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

New York Times 第三擊

【China’s Hong Kong Policy Is Perverse. It Always Has Been.】

By Lewis Lau Yiu-man

HONG KONG — Beijing says it wants to safeguard “one country, two systems,” the principle that supposedly guarantees Hong Kong’s semiautonomy from the mainland. In reality it is weaponizing the policy to crush the city’s freedoms.

On Thursday, the Chinese government announced a plan to pass national security laws for Hong Kong. It has long been after something like this, though previously it expected the local authorities to do the job. Not this time. This law would be ratified in Beijing — at worst, as soon as next week.

This sinister move caps several weeks of mounting acts of repression in Hong Kong, in almost all spheres of public life — politics, law, education, the media.

Last week, students sitting for a university-entrance history exam were asked if they agreed with this statement: “Japan did more good than harm to China in the period of 1900-45.” The Hong Kong Education Bureau promptly complained that the question was “leading” and asked that it be stricken from the exam, even though some students had already answered it.

The Education Bureau also claimed that the question “seriously hurt the feelings and dignity of the Chinese people who suffered great pain during the Japanese invasion of China.” For many traditional Chinese patriots there is simply no way the Japanese could have brought any benefit whatsoever to China; to merely ask that question is to somehow prettify the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.

Never mind that the exam referred to the years between 1900 and 1945, rather than solely to the war. And never mind that there is ample historical evidence showing that Japan’s vast influence on China during that period also served China well in some ways. Sun Yat-sen, the most famous early leader of post-imperial modern China; major actors in China’s socialist movement; even Lu Xun, arguably the greatest writer in modern Chinese literature, were all inspired or shaped to a certain extent by contact with Japan.

More than anything, questions such as this one have been a fixture of history exams in Hong Kong. I studied history at university, and I remember this exam question from 2006: “Some people think Emperor Wen of Sui (541-604) did more harm than good. Do you agree with that?”

Then this week pro-Beijing lawmakers hijacked the election for chairperson of a committee of Hong Kong’s legislative council, calling in security guards to control the scene, and placed at the committee’s head a pro-establishment legislator accused of abuse of power.

“Headliner,” a satirical show of the public broadcaster RTHK, was canceled after Hong Kong authorities complained that it denigrated the Hong Kong police.

And the government, even as it is relaxing various social-distancing rules to fend off Covid-19, just extended restrictions on group gatherings to June 4 — the anniversary of the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. The commemorative protest vigil that has been held that day every year may not take place for the first time in three decades. (It occurred even during the SARS outbreak of 2002-03.)

Next week, Hong Kongers face another blatant effort by Beijing to instill in them patriotism for China and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party: The local Legislature will consider a bill that would criminalize the misuse of China’s national anthem or insults toward it. And, of course, there is the national security legislation.

The Chinese Communist Party is ambitious, and it is impatient. It doesn’t just want to control Hong Kong; it wants to remodel the minds and souls of the Hong Kong people.

Chinese state media said of the history exam controversy that it was an occasion for Hong Kong to “surgically detoxify” its education system so as to make it “compatible” with “one country, two systems.” What they really were calling for is a radical change of the status quo.

“One country, two systems” is designed, in theory, to safeguard the fundamental rights of Hong Kong’s people. In fact, our rights are gradually being taken away in the name of safeguarding “one country, two systems” — Beijing’s version of it. The policy isn’t dead so much as it is perverse. Which it always has been.

“One country, two systems” was a ploy from the outset, a tactic for China to buy time, the better to absorb Hong Kong sooner or later. Preferably sooner, it seems.

New York Times 第三擊

【China’s Hong Kong Policy Is Perverse. It Always Has Been.】

By Lewis Lau Yiu-man

HONG KONG — Beijing says it wants to safeguard “one country, two systems,” the principle that supposedly guarantees Hong Kong’s semiautonomy from the mainland. In reality it is weaponizing the policy to crush the city’s freedoms.

On Thursday, the Chinese government announced a plan to pass national security laws for Hong Kong. It has long been after something like this, though previously it expected the local authorities to do the job. Not this time. This law would be ratified in Beijing — at worst, as soon as next week.

This sinister move caps several weeks of mounting acts of repression in Hong Kong, in almost all spheres of public life — politics, law, education, the media.

Last week, students sitting for a university-entrance history exam were asked if they agreed with this statement: “Japan did more good than harm to China in the period of 1900-45.” The Hong Kong Education Bureau promptly complained that the question was “leading” and asked that it be stricken from the exam, even though some students had already answered it.

The Education Bureau also claimed that the question “seriously hurt the feelings and dignity of the Chinese people who suffered great pain during the Japanese invasion of China.” For many traditional Chinese patriots there is simply no way the Japanese could have brought any benefit whatsoever to China; to merely ask that question is to somehow prettify the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.

Never mind that the exam referred to the years between 1900 and 1945, rather than solely to the war. And never mind that there is ample historical evidence showing that Japan’s vast influence on China during that period also served China well in some ways. Sun Yat-sen, the most famous early leader of post-imperial modern China; major actors in China’s socialist movement; even Lu Xun, arguably the greatest writer in modern Chinese literature, were all inspired or shaped to a certain extent by contact with Japan.

More than anything, questions such as this one have been a fixture of history exams in Hong Kong. I studied history at university, and I remember this exam question from 2006: “Some people think Emperor Wen of Sui (541-604) did more harm than good. Do you agree with that?”

Then this week pro-Beijing lawmakers hijacked the election for chairperson of a committee of Hong Kong’s legislative council, calling in security guards to control the scene, and placed at the committee’s head a pro-establishment legislator accused of abuse of power.

“Headliner,” a satirical show of the public broadcaster RTHK, was canceled after Hong Kong authorities complained that it denigrated the Hong Kong police.

And the government, even as it is relaxing various social-distancing rules to fend off Covid-19, just extended restrictions on group gatherings to June 4 — the anniversary of the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. The commemorative protest vigil that has been held that day every year may not take place for the first time in three decades. (It occurred even during the SARS outbreak of 2002-03.)

Next week, Hong Kongers face another blatant effort by Beijing to instill in them patriotism for China and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party: The local Legislature will consider a bill that would criminalize the misuse of China’s national anthem or insults toward it. And, of course, there is the national security legislation.

The Chinese Communist Party is ambitious, and it is impatient. It doesn’t just want to control Hong Kong; it wants to remodel the minds and souls of the Hong Kong people.

Chinese state media said of the history exam controversy that it was an occasion for Hong Kong to “surgically detoxify” its education system so as to make it “compatible” with “one country, two systems.” What they really were calling for is a radical change of the status quo.

“One country, two systems” is designed, in theory, to safeguard the fundamental rights of Hong Kong’s people. In fact, our rights are gradually being taken away in the name of safeguarding “one country, two systems” — Beijing’s version of it. The policy isn’t dead so much as it is perverse. Which it always has been.

“One country, two systems” was a ploy from the outset, a tactic for China to buy time, the better to absorb Hong Kong sooner or later. Preferably sooner, it seems.

泰晤士報人物專訪【Joshua Wong interview: Xi won’t win this battle, says Hong Kong activist】

Beijing believes punitive prison sentences will put an end to pro-democracy protests. It couldn’t be more wrong, the 23-year-old says.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joshua-wong-interview-xi-wont-win-this-battle-says-hong-kong-activist-p52wlmd0t

For Joshua Wong, activism began early and in his Hong Kong school canteen. The 13-year-old was so appalled by the bland, oily meals served for lunch at the United Christian College that he organised a petition to lobby for better fare. His precocious behaviour earned him and his parents a summons to the headmaster’s office. His mother played peacemaker, but the episode delivered a valuable message to the teenage rebel.

“It was an important lesson in political activism,” Wong concluded. “You can try as hard as you want, but until you force them to pay attention, those in power won’t listen to you.”

It was also the first stage in a remarkable journey that has transformed the bespectacled, geeky child into the globally recognised face of Hong Kong’s struggle for democracy. Wong is the most prominent international advocate for the protests that have convulsed the former British colony since last summer.

At 23, few people would have the material for a memoir. But that is certainly not a problem for Wong, whose book, #UnfreeSpeech, will be published in Britain this week.

We meet in a cafe in the Admiralty district, amid the skyscrapers of Hong Kong’s waterfront, close to the site of the most famous scenes in his decade of protest. Wong explains that he remains optimistic about his home city’s prospects in its showdown with the might of communist China under President Xi Jinping.

“It’s not enough just to be dissidents or youth activists. We really need to enter politics and make some change inside the institution,” says Wong, hinting at his own ambitions to pursue elected office.

He has been jailed twice for his activism. He could face a third stint as a result of a case now going through the courts, a possibility he treats with equanimity. “Others have been given much longer sentences,” he says. Indeed, 7,000 people have been arrested since the protests broke out some seven months ago; 1,000 of them have been charged, with many facing a sentence of as much as 10 years.

There is a widespread belief that Beijing hopes such sentences will dampen support for future protests. Wong brushes off that argument. “It’s gone too far. Who would imagine that Generation Z and the millennials would be confronting rubber bullets and teargas, and be fully engaged in politics, instead of Instagram or Snapchat? The Hong Kong government may claim the worst is over, but Hong Kong will never be peaceful as long as police violence persists.”

In Unfree Speech, Wong argues that China is not only Hong Kong’s problem (the book’s subtitle is: The Threat to Global Democracy and Why We Must Act, Now). “It is an urgent message that people need to defend their rights, against China and other authoritarians, wherever they live,” he says.

At the heart of the book are Wong’s prison writings from a summer spent behind bars in 2017. Each evening in his cell, “I sat on my hard bed and put pen to paper under dim light” to tell his story.

Wong was born in October 1996, nine months before Britain ceded control of Hong Kong to Beijing. That makes him a fire rat, the same sign of the Chinese zodiac that was celebrated on the first day of the lunar new year yesterday. Fire rats are held to be adventurous, rebellious and garrulous. Wong is a Christian and does not believe in astrology, but those personality traits seem close to the mark.

His parents are Christians — his father quit his job in IT to become a pastor, while his mother works at a community centre that provides counselling — and named their son after the prophet who led the Israelites to the promised land.

Like many young people in Hong Kong, whose housing market has been ranked as the world’s most unaffordable, he still lives at home, in South Horizons, a commuter community on the south side of the main island.

Wong was a dyslexic but talkative child, telling jokes in church groups and bombarding his elders with questions about their faith. “By speaking confidently, I was able to make up for my weaknesses,” he writes. “The microphone loved me and I loved it even more.”

In 2011, he and a group of friends, some of whom are his fellow activists today, launched Scholarism, a student activist group, to oppose the introduction of “moral and national education” to their school curriculum — code for communist brainwashing, critics believed. “I lived the life of Peter Parker,” he says. “Like Spider-Man’s alter-ego, I went to class during the day and rushed out to fight evil after school.”

The next year, the authorities issued a teaching manual that hailed the Chinese Communist Party as an “advanced and selfless regime”. For Wong, “it confirmed all our suspicions and fears about communist propaganda”.

In August 2012, members of Scholarism launched an occupation protest outside the Hong Kong government’s headquarters. Wong told a crowd of 120,000 students and parents: “Tonight we have one message and one message only: withdraw the brainwashing curriculum. We’ve had enough of this government. Hong Kongers will prevail.”

Remarkably, the kids won. Leung Chun-ying, the territory’s chief executive at the time, backed down. Buoyed by their success, the youngsters of Scholarism joined forces with other civil rights groups to protest about the lack of progress towards electing the next chief executive by universal suffrage — laid out as a goal in the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution. Their protests culminated in the “umbrella movement” occupation of central Hong Kong for 79 days in 2014.

Two years later, Wong and other leaders set up a political group, Demosisto. He has always been at pains to emphasise he is not calling for independence — a complete red line for Beijing. Demosisto has even dropped the words “self-determination” from its stated goals — perhaps to ease prospects for its candidates in elections to Legco, the territory’s legislative council, in September.

Wong won’t say whether he will stand himself, but he is emphatically political, making a plea for change from within — not simply for anger on the streets — and for stepping up international pressure: “I am one of the facilitators to let the voices of Hong Kong people be heard in the international community, especially since 2016.”

There are tensions between moderates and radicals. Some of the hardliners on the streets last year considered Wong already to be part of the Establishment, a backer of the failed protests of the past.

