關於 stand up meeting中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】

***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated，將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像：以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文（https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/）翻譯成英文，鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演，在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***

中文精簡版本：https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.

In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.

Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.

Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.

Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw

Stand up. Respect ✊

(Update: 中文繹版連結：https://www.facebook.com/329728177143445/posts/1800273350088913/)

“An open letter to Eric Kwok, and for everyone re homophobia, discrimination and bullying”

Dear Eric,

Imagine this. You are one of the contestants on a TV talent show. You are sitting in a room with other hopefuls and one of the judges walks into the room and demanded this: “Raise your hand if you are not homophobic.”

I’m very sure you will raise your hand.

You don’t have to answer me whether or not you really are homophobic. But stay with the feeling inside your mind. How do you feel?

Your feelings are most likely the same as the feelings of your contestants when you walked into a room and asked them to raise their hands to declare their sexual orientation publicly. Because in this day and age, homophobia is just as “controversial” as homosexuality, if not more.

The reason why I’m writing this open letter to you is because after reading your apology, I want to take the opportunity to address to you, and everyone out there, the need for proper etiquette regarding LGBT issues, and to address the forms of micro-aggression, bullying and discrimination the LGBT community faces everyday especially in the workplace.

I’m taking this incident seriously because from my personal experience, this is not just a one-time slip-up for you.

I remember long time ago I was so looking forward to meeting and working with you because you are, after all, Eric Kwok the great songwriter.

You were very friendly when we talked privately. Then I started to notice how once there were audiences, media or other people around and when the cameras were turned on, you would start making insinuating and demeaning gay jokes about me and in front of me. Jokes and comments even my closest friends wouldn’t dare to make in public.

At first, I didn’t really pay too much attention. I just brushed it off as juvenile and trivial. In fact, I had been so used to these jokes since growing up that I learned not to react much.

However, as time progressed and we worked on more occasions, the same thing would happen repeatedly. The teasing and the stereotypical gay jokes continued and you would make sure that the spotlight would fall on me afterwards. The jokes no longer felt light. They felt hostile, even vindictive.

In fact, it felt like bullying.

One of these incidents was well documented in tabloids back then and you can still look it up yourself on the internet.

I came to the realization that it was not just a one-time thing. I don’t know if it’s intentional or unintentional but it’s definitely a habit and a pattern.

So many questions would be in my mind every time after working with you. Why does Eric do that every time? Is he picking on me? Does he hate me? Is he homophobic? Does he think homosexuality is something funny? Does he do this to other people too? Did I do something that pissed him off? I remember I was nothing but courteous. So why do I deserve this?

I had no answers for all of these questions. All I knew was I became fearful of working with you, dreading what words would fall out of your mouth to put me in an awkwardly embarassing position. But still I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. You’re from California you shouldn’t be homophobic. I even defended you in my head by telling myself to loosen up.

But it’s not just you. Throughout my years in the entertainment industry, I have encountered and endured so many chauvinistic “tough guys” who like to use homosexuality as a laughing stock or source of bad comedy which were all discriminating and demeaning, yet not funny.

It’s not only me. I’m sure many people of the LGBT community face this everyday in their workplace. People around them would claim their intentions were harmless but we all knew deep down that these “jokes” have the power to put people someone in an embarrassing, inferior and even threatening positions.

We kept quiet and tolerated. Sometimes we even felt obligated to laugh along just so we couldn’t afford to look “petty” or “stiff”, especially in front of people of higher authority and stature.

So Eric I want to ask you.

Why have you been so obsessed with my sexuality all these years?

Why are you so fascinated by other people’s sexuality?

Why is being gay such a huge issue to you even to this day that you had to make it the first thing you asked your contestants?

Why you also had to specifically make a post on social media about that fact you questioned people about their sexuality?

Why do you take so much pride publicly in your ability to guess who are the gay contestants even when they weren’t ready to share that information?

And most of all why do you find all this to be so funny?

To begin with one’s sexual orientation is a very personal thing which others have no right to intrude, even in the entertainment industry where you are supposed to be fine with “controversy”.

This is for you and everyone out there: using your power and authority to demand someone to declare his or her sexual orientation, especially in a work environment, is ancient, barbaric and unacceptable.

Kicking someone out of the closet is just pure evil.

The fact you did what you did, especially with your stature and on broadcast TV, is not only wrong, but also you are telling the Hong Kong audience that it’s alright to continue this form of intrusion and micro aggression that the LGBT community wants to see gone.

You’re leading a very poor example by giving Hong Kong audience the impression that being gay is still a taboo.

How are your contestants, who are boys of young age, going to offer new perspectives to the Hong Kong audience under your guidance if you perpetuate stereotyping and demonstrate to them that being gay is still an issue?

I feel sorry for any contestants who are in fact gay sitting in that room that day too. They must have been traumatized seeing the way you forced your inquisition. The impression you left them with is that the entertainment industry is still a very unfriendly place for gays. Is that what you want them to think?

