City Planning to Serve Ordinary People or Those in Power?

City Planning to Serve Ordinary People or Those in Power?
Mary Yuen
CTEWC Forum, 1 May 2019
http://www.catholicethics.com/forum-submissions/city-planning-to-serve-ordinary-people-or-those-in-power

Keywords: city planning, development, housing problems, environmental problem, Laudato Si, political structure

Everyone wants to own a comfortable and decent home. Good city planning should aim at providing people a decent place to live in dignity, taking into consideration the impact of city planning on the future generation and the environment. In Hong Kong, due to the government policy of giving privilege to the property developers since the colonial rule period, as well as the wrong use of land and lack of long-term city planning, Hong Kong is regarded as one of the world’s least affordable property markets, leading to serious housing problems. Tens of thousands of low-income families are waiting in long queues for public rental housing and they are forced to live in super small cubical units. Some families even live in a room of less than 15 square meters.

In order to solve the land supply problem, the existing government set up a Task Force on Land Supply in September 2017, and a public consultation was conducted in April 2018 in order to arrive at a consensus on land supply measures. However, without waiting for the report from the Task Force, in the name of increasing land and housing supply in various ways and preparing for future use, Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, announced an ambitious, controversial plan of creating a new metropolis on artificial islands, known as “Lantau Tomorrow Vision” in her annual policy address in October 2018. Lam said that there is an urgent need to solve the housing problem and people cannot wait. This scheme will be the most expensive infrastructure project in Hong Kong, or one of the world’s most expensive construction projects, with an estimated cost of at least HK$624 billion (US$80 billion).

In view of this multibillion-dollar project, Hong Kong city planning scholar Mee-kam Ng raises an important question: Does city planning aim at serving those in power, and maintaining the interests of a small group of people with a grand vision and blueprint? Or is city planning really able to serve the ordinary people and solve the land problem, without destroying the ecology?

In this project, the government will build several gigantic man-made islands east and north of Lantau Island, the largest island in Hong Kong and where the Hong Kong airport is located. These huge artificial islands are envisioned to provide 1,700 hectares of land, where an estimated 260,000 to 400,000 new homes can be built to accommodate 0.7 to 1.1 million people. If everything goes smoothly, these new homes would be available by 2032. Such a plan astonished many people, especially members of the Task Force on Land Supply, as reclaiming 1,700 hectares of land was never mentioned during the public consultation.

There are a number of concerns about this project. One of the biggest concerns is the cost. Although the estimated cost is billions of dollars, the government denied it would drain the public coffers because the estimated cost averaged out to an affordable HK$50 billion annually over 15 years. However, legislator Eddie Chu argued that the estimate was misleading because it did not count in the inflated cost. Chu suggested that the final bill could be more than HK$1 trillion (US$128 billion) by the time reclamation began, that is, almost all the financial reserves of Hong Kong. Moreover, objectors also expressed concern about cost overruns, which had caused trouble to major infrastructure projects in recent years. Many wonder if it is worth investing all in one project. Is it making good use of resources?
Critics argued that other options for boosting land supply should be employed, including developing 1,300 hectares of brownfield sites, the degraded agricultural land occupied by businesses like car parks or recycling yards in the New Territories. A study by Greenpeace found that it would cost only 10 per cent of the Lantau budget to buy 800 hectares of unplanned brownfield sites. Even when the cost of relocating businesses operating on such sites or infrastructure is added, the cost would be much less. Moreover, developing these existing sites is much faster than reclaiming land. Greenpeace said by spending less money, the government could gain large tracts of land for development while solving planning problems in rural areas. This is a much better alternative. As Professor Ng points out, figures show that Hong Kong does not lack land, but there are extremely serious problems in planning and distributing land usage.

Furthermore, concerns have centered on pollution and environmental damage arising from the creation of new land. Large scale reclamation will damage the ecosystems of the sea and its surrounding areas. Residents of nearby islands and professionals worry that by creating new islands, the sea channels would be narrowed and currents would intensify, thus, waves could become higher and more powerful when strong typhoons hit. It would also affect the quality of water and the living environment of sea creatures. Moreover, reclamation requires tons of sand, imported from mainland China and other places. It would lead to an ecological crisis in these places. Looking back at the history of reclamation, Hong Kong has never tried to reclaim land from the middle of the sea like at East Lantau. This is a kind of building “out of nothing”, using a triumphalist and anthropocentric attitude to build land without caring about the side-effect and undesirable results. Do the government officials even think of the universal destination of the world’s goods and the basic human rights, that is a safe living environment, of the existing residents of the nearby islands who are ordinary people without much power? These are important Catholic principles when we evaluate any policy of development.

Global warming and climate change also matter, as indicated in the social encyclical Laudato Si. According to climatologists, if the earth's temperature rises by 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, the water level may rise by 4.7 to 8.9 meters after 200 years. How high will the East Lantau need to build in order to protect the future of this artificial island for our future generations? If we want to withstand the effects of climate change and seawater rise, it will definitely cost a lot, and there will be considerable risks. This path is impossible to solve the housing problems of Hong Kong people today. This kind of construction, which is hostile to nature, is likely to become a burden for our city in the long run. Is it responsible to use hundreds of billions of resources to destroy the marine ecology and build an artificial construction that may be ravaged by climate change? As Pope Francis put it, “what kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?” (LS, #160) The notion of common good also extends to future generation. We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity (LS, #159). Such irresponsible and unsustainable development behavior would not be agreed to by many people, except to government officials and big construction companies.

