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

【單身歧視】單身的你會怎樣形容自己？

⭐男人年紀大會升級為鑽石王老五
⭐女人只會被貶為老姑婆？
#星期六隻眼閉

光棍？敗犬？單身狗？
單身專用形容詞
現今世界被稱為「超單身世代」，因為適婚年齡的單身人口不斷創新高，但無奈社會卻充斥著單身歧視，想一想形容單身人士的專用形容詞就有一大堆，而且多數屬於負面性質，很多時因為單身就被貼上標籤或刻板形象，你最討厭是哪一種叫法？

老姑婆 — 無結婚的老女人。
剩女/剩男 — 源自內地形容到適婚年齡而未結婚的男生。
盛女 — 剩女的諧音，源自香港真人秀節目將單身女性包裝改造尋找對象。
乾物女 — 源自日本，形容放棄戀愛、像香菇一樣乾巴巴過著懶散生活的年輕女生。
敗犬 — 源自日本指年過三十未婚的女性，就像喪家之犬一樣遭人排擠。
光棍 — 源自內地形容單身男士，後來泛指單身人士。
單身狗 — 源自內地的網絡用語，單身人士以狗自喻，有自嘲意味。
毒男/毒女 — 源自日文「獨男」，獨與毒同音，指欠缺異性緣的單身男女。
單身貴族 — 沒有伴侶、經濟條件好的未婚人士。
鑽石王老五 — 事業有成又很富有的單身男人。
Self-partnered — Emma Watson享受單身現狀而創出的新字，表示享受與自己作伴。

無論單身與否，大家都記得好好保養自己，現在開始養生不嫌遲。

✔️CheckCheckCin 美茶推介：紅粉緋緋
材料：紅棗、桂圓、枸杞子、菊花、桂花、花旗參、毛尖茶、冰糖
功效：養血安神，紓緩脾胃虛寒、面色偏白、手腳冰冷等症狀。

歡迎到CheckCheckCin門市及網頁訂購：
www.checkcheckcin.com

留言或按讚👍🏻支持一下我們吧！❤️ 歡迎 Follow 我們獲得更多養生資訊。

Spinster? Old maid? ‘Single dog’?
Terms used to describe single individuals

We are living in an era that celebrates singlehood. The population of single individuals is increasing by the day, but many derogatory terms are still constantly used to make fun of them. These derogatory terms will even further reinforce the negative stereotype towards single people. Which of the following terms do you hate the most?

Old hag (‘lou gu po’) – unmarried old woman
‘Leftover men/women’ (‘sing nam’/’sing lui’) — Men/women who have reached the age to marry but still did not do so
Experienced women (‘sing lui’) – has the same Cantonese pronunciation as the ‘leftover women’; the concept came from a reality show which gave single bachelorettes a makeover and helped them find partners
‘Himono onna’ – originated from Japan; used to describe young woman who have given up on love, and they prefer to live a laid back life like dried mushrooms
‘Bai hyun’ or which literally means defeated dog – originated from Japan; used to describe unmarried woman who have reached their 30s; just like ostracized stray dogs
‘Gwong gwan’ or literally means ‘single man’ – originated from mainland; used to describe bachelors at first, but soon became a general term to describe all single individuals
‘Dan san gao’ which literally means single dog – commonly used by netizens from mainland; the use of the word ‘dog’ is derogatory

‘Duk lam’/’duk lui’, which literally means ‘poisonous men / women’ – originated from Japan; has a similar pronunciation as ‘lonely men/women’; refers to single men and women who fail to attract the opposite sex
Bachelor (‘dan san gwai zuk’) – a man without a partner and is financially independent
Diamond bachelor (‘zyun sek wong lou ng’) – a single man who is rich and has a successful career
Self-partnered — a term actress Emma Watson coined to express the joy of living with her own self

Be it single or married, you must learn to take good care of our health and lead a healthier life.

✔ CheckCheckCin Recommendation: Blushing
Ingredients: Red date, dried longan, wolfberry, chrysanthemum, sweet osmanthus, American ginseng, Maojian tea, rock sugar
Effects: Nourishes blood and calms the mind. Relieves asthenic cold spleen and stomach, pale complexion and cold limbs.

Welcome to order through our website:� www.checkcheckcin.com

Comment below or like 👍🏻 this post to support us. ❤️ Follow us for more healthy living tips.

