此致：聯合國經濟、社會及文化權利委員會（[email protected]）
主題:　 遞交香港本土公民意見書，內容有關經濟、社會及文化權利委員會第五十二屆會議，一四年五月八日，第十七及十八場會議聆訊第六項，香港情況
c.c. [email protected]；[email protected]；[email protected]

吾人乃係一群香港公民，由香港復興運動組成，關於聯合國經濟、社會及文化權利委員會第五十二屆會議，一四年五月八日，第十七及十八場會議聆訊第六項，香港情況，欲遞交以下意見書：

香港人反告遭受歧視

強弱懸殊

社區組織協會（社協）以香港歧視大陸新移民的情況日益嚴重，不惜派代表遠赴瑞士聯合國求助。然而，大陸新移民在港人數雖暫不及香港公民，但大陸新移民以至自由行的後台為統治十四億人的中共帝國，兼且得到特區政府的司法袒護，以及周邊福利組織的特殊救濟。香港政府無權決定大陸新移民的數額和名單，香港被逼接受，是殖民輸送人口。大陸新移民在香港猶如俄人在烏克蘭，又如美國人在伊克拉，實屬強勢，香港公民反而處於弱勢，時遭歧視。

蔑視母語等於歧視

根據聯合國UNESCO 語言權利普世宣言：聯合國文教組語言權利普世宣言第二十九條，人皆有權接受以其居住地域所特有語言施行的教育。又根據聯合國隸屬少數民族或宗教和少數語言族群的權利宣言；第四條，少數民族或少數語言族群有權接受母語教育的權利。然而，香港語常會認為香港學校「用普通話教中文科」是大勢所趨，早於二零零七年通過撥款二億港元，在香港中小學推行「普通話教中文試驗計劃」；本年一月香港政府財委會再撥款約二億二千五百萬元，鼓勵和支援學校推行普通話教中文，以達到推行普教中的「長遠目標」。

日前，保良局顏寶鈴書院招聘中文科學位教師，規定申請人母語須為普通話，有大陸教學經驗優先，香港大眾嘩然，引以為歧視本地粵語人士，教育局長吳克儉回應時，強調不要排除以普通話為母語的港人執教，「只要他們（符合）既定的專業要求便可以」。

再者，教育局二零零四年製作之教育電視節目，《驚心動魄（粵普比較之二）》http://etv.edb.gov.hk/resource_wmv-c.aspx?c=1&id=18221，有「魔俠」一角，聲言「要用粵語一統天下，最恨普通話了」。魔俠以廣東話詞彙攻擊代表普通話的女俠「冷月」，但都被其以同義的普通話詞彙一一擊退。後又有悍匪，母語為香港粵語，但冒充大陸人，謀害勤習普通話的女童，而女童父母乃係大陸來港新移民，母語為普通話。教育局製作如此節目，明顯妖魔化香港粵語，嚴重歧視講粵語的香港公民。

另一方面，教育局網頁「語文學習支援」承認：「接近97%本地人口，都以廣東話…作為家居及日常交際的常用語言。」故在所有本地學校推行普通話教中文的長遠目標等於剝奪音香港人接受母語教育的機會。相對於中國十三億人口，七百萬港人，政經制度、生活習慣、語言文字迥異，自然係少數族群。

綜觀以上事例，可見香港教育當局妄顧普通話在學校壓倒粵語的數據，兼且醜化大部份香港人的母語（粵語），偏頗普通話，造成歧視制度。換言之，香港政府的普教中政策明顯違反聯合國隸屬少數民族或宗教和少數語言族群的權利宣言，歧視香港族群。

港府執法雙重標準

聯合國消除一切形式種族歧視國際公約第五條規定：法律之前，人人平等，不論種族、膚色、國族、族群。

本年四月二十四日，商務及經濟局長蘇錦樑在北京公開表示：對於大陸遊客兒童在香港旺角隨地便溺，最好的處理方法是包容。然而，根據香港《簡易程式治罪條例》第四條，在公眾或無掩蔽的地方或其他不適當地方大小便都屬妨擾罪及雜項罪行。又根據《定額罰款（公眾地方潔淨罪行）條例草案》（下稱“《定額罰款條例》”），任何人士在公眾地方大、小便均屬違法，初犯最高可罰款五千港元，再犯則更可罰款一萬港元；任何人在照顧十二歲以下兒童時，不得在沒有合理因由下讓小孩在公眾場所大小便。香港久違隨地大小便之事，最近的案例是，本年四月二十三日，在屯門裁判法院，南亞裔人Sandhu Guljar-Singh被控傷人及在公眾地方大小便。

