PASSTIMES Issue 11 by Hong Kong Public Affairs and Social Service Society University of Warwick

A WARWICK HONG KONG PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY PUBLICATION

PASSTIMES ISSUE #11 2020 - 2021

駱駝

THE OFFICIAL DEATH OF HONG KONG’S 從文藝復興走 RULE OF LAW 到文化傳承

“Look up, the light of hope - Michael Shum WHKPASS Photography Competition - PASSTIMES Selection

LANTAU - TOMORROW VISION

WORTH IT! HONG KONG EDITION

同途殊歸香港的「新三民主義」大學生訪談

PASSTIMES

EDITOR’S NOTE

In one year, Hong Kong has undergone unimaginable change. While last year’s magazine spoke of crossroads, it is now apt to say our city, and the world, have taken an unknown path. Hegel speaks of history as an intelligible and directional process, which moves towards human freedom. Yet, our current era of lockdowns and censorship, recessions and electoral reforms seems to suggest otherwise. This begs the question: how do we confront the unknown (and absurd)? It is a complicated experience to watch our home change 9000 kilometers away. As the emotions of anxiety and helplessness, or perhaps guilt and anger arise, we are pushed to answer certain questions: fight or flight? For many overseas Hong Kong students, the search for clues recolour everyday life; from restlessly observing Hong Kong’s affairs, to questioning: can I leave behind home? It is these contemplations that reveal our beliefs and values. Hence, the task of this magazine is to document. Whether that is as political commentary, a tribute to HK culture, or descriptions of our landscapes, these pieces all comprise of our memories, thoughts and imagination of Hong Kong. By looking at the past, perhaps we can understand our next steps for a brighter future. That said, this magazine would not have come to life without our writers. My deepest thanks goes to our team for their dedication and efforts. To our readers, I hope these articles resonate with you, and/or inspire new reflections. Publications Director Tina Lee

WHKPASS 2020-2021 COMMITTEE

CONTENTS 03

駱駝

從文藝復興走到文化傳承

“Over My Dead Body!” The Official Death of Hong Kong’s Separation of Powers

On the pre-existence of separation of powers and the

true meaning of its demise

同途殊歸

香港的「新三民主義」：大學生訪談

Lantau - Tomorrow Vision

Examining the effacacy of Hong Kong’s land policy

From Bruce Lee to Guy Fawkes

Symbolism in Hong Kong’s Protests

One Country, Two Systems

Does it make sense in a theoretical world devoid of

reality, or is the concept essentially a contradiction?

WHKPASS Highlights - Emily Lau

Highlights from our speaker’s event on The Democratic

Future of Hong Kong

Modern China – The Only Module Left?

An introduction to Hong Kong’s journey from liberal

studies to moral and national education

President - Ivan Chow

Vice President - Mervin Chow

國安法雛型—《刑事罪行條例》

Administration Director - Adrian Yan

Finance Director - John Lau Events Director - Constance Ngai Marketing Director - Katie Ho Publications Director - Tina Lee Talks Director - Stephen Lam Volunteering Director - Chi Hang Chan Media Director - Jonathan Wong

回顧殖民惡法如何為國安法鋪路

《齊上齊落》

「旁聽師」對手足的不離不棄之情

Worth It! Hong Kong Edition

Exploring the city’s best eats and sightseeing locations

WHKPASS Photography Competition Winners

*Note: Non-referenced images were found on Unsplash, which does not require attribution

PASSTIMES

駱駝

Photo: “Exit” by Eric Lee

從文藝復興走到文化傳承

緣起八、九十年代高速發展的香港在國際享負盛名，人們迫不及待地標籤香港為「東方之珠」、「美食天堂」及「購物天堂」，當然香港人亦以此為傲，衷心地喜愛自己的文化。然而二十年一晃而過，香港早已悄悄的變了樣。在全球化的影響下，中西文化融合不再是香港絕對的優勢，而本地文化則早已被歐美及日韓流與商業化沖刷乾淨，翻不起半點浪花。是的，也有人將其稱為「文化沙漠化」。然而，就像每一趟跨越沙漠的旅程般，飢渴的旅人終會遇到綠洲。自2012年「反國教」到 2014年「雨傘革命」、及至2019 年「反送中」運動，越來越多香港年輕人開始留意政治，甚至在政治取態上經歷巨大的轉變及明確化，亦即所謂政治覺醒。隨著公民抗命概念的萌芽、民主派的崛起及不同黨派的衍生，本土意識不但逐漸在香港政壇佔有一席之地，更成為了新一代香港年輕人身分認同的基石，令本土文化在香港文化圈中紮根、發芽，奠定其在香港人生活中不可或缺的地位。

Photo: “Nostalgia” by Arwen Chiang 音樂要數香港文娛活動最豐盛的時期，便不得不提起後九十年代至零零年代初。那時候羅文還在歌頌獅子山精神；許冠傑許冠文仍在為制水寫歌；Beyond依舊在追逐自由。他們譜出的旋律環繞香港人的生活、問題及價值觀，以歌聲記載每一個香港人奮鬥的歷史，更成為很多人的精神寄託。及後，K-pop和J-pop等音樂類型逐漸傳入，並因為揉合多類型唱跳的風格而流行；反觀香港雖有四大天王、陳奕迅及容祖兒等佼佼者，但無奈音樂題材開始只著重戀愛，走向單一化。

大量年輕人轉投海外音樂市場，甚至評論香港樂壇「已死」。巧合地，重新流行的本土文化為樂壇注入了一股活水。小眾的本土樂團如「新青年理髮廳」及「My Little Airport」，甚至以二次創作聞名的「高登音樂台」等相繼興起，從一眾傳統歌手中脫穎而出。他們擅長以香港為背景，用輕鬆的樂曲及口語化的廣東話為基調，描寫香港年輕人在體制下對生活的疑問、掙扎與無奈，甚至諷刺時弊。這令很多香港年輕人從中尋獲共鳴與慰藉，開始重新正視、推廣甚至以不同形式加入香港樂壇，並掀起了一

PASSTIMES

股支持本土廣東話歌的熱潮。

語言還記得2017年初，內地劇《致我們單純的小美好》紅遍香港大街小巷，街上看見穿著校服的學生都操著一口流利的普通話，互相喊著「小哥哥」、「小姊姊」，到後期教育局提倡取消文憑試中文卷三及卷四 (廣東話聆聽及綜合能力評估及廣東話說話評估) 。那是香港人第一次意識到原來內地文化已經慢慢滲透了我們的生活；無論是娛樂還是教育，廣東話似乎已經被慢慢取替。本土意識的萌芽令不少香港人明白廣東話對守護本土文化的重要性，並以不同方式開始了廣東話的保育工作。知名香港插畫家阿塗曾經繪製一張在網絡上廣為傳閱、包含八十三個歇後語的漫畫，希望以漫畫形式介紹香港地道用語；同時擁有 Instagram與YouTube帳戶的 KOL (Key Opinion Leader) @ explore_hongkong，亦以廣東話、美食教學及文化體驗作為主題，通過勾起本地及外地「追蹤及訂閱者」對廣東話的興趣，讓他們遙距體驗甚並從而了解香港文化。他們皆以文化輸出的形式，通過不同媒介，以有趣的方式重新推廣粵語，讓語言不再受使用人數及地域所限，走進大眾的視野。

其延續及活化。

承傳沙漠裡大部分的綠洲都會在那驚鴻一瞥後化為幻象，旅人只可以搖頭嘆息並繼續前行。但慶幸香港還不是沙漠，或許只要努力努力，說不定綠洲就可以發展成草原、森林，為每一代香港人提供養份，甚至足夠與紮根更久、更有代表性的雨林相提並論。每一個劃時代創舉的背後總有一個英雄人物，就如開拓絲綢之路的張騫，又如下西洋的鄭和，他們的努力使古代中國文化得到世界前所未有的關注。有人說，人離鄉賤，而離鄉的人都像無根的浮萍，沒有寄託，只能隨著水的波動決定前行的方向。然而，既然無根，那麼就應到處都能紮根、分株；一分為二，二分為四。我們不一定需要像個英雄，獨自背負民族的使命、華麗地展示充滿衝擊力的成果；我們可以一起走、慢慢地走，或許一開始成效並不明顯，但終有一天，我們會帶著香港走到很遠很遠的地方。所以 —— 前行吧。

文創在這個生活節奏急速且國 “ 我們不一定需要際化的都市中，藝術家一直都只能在狹窄的縫隙中掙扎求存。受像個英雄，獨自背負到歐美及日韓文化影響，比起「老套」及不切合香港國際形象的民族的使命、華麗地傳統工藝，香港年輕人更喜歡新潮的事物，例如推崇極簡主義的展示充滿衝擊力的無印良品及以隨性學生風作賣點的 Jack Wills 等。成果；我們可以一起在本土意識崛起後，近年無數本土設計者將傳統文化改良，走、慢慢地走，或許把它們重新融入到潮流當中，令它們以大熱的姿態再次流行。這一開始成效並不明種特別的文藝復興從中學生背包上掛著以紅漆塗寫的仿小巴顯，但終有一天，我牌「潮語」鑰匙圈及霓虹燈展區中得以體現。在政府的推動下，們會帶著香港走到創作者終於在PMQ文創坊和D2 PLACE市集等地得到分享作品很遠很遠的地方” 的平台，並以嶄新的構思化解了香港年輕人對懷舊的牴觸，利用年輕人自身為老香港文化這個「品牌」作宣傳及推廣，成功將

圖：新青年理髮廳《這個家》MV

圖：Explore_HongKong Facebook

圖：北角油街實現霓虹燈展覽｜新假期

傳送門：

圖：My Little Airport Facebook

圖：熱血時報

圖：小巴牌工藝｜ Ulifestyle

樂隊新青年理髮廳 Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/newyouthbarbershop

樂隊My Little Airport Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi-Lb1gFer4U7tkqFA1adiQ 香港漫畫家阿塗 Instagram Page https://www.instagram.com/ah_to_hk/

香港KOL @explore_hongkong Instagram Page https://www.instagram.com/explore_hongkong/ 北角遊街實現霓虹燈展覽設計者 @streetsignshk Instagram Page https://www.instagram.com/streetsignhk/

小巴牌師傅麥錦生專訪｜端傳媒 https://theinitium.com/article/20160811-hongkong-hkoldfonts/

PASSTIMES

“OVER MY DEAD BODY!” THE OFFICIAL DEATH OF HONG KONG’S SEPARATION OF POWERS

On the pre-existence of separation of powers and the true meaning of its demise Photo: Concrete by Keith Leung

