第一次評議會極簡短會議紀要

前言

基於現時義務秘書出缺，而且亦肯定沒有人作錄音或抄寫的工作時，本人自當有義務擔當起將會議內容紀錄下來的責任。由於只是本人從記憶中抄寫出來，所以一定會有所缺漏，望諒。

委任署理中央幹事

會上陳智聰同學(PS05, FS(a)06, FS07)被委任為署理出版秘書，徐航同學(IVP07)被委任為署理內務副會長。其中徐同學的委任引來嚴重爭議。

問題的重心其實只有兩個：一是學生會大樓的問題有多迫切，二是究竟應不應該由一個署理幹事帶領一群民選幹事。

不得不說，雖然學生會大樓問題好像是迫在眉睫，但有關方面放出的末日論也太恐怖了。當校方的最底限是許愛周兩層時，其實來來去去就只有兩層，四層和厲樹雄三個選擇。四層和厲樹雄，坦白說，並不實際。而萬一真的出現許愛周兩層的情形時，已經是談判破裂，也不用再在乎究竟是不是內務副會長的問題，而是應該搞全體無限期抗爭了。
要爭取的話，不如爭取鐵皮屋(科橋)。最少，那邊的結構在改建上比其它的選擇均容易。不過我似乎一直在對牛彈琴。

署理幹事帶領民選幹事的問題在民意基礎。不論那些基礎是否盲票，一票就是一票，沒有票的人去帶領有票的人，難免會令人質疑大選的用途(當然這並非不應質疑！)。再者，徐同學在會上公然表示不會參與補選，卻又挑起學生會大樓如此重擔，亦相當前後矛盾。

委任學苑及校園電視幹事

本來是例行公事的議程，最後卻幾成諮詢大會，已經相當奇怪；難得的是亦有人在迴避問題，這簡直是超乎大家的想像。當然，最後大家也例行公事地讓全體同學上任。

委任委員會成員

其它委員會不詳述，只述所謂的評議會改革/重組工作小組。會上挖墳討論的風氣嚴重，甚至有人明示「以前的決定令大家繼續拖下去」，將評議會的權威當作附屬品，輸打贏要式的搞「抗命」，意圖將時鐘往回撥。不論該等人士所言是否正當，學生會的時間就在這種每年洗牌一次的環境中全浪費掉。

違規物品事宜

校園電視已述。說實在就是依法還是以法的爭議，既無真憑實據，現在就不應變成絞肉場，修羅場。

是無人關心，還是不值得關心？——回應學苑第二十八期之報導及苑論

其實這已經不是一個回應，而是希望從另一個角度去解釋學苑眾人提出的現象。

苑論：「諮詢大會門庭冷落，拉票活動又聊勝於無」

究竟是甚麼原因令諮詢大會門庭冷落？是不合格的政綱，不合格的選民，還是大家根本就不喜歡諮詢大會？當中央幹事會之諮詢大會，本人可以認出大半的出席者，甚至和不少出席者有私交時，一個只有自己友出席的諮詢大會，究竟又有甚麼意義？苑論中明顯避重就輕，少有著墨。

若果劉同學直接指本人不尊重諮詢大會，本人絕對樂意接受此等「批評」，甚至可以視為美評，因為只有自己人出席，甚至無人出席的諮詢大會根本就沒有值得尊重的餘地。如果說我是不負責任的話，我不知道一個可以隨意致電聯絡的候選人有多願意逃避諮詢。

如果說本人為甚麼出席諮詢大會，而不是直接的不出席抗議，這又是另作別論了，最少這是一個新的觀點；本人亦覺得當天的「行為藝術」做得唔夠徹底，不過如此徹底的話，肯定會有人將這種行動和鍾滙成事件互相比較。

苑論：「只有一個簡單介紹政網的部落格和少量……宣傳海報」

本人不清楚劉同學花多少時間閱讀在選舉前發表的幾份文章。事實上，如果以本人的四個政綱而言，首三個已經非常充份的被解釋，甚至十零制的陳年構思，也引起有人以奇怪的方式反對，本人實在不能理解「簡單」二字究竟從何而來。

至於有聲音指出本人並無實際政綱，這就和要求各尊貴的議員在選舉時列出會製作議員通訊一般可笑。選普評是選一名代議士，而不是選人上莊，代議士是來表達意見，而不是用來制定政策的人。至於寫不寫PC Voice一類的問題，在現在數碼媒體的使用已成常態的今天，更是形同廢問。

宣傳海報方面，本人一直是以兩個原則設計的：一是內容，二是實效。內容方面，正如報導所說，政綱比面孔更為有力和有意義，劉同學亦顯示未有留意本人是有貼正常海報的(現在應該還有一組在中銀櫃員機對面)。至於「千秋萬代可恥 一統江湖可悲」的海報組，贊不贊同根本就是見仁見智——反正現在反宿生會的言論均受到有系統的打壓，但單就製造噪音的目的來說，效果卻是相當的充份。

