【專題訪問 Interview Feature】2019年度香港大學學生會周年大選中央幹事會候選内閣蒼傲訪問(外務篇) | Interview with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union of Annual Election 2019 (External Affairs)
(Please scroll down for English version.)
中央幹事會候選內閣蒼傲就外務議題接受本台訪問,就不同外務議題立場,包括不反對政府取締民族黨的原因、相信政府DQ議員合法的理據、初一事件有黑幫介入的看法、及對法律制度有信心的理由等發表意見。
訪問節錄如下:
1. 你們的政治光譜/政治立場是甚麼?
我們認為用現有的名詞並不能表達我們莊的政治立場,因為例如本土、港獨等,第一他們並沒有清晰的界定,或是社會一致的定義,我們都認為不論是政治光譜或是政治立場我們作為香港人或是香港接受教育的人,其實我們的立場都會傾向由香港出發。但由香港出發去考慮香港利益時,我們都要考慮時間軸。時間軸的意思是,我們到底在考慮短期還是長期的利益。加上香港的地理位置、經濟結構其實都十分依賴世界上大部份的國家,不論金融、出口產業,所以在考慮香港利益同時,我們都應考慮鄰近國家的政策、議案的推出。所以如果要用幾個字去形容我們的政治立場,我們會選擇「國際視野,本土出發」八個字。前者是考想利益的角度,後者是執行的角度。
2. 你們是否支持香港獨立?
首先我們認為它可以被自由地討論,特別是在大學之內。至於是否贊成香港獨立方面,港獨並非香港現時可執行最好的決策,因為尚有很多的選擇可加以考慮及討論。另外我認為香港內部的問題都非常嚴峻,例如我們在政綱小册子上提到的外務議題,如學生自殺、高樓價、創新科技嚴重落後等問題。這些都是我們內部必須解決和面對的問題,所以我們會將那些內部問題列為最優先需要處理的問題。
3. 你們覺得香港獨立是否合法?
我們認為任何符合法例的討論都是可被接受的,所以我們認為只要某個人或團體在現時完善的法律制度下,加上沒有違反法律,就應可就不同議題提出想法。
4. 你們是否同意香港政府取締香港民族黨?
首先我們相信香港的法治仍然相當完善,所以就香港一套完整司法制度體系下做出的判決,我們並沒有太多質疑或反對。對於民族黨被政府取締或禁止,社會上有不同聲音,但我們相信我們應遵守絕大部分香港市民都認同是完善的法律體系下作出的任何決策。
5. 你們是否同意香港政府DQ議員?
其實我們由始至終都相信,而坊間一些調查機構都指出香港的法治制度在世界上都名列前茅,所以我們相信這套法治制度可以帶來公平的審訊,所以對於有部分議員被DQ,我們願意相信整個判決過程是公平的,並且有足夠理據去支持政府所作的判決,所以我們對這件事沒有任何特別意見。
6. 你們是否支持人大釋法?
每一個法律的訂立,其實都是由一小部分的精英去開始建構框架,然後隨社會的進步不斷完善。所以法律並非一本已經印刷好的書,而是容許我們不斷修改、去完善,就一些前人的不足作補完。人大釋法亦都如是,我相信重點是我們希望這法列在微調後能得到愈來愈多香港人的支持,這才是一個成功的新詮釋。
7. 你們是否同意一國兩制?
我們支持所有在香港回歸時所簽訂的條文,其中當然包括一國兩制。
8. 你們是否支持國歌法和23條立法?
因為爭議聲非常之多,所以我們不希望對任何未實施或未明文規定的法例作出過多評論。這是對該法案有所偏頗,該法案到最後還有很多相議的空間,所以我們認為政府應充分考慮各種聲音,從而推出一條為大部分港人所接受的法例。
9. 你們對違法達義有何看法?
香港作為擁有完善法律的城市,任何人都有表達訴求或是行動的權利。我們主張每人都有自由去決定自己的事、想表達的聲音,但每人都應為這些行為勇敢承擔相認的法律責任。當然我們更相信這套法律體系是完善和公平的。
10. 你們對初一事件有何看法?
