Friday, December 19, 2014

就《增加青年人向上流動的機會》議員議案發言稿

主席:

雨傘運動暫告一階段性段落,很多人都忽然關心年輕人,特區政府、梁振英、董建華、林建鋒議員等等,都大講青年向上流動,想減青年怨氣。但年輕一代提出的訴求,是否有樓上、有人工加,甚至有書讀,就解決到?這些說要解決年輕人向上流動難題的人,真的解決得到這問題嗎?抑或他們其中是問題的一部分?

這些人知不知道,出來抗爭的年輕人唔係因為個人前途和「向錢看」而上街, 而是為了追求公平、公正、公開的社會和政府。

的確,眼前的現實是,雖然香港年輕人的學歷水平提升,但平均收入卻在下跌,而且拉開了收入差距。港大社會工作及社會行政學系近日發佈的研究,比較2001-2011年不同社會經濟地位組別的工資增長差距,結果發現『高級專業人士、行政及管理人員』有超過六成的人工增幅,大幅拋離其他工種類別,專業人士都只得三成增幅、非勞動僱員和技術性勞動工人只有幾個百分點,而且,越年輕工資增幅差別就越大。

議員和啲高官順口、開口埋口都講獅子山精神,話係你啲後生仔唔肯挨,田北辰uncle話,做快餐店都可以發達㗎,但本地青年自己最清楚,教育水平和勞動力回報不成正比 。新一代看不到前路,是整個社會機會少咗的問題,你估佢地睇唔到,唔知道?有國際經濟學家進行數據分析發現,貧富懸殊和收入不均等是全球及本地經濟,甚至整個資本主義出現結構性失衡所致。

法國經濟學家皮凱提 Thomas Piketty 將21世紀形容為「全球化的世襲資本主義」。他分析多國的資本和收入,發現最近三四十年以來社會不平等狀況迅速惡化,教育系統亦不足以促進社會流動。特區政府常強調經濟增長帶來點滴效應(trickle-down effect),會令基層市民和青年受惠,這論述逐漸站不住腳。

林建鋒議員昨天發言時,好明顯地將年輕人的訴求去政治化,好似你俾樓佢哋住,俾佢哋創業,就無問題啦,還講道創業幾咁艱難,我又反而見到從來未見過那麼多的年輕人在科技界創業,雖然我知道他們仍然面對很多問題和挑戰,但不是林議員講到咁負面喎,不過,實情是很多年輕人創業正正是不想為大集團賣命,他們要命運自主呀!建制派和香港政府,都不願意面對年輕人的訴求,仲喺度自己呃自己。

主席,年輕人向上流動,在今天這個資訊世代已經不可能只講在經濟上向上流動,還要政治向上流動!林建鋒議員話吸納多啲年輕人入去諮詢架構喎,你請周永康、岑敖輝、黃之鋒入去中央政策組啦,你會咩?你拉佢哋坐監就差唔多! 不過我想你請他們都不會入,因為他們要的是真普選,要的是分享政治權力,不是入你的諮詢委員會。

我八月時在土耳其參加國際會議時,認識了一位德國海盜黨的歐洲議會的議員Julia Reda,她今年廿八歲,她創立歐洲青年海盜黨,她說快三十歲,要被踢出青年黨部了。陳為廷在台灣廿四歲都選立委啦!年輕人好知道他們要什麼,他們要民主,要社會公平;他們會問,歐洲得,台灣得,點解香港唔得,中國唔得?如果你說,基本法唔俾,中國憲法唔俾,佢哋會話,基本法和中國憲法不合理囉,佢哋唔接受囉!你點加強宣傳洗腦都無用。

相反,你們說要給年輕人上流機會,你估佢地傻嘅咩,你話俾就有?你俾得到嗎?你們這些董建華、功能組別正是問題的最大部分,正是不肯給年輕人一個公平社會、民主、公義的既得利益者,你估年輕人唔知咩,仲信你們會幫他們向上流動?政治不公平,經濟和社會資源分配也不會公平。

