關於 perspective名詞 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

This is what we called "Scrum But".

不要再請鬼抓藥單了，要不要找一下我們這種專業人士去啊？

感覺就像寧可相信電台賣藥的，不相信醫生的建議，自己覺得醫生講的我也會，我也可以致病。

背後的科學基礎、整體系統全貌、累積夠多的失敗與順利上軌道的實務經驗，才是專業人士提供服務的依據。

就像你也知道投三分球得到的分數比較高，Curry 可以從三分線到半場都是他的開火距離，但你學得起來嗎？那適合你嗎？照著你只看到的表面模樣去依樣畫葫蘆，其實還蠻容易死人的，最後就會造就一堆不明究理的人上來靠北工程師上浪費生命。

至少先問一下，你們大家覺得 daily scrum 是為了什麼（我不是問 how，我是問 why），每一個設計的環節都有背後要解決的問題，而這些設計的環節可以彼此搭配出一些綜效。

如果你知道每一個設計環節的目的，要解決的問題，適用場景與限制，那你只要知道現在的團隊、組織痛點在哪、瓶頸點在哪、限制在哪，你就可以比較容易找到突破點，先讓大家進入改善的起點，有感之後，消除瓶頸就會引發瓶頸點轉移，一路把瓶頸點進行改善，就會發現整個 scrum 該有的，大概都有了。

如果你知道全貌，包含背後的目的，理論的基礎，實務的手法，甚至知道其他更多可以解決相同問題但不包含在 scrum 裡面的學問，你才能適時因人因地至宜。

很多人的邏輯沒學好，他們會說「這不是 scrum」，而忽略了「scrum framework 只是指出你該有哪些東西」，它只希望是個 framework，不要給你太多的「限制」，但你不能偏離它的核心與價值觀。

也就是 scrum 上沒有的，不代表你不能做，不是「這不是 scrum」，而是「scrum 沒有規定不能做」。

當然，scrum but 還是很有參考價值的，因為那幾乎都是「錯」的 pattern。

我一般都是建議入門者去看 scrum guide 跟 scrum master checklist (檢查一下你們在各個角色，有沒有符合上面的特徵跟選項)，如果看不出來為啥那是個問題，那不知道這是問題就是個大問題。

#有用的話三萬塊不嫌貴
#沒用的話30塊還傷身體
#不要再請鬼抓藥單

--
另一個簡單的判斷標準，你就看你要找的對象，他平時呈現出來的言行是否一致，價值觀是否符合他老是掛在嘴巴上侃侃而談的東西。還是只是老是跩文的 buzzword guy，只是追逐著那堆潮流名詞只為了框點顧問費，是不是那種只是「人脈-driven」酬庸型的顧問。（我實在收別人的爛尾收到有點懶了）

認識我的朋友、參加培訓的學員、被我輔導過的團隊，常關注我 facebook 上分享的內容，應該都可以知道我是怎麼讓自己的人生、職涯、學習跟生活敏捷化的，對我們來說，了解了背後科學依據、理論基礎（scrum 背後的理論基礎跟科學依據，當然遠遠超過 scrum 的範圍，只學 scrum 當然只有皮），自然做事就會選擇有效果的方式。

再講一下 Odd-e 好了，大家 scrum 團隊成員太多，就會想拆 team 對吧？我們是公司超過5個人，基本上就會「拆另一間公司」出來，這樣公司層級的決策速度才會快，大家也才能都參與到。

我們所有的決定，都是團隊一起決定的，人數過多溝通成本過高，反應速度就會變慢。

我們所有的工作，都是自己決定的，薪水也是自己決定的，沒人會指派工作給你，你就是自己、產品、服務、公司的 owner。

註：我們公司的組織階層只有一層，我們的 founder，也是 LeSS 創始人之一的 Bas，跟所有 Odd-e 的人在同一層。扁平式組織？我們是一層式組織，這一層還可以圍成一個圈，互相支援所有事務。

