(SCMP) Civil disobedience has its consequences. By Alex Lo. July 31, 2015.

Civil disobedience by definition breaks the law. It may be for a good cause but don't be surprised if you get dragged into court and thrown into jail. Do the deed, pay the price. That's how you gain respect; it's certainly not by moaning about it. Yet, many young protesters today seem surprised when they find themselves before a judge; their supporters are outraged.

Deputy Magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu has been the target of abuse in court and on the internet ever since he convicted a group of anti-parallel trade protesters for assaulting or obstructing the police. Among these are Ng Lai-ying, convicted of assault and jailed yesterday for three months and 15 days; her boyfriend Kwong Chun-lung, 20, was sentenced to a training centre, while Poon Tsz-hang, 22, was given five months and one week in jail, after both were convicted of obstructing police.

A 14-year-old boy, who was also convicted of assault, was sentenced to a rehabilitation centre.

The defendants have been granted bail to file for appeal.

Sympathetic commentators have ridiculed Ng's conviction for assaulting an officer with her breast, conjuring images of her using her sensitive parts to beat up the hapless officer. But the judge has made it clear the seriousness of her offence was that she falsely counter-accused the police inspector of indecent assault.

Classic civil-disobedience activists accept the consequences of breaching the law, however bad, by taking the punishment. Through their suffering, they expose the illegitimacy of the law and the state that administers it.

Many young protesters today hold no such belief. They do not think they should suffer any consequences, even if they confront and fight police officers, break into private and closed-door meetings and hound whoever disagrees with them. Take those student protesters who effectively hijacked a University of Hong Kong Council meeting this week. They seem to think they are above the law.

There are many liberal or pan-democratic politicians and commentators who encourage or even glorify those youthful protesters.

When you think you are right, you don't need to listen to anyone else. Anything you do is justified.

(Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2015.

20-year-old Chinese University of Hong Kong student of architecture and Neighbourhood and Worker's Service member Yeung Ho-yin was charged with slapping and kicking a police officer, causing a broken middle finger. According to police officer Cheung Kwun-man, about 2,000 demonstrators charged onto Lung Wo Road on the night of November 30. The defendant Yeung Ho-yin suddenly slapped him on the lower right face. Therefore, Cheung pulled Yeung from the crowd, pushed him onto the ground and sat on his back. Cheung said that Yeung kept struggling and kicking him on the leg to cause bleeding. Cheung said that any amount of slapping is a form of assault. The defendant's lawyer accused the police officer reacted only because Yeung said to him: "Do you have the time to flirt with girls?" The police officer disagreed with the defense's assertion.

Another police officer Chen Man-chun testified that when he took out the plastic cuff to help Cheung to subdue Yeung, the defendant jerked the middle finger of his left hand. Chen said: If you can rate pain on a scale of ten, this one was an eight." After Chen took his glove off, he saw that the middle finger on this left hand was red and swollen, as well as being unnaturally crooked.

(EJinsight) August 26, 2015.

A student neighborhood volunteer has had assault charges against him thrown out by a Hong Kong magistrate’s court. 

Magistrate Lee Siu-ho said there was insufficient evidence against Yeung Ho-yin, a third-year architecture student at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a volunteer of the Neighborhood and Worker’s Service Center.

Yeung had been charged with assaulting two police officers during last year’s democracy protests.

Cheung Kwun-man, one of the plaintiffs, claimed he had made a report to a doctor about his injuries. However, the doctor denied having received such a report. Also, video evidence showed Yeung was far back from a police line, not in front as described by Cheung, during the alleged assault. A second plaintiff, Chan Man-chun, said he sustained a sprain in a middle finger from the attack.

Lee accepted the defense argument that Cheung could not have attacked the officers because they had pinned him to the ground in the first place. And Chan wore protective gloves, so the injury was unlikely, Lee said.  Lee described the officers’ testimony as “dubious”. 

Yeung later told reporters the verdict was “nothing to celebrate”, saying the system is unjust and the case was a waste of taxpayers’ money.

The case stemmed from a Nov. 30, 2014 incident when dozens of protesters crossed a police line in Admiralty. The two officers were part of a contingent on patrol at the protest site. Yeung was among about 2,000 protesters.

Yeung said he was immediately taken away and accused of assault by the policemen after telling Cheung “there’s still time to flirt”.

(Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2015.

20-year-old IVE student Chiu Kwok-hong was charged with throwing a plastic bottle of water at Police Chief Inspector Lee Shek-lun in Yuen Long, hitting Lee on the right leg and causing pain on contact. In the company of family members, Chiu said that he saw the chief inspector pulling the backpack of a female student, got upset and threw the water bottle. He said that he was sorry afterwards, and he apologized to Lee and his family. The magistrate sentenced Chiu to 80 hours of community service.

(Wen Wei Po) August 7, 2015.

On December 25, 2014 during the Shopping Revolution, 26-year-old Cheng Kam-mun ignored police warnings and forcibly crossed the police cordon in order to cross the street. According to the testimony of the police officer who made the arrest, he observed Cheng ducking underneath the police tape to cross the street. He advised and warned Cheng: "The road is closed! Get back on the sidewalk! Or else I will arrest you for obstructing police duties!" Cheng kept walking while saying: "It's a green light!"

The magistrate said that Cheng's crime was "not trivial." After watching the videotape, the magistrate did not believe that Cheng crossed the street because there was a green light. After all, Cheng had to duck under the police tape in order to get onto the roadway. Furthermore, Cheng changed his direction to bypass the policeman who was trying to stop him. There was no evidence that the police assaulted Cheng. Cheng claimed to be hurrying to go home, but his home address of Peace Avenue is in the opposite direction of where he was walking towards.

The defense pleaded that the defendant had to discontinue his studies in Australia because of this case. Furthermore, this particular case was not the most serious among similar cases.

The magistrate found the defendant guilty of the charge. The magistrate said that the defendant "was really being ridiculous" and "making up excuses." The defendant was ordered to be held in detention until the sentencing two weeks later.

(Commercial Radio) August 20, 2015. Cheng Ka-mun was sentenced to 21 days in jail to begin immediately.

(Wen Wei Po) August 10, 2015.

68-year-old Chan So is a retired marine police officer. On October 3, 2014, he was at the the intersection of Rodney Street and Queensway in Admiralty. Chan is being charged with touching a female police sergeant on the breast. At the time, the female sergeant believed that she was being sexually assaulted. So he grabbed Chan by the collar. Chan turned around and fled. The female sergeant chased Chan down Rodney Street and apprehended him at a temporary nursing station.

The magistrate said that the female sergeant testified that she was off duty that day from the Commercial Crime Bureau and saw a male colleague being surrounded by demonstrators. So she went up to offer help when Chan assaulted her. However, the male sergeant testified that he had not been surrounded and cursed out by demonstrators that day, and that the defendant did not touch the female sergeant on the breast. When the two testimonies differ so much, the benefit of doubt belongs to the defendant. Therefore, the magistrate found the defendant not guilty.

However, the magistrate pointed out that Chan declined to testify in court and presented only the police interview video as evidence. The magistrate said that Chan's testimony was dubious, and therefore made Chan pay for the court fees.

(Oriental Daily) August 11, 2015.

49-year-old minibus driver Choi Siu-lun said that he had zero income during the Occupy Central period and he also owed $90,000 in gambling debts. So he agreed to smuggle drugs to Sydney for his friend. On December 21, he and his wife went to Shenzhen when his friend packed 2.2 kg of "ice" worth about $1 million on his waist and thigh. He returned to Hong Kong and proceeded directly to the Hong Kong International Airport. He was arrested in the immigration hall. Choi pleaded guilty to one charge of drug smuggling and was sentenced to 17 years in jail.

Choi studied only as far as Third Year in Middle School. He has a son with his ex-wife. His current wife is a mental patient and therefore Choi is the sole economic support of his family. The defense pleaded that he used to drive the minibus route between Kwun Tong and Sai Wan, making $8,000 a month. During Occupy Central, his income dropped to zero because the route was blocked. Nevertheless, he had to continue to pay for the bus rental fees. His friend promised him to forgive his debt plus an additional $80,000 afterwards. In the end, Choi never received that money.

The judge said that the maximum sentence in such an international smuggle case is 26 years in jail. By pleading guilty, Choi gets a sentence reduction of 1/3. The other conditions cited by the defense resulted in another reduction of 4 years. Therefore, the final sentence was 17 years in jail.

(Wen Wei Po) August 11, 2015.

54-year-old League of Social Democrats member Julie Li Sin-chi sat on the pedestrian sidewalk near the intersection of Lung Wo Road and Tim Wah Road on October 15, 2014. She refused to leave even after ordered by the police. The police arrested her and charged her with obstruction of police duty. The magistrate pointed out that the police were trying to restore order that day.

The magistrate said that the police was trying to re-open Lung Wo Road for vehicular traffic that day. Therefore, "one of the things that they had to do was to clear out the people gathered in the area." Even though Li was on the sidewalk, she was still obstructing police duty. Lee let her body go limp, so that two police officers were needed to carry her away. Clearly her action made it harder for the police to carry out their duties. Therefore the magistrate fined the defendant $2,500.

According to the defense, Li's actions were milder compared to other forms of obstruction of police duty. Furthermore, the defendant had no prior record and also has good character (donating to or otherwise helping the Heep Hong Society, Pok Oi Hospital, etc). Therefore, the defense wanted the magistrate to impose only a monetary fine.

Leung Kwok-hung said that the sentence was "risible." He said that if a person can be found guilty for sitting down and refusing to leave, then at least five hundred Shopping Revolutionaries should be charged too. He criticized the magistrates for looking after the prosecution's interests instead of the rights of the defendants.

Afterwards, Julie Li Sin-chi said that she realized that she had done a lot of good things in her life according to her lawyer. In this case, what she did on October 15 was also "a good thing."

(SCMP) August 12, 2015.

A member of a pro-democracy group was fined HK$2,500 on Tuesday for obstructing two policewomen on the night Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu was allegedly assaulted by seven police officers. Although the League of Social Democrats' Julie Li Sin-chi, 54, did not struggle when officers carried her away in Admiralty on October 15, Fanling Court Magistrate Colin Wong Sze-cheung noted that the defendant deliberately relaxed her body, forcing police to remove her. "This act clearly made it more difficult for police to carry out their mission," Wong told Li, before finding her guilty. Wong ordered Li, a clerk and an active fundraiser for underprivileged groups, to pay the fine.

Li denied one count of obstructing a police officer on the night in question. She refused to leave when two policewomen told her three times to do so on Lung Wo Road near Tim Wa Road. Despite convicting Li, the magistrate rejected the account given by the two policewomen and refused to rely on the evidence they gave. They had told the court they waited more than 10 seconds to act after warning Li. But a video played by defence counsel Randy Shek showed they waited only five seconds. Still, the video established that Li knew she had to leave yet did not, Wong said.

Outside court, league lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung noted that Li's case arose on the same night as the alleged assault on Tsang, which was caught on video and aired across Hong Kong. Leung asked why the names of the seven policemen in Tsang's case had not yet been made public.

(SCMP) August 14, 2015.

Two Hong Kong activists have been convicted for blocking doors at the legislature during a protest against the government’s new-town development plans in June last year.

A magistrate said it was “common sense” for anyone not to block doors, rejecting defence arguments that Cheung Hon-yin, 41, and Wong Kan-yuen, 25, did not get any warnings when they stopped two doors at the Legislative Council’s west gate in Admiralty from closing on June 6, 2014. “This is common sense. It would be inappropriate for any adult to block other people’s doors, let alone the ones at Legco,” Eastern Court magistrate Lee Siu-ho said this morning, before convicting the pair. Lee also said Wong's attempt led to injuries suffered by security guards who were there to handle the crowd.

Their co-defendant, Yip Po-lam, 34, was guilty of remaining inside the Legco complex for more than five hours, Lee ruled.

The trio were taking part in a protest against development plans for the northeastern New Territories. Each had denied one count of contravening an administrative instruction issued under section 8(3) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

They were found guilty of violating the instruction, which banned visitors without permits or authorisation in the premises while Legco meetings were ongoing.

Earlier, the court heard Cheung and Wong stopped the doors from closing so protesters could enter the Legco lobby. Yip remained inside the lobby for hours, during which she made two speeches encouraging others to continue staging the protest inside the lawmaking complex.

Lee slammed the duo’s acts for undermining Legco’s system of issuing visitor permits. Yip should have keep to a designated protest zone outside, the magistrate added. He adjourned sentencing to August 28, pending reports on all three defendants.

Outside court, Yip, of the Land Justice League, said they would continue to protest against the controversial government plan both inside and outside Legco as lawmakers had failed to listen to residents in the affected areas.

(Bastille Post) August 14, 2015.

(Oriental Daily) August 28, 2015.

The magistrate pointed out that the defendants violated the visitor regulations at the Legislative Council. While it is a good thing to be socially concerned, it is wrong to use illegal methods even if the aims were noble. Such actions may get media attention for a moment, but the public will merely notice the actions and not the purposes.

The magistrate said that these three cases were more serious than similar ones, and the probation officer's report indicate that these individuals are not suitable for community service. Therefore, the magistrate sentenced Yi Po-lam to two weeks in jail, Cheung Hon-yin to one week in jail and Wong Kan-yuen to three weeks in jail.

Videos of the assault on the Legislative Council:

Internet Comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) August 15, 2015. 42-year-old Hong Kong Priority convener Dickson Cheung Hon-yin grew up in Tai Po. Because he is obese, he claims to have a heart condition that resulted in his heart operating only at 20% of normal efficiency. Therefore, he cannot work and his family of five lives off government welfare payments that amounted to close to $30,000 per month. Cheung also says that he is a full-time social activist. On December 26, 2013, he and other Hong Kong Priority members held up the British flag and intruded into the People's Liberation Army barracks in Tamar. He was arrested, found guilty and fined $2,000.
- By the way, Cheung Hon-yin moved from immigrated from mainland China around the time of the 1997 handover. He is a "Locust". Now he takes welfare payments from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and he runs "I am a Hongkonger, I am not Chinese"?

- Fuck! It's always the same people. They are the ones who barged into the People's Liberation Army barracks. They are the ones who opposed developing North East New Territories. They are the ones who charge into the Legislative Council. They are the ones who ran Occupy Central. No matter what the government does, they will show up and protest violently. Now that they have been found guilty, will they be made to provide 80 hours of community service each?  With people like these (including the judges), how can Hong Kong not be in total chaos?

(Oriental Daily) August 26, 2015.

18-year-old Form 5 student Law Cheuk-yung was accused for participating in an unlawful assembly with unknown other individuals on October 14, 2014. The prosecutor summoned a number of police officers to testify. They said that the defendant was standing on the meridian on Lung Wo Road. The defendant tossed four traffic cones onto the eastbound car lane in order to block vehicular traffic. The defendant also spread his hands to call other demonstrators to join him. One male and one female uniformed officer took the defendant away. On the way out, they were attacked by other demonstrators using arms and umbrellas. Another plainclothes policeman went up to assist his uniformed colleagues, and fell down on the ground. The police ultimately used pepper spray to disperse the crowd and took the defendant away.

The defense played a video that showed that the defendant did not struggle or resist. He only held up his hands high. Other demonstrators rushed up and shouted: "Organized crime! Release him!"

The defendant chose not to defend himself. No witnesses were summoned on behalf of the defense. The magistrate determined that the evidence exists to find the defendant guilty. In summation, the defense said that there was no evidence of any degree of violence by the defendant. Nothing he did was provocative or intimidating, and his actions did not disturb the social peace. Furthermore, the witnesses for the prosecution only saw one person tossing traffic cones, so this was an individual activity and not a mass action. Therefore the charge of unlawful assembly should be dismissed.

(Oriental Daily) September 2, 2015.

Today, the magistrate changed the charge from unlawful assembly to public disorderly conduct in spite of the objections of the prosecution. The magistrate said that he accepted the fact that the defendant tossed a traffic cone from the meridian to cause vehicles to come to a sudden stop. Afterwards, the defendant made hand gestures for other demonstrators to come onto the roadway. Therefore the defendant has disturbed public order, because his action could have caused damage to persons or properties. His actions also provide the example for others to follow suit. Thus, social order was disturbed. The magistrate also said that a driver lowered his window to curse the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has caused other people to become violent.

The defense pleaded that the defendant was still in Form Six and preparing for his DGSE exams. His class master has written a letter full of positive comments, such as the defendant was the class monitor and also selected for leadership training.

Sentencing will take place on September 23, 2015 pending probation reports.

Internet comments:

- The Battle of Lung Wo Road occurred because Hong Kong Baptist University Department of Social Work lecturer Shiu Ka-chun released false information and told everybody by the Admiralty grandstand that the police had just fired teargas and therefore everybody should immediately rush over to Lung Wo Road. Shiu Ka-chun said that he was ready to die (see SCMP). Law Cheuk-yung does not have to die. He will at most do some jail time. Meanwhile Shiu Ka-chun is alive and well.

- (Economic Times)

Daughter of Alan Leong to Perform in Hamlet of Shakespeare’s Globe, Arriving in Hong Kong in September 2015.

“All the world’s a stage!”, Shakespeare’s Globe started the tour of Hamlet to celebrate the 450th birthday of Shakespeare, the 12 performers are indeed international, including the daughter of Civic Party's Alan Leong (a member of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong), they will be in Hong Kong in September for 5 shows. Hamlet is one of the best known plays of Shakespeare, and this is the 3rd drama to come to Hong Kong by Shakespeare’s Globe.

There is a Hong Kong representative this time, Jennifer Leong (age 26), she has informed her family and friends in Hong Kong. This is the first time she formally participated in the show of the Globe, “I feel so lucky to be part of this 2-years tour!”

The role of Hamlet would be shifted between Ladi Emeruwa and Naeem Hayat, other people would shift to play 2 or 3 roles.  Jennifer will be Ophelia, as well as another 2 male roles, Horatio and Rosencrantz. She talks about the 3 roles. “I remember when I was performing in the capital of Kenya, a schoolmate that I haven’t met for 7 years was there in the audience; also the Caribbean area is so beautiful. It is one year to go for this project, of course I would hope to have other future opportunities of being a professional performer.”

While Jennifer Leong goes on a global Shakespeare tour, Law Cheuk-yung is probably going to jail. So let us all greet Jennifer Leong with opened yellow umbrellas when her show starts.

- Cap 245 S18 Unlawful assembly:

(1) When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(2) It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if being assembled, they conduct themselves in such a manner as aforesaid.

(3) Any person who takes part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of the offence of unlawful assembly and shall be liable- (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

Was this an unlawful assembly? See Passion Times for the record. There were more than 3 persons. They were assembled together. They conducted themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting and provocative manner. They caused a breach of the peace. Therefore they are an unlawful assembly.

- Coming out for the trial today, he looks solemn and proper for the Apple Daily reporter.

When a reporter from another newspaper tries to take photos on another occasion (see Oriental Daily), he is a screaming ("You better not fucking take photos!") maniac.  This is typical Yellow Ribbon bipolar disorder.

- From Hong Kong film director Wong Jing: "One after another, those who assaulted the police during Occupy Central were taken to court and sent to jail or sentenced to community service! Upon careful analysis, there are only two types of persons: students and unemployed persons! This showed just what the pan-democrats and Jimmy "Fat Guy" Lai have wrought! They deceived those who are not strong on analytical ability, as well as those long-term unemployed/unemployable individuals who hate society. However, none of their own children even participated. They only deceive other people's children to die. They are so selfish! If you trust Jimmy Lai, even female pigs can climb up trees!

(SCMP) How Hong Kong got under the skin of United States Consul General Clifford Hart. August 10, 2015.

Clifford Hart has been America's top man in Hong Kong since 2013 and is perhaps the best-known and most-talked-about diplomat in this otherwise locally-focused society.

What is less well known about the influential envoy, however, is that the same city was where he stopped over on his trans-Pacific journey to his first ever diplomatic posting in Guangzhou nearly three decades earlier.

"When I came through here in 1984, Hong Kong got under my skin almost immediately," Hart told the South China Morning Post in an interview conducted at his residence on The Peak. "I have had a deep abiding interest in Hong Kong ever since then."

While he had been assigned all over the world, from Baghdad to Beijing, from the Soviet Union to his home country, "I would still be reading about Hong Kong and following it closely", said Hart, whose most recent appointment was as US special envoy to the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme.

Asia has always been in the family blood. Hart's grandfather was a US navy officer and a slave labourer in a Hitachi prisoner-of-war camp in Tokyo during the second world war.

Hart will be bidding farewell to Asia next year, but he shows no eagerness for a retiree's life yet.

"There is always the possibility that I'll stay in the diplomatic service - the State Department can always surprise you.

"It will be 33 years next year when I leave here. That's a good time. This is a very satisfying and I think reasonably successful career," he said.

Or, he might move to the private sector, "whether it's based in Asia or back in the United States - I'm really quite flexible".

One of the issues that he hopes to focus on before he leaves is to follow up on the State Department's report on human trafficking, which gives Hong Kong a damning tier 2 ranking, putting it on par with Ethiopia and the like and suggesting the government was not being responsive enough.

"Hong Kong would be unusual if it didn't have a problem, not if it did," he said in response, again calling on the government to devise an anti-trafficking law.

But on other areas the government should focus on, he shied away from specifics, saying: "I am a US diplomat and I am not an economist or long-term economic strategist."

He is also a cook, though, one that specialises in Sichuan cuisine.

"I have very few frustrations here in Hong Kong, but one of them is I don't cook [because] I have a professional chef," he said. "The kitchen in this residence is really his field of battle."

The battlefield could as well be online. Hart is most likely the highest-profile diplomat by posting selfies on the consulate's social media page wherever he goes.

"I never came with a strategy to use Facebook," he said, commenting on posts that earn him such fancy reactions as "Welcome, the 29th Governor of Hong Kong".

But apart from the "powerful" modern technology through which he is "pretty often" recognised by passers-by, Hart equally appreciates the traditional Chinese culture here.

To Hart, Chinese culture is preserved better here than on the mainland. "It's recovering on the mainland … but it will take a long time to recover, whereas [in] Hong Kong it's just intact," he said.

Asked what he would miss most in Hong Kong following his departure, the unprepared Hart giggled. "Oh my gosh. Again, very hard to answer that in one single thing."

Finally, he did find one thing he would miss.

"My greatest pleasure is walking through neighbourhoods [and] watching people live their lives. I find the southern Chinese urban life really interesting," he said. "You have people who are indisputably part of the 5,000-year tradition of Chinese culture living in a first-world place with rule of law and transparent government. I will miss that daily exposure to China through Hong Kong when I leave here.

"It is the one true first-world part of the People's Republic of China."

(SCMP) August 10, 2015.

The top US representative in Hong Kong has called on the city to return to the "pragmatic and moderate mainstream" path and work towards the goal of achieving full democracy.

Clifford Hart, US consul general to Hong Kong and Macau, said the rights guaranteed to Hongkongers under the "one country, two systems" principle had remained strong since the handover and rejected the suggestion that the city had become ungovernable.

Hart was speaking to the South China Morning Post in a wide-ranging interview - the first of a series with Hong Kong-based diplomats.

The veteran diplomat said the 1½-year debate on Hong Kong's electoral reform had been "bruising" and had polarised the city.

"I think you hear a limited number of extreme voices at both ends of the political spectrum. I don't think that's Hong Kong's real personality," he said.

"I think Hong Kong tends towards pragmatic and moderate mainstream. So the most important thing for Hong Kong to do right now is to go back to those hallmark qualities that Hong Kong has.

"Put up your dialogue across the political spectrum. There are different views here and it's entirely healthy. You would expect there to be different views on how Hong Kong should be governed," he said. "The question is: how are the differences resolved in the interest of Hong Kong people?"

Hart, who assumed his Hong Kong post in July 2013, noted that the city was facing a lot of challenges, and the debate on universal suffrage was just one of them.

He dismissed speculation among certain quarters in the pro-establishment camp that the US consulate in Hong Kong had been recruiting more staff and was home to more than 1,000 employees.

"This is absurd, nonsense, downright silly. I mean it can't be taken seriously. Someone even suggested there are thousands of people in the consulate in Hong Kong. In fact the Hong Kong government knows exactly - exactly how many US diplomats are here because they provide our credentials.

"There are no more than 140. It's consistent with our work in a whole range of areas here," Hart said, citing strong ties between Hong Kong and his country in the areas of commerce and culture.

Hart acknowledged that Hong Kong enjoyed a range of guaranteed rights for its citizens. "These are important to its prosperity and brilliant success. I think we see right now Hong Kong is still quite strong," he said.

