address the problem中文的八卦，Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】

***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated，將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像：以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文（https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/）翻譯成英文，鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演，在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***

中文精簡版本：https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.

In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.

Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.

Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.

Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw

我哥之前因為陪朋友去考街頭藝人證照看到一些評審對街頭藝人的態度發聲 而上了新聞。我覺得他很勇敢的去做了一件對的事。

希望政府不會時間過了就不關心這些事情。希望我們都可以更客觀的去看藝術，尊重不一樣藝術和藝術家。我覺得以下我哥說的非常好，想跟大家分享。

想知道之前的事可看新聞連結：
http://www.storm.mg/article/270611

親愛的大家：


我想感謝所有支持我、以及給予我鼓勵意見的每個人；同時也要感謝熱情關注此事、協助揭露街頭表演者們應試處境問題的許多媒體與記者們。我很抱歉這些日子我保持著沉默—僅有一個原因：我並不希望這件事情，在台北市文化局正式給予溝通管道之前就發展到無法控制的程度；我很抱歉遲至今日我才發表這篇文章，但我確實需要一些時間來沉澱彙整我心中的感受和想法，而我也需要時間及一些協助使這篇文章能夠以中文來呈現。

在我採取更進一步的行動之前，我其實未曾預料到這件事情在媒體與社交媒體上的感染力如此龐大；我受寵若驚的感動能夠聽見發自你們每個人內心的聲音，而我也著實感到抱歉，面對著如潮水般湧來的各種訊息，似乎超過我所能負荷。請原諒我未能夠逐ㄧ去回應每個人的訊息，但我真的想讓你們知道，你們每ㄧ個人都讓我感到不可思議、帶給我深深的感動及感謝。

我不認為自己是一個勇敢的人，我也自知自己並非街頭藝人的代表或者發言人。但我是一個藝術創作者，一個表演藝術家，一個教育者，而最重要的，我身為一個 "人"。我的家人、朋友及師長們，總是教導我應該為正確的事情挺身而出。

我明白事情有時候總是不像我們所期待的永遠是非分明。但發生在5月21日星期天的街頭藝人評審事件，是對藝術群體的一種「極不尊重」。不論反面評論者所提出的藉口、理由或是文化差異等緣由，這些應試的表演者們，很顯然是被視為次等公民，或者（經驗與技能不夠成熟？）的學生等級。而與此同時，同樣非常清晰的是，街頭藝人評審制度或許是立意良善，但其審查過程的執行層面，卻是嚴重缺失連連。

藝術並非一種特權的這件事情如今已完全被遺忘。台北市文化局本應提倡所有具有文化及藝術可能性的事情，但它並未做到這ㄧ點。很顯然的，一個「對表演者的基本尊重」並不存在 — 許多表演者都如此感覺，有些人則深感受傷。

就算是得到全世界所有理應被如此對待的原因及理由，他們仍然感受到自己的不被尊重；因為這就是事實。

再一次的我想強調我並不是認定台北市文化局與該評審是一個「壞人」，我想強調的只是這個評審街頭藝人表演的執行環節，究竟有多麼的不妥當與糟糕。

我試著回應一個反面評論者所提到的觀點：若街頭藝人證照是ㄧ場「考試」、考試就會有考試的規則。評審無需與應試者惺惺相惜，掉頭就走是因為模擬街頭現場環境以及時間到了。再一次的，在我描述現場狀況的前ㄧ篇文章中，大家或許還記憶猶新：許多表演者根本沒有完整的短至一分半鐘的時間可以好好表演，遑論是超過2-5分鐘的時間限制了。

而這樣的回應是否也指出了另一個值得我們去思考的問題： 為什麼我們會將它視為一種「考試」，而不是ㄧ個表演者的「試鏡」呢？

首先，這些表演者們並不是學生。事實上，許多人更可能是一個專業的音樂家、舞者、或者正從事著表演藝術的人。當然，我不否認也可能會有些正在學習中的族群。但，最重要的是，當他們「在屬於他們應得的演出時間與機會裡 (而且還是付費才有的），他們就是ㄧ個真正的表演者。」

他們不應該被看待成一個不成熟的學生或者次等的公民。而就算一個人擁有著學生的身分，這個身分也不應該影響或侷限他或她，作為一個藝術創作者的身分及所有可能性。「藝術家」並非是透過一個人的職業身分或者社會地位來定義的。

