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

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.

11:04 6 Aug: First Ever Press Conference Held by Protesters to Counterweight Gov't PC; Invites People to Join Future PC if Interested

After disappearing from public eye for 11 days, CE Carrie Lam, announced during yesterday's press conference that daily police and government interdepartmental PCs will be held starting from 5 Aug. In the hopes to balance the government's one-sided political discourse, a civil press conference was held today. In response to the statements made by FS Paul Chan yesterday, the speakers stressed that the economic changes in Hong Kong began long before the protests started and that they were mainly the results of external factors such as the stagnating global economy and the current Sino-US trade war.

The speakers strongly condemned the incompetence and negligence of the HKPF and cited incidents in Tseung Kwan O, Sai Wan, Tin Shui Wai, Kwun Tong as examples of excessive use of force. They urged the police to remember the vows and mottos of the HKPF and to exercise restraint in the face of protests. They reiterated the 5 core demands, and particularly emphasised the importance and urgency of dual-universal suffrage. They asked for the government to restore Hong Kong's self-autonomy and respect the people’s right to the freedom of assembly, expression and democracy.

In the Q&A section, when asked about the slogan “Reclaim Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times”, they explained that while activist Edward Leung coined the words in 2016, different individuals or parties (including the government) will have differed interpretations. They hope to involve others in future press conferences to explain their opinions on the slogan itself. The statement made today was constructed with information gathered from Telegram and other platforms over a short period of time. It included views from supplies teams, frontliners, local residents and other participants of the movement. The exact number of people contributed to the statement is unknown, but there were about 100 people who were involved with the PC's preparations today.

The speakers stated that the public should not simply be focused on protesters on the frontlines, rather to consider all who have actively spoken out against police brutality and injustice as "frontliners" as well. They urged Hongkongers to stand united and to pressure the government into respond to the core demands, with the hopes that the government would finally effectively resolve the ongoing protests and appease the people.

The speakers reiterated that they were simply providing a platform where people could make their voices heard. They are not affiliated with any political party, organization and do not represent LIHKG netizens either. For this reason, they are unable to comment on individual incidents (e.g. setting fires) or any future strategies used in protests. Furthermore, they explained that the movement is spontaneous and self-driven, it is impossible for an individual or group to have the power to command the crowd. They will not and cannot tell anyone to escalate the tactics used in the movement.

Regarding the 5 demands, they emphasized that timing and order were irrelevant since all 5 demands are equally important for the movement. The general will throughout the past protests and assemblies is for all 5 to be met and that would be the only way to appease the people. While some believed that establishing an independent commission of inquiry (ICOI) could be a good first step, there are also some who question such commission's political and judiciary independence and whether it would deliver substantive results.

The speakers expressed uncertainty regarding potential PLA intervention in the future, but were confident that in the case of intervention, Hong Kong and the global economy will be forced to respond accordingly. While they continued to urge Hongkongers to "be water" in the face of potential threat and adversity, they claimed that the only way to solve the current political crisis for the government to respond to the people's demands.

On the various protests on 5 August, the speakers apologised for the inconvenience caused by the non-cooperative movement and the 7 district public assemblies. However, they said that the government’s inability to listen to the peoples’ demands was the leading cause of recent escalation. Although the protests orginated from the anti-extradition movement, recent protests have revealed the depth of the people's discontent which extends to various other socio-political issues -- which the government has made no efforts to address or solve. After numerous peaceful methods of expressing our dissatisfaction were to no avail (e.g. protests, strikes, actions by frontliners), the civil press conference was the most recent attempt to provide a nuanced perspective of recent events.

In terms of future PCs, the speakers said it would depend on the manpower available and the reactions to today’s PC. They hoped for the PCs to focus on the HKPF's excessive use of force and negligence while they also wished to invite other citizens to join them in the future. However, no concrete plans have been made for similar events in the future.

