關於 設立全民退休保障 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

//社民連主席黃浩銘指，今年五一遊行，李卓人及長毛都因身陷囹圄而不能參與，但其餘在牆外的人依舊堅持主張來到遊行：「因為個政府一直以來都無做過佢應該做嘅嘢」，並特意為獄中的兩人獻唱《國際歌》第一節。他斥責「（議會內）全部都係忠誠嘅廢物，淨係識得攬住班共產黨同有錢佬擦鞋」，即使現時立法會只有建制派議員在行政主導，甚至「行政霸道」的情況下，失去泛民議員的「阻礙」，保障勞工權益的政策想要通過仍是遙遙無期。//

聲明全文：

【失業貧窮天理不容　失業援助刻不容緩】
──工黨、社會民主連線2021年五一勞動節聲明

每年的勞動節本應是全球打工仔女的大日子，過往香港的勞工團體皆於今日以遊行示威方式表達訴求、爭取勞工權益，並彰顯勞動者的尊嚴以及團結抗爭的精神。惟今年的五一勞動節，警方再次延續去年的禁制，以防範疫情、維持公共安全和秩序為由拒絕職工盟的遊行申請。自疫情肆虐以來香港百業蕭條，但政府卻選擇「救市不救人」，防疫抗疫支援傾斜企業，如今再禁止勞動節遊行令其苦無發聲機會，就是對打工仔女再多一層剝削！

面對維持超過一年高企的失業率及就業不足率，失業大軍已高達26萬人及就業不足人口接近15萬人的經濟寒冬，工黨及社民連早已要求政府設立臨時失業援助金以解燃眉之急。近月樂施會進行的調查報告亦指出，超過七成七的市民認同政府應設立短期失業援助基金，可惜政府仍充耳不聞，去年動用過千億公帑的防疫抗疫基金對大財團慷慨，對打工仔女孤寒；「保就業」計劃亦漏洞百出，以計劃之名補貼僱主，無視僱員是否實際得益。近月的財政預算案更倒行逆施推出所謂「失業貸款」，在不少打工仔女生活本已足襟見肘之際，政府不但無伸出援手救助，反在經濟復蘇未現曙光時鼓勵申請貸款，豈不是把他們推往債務深淵？

更為諷刺的是，上月花旗銀行調查報告顯示在疫情下香港千萬富翁的人數不跌反升，創調查歷年新高，同年2月政府卻在通脹持續的情況下宣布凍結最低工資，將其維持在時薪37.5元，鑑於現時制度為兩年一檢，意味最低工資最快只能在2023年才能再次調整。凍結影響最深的莫過於是一群議價能力較低的年老工友，他們本已飽受疫情煎熬，防疫物資開支有增無減，如今更要被政府「凍薪」，政府簡直是對他們落井下石！敢問一班尸位素餐的高官們，當一小時的最低工資就連茶餐廳午餐亦未必負擔得起，叫人如何維持生活？遑論政府一直拖延訂立標準工時、加班補水、取消強積金對沖及立法保障集體談判權等勞工政策，一眾打工仔女慘成疫情下的「二等公民」。

政治權利與勞工權益從來都是密不可分：打工仔女沒有合理的待遇、作息的空間，就無法以公民身份參與政治；政治權利沒有得到充份保障，打工仔女就無法表達意見，爭取應有的勞工權益。近月政權以「完善」選舉制度為由，大刀闊斧修改選舉制度，不只令立法會直選議席比例倒退，新增的五大界別選委提名更大幅削弱過往港人所擁有的公民提名權利，立法會將淪為一眾商賈權貴的小圈子分贓樂園，打工仔女的權益亦難以得到保障。

社民連及工黨在此重申，遊行乃工人權利，此已列明於《基本法》第27條之中。尤其是如此崩壞的時代，打工仔女生活於水深火熱的時候，我們更應以行動維權。勞動創造一切，勞動者乃創造社會繁榮的主人翁，哪裡容得寄生蟲！我們要求林鄭政權停止一切剝削打工仔女權益的政經苛政，並要求：

