跳到主要內容

塵封30年影像首度曝光:台灣記者在天安門廣場上的40天

編按

本文為《吼叫一九八九》攝影集自序,經作者謝三泰與允晨出版社授權刊登,副標題與文內小標為《報導者》編輯所加。

謝三泰為資深攝影記者,曾任職於《自立晚報》、《自立早報》、《黑白新聞週刊》、《新台灣週刊》、《勁報》。 以鏡頭記錄解嚴前後、520農民運動、國會全面改選、首屆民選總統、省市長等。 近年將焦點關注於庶民生活、勞工朋友、弱勢族群、環保等議題。

1989年4月17日,我從香港轉機抵達北京後,直接從機場驅車前往天安門廣場,從那天起,在廣場上見證了中國爭取民主沸騰的熱血和眼淚,也留下一個30年未完的任務。
Fill 1
Fill 1
4月17日,氣氛仍然和平的北京
身為中國官方首次核准的第一批台灣記者團成員,對這趟採訪是既興奮又忐忑。出發前,同年4月7日才剛經歷了鄭南榕為爭取言論自由不惜自焚的震撼,緊接著被任職的自立報系,指派前往北京採訪,掛念著自焚事件的後續,也還沒從失去好友的傷痛中平復,感覺不應在這時離開台灣,卻又不想放棄這難得的機會,心情很是掙扎。
這是我第一次到中國,此行主要有三項新聞任務,一是亞青杯體操賽、二是亞銀年會、三是蘇聯領導人戈巴契夫訪中。1989年亞銀年會是由當時的財政部長郭婉容領軍,彼時蘇聯尚未解體,戈巴契夫訪中可是件國際大事。出發前即獲知中國共產黨總書記胡耀邦過世,北京學生們自發性地在天安門廣場舉辦悼念活動,飛機一落地出關,等不及到飯店放下行李,馬上轉往天安門廣場,想在第一時間拍攝些畫面傳回台灣。那時廣場上的氣氛仍和平,學生們在人民英雄紀念碑的周遭放置花圈和輓聯,哀悼、讚揚被視為「改革派」的胡耀邦,同時要求加速中國的民主腳步。
那是個沒有網路通訊的年代,數位相機還未上市,為了這趟採訪任務,我扛了一整個「簡易暗房」上路,包括簡便的放大機、顯影藥水盆、暗袋、沖片罐,和加起來百餘卷的黑白、彩色和幻燈片三種不同的底片,最重要的,還有一台當時美國聯合通訊社(Associated Press, AP)獨家研發出的滾筒式相片傳真機。
我必須自己沖洗底片、沖印照片,再透過傳真機將照片傳回台灣,飯店房間裡的廁所就是我的暗房,光是一張5×7的相片,單色掃描傳真最短也要耗費上7分鐘,萬一中斷了,就得重頭再來過。每天都花很長時間傳照片回台灣,常引起飯店關切,尤其當時下榻的都是國營飯店,動靜多少都被監控中,常傳真到一半,傳來敲門聲問「謝先生你在做什麼?」,要不就是傳到一半被斷線,逼得我好幾次都拎著傳真機到其他同業的飯店裡求救,箇中辛苦是現在數位相機、甚至手機即拍即傳的年代難以想像的。
廣場上,曾無所畏懼的我們
除了那三件主要新聞任務,剩下時間我都到天安門報到。第一次感受到緊張氣氛是4月19日,數千名學生聚集在中共高層居所的中南海新華門前,為確保領導人的安全,中共出動武警驅散了這些高呼口號的學生,這是北京學運首次出現暴力驅離的動作。不過,我並不害怕,帶著在台灣街頭征戰的經驗,這樣的場景並不陌生。台灣1987年解嚴後,各式民主運動綻放,街頭請願、抗議如雨後春筍般興起,我恭逢其盛,歷經了520事件等街頭運動的洗禮,帶著在台灣的實戰經驗,看著北京剛萌芽的民主運動,心情是無所畏懼的。
但扛著專業相機在廣場上畢竟醒目,常有人跑來問我「你打哪來?」不想引起太多注意,我多是回答「我是南方來的記者」,偶有人回「你是外省人!」頓時不知如何回答。某次遇上廈門大學的學生,主動問「會說閩南話嗎?」兩人就在北京的天安門廣場前,自在地以熟悉的另一種語言交談著。
中國官方報紙沒有任何學運新聞,一個「外來者」單槍匹馬在廣場上跑新聞,消息來源得仰賴「路透社」──意謂「路邊打探來的消息」──才能大略得知學生們的動態。一直到北京高校學生自治聯會成立後,學生們在廣場上刻著鋼板,印刷文宣刊物,統一對外發布消息,才有了較明確的訊息來源。不過,也因學生們進入組織性請願的階段,讓中國官方緊張,加速了日後驅離的動作。
4月的北京夜晚是很有寒意的,抗議的學生們忍受著飢餓、裹著棉被取暖。「飢餓可忍、無民主不可忍」,他們在大字報上寫著,看著令人覺得不捨。為了更瞭解學生們的生活,我跟著學運領袖王丹回到了他就讀的北京大學。王丹帶著我,去看他們的沙龍(言論學術廣場)和宿舍,小小的2、3坪空間擠了6至8個人,分睡於上下舖,北大學生們的物質生活是拮据的,但心裡卻有著遠大的理想。王丹的父母是老師,當時曾問他「參與學運爸媽擔不擔心?」記得王丹回答,「跟父母深談過,為了中國的民主自由,他們是支持的。」只是那時恐怕誰也沒想到,這場運動會徹底改變了他們的人生。
最後一張照片
5月中,學生們絕食愈演愈烈,廣場上抗議人數愈來愈多,各式耳語傳言不斷,不時聽說解放軍已經兵臨城外,隨時準備以武力驅散鎮壓。風聲鶴唳之際,記者們的安危也令人擔憂,尤其是像我這樣拿著相機的攝影記者,目標更是明顯。台北報社不只一次希望我能撤離,尤其在中共當局宣布戒嚴後,天安門上的管制區不斷擴大,現場不時發生小暴動,人們流露著害怕及不信任的眼神。報社明白表示,不會再提供金錢,以切斷奧援逼我回台北,我不只一次抗議,強烈表達想留在新聞現場的意願,但在身上只剩一百多美金和一張回程機票下,不得不妥協。
5月23日,天安門廣場上的毛澤東肖像遭3名工人損毀,我拍下最後一張照片傳回台北,帶著任務未完的遺憾,於隔天搭機離開北京,從新加坡轉機回台灣,距離我第一天踏上天安門廣場,總共40日。
回台沒多久,六四事件爆發,天安門染上了鮮血,從新聞上得知王丹等學運領袖被捕,輾轉聽說某些認識的中國記者失蹤,我的心情五味雜陳,為廣場上那些為自由民主奮鬥犧牲的年輕學子感到難過,也惋惜自己錯失了見證重要歷史時刻的機會。但也忍不住想,若我仍在廣場,想必現在的處境會大不相同。
一趟未完成的任務
在我的記者生涯裡,採訪天安門學運是一趟沒有完成的任務。回台灣後,我在出差核銷單裡夾著辭呈,以離職抗議報社強制要我回來的決定。那些記錄北京學運的影像,跟心裡的遺憾,30年來被隱藏於角落裡,一直到張照堂老師看見了它。
在一次為攝影博物館所做的口述訪談裡,張老師看到了我在1989年所洗的照片,也聽我說了當時的經過,他告訴我:「不是非得待到6月4日才算完成任務,不要覺得遺憾,重要是參與過,過程也很重要。」轉眼間,天安門學運已經30週年,這些塵封了30年的影像重見天日,看著那些如今已不復見的北京樣貌、廣場上奮鬥的臉孔,想起學生們浪漫的情懷,「生的偉大、死的光榮!」這是當時的一句標語,希望我留下的影像,能表達學生們對民主自由渴望的千萬分之一。
Fill 1

北京高等學校學生聯合會記者會。

Fill 1

北京高等學校學生聯合會記者會。

Fill 1
Fill 1

天安門廣場。

Fill 1

天安門廣場。

Fill 1

首都醫學院。

《吼叫一九八九》新書發表會

時間:2019年6月2日(日)下午三點

地點:Lightbox 攝影圖書室(台北市大安區羅斯福路三段269巷19號)

Fill 1
🄴🄽
Meet the Taiwanese Reporter who Spent 40 Days at the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests
In April 1989, budding photo-journalist Hsieh San-tai was sent to Beijing to cover high-level political meetings and sporting events. His visit coincided with the largest student protest in China’s recent history, an event he captured for nearly forty days. But Hsieh’s photos never made it into newspaper pages, and he left Beijing full of regret at his unfinished assignment.
30 years later, he’s dusted off his photos, and compiled them into a new photobook — Howling 1989, printed by Yun Chen Publishing House. The following text and photos come from the book’s preface, and are used with the publisher’s permission.
Fill 1
Fill 1
On April 17, 1989, I arrived in Beijing from Hong Kong, and drove directly from the airport to Tiananmen Square. I witnessed the blood and tears of China’s struggle for democracy, and left an assignment unfinished for 30 years.
Beijing was still peaceful in April
I was one of the first Taiwanese reporters approved by the Chinese authorities to report in the country, and I was both excited and nervous about the trip.
That April, Taiwan was in shock over the death of Cheng Nan-jung (鄭南榕), a democracy activist who set himself on fire in protest of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) clamp down on freedom of speech. Cheng’s self-immolation, as well as the death of a good friend, were still fresh in my mind when the Independence Evening News (自立晚報) assigned me to go to Beijing to shoot some events and interviews. I didn’t want to leave Taiwan, but I didn’t want to give up this rare opportunity.
I had three assignments: One, cover the Asia Youth Gymnastics Championship. Two, cover the Asian Development Bank’s annual meeting. And three, cover Mikhail Gorbachev’s state visit to China. At the time, all three were big events. Taiwan’s Finance Minister, Shirley Kuo (郭婉容), was one of the first Taiwanese ministers to lead a delegation to attend a meeting in China, and Mikhail Gorbachev’s state visit was the first formal meeting between China and Russia since the Sino-Soviet Split in 1956.
Before departing, I learned that Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦), the former general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CCP), had passed away, and grief-stricken students in Beijing were holding a spontaneous vigil in Tiananmen Square. When the plane landed, I didn’t even stop by the hotel to drop off my luggage, I immediately made my way to Tiananmen Square to get some of my first shots, and send them back to Taiwan.
The atmosphere in the Square was still peaceful, and students were placing wreaths and funerary scrolls around the Monument to the People’s Heroes. They praised Hu Yaobang as a political reformer, and demanded the CCP begin the process of democratization.
This was before the internet and digitization, so I took some simple darkroom equipment with me, more than a hundred roles of black and white and colour film, three kinds of slide negatives, and most importantly, a special roller photo fax machine developed by the Associated Press (AP). I had to wash the film myself, print the photos, and then send them back to Taiwan through the fax machine. The washroom in my hotel room became my dark room. It was 5×7 size photo film, and it took at least seven minutes to fax a single monochrome photo. If for any reason the scan was interrupted, you had to start all over from the beginning.
Spending so much time sending photos back to Taiwan raised suspicions, especially when I stayed at state-run hotels. I’d often get a knock on the door asking “Mr Hsieh, what are you doing” right in the middle of a fax. I had no choice but to take the machine to other hotels and beg to use their line. All this hard work is now unimaginable in the era of digital cameras and mobile phones.
In the square, we were fearless
When I wasn’t on assignment, I spent all my time in Tiananmen Square.
It wasn’t until April 19th that I felt nervous about the protest, when thousands of students gathered in front of the Xinhua Gate leading to Zhongnanhai — the central headquarters and residences of the CCP’s top leadership. The CCP sent armed police units in response, and the first violent confrontations erupted.
At first, I wasn’t afraid, I saw similar clashes between protesters and police in Taiwan. It was exciting to see the same spirit of democratization sprout up in China.
But trucking my camera equipment made me noticeable, and I’d often get questions like “where are you from?” I didn’t want to raise too much suspicion, so I’d say “I’m a reporter from the south of China.” That solicited some unusual responses like “you’re an out-of-provincer!” (外省人), which left me dumbstruck on how to reply.
One time, a student from Xiamen University approached me and asked “do you speak the Minnan dialect?”, a language spoken in Taiwan and the southern Chinese province of Fujian. So right there in Tiananmen Square, the two of us chatted care-free in a language totally unfamiliar to the locals in Beijing.
Chinese state newspapers didn’t report on the student protests, there were only “outsiders” covering the situation in the square. One reporter from Reuters would make discreet inquiries, and became the main source for what was happening with the students.
It wasn’t until the Beijing Students’ Autonomous Federation was established — an organization that acted as the chief decision-making body for the student protesters — that students began to engrave steel plates in the square, and print their own publications. But as students began organizing better, the authorities became more nervous, and sped up their plans to evict the students.
The April evenings in Beijing were chilly, and the students wrapped themselves in quilts, enduring hunger and the cold. Looking glum, they wrote big-characters on posters that read “We can tolerate hunger, but we can’t tolerate a China without democracy!”
I tried to learn more about the students, so one of the protest leaders, Wang Dan (王丹), took me to Peking University to attend a student symposium and see his dormitory. There were six to eight students squeezed into bunk beds in Wang’s dorm room. They lived frugally, but their hearts were full of lofty ideals.
Wang’s parents were teachers, and I asked him how they felt about him taking part in the protests. “I spoke at length with my parents about this,” he said. “They support our fight for democratic freedom in China.” No one imagined that the protest would utterly change their lives.
The Last Photo
The students’ hunger strike intensified by mid-May, and students were pouring in from all over China to take part in the protest. There were whispers that the PLA was outside the city and ready to use force to disperse the crowds. Everyone was jittery, and news agencies started worrying about the safety of their reporters. Holding a big camera in my hand, I was an obvious target.
My office also asked me to evacuate, and their calls only increased after martial law was announced on May 20. The control area around the square expanded, and violence broke out more frequently. People couldn’t hide the fear and uncertainty in their eyes.
Eventually, the office cut off my compensation and forced me to return to Taipei. I told them in no uncertain terms that I was staying, but with only $100 US dollars and a return plane ticket in my pocket, I had no choice but to concede.
On May 23, three workers vandalized the Mao Zedong (毛澤東) portrait hanging on the Gate of Heavenly Peace, and I took my last photo.
I left Beijing the next day. I was filled with regret that I couldn’t document the entire protest. I spent 40 days in Tiananmen Square.
Not long after I returned to Taipei, PLA units advanced on the students, and Tiananmen Square was stained with blood. Wang Dan and the student leaders were arrested, and many of the Chinese journalists I met were now missing.
My feelings were all over the place. I felt sad for the young students who sacrificed their lives for freedom and democracy, and I regret missing the opportunity to witness an important historical event. I also couldn’t help but think that if I was still in the square, my situation would be very different right now.
The job I never finished
Tiananmen Square was the only assignment I never finished. After returning to Taiwan, I clipped my resignation letter to my expense sheet, and quit my job at the Independence Evening Post for forcing me to come back. I hid these photos and regrets in a corner for nearly 30 years, that is, until Chang Chao-tang (張照堂) — a famous photographer and documentary filmmaker in Taiwan — saw the images.
“There’s no need to feel regret, you were there, that’s the most important thing,” said Chang. “The process is important.”
In the blink of an eye, 30 years have passed since June 4. Nowadays, when I look at those old images, I think of the students and their reckless abandon. “To the greatness of life, and to a glorious death!” That was a slogan on a poster at the time. I hope the images I shot can express even a fraction of their desire for democracy and freedom.
Fill 1

The press conference held by Beijing Students’ Autonomous Federation. (Photo/Hseih San-Tai)

Fill 1

The press conference held by Beijing Students’ Autonomous Federation. (Photo/Hseih San-Tai)

Fill 1
Fill 1

Student gathered in Tiananmen square. (Photo/Hsieh San-Tai)

Fill 1

Student gathered in Tiananmen square. (Photo/Hsieh San-Tai)

Fill 1

Wounded people in Capital Medical University.(Photo/Hsieh San-Tai)

Hsieh San-tai

Hsieh San-tai is a Taiwanese photo-journalist with experience at the Independence Evening Post (自立晚報), the Independence Morning Post (自立早報), the Taiwan Weekly (黑白新聞週刊), New Taiwan Weekly (新台灣週刊) and Power News (勁報). He’s photographed a historic moments events in Taiwan, including the 1988 520 Peasant Movement, the 1987 National Assembly protests, and the country’s first mayoral and presidential elections.

In recent years, his focus is on documenting Taiwan’s vibrant civil society movements, including the labour movement, minority rights’ movements, and the environmental protection movement.

好報新聞來源:報導者

想要收到更多新聞、工作、兼職資訊,歡迎訂閱工作好報!!

留言

這個網誌中的熱門文章

《凝視・1095》影像集:8張照片的背後

壹 Fill 1 文、攝影/蘇威銘 那是又濕又悶的7月,我因為拍攝遊覽車司機的影像專題,在中正紀念堂外隨機尋找遊覽車司機搭訕,晚上8點半左右,停在中正紀念堂外側的遊覽車幾乎都熄火了,只剩少數幾台還亮著車頭燈,阿銘是唯一願意與我暢聊的遊覽車司機。他因為 工作 緣故,得在台北連續待上20天,接待來自不同 國家 的旅遊團,這樣的工作狀況,早已是遊覽車司機業不能說的祕密。 阿銘年約40,但因為長期過勞,臉上已滿佈黑眼圈、皺紋。某天,我跟他回下榻飯店聊天,一回飯店,阿銘馬上打開手機,與遠在高雄的老婆、兩個小孩視訊。看到已經十幾天未見的父親,兩個小孩興奮地與阿銘分享學校的事情,約聊到11點後才關掉手機,隔天清晨5點,又要備車,出車上工了。我問阿銘,何時才能回高雄?他說,他也不知道。 這張照片是阿銘結束一天工作後,準備去停車場清理、停放遊覽車的過程,被我記錄下來。當天由於阿銘與旅行社領隊起了衝突,領隊打給車行老闆要老闆解僱阿銘,不然再也不跟車行合作了。老闆憤怒在電話中用髒話咒罵阿銘,並要他跟領隊道歉。這張照片的拍攝時間點,便是在阿銘遭受委屈、道歉之後。 當時選擇在這個場域、時機按下快門,因為觀察到阿銘疲憊、委屈的神情,奮力但又無力的手勢,與車窗外台北寂寥景色形成呼應,而他在衝突過後,仍然得完成工作的內心糾結、埋怨,傳遞出小人物受到壓迫,難以改變現況的無力感,這樣的感受,也觸發我在那個空間、時刻,按下快門。 延伸閱讀:〈巴士運將的希望── 一切都平安〉 貳 Fill 1 文、攝影/簡永達 走進死者阮文薦的越南老家,首先感受到的,是一種巨大且難以名狀的悲傷。罹難者的家裡,沒有想像中的哭嚎,取而代之的是莫名的安靜。阮文薦屍骨還鄉兩個月以來,他的父親會失神地看著臉書上的照片、他的母親反覆擦拭遺照,如果不小心留眼淚,她會趕緊用袖口擦掉。 和他同在台灣工作的哥哥阮文忠,回國後陷入無盡的自責,「我沒有阻止弟弟來台灣,我覺得是我的責任。」他悼念弟弟的方式,是一個人躲在KTV中,點播那些兄弟生前一起歡唱過的歌。 阮文薦的大哥告訴我,自從弟弟去世後,家裡沒有交談聲、笑聲,也沒有哭聲。家裡每個人都用各自的方式處理悲傷,卻又極力掩飾自己的情緒。直到採訪的最後一天,我表示希望能到阮文薦的墳前上香,為他在台灣的不幸遭...

死了一個女孩之後,看見人性的善惡抉擇

【精選書摘】 本文為王立柔替《被殺了三次的女孩:誰讓恐怖情人得逞?桶川跟蹤狂殺人案件的真相及警示》撰寫的推薦序〈平凡人也能選擇的善良或邪惡〉,經獨步文化授權刊登,文章標題與文內小標經《報導者》編輯所改寫。 《被殺了三次的女孩:誰讓恐怖情人得逞?桶川跟蹤狂殺人案件的真相及警示》是日本迴響最大的調查報導作品,該書作者清水潔曾為新潮社《FOCUS》週刊調查記者,現為日本電視台報導局記者、解說員。他以桶川跟蹤狂殺人事件的調查報導獲得日本新聞 工作 者會議(Japan Congress of Journalists)大獎、編輯嚴選雜誌報導獎。 這不是一本虛構的懸疑偵探小說,而是前《FOCUS》週刊記者清水潔對「桶川跟蹤狂殺人案件」的真實調查紀錄。 1999年,日本埼玉縣女大學生豬野詩織在JR桶川車站外,冷不防被人用刀刺死。乍看像隨機殺人案,但在清水潔的一連串調查下,真相漸漸水落石出:豬野詩織的前男友是恐怖情人,長期騷擾並威脅她的人身安全。雖然她曾經自行蒐證,帶著錄音機向警方報案,卻得到「不會成案」的回覆,甚至反過來被譴責「收了人家禮物,才說要分手,做男人的怎麼會不生氣?」走投無路的詩織最終在絕望中被殺死。 這起事件催生了日本國會訂定《跟蹤騷擾行為規範法》,但這些都是後話。在慘案剛發生的時候,詩織之死雖然引發社會震驚,民眾對受害人的同情很快就打了折扣。一方面是因為警方不斷放出關於受害人的不實資訊,一方面是各家媒體在報導時聚焦於詩織身上的穿著、名牌配件,暗示她有「拜金」傾向,並將她的職業誤報為「酒家女」。雖然說無論受害人是否符合這兩點,都不應該被任何人殺死,但日本社會輿論一度產生「責怪受害人」的氛圍。 「我的女兒死了3次:一次是被兇手殺死的,一次是被不受理報案的警方殺死的,一次是被媒體殺死的。」 豬野詩織的父親豬野憲一多年後再度接受清水潔的訪問時,曾經這樣說。這名傷痛的爸爸不僅控訴殘忍的兇手和怠惰的警方,也深深控訴了醜化受害者、畫錯重點的新聞媒體。 這起案件的時空背景是20年前的日本,然而這樣的「劇情發展」對今天的台灣讀者來說很熟悉吧?沒錯,「新聞媒體」的面向是此書最值得探討的重點之一。作者清水潔的筆下,處處都是對新聞產製生態及閱聽文化的批判,讓人一面讀一面驚呼:「原來20年前的日本新聞也是這樣啊!」、...

【投書】倫敦地鐵移除汶萊航空廣告,台北捷運呢?

汶萊長期以來視同性戀為不合法行為,從今年(2019)4月3日起全面實施《伊斯蘭法刑法典》,新法規定可對男同性戀及通姦者施以石頭砸死之刑、女同性戀鞭刑40下的殘酷刑罰。這項規定適用於穆斯林、非穆斯林以及外國人,也適用於註冊於汶萊的航空器與船隻。 美國藝人喬治.克隆尼(George Clooney)因此發起抵制汶萊政府在倫敦等地擁有的星級豪華飯店,已獲得眾多演藝人士響應;德意志銀行也宣布所有員工差旅不會使用汶萊政府擁有的飯店。 這些國外的豪華飯店,大概不會是一般台灣人旅遊住宿的選項,但我們可以將焦點放在台北捷運站裡,寫著「搭乘汶萊皇家航空、體驗汶萊和平國度」醒目字眼的大幅廣告。這項汶萊皇家航空(Royal Brunei Airlines)的廣告行銷,對每日進出台北各捷運站的同志市民、性別平等支持者是多大的諷刺與傷害。 和平國度?各國單位杯葛汶萊 汶萊皇家航空是該國國營航空公司,這則廣告同時在行銷航空公司與汶萊作為和平的旅遊目的地,廣告中的「和平國度」(an “abode of peace”)不只是該國的觀光宣傳口號(tourism slogan),也是汶萊的 國家 官方全稱 汶萊的馬來文為Negara Brunei Darussalam。Negara意為「國家」,而Darussalam則意為「和平之邦」。 之一。汶萊皇家航空廣告也同時投放在其他國家,如倫敦的地鐵站,但在反恐同、反歧視團體譴責汶萊極端恐同法律與抗議這則廣告宣傳的壓力之下,倫敦交通當局(Transport for London)以違反廣告原則的公眾敏感與爭議下,已迅速於4月3日移除汶萊的廣告。 同樣身為航空業的澳洲維珍航空(Virgin Australia),也跟進宣布為確保公司成員的安全,取消與汶萊皇家航空的員工旅遊協議。以銷售學生與青年票務為主的國際旅行社STA也表明其支持多元文化與LGBTQI的立場,停止販售汶萊皇家航空機票與介紹有關任何行程,並將協助已購買汶萊皇家航空機票的客戶進行退票等服務。 對比汶萊皇家航空的廣告爭議,今年3月挪威航空將美國人權鬥士與同運前輩哈維.米爾克(Harvey Milk) 美國LGBT權利運動人士,也是美國政壇中第一位公開同性戀身分的政治人物。 塗裝於其客機尾翼上,向其爭取人權平等的努力致敬。 長期推動永續觀光的...