關於 rumor definition ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

The Best Opportunity to “Laam5Caau2”* (Lee Yee)

Since the start of the Anti-ELAB movement, numerous young people, journalists, ordinary citizens have shed blood, sweat and tears on the streets; many dead bodies were discovered but “not in suspicious circumstances”; Hong Kong Police blatantly batter people, not to mention tortures in the dark room, sexual and other violent assaults. How Hongkongers fight against all this, is like David and Goliath. They put their lives at stake with a determination that screams “if we burn, you burn with us”, awaking global attention. Their demand from the international societies is for them to sanction China and Hong Kong.

Because National Security Law (NSL) was not put into the meeting agenda of the previous National People’s Congress (NPC), rumor has it that China wants to back out of the plan. A wave of comments from the Hong Kong netizens flooded the Internet saying “don’t you dare to chicken out now”, and “if you cop out now you are a wimp”. This is the continuation of the so-called “Scorched-Earth mentality” [“Laam5Caau2”]. “Laam5Caau2” is neither masochism, nor asking for trouble; it is the determination to fight till the end with the risk of death, in the hope to reborn or resurrect. Without such determination, there will be no lifeline for Hong Kong.*

As the draft NSL came out, former Chief Justice of Hong Kong, Honorable Andrew Li Kwok-nang, who had previously wished to compromise in exchange for the law being enforced in Hong Kong, published an article yesterday. He pointed out, with the Chief Executive being able to appoint judges to hear NSL-related cases, Beijing being allowed to “administer jurisdiction” in a small number of cases and those having been arrested could be extradited to the mainland, he is deeply concerned that it would completely destroyed the independence of the justice system under the Basic Law.

To his comments, Carrie Lam responded that “appointing judges” only means to appoint one among the current judges; in terms of extradition, there are similarities between Common Law and the law in Mainland China, such as “the presumption of innocence.”

We won’t forget what just happened recently. Judge Kwok Wai-kin, who was dealing with a case of assault near Lennon Wall where the meat cleaver-wielding defendant attacked three people, said the defendant had a “noble sentiment”. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma immediately made the decision that Kwok should not handle any similar political cases in the future. We can be certain that, if Carrie Lam is to appoint a judge to deal with NSL cases, she will definitely appoint judges like Kwok.

Talking about “presumption of innocence”, an article from the China Youth Daily newspaper in January 2017 stated, the percentage of cases with “not guilty” judgment in Hong Kong courts are as high as 45%, while in China, the percentage of such judgment in 2015 was 0.084% – that is in every 10,000 defendant, only 8 of them were proven innocent. If excluding the civil cases and only counting the criminal cases, the percentage would have been close to nil, which means, as long as the person has been charged by the law enforcement, he will only be found guilty by the court.

Just from these 2 points, one wonders: when NSL is to be enforced in Hong Kong, are Hongkongers still being protected by the law?

The intention of China rushing to launch NSL before LegCo nomination is too obvious – it is hard to imagine Hong Kong Special “Atrocious” Region government NOT using the “not supporting NSL” to disqualify candidates. In the existing nomination form for LegCo Election, “I declare that I will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” is stated in the declaration. If it stops here, then a signed form would have been sufficient and a confirmation letter would not be needed.

If a confirmation letter is to be added, then the candidates might have to declare they support NSL, or more tactfully, support the National Laws in Annex III of the Basic Law. However, NSL (Hong Kong) is not a law that is being enforced countrywide, which does not meet the definition of Annex III, and therefore according to the Basic Law, it cannot be supported.

A confirmation with this detail is not one that any of the pro-democratic party members will sign, or it would deem them enemies of Hongkongers. There are no excuses as: First set my foot in LegCo so that I am in the game to fight; LegCo MUST have a voice from the opposition; let’s swallow this humiliation, it’s better than let the pro-establishment getting its way; if there is no opposition, the government will be even more presumptuous...all these reasons will only send the wrong message to the international society: that even the pro-democratic party has accepted NSL. Then, international sanctions are bound to slow down and all the blood shed by the freedom fighters since day one will be in vain.

What Hong Kong faces now is a matter of life and death. Nearly all the Western countries have voiced against NSL, with USA even emphasised that, the Hong Kong LegCo Election in September could lead to sanctions. In terms of “earth-scorching”, or “Laam5Caau2”, this is the ideal moment to reap. How can we let this pass us by? Any Hongkonger who has what it takes should apply to be a candidate regardless. The aim is to create an enormous scale of disqualifications of candidates. Who cares whether you would be elected, or drop out after being admitted. This is a chance to scream to the world whether the majority public opinion is for or against NSL.

