Search this blog with keywords

最新香港天氣資訊

香港天氣特別報告

運輸署: 特別交通消息

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

[Inside]5中國政府發行數位人民幣

你一定會想問:「中國的行動支付已經這麼發達,政府為什麼還要跳出來發行數位貨幣,甚至推出一款全新的電子支付工具?」


中國是全球行動支付最發達的國家之一,人們早已習慣拿起手機以微信支付、支付寶付帳。最近,他們還要進一步拉開與其他國家的差距 —— 發行數位人民幣(Digital Currency / Electronic Payment,DC/EP),超越瑞典成為全球第一個發行數位貨幣的政府。

數位人民幣準備好了

你肯定已經注意到,數位人民幣的英文意思其實是「數位貨幣與電子支付工具的組合」。因此,大家都在問:「中國的行動支付已經這麼發達,政府為什麼還要跳出來發行數位貨幣,甚至推出一款全新的電子支付工具?」
最近,中國人民銀行(中國央行)的數位貨幣研究所長穆長春,就在一場金融論壇中說明數位人民幣的最新進展
2014 年的夏天,周小川行長提及央行要研究發行數位貨幣的可能性。當時有很多需要回答的問題,例如,為什麼要在電子支付已經非常發達的情況下,還要發行央行的數位貨幣?央行數位貨幣應該採取什麼樣的技術路線,是採取區塊鏈還是採取帳戶體系?
這一課題還涉及其他諸多問題,比如要不要支付利息,組織架構如何安排等。逐漸地,央行對這些問題進行研究,也得出一些結論。從 2014 年到現在,央行數位貨幣的研究已經進行了五年 … 從去年開始相關人員已經是以「996」的工作狀態來進行相關系統開發。現在央行數位貨幣可以說是呼之欲出了。
不只研發人員得早上 9 點上班,晚上 9 點下班,每週工作 6 天。就連所長自己也親自到線上學習平台開了一門課 —— 科技金融前沿:Libra 與數位貨幣展望—— 宣傳數位人民幣這項新政策,他在課程中詳細說明數位人民幣的三大特性。

數位人民幣的三大特性

中國央行的官員為什麼要特地開一堂課,解釋美國臉書所推出的 Libra?原來是 Libra 激起了中國政府的危機意識,因此數位人民幣也有許多向 Libra 致敬的地方。兩者最大的差別,在於貨幣發行方與交易記帳者從 Libra 協會變成了中國政府。

一、替代紙鈔的「數位現金」

穆長春稱數位人民幣是用來替代紙鈔
它的功能和屬性跟紙鈔完全一樣,只不過它的形態是數位化的。我們對它的定義是「具有價值特徵的數位支付工具」。
什麼叫具有「價值特徵」呢?簡單來說,就是「不需要帳戶就能夠實現價值轉移」。你想想紙鈔就能理解了。你用紙鈔進行支付的時候,是不需要帳戶的,數位人民幣也是這樣。
我會說數位人民幣是「數位現金」。它雖然是數位形式的幣,卻擁有現金的三大特徵:
  1. 交易即清算
  2. 人人都能持有
  3. 去中心化交易
「交易即清算」是現金的第一項特徵,可以一手交錢一手交貨,不像是跨國匯款或刷卡必須等待幾天才會到帳。
「人人都能持有」是現金的第二項特徵。我們可以把紙鈔塞進口袋,但數位支付還是得安裝數位錢包。人們只要擁有數位人民幣的錢包 app,就能接收與支付款項。
「去中心化交易」是現金的第三項特徵。雙方不用先向中間機構註冊並登入後才能交易,而是只要拿出現金就能進行買賣。這有別於目前的微信支付、支付寶或銀行匯款,中間機構都能完全掌握交易對象與交易明細。
搭配下方這張圖,可以看得更清楚。
區塊勢_不同情境下的交易方式-2-1-e1569287313343
數位人民幣與比特幣相同,都是數位的去中心化交易,但是卻採取中心化的記帳及管理模式。因此,中國政府宣稱數位人民幣可以保有用戶的日常消費隱私,但又不會讓犯罪或恐怖份子有機可乘。
聽起來矛盾,但這確實可以做到。交易一旦去中心化之後,就沒有中間機構能夠完全掌握用戶的消費隱私,但這並不代表交易可以完全匿名。像是 Chainalysis 和 CipherTrace 這兩間數據分析公司,主要業務就是分析區塊鏈上的公開數據,協助各國政府從一團混亂的數據中找出彼此的關連性,甚至拼湊成一套完整的故事。
中國政府也打算這麼做
涉及洗錢的交易,都是有行為特徵的。比如說大量的賭博行為都發生在晚上 12 點以後,而且所有的賭博交易都沒有零頭,都是十的整數倍。一般來說,開頭是用小額,越來越大,突然就是沒有交易了,那就是輸光了,這就符合一般賭博的特徵。
電信詐騙也是如此,如果出現大量分散的錢集中到一個帳戶裡面,突然又迅速地分散開,消失在很多個帳戶裡面,這就符合明顯的電詐特徵。我們把這些交易特徵分析出來之後,再利用大數據和數據挖掘技術,進行身份比對,就能把後面那個人找出來。
交易都紀錄在資料庫內,確實很容易分析行為特徵。但該怎麼知道帳號的實際擁有者是誰?這就得仰賴實名認證。