The vision of city planning should be based on reality, the needs of people, scientific arguments, rational analysis, and care for the laws of nature through listening to viewpoints of relevant parties, especially experts in relevant fields and people who live in the city. If the Hong Kong government only seeks to increase land with its narrow vision and merely listens to those who support its policy and the business sector, lacking the vision of strategic planning and denying people’s participation in policy-making, Hong Kong is unlikely to become sustainable in the future. In fact, many believe that the force behind this project is the big Hong Kong and Chinese enterprises which have close connection with the Chinese government.

The “Lantau Tomorrow Vision” project is just one example which demonstrates the governing attitude of the government – refusing to listen to people’s opinions and concerns, and concerning more about the interest of the big business enterprises as well as the Chinese government, due to the unjust political structure of Hong Kong. The recent discussion of the extradition law which allows the government to transfer fugitives to jurisdictions the city does not now have an extradition agreement with, such as mainland China, is an example of this.

Under the existing political structure, our government leaders are not directly elected by all people. They may not feel the need to be accountable to the general public, but only to the 1,200 people appointed by the Beijing government in the small-circle election committee, in which many are from the business sector and big property developers. That is why so many Hong Kong people, especially the younger generation, have tried to strive for democracy and try to affect the policies that are related to ourselves. This can be seen through the social and democratic movements, especially the 2014 Occupy Movement/Umbrella Movement. Unfortunately and sadly, in April 2019, nine Occupy Movement leaders were all found guilty of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and some were also convicted of one count of inciting others to commit public nuisance and/or inciting others to incite. Four of them were put in jail immediately from 8 to 16 months. But in fact, they just tried to challenge the existing political structure through an action of civil disobedience. Such a result leads to disappointment, frustration and helplessness on the part of many people, knowing there will be no big change in the near future.

In spite of this, Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai said: “No matter what happens, I am confident that many of us will continue to strive for democracy. We will persist and will not give up.” Another co-founder Kin-man Chan said: “I still believe in the power of love and peace.”

In city planning or other policies, though there is a lack of consultation and authentic listening to the needs of people, we have to insist in expressing our opinions through various means, and never give up.

Who should decide who I am

Patriotism, to a large extent, depends on one’s sense of belonging to his/her country. The sense of patriotism heightens when people feel proud of their country or want to protect their country at a time of crisis. In Hong Kong, loving one’s country may mean loving its history, culture, tradition and/or people. However, in mainland China, loving the nation may require one to love the Communist Party and the Chinese government at the same time.

Since the changeover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty from Britain to China in 1997, the Chinese government has tried to promote the sense of patriotism among Hong Kong people. In recent years, the sense of belonging to China goes downward consistently, due to the tension between the Chinese government/ mainland Chinese and Hongkongers. Such tension comes from different values on human rights, democracy, civility as well as daily life practices and shopping behaviors. In order to enhance the sense of belonging and patriotism, a number of measures have been introduced in Hong Kong, such as making Chinese history a compulsory subject in secondary schools and the legislation of (respecting) national anthem law.

The most recent measure is the broadcasting of a speech on the role and mission of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) under the national constitution and the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of Hong Kong, by a senior mainland official in secondary schools, apart from addressing the Hong Kong top-ranking officials. In his speech, Li Fei, deputy secretary-general of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee and the HKSAR Basic Law Committee Chairman, urged Hong Kong to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty, security and development interests. He pointed out that there are three main questions that Hong Kong has to face: Where are you from? Who are you? Where are you heading to?

These three questions were raised under the assumption that China’s Central Government is the origin of the Hong Kong government and the national constitution is the root of the Hong Kong Basic Law. No matter how special Hong Kong is, Li emphasized, it is under the rule and supervision of the central leaders and the national constitution. The central administration enjoys the comprehensive ruling power.
Li highlighted that Hong Kong should not tolerate any attempts that promote separatism or jeopardize the country’s security, honor and interests. This was referring to the advocacy of Hong Kong’s independence among young people in university campus and the booing of Chinese national anthem in international football matches by some Hong Kong fans. Moreover, Li discussed Hong Kong’s responsibility to guard national development interests.
It is interesting to see that the three questions mentioned by Li are also often asked by moral theologians and virtue ethicists, though the intention and underlying assumption are very different.
Virtue ethicists view moral agents as people freely pursuing their desire for happiness in life. The moral agent, rather than moral action or its consequences, is at the center of moral reflection. They understand human agency as a means of shaping character, which is an important component of decision and action. It emphasizes a person in relationship with others through one’s character and choices. The answer to each question of the three interrelated questions—Who are we? Who ought we to become? And how do we get there?—refers to the virtues. Linking virtue ethics to social ethics would also urge us to think what constitutes a good human life that promotes common good? What virtues do we need to be just and caring? What would a person with relational and social virtues look like? How does one cultivate these relational virtues in our context?

