2013年9月30日星期一



Disputes in the Referendum regarding "Campus TV"

上年春季學期,僅僅四個月,科大已經熱鬧非常。先有學生事務處(SAO)越權管理學生選舉活動;再有仲裁委員會常設化修憲;接着有同學自組學生事務關注小組,發起聯署及公開論壇,爭取實現「校園共治」。不過,要數歷時最長的,可謂「校園電視公投風波」。科大學生會,一直維持四權分立原則,轄下有約一百個屬會,享高度自治,成就科大多元學生活動。傳媒方面,則有四大架構之一的「編委會」(即本報負責機關)及一屬會「科大電台」。今年五月,有基本會員SUN Kai Man James(下稱孫氏),蒐集超過一百八十名基本會員的聯署,連同長達十三頁的學生會憲章修訂條文,提交幹事會,發動公投,要求成立「校園電視」,並將之列為第五大架構。不過,由於投票票數僅343,不足會員人數18%(即1395 人),修憲議案最終不獲通過。然而,本會估計「校園電視」可能於不久的將來捲土重來,故特別製作此特輯,希望有助各位了解此事的來龍去脈。

UST was already in hustle and bustle within Spring Term last academic year, lasting for only 4 months, experiencing the act of Student Affairs Office (SAO) in excess of terms of reference to regulate student elections first, the amendment of the SU Constitution about building the permanency of the Court then, and the joint signature declaration and the open forum fighting for “co-governance in campus” originated by Students’ Affairs Concern Group formed by students on their own afterwards. The disputes in the Referendum regarding “Campus TV”, however, lasted for the longest period. HKUSTSU, remaining the principle of four separate powers, and its affiliate societies with a high degree of authority, about 100 in total, have contributed to diverse student activities. UST’s media include the Editorial Board (i.e. the body in charge of this Freshman Edition), one of the four bodies of the SU, and People's Campus Radio, an affiliate society. In May this year, a Full Member Sun Kai Man James (stated as Sun hereinafter) proposed a written requisition signed by not less than 180 Full Members with the proposed amendment of the SU Constitution of 13 pages, calling for a Referendum for establishment of “Campus TV” and listing it as the SU’s fifth body, and submitted it to the Executive Committee. Yet, since only 343 votes were casted, less than 18% of the total Full Membership of the Union (1395 persons), the resolution was not carried. However, it is expected that a comeback of “Campus TV” will be made soon possibly. This article is thus written especially for you to understand the event’s development.


方案蘊釀期間,提案人於Facebook Atrium 派發過不同的宣傳刊物。本會旨在就提案人士的宣傳刊物,特別是份量最重的小冊子,逐字破謬,我們亦會以香港大學校園電視作參照。小冊子可算是精彩絕倫,當中包含校園電視台之介紹,論述科大為何需要校園電視,還附有修憲內容,中英對照,圖文並荗,如付諸實行,規模有如成立一個香港免費電視臺,免費電視臺為市民望之心切,這使編委非報道不可。可惜的是當大家興高采烈地期待校園電視時,提案人SUN Kai Man James 卻向本會幹事表示他們只志於修憲成立校園電視架構,不一定擔任校園電視幹事,故宣傳品介紹校園電視臺眾多特點及功能,有顯突兀,不曉得有否其他目的。

During the incubation of the motion, the proposer distributed a variety of promotion publications on Facebook and at Atrium. The fallacies would be refuted word by word based on the promotion publications of the proposer, especially the leaflet which has the greatest quantity, with reference to Campus TV, HKUSU. The leaflet is so fantastic that it includes the introduction to Campus TV, the arguments about why UST needs a campus television, and the proposed amendment of the Constitution, in both Chinese and English and with both words and pictures. If all is floated that the scale is like a free television’s in Hong Kong, the Editorial Board must report it as our citizens have longed for a free television. It is a pity that when everyone hopes for a campus television in great delight, the proposer SUN Kai Man James claimed that they were only devoted to the establishment of the campus television body but they might not hold the posts of its executive committee members. It is thus abrupt that the promotion materials introduced many characteristics and functions of the campus television and it is unknown if there are other objectives.