對旺角騷動,很多報紙傳媒都報道了有不法份子甚至黑社會的介入,所以旺角騷動的那一批示威者是否單純為表達而表達的市民呢?
11. 你們是否同意政府以暴動罪控告參與者?
就對這幾名人士進行拘捕的行為,我們希望香港政府有真憑實據去支持,以及整個審訊過程認該要公平。我希望他們得到公平的審訊。
Campus TV has interviewed with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union, Session 2019, with regards to their treatment of external affairs. Prism has expressed their stance and opinions on various external issues, which include: their not opposing the Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party, believing in the government’s legitimacy for the disqualification of legislators, believing in the involvement of gangs in the Mong Kok Incident of 2016, and expressing their confidence in the current legal system.
The interview excerpts are as follows:
1. Where do you stand on the political spectrum? / How would you define your political stance?
We believe the current word items are unable to express our Cabinet’s political stance. For example, if you consider the term localism or Hong Kong independence, these groups have not a clear boundary or universal definition given by the society. Whether it be the political spectrum or political stance, us who are Hong Kong-ers or who have been educated in Hong Kong, have a tendency to think from the standpoint of Hong Kong. If we consider the benefits from the standpoint of Hong Kong, we also need to consider the timeline. This (the timeline) means, that we should consider if these benefits are of short term or long term. Therefore, when considering Hong Kong’s benefits, we should also consider the policies and bills of neighbouring countries. Therefore, if we had to define our political stance in terms, it would be “international perspective that comes from a local standpoint”. The former is a consideration to the benefits, the latter is a consideration to the execution.
2. Do you support Hong Kong independence?
Firstly, we think this matter could be discussed freely, especially within the premises of the University. In terms of agreeing with Hong Kong independence, we think that Hong Kong independence is currently not the best option to be executed in Hong Kong, because there are still many other options to consider and discuss about. In addition, I think that Hong Kong’s internal affairs are very severe, like the external affairs that are mentioned in our campaign booklet, for example, students’ suicides, rising property prices, the severely outdated innovation and technology. These are problems that our internal department has to confront and resolve, therefore we put these internal affairs as our priority.
3. Do you think that Hong Kong independence is legal?
We believe any discussion that is in compliance with the law is acceptable. Therefore, we think that under the current, comprehensive legal system, with no breaching of the law, a person or group should be allowed to speak their thoughts on different issues.
4. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party?
Firstly, we believe that Hong Kong’s rule of law is still quite comprehensive. Therefore, we do not have much hesitation nor opposition for a judgment that is based on what we consider to be an intact judicial system of Hong Kong. In terms of the banning of the Hong Kong National Party, the society has different voices, but we believe we ought to obey the judgment that comes from what the majority of Hong Kong considers to be a comprehensive legal system.
5. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s disqualification of legislators?
Actually, we have since the very beginning believed in Hong Kong’s rule of law as quite a frontrunner in the world; this has been backed by some survey organisations within the community too, so we believe that this rule of law can bring out a fair trial. Therefore, in regards to the disqualification of some legislators, we willingly believe that the entirety of the judgment process has been fair, with sufficient arguments to back up the government’s verdict. We do not express any special opinions towards this incident.
6. Do you support the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress’ Interpretation of the Basic Law (SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, or Interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC)?
For the enactment of every legislation, it starts from a small portion of elites that begin to build its (the legislation’s) framework, it then continues to be improved as society grows. For this reason, the law is not a printed book, it allows us to continually amend, better, and complete items that are left neglected or faulted by predecessors. This applies for the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, I believe the most important thing is, we hope to gain more Hong Kong-ers’ support under these fine-tunings (by the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL), we think this is what counts as a successful re-interpretation of the law.
7. Do you agree with the constitutional principle of “one country, two systems”?
We support all the terms that were signed in the Handover of Hong Kong, and this definitely includes the principle of “one country, two systems”.
