West Kowloon Cultural District

Passing the to-be WKCD site by ferry over the summer I saw there still remains a lot to be done. Hong Kong has been in the talks for a cultural spot securing its cultural hub status in Asia. And it's come far.

This is a good summary of the vision and problems facing the Cultural District: http://www.hab.gov.hk/wkcd/pe/eng/doc/CC_Report_eng/3_executivesummary.pdf

After public consultation in 2007, a report by the Public Policy Research Institute of the Hong Kong PolyTechnic University was published in Jan 2008, http://www.hab.gov.hk/wkcd/pe/chi/Public_EE_Report/doc/Reports/Final%20Report_Eng.pdf

Watch out for more consultations from now until early January 7.

I believe the project has been one of the few that has involved the private sector, and relevant creative art bodies and experts. The power of the WKCD Authority has been set in the WKCDA Ordinance. However, its government officials have been criticized to be too experienced to make investment decisions with the funds separately . More consultants should be brought on board.

The first phase will be completed in 2014-15 and I await to see the results. Will it also balance logistics, traffic and environmental impact considerations?

When the time comes the Government should also investigate how the arts industry relates to the creative industry, which the Chief Executive especially highlighted after setting up CreativeHK in June 2009.

A day out at Dried Seafood Street

As part of a cultural heritage class project my groupmates and I carried out our fieldwork in Sheung Wan's Des Veoux West Street today. It was my first time stepping into the street.

We combed through most of the shops on both sides of the street (did you know that one side demands higher rent than the other?) talking to shopowners who were willing to share. Made a lot of interesting observations. Some of the old shopowners have been in this very unique trade since they were young and are living encyclopedias on this subject. The shop layouts, stock arrangement and sheer variety of it all is precious. I do believe that the Government should promote the street more and even consider registering it as an Intangible Cultural heritage. Given the high quality of goods, spacial significance and industrial skills involved these shops should be recognized for their longtime importance.

Like one of the lecturers told us, conservation and heritage work should not begin when the objects are fading, but when we note their importance. All owners relayed to us that the Government did nothing to help their trade, and I really feel that this Government's policies should reflect more voices heard.

Am really proud of the owners, the dedicated old ones and the very few brave ones of the new generation, who are working long hours everyday adding more diversity to this "world city".

HKSARG's decision to transfer Tiananmen dissident to Mainland

In September 2008, the SAR authorities handed Yongjun Zhou (周勇軍) to the Mainland authorities where he was then immediately arrested and detained for previous fraud charges. Zhou lived abroad in the US. He came to Macau (where HK officials found him) on a fake Malaysian passport in hopes of eventually visiting his parents in the Mainland. His girlfriend and lawyer held a conference yesterday (12 Oct 2009).

It was the first time a Tiananmen dissident was transferred back to China without any extradition arrangements with the Mainland Government. The Hong Kong government said that it could not comment on individual cases but that its immigration department "handles all entry applications in accordance with the law and immigration policy having due regard to individual circumstances".

There is no rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland, which creates difficulty in applying the law from both systems in cross-border crimes. China and Taiwan has reached such an agreement in the 1990 Quemoy Agreement. Put simply, ambiguity exists where the Mainland may have jurisdiction over Hong Kong citizens who have partly committed crimes on the mainland. Hong Kong does have a right under the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance to refuse to hand over PRC nationals.

I believe that this will not be the first case of its kind. It will be listed down in articles and legal journals as another breach of Human Rights by the SARG. My summer internship has involved learning and seeing the Immigration Department make unreasonable one decision against potential refugees after another. This time, he act of handing over, whether in the form of a deportation order or something else, is surely open to challenge, and the CE should give disclosure.


References(all accessed on 13 Oct 2009):

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hrNt5vm0MW0fKqbNZIuhdSp3i_Gg

http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=DjOHAosZ__gC&pg=RA1-PA118&dq=hong+kong+mainland+extradition+law&lr=#v=onepage&q=hong%20kong%20mainland%20extradition%20law&f=false

Did we? Could we? Would we?

Two days ago I got back my Danish quiz. Despite some spelling mistakes, I got full mark because, apparently, the teacher would grant me marks as long as I got what the marking scheme requires. Say, for example, in writing the sentence "I would like a chicken sandwich", it doesn't matter if I spell "would" wrongly (trust me, that is possible in Danish), but you don't get any mark if you do not put down "chicken".

