Tuesday, May 29, 2012

堅持上訴到底為求維護選舉公平


今天不少朋友看到關於筆者選舉呈請在終審庭敗訴的消息後向筆者表示關心,在此致謝。筆者一直堅持選舉呈清到底,完全是為了釐清選舉開支界定的法律問題;打官司當然希望贏,...

請各位移師筆者信博閱讀全文,並請回應討論!感謝!

Saturday, May 26, 2012

電子教科書政策混亂


香港教育政策混亂,又教改又微調又新學制,總之把我們的下一代莘莘學子當作白老鼠。

最近教育局局長孫明揚宣佈資助大學非牟利機構等製作電子教科書,「加強競爭」,計劃每間機構最多可得400萬元資助,預計涵蓋部份主要科目。為甚麼不能對付教科書商在印刷教科書的書價問題,要以電子書當解決方案?這還未答,本周孫公在立法會上反而說,政府不會以中央招標方式,出版教科書,「因為傳統印刷課本市場的資源佔很大優勢,難以引入競爭,加上如果政府直接參與製作教科書,學界及社會將有好大爭議。」

打擊書商壟斷決心成疑

不說猶可,一說就幾把火!原來政府選擇性以中央招標方式出版電子教科書,卻不出版印刷教科書,是因電子教科書商不夠優勢,政府介入也無話可說,所以便選擇了搞他們,換句話說,是政府覺得電子書商「有得蝦」!但這樣還不是因為政府自己政策(包括審書制度)所累?

孫公承認「政府直接參與製作教科書,學界及社會將有好大爭議」,為甚麼電子教科書就沒爭議?此說可說是「鬼拍後尾枕」,不應說的都說了,令人不禁懷疑,這可能是政府干預教育內容的第一步。

政府的政策混亂,本末倒置,可從本星期電子學習聯盟公佈的網上問卷調查結果可見。調查發現超過八成受訪者認為電子學習有助學生為中心的教學目的或學習經歷,接近七成人指出電子學習可改善學習差異等,但結果同時指出大部份學校的校內基建嚴重不足,超過75%學校課室的 Wi-Fi無線網絡不足,無線網絡不足同時支援10部或以上的設備。

現時全港只有大概15%的學校以一人一機的方式去實踐電子學習,但多達四成多的學校正進行或有意計劃在未來的一兩年間推行一人一機無線上網的電子學習方式,不過,教育局卻未有正面回應一人一機的要求。與每年政府「倒水」給書商的書簿津貼相比,一人一機不算甚麼。看這樣資源分配選擇,教育局打擊書商壟斷和整頓市場的決心,恐怕也難免仍然令人質疑。

2012年5月26日 刋載於《蘋果日報》

Verdict exposes loophole in election spending regulation


On May 24, the Court of Final Appeals dismissed my appeal on the election petition against the result of the 2008 Legco election in the IT Functional Constituency, where my opponent lodged an expensive TV ad campaign just prior to the nomination period –$220,000 spent just days before the election period, against a $336,000 election expense limit imposed by law, that if counted would have meant an illegal overspending.

One may recall that in 2008 the ruling by the Court of First Instance on an election petition would be final. I appealed against that and won that constitutional case in 2010.  Subsequently the Government amended relevant laws for Legco, District Council and village representative elections, to allow an appeal after the first ruling on an election petition directly to the CFA.  I consider that a victory well fought for the rights of all future political candidates in Hong Kong.

But an equally important issue is whether a candidate can spend huge amount of money closely imminent to election periods and not declare such as expenses, thus bypassing the election spending cap.  That was why I made my appeal.

Unfortunately, the CFA judgment considered that the definition of a "candidate" (and hence the way to treat what expenses as incured by such "candidates" related to an election) in Hong Kong would be different from other jurisdictions such as England, where expenses could be considered as "reasonably imminent" and counted as election expenses.  Not so for Hong Kong, the final court thinks.

