22 May 2025獨媒#6813
Hong Kong Peanut Online Platform and Hosts Questioned Over Targeted Tax Probe
記協昨日舉行記者會，指稅務局向至少8個媒體及機構，共20名人士追查稅項，合計款項逾170萬。網台《香港花生》昨晚的節目中，主持之一陶君行透露，他個人及其公司、《香港花生》及該網台幾乎所有主持，包括黃浩銘及周嘉發等，皆接獲類似「查稅」要求，每宗涉及金額達數萬元，認為納入「查稅」的對象有針對性。
The Hong Kong Journalists Association held a press conference yesterday, saying the Inland Revenue Department was pursuing tax matters involving at least eight media outlets and organisations and 20 people, with the total amount exceeding $1.7 million. On last night’s programme of the Hong Kong Peanut online platform, one of its hosts, Andrew Kwan Hang To, disclosed that he personally, his company, Hong Kong Peanut and almost all of the platform’s hosts, including Wong Ho-ming and Dickson Chau, had received similar requests for a “tax investigation”. Each case involved an amount of tens of thousands of dollars, and he believed there was a targeted element to those selected for the “tax investigation”.
22 May 2025獨媒#6817
Ombudsman’s Office says new access procedure is “operating smoothly”
申訴專員公署日前被傳媒揭發，刪除網站上2023年4月前所有調查報告，以及移除《公開資料守則》欄目，做法引起譁然。公署周二（5月20日）起實施新查閱程序，公眾查閱過往的資料需作申請。今日公署發帖稱查閱公署資料程序「運作暢順」，稱已處理首批申請，「仲安排申請人最快喺下星期一上嚟公署查閱資料。」
The Office of The Ombudsman was recently reported by the media to have deleted all investigation reports dated before April 2023 from its website and removed the section on the Code on Access to Information, prompting an outcry. A new procedure for accessing past information took effect on Tuesday (20 May), requiring members of the public to apply to inspect the information. Today, the Office posted that the procedure for accessing its information was “operating smoothly” and said it had processed the first batch of applications, “and arranged for applicants to come to the Office to inspect the information as early as next Monday.”
22 May 2025集誌社#6820
Keeta strike | Third walkout this month: about 300 riders in Central stop work for the day; Keeta says meetings held
戶戶送上月撤出香港，一批 Keeta 車手不滿報酬被削，本月先後在荃灣、九龍城區罷工，今天輪到中環、紅磡區「第三罷」。
「我是外賣員，不是無人機」、「爭取公平合理工資」、「停止危險搶單模式，確保道路工作安全」。中午和傍晚時分，中環區多名 Keeta 外賣員車手，在電單車車頭貼上標語，在區內游走，又籲其他外賣員加入罷工，估計有 300 至 400 人參加。外賣員不滿平台降低單價、縮短接單時間，並推行搶單制度，危及車手安全，促 Keeta 確保公平單價收入及取消搶單制度。有外賣員表示，近月單價由 50 元減至 30 多元，收入大減超過三成，雖失去全日收入仍罷工，他明言「Keeta 要知道，我們不是在爭取錯的東西」。
Keeta 回覆，送遞員每張訂單的收入為多項組合而成，僅單價並未反映真正收入；又指送遞員是重要合作夥伴，Keeta 致力提供自由上線、彈性工作、賺取額外收入的機會，亦一直設有溝通機制，上周及本周均舉辦送遞員交流會了解意見。車手則批評 Keeta 上周曾邀代表對話，但要求事先出示身分證故拒絕出席。
After Deliveroo withdrew from Hong Kong last month, a group of Keeta riders dissatisfied with cuts to their pay went on strike in Tsuen Wan and Kowloon City earlier this month. Today, riders in Central and Hung Hom staged the third walkout.
“I am a delivery worker, not a drone,” “Demand fair and reasonable wages,” and “Stop the dangerous order-grabbing system and ensure road safety for workers.” Around noon and in the evening, several Keeta delivery riders in Central put slogans on the fronts of their motorcycles, rode around the district and called on other delivery workers to join the strike. An estimated 300 to 400 people took part. The riders were unhappy that the platform had lowered per-order rates, shortened the time for accepting orders and introduced an order-grabbing system that endangered their safety. They urged Keeta to ensure fair per-order earnings and abolish the order-grabbing system. One delivery worker said the per-order rate had fallen from HK$50 to the low HK$30s in recent months, cutting his income by more than 30%. Although he would lose a full day’s income, he still went on strike, saying: “Keeta needs to know that we are not fighting for the wrong thing.”
