香港臨時警務處副處長劉業成那封「致同袍們」公開信，看來情文並茂、義正詞嚴，相信深深感動了很多警察
。我不是警察，看罷此信只覺得作者矯情造作，令我有點想吐；尤其是「守職而不廢，處義而不回」這兩句引文（出於《素書》；順便一提，這是中國前總理溫家寶不只一次引用的句子），「守職」的標準就讓劉業成用你們警界的理解去定吧，但「處義」這麼高的道德褒揚卻不由得你濫用
─ 證據不確鑿的不說，單是明顯的濫捕和亂打市民，你們就不配稱那個「義」字！
公開信的結尾引用了《道德經》第七十九章的「和大怨，必有餘怨，安可以為善」，劉業成真是胸有墨水啊！他接著寫的「我們不祈望所有香港人都認同我們執法的決心」，顯示他引文的重點是「必有餘怨」，但他可有注意到，「安可以為善」是反問句？這三句的意思是：如果情況到了「和大怨，必有餘怨」的地步，便已不可以為善。香港警隊已不可以為善了！為甚麼？且聽我解經。
雖然《道德經》這幾句在傳統的註釋大多是從「無為而治」的政治哲學角度來理解，但讀者不必過分囿於這個角度，否則容易忽略文句中較豐富的含義。「和大怨，必有餘怨，安可以為善」的其中一層意思是：執政者和執法者（以下簡言「執法者」）根本不應該讓人民的大怨積成；大怨不同一般的不滿，而是令人民因受苦而生的憤恨，源於統治或執法上根本的不當。因此，如果這些不當的做法不改，那麼即使人民的大怨給某些方法緩和了，仍必有餘怨；而更重要的是，這些緩和方法只是虛與委蛇，並不真的是與民為善
─ 只要執法者的不當做法一日不改，他們便一日不可以與民為善。
《道德經》第七十九章「和大怨，必有餘怨，安可以為善」之後接著的幾句是：「是以聖人執左契，而不責於人。有德司契，無德司徹。」警察當然不是聖人，但這裏說聖人所做的，其實不過是執法者應做之事。契，符信也；左右兩契，立約雙方各執其一。這是個比喻，執法者的權力，好比手執左契的人有權利追討合約訂明的事項。「執左契，而不責於人」，意思不是有合約在手也不去追討，而是追討要用恰當的方法，即下文說的「有德司契」，不會用責難、威逼、甚至更離譜的方法。警察執法也一樣，是要守規矩的，有所為有所不為，不應過分，以執法之名胡作非為。
與「有德司契」對比的，是「無德司徹」；「徹」字難解，眾說紛紜，這裏我採用高亨《老子正詁》的說法：「徹，疑當為殺。」因二字篆文形近而誤，而且《道德經》第七十四章有「常有司殺者殺，夫代司殺者殺」兩句，與此解法暗合。如果是「無德司殺」，那就與「有德司契」形成鮮明的對比：無德的執法者不以恰當的方式執法，而往往胡作非為，就像討債的不惜傷人、甚至殺人！香港警察，是有德還是無德，這個問題的答案不是太明顯了嗎？
王Sir的解釋確實是非常合理。
回覆刪除中共的「國家民族社會主義」(Nazi 納粹) 正在日益崛起，納粹德國其實是人類歷時的前車之鑑。歐洲諸國原以為會有所謂「井水不犯河水」但其實只是幻想。一旦當Nazi 納粹國稍具能力，鄰近地區/國家就會被納粹國所害。
香港在中共國家民族社會主義政權的染指下香港警隊已成為了以「槍桿子裡出政權」之邏輯並用獸類社會的方法來對付人類社會的暴徒，並已成為了無人道可言以黑社會及暴力鎮壓民眾的工具。
暴徒警察頭子的劉業成所謂「處義而不回」所處的是野獸式槍桿子裡出政權之義以及中共Nazi 納粹之義，根本不是老子之言的義以及人類社會之公義那回事。
劉業成如此盜經取義又如何能夠與民為善？
Those violent rioters who claim to advocate the freedom of Hong Kong are ironically doing various things that conflict with any version of liberalism (e.g. discrimination based on ethnicity, hate speech against immigrants, and even violent behavior toward innocent people). Please read the below article on New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/asia/hong-kong-protesters-masks-violence.html
回覆刪除The blameworthiness of the police and government cannot justify violent behavior against innocent people (and vice versa). Can we blame the police and the violent rioters at the same time? I think we should.
「shirtless man who was threatening a crowd」which 顯然不是抗議人士先挑起衝突，Then why protester cannot defend himself under the threatening by fighting back?
刪除「a taxi swerved into a group of protesters nearby」It was a highly dangerous action and somebody could be killed instantly, If the protesters did not react immediately and forced the driver could not do it again then somebody could be killed!