Marking scheme - I felt almost nostalgic when I heard my teacher saying that.

Another guy in my class just could not understand why he did not get any mark for a grammatically correct sentence (well, he probably wrote "I would like a sandwich" in correct grammar but without "chicken") ; that is not surprising, since he grew up receiving American education and values.

"Why do I not get any mark for this? Isn't the grammar correct?"
"Yes, your grammar is correct, but you didn't put down 'chicken' in there, therefore I cannot give you mark for it"
"Why?"
"Because the marking scheme said so, and I have to follow the marking scheme so that I am assessing you guys just as teachers from other classes do to their students."
"Why is the marking scheme set in that way?"
"..."

Exactly - Why? Why chicken? Why not sandwich? Why are we not rewarded for writing a correct Danish sentence - isn't that the point of us going to a Danish class? This just reminds me of those times back in the CE days, when we did tests or quiz instead of eating lunch properly, and got back test papers with a lot of writings on it but very few marks given by the teacher; eventually we gave up on textbooks or notes and studied marking schemes instead.

We probably had asked why among ourselves during recess; we could have asked why like the American student who challenged the Danish teacher; we would have asked why more often if it could make a difference. I guess the biggest failure of the education system in HK is revealed in how the word "why" simply stops coming up in our minds after being in school for a while.

Democratic Lawmakers--Collective Resignation ("總辭")

Hong Kong pro-democratic parties have been pressing for unity for their current efforts of opting for a 'collective resignation approach' to press for universal suffrage by 2012.

The Civic Party gave a three stage proposal on 7 Sep, being "negotiations, reelection, and full resignation". The League of Social Democrats wants one pan-democratic legislator to resign from each of the five geographical constituencies, but is welcome to the idea of a full resignation. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, remains undecided on the issue and await an internal meeting on 27 Sep.

A recent poll by the Hong Kong Research Association reflects that Hong Kong citizens remain most dissatisfied with the legislators of League of Social Democrats, who have bottomed out in the poll. Some wonder whether it is all for show.

Thus far, constitutional reform gave way to economic recovery in the Chief Executive's Policy Address last year. The Government should adopt a more transparent front towards democratic negotiations. I remain doubtful how a collective resignation will alter the Central Government's stance on democracy after 2012. However, with frustrations of an unrepresentative legislature to start off with, and the lack of systematic dialogue on the issue, I hope these political moves will herald a more promising state of affairs.

References:
http://paper.wenweipo.com/2009/09/25/HK0909250023.htm

http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/5/1/1/1256264/1.html

http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/2/1/1/1272173/1.html

Sex Worker Rights

Sex workers are an insufficiently protected group, and are mainly represented by Ziteng (for female sex workers) and Midnight Blue (for male sex workers). This entry will highlight and explore loopholes in the current system which deprives sex worker rights and safety.

Firstly, Hong Kong laws criminalize everything but one (wo)man prostitution. It appears to discourage the business as it penalises procuring another to enter prostitution, soliciting on the street for a sexually immoral purpose, living on earnings of prostitutes by others, keeping vice establishments or landlords leasing or tenants using premises for the use of a vice establishment. It is advocated by the rights groups that the trade be decriminalized, as countries have the UK or New Zealand have done, in order to ease discrimination which illegality has reinforced.

Secondly, sex workers suffer physical and verbal abuse. Renting their own premises and banning sex workers from working together expose prostitutes to danger from clients and other groups. 70% of mainland Chinese prostitutes had experienced physical and verbal abuse in the workplace, and 30% had been robbed. The focus of the current law in targeting the sex trade coupled with poor enforcement results in clients often not made a responsible party for their crimes.

The problem is further exacerbated by poor relations with the police. In undisclosed interviews with the media, prostitutes have expressed distrust towards the police from experiences with patrolling police or undercover police 'clients' checking premises, often asking them for personal information, e.g. landlord and estate agent information and telling them not to work. Furthermore, they account policemen who sometimes prosecute beyond their powers, such as arresting sex workers on the street and even an incident where a woman was prosecuted for 'advertising' just because there was a 'welcome' sign on her door! A collection of newspaper articles found on Ziteng's web-blog also reveal instances of sexual abuses by the police during searches and investigation. The antagonised relations bar sex workers to seek for police help in times of abuse or as victims of crime. There is clearly a policy issue of balancing sex workers' right to privacy and nuisance and moral concerns of the public.

The Social Welfare Department does not treat prostitutes as a welfare service target group. Only a small number of NGOs such as Action for Reach Out visibly advocate for their legal rights and healthcare.

In 2008, 6 of the 36 murders in Hong Kong were of sex workers. This brought increased awareness to their rights. Sex workers and their representatives have met with Security Panel of LEGCO and the Crime Prevention Bureau of the Police. It appears that the murders have encouraged more sex workers to step out and speak out for their security.

In conclusion, the SAR government has to address sex workers concern for a decriminalised working environment, better protection of their safety, a promotion of a discrimination-free society, and even democracy for them elect a representative of their choice.After all, these groups will keep pushing hard for sex workers’ rights to be recognized, much further than marching on 1 July.

Click to see the requests and photos of Ziteng at the 1 July rally.

To read my deeper analysis of the issue please contact me at wendykwanwy@gmail.com

References:

1. Crimes Ordinance, Sections 131(1), 147, 137, 139, 134 and 144, http://www.legislation.gov.hk/eng/home.htm

2. Ziteng statement regarding to the Legco Discussion over One-woman brothel law, 23 Jul 2008. http://www.ziteng.org.hk/2008JUL23_e.phphttp://www.ziteng.org.hk/2008JUL23_e.php

3. Kwan, Wendy. Decriminalising Prostitution in Hong Kong: A Discussion, Mar 2009

特殊教育新高中

特殊學校新高中學制司法覆核案已有定案，法官判特殊學校學生敗訴，政府的政策沒有構成歧視。
老實說，這判決令我有點驚訝。我看不出新學制政策的道理何在，不過我相信法官這樣的判應該有他的理據。我現已返回美國校園，較難了解詳情；再有消息，便會在此更新。

魯迅: 文學與政治運動

少時讀過魯迅的＜吶喊＞，雖然囫圇吞棗，可是在他的自序尾段中看見這麼的一段，讓我一直不能忘記，因此今年重讀一次，其並在這裡與大家分享：　

... 我懂得他的意思了，他們正在辦＜新青年＞，然而那時彷彿不謹沒有人來贊同，並且也沒有人來反對，我想，他們許是感到寂寞了，但是說：＂假如一間鐵屋子，是 絕無窗戶而萬難破毀的，裡面有許多熟睡的人們，不久都要悶死了，然而是從昏睡進入死滅，並不感到就死的悲哀。現在你大嚷起來，驚起了較為清醒的幾個人，使 這不幸的少數者來受無可挽救的臨終的苦楚，你倒以為對得起他們麼？＂
＂然而幾個人既然起來，你不能說決沒有毀壞這鐵屋的希望。＂
是的，我雖然自有我的確信，然而說到希望，卻是不能抹殺的，因為希望是在於將來，決不能以我之必無的證明，來折服了他之所謂可有，於是我終於答應他也做文章了，這便是最初的一篇＜狂人日記＞。

﹣節錄自魯迅＜吶喊＞自序，三聯書店出版

為什麼我不參加七一遊行

自二零零四年參加過第一次七一遊行之後, 我再沒有跟隨過那穿黑衣白衣的隊伍走上政府總部。年紀較小時，可推說是因為沒有朋友或家人一起去所以沒有動力；到中六開始修讀政府及公共事務高考課程以至出國念大學後，卻反而對遊行這種表達方式更感冷淡。

可能是由於自少受香港的功利主義和機會主義價值觀薰陶，縱然自問不會為賺錢做自己不喜歡做的事，談及政治時卻總是 "浪漫" 不起, 不得不考慮政治渠道的成本和效益。在香港行政主導的政治生態底下，我相信識多幾個做政務官的朋友，閒談間提出對政策制定或推行的提議或所屬社會團體關注的事項，一定比叫口號／靜坐絕食／與 "清場" 的保安人員發生碰撞有效得多。

況且，看著與經濟狀況成反比的遊行人數，很難不感到厭惡，很難不質疑香港人其實對 "民主" 的理解到底是怎樣的一回事；也許這種說法是 "一竹篙打沉一船人", 可是我投入不了對民主制度欠缺全面理解的爭取。

