別說香港青年人不應有恨


近年來香港社會被大眾傳媒形容為充滿怨氣,主因為香港政府無能解決社會上的「深層次」矛盾。所謂深層次矛盾主要為樓、地價偏高,四大產業「食老本」,貧富懸殊等。更甚,香港的競爭力逐漸被努力跟世界接軌的東南亞和內地一、二線城市而蠶食。

我為一個90後,對社會有怨氣。但並不同意傳媒肆意為青年人的怨氣定調,乘機抽水攻擊政敵。我認為香港社會出現矛盾主因是缺乏青年的聲音,大保份的青年人並無選票。大部份政黨寧可去鬥派生果,粵曲活動,強力為「基層」爭取福利都不會主動接觸青年。只見有人因反高鐵,反政改才發現青年加上網絡的強大動員力趁機去主打「為青年人服務」、「民主社會」來利用,以對付社會不公義的浪漫情操作糖衣包裝,但對真正需要解決的問題就不見得有甚麼真知灼見,可見民主真的能解決全部問題。

有一些社會人士,指青年人非常幸福,不應自覺社會欠了他們。然後驕傲地帶現今青年看自己成長的年代,甚麼放學後要到工廠打工,工作10多小時才能休息等等,比比皆是。殊不知自己年代出身的朋友,在社會上中高層佔有很多席位。五、六十歲但仍退休無期,對年輕人的新見解諸多挑剔和限制。我只見有人沉醉於自己的幻想當中,以為香港仍在輕工業昌盛,肯做肯搏就能糊口的六、七十年代。

終歸到底,我認為香港青年人的怨氣來自社會的寞視。好像教育,多年來大慨只有18%適齡青年可以晉身大學學府。達最低收生要求但因學額未能入讀每年逾萬,只管將學生拋去近無人承認的副學仕。如經濟環境不許可申請貸款繳學費竟要收取利息,我不求政府全面保貼。但妳年收入達千億,何必收取學生有限的利息呢?更甚,興建新校舍但設計遠高於實用價值,令人髮指。我不禁問:難道妳不是故意令到青年人憤怒嗎?

延伸閱讀:  新學制下的入大學要求(一)

Posted in Editorial | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

yIGF Online Privacy Report


Background

In today’s society, the rise of social web and connected services provided a much loved platform for individuals to share their lives online with their friends and family. However, as the adoption and usage rate grew rapidly in the last few years, privacy is also a growing issue and recently emerged as a hot debated issue internationally with Facebook privacy statement saga. During the 2010 yIGF camp, young participants were assigned as different shareholders in society. Which were government, non-governmental organisation, private, youth, be yourself and “teachers and parents”. The idea was putting participants in somebody else’s shoe, encourage thinking for others from multiple viewpoints.

Continue reading

Posted in Throwback | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What’s All About Making a Statement?


Maybe I should start this post with a bit of background, I have just argued with a friend over a discussion related to education, religion and girl perhaps? I don’t know if I held too hard by my point and try to “force” others with me on issues related to the Christianity and social issues. But the lack of patients to think from a different viewpoints, protectionism are those made me feel extremely upset.

During a friendly dinner, two friends appreciated about Christianity. If you know me, you would know that I am very vocal against religions which may wanted to size control over the general society with their religion standards, I do personally agree that certain moral standards must be withheld today, however the social identity should be able to adjust loosely overtime and here are many different views related to how things should be handled.

One of them got hyped and started talking about the incident happened in China 1989, where the Chinese Government brutality dismissed a students protest which demanded for equality and against corruption in the society. I tended to agree given whatever done by these students, a violent crackdown was definitely not necessary to maintain peace and Communist Party’s control over China.

However, when I raised the issue related to Rome’s treatment on homosexuality, pedophilia priests, education as well as suppression of scientific advancements, the person who was strive for democracy in China reluctant to understand that these issues related to the ideology of Christianity. It demands control over the state, as well as parts of the Bible encourages hate crime against population from different religion backgrounds (Deu 13:12 ~ 13 :16) , sexuality (Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13) or as simple as not having fruit on the tree (Matthew 21:18 ~ 21:22). As these views are not as famous as the “Don’t be afraid, just believe.” (Mark 5:36). These issues are as valid as it gets in today’s modern society due to the less people practice / involve in religion activities ^(Ruy Teixeira’s presentation on social demographic change with SLAA), people started to question these laws and reevaluate them as whether they should be applied to the general society or not?

