隔離設施法》(The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act)，以及廢掉教會學校的《班圖人教育法》(The Bantu Education Act)。一堆瘋狂立法，導致黑人不得不投身抗爭行列。

雖然曼德拉因身為非洲人國民大會武裝組織「民族之矛」總司令一職，而被判終身監禁，但走上武裝之路並非他本人的原意。在五十年代，南非種族隔離政策變本加厲後，非洲人國民大會內部出現路線之爭，1959年，主張暴力抗爭的一派成立泛非洲人大會(Pan-African Congress)，誓言以武力鬥爭方式推翻南非政府。

當時曼德拉等人，仍主張以公民不合作運動來應對種族隔離政策。但南非國民黨政府似乎並不領情，仍大肆擴張警察等隊伍來鎮壓反對種族隔離政策的人。面對這樣野蠻的政府，曼德拉最終不得不調整策略，迫南非民選政府改變態度，成立民族之矛這武裝組織 。

決定改變策略後，曼德拉鑽研不少軍事戰略書籍，發現如果採取恐怖主義或革命方式與南非政府戰鬥的話，儘管非洲人國民大會最終或會取得勝利，但若要修補黑人與白人之間的裂痕就需要極大功夫。因此，他並無採納愛爾蘭共和軍等武裝組織採取的恐怖戰略，而是對關鍵經濟設施進行破壞，並指令武裝人員不得隨意殺傷他人。他想借連串破壞活動，癱瘓當時南非的出口，最終迫白人政府與非洲人國民大會談判。

曼德拉的戰略方向正確，但執行能力卻是另一回事。當時曼德拉的對手，並非只有南非的白人政府， 美國恐怕南非落入蘇聯手上，加上五、六十年代美國本身亦公然歧視黑人，南非和美國兩國可謂難兄難弟。因此，美國中央情報局派出臥底滲透非洲人國民大會，南非政府根據美國提供的情報去拘捕曼德拉。

然而，南非政府借拘捕曼德拉來瓦解非洲人國民大會領導的反抗運動這算盤亦打不響，八十年代南非多個城鎮發生騷亂，當時南非政府殘酷鎮壓的場面經電視傳入西方國家國民家中，促使不少西方國家國民要求對白人政府施壓聲浪越來越大。曼德拉的戰略，最終透過電視這工具來實踐。

冷戰結束：白人政府不得不讓步
雖然在中央情報局協助下，南非政府才得以拘捕曼德拉。但整個種族隔離政策的結束，也得力於美國的民間運動。
在南非大規模實施種族隔離政策後，在左翼思潮日漸抬頭的西方國家，陸續開始拒絕支持白人政府，甚至乾脆出錢出力支持非洲人國民大會。在1966年，瑞典為首的北歐國家已經表明會支持非洲人國民大會，瑞典、挪威、丹麥等北歐國家，大部分都是左翼分子執政。

在美國，種族歧視政策在民眾壓力下變得聲名狼藉，學界和教會更是反歧視重鎮。大學退休金以及教會都是大企業主要股東，而這結構令美國的大企業、大學以及各地政府成為結束種族隔離政策的推手。在美國中西部以及西岸多間名牌大學，包括史丹福大學、密歇根大學等紛紛不再投資南非債券、股票以及企業，之後哥倫比亞大學等等亦跟進，這種壓力已經令南非在美國本土集資出現難題。

在1971年，非裔傳教士Leon Sullivan加入通用汽車董事會，當時通用汽車是全美最大僱主，亦是南非最大黑人僱主，在1977年，Leon Sullivan提出了有名的蘇利文原則(The Sullivan Principles)，要求投資南非的企業貫徹種族平等，與南非政府的種族歧視法律對著幹，這原則令125間在南非有投資的大企業中，有100間撤出投資 。

在1986年，蘇聯戈爾巴喬夫領導的政府已力求緩和冷戰， 美國政界亦面臨選民極大壓力要求向南非政府說不，美國國會在1986年通過法令，透過聯邦法律對南非實施制裁。南非總統德克勒克知道大勢已去，在1991年宣布廢除種族隔離相關法律，並且釋放曼德拉。





如何治天下大考驗
由於南非黑人人口佔優勢，加上南非急需改善國際形象，南非原執政國民黨已經很難再把持政權下去，由曼德拉領導的非洲人國民大會已勢必上台執政。 對曼德拉而言，管治在各國制裁和孤立政策下千瘡百孔的南非，才是當前急務。

經歷多年的種族隔離政策，白人壟斷大部分政經權力，黑人既無統治經驗，亦無經濟能力，若原有的白人一下子跑掉，就很可能出現津巴布韋趕走白人農民後，經濟一團糟的亂子。因此，要南非重返國際社會，就要將南非白人成為國家建設一個不可或缺的部分，要取信於他們，而1995年的欖球世界盃成了關鍵。

在種族隔離政策執行期間，欖球是不折不扣的白人運動，1995年南非舉辦欖球世界盃時，南非國家隊只有一名黑人球員，而政府如何處理欖球隊將決定白人對未來曼德拉政府的信心。曼德拉知道這一點，因此他先阻止體育部改掉被視為種族隔離標誌的綠色球衣以及跳羚標誌，然後召見以白人為主的欖球隊，親自鼓勵全力爭勝。

但更大的政治舉動，在南非擊敗新西蘭贏得世界盃時發生，當時頒獎的曼德拉穿上南非欖球國家隊球衣，象徵他對過往白人暴政的寬恕，連他這種坐了這麼多年冤獄的人都可以接受跳羚球衣，哪為何其他黑人辦不到？他以身作則去實現民族和解，令留在南非的白人相信在曼德拉治下，不會像其他非洲國家的白人般遭到報復。

另方面，他亦積極吸納白人政治精英。本來非洲人國民大會在被禁時期，已有不少白人成員，他們多數參與南非共產黨的鬥爭，亦有小部分人是同情非洲人國民大會的知識分子。而在非洲人國民大會上台後，這些白人成員不少都被委以重任，成為內閣閣員。

而Trevor Andrew Manuel更一直視為首任非洲人國民大會黨籍白人總統的熱門人選，而脫胎自國民黨的新國民黨，後來亦併入非洲人國民大會，曼德拉上台後，無論在行動上和政策上都顯示到他對各種族一視同仁，特別令白人看到他們透過非洲人國民大會，同樣能分享政治權力。

曼德拉教曉我們甚麼？
很多人頌揚曼德拉，其實他並非使用和平方式瓦解南非種族隔離政策。不過，曼德拉亦非使用無限制暴力。在忍無可忍時不迴避使用武力，但使用武力的程度適可而止，盡量避免不必要的人命傷亡。在上台後審時度勢，以寬恕來保留國家的有生力量等。這一切一切，曼德拉不只是個光講和平理性非暴力的書生，他是有長遠眼光的戰略家。


嗜悲 不知 孟德拉 有甚麽文學作品傳世，或是有關思想的文字記錄，但曾讀過他自己在法庭自辯的 full text，是有關孟德拉奮闘為種族平等努力的複述。


孟德拉 自辯的 全文 谷歌中文翻譯 Listen：first 3 min




李煜李後主是位落難的王子，而 孟德拉 是一位非洲部族的王子，雖然已經家道中落，土地資源落入歐洲來的白人手中，然而相信還是有些家底，他可以供他入學讀法律，比起當時普通的非洲黑人，沒有受教育多是文盲，經已是幸運得多。


落難的王子可以做些甚麽，甚至創造些甚麽呢？很受當時的環境左右，也和個人的韌力肯定有關連！




後記：


嗜悲 在舊文說過雖然景仰 孟德拉，但他並不是一位完人 。。。。。


文：Henry Porter (博客：無神論者的巴別塔 面書)


【AM730】南非人權領袖曼德拉逝世，世人爭相懷緬，不少寫得感人肺腑。我沒有此等文采，本來一如以往，打算找些較少人注意的地方著墨。不過要找新觀點其實不難，因為網絡已有不少論述指，只提曼德拉提倡和平一面，卻忽略了他並不否定、甚至肯定武力的部分。

事實上，和追尋「人種平等」的偉大理想相比，曼德拉的想法相當實際。除了常被引用的「我按照甘地的模式看待非暴力。不能把非暴力看作是一種神聖不可違背的原則，而應當把它看作一種根據形勢需要而使用的戰略戰術」，在《時代雜誌》中當他談及甘地時，更直接指出「只有力量才是帝國主義者聽得入耳的語言，沒有國家能夠避免在爭取自由過程中完全撇除暴力」。

曼德拉從六十年代開始就是一個激進民族主義者，他所創立的「民族之矛」就是希望透過恐怖襲擊逼迫南非政府放棄種族隔離政策，而他作為未經戰鬥訓練的一分子，其職責就是前往埃塞俄比亞、阿爾及利亞等非洲國家籌措資金。

雖然曼德拉指「民族之矛」最初的目的只為一些避免人命傷亡的破壞行動，當被拘捕後亦聲稱並不認同要在南非發動游擊戰爭，但事實上自他入獄之後，「民族之矛」在數十年間的行動已升級至武裝起義，造成至少63死，483人受傷；當中還未計算參與行動的成員傷亡，以及在訓練期間因不人道對待甚至虐打而喪生的參加者。

即使之後的一連串恐怖襲擊和身在獄中的曼德拉並無直接關係，但自他出獄後，卻也沒有對「民族之矛」施予過嚴厲譴責。而接替曼德拉成為「民族之矛」領袖之一的祖馬，就是現任南非總統。甚至乎所有曾在曼德拉監禁期間協助過非洲人國民大會(ANC)進行過鬥爭的極權政府，曼德拉一律視之為終身戰友。

曼德拉出獄後訪卡達菲
最著名的就是利比亞「狂人」卡達菲，因其在數十年間持續資助ANC及其相關組織人士提供訓練，因此在曼德拉出獄後才3個月，他就出訪利比亞以答謝卡達菲與人民在ANC艱難時期提供的支持，並稱他們為「忠實的戰友」。

在1994年成功當選總統時，曼德拉亦無視西方社會與傳媒的質疑，邀請後者出席其宣誓儀式，然後作了那著名的聲明：「對於那些因我和卡達菲的友誼而感到惱怒的人，可以跳進水池裡涼快涼快。」(Those who feel irritated by our friendship with President Gaddafi can go jump in the pool。)直至2011年卡達菲倒台被殺為止，曼德拉與南非政府一直對其不離不棄。

除此以外，身為曼德拉「思想啟蒙導師」卡斯特羅統治的古巴、蘇聯都是南非黑人民權鬥爭的支持者，後者和利比亞一樣都在很長的一段時間為「民族之矛」及其隸屬的ANC提供過大量援助和訓練，而曼德拉也沒有忘記他們。卡斯特羅固然是除卡達菲以外，曼德拉在出獄後另一個迫不及待要會面的對象。

在1999年曼德拉到訪莫斯科時，俄羅斯科學院特地頒授了兩個榮譽博士學位給他，但曼德拉還是念舊地問到1990年蘇共政權被推翻前，曾經頒予他，卻因仍在獄中不能領獎的最後一屆「列寧國際和平獎」的獎牌下落，最後在2002年由俄羅斯駐南非大使將找到的獎牌重新轉交予他。

發言表達對共產主義的仰慕
正因曼德拉一生與共產政權極其密切，所以一些右翼人士由始至終皆對其抱持負面態度，事實上的確在不少發言中表達對共產主義的仰慕，甚至在閱讀Edgar Snow的《紅星閃耀在中國》後，對毛澤東推崇備至，認為長征的成功與毛澤東的解放戰爭，令他對游擊戰有一個基礎而完整的認識，讓其了解只要擁有毛澤東那種反傳統的創新想法和決斷力，任何奇跡都可以發生。

在此之所以要這麼詳細地提及曼德拉所景仰的人物和朋友們，首先是希望大家知道人類本身就是一個複雜的個體：曼德拉為了達成崇高的目標，有時不得不在道德上作出妥協和讓步，甚至不惜向被世人視為魔鬼般的惡人學習和同行。但另一方面，即使這些「惡人」日後已被時代遺忘，又或已到窮途絕路之時，失去利用價值的他們，卻仍被曼德拉和他的後繼者關懷到最後，這未嘗是一種道德的彰顯。