奧巴馬競選那年，來到我學校所在的州分進行拉票集會，我們一群從亞洲國家到美國唸書的學生雖然沒有投票權， 可是也乘搭了學校安排的旅遊巴出去市中心的體育館湊熱鬧，希望一睹這位政治巨星的風采。到達場館門外，大家都十分驚訝：外面寒風澟澟下著大雪，集會開始前 兩三小時已有長長的人龍在場地外 "打蛇餅"！即使一家大小有老有嫩的，也滿面期盼地在排隊等進場！與身旁的夫婦搭訕，問他們是否為了來看奧巴馬，他們說：＂四年前我們美國人投票選了一個 不太能幹的總統，現在我們有機會再以選票改變國家的局勢和命運。我應該會投票給奧巴馬，可是也總得先聽聽他的政綱，看看他是一個怎樣的人，是否有能耐做我 們的領袖。＂那一刻，還未提得起勁在香港登記做選民的我十分羨慕：我羨慕美國人能清楚認知自己的政治權利，義務和力量，也對憲法中列明的政治制度充滿信心。也難怪美國人常常要以為民主制度可以拯救世界...離題了。我想說的是，在香港市民對民主制度理智而非以個人利益出發的理解未被普及之前，在我認為各式各樣 選舉有可取的候選人出現之前，"民主"對香港，未必是祝福。

反對保鐵,反對陰乾巴士!

有民間團體在七一上街遊行，抗議政府政策或個別議員提倡刪減巴士班次，並取消部分路線或拒絕加開新路線。在有關的言論中可以看出一些市民視以上決策為偏袒港鐵及為港鐵增加乘客數量的措施，害市民捱貴車。這個上街的原因聽上去似是小事，卻反映政府的政策制定過程中往往忽略了市民最基本的關注和需要；在複雜的行政流程中，犯錯總是難以避免，知錯能改便成。可惜政府一向都只會頭痛醫頭，而且不善於吸取教訓（這大概跟政府官員空降或在不同部門間的高流動性有關，不過不在這裡多談），因此也間接釀成了港人事無大小都以投訴解決問題的風氣。

相關資訊：
尖碼之聲－近期比較熱門的討論主要圍繞政府遷拆尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站的決定。抗議聲音主要提及遷拆巴士總站會為上班上學的市民帶來交通上的不便，同時減少在該區轉車的市民可選擇的交通工具。
相關討論區留言：
http://www28.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=10092677
http://www2.uwants.com/redirect.php?tid=7804756&goto=lastpost

特殊教育新高中

撰寫此文之際，智障學童唐偉庭爭取18歲後繼續上學的司法覆核案已經進入候判階段。
事情端倪是怎樣？

案件源於去年九月教育局頒布的《資助學校資助則例》修訂版，內裡有一行說明：「或特殊學校取錄的學生，如在學年結束時年屆二十歲，則不得繼續就讀中學班級。」條裡本來就嚴苛，但今年初，教育局更通知學校，九月起，十八歲以上的學生便不能獲得資助。
即是說，在特殊學校讀書的學生，只要年滿十八歲，無論讀至甚麼年級，也不能再讀。關注特殊教育權益家長大聯盟在報紙刊登的廣告標題便寫明：「十八歲，冇書讀！」

有特殊學習需要的學生需要比較長的學習時間，教育局反而限制他們的學習機會，此舉實在令人費解。若香港政府為節省成本而縮短特殊教育年期，更是短視。信報主筆便比較了特殊教育的開支和照顧教育不足的智障成人的成本，質疑政府：到底有沒有算清楚特殊教育的成本效益？

何況這事情根本不需要用經濟角度去評論。在新高中學制中，教育局沒有對普通學校的學生設年齡上限，普通學校裡有「超齡」會考生也不是甚麼特別的事。政府只對智障學童社這限制，疑是歧視智障學生。今次十八歲的智障學童唐偉庭司法覆核案，代表資深大律師李柱銘亦指此政策構成歧視。

除了七一遊行之外，有關團體亦多次到立法會及遊行請願，但也不能成功申訴，於是便訴諸法律。

資料：
關注特殊教育權益家長大聯盟傳媒書
司法覆核案新聞

籠屋與板間房

一個數十呎的板間房單位,呎租竟然能媲美豪宅。籠屋、板間房生活環境差，未得到足夠幫助。七一，很多籠屋板間房的居民都帶攜自製籠屋，跟隨香港社區組織協會上街。

自己有幸跟社協到深水埗、大角咀和觀塘的籠屋和板間房探訪過。籠屋空間狹窄，在床上不但不能坐直，有些甚至連腳也不能伸直，可是居民卻說，業主不斷的加租，這樣一個床位租金竟達千元。房屋署有一個「70呎最低個人住屋標準」，但社協調查過的板間房，平均住屋呎數只有45平方呎；最少亦只有為15平方呎。板間房悶熱潮濕除了令居民高溫難耐之外，亦養了一床木蝨，社工上門探訪一會兒亦換來一腳的咬痕。