The comments from another friend was related to higher education in Hong Kong, which covered the issue of Mainland China students and the lack of seats and funding for broader students. Today, universities in Hong Kong are taking 18% of the total high school graduates. We may argue that the there are many other paths for unsuccessful students to earn their higher education, but every year there are 10,000 students whose meet the minimal requirements for entry but rejected. The person then said it should remain as it is, but the government should evict / reduce seats for Mainland China students.

Which I believe two questions will sum up with these opinions:

  • Who should have the right to judge which individual’s deserve to enjoy higher education which is funded mainly public? (Private donation is rare)
  • Best students from all over the Mainland China are coming over to join and collaborate with us and bring our local culture other places, what a pleasure

Additional note on the funding and the availability – Most of the population in Hong Kong lives in government-funded public housing estate and subsidize housing, should government take away these benefits because these aren’t good enough to earn sufficient salary to pay of mortgage for private housing? Same question on health care, should the lower social economic class denied from public funded hospitals and clinics because they don’t pay tax at all?

I’ve born in a middle class family, raised by a religious maid from Philippines and educated in a primary school with Catholic background,  that gives me so many reasons that I should believe in god right? The answer is no, the lack of consistency with their belief and education methods were burned into my memories forever. If I’d ever learned anything from that school, that would don’t have double standards. It reminds me hard that the lack of consistency in life means nothing is valid at all, thus nothing you can trust and rely on.

Some people had suggested me not to be that vocal or critical over issues in order to maintain “friendships”, I’m sorry but that’s not happening because it’s not me is to hide conflicts. And just be honest, I sometimes wish that I don’t have knowledge and be a “normal” kid with no understands what’s related to the world, social and ideas. Go out and fool around with dodgy friends sounds extremely attractive, right?

That’s why I look for evidence, information, trustworthy partners. That’s why I beg to differ, thus how I made my statement.

P.S. I admit that I sometimes irrational when discussing tech products :P

Update: This post was originally published under the title “What’s all about making a point?” It was then reevaluated twice and updated to better suit content and intention for this article.

Posted in Responses | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s All About Regulating Online Privacy?


After the interview with Sing Tao newspaper on online privacy presentation back in the APrIGF conference published, lots of the feedback I saw online condemned the idea of regulating the internet with new legislation which may lead to censorship legislation in cyber space.

I believe due to the limited time and space available to the editor-in-chief,  many of the comments from me and my teammates were not included, giving readers the idea of “governance” which will dispute the current neutral state. Honestly, from what I saw and heard live in the conference, audiences did not react much about the proposal of legislation. Maybe one of the organizer the CEO of DotAsia Organisation Edmon Chung was right about when he commented on the idea of IGF is more of a chance for different stakeholders to present their viewpoints instead of suggesting solutions, that should be left to the public/politicians to decide whether what action they should commit themselves on.

However, I would like to present myself clearly in an once-for-all fashion that I do not believe legislation is the key of dealing with online privacy issue. In my part of presentation, I presented 3 approaches to tackle online privacy issue. Which are:

  • Education
  • Legislation
  • (Law) Enforcement

Which I specifically stated:

“Legislation should against people who ACTIVELY collect personal information and DISPLAY them online without written consent.”

The idea of this legislation is to prevent people who take advantage of disclosing others personal information to form an extremely wide attack surface, attacking their family, friends and relatives.

I sincerely hope people understand that there are lines and limits regard to the freedom of speech and democracy, I do not afraid to cross the line of political correctness when it comes to those issues where I believe it matters. I will only love the place where jurisdiction decisions are handed down to culprits by judges, certainly not by the internet.

Posted in Responses | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Extended Coverage on APrIGF Speech


Posted in Announcement | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment