關於 please correct me if otherwise ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

近來我發現，在那些針對「熱衷探索自然」的戶外活動愛好者和發布秘境貼文者所日益增長批評裡，最常見的莫過於：

「遊客會製造垃圾！」
「這些地方很多人去的話，接下來就等著看到滿地垃圾吧！」
「這些『熱愛大自然』的人們就是最大的問題！」
「我們不能開放戶外景點給一般大眾，因為他們都不負責任，而且會破壞環境！」

但，真的是這樣嗎？這些遊客是將大量塑膠垃圾傾倒在山林河川當中的主力嗎？讓我們來深入檢視一下這個議題：「為什麼有些廢棄物的最後下場，不是在掩埋場、焚化爐、回收廠、或是相對應的公共衛生處理單位呢？」

不幸的是，一些不成熟的遊客走進了大自然，把垃圾丟在那裡。如果您拜訪任何受歡迎的瀑布或溫泉，可能還會在那裡看到一些垃圾。

遊客傾向於做出兩個錯誤的假設:
<露營垃圾全是可燃的>
這是錯誤的。就像您在家一樣，應將垃圾分類為廢物和可回收物，並隨身攜帶離開。您的垃圾都不應進入營火中。

<食物會迅速分解在自然裡>
雖然沒錯，但蔬菜和加工食品分解可能需要幾個月的時間，橘子皮，蛋殼，骨頭可能需要數年。如果您將麵條或白菜扔進河裡，它們就不會被魚吃掉。它會在那兒呆數周和數月，聞起來酸味並腐爛。即使魚類和動物確實吞噬了您的垃圾，但餵養野生生物也不是您的工作。有生命力的食物種子最終會成為入侵物種，奇怪的食物會使動物生病或死亡。所有多餘的食物都應隨身帶離開。沒有例外。

更糟糕的是隨處可見的煙蒂頭。為什麼吸煙者不認為這些有毒的塑料和化學物質是垃圾？這是無法接受的。

儘管這真令人氣憤，但它並不是山上垃圾的最大來源。嚴重的系統問題是與垃圾收集和處理需求有關

這支影片當中，展示了位於高雄六龜葫蘆谷瀑布的一些垃圾堆。這裡的地勢陡峭，任何被丟進森林裡的垃圾都會沿著斜坡滾下。每當雨水來臨之際之際，重量較輕的塑膠製品就會被沖刷到河流，一路漂流至下游，也就是大家會去玩耍的瀑布那兒；最終，它們進入海洋，並被海浪打上遙遠的某處沙灘。

不過，這隻影片清楚地展示了何謂「誤解」：第一眼看過去，覺得只是幾個保麗龍手搖杯和一些大家會為了踏青而帶出門的東西。但當我們再次細看，裡面居然出現水桶、巨型農用塑膠布（通常寬幅至少為一公尺，幅寬則可長達數十公尺）、農藥空罐、傢俱、和一般家庭垃圾：那些「沒有」任何一個去健行的人會帶著走的物品。這些廢棄物源自山裡，最有可能的來源也就是那些住在山裡的人們。那些垃圾，並非外來者所帶去的。

這並不罕見，也非單一事件。只要在任何山路旁停下，低頭向山壁下望去，就能看見成堆的垃圾袋。那些都是在家裡打包綁好的家庭垃圾，然後在行進中的車上往車窗外扔。家庭垃圾，是來自家庭，並非來自露營者；只要能檢視這些垃圾裡所含有的文件或郵件，便能揭曉它的來源。

即使這些會任意丟棄垃圾的人們只佔了山間居民的極小部分，他們還是有著極大的影響力。而在山區違法傾倒垃圾有過之而無不及的破壞力。無論是什麼原因，有部分居住在山上的住戶，偏好將家庭垃圾棄置於河川勝於妥當的處理。這裡所討論的並非這裡一個、那裡一個的零星垃圾。一個住在台灣的四口家庭，年平均垃圾製造量大約1600公斤。這樣的垃圾量，實屬相當巨大。

而正是因為一個家庭所能產生的垃圾量如此龐大，我們實在很難切確了解這樣的（隨意扔丟家庭垃圾）行為究竟擴及到什麼樣的程度。我在路旁的樹叢裡看過不下數百件垃圾⋯⋯或許數千件了也不一定。但這是因為數十或數百個家庭這麼做，我並無法斷言。唯一能確定的是，塑膠垃圾將「傳承」好幾世代。