PASSTIMES

Just two months ago, the government ‘clarified’ that the concept of ‘separation of powers’ was a mere illusion, and that in fact, according to the Basic Law, “separation of powers has no place in Hong Kong’s political structure all along”, as claimed by Teresa Cheng¹, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice. Separation of powers was widely known as a core value of Hong Kong’s legal system, and as expected, such a statement stirred up overwhelming controversy both within and outside Hong Kong, with some even claiming this as democracy’s demise in the city. So, did such a principle actually exist in Hong Kong? What does it mean for the powers to not be separated? What are the potential consequences of the separation’s ‘official death’? The Basic Law Before discussing further, we must first dive into the boring and lengthy Basic Law, Hong Kong’s ‘mini-constitution’, which enshrines the most important “one country, two systems” principle. The full detail and

history of the Basic Law is way beyond the scope of our discussion (and the knowledge of a mathphys student), we are here only for what is concealed within: the underlying foundations of Hong Kong’s separation of powers. To begin with, yes, the exact words, “separation of powers”, have never appeared in the Basic Law. In fact, there is not a single phrase in the booklet which states that the well-familiar executive, legislative and judiciary powers are separated, or divided, or dissected, or segregated…… whatever synonym you can think of, it cannot be found. End of discussion, did I hear you say? Well, not quite the case. In Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the roles of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary are allocated clearly and explicitly under articles 16 and 59, articles 17 and 66, and articles 19 and 80 respectively; and as you might have anticipated, the three powers have completely different roles and responsibilities. In particular, under Section 3, Annex 1, the Sino-British Joint

Declaration provides that “the courts shall exercise judicial power independently and free from any interference”.This, ladies and gentlemen, is what gave Hong Kong its judicial independence, and further recognized as one of the key lines supporting the existence of Hong Kong’s separation of powers. The (oversimplified) constitution, statutory law, and common law “At least they should’ve mentioned the words ‘separation of powers’ explicitly in the Basic Law! Why the ambiguity?” I heard you shouting. A really good question, I must say. Yet, the truth is, laws and constitutions, or constitutional systems in general, are extraordinarily complicated; countless researchers and politicians spend their entire lives just trying to figure out how it all operates and ways to improve it. As a handwavy explanation, the Basic Law, like most other (rigid) constitutions, is deliberately made ambiguous to allow flexibility. Constitutions are the cornerstone of a society’s

“the courts shall exercise judicial power independently and free from any interference” Section 3, Annex 1 Sino-British joint Declaration

PASSTIMES

concerned society must abide to at all times; and just like the core structure of a skyscraper, it is there to remain unchanged and undisturbed², supporting the building for the rest of eternity (quite romantic, don’t you think?). Of course, such flexibility allows holes and gaps in the system, hence, to complement the constitution, we need the law. The most ‘commonly’ known law (pun intended) is what’s called the statutory law: grab some paper, write down a few rules, and voilà, you have yourself a statutory law! (Yes, a formal establishment of a statutory law requires it to be drafted and discussed and passed by the legislative council and signed by the Chief Executive and…… let’s just skip the details here and infuriate the law students for simplicity’s sake) However, Hong Kong’s legal system operates quite differently. For historical reasons, Hong Kong practices the common law system (with supplementing statutes). Again, being as handwavy as possible, the system basically means that Hong Kong builds its laws by stacking up verdicts; each and every single legal case contributes to the law. Our practice of the common law is precisely why in nearly all trials, related verdicts published years ago are still mentioned, referenced, and taken into consideration. As the Basic Law is the core structure of our skyscraper, the common law builds brick by brick onto the framework to complete our skyscraper. So…… where be thy separation of powers? After such boring and rather dodgy introduction (by now you should be either

asleep or an enraged law student), we are finally well-equipped to answer the question: Did separation of powers actually exist in Hong Kong? The answer is: it’s complicated (God damn it, what a time-waster!). See, separation of powers is widely and internationally accepted as a crucial principle for legal systems under the common law structure. In fact, it is so widely recognized that constitutions around the world usually only state the functions of the respective powers, without explicitly stating that the powers are “separated” , just like what we have in our Basic Law. Countries in which separation of powers is recognized but not explicitly stated in their constitution include USA, Spain, Germany, Italy, South Africa……³ and the list goes on and on. Adding to that, even the United Kingdom, that place where people care more about football than Brexit, that literal monarchy with a queen who truly lives on forever, that country that does not even have a constitution, recognizes itself with clear separation of powers! “Hong Kong is Hong Kong! Not USA, not Spain, not Italy, not Chi- Chile, but Hong Kong!” Yes, I see you there frantically gesticulating. As much as I would like to say the same, Hong Kong proclaims itself as ‘Asia’s World City’, it will be a face-slapping insult to the government for saying it is isolated from foreign laws and legal systems. Furthermore, as a legal system relying mainly on our common law, previous cases and verdicts are especially important in determining what is in, or not in the law. With that in mind, a simple search in Hong Kong’s database of previous court verdicts yields a stunning 145 appearances of the three exact words “separation of powers”⁴, not even counting synonyms, misspells and chinese phrases with similar meanings. The devil is in the detail “So, shouldn’t it be an easy ‘yes’? Don’t waste my time already!” Well, you see, there is a catch. Under the articles in Chapter VIII of the Basic Law, there are two especially important sentences: Article 158: The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Article 159: The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People’s Congress. Or in our not-those-boring-law-students language, it simply means the Chinese government has the final say; not only on amendments of the Basic Law, but also on how each and every word in the Law should be interpreted: a “no” from the CCP is a

proper and unchallengeable “no”. Also, after all, our government did declare earlier that separation of powers has never existed in Hong Kong, and…… our government never lies, right? (All hail!) Immediate consequences of separation of powers’ official death Regardless of your opinion on the preexistence of separation of powers in Hong Kong, it is now undoubtedly and officially dead. Over the years, Hong Kong citizens dreaming of resurrecting the separation from its grave surely had their hope withered away by now. What lies ahead of us is still a giant mystery, but after the past few weeks, the immediate consequences are obvious. Remember freedom of press? Not long ago, we had an RTHK journalist, Ms. Choy Yuk-ling, arrested for digging into the 721 incident5. Amidst the resulting public uproar, investigating police brutality has seemingly become the forbidden fruit for journalists in Hong Kong. Remember freedom of assembly? We have 24 democracy activists arrested for taking part in the annual Candlelight Vigil for June 4 Massacre6, alongside over 10 thousand others detained, tortured, and even reportedly murdered for joining prodemocracy marches and clashes against the police. Remember freedom of speech? We have student leaders such as Tony Chung, a co-founder of Studentlocalism, arrested for voicing their opinions against the government. At the very moment he was taken in, Chung was right outside the US consulate. Oh, national security, oh how safe

Image: Hong Kong Free Press

PASSTIMES

The true meaning of the death certificate What does the official death of Hong Kong’s separation of powers really mean? That driver steered his taxi into a crowd of pro-democracy protesters? Wait, he even fractured a woman’s limbs? Reward the driver with a $200k ‘donation’ and sue the lady for illegal assembly! That pro-establishment legislator physically dragged and attacked a legislator from the opposite camp? He even did that in front of countless cameras serving as potential court evidence? Ban the private prosecution and sue the victim! Didn’t feel like winning them votes? Blame COVID and postpone the election! Not fancying that legislator? DISQUALIFIED! Alvin Yeung? Dead body? What’s the difference already? An utter deterioration from rule of law to rule by law? Indeed! But who cares? Following the CCP’s unilateral establishment of the National Security Law, the death of Hong Kong’s separation of powers symbolizes the final stretch towards Beijing’s audacious and complete takeover of the city. In the name of “cooperation of powers”, the CCP, through Carrie Lam and her government, can now override the law structure we introduced earlier. Under separation of powers, the legislative was separated from the executive. This structure guaranteed a basis for monitoring the implementation of laws, with all bills proposed to and passed by the Legislative Council before coming into effect. Whereas under the current ‘cooperation of powers’, without our legislators’ supervision, we’ve witnessed the government exploiting COVID for her political benefit: arresting peaceful protestors using the restriction order, postponing the legislative election when there had been near-zero new cases for consecutive weeks…… How about the initially separated judiciary and executive? Again, cooperation! The incidents mentioned above, alongside countless others, are concrete examples of the government’s intervention in the city’s daily judicial operation. Beijing wants to use the law to honour those who support, and punish those who don’t; and evidently, it’s a remarkable success when our Secretary for Justice demands prosecution against government supporters withdrawn, and gifting arrested protestors prolonged imprisonment, even in cases where evidence may not be sufficient to back such judgements7. What does the official death of Hong Kong’s separation of powers really mean?

It means that the executive can intervene with the legislative, the legislative can manipulate the judiciary, and sitting on top of the executive, our great and honorable CCP, has now, once and for all, the final say; they have the ultimate control over our home, both the present and its future. The potential consequences – A farewell to Hong Kong’s separation of powers “You need not destroy its buildings, you need not murder its people; heck, you might as well leave it looking just the same as it has always been on the outside! But once its original values and principles are made to vanish, the city is killed and forever dead.” It was nice having you, our dear separation of powers; as once a core value of Hong Kong, your disappearance has paved the passageway to our city’s deathbed. Some

claimed that your departure signifies democracy’s demise, but is it really? The further decay of Hong Kong’s freedom? The final crunch of our democracy? What are the potential consequences of your death? Being the pessimistic one I am, to me, the funeral bells have rung long before your retirement; from the 2019 extradition bill to the 2020 National Security Law, what’s left was merely the husk of Hong Kong’s prosperous past. There is no further decay when freedom is nonexistent, there is no final crunch when democracy is fictitious, and there are no potential consequences when a city is long killed and forever dead. Yet, remember, remember, remember. For until our final breath, a horse is a horse, and never a deer.