(引)高頁君：「他好應該主動向在場的同學解釋政綱，而不是自行離開會場」

在場的同學應該會記得在諮詢大會早期出現的一段小插曲：當時中央幹事會諮詢大會的主席施旭成同學公然離開自己的主席岡位，並直接向本人指出本人的噪音過大。本人無意在此挑起私人恩怨，但只是以此指出，鬥大聲夾硬宣傳的做法並不可行，借別人的休息作宣傳亦不見得甚麼有效，本人亦絕對不想重演每週在邵逸夫平台上上演的商科三大巨頭聲音展。

高頁君同學亦明顯沒有留意，當晚有一個十數頁的簡報一直在播放。在多謝數個商科的學會的同學給我這個啟發外，看來也到他們留意無限簡報這個宣傳手法的成效，我也得看看我有沒有「學壞師」了。

報導：「沒有作足夠的宣傳，以致同學不清楚他的政綱」

兩句說話分開來說或是事實，但合起來說的因果關係可說是亂來。平心而論，學苑新莊是絕對合格；中央幹事會的海報上除八字真言以外，並無政綱可言，但網上版能夠補夠；校園電視則是絕對的慘不忍睹，如果不去諮詢大會，肯定沒有人知道他們政綱為何。

本人無意攻擊任何組織，單是指出有足夠宣傳的單位，政綱方面亦可以爛得史無前例。再放開一點來說，現在港大的情況就是有心的同學自會找尋政綱，沒心的同學餵他吃政綱也是多餘。這或是苛求現在的選民，但擴展至香港的立法會選舉，其實也是政黨票，單以民主與否去論斷一個人的盲票年代。

結語：其實這只是偽善的表現？

最後，不得不提出一個疑問：為甚麼竟然沒有反宣傳？如果我真的如此不尊重同學，宣傳不足，那麼那些吵鬧的群眾，為甚麼卻選擇了縮沙？我不是指有人做新聞，但為甚麼可以有人一邊大罵有問題，一邊卻完全沒有實質行動，而是事後在報紙上發炮？究竟這是大家都其身不正，還是只是本人將這些「問題」用最誇張的方法辦了一場「表演」，所以決定槍打出頭鳥？再類推一下，為甚麼和風一和風二會招來如此大力的外間干預，甚至有民主黨派的人動用大眾傳媒以達到倒和風的目的，反對姜同學(以學苑所言)的聲音卻只是止於紙上，而竟然連一張大字報也沒有招來？

其實，只是因為有人不想出現空莊的情形吧？當動機都不純時，又有甚麼資格批評別人借此不純動機去顯示閣下的不純動機呢？

Proposed Hall Admission System for 2008: why we shouldn’t agree with it

Background

The Task force on Hall Admission Quotas of the Committee of Halls has published a Proposed Hall Admission System for the Future. We found some ideas in it interesting and is in the right way forward, but its drawbacks has made us make this position to oppose the adoption of this system.

Information on the system

In this system, first year non-local students and first year local students with an onerous need would be guaranteed a hall place for a year, while everyone else will be subjected to a 50:50 split in point calculation.: the former being the need factor, and the latter being the contribution or the discretionary factor which is decided on a hall-by-hall basis. Re-admission is done out of this system by each hall deciding individually on the number of students they are going to retain, from 75% to 90%. The system also includes check and balance systems, like requiring a tutor to attend all hall interviews and all appeals should have their reasons stated if they are not successful.

What and why we are dissatisfied with it

At the first glance, it seems that it is the way forward because it grants autonomy to the halls while it also guarantees the halls to consider the need factor for everyone. However, the greatest concern is the amount of autonomy granted to the halls is too much. In the proposed system, if the number of places for non-absolute need students is known, say x, then the hall can completely control the result by assigning the discretionary factor of x students be 100 and all the others be zero. In this way, the wanted students (that is with the second part being 100) would have a total mark of at least 50, and the others with a mark of at most 50. Assuming that the mark for the need factor is practically non-zero, the first x students will the x students assigned by the hall. Thus the result can be fully in control of the hall.

Some will say that with the publicizing of the criteria and their ratios, the risk of result-fixing should be eliminated. These people has missed the point that the report has no mention of any external reviewing or even information on how the factors should be distributed statistically. The report suggests that every hall can set their own score that “takes into consideration of non-academic achievements, expected contribution to hall life, match with the style of the hall, and performance interview” We are deeply concerned on how does those factors literally means, especially when “contribution to hall life, match with the style of the hall, performance interview” can be highly subjective and can be taken by each hall to mean very different beings. This again opens up deep concern on how the halls would use their excessive freedom to manipulate the results.

In the forum, Dr. Robert Chung accused us as holding a major “distrust” with the hall community. While we understand that the distrust may be irrational and the halls should be trusted, what we now see is not generally the case. There has been reports widely circulating around the internet that the wardens are generally operating in unison with the admission-deciding body in appeals, and some wardens are over-zealous in their reactions when the philosophy that their students upheld is being questioned by outsiders. Without outside scrutiny to ensure everyone is working well for their jobs, I would see no improvement on the current situation for the time being.

