Occupy Central
Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which began in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. It calls on thousands of protesters to block roads and paralyse Hong Kong's financial district if the Beijing and Hong Kong governments do not agree to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections in 2020 according to "international standards." The movement was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013.
Umbrella Movement
The Umbrella Movement (Chinese: 雨傘運動; pinyin: yǔsǎn yùndòng) is a loose political movement that was created spontaneously during the Hong Kong protests of 2014. Its name derives from the recognition of the umbrella as a symbol of defiance and resistance against the Hong Kong government, and the united grass-roots objection to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of 31 August.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
Occupy Central site in an area surrounding the Legislative Council and Central Government Offices at Tamar were cleared 22-06-2015.
Hong Kong reform vote
The Hong Kong government’s political reform proposal for how the city elects its leader by universal suffrage for the first time in 2017 is based on a strict framework set by Beijing. The plan limits the number of candidates to two or three and requires them to win majority support from a 1,200 strong nominating committee. Arguing that this does not constitute genuine universal suffrage, pan-democratic lawmakers have vowed to reject the package, while pro-democracy groups have protested. The government’s resolution was to be put to a vote by the 70-member Legislative Council in June 2015, requiring a two-thirds majority to be passed.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 228
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 43
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 43
Full coverage of the day’s events on 31-07
Coconuts
The HKU controversy should be resolved as soon as possible
IN the latest episode of the HKU pro-vice-chancellor appointment controversy, students forced their way into the conference room, bringing a meeting of the HKU Council to a premature end. What the students did is unacceptable. They deserve condemnation particularly for allegedly violating the freedom of the person of the Council members. As could be seen from the scene of the scuffles, the students, supposed to be dignified people, acted like the riff-raff. This has widened our eyes. On the other hand, what happened inside and outside the conference room shows that the affair has started to spill over and is creating a new social conflict. Seen in this light, the university should no longer delay, but should make a decision on the issue as soon as possible in the hope that the incident will not trigger social unrest or threaten social stability.
The HKU Council has agreed by vote to let the provost decide on the appointment of the Vice-President and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Staffing and Resources), meaning that even the HKU President will not have a say in the affair. Apparently, the Council is using delaying tactics, since there has never been such a mechanism for the appointment of pro-vice-chancellors in the past. What is more, the other four pro-vice-chancellors have all been appointed, one after another, without the provost's approval. In other words, the affair is very strange indeed, and so far the university has failed to offer a convincing explanation.
The new arrangements are said to be in accordance with established procedure. They are, in fact, an arbitrary addition to the normal procedure widely known to and accepted by everyone, and their aim is to prevent a particular individual from being appointed to the post. The affair has threatened to destroy HKU's institutions and practices and infringe on its autonomy. The foundations of a century-old university are at stake. If the authorities have their way, tertiary education in Hong Kong as a whole will also suffer. This is exactly why more and more HKU alumni have joined in the protests and why society is increasingly aware of the seriousness of the matter. If the affair drags on, people within and without HKU might join forces, giving fresh momentum to the protests. Unless the authorities are happy to see a new round of confrontation between the government and the opposition, they should demand that the university resolve the dispute as soon as possible so as to prevent things from deteriorating and rid society of another powder keg.
Social institutions matter much more than the individual. It is not important who will become the HKU Pro-Vice-Chancellor. But it will concern us if someone is undermining the foundations of a century-old university simply because he wants to prevent a particular individual from being appointed to the post. It is not worthwhile to sacrifice HKU's institutions and practices just to ensure a particular individual will not get the job, for this will lead to large-scale protests in the short run and destroy tertiary education in Hong Kong in the long run. The disadvantages of doing so outweigh the advantages disproportionately. It will be a misjudgment to think that, by tweaking the position of pro-vice-chancellor, one can completely change the course of HKU. Not only will other members of the management keep one's power in check, the institutions and practices of HKU will also impose restraints, visible and invisible, on everyone. The tenure of a pro-vice-chancellor is a brief episode in a university's long lifespan. It is HKU and even Hong Kong, but not the particular individual, who will suffer if one destroys what Hong Kong holds dear to achieve one's political purposes. This is the crux of the matter which the management of HKU, as well as those working in front of and behind the scenes, must understand.
港大副校任命事態惡化 應盡快解決紓社會不安
港大副校長任命事件，發展至學生衝入會議室，阻斷校務委員會的會議，從電視鏡頭所見，學生的衝擊行為不能接受，特別是涉嫌妨礙委員們人身自由的做法，應予譴責；衝擊所見，堂堂大學生非理性言行與市井之徒無異，使人對大學生的素質大開眼界。另外，前晚會場內外情况，反映事態開始溢出港大範圍，有成為新一輪群衆事件之勢，因此，港大就副校長任命一事，不宜再拖，應該及早解決，使事態不致引發社會不安和衝擊穩定。
港大副校長（學術）的任命，校委會表決結果，交由首席副校長決定，連校長也不能與聞，這個周折明顯是拖延策略，因為歷來副校長任命並無這個程序；另外，其他4名副校長已經相繼任命，他們都毋須等待首席副校長拍板。因此，事態十分詭異，校方的解釋也未能令人信服。
港大在任命副校長（學術）另闢蹊徑，名義上按既定程序辦事，實質是在大家熟悉和認知的程序上「僭建」，意圖藉着操控程序，阻絕個別人士擔任這個職位。有關事態，涉及破壞港大的規章制度，損害院校自主，這是動搖港大百年基業的大事，若當局的盤算得逞，香港的大學教育也會嚴重倒退，此所以愈來愈多港大校友投入抗爭，社會上也愈來愈多人認識到事態的嚴重，表示關注。若此事再拖下去，不應排除港大校內校外聯結抗爭的可能，除非當局不在乎引發新一輪朝野對抗，為免事態惡化，應該要求港大盡快解決此事，消除一個導致社會不安的政治炸彈。
個人事小，制度事大。誰成為港大副校長，並不重要，若為了阻絕個別人士的任命而毀了港大百年基業才最重要。為了一個副校長人選，強使港大禮崩樂壞，眼前可能面對大規模抗爭，長遠則毀了香港的大學教育，以兩方面的重要性衡量，太不成比例，也太不值得了。若認為一個人在副校長崗位上可以扭轉港大路向，這肯定是誤判，除了有其他管理層成員制衡，還有港大的典章制度對任何人都是有形和無形的約束。副校長在港大的歷史長河，只是其中一名過客，為了政治需要而自毀長城，受傷害的不會是個別人士，而是港大以至香港。此乃港大袞袞諸公以至幕前幕後諸般人等，必須看清楚的箇中關鍵。
Joint-statement by Faculty Societies of HKUSU
Fight against Undue Interference, Safeguard Academic Autonomy
As the representatives of all undergraduates of ten faculties in the University of Hong Kong, we have always seen academic freedom and institutional autonomy as the bedrock of success of our University.
In the past few months, we have strived to uphold these core values through various actions. Yet, when petitions, sit-in protests and rallies could no longer provoke any direct responses from the HKU Council regarding students’ demands, students were forced to resort to sieging the Council Chamber in a final bid to open up a dialogue with the Council members. To our dismay, despite oppositions from the community and students, the Council yet repeatedly deferred the appointment of the Vice-President and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Staffing and Resources) due to incomprehensible reasons. The Council has recently further postponed the appointment process based on an absurd reason that they need to wait until the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor assumes his post.
The lack of proper justification is an undue political interference against institutional autonomy, which must be utterly rejected in any civilised society. When a Council member could scurry behind the protection of the regime to evade being held accountable and lash back in an accusation of being the victim, the University Ordinance itself countenances the bane of eroding academic freedom. In light of all these outrageous events, we hereby express our strong condemnation, and demand the following:
1. The Council shall deal with the appointment of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Staffing and Resources) in no time;
2. The Council shall establish the Working Group for formulating amendments concerning the composition of the HKU Council, with the aim of increasing the proportion of teacher and student representatives;
3. The Chancellor not only holds decisive power over the candidate selection for Honours Degree and the appointment of the Council members, but also possesses the authority to add, amend or repeal the Council’s recommendations to the statute. Therefore, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong should not be the Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong.
In face of such injustice, it is our responsibility to exercise resistance and uphold our intransigence over guarding our University against the political power's transgression of academic freedom. Success in reforming the system of injustice may not come with our first trial; nevertheless, with unity in our actions and demands, we will eventually restore our University of Hong Kong to its rightful place.
Architectural Society, HKUSU
Arts Association, HKUSU
Business and Economics Association, HKUSU
Dental Society, HKUSU
Education Society, HKUSU, Session 2015-2016
Engineering Society, HKUSU
Law Association, HKUSU
Medical Society, HKUSU
Science Society, HKUSU
Social Sciences Society, HKUSU
政權爪牙 干預自主 學生自救 勢在必行
作為香港大學十個學院的本科生代表，我們一致堅信學術自由與院校自主是港大賴以成功的基石。
過去半年，我們一直以不同方式堅守香港大學的獨立自主。然而，當聯署、靜坐，以至遊行均被校委會視若無睹，莘莘學子迫不得已藉圍堵會議會場以取得與校委會正面對話的機會。可是，政權爪牙仍罔顧社會和大學上下反對，既拒絕收回等待首席副校的議案，又迴避群眾的質詢，再三拖延副校長（學術人力資源）的任命。
殖民惡法容許政權恣意侵凌院校自主，如斯制度暴力焉能稱作文明？大學條例賦予校監無理的任命權，不但容讓政治干預侵入大學機構，亦使校務委員免於問責，為虎作倀。凡此種種皆非吾等所願，我們謹此予以嚴厲讉責，並提出以下訴求：
一、校務委員會立即處理副校長（學術人力資源）的任命；
二、校務委員會籌組工作小組以修訂校務委員會的組成及增加校內師生代表比例；
三、校監不單可決定名譽學位人選，也可委任校務委員會委員，更可增補、修訂或廢除校董會對規程所提出的建議。因此，行政長官不應成為資助院校校監，使港大免於干預。
面對制度不公，捍衛師生共治實乃吾等之責，我們決不能瑟縮於校園一隅。改革制度也許不能一舉成功，但借行動、藉雙手，必能重光我們的香港大學。
香港大學學生會建築學會
香港大學學生會文學院學生會
香港大學學生會經濟及工商管理學會
香港大學學生會牙醫學會
二零一五至二零一六年度香港大學學生會教育學會
香港大學學生會工程學會
香港大學學生會法律學會
香港大學學生會醫學會
香港大學學生會理學會
香港大學學生會社會科學學會
沒有留言:
張貼留言