You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘social’ category.

我反對列德育及國民教育科為必修科,但我不反對愛國,甚至不反對愛共產黨,雖然我不認同共產主義,但在民主體制裡,我認同每個人有權以不傷害別人的方式愛自己所愛的。

那為什麼要反對德育及國民教育科為必修科呢?其實,以情感主導教育孩子愛國的課程或活動,很多組織都有主辦,大家可以自由選擇參加,但當德育及國民教育單獨成科,並成為學校必修科,且將學生參與活動的紀錄存檔並流傳至學生就讀的所有學校時,則反對的人毫無選擇的餘地,這是德育及國民教育科不應存在的根本原因。國民教育科最大的問題,在於其在根本上剝奪選擇的權利,正如共產黨不是問題,甚至共產黨在民主體制下當選也不是問題(只要她不一上台就跳進共產主義中社會主義時期一黨專政模式),共產黨一黨專政才是問題。事實上,任何黨派一黨專政都是問題,所以如何一黨專政才好,這問題根本不成立,因為前設「一黨專政」已經錯了。故此,如何教學德育與國民教育一科,這問題根本不成立,因為前設「德育與國民教育科是必修科」,已經錯了。保留各人的選擇權,這是人權中重要的一環。

我認同有必要了解國情,認同德育的重要,也認同公民應認識公民的權利和義務,但要了解國情,則史實才是重點,中國歷史科應重列為必修科,以史實說明國情,不應以情主導;如果要培育品德(德育),老實說,這應該是家長的責任,學校是兒童實踐家教(家庭德育)的地方,老師則協助兒童實踐德育;公民的權利和義務,這在小學的常識科,中學的通識科(或以前的經濟及政治行政),早已有非常詳盡的教材。德育、公民、國情三者,互不為因果,不應混為一談。

品德與國民,其實是兩種截然不同的概念。品德是整個人的素質,國民卻只是個人其中的一種身份。良好品德是普世價值,但國民身份卻是依據身處的時代和國家而定的,每個國家在不同年代不同政權下,對良好國民有不同的定義。與國民身份相符的品德要求,與普世的品德要求,並不必然相同。在納粹德國時期,良好國民就是逼害非日耳曼人,這明顯與普世品德價值中的仁愛、和平相違,當得了良好德國國民,當不成良好世界公民;在中國文革期間,良好國民是先愛黨後愛父母,要求批鬥父母師長,這明顯與普世品德價值的敬愛父母相違,當得了良好中國國民,當不成孝子賢孫。

德育與國民,有如立法、司法與行政三權,只可分立,不可混合。要建立可延續的社會,應教導普世品德價值,再讓個人根據自己的信念,自行選擇如何實踐國民身份。

沒有德育及國民教育科,大家依然可以選擇如何實踐國民身份,如何把德育與國民身份結合,但有了德育及國民教育科,結合德育與國民身份,便成了所有人的必修科,再沒有選擇的權利。

請讓下一代有選擇的權利。

All of the following voting results are taken from http://www.legcovotes.net . Legovotes.net has tables on more motions but for convenience’ sake, I’ve only taken the most concerned ones to be included here. If you’re interested in knowing more about how candidates voted in the past, head over to their website, please (sadly, it’s only available in Chinese…).

List Number/Party Constitution Reform Collective Bargaining Right Academic Freedom Revise National Education Freedom of Press
1.League of Social Democrats against for for absent absent
2:FTU against for against against against
6,9:DAB for absent against against against
13.Liberal Party for against against against against
7:People Power against for for abstain for
10:Labour Party against for for for for
3,11,14:Democratic Party for for for for for
15:Civic Party against for for for for
12:Neo Democrats against for for for for

Note1:

  1. Since this is a track record of how candidates or the party the candidates belong to voted in the past. Independent candidates who was not a Legco member are not included in the table. A list of all candidates can be found at the bottom of this page.
  2. FTU = Federation of Trade Unions
  3. DAB = Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

Note2:

About the five motions listed above:

