I have been working as a GrabFood deliveryman since I lost all of my arts income due to the current COVID-19 climate.

If I could sum my experience up in a phrase, I would say it has been an experiential ethnography of privilege and empathy.

I have had some bad/heartbreaking experiences. I encountered a migrant worker who asked me to give him some of the food that I was supposed to deliver to a paying customer - the migrant worker had no money to buy lunch because his employer was not paying his wages on time. I received a one out of five star rating for a delayed delivery, because it was raining and when I reached the lobby of the forty-storey high condominum, I had to queue up at the security counter for temperature taking/contact tracing purposes.

But I have also had my share of heartwarming encounters. On my first day of work, a waitress bought me a drink while I was waiting for an order that was taking longer than usual to be prepared (“做这行辛苦了，这杯茶泡给你喝，替你加油!”). A granny who lived in what looked like a rental flat tipped me $5 for a Burger King order that cost slightly more than my tip.

Ever since the 'circuit breaker' measures kicked in on Tuesday, I have seen Safe Distancing Ambassadors and enforcement officers from the various government ministries on the ground discouraging people from gathering/roaming together on the streets - a tough but necessary thing to do given how infectious the coronavirus has proven to be.

At the same time, I am also frustrated by some of the vigilantism/shaming that has been happening on social media - ranging from people loitering in void decks to fellow deliverymen having meals in public. To be able to stay at home (let's not even talk about ordering in) means that you have a certain kind of privilege that not everyone has. For every person who is irresponsibly hanging outside for fun, there is also another person who genuinely does not feel safe to be at home, be it alone or with members of their household - whom they may not be on good terms with.

Stay at home if you can - we need all hands on board to curb the spread of COVID-19. But if you do see someone else not staying at home as often as they should be - rather than admonishing them straightaway, gently check in with them to see if there is anything you can do to help them stay safe in these trying times. Sometimes there are complicated circumstances behind the non-conformative actions that people take, that we can never discern on the surface.

[P.S. Do tip your deliverymen if you can - even a $1 tip is appreciated! It is the only form of income that companies does not, and cannot touch. Delivery earnings across the board have been slowly, but surely reducing for us because of the sudden influx of deliverymen, and the less than proportionate increase in demand for food delivery from consumers.]

[P.P.S. If you are thinking about ordering from your favourite hawker stall, if you can help it, try to dapao/bungkus from them in person rather than through a third-party app, so that the hawker can minimise the commissions that they have to pay for using the third-party app to offer delivery services.]

【法政匯思就社會進一步動盪的聲明】
【Statement on Further Escalation of Social Unrest】
// 當體制構建不能保障市民應有的追索權，暴力兼「私了」必如落山流水跟著來，這已清晰可見。僅說無諾，何能「止暴制亂」？
// Where the system fails to provide proper recourse, vigilantism and violence proclaiming self-defence arise as simple cause and effect. Without any real commitment by the Government to de-escalate and defuse the political crisis, verbal condemnation and physical crackdown will do nothing to ‘stop violence and curb disorder’.
https://www.facebook.com/…/a.455221741311…/1474268236073377/

【法政匯思就社會進一步動盪的聲明】
【Statement on Further Escalation of Social Unrest】(Scroll for English)

1. 近日，警隊的行為就如國際特赦組織所言越見低劣。[1] 這皆因政府漠視其專家提供的建議，並以歇斯底里、毫無章法可言的策略回應持續的動盪。

2. 五個月來，政府持續容許以下情況發生，對警政問題及根本的政治危機藥石亂投：
a. 阻礙救護人員前往現場拯救傷者；[2]
b. 偏頗地處理強姦或酷刑對待被拘留人士的指控；[3]
c. 肆無忌憚地濫用武力；[4]
d. 以諸多藉口為警察的失控或報復行為辯解。[5]

3. 法政匯思強烈譴責警隊濫用武力，及其本末倒置、往往為社區添煩添亂的驅散示威者行動。警方在十一月十一日於香港中文大學（「中大」）、香港理工大學及香港大學等驅散非法集結及/或堵路行為的行動，指稱的事實根據惹人非議。[6] 在撰寫此聲明之時，警方甚至以催淚彈及橡膠子彈回應中大校長的善意，與學生發生激烈衝突，造成最少60人受傷及多人被捕。[7]