所謂「考試」的這個字眼指涉著ㄧ個學術教育機構，而我們都知道台北市文化局所應該扮演的角色與作用，並非一個學術性的教育機構，也並非是用來教育藝術創作者們該知道些什麼？該怎麼表現？藝術教育及審美的養成也從來不是在追求填鴨式教育裡的ㄧ個標準答案。將街頭藝人的徵選視為「考試」的視角，或許本身就有待商榷。

評審的場所是在一個公共場合，許多居民與遊客都會圍觀欣賞著表演，其中有些人或許不了解藝術；因而這些人也許會將在場的評審們，視做為某種藝術的衡量標準；試問，當這些人看到評審對待表演藝術家的行為與態度，當他們看到評審總是任意打斷演出，並且掉頭就走不帶ㄧ句回應時，人們日後還能懂得尊重街頭表演藝術家嗎？

沒錯，我們都知道這是一場「考試」，我們也很清楚這些手上拿著計分表的人們就是評審；因此，事實上評審們根本無需「模擬」街頭現場那些會隨時走掉的陌生人們。

這些評審以及相關單位的人員，理應提倡藝術，並且作為ㄧ種示範與典範，讓普羅大眾都能夠看到該如何去欣賞ㄧ場演出。一個表演者並不會因為他選擇在街頭表演，就因此比不上一個在大舞台演出的藝術家。我自己就曾在世界各地超過百個不同的絢麗舞台演出過，但我仍然汗顏自己可能也不比這些街頭藝術家們來的優秀。

我曾擔任過ㄧ些國際比賽的評審，我也曾舉辦過專業的試鏡；我從來沒有聽過關於尊敬一個人的這件簡單事情，會需要在時間充裕的前提下才能夠發生。

如果一點表情會洩漏出評審成績的好惡，其實也真的可以不用笑或是無需在表演結束時說一聲謝謝。而評審也真的「不需要」與考證照的街頭藝人感覺惺惺相惜，因為這些都不是我想討論的重點。

我在意的是，表演者所需要的，只不過就是一個對人與對一個演出者的「基本尊重」而已。這樣的尊重存在與否，如人飲水冷暖自知，在人與人的接觸中就能直接感受的到，著實無需仰賴規則或語言的贅述。

我作為一個藝術創作者和教育者，穿梭各地工作超過15年的職業生涯經驗，或許會因此被視為一個外國人，但我的身分就是一個台灣公民。身為一個39歲的成年人，我可以分辨何謂尊重，而表達尊重甚至不需要浪費到任何一秒鐘。如果一個人會需要至少五分鐘以上的充足時間才有可能表達出對另外一個個體的尊重的話，那他可能需要重新再思考一下，尊重對他而言意謂著什麼？


再度回應一位也曾擔任過街頭藝人評審的老師所提出來「中途要求更換曲目或要求表演者改唱另ㄧ種語言的歌」的理由，是因為評審們不會希望一個街頭藝人一整年下來只會唱同一種語言、甚至是只唱同ㄧ首歌。

我所思考的是當一個街頭藝人遵守規定，付費且努力準備去應試時，他ㄧ定會準備了符合完整時間長度的、同時也是自己最擅長、最喜歡或者是最期待能被看見的那些內容；表演一首歌曲或者ㄧ種風格並不代表他就只會唱那ㄧ首歌；而且就算是當做他只會唱ㄧ種語言、ㄧ首歌，如果他能把這首歌反覆演繹的淋漓盡致時, 又有什麼不好呢？

難道我們不曾注意到百老匯的音樂劇就是同樣的那幾部，而獅子王也已經在舞台上展演了20年了嗎？許多同樣內容重複的音樂劇票房始終歷久不衰，持續帶給觀眾們心靈的滿足。而人氣歌手愛黛兒從頭到尾也只會用英文唱歌，而且幾乎都是類似的曲風，我們可曾在乎過她有沒有能力去唱中文歌呢？

ㄧ部舞蹈作品光在荷蘭本土就能有至少五十場大大小小的演出機會。但在台灣，ㄧ部作品如果能有五個場次的演出，可能已經算是很長壽了。這樣的環境迫使藝術創作者們必須不斷快速的「生產新作」，而將舊有積累的作品與經驗拋在腦後。就所有對於藝術的挹注與投資（不僅僅是金錢）來說，這樣的情況對藝術的生產是ㄧ種過度消耗與浪費，也並未真正教育到民眾如何去看待藝術的價值。

