[00:01 - 00:19] Don't be generous with the examples, because we're trying to

illustrate a point here. You're saying that it's general and quantifiable, then I'm going
to ask you, how so? Well, then you give me an example of the 104 interpretation.
That is without any of the answers.
[00:20 - 00:36] How do you have examples? Well, yeah. The second interpretation.
That's on... 104? I don't remember. It's one of those.
[00:37 - 00:52] On the term of the Chinese examples. I went, don't you want to get
down as a Chinese example? And Dong Zang was acting CE. They interpreted the
term that a person was doing.
[00:52 - 01:10] So from time to time, really, they interpret the basic rule. Sometimes
what people are asking, sometimes what I'm asking. I mean, if you don't know that
example, you should know what it is.
[01:10 - 01:27] You got it. Remember the case of the garlic. Those tips, right? We
want right or wrong. They were given right or wrong by the final appeal. But the
chief examiner said, no, you need to interpret this.
[01:27 - 01:43] You need to interpret out of this 22-24. And the NPCS did so. It
wasn't a request for any kind of tips. So sometimes they can do it with somebody
asking.
[01:43 - 02:00] And sometimes they don't do it. Another way of interpreting the
basic rule of understanding is through a request from the court final appeal. Under
115.
[02:00 - 02:24] And that, they were given only once. That's the common case. That
is the only occasion under which 115 can be interpreted. So this question only
requires you to talk about 151, 152, 153.
[02:24 - 02:40] But of course, note also that tricky part at the beginning. And then
you solve it. This should be easy. If you've got a copy of my guidance notes, you
know what I'm looking for when you talk about it. Anyway, I'll show you what I mean.
[02:42 - 02:59] So the most important point in answering this question, in terms of
institutions, Chinese institutions, is only the NPCSC that has powers to interpret the
basic law under 158. A full Congress does not have powers.
[03:03 - 03:18] My second point is that you should be referring to 158. First, 158.1,
which gave general and qualified power to the NPCSC to interpret the basic law. That
term comes from the case in Hong Kong.
[03:19 - 03:40] And that, you know, they can interpret the basic law however they
want. If my guidance notes to you, I can tell you that they interpret the basic law, but
fortunately, that's one way of describing how you can do it however you want.
[03:41 - 03:58] In a nutshell, it means they can do it without any good reason. 158.3,
however, is a different way of interpreting the basic law. It's by way of a request to a
court of final appeal.
[03:59 - 04:17] It's only been done once, and that's what it is. Be generous with
examples. In the history of Hong Kong, there have only been five basic law
interpretations, plus one national security law interpretation.
[04:18 - 04:33] That's not part of what you're doing. The national security legislation
interpretation has nothing to do with what you're doing. That's a separate thing. As
explained in my guidance notes. Read that.
[04:33 - 04:51] That's going to be useful one way or another. But for now, we're
talking about the basic law. We're talking about basic law interpretation. There have
only been five. There's really no reason not to read them, because we've only got
five.
[04:51 - 05:09] The one we talked about under Article 104 on oaths. That one was
the latest. That's the latest basic law interpretation in 2016.
[05:09 - 05:24] The first basic law interpretation was the Mngalic interpretation.
Articles 22.4. Then came the political reform interpretation without any request from
Hong Kong.
[05:25 - 05:40] Then it was the term of office. And then the Condo case. Of these
interpretations, I'd say 1, 4, and 5 are more important. 2 and 3, read it too.
[05:41 - 05:58] But there's less of less. I emphasize less, because 1, 4, and 5 are the
more controversial ones.
[05:58 - 06:14] All the ones with bigger impact. So that's question 5. Kind of a
straightforward question. Are we testing on something from the written assignment?
[06:14 - 06:30] Now, the written assignment is oftentimes a very good exercise,
because you also get marginalized. You don't need to get marginalized. Those would
help in your revision.
