佔中 緣起觀 – 陶國璋

陳小春 啼笑姻緣


陳小春 啼笑姻緣  

作詞:黃偉文 作曲:陶喆 / 蔡振南

苦戀三千年 分手皆一別
匆匆只一面 偏偏很閃電

隆重上演 啼笑姻緣
情侶都笑過喊過至像相戀
平淡最苦 煩惱很甜
榮幸到愛上兩個卻又辛酸

若我可揀選 我的戀愛也要亂
才算有血有肉 震地驚天
沒有兜兜轉 過山車太快坐完
沒有分手的驚險 情侶哪有戲好演

心 可以攻 可以守 可以呃
可以搶 可以偷 可以傷 可以收
就算隱隱的痛都有種溫柔

手 牽過手 握過手 轉過手
得過手 失過手 跟我走 趕我走
為你哭得出我都覺得享受

未怕情深亂一生 愛因種出斷腸恨
就算殘忍亦僥倖 這生碰到這個人

陪著你演 啼笑姻緣
情侶間鬥智鬥勇每日新鮮
行過鋼線 遊過花園
從沒有碰上至算最壞的天

若我可揀選 我的戀愛也要亂
才算可歌可泣 愛恨交煎
沒有兜兜轉過山車太快坐完
沒有爭執的畫面 情愛哪裡夠經典

心 可以攻 可以守 可以呃
可以搶 可以偷 可以傷 可以收
就算隱隱的痛都有種溫柔

手 牽過手 握過手 轉過手
得過手 失過手 跟我走 趕我走
為你哭得出我都覺得享受

為怕 愛人你變左心
我終日提心 吊膽步步為營淚滿襟
雖然或者唔知邊個係我最愛既人
但我可以肯定十分唔想一個人

生得相聚 死人化蝶 當然感人
話裂痕 有裂痕 都算有質感
樂極生悲可能太震撼 太過份
情願否極泰來苦盡愛你一鑊甘

心 可以攻 可以守 可以呃
可以搶 可以偷 可以傷 可以收
就算隱隱的痛都有種溫柔

手 牽過手 握過手 轉過手
得過手 失過手 跟我走 趕我走
為你哭得出我都覺得享受

心 可以攻 可以守 可以呃
可以搶 可以偷 可以傷 可以收
就怕不分哭笑總有所保留

手 牽過手 握過手 轉過手
得過手 失過手 跟我走 趕我走
為我一世折墮都覺得風流

未怕情深亂一生 愛因種出斷腸恨
就算殘忍亦僥倖 這生碰到這個人

苦戀三千年 分手皆一別
匆匆只一面 偏偏很閃電

仙丹怎麼煉 心經怎麼唸
反覆的糾纏 怎麼止於事



陶國璋﹕釋迦與金鐘 – 明報 2014年10月21日

筆者不是佛弟子,這裏只是借助佛教的緣起觀,描述「佔中運動」此因緣運會

據說,佛陀在菩提樹下悟得世界的如相:

世間一切的事物都不是獨立自存的,他稱之為「空」,世界事物是由因緣和合而有

「因」是主因,「緣」是助緣的意思。

例如一朵玫瑰花在花園裏盛放,玫瑰花的種子是它的主因,而陽光、雨水、泥土……則是助緣。所以玫瑰花並非獨立自存物(thing),而是一緣起事(event)

再進一步,佛家《阿含經》區別

因果與因緣

因果是「異時依生」,例如太陽出來,冰雪便融化,太陽的熱力是因,冰雪融化是果,物理事件屬於因果範圍;

因緣則是「同時並起」,人間世的事件,屬於因緣和合,所以「佔中事件」是同一時刻,是由多因多果交互交織衍生。

佛家認為人類一旦認知世界,即有價值判斷,稱為「苦受」、「樂受」,喜歡或不喜歡;

例如佔中人士看到梁振英在電視講話,無論他說任何內容,即有「不喜歡」之感。

我們對事物有不同的價值判斷,是由於內心有不同的價值信念。這些價值信念是怎樣形成的?例如學生認為「佔中運動」是保衛香港的民主、自由;

「反佔中」人士認為運動破壞了民生秩序,佔中人士認為警察粗暴,而警察卻覺得受盡委屈……

我們首先不作任何價值判斷(其實很難),

依佛家的緣起觀,任何的價值信念並非天造地設必然如此的,它是受到社會風俗、家庭教化、經濟條件、政治體制、自然環境以至遺傳因素所制約。每一種因素又各自有其獨立的作用,同時又交互起來,產生複合的緣起作用。

因緣、增上緣、所緣緣、等無間緣

更深刻的是,緣起的條件可以無限多,因中有,緣中有緣,無限伸延,有些重要的,有此偶然的,緣起如鏡中之鏡,互相反映,倒影無盡,但是,大家受了情意所渲染,已遺忘了現時信念的來龍去脈,還以為自己的價值信念是必然如此。

後來,大乘佛教的

唯識宗興起,將佛陀初說的因緣,擴展為「四緣」:

因緣、

增上緣,

所緣緣和

等無間緣。

因緣是總說。凡事情的形成,都有因緣。例如我們將「佔中運動」視為一緣起事,人大通過行政長官的選舉方式為主因(任何主因仍可有因中之因),而佔中三子鼓吹佔中行動、大學生罷課等等為助緣(任何的緣又可以有緣)。

增上緣,指事情演化的催化劑。政府宣布政改方案,初期的反應並不太激烈,相信當時沒有人能想像佔中運動會如此壯大。但,

催淚煙一出,催淚煙就是增上緣,此一時,彼一時,事情便滾球效應,一發不可收拾

所緣緣,可理解為攀緣,事情一旦發生,不斷滾動下去,即有種種後果或副作用,所以佛家強調業力(Karma),「業」是行為的後果效應,可以是善業,也可以是惡業,它們好像種子般,等待適當的時機便引發出來:

現時,明顯的所緣緣就是:香港人的兩極化對峙,年輕人與成長人士的爭論,家庭分裂為兩派,facebook 中大量的 unfriend,朋友間熱烈討論政治或避而不談政見,佔中人士認為警察粗暴清場,而警察則感到成了磨心,被家人親友歧視,有冤無法外訴。

等無間緣,是指事情的演化無止息地發展,「無間」就無間斷之意。本來世間的事情是剎那生滅,緣聚而有,緣散則滅,現時佔中仍在等無間中演化,而各種增上緣(例如警察打人事件),大家每天仍為電視畫像所牽引,心思仍然躍動,故事情將怎樣發展,是無法預計的。

佛家稱緣起的人間世是「業力不可思議」,小小的業力種子可以牽一髮而動全身,其影響不可以用思想或語言來說清楚:

第一次世界大戰是由於塞爾維亞族學生普林西普開槍打死奧匈帝國皇太子斐迪南大公引發(增上緣),

也可以是由一人的甘地發動絕食抗議,印度走向獨立,跟着骨牌效應,引發全球反殖民運動,甚至結束了英國日不落帝國之夢(所緣緣)……

緣起的條件無盡:年長的港人曾親涉文化大革命、天安門事件、中國改革開放,他們曾經恐共,反共,甚至曾經千辛萬苦移民外地,首經排「長龍」領 BNO 護照,卻被外國歧視,所以他們會希望平穩安定,甚至對香港的現况感恩,以較寬容的態度看待「一國兩制」。

較年輕的港人,自從保衛皇后碼頭事件,年輕人對香港這公共空間,普遍貫入了感情,所謂本土意識抬頭。任何的立場都有其背景,任何立場都有理可說,依佛家的解讀,都是緣起而有。

佛家的人生態度好像很抽離,對政治運動並不投入,因為佛教是宗教,其立場並不在於肯定人間世,只希望眾生放下自我偏執,放下自以為是,出世間而清淨無染。

因緣是釋迦的體悟,背後的智慧是實踐其慈悲心,慈者予愛,悲者憐眾生苦之深,此悲心令人感動。

追求開放的社會體制

筆者重申不是佛弟子,如果人類是活在全知無知之間,我們不能全知緣起的所有條件,不輕易判斷催淚煙是引起佔中運動的因果,那麼我們就需要開放,承認緣起的不可思議。

亞里士多德說人是理性的動物,理性有一個重要的功能,就是接受自己的判斷有錯誤的可能。

正如 Karl Popper 在論《開放社會與它的敵人》一書提到,

封閉社會的特點是權力集中在獨裁者手中,而獨裁者自信掌握了絕對真理,他們拒絕接受意見。

而開放社會的開放性是基於沒有人知道完美的政府是什麼樣子,於是次優的選擇是一個可以和平更替權力的政府。

英國政治家洛克(John Locke)說:民主是避免少數人犯上不可逆轉的惡。

所以我們要為民主奮鬥,制衡極權。但,另一方面,他又說:人類需要合群生活,所以政治就是我們不可避免的惡。他的意思政治中的權力鬥爭,利益集團操控資源分配,都是政治中可避免的副作用,人要為民主政治奮鬥,同時要提防理想主義者在追求民主所帶來種種說不清的「惡」。

