有網友提出這個回應：「為反而反有乜問題，devil’s advocate有乜用，讀過少少書的人都會知。」筆者就找找甚麼是魔鬼辯護士(Devil’s Advocate)，維基百科沒有中文解釋，茲引述英文版：

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil’s_advocate

In common parlance, a devil’s advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.

Origin

During the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: Promotor Fidei), popularly known as the Devil’s Advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by the Church to argue against the canonization of the candidate.^[1] It was his job to take a skeptical view of the candidate’s character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc. The Devil’s advocate opposes God’s advocate (Latin: Advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task is to make the argument in favor of canonization.

The office was established in 1587 during the reign of Pope Sixtus V and was abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1983. This abolition streamlined the canonization process considerably, helping John Paul II to usher in an unprecedented number of elevations: nearly 500 individuals were canonized and over 1,300 were beatified during his tenure as Pope as compared to only 98 canonizations by all his 20th-century predecessors.

Such a dramatic increase suggests that the office of the Devil’s Advocate had served to reduce the number of canonizations by complicating the process. Some argue that it served a useful role in ensuring that canonizations did not proceed without due care and hence the status of sainthood was not easily achieved. In cases of controversy the Vatican may still seek to informally solicit the testimony of critics of a candidate for canonization. The British born American columnist Christopher Hitchens was famously asked to testify against the beatification of Mother Teresa in 2002, a role he would later humorously describe as being akin to “representing the Evil One, as it were, pro bono“.^[2]

In business

The advocatus diaboli is sometimes referred to as a team role. While some sources regard the role as a “destructive” team role, others see the role as a constructive one. According to the second group, the advocatus diaboli task is improving decision making processes and preventing individuals and teams from decisions without sufficient consideration.

 

由是觀之，所謂魔鬼辯護士，並不是站在魔鬼立場，相反是站在教會立場護教；如將之套用在政治，議員們代表選民行使政治權力，並不一定要與行政機關（其實香港那個所謂「政府」本來就只應有行政權力，立法權歸立法會、司法權歸法院，偏生又有一群所謂「政治任命」，似乎並不滿足於行政權力）對著幹，而應該是就施政提出改進，行政機關亦應本著對事不對人的原則，加以考慮及接納。吊詭地魔鬼辯護士是幹著「為贊成而反對」。

「為反對而反對」在香港最先提出的是2005年曾特首不滿政改方案被否決。平情而論，這個天殘地缺的行政機關，雖有政府之名，實質上基本法有制衡機制。根據基本法：

附件一《香港特別行政區行政長官的產生辦法》：「七、二○○七年以後各任行政長官的產生辦法如需修改，須經立法會全體議員三分之二多數通過，行政長官同意，並報全國人民代表大會常務委員會批准。」

附件二《香港特別行政區立法會的產生辦法和表決程序》：「三、二○○七年以後立法會的產生辦法和表決程序──二○○七年以後香港特別行政區立法會的產生辦法和法案、議案的表決程序，如需對本附件的規定進行修改，須經立法會全體議員三分之二多數通過，行政長官同意，並報全國人民代表大會常務委員會備案。 」

人家否決你的方案，方案過不到，就一切照舊，實在無需氣憤。而當時有李姓港英舊電池聲言一切照舊違反基本法「循序漸進」的原則，其實與同一人聲稱夠料報ICAC雷同，呢ｄ人就真係為反對而反對了！

雖然筆者對於香港在朝在野的政治勢力均無好感，但真正算得上能夠講得到兩咀道理的，偏偏就是被目為「丐幫」的社民聯。雖則筆者並不認為他們言行一致，但無可否認在文字表達上是合理的：

 

http://www.hkreporter.com/talks/thread-249447-1-1.html

社民連評論系列二：指控口號

 

筆者認為，香港是太缺少魔鬼辯護士，卻太多人（除政客外還有傳媒及廣大市民）是為反對而反對。比如就迷你債券一事，任志剛自稱先知先覺固然被譏，陳家強吃了誠實豆沙包說事後才知又被人說是「傻強」，幾日後解話的結果亦是一樣。報章上有評論說，既然有些議員本身也是迷債受害人，就不要厚顏指罵財金官員了！

台灣李敖講出另一個極端，就是一言堂的議會，其實兩者均不是健康的現象，但香港的所謂黨爭現象，並不局限在議會層次，各種政治勢力的攻訐，早已走到街上。

 

http://www.tw001.net/novels/liao/liao12.html

永遠失職，永不失業！　李敖

「為民喉舌」的啞巴

立法委員是國會議員，國會議員就該「為民喉舌」。「為民喉舌」的重點就在表現質詢和詢問，一表現質詢，就得經常跟被質詢的對立，這是制度上規定的制衡關係，並不是跟政府過不去，跟政府搗蛋。

歐洲中古有一種「魔鬼的辯護士」，那時候的神學者，提出了理論，必須請另外一個人，就敵對立場，提出反駁，真理要透過反駁，才無懈可擊，才告完成。這些提出反駁的人，形式上好像站在魔鬼立場講話，所以叫「魔鬼的辯護士」。這種有意的魔高一丈，目的在使道高一尺也變成一丈，變成
一丈一，變成十丈。所以，「魔鬼的辯護士」，並不是跟教會過不去，跟教會搗蛋。

拳擊家練拳，自己一個人光打梨形球或沙袋是不夠的，他得來個「假想敵對打」。這個假想敵，多半是他的教練，教練跟他對打，這種有意的對打，目的在使他缺點減少優點加多，這種打反拳的「假想敵」，並不是跟選手過不去，跟選手搗蛋。可笑的是，三十一年來，這個島上的國會議員，居然發明一種所謂時值非常相忍為安的怪論，從怪論下引伸，竟認為議會中跟被質詢者對立是「破壞團結」的，是「破壞政府威信」的，是「詆毀領導中心」的，是「影響民心士氣」的，是「動搖國本」的。……於是，他們放棄了制度上規定的制衡關係，放棄「為民喉舌」，紛紛做起啞巴來了。