Search
科學研究也許是孤獨的，但對世界的貢獻是真實的！
最近火紅的兩個新冠肺炎疫苗，再度印證科學的歷程，往往是一個科學家在人群的角落，孤獨的奮戰，但只要是正確的方向，聲音在小，總有一天，全世界的人，都在傾聽。
美籍的這位匈牙利科學家，Katalin Karikó，ＲＮＡ信使的發明人，她的奮鬥故事，不屈不撓的精神，真是非常令人敬佩。這種奮戰精神，值得我們學習。科學的研究，就是沒辦法只看ＫＰＩ，那是一種孤獨的嘗試又嘗試，過程中，只能不斷的相信自己，相信自己的專業。希望國內正在實驗室裡為各種研究苦苦拼戰的研究夥伴們共勉，大家堅持，信賴專業，總有一天，我們的研究也可改變世界。
附記：天下有一個短篇中文報導，也可參考。但這篇英文報導比較完整。https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5103006
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/
【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
【民陣強烈譴責警方腰斬元旦遊行】
CHRF Condemn HK Police Slashing New Year Rally
(English version below)
警方於今日 5 時半，強行終止了民陣的遊行及集會，民陣對此予以強烈譴責！民陣亦嚴正聲明，疏散群眾是按不反對通知書要求迫於無奈的做法，民陣絕對不同意警方腰斬的決定，警方相關言論是充滿謊言、誤導及分化香港人。
警察於盧押道的拘捕行動引發警民對峙，當時場面漸變溫和，防暴警察及後亦準備撤退，卻隨即向人群投擲催淚彈，激化矛盾。警方亦同時威逼遊行腰斬，更要求民陣 30 分鐘內疏散迫爆港島的數十萬市民，大批防暴警察更在地鐵站及各疏散路線截查、挑釁市民，成圍捕之勢。
二零二零年一月一日，新一年第一個合法遊行，警方卻藉詞腰斬，充份顯示政府「旨暴製亂」，無意回應市民訴求，更嚴重侵犯市民參與和平集會的權利。
民陣警告香港政府，尊重浩蕩民意，落實五大訴求，缺一不可，否則香港人絕對不會放棄，社會亦因為警暴不會回復平靜。
民間人權陣線
2020 年 1 月 1 日
CHRF Condemn HK Police Slashing New Year Rally
Hong Kong Police ceased CHRF’s New Year Rally and assembly today at 1730 HKT. CHRF condemn such a brutal decision. We reluctantly abided by the terms of “Letter of No Objection” to evacuate the crowd——we have never agreed upon the Police’s decision. The Police’s comment on our alleged “agreement” is falsified and maliciously diverging the public.
Earlier tension at Luard Road after a Police arrest action was originally easing, and Riot Police were retreating. Unfortunately, Police fired tear gas to the crowd, escalated the scene. Police subsequently called off the rally and demanded CHRF to evacuate all the crowd in Hong Kong Island within 30 minutes. Riot Police at MTR stations and all exit routes kept searching and provoking citizens, threatening mass arrest.
On the first day of year 2020, the Police dismissed the first licensed assembly of the year with absurd excuse. Hong Kong government have shown its unwillingness to listen to the voices of the mass, infringing the right of assembly of Hong Kong citizens.
CHRF warn Hong Kong Government to respect and fulfill the Five Demands——Not One Less. Or else, Hong Kong-ers shall not back down, and peace shall not resume with on-going police brutality.
Civil Human Right’s Front
1st Jan 2020
———
【民陣 TG】 t.me/CivilHumanRightsFront
【民陣 Twitter】 twitter.com/chrf_hk
民陣被捕法律支援熱線：6549 9452
Whatsapp / SMS / Telegram
請提供資料：（＊必要）
1. 被捕地點
2. 中文全名＊
3. 英文全名
4. 身份證號碼
5. 性別、年齡
6. 當事人電話
7. 所在警署
8. 緊急聯絡人電話＊
9. 報料人電話＊（若與緊急聯絡人不同）
10. 其他詳情（如有）
dismissed中文 在 FT中文網 的推薦與評價
Investor: Facebook dismissed my concerns because I am 『not nice』 | Facebook竟以「不客氣」為由無視女性投資者- FT中文網. 分享到微信. ... <看更多>