「apparently because she had been taking photos of protesters who were vandalizing a bank.」It's likely to be the Bank of China owned by CPC (中共) which is the biggest dictator in the world that caused the bloodshed in Hong Kong today, why protesters could not defend themself by fighting back and stopped her taking photos of protesters that could be used by police cruel and crackdown protesters for the brutal dictator CPC?
“Go back to the mainland!” If she would like to support the dictator to crackdown the protesters then obviously mainland is where the CPC is belong and rather than it's the "hate speech against immigrants".
......
Merely threatening or taking photos of the protesters cannot justify such a brutal beating. Moreover, the taxi driver didn’t intentionally drive into the crowd. ”疑因有遊行的示威者經過拍打車輛，的士司機突然急速轉彎，剷上行人路撞向人群" (https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/383168/%E7%A6%81%E8%92%99%E9%9D%A2%E6%B3%95-%E8%A2%AB-%E7%A7%81%E4%BA%86-%E7%9A%84%E5%A3%AB%E5%8F%B8%E6%A9%9F%E5%82%B3%E4%B8%8D%E6%B2%BB-%E9%86%AB%E7%AE%A1%E5%B1%80-%E8%87%B3%E4%BB%8A%E7%84%A1%E6%AD%BB%E4%BA%A1%E5%80%8B%E6%A1%88).
刪除There are many instances of the rioters’ violent behavior against innocent people merely because they said something the rioters disliked. Do you want to explain away all of them? Another instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heIUuhAlc1g
Additional footage showed that the passenger door of driver was opened and protestors were getting in before he swerved left. I don't believe the driver was so crazy that he intentionally drove into the crowd. Of course, this is just one example.
刪除“There are many instances of the rioters’ violent behavior against innocent people”：
刪除https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%AD%A6%E8%A1%9D%E9%80%B2%E5%9C%B0%E9%90%B5%E8%BB%8A%E5%BB%82%E5%85%A7%E7%84%A1%E5%B7%AE%E5%88%A5%E6%89%93%E4%BA%BA-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%B0%91%E7%9C%BE%E8%B7%AA%E5%9C%B0%E6%B1%82%E9%A5%92%E7%85%A7%E6%9B%9D%E5%85%89-155323474.html
......
“There are many instances of the rioters’ violent behavior against innocent people”：
刪除https://www.google.ca/search?q=%E7%84%A1%E5%B7%AE%E5%88%A5%E6%89%93%E4%BA%BA&tbm=isch&source=hp&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYwpuJ5ZDlAhVQn-AKHZMoDagQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1382&bih=770&dpr=1.25
"Do you want to explain away all of them? " due to the result of CPC intervention.
One should modify one’s view based on new facts or new information. This is what we call critical thinking. Actually I don’t expect to change the views of violent rioters (I simply can't). I only hope that more reasonable people (such as Prof. Wong) can have a fuller picture about what’s going on in Hong Kong recently.
回覆刪除The slogan “只有暴政，沒有暴民” is simply false. You can find the co-occurrences of 暴政 and 暴民 throughout the human history. The existence of 暴政 cannot justify the violent behavior of 暴民. It is much easier to see this point if we look at a different society. But our judgment is oftentimes mislead by our anger and hatred if the same thing happens in our society.
Millions people were forced to protest on the street that obviously it’s the result of the intervention by CPC -- the regime that “governing people by gun (槍桿子裡出政權)” since day one in China.
刪除“The slogan “只有暴政，沒有暴民” is simply false”?
刪除or should it be changed to "只準壓迫，不準反抗”？
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%E8%AD%A6%E6%9A%B4&tbm=isch&source=hp&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCtp3dhZHlAhUt1lkKHbGdAi8QsAR6BAgIEAE
Do you mean that because there are many instances of police violence, the rioters' violent behavior against innocent people and civil organizations are acceptable? This is simply false.
回覆刪除Condemning the police or condemning the violent rioters is not an exclusive choice. We can condemn both! Anyone who chooses to blame only one side is following the logic of partisan politics, rather than the principles of justice and truth.
There are many ways of 反抗: some are violent, others are non-violent. Even if you want to adopt a violent approach, go fight with the police and the government. It is simply unjustified to attack innocent people (merely because they said something that offended you as showed in the Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heIUuhAlc1g) or to destroy some stores and companies (merely because the fund partly came from mainland China). The rioters adopt exactly the same logic of 義和團.
"Condemning the police or condemning the violent rioters is not an exclusive choice." you may want both side should be treated equally that seemed fairer and justified however please don't forget that right now it’s who to refuse the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry and without such inquiry, the so-call fairer and justified are simply false.
刪除“No justice No peace” it seems to be the situations right now, both side "The rioters adopt exactly the same logic of 義和團." Unfortunately "Condemning” is not the way to solve the issues if it could not have the independent commission of inquiry and the law won’t be able to applied on anyone and the police could above the law then it would difficult to have justice and peace in the society.