Forget the primaries. Even if you win it, you would still have to face NSL in the election. So why not apply, then be disqualified because of opposing NSL. If you still haven’t been disqualified by then, it’s still not too late to reconsider hosting primaries.

【#TheDiplomat: 沈旭暉隨緣家書英文版🇭🇰】很久沒有向國際關係評論網 The Diplomat 供稿，但國際線十分重要，不應放棄。這次他們希望分享23條、國安法、反恐法風雨欲來的「新香港」前瞻，願國際社會能多了解快將出現的危機：

While the world is preoccupied with a fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been tightening its political grip on all aspects of Hong Kong’s civil society. Rumor has it that Beijing will push through legislating national security laws under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by unconventional means, such as massively disqualifying pro-democratic legislators or even directly applying a national law, widely argued as a major step to destroy the rights and freedom of Hong Kongers, and bring Chinese authoritarianism to Hong Kong.

After the 2019 protests, the administration of Carrie Lam, who theoretically is still leading the special administrative region of China, has little political capital at stake, with its legitimacy reaching rock bottom. The pro-government camp has dwindling prospects for the city’s upcoming Legislative Council election. The government‘s ”nothing to lose“ mentality is apparent from its recent blatant reinterpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 22 (another article that limits the influence of China’s offices in Hong Kong’s internal affairs). The debate is nothing new, but the pressure this time is quite different.

This article highlights the different strategies Beijing could adopt to enact Article 23 insidiously or under disguise to avoid backlash from the international community, while continuing to reap benefits from the city’s globally recognized special status. This seems to be part of Beijing’s brinkmanship to bring Hong Kong protesters and their supporters to their knees and move the city closer to authoritarianism. To counter these moves, Hong Kongers must define the boundaries beyond which Hong Kong falls into authoritarian rule and make a case as to why the city’s downfall is detrimental to the international community‘s interest.

The Long-Term Controversy Over National Security Laws

Back in 2003, the implementation of Article 23 was thwarted by the moderate pro-establishment politician James Tien. In face of overwhelming public disapproval of the law, he withdrew support and votes from his Liberal Party. However, 17 years later, it is hard to imagine Beijing following the old legislative playbook: start with a public consultation, followed by public discourse and political debate, and end with the majority rule. This playbook only works in peaceful societies ruled by a trustworthy government with integrity.

The aftermath of 2003, as well as the 2019 protests, should have taught Beijing and the Hong Kong government a lesson: pushing through national security legislation in a flawed parliament controlled by the minority pro-government camp would inevitably set off another full city-scale protest — and undoubtedly more fierce and focused this time. Given the current government’s numerous displays of dishonesty, it is conceivable that they will embark on a less-traveled path to implement Article 23.

Strategy One: “Anti-Terrorism”

In principle, one possible strategy could be to directly enact Chinese national law across Hong Kong, which can be achieved by declaring a state of emergency in the city. However, this is risky business as it would tarnish the integrity of “one country two systems” and subsequently Hong Kong’s international standing. Beijing, a risk-averse regime, is also unwilling to see Hong Kong’s status as a middleman for laundering money disappear into thin air.

Instead, Beijing could be concocting a narrative that would see Chinese national law applied to Hong Kong while not damaging Hong Kong’s international standing and Beijing’s own interests. The key word in this script is “anti-terrorism.” As early as 2014, pro-Beijing scholars have been claiming the emergence of “local terrorist ideology” on Hong Kong soil. Since the anti-extradition bill protests last year, government rhetoric frequently described the protests, which caused no deaths at all in the entire year, with phrases like “inclination to terrorist ideology.” That was a signal to the world that Hong Kong’s internal conflicts had ballooned into a national security issue. This gives the government the legitimacy to justify the implementation of Chinese national laws across the highly autonomous region to counter terrorism. The Chinese government knows that if it can persuade the world that terrorism exists in Hong Kong, and that it is as severe as the terror threat facing many other nations today, the international community will be less critical of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong. Enacting Chinese laws directly is a convenient path that will save Beijing from having to tackle Hong Kong’s internal conflicts, basically turning the Hong Kong issue into a nonissue.

Strategy Two: Stacking the Legislature by Disqualifying Candidates

An even bolder strategy was probably foretold by a recent incident where the Hong Kong government and Beijing’s agencies for Hong Kong affairs (HKMAO and the Liaison Office) jointly criticized lawmaker Dennis Kwok for filibustering, framing it as “misconduct in public office” and “violating his oath.” It is incomprehensible to claim that filibustering goes against a lawmaker’s main duty; rather, it is common understanding that legislative work includes debating the law and representing public opinion against unreasonable laws. In a parliament controlled by the minority, pro-democratic members representing the majority of Hong Kongers are forced to express their objections using means like filibustering. Wouldn’t a lack of different political opinions turn the legislative branch into a rubber-stamp institution?