He also rejected the notion of the city becoming ungovernable. "Like I often tell my friends, I wish every ungovernable place were as well-governed as Hong Kong is," he said. "There is effective rule of law, an open society and transparent government."

Asked if the Hong Kong government's refusal to detain whistle-blower Edward Snowden in 2013 had any negative impact on the discussion on the waiver of US visa requirements for Hongkongers, the US consul general insisted the two issues were not connected.

"The underlying consideration is that the way US law is written, visa waiver, once approved, can only be done so for a sovereign state. Hong Kong is not a sovereign state," he said.

"I don't see that's going to be overcome any time soon ... I don't see that happening any time soon. I would urge [local people] to appreciate that there is no lack of respect for Hong Kong."

Hong Kong has been lobbying the US government for many years to be put on the visa waiver programme, which allows travellers visa-free access for tourism or business in the US for up to 90 days.

During his trip to the US in 2011, then chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen raised the issue with then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Tsang had said at the time that the US government was positive about waiving visa requirements for Hongkongers.

Taiwanese residents were granted visa-free access in 2012 under a special arrangement.

Despite his appreciation of the strengths of Hong Kong, Hart called on the city to improve its copyright law, which he described as "seriously outdated".

Internet comments:

- Clifford Hart is making it very clear that Hongkongers will acquire visa-free status only if Hong Kong becomes an independent sovereign country. Well, now we know what we need to do ...
- Yes, I know what you mean. We are going to occupy the American Consulate on 25 Garden Road, Hong Kong Island and hold the place until the US government concedes to our demands. We know that there are US marines guarding the location. But we are the Valiant Warriors of the Hong Kong City-State, and we will defeat those machine-gun-armed marines with our bare hands.

- Thank God I don't use a Hong Kong SAR passport. I have a BNO passport.
- Eh, you still need a visa to visit the United States with a BNO passport (see Wikipedia).
- A few years ago, my friend and I traveled to Europe. The Iceland volcano spewed ashes and air traffic was halted for several days. My friend used a BNO passport and he was restricted to stay inside the airport in Germany. I used a HK SAR passport and I was free to go around town.
- The BNO passport will get you visa-free to Uranus (=Your Anus).

- Clearly Clifford Hart is saying that Taiwan is a sovereign country. When will Taiwan declare itself to be a sovereign country and apply for United Nations membership?
- The application for UN membership will be automatically vetoed by Security Council permanent member China.
- The moment when Taiwan declares itself a sovereign country is when the Chinese cruise missiles start raining down on Taiwan.
The relevant statement is this: With respect to all references to “country” or “countries”, it should be noted that the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-8, Section 4(b)(1), provides that “[w]henever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan.”  22 U.S.C. § 3303(b)(1).  Accordingly, all references to “country” or “countries” in the Visa Waiver Program authorizing legislation, Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1187, are read to include Taiwan.  This is consistent with the United States’ one-China policy, under which the United States has maintained unofficial relations with Taiwan since 1979.
- If Taiwan is a sovereign country, then how come the United States does not maintain an embassy. In fact, the United States does not even have any consulates in Taiwan. There is only the private, non-profit corporation known as the American Institute of Taiwan to represent the United States.

- The problem is that the HK SAR government hands out passport to all permanent residents. If they were more restrictive and give passports only to high-quality, high-education and high-income Hong Kong elites and not to poor-quality, poor-education and low-income bums, there wouldn't be any visa requirements for Hongkongers to go anywhere in the world.
- The criterion for having a HK SAR passport is that the holder must be born in Hong Kong. All foreign-born persons (with or with right of abode) should not be allowed to hold HK SAR passports. This will make sure that Hongkongers get respected all over the world.
- With respect to the preceding commentator, I guess that if some country won't do so, will you "valiantly resist" them until they submit?
- Many mainlanders are getting HK SAR government passports, and that is why the United States shouldn't give visa-free status to Hongkongers. Japan allows Hongkongers to go there visa-free. That is wrong. Japan should rescind the policy immediately until Hong Kong makes sure that mainlanders can't hold HK SAR passports.

- History: (Christian Science Monitor) August 7, 2015.

China and the Soviet Union, the two largest communist nations, both could send growing numbers of emigrés to the United States - but for opposite reasons. In the USSR, the new policy of openness allows growing numbers of Soviets to seek a fresh start in the US. In China, repression is driving people toward the West.

Currently, the Chinese emigr'e focus is on Hong Kong, which reverts to Chinese rule in 1997 under a treaty with Great Britain. China's recent military repression of the student democracy movement sent shivers through Hong Kong - population 3.4 million.

The United States accepts up to 5,000 Hong Kong citizens as immigrants each year. One bill now moving through Congress would double that. But Rep. John Porter (R) of Illinois doesn't think that measure goes far enough, and has introduced legislation that would increase Hong Kong's quota to 50,000 a year.

According to a Porter aide, the bill has three purposes:

1. Send China a message: If Chinese repression continues, the US will provide a safety valve to let people out. The result would be a ``brain drain'' that would leave little for the Chinese to take over.

2. Send Britain a message. If the United Kingdom won't allow Hong Kong residents to emigrate to Britain, even though they carry British passports, then the UK should at least lead a Western effort to save the people of the colony.

3. Send Hong Kong a message. If no one else will help, ``the US should welcome them because they are exactly the kind of people we want, people with an understanding of capitalism and great entrepreneurial ability.''

The Porter aide, who asked not to be identified, says fears that 3.4 million Chinese from Hong Kong would swamp London are groundless. It is estimated that about 6 percent, or just over 200,000 people, would migrate to Britain if they were free to do so, the aide says.

Presently about 45,000 people a year leave Hong Kong. Most go to Singapore, Canada, Australia, and the US.

The aide says Mr. Porter feels Asian immigrants are making important contributions to America. So would the people of Hong Kong, he says.

''This is an historic and unique situation,'' the aide contends. "Porter says these people deserve special status. They would not be a burden on our economy. And they should fit in here because they have already been acclimated to British-type society."

- (Local Press) Wan Chin's response to Clifford Hart: Parliamentary Cabinet is Pragmatic, Moderate Mainstream Democracy. August 12, 2015.

Translated by Chapman Chen.

In an interview given to the South China Morning Post on 10 August, Clifford Hart, US consul general to Hong Kong and Macau, called on the city to return to the “pragmatic and moderate mainstream" path and work towards the target of achieving full democracy. In commenting on Hong Kong’s political situation, Clifford said the rights guaranteed to Hongkongers under the “one country, two systems" principle had remained solid since 1997 and rejected the suggestion that the city had become ungovernable.

He thought that rule of law was still valid in Hong Kong, that Hong Kong was an open society and its government was transparent. He also pointed out that Hong Kong needed to take a pragmatic, moderate mainstream path in order to attain full democracy.

On 11 August, on his facebook wall, the Hong Kong scholar, Dr. Wan Chin responded to Clifford’s saying by asserting, “The Legislative Council shall be elected by universal suffrage as scheduled in 2020, after which the legislators shall nominate Chief Executive candidates and then put them to the vote. This moderate proposal of legislators nominating Chief Executive candidates has been covertly endorsed by US consul general.”

In an exclusive telephone interview given to Local Press, Wan Chin explained that the so-called pragmatic and moderate mainstream path precisely referred to parliamentary nomination, the mainstream election system practiced in most European countries. The civic nomination system proposed by the pan-democracy camp is not the mainstream amongst democratic countries all over the world; and civic nomination may just serve as a specimen or a remedial system.

Not a single political party in Hong Kong has put forth the parliamentary cabinet system; they all run towards different extremes. Actually, the nomination committee required in the Basic Law may be interpreted as the entire Legislative Council.

In the Hong Kong City-State Summit II held on 29 July, apart from recommending the parliamentary nomination system, Wan Chin also stressed that “In the all-round direct election of Legco, the elected legislators got to give up any foreign nationality. And the legislators, by way of internal consultation, shall nominate from among themselves Chief Executive nominates and then put them to the vote.”

As pointed out by Wan Chin, parliamentary nomination coupled with the regulation that elected legislators have to renounce their foreign nationalities, will help to solve the two major current problems of Hong Kong:- the ruling regime’s failure to govern and unclearness of loyalty of Hong Kong residents. It will enable local interests to be properly taken care of and make the absentee middle class and the rich and the powerful in Hong Kong to return to the local.

Most importantly, Hong Kong will be returned to the hands of the local people and will no longer just serve the interest of Communist China, America, or any other foreign countries. When Hong Kong returns to the right path, it will also become a model of Orthodox Chinese culture, which in turn will contribute to the rise of an Orthodox Chinese Confederate.

Internet comments:

- At least Wan Chin dared to go where Clifford Hart didn't -- he pointed out that "the civil nomination system proposed by the pan-democracy camp is not in the mainstream amongst democratic countries all over the world." That is to say, the pan-democrats wanted civil nomination because it is an "international standard" when in fact such a system is not used in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all other major countries except Russia. Clifford Hart did not care to mention this small detail.

- So Wan Chin wants the Legislative Council members to nominate Chief Executive candidates from among themselves (and only from among themselves). This means the last three Chief Executives (Tung Chee-hwa, Donald Tsang, CY Leung) are ineligible under this system. Tung's background as a businessman with mainland connections, Donald Tsang's background as Chief Secretary of the Hong Kong SAR Government and the British colonial administration, and CY Leung's background as Executive Council member are apparently all useless. Instead, the only requirement for Chief Executive is being a current member of the Legislative Council.

Will the people of Hong Kong be satisfied with these choices? The last time that Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme asked about satisfaction with the Legislative Council members, they found (see Data):

December 2011
16.9%: Positive
28.0%: Half-half
48.7%: Negative
6.4%: Don't know/hard to say

That 16.9% would be delighted, but the 48.7% would not be amused.

That data came from 2011. Today, we expect the numbers to be much worse after the debacle of Occupy Central for the pan-democratic camp and the Constitutional Reform vote for the pro-establishment camp.

The point of civil nomination is that practically anyone who wants to run for Chief Executive can do so. Wan Chin is proposing an even more restrictive system than the government's proposal that was vetoed by the pan-democrats. Wan Chin's proposal will be rejected by both camps.

- Here is a YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp9IkCrVXXQ in which someone has made a cartoon off Wan Chin's demonstration in Mong Kok on how to wield a shield that was made out of a suitcase to vanquish the Hong Kong Police and the People's Liberation Army.

Such behavior is not 'pragmatic, moderate mainstream.'

- Wan Chin says: "Actually, the nomination committee required in the Basic Law may be interpreted as the entire Legislative Council."

Basic Law Article 45

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I: "Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".

Basic Law Annex I

1. The Chief Executive shall be elected by a broadly representative Election Committee in accordance with this Law and appointed by the Central People's Government.

#2. The Election Committee shall be composed of 800 members from the following sectors:

Industrial, commercial and financial sectors   200
The professions 200
Labour, social services, religious and other sectors 200
Members of the Legislative Council, representatives of district-based organizations, Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress, and representatives of Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference 200

The term of office of the Election Committee shall be five years.

3. The delimitation of the various sectors, the organizations in each sector eligible to return Election Committee members and the number of such members returned by each of these organizations shall be prescribed by an electoral law enacted by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the principles of democracy and openness.

Corporate bodies in various sectors shall, on their own, elect members to the Election Committee, in accordance with the number of seats allocated and the election method as prescribed by the electoral law.

Members of the Election Committee shall vote in their individual capacities.

#4. Candidates for the office of Chief Executive may be nominated jointly by not less than 100 members of the Election Committee. Each member may nominate only one candidate.

5. The Election Committee shall, on the basis of the list of nominees, elect the Chief Executive designate by secret ballot on a one-person-one-vote basis. The specific election method shall be prescribed by the electoral law.

6. The first Chief Executive shall be selected in accordance with the Decision of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on the Method for the Formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

*7. If there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executives for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval.

If Wan Chin wants to change the Basic Law so that the Legislative Council becomes the Nomination Committee, he will have to amend the Basic Law, for which he needs "the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and the amendment shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval."

How is that going to happen? More Occupy Central? More Valiant Resistance?

- Wan Chin also wants universal suffrage for the Legislative Council in 2020. That requires an amendment of the Basic Law according to Article 159.

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

So how is that amendment going to happen, such that "Most importantly, Hong Kong will be returned to the hands of the local people and will no longer just serve the interest of Communist China, America, or any other foreign countries. When Hong Kong returns to the right path, it will also become a model of Orthodox Chinese culture, which in turn will contribute to the rise of an Orthodox Chinese Confederate."? Why would Communist China be interested in amending the Basic Law in this manner?

(Medium) The next phase of the democracy movement: A referendum on constitutional reform and sustainable democratic self-governance, By Joshua Wong. August 19, 2015.

This essay was originally published in Chinese in Ming Pao (now paywalled) on August 2, 2015. The original can also be viewed on HK Dash. The English translation below is by Lucas Tse, Lewis Ho and Kong Tsung-gan.

Joshua Wong is one of the most prominent leaders of the HK democracy movement. In this essay, he describes his vision for the way forward for the movement after it defeated the fake universal suffrage proposal of the Communist Party and HK government in June. Some background and context for the essay can be found in this Hong Kong Free Press article. Notes are provided alongside the article to explain key terms. A commentary can be found here.


If we hope to continue along the path of democratic self-governance in Hong Kong and successfully address the “second question of the future” , we must show the will and vision for sustainable self-governance in this age of democratic bankruptcy. Our goal in struggling for self-governance is self-determination, which means that the Hong Kong people have the right to decide Hong Kong’s future, and which also establishes a Hong Kong subjectivity.

In this post-reform period, while the localists have not gained mainstream support, they have put forward an agenda for self-governance or independence and provided a solution to the democracy movement in Hong Kong. The pan-democrats ought to understand that a ‘democratic return to Chinese sovereignty’ is futile, and that endless campaigning for universal suffrage in 2022 is unpersuasive. Yet they have neither offered a new agenda to replace the ‘democratic return to Chinese sovereignty’, nor established short-, medium- or long-term goals for the movement.

Young scholars have suggested constitutional reform. Raphael Wong (黃浩銘) of the League of Social Democrats has suggested the formation of an assembly for constitutional reform. Wong Ching-Fung (王澄鋒) of the Hong Kong Federation of Students has suggested a committee for electoral reform, largely in line with the proposals for constitutional amendment and a referendum for a new Basic Law put forth by Raymond Wong (黃毓民) two years ago. In spite of that, though the Democratic Party listed amendments to the Basic Law and abolition of ‘ballot by group’ in its platform as long as 15 years ago, Emily Lau (劉慧卿) now says that the pan-democrats have not had sufficient discussion of the question of amending the Basic Law.

Still, the immaturity of the movement for constitutional reform ought not be entirely blamed on the self-defeating antics of the political parties. The fundamental problem is that the demand for reform has no foundation. Ordinary people likely do not understand that constitutional reform means amending the Basic Law, and that amending the Basic Law requires the formation of an implausible committee. The people have not recovered from the Occupy movement. In light of that, immediately pushing the democracy movement into the next phase of forming a reform committee and holding a referendum to reclaim the right to constitutional reform without any transition period is likely to confuse and marginalize the people. For that reason, while constitutional reform can be a long-term objective, it is not a viable mainstream political objective now.

Struggle is impossible without an agenda

In his essay “What kind of unity do we need?” Kevin Yam (任建峰) of the Progressive Lawyers Group writes that there is no need to discuss the large ideals, which he believes is ineffective or even detrimental to garnering public support. He suggests acting on more urgent issues, such as opposing the pro-Beijing camp in the Election Committee. Scholar Brian Fong’s (方志恆) Theory of Hong Kong Reform makes broader proposals such as responding to the challenges of the times and awakening the free spirit of the city, believing that Hong Kong needs a new local democracy movement rooted in civil society. He further points out that professional and social organizations, universities, schools, and public and private sectors are all battlegrounds for the defense of Hong Kong values.

And yet, whether it’s Brian Fong’s vocabulary of local citizen organizations and society besieging government or Kevin Yam’s belief that the urgent task is to retain the existing seats in the Legislative Council (Legco) and the Election Committee, the underlying thinking is the “fight for each inch” of the past 30 years; that is to say, the hope to effect qualitative change via quantitative change in various spheres of discourse and politics, which are seen as leverage that can be used against Beijing. Even though the pan-democrats seem to be at a loss, they have done work to increase quantitative leverage in such areas as Kwai Tsing and Sham Shui Po and professions such as education and law. The democratic, localist and pro-Beijing camps have all done substantial work in many sectors. They differ merely in ideology, holding to the hope, respectively, for democratic, separatist and patriotic politics. Thus, “fighting for each inch” is far from a novel suggestion.

Struggle is necessary, but those participating in a democracy movement cannot confuse method and aim. In “Society must face the real and actual politics”, Professor Lui Tai-Lok (呂大樂) writes, “How should the movement continue? Theoretically this ought to be the hottest topic, but most conversations lack precision. What you have is politically correct fluff … They say over and over again ‘persevere’, but few discuss how they are going to persevere. Persevere on what grounds? Persevere and do what work?” This is an incisive criticism of our friends who avoid thinking about an agenda for the future.

Many of our friends continue to repeat “I want real universal suffrage” without revising their strategy to avoid endless argument over political reform. It is therefore unsurprising that the number of people on the streets has not swayed those in power. Any movement for democracy is a long-term struggle. Yet many retain the threadbare fixation on gaining seats in Legco or the Election Committee or champion joining hands with civil society as if they have discovered the New World. Empty “anti-red” and “core values” rhetoric is ultimately unable to identify the concrete goals of political struggle. To persevere for the sake of persevering does not help those who have experienced the disappointment of Occupy. That is why democrats must return to the original point and revisit the big debates in order to move towards five-, 10-, 15-year visions for constitutional reform. Only then can civil society be liberated from its disempowerment.

The motivation for democracy is self-governance in Hong Kong

In the 1990s, the three large parties (Democratic Party, DAB, Liberal Party) all officially supported the realization of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election in 2007 and Legco election in 2008. To request Beijing’s action in compliance with the Basic Law, Martin Lee (李柱銘), Jasper Tsang (曾鈺成) and Allen Lee (李鵬飛) even believed that the three parties could rotate in governance. Yet in 2004, the Communist Party postponed the introduction of universal suffrage, which caused the DAB to alter its stance and support double universal suffrage in 2012. The Democratic Party was pressured to support initiatives outside of the purview of the Basic Law, including the five-district referendum, civil disobedience, civil nomination and constitutional reform.

If Beijing had not welched in 2004 and had allowed universal suffrage in 2007 according to the principle of ‘a democratic return to Chinese sovereignty’, perhaps today’s radicals would not be so rapidly proliferating on the internet, perhaps a large-scale Occupy movement would not have emerged, and perhaps the various political parties may even have beneficial interactions with Beijing. The recent burgeoning of localist discourse is largely the result of young people’s reaction to the authoritarian politics of the Chinese Communist Party and their belief that Hong Kong cannot practice self-governance under the rule of China. Thus, Beijing’s noncompliance in 2004 has been the catalyst for the tendencies among young people towards independence and separatism.

In other words, the demands of the democratic camp were originally very modest. There was no demand for Hong Kong independence, only the desire to practice self-governance in all matters outside of national security, largely in line with what Hong Kong University students wrote in a letter to Premier Zhao Ziyang in 1984: “Maintain the principle of democratic self-governance in Hong Kong; China will abstain from interfering in Hong Kong’s internal affairs; and the future Chief Executive will be elected by Hong Kong citizens according to the principle of universal suffrage.”

Deciding the future is necessary for sustainable self-governance

What the democrats have learned in this period of political reform is that facilitating mutual trust with Beijing is an unrequited desire, that implementing universal suffrage according to the existing framework for political reform is a pipe dream, and that the regime’s policy on Hong Kong is changing. “One country” is interpreted as primary to “two systems”; a high-level of autonomy is equated with Beijing retaining control of governance at all levels; the separation of powers misunderstood as the collusion of powers. This all demonstrates that Hong Kong faces the grave possibility of becoming no different from Shenzhen. Even if the Basic Law remains unchanged for 50 years, the future is entirely unknown beyond 2047. Nobody can promise that “one country, two systems” will not become “one country, one system” or that the Special Administrative Region will not become a directly controlled municipality.

If we hope to continue along the path of democratic self-governance in Hong Kong and successfully address the “second question of the future”, we must show the will and vision for sustainable self-governance in this age of democratic bankruptcy. Our goal in struggling for self-governance is self-determination, which means that the Hong Kong people have the right to decide Hong Kong’s future, and which also establishes a Hong Kong subjectivity.

Unless we are willing to accept that, 32 years from now, Hong Kong’s sovereignty, political status and constitution have no popular support and that an independent judiciary and freedom of speech may disappear, those seeking democracy have no other path than to practice self-governance by deciding the future for ourselves. Even if “One Country, Two Systems” continues after 2047, the authoritarian Chinese regime is sure to implement the version described in the White Paper and jettison Zhao Ziyang’s response to the students 30 years ago, “democratic self-governance in Hong Kong is wholly reasonable.”

Self-determination begins with a referendum and constitutional reform

It is admittedly unrealistic to expect the achievement of self-determination within the next stages of the democracy movement. But if the people of Hong Kong are to be prepared to confront the ‘second question of the future’ by around 2030, we must, setting self-determination and the continuation of autonomy as our ultimate goals, work backward to the starting point, the recent failure of the democratic transition in Hong Kong’s return to China, and establish the roadmap for the next 15 years of the democratic movement. Towards those goals, we must foster in Hong Kong the consciousness of a referendum for self-determination.

That said, if referendums are applied immediately to complex issues like sovereignty, they will undoubtedly encounter an unprepared populace and will be ineffective in generating consensus. Hence the democrats should set as their short-term goals establishing the mechanisms for referendums and legislating referendum law. While seeking the establishment of a referendum system, the democrats can simultaneously motivate the populace to initiate and participate in unofficial referendums on controversial issues (such as the universal retirement protection scheme and standard working hours). If public referendums can be organized concurrent with deliberations on important issues in Legco such that the public practices proper democratic decision-making while the legislators argue and filibuster, an effective mechanism can be established for the generation and expression of public opinion.

Imagine if in recent years the democrats had organized unofficial referendums on issues deliberated in Legco such as the Northeast New Territories land allocations and the investigation into television licensing practices: This would not only have demonstrated the public’s mistrust of Legco and thus the importance of abolishing functional constituencies and establishing referendum law, it would also have connected the idea of holding referendums with issues of great public interest, thereby strengthening the public’s sense of self-determination.

When the public becomes familiar with the workings of referendums, a full set of voting mechanisms can be established. It might even be possible that, through elections and social movements, referendum law becomes the central means for the democracy movement and the medium-term goal of a constitutional reform movement can be pursued. That involves a committee to go over the existing statutes regarding election practice, and the amendment of inadequacies in the Basic Law through referendums. Indeed, this is very similar to the former Chief Justice Andrew Li‘s (李國能) suggestion in 2012 that “compared to rescuing it in 2047, society might do well to amend the articles of the Basic Law now”.

It is implausible that the Hong Kong government will recognize outright a mechanism for direct civil constitutional amendment. Yet I believe amendments to Article 22 of the Basic Law for the return of the right to decide one-way permits or to Article 74 to allow Legco members to propose motions related to public expenditure would have ample support among both politicians and citizens, as well as among both radicals and moderates. Applying pressure to those in power, mobilizing civil referendums at the same time and initiating a process for constitutional amendment within civil society can further the political movement towards the sort of citizens charter proposed by Professor Benny Tai (戴耀庭). These are opportunities to discuss the more complicated questions in the Basic Law related to capitalism and China-Hong Kong relations and to accompany the 2022 Chief Executive election with a blueprint for governance from the democratic camp.

Democracy is not the business of one generation

Today the hope is that Hong Kong people will understand clearly that there is no feasible path forward under the existing reform framework of the Chinese Communist Party. We must decide the future now and create a path that belongs to us. To return to the point of origin and reconstitute a blueprint is not an easy path, but as Lu Xun wrote, “In reality there are no paths. Where people tread, paths emerge.” In preparation for the ‘second question of the future’ in 15 years and to recover from the failure of ‘a democratic return to Chinese sovereignty’, we should first undertake civil referendums to move towards a mechanism for referendums and achieve a coherent consciousness for self-determination.. That is the short-term goal. As for the medium-term, we should prepare citizens charters and advance the movement for constitutional reform, in the process revealing the insufficiencies of the Basic Law and the ideals of a constitutional democracy. Finally, when it comes time to tackling the ‘second question of the future’ 15 years from now, we must demand through referendum self-determination regarding Hong Kong’s sovereignty and a future constitution. Only then will it be possible to realize the vision for “sustainable self-governance” after 2047.