近日有些人為了維護一些極權政治,竟然話要「放棄部份年輕人」,就是工聯會的吳秋北。真的罪犯,社會也不輕言放棄,工聯會的吳秋北將這些未定罪,大部分甚至未經檢控的年輕人,已經話放棄,要不要驅逐出境呀?放棄!工聯會的吳秋北說這些說話,除了為了取悅強權,更是有意挑起更大的社會矛盾和撕裂,其心可誅!香港不可以放棄我們這些有理想、愛香港的年輕人,要放棄就放棄這些好像工聯會吳秋北的人。

人類歷史,每一代比上一代進步,從來沒有停止過,科技、文化、政治一直進步,以前未停過,以後也不會停,這是歷史定律,時間自然會放棄不肯包容、接受下一代的人。

主席,我謹此陳辭。

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Catch-all cyber law threatens Hong Kong's freedom of speech

The free flow of information and freedom of online expression have often been touted as among the cornerstones of success for Hong Kong's ICT industry, and the reason that many global Internet service providers and data centers have chosen to base their facilities here. Yet, when we think about challenges in cyber law, we tend to focus on issues around hacking, network intrusion or data theft—but neglect the ambiguity in online freedom of speech.

A case in point is the use of the Internet and social media during the Occupy Central movement. Citizens, especially young people, are mobilized to participate in political-related activities and actions, via different platforms. Their actions have been widely reported and even celebrated by international media. However, on October 18, a 23-year-old Internet user was arrested under the charge of “access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent”, for allegedly posting messages at the HKGolden online forum telling others to join the demonstration in Mongkok and obstructing rail services. Since then as many as fourteen other were arrested under this charge, sending shockwaves to local Internet users.

What does this offence "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" actually mean? According to Legco minutes, originally the legislative intent of the offence was to counter preparatory acts prior to committing a fraud or hacking with access to a computer. Thus, it is a narrowly drafted computer crime law added as Section 161 to the Crimes Ordinance back in 1993. Conviction can lead up to a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. But it has been increasingly and broadly used in recent years.

The government has gradually expanded the use of this offence beyond preparatory acts of fraud or hacking activities to cases involving indecent acts, making of lewd or obscene recordings, selling of unlawful electronic goods, as well as—unfortunately—targeting online speeches.

The police routinely makes statements about "laws in the real world" also apply in the cyberworld. Why don't the police then apply the same laws from the real world in the cyberworld, instead of using the “narrowly drafted, but broadly used” Section 161 in rather arbitrary ways?

I must emphasize that those who are accused could very much be "guilty", but the issue is that any accused individual should be charged with a crime that is specific for his or her alleged illegal act. A catch-all offence or an offence used in a way that has deviated from its original intent would be grossly inappropriate and indeed against the very concept of the rule of law.

This is why for the past two years I have been demanding prosecution details on the use of this offence in recent years, in order to investigate for patterns of wrongdoings. But the Security Bureau is still refusing to provide anything more than the total number of cases, claiming that the bureau "has not kept such information." I am now demanding the Secretary of Justice to provide the information.

I believe it is important to build more public awareness and concern about the misuse of this Section 161 offence. So, I started an online petition campaign to urge the police to stop using this offence that deviates from its legislative intent, and to demand the government to review this outdated law immediately. The campaign ended on 14 November with over 5,000 signatures.

An open and free Internet is essential to the development of any modern economy, making it easier to launch new ideas, innovation, and even advancement in political and public affairs. We—as IT professionals, responsible citizens and users of the Internet—should protect it from being eroded.

From Viewpoint column of Computerworld Hong Kong, December 2014

Sunday, December 07, 2014

Letter to Hong Kong: The Sunflower and The Umbrella

I was in Taipei last weekend, once again watching another major election taking place in Taiwan. This 2014 nine-in-one election of Taiwan returned more than ten thousands elected officers, from the six municipal mayors, to county or city mayors, as well as municipal and county councilors, township chiefs and councilors, chiefs of villages and boroughs. All in all, it was a major exercise and demonstration of democracy, in the only Chinese democratic region in the world.