如果今天去到偏鄉，將垃圾丟進垃圾桶裡，那些垃圾下場的可能性之一是，人們請來收垃圾的那些車隊將垃圾從民宿或餐廳接走，沒有依照環保署的規定處理，不但沒有把垃圾載到目的地，他們會找個在附近不為人知的地點就隨便把垃圾給倒了。山林裡滿滿都是這樣的情況。我們在河裏所見的一部分垃圾，就是從這些非法掩埋場所洗刷出來的結果。
除了上述提到的部分之外，卻還有其他來源也正在為這樣的情況有所「貢獻」：在許多地方，整卡車的垃圾就是直接傾倒於山路邊，直落山腳的河中。這裡所指的，並非單純的家庭垃圾或傢俱，而是包含來自建築、農業、和工業等的大型廢棄物。諸如此類的物件並非一般民眾所能接觸的到；那麼，之所以會在這裡看到這類型的垃圾只有一個原因：無論是本身製造這些垃圾的單位，或著是他們委託的民間清潔業者，最終選擇不按常規處理廢棄物，選擇違法私了，隨意傾倒。政府的相關單位真的應該要發展一套策略，來確認這些垃圾最終有好好抵達該去的地方。

每年颱風來臨，就會把這些成千上噸的垃圾帶到海洋。但那些垃圾堆卻不會因此減少：因為卡車會帶著新一批的垃圾來再度傾倒。

在對這一切麻痺之前，我那時還會拍攝影片來講述這樣的情況；但現在，我只會假裝眼不見為淨。

話說回來，我倒是能夠理解為何有些偏鄉的家庭垃圾並無法抵達該去的目的地。我本身就是來自於美國的偏鄉地區。在我的成長過程當中，並沒有「公共收垃圾」的這項服務。我們將廚餘做成堆肥，埋在遠離主建築的庭院一角，用落葉堆在上方，放置兩年後再挖來替花園施肥。垃圾和回收物會分在不同的袋子裡。每週一次，我父親會將這些袋子用車子載去離家約二十分鐘車程的郡屬廢棄物集散地和回收中心。的確，整個過程費力費時，但做好回收和妥當處理廢棄物對我爸爸來說非常重要，而我們當時也有這過程裡所需的一切資源來達成這項任務。

但並非我們的街坊鄰居都這麼做。有些家庭沒有時間好好處理垃圾，所以就把成堆的垃圾、生活用具、壞掉的車子和玩具等等，隨意散落在他們的住家四周。這也是相當常見的街景一隅。

在很多方面來說，偏鄉跟都市的生活條件比較起來，的確是不方便許多。以現實層面而言，實際的生活、家庭、經濟狀況，樣樣都會佔去不少時間。並不是所有家庭都能每每在需要之際，花上一個小時來丟好垃圾。但也有人是「能做，但我就是不想做」。沒有垃圾車的時候，他們便會選擇最為便捷的方式。政府真的應該針對山間社區提供更多的收垃圾選項。

我在這裡所訴說一切其實大家都了然於心，卻鮮少被提起。大部分在山林間那些路旁和河邊的垃圾並非來自登山客或是瀑布遊客。那些垃圾來自於那些從未抵達掩埋場的一般人類消耗結果。住在山間那些人們也不願見到如此景象。但這就是現實狀況。

這也是為什麼當我看到像是「殺風景！苦花潭遍地遊客垃圾 部落擬封閉」這樣的標題時，總會不由自主地翻個大白眼。沒錯，遊客不應該留下任何垃圾，但在不到百米之外，就有個在森林深處的家庭垃圾集散地。幾乎到哪兒都有垃圾。

如果大家有興趣前往探勘現場狀況的話，以下提供三個例子：
(大型): 24.035258, 121.170819
(大型): 24.6080971,121.2830025
(小型): 22.705481, 120.669413

面對這樣的狀況，針對個人的罰鍰並沒有太大幫助。大家平時在生活裏已經有夠多的煩惱了，否則也不會這樣處理事情。就是把收垃圾這件事情弄得再簡單一些就能幫上很大的忙了。山區的垃圾廢棄必須得簡單又方便，如同城市裡所提供的一樣。

最後還是要呼籲大家，因為疫情影響，人民改為國內旅遊，這是一件好事，多了親山近水的機會，也增加露營野餐烤肉樂趣，讓朋友家人感情更融洽!但是大家在拜訪大自然的同時，更需要以身作則，帶來多少食物垃圾，也請一件不留帶走。野生動物不需要被人類餵食，牠們喜歡自己自食其力，所以不用擔心動物會餓，而故意留下吃剩食物殘渣。揮揮衣袖，請帶走全部垃圾，包含烤肉架，野生動物不需要自己烤肉啦~

還有，大家不要再報復性集中旅遊啦~明明台灣美景青山綠水多到數不清，要記得分散人流，防疫新生活還是要落實，真的不知道去哪裡玩嗎?歡迎大家逛逛我的部落格，我製作了全台300多個景點地圖，可以選偏僻冷門的景點去唷~

One of the most common criticisms I see raised against nature goers and people who post 秘境 online is that visitors bring a lot of trash with them. If these areas have a lot of visitors, the result will be that there is a lot of trash. Nature-lovers are the problem. We can’t open up the wilderness to the general public, because they are irresponsible, and will trash the place. But is that really true? Are tourists the main driver of plastic waste in rivers and mountains? Let’s examine this issue a bit further and try to determine why some waste ends up in the rivers instead of landfills and public waste processing centers.

Unfortunately, some of immature tourists go into nature and leave their trash there. If you visit any popular waterfall or hot spring, chances are you will see some trash there too.

Tourists tend to make two false assumptions. One is that camping trash is burnable. It’s not. Your trash should be separated into waste and recyclables, just like you do at home, and taken out with you. None of your trash should go in the campfire.

The other is that food degrades quickly. It doesn’t. Vegetables and processed foods can months, orange peels, egg shells, bones can take years. If you toss noodles or cabbage into the river, it won’t be eaten by fish. It will stay there for weeks and months and rot and smell. Even if fish and animals did eat your garbage, it’s not your job to feed the wildlife. Viable food seeds end up as invasive species and strange foods make animals sick or die. All excess food should be taken out with you. No exceptions.

Even worse are cigarette butts. Why do smokers not think these toxic bits of plastic and chemicals are trash? This is unacceptable.

As infuriating as this is though, it’s not the biggest source of mountain garbage. There are serious systemic problems relating to garbage collection and disposal that need to be addressed.

This video shows a large trash pile at Hulugu Waterfall in Kaohsiung City, Liugui District. The terrain here is very steep. Any trash thrown into the forest will roll down the hill. When it rains, the lighter plastic products will be washed into the river and flow downstream, into the waterfalls you play at, and eventually to the ocean, and eventually onto a remote beach somewhere.

However, a closer look at the piles shows that this can be misleading: at first glance, it looks like a few styrofoam tea cups and items that people might bring on an outing with them. But as we look closer at the waste, we can see there are buckets, plastic farm sheeting, pesticide bottles, furniture, and general household waste. Items that no hiker would ever bring with them. This waste originated in the mountains, by people who live in the mountains. It was not brought by outsiders.

Neither is this a rare or isolated incident. If you stop at literally any section of mountain road and look over the edge you will see entire trash bags down below you. These are household trash bags that were packed and tied shut at home, then thrown out of the window of moving vehicles. It’s household trash, from houses, not campers, and critical examination of this waste would reveal the source through mail and other documents inside.

Even if it’s only a small percentage of the mountain population, they still have a big impact. Illegal trash dumps in the mountains have an even bigger impact. For whatever reason it is, some mountain dwellers prefer to throw their household waste into the river than dispose of it properly. This is not a stray bag here and there. The average 4 person household generates 1600KG of trash per year in Taiwan. That’s a lot of trash.

Because a single family can generate so much garbage, it’s difficult to tell how widespread this practice is. I’ve seen hundreds of trash bags in the forest by the side of the road. Possibly thousands. But if this is by dozens of families or hundreds of families I can’t say. Plastic lasts for generations.

If you visit rural communities and dispose of your trash in their trash can, there is a possibility that the private trucks they hired to pick up those waste from the restaurant or minsu aren’t taking it to an EPA landfill. Instead of delivering the trash to the final destination, they find an isolated spot nearby and just dump the garbage there. It may end up in one of these dumping sites instead. The mountains are full of them. Some of what you will see in a river is washed down from these illegal landfills.

In many places, entire truckloads of trash are dumped over the side of the roads and into the river below. This isn’t just household waste and furniture, but also construction, farming, and industrial waste too. This type of waste is not something that tourists bring into the mountains. Whoever was in charge of disposing of this waste properly decided to dump it into the forest instead. The government needs to develop a method of confirming that mountain waste reaches its intended destination.

Every year typhoons carry tons of this trash away to the ocean, but the trash piles never go away, because new trucks arrive to refill them.

I used to make videos about them before I became desensitized, but now I just pretend I didn’t see them.

I do understand why some rural household waste doesn’t make it to the correct locations though. I’m from a rural area myself. I didn’t have a trash service where I grew up. We composted food waste. It was dumped into piles far away from the house. We covered them with leaves and let them sit for two years before using it for soil in the garden. Trash and recyclables were separated into different bags. Once a week my dad drove these bags 20 minutes into town to the county dump and recycling center. It was a lot of effort, but recycling and proper waste disposal were very important to my dad, and we also had the resources to do it.

Not everyone on my street did though. Some families did not have the time and resources for proper waste disposal, and so they had piles of trash, appliances, broken down cars, broken toys, etc around their property. It was a very common sight.

In many ways, country living isn’t as easy and convenient as living in the city. Sometimes real life, family, and financial problems take up all your time. Not all families can spend an hour each time they want to take out the trash. Some people can, but just don’t want to. When trash trucks are not available, they will take the most convenient option. The government needs to increase trash pickup options for mountain communities.

What I’ve written here is well known, but not often talked about. Most of the roadside and riverside trash in the mountains isn’t from hikers and waterfall goers. It’s from normal human consumption that never makes it to a landfill. People who live in the mountains don’t like it either. But that’s what it’s like.

That’s why when I see headlines like (殺風景！苦花潭遍地遊客垃圾 部落擬封閉), I can’t help but roll my eyes. Tourists shouldn’t be leaving trash there, but there is also a household forest trash dump less than 100 meters away. There’s trash almost everywhere.

Here are a few examples if you wanna go check em out yourself:
(big): 24.035258, 121.170819
(big): 24.6080971,121.2830025
(small): 22.705481, 120.669413

Fines to individuals won’t help. People have enough problems, otherwise they wouldn’t act this way. Just make it easier to take the trash away. Trash disposal needs to be easy and convenient for mountain communities, just like it is for urban communities.

Finally, I still want to appeal to everyone. Because of the impact of the epidemic, the people have changed to domestic tourism. This is a good thing. There are more opportunities to get close to the mountains and rivers. It also increases the fun of camping and picnic barbecues, so that friends and family can feel more harmonious! But everyone is visiting nature At the same time, it is more necessary to set an example, and please don’t leave any food waste with you. Wild animals do not need to be fed by humans. They like to support themselves, so there is no need to worry that the animals will be hungry and intentionally leave leftover food residue. Flick your sleeves, please take away all the garbage, including the barbecue grill, wild animals don’t need to barbecue by themselves~

It’s clear that Taiwan’s beautiful scenery, green mountains and green waters are countless, remember to disperse the flow of people, and the new life of epidemic prevention still needs to be implemented. Do you really know where to go? Welcome everyone to visit me In my blog, I have made maps of more than 300 scenic spots in Taiwan. You can choose remote and unpopular scenic spots to go to

ultra vires

【回覆選舉主任的追問】（Please scroll down for English version）

（選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問： https://goo.gl/unqfuP ）

我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任，內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助，大家可參考他的文章：

村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎！
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD

全文：

「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函，現謹覆如下:

█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題

1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥

2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定，「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明，示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區，否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」

《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定，為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」，「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。

3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步，假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力，而這並無違反人權)，「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯，亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。

區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定)，將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立， 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。

但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋， 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」

4. 再者，立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時，完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般，考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容，背後更無任何有約束力 的決定，要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。

反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出，「本條例草案的目的，是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文，以確保選舉公開、公平和公正，並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。

5. 無論如何，即使區慶祥法官亦須承認，任何有關的聲明規定， 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下，實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。

法律上，選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting

Wade and Forsyth.

(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

在這方面，《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的，是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下，並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區，亦即提名的有效性，並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念，《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問，否則他或她行事的目的，就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查，而非確保提名的有 效性。

故此，我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。

█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題，我並不同意你的說法，因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制，因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而，正如我昨日的回覆所指，「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革，包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條，作為中共封殺真普選後，港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時，我沒有主張「香港獨立」。

█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」，不過，提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人，不單自己不可主張港獨，也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障，亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。

請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆，決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料，請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。

2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」

【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】

Mr. Yuen,

I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:

█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination

1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.

2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.

3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.

Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’

4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)

5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).

In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'

- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.

(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.

Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.

█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".

█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.

Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.

My fave local comic artist is being cyberbullied for having strong opinions (logical ones in fact). This is a free country, if one does not agree with another they should just bite their tongue and move on. Not breach other people's privacy and leak personal information just to create a stupid manhunt. Don't ever use religion to justify stupidity, seriously any religion at all. As far as I know religion has taught me to forgive people and be humble.

I had this experience last year when someone took my daughter's death and started blowing things out of proportion with absurd assumptions and threats that I had to delete 80% of the people in my personal account (so don't bother adding me) it has taught me a harsh lesson to never trust anyone including friends as they could be the reason how your personal information gets leaked in the first place.

Hello everyone.

I'm guessing that you know what was going on involving myself and my opinions released on social media. I believe I owe an explanation and an apology to my audience and people out there. I hope you take your time reading to the end. (Malay translation in the comments)

[please do take note that I may edit this post if I needed to do corrections or add extra info]

From my understanding he doxxing happened because of years of dissatisfaction towards my content which is accused as anti-Islam and anti-Malay, and the people who strongly disagreed with me happened to find my personal information and decided to use them as a personal attack.

However, please keep in mind that I have no intentions to insult Islam, because when I draw stuff I use "Don't blame Islam, blame the Muslims" as a principle, and I expected people use the same principle to when they read my content. If I were to insult the religion, I would have drawn caricatures of Rasulullah and cherrypick Quranic verses to make fun of. Just to be clear, I've drawn well-mannered and well-meaning Muslims in some of my comic strips (Story of Adrian, and the one on child marriage), but I guess the good characters are overlooked >_<.

Regarding my photo being leaked, I have come in terms with this because there are people who have already met me and took photos with me. To use it to insult my appearance is futile because I'm already comfortable with the way I look.

Regarding my name being leaked, my friends are aware of VulpineNinja's full name so it's not a surprise. Clients that commissioned me already knew my real name. Unfortunately, I have deactivated my facebook to avoid more personal information being leaked, and in order to protect my friends and family from being attacked too.

Regarding what I have said on twitter, I genuinely apologize for writing such statement. I admit I typed it out of anger. First of all, I was frustrated that a lot of religious scholars enable child marriages, that I wish Islam has made it haram since centuries ago as they deemed LGBT haram. It would be a much easier solution than to make many muslims confused of what is correct and what is not. Secondly, again, there was no intention to insult Islam, but I'd like to highlight that we should look at other factors instead of just simply supporting child marriage because syara' allows it. Think about underaged pregnancy the child might have to go through, and the health risk is explained in the medical field.
Thirdly, under the tweet there was actually a long discussion regarding the matter, so I can say that the screenshot of that tweet could have been taken out of context. I have also deleted that tweet.

Yes all knowledge come from Allah Himself, however let's not deny that a lot of knowledge are discovered by people who don't even practice Islam (Note: The scholars from the Golden Age of Islam plays a huge role in seeking knowledge, but they were also labeled as 'heretics' from doing so). There are people who sought knowledge without religion telling them to.

I believe Islam is a guide, it has answers to certain problems, and scholars are still revising laws that fit with the modern world.

Regardless, I'm still sorry that the words slipped out of my fingers, no "account kena hack" excuse whatsoever. I take responsibility for what I said and I completely understand if you're angry with me.

There are those who assume that my intention is to "spread liberal ideology" through this page. I don't have the motivation to spread any ideologies, but the reason I draw comic strips is to just transcribe what I think about certain issues on canvas. I like meeting people who have the same thoughts as I do, and I've met wonderful friends along the way, it just feels great to know that i'm not alone with such thoughts. That said, it's okay if you disagree with me, and I'm not here to force my ideology on you.

There are issues which I did not cover because I did not have any strong opinion on it, or I was too busy to draw anything, or I'm keeping the idea until I have a better story for it. Last year I went on hiatus, at the same time I was thinking of how to write bette and minimize damages. However, sometimes people will still misconstrue the message negatively, as seen in the "Penindas dan yang ditindas" comic, where I did not explicitly mention any race or community. And I admit there are contents which I don't think is 'overboard' but people may see it otherwise.

Regarding the pro-LGBT stance, I do not want to say much except that I am with Dr Mujahid and Dr. MAZA's opinion, that the government doesn't have to acknowledge them, accept that it's a sin in Islam but at the same time there's no reason to discriminate them

That said, I completely accept the consequences and once again I'm sorry for causing such ruckus.

I'm against cyberbullying, even during Kiki's (angry steering lock girl) case, although I find that she's rude, I'm against people making fun of her way too much. Therefore, please do not bully the person who intended to harm me, nor his peers.

Final word, I'm going to take a break for some time, rethink about my content again and concentrate on other projects. I won't be having much social media presence until things die out, probably even on twitter. I won't be replying any personal messages or comments. My page will still be moderated by another admin.

Thank you for the love and support you have given me, and i my friends are reading this sorry for making you worry.

P/S: if you have anything to say to me, feel free to meet up at VAX this weekend, I might be around.