4. 歸根究底，現有的制度未能公正地調查涉及警務人員的刑事指控，乃是警民衝突的源頭。樂觀地看，這可能只是個別調查人員的疏忽；悲觀地看，這反映一種互相包庇的文化，可能已由員佐級警員到警務處處長、保安局局長甚至特首，滲透警隊及政府上下。無論是哪一個情況，這種警察橫行無忌的觀感已經令公眾對負責調查大部分罪行的警察的信任蕩然無存。這個缺口一開，刑事司法制度剩下非常有限的能力，處理失職警員。

5. 法政匯思繼續呼籲香港政府成立獨立調查委員會，調查包括六月份以來政府的治安管理手段。除了將肇事者繩之於法外，更重要的是全面檢閱香港警隊以達至結構上的改革。至今，特區政府對於這個明顯又實際的選擇不屑一顧，堅持讓一個缺乏監察權力的獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會（「監警會」）[8] 去調查警察投訴及內部調查科。這正正就是問題根源所在。

6. 監警會委派的國際專家組就這個問題發表《進展報告》。國際專家組與政府持相反意見。他們批評監警會在結構上欠缺全面調查權力，對監警會這一個輕型、監管式的體制是否能夠做出決定性的貢獻表示懷疑，更指出下一步的可能性諸如「委派一個享有所需權力的獨立調查機構以作更深程度及更廣泛的調查」，意味著一個獨立調查委員會。[9]

7. 對於近數星期暴力頻頻，政府沒有採取任何行動，只是堅拒示威者的訴求（包括成立獨立調查委員會），更稱他們為「人民的敵人」。[10] 警員們多月來非人化地濫稱示威者為「曱甴」。[11]

8. 法政匯思絕對不認同法外制裁。此立場於七月二十五日之聲明已表明。然而，當體制構建不能保障市民應有的追索權，暴力兼「私了」必如落山流水跟著來，這已清晰可見。僅說無諾，何能「止暴制亂」？

法政匯思
2019年11月15日
(PDF: https://tinyurl.com/tt2nzmr)

1. Police conduct has seen, in the words of Amnesty International, ‘another shocking low’ [1] in recent days as the Government ignored constructive feedback by its own experts and hysterically responded to the ongoing unrest without any rational strategy.

2. In particular, these allegations point to a wanton failure on the part of the Government to properly approach policing and the underlying political crisis, now in its 5th month:

a. Obstructing rescuers and ambulances from accessing the injured; [2]
b. Unfair handling of allegations of rape and torture in custody; [3]
c. Unapologetic excesses in its use of force; [4] and
d. Evasive defence of police officers acting impulsively or in retaliation. [5]

3. The Progressive Lawyers Group (the ‘PLG’) vehemently condemns the Police regarding their excessive use of force and dispersal operations which often create the chaos sought to be quelled. On 11 November, the police conducted operations in, amongst others, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (‘CUHK’), the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong to disperse unlawful assemblies and/or obstruction of traffic, [6] the factual basis of which has been doubted by many. As at the drafting of this Statement, as riot police responded to an olive branch by the CUHK Vice-Chancellor with tear gas and rubber bullets, severe clashes between students and riot police at CUHK are ongoing with at least 60 injured and dozens arrested. [7]

4. Nonetheless, the crux of the problem remains in the institutional failure to investigate criminal allegations involving police officers impartially. At best, it could be an omission by individual police officers in their execution of duty. At worst, it could be a culture that acquiesces and conceals wrongdoings affecting grassroot constables, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Security and the Chief Executive alike. Whichever the case may be, this perception of impunity breaches the trust and confidence the public reposes in the police who are tasked with investigating most offences. With this link broken, there remains very limited recourse in the criminal justice system against rogue officers.

5. The PLG continues to call on the Hong Kong Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry regarding, amongst others, the current approach to policing social unrest since June. Bringing wrongdoers to justice aside, the more important task is a holistic review on the Police Force and a roadmap to structural reforms. So far, the Government brushed aside this obvious and pragmatic option, insisting upon an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Council (‘IPCC’) [8] whose (lack of) oversight over the Complaints Against Police Office (‘CAPO’) is the very issue at the heart of the current saga.

