香港獨立媒體 - HKUSU

[轉載] 鄧小樺: 可以繼續不斷重述六四事件，但不用再支持陳一諤了

陳巧文 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:25:59 +0000

From: http://tswtsw.blogspot.com/2009/04/blog-post_15.html

雖然只是很少數的文章，但看到某些文章要跳出來「支持陳一諤」或者「反對圍剿陳一諤」，我都奇怪，力氣不是更適宜用在別的地方嗎？

在香港，很奇怪，有種招數好像是一直奏效的，那就是口稱自己理性、要求討論，然後講盡偏頗歧視非理性無邏輯的話，自然便會有些人走出來支持。我懷疑有時我們的理解能力是不是這麼低，不能通盤全面去理解話裡到底是什麼意思、說話的人居心如何，而只聽自己想聽的部分。陳一諤的花言巧語就是為這種人打造的。我只分析其中一句廢話：

「同一條屍體有人話係解放軍，同一條屍體又有人話佢係平民，究竟嗰條屍體佢係解放軍定係平民呢？我哋唔知道，但係我哋知道一樣嘢，我哋可以透過討論，可以透過去了解，去明白到究竟邊一方面係有理據嘅。」（陳一諤在論壇上的發言，不track back了）

這一句是典．型．的．廢．話。屍體是解放軍還是平民，這是一個有關事實的陳述，fact毋待討論。比如我生於哪一年，根本不能通過「討論」去得知，你想知的話直接問我就好了。六四有沒有死人、死了多少人？當年紅十字會從各家醫院收集到的死亡數字是三千人，被指估計保守。他只是利用排比句去增強氣勢，利用「討論」、「了解」、「理據」這些空洞的sound bite，到最後，他提出的方法根本解決不了他自己提出來的問題，他要麼是邏輯糟到不知自己在說什麼，要麼就是根本不是想去弄清任何東西，所謂「討論」、「了解」永遠是虛托，他只是想把「死的到底是解放軍還是平民」這個荒謬的問題放到大家的腦海裡。對於以軍隊開槍用坦克屠殺愛國的平民這麼是非分明的事，竟然可以有那麼一刻動搖：「壓死的是解放軍還是民眾？」這已經是立了超現實的大功了。這種人年年月月都會來抽六四的水，抽那些死去了的孩子、學生、工人、老人的水。大概日後自有論功行賞的時候。

然後你要從這麼基本無聊的起點去和他拗：「雖然呢，解放軍同民眾都有死傷之可能，但係呢，解放軍荷槍實彈又有幾十架坦克而且用左會體內爆炸的薩姆彈，兼且夜間入城攻民眾之不備，而且實在又好多鏡頭影到中彈的民眾，所以照常理估計，應該係平民死傷多好多喎！」黐線這不是常識嗎。一個大學生扮成小學生來刁難你，你仲要覺得佢好正常？那你就是把自己也變成小學生。

這是為了理性辯論嗎？當然不是。就算今日有位邏輯清楚文字淺顯德高望重的人，把六四最基本的理據都講一次，把當年的事實都羅列一次，明年這些人還是會扮成「普通不關心六四」或者「要求理性討論」的樣子，重複一次這堆話。六四二十年，每年都有這種扮理性的小丑，每年都會有好心有耐性的人把最基本的東西說一次。下年又重複。目的不是為了理性辯論，只是為了拖六四後腿，把關於六四的思考拖拉在最表層的地方。

陳一諤的自辯全文，就是充滿了一堆似是而非的排比句，一股丹心照汗青的語調，老實說有一點點作嘔的八股文體。有句老話：讀聖賢書，所為何事？幸好陳一諤的文章還不是真的寫得好，否則我一定氣憤得流淚：文字不可以這樣被人利用，去為殺人的政權塗脂抹粉。

不一一拆穿這種牛皮，是因為我們不願浪費時間去處理沒價值的文字。1997年，我搞學生報到書院宿舍諮詢，已經有個學長作語重心長狀勸我們「是時候可以冷靜理性地討論六四了」，我們問，你的理性論點是什麼呢？他說，「學生領袖也是人，會犯錯，不用崇拜他們。」我們詫異，誰崇拜過他們？誰以為他們沒錯？92年已經有《鏗鏘集》報導過他們現在都下海賺錢、只關心自己了啊——而誰還會以為八九六四是只繫於幾個學生領袖的成敗呢？我們現在要追討的，是無名者的性命；要正名的，是理想、批判、反貪污、人民自主的精神嘛。這位學長無話可說，最後勉勵我們去看紀錄片《天安門》，我們失笑——上學生報討論六四，第一件活動就是看《天安門》啊，這是入門式。許多口稱「重新討論」、「理性」的論調，如果不是居心不良，就是水平太低。

陳一諤要把六四放入「愛國」脈絡底下；六四固然是愛國，就像五四運動是愛國運動一樣。然而你看看香港如今的國情教育，把五四的意義放窄至內容空虛的「愛國」，不談新文化運動，不談德先生，不談反帝制，不談青年精神——這根本是抹殺歷史啊。民族主義教育，是在90年代中中國正式轉型為消費型社會後，用以縫合整個國家意識型態真空的概念；「中國經濟成就」去代替六四責任的討論，這整套話語是由哪些人鼓吹出來？親建制民族主義中國知識份子；目的是什麼？穩定現有政權的統治。如果真是不關心六四的新一代，他們根本不會用這套話語去解釋現實，這個上豆瓣一看就知道。這個不是普通年輕人。是香港人政治覺悟太低，連陳一諤動用怎樣的政治語言都分析不了，以為他只是個喜愛質疑的年輕人，只聽到他那些「我們要理性冷靜」的門面話，就覺得要支持它。這真是叫人痛心的善良。

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." Dante Alighieri

「地獄裡最熾熱之處，是留給那些在出現重大道德危機時，仍要保持中立的人。」但丁《神曲》

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
我們（不是鄧小樺)的呼籲:
4月22–24日 (星期三至五), 請各位同學踴躍參與公投, 支持罷免陳一諤!

影像串流:

See video

影像串流:

See video

[公投]罷免陳一諤! 最後一關:港大下周三至五舉行!

陳巧文 — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:08:03 +0000

日期:

2009-04-22 - 2009-04-24

萬分感謝同學過去三天簽名支持舉行公投罷免陳一諤! 現已收集足夠簽名，評義會亦剛通過下周三至五舉行公投

這是罷免陳一諤最後一關，亦是最難的一關！！！

令人擔心的是，陳一諤昨天於以為電台訪問未開咪前「私底下」坦言，有《大公報》撐腰，加上「D內地同學又真係好支持」（HKU內地生800人 - 但當然有不少懂分是非黑白的內地生吧！），相反支持罷免陳一諤的一邊動員力相比低，公投舉行時大部分同學亦而沒再有堂上而不會再返campus，而公投也需要10%SU會員(即逾1000人）才算有效，所以必須靠大家廣泛宣傳，踴躍投票，才能再過這最後的一關，成功罷免免陳一諤!

挽回HKU聲譽，

踢走謂六四不是「屠城」的劊子手喉舌，

就靠你的一票！

簽名運動升級: 請同學自行到SU Office簽名，要求罷免陳一諤!

陳巧文 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:49:14 +0000

日期:

2009-04-14 - 2009-04-16

n69214353261_2670.jpg

萬分感謝同學過去三天簽名支持舉行公投罷免陳一諤! 現已收集足夠簽名，評義會亦剛通過下周三至五舉行公投
公投舉行時大部分同學已沒再有堂上而不會再返campus，而公投也需要10%SU會員(即逾1000人）才算有效，所以必須靠大家廣泛宣傳，踴躍投票，才能再過這最後的一關，成功罷免免陳一諤!

http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002967

"戒嚴令下學生上街本已「不合法」、血腥屠城只因學生不理性、

武力鎮壓只是「有D問題」"

學生會會長陳一諤早前不負責任的言論，對六四死難者及其親友極不公平，更侮辱了整所大學。他的言論已充分說明了他沒有資格擔任港大學生會會長。

由於陳一諤堅拒道歉，我們決定將簽名運動升級，要求評議會（Union Council）招開General Meeting，罷免陳一諤！！！

據SU憲法規定，只要有3％SU會員（約300人）簽名，評議會即要召開General Meeting，決定是否罷免陳一諤。
There is just one catch: 同學必須於SU Office員工核對SU會員身份後(所有Current Undergrads都是SU會員)簽名才算有效。

4月14日 (星期二)起，我們打算全天於黃克競平台帶同學到SU Office簽名，直至收集足夠簽名才停止。

由於現時人手極為有限，現正呼籲各位同學協助，希望簽名運動方全天進行，以便早日收集足夠簽名，迫使陳一諤下台。
有興趣協助者，請email到 christina.hm.chan@gmail.com 或至電97476247
(請未能協助的同學星期二起到自行SU Office簽名[SU Office Address: UG121 Union Building - just above the SU Canteen]，或到黃克競平台搵我地帶你去簽名，謝謝！！)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=77327464788

強烈要求學生會更正立場: 六四不需平反

陳巧文 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:15:27 +0000

{轉載自香港大學民主牆}

陳一諤會長貴為我校香港大學最有權力的學生，我們當視他為榜樣。在此，首先感謝陳會長於港大學生會舉行的六四論壇負起社會責任，為對於六四記憶及認知模糊的年輕一代灌輸正確的歷史知識。反過來令人莫名其妙的是陳會長所帶領的學生會仍堅持就六四應否平反一題舉行公投，平白浪費了來自同學們口袋的資源！

誠然陳會長的言論已足令我們清楚了解到，中央政府根本毋須為屠殺眾多手無寸鐵的學生及國民負上任何責任 ––– 事實上，當年學生們堅持進行公民抗命，膽敢對極權的共產黨政府頒下那神聖及不容違反的戒嚴令視若無睹，冒著性命危險繼續上街，本已「不合法」，更甚者，他們早已被愛國情緒淹沒了「理性」，沒有自行散去（所以當年犧牲的學生也即是罪犯！）。一言以蔽之，陳會長的偉論使本來無知的我恍然明白到那些學生被坦克蹍過也是抵死的！因此，如陳會長所說，中共中央下令武力鎮壓熱心為人民爭取民主自由、反官倒及反貪腐的學生只是「有D問題」而已，而我們又何必為一個只是「有D問題」的政治決策搞個這麼大陣仗的全民公投？

故此本人強烈要求學生會澄清立場，停止繼續聲稱支持平反六四，取消有關六四的公投，陳會長亦理應帶領學生會憑良心繼續對香港的未來主人翁宣揚六四的事實「真相」！陳一諤會長萬歲！坦克車萬歲！血腥屠城萬歲！

2005656531

(資料來源：2009年4月8日《蘋果日報》。
詳情請參考《蘋果日報》: 「程翔斥港大內地生六四謬論」@ http://appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?iss_id=20090408...) 或《明報》:「港大學生會長質疑柴玲走佬」@ http://www.mingpaonews.com/20090408/goh1.htm)

影像串流:

See video

影像串流:

See video

契弟過雷曼契弟的評議員—致評議員，港大學生會全體會員，及香港市民的公開信

邪離子 — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:30:35 +0000

二零零九年四月四日凌晨，香港大學學生會評議會出現了一件荒謬至極的事。

當時評議會正在討論評議會構成及功能改革方案。這項改革其目的旨在處理評議會內一部份界別(主要是舍堂)評議員比例上過多，而且幹事會掌握約三份一的選票，令幹事會可以輕易攔下需要三份二票的議案，導致幹事會容易專權。而且傳媒在議會內亦有投票權，自己監察自己。針對以上問題，當時的主流方案乃將幹事會及傳媒移離評議會，而同時亦將舍堂代表的數量減少。

而在該次會議之前，評議會構成及功能改革工作小組(下稱小組)已經作出多次公開諮詢，惟反應非常冷淡，而且肯定有被通知的院會，幹事會和舍堂之中，舍堂只有作過一次和大方向無關的質詢，幹事會之討論主要在實務上如何執行及分工的問題，而院會更是自動失蹤。

會上，幹事會指出現時的方案乃一倒退方案；一方面是因為普選議席數目減少(主要是幹事議席)，另一方面亦因為方案之中未有將司法權拆離立法，令行政機構易被司法及立法打壓。而相反，現時之評議會，最低限度也是所有持份者之和，每一個持份者在內也有代表。在幹事會的大力要求之下，作出了兩個意向投票：

不維持現有方案：31
維持現有方案：8 (主要是幹事會)

整個改革推倒：16(主要是舍堂代表，小組中有票的亦投推倒以表對評議員行為的抗議)
修改方案：22
棄權：1

此時外務副會長郝曉田動議了第九十號議案，並得到前會長兼學聯常主郭永健以第九十一號議案修訂，要求評議會的下一個方案必須一步到位，達到平等、直接普選及有司法獨立。就在此時，有部份評議員開始不停質問如此議案會否被後人扭曲，更有舍堂評議員爆出不明何謂直選、普選，「維基百科之上看到多個解釋」云云的驚人發言。

最後，據聞是因與前評議員聯誼之故而缺席半場評議會的前理學會代表，現學生會財務秘書高敏盈提出第九十二號議案，粗暴收回前兩條動議，一方面明示因為評議會無當然持份者即再無功能，不認同評議會普選，另一面又指「當時已經是早上二時半」，評議員已無精神去思考，一如老董腳痛。

最後，一小時半前通過延長評議會時間的評議會，以極大比數通過九十二號議案。於是，整個評議會改革再度被卡住，港大繼續原地踏步，並正式趕過中大，「榮登」香港最少純普選評議員的評議會。

我們認為，若果評議員不明白又或不清楚甚麼是普選又或直選的話，可以提出質詢；希望再度收窄二者定義的話，可以用修正案方式提出；要求更多時間討論的話，可以要求休會，擇日再續。然而，郭前會長已不厭其煩，多番向評議員解釋有關詞語的解釋，亦沒有評議員願意動一動指頭，起草修正案或休會動議。一眾評議員現在選擇強行收回，用這種粗暴的手段阻撓評議會達至全面普選，不單顯出評議員對權力的眷戀，不願放棄其來自小圈子選舉產生的議席；部份議員敢做不敢認的行為更是令人齒冷。

更可笑的是，就在十數分鐘以後，評議員卻在無質詢、無討論，「無精神思考」之下，一致通過學苑總編輯的信任議案，使其在退學後繼續可擔當總編職位。真想問問那班精神不佳的評議員又為何在那時候竟能迴光返照作出如此重要的決定？如此膠到震的情形，天下人信你們一成果真雙目失明。

我們不能接受以下幾點：

1. 舍堂評議員願當其組織之走狗，力保舍堂界由每席選民少至幾十人的小圈子選舉選出的十幾個議席，但卻又在普選議題上詐傻扮慒，以不明白定義為藉口，拖延評議會普選；
2. 院會評議員表面上對改革不聞不問，但卻死守其必然席位，先以逐點質疑，以拉布戰術拖延時間，在投票之時卻自動歸邊，只許尊貴的當然代表州官放火，不准支持普選的同學點燈；
3. 評議員一方面承認自己沒有精神，一方面又在這種精神狀態之下作出重大決定，精神分裂；
4. 高敏盈再現其疑似院會駐幹事會代表本色，身為前學聯代表團代表，竟然能夠高呼不認同普選；另一方面又在關鍵時間在關鍵地方出現提出關鍵議案，打著紅旗反紅旗，身為焯譽閣卻密謀顛覆自己人，自動歸邊，全力為院會的十個必然議席辯護

我們有以下三點要求：

1. 所有支持第九十二號議案，瞪眼說瞎話阻撓評議會雙普選的評議員立刻辭職，並不參加有關有關議席的選舉；
2. 召開全民大會，對煽動其它評議員瞪眼說瞎話的高敏盈作出不信任動議；
3. 召開全民大會或投票，要求二零一二年度評議會必須由普選及直選產生

發起人

徐傑生
香港大學學生會2007年度行政秘書
香港大學學生會2008年度普選評議員

尹翰紳
香港大學學生會2006年度常務秘書
香港大學學生會2007年度會長
香港大學學生會2008年度評議會評議員(去屆會長)
香港大學學生會2009年度普選評議員

(聯署位置於港大民上牆上)

影像串流:

See video

影像串流:

See video

A Reply to CEDARS and Additional Comments on the Role of the Global Lounge & the Student Union

陳巧文 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:59:39 +0000

On the Impossibility of Organising HKU Events As an Individual Student Union Member II:

I am aware that the length of this article exceeds what most people will likely be willing to read. If you don’t have time to read the whole article, Section 5 & 6 is a must read and Section 1 is recommended.

Below is the response from Centre of Development and Resources for Students (CEDARS) to my article “On the Impossibility of Organising HKU Events As an Individual Student Union Member”:
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002513#comment-1004313

Below is my response:
1. I wish to begin by clarifying a few points in regards to the alleged short notice I gave in attempting to organise the event on 10th March, 2009 (Tuesday):

1.1. As mentioned in my previous article, the event I was trying to organise included a speaker from outside of Hong Kong. She flew in only around a week before 10th March. Due to her hectic schedule, she did not manage to discuss the specifics of what event we might organise together until 4th March (Wednesday), and I began getting in touch with various bodies in school on the next day (5th March (Thursday)).

1.2. I contacted the Student Union (SU) and attempted to contact the Global Lounge (GL) but with no success on 5th March (Thursday), which is 3 working days (5 days) in advance to the day I wish to hold the event on. According to a current HKU student, 3 working days is the notice the SU requires for processing requests regarding venue booking. I did not contact CEDARS’ Chong Chan-yau until 2 days later but this was because I had no intention to book facilities managed by CEDARS in the beginning since I regarded the GL (managed by GL) and the Happy Garden (managed by SU) as better locations for holding a forum due to the openness of the venues. Nonetheless, I ended up seeking help from CEDARS (and specifically Mr. Chong) on 6th March (Friday) because on the same day I was told by the manager of GL, Ung Lee Ling, that the only way I could hold the event would be to get Mr. Chong to collaborate with me. In fact, I went to see him as soon as Ms. Ung suggested this to me.

1.3. Although I did approach Mr. Chong a little after 5:00pm on 6th March, which makes it less than half an hour short of the 2 working days required by CEDARS as stated by Mr. Chong in his reply posted above (though he did not inform me of this specific time limit in our meeting on Friday), the main point of my previous article was not that I personally could not organise one particular event, but that the policies of the SU as well as HKU as a whole renders it impossible for any individual SU member or HKU student to ever book any suitable venue for a forum or a documentary screening, regardless of how early they start organising an event.

CEDARS
2. The above re-posted response from Mr. Chong Chan-yau (Director of Student Development) is written on behalf of CEDARS and presumably does not provide an explanation regarding the policy of the SU and the GL which render it impossible for individual students to use any of their facilities. In this section, I shall discuss the issue solely in regards to the part CEDARS plays.

2.1. In our meeting on 6th March, Mr. Chong declined to collaborate with me in hosting the event, as suggested by the GL’s Ms. Ung. I respect his decision as he had every right to make it.

2.2 However, Mr. Chong informed me that as an individual student, I could book a room administered by CEDARS for 30 minutes. I said that this was enough time for us to hold a forum and a documentary screening.

2.3. Mr. Chong then informed me that I could book a room for an hour if I could find 4 other students who would agree to let me use their HKU ID numbers to book a room as a group. As a first-year MPhil student, most of my friends graduated from HKU at the end of last year and I have not met many new students since. I therefore imagined that it would be difficult to find 4 other supportive students to collaborate with me on such a controversial event. Nonetheless, I initially agreed to attempt to find 4 other students, until I found out that the room I would be able to book (even as a group of 5 students) would have no video facilities. Therefore, it would be unsuitable for a documentary screening and a closed-door room would also be less appropriate for a forum on the topic due to difficulties in advertising the event mentioned in my last article.

2.4. Last year, I had been to a screening (with a discussion after the screening) of a documentary titled “Black Gold” which Mr. Chong also attended and even spoke at. It was held in a seminar room with video facilities. Since it was located in (or next to) the Ming Wah Complex, I assumed it to be administered by CEDARS. I asked Mr. Chong how I could book a room like that. His reply was that although he did not remember the specifics of that event, “doing something like that requires a student association [as opposed to simply an individual student or a group of individual students] doing the booking”. He suggested that I get in touch with a student association and ask them to host it under their name.

2.5. I find it hard to accept that an individual tuition-paying student of HKU, or even a group of 5 individual students, would be unable to book any rooms with video facilities; and that the only way to organise an activity requiring these facilities is to seek assistance from a student association registered under the SU. Even Mr. Chong himself admitted in our meeting that although student associations should not be afraid of touching on controversial issues such as the Tibetan one, it does not mean they will not be so. This makes organising an event almost a mission impossible for individual students if the event is related to a controversial topic.
2.6. Perhaps it could be argued that starting/joining one’s own student association would be a way to resolve the above problem. My reply to this is as follows:

2.6.1. As mentioned in my previous article, most of us at HKU are aware that to be a core-member of a student association involves much politics which not everyone is willing to deal with. Frankly speaking, I do not see why a student should have to play the game in order to speak up or take action about a political issue in the University.

2.6.2. As HKU student TSUI Kit Sang (徐傑生) mentioned in his article “巧遇巧文．世界失語．官僚制度—記一場於中聯辦門口的燭光集會” and his additional comments on the article, starting a student association especially for the purpose of holding one event each year seems “unsuitable” due to the bureaucratic and administrative procedures in starting and maintaining a student association under the SU. Though of course more than one event could be organised once the association is established, it seems to be redundant to establish a whole new association when the original intention is simply to hold one single event.

2.7. For the various reasons stated above, I am afraid that I cannot agree with Mr. Chong’s comment in his reply: “[CEDARS] believe that our current booking policy provides enough flexibility for students to organize activities”. What he said in our meeting indicates the impossibility for an individual students or group of individual students belonging to no HKU SU student association to organise any event requiring video facilities.

2.8. One last point about CEDARS’ involvement in this affair is that Dr. Albert Chau (Dean of Student Affairs) telephoned me on 11th March to inform me once again that I could have booked a CEDARS room for an hour if I could find 4 other supportive students. I reiterated the point about the lack of video facilities in these rooms available to groups of 5 students. He replied that they could have lent me video facilities to put into those rooms if I had called him personally. My views on this are as follows:

2.8.1. Before I made my experience in this affair public, I was never informed by CEDARS that additional facilities could be lent on request. In fact, when I asked Mr. Chong how I could resolve the problem of the lack of video facilities, the reply was that I could not.

2.8.2. I do not think it is fair that other students would not be able to book rooms with video facilities if they do not have Dr. Chau’s personal contact information. I suggest that it should be made clear on the booking website that anybody, be they Christina Hau Man Chan or not, can requests for additional facilities. After all, I doubt that many HKU students have Dr. Chau’s name card.

2.8.3. I would like to know how a seminar room which already comes with video facilities – such as the one the screening for the documentary “Black Gold” was held in – could be booked by an individual student. If this is not possible, I believe it reflects CEDARS’ unfair policy which favours students who have closer connections to the SU.

The Global Lounge
3. The GL has made no reply to me regarding the issue mentioned in my article. In addition to what was said in my previous article, I wish to make the following remark regarding their role in this affair:

3.1. I found it strange that different reasons were given each time I requested to book the GL for the event to be held on 10th March.

3.1.1. In my first conversation with Ms. Ung (GL’s manager), I was told that the GL might not be the best location for a documentary screening and a forum as students who come into the GL to visit the coffee shop but not to participate in this event might make noise.

3.1.1.1. Events involving the screening of one particular film out loud as well as speakers talking to students in the GL with a microphone have been regularly held in the GL since the opening of the GL in 2005. Why has the place suddenly become unsuitable for such events?

3.1.1.2. I imagine it should be well known for anyone working at HKU, such as Ms. Ung herself, that forums are regularly held in Happy Garden –a place even more open than the GL. Students pass by the area to visit the other coffee shop in campus as well as the Main Library. In fact, that was one of the places she suggested I consider after saying the GL was “unsuitable” for this kind of event. Why, then, was the potential noise factor a reason she used to ask me to try places other than the GL?

3.1.2. I was sent away to look for other options and returned for a second conversation with Ms. Ung after having no success seeking help from the SU. In my first conversation with Ms. Ung, I had already made it clear that I was organising this as an individual HKU student in collaboration with an international student organisation. She did not mention any problem with this. The only reason she stated for the GL being “an unsuitable place for this kind of event” was the noise factor. She even agreed that she could look over the booking schedule of the GL with me should I decide the GL was where I wanted to hold the event after looking into other options. However, in our second conversation, she suddenly informed me that as an individual student, I cannot book the GL and that only HKU student associations could use the facility. She nonetheless suggested that I talk to CEDARS’ Mr. Chong and assured me that if he was willing to collaborate with me and book the GL under his name, there would be no problem for the event to be held there. The obvious questions to ask Ms. Ung are:

3.1.2.1. Is Mr. Chong himself equal to a student association? And if so, why is that? Was it because he was a staff? Would getting help from any other staff not have done the trick? If so, why did she suggest Mr. Chong specifically? Why does a staff have privilege in booking events over students? Or does it have to be an administrative staff and not a teaching one? Would she not have allowed the event to be held there if an administrative staff other than Mr. Chong was collaborating with me? Or did she suggest this simply because she was his “friend”, as he suggested to me in our meeting on 6th March?

3.1.2.2. If the answers to all the above closed-ended questions are negative and that the only reason she suggested collaborating with Mr. Chong was that she thought he was “very sympathetic to student movements”, as she said in our second conversation, when in fact anyone else would have sufficed, then why did she not ask me to simply find an additional student?

3.1.3. In the end, after Mr. Chong declined to collaborate with me and suggested that I find a student association to host the event under their name, I managed to get in touch with the China Study Society (CSS) of the SU and both the person from the CSS and myself wrote an email to Ms. Ung asking to book the GL on 10th March. However, my contact from the CSS told me on 9th March that Ms. Ung still had not replied to him. I have had no word from him since. I, on the other hand, received an email from Ms. Ung saying “I already have an event for GL on 10 March” on the same day. My questions regarding this are as follows:

3.1.3.1. Did Ms. Ung receive an email from the CSS? If so, why did she not reply? If not, why did she not get back to me? (I asked her in my email to inform me if she does not get the email from CSS.)

3.1.3.2. What events and by whom was the GL booked for on the 10th March? Was the GL booked for the whole day? If not, why was our request declined? (Although I had expressed my preference to hold the event at lunch time, I did not insist that it was the only time we would opt for. In fact, I’d never made it definite to have a specific timeslot.)

3.1.3.3. When were the bookings for the day made? If they were made after the CSS’ request, why was the request declined? If they were made beforehand, why did Ms. Ung not inform us from the beginning that the place was completely booked for the whole day?

The Student Union
4.1.1. First, there is a clarification regarding my relationship with the SU that needs to be made. I had made a terrible mistake in believing that I was still paying the membership fee for the SU. In fact, though I was a fee-paying member of the SU for the last 3 years as an undergraduate student, I am not longer a member now that I doing my MPhil.

4.1.2. Nevertheless, this fact is irrelevant in terms of the point I wish to make as what I am trying to illustrate is that it is impossible for an individual fee-paying SU member and a tuition-paying HKU student to organise an event in the University. This is evident in the fact that nobody I spoke to from the SU seemed to know that I was no longer a member (and if they did, they for some reason did not state that as a reason in not being able to assist me, nor did they point me to the way of the Postgraduate Students Association (PGSA)).

4.1.3. Although I had already stated clearly in the beginning of the email in the help-seeking email I sent out to more than 10 HKU student associations, PGSA being one of them, the PGSA to this day has not replied to me in any shape of form, nor have they offered me any assistance in organising this event.

4.2. The following is an account of the SU’s involvement in this affair:

4.2.1. I telephoned the SU on 5th March, 2009 (Thursday) requesting to book the Happy Garden for a forum. SU’s Administrative Secretary, Arthur Cheung, informed me that the Happy Garden was fully booked for March but when asked what other options there were, he promised to call me back after looking into the matter.

4.2.2. Mr. Cheung did not return my call so I went to the SU Office at the Union Building in the hope of speaking to him in person. The staff at the desk said I did not need to speak to anyone since all the open areas in HKU had been fully booked. I accept that, of course, but I only wish the SU had gotten back to me earlier so I could rule it out as an option and start looking for another place (it only took the staff at the desk a few seconds to flip through the folding marked with bookings and see that everything was full).

4.2.3. Upon further enquiry, the staff at the desk told me that I could not have booked anything with the SU anyway, since I was an individual student who did not represent any student associations under the SU. Though I told her clearly that I was a fee-paying member of the SU, she insisted that only SU student associations are entitled to book venues with the SU.

4.2.4. When I asked what options I had left, the staff at the desk told me to go up one floor in the Union Building to ask the office on that floor as they allow bookings from individual students. However, that office told me they only lent out small rooms for purposes such as revision and these rooms have no video facilities.

4.2.5. After I posted my last article on the Democracy Wall, Ayo Chan (SU’s President) telephoned me and suggested that I could try and book the GL with his name as an individual student (albeit a powerful one!), though he made it clear that I could not use the name of the actual SU would in proceeding with the booking. This would have been of no use to me since it was required that an association, not an individual student, does the booking.

4.2.7. Since I had already made it clear that what I needed was not for them to do any actual organising work for the event but to simply lend me the SU’s name for the booking, the limited amount of time left before 10th March should not have posed a problem for them in assisting me in this particular way. What, then, was the actual reason for SU’s to reject my request for help?

On the Right of Booking Venues and Throwing Events (Or the Lack Thereof)
5. From what I have been told by CEDARS, the SU and the GL, individual HKU students/ SU members do not have the right to book venues suitable for throwing events such as forums and documentary screenings. Student associations, however, are allowed to do so. It seems that individual HKU staff (or at least CEDARS’ Mr. Chan) also share this privilege that individual HKU students/ SU members do not have.

5.1. If the reason for this rule being made and maintained is merely to reduce the queue of booking requests and indeed out of concern of the “space constraints of the University”, as stated in CEDARS’ reply, then my only response is that it is an inadequate reason: Even if the queue for booking venues in the University is long (and I do believe that it is), everybody should still have a right to queue up, just as the bathroom queue being long should not be a reason to prohibit children (or any other less powerful individuals) from entering the queue.

5.1.2. This choice to exclude a certain group of HKU members (namely individual HKU students/ SU members but not individual staff and student associations under the SU as well as the SU itself) seems to be either arbitrary or at least a product of the powerful setting rules to further limit the power of the already powerless. If the reason is indeed that the queue is too long, why not exclude even more people and perhaps only allow bookings made by the SU and staff, or even just staff? This would greatly reduce the booking queue even more and the “space constraints of the University” would seem less problematic. Why not exclude anyone who does not have blonde hair? This would actually be even more effective, though (at least to me) it seems silly. What I am trying to illustrate is that the choice of who to include and exclude seems to have more to do with how much power certain individuals or groups have. At the bottom of the University hierarchy, individual students and SU members have the least power and they are exactly the ones who are excluded.

5.2.2. Another question I would like to put to CEDARS, the SU and the GL is: How many requests to book venues for hosting events do they actually get from individual students? I would imagine there are not many. In that case, I do not see why accepting the occasional requests from individual students/SU members to book venues would make the queue much longer than it already is. If there are many, I would like to know the exact number.

5.3. If there is a reason unknown to me which is non-arbitrary and legitimate (I do not believe that individual students/SU members being the most powerless in the University hierarchy is a legitimate reason) for giving privilege to individual staff, the SU and student associations under the SU, I still do not see why student associations (and individual staff) cannot just have more priority than individual students/SU members in booking venues while individual students/SU members are still allowed to at least join the queue.

6. Once again, I do not believe that by writing this, an individual student like myself could possibly change the rules made by a power structure that has existed since a time before I was born. I also am not prepared to play the game and deal with the politics involved with joining certain University groups which have enough power to change the rules. I am merely writing to share with you my experience in trying to speak up and take action by organising an event as an individual student in HKU, and my failure in doing so.

2005656531
16th March, 2009 (Foundation day)

Footnotes:
(1) Posted on the HKU Democracy Wall as well as on InMedia under the same title at http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002513
(2) This response was emailed to me by CEDARS’ Chong Chan Yau as well as posted on InMedia under the title of Response to Christina Chan at http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002513#comment-1004313
(3) This can be found at http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002529#comment-1004310 in 邪離子’s response titled “@李智良” to his own article “巧遇巧文．世界失語．官僚制度—記一場於中聯辦門口的燭光集會”, which was posted on the HKU Democracy wall as well as on InMedia at http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002529
(4) A detailed account of the GL’s role in this affair can be found in Section 3 of this article.
(5) Posted on the HKU Democracy wall as well as on InMedia at http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002529
(6) Dr. Chau has given me his name card with his contact details before as he approached me last year to discuss the issue of our posters on the topic of Tibet getting ripped down on campus after I had expressed my frustration to Hong Kong and international press.
(7) See a more detailed discussion of this policy in Section 5.
(8) Refer to footnote (10) for an additional question put to Ms. Ung.
(9)Though I was mistaken in this claim, she did not know that and therefore, she did believe she was dealing with a member of the SU.
(10)Nonetheless, after the telephone call Mr. Chan made to me on Sunday night, I did plan on trying to use Mr. Chan’s name to make another booking attempt on Monday but before I had a chance to, I already received an email from Ms. Ung saying the GL was booked. I would actually be interested in finding out whether Ms. Ung would have allowed the booking (providing the GL was not full) if it had been from a more powerful, though still individual, student like Mr. Chan.
(11) CEDARS_HKU, Response to Christina Chan. InMedia, http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1002513#comment-1004313; also found in the beginning of this article

影像串流:

See video

影像串流:

See video