REFERENCES & NOTES [1] Statement quoted from the following SCMP article, written by Teresa Cheng in early September: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3100695/why-separation-powers-has-no-place-hongkongs-political-structure [2] This does not apply to flexible/elastic constitutions, such as that of the United Kingdom, which can be amended without going through any sort of special legal procedures. [3] Oxford Constitutional Law (section D.15): https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeccol/ law-mpeccol-e466 [4] Numbers provided by Stand News in the following article (unfortunately only available in cantonese): https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%89%E6%AC%8A%E5%88%86%E7%AB%8B%E6%96%BC%E5%88%A4%E8%A9%9E%E7%AD%89%E5%87%BA%E7%8F%BE%E9%80%BE%E7%99% BE%E6%AC%A1-%E5%BC%B5%E8%88%89%E8%83%BD-2008-%E5%B9%B4%E5%88%A4%E8%A9%9E%E6%8C%87%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E6%B3%95%E7%A2%BA%E7%AB%8B%E4%B8%89%E6%AC%8A% E5%88%86%E7%AB%8B%E5%8E%9F%E5%89%87/ [5] The 721 incident, also known as the 2019 Yuen Long attack, was a saddening event in which an armed mob of alleged triad members and the Hong Kong Police Force reportedly cooperated against pro-democracy protestors, with the police allowing civilians to be attacked and beaten up with steel rods and rattan canes indiscriminately. More details can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Yuen_Long_ attack [6] This is due to a ban on the June 4th vigil citing Coronavirus concerns. This is because the Hong Kong police had banned the Tiananmen vigil citing coronavirus safety concerns. However, critics argue that the government had used the coronavirus as pretext to suppress dissent. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ world-asia-china-52877411 [7] Woman faces 6-month imprisonment for “possessing a laser pointer”, with her black t-shirt as the only evidence of her participation in a related violent protest (Stand News): https://www.thestandnews. com/court/%E5%A5%B3%E7%97%85%E6%88%BF%E5%8A%A9%E7%90%86%E8%97%8F%E9%9B%B7%E 5%B0%84%E7%AD%86%E8%A2%AB%E5%88%A4%E5%9B%9A-6-%E5%80%8B%E6%9C%88-%E5%AE%98%E6%8C%87%E7%A9%BF%E9%BB%91%E8%A1%A3%E5%88%B0%E6%97%BA%E8%A7%92%E5%90%83%E 7%B3%96%E6%B0%B4-%E7%93%9C%E7%94%B0%E6%9D%8E%E4%B8%8B/

《同途殊歸？》

PASSTIMES

香港的「新三民主義」：大學生訪談

Photo: “The High Density City” by Marco Chan 二零一九年，五年低潮赫然一躍而起；身邊驀地不再政治冷感，此城亦忽驚醒，原來我們擁抱的不（只）是中環價值。我們發現，自由的空氣，竟可如此催淚；這個富裕的城市裏，奢侈品卻多的是。以為此城只懂紙醉金迷，原來從來都是如此窮困卑微；想重新架勢作主，才發現自己掌內的籌旗竟然少得可憐。的確，世上有很多事物都是看到空席才醒覺其存在、要失去才懂珍惜；緊抓着它僅餘的尾巴、看着自己在半空晃蕩的雙腿、感受着早已透支麻掉的手臂，我們任由分歧蹂躪着思緒：該放手嗎？性急的政權欲以石頭撫平湖上漣漪，結果濺起了大水。《國安法》激起的湧浪，就是隨著民意海嘯重捲而來的「新三民主義」。「新三民主義」，意指「順民」、「暴民」、「移民」，最早出現於2017年後雨傘時代和特首選舉醞釀期，嘲諷香港人狹窄、好不欷歔的出路。三種主義，或若懸殊，但撇開殘影餘像，定睛一看，其實都是同一種切膚之痛。同一陣線，三個大學生，三個故事，三種主義；抗爭中殊途同歸的香港人，如今難道真的要同途殊歸？

【按：受訪者意見並不代表筆者立場】

順民？「順民」大概是「無奈」的代名詞。在「前路」這條數學選擇題，即使經過屢次精密計算，每個香港人最後似乎也只能用上排除法去作答。儘管有機會被人標籤為「軟弱」、「退縮」，但它確是眾多香港人的答案：題目上三個答案，沒有一個跟自己計算機上的數字吻合，唯有選一個與其最接近、風險最低的選項。「可能睇住呢本書會講得好啲。」訪談還未正式開始，James（化名）就搬出《蘋果日報》出版的《榮光歲月》，在鏡頭前把沈甸甸的特刊打開。翻著一頁又一頁，像是回味似的，他細數自己的光譜變化。二零一九年六月前還是政治冷感的他，在兩個月內搖身一變成為他口中「唔識驚嘅和理非」。不敢冒險當勇武派的他只會去遊行，但偶爾仍會「唔知死」地近距離出言挑釁警察。他是九龍塘橋上的第一張便利貼，其後更組織了一班搞手，著手把九龍塘橋發展成大規模的連儂牆。喚醒他的，是警方不理性的執法，尤其是 811尖沙咀爆眼事件；為了打壓異己，政權竟然可以無所不用其極。然而誰也沒料過，在不到一年後的時間，這種荒唐，竟有「攞正牌」的一天。 2020年6月30日起，《國安法》正式實施。是次人大決定，一般人束手無策，James說那是供獨裁政府任意挪用的必要武器。說到這裡，他再次拿起手中厚厚的特刊，伸手指著封面，說：「連書上印有『光時』都會俾人告喎！」他形容《國安法》與《國歌法》大同小異，都是中共現真身，最終目的是要收威嚇之效。不得不承認，《國安法》成功抑制抗爭行動；含糊的條文廢除了本地抗爭的武功，現在僅餘國際線一扇窗。「所以，喺國安法下，你覺得你係⋯⋯？」幾分鐘前在自豪地憶述他如何成為九龍塘橋連儂牆第一人的James，此刻遲疑了一番。然後，他不徐不疾地說，《國安法》下的他，應該是個順民。政治最可怕的，是它的無聲無息。立法後，生活如常，馬照跑、舞照跳；但雖然過著十年如一的日常，你深知這城的法治老早不復再。他們成功了，這裏如今實實在在是中國香港、是中國的一座城市，不是香港特別行政區。在這個被強拆屋簷的居所裏，毫無保障，人人自危，要生存就要拋棄情感，做一個只顧物質生活的機械人。城裏可留戀的核心價值已經守無可守；事實擺在眼前，憤怒也只是徒然，倒不如專注生活。

James說，這不是要屈服，而是要等待下一次抗爭；現實歸現實，他深知金錢和資源是有力抗爭的本錢。因此，從長計議，他覺得當下能夠做的，就是自我增值，專心讀書工作，為未來抗爭作好準備。他期盼捲土重來、再次逆權的一天，就像「雨傘」後再有「反送中」一般。面對本土抗爭前路被封殺，作為和理非的James不希望任何人去「送頭」：「〔例如〕因為嗌口號而坐五年⋯⋯ 代價太重喇。」雖然老套，但休息也許真的是為了走更長的路。「有句嘢叫做『最壞的時代，〔我們要做〕最好的人』；我覺得呢句係對香港宜家嘅情況最啱嘅描述。」James口中「最好的人」，大概就是毋忘初衷的人。酷吏嚴刑峻法下，或許大家別無他法，即使只是作狀，也要暫時頓首。然而低着頭，我們仍能護着心中火苗，待時代送我們下一支火柴，讓我們把它劃然亮起，繼而燎原。

酷吏嚴刑峻法下，或許大家別無他法，即使只是作狀，也要暫時頓首。然而低着頭，我們仍能護着心中火苗，待時

代送我們下一支火柴，讓我們把它劃

然亮起，繼而燎原。

PASSTIMES

暴民？這個絕不討好的名詞，背負著嚴重的指責；如此沈重的指控，定義卻似乎日趨兒戲。由612的「暴動五人幫」，到《國安法》下的暴動嫌疑，字典從不在民手。在後國安法時代，這詞的例句有增無減，涵義亦像鎖不實的圓規般，越畫越寬。廣義上，難道反抗的都是暴民？那一刻前，他還是個平常的和理非。大三罷那天，前往地鐵站的路上。一向只去遊行的David（化名），不忍眼前有示威者被防暴警察追趕，走了上前。一擋、一拉，換來的是刑事檢控。襲警。被捕一刻，仍然歷歷在目。他當時被捕後立即提堂；雖然獲得保釋，但在被拘留的三十多分鐘內，已被驚恐和擔心充斥，初嘗法律程序帶來的負面情緒。壓力如山，他期望速戰速決；無奈事與願違，案件被押後。其後，二三月的疫情使聆訊日程陷入膠著狀態，對如坐針氈的David 來說更是雪上加霜。不斷的拖延，無盡的等待，David也只能不斷擔心結果，有如等候發落。「係一種折磨嚟⋯⋯」原本已經吞吞吐吐的他，此刻再停頓了一下，小心地續道：「⋯⋯嗰陣我有考慮過睇心理醫生。」他說，若果當時已經有《國安法》，他或只會繼續路過。然而後國安法的「路過」，不止於街道上，更是在生活中以各種的形式出現。David坦言，《國安法》實施後，他會開始在社交媒體小心用字，跟朋友通訊時亦會刻意避免口號。在本地大學修讀中文系的他有寫小說的習慣，但近來他已不敢再撰寫會涉及到政治的題材和內容。原因並不是因為擔心當下如何觸犯國安刑法，而是因為「唔知之後條紅線會移到去邊度」。自從被捕，David遂已漸少參與抗爭活動；更何況在限聚令下，示威活動早已變得沉寂。故此，《國安法》立法對抗爭活動的即時效果誠不明顯。對於《國安法》，他反應平淡，對他而言，只不過是「想離開香港」和「更想離開香港」的分別。《國安法》下的「暴民」，比「政治」二字還要難定義。法律好像變成一張白畫紙，任由政權隨心塗鴉，而紅線就好比潮漲潮退，朝令夕改也不是奇怪事。隨著《國安法》實施，「暴民」絕對是新三民主義中式微得最快，卻也是擴張得最快的一項。式微，因為法律終是法律，昔日再硬朗的抗爭者，也不得不聽命；擴張，因為在隨心所欲的準則下，昨天的絕對和理非，也可以被劃為今天的暴徒。「〔對我來講，〕其實有冇《國安法》都差唔多。」十一個字，沒有任何感嘆詞，卻淡淡道出極盡悲觀，消極得教人可憐。若再三斟酌，其實新三民主義很有香港特色，背後訴說著一種香港獨有的悲哀，在《國安法》下更甚明晰。 David直言看淡香港未來，並歸咎於尸位素餐的權貴：是因為社會上流沒有盡責守護制度，今天平民才要出來垂死掙扎。此主

義大概是掙扎的化身；倘若有選擇的餘地、有呼吸的空隙，誰又會想冒著如此大的風險去擔當「暴民」，背上動亂之名？然而現在無人可置身事外、無人能獨善其身；後國安法時代，「暴民」代表反抗意識，反抗的就是暴民。若稱「眾皆暴民」，也不足為奇。移民？也許這是新三民主義之中最現實的一項；現實得教人卻步、現實地教人卻步。現實，因為改善生活環境是人的本能；現實，因為它附帶的經濟和人際條件實在太沈重。然則對於「移民」一事，比起成功展翅的人，欲去而不遂的更大有人在。去與留，有時並不是什麼理所當然的選擇，甚至不是一個選擇。因為世上最自私的東西就是東風：萬事皆備，只欠東風；但東風不願來，就不會來。