6. Curiously, the International Expert Panel of the IPCC appointed for advice on that very inquiry seems to hold a contrary view. In their Position Statement Report of Progress, the experts pointed out ‘structural limitations in the scope and powers of the IPCC Inquiry’ and noted that ‘it remains to be seen whether a light touch, oversight body like the IPCC, can make sufficient progress to produce any decisive contribution…’ It also identified a possible next step such as ‘a deeper more comprehensive inquiry in a number of respects by an independent body with requisite powers’, alluding to a Commission of Inquiry. [9]

7. In response to the extraordinary brutalities these few weeks, the Government did nothing but maintain that it will not yield to the protesters’ demands (including an independent Commission of Inquiry) and call them ‘enemies of the people’. [10] It has not helped that the police have for months been blatantly using such a dehumanising term as ‘cockroaches’ to refer to protesters [11].

8. The PLG stands by our Statement on 25 July 2019 and does not encourage citizens to take justice into their own hands. However, it is obvious by now that where the system fails to provide proper recourse, vigilantism and violence proclaiming self-defence arise as simple cause and effect. Without any real commitment by the Government to de-escalate and defuse the political crisis, verbal condemnation and physical crackdown will do nothing to ‘stop violence and curb disorder’.

The Progressive Lawyers Group
15 November 2019
(PDF version: https://tinyurl.com/tt2nzmr)

反送中運動之今已三個多月，警民關係跌至冰點，於是民眾開始提倡「#私了」。其實這種 #法外制裁（Vigilantism）在世界各地並不罕見，而犯罪學領域中，也有不少文獻深入探討這個現象。

詳細全文：
http://bit.ly/2kvf2Ci

延伸專題：
【「去個性化」是濫用武力的開始？】
http://bit.ly/2YwyOA8
【放棄公共安全責任，等同撕毀社會契約】
http://bit.ly/2Zbg1q9
【文宣要人：網絡時代動員要訣】
http://bit.ly/2m1zpYa

==========================
在 www.cup.com.hk 留下你的電郵地址，即可免費訂閱星期一至五 CUP 媒體 的日誌。

🎦 YouTube 👉 https://goo.gl/4ZetJ5
📸 Instagram 👉 www.instagram.com/cupmedia/
💬 Telegram 👉 https://t.me/cupmedia
📣 WhatsApp 👉 http://bit.ly/2XdWXqz

チャンネル登録、ぜひお願いします！！
http://urx.red/Zgf8

番組へのお便り投稿フォーム
https://forms.gle/udvU8EF9PGv2feKU6

アメリカのジョー・バイデン大統領が議会に銃規制改革を制定するよう議会に求め話題になっています。アメリカ国民は銃を手放すことができるのか？ 2016年1月17日の配信をアップグレードしつつ、思想と文化の視点から考えていきます。お楽しみください。

このゼミの続きを見たい方には、以下の2つの方法がおすすめです。

1.YouTube メンバーシップ　https://bit.ly/3lvIbYF
【YouTube 岡田斗司夫ゼミ】３０日590円(税込）

2.ドワンゴ ブロマガ会員　https://ch.nicovideo.jp/ex
【ニコ生岡田斗司夫ゼミ】　月会費550円(税込）

*****************************
この動画が10週間以上前の場合や、他の動画も色々楽しみたい場合は、以下がお得です。

3.YouTube メンバーシップ　https://bit.ly/3lvIbYF
【YouTube 岡田斗司夫ゼミ プレミアム】３０日2,390円(税込）

4.ドワンゴ ブロマガ会員　https://bit.ly/2QBcteh
【ニコ生 岡田斗司夫ゼミ プレミアム】月会費2,200円(税込）

5.オタキング アーカイブ会員　https://bit.ly/3hHQ5fh
【岡田斗司夫アーカイブ】　３０日2,160円（税込）

6.Amazon Video　
【Amazon 岡田斗司夫】レンタル500円/販売1,000円
https://www.amazon.com/v/otaking

それぞれの詳細はこちら　https://bit.ly/34Mtlae

2021年11月17日収録

#銃規制 #USA #SNS #言霊 #OTAKING #岡田斗司夫 #nerd #otaku #岡田斗司夫ゼミ
************************************************

岡田斗司夫
大阪生まれ。アニメ・ゲームの制作会社ガイナックスを創業し、初代社長を務めたあと退社。立教大学やマサチューセッツ工科大学講師、大阪芸術大学客員教授などを歴任。
『評価経済社会』『スマートノート』『人生の法則』など著書多数。
Twitter：https://twitter.com/ToshioOkada