There is also concerns form the hall community that the discretionary factor is being stripped away if they decided to follow the rules. This generally reflects to people who have outstanding achievements but lives affluently near the hall. While the philosophy of educating over-achievers instead of non-achievers should be questioned, it makes no sense for a fair system to allow for so little flexibility if they decided to play fair.

So the situation is pretty clear. If the halls want to play fair, then there will be a fair amount of people who deserves hall education being excluded from the lot. If they decided to trick the system, then ultimately the students will suffer. We would like to make ourselves clear that we are opposing the system on these grounds.

There is also a problem on the re-admission system. HKU is one of the few universities that handles it in May/June, in another lot of the Fresh intakes. It should also be noticed that the current system of re-admission is not centralized, but rather on a hall-by-hall basis. This is currently out of the norm of other universities that handles re-admission identically to new admissions. While it protects the current students and arguably preserves the Hall Culture, it is out of the principle of fairness and practically makes hall residence a 3-year-affair. We would like to change this situation too.

The suggestion

1. All factors should be entered in terms of percentiles instead of the actual values. This is to discourage any pre-calculations made by the halls before the interview and normalize the values so that they should not be biased to any side.

It is assumed that the need factor is calculated similar to what it is now. It is foreseeable that there will be a systematic bias towards the higher end of the scale. Normalizing the scale seems natural especially it is compared against other variables that will surely have a different distribution.

2. The discretionary factor should be further divided in a 1:1 ratio into the “record” factor and “performance” factor.

3. The record factor should include factors that could be determined solely by documents alone like participation in teams in secondary school, and should be pre-calculated before any interviewed is carried out. Such factor should be generally reproducible: that is, anyone should be able to compute these factors independently beforehand. The record factor should be submitted by the warden with prior approval of the Students’ Association to the Committee of Halls and / or the HKUSU Council, which approval should be sought from.

This measure could ensure accountability of the Halls to be in line of the general well-being of the University community.

4. The performance factor should be decided solely by the halls in the interview. It should be free for the halls consider anything they deem fit in this factor and they are free to choose to or not to publicize them.

Forcing the halls to publicize a factor which its calculation cannot be objectively done is of little meaning. Room should also be made for them to adjust the factors on the fly or as they deem fit.

5. Halls should be able to assign 3-5% of their places each year not in accordance to any list or prior guidelines, i.e. they are free to choose who they can place in the places.

This should address some of the concerns of the hall community and should be able to cover those extraordinary cases.

6. There should be no separate re-admission exercise and all applicants should be considered by calculating the factors in the first round admissions.

This means all applicants for a hall place for currents, no matter they are current residents or not, should be considered on the same grounds. There will be no meaning to the re-admission rate since everyone can only be weighed by the marks calculated from the factors.

Extended Reading: 新的 hall admission system，變相鼓勵 hall 去揀人

對不起！ Sorry!

由於現時遊行的跟進工作仍未完成，所以很多本來要做的評議會工作都被迫擱下了。
Since there is too much work to do after the rally, a lot or council work has to be shelved for the time being.

望大家手下留情。
I can only say sorry and hope you can understand the situation.

斯德哥爾摩症候群

轉載出處：
http://www.xanga.com/diki_chan/639825492/item.html

NoNoNo ... Dickie ...
你錯la!!!
你有無聽過"斯德哥爾摩症候群"???
con莊係要長先有"意義"ga!!!

當班下莊俾人con ge時候
由初時諗點捱咁耐
開始諗住hea, 跟住有d嬲, and then有人喊, 最後"醒悟"變到笑笑口
成班下莊一齊經歷過n小時ge洗禮
自然能建立深厚ge友誼*
而特別是那些真情流露的更是獲益良多
莊友鼓勵的說話更會銘記於心

"唔好喊啦!我地支持你!佢地搵野話下姐,唔駛理佢地wor..."

他們見盡了人生百態, 突然長大了,
學懂了做人處事應有的態度!
即使俾人不留情面咁話,
都可以帶點敬佩的眼神,感恩地笑著對他說:
"多謝,我受教了,以後還繼續需要你的指點!"

最後, 這一個優良ge傳統將會流傳下去
面對他們的下莊, 想起當年上莊的教導,
他們就會善用寶貴的時間, 再搞個n++小時的con莊會
因為他們相信,

作為上莊, 他們有多一年經驗;
作為上莊, 他們最清楚如何辦個成功的學會;
作為上莊, 他們要以身作則教導下莊;
作為上莊, 他們最有"資格"話下莊;

縱使有人泣不成聲,有人心靈受創,有人萌生退意,

但,作為上莊, 他們知道甚麼對下莊最好!

所以, 你現在知道,
為何在中學時說的"搞學會",
到左大學,
會變做"上莊"呢?!

p.s. Dickie/diki是CA行將落莊的Acting CC，06-07ACA Chair兼06-07CA Fin Sec/RCA