《定額罰款條例》訂明在公眾地方亂拋垃圾、隨地吐痰、未經准許而展示招貼和海報，以及讓狗糞弄汙公眾地方均屬違例罪行，適用定額罰款六百港元。二零一三年，香港食環署執法人員就《定額罰款條例》中訂明的上述四項違法事項，共發出逾三萬四千九百張定額罰款通知書，罰款總額五千二百三十五萬港元。
然則，何以香港政府呼籲包容大陸人來港隨地便溺，卻不包容南亞裔人於公眾地方大小便，又不包容香港公民隨地拋垃圾、吐痰之類呢？

總而言之，香港政府大力鼓勵普通話代替粵語教中文，涉嫌違犯聯合國文教組語言權利普世宣言，又選擇性執法，涉嫌違反聯合國消除一切形式種族歧視國際公約。社協旣向日內瓦聯合國反映大陸來港新移民及大陸人「受歧視」情況，吾人亦要反告香港政府厚大陸客而薄本港公民。

吾人現正發起香港公民聯署本函，所有簽名將於五月二十三日貴會第五十二屆會議結束前送上。

敬祝

台安！

曾焯文博士上
香港復興運動秘書
電郵: [email protected]

香港九龍新蒲崗五芳街五至七號八Ａ室

To: The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
[email protected]
Re.:　Submitting counter information and opinion from Hong Kong local citizens concerning Mtg. no. 17&18, item 6, 8th of May 2014, CESCR Committee, 52nd session, China (HK).
c.c. [email protected]；[email protected]；[email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Counter-accusation of Discrimination against Hongkongers

Concerning the hearing (Mtg. no. 17&18, item 6, 8th of May 2014, CESCR Committee, 52nd session, China (HK)), we, a group of Hong Kong citizens, formed by the Hong Kong Resurgence Movement, would like to submit the following opinion:

A. David and Goliath

Society for Community Organization (SoCo) of Hong Kong has claimed that the situation of discrimination against new immigrants and people from China in Hong Kong is so serious that they have to send delegates to United Nations in Geneva. However, although for the time being, the actual number of new immigrants from China in Hong Kong is still smaller than that of Hong Kong citizens, these new immigrants and tourists from Mainland China are backed up by the People's Republic of China, sovereignty holder and de facto ruler of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong SAR）. Hong Kong has no power to decide the quota and name list of immigrants from China; Hong Kong is obliged to passively receive any immigrants released by the People’s Republic of China into Hong Kong. Furthermore, the legislature of Hong Kong is only a semi-democratic one and the Chief Executive is not elected by way of universal suffrage. New immigrants from China are judicially protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and they receive special assistances from local social welfare organizations. The situation of Mainland Chinese in Hong Kong may be compared to that of Russians in Ukraine or Americans in Iraq. .

B. Discrimination Against Hongkongers’ Mother Tongue

According to Article 29 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. “Everyone is entitled to receive an education in the language specific to the territory where s/he resides.” And according to Article 4 of The UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, “States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.”

“Language Learning Support”, a webite of the Hong Kong Education Bureau, admits that “Nearly 97 percent of the local population use Cantonese as their daily life language.” On the other hand, in 2007, the Standing Committee onLanguageEducation and Research (SCOLAR) of Hong Kong thought that teaching the Chinese subject in Putonghua (Mandarin) is a general tendency, and allocated around 20 million Euro for the testing plan of Putonghua as a medium of instruction (PMI) in primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. In January this year, theFinance Committee of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong allocated around 22.5 million Euro for the encouragement and support of promoting teaching the Chinese subject in Putonghua, with PMI as “the long-term target”. As a result, now as many as 70 percent of the primary schools in Hong Kong and 40 percent of the secondary schools there are teaching the Chinese subject in Putonghua. The “long-term target” of promoting Putonghua as the medium of instruction of the Chinese subject and even other subjects means a serious attempt to deprive Hongkongers of their right to be educated in their mother tongue.