#男 #女 #我狀態OK

//What Carrie Lam Should Do Next

Jun 25, 2019 CHRIS PATTEN

LONDON – I do not know Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s embattled chief executive, very well. She worked for my administration when I was governor there. Diligent and well regarded – and Catholic, like many others in the then-colony’s civil service – she had been educated at Hong Kong University and at Cambridge. When I left in 1997, after sovereignty over the city was returned to China, she was rising through the ranks of the Treasury. In most administrations, the cleverest usually seem to gravitate to the economic departments, looking after the cash. I do not recall ever hearing a bad word about her.

Yet today, Lam finds herself lonely and beleaguered, although it is unclear whether she should take all the blame for what has happened to her. In any case, she must now display real leadership to ease the heightening tensions in the city.

Lam must have known what she was in for when she became chief executive in 2017. She was handpicked through an elaborate system designed to ensure that the communist regime in Beijing got the leader it wanted. But from 1997 until now, China’s rulers do not seem to have been very good at choosing people for the job. And their effort to dress up the whole process with some democratic trappings convinces no one.

Lam’s main opponent for the chief executive job was a former financial secretary, John Tsang, who had a huge lead over her in the opinion polls. But in the Chinese government’s view, Tsang had made the fatal mistake of suggesting talks with the student leaders during and after the Umbrella Movement’s pro-democracy demonstrations in 2014. Fancy that: trying to talk your critics around to your point of view rather than beating them into submission and tossing them into prison.

Since day one, therefore, Hong Kong’s citizens have known that Lam is not her own woman. That is a pity, because she might be good at the job if she were. She is in the post but not in power, instead receiving orders from Beijing or its United Front communist hacks in Hong Kong itself.

The proximate cause of Lam’s woes is her attempt to introduce an extradition law that would destroy the firewall between Hong Kong’s rule of law and the arbitrary exercise of power by the Communist Party of China (CPC) on the mainland. The arguments in support of the bill were pretty threadbare. Most people in Hong Kong – lawyers, business representatives, and ordinary citizens – feared that the law would demolish at a single stroke one of the main pillars of the “one country, two systems” arrangement that was supposed to guarantee the city’s way of life and a high degree of autonomy until 2047.

If Lam did not understand how unpopular the proposed law would be, she certainly does now. On June 9, over one million citizens took to the streets in protest; on June 16, about twice that number did. And the protests are continuing. Even China’s rulers have taken note, and have hung Lam out to dry, claiming that the proposed law was not their idea. The chief executive was acting on her own, they suggest.

Who knows? Maybe China simply went along with what locals call a bit of shoe-shining: Lam was simply doing what she knew was expected of her. The new law would obviate China’s need to abduct Hong Kongers it does not like, as it has been doing. In any event, before Lam announced her intention to postpone the legislation, she crossed the city’s border to Shenzhen to clear her lines with a member of the Standing Committee of the CPC’s politburo. This rather embarrassing dash for approval was duly leaked to a pro-Beijing newspaper in the city, just to make clear where the real power lay.

Lam has been badly hurt politically. But Hong Kong needs unifying leadership right now, and the city cannot leave everything to young democracy activists like the brave and articulate Harry Potter-lookalike Joshua Wong. So I have two pieces of advice for Lam, which I hope will not be rejected out of hand simply because they come from me. I do not want Hong Kong to be left in a state of continuing crisis.

First, the chief executive should put citizens’ minds at ease by making it clear that she has no intention of resubmitting the extradition bill later this year or next. She should announce that it is a dead issue, and that she will ask the Hong Kong Bar Association and other lawyers to suggest how future cases that may require rendition of fugitives to Taiwan or China can be dealt with on the basis of the common law.

Second, Lam should announce an open and independent inquiry into police activity during the protests. Everyone could benefit – including the police. After the peace agreement in Northern Ireland in 1998, I reorganized the police service there and dealt with issues of maintaining public order. You do not use rubber bullets as though you were on a rabbit shoot, you don’t fire pepper spray into demonstrators’ faces at close quarters, and you do not beat them with batons as they lie on the ground.

Lam should spend a half-hour looking at the same pictures from Hong Kong that the world saw. Any alleged violent behavior by demonstrators could also be examined. Such an inquiry would not cede any moral high ground to critics of the city’s government. Rather, it would give the chief executive a basis on which to talk to the community and bring people together.

As I am sure Lam now recognizes, it is the citizens of Hong Kong who could be her real friends. She should try to understand their concerns and earn their support. After all, she will never get the same degree of backing from the communist apparatchiks in Beijing. For them, she will always be disposable.

