By Sing Lee
HONG KONG- Hidden Agenda, the largest performing venue dedicated to indie music in Hong Kong, is being evicted for its third time since its founding seven years ago, due to “land use abuses”.
The current 3,600-square-foot unit, which can accommodate about 300 people, is located in Ngau Tau Kok industrial district, a home to a lot of band rooms, movie production studios, churches and martial art training centers.
These alternative uses of industrial buildings are violating the land lease agreements, which ban the sites from being use as any purpose other than “industrial and/or warehouse”.
Read More: There’s A Bleak Outlook For Artists And Businesses In Industrial buildings
The venus received a rectification order from the Lands Department in June this year, while they made an agreement with the landlord to move out this month.
The order was based on two land lease agreements issued by the government in 1967 and 1973, when manufacturing industries was still a pillar economic sector of Hong Kong.
Industrial building users has been asking for legislative amendment on the regulations including place for public entertainment licences, fire safety regulations and land lease terms, to adapt to the change of usages as time goes by.
Read More: Hong Kong Channel ViuTV Just Suspended A Reality Show With Pro-Independence Content
Open in 2009, Hidden Agenda has been a home to shows performed by both local and international units, such as the American recording artist Toro Y Moi.
The live house’s team initialed a crowd-funding project its fourth generation in September, raising HK $517,000 in a week from the public.
They are acquiring a food factory licence, rather than a place for public entertainment licences they failed to apply for, to operate legally as a tuck shop which provide live music for its customers.
The venue will be re-opened in December this year at its new address, while its last show for now, called “Continue to Grow”, was held on 10 October.
This photo essay records the yet final performance at what the audience called “HA 3.0”, indicating its third location, and the disassembling of the stage immediately afterwards.
Read More: How Nathan Law Is Representing A New Generation Of Leadership In Hong Kong
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
You can also like our RISE NEWS Hong Kong Facebook page to stay engaged with our local coverage.
Photo Credits: Sing Lee
What Do You Think?
-
A Message To The Guy Who Honked
By Emily Chadwell
I’m not really sure why I am writing this.
You will never see it, but you did affect my day in a way that compels me to share.
When you slowed down your car, honked until I looked at you, and waved/winked/gesticulated towards me I did not feel special.
No longer was I a person on a run, no longer was I an athlete, no longer was I a human working on my mental/physical fitness.
I became a body.
I was legs.
I was breasts.
Whether or not it was your intention to turn me into these disconnected entities, you did.
Maybe you meant nothing by it; you liked my dog, or my shirt, or you just enjoy honking at people.
Photo Credit: Yann Cœuru/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
But, you took a woman who trusts her body, a woman who respects her body, and even loves it, and turned her into just a body.
I may be oversensitive or dramatic, but for the next 45 minutes my run was no longer about me; it was about how I looked.
Was my shirt too tight?
Were my pants too sexual?
Did my stomach jiggle when I ran?
Things I should never dwell on while working out.
I can’t blame you.
I can only blame the society that socialized you to honk, and me to smile back.
The society that taught you to feel like you had a right to comment on my external body and me to internalize being self conscious.
I don’t think my experiences are special, or deserving of extra attention.
I recognize that there are people who are victims of worse treatment every single day.
I only ask that people who don’t understand the way your actions impact the lives of others to try.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Jean-François Gornet/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Does The American Fulbright Program Have Too Much Control Over Hong Kong Universities?
By Raphael Blet
HONG KONG- While primary and secondary schools are under the Education Bureau’s (EDB) authority, tertiary institutions are autonomously operated.
Despite being detached from the government’s authority, higher institutions are publicly funded and validated by the University Grants Committee (UGC).
Following the education reforms in 2012, universities around the territory went through major changes given that the previous three years curriculum was changed to a four years one.
In order to renew their structure, some universities partnered with the Fulbright Program so as to implement the general education reform.
Many academics and students are opposed to this system as they say it deviates them from their fields of research.
According to The Standard, Victor Sit Fung-shuen — who in 2012 was heading the Advanced Institute for Contemporary China Studies at Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) — was removed from office after the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) issued a statement in which it accused Mr. Sit of providing ‘irresponsible and fictitious’ claims in his publication.
Read More: What The Walk21 Conference Taught Me About The Future Of Hong Kong
Mr. Sit claimed that the Fulbright Scholar Program, which he referred to as the ‘American fund’ was ‘directing the setting up of general education programs’.
The panel handling the case stated that Fulbright was instead providing ‘support and advice’ to universities.
Despite hitting back, Mr. Sit’s Blue Book of Hong Kong was called back and the ‘falsified information’ amended.
The allegations made in the publication were considered as academic misconduct mainly because Mr. Sit did not provide any evidence supporting his claims.
Furthermore, he was believed to have ignored the numerous warnings from the university which offered him the ‘opportunity’ to correct his ‘mistakes’.
Mr. Sit’s acquaintances were only to give his claims even less credibility due to their political background, thus justifying the board’s decision to dismiss him for harming the university’s integrity.
This issue was controversial as the university found itself in a complicated position after Mr. Sit claimed that he was victim of ‘literary persecution’.
Nevertheless, the panel decided to revoke Mr. Sit’s contract given the result of the report.
How can a qualified academic make such false claims if they were all to be wrong? Were those allegations only unfair, biased and politically motivated? What role does Fulbright (that he refers as the ‘American fund’) truly plays in Hong Kong?
The Fulbright Program was named after the US Senator J. William Fulbright and established in 1946.
This program is sponsored by the US Department of State’s Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau, meaning that it is a governmental organization. According to the US Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau, Fulbright is an exchange program aimed at ‘increasing mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries’.
It offers both students and scholars exchange and scholarship opportunities in different countries while non-Americans are also given the same possibility.
As previously mentioned, Fulbright also acts as an adviser especially in Hong Kong where it has an important role in setting the general education curricula.
Read More: Ethnic Minorities Need To Be Embraced As Fellow Hong Kongers
In addition, Fulbright is locally represented by the Hong Kong America Centre (HKAC) which is based at CUHK.
It is reasonable to claim that those labelling themselves as ‘advisers’ will at one point occupy a directorial position and therefore ‘direct the setting up of the general education curricula’.
HKBU is a good example. Professor A. Reza Hoshmand, who is now the Director of General Education arrived in 2008 as a Fulbright scholar, in other words as an ‘adviser’.
Now — in addition to being an adviser — Prof. Hoshmand has a managerial role.
In numerous journals and other reports from CUHK and HKEC, the term ‘reward’ is mentioned: ‘Institutions will provide rewards for faculty who are effective teachers in general education, ideally by embracing what one called “a broader definition of scholarship.”
If rewards are translated into scholarships, Mr. Sit’s claims of an external funding are justified.
In her report, Mixed Marriages and the Fulbright Hong Kong General Education Program, HKEC’s program Director Ms. Ginny Tam gives an important number of elements that would be in favor of Mr. Sit claims.
Here are a few of them:
‘Faculty resistance and apathy were evident’ (Page 1): The term ‘resistance’ is defensive and would let us believe that the ‘advisers’ did have an executive function.‘This outside presence is very important especially in the early years because they acted as stimulants and catalysts’ (Page 1)
‘This tone of aversion to America originated from the interpretation of the function of the Program as a kind of U.S. interference, with America presuming that it has been sending experts in the role of consultants to help Hong Kong to build its own GE. Not few local colleagues found the idea of the Program patronizing, hence their sentiment, annoyance.’ (Page 3).
There seems to be sufficient evidence to accept the claims made by Mr. Sit.
Read More: Does The Government Even Want To Save Cantonese From Going Extinct In Hong Kong?
It is true to say that external organizations such as Fulbright and HKAC are indirectly controlling some universities.
As proven by those documents, there has been an undeniable pressure on academics as well as a strong opposition from local scholars.
Yet, it is still impossible to officially claim that there is an external funding but the probabilities of an indirect funding are high. In any case, this reform has been truly profitable to the Fulbright Program.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
You can also like our RISE NEWS Hong Kong Facebook page to stay engaged with our local coverage.
Cover Photo Credit: Gonzalo Pineda Zuniga/Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Is Bumble Really More Empowering For Women Than Tinder?
Finding true love just got easier due to the latest trend of dating apps available on smart phones.
Users are literally finger tips away from connecting with the right person, but who will make the first move?
There is a broad range of dating app, such as OK Cupid and Tinder, but the app that caught my attention was Bumble, often referred to by many as the “feminist app.”
It works just like any other dating app, where users set up a profile of themselves and swipe right if they have an interest in someone.
But here’s the catch, women make the first move.
Men and women both make their own connections, but once a connection is made, women only have a span of 24 hours to initiate a conversation before the connection disappears.
Then men only have 24 hours to respond to that first move by the woman.
But is the ability to make the first move more empowering for women?
For many yes, women have the control in this scenario, making men wait by the phone for the first response.
It is a total inversion of the typical dating app experience in that way.
Women at a Bumble event in Melbourne, Australia. Photo Credit: Bumble/ Facebook
Women have men wrapped around their fingers waiting for that first text message.
Dating is not easy and having the courage to be the first one to reach out to a possible connection can boost the confidence of many women.
Bumble changes the stereotypical role of waiting three days for the guy to call, pushing for women to take action within a 24 hour time frame.
For others, being the first to say “Hello” is easier said than done.
For those too shy to make the first move then have a limited time frame before the connection is lost.
There is pressure to initiate the conversation, which for many can feel more disappointing than empowering.
Some simply have no idea what to say, which happens sometimes, and that should be okay.
Everyone has different experiences with dating apps, both good and bad, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Many women have reported good feedback from using Bumble and have had good conversations with their connections from going on dates to just establishing friendships.
That is the beauty of dating apps you have control to choose the person you want to have a connection with, and Bumble offers a different perspective on who makes the first move.
There is no instruction manual or rule book to follow when it comes to finding love, and everyone is entitled to go about that journey the way they choose.
So is Bumble more empowering for women than Tinder?
It certainly has the potential to be.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Bumble/ Facebook
What Do You Think?