2008年，因應減薪，壹傳媒工會成立；這些年來，工會呼籲同事捍衛新聞自由、聲援被捕攝記、關心上庭手足，喊口號舉橫額、做雨傘撐佔領，大小社會事務，都有壹同事的身影；同一時間，我們卻忍痛看著同事一個接一個捧紙箱收行裝，無情被裁。到這一次，我們要為自己發聲，要離開工作崗位15分鐘抗議，在壹蘋果大樓外默站，向外判方案和無情裁員表達強烈憤怒。

看似平靜時，工會仝人吃盤菜、切乳豬、抽機票，但我們清楚知道團聚的歡樂非常短暫，頸上的屠宰之刀其實從未離去，工會維護同事權益刻不容緩。現實卻是集團裁員連年，部門的空凳一張添一張，Canteen人潮買少見少，到我們終於習慣了這種朝不保夕的裁員日子，新一招又來了　──　把員工外判出去。

如果我們是手足，外判行動就是斬去手腳，人心潰散、士氣低落，我們不禁問，這種狀態下，集團可以怎樣前行？今天先宰美術部，明天可以是任何人，唇亡齒寒，由壹集團、以致整個行業，都將發生巨變。

工會連日來就外判計劃與管理層周旋，集團不單一意孤行，更同時開展零星裁員，兩名由創刊服務至今的《蘋果日報》財經組同事，昨日突然被通知其負責的版面被取消，二人即時被遣散，而且不獲任何額外補償，22年的僱傭關係一夜抹殺，工會對此感極度憤怒。

僅離席15分鐘，有用嗎？可以改變甚麼嗎？這是記者掙扎求存的年代，這是傳媒走向零散化的開始，如果這也是壹傳媒做為良好僱主的句點，在這座大樓上班的每一個人，絕對有資格表態、發聲，在歷史這一筆留下足跡。因為默然無聲不是我們的Style，一如2014年佔領期間我們勇抗大媽，在傳媒腐朽變質的洪流底下，讓我們在同一地點再一次奮力抵擋。

壹工會史無前例地，發動同事為自己的權益發聲，會有風險嗎？是的，每一步、每個行動都會有風險，以為如常工作執行指令就沒有風險嗎？被裁的員工曾經犯錯過甚麼嗎？難道我們該坐以待斃，繼續每天等候發落嗎？

The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) shows no interest in listening to District Councillors or residents of local communities.

Soho in Central Hong Kong is one of many areas that continues to be under threat of demolition by the URA. We hope to petition the Town Planning Board to demonstrate the universal objection by residents and visitors to the area and convince them to reject the URA's proposal for increased development in the area.

The URA's proposal is referred to as A/H3/435; a cryptic titled intended to confuse and distract those with any interest in the project.

So I ask, of you Chris Martin, Jonny Buckland, Guy Berryman and Will Champion: Come!! Thru!! And!! Add!! A!! Date!! For!! Hong Kong!!

Living on Lamma has become even harder due to the lack of foresight from the HKKF ferry provider about the numbers of tourists visiting the island.

On Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, the ferry company should ensure that at least one turnstile is set aside for Lamma residents' use to enable them to get home from central pier 4.

It is not reasonable for the ferry company to restrict access to these regular ferry users when demand for the ferry is high. This is the net effect of the current first-come, first-served policy.

In addition, the ferry should reconsider its current ad hoc response to passenger numbers to ensure that ferries of the right size and frequency are provided.

There is no longer any excuse for the poor planning and poor provision since huge weekend and public holiday demand is now a predictable event.

金融服務界現時有573個機構選民。選民必須是認可交易所的交易所參與者或有權在金銀貿易塲的大會上表决的該會會員。現任界別代表議員是張華峯，在2012 年立法會選舉中獲208票當選(得票率是44.8%)。

金融界有124個機構選民。選民必須是跟據〈銀行業條例〉所指的銀行、有限制牌照銀行或接受存款公司。現任界別代表議員是吳亮星，在2012年立法會選舉中由於在沒有競爭對手下而自動當選。

現時香港有接近二十萬與金融領域相關的從業員，竟然由不到七百個公司團體票去“代表”! 這代表性不足0.35%! 現在是時候向這不合理不公義的選舉制度說不！

The concept of functional constituencies in the Hong Kong electoral system was first developed in "Green Paper: The Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong" in 1984. It was a transitional arrangement aiming to gradually introduce representative democracy into Hong Kong. Since then, there were adjustments in the number and composition of functional constituencies.

From the 1997 handover till 2012, 35 out of the 70 Legislative Council seats were elected by functional constituencies. In the current Legislative Council and Chief Executive election committee functional constituencies, the electoral base consists mostly of institutional votes with the exception of just a few professional sectors such as Accountancy, Legal and Medical, which have individual votes. Individual employees from most constituencies do not have the rights to vote as such rights lie only in the hands of institution principals.

As such the functional constituency system has been criticized as small circle election where both candidates and voters are dominated by a group of "privileged class" and tycoons. The government can pass policies simply by manipulating the votes of this small group of people without any regard for public opinion. Due to the lack of an elaborate classification scheme and individual votes, the functional constituency system fails to reflect the opinions of individual employees and is therefore lacking broad representativeness. In some smaller constituencies, there are even prior agreements among the small circles on who are going to be elected, resulting in uncontested elections. In the 2012 Legislative Council election, 16 functional constituency seats were uncontested.

Currently there are 573 institutional voters in the Financial Services constituency. These are members of the Chinese Gold and Silver Exchange Society entitled to vote at general meetings, and participants of other exchange societies. The incumbent representative for Financial Services is Christopher Cheung Wah-fung, who was elected a member of Legislative Council in 2012 with 208 votes (44.8% of total votes).

There are 124 institutional voters in the Finance constituency. These are banks, restricted licensed banks, and deposit-taking companies under the Banking Ordinance. The incumbent representative is Ng Leung-sing, who was elected uncontested in the 2012 Legislative Council election.

How can less than 700 institutional voters "represent" all 200,000 people working in the finance industry? This is less than 0.35%! Now is the time to say no to such an unreasonable and unjust electoral system!

及後又為了說明現有選舉制度不會向金融界傾斜，梁先生在另一場合指出，沒有任何經濟貢獻的界別如宗教和體育，在目前的小圈子選舉制度中也有參與，達到均衡參與的目的。辜勿論宗教和體育其實有其經濟面向的貢獻與價值（這是政治經濟學的基本共識），然而其說法說到底仍是沒有擺脫以經濟貢獻為本的視角為出發點，仍然無視人人生而擁有平等政治權利乃這個現代社會的基石。

作為基督徒，我們相信經濟只是為人而設，人不是為經濟而設，因為人的尊貴源於其造物主；而民主精神在於肯定每個公民擁有普及而平等的選舉權，而非均衡參與。

身為明愛專上學院的舊生，我們除了支持罷課行動外，也極度關注校方對事件的回應，因此決定作出聯署聲明，表達我們的立場和訴求，希望校方能以寬容且開明的態度聆聽學生的聲音以及尊重他們的行動。

明愛罷課委員會
https://www.facebook.com/cihestudentstrike