26 Mar 2024獨媒#3250
CUHK removes University Community News racks and copies, saying publication is not university-recognised
前身為《中大學生報》的《大學社區報》上周二（19 日）在中大校園內的所有報架，以及已上架刊物在未被通知情況下被校方收走，該報成員即時阻撓不果。《社區報》今午（26日）發文，指校方接獲有人投訴該報刊物內容「不盡不實」，且未經授權在校園擺放刊物，惟校方並未就「不盡不實」的指控說明具體理由。目前校方已交還被收走的刊物，報架則暫由聯書院學生會代為保管。
中大回覆《獨媒》查詢時表示，《社區報》不屬於中大的刊物，沒有得到大學的認可，也沒有獲得大學的任何資助或支持。校方續稱，有責任維護良好且安全的校園環境，如果發現在校園範圍存在任何未經許可的物品或刊物，校方將立即採取措施處理。
All newspaper racks for University Community News, formerly known as the CUHK Student Press, on the Chinese University of Hong Kong campus last Tuesday (19th), along with copies already placed on them, were removed by the university without prior notice. Members of the publication unsuccessfully attempted to obstruct the removal. In a statement issued this afternoon (26th), University Community News said the university had received a complaint that the publication’s content was “not entirely truthful” and that it had placed copies on campus without authorisation. The university did not give specific reasons for the allegation that the content was “not entirely truthful”. The university has now returned the copies, while the newspaper racks are temporarily being held by the United College Student Union.
In response to an inquiry from Independent Media, CUHK said University Community News was not a CUHK publication, had not been recognised by the university, and had not received any funding or support from it. The university added that it had a responsibility to maintain a good and safe campus environment, and that it would immediately take measures if it found any unauthorised items or publications within the campus.
22 Mar 2024大學線#3227
University editorial board Struggling to Survive: Who Is Still Willing to Keep the Light Burning?
自2021年起，香港多間大學相繼與學生會劃清界線，作爲學生會架構內的編輯委員會亦被逼另覓出路。面對會址被收回、與學生會脫鈎後的失去資金等問題，有人選擇繼續執筆書寫，在殘存空間裏拼命記錄時代；亦有人認為編委會終究抵不住時勢的考驗，難以前行。
Since 2021, a number of Hong Kong universities have successively severed ties with student unions, forcing editorial committees within the student-union structure to seek alternatives. Faced with the repossession of their premises and the loss of funding after breaking away from student unions, some have chosen to continue writing and desperately documenting the times within the remaining space; others believe editorial board will ultimately be unable to withstand the test of the times and will struggle to move forward.
22 Mar 2024明報#3228
University Community Press racks removed and print distribution suspended; CUHK says it is not an authorised publication
【明報專訊】1969年創辦的中大校園媒體《中大學生報》，因學生會解散，前年改名《大學社區報》，周二（19日）在Instagram宣布暫停供應所有實體刊物至另行通知，附圖顯示校內擺放刊物的報架被移除。中大昨日回覆，《大學社區報》不屬中大刊物，無獲大學認可、資助或支持，在校園範圍內未經許可地擺放物品或刊物屬違反校規，所有未經授權的物品或刊物，校方將立即採取措施處理。
中大又強調，校方有責任維護良好安全的校園環境。至於本報查詢立法會日前通過《基本法》23條立法、校方移除刊物是否立法後的風險管理措施，校方無回覆。
The Chinese University of Hong Kong student publication The Chinese University Student Press, founded in 1969, was renamed University Community Press two years ago following the dissolution of the Student Union. On Tuesday (19th), it announced on Instagram that the supply of all physical publications would be suspended until further notice. An accompanying image showed the racks for publications on campus had been removed. CUHK said yesterday that University Community Press was not a CUHK publication and had not been recognised, funded or supported by the university. It said placing items or publications on campus without permission violated university regulations, and that it would take immediate action regarding all unauthorised items or publications.
CUHK also stressed that it had a responsibility to maintain a good and safe campus environment. The university did not respond when asked whether the removal of the publication was a risk-management measure following the passage by the Legislative Council days earlier of the legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law.