So why bother? What’s the point of a city of seven million taking on one of the world’s nastiest authoritarian states, with a population of about 1.4 billion? And in any case, won’t it all be over in 2047, the end of the “one country, two systems” deal agreed between China and Britain, which was supposed to guarantee a high degree of autonomy for another 50 years? Does he fear tanks and a repetition of the Tiananmen Square killings?

Wong acknowledges there are gloomy scenarios but remains a robust optimist. “Freedom and democracy can prevail in the same way that they did in eastern Europe, even though before the Berlin Wall fell, few people believed it would happen.”

He is tired of the predictions of think-tank pundits, journalists and the like. Three decades ago, with the implosion of communism in the Soviet bloc, many were confidently saying that the demise of the people’s republic was only a matter of time. Jump forward 20 years, amid the enthusiasm after the Beijing Olympics, and they were predicting market reforms and a growing middle class would presage liberalisation.

Neither scenario has unfolded, Wong notes. “They are pretending to hold the crystal ball to predict the future, but look at their record and it is clear no one knows what will happen by 2047. Will the Communist Party even still exist?”

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1119445/unfree-speech

Lantau Peak is 934m high, the second highest peak in Hong Kong (Tai Mo Shan is the highest) in Hong Kong. It is very famous for the sunrise scenery viewed from the summit. The hikers usually climb up Lantau Peak starting from Pak Kung Au for sunrise viewing.

// The protest against Hong Kong extradition bill was over 6 months, during the protest HKers have spent very much, till now HKers are still living in fears. In the video, the hikers fight against cold weather and climb up Lantau Peak, aiming to bring hope and glory to HKers who are fighting for freedom, by raising the meaningful flag on the peak. //

鳳凰山位於大嶼山，高934米，是香港第二高的山峰。鳳凰山是觀賞日出的理想地點，故有「鳳凰觀日」之美譽。

//香港修例風波至今六個月，期間香港人流下了不少的血和眼淚，即使到了今天仍然要活在白色恐懼的陰霾之下。為了把充滿希望的榮光帶給所有正在奮鬥的香港人，一群香港人在嚴寒下登上這座鳳凰之巔，揮動極具象徵意義的旗幟，一起迎接黎明的曙光。//

▼【隨行的話】《回看山下不一樣的2019》: https://wp.me/s6CvAS-2019m
===========================
Music: Epic Adventure by Carlos Estella (Jamendo Music: https://www.jamendo.com)
▼Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/Follo3me
▼Webpage: https://follo3me.com
===========================
#鳳凰山日出 #山野航拍 #Mavic2Zoom #自己垃圾自己帶走

For close to half a decade, the name of Daud Bukit Abal (Mat Daud Che Mat) was synonymous with the Dikir Barat tradition of his native state of Kelantan.

Born in the Pasir Putih district of Kelantan, his interest in Dikir began in light hearted fashion, imitating famous Dikir masters of his time. His deep and melodious voice however made him an increasingly popular singer, and he eventually emerged as a leading Tok Jogho.

Since 1961, when he made his debut, through the 1970's and 1980's, and till he was declared and granted the title Master of the Dikir Barat by his contemporaries in 2006, he ensured the ascendency of the Dikir tradition in Kelantan. As other traditional art forms in Kelantan were proscribed by the PAS led state government, Daud Bukit Abal further widened the platform of Dikir to embrace musicians and artists from these other 'outlawed' traditions.

In 2005, when there were suggestions that Dikir Barat, too, be proscribed and brought within the 'reins of control', he, along with other renowned Dikir performers, put up a formidable protest which led to state authorities rescinding their decision.

Along with the other renowned Tok Jogho, the late Salleh Jambu and the legendary Tukang Karut, Seman Wau Bulan (composer of the legendary Dikir song, Wau Bulan), Daud Bukit Abal ensured the expansion of the Dikir Barat by experimenting with style and new mediums of performance. Still, it was always the deep grain of his voice which left audiences "entranced."
He remained active, performing, teaching and ensuring the transmission of Dikir to a younger generation of performers till his passing on 17.09.2011, so that every contemporary performer of Dikir can trace his lineage to Daud Bukit Abal whom they, and the vast Dikir audience in Kelantan and elsewhere, still embrace, with the deepest veneration, as 'The Godfather of Dikir Barat.' - Eddin Khoo (Pusaka)

Video by Indrani Kopal