關於 chinese new year wishes to colleagues ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

🧧First ang bao (red packet) from mommy for @dearbbkai is bitcoin!

The giving of Angbao during Chinese New Year is a meaningful one, as it is considered a symbol of luck, life and happiness. These tokens of good wishes often come with crisp new bills, but we are all trying to keep Covid-19 in check, the millennials might get on the bandwagon of e-Angbao through the use of PayNow. �
NOW, let’s take one step further, BITCOIN ANGBAO 🧧
@ezsy_sg just launced Bitcoin Angbao for this CNY, now you can choose to gift your loved ones, friends, family, colleagues with ezsy Bitcoin Angbao instead.

Advantages of using ezsy to gift Bitcoin Angbao:
🧧 No need to join snaking queues. �🧧 Fast and instant.�🧧 Safe (distancing) and secure (regulated).�🧧 Freedom and flexibility of cashing out the bitcoin or keeping them to grow more $$$

ezsy was created with a holistic approach to crypto and fiat currency in mind, to enable purchases and transactions with crypto currencies internationally within an app.
Built with security and convenience, ezsy is a safe and trusted digital wallet app that simplifies the way we transact in life.
Especially designed for beginners, users can use their fiat assets to buy and sell crypto coins safely and quickly.

#ezsy_sg #ezsy #ezsyangbao #bitcoinangbao #bitcoin @ Singapore

#人權倡議 【立法會公聽會英語發言直斥港府濫權違反《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》】
👉我發表的意見書：http://bit.ly/joshua-iccpr-submission

早前，我出席立法會政制事務委員會所舉行的公聽會，以英語發言直斥港府濫權違反《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》，呼籲聯合國人權事務委員會關注。

九十年代，香港通過將《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》的條文收納入香港法律，作為其中一個簽署公約地區，聯合國人權事務委員會密切留意香港形勢，要求香港政府每五年遞交一次報告，依照《公約》條文準則交待香港的人權狀況。

自傘運結束以來，我一直致力投入 #眾志國際連結 工作，即使未能片刻改變香港在強權壓迫下的惡劣形勢，但人權倡議仍是民主運動累積實力的過程；而聯合國的場域，也是推動國際社會關注香港人權狀況當中，不可缺少的一環：

Mr. Chairman,

This submission wishes to discuss the significant developments on the implementation of ICCPR from 2014 to 2017. The Hong Kong government has regrettably not kept its word to a respectable degree. I myself, and several of my colleagues who are attending this panel today, being victims of the breaches ourselves, I believe that we can shed some light on how exactly were the terms not honoured, by explaining the following four cases since four years ago.

First, I would like to talk about the Vindictive Prosecution on the Civic Square Case.

Article 15 stated that everyone must be equal before the law, and that retrospective criminal penalties are prohibited. Yet, DOJ’s politically-motivated decision to reopen the Civic Square case and the Northeast New Territories Development Plan, two previously-settled case for harsher penalties, granted by the new verdict, is not only an act of retribution targeted toward the leaders of the Umbrella Movement, but also a violation to the Article. Although my case is waiting for trail at Court of Final Appeal, the selective prosecution as initiated by the government already stands in stark contrast with the principle of equality.

Second, Hong Kong government depriving dissents’ right to election which violated the right to participate in public life according to Article 25.

The heavy jail terms mean that these young activists including myself will be barred from standing for public office for five years which result in eliminating opposition voices in the legislature — which might be recognize as a serious impeachment of democracy. Yet the government has a lot more measures to silence dissident voices. last year, Candidates were required to sign a confirmation form to show political loyally to Beijing. Dissidents such as Edward Leung was screened out eventually despite signing this form. The above cases point to a fact that the government is not liberal nor impartial, but is preferential towards political opinions and expressions.

Third, the rights of persons in custody, especially young prisoners should not be ignored.

Article 10 requires anyone deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity and humanity - including young prisoners. While I was put behind bars for my participation in the Umbrella Movement, I felt less than human. I was asked to take off all my clothes, squat, and look up while answering the prison officers’ questions. That in itself is undignified. My fellow young inmates were frequently assaulted without an independent means to complain. To make matters worse, as I filed a complaint, officers tried to dissuade me. Prisoners still have rights behind bars, WE are still human beings, and WE deserve dignity.

Last but not least, immigration control on entry into Hong Kong by visitors are now intervened by China government.

It has come to my grave concern when Mr. Benedict Rogers, veteran British human rights leader and Mr. Chang Tieh-chi were denied entry to Hong Kong last year without proper justification. It is an alarming signal that the Immigration Department does have a black list, barring activists and liberal intellectuals entry to Hong Kong. This is also a sign of serious suppression of human rights, further eroding the framework of ‘one country, two systems’, and breaching Article 12 of the ICCPR where it enhances the freedom of movement. A month after, the NPCSC passed the co-location arrangement that enforces mainland laws in the territory of Hong Kong. It is a manifest burglary of Hong Kong’s legal jurisdiction!

