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

LIVING IN ACTIVEWEAR 🧡

and I fully stand by it! Activewear is the official uniform of the modern Mama. Who is with me?

🧡

Check out Sweaty Betty First Pop-Up in Asia and get a $200 Sweaty Betty shopping voucher!!!

Venue and duration:
Pacific Place | 27 Sept - 3 Oct 11:00am-8:00pm

Sweat Betty is a British athleisure and lifestyle brand that designed by women for women - empower women through fitness and beyond !
Let’s join Sweaty Betty’s community and build the mission together !

@sweatybetty @sweatybetty_hk #iamasweatybetty #iamsweatybettyhk
#rosannewong #activeware #sweatybettyrosannewong

【渾水一片：還原香港海界爭議發展史】 (上篇) #都市化洋謀 #9月專研

過往在香港討論有關海洋邊界爭議，往往是香港以南的南海主權問題。事實上近年的焚船污染、明日大嶼、12人越洋、走私不斷等當下議題，都與海洋空間規劃、定界及海權問題有關，而香港早年殖民期的海界及海權作為各種海洋亂象之源，卻少有人深入探討。

翻查一系列關於香港水域爭議的英國解密檔案，整理過往殖民地時期有關香港「含糊」水域爭議的發展史，揭示牽涉複雜的海洋邊界政治，除了作為當時中英政治角力的前緣，亦有助我們了解現時香港水域範圍的歷史脈絡及源起。

一條海界　兩個表述

殖民地時期早年，香港的水域範圍一直未有公開確實的版本，亦引伸出有兩種不同的界線表述。

於20世紀初，根據《展拓香港界址專條》的香港地圖顯示，香港水域呈「方型」界線(square boundary )。根據一份關於新界邊界及現況的英國解密檔案(1962 CO 1030/1334 Status and boundaries of Hong Kong New Territories)，當時中方海關經常巡邏於以大嶼山以西大澳水域一帶(方型界線以外)，似乎更視其為中方水域。然而，早在1901年英方已有向港督提及，按照國際上的海洋慣例，一般領海 (normal territorial waters)寬度應為3海里 (three nautical miles)，因而，香港領海界線應呈現為「彎曲型」(sinuous)，比起「方形」範圍雖然多了大嶼山以西水域，同時卻損失了東南方一大片水域，作為最早期的香港水域範圍的兩個表述。

後續1911年修訂《釋義條例》(Interpretation Ordinance) 時，由於港督的錯誤公告字眼(wording of an incorrect Proclamation)，令到香港水域繼續被闡釋為方型。

而這個錯誤的公告去到1950年被修訂。英方於1950年重新檢視與領海相關的條例，表示若沿用1937年英方對於《釋義條例》的闡釋，地圖所顯示的「方形」界線，只是英方租用中方領土的一條分界線(merely a line of delimitation of the area within which all territory was leased) ，並不是租用香港3海里以外的水域範圍(this did not mean that there was a purported lease of any waters outside normal territorial waters)，可見，內部確立「彎曲型」的領海範圍。

參考一份1950年關於香港水域的英國解密檔案 (1950 CO 537 6036 Territorial water) 中的英方外交部內閣大臣Jim Griffiths跟港督的電報來往中顯示，因當時中日關係惡劣，為了保持當時英方中立 (neutral) 的立場。英方亦想盡量避免中日雙方於香港水域範圍發生衝突 (Jørgensen N. H. B., 2019)，早於1937年至1939年，英方曾經指示香港水域要跟隨國際慣例，將領海寬度收窄至3海里。無獨有偶，1950年修訂《釋義條例》，已有英方法律意見表示當時擔心如果國、共兩軍在新海界（彎曲型）及舊海界（方型）之間的位置發生衝突，將會造成英方外交上尷尬，要盡快修例避免尷尬事件。可見，英方變動水域邊界時明顯有其政治考量。

即使已修例，1952年當時國際法庭 (International Court of Justice) 有關英挪漁業案(Anglo Norwegian Fisheries case)的判決 (Jørgensen N. H. B., 2019)，提及使用哪種基線方式來劃定領海的爭議，促使香港律政司重提「方型」領海是否合法地代表香港水域，但建議被英方否決。其後在1958年，即使英國外交部再次表示「方型」範圍只是表示港英領土的一條分界線 (all land within the line thus shown is Hong Kong territory)，但同時亦保留方型界線，聲稱為免影響航空航線。