二、錢包採分級管理制度

數位人民幣是由數位貨幣(digital currency)與電子支付工具(electronic payment)共同組成,兩者的關係類似於 Libra 與臉書自行開發的 Calibra 錢包。
Libra 的錢包服務提供商(例如 Calibra)有責任替各國政府把關每位用戶是否符合使用資格,中國政府也打算仿效同一套模式推出自己的錢包 app
出於反洗錢的考慮,我們對錢包也是有分級和限額安排的。比如說你就用一個手機號碼註冊一個錢包,那你這個錢包當然可以用,但是級別一定是最低的,只能滿足日常小額支付需求;但如果你要能上傳一下身份證,或者再上傳一個銀行卡,就可以獲得更高級別的錢包,如果你還能到櫃台去面簽一下,那可能就沒有限額了。
這是抓大放小。用戶可以將錢包和一次性的手機號碼相互綁定,但這種假名交易的額度恐怕只夠用來買早餐。就像沒人會扛著一堆十元零錢去買賣軍火,想要用千元大鈔就得經過實名認證才行。
大額交易都有實名認證。未來中國政府想查交易紀錄,只有要不要查,而沒有查不查得到的問題。而且只要多數人都通過實名認證,搭配城市內的監視器、GPS 定位以及對話紀錄,即便沒有實名認證的人也無所遁形。

三、透過金融機構發放

這點也與 Libra 相似。人們並不是直接向 Libra 協會買 Libra 幣,而是 Spotify、Uber、VISA 這些 Libra 協會的會員們向協會繳納保證金取得 Libra 幣之後,用戶在生活中直接從這些企業手上取得 Libra 幣。
穆長春指出
數位人民幣的投放過程跟紙鈔投放一樣。商業銀行在中央銀行開戶,按照百分之百全額繳納準備金,個人和企業通過商業銀行或商業機構開立數位錢包。
我倒覺得穆長春的這段話,偷偷留了一手。
中國民眾早已經習慣行動支付,若數位人民幣只能透過商業銀行發放,普及速度肯定很慢。若參考 Libra 的做法,我猜測,除了商業銀行之外,就連微信、淘寶、抖音甚至得到這些平台型的企業,未來都可以向中國央行繳納保證金並取得數位人民幣,再轉發給大眾。
什麼時候是最適合的發放時機呢?交易量每年屢創新高的雙 11 購物節當然是首選,若再晚一點,就是趁著農曆新年人們透過微信支付彼此發紅包的時候也是個好時機。透過既有的平台發放數位人民幣,成效最好而且成本最低。
看到這裡,相信你對數位人民幣已經有一定的了解。它是去中心化的數位貨幣,雖然沒有中心化機構掌握所有動向,但政府仍然可以從大數據回推每個人的交易行為。此外,數位人民幣並不會和既有的支付工具競爭,這些支付工具都將成為數位人民幣的錢包,未來人們或許能夠用微信支付轉帳數位人民幣給支付寶。
這是穆長春在課程裡指出的支付壁壘問題。

安內攘外的工具

中國為什麼要發行數位人民幣?我將答案歸納為安內、攘外兩個原因,先看前者。根據穆長春所說:
我們看到現在私營的支付機構或平台,會設置各種支付壁壘,用微信的地方不能用支付寶,用支付寶的地方不能用微信,但對央行數位貨幣來說,只要你能使用電子支付的地方,就必須接受央行的數位貨幣。
從央行的角度來看,商業或技術的支付壁壘會降低金錢的流通性,不利於人民幣發展。
從技術的角度來看,在 2009 年比特幣出現之前,任何人若想將紙鈔數位化,就得建置一套中心化的系統替用戶們記帳。用戶可以使用哪些服務,就取決於中心化的系統提供哪些服務。而且兩家企業的系統通常不互通,導致幣也被鎖在各自的系統裡,降低了金錢的流通性。
但在以比特幣為首的數千種密碼貨幣出現後,人們才發現新技術(例如區塊鏈)可以將傳統的支付工具拆分為密碼貨幣、錢包。密碼貨幣可以在提供支援的錢包裡流動,而錢包則可以內嵌在不同的應用程式中。這就打破了原本技術所造成的支付壁壘問題。因此,數位人民幣不僅可以改善紙鈔的地理限制以及製造成本較高的問題,還能進一步跨越目前行動支付的壁壘,提升人民幣的流通性。
image-6-e1569287387524中央銀行對數位貨幣的分類圖 / 圖片來源
此外,穆長春指出此時發行數位人民幣,是未雨綢繆。
數位人民幣大量參考 Libra 的設計。中國的國家外匯管理局總會計師孫天琦更清楚表示:「Libra 可能導致中國境內交易 Libra 化、讓境內資本透過 Libra 向外流出,進一步削弱人民幣的國際地位」。再對照 Calibra 負責人在美國國會的證詞,你會發現這其實是一場貨幣戰爭。
說到這裡,不免有人會想問:「台灣是不是也該發行數位新台幣呢?」
我認為不用急。目前想以區塊鏈相關技術發行數位貨幣的國家,主要分為兩大類:
  1. 國際的經濟強權,例如中國、美國(臉書的 Libra)
  2. 受經濟制裁國家,例如北韓、伊朗、委內瑞拉。
前者是透過數位貨幣,爭取國際的經濟主導權。後者是透過數位貨幣,躲避經濟強權的制裁。絕大多數國家包含台灣都是介於兩者之間,發行數位貨幣雖然有安內的加分效果,卻沒有外在驅動的急迫性。
不僅台灣政府不習慣成為第一名,搶在這時候「跟風」發行數位新台幣,我認為也沒有太大意義。

[關鍵評論] 空前示威後聯合國氣候峰會無具體作為 瑞典少女狠批大人盜去年輕人夢想

我們想讓你知道的是
是次聯合國氣候行動峰會,身為世界最大經濟體的美國只出席15分鐘,亞馬遜雨林大部分位於境內的巴西,以及世界第七大溫室氣體排放國的日本都選擇缺席。