追求民主,其實是追求一開放的社會體制。

開放就是接受多元性,多元性不是我說了算數的個人主義,多元性是不斷改善,只有真正的胸懷能寬廣包容,正是佛陀所說:慈者予愛,

悲者憐對方苦之深也

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

多行不義,東窗事發 – 吳靄儀

吳靄儀﹕特首可以服務商業機構換取報酬嗎?- 明報 2014年10月21日

「(政治委任官員及行政會議成員)是我們的政治領袖,而行政長官更是香港特別行政區的首長。市民對這群公職人員廉潔奉公有極高期望,認為他們會遵守最高尚的操守準則,僅僅符合法例要求明顯並不足夠。」(李國能:《防止及處理潛在利益衝突》報告)

傳媒揭露,梁振英在2011年參選特首期間,與澳洲企業UGL簽訂秘密協議,UGL分兩期在兩年內付給梁振英共400萬英鎊,換取梁振英支持其收購DTZ,並同意不時以轉介人和顧問身分為推廣UGL和DTZ提供協助。

協議書日期為2011年12月2日,即梁振英宣布參選之後5天,辭任DTZ董事及亞太區主席生效前2天。

梁振英2012年3月25日當選特首,7月1日上任,

該400萬鎊酬金的第二期付款日期,所以是2013年12月,梁振英任特首期間收取。

梁振英沒有就該協議或所收取款項作過任何申報。

特首可以接受商業機構酬勞,向其提供服務嗎?顯然任何香港市民都認為絕不可以,而就該協議及酬金秘而不宣,直至傳媒揭露,更加深市民懷疑他自知不當,有意隱瞞。這種行為,絕對不符特首應有的操守。

《基本法》訂明,特首須廉潔奉公,在就任時向終審法院首席法官申報財產,記錄在案。根據行政當局回應上屆立法會查詢,特首自願遵守行政會議利益申報制度,定期申報須登記的利益,以及在特定範疇的財務利益、年中若有變更,亦須通知

梁態度迴避 解釋犯駁

梁振英對傳媒質詢的回應態度迴避,解釋犯駁。首先,他辯稱該項協議,只是防止他日後與 UGL 競爭的「離職協議」,他從沒有向 UGL 提供任何服務。

其實問題不在於梁振英有沒有向 UGL 提供服務,而是他是否合約上有責任向 UGL 提供服務,

而協議文本清楚寫明 UGL 有權要求他「不時」提供服務,梁振英根本無法抵賴。

不但如此,他還畫蛇添足,手寫加署 “provided that such assistance does not create any conflict of interest”(「有關協助須不會造成利益衝突」) ,正是欲蓋彌彰,證明了他清楚明白不只是「不競爭」,而是要提供協助,所以才要加註,以求規限所涉的協助。

反過來說,就是只要有關協助不會造成利益衝突,他就要履約提供。

不但如此,這句加註,也證明政府新聞處最初回應稱「梁先生只會在一旦競選失敗的情况下才會提供協助」,不是真實:如果梁振英落選,他就是普通市民一名,哪來什麼「利益衝突」?剛相反,這正好顯示他加註時已想到有可能當選,到時就可能有利益衝突。

再深一層,這句加註,其實是為日後自辯埋下伏筆。以此人城府之深,這絕非不合理推測。

所以,記者單刀直入,問特首辦為何梁氏上任之後沒有取消協議,反而繼續收錢,特首辦便無詞以對。

如果該項協議涉及提供服務換取酬勞,特首辦對梁振英為何從無按制度披露協議,申報利益,辯稱協議按規定毋須申報,也就無法成立。不提其他,2013年12月收取200萬鎊就是「財務利益」,必須申報。

當然,首先梁振英要當特首就不能簽署這樣的協議,簽署了也要尋求解約,而不是繼續收錢。

不需提供原定服務而繼續收錢,更難免令人疑問,特首會否欠 UGL 人情,要以其他方式報答?

若可能引起疑問 為何不申報

梁振英究竟誠實相信這項任何人都看到須申報的利益不須申報,還是他立心隱瞞?

以梁振英的精明腦袋,他不可能一時不察覺有疑問;若有任何疑問,誠實的候任特首必然會提出來在行政會議討論,而不是在一件涉及自己私人利益之事獨行獨斷。

按照梁振英所透露,他曾徵詢過專業意見,認為毋須申報,又毋須納稅。問題是,事涉特首誠信,他既然察覺有需要弄清規矩,為何不諮詢行政會議?為何不諮詢首席法官?更簡單,若有可能引起疑問,為何不選擇申報,作為最光明磊落,符合最高標準的做法?

梁振英身為 DTZ 董事,他在 UGL 收購 DTZ 過程中是否有瞞騙股東私自收受利益、是否違反誠信責任、有沒有觸犯防賄條例等等,涉及多方面的法律問題,本文不打算加入討論。

但值得提出的是10月11日《南華早報》資深財經評論人Shirley Yam就此事的專欄文章(Leung the politician needs to explain arrangement with UGL)。

文章認為,商界邏輯不看政治角度,大多視整件事為一宗精心設計的合法交易

例如梁振英在2011年11月24日就已辭去DTZ 職位,於是12月2日跟 UGL 簽約時已非董事,因而沒有責任向董事局披露等等。

所以,法律上抓得住他過失的機會不大,雖然政治責任上他可能有很多解釋之處。

是否如此且不論,但正是愈精心設計就愈難令市民信任這位特首真的是光明磊落,大公無私。機關算盡,保障私利,逃避申報,以為法律上找不到錯處就可以穩如泰山,一旦坐上特首之位,公眾利益還會安全嗎?

多行不義,東窗事發,香港聲譽也大受打擊。

曾蔭權任特首,因貪小惠,結果慘淡收場,當時他委任以前任首席法官李國能為首的小組,研究防止及處理政治委任官員及行政長官潛在利益衝突的問題及提建議。

委員會在2012年5月提交報告,作出多項建議,包括將行政長官申報利益的政策和方法制度化,而非由行政長官自願遵守或自己訂立規則。

當時候任特首表示會全速處理,但至今上任已兩年,卻仍未見立法落實,多番追究,依然不得要領。

然而,報告指明,行政長官有申報責任,尺度至少應與其領導的人員同樣嚴格,在懲處方面:「根據現行政制框架,適用於行政長官的懲處有《基本法》第73(9)規定,在行政長官嚴重違法或瀆職的情况下,立法會對行政長官進行彈劾的程序。」

立法會採取行動這就是最清晰的基礎。


.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

官僚資本, 情難自禁 – 林行止

林行止:一「國」兩制是原意! 一「黨」兩制揭新章? – 信報 2014年10月21日

一、

政府與學聯代表今天稍後展開的「對話」,由於有前設規範,可能「曠日持久」難望有成;在這樣的環境下,香港這場中外矚目的群眾運動,極可能演變為流血而收不了場的悲劇。昨天黃昏,高等法院處理運輸業界代表及金鐘中信大廈業主的「呈請」,頒布臨時禁制令,禁止佔據旺角一帶道路,以及龍匯道及添美道交界的道路,如果佔領者因而撤走且不移師他處,上句的推論便不成立。

要是中央與梁振英班子繼續以鐵板一塊的「硬骨頭」,依法對付「違法」的群眾集會,香港社會撕裂、人心分化、管治無效、執法困難與營生多艱等等,只會一天比一天嚴重,而且沒完沒了。事實上,值此「愛黨」比維護香港高度自治信念更為囂張高漲之際,《基本法》賦予港人的「一國兩制」,已於不知不覺間變成「一黨兩制」!「一國」和「一黨」的分別,在於前者可以隨眾所願而遷善;後者則抓緊原則,保持統治中國的權力不受動搖。換句話說,在「一國」之下的「兩 制」,有變通的可能和空間;在「一黨」之下的「兩制」,要聽一貫正確的黨的話是唯一生存之道。

中共以民主集中為名,行一黨專政之實,經過數十年經營,已把四分五裂的國土,從一個爛攤子,改造為一個國力膨脹的「強」國。統治者情難自禁的得意,在所難免;其有權盡攬盡用的黨性,利用財權一把抓的「購物力集中制」,在國際間擺出「大款」闊氣,國家以大國自況、國人亦欣然隨之揚眉吐氣,只是在外人看來,行止間少了一點大氣,絕非泱泱大國國民所應有的小器。

借開放改革為名,中國「活化」經濟,成果甚豐;

然而,其所謂中國特色的社會主義特色,撥開政治術語的迷霧,便是活生生的官僚資本主義

處於南隅一角的香港,在內地開放期初,有過一二十年的吃重角色,在這段期內,香港體制被充分利用,港人因而有被重用的自我良好感覺。隨着中國日益壯大,未富先驕、財大氣粗劣根性盡現;加上「愛國愛港」的口號愈叫愈響,港共乘時而起,凡事舉箸代籌,把這個向來有選擇自由的開放社會,搞出許多樣板政治秀,以至連一人一票的選舉,亦要塗上厚厚一層老共專制的中國特色!

