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

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

撐

張秀賢傘運九子案罪成之陳情書
（隨後附上英文版本 Please scroll down for the English version.）

法官閣下：

「也許很多老練的人會說我們只有理想，不求實際，但假若學生也變得世故，又有誰可以單純的為著理想，努力為社會帶來改變？」

「我們相信，堅持真普選，建設公平政制，是這時代賦予我們的責任。我們避無可避，亦退無可退。面對時代的挑戰，我們選擇毅然面對。」

在此刻，又回想起2014年九月，我在中大開學禮時向中大同學所說的開學辭。在庭上出席審訊的四星期，看到控方和其他辯方代表所播放的片段，又令人憶起五年前的種種。

參與緣起
當年三月，內閣「澄」獲得3431票，即近八成信任票當選第四十四屆中大學生會幹事會。當年參選，我們向中大同學提出政綱：只接受沒有篩選和只有合理門檻的選舉設計。我們也承諾，假如最終政改方案不符合基本標準，任內會全力推動、宣揚、積極參與和協助籌辦佔中運動。後來種種，其實都是實踐競選學生會時候，對中大同學的莊嚴承諾。

雨傘運動以「罷課不罷學」作為前奏，我們不上課，但一直學習民主理論；那星期以重奪公民廣場作結，學生縱身躍進公民廣場，換來卻是警察圍堵與多條罪名。當晚，抗爭者除了渴望爭取民主，更多人卻是高呼「保護學生」，只因為學生單純為理想而行，冀盼爭取更好的將來。

其實，香港人在爭取民主的路上跟學生一樣，在跌跌碰碰中學習，卻又單純不為自身利益。傘運初期，參與者買物資，自行分類垃圾，甚至設立自修室供學生溫習。大家總是守望相助，不計回報，畫面都在腦海揮之不去，令人感動。

分歧迷失
79天的雨傘運動，估計超過一百萬港人參與，成為歷來最大規模的民主抗爭。我們堅持和平、非暴力原則，堅守行動底線爭取民主政制。可是，香港政府無視民意，北京政府堅持 不義的「八三一方案」，最終使整場運動無功而還。

雖然在運動當中，我們看到許多觸動人心的片段，但抗爭曠日持久，矛盾積累就使分歧變成參與者之間的一道道裂縫。到佔領後期，或許我們都感到迷失、不安，不知運動未來如何是好。因為分歧，所以互相猜疑；因為誤解，所以互不信任；因為敵視，所以衝突漸生。昨天的因，今天的果，部分佔領者不滿我們的決策，出現「拆大台」等事件，溝通問題為日後更大的政治路線紛爭埋下伏線，延續至今。

雨傘運動落幕，民主普選尚未實現，我們卻為了政治路線的分野而互相仇視，甚至成為出言傷害，使人與人之間的傷口更難癒合。候選人和議員被DQ、旺角案，大家面對政權打壓，參選、投票、行動無用，無力感蓋過一切。幾乎所有人都感到迷失，不知道可以做甚麼才可以改變當下。

回歸初心

人非聖人，不可能所有人都心無仇恨。此刻說要放下過往分歧，不再爭吵，同樣並沒可能。我只希望當初走在同一條路上的人，不要越走越遠；未來的日子也許難捱，但讓我們記得最初無私奉獻的美好，努力修補彼此關係，理解各自想法與難處；唯有用寬容、溝通取代排斥、仇恨，回歸初心，我們才能走得更遠。

我還記得當天開學辭的這句：「我們所享受的，正正是前人選擇抗爭的成果；香港未來命運，在乎我們的選擇。」

當日的學生，今日都已長大成人，有人可能變得世故；然而，我知道大家仍舊記得初衷：共同決定自己的未來。即使我在五年前已知道，今天將會身處法庭的被告欄，為了這小城的未來，我還是會堅持最初的信念。跟戰友一起參與雨傘運動，我與有榮焉；縱使面對罪成刑責，我也會不亢不卑。

面對判決，大家可以傷心，可以難過。可是悲痛過後，大家仍要努力自強，化成推動力守護初心，帶著社會繼續前行。

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

Your Honour,

“Perhaps pragmatists will say that we only talk about ideals and never rationalise on them. But if students were all worldly and tactful, who would be left to wholeheartedly pursue ideals and strive to bring changes to our society?”

“We believe we have to deal with the problems our historical moment proposes – the burden of our time. The burden that our time confers upon us is to insist on the implementation of genuine universal suffrage and to build a fair and just political system. It is impossible for us to escape or retreat from such attendant responsibility. We choose to face up to these challenges of our time.”

At this moment, I yet again recall the inauguration speech I gave to my fellow students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Inauguration Ceremony back in September 2014. During the 4-week trial in Court, the recordings played by both the Prosecution and the Defence also sent me down the memory lane of everything that has happened 5 years ago.