When someone ask who are we that live in Hong Kong, we would say, we just want to be Hongkongers that can decide our own destiny, involving in the decision-making process of those policies that affect our own lives, in order to build a society with just and care.

However, for Li Fei and other leaders of the central government, their main concern is not so much about the moral agency or freedom of Hongkongers. The ruling authority is not inviting Hong Kong people to seek for our identity and explore where to go and how to get there. Rather, the ruling authority has decided the goals of Hong Kong as well as its people. The Beijing Government does not want to see any action or even thought that is not in line with them. This has been exercised explicitly through the Hong Kong government. Thus, when Hongkongers asked for democracy and political participation, they were rejected. Those who employed more radical ways were punished through harsh terms. This can be seen through the harsh punishment of some young pro-democracy activists who joined protests.

It seems that the Hong Kong/Central Government officials neglect the fact that a sense of belonging cannot be taught or imposed on, or be dictated by officials in Beijing or here in Hong Kong. Enough space should be given to Hongkongers as we search for our identity. It is impossible to allow only one way of expressing belonging or patriotism. The only way to foster understanding and respect is authentic dialogue among various parties on an equal base. Meanwhile, to nurture democratic character, practicing democracy in daily life and persistent reflection are indispensable. The words of Alex Chow, one of the student leaders being jailed may inspire us. He said after his release on bail, “Democracy will be my practice in my whole life, as a scholar or an activist, even if there will be suppression.”

This is also true among Hong Kong people who support democracy. Since the Umbrella Movement, there is a split in the pro-democratic camp on the strategy of striving for democracy and social change. On the one hand, the older generation opts for a realistic and pragmatic way of accepting the political reality. On the other hand, the younger generation chooses a more radical way of resistance in order to take charge of their destiny, opting for self-determination or even independence, though they may not achieve much at present. Some of them even have to pay a high price of being jailed.

Such difference is based on the different experiences and realities of generations, as a commentator said. There is no one absolute answer to the right way of striving for democracy and justice. More important is to maintain our ability of reflection and reasoning, willing to listen to the other side and to analyze the pros and cons of various strategies. We should bear in mind that our political stance or strategy is not the only truth and the other side may not be all wrong. Willingness to dialogue and listen is always an imperative to reconciliation in a split society.

Small-circle Election in Hong Kong

Small-circle Election in Hong Kong
Mary Mee-Yin Yuen
The First, CTEWC (April 2017)

Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor Carrie has been elected Hong Kong’s next chief executive (CE) on 26 March, 2017. However, it was not an authentic election as Lam gained only 777 votes from the 1,194-member Election Committee – around 0.03 per cent of the population – composed mostly of Beijing government’s loyalists. A former chief secretary and deputy to the existing chief executive, Lam is the fourth Hong Kong’s chief executive since the change of sovereignty from Britain to China in 1997.

Unlike democratic elections in many other countries, the Hong Kong’s chief executive election has been considered as a small circle election which involved only a very small number of people. Only some of the 240,000 people from selected sectors had votes in December last year to choose a 1,200-member election committee. The committee is composed of four main sectors with representatives from the professional sector; the industrial, commercial and financial sectors; and the social services, religious and other sectors. The fourth sector includes legislative members, District Councilors, members of the Heung Yee Kuk rural group, and Hong Kong representatives to China’s decision-making bodies. The makeup of the committee has been criticized for over-representing sectors close to Beijing, whilst under-representing sections of the populace which are more pro-democratic.

Two other candidates in the CE election are the former financial secretary Tsang Chun-wah John and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing. Although all three candidates are regarded as pro-establishment figures, it is widely believed that Beijing government has its own choice before the election.

The State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office said the election had been “open, fair and orderly”, and that Lam “fitted” Beijing’s requirements for a chief executive. However, Lam was heavily rumored to be Beijing’s favored candidate over the past two months before the election though she was behind in public popularity polls. Some electors claimed that before election day they were pressured by the Hong Kong-based Chinese liasion office to vote for her.
Critics called the election result “a defeat of the people’s majority views.” Tsang was popular among the public for his more successful public relations campaign and his image of inclusivity. In spite of the small-circle election, Tsang did not merely appeal to the members of the Election Committee, he also appealed to other Hong Kong people through offering the vision of unity, trust and hope, attempting to gain popular support. Many people think that he can bring reconciliation in a splited society though they may not fully support his policy platform. This brought a new experience and standard of election campaign to Hong Kong people, in spite of the small-circle election nature. However, Tsang was said to have lacked the central government’s full trust despite his high public popularity, thus, he could not gain much support from the pro-establishment camp in the Election Committee. The election result shows the gap between the choice of Hong Kong people and members of the Election Committee, reflecting the absurdity and ridiculous of the small-circle election.

The Civil Human Rights Front, a non-governmental organization organised a rally to protest on the day before the election against Hong Kong’s small-circle leadership race. They claimed that Beijing blatantly meddled in the election. The group calls for full democracy and genuine universal suffrage.
This election is the first CE election after the Occupy Movement in 2014. On 31 August, 2014, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed a decision that the chief executive in 2017 can be elected by one-person-one-vote, but only after a “broadly representative” nomination committee. The decision triggered a week-long class boycott, which developed into the 79-day Occupy protests demanding fully democratic elections.