But most of all, it’s the attitude, tone and manner with which you shared about this incident on social media, giving people the impression that any matter regarding sexual orientation is still something shameful and laughable, which is on top of list the thing that the LGBT community fights hard everyday to change.

When you said in your apology you “have great respect for gay people, especially their hard fight for equality” I became baffled as what you did, in the past to me or in that room to the boys, is the exact thing that makes the LGBT community’s ongoing fight for equality so difficult.

Putting people down, perpetuate stereotypes, heckling and ridiculing yet making it look OK is anything but liberal and respectful, or Californian. I don’t see any “entertainment values” that are of good taste if they are made up at the expense of other people’s struggle.

If this incident happened in America, where you grew up, you would’ve gotten yourself in such hot waters that you probably can’t get out of.

I just want you and everyone out there to know that it’s not okay. And it never was. Never will be.

Being “as liberal as it gets” is great. Having gay friends is great too. Having dinner with your gay friends is absolutely fabulous! Playing all these cards to avoid being labelled as “homophobic” is very convenient. But having class, empathy, kindness and authentic respect is a completely different territory. These don’t come automatically with backgrounds.

At this point you don’t owe me an apology. I just hope that after this incident you can really start working and living with the essences of a truly liberal and creative individual. Inspire changes and end stereotypes. Start new trends and break old patterns. Embrace and not segregate. Do the work.

I had been away from Hong Kong and the industry for a few years now. It breaks me heart that I have to write this sort of open letter when it’s already 2018. I want to make this industry a safer, nicer and more accepting place to work in when I return. I want members of the LGBT community in Hong Kong, who have been so supportive of me and my music, to also have safer and nicer working environment in their respective lives.

I don’t mind coming off as an over-reacting petty bitch with no sense of humour if my message finally comes through and everyone, including you, “gets it”. I rather have no sense of humour than a bad one.

To all the contestants of the show. If anyone ever asks you if you are gay and you are not ready to discuss, it’s OK to stand up for yourself and say this: “It’s a rude question to begin with. You have no right to get an answer from me to begin with. And it doesn’t matter. It SHOULDN’T matter. It’s 2018. I hope one day I can use my craft to inspire the world and to make this become a non-issue.”

But if you are ready to be open, you have my complete support and love.

Let’s hope that through acceptance, learning and effort, one day there will no longer be any “controversial questions”. Wouldn’t we like that Eric?

Yours truly,
Pong

#LGBT
#homophobia
#safeworkplace
#中文版稍後會有
Eric Kwok 郭偉亮

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

(Update: 中文繹版連結：https://www.facebook.com/329728177143445/posts/1800273350088913/)

“An open letter to Eric Kwok, and for everyone re homophobia, discrimination and bullying”

Dear Eric,

Imagine this. You are one of the contestants on a TV talent show. You are sitting in a room with other hopefuls and one of the judges walks into the room and demanded this: “Raise your hand if you are not homophobic.”

I’m very sure you will raise your hand.

You don’t have to answer me whether or not you really are homophobic. But stay with the feeling inside your mind. How do you feel?

Your feelings are most likely the same as the feelings of your contestants when you walked into a room and asked them to raise their hands to declare their sexual orientation publicly. Because in this day and age, homophobia is just as “controversial” as homosexuality, if not more.

The reason why I’m writing this open letter to you is because after reading your apology, I want to take the opportunity to address to you, and everyone out there, the need for proper etiquette regarding LGBT issues, and to address the forms of micro-aggression, bullying and discrimination the LGBT community faces everyday especially in the workplace.

I’m taking this incident seriously because from my personal experience, this is not just a one-time slip-up for you.

I remember long time ago I was so looking forward to meeting and working with you because you are, after all, Eric Kwok the great songwriter.

You were very friendly when we talked privately. Then I started to notice how once there were audiences, media or other people around and when the cameras were turned on, you would start making insinuating and demeaning gay jokes about me and in front of me. Jokes and comments even my closest friends wouldn’t dare to make in public.

At first, I didn’t really pay too much attention. I just brushed it off as juvenile and trivial. In fact, I had been so used to these jokes since growing up that I learned not to react much.

However, as time progressed and we worked on more occasions, the same thing would happen repeatedly. The teasing and the stereotypical gay jokes continued and you would make sure that the spotlight would fall on me afterwards. The jokes no longer felt light. They felt hostile, even vindictive.

In fact, it felt like bullying.

One of these incidents was well documented in tabloids back then and you can still look it up yourself on the internet.

I came to the realization that it was not just a one-time thing. I don’t know if it’s intentional or unintentional but it’s definitely a habit and a pattern.

So many questions would be in my mind every time after working with you. Why does Eric do that every time? Is he picking on me? Does he hate me? Is he homophobic? Does he think homosexuality is something funny? Does he do this to other people too? Did I do something that pissed him off? I remember I was nothing but courteous. So why do I deserve this?