The above allegation has set a dangerous precedent for twisting the logic behind a certain provision in the Basic Law to target opposing lawmakers. In other words, to fulfill Beijing’s interpretation of the principal requirement for holding public office in Hong Kong, one could be required to take a meticulously legalistic approach to uphold the Basic Law down to its every single wording. A public official, by this new definition, not only needs to support “one country, two systems” or object Hong Kong independence, but also must abide by every single provision in the Basic Law. Worst of all, based on the previous cases, whether an official’s words or actions oversteps a provision is up to Beijing’s interpretation of his/her “intent.”

If this approach is applied, in the next election, there might be additional official questions for screening candidates like the following: “The Basic Law states that the enactment of Article 23 is a constitutional duty. Failing to support Article 23 legislation violates the Basic Law. Do you support it?” This question would suffice to disqualify even moderate or even pro-establishment candidates like James Tien. Even if any pro-democratic candidates were elected, once Article 23 re-enters the legislative process, they could risk ouster by raising objections.

Despite the absurdity of this tactic, the Chinese regime may just be tempted enough if such a strategy could resolve two of China’s current nuisances — voices of dissent in the Legislative Council and the previous failure to implement Article 23.

Strategy Three: The “Boiling Frog Effect”

Article 23 is not yet implemented, but the dystopian world that the protesters pictured in 2003 is already becoming reality. Regular citizens have been persecuted for “sedition” for sharing their views on social media or participating in legal protests; workers face retaliation for taking part in strikes; corporations are pressured to publicly side with the government’s stance; employees who have the “wrong” political views are fired; schools have been closely monitored for teaching material; protest-supporting fundraisers were framed for money laundering; a retweet or like may lead to persecution, under a colonial-era law. Only now have Hong Kongers woken up to their new reality — although the Basic Law technically protects citizens’ rights to speak, rally, march, demonstrate, and go on strike, the government could enfeeble civil rights by bending antiquated laws and legal provisions. The frequent abuse of law enforcement power on a small scale, such as improper arrests and police violence, is desensitizing the public and the international community. In a few years, Hong Kong will become unrecognizable. This is indeed a clever play on Beijing’s part to slowly strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom, without causing much international attention.

Counter-Strategies Against Beijing’s Brinkmanship

Beijing’s overarching goal is to hollow out Hong Kong but, at the same time, avoid major backlash from the international community, which could spell the end of the privileged global status of Hong Kong not granted to other Chinese cities. Beijing also aims at preventing single incidents that could cascade down into mass protests as seen in 2003, 2014, and 2019; and eliminating any resistance forces from within Hong Kong’s legislature. The tactics outlined above are typical in a game of brinkmanship.

In response, Hong Kongers in Hong Kong and on the so-called “international frontline” must know their strengths and bargaining chips on this negotiating table with Beijing.

Unlike Xinjiang and Tibet, Hong Kong is a city with transparency and free flow of information. Hong Kongers need to make a case to the world that the protests are not acts of terrorism. Some suggestions include comparing the Hong Kong protests to similar struggles in 20 or so other counties in the world at the present time, none of which were classified as terrorism; collecting a large amount of concrete evidence of the disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong police; and showing how enacting Chinese national laws in Hong Kong will end the city’s autonomy and spell disaster for international community‘s interests.

The Legislative Council is the institution that can counteract Beijing’s “boiling frog” strategy and to keep Hong Kongers’ hope alive in the system. Those who plan to run for legislative office must be prepared to be disqualified from running. If only individuals are banned, there need to be alternative candidates as back-up plans. However, if and when the disqualification process is applied broadly to entire camps of candidates (for example, all who object to Article 23), the pro-democracy camp must make a strong case to the Hong Kong and global public that this is the endgame for Hong Kong democracy. Then the incumbent popularly elected legislators will hold the internationally recognized mandate from the public and serve as the last resistance.

These recommendations delineates how the slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” often seen in the protests, may play out in the game of international relations. If the national security laws are “passed” by a legislature that is jury-rigged in this manner, or if related national laws are directly implemented in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers should signal clearly to the world that it goes way beyond the promised “one country, two systems.” Crossing this red line by Beijing should be seen by the world as a blunt violation of its promised autonomy to Hong Kongers. At that time, if the international community led by the United States and the United Kingdom decided to revoke the “non-sovereignty entity” status of Hong Kong and regard the SAR as an ordinary Chinese city, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Dr. Simon Shen is the Founding Chairman of GLOs (Glocal Learning Offices), an international relations start-up company. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associate director of the Master of Global Political Economy Programme of the CUHK. The author acknowledges Jean Lin, Coco Ho, Chris Wong, Michelle King, and Alex Yap for their assistance in this piece.