中國的共產主義「失真」、香港的法治和自由「有假」,皆因為了維護「一黨」的「權」,此所以去「假」求「真」的「和平佔中爭普選」,會被演繹為大逆不道,是脅迫中央、威嚇特區政府的「革命」;

看迄今持續了二十三天的群眾運動的表現(電視鏡頭前無所遁形的真相)。在當權者交相指責中,只有「違法」(癱瘓交通孔道、佔據公共場所)不是無稽之談外,其餘諸如勾結外國勢力、受美國政府唆擺、危害國家安全,以至「港獨」亂起之類的帽子滿天飛,無一不是子虛烏 有,全是「欲加之罪」—不過,即使真有這樣那樣的敵意外來勢力,對今時今日的中國,又何足為患而要擔驚受怕?

扣帽子的把戲是內地同胞剛剛揮走的噩夢,現在卻成了香港反智的「新常態」。

爭取誠實選舉、自命愛港的「違法之徒」,能不氣短?

不明「法治精神」卻有「依法治港」權柄的特區權貴,未必像只諳「一黨話是」的京官般,理解不了「公民抗命」的意義及走上街頭抗爭者的不得已,

可是身居高位,港人訴求比不上今上龍威的泰山壓頂,承風希旨,遂成為官之道

當政治建構的上樑失正、下樑思歪,「好官」我自為之便屬天方夜譚,除非有不惜拋官棄位的良知和決心,否則,「不好的官」亦只有「頂硬上」才能「當下去」!

做人行事,處處形格勢禁,事與願相違,得心的卻永不應手,那便是生活自由失陷的徵候,而失卻自由空間的,不只是普羅百姓—上街的與不上街的—在位當權的與不當權的政客公務員亦命途如一!

二、

如今不准休假的警隊,服從上級指揮是身為紀律部隊成員的操守。社會「治」、「亂」之分,其一是法律之下,誰對誰錯簡而明;其一是誰對誰錯說不清。目前香港警察夜以繼日值勤,工作量固然帶來極大壓力,其被人指罵施「暴力」,或被描繪為「黑警」所形成的心理鬱結,更難紓解。管治有道、行事有準,大家能在合於情理智信的軌道上生活,維持治安的警察,只要執事以正,便能儆惡懲奸,是受人尊敬的專業,亦是受人歡迎的「男子漢」。可是,當管治乖離人情,守法並不足以撫順社會之不平,警察奉命行事,打擊的再非無良無理的惡棍,辛勞亦不是除暴而是除不暴,安良也許成為安不良,良知與職守的矛盾便非常磨人。

前二天晚上,銅鑼灣維多利亞大草地有個「團結力量光復香港」、號稱「維護香港法治、支持警察執法」的千人聚會,有人舉着「全賴有你香港更美,香港警察市民撐你」之類用意在鼓勵警察士氣的標語。與會者有人認為學生爭取民主是根本不知道正在發生的事情,而弄得如斯混亂,是沒有考慮後果,把佔領行動罵個狗血淋頭的人,向警察豎起拇指致敬。如此的支持,究竟能夠感動多少警察?激勵多高的士氣?

同一個晚上,旺角的抗爭群眾,有人舉起「我愛香港,我愛警察」的橫額,那些對香港、對警察表露好感的,是以佔領行動爭取真普選的群眾,他們是警察必須虎視眈眈、明知站在不同陣線的「對頭人」,彼此面面相覷而啞然,一般市民看了亦能感受其中兩難的尷尬。政不正,治不靖,管亦艱難;維持治安,無足以「治」,所以不「安」。

香港的政制爭拗僵持不下,警察當班,便得面對和擔當壓制抗爭者的任務,因而被某些人視作特區「鷹犬」,自然不能與昔日正常執勤的「男子漢」相比。警察的地位在一般人,特別是抗爭者及其同情者心目中下滑無可避免。何以如此?孰令致之?

政府今天傍晚便與學聯五位學生代表展開「對話」,行政長官梁振英在兩天前已先行在電視訪問中表明,由於《基本法》自訂立以來,從未經過修改(《基本法》附件就啟動政改的三部〔步〕曲改為五部曲,又是哪門子的天條不得「改」?),若按學聯要求提交補充文件,其他人如有新的看法,是否亦以補充文件提交……?綜合梁氏的話,提交補充文件就是不可行。假如特區政府不敢冒犯人大常委會就政改框架所作的決定,政改諮詢三人組會否為諮詢作假誤導人大常委而問責?提名委員會的組成又能否容得下多少的公民提名元素?

從行政長官的話估量,特區政府與學聯代表的對話,於改動政改框架而言,作用近乎零;

人們只能寄望透過這樣的「對話」,公開展示抗爭群眾的政改訴求, 是有其原因、有其道理和有其必要

雖然行政長官說北京充分掌握港人的意見,港人對其能否真正理解箇中關鍵,仍然抱有可以通過調解的一絲希望。據本報網站昨午消息,擔任「對話」主持的嶺大校長鄭國漢表示,對話中有九十分鐘讓雙方發表意見,討論政改及對行政長官選舉的期望,而據 post852.com,當局較早前宣布會於「對話」提出的「憲制基礎」及「法律規定」等抽象問題,不會出現。如此看來,今次「對話」也許會談出一點點「成果」。

要是李克強總理周前訪問德國時就香港政改風波所作的評論沒有失實和誤傳,而中央仍然是堅守「一『國』兩制、港人治港、高度自治」,那麼,港人也許有機會為自己的命運自主和生活自由稍紓一口烏氣;要是「一國兩制」實際上已變為「一黨兩制」,港人不但在選舉方面喪失選擇的自由,就是個人層面的命運自主亦因港共當道生活取捨受制而遭禁錮。

‧辨別明智與反智.之二


姚蘇蓉 – 情難守

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

贵州法治, 让人寒心 – 新京报

中央党校教授:有些基层官员的“法治”是治老百姓 – 2014-10-20 新京报 宋识径

http://www.bjnews.com.cn/news/2014/10/20/338025.html

中央党校中共党史教研部主任谢春涛表示,有人提出依法治市、依法治县、甚至依法治村,认为这些“治”的背后,是用法律去治老百姓,

事实上,法治更重要的是用法律管住官员,严格依法行政

谢春涛今天下午在中国记协为中外记者讲述“中国特色社会主义制度的由来与发展”,并回答记者提问。

在回答“十八届四中全会为何以依法治国为主题”时,谢春涛表示,这与中共中央对法治本身重要性,和对中国目前法治存在问题的认识有密切关系。

谢春涛说,依法治国基本方略在1997年中共十五大上被确立,在党内和全社会,总体上都认同,至少没有明显的坚定的反对者。

但是从实践的情况看,问题有很多。

比如,在立法方面,有些方面还缺法,有些方面的法律条文还需要修改和完善;执法方面,有些法律还没有得到很好的执行,司法不公、司法腐败的现象都是存在的,甚至很严峻。有些位置很高的领导人,

比如薄熙来、周永康、徐才厚,不能说很好地遵守了法律。中国在依法治国方面存在的问题和不足有很多。

谢春涛说,中央领导人意识到,法治对现代国家至关重要。中国共产党有很多好的理念,有时候得不到有效实施,重要原因在于缺少健全的法律制度。“习近平提出要实现国家治理体系和治理能力的现代化,我认为最重要的一点就是健全中国的法治。”

谢春涛表示,这个“法治”,不是像有些基层官员理解的,用法律去治老百姓,而是用法律管住官员,严格依法行政。

谢春涛解读说,这一次强调依法治国,范围会更广,力度会更大,会涉及到中国共产党依法执政、政府依法行政、司法机关公正司法、全体民众守法,对未来中国的发展意义重大。

编辑:李雪莹


吝赏见义勇为,让人寒心 – 2014-10-21 新京报

http://www.bjnews.com.cn/opinion/2014/10/21/338052.html

硬生生地拿着15年前、早已严重贬值的补偿标准,去打发英雄的家属,毋宁说是侮辱。难道兴仁县真的觉得一位年轻母亲为正义而献出生命,就只值3510元?

据报道,1999年35岁的贵州省兴仁县女子谢远凤,在阻止一起抢劫案时,遭到歹徒的枪杀

之后的12年里,她的丈夫不断奔走于县政府的相关部门,要求认定其妻子是见义勇为,但政府却以“凶手没抓到”等理由,拒不认定。

直到2011年、2012年间,县里才承认谢远凤是见义勇为。

  家属认为应得到58万元的抚恤金,但县里却坚持按“事发时的标准”计算,只同意补助3510元,并威胁家属如果不接受,连死者的见义勇为称号也可能被撤销。

其实,2012年国务院转发《关于加强见义勇为人员权益保护意见的通知》明确:见义勇为死亡人员,符合烈士评定条件的,适用《烈士褒扬条例》;属于因公牺牲情形的,按照《军人抚恤优待条例》抚恤;或者按“视同工伤情形”补偿。

所以家属认为,死者的抚恤标准应该是“按照上一年度全国城镇居民人均可支配收入的20倍加40个月的中国人民解放军排职少尉军官工资标准发放一次性补助金”,而这个“上一年度”就是谢被县里认定见义勇为的2012年的上一年,也就是58万的抚恤金,但县里并不认同这个算法。

事实是,公安机关早已经查清谢远凤是在阻止抢劫时被枪杀的,且此案三名凶犯已落网,但兴仁县竟然长达12年不认定其见义勇为,这对家属造成多么严重的精神折磨,且不细说。这里单说,兴仁县对公民义举所表现出匪夷所思的吝啬。

明明2011、2012年才认定其见义勇为,却要按1999年谢远凤被害时的工资标准计算“补偿”,这是权力对生命的漠视,是以“严格守法”的名义损害正义。

众所周知,法律原则上不能溯及既往;但为了从实体上更好保护公民权利,法律也有例外规定。以《国家赔偿法》来说,国家侵犯公民生命健康权的赔偿金的计算标准是,做出赔偿时的上一年度的全国职工平均工资,而不以侵权发生时的工资为标准。以2013年平反的杭州叔侄冤案来说,其赔偿金计算基准是2012年的全国平均工资,而不是他们2003年入狱时的标准。

同理,见义勇为的抚恤金也应按做出认定时的工资基准计算,而不能刻舟求剑、拿事发时的标准。为什么?一从货币的时间成本来说,当地政府当时就该给补偿却没给,所以必须计算相应的孳息。二者,这是一个政府对于英雄基本的态度,硬生生地拿着15年前、早已严重贬值的补偿标准,去打发英雄的家属,毋宁说是侮辱难道兴仁县真的觉得一位年轻母亲为正义而献出生命,就只值3510元?