我們講跨職能，Odd-e 的 never does 裡面在 Odd-e 公司內，是不招聘單一職能的夥伴的（例如行政、HR、法務、總務、會計，甚至只擔任講師，其他事情都不想管的那種），你就是公司，該了解的都得學會了解與負責，你才會當責、你才會有切膚之痛，你才會用心跟關心所有事情。這是我們的自組織 + ownership + end-to-end feature team。

我們講的 respect, open, 都能直接在 Odd-e never does 中窺探一二。我們不列所謂的「企業價值觀」，因為我們覺得通常列了什麼價值觀，就是缺了什麼。

我們只列出「我們共同認為不可以做、不該做的事情」，除此以外，是 open 的，你可以做任何事情，別人不能干涉你，當然團隊可以討論商量。

我們相信，每個人提出的觀點看法(perspective) 都有他的價值所在，當對方願意花時間講出來他的 perspective 跟你討論甚至爭論，都是值得被尊重的。我們也相信，任何事情都不會只有單一的 perspective。

如果身為 Odd-e 成員，還需要別人幫你安排好各種工作或事情，你才知道要做什麼，那你根本不該也不會被招進來當夥伴的。

當然，我們每個人還是有自己擅長、喜歡、不喜歡的事情和領域，但我們知道，這都不影響 ownership，該做的事情還是得有人做，但我們都知道也都具備「學習意願」，只要團隊或整個 Odd-e 有人對那一塊領域熟悉或擅長，我們就能跟他取經、抱大腿，或是請他幫忙。

我們對於自己開發產品或提供服務的要求（其實也不算是要求了，因為我們的人生就已經是敏捷化了），只會比客戶高，不會比客戶低。

所以啦，當你們想找外部教練來幫忙時，先去了解觀察探聽一下，他們公司是怎麼運作的，那個教練/顧問是個怎樣的人，是否言行合一，還是只是把「敏捷/scrum/lean」當作工作、商業上拿來賺錢的工具而已。

--
靠北工程師 原討論串 來源：https://www.facebook.com/init.kobeengineer/photos/a.1416496745064002/4100237950023188

［時事英文］彩券是一種窮人稅 (a tax on the poor)？
　
最近看到多家媒體報導鼓勵大家支持「公益」彩券，就聯想到之前看過的一些彩券報導。雖然每個國家的彩券發行的法律、收益的分紅和管理規範都不盡相同，還是可以參考以下美國多家知名報社關於美國彩券的社論。根據西方的經驗，購買彩券的人大多是低收入戶，他們將微薄的收入用來買「公益」彩券，窮人的錢成為彩券的主要財源，因此，公益彩券反而像變相的「窮人稅」。彩券是否如迷幻藥般，使部分窮人更窮？值得大家深思。
　
從社會與心理層面看臺灣「樂透瘋」公聽會：https://bit.ly/30W6mpJ