  1. Constitution Reform was raised by the government in 2010. The draft by the government enlarged the committee responsible for electing the Chief Executive of HK from 800 to 1200 members. A new functional constituency was to be formed and elected by district councillors. A few days before the vote, the Democratic Party suggested the “one person, two votes mode", which was accepted by Beijing. In return, the Democratic Party voted for the motion and the motion was passed. Universal suffrage for Legco and Chief Executive in 2012 was thus denied.
  2. The motion to give employees the Collective Bargaining Right was raised by FTU. It was supported by all pan-democratice parties and FTU. However, it was opposed by most councillors from functional constituencies. DAB members either did not show for vote or abstained. As a result, the motion was denied.
  3. The motion to protect scholars from being threatened for their academic researches was raised by Cheung Man Kwong from Democratic Party in light of Dr. Chung from HKU being criticised by Chinese officials for his polling research. Among the Legco members who voted against the motion, several of them (four from DAB, two from Liberal Party) were board directors of local universities.
  4. Albert Ho from Democratic Party raised a motion to revise the curriculum of National Education (note that he was not asking to retract the whole curriculum). The motion was then revised by other pan-democratic councillors. In short, they tried to protect the freedom and independence of teachers and ensure that the curriculum includes the whole of the truth about China. The motion was denied since Liberal Party, FTU, DAB and most members from functional constituencies voted against it.
  5. The motion to protect freedom of press was raised by Emily Lau from Democratic Party after HK journalists were beaten up and detained by Xinjiang officials. Though Ip Kwok Him from DAB gave a speech that supports freedom of press, all DAB members voted against the motion. The motion was thus denied.

Complete List of candidates in NTE:

Red = pro-Beijing Green = pro-democratic Black = Independent

Candidates are marked as pro-Beijing, pro-democratic or Independent by their track record or affiliation with other organisations or parties taking reference from http://election.thehousenews.com

Number Candidates Party Name
1 LEUNG KWOK HUNG League of Social Democrats
2 IP WAI MING, WONG WANG TO, CHING NGON LAI, KAN SIU KEI, TSANG KING CHUNG KENT, CHEUNG KWOK WO FTU
3 LAU WAI HING EMILY, OR YIU LAM RICKY, LAM SIU CHUNG FRANKIE, LAM WING YIN Democratic Party
4 LEUNG ON KAY ANGEL Independent
5 PONG SCARLETT OI LAN, TAM LANNY, LAW KWONG KEUNG, CHAN KWOK TIM, SO CHUN MAN, LAM CHUNG YAN, LEUNG KA FAI, CHAN MAN KUEN, TANG WING CHEONG Civil Force/New Forum
6 QUAT ELIZABETH, CHONG YUEN TUNG, LI SAI WING, LI KA LEUNG PHILIP, TUNG KIN LEI, KI LAI MEI, WONG PING FAN DAB
7 CHAN CHI CHUEN RAYMOND, YUEN MI MING ERICA People Power
8 YAU WING KWONG, TONG PO CHUN, CHAN CHO LEUNG, PANG SHU WAN, LAU WAI LUN, SHING KWOK CHU, MAN CHEN FAI, TANG KWONG WING, LOK SHUI SANG Economic Synergy
9 CHAN HAK KAN, LAU KWOK FAN, WONG PIK KIU, LARM WAI LEUNG, WOO KIN MAN CLEMENT, YIU MING DAB
10 CHEUNG CHIU HUNG, KWOK WING KIN Labour Party
11 TSOI YIU CHEONG RICHARD, AU CHUN WAH, MAK YUN PUI, KWONG MEI NA Democratic Party
12 FAN GARY KWOK WAI, YAM KAI BONG, LEUNG LI, LEUNG WING HUNG, KWAN WING YIP, YAU MAN CHUN, CHUNG KAM LUN, CHEUNG KWOK KEUNG, YUNG MING CHAU MICHAEL Neo Democrats
13 TIEN PEI CHUN JAMES, CHOW LIANG SHUK YEE SELINA, LEUNG CHI WAI, LIU KWOK WAH Liberal Party
14 WONG SING CHI, LAW SAI YAN Democratic Party
15 TONG KA WAH RONNY, YEUNG ALVIN NGOK KIU Civic Party
16 HO MAN KIT RAYMOND Independent
17 PONG YAT MING Independent
18 FONG KWOK SHAN CHRISTINE Independent
19 CHAN KWOK KEUNG Independent

Independent Candidates:

Ok, I must admit that I don’t know the independent candidates that well apart from No.17 Pong Yat Ming. He is well known for his real-life experiment on living without the services provided by the tycoons for an year. Here is an interview on WSJ website.

Broken again.