而最終，這樣的評審過程與態度並不僅僅是對街頭表演藝術者的不尊重，同時也是對於藝術的不尊重。

台北市文化局星期ㄧ曾經聯絡過我，親切向我表示將與我進一步聯絡並討論這件事情；他們要求我先將評審的照片拿掉—我答應取下照片，但前提是他們必須確實誠意的允諾一個面對面的溝通。這幾天我也暫時迴避了一些報導媒體的詢問（還請大家見諒）只因我衷心希望能先與台北市文化局及該評審當面談一談。我ㄧ直等待，但我也持續的看到了相關機構或人員回應給媒體的諸多理由與藉口； 自從將照片從網路上取下之後，直到今日都沒有人再跟我連繫過。慢慢的我突然明白星期一的那通電話，或許純粹只是ㄧ個希望我能將照片取下的操作手法，而並非真的試圖去了解整個經過以及解決問題。我對這個本應提倡藝術與文化的機構感到無比失望。

我知道我並非一個公眾人物，而我也不能代表所有想要考取街頭藝人執照的表演者們；自從我的臉書網頁訊息爆炸之後，我就不斷的在思考這件事情，我反覆思考自己是否該繼續爭執此事，這似乎並非與我切身相關的事情，然而，身為一個藝術教育者，我卻又感受到深切的責任。

經過反覆的思考以及與朋友們的討論，我意識到不論我們的展演形式如何不同，我們同樣都是表演藝術群體中的一分子。台北市文化局最後很可能將持續充耳不聞，而這位被我所抱怨的評審也可能繼續做他這些年來ㄧ直在做的事—用他ㄧ貫的態度。除非他們願意傾聽與改變，否則我無法改變任何人。

我真心相信有些事情值得改善，也可以改善。我必須強調我並不是想要攻擊或羞辱任何人。我只希望能有機會去討論如何讓審查的過程變的更適當。我看到台灣有許多優秀的藝術家，但環境對藝術和藝術家的不尊重不但打擊同時也限制了他們的發展；更遺憾的是，這一切可能是在許多疏忽之中造就出來的環境。

許多評審過程如果能夠在尊重藝術的前提之下思考和進行，事情或許會截然不同。
只要有一點點可能去拋開面子的問題，或許也就有機會明嘹我們所期待的結果其實是一樣的。

事實上我之所以說了這麼冗長的話語，並非是要不尊敬所謂的評審或師長，而正是因為我對藝術的尊敬，使我更深切的關注身為一個教育者所代表的意義。今天我看到了街頭表演藝術家是如何被不當的對待，而很顯然的我也不會是唯一的目擊者。某個程度上我的聲音似乎被放大了，但我也知道我的聲音並不是唯一的一個，我是許許多多的聲音中的ㄧ份子。

William

---------

Dear All,

I would like to thank you for all the encouraging messages and supportive comments. I would also like to thank all the journalists and reporters who are passionate about this issue and are so willing to expose the problem that was faced by these street performers. I am sorry that I have been quiet but with a reason: I don’t want it to get much bigger than it already was until I talked to the Taipei Cultural Affair. I apologize that it took me a while, but I needed some time to gather my thoughts and help to translate my writing into Chinese.

Before I go on any further, I never expected my story would go viral on the media and the social media. I am humbled and touched to hear from many of you. All the messages I’ve received have been overwhelming. I am not able to reply to all of them, but I’d like you to know that I am honored, thankful, and touched by every single one of them.

I do not consider myself as a brave person, nor do I consider myself a representative for the street performers. BUT I am an artist, a performer, educator, and most of all I am a human being.I have always been taught to stand for what’s right by my family, friends and mentors.

I understand things are not as black and white as we all wish sometimes. However, what happened on Sunday 21st of May was a disgrace to the art community. Regardless of all the excuses that were given or cultural differences, it was very obvious these performers were treated like lower-class citizens; if not, students. It was also very clear that the intention might be well, but the execution of the busker’s exam was done horribly.

Somehow the idea that ART is NOT a privilege had been forgotten. Taipei Cultural Affair is supposed to be advocating for all things cultural and artistic but it was not conveyed that day. It was very clear the respect was not there. Many felt it and some got their feelings hurt. Even with all the excuses there are in the world, many experienced the disrespect. That was the truth. Again I have to emphasize that I believe Taipei Department of Cultural Affair and its adjudicators are good people, but the execution of the exam was poor.