其次，曼德拉的想法也是隨時間而演變。他認同武力鬥爭的說法，多見於入獄之前；而自出獄後，「非暴力」一詞已成為了其中心思想，而即使偶而在訪問中提及有關支持暴力為可行的出路，也不過是為自己以前的立場說項而已。他本人其實早已知道，目前世界的情況和冷戰時期已不甚相同，和平手段的威力和爭取到的民心，往往比暴力手段更有效。

正如之前所言，他是一個很現實的人。在鬥爭過程中，他敵視白人政權，在當權以後，他即反過來確保白人在南非保有一席之地；歐美諸國當年對南非僅止於經濟制裁，他就往反美陣營裡鑽；到成為總統之後，又能和歐美諸國，甚至在白人政權時期的締約國如中華民國等保持良好關係。所以若認為曼德拉是認同武力鬥爭的朋友，我想問一下，你們又有沒有充夠的胸襟如曼德拉所言，「與你的敵人合作，讓他成為你的拍檔」，以達致他所追求的真正和平？




獲釋後的 孟德拉 感謝老朋友沒有錯，而且這些老朋友在 孟德拉 落難時提出幫助，我不知道 孟德拉 是否同意 卡特菲 和 卡斯特羅 的獨裁統治，但一出來就反面不認人，這會是 孟德拉 應做的事嗎 ？？？到時又會有人說三道四，話 孟德拉 忘恩負義。不過，起碼上文沒有說 孟德拉 提供南非的資源，幫助和支持卡特菲 和 卡斯特羅 屠殺對付異己份子。



王永平：德克勒克成就曼德拉

【AM730】世界偉人曼德拉逝世，全球領袖致敬。出席喪禮儀式的知名人士包括南非最後一名白人總統德克勒克(Willem de Klerk)，他在任內推動種族和諧政策。1990年，他決定釋放被囚27年的曼德拉。

1992年，他進行全國投票，獲得近七成的白人支持他的改革政策，並同意他與曼德拉商討南非過渡至各種族享平等權利的具體安排。1993年，他與曼德拉一同獲頒諾貝爾和平獎。1994年，南非舉行大選，由曼德拉領導的非洲國民大會憑黑人佔多數的優勢贏得大選。曼德拉當上總統後，德克勒克出任第二副總統。1996年，他辭去職位，然後淡出政壇。

在德克勒克治下的南非，因長期受到國際制裁，經濟惡劣。放棄種族隔離政策是擺脫困局的最理性辦法。但黑白兩族衝突多年，仇深似海，今天被稱譽為非暴力典範的曼德拉，入獄前正是因為決定以暴易暴被判囚。釋放曼德拉需要極大的決心和勇氣。德克勒克適時當權，顯示過人的能力，成功說服他的黨友和南非白人實行種族平權，實質是讓黑人執政。曼德拉出獄後倡議真正的種族和諧，完全不計較過往白人犯下的罪行，部分應該是受到德克勒克的影響。

在內地被囚禁的劉曉波，跟曼德拉一樣，是諾貝爾和平獎得主。所以有中國網民慨嘆，為何中國不可以出一名像德克勒克這樣包容的領導人。也有人說，南非和中國的情況不同，根據判詞，劉曉波不是政治犯，而是觸犯了中國法律。無論如何，南非的德克勒克和曼德拉向世人示範真正的包括異見以及如何達致持久的社會和諧。

今天南非的經濟依然乏善足陳，罪案率高企，但不同種族相安無事。這對多種族的中國也許有值得借鏡的地方。



德克勒克 釋放出執政權，讓黑人佔大多數的南非選出黑人總統，而在差不多的時候，俄國的 戈爾巴喬夫 也是因為新思維，讓東歐和衛星國脫離蘇聯，最後剩下俄國和幾個加盟小小國，蘇聯正式瓦解。德克勒克（1993） 和 戈爾巴喬夫（1990）都得到了西方國家的 諾貝爾和平獎！



伸延閱覽：
南唐 李煜 維基百科
李煜詞全集 njmuseum.com
Life imitates art ～ Oscar Wilde 維基百科
Oscar Wilde～Quotes 維基百科
推動種族平等的王子 ～ 曼德拉 AM730
曼德拉和他的朋友們 AM730
德克勒克成就曼德拉 AM730



我的舊文：
命運的逆轉
Nelson Mandela 彌爾遜 孟德拉

政教合一 German Style

政教合一 German Style
又名：默克爾的政治與信仰



之前有篇 Blog 談 德意志 有位鐵娘子：默克爾，成功帶領 CDU （Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands）第三次連任執政黨，是戰後德國由東西德分治，到統一後多年穩定期。


大選後 德國社會民主黨在 12月 15日同意，與 默克爾 領導的基督教民主黨，及其巴伐利亞姐妹黨基督教社會黨組成 “大聯合政府”。默克爾 在 12月 17日組成新一屆的政府宣誓就職。


【中新網】德國聯邦議院 17日選舉默克爾為德國總理。默克爾即將開啟第三任期，她將在稍晚時候宣誓就職。

今年 9月，現任總理默克爾以壓倒性優勢成功地第三次當選德國總理。默克爾第三度出任這一歐洲最大經濟體的總理，有望超過英國“鐵娘子”撒切爾，成為歐洲執政時間最長的女性領導人。

在順利贏得大選 3個月後，德國社會民主黨 12月 15日同意與默克爾領導的基督教民主黨及其巴伐利亞姐妹黨基督教社會黨組成“大聯合政府”。

有媒體認為，盡管默克爾領導的新政府在議會中占有五分之四的多數席次，但其第三屆四年任期可能更加艱難，而且可能比前兩屆更加專注於國內事務。前兩屆任期因為全球金融危機和歐元區動蕩而受到很大影響。


嗜悲 一早就有興趣想知道，為何 默克爾 的政黨 CDU 基督民主聯盟，民主就是民主為何要加入 基督 Christianity 在前面，但一直未有時間去搜尋，如今請先讀讀 AM730 的文章：《基督教徒與德國民主》 上下 兩篇


【AM730】上篇

德國早前舉行大選，總理默克爾領導的基督民主聯盟(CDU)再次成為最大黨，預料可以順利連任。基督民主聯盟(簡稱基民盟)到底是怎麼一回事？在香港，很多基督教牧師明明是親建制、反民主的不是嗎？

幾年前，德國有個電視節目，讓民眾公投選出德國史上最偉大人物。第三位，是共產主義老祖宗卡爾‧馬克思。第二位，是發起宗教改革運動的馬丁‧路德。第一位，德國人心目中的史上最偉大人物是誰？康拉德‧阿登納。吓？邊位？阿登納是西德第一任總理，也是德國基民盟創黨領袖。

阿登納在 1876年出生於德國西部的科隆。科隆是個以科隆大教堂聞名於世，天主教會有著龐大影響力的城市。阿登納跟當年大部分市民一樣，都是天主教徒，但他們在當時以基督教徒為主的德國中是數於少數派，甚至是政府打壓的對象。

德國天主教徒和基督教徒的鬥爭
現在我們叫德國的這塊土地，以前並非一個統一的國家，有著很多不同的小國、傳統文化、甚至宗教信仰，其中天主教徒(Catholics) 和基督教徒(Protestants)的分裂最為嚴重，甚至引發過多場戰爭。1871年，位於現今德國東北部，以新教徒為主的普魯士王國，成功統一德國，但統一後的德國依然存在宗教分裂，東北部以基督教徒為主，西南部則以天主教徒為主，而後者都不太願意接受普魯士的統治。

普魯士出身的首相俾斯麥，在 1870年代開展一連串統稱為文化鬥爭的打壓天主教徒政策，禁止修會運作，充公大量教會資產，拘捕甚至放逐跟政府唱反調的主教。但行動只令天主教徒更加反政府。由天主教徒組成的中央黨在1874年選舉中得票激增，拿下國會四分一議席，令俾斯麥大失預算。後來文化鬥爭提前結束，但兩派教徒之間的鴻溝更深。

阿登納在 1906年開始從政，加入中央黨，很快就上位，在1917年當上科隆市長。當時正值第一次世界大戰，阿登納成功穩住市內治安和市民生活，施政獲得好評。

中央黨這個由天主教徒組成的政黨是怎樣的呢？首先當然是維護教會和教徒利益，反對削弱教會權力或教徒信仰自由。其次是以天主教教義看世情，在經濟方面強調要關愛窮人，在社會議題方面也傾向維護傳統價值觀。其實當年其他國家的天主教徒大都是傾向支持保守派的，但在德國由於政府主動挑機，中央黨才加入了反政府、爭民主的元素。

一戰後的德國政局與希特拉的上台
1918年，德國戰敗，皇帝威廉二世退位，德國從君主制變成共和制，政局出現翻天覆地的變化，中央黨這個民主派從反對黨變成執政黨。阿登納本來有實力問鼎總理寶座，但他是黨內強硬派，難跟其他政黨合作，結果未能成事。

當時德國的選民大致上可分為3大類：左派、天主教右派和基督教右派。左派由工會支撐，票投社民黨或共產黨。天主教右派在教會指示下全投中央黨(不少神職人員甚至有入黨)。基督教右派則較分散，包括保皇派、商界、農民等，有多個黨派。由於社會分化，政黨林立，政府難以運作(平均每年換一次總理)，人民逐漸對民主失去信心，期待強人打救。

希特拉就是這樣乘勢而上。不少人講到希特拉上台，會強調他的暴力團，說他逼人投票給他，但實情卻不是這樣簡單。事實是，有相當多的德國人是自願支持希特拉的。

1928年 5月的德國國會選舉，當時希特拉仍未上位，中央、社民、共產 3個非右派政黨的總得票達到 53%，納粹黨得票只有 2%，也就是說基督教右派選民都是投納粹黨以外的右派政黨。但很快的，美國引爆全球經濟大蕭條，德國經濟嚴重衰退，政府民望暴跌。

希特拉憑著出色的演說，狠批政府廢柴，又搞陰謀論說一切都是國際反德勢力和猶太人搞的鬼，支持度急升。德國廢帝威廉二世的四王子奧古斯特、英王喬治五世的堂弟薩克森‧科堡‧哥達公爵卡爾、德軍前副參謀長魯登道夫(即德軍第二號人物)等的社會賢達，都主動加入納粹黨或為其助選。

1932年 7月再次選舉，非右派 3黨的票加起來仍有 48%，只是微跌，納粹黨則急彈至 37%，其他右派政黨近乎全滅。納粹黨的票源是來自基督教右派，當時他們是最容易受民族主義和激進主義打動的一群。

儘管左派和天主教右派的支持者加起來較納粹黨多，他們卻各懷鬼胎，無法組成執政聯盟，身為最大黨領袖的希特拉成為新總理，開始將反對派逐一清除。

希特拉藉故將共產黨定性為恐怖組織，強制解散該黨，還派暴民不斷騷擾社民黨。中央黨內也開始有不少人，包括阿登納，正確地認清希特拉是個危險人物應該防範，但他們的警告未能奏效。情況就如一段短文所述的：

起初他們追殺共產主義者，我沒有說話，因為我不是共產主義者；

然後他們追殺工會成員，我沒有說話，因為我不是工會成員；

後來他們追殺天主教徒，我沒有說話，因為我是新教教徒；

最後，他們衝著我來了，卻已經沒有人站出來為我說話了。

文中提到的共產者、工會和天主教徒，正正是左派和天主教右派政黨：共產黨、社民黨、中央黨的支持者。而「我」，即短文的作者馬丁•尼莫拉，是一位基督教牧師，也曾投票支持希特拉。

這段話之所以警世，還因為這是作者根據親身經歷所寫的一段懺悔。各派都只顧自己，當其他人被打壓時視若無睹，心想「關我鬼事」，結果令希特拉可以將他們逐一鏟除。


下篇

1933年3月，希特拉上台後再次進行選舉，目標是拿下國會控制權。納粹黨得票升至 43%，但左派和天主教右派仍企硬在 42%，雙方勢均力敵。在阿登納管治下，天主教徒佔多數的科隆，中央黨的得票甚至高過納粹黨。納粹黨仍要依靠另一個右派政黨國民黨的支持。