“三種主義都是香港人在大水中翻騰求生的方法；始終，浮浮沈沈，倒頭來大家都屬於同一海域。” 這是平常的金鐘，這不是平常的金鐘。立法會大樓附近的灰色石屎路，白煙四冒；身上毫無裝備的她管不了那麼多，直接跨過腳下仍在冒煙的催淚彈。這時，穹蒼忍不住流淚，她連忙跑到橋上避雨。只見大雨越下越厲，把黃昏天空都哭成一片湖水藍。從橋上俯瞰，大路佈滿示威者和警察，這裏火、那裏煙；街燈的白茫強調了天色的昏暗，毫無保留地渲染了家破人亡之感。眼前之景，好像只有「沙場」二字才能貼切概括。這是Scarless（化名）抗爭中印象最深刻的一幕。鏡頭前笑著說自己的性格比較像「暴民」的她，即使沒有被捕、沒有法律負擔，仍渴望離開這個使她百感交集的地方。「點解？」「因為政治不穩定咯。譬如〔在大學〕讀緊LS education嗰啲〔人〕，但係你睇下宜家LS都搞成咁（指通識科改革或取消爭議）⋯⋯」若社會是一幅牆，「今天不知明日事」的日常就是政治動盪明目張膽地在牆上肆意大噴的紅字塗鴉。她稱在香港，一生只會被政治問題纏繞，永世不能化解此煩惱。「我唔會得到快樂，因為我care邊個管治我。」政治是慫恿Scarless離開的原因，經濟是緊抓她的腳裸不放的黑影。「我留喺度因為我走唔到。」說畢，她笑了笑。她又說，身邊有人有意舉家移民，但因為家庭和經

濟等因素而事與願違，而她自己也不例外。Scarless父親是個比較安於現況，不喜歡「搞咁多嘢」的人，即使目的是為了下一代，也不太願意；母親雖然擔心兼職區議員助理的女兒日後會否被捕，偶爾會問她去留美澳等地方的意向，但始終對於小康家庭而言，舉家移民實在不是說走就走的一回事。《國安法》最大的問題和影響，其實早已不在於立法或其程序的爭議，而是在於每個政府部門都會仔細執行法律。議員助理的工作往往最能感受到《國安法》對言論自由的打壓：不單是在遊行中不能喊口號，每逢製作文宣、替區議員在社交媒體發帖時也要間接表達敏感信息，以避免日後的政治清算。對辦事影響更大的，是宣傳橫額的審查。例如關於六四事件的海報，房屋署以前會正常地批出張貼許可，不會過問；然而，現今若用字稍有不慎，整批海報就會被房屋署扣納。為了通過審核，Scarless不得不修飾字眼，換上中性或虛無的字句，再在海報上加一句「不代表區議會立場」。賠上了自由，代價是模稜兩可的政治表達。她渴望移民，不只是因為《國安法》，而是因為不想政治煩擾成為生活常態。試想，如果不是殺出疫情這個程咬金，今天的香港街頭，很有機會仍然是她印象最深刻的模樣。看一下《施政報告》，全是惠及內地的政策，「淨係睇啲政策都已經覺得咁煩」，就明瞭這個地方不宜久留。但是她說，直至有條件移民之前，自己在這裏留多久也不會介意。留下，是一份義氣、是一個情意結：生於斯長於斯，眼見這城被人破壞，沒人守護，自然會不捨，希望出一分力。有時移民就像買鞋：在櫥窗前盯望躊躇已久，終於決意購買一刻，卻發現沒有合自己的尺碼。失望地看着櫥窗內的陳列品，你會埋怨，究竟是自己的腳太小，還是運氣不好斷碼？有人說，移民是逃避、是不負責任，但這樣看來，得已遠走他方的，其實也只不過是找到一雙適合自己的新鞋；自己的錢怎麼花，不用、亦不應看人眼色。不幸購買未遂的人，像Scarless一樣，只要努力穿好足下那雙，就算目光仍朝向櫥窗，也不為所失。 *** 在整理訪問筆記和寫作的過程中，不難在一個主人公身上看出多於一種主義。其實也許本文章由第一顆鈕扣已扣錯：強行在相輔相成的主義之間插下隔板，打從起初已是不可能的事。三種主義，實質密不可分。被氣急敗壞的政權拖進無底漩渦，三種主義都是香港人在大水中翻騰求生的方法；始終，浮浮沈沈，倒頭來大家都屬於同一海域。《國安法》立法鐘聲響起，自由從此成為香港的奢侈，香港人被喻為世界上最富裕的難民。在絕對的紙醉金迷，有著絕對的奢侈；但當最基本的也淪為奢侈時，就是紙醉金迷的沒落。也許這城的輝煌只是泡沫：一盆無情冷水頭上傾來，一切頓時爆破，揉清雙眼，只見一灘髒水靜止在地。新三民主義，奏出香港的哀歌——此城的命運交響曲。

PASSTIMES

在絕對的紙醉金迷，有著絕對的奢侈；但當最基本的也淪為奢侈時，就是紙醉金迷的沒落。也許這城的輝煌只是泡沫：一盆無情冷水頭上傾來，一切頓時爆破，揉清雙眼，只見一灘髒水靜止在地。新三民主義，奏出香港的哀歌 —— 此城的命運交響曲 Photo by Jason Leung // WHKPASS Photography Competition Finalist

LANTAU - TOMORROW VISION For many in Hong Kong, home ownership is an impossible dream. Most people are frustrated about the city’s sky-high property price. Meanwhile, the restricted usage of land by the government, means that only 24 per cent of land has been developed, with a mere 7 per cent being used for housing.[1] Developers have set astronomical price for housings in order to gain profits from the hefty cost of buying the limitedly leased land from the government each year. In response to the most pressing issue of Hong Kong, the government has aimed to look for a new source of land supply by sea reclamation. The project is to build artificial islands with an area of almost one-third of Kowloon in the waters between Lantau and Hong Kong Island. Hong Kong is no stranger to sea reclamation, but is it really the best answer to the dire situation? The Lantau Tomorrow Vision has been criticised by the public for three main reasons: why not prioritise developing the brownfield sites and renewing old urban areas instead of sea reclamation, which causes fiscal burden and irreversible environmental damage? For the public, Lantau Tomorrow Vision sounds like an

idealised story embellished with fantastical notions of more living space and slogans like an “intelligent economic hub”.[2] The serious housing crisis needs to be addressed with urgency. However, the Lantau Tomorrow Vision is not as worthwhile and effective as developing the brownfield sites or renewing old urban areas. The latter is so far the most-supported land supply options amongst the citizens, in virtue of their potentiality to supply similar amounts of housing with a shorter time required. The preliminary estimate of 760 hectares[3] area of brownfield sites (the size of nearly 1200 soccer pitches) is the extensive areas of privately owned agricultural land in New territories. With declined agricultural activities, these easy-to-reach and relatively flat land are now flooded with open car parks, depots, vehicle maintenance yards and other storage purposes. These temporary usages are not only economically inefficient but also causes all kinds of environmental pollution. The emergence of such inconsistent land use is a result of the government’s negligent urban planning and inadequate regulation. Regardless of environmental concerns or land shortage, developing brownfield sites

could lay claim to being ineluctable. As long as the government is willing to forsake its passive attitude and decisively take action to work the development scheme out, 86,100 residential units can be provided, which is about 17.9% of the overall target supply of 480,000 units in the coming 10 years.[4] Regarding the Wang Chau housing controversy, the project requires up to 14 years to successfully provide 13,000 units. There are all sorts of challenges in developing brownfields, but finishing it is never unattainable to finish in a shorter time is achievable. This simply It has reflectsted that the government’s is inactivitye towardsin sorting out the problem, which it ought to put more effort and determination into.

PASSTIMES

in developing brownfields, but finishing it in a shorter time is achievable. This simply reflects the government’s inactivity towards sorting out the problem, which it ought to put more effort and determination into. Brownfield sites and the renewal of old towns are in every way a superior solutions to the city’s acute land shortage. More importantly, the government needs to be mindful that listening to mainstream opinion is pivotal to the role of a civil servant. Choosing the sea reclamation option is rather straightforward and convenient, as the environment has no voice to resist. What is more, the preliminary research funding of Lantau Tomorrow Vision has already been approved by the Finance Committee in absence of most of the pro-democracy legislators and irrationally ignoring opposing voices from environmental groups. Nonetheless, the Lantau Tomorrow vision cannot solely readily iron out the complications of the housing crisis. The key to keeping the city out from the abyss of land shortage in coming years is to step up efforts in developing brownfield sites. Although in the end, 400,000 residential units are claimed to be built after the first stage of sea reclamation, the government should not slack off from brownfields resumption, as there is a long way to go until the first residents to move in. Not to mention the past experience with often delayed largescale infrastructure works, brownfield sites development remains important within the blurred vision of urban policymaking. Indeed, not only does Lantau Tomorrow Vision raise concerns about time-efficiency, but its cost is also an administrative headache worrying the citizens. The project is being criticised for “pouring money into the sea”, which will run down the cumulative fiscal reserves of the city. In spite of the cumulative government budget surpluses of billions of dollars each year, the social upheaval that is happening and the global pandemic have plunged the city’s economy and depleted its fiscal reserves, putting it in a different fiscal situation than the previous well-to-do reserves. The prime cost of the whole project is estimated to be HK$624 billion (imagine a triple of Li Ka-Shing’s net worth), which is the most expensive infrastructure project in Hong Kong history. With this exorbitant amount of money, the government could build about 160 hospitals. [5] While Hong Kong citizens still haven’t recovered from the pain of budget overruns of the previous major infrastructure projects that happened after one another in recent years, for example, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-

Macao Bridge, West Kowloon Cultural District, International Three-Runway System and the High-Speed Rail, the vast expenditure of project has further undermined citizens’ trust in the government’s finance management. Estimating the precise cost a project is near-to-impossible, and overspending is an all-time scenario in major infrastructure projects. However, with the project’s extravagence from the outset, it risks draining city’s fiscal reservesduring the project period. Lastly, it is needless to say that Lantau Tomorrow Vision would greatly devastate the ecology and marine habitat of the chosen waters. The construction of artificial islands will certainly worsen the already wounded Lantau waters due to the running airport and harbour. Chinese White Dolphins living in these areas require more protection instead of another massive construction project taking place. The Lantau Tomorrow Vision was never a new idea of recent years, but an idea initially from the 1980s frozen in time.[6] The project is rehashed from the 1980s government that pays no heed to climate change nor the environmental devastation it would cause. However, the

situation has changed. The Chinese White dolphin and other marine lives have been facing assorted threats from various human activities ceaselessly, as well as the quality of the Lantau waters, anymore massive constructions will only shatter the entire ecological environment. In conclusion, the project is still at a research stage presently, and the government should not ride roughshod over all these concerns. As it is not yet too late to mend, the government can still repent, and the shore is at hand. What people actually hope for is spending the money in a rewarding way. The government should carefully assess the feasibility of the project, but not to force a do-more-harm-thangood project to escalate the existing public indignation in the city. As the incumbent chief executive still obstinately persists on her own way to advancethe unjustified policymaking under such turbulent social climate,it is hard for citizens not to relate her initiative to the further connection with the Greater Bay Area and the integration with China. No matter how many advantages the project can bring, once the public turns against it, the policy loses it legitimacy.

