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

【10.20集結案】

//2019 年 10 月 20 日九龍遊行案，前民陣召集人陳皓桓、民主黨前主席何俊仁、社民連前立法會議員梁國雄等 7 人，被指煽惑他人參與未經批准集結、組織未經批准集結等。7 人早前承認控罪，法官胡雅文今（1 日）在區域法院判 7 人監禁 11 至 16 個月。除了黃浩銘，其餘被告的刑期與早前 8.18、8.31、10.1 未經批准集結案刑期同期執行。//

以下是文遠的感言：

【吳文遠 - 10.20九龍遊行案件感言】

這是一宗政治案件，所以我認為這篇陳詞適合放在政治脈絡下開展。

我們生活在急劇轉變及充滿挑戰的時代。基於政府所謂「安全」的理由，記者、報館、網台主持、學者、教師、學生、藝人、歌手、工會人、社運人、民意代表以及許多市民，都一一被迫沉默，以至逐個被拘捕、檢控、囚禁。

尤有甚者，「安全」的定義還在不斷挪移及擴大。昨日出版的一篇報紙文章、一次演講、一種主張、一個標語，今天都可能被視為對「安全」的威脅。

短短數年前那些通常被判罰款或社區服務令的行動，現在會被判監禁。這裡曾經存在和而不同及真誠辯論觀點的言論空間，但現在只剩下觸目驚心的紅線。

每天都帶來法規的重新演繹，每天都突破荒謬的下限。有他們的眼中，現在甚至連兒童繪本都成為了對「安全」的威脅。

問題無可避免地浮現：究竟這些法規是要保護誰的「安全」？是公民的自由，抑或是實際上已經非常有權力的人的權力？

我們追求怎樣的秩序？這些法規的設計，是為了所有公民能夠享有法治、自由、公平競爭及繁榮的機會嗎？還是旨在引領我們進入一個政府不受挑戰及不受限制的時代？

我們發現自身正處於一個這樣的時代，人們需要作出看似簡單卻極為困難的選擇——就如哈維爾所指——我們要活在真實中，還是要服從於謊言及荒謬？

在我追求的真實生活中，我們只是像《國王的新衣》中的小孩那樣呼喊：「喂，國王根本冇著衫喎！」

—————-

【Avery Ng: On October 20 Kowloon Rally】

This is a political case, so I think it is appropriate to frame my remarks within the political context of this matter.

We live in rapidly changing and challenging times. Journalists, newspaper publishers, broadcasters, academics, teachers, students, artists, singers, trade unionists, political activists, democratically elected representatives, and many other citizens are being silenced, arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned by the Hong Kong government for supposed reasons relating to “security”.

What’s more, the definition of this “security” is constantly shifting and expanding. A newspaper article published yesterday, a speech, an opinion, a slogan--even a gesture may be treated as a threat to security today.

Actions that would have previously and sometimes rightly merited community service or fines just a few short years ago, now lead to the possibility of jail. Where once there was the space to disagree agreeably and debate ideas honestly. Now there is intolerance.

Every day brings a new re-interpretation of the rules. Every day we reach a new level of absurdity. Even children’s cartoon books have now reached the status that they are seen by some as a threat to “security”.

The inevitable question arises: Whose security is being protected--the liberty of citizens? Or are these laws in fact protecting and securing the power of the already-powerful?

What kind of order are we seeking? Are these laws designed to uphold the rule of law, ensure freedom, a level playing field, and the chance of prosperity for all citizens? Or are they meant to usher in an era in which the government can rule unchallenged and unchecked?

In the times that we find ourselves in, one needs to make a choice that is at once simple yet immensely difficult. As Vaclav Havel writes: Do we live in the truth? Or conform to lies and absurdity?

In my pursuit to live in the truth, we are merely the kid who yelled “hey, the Emperor wears no clothes.”

———————————
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

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

各位老師及同學好,

因應疫情升溫，有關課程、學位考試、轉系申請等事宜，說明如下：

一、課程：
（一）自5月17日起至6月11日全校課程皆採遠距教學。
※若因課程性質確實無法採遠距教學方式（例如：實驗課、實作課、體育課、服務學習課程），採事後補課，原則上於6月30日前完成（視疫情狀況調整）。

（二）課程考試：5月17日至5月28日兩週暫停實體考試（減少學生群聚，兩週後方式視疫情評估後宣佈）。

（三）實施遠距教學，仍需掌握學生到課狀況、學習情形，並檢核教學成效。（教育部5月15日通報）

二、研究生學位論文口試：自5月17日起至6月11日止，以採線上（視訊）方式舉行為原則（無需事先申請），若併以實體會議進行口試，會場社交距離須至少 1.5公尺，並全程佩戴口罩。

三、轉系申請：請將徵得原就讀學系／院學士班主任、導師（研究生為原就讀系／所／學位學程指導教授及主管）同意之email併同申請表寄給註冊組承辦同仁辦理，相關細節將於5月18日公告於註冊組網頁。

教務處敬啟
110.5.16

👉️聯繫窗口
🔍️課程相關：課務組 curricul@my.nthu.edu.tw、校內分機：31395、31394、31393
🔍️學位論文口試、轉系申請、成績、畢業條件相關：註冊組
registra@my.nthu.edu.tw、校內分機：31390

----------------------------------------------------------

Dear faculties and students,

In response to the elevation of COVID-19 threat level, the followings are the matters regarding the courses, examinations, transfer applications, and others.

1. Courses: All courses in the school adopt the remote teaching method from May 17th to June 11th. If it is impossible to use the remote teaching method due to the nature of the course (for example, laboratory courses, practical courses, physical education courses, service-learning courses), make-up courses must be offered after June 11th. In principle, all make-up courses must be completed before June 30th (subjected to change depending on the pandemic situation). Note that during the period of remote teaching, teachers must pay attention to student’s learning outcomes and check teaching effectiveness (according to the notification from the Ministry of Education on May 15th).

2. Course exams: In-person classroom exams will be suspended for two weeks from May 17th to May 28th in order to minimize the student’s gathering indoor (whether this temporary suspension is continued after May 28th will be announced depending on the pandemic situation).

3. The oral exam of MS and Ph.D. thesis defense: It is recommended that all thesis defenses are held online from May 17th to June 11th. No prior permission application is required. If the thesis defense must be conducted in-person in a room, the social distancing rule of 1.5 meters must be applied, and masks must be worn at all times.

4. Application for transfer: No need to obtain the signatures from the academic mentor and the department head during the period from May 17th to June 11th. Email all relevant documents (including the email records demonstrating the approvals from the academic mentor and the department head) to the Office of Registration for processing. The details will be announced on the website of the Office of Registration by May 18th.

Sincerely,

Office of Academic Affairs
May 16th, 2021

👉️For information regarding courses and exams, please contact curricul@my.nthu.edu.tw, or phone x31395, x31394, and x31393.

👉️For information regarding thesis defense and transfer application, please contact registra@my.nthu.edu.tw, or phone x31390.

Learn the rules like a pro, so that you can break them like an artist.

Written by:
Thomas K @HeyThomasK
Nicholas Teo @HargaoHunk
Lev Panfilov @Levpanfilov

Filmed and Edited by:
Jason Hau @jasonkokotan
Justin Siu @JBSIU

Produced by:
Jeanette Yeap @Jeanettoes

Starring:
Thomas K @HeyThomasK
Nicholas Teo @HargaoHunk
Lingyi Xiong @Blingyi
Chrysan Lee @ChrysanLee
Lev Panfilov @Levpanfilov
Kelly Wong @Kellykanez
Keiji Umehara @Umeandhara
Tengku Nasir

Outro Song by MMXJ - www.youtube.com/mmxjofficial

We're on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/wahbananasg
Twitter/Instagram @wahbananasg

更多新聞與互動請上：
公視新聞網 ( http://news.pts.org.tw )
PNN公視新聞議題中心 ( http://pnn.pts.org.tw/ )
PNN 粉絲專頁 ( http://www.facebook.com/pnn... )
PNN Youtube頻道 ( http://www.youtube.com/user... )
PNN livehouse.in頻道 ( http://livehouse.in/channel/PNNPTS )