[06:31 - 06:48] I mean, sometimes I recycle things. I test it in a different way. I don't
use the same words, I use the same kind of Mngalic. Maybe in a long question,
maybe in a short question.
[06:50 - 07:06] So make good use of these pieces. Right, we now move on to talk
about those longer questions. Question 6. Explain how the Hong Kong Basic Law
protects human rights in Hong Kong,
[07:07 - 07:29] giving examples of specific provisions in the Hong Kong Basic Law.
Now, I know how you feel. If you read this question, you're already not one of us,
because there's so much that we can cover. But, I mean, what was the one thing
that's so important in the human rights lecture?
[07:32 - 07:52] One thing that we learned. Do you know what rights are? Yes. Those
are the instruments. But what was one of the key documents that's going to be
tested when it comes to human rights?
[07:53 - 08:12] How do we decide when it is okay to restrict human rights? That's the
test that we need to do.
[08:12 - 08:28] Start with a P. No one remembers. Proportionality.
[08:28 - 08:44] You need to know proportionality. You're on the subject. So this is
obviously a more difficult question. Let's spend the next...
[08:44 - 09:03] Let's try 10 minutes. 10 minutes. It's one of the more complicated
questions on this. Because it's more logical. As opposed to question 7, which is more
factual.
[09:07 - 09:24] When designing these questions, these longer questions,
sometimes... I mean, you have two questions. Sometimes you have one question
more on the low, and another question more on facts.
[09:27 - 09:44] I mean, there are problems that come to these questions. The low
questions, if you're good with the low, then you can answer them very easily. You
don't need to... Those are recursive. You want facts. The factual questions are easy if
you don't...
[09:44 - 10:00] But if you don't know anything, it's very difficult to write it out. So
try to oftentimes have a choice. I hope that helped. Thank you for some assistance.
[10:01 - 21:17] Anyway, 10 or 15 minutes on this question. Thank you.
[21:17 - 21:36] I want to talk about this question. I told you that proportionality is
something that you need to work on. Something that you need to clearly revisit. For
these human rights questions,
[21:37 - 21:52] that are almost proportionally relevant, there's a faculty chair at
State. Each of them is different. I mean, I ask these things in a different way. You
need to address these things, these questions accordingly. Don't just have an
answer.
[21:52 - 22:09] My point is, don't just copy this and use it as an example. It might not
work. Because each question is different. For example, this question, it asks to
explain how the Hong Kong Basic Law
[22:09 - 22:26] protects human rights in Hong Kong, giving examples of specific
provisions in Hong Kong Basic Law. In glory of Hong Kong, the second part of this
question is clearly asking you to mention, to note, to list,
[22:26 - 22:42] and to discuss some human rights provisions. You need to have some
human rights provisions ready to discuss and to mention. Like I said,
[22:43 - 22:59] Chapter 3 of the Basic Law is entitled Rights and Duties of Prisoners.
That is where you'll find most of these human rights. Now, the first part of this
[22:59 - 23:22] explains how Hong Kong Basic Law protects human rights. Now, that
is something we need to report. Now, why does the Basic Law need to protect
human rights?
[23:23 - 23:39] I mean, it usually needs protecting when those rights are being
restricted. They've got freedom of expression, but they can be restricted. And
therefore, it might not be protected.
[23:40 - 23:56] My question to you now is, can all rights be restricted? Are all rights
able to be restricted? Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no?
[23:57 - 24:16] Are all rights able to be restricted? Meaning, are there certain rights
that can never be restricted? Yes or no?
[24:19 - 24:35] Yes or no? Can I make you a slave? Can I enslave you? Can I kill you?
There are rights that can never be restricted.
[24:36 - 24:51] The right to life is an absolute right. The right to not be slaved, that's
an absolute right. The right to not be tortured, unless you want to be tortured.
That's a choice. But it's an absolute right. You can never, you know,
[24:51 - 25:07] someone cannot take that away from you. You cannot be tortured.
