//香港藝術文化工作者就「港版國安法」的聯署聲明 JOINT STATEMENT OF ARTS & CULTURAL WORKERS IN HONG KONG ON THE PROPOSED NATIONAL SECURITY LAW FOR HONG KONG
我們是一群在香港從事藝術及文化的工作者，對全國人大於第十三屆人大會議宣佈繞過香港立法程序，授權人大常委會訂立《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區維護國家安全法》，再按《基本法》第18條納入附件3直接在香港實施的做法，深表震驚、憂慮和憤怒。
此「港版國安法」訂明禁止分裂國家、顛覆國家政權、組織實施恐怖活動和外國及境外勢力干預的行為；中央維護「國家安全」的有關機關根據需要在港設立機構，履行相關職責；規定行政長官應進行「國家安全」推廣教育，並定期向中共政府提交報告。
震驚，是因為新冠肺炎疫情尚未過去，市民還在籌謀抗疫、復考、復工和復課的安排之際，中央出此重手，一錘定音，甚有「快刀斬亂麻」之味；加上過去一個月來自「兩辦內會聲明」、中聯辦自訂不受《基本法》第22條規管、港府三改立場、強行褫奪郭榮鏗內會主席資格、無視議事規則「選出」李慧琼作內會主席、警察肆意以「限聚令」打壓市民和平集會的權利、警隊知法犯法涉及多項嚴重罪行、斬人者被判囚45個月但承認暴動罪的年輕人卻被判4年刑期的司法不公、以政治理由和漠視考生權益的情況下強行取消DSE歷史科試題、至港台《頭條新聞》被封殺等連串事件，教見證著香港極速崩壞的我們咋舌。
憂慮，是因為從事創作和表演的我們，嚴重質疑「港版國安法」通過後還剩多少創作、言論、表達和生存的空間？有關「六四」的的舞台劇會否被視為顛覆國家政權？藝術家參與國際藝術節或邀請外國藝術家到港交流又會否被視為串連外國及境外勢力干預？歌詞中提及「反修例」示威者的行為又會否被打成煽動恐怖活動？在電影中有對白形容女角的衣著風格為「台灣風」又會否被指斥為傷害民族感情、違反一中原則和分裂國家？藝術教育的課程又是否必須加入「國家安全」的元素，否則不獲撥款資助？若然真的墮入法網，將會由誰執法？會否是中央維護「國家安全」而在港設立的機構派員拘捕涉案人士返內地受審和服刑？對於這把「以言入罪」並懸在藝文工作者頭上的刀、繼而產生的寒蟬效應、和日後創作再無「不為政權歌功頌德」的自由，我們感到無比憂慮。
憤怒，是因為一條覆蓋全港700多萬人和影響如斯深遠的法例，竟可以完全繞過立法會、在全不諮詢香港人的情況下，以5個工作天的時間在北京「討論」和表決，實在有違文明的常理！
根據《基本法》第27條，香港居民均享有言論、新聞、出版的自由。可是「港版國安法」通過後，藝文工作者勢必人人自危，處處擔心觸碰「紅線」，事事自我審查，嚴重打擊藝術創作及言論表達的自由，阻礙本地及海外的文化藝術交流，甚至威脅藝文工作者的人身安全，令香港作為國際文化大都會的形象嚴重受損，並帶來無可估計的經濟損失。
故此，我們強烈反對全國人大在本週四 (5月28) 投票通過「港版國安法」。而人大代表中的馬逢國先生，我們雖知你貴為港區人大代表團團長，但同時亦是香港立法會多年的「體育、演藝、文化及出版」界議員、我們無可奈何下的「業界代表」。你應明白要創作優秀的文化、藝術作品，必須要有一個容讓自由表達、自由創作的環境；而藝文創作的使命，便是思考及衝破種種藩籬，帶領人類文明走向更高的層次。可是，你有否感到「港版國安法」與上述價值背道而馳？有否知悉我們上述的震驚、憂慮和憤怒？在本週四表決「港版國安法」時、閣下將如何投票？你有否打算在投票前諮詢並反映香港藝術文化界的意見？我們亦在此促請馬先生盡早回覆上述的問題，並拒絕在本週四投票通過「港版國安法」。
We are a group of arts and cultural workers in Hong Kong. We are writing to express our shock, worry and anger at the announcement by the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC) to bypass the legislative process in Hong Kong and authorise the NPC Standing Committee to create a national security law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) for implementation as part of Annex III under Article 18 of the Basic Law.