★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
The lottery is a particularly awful example of political corruption. Here government is raising revenue by selling the Powerball dream of wealth without work. Studies in a number of states have shown that lottery ticket sales are concentrated in poor communities, that poor people spend a larger portion of their income on tickets and that the poor are more likely to view the lottery as an investment.
　
1. political corruption 政治腐敗
2. raise revenue 提高收入
3. Powerball 威力球（美國境內發行的彩券）
4. dream of wealth 財富的夢想
5. more likely to 更傾向於
　
彩券是政治腐敗的一個特別可怕的例子。政府藉由兜售威力球一夜致富的夢來增加國家的稅收。許多州的研究表明，彩券的銷售集中在貧困社區，窮人將多數收入花在彩券上，而窮人更傾向於將彩券視為一種投資。
　
——《華盛頓郵報》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Lotteries are regressive taxes on poor people, in that a ticket costs relatively more for a poor person than a rich person, and punitive taxes on the poor and uneducated people who are the most avid buyers. The people who can least afford it are throwing away on average 47 cents on the dollar every time they buy a ticket. And the government, which relies increasingly on the lottery for funding, goes out of its way to tell them it is a good idea.
　
6. relatively more 相對更多
7. most avid buyers 最狂熱的買家
8. go out of one’s way（特別是為其他人）非常努力地做
9. punitive taxes 懲罰性賦稅
　
彩券是對窮人的累退稅，也是對那些醉心於購買且未受過教育的窮人之懲罰性賦稅。因為與富人相比，買彩券所付出的成本對窮人而言相對較高。那些負擔得起彩券的人，平均每次要花４７美分購買彩券。政府愈來愈依賴彩券來籌措資金，並竭盡全力告訴他們這是個好主意。
　
——《商業內幕》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
What if I told you there was a $70 billion tax that the poor pay the most. You'd probably say that isn't very fair. But that's exactly what the lottery is: an almost 12-figure tax on the desperation of the least fortunate. To put that in perspective, that's $300 worth of lottery tickets for every adult every year. Researchers have found that the bottom third of households buy more than half of all tickets. So that means households making less than $28,000 a year are dishing out $450 a year on lotteries.
　
10. a 12-figure tax 一個１２位數的稅
11. the least fortunate 最不幸的
12. worth of… 值得⋯
13. dish out 祭出；拿出
14. What if...? 如果（尤指糟糕的情況出現）會怎麼樣？
　
如果我告訴你，在７００億美元的稅收中窮人付出的最多，你會怎麼想？你可能會說這不太公平。但這就是彩券：對最不幸者的絕望徵收近１２位數的稅。從這個角度來看，那對每位成年人來說是每年價值３００美元的彩券。研究人員發現，最底層的三分之一家庭所購買的彩票超過總數的一半。這意味著年收入不足兩萬八千美元的家庭，每年要花４５０美元來買彩券。
　
——《華盛頓郵報》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Historical data implies that when the economy goes bad, lottery revenues go up, because "when people are feeling desperate, they are more likely to stop by the gas station and buy five lottery tickets, hoping they get a big windfall.”
　
15. historical data 歷史數據
16. feel desperate 感到絕望
17. get a big windfall 獲得巨額、意外的收穫
　
歷史數據表明，每當經濟不景氣，彩券收入會增加，因為「每當人們感到絕望，他們更有可能在加油站前停下來，買五張彩券，並希望自己能獲得巨額的財富。」
　
——《ＡＢＣ新聞》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
In 2008, during the height of the recession, at least 22 of the 42 states with lotteries — including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — set sales records.
　
18. height of the recession 經濟衰退的高點
19. set sales record 創下銷售記錄
　
２００８年，時值經濟衰退的谷底，在４２個有賣彩券的州中，至少有２２個州——包括紐約州、紐澤西州和康乃狄克州——創下銷售記錄。
　