8. Do you support the National Anthem Bill and the enactment of Article 23?
Due to the many controversies on this matter, we do not wish to comment on any legislation that has yet to be implemented or stipulated in explicit terms. This would be a prejudice on the said bill(s). These bills still have a lot of room for negotiation, so we believe the government should consider different voices, so as to introduce a legislation that is accepted by the majority of Hong Kong-ers.
9. What are your views on the idea of achieving justice by violating the law?
Hong Kong is a city with a comprehensive legal system; anyone has the right to express their own appeal or action. We advocate that everyone has the freedom to decide for their own deeds and express their own thoughts, but everyone should also be responsible to bear the consequences of their actions. Needless to say, we definitely believe that our legal system is perfect and fair.
10. What are your views on the Mong Kok Incident in 2016?
With regards to the Mong Kok unrest, many media sources have reported about the involvement of many illegal parties, and even that of gangs or triads. So, are the demonstrators in the Mong Kok unrest really with pure intentions to speak up, for the sake of expressing themselves as Hong Kong citizens?
11. Do you agree with the government’s decision to charge participants (of the Mong Kok Incident in 2016) with the offence of rioting?
With regards to the arrest of those participants, we hope that the Hong Kong government has had solid evidence to support (their arrest), and that the trial process has been fair. I hope they receive a fair trial.
___________________________________
二零一九年度香港大學學生會周年大選其他候選人包括候選常務秘書麥嘉晉、校園電視候選內閣、學苑候選編輯委員會及候選普選評議員。
2019年度周年大選中央諮詢大會將於一月二十一日至一月二十五日在中山廣場舉行,時間為下午十二時半至二時半。
Other candidates for the Annual Election 2019 include the Proposed General Secretary Mak Ka Chun Eugene, the Proposed Cabinet of Campus TV, the Proposed Editorial Board of Undergrad, and the Proposed Popularly Elected Union Councillor.
The Central Campaign for Annual Election 2019 will be held from the 21st to 25th of January at the Sun Yat-sen Place, from 12:30 to 14:30.
prejudice法律 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 八卦
[時事英文] 到底是 「 All Lives Matter」還是 「 Black Lives Matter」?
All lives can only matter when black lives matter.
唯有當黑人的生命得到同等的重視,我們才能說「所有人」的命都很重要。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
《CNBC》報導:
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos on Friday expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement by posting an email exchange with an upset customer.
1. express support 表達支持
2. the Black Lives Matter movement 「黑人的命也是命」運動
3. an email exchange 通信
4. an upset customer 憤怒的顧客
週五,亞馬遜執行長貝佐斯(Jeff Bezos)發布了一封其與一名憤怒的顧客互通的電子郵件,來表達對「Black Lives Matter」運動的支持。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
In an Instagram post, Bezos posted a screenshot of an email from a customer who said it was “disturbing” and “offensive” that Amazon posted a message on its website in solidarity with the movement. The customer, whose name was blurred, wrote “ALL LIVES MATTER!”
5. post a screenshot 發布一張截圖
6. disturbing and offensive 讓人心煩且令人作嘔的
7. in solidarity with 聲援⋯⋯;與⋯⋯一致
8. All lives matter. 所有人的命都是命。
在 Instagram 的貼文中,貝佐斯發布了一封來自顧客電子郵件的截圖,該顧客稱亞馬遜在官網上聲援此項運動的訊息是「使人心煩」且「令人作嘔的」。該名顧客(姓氏已被塗黑)寫道——「所有人的命都是命!」
★★★★★★★★★★★★
Critics of the Black Lives Matter movement often seek to counter the phrase by saying “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter,” referencing fallen police officers.
9. seek to counter 伺機反駁
10. reference (v.) 論及
11. fallen police officers 殉職的警察
批評「Black Lives Matter」運動的人通常會以「all lives matter」或「blue lives matter」——係指殉職的警察——來伺機反駁此項運動。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
“I have to disagree with you,” Bezos replied.″
"'Black Lives Matter' doesn’t mean other lives don’t matter. Black lives matter speaks to racism and the disproportionate risk that Black people face in our law enforcement and justice system.”
12. speak to sth 談論…
13. a disproportionate risk 過高的風險
14. the law enforcement and justice system 執法與司法系統
「我無法同意你,」貝佐斯回覆道。「說『Black Lives Matter』並不表示其他人的命就不重要。Black Lives Matter 指責了種族歧視,以及黑人在我們的執法與司法系統中所面臨的過高風險。」
★★★★★★★★★★★★
Unlike black parents, Bezos said, he will never have to worry that his son “might be choked to death while being detained one day.” He added that he supports the recent protests around police brutality.
“I want you to know I support this movement that we see happening all around us and my stance won’t change,” he added.
15. never have to worry about 永遠無須擔心⋯⋯
16. be choked to death 被掐死;窒息而死
17. be detained 被拘留
18. support the recent protest 支持近期的抗議活動
19. police brutality 警察暴行
20. stance (n.) 立場
貝佐斯說,與黑人父母不同,他永遠無須擔心自己的兒子「可能在某日被拘留時會窒息而死」。他也表示,他支持近日抗議警察暴行的活動。
「我希望你知道我支持這項運動,因為我們重視自身周圍所發生的一切,而我的立場不會改變。」他補充道。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
批評此次運動最常見的四種論述如下:
1. All lives matter, not only black ones.
所有人的命都是命,並非只有黑人的命才是命。
Of course all lives matter! We can address racial discrimination towards all races, poverty, injustice, and other social issues at any time, but the focus now is on the Black Lives Matter movement.
When there is intense public scrutiny of social issues, it gives governments the motivation and support they need to address these issues. Moreover, by focusing on Black Lives Matter at the moment, we are able to examine underlying factors such as wealth inequality, indirect discrimination, and other injustices, all of which affect all races! The Black Lives Matter movement calls attention to these underlying issues.
這點絕對毋庸置疑!我們雖可同時處理因種族、貧困、不公不義以及其他社會問題所帶來的種族歧視,惟現階段的重點乃在於「Black Lives Matter」。當大眾格外關注某一議題時,將能提供政府解決問題所需的動力與支持。此外,藉由「Black Lives Matter」運動,我們便能檢視財富不平等、間接歧視以及其他的不公不義,以裨益所有群體。「Black Lives Matter」運動喚起了大眾對這些問題的關注。
⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹
2. Discrimination and prejudice exist everywhere. Protesting will only make things worse.
歧視與偏見無所不在,抗議活動只會讓事情變得更糟。
Nearly all the rights we possess today are founded on the sacrifices of the generations before us through hundreds if not thousands of years of civil movements and reforms. Voicing injustice and grievances is an effective way to help our society become aware of social issues and take action. A recent example is the discrimination against Asian Americans in the US. If they had not spoken up against discrimination, there would not be sufficient public pressure to condemn those who wrongly pin the blame of the pandemic on them.
當代公民所擁有的權利,大多是藉由公民運動以及逐步改革所爭取來的。對不公不義表達不滿,有助於我們的社會意識到相關問題,並有所作為。最近的一個例子是,美國人對亞裔美國人的歧視。若亞裔美國人未於疫情期間對抗歧視,那麼輿論就不會譴責那些將疫情歸咎於他們的人。
⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹
3. George Floyd had a criminal past. Why wasn’t this reported?
喬治・佛洛依德有犯罪紀錄,為什麼這些沒有被報導?
Video footage shows that Floyd was not behaving in a violent manner during his arrest, was not armed, and was not suspected of a violent crime. The claim that his criminal past was not reported is false as it was covered by the Guardian, NPR, and other press. Some news outlets might not have published this because past events have no bearing on how George Floyd was detained and treated. Some might also easily conflate these events and not focus on the current movement.