Keeta said a delivery worker’s income from each order was made up of multiple components, and the per-order rate alone did not reflect the actual income. It said delivery workers were important partners, and that Keeta was committed to providing opportunities to log on freely, work flexibly and earn additional income. It also said a communication mechanism had always been in place, and that meetings with delivery workers had been held last week and this week to understand their views. The riders, however, criticised Keeta for inviting representatives to talks last week while requiring them to present identity cards in advance, which led them to refuse to attend.
21 May 2025獨媒#6810
Hometown market to run across June 4 for third consecutive year; Victoria Park also booked around July 1
近年維園燭光晚會「消失」，取而代之的是「家鄉市集嘉年華」。今年亦不例外，香港廣東社團總會及多個同鄉社團宣布，「第三屆家鄉市集」將在6月1日至5日舉行，近300個攤位會展銷各省市的特色產品。
康文署回覆《獨媒》查詢時確認，署方接獲團體申請於5月26日至6月8日期間，使用維園的硬地足球場、中央草坪及籃球場舉辦公眾活動，預計十多萬人參加；另外，有另一團體申請於6月23日至7月5日期間，使用維園硬地足球場及籃球場舉辦慶祝香港特區成立28周年活動，預計參加人數約八萬。
In recent years, the Victoria Park candlelight vigil has “disappeared”, replaced by the “Hometown Market Carnival”. This year is no exception: the Federation of Hong Kong Guangdong Community Organisations and several hometown associations have announced that the “Third Hometown Market” will be held from June 1 to 5, with nearly 300 stalls selling specialty products from different provinces and cities.
The Leisure and Cultural Services Department confirmed in response to an inquiry from The Initium that it had received an application from an organisation to use Victoria Park’s hard-surface soccer pitches, central lawn and basketball courts for public activities from May 26 to June 8, with attendance expected to exceed 100,000. Separately, another organisation had applied to use the park’s hard-surface soccer pitches and basketball courts from June 23 to July 5 for activities celebrating the 28th anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, with approximately 80,000 participants expected.
21 May 2025集誌社#6811
Media subjected to tax investigations | 8 media organisations, 20 journalists and family members investigated; one person’s annual salary assessed at twice its actual amount and a fictitious business registration assigned
計去年多名記者被滋擾後，再有記者被稅務局追收多年前稅款。記協今（21日）召開記者會，表示至少八個媒體平台或機構，包括記協、《獨立媒體》、《法庭線》等，及至少 20 名新聞工作者及其家人，被稅務局審查及追收早至七年前的稅款，涉款數十萬元。當中有人被估算短報的收入比薪金多近兩倍、被安插不存在的商業登記、銀行所有入帳均被當收入等。
記協主席鄭嘉如批評，稅務局的評核無任何證據和合理理由，屬「未審先罰」。她指新聞記者收入微薄，卻要付高額稅款，花時間、金錢自證清白，影響機構運作，構成相當大壓力，對新聞自由和記者誠信有負面影響。她強調，「合理有據嘅調查，大家會配合接受，但如果而家話唔係用呢啲嚟做工具打壓媒體，有冇人信呢？」稅務局拒披露受查個案資料，僅稱受查人士行業或背景不會影響查核工作。
Following the harassment of several journalists last year, more journalists have been pursued by the Inland Revenue Department for taxes dating back several years. The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) said at a press conference today (21st) that at least eight media platforms or organisations, including the HKJA, InMedia and The Witness, as well as at least 20 journalists and their family members, had been audited by the Inland Revenue Department and pursued for taxes dating back as far as seven years, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. In some cases, income allegedly underreported was assessed at nearly twice the person’s salary, a non-existent business registration was assigned to them, and all deposits into their bank accounts were treated as income.
HKJA chairperson Cheng Ka-yu criticised the Inland Revenue Department’s assessments as having no evidence or reasonable basis, describing them as “punishment before trial”. She said journalists had low incomes but were required to pay high taxes, while spending time and money to prove their innocence. This affected the operation of media organisations, created considerable pressure, and negatively affected press freedom and journalists’ integrity. She stressed: “Everyone would cooperate with and accept an investigation that is reasonable and evidence-based, but if they now say these are not being used as a tool to suppress the media, would anyone believe them?” The Inland Revenue Department refused to disclose details of the cases under investigation, saying only that the occupations or backgrounds of those being investigated would not affect its audit work.
