Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I am from Hong Kong, not China. 我來自香港,不是中國. HK is not China!
#1
I am from Hong Kong, not China. 我來自香港,不是中國. HK is not China!

Person of Color Column: I am from Hong Kong, not China
https://berkeleybeacon.com/person-of-col...not-china/

I am from a city owned by a country that I don’t belong to.

Britain colonized Hong Kong as a consequence of the Opium War in 1842. While China gave up part of Hong Kong permanently to Britain—the New Territories, which makes up 86 percent of Hong Kong, was also under British control in a 99-year lease. In 1997, when the lease ended, the British government decided to give all of Hong Kong back to the People’s Republic of China, known just as China today, as a “special administrative region” subordinated by China’s government.

To eliminate panic caused by the change, China promised to practice “one country, two systems,” which guaranteed that everything in Hong Kong would stay the same and operated on a separate political system from other cities in China for 50 years.

China appoints a chief executive every five years after a conditional election among the election committee. Hong Kong’s legal system is embedded within a supreme law called the Basic Law, while citizens elect their legislators in the Legislative Council every four years.

I grew up learning that my city’s core values were rooted in the freedoms granted by the Basic Law, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of press and publication. Myself and many people from Hong Kong take pride in being somewhat politically separated from China, which is governed by the Chinese Communist Party that notoriously censors the internet and imprisons dissident people in China. Many citizens even call themselves “Hongkonger” which the Oxford Dictionary later adopted in 2014.

The outbreak of the Umbrella Revolution, a 79-day occupying movement in 2014 when people asked for universal suffrage in electing the chief executive, put a spotlight on people’s ethnic identification. According to a poll by the University of Hong Kong, as of December 2018, 40 percent of citizens identify themselves as Hongkongers, as opposed to 15 percent who define themselves as Chinese. Less than 4 percent of the young generation ages 18 through 29 identified as Chinese in 2017, according to HK01.

Hongkongers ally with Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, which lost control of mainland China to the communist party in the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan has almost no governmental connection with China. Taiwanese citizens even possess the right to elect their president, governors, and legislators democratically. However, people from Taiwan face the same identity crisis as Hongkongers.

One of my Taiwanese friends at Emerson adopted the “Chinese” identity, even though she told me she loves Taiwan. She said she does not feel strong enough to fight over her identity with her Chinese friends. Last semester, after my friend and I presented a final project about China’s “re-education camps,” where they hold more than a million Muslims in China for genocide, a Chinese student discredited our presentation for being too political.

International students from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet and other places in relation to China face backlash for not identifying as Chinese. Chemi Lhamo, the newly elected student union president of the University of Toronto Scarborough, received hateful comments on her social media because of her Tibetan identity. An online petition gathered more than 10,000 signatures calling for Lhamo to step down because of her pro-independence statements regarding Tibet and Taiwan.

“We strongly disagree with Lhamo’s political statements and her participation in political campaigns that were clearly against Chinese history, Chinese laws, and Chinese students’ rights,” wrote a student who started the petition online after Lhamo was elected in March.

Chinese international students have become a prominent group at most U.S. schools in recent years. They made up nearly 60 percent of Emerson’s undergraduate international student population in fall 2018, according to the college’s Impact Report on Internationalization.

While it is globally agreed that Hong Kong and Taiwan are different entities from China politically, socially, and financially, it is important for colleges to be politically correct by educating themselves on international politics.

During my orientation in last fall, the School of Communication’s presentation about international exchange programs listed my hometown as “Hong Kong, China.” This move might flatter most of the Chinese students at Emerson, yet it upsets me to see how unaware the college is to this topic.

If the college promotes their education abroad programs to broaden students’ global vision, they must be more cognizant and knowledgeable of the places they accept students from and send students to.

I have never felt so desperate to find other people from Hong Kong and advocate for my culture. I recognize the absence of that voice on campus for Taiwanese, Hongkongers and other Chinese minority groups.

At my previous college in Seattle, faculty members hosted a panel that I spoke on alongside other students from Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan. Throughout the event, we touched on similarities and differences between the three cultures and educated the audience on controversial advocacy in Hong Kong and Taiwan. At the end of the panel, everyone seemed to leave with lingering curiosity to continue the conversation and an understanding of differences between us.

