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。

2008年9月, 其中一隻貓兒有幸被其中一位義工接回, 但接回後口中的犬齒給人齊口打斷, 並體重於一個月間下降了25%!

2009年3月, 事件曝光, 各義工遂組隊捉拿朱某。當時朱某亦親口承認遺棄了貓兒, 義工亦把過程攝錄下來放了上youtube。

2004年11月，政府推出大嶼山發展概念計劃，建議保存大澳古老漁村的文化遺產和天然資源，同時進行一些工程以提高大澳的吸引力。2007年9月23日，土木工程拓展署聯同規劃署及邁進基建環保工程顧問有限公司在大澳舉辦名為「翻新大澳景貌」的諮詢會，並公佈將動用六億二仟萬元來進行有關的建造工程，諮詢期只得一個月。大澳文化工作室認為這些建造工程，以「翻新」為名，卻做成「破壞」之效；而且整過規劃以舊思維、由上而下、以地標式的規劃硬生生地強加在一個傳統漁村的環境，將大澳打造成另類的主題公園，與維護社區居民的生活文化、可持續發展及公共參與的原則背道而馳。

Damages under the name of ‘renovation’

In November 2004, the local government launched Concept Plan for the Development of Lantau Island with an objective to preserve the cultural heritage and natural resources of Tai O’s old fishing villages. The Concept Plan also suggested carrying out certain construction projects with a view to enhancing the local attractions of Tai O. On September 23, 2007, the Civil Engineering and Development Department held a consultation meeting titled Tai O Renovation, jointly with the Planning Department and an environmental engineering consulting company (邁進基建環保工程顧問有限公司), and announced a budget of 620 million dollars for the required construction works. However, the consultation period was no more than one month.

The Tai O Culture Workshop finds that those construction works are damages under the name of ‘renovation’. The whole planning was built on old mindsets, trying to implant an iconic theme park on a traditional fishing village abruptly through top-down policy implementation. This is totally going against the conservation of community lifestyles as well as the principles of sustainability and public participation. The Tai O Culture Workshop wishes to express its deep regret and strong opposition against the project.

12 workers have committed suicide as of May 27th at the production facilities of Foxconn Technology Group, a Taiwan-owned enterprise based in Shenzhen. Citizens of the world and members of non-governmental organizations implore workers of Foxconn to cherish their valuable lives, despite the urgent need to protest against their dire working conditions. Suicide should not be a means to protest the harsh management in the factories.

We condemn Foxconn for not having even arranged any public vigils for the deceased workers and bereaved families and colleagues so far. To rub salt into the wound, the CEO of Foxconn Terry Guo asserted cynically that the victims committed suicide in view of the company’s willingness to pay sumptuous amounts of humanitarian aid to their families. This heartless attempt to blame the victims is a despicable attempt to deny responsibility. It is an insult to the dead and an absolutely deplorable act to the public. Noting that Foxconn is a producer of iPhones and Apple launched its 4th generation iPhones on June 8th (Hong Kong time), we have decided to make that date the Global Day of Remembrance for Victims of Foxconn. We call on citizens in Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan and all over the world to join us in this commemoration of the workers.

現有聯署團體：

左翼21、
民間人權陣線、
社會民主連線、
職工盟社會事務委員會、
新民主同盟、
中大學生會、
土地正義聯盟、
浸會大學國事學會、
一代人公社、
香港天主教正義和平委員會、
關懷中國、
香港中文大學國是學會、
香港中文大學聯合書院學生會、
香港基督徒學會、
新青年、
工黨、
自治八樓 autonomous 8a,
影行者、

(聯署團體陸續加上...)

cosign:

Left21,
Civil Human Rights Front,
Social affairs committee, HKCTU,
League of Social Democrats,
Student Union,The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
NeoDemocrats,
Land Justice League,
Hong Kong Baptist University, Chinese Affairs Association,
A Generation,
Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese,
Caring China,
China Study Society, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
THE STUDENT UNION, UNITED COLLEGE, THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG,
Hong Kong Christian Institute,
New-youth,
Labour Party,
autonomous 8a,
v-artivist

English version

背景:

在香港，2009年9月開始實施的新高中生物學和組合科學課程綱領，包含一句可能會鼓勵不科學理論在科學課傳播的指引。有關段落如下：

「除達爾文理論外，還鼓勵學生探索其他有關演化和生命起源的解釋，以展示科學知識不斷轉變的本質。」

新聞媒體報導，至少有31所香港中學已經承認在科學課上教授創造論和/或智慧設計論作為演化論外的「其他解釋」。教育局起初不重視香港大學科學家的抗議，但後來在一個電視節目中又說創造論不被「視為達爾文理論外的其他解釋」。

在同一個電視節目，一位中學校長抨擊科學家排斥宗教，思想狹隘。另一位中學校長在報紙上說：「我們的宗教信仰不同意演化論」。在5月初，一行62人包括教育工作者和科學家簽署了一項聲明，呼籲受爭議的指引予以保留，因為它「刺激思考，平衡，沒有偏見，並一直運作良好。」

迄今為止，演化論是唯一健全和確立的、解釋地球上生物多樣性的科學理論。它已經通過多次考驗，得到大量證據支持，也受其他科學領域如生物化學，遺傳學，解剖學，物理學和地質學等所佐證。這一生物學的核心理論，在現代醫學和農業的知識和技術進步上作出了許多偉大的貢獻，從而已經拯救了無數的生命和改善他們的生活。

