關於朱鎔基是明太祖朱元璋後人的說法，出自明太祖朱元璋的《皇明祖訓》，當中列明第十八子岷王朱楩[9]的後人取名，須按輩分順序使用「徽音膺彥譽，定幹企禋雍，崇理原諮訪，寬鎔喜賁從」這二十個字。朱鎔基的祖父是朱訪緒，父親叫做朱寬澍，加上朱鎔基自己的名字，三代人名字當中的訪、寬、鎔，契合《皇明祖訓》提到岷王後裔第十五代至第十七代的指定用字與次序。由於寬澍與鎔基這些名有些牽強，而且朱鎔基三代依照輩份命名，世人由此推斷，朱鎔基是明太祖朱元璋的第十九世孫，亦即岷王朱楩的第十七代後人。
Source: 陳雲
https://www.patreon.com/wanchin/posts/zhong-gong-qian-166565800
 |
| 圖一：香港導演鄭保瑞戰爭大片《澎湖海戰》，上畫日期一拖再拖。（圖片來源：Renews，壹蘋新聞網） |
「後清」愧對大明？統治華夏大地，不能只靠歐洲和蘇俄的馬列主義，必須恢復華夏傳統，然而恢復傳統，必須面對歷朝的風範。中共從建國初期毛澤東一個人讀古書，到了現在千萬黎民在讀古書，問題就來了。
香港導演鄭保瑞前年憑《九龍城寨之圍城》贏盡掌聲，但去年由他執導，講述滿清在康熙年間揮軍澎湖剿滅南明、一統中國的戰爭大片《澎湖海戰》卻上畫無期。這部電影原定今年農曆新年上畫，之後改到七月底的暑假黃金檔期。不過，《澎湖海戰》的社交平台帳號今年六月中不再發帖，近日更確定改期：「接獲主管機關要求後，同意臨時撤檔，新上映時間將另行通知。」
澎湖海戰是滿清軍隊消滅明代鄭氏政權之關鍵戰役，在台灣海峽的澎湖群島發生。一六八三年（康熙二十二年）福建水師提督施琅率兵澎湖，攻打退守台灣的明代鄭氏政權，清軍先敗而後勝，延平郡王鄭克塽率眾剃髮投降，自此南明覆亡並結束在台的二十二年統治。
外界認為《澎湖海戰》有武統台灣意味，尤其是在十月廿五日台灣光復紀念日發布第一條預告片，以「統一台灣，勢不可擋」為口號，有違近期鄭麗文出任台灣國民黨主席後主張和平統一立場，對統戰工作不利而下架；學者袁紅冰則稱，主要原因是中國國家主席習近平希望藉着九月訪美並與特朗普見面，透過元首外交穩固他在黨內的權威，不欲掀起台海議題。
一六四四史觀掀起悼明風，民眾以穿「漢服」逛街為時尚
 |
| 圖二：近年常見不少內地年輕人結伴穿着「漢服」逛街。（圖片來源：more） |
另一個說法是，《澎湖海戰》主題涉及內地盛行的「悼明風」與「一六四四史觀」，所以被禁。悼明風不單哀悼明代，還批判滿清、視清代以前的王朝乃大漢文化盛世，認定退守台灣的明鄭是華夏道統最後據點，而清軍攻台即關外蠻夷消滅漢族文明。近年常見不少內地人結伴穿着「漢服」逛街，正是反映這種思潮。因為那些服裝有的是模仿兩漢時期造型，或者唐宋明代的，偏偏排斥清代——有得選擇，是無人願意着「殭屍裝」行街的！他們甚至稱「以前我們可能會穿清代服飾，但現在我們對歷史有更多了解。清朝人是野蠻人。」
這種排斥清代的思潮源自「一六四四史觀」：早在民國時期，知識分子研究中國較西方國家落後的原因，把分水嶺定於一六四四年清兵入關，中國由外族統治，華夏正統失諸交臂。然而中共則認為，中國的屈辱始於清代道光二十年，即一八四〇年第一次鴉片戰爭，此後飽受西方列強壓迫，直到一九四九年由毛主席成立新中國才告結束。
一六四四史觀，動搖中共統治法理依據
 |
| 圖三：去年底浙江省政府宣發文批判「一六四四史觀」，但網民認定清軍攻台乃關外蠻夷消滅華夏道統。（圖片來源：微博、面書專頁宥影評截圖） |
美國印第安納大學歷史及東亞系副教授王飛仙分析，近年中共對日本的強硬態度以及在關稅戰與美國過招，令民眾意識到，中國強大能與美國匹敵，卻從未得到應有的敬重；有違北京宣揚的大國願景。「一六四四史觀」令他們得以將中國今日遇到的挫折或挑戰，歸咎於滿清。不過，倘若民眾翻查清亡之後民國時代至新中國成立前的歷史，就會質疑中共統治中國的法理依據；更重要的是，中共主張的領土範圍包括西藏、新疆、內蒙古、台灣等，都是源自於滿清的版圖，而非明代。更何況，明朝光復了宋朝丟失的燕雲十六州和雲南，也保護了朝鮮的藩屬，中共有否捍衛承繼自清朝的廣袤領土（外蒙、西伯利亞等）和藩屬國（朝鮮、安南和琉球）呢？
現在中國年輕一代翻出這段歷史，重提「崖山之後無中國、明亡之後無華夏」，正是觸碰中共忌諱。其實早在去年底，浙江省政府宣傳部發文批判「一六四四史觀」，稱之為「外部勢力長期以來對中國歷史的曲解有險惡目的」，呼應境外某些旨在解構中國歷史連續性的敘事，為試圖否定中國統一多民族國家歷史合法性的論述提供口實。有趣的是，這被官方否定的「反清復明」論述，卻意外在標榜統一台灣的《澎湖海戰》中重現；二〇二五年內地漢服市場規模達突破人民幣兩百億，最帶動內需與製造業的救命草。現在老幹部要問的是，究竟是誰容讓這種題材的電影上架的？
附錄：一六四四史觀與一八四〇史觀比較
Source: 陳雲
https://www.patreon.com/wanchin/posts/peng-hu-hai-zhan-165066969
看到這樓盤名，真是忍不住頭痛。然後這標語，更是……尷尬癌。
我知道這是用了「順天應人」的典故，也沒有那些帶金木水火土不知如何發音的怪字，或強塞一個日文漢字進去已經好畀面。但若看出處：「天地革而四時成，湯武革命，順乎天而應乎人，革之事大矣哉。」(《周易·革》) - 要出動到「順天應人」，是湯武革命的程度，是非同一般的大動作啊，更是王者的更迭。即使是半山超級豪宅也畢竟只民居，居求安樂，何須強求「萬象之勢」？何況香港樓出名面積細、窗台大，這個發展商更以間隔三尖八角的「奇則」享譽香江，許多單位的景觀也只是樓望樓，「得此之地，方成其局」，愚以為是講過了。
古人命名，求的是舒卷合度，雅正平和，什麼樣的地方，就改什麼風格的名。普通民宅就別改皇宮的名，富如賈府盛世，省親別墅中各人的居處，極其量也只是黛玉的「瀟湘館」、寶玉的「怡紅院」、探春的「秋爽齋」，瀟、怡、爽三個字，都只是強調人在其中的舒暢閒適，斷沒有動輒就搞一輪「萬象之勢」的大龍鳳。科學一點分析，家是日常起居休息之所，太多繁雜強烈的感官刺激，只讓人日多思慮，夜難安寢。好地地，睡前又何苦搞場湯武革命的刀光劍影，再來王者更迭的翻天覆地？
實在懷念以前香港樓盤簡單不失雅致的命名，早期的又一村、兆康苑、綠楊新邨、康怡花園、嘉湖山莊；近期一點的樂悠居、海典軒、映灣園、翠豐臺、景新臺，都有意境，亦順耳好記。
可能讀中國文學出身的姐姐，心態始終比較傳統，覺得名貴含蓄蘊藉，溫柔敦厚。記得和一位前輩談起彼此的中文名，都大家覺得自己的中文名看來令人心很累。他的是「競存」，物競天擇，適者生存，要不斷競爭才能活下來，多累。我的是「凱旋」，一來便是刀槍劍戟的硬仗，而且許勝不許敗，累死了。還是俊文、家明、柏軒；嘉欣、曉晴、安琪，好像比較自在啊。
Source: Leung Natalie
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2187650341818332&set=a.112327309350656
 |
| 圖一：流亡美國的郭文貴被美法院判囚三十年，同時律政司司長林定國等人獲美解除制裁，香港恢復特殊經貿地位。（圖片來源：星島頭條，追光者） |
美國在戰後幾十年的外交策略，政治上是民主共榮，貿易上是全球主義（globalism）；二〇一七年，換上特朗普，策略大擺盪，政治上是美國自強，貿易上是美國為先的國族主義（nationalism）。民主共榮，就是美國用市場、資金和技術來扶持獨裁威權政府的經濟發展（以戰後的德國和日本為先例），逐步誘導到憲政民主。中共在改革開放之後，用人權改善和民主進程來交換美國的市場、技術和資金，食盡了民主共榮和全球主義的紅利，特朗普上台之後，中共反應不及，竟然變本加厲，意圖在經濟上和技術上超越美國，在國防上抗衡美國，在人權和民主進展上不理會美國。那麼美國的反應是怎樣呢？當美國不顧全中國和香港的人權和民主進展的時候，這才是中共和香港面對的大疑難。除了我，沒人可以解決。我甚至可以說，除了我，沒人可以講出上述簡明的局勢分析。
七月初，流亡美國的中國富商郭文貴涉詐騙等罪被美國法院判囚三十年。之後，華府確認特朗普在二〇二〇年簽下的《香港正常化總統行政令》在七月十四日期滿後不再延續，涉港的國家緊急狀態（National Emergency）取消，並恢復香港的特殊經貿地位。同時，美國財政部公布新的中港官員制裁名單，將舊名單上四十八人當中的三十九人列進去，九人包括律政司司長林定國被剔除，他們不再被美方制裁。
中共剛在今年美國國慶日前夕，釋放已被拘留近九個月的金明日牧師；其後美方證實特朗普親自聯絡習近平進行斡旋，故此有輿論推測美國解除對部分中港官員的制裁，又恢復香港貿易地位，是特朗普為了換取釋放黎智英而討好中國的做法。不過，美國也有可能是拿郭文貴去交換黎智英的，因為郭多次聲稱掌控黨內大佬「權錢內幕」的證據，是中共政權的實質威脅。當然，我一向認為，中國包括中國香港的人權問題和民主進程等政治事務，是中共的內政，美國是不着緊去改善的，也毫無必要。美國在過去幾十年作狀去改善這些，是華爾街的金融大老在中港賺大錢的時候，給予美國國會和美國人民的政治說辭，期望美國國會和人民拿美國利益來交換華爾街的大賺錢而已。所謂globalism轉到nationalism，只是利益由華爾街大老轉為美國人民而已。換句話說，美國的民主共榮論，是華爾街大老用來麻醉美國人民的鴉片。
 | ||
| 圖二：輿論推測美方做法或成釋放黎智英的籌碼，一如特朗普親自聯絡習近平為金明日牧師進行斡旋。（圖片來源：Japan Daily，大公文匯） |
黎安友稱美國未放棄民主中國，又暗示與華府國策有分歧
一般來說，國家之間交換囚犯是平常事，不過中美處於冷戰狀態，雙方的做法和反應，折射出兩國的微妙關係。上月美國國家民主基金會董事黎安友（Andrew Nathan）教授就新書出版受訪，談到美國外交政策時，他認為雖然目前美國在對華關係處於劣勢，白宮不再以將中國民主化為目標，但美國的國會仍未全面放棄中國民主化的願景，即小布殊時期的國務卿賴斯（Condoleezza Rice）提出變革式外交策略（Transformational Diplomacy）。黎安友重申，我們應把華府拆分做總統、國會與政府機構來看，暗示特朗普與另外兩者的觀點有分歧。
 |
| 圖三：美國國家民主基金會董事黎安友認為，美國國會並未完全放棄中國民主化的願景。（圖片來源：美國哥倫比亞大學） |
其實我在特朗普回朝前夕已經分析過，港區國安法和香港立法會選舉用愛國選委提名篩選，令民主中國的說法破滅，美國用貿易優惠和投資來促進中共民主化的說辭亦失去基礎，因此特朗普千多萬謝，索性順水推舟，放棄民主中國論；至於香港問題，不再是個破格處理的議題，而是中美談判的其中一個籌碼。對應現任國務卿盧比奧就職時提出，延續特朗普美國第一（America First）國策的外交策略「令美國更強大安全、更繁榮」（Make America Stronger, Safer, More Prosperous）。
特朗普放棄民主中國，香港成中美談判的籌碼之一
換言之，為了使美國更強大、更安全，華府願意犧牲一個國家或地區的民主化（——當然美國從來唔會care，只是在地緣政治安全上會care一下！）。事實上，特朗普去年上任之後即出訪中東，正是要修正過去西方陣營對中東實行干預主義的錯誤做法；他又透過成立政府效率部（DOGE），由富商馬斯克牽頭削減在全球推進民主反共的國家民主基金會（NED）資金，並解散一直拿取庫房巨額資助來掌控各國政經與輿論，鼓吹極左環保、多元性別及種族議題的美國國際開發署（USAID），畢竟美國沒有必要用公帑支持其他國家。
 |
| 圖四：特朗普回朝成立政府效率部，由馬斯克牽頭解散美國國際開發署USAID。（圖片來源：上報） |
中港方面，去年駐港總領事梅儒瑞在卸任後轉到駐華大使館當副大使，改由外交經驗相對淺的伊珠麗取代之。由於過去美方較重視駐港總領事的資歷，而伊珠麗曾在二〇一九年被拍到與黃之鋒羅冠聰見面，這次人事調動反映華府對中、港的取態有變。
美對中港推行變革式外交失敗，反映香港地位的奧妙之處
雖然賴斯與盧比奧都是共和黨人，不過兩人的外交立場南轅北轍。回想起來，中國在二〇〇八年加入世貿組織前，中美關係相當和諧，當時美港政客與學者都信奉賴斯的變革式外交，認為中國的資產階級人數只要多起來，他們就會追求普世價值，到時中國自然會民主化。然而現實是中國入世之後，內地中產利用中外制度差異賺個盆滿鉢滿，紛紛走資、移民，在海外做寓公，或者以外資身份回國投資，留下來的則變得更保守，為保持生活很穩而依附中共權貴，故此社會一直沒法凝聚力量和推動民主化。這種現象，我一早發現，並在香港輿論廣傳，稱之為離地中產（absentee middle-class）現象。
 |
| 圖五：中國入世之後，內地中產利用中西制度差異賺個盆滿鉢滿，紛紛走資、移民。（圖片來源：香港01） |
至於香港，二〇一六年特朗普首次上台，中美關係明顯轉差，二〇一九年後香港國安法與《基本法》二十三條等法例先後實施，期間英國、加拿大、美國等推出「救生艇」移民政策，吸引香港人以極低門檻移居當地；同時港府則有優才通、高才通、專才計劃等，積極吸引內地人來港定居和工作。不少人拿到香港身分證後再舉家申請移民海外，跳板做法一如當年中國先富起來的資產階級，港府今年修例收緊續簽條件，包括嚴查學歷、工作經驗、假地址以及留港日數等。
雖然對目前的美國來說，香港議題與中國議題是可以混為一談甚至互相交換的，但香港地位的奧妙之處是，美資如果在香港沒有英式法治與自由輿論的保護，難以繼續投放資金與人力。
對於中共走資派而言，香港的高度自治和特有的本地文化更加重要，香港是他們進出中國大陸和國際社會的活門，更是可以暫且安置身家性命的地方。香港是香港人的，更是全體中國人的，大陸有些人來踐踏香港，We don't give a damn（我們全不在乎），因為這也是他們的地方，更是他們的活口。有些人要自絕門路，除了講句恭喜之外，還可以講些什麼呢？
Source: 陳雲
https://www.patreon.com/wanchin/posts/mei-guo-wai-jiao-164322741
Another day, another embarrassing story about Hong Kong. Our city has become a dangerous place for independent bookshops. Secretary for Security Chris Tang says his forces are not targeting any particular sector. Indeed. Only three boookshops have been raided so far this year.
So independent bookshops have just been unlucky. Well we have to believe officials when they say these things. They are honourable men. So are they all, all honourable men…
One does rather cringe, though, at the idea of newspaper readers all over the world seeing the picture of a bookshop worker (t-shirt: I am a bookshop staffer) being led in cuffs out of her workplace. Quite apart from the distressing thought of a young woman being led off for trial on dubious charges, why do our national security police look so scruffy?
 |
| Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. |
I suppose there may be some reason why raids on delinquent bookshops cannot be done by cops in full uniform, but if there are to be plainclothes could you boys at least tuck in your shirts, and maybe iron your trousers? I also have some misgivings about the Adidas product placement.
Mr Tang, meanwhile, continues to spout nonsense. Booksellers must be responsible for the books they sell, he says, “just like merchants selling food have to make sure their food won’t make people sick. That they are not selling poison and not breaking the law.”
This is a totally false analogy. Someone selling food has complete control over the situation. The cafe owner or chef chooses the ingredients and the preparation method. It is entirely right that he or she should be held responsible for not poisoning people.
Someone who runs a bookshop does not write the books. I find it hard to believe I had to write that. Unless the bookshop is vanishingly small the person running it does not even read the books. This is simply not possible. Some books are very hard work. Is “War and Peace” subversive? Don’t ask me; I have never managed to finish it. It is not the philosophy that loses me, but the fact that in Russian novels every character has at least three names.
It is interesting to compare Mr Tang’s hardline approach with the law on obscene publications, passed in gentler times, which provides a defence for people who “had no reasonable opportunity to inspect the article the subject of the charge; and had reasonable grounds for believing that article was not obscene.”
After all there is no reason to suppose that people who work in bookshops are bent on breaking the law. I imagine a polite notification that a particular book was, in the official view, subversive would result in the swift disappearance of the denounced volume. This would be sad, but not as sad as losing the whole bookshop, which seems to be the government’s objective.
Mr Tang rejected suggestions that it would be useful to supply booksellers with a list of banned works, saying that this would only “help criminals”. This seems an odd thing to say. After all it is generally considered a good idea that people should know in as much detail as possible what is the law which applies to them.
We do not see signs on our streets saying “Speed limit: guess!” or “Possibly no parking”. Providing a list need not imply that anything not on the list is legal. It would simply provide guidance to book vendors trying to work out what is allowed and what is not.
Mr Tang’s other objection to a local Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the name of the Papal version, abandoned in 1966) is that people producing banned books could simply change the title of the book. This is so far off the mark as to suggest that Mr Tang’s encounters with literature have been quite limited. The title of the book is its name, the label by which the eager reader identifies it.
If we change the title to hide the book from Mr Tang’s minions, we also hide it from potential readers.
What is really worrying national security enthusiasts may be the thought that a list of forbidden books would provide good publicity for some otherwise obscure works, and people with a taste for subversive literature could order copies from overseas booksellers. Books you cannot buy from shops in Hong Kong might soar up the Amazon bestseller lists.
This is not a totally implausible fear; “The one they tried to ban” has sold a lot of books. But what does that tell us about the relationship between Hong Kong’s government and people?
Source: Tim Hamlett
https://timhamlett.com/2026/07/19/keeping-up-the-good-news-stories-prosecuting-bookshops/
HKFP Member Preview 20260724
The academics who climb fastest are not always the ones who lift others.
This is one of the harder trade-offs in higher education.
Career advancement takes time. So does mentorship.
Writing grants. Publishing papers. Building a profile. Saying yes to the right opportunities. All of this competes with the slower, less visible work of developing other people.
I have worked across six universities in three countries. I have seen senior academics so focused on their own trajectory that early career researchers were left to figure things out alone. I have also seen professors who invested deeply in others and watched their own careers slow as a result.
The system does not reward mentorship the way it rewards output.
Promotion panels ask about publications, grants, impact. They rarely ask: who did you develop? Whose career exists because of your guidance?
Mentorship is leadership. But it is the kind that does not show up on a CV.
The academics I admire most found a way to do both. They advanced while making space for others to grow. But they did it despite the system, not because of it.
What would academia look like if mentorship counted as much as metrics?
Source: Professor Dorina Buda
 |
| 市政局選舉通知書（1965年） |
 |
| 市政局選舉通知書（1965年） |
照片資料︰
根據1955年《市政局選舉（選民登記）規例》所發出的官方文件。
選民地址為昔日的大窩口徙置區。
該卡簽署是J. V. Mitchell，為時任人事登記處處長兼選舉登記官，專責編纂、審查及發佈每年的正式選民登記冊。
歷史資料︰
1965年市政局選舉，於1965年3月3日舉行，是香港英治時期具備「議會政治」重要改變之一。
民選議席由原來的 8 席增加至 10 席。
投票制度採用單議席單票制的簡單多數決方式。
當時並非全民普選，市民必須符合基本法例規定的23種特定資格（例如：具備陪審員資格、具備一定學歷、資產證明、或是特定的納稅人等）才能登記成為選民。
當時只有 29,349 人成功登記為合資格選民。當日實際投票人數有 6,492 人出席投票。
當年政壇主要由兩大溫和民主派政治團體主導，包括由貝納祺領導的香港改革會和）和鄔大輔領導的香港公民協會。
在80年代的代議政制改革前，市政局選舉是香港市民唯一能參與的代議政制平台。
雖選民門檻高且職權僅限於公共房屋、食物衛生與文娛康樂，但它成功為香港培育了第一批具備選舉經驗的政治人才與早期政黨雛型。
Source: alexwhi1009
日前同事傳來一篇網絡文章，提及大陸旅客訪港的見聞。文章寫道，遊客發現香港街頭的告示、路牌和日常用語，皆展現出古典優雅的韻味，甚至形容香港是「中文美學天花板」（原文用語，照直引錄）。
文中列舉了數個實例，包括：
一、地圖上的位置標示，寫「閣下在此」，而不是「你在這裡」；
二、提醒行人改道時，用「請移玉步」，而不是「請往另一邊走」；
三、店舖內不對外開放的區域，標示為「貴賓止步」；
四、警告字句，用「奉政府諭」、「面斥不雅」、「送官究治」等措辭，而不寫「根據有關部門要求」、「依法追究其法律責任」或「移交公安機關處理」。
對許多中國人來說，這些字眼平日只會見於古裝劇或歷史小說，想不到在香港竟然活生生地融入在日常生活之中。
上述的遣詞用字，前者會比後者顯得高雅，皆因前者其實都是淺白的文言。傳統中文向來以文言為雅，而香港語文正保留了不少傳統中文的詞彙和表達方式。除了書面語以外，我們平日隨口亦會說：「豈有此理」、「不知所謂」、「唯你是問」、「事不宜遲」等；在較莊重的場合，主持人一句「有請主禮嘉賓移玉台前」、「敬請來賓就座」，聽起來自然不過，絲毫不覺突兀。
語文的功能固然在溝通、傳意。然而，同一個信息，可以說得粗淺直白，也可以說得典雅得體；可以只求對方明白，也可以讓人感受到說話者的修養與文化底蘊。文中提到，有內地員工發訊息詢問香港老闆的行蹤，老闆回覆說自己正在「梳洗」，令員工感到一種「長輩般的文雅」。相比「我在洗漱」，或是「我在洗臉刷牙」，「梳洗」一詞帶來一種從容、得體的私人空間感，這便是語言的魅力。
近百年來，中國大陸歷經文化變革與政權更替，語文亦被重新塑造。傳統中文所追求的精煉、含蓄與典雅，被一套著重政治宣傳、行政管理與群眾動員的「新語言」取代。反觀香港，早年因偏安一隅，受此浪潮影響較淺，因而得以保留更多傳統中文的文化底蘊與文字美感。於是，那些香港人早已習以為常的街頭告示與日常用語，在大陸旅客眼中，反倒成了難得一見的「中文美學」。
香港語文的特色，在於它融合了粵語口語、現代白話和傳統漢語的詞彙和句法，歷經千百年深厚積澱，形成了一套獨特而自然的書面與口語系統。香港人既能用生動詼諧的口語與人談笑傳情，也能用粗獷直率的俗語宣洩情緒，卻無礙我們在嚴肅場合自然切換到莊重的書面語和淺白文言。
我們教授語文，同時也在傳承審美的能力：懂得分辨美醜，懂得判斷得體與失禮。在表達清晰的基礎上，更應努力讓自己的語文更有文化修養和美感。
海外的香港語文教育，初學階段自然以識字與日常交際溝通為重，而欣賞語言的美感，學會在不同場合說出合適、有文化和分寸的說話，亦是不應忽視的長遠目標。當然，要達到此目標非一朝一夕之功，具體實踐乃宏大課題，非一篇文章所能盡述。
也許有人認為我們的願景是不切實際的空中樓閣，但以目前香港急速赤化的語言環境看來，我們認為海外港人更須自覺挑起文化傳承的重擔，也深信我們對語文教育的抱負值得堅持。
Source: 香港語文研習平台
「覺得中配、陳土豆或金星是共產黨統戰的一部分？你想太多吧？不要把中國人都想得這麼壞！」
其實，不是我想太多，也不是我刻意把中國人想壞，而是不能忽視共產黨的運作方式。
正如台大名譽教授明居正老師前幾天對鄭習會的分析，
中共對於能夠公開發聲、擁有影響力的人，向來都有一套嚴密的管理與篩選機制。
能夠被允許站上檯面的人，通常都已確認其言行不會違背政權利益，甚至可能符合其政治目的。
所以，我並不是不相信中國人，而是不敢忽略他們所處的制度環境對他們的控管影響甚至威脅與傷害。
在《民族團結進步促進法》或《國家情報法》等法律，以及高壓治理體制下，不只是中國人，包含仍持有中國國籍的任何種族的人，都可能面臨配合、協助或受影響的風險。
因此，保持適度戒心，不完全信任不是因為仇視或歧視，而是理解制度可能讓許多人身不由己。
真正令人擔憂的從來不是一般中國人民，而是讓人民無法自由選擇、自由表達的極權體制。
所以不是我要把中國人想這麼壞、想這麼多，而是可怕的極權專制體系與運作手法迫使我們必須這樣才能夠保護我們自己，以及保護這些身不由己的可憐中國人們。
Source: 洛洛/Sean
我曾經接觸過一位個案，令我一直印象深刻。他原本在一間歐洲車行擔任高層管理職位。多年來，他一直是家中的經濟支柱，也習慣了自己作為父親、丈夫、管理者的身份。對外，他是一個有位置、有身份、有收入的人；對內，他也一直默默承擔着一家人的穩定與體面。
直到有一天，他被裁了。原因不是工作能力，單純是因為公司架構重組，換言之，公司未來發展，並不需要他的專業。客人雖然有「肥雞餐」，但被裁這種打擊，很多時候外人未必能真正明白。失業固然是對現實衝擊，但對某些人來說，更衝擊的是身份突然崩塌──「我竟然變成了一個沒有工作的人」。
他沒有立即告訴家人。
相反，他做了一件很典型、也很令人心酸的事。連續兩個星期，他每天照常穿上西裝，像平日一樣出門，假裝自己仍然上班。但實際上，他並沒有地方可去，只是坐在麥當勞裡，一坐就是大半天。
當他把這段經歷說出來時，那種感覺其實很複雜。表面上，這是一個關於面子的故事；但再深入一層，那不是單純虛榮，而是一種很深的羞恥感。
他不是不知道家人未必會怪責自己，他是無法接受自己由一個一直撐住家庭的人，突然變成一個需要解釋失敗的人，而這正是過往他要求下屬解釋的事情。
很多人以為，Authenticity，也就是真實性，只是做自己、說真話那麼簡單。但在真實的人生裡，真正的 Authenticity 往往沒有那麼浪漫。很多時候它是一種很艱難的選擇，你要承認自己跌下來了，承認自己現在並不如外表那樣穩，承認你也有脆弱、也會失去、也會害怕。這對很多成年人來說，其實非常難。因為我們從小被訓練要撐住，要「似樣」，要有交代，久而久之，連自己都開始相信，唯有表現得沒有問題，才值得被愛，才不會令家人失望。
在那次教練對話裡，他並沒有急着談下一份工作。相反，他更想理解的是：為甚麼自己會如此難以啟齒？為甚麼被裁後，那份羞恥感會如此深？工作對他而言，究竟代表了甚麼？
隨着對話慢慢展開，他開始回望自己，原來真正令他痛苦的，不只是失去工作本身，而是身份感突然被抽空，以及那種「我不再是那個能夠撐住一切的人」的失落。
有時候，一個人需要的，不一定是立刻解決問題。而是先有空間，理解自己真正經歷着甚麼。
若一個人連自己現在身處甚麼位置都未能真正面對，再多的求職策略有時都只是技術層面的補丁。因為真正困住一個人的，往往不是能力，而是那些還未被看見的內在拉扯。對他而言，最難的，從來不是重新找工作。真正障礙他的是他不敢讓最親近的人，看見一個暫時失去位置的自己。
後來，我們談了很多。談這件事究竟觸動了他甚麼，談他究竟在怕甚麼、最害怕失去的是甚麼，也談工作、身份與價值之間，過去是如何慢慢連結在一起。
怕家人失望，怕孩子看輕自己，怕太太擔心，怕原本那個可靠的自己突然崩塌。可是再談下去，他慢慢發現，自己一直以來把「有工作」與「有價值」綁得太緊，好像一旦失去職位，連作為父親、作為丈夫、甚至作為一個人的價值也一起動搖。
這或許也是很多中年失業者最沉重的地方。
困難的不只是前路未明，而是內心深處開始懷疑︰若我不再是原本那個我，我還剩下甚麼？後來，我向他提出了一個問題︰「如果工作暫時不再定義你，你會如何看待現在的自己？」問題並沒有立刻帶來答案，但它慢慢鬆動了一些東西，也讓他開始重新思考。原來，一個人的價值，也許從來不只是來自一份工作。
第一次對話後，他跟我分享︰「我覺得自己好像一隻烏龜。之前一直躲在殼裡，只敢從殼裡偷偷看外面的世界。」我一直記得他的形容。
因為當一個人經歷失去、羞恥與身份崩塌時，很多時候，本能不是向外，而是先縮回去保護自己。但也許真正重要的，不是你有沒有害怕。而是，當你感到害怕時，你是否仍然願意，慢慢把頭伸出來。
很多時候，當人跌下來時，最難的並不是重新站起來。而是願不願意，讓真正愛你的人，看見那個不再那麼穩、甚至帶着脆弱與不安的自己。因為很多時候，我們害怕的，不只是失去工作，而是失去那個「一直都沒問題的人」的樣子。當一個人太努力維持自己「還撐得住」的樣子，有時反而會把自己真正可以依靠的人推開。你以為自己是在保護家人，但有時，實際上只是把自己困在孤獨裡。
那次對話後，當晚他選擇向家人坦白。
他把真相告訴家人，說自己已經被裁，說自己這兩星期根本沒有上班，說自己每天只是穿着西裝坐在麥當勞。那一刻，他其實很怕。他以為迎接自己的，會是失望、責怪，甚至沉默。
但事情沒有朝他想像的方向走。
相反，家人的反應比他想像中溫柔得多。家人沒有因為他失去工作便否定他，太太沒有責怪他。孩子也沒有因為父親暫時跌倒便看不起他。
那一刻他真正明白，原來自己一直苦苦守住的那層面子，並不是家人最在意的東西。家人真正想要的，從來不是一個永遠都撐得住、沒有失誤的父親，而是一個願意真實出現在彼此生命裡的人。
一個人不再把力氣花在假裝沒事，生命便會慢慢騰出空間。
也正是在那段空窗期裡，他開始重新看見自己不只是某個職銜。過去忙於工作，有些能力一直沒有真正用在家庭裡。那段時間，他開始幫女兒補習。這本來只是一件小事，卻慢慢成為了一個很有意思的轉折。
因為在陪伴女兒的過程中，他重新感受到︰自己仍然可以貢獻，仍然可以發揮所長，仍然能夠對身邊的人帶來價值 。而那份價值感來自一種更真實的存在︰我仍然有能力，我仍然對身邊的人有用，我仍然不是一個空掉的人。
一個人若一直只用職業身份去理解自己，一旦失去工作，整個人便很容易倒下。可是當你慢慢看見，原來自己有很多可以給予、可以連結、可以貢獻的部分，人的內在便會重新站穩。
幾星期後，他也順利找到新的工作。
但回頭看，真正改變他的，並不是找到下一份工作。而是他終於願意放下那個必須一直撐住的自己，重新回到真實裡。
因為當一個人不再浪費力氣假裝自己仍然站在原本的位置，他才真正有能力去面對當下、整理自己，重新出發。
這也是我很重視 Authenticity 的原因。
真實性，從來不只是一句好聽的概念。很多時候，它是在一個人最狼狽、最不想被看見的時候，仍然選擇不再演下去。承認自己跌倒了，承認自己其實也會慌亂，承認此刻的自己，仍然沒有答案。那份真實，表面看來像脆弱，實際上，卻正是重新站穩、重新開始的起點。
這個個案一直提醒我︰有時候一個人失去工作後，最先失去的，未必只是收入。而是那個自己一直以為必須維持住的身份。可是當你慢慢，不再只用一個角色去定義自己，你才會發現，真正支持你的人，未必在乎你是否永遠成功；你的價值，也未必只存在於那張職員證之中。
人生真正的轉機，有時並不是你重新站回原本的位置。而是你終於願意不再假裝自己仍然站在那裡。
Source: Stephanie The Coach
https://www.threads.com/@stephanie_the_coach/post/DaQhRWXCX-4
中國《民族團結進步促進法》於2026年7月1日正式施行，其中與語文教育最相關的內容，主要集中於第15至18條，重點包括：
一、全面推廣普通話及規範漢字
法律明文規定全面普及普通話與規範漢字，確立其主導地位，並強調任何組織與個人均不得妨礙公民學習與使用。
二、普通話成為教育教學的基本語言
中國境內的學校與教育機構必須以普通話及規範漢字作為基本教學用語，使其成為教育體系的核心。
三、普通話教育向學前教育延伸
法律首次提出推動學前兒童學普通話，並要確保學生完成九年義務教育後能熟練掌握。
四、語文教育與國家認同教育結合
要求把「鑄牢中華民族共同體意識」貫穿教育教學全過程，並融入教材編寫、課程設計及教師培訓等工作，使語文教育承擔文化傳承及培養國家認同的功能。
值得注意的是，上述不少有關普通話推廣及學校使用普通話教學的規定，早已載於《國家通用語言文字法》，並非全新的政策。這次《民族團結進步促進法》最大的特色，在於首次從法律層面把語言政策、教材建設、文化教育與「中華民族共同體意識」納入同一框架，反映語文教育的性質已從「培養語文能力」，演變成為「愛國教育」的一部份。
至於海外華人最關心的，自然是法例新增的域外（境外）適用條文。坦白說，直接的法律影響現時仍未明朗。不過，大眾毋須過度恐慌或將其視為全新威脅，因為這種長臂管轄帶來的「寒蟬效應」，自 2020 年《香港國安法》及 2024 年《維護國家安全條例》（「廿三條」）實施以來便早已存在，包括﹕
一、教材編寫與出版的「違法風險」
海外的語文學校在編寫教材時，為了建立學生的文化認同，可能會納入地道文化、歷史變遷或當代社會事件。這些內容，如果有與「中華民族共同體」對立之處，就有可能被解讀為「煽動民族不和」或「破壞大團結」，存在違反法例的風險。
二、教師與辦學者的「人身安全隱憂」
許多海外語文老師和辦學者，與香港或中國仍有不少聯繫，例如假期會回港探親，又或到中國大陸旅遊。由於當局可以對海外人士「依法追究」，無疑為老師和辦學者的自身安全帶來風險，或令人自我審查甚至噤聲。
我們的立場﹕
近年來，海內外的香港人對模糊的政治紅線早已深有體會。我們認為，真正負責任的做法，是堅守教育的專業。我們不會無視法律帶來的風險，但也不會渲染恐慌、助長白色恐怖。
我們機構始終以語文教育為本，不會因為政治立場而扭曲教育，也不會「斬腳趾避沙蟲」，刻意淡化或刪改屬於香港獨有的文化與歷史內容。
一如既往，我們會秉持教育專業，以敬慎的態度設計課程、編寫教材、落實課堂教學，讓學生安心地學好香港語文，堂堂正正地傳承香港文化。
Source: 香港語文研習平台 Hongkongese Learning Platform
1984年，新華社刊發的中英聯合聲明草擬文本。
由於中華人民共和國不承認滿清政府與英國簽署的香港相關條約，香港英治時期的中華人民共和國駐港機構是不會使用代表官方外交關係的「領事館」作為名稱。
當時「新華社香港分社」名義上為中華人民共和國官方通訊社駐港分社，實際上是於香港主權移交前執行類似現時「中聯辦」的職務。
Source: hkbusdiary
Interview Transcript
Interviewer: Tom Grundy
Guest: Karen Hao
TG:
Welcome to a special episode of HKFP Yum Cha with the Karen Hao, a multi-award winning journalist working on AI, author of the best-selling Empire of AI (now out in paperback) and co-host of the BBC’s The Interface podcast. Karen studied mechanical engineering at MIT and was previously with the Wall Street Journal here in Hong Kong. This year she launched the AI Resist List to document examples of resistance to the AI revolution/apocalypse around the world. And she herself remains a rather lonely but bleeding critical voice on the bleeding edge of the Zeitgeist—all at a time when we’re awash with AI evangelists espousing the merits of a technology that’s disrupting business, politics, and the environment.
Karen, thank you for coming in to our humble headquarters in this new trillionaire era and for braving the rain. If you hear thunder, it’s because you’ve angered the AI gods, okay?
Karen:
Exactly.
TG:
I’ll let you just talk about the colonialism metaphor you rely on in the book.
Karen:
First of all, thank you for having me. I love being in a news office again.
The reason why my book is called Empire of AI is because I called the companies like Open AI "Empires of AI". "Empire" is the only metaphor that I’ve really ever found to encompass every facet of how these companies operate and how we should ultimately think about their role in society.
So, first and foremost, they amass an extraordinary amount of economic and political power and you could argue that they’ve become the preeminent or dominant power in today’s world, but they do that through the dispossession of the majority.
In my book, I talk about four specific parallels, but there’s honestly many more.
The first is that they like to claim resources that are not their own: the data of individuals, the intellectual property of artists, journalists, writers, etc.
The second feature is that they exploit extraordinary amount of labour. The workers that they use to produce their technologies see very little value in return; the workers are displaced through the deployment of this technology; ultimately they then accrue the value of the salary that would have gone to that worker because the company is instead buying their product or service.
The third parallel is that empires always control the flow of information in society, and the empires of AI do that both by censoring and controlling what kind of research is produced on AI. So the public is in the dark about the true limitations and capabilities of these technologies. Also these companies are ultimately producing an information technology where they want to be the portal through which everyone around the world uses to understand the rest of the world.
The final one is that they wrap this all up in a civilizing mission, saying that they’re doing this for the progress of all of humanity.
TG:
Right. Sam Altman, in the early days in particular, said, "It’s going to solve cancer, the housing crisis, the climate crisis, democracy, poverty, mental health, inequality." But they’ve also warned of deadly bioweapons, cyber security chaos, massive job losses, misinformation, literal existential risk. Sometimes they will have a model and they’ll warn, “Oh no, I’ve accidentally on purpose created something really dangerous. Again, somebody stop me."
Why is it important that tech chiefs seem to have to play to both hopes and fears?
Karen:
This goes back to the fourth parallel of why I I call these companies empires. It's because religion is a really powerful feature of empire building.
There is the civilizing mission, and that promises to bring humanity to a heaven-like state, but complementary to that, and what goes hand-in-hand with that, is the threat of descending into a hellish state. These are like the oldest stories that we’ve told ourselves throughout human history. It's the idea of utopia and dystopia, heaven and hell. By conveying that there are such extraordinary stakes, what these tech chiefs do is, they create this narrative of—or justification for—why they must retain total control over this technology’s development: If it falls into the wrong hands, then we’re doomed, but we could in fact access that utopia.
So, it doesn’t really work unless there is this kind of evil empire competing against what they are ultimately trying to achieve.
TG:
Do you feel they’re giving up more on the hopeful stuff lately? I think, you know, as money seems to coming more of a thing, they’re leaning on more on "it’ll reduce your head count and cut costs".
Karen:
I don’t think they’re leaning on it more than usual. I think there are just a couple dynamics happening.
One dynamic is that, within the AI world, different executives will lean on different dimensions of this narrative. Sam Altman is more traditionally leaning on the side of utopia and using the carrot to try and get people to go in this particular direction and allow his company to do whatever they want, whereas Dario Amodei of Anthropic typically leans more on the doomer narrative.
What’s happened in the recent months is that Anthropic has become much more of a dominant force and is beginning to out compete OpenAI both in terms of commercial value and also in narrative swaying power. We’re now hearing more of the doom narrative because that’s what Anthropic foregrounds in its storytelling, but both crutches or both legs of the stool have always been there from the very beginning of this industry.
TG:
Talking to "doom", this may be your first interview since the world burst its first trillionaire last week.
If we have this "underclass" created through massive unemployment, innovation being stifled by IP theft, and if the environment is ruined, what market is left to sell to? What even is the end game?
You went to school with some of these tech bros. What at this stage is their motive? What’s the point in a trillionaire?
Karen:
Um... I couldn’t tell you, haha...
TG:
If it’s money (maybe) in the early days, is it now power?
Karen:
I think money has always been a lever of power. There’s no point in accruing money if we didn’t live in a capitalistic system, where money brings you a significant amount of power. So, it’s always been about power.
We have reached a stage of capitalism where the system has allowed for the creation of these individuals with extraordinary extraordinary degrees of power as manifested in many ways, not just monetary, right? Elon Musk before he was a trillionaire already had an an exorbitant amount of political power and other forms of power, in addition to financial power.
So, I think that this is the perfect example of runaway capitalism and also imperialism, in a way that part of why I think these companies and individuals at their heads are so fixated on this idea of wanting ever more is because of this drive to capture everything under the sun, the way that an empire used to.
I mean, even though Elon Musk is the first trillionaire, you see this ideology parodied and manifesting among all of the the heads of these companies. Sam Altman, before he became the CEO of OpenAI, was the president of Y Combinator, a startup accelerator in the Valley, and he said back then, "I want to invest in 10x more companies year after year until I’m investing in every single company in the world."
It’s like there’s this drive to want to lay claim to everything. Until that happens, it’s not enough.
TG:
To run with the metaphor of "Empire", we saw this decolonization process after World War II, where the colonial powers were overstretched, the money was running out, and there were indigenous resistance movements coming up, there was this UN framework for states to sign up to, defining things like self-determination. With AI now, we’re seeing localized uprisings. The AI firms are looking overstretched in recent months. Last week, we HKFP signed up to join the SPUR coalition, which is a journalistic effort to have some framework for AI firms to sign up to, which can monetize the AI telemetry and try to correct some of the copyright issues.
Are there parallels or lessons when it comes to how to take down "Empire"?
Karen:
I absolutely think there’s parallels. I mean, one of the things we should take as a lesson from history is that empires are not inevitable. Even though they feel that way, every single empire has fallen in history. Part of it has been because there is a broad coalition of resistance movements that build up and then topple the empire.
I think the analogy holds in a way that what we are seeing now is that in the global conversation around AI, there’s been a significant change in sentiment. I mean, when I was working on the book just two years ago, the hype was out of control and everyone was parroting the industry’s narratives that this is going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Now what we’re seeing is many more people aware of the environmental harms, the labor exploitation, the public health harms, and questioning whether or not this is really the way that we should be approaching AI development, being deeply concerned about the impact on their kids and their critical thinking and their future economic opportunities and so on and so forth.
In the US, what we’re seeing is that 80% of Americans are now concerned about AI and it’s becoming a top issue in the midterm elections. Through this broad base of dissatisfaction, we are then seeing all these different resistance movements popping up and, in uncoordinated ways, independently beginning to push back and actually hold the industry accountable. It is having an effect on the ways that these companies are actually able to operate.
So I think what we saw with how empires of old ended up meeting their end is beginning to play out with the empires of AI.
TG:
Is it mostly environmental stuff that’s driving the push back?
Karen:
No, actually, every single harm that is coming out of these companies, I think, are all intersecting motivations for push-back.
I mean, environmental stuff is one of them, but labour is a huge one. When you have an industry saying "we’re coming after all of your jobs", that really is a huge mobilising and rallying call for a lot of people to think "wait a minute then, why are we building a technology to do that".
Psychological harm towards kids is a really big one, of course. That was a really big one for holding social media accountable as well. It's "why are we okay with platforms eroding the mental health of our teens". As people have realized that AI chatbots can engage in a similar kind of psychological impact, that is yet another thing that is galvanizing parents to be really critical of these companies.
The reason why there’s such a broad coalition of resistance happening is because there are so many different reasons why people are resisting and it is essentially touching every single asset and every single community in society now in these negative ways.
TG:
You said when you finished the book, it was all rather depressing, but this has totally changed over the last year or two. And now you’ve put together this AI Resist List, where I was looking through different examples from around the world, one in China even. But looking at the US, you now have push-back against the push-back. State-level national agencies are starting to monitor and conflate these movements with terrorism. Trump has sort of banned states from regulating AI altogether.
Is that going to make resistance rarer and tougher? Is it going to be sustainable?
Karen:
It’s interesting. Certainly, it’s going to make resistance tougher, but does that mean that it’s going to make it rarer? I actually think the opposite is going to happen.
You can look at the tech industry itself as a microcosm of the resistance that’s happening around the world. So tech employee organizing used to be a very popular thing. In the 2016 to 2018 period, there were a lot of employees in these big tech companies that started engaging in street protests, open letters, even unionising to hold their leadership accountable, especially during the first era of the Trump administration. That energy dispersed because of the pandemic and because of various other challenges that the tech industry was facing.
And now we are seeing a return of this resistance. Actually, one of the things that we feature on the AI Resist List is this open letter from Amazon employees, where they talk about the intersecting harm that they see their company engaging in with this accelerated aggressive AI development that is enabling surveillance, for example, and authoritarianism in the US.
It’s pretty remarkable that we are seeing this bubble up out of time like now because within the tech industry, executives have become more happy than ever before to surveil their employees, to fire them, to punish and penalize them for this kind of outspoken organizing, and yet we are seeing more of it. It’s actually in part because of the very reaction of these executives trying to snuff out this resistance, because it somehow has revealed [the true nature] and the mask has come off.
I think in the past, employees wouldn’t always protest or participate because they felt like they were actually at benevolent companies and they were working for benevolent people and they were happy to participate in that kind of story. But now it’s become increasingly obvious that Silicon Valley has become fused with Washington in these deeply troubling ways. Even though there is much greater risk to the employees, they feel compelled to speak out and to push back.
I think that’s going to be the same story for resistance everywhere, outside of the tech industry, as well. Even as there is greater surveillance, greater snuffing out of this kind of protest, it is going to actually inflame and fuel even further the desire and momentum to resist.
TG:
One of the examples is data centres. They’re set up, they drain and pollute water sources, gas turbines polluting the air. You’ve talked about this from a more perfect union outside Memphis, a poorer black community.
If Americans resist, and everything goes to the plan as you’ve laid out in these grassroots movement, do you not fear that there’ll be a race to the bottom where this kind of infrastructure is going to be put completely out of sight in mind, perhaps in the less developed world, maybe where there’s less regulation or even in places like Hong Kong, which—let’s say—is a low-resistance-low-regulation haven?
Karen:
There’s definitely been attempts by the tech industry to put these infrastructure in places where they believe there will be less resistance, and it has repeatedly failed.
I talk in my book about how Google attempted to do this in Latin America. They tried to put a data centre in a very poor working-class community outside of Santiago, Chile, and they received the biggest uprising that they had really ever faced before as a company. They were shocked that this community, which, by all accounts, has the least amount of power in the face of a multi-national rich corporation like Google. Google actually was unable to build their data centre for years and years because of the degree of push-back. So then they were like, "Well, fine. If we can’t build it in this community, we’re going to move to Uruguay." And so, then they tried and it turned out that there were community leaders in Uruguay who had read about the resistance in Chile and they then engage in the same protest and the same resistance and so Google was unable to build their data centre in Uruguay, either. These companies absolutely try to play different countries against each other, different communities against each other. They try to pit people in these ways, but it hasn’t actually been a successful strategy.
I would love to recommend a book called The Wall Dancers by Yi-ling Liu, which talks about China and the history of resistance and protest in China in relation to censorship of the government as well. It’s a very beautiful and deeply reported story that looks at how there’s actually a significant amount of agency and expression and resistance that happens underground even in places like China. That's why with the AI Resist List we had an example from China, we had an example from Hong Kong, to show that this narrative—that these places don’t have any agency and individuals don’t have any say in these kinds of issues—is not actually a correct narrative.
I've done a lot of book events in Hong Kong, and at the book events, I've found that people are just as concerned about AI development and are thinking critically about how they want this technology to shape the future and are thinking about whether or not they want to allow these companies to engage in certain kinds of reckless behaviour.
TG:
We reported last week that Hong Kong has the third dirtiest data centres in the world—after, I think, Indonesia and India. Can you tell us about the example from China with ByteDance on the AI Resist List ?
Karen:
Oh, yeah. You know what, we actually have two examples from China.
So, the ByteDance example. There was this really interesting moment, in which ByteDance tried to release a feature with their video generation model that would allow users to upload a single photo and then generate a fake video of that person in their likeness. There was such a huge backlash on social media that ByteDance actually had to suspend the feature.
There are a number of examples that we have on our AI Resist List where there was very clear actual reaction from the company, which is, the company had to actually pull back what they were trying to do. These examples are rare. A lot of the examples that we have are more focused on accountability where the cases are still in progress, like the company hasn’t responded yet and it’s just a building or accumulation of pressure. But actually in a lot of the examples that we found in China, the accountability had already happened.
The second example is of a voice actress in China who sued—I forget which company—for taking her voice data without consent to then create an AI voice. She actually won the case in the Chinese courts. Both the AI company and the company that sold her voice data to the AI company were fined and held legally liable.
TG:
I feel that there’s a much broader collective growing when it comes to AI in a recent year or two.
Aside from the companies that are backtracking and rehiring humans, or companies running out of money for their tokens or whatever, pretty much everyone I notice online is that, if some company puts out a "we now have AI XYZ" or whatever, or Coca-Cola trying to do an AI-generated ad etc., there’s just abuse in the comments.
Even myself, I am getting caught out now with some of the generative AI stuff. I was kind of blubbing quite late at night listening to this beautiful 1960s Italian song on YouTube, and then I realized it was bloody AI, and I can tell. Even as journalists, we’ve also been caught out occasionally. I guess there’s that icky weird feeling you get, the feeling of being ripped off, that only existed after you learnt what was going on. Why do people feel ripped off by that kind of content? And if it becomes totally indistinguishable from the real thing, are people really going to continue to care in years to come?
Karen:
I think often times we get a little bit caught up in this idea that if AI generated content is indistinguishable from human generated content, then that means they’re interchangeable. But that’s [not the case].
[Even if] they’re the same at a superficial level in their presentation, but they’re not actually the same in terms of what they represent. Human-generated art is a representation of a person’s lived experience and the reason why we like looking at human-generated art, listening to human-generated music and we feel that ickyness with AI-generated stuff is because we are in that moment of engaging in a piece of art, like entangling our life with another person’s life, and it feels really meaningful because we know that at the other end of that entanglement was a real person who had emotions and thoughts and experiences that were similar to ours.
So, even though AI-generated art might at some point be indistinguishable in certain respects at a presentation level, it doesn’t actually represent the same thing.
Will there be moments where people might consume AI-generated art and still have an experience that is meaningful to them personally? Yes, I’ve talked with people who feel that they’ve already had that experience. But is it the same thing as interacting with human-generated art and actually engaging with another real person’s thoughts and feelings and emotions? Not at all.
TG:
Yeah, I was quite surprised actually some of the students we spoke to at universities for a future last week were pretty cynical about using AI. This is when the journalism school converted their entire school to be AI-based. I also spoke to a teacher who would sometimes show a picture of a beautiful lake in Switzerland or something to the kids and they’d be like, “Ew, AI.” I mean, it was a real lake actually, but these kids I guess are used to quite ramshackle Hong Kong beaches.
But I wonder if that next generation, the very youngest Generation Alpha or whatever—if Generation Z were born into the internet era, there’s going to be kids coming up—would they be just utterly accepting of AI whilst the rest of us are Abe Simpson shaking our fists at the sky?
We talked about the differentiation that may be important to us (whether we can tell the difference or not), but will the next generation, the youngest, really care?
Karen:
I think that it’s exactly the opposite way around.
I think the younger generation care the most, and this was with social media as well. I was the social media generation—I’m a millennial—and it was millennials that started first asking the questions like "Did we actually enjoy growing up in the social media era? Should we be in doing digital detoxes?". All of that cultural push-back against social media, and now many people starting to buy dumb phones, happened with millennials. There was an article from the Financial Times column by John Burn-Murdoch where he looks at the data for social media adoption currently, and it’s already peaked. It’s just in decline now, and the generation that has been the fastest in getting rid of social media is the youngest generation.
So, we’re seeing the same thing with AI. Gen Alpha and Gen Z are saying things to each other in school like "That’s AI", meaning that’s fake news. One of my my colleagues was explaining to me how a conversation would go. It’s like, a guy says to his friends, “Oh yeah, I have a girlfriend in another school.” And they’re like, “That’s AI.”
TG:
Haters will say it’s AI.
Karen:
Yeah, exactly. AI is being coded in a negative way in the younger generation. Actually, the people that speak the most excitedly about AI are the boomers. They’ve already had a long and successful career. They’ve already bought their home. They’re business owners, capital owners, etc. They’re the ones that can benefit a lot from this technology. So, they’re super excited about it.
TG:
Yeah, I feel similar in that. I’ve just made it into the millennial cohort, and I’m trying not to behave like Abe Simpson. I’ve printed off our five-page guide for staff because we seek to be GenAI-free. No one sentence on our website should be generated by AI. But we also don’t want to be Luddites and we want to make sure that when it comes to processing data or transcription and experimenting, we’re not completely head in sand.
You’ve said that you’re not allergic and you use AI, but I’m super curious to know exactly what tools you use and how you might be using it. Is it mostly for research for what you do? Or you’re getting use out of it? How exactly are you interacting with it?
In fact, because of you, me and my partner don’t use it for frivolous things, because we have the environmental thing at the back of our mind. So, no cat pictures and things like that.
Karen:
So, we don’t use GenAI. I don’t use ChatGPT, Gemini or any of the tools. If a new feature comes out, I’ll occasionally test it to understand it better for my reporting purposes. But I’ve never used the tool for research purposes. I don’t recommend people use it for research purposes. The number of times that [you get errors is quite high]. Now Google Search is AI search (everything is AI search), but I think one in every 10 searches I get a really egregious factual error in the AI search. And it often surfaces that things actually aren’t even in the sources that they link to, which is very very confusing.
I don’t use those types of tools because of three reasons.
One is the ethical stance that I take. It's because I’ve been investigating these companies.
The second one is a privacy stance. As I investigate these companies, I think that these are the greatest surveillance tools that have ever been built. Every time you use it, you’re giving an extraordinary amount of data to these companies. And for me, I’m particularly sensitive about that.
The third reason is that I don’t think that any of my work actually benefits from GenAI specifically. So I can take the ethical stands without having a particular cost to me.
But I do use other types of AI tools. There’s GenAI and there’s other types of, like, transcription services. I use AI transcription all the time. But I specifically look for transcription companies where:
(1) They have a very high data privacy standard.
For my book, I use a transcription service that only did transcription on my local drive. It was not cloud-based.
(2) They are not actually using GenAI.
It's because some transcription tools have actually switched to GenAI in the back end. I just think that’s like using a rocket when you could be using a bicycle.
The other type of tools that I I use... In my book I had this particular detail that I wanted to add, where I was trying to explain to readers how OpenAI had received a really dramatic upgrade in its office after it went from a non-profit to a Microsoft-backed venture. I had noticed that their chairs had gotten significantly fancier. I took screenshots of both the chairs from their old office and their new office and ran them through Google Reverse Image Search, which is a predictive AI tool—it's a specialized AI tool and doesn’t use GenAI as far as I know. [The Image Search] gave me a match on the type of prices that these chairs typically go for online. The first office had chairs that were around $2,000 each. The second one was around $10,000 each. So I added that as a detail, a color detail, into the book to try and evoke the sense of wealth that we’re actually dealing with in these echelons.
TG:
We’ve definitely noticed this year the number of mistakes AI seems to make and those AI overviews. It’s one of the reasons we shun it basically.
I feel, particularly with Hong Kong, all this bias (if you’re kind of an expert on an issue, you will notice it more when it regurgitates these things). Particularly with the AI overviews, I feel it’s getting more deeply embedded in our tools—in our phones, in our software, etc. Sometimes quite irrelevant software, which really doesn’t need it.
So I wonder, if you’re quite careful and sensitive, churning of certain types of AI is sustainable in the... We’re going to be buying phones where it’s just baked in or it’s happening behind the scenes with what you’re using. I also fear that they may not declare these kinds of generative algorithms are going to be a play because it’s becoming such a toxic thing.
Karen:
Yeah, I absolutely think that these companies are trying to bake AI into everything because they’ve realized that just relying on consumer demand is not actually helping them turn a profit. So now, you have this thing where I pay for Google Workspace and about six months ago my monthly subscription jacked up its price not because of any feature I’m using but because Google has has decided that they can charge more simply because GenAI is everything now. I’ve disabled GenAI but I still have to pay that premium. That’s how they’re trying to get their money back on the extraordinary investments that they’re making in data centres.
I think there are a couple things that need to happen. This goes back again to the idea of resistance as a an important mechanism of accountability because without the external pressure, companies will continue to go down this path.
Data centre protest, for example, is a really critical mechanism of accountability that has started making it much harder for companies to develop and deploy their technologies. In 2025, over $150 billion of data centre projects were stalled. This, I think, is in just the US alone, according to Data Center Watch. Many of these facilities were OpenAI facilities, as an example. OpenAI recently had to shut down its video generation tool, Sora. I think there’s a direct line that you can draw from the data centre protests and that shutdown of an entire product line. It's because when you look at the reasons for why OpenAI shut down Sora, all of them were shaped by this grassroots movement.
One line was that they simply were constrained by their computing resources—okay, that’s like a very clear direct line.
A second line is that they are about to IPO and they are facing much more financial pressure and uncertainty from Wall Street because Wall Street has been observing all of this resistance and protest and is becoming increasingly worried that the AI industry can’t actually meet its promises. They’re writing about it in their memos and documents, about these companies, and they’re pricing it into their valuation. So OpenAI feels a lot of pressure to shore up and make less risky bets, which means shutting down an entire product line that they’re not really sure how to monetize.
The third line was flatlining customer demands. They just were not seeing people actually using these tools.
The constellation of these three, all shaped by collective action, was what made Sora meet its demise.
So is there going to be a a huge push from the industry to keep going in this direction? Yes. But that’s why we as individuals and communities and organizations need to be thinking about how we actively use these kinds of push-back mechanisms to shape the trajectory of AI development.
The last thing that I’ll add on this is: A lot of people think of themselves primarily as a consumer when in relation to these companies. It’s like, you either use or you don’t use these tools, and that’s the only option that you have. Again, I don’t actually think that’s the case. You can also be a resident within a community pushing back. You can be a voter. You can be a business leader that actually doesn’t replace your workers, so on and so forth. But consumer is of course a very important hat that we wear, and it is in fact one of the most tangible ways that we as individuals on a day-to-day level can help shape and vote with our feet on what we want these companies to do.
One of the challenges that we have right now with the AI industry is that the burden on the consumer is extremely high in terms of actually understanding what these companies are doing, where they’re putting their AI models, what kind of supply chains they engage in. But we’ve seen this problem before. The fashion industry had this problem, the coffee industry had this problem. As all of these supply chains mature, they end up being like consumer advocacy groups that actually audit the supply chains of these different brands, and they tell consumers "these are the values that this company is actually enacting, versus that company". That gives the consumer more ability to actually move from one product to the other. That also has to be in conjunction with the fashion industry. There was consumer advocacy, there was labor organizing, there was government regulation, international norm setting and all of this in conjunction with one another. That then created new markets for sustainable and ethical fashion brands that then created more visibility for the consumer and so on and so forth.
So we have to go on the same journey with the AI industry. That is yet another thing that we can as individuals do right now to demand that we get there eventually.
==========3700===============
TG:
As the AI models would say, you’re absolutely right.
I grew up amid the backlash against Nike 80s, 90s. I remember that, but then China came along with Shein. I wanted to talk a little bit more about China because a lot of the justification for all of the ferocity of AI development is "because China...". "If we don’t do it, they will." "They already are doing it." "They have massive government subsidies. Don’t regulate us." Is this actually justified? Is this like the space race with the US paranoid about Beijing gaining a military edge?
Karen:
I first want to go back to your Shein comment because I think this is a really really really critical point.
Right after I finished writing my book, I read Rebecca Solnit’s Hope in the Dark, which is a very short but beautiful meditation on the history of grassroots movements around the world and how to think about the role of the grassroots movement in pushing forward social and moral progress in society. One of the things that she says in the book is, people tend to have this belief: To win in grassroots movements means that you’ve reached a destination and then there’s never any backsliding ever again. Like you’ve just arrived there and your job is done. If you arrive there and then there is backsliding, somehow that means that everything that you did beforehand doesn’t even matter anymore. That's the belief. I have a lot of friends who are activists and participate in grassroots movements, and they say this is one of the struggles of younger-generation activists. It is this mentality of "if I fought really hard for this thing and then, like, Trump is elected and everything reverses back, does that mean it’s all pointless?"
In fact, no! Like what Rebecca Solnit says in her book, the point of grassroots movements is that you’re always just being the vector that pushes in the direction of the correct moral force. There will always be other forces that are trying to push back. So yes, you should absolutely expect backsliding. But the backsliding doesn’t mean that everything that you did before is pointless. It means that you have successfully got to a particular place with that action. There’s going to be backsliding and then your job tomorrow and the day after and the day after is to continue pushing in the other way. So, the fact that she has reverted back to certain types of unethical practices in the fashion industry is not in any way discounting all the incredible work that was done to shore up the fashion supply chain beforehand. There will be continued work by those same people to continue pushing and making sure that we can we continue, like advancing the fashion supply chain.
TG:
Do you not feel there is something in the whole "China threat" narrative?
Karen:
I don’t think it’s a real narrative. I mean, it it is a narrative for sure, but I don’t think that it’s based in reality.
Look at the track record that this narrative has actually had over the last 10 years. This is not the first time that Silicon Valley has deployed this narrative. They deployed it through the social media era. Over the last 10 years, what’s happened was: Silicon Valley said, “We’re going to dominate social media and we’re going to have a liberalizing effect on the world.” And the exact opposite happened. Now the most dominant social media company is ByteDance, and Silicon Valley has had an deliberalizing effect on the world.
With AI, it’s the same thing. They said, “We’re going to dominate the AI space and going to leave China in the dust.” And instead, now China has figured out how to create these open-source, much more efficient models, like Deep Seek, that US companies and US academics often prefer to use now, because it’s free. Why would they pay significantly more money for the same service instead of just downloading it from online?
So this narrative which Silicon Valley has just continued to use to accrue more power to itself has actually backfired in in many different ways. One of the things that I find, a particular pet peeve of mine, is that I think people have a tendency of thinking that anything that comes out of the US is somehow American and represents American democratic values and anything that comes out of China represents the Chinese government and authoritarian values. At the end of the day, I do NOT think any of the companies in Silicon Valley are American in any sense of the word. They do not represent the American people. They’re not acting in the interest of the American people. They’re in fact undermining the American people and in many ways undermining the American Republic. The ultimate thing that they are trying to do is just accrue more power to themselves.
With these Chinese AI models, the open-source ones that are now coming out, you can’t say that they are authoritarian because they are actually democratizing the technology in the way that Silicon Valley often says that they are doing but are in fact not. It's because you can download these tools, you can modify them however you want. They’re free. People are using them in various different ways that are completely outside of the control of the Chinese government or the Chinese companies. Anytime you use them, you’re not sending data back to the company itself because it’s open-source. So, I think that the narrative that the AI industry in the US is deploying is one that just doesn’t hold up against reality.
TG:
One more, the AI bubble. We’ve been told, for over a year now, we’re in a financial bubble looking to the dotcom boom. How much worse may the effects be if and when it bursts? Is it going to take our pensions down? We’ve been hearing this for a while, is it a conspiracy? Mark Cuban said last week that it might burst gently and AI firms might fall into categories in which they specialize. "This one is doing a bit of healthcare, that one does a bit of coding and maybe it’ll not be so bad." What do you reckon as we sign off with this obscene amount of money that’s being thrown around?
Karen:
I don’t engage in predictions really because I I think that predictions ultimately make things feel inevitable and the entire core of my work is this idea that nothing is inevitable and everything that we do today is what shapes tomorrow. We should just make sure what we do today leads to a future where we don’t have catastrophic bubble burst.
TG:
Karen, thank you so much for joining us. You’re going to be giving the keynote at the SOPA Awards this week. Empire of AI is out in paperback now. Thanks again for coming in.
Karen:
Thank you so much for having me.
Source: HKFP
「請問係唔係yuu會員？」
呢句說話，你每日都可能聽到最少一次。
惠康、萬寧、7-Eleven、KFC、Pizza Hut、IKEA、Shell油站⋯⋯
全香港超過2,500間舖頭，收銀員都會問你同一句說話。
yuu而家有超過430萬會員，即係超過一半香港人口。累計已經兌換超過1,000億積分。
但你有冇諗過︰
yuu到底係乜？
點解咁多品牌要join呢個計劃？
你每次嘟個條碼，你真正「俾咗」咩？
今日想借yuu呢個大家日日都接觸到嘅嘢，同大家傾一個好多品牌經營者都忽略咗嘅課題︰
CRM——客戶關係管理。
做得好，客人會覺得你好了解佢，越買越多。
做得差，客人會覺得你好煩，直接block你。
【yuu背後其實係咩？】
好多人以為yuu只係一個「儲積分換優惠」嘅app。
但其實yuu係一個典型嘅「聯盟型忠誠度計劃」：
即係Customer Relationship Management系統嘅一種。
Customer Relationship Management (下稱CRM) 嘅本質好簡單：
透過收集同分析客戶數據，預測同引導消費者重複購買。
你去惠康買嘢嘟yuu → yuu記低你買咗咩、幾時買、買幾多
你去萬寧再嘟 → yuu將兩邊嘅數據串埋，知道你嘅完整消費習慣
之後你打開app → 你以為見到嘅優惠券係random嘅，但其實係根據你嘅行為pattern度身訂造嘅
呢個就係CRM嘅核心邏輯：
用你嘅消費數據，預測你下一步會買咩，然後喺估算下最適合嘅時間推啱嘅嘢俾你。
其實全世界最成功嘅品牌都喺做同一件事。
英國超市Tesco嘅Clubcard將104億行交易數據提煉成25個「生活型態維度」，每季發出800萬個唔同版本嘅個人化優惠。
創造咗6.27億英鎊增量銷售。
Starbucks Rewards如果發現一個每週買3次嘅熟客連續6日冇出現，系統會喺朝早8點自動推送一個個人化挑戰俾佢。
結果，會員日均到店率係非會員嘅5.6倍。
而yuu喺香港做到嘅，係將呢套邏輯鋪到你生活嘅每一個角落。
超市、便利店、藥房、餐廳、油站、傢俬店。
430萬會員，超過一半香港人口。
了解咗yuu背後嘅邏輯之後，我哋再嚟睇︰
作為消費者，你真正「俾咗」咩。
【你以為yuu幫你慳錢？其實佢從你身上賺到嘅遠多過你慳到嘅】
先講一個數字︰
yuu嘅基本積分回贈率係0.5%。
即係你喺惠康使$1,000，你賺到$5。
$5。
但同一時間，yuu知道咗你幾時買嘢、買咩嘢、買幾多、幾密買、同邊個一齊買。
當你喺惠康買咗嬰兒紙尿片，yuu嘅數據庫會即時幫你打上「新手父母」標籤。
下一次你去萬寧，配方奶粉嘅coupon已經喺你個app入面等緊你。
你以為係巧合，但其實係precision。
呢個就係CRM嘅核心：
用「小額折扣」換取你嘅「第一手消費行為軌跡」。
然後用呢啲數據做cross-selling、做personalization、做預測。
呢個唔係「儲積分」。呢個係一套精密嘅行為預測系統。
之前講David Ogilvy：
「消費者唔係傻瓜。佢係你老婆。」
CRM嘅邏輯其實同樣：
品牌係最了解你嘅嗰個人，佢比你更清楚你下一步會買咩。
【作為消費者，你要注意啲咩？】
我唔係叫大家唔好用yuu。yuu嘅優惠系統如果識得用，真係可以慳到錢。
惠康每月3/13/23號92折。
萬寧每月1/20號94折。
綁定enJoy卡零售回贈升到1.5%、餐飲2.0%。
識得揀日子加埋用，一個月慳幾百蚊唔難。
但有幾樣嘢值得你知道：
第一，「免費嘅嘢最貴」：
你嘅0.5%回贈，換返嚟嘅係你成世嘅消費軌跡同地理位置數據。
77%嘅消費者為咗微小折扣就讓渡隱私。
你有冇認真諗過呢個交換值唔值？
第二，你可能因為儲積分而花多咗錢︰
研究顯示，loyalty program會員嘅平均每單交易額比非會員高67%。
因為積分同無現金支付會削弱你大腦嘅「付費痛苦」。
你以為你喺「賺取」，但你其實喺「支出」。
第三，安全風險︰
近年頻發假冒yuu嘅釣魚詐騙。
私隱專員公署曾喺一星期內接獲90宗相關騙案，合共損失97萬港元。
當你所有消費痕跡集中喺一個帳戶，資料外洩嘅風險都集中埋。
yuu會員，我唔會反對大家用。
但我覺得每個消費者都值得知道，你每次嘟條碼嘅時候，交易嘅唔止係錢。
【品牌經營者真正要學嘅嘢：好嘅CRM vs 壞嘅CRM】
講完消費者角度，想同做緊品牌嘅你講一個更重要嘅課題。
CRM背後嘅邏輯，其實每一個專業人士都可以學。
但大部分人學錯咗位。
佢哋學咗「不斷send promotion」，而唔係學「了解你嘅客人」。
呢個分別，就係「好嘅CRM」同「壞嘅CRM」嘅分別。
好嘅CRM令客人覺得︰「呢個品牌好了解我。」
壞嘅CRM令客人覺得︰「呢個品牌好煩，我要block佢。」
數據講得好清楚︰
81%嘅消費者會因為品牌發送太多無用促銷而退訂。
如果30天內send超過4次行銷訊息，56%嘅消費者會直接退訂。
但經過個人化定制嘅相關內容，打開率可以高達46%。
同一個動作，都係send message俾客人。
分別在於你send嘅係「佢需要嘅嘢」定係「你想賣嘅嘢」。
Spotify Wrapped係一個好經典嘅例子：
佢唔係send「本月熱門榜單」俾你。
佢係將你全年嘅聽歌習慣變成一份極靚嘅個人專屬報告，等你你覺得「呢個品牌紀錄咗我嘅喜怒哀樂」，然後你主動share去IG。
反面例子呢？
你一定經歷過︰
某連鎖品牌攞咗你個電話號碼之後，無視你買咩，每日準時10點群發「今日限時7折」SMS。
結果，一個月內app卸載率急升35%。
Send一個message俾客人，聽落好簡單。
但send到客人覺得「你好了解我」而唔係「你好煩」，呢個先係真正嘅功夫。
【你可以點做？CRM嘅核心原則】
你未必做到yuu嘅規模，但CRM背後嘅原則，任何規模嘅品牌都用得到。
核心好簡單：
80%有價值嘅內容，20%推銷。
我見過一個保險agent嘅轉變：以前佢逢節日群發「中秋快樂+意外險優惠」，被大量客人Archive。後來佢開始記低每個客人嘅興趣標籤。有個客鍾意行山。某個週末氣溫急降，佢send咗一條「大東山防寒與抽筋急救指南」。
零推銷，100%價值。
結果嗰個客喺BB出世嗰年，主動搵佢買教育基金，轉介紹率升咗3倍。
另一個物理治療師：初診時記低「愛打網球、左膝拉傷史」。療程完咗第15日，自動send一條自己錄嘅「網球愛好者專屬：在家強化膝關節影片」。45日冇回診，send一句非催促性嘅溫和問候。
診所留存率升咗40%。
呢兩個人做嘅嘢，同CRM嘅原則一模一樣：
記住客人係咩人→喺啱嘅時間俾啱嘅內容→令客人覺得被了解而唔係被推銷。
分別只係規模大細。大品牌靠系統做，你靠用心做。
原則一樣，效果一樣好。
有一組數據好值得記住︰獲取新客嘅成本係留住舊客嘅5至25倍。
客戶留存率只要提升5%，利潤可以增長25%至95%。
你花幾多時間同預算去搵新客？又花幾多時間去照顧好已經信任你嘅舊客？
之前講Steve Jobs︰
「品質嘅認知唔係靠marketing講出嚟，係源自親身體驗。」
你嘅舊客已經「親身體驗」過你嘅服務。佢哋係你最有效嘅marketing渠道。
之前LEGO嘅故事講過：
LEGO Ideas令粉絲參與產品開發，280萬成員自發為品牌創作內容。
你嘅舊客都可以係你嘅「LEGO Ideas」。
佢哋嘅口碑、轉介紹、testimonial，全部都係最有說服力嘅marketing。
但前提係：
你要用「了解佢」嘅方式去對待佢，而唔係用「推銷俾佢」嘅方式。
【判斷你嘅client communication係「貼心」定「spam」嘅四個問題】
每次你想send message俾客人之前，問自己︰
1）呢個message係因為「佢嘅需要」定「我嘅需要」？
→如果係你想賣嘢所以send，就係spam。
2）呢個message有冇personalize到佢嘅情況？
→如果你send俾所有客人同一個內容，就係mass blast。
3）我最近30日send咗幾多次？
→超過4次，56%嘅人會退訂你。
4）如果我收到呢個message，我會覺得「好貼心」定「又嚟」？
→最後呢條就係Ogilvy嘅家人濾鏡︰如果你自己都覺得煩，你嘅客人一定覺得煩。
下次有人問你「請問係唔係yuu會員」嘅時候，你可以嘟。
但同時記住：
你嘅客人每次接收到你嘅message，佢哋心入面都喺度問緊同一條問題︰
「呢個人係想了解我，定係想賣嘢俾我？」
你嘅答案，決定咗佢留低定離開。
覺得有啟發嘅話save低，share俾你身邊搞緊品牌嘅朋友。
或者comment分享下：
你試過被邊個品牌嘅CRM感動過？又試過被邊個品牌煩到想block？
資料來源：DFI零售集團公開數據 / Tesco Clubcard案例研究 / Innovative Marketing 2024 / HubSpot 2022 / 香港私隱專員公署
Source: easy.digital101
The Chinese Communist Party has a saying when it comes to their psychological warfare operations (and other forms of subversion): Strangle you with your own systems.
中共進行的心理戰，以至各式顛覆行動，有一個說法︰以其體系，置其死地。
In other words, observing how different countries operate: What is controversial within their systems? How does their system function? How can we use those systems to twist things around to cause chaos, to mess things up, to use it against them?
換言之，就是觀察各國如何運作︰各國體系中有何爭議之處？他們的體系是如何運行？我們可以如何利用對方的體系，扭轉矛頭、引發混亂、混淆視聽，從而攻克對方？
You say you believe in free speech? We'll have protests in your own backyard, calling you out.
你說你有言論自由嗎？我就找人在你家後園搞抗議、聲討你。
You say you believe in free press? We'll start up state-run media in your country, and we will use those state-run media to lie to your population and to spread our propaganda. That's what they do.
你說你有新聞自由嗎？我就把我的國家媒體設在你的國土上，然後用國家媒體向你的國民灌輸謊言，宣揚我的政治論調。這就是他們的方式。
You believe in free markets? How about we bring state-run companies that can sell below cost and put your companies out of business and take over your industries. That's what they're doing.
你說你有自由市場嗎？我就引進國營企業，以低於成本價賤賣貨品，逼使你虧本退場，我就入主進佔你的產業。這就是他們的方式。
Strangle you with your own systems.
「以其系統，置其死地」。
What is controversial in the United States? The most controversial? Racism. This race narrative, they know they can use it. They've been doing it for a very long time.
美國有甚麼具爭議性的議題？最具爭議性的是甚麼？是種族歧視。種族這個議題，他們知道可以大造文章，而且早已駕輕就熟。
There are different groups, for example, Committee of 100 in the US. Every time a Chinese spy is arrested, they call it racism because they know that's what we're sensitive to.
他們有像「百人會」之類的各種組織，一見有中國間諜被補，就會說是種族歧視，因為他們深知，種族歧視是我們的敏感議題。
The Chinese military has a doctrine on this—the Three Warfares doctrine—psychological warfare, media warfare, and legal warfare.
中共解放軍以此作為戰略準則，名為「三戰」︰心理戰、輿論戰、法律戰。
This is publicly adopted into their military doctrine. This is part of their military system.
「三戰」理論，是正式寫進《中國人民解放軍政治工作條例》予以公佈，是官方戰略之一。
Now, what are these?
「三戰」是甚麼？
Psychological Warfare is not necessarily lying to you. Psychological Warfare is altering how you interpret information. So, when you see a virus coming out of China and people say, "This virus came out of China," and if you call it the Chinese virus, they will use this and twist it around and say it is racist if you talk about the origin of this virus.
「心理戰」不一定是散播謊言，「心理戰」是扭曲你分析資訊的方式。例如，你看到病毒由中國流出，人人都說病毒來自中國，但你一說是中國病毒，他們就以此扭轉矛頭，說你是種族歧視，好讓你不能輕言病毒起源。
What is Media Warfare? Media Warfare is the manipulation or control of outlets of information, not just news outlets, but also social media, online platforms, and the ability to speak openly. Anything that would allow people to communicate would be a target of Media Warfare.
「輿論戰」是甚麼？「輿論戰」是操縱和控制資訊渠道，除了操控新聞，還操控社交媒體、網上平台，以至公開發言的能力。任何有人交流意見的地方，都是「輿論戰」的戰場。
What is Legal Warfare? Legal Warfare is a manipulation of international legal systems.
甚麼是「法律戰」？「法律戰」是操縱國際司法體系。
For the Chinese Communist Party, this is adopted into their military code. This is war-fighting to them.
在中共眼中，這就是兵法，是一場戰爭。
Source: Joshua Philipp (a journalist from The Epoch Times)