Upon setting verification, everything was verified except Safari 6.0. Tried to launch Safari 5.0 but failed. Mountain Lion does NOT allow older version of Safari to launch.

Failed.

So switched Firefox 3.x (Sorry, I forgot). It couldn’t even get pass the verification page.

So, nope, doesn’t work…again. I just hope that IRD will make it compatible with Safari 6.0 by the time we have to report tax for next year.

歸根究柢,蝗蟲的出現,並不是蝗蟲本身的錯。蝗蟲也並不是某地特產,其實各地都有,只是搶的對象不同而已。問題其實不在蝗蟲的出現,而是「為什麼會變成蝗蟲?」那是因為對身處環境的現狀與未來不安,對前景感到惶恐,只能盡一己之力,自求多福,急功近利,惟恐今天不享受,明天可能連僅有的都失去。這一切,不全是蝗蟲的錯,真正的錯,在造成令蝗蟲不安的在上位者。如果對前景充滿信心,在自家家園感到安心,誰要離家出走?要不是為明天憂慮,誰要把子女往鄰居送?如果家裏的食物能吃,誰要出家門搶買?所以,我們要反的,其實不是蝗蟲,這是治標而不治本的。

我們要反的,應該是造成不公、不義、不安的源頭。

再說,如果看門人不開門,你以為能出家門嗎?某林君早前說政府的人口政策成功,是很成功的,但那是自訂的人口政策嗎?政治、經濟、民生,其實都不在我們手裏,現在勉強能說法治還在,但某自稱孔子後代的教授,早前不明說了對法治的蔑視嗎?他那視頻,重點不在動物,而在對法治的蔑視。蝗蟲怎麼突然來了?這個時候,這個情勢,是蝗蟲生存的最佳條件嗎?蝗蟲根本不是主角。我們還要反蝗嗎?那其實無關痛癢。

我們要反的,應該是造成不公、不義、不安的源頭。

我所使你們被擄到的那城,你們要為那城求平安,為那城禱告耶和華;因為那城得平安,你們也隨著得平安。(耶利米書29:7)

這一節,從沒如此明白過。

In the end, the occurrence  of locusts is not the locusts’ fault. Locust is not a special species born in  one particular place. In fact, they exist everywhere. The things they consumer maybe different, though. The question is actually not the occurrence of locusts but “why did they become locusts?" It is due to the anxiety towards the present and the future of where one is in. The fear for what may come drives one to do whatever he/she can to grab whatever he/she can grab now. For if they don’t grab it now, they may lose even the only bit in their hands tomorrow. All this is not the fault of the locusts. The real fault lies in the one up there who made the locusts unrest. If the future is bright and home is nice, who would run away? If not being anxious about tomorrow, who would leave their children to their neighbors? If food at home is edible, who would take food from their neighbors? What we should go against, therefore, is not the locusts. It is not the core of the problem.

What we should go against, is the origin of unfairness, unjustness, and unrest.

Besides, if the doorkeeper did not open the door, how could one go through the door and leave the house? Some Mr. Lam said earlier that the population policy of the government has succeeded. Yes, indeed. But which government? Politics, economics and livelihood: none of these is in our hands. We can only say that we still have judicial independence. However, one Prof. Kong, who claimed himself to be a descendant of the Confucius, publicly showed his loathing of law. In his video, which was aired on an internet video station owned by a national company, animal was not the main character but his loathing of law. Why did locusts come? Is this time, this circumstance the best living condition for locusts? Locust is not the main character. Are we still going against them? This is irrelevant.

What we should go against, is the origin of unfairness, unjustness, and unrest.

Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper. (Jeremiah 29:7)

I have never understood this verse better before.

The government has just given the green light to various Community Care Fund projects:

“…The first project to be rolled out at the end of next month is overseas study tour subsidies, capped at HK$3,000 for each of some 80,000 primary and secondary students from low-income families.

Subsidized Primary Schools Council chairman Cheung Yung-bong welcomed the scheme and said it would not add much administrative work as most schools have already planned their summer study tours.Law Chi-kwong, chairman of the fund’s executive committee, said this scheme will help students who could not afford tour fees to broaden their horizons through overseas learning…" (The Standard, April 21, 2011)

What’s wrong with these projects? Isn’t it a good thing to let underprivileged kids to have a chance to go abroad?