To sum up, while China and Hong Kong are both signatory of ICCPR, the government can't continue their empty talk toward the violation of the provisions concerning political freedoms.

I implore you all to consider the obvious, the clear evidence in front of our very eyes. It is merely a prelude to a full-scale crackdown intended to silence an emerging generation of young activists and civil rights defenders who dare to criticize the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

Thank you.

I don't think it's purely coincidental that the latest round of blackface minstrelsy involved actors from Channel 8 (Shane Pow, Chew Chor Meng). So I want to talk about our monolingual vernacular broadcast stations in Singapore, and Channel 8 in particular.

In 2009, in the Channel 8 series 'Daddy At Home', the colleagues of a character played by Li Nanxing made fun of the fact that he was working as a cleaner--already classist and offensive to begin with. Then they joked that they should call him 'Aminah'--presumably because Malays are associated with menial occupations.

In March 2015, the Channel 8 actor Desmond Tan posted a photo of himself in blackface and a turban on Instagram. It was captioned: "I love my Indian look. What you think?"

In June 2015, former Channel 8 actress Sharon Au, while hosting the SEA Games opening ceremony, approached an Indian girl in the stands to say some line, which the girl didn't do very well. Au playfully admonished her by mimicking an Indian accent and shaking her head from side to side: "Vat happened?"

Vernacular broadcast stations exist to promote and propagate the use of our official languages. News broadcasts, for example, play the role of setting formal standards for the respective languages. On the surface, these provisions seem necessary to protect linguistic rights in a multicultural society--that one should be able to study and access media in the language of one's choice.

But I think we've failed to properly deal with some of the consequences of these policies. One of which is that monolingual environments (with the exception of English) create monoethnic and monocultural worlds. It would not surprise me that those who grew up on a diet of Channel 8 (and Channel U) would have found nothing wrong with the fact that the Mediacorp New Year Countdown in 2013 heavily featured Chinese songs and actors making wishes in Mandarin. It would have been the Singapore that they recognised and knew; a Singapore they took for granted as the norm.

In public housing, ethnic quotas are imposed supposedly to prevent the formation of racial enclaves. I wonder why this has not been applied to our media landscape. Because each of our vernacular stations--Channel 8, Channel U, Suria, Vasantham--is a virtual racial enclave. It is possible to come home from a workplace where people speak only one language, switch on the TV, and nestle with similar company. The silo-isation is seamless. Television, which could have been a civic instrument reminding us of that deep, horizontal comradeship we have with fellow citizens of all stripes, is instead an accessory to this social insulation.

I'm not here to crap on Channel 8. A predictable response to some of the concerns raised above is that I am exploiting the ideal of multicutural accommodation (multicultural casting) to squeeze the use of English into the vernacular channels. These spaces have to be maintained as linguistically pure because of the idea that they are under siege by English, that global language, signifier of upward mobility, and so cool it has no need to announce its coolness.

There have been too many times when I've been told that any plea for English to be emphasised as a main lingua franca is tantamount to asking the Chinese to 'sacrifice' their identity 'for the sake of minorities'. In this formulation, minorities are seen as accomplices of a right-wing, anti-China, pro-US/UK Anglophone political elite intent on suppressing the Chinese grassroots.

Because the mantle of victimhood is so reflexively claimed, the problem is re-articulated as the 'tyranny of the minority' rather than that of neglect by the majority. And national unity is cast as something suspect--unity of the Chinese community achieved only through the loss of dialects, unity with the other races at the cost of Mandarin attrition. With this kind of historical baggage, I can't even begin to critique Channel 8 without being seen as an agent of hostile encroachment.

But what I can do is to keep supporting the works of our filmmakers who try to give us images of ourselves which are truer to the Singapore that we live in. Anthony Chen's 'Ilo Ilo' faced some limitations in diverse representations as he was telling the story of a Chinese family. But he had Jo Kukathas in a scenery-chewing role as a school principal. Royston Tan, in his tender and wistful short film 'Bunga Sayang', explored the relationship between an elderly Malay lady and a Chinese boy. And Boo Junfeng, while casting Malay leads in his harrowing 'Apprentice', must have grappled with the risk of producing a domestic film whose main audience might have to depend on subtitles. And yet he took that risk, and the film performed creditably at the local box office.

(I have to also mention our minority filmmakers, such as K Rajagopal, Sanif Olek and Raihan Halim, all of whom are producing important films which expand our visions of Singapore.)

If we were truly a multicultural society, there would be nothing remarkable about what the above filmmakers have done. But with a background of persistent blackfacing, slurs, invisibilities and humiliations, any recognition that minorities exist, that they are as essentially Singaporean as Chinese bodies, that they may appear in international film festivals as one of the myriad faces of Singapore, is an occasion for healing. One cannot help but give thanks for the balm. There is much healing to do.