Instead of avoiding sensitive political topics to stay away from conflict, there should be more discussions on these issues to provide different students with an inclusive platform to voice their opinions. Everyone, including students from China or Hong Kong, should keep their minds open for new information and perspectives so as to learn from others.

It’s easy to exclude dissidents, but that only reinforces the problem and enlarges the gap between different nationalities. People should acknowledge the differences and participate in those conversations, despite all of the political tension within these places. This is important to provide a comfortable environment for people to identify themselves as who they want to be.

Although it was difficult facing judgment and disdain as one of the few Hongkongers at Emerson, I will strongly hold onto that identity because I am proud and I want to tell people where my actual home is.


「我來自香港,不是中國」 美國留學港生 學生報寫中港之別 惹中國留學生反擊
https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/%E...%E6%93%8A/

[Image: hui-17_JLsfy_1200x0.png]

一名在美國波士頓留學的香港女生,近日在其學生報上撰寫千字文,以英文向當地學生解釋香港與中國之間的分別,並強調自己來自香港而非中國。有關文章引發熱烈迴響,並開始引起香港網民的關注。

該位名為Frances Hui的香港女生,日前在美國愛默生學院的學生報《The Berkeley Beacon》上發表文章,標題為「我來自香港,而非中國(I am from Hong Kong, not China)」,向當地學生詳細解釋中國與香港之間的關係及分別。

該文章先解釋香港被割讓予英國,及後移交予中華人民共和國的過程,又指出香港的核心價值是《基本法》保障的言論、結社、新聞自由,「我和很多香港人都因為與中國某種程度上的政治分離而感到自豪,由中共統治的中國,以臭名昭著的方式審查互聯網,並囚禁異見人士」。

Frances Hui又提及,在去年參加學校迎新活動時,校方將她的家鄉稱為「中國香港(Hong Kong, China)」,她對此感到不悅,並認為校園內缺乏香港、台灣學生的聲音,認為校園不應避免政治敏感議題,反而要讓不同學生都有發聲平台。

一名自稱該文作者的網民,今日於連登討論區撰文。她稱自己其實是該學生報的編輯之一,而文章已打破該網站最高點閱率紀錄。她解釋寫作背後的理念,指自己一直希望用英文撰寫香港新聞,令香港獲更多國際社會關注,又呼籲網民把文章分享出去,「我好希望呢個議題可以炒到更多人知道,同埋知道啲中國人係幾咁野蠻。請各位大大入去睇下篇文,如果可以既話入去留個言,同埋分享出去比更加多人睇。」

她稱在寫完這篇文章後,獲不少台灣學生支持,但同時引起中國學生的討論,「有人post instagram tag我鬧我,有好多人喺篇新聞嘅留言部分到插我」。她又稱被校方聯絡召見,「雖然有其他編輯照住,我仍然覺得好不安」。

文章引起迴響後,多位中國學生亦向《The Berkeley Beacon》投稿,反駁Frances Hui的文章。投稿強調國際社會及法律上均同意,香港領土是中國一部分。而美國國務院及聯合國視香港為中國的一個特別行政區,因為校方將香港稱為「中國香港」做法合適。


係美國新聞學院寫咗篇自己唔係中國人嘅文
https://lihkg.com/thread/1124377/page/1

大家好,我依家喺Boston嘅Emerson College讀緊新聞傳理。我嚟美國一直有一個信念,就係喺呢個環境到讀好新聞,用英文去寫香港嘅新聞,令香港可以受到更多嘅國際關注。因為係文學院,我學校得嗰兩三個香港人,再多嘅都只係以前喺香港讀國際學校,而60%嘅國際生都係中國人。

今個sem我做咗學生報紙嘅其中一個editor,喺我個section其中一個專欄叫Person of Color column。我喺臨完sem時寫咗一篇文關於我自己認同自己係香港人,而唔係中國人。篇文一出我收到好多好評,好多美國人都走嚟同我講話篇文寫得好全面好周到,好多人都喺Facebook到分享。甚至有好多台灣學生因為咁而認識我、走嚟支持我。都係因為咁呢篇文開始引起中國學生嘅討論。有人post instagram tag我鬧我,有好多人喺篇新聞嘅留言部分到插我(大部分都係佢哋自己解讀錯我嘅訊息)。有幾個讀新聞嘅中國學生聯手寫咗篇致編輯的信 ( http://berkeleybeacon.com/letter-student...not-china/ ),去回應我篇文,裡面有好多偏頗嘅資訊。例如佢哋用美國部門嘅一個網站去指出香港係特別行政區(我唔知佢哋喺邊忽覺得我唔認同呢一點),但佢哋無包括到美國視香港為中國之外嘅獨立個體嘅嗰一部分。依家學校嘅國際學生部門仲聯絡我去召見我。雖然有其他編輯照住,我仍然覺得好不安。

依家我篇文已經炒到成個網站歷史嚟最多點閱率,但我覺得單單係喺我學校嘅圈子熱門係唔夠。我好希望呢個議題可以炒到更多人知道,同埋知道啲中國人係幾咁野蠻。請各位大大入去睇下篇文,如果可以既話入去留個言,同埋分享出去比更加多人睇。

(雖然我個人係支持港獨,我無包括到我嘅政治立場係因為我唔想將篇文搞到太偏頗,我想越多人認識香港同中國嘅分別越好,令佢哋容易啲接受我嘅訊息,而唔想佢哋聚焦於港獨呢個議題。)

Link: http://berkeleybeacon.com/person-of-colo...not-china/
Reply
#2
外國政府都知香港不同大陸, 所以針對香港人和大陸人的政策都不同.
大陸人扮香港人拿著數闖關, 大陸人可能因此散播瘟疫, 危害全世界!
大陸人用行動証明 HK is not China!

多份媒體已報導:

【武漢肺炎】澳洲禁中國客入境 中國留學生炫耀扮港人成功闖關
https://china.hket.com/article/2554701/%...6%E9%97%9C
[Image: 202002_1024.png]

新型冠狀病毒肺炎蔓延,武漢肺炎疫情擴大。澳洲政府上周六(1日)宣布禁止非公民、永久居民及其直系親屬入境,大批中國留學生受影響。但澳洲媒體報道,一名中國留學生經香港轉機返回澳洲昆士蘭,過關前將入境登記卡的出境地改為香港,結果成功獲澳洲海關放行。

根據《今日悉尼》報道,一名就讀昆士蘭大學研究所二年級的女學生小Y(化名)表示,一開始以為留學生能不能返回澳洲還有一絲希望,但一聽到學生也無法入境,真的感到相當氣憤,但到後來發現只是14天的暫時禁令,還是期待快點解禁。

有中國客無奈折返 有人成功混進

而另外一名留學生小輝,則是比較波折,在準備降落布里斯班時,機場突然收到禁令,下飛機後更發現自己因為是搭乘轉機班機,但行李卻是直掛目的地,既不能入關拿行李,當下也沒有返程的辦法。

最終一行人被海關帶進小房間,要求要買返程機票,最後再由轉機航空公司轉運行李回程。小輝最後等了很久,用了更高價的機票錢買到返程票。

最後一名留學生小K則是引起眾怒,小K向當地媒體表示,他在禁令生效當晚11時許抵達布里斯班,落機後才得知消息。小K的同學甚至傳送訊息,嘲笑他將要被遣返;惟他臨急生智,將入境登記卡上的「CHINA(中國)」劃掉並改為「HONG KONG(香港)」,結果關員只瞄了他一眼,便允許他從另一側通道入境,甚至連行李都沒有多做檢查。

網民:這種人丟中國人的臉

小K的行為被放上網路,不少中國內地網友也看不過眼表示,「這種人根本就是丟中國人的臉」、「要不要自主隔離了?」、「真的是把其他人命當遊戲」、「拜託這種丟臉事就不用出來炫耀了!」。

武漢肺炎:澳洲封關 中國留學生扮港人竟獲放行
https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/cnnews/20200...2_001.html

澳洲政府因應武漢肺炎疫情,上周六(1日)宣布禁止非公民、永久居民及其直系親屬入境,大批中國留學生受影響。澳媒報道,一名中國留學生經香港轉機返回澳洲昆士蘭,過關前將入境登記卡的出境地改為香港,竟獲放行。
該名化名小K的留學生透露,他在禁令生效當晚11時許抵達布里斯班,落機後才得知消息。小K的同學甚至傳送訊息,嘲笑他將要被遣返;惟他臨急生智,將入境登記卡上的「CHINA」劃掉並改為「HONG KONG」,結果邊檢人員只看了他一眼,便允許他從另一側通道入境,連行李都沒有檢查。
同樣在昆士蘭讀書的小輝,當日從上海啟程並經香港轉機到布里斯班,在抵達香港前1小時澳洲政府宣布限制令。由於小輝的行李是直達澳洲,他要在香港等待往澳洲的航班起飛後,才可以取回行李。禍不單行的是,香港取消內地的自由行簽注,他無法入境香港,只能由海關帶進小黑屋,並購買回程機票。折騰了一晚,才成功拿回行李登機。

【武漢肺炎】訛稱來自香港入境澳洲 中國留學生成功闖關
https://hd.stheadline.com/news/realtime/...6%E9%97%9C
[Image: _2020020315022874294.jpg]
中國留學生小K成功闖關。網圖

武漢肺炎疫情蔓延,澳洲早前宣布禁止任何從中國內地入境的人士,但並不包括香港。不過,近日就有一名中國留學生竟修改入境紙,訛稱自己「來自香港」,成功闖關進入境內。

根據《今日悉尼》報道,一名中國留學生小 K(化名)於上周六(1日)在香港轉機,到當地時間深夜11時45分抵達布里斯本機場,惟落機時才得知澳洲禁止從中國內地入境人士,同學還傳信息嘲笑他要遣返,豈料他竟然修改入境登記卡,將出境地由中國大陸改為香港,結果成功獲澳洲海關放行,「那個人看了我一眼讓我走另外一個通道,過了一下我的行李就放我走了。」

此外,報導又指另外兩個中國留學生,就讀澳洲昆士蘭大學的小輝(化名),也是1日從上海飛往布里斯本,中途經香港轉機,但落機前1小時,香港機場收到澳洲禁令,落機後感到驚訝無助,當下最重要的問題是如何盡快返程。但是小輝無法取回行李,因為機上行李已經直達澳洲,最後和其他旅客被海關安排到一間「小黑屋」,又要求他們購買返程機票,轉機航空公司才會幫他們轉運行李。小輝於機場等到翌日,用高價買到回程機票,「比飛澳洲還貴」。

而同樣就讀昆士蘭大學的女學生小Y(化名)表示,得悉頒令,最初還抱著一絲希望會對留學生網開一面,但再三確認後仍未能入境,感到震驚之餘還非常氣憤,不過得悉只是14日的暫時禁令,有望能儘快上學。

【武漢肺炎疫情】不負責任 中國留學生扮港人入境
https://www.orientaldaily.com.my/news/in.../03/325139

武漢肺炎持續全球蔓延,已傳出亞洲面孔人士在外國遭霸凌和歧視的個案,如今再傳來有中國人用不負責任的方式入境他國,只會進一步加深外國人對中國人負面印象。

澳洲政府因應武漢肺炎疫情,2月1日宣布禁止非公民、永久居民及其直系親屬入境,大批中國留學生受影響。澳媒報導,一名中國留學生經香港轉機返回澳洲昆士蘭,過關前將入境登記卡的出境地改為香港,結果成功獲澳洲海關放行。

該名化名小K的留學生透露,他在禁令生效當晚11時許抵達布里斯班,落機後才得知消息。小K的同學甚至傳送訊息,嘲笑他將要被遣返;但他臨急生智,將入境登記卡上的「CHINA」劃掉並改為「HONG KONG」,結果關員只看了他一眼,便允許他從另一側通道入境,連行李都沒有檢查。

另外,韓國濟州特別自治道政府週一表示,一名中國女性遊客上月21日抵達濟州,期間在蓮洞一家藥店買過退燒藥,而這名來自武漢的遊客回國後確診感染武漢肺炎。當局正在確認與她在濟州有過密切接觸的人。該病例造訪過的藥店、新羅免稅店和樂天免稅店濟州店已暫停營業。

此外,首爾市政府確認,1月13日至25日從中國武漢肺炎疫區到訪首爾的205名外國人中,有65人下落不明。

中國留學生修改入境卡聲稱來自香港 成功入境澳洲
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k...200203.htm

澳洲因應中國的新型肺炎疫情,早前宣布禁止所有旅客由中國內地入境後,大批中國留學生無法入境,但有留學生聲稱修改入境登記卡,將出境地由中國內地改為香港,成功在布里斯班機場入境。

亦有來自上海的留學生,經香港轉機到澳洲時得知禁令,而要折返,由於香港停止內地旅客個人遊簽注,他未能入境香港取回行李,到翌日才成功離開香港。這名學生批評澳洲當局的決定太突然,又形容在香港就好像在國外,無在祖國的感覺。
Reply
#3
Letter: Students respond to “Person of Color Column: I am from Hong Kong, not China”
https://berkeleybeacon.com/letter-studen...v_PG958qh0

To the Editor:

Re “Person of Color Column: I am from Hong Kong, not China” (Column, April 21)

The Living Arts Section recently published a Person of Color column about students from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet being “falsely” identified as Chinese. The article claims that, “International students from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet and other places in relation to China face backlash for not identifying as Chinese.” As international students from China, we are happy to see that the Berkeley Beacon is allowing students to share their thoughts on international issues through the Person of Color column. However, there are some topics that need further clarification, and we feel obligated to share our perspective with readers.

First, the historical background of the Hong Kong territory needs further reiteration. In 1839, Britain invaded Qing China and captured Hong Kong as a colony as the result of Britain’s complete victory over Qing China in 1842. After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Hong Kong officially reverted to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 after 48 years. Chinese and British government signed the agreement that stipulates a “one country, two systems” rule which protects Hong Kong’s democratic system except in matters of foreign relations and defense. According to the principle of the policy, the central government is banned from interfering in Hong Kong affairs and the Communist Party has no official presence. Freedom of speech, press, religion, and protest are all defended by law.

Moreover, Xizang, or Tibet, and Taiwan cannot be discussed under the same context as Hong Kong due to China’s complicated political history. Unlike Hong Kong, there is no historical territory problem left behind because of colonization, and the political controversies of Taiwan’s ownership are the complication of the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s. Hence, putting these issues together as evidence to back up the identity crisis is an act of generalization; it fails to provide readers with the complicated historical context behind the identity crisis. The controversies surrounding ownership of these territories have existed for a long time and cannot be explained through a simple piece. Thus, confusing the unexplained with the inexplicable further misleads readers.

Second, the article applies the title of “Hongkonger” to all Hong Kong residents, ignoring the fact that one third of Hong Kong residents identify as “Chinese”. According to a survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong Kong in 2018, 66.3 percent of the sample consider themselves as “Hongkonger” in the broader sense, while 31.9 percent regard themselves as “Chinese.”

In addition, the article also calls out Emerson’s need for more “awareness” toward issues relating to international politics and gives an example of how Emerson listed Hong Kong as “Hong Kong, China.” It says that “if the college promotes their education abroad programs to broaden students’ global vision, they must be more cognizant and knowledgeable of the places they accept students from and send students to.” It also mentioned that “it is globally agreed that Hong Kong and Taiwan are different entities from China politically, socially, and financially.”

Despite what the article said, it is globally and legally agreed that the Hong Kong territory is a part of China. According to the U.S. Department of State, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and its foreign relations and defense are the responsibility of China. Besides, Hong Kong is also recognized as a Special Administrative Region of China by the United Nations. The Hong Kong Institutional Instruments also states that Hong Kong is the Special Administrative Region of China. The Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region also demands the nationality law of the People’s Republic of China to apply in Hong Kong. Therefore, by listing Hong Kong as a part of China, Emerson is following the region’s legal recognition.

We acknowledge that China’s political issues are very complicated. However, as journalists, it is the writer and the editor’s responsibility to inform the public with accurate facts. We strongly believe that this column failed to inform its readers, who are mainly Emerson faculty and students without sufficient knowledge of China’s politics. Without learning the full context, the reader may not be able to form an independent opinion on such a complex issue.

We appreciate the Beacon’s effort to create the POC column to support the voice of minority students, and we respect the author’s political opinion and her identity. Yet, we are concerned that the column might be used to create misunderstandings and generalizations among different ethnic groups at Emerson. We believe that the goal of the POC column is to create a platform to promote cultural diversity at Emerson rather than personal, political propaganda. The POC column should be a safe place for students to share their experience as members of the POC community. It should be a place to unite POC students, rather than divide us apart.

Sincerely,

Xinyan Fu, Jiachen Liu, and Xinyi Tu
Reply
#4
港人身份認同 創回歸後新高
https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/dai...8/20715280
[Image: a1005a.gif]

【港大民研】
【本報訊】港大民意研究計劃在兩次反送中惡法大遊行後,進行市民身份認同調查;結果顯示,香港人身份認同創下是項調查1997年展開以來的歷史高位,逾半人自稱香港人。而對中國人身份認同則跌至歷來最低,只有約一成人自稱中國人。調查又發現,年紀越輕,中國民族自豪感越低,對中央的香港政策亦越不滿。

中國人自豪感史上最低

港大民研本月17至20日隨機抽樣電話訪問1,015名市民,結果同時顯示,對中國國民身份沒有自豪感的市民比率達71%,比去年上升14個百分點,有自豪感比率跌11個百分點至27%,分別創下1997年有紀錄以來新高和新低。其中18至29歲群組,沒有自豪感比率最高,達九成。中央政府對港政策方面,正面評價佔23%,負面評價為53%,淨值則為負30個百分點,創下1999年有紀錄以來新低。18至29歲群組中佔七成人是負面評價。

港大民研高級數據分析師戴捷輝指,調查在兩次反修訂《逃犯條例》遊行後進行,結果清楚反映,修訂條例事件衝擊港人的身份認同及回歸情感。深入分析更顯示,市民年紀越輕,對成為中國國民感到自豪比率越低,對中央政府對港政策的評價也越負面。總監鍾庭耀表示,對有關數字感無奈和可惜。

05AUG2016香港民族黨造勢大會足本1/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORipDnC0e7Q
[youtube]ORipDnC0e7Q[/youtube]

05AUG2016香港民族黨造勢大會足本2/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZCM4bxKkpc
[youtube]sZCM4bxKkpc[/youtube]
Reply
#5
You are not even a fucking Chinese
http://www.forum4hk.com/viewthread.php?tid=14620654
Reply
#6
【海外香港 123 】「We the Hong Kongers」總監許穎婷 Frances:兩年來受過的人身恐嚇,依然無怨無悔
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4XwLOUQ7Zk
[youtube]G4XwLOUQ7Zk[/youtube]
Reply
#7
因違反使用條款被中止租約 主辦方取消明日 「香港人書展」
https://std.stheadline.com/realtime/arti...8%E5%B1%95

[Image: _2022071318555135844.jpg]
「香港人書展」胎死腹中。

原定明日(14日)在銅鑼灣Mall Plus商場揭幕的香港人書展,主辦單位指收到業主通知,因主辦方違反場地使用條款而中止租約,書展需要取消。

主辧單位在社交媒體表示,昨(12日)晚10時許收到場地業主代表來電,指由於違反部分場地使用條款,故考慮中止租用合約。至今早,業主代表再明確表示,要中止租用合約,並會發出正式的書面知會。

根據業主代表的說法,指主辦方將場地分租的做法違反當初的場地使用條款,惟主辦方指出,在簽約時已表明場地將用作書展用途,場地將有不同的參展商,並不屬法律層面上的分租。在電話中主辦方亦明確表示,願意根據業主代表要求以作調整,惟亦遭堅拒,主辦方對此感到極度失望及遺憾。

主辦單位向已購買門票及計畫前來的讀者致以萬二分歉意,並稱團隊已竭盡所能,「惟在此刻實在無能為力」。

回歸25周年︱像張學友一樣理直氣壯說「香港加油」
https://www.hk01.com/sns/article/788519

本來是一件好事情,為了慶祝香港回歸25周年,香港知名歌手張學友給中央電視台錄了一段視頻。在視頻中,張學友穿着白色T恤,素顏出鏡,坦言「香港這25年經歷了很多,高高低低、起起伏伏,但因為我是和這個城市一起成長的,我從這裏出生,從這裏長大,我仍然相信這個城市,仍然希望這個城市會變成一個比以前更加好的城市,香港加油。」

本來是一段很樸素真誠的祝願,可在一些內地網民眼中,卻成了「不愛國」的「罪證」:一是因為張學友沒有提到「祖國」,看看其他香港明星的祝福,都有提到「祖國」,張學友沒有提,所以就是「不愛國」;二是張學友用了「香港加油」作為結尾,因為在修例風波中,「香港加油」被廣泛使用,後被等同於一句「政治口號」;三是張學友說香港過去25年「高高低低、起起伏伏」,是不是對香港過去25年不滿意?