It brings to the question…. why is it called an exam? Shouldn’t it be an audition?

These performers were not students when they took the exam. Some of them were actually professional musicians, dancers, or performers. Just because one is a student, it doesn’t make him or her less of an artist. Artists are not defined by their social status or occupation.

The term exam suggests an educational institution, but we know Taipei Department of Cultural Affair is not an educational institution. They do not decide what these artists need to know. These performers were not given any materials to study, thus the term exam is very misleading.

The exam took place in a public space. Many tourists and residents were there to enjoy the event. Many do not understand arts. So they may look up to these adjudicators as role models who are experienced in the arts. When they saw how this exam was being done, do you think they would have any respect for these performers afterwards? They saw these adjudicators interrupting the performers and left without saying a “thank you.” We all knew it was an exam, we all knew these people were adjudicators. They did not need to pretend to be street spectators who just walk away. They all carried their score boards in their hands.

Just because a performer performs on the street, it doesn’t make that performer any less of a performer than someone who is performing on big stages. I myself have performed over hundreds of stages around the world and I do not dare to think myself better than these performers.

I have judged a handful of international competitions. I have also held professional auditions. I have never heard an excuse that respect can’t be shown when time is limited. You do not need to smile to simply say “thank you.” Since when, a smile means “I favor you.” What a performer need is respect. Over the 15 year span of my professional career as an educator and artist, and 39 years of being a human being, I know what respect looks like. It doesn’t take more than a second to show it. If it takes longer than 5 minutes to show what respect is, I think you may need to rethink what respect means to you.

Another excuse that was presented was that they don’t want a street artist performs only one kind of songs or genre throughout the year. Don’t they know broadway musicals? Lion King has been performed over 20 years. They’ve been doing the same musical numbers for years to sold out audiences. Adele has been singing the same genre of music and always in English. Does it matter that she doesn’t sing in other genre or sing in Chinese?

One dance production in the Netherlands can be performed up to 50 performances within the Netherlands itself. In Taiwan, a dance work only performed 5 times the most. They are forced to constantly create new works and leave the old works behind. That is a waste of arts funding and it doesn’t educate the public on the value of the arts. These performers is old enough to decide what they want to show these judges with their limited time.

In the end it wasn’t just disrespectful to the performers, but also to the arts.

I was contacted by the Taipei Cultural Affair on Monday, the representative spoke nicely promising that they would discuss further with me. He asked me to take the adjudicator’s picture down, I agreed with the condition of meeting in person to further discuss what could be done better. I have refused to talk to reporters for the last few days. I have been waiting but I then heard the excuses given to the media. Since I’ve taken down the picture of the head adjudicator, they haven’t made any attempt to contact me. I came into a realization that when they made the call, it wasn’t to address the problem but simply to manipulate me to take down his picture. I’m disappointed at this institution that was supposed to promote the arts and culture.

I realized I am not a public figure, nor am I responsible for the well being of all artists who want to get a busker license. After my Facebook post went viral, I’ve been thinking so much about this issue. I kept going back and forth questioning whether I should keep fighting for this. It doesn’t feel like my fight, but at the same time I feel responsible as an art educator.

I truly believe this can be fixed. I need to emphasize, I am not attacking anyone. And I don’t want to shame anyone. I want to start a discussion how to make it better. Taipei has some of the best performers I’ve seen, yet the lack of respect for the arts and artists has suppressed their ability to excel. And ironically, it’s often done unintentionally.

If the exam is done based on respect for the arts itself, things might have come out differently. And just maybe if we all let go the “face” culture, we could possibly see further to realize that we are all wanting the same thing.

I saw mistreatments towards performers that day. It was very obvious I wasn’t the only one witnessing it. It was not that I don’t respect these adjudicators/teachers, but because I respect the arts and the meaning of a teacher that is why I had to speak up. Somehow my voice had been amplified this week. But my voice wasn’t and isn’t singular. I am simply a voice amongst many.

Sincerely,
William Lü

Taipei National University of the Arts 國立台北藝術大學
寶藏巖國際藝術村 Treasure Hill Artist Village
Taipei National University of the Arts
臺北表演藝術中心 Taipei Performing Arts Center
National Theater and Concert Hall, Taipei
中正紀念堂 Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall
National Taiwan University of Arts
Department of Cultural Affairs, Taipei City Government

今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓，題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿：

It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:

//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.

Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…

In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.

Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.

Thank you very much!//

Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!

Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity