Channel
@cuhkalumniconcern
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
480subscribers
-6 since we began measuring on 10 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001396830066 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @cuhkalumniconcern |
| Created | Between 1 June 2018 and 31 July 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 10 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 19 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 5 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 19 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/cuhkalumniconcern |
Politics & activism — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 21 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 97% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 19 Sept 2026, 04:56 | 480 | -1 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 01:59 | 481 | -2 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 23:17 | 483 | -3 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 07:00 | 486 | no change |
| 10 Aug 2026, 06:55 | 486 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 21 February 2023 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 page of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 21 February 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
【已核實，中大人可聯署，連結在留言】 https://forms.gle/oNe1AeMy1YbGqW8N8 致：香港中文大學校董會主席查逸超教授、校長盧煜明教授、教務長余蕙卿女士、大學輔導長高永雄教授、學生事務處處長譚綺琳女士、侯任本科生校董汪亮宏先生 我們是一群關注大學程序公義的香港中文大學學生、教職員及校友。基於下述法理，我們對教務會學生紀律委員會（下稱「委員會」）於 2026 年 1 月 7 日針對關靖豐（下稱關）同學之紀律聆訊程序及裁決表示質疑及反對。 2. 根據公開資訊，該次聆訊在程序上存在多項嚴重違規、違反自然公義及涉及邏輯謬誤之處。委員會不僅漠視既定《處理學生紀律個案程序》（下稱《程序》），更剝奪學生憲制保障下的基本答辯權利。單純以法律而言，該次會議裁決及處分理應無效，校方必須立即發還學藉，修正程序。 3. 我們的理據如下： 一、 違規處理司法程序個案，嚴重違反《程序》指引 4. …
剛剛發了信予書院輔導處及中大校友事務處，也讓校方知道校友的感受和意見。供大家參考。 --- 中大校友事務處 [email protected] （書院輔導處電郵請網上搜尋） --- 聯合書院院長王香生教授 中大校友事務處處長許寶寶女士： 得悉母校各大書院學生會被中大校方及書院施壓致停止運作。書院學生會的工作在書院一直被視為非形式教育的一部份，讓學生有機會互相合作，自發舉行活動和關心社會。本人亦藉參與學生會活動及事務，學習如何在社會與別人辯論和合作。 如今時勢，獨立註冊程序繁複，中大校方怕事交功課，突然單方面要求書院學生會停止運作，等於讓學生組織自生自滅，自殘中大引以為傲的書院制及非形式教育。 中大應做的，是要勇於承擔，給予限期書院學生會繼續運作，並為學生會註冊提供協助。 身為中大校友，為母校管理層的作為感到非常可恥，本人決定暫停參與一切母校校友活動或籌款，直至母校採取措施，挽救對書院制及非形式教育的傷害。 校…
中大校董會校友成員選舉，DQ咗人之後有兩位候選人。一位係大灣區校友會搞手，一位係民建聯成員。 因為今次係電子投票，只要係中大畢業校友都可以登記再電子投票，即係海外校友都得。我打算無論點都好，都登記咗投票先，到時投唔投就到時先算，宜家讓子彈飛一陣。 登記投票： https://council-election-convo.cuhk.edu.hk/emailverification/
重要消息：如果有在港嘅中大校友有意參選或願意提名人參選，請從速聯絡我哋！ 我哋最近留意到中大校友校董一席選舉已經喺到鬼崇咁進行。首先，所謂「選舉公告」只係上載咗喺一個唔知喺邊到先㩒到入去嘅一個中大網站。即使我哋仍每隔一兩日就會收到大學俾校友嘅電郵，冇一封係關於呢件事，可見中大管理層認為一般校友係唔需要知道呢件事。此舉明顯係唔想俾一般校友參選，甚至我哋相信大學已經「內定」咗人選。 唔單止冇正常公佈，幾經辛苦㩒到入去，我哋會見到呢個「選舉」有諸多限制，例如要喺兩星期時間要30個提名嘅實體簽署參選表格，喺大學辦公時間親身交表。呢啲舉動明顯只有一個目的：就係唔俾唔係「自己人」參選。 更甚，呢個選舉（學生、教職員校董選舉都係）同今時今日香港特式民主一樣，當然係有篩選嘅環節，確保入閘嘅人一定要啱佢哋心水。選舉規則佢話：「[Election Committees] shall submit assessment reports to […
重要消息：如果有在港嘅中大校友有意參選或願意提名人參選，請從速聯絡我哋！ 我哋最近留意到中大校友校董一席選舉已經喺到鬼崇咁進行。首先，所謂「選舉公告」只係上載咗喺一個唔知喺邊到先㩒到入去嘅一個中大網站。即使我哋仍每隔一兩日就會收到大學俾校友嘅電郵，冇一封係關於呢件事，可見中大管理層認為一般校友係唔需要知道呢件事。此舉明顯係唔想俾一般校友參選，甚至我哋相信大學已經「內定」咗人選。 唔單止冇正常公佈，幾經辛苦㩒到入去，我哋會見到呢個「選舉」有諸多限制，例如要喺兩星期時間要30個提名嘅實體簽署參選表格，喺大學辦公時間親身交表。呢啲舉動明顯只有一個目的：就係唔俾唔係「自己人」參選。 更甚，呢個選舉（學生、教職員校董選舉都係）同今時今日香港特式民主一樣，當然係有篩選嘅環節，確保入閘嘅人一定要啱佢哋心水。選舉規則佢話：「[Election Committees] shall submit assessment reports to […
有諗過交意見書有乜用，明明咁大份校董會嘅諮詢結果要求校董會組成尊重中大特色、書院特色和中大員生校友，但張宇人以至校董會都唔理。 不過，意見都係要講，費事唔講，就畀人代表咗。我唔可以畀張宇人梁美芬話我支持草案。 我冇聯署楊于銘林偉雄篇聲明，我選擇自己表達意見。如果你冇聯署，又或者想自己交意見，聽日7月31日下午5點就deadline，把握時間。 以下係我交嘅意見書內容，歡迎參考或抄考。講真，只係將交校董會嘅執一執，唔聽意見嘅，我為乜要幫佢地寫多一份？ 交意見書網址： https://app3.legco.gov.hk/ors/chinese/invite.aspx?InvId=10000422 ——— 致：香港特別行政區立法會《2023年香港中文大學(修訂)條例草案》委員會 就《2023年香港中文大學(修訂)條例草案》表達意見 中大乃書院制大學，書院是中大的重要組成部份，校友是所有大學的重要校外成員，關心母校，為母…
【回應管浩鳴議員】 管議員的文章混淆視聽、語言偽術，明明政府干預院校太多就會令人擔心破壞院校自主和影響學術自由，但管議員卻將特首擴權的校董會改組方案美化為「優化校政管理」，從而「促進學術自由」。 我明白因大學管治可能需要減少校董人數和增加校外成員比重，但管議員進而把中大校友參與大學管治也掃進「自我封閉」的「小圈子」，就更混淆視聽了。 懇請管議員看清楚文件，了解清楚學生和校友的發言重點，不要任意搬龍門。 張宇人議員的方案也把校友列作校外成員，我們的批評是，為何名為增加校外成員比重，但各類校董不按比例地縮減，令特首和立法會議員的比重大幅增加，校友的人數卻減少？ 畢竟楊于銘以6544票當選校友評議會主席兼校董，管議員在立法會選舉的得票為1102。誰是「小圈子」，大家應能分得清楚。
聽日就截止，大家填咗未？ 問卷連結：https://bit.ly/3YMtsf7 @eg9515 交咗以下意見： 從中大近年的爭議，主因皆為大學管治欠缺透明度，持份者參與度不足。惟一的解決方法，是將直接選舉議席比例提高，令持份者可透過選舉代表進入校董會反映意見，加強校董會與持份者的聯繫。 這亦是2016年教職員及學生的主流意見，附件甲第13段提到，2016年時八大院校教職員工會以及中大學生會，曾分別舉行公投，要求取消特首委任校董會成員的職能，以及增加直選教職員校董比例，工會的議案有逾4,000人投票，兩項議案皆獲逾九成支持。中大學生會的公投則有近3,000人參與，更獲高達96%及97%支持。 就校友議席的部分，目前校友評議會的3席中，只有主席一席是由直接選舉產生，另外2席則是評議會推選，代表性不足。建議日後校董會中的校董議席，必須經校友評議會直接選舉產生。 今次更動校董會組成的任何方案，亦應經全體教職員、學生以及校友，分…
聽日就係專責小組收意見嘅截止日期，大家填咗未？ 問卷連結：https://bit.ly/3YMtsf7
中大校友撐學生 pinned a photo
其他意見嗰欄，有校友咁填😂 歡迎大家响comments度share你填咗乜嘢~
以下係我填的答案。請大家按照你嘅意見填入去，但如果你同意我嘅意見，就參考我嘅答案啦，不過盡量唔好照抄，費事畀人話你係ChatGPT： 【校內校董】 校長：校長委任不應設四分三校董通過的門檻 常務副校長及副校長：常務副校長委任不應設四分三校董通過的門檻 書院院長：書院院長席位不應減少 學院院長/研究院院長：無意見 教學人員：書院院務委員會席位不應減少 非教學人員：無意見 中大本科生：應由中大學生會會長擔任當然校董，不應加設委任程序 中大研究生：無意見 校內校董人數：中大校董會的組成應以尊重中大作為書院制大學、尊重校友作為重要校外成員、尊重院校自主、尊重員生共治為原則。若須減少成員人數，各持份者的比重應維持不變。若須增加校外成員比重，增加的比重應以校友為主、書院成員為次、監督委任者為最少。 【校外校董】 主席：反對改變推選方式 副主席：反對改變推選方式 司庫：反對改變推選方式 書院校董會及院監會提名：應盡量維持原有席位數目 大學…
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @cuhkalumniconcern. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
@cuhkalumniconcern named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all. A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 19 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“中大校友撐學生” (@cuhkalumniconcern), 480 subscribers as measured 19 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cuhkalumniconcern.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.