小冊子中有關「我們的承擔與抱負」一章,羅列比亞洲電視更要多的影音服務,新聞臺記錄臺吹水臺,時事追擊校花校草人物檔案,節目多得就算要重播也多采多姿。放送渠道亦頗為驚人,3D 眼鏡、內聯網廣播,甚至自設電視頻道及手提電視流動站,還有自家影音房,令筆者最為動心就是播放歐聯賽事,雖則筆者正考慮申請有線電視,再者學生宿舍已設有線電視以供直播歐聯賽事,但假若能透過校園電視觀賞歐聯賽事,配上3D 眼鏡,除免費外,不但不用收聽有線評述員,更不必為日後終止有線服務而煩惱,實為一大功績。

The chapter “Our Responsibilities and Ambition” in the leaflet showed audio-video services, more than ATV’s, such as News Channel, Record Channel, Chit-Chat Channel, News Magazine, and Campus Belle and Campus Hunk Profiles. There were so many programmes that it would be so amazing even though they would be reviewed. Suggested ways to broadcast were also quite astounding, including 3D glasses, Intranet broadcast, own-set channels, mobile TV broadcast sites and an audio-video room of their own. The broadcast of UEFA Champions League matches would be the most attractive service. One of the writers was considering about applying for Cable TV (notorious for its unfriendly attitude) and live broadcast by Cable TV has been already provided in halls. However, it would be an achievement if we could wear 3D glasses watching the matches through Campus TV without price, commentary on Cable TV and trouble caused by terminating the service provided by Cable TV.

一言以蔽之,以上規模的製作對於大學二十餘人的團隊來說,可行性近乎零。

We can briefly say that the production as such is nearly practicable for a team of twenty-something members in the University.

先不討論校園電視應否納入學生會第五架構,綜合提案者的論點,成立校園電視是因為需要紀錄、報道、監察及播放節目,但前三者已能從現行的制度上實現,若有不足,亦能從現有的制度上改善。舉例,若要同學得到有關評議會會議的資訊,編委會已有足夠的文字報道,如需足本重溫,現行制度中亦設有秘書記錄會議,如需有影視直播或重溫,大抵可要求評議會購入數碼攝錄機乙部,評議會去年特別全民大會(EGM)及今年學生會選舉論壇亦設網絡現場直播,日後實行也沒有技術上的顧慮。如果擔心秘書瀆職,自有評議員及編委監察(編委有兩個當然席位),亦可訂明相關的行政條款,以策安全。若同學認為文字報道不足以應付學生的需求,可修憲設立「編委影視部」,追加視像報道,情況有如蘋果日報動新聞一樣。另據聞科大電台正研究影視化,正正就與校園電視的「播放節目」有所重疊。若提案者有意讓校園電視成立,必先提出其獨有職責,而這些職責是學生會其他部門不能兼任,方有望獲得同學支持。如評議會的職責乃監察其餘架構及由民意代表審批財務,不容幹事會兼任。

Let’s not discuss whether Campus TV should be included as SU’s fifth body first. With integration of the proposer’s viewpoints, it was said that the establishment of Campus TV was due to the need of recording, reporting, supervision and broadcast, but in the existing system the first three needs have been fulfilled and improvement regarding mistakes, if any, could be made. For instance, to let students gain information about meetings of the Council, the Editorial Board has already sufficient written reports. The minutes done by the Secretary of the Council in the existing system could also be referred for a complete review. If one would like a live broadcast or audio-video review, he or she might request the Council to buy a digital recorder. The Council provided online live broadcast of the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) last year and the SU Election Forum this year too, so there will be no technological misgivings. Councilors and the Editorial Board (with 2 ex-officio seats) would supervise the Secretary to prevent any worries about malpractice of the Secretary. Relevant administrative articles could be set up further. In case students think that literal reports are not enough to satisfy their demands fully, they may suggest amendments of the Constitution about setting up “Audio-Video Division of Editorial Board” for video reports, just like Next Media Animation whose content is mostly from Apple Daily. In addition, it is said that People's Campus Radio has been planning for audio-video development, which overlaps Campus TV's "programmes". If the proposer had wished to let Campus TV establish, he would have been possible to gain support from students by listing its exclusive duties, which other sub-organizations of the SU could not fulfill concurrently. For instance, the Council is to supervise other sub-organizations and approve the finance with involvement of Popularly Elected Office Bearers while the Executive Committee could not do the above concurrently.