This election was expected by some people to be a chance of healing the wounds of Hong Kong created in the past five-year rule of the existing chief executive C.Y. Leung and the rift among people after the Occupy protest or the so-called Umbrella Revolution. Lam is seen as inheriting the ruling strategy of Leung whereas Tsang is regarded as a person who can bring reconciliation and dialogue among people of different political stances. However, the election result brought disappointment to many people.

In the Catholic social tradition, democracy and equal political participation are highly valued and small-circle election is not preferred. In the social encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II highlights that, “The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate. Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends (no. 46).”
Therefore, Hong Kong people should insist on the goal of striking for authentic universal suffrage and continue to cultivate a culture of democracy with relational virtues although we know that the road to democracy is a long and winding one. We must not lost hope in spite of the dim light in front of us. We need wisdom to discern how to move forward.

With low popularity, Lam has to face questions over her governance and the many challenges for the coming five years – from the rising tide of anti-mainland sentiments to skyrocketing property prices and political tensions.
It is interesting to note that Lam, as a Catholic, claimed that she stood for election because of calling from God. Although Lam was seen as a person under Beijing’s or pro-Beijing’s control, during the election campaign, she insisted that she was willing to listen to people’s opinions and became more humble. When the result of her winning came out, she said that she would try her best to unite people of various political standpoints, mending the rift and disentangling the frustration of Hong Kong people. I hope that she would keep her promise and uphold the Catholic values of common good, solidarity and subsidiarity as they are imperative in building a good society.

Internet for Communication or Persecution?

CTEWC Forum (January 2016)

The invention of internet and smart phone affects tremendously our daily lives, especially to those who live in city. Many internet users see the internet as a global community without borders, a space for free exchange of ideas and dissemination of news or information. Whereas many others think that internet will make entertainment and shopping much more convenient, thus, a chance of expansion of mobile e-commerce and market expansion of online shopping.

China owns the world’s largest online citizenry — about 668 million strong, with most of them using smart phone. The total internet penetration rate was 48.8 per cent across mainland China, according to the official China Internet Network Information Centre. As in the rest of the world, young people account for a majority of internet users. People between ten and thirty years of age make up 55.2 percent of the online population in China.

However, China has been criticized for its strict internet regulations where it blocks major sites and censors posts. Not only do Chinese technological companies spend huge amount in developing an all-encompassing network of monitoring, thus, restricting Chinese people from accessing certain websites, including facebook and many Church organizations. It is not uncommon that some sensitive words, such as June 4 or human rights fail to appear. Moreover, posts on internet have been used as tools and evidence to persecute dissidents. In a nationwide crackdown on online rumours launched in the summer of 2013, hundreds of internet users were punished and some detained for disseminating “rumours” on the internet. Several influential online bloggers were convicted on various charges, including “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”, which effectively silenced many others.

One recent example is the arrest and detention of human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang who has been charged with “inciting ethnic hatred” and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” by writing microblog (or weibo), commentaries critical of the Communist Party. Pu was arrested and detained for 19 months, before he was put to trial in court in mid-December 2015. He faces a maximum sentence of eight years. Pu’s ordeal is widely seen as a political case to silence him and to warn other rights advocates against speaking up. Pu’s associates say his sharp criticisms of the government, his representations of many high-profile rights cases (including artist Ai Weiwei), his advocacy of scrapping the country’s labour camp system, and his popularity in the Chinese media has rendered him a threat in the eyes of the authorities.

It is ironic that in more or less the same time of Pu’s trial, a World Internet Conference sponsored by Beijing was held in Zhejiang province of China. Guests from various countries, including the head of facebook were invited. Speaking at the conference, China's President Xi Jinping has called on countries to respect one another’s “cyber sovereignty” and different internet governance models. Mr Xi said countries had the right to choose how to develop and regulate their internet.

In the view of the above, it reminds me that the Church has a two-fold aim in regard to the media. One aspect is to encourage their right development and right use for the sake of human development, justice, and peace—for the upbuilding of society at the local, national, and community levels in light of the common good and in a spirit of solidarity. Thus, the Church seeks honest and respectful dialogue with those responsible for the communications media—a dialogue that relates primarily to the shaping of media policy. In this way, it becomes possible for the Church to offer meaningful proposals for removing obstacles to human progress and the proclamation of the Gospel. Besides, the Church's concern also relates to communication in and by the Church herself. Communication is of the essence of the Church. The Church's practice of communication should be exemplary, reflecting the highest standards of truthfulness, accountability, sensitivity to human rights, and other relevant principles and norms. (see Pontifical Council for Social Communications, “The Church and Internet,” no.3)

Therefore, internet should be used as a means to promote communication and human development rather than a tool to regulate people’ ideas and thought. Internet should never be twisted as an instrument to persecute those who advocate human rights and help the marginalized to seek for justice.

