【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】
***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated,將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像:以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文(https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/)翻譯成英文,鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演,在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***
中文精簡版本:https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/
Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.
In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.
The possibility of realizing legislative majority
Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.
The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?
Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.
Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.
Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority
To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.
While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.
Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.
Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.
Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP
What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.
Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.
The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.
Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution
Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.
Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.
The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.
All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.
https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「admittedly中文」的推薦目錄:
- 關於admittedly中文 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於admittedly中文 在 Dr. Ray 的急症室迎送生涯 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於admittedly中文 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於admittedly中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於admittedly中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於admittedly中文 在 admittedly造句2023-精選在Instagram/IG照片/Dcard上的焦點 ... 的評價
- 關於admittedly中文 在 Admittedly Legal | Hong Kong Hong Kong - Facebook 的評價
- 關於admittedly中文 在 Aladdin 2019 Speechless(part2)台灣中文版原主唱蔡永淳 ... 的評價
admittedly中文 在 Dr. Ray 的急症室迎送生涯 Facebook 的精選貼文
醫者有社會責任去保障公眾健康,我們認為梁卓偉教授和陳家亮教授作為香港兩所醫學院院長責無旁貸。因此,我們呼籲所有醫護人員參與連署,懇請兩位院長履行社會使命發表聲明保障社會大眾的健康和人身安全。
連署連結: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
———————————————————————-
《致香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長的公開信》
梁教授、陳教授道鑒:
有鑑於在六月十二日、七月二日及二十一日,香港警察濫用武力以控制群眾。如此行徑實對公眾健康遺害無窮,我們一眾醫療人員對此極為關切。作為香港大學李嘉誠醫學院院長、中文大學醫學院院長,吾等懇請兩位院長細察香港警察控制群眾之手段,以保障公眾健康。
據多家本地及國際媒體報導,香港警察於六月十二日,發射多輪催淚彈、橡膠子彈及布袋彈,以驅散聚集在金鐘的示威者。報導提及,警方向示威者發射至少一百五十枚催淚彈,二十輪布袋彈以及數枚橡膠子彈,造成至少七十二人受傷。從多家媒體直播可見,橡膠子彈更直射一名教師眼球,創傷嚴重,對其視力之損害非同等閒。另外,警方亦曾以數枚催淚彈包抄示威者,堵塞其退路;而當示威者被逼退守至中信大廈,警方竟朝人群中央投以催淚彈,造成數以百計的市民受傷及呼吸困難,生死攸關,不容小覷。此外,警方向一名手無寸鐵的市民,近距離發射橡膠子彈,以致其下腹嚴重受傷,情況慘不忍睹。
據多份醫學期刊綜述──如《刺針》(Lancet)[1] 及英國醫學期刊(BMJ (Open))[2],橡膠子彈乃可致命武器。同時,橡膠子彈不易操控,準確性低,有引致重傷,乃至死亡之風險。多份期刊不約而同指出,橡膠子彈不適宜用於密集人群之管制。
然而,香港警察漠視上述已知風險,仍於七月二日及七月二十一日繼續使用此類武器。在七月二十一日,警察更於鄰近民居之地,向群眾發射多輪催淚彈及橡膠子彈,當中更殃及記者。此等武器之禍害影響深重,不單有損呼吸系統,更會導致燒傷、嚴重鈍物創傷及爆炸性創傷。據媒體報導,武器造成至少十四人受傷;更有市民懼於警方之搜捕行動,而未敢求醫,致使受傷數字難以估算。
人權醫療組織(Physicians for Human Rights)醫生哈爾(Dr Rohini Haar)在接受紐約時報訪問時指出,警方對市民使用不成比例的武力,實有濫用武力之嫌。早在二零一四年,潘冬平教授[3]亦對香港警察使用催淚氣體情況深表關注,擔心催淚氣體損害市民呼吸系統。可見,催淚彈、橡膠子彈及豆袋彈等武器危害不輕,對香港市民公眾健康的損害不容置疑。
兩大醫學學院一直致力培育杏林菁英,不遺餘力。一眾醫療人員亦謹承《希波克拉底誓詞》之教誨,不論病患身份職要,一直為全人類之福祉著想,嚴守不懈。學院循循善誘,吾等縷心刻骨。誓詞薪火相傳,代代不息;缺少對生命健康之尊重,醫療人員何以自立?故此,我們一眾醫療人員懇請院長,發表聲明,呼籲香港警察:
一、避免濫用催淚彈及任何類型子彈,以免導致人命傷亡及其他不可見之損傷。
二、在使用武力時,必須顧及市民安全,並保持專業克制。
醫療人員一直存仁心,行仁術;保護市民之健康,乃至生命,吾等責無旁貸。院長為學為醫,高風峻節,茍以吾等同心同德,捍衛市民之生命健康,必見杏林春暖。
謹祝
道安
一眾醫療人員謹上
———————————————————————
Dear Professor Leung and Professor Chan,
We are a group of healthcare professionals, some of us being also graduates from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We are writing to express our gravest concerns over the persistent and serious threats to the health of members of the public posed by weapons deployed in crowd control by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) on 12 June, 2 July and 21 July. We hereby urge the Deans of the sole Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong to take actions in censuring the HKPF and the Hong Kong Government against the serious health risks in their crowd-control tactics.
