三年又三年 Three years after three years

這絕對不是一篇好文章。
關於廣深港高速鐵路的示威近日引來關注與爭議。示威者反對鐵路的原因是造價太高，而香港已是一個過度發展的城市，再興建一條大型鐵路，會對城市的文化造成影響。

示威者亦表達他們對香港政治體制的不滿。當局推行政策時沒有恰當及廣泛地咨詢公眾。而香港的政制相當畸形，在議會當中，一半的議席是由親政府人士佔有，以致不受歡迎的法案與計劃亦獲通過。

我不在香港，沒有目睹示威的過程。因此，也無法評論示威者是否過激、過份或暴力。

我關心的是政府如何解讀示威者及他們的訴求。

在1月6日明報的李先知專欄刊登了一篇文章。文章引用政府消息說：「許多年近三十的年輕人，無法置業成婚，被迫繼續與父母同住，眼白白看着樓價飈升，那種無力和挫折感覺，很容易轉化成對政府和地產商的仇視，甚至認定這些不公平的情况是官商勾結造成的。」

似曾熟識的聲音。
三年前，我在皇后碼頭。當時，一班示威者在皇后碼頭露宿，反對當局為建道路網而把碼頭清拆。示威者指，碼頭有長遠的歷史，應該要保留下來。
當時，政府對示威者的不滿及訴求作同樣解讀，又答應日後會多聽年青人的意見。
三年了，同樣的事情又發生，當局又搬出同樣的解讀。

This is not a good piece.
The protest against the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link has triggered a lot of attention and controversy these days. The protesters said they oppose the rail link because it is costly and Hong Kong is already over-developed, meaning having the mega railway will further damage the city’s traditions and culture.
The protesters also expressed their frustrations about the city’s political system that the government has not properly and widely consulted the public, and the legislature will still endorse unpopular government proposals because half of the seats are occupied by pro-government politicians.
I am not in Hong Kong, I have not witnessed the protests. Therefore, I cannot comment on whether the protesters are radical, gone too far and violent.
What I am concerned is how the government interprets the protest and the protesters demand.
This is what I have read in Ming Pao Daily on January 06. The article cited government sources.

“Many people who are close to 30 cannot get married, buy property and forced to continue living with their parents. Seeing the rising property prices, they feel powerless and frustrated. They can easily become hostile to the government and property developers, and believe that the unfairness is caused by collusion between the government and the business sector.”

That sounds very familiar to me. Three years ago, I was in the Queen’s Pier, where a group of protesters were camping inside in order to block the government to demolish the historical structure to make way for road network. Protesters said the pier, with a long history, should be preserved.

The government made similar interpretation of the protesters demand and frustrations, and pledged that they would listen to young people opinion.

Three years. Same thing happens again, and the same interpretation is offered.