希特拉於是提出一個「授權法案」，授權總理大量額外權力，令他可以變相無視國會獨斷獨行。法案需要國會通過，即是要國會自廢武功，其實任何正常人一聽都知有問題，左派立即就表明堅決反對。中央黨內部經過一輪激辯後，卻投下了贊成票。黨魁卡斯(Ludwig Kaas，本身是個神父)稱他跟希特拉談了個大和解方案，以支持授權法案換取希特拉政府保障天主教徒權益。授權法案最終獲得通過。

當然，希特拉沒有遵守承諾，一得到權力就將敵人鏟除。中央黨被解散，而作為黨幹部的阿登納也被免去科隆市長職務，更多次被監禁。基督教徒結果也難逃一劫，不論哪一宗教，跟政府唱反調的神職人員都被打壓。

希特拉還創立了一個官方教會，逼基督教徒脫離他們原本所屬的教會。1937年，羅馬天主教會公開譴責德國政府，但為時已晚，也沒能阻止迫害行動。希特拉之後發動第二次世界大戰，和屠殺猶太人的事就不詳談了。

但戰後的確很多德國人都反思，為甚麼希特拉當日可以上台呢？為甚麼這麼多人會上當信了希特拉的謊言呢？阿登納就認為是跟天主教徒和基督教徒內鬥有關：雖然教義細節不一樣，但在大是大非的社會問題上，兩教立場其實是相當相近的，如果能將兩派都團結起來，並將他們導向民主，將可成為一股龐大的政治勢力。


阿登納帶領西德走出困境
阿登納在二戰後成立基督民主聯盟(這個基督是包括所有耶教徒的 Christian，下稱基民盟)，放棄戰前中央黨只重視天主教徒的做法，拉攏基督教徒，甚至是曾經投票支持納粹黨的選民。策略成功，在 1949年的戰後西德第一次選舉中，基民盟成為最大黨，阿登納當選西德第一任總理，當時他已經 73歲。

阿登納上任後全力跟美英法等國恢復關係，令西德得到後台，可以搞好經濟，同時抗衡蘇聯威脅。1951年，德法意比荷盧六國一同創立歐洲煤炭共同體，深化經濟合作。

1952年，西德宣布向納粹大屠殺生還者，和以色列政府作出賠償。1955年，德國獲准重建軍隊並加入北約。1957年，歐洲煤炭共同體進化成為歐洲經濟共同體，即歐盟的前身。

1963年，阿登納跟法國總統戴高樂簽署德法友好條約，為兩國上百年的恩怨情仇劃上句號。此時西德經濟已經從二戰受到的破壞恢復過來，成為世界第四大經濟體(排在美蘇日之後)。

阿登納連任了 4次總理，到 1963年年底終於因年紀太大(87歲)，開始跟時局脫節而被勸退，總共做了 14年總理。他在 4年後的 1967年逝世，終年 91歲，西德政府在科隆大教堂為他舉行國葬。阿登納今時今日仍被選為史上最偉大的德國人，因為他成功穩定了戰後的亂局，重建經濟和社會，還令背負著發動兩次世界大戰罪名的德國，重新為國際社會所接受。


東德基督徒的最終勝利
留在東德的人就沒西德人那麼好過了。共產黨是無神論的，當然不會讓你有宗教信仰自由。東德雖然仍然有教堂運作，也有一個東德基民盟(Christian Democratic Union of Germany，即所謂的民主黨派，跟西德基民盟無關)，但兩者都受到共產黨的嚴格控制。

1972年，東德政府推出墮胎法案，東德基民黨有約 20位議員投了反對或棄權票，其他約 30人則投贊成票。在共產黨統治下，基督徒都要贊成墮胎。(順帶一提，這也是東德唯一一次有議員投反對票的法案。)

1989年，隨著蘇聯戈爾巴喬夫放寬對東歐的控制，東歐各共產國家的民間開始出現反政府浪潮。在東德的萊比錫，從 9月 4日晚開始的每個星期一晚，民眾都會在市中心的大教堂完成祈禱會後來個佔領行動，整晚持蠟燭在市中心廣場集會，以非暴力形式進行抗議行動。

曾經公開稱讚中共應對天安門示威手法的東德政府，一度下令保安部隊可以開槍鎮壓，可幸的是前線人員最終沒有執行。萊比錫的集會人數每個星期都不斷增加，鼓舞了其他城市的人仿傚，最終引發柏林市民眾推倒圍牆，結束東德共產政府統治。

現任德國總統高克(Joachim Gauck)，是東德出身，本業是牧師，也是當年的反政府示威領袖之一。而總理默克爾，同樣是東德出身，父親是牧師，柏林圍牆倒下那一晚她也有上街慶祝，還走入了西柏林考察資本主義社會到底是甚麼模樣。

當年由西德天主教徒阿登納創立的基民盟，今日仍在執政，但領袖已經變成一位東德基督教牧師的女兒。這個發展，直至廿幾三十年前，大概還沒有人會預料到。除了德國，瑞士、比利時、荷蘭、盧森堡、挪威、瑞典等國都有基督民主黨。

不論是天主教徒還是基督教徒，為了保護自己的信仰自由，都應該一起支持民主。香港有些教徒卻反過來，反民主和親無神論的共產黨，真可謂違反歷史潮流。


讀完後，嗜悲 稍微對德國近代的歷史，多了些認知但仍然很表面，比以前只知道有：經民主選舉出來的希特拉，資本主義共產主義東西德曾經分治，帕林圍牆倒下和東西德統一，如今知多一點總算邁進了一點。


上面 AM730文中有提過 馬丁 尼姆 的名句，英文版是：


【維基百科】Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known as the author of the poem "First they came 。。。。".

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned.



連 牧師 Martin Niemöller 都 support 希特拉，可知當年的 希魔 真的很有政治魅力，希特拉 的 納粹黨也是經普選上台，普選可以成就民主，也可以成就了一代魔頭，選民有沒有能力，能否分清分楚不被矇騙，民主幼稚生因為有了 universal suffrage 走上歪路是很容易的。


有謂朋友之間吹水，最忌是談論：宗教 和 政治 religion and politics，不過 嗜悲 一向都有或多或少 touch 到一些政治民生信仰經濟話題，尚幸還未產生難纏的狂熱份子踩場，否則就是唯有關門大吉，God Bless： Mind Necessity 主佑： 心空海域 ！


西方社會推崇的自由民主，可以接受政黨輪替，淨是美國就有共和民主兩黨輪流玩，英國有工黨和保守黨輪換，加拿大自由黨保守黨 etc etc，都是他們引以為傲的核心價值。不過但是反而對於宗教信仰，卻不見得西方人可以不斷輪替，每隔四年就由天主教改信佛教，再四年就改信回教，又再四年變成基督徒，如此類推。


西方民主 不是時常鞭撻中東阿拉伯世界回教國家，說他們 ”政教合一“ 是非常危險的，看看如今在德國的執政黨的大聯盟，就包括了 默克爾 帶領的最大 基督教民主黨 Christian Democratic Union，不是牌面牌底都是 宗教政治 合一的政治黨派嗎？默克爾 本人誕生有宗教家庭，父親是傳教士和牧師，基督教信仰應該堅定不移，由她帶領德國已經 8年，由今之後還有多 4年。


可能有人會話基督教們，不是宗教狂熱如回教徒，沒有激進回教徒穆斯林要發動例如聖戰或類似聖戰 Jihad 的可能，不過歐洲不是曾經有十字軍東征嗎？哈哈哈 俱往矣！西方人真的是有個大口任佢講，雙重標準是慣性放諸各方。


Anyway 今次，只是記錄找到的一些資料與大家分享，多謝各位閱讀至此，請請！





伸延閱覽：
默克爾正式當選德國總理將宣誓就職 新浪新聞網
Christlich Demokratische Union CDU Christian Democratic Union （德意志） 維基百科 官方網頁
基督教徒與德國民主 (上) AM730新聞網
基督教徒與德國民主 (下) AM730新聞網








我的舊文：
The Merkel Regime 默克爾時代
談《一位女性總理》
我的政治 101 系列

怎樣過聖誕

怎樣過聖誕



先來個祝各位：


聖 誕 快 樂

M e r r y C h r is t m a s ！



嗜悲 將會睡到睡醒才醒過來的安眠 。。。。。！（這篇是預先 plan 好的 schedule posting 下半是追加的！）



起床後，最理想已經有一煲昨晚洗落米放入電子瓦罉，較好時間掣煮好的瑤柱白粥，等候著讓睡到差不多中午的 嗜悲，醒來後把空肚子填飽，若還有閒情就做個 “撈町” 麵吃！


一連四十多分鐘鄧麗君《淡淡幽情》的歌


悠悠閒閒 聽吓鄧麗君的歌，食吓嘢 。。。。。唔使珍饈百味，簡簡單單的 “撈町” 送 “瑤柱白粥”，也可以是人間美食，有謂寧食開眉粥不吃愁眉飯嘛。



張學友：歲月流清


都市人營營役役，上班日中午飯連吃都不安樂，有時要在公司吃極可能是無奈，一面做工一面吃，就算可以逃出外面吃，都有千呎千哩追魂 Call 急召回公司，一有特發突發事就要放下飯碗筷子，急急趕回去處理。


回望這半生，也許是場夢，年月已帶走幾個秋與冬，淚也倦了夢也不斷轉眼逝去，生命或許是場空。忘掉了許多昨天喜與悲，回味每一篇心中日記，歲月匆匆飄走 。。。。。。。！



追加：


事源因為昨天（平安夜日）趁主題樂園有優惠，嗜悲 提早一天放假，整天遊覽這個有十多年來，很久沒再去過的樂園 。。。。。




見到千呼萬喚始出來的 國寶熊貓 盈盈 樂樂 安安 佳佳 還有小熊貓都見到

。
。
。
。


唔好賴機仔在黑暗環境和或是極速情況下沒法拍到好照片原因是因為我 ”咤“

。
。
。
。


被強國人打尖了兩次我禮讓他她們都有兩次看見有人隨地吐痰一次還有這些殘羹隨處擺放但香港本土人做的也有可能







操勞了一整天後，晚上又去慶祝聖誕，最後攪到 2時多才上床，昏睡至聖誕日中午吃町麵和粥，然後聽 鄧麗君 張學友的歌，和看買了返來很久，未曾拆開未看的 DVD：Babel，只是吃町麵和一大煲瑤柱白粥，故此沒有需要出街，咁樣就悠悠閒閒過了一天聖誕天。


拆禮物日仍然提不起勁兒出門，在家中簡簡單單煎超市買來的急凍 “王將餃子” 和 “九州黑豚餃子” 做早午餐和晚餐，中間看了還有一張久久都未拆的 DVD：The King’s Speech，咁就過完我今年度的聖誕！





伸延閱覽：
鄧麗君 youtube.com
張學友 youtube.com




我的舊文：
在一個無眠的晚上
炎炎夏日打油詩
麵是要這樣煮的！
電子瓦罉

信手拈來俱天成

信手拈來俱天成



當然不是 嗜悲 喇！


嗜悲 是 林行止 在信報主筆寫：《政經短評》年代，由學生到出來謀生，是十多年的忠實讀者，如今 林山木 經已退休，只是偶然技癢寫寫文章，在《信報》的 《林行止專欄》，不定時刊出文章，不過我已沒有訂《信報》多年了。


林行止 的政經文章編輯成集出版頗多本子，不贅矣！ 而利用另一個筆名 “史威德” 寫的散文，也編輯成集出版，其中兩本自選集用了：《閒在心頭》做書名，另一本書名：《拈來趣味》。


究竟 “拈來” 所何解呢？首先 “拈來”出處來自 北宋 蘇軾 東坡居士的詩句


《次韻孔毅甫集古人句見贈》 蘇東坡


天 下 幾 人 學 杜 甫，

誰 得 其 皮 與 其 骨？

劃 如 太 華 當 我 前，

跛 牂 欲 上 驚 崷 崒。

名 章 俊 語 紛 交 衡，

無 人 巧 會 當 時 情。

前 生 子 美 衹 君 是，

信 手 拈 來 俱 天 成。



信手拈來俱天成 的 信手拈來 後來成為中國成語。


【釋義】：信手：隨手；拈：用手指捏取東西。隨手拿來。多指寫文章時，能自由純熟的選用詞語或應用典故，用不著怎麼思考。


信手拈來 也 有人寫成 順手拈來，故此 林行止 在結集時，閒在心頭+信手拈來+自找趣味，為自己的自選集做書名，一來是 2003年已經退下一線，應該可算有點閒心，而且 山木 寫了幾十年文章，真的可以用 “拈來” 就用的境界，故此有《拈來趣味》和 《閒在心頭》。