The proposed national security law prohibits secession, subversion, organised terrorism, and intervention by foreign countries and foreign forces; allows Central Government authorities overseeing national security to set up organisations in Hong Kong if necessary; and requires the HKSAR to promote national security education and report regularly to the Central Government.
Shock, because the Central Government is acting so heavy-handedly in its attempt to arrive at a swift, finalised solution, at a time when the Coronavirus pandemic is not yet over and the people of Hong Kong are still struggling to stay safe, resume work and reopen school. Adding to the shock is our speechless horror at the rapid collapse of our way of life, evident in a series of events in the past month including: remarks made by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council (HKMAO) and the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government (LOCPG) about the operation of the Legislative Council House Committee; the Hong Kong Government’s three flip-flopping statements about the LOCPG’s claim that it is not subject to Article 22 of the Basic Law; the forcible removal of Dennis Kwok and the unprocedural election of Starry Lee as the president of the Legislative Council House Committee; the police’s abuse of the group gathering ban to restrict the right to peaceful assembly; recent reports of police officers knowingly breaking the law and committing serious offences; the injustice of sentencing a protester to four years in prison for rioting as opposed to the lenient 45 months meted out to an anti-protest man for stabbing three citizens; the Government’s decision to scrap a question from the Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) history paper on political grounds and in disregard of the rights of candidates; as well as the suspension of Radio Television Hong Kong’s satirical show Headliner under government pressure.
Worry, because we seriously question how much room would remain for free speech and artistic expression. Will a stage drama about June 4 be regarded as a subversion of state power? Will participating in an international arts festival or inviting foreign artists to Hong Kong for artistic exchange be considered as inducing intervention by foreign countries or foreign forces? Will lyrics about anti-extradition protests be labelled as inciting terrorist activities? Will film dialogue referring to a female character’s costume as ‘Taiwanese’ be accused of hurting national feelings, violating the principle of one China and splitting the country? Will arts education programmes be funded only if ‘national security’ elements are included? Who will enforce the law if it is broken? Will offenders be arrested by personnel from organisations set up by the Central Government authorities overseeing national security? Will they be sent to the mainland for trial and sentence? We are extremely worried that speech crimes, like a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, will create chilling effects and remove the freedom not to glorify the existing regime.
Anger, because a far-reaching law affecting more than 7 million citizens is to be ‘deliberated’ and voted on in Beijing in just five working days, bypassing the Legislative Council, without any consultation of the people of Hong Kong, and in utter disregard of the standard of civilisation!
According to Article 27 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication. However, the proposed national security law will put arts and cultural workers at risk of violating prohibitions and create a climate of fear and self-censorship that harms artistic expression, free speech, cultural exchange and even personal security. The consequent damage to the image of Hong Kong as a cultural metropolis and to the economy will be incalculable.
Thus we strongly object to the NPC voting for the proposed national security law on this coming Thursday (28 May). Attending the NPC as the convenor of Hong Kong Delegation is Mr Ma Fung-kwok, who is a long-time Hong Kong Legislative Councillor for Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Constituency. Mr Ma, you are supposed to ‘represent’ us (whether we like it or not); you must understand that creativity thrives on a free environment, and that the mission of arts and cultural workers is to push boundaries and explore the realms beyond. Don’t you think the proposed national security law runs counter to the values we cherish? Are you aware of the shock, worry and anger we feel? How will you vote on the proposed national security law next Thursday? Do you intend to consult and reflect the views of the arts and cultural workers in Hong Kong before you vote? We therefore also urge that Mr Ma reply to the above questions as soon as possible and refuse to vote for the proposed national security law on this coming Thursday.//
dse歷史past paper 在 DSE History西史：自修歷史九個月5**之路！點解讀少人2年 ... 的推薦與評價
DSE History西史：自修 歷史 九個月5**之路！ ... 都背咗課文內容，level 5 同level 5** 都有操 past paper 不過level 5** 有整錯題有背marking，而且… ... <看更多>