影片顯示,弗洛伊德被捕時手無寸鐵,沒有暴力行為,也未涉及暴力犯罪。有些人說美國媒體並未報導弗洛伊德的犯罪過往,但這種說法是錯的。實際上,《衛報》、美國公共廣播電臺以及其他媒體都有作過相關報導。部分媒體之所以沒有報導,是因為弗洛伊德的過往與他被捕後窒息而死的事件無關。若也對其進行報導,易使人產生不當的聯想,而模糊運動的焦點。
⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹
4. The government has not done anything wrong. Those who support the Black Lives Matter movement are condoning rioting and looting.
政府並沒有做錯事。那些支持「Black Lives Matter」運動的人,正在縱容暴亂與搶劫的發生。
A democratic government exists to serve the people, but citizens in democracies must also agree to abide by the rules and obligations by which they are governed. Democracies grant many freedoms to their citizens, including the freedom to dissent and criticize the government.
When a government violates the fundamental human rights of its citizens, it is the civic responsibility of citizens to protest and redress these infringements and violations. Unfortunately, some are so frustrated with the inaction of the government that they will resort to violence to make themselves heard. There are also some who take the opportunity to benefit themselves through rioting and looting. Such actions should be condemned to the full extent of the law.
民主政府的存在乃為人民服務,而民主國家的公民也須遵守自身義務以及政府訂定的法規。民主國家保障公民自由,包括表達異議與批評政府的權利。當政府違反或侵犯公民的基本人權時,抗議並糾正這些侵權行為是公民的權利與責任。不幸的是,也有部分的人會藉機行搶與暴動,以謀取自身利益。此種行為應受到法律全面的制裁。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
It is common to base on our opinion of a complex issue on our own biases and tidbits of information provided by mainstream news outlets. However, for us to resolve any complex issue, we must seek to understand, analyze, and evaluate these issues in depth from multiple perspectives. While current social problems are difficult to solve, they present a chance for us to come together and change the world for the better!
通常,我們會將自身觀點與主流媒體所提供的資訊相結合,來形成我們對複雜問題的看法。然而,要解決任何複雜的問題,仍須從他人的角度來深入理解、分析與評估。即便此一議題頗為棘手,但仍為我們提供了一個得以團結一致的機會,讓世界變得更加美好!
欲閱讀更多相關資訊,請點擊以下連結:
我們該如何理解美國的種族不平等
https://bit.ly/30fB4LP
美國暴警引發示威
https://bit.ly/36LsMMR
黑人鄰居,高犯罪率?
https://bit.ly/37neUbV
對亞裔的歧視
https://bit.ly/3cr5wps
★★★★★★★★★★★★
相關資訊:
What is Black Lives Matter?
https://www.voanews.com/usa/what-black-lives-matter
Ethics Questions NPR Must Answer
https://n.pr/2XMmda1
Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
Are blacks to blame for cops' actions?
https://bit.ly/2UqHT9G
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Crime
https://bit.ly/37neUbV
Can Black Lives Matter & Law Enforcement See Eye To Eye?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6rDvbQ-mz4
Let's get to the root of racial injustice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aCn72iXO9s
★★★★★★★★★★★★
新聞來源:https://cnb.cx/37db2dG
圖片來源:https://bit.ly/2AMrOE8
prejudice法律 在 尤美女立委 Facebook 八卦
【經濟學人主辦之同志權益論壇明天登場,我將擔任第一場的講者】
明天(3月3日)經濟學人(the Economist)將於香港舉辦「傲慢與偏見─歧視的代價 」(Pride and Prejudice-The Cost of Discrimination)論壇,並接力到倫敦和紐約,討論國際上LGBT權益的情形。而我很榮幸擔任第一場次「LGBT權益在亞洲:法律及政治議程」的講者,和香港、日本、菲律賓、越南的國會議員和政府官員討論亞洲同志權益的立法和社會情形,及分享我國同性婚姻立法的狀況。
該場次在上午8:45開始,有興趣的朋友請觀看經濟學人的Youtube頻道,論壇設有線上直播。https://www.youtube.com/user/economistmagazine
另外,論壇網站請見:http://prideandprejudice.economist.com/hong-kong/