聯合國氣候峰會(United Nations Climate Action Summit)昨(23)日舉行,然而全球大型經濟體的表現不符合各界預期,雖然都承諾在2050年前達成二氧化碳零凈排放,但未能宣布具體計畫。年僅16歲的瑞典環保人士通貝里(Greta Thunberg)發表演說,批評世界領袖未能解決溫室氣體排放問題是「背叛」她的世代,並指控各國領袖是「用空洞的承諾偷走了我的夢想和童年。」

(中央社)聯合國在會議前公布的新聞稿說,66國、10個地區與102個城市矢言在2050年前達到「碳中和」。全球頂尖科學家認為,相比工業時代前的氣溫,氣溫長期升幅必須限制在攝氏1.5度以下,才能避免暖化一發不可收拾,帶來災難性的後果。

為了讓2100年全球氣溫僅上升攝氏1.5度,避免氣候破壞加劇,聯合國估計,全球需要把目前的努力增加5倍,才能把氣候變遷控制於科學要求的範圍內。

「我們了解狀況很嚴重」各國領袖卻沒提具體減排計劃
昨天陸續上台的領袖都說他們了解情況的嚴重性,但並未宣布具體計畫。


印度總理莫迪(Narendra Modi)沒有明確表示印度根據巴黎協議承諾的事項是否會更進一步,僅表示,會在加倍再生能源方面多做努力。「世界最大排放國」中國同樣沒有做出新的宣布。

《紐約時報》一篇分析指出,與溫室氣體產業關係緊密的各國領袖,與呼籲重視氣候變遷的街頭示威者認知差距大,彷彿身處兩個世界。

人們目前身處的世界,極端熱浪、災難性洪水、大型野火頻傳,氣候狀況已不確定到各國學童上街示威、呼籲成人拿出行動,但另一方面,與排放溫室氣體產業關係密切的各國領袖,卻敵視這類示威,或拿氣候科學來否認現況,攫取政治利益。

在今天登場的聯合國氣候行動峰會,聯合國秘書長古特雷斯(Antonio Guterres)期盼約60個國家宣布所謂的新「具體」計畫,以減少碳排。

《法廣》報導,古特雷斯表示,包括66國政府、10個地區、102座城市、93家企業與12位投資人的「2050集團」全數都承諾在2050年前達成二氧化碳零凈排放,呼籲在氣候危機將人類終結之前讓其停步。

他近期訪問了太平洋島國、西非的莫桑比克和大西洋西岸的加勒比島國巴哈馬,並親眼目睹了氣候變化的威力:「這不是氣候對話峰會。我們已經進行了足夠的對話。這不是氣候談判峰會。你們無法與自然進行談判。這是氣候行動峰會。從一開始,我就說過,峰會的入場卷不是華麗的辭藻,而是具體的行動。」

但《紐時》認為,問題在於街頭示威者與聯合國大會內的外交官,彷彿身處兩個世界。

智庫「外交關係協會」(CFR)專精氣候政策的專家希爾(Alice Hill)說:「當前政治氛圍不利於這類討論。多邊主義備受攻擊,我們也看到威權政府興起。這些壓力對我們不利。美國的領導階層也不願幫忙帶頭改善。」

事實上,美國總統特朗普(Trump)僅就降低了數十項環境規範,多數是近期放寬汽車排放,還說這些規範是美國經濟不必要的負擔;在巴西,總統波索納洛(Jair Bolsonaro)想把亞馬遜雨林開放給新的商業活動;俄國總統普亭(Vladimir Putin)下轄的是個龐大油國,中國國企也在海內外推展煤礦計畫,印度即便提倡太陽能,總理莫迪也在拓展煤礦。

據一個聯合國所支持的科學小組的最新報告預測,若碳排持續照目前的速度上升,世界在2040年之前就會面臨海岸線被淹沒、乾旱加劇,糧食安全也將受衝擊,基本上會是個大災難。
但這場聯合國氣候行動峰會,世界最大經濟體的美國甚至不與會(特朗普後來出席15分鐘),亞馬遜雨林大部分位於境內的巴西,以及世界第七大溫室氣體排放國的日本都選擇缺席。

綜合《公視》和《法廣》報導,德國總理默克爾(Angela Merkel)表示,德國將對抗全球暖化的財務承諾增至40億歐元,並表示「到2030年時,我們希望有2/3的能源來自再生能源。在2022年時,我們將會淘汰最後一座核電廠;最晚在2038年淘汰燃煤電廠。」

法國總統馬克龍(Emmanuel Macron)則說,多個國際組織已答應額外提供5億美元,資助保護熱帶森林的計畫,各國的貿易和財政政策都應考慮氣候變化因素,包括不輸入增加碳污染的貨品。特朗普僅出席峰會約15分鐘,但沒有發言。

瑞典少女痛批各國領袖:How dare you
從8月乘著零碳排帆船經過15天航程抵達美國後,通貝里登上世界舞台,她在聯合國氣候峰會發表了一場演說,指控領袖們背叛、並再三質問:「你們怎麼敢這麼做(How dare you)?」

通貝里這場演說慷慨激昂,4次用「你們怎麼敢」的句子提出質疑。

16歲的通貝里說:「你們來向我們年輕人找希望,你們怎麼敢?」她怒吼說:「你們用空洞的承諾偷走了我的夢想和童年。我不該來到這裡,我該回到海洋另一頭的學校。」「我們正處於大規模滅絕的開端,而你們所能談論的只是金錢和永恆經濟成長的童話故事。你們怎麼敢這麼做?」

16歲瑞典女孩通貝里堅稱,氣候變遷各項解決方案都被「漠視」,呼籲學童出面拿回主導權。桑伯格已成為對地球治理感到憂心新世代族群的象徵。她在給支持者的影片中說:「每一件事都有價值,你的所作所為都是。」