【維基百科】有記載：林行止 自 1973 離開《明晚》，親自創立《信報》經歷過低潮期，1975年漸入佳境 。。。。。1997年，林行止把《信報》管理交棒給女兒林在山，但仍然繼續在《信報》撰寫專欄。


林在山視事七、八年至誕下女兒後退出《信報》管理，林妻駱友梅於是重返報館主事，同時部署賣盤然後退休。2005年 12月，傳出林行止有意把《信報》股權售予電訊盈科主席李澤楷。至 2006年 8月 8日，經多次洽談後，李澤楷終落實以 3,500萬美元購入《信報》五成股份，並稍後購入全數股權。


2003年是沙士年，嗜悲 記憶猶新，市面一遍死寂人人蒙面，百業蕭條股市每況愈下，而本來欣欣向榮的樓市急瀉，千萬個樓蟹面對負資產，但還要按合約精神，繼續每月向財務機構償還按揭分期，失業者若有家室兒女，自己不吃也要餵飽雛兒，據說曾出現過身穿西裝衣冠楚楚白領，站在快餐店選擇胃口小的 OL小姐背後等待，搶吃她們離開飯桌時，桌子上吃剩的大半碟剩餘飯餐果腹，真的是見者驚訝聞者心裂。


沙士期間 嗜悲 每天回家食自己，漸漸養成可以一切自煮，更學得去超市購買蔬菜魚肉雞牛（每週一次），更加在網上搜查搜尋食譜 recipes，不論中外無任歡迎，故此買來一大堆調味料香草，酸甜苦辣麻辣勁辣醬汁，廚房的櫃子空位突然少了很多接近爆棚。餐後無事沒有慣性看 TVB，閒來多看書讀書包括：林行止《閒在心頭》+《拈來趣味》。


2013年的過去幾年，樓市熾熱瘋狂飆升，恢復以前的峰頂界限，過之而無不及牛氣衝天，更由於港幣跟美元掛鈎，利率沒法調高處於近零，熱錢湧入而無需顧慮匯率波動，中資美資游資不斷從各方湧入，加劇投資物業市場私樓豪宅舖位，日日升天天高月月破頂。


每慮及沙士期間境況，嗜悲 必自諫切勿羊群心理跟隨，凡事不怕一萬最怕萬一，因此錯過富貴險中求每一個機會，被同窗同事譃笑無膽汁。 嗜悲 由 2005年開始除了電郵新聞，增加看讀當時流行的 “部落格”，初時保持着窺閱別人的心態，不過既然寫得出來就是想有人看吧，漸漸就加入了寫下留言互相討論，到後來 嗜悲 為求心靜少沾投機的引誘，在 2006年尾，自己也寫埋一份開了個 Blog：Mind Necessity 心空海域。


所謂未讀成書的蕃薯仔（蕃書仔），若要用中文來寫作，嗜悲 首先就要學中文輸入法，想來踱去手寫板不及學倉頡輸入法好，但總是學來學不會（真鈍胎），最後 嗜悲 唯有中間落墨，學 “漢語拼音” 輸入法，一來可以寫作二來可以學國語（普通話）的發音，如此開始了寫博至今。


嗜悲 中文詞彙貧乏執 Keyboard 而忘字，有時更因為腦總比手打快，思考與文字未能配合手打出來，Proofreading 時每有發覺一段 paragraph 中，前面是起語一跳就到了結語，中間沒有了過程「起、承、轉、合。」寫白字更是多如繁星。有時為一個詞語，推拷半天還是不果，頗有詞不達意之感，各位網友總有唔知 嗜悲 噏乜此種感覺吧。


嗜悲 用中文寫作距離 “信手拈來” 還很差很太太太太 。。。。。。。。。太遠，若要 “俱天成” 就更加今世下世再下世都不用想矣，因為 untalented 沒有天份！



伸延閱覽：
報人 林行止 維基百科
信手拈來 百度百科
次韵孔毅甫集古人句見贈五首 中華詩詞網


我的舊文：
被林山木洗腦？
林行止：加利貝克爾的家庭論



有關 蘇軾 的舊文：
學東坡 打油詩
芳草朝雲～蝶戀花
月到中秋分外明～水調歌頭
做人愛自由～洗兒詩
雪泥鴻爪～和子由澠池懷舊
廬山～題西林寺壁
誰怕、微冷、歸去！ ～ 定風波
迂迴的疊字詩

急才 急智

急才 急智



天才 人才 若沒有 口才，和兼備有自知之明，不亂出來炫耀可以保命，否則只可以淪為 韓非 般的 蠢材，落得悲慘下場。而有 口才 但欠缺 急才，又會差了幾分，因為要救命時無得等嘅，有急才又有急智，世上有幾多人呢？


記得 97回歸前有位高官叫 鄺其志 官拜庫務司，他勇敢回應了 京官 陳佐洱 的：車毀人亡論，得到很多香港市民讚賞，不過參與者透露其實 鄺官 不是即時回應，而是想了很久才回應出來，口才是有了但尚欠急才。


【維基百科】晏嬰 字仲，諡平，習慣上多稱平仲，又稱晏子。齊國萊地夷維人（今山東萊州市平里店）。春秋後期政治家、思想家、外交家。


人說山東人身材高大，但晏子必屬異數，因很多人記得晏子，皆因為他身材矮小，有：「使狗國者，從狗門入！」的故事。


【維基百科】晏嬰出使楚國，楚人因他身材矮小，看不起他，就在大門旁另開一道小門，請他從小門進去。

晏嬰不肯進去，說：「使狗國者，從狗門入，今臣使楚，不當從此門入。」接待的官員聽了，只好請他從大門進去。晏婴見到楚靈王。

楚王問：「齊無人耶？使子為使？」晏嬰答道：「齊之臨淄三百閭，張袂成陰，揮汗成雨，比肩繼踵而在，何為無人？」楚王又問：「然則何為使子？」

晏嬰回答：「齊命使，各有所主。其賢者使使賢主；不肖者使使不肖主，嬰最不肖，故宜使楚矣。」


晏子使楚的故事說明：許多自以為聰明的人，其實是愚蠢透頂；一心想侮慢他人的人，到頭來必然會使自己的尊嚴掃地。


《晏子使楚》原來出自 《戰國策》


原文:
楚人以晏子短，為小門於大門之側而延晏子。晏子不入，曰：“使狗國者，從狗門入。今臣使楚，不當從此門入。” 儐(bīn)者更道，從大門入。

見楚王。 王曰：“齊無人耶，使子為使？”晏子對曰：“齊之臨淄三百閭(lǚ)，張袂(mèi)成陰，揮汗成雨，比肩繼踵而在，何為無人！”王曰：“然則何為使子？”晏子對曰：“齊命使，各有所主。其賢者使使賢主，不肖者使使不肖主。嬰最不肖，故宜使楚矣！”

晏子將使楚。楚王聞之，謂左右曰：“齊之習辭者也，今方來，吾欲辱之，何以也？”左右對曰：“為其來也，臣請縛一人，過王而行。王曰，何為者也？對曰，齊人也。王曰，何坐？曰，坐盜。” 晏子至，楚王賜晏子酒，酒酣，吏二縛一人詣王。

王曰：“縛者曷為者也？”對曰：“齊人也，坐盜。”王視晏子曰：“齊人固善盜乎？”晏子避席對曰：“嬰聞之，橘生淮南則為橘，生於淮北則為枳，葉徒相似，其實味不同。所以然者何？水土異也。今民生長於齊不盜，入楚則盜，得無楚之水土使民善盜耶？”

王笑曰：“聖人非所與熙也，寡人反取病焉。”



梁振英 出席諮詢會，被人掟雞蛋卻誤中財爺 鬍鬚曾，又再被掟 Lufsig 狼公仔 前譯：路姆西 後譯：路福西 。。。。。梁振英 自我引爆，網下熱賣網上熱炒 “路姆西”，特別買了一隻送給女兒，既做善事又可以「氹」女兒開心，提前送聖誕禮物。


據聞這是即將上任的新聞統籌專員前民主黨的 馮煒光 急才急智，是為了要抗衡鬍鬚曾的：「醫生都叫我唔好食咁多蛋，好彩沒有穿靚西裝來！」，因為 梁振英 在會見記者時怒目逼視，強硬說要依法嚴厲處理，並且又禁止 曾司長回應記者提問，小器形象全球廣播醜事傳千里。



據政府新聞處發表 梁特首：《與狼共桌》


【政府新聞處】今天與狼共桌，知道這隻公仔近期「爆紅」，網下熱賣、網上熱炒，證明港人創意無限，亦很欣賞銷售商以此作為助學籌款之用，所以特別買了一隻，送給女兒，既做善事，又可以「氹」女兒開心，提前送聖誕禮物。


好一句：與狼共桌知道這隻公仔近期「爆紅」網下熱賣網上熱炒。





梁特首沒有去宜家排隊，有的話將會被狗仔隊映到，他派誰去代他買 “路姆西” 又沒有講明。顯然 “路姆西” 的來源存在疑問，梁特首欠缺港人一個解釋，他有沒有參與網上的非法炒賣 “路姆西” 呢？這方面是否涉及刑事的疑團，有待懂得法律的朋友們，彌清/釐清一吓參與網上炒賣是否合法，還有就是要研究特首參與炒賣的道德層面嚕！


Furthermore，當日擲向梁振英的 “路姆西” 應該交了給警方當作證物，依法處理擲物的兩位仁兄。以 梁振英 說：特別買了一隻，送給女兒，既做善事，又可以「氹」女兒開心，提前送聖誕禮物。斷估 梁振英 應該不會把可能將來的呈堂證物，攞來擺在桌上影相呱！


嗜悲 在舊文中和上文都 question 過，梁振英 的 路姆西 來源，原來 Now 新聞部都有跟進 。。。。。






【Now 新聞】行政長官梁振英久不久也會寫寫網誌，希望軟銷自己的一些看法。過往甚少人對他的網誌有興趣，但周三晚上他又寫了一篇與狼共桌的網誌，引起網民熱話。

網誌上的相片中，梁振英一本正經地看文件，桌上放置了一隻狼公仔。

這隻布公仔，正是上周六他出席地區諮詢會時，社民連成員用來扔他的狼公仔。事件發生後，公仔成為全城熱話，兩日間售罄，外國媒體亦爭相報道，形容是香港人反政府的象徵。

梁振英在網誌中讚揚香港創意無限，還說買了一隻狼公仔給女兒當作聖誕禮物，一番自嘲贏回不少同情分。政界人士都覺得梁振英這一着，與當日怒斥示威者判若兩人。政界人士皆好奇，這個想法是否來自快將上任的新聞統籌專員馮煒光的手筆？

我們四出打聽，馮煒光早前丁父憂後已離港充電，準備下周一上班，相信想法與他無關。而這篇網誌的概念和手筆，亦非來自特首辦職員，相信是有高人提點梁振英。

我們也打聽過另一網民關心的問題：就是到底這隻早已斷貨的狼公仔，梁振英是如何買到？知情人士說，梁振英是託付同事找來的。至於是有人拿出狼公仔私人珍藏，還是上網搶購回來？知情人士也不太清楚。

網誌這張相片，更令網民有機會一窺梁振英辦公室的擺設。其中一個疑問是，為何他的辦公室沒有 now 的遙控器？

知情人士說，特首的辦公室應有各個收費電視，只是沒有把遙控器放在枱上，相信他是毋須轉台吧。我們以往亦曾到訪梁振英的山頂大宅，也是有裝now的。

梁振英這篇網誌令不少人眼前一亮，至於民望能否同樣受惠則很快便會揭盅。但可以肯定的是，她的女兒一定是得益者。有斷貨布公仔作為聖誕禮物，相信她不會用來扔向父親梁振英。


而 晴報 就說：浸大教授黃偉國認為，新聞統籌專員（馮煒光）應該有提示梁，要接受嘲弄改變「小器」形象。


【晴報】宜家家居狼型公仔 LUFSIG（路姆西）近日竄紅，成為反政府象徵。特首梁振英亦「反擊」，在網誌上展示與路姆西的合照。惟路姆西的內地譯名，被指粵語諧音似粗口，故宜家家居昨將路姆西改名為「路福西」。