And how politics have changed in Taiwan over the last twenty years. I still remember the time when the atmosphere on the whole island was so tense before the election that taxi drivers couldn’t stop talking to us, the passengers, about their political views and how they felt about the Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party, that were the blue and the green respectively. But you know what it was like this time? When I was in a taxi on election day, and we told the driver that we were in Taiwan to observe their election and asked if he had already voted, he said, “No, I don’t plan to vote today.”

Does that reflect growing apathy? No, I actually think it reflects a new level of maturity and stability in Taiwanese politics. Election day is just another day. Ruling parties can be swapped in and out of power. So if you choose not to vote, that may be a political expression in itself. In retrospect, the defeat of the Kuomintang this time can be largely attributed to their supporters not turning out to vote for their candidates, rather than switching to support the DPP.

Many people in Hong Kong still think Taiwanese democracy means chaos and fistfights in their legislature, using that as an excuse against implementing more democracy in Hong Kong. That is far, far from the truth, and is possibly a myth used by certain people or factions to purposely mislead Hong Kong people.

Yes, democracy cannot solve all problems, but it is still the fairest and most stable political system. The adoption and development of democracy in Taiwan is a great example of making society more stable, in spite of the difficult economic challenges Taiwan has been facing. The level of participation by its young people in this election, making their voices heard and their impact felt, is most impressive.

As we look at Taiwan today, one cannot help but compare their Sunflower Student Movement with the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. The Sunflower Movement lasted for 31 days, but the Umbrella Movement is already more than double the Sunflower Movement in its duration. Within 31 days, the students in Taiwan successfully fought for concessions from the government, yet, in Hong Kong, this increasingly is becoming an impossible task, which means that it was Taiwanese student leaders to convince their occupiers to retreat.

But the Hong Kong government instead refused to talk or even move an inch in its position, against the call for true universal suffrage and a repeal of the restrictions imposed by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on August 31. Instead, our government waited for the obstruction to cause enough frustration among our citizens to turn the tide of public opinion in their favor, in a sense, successfully diverted the attention of most people in Hong Kong from constitutional reform to a traffic congestion and local business issue.

When we discussed with some of the students and civil society advocates in Taiwan, it was clear that they knew that they had to be in the struggle for the long run, and in order to sustain such a social movement, the most important factor would be to sustain the support of public opinion, rather than what to do to escalate or merely prolong the occupation. They also learned from experience how an attempt to escalate by occupying the Executive Bureau ended up backfiring in public opinion support.

In our exchange with the participants of the Taiwanese student movement, two comments impressed me the most, and let me share them with you. The first one was a comparison between the natures of the occupations. They said, “In Taiwan, we occupied space. In Hong Kong, you are occupying time.” The second statement was more directly about how to end a phase of a long-term movement: “There is no best moment to retreat, only a worse and even worse time to leave.”

But anyway, despite the wide differences in the level of experience and maturity of our democratic system, the interaction between Taiwan and Hong Kong is increasingly evident. We both face similar problems. In Taiwan, people no longer seriously talk about independence, while in Hong Kong we have never really considered that as an option. Instead, the economic integration with China for both Taiwan and Hong Kong through those so-called “free trade agreement” and other policies are not bringing economic benefits that can be fairly shared by all people. Young people see that opportunities are dwindling right in front of them, and these closer economic cooperation agreements seem to merely line the pockets of the richest few.

So that’s why when one of the richest men in Taiwan made a comment to query the importance of democracy, asking, “Can you eat democracy like food that you eat?” The young students responded by saying, “Food without democracy does not taste good.” This generation believes in choice, making their own destinies and not simply following orders of power. They make things happen and they want to change the world.