通貝里也說:「你們令我們失望,年輕人開始了解到你們的背叛。所有未來世代的目光都在你們身上,如果你們選擇讓我們失望,那我說,我們永遠不會原諒你們!」

1人翹課到全球100萬學生集體罷課:16歲的瑞典自閉症女孩做了什麼?
全球400萬人罷課,前所未見的氣候示威
20日世界各鎮響應瑞典少女發起「為氣候罷課」的人估計達400萬人,過去從未見過規模如此龐大、不分貧富的氣候示威。

《法新社》報導,從澳洲雪梨、南韓首爾至巴西聖保羅,都有學童響應這場社群媒體標記 #為氣候罷課(#climatestrike),推動這場料將成為史上最大型之一的集體活動。

20日到27日,全球各地將舉行超過5000場活動,最大亮點是紐約登場的大型集會,約1800間公立學校的110萬名學生已獲准不用到校。

這項被稱作「週五為未來而戰」(Fridays for Future)活動,目的是希望全球學童出面,說服成人更認真看待氣候變遷一事。他們要求政治人物和企業採取果斷行動阻止全球暖化,以遏止科學家所警告會導致環境浩劫的當前氣候變遷趨勢。

[BBC] Thomas Cook customers in shock over flight prices

Thomas Cook customers have accused airlines of cashing in on the holiday firm's demise after being faced with high bills to book replacement flights.

People who booked flights with the company, now trying to find replacement deals, told the BBC that in some cases prices for the flights have tripled.

Holidaymaker Angela Mills said a flight from Glasgow to Rhodes, Greece, was £280 on Sunday, but was now £1,000.

Analysts said the prices reflected high demand on routes with few spare seats.

"People aren't sitting there rubbing their hands with glee. If sales come in rapidly on popular routes then prices go up," said John Strickland, an airline analyst at JLS Consulting.

Mr Strickland said September was a popular time for people to take holidays outside the peak school holiday period and many flights were already very full.

He said the airlines could decide to halt price increases, but said firms had to be commercially driven.

Live: Latest updates as holidaymakers are flown home
Thomas Cook bosses face scrutiny over collapse
Thomas Cook: Your questions answered
'The staff were crying and very sombre'
What went wrong at Thomas Cook?
"Thomas Cook has failed because it had massive debts and it was making a loss. It's a fragile industry. More than a dozen airlines have gone bust.

"If the airlines don't make profits where they can on a minority of flights then they don't stand a chance of surviving."

How is the repatriation effort going?
Meanwhile, Dame Deirdre Hutton, chairwoman of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), described stage one of the repatriation of holidaymakers on Monday as "a pretty good day for a first day".

She told BBC 5 Live's Wake Up to Money: "We ran 64 flights, we brought back just under 15,000 people. That was over 90% of those we intended to bring back.

"I'm conscious that we've got a huge job to do still, because that's about 8% of the total, but a reasonable start.

"We've got 74 flights today and are hoping to bring back 16,500 people, but (have) 13 days to go and 135,000 passengers still to bring back.

"The cost split is 60% Atol and 40% non-Atol."

Dame Deirdre added that she wanted to emphasise: "Nobody is stranded, everybody will get their holiday and they will be brought back at the time they would have come back anyway."

What sort of price rises are people experiencing?
Holidaymaker Mrs Mills said the increases were bad for travellers already in "a state of shock".

She was due to fly from Glasgow to Rhodes on Wednesday on Thomas Cook flights. When she looked for alternatives after the travel firm's collapse, the cheapest price she could find for replacement flights for her and her husband was more than £1,000.

The company she booked her accommodation through - Jetline Holidays - eventually found her an alternative deal costing £600 extra.

But she will now have to fly from Edinburgh, and on her return spend a night in Prague before flying back from there.

Mrs Mills said she hoped to claim the additional cost of the flights from her travel insurance on her return.

What are my rights?

Anyone who has bought a future package holiday with Thomas Cook is covered by the Air Travel Organiser's Licence scheme (Atol). This means they will not be going away, but the cost of the holiday will be refunded.

However, Atol protection does not cover flight-only deals. The main alternative for travellers is to claim a refund from the provider of the credit or debit card they used, or make a claim on their travel insurance.

What are your rights? Read more here

Kevin Spence was due to go to Florida next year in June with his family - a trip which had taken two years to plan and save up for.

But he said between checking flight prices just before Thomas Cook collapsed on Sunday and the following morning they had risen sharply.

Original flight costs of £1,800 for his family of four had now gone up to £2,500, he said.

"I'm devastated.

"The cost of the holiday is now pushing up past our budget. I'm now in a position where I might need to cancel it altogether," he said.

However, Nigel Wilson said he had managed to beat the price increases by booking new flights for his holiday from Manchester to Marrakech at 12.30am BST on Monday morning.

The flights for his family of four cost him an additional £640, but he said when he checked prices later on Monday, the cost had risen to £1,500.

"If we had waited we wouldn't have had the funds to book more tickets at that price," he said.

[BBC] West Papua: Day of violence sees at least 27 dead

A new wave of violence has hit the restive Indonesian region of West Papua after hundreds of protesters, mostly high school students, set fire to several buildings in a town on Monday.

At least 23 people died in the regional capital Wamena, some of whom were trapped inside burning buildings.

The protests were reportedly triggered by a teacher's racist comments - an allegation the police called a "hoax".

It's the latest violence in the region, which saw weeks of unrest in August.

The number of killed is expected to rise as the search for victims continues on Tuesday.

Four people died in a separate incident in the provincial capital of Jayapura, bringing the death toll to 27.

The incident in Jayapura took place after a mob of students reportedly attacked a soldier and police officers with machetes and rocks.

The day of violence came after a period of relative calm in the region, which last month was rocked by mass demonstrations in response to claims of racism.

The previous protests stemmed from an incident where nationalist groups accused Papuan university students in Surabaya of damaging an Indonesian flag during Independence Day celebrations.

The groups had goaded the students, calling them "monkeys", "pigs" and "dogs".

Local parliament torched in Indonesian Papua riots
'We are not monkeys': Racist taunts open deep wounds
What happened on Monday?
On Monday, two separate attacks took place across Wamena and Jayapura in Papua.

The violence in Wamena was triggered by racist slurs directed at students by a teacher, said a spokesman for a West Papua separatist group.

However, Papua police denied this, calling it a "hoax". They said clashes broke out after a fight between students from different schools.

Papua military spokesman Eko Daryanto told news agency AFP the death toll from Monday's violence could rise, saying many civilians had been "trapped in burning kiosks".

Local military commander Chandra Dianto told the news agency that other victims were "burned... some were hacked to death".

He added that the military would continue to look for victims.

Meanwhile in Jayapura, clashes took place between security forces and protesters, with pictures showing scores of police gathered outside a university.

Mr Daryanto told news agency the Associated Press that a mob of students had attacked a soldier and police officers in Jayapura with machetes and rocks.

Security forces responded with gunfire, killing three civilians, he told AP. The soldier later died.

Why is there violence in West Papua?
It was the taunting of the Papua students that triggered the violence earlier this year, but for many in the region, feelings of resentment towards Indonesia have been simmering for decades.

The former Dutch colony did not become part of Indonesia until 1963, after a short period under UN control.

A referendum on its independence was held in 1969 but only about 1,000 people were allowed to vote.

As a result, a low-level separatist movement, fighting for independence, continues to this day.

The Indonesian military, meanwhile, is accused of gross human rights abuses in their attempt to suppress any form of dissent in the province.

Analysis
By Jonathan Head, BBC South East Asia correspondent

When the 32-year rule of President Suharto came crashing down in Indonesia 21 years ago, there were real fears the country would break up - an Asian Yugoslavia.

Aside from the former Portuguese territory of East Timor, that did not happen, thanks in part to a new democracy, decentralisation and, in some regions, autonomy.

But the eastern region of Papua remains troubled, and much of its indigenous population unreconciled to Indonesian rule.

"Indonesia is either the former Dutch East Indies or it is nothing," I was told by one government adviser in the perilous days following Suharto's fall. But Papua is a special case.

It was not incorporated into Indonesia in the decolonisation agreement with the Netherlands in 1949. It was handed over only in 1963, to be approved by a referendum in 1969, the so-called "Act of Free Choice", widely accepted now as an Indonesian-manipulated sham.

Remote, undeveloped and largely ignored by the world, Papua's rich resources were crudely exploited by Indonesia, a pro-independence movement was harshly suppressed, and waves of migrants encouraged to move there from other islands.

Papua has enjoyed a form of autonomy since 2001, with other attempts made by successive Indonesian governments to assuage local resentment. But hostility to Indonesian rule runs deep.

Papua New Guinea profile
Where is West Papua?
Papua is divided into two provinces, Papua and West Papua - the two regions are collectively referred to as West Papua.

Together, they make up the western half of the island of New Guinea. The eastern half of the island is comprised of the independent state of Papua New Guinea.

[BBC] Supreme Court to give historic Parliament suspension ruling

The highest court in the UK is set to make a historic ruling on whether Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks was lawful.

Ministers say the suspension, or prorogation, is not a court matter, but critics argue it was intended to limit scrutiny of the PM's Brexit plans.

If the judgement - due at 10:30 BST - goes against Mr Johnson, Parliament could be reconvened immediately.

The government has said it will "abide by the ruling" of the Supreme Court.

But Mr Johnson - who is in New York for a UN climate conference - has refused to rule out seeking to prorogue Parliament for a second time if the ruling goes against him.

Parliament is currently due to return on 14 October, with the UK scheduled to leave the EU on 31 October.

Live updates on the Supreme Court ruling
Could the Supreme Court overrule the government?
What happened in the Supreme Court?
How did the government suspend Parliament?
The three-day hearing at the Supreme Court dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.

Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.

The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.

The challenge in the Scottish Court was brought by a cross-party group of MPs and peers led by the SNP's Joanna Cherry.

The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the Supreme Court had to resolve the two dramatically contradictory rulings.

He said if the justices ruled Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen was unlawful, either because of an improper motivation or because of the effect of the decision - with legislation lost and Parliamentary scrutiny improperly denied - it could lead to calls for the PM to resign.

Asked whether he would resign in such circumstances, Mr Johnson told the BBC: "I'm going to wait and see what the judgement is," adding that the government "fully respects the law and fully respects the judiciary".

During the Supreme Court case, government lawyer Lord Keen QC said it was "forbidden territory" for judges to intervene on political arguments about when and how Parliament is suspended.

However, Lord Pannick QC, representing Mrs Miller, argued the "exceptional length" of the prorogation was "strong evidence" that the prime minister's motive was to "silence Parliament", which he saw as an obstacle to his political aims.

Mr Johnson said he was proroguing Parliament in order to hold a new Queen's Speech on 14 October to outline the government's legislative plans for the year ahead.

However, the timing has been controversial because it reduced the time Parliament was sitting ahead of the Brexit deadline, with MPs unable to put questions to ministers or scrutinise government legislation during the suspension.

Later this morning, we will have a judgement handed down at the Supreme Court that will make political history - one way or the other.

The president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, does not do spoilers. So nobody other than the justices who will gather later know what is going to be said exactly.

The general expectation, however, is that the government will lose - which is very serious in and of itself - but we have no idea just how serious yet.

Will the court judge that the prime minister misled the Queen? That is about as serious as it gets.

Or will they want to draw a line in the sand and say this appears to have been disproportionate, but wont actually recommend any action?

It could be a day that really, really changes things.

What could happen next?
The Supreme Court must first decide whether prorogation is a matter for the courts - justiciable, in legal parlance - and if so, whether the decision of Mr Johnson to do it was lawful.

If the government wins, then nothing changes - Parliament remains suspended until 14 October.

But things could get complicated if the justices decide Mr Johnson acted unlawfully.

In documents submitted to the court, the government said it could see three options if the court ruled against it - and in some scenarios, it might suspend Parliament all over again.

The court might rule this suspension unlawful, but their reasons might leave open the possibility of proroguing Parliament for the same time period in a different, lawful way
The judges could decide that the only lawful option is for the prime minister to recall Parliament before 14 October. Lawyers for Mr Johnson said he would comply, but it would require "extensive arrangements" to draw up a new Queen's Speech and get ready for the ceremonial State Opening of Parliament
The judges could declare the suspension unlawful, meaning Parliament would remain in session as if it had never stopped. The government said it might still be able to consider suspending it again
But Lord Pannick said all the judges needed to do was declare the suspension unlawful. The prime minister would not have to take any action and the Speakers of the Commons and Lords could decide how to proceed.

[AppleDaily]荃灣男浮屍死因惹猜疑 網民籲傍晚海邊獻白花悼念

荃灣永順街51號柏傲灣,早上10時47分,離岸對開20米海面,一名男子在海中載浮載沉,途人發現報警求助,消防接報到場從海面救起男事主,惟經救護員檢驗後,證實他已當場死亡。探員至午後仍在場調查事件,但消息初步指無可疑。
事件後,現場約有30名街坊圍觀,有人懷疑死者「被自殺」,與警員曾有爭執。其後事主3名男女親友包括疑似死者母親到場認屍,有女家屬嚎哭。有家屬則希望街坊停止拍攝,指死者只是自殺,「我都係反送中㗎,尊重吓家人啦」。
浮屍事件曝光後,引來網民議論紛紛,並認為事件有中有多個不尋常之處。其一是有人聲稱拍攝到救援人員由水中救事主(死者)上岸時,事主雙手伸直疑似握緊拳頭,其二是浮屍較少會有血流出,但有網民貼出圖片,指現場蓋着死者的帳篷旁邊有血水滲出。另外,昨晚曾有網民「預言」及擔心今日會發現浮屍,結果不幸言中,惹來更多討論。
至下午,有網民發起今日傍晚7時在荃灣公園海傍獻白花悼念,指行動目的是「盼手足安息 還手足真相」,並呼籲參加者及街坊屆時帶備蠟燭及白花,亦可隨心帶備自己宗教物件望死者安息。

[AppleDaily]【逆權運動●不斷更新】遭4暴徒伏擊或傷及頸椎 鄺神:香港人不會怕

【16:10】警方將案件列作襲擊致造成實際身體傷害 (AOABH) ,交由元朗警區重案組跟進,暫未有人被捕。警方正追緝4名年齡介乎20至30歲男子,案發時當中一人身穿黑色衣褲、戴帽子及口罩;一人身穿白色上衣、牛仔褲及戴口罩;一人身穿黑色上衣及牛仔褲
【15:00】「鄺神」正會見傳媒,左手及右手手肘位置貼上紗布
【14:20】「鄺神」稍後將會見傳媒
【12:30】民主黨區議員黃偉賢探望「鄺神」後透露,他及「鄺神」早於一個多月前,都曾收到一封恐嚇信
【12:10】胡志偉正在醫院外會見傳媒

民主黨立法會議員鄺俊宇,今早在天水圍濕地公園附近遇襲,送往醫院,正接受治理。民主黨主席胡志偉已抵達醫院探望「鄺神」,並了解遇襲事件。「鄺神」隨後亦步出醫院會見傳媒,左手及右手手肘位置貼上紗布,向惡勢力表明香港人不會害怕。

事發於今早10時15分,鄺俊宇到天水圍(天業路)社區健康中心對開路邊,駕乘較早前停泊的私家車。鄺俊宇上車準備駛走之際,突然有3名男子衝出,將他強行拉出車外,拳打腳踢。鄺的後頸被踢中,口、腰及手亦受傷,另一名兇徒則手持攝錄機拍攝過程。
4名兇徒逞兇後往天葵路方向逃走。有女途人目擊事件報案,由救護員到場將鄺俊宇送天水圍醫院治理。警方將案件列作襲擊致造成實際身體傷害 (AOABH) ,交由元朗警區重案組跟進,暫未有人被捕。警方正追緝4名年齡介乎20至30歲男子,案發時當中一人身穿黑色衣褲、戴帽子及口罩;一人身穿白色上衣、牛仔褲及戴口罩;一人身穿黑色上衣及牛仔褲
胡志偉探望「鄺神」後,與元朗區多名泛民區議員一起會見傳媒,強烈讉責今次暴力事件,認為事件有組織有預謀,不能接受,促警方嚴正執法,維護每一位市民安全,而不是以撰擇性態度去處理,去執法。他指過往涉及政治事件的襲擊案,警方均未能破案,期望警方今次能揪出幕後黑手,並呼籲市民不要讓仇恨和憤怒蒙蔽,作出反擊。
胡志偉稱,襲擊「鄺神」的都是中國籍男子,「鄺神」目前清醒,由於頸椎位置受傷,所以仍需進行詳細檢查,而警員已在病房向他錄取口供。胡認為特區政府必須正視社會的對立和撕裂,以免有梁振英之流獎勵「篤灰」,令到可能有黑社會或社團為拿取獎賞而進行違法之事。
民主黨元朗區區議員黃偉賢指案發地點相對僻靜,相信兇徒是有計劃襲擊鄺俊宇,他又透露個多月前,他們二人曾收過恐嚇信,議員辦事處亦被人潑紅油,顯示恐嚇不斷升級,但強調不會因此恐懼。
下午3時許,「鄺神」步出醫院會見傳媒,只見他精神較差,左手及右手手肘位置貼上紗布,臉部未見明顯傷勢。他表示,事發時到現場取車,突然被人扯下車施襲,有3人向他拳打腳踢,另有1人從旁攝錄過程,遇襲全程約半分鐘至一分鐘,兇徒離開前曾用腳踢其後腦。對於有途經市民替他進行急救,他表示感謝。
「鄺神」稱,作為香港人的議員,保護港人是天職,若因此而被反對派襲擊,本身已是一宗國際醜聞。他表示,傷勢雖痛,但不及港人經歷過的傷痛,他更提高聲調回應惡勢力,指香港人不會怕,他亦會堅持保護香港人。
他最後又想向特首林鄭月娥問話,問對方類似事件「想發生到幾時」、「香港仲係唔係安全」。

[ApplesDaily]【逆權運動●美國直擊】斥習近平令中國淪為勞改營國家 美眾議員:濫暴警是制裁目標

美國國會即將審議《香港人權及民主法案》(下稱《法案》),有望落實美國制裁打壓香港民主運動者的機制。有份在眾議院提案的眾議員史密斯(Chris Smith)直言,《法案》要求國務院就香港自治情況提交報告,亦會對打壓香港的人士作出制裁,包括使用暴力的香港警察也是目標之一,直斥使用警暴者形同「癌症」,史密斯多番批評中國在國家主席習近平治下淪為勞改營國家(a gulag state),指美方極擔心香港也會落得如此下場,認為必須為香港支持民主運動的人士提供協助,否則香港將變成高壓地區(very repressive area),強調《法案》獲通過後,必須引用條文迫使中方遵守承諾,尊重香港人的人權及自由。

記者 梁穎妍華盛頓報道
長期關注中國人權事務的美國國會及行政當局中國委員會前主席史密斯,早前在聽證會中以廣東話說出「加油」為港人打氣。他接受《蘋果》專訪時怒轟習近平實行高壓管治,形容中國如同一個勞改營國家,指中共對新疆的壓迫令人聯想到納粹分子,更擔心相同的暴政將無可避免及殘酷地出現在香港。他認為,雨傘運動已讓外界留意到香港自治受到嚴重侵蝕,而反修例運動一役,更可見《基本法》中的承諾正受襲擊(under siege),批評習近平與特首林鄭月娥正意圖拆毀香港這個「民主綠洲」,但他拒絕評論林鄭月娥,指對方根本沒有話語權,認為一切命令來自中央。
相關新聞:【逆權數字睇真相】由6.9至9.4 由堅持二讀至撤回 林鄭一石激起千浪!

史密斯強調要為香港支持民主運動人士提供協助,免令香港變成高壓地區;至於中央或不惜一切鎮壓香港,史密斯強調北京必定會承擔後果,直言美方目前與香港自由貿易的關係可以在一夜間改變,並指美國商界也就中國侵犯、違反知識產權、版權問題着手,針對中國享有的最惠國待遇在世界貿易組織層面採取措施,形容美方的報復是衝着中國而來(so our reprisal is coming to China itself)。
參眾兩院的外交關係及外交事務委員會將分別於香港時間周三深夜及周四凌晨召開會議,逐條審議《法案》,史密斯指當中只有小量技術性修正,認為條文最重要在於與《全球馬格尼茨基人權問責法》相似的制裁機制,並指在《法案》中列明機制,能更有效地針對性處理香港問題。對於美國國務院近年就《美國─香港政策法》發表報告時,仍指香港自治受蠶食但仍有足夠程度以維持獨立關稅區地位,他指出,新《法案》對自治的指標(yardstick)就是中共在《基本法》中所作出的一切承諾,包括落實普選。
被問到由總統任命的國務卿負責撰寫評估香港自治狀況的報告,最終都受總統對中國的政策所影響,史密斯強調美國有足夠監察及權力制衡,他個人亦高度期望總統特朗普及國務卿蓬佩奧會在分析香港情況時有高度透明度,相信國會會密切關注報告甚至提供意見,強調美方並非「開玩笑」,警告中方勿再粗暴對待人民(I think we strengthen the president's hand. We're not kidding, stop maltreating your own people)。
雖然香港的反送中運動持續爆發衝突,史密斯認為目前香港的抗爭仍是和平示威,再三批評香港警方使用過度武力,指《法案》的制裁甚至《全球馬格尼茨基人權問責法》都「絕對(absolutely)」適用於制裁香港警察,強調只要有證據顯示警察濫用武力、打人就可被制裁,並指據以往相關法律經驗,雖然較難尋找需要問責的人士及獲得充足佐證,從而作出制裁,但相關部門會建立資料庫及名單,亦會聽取人權組織提供的資料,以累積證據。
至於美方對香港自治情況有否底線以決定是否取消《美國─香港政策法》,史密斯未有正面回應,僅重申美方是有條件地給予香港特殊地位,強調美方絕不會退縮,直至迫使中方停止殘害、無理監禁人民的行為。

[AppleDaily]死撐女卧底是便裝刑偵人員

【本報訊】昨日凌晨零時,警方在太子清場並拘捕多名現場人士,其間有多名喬裝成示威者的警員參與。其中一名身穿黑衣、以黑布蒙面、手持伸縮警棍的女子身處警察群中,卻未有展示委任證,被追問身份時反白眼拒答,僅由在場其他便衣警員確實其警員身份。