20 May 2025集誌社#6804
Ombudsman deletes public information｜“Public information” becomes “Access”; three-page policy replaced by six-line procedure, with no mention of the Code or review
申訴專員公署網站刪除 2023 年前調查報告等資料，以及所有《公開資料守則》個案，日前公布市民可填表查閱資料。網站原有「公開資料」一欄昨更新為「查閱公署資料」，原來 3 頁紙的《公開資料的政策》亦被約 180 字的《查閱公署資料程序》所取代。新程序不再表明按《公開資料守則》處理資料索取，也沒提及原有的覆檢機制。
申訴專員陳積志今早回應有線新聞指，網站刪資料是從市民便利角度出發，「始終電腦系統你放太多資料速度一定會慢了」，未有交代公眾能否取副本或複印。行政長官李家超回應事件稱公署是獨立運作，「政府不會參與」，又指相信公署會盡責「處理好社會意見」。
The Ombudsman’s Office website has deleted investigation reports from before 2023 and all cases concerning the Code on Access to Information. It recently announced that members of the public could fill in a form to access information. The website’s original “Public Information” section was updated yesterday to “Access Ombudsman’s Office Information”. The original three-page “Policy on Access to Information” was also replaced by an approximately 180-character “Procedure for Accessing Ombudsman’s Office Information”. The new procedure no longer states that requests for information are handled under the Code on Access to Information, and does not mention the original review mechanism.
OmbudsmanJack Jick Chi Chan told i-Cable News this morning that the deletion of information from the website was intended to make things more convenient for the public: “After all, if you put too much information into a computer system, its speed will definitely slow down.” The office did not explain whether members of the public could obtain copies or photocopies. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu said the office operated independently and “the Government will not participate”, adding that he believed the office would responsibly “properly handle public opinion”.
19 May 2025Yahoo#6802
Ban on Students Speaking Cantonese? St. Hilary Primary School Uses English and Putonghua in Class; School Says There Is No Penalty for Speaking Cantonese and No Restrictions After School
政府力推「普教中」多年，不少私校均以英普教學作招徠。德萃學校幼稚園部及小學部總校長朱子穎早前接受抖音自媒體訪問時大談小學部的課程設計，期間提到該校「有個好得意嘅政策」，學生之間「唔准講廣東話」，只能以英語和普通話溝通，此番言論被轉載至其他社交媒體後引發熱議。《Yahoo新聞》記者則向朱子穎及校方查詢，未有回覆；記者另以家長身份向校方招生辦公室查詢，對方解釋稱因該校大部份老師的母語為普通話及英語，強調學生用廣東話不會受罰。
The government has promoted Putonghua-medium teaching for years, while many private schools have attracted students by offering teaching in English and Putonghua. Tsz Wing Chu, head of the kindergarten and primary divisions of St. Hilary School, recently discussed the primary school’s curriculum design in an interview with a Douyin self-media outlet. During the interview, Tsz Wing Chu mentioned that the school had “a very interesting policy”: students were “not allowed to speak Cantonese” with one another and could communicate only in English and Putonghua. The remarks were reposted on other social media platforms and sparked heated discussion. A Yahoo News reporter contacted Tsz Wing Chu and the school for an inquiry but received no response. The reporter also contacted the school’s admissions office posing as a parent, and was told that most of the school’s teachers had Putonghua or English as their mother tongue. The school stressed that students would not be punished for speaking Cantonese.
17 May 2025獨媒#6800
International Day Against Homophobia: Groups Hold Gender Diversity Event in Causeway Bay
今日（5月17日）是國際不再恐同日，去年香港同志組織「大同」（Gay Harmony）iSQUARE舉辦同志驕傲月市集，惟食環署指未獲臨時公眾場所牌或娛樂場所牌照，最終活動取消告吹。事隔一年，「大同」今日聯同多個性別多元組織，在銅鑼灣東角道及紀利佐治街一帶設攤位及展覽，冀大眾關注性別多元議題。「大同」創辦人Francis表示，今次活動向地政總署申請並獲批，去年活動遭取消「都係衰自己唔夠敏感」，他們6月會到荃灣南豐紗廠舉辦活動，正向食環署申請牌照。
Today (May 17) is the International Day Against Homophobia. Last year, Hong Kong LGBTQ organisation “Gay Harmony” held a Pride Month market at iSQUARE, but the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department said it had not obtained a temporary public place licence or a place of public entertainment licence, and the event was ultimately cancelled. A year later, “Gay Harmony” today joined forces with several gender diversity organisations to set up stalls and exhibitions around East Point Road and George Street in Causeway Bay, hoping to raise public awareness of gender diversity issues. Francis, the founder of “Gay Harmony”, said the group had applied to and received approval from the Lands Department for this event. He said last year’s cancellation was “also because we ourselves were not sensitive enough”. The group will hold an event at The Mills in Tsuen Wan in June and is applying to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department for a licence.