1. 設立失業援助金，金額等於正常工資80%，上限16000元；
2. 訂立標準工時40小時、加班倍半以及假日雙倍補水；
3. 三年內將法定勞工假增至17日；
4. 立法保障集體談判權，平衡目前強弱懸殊的勞資關係；
5. 最低工資提升至不低於時薪50元，並實施一年一檢；
6. 取消強積金對沖，並設立全民退休保障；
7. 煞停小圈子選舉改制，立即全面普選。

工黨 社會民主連線

2021年5月1日

林鄭愧對 母親貧窮
失業援助 刻不容緩
全民退保 重中之重
﹝母親節行動聲明﹞

今天是母親節，正值疫情期間，失業率升至4.2%，如果計及被迫放無薪假的工人，更應不止此數。所以，今天我們歌頌母親偉大時，也必須針對母親的迫切需要，林鄭政府奢談放寬食肆限聚人數，以利民眾慶祝母親節，但對民間爭取改善廣大母親貧困的訴求，卻一直置若罔聞，認真偽善無恥。

對於留在家中操持家務，並無強積金儲蓄的60萬主婦，老年退休生活沒有任何保障。原因是政府拒絕設立全民養老金。林鄭作為兩子之母，對母親退休困境毫無同理之心。在2015年，身為政務司司長，以扶貧委會員主席身份，主持退休保障制度的公眾諮詢，林鄭一早已預設立場，攻擊全民性的退休金，會令政府財赤提早六年出現，恐嚇一旦實施，便會加稅及開徵新稅。不過，市民眼睛是雪亮，九成提交意見的市民支持全民退保，只是林鄭翻臉不認，堅持政府說了算！漠視民意，歧視母親，林鄭早有前科！

勞工及福利局局長羅致光在2018年也如出一轍，民間要求政府出資1,000億設立全民退保種子基金，羅局長認為是製造赤字；但是，投資萬億「明日大嶼」在他眼中卻是長遠投資﹗盡顯林鄭政府寧願倒錢落海，不顧市民死活的心態！

最新貧窮人口108萬人，其中54.5萬是女性，佔54%。原因不難明白，作為母親，女性要作不少犠性，包括放棄工作留在家中湊仔，當婚姻失敗時，獨力照顧子女的又多是母親。由綜緩受助人的數目中可見一斑：2018年長者綜援受助人女性佔52%，單親綜援佔64%，總體女性受助人17.3萬，佔53%。即使外出工作，母親的家庭責任，都令她們處於不利位置，例如被迫全職變兼職。在2018年，收入低於入息中位數一半(當時為8,750元)的貧窮勞工，女性有25.9萬人，男性則為14.8萬人。

在2018年，女性失業人士以從事服務工作及銷售人員為最多。時至今天，疫情猖獗，受打擊最嚴重的行業，也正是這些行業，住宿及膳食服務業合計失業率和就業不足率急升至6.8%和3.9%，餐飲服務業更為嚴峻，分別升至8.6%及5.4%！

林鄭政府先後花了1,600億元「防疫抗疫基金」，作為所謂「保就業、撐企業」之用，但是林鄭的800億工資補助計劃，可不管老闆經營狀況均可申請，卻不花一分一毫資助已經失業及正被強迫放無薪假的工人。

除了貧窮，母親作為家庭照顧者，向外張羅防疫物品，在內子女停課，自己停工，以及疫情期間所受到的經濟拮据和情緒壓力，政府更是毫無援手。

因此，我們來到林鄭居所禮賓府，抗議林鄭打壓落力，抗疫無力！林鄭自詡出身基層，也是兩子之母，卻對老無所養、工無得做、在社區內孤立無援的母親視若無睹﹗林鄭改善民生毫無寸進，強推惡法、包庇黑警卻不遺餘力。我們嚴正要求林鄭政府立即：