Any government or political group that tries to ignore this trend would only make enemies of the next generation, hastening its own demise. An example is that, when we asked people in the Kuomintang in Taiwan about how their election may have been affected by the Umbrella Movement, they said they did not see any impact. When we asked the same question to the DPP, their answer was a resounding yes, and then they gave us a long list of examples. And you see who won this election by an overwhelming margin.

If democracy can strive in Taiwan, one day it will happen in Hong Kong too, if we keep the faith, fight the good fight, and return the movement to the people, by putting people first – listening to them and helping them see that justice, fairness, human rights and democracy are important for them and their children. If democracy can strive in Taiwan and one day, Hong Kong, eventually it will change China too.

Thursday, December 04, 2014

就關於警方於旺角協助執行禁制令及處理公眾集會的手法的休會辯論的發言

主席,我昨日下午到晚上一直在聽各位議員同事就這個關於警方自11月底在旺角協助執行禁制令及處理公眾集會的手法的休會辯論,我感到的,是香港遇到這麼大的挑戰時,我們議會的議員和代表政府的官員,大部分仍然沒有正視我們面對的問題,以我們各自的政治立場來定我們講的說話。

反對佔中,就一定要百分百支持警察,無論他們做了什麼。支持爭取真普選,就要百分百支持任何程度方法的抗爭行動。這件事件是這麼簡單的嗎?

大家試吓客觀些地看,在這兩星期至這幾天新聞片段所見的,而主席,請容許我舉出部分例子可能並非來自旺角的衝突,而是來自週末金鐘的衝突,不過很明顯警方的處理手法和部分警員的行為,都是一致的,是同樣地忘記專業操守,情緒失控,使用過度暴力,即使是在挑釁之下的,也不適當,但我們亦從報導和畫面中看到,極可能部分出現的暴力,並非是在挑釁後才發生的。

當然,我絕不是說所有的警員都是如此,但的確有發生過的,大家這兩天聽到議員舉的例子,在腦海中可能重現大家在電視機或者電腦螢幕前看過的畫面:有人說過,拉女示威者返差館強姦,無論當時情況是怎樣,這樣的說話,可以接受嗎?講吓都唔得,想吓都唔得呀,仲點可以當無事?

有一位警司對住頭揼揼正在離開的市民,隨手一棍毆落去;揸住警棍的人,特別是高級的警官,一時忍唔住,可以接受嗎?這分明是主動出擊,絕對不可以接受這樣出手,想吓都唔得呀,仲點可以當無事?但警方可以安排突然提早退休,是不是因為自己人做事是不會錯的,否則,就會影響警隊士氣。

昨日的新聞片,講述了不少被補者的待遇,天冷啦,警察還要開風扇吹他們,無被蓋,只有垃圾袋,有朋友問我,啲警察是不是心理變態,還是他們睇得啲八十年代講返六十年代的警察港產片多,話已經算對你們好了,還是他們根本仍然是這樣對啲犯人的呢?這樣的野蠻行為,可以接受嗎?想吓都唔得呀,竟然在廿一世紀的世界國際城市香港發生?

但局長昨天的發言,真的令我覺得,已經昇華到一部環保錄音機的地步,因為他不只講來講去都是那些,並且今次講同上次講都完全一樣才是夠哂循環再用,機是錄音機,播完可以再播,帶都不用在錄過,可以再用,夠哂環保呀!我們在辯論的,是警察處理手法,是否過度使用暴力。局長環保錄音機一直在講的,佔中六十幾日影響市民生活,一路講這個故事講到禁制令,所以警方是有權協助執行禁制令,而禁制令不影響警方執法的權力,咁就可以用過度暴力嗎?可以合法打人嗎?當然不是全部警察都是如此,但即使是少數這樣做,就可以接受嗎?