I respect the ruling, as a final ruling on the existing law, but this surely has exposed a loophole that individuals and political parties with means can take advantage of and even abuse, by ferociously advertising yet not declaring until the nomination period starts, totally bypassing any election expense limit.

I am sure there will be a flood of such "image building" advertising all over Hong Kong in the run-up to the start of nominations for the Legco election in July.  If society does not want to see our elections becoming overly and unfairly favored to the financially endowed, this is obviously a much more imminently critical loophole to mend than how to prevent legislators from standing for re-election after resigning, and needlessly blocking the Legco process now because of the government's mistaken priority and insistence.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

陳光誠,關我們什麼事?


陳光誠,關我們香港人什麼事?中國的異見人士也好,維權人士也好,除了陳光誠,還有很多,「救」得幾多個?並且,陳光誠的遭遇證明,其實他已經不是最「慘」的一個,相比之...

請各位移師筆者信博閱讀全文,並請回應討論!感謝!

Saturday, May 19, 2012

如何重構 IT專業?


甚麼是專業?甚麼人才是專業人士?提到專業人士,一般人都會想起醫生、會計師、律師、教師等,人們信任專業人士,是超越他們的專業知識,關乎他們的處事態度和相信他們的誠信。 IT人身為專業人士的一份子,在專業知識方面毋庸致疑,但為甚麼 IT人總覺得被視為幫手解答電腦疑難的「鍾無艷」?

專業人士的價值觀,始於誠信和誠實,以專業知識判斷是非,無論面對誰,無論環境多困難,都要堅持原則。把對個人的行為、後果和責任,投射在社會大眾,就是公眾利益先行。簡單地說,人們信賴專業人士,也是因為相信他們是中立、說真話,和以服務對象利益為先。

缺乏統一認證制度

為甚麼現在要提起這老問題?最直接的原因是, IT行業正面對前所未有的人才質量危機;當年電子和電腦工程是除了醫學要最高分數、最難進入的學科,今天,行家戲言 EE就可以入到 EE。

我們很容易就把問題原因推到科網股爆破,或者政府不重視,不過,誰有信心政府一改組重置科技及通訊局,甚麼問題都解決?事實上, IT專業形象的重要問題之一,就是缺乏統一的專業認證制度,業界在10多年前已經在相討如何成立認證制度,但過去四年卻停滯不前。

今天, IT相關系統已經成為一切商業、社會和個人活動的核心「處理器」,包括各種敏感資料和關鍵操作情況。所以, IT專業人員應該在今天社會擔當重要的指標角色,不只在技術如何使用的層面,更應該協助社會構建在新技術衝擊下的新一代價值標準,帶頭明智和負責任地利用科技--保障安全和私隱、推動可持續發展、維護資訊自由和網絡中立等。

今天的社會是需要我們 IT專業人員負起責任的,無論這 IT人是新局長、前線工程師或程序編寫員, IT專業形象能否改善,還看我們能否抓緊目標,肩負社會責任,一起重新出發。

2012年5月19日 刋載於《蘋果日報》

Oral Presentation at Panel for Constitutional Affairs Meeting on Re-organization of Government Secretariat


Chairman, Councilors, The Professional Commons believes that the proposal to re-organize the Government Secretariat will create the situation of a Top Level Group of policy bureaus directly under the CS and FS, and a secondary level group of bureaus led by the Deputy CS and Deputy FS.  The secondary group of policy bureaus will be confined to lesser important roles and priorities.

For example, from the perspective of the technology sector, there is a concern that the creation of the Technology and Communications Bureau will not live up to the expectation of the industry because of this layered structure.

Also, we are concerned the new structure actually will add more complexity and bureaucracy to the daily operation of the CS and FS and hence the entire Government, not less.

Moreover, adding a huge and practically self-multiplying number of political assistants to the Government will make our administration overly bulky, without serving any proven need.  Instead, it will tip the balance with and hurt the morale of our existing rank-and-file civil servants and administrative officers.

With these concerns, and our belief that there has been insufficient pubic consultation, we urge the Government to conduct the necessary consultation before proceeding, and also consider a number of our proposals including:

#1. Re-grouping the policy bureaus to better align the more related policy areas.

#2. Establishing clearer delineation of policy responsibility between the CS, FS and the proposed Deputy Secretaries.

#3. Creating a Strategic Development Group to coordinate strategic policy development and resource prioritization among the various bureaus.

#4. The level of remuneration for the principal officials and undersecretaries should remain the same and that for the political assistants should be decreased and made consistent with their qualifications, but the number of political assistants should remain at one per bureau.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

看清楚誰在拉布?


阻撓議事(即英文所謂的filibuster,但筆者不認為這應該翻譯為拉布,容後再解釋)對還不對?筆者至今未肯確定,究竟較多市民支持還是反對,不過,建制派希望借此...

請各位移師筆者信博閱讀全文,並請回應討論!感謝!

Saturday, May 12, 2012

教科書中介角色沒落


七十年代的士高組合 Village People成功在美國法庭引用「終止權利」條款,在歌曲出版35年後從出版音樂公司取回版權,包括著名流行曲《 YMCA》。這算是原創者小勝一仗,也為中介者公司敲起喪鐘警號。

可能留意的人不多,近期香港社會關注的《版權修訂條例》和書商及電子書的爭議,都與互聯網科技普及令中介者角色迅速消失有關。

美國萊斯大學 Baraniuk教授的一段 TED演說短片中,介紹他們開發的系統,教師可直接分享教學資源,完全繞過教科書和書商,「自選出版」把一本工程教科書書價由超過120美元降至20美元,未來數年這「去中介者化」( Disintermediation)趨勢將達高峯。

政治目的為首要任務

不過,在香港電視上只見書商垂死掙扎,說教師版收貴幾倍是國際慣例;真假也好,慣例是用來打破的。孫公自己也說,書多年前編寫,多印幾本只有印刷費,怎能這麼貴?但政府談版權修訂時可不是這樣說吧。

政府在兩個政策局兩個政策,原來方向相反!教育局打擊版權中介者,商務及經濟發展局處理版權法例卻被指偏幫版權中介者。這是政府施政混亂,缺乏理念,左搖右擺?

筆者一年前已撰文指出,書價和電子教科書問題源於政府多年來過份干預市場,一是書簿津貼令書商得以「公帑直接落袋」;二是課本評審系統維護大教科書出版商競爭優勢,令電子書商無法公平競爭。

可惜,政府解決方案不是減少市場干預,反是加入政府主導教科書內容編寫,花錢由往績不佳甚至無的組織和大學來擔任政府能控制的新中介者,卻不鼓勵老師分享平台,也不改善校內網絡設施。

為甚麼會這樣?答案在上周《文匯報》社論說出了:「政府應主導出版中小學教科書」,與內地和新加坡看齊。香港開埠首次政府插手教科書內容這第五個「政治任務」,得以在社會對書商一致反感下,幾乎無人質疑政府內容控制,孫公功力猶在!也許,之前所說政府施政混亂只是假象,在不同情況下相反施政,總之政治目的先行!

2012年5月12日 刋載於《蘋果日報》

課本評審令市場競爭不公平
http://www.hkej.com/template/blog/php/blog_details.php?blog_posts_id=70225
TED: Richard Baraniuk on open-source learning
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_baraniuk_on_open_source_learning.html
Village People Singer Wins a Legal Battle in Fight to Reclaim Song Rights
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47350093

Friday, May 11, 2012

No excuse to put parody points aside


[Letter to the Editor of South China Morning Post]

Your editorial ("Copyright protection bill is a balancing act", May 5) is a classic case of stating all the right reasons but missing the point.

Yes, the government is right to update the existing regime in the face of technological advances, and there is widespread misunderstanding about the law.

As you said, these worries are not unfounded. Yet, while you conclude that more time for discussion is reasonable and the bill should be passed - presumably as it is - before the Legislative Council disbands in the summer, you overlook the critical point of contention raised by netizens: some form of statutory exemption or protection for parody is needed.

The government's claim that parody is difficult to define is not an excuse.

Legal protection allowing caricature, parody, pastiche and other forms of derivative use of copyrighted works is one of the key components of the European Union copyright directive of 2011, requiring member states to harmonise their respective copyright laws to explicitly allow such acts - all for protecting freedom of expression.

Why has our government omitted to tell us this is a global legislative trend for intellectual property?

Yes, copyright protection is a balancing act, and that is precisely why our citizens should be legally protected by such an exemption.

Charles Mok, Chairman, The Professional Commons

Printed in SCMP Letter to the Editor, May 11, 2012

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

政府對電訊商「適當人選」要求絕不適當


監察政府,有時真是少看一眼也不能。最近,有業界人士向筆者指出,電訊管理局(在三月中於與廣播管理局合併成為通訊管理局前)發出的一項諮詢,可能在市民沒有留意下已經在...

請各位移師筆者信博閱讀全文,並請回應討論!感謝!

Saturday, May 05, 2012

互聯網核心價值抬頭


觸礁的《版權修訂條例》,政府面對議員提出過千條修訂案,被逼宣佈押後數星期才提出二讀。筆者跟進這條例的諮詢和立法修訂建議過程已經六、七年,立場是支持適當的修訂以令法例追上時代和科技,並合理地協助版權擁有者對付真正的侵權者,和幫助互聯網服務提供者得到應有的保障,但在過程中不能犧牲用戶的合理權益,包括私隱以及分享和表達等自由。

回看過去一年多最後立法階段前政府的工作,可謂浪費了不少機會,因為當局顯然錯判形勢,低估了網民對二次創作的關注;如果當局肯在去年唯一一次集體會見網民討論這問題後,立刻進行諮詢,在網民和版權業界間找出平衡點,加入適當的豁免方案,相信是有足夠時間如期今天通過法案的。

政府面對「百慕達三角」

更宏觀地看,政府這次遇上的問題,除了低估網民力量外,也反映他們不懂得如何與網民溝通,更別說如何游說網上意見了。

從美國最近的三項與互聯網相關而「出了事」的法案,可見網絡關注已經成為立法者的「百慕達三角」:之前分別在參議院和眾議院被推遲的 PIPA(保護知識產權法)和 SOPA(停止線上翻版法),企圖以中國式防火牆方式阻止網民登入某些域名,因影響網絡自由而被擊敗,現在還有剛在眾議院通過的 CISPA(數碼情報分享和保護法),原意要便利網絡供應商與執法部門分享安全情報,但奧巴馬總統已經表明否決,不會簽署這法案成為法律。

這些例子與香港《版權修訂條例》共通點是,立法者都低估了這些法案建議對網絡自由、個人權利和私隱等「互聯網核心價值」的影響而引起的迴響,結果新條例對安全、知識產權等各方面好的地方,也因為處理不善,雙方不能有效達到共識而「一拍兩散」。

如何平衡這些互聯網核心價值和其他社會和經濟需要及科技和行業發展需要,是未來施政的新挑戰。

未來新政府的資訊科技局局長甚至正、副財政司司長,懂得處理嗎?

2012年5月5日 刋載於《蘋果日報》

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

《版權修訂條例》點收科?


政府本來大安旨意以為是小事一宗的《版權修訂條例》,結果被化身為「網絡廿三條」,鬧出滿城風雨,關鍵甚至是個本來不顯眼的關注「二次創作」的部分,相信是殺個政府當局措...

請各位移師筆者信博閱讀全文,並請回應討論!感謝!

-->