小冊子外,提案者亦曾於Facebook 發表文章「從《科大記錄》到《檔案法》:記錄歷史責任屬誰?」文中直斥編委會及幹事會管理檔案不善,自稱「科大記錄」能夠稱得上為編委及幹事會這方面之榜樣,並強調需要有人記錄歷史,甚至以檔案法作為例子支持其論點。然而,當中實有偷換概念及邏輯謬誤之嫌。誠然,即使編委會有能力管理自家出版的刊物作內部參考,並不等如編委會需要為同學提供查閱服務,不時借出內部使用文件予會員。就如文中談及,來自五湖四海的檔案應由同一部門集中管理,例如圖書館,把檔案整理到一資料庫中供人查閱。此外,《檔案法》中「檔案」泛指官方紀實文件,例如會議紀錄、文宣海報等,但以《檔案法》引申至科大需要有影視部門為同學拍下集體回憶,例如學會宣傳期的狀況、校園事情剪輯,就犯了不相干及偷換概念的邏輯謬誤。

The proposer’s side posted an article called “From ‘UST Records’ to ‘Document Law’: Who are Responsible to Record the History?” on Facebook as well. The article criticized directly that the Editorial Board and the Executive Committee managed the documents improperly, claimed that “UST Records” could be their example in this aspect, and emphasized that someone would be needed to record the history. In the article, “Document Law” was even cited as an example to support the viewpoints. Nevertheless, a straw man argument and a logical fallacy might be involved. Even the Editorial Board can manage its own publications for internal reference, it does not need to provide consultation service and lend members the documents for internal use all the time. As mentioned in the article, documents from various sources should be managed by the same organization, such as Library, and grouped into a database for users’ reference. In addition, the word “document” in “Document Law”, in general, refers to official records of actual events like minutes, posters, etc. But “Document Law” was extended to support that UST needs an audio-video department to record collective memories for students, such as Promotion Period and clips about campus affairs, leading to a logical fallacy of irrelevance and a straw man argument.

將校園電視定為第五大架構 Setting Campus TV as the Fifth Body

該次公投除了提出成立校園電視臺,亦主張將之定為學生會第五大架構,與現時幹事會、評議會、仲裁委員會、編輯委員會並列。提案方認為,學生會現有四權運作尚有不足,有欠完善,故提出把校園電視臺列入學生會架構,以改善現行架構之運作,補其不足。另外,提案方基於財政考慮,認為校園電視臺成為學生會架構,運作資金會更為充裕,財政壓力將會減少,甚至避免財困危機。他們還認為,傳媒作為學生會架構,方能發揮監察作用,成效更大。

The Referendum meant to establish Campus TV and also set it as the fifth body of the Union, listing with the existing Executive Committee, Council, Court and Editorial Board. The proposer’s side thought: that there were shortcomings in the operation of the current four powers and setting Campus TV as a SU’s body could improve the operation; that, financially speaking, the operation capital of Campus TV would be more abundant so that it would alleviate its financial burden and even avoid a financial crisis then; and that a medium could supervise and have a greater effect if it becomes a SU’s body.

在此,不妨就上述提案方論點,逐一細察,並作論述:

Here, let’s analyze and discuss the above points one by one:

一、若只因現行之四大架構運作有欠完善,便將校園電視臺設為第五大架構,便很有可能陷於「現行架構運作有欠完善」和「另立架構」之間的循環。先例一開,日後其他組織亦可以此為循環論證之口實,變相以問題解釋問題本身,另立第六、第七……大架構。另外,依此推進,若付諸實行,如此下去,就會架床疊屋,畫蛇添足,架構變得冗贅,既耗用學生會公共資源,也使效率不升反降。

First, if Campus TV is set as the fifth body only because the operation of the four powers is not perfect enough, then there may be cycle between “the imperfection of the operation of the bodies” and “setting another body”. Once such a precedent is set, other organizations can use this as an excuse for circular reasoning as if they use the problem to explain the problem per se to set the sixth, seventh … body. Furthermore, if it is put into practice, the bodies will be redundant and the efficiency would be lowered.