稱持伸縮棍破壞者非喬裝警
警方公共關係科高級警司江永祥昨日在警方記者會證實,該名黑衣蒙面女子為旺角警區便裝刑偵人員,當晚負責觀察工作,收取人流資訊,以便警區調配。及後附近警方有清場行動,她便前往加入協助拘捕,由於事態發展迅速,她未有及時從袋中取出警方背心穿着,但稍後有其他在場警員確認其身份。他又確認在場有其他便衣人員工作,但便衣人員數目及其執行的工作屬行動細節,不會公開。不過,蒙面黑衣便衣警與示威者衣着相似,江永祥則未有直接回應便衣人員是喬裝示威人士。

至於網上流傳照片指上周六有喬裝警在警車上取物件,江永祥指該名人士身份是警員,但身上穿着特別戰術小隊制服,並非假扮示威者。另一網上訊息質疑有警員喬裝示威者在葵芳站持伸縮警棍破壞,江永祥稱指控完全失實,「佢唔係我哋警員,細心睇亦唔係警方裝備」,指非法管有伸縮警棍即屬藏有攻擊性武器,可判入獄三年。
■記者曾偉龍

[RTHK] 國際特赦組織促港府調查警方暴力 抗衡北京「紅線」

國際特赦組織發表報告,認為香港政府必須調查警方暴力,以及抗衡北京訂出的「紅線」。

報告名為「北京對香港的紅線」,報告訪問了多名記者、示威者和非政府機構等,指出自2014年佔領運動後,在香港推行日益高壓的政策,言論和結社自由的權利受到攻擊。

報告指,中國當局以「國家安全」的含糊定義,針對記者,社運人士和批評者。一些被指觸碰北京「紅線」的人士和團體,被香港政府濫用法例騷擾和檢控。報告認為百萬市民上街反對修訂《逃犯條例》,只是對北京攻擊他們的人權,作出反應的冰山一角。組織特別關注,警察對示威者非法使用武力,但毋須問責的問題。

組織促請特區政府,就警方使用不恰當武力,作出獨立和有效調查,並尊重和保障和平集會的自由,停止政治檢控。

[立場新聞] 否認後巷毆打「守護孩子」成員 警司:片段只見踢一件黃色物體

背景圖片:網上片段  

有「守護孩子行動」成員前晚(21日)於元朗鳳攸北街被捕及被控以襲警。從網上片段(附本報道文末)可見,「守護孩子」男義工被帶到後巷,懷疑遭警察包圍腳踢毆打,樓上有街坊以手機拍下這一幕。警方今午於例行記者會上稱,網上有指警方毆打被捕人士的說法嚴重失實,片段亦未能清楚錄影事發經過或展示事件始末。江永祥強調,警方至今未收到任何人就事件投訴。

公共關係科的高級警司江永祥於記者會上主動澄清事件,江永祥表示,當晚警方於元朗鳳攸北街推進,期間截停 2 人進行盤問,但礙於現場有大量示威者叫囂及衝擊警方防線,警方為確保搜查安全,及被搜查人士的私隱,將 2 人到後巷進行搜身及調查。

被追問下指「黃色物體」可以是人、袋或背心

江永祥稱,當時鳳攸北街上繼續有大量示威者衝擊防線及襲警,在警告多次無效後,警方在場施放胡椒噴劑,並拘捕了一名涉嫌襲警的 48 歲男子。江永祥指,網上指控警方在後巷毆打這名被捕男子是不實的,而被捕男子在搜身後聲稱身體不適,警方將他送院,當時男子清醒。

新界北總區警司(行動)韋華高(Vasco Gareth Llewellyn Williams)則在記者會上稱,該條網上片段只見有警員在踢一件「黃色的物體(yellow object)」,而他本人看過另一段較清晰及顯示完整事發經過的片段,是可以看到當時警方沒有對任何被捕人士作不當行為。韋華高其後在記者追問下補充,該段片段模糊不清,該「黃色物體」可以是一個人、一個袋,或一件背心。

稱另一清晰片段顥示無不當行為

現場有記者追問他所指較清晰的片段來源,韋華高僅稱那是網上片段,記者可以自己搜尋。

韋華高又呼籲,發布該段網上片段的人應向警方提供進一步資料,警方必定會嚴肅跟進,「你作出指控但不(向警方)投訴,是非常容易的事情(it's very easy to make allegations when you don't have to come forward)。」

「守護孩子行動」成員前晚(9月21日)於元朗鳳攸北街被捕及被控以襲警。從網上片段可見,「守護孩子」男義工被帶到後巷,懷疑遭警察包圍毆打,有警察腳踢已經被制伏、沒有反抗能力的被捕者,樓上有街坊以手機拍下這一幕,有人大叫:「唔好打呀,阿Sir 停手!影住你呀!」數名警察紛紛以強光照向樓上的街坊,似是意圖阻止街坊拍攝。片段如下:

[立場新聞] 鄺俊宇遭 3 漢伏擊 受傷送院 施襲者攝錄毆打過程

民主黨立法會議員鄺俊宇今早在天水圍濕地公園附近遇襲,送往天水圍醫院救治。

鄺俊宇的民主黨友兼立法會議員林卓廷和涂謹申向傳媒表示,已與鄺通電話,鄺指是在今早約十時,在天水圍濕地公園附近健康院停車場取車時,被三名男子伏擊,遭拳打腳踢,包括後頸被踢到,其中一名施襲者人持攝錄機拍攝襲擊過程。

涂謹申指,施襲者拍攝打人過程,顯示事件或是有預謀的買兇傷人。