17 May 2025明報#6801
Old Reports Taken Offline; Ombudsman Says They Were “Not Deleted” but Gives No Details of Request Procedure
申訴專員公署下架2023年前的調查報告及新聞稿等，並移除「《公開資料守則》個案」欄目，需書面索取網站外資料。公署昨回覆本報查詢說，曾發布的資料會長期保存，沒有刪除，但未回應書面申請程序的詳情。一名前申訴專員向本報回應事件稱，「負責督促政府部門提高資料透明度的公署，有關做法是否有點諷刺？」政制及內地事務局前局長聶德權則認為，政府調查報告具重要參考意義，如非特殊原因，需「妥為保存及容易讓公眾查閱」。
倘查閱被拒欲投訴 未答誰處理
公署昨回覆本報時重申，為保網站內容準確及管理效益而更新，又稱會按《申訴專員條例》適當處理書面申請，但仍未回應申請程序、原則等，以及若申請被拒，能否以《公開資料守則》向公署投訴、投訴將由誰處理。
申訴專員公署直接向特首負責，政制及內地事務局則有份監督《公開資料守則》執行情况。本報向特首辦和政制局查詢事前曾否接獲公署諮詢、是否認可做法、會否促公署重新上架等，獲綜合回覆稱應詢問公署。
資深傳媒人林妙茵同樣跟進事件，聶德權昨在林的facebook留言稱，良好的政府管治須重視透明度、公眾參與和問責性，政策局和部門、公營機構及獨立委員會發表的報告和調查結果具重要參考作用，對做公共政策研究的學者和授課教師很重要。
The Office of The Ombudsman took down investigation reports and press releases published before 2023, and removed the section on cases under the Code on Access to Information. Information not available on the website must now be requested in writing. The Office told this newspaper yesterday that previously published materials would be retained on a long-term basis and had not been deleted, but did not respond to questions about the details of the written application procedure. A former Ombudsman said the arrangement was ironic, asking: “Is it somewhat ironic that the Office responsible for urging government departments to improve information transparency is doing this?” Nie Dequan, former Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, said government investigation reports had important reference value and, “unless there are special reasons”, should be “properly preserved and made easy for the public to access.”
The Office reiterated yesterday that the website had been updated to ensure the accuracy of its content and management efficiency. It said written applications would be handled appropriately under the Ombudsman Ordinance, but still did not respond on the application procedures and principles, or whether a refusal could be challenged by lodging a complaint with the Office under the Code on Access to Information, and who would handle such complaints.
The Office of The Ombudsman is directly accountable to the Chief Executive, while the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has a role in overseeing the implementation of the Code on Access to Information. The Chief Executive’s Office and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau were asked whether they had been consulted by the Office beforehand, whether they endorsed the arrangement, and whether they would urge the Office to restore the materials online. Their consolidated reply said the questions should be directed to the Office.
Veteran media figure Lam Miu-yin also followed up on the matter. In a Facebook comment yesterday, Nie said good governance required emphasis on transparency, public participation and accountability. Reports and investigation findings published by policy bureaux and departments, public organisations and independent commissions had important reference value, and were important to academics conducting public policy research and teachers delivering courses.
16 May 2025明報#6794
Ombudsman website removes pre-April 2023 reports covering more than 230 investigations; lawmaker calls move a transparency setback
負責督促各政府部門增透明度、處理《公開資料守則》投訴的申訴專員公署早前更新網站，移除大量調查政府部門的報告及資料，網站只保留2023年4月之後的調查報告、新聞稿、調解協作實例，以及2022/23年度起兩份年報，此前的內容移除，涉及至少230項調查報告內容；網站原詳列市民投訴個案的「《公開資料守則》個案」欄目亦不復見（見另稿）。公署回覆本報查詢稱，為確保網站內容準確和有效管理而更新，市民可書面要求索取網站以外資料。有議員形容事件「透明度退步」，有學者則認為收起檔案做法不合理。
The Office of The Ombudsman, which monitors government departments to promote greater transparency and handles complaints under the Code on Access to Information, recently updated its website and removed a large amount of information and reports on investigations into government departments. The website now retains only investigation reports, press releases and mediation and collaboration examples from after April 2023, as well as two annual reports from 2022/23 onwards. The removed material covered at least 230 investigation reports. The website’s section listing individual public complaints under the “Code on Access to Information cases” heading has also disappeared (see separate report). In response to enquiries, the Office said the update was made to ensure the website’s content was accurate and to facilitate effective management, and that members of the public could submit written requests for information not on the website. A lawmaker described the move as “a setback for transparency”, while a scholar said it was unreasonable to remove the archives.
Translations are supplied by the source workbook. Consult the original reporting for context.