二、應有最少一個公營機構,以出版及告知同學有關校方和學生會的資訊。就現況而言,姑勿論報道的媒介,一直以來,便有公營機構在實行此事。若然校園電視成立後的職責僅限於此,那麼校園電視本身似無其他特色。

Second, there should be – and now there has been, despite the means of reporting – at least one public-owned organization to publish and notice students about information about the University and the SU. Campus TV would seem to have no other features if it only has the above duties after its establishment.

三、縱觀大眾傳媒,也有分為公營及私營,分別向公眾及投資者負責。同理,校內媒體不一定要向全校負責,可如現時校園人民廣播電台(下稱「校園電台」),以屬會形式運作,向會員負責之餘,容許其他人士收聽節目,亦無不可。

Third, mass media can be divided into the public-owned and the private-owned, responsible for the public and the investors respectively. Similarly, mass media in the University may not have to be accountable to the whole university. It could be like People's Campus Radio (stated as the Radio hereinafter) that it is an affiliate society accountable to its own members while allowing others to listen to their programmes.

四、若單為資金更充裕而改動憲章,發動公投,實在說不過去。公共資源事關公共利益和學生會整體長遠運作,需要運用得宜,用得其所。按照提案方財政預算,若然「校園電視」成為第五大架構,預計需增加約30% 學生會費,方可維持其正常運作。再者,評議會認為項目乃用得其所,才會批准予之撥款。因此,即使列入架構,評議會亦未必時時通過撥款,因而令校園電視資金充裕。提案方此說未免一廂情願,過於樂觀。

Fourth, it is unreasonable if the Referendum had been called for to amend the Constitution only because of more capital. Public resources determine public interests and the whole, long-term operation of the Union and thus they should be used properly. According to the budget of the proposer’s side, if “Campus TV” had become the fifth body, it would be estimated that an increase in 30% of the SU fee is required to maintain its operation. Furthermore, the budget would be approved only when the Council thinks that the item is worth spending. Therefore, even if “Campus TV” had become a body, the Council would not always agree to grant the funding to make its operation capital abundant. The claim of the proposer’s side may be a wishful thought that was too optimistic.

五、不一定要列入架構,才可發揮監察作用。例如,幹事會無權以行政手段控制傳媒的編採工作,傳媒遂有權監察幹事會的工作表現。屬會享有自治,萬一遭受打壓,亦可申訴至仲裁委員會。另外,大架構的財政權在評議會,屬會則不然。至於基本會員,亦可質詢各大架構;如認為任何架構之幹事瀆職,可考慮發起公投,罷免該屆學生會或相關幹事。評議會會議則會開放予公眾人士旁聽。

Fifth, it is not a must to be a body of the SU to monitor. For instance, the Executive Committee has no power to control the editing of campus media with administrative measures, so campus media could exert their power to monitor the Executive Committee’s performance. Affiliate societies enjoy autonomy and can appeal to the Court in case they face any suppression. The Council controls the finance of the bodies but not affiliate societies. Also, SU Full Members can interrogate the administration of the bodies and consider about calling for a Referendum to remove the SU of the particular Union session or relevant Office Bearers from office if they think any Office Bearer of any SU body has committed misconduct. The public can be observers in meetings of the Council.

簡言之,大架構與屬會在學生會資源、權限、對全校負責等方面皆有分別。能力、權力愈大,責任愈大。校園電視要作為大架構之一,必先申明其職責與功能,再論證其為何必須位列五大架構之一。由此可見,提案方單以監察四大架構為由並不充份,要考慮的是成為第五大架構的條件,而校園電視與其他學生組織相比,有何過人之處或優越條件,足以有資格成為第五大架構。

In short, the bodies and affiliate societies differ in SU resources, rights, accountability to the whole university, etc. The greater the ability and rights are, the greater the responsibilities are. Campus TV must state its duties and functions and explain why it must be the fifth body first in order to become one of the bodies. It can be observed that supervising the four bodies is an unconvincing reason for the proposer’s side. The conditions to be the fifth body, i.e. the advantages overwhelming other student organizations to become the fifth body, should be considered instead.