On 12 June, as reported by multiple local and international news agencies, the HKPF fired multiple rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds to disperse protesters in Admiralty. Over 150 canisters of tear gas, 20 bean-bag rounds and several rubber bullets have admittedly been directed at protestors which resulted in at least 72 injuries. As evident in the live reports from various media sources, a teacher suffered traumatic ocular injury causing significant vision loss when his eye was hit by a rubber bullet; hundreds of citizens suffered various degrees of injuries and respiratory distress consequential upon the numerous tear gas canisters shot at Citic Tower in Admiralty where protesters were trapped in a life-threatening space filled with tear gas; an unarmed man sustained injury in his lower abdomen when a rubber bullet was directed at him in a short distance.
According to multiple studies and reviews from high impact factor medical journals, in particular the Lancet[1] and BMJ (Open)[2], rubber bullets can be lethal. Their notorious inaccuracy and risk of severe injury and death render them inappropriate and unsafe means of force in crowd control.
However, despite the known risks of these weapons, the HKPF tenaciously deployed them on citizens on 2 July and 21 July. On 21 July, 55 canisters of tear gas, 5 rubber bullet rounds and 24 sponge bullets were admittedly shot, some without immediate warning, at protestors and even at journalists notwithstanding the numerous residential buildings and citizens in the vicinity. The use of these weapons has left members of the public with at the very least, various types of injuries and further, burns, blunt force trauma and explosive injuries. 14 injuries have by far been reported where others did not present themselves to the hospital in fear of the risk of prosecution.
Dr Rohini Haar of Physicians for Human Rights had in a recent interview told the New York Times that the force used by the HKPF was disproportionate and excessive. In Hong Kong, Professor Ronnie Poon had as early as in 2014 expressed openly his earnest concern over both the short term and long term health risks in the use of tear gas in particular to one’s respiratory system when the HKPF first fired tear gas at Hong Kong citizens [3]. It is indisputable that these named weapons put the health of Hong Kong citizens at serious risks.
Doctors have striven to stand by the Hippocratic oath that they remain members of society, the identity of which comes before their profession, with special obligations to all fellow human beings. The two medical schools in Hong Kong have been established accordingly for the nurture of healthcare professionals to serve the public with benevolent hearts and minds. This is the time to honour our oath that human life should deserve the utmost respect and to maintain by all means such noble traditions of the medical profession.
We, as healthcare professionals, therefore implore the Deans of the only Faculties of Medicine in Hong Kong, in the service of humanity with conscience and dignity, to take the lead in safeguarding the public’s health and to issue a statement to urge the Hong Kong Police Force to:
(1) refrain from using tear gas and bullets in any form on protestors to prevent further bloodshed and severe non-reversible injuries; and
(2) exercise due restraint over the use of force when handling protests and at all times, put the safety of Hong Kong citizens at the highest priority.
Regards,
A group of healthcare professionals
———————————————————
Healthcare professionals have a social responsibility to safeguard the health of members of the public. We believe that, as Deans of the faculties of medicine in Hong Kong, Professor Leung and Professor Chan bear a paramount obligation in this regard. We appeal to all healthcare professionals to join us in this petition to urge the deans to issue a statement to honour their obligation to defend the public from health risks.
—————————————————————
Petition Link: https://forms.gle/teMGNCiZPMYatVbh8
——————————
參考資料/References
[1] Mahajna, A., Aboud, N., Harbaji, I., Agbaria, A., Lankovsky, Z., Michaelson, M., . . . Krausz, M. M. (2002). Blunt and penetrating injuries caused by rubber bullets during the Israeli-Arab conflict in October, 2000: A retrospective study. The Lancet, 359(9320), 1795-1800. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08708-1
[2] Haar, R. J., Iacopino, V., Ranadive, N., Dandu, M., & Weiser, S. D. (2017, December 01). Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: A systematic review
[3] Professor Ronnie Poon Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/138599119760/posts/10152753050039761?s=1014598371&sfns=mo
—————————————————————
admittedly中文 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
admittedly中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
admittedly中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
admittedly中文 在 Admittedly Legal | Hong Kong Hong Kong - Facebook 的推薦與評價
of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK. Nov 2, 2020. Do you think all firms ... ... <看更多>
admittedly中文 在 Aladdin 2019 Speechless(part2)台灣中文版原主唱蔡永淳 ... 的推薦與評價
【永淳演唱心得】迪士尼幾乎每年都會有一部大戲上映,通常都會做成 中文 版,只要有歌唱的部分,都會做Audition,所有的試聲帶,全部要送到美國迪士尼總 ... ... <看更多>
admittedly中文 在 admittedly造句2023-精選在Instagram/IG照片/Dcard上的焦點 ... 的推薦與評價
admittedly造句2023-精選在Instagram/IG照片/Dcard上的焦點新聞和熱門話題資訊,找admittedly造句,admittedly用法,admittedly中文,admittedly造句 ... ... <看更多>