【專題訪問 Interview Feature】2019年度香港大學學生會周年大選中央幹事會候選常務祕書麥嘉晉訪問 | Interview with Mak Ka Chun Eugene, the Proposed General Secretary of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union of Annual Election 2019

(Please scroll down for English version.)

麥嘉晉同學以一人莊姿態參選中央幹事會常務祕書一職，為除候選內閣「蒼傲」外，另一參選周年大選中央幹事會席位的單位。麥同學接受本台訪問，就其一人內閣的理念、參選原因、和自身網上流出片段解話，並就反對香港獨立及支持訂立國歌法作闡述。

訪問節錄如下：

1. 對常務祕書一職的了解？
我並不對常務祕書，即香港大學學生會中央幹事會的常務祕書的職責有太清楚的認識。

2. 為何參選常務祕書而非其他職位？
我參選常務祕書的原因是因為我認為自己並不能勝任主席（正確名稱應為會長）一職，我是一個小心、心思細密的人，能力主要在於常務祕書方面。

3. 你認為自己被釣狗公及流出不雅影片會否對選情有影響？
對於這件事，我明白大家對我有負面印象，我希望向對我有負面印象的人道歉，因為我令到香港大學的聲譽受損。但這件事也令到有些人認識了我，客觀而言，他們都會明白這是一個失誤，並知道這事並不影響我的政治理念或影響我向他們服務。我亦明白有人會因這件事對我有負面印象，我會努力透過選舉工程爭取選民對我的信心。

（參考資料：［有圖］求智囊團撚狗公 https://lihkg.com/t/640617/1?ref=android ）

4. 你心目中學生會的立場是？
我們必須多考慮多角度及不同持份者的意見才作出表態，所以我不能肯定有幸當選後會作出什麼取態。我個人不太熱衷於政治方面，在大部分議題方面我的路線比較中間偏左。

5. 你為何決定單獨參選？
因為即使我未能組成內閣，我都希望做到我參選的目的，就是希望令人看到香港大學學生會並非像外界看來激進。我希望能令人看到香港大學的學生並不是只得一種思路，大家都有獨立思想，所以即使只有一人亦會參選。

6. 假若四位候選幹事同事當選，如何處理意見分歧？
如果日後四位候選人有幸一同當選，但就不同議題有相反意見的話，我認為政治取態並非港大學生會惟一職務，其他職務例如學生會組織的行政事務、和為學生提供福利、服務學生等等。所以我認為並不會單因為取態不同而辭職，其他事項不可以置之不理。

7. 你的政治光譜/政治立場是什麼？
我個人本身並不太熱衷於參與政治方面，在大部分議題我的立場傾向於中間偏左。

8. 你可否用香港的政治組織/政治人物代表自己？
個人而言我並不激進，所以我認為以前的民主黨可能比較能反映我現在的立場。如果從人物方面我認為湯家驊先生可能比較能反映到我，因為湯家驊先生和我一樣是比較會從多角度處事的人，其次他比較冷靜，不會草率進行評論和反應，而他亦不會就所有事情有既定立場，對不合理或不認該支持的事情他不會基於他泛民主派的立場而違背自己的理念，所以湯家驊先生及以前的公民黨會比較能反映和接近我的政治立場。

9. 你對初一事件的看法？
暫時可見旺角暴動或年初一事件方面，很多人都不太願意承擔自己的責任，而我認為很多參加者都罔顧了香港大眾的聲音和理念，亦危害了其他人的安全，我個人並不支持或同意這件事，如有人對這方面有意見的話，我希望大家能以理性方法表達意見。

10. 你是否支持香港獨立？
首先我不同意和不支持香港獨立。對於香港獨立我有幾點要回應。我不支持香港獨立的原因是因為，我認為香港多年來和中國有關係，香港在多方面亦須要中國的幫助，不論是經濟、社會、還是政策配套，我們都必須和中國有緊密連繫。當然我有不同意中國的政策，如對言論自由的打壓和對人權的打壓等，但我認為不應因反對中國而原全斷絕關係，始終歷史上我們和中國有非常緊密的聯繫，不可以因一些事去全盤否定中國，同時我認為香港獨立在法律上並不合法，所以我不會支持這種不合法的東西出現。因為香港獨立並不合法再加上這事並不合適，所以我並不支持香港獨立。但我認為可在可容許的空間內討論，例如學術層面或政治方面，我認為只要不鼓吹港獨，單純理性討論是可容許的，因為這是一種思想，而思想應可被討論。

11. 你是否同意訂立國歌法？
我認為國歌法的立法原意合理，並且應該，大家只要願意去尊重國歌和願意為自己的行為負責，我認為國歌法的立法有應該要的，因為我認為應尊重國歌。除了利用國歌表達意見外，還有很多意見表達的方式，雖然國歌法有機會收窄了大家的言論自由，但大家仍有其他對中國表達意見的渠道，所以我認為國歌法的影響並非如此誇張。

12. 你是否同意就廿三條法？
暫時短期而言不該對廿三條立法，但如果日後香港社會出現了嚴重的安全問題，而現時的法律制度未能控制，我認為廿三條立法......未必是廿三條立法，但應保障社會安全，加強執法，修改現有法律去增強它的權力、增強它的阻嚇性，希望能保障社會的安全。

Mak Ka Chun Eugene is running as a one-man cabinet in the Annual Election 2019. He is another candidate unit running for a seat in the Union’s Executive Committee, besides Prism, the proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union in Annual Election 2019. Campus TV has interviewed with Mak, with regards to his vision of a one-man cabinet, the reason to run as candidate, and the leakage of his personal videos; he has also elaborated on his disagreeing with Hong Kong independence and supporting the enactment of the National Anthem Bill.

The interview excerpts are as follows:

1. What is your understanding of the post of General Secretary?
I might not have too clear of an understanding about the post of General Secretary, i.e. the duties of the General Secretary of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union.

2. Why did you choose to run for the post of the General Secretary out of other posts?
The reason for running for the General Secretary is because I do not believe I have what it takes to assume the post of the Chairperson (the correct title should be: “President”). I am a rather careful and meticulous person, and my abilities are more in line with the area of the General Secretary, such as word/ document processing, and handling emails.

3. Do you think your incident* about being exposed as a womanizer, and the leakage of your explicit videos have an impact on your election campaign?
I understand that I have left a negative impression on some people from this incident; I would like to apologize to these people, because I have scathed the reputation of the University as a student of the University. In addition, this incident has made me known to public. Objectively speaking, some might consider the incident as a mistake, and that it would not affect my political stance or my service to them (members of the Students’ Union). Meanwhile, I do recognize that this incident has created a negative impression of myself, I will try my best to gain the trust of people from my election campaign.

*Mak Ka Chun Eugene was allegedly exposed as a womanizer, some explicit photos and videos of Mak in a conversation have been leaked by an anonymous account onto Lihkg, a public forum in Hong Kong.

4. What is the position of the Students’ Union in your eyes?
We should take into considerations the various perspectives and stakeholders’ opinions before declaring a stance, therefore I am not sure what I will be standing for should I be elected. Personally, I am not too keen on politics, but I would say that for most issues, I take more of a centre-left position.

5. Why did you decide to run as an independent candidate?
Despite not having formed a cabinet, I wish to fulfill my election aim: I hope to show the society how The Hong Kong University Students’ Union is not as radical and one-sidedly biased as how the society perceives it to be. I hope people could see that the Union has not only one path of thinking, everybody has individual thinking. Therefore, I would run as candidate even if I am doing so alone.

6. Should four proposed candidates of the Executive Committee be elected, how would discrepancy of views be dealt with?
If all four candidates have the honour to be elected, and have disparate views on issues, I think (acting on one’s) political views is not the Union’s only duty, there are other duties including administrative work, representing students, providing students’ welfare etc. Therefore, I do not think I would resign solely over a discrepancy on political views, other duties should not be neglected.

