淨化傳媒關鍵一步

香港政府無論是97前或97後，從來沒有搜查過任何傳媒機構，這是保障新聞自由的重要規範，港府一直堅守這基本原則。直至今天，香港政府終於以涉嫌違反國安法拘捕壹傳媒創辦人黎智英和機構的主要負責人，並大肆搜查壹傳媒大樓。

壹傳媒旗下的蘋果日報和壹週刊素來以反權貴、反建制作為新聞主線，雖然報導時有偏頗失實，但不少政府的敗政和大財團的舞弊也是蘋果率先披露。在保障人民知情權的前提下，壹傳媒絕對有其存在價值。在這個敏感時刻，壹傳媒的存在就是香港在中共治下還能享有多少自由的重要指標。

一個傳媒機構，沒有飛機大砲，用筆來監管政府，即使報導手法偏激，令政府和個別官員感到不快和尷尬，也不外乎是「言論」而已，可讓讀者自行判斷。在自由國家，任何傳媒機構都必定受到法律保障，包括反對政府的。

對中共而言，香港雖然是有利於經濟發展，但渴求民主和自由的意識形態是毒瘤，直接影響政權的安全係數！在一黨治國的制度下，反對聲音必須及早杜絕，以免危害「國家」安全，控制媒體是不容有失的，而這個媒體毒瘤必須徹底剷除，更需要及時制止任何反對力量的萌生，以免星星之火，後患無窮！相反，對於一個民主國家來說，政府是人民選出來的，政府不等於國家，根本不存在什麼顛覆的行為。不少美國人憎恨現屆政府，也不等於他們不愛國。要顛覆特朗普政府，美國人只需要利用手上的一票，就可以合法地改變政府。

可惜的是香港人眼白白的看著自己的地方，從極度開放文明，曾經享有高度言論自由，短短幾年間淪落如斯境地！反對或認真監測政府施政的媒體將會陸續消失，剩下來的都是當權者的資訊發佈機器，或少許無傷大雅的批評聲音（所謂「小鬧大幫忙」的造馬民主派）。配合教育政策對中、小學教師的整頓及全方位的「國民教育」，香港未來可望進一步與內地融合，新一代港人將更投入愛國、愛黨的高尚情操。

2020年8月9日

Dramatic Moment in "The Crown" Season 2

In the Netflix series The Crown season 2*, one whole episode is devoted to the true story of Lord Altrincham who helped the British monarchy survive by publishing his thoughts on Queen Elizabeth II and openly criticising her and her courtiers of being outdated and irrelevant. Sixty years have passed and the story represented one of the most dramatic moments that influenced the centuries old institution. The monarchy still survives, and the British majority seem to be proud of the coexistence of, and are well aware of the distinction between, the executive who actually administers the country and the Queen who serves only a titular role.

For audience here in Hong Kong, the most dramatic scene in the episode was probably when the Queen candidly arranged herself to meet with Lord Altrincham and to listen to his critical and relentless views against herself. Given it was 60 years ago, the Queen's status was supreme, and she had all the reasons (and power) to ignore any unlikable comments or even to mute them off completely! But the Queen eventually accepted all the "stops" and "starts" proposed by Lord Altrimcham, and created a whole new era in the history of the British monarchy. This story, well documented in the British news archive, demonstrated the magical power of the Queen's willingness to listen to comments, however critical and unwelcome, in winning the hearts of people. Moreover, most of us here would be tempted to compare what would happen to Lord Altrimcham if he were in China or Hong Kong now! Would he be loyal or stupid enough to publish his open comments against the nation's leader even if the comments were for the good of his nation? If he would, his only fate would be to spend the rest of his life behind bars. The reality is that no Lord Altrincham would ever exist in China, and neither would his journal or any media that don't dance to the leader's tune. The root cause, as we can clearly see, is the lack of an effective mutual control and an open accountable system that are necessary for a nation to advance in a world that increasingly shares the values of freedom and democracy.

July 31, 2020

_________________
*The Crown Season 2 – Netflix

Cause and effect can't be reversed!

Anyone who has some common sense would have felt very frustrated in the past one year hearing all the nonsenses from our highly paid officials. How can one be not offended when the top administrator, who receives an undeservingly high salary, could not even distinguish a cause from its effect, or a decision from an outcome as a consequence of it.

Our CE said, in defending her belated decisions in rolling out sub-optimal disease control measures, the "6-month long" fight against the virus was very well managed and delicately balanced with due consideration of our economy and other societal activities. Looks like she was very proud of her half-arsed policy that has kept us in this state for 6 months, and she knew it would take this long!

So, she was correct in delaying the border closure until early March; she was correct in allowing infinite number of people to gather indoor in support of restaurant business in June; she was so so correct in allowing 50,000+ people to travel in and out of HK unchecked in the past couple of months; she was also correct in delaying work-from-home arrangement of civil servants for a week (against her advisors' advice Monday last week). All these appeared convincing only to her blind supporters!