柬埔寨之旅的反思

我們從他蒙受了這命令：那愛天主的，也該愛自己的弟兄姊妹。(若一4:21)

天主是愛、以愛還愛，是每位信徒都知道的道理。但知易行難，只有當我們在親身經驗過天主的愛被主轉化後，並願意以具體行動愛自己的弟兄姊妹，才算真正的實踐以愛還愛。而那些只是口裡說愛天主，卻對四周的人漠不關心，或對那些被忽略、被歧視、被壓迫的人視若無睹，甚至認為他們不值得愛，則算不上愛天主。

剛從柬埔寨回來，探訪了在當地服務的香港教友傳教士，以及她們服務的學校、殘障人士康復中心、艇戶和堂區等。聽到教友傳教士的信仰和經驗分享，看到她們在工作地方與同工和服務對象的密切關係，明白和初步體驗到她們的簡單但豐盛的生活，讓我感受到她們真的是在回應天主的愛，以愛還愛。

其中一位已服務近二十年的教友傳教士，甘願放下香港較為安穩的生活，遠赴他方，為較貧窮地區的兄弟姊妹服務，訓練當地教師，希望透過教育為人民帶來希望。另一位教友傳教士任職業治療師，則在柬埔寨的康復中心服務，筆者在探訪其中一間中心時，接觸了一些能力較弱的小孩和行動不便的青年，瞭解到他們的身體狀況、家庭背景和需要的訓練，而傳教士在訓練服務對象之餘，亦探訪他們的家庭和訓練當地的工作人員，希望透過發掘和提高這些小孩和青年的能力，讓他們肯定自已，懂得照顧自己。

教友傳教士明到自己能改變大環境很有限，不少地方仍長期處於貧窮狀態。但她們不看輕自己的貢獻，願意臨在於當地人民當中，陪伴有需要的人，盡一分力為柬埔寨人民，特別是兒童，帶來希望。她們的委身讓我深深感動，從她們身上看到耶穌的臉容，以及從她們服務的兒童和青年身上認出耶穌，所以，服務這些人士正是為主而做。

這些教友傳教士的海外傳信服務固然令人欣賞敬佩，但我們不必去到海外也可以服務他人，愛自己的弟兄姊妹。在日常生活中或在香港社會中，我們亦可發揮基督徒愛人的精神。只要我們對人仍有感覺，對弱小者不再漠不關心，不把欺凌和壓迫視若無睹，對不正常狀況視作理所當然，則可發現仍有不少機會可表達對姊妹弟兄以至對天主的愛。要有這種感覺，在接觸貧窮弱小者的同時，必須恆常祈禱默想，與天主保持親密關係，聆聽天主對自己的召叫和使命。

聆聽她們的聲音

　　每年的三月八日，世界各地都有慶祝國際婦女節的活動，一方面慶祝女性已取得的成就，另一方面繼續爭取兩性平權和維護應有的尊嚴。

　　無可否認，相比從前，女性的社會地位、接受教育機會和工作晉升機會都大大提高。然而，一些亞洲國家如巴基斯坦和印度，不少女童仍因物質匱乏及宗教文化束縛而未能接受基本教育，女性更常受性暴力的威脅，例如諾貝爾和平獎得主馬拉拉曾因上學而被宗教極端組織成員槍擊，印度更成為最頻繁發生強姦案的地方之一，這與某些傳統中女性不被尊重不無關係。即使在較先進地方，一些女性亦因傳統角色定型而受限制。

　　要徹底改變女性不被尊重的文化和達至兩性平等並不容易。對教會來說，既要在社會中為女性提供多元服務和機會，讓女性充權，提高她們的能力；亦要勇於就教會內外的父權文化作出反省和提出改變，給予女性作更多機會在各方面和不同層次參與。就前者，多年來透過辦學和提供醫療服務社會福利，教會作了不少貢獻；至於後者則仍需努力。

自教宗方濟上任以來，透過發言和行動，他間接和直接地就改善女性的地位和角色作出不少措舉。雖然他不同意教會內的女權人士所倡議的女性晉鐸主張，但他委任了多些女性在教廷內的重要位置服務。例如，擔任教會訓導當局神學顧問的國際神學委員會的女性成員，由原本的兩位增至四位。因時代轉變，教宗又呼籲神學家應更深入探討女性神學，而羅馬觀察報隨之開設專欄，邀請男女神學家撰文反省該主題。此外，有神學家指出，教宗以言以行關愛貧窮和邊緣社群、挑戰現代經濟制度引發的不公義，以具體方式關心在生活中被剝削和壓迫的女性。這些建議和行動，對增強女性在教會的參與和改善女性的社會生活的成效仍有待驗證，但教宗的善意卻是無容置疑。

　　在這種氛圍下，宗座文化委員會在二月初於羅馬舉行會議，專題探討女性在教會的角色。會議舉行前，委員會公佈了一份諮詢文件，並拍了一段短片，呼籲婦女們自拍一分鐘影片分享意見和心聲，希望借此多瞭解女性。本來是良好的意願，卻招來不少英語世界的女性主義學者和教友批評。他們指自拍的方法不切實際，因不少婦女無能力和時間拍攝，而短片表達手法亦難引起共鳴，文件內容亦反映對女性的處境認知不足。