REFERENCES [1]https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hong+kong+7+percent+land+used+for+housing&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 [2] https://hongkongfp.com/2019/05/26/bogus-prince-real-frog-hong-kongs-lantau-tomorrow-visionplan-decades-old-fairy-tale/ [3] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hong-kong-economy/article/2162422/brownfield-site-development-and-reclamation-are [4] https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publications/english/essentials-1415ise10-brownfield-development.htm [5] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hong-kong-economy/article/3002386/funding-universal-retirement-scheme-160-new [6] https://hongkongfp.com/2019/05/26/bogus-prince-real-frog-hong-kongs-lantau-tomorrow-visionplan-decades-old-fairy-tale/

PASSTIMES

FROM BRUCE LEE TO GUY FAWKES SYMBOLISM IN HONG KONG PROTESTS 2019 was perhaps one of the most turbulent years Hong Kong has ever seen. Following the announcement of the extradition law, over 2 million HongKongers took to the streets to express their discontent with the law. As the protests spanned over 6 months, many symbols have emerged as favourites among demonstrators. Bruce Lee In recent months, Bruce Lee’s “be water” quote has become a city-wide mantra throughout the protests. Taking the concept further, protestors have adapted the characteristics of water’s different forms to symbolize different modes of resistance: • • • •

Be strong like ice; when confronted by armed police and opposition groups Be fluid like water; when escaping through the city’s narrow streets Gather like dew; to create flash-mob attacks Scatter like mist; to avoid being arrested, and to be able to fight another day.

“Being water” allows protesters to quickly gather and scatter, then immediately flow to a different area of the city. Formless like water, they also adapt to whatever situation they are placed in; like Bruce Lee said “when placed in a cup, it becomes the cup; when placed in a teapot, it becomes the teapot”. This resonates with the meaning of the traditional Chinese saying (以柔克剛), as protestors must overcome rigidity with softness and fluidity. This puts the concept of water at the core of protesters’ presence and the city’s decentralised movement. These interpretations of the original quote are what defines the spirit and unity of Hong Kong’s protesters. Guy Fawkes To protect themselves from surveillance, protestors often use face masks and scarves to safeguard their identities. In an effort to discourage people from taking on to the streets, the Hong Kong government announced a ban on face masks on October 4th. However, not only did this legislation prove to be ineffective, but it also added fuel to the fire, as protestors replaced face masks with the Guy Fawkes mask from the novel and film, V for Vendetta Many also created posters and decorated graffiti “Lennon” walls with quotes from the film, such as“people shouldn’t be afraid of their government” and “beneath this mask is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof”.

The Four Principles of Be Water

Yellow, blue or red? Amidst the demonstrations, a selection of coloured “ribbons” have emerged to represent different camps in the debate. The yellow ribbons have become synonymous with Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests over the years, starting with the umbrella revolution in 2014. It all started when protestors used Tony Orlando and Dawn’s song “Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree” during protests. Since then, the yellow ribbon has been a symbol of support and solidarity with the movement in Hong Kong. In contrast, people of the pro-government camp usually sport blue ribbons, to represent the colour of local police uniforms and their wish for order to return to the city. Less common are the selfproclaimed “red ribbons” – the red colour symbolising the Chinese national flag and their patriotism and support for the mainland’s opposition to the protests. “Red ribbons” are most common among those who are originally from the mainland but live/work in Hong Kong.

“Be water” poster used by protestors in Hong Kong.

Nonetheless, as a symbol of anarchism and anti-totalitarianism in the novel, the mask has been embraced by several movements such as 2011“Occupy Wall Street”movement and 2013 anti-government protests in Thailand. Picking up momentum in Hong Kong, it has come to represent the push for communist China to grant democratic freedoms in Hong Kong for many protesters. That said, the Guy Fawkes mask worn by V, the main character in V for Vendetta, is not only a representation of anti-authoritarianism, but also a form of selfpresentation and protectionIn fostering identity and solidarity, as well as provide anonymity, masks have greatly helped protesters build strength in the face of political oppression.

Protestors boycott “blue” shops and restaurants due to their political stance.

PASSTIMES

Beacon by Jana Wong // WHKPASS Photography Competition - Third Place

“Lennon Walls” – post-it revolution Meanwhile, some HongKongers choose to express themselves in a quieter, more creative method. In over 200 walls across the city, displays of thousands of colourful sticky notes have materialised over the months. The name pays homage to the John Lennon wall in Prague. Fans of the Beatles singer expressed their appreciation and messages for the superstar, after his tragic passing in 1980. Similarly, “Lennon walls” in Hong Kong have quickly emerged as a creative and popular hotspot for people to vent their frustration and opposition towards the extradition bill. In the true spirit of the Beatles, these walls have become sites for people to express their support, encouragement and love for the city. Supporters of the movement chose to use post-it notes instead of graffiti paint, as used in Prague, because they don’t want to deface any public property – once they’re peeled, they won’t leave a trace. With the National Security Law and the suppression of dissent, Hong Kong protesters will inevitably need covert expressions to drive the movement forward. Here, creativity isn’t simply an aesthetic, it embodies Hong Konger’s pride and battle.

Photo: 遺下一份信念 Karis Chung

PASSTIMES

ONE COUNTRY TWO SYSTEMS:

DOES IT MAKE SENSE IN A THEORETICAL WORLD DEVOID OF REALITY, OR IS THE CONCEPT ESSENTIALLY A CONTRADICTION?

Hong Kong has a hard time trusting the Chinese Communist Party, before and even after the handover from Britain to China. People are afraid of China’s notorious human rights violations record will eventually apply to Hong Kong. Fears have now come true as Beijing cements grip on Hong Kong. From the extradition law to national security law, every move by Beijing has eroded the protection given to Hong Kong citizens under the “One country two systems” ruling policy. In 1997, the colonial flag of Great Britain was lowered over Hong Kong, and the orchid flag of Hong Kong SAR was raised. Rather than using the state ensign of China, the official flag of Hong Kong has been used since 1997, symbolizing the “one country, two systems” principle behind the city’s reunification with China. The “one country, two systems” framework was proposed by the Chinese Communist Party as a solution to the complex reunification problem. Deng Xiaoping, the former leader of the People’s Republic of China conceived the idea to promise autonomy over all aspects of Hong Kong’s governance except those related to defense and foreign affairs. The model is meant to provide a rational mechanism to allow for two contradictory systems to coexist and amalgamate without interfering

with each other. In this way, Hong Kong people could live the life they used to have without having dramatic change, at the same time China resuming its sovereignty over the Hong Kong territory. However, with the “one country, two systems” model now on its last legs, many have realized that the sugar-coated agreements have seemed in effect to be over. To Hong Kong protesters, the Party has failed to live up to the real spirit of “one country two systems”. Does this real spirit only seem easy to comply with within a theoretical world but not reality? Is “one country two systems” overall a feasible solution to divided regions? Theoretically, the “one country two systems” serves as an interim step towards final reunification. It requires compromise from both and reformations from time being. The model is not practicable in real life, as in the game of politics, different interests are arduous to reconcile. The model is only feasible when the two systems are in a fairer relationship in terms of political power, in which the Hong Kong government will have to be more bargainable and internationally backed. In the case of Hong Kong, there have been different self-interests and expectations that caused conflicts. It is the structural limitation of the “one country, two systems”

principle. This is evidenced by Hong Kong’s developments over the past 20 years. In these 20 years time, the contradiction of One Country Two System has been going on and on. It allows Hong Kong to keep or even carry forward its inherent western-style of ruling that is nurtured by the rule of law, judicial and legislation independence and protection of human rights like free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc, to achieve a status of Asia’s world city. Concurrently, the ideology of China’s political system persists in placing limits on achieving the liberal democracy in Hong Kong. The city shall not be surprised to see itself having to take larger political concessions off the table. However, from Peter kropotkin’s quote: “The hopeless don’t revolt, because revolution is an act of hope.” I see the protesters holding hopes and wouldn’t give up, others should only feel guilty about giving up on their homes instead of nitpicking the fighters from a privileged point of view. In the late 50s, Hong Kong’s capitalism had continued to boom, the rapidly developed market has marked Hong Kong’s status as a top and key Asian financial hub. The rule of law and independence of the judiciary under the “One country, two systems” model was vital to Hong Kong’s success. Beijing too has been aware of the benefits brought by the capitalist and liberal Hong Kong for a long time. Before China rose to become a global superpower, the Party had trod carefully in the commercial arena for fear of damaging Hong Kong’s reputation as an open place to do business when trying to grasp strong control over Hong Kong. However, with an opendoor policy on boosting the Chinese economy, China now ranks at the top of the world in terms of economic power. Back in the time around the handover, Hong Kong had contributed 27% of the Chinese economy; twenty years later, it contributed a mere 3%. The dependency of China on Hong Kong has rapidly declined.[1] Hong Kong has somehow lost its function as China’s financial gateway. Economical reason is not the only reason why, but unquestionably a recessed economy is a good timing for Beijing to tame Hong Kong to be a patriotic part of China. Beijing’s position on the “one country two systems” principle is

PASSTIMES

or not. Since Hong Kong has limited bargaining power over its systems and can do nothing to prevent further erosion, the “one country two systems” is now just a framework set by the CCP that favours all its ambitions. This inequality between Hong Kong and China’s power ultimately means that “one country, two systems” is untenable. And what about Taiwan? The commonly chanted slogan, “Today’s Hong Kong, tomorrow’s Taiwan.” is just one example of the solidarity between Hong Kong and Taiwan during the social movement. If “one country two systems” has said doom to fail, what is another solution for peaceful reunification? Seeing the failure of adopting the scheme in Hong Kong, as well as the well-developed domestic politics in Taiwan, all major Taiwanese parties have rejected Beijing’s offer. The former Taiwanese President Chiang Ching-kuo had proposed the “one country better systems” in response to China’s blueprint for reunification. He emphasized that the system is what concerns people the most, which national identity will be naturally shaped when there is stability and peace. In other words, a good system is more sustainable than having two systems, in which the system is chosen by the will of the people or the system has competed over the other, just like the case of how the East German government faltered and collapsed leading to German reunification. However, realistically, it is a slim chance or even impossible of one giving up its system to accept the other. Reconciling two opposed systems is a hot potato. For instance, North and South Korea have seemingly irreconcilable differences, but the reunification of the peninsula is still a national priority and vision. The reunification is an inevitable topic for all Hong Kong people, the details of the “one country two systems” model was never written clearly on paper, leaving it up to future interpretation, by both the people and Beijing’s willingness to rejuvenate.