17 Mar 2024獨媒#3195
BBC Report on LegCo Occupation Case Says It Led to National Security Law and Made It Easier to Prosecute Protesters; Hong Kong Government: False Allegations and Defamation
七一佔立會案昨日判刑，英國廣播公司（BBC）在報道判刑結果時，提及該日示威導致《香港國安法》的出現，令港府更容易檢控示威者，並削弱特區自治權。港府晚上發聲明，斥報道以虛假指控抹黑特區維護國家安全法律，令人對該法產生負面印象。
特區政府發言人形容，該篇有關2019年「黑暴」示威者被判囚的報道以虛假指控詆毀《國安法》削弱香港的自治權，又企圖轉移焦點，令人誤以為《國安法》立法目的是為『更容易檢控示威者』。發言人指，《國安法》制定目的是為堅定不移並全面準確貫徹『一國兩制』、『港人治港』、高度自治的方針。
The July 1 Legislative Council occupation case was sentenced yesterday. In reporting the sentencing results, the BBC said that the protests on that day led to the emergence of the Hong Kong National Security Law, making it easier for the Hong Kong government to prosecute protesters and weakening the autonomy of the HKSAR. The government issued a statement in the evening, condemning the report for using false allegations to smear the law safeguarding national security in the HKSAR and create a negative impression of the law.
A spokesperson for the HKSAR Government said the report on the imprisonment of the 2019 “black violence” protesters used false allegations to defame the National Security Law and weaken Hong Kong’s autonomy. The spokesperson said it also attempted to divert attention, creating the mistaken impression that the purpose of enacting the National Security Law was to “make it easier to prosecute protesters”. The spokesperson said the purpose of enacting the National Security Law was to steadfastly and fully and accurately implement the policies of “one country, two systems”, “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong” and a high degree of autonomy.
14 Mar 2024獨媒#3176
【Article 23 Legislation】Chris Tang Names and Criticises Ming Pao for Misleading Report, Says Malicious Headline Caused “Unnecessary Concern” Among Public
在審議《維護國家安全條例草案》的尾聲，保安局局長鄧炳強斥責《明報》今日刊登的一篇報導誤導、標題惡毒，必須強烈譴責。他批評報導令公眾誤以為《條例草案》加強管理傳媒，以及誤會犯罪者將被移交內地。雖然《明報》已在網上作出更正和道歉，不過鄧炳強稱「傷害已經造成」，並指事件「再一次」嚴重打擊《明報》的公信力。
As deliberation on the Safeguarding National Security Bill neared its conclusion, Secretary for Security Chris Tang condemned a report published by Ming Pao today as misleading, and its headline as malicious, saying it must be strongly condemned. He criticised the report for leading the public to believe that the Bill would tighten regulation of the media, and to misunderstand that offenders would be transferred to the mainland. Although Ming Pao had issued a correction and apology online, Tang said that “the damage has already been done” and said the incident had “once again” seriously damaged Ming Pao’s credibility.
12 Mar 2024yahoo#3161
Article 23 · the Response and Rebuttal Team｜Hong Kong government condemns three foreign media outlets in one week; Bloomberg and FT publish fresh criticism today
立法會正在審議的 23 條立法，引起國際媒體關注。香港政府近日積極「反駁」外界輿論，僅僅一周內已經譴責了三間國際媒體的報道或評論，包括是彭博社、《華盛頓郵報》及《泰晤士報》。另一邊廂，彭博社及 《金融時報》今日分別再發表評論文章，批評 23 條立法條文空泛，外國企業無所適從等，暫未知港府會否再反駁
The Article 23 legislation currently being examined by the Legislative Council has drawn international media attention. The Hong Kong government has recently been actively rebutting outside commentary, condemning reports or commentaries by three international media outlets within just one week, including Bloomberg, The Washington Post and The Times. Meanwhile, Bloomberg and the Financial Times each published another commentary article today, criticising the Article 23 provisions as vague and saying that foreign companies are at a loss over how to respond. It is not yet known whether the Hong Kong government will issue another rebuttal.
6 Mar 2024明報#3111
Article 23 legislation | Government condemns Bloomberg over erroneous report of Telegram and Signal ban; Bloomberg admits error and corrects it
《彭博》發言人今晚回應本報，指公司今日刊出兩則標題，誤將公眾的意見當作港府就《基本法》23條的建議，指有關標題是錯誤發布，已在首次發布後10分鐘內更正。
特區政府向立法會提交《基本法》23條立法的諮詢結果詳情，載列不少諮詢期間收到的「其他意見」，例如有人建議「將Facebook、YouTube等網站撤出香港市場」，亦有人提出禁止通訊軟件Telegram及Signal在港運作。彭博一度以「香港23條立法建議倡禁Telegram」為報道標題。政府傍晚發新聞稿，向彭博表達強烈不滿和譴責，並嚴正聲明特區政府並無建議禁止任何社交媒體、影片分享平台或串流平台在香港運作。
A Bloomberg spokesperson told this newspaper tonight that the company had published two headlines today that mistakenly presented members of the public’s views as proposals by the Hong Kong government on Article 23 of the Basic Law. The spokesperson said the headlines were incorrectly published and had been corrected within 10 minutes of their initial publication.