I grew up in a low income family – definitely among the grass root ones. There’s absolutely no way my family could send me abroad for whatever reason and however short period of time. But I did get the chance to go abroad when I was 11. How? My school chose me (and two other kids) to “compete" for a place in an exchange program called the Asia Pacific Children Convention which takes place in Japan every year. All expenses are taken care of by the organizer. I remember I submitted a really thick pile of copies of various certificates I earned from all sorts of activities. I went through an interview. Then joined a training camp. Eventually got chosen (among with 39 other kids) from hundreds of kids all over Hong Kong.

The government is actually already paying for certain exchange / study programs. I was a member of HKYSO and during my 6-7 years there, I joined two tours: one to Singapore and another one to Beijing. All expenses were covered by the government. I had to first get into the orchestra (one or two rounds of audition… I don’t quite remember). Then we had to go through another audition several months before the tour. Not all orchestra members were chosen because… there’s budget. We practiced to earn our place.

I’m not trying to show off how great I did back in my school years. What I’m trying to say is:

You need to work for rewards.

So, what can the government do instead of giving out $3000 to all of those ~80,000 primary and secondary students from low-income families?

One word: SCHOLARSHIP

Extend existing scholarships. Set up new scholarships to REWARD more people. The government can even set up a scholarship just for these 80000 something students from low-income families.

The bottom line? You have to work for it! Giving out $3000 no matter how a kid does is simply sending the message that work is irrelevant. When a kid doesn’t even study, it doesn’t matter whether the classroom is in HK or Guangzhou or US or UK or anywhere. That kid just won’t study.

How about the kids with various kinds of learning disorders? Isn’t it unfair that they’ll probably never get a chance to get a scholarship?

These kids need long-term special study program. Not a 2-week study tour once a year.

沈默的大多數,以為沈默是表態的一種方式,卻沒看清這只是讓別人 – 甚至不只是在上位者 – 強姦其意見的機會!
若說今次的投票(或稱公投)太兒戲,或說今次的補選根本不應存在,事實是:
最不應兒戲的特首選舉,十分兒戲;最應該存在的普選,並不存在!

大家終於清楚知道:禮義廉是民建聯的註冊商標一部份,大家絕不能模仿!

在此一讚民建聯:你好誠實啊!

明報即時新聞:社民連在維園年宵攤位售賣T恤被指侵犯民建聯註冊商標,海關下午派人扣查。

海關表示,幾日前接到民建聯投訴,尋求律政司意見後採取行動,今次行動與一般打擊冒牌貨行動無分別。海關在行動中,檢走約110件T恤,暫時無人被捕。

社民連秘書長季詩傑說,事件是針對性檢控,已聯絡律師。他指出,T恤是網民設計,放在社民連的攤位售賣,所得款項供五區辭職的活動之用。


從陳一諤到曾陰權,其實…中央是否怕今年六四以至七一遊行人數會下降,所以出來催谷一番?

我最近一直想,其實近年每到接近六四,總有親中人士自己跳出來,主動獻身,大開金口談六四,然後其言論必然激起民憤,這會否是中央的意思,作用正在於提醒大家,六四尚未平反,大家切勿忘記,好等平反那日,還有記得六四的人,明白究竟在平反什麼。要是沒有人記得,平不平反也沒有意思,哪還有道歉的餘地?

記得讀書時讀過魯迅的《風箏》,寫他小時候發狠撕破弟弟親手造的風箏,到多年以後,他才跟弟弟說對不起,可是弟弟卻已忘了小時候那件事。想道歉,但道歉的對象已遺忘你想道歉的事,這是永遠的遺憾,永遠不能再為做過的錯作出任何補救,即使只是說一句對不起。

我可能在做夢,還盼望這夢會成真。

“好幾次在早餐桌上讀到《明報》對我不留情面的批評,多少有點影響食慾。但明白到從政不是請客吃飯那麼簡單,只好視之為修煉寵辱不驚的一杯苦茶。"
唐英年在昨天的明報副刊如此寫。
或許會有人認為唐司長只是為寫而寫,但起碼他不是"視XX為浮雲",起碼他覺得苦,覺得是一種修煉,也認同明報對他的讚美和批評,是"竉"和"辱"。