The Beginning
In March 2014, our Cabinet “Claritas” received a total of 3431 votes, which was equivalent to almost 80% of the total number of votes of confidence, and was officially elected as the 44th Executive Committee of the Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

When we were campaigning for the election, we published our political platform for our fellow students: we would only accept a form of universal suffrage that had a reasonable threshold and not one that precluded any screening of candidates. We also promised that, if the final constitutional reform proposal did not meet these basic standards, we would during our term of office exert all efforts to promote, propagate, actively participate and facilitate the organisation of the Occupy Central Movement. The subsequent events all took place in fulfillment of these solemn promises we had made to our fellow CUHK students during our Student Union election campaign.

“Boycott Classes, Not Education” was the precursor of the Umbrella Movement. Although we did not attend classes, we learned and educated ourselves on democratic theories. That week ended with the recapture of the Civic Square. Students leaped faithfully into the Civic Square, but what they had exchanged in return were a siege by policemen and numerous criminal charges. That night, protestors not only desired to fight for democracy, many more times they were calling upon authorities to “protect the students”, because students were simply acting upon their idealistic pursuits, hoping to secure a better future for all.

All Hong Kong citizens and students are actually just birds of the same feather on this tortuous road to democracy – we have to learn from our bumps and battle scars, yet our motives are pure and selfless. At the early stages of the Umbrella Movement, participants generously distribute resources, tidily sort their rubbish and even set up self-study areas for students to revise. They were always reaching out and helping those around them without expecting anything in return – these touching scenes have persisted in my mind ever since.

Divided and Lost
It was estimated that over one million people in Hong Kong participated in the 79-day Umbrella Movement, making it the largest scale democratic protest in this city’s history. We insisted to uphold the peaceful and non-violent principle, standing firm on the bottom line of our action in our quest for democracy. Nevertheless, the Hong Kong Government completely disregarded the clear calls of the public, while the Beijing Government hung onto the unjust “831 Proposal”, eventually leading to the ineffectuality of the Movement.

Although I have witnessed countless heart-warming moments throughout the Movement, as our protest became protracted, conflicts accumulated and turned participants’ differences into splits. Towards the end of the Occupy Movement, some of us perhaps felt lost, uneasy and uncertain about the Movement’s fate. As there were divided views, there were doubts. As there were misunderstandings, there were mistrusts. As there was hostility, confrontations gradually emerged. The fruits of today are the seeds of yesterday – since some participants were discontented with our decisions, incidents such as “tearing down the big stage” occurred. Communication problems paved the way for more serious disagreements regarding our city’s political road map, which persisted until this day.

The curtains of the Umbrella Movement have been long drawn. We have yet to attain genuine universal suffrage. Yet, we harbour animosity towards each other due to divergence in political stances; we even vocally attack each other, making the wounds among us even more difficult to heal. In the face of recent events such as the disqualification of Legislative Council members and candidates, the Mong Kok Case and different kinds of political oppression, our sense of helplessness took over. Actions aiming to bring about systematic changes, including participation in elections, voting and engagement in the political discourse, were reduced to futile efforts. Pretty much everyone feels lost and unsure of what he could do to effect meaningful changes in this day and age.

Tracing Back to the Original Intention
Human beings are no saints. It is impossible that we do not feel any antipathy towards others. It is just as impossible to tell people to let go of their differences and to not fight each other anymore. My only wish is that people who started on the same path will not grow any further apart. The days to come may be very difficult, but let us not forget about the beauty of our selfless sacrifice at the start. We should work hard on repairing relationships with each other and understanding each other’s thoughts and difficulties. We can only go further if we replace rejection and antipathy with tolerance and communication. We can only go further if we hold true to our original intention.

I still remember this phrase from my inauguration speech: “what we get to enjoy today are the outcomes from our forebears’ choice to protest; the future of Hong Kong depends on our very own choice.”

The students then are now all grown up. Some of them might have become more seasoned and tactful. Nonetheless, I know that we all remember our original intention: together we choose our own destiny. I knew as early as five years ago that I would eventually find myself at the defendant’s dock today, but for our small yet precious city’s future, I remain true to my originally intention. I am incredibly honoured and privilege to be able to participate in the Umbrella Movement with my fellow comrades. In spite of criminal sanctions, I will remain neither condescending nor servile.

With the impending sentence, I know many of you would feel sorrowful and miserable. But when it is all over, I hope that you will all remain resilient, harness your feelings and transmute that energy into a positive force that safeguards our originally intention. I count on you to continue leading our society forward.

【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.

買到假貨點算好？
►►《半生浮世繪》普通版買link►►https://bit.ly/3j1WCm1
►購買我的產品►http://arhosunny.com
►成為日新金主►https://bit.ly/2MuPZYT
►訂閱ARHOTV 逢星期二、四、六出片 ► https://goo.gl/etJik6
►FACEBOOK ► https://goo.gl/erHesS
►Instagram ►https://goo.gl/J8h7Z5

【ARHO SUNNY 的關鍵字】
日本／開箱／淘寶／巨大／壽司／挑戰／食玩／劣食／ 香港／潮流／廣東話／便利店食品／RAP／HIP HOP／音樂／CREAMY／RAPPER／嘻哈／畫畫／設計／藝術／情侶／穿搭／