關於 liaison person ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【劉曉波逝世四週年】

https://youtu.be/4GzYYATsP9I

———————————

文遠交低話大家記住一定要撐 #文遠Patreon 呀！

⭐支持文遠⭐請訂閱Patreon⭐
⭐Please show your support by subscribing to Avery’s Patreon ⭐
www.patreon.com/AveryNg

———————————

今天是七月十三日，小弟我依然是坐緊監，為何今天我會有這一段影片呢，原因是今天是劉曉波先生的死忌，不經不覺已經是四年了。

大家都知道，劉曉波是我們中國第一位，亦是唯一獲得諾貝爾和平獎的人。我記得當年2008年，他是有份撰寫零捌憲章的，是很多年前的事。他當年的訴求其實很簡單，對於香港來說，甚至乎是偏向平實保守，他只是希望中國能夠有一個體制內和平的政治改革，希望能夠使到中國整個民主社會或是公民社會可以進步和發展。這只是一篇相對溫和憲章，但在當年卻遭到共產黨的全面打壓，大家便知道共產黨所懼怕的，並不是什麼分裂勢力、暴力或是外國力量介入，它們最懼怕是人民的良知。亦因此過往每年的今天，我和長毛和社民連等人，無論下多大雨都總會去中聯辦燃點燭光，去悼念劉曉波先生，但當然今天我沒辦法做到，我亦不會清楚在監獄外的朋友能否做到，但我仍希望各位朋友今天至少能穿上黑衣，用自己的方法去燃點燭光，去悼念劉曉波先生，甚至乎若您今天有時間的話，您可以上網了解一下零捌憲章的內容，或是重溫一下劉曉波先生的事蹟，他生平除了零捌憲章外還有很多貢獻，當年他也在天安門廣場內。

現在回想劉曉波先生的遭遇也很唏噓，其實除了劉曉波先生外，這麼多年來還有無數的維權人士和維權律師，在大陸被失踪、被監禁、被自殺、被滅亡，無論您覺得您是香港人也好，還是覺得您是中國人也好，或是覺得自己是世界公民也好，無論您價值觀如何，只要您也是追求或是擁抱自由、民主、公義的說，我們希望各位皆可以出一分力去悼念劉曉波先生，因為他是一個非常標緻性的人物，他臨終時雖然罹患癌症，但他一直以來也沒有放棄，亦沒有屈服。每次談到這個話題，心情也會很唏噓。
我希望能夠很快可以放監出來，可以和大家在街頭上見，亦都希望可以再次為劉曉波先生，和那些為民主運動而犧牲的人，聊表心意和悼念。

－－－－－－－－－－－－

Today is the 13th of July and I am still in prison. The reason why I have this video today is that today is the anniversary of the death of Mr LIU Xiaobo. Time flies and it has been 4 years already.

As we all know, LIU Xiaobo was the first and only person in China to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I remember that in 2008, he had a part to play in writing the Charter 08, which was many years ago. He only hoped that China could have a peaceful political reform within the system, and that the whole democratic society or civil society in China could progress and develop. The content of the charter was rather mild, yet it was heavily suppressed by the communists. We all know that the regime fears not separatist forces, violence, or foreign forces, but the people's conscience. That is why every year on this day, Long Hair, the League of Social Democrats and I would always go to the Liaison Office to light a candle in memory of Mr Liu Xiaobo, no matter how heavy the rain was. But of course I can't do that today, and I'm not sure if my friends outside the prison can either, however I still hope that you can at least wear black today and light a candle to remember Mr. Liu Xiaobo. If you have time today, you can go online and learn about Charter 08, or you can revisit the story of Mr Liu Xiaobo, who made many contributions in his life apart from Charter 08, in fact he was in Tiananmen Square back then too.

It is saddening to look back on what happened to Mr LIU Xiaobo. In fact, apart from Mr LIU Xiaobo, there are countless other human rights activists and lawyers who have been disappeared, imprisoned, suicided or killed in the Mainland over the years. Whether you feel you are a Hong Kong citizen, a Chinese citizen, or a global citizen. No matter your values, as long as you are in pursuit of freedom, democracy, and justice, we hope you can all pay your respects to Mr Liu Xiaobo because he was a very exemplary figure. He was dying of cancer, but he never gave up. Whenever I talk about this subject, I feel very sad.

I hope to be released from prison soon and be able to meet you all on the streets. I also hope that we can once again pay tribute to Mr Liu Xiaobo and those who sacrificed their lives for the democratic movement.

———————————
文遠交低話大家記住一定要撐 #文遠Patreon 呀！

⭐支持文遠⭐請訂閱Patreon⭐
⭐Please show your support by subscribing to Avery’s Patreon ⭐
www.patreon.com/AveryNg

The biggest danger that can befall us | Lee Yee

The debate around the pan-democrats’ leaving or staying is heated. What I am concerned about is the thinking during this debate. Perhaps the process is more important than the result.

I quoted from Mao in last week’s article: “We must support whatever the enemy opposes, and we must oppose whatever the enemy supports.” This is a common way of thinking, whether among the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists, Hong Kong pro-democracy camps, young protesters, and even certain political commentators. They often use this line of thinking to judge and justify their words and actions.

My article sparked discussion on LIHKG, with the focus on whether we should act in the opposite direction as the “enemy”. Some think that I was mainly targeting and reprimanding the LIHKG community, because many of them oppose certain words and actions based very simply on whether “the CCP is the happiest”. Others pointed out that YouTube KOLs mention “the CCP is the happiest” like a broken record.

Days ago, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said, “Some U.S. politicians suppress China because they are afraid of China’s development. The harder they suppress, the more it proves China’s success, and the more it shows that China did it right.”

Luo Huining, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, said in response to the sanctions imposed by the United States, “This shows exactly how I did all the right things for my country, for Hong Kong.”

Alvin Yeung said in an interview a few days ago, “The Civic Party was the DQ (disqualification) champion, four out of six of our candidates were disqualified, and three out of our four incumbent lawmakers were disqualified. This proves that the regime does not like what we have done.”

A commentator said, “The CCP and Hong Kong Communists wish to see that we split, therefore we must do the opposite, avoid splitting.”

Why is it that whatever the enemy opposes must be right, and whenever the enemy is happy it must be wrong? What is the logic behind right and wrong? The pro-Communists have discussed both options for the pan-democrats, does it mean neither should be done?

To do the opposite, the opposite must be justified. Only a lazy person with dependent thinking will oppose for the sake of opposing.

Whatever we do should be backed by our own principles and considerations, and not to base it on whether it makes the enemy happy or not to choose and judge words and actions. If being DQ’d means it was right, then does not being DQ’d mean it was wrong? Should there be a split between political parties, it should be one on the issues of principle. “Harmony” that reconciles but disregards principles is not desirable.

The CCP’s usual propaganda: China’s 1.4 billion people, including Hong Kong’s compatriots, support the “return”; 1.4 billion people, including Taiwan compatriots, oppose Taiwan’s independence. The thing is, the future of Hong Kong or Taiwan hugely impact Hongkongers and Taiwanese, but have very little to do with the interest of the 1.4 billion people. The Québec independence referendum only asked the Québec people to vote, and not all Canadians; the Scotland independence referendum only sought votes in Scotland. By the same logic, whether the pan-democrats accept the appointment to extend their tenures or not, only the opinions of the pro-democracy voters should be considered. Including the pro-Beijing voters is the equivalent of including 1.4 billion people into deciding for the future of Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Before the implementation of the national security law, Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) conducted a public opinion survey on June 15-18 regarding the law. The results showed that the majority of Hongkongers opposed the law. However, a survey conducted by Hong Kong Research Association on July 2-5 showed that 66% of Hongkongers supported the implementation of the law, because the question asked was not whether to support the national security law, but whether it should be included in Annex III of the Basic Law. Clearly, the latter survey had a stance around which the question was designed. This sort of guiding survey is skewed.

Regarding the survey about the extension of the Legislative Council, it should first be asked whether the decision to extend for no less than a year is accepted, then within the forced extension of the Legislative Council, the options of staying or leaving en masse. In addition, the option of a small number to accept the appointment while the majority does not. If there is first the stance, then it is no different from a pro-Communist survey.

In 1946, American diplomat George Kennan sent a long telegram from Moscow, which launched the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The renowned diplomat offered a word of caution to the American policymakers: “After all, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are copying.”

The various aforementioned thinking has just entered the realm where “biggest danger that can befall us”, as warned by Kennan.