WHKPASS HIGHLIGHTS: “THE DEMOCRATIC FUTURE OF HONG KONG”: A SPEAKERS EVENT WITH MS. EMILY LAU

In October, WHKPASS hosted Ms Emily Lau, the former chairwoman of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party for an interactive talk for students. The event featured topics such as the contradictions between the prospect of Hong Kong’s democracy and China as a communist state, whether or not civil movements’ demands can be satisfied through independence, as well as what the international community could do for Hong Kong. Watch highlights from the talk here!

“China is in an Authoritarian state, asking for freedom is as nonsense as asking a monk for a comb when they don’t even have hair.“

Highlights Video QR Code:

Facebook: https://fb.watch/4oVhhFt5LK/

Instagram Recap: https://www.instagram.com/p/ CHVRdD2BOlo/

REFERENCES [1] https://medium.com/@risotto301/hong-kong-the-closing-window-tothe-west-5b022efd5baf

“The UK government has priority for its agendas, such as Brexit and more recently for COVID. Hongkongers, however, should seek a way to let the government listen to our voices, and to prioritise our issues through lobbying MPs in a creative way.”

PASSTIMES

AN INTRODUCTION TO HONG KONG’S JOURNEY FROM LIBERAL STUDIES TO MORAL AND NATIONAL EDUCATION

MODERN CHINA – THE ONLY MODULE LEFT?

“The change might appear sudden and out of nowhere, but this is barely close to the truth.”

Introduction – The 729 Protest “NO BRAINWASHING!” “NO BRAINWASHING!” “SAY NO TO CHINESE PROPAGANDA!” “SAY NO TO CHINESE PROPAGANDA!” …… The crowd chanted again and again, with their voices heard in every corner of Hong Kong Island. It was 3pm on Sunday, 29th July 2012¹, over 90 thousand protesters marched from Victoria Park to the Central Government Offices, all with the same, one demand: the government’s immediate withdrawal of the moral and national education proposal. ‘Moral and national education’, what even is it? How is it ‘brainwashing’? What does it have to do with liberal studies? (Heck, what does it have to do with me?) This is not a history lesson, it will all make sense soon, but bear with me for a second here as we travel back to 2012 together, that time when freedom and democracy were still words of meaning. The Proposal Moral and National Education (MNE) was a school curriculum proposed by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong in 2012. According to the revised MNE Curriculum Guide published in June 2012, the subject aims to help students develop moral qualities, a positive and optimistic attitude, self-

recognition, ability to judge in a caring and reasonable manner, and recognition of identity; with additional guidance for students to practice these in their daily lives, making it a habit with positive impact on our society. The subject also claims to enhance students’ commitments and contributions to analyze and judge personal, family, social, national and global issues². Boring background information aside, MNE does sound like a meaningful subject, surely no one can disagree with such a phenomenal proposal, right? Still not convinced? Under the “national issues” section, it was even explicitly mentioned that with the help of MNE, students would learn to “think critically and independently”, the exact opposite of the so-called “brainwashing”! The Controversy Of course, the 729 protest did not happen without a reason, and it definitely didn’t take long for people to find out the government’s true intentions behind this seemingly glamorous proposal. Soon after the proposal, the National Education Services Centre published the “China Model National Conditions Teaching Manual”, a government funded guide for teachers teaching MNE’s “national issues” aspect, the coincidentally same

chapter as mentioned above. Surprising many at that time, it was found to be severely biased towards the Communist Party of China. For example, the CCP was crowned an “advanced, selfless and united ruling group” (進步、無私與團結), while denouncing Democratic and Republican Parties of the US as “fierce inter-party rivalry, making the people suffer” (政黨惡斗，人民當災)³. Furthermore, incidents such as the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre, the Cultural Revolution, human rights issues in Mainland China were all nowhere to be seen in the manual. After the Protest And so be it, thousands of students, parents, teachers, even doctors and artists all took the streets on 29th July 2012, demanding the government to withdraw the MNE Proposal at once. The proposal, following more mass protests, some with over 100 thousand participants, was eventually withdrawn. The citizens of Hong Kong have won the battle…… or have they? In 2017, Kevin Yeung Yunhung, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Education, ‘clarified’ to the public that MNE “has not been scrapped completely”, and that teaching on the topic was continuing in the form of different subjects and activities in schools⁴. For example, the inclusion of a new

PASSTIMES

Image source: 眾新聞 education at the junior secondary level, and plans to make Chinese history a compulsory subject at senior secondary level5. Now, fast forward to 2020, just last month, the Education Bureau announced the implementation of a whole list of amendments on Liberal Studies, including, but not limited to, changing the subject’s name (new name to be decided), requiring all Liberal Studies textbooks to be approved by the government before publishing, and changing its original Independent Enquiry Study (IES), a compulsory student essay/project, to governmentorganized field trips to Mainland China; all these decided without consulting a single teacher or student. Liberal Studies Liberal Studies (LS) is a compulsory subject in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE), all Hong Kong students under the HKDSE curriculum (accounting for approximately 93% of all Hong Kong secondary 6 students in 202067) must pass this subject for a chance to be admitted to

any of the local universities. The drastic amendments of the to-be-renamed Liberal Studies was clearly one of the crucial, and perhaps final steps in the government’s implementation of the MNE; with the government controlling the publication of all related textbooks, and sending all students to mainland China for what they call “field trips”, the only thing left is renaming the subject to “Moral and National Education” and the CCP’s marvelous 8-year-plan is completed. The change might appear sudden and out of nowhere, but this is barely close to the truth. Throughout the years, government funded publishers such as the Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company have been censoring their LS textbooks bit by bit: first deleting case studies about the Cultural Revolution, then whole sections on the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre, and most recently, scrubbing out content on universal suffrage, civil disobedience and our mostfamiliar separation of powers8. We were all simply too busy to

notice all these minor changes, until now when it’s already too late. So……what? What does all of this have to do with me? It is a very reasonable question to ask. With separation of powers fallen as discussed in one of our previous articles9, Asia’s World City is turning into another Chinese province, just like Tibet all over again, and now by destroying LS and paving its way to becoming the new MNE, our children are about to be brainwashed; they will sing the national anthem with overwhelming tears of joy, and serve the Communist Party with pride and honour, but what does this have to do with you? Take a look at China’s unignorable influence in current international politics, and might I remind you, the CCP has plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the China 2025 Plan to dominate the global economy even further. Details of the “China Threat Theory” should perhaps be left for future articles, but it’s undoubtedly a simple matter of time before

“we were all simply too busy to notice all these minior changes, until now when it’s already too late”

PASSTIMES China skyrockets into a new, world-leading superpower, if not already one. “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” While some of you are still claiming that politics are “none of your business”, China’s control over the World Health Organization has successfully blocked the world from entering its borders for in-depth investigations on COVID-1910; like a puppeteer manipulating his puppet, China, the friend of all developing countries, manipulate international organizations and even the International Court of Justice to cover up its conspicuous violations on international laws and basic human rights matters11. This is a test. Hong Kong, a crucial gearwheel of the global financial market China, is a testing ground for the CCP; how the international community reacts to Hong Kong will directly affect how well the authoritarian nation-state plays by

international rules in the future. The CCP has ambitious plans to take over the global market and dominate international politics in as short as a decade’s time (e.g. China’s “Made in China 2025” Plan), and they will achieve their goals at all cost, even when it comes to breaking international rules; simply look at what they’ve done in the South China Sea dispute12, and its shameless violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration when it comes to Hong Kong, just to name a few obvious examples. Now, with their next generation blind to the immoralities of authoritarianism, with most believing that China is the best country of all, are you sure you want your future buried in their hands? Action speaks louder than words, act now, let the world know about Hong Kong. Together, we have to protect Hong Kong, it is about time we stop China from repressing political truths, and stand up to the acts they’ve committed.

Photo: In The Name of Justice by Jacky Ching

Together, we have to protect Hong Kong, it is about time we stop China from repressing political truths, and stand up to the acts they’ve committed.

REFERENCES (1) Archived e-copy of the 2012 MNE proposal: https://web.archive.org/web/20120617010427/http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_2428/MNE_ Guide_(CHI)_Final.pdf (2) Details can be found on page 22-54 of the MNE proposal (linked above) (3) Can be found on page 10 of the manual (in Chinese). Archived e-copy of the China Model National Conditions Teaching Manual: https://www.slideshare.net/ WangHaoZhong/ss-14252905 (4) See South China Morning Post (SCMP) article “Is Chinese national education set to make a comeback in Hong Kong? It’s not if, but how, experts say”, published on 4th August 2017: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2105343/chinese-national-education-set-make-comeback-hong-kong-its (5) SCMP article “Why are Hong Kong teachers so concerned about Basic Law education?”, published on 3rd June 2017: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/ education-community/article/2096727/why-hong-kong-schools-have-teach-basic-law (6) Number of secondary 6 students in Hong Kong in 2019/2020 (48824) can be found on page 71 of Hong Kong Education Bureau’s (2019/2020) Student Enrolment Statistics: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/about-edb/publications-stat/figures/Enrol_2019.pdf (7) Number of school candidates who took the 2020 HKDSE can be found in Table 1 of Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority’s 2020 HKDSE Statistics Overview: https://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/HKDSE/Exam_Report/Examination_Statistics/dseexamstat20_1.pdf (8) News article by The Standard “Liberal studies textbook scrubs out voting, civil disobedience”, published on 18th August 2020: https://www.thestandard.com. hk/breaking-news/section/4/153375/Liberal-studies-textbook-scrubs-out-voting,-civil-disobedience (9) Readers interested can start by reading the following article by The New York Times “China Threat or a Peaceful Rise of China?”: https://archive.nytimes.com/ www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-politics-007.html (10) A bold claim to make here, but COVID did originate from Wuhan, China without a doubt, and China’s partnership with WHO over the coronavirus is prominent, with countless articles posing supporting arguments; Foreign Policy’s article on “How WHO Became China’s Coronavirus Accomplice”, for example, is a great article explaining the claim: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-health-soft-power/ (11) International Court rejects Uyghur genocide complaint against China, 15th December 2020: https://www.tibetsun.com/news/2020/12/15/international-court-rejects-uyghur-genocide-complaint-against-china (12) News article by the BBC “South China Sea dispute: China’s pursuit of resources ‘unlawful’, says US”, published on 14th July 2020, provides a decent introduction to the issue, and a brief explanation on China’s violation of international laws in the said dispute: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53397673