You've got the right to life. So some rights can be restricted, some rights can't be
restricted. Those rights that can be restricted are called absolute rights.
[25:07 - 25:27] So they can never be restricted. If the government or if the executive
branch decides to take away an absolute right away from you, that is ultimately
illegal. Unconstitutional. So say the police,
[25:27 - 25:46] they kill you for no reason. That's taking away your right. You're
depriving you of your right. I mean, of course, they can shoot someone in certain
circumstances. But they can't just randomly shoot someone.
[25:46 - 26:03] You get what I mean? Some rights that are not absolute rights are
called qualified rights. The right that can be restricted. This is when proportionality
comes in. You know, the right such as freedom of expression.
[26:04 - 26:21] We know freedom of expression doesn't mean you can say whatever
you want, whenever you want. You can't. I can't say something to defame you on
the internet because I don't like you. Well, I can say that, but you can come after me
and sue me for defamation.
[26:22 - 26:44] Defamation, the law of defamation, is constitutionally black. It's
restricting my freedom of expression, but for a good reason, because I'm defaming
you. And I can't over your reputation in the eyes of legal people. So my point here is
that the basic, yes, it protects you,
[26:45 - 27:01] but there are different types of rights. There are absolute rights and
there are qualified rights. Absolute rights, you don't need proportionality for that.
They are protected, no matter what. They can never be restricted.
[27:04 - 27:19] Where proportionality comes in is when we talk about those qualified
rights. Meaning those rights can only be restricted in certain circumstances.
[27:20 - 27:41] So when you go into this question, you need to have all of these
things clearly thought out. Otherwise, there will be a mess. For a question like this,
section B question, please have a plan.
[27:41 - 28:00] When you tackle the written assignment, you have a plan. You should
have a plan for this as well. Take five minutes or whatever, write a plan first before
you start writing. Otherwise, it's all over the place. It's a mess. So first, you want to
address human rights protection of their own.
[28:00 - 28:20] Then you want to go into talk about how rights can be restricted and
specific qualified rights. Absolute rights can never be restricted. In my lecture, I told
you that the main thing I want to teach you in the Human Rights Center is
[28:20 - 28:41] when is it ever possible to restrict a qualified right? This is where
proportionality comes in. So we'll discuss that when we reach that level of the point.
But in part two here, please remember that the starting point is Article 39.
[28:42 - 29:00] When we talk about restrictions of human rights, Article 39 is your
fundamental point. But you can't not mention Article 39. If you don't talk about
Article 39, automatically you have a mess. Let's see.
[29:00 - 29:18] Protection of human rights. So we can talk about, of course, the
tripartite right, what we can talk about. Rights framework are only limited to the
basic law and also to civil rights, as well as the United States. All of these things
come together to form our human rights regime.
[29:19 - 29:37] But since this question asks you specifically about specific provisions
in the Basic Law on human rights, give me some examples of those. I have a list here.
You don't need all of them.
[29:38 - 29:53] I'm just asking you to give me a few examples. I'll run you through
some of them. Article 4, there's a duty on the Hong Kong SAR to safeguard human
rights protection under Article 4.
[29:53 - 30:10] Article 6, right to property. Article 24, there's a right to vote.
Remember, in the case of the Gaelic, we talked about this. Article 25, equality before
the law. Article 26, right to vote. This was the subject of discussion in the case of the
Taipei Sun.
[30:11 - 30:37] The prisoner voted right in this case. Freedom of speech under
Article 27. Prohibition of torture, Article 28. Freedom of occupation, Article 33.
Article 35, right to confidential legal advice. And most importantly, Article 35, right
against the executive.
[30:37 - 30:53] That is the basis for you to launch a judicial review against the
government of Hong Kong. That's also a fundamental human right. You can sue the
government, that's your right. Right to a fair trial, right to be presumed innocent
under Article 87.