I had no answers for all of these questions. All I knew was I became fearful of working with you, dreading what words would fall out of your mouth to put me in an awkwardly embarassing position. But still I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. You’re from California you shouldn’t be homophobic. I even defended you in my head by telling myself to loosen up.

But it’s not just you. Throughout my years in the entertainment industry, I have encountered and endured so many chauvinistic “tough guys” who like to use homosexuality as a laughing stock or source of bad comedy which were all discriminating and demeaning, yet not funny.

It’s not only me. I’m sure many people of the LGBT community face this everyday in their workplace. People around them would claim their intentions were harmless but we all knew deep down that these “jokes” have the power to put people someone in an embarrassing, inferior and even threatening positions.

We kept quiet and tolerated. Sometimes we even felt obligated to laugh along just so we couldn’t afford to look “petty” or “stiff”, especially in front of people of higher authority and stature.

So Eric I want to ask you.

Why have you been so obsessed with my sexuality all these years?

Why are you so fascinated by other people’s sexuality?

Why is being gay such a huge issue to you even to this day that you had to make it the first thing you asked your contestants?

Why you also had to specifically make a post on social media about that fact you questioned people about their sexuality?

Why do you take so much pride publicly in your ability to guess who are the gay contestants even when they weren’t ready to share that information?

And most of all why do you find all this to be so funny?

To begin with one’s sexual orientation is a very personal thing which others have no right to intrude, even in the entertainment industry where you are supposed to be fine with “controversy”.

This is for you and everyone out there: using your power and authority to demand someone to declare his or her sexual orientation, especially in a work environment, is ancient, barbaric and unacceptable.

Kicking someone out of the closet is just pure evil.

The fact you did what you did, especially with your stature and on broadcast TV, is not only wrong, but also you are telling the Hong Kong audience that it’s alright to continue this form of intrusion and micro aggression that the LGBT community wants to see gone.

You’re leading a very poor example by giving Hong Kong audience the impression that being gay is still a taboo.

How are your contestants, who are boys of young age, going to offer new perspectives to the Hong Kong audience under your guidance if you perpetuate stereotyping and demonstrate to them that being gay is still an issue?

I feel sorry for any contestants who are in fact gay sitting in that room that day too. They must have been traumatized seeing the way you forced your inquisition. The impression you left them with is that the entertainment industry is still a very unfriendly place for gays. Is that what you want them to think?

But most of all, it’s the attitude, tone and manner with which you shared about this incident on social media, giving people the impression that any matter regarding sexual orientation is still something shameful and laughable, which is on top of list the thing that the LGBT community fights hard everyday to change.

When you said in your apology you “have great respect for gay people, especially their hard fight for equality” I became baffled as what you did, in the past to me or in that room to the boys, is the exact thing that makes the LGBT community’s ongoing fight for equality so difficult.

Putting people down, perpetuate stereotypes, heckling and ridiculing yet making it look OK is anything but liberal and respectful, or Californian. I don’t see any “entertainment values” that are of good taste if they are made up at the expense of other people’s struggle.

If this incident happened in America, where you grew up, you would’ve gotten yourself in such hot waters that you probably can’t get out of.

I just want you and everyone out there to know that it’s not okay. And it never was. Never will be.

Being “as liberal as it gets” is great. Having gay friends is great too. Having dinner with your gay friends is absolutely fabulous! Playing all these cards to avoid being labelled as “homophobic” is very convenient. But having class, empathy, kindness and authentic respect is a completely different territory. These don’t come automatically with backgrounds.

At this point you don’t owe me an apology. I just hope that after this incident you can really start working and living with the essences of a truly liberal and creative individual. Inspire changes and end stereotypes. Start new trends and break old patterns. Embrace and not segregate. Do the work.

I had been away from Hong Kong and the industry for a few years now. It breaks me heart that I have to write this sort of open letter when it’s already 2018. I want to make this industry a safer, nicer and more accepting place to work in when I return. I want members of the LGBT community in Hong Kong, who have been so supportive of me and my music, to also have safer and nicer working environment in their respective lives.

I don’t mind coming off as an over-reacting petty bitch with no sense of humour if my message finally comes through and everyone, including you, “gets it”. I rather have no sense of humour than a bad one.

To all the contestants of the show. If anyone ever asks you if you are gay and you are not ready to discuss, it’s OK to stand up for yourself and say this: “It’s a rude question to begin with. You have no right to get an answer from me to begin with. And it doesn’t matter. It SHOULDN’T matter. It’s 2018. I hope one day I can use my craft to inspire the world and to make this become a non-issue.”

But if you are ready to be open, you have my complete support and love.

Let’s hope that through acceptance, learning and effort, one day there will no longer be any “controversial questions”. Wouldn’t we like that Eric?

Yours truly,
Pong

#LGBT
#homophobia
#safeworkplace
#中文版稍後會有
Eric Kwok 郭偉亮