原來香港有一條「床位寓所條例」，但社協發現有很多設施和安全條件都不合符規格；而且市面尚存在大量非法籠屋。
板間房雖然因為面積小而租金比較便宜，但事實上每呎的租金比豪宅還要昂貴。社協調查中的板間房平均每呎$30，有些更高達$50。租住碧瑤灣一個中層單位也只是$29一呎；何文田山道高層，每呎$33；曼克頓山高層單位，每呎$31，都比板間房便宜。

有很多籠屋板間房的居民希望搬到公屋。房署指現在輪候時間平均不多於三年，但其實並不包括逾40,000單身人士及10,000新移民家庭，而有很多正正是住在籠屋板間房。就算這些家庭有領取政府的津貼，但領取綜援家庭中，有兩萬多要用生活費補貼租金，租金亦佔入息比例高達三成至五成。

就籠屋和板間房的問題，社協有以下的訴求：

• 配合安置政策，取締籠屋；
• 修改「床位寓所條例」，擴闊管制範圍至五至十一伙板間房，內容包括居住面積、伙數及通風設備；
• 增建長者獨立公屋單位及原區安置；
• 全面開放市區公屋申請及推行租金津貼政策；
• 全面登記籠屋板房套房居民、或透過房屋署租住私樓輪候公屋名單、或食物銀行資料，向貧困人士提供緩助；
• 為貧困私樓分租戶提供租金津貼，並立法管制租金；
• 恢復綜援租金津貼至2003年水平；
• 取消單身計分制及增加單身公屋編配額；
• 取消申請公屋居港七年限制；
• 提供廉宜單身人士宿舍；
• 應在全港十八區各設二至三個24小時開放的避暑及學習中心。

我與一個在政府工作的朋友談及過籠屋和板間房的事情。他的看法是，籠屋和板間房是市場需要而衍生出來的。若果政府取締籠屋，這群低收入人士反而會失去這些住屋的選擇。對他的話，我反覆思量。可能籠屋板間房的事涉及複雜的房屋政策和市場機制，我未能明白；不過我還是覺得，如果政府願意體諒低收入人士的生活，以民情為優次的話，自然會想辦法紓緩他們的困境的吧。

鳴謝香港社區組織協會提供相片及資料

Save RTHK 撐港台行動：立法保障獨立公共廣播

支持港台的團體選擇在七一遊行，是為了表達中央政府因為跟香港對傳媒的立場和角色看法有分歧而出言干涉，直接抵觸香港回歸時「一國兩制」的承諾。




與遊行背景有關的剪報：

一名在港台任職已達十年的合約員工表示，他們每年合約屆滿之時，都擔心未能續約，「每年十月我都好驚，以往更曾有同事須每半年續約」。他坦言，因憂慮未能續約，處理敏感的節目內容也要特別「小心」。
撑港台運動成員麥燕庭表示，政府陰乾港台，令人擔心即使日後能成立真正獨立的公共廣播服務機構，本身擁有公共廣播經驗的港台也無法轉型，政府成立什麼模樣的機構，大家都要無奈接受。她並表示，會在其他場合支持港台員工今次行動。
助理廣播處長戴健文回覆本報查詢時重申，港台一貫的立場是希望政府盡快就公共廣播服務檢討諮詢公眾，港台管理層亦與商務及經濟發展局保持溝通。曾出任公共 廣播服務檢討委員會委員梁天偉則表示，政府沒再找委員討論，檢討可謂「胎死腹中」，相信政府年底也不可能啟動公眾諮詢。他並直言，港台正被「陰乾」。
【原載自 2009 年 7 月 22 日《信報財經新聞》】

因公共廣播服務檢討一拖再拖，香港電台的公務員人數亦逐年下挫，反證員工及泛民主派對政府正「陰乾」港台之憂慮。本報從港台取得的數據顯示，屬港台部門職 系的公務員人數已低見三百二十八名，與三百一十三名合約員工之比例幾乎是一比一，比例之高，在政府部門中極為罕見，嚴重影響港台發展。
「香港專上學生聯會」於2009年6月26日（星期五）發起「堅拒政治打壓　捍衛港台自主」遊行，要求特區政府回應近期左派人士又向香港電台施壓的事件及 堅拒政治勢力直接或間接干預香港媒體的運作；並讓香港電台獨立自主，脫離政府部門行列，成為受公帑資助的獨立公共廣播機構。
【原載自 2009 年 7 月 16 日《信報財經新聞》】