I have written about how the democracy movement is to move forward in this silent post-reform period because I believe that the political parties and student organizations that have guided the reform movement must admit that we have put ourselves in a post-Occupy predicament. I believe that we must therefore search for an orientation for the democracy movement given the impossibility of a democratic return to Chinese sovereignty.

The organization of a democracy movement ought to be the responsibility of political parties and not students. But I recall what I said on the eve of re-taking Civic Square: “If universal suffrage is the task of this generation, I would like to say to Xi Jinping and C. Y. Leung that we will complete it in this generation and not pass it on to the next.” The students instigated the Umbrella Movement but returned empty-handed, discovering the fantasy and ignorance of believing that a single generation can reclaim democracy and suffrage. In this moment I can only hope that the Hong Kong people will be able to struggle defiantly in the face of the great limits set before us, so that the Joshua Wong of 2047, by then in middle age, will be able to say to the students of that time, “We Hong Kong people have finally succeeded in realizing the ideal of democratic self-governance.”

(BBC) Joshua Wong: 'We had no clear goals' in Hong Kong protests. August 2, 2015.

Wherever Joshua Wong goes in Hong Kong, the teenage political activist is instantly recognised.

In the space of just half an hour in the Admiralty district, two young professionals and a group of middle-aged women greet him warmly, asking to pose for photos with him on their mobile phones.

But when I ask for permission to snap them jointly for a news story, some well-wishers decline, saying they do not wish to be publicly identified with the democracy campaigner, fearing it might affect their jobs.

Mr Wong, 18, just smiles and poses. He is not surprised.

The expression of private but not public support may help explain why last year's Umbrella protest movement, while unprecedented in scope and length, did not ultimately succeed in gaining greater voting rights for Hong Kong citizens.

"First, we did not have any clear goal or roadmap or route for democracy. We did not deliver the message to the general Hong Kong public," says the university student, over lunch.

"Secondly, not enough people were willing to pay the price by protesting. We did not have enough bargaining power with the Chinese authorities.

"Say, for example, during the Umbrella Movement, if two million Hong Kong people had occupied the streets, along with labour strikes, and if this had continued for more than two months, we would have had enough bargaining power."

Tens of thousands of people took part in the 79-day movement, which ended in mid-December when the authorities dismantled the main occupation sites in the Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok districts.

Mr Wong, already well-known in Hong Kong for successfully campaigning against the introduction of patriotic education in local schools, emerged as a global democracy icon.

In fact, the movement was unexpectedly sparked when he and other young activists scaled a high fence surrounding the forecourt of the central government office on 26 September.

Footage of the police arresting protesters, including Mr Wong, drew public anger and prompted pro-democracy supporters to rally.

When the authorities cracked down on the growing crowd with tear gas, the public grew even more infuriated and took to the streets in one of the biggest mass protests Hong Kong had ever seen.

"My decision to climb over the barrier was the best decision I made in the whole of my life," he says, before sheepishly conceding that getting together with his girlfriend, Tiffany Chin, was actually his best call.

He says he has not been changed by the experience. His priority now is to finish his studies - he is studying politics and public administration at a local university - and plans on getting a job after graduation, though he isn't sure what kind yet.

But in May, he was deported from Malaysia, after being invited there by local activists to talk about the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.

In June, he and Ms Chin were beaten by an unknown man on the street after a movie date.

"Yes, I admit that I'm afraid," she wrote in a piece for a current affairs website after the attack. "Starting today, I feel a bit frightened every time my eyes meet someone else's on the street. This fear is unbearable, but I hope it won't last long."

And in July, Mr Wong, along with other activists, were charged with obstructing police during a protest last year.

He denies having done anything wrong, but admits he faces jail time.

"In principle, I don't mind taking responsibility. I don't mind going to prison," he says. "But I don't know what I would do with no mobile phone and no internet. I think it would be utterly unbearable."

During the hours we spend together, he is constantly glued to his smartphone, tapping out messages on a chat group with more than 100 members of Scholarism, the protest group that he chairs.

They are hotly debating the future of democracy in Hong Kong in an opinion piece to be published by a local newspaper.

In June, lawmakers in the Hong Kong Legislative Council voted against a controversial proposal that would have let Hong Kong voters elect their chief executive - but only from a pool of candidates vetted by a pro-Beijing committee.

The proposal was rejected, which means that, in 2017, the city's top leader will again be chosen by a small committee largely loyal to the Communist Party.

But Mr Wong is looking far ahead. He wants to rectify the mistake of not presenting a viable plan to the public.

He says that by 2030, the democracy movement needs to present a clear roadmap spelling out how it can achieve a legally binding referendum on the city's future.

"Let every Hong Kong citizen vote to support a new Basic Law or constitution in Hong Kong. That, I think, is the minimum requirement," he says.

By 2047, the "one country, two systems" formula is due to end, and the de facto border between the two sides is meant to disappear.

When asked whether he is planning another civil disobedience movement, Mr Wong says not for a few years.

"The power that we can mobilise on the street has already reached its maximum during the Umbrella Movement," he says.

"Maybe in 10 years, we'll be able to mobilise something much larger. But within these three to four years, we need to take a rest."

Joshua Wong's timetable for Hong Kong independence:

(1) Democratic rule in Hong Kong, with China taking care only of national defense and foreign diplomacy and not interfering with Hong Kong's internal affairs

(2) Establishment of a referendum system.

(3) Constitutional amendment of the Basic Law to reflect democratic ideas

(4) In 2030, Hong Kong will hold a referendum on its sovereignty

(5) In 2047, Hong Kong will begin permanent autonomous rule instead of being a city under "one country, one system"

(Medium) Commentary on Joshua Wong’s essay on the next phase of the HK democracy movement. August 19, 2015.

Joshua Wong’s August 2 essay in Ming Pao, “The next phase of the democracy movement: A referendum on constitutional reform and sustainable democratic self-governance” (Chinese original / English translation), is the most substantial vision yet presented by a prominent democracy movement leader in HK on the future. In fact, since the Partystate and HK government’s fake universal suffrage proposal was defeated in the Legislative Council in June, democracy movement leaders have been conspicuously quiet about the way forward. This is understandable: everyone is exhausted, needs a break and time to think. Still, it has to be said, the HK democracy movement hasn’t exactly been blessed by outstanding strategic thinkers down through the years, and you wonder what it says about the movement that one of its best thinkers hasn’t yet turned 20.

Indeed, one of the strongest points of Wong’s essay is that the pan-democrats have largely been strategizing by default, on autopilot for some years now. They’ve been co-opted by participation in a rigged system, and it might be even saying a bit much to characterize what they’ve been doing as “strategizing” since they have been highly reactive, responding to situations and issues as they arise. Wong calls their strategy “fight for every inch” and criticizes it. Among other things, one of the problems with it is that you can be so tightly focused on that inch you’re fighting for that you forget to look and ask yourself, But why am I fighting over this, where will it get me? We should thank Wong simply for demanding that we look up and think long term. One should hope that his essay (and others like it, for example those he mentions) will lead to a wide-ranging, inclusive debate.

The essay represents a development in Wong’s thinking. Already at the time of the demonstrations in June outside of Legco against the fake universal suffrage proposal, Wong was expressing some of the ideas now fully articulated in the essay. It is also quite courageous and forward-looking. He’s willing to dispense with old notions that he considers outmoded or failed, even if they’re his own. Regarding the recent past, he says we should be clear about two things: 1) We failed to persuade the Partystate to fulfill its promise and legal obligation of introducing genuine universal suffrage to HK, and 2) we should have absolutely no illusions that under the hardline framework laid down by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on August 31 last year — which the Partystate says is indefinitely binding — , it ever will. In fact, Wong pretty much concludes we shouldn’t even bother fighting for universal suffrage on those grounds; at any rate, it shouldn’t be our main focus. In this sense, the essay clearly demarcates: One era has ended, and another must begin. But what is the new era? And what should our focus be?

On what Wong calls “the second question of the future” of HK, namely, what will happen after 2047, the end of the “one country, two systems” period. In contrast, Wong says we have just concluded once and for all the period of the “first question of the future”, whether or not there can be such a thing as real democracy in HK under Chinese sovereignty. The National People’s Congress Standing Committee decision of August 31, 2014 said an emphatic no to that.

In this new period of HK history, as Wong characterizes it, the long-term goals of the democracy movement, and the goals for HK beyond 2047, should be what Wong calls self-governance or self-determination.

After the debacle of fake reform and the refusal of the Partystate and HK government to heed the voice of the people, Wong sees an impasse and what he calls a predicament for the democracy movement. In thinking his way out of this impasse, it is clear that Wong has been significantly influenced by proponents of localism, with his emphasis on self-governance or self-determination. He seems to more or less be saying, I don’t think the localists stand much of a chance of appealing to the mainstream because they’re perceived as too extreme, but I more or less agree with them, and the question is how to take their basic stance, develop it and make it palatable to ordinary HK people. In this, of course, Wong is distancing himself even further from traditional pan-democrats who, as said, have been largely silent since the defeat of fake suffrage, thus appearing to have no road map of their own, and risking appearing to be a spent force (at least in terms of ideas; they will probably continue to elect a significant number of representatives in the formal political system). Wong differs from some localists in that he doesn’t call for independence or even say exactly what the relationship between the Partystate-ruled mainland and HK should be; he appears to think that is for the people of HK to determine. But he thinks that something must be done to encourage HK people to take their fate into their own hands and see themselves as being able to act autonomously from the Partystate. And that something is referendums, and, at a further remove, a later date, deliberations on constitutional amendments or even a new constitution.

Before commenting on Wong’s ideas about referendums, I should mention that it’s striking that there is virtually no mention of the Partystate in Wong’s essay and no discussion of what the relationship between HK and the Partystate should be. Wong merely states that the fake reform process has shown that it’s an illusion to believe that you can ever negotiate in good faith with the Partystate. It seems that, in concluding that, Wong has pretty much written the Partystate off. This is a very interesting stance. At first, I found it peculiar, but then I thought, Yes, why not act as if Beijing had nothing to do with it, as if Beijing’s refusal to grant real suffrage to HK renders it irrelevant in deciding HK’s future. It had a chance to play a role in determining that, and it missed the boat. Now, Wong seems to say, this is between HK people; it’s for HK people to sort out; and we shouldn’t just resign ourselves to the idea that our fate lies entirely in the Partystate’s hands, let alone waste our time bothering to appeal to it; we must grasp that fate in our own hands. We must act as if that is simply the way that it is until that is the way that it is. We will achieve self-determination with or without you; now, most likely, without you. Of course, Beijing does matter — it’s still the gorilla that stands between HK and its aspirations — , but in its refusal to be a partner in HK achieving suffrage, it has rendered itself a bystander. Wong seems to be encouraging HK people to “act as if” — act as if you live in a democratic society in order to realize a democratic society. And his strong advocacy of referendums resembles concepts of the “parallel society”: If the government is unelected, lacks legitimacy and stands in the way of the people’s aspirations, then construct a parallel society, to reject the illegitimate government, to give people confidence in taking their fate into their own hands and help them to learn to act democratically, to prepare for the day when the people will be their own rulers.

Wong’s idea for referendums may be part of the way to go about that. It is very interesting and clearly worth debating. But there is also some fuzziness regarding exactly how he sees them working. In particular, it’s unclear what he sees as the relationship between unofficial, autonomous referendums conducted by the people and not recognized by the government, like Occupy Central’s referendum on universal suffrage in June 2014, and official referendums held by the government. He seems to think we should start out holding unofficial referendums. This coupled with other pressures will eventually lead to the introduction of legislation legalizing referendums, leading in turn to officially conducted referendums which will eventually encompass constitutional issues such as amendments to the Basic Law, perhaps eventually even replacement of the Basic Law with a constitution more appropriate to HK (and more democratic than the current Basic Law).

Wong is often interested in how realistic a proposal is — he is quite a pragmatic thinker. On pragmatic grounds, he criticizes simply keeping on pushing for universal suffrage as long as the Partystate persists in declaring the 8/31 decision as in effect once and for all. But applying that same pragmatic criterion to referendums, it’s hard to imagine how we might ever get to the point where the Partystate would allow the HK government to pass legislation to legalize referendums, in which case, referendums could still be held unofficially and could still be an important gauge of public opinion and an important way of encouraging public engagement, but it seems to me that the risk is that, after a while, people will lose enthusiasm when they see that their vote has no effect.

Referendums can be an excellent way to reach out to people who for whatever reason haven’t been participating and get them involved, if there are ways of capturing the interest it takes to cast a vote and translate that into more active, consistent and substantive political action, though the democracy movement has not been terribly good at that up to now. 800,000 people voted in Occupy Central’s June 2014 referendum, numbers-wise probably the largest participation in any political event outside of official elections. But that may have had a lot to do with the timing, coming right after the Partystate’s publication of the White Paper on HK and in the lead-up to the NPCSC decision: It was seen as a historic moment. Previous to that, the 2010 by-elections triggered by the resignation of five pan-democrats from Legco, the so-called five-district referendum, had a turnout of 17%. It was considered a failure. Of course, that too is down to specific circumstances, in particular, the pro-Partystate camp’s refusal to participate. Wong’s idea of tapping into strong public interest in particular issues such as TV licensing and the Northeast New Territories development projects is good but there’s also the possibility that after a while, unofficial referendums come to be seen as hum-drum and, yes, ineffectual. There are few societies that use referendums as actively and frequently as Wong is proposing HK should do. Switzerland is one of the few. It would be great if we could be Switzerland; it’s just very hard to see that happening.

The same goes for constitutional amendments, a constitutional assembly. Perhaps we should use unofficial referendums and other events outside of the official political system to arrive at a consensus within the democracy movement about which articles of the Basic Law need amending and how, or, alternatively, what a constitution that really suits HK would look like. Among other things, this would increase wider public awareness of the flaws in the Basic Law and shift the political discourse, a message to the Partystate that since it refuses to grant the political rights enshrined in the Basic Law, the people of HK are moving beyond it. It would also, eventually, provide a more concrete and specified vision of what we’d like to see. In this sense, the issues of a referendum law and an officially recognized constitutional assembly can be bracketed off: if we ever get there, great, but if not, the unofficial referendums and other activities on constitutional matters can be useful nevertheless in articulating a united and coherent vision of the future.

Wong’s ultimate objectives of self-determination and self-governance seem worthy. It’s just that perhaps he pins too much hope on referendums as the means of getting there. Perhaps referendums can be one of many ways to work towards those long-term objectives. Perhaps we need to ask, What other actions can be taken to encourage HK people to take their fate into their own hands and to work toward self-determination, self-governance? And then construct a strategy, a roadmap based on our answers to that. Wong’s fear here, probably, would be that we get bogged down again in the “fight every inch” strategy which is largely reactive, fighting against the worst rather than aiming for the best. After all, it is often the case that it’s easier to get people to say a big no to an imminent danger (Article 23, fake suffrage, etc) and to get people to focus on the short term than to participate in a long-term project towards a positive end. With that in mind, we should aim to be pro-active, asking ourselves what furthers the aims of self-determination and self-governance and aiming to tap into the huge reservoir of frustration of those who participated in the Umbrella Movement and are looking around to see what we can do now. So much depends, as ever, on how many people — but those who have been involved up to now and those who have not — we manage to convince to be politically active in the struggle — which as Wong emphasizes, will play out in the long term, over the decades to come. Having staying power over the long-term also requires the development of organizations and institutions which outlive individuals, and this is one of many areas that needs greater focus.

Internet comments:

- There is no legal basis in Hong Kong for a referendum system. A referendum involves a simple statement (such as "no new taxes"), but the devil will be in the details. For example, you can hold a referendum on whether the Basic Law should be amended to incorporate democratic ideas. Of course, you will get an overwhelming approval because there is nothing to dislike about mom and apple pie. But next you have to say what and how you specifically want to amend, and that can become very complicated.

For example, look at the so-called Occupy Central referendum: All three options proposed that candidates be nominated publicly. Whoever framed the referendum has decided that you must have civil nomination PERIOD, even if it does not comply with the Basic Law and is therefore unconstitutional and unworkable. With respect to such referenda, you should ask: Who is framing these choices? Whose interests do they represent? Whose interests are they hurting?

Occupy Central deliberations:

Three deliberation days were held on 9 June 2013, 9 March 2014, and 6 May 2014 respectively.

On the third deliberation day, the Occupy Central participants voted on electoral reform proposals put forward by different organisations for the civil referendum. A total of 2,508 votes were cast in the poll. All three selected proposals contained the concept of civil nomination, which the mainlandChina officials had said did not comply with the Basic Law. The proposal by student groups Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students which allowed for public nomination, received 1,124 votes – 45 percent of the vote. People Power's proposal came in second with 685 votes, while the three-track proposal by the Alliance for True Democracy consisting of 27 pan-democracy lawmakers got 445 votes. The proposal from Hong Kong 2020 received 43 votes, while the civil recommendation proposed by 18 academics got 74 votes.

The three proposals chosen by the members of Occupy Central deliberation panel were considered to be more radical. The League of Social Democrats and People Power lawmakers, despite being part of the Alliance for True Democracy, urged their supporters to vote against the alliance's proposals. More moderate pan-democrats that avoided the notion of civic nomination were effectively squeezed out. Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah, who saw his moderate plan rejected in a poll believed "the Occupy Central movement has been hijacked by radicals". He believed that the poll results would make it harder to find a reform package Beijing would agree to and that wins over the five or so pan-democrats it will need for a two-thirds majority in LegCo. He also believed Occupy's plan to block streets in Central would be likely to go ahead. This, and the decision of People Power and the League of Social Democrats to go back on pledges to support the alliance's proposals, and of People Power to make its own proposal that included civil nomination, pointed to a split in pan democrat ranks.

[Question: Who are those 2,508 voters on the third deliberation day? How are they more representative of the people of Hong Kong than the 1,200-person election committee for the Chief Executive?  No, they were simply top-loaded by People Power and League of Social Democrats supporters. Why should you buy into this and choose among the three (and only three) options?]

So this is all about who gets to hijack the Committee to Frame the Referendum.

- (Wikipedia) Criticism of populist aspect of Referenda

Critics of the referendum argue that voters in a referendum are more likely driven by transient whims than careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by strong personalities, propaganda and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority."

Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to disguise oppressive policies as populism. Hitler's use of plebiscites is argued as reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.

- To quote the last British governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten:

British politician Chris Patten summarized many of the arguments used by those who oppose the referendum in an interview in 2003 when discussing the possibility of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the European Union Constitution:

I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is --- if you have a referendum on an issue --- then politicians during an election campaign will say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.

- Basic Law Article 159

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

So what is Comrade Joshua Wong's plan to get the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to do his biding?  Right now, he can't seem to get "the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region."

By vetoing the constitutional reform in June this year, the pan-democrats have made sure that there will be no universal suffrage for either the Chief Executive or the Legislative Council at least until 2022. Therefore, it will be impossible to get the consent of the Chief Executive or two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council within that time period.

If you can't get them to approve, then you can't amend Basic Law Article 159 so that amendments get to be introduced via referenda. You are caught in an infinite loop.

P.S. Wong said: "Say, for example, during the Umbrella Movement, if two million Hong Kong people had occupied the streets, along with labour strikes, and if this had continued for more than two months, we would have had enough bargaining power." Good luck with that!

The problem with the Umbrella Revolution is that NOTHING was achieved after 79 days. NOTHING. Do you really think that two million people occupying the streets and stopping work for two months will accomplish ANYTHING?

- "Two million people occupying the streets along with labor strikes for more than two months?" TIME/Fortune "global thinker/leader" Joshua Wong has plenty of support. According to a recent poll (see #296), his organization Scholarism is supported by 0.1% of the people of Hong Kong. 0.1% of 7,000,000 is 70,000. Wong has to find 1,930,000 persons from somewhere else. And for two months with no work (and therefore no pay).

- Frankly, Joshua Wong's roadmap is a list of keywords: democracy, governance, national defense, national security, foreign policy, referendum, autonomy, self-rule, constitutional amendment, charter, sovereignty, separation of powers, authoritarianism, etc. There is no coherent vision of how these things come together and work under the circumstances.

Age group 2014 #voters 2014% Change 2015 #voters 2015%
71+ 462,853 13.2% 23,223 486,076 13.2%
66-70  206,032 5.9% 37,156 243,188 6.6%
61-65  312,604 8.9% 24,591 337,195 9.1%
56-60  392,364 11.2% 29,981 422,345 11.4%
51-55  427,616 12.2% 4,601 432,217 11.7%
46-50  337,354 9.6% -4,037 333,317 9.0%
41-45  280,690 8.0% 17,345 298,035 8.1%
36-40  260,032 7.4% 7,410 267,442 7.2%
31-35  248,118 7.1% 4,667 252,785 6.9%
26-30  216,508 6.2% 20,993 237,501 6.4%
21-25  257,295 7.3% 10,253 267,548 7.3%
18-20  106,320 3.0% 5,391 111,711 3.0%
Total 3,507,786 100.0% 181,574 3,689,360 100.0%

Internet comments:

- The common belief is that the supporters of the pan-democrats are younger, wealthier and better educated. The pan-democrats hope for a massive surge of young voters for the upcoming District Council elections in 2015 and the Legislative Council elections in 2016. What happened was that there are now even more older voters. For example, voters aged over 50 was 51.4% in 2014 and 52.1% in 2015.

- In the district council elections, it is winner-take-all in each district. So it will be a rout of the pan-democrats on the basis of the age distribution of voters. In the legislative council elections, the method is proportional representation. For example, the six highest vote-getters will be elected in Kowloon West. Therefore, it is probable that the sixth and last legislator will get in with only 11% or 12% of the votes.

- Everybody knows that the key to district council elections is not demographics. This is what it is all about: Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, mooncakes, rice dumplings and other small favors to curry favors with senior citizen voters. Everybody does it. They have to. Please don't tell me about Alexis de Tocqueville.

Democratic Party legislator Sin Chung-kai's pamphlet for snake banquet

Democratic Party legislator Emily Lau's pamphlet for snake banquet (@ 135 per person, transportation provided)

Confederation of Trade Unions pamphlet for May 1st Unity Dinner (@ $45 per person)

Neo Democrats' Gary Fan Kwok-wai's pamphlet for 2-day Zhongshan-Shunde gourmet trip ($700 per adult)

Q1. What is your impression of Hong Kong political parties compared to one year ago?
60.9%: Worse
31.2%: The same
4.7%: Better
3.2%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. Are you optimistic/pessimistic towards the prospects of political parties in Hong Kong?
53.5%: Pessimistic
31.1%: Half-half
10.0%: Optimistic
5.4%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. What is your overall satisfaction rate about Hong Kong political parties?
43.9%: Dissatisfied
43.9%: So-so
7.5%: Satisfied
4.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q4. What are your impressions and views of the Hong Kong political parties?

They often bicker with each other and basically cannot accomplish anything
16.9%: Disagree
23.3%: Half-half
57.4%: Agree
2.5%: Don't know/hard to say

In Hong Kong, people join political parties to obtain more benefits for themselves instead of looking after the welfare of citizens
12.8%: Disagree
39.4%: Half-half
43.5%: Agree
4.3%: Don't know/hard to say

Hong Kong political parties are basically representing the views of different citizens
33.7%: Disagree
38.8%: Half-half
23.6%: Agree
3.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Hong Kong political parties can take in and train political talents
29.1%: Disagree
29.6%: Half-half
36.4%: Agree
4.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Hong Kong political parties can monitor the government effectively
30.0%: Disagree
36.5%: Half-half
28.6%: Agree
4.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Hongkongers are not much interested in political parties, and they don't care what the political parties have said or done before
39.0%: Disagree
30.8%: Half-half
26.0%: Agree
4.2%: Don't know/hard to say

If the Hong Kong government does not have the support of political parties, many policies cannot be effectively carried out.
17.0%: Disagree
18.7%: Half-half
61.0%: Agree
3.3%: Don't know/hard to say

Hong Kong political parties cannot do much because universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council has not been implemented
17.5%: Disagree
25.5%: Half-half
50.0%: Agree
7.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Do you think that the Hong Kong SAR Government should be run by a political party through election?
27.4%: Disagree
32.2%: Half-half
32.0%: Agree
8.4%: Don't know/hard to say

Q5. Which is the Hong  Kong political party or organization that you support the most?
11.3%: DAB
7.5%: Democratic Party
5.7%: Civic Party
1.7%: New People's Party
1.6%: People Power
1.4%: Liberal Party
1.0%: Labour Party
0.9%: League of Social Democrats
0.9%: Federation of Trade Unions
0.1%: Scholarism
0.1%: ADPL
8.3%: Others
55.4%: None
4.1%: Don't know/hard to say

(EJinsight) July 30, 2015.

You can’t have two controversial votes on an equally controversial university appointment and not raise questions from students and alumni. Yet, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) council would have them believe nothing is the matter. That is precisely the problem. Such denials are only fueling concern that HKU has caved to political pressure and compromised its autonomy. 

There’s no doubt the prospective appointment of an outspoken former law dean, who has been recommended by an independent search committee to be a pro vice chancellor, is a hot potato. But if that person wasn’t Johannes Chan, would the council have taken this long to decide?

After two lopsided votes to delay naming a pro vice chancellor until after a deputy chancellor has been announced, it’s clear the council’s problem is Chan. Forget about its purported concern over procedural issues relating to a more senior appointment. It’s no longer about HKU but about a meddlesome government.

Chan’s biggest sin is being linked to associate law professor Benny Tai, a co-founder of Occupy Central, the civil disobedience group that played a key role in last year’s democracy protests. But Chan’s critics are not stopping there. They are harking back to his days as HKU law dean to accuse him of coddling Tai.

These accusations fall into perspective after a concerted attempt by two pro-Beijing newspapers to discredit Chan. In January, Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po ran a series of withering articles questioning Chan’s competence and integrity. The gist of the criticism centered on Chan’s alleged failure to maintain the quality of research of the law faculty. And his integrity became a lightning rod when he was somehow linked to a political donation to Tai. An internal investigation found Tai did not follow normal procedure.

The story has taken a life of its own since a former newspaper editor revealed an attempt by senior government officials to derail Chan’s appointment.  Later, a damning Apple Daily article directly linked Leung Chun-ying to it. On Wednesday, the saga took a violent twist when students stormed a council meeting which had decided on a second delay.

None of this would have happened if the council had properly managed what should have been a routine exercise. Such appointments were never a problem when they were left to the university, its alumni and other stakeholders.

The fact that the Hong Kong chief executive is the nominal head of its tertiary institutions as university chancellor never got in the way of the appointment of senior school administrators.

That is until the government politicized the process. Judging by recent events, the HKU council has become a party to this politicization. Until the council injects a modicum of transparency into its affairs and creates a semblance of academic freedom, it will be hard put to defend its claim that nothing is going on. HKU alumni and students — and the Hong Kong public at large — deserve to know the score. 

(EJinsight) HKU Council members fail to live by university motto. By Ip Kin-yuen. July 31, 2015.

July 28th was the darkest day in the history of the University of Hong Kong (HKU). What happened on that day makes the hearts of all HKU alumni and those who are concerned about its development ache. Perhaps some people may wonder why the HKU alumni had to challenge the decision made by the HKU Council, which has been functioning so well for decades.

True, the HKU alumni rarely questioned the judgment or decision made by the Council in the past, because under the University of Hong Kong Ordinance, the Council is the supreme governing and decision-making body of HKU, and as long as it makes its decision according to established procedures and due process, nobody would ever need to challenge its authority.

Unfortunately, as far as the recent controversy surrounding the appointment of the pro-vice chancellor is concerned, the Council didn’t follow standard procedures and observe the long-standing tradition of the university.

To make matters worse, the Council has continued to delay the appointment and refuse to take a stand on the recommendation made by the recruitment committee, on the ridiculous and mind-boggling grounds that they have to wait for the advice of a deputy vice-chancellor who is not even hired yet.

If one connects the dots between some recent events such as the relentless attacks launched by pro-Beijing newspapers against Professor Johannes Chan, who has been widely tipped for the pro-vice chancellor slot, and the rumors that the Chief Executive has been attempting to interfere in the appointment of key personnel in the HKU, it is not difficult to notice that political interference has once again reared its ugly head in the recent appointment scandal.

Having said that, the HKU alumni are fully justified in demanding that the appointment proceed promptly in accordance with standard procedures, and that the Council stand up against any external political pressure when it comes to the appointment of key personnel of the HKU.

Some may also doubt whether the HKU alumni are in a legitimate position to question the decision of the Council, and whether it constitutes another form of interference.

According to the rules, members of the HKU include not only its staff and students at present, but also its graduates. Therefore, even though graduates have no governing power, they have every legitimate right to express their views about HKU affairs.

Besides, since the HKU is a publicly funded institution, stakeholders and members of the public are entitled to give their views on the governance of the university and demand from the Council to set things right.

Unfortunately, the decision made by the Council on Tuesday was both heart-breaking and outrageous.

According to newspaper reports, 12 members of the Council voted against proceeding with the appointment which had been long overdue, regardless of the dissenting voices raised by 1,536 HKU alumni, 909 supporters and the 21 organizations which had co-signed an open letter urging the university to respect procedural justice.

Those members of the Council who cast their votes to stall the appointment again in fact have not only failed to live up to the expectations of the alumni, but also committed a serious breach of public trust, causing irreversible damage to the hard-earned reputation of the HKU as the most respectable tertiary education institution in the territory.

What is even more alarming is that what happened to the HKU may not be an isolated case, and it seems a powerful political force behind the scene is continuing to get its claws into other universities, and the autonomy and academic freedom on our university campus promised under the Basic Law have come under unprecedented threat.

In accordance with the University of Hong Kong Ordinance, all graduates of the HKU are members of the HKU Convocation, and we have already called upon the incumbent convocation to summon an urgent meeting to vote on three resolutions:

1. The HKU Council must confirm the appointment of the pro-vice chancellor based on the recommendation of the recruitment committee, or else it must provide a written explanation;

2. The HKU must review the role of the Chief Executive as the HKU chancellor, and his role should be of a ceremonial nature only;

3. Passing a vote of no confidence against Council member Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

“To manifest the greatest virtues of man and to push back the frontiers of knowledge.” That’s the HKU motto which originates from the ancient Chinese classic The Four Books.

It teaches all HKU graduates to stand by their principles and convictions and persevere with what is morally right even when the odds are against them.

(EJinsight) July 31, 2015.

Microbiologist Yuen Kwok-yung on Friday announced his resignation as staff representative of the Hong Kong University Council. Yuen said he had received “no relevant political training” and thus he regarded himself as “incompetent as a council member in finding the way to lead the University of Hong Kong out”. He said he would devote himself to the research of fungal bacteria instead.

He stressed that he was not resigning because of the raging controversy over the delay in the appointment of Johannes Chan as the university’s pro-vice chancellor amid allegations that the government was meddling in the case to shut out the former law dean because of his political views.

On Tuesday night, a meeting of the HKU Council was disrupted after students and alumni members broke into the room to protest the delay in the appointment. Yuen said he was not dispirited, nor was he leaving his post to please anyone or give in to any influential people.

In the past 100 years, Hong Kong had been very successful in merging seemingly contradictory values and cultures of the East and West, he said. However, he said, Hong Kong and HKU seemed to have failed to continue doing so in the past three years and under the “one country, two systems” principle.

Yuen said he was not suggesting that the “one country, two systems” was to blame, but that “after so many years under the ‘one country, two systems’, somehow we [Hong Kong] suddenly failed to find a way out”.

As a former council member, Yuen said he respects all decisions made together. Regarding the incident on Tuesday night, he said he would not want to see anybody swearing, throwing things or resorting violence. He added that it was too early to conclude that the misconduct was done by HKU students.

Andrew Fung Ho-keung, an HKU convocation member, said council members hold different views regarding the decision to delay the appointment of the pro-vice chancellor, and he worries that the university will be torn apart because of the issue. Fung said he is also concerned that the HKU would be regarded as a “hot kitchen” where no one is willing to join the senior management team.

He said he regretted that non-HKU people were protesting outside the council meeting.

(EJinsight) July 31, 2015.

A group of senior academics is warning the University of Hong Kong to abide by the principles of academic freedom and autonomy in an unprecedented challenge to its governing council over delays in the appointment of a key official. The group, consisting of 10 deans of the university faculty, said such principles are protected by Article 137 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini constitution. These apply to all aspects of the decision-making process, especially senior appointments, they said in a joint statement cited by Ming Pao Daily.

The statement came after a dozen students disrupted a meeting on Tuesday when the university council voted to reaffirm an earlier decision to delay naming a pro vice chancellor until after a deputy vice chancellor has been appointed. The deans urged all parties to put the university’s interests first and redouble efforts toward consensus.

Council chairman Leong Che-hung welcomed the statement, saying senior academics and administrators of the university share the same goal of maintaining academic freedom and autonomy.

An unnamed senior professor said the deans are a powerful group that can influence decisions by the council. In recent years, they have successfully lobbied against funding cuts, he said. However, he said their statement is not a show of support for vice chancellor Peter Mathieson who is opposed to any more delays in the appointment of a vice pro chancellor.

(SCMP) August 2, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong should say no to politics as the political conflicts surrounding the appointment of a key manager have become irrational and damaged the way its governing body works, a council member said on Sunday morning.

The comments by Professor Lo Chung-mau came two days after the resignation of another council member, Dr Yuen Kwok-yung, who said “a lot of outside political forces” had tried to affect the body’s decisions.

At the centre of the row is the university’s former law dean, Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, who had been told he would become a pro-vice-chancellor in charge of academic staffing and resources from March this year. But this was put on hold after pro-Beijing newspapers criticised him over his working relationship with HKU legal scholar and Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting. On June 30, the council voted 12-6 to delay Chan’s appointment until a provost was hired. When the council met again on July 28, students forced their way in to the meeting venue to call for a halt to the delay.

Professor Lo, who supported the deferral and whose collapse during the chaos on July 28 was ridiculed online as a footballer’s “dive”, said he hoped politics could leave the university. “The two forces have been pressuring the university, damaging the functioning of the council,” said the medical professor. “HKU should say no to politics.”

Speaking on a Commercial Radio programme in the morning, he also criticised the students and other members of society who opposed the deferral for using “violence” instead of expressing their views in a rational way. “Political conflicts are very ugly,” he said, citing people who cursed him after he fell with an injured knee and those who blocked an ambulance to take him to hospital. “It is not rational at all. It makes people mad.” “Hong Kong society should send a strong signal [to opponents] that you have done wrong,” he said.

Another council member, Man Cheuk-fei, said there had been political forces in the university for a long time, citing a visit to the campus in August 2011 by then vice-premier Li Keqiang, when police took control and limited protests by students, who accused officers of violating their civil rights. Man said the delay in appointing a new pro-vice-chancellor was the natural result of Chan’s involvement in an investigation over donations received by Tai. The investigation report said Chan “fell below expected standards” in handling the donations as Tai’s supervisor at the time. The council decided to accept the report at a June 30 meeting. “The whole [investigation] process was only completed last month,” said Man. “I don’t feel there is a strong force trying to delay the appointment.”

Internet comments:

- (RTHK) Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung: "It was the system that forced us to take action to resist. If you think that our method was a form of violence, then I would describe what we did as 'using force to stop tyranny.'"
Listener Mr. Wong: "Back then we were only interesting in running a student club. But in this case, it was clear that you were wrong first.  Firstly, when you are wrong, you should admit that you are wrong.  Secondly, when an organization wants to hire or promote a certain individual, it is not up to you as a small group of so-called employees or students to criticize or stop the school or its president. That is preposterous."
Listener Ms. Wong: "I am a secondary school teacher myself. First of all, I do no oppose the freedom of expression. But I see the university students use clashes to express their views. They have received so much education, but they don't know how to use reason to persuade people. They use verbal and physical violence instead. I am somewhat disappointed."
At 1:19, the video showed the students blocking the doorway to the conference room even as Billy Fung said that they did not blockade anything.
At 1:28, Yvonne Leung shouted that the university council members must sit down.

- Hong Kong University has become a very hot kitchen. (Oriental Daily) According to University Council chairman Leong Che-hung, a candidate for the opened Provost position has suddenly "withdrawn" from consideration. This is understandable, because the Provost is not hired to run the university. Instead, he is there to deal with external political forces which he cannot influence.

- (Oriental Daily) During the 79 days of Occupy Central, the students led most of the time. From the initial charge into Civic Plaza to the siege of the Government Headquarters, the students went ahead without coordinating with the pan-democrats. It was clear that the pan-democrats were hijacked aboard. In order to dilute the negative effects of Occupy Central and the veto of the constitutional reform package, the pan-democrats are trying to keep a low profile and turn to livelihood issues (such as lead-in-water). But now the students have suddenly sprung the pro vice chancellor appointment. Some pan-democrats tried to exploit the situation and now suddenly they find themselves in another Occupy situation.

On the evening of the violence, various pan-democrats either as alumni or political party members were present outside the Knowles Building. They were not involved in occupying the tenth floor conference room. Most of those involved in surrounding the council members downstairs were foul-mouthed louts and not pan-democratic politicians. Nevertheless by being present watching and refusing to intervene, the pan-democrats got caught in a situation where they will do wrong no matter what. Politicians Ip Kin-yuen, Alan Leong and Audrey Yu were spotted at the scene watching university council members being surrounded by students and not allowed to leave. The Democratic Party did better, because only Sin Chung-kai was present for a short while.

- (Oriental Daily) According to information, a senior Hong Kong University official whose contract is scheduled for a long time is looking for a job all over the world. He plans to leave as soon as he can procure another position elsewhere. There are two different interpretations of his decision. On one side, the students argue that he did so because the university council delayed the decision on the pro vice-chancellor. On the other side, the critics said that the violent actions of the students is scaring everyone inside and outside the university.

- (Oriental Daily)

Our newspaper reporter trailed university council member Ayesha Macpherson who was surrounded and cursed out by demonstrators for half an hour at the exit from the parking garage. During this period, senior barrister Civic Party member Audrey Eu watched from the side and declined to help.

Yesterday, Audrey Eu denied that she did nothing. She said that when she saw Ayesha Macpherson feeling uncomfortable, she arranged for her fellow Civic Party Kwok Ka-kay to seek help. But Kwok was rejected by the police present, because they had already arranged for an ambulance to come.

But based upon a review of the relevant news videos and the recollections of the eyewitnesses, Audrey Eu did what she said only after a long period of time. Prior to that, Eu stood with the other demonstrators to chant "Shameless" at Ayesha Macpherson. When she saw things going awry, she jumped to the side. She never exercised her political influence to call for the demonstrators to calm down.

Meanwhile Hong Kong University Student Development and Resources director Ko Wing-yin actually tried to assist Ayesha Macpherson. For his troubles, Ko was hit on his back, hands and legs by the demonstrators. His jacket was ripped and there was a two-inch long scratch mark on his arm. Ayesha Macpherson asked the security guards to call an ambulance and inform the police herself. Audrey Eu offered to help only after the police arrived, not before.

(Bastille Post) When Ayesha Macpherson got to the parking garage, she was surrounded by demonstrators and cursed out for 30 minutes. She said that she attempted to communicate with the demonstrators, but they refused to let her speak. They just continued to curse her out. One demonstrator told her: "If you want to leave, you'll have to get down on your knees and apologize." The demonstrators also called her "Shameless!" Therefore she chose to remain silent. Because it was hot there, she told the security guards that she felt ill. The security guards decided to summon the police as well as an ambulance. She condemned the university administration for not getting police assistance sooner and expressing "regret" that the police should be present on campus. Meanwhile Professor Yuen Kwok-yung also confirmed that the demonstrators wouldn't let the university council members leave by ambulance. He said that the ambulance could not have left without police assistance. Given what has happened, what person in their right minds would serve on the university council?

- (Oriental Daily) A number of Hong Kong University university council members and staff members condemned HKU president Peter Mathieson for saying that it was "regrettable" that the police should come on campus. They accused the university administration of not helping the besieged university council members in a timely manner. Yesterday, Peter Mathieson explained that he did not say that the police presence was "regrettable." Instead, he meant that the entire incident was "regrettable." But some university council members said that the university administration is indeed wary of summoning the police as a result of what happened four years ago during the visit of Premier Li Keqiang. Meanwhile a HKU board director said that Peter Mathieson's original statement was "regrettable."

- (Speakout HK) After Lo Chung-mo fell down on the floor grabbing his knee, at least two companies used Facebook to run advertisements that exploited his case. But both advertisements disappeared in less than a day. Immediately Internet users cried "Self censorship!" But that may be a reasonable inference, but it is actually not reasonable. There is consensus that any advertisement should not exploit tragedy or disaster. That is, you never gloat on the misfortune of others. Whether you like Lo Chung-mo or not, it is on the record that a doctor has confirmed the signs of an injury (bruise/swelling) and that he had previously received surgery on that knee. In other words, Lo Chung-mo is a patient. Any advertisement that attempts to exploit his illness is unacceptable. The companies had no choice but to pull those advertisements.

- (Apple Daily) Lo Chung-mo said that he was really disappointed with the fact that when he asked a doctor at the scene to help him leave, he got the response from the doctor: "It's none of my buinsess. I didn't bring these people here ..." To Lo's mind, a doctor is supposed to help a patient irregardless of the politics. That was why Lo expressed his dislike for the kind of politics that will make a doctor go blind.

When Apple Daily checked the videos, they spotted the HKU Last Line of Defence's Dr. Paul Au Yiu-kai calling out for the crowd to disperse in order to allow Lo get on the ambulance. "Let him out! Let him out!" But everybody ignored Au and kept cursing Lo out.

Later Au explained to Lo: "We can't control this." Lo responded: "You caused this." Au countered: "We didn't do this. The University Council did this." Dr. Yuen Kwok-yung asked Au to help to clear the path. Au responded: "I am a doctor. I did not come to help." Then Au called out on the megaphone: "According to my understanding, Professor Lo has sustained an injury. Please make way for him to come over."

Au said that he asked many times for people to clear the way to no effect. He left only after he saw the security guards and police arrive at the scene.

Internet comment:

- That figures. Paul Au Yiu-kai is the husband of Audrey Eu. Of course, they would both fold their arms and watch the show.

- There are two possibilities. First, Paul Au Yiu-kai is telling the truth. Then the fact that the students ignored the pleas from a doctor shows that they are cold-blooded stone-hearted animals. Secondly, Paul Au Yiu-kai is lying. Then he is shameless and unfit to be a medical doctor. Take your pick. If you can't decide between the two, then both are true.

- (TVB) At 2:00, Yuen Kwok-yung said: "You are a doctor. You open the path ahead." The doctor replied: "I am a doctor. I am not an aide."

- If you look at the various videos, the loudest and most forceful people are much older than the typical university student. When the reporters tried to interview them, they quickly dash off. They don't see to have any demands to articulate.

- The famous saying of Paul Au Yiu-kai that is going around the Internet like wildfire; "I did not bring the people who beat you up." Therefore I am not responsible for anything.

- (dbc)

0:14 Alan Leong, Civic Party legislator: You say, Alan Leong, why don't you criticize the students? Meanwhile, have I praised the students?
0:20 Leong: Students ... all adults ... are responsible for their own actions. That's very correct. So what are you nervous about?

0:39 Alan Leong: CY Leung first appointed Lo Chung-mo, Arthur Li. Then ...
0:44 Radio host: Lo Chung-mo was elected by the university staff.
0:47 Alan Leong (note: watch that facial expression!!!): Lo Chung Mo was ... yes, yes, yes ... Oh, you are really right. But, I want to say that ... what's his name ... I want to say that CY Leung appointed ...

- (Bastille Post)

Civic Party members Alan Leong and Audrey Eu, and Education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen caught the blame for this incident. They were involved in mobilizing people to demonstrate at the university council meeting. However, the most radical demonstrators were the Localists, who were most enthusiastic in their use of foul language to curse out the council members. When the demonstrators surrounded the university council members on their way out, Alan Leong and Audrey Eu were near the scene. They played observers who did not intervene with the demonstrators surrounding the university council members.

This is a re-run of Occupy Central. The radical elements cause trouble and then immediately leave without assuming any responsibility. Instead Alan Leong and Ip Kin-yuen have to come out every day to answer questions. Given that they refused to utter a single word to condemn the actions, they now own the responsibility. This will be bad for the Civic Party in the Legco elections next year. On one hand, the voters who like radical action will vote the radical political parties and not the elitist Civic Party with their scholars and lawyers. On the other hand, their moderate supporters will be scared away by their radical actions.

- (TVB)

During the selection process of the pro vice chancellor, all information is supposed to be kept confidential according to university regulations. The recommended candidate has so far not been presented to the university council.

In February this year, former Ming ex-chief editor Kevin Lau wrote that the selection committee has unanimously recommended Johannes Chan. Late July this year, Kevin Lau wrote that "the pro-establishment university council members led by Arthur Li and Leong Che-hung came up with a plan to ask a heavy-weight middleman to persuade Johannes Chan to resign immediately after he received the appointment."

Arthur Li responded: "Now that Johannes Chan has clarified that I did no such thing, we have to question why Kevin Lau as a respected journalist and former editor-in-chief of Ming Pao can commit such a basic mistake? In Journalism 101, you are told that you need to verify your information. Why didn't he just call me up and ask whether I did this?" The commentary has affected me, because many people have only read Kevin Lau's article in Ming Pao and they think that I was manipulating the whole affair."

Kevin Lau said that he did not need to get Li's response: "Before I wrote the commentary, it is not essential that I get his response. Besides, I made it very clear that he did not call up Johannes Chan. I only said that pro-establishment university council members came up with this plan and used a middleman. And Johannes Chan has confirmed that a middleman contacted him to get him to withdraw."

Kevin Lau added that he instructed Ming Pao reporters to get the principals' responses: "As a commentator, I only need to be careful about my wording. As to which pro-establishment university council members came up with whatever plan, I don't necessarily need to spell out which university council member made phone calls. But the colleagues in the news room might call up everybody and ask: 'Did you do this?' Leong Che-hung did not respond, and Arthur Li had the chance to respond."

On the day when Ming Pao published Kevin Lau's essay, a news story quoted Kevin Lau's assertions but they did not publish any response from Arthur Li about whether he used a middleman.

Internet comment:

- Kevin Lau is being disingenuous here. Here is a simple explanation of The difference between reporting and commentary from The Rocky Mountain Collegian:

Journalists are held to a very high standard of ethics and are expected to meet that standard on a daily basis. It is a fair assumption to make; after all, we are trusted to report the truth of what is happening in the world we live in, and what we say carries an enormous impact.

The public has a right to expect the best from us. But the public also needs to be aware of a particularly distinct division between journalists when they seek to enforce a standard of excellence.

The primary division between us is that of reporters and commentators, which essentially splits us into the “news” section of the newspaper, and the “opinion” section. More often than not, the public treats both sections as if they are one and the same.

I’ll be blunt: they are not the same thing. I do not report the news; I give my opinion on the news. The Collegian’s reporters report the news; they do not give their opinions on it. To insinuate otherwise does a disservice to both you the reader and the newspaper as a whole.

There are different standards for each desk. Reporters are expected to seek the truth and report it, usually as it happens or shortly after it happens. They must, therefore, find as many aspects of a story as they can. If there is a conflict (and usually there is) they must fairly represent both sides of that conflict where possible. Both sides have a unique angle to add to the story, and the public needs that to make up their own minds about the story.

For columnists, the news has already been reported and our job is to provide our perspective on it. If there is a conflict involved in the news, we tend to fall on one side or the other and we structure our opinions accordingly. Our job is to provide a bit of color to the story, share a unique perspective on the story, or explain why we think the story is a non-issue.

We take sides because that is what we are supposed to do. That’s our job. You don’t look for an opinion columnist that doesn’t express an opinion; that’s like looking for a teacher that doesn’t teach, or a taxi driver that doesn’t drive a taxi.

I tend to see examples of people falsely equating news and opinion when they start complaining about bias in the media. My liberal friends complain that FOX News is biased because of people like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. My conservative friends complain that MSNBC is biased because of people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz. Are these people biased? Definitely. Are they reporters? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Their job is to say, “I’m a liberal/conservative and here’s what I think of the news,” not, “Here is objective news.”

News and opinion writers both publish articles they believe to be the truth about an issue. But here’s the difference: reporters would cover a debate about gay marriage, whereas columnists would take one side or another — sometimes neither.

Does this mean that we are forgiven for poor fact checking, or simply making things up? No, absolutely not. Our opinions would have no weight otherwise, and nobody (not just the people who disagree with us) could take us seriously. Columnists adhere to the same standard of accuracy that reporters do (we do make mistakes from time to time, but we’re human just like everyone else) — we just look at the world through a particular lens.

When Kevin Lau wrote that pro-establishment university council members led by Arthur Li and Leong Che-hung asked a middleman to contact Johannes Chan, he was not commenting on previously reported facts. He was breaking a brand new story that nobody else had reported before. He was reporting, not commenting, irrespective of the fact that his reporting appeared in the op/ed page.

- (Wen Wei Po)

According to Kevin Lau's reporting, the selection committee had unanimously recommended Johannes Chan to become pro vice chancellor.

Previously in 2013, the same situation had happened. At the time, Johannes Chan was a candidate for Executive Vice-President (Administration and Finance). At the time, Next Weekly said that Chan was recommended by the selection committee and his appointment was "awaiting for the university council to approve."

Two months after that report, Hong Kong University appointed Steven Cannon from the University of Aberdeen to that post. Johannes Chan admitted that he lost. He also said that the Hong Kong University has the authority to make appointments, that he respected the decision of the university and that he did not feel any disappointment.

Two years later now, Johannes Chan is running for another pro vice chancellor post. Once again, he says that he has been recommended by the selection committee.

Things are not the same after the two years, because his curriculum vitae now contains some blemishes. Last year, he was involved in the "secret donations" case for which the Audit Committee found that his actions
"did not meet the expectations" of the university. In addition, the recent Research Assessment Evaluation found the Hong Kong University Law School did worse than the more recently founded Chinese University of Hong Kong Law School while Chan served as the Dean.

- (TVB) August 4, 2015.

Arthur Li said: "When the Cultural Revolution began, the Red Guards were more moderate than they became later. They began by chasing the professors, they forced them to sit down or kneel down to admit their faults. The clash at Hong Kong University was a repetition of that history. It was unauthorized torture. When I tried to leave, I was punched. There was a lot of pushing and shoving. The demonstrators prevented us from leaving. During the confusion, somebody punched me from behind." Where was he punched? Li said: "In my left kidney. When I returned home that night, I checked my urine. Fortunately there were no traces of blood."

- Link: TVB Pearl Straight Talk: Political storm at Hong Kong University. Who’s to blame? Guest Arthur Li, Member of the HKU Council

- (HKG Pao) August 4, 2015.

In 2010, Ko Wing-yin was selected as a Hong Kong Spirit Ambassador. Ko now serves as the director of the Centre of Development and Resources for Students at Hong Kong University. On the evening of the university council, Ko first escorted university council members Leonie Ki Man-fung and Rosanna Wong Yick-ming to leave. But when the time came to escort Ayesha Macpherson out, they were suddenly surrounded by 20 to 30 people in the parking garage. Ko said: "I and several colleagues joined hands to form a cordon to protect Mrs. Lau. But they kept kicking my legs. They were very violent!" One middle-aged woman even attempted to accuse Ko of sexual molestation.

Just as Ko tussled with this middle-aged woman, a bespectacled bald middle-aged man grabbed Ko by the neck. Ko said that these people must know kung-fu, because he was scratched on the arm where a two-inch wound was left. Even the two sleeves on his shirt were torn. A reporter asked the middle-aged man to identify himself. This person said that his family name was Ho, he was a retiree and he came to demonstrate at Hong Kong University because he read about the "injustice" on the  Internet.

- (HKG Pao) August 5, 2015.

According to East Week, the middle-aged woman who jumped on top of the podium next to HKU Student Union president Billy Fung to harangue the university council members is not a HKU alumnus. On that evening, she ranted like a rabid dog, saying that the university council members "wasted the taxpayers' money" and "clueless." When Dr. Lo Chung-mo fell down injured, she called him "acting" and "puk kai." She even started to curse the students, which was enough to make people wonder whether she was mentally ill.

Over the past year, this "Big Sister" has participated in many street actions. For example, on the day before Occupy Causeway Bay was cleared, she delivered a speech. On April 4, she spoke at the Shopping Revolution. This year at the July 1st march, she held a Hong Kong Restaurant Cooks Alliance banner. It turns out that the Hong Kong Restaurant Cooks Alliance is closely connected with the political party Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre led by legislator Leung Yiu-chung.

- (SCMP) Students' behaviour at HKU council meeting abhorrent. By Y.L. Lee. August 5, 2015.

The students' siege of the University of Hong Kong Council meeting on July 28 has attracted considerable public attention.

As an alumna, I found the students' violent disruption of the meeting and the delaying of the injured being sent to hospital for treatment abhorrent.

The council is the legitimate body to take the decision on the matter of the appointment of the pro-vice-chancellor. So long as it has duly followed the prescribed rules of procedures in the conduct of its business, it is not up to anyone to interfere with its work, be it students, staff, alumni or politicians.

This is a proper way to respect institutional autonomy since the council is the supreme governing body of the university. Students can stage protests or sit-ins to express their dissatisfaction with council decisions, but they should not take such uncivilised action as to storm a meeting.

What exactly did they want to achieve? Does it mean that any time people make decisions with which they do not agree, they should react by barging in to stop proceedings?

If individual council members seek to exert pressure on the council by promoting the views of outside individuals/groups to reverse the corporate decision to be made, how can governance work effectively?

The uncivilised actions of the students that night were deplorable. I understand that it is difficult for people to remain rational when they were in a highly charged situation, and that when a big crowd gathers, things can easily get out of control.

It was, however, very disturbing to me when the student leader, Billy Fung Jing-en, tried to rationalise the students' behaviour, which led to a delay for injured people to be given proper treatment, by saying that they had no other options but to storm the meeting.

I am deeply disappointed with this lack of ability to practise some critical self-reflection - a basic attribute which any responsible member of society should have.

The bedrock of a civilised society is respect for the law and due process. If we stop the proceedings every time people made a decision with which we do not agree, what kind of a world will we live in?

If as adults we breach the code of what is acceptable behaviour, we should admit our wrongdoing and rectify it, but not try to find excuses for that behaviour.

- (YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcHWgf_3U6Q Videos of politicians involved in harassing the university council members.

0:01 Legislator Ip Kin-yuen said that they will be responsible for their actions and methods.
0:24 Female voice: "Lo Chung-mo!" Group chant: "Shameless!"
0:30 Civic Party member and ex-legislator Tanya Chan holding the microphone and leading the chant
0:40 League of Social Democrats vice-president Ng Man-yuen, Civic Party member and legislator Alan Leong.
0:47 Civic Party members Tanya Chan and Dennis Kwok
1:05 Alan Leong leading chant of "Lo Chung-mo" and group chanting "Shameless!" as Lo Chung-mo is being put into the ambulance.
1:14 Alan Leong on radio: "The students, all the adults, need to be bear responsibility for their own actions."
1:32 Civic Party member and legislator Audrey Eu standing, smiling and watching Ayesha Macpherson being prevented from leaving.

(YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEDUDBCM1c On dbc radio with Audrey Eu.

0:16 Radio host: ou were at the parking garage that day when Ayesha Macpherson wanted to leave. It was reported that you chanted slogans about being "Shameless!" Did you chant them?
0:27 Eu: I did. I chanted them. Yes.
0:35 Radio host: When you yelled "Shameless!", you target must be Macpherson, right?
0:36 Eu: I believe that the targets are all those who voted to maintain the same position, not Macpherson alone.
0:44 Radio host: But only Macpherson was there. Did you know how Macpherson voted? You don't know.
0:46 Eu: I guessed it. Of course, it was a secret ballot.
0:47 Radio host: You just guessed. So why was she shameless?
1:00 Eu: Secondly, I saw two doctors at the scene. One of them was Dennis Kwok. He was at the same floor as I was. At the time, I told him to go and offer assistance. Those who held microphones. There were not many of them. Those who held microphones all wanted to help.
1:23 (video of persons holding microphones) Tanya Chan leading the chant of "Shameless!" with her microphone
1:45 Eu: Right now, many people like to come out and discuss the so-called violence, or maybe about some assaults, or maybe whether someone is faking an injury. This is one week later already. It took place last Tuesday. Today, you are still asking me the same question. I am worried that the focus of the entire matter is not on whether the university should follow due process.
2:11 Subtitle: "She took part in the incident but now she wants other people not to discuss it anymore. Does she want people to shift focus?"

- (dbc) August 7, 2015.

Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en said that the students still disagree with waiting for a Provost to be hired before appointing the Pro Vice Chancellor. However, upon reflection, they believe that charging into the university council meeting room has caused the matter to lose focus. In future, the Student Union may not be using the same method to express its view. He did not respond directly to the question about an apology from the students. He only said that he felt sad about the incident.

Internet comments:

- Billy Fung has got me totally confused. First he justified what the students did by saying that they were "using force to stop violence." Next, he said that the thugs who surrounded the university council members were not students. Now he says that the students may not be using this method in the future.  So what is the really deal?

- This is microcosm of Occupy Central. First, when they did it, they thought that they had righteousness on their side. After they find out that public opinion was surely and inexorably against them such that the original goal was completely lost amidst criticisms of the tactics. In the end, thought, they still refused to say sorry.

- As the students said to Ayesha Macpherson, "You can leave if you kneel down and apologize." So Billy Fung must kneel and apologize.

(Wen Wei Po) June 30, 2015.

Three men and one woman were charged with interfering with police duties in Yuen Long on March 1. According to Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po, he observed four individuals dashing onto the roadway, including the 14-year-old male student, 20-year-old Kwong, 22-year-old Poon and 30-year-old clerk Ng. So he went up to stop them. The first defendant charged him on his left chest with the shoulder. Chan said that Kwong also tussled with him while Ng used her chest to bump into Chan and then scream "Police sexual molestation."

The defense claimed that the medical report did not reveal any injuries on Chan's left chest. However, Chan insisted that he sustained an injury which was not found during the exam. The defense also said that Chan's hand touched Ng's left breast and that caused her to scream "Sexual molestation!". Kwong went up to grab Chan's hand to free the woman so he did not interfere with police duty.

Police sergeant Hung Kwok-kay said that Poon pushed him and tried to pull an arrested man away. But the defense said that Poon did not know that Hung was a policeman and he was just trying to separate two people in a fight.

(Oriental Daily) June 29, 2015.

Chan testified that he saw the 13-year-old student, Kwong and Ng rushing onto the roadway. He intercepted them and asked them to return to the sidewalk. Ng said: "What?" Chan thought that she couldn't hear clearly so he repeated his request. The 13-year-old student rammed his Chan's left chest near the police ID with the shoulder while saying, "What is not permitted?"

Chan said that he wanted to grab the 13-year-old's hand to arrest. But Kwong came up and shoved both of his hands away. Chan and Kwong tussled, such that Chan was spun around 180 degrees. At that time, an unknown person hit Chan on his head and left forehead. Then Ng thrust her breast at Chan and screamed "Police sexual molestation!" Someone else echoed "Police sexual molestation." Objects were thrown. Chan fell onto the ground and someone kicked him on the back. Chan got up and arrested the 13-year-old. At the hospital, Chan was found to have sustained injuries on his right hand and left lower back.

(Apple Daily) June 29, 2015.

According to Chief inspector Chan Ka-po, Ng had blood all over her face because she started to bleed in the nose when she fell down and then she used her hand to smear blood all over her face.

(Oriental Daily) July 2, 2015.

30-year-old shipping clerk Ng testified in court today. She said that she and her 20-year-old boyfriend Kwong went out to Yuen Long to demonstrate on March 1. During the time, Kwong wanted to take out a water bottle and drink bottle. The police instructed the crowd to advance and she lost track of Kwong. She was pushed by the crowd towards the scene of the clash. She said that the male Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po stuck his face close to her forehead, grabbed her by the left shoulder strap of her backpack and touched her left breast. She got afraid and screamed "Sexual molestation" while Chan said: "Arrest her! Arrest her!"

Kwong appeared and also yelled "Sexual molestation!" While Kwong and Chan tussled, the police used pepper spray and pulled her and Kwong away. When they went back to find the mobile phone which was dropped, a policeman tackled Kwong by the neck, while she was shoved by someone from behind and fell on the ground. When she got up, she was bleeding in the mouth and nose. At the hospital, she was found to have suffered a broken nose. She does not know whether a policeman pushed her or not.

Under cross-examination by her lawyer, she said that she listened to the legal advice of her volunteer lawyers and have so far not lodged a complaint against Chief Inspector Chan for sexual molestation. So far she has only told the Complaints Against Police Organisation about being pushed onto the ground by a policeman.

The other defendant 22-year-old Poon Tsz-heng said that he is presently a third-year Accounting student at City University. At the time, he had just left from a friend's residence and he was not part of the anti-parallel traders demonstration. He did not see the ID badge on policeman Hung Kwok-kay. He thought that Hung was arguing and fighting with another man over the parallel trading and therefore used his hands to separate the two parties.

(SCMP) July 30, 2015.

A female protester against cross-border traders yesterday told her assault trial that a police inspector touched her breast when he tried get hold of her rucksack during a protest in Yuen Long.

Protester Ng Lai-ying, 30, said when Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po stretched his arm to reach the strap of the bag on her shoulder, his hand landed on the upper part of her left breast. "I was so scared and I yelled 'indecent assault' immediately," she recalled, of the moments after the March 1 incident.

Ng, who was arrested on the day, denies one count of assaulting Chan, who made a counter-claim, accusing Ng of using her breast to bump him.

A case against Chan was not pursued, Tuen Mun Court heard, as Ng decided not to report the alleged indecent assault to police after seeking legal advice from the Duty Lawyer Service.

Conducting her own defence, Ng told Deputy Magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu that Chan already had his head leaned towards her forehead even before the alleged incident, which took place on Sau Fu Street. She said after Chan's alleged act, her co-defendant and boyfriend, Kwong Chun-lung, 20, came to her rescue by grabbing hold of Chan's hand. But they were hit with pepper spray used by Chan's colleagues.

The pair retreated a few steps after being sprayed, she said, but returned a while later to search for her mobile phone. Despite being permitted to return by two police officers, they were still apprehended, during which Ng sustained a broken nose after being pushed from behind.

Testifying earlier against the pair and their two co-defendants, Chan claimed he was stopped by Kwong when he tried to arrest a 14-year-old pupil, who was later charged with assaulting Chan in the same case. Kwong faced one count of obstructing Chan.

Another co-defendant, Poon Tsz-hang, 22 faced the same charge as Kwong, but involving a police sergeant. All three co-defendants deny the charges. The case continues on July 8.

(Oriental Daily) July 16, 2015.

Today at Tuen Mun Court, the magistrate found the first defendant 14-year-old Chu, the second defendant 20-year-old male Kwong, the third defendant 30-year-old female Ng and the fourth defendant 22-year-old male Poon guilty. The first and third defendants were charged with assaulting a police officer, and the second and fourth defendants were charged with obstructing or resisting a police officer. The magistrate found the testimonies of the police officers to be credible whereas the defendants were not truthful witnesses. In particular, the second and third defendants were lovers who concocted the counter-charge that the police officer sexually molested the female. The magistrate said that it was heinous for the female to concoct the sexual molestation charge because of the potential harm to the reputation and career of the police officer. The magistrate also condemned the second defendant for adding his voice to the sexual molestation charge.

(TIME) July 16, 2015.

A court in Hong Kong convicted 30-year-old Ng Lai-ying Thursday of assaulting a police officer by hitting him with her breast during a protest on March 1.

Ng testified that during the protest the officer had reached out his arm to grasp the strap of her bag and that his hand had come in contact with her upper left breast, the South China Morning Post reports.

She told the court that she immediately yelled, “Indecent assault!”

But in his decision, the magistrate rejected those allegations, accusing Ng of lying in her testimony and instead finding her guilty of using her breast to bump the officer’s arm. “You used your female identity to trump up the allegation that the officer had molested you. This is a malicious act,” he said.

There was no word on what physical injuries, if any, the officer suffered.

(SCMP) July 17, 2015.

A participant in a protest against cross-border traders on March 1 was yesterday found guilty of assaulting a police chief inspector by hitting him with her breast.

Tuen Mun deputy magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu convicted Ng Lai-ying, 30, who works at a shipping company, of using her chest to bump against the right arm of Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po - who was trying to control the chaotic protest in Yuen Long that day.

A 14-year-old pupil whose name was not disclosed in open court for legal reasons was also found guilty of striking Chan in the chest with his shoulder while the officer was urging protesters to return to the pavement from the roadway on Sau Fu Street. Ng's boyfriend, Kwong Chun-lung, 20, and university student Poon Tsz-hang, 22, were each found guilty of one count of obstructing police officers who were exercising their duties.

All four defendants pleaded not guilty to their charges.

During the trial, Ng said Chan stretched his arm to reach the strap of the bag on her shoulder, and his hand landed on the upper part of her left breast. She said she immediately yelled "indecent assault".

But yesterday, after analysing the evidence, the magistrate rejected her claims that the inspector had molested her, and chastised her for making up the assault story. "You used your female identity to trump up the allegation that the officer had molested you. This is a malicious act," he said, adding that it had caused great harm to the officer's reputation.

The magistrate noted that during his one-year stint in Tuen Mun Court, he had handled numerous cases in which defendants had assaulted other people who were exercising their duties, including police officers and Correctional Services Department staff.

"Those who are attacked because of their jobs should be protected," he said. He also affirmed that the role of police in a protest was to maintain law and order. "There were two groups of people expressing different points of view at the protest. Without police officers there to maintain order, it is not surprising that there was commotion, or even clashes."

All of the defendants, who will be sentenced on July 29, were remanded in custody, pending a series of reports to determine an appropriate punishment.

(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2015.

The defendants' lawyer said that the second defendant will be in his fourth year at the Hang Seng School of Management. If sent to prison, the second defendant would be unable to complete his studies. The defense also showed the video in which the third defendant was seen to have been pushed by a policeman, which caused her nose bone to break. This proves that the police treated her violently.

The fourth defendant's lawyer said that his client was only visiting a friend nearby and tried to separate two men fighting in the street. The fourth defendant had just graduated with an accounting degree at City University. If convicted, his career may be jeopardized. Therefore, the fourth defendant would like to receive probation, fine or suspended sentence.

The first defendant hopes to be sent to receive probation or fine only. The lawyer submitted letters from his parents, his primary and second school principals to show that the first defendant is excellent in character and scholastics, including being a volunteer for his church.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 30, 2015.

A woman who was convicted of assaulting a police officer with her breasts was sentenced to three months and 15 days’ imprisonment on Thursday morning. Thirty-year-old Ng Lai-ying was found guilty of assaulting Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po by Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court earlier this month. She returned to court on Thursday with three of her co-accused who were also sentenced.

Twenty-year-old Kwong Chung-hung was handed five months and one week in a rehabilitation centre, 22-year-old Poon Tsz-hang was sentenced to five months and three weeks in prison, and a 14-year-old defendant will also be sent to a rehabilitation centre for an indeterminate period of time.

All four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. Lawyers representing the four told the court they would appeal the sentences and the defendants were granted bail.

The magistrate overseeing the case, Michael Chan Pik-kiu, set bail conditions to HK$5,000 each and said that all four defendants must not leave Hong Kong.

According to Stand News between 40 to 50 people turned up at the courthouse to watch the sentencing, including members of Hong Kong Indigenous, a localist group spawned from last year’s pro-democracy Occupy movement. As they left the courthouse, the three defendants did not comment on the sentence but thanked everyone for their support.

Nicknamed the “Yuen Long Four”, the group were arrested after taking part in an anti-parallel trading protest in Yuen Long at the beginning of March.

Ng was found guilty of thrusting her chest into Chief Inspector Chan’s arm as he was attempting to control the increasingly rowdy protest. Ng told the court that she shouted “indecent assault” after Chan reached out for the strap of her bag, leading his hand to touch the upper part of her left breast.

Kwong and Poon were found guilty of obstructing police officers and a 14-year-old pupil was found guilty of hitting Chan in the chest with his shoulder.

Local media reported that magistrate Chan dismissed Ng’s allegations, saying they had caused great harm to the officer’s reputation.  Chan also revealed that after the Yuen Long Four were convicted he was threatened and feared for his safety, However, he did not make clear who had threatened him and why.

The ruling made international headlines and also saw 200 people assemble outside the High Court on Sunday, July 26 to protest against the convictions.

(SCMP) Civil disobedience has its consequences. July 31, 2015.

Civil disobedience by definition breaks the law. It may be for a good cause but don't be surprised if you get dragged into court and thrown into jail. Do the deed, pay the price. That's how you gain respect; it's certainly not by moaning about it. Yet, many young protesters today seem surprised when they find themselves before a judge; their supporters are outraged.

Deputy Magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu has been the target of abuse in court and on the internet ever since he convicted a group of anti-parallel trade protesters for assaulting or obstructing the police. Among these are Ng Lai-ying, convicted of assault and jailed yesterday for three months and 15 days; her boyfriend Kwong Chun-lung, 20, was sentenced to a training centre, while Poon Tsz-hang, 22, was given five months and one week in jail, after both were convicted of obstructing police.

A 14-year-old boy, who was also convicted of assault, was sentenced to a rehabilitation centre.

The defendants have been granted bail to file for appeal.

Sympathetic commentators have ridiculed Ng's conviction for assaulting an officer with her breast, conjuring images of her using her sensitive parts to beat up the hapless officer. But the judge has made it clear the seriousness of her offence was that she falsely counter-accused the police inspector of indecent assault.

Classic civil-disobedience activists accept the consequences of breaching the law, however bad, by taking the punishment. Through their suffering, they expose the illegitimacy of the law and the state that administers it.

Many young protesters today hold no such belief. They do not think they should suffer any consequences, even if they confront and fight police officers, break into private and closed-door meetings and hound whoever disagrees with them. Take those student protesters who effectively hijacked a University of Hong Kong Council meeting this week. They seem to think they are above the law.

There are many liberal or pan-democratic politicians and commentators who encourage or even glorify those youthful protesters.

When you think you are right, you don't need to listen to anyone else. Anything you do is justified.

(EJinsight) July 31, 2015.

For sheer preposterousness, nothing tops it. There’s a close second if you like. But as a judicial precedent, an assault conviction on the basis of the use of a woman’s breasts as a weapon turns the legal system on its head.

That’s exactly what happened when a Hong Kong magistrate found a woman guilty of assaulting a policeman with her breasts during a chaotic protest earlier this year. 

Ng Lai-ying, 30, was sentenced to three months and 15 days in jail. That she was convicted on such a ridiculous charge is laughable enough but it’s incredibly appalling when you look at the evidence.

While the victim failed to reasonably prove the extent of his injuries, Ng was shown in photos and video clips with a bloodied mouth being manhandled by policemen. Even assuming her injuries did not happen at the exact same time she attacked the policeman, it almost told you who was beating whom.

Deputy magistrate Michael Chan said the verdict is a warning against “humiliating” policemen in the future. Which would have made sense if that, in fact, was the case.

The incident happened during a chaotic dispersal of an anti-parallel trading protest in Yuen Long that was marred by scuffles, meaning there was a fair amount of pushing and shoving.

If anyone was shamed, it was Ng who suffered from the notion that her breasts were big and powerful enough to be an assault weapon. There’s a sense Ng’s attempt to hit back by accusing the policeman of indecently assaulting her helped do her in.

In any event, Hong Kong people were aghast at the verdict. The world was bemused. The news caught fire on the internet and the international media, including Time magazine, picked up the story and ran with it.

Chan has become famous for the wrong reasons, but the biggest joke is on Hong Kong’s vaunted rule of law and justice system which have just become the laughing stock of the world.

(SCMP) July 31, 2015.

A woman convicted of assaulting a police chief inspector with her breast in a protest against cross-border traders, maintained her innocence in a mitigation session attended by many of her supporters yesterday.

Ng Lai-ying, 30, instructed her lawyer Lawrence Lau Wai-hung to tell Tuen Mum Court that a report sought on her earlier had erred in suggesting she admitted the offence after being convicted.

Normally, a magistrate or judge would take into account such an admission when considering the sentencing options. But Lau told Deputy Magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu: "Ng insisted that she had not committed the offence. She wanted to retain her integrity rather than lie ... in exchange for a lighter sentence."

Dozens of supporters - including members of Hong Kong Indigenous and lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung - poured into the courtroom to support Ng and her co-defendants. Some had to wait outside, forcing the court to keep its doors open throughout the hearing. At least 20 police officers, in uniform and plain clothes, stood outside the courtroom.

Ng was found guilty last month of assaulting Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po, after the magistrate ruled she used her chest to bump against Chan's arm in Yuen Long on March 1. A 14-year-old boy was convicted of assaulting Chan in the same trial. Ng's boyfriend, Kwong Chun-lung, 20, and student Poon Tsz-hang, 22, were each found guilty of one count of obstructing a police officer.

The court heard during the trial that Ng suffered a fractured nose after being subdued during the protest.

Lau yesterday showed the court video footage that captured what appeared to be a police officer in uniform pushing Ng from behind. He asked the magistrate to consider the Ng's injury.

Earlier, the magistrate said Ng was malicious in accusing Chan of indecent assault. Lau said the incident was not premeditated, nor did it damage Chan's reputation in the police as Ng, whom Lau described as a "decent woman", did not make a complaint.

Lau urged the magistrate not to send Kwong to a detention centre as it would ruin the university student's future.

Senior counsel Martin Lee, who mitigated for Poon and the 14-year-old on a pro bono basis, asked the magistrate to consider the boy's well-being and not to deprive him of his liberty.

(Oriental Daily) July 31, 2015.

Poon Tsz-hang, Ng Lai-ying and Kwong Chun-lung

According to magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu, chief inspector Chan Ka-po was not injured. However, Ng Lai-ying thrusted her chest onto Chan's arm and then screamed "Police in sexual molestation!" This caused other protestors to yell and toss objects around. What had been a minor assault has escalated into a serious matter. Therefore the magistrate sentenced Ng to 3-1/2 months in jail.

The magistrate said that an unknown person kicked Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po who was on the ground. The defendant Poon Tsz-hang then pulled the attacker away from the grasp of the police, thus enabling the attacker to escape. Therefore, this act was more serious than the regular obstruction charge (such as refusing to be searched or to produce an ID for inspection). The magistrate sentenced Poon to 5 months plus one week. The magistrate said that the sentences were lightened in view of the records of the two defendants.

The magistrate said that the defendant Kwong Chun-lung obstructed Chief Inspector Chan from arresting Ny Lai-ying, causing Chan to be hit in the head and kicked on the back by unknown persons. Therefore, he sentenced Kwong to a rehabilitation centre. As for the 14-year-old student who used his shoulder to ram Chief Inspector Chan, he has been arrested four times since late December and charged twice (including this case). The magistrate said that his parents are unable to keep him control. "Even if it was wrong to have arrested/prosecuted/sentenced each time, I believe that his parents wouldn't want to see their son go through this process." Therefore, the magistrate sentenced the defendant to a rehabilitation centre.

(Oriental Daily) July 31, 2015.

During the sentencing of the Yuen Long Four, the magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu disclosed that he had received threats. The police has received information that someone had posted at the discussion forums: "I know where you (Michael Chan Pik-kiu) hang around, and is investigating this as a case of criminal threat.

After the sentencing was made, a number of other comments were made at the discussion forums, including some that were directed at the family of Chan, such as "Your entire family will surely die." Over at Passion Times, the banner said: "No use to say anything, more practical to take action" and "Hong Kong traitor magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu, watch your step!"

Protestor outside courthouse holding sign: "Dog official: fuck your mother!" over the photo of the magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu

Passion Times:
No use to say anything, more practical to take action
Photo of Hong Kong traitor magistrate Chan Pik-kiu
Watch your step!

(EJinsight) July 31, 2015.

Film and TV actress Gloria Yip has launched a campaign to protest the conviction of a woman for assaulting a policeman with her breasts. Yip wants people to upload pictures with a “Breast X Weapon” hashtag on the internet, according to Stand News. She said she is protesting the “weaponization” of the female body and wants the notion expunged from its new legal definition. Yip said she has received support from netizens who have started posting messages on Facebook.

A women’s advocacy group, Association Concerning Sexual Violence Against Women, said it is concerned the decision will deter victims of sexual violence from seeking help from the police.

Ng Lai-ying, 30, was found guilty of assaulting police chief inspector Chan Ka-po by hitting him with her breasts. She was jailed three months and 15 days. Chan said Ng attacked him with her breasts while photos and video clips showed her with a bloodied mouth. Ng accused Chan of indecently assaulting her. Magistrate Michael Chan said Ng’s yelling, which incited others to join, along with the throwing of objects at police officers, made the assault more serious than it was.

(SCMP) August 1, 2015.

Not holding placards – but bras – some 200 protesters rallied outside the police headquarters in Wan Chai this morning against the conviction of a woman who was earlier jailed for three and a half months for assaulting an officer with her breast.

Protesters feared the conviction could deter women from joining future social movements because of concerns that police would charge them with assault whenever there is bodily contact during a demonstration.

Ng Lai-ying and three other defendants who took part in a protest against cross-border traders in March were granted bail last Thursday pending an appeal, as the police started to investigate allegations that the magistrate who convicted them had been threatened.

Deputy magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu said although the police inspector assaulted by Ng had not suffered any injury, Ng’s attempt to accuse the inspector of molesting her made her case serious.

“Breast is not a weapon,” the protesters chanted while holding actual bras and pictures of the underwear amid a heavy police presence.

The rally organiser, called Breast Walk, said it felt “helpless” over the conviction as it was “ridiculous” for the police to turn a deaf ear to Ng’s claim that she was molested by an inspector during the protest. “It is very shocking and regrettable that a woman’s allegation that she has been molested is turned into her causing chaos. It would deter women from taking part in social movements and deprive them of the right to participate in political activities,” said Luk Kit-ling, a spokesman for the group.

Regardless of whether they were male or female, some demonstrators wore bras on their chest to show support for Ng. They included social worker Jordi Tsang Sing-cheung, who said: “The way I dress today looks quite ugly as a male, but it is not as ugly as the judgment, which is like calling a deer a horse.” Ng was wearing a bra made of coconuts.

Before the rally began, police raised a yellow banner warning protesters it was an unlawful assembly and they could be prosecuted. But the warning was ignored. The protesters left peacefully after handing a petition to a police representative.

(Oriental Daily) August 1, 2015.

More than 100 protestors showed up outside Hong Kong Police Headquarters in Wanchai for the "One person one bra, no gender difference, wear them and show them, give justice back to the breast" campaign. Some of these demonstrators are worried that once the precedent is set, women's right to participate in civil rights action will be deprived.

(SCMP) July 13, 2016.

A police chief inspector who accused a woman of assaulting him with her breast in a high-profile trial that drew international media coverage last year inflated his claims, the woman’s lawyer told an appeal on Wednesday. But a counterclaim that the officer had molested the woman was also described as “bizarre” by the prosecution.

Barrister Lawrence Lau Wai-chung, for Ng Lai-ying, told the High Court that despite being the number two in command at a protest in Yuen Long against cross-border traders on March 1 last year, inspector Chan Ka-po testified earlier that he decided to face the three defendants, including Ng, “alone for five minutes”. This happened even though many police officers were stationed at the scene, a video played to the court showed.

Lau said he brought the point to the attention of then deputy magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu during the trial, asking whether it was not possible for the inspector to call reinforcements. “Law enforcers exaggerating their claims can be a very destructive weapon,” he said, asking Madam Justice Judianna Barnes to quash Ng’s conviction.

Ng, 30, was found guilty last year of assaulting the inspector by using her chest to bump against Chan’s arm. A 14-year-old boy was also convicted of assaulting Chan in the same trial. Ng’s boyfriend, Kwong Chun-lung, 20, and student Poon Tsz-hang, 22, were each found guilty of one count of obstructing a police officer. Ng was sentenced to three months and 15 days in jail. She was released on bail pending the appeal.

On Wednesday, Barnes said she noted from media reports that public opinion seemed to have been asking why Ng was found guilty, even though it looked as if she was the one who was indecently assaulted. Ng also accused the inspector of molesting her during the trial. The news made international headlines, followed by a subsequent local protest with demonstrators sporting bras to proclaim “breasts are not weapons”.

Lau said this was not his case as he clarified that anyone could assault others with any part of their body in the context of law. But prosecutor Anna Lai Yuen-kee argued that Kwong had fabricated the sequence of events relating to the encounter between his girlfriend and the inspector. Kwong caught hold of the officer’s left hand, instead of his right hand that was alleged to have been touching Ng’s breast, the prosecutor noted. “That’s unreasonable,” Lai said. It would be a bold move if the inspector, under the watchful eye of so many people, dared touch a woman, she added.

Barnes reserved judgment in the appeal case.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 13, 2016.

Four anti-parallel protesters found guilty of police assault and obstruction – including a woman was said to have attacked a police officer with her breasts – appeared before the High Court on Wednesday morning to appeal the conviction and sentence. One of the defendants has asked to submit a new video clip to the court.

Thirty-year-old Ng Lai-ying and her three co-accused, nicknamed the “Yuen Long Four,” were arrested after taking part in an anti-parallel trading protest in Yuen Long at the beginning of March last year.

Four anti-parallel protesters found guilty of police assault and obstruction – including a woman was said to have attacked a police officer with her breasts – appeared before the High Court on Wednesday morning to appeal the conviction and sentence. One of the defendants has asked to submit a new video clip to the court.

Thirty-year-old Ng Lai-ying and her three co-accused, nicknamed the “Yuen Long Four,” were arrested after taking part in an anti-parallel trading protest in Yuen Long at the beginning of March last year.

At the High Court on Wednesday morning, the youngest defendant, now 15-years-old, made a request to submit new footage to the court.

Barrister Randy Shek, representing the defendant, said that the new video clip clearly shows what happened on the day of the incident, and that it differed from how it was described in two officers’ testimonies.

When asked why the video was not submitted to the court last year, Shek said that following the ruling, many members of the public helped look for the clip, and the one which they wish to submit was found by the first defendant’s father, Sing Tao Daily reported.

The Honourable Justice Madam Barnes said that the case had caused public uproar, with many pointing out that Ng had initially accused the officer of indecent assault and saying that it was not possible to assault a police officer using breasts. However, the judge said that if the attack was hostile, it was not impossible under the law.

Barrister Lawrence Lau Wai-chung, who represents Ng and Kwong, agreed that it was not impossible for breasts to be a weapon, but Ng said that witnesses exaggerating their testimonies was a more deadly weapon and questioned why the first instance judge did not deal with the inconsistencies in the two officers’ statements, Ming Pao reported.

Judge Barnes said that she will take a look at the new clip before determining whether it can be submitted to court.

The defendants have been released on bail pending appeal.

Barrister Randy Shek, representing the defendant, said that the new video clip clearly shows what happened on the day of the incident, and that it differed from how it was described in two officers’ testimonies.

When asked why the video was not submitted to the court last year, Shek said that following the ruling, many members of the public helped look for the clip, and the one which they wish to submit was found by the first defendant’s father, Sing Tao Daily reported.

The Honourable Justice Madam Barnes said that the case had caused public uproar, with many pointing out that Ng had initially accused the officer of indecent assault and saying that it was not possible to assault a police officer using breasts. However, the judge said that if the attack was hostile, it was not impossible under the law.

Barrister Lawrence Lau Wai-chung, who represents Ng and Kwong, agreed that it was not impossible for breasts to be a weapon, but Ng said that witnesses exaggerating their testimonies was a more deadly weapon and questioned why the first instance judge did not deal with the inconsistencies in the two officers’ statements, Ming Pao reported.

Judge Barnes said that she will take a look at the new clip before determining whether it can be submitted to court.

The defendants have been released on bail pending appeal.

(SCMP) August 29, 2016.

A Hong Kong woman convicted of using her breast to assault a policeman at a protest against mainland parallel traders last year failed to clear her name yesterday, but may avoid going to jail.

Ng Lai-ying, 30, guilty of assaulting Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po, successfully appealed against her jail sentence of three months and 15 days. But she failed in her attempt to overturn her conviction, which earlier drew a great deal of press coverage worldwide.

The court will look into her suitability for community service, but she may still go to prison.

Handing down her written judgment, Mrs Justice Judianna Barnes wrote it appeared Ng was trying to get lover Kwong Chun-lung off the hook when she bumped Chan with her breast and yelled “indecent assault” during the protest in Yuen Long on March 1 last year. “Although her action could not be said to be excusable, the court should consider it was under this circumstance that she committed the offence,” she continued.

But the judge noted that the offence remained serious in that she falsely accused Chan of indecent assault, which could have incited the crowd. She warned Ng that if she failed to display remorse, she may still face a jail term.

Kwong, 20, who was earlier found guilty of obstructing Chan, also successfully overturned his original sentence of time at a training centre, but not his conviction. A probation officer’s report has been sought on him.

Outside the High Court, Ng gasped: “I was relieved.”  She and Kwong said they both respected the court’s decision.

Poon Tsz-hang, 22, and an unnamed 15-year-old boy, also failed to clear their names, but successfully appealed against their custodial sentences. All will be sentenced on September 26.

During the trial, the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court heard the boy was the first to bump the inspector with his shoulder on the road at Sau Fu Street. Kwong obstructed Chan when he tried to stop the inspector from catching the boy.

Chan accused Ng of assaulting him by bumping him with her chest and yelling “police indecent assault”, when she tried to make Chan let go of Kwong.

The case made international headlines, and women’s rights protesters took to the streets to express their bewilderment as to how Ng could have used her breast as a weapon.

Anger at parallel traders ran high last year in districts near the border as mainlanders used multiple-entry visas to bring goods, such as baby milk formula, home to sell at a profit. It caused crowding and shortage of the goods, sparking a wave of protests.

The teenager convicted of assaulting Chan was sentenced to time at a rehabilitation centre, but will now be assessed by a probation officer. University student Poon was originally given five months and a week in jail for obstructing a police officer, but a community service report was ordered on him too.

All were granted bail.

Internet comments:

- (RTHK) Democratic Party legislator James To Kun-sun: "Anyway, if you use any part of your body to ram the other party, this is a form of assault on that other  party. The gender of the individual does not matter. The specific part of the body does not matter. The present case has a gender aspect. If a man thrusts his chest against a woman or a man, it is easy for everybody to accept. Given that you rammed that other party, you have committed assault. But this time it was a woman. But from the legal point of view, it makes no difference whether it was a man or a woman."

- The verdict/sentence was rendered in a court by a magistrate. These protestors showed up outside Police Headquarters. Do they know the difference between the court and the police? The principle of the separation of powers?
- You don't understand, do you? The relevant court is located in Tuen Mun, which is about one hour away by MTR. Besides, the courthouse is closed on Sunday. Meanwhile, Police Headquarters is located in the middle of Hong Kong Island, convenient to reach by the MTR and the bus services, and it is open seven days a week. Get it?

- Where was Occupy Mong Kok cross-dresser Ah Kay on this day? I can't spot him. It seems that there was only the regular group of protestors (Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats), Tanya Chan (Civic Party), Han Lian-shan (professional protestor), etc) who show up for any cause just for the sake of protesting.

- Occupy Central marshal Kwok Siu-kay carrying weapon of mass destruction:

- News reports said that tens of dozens of organizations were present to protest. Well, in Hong Kong, each person represents multiple organizations (such as XYZ Concern Group, etc). For example, legislator Leung Kwok-hung represents the League of Social Democrats as well as the April 5th Movement. It is better to say tens of dozens of organizations than to say tens of dozens of individuals.
- The listed organizations include the Female Social Workers' Union, Women's Political Participation Network, New Women Progressive Club, Social Workers' Renaissance Movement, University Gay/Lesbian Action, Hong Kong Lesbian Association, League of Social Democrats, Confederation of Labor Unions, etc.

- I am very disappointed. I wanted to see Chrissie Chow

Instead all I got was Leung Kwok-hung.

(SCMP) Hong Kong woman convicted of assaulting police officer with her breast deserves to be jailed. By Alex Lo. August 4, 2015.

A breast is, of course, not a weapon. And nowhere in the conviction and sentencing of anti-parallel trading protester Ng Lai-ying does it say it is.

So the pro-breast rally on Sunday which attracted about 200 protesters - both men and women - wearing bras in support of Ng against the sentencing magistrate had me scratching my head.

I am glad, though, that the rally gave an opportunity for cross-dressers and transvestites to come out in support of a political cause.

The chatter on internet forums frequented by activists has been full of outrage and anger.

The proximate cause was that Ng was jailed for three-and-a-half months for assaulting a police officer with her breast, pending an appeal, while anti-Occupy newspaper vendor Yiu Yau-pik was ordered yesterday by a judge to perform 120 hours of community service for throwing an egg at lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung.

Where is the justice, many asked?

One angry post said Yiu's was the more serious of the offences, and if anyone deserved to go to jail, it's not Ng but Yiu. After all, the post went on, the egg did stain Leung's T-shirt while no officers were harmed by Ng's breasts.

I would rather ask: where's the injustice? 120 hours of community service for the common assault of throwing an egg? That's a pretty stiff penalty, just one notch short of being sent to jail in Hong Kong's sentencing guidelines.

Our pan-democratic lawmakers pioneered and perfected the protest art of throwing objects at opponents in and out of the legislative chamber. Leung simply got a taste of his own medicine.

Assault legally means the application of an unlawful force, which does not have to cause physical injury. The latter offence is assault causing bodily harm and there are the more serious offences of wounding and wounding with intent.

Ng was found guilty of assaulting a police officer, which usually comes with a jail sentence. She did so by pressing her chest against the officer's arm, and, as the presiding magistrate observed, falsely shouted indecent assault against him, thus further provoking the protesting crowd around her.

She got what she deserved.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 26, 2016.

A woman who was jailed for three-and-a-half months for assaulting a police officer with her breasts has had her sentence reduced to 200 hours of community service.

Ng Lai-ying, 31, was arrested during an anti-parallel trading protest in March last year. She was found guilty of assaulting Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po by thrusting her chest into his arm as he was attempting to control the demonstration.

Judge Judianna Barnes, said at the High Court on Monday that she based the decision on the fact that Ng demonstrated “good conduct,” and her boss said she was responsible and reliable.

Poon Tsz-hang, 23, who was convicted of obstruction, was also given 200 hours of community service upon appeal. He was originally sentenced to five months and one week.

Ng’s boyfriend Kwok Chun-lung, 21, and a 15-year-old boy were given a one-year probation order. They were ordered to serve at a detention centre and rehabilitation centre respectively.


[The video below was offered by Ng Lai-ying to mitigate her case, but the action for which she was charged with assault took place earlier in the day. Therefore the video is not direct evidence for the trial.]
dbc news video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9xWwltW6Y8
Apple Daily news video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tdJ9g5YrFw
Mat Kit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WefmzbmhdP4&

dbc news video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcIA8Fdtr_w Press conference after sentencing.

Taiwanese Animators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB4ZKRxzz3U

Conan O'Brien: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmE-eETXSa8
Conan O'Briend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYJKtLUTdXI Debunking the act with the facts of the case

Internet comment:

- The technique of women throwing their bodies at men and screaming "Sexual molestation" is time-honored, well-established.

Here is this May 2013 video of Federation of Students demonstrators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXYdirwsDY.
6:11 Male student in grey t-shirt shoves female student in white t-shirt towards a uniformed policeman in a human chain. High-pitched female shrieks.
6:55 Female student in black t-shirt keeps pushing policemen, shrieking and filming with one hand.
7:57 Male student applies bear hugs to two female students. Female screaming: "Sexual molestation."
9:11 Female student elbows female police officer in chest and the latter tumbles down.

As another example, here is Legislative Councilor Tse Wai-chun being accused by Lam Yi-Lai for sexual molestation. The evidence? At 0:40, Lam thrusts her chest at Tse and there was physical contact.

This technique is not an exclusive right for democrats. Here is Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung being harassed by a woman at a campaign rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMSrXFXz4os On January 25, 2015, Mong Kok Shopping Revolutionaries were confronted by two Blue Ribbons. It begins with verbal insults from both sides. Then there is some physical jostling. The two Blue Ribbons are the middle-aged men dressed in black. The others are pro-democracy Yellow Ribbon Shopping Revolutions.

02:38 (Woman) Fuck your mother's stinking cunt.
02:58 [The two men turn and leave]
03:11 [A man in white jacket and hat gives a shove in the back]
03:13 (Man in blue) Don't fucking leave! Fuck your mother's stinking cunt!
03:24 (Woman bumps the Blue Ribbon man with her chest) I fuck your mother!
03:26 [Woman bumps the Blue Ribbon man with her chest again]

03:30 [A man in blue sweater and blue-grey cap shoves the other Blue Ribbon man from behind towards the woman]
03:31 (Woman) Sexual molestation! Sexual molestation! Sexual molestation! Sexual molestation!
03:38 [An old man with white hair, black jacket and orange t-shit underneath punches both Blue Ribbon men]
03:46 (A man called out the two Blue Ribbon men) You are hitting people! You are hitting people!
04:01 (Woman) He sexually molested me! He sexually molested me!
04:18 [A Yellow Ribbon man punches the second Blue Ribbon from behind on the back of the neck]
04:27 [The fight spills into The Body Shop. A man in military pants slams the second Blue Ribbon man from behind onto the floor and holds him in a lock.
04:54 [Another Yellow Ribbon man grabs the first Blue Ribbon man by his jackets and yanks his jacket away. The Blue Ribbon man falls to the ground ]
04:59 [While the Blue Ribbon man is on the ground with his jacket pulled over this head, a Yellow Ribbon man hits with a folded beige-colored umbrella.]
05:09 (Man in blue) Call the police.
05:09 (Female shop assistant) Call the police.
05:16 [The old man kicks the second Blue Ribbon who is being held on the ground, then stoops down ready to punch.]
05:28 (Yellow Ribbon in military pants) I don't care. Anyway, he sexually molested someone ... I saw you.
05:57 (Yellow Ribbon to second Blue Ribbon man) Are you human? How can you sexually molest someone?
05:59 (Another Yellow Ribbon) The police have been called. No need to worry.
06:05 (Another Yellow Ribbon) The crime of sexual molestation. This one, this one.
06:10 (Man in grey jackets) These two are thieves. They were stealing things.
06:18 (Another Yellow Ribbon) This one. This one. The man behind caught him.
06:30 (First Blue Ribbon Man) We are not going to leave.

- For the n-th time, let it be said that the case is not about using the breast to assault a policeman. The basis for the case is this:

According to magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu, chief inspector Chan Ka-po was not injured. However, Ng Lai-ying thrusted her chest onto Chan's arm and then screamed "Police in sexual molestation!" This caused other protestors to yell and toss objects around. What had been a minor assault has escalated into a serious matter. Therefore the magistrate sentenced Ng to 3-1/2 months in jail.

The severity of the sentence is based upon several considerations, such as the seriousness of the charge, the seriousness of the consequences of the act, the history/background of the defendant, etc.

As for the possibility that the female was really molested by the policeman ... well, this was daytime and there were several hundred "photojournalists" present at the scene. A policeman would know that anything that he does will be filmed by multiple cameras. So would the Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po place his career at risk to molest Ng Lai-ying (see photo)? Is it worth it (that is, is Ng Lai-ying as beautiful as Shailene Woodley?)? Please make some sense.

For example, EJinsight: "Ng Lai-ying, 30, was found guilty of assaulting police chief inspector Chan Ka-po by hitting him with her breasts. She was jailed three months and 15 days. Chan said Ng attacked him with her breasts while photos and video clips showed her with a bloodied mouth. Ng accused Chan of indecently assaulting her. " That is just plain wrong.

"Magistrate Michael Chan said Ng’s yelling, which incited others to join, along with the throwing of objects at police officers, made the assault more serious than it was." That is correct.

- (Oriental Daily) September 26, 2016. Judge Judianna Barnes said that it was not impossible either for Ng Lai-ying to deliberately thrust her breast at the chief inspector or for the chief inspector to molest Ng in broad daylight. Overall, the judge said that the magistrate has the right to listen to both sides and then rule against the defendants. Therefore, the judge rejected the appeal against the verdict.

Yes, anything is possible. And pigs will fly.

- (Oriental Daily) Normally the Civic Party regards themselves as the guardians of the rule-of-law, and will oppose any criticisms of judicial rulings and decisions. In the case of the Yuen Long Four, they have suddenly gone completely silent about the insults and threats being hurled at magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu. The fact of the matter is that the Civic Party are terrified of offending the radical elements. Thus, "silence is golden."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Judge Judianna Barnes, said at the High Court on Monday that she based the decision on the fact that Ng demonstrated “good conduct,” and her boss said she was responsible and reliable.

Ha ha ha! How many letters of good conduct would you like me to produce? It seemed all the rioters are able to produce testimonies from pastors, priests, teachers and other bleeding-heart liberals.

(SCMP) Chief executive as chancellor of Hong Kong universities is an anachronism. By Alex Lo. July 13, 2015.

In some overseas universities, the president or chancellor is the nominal head with little or no executive influence. Their power and role are mostly confined to hobnobbing with wealthy and powerful donors and alumni to raise money and profile for their schools.

So even if they are politically connected or hold high office, they are disinclined to interfere with their schools' autonomy and freedom. This model has many advocates but is far from being the universal norm.

Hong Kong's case is somewhat in the middle, but it is politicised enough to generate the current row over allegations of political interference at the University of Hong Kong.

The laws that set up our eight publicly funded tertiary institutions made the colonial governor, and after 1997, the chief executive, their chancellor. The vice-chancellors are the real executive heads of their universities. But the chief executive-cum-chancellor may still exercise indirect influence by nominating a large number of allies - in some cases, up to half - to the universities' councils, their powerful decision-making bodies.

Controversies ensued earlier this year with the naming of executive councillor Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, a politically divisive figure, to the HKU council. His allied council members' stalling of the appointment of a pro-democracy legal scholar, Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, to a pro-vice-chancellor post renewed the row.

Chan's case is, however, complicated by his being tainted by alleged mishandling of dodgy donation funds channelled to the university by his colleague and Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting.

It's over Chan's stalled appointment that many student unions and scholars are now campaigning to change the laws that automatically make the chief executive their chancellor.

Chan's case is murky and so has clouded the debate. The real issue is clear-cut enough: should the future chief executive continue to be the universities' chancellor and wield the power to name so many council members?

This has become an anachronism. There is no reason why persons of high moral, social and/or academic standing should not become chancellors of our public universities. And even if the chief executive has to remain the nominal head, his or her power to name council members should be significantly curbed.

(EJinsight) HKU alumni to hold protest over pro vice chancellor issue. July 28, 2015.

Dr. Leong Che-hung, chairman of the Council of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), said he was willing to initiate a discussion of the council’s decision to delay the appointment of a pro vice chancellor in a meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Ming Pao Daily reported. However, it is not clear if the council would discuss the issue.

A group of HKU alumni said it has gathered 2,600 signatures for a petition letter urging the council to stop deferring the appointment of former law dean Johannes Chan as pro vice chancellor. Members of the group also plan to stage a silent protest on the campus and hand their petition letter to members of the council. As of Monday morning, the concern group has solicited the signatures of 1,536 alumni, 909 supporters and 20 organizations.

The signatories include former chief secretary Anson Chan, former security chief Peter Lai Hing-ning, businessman Lew Mon-hung, and Zandra Mok, former political assistant to the secretary for labor and welfare.

The Hong Kong University Students Union (HKUSU) said some 50 to 60 members will surround the venue of the council meeting and demand that the council disclose their discussions during the meeting. The HKUSU said it would not rule out further action should the outcome of the meeting fail to satisfy them.

Kevin Lau, a former Ming Pao editor and HKU alumnus, had earlier accused Leung and fellow council member Arthur Li of lobbying against Johannes Chan. Leung denied the allegation, and said he regretted that such a rumor had circulated.

(SCMP) HKU council members taken to hospital as meeting on pro-vice-chancellor post descends into chaos. July 29, 2015.

A closed-door meeting of the University of Hong Kong’s governing body ended in chaos last night when angry students stormed the venue upon learning that members were sticking to their guns in deferring the appointment of a liberal scholar to a key managerial post.

HKU council member Dr Lo Chung-mau, one of those who supported the controversial deferral, collapsed in the middle of the shouting and shoving in the overcrowded room. It was unclear whether he fainted or was pushed to the ground.

An ambulance was called to take him to hospital, but the university said it was blocked at the entrance of the car park for more than 30 minutes.

Another council member, Ayesha Macpherson, was also sent to hospital after complaining of feeling unwell when she could not drive out of the car park. Protesting students complained that there were six police vehicles in the car park and officers were already equipped with warning flags that are normally used at violent confrontations.

“I respect the students’ passion, but we need to resolve the matter rationally,” said embattled council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung. “We wanted to work out an appointment schedule and we had many proposals for that – but now we can’t proceed.”

But Billy Fung Jing-en, president of HKU’s student union, said: “We suffered from the violence of the system and we came up with this idea to make our voice heard. Why are there police waiting for us?” Fung added that he would like to wish Lo a speedy recovery.

The trouble began at 9.25pm, when dozens of angry students waiting outside the meeting room forced their way in after finding out the council had already voted down a motion, proposed by staff and student representatives, to “revisit” the appointment issue after it was deferred last month.

Students and pro-democracy figures have complained of political interference in the delayed appointment of liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun as a pro-vice-chancellor.

Chan has been recommended for the post but has yet to be confirmed – his supporters are convinced it’s because of his pro-democracy views and close ties with his colleague, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, who co-founded last year’s Occupy Central movement.

Council members in favour of the deferral say it’s an administrative issue, not a political one, and they want to wait for a supervisory post to be filled first.

“Appoint now!” the students chanted last night at the disrupted meeting, refusing to let council members leave.

They shouted “shame” at Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, directing much of their anger at the executive councillor who was appointed by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to HKU’s governing body. Li has been accused of working behind the scene to block Chan’s appointment, but last night he denied allegations that he had arranged for a middleman to dissuade Chan from accepting the post. “Students don’t like me maybe because I’m appointed by Leung Chun-ying and they don’t like him,” Li said, describing their radical action as “Hong Kong’s Cultural Revolution”.

The students shouted 'shame' at Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, appointed by CY Leung to HKU's governing body.

HKU president Professor Peter Mathieson appealed to the protesting students to leave. “My primary concern here reminds me of my concerns during the Occupy protest, which is the safety of people,” he told them. “The point [you want] to make has been made. I notice the strength of feelings.”

The chaos ended with another closed-door meeting, this time between students, Mathieson, Leong and the remaining council members.

Mathieson told the press he was a “big believer in students having opportunities to express themselves and to guarantee their freedom of speech”, although he told students that two council members needing hospital treatment was not “good publicity” for HKU.

Having opposed the deferral, he said he was still “very keen” to stay in his job and to assembling his team as soon as possible. He said he was “very accustomed to political pressure”, having spent 30 years in the publicly funded systems in health and universities in Britain, which were also subject to such pressure.

“I feel all sorts of pressure in this job, from staff, students, politicians, alumni. That’s my job. I’ll work in the best interest of the university,” he said. He would not speculate on the reasons for police presence — he said the university did not call for them - and said it was “perfectly reasonable if they came to escort the ambulance”.

The Education Bureau condemned the protest and urged people not to put pressure on the council.

But lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen, who leads an alumni concern group demanding an end to the delay in appointing Chan, said it was the council’s decision that had angered the students. “The continuous delay hurts HKU more deeply. We shouldn’t lose the focus,” he said.

Chan was shortlisted for the post, in charge of academic staffing and resources, at the end of last year. But last month, the council voted 12-6 to wait until a supervisory provost was hired and gave his “input”.

(SCMP TV) Hong Kong University students block council member Arthur Li from leaving closed-door meeting (video)

(Oriental Daily with video) July 29, 2015.

Yesterday around 30 HKU alumni went to chant slogans such as "Protect HKU" and "Defend academic freedom". Meanwhile about 10 "Value your children, defend education" members came to counter-protest. These people said that they Hong Kong University students take taxpayers' money but still want autonomy. If they took the money, they should shut up and put up.

(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2015.

At around 930pm, about 100 HKU students charged into the council meeting rooms and detained the council members including HKU president Peter Mathieson, council members Arthur Li, etc. During the chaos, council member Lo Chung-mo fell down. Council members Arthur Li, Leong Chi-hung and Yuen Kwok-yung who are medical doctors tended to Lo.

During this period, the students said that the council members must retake their seats before they will allow Lo to be taken to the hospital. Yuen Kwok-yung said that "You have to make way for me to give emergency treatment." After more than 10 minutes, Lo finally succeeded in leaving the council meeting room. Arthur Li returned to face the students.

Another council member Wong Kai-man was surrounded by demonstrators as he tried to leave. He was finally able to leave in the company of security guards after 10 minutes. Another council member Ayesha Macpherson was surrounded for more than 30 minutes. Seven police officers came but she was still unable to leave. Finally, she felt uncomfortable and was taken to Queen Mary Hospital by ambulance. Previously, legislator Ip Kin-yuen had promised that they would intercept council members downstairs and on the street.

As the ambulances for Lo and Mak left, one of them was stopped by the students. The police came to escort the ambulance away. According to information, the university did not report to the police.

(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2015.

Students blocking the exits to prevent the council members from leaving.

Internet comments condemned the students for being "barbaric and rude." One wrote: "I remember that the students once accused the police of blocking the backstairs to prevent them from leaving. Today they did the same thing. They talk grand but they are uncivilized all the same." Another questioned what these students would be like once they leave school and enter society at large.

(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2015.

Council member Ayesha Macpherson was surrounded by about 30 demonstrators as she tried to leave. The demonstrators cursed Mak for being "shameless." They demanded that she resign as council member. Meanwhile Hong Kong University alumnus, senior barrister, Civic Party member and ex-legislator Audrey Eu stood on the side and watched the whole scene.  The demonstrators included a number of elderly persons (non-students).

(Oriental Daily)

The students charged into the council meeting room and prevented council members such as Arthur Li from departing. Li said that the citizens can evaluate such actions. Li said that he was a victim and that the students' actions constituted illegal detention and mistreatment of senior citizens.

Did the students single him out? Li said that the students probably thought that Li was appointed by Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive CY Leung to control the university council. Li said that there are 24 members on the university council and his one vote cannot sway the decision of the council. Li said that nobody asked him about becoming the council president, nor would he ask for the post.

Later, the students permitted Arthur Li to leave. They told Li that since he is not a Hong Kong University graduate, he should not be on the university council. They told him in English, "You feel free to leave" implying that he should not come back or else he would face another round of non-cooperative movement.

(Wen Wei Po) July 29, 2015.

Prior to the Council meeting, a number of opposition politicians saying that they represent HKU alumni gathered outside Knowles Building to protest. These included Alan Leong, Audrey Eu, Tanya Chan, Sin Chung-kai, Lee Wing-tat, etc. At the same time, a number of Occupy Central radical activists also came to voice support. Our reporter observed a number of individuals who occupied Tim Mei Road outside the Legislative Council building after Occupy Central failed. These included "Ah Lai" who is well-known for his connections to the radical groups People Power and League of Social Democrats; Ray Wong who is the convener of Hong Kong Indigenous. Other opposition figures said that these people have no ties to Hong Kong University. "They are not HKU alumni, and they have no existing ties to HKU. For example, Ray Wong is a graduate of the Caritas Bianchi College of Careers, and his group Hong Kong Indigenous has no ties to HKU. These people are here to exploit the situation."

Our reporter observed that these radical elements came and mixed in with the rest of the protestors to chant slogans. According to informed sources, they were not interested in protesting a university council meeting until they learned that the Hong Kong University Student Union said on Monday that they may even occupy the meeting room. Then they rushed out to exploit the possible chaos.

Prior to the meeting, 20 members of the Internet group "Value your children, defend education" came to demonstrate. When they tried to submit a petition to the university staff, they were surrounded by members of the HKU Last Line of Defence, and cursed with "Fucking die quickly!" and "I have purchased a coffin for you already!" A self-proclaimed Hong Kong University alumnus punched a 60-year-old man, causing him to bleed all over his face. Group member Mrs. Chan said that when her children attended HKU, they got good jobs after they graduated, but nowadays HKU students only do politics: "They don't want to study; they only want to mess with the university president."

(TVB) July 29, 2015.

Legislator and HKU Last Line of Defence Ip Kin-yuen said that those people who surrounded the council members in the parking lot were not Hong Kong University students. "Last night, the students were mostly inside and outside the tenth floor conference room. The people downstairs were not students. Among the general public, it is hard for us to tell who is who. As to whether they acted appropriately, I think that they can judge for themselves. It is preferable for them to explain themselves and then society can judge." Ip Yin-yuen said that he respected what the Hong Kong University Student Union did. As adults, they are responsible for their own actions.

(SCMP) Students should leave Hong Kong University affairs to its council. July 30, 2015.

The generals fired the first salvos. The foot soldiers moved in on Tuesday night. Audrey Eu Yuet-mee and Alan Leong Kah-kit were among pan-democratic leaders who joined a signature campaign against the delayed appointment of former law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong.

On Tuesday night, student protesters stormed a meeting of the university's governing council on the matter. Chaos followed; one professor - Lo Chung-mau - was sent to hospital.

The row yesterday wasn't about whether Chan was fit for the job, or whether the administration of Leung Chun-ying was trying to manipulate the outcome through council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, a former education minister. It was over whether the unfortunate don was hurt by protesters or feigned his injury.

A storm in a teacup over a politically neutral post - with such exciting duties as budgeting research and hiring academic staff - has turned into a farce.

Once you have the rival pan-democratic and leftist camps locking horns, facts and other relevant issues are out the window. It's now a shouting match. The pan-dems and the students want Chan in and Li out. The leftists such as Beijing mouthpieces Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao want it the other way. Some students and university staff are planning a vote of no confidence in Li. Both sides accuse the other of interference.

Such are the students who hounded their former vice-chancellor Tsui Lap-chee until he left without seeking another term because of his oversight over security arrangements during a state leader's visit to campus.

Interesting priorities: they had no qualms getting rid of one of the world's great geneticists, but fight over a relatively minor appointment for a local legal scholar whose work and administrative skills are, to say the least, not universally admired.

Let me make a novel suggestion. Have a look at the council members' list. Li notwithstanding, you have members who are student leaders and staff reps as well as independent professors, a top journalist and business figures who may be from the establishment but are hardly pro-Leung.

Let them sort it out. It's their job, not yours.


Internet comments:

- Did they say that the radical elements came to exploit the chaos? But I don't see Captain America Andy Yung waving the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong independence, or Ng "Capone" Ting-Pong beating up policemen, or Eric "The Painter" Poon molesting under-aged girls.

- Beating up senior citizens and bullying children are the forte of the Hong Kong Localists. Of course, they flee when the South-east Asians show up.
- Actually, they call "999" for police assistance.

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube)
0:15 (Radio host) Your first issue is about the appointments made by CY Leung. Do you know how many university council members are appointed by CY Leung?
0:21 (Billy Fung, Hong Kong University Student Union president) There are six plus one. That is to say, six council members are nominated by CY Leung. The University Council chairman is also appointed by CY Leung.
0:31 (Radio host) But if you checked, CY Leung has actually appointed only one (university council member).
0:34 (Fung) Oh, I know, I know. That is to say ... maybe ... maybe ... or perhaps I ... to be exact ...

(Explanation) The Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive can appoint six council members plus the chairman. However, five of those six plus the chairman were appointed by former Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and their terms have not ended yet.

- (RTHK) When Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en was asked whether he opened the door to let the student enter the meeting room, he replied that the university campus belongs to the students. Therefore, there is no place that the students cannot go.

Relevant video of Billy Fung making his famous statement.

- Unfortunately,  there are still places that some of those students can't go; namely, mainland China because they don't have valid "Return Home Cards". So if the University Council decides to hold its meetings in Shenzhen, there won't be any protestors to harass them.

- Really? Here is a list of places on campus that students can now go at will.
--- Male students can enter women's restrooms and vice versa.
--- Male students can rape women and vice versa.
--- Students can enter the Bursar's Office and open the locked safe.
--- Students can open up the ATM machines and take the cash.
--- Students can enter the Records Office, rifle through the files and read/alter student grades (their own and others).

- This is a perfect exhibition of Occupy Central logic from Hong Kong University students (see Alex Chow On The Record): "The problem is that you are saying that the roads belong to the Occupy people. I want to fight for civil nomination, I want to fight for democracy. Therefore I occupy the road." This becomes: "The problem is that you are saying that the university facilities belong to the students. I want Johannes Chan to become the pro vice-chancellor. Therefore I occupy the meeting room."

- Hong Kong belongs to the people of Hong Kong. But the People's Liberation Army has a garrison in Admiralty. Let's see if you can enter the barracks at will.

- (dbc @ YouTube)
0:01 (Radio host) Yesterday did you deliberately open the door to let the students in during the break?
0:06 (Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung) The students decide on what they do or not do. I went to use the restroom because of a natural physical urge. This is a mass movement. Right? Also, the masses/students decide on what they want to do.
0:20 (Radio host) If you use this kind of method to deal with appointments, your ties ...
0:28 (sound of telephone being disconnected)
0:30 (Radio host) The phone is disconnected. It does not matter. Let us continue our discussion. We tried to reach Billy Fung by phone, but nobody is picking up the phone.
0:39 (Radio host) I am somewhat dissatisfied. Dissatisfied about what? First of all, if you are in public service. No matter how late you worked last night, if you promised the media, you should show up. I understand that he is very tired. Secondly, he said that the actions of the individuals are not his responsibility. As the Student Union president, it is wrong for him to evade in this manner. Why? Because he is the Hong Kong Student Union president and the people outside are his fellow students. If he doesn't feel that he can direct those people outside, he should not have issued the call for those people to wait outside.

Relevant video of how Billy Fung opened the door for the other students to rush in.

- (HKG Pao) Ming Pao ex-chief editor Kevin Lau said that HKU Council member Arthur Li asked Johannes Chan to take the job and then resign immediately. The students surrounded Li and called him shameless. Now Johannes Chan has come out to state that Arthur Li did no such thing. So what are the chances that Kevin Lau and the students will apologize to Arthur Li?
- The more interesting aspect is that Johannes Chan said nothing when Kevin Lau first made the accusation in the newspaper. Based upon Lau's information, the students surrounded Arthur Li and cursed him. Arthur Li told the students to check with Johannes Chan himself about whether this was true. Only then did Johannes Chan come out and confirmed that Arthur Li did no such thing. His excuse: he only wanted to maintain a low profile. Chan said that someone on the University Council asked through a middleman for Chan to withdraw, but that person was not Arthur Li.

- Today the students illegally entered the meeting room, they prevented some of the university council members such as Arthur Li from leaving and they interfered with the ambulances carrying some council members who were feeling uncomfortable. But the deepest impression on me is this short 8-second YouTube clip of Arthur Li being followed by someone screaming: "Puk gai (Wikipedia)! Arthur Li, you stinking puk gai! May your whole family be wiped out!" It is sad to see this coming from university students.

- Hong Kong University is heavily subsidized by the government. Therefore the government should have some oversight as to what goes on over there. Of course, the HKU Last Line of Defence group may feel differently. They can try to privatize the university and reject all government subsidies, and then they can do whatever they want.

- The students think that Arthur Li should leave because he did not graduate from Hong Kong University and therefore should not be on the university council. Well, if that is the criterion, then Hong Kong University president Peter Mathieson should be the first to go because his degrees are from London Hospital Medical College and Cambridge University.

- New motto for Hong Kong University: "Tomorrow's waste products."

- The television news videos of last night's incident will always be available to remind us that HKU = HK Ugly. There was a time when a Hong Kong University degree will confer elite status. This year, the Hong Kong University graduates will be facing a challenge to get a desirable (or any) job based upon what happened during Occupy Central and now we have this incident.

- The unnamed middleman who relayed the message to Johannes Chan to quit is the same one who offered $100 million to League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung to vote for the constitutional reform proposal. They are anonymous because they are fictional. Until the person is actually named, it will be assumed to be fictional. And since Johannes Chan has a credibility problem, he is unfit to become pro vice-chancellor.
- They are recycling the same old script. How about showing some creativity, huh?

- This is the same old song. In June of last year, protestors who opposed the Legco's budget allocation to explore the development of North East New Territories broke the police line to enter the Legco building. The incident led to much discussion, but about the action and no longer about the underlying issue itself. At the time, a number of pan-democrats immediately condemned the action.

Yesterday about 50 persons charged into the conference room. Since Billy Fung had stated that this was an option, the university council could have taken the necessary steps to stop this. But they did not. While there is no direct evidence that this was entrapment, the fact is that many members of the public are riled by the action. Their disgust meant that they won't think any further about the issue itself. This is the modus operandi of the CY Leung administration, which has been successful each time. Young activists will be facing more of the same in the future, so they need to figure out to deal with such situations.

- Johannes Chan is the perpetrator of the legendary Hong Kong 818 incident.

On 16 August 2011 Li Keqiang began a three-day visit to promote development between Hong Kong and Mainland China.[1] His itinerary included promoting the inclusion of Hong Kong in the Communist party 12th Five Year-Plan to promote financial co-operation. Li said he came to Hong Kong to "walk around more, look around more and listen more" (多走走、多看看、多聽聽) to the local people's concerns. He first visited the Hong Kong Housing Authority headquarters and a centre for the elderly to emphasise the overpriced housing market and ageing population as the two top issues.

On 18 August, the last day of the three-day visit, Li visited the University of Hong Kong as part of the university's 100th anniversary celebrations. To provide security for the event, the Hong Kong Police, led by Commissioner Andy Tsang Wai-hung, assumed control of the school and created a core security zone that prevented anyone from approaching Li.

During Li's visit, the school was placed into lockdown by the police. Students and alumni were kept far away during his visit. Three students who attempted to approach Li were blocked by police and thrown to the ground:

Students involved in the incident: Wong Kai-hing (黃佳鑫), of Hong Kong Polytechnic University Tang Kin-wa (鄧建華), of Lingnan University Samuel Li Shing-hong (李成康) of University of Hong Kong

Samuel Li in particular was dragged off and locked up in a staircase for an hour. According to Johannes Chan, the Dean of the Faculty of Law at HKU, keeping the students in the zone constituted false imprisonment and could be the basis for a civil suit against the police.

(SKWMSEHK) February 26, 2015.

In the Hong Kong 818 incident, Johannes Chan jumped out to say that the circumstantial evidence exists for the case of "false imprisonment" of the students by the police. He did this before he got the facts. A Hong Kong University investigative committee established that Simon Li Shing-hong had been free to leave anytime that he wanted.

Would Hong Kong University School of Law ex-dean Johannes Chan care to comment on whether the circumstantial evidence established that the students falsely imprisoned university council members Arthur Li, Ayesha Macpherson and others?

- An analysis of the slogans held by the Hong Kong University students:

"Lay siege to the university council, restore Hong Kong University": How does laying siege to the university council members restore Hong Kong University? You have no goals, no strategies, no tactics. You are just doing whatever it takes to get on evening television news.

"Safeguard HKU's autonomy": As legislator Ip Kin-yuen said, those who surrounded the council members in the parking lot are outsiders. Those people are definitely violating HKU's autonomy. You should find out who they are and prevent them from getting on campus ever again.

"Defend our school's century-long accomplishments": Thanks to your activities over the past year, you have destroyed the century-long foundation of the school. Who is going to hire a HKU graduate given what they just saw on television? You are not defending your school; you are destroying it.

"The chancellor does not represent me": Indeed, the chancellor does not represent you; he represents the university as a whole which is not just students but includes many more others such as alumni, teachers, administrators and donors. Conversely, you represent yourself and you do not represent the students or the university as a whole.

- (Oriental Daily) July 29, 2015. Late last night, the Hong  Kong University Student Union sent a letter to the students. It said that its actions "may be imperfect" but it refused resolutely to apologize. The Student Union acknowledged that the action led to "no material gains" but that doesn't mean that the resistance effort is finished. They urged the students to resist together.

Well, it is one step forward for them to acknowledge that there was no material gains. Occupy Central is still declaring a glorious victory for the People.

(Oriental Daily) July 11, 2015.

The Localists called for citizens to chase the middle-aged Chinese female singers away from the Tuen Mun Town Park this afternoon. The police put up a massive presence and questioned/inspected/searched all those who appeared to be participants in the event.

(Oriental Daily) July 11, 2015.

About ten members of Love Hong Kong set up a street booth on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, and were besieged by about 30 members of Civic Passion and Hong Kong Indigenous Both sides screamed at each other with megaphones. The police separated the two sides by iron barricades and police line. Many stores were shuttered as a preventative measure. At about 515pm, several members of Hong Kong Indigenous  attempted to charge the roadway, but the police stopped them.

(Oriental Daily) July 11, 2015.

At around 6pm, Love Hong Kong finished its work and left. As the Love Hong Kong people began to pack up, the Localists charged at the police line in an attempt to assault the Love Hong Kong people. The police raised the yellow banner in warning, as police officers held up pepper spray cans. The police allowed the Localists to advance after the Love Hong Kong people left. The Localists charged down Shan Tung Street and attempted to intercept the Love Hong Kong bus leaving on Nathan Road. During this time, a number of Localists and media reporters charged onto the roadway and blocked one lane, thus preventing buses from loading/unloading passengers. More than one hundred police officers formed a human wall and forced the demonstrators back onto the sidewalk. The jewelry/watch stores lowered their gates immediately.

(Oriental Daily) July 11, 2015.

After the Love Hong Kong people left, the Localists turned their attention to the middle-aged Chinese female singers on the pedestrian mall. During the shouting match, one middle-aged Chinese female singer reported being shot by an air gun. The police used pepper spray at least twice to maintain order.

A middle-aged Chinese woman sing while protected by a ring of police officers. The act of singing is protected under freedom of speech everywhere in the world.

A couple of foreigners got some pepper spray from the police.

(Oriental Daily) July 11, 2015.

One demonstrator was arrested today in Mong Kok. As is the standard practice, a number of masked Hong Kong Indigenous demonstrators showed up outside the Mong Kok Police Station to wave the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong Independence and to demand the release of the arrestee. Some of the Localists charged onto the roadway to block vehicular traffic. The police raised the yellow flag to warn them.

(SocREC at YouTube) July 11, 2015.

(SocREC at YouTube) July 25, 2015 21:22. Localists harass the middle-aged Chinese female singers.

0:01. A middle-aged Chinese female wearing black cap and black shirt sings on the pedestrian mall.

2:17. Police form a line to block off the Localists (see the foul-mouthed beer-drinking blonde-dyed-hair woman wrapped in the British Union Jack).

7:45. Gates were lowered at a shopping center.

(Oriental Daily) July 26, 2015.

About 170 persons attended the Hong Kong Indigenous protest march from Causeway Bay to the High Court. The purpose of the march is to protest against the verdict against the four Restore Yuen Long defendants. A number of them wore masks, possibly because they didn't want to be identified. Hong Kong Indigenous called for people to show up on July 29 at the sentencing of the Yuen Long Four. They do not exclude the possibility of taking action at the court.

The "Breast is NOT a weapon!" sign is a reference to the case of 30-year-old female defendant Ng Lai-ying, who was found guilty of assaulting a police officer after she thrust her breast at the police officer and then screamed "Sexual molestation".

(Wen Wei Po) July 27, 2015.

On July 17, magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu found the four defendants guilty. Yesterday during the march, a demonstrator held up the photo of magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu with the label "human waste." According to a person in the legal field, this act insults the magistrate and clearly constitutes a case of "contempt of court". If the individuals were found guilty, the penalty would be severe.

(Merriam-Webster) Closure

: A situation or occurrence in which something (such as a business or factory) closes forever
: A feeling that something has been completed or that a problem has been solved
: A feeling that a bad experience (such as a divorce or the death of a family member) has ended and that you can start to live again in a calm and normal way.

(Wikipedia) Next Media. Next Media Limited, founded by Jimmy Lai, has 4,041 employees (as of 30 Sep 2013) and is the largest-listed media company in Hong Kong ... Next Media publications are also known for highly sensationalized articles which attract a wide range of readers, including critics. Next Media has often taken a clear and sometimes proactive support for democratic groups in Hong Kong.

(Oriental Daily) July 16, 2015.

According to Next Media, its yearly profit ending March 2015 fell 31.58% to HK$ 164 million. In terms of yearly operating profit, the drop was 50.32%. During this period, books/magazines and printing business income fell by 18% to record a loss of HK$25.73 million. Previously, the half-year loss ending September 2014 had only been HK$ 4.56 million.

During 2014-2015, Apple Daily earned HK$ 607 million, which is a 24.6% decline. The advertising revenues were HK$ 343 million, which is a 31.3% decline. Newspaper copy sales also declined, so that distribution revenues dropped 13.6% to HK$ 264 million. Apple Daily (Taiwan) saw a total decrease of 18.3% in revenues, with advertising dropping 16.2% and distribution dropping 23.5%. Printing dropped 18.7%.

Yesterday, share prices for Next Media was at HK$ 0.74, which is a 83% drop from the peak value.

(Oriental Daily) July 17, 2015.

According to the Next Media Trade Union on July 16, Next Weekly will be reducing its staff by 50%. Those who have worked five years or less will receive a compensation of one month's pay. Those who have worked five to ten years will receive two months' pay. Those who have worked ten years or more will receive three months' pay. Next Weekly will decide its future in mid-September. This is supposed to be a voluntary retirement plan.

On July 17, it was announced that this was a compulsory layoff in which more than 40 workers from Books A/B of Next Weekly will be fired.

(Oriental Daily) July 20, 2015.

On July 17, Next Weekly laid off 40 workers. Today, Sudden Weekly announced that it will cease publication next month. Previously it was rumored that Sudden Weekly would discontinue its print edition while preserving its online edition. Today, Next Media has decided to close both editions and lay off 70 workers.

The last edition of Sudden Weekly will appear on August 7th, which happens to be the 20th anniversary of its first edition.

(Oriental Daily) July 21, 2015.

Next Media Trade Union met with Next Media management to discuss the future. Afterwards the Next Media Trade Union said that there will be more adjustments for the new combination of Next Weekly, Eat & Travel Weekly and ME!, as well as FACE.

(SCMP) 70 editorial staff laid off at Hong Kong's Sudden Weekly entertainment magazine. July 21, 2015.

Seventy Sudden Weekly editorial staff were laid off yesterday with Next Media set to close the entertainment magazine next month and combine three other publications to save costs. The move came less than a week after the group began cutting jobs at its flagship publication Next Magazine with the aim of slashing the workforce by half within two months.

Sudden Weekly chief executive officer Chiu Wai-kin said last night the final print and online issues of the 20-year-old magazine would appear on August 7. Eat And Travel Weekly and fashion magazine ME!, both Sudden Weekly supplements, will combine with Next Magazine from August 16. Chiu said a shrinking advertising market had led to deficits.

Next Media Trade Union said it was "extremely distressed" by the decision, and colleagues were angry because they had found out through news reports. Union chairman Alvin Wong Wai-chun said it would meet the group's chief executive for the print media division, Ip Yut-kin, today and seek compensation for sacked staff. It said more than 100 members in the Next group had been laid off since Friday.

(EJinsight) Why readers will continue to buy Next Magazine. July 21, 2015.

Embattled print media group Next Media decided on Monday to stop publishing its entertainment title Sudden Weekly next month. It is one of the moves the media group has taken to address its falling advertising revenue and tumbling circulation amid the fast-changing reading habits in the city. However, its move has failed to answer the question: Why do readers need to buy its magazines?

Next Media’s management appears to be putting too much focus on transforming its flagship newspaper Apple Daily from a print medium to an online news portal. Among local newspapers, Apple Daily seems to have been successful in undertaking such as transformation. 

Action News, its video news service, is the most popular among online video platforms in Hong Kong. In fact, it has become a small-scale news channel on the internet. But Next Media management doesn’t appear to have prepared well on how to transform the group’s weekly titles. It seems the plan is simply to shut down the print product and focus on the digital edition. But the fact remains that readers won’t patronize the magazine’s online edition if they don’t like the content — whether in print or digital form — in the first place.

That’s the core of the problem of Next Magazine: how to differentiate its content from its online and print competitors so that it could stand out with a unique market position.

Since its debut in 1990, Next Magazine has established an image of a fearless and outspoken advocate of truth and democracy to its readers. But this shining reputation was somehow dimmed by other facets of its news gathering operations, including its paparazzi teams who target celebrities as well as its focus on triad, erotic and crime news.

This has prevented Next from expanding its readership from the mass market to the middle class, despite the fact that readers recognize Next for its watchdog role.

In 2003, the Chinese government tagged Next Magazine and Apple Daily, along with radio talk show hosts Albert Cheng Jing-han and Raymond Wong Yuk-man, as the principal agitators who mobilized half a million Hongkongers in a rally against the legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, which people fear would restrict their freedoms. Beijing’s reaction indicated that Next Magazine has a strong capability to play a key role in monitoring the wrongdoings of both Hong Kong and Chinese authorities. But such an outspoken stance cost Next Magazine dearly; it lost hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenue from tycoons and their large corporations.

Hong Kong’s media landscape has undergone massive changes since Leung Chun-Ying became chief executive. Most print media have become virtual mouthpieces of Beijing, but Next Magazine remains an exception.

Next Media’s management should not blame the rise of free online news for the decline of Next Magazine. It should seize the opportunity to take a proactive response to the market by repositioning Next as the city’s only outspoken newsweekly, rather than just selling the magazine with other entertainment and leisure titles for a combo price of HK$20.

Some industry observers commented that Next Magazine should condense its content offering by focusing on investigative reporting, business stories and quality columns and dropping its costly paparazzi stories to retain its loyal readers.

Next readers do not mind paying a premium for unique content. Next Media management could even raise the cover price of Next Magazine to HK$30 or HK$40 a copy in order to maximize its revenue from a group of loyal readers.

Next Media said the Sudden Weekly bundle — Sudden Weekly, Me, a fashion title, and Eat and Travel Weekly, a leisure title — will no longer exist after the bundle releases its last issue on Aug. 13. The 70-member staff of Sudden Weekly will be laid off. The remaining two titles of the bundle, Me and Eat and Travel, will be part of the Next Magazine bundle from August. Face Magazine, which targets young readers, will not be affected.

The decision indicates that the company management will continue to support Next Magazine while dismantling the Sudden Weekly titles. But whether the new combo will attract enough readers to pay for the titles remains a big question market. That could be a risk as current Sudden readers may not want to pay HK$5 more to continue reading Me and Eat and Travel from the new Next combo. Some market observers believe the new combo will help stabilize Next Magazine’s circulation and prevent it from further decline. But whether the title will report a growth in circulation is still too early to say.

No doubt print media is entering an ice age, but media executives and editors should not solely blame online competitors for their poor performance. Readers will always consider the quality of content in choosing titles. 

The success stories of the New York Times and the Financial Times in the western world have proven that the paid subscription model for traditional media is still viable in the digital era. It’s time for Next Magazine to get rid of its sensational journalism and return to its original mission of bringing the truth to its readers.

(HKG Pao) July 22, 2015.

So Next Media has to kill off one magazine. Which is it? Next Weekly or Sudden Weekly?

This year, Next Weekly's circulation has fallen down 15% to 60,122 copies. Sudden Weekly has also fallen down to 77,588 copies, which is almost 30% more than Next Weekly.

Next Weekly's ad revenues has fallen year after year, down to $149 million this year. Suddenly Weekly's ad revenues has fallen down to $173 million this year, which is 16% more.

Next Weekly's total revenues is $196 million while Sudden Weekly's is $217, which $21 million more.

This year, Next Media says that its magazine division lost more than $20 million this year. So which magazine is losing the money? Next Weekly or Sudden Weekly?

So which magazine would you kill off? Next Weekly carries politics, whereas Suddenly Weekly has entertainment plus food/travel.

When the decision by the Next Media management makes no money-sense, you have to look elsewhere for the explanation -- the majority shareholder apparently wants to continue to play politics, so what can the management team do?

(HKG Pao) July 25, 2015.

This year, Next Media's newspaper business revenue declined to HK$ 1,580 million while magazines fell down to HK$ 494 million. Over the last few years, these revenues have been declining at a 20% or higher per annum rate. At the same pace, Next Media will see newspapers drop by HK$ 318 million to HK$ 1,262 million and magazines down by HK$ 100 million to HK$ 394 million next year. Overall, Next Media will see a total decline of about (1580 + 494 - 1262 - 394) = HK$ 418 million in revenues. Given that the profits were HK$ 168 million this year, Next Media will see profits become a loss of (168 - 418) = HK$ 250 million if it does nothing.

Right now, Next Media has just fired 100 workers. At an average monthly salary of HK$ 30,000, this is a savings of less than HK$ 40 million. That won't be enough.

Where to cut costs? So far, they have already cut down on raw materials from HK$ 50 million to HK$ 30 million. At Next Media, salaries account for 51% of the total costs. Next Media has 2,200 workers in Hong Kong costing HK$ 1,400 million per annum. Where else can they look to cut costs except to fire more workers?

So which departments will be devastated in the upcoming layoffs?

There are 966 workers at the newspaper and printing departments and they earned HK$ 1,500 million. There are 825 workers at the magazines and they earned HK$ 495 million. Meanwhile over in Taiwan, their magazine division only has 275 workers. So it is obvious that they will axe more magazine workers.

The magazine division is likely to earn HK$ 100 million less next year. So far, they axed 100 persons to save less than HK$ 40 million. How many more people would have to be laid off?

Are the Next Media Internet operations doing well? So far, they have increased revenues by 70% to HK% 600 million this year. However, profits were only $30 million. Therefore, the Internet division is just running a 5% profit like many traditional media operations.

Internet comments:

- The demise of Next Media can be laid directly to Occupy Central. Because Next Media went all out to support Occupy Central, businesses stopped placing advertisements with Next Media. When the magazines lost advertisements, they become thinner because they have fewer ad pages and fewer sponsorships and also because they have less money to spend on developing content. When they become thinner, readers lose interest. This is a vicious cycle.

- As the sayings goes, "If you believe 10% of what Apple Daily says, you will go blind in both eyes." Even for a regular reader, by the time that the tenth Apple Daily story that you forwarded to your friends is revealed as bogus, you will lose the motive to forward any more.

- Amongst Apple Daily's all-time BIG LIE is the case of Chan Kin-hong:

(SCMP) November 11, 1998.

The Apple Daily newspaper yesterday gave over its entire front page to an apology for its reports on controversial widower Chan Kin-hong.

Owner Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who signed the apology, said the incident had been handled improperly, although he insisted the paper had not, as alleged, paid $5,000 directly to Mr Chan. He described the reports as 'sensational' and pledged a review of the newspaper's practices. 'The inappropriate way of handling the stories made the readers and the public dissatisfied and led to strong criticism. I and the editorial management of the paper are uneasy and sorry about it,' he wrote.

Mr Chan, 41, drew media interest after his wife threw their two sons out of a window before leaping to her own death from their Sheung Shui home on October 19. She was reported to be upset about her husband's visits to mainland prostitutes. Soon afterwards, Apple Daily printed pictures of Mr Chan in bed with prostitutes in Dongguan. It said it had paid $5,000 to Mr Chan's associates.

- Yet another Apple Daily blast-from-the-past:

(SCMP) January 14, 2013.

Hong Kong’s Apple Daily newspaper on Monday apologised for an erroneous front-page report, in which it wrongly quoted scandal-plagued Executive Councillor Franklin Lam Fan-keung saying he discriminated against new immigrants.

In its apology, the Chinese-language newspaper admitted that its reporters had made the mistake by failing to catch the word “not” in Lam’s sentence, part of a speech he gave at private seminar last Thursday.

The Apple Daily report, published on Sunday, quoted Lam as saying in Cantonese at the seminar: “I do discriminate against new immigrants”.

Lam denied having made the discriminatory remarks and expressed regret at the report. At a press conference held on Sunday afternoon on a housing survey conducted by a youth group, he replayed a tape recording covering the segment of his speech to show what he had actually said. The recording showed a voice of Lam saying: “I do not discriminate against new immigrants at all. After they arrive in Hong Kong, legally they have become Hong Kong people, Hong Kong first-class citizens.”

Soon after Lam’s denial, Apple Daily withdrew the report in question from its website.

Apple Daily chief editor Cheung Kim-hung said in its Monday apology that he had listened to the tape recording and admitted the paper had made a mistake. Cheung said the word “not” was uttered too softly to hear, and the mistake was due to its reporter’s listening problems and negligence. “Even so, it is a mistake, and we have to apologise,” he said.

- There is a court case against Next Weekly that will be decided shortly:

(SCMP) March 3, 2015.

A Next Magazine article had a "cancerous effect" on the prospects of mainland herbal shampoo maker BaWang International as its accusation that its products caused cancer led to a share price slump, the High Court heard yesterday.

Barrister Jason Pow SC, for BaWang, opened the case for his client's HK$500 million-plus defamation claim against the Hong Kong magazine's publisher over an article on July 14, 2010, which claimed that BaWang's shampoos contained carcinogenic substance 1,4-Dioxane.

The court heard BaWang's revenues reached 930.8 million yuan (HK$1.17 billion) in the first six months of 2010, a year-on-year rise of 36.7 per cent. Its profits also went up by 47.1 per cent.

"[The financial statement] shows how beautiful the prospect of the plaintiff's business is shortly before the publication of this article," Pow said. Pow also drew judge Mr Justice David Lok's attention to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst report that painted a rosy picture of BaWang's growth before the article was published. However, the share price of BaWang, which used movie star Jackie Chan to promote its products, slumped by 20 per cent following the publication of the article, Pow said.

The barrister also accused Next Magazine, represented by Benjamin Yu SC, of failing to include BaWang's response to the allegation that three shampoos tested by the magazine contained 10 parts per million (ppm) 1,4-Dioxane.

The company's reply had included suggestions by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the United States that it was acceptable for consumer goods to contain up to 100 ppm 1,4-Dioxane.

On the evening of July 13, 2010, a team of Next Magazine journalists stormed BaWang's premised in Guangzhou, the court heard. The manufacturer's staff arranged a phone interview for a journalist with chief executive Wan Yuhua. Pow said staff also lined up an interview for the journalists with the Guangdong Chamber of Daily Used Chemicals. He added that the article painted "hardly a full picture" of efforts BaWang made to address Next Magazine's allegation.

- Relevant link: Kiddie Porn in Hong Kong, or How FACE came to replace EasyFinder.

- (Oriental Daily) June 22, 2015. Next Media has 128 convictions for violating the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance. As such, they are the industry leader by a wide margin.

- According to yet another Next Media special from Lee Wai-ling, CY Leung won't make it past January 2016 as Chief Executive. But the real question is: Will Next Media make it past January 2016?
- When Xi Jinping shook hands with John Tsang, Apple Daily reported that Tsang will replace CY Leung as Chief Executive effectively immediately. Next they reported that CY Leung has been designated to serve a second term as Chief Executive. Now they are reporting that CY Leung is going to leave before January 2016. Who is going to bother to keep track of their latest?

- According to Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, 1.2 million persons participated in Occupy Central. All Next Media is asking now is for each of them to spend $7 per day to buy a copy of Apple Daily. But these people have gone the way of the HKTV viewers -- they are all talk but no action. They will say that they support the cause, but they won't put their money where their mouths are.

- Apple Daily used to be the principal money-earner for Next Media. Nowadays, you pick up a copy of Apple Daily and you will be struck by its lean size. Many articles use extra large fonts in their headings to take up more space. Most of the articles are customized to fit the pre-determined political positions, which makes them repulsive to read.

- Lee Cheuk-yan and his Confederation of Trade Unions usually pounce on any labor problems, but you should expect them to go missing in action because Jimmy Lai is his biggest donor. There is no way that Lee Cheuk-yan is going to rustle up his posse and picket Jimmy Lai's Kadoorie Hill home.

Jimmy Lai and Lee Cheuk-yan are good buddies

- The Journalists Association will also go missing in action because they are a front for Next Media.

- Next Media is using its contributions to the workers' Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) accounts to offset severance payments, thus enabling them to dismiss long-serving employees at little cost. But you should not expect Lee Cheuk-yan to object, because that was exactly what he did when he fired his own aide.

- Next Media needs to fire 50% of its workers because they want freedom, democracy, human rights, universal suffrage and rule-of-law.

- Jimmy Lai would rather donate tens of millions to the pan-democratic political parties than save the jobs of his fiction writers.

- Pity the fired Next Media workers, because no other media outlet would consider hiring them as they come from an ethics-deficient organization.

- Sudden Weekly was still profitable but Next Media is going to shut it down. Why? They could have just sold it and make some money. If Next Media has a re-organization plan, they should have announced it. Instead, they are hitting the headlines every few days with more layoffs at this or that division. This is bleeding to death by a thousand cuts.

(HKG Pao) July 31, 2015.

Hong Kong Journalists Association chairwoman Sham Yee-lan said that the switching from print to digital media with its dismissal of numerous employees represents "a courageous man cutting off his arm to save his life." She said that it is the trend for traditional media to lose market share and digital media to gain market share. Therefore, she is optimistic about the future.

Next Media Trade Union spokesperson Lee Ka-chung said that none of the 110 dismissed strong dissatisfaction about being dismissed. He emphasized that the union has no intention of triggering any strike action. He hopes that Next Media can look after the interests of the workers.

- Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness. The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 8 percent of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome. Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."

- (Oriental Daily)

One consequence of the troubles at Next Media is that political contributions from Jimmy Lai is drying up. Previously, the Civic Party has received more than HK$ 6 million from Lai, which makes him their largest contributor by far. This year, Civic Party has taken in hundreds of thousands less so far. On July 1st, Civic Party took in the highest amount of donations to the tune of $430,000. That does not mean that they are swimming in cash, because that amount includes sales receipts from merchandise (towels and t-shirts), and they don't actually make that much after deducting the cost of the merchandise.

In addition, the Civic Party has problems recruiting new members. In recent years, the Civic Party has lost the aura of professional elites. Instead, they have espoused radical causes/actions (such as Occupy Central, Localism, etc). Professionals are attracted to the newly emerged professional organizations for legal scholars, doctors, etc, while radicals find the Civic Party not radical enough for their tastes. As a result, the Civic Party are not getting enough both money and people.

Q. Do you think that universal suffrage of the Chief Executive can affect national security?
12.1%: Agree very much
12.9%: Agree somewhat
24.3%: Neither agree nor disagree
18.0%: Disagree somewhat
28.7%: Disagree very much
4.1%: No opinion/refused to answer

Q. Do you agree that Hong Kong must adhere to the principles of peace and non-violence in fighting for political development?
57.6%: Agree very much
21.8%: Agree somewhat
14.8%: Neither agree nor disagree
2.6%: Disagree somewhat
1.8%: Disagree very much
1.4%: No opinion/refused to answer

Q. Do you want to see CY Leung get another term as Chief Executive?
5.5%: Very much want
6.3%: Somewhat want
26.2%: So-so
13.8%: Somewhat don't want
42.8%: Very much don't what
5.3%: No opinion/refused to answer

Q1. For the coming three years, should the government focus on economic development and livelihood issues rather than on political reform?
59.6%: Agree
15.2%: Disagree
23.2%: Half-half
2.1%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. What is the likelihood of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress retracting or changing its decision made on August 31 2014 concerning the political reform in Hong Kong.
3.7%: Definitely possible
10.2%: High possibility
50.1%: Little or slight possibility
23.8%: Completely impossible
12.3%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. What is the political future of Hong Kong in the coming three yeasr?
12.4%: Optimistic
46.4%: Pessimistic
38.5%: Half-half/so-so
2.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q4A. Should the current Hong Kong SAR government restart the political reform process?
42.8%: Yes
45.5%: No
11.5%: Hard to say/don't know

Q4B. Should the next Hong Kong SAR government restart the political reform process? (Base: Those who answered "No" or "Hard to say/don't know" to Q4A)
41.3%: Yes
30.7%: No
27.9%: Hard to say/don't know

Q5. Who bears the most responsibility for the failure of the political reform?
20.9%: Hong Kong SAR government
30.9%: The pan-democratic camp
24.2%: The central government
10.0%: The pro-establishment camp
4.1%: Others
9.9%: Don't know/hard to say

(Sina.com.hk) July 3, 2015.

Almost every Hongkongers has been to Mong Kok, a fashion centre of Hong Kong. Due to high rents and shifts in consumption patterns, fewer Mong Kok malls now cater to small boutiques. In the last two years, King Wah Centre and Gala Place have both brought in large-sized chain stores to steady their rental incomes.

As you walk down Sai Yeung Choi Street South, there are three fashion malls: Gala Place, King Wah Centre and Mong Kok Centre where many people can buy at good prices. Two years ago, King Wah Centre got rid of the boutiques and rented out to the Sincere Department Store. Last month, Gala Place got rid of the small boutiques and rented out its lower three floors to transnational fashion store H&M.  According to information, the rental income soared 100% to HK$ 9 million per month. Since the average H&M items sells for $300, they will have to sell 1,000 items per day in order to pay the rent without counting wages and other operational expenses.

Mong Kok Centre is still holding firm. But more renters are leaving than renting. Last month, about 20 renters declined to renew and closed. So there was the rare sight of empty stalls in the mall. Even though the owners are reducing rents, there were no takers. Things are worse now than during the SARS period.

In recently years, the rents at these malls have gone to over $100 per square feet per month, even as much as $300 per square feet per month. The typical rent is at least $25,000 per month. The boutiques sell items typically at less than $100, so they find it hard to afford the high rents.

For the owners, their renters can only take so much rental increases. Furthermore, it is hard to manage a large number of boutiques. This is what motivates the malls to change the business model and increase rental income. When King Wah Centre rented out to Sincere, the rent was $6.5 million per month, which is almost 200% more than renting to a large number of boutiques.

The demise of the fashion malls was also affected by the change in consumption patters. Those boutiques that offer cheap prices are facing competition from online shops. More Fast Fashion retailers are showing up, and they offer better quality and prices than the boutiques together with post-sales servicing. This is why Gala Place is bringing in H&M to replace the boutiques.

Internet comments:

- Nobody wants to go to Mong Kok anymore. They only have dispensaries, electronics stores, jewelry