7. Where do you stand on the political spectrum? / How would you define your political stance?
I am not too keen on politics, but I would say that for most issues, I take more of a centre-left position.

8. Could you use a political group or a political figure in Hong Kong to represent yourself?
I think it is quite difficult to say, because Hong Kong’s politics has been so polarizing. Personally, I do not consider myself radical (politically), so I think the earlier Democratic Party better represents my current stance. In terms of a political figure, I think Mr Ronny Tong Ka-wah can better represent me, because like Tong, I know how to handle matters from multiple perspectives. Besides, Tong is a rather collected politician, he knows not to carelessly react and comment; he does not hold a predetermined stance towards issues, and he does not let his pan-democratic background dictate his views on matters that he thinks are unreasonable or not deserving of his support. Therefore, Mr Ronny Tong Ka-wah and the earlier Democratic Party is better proximate and representative of my political stance.

9. What are your views on the Mong Kok Incident in 2016?
What I observe currently about the Mong Kok Riot, or my apologies, it should be the Mong Kok Incident, is that many people are unwilling to bear responsibility for their actions, and I think a lot of the participants (of the incident) were rather reckless and negligent in considering the majority of Hong Kong’s opinion, they have also harmed the safety of many. I personally do not support nor agree with this action. However, I believe all voices should be heard, if anyone has an opinion on an issue, I hope they can convey them in a rational manner.

10. Do you support Hong Kong independence?
Firstly, I do not agree with nor support Hong Kong independence, but I think that the idea itself can be discussed on an academic or political level, as long as we are not encouraging the actualisation of it, we can have purely theoretical discussion because it is like any other thought or ideology that can be discussed. In response to Hong Kong independence, I have a few points to raise.
I do not support Hong Kong independence because I think that Hong Kong has established long years of relationship with China, Hong Kong needs the support of China in multiple areas, no matter economic, social, or policy-wise. We should always have a close connection to China. Certainly, I do not agree with all of China’s policies, for example the oppression of freedom of speech and of human rights, but I do not think we should cut ties with China entirely based on these disagreements. Ultimately, China and we have had a very close affiliation historically. At the same time, I think that Hong Kong independence is not legally justified, so I would not support such an illegal action. Because Hong Kong independence is not legal and not suitable, I do not support it.

11. Do you agree with the enactment of the National Anthem Bill?
I think the motive of the enacting the National Anthem Bill is justified, and (the act) should be encouraged. As long as everyone is willing to respect the national anthem and to bear responsibility for their own actions, I think the enactment of the National Anthem Bill is necessary, because I respect the national anthem. Besides using the national anthem as a form of self-expression (of political opinions or views), there are many other ways to communicate an opinion. Although freedom of speech might be harmed under the enactment of the bill, there are still other methods to convey our opinions about China, so I do not foresee the effect of the National Anthem Bill to be as severe as it is portrayed to be.

12. Do you agree with the enactment of Article 23?
Currently and in the short run, Article 23 should not be enacted. However, if Hong Kong experiences a problem of safety in the future, one that the current legal system has no power to control, I think that it may call for Article 23… not necessarily Article 23, but an enhanced enforcement of the law, the law should be amended to strengthen its power and deterring functions to ensure the safety of our society.
___________________________________

二零一九年度香港大學學生會周年大選其他候選人包括中央幹事會候選內閣蒼傲、校園電視候選內閣、學苑候選編輯委員會及候選普選評議員。

2019年度周年大選中央諮詢大會將於一月二十一日至一月二十五日在中山廣場舉行，時間為下午十二時半至二時半。

Other candidates for the Annual Election 2019 include Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, the Proposed Cabinet of Campus TV, the Proposed Editorial Board of Undergrad, and the Proposed Popularly Elected Union Councillor.

The Central Campaign for Annual Election 2019 will be held from the 21st to 25th of January at the Sun Yat-sen Place, from 12:30 to 14:30.