(1) 設立失業援助金
(2) 設立全民退休保障
(3) 增加社區支援，協助母親解決因疫情引起的情緒和精神壓力

社會民主連線
2020年5月10日

黃浩銘：

//法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！//

希望在於人民　改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書

陳法官仲衡閣下：

　　自2011年你審理只有23歲的我，追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下，我再次站在你面前，只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候，我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人，而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而，今天我不是尋求你的憐憫，而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動，公民抗命的緣由，讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。

　　8年以來，我們的崗位稍有轉變，但香港的變化更大，充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成，更多旅客走訪社區，似是一片繁華景象，但同時，更多窮人住在劏房，更多群眾走上街頭，亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事，都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻，我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸，亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法，更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外，還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定，甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。

爭取民主的本意

　　民主只是口號嗎？當年，我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益，卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權，並要求設立全民退休保障，廢除強積金，因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日，香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口，超過30萬貧窮長者，貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年，我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪，懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年，我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作，現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情？為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政？歸根結柢，就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇，喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力！

　　所謂民主，就是人民當家作主。任何施政，應當由人民倡議監督，公義分配，改善公共服務，使得貧者脫貧，富者節約。今日香港，顧全大陸，官商勾結，貧富懸殊，耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來，但當遇見護士猝死，教師自殺，老人下跪，政府政策就只有小修小補，小恩小惠，試問如何服眾？由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價，乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動，甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行，無不是因政權專政，政策傾斜，分配不公，引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點，亦是如此。

　　多年來，港人爭取民主，為求有公義分配，有尊嚴生活，有自主空間，但我們得到的是甚麼？1984年，中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕，前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港，普選特首」的訴求，清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時，不少港人信以為真，誤以為回歸之後可得民主，但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後，中共圖窮匕現，在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序，並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此，完全不民主的中國立法機關－全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉，人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張，命令香港法庭跟從，打壓香港的民主和法治。

　　2014年8月31日，是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸，中共仍以6月的＜一國兩制白皮書＞為基礎，展示全面管治權的氣派，包括法官閣下在內，都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後，中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目，其時，我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。

公民抗命的起點

　　違法就是罪惡嗎？我們違法，稱之為「公民抗命」，就是公民憑良心為公眾利益，以非暴力形式不服從法律命令，以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明（Leonard Hoffmann）勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出：「發自良知的公民抗命，有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人，歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威，是文明社會的印記。」

　　終審法院在最近的公民廣場案（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35）亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定（該案判詞第70至72段）。因此，亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年，無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代，皆無顯著改進，今日以更進步主張，公民抗命爭取民主，正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權，實在無可厚非。誠然，堵塞主要幹道，影響民眾上班下課，實非我所願，但回想過來，中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路，妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會？

　　如果我是公民抗命，又何以不認罪承擔刑責？2014年12月，警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月，警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題：「近年差不多所有以『公眾妨擾罪』來起訴的案件，都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個：一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律，通常懲罰是輕微的，檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他；二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的，檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他」，無獨有偶，前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及：「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力，除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制，否則可被不當使用。」如今看來，所言非虛。

　　今我遭控二罪，必定據理力爭，冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義，但法庭定讞，我自當承擔刑責，絕無怨言，以成全公民抗命之道。

試問誰還未覺醒

　　我是刻意求刑標榜自己，讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎？我反覆推敲這個問題。然而，我的答案是，正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄，我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權，惡法將至，烏雲密佈，我依然一如既往，毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者，理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利，讓他們能自立成長，辨明是非，而非家長式管控思想，讓下一代淪為生財工具，朝廷鷹犬。

　　主耶穌基督說：「我確確實實地告訴你們：一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去，它仍然是一粒；如果死了，就結出很多子粒來。（《約翰福音》第12章24節）」沒有犧牲，沒有收穫。故然，我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路，承受牢獄之苦，但我請教所有智慧之士，既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效，公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策？若非偌大群眾運動，梁振英豈不仍安坐其位？

　　刑罰於我而言，無情可求，唯一我心中所想，就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高，望以非監禁方式處之，讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）在1968年論及公民抗命時（On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience），不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰，甚至應不予起訴。事實上，終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日，即雨傘運動尾聲（已發生大規模堵路多日），佔中三子自首之後一日，接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』，抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」，更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪，應該從輕發落，認為這是傳統，因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」，由此，我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。

　　法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！

　　願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！

社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日

Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement

Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,

It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.

Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.

The Original Intention

Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.

In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.

What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.

For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.

31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.

The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience

Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?

If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.

Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.

Who has not yet awoken?

I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.

My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.

I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.

Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.

“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!

May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!

Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case

Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019

香港股市近日跌破支持點，而豪宅樓市亦大跌。主持們分析香港樓市崩潰原因有三，分別是過量供應、過量借貸和流動資產收縮。而大陸樓市的崩潰，更會拖累香港樓市，尤以新豪宅樓盤跌幅最大，例如處於西九龍的豪宅。

另外，拉布揭開戰幔，第一日已流會收場。在立法會有關設立全民退休保障的公聽會上，余婆婆妙語青年自由黨主席李梓敬。

即時聊天室：http://goo.gl/ToDqof
謎米香港 www.memehk.com
Facebook：www.facebook.com/memehkdotcom

致謝議案 - 第三個辯論環節：扶貧、福利、人口政策、教育及人力事務

張超雄議員：主席，我想提一提最近社聯及樂施會發表的兩項研究。根據政府統計處最新的住戶收入數據，在社聯日前發表的研究中，以國際貧窮線顯示，香港現時的貧窮人口達119萬人；貧窮住戶的比例是17.6%；長者有突破，10年來首次出 現超 過30萬名貧窮長者：每3名長者中，便有1名屬於貧窮；貧窮人口中有20萬戶屬於在職貧窮，即這些家庭有成員工作，佔整體貧窮人口超過四成。

樂施會兩天前亦發表了一份報告，訪問了501個居住在"劏房"的"N無家庭"，發現七成多受訪家庭等待了四年半仍然未獲得首次編配公屋。這羣朋友居住在非常狹窄，而且租金昂貴的板間房。所以，樂施會建議應該立即增加房屋租金補貼。社聯亦認為現時的貧窮問題嚴重化，是由於最低工資的效果開始減退，追不上通脹，導致貧富懸殊差距惡化。所以，他們建議增加學童午膳津貼、私樓租金津貼、低收入家庭補貼，以及盡快設立全民退休保障。

主席，施政報告有提及全民退休保障。特首在第97段說，僱主、僱員和政府三方供款的全民退休保障建議富爭議性。我不清楚此話有甚麼實質證據，但據我瞭解，過去數年，3項全港性的民意調查顯示，七成以至最近接近九成的香港市民都認為，香港最低限度要研究實施全民退休保障制度。香港大學進行了一項民調，理工大學的社會政策研究中心進行了兩項。我申報，我也是社會政策研究中心一員，但並沒有參與以上調查，從頭到尾也沒有牽涉其中。聲稱全民退休保障富爭議性的說法並沒有任何數據支持，但市民的意願其實已相當清楚，只是梁振英不願意面對和推行，因為他不打算改變現行的所謂"大市場，小政府"格局。他嘴巴好像說得很關心基層，但實際上卻根本沒有觸動任何現有的既得利益。

他現在做甚麼？有關長者生活津貼，政府聲稱每年動用超過60億元，這不是一筆小開支，但長者生活津貼究竟是甚麼？我們認為是四不像。如 果說是扶貧，2,200元 怎麼足夠生活？如果說是敬老，又搞甚麼資產審查？兩者皆不是，政府在搞甚麼？如果說把資源集中幫助有需要的長者，為甚麼不立即廢除"衰仔紙"？為甚麼不讓老人家和傷殘人士以個人作為單位申領綜援？當老人家有經濟需要時，如果家有忤逆子，那又怎麼辦？如果忤逆子連"衰仔紙"也不願簽署，豈非懲罰老人家、懲罰傷殘人士，令他們覺得自己是家庭的負累？由於政策規定要分開居住才可申領，那麼，這項政策究竟是維護還是拆散家庭？不是很荒謬嗎？

