【新唐人2014年11月21日訊】香港佔中運動突然爆出抗議者衝擊立法會事件，讓香港社會震驚。不過，持續了50多天的非暴力抗爭，為甚麼會突然出現衝擊事件，其中的疑點，也引發外界關注。
19號凌晨1點多，10多名示威者，部分人戴著口罩，分成幾批，用金屬路障「鐵馬」、溝渠蓋、地上的磚塊，不停敲打立法會大門玻璃，至少三道玻璃大門被擊碎。期間，工黨立法會議員張超雄嚐試阻止，批評這是破壞佔中運動，但被示威者拉開。
大約十分鐘後，大批警察手持盾牌、警棍以及胡椒噴霧趕到，示威者隨即離開。
突如其來的衝擊事件，在立法會外留下一地玻璃渣，也給香港社會留下了一個大大的驚嘆號。
香港公民黨領袖梁家傑：「這些行為，與雨傘運動一直強調以和平、非暴力的精神，爭取真普選的原則，背道而馳。對於雨傘運動產生負面的影響，我們感到非常的心痛。我們呼籲所有真普選的香港人，不要忘記初衷。」
社民連立法會議員梁國雄19號說，事件是因為有人用阻止立法會審議「網絡23條」的虛假目的發起的。發動的動機是假的，衝擊的理由是假的。他認為這個做法不能接受，只能帶來反效果。
「香港專上學生聯會」19號也就衝擊立法會玻璃門事件發表聲明，表示還沒有完全理解這次行動的像徵意義，同時批評帶頭人士衝擊過後又四散，不負責任。「學民思潮」也認為衝擊行動並不適當，譴責衝擊者完全沒有溝通的態度。
但同時，在長達53天的抗議中，一直和平理性的佔中人士，為甚麼突然有衝擊立法會的舉動，也引發了許多問號。
原《香港聯合報》專欄作家張成覺：「兩個可能性我都覺得不能排除。一個就是，還是屬於社民聯，或者是佔中裡面，很少一部分，非常偏激的人。但是也不能排除中方這邊搞事，通過黑社會或者通過甚麼途徑，讓他們以佔領者中，所謂激進的一部分人，這麼一個面目，就戴了口罩，作為一個標誌，來搞事情。」
目前外界認為比較大的疑點，一是在於香港警方的做法。「學民思潮」召集人黃之鋒形容，事件發生時，警方人力比平時少，而且也沒有立即阻止衝擊者的行動。
大陸知名維權人士胡佳：「確實是比較奇怪的，就是當時，（衝擊者）拿鐵馬去砸窗戶的時候，旁邊沒有甚麼警察去進行控制和阻攔。這和警察以前的風格是不一樣的。」
其次的疑點，是衝擊者「衝過就散」的做法，和佔中發起者一貫提倡的「尊重法治」相反。之前，「佔中三子」和幾名學生領袖都曾表示願意「自首」，承擔法律責任。
張成覺：「佔中一開始是定位為『公民抗命』，雖然是違反現行的法律，但是他是要自己承擔法律責任的，而且是比較理性的。這種衝擊立法會，砸爛玻璃，把牆也搞爛。我認為，同原來佔中的目的，根本是相反的。」
另外，中共媒體在衝擊事件後的表現，也是外界質疑的原因之一。對佔中消息一向不怎麼報導的新華社、中通社、中新社等，昨天都發出多條稿件報導事件，尤其是中新社，在衝擊事件發生後兩小時，就出了報導。
胡佳：「中共從來否認本身對於香港這些公民抗命的示威者，頻繁的動用暴力，頻繁的使他們流血。它只要是你出現一點點情況，破了這塊玻璃的話，那它整個宣傳機器就開動起來了。黨國的喉舌們開足了馬力，對於這件事情大肆渲染。」
目前警方逮捕了六名衝擊者，正在進行調查。在佔中問題上各持己見的香港各界，對這次衝擊事件難得的表現出了一致態度，批評暴力，呼籲堅持和平理性。
採訪/朱智善 編輯/尚燕 後製/黎安安
Shocking: Hong Kong Legislative Council Is Attacked
Amongst the Occupy Central movement came the shock
of clashes of protesters with the police
in the Hong Kong Legislative Council.
Why this sudden clash after more than 50 days
of non-violent protest?
At 1:00 am local time of Nov. 19, about 10 protesters,
some in masks, used metal barricades, ditch covers, and bricks
to break down a side door of the Legislative Council building.
At least three glass doors were shattered.
Legislative Council member, also the vice-chair of Labor Party,
Fernando Cheung tried to stop the protesters, pointing out it will
devastate the Occupy Central movement, but was only
dragged away by the protesters.
About ten minutes later, police arrived with
shields, batons and pepper spray.
The protesters left immediately.
The unexpected move has left the Legislative Council building
with broken glass and disbelief within society.
Hong Kong Civic Party leader Alan Leong: “It’s against
our peaceful and non-violent fight for true universal
suffrage.
I am very sad about its negative impact to the Umbrella
Movement.
I call on all Hong Kong people who support genuine universal
suffrage not to forget our original intention."
Legislative Council member Leung Kwok-hung said someone
has initiated the incident to stop the Legislative Council from
discussing Internet Article 23.
The motivation and reasonings are all fake.
He can’t accept this because it can only bring the opposite
effect.
Hong Kong Federation of Students also stated that
they can’t understand the meaning of the action
and criticized the irresponsible act of those who
conducted the attack and ran away after the incident.
Scholarism also condemned the inappropriateness of the attack
and the attitude that allows no communication.
Questions also arise as to why this sudden attack on the
Legislative Council after 53 days of peaceful demonstration
by the students.
Hong Kong writer Zhang Chengjue: “I suspect two possibilities:
One is that members of the League of Social Democrats
or some extremists are among the protesters in the Occupy Central.
The other possibility is Chinese Communist Party (CCP) utilizes
the triads or other means to manipulate the extremists
among Occupy Central participants, with the masks as a symbol
to create chaos."
Currently, the biggest question rests with Hong Kong’s police.
Scholarism leader Jushua Wong said police manpower
was less than usual during the incident and did not immediately
stop the action.
Human rights activist Hu Jia: “It is really strange because
there was no police to stop them from breaking the window
with barricades.
It’s different from the previous police style."
Second question is the attackers’ disappearance after the incident.
It is contrary to the consistent advocacy of
respecting the law by Occupy Central organizers.
Organizers and the student leaders have all expressed earlier
their willingness to hold the legal liability.
Zhang Chengjue: “The Occupy Central has positioned itself
as civil disobedience.
Although it is in violation of the existing laws,
they will take legal responsibility which is more rational.
I believe the purpose of the act to smash glass and the wall
is opposite to the original purpose of Occupy Central."
In addition, the CCP media’s reaction towards the incident
is also questioned.
Rather neglecting the Occupy Central, media such as
Xinhua News Agency, China News Agency, China News
Service, etc. have all issued a number of reports on the incident.
In particular, CNS reported in just two hours after the incident.
Hu Jia: “CCP has always denied its frequent violent and bloody
way on this civic disobedience protest in Hong Kong.
However, their whole propaganda machine started to operate
with some minor issues such as the broken glass.
The CCP mouthpiece hyped it at full capacity."
Currently, the police have arrested six attackers.
Hong Kongers, though arguing on Occupy Central in various
aspects, have finally showed a consensus this time,
i.e., criticizing the violence, calling for peace and rationality.
Interview/Zhu Zhishan Edit/ShangYan Post-Production/Li Anan