[30:54 - 31:09] Right to social welfare, right to marry, raise your family. In your course
menu, and also in my notes, I talk about various cases touching on various
fundamental human rights.
[31:10 - 31:26] One of those was the case of Kong Yunping under Article 36. That's
also a pretty helpful case to have in your pocket when you need to discuss it. Go
back to my notes, go back to your course menu. Lots of cases on all these.
[31:26 - 31:45] But this question is not about listing things. Listing these rights is only
part of the question. The main, main point of this is to test you on Article 33. And
how it ties into all human rights.
[31:45 - 32:01] Now, I'm not going to re-teach you this, but I need you to go back and
read up. I'm not sure how many of you remember this. Article 39 has two parts.
[32:02 - 32:20] The first part is important because it incorporates the ICCPR into the
domestic legal regime. Through the announcement of domestic legislation, that is,
your Bill of Rights. The tripartite framework comes from Article 39.1.
[32:21 - 32:40] Article 39.1 must be discussed. It is your basis for the tripartite
framework. We can then talk about how the Bill of Rights ordinance and the ICCPR
are similar.
[32:41 - 32:58] The new Bill of Rights ordinance doesn't incorporate all the ICCPR into
the domestic legal regime. Some of them have to be held. For instance, the right to
self-determination under Article 1 of the ICCPR. We don't have the right to self-
determination in our law.
[32:58 - 33:21] It's not included in our Bill of Rights ordinance. The Bill of Rights
ordinance is not an exact replica of the ICCPR. Be that as it may, the incorporation of
the ICCPR into the domestic legal regime through the Bill of Rights ordinance greatly
expands human rights in Hong Kong.
[33:21 - 33:44] Not just to those in the Basic Law, but also to those in the ICCPR and
the Bill of Rights ordinance. That's Part 1 of Article 1. Part 2 of Article 39 tells us
when it is permissible to restrict a fundamental human right.
[33:44 - 34:07] Specifically, a right that is a quality of life. Article 39.2 says, Rights and
freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed
by law.
[34:08 - 34:28] Such restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the preceding
paragraph of this article. That's the second condition. Now, the first condition
prescribed by law is often described as legality.
[34:28 - 34:48] The second part of this article is the proportionality analysis. I'm not
going to go back and explain all of this, because I told this already. Article 39.2 has
these two parts.
[34:54 - 35:11] Now, I'm going to talk about these two parts. Prescribed by law, or
the legality test, means that it is necessary to have a law to restrict that right.
[35:11 - 35:30] If you don't have a clear law telling people that this right is restricted,
you can't do this in this specific situation, then how is it fair to the person? You may
be arresting that person for doing something, but if the law doesn't say so clearly,
[35:30 - 35:46] then how am I going to regulate my everyday life? I'm going to be
arrested for doing something that is not written in the law. That's not fair. Prescribed
by law means you need to have these laws to restrict rights.
[35:46 - 36:04] These laws need to be accessible. They need to be precise. So
people know to regulate their lives accordingly. If you say, I can't go into the meeting
chamber and chant political slogans or do whatever,
[36:04 - 36:20] or scream or shout or throw things at legislators, if you say, I can't do
that, that's restricting my freedom of expression. But you need to have a clear law to
say that. Otherwise, it's not fair to me. I go in, I chant political slogans, you arrest
me.
[36:21 - 36:40] That's not fair. So that's the first test, the legality test. Now, the
second part of Article 39.2 says, Restrictions should not contravene the preceding
paragraph in Article 39.
[36:40 - 37:01] Which means they should not contravene Article 39.1. What does
that mean? If you look at the Bill of Rights, if you go to these rights, especially those
qualified rights, it says these rights can only go restricted if they are necessary for
specific purposes.
[37:02 - 37:21] Take, for instance, the freedom of expression. If you take that right in
the Basic Law, that's Article 27, and you go to the corresponding right in the Bill of
Rights Order and the ICCPR, it says that the freedom of expression can only be
restricted if it is necessary to,
[37:21 - 37:36] for instance, protect public morals, to protect the reputation of
others, to protect public order, to protect public health, and so on.