路姆西自上周六被社運人士掉向特首梁振英後，成為社運「神獸」。連被掟的梁振英，昨晚亦以「與狼共桌」為題，在網誌貼出與路姆西的合照，他指知道其近期「爆紅」，欣賞其有助學籌款之用，故買了一隻給女兒作聖誕禮物。他又指路姆西被熱炒，證明港人創意無限。惟全文未有提及 LUFSIG 或其譯名。

學者：順便「抽水」 讚港人創意
浸大政治及國際關係助理教授黃偉國認為，事件被國際化已觸動梁振英的神經。他認為 新聞統籌專員（馮煒光）應該有提示梁要接受嘲弄，改變「小器」形象，他以此方式作回應，亦可順便「抽水」，一讚港人創意。


Anyway 政治人物 要有急才，鬍鬚曾 利用清潔蛋跡的十幾分鐘，就想出了：「醫生都叫我唔好食咁多蛋，好彩沒有穿靚西裝來！」，而 梁振英 要 新聞統籌專員（馮煒光）提示，才懂得改變「小器」形象。能有急才急智兼備，沒有的真的差很遠！！！


梁振英 小器近期有 鄭經翰 未滿 6年不獲續任警監會，田北俊 的自由黨黨慶，自己不出席更禁止所有司局長出現，政治人物用人唯親，小器小家莫過於此矣！今次上京述職被 王光亞 公開說要找到不足，可見 梁振英 只會報喜不報憂，京官們已經開口了。


而 梁振英 最大的小器，就是連做吓樣放吓風，邀請 唐豬 入行政會議（or 他的代理人），唐豬唐營的忠心份子未必會入會，但是連這一點都沒有漏出來，根本就沒有發出過邀請。看看，奧巴馬 邀請 希拉莉女士當了一任，負責處理外交事務的國務卿，贏盡了不少讚賞，這叫作風度和量度。


後記：


梁政府與自由黨劃清界線，不出席自由黨成立 20周年黨慶酒會，田大少說梁振英安排的飯局等活動則免問。


【明報專訊】自由黨黨魁田北俊稱，自由黨仍會繼續就政策事務，與司局長保持溝通，但要他出席梁振英安排的飯局等活動則免問。

田北俊認為，梁振英下令司局長不要出席早前舉行的自由黨成立20周年黨慶酒會，明顯是要「落自由黨面」、與自由黨劃清界線。

他在電台節目上表示，政府明顯是想藉此向該黨和「全世界」發出信息，既然政府這樣做，自由黨也要考慮應當怎處理。

他表示，作為「中立政黨」，自由黨不會盲目跟政府對著幹，就著政策問題，他們會一如既往跟司局長們保持接觸溝通，但若是像特首安排的飯局一類活動，恐怕就得另行考慮處理，「起碼我就不會去」。


田大少 也是官仔脾氣，若他大方出席 梁振英 的飯局，先贏了一局凸顯梁振英小器引起話題，到時又一定很多記者在飯局做訪問，入去時講吓嘢，但轉頭出嚟講吓裡面啲嘢，到完畢出來時又可以講吓另外一啲嘢，趁這個時機更多大好機會，才不斷不停講啲有骨落地的話，以德報怨豈不快哉！




後後記：

2014/11/28 陳德章向曾俊華擲蛋判監三星期


【有線新聞】社民連秘書長陳德章早前因擲雞蛋擲中財政司司長曾俊華，被裁定普通襲擊罪名成立，判監三個星期。他獲准以五百元保釋等候上訴，期間不可以離開香港。

陳德章聽取判決後面露笑容，在十多名社民連成員陪同下見記者。他認為今次的刑罰過重，表明會就刑期及裁決提出上訴。

裁判官蘇惠德判刑時表示，看過被告的社會服務令報告，被告向感化官表示自己沒犯法，亦不認為自己做錯，不接受社會服務令。裁判官稱看不到刑期有下調空間，又認為今次並非特殊情況，最後維持判被告監禁三個星期。

陳德章在去年十二月，趁特首梁振英在北角出席施政報告諮詢論壇時，向台上擲兩隻雞蛋，其中一隻擲中陪同梁振英出席諮詢會的財政司司長曾俊華。（看片）


半年後 2015-04-29 擲雞蛋擊中曾俊華，陳德章上訴被駁回維持判監 3周。。。。。


【香港電台】社民連秘書長陳德章因投擲雞蛋，擊中財政司司長曾俊華，早前被判一項普通襲擊罪名成立，被判監禁3星期，高等法院原訟庭今日駁回其上訴，需要即時入獄。





伸延閱覽：
晏嬰 維基百科
晏子使楚（附白話譯文） 百度知道
《與狼共桌》 特首網誌
與狼同桌幕後推手非來自特首辦 雅虎新聞網
梁振英與狼合照反擊 晴報新聞
陳德章向曾俊華擲蛋判監三星期 有線新聞
陳德章上訴被駁回維持判監 3周 香港電台




我的舊文：
折衝樽俎
The Wit and Wisdom of Winston Churchill
政治人物高下立見
新垂簾聽政 炒賣路姆西

鑽熟食中心之旅 III：以 Marina Bay 的夜景作結

鑽熟食中心之旅 III：以 Marina Bay 的夜景作結




跟去年的《閑遊東京》一樣，也是利用積聚的航空公司積分換取免費機票，今次選擇去 新加坡 獅城，但 嗜悲 不會入： Long Beach Seafood， Palm Beach Seafood， No Signboard Seafood，甚至 Newton Circus Food Centre 都不會去，嗜悲 今次只打算去：鑽熟食中心和探舊同事。


比起 日本東京，嗜悲 對 新加坡 的熟識程度也是不遑多讓，因為與東京相同，當年 嗜悲 還在亞太區總部學習時，也是一年會去 新加坡 公幹三四次的，一年計比起去九龍的旺角還要多。但 新加坡 地小，沒有去東京週末可以去到東京附近縣市溫泉鄉渡週末，更可以順便在公幹完畢後，攞多幾天假期，利用火車證浪遊全日本。


在 新加坡 公幹的週末，最多可以去 新山 馬來西亞 的 Johor Bahru 聊聊，或是轉向 印尼 Indonesia 的 Batam 巴淡島 去吃海鮮，去得多都厭倦了。最後，嗜悲 每個週末就搭 Singapore MRT 去到每一個組屋區探險，去探訪他們的熟食中心，享受平靚正的地道的 Local Food 新加坡美食 。。。。。。


今次重遊獅城，怎知第一炮就慘被打沉，Old Market Lau Pa Sat 老巴剎，正在維修中尚未開幕營業。少了一個好去處，也是 嗜悲 最多懷舊懷念的老地方，因為這個大型熟食中心，座落星加坡中環 = 萊佛士坊 and 珊頓大道之間，上班的日子若沒有 Business Lunch，老巴剎是 嗜悲 常到吃平價午餐的好去處。

嗜悲註：老巴剎 Old Market Lau Pa Sat 維修 2013年 11月 經已晉工重新開張營業。


沒有了 Old Market Lau Pa Sat 老巴剎，那末，就要多去幾處遠一些的熟食中心 。。。。。。


continue 第二天 （上） 。。。。去完 金文泰 繼續 嗜悲 覓食之旅！


首先介紹一吓 Bukit Timah 武吉知馬


【維基百科】Bukit Timah is an area in Singapore and a hill in that area. Bukit Timah is located near the centre of the Singapore main island. The hill stands at an altitude of 163.63 metres (537 ft.) and is the highest point in the city-state of Singapore.

Bukit Timah is considered the most expensive district in Singapore. Many high-profile personalities, expatriates and professionals reside in this posh district with houses, designer villas, bungalows and high-end condominiums.


去完 Clementi 金文泰 鴨店後，嗜悲 在 No. 17179 巴士站乘搭 184路線巴士去 Upper Bukit Timah Road，文東記 Boon Tong Kee 在 Cheong Chin Nam Road 分店吃海南雞，地點就是在見到 Bukit Timah Shopping Centre，正正對面的巴士站 no.42091下車即可。



由 A Clementi MRT 17179巴士站 搭 184路線 巴士 到 B Upper Bukit Timah Shopping Centre 對面的 42091巴士站


題外話：Singapore Bus Routes Explorer 比起香港 Gov.hk 的查找公車系統方便容易用得多，十分 User Friendly，怎麼香港人總是，墨守成規自以為是，結果不進則退，讓人家趕過了很多。



在藍色巴士站個 sign 處行到 A 就是 文東記 海南雞飯雞粥 Bukit Timah 店


本來下車後拐個彎就到了 文東記 Boon Tong Kee，但是今次 嗜悲 提早了兩個車站 No.42141落車，行行附近的 Dunearn Road 週圍和附近街道，看看以前是高尚住宅區的 Bukit Timah 有甚麽轉變。


這間看似是舖位的 “文東記” 分店，內裡裝修的頗佳有空調，但由外面仔細看看，其實是似一間鐵皮屋多些，沒有 金文泰的熟食中心鞏固，下雨不知會不會漏水


半隻海南雞還有青檸汁 文東記給了酸菜伴碟 嗜悲 沒有要求加飯


至於伴碟的酸菜，嗜悲 聽老人家教（有冇老點就唔知道），用來夾海南雞的雞胸肉來吃很好吃，估計是 文東記 神來之筆，看看 文東記 不會給很多酸菜就知道了，若夾酸菜 嗜悲 就不會再點黑醬油和橙紅色的辣椒醬，otherwise 一定落齊還兼加薑蓉。


點解 嗜悲 要選來 Bukit Timah 呢？因為之前 Singapore Turf Club（賽馬會）的 old race-course 舊馬場，是在 Bukit Timah 這裡的，嗜悲 躬逢臨搬遷之前，也是 嗜悲 初初第一次來新加坡核數，分行的一位老 VP（他的別墅式大宅就是在 Bukit Timah）請了我們一班同事去探訪，又帶我們去馬場參觀賽馬，之後就請我們來 文東記 吃海南雞。



由 B 舊馬場 去到 A 文東記 的路線距離約 4公哩


【文東記】1979年，程文华先生在牛车水的，一个小摊位开始经营粤式鸡饭小吃生意。因为他的招牌白斩鸡，嫩滑爽口，深获好评，加上程先生又非常注重；员工服务素质，所以很快地就得到，很多食客们的青睐。于是在家人的支持下，程先生于1983年，在马里士他路开设了，第一家“文东记” (Balestier Road in 1983)。

餐馆开始营业后的第二年，就获得很多老饕和餐饮业界人士的好评及赞赏。不久后，文东记就在：麦波申路，黄埔西，里岜岜利路、张振南路(Bukit Timah) 和东海岸路等陆续开了多家分店。


自始之後，嗜悲 都會自己來 Bukit Timah 這一間 文東記 來吃海南雞，至於 文東記 的老店在 大巴窯（現今劃入新區 Novena）， 反而沒有去吃過，之後 文東記 發揚光大，分店愈開愈多，但 嗜悲 仍然只會去 Bukit Timah 的分店。


吃完海南雞出來經已近黃昏，嗜悲 繼續發揮一貫 explorer 本色，去了 Bukit Timah Shopping Centre 後面的巴士站 No.42109，乘搭 171路線巴士返回 Marina Bay 的 No.02089 巴士站下車，抵達酒店房間洗過臉上風塵，再換過件清潔 T-shirt 又準備出發。




A 是 42109巴士站 乘坐 171路線巴士就可以返回酒店前面的 B 02089巴士站準確無誤



要了解 嗜悲 步出酒店再往 Marina Bay 的大約路線可以看看以下的地圖



Marina Bay 新區的全圖 Singapore Flyer 就是摩天輪 Bayfront MRT站隔鄰的就是 Sands 金沙賭場酒店 至於右下角黃土一堆的就是 Google 拍高空照時 還在建築中的 Gardens by the Bay 和 Cloud Forest Biodôme（當然如今經已完成）