——《紐約時報》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Lotteries are sometimes criticized as a "de facto tax on the poor," according to Matheson. "The poor spend a much higher percentage of their overall income on lotteries than the rich, and they can afford it less," he said. John Spry, a finance professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, has also studied the economic disparity among people who play instant scratch-off games. About three out of four instant game tickets sold in Minnesota are purchased by people with below-average incomes, according to Spry. He also cites research that shows that in South Carolina, 60% of instant lottery tickets were purchased by people with very low incomes.
　
20. a de facto tax on the poor 一種對窮人的實質賦稅
21. overall income 總收入
22. economic disparity 經濟差異；經濟失衡（國際法名詞）
23. below-average incomes 低於平均水準的所得
　
按馬特森所言，彩券有時被批評為「對窮人的實質賦稅」。他說：「窮人在彩券上的花費占總收入的比例遠比富人高出許多，而他們所能負擔的也更少。」明尼蘇達州聖湯瑪斯大學的財金系教授約翰・斯普里也研究了玩即時刮刮樂的人之間的經濟差異。根據斯普里的說法，在明尼蘇達州售出的四張即時刮刮樂中，約有三張是由收入低於平均水準的人購買。他還引用了一項研究，該研究表明，在南卡羅來納有６０％的即時彩券是被收入很低的人買走。
　
——《ＣＮＮ》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Think on this a moment. In a place where government has utterly failed to provide adequate education and public services, government is using advertising to exploit the desperation of poor people in order to raise revenue that funds other people’s public services. This is often called a “regressive” form of taxation. The word does not adequately capture the cruelty and crookedness of selling a lie to vulnerable people in order to bilk them. Offering the chance of one in a 100 million is the equivalent of a lie. Lotteries depend on the deceptive encouragement of mythical thinking and fantasies of escape.
　
24. utterly fail to 徹底地失敗
25. fail to provide 無法提供
26. adequate education and public services 充分的教育與公共服務
27. exploit the desperation of poor people 利用窮人的絕望
28. fund public services 資助公共服務
29. a regressive form of taxation 一種累退的賦稅形式
30. sell a lie 兜售一個謊言
31. vulnerable people 弱勢群體
32. mythical thinking 不切實際的想像
33. fantasy of escape 逃避的幻想
　
試想一下，在政府完全無法提供足夠的教育與公共服務的地方，為了提高國家稅收以資助他人的公共服務，政府正運用廣告來利用窮人的絕望。這通常被稱作「累退」的賦稅形式。這個詞並未充分體現出，政府為了欺騙弱勢群體，向他們兜售謊言此一殘酷與奸詐。提供億分之一的機會即形同說謊。彩券所仰賴的是不切實際與逃避現實的幻想，帶有欺騙性的鼓勵。
　
——《華盛頓郵報》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Some policymakers argue that the moral cost of lotteries is low. After all, the games are voluntary. And perhaps the money collected by the state is better off going to schools than to booze and cigarettes and whatever else. In an age of rising income inequality, it’s pernicious that states rely on monetizing the desperate hope of its poorest residents. State lotteries take from the poor to spare the rich, all while marching under the banner of voluntary entertainment. Banning lotto games will not make our poorest communities suddenly rich. But these neighborhoods have lost enough lotteries in life even before they touch a penny to the scratch-off ticket.
　
34. moral cost 道德成本
35. be better off 境況更好；經濟狀況較先前（或多數人）好
36. rising income inequality日益加劇的所得不均
37. take from the poor to spare the rich 劫貧濟富
38. under the banner of 以⋯⋯的名義；在⋯⋯的旗幟下
39. voluntary entertainment 自願性娛樂
40. a scratch-off ticket 一張刮刮樂
　
有些制定政策的人認為，彩券的道德成本很低。畢竟，那些都是自願的博弈。而且，由州政府收取資金並將之用於各級學校，也許比用在喝酒、抽菸或其他東西上都來得好。在一個所得不均日益加劇的時代，各州將貧困居民僅存的希望貨幣化，無疑是有害的。國家彩券劫貧濟富，以自願性娛樂的名義推進。禁止博彩遊戲並不會讓我們最貧窮的社區突然變得富有。但這些社區甚至連刮刮樂的一毛錢都沒贏過，卻已眼睜睜輸掉數量可觀的彩券。
　
——《大西洋》
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
今政府開辦之彩券販售，雖係有法令依據的合法行為，其販售權力也優先給予殘障弱勢者，每年所獲盈餘也多用在公益事業或挹注部分運動項目，不可謂沒有功勞。但整體而論；彩券是藉公益之名，慷民眾之慨以補政府的不足，彩券盈餘所挹注的公益項目，都是政府原本就應照顧的族群，不應等待民眾簽注的盈餘才來做這些事。
　
——立法院第8屆第2會期第2次會議紀錄