【時代雜誌投稿 —— 黃之鋒 x 鄺頌晴：Hong Kong Cannot Prosper Without Autonomy】

https://time.com/5844588/joshua-wong-hong-kong-cannot-prosper-without-autonomy/

By passing the resolution to develop legislation to “safeguard national security” in Hong Kong in its rubber stamp parliament, Beijing initiated “political mutual destruction” for itself and Hong Kong. Beijing’s plan to rein in Hong Kong—defying a worldwide outcry—is revenge on the democratic movement in Hong Kong which has been protesting since March 2019. It is also retaliation against the U.S. for passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act 2019.

On 27 May, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement certifying that Hong Kong no longer warrants differential treatment under U.S. law. At the same time declaring, “No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the ground.” He also filed a report to the Congress, in accordance with the Act, grounding from the fact that Beijing assert its right to interpret all laws in Hong Kong in November 2019; the Liaison Office’s claims that it was exempted from Article 22 of the Basic Law in April 2020; and the national security law announced last week. He further added that the deployment of tear gas and the mass arrests and the dispatching of the People’s Armed Police into Hong Kong, all constituted a violation of the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. President Donald Trump will later have to invoke the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 to respond with appropriate measures, possible approaches range from economic relations, to restrictions on immigration to cultural and educational exchanges.

The U.S. response to the events over the last year signifies that it has shifted from an appeasing “change for trade” to an unyielding foreign policy towards China. From the 1980s, the free world had been hoping China would liberalize and democratize itself as trade rapidly grew between it and the world. It was a false belief that opening up the Chinese market would lead to opening up of the Chinese mindset. However, such optimism has proved to be in vain.

The special arrangement under which the U.S. treats Hong Kong differently from China on politics, trade, commerce, and other areas, stems from Hong Kong maintaining sufficient autonomy. As a holdover from its time as a British Colony, Hong Kong has a different legal and economic system. Now as Beijing tightens its grip over the city, depriving Hong Kong of its last little bit of freedom and autonomy, the basis of that special agreement is compromised. Therefore the U.S. has every right to change its policy towards Hong Kong, regardless of Beijing’s snarling about “foreign intervention” and its attempts to use Hong Kong as a bargaining chip.

Beijing has long taken advantage of Hong Kong to gain access to foreign capital and other state-of-the-art technology products. Hong Kong, enjoying special legal treatments, is the favourite channel for mainland Chinese to ship funds offshore in defiance of Beijing’s control on cross-border capital flows, taxation and corruption inspections. Distrusting their own currency, many Chinese find the Hong Kong Dollar, which is linked to the U.S. Dollar, to be more reliable. Chinese companies have swarmed into Hong Kong, pretending to be “Hong Kong companies,” amid the Sino-American trade war. Leaders in Beijing continue to reap the benefits of this arrangement while the freedoms of Hong Kongers deteriorate.

Hong Kong has long proven its strategic role in the China-U.S. dynamics. The city can be used as a loophole against the free world if the special status remains unchanged while the city is totally subject to authoritative China. The act of inserting this new national security law in a top-down manner now risks all the benefits Beijing could and did exploit, but it is all of Beijing’s own doing. Beijing is dragging Hong Kong into a “political mutual destruction” that will costs us a high price, yet the hit is necessary.

As Hong Kong loses its special status, Beijing will lose its trump card against the free world. In response to American pressure, Beijing’s short-term reaction will be more forceful. It will further crack down on the political protest movement— targeting activists, electoral candidates and legislators who have participated in international advocacy. Yet, China’s economy will be hindered in the long run, even though China will surely pretend that it is “business as usual.” It remains to be seen how severe Washington’s measure regarding Hong Kong will be, but the global repercussions facing China in the aftermaths of the pandemic will also have a serious impact on its economy.

The U.S. termination of the city’s special status is aimed at stopped Beijing’s rogue behaviour and encouraging it to reverse course on Hong Kong. The prosperity of Hong Kong is based on its autonomy, not Beijing’s dictatorship. Beijing’s decision will drive our city into dire straits in all aspects—the stock market may plunge, unemployment numbers may rise and foreign businesses may flee. But at the same time we must acknowledge there is no room for a prosperous Hong Kong without adequate amount of freedom and human rights protection.

#國際戰線 #眾志國際連結

—————————————

反國安法外媒投稿：

英國獨立報 ft. Amon Yiu：China’s new security law will be the death of liberty in Hong Kong – that’s why thousands have hit the streets：https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hong-kong-protests-china-security-law-joshua-wong

美國華盛頓郵報 ft. Glacier Kwong：This is the final nail in the coffin for Hong Kong’s autonomy：https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/24/this-is-final-nail-coffin-hong-kongs-autonomy/