  至于在家属提出异议之后,县政府甚至威胁要以自己当年认定见义勇为的“决策程序存在问题”为由撤销认定,也严重违背了“信赖保障”原则,将政府公信置于何地?

古人尚且知道“功疑惟重”的道理,如今对于弘扬社会正义的英雄行为,当然应该适用较宽松的奖励标准,这样才能起到惩恶扬善、引导社会正能量的作用。本案中,兴仁县长达12年不认定见义勇为;认定后又适用十多年前的补偿标准,所起到的社会效果无非是,让公众看到英雄流血又流泪”、见义勇为的事做不得。这“省下来”的几十万元,可谓得不偿失。

□徐明轩(法律工作者)

编辑:戴玉玺


杨惠妍440亿蝉联中国女首富 17位女富豪身价过百亿 – 2014-10-20 中国新闻网

中新网10月20日电 据胡润研究院今日发布的《2014胡润女富豪榜》显示,碧桂园杨惠妍亿440亿元的财富蝉联中国“女首富”宝座,陈丽华和张茵分别以400亿元和290亿元的财富居女富豪榜第二位和第三位。17位女富豪的身价超过100亿元,与去年相同。

这是胡润女富豪榜发布9年来杨惠妍第四次成为全国女首富;73岁的陈丽华以财富400亿元保持第二,并连续两年成为中国白手起家女首富,也是全球白手起家女首富;57岁的张茵以财富290亿元位列第三,并位列中国和全球白手起家女富豪第二位。

在今年胡润百富榜中,女富豪人数比去年增加了一半,达到317位,占总人数的20%,高于去年的17%。其中,12%女富豪是白手起家的。《2014胡润女富豪榜》是从《2014雅居乐海南清水湾胡润百富榜》中筛选了前50位女富豪,门槛为50亿元,较去年上升36%;平均财富109亿元,比去年增加14%。相比往年综合实力又整体上升。对比男富豪,前50位男富豪的上榜门槛205亿和平均财富450亿,都是女富豪的4倍多。17位女富豪的身价超过100亿元,与去年相同。35位财富增长,其中15位是新上榜,比去年增加4位。平均年龄48岁,与去年相同,而比百富榜总榜平均年龄小5岁。

胡润百富董事长兼首席调研员胡润表示:“中国女企业家仍然是全球获得成功最大的女企业家,覆盖行业是地产和金融投资。”
据悉,胡润研究院今日发布胡润百富榜子榜之一的《2014胡润女富豪榜》是胡润研究院连续第九次发布“胡润女富豪榜”前50名。上榜富豪财富计算的截止日期为2014年8月15日。(中新网财经频道)

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

中共依法治國的意思 – 葛維寶

四中全會|耶大教授:中共「依法治國」的真正意思 – Post852

http://www.post852.com/%E5%9B%9B%E4%B8%AD%E5%85%A8%E6%9C%83%EF%BD%9C%E8%80%B6%E5%A4%A7%E6%95%99%E6%8E%88%EF%BC%9A%E4%B8%AD%E5%85%B1%E3%80%8C%E4%BE%9D%E6%B3%95%E6%B2%BB%E5%9C%8B%E3%80%8D%E7%9A%84%E7%9C%9F%E6%AD%A3%E6%84%8F/

美國耶魯大學法學院教授兼該校中國法律中心主任葛維寶(Paul Gewirtz),就著近期香港爆發連串的民主抗爭,被中國官方《人民日報》標纖為「非法」及呼籲維護香港的「法治」,以至用「依法治國」為主題的四中全會,於《紐約時報》撰文,談及中國如何理解法治(rule of law)這個原則

葛維寶的文章題為<中國眼中的法治>(What China Means by “rule of law”) ,開宗明義提到《人民日報》強調香港的佔領者「違法」,並呼籲大眾維護「法治」,從而令人想到當權者想用法律來控制與規範社會。話雖如此,大陸對於所謂法治的解讀,比起《人民日報》此前所說的,可謂更為錯綜複雜。

葛維寶認為,即使今天四中全會空前地以「依法治國」為重點,但這並不代表中國會有真正的司法獨立,

也不代表中國會有政黨輪替,而司法制度改革的最大制肘,正是在中國一黨專政的體制當中。由此可見,在四中全會之後,所謂的「依法治國」,將是強調以法律來維持社會秩序的施政方針。

不過,比起國家主席習近平經常引述的法家思想,「依法治國」實在有更深遠的含義。

葛維寶指出,中國現時的法律及社會制度早就比二千多年前的法家社會大相逕庭,加上近年中國亦屢歷改革,領導層亦意識到需要變更管治手法,才能適應公眾期望,是以他們所謂的法治,也逐步走向「現代定義」。文章解釋,當下中國對於從前「法治」的釋義,已經對於原初立國時的定義有所不同,甚至更為豐富:

使用死刑的次數比從前少約一半,而且也有較好的程序處理相關判刑;新的《刑事訴訟法》(Criminal Procedure Law)亦已被採納,讓被告及疑犯得到更高保障;「再勞教」的制度亦告取消。凡此種種,中國司法的公開性和透明度是有進步的。

可是講到憲制主義,即憲法高於黨的地位,在中國仍然是一個未能觸及的領域。

隨著中國一系列改革,反映政府與人民的關係也因「透明度」提高有所轉變;然而,也有很多批評者覺得,中國官員屢次「妖魔化」憲政,繼而架空憲法的行徑,是最終不能有效看待法制改革的幕後黑手。

葛維寶補充,目前中國並無有效機制確保憲法得以有效實施,是為一大缺陷,

但可幸的是,這種敏感議題,至少在此時此刻,能夠讓有關方面藉此機會作出討論。

簡單來說,「依法治國」的意思是確立一個制度,不單是用來約束社會及其騷動,也是用來約束政府自身。最後,葛維寶總結,「依法治國」的方針並非是要推翻以往所說的「和諧社會」政策,也並非要對於異見分子--諸如西藏及新疆--的打壓。在中央領導人的眼中,「和諧社會」是一個造就穩定經濟發展、脫貧的施政策略;而「依法治國」,則是一個讓中央領導人窺看法治何以促進社會穩定的契機,進而履行法制改革。

葛維寶稱,在中國同樣包含了很多反對改革制度的社會人士,無不令改革派受到阻礙;對此,他認同中國改革的步伐與進程。


What China Means by ‘Rule of Law’ By PAUL GEWIRTZ, NY Times, OCT, 19, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/what-china-means-by-rule-of-law.html

NEW HAVEN — Two weeks ago, with the democracy protests in Hong Kong in full swing, China’s official People’s Daily newspaper labeled them “illegal” and called for protecting “the rule of law” in Hong Kong. Such statements left observers with little doubt about a central meaning “the rule of law” has in the People’s Republic: the Communist Party’s use of law to control and regulate society.

Yet there’s plenty of evidence that China sees the rule of law in far more nuanced and complex ways. Today the Communist Party’s 18th Central Committee starts its Fourth Plenum, and the main topic will be the rule of law in China — the first time in party history that a meeting with the authority of a plenary session will focus on the rule of law. And there are reasons for a measure of optimism that the plenum will demonstrate more complex views about the roles law can play and also take meaningful steps to advance new legal reforms.

Of course, legal reform has major limits in China’s one-party authoritarian system.

There won’t be true judicial independence.

All bets are off whenever the party sees a threat to its continued power;

steps toward the rule of law don’t mean steps toward multiparty political democracy, which China’s current leaders totally resist. When the plenum issues its report, it will surely underscore that one central role of law is to maintain social order.

But, contrary to what pessimistic observers have predicted, the plenum is not likely to treat law as merely a tool for the party to control Chinese society, a throwback to the “Legalist School” of philosophy from 2,200 years ago which President Xi Jinping seems fond of quoting. Chinese society and its legal system have already changed too fundamentally for that, and the current regime led by Mr. Xi has already signed onto many reforms and even adjustments in ideology that represent positive steps toward a modern system of rule of law. These changes aren’t just window-dressing; they reflect the leadership’s recognition that it needs to improve governance, address widespread public grievances, and respond to public opinion.

