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