事態進展：

<撐港台運動的希望與挑戰> - 談及撐港台運動的緣起
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/226623

＜正在公共廣播＞－香港電台節目製作人員工會
http://supp1rthk.mysinablog.com/index.php

http://hkhrm.org.hk/hkmedia6420/ - 可藉六四二十週年的報導，概觀香港不同傳播媒體的自我定位及策略

立法會議事備忘錄 ﹣政府當局向事務委員會簡介就公共廣播服務包括有關香港電台前景的事宜進行的公眾諮詢和開放電台／電視頻道供公眾使用的課題
http://www.legco.gov.hk/database/chinese/data_itb/itb-rthk.htm

Save RTHK Facebook Group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8410030134

我眼中的七一

二零零四年回歸紀念日那天, 剛放暑假準備升中四的我不知就裡, 跟隨爸爸"過海"到銅鑼灣參加人生中第一次 (直到現時仍然是唯一一次) 七一遊行。還記得媽媽千叮萬囑我要不斷飲水以防中暑, 爸爸怕我在維園排隊等出發時會受烈日暴曬, 於是帶我到波斯富街 "插隊"。
在銅鑼灣廣場對出的電梯走上藍色的天橋, 我嚇呆了,眼框不由自主的湧出了淚水。放眼向灣仔望過去, 長得似是永無盡頭的軒尼詩道上沒有車, 只有穿著白衣的人潮；沒有標奇立異的口號, 橫額和花車(至少那一段人群中沒有)， 只有由擋著太陽, 揮撥紙扇的男女老幼組成的隊伍, 緩慢而堅定地朝著同一個方向步行。在香港出生和長大, 比遊行更多人的場面我見過不少；可是看見這麼多懷著相同意願的 "人"－特別是一向都 "各家自掃門前雪" 的香港人－走在一起, 倒是第一次。

原來當很多擁有相同理念的時候，會產生這麼強的力量；
原來香港人一直也擁有這種力量。

接下來數年的七一如何演變已是後話, 可是日後有人問我為什麼在大學讀政治, 問我香港的政制發展民主進程, 問我香港和中國有甚麼不同有甚麼關係, 問我香港人是怎樣的人...的時候, 我總會想起那一年七一。

起源。

二零零三年，二十三條立法過程備受爭議，加上經濟受非典型肺炎衝擊後未見起色，激發五十萬香港人第一次在七月一日回歸紀念日發起遊行。當時大眾訴求清晰，希望特區政府積極完善及落實刺激經濟的措施，更因為不滿中央政府多次干涉香港政治決策以及人大釋法，要求董建華下台。

事隔多年，二十三條立法已被擱置，當時焦點被評擊人物董建華、梁錦松和葉劉淑怡已經紛紛下台，然而七一的遊行則重未間斷過，而且愈來愈熱鬧，各式各樣的民間團體在電車軌上百花齊放，一反港人過往＂政治冷感＂的常態。外國人拍手稱讚，特區和中央政府也不禁汗顏，似乎還未找到自處的位置。

今天的七一，究竟是什麼？

-

holing 在今年七一遊行後找我，向我訴說了遊行期間的所見所聞和一些零碎但耐人尋味的感受，促成了這部落格的誕生。

第一，我們認為社會運動不應止於高叫口號上街遊行。儘管每年的遊行或多或少都達到了在社會 "make some noise" 的目的，對社會事務或政治的關注應該始於個人對事件的客觀理解和分析，並對其作出一段時期的深入觀察，然後付諸行動。我們希望透過能力範圍內能做到最廣泛而精簡的資料搜集，為這部落格的讀者提供一些渠道去了解更多七一當日有參與發起遊行的民間組織的立場，跟進不同社會運動的進展，看看有沒有參與的途徑。

第二，其實我們和許多對社會時事較敏感的友伴很多時都對社會上一些現象略有感興，可是總沒有動機尋根究底，或是將這些想法組織起來，想發的怒騷沒完沒了可是思緒也是沒頭沒尾的。現在成立了這樣的一個地盤，希望能推動自己和朋友想深一點闊一點，也方便大家進行討論。