嗜悲 步出酒店天已經黑齊，Singapore Flyer 摩天輪亮起了夜燈，遠方的 “金沙” 也金碧輝煌在豎立在新填海區。

金沙酒店的背面 即是不是向市區 Raffles Place 的一面



嗜悲首先來到 摩天輪的地下，原來這裡地面一層，有個 Food Court 熟食中心，一見有嘢食 嗜悲 個肚即刻畀 signal 要吃，但是剛剛吃完半隻海南雞，就先吃一個蝦麵吧。可惜，嗜悲 隨便揀的一檔蝦麵，水準不佳兼且比一般的 Food Centre 昂貴 50% 。。。。鬼咩！Singapore Flyer 屬遊客區，租金一定貴過出面頗多，嗜悲 輕嘆奈何 。。。。。連相片都沒有影。

由 Singapore Flyer 摩天輪 底部影到的照片



對岸有這一個怪物是甚麽地方呢？

原來是 Gardens by the Bay 的一部份 Cloud Forest 即是一個 Biodôme 放一個森林喺裡面



再順路去到 Marine Bay Double Helix Bridge 對面是 Sands Hotel 和 Art Science Museum

金沙 Sands 和 綽號 爛蓮花 的 Art Science Museum 博物館


還有這個 Wider Shot

包含了 Helix Bridge， Sands Hotel， Museum，還有 Raffles Place 的商業大廈



行過了 Helix Bridge 到對岸 再步行到 Biodôme （Cloud Forest）前回望 Singapore Flyer 摩天輪

Singapore Flyer 摩天輪 + 倒影


說時遲那時快 。。。。。。。風再起時！

組成 8字 不過倒影已經因為風起而散散地



再往前行拐個彎回望 Singapore Flyer 和 Marina

Singapore Flyer 的夜燈是會轉色的時而紅色時而藍色還有綠色



哈哈哈哈哈 。。。。。。。。至此竟然下起微雨來，嗜悲 唯有擔遮打傘，急急走人恐怕大雨起來冇得走，最後三步夾埋兩步，跑進了 “金沙” 酒店和賭場，總算有瓦遮頭不用害怕被雨淋，但沿途再沒有拍照，沒有影到暱稱 “大榴槤” 的 Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay，真的是損失機會。


嗜悲 絕不嗜賭博，沒有入去參觀賭場的意欲，只是行入到 security 搜身的閘口（頗嚴密）前，就轉回到 Bay Front MRT 地鐵站搭車，打道返回酒店避雨。因為下雨未能再去吃宵夜，就在 MRT 地鐵內的 “七仔” Seven Eleven 買了個杯麵，便返回酒店煲水淥麵。唉！真失敗 。。。。。昨晚吃 Subway，今晚又只能吃到 “杯麵” 當宵夜 。。。。。。吃完就疊埋心水瞓覺，希望明天會更好吧！


是日第二天，連埋杯麵也算是吃了五餐！



後記：
返到香港才知道，Sands 金沙賭場酒店 每晚都有 “噴泉 + 水幕” show 表演看，不過當晚是下雨天，錯過了也沒有濕身濕相機。




再看看人家 post 上 Youtube 的片段，嗜悲 不覺得精彩因此沒有損失，唯一就是錯過了影影 暱稱 “大榴槤” 的 Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay 夜燈照片。





伸延閱覽：
Hawker Centre Singapore 新加坡熟食中心 谷歌搜尋
Bukit Timah 維基百科
Singapore Bus Routes Explorer Public Transport Signapore




我的舊文：
閑遊東京 1 to 8
新加坡：鑽熟食中心之旅 I
新加坡：鑽熟食中心之旅 II
新加坡：鑽熟食中心之旅 IV
新加坡：鑽熟食中心之旅 V
新加坡：鑽熟食中心之旅 VI
新加坡：鑽熟食中心之旅 VII
新加坡：鑽熟食中心之旅 VIII

Nelson Mandela RIP 彌爾遜 曼德拉 入土為安

Nelson Mandela RIP 彌爾遜 曼德拉 入土為安




聽說 Beyond 的 光輝歲月 寫的就是 孟德拉


請留意歌詞



Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela 國葬喪禮將於幾個小時後舉行， Rolihlahla, a Xhosa term colloquially meaning "troublemaker"，and he shall rest in peace 在家鄉安葬安息再不會是 Rolihlahla the troublemaker！


吳靄儀 在 《明報》：法政隨筆 有篇記錄 曼德拉 在上世紀 1964年在法庭自辯的文章。


【法政隨筆 吳靄儀】在一切功過成敗都成為陳跡之後，歷史的沙灘上留下的是巨人的足印。曼德拉當年為南非的自由不惜自我犧牲的故事和偉大精神，永遠深深烙在人類的記憶之中。

我們有幸，曼德拉的辯護律師，記錄了1964年曼德拉和其他非洲民族議會成員受審的實況，特別是他著名的庭上的自辯。

他這樣描寫曼德拉的分量：「在備審的這段時間裡，我和辯護團隊裡所有的大律師，開始真正了解我們為他們的生命拚鬥的被告是何等樣人。

他們的人格、素質和才能在我們眼前展露，特別是曼德拉，他自然而然地流露出領袖的身分。我認為他具備領袖的一切特質：親切、能幹、氣度、平和、謀略、善解人意、信念堅定。

初識時，我只覺他這人很有意思和吸引人，但到了案件完結時，我已視他為一代偉人。我注意到不但在被告人當中他有這樣的身分分量，就是在獄中及管理監獄的員工之中，他也具有這種不凡的地位。

不知如何，他得到很特別的對待——不能說是恭順，但肯定是尊敬。監獄中由主管軍官以至最低層、最無知無覺的獄卒，都對他與別不同，彷彿他們知道他是個比他們高出很多的人 。。。。」



轉去讀讀（聽聽）孟德拉 自辯的全文 （谷歌翻譯 Listen：first 3 min）


I am the First Accused.


I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Arts and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without a permit and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961.

At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in its opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said.

In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland.

The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.

Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962.

In the statement which I am about to make I shall correct certain false impressions which have been created by State witnesses. Amongst other things, I will demonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the evidence were not and could not have been committed by Umkhonto. I will also deal with the relationship between the African National Congress and Umkhonto, and with the part which I personally have played in the affairs of both organizations.

I shall deal also with the part played by the Communist Party. In order to explain these matters properly, I will have to explain what Umkhonto set out to achieve; what methods it prescribed for the achievement of these objects, and why these methods were chosen. I will also have to explain how I became involved in the activities of these organizations.

I deny that Umkhonto was responsible for a number of acts which clearly fell outside the policy of the organization, and which have been charged in the indictment against us. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, but to demonstrate that they could not have been authorized by Umkhonto, I want to refer briefly to the roots and policy of the organization.

I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons.

Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war.

Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government.

We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.

But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes.

We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organization bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt.

I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress.

The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle.

It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

"Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all."

Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the past.

The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance.

More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for the role which we played in organizing the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the Judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed throughout. This was the time when the volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when the word 'Amadelakufa' was first used: this was the time when the volunteers were asked to take a pledge to uphold certain principles.

Evidence dealing with volunteers and their pledges has been introduced into this case, but completely out of context. The volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledged to fight a civil war against the whites.

They were, and are, dedicated workers who are prepared to lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organize strikes, or do whatever the particular campaign required. They are called volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts.

During the Defiance Campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These Statutes provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence.

In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress Alliance, including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the State, but when the Court gave judgement some five years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence.

We were acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a communist state in place of the existing regime. The Government has always sought to label all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been repeated in the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organization.

In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organization. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the Government and did not make the laws by which they were governed.

We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the Government,' and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground.

We believed it was our duty to preserve this organization which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting White political organization would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say.

In 1960 the Government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the Republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed constitutional change.

All of us were apprehensive of our future under the proposed White Republic, and a resolution was taken to hold an All-In African Conference to call for a National Convention, and to organize mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted Republic, if the Government failed to call the Convention.

The conference was attended by Africans of various political persuasions. I was the Secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for organizing the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of the Republic.

As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the person organizing such a strike must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest.

The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organizers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The Government's answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto.

Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the Court to appreciate the attitude eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963.

I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to fight it and, if so, how?

We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were.

But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the White man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods.

When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial State by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.

It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the Government attempted to impose Bantu Authorities in Pondoland.

Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out - it showed that a Government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as Whites, if not properly directed.

Particularly disturbing was the type of violence engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the Government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of life and bitterness.

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the Government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is Exhibit AD, we said:

"The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom."

This was our feeling in June of 1961 when we decided to press for a change in the policy of the National Liberation Movement. I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did.

We who had taken this decision started to consult leaders of various organizations, including the ANC. I will not say whom we spoke to, or what they said, but I wish to deal with the role of the African National Congress in this phase of the struggle, and with the policy and objectives of Umkhonto we Sizwe.

As far as the ANC was concerned, it formed a clear view which can be summarized as follows:

It was a mass political organization with a political function to fulfil. Its members had joined on the express policy of non-violence.

Because of all this, it could not and would not undertake violence. This must be stressed. One cannot turn such a body into the small, closely knit organization required for sabotage. Nor would this be politically correct, because it would result in members ceasing to carry out this essential activity: political propaganda and organization. Nor was it permissible to change the whole nature of the organization.

On the other hand, in view of this situation I have described, the ANC was prepared to depart from its fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence. Hence members who undertook such activity would not be subject to disciplinary action by the ANC.

I say 'properly controlled violence' because I made it clear that if I formed the organization I would at all times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC and would not undertake any different form of activity from that contemplated without the consent of the ANC. And I shall now tell the Court how that form of violence came to be determined.

As a result of this decision, Umkhonto was formed in November 1961. When we took this decision, and subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage of non-violence and racial harmony was very much with us.

We felt that the country was drifting towards a civil war in which Blacks and Whites would fight each other.

We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the destruction of what the ANC stood for; with civil war, racial peace would be more difficult than ever to achieve.

We already have examples in South African history of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty years for the scars of the South African War to disappear.

How much longer would it take to eradicate the scars of inter-racial civil war, which could not be fought without a great loss of life on both sides?

The avoidance of civil war had dominated our thinking for many years, but when we decided to adopt violence as part of our policy, we realized that we might one day have to face the prospect of such a war.

This had to be taken into account in formulating our plans. We required a plan which was flexible and which permitted us to act in accordance with the needs of the times; above all, the plan had to be one which recognized civil war as the last resort, and left the decision on this question to the future. We did not want to be committed to civil war, but we wanted to be ready if it became inevitable.

Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.

In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in our Manifesto (Exhibit AD):

"We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to achieve liberation without bloodshed and civil clash. We hope, even at this late hour, that our first actions will awaken everyone to a realization of the disastrous situation to which the Nationalist policy is leading. We hope that we will bring the Government and its supporters to their senses before it is too late, so that both the Government and its policies can be changed before matters reach the desperate state of civil war."

The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the political and economic situation of our country. We believed that South Africa depended to a large extent on foreign capital and foreign trade. We felt that planned destruction of power plants, and interference with rail and telephone communications, would tend to scare away capital from the country, make it more difficult for goods from the industrial areas to reach the seaports on schedule, and would in the long run be a heavy drain on the economic life of the country, thus compelling the voters of the country to reconsider their position.

Attacks on the economic life-lines of the country were to be linked with sabotage on Government buildings and other symbols of apartheid. These attacks would serve as a source of inspiration to our people. In addition, they would provide an outlet for those people who were urging the adoption of violent methods and would enable us to give concrete proof to our followers that we had adopted a stronger line and were fighting back against Government violence.

In addition, if mass action were successfully organized, and mass reprisals taken, we felt that sympathy for our cause would be roused in other countries, and that greater pressure would be brought to bear on the South African Government.

This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on no account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out operations. These instructions have been referred to in the evidence of 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z.'

The affairs of the Umkhonto were controlled and directed by a National High Command, which had powers of co-option and which could, and did, appoint Regional Commands. The High Command was the body which determined tactics and targets and was in charge of training and finance. Under the High Command there were Regional Commands which were responsible for the direction of the local sabotage groups.

Within the framework of the policy laid down by the National High Command, the Regional Commands had authority to select the targets to be attacked. They had no authority to go beyond the prescribed framework and thus had no authority to embark upon acts which endangered life, or which did not fit into the overall plan of sabotage.

For instance, Umkhonto members were forbidden ever to go armed into operation. Incidentally, the terms High Command and Regional Command were an importation from the Jewish national underground organization Irgun Zvai Leumi, which operated in Israel between 1944 and 1948.