Anyone with an ability to think should know that the present is the outcome of past events, plus other factors of course. Didn't she know that the "6-month long fight" was the outcome? We didn't have to fight for 6 months if she agreed to implement more drastic measures earlier, and keep the measures in place.

July 21, 2020

上蒼的默示

讀小學時，神父跟我們講道，說只要你細心聆聽天主給你的訊息，回應祂的指示，祂必會眷顧你！當時覺得神父講的太深奧了，從來沒有聽到天主跟我說話，所以沒甚麼感覺。現在人大了，卻對此話深信不疑！所謂冥冥中自有安排，可能是造物對我們的一種賞賜，回報我們相信和履行祂的旨意！

看看過去一年在香港發生的事，嘗試逆天而行的，上蒼都給他警告訊號。誰真心假意的說是為了香港好，不讓香港成為逃犯天堂，上蒼就賜予你成為超級逃犯天堂的最有利條件（終斷美、英、加、澳和你一早訂下的引渡協議）！誰主張禁蒙面的，就偏要給你天天戴上口罩；但上蒼沒有即時譴責，還放你一馬，從去年9月開始，讓你最痛恨的社會運動暗助你減低九成訪港遊客。12月至1月期間，大型活動的主辦單位諷刺地以「示威者可能威脅公眾安全」為由，取消了近60場紅館騷和公眾活動，冥冥中在關鍵時刻，正當病毒靜悄悄但猛烈地蔓延時，把香港從極危險的疫情中拯救出來！試想，按前年12月至1月期間的一千多萬訪港旅客計算，年初香港的第一波疫情應該嚴重千倍，成千上萬的個案在所難免！幸乎！上天真的眷顧了我們，還給予如此清晰的訊息！

這幾天的感染數字再度飆升，上天又一次訓示我們要做好該做的事。現在政府全副精神投入中國模式的國安，上天給你重要提示，你卻充耳不聞！甚麼才是該做的事？「香港書展」本週三（三天後）開幕，將是鑽石公主號的翻版。打個五折來計算，假定五萬人入場，在室內環境逗留數小時，共用設施、廁所，並頻頻觸摸商品，假若當中十分之一的參與者沒有嚴格遵守防疫規定，其中十分之一由於隱形帶菌者而受到感染，再帶回家居和社區，以一傳三的比例傳播開去。書展過後，將會有1500人以上確診，繼而有更多人受感染！

上天給我們的信息不只在於疫情的反覆，細心聆聽，仔細分析，誰是誰非也不難判斷。若不懸崖勒馬，一場浩劫勢必降臨！

2020年7月12日

National Security is Mandatory to Every Nation! Why Double Standard?

This is seemingly the most logical question any pro-establishment politician or member of the pro-government camp would put to the untamed anti-everything-China yellow camp. True, the US and other western countries all have their national security laws. So, why are you applying a different standard to your own country?

But if you put the implementation of national security in the Chinese context, applying a double standard could be fully legitimate and even necessary. Track records of law enforcement in China have already proven how violation of national security laws can be a wild-card allegation for anyone who challenges the central leadership, and how far the way trials are conducted in a Chinese court is from the civilized world, not to mention the candid trials and deprivation of rights to properly defend against the allegation. The independence of the judicial system is not even questionable; it simply does not exist in China as the judicial system is supposed to serve and collaborate with the government. It is not difficult to understand the rationale behind choosing specific judges by the chief executive to handle cases brought by the new security legislation and how unimportant the perception of conflict of interest is for China. (Some people would have deliberately confused the titular role of the chief executive in appointing judges with choosing judges for trials.) Ignoring these fundamental differences, one has no basis on which to discuss whether the same standard is applicable to assess even the reasonableness of establishing and implementing the same Chinese national security law in Hong Kong.

When a US citizen criticizes the government, chants anti-government slogans, or demands the president to step down, he does not violate any national security law. But when a Chinese citizen does the same, he can be prosecuted for "endangering national security" or "inciting subversion of state power", and the conviction rate is 99%. The root difference is that an American can vote the government out, but a Chinese must accept the government or he will face prosecution. Environmentalist Tan Zuoren, who advocated an inquiry into the substandard school buildings causing deaths of hundreds of students during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for "inciting subversion of state power". Food safety worker Zhao Lianhai, who was also the father of one of the many victims of the melamine-tainted milk products, was sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment for "disturbing social order". Human rights lawyer Huang Quanzhang was held incommunicado (virtually disappeared) for three years since August 2015 and was put on trial for the wild-card allegation of "subversion of state power" in August 2018, and released in April 2020. The case of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo needs no elaboration, he was convicted for making a political reform proposal. None of these cases, from arrest, trial to conviction, was compliant with western standards.

Double standard or not? It's up to you to judge!

June 24, 2020

________________ PS: All discussions now will remain purely academic, as the new national security laws will be implemented anyway, and the only hope we have is the reduced level of arbitrariness and better transparency under the common law system if trials were still allowed to be conducted in a Hong Kong court.