The HKSAR Government submitted details of the results of the consultation on legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law to the Legislative Council. The document listed a number of “other views” received during the consultation, including suggestions that “websites such as Facebook and YouTube be withdrawn from the Hong Kong market”, as well as a proposal to ban the messaging applications Telegram and Signal from operating in Hong Kong. Bloomberg at one point used the headline “Hong Kong Article 23 legislation proposals advocate banning Telegram”. The Government issued a press release in the evening expressing strong dissatisfaction with and condemning Bloomberg, and solemnly stated that it had not proposed banning any social media, video-sharing or streaming platform from operating in Hong Kong.
29 Feb 2024獨媒#3071
HKJA Pays HK$190,000 in Tax Before Deadline, Considers Legal Action
香港記者協會今年一月表示收到稅務局通知，追收2017/18年度45萬利得稅。記協昨日向會員發信，指已委託專業人士反對評稅，惟局方只答應無條件暫緩繳付其中15萬元，餘下30萬元分兩期要求記協繳付。記協稱已於昨日限期前繳付第一期19萬稅款，餘下11萬則以儲稅券形式預變，最終稅項仍待與局方交涉，並稱考慮循法律途徑解決稅務爭議。
The Hong Kong Journalists Association said in January that it had received a notice from the Inland Revenue Department seeking HK$450,000 in profits tax for the 2017/18 year of assessment. In a letter to members yesterday, the association said it had engaged professionals to object to the assessment, but the department had agreed only to unconditionally defer payment of HK$150,000. It required the remaining HK$300,000 to be paid in two instalments. The association said it paid the first instalment of HK$190,000 before yesterday’s deadline and prepaid the remaining HK$110,000 in the form of a tax reserve certificate. The final tax amount remains subject to negotiations with the department, and the association said it was considering resolving the tax dispute through legal means.
28 Feb 2024光傳媒#3063
‘The China Project’ interviews Lee Lap-fung on Article 23 legislation: journalists more concerned about ‘sedition offence’ and ‘fake news law’; watchdog role already in a grey area
中文大學新聞與傳播學院教授李立峯早前接受The China Project（「中國專案」）專訪，談《基本法》第23條對香港媒體的影響，認為記者更擔憂「煽動罪」和「假新聞法」，亦難以完全遠離灰色地帶，甚至要進入灰色地帶。當提及媒體的自我審查問題時，他指出這是基於道德的自我審查，若消息來源仍身處在威權國家，就必須視之為「弱勢群體」，甚至不得不緩和他們對政府的批評或讓他們在發布前閱讀報道文章，以保護消息來源或被訪者。
Lee Lap-fung, a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, recently spoke to The China Project about the impact of Article 23 of the Basic Law on Hong Kong’s media. He said journalists were more concerned about the ‘sedition offence’ and ‘fake news law’, and would find it difficult to stay completely out of grey areas, or might even have to enter them. On media self-censorship, he said this was ethical self-censorship: if sources remained in authoritarian countries, they had to be regarded as vulnerable groups, and journalists might even have to soften their criticism of the government or allow sources to read articles before publication in order to protect the sources or interviewees.
25 Feb 2024Channel C#3035
Article 23｜News federation says legislation will not harm press freedom, condemns HKJA for confusing the public and creating panic
《基本法》23條立法諮詢周三（28日）結束，香港記者協會（記協）昨日向保安局提交意見書，表示立法框架對新聞工作造成深遠影響，並提出多點疑慮。香港新聞工作者聯會（新聞聯）其後發聲明回應事件，表示立法無損新聞自由，又批評記協有關言論嚴重歪曲事實，意圖混淆視聽，製造恐慌，認為完全無法代表香港新聞界意見。聲明中亦提及《蘋果日報》作例子，形容立法是防止如《蘋果日報》一樣，「打著傳媒的幌子危害國家安全」的行為再次出現。
The consultation on legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law ended on Wednesday (28th). The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) submitted its views to the Security Bureau yesterday, saying the legislative framework would have a far-reaching impact on journalistic work and raising several concerns. The Hong Kong Federation of Journalists subsequently issued a statement in response, saying the legislation would not harm press freedom. It also criticised the HKJA’s remarks as seriously distorting the facts, intending to confuse the public and create panic, and said the association could not represent the views of Hong Kong’s journalism sector at all. The statement also cited Apple Daily as an example, describing the legislation as preventing a recurrence of conduct like that of Apple Daily, which it said had used the guise of the media to endanger national security.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