https://bit.ly/2EkkktK
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
國內運動彩券之評析: https://www.npf.org.tw/3/5099

圖片出處: https://bit.ly/2P11l9L
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
參考資料：
　
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/refusing-t0-cheat-the-poor/2015/07/09/78154b9a-2670-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55b

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/refusing-t0-cheat-the-poor/2015/07/09/78154b9a-2670-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55bf29a1f446

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/lotteries-americas-70-billion-shame/392870/

http://www.businessinsider.com/lottery-is-a-tax-on-the-poor-2012-4

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/12/news/companies/powerball-lottery-games-poor/index.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/lotteries-americas-70-billion-shame/392870/

【專題訪問 Interview Feature】2019年度香港大學學生會周年大選中央幹事會候選内閣蒼傲訪問（外務篇） | Interview with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union of Annual Election 2019 (External Affairs)

(Please scroll down for English version.)

中央幹事會候選內閣蒼傲就外務議題接受本台訪問，就不同外務議題立場，包括不反對政府取締民族黨的原因、相信政府DQ議員合法的理據、初一事件有黑幫介入的看法、及對法律制度有信心的理由等發表意見。

訪問節錄如下：

1. 你們的政治光譜/政治立場是甚麼？
我們認為用現有的名詞並不能表達我們莊的政治立場，因為例如本土、港獨等，第一他們並沒有清晰的界定，或是社會一致的定義，我們都認為不論是政治光譜或是政治立場我們作為香港人或是香港接受教育的人，其實我們的立場都會傾向由香港出發。但由香港出發去考慮香港利益時，我們都要考慮時間軸。時間軸的意思是，我們到底在考慮短期還是長期的利益。加上香港的地理位置、經濟結構其實都十分依賴世界上大部份的國家，不論金融、出口產業，所以在考慮香港利益同時，我們都應考慮鄰近國家的政策、議案的推出。所以如果要用幾個字去形容我們的政治立場，我們會選擇「國際視野，本土出發」八個字。前者是考想利益的角度,後者是執行的角度。

2. 你們是否支持香港獨立？
首先我們認為它可以被自由地討論，特別是在大學之內。至於是否贊成香港獨立方面，港獨並非香港現時可執行最好的決策，因為尚有很多的選擇可加以考慮及討論。另外我認為香港內部的問題都非常嚴峻，例如我們在政綱小册子上提到的外務議題，如學生自殺、高樓價、創新科技嚴重落後等問題。這些都是我們內部必須解決和面對的問題，所以我們會將那些內部問題列為最優先需要處理的問題。

3. 你們覺得香港獨立是否合法？
我們認為任何符合法例的討論都是可被接受的，所以我們認為只要某個人或團體在現時完善的法律制度下，加上沒有違反法律，就應可就不同議題提出想法。

4. 你們是否同意香港政府取締香港民族黨？
首先我們相信香港的法治仍然相當完善，所以就香港一套完整司法制度體系下做出的判決，我們並沒有太多質疑或反對。對於民族黨被政府取締或禁止，社會上有不同聲音，但我們相信我們應遵守絕大部分香港市民都認同是完善的法律體系下作出的任何決策。

5. 你們是否同意香港政府DQ議員？
其實我們由始至終都相信，而坊間一些調查機構都指出香港的法治制度在世界上都名列前茅，所以我們相信這套法治制度可以帶來公平的審訊，所以對於有部分議員被DQ，我們願意相信整個判決過程是公平的，並且有足夠理據去支持政府所作的判決，所以我們對這件事沒有任何特別意見。

6. 你們是否支持人大釋法？
每一個法律的訂立，其實都是由一小部分的精英去開始建構框架，然後隨社會的進步不斷完善。所以法律並非一本已經印刷好的書，而是容許我們不斷修改、去完善，就一些前人的不足作補完。人大釋法亦都如是，我相信重點是我們希望這法列在微調後能得到愈來愈多香港人的支持，這才是一個成功的新詮釋。

7. 你們是否同意一國兩制？
我們支持所有在香港回歸時所簽訂的條文，其中當然包括一國兩制。

8. 你們是否支持國歌法和23條立法？
因為爭議聲非常之多，所以我們不希望對任何未實施或未明文規定的法例作出過多評論。這是對該法案有所偏頗，該法案到最後還有很多相議的空間，所以我們認為政府應充分考慮各種聲音，從而推出一條為大部分港人所接受的法例。

9. 你們對違法達義有何看法？
香港作為擁有完善法律的城市，任何人都有表達訴求或是行動的權利。我們主張每人都有自由去決定自己的事、想表達的聲音，但每人都應為這些行為勇敢承擔相認的法律責任。當然我們更相信這套法律體系是完善和公平的。