應否以公投方式成立 Whether it should be Established by a Referendum

該次公投引起的爭議和風波,除了在於提案的內容,也在於公投本身。提案方選擇發動公投,即以公投方式修憲,成立校園電視,並列為五大架構。然而,這並非唯一選擇。而公投亦有問題如下:

The disputes caused by the Referendum did not only focus on the content of the proposal but also the Referendum per se. The proposer’s side chose to call for the Referendum, i.e. to amend the Constitution by the Referendum to establish Campus TV and list it as the fifth body. However, it is not the only choice while the Referendum has the following problems:

就十三頁修訂內容而言,當中每字每句之所以不應輕視,乃因為只要字裡行間出現任何一個文法錯誤,都足以被仲裁委員會推翻。而且,按學生會憲章第5.1條,公投一旦通過,即具有至上權威(Ultimate authority),只有後續公投才可推翻該次結果,否則無法將之修改。萬一修訂有任何錯漏,處理不慎,且通過之,後果堪虞。

Regarding the amendment of 13 pages, its every single word and sentence should not be ignored, because the entire amendment may be provoked by the Court once there is any grammatical mistake. Also, according to Article 5.1 in the SU Constitution, once a resolution is passed by a Referendum, it possesses the ultimate authority. Such resolution passed can only be revoked by a subsequent Referendum. In case the amendment with any mistake or omission is improperly handled and passed, the consequences would be severe.

而從大局來看,稍加細想,便會洞悉,該次公投,實屬綑綁式投票。所謂綑綁,不但是指公投兩個議題的方向之間的綑綁,同時也指公投方向與細節之間的綑綁。

Overall, it only takes one, after thinking a bit more, to understand that the Referendum was actually with binding, not only the binding between the directions of two issues in the Referendum, but also that between the directions and details of each issue.

先談前者。顯而易見,正如上文所述,公投乃基於提案方的修憲案,當中要旨乃成立校園電視,並列為五大架構。其將兩者並列一併提出。但問題是,支持校園電視與否,和校園電視成為第五大架構與否,並無必然關連,遑論因果關係。支持校園電視,不代表認同其作為第五大架構。兩者需要辨別,不應予以混淆以至綑綁。就此舉而言,成立校園電視與否和成為第五大架構與否兩個議題應分開投票,而不可以綑綁形式進行投票。

Discuss the former first. Obviously, as mentioned, the Referendum was based on the proposal of amendment of the Constitution by the proposer’s side, which main idea was to establish Campus TV and list it as the fifth body. The proposer’s side brought about the two issues together. But the problem is that there is no certain correlation between whether one supports Campus TV and whether Campus TV becomes the fifth body, let alone cause-and-effect relationship. To support Campus TV does not stand for agreeing that it should be the fifth body. The two needs distinguishing but should not be mixed up or even bound. Speaking of this act, one should vote separately regarding the two issues i.e. whether Campus TV shall be established and whether it shall become the fifth body, while binding should not exist in a Referendum.

再談後者。退一萬步,即使贊同公投兩大議題的方向、綱領,亦未必代表完全贊同公投當中的修憲擬案。提案方為提出修憲,修訂足足有十三頁之多。若要通過,則須對十三頁全文細節,無一字不贊成,無一句不同意。就算不盡同意,認為稍有不是之處,亦無折衷之辦法。如此看來,公投通過,則十三頁修訂便即生效,否則則全盤推倒,投票頓成零和遊戲。

Then the latter. Even though one agrees with the directions and essential points of both issues, he or she may not entirely agree with the proposed amendment of the Constitution in the Referendum. The amendment was of 13 pages. To pass, one has to agree with every single word and sentence describing the details in those 13 pages but could not compromise even he or she does not agree entirely. The Referendum became a zero-sum game: all or nothing.

還有,正如孫氏所言,修憲只作架構。提議之修訂縱使未能盡善盡美,也尚有列明人員組成、職責等詳情,惟除此以外,提案方卻無其他行動。鑑於提案方並無組成幹事名單,提案中的「校園電視」如果成立,並沒有人會上莊成為幹事,遑論下莊。提案方在其文宣雖有提到未來方針,然而並無列明確切時間之年度計劃。

Also, as Sun said, the amendment of the Constitution was intended for only the structure of the SU. Imperfect, the proposed amendment still stated the construction and duties. The proposer’s side had no other actions though. As they did not make up a list of the executive committee members, nobody would have been the executive committee members if the proposed “Campus TV” had been established, let alone those in the next Union session. In its promotion materials the proposer’s side mentioned its future guiding principles but not a year plan with exact time.