之後,局長一直只講這些人是非法集結,是激進人士,幾錯幾錯,所以警察是幾啱幾啱,合法使用法律賦予的權力,還已經用上最大的容忍,所以,他的總結是,示威者令全香港付上最高昂的代價。局長,我們的辯論是警方處理的手法和使用的暴力,不是佔領運動是對是錯!這是不是說,阿許Sir日日叫你們不要去旺角,你還去,已經是抵死,打死罷就,抵你自己要用身體付上最高昂的代價?

但旺角始終是市區的一部分,有很多人的確有需要去,甚至返屋企,但有些警察點做?搜身、查袋、企在路邊等朋友都要驅散,我們看過一段新聞片段,在旺角街頭一個轉角位,有市民問警察:「前面發生乜事,安唔安全?」但警察都唔正面回答佢,一路叫佢走,那位市民最後無奈地講了一句,「我住呢度㗎...」到底真正佔路擾民的是誰?

局長,你不肯正視存在的問題,但至少你在發言中沒有說過這些鏡頭裡看到的沒有發生過,或者只是個別事件,這是否等於已經默認,不過,你仍然是在轉移視線,問非所答,其實就是我上次在立法會就警方行為發言時所講過的,警方已經有一種敵我的心態,自己永遠是對的,對方、給我麻麻煩的,就是敵人,用任何手段對付都可以。我再次呼籲,保安局和警方要正視這種非常危險的文化的存在和擴散,我真的非常恐怕會成為一個令社會更不穩定的毒瘤。

我不否認有亦示威者用過度的暴力,我本人亦不認同這種衝擊行為,但即使是這樣,就可以對他們用暴力嗎?就可以向在離場中的人士發洩一下嗎?就可以對來幫手搵人的大學教授都照打照拉,這樣可以容忍嗎?罪犯都不可以這樣對付啦!這種行為,就算是反佔領行動的人士都不應接受,我亦認識有不少反對或對佔領行動的有保留的朋友,都是這樣的想法。

主席,警方的這種心態,和局長你、警務署長、政府以至建制派,事實上是在漠視公義,撕裂社群,為的是什麼?是政治的好處,這樣對解決衝突,解決佔領問題,解決政治問題,有用嗎?

有建制派議員甚至說,你們說有人打你,咪投訴囉。咁我們立法會議員就基於自己政治立場,視而不見?最重要的是,我們在立法會的責任是監察政府,監察行使公權力的官員、政府部門,包括警察,明顯的是,警察手上的公權力、擁有的武力裝備等,與市民是不對稱的,我們作為人民在議員的代表,當然應該首先保護普通市民的權利,監察任何的濫權,當然如果有對警方失實的指控我們亦不能接受,但係電視上面看得清清楚楚的就不要賴是人家剪接過的,總之我們就是要公平面對和處理在政策上,監察政府和執法部門出現任何濫權的情況,帶來公平、平衡的局面。

相信和希望警察可以繼續或者可以重新申張正義的人,以為擁護他們心目中的所謂法治,就盲目撐警,就可以令到社會穩定,其實,我希望提醒他們,事實是不會的,只會令社會更加不公義,更加撕裂。

美國第34任總統艾森豪講過,"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace." 雖然武力可以在緊急情況下提供保護,但只有公義、公平、體諒和合作可以最終把人,帶往永恆的和平。

局長,你有無這樣的量度,還是都像那些自己控制唔到自己的警員一樣,不敢面對自己的不足之處,死撐自己絕對是正義的化身,這樣是對的嗎?

「不要以惡報惡...若是能行,總要盡力與眾人和睦...因為你這樣行就是把炭火堆在他的頭上。你不可為惡所勝,反要以善勝惡。」羅馬書第十二章。

亂局不是政府一邊呼籲撤離,一邊用棒打用催淚水驅散示威者就能夠解決的,因為政府本身才是亂局的開端,警察只是磨心。所以政府不要再縱容警察違規,利用警察打壓市民,這樣拖下去,保得一日不能保得永遠,只會激發更大的矛盾。

我謹此陳辭,多謝主席。

-->