Umkhonto had its first operation on 16 December 1961, when Government buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred.

Had we intended to attack life we would have selected targets where people congregated and not empty buildings and power stations. The sabotage which was committed before 16 December 1961 was the work of isolated groups and had no connection whatever with Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and a number of later acts were claimed by other organizations.

The Manifesto of Umkhonto was issued on the day that operations commenced. The response to our actions and Manifesto among the white population was characteristically violent. The Government threatened to take strong action, and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to ignore the demands of the Africans. The Whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they responded to our call by suggesting the laager.

In contrast, the response of the Africans was one of encouragement. Suddenly there was hope again. Things were happening. People in the townships became eager for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was generated by the initial successes, and people began to speculate on how soon freedom would be obtained.

But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety. The lines were being drawn. The whites and blacks were moving into separate camps, and the prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The white newspapers carried reports that sabotage would be punished by death. If this was so, how could we continue to keep Africans away from terrorism?

Already scores of Africans had died as a result of racial friction. In 1920 when the famous leader, Masabala, was held in Port Elizabeth jail, twenty-four of a group of Africans who had gathered to demand his release were killed by the police and white civilians. In 1921 more than one hundred Africans died in the Bulhoek affair. In 1924 over two hundred Africans were killed when the Administrator of South-West Africa led a force against a group which had rebelled against the imposition of dog tax. On 1 May 1950, eighteen Africans died as a result of police shootings during the strike. On 21 March 1960, sixty-nine unarmed Africans died at Sharpeville.

How many more Sharpevilles would there be in the history of our country? And how many more Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence and terror becoming the order of the day? And what would happen to our people when that stage was reached? In the long run we felt certain we must succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the rest of the country? And if this happened, how could black and white ever live together again in peace and harmony? These were the problems that faced us, and these were our decisions.

Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the Government limitless opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was precisely because the soil of South Africa is already drenched with the blood of innocent Africans that we felt it our duty to make preparations as a long-term undertaking to use force in order to defend ourselves against force.

If war were inevitable, we wanted the fight to be conducted on terms most favorable to our people. The fight which held out prospects best for us and the least risk of life to both sides was guerrilla warfare. We decided, therefore, in our preparations for the future, to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare.

All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training was given to Africans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus of trained men who would be able to provide the leadership which would be required if guerrilla warfare started.

We had to prepare for such a situation before it became too late to make proper preparations. It was also necessary to build up a nucleus of men trained in civil administration and other professions, so that Africans would be equipped to participate in the government of this country as soon as they were allowed to do so.

At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for Central, East, and Southern Africa, which was to be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and, because of our need for preparation, it was also decided that, after the conference, I would undertake a tour of the African States with a view to obtaining facilities for the training of soldiers, and that I would also solicit scholarships for the higher education of matriculated Africans. Training in both fields would be necessary, even if changes came about by peaceful means. Administrators would be necessary who would be willing and able to administer a non-racial State and so would men be necessary to control the army and police force of such a State.

It was on this note that I left South Africa to proceed to Addis Ababa as a delegate of the ANC. My tour was a success. Wherever I went I met sympathy for our cause and promises of help. All Africa was united against the stand of White South Africa, and even in London I was received with great sympathy by political leaders, such as Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Grimond.

In Africa I was promised support by such men as Julius Nyerere, now President of Tanganyika; Mr. Kawawa, then Prime Minister of Tanganyika; Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia; General Abboud, President of the Sudan; Habib Bourguiba, President of Tunisia; Ben Bella, now President of Algeria; Modibo Keita, President of Mali; Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal; Sekou Toure, President of Guinea; President Tubman of Liberia; and Milton Obote, Prime Minister of Uganda.

It was Ben Bella who invited me to visit Oujda, the Headquarters of the Algerian Army of National Liberation, the visit which is described in my diary, one of the Exhibits.

I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst abroad, underwent a course in military training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and to share the hazards of war with them.

Notes of lectures which I received in Algeria are contained in Exhibit 16, produced in evidence. Summaries of books on guerrilla warfare and military strategy have also been produced. I have already admitted that these documents are in my writing, and I acknowledge that I made these studies to equip myself for the role which I might have to play if the struggle drifted into guerrilla warfare. I approached this question as every African Nationalist should do. I was completely objective.

The Court will see that I attempted to examine all types of authority on the subject - from the East and from the West, going back to the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the Anglo-Boer War on the other. Of course, these notes are merely summaries of the books I read and do not contain my personal views.

I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo military training. But here it was impossible to organize any scheme without the co-operation of the ANC offices in Africa. I consequently obtained the permission of the ANC in South Africa to do this.

To this extent then there was a departure from the original decision of the ANC, but it applied outside South Africa only. The first batch of recruits actually arrived in Tanganyika when I was passing through that country on my way back to South Africa.

I returned to South Africa and reported to my colleagues on the results of my trip. On my return I found that there had been little alteration in the political scene save that the threat of a death penalty for sabotage had now become a fact.

The attitude of my colleagues in Umkhonto was much the same as it had been before I left. They were feeling their way cautiously and felt that it would be a long time before the possibilities of sabotage were exhausted. In fact, the view was expressed by some that the training of recruits was premature.

This is recorded by me in the document which is Exhibit R.14. After a full discussion, however, it was decided to go ahead with the plans for military training because of the fact that it would take many years to build up a sufficient nucleus of trained soldiers to start a guerrilla campaign, and whatever happened, the training would be of value.

I wish to turn now to certain general allegations made in this case by the State. But before doing so, I wish to revert to certain occurrences said by witnesses to have happened in Port Elizabeth and East London.

I am referring to the bombing of private houses of pro-Government persons during September, October and November 1962. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, nor what provocation had been given. But if what I have said already is accepted, then it is clear that these acts had nothing to do with the carrying out of the policy of Umkhonto.

One of the chief allegations in the indictment is that the ANC was a party to a general conspiracy to commit sabotage. I have already explained why this is incorrect but how, externally, there was a departure from the original principle laid down by the ANC.

There has, of course, been overlapping of functions internally as well, because there is a difference between a resolution adopted in the atmosphere of a committee room and the concrete difficulties that arise in the field of practical activity.

At a later stage the position was further affected by bannings and house arrests, and by persons leaving the country to take up political work abroad. This led to individuals having to do work in different capacities. But though this may have blurred the distinction between Umkhonto and the ANC, it by no means abolished that distinction. Great care was taken to keep the activities of the two organizations in South Africa distinct.

The ANC remained a mass political body of Africans only carrying on the type of political work they had conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained a small organization recruiting its members from different races and organizations and trying to achieve its own particular object. The fact that members of Umkhonto were recruited from the ANC, and the fact that persons served both organizations, like Solomon Mbanjwa, did not, in our view, change the nature of the ANC or give it a policy of violence. This overlapping of officers, however, was more the exception than the rule.

This is why persons such as 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z,' who were on the Regional Command of their respective areas, did not participate in any of the ANC committees or activities, and why people such as Mr. Bennett Mashiyana and Mr. Reginald Ndubi did not hear of sabotage at their ANC meetings.

Another of the allegations in the indictment is that Rivonia was the headquarters of Umkhonto. This is not true of the time when I was there. I was told, of course, and knew that certain of the activities of the Communist Party were carried on there. But this is no reason (as I shall presently explain) why I should not use the place.

I came there in the following manner:

As already indicated, early in April 1961 I went underground to organize the May general strike. My work entailed travelling throughout the country, living now in African townships, then in country villages and again in cities.

During the second half of the year I started visiting the Parktown home of Arthur Goldreich, where I used to meet my family privately. Although I had no direct political association with him, I had known Arthur Goldreich socially since 1958.

In October, Arthur Goldreich informed me that he was moving out of town and offered me a hiding place there. A few days thereafter, he arranged for Michael Harmel to take me to Rivonia. I naturally found Rivonia an ideal place for the man who lived the life of an outlaw. Up to that time I had been compelled to live indoors during the daytime and could only venture out under cover of darkness. But at Liliesleaf [farm, Rivonia,] I could live differently and work far more efficiently.

For obvious reasons, I had to disguise myself and I assumed the fictitious name of David. In December, Arthur Goldreich and his family moved in. I stayed there until I went abroad on 11 January 1962. As already indicated, I returned in July 1962 and was arrested in Natal on 5 August.
Up to the time of my arrest, Liliesleaf farm was the headquarters of neither the African National Congress nor Umkhonto. With the exception of myself, none of the officials or members of these bodies lived there, no meetings of the governing bodies were ever held there, and no activities connected with them were either organized or directed from there. On numerous occasions during my stay at Liliesleaf farm I met both the Executive Committee of the ANC, as well as the NHC, but such meetings were held elsewhere and not on the farm.

Whilst staying at Liliesleaf farm, I frequently visited Arthur Goldreich in the main house and he also paid me visits in my room. We had numerous political discussions covering a variety of subjects. We discussed ideological and practical questions, the Congress Alliance, Umkhonto and its activities generally, and his experiences as a soldier in the Palmach, the military wing of the Haganah. Haganah was the political authority of the Jewish National Movement in Palestine.

Because of what I had got to know of Goldreich, I recommended on my return to South Africa that he should be recruited to Umkhonto. I do not know of my personal knowledge whether this was done.

Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party are the same. I wish to deal with this and with my own political position, because I must assume that the State may try to argue from certain Exhibits that I tried to introduce Marxism into the ANC. The allegation as to the ANC is false.

This is an old allegation which was disproved at the Treason Trial and which has again reared its head. But since the allegation has been made again, I shall deal with it as well as with the relationship between the ANC and the Communist Party and Umkhonto and that party.

The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism. It is not the concept of African Nationalism expressed in the cry, 'Drive the White man into the sea.'

The African Nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the African people in their own land. The most important political document ever adopted by the ANC is the 'Freedom Charter.' It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but not nationalization, of land; it provides for nationalization of mines, banks, and monopoly industry, because big monopolies are owned by one race only, and without such nationalization racial domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of political power.

It would be a hollow gesture to repeal the Gold Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines are owned by European companies. In this respect the ANC's policy corresponds with the old policy of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as part of its programme the nationalization of the gold mines which, at that time, were controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter, nationalization would take place in an economy based on private enterprise.

The realization of the Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any period of its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned capitalist society.

As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its policy correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the principles of Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom Charter, as a short term solution to the problems created by white supremacy, it regards the Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not the end, of its program.

The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as members. Its chief goal was, and is, for the African people to win unity and full political rights. The Communist Party's main aim, on the other hand, was to remove the capitalists and to replace them with a working-class government. The Communist Party sought to emphasize class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonize them. This is a vital distinction.

It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal - in this case the removal of white supremacy - and is not proof of a complete community of interests.

The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great Britain, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or communist tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a communist world.

Another instance of such co-operation is to be found precisely in Umkhonto. Shortly after Umkhonto was constituted, I was informed by some of its members that the Communist Party would support Umkhonto, and this then occurred. At a later stage the support was made openly.

I believe that communists have always played an active role in the fight by colonial countries for their freedom, because the short-term objects of communism would always correspond with the long-term objects of freedom movements.

Thus communists have played an important role in the freedom struggles fought in countries such as Malaya, Algeria, and Indonesia, yet none of these States today are communist countries. Similarly in the underground resistance movements which sprung up in Europe during the last World War, communists played an important role.

Even General Chiang Kai-Shek, today one of the bitterest enemies of communism, fought together with the communists against the ruling class in the struggle which led to his assumption of power in China in the 1930s.

This pattern of co-operation between communists and non-communists has been repeated in the National Liberation Movement of South Africa. Prior to the banning of the Communist Party, joint campaigns involving the Communist Party and the Congress movements were accepted practice.

African communists could, and did, become members of the ANC, and some served on the National, Provincial, and local committees. Amongst those who served on the National Executive are Albert Nzula, a former Secretary of the Communist Party, Moses Kotane, another former Secretary, and J. B. Marks, a former member of the Central Committee.

I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my younger days I held the view that the policy of admitting communists to the ANC, and the close co-operation which existed at times on specific issues between the ANC and the Communist Party, would lead to a watering down of the concept of African Nationalism.

At that stage I was a member of the African National Congress Youth League, and was one of a group which moved for the expulsion of communists from the ANC. This proposal was heavily defeated. Amongst those who voted against the proposal were some of the most conservative sections of African political opinion.