　　或許有些人覺得這些女性主義者吹毛求疵，但他們的見解卻某程度上反映以男性為主的教會領導層或許真的未能掌握女性面對的問題和挑戰，有需要更主動接觸不同階層和背景的女性，聆聽她們的聲音。四旬期是反省、認罪、悔改的時候，就讓教會上下一同謙卑地辨別我們可以如何更好地尊重女性的尊嚴和擴闊女性的參與。

香港市民對民主的覺醒

過去幾個星期，幾十萬香港市民走上街頭示威要求民主，其間警察使用催淚瓦斯令世界震驚。從九月下旬學生罷課，到聚合在政府總部外的群眾集會，以至警方使用催淚瓦斯，促使事件升級為「佔領 」運動，及後示威者面對警方使用過份暴力仍頑強抵抗，無懼暴力。這些事實，在在顯示了爭取民主人士以及「佔中」支持者的剛毅鬥志。這樣規模和形式的社會運動，可說是香港近三十年來所未見。當中涉及的問題，不僅是法律（憲法）與政治，更是道德與倫理範疇。

整個民主運動由專上學生為期一周的罷課揭開序幕，罷課由香港專上學生聯會（學聯）發起，以示對於中國人民代表大會（即中國國會）常務委員會關於香港的選舉改革決定的極度不滿。人大的決定，意味著只有北京授意的候選人才可以角逐香港行政長官的職務；這會通過小圈子式的選舉委員會進行，而只有這個由北京政府委任的委員會成員才可以提名行政長官候選人。不過，一如大多數香港人，學聯堅持香港實行「一國兩制」和高度自治。學生們要求一個選舉制度，能夠反映真正的民主，好使市民不僅投票選出北京授意的行政長官，還可以參與提名候選人。

在9月22日罷課首天，全港有一萬三千名大學生集中於香港中文大學，顯示學生決心爭取真正的民主，支持運動的人數，遠超出各方預期的數目。接著，由中學生組成的團體「學民思潮」發動了中學生的一天罷課。學生罷課，被視為是更大規模民主運動的前奏，因為全民的「佔領中環」運動已經計劃在10月1日展開，它以愛與和平為指導原則，堵塞中環金融區的路面，作為「公民抗命」行動。

起初，預計參與佔領運動的人數不多，但幾宗事件導致大批市民上街示威。第一輪大規模抗議的觸發點，是17歲的學生領袖黃之鋒和另外兩大名學生領袖被無理拘留，他們在9月26日企圖突破官方防線以奪回被關閉的「公民廣場」，一個設於政府總部門前原本讓公眾集會的空地，在最近幾個月因保安理由被關閉。約30名學生被逮捕，隨後全部被釋放，除了該三名學生領袖。幾千名市民出於保護青年學生，聞訊後趕到政府總部支援學生，要求警方釋放學生。因此，這兩個學生團體發揮了支持民主運動的關鍵作用。

第二宗事件是在9月28日警方向手無寸鐵的示威者發射催淚彈，以驅散聚集在街上的人群。警方聲稱，他們發射了87枚催淚煙罐。這導致公眾譁然，對警方和政府使用過度武力感到憤怒。很多人基於憤怒和正義感加入了抗議行列，從而發展成全民性的佔領運動，被西方媒體稱為「雨傘革命」。自此，雨傘成為抗爭的標記，因為示威者用雨傘抵擋警方的胡椒噴霧。香港人比較喜歡「雨傘運動」一詞，因為「革命」含有推翻現有執政政府的意思，但是，這不是示威者的目標。再者，「革命」在北京政府眼中是一個極為敏感的詞彙。

隨著民主運動的發展，在十月一日國慶假期以後，人們也開始回覆日常上班和上學。然而，暴力事件在其中一個佔領區旺角爆發。警方拒絕保護示威者，事件促使更多人回來各佔領區。在被視為品流複雜的旺角區，有惡霸肆意破壞示威者的物品、毆打示威者、甚至非禮女示威者；不過，也有惡霸挺身保護在場佔領的示威者。警方被責難縱容黑勢力欺負在佔領地區的示威者，這又點燃了公眾對政府的不滿。十月四日，十萬人聚集在最大的佔領區金鐘政府總部外一帶，參加反暴力集會。

面對如此嚴峻的局勢，學生領袖們要求與香港政府官員對話。然而，政府堅持要有預設條件方可對話，就是要按照中國人民代表大會常務委員會關於選舉改革的決定必須堅持；這內容不被學生所接受。後來，學生領袖和佔領示威者考慮到部分市民要求重開佔領區，他們向政府要求重開「公民廣場」，以換取重開佔領區一條主要幹道金鐘道的條件。再次，政府迅速拒絕學生們提出的條件，顯示政府欠缺聆聽示威者意見及與市民溝通的誠意，遑論主動向示威者提出談判。
　
所有這些近期浮現的因素，促成了目前的局面，越來越多市民加入或支持佔領運動。與此同時，也有市民響應「反對佔領中環運動」，迫使整個社會邁向二分的撕裂狀態。