PASSTIMES

國安法雛型— 《刑事罪行條例》回顧殖民惡法如何為國安法鋪路

也許十七年前，政權也未曾料過，一場殺人案會間接引發大規模民主化示威浪潮，更逼使其採用更直接的政治手段——繞過本地諮詢立法，由人大常委會通過《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區維護國家安全法》（俗稱《港區國安法》；下稱「《國安法》」）及列入基本法附件三，變相為《基本法》第二十三條（下稱「廿三條」）強行立法；法例至今生效接近四個月有多。然而條文範圍既廣闊又含糊，即使沒有實際行動，隨口呼喊「光時五缺」，便已墮入法網。其實早在主權移交前，香港法例已經包含「廿三條」部分元素。六四事件發生半年後，中方曾與英方討論在香港落實「廿三條」的建議；當時英方法律顧問Paul Fifoot提醒中方代表，指出香港既有的《刑事罪行條例》早已列明「煽動」、「顛覆」等概念，因此可毋須為「廿三條」立法，也能達到「維護國家安全」的效果。然而，英方代表留意到中方認為香港現行法例下的刑罰或未能達到阻嚇性作用，因為在中國憲法中，「煽動」、「顛覆」的最高刑罰皆為終身監禁，與香港法例下的最高刑罰兩年相距甚大；這顯著的差距亦為日後2003年「廿三條」草案風波埋下伏筆。再者，當時英方未有向中方說明，在煽動罪中，市民仍然有批評政府而免受法律責任的權利，包括：

顯示女皇陛下在其任何措施上被誤導

或犯錯誤；

制的錯誤或缺點，或法例或司法的錯誤或缺點，而目的在於矯正該等錯誤或缺點；

或指出依法成立的香港政府或香港憲

或慫恿女皇陛下子民或香港居民嘗試循合法途徑促致改變在香港的依法制定的事項；

或指出在香港不同階層居民間產生或有傾向產生惡感及敵意的事項，而目的在於將其消除。

(不過，上述豁免並未確保「推翻英女王」的言論不會墮入《刑事罪行條例》9(1)中「煽動意圖」的法律陷阱。) 及後，港英政府訂立《香港人權法案條例》，檢視大量陳舊法例，如《社團條例》、《公安條例》及《刑事罪行條例》等，發現其均不符合人權法，需要盡快檢討及修正。當中《刑

事罪行條例》中「叛國」及「顛覆」的部分已被列為「潛在不相容（possible inconsistency）」，需在法律上作出檢討，但儘管如此，當時政府卻只集中處理《刑事罪行條例》內的遊蕩罪。直到1993年，有民間組織對「廿三條」的任意性及其對人權的潛在威脅作出質詢，相關法例才再次於英方內部展開討論。因此，英方法律顧問Jill Barrett當時預計，《刑事罪行條例》中「叛國」及「顛覆」等概念將會在主權移交後未來被提呈人大進行釋法。前任律政司司長梁愛詩曾於「廿三條」立法研討會中試圖增強煽動罪存在於香港法例的合理性，指出《刑事罪行條例》的第9及第 10條內的煽動罪乃源自普通法，於1938年編入，並經過屢次修改。然而，英國法律改革委員會早於1977年經已指出，煽動罪所提及的罪行定義乃「模糊不清和不必要(ill-defined and unnecessary)」，因為此罪行源於數世紀前保障英國皇室及政府不被武裝起義推翻，實與今天普世價值所提倡的民主概念——新舊政權能夠通過選票力量，達致和平交接——相違背。

條文改為「駐軍」；對「女王陛下和皇室官方」的提述，改為「中國中央人民政府或其他主管機關」的提述。結果，在這幾年間，「煽動罪」這個潘朵拉盒便被政權打開了，成為異

見者安插莫須有罪名的利器。不過，香港如今陷入進退兩難的此局面，實屬政權與人民雙方的責任。惡法其實一直都存在，卻一直未獲得廣泛關注；也許是過去的偏安繁華麻醉了我們對主權移交的不安，亦也許是我們過份信任政權的自我約束能力、相信它不會隨便挪用英殖時期過時的法例作出檢控。但更重要的是，無論是 Image source: Hong Kong Free Press 西方國家在殖民時期訂立的模棱兩可的法例，抑或是近年以反恐為名而挪用的過分廣事實上於1972年，英國曾有三人曾被控闊之條文，都為行政機關提供極大的權力，煽動罪，他們被指控共謀暴亂，並以煽動性更會被極權國家所參考，供其用作打壓國內文字徵召人民前往北愛爾蘭支援愛爾蘭武異見分子、「符合西方標準」的法律基礎。裝共和軍。然而，三人後期獲撤控「共謀暴亂自去年八月起，中央政府及親政府媒體屢將罪」，而「發佈煽動性文字」一罪則被判處緩示威者與恐怖主義者相提並論，保安局局長刑。自此之後，英國再無使用煽動罪作出起李家超甚至聲稱會以《反恐條例》檢控示威訴。反觀香港，在主權移交並修訂基本法後，者。驟眼看，《國安法》對恐怖主義的定義雖與政府一直冷待前立法局及英國大律師公會對煽動罪有關「煽動意圖」的修訂建議。該建《反恐條例》的大致相同、並與《刑事罪行條例》對嚴重罪行，包括叛國及煽動罪的描述議指出，煽動罪本身不但富有旨在保障皇室看似相近，然而《反恐條例》明確指出，「恐怖免受輿論壓力的殖民地色彩，更違反了列明主義行為」並不包括在任何宣揚、抗議、持異每個人都擁有自由發表意見的權利及思想見或工業行動的過程中作出或恐嚇作出行自由的《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》。立動。結果在《國安法》下，即使原本「廿三條」法會甚至於2012年通過《正式賦予解放軍皇草案並沒有「恐怖活動」一概念，但如今幾乎等權力》，將香港法例中所有包含「英軍」的

PASSTIMES

參考文章： 2020 本土研究社解密：《刑事罪行條例》如何激活廿三條的惡法奇謀 1989 FCO 40/2672 Relations between Hong Kong and China: Chinese charges of subversion in Hong Kong 1990 FCO 40/2932 Political activism accusations of subversion in Hong Kong 1993 FCO 40/4116 Article XIX (lobby group for press freedom) and Hong Kong Journalist Association freedom of expression Codification of the Criminal Law Treason Sedition and Allied Offences (Consultation Paper) [1977] EWLC C72 2012 Feikert-Ahalt, Sedition in England: The Abolition of a Law From a Bygone Era

所有反政府示威都能與「恐怖活動」扯上關係，把俗稱「和理非」 “ 政權一方面極力以外或民主派的抗議行為定性作「勾結外國或者境外勢力危害對本地歷史文化「去國家安全罪」或「顛覆國家政權罪」。例如拉布、「掟蕉」等行為或殖民化」，另一方面會分別觸犯「顛覆國家政權罪」下「嚴重干擾、阻撓、破壞中華人卻完好無缺地保留民共和國中央政權機關或香港特別行政區政權機關依法履行富有殖民主義色彩職能」及「攻擊、破壞香港特別行政區政權機關履職場所或設施、的法律條文。現在，致使其無法正常履行職能」兩項罪名，以及海外政策倡議工作者也許每一個香港人或會觸犯「勾結外國勢力」一罪。若果政權認為以國安法檢控示心中都要有一個答威者會引起國際社會極大迴響，它仍然可以利用《刑事罪行條案：如何在後國安法例》作出檢控。條例除了包括「其他反英皇罪行」，亦涵蓋一些時代掙扎求存？” 輕微行為，例如管有士巴拿、槌仔等。這些行為都有機會被律政活動，如今卻用作取締民間政治司以「管有任何物品意圖摧毀或團體；《教育條例》原本用以針對損壞財產」作出起訴，再以「管有左派學校，並賦予教育局任意取攻擊性武器」作為交替控罪。然消教師註冊的權力。隨著主權移而此等舉措，難免有特意令示威交，當年受到港英政府打壓的一者陷入漫長司法程序，藉此威嚇方，如今成為了打壓民主價值的其他示威者放棄抗爭之嫌。在模一份子。棱兩可的條文下，示威者風聲鶴今後，政權只會變本加厲將淚、人人自危，只得以更隱晦的法律武器化，打壓所有偏離黨路手法表達訴求，避免觸碰法例的線的市民。不論是「勇武派」，還灰色地帶。是「和理非」，在政權眼中沒有雖當然，現在我們知道，比起比誰更高尚，反正兩派都是對其國安法，《刑事罪行條例》可以說執政構成威脅的一伙人。政權一只是「小菜一碟」。它既不是依照方面極力對本地歷史文化「去殖普通法的法律行文，而且比起原民化」，另一方面卻完好無缺地廿三條立法草案來得更廣闊、更保留富有殖民主義色彩的法律含糊。需知道《刑事罪行條例》只條文。現在，也許每一個香港人是云云惡法之一：《社團條例》立心中都要有一個答案：如何在後法原意乃為打擊左派政治團體國安法時代掙扎求存？

Image source: The Standard

PASSTIMES

齊上齊落

「旁聽師」對手足的不離不棄之情

Image source: Wikiwand 這天和朋友來到裁判法院，為身陷囹圄的友人旁聽裁決。截至去年十月，《逃犯條例修訂草案》運動（下稱反修例運動）的被捕人數已經破萬。加上疫情反覆，大量與反修例運動有關的案件都被押後處理。對不幸被捕的人而言，伴隨而來便是等待著更為漫長的法律程序。那怕最後被判無罪，當中的等待、反覆上庭，均對被告的生活及心理造成沉重的負擔。自從反修例運動開始，到法院旁聽的市民前所未有地多，而旁聽甚至不知不覺已經成為他們生活的一部分。來到法院，目的只有一個：默默地支持不幸身陷囹圄的示威者，遇到不被保釋、需要還押候審，甚至被判入獄的案件，「旁聽師」更會即時「轉職」成為「送車師」。他們互不相識，但在冰冷冷的法院大樓內，看到彼此衣著、年紀，仿佛有著默契，便斷定對方也是「自己人」，互相噓寒問暖。「旁聽師」一職並沒有年齡限制：有放學趕過來的學生，穿著深色風褸，迴避在法院外守候多時的記者；有手持購物袋，準備在旁聽後買餸的家庭主婦。與此同時，俗稱「銀髮族」的退休人士更佔了「旁聽師」好一半。當一般人以為這群「銀髮族」只是早上跟其他「老友記」嘆過一盅兩件一樣，在炎炎夏日找個有冷氣的「瓦遮頭」避暑，他們其實對法律程序瞭如指掌，對法庭亦甚有意見。「呢位手足啱啱喺警署送嚟過堂，應該唔使搞太耐就有得保釋。」

「嗱呢個官啊！咪睇佢兇殺惡煞咁嘅樣，以為佢一定唔批保釋，但其實佢每單 case都睇得好小心，甚至有時會鬧返控方開嘅條件太苛刻，太不近人情。」「唉... ...呢位手足就真係慘啲喇。遇着呢個釘官（意指裁判法院及區域法院，處理刑事案件的法官傾向裁決定罪），恐怕會俾個官誅死。」縱使他們大多數沒有受過專業的法律訓練，然而從他們的一言一語，不難感受到他們對被捕者的關懷。因為「旁聽師」們心知，被檢控、甚至被判入獄的人，並不是冷冰冰的數字，而是一個個有故事的血肉之軀。被捕人士面對著以月計的法律程序，身邊除了親友，還有「旁聽師」與他們一起走每一步路。雖然這宗案件還存有爭議，但他還是選擇了認罪，務求盡快為此事作個了結；只因他知道近年律政司對社會運動案件的處理手法：務求令抗爭者被法庭重判。若下級法院輕判抗爭者，政府一方便會上訴至高等法院，甚至終審法院，有如賭徒不服輸的態度。法官考慮到肇事警員沒有受傷，家人和老師為他摘寫的求情信，以及感化報告，最終判處了非監禁式刑罰。得以避過牢獄之災，朋友們互相祝賀他；一眾「旁聽師」得悉友人毋須入獄，亦身同感受，為他鬆一口氣。當時他的腦袋仍然一片空白，上庭前生怕被送入監獄，甚至勞教所；聽到裁決，一時仍未反應過來。

「要保重啊後生仔！」一名姨姨跟他說。他呆了，腦袋霎時空白一片，只是輕輕朝她點頭示意謝謝。接下來，「旁聽師」來到法院大堂，等待著他處理相關程序。「喂！手足佢落到嚟喇！」一名中年先生看見升降機門打開後跟眾人說道。「準備好遮陣未？駛唔駛俾件風褸佢遮一遮？」一名銀髮姨姨問。不出五秒，我和朋友，及一眾「旁聽師」，搭建了一條迷你通道，闊度剛剛足夠讓一個人走過。在法院門外等候多時的記者及攝影師，恐怕只能夠拍下一團團黑影予總部「交差」。一直走到數百米外的紅綠燈，看見記者們已放棄跟隨，眾人才收起雨傘。這些看似微不足道的舉動，正是對手足最大的幫助。自從疫情爆發，以及港版國安法生效後，街頭示威暫告一段落。即使親中媒體在就此慶賀國安法的「成效」，然而我們知道，即使集會、遊行等和平地表達訴求的機會遭到打壓，每個人心中的信念仍是不滅的。引用本土民主前線前發言人梁天琦的一番話：「相信罷交稅等等和平手段，繼續去做。我鼓勵你地去做，我希望你地去做。我唔希望因為有人批評你地嘅手段，結果就完全放棄你地相信嘅嘢。同時間，相信勇武抗爭嘅人，一樣要繼續做。」反修例運動剛剛開始之時，示威者曾迅速地定義自己，促成「和理非」與「勇武派」之分。但在後國安法時代，一年前的「身份」似乎不再重要，很多人甚至遊走於不同的崗位之間。過去，我們不時聽到有人計較身邊的人在抗爭中付出的多與少、誰比誰走得較前等等，反之亦然。其實，政治的本質便是爭取別人的支持，甚至要令不支持自己的人改變立場。既然眾人目標一致，所謂「一樣米養百樣人」，若十個同路人之中，出現十種不同的政治光譜，也實屬理所當然。每個人的能力及風險管理亦不盡相同，不斷質疑別人做得多與少只是意氣之話。當然，現在此等比較風氣的大勢已成過去。目前而言，抗爭前路的能見度漸低，因為國安法的底線實在太過模糊；會不會有一天，光顧「黃店」、到法院做「旁聽師」、瀏覽「立場新聞」，也會被定義為顛覆國家政權？誠然，只有在能力範圍內盡最大的努力，在漫長而漆黑的抗爭之路上互相扶持，香港人才能並肩走到黎明破曉之時。在此，祝願各位在亂流下平安。

PASSTIMES

🇭

WORTH IT! 🇰 HONG KONG EDITION Beyond its repute as an international finance hub, Hong Kong is also renowned for its exquisite food and amazing shopping experience. Although the city is known for being one of the most expensive cities (for basically everything) in the world, there are also great local food and sightseeing spots for an absolute bargain! Here is a quick and short guide to Hong Kong’s iconic food and sightseeing spots!

to soon expand and open another shop in Sham Shui Po. Serving such high quality and authentic Hong Kong cuisine at such a low price, you should not miss this place when visiting the city.

Food

Picture 3: Roast geese + BBQ pork rice at Yat Lok Roast Geese

TIM HO WAN - AFFORDABLE MICHELIN-STAR DIM SUM Available in six locations, for details please visit: http://www.timhowan.com/

Picture 1: 蝦餃 (Har-gow) at Tim Ho Wan

Opening hours: varies Rating:

⭐⭐⭐⭐

Cost: $ Dim Sum is perhaps one of the most iconic Hong Kong cuisines - with a variety of small dishes, dumplings, buns, and desserts in one sitting. Dubbed the “world’s cheapest Michelinstarred restaurant,” this food chain in the city is renowned for offering small bite-sized delicacies (a.k.a. Dim Sum) for ridiculously low prices, but with a taste that can match, or even exceed, the quality of some high-end boutique restaurants. The chain offers over 30 dims sum options, from savory options like shrimp dumplings (HK$28), 蝦餃 har gow (pic 1), to delicious desserts like osmanthus flower jelly with Goji berries (HK$12/3pcs), 桂kwai fa go (pic 2). They have six locations in the city, with locations in most major districts. The first chain opened in Mong Kok in 2009, when two Four Season hotel chefs, Mak Kwai Pui and Leung Fai Keung. At first glance, it just seemed like any other small Dim Sum eatery - serving authentic local Dim Sum in a small cramped corner shop. However, in 2010, when it received a Michelin one-star accreditation, queues went insane and the owners had

Picture 2: Kwai-fa-go (桂花糕) at Tim

YAT LOK GOOSE G/F, 34-38 Stanley Street, Central, Hong Kong Opening Hours: 10am – 9pm (Mon-Sat), 10am – 5.30pm (Sun). Day Off every last Wednesday of the month Rating:

⭐⭐⭐⭐

Cost: $ Just like Tim Ho Wan, Yat Lok has been awarded the Michelin one-star accreditation, and also serves delicious Hong Kong cuisine in the most local and authentic way possible. The menu is as simple as it gets: one choice of roasted meat and their choice of carb. The

most renowned roast goose + BBQ pork rice will cost you HK$58 (pic 3), with other combinations ranging from HK$60-80. Despite its simple presentation, the crispy goose skin, combined with the layer of fat, tender goose meat underneath, and the plum sauce provides an amazing sensation hard to put into words. As you step foot into the small shop located in Central, the interior will remind you of small hostels, where tables and chairs are set up inches from each other, and waiters serving up dishes to customers nonstop. The restaurant is notorious for its poor service, but most would agree that the amazing food would make up for it. The fast and simple service allows customers to finish meals and leave the restaurant in less than 30 minutes - almost like an oriental adaptation of fast food. But despite the service, many still argue it is one of the most authentic and traditional roasted meats restaurants in Hong Kong.

Sightseeing Just like food, there are plenty of budgetfriendly experiences in Hong Kong. No matter if you have a budget (or no budget at all), there’s a place for everyone to have fun - as long as you know where to look!

PASSTIMES

“DING DING” TRAMS Location: Causeway Bay or North Point Rating:

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Cost: $ Travel back in time to 1920s Hong Kong by hopping on board the “Ding Ding” trams that run across the heart of Hong Kong Island. These outdated and hot trams may not be ideal on a hot summer’s day, but the views you see along the way will surely make up for it. Starting from either side of the Island, tourists (and locals) can hop on and off along the east-west route along the island. At HK$2.3 per person, it is perhaps one of the cheapest and most scenic ways to explore the city, as passengers have the opportunity to get close to the city’s fusion and historic and modern culture.

for the beach, from swim gear to bars and restaurants. However, this beach may not be suitable for those who are looking for a quiet relaxing beach, as Repulse Bay is extremely among locals, expats, and tourists. Repulse bay is a 35-minute bus ride from Central MTR station and only costs around HK$10. Once you’ve arrived, you’ll be surrounded by many opportunities to take photos, relax, and have fun.

Picture 5: Repulse Bay Beach can get very packed on the weekends.

SHEK O BEACH + DRAGON’S BACK HIKE Rating:

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

★

Cost: $

REPULSE BAY BEACH Rating: Cost: $

⭐⭐⭐⭐

If you want to escape the hectic and busy streets, visiting a beach may be a good option. Among the many choices available, the Repulse Bay Beach ranks among one of the most scenic and provides the most “holiday” vibe out of all beaches in the city. You can expect crowds relaxing on the beach, or strolling to the highly-rated restaurants nearby. You’ll find all related necessities

For those looking for a quiet and calm experience, Shek O Beach should be on the top of your list when planning. Located on the southeast of Hong Kong Island, it is also very popular among locals and hiking enthusiasts - this is because of its close proximity to the Dragon’s Back hiking trail (one of the city’s top hiking destinations, and a great trail for beginners) nearby. Many people hike first at the trail, then walk down to the beach to cool down - essentially making this destination a two-in-one package. With plenty of dining options at the seaside village, changing rooms, and other safety equipment, the facilities are comprehensive. The water quality is also excellent and is often what makes it worth the extra traveling time. To get to the beach, you can take the No. 9 minibus departing from the Shau Kei Wan MTR station for around HK$20 (MTR fee included). Also nearby is Big Wave Bay, in which the rough waves attract many experienced surfers to visit for a weekend retreat.

Picture 6&7: The close proximity between Shek O Beach and the Dragon’s Back hiking trail make it a great option for an unforgettable weekend retreat.

UPTASSIT ULPARUM VOLORE QUAME POSSUM REPUDI DOLUTE PASSTIMES

OUR HONG KONG PHOTOGRAPHY COMPETITION PRIZE WINNERS

1ST

紅 Van by Harry Tang Most likes on Instagram

PASSTIMES

2ND

Culture is Dying by Dickson Jim

3RD

Beacon by Jana Wong

2nd most likes on Instagram

3rd most likes on Instagram

PASSTIMES

URBAN CONCRETE

MARCO CHAN BEST COMPOSITION

PASSTIMES

THE PRICE OF LIVES

MARCO CHAN

BEST STORYTELLING

PASSTIMES

HOMETOWN

LOOK UP, THE LIGHT OF HOPE

PERRY MOCK

MICHAEL SHUM

BEST CREATIVITY

PASSTIMES SELECTION

ISSUE #11

WHKPASS SOCIETY PASSTIMES 2020-2021

WEBSITE:

FACEBOOK

INSTAGRAM

CONTACT

https://www.whkpass.org/

https://www.facebook.com/ whkpass

https://www.instagram.com/ warwickhkpass/

info@whkpass.org

PASSTIMES Issue 11

Articles inside

PASSTIMES Issue 10

Modern China – The Only Module Left?

Lantau - Tomorrow Vision

One Country, Two Systems

From Bruce Lee to Guy Fawkes

WHKPASS Highlights - Emily Lau

駱駝

Over My Dead Body!” The Official Death of Hong Kong’s Separation of Powers

true meaning of its demise 同途殊歸