They defended the policy on the ground that from its inception the ANC was formed and built up, not as a political party with one school of political thought, but as a Parliament of the African people, accommodating people of various political convictions, all united by the common goal of national liberation. I was eventually won over to this point of view and I have upheld it ever since.

It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage.

What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They were the only political group which was prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism.

They are supported in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of democratic government and African freedom as communists and bans many of them (who are not communists) under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although I have never been a member of the Communist Party, I myself have been named under that pernicious Act because of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and imprisoned under that Act.

It is not only in internal politics that we count communists as amongst those who support our cause. In the international field, communist countries have always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other Councils of the world the communist bloc has supported the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western powers.

Although there is a universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist bloc speaks out against it with a louder voice than most of the white world. In these circumstances, it would take a brash young politician, such as I was in 1949, to proclaim that the Communists are our enemies.

I turn now to my own position. I have denied that I am a communist, and I think that in the circumstances I am obliged to state exactly what my political beliefs are.

I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an African patriot. After all, I was born in Umtata, forty-six years ago. My guardian was my cousin, who was the acting paramount chief of Tembuland, and I am related both to the present paramount chief of Tembuland, Sabata Dalindyebo, and to Kaizer Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei.

Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and organization of early African societies in this country. The land, then the main means of production, belonged to the tribe. There were no rich or poor and there was no exploitation.

It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new independent States. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists.

Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to debate whether the Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage of our political struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the removal of race discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the basis of the Freedom Charter. In so far as that Party furthers this task, I welcome its assistance. I realize that it is one of the means by which people of all races can be drawn into our struggle.

From my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists, I have gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system.

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.

I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country's system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fails to arouse my admiration.

The American Congress, that country's doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.

I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the West and from the East . . .

There are certain Exhibits which suggest that we received financial support from abroad, and I wish to deal with this question.

Our political struggle has always been financed from internal sources - from funds raised by our own people and by our own supporters. Whenever we had a special campaign or an important political case - for example, the Treason Trial - we received financial assistance from sympathetic individuals and organizations in the Western countries. We had never felt it necessary to go beyond these sources.

But when in 1961 the Umkhonto was formed, and a new phase of struggle introduced, we realized that these events would make a heavy call on our slender resources, and that the scale of our activities would be hampered by the lack of funds. One of my instructions, as I went abroad in January 1962, was to raise funds from the African states.

I must add that, whilst abroad, I had discussions with leaders of political movements in Africa and discovered that almost every single one of them, in areas which had still not attained independence, had received all forms of assistance from the socialist countries, as well as from the West, including that of financial support. I also discovered that some well-known African states, all of them non-communists, and even anti-communists, had received similar assistance.

On my return to the Republic, I made a strong recommendation to the ANC that we should not confine ourselves to Africa and the Western countries, but that we should also send a mission to the socialist countries to raise the funds which we so urgently needed.

I have been told that after I was convicted such a mission was sent, but I am not prepared to name any countries to which it went, nor am I at liberty to disclose the names of the organizations and countries which gave us support or promised to do so.

As I understand the State case, and in particular the evidence of 'Mr. X,' the suggestion is that Umkhonto was the inspiration of the Communist Party which sought by playing upon imaginary grievances to enroll the African people into an army which ostensibly was to fight for African freedom, but in reality was fighting for a communist state. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the suggestion is preposterous. Umkhonto was formed by Africans to further their struggle for freedom in their own land. Communists and others supported the movement, and we only wish that more sections of the community would join us.

Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships or, to use the language of the State Prosecutor, 'so-called hardships.' Basically, we fight against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called 'agitators' to teach us about these things.

South Africa is the richest country in Africa, and could be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and remarkable contrasts. The whites enjoy what may well be the highest standard of living in the world, whilst Africans live in poverty and misery. Forty per cent of the Africans live in hopelessly overcrowded and, in some cases, drought-stricken Reserves, where soil erosion and the overworking of the soil makes it impossible for them to live properly off the land.

Thirty per cent are laborers, labor tenants, and squatters on white farms and work and live under conditions similar to those of the serfs of the Middle Ages. The other 30 per cent live in towns where they have developed economic and social habits which bring them closer in many respects to white standards. Yet most Africans, even in this group, are impoverished by low incomes and high cost of living.

The highest-paid and the most prosperous section of urban African life is in Johannesburg. Yet their actual position is desperate. The latest figures were given on 25 March 1964 by Mr. Carr, Manager of the Johannesburg Non-European Affairs Department. The poverty datum line for the average African family in Johannesburg (according to Mr. Carr's department) is R42.84 per month. He showed that the average monthly wage is R32.24 and that 46 per cent of all African families in Johannesburg do not earn enough to keep them going.

Poverty goes hand in hand with malnutrition and disease. The incidence of malnutrition and deficiency diseases is very high amongst Africans. Tuberculosis, pellagra, kwashiorkor, gastro-enteritis, and scurvy bring death and destruction of health. The incidence of infant mortality is one of the highest in the world.

According to the Medical Officer of Health for Pretoria, tuberculosis kills forty people a day (almost all Africans), and in 1961 there were 58,491 new cases reported. These diseases not only destroy the vital organs of the body, but they result in retarded mental conditions and lack of initiative, and reduce powers of concentration. The secondary results of such conditions affect the whole community and the standard of work performed by African laborers.

The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are designed to preserve this situation. There are two ways to break out of poverty. The first is by formal education, and the second is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at his work and thus higher wages. As far as Africans are concerned, both these avenues of advancement are deliberately curtailed by legislation.

The present Government has always sought to hamper Africans in their search for education. One of their early acts, after coming into power, was to stop subsidies for African school feeding. Many African children who attended schools depended on this supplement to their diet. This was a cruel act.

There is compulsory education for all white children at virtually no cost to their parents, be they rich or poor. Similar facilities are not provided for the African children, though there are some who receive such assistance. African children, however, generally have to pay more for their schooling than whites.

According to figures quoted by the South African Institute of Race Relations in its 1963 journal, approximately 40 per cent of African children in the age group between seven to fourteen do not attend school.

For those who do attend school, the standards are vastly different from those afforded to white children. In 1960-61 the per capita Government spending on African students at State-aided schools was estimated at R12.46. In the same years, the per capita spending on white children in the Cape Province (which are the only figures available to me) was R144.57. Although there are no figures available to me, it can be stated, without doubt, that the white children on whom R144.57 per head was being spent all came from wealthier homes than African children on whom R12.46 per head was being spent.

The quality of education is also different. According to the Bantu Educational Journal, only 5,660 African children in the whole of South Africa passed their Junior Certificate in 1962, and in that year only 362 passed matric. This is presumably consistent with the policy of Bantu education about which the present Prime Minister said, during the debate on the Bantu Education Bill in 1953:

"When I have control of Native education I will reform it so that Natives will be taught from childhood to realize that equality with Europeans is not for them . . . People who believe in equality are not desirable teachers for Natives. When my Department controls Native education it will know for what class of higher education a Native is fitted, and whether he will have a chance in life to use his knowledge."

The other main obstacle to the economic advancement of the African is the industrial color-bar under which all the better jobs of industry are reserved for Whites only. Moreover, Africans who do obtain employment in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations which are open to them are not allowed to form trade unions which have recognition under the Industrial Conciliation Act. This means that strikes of African workers are illegal, and that they are denied the right of collective bargaining which is permitted to the better-paid White workers.

The discrimination in the policy of successive South African Governments towards African workers is demonstrated by the so-called 'civilized labor policy' under which sheltered, unskilled Government jobs are found for those white workers who cannot make the grade in industry, at wages which far exceed the earnings of the average African employee in industry.

The Government often answers its critics by saying that Africans in South Africa are economically better off than the inhabitants of the other countries in Africa. I do not know whether this statement is true and doubt whether any comparison can be made without having regard to the cost-of-living index in such countries.

But even if it is true, as far as the African people are concerned it is irrelevant. Our complaint is not that we are poor by comparison with people in other countries, but that we are poor by comparison with the white people in our own country, and that we are prevented by legislation from altering this imbalance.

The lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the direct result of the policy of white supremacy. White supremacy implies black inferiority. Legislation designed to preserve white supremacy entrenches this notion. Menial tasks in South Africa are invariably performed by Africans.

When anything has to be carried or cleaned the white man will look around for an African to do it for him, whether the African is employed by him or not. Because of this sort of attitude, whites tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them as people with families of their own; they do not realize that they have emotions - that they fall in love like white people do; that they want to be with their wives and children like white people want to be with theirs; that they want to earn enough money to support their families properly, to feed and clothe them and send them to school. And what 'house-boy' or 'garden-boy' or laborer can ever hope to do this?

Pass laws, which to the Africans are among the most hated bits of legislation in South Africa, render any African liable to police surveillance at any time. I doubt whether there is a single African male in South Africa who has not at some stage had a brush with the police over his pass. Hundreds and thousands of Africans are thrown into jail each year under pass laws. Even worse than this is the fact that pass laws keep husband and wife apart and lead to the breakdown of family life.

Poverty and the breakdown of family life have secondary effects. Children wander about the streets of the townships because they have no schools to go to, or no money to enable them to go to school, or no parents at home to see that they go to school, because both parents (if there be two) have to work to keep the family alive.

This leads to a breakdown in moral standards, to an alarming rise in illegitimacy, and to growing violence which erupts not only politically, but everywhere. Life in the townships is dangerous. There is not a day that goes by without somebody being stabbed or assaulted. And violence is carried out of the townships in the white living areas. People are afraid to walk alone in the streets after dark. Housebreakings and robberies are increasing, despite the fact that the death sentence can now be imposed for such offences. Death sentences cannot cure the festering sore.

Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not work which the Government declares them to be capable of. Africans want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own.

Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes. African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men's hostels. African women want to be with their menfolk and not be left permanently widowed in the Reserves.

Africans want to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night and not to be confined to their rooms like little children. Africans want to be allowed to travel in their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where the Labor Bureau tells them to. Africans want a just share in the whole of South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.

Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.

But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on color, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one color group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.


But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.



Nelson Mandela - April 20, 1964


繼續
【法政隨筆 吳靄儀】他記錄了曼德拉庭上自辯的內容與情景：「站立在犯人柵內，他很慢，很寧靜地用平板的聲音，宣讀他寫好的講稿，很少提高聲音，或改變不徐不疾的語調。他的聲音在整個法庭清晰可聞。讀著讀著，漸漸法庭的寂靜愈來愈深，直至有如無人敢稍為移動或透氣。」

他講及自己的成長、抱負、非洲人民的苦難及對正常自由生活的渴望，講及人類與生俱來享有的平等權利，講及自己和同伴們的政治奮鬥，講及民主自由、公平公義的社會：「然後他停頓良久，整個法庭鴉雀無聲，他就抬眼平視法官結語：『這是我有生之年希望爭取和達到的理想。』

接著他低聲續說：『但如有必要，我願意為這個理想獻出生命。』」


【History Place】Nelson Mandela was born the son of a Tembu tribal chieftain on July 18, 1918, at Qunu, near Umtata, in South Africa. He renounced his right to succeed his father and instead chose a political career. He attended college, became a lawyer, joined the African National Congress (ANC) in 1944 and helped found its powerful Youth League

In 1962, he was arrested by South African security police for his opposition to the white government and its apartheid ("separateness") policies of racial, political, and economic discrimination against the nonwhite majority.

In 1964, the government brought further charges including sabotage, high treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government. This is Mandela's statement from the dock at the opening of his defense in the 1964 trial.


曼德拉 在 貳靈壹弎年十二月五日南非家中安然去世，He passed away on 2013-12-05 in South Africa he was 95 享年 九十五歲。


今天 曼德拉的靈柩，將會在他南非的故鄉下葬，REST in Peace RIP Nelson Mandela！他是不是位完人我不知道，但他為打破種族隔離奮鬥貢獻一生，值得景仰！


In a 2006 documentary Mandela was clear on how he wanted to be remembered.


Here lies a man who has done his duty on earth
埋葬在這裡的是已經盡了自己職責的人！

伸延閱覽：

But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. Nelson Mandela - April 20, 1964 historyplace.com

Here lies a man who has done his duty on earth！ inquirer.net

我的舊文：

落難的王子

再 不言而喻

空櫈