在這些近期因素背後，蘊藏了長期的問題，結果促成這次民主運動。普選和真正民主被視為運動背後的工具。運動的終極目標是建立一個公平、公正的制度，讓每個人都可以有尊嚴地享受他或她的基本權利。長期以來，香港面對很多問題，如：貧富懸殊、住屋價格高企，已經造成社會和經濟沉重的壓力，為廣大的中下階層市民帶來困苦；房地產開發商卡特爾霸權增加社會和經濟不公；地產商及與他有關的專業人士，在立法會及選舉委員會有權選舉行政長官，使社會政策對既得利益者傾斜。現時的示威者要求真正的民主選舉行政長官和立法會全部議員的需求，正是確保政治架構能夠反映各階級人士的利益，而不僅是特權階級的利益。此外，在香港推行國民教育、電視牌照發放事件、不斷增加的中國大陸遊客和大陸移民等議題，都造成社會怨氣。加上有腐敗的高級官員被揭發，市民對政府怨聲載道。只要細心聆聽佔領者和支持者的個人經歷和意見，都可以在各佔領區中聽到這些不滿聲音。

因此，基於上述直接或隱藏的原因，示威者提出下列要求：政府重新啟動政治改革的諮詢，並向北京政府就政改提供補充報告；政府就使用催淚彈和過份武力道歉；重新開放遭關閉的公民廣場，好讓人們在這個公共場所表達意見；政府官員犯錯時必須問責承擔責任。倘若政府拒絕以上所有這些涉及政治、管治、道德等問題的要求，這危機實難以化解。即使政府最終選擇使用暴力手段來終止這場運動，佔領人士定必捲土重來，以求繼續爭取民主，而社會紛爭必會持續，社會不能達至真正和平。

在這場運動中，在在顯示青年和佔領者的決心。他們不輕言退出，因為他們不希望未來的政治領袖再次成為北京政府的傀儡，更不願意見到香港僅僅變為另一個中國城市。他們認為香港人不能沒有自己的身份；他們珍惜的是香港的核心價值。年輕人願意走上街頭示威，為的是爭取整代人的未來；而年長一輩也為了子孫爭取未來。

作為香港的基督徒，我認為天主教社會訓導的幾個概念，可以幫助我們反省香港的民主運動和現況：

1. 良知和公民抗命。有些人批評佔領者違法，非法佔據公共道路。這是事實，佔用公共道路的行為是非法的，佔領者可能被檢控，需要承擔法律責任。事實上，從一開始，「佔中運動」和學生已經宣稱他們的行動是基於公民抗命的原則。他們明白自己的行為可能會賠上沉重代價，但他們仍然打算挑戰不公義的政策和制度，希望能喚醒香港人的民主意識。他們願意承擔責任，甚至犧牲自己的前途。

在天主教社會訓導中，梵二大公會議文件指出，「假使政府擅自越權、欺壓國民，國民不應拒絕實踐為促進公共福利所應做的種種。但他們可以保衛自身及其他國民的權利，免受政府濫用權力的危害。不過，應尊重自然法及福音原則所劃定的界限（Gaudium，第74號）。《天主教教理》闡述，「若執政當局發出的指令違反道德秩序的要求、人的基本權利、或福音的教導，公民依照良心有責任不予順從。若執政當局的要求違反正直的良心，則在服務天主與服務政治團體的區分上，得到拒絕服從政府的理由」（＃2242）。在天主教的傳統，良心是指「理性的一個判斷，藉此人可以對一個將要做的具體行為，正在做的行為，或已經完成的行為，認出其道德的品質。人無論講甚麼，做甚麼，必須忠實地依照他所確知為公正的和正直的去講去做。」（《天主教教理》，第１７７８號）

良心促使人為所作的行為承擔責任。人性的尊嚴指向和要求道德良知的正直。我相信大部分的示威者和佔領者明白他們正在爭取的是什麼樣價值。他們希望按照自己的良心，維護正義、平等、法治的價值。他們認為不是所有法律和制度皆公義，因而需要改變。他們相信自己有責任，也有能力改變社會，令香港成為一個更好的地方。由於在過去，許多學生和佔領者已採用各種方法爭取民主，但均無功而回，因而認為現在必須採取一些比較前衛或激進的方式爭取。

２. 社會公益。雖然不少香港人皆支持民主，但不是每個人都同意採用公民抗命作為策略手段爭取民主和正義。隨著佔領運動的僵局持續，甚至有人批評封鎖道路已經嚴重影響著人們的日常生活，店舖生意和日薪工人的生計。有些市民不滿往返學校或工作地點都增加了時間和麻煩。無可否認，佔領運動帶來了不便，但是仍然有很多人堅定支持學生和示威者。這是因為支持者了解和明白到，學生和示威者爭取的是為整個社會的公益，而不是為了個人利益。示威者犧牲其日常生活，日以繼夜留守在佔領區，期望政府聆聽和回應他們的訴求。他們深信，真正的民主制度可以糾正一些現存的不公義現象，包括制度和運作上有利於特權階級而忽略了弱小和邊緣社群的不平衡政治結構。