而其他「解釋」，如創造論或智慧設計論，根本不符合科學的定義，並已受國際科學家根據強而有力的理由斥為偽科學。科學家們已經公開和廣泛地指出的，這些思想不應該在科學課教授。

新綱領有問題的指引將為偽科學打開一個漏洞，對香港教育素質造成重大破壞，而關於地球上生命演化的知識將被不能被科學驗證的想法或概念隱瞞，否認或混淆，從而違背了科學教育的目標。

證據顯示，有些有宗教背景的學校和教師肆無忌憚地在科學課教授創造論和智慧設計論，對科學教育已經造成破壞。教育局，如其抱負和使命所述，有責任給予下一代高質素的教育，它必須認真和急切地解決這一問題，並明確公開表示自己的立場，以免這問題進一步破壞香港的國際形象。

如想更深入了解問題或對我們表示支持，請訪問我們的網站.


Background:

In Hong Kong, the new senior secondary school biology and combined science curriculum effective from September 2009 contain a statement in the part of evolution that may encourage unscientific theories to be propagated in science classes. The related passage reads:

"In addition to Darwin's theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life, to help illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge."

News media reported that at least 31 secondary schools in Hong Kong have already admitted to teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution during science lessons. The Education Bureau first turned their back to the complaining scientists from the University of Hong Kong, but later stated in a TV program that creationism is not “considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory”.

In the same TV program a secondary school principal lashed out at the scientists for being narrow-minded by expelling religious ideas. Another secondary school principal said on the newspaper that "Our religious belief does not approve of evolution" . In early May 2009, a group of 62 people, including educators and scientists, signed a statement calling for controversial guidelines to be retained because it is "stimulating, balanced, non-biased and has worked well" .

To date, the theory of evolution is the only robust and established scientific theory regarding the biodiversity on Earth. It has stood numerous tests ever since publishing, and is supported by overwhelming evidence and confirmed by other areas of sciences like biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, physics and geology. This central theory in biology has substantially contributed to many of the greatest scientific and technological advancements in modern medicine and agriculture, thus has saved many lives and improved their living.

The other "explanations", such as Creationism or Intelligent Design, are not even consistent with the definition of science, and have been dismissed by scientists worldwide as pseudo-sciences with strong reasons. Scientists have already stated openly and widely that these unscientific ideas should not be taught in science classes .

The problematic statement in the new biology and combined science syllabuses will open a loophole for pseudo-sciences, resulting in a great damage to quality education in Hong Kong, whereby knowledge on the theory and fact of evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with ideas or notions not testable by science, and thus contradicts the objectives of science education.

There are evidences showing damages have already been made to science education, as schools and teachers with religious background unscrupulously teach Creationism and Intelligent Design during science classes. Education Bureau, as stated in its vision statement, is responsible for providing quality education to our next generation; it must address this problem seriously and with urgency, and clearly expresses their position publicly, to prevent this problem from further spoiling Hong Kong’s international image.

To know more about the issue or to support us, please visit our website.

The land along the road is uninhabited between LMV and Pak Tam Au and frequented only by hikers who (presumably) are in the Country Park at night to enjoy an unrestricted view of the night sky and the opportunity to see the wildlife that make their home in the park.

HyD received approval for the project in late 2005 and began mounting lighting standards along the paved sidewalks stopping when they had completed about 1/3 of the standards when a group of concerned residents waved a red flag.

Arguments put forward for the lights by the Highways Department included many that have been refuted:

1. HyD states that Kadoorie Farm experts said lights posed little concern for the wildlife
• Kadoorie statement: “We have not been asked to survey and report…we suggested that (HyD) carry out its own studies….we have provided the dept with some scientific references …these studies show street lights…have a significant negative impact upon some species.”

2. HyD cited need for lighting to improve road safety
• 3 traffic accidents in evening hrs over last 7 years.
• Avg # cars/evening hrs is 5
• Literature review shows that, in rural areas, lights do not improve safety on country roads (full beams on unlit road more effective)

3. HyD says fatal motorcycle accident occurred at night (HyD cited newspaper source)
• Accident happened in daylight (Police source)

4. HyD cited need for safety of pedestrians
• 12 incidents of crime during evening hours in past 6 years
• All but one were at village entrances (not on uninhabited stretch)

Following 3 meetings with the residents, the HyD is standing firm. Although admitting that their expertise is in urban rather than rural lighting they insist that the additional lights are needed.

They have; however, suggested a new plan:
1. To downgrade the existing & new lights from 150w to 100w
2. To use full cut-off lanterns
3. To lower the lantern mounting height to 8 m
4. To reduce the lighting levels by 50% after 10pm

The above would entail an additional $.4M capital cost but it would reduce overall energy consumption from 78,000 kWh to 61,600 kWh

Residents applaud these as sensible approaches to reduce the existing lighting at village entrances; but are strongly opposed to any additional form of lighting in the uninhabited areas of the park.

As Andy Brown, Executive Director of Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden so aptly put it: “From a purely sustainable living perspective, it is better for (HyD) to resist the temptation to add more and more lights to our city. It is better to do nothing and save the money, electricity and effort and leave the rest of nature to carry on without further human disturbance.”

“We would like to see the HyD developing a grand plan to remove lighting, rather than add lighting, so that less climate-changing fossil fuels are burnt in keeping them lit.”