Consider some legal reforms that have been made in just the last few years. Use of the death penalty has been cut roughly in half, with improved procedures for deciding on its use. A new Criminal Procedure Law has been adopted, providing significantly more protections to suspects and defendants. The odious system of “re-education through labor” has been abolished (though, to be sure, what will replace it is still not clear).

A sea change has taken place in government transparency, with important requirements of open government information changing the relationship between the state and citizens. Zhou Qiang, the strong new president of the Supreme People’s Court, recently issued a five-year judicial reform plan promising to enhance court independence from interfering local governments, increase judicial openness and transparency, improve fairness to individual litigants, and further professionalize judging.

Some critics point to recent official statements demonizing “constitutionalism” and ask how can China be serious about legal reform if it denigrates or sidelines its own Constitution.

In fact, “constitutionalism” has become a code word for a specific idea: importing Western political democracy, which China’s leaders will not accept.

But as for the Constitution itself, Mr. Xi recently called it China’s “fundamental law” and said that to “govern the nation by law means to govern in accordance with the Constitution.” China currently has no effective mechanism for enforcing its Constitution — a major deficiency — but at least that crucial topic is now being openly discussed.

China’s leaders see improving the legal system not simply as a way to control society but as a way to rein in wayward bureaucrats, insist that local officials carry out national policies, establish rules of the road for a more robust economy, provide peaceful ways for citizens to resolve disputes and seek redress for grievances, reduce the corruption that’s seen as the greatest threat to the Party’s continued hold on power — in short, to constrain government itself, not just to control society and contain social unrest. Mr. Xi may have been playing to the crowds when he recently spoke of “locking power in a cage,” but it was a recognition that the party needs to constrain some of its power in order to keep it.

Moreover, China’s maturing legal community, as well as ordinary Chinese citizens, follow these developments carefully, so expectations have been raised. Failure to deliver and actually enforce reforms would create a destabilizing pushback on China’s leaders. The most convincing reason for outsiders to be cautiously optimistic about these developments is that many legal figures within China, like the revered legal scholar and reformer Jiang Ping, have written about the plenum with cautious optimism.

This is not to say that China is about to abandon its preoccupation with “social stability,” which too often means silencing or imprisoning peaceful dissenters and activists who blow the whistle on some of the country’s many woes, including environmental degradation, abuses of power and needless policies against Tibetans and Uighurs.. But in the eyes of China’s leaders, social stability is what enabled China to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in a mere few decades, generate huge economic growth, and peacefully re-establish China as a major power among nations. The prospects for legal reform will be greatly enhanced if China’s leaders come to see how the rule of law itself contributes to social stability.

Above all, we should recognize that every reform made or promised in China, even in a regime that contains factions opposed to reform, provides an opening for a large group of scholars, activists, reform-minded officials, as well as ordinary citizens to push to implement the changes and to find new openings for reform.

The constraints are real, but so are the dynamics for producing ongoing reforms.

Paul Gewirtz is a professor of law, and the director of the China Center, at Yale Law School.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on October 20, 2014, in The International New York Times.

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

C Y Leung lying – David Webb

Leung Chun Ying caught lying about plan to run in 2017


Monday 20th October 2014

Dear Reader,

Behold, the Webb-site Youtube channel:

NEW ARTICLE
Webb-site analysis: C Y Leung lying about 2017 candidacy plans
YouTube, 20-Oct-2014
In last night’s TV interview, he claimed that he had never stated an intention to run for re-election in 2017.

We prove that his claim is false.

Has Beijing told him not to run again?

RECENTLY ON WEBB-SITE
Ignore the argument, blame the foreigners
Is the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong really just a devious foreign plot to undermine the future prosperity of China? (14-Oct-2014)

IN OTHER NEWS
HK protests: CY Leung ‘foreign link’ claim denied
BBC, 20-Oct-2014
Conversely, there is no doubt that C Y Leung was funded by foreign interests while in office – £4m from Australia’s UGL Limited.

Foreign forces behind protest movement, says C Y Leung
RTHK, 20-Oct-2014
Comment: he is insulting the intelligence and feelings of the protesters by implying that they don’t actually want democracy themselves. He should stop parroting the mainland Government and start representing the people of HK.

Newsline interview with C Y Leung
Asia Television, 19-Oct-2014
Unfortunately the interviewer does not ask about the obvious step of returning the nomination threshold to 1/8 from 1/2, within the Basic Law, and allows the CE to suggest that the protesters insist on civic nomination, which the BL does not allow. A fair nomination threshold would resolve the issue.

Man arrested over web messages to join protests
RTHK, 19-Oct-2014

Hong Kong Government is using delay tactics: Webb (video)

Bloomberg, 17-Oct-2014

Webb on “Backchat” re Occupy, economy and democracy
RTHK, 17-Oct-2014

C Y Leung sought an extra £3m from UGL

Sydney Morning Herald, 16-Oct-2014
It just keeps getting worse, doesn’t it?

C Y Leung: we’re spending HK$20bn and a vast chunk of land on sports instead of housing
HK Government, 15-Oct-2014
Displaying the Government’s economic illiteracy, in a prepared speech he says: “if you divide 7 million into 20 billion, even I can come up with a figure of at least three to four thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in Hong Kong”. Um no C Y, that’s at least $2857, not $4000. Still a waste though. He says they “did consider using the site instead for housing units”. But why do that when you can buy election committee votes from the sports sector as well as the construction sector? It’s a win-win proposition.

David Webb: Hong Kong people will win democracy fight (ultimately)

HK Economic Journal, 15-Oct-2014

CE postpones LegCo Q&A on security grounds

HK Government, 15-Oct-2014
Has this man never heard of video-conferencing? He could do it via Skype from his fallout shelter/ Führerbunker. Government business should continue.

Cronies are killing HK
Bloomberg, 15-Oct-2014

.EBD

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

誰應為商業損失負責 — 示威者還是政府?- Rick Glofcheski

誰應為商業損失負責 — 示威者還是政府?- Rick Glofcheski 主場博客 20/10/2014

http://thehousenewsbloggers.net/2014/10/20/%E8%AA%B0%E6%87%89%E7%82%BA%E5%95%86%E6%A5%AD%E6%90%8D%E5%A4%B1%E8%B2%A0%E8%B2%AC-%E7%A4%BA%E5%A8%81%E8%80%85%E9%82%84%E6%98%AF%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%EF%BC%8Frick-glofcheski/

Professor Rick Glofcheski 是香港法律學刊的主編,在香港大學教授侵權法,亦是Tort Law in Hong Kong 的作者。

(譯者按:雨傘運動至今已踏入第四個星期,從報章及 Facebook 看到有不同人士表示生意受影響,亦有旅行社入稟小額錢債審裁處向戴耀廷索償。有關雨傘運動的評論文章有很多,但好像沒有從法律角度審視有關索償的可行性,而香港大學法律系教授 Professor Glofcheski 10月13日在南華早報發表的文章,正是評論此事的,因此我希望把文章翻譯成中文,讓更多人閱讀,亦希望可以引起更多人討論,於是聯絡了 Professor Glofcheski,並得到他的允許,將他在2014 年10月13日在南華早報發表的文章翻譯,並將中文翻譯連同原文在南華早報的連結放到 Facebook。

翻譯:Lok Tsang

南華早報原文連結

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1613772/whos-responsible-business-losses-protesters-or-government?page=all

一間旅遊公司正向佔領中環發起人戴耀庭提出訴訟,向他索償示威期間的商業損失, 其他類似的索償可能會陸續提出。

從法律及社會政策角度,民事法所賦予的保障,並不包括被針對的受害人所蒙受非蓄意導致的商業損失。承擔這些損失,就是在奉行市場主義的自由社會中的其中一種取捨;誰也不保証必有盈利。

這是由於生意的成敗由很多因素導致,因此,

法律很早已確立公眾人士,包括進行公眾示威的人士,對企業沒有法律責任

例如,機師罷工一定會對機場附近的商業活動帶來損失,但甚少人會認真以為機師需要為那些商業損失負責。罷工是自由市場經濟的其中一個特色。

再者,當有些商舖的經營舉步維艱,同時另一些卻生意興旺。

在最近的示威活動,麥當勞、屈臣氏蒸餾水及7-11 (還有不少不具名的雨傘製造商) 明顯獲得意料之外的額外收益,但沒有人期望他們會繳出這些得益。

從法律途徑索償還會遇到其他問題,有些涉及因果關係 (causation)。誰人或者甚麼導致這些損失呢?讓我們考慮以下情況:

在抗議中最矚目的人士是否組織或運動的發起人呢?他們之中任何一人就是令到大批市民來到示威區的原因嗎? 不論從常理或法律角度而言,答案都是否定的。

市民是根據他們的自由意志參與示威,在法律上,他們參與示威的決定會被視為一個新的介入事件 (intervening event),中斷了任何可以歸於社會運動發起人的因果關係 (causation)。

事實上,如要將示威者定性為道路阻塞的原因,便需要將成千上萬的參與者視為一個群體。

除示威者外,還有其他可能導致道路阻塞的原因。

政府封閉本來被學生佔領的添美道及鄰近的公眾地方之決定,迫使大批到來的人士走到附近的道路。

這導致夏慤道及干諾道的嚴重擠塞,如果添美附近的公眾地方沒有被封閉,估計附近的道路不會發展成現時的大型集會營地。

在9月28日於夏慤道發放催淚彈時,我目睹大批市民湧向金鐘道,部份來自從夏慤道而來的人潮,造成另一條主要道路的阻塞。

由此可見,政府可能是道路阻塞的緣由。

再者,社會上普遍認為,警方向手無寸鐵的示威者發放催淚彈,是令更多市民走出來阻塞街道的原因。

與政府一樣,香港警務處肯定是比無組織的示威者更容易識別及值得提訟 (lawsuit worthy entity)。如政府一樣,香港警務處有足夠的資源支付由商戶可能提出的任何索償。

接下來是決定立即停止所有內地旅行團到港的中央政府。暫停內地旅行團到港的決定應該會對一系列的企業造成損失。

那麼,是否亦應向北京提出索償呢?