在天主教的傳統，社會公益是社會訓導中的一個重要主題，作為社會的目標和前景。通過共同的利益，可以理解為「讓私人及團體可以充份而便利地玉成自身的社會生活條件的總和」（論教會在現代世界牧職憲章，＃26）。公共利益涉及所有人的生命。它首先必須尊重個人，而公共當局具更大責任尊重人的基本和不可剝奪的權利。它要求社會福利和社會發展作為一個整體，而不是只有某些群體享有特權。它還需要和平，由公正秩序產生的穩定性和安全性所做成。然而，和平並不是指表面的和平，而是賦有正義的和平。

基於這一原則，佔領運動背後的社會願景和精神，應該受到欣賞，儘管不是人人都同意使用這策略。然而，由於佔領了多條繁忙的交通幹道引起不少投訴，佔領者應該認真考慮如何實現自己的目標，而又不會影響大眾的日常生活，以免失去了廣大市民的支持和諒解。而政府亦有責任與學生對話，切實認真處理示威者的訴求，與學生和佔領者磋商。

4. 愛與團結關懷。在天主教的社會訓導中，團結關懷為這個相互依存的世界提供了指導原則，讓基督徒與他人保持聯繫溝通，因為它結合愛與正義的元素。團結關懷是表示願意在世界中和在人群之中生活，體驗窮人的貧困，與受苦者在一起，為不公義者抱不平發聲，支持那些受到壓迫的人，向俘虜宣揚自由等等。團結關懷必須在人與人之間，以至專業、階層、社群和國家之間實行。這意味著人願意把自己奉獻，為著鄰人的益處而做，超越任何個人或某種利益而為之。

一些參與這個運動的年輕佔領者，不獲得父母的支持，因而面對巨大壓力。但是他們想告訴父母，他們參加運動，是基於愛和正義，他們熱愛社會和人民，希望建立公義的社會。「佔中運動」一直強調愛與和平，堅守不得使用暴力手段來實現目標的原則。一如耶穌會前總會長歐魯伯神父（Pedro Arrupe）說：「要履行公義，僅僅是不幹不公義的事是不夠的。必須走前一步，拒絕其遊戲規則，以愛取代為自身利益，作為社會的驅動力。」

在支持者之中，很多人是受到青年學生和示威者的決心、紀律和團結精神所感動而自發參加。如果你在佔領範圍走一圈，你會看到年輕人來回走動、分發食物和飲料給在場的示威人士。在形勢緊張的時候，他們分發口罩、保鮮紙和雨傘避免胡椒噴霧及催淚彈。他們還撿拾垃圾及分類整理回收物。下了班的醫生、護士和聖約翰救傷隊及紅十字會的義工（志願者）以個人身份來幫忙駐守醫療站。學生和支持民主的示威者創建了一個清潔、安全和有秩序的抗議營地。我們看到，佔領者或示威者守望相助和互相聲援。他們讓自己平靜祥和，經常提醒「避免以肢體對抗、避免開發仇恨」。當「反對佔領者」前來擾亂示威者時，示威者唱歌或高叫「保持冷靜、克制」的口號，平復那些緊張時刻。同時，除了抗議行動，在日常生活中佔據的地方，參與示威或罷課的學生及市民繼續學習和閱讀、參加論壇、聽講座、管理公共區域、分享故事等。它已經成為了另類的社區，彰顯愛和團結關懷的精神。

5. 對話。在亞洲教會訓導中，對話往往是指向與其他宗教、文化和窮人的對話。對話在相互理解上很重要，它必須以平等的基礎作溝通，具誠意聆聽對方的聲音，然後讓自己作出轉化。對話表明雙方願意通過和平方式解決分歧和僵局。基於這原則，在目前情況下，示威者與政府之間的對話是必要的。任何來自警方、政府和示威者的暴力行為都應避免。

在過去幾個星期中，雙方均聲稱，對方堅持自己的立場不願妥協。香港的行政長官梁振英、政府官員和警方措詞強硬地宣布，決心採取措施對付那些設置路障的示威者。一些示威者亦堅持表示，他們不會從被佔領的地區撤出。在政改立場上，雙方亦顯得堅持自己的立場。過去，雖然雙方本來準備對話，但是會前被雙方宣佈取消。最近，面對現時情況，學生示威者多次表示，他們願意與政府對話。他們釋出誠意，開放通道讓公務員可以到政府總部上班，以及一段電車路段給公眾使用。最近，有消息指會有人充當調解人，促成雙方對話。我希望這對話在雙方以真誠態度進行，打開政治僵局，最終為社會帶來和平，而不是更多的衝突。

佔領運動每一天都有新發展，最近又有新的暴力事件和衝突。現在已經與早期的階段不同，今天運動已經在市內幾個地方進行，佔領者自發走到街頭，基本上他們不隸屬兩個學生組織或者原「佔中運動」發起人團隊。有示威者宣稱，這三組織不能代表他們，他們是自發示威的。這可能會使得達成共識增添障礙，但是也為民主路鼓勵創意發展。這場民主運動的結果是很難預測的，視乎雙方對解決問題的善意。但可以肯定的是，這一代的年輕人已親身體驗了民主運動，已經變得更加成熟，深深明白自己所追尋的價值是什麼，定必將民主精神延續在生活中及社區中。當我看見年輕一代願意為社會變得更美好而委身、具獨立和批判思考能力，以及富有犧牲精神，我感到香港仍充滿希望。