[37:37 - 37:57] It gives you an exhaustive list of objectives to which that restriction is
aimed at. So it tells you, first thing, that you need to have a legitimate purpose for
each restriction.
[37:57 - 38:14] You can't just re-mark a purpose to restrict something else that's
right. If the ICCPR, if the Bill of Rights says, well, you can only restrict it in these
circumstances, well, then, those are the circumstances. So it must be for a legitimate
purpose.
[38:15 - 38:32] That's the first part of Article 39. So take, for example, freedom of
expression. I've highlighted the legitimate purposes or the legitimate objectives set
up in the Bill of Rights Order and the ICCPR.
[38:32 - 38:48] It's only if it's necessary to protect the rights and reputations of
freedom of others, national security, public order, public health, and public safety.
These belong to an exhaustive list.
[38:49 - 39:04] You can't go beyond this. Next, you talk about proportionality.
Proportionality asks the question of whether the restriction is no more than
necessary.
[39:04 - 39:28] You can only restrict people's rights to a minimum. Only to the extent
of achieving your legitimate objective. Let's say if you're the police, and you say, well,
we're going to limit, we're going to restrict your protest.
[39:28 - 39:48] Your freedom of assembly, your freedom of expression, you're going
to restrict that. You say you are going to protest outside the center of the office. We
are going to restrict protests. We're going to restrict people from protesting in the
entire office.
[39:48 - 40:04] If you want to protest, you can protest in our office. Well, if you say
you want to restrict that protest for the purpose of the office, well, I'll tell you about
the government offices.
[40:04 - 40:22] Well, the government offices are going to do the work. There's a lot
of people there. There's a main carriageway. There's a hardtop road outside. We
don't want you to block the hardtop road. Well, then, why don't we just restrict
protests in that area, in the office? You can let them protest outside.
[40:22 - 40:39] I mean, you can let them protest in the tablecloth. You can let them
protest in an alternative, maybe, which is close by. Ban them from gathering on
hardtop roads. Makes sense. But if you ban them, what do you mean you restrict
them to protest?
[40:39 - 40:54] Well, it's a total madness. Proportionality asks the question of
whether the restriction is no more than necessary. In other words, you ask yourself,
the size of the restriction. Is it no more than necessary?
[40:55 - 41:12] Is it the minimum that is required to achieve that legitimate purpose?
All right. I will refer you back to my notes. I thought, and I discussed a lot, going
through the proportionality analysis.
[41:12 - 41:29] Now, the proportionality analysis, if you go back to my notes, is
actually four parts. There's the legitimate purpose. There's then the rational
connection between the restriction and the legitimate purpose. There's the third
part, where you consider the size of the restriction, which is just what I was telling
you about.
[41:29 - 41:49] And then there's a fourth part, the final tenth part, balancing the
need for the restriction and the benefit. All right. I will refer you back to that part of
my lecture, the field protest, and all those pieces of analysis.
[41:50 - 42:09] All right. This is a more difficult question. I mean, this is the most
difficult question I've ever tried. Because it's very legally based. It's based on the
law. You need to have a very clear concept of where things are going with this
question.
[42:12 - 42:33] Always round up your discussion of these long questions with a
conclusion. Focus on the most important point of this question. All right. For this
question, that's the argument. That's what this is. Go back to it. You can go further
than the main body of your answer and get into some personal opinion.
[42:34 - 42:50] But remember, this is a law course. It's not a policy. It's not for you to
express your opinion. Maybe you have to. Now, I still have one question. I will go
through this very quickly. Sorry, if you need to go, I can stop you. I'm sorry about
that, because I would like to.
[42:51 - 43:10] What I plan to do is go through these questions very quickly, maybe
five or ten minutes. And then I'm going to stay here a while to answer any questions
you have. Normally, how I conduct these interview sessions is to save some time for
questions. If you want to ask me a question, just so you don't miss out on it.
[43:11 - 43:26] Now, this question, I can run through it very quickly. Why? Because
it's the exact same question that I discussed with you at the end of our lecture. You
were in one of our lectures. You were in one of our lectures. You would have.
[43:27 - 43:48] You would have. We would have discussed it. We should have
discussed it. It's the last question that we discussed in lecture two. Explain how the
judicial power granted to Hong Kong under the Hong Kong Basic Law is different from
the executive and legislative power granted to Hong Kong under the Hong Kong Basic
Law.
[43:48 - 44:04] If you recall, the key thing that I want to test you on is the word
independent judicial power. Remember? Independent is only used to describe
judicial power in Hong Kong, not executive power, not legislative power.
[44:05 - 44:21] Here, this question is all about that. Where do you find the word
independent? Articles 2, 19. Whilst the executive and legislative power, they don't
have the word independent.
[44:22 - 44:37] This question can then be answered in a variety of ways. You would
talk about each of these powers. Like I said in my lecture, we would first talk about
how Hong Kong enjoys judicial power. How Hong Kong enjoys executive power.
[44:38 - 44:54] How Hong Kong enjoys legislative power. But at the same time, these
are being held back by the central court to a different extent. Independent judicial
power because the judicial power is not as kind of intervening.
[44:56 - 45:12] Whereas for executive and legislative powers, there's more room for
it. When it comes to independent judicial power, of course, you talk about how we
enjoy it first. You talk about a common law system. You talk about a final exhumation
of power from Hong Kong.
[45:13 - 45:29] We have a court file. We don't need to go to the Supreme Court in
China. We don't need to go to the Privy Council in London. We have a common law
system, which is completely different from the civil law system in China. The
separate legal system. One country, two systems.
[45:29 - 45:46] The only way, really, the only way of China intervening with judicial
power is another method of interpretation. Or you can also add to it the new
interpretation regime under the US.
[45:48 - 46:06] Which is similar. So maybe you can add to that. Bolster this question
with something topical. So 158 is the way in for 2040 when it comes to legal judicial
matters.
[46:06 - 46:22] But really that's only limited to basic law interpretation. Not the day-
to-day management cases. I mean, if it's a company dispute, it's not involved in the
case. There's no room for interpretation. It's really only these basic law
interpretation cases.
[46:22 - 46:39] Executive power. Hong Kong enjoys one executive power. I mean, I
took you through many of these in my class. Power to conduct external affairs.
Power to implement immigration controls. Own currency.
[46:40 - 46:59] Own borders. Own customs territory. There's articles for all these
things. But executive power is being held back. Chief executive. Read the articles on
chief executive.
[46:59 - 47:20] Article 45, for instance, says the chief executive needs to be
appointed. It also says, 43 also says, chief executive is accountable to the central
government. If you read Article 48 of the Basic Law, which says that the powers and
functions of the chief executive
[47:20 - 47:35] are the sole responsibility of the chief executive. Chief executive
needs to implement the directives of the central authorities. Power being held back.
Very simple. This question only requires you to take the example of legislative power.
[47:35 - 47:51] Again, why legislative power? Under Basic Law. Even to the extent of
legislating the National Security Law under Article 42. That's happening in North
Africa. That's uncommon in other autonomous areas like Xinjiang, Tibet. They don't
have this power.
[47:52 - 48:12] But again, how is legislative power being held back? Well, there's a
way for them to reject North Africa's Article 173. If they are of the opinion that it is
inconsistent with the Basic Law, they can return to them.
[48:12 - 48:29] They can return to them. Also, the application of national rules in
Hong Kong under Article 18 of the Basic Law. They can implement national rules in
Hong Kong through adding those rules into annexing of the Basic Law.
[48:29 - 48:45] Remember, Article 18.4 also says in times of turmoil, state of war,
state of emergency, there's even that possibility of suspending a movement in Hong
Kong. So, Basic Law under Article 18 is also something you would oppose.
[48:47 - 49:05] Conclusion. Why is our trust in Hong Kong? I believe in Hong Kong in
terms of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. But the extent of possible
intervention in China.
[49:09 - 49:32] So maybe the word independent is used to describe the judicial
power, specifically because the intervention is the only way in terms of
interpretation of the Basic Law. The only way in terms of interpretation. Other than
that, apparently, no room for intervention.
[49:35 - 49:52] Now, if you decide not to do it this way, if you decide to undo this
question, use it some other way, that's fine as well. As long as you can illustrate the
point of it. As to why the word independent is used. You can also, of course, talk
about topical events, relevant events.
[49:52 - 50:22] Again, let's leave that for later. Because there's questions. Now,
before you go, I want to... You should also be uploaded...
[50:22 - 50:51] I... Katrina's going to upload this on the Internet. It's also on Seoul.
You should also have that on Seoul. Word of advice. Don't just copy my answers.
Also, some of these answers, they're not matched up for very good reason.
[50:52 - 51:08] If I develop these things into fully-fledged answers, you'll need to do it
as well. So, please, don't just copy these answers, because they are not fully
developed. Especially the human rights questions, they're not very...
[51:08 - 51:27] This last question, we can simply refer to what we discussed. This
covers what I need to tell you. The most important thing that I need to tell you.
Before you go, I just want to apologize again for being late.
[51:28 - 51:44] Sorry, sorry, sorry. I don't know what happened. But, please go away
knowing that you did not miss a single thing. I go through all of these revision
sessions with my other courses.
[51:44 - 52:05] We do the same thing. You did not miss a single thing. We have a
break for today. We also have a longer discussion time for questions. Because you
did not miss a single thing. But, if you want to ask me questions, feel free to ask me
questions.
[52:05 - 52:25] I'm going to be here for another 10 to 15 minutes. Just so you don't
miss out on anything. And also, what else do I need to tell you? Read part one of the
slides, which will be distributed.
[52:26 - 52:42] It's a part that I go through with students only. But, I don't think it's
relevant to us. There are no problem questions for my exhibit. Problem questions
meaning I can go back there. Like in the classroom, right?
[52:43 - 53:00] And we try to analyze that back there. So, the IRAC thing is not very
relevant. This has more to do with essay writing.
[53:02 - 53:19] I'll be here for another 15 minutes. If you have any questions, I'll be
here. Feel free to ask me any questions. Otherwise, feel free to go. I'm very sorry
for being late. Hope that helps.
[53:20 - 55:12] Hope that helps. Have you all had a good lunch? Hi, my name is
Mark.
[55:13 - 56:43] My name is Pete. Hi, my name is Mark. My name is Pete. For the last
month, we've had a tough time. It's been 15 minutes now. The most important thing
is to take care of yourself.
[56:46 - 57:16] The most important thing is to take care of yourself. This is a lift.
[57:16 - 59:26] Next we go towoman Трентеру, get here. The last train to Loke will
depart from platform 7 at 11.01.
[59:28 - 01:00:02] The last train to Loke will depart from platform 7 at 11.01. The last
train to Loke will depart from platform 7 at 11.01.
[01:00:42 - 01:02:29] The last train to Loke will depart from platform 7 at 11.01. The
last train to Loke will depart from platform 7 at 11.01.
[01:02:41 - 01:03:03] The last train to Loke will depart from platform 7 at 11.01.

That’s the end of your recording! We hope our transcription made your workday
more enjoyable. If it did, consider trying out our pro version on
www.mygoodtape.com:

- All your transcriptions*

- Skip the queue = minimal waiting time
- We will store your transcriptions (including this one) safely

*) Well, up to 20 hours/month, which is kind of a lot. If you need to transcribe more

let us know on yourfriends@mygoodtape.com