我不怕那些不愛彈琴拉琴,只愛流行曲或打機的學生,起碼他們懂得分辨苦與樂。
我只怕那些什麼都不愛,又什麼都不討厭的學。他們的生命,真的只不過是時間的消磨,吃飯拉屎睡覺而矣。
所以,大家應該怕曾特首的,他視XX如浮雲,正一話之你死。浮雲者,無味無嗅也,飄飄盪盪,張開口吃下去,也是空空如也的。
唐司長起碼會喝一口苦茶。

用了香港寬頻多年,一直都頗滿意其服務,直至上周五,發現近三個月的月費比之前的多了三十多元,於是致電查詢,然後發現香港寬頻兩年之前送了一盤「年桔」來,三個月前開始收「年桔」的錢。
話說在與兩年多前與香港寬頻簽的合約中,送了廾四個月的網上硬碟BB Drive,這增值服務的免費期到三個月前完結。那個BB Drive就是那盤「年桔」,收取「年桔」費用的理由,是我沒有在合約完結前提出終止服務。
我當然力爭到底:既然合約已完結,也就是說我跟香港寬頻就有關付費或免費服務的承諾已完成,而合約只寫明在合約完結後,香港寬頻會以某價錢提供服務,而非本人同意在合約完結後以某價錢繼續使用該服務,則香港寬頻無權在未得本人同意下,向本人提供服務。
事實上,在與多名熱線員的多番對話中,他們也指出該增值服務現已不在合約期內,所以我可以在任何時候提出即時取消。既然並沒有服務合約,為何香港寬頻會提供服務?為何我要付錢?是否即使沒有合約,也要工作或出糧?公司與員工的合約完結後,員工是否可以繼續上班並要求支薪?
香港寬頻的此等行為,與黑社會新年「送」年桔無異:先送桔後強「屈」付款。
如果香港寬頻當初「好大隻蛤乸隨街跳」,送十個八個增值服務,如用家不在合約期滿前最少一個月,以書面通知香港寬頻取消該等增值服務,到合約期滿後,香港寬頻便可每月有數百以至無限的增值服務費袋袋平安?
最後,在經過多番與不同人的爭辯後,香港寬頻只同意,由於本人不了解合約條文,所以會退回兩個月的BB Drive月費,但首個月的港幣36元(準確金額是36.7x元),依然要收取,而香港寬頻會寄出取消服務表格予本人,本人要填妥表格並傳真或郵寄回香港寬頻作實。
由於已花了太多時間與香港寬頻周旋,我實在覺得再花時間與香港寬頻周旋,會比拿回首月月費更虧本,所以接受了此方案。不過,與此同時,我要求香港寬頻同時郵寄取消寬頻上網服務的表格給我,讓我提早交回,以免日後有同類事件發生。我今次的合約還有18個月,我決定在遠超過其合約規定之一個月期限前,提早18個月通知香港寬頻,到時到候停止提供服務。
香港網絡供應商數量不算很多,但消費者還是很有選擇空間的!18個月後,即使我未能在合約完結當天記起,導致有一天不可以上網,深信在第二天也可以找到另一家供應商!而經過此役,我相信我不會忘記我與香港寬頻的合約,將在2010年3月底到期。我已在iCal寫下,也在Google Calendar寫好,還在不同的to do list上標示好了:2010年3月中要找新的網絡供應商!到時候,我也會要求新的供應商,在寄上合約時要同時寄上取消服務申請表,即時填妥交回去。原因無他,不就是其實全港網絡供應商,都跟香港寬頻一樣,基本上都以「黑社會送年桔」的方式來對待用戶,都以「無賴」方式擬定和闡釋合約,從而窄取消費者的金錢。
所以,最徹底的做法,是立法禁止網絡供應商在合約完結後自動強行繼續提供服務並徵收費用。有人可能會覺得這樣做,有可能會在用家忘記合約期滿日子,而網絡供應商又不主動邀請續約時,會導致有一段時間沒有網絡服務,產生不便。不過,如果每當有供應商不主動邀請續約,用家便自動轉台,供應商自然會主動邀請續約,以免流失客戶,消費者利益亦自然會得到保障。
而在未有上述理想法例以前,謹此呼籲各位,尤其是香港寬頻的用戶,請立即致電你的網絡供應商,查詢所簽合約內,是否有其他現時為免費贈送的服務,並查詢有關服務的合約終止日,要求供應商即時寄上取消服務表格,填妥後立即傳真回去,以免到時有所損失。

六月 2017
« 五月    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

分類