10. 你們對初一事件有何看法？
對旺角騷動，很多報紙傳媒都報道了有不法份子甚至黑社會的介入，所以旺角騷動的那一批示威者是否單純為表達而表達的市民呢？

11. 你們是否同意政府以暴動罪控告參與者？
就對這幾名人士進行拘捕的行為，我們希望香港政府有真憑實據去支持，以及整個審訊過程認該要公平。我希望他們得到公平的審訊。

Campus TV has interviewed with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union, Session 2019, with regards to their treatment of external affairs. Prism has expressed their stance and opinions on various external issues, which include: their not opposing the Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party, believing in the government’s legitimacy for the disqualification of legislators, believing in the involvement of gangs in the Mong Kok Incident of 2016, and expressing their confidence in the current legal system.

The interview excerpts are as follows:

1. Where do you stand on the political spectrum? / How would you define your political stance?
We believe the current word items are unable to express our Cabinet’s political stance. For example, if you consider the term localism or Hong Kong independence, these groups have not a clear boundary or universal definition given by the society. Whether it be the political spectrum or political stance, us who are Hong Kong-ers or who have been educated in Hong Kong, have a tendency to think from the standpoint of Hong Kong. If we consider the benefits from the standpoint of Hong Kong, we also need to consider the timeline. This (the timeline) means, that we should consider if these benefits are of short term or long term. Therefore, when considering Hong Kong’s benefits, we should also consider the policies and bills of neighbouring countries. Therefore, if we had to define our political stance in terms, it would be “international perspective that comes from a local standpoint”. The former is a consideration to the benefits, the latter is a consideration to the execution.

2. Do you support Hong Kong independence?
Firstly, we think this matter could be discussed freely, especially within the premises of the University. In terms of agreeing with Hong Kong independence, we think that Hong Kong independence is currently not the best option to be executed in Hong Kong, because there are still many other options to consider and discuss about. In addition, I think that Hong Kong’s internal affairs are very severe, like the external affairs that are mentioned in our campaign booklet, for example, students’ suicides, rising property prices, the severely outdated innovation and technology. These are problems that our internal department has to confront and resolve, therefore we put these internal affairs as our priority.

3. Do you think that Hong Kong independence is legal?
We believe any discussion that is in compliance with the law is acceptable. Therefore, we think that under the current, comprehensive legal system, with no breaching of the law, a person or group should be allowed to speak their thoughts on different issues.

4. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party?
Firstly, we believe that Hong Kong’s rule of law is still quite comprehensive. Therefore, we do not have much hesitation nor opposition for a judgment that is based on what we consider to be an intact judicial system of Hong Kong. In terms of the banning of the Hong Kong National Party, the society has different voices, but we believe we ought to obey the judgment that comes from what the majority of Hong Kong considers to be a comprehensive legal system.

5. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s disqualification of legislators?
Actually, we have since the very beginning believed in Hong Kong’s rule of law as quite a frontrunner in the world; this has been backed by some survey organisations within the community too, so we believe that this rule of law can bring out a fair trial. Therefore, in regards to the disqualification of some legislators, we willingly believe that the entirety of the judgment process has been fair, with sufficient arguments to back up the government’s verdict. We do not express any special opinions towards this incident.

6. Do you support the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress’ Interpretation of the Basic Law (SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, or Interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC)?
For the enactment of every legislation, it starts from a small portion of elites that begin to build its (the legislation’s) framework, it then continues to be improved as society grows. For this reason, the law is not a printed book, it allows us to continually amend, better, and complete items that are left neglected or faulted by predecessors. This applies for the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, I believe the most important thing is, we hope to gain more Hong Kong-ers’ support under these fine-tunings (by the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL), we think this is what counts as a successful re-interpretation of the law.

7. Do you agree with the constitutional principle of “one country, two systems”?
We support all the terms that were signed in the Handover of Hong Kong, and this definitely includes the principle of “one country, two systems”.