▶️ 高度自治 vs 全面管治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwt8wZl8jHQ

世界上的食物，從什麼時候開始被分成「人食」、「狗食」了呢？
說到狗食，你會想到什麼？
乾飼料、罐頭、牛皮骨？
好多人這麼說：「不要給狗吃人食，因為這樣他就會被寵壞，以後就挑食不吃飼料了」好像新鮮的食物是人類專利一樣，不可以跟狗分享
或者是萬惡的深淵，一旦讓狗狗接觸到，這條狗就萬劫不復了
今天才有主人跟我說，
現在是因為狗狗生病了，才給他吃牛肉，等他好了
才沒有這麼好康勒！要讓他餓到乖乖吃飼料
「吃飼料才會健康」－－最後這句話真的讓人痛徹心扉
其實一份2005年的研究發現
每天吃乾飼料的狗，如果能至少一週三次，在飼料中加上新鮮葉菜的話
可以比那些完全沒有吃新鮮食物的狗，
減少90%的癌症發生率。
而那些每週至少三次，可以吃橘黃色蔬菜的狗
癌症發生率甚至可以減少到70%。
從這份數據看來，
吃飼料真的比較健康嗎？

別再冤枉那些討厭吃飼料的狗了
他們只是更懂得慎選食物而已

HERE’S WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO ADD FRESH “HUMAN FOOD” TO YOUR PET’S KIBBLE

Today, ninety-six percent of pet owners around the globe are feeding dry commercial pet foods. Of those 96%, there is a large majority that believes dried commercial pet food is really all their pet needs and would never stop to consider the benefits of adding fresh “human food”.

(“Human food” definition in this article: clean sources of meat-based proteins and some organic plant matter, not beer and nachos 😉)

There are many reasons why some of these pet parents feel this way, however the most popular reason today seems to be the 50-year-old rumor that is in existence and still spreading.

You know the one: “Giving your animal table scraps is bad!”

How or when did this terrible rumor start?

Well, if we go back in time, research shows that shortly after the invention of processed pet foods, manufacturers were having a hard time convincing pet parents to make the switch from foods in their refrigerators to their commercial pet foods.

So in 1964, the pet food industry, along with the PFI, joined together with a whole bunch of marketing dollars and launched one of the most influential campaigns the pet world had ever seen: the “Ban All Table Scraps from your Pets’ Bowls” campaign!

Through thousands of newspapers, magazines, and news stations, the public was warned about the dangers of table food scraps or “human food” and the importance of feeding “processed” commercial pet food. From there, the giant smear campaign took off!

Not only did this clever campaign work, but it was so impactful that now, 50 years later, folks are still in fear of offering anything that is not labeled pet food.

SO IS IT A GOOD THING TO ONLY OFFER YOUR PET DRIED KIBBLE?

Not according to ongoing research it isn’t, especially with today’s cancer rates being 1 in 2 dogs!

In a 2005 study conducted at Purdue University on Scottish Terriers, the results showed that adding fresh vegetables to dry commercial kibble actually prevented and/or slowed down the development of transitional cell carcinoma (aka bladder cancer)!

In the study, dogs ate a diet of dry commercial pet food, while some got an assortment of vegetables added to the mix at least 3 times per week.

When the study was concluded, according to the researchers, they weren’t really shocked by the results.

Here’s what they found:

Dogs that ate any green leafy vegetables, like broccoli, had reduced the risk of developing bladder cancer by 90% and the dogs that consumed any yellow – orange vegetables like carrots reduced the risk by 70%!

Seriously! A lousy carrot helped smash the potential of cancer.

( http://ilarjournal.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/1/100.full ) (Raghavan, Knapp, Bonney, 2005)

Yes, of course cats are obligate carnivores (must have meat to survive) and our dogs are facultative carnivores (carnivores with omnivorous potential if circumstances demand) so offering clean meat-based protein sources should always be top priority and essential.

However, because today’s world is ever-so changing due to factory farmed livestock being fed genetically modified grains and our planet being contaminated with every type of pesticide, fungicide and larvicide, the importance of fresh, organic plant matter to help detox the body couldn’t be more crucial.

So if the “cancer reducing benefit” doesn’t tickle your fancy enough to convince you to add any “human fresh foods” to your pet’s bowl, then maybe think of it this way:

How bad would it suck if someone forced you to eat dry processed foods your whole life!?

Rodney Habib - Pet Nutrition Blogger

"An educated, informed and well-researched community of pet owners can only put more pressure on the pet food industry to be better! When pet owners know better, they will only do better!"