隨着網絡輿情發酵,考慮到負面評論太多,央視很快刪除了這則視頻。3月下午,張學友透過香港媒體發布聲明予以回應,關於愛國問題,張學友寫道:「本人(張學友)覺得我是一個愛國家,愛香港的中國人。作為藝人不涉政治是我的基本原則。我在香港出生香港長大,也希望在香港老死。」「所謂聽其言,觀其行,本人是否愛國愛港,自有公論。」

關於「香港加油」和過去25年的情況,張學友寫道:「我見證了香港最黃金最輝煌的時刻,跟現在的香港比較實在是強差人意。特別在過去的幾年裏,香港經歷了黑暴,緊接着疫情,百業蕭條,人心惶惶,香港正是須要努力加油的時候,我聽過『北京加油』、『武漢加油』、『上海加油』…但『香港加油』卻因為一些犯了錯誤的人用過,『黑色』『黃色』被一些別有用心犯了罪的人穿過,變成了愛國不愛國的標準,成為了『禁語』『禁色』,我個人無法理解。」

在聲明中,張學友還特別提到,「本人是經過香港受國家高速發展而獲益的其中一員,如果這世界真有奇蹟,能讓數以億計的貧困人口,脱貧而步入小康的中國,是本世紀最大的奇蹟,我更以身為中國人深感驕傲。本人更希望我們中國人是理性的,是以理服人的,在世界人面前展現中國人的風範。」

回看整個事件,雖然令人遺憾、讓人憤懣,但以此作為案例,仍有三個問題有必要追問和釐清:

首先,央視下架張學友視頻實屬不應該。稍微有點常識和理性的人,都不會將張學友視頻裏說的話當做「不愛國」,也不會因為一句「香港加油」就上綱上線,雞蛋裏面挑骨頭,但當這樣的網絡暴力傳導到官方層面,換來的不是力挺受網暴者,而是下架視頻,性質就開始變了。一方面,人們會誤以為,央視也認為這則視頻有問題,需要危機公關;另一方面,對網暴者而言,不僅不會收斂,反倒會將出征張學友當做一場「勝利」。當下一次再有縫隙和機會,類似規模的出征又會捲土重來。

基於此,央視不僅不應該下架視頻,反倒應該讓其理直氣壯的存在下去,並像張學友一樣,理直氣壯說一句「香港加油」,既作為對張學友的支持,也是對民粹和網暴「說不」的立場宣誓。下架視頻並不能解決問題,反倒會讓網暴和民粹的勢力更加猖獗。一刪了之、一禁了之,短期來看是「眼不見心不煩」,但從長遠來看,卻是在埋下更大的隱患、間接培植了民粹土壤。

其次,愛國從來不只有一種形式,更不是靠嘴巴說的,而是要看具體行動。就像張學友在聲明中說的,「聽其言,觀其行」。香港過去幾年發生了很多事情,佔中運動、旺角騷亂、修例風波再加上疫情,不僅像張學友一樣生活在香港的人會感到人心惶惶,差強人意,所有關心香港命運的人也會感到前路茫茫。在這樣的階段,需要的不是撕裂,而是團結,不是一味唱讚歌、表忠心,而是直面問題與矛盾,進而更好的再出發。

國家主席習近平在香港回歸25周年的講話中提到,「香港居民,不管從事什麼職業、信奉什麼理念,只要真心擁護『一國兩制』方針,只要熱愛香港這個家園,只要遵循基本法和特別行政區法律,都是建設香港的積極力量,都可以出一份力、作一份貢獻。」接下來,要想凝聚共識建設香港,最主要的一條就是要擴大「愛國愛港」的圈層,讓更多人成為建設香港的積極力量,「把朋友搞得多多的,敵人搞得少少的」,所謂人心齊、泰山移,千萬別因無腦的鍵盤俠讓「張學友們」寒了心。

最後,網暴張學友只是極少數網民,並不代表內地的主流民意。不消說,張學友被網暴,最後不得不站出來為莫須有的「不愛國」自辯,在香港社會起了很糟糕的效應,進一步拉遠了內地與港人的距離,但需要明確的是,網暴者只是網絡上極少數的一群人,內地絕大多數人和港人一樣,站在張學友一邊。

不過雖然只是極少數人,不意味着不需要引起重視。親歷過上海疫情的歷史學家蕭功秦在與一位網絡上的極端者對話之後寫道,「中國人身上極左時代形成的陳舊的思維方式,價值觀念,殘存的極端思維會從假死狀態重新復活。一旦國際環境惡化,國內經濟困難出現,各種『陰謀論』思維、亢奮極端的狹隘民族主義、自以為是的『厲害國』觀念,受害者式的悲情主義,都會被重新激活,它們會取代人們的常識與經驗,並且具有傳染性。這是因為每個人思維中多少有過它們曾經的活動軌跡。甚至已經被全民否定的『階級鬥爭』的觀念,也會很輕易地回到我們生活中來支配人們的思維。加上人道文化的缺失,以及其他種種惡根性,其中有二千年來的專制統治形成的文化習性,也有十年動盪時代的左的思潮在國人精神與心理上積澱的文化慣性。都可能會在艱難時期不斷被激活。」

綜上,就個人情感而言,筆者希望張學友無緣由遭遇的這場網暴風波儘快過去,但就該事件的警示意義而言,筆者又希望其能成為一記長鳴的警鐘,尤其是張學友聲明中的那些話,應該成為各方反躬自省的有力提醒。因為不僅「香港加油」、「黑色」、「黃色」不該成為「禁語」、「禁色」,整個社會的敏感神經也應得以適度舒緩,文化慣性和極左土壤不是一天形成的,要想改變和剷除,也必須依託於自上而下多數人的共同努力。只有這樣,才能真的實現張學友所說的「以理服人」,「在世界人面前展現中國人的風範」。

洪天明一句「我是香港的」被怒插 急拍片澄清:有很多人不知香港是中國嗎?
https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E6%B4%AA%E5%A...58756.html
[Image: 015d3990-d64f-11ec-bfbd-9c9fb79e7a52]
洪天明一句「我是香港的」被怒插 急拍片澄清:有很多人不知香港是中國嗎?

洪天明稱「我是香港的」被批港獨 本人:要說來自地球中國香港?
https://www.hk01.com/sns/article/771136

[ 本帖最後由 HKer 於 2022-7-13 09:55 編輯 ]
Reply
#8
「香港人書展」突然煞停 負責人稱本擬展出禁書
https://orientaldaily.on.cc/content/news...00176_205/

本地出版社「山道文化」因被香港貿易發展局拒絕參與書展,故打算聯同另外12間書商另起爐灶舉辦「香港人書展」,於灣仔銅鑼灣Mall Plus商場舉行一連7天「第一屆香港人書展」,日前突收到業主通知違反租約,並須即時撤走。

「山道文化」負責人楊子俊昨早在電台節目表示,業主指活動違反部分場地使用條款,終止租約,但未有提及原因。他指業主簽約時,已明確知悉活動性質,以往場地亦曾出租作市集用途,形容被取消租約因政治社會環境「超出預計」,將改由網上形式舉行。

研究向業主索償

楊子俊認為,事件涉及政治因素,原本安排支持社會民主運動的人士參與,亦有機會展出被書展列為「禁書」的書籍,或令業主受壓。

楊又指會先諮詢法律意見,再決定是否提出索償。
Reply
#9
Quote:原帖由 失蹤的老公 於 2022-5-21 17:41 發表 [Image: back.gif]
【海外香港 123 】「We the Hong Kongers」總監許穎婷 Frances:兩年來受過的人身恐嚇,依然無怨無悔
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4XwLOUQ7Zk
G4XwLOUQ7Zk

許穎婷:(中字) 2019組織波士頓反送中遊行遭死亡威脅,樂見幕後黑手、中共僑領梁利堂被捕;如何蒐證揭中共跨境鎮壓【珍言真語 梁珍 5.11】
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnR0fuG2b0
[youtube]DdnR0fuG2b0[/youtube]
Reply
#10
Frances Hui – Glory to Hong Kong | 2023 Geneva Summit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sPYmuxr-PM
[youtube]4sPYmuxr-PM[/youtube]

Frances Hui on Human Rights in Hong Kong — United Nations Opening, 2023 Geneva Summit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqrN4TfwxWs
[youtube]BqrN4TfwxWs[/youtube]

United Nations Opening Full Video | 2023 Geneva Summit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDsAnzu5ahM
[youtube]WDsAnzu5ahM[/youtube]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)