8. Do you support the National Anthem Bill and the enactment of Article 23?
Due to the many controversies on this matter, we do not wish to comment on any legislation that has yet to be implemented or stipulated in explicit terms. This would be a prejudice on the said bill(s). These bills still have a lot of room for negotiation, so we believe the government should consider different voices, so as to introduce a legislation that is accepted by the majority of Hong Kong-ers.

9. What are your views on the idea of achieving justice by violating the law?
Hong Kong is a city with a comprehensive legal system; anyone has the right to express their own appeal or action. We advocate that everyone has the freedom to decide for their own deeds and express their own thoughts, but everyone should also be responsible to bear the consequences of their actions. Needless to say, we definitely believe that our legal system is perfect and fair.

10. What are your views on the Mong Kok Incident in 2016?
With regards to the Mong Kok unrest, many media sources have reported about the involvement of many illegal parties, and even that of gangs or triads. So, are the demonstrators in the Mong Kok unrest really with pure intentions to speak up, for the sake of expressing themselves as Hong Kong citizens?

11. Do you agree with the government’s decision to charge participants (of the Mong Kok Incident in 2016) with the offence of rioting?
With regards to the arrest of those participants, we hope that the Hong Kong government has had solid evidence to support (their arrest), and that the trial process has been fair. I hope they receive a fair trial.
___________________________________

二零一九年度香港大學學生會周年大選其他候選人包括候選常務秘書麥嘉晉、校園電視候選內閣、學苑候選編輯委員會及候選普選評議員。

2019年度周年大選中央諮詢大會將於一月二十一日至一月二十五日在中山廣場舉行，時間為下午十二時半至二時半。

Other candidates for the Annual Election 2019 include the Proposed General Secretary Mak Ka Chun Eugene, the Proposed Cabinet of Campus TV, the Proposed Editorial Board of Undergrad, and the Proposed Popularly Elected Union Councillor.

The Central Campaign for Annual Election 2019 will be held from the 21st to 25th of January at the Sun Yat-sen Place, from 12:30 to 14:30.

SORRY I WAS GONE I LOVE YOU ALL
我的英文發音課程 ▶ https://columbus.cool
然後記得按讚+訂閱 xD

✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨

訂閱連結 ▶ http://bit.ly/2pFqXeA
FB ▶ https://www.facebook.com/littlecolumbus
IG ▶ https://www.instagram.com/littlecolumbus
合作邀約 ▶ columbus@english.cool
其他訊息 ▶ 密我 FB 粉絲專頁

✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨

I wrote a new song c:
Written in the perspective of a man on his deathbed.
It's a little sad :c

✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨

哥倫布的播放清單
✬ 原創歌曲 ORIGINAL SONGS ▶ https://goo.gl/2qi5k7
✬ 鋼琴與其他音樂 PIANO VIOLIN FINGERSTYLE COVERS ▶ https://goo.gl/QwmZqk
✬ 跳舞 DANCE COVERS ▶ https://goo.gl/uCpdmR
✬ 合作影片 ▶ https://goo.gl/TzQsBf
✬ 歌曲下載 ▶ http://bit.do/littlecolumbus

✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨✨

哈囉！大家好，我是哥倫布。我本身是一名詞曲創作人，目前住在台灣台北。非常謝謝你們願意聆聽我的原創歌曲，也謝謝你們訂閱我的音樂頻道喔！

我很喜歡寫歌，每當我聽見別人在哼我寫的旋律時，我就會有非常大的滿足感。除了寫歌之外，我也喜歡拍一些有趣的音樂相關影片在 Youtube 和 Facebook 上面喔！

我的夢想是有一天能把寫歌當作事業。當我達成我的目標後，我會用盡全力幫助其他的獨立創作人，這樣他們也能夠靠從事藝術來生活。

我會彈鋼琴、吉他、小提琴、貝斯，目前也有在學習其他的樂器，如果你們想要支持我的話，可以訂閱我的頻道及追蹤我的臉書給我最大、最實質的支持。

Hi! I am Columbus. I am songwriter in Taipei, Taiwan. My dream is to someday be able to do songwriting as a career. Thank you for listening and subscribing and listening to my music!