事實上,生意的成敗由很多因素決定,讓我舉幾個例子:競爭、政治環境、整體經濟環境、管理。很多在佔領區的企業已預期示威會發生並有應變計劃,它們仍然在盈利的情況下如常運作。

因上述及其他原因,受示威影響的商戶還是不要浪費金錢在沒有勝算的索償上。

或者他們應該著力於遊說政府成立專案基金,補償受示威影響的小商戶。

對政府而言,成立基金會是一個受尊崇的舉動, 因為即使不談在控制示威時作出不明智的決定,

政府就著這幾個星期市民清楚表達的不滿,應負上一些責任。


Who’s responsible for business losses – protesters or the government? – Rick Glofcheski, SCMP Monday, 13 October, 2014, 4:34am UPDATED : Monday, 13 October, 2014, 4:34am

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1613772/whos-responsible-business-losses-protesters-or-government?page=all

Rick Glofcheski says those contemplating suing protesters for loss of business should realise that such a claim would probably be futile and their energy would be better spent lobbying for a compensation fund.

While some businesses falter, others thrive in the same conditions.

A travel firm is suing Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting for business losses suffered during the demonstrations. There may be others contemplating similar claims.

As a matter of legal and social policy, business losses that are not intentionally caused and inflicted on a targeted victim are not protected by civil law. Such losses are expected to lie where they fall. This is part of the give-and-take of living in a free society that follows market principles, in which no one is guaranteed a profit.

This must be so because there are so many factors that contribute to business success or failure.

For this reason, it has long been established as a matter of law that there is no relationship of legal duty owed to business enterprises by members of the public, including those carrying out public demonstrations.

By way of example, an airline pilots’ strike will surely result in losses to many businesses in the vicinity of the airport. Few would realistically expect that the pilots should be accountable to those businesses for any losses suffered. Industrial strikes are one of many features of a free market economy.

Moreover, where some businesses falter, others thrive in the same conditions.

We would not expect McDonald’s, Watsons Water and 7-Eleven (not to mention the many unnamed manufacturers of umbrellas) to hand back the windfall they have apparently enjoyed during the recent demonstrations.

There are other problems in any legal action for compensation. Some relate to causation. Who or what can be said to be the cause of such business losses? Let us consider some possibilities.

Is it the heads of the organisations or movements that have been most prominent [矚目, 顯然易見] at the protests? Can any one of them be said to have caused the arrival of people in large numbers to the protest sites? As a matter of common sense, and certainly as a matter of law, the answer is no.

These people went of their own free will. In legal terms, their decision to participate in the protests would be viewed as a new intervening event, a break in any causation that might be attributed to the heads of those social movements.

In fact, all of the thousands of participants would have to be treated as a collective in any attempt to characterise protesters as a cause of the obstructions.

And then there are other possible causes.

The decision of the government to close off the original protest site occupied by students at Tim Mei Avenue and the adjacent open spaces caused the large number of arrivals to be forced onto the nearby roads.

This produced serious congestion on Harcourt and Connaught roads. One can surmise that if the public spaces near Tim Mei had not been closed, the nearby streets might not have become the sites of large-scale encampments.

At the moment tear gas was deployed on Harcourt Road on September 28, I witnessed the surge of people towards Queensway, taking some overflow from Harcourt Road, resulting in the obstruction of yet another artery.

This suggests that the government may be a cause.

And then there is the police. It is widely believed that the use of tear gas on unarmed protesters caused members of the Hong Kong public to come out in even larger numbers to obstruct the streets.

Like the government, the police department is a very identifiable and lawsuit-worthy entity, certainly more so than an amorphous group of protesters. And, like the government, it is sufficiently resourced to make good on any claims that might be made against it by businesses.

And then there is the central government, which made the decision to immediately terminate group tours to Hong Kong. It can be assumed that this decision caused financial losses to a range of business enterprises.

Shall the claimants sue Beijing as well?

The reality is that the success or failure of a business depends on a multiplicity of factors, including, to name but a few, competition, political conditions, the general economic conditions, and management. Many of the major business enterprises in the occupied areas are understood to have had contingency plans in place in anticipation of this very moment and have been operating on an as-usual profit basis.

For these and other reasons, businesses detrimentally affected by the protests would be better advised not to throw away money in pursuit of a futile claim.

Their efforts would be better directed at lobbying the government to consider the establishment of an ad hoc fund for the compensation of small businesses affected by the demonstrations. The establishment of such a fund would be an honourable gesture by the government which, after all, must take some responsibility for the large-scale public discontent that has been expressed so visibly in recent weeks, not to mention some of the poorly judged decisions that it made in its management of the demonstrations.

Rick Glofcheski, editor-in-chief of the Hong Kong Law Journal, teaches tort law at the University of Hong Kong and is the author of Tort Law in Hong Kong

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Risky business

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

FongBlueTooth01 tdd notes

Execute FongBlueTooth::test(), …
p = Power Test.
c = Commandmode key Test.
r = Power Reset.
w = Serial write repeat, Ports 1,5.
a = At command test, Ports 1,5.
v = Version test, Ports 1,5.
6 = reserved.
7 = reserved.
m = Menu.
h = Help.
Selection = ? <<<
Selection = v <<<
Write Char String = AT+VERSION?
Read Char String =
Selection = ? <<<
Selection = v <<<
Write Char String = AT+VERSION?
Read Char String = +VERSION:2.0-20100601
OK
+VER
Selection = ? <<<

// *** FongBlueTooth01.cpp *******

// ********************************************************************
// FongBlueTooth01b – TL Fong 2014oct20hkt1518
// ********************************************************************

#include <FongBlueTooth01.h>

// *** Constructors ***

FongBlueTooth01::FongBlueTooth01(FongBuzzer01 *fbuz, FongDio01 *fdio, FongAio01 *faio, \
FongText01 *ftext, int testNum)
{
_fbuz = fbuz;
_fdio = fdio;
_faio = faio;
_ftext = ftext;
initConfig(testNum);
powerReset(testNum);
}

// *** Power functions ***

void FongBlueTooth01::powerOn(int testNum)
{
_fdio->setDioPinLow(PowerPin);
delay(500);
}

void FongBlueTooth01::powerOff(int testNum)
{
_fdio->setDioPinHigh(PowerPin);
delay(500);
}

void FongBlueTooth01::powerReset(int testNum)
{
_fdio->setDioPinHigh(PowerPin);
delay(500);
_fdio->setDioPinLow(PowerPin);
delay(500);
}

void FongBlueTooth01::powerTest(int testNum)
{
powerOff(testNum);
delay(500);
powerOn(testNum);
delay(1000);
powerOff(testNum);
delay(500);
}

// *** Command mode functions ***

void FongBlueTooth01::commandModeOn(int moduleNum)
{
int dioPinNum;
dioPinNum = moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex];
_fdio->setDioPinHigh(dioPinNum);
}

void FongBlueTooth01::commandModeOn(int firstModuleNum, int lastModuleNum)
{
for (int i = firstModuleNum; i <= lastModuleNum; i++)
{
commandModeOn(i);
}
}

void FongBlueTooth01::commandModeOff(int moduleNum)
{
int dioPinNum;
dioPinNum = moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex];
_fdio->setDioPinLow(dioPinNum);
}

void FongBlueTooth01::commandModeOff(int firstModuleNum, int lastModuleNum)
{
for (int i = firstModuleNum; i <= lastModuleNum; i++)
{
commandModeOff(i);
}
}

void FongBlueTooth01::commandModeTest(int testNum)
{
for (int i = FirstModuleNum; i <= LastModuleNum; i++)
{
commandModeOn(i);
delay(1000);
commandModeOff(i);
}
}

/// *** Module config functions ***

void FongBlueTooth01::initConfig(int testNum)
{
int moduleNum;

moduleNum = 0;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][ModuleTypeIndex] = WaveSenHm05;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][PortNumIndex] = Port1;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex] = DioPin0;

moduleNum = 1;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][ModuleTypeIndex] = WaveSenHm05;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][PortNumIndex] = Port2;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex] = DioPin1;

moduleNum = 2;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][ModuleTypeIndex] = WaveSenHm05;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][PortNumIndex] = Port3;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex] = DioPin2;

moduleNum = 3;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][ModuleTypeIndex] = WaveSenHm05;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][PortNumIndex] = Port4;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex] = DioPin3;

moduleNum = 4;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][ModuleTypeIndex] = WaveSenHm05;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][PortNumIndex] = Port5;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex] = DioPin4;

moduleNum = 5;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][ModuleTypeIndex] = WaveSenHm05;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][PortNumIndex] = Port6;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex] = DioPin5;

moduleNum = 6;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][ModuleTypeIndex] = WaveSenHm05;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][PortNumIndex] = Port7;
moduleConfig[moduleNum][AtKeyIndex] = DioPin6;
}

// *** AT command string array functions ***

void FongBlueTooth01::initCmdStrArray(int moduleType)
{
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskIfOk] = “AT\r\n”;
// cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskVersion] = “AT+VERSION?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[1] = “AT+VERSION?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetSlaveRole] = “AT+ROLE=0\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetMasterRole] = “AT+ROLE=1\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskRole] = “AT+ROLE?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskName] = “AT+NAME?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetNameHc05] = “AT+NAME=Hc-05\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetNameTlfong01] = “AT+NAME=tlfong01\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskCmode] = “AT+CMODE?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetCmodeAnyAddress] = “AT+CMODE=1\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetCmodeSpecifiedAddress] = “AT+CMODE=0\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskState] = “AT+STATE?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskPassWord] = “AT+PSWD?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetPassWord1234] = “AT+PSWD=1234\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetPassWord0001] = “AT+PSWD=0001\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskAddress] = “AT+ADDR?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskBindAddress] = “AT+BIND?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetBindAddress123456abcdef] = “AT+BIND=1234,56,abcdef\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskRemoteName000272od2224] = “AT+RNAME?0002,72,od2224\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskPio89] = “AT+POLAR?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetPio8900] = “AT+POLAR=0,0\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetPio8911] = “AT+POLAR=1,1\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskDevice] = “AT+INQ\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[ConnectDevice123456abcdef] = “AT+LINK=1234,56,abcdef\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[DisconnectDevice] = “AT+DISC\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[Reset] = “AT+RESET\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetAccessCode9e8b3f] = “AT+IAC=9e8b3f\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskAccessCode] = “AT+IAC?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskAccessCode] = “AT+IAC\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskInquiryAccessCode] = “AT+INQM?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetInquiryAccessCode1948] = “AT+INQM=1,9,48\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[CheckPair123456abcdef] = “AT+FSAD=1234,56,abcdef\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetPair123456abcdef20] = “AT+PAIR=1234,56,abcdef,20\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[AskSerialParameter] = “AT+UART?\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetSerialParameter9600n81] =”AT+UART=9600,0,0\r\n”;
cmdStrArrayHm05Basic[SetDefaultParameter] = “AT+ORGL\r\n”;
}
// *** Menu functions ***

void FongBlueTooth01::printSelectMenu(int firstSelectNum, int lastSelectNum, int testNum)
{
const char menu0[] PROGMEM = “\tp = Power Test.”;
const char menu1[] PROGMEM = “\tc = Commandmode key Test.”;
const char menu2[] PROGMEM = “\tr = Power Reset.”;
const char menu3[] PROGMEM = “\tw = Serial write repeat, Ports 1,5.”;
const char menu4[] PROGMEM = “\ta = At command test, Ports 1,5.”;
const char menu5[] PROGMEM = “\tv = Version test, Ports 1,5.”;
const char menu6[] PROGMEM = “\t6 = reserved.”;
const char menu7[] PROGMEM = “\t7 = reserved.”;
const char menu8[] PROGMEM = “\tm = Menu.”;
const char menu9[] PROGMEM = “\th = Help.”;
const char menu10[] PROGMEM = “\tx = Exit.”;
const char menu11[] PROGMEM = “\t0 = reserved.”;
const char menu12[] PROGMEM = “\t1 = reserved.”;
const char menu13[] PROGMEM = “\t2 = reserved.”;

const char * const selectMenu[] PROGMEM = {menu0, menu1, menu2, menu3, \
menu4, menu5, menu6, menu7, \
menu8, menu9, menu10, menu11, \
menu12, menu13};
lastSelectNum = 9;
for (int i = firstSelectNum; i <= lastSelectNum; i++)
{
Serial.println(selectMenu[i]);
}
}

void FongBlueTooth01::printSelectMenu(int testNum)
{
printSelectMenu(FirstSelectNum, LastSelectNum, testNum);
}

char FongBlueTooth01::askSelectChar(String askString, int testNum)
{
char selectChar;
char dummyChar;

// *** flush read buffer ***
while (Serial.available() > 0) {dummyChar = Serial.read();} // flush

// *** get user selection ***
Serial.print(F(“\t”));
Serial.print(askString);
Serial.println(F(” = ? <<< “));

while (Serial.available() == false) {} // wait for char
selectChar = Serial.read();
Serial.print(F(“\t”));
Serial.print(askString);
Serial.print(F(” = “));
Serial.print(selectChar);
Serial.println(F(” <<<“));
return selectChar;
}

int FongBlueTooth01::askSelectDigit(String askString, int testNum)
{
char selectChar = askSelectChar(askString, testNum);
int selectDigit = selectChar – ‘0’;
return selectDigit;
}

int FongBlueTooth01::askRepeatNum(String askString, int testNum)
{
int repeatNum;
int selectDigit = askSelectDigit(askString, testNum);
if (selectDigit == 0) repeatNum = 0;
else if (selectDigit == 1) repeatNum = 500;
else if (selectDigit == 2) repeatNum = 1000;
else if (selectDigit == 3) repeatNum = 2000;
else repeatNum = 0;
return repeatNum;
}

// *** Test functions ***

void FongBlueTooth01::test(int testNum)
{
char selectChar;
char functionChar;
char portChar;
char repeatChar;

printSelectMenu(testNum);
initCmdStrArray(testNum);
while (selectChar != ‘x’)
{
selectChar = askSelectChar(“Selection”, testNum);
if (selectChar == ‘x’)
break;
else
execBlueToothFunction(selectChar, testNum);
}
}

void FongBlueTooth01::execBlueToothFunction(char selectChar, int testNum)
{
extern FongSerial01 *exfserialPtr;

if (selectChar == ‘p’)
{
powerTest(testNum);
}
else if (selectChar == ‘c’)
{
commandModeTest(testNum);
}
else if (selectChar == ‘r’)
{
powerReset(testNum);
}
else if (selectChar == ‘w’)
{
_ftext->staticSerialWrite(Port1, RepeatCount200, “AT\r\n”, “dummy”);
_ftext->staticSerialWrite(Port5, RepeatCount200, “AT\r\n”, “dummy”);
}
else if (selectChar == ‘a’)
{
_ftext->staticSerialWritePauseRead(Port1, MilliSec100, “AT\r\n”, “dummy”);
_ftext->staticSerialWritePauseRead(Port5, MilliSec100, “AT\r\n”, “dummy”);
}
else if (selectChar == ‘v’)
{
exeCommand(Port1, cmdStrArrayHm05Basic, AskVersion);
}
else if (selectChar == ‘6’)
{
//
}
else if (selectChar == ‘7’)
{
//
}
else if (selectChar == ‘m’)
{
printSelectMenu(testNum);
}
else if (selectChar == ‘h’)
{
//
}
else
{
//
}
}

void FongBlueTooth01::exeCommand(int portNum, char *cmdStrArray[], int cmdNum)
{
String cmdStr;
char writeCharArray[32];
cmdStr = cmdStrArray[cmdNum];
cmdStr.toCharArray(writeCharArray, 32);
_ftext->staticSerialWritePauseRead(portNum, MilliSec100, writeCharArray, “dummy”);
}

// *** End ***

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

財閥壟斷觸動怨氣大爆發 – 華爾街日報

leung_chun_ying_2014oct2002

《華爾街日報》:中共高估富豪對港青影響力 財閥壟斷觸動怨氣大爆發 – Post852 2014oct20

http://www.post852.com/%E3%80%8A%E8%8F%AF%E7%88%BE%E8%A1%97%E6%97%A5%E5%A0%B1%E3%80%8B%EF%BC%9A%E4%B8%AD%E5%85%B1%E9%AB%98%E4%BC%B0%E5%AF%8C%E8%B1%AA%E5%B0%8D%E6%B8%AF%E9%9D%92%E5%BD%B1%E9%9F%BF%E5%8A%9B%E3%80%80%E8%B2%A1/

香港佔領行動繼續獲國際重要傳媒關注。美國《華爾街日報》今日有評論文章指出,

香港市民對貧富懸殊、官商同謀的失望,成為了香港今次佔領運動的強大助力

。當中,香港的富豪們亦成為了焦點之一,因為他們就是這些經濟問題的象徵人物。

評論認為,不少學生對「中國影響」日益嚴重自然感到憤怒,但對香港的經濟情況同樣感到失望。

不少香港經濟巨頭,在今次的佔領事件中都保持緘默,即使作出評論的都未如中港政府般有狠批示威者。以香港首富李嘉誠為例,在呼籲佔領者回到家人身邊前,亦不忘表示明白他們的熱情。九龍倉集團主席吳光正,亦指出「香港已經贏咗」。

不過,評論認為

年輕人不會聆聽這些「大孖沙」的勸告,這是因為學生認定他們會責怪佔領運動會破壞經濟。

實際上,他們亦確實首當其衝,由鄭裕彤家族擁有的周大福,部分在佔領活動期間提早關門。

評論表示,這些富豪曾經是香港的驕傲,然而隨著他們得益於中國的經濟發展,他們卻跟香港人,特別是佔領運動的參與者越走越遠。城市大學政治學講座教授鄭宇碩便指出,

富豪們在政府的幫助下賺得更多,並壟斷了香港的地產、通訊、交通及零售行業,令香港成為全球財富最聚集於富人的地區之一

更重要的是,現時能揀選特首的1200名選委中,大部分都是由這些大商家選出。

倘若政改通過,2017年他們亦能控制雖被提名及誰能出閘。更重要的是,中國政府能透過他們在富豪之間的影響力,變相控制特首選舉,無怪乎令部分市民渴求公民提名。

中國研究專家林和立認為,中國政府依然判斷香港人是「經濟動物」,而富豪就是香港人的僱主,能為中國發揮影響力。不過,值得留意的是現時他們依然保持低調,而

富豪們對香港人,特別是30歲以下年輕人的影響力,似乎已經江河日下。


Hong Kong Protests as Much About Dollars as Democracy – WSJ, By KATHY CHU Updated Oct. 19, 2014 5:49 p.m. ET

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-protests-as-much-about-dollars-as-democracy-1413754381?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10800882878353264346304580219930543790318.html

Hong Kong’s Tycoons and Wealth Inequality Are Sources of Frustration for Protesters

Asia’s richest man, Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing, said in a statement Wednesday that he understood the ‘passion’ of Hong Kong student protesters, but urged them to go home. BLOOMBERG NEWS

Frustration over this city’s staggering wealth gap and pro-business establishment has helped fuel protests calling for free elections, forming a strong undercurrent to the student-led democracy campaign.

One target of the protesters’ frustration is the city’s tycoons, a handful of families and colonial era conglomerates that control most of the real estate, many of the retailers and nearly all of the utilities and buses.

“Tycoons don’t need sympathy, but they’re between a rock and a hard place,” said Jean-Pierre Lehmann, a visiting professor in the University of Hong Kong’s business and economics program.

“Hong Kong has a number of critical problems, such as inequality, and the tycoons are seen as being an emblem of that.”

Hong Kong has one of the world’s biggest wealth gaps and its highest real-estate prices. Years of stagnant wage growth have created deep frustration among students and the middle class.

To be sure, protesters are angry about the rising influence of mainland China on the former British colony, but when asked, many students will express frustration with their economic prospects.

Over the weekend, nearly 70 people were injured and 37 arrested in clashes between the police and demonstrators as the rallies entered their fourth week. Tensions had eased by late Sunday night after protest leaders called for calm ahead of meetings with government officials planned for Tuesday.

Many of the city’s tycoons have been silent since the protests began. Those who have spoken out have called for an end to the protests while finding gentle words for the pro-democracy movement. Asia’s richest man, Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing , who Forbes says is worth about $31.4 billion, said Wednesday that he understood the “passion” of Hong Kong students but urged them to go home.

The tycoon’s words don’t resonate with young protesters such as Arnold Chung, 19, who expects to live with his parents for years.

Average starting salaries for university graduates have risen 1% annually over the past 17 years, to 198,000 Hong Kong dollars (US$25,522) a year,

lagging behind inflation, and far behind the rise in housing prices.

“The young generation doesn’t listen to Li Ka-shing,” said Mr. Chung, a student. “We expect rich people to say this [protest] will disturb the economy.”

Even as thousands of protesters took to the streets, Mr. Li’s Cheung Kong property-development arm was unveiling

apartments that totaled 165 square feet, among the city’s tiniest homes. The apartments, about the size of a one-car garage, haven’t been priced yet, but slightly larger units have recently sold in the city for between HK$1.77 million and HK$3.6 million

(US$228,000 and US$464,000). Mr. Li and Cheung Kong wouldn’t comment beyond Mr. Li’s earlier statement.

Once seen as the proud symbols of Hong Kong’s rising power, tycoons have faced criticism for getting richer while residents fall behind. Many have benefited from China’s growth, which aligns their interests with Beijing and further alienates them from the protesters.

“These people are seen to be making a lot of profit with the government’s help,”

said Joseph Cheng, a political-science professor at the City University of Hong Kong. They are typically family-run empires that have large real-estate businesses—

five Hong Kong companies account for 70% of the private residential market,

according to brokerage firm CLSA—and government concessions in industries such as telecommunications, ports and transportation. Some own retail outlets in highly concentrated industries such as supermarkets, where two tycoon-owned chains dominate sales, and they have franchises for goods such as Coca-Cola .

Hong Kong’s tycoons range from Mr. Li, whose empire began with a factory making plastic flowers, to colonial-era conglomerates such as Jardine Matheson Holdings , run by the Keswick family, which got rich by trading opium and other goods in the mid-1800s.

The wealth concentrated in these families makes Hong Kong among the most unequal places in the world, and the inequality has gotten worse over the past decade.

According to Welch Consulting, an economic consulting firm, Hong Kong has 41 billionaires valued at a total of $203.9 billion, equal to 74.4% of the city’s annual economic output.

The only country with a higher concentration by this measure is the southern African nation of Swaziland, where the wealth of its one billionaire equals 99% of GDP,

the firm’s analysis of International Monetary Fund data shows. The ratio for Georgia, the No. 3 ranked country is 32.2% and for the U.S. it is 14.1%.

The wealth of the city has become increasingly concentrated.

In 2000, 65.6% of the city’s assets were controlled by the wealthiest 10% of its people,

according to Credit Suisse . In 2007, the figure was 69.3% and this year it is 77.5%, making the concentration among the highest in the world and the growth among the fastest.

Some other tycoons have spoken, but carefully. Peter Woo, chair of Hong Kong-based real-estate developer Wheelock & Co., said this month that the pro-democracy protests cannot continue, saying that the city has already won because people have the right to protest.

Jardine Matheson said it respects the public’s right to express its views, but “we believe that any expression of views should also respect the rights of fellow citizens.”

Most of these companies have felt the protests firsthand. Students blocked the road in front of Mr. Li’s headquarters and they forced a third of the Chow Tai Fook jewelry stores, controlled by the family of Cheng Yu-tung, to close early. Guests at Jardine Matheson’s flagship Mandarin Oriental Hotel had to walk 400 meters to their rooms because the street was closed.

One way the tycoons exert control over Hong Kong is through the 1,200 member committee that has selected the city’s chief executive.

While some members are elected by the public, most are selected by business groups. A new version of this committee will likely be used to approve the candidates for the next chief executive’s election in 2017, which frustrated protesters, who want candidates to be nominated by the public.

Negotiations between the city and students are likely to start this week and one area city officials have said could be negotiated is the makeup of that committee. While that could erode the tycoons’ power, few expect the change to be dramatic.

“Beijing has relied on cooperation with the tycoons to control the selection of the chief executive,” said David Webb , a former investment banker who runs corporate governance site Webb-Site.com. “There’s no way that they’re going to shift the composition of the committee from the tycoons to the pro-democracy camp.”

Another way the government could placate protesters is to announce a plan to make housing more affordable in Hong Kong. That was a big focus for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying when he took office and something that Beijing has backed.

The tycoons’ difficult position was illustrated before the protests exploded, when China’s leaders called them to Beijing to get them to publicly support the rules it has approved for elections in the city. They dutifully traveled to Beijing, met with China’s President Xi Jinping , among others, and made statements afterward.

The effort didn’t help much. “Their sway on public opinion is declining, particularly among those below 30,”

said Willy Lam, an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Centre for China Studies.

“But nonetheless, Beijing still subscribes to the old belief that Hong Kong people are economic animals, and these tycoons are major employers.”

Then when the protests hit, most of the tycoons went quiet.

— Wei Gu and Chester Yung contributed to this article.

Write to Kathy Chu at kathy.chu@wsj.com


遍地開花│網民出動「Mr. & Little Miss HK People」撐佔領行動 – Post852

http://www.post852.com/%E9%81%8D%E5%9C%B0%E9%96%8B%E8%8A%B1%E2%94%82%E7%B6%B2%E6%B0%91%E5%87%BA%E5%8B%95%E3%80%8Cmr-little-miss-hk-people%E3%80%8D%E6%92%90%E4%BD%94%E9%A0%98%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95/

佔領行動發展至今,雖說三個佔領區都有特色,但同時都會見到「民主講堂」,以各種深入淺出的方法講解是次雨傘運動的緣起、理據,及香港人面對的不公義等。其中,更有為小朋友而設的「小朋友公民廣場」,以森林的動物講民主的重要性和公民抗命。而一個今早剛註冊的facebook專頁,或可成為大家講故事的新素材。

有網民以已故兒童圖畫書作家 Roger Hargreaves 的作品系列 《Mr. Men and Little Miss》 作靈感,繪畫《Mr. & Little Miss HK People》及其他政府代表人物,包括梁振英、林鄭月娥、「四點鐘許Sir」等,僅列部份。

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project

Shamshuipo swimming timetable 2014oct

ssp_swimming_2014oct2001

li_cheng_uk_swimming_pool_2014oct2001

.END

Leave a comment

Filed under Electronics DIY Project