Chris Patten
CHRIS PATTEN//

黃浩銘：

//法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！//

希望在於人民　改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書

陳法官仲衡閣下：

　　自2011年你審理只有23歲的我，追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下，我再次站在你面前，只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候，我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人，而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而，今天我不是尋求你的憐憫，而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動，公民抗命的緣由，讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。

　　8年以來，我們的崗位稍有轉變，但香港的變化更大，充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成，更多旅客走訪社區，似是一片繁華景象，但同時，更多窮人住在劏房，更多群眾走上街頭，亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事，都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻，我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸，亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法，更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外，還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定，甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。

爭取民主的本意

　　民主只是口號嗎？當年，我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益，卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權，並要求設立全民退休保障，廢除強積金，因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日，香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口，超過30萬貧窮長者，貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年，我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪，懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年，我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作，現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情？為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政？歸根結柢，就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇，喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力！

　　所謂民主，就是人民當家作主。任何施政，應當由人民倡議監督，公義分配，改善公共服務，使得貧者脫貧，富者節約。今日香港，顧全大陸，官商勾結，貧富懸殊，耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來，但當遇見護士猝死，教師自殺，老人下跪，政府政策就只有小修小補，小恩小惠，試問如何服眾？由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價，乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動，甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行，無不是因政權專政，政策傾斜，分配不公，引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點，亦是如此。

　　多年來，港人爭取民主，為求有公義分配，有尊嚴生活，有自主空間，但我們得到的是甚麼？1984年，中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕，前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港，普選特首」的訴求，清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時，不少港人信以為真，誤以為回歸之後可得民主，但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後，中共圖窮匕現，在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序，並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此，完全不民主的中國立法機關－全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉，人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張，命令香港法庭跟從，打壓香港的民主和法治。

　　2014年8月31日，是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸，中共仍以6月的＜一國兩制白皮書＞為基礎，展示全面管治權的氣派，包括法官閣下在內，都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後，中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目，其時，我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。

公民抗命的起點

　　違法就是罪惡嗎？我們違法，稱之為「公民抗命」，就是公民憑良心為公眾利益，以非暴力形式不服從法律命令，以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明（Leonard Hoffmann）勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出：「發自良知的公民抗命，有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人，歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威，是文明社會的印記。」

　　終審法院在最近的公民廣場案（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35）亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定（該案判詞第70至72段）。因此，亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年，無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代，皆無顯著改進，今日以更進步主張，公民抗命爭取民主，正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權，實在無可厚非。誠然，堵塞主要幹道，影響民眾上班下課，實非我所願，但回想過來，中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路，妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會？

　　如果我是公民抗命，又何以不認罪承擔刑責？2014年12月，警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月，警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題：「近年差不多所有以『公眾妨擾罪』來起訴的案件，都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個：一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律，通常懲罰是輕微的，檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他；二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的，檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他」，無獨有偶，前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及：「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力，除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制，否則可被不當使用。」如今看來，所言非虛。

　　今我遭控二罪，必定據理力爭，冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義，但法庭定讞，我自當承擔刑責，絕無怨言，以成全公民抗命之道。

試問誰還未覺醒

　　我是刻意求刑標榜自己，讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎？我反覆推敲這個問題。然而，我的答案是，正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄，我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權，惡法將至，烏雲密佈，我依然一如既往，毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者，理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利，讓他們能自立成長，辨明是非，而非家長式管控思想，讓下一代淪為生財工具，朝廷鷹犬。

　　主耶穌基督說：「我確確實實地告訴你們：一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去，它仍然是一粒；如果死了，就結出很多子粒來。（《約翰福音》第12章24節）」沒有犧牲，沒有收穫。故然，我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路，承受牢獄之苦，但我請教所有智慧之士，既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效，公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策？若非偌大群眾運動，梁振英豈不仍安坐其位？

　　刑罰於我而言，無情可求，唯一我心中所想，就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高，望以非監禁方式處之，讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）在1968年論及公民抗命時（On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience），不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰，甚至應不予起訴。事實上，終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日，即雨傘運動尾聲（已發生大規模堵路多日），佔中三子自首之後一日，接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』，抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」，更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪，應該從輕發落，認為這是傳統，因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」，由此，我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。

　　法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！

　　願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！

社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日

Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement

Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,

It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.

Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.

The Original Intention

Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.

In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.

What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.

For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.

31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.

The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience

Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?

If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.

Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.

Who has not yet awoken?

I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.

My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.

I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.

Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.

“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!

May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!

Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case

Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019

泰國官方報導，性工作者中,80%以上是性病帶菌者,此影片純以遊客角度探討曼谷淫業、色情行業陷阱及破解方法。

請用片右下角調高清睇片。
https://youtu.be/-ZuZ0J_wh3U

Also watch:

秋葉原行街,吹水講下日本召妓收費 和酒吧種類Akihabara and tell you charges for prostitution in Japan

https://youtu.be/aRNNp7lAsQs

Souce from Wikipedia:
Prostitution in Thailand has been common in modern Thailand and its predecessor states for centuries. During the Ayutthaya Kingdom (1351–1767), prostitution was legal and taxed,[1]:2 and the state ran brothels.[2] Since 1960, prostitution in Thailand has been de jure illegal. Nevertheless, it was estimated to be worth US$6.4 billion a year in revenue (2015), accounting for a significant portion of the national GDP.[3]

Sex worker perspectives
Were it not for financial pressures, there is evidence that most sex workers would not choose the work. In Sweden and the Netherlands, where prostitution is "...legal, protected, lucrative and safe,..." it is not a popular profession. Greece provides a recent example of the correlation between prostitution and economic destitution: researchers there estimate that the number of people selling sexual services in Greece has soared by 150 percent since the Greek market collapse in 2008.[81] Many sex workers in those countries are imported from south and Southeast Asia. One Thai university student doing sex work to support herself lamented to an interviewer that "my life doesn't give me choices".[82] The president of Thailand's Foundation for Women notes that, "These women may well have the capacity to separate their sex work from their self-identity." In the words of one of the sex workers she interviewed, "Once I met my customer on a street, he tried to approach me. But I ignored him. What right does he have? Outside a brothel, I am a normal woman."[82]

Some "sex workers" claim that actual sex is a minor part of their occupation. An independent sex worker in Chiang Mai says, "...most of her job is having drinks with customers, only involving sex two or three times a month. Akin to a 'professional girlfriend', ...sex workers provide...company to middle class or foreign men. In return, clients will buy her clothing, take her to watch movies...."[82]

Reasons for the prevalence and toleration of prostitution
Social views
Thai society has its own unique set of often contradictory sexual mores. Visiting a prostitute or a paid mistress is not an uncommon, though not necessarily acceptable, behaviour for men. Many Thai women, for example, believe the existence of prostitution actively reduces the incidence of rape.[14] Among many Thai people, there is a general attitude that prostitution has always been, and will always be, a part of the social fabric of Thailand.[14]

According to a 1996 study, the sexual urge of men is perceived by both Thai men and women as being very much stronger than the sexual urge of women. Where women are thought to be able to exercise control over their desires, the sexual urge of men is seen to be "a basic physiological need or instinct". It is also thought by both Thai men and women that men need "an occasional variation in partners". As female infidelity is strongly frowned upon in Thai society, and, according to a 1993 survey, sexual relationships for single women also meets disapproval by a majority of the Thai population, premarital sex, casual sex and extramarital sex with prostitutes is accepted, expected and sometimes even encouraged for Thai men, the latter being perceived as less threatening to a marriage over lasting relationships with a so-called "minor wife".[57]

Another reason contributing to this issue is that ordinary Thais deem themselves tolerant of other people, especially those whom they perceive as downtrodden. This acceptance has allowed prostitution to flourish without much of the extreme social stigma found in other countries. According to a 1996 study, people in Thailand generally disapprove of prostitution, but the stigma for prostitutes is not lasting or severe, especially since many prostitutes support their parents through their work. Some men do not mind marrying former prostitutes.[58] A 2009 study of subjective well-being of prostitutes found that among the sex workers surveyed, sex work had become normalized.[59].....

ウィキペディアのソース：
アユタヤ王国（1351〜1767）では、売春は合法で課税され[1]：2、州は売春宿を経営していました。タイでは法的に違法であり、見通しとしては、年間収益64億米ドル（2015年）に相当すると推定されており、国内GDPのかなりの部分を占めています。

セックスワーカーの視点
経済的圧力がなければ、ほとんどのセックスワーカーは仕事を選択しないという証拠があります。売春が「...合法、保護、有利、安全」であるスウェーデンとオランダでは、人気がありません。職業：ギリシャは、売春と経済的貧困の相関関係の最近の例を提供します：研究者は、ギリシャで性的サービスを販売する人々の数が2008年のギリシャ市場の崩壊以来、150％急増していることを示しています。自分自身をサポートするためにセックスワークをしている大学生の一人は、「私の人生は私に選択肢を与えてくれない」とインタビュアーに嘆き悲しんだ。[82]タイの女性財団の会長は、「これらは女性は、セックスワークを自己同一性から分離する能力を持っているかもしれません。」彼女がインタビューしたセックスワーカーの一人の言葉で、「通りで顧客に会ったら、彼は私に近づこうとしました。しかし、私は彼を無視しました。わ売春宿の外では、私は普通の女性です。」[82].....