A recent recruitment advertisement of Po Leung Kuk Ngan Po Ling College (Hong Kong) requires any applicant for the post of the Chinese subject teacher in that school to be a native speaker of Putonghua. And preference will be given to those with teaching experience on the Chinese Mainland. This has triggered off a lot of protests against discrimination from the Hong Kong public. In response to the protests, Secretary for Education (Hong Kong), Eddie Ng Hak-kim, stressed that Hongkongers with Putonghua as their mother tongue should not be excluded from the teaching profession, provided that they meet the requirements of the profession.

So much the more, in an education program put forth by the Education Bureau in 2004 http://etv.edb.gov.hk/resource_wmv-c.aspx?c=1&id=18221, there is a demon character, who says he hates Putonghua and he wants to conquer the whole country with Cantonese. This devilish figure tries to attack with Cantonese phrases a heroine representing Putonghua, but is fought back by the latter with corresponding Putonghua phrases. Subsequently, a fierce robber disguises himself as a Putonghua speaker from Beijing and tries to harm a little girl diligently learning Putonghua. The mother tongue of the robber is actually Cantonese and the parents of the little girl are Putonghua speaking new immigrants from China. This program explicitly demonizes Hong Kong Cantonese and severely discriminates against Cantonese-speaking Hongkongers.

The examples above show that Hong Kong Education Bureau neglects and ignores the data of Putonghua subduing Cantonese in Hong Kong schools. More than that, the Bureau has vilified the mother tongue of most Hongkongers (Cantonese) and has been biased towards Putonghua. In other words, the PMI language policy of the Hong Kong Government arguably contravenes The UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities at the expense of Hongkongers as an ethnic group.

Compared with China, which, as aforementioned, has a population of almost 1.4 million, Hong Kong has a population of only 7 million. Hongkongers’ language (Cantonese instead of Putonghua), writing system (traditional Chinese characters rather than simplified characters), political and economic systems, and living habits and customs are all different from China. So Hongkongers may be considered an ethnic and linguistic minority.

Hong Kong

Article 5of TheInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(ICERD) creates a specific obligation to guarantee the right of everyone toequality before the lawregardless of "race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.”

On 24 April 2014, Gregory So Kam-leung, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development of Hong Kong, openly said that the best way to deal with children of Mainland Chinese tourists urinating in public in Hong Kong was tolerance. However, according to Section 4 of Summary OffencesOrdinance, Hong Kong, includes urinating in public or unsheltered places or any other inappropriate places. And according to the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness Offences) Ordinance, it is an offence to urinate and/or defecate in public places. First offenders are liable to a penalty of HKD5000 and repeated offenders are liable to a penalty of HKD10,000. Moreover, any person in taking care of children under the age of twelve, is forbidden to allow them to urinate or defecate in public places without reasonable excuses. Hong Kong has rarely seen prosecution of such charges for a long time. The most recent case is the prosecution (dated 23 April 2014) of a South Asian named Sandhu Guljar-Singh for obeying the call of nature in a public place.

The Fixed Penalty Ordinance of Hong Kong stipulates that Depositing of litter or waste in public places, Spitting in public places, Fouling of street by dog faeces, and Display of bills or posters without permission are all offences liable to a fixed penalty of 1500 HK dollars. In 2013, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department of Hong Kong issued altogether 34,900 fixed penalty notices and the sum of penalty amounted to HKD52350,000 (around 5235,000 Euro).

How come the Hong Kong Government asks for tolerance of Mainland Chinese urinating and defecating in public in Hong Kong but fails to tolerate South Asians doing the same in Hong Kong and also fails to tolerate Hongkong citizens littering and spitting in public places, etc.?

In conclusion, in vigorously encouraging the teaching of the Chinese subject in Putonghua in lieu of Cantonese, the Hong Kong Government allegedly violates UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. And the Hong Kong authorities’ selective enforcement of law allegedly contravenes TheInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(ICERD). Now that SoCo is appealing to the United Nations in Geneva for assistance to new immigrants from China, we are also putting forth a counter-accusation, and with much more urgent and valid reasons!

We are now starting concurrently a petition action and the signatures will be sent to you once it is completed, before your session ends on 23 May.

With best regards,
Yours truly,

Chapman Chen, Ph.D.,
Secretary of the Hong Kong Resurgence Movement,
8A, No. 5-7, Ng Fong Street,
Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Email: [email protected]