早年香港水域邊界一直未被確實，即使在法律層面上，英方內部確立「彎曲型」領海範圍的合法性。然而，其後英方一直未有公開與中國共產黨政權講述其水域範圍，或擔心會侵犯中國領海主權。可見，香港水域一直受到變動中的海緣政治影響，經常遊走在當時國際上認可海洋慣例(彎曲型)與中英簽訂的《展拓香港界址專條》(方型)之間。

中方圍堵香港水域的預言？

水域範圍、基線劃定的方法及國際航海權一直是國際外交上一個十分敏感的議題。香港作為英國殖民地，卻緊貼住中國的領海範圍，除了香港水域定界，船隻來往香港的航道亦一直是英方十分頭痛的問題，稍有不慎，就會有被冠上侵犯中國海權的「辱華」罪名。

中方於1958年第一次聯合國海洋法公約（United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)，已經單方面將其領海範圍擴展至12海哩，英國宗主國當時內部表明會反對中方單方面的領海宣稱，擔心會發生圍堵香港水域的情況。

根據新界邊界及現況的英國解密檔案(1962 CO 1030/1334 Status and boundaries of Hong Kong New Territories)中的電報來往，當時港英內部評估，認為中方擴展領海將對香港造成「海陸空」影響，除了會收窄飛機的航道、需要重新佈線電纜和無線電纜、亦會限制海軍的演練空間，大大影響香港的船隻來往，來往公海的航道走廊更會收窄到1海里(corridor of international waters could be reduced to about one mile)，形容「接近完全圍封香港」 (almost completely envelope Hong Kong)。

隨著國際共識的改變，在1972年第三次聯合國海洋法會議前夕，英方亦打算將國土領海範圍的3海里擴展至12海里。翻查另一份1972年關於香港水域爭議的英國解密檔案 (1972 FCO 21 1024 Territorial waters dispute between China and Hong Kong)，當時英方內部考慮這次擴展海界，應否包括香港殖民地，並計劃在香港附近水域進行海道測量 (Hydrographic survey)，明顯想放風測試中方反應。

然而，根據英國外交部及港英的內部電報來往，英方雖然一度打算在翌年與中方在第三次聯合國海洋法會議上提及香港殖民地水域擴展，但英方內部亦指出中方定會反對香港的水域擴展至12海里，除了因為香港擴展會跟中國水域重疊，中國亦一直視香港為固有領土，不可視香港為獨立的行政個體 (separate entity)，應該維持現狀，限制今次香港擴海界。

呼應早期50年代有關中方圍堵香港水域的擔憂，英方擔心如果掀起討論，更有可能令香港航道問題惡化 (a risk that any such discussion would vitiate the present adequate though limited freedom of passage)。按英國外交部理解，中方只不過默許船隻在不進入擔桿列島5海哩範圍的前提下進入香港；如果中國「執正嚟做」嚴格實踐其12海里的主權宣稱，則連博寮海峽都不能通行 (a 12 mile limit strictly adhered to in this area would make normal surface access to Hong Kong through the Lemma Channel impossible)。最後，英方外交部為免觸動到中方神經，加上「信唔過」中方 (their good will… cannot be relied on a year ahead)，建議的對策卻是避免「打草驚蛇」(let sleeping dogs lie)，絕口不提香港擴海界。

直到1987年，英國正式將水域擴展到12海哩，但香港並沒有納入被擴展的範圍。在香港前途談判過程中，亦未有正式提及香港水域擴展12海里一事(Jørgensen N. H. B., 2019)。可見，面對中方進取的領海主權宣稱，英方在香港水域邊界問題上，尤其顯得無力。

香港「渾水」邊界的潛規則

面對中國擴海界後將會圍堵香港的擔憂，根據一份有關香港水域及其爭議的英國解密檔案(1968 FCO 21 547 Dispute with China about territorial waters)，當中牽涉中英雙方就香港海界爭議鮮為人知的權宜之計(modus vivendi)。

事緣1968年一艘美國貨船於萬山群島近珠江口一帶(Lema Channel in the estuary of the Pearl River)被中方海軍的警告已入侵中方水域，檔案中有一份美國國務院情報與研究局官員Thoms L. Hughes事後對中國共產黨於香港鄰近水域的主權宣稱(Communist assertions of sovereignty over waters in the vicinity of Hong Kong)進行一份內部評估報告，提到中方不時會「放生」來往香港的商船。

於50年代初，船隻可以經萬山群島近珠江口一帶接近香港水域，可謂當時的潛規則（local ground rule)。然而，在中方宣稱12海里領海後，於1959年曾發出達20次警告，外國商船透過萬山群島近珠江口一帶接近香港期間入侵中方水域，並禁止一切外國船隻通往萬山群島近珠江口一帶，評估報告中亦提及多次美國商船及軍艦通往香港遇上中國海軍的事件。

然而，中方不但少有採取實際軍事行動，多是「口頭」表示抗議及警告外國船隻侵犯中國水域，更沒有對外公開批評數次入侵事件。就以上例子，美方評估中國當時並不是新的「強硬路線」宣示領海主權(new harder line from Peking)，只是由於過多船隻進入萬山群島內沿而作出的回應(is a reaction to an increasing number of passages through the interior Lema Channel)[萬山群島內沿被中國視為內海]。

而當時美方估計中方「放生」的動機，很可能取決於政經考量，其一為不想失去香港作為(kill the goose)來往外國商船主要來往中國的航道，以及香港為中國帶來的外匯，而另一原因則是避免發生中國海軍與美國軍艦於海上起衝突。

此外，除了英方一直未有公佈香港水域邊界，中方一直並未有公開宣稱香港以西南的珠江通道12海里的精準劃界(public silence regarding the exact limits of its claim)。中英雙方基於政治考量，對於香港水域劃界及航道，更被美方稱靈活的實用主義(flexible pragmatism)。

而美方認為英方亦知悉船隻來往香港的「後路」，根據一份英方未被公開的非正式文件( informal note)顯示，除了船隻背後的註冊國家將成為影響進入香港的政治因素，英方更提及最合適的接近香港水域的航道，是經萬山群島以南以及擔桿頭島五海里以外(keep to the south of the Lima Group and five miles or more off Tam kan Head)，港英政府早於五十年代，已廣傳這份文件到商船公司及中方，有共識地默許外國船隻經香港東南方水域，作為當時來往香港的「後路」。

可見，比起香港陸上的邊界，早期香港水域由定界、擴界到圍堵，可謂「渾水一片」。而當中牽涉複雜的海緣政治，亦顯示香港水域並非一條確確實實的邊界範圍，反而是中英雙方的妥協空間。而後來香港水域邊界將如何落實為現時版本？當中牽涉多少談判？而所引伸的一系列有關領海執法權以至政府管轄權的問題，將揭示香港水域日後跨境執法以至逃犯移交的爭議。(下集待續)

參考資料

Jørgensen, N. H. B. (2019). The (Unequal) Relationship between Hong Kong’s Waters and China’s Baselines. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy, 4(1), 1–27.

1950 CO 537/6036 Territorial water

1962 CO 1030/1334 Status and boundaries of Hong Kong New Territories

1968 FCO 21/547 Dispute with China about territorial waters

1972 FCO 21/1024 Territorial waters dispute between China and Hong Kong

1974 FCO 18/154 Hong Kong territorial waters

💪 研究自主 月捐撐起最新專研系列：
https://liber-research.com/support-us/
🔸FPS ID：5390547
🔸HSBC PayMe 捐款支持：https://bit.ly/32aoOMn
🔸戶口號碼：匯豐銀行 640-198305-001 (LIBER RESEARCH COMMUNITY (HK) COMPANY LIMITED)
👨‍👩‍👧‍👦義工招募：https://bit.ly/2SbbyT3 ▫️

中國霸凌行為逾越歐盟的價值底線
歐洲議會議員強力支持立陶宛與台灣發展關係

來自歐洲議會 #5大主流黨團、 #20個會員國 共 #62位重量級歐洲議會議員 公開聯名致函，這封信對象是立陶宛總統、總理及國會議長，同時副本歐盟高層，針對中國近來的威脅、恐嚇與霸凌(太離譜了 真的太離譜了)，展現與立陶宛團結一致的支持，並強調台灣在國際社會中扮演至關重要的角色，所有歐洲聯盟會員國均有權利與台灣深化經濟、文化與外交關係。

此外，歐洲議會副議長 #卡斯塔多 也表示支持立陶宛與台灣深化關係的決定，他也是歐洲議會最近通過挺台報告的一大推手呦～～

卡斯塔多在臉書表示，針對歐盟強化對台關係， #歐洲是時候該大力支持了 ，他最近接受義大利媒體「宣言報」訪問表示，台灣與歐盟共享多元 #民主 #自由 及 #尊重法治 精神，而違反人權及具侵略性的外交政策，歐盟都不能坐視不管保持沉默。

外交部誠摯感謝歐洲盟友持續用具體行動立挺台灣及立陶宛，未來台灣將持續與立陶宛及歐盟等理念相近夥伴保持密切交流，鞏固全球民主陣營力量！

62 cross-party MEPs signed an open letter to #Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda, Speaker of the Seimas Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen and Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė expressing their support for the people of Lithuania amid the threats, intimidation and bullying behaviour they’ve suffered at the hands of the PRC.

The letter, which was also forwarded to the leadership of the #EuropeanUnion, condemned the pattern of using “de-facto trade sanctions” against countries in an attempt to coerce them into geopolitical acquiescence. The letter called for the EU to reiterate the right of all its member states to conduct their economic, cultural and diplomatic relations with #Taiwan as they see fit, adding that Taiwan has a vital role to play in the international community.

This comes as European Parliament Vice President Fabio Massimo Castaldo took to Facebook to say it was time for Europe to strongly support bolstering relations with Taiwan, following an interview with Italian daily il manifesto in which he condemned human rights abuses in China and emphasized Taiwan as an important partner in the Indo-Pacific region.

Taiwan strives to be a force for stability and good in the international community and we’ll continue to safeguard our values of #democracy, #freedom and respect for #HumanRights and #RuleOfLaw, shoulder to shoulder with our #LikeMinded partners in Lithuania and the #EU.

#FromMeToYou is a community video project by @adobevideo connecting people across Asia Pacific through our personal cultural experiences

It all started with #siobak, lots and lots of crispy, juicy meat…!! We were just a couple of guys who loved meats, booze, and our weekly get-togethers. Our favourite hawker centre and sio bak was bliss – until one day we thought to ourselves “Why not we try to make the sio bak ourselves?” That changed everything. And ever since then we’ve created over 500 recipe videos to make cooking easily accessible from the comfort of home.



We’re sharing this to encourage you guys to share your experiences using the #FromMeToYou.
You stand a chance to win cash and additional prizes!

Click here to see more inspiring videos and competition information :
www.adobe.com/go/frommetoyou

#adobepartner

Tell us down in the comments below if you would like us to do more videos like this! :)

a super nostalgic singaporean favourite - my grandma's stewed pork beehoon recipe that takes around 10 minutes to cook from start to finish, with pantry staples!

if you would like to alter this recipe so that it's halal feel free to swap out the stewed pork for beef etc!!

i rediscovered and reverse engineered (LOL) this recipe that my grandma used to make for us back when she was still around and it's SUCH a tasty and easy dish to make for lazy days, especially when you haven't gone grocery shopping in a while. i know a lot of families make variations of these but from what I was told, my grandma (who was an avid cook) was the first person to make this and share the recipe hehe.

This is what my #FromMeToYou video looks like if I entered! #FromMeToYou  asks the next generation of social video creators to join a crowd-sourced video project that shares cultural experiences that connect us across Asia Pacific at a time that prevents us from doing so physically.   

If you're an aspiring social video creators, you can  shoot, edit and share a video that shows a unique experience from your lives, culture, or community that aligns with something you are passionate about - all using Adobe Premiere Pro and/or Premiere Rush.

Find out more here:
http://www.adobe.com/au/lead/creativecloud/frommetoyou.html?sdid=KCJMVLRR&mv=social&mv2=paidsoc

⚡️NEW VIDS EVERY WEEK, MAYBE WED/FRI BUT DEFO SUNDAY ⚡️

» SAY HI! ?
☞ IG - http://instagram.com/wordweed
☞ TWEET TWEET - http://twitter.com/wordweed
☞ FB - fb.me/thewordweed

» GO MARGAUX ?
(go mar-go)
I run an online store for vintage and contemporary jewellery and apparel sourced worldwide that I personally source, curate and shoot!
☞ gomargaux.net
☞ @gomargaux on instagram

» WORK EMAIL ?
✎ wordweed@gmail.com

Edited by Xinhui
Sponsored by Adobe

🔥支付寶打賞：13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條：搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專：https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
The Real Threat to the US is the loss of self-confidence
──An Open Letter to Mr. Secretary Mike Pompeo

My name is Wang Ping-Chung, the spokesperson for the New Party, Taiwan’s political party. During the ongoing pandemic of the Covid-19, the enemy of all human beings, including the American people and Chinese people, is definitely the corona virus. However, as Secretary of State of the United States, you seem to consider China instead of the virus to be your enemy. It lets you do little in pandemic prevention but much in blaming the WHO and China. You have even made great efforts to politicalize the issue of public health in order to attack China, which reflects the United States’ prevailing concept of so-called China’s threat. Nevertheless, the real threat to the US is not China but the loss of self-confidence indeed.

As President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Only thing we have to fear is the fear itself.” The threat you have to fear today is not other peoples but yourselves. Even though you have done your best to shift blames on the WHO and China, the fact is already clear of the US domestic misdiagnosed cases, which had been seen as H1N1 but in fact corona virus since last autumn. It is also your fault in underestimating the severity of the epidemic while China sacrificed itself to let the world have more preparation time. Accordingly, the Covid-19 has killed more than fifty thousand people in America. As China’s population is four times larger than the US, it is quite shocking that America’s death toll due to the Covid-19 has been above China’s.

I feel so sorry for the suffering of your people, yet it is never too late to mend. However, not only did you palm off the responsibility on others, but you also undermined international solidarity against the pandemic. Moreover, you even try to deny the status of the WHO as the coordinator for universal combat against diseases, which in some way means challenging the global institutions under the governance of the United Nations. It is so unbelievable that the United States, viewing itself as the world leader above half a century, is tending to destroy the world order recognized by the international society. The very reason I can think of is the loss of America’s self-confidence. It is the threat to both the US and the whole world.

For Liberalists in the United States, China has been believed either an opponent or a violator to international institutions. As far as it’s concerned, there had been debates whether to keep containing China economically and militarily or engaging it institutionally. Both were resulted from America’s confidence in its leadership. Consequently, the confidence gradually changed into arrogance, luring the United States into aggressions upon other countries as the global superpower without permission from the UN Security Council. It made America exhausted at last. Therefore, the United States has become an isolationist, and even a betrayer to the global institutions they established before. On the contrary, China seems more like a protector of the world order.

On the other hand, for Realists, the predominant thinkers in international politics, China has been seen as the primary rival to America. As they estimate there will be threat if any other regional hegemony occurs, the nation’s fear becomes beyond what its capability can hold. To some extent, this is the real crisis to your people. In fact, different from western nations developing themselves by oppressing and exploiting others, the Chinese people have risen out of poverty at the cost of blood, sweat, and tears of our own. I would like to remind you of Franklin Roosevelt’s self-evident words that nothing to fear but fear itself. The only threat you should conquer is the threat in your mind.

As Henry Kissinger has argued, relations between China and the United States need not – and should not – become a zero-sum game. He also suggested that China and America build a Pacific community with each other. Thinking in the same way, Chinese President Xi also claimed that the vast Pacific Ocean has enough space for the two large countries of China and the United States. Furthermore, I believe the world is large enough to embrace different political and social systems. As western liberalism in recent years has met difficulties in over-consumption and government failure, we should be more open-minded to the superiority of Chinese governance in some fields, especially the high efficiency in defeating the epidemic. The United States should also be more self-confident to have China rising under the global governance of international institutions, sharing with mutual benefits instead of destroying each other. Without doubt, only by doing so can the United States overcome the real threat and bring the world peace and prosperity, the real universal values for all mankind.