上文提到,要達到提案方的目的,並非僅「公投修憲,成立校園電視,並列為五大架構」一途。在此列出其他方案,同學且可自行比較優劣長短,孰大孰小,孰重孰輕:

It is mentioned above that to achieve the aim of the proposer’s side, amendment of the Constitution in the Referendum to set up Campus TV and list it as the fifth body is not the only way. Here some other plans are shown for you to compare the pros and cons.

方案一:大會(General Meeting)修憲。這種方式顯得更有彈性,提供足夠討論空間,亦可予會眾向提案人公開對質的時間;既容許修訂,又可以任命同學上莊,組成幹事。不久前的仲裁委員會常規化,正是經過大會修憲。

Plan A: propose amendments of the Constitution in a General Meeting (GM). This plan is more flexible as room for discussion and time for audience to consult the proposer are provided. Not only can it allow amendments of the Constitution, but also nominate students to be the executive members. The building of the permanency of the Court was fulfilled by the amendment of the SU Constitution in the GM not a long time ago.

方案二:先成立校園電視,成為屬會,運行一段時間以後再決定是否需要成為第五大架構。上文提到的校園電臺可作參考,不贅。

Plan B: set up Campus TV as an affiliate society and then decide whether it is necessary to become the fifth body after some time. The aforementioned Radio can be of reference.

方案三:先成立校園電視,作為完全獨立於學生會以外的組織,再以公投、大會等方式決定地位。科大行動即為獨立組織一例。雖然科大行動以屬會為目標,無意列入架構,不過科大行動目標明確之餘,先舉辦不同活動,展示自己的定位,按部就班,仍值得仿傚。

Plan C: set up Campus TV as an independent organization not affiliated with the SU, the status of which is then determined by Referendum, GMs, etc. For instance, although USTProgress aims to be an affiliate society and does not intend to become a SU’s body, it is worth following that USTProgress has organized activities to show its position, step by step with its clear aims.

檢討 Reflections

是次公投的提案人並非學生組織幹事,欠缺經驗及物資。如此條件之下,仍能於短時間內以數人之力推動公投,實非易事,其超群毅力,令人刮目相看。不過,是其是,非其非,是次投票確有不少地方值得改善,有待檢討。不論是下次公投發起人,或是其他學生組織幹事,或許能從中汲取經驗。

As the proposer, not an executive committee member of any student organizations, lacked experience and materials, it was not easy for him to call for a Referendum with his several peers in such a short time. His preeminent willpower was worth increased respect. However, speaking fairly, the Referendum had many points to improve and reflect. One may learn from the experience no matter he or she is the initiator of the following Referendum or the executive committee members of other student organizations.

1. 公眾諮詢不足 Insufficient Consultation
構思中的「校園電視」只舉辦了一次公開的「諮詢及招莊會」,日期為四月十五日。而宣傳海報已經列明「承擔及抱負」,顯示此次聚會並非廣邀有志者以討論方式,訂立理想中「校園電視」的路向和職責;而是提案人一開始已經訂下框架和目標,「招莊」是招募認同他理念的同學,加入陣線。此舉雖不至理想,但總算面對群眾,有商有量。不過,是次「諮詢及招莊會」中,有不少同學均表示對孫氏方案有所保留,並論述之。但提案一方於半個月內即提案十三頁紙的憲章修正案,並要求付諸公投,就實在不足了。雖道足夠與否因人而異,但理應以成立屬會甚至上莊的規格作參考。一般對全科大會員負責的大莊,內閣人數有廿人之多;縱有具備行之已久的運作模式作參考,本屆幹事仍需約三個星期作宣傳,當中包括兩場公眾論壇,合共十四小時;另設全民大會供會員發問,以進一步了解政綱。而「校園電視」方案無論前學生會幹事、電台幹事及其他會員,均有申明其憂慮,但提案人未有回應即以半月之時就推之公投,難免予人諮詢不足的感覺。

The “Campus TV” during proposing held only one open “meeting of consultation and recruitment of executive committee members” on 15th April. As the poster listed “Responsibilities and Ambition”, it was shown that the meeting was not to invite those interested to discuss and decide the directions and duties of an ideal “Campus TV”. Instead, the proposer set frameworks and aims in the beginning already and would like to recruit those who agreed with his ideas. Although it was not ideal, it still allowed discussion with the public. Still, a lot of students showed reservation towards Sun’s plan with arguments in that “meeting”. Also, the proposer’s side proposed an amendment of the Constitution of 13 pages and called for a Referendum regarding that within half a month, which was insufficient. Although whether it was sufficient or not depends on people’s minds, but the requirements for establishing an affiliate society and even those of becoming an executive committee should be referred. Generally, there are more than 20 members in each executive committee accountable to all members in UST. With the operation pattern running for a long time as their reference, the executive committee members still needed about three weeks for promotion including two election forums for the public of totally 14 hours. A GM was held for members to consult to learn about the policies further. The Ex-Chairperson of the Council, executive committee members of the Radio and other members stated their worries about the “Campus TV” plan, but the proposer called for a Referendum without responses, making one feel as if consultation was insufficient.

2. 主見過強 Sticking to Their Opinion
提案人曾多次與學生會各架構幹事及評議員面談,諮詢學生會各架構意見。各人不謀而合地多番申述上文流弊,包括「校園電視」定位問題、公投方式等,但無絲毫果效,提案人依然重覆表示不明白學生會成員顧慮。有評議員曾一星期內多次與提案方會面,多角度論證相關問題,但不論問題是甚麼,提案方均以同一答案回覆,只重申校園電視非為架構不可。其他幹事及評議員亦遇到類近問題,有感「諮詢」作用有限。

The proposer talked to the Office Bearers of every SU’s body and Councilors, asking all the bodies about opinions. They coincidently stated the above shortcomings for several times, including the position of “Campus TV”, the way of the Referendum, etc., making no effort at all that the proposer still repeatedly said that he did not understand the worries, though. A Councilor met the proposer’s side for several times within a week to explain relevant problems from various perspectives, while the proposer’s responded with the same answer, no matter what the question was, and reaffirmed that Campus TV must be nothing but a body. Other executive committee members and Councilors had similar problems, feeling that “consultation” could not do much.

3. 宣傳失焦 Out-of-focus Promotion
正如上段提及,提案人面對人力物力不足,宣傳工作確有難度,但論述工作理應不受成本所限。可是,提案一方的論述工作本身失焦,未能針對質疑一方的問題加以解答,如鮮有解釋為何「校園電視」需作第五大架構,亦未有回應為何要以公投方式成立「校園電視」。文宣工作一味宣傳「校園電視」成立後有何節目,側重論證成立後的好處,卻忘卻最根本一點又最致命一點──正如提案一方的解說,他們只是提出修憲,沒有覆行幹事職責的義務。萬一選民拿着單張,以為通過了就可享用如斯多的節目時,提案一方卻無需負任何責任。失焦的宣傳,非但未能解決公投的爭議,更有可能衍生更大的問題。

As mentioned in last paragraph, the proposer did have difficulties in promotion without enough manpower and materials, but persuasion should not be limited to the cost. But the persuasion, out of focus, could not be specific to and answer the questions raised by those who questioned: why “Campus TV” needed to be the fifth body was seldom explained; why a Referendum was used to establish “Campus TV” was not answered. The materials only promoted the programmes after the establishment of “Campus TV” and focused on the advantages, ignoring the most basic and the most fatal point – the proposer’s side, as they explained, only called for the amendment but did not fulfill duties of executive committee members. Voters might think that they could enjoy programmes as many as mentioned in the leaflet, while the proposer’s side needed not bear any responsibility. Not only did the out-of-focus promotion fail to solve the disputes in the Referendum, but also probably raise greater problems.

4. 不當方式收集簽名 An Improper Way to Collect Signatures
要知道修訂條文本身長逾十三頁紙,收集基本會員簽名時,唯有另備頁數供人簽署。收集簽名者,理應告訴聯署者文件性質;當然,簽署人亦應先了解文件性質再行簽署。可是,部分提案人員未有說明清楚用途,有會員向筆者表示,一位收集者只問他是否支持校園電視,參與聯署時並不知道是公投連署書,而非一般請願文件,更不知道此舉涉及修憲。

The amendment was 13 pages long. Extra pages were provided for Full members to sign. The ones who collected signatures should have told the cosigners the property of the document while the signers should have also known its property before signing indeed, but some did not explain the use clearly. A Full Member said that a collector only asked if he supported Campus TV, not knowing that document was the cosignatory document for a Referendum but not simply a general document for petitions. He did not even know that it would be related to any amendment of the Constitution.

5. 公投日佈置違規 Illegal Decorations on the Days of the Referendum
明白提案一方需要宣傳公投,卻身無學會幹事之權,無法預約宣傳位置,只能權宜行事。但提案一方當日卻完全無視慣例,包括於需要預約的地方懸掛公投Banner,貼上超大地紙,更懸掛毫不相關的法國國旗。本會有成員向提案人孫氏申明此乃違規佈置,萬一其他屬會見狀效法,即難以處理。孫氏卻表示只會待校方人員出手阻止才會收拾。最後,有同學向校方投訴,校方人員對法國國旗尤其敏感,多番詢問其用意。孫氏則表示:「有些法國人挺欣賞我,所以才送我一面法國國旗而已。」

It is understood that the proposer’s side needed to promote the Referendum, without rights of executive committee members of societies, could not book for promotion locations and thus used expedients. But the proposer’s side defied usual practice that they held a banner about the Referendum at places which need booking, stuck super-size paper on the floor, and even held an irrelevant French national flag. Our members stated to Sun, the proposer, that they were illegal decorations and if would have been hard to handle once other affiliate societies had followed. Sun claimed that he would clear all these only when the University staff stopped him. At last, the University received complaints. Its staff was especially sensitive to the flag and asked his intention for several times. “Some French admired me quite much, so they just gave me a French national flag.” said Sun.

6. 文宣傳意能力 Communicability of the Promotion Materials
有待改進。(可參考P.16《討伐書》)
It could improve.

結語 Conclusion

科大的改變,有賴各位科大人推動。夢想,從來都不遠,只是問題總在細節裏。望有志成立校園電視的新生,抱着「振翅高飛」的志氣,參考前人的經驗,能夠想多一點,做多一步,將夢想化為現實。

Dreams are never far away. Something wrong always exists in details, though. “The sky’s the limit.” We hope that if you freshmen are determined to establish a campus television, be brave to fly high. Meanwhile, refer to the previous experience, manage to think more and do more, and make the dream come true.

參考資料:《討伐書》
- 這不是妄想逼害症,這是超夢夢之反擊﹗
與其訴諸眾群,不如相信愛情。
與其抹黑,不如留白。
我們渴求的是大眾娛樂、
我們渴求的是新聞資訊、
我們要“u-life”,不是要“喊出黎。
我們要校園電視台,還我們一個電視夢﹗
不回過去、不等將來,而是現在﹗

正如“六四” 的是記實片段,而不是官腔文字。
正如王維基,我們要的是選擇新聲音,而不是預設混濁學術文化。
正如“春哥”“雞姐” “迫爆神”,我們要有圖有真相,有片金像獎。
正如立法會看 “長毛”“毓民”,激動啟示衡擊民意來自影音傳媒。
五月十五,全民公投,還你一個電視夢。

受夠公權私授、受夠黑箱作業、受夠信口開河、受夠斷章取義、受夠壟斷花生、受夠皇者自居、
受夠校董無視、受夠制度制肘、受夠自己是少數被忽略的人、
學生代表的無能 為力,讓我們自己發聲﹗
大學的乾燥 冷感,讓我們自己打破常規,開啟新時代﹗
滾他的卓越,滾他的愛學生主義,大學玩樂找回快樂。
科大同學﹗人是你選的嗎﹖
科大同學﹗現況是你想的嗎﹗

科大人動起來﹗就是改變—我們要的現在是事實的全部。科大秘密,電視曝光﹗科大告白,影音傳播﹗科大精神,科大人來承傳﹗
學生授權、同學共治。全民公投,電視發牌別再拖。正義不怕抹黑、真相不再留白。

某年某月某日,我在Atrium 大電視看到女神的熟悉面孔,在Canteen 收到BBC 英女皇的News、在商學院看文藝片、在LC 與環球學生相知、在24 小的節目時便利店收看王維基、在手機追擊President 的外遇、在Hall 拍攝玻璃之城、在動新聞又見蘋果抄我橋……

走在最前,不是亞洲第 而是開心快樂足矣。

Campus TV,由你渣機﹗
Television, you direct your vision!
科大王維基,你都可以是﹗
Referendum, on May 15th,

Now is the time!

沒有留言:

發佈留言