如果政府真有心扶貧，為甚麼不推行一些立竿見影的政策？況且，現在說的所謂社會福利規劃，確實可笑。政府說每年如何增加土地、找地方建設一些社福設施，會增加多少個宿位，但現有超過28 000名長者正在輪候。如果未來數年只增加1 700個宿位，是否過於杯水車
薪呢？正在輪候的殘疾人士超過7 300人，要輪候十多年才能入住嚴重智障人士的院舍。我昨天出席一個電台phone-in節目，聽到一名單親家長的來電，說她的小朋友是中度智障，在1999年入紙申請院舍，但至今仍未能輪候到宿位。由入紙至今已過了13年，她的小朋友現在已非小朋友。

究竟政府想怎樣？這是一個甚麼政府？我們要求政府有好的規劃，政府卻說做不到，說要有靈活性。以公屋上樓為例，即使是騙人，最低限度也說說3年便可 -- 這很明顯是騙人，樂施會已說過，根本是四年半也未能輪候到，但政府姑且也先騙騙人。現在卻不然，根本沒有指標，每年只增加數百個宿位，敷衍了事。

政府說要居家安老，甚麼居家安老呢？我們現在有選擇嗎？如果家中有長者，他們跌倒、中風，入院後會怎樣？他們尚未痊癒，醫院的醫生、護士、社工、職業治療師、物理治療師已經勸告家人把他們接回家。如果家中無人可以照顧，又或是如果無能力照顧他們，便會跟家人說如果有能力便聘請傭工照顧。即使家人說沒有錢聘請傭工，院方也會要求長者出院，建議他們到私院或津院"排長龍"輪候，說的可能是要等候37個月。達到護養程度的長者，平均壽命不足3年，但輪候期卻長達37個月。所以，主席，平均而言，是沒有人能輪候得到的。

日期：2013年1月31日(四)
時間：上午9時30分
地點：立法會綜合大樓會議廳

議程
http://legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/chinese/c...

"更多新聞與互動請上：
PNN公視新聞議題中心 ( http://pnn.pts.org.tw/ )
PNN 粉絲專頁 ( http://www.facebook.com/pnnpts.fanpage )
PNN Youtube頻道 ( http://www.youtube.com/user/PNNPTS )
PNN Justin.tv頻道 ( http://zh-tw.justin.tv/pnnpts )
公視新聞網 ( http://news.pts.org.tw )
"事實上，「茉莉花革命」從中東、北非、擴散到了香港。香港的民主派人士在星期天發起了「紫荊花革命」，號召萬人走上街頭，反對香港政府的預算案，並且要求財政司長--曾俊華下台。抗議團體批評政府短視、脫離民意，現在表面上的民主根本就是假民主。

被民眾高喊點名下台的，就是港府財政司司長，這場由香港泛民主團體發起的抗議，由中環遮打花園出發，號召香港來自各個階層的民眾、手拿標語、走上街頭，直接前往港府總部踢館，大聲反對政府提出的預算案太短視，只想要發錢，而不好好解決長遠的問題，實在是沒承擔。

發起遊行的泛民主派立法會議員，宣讀遊行宣言，要求香港政府要增加經常性開支兩百億港幣，要設立全民退休保障，更要廣建國宅等等。有議員更直接點出，在中國一黨專政下，就算能民選議員，還是無法真正落實民主，人民的生活越來越難過，他們不能再忍受下去。

這次香港人發起的紫荊花革命，是以香港特區的區花來命名。遊行民眾將紅絲帶綁在港府總部的鐵門上，甚至還有人打算把茉莉花種在大樹下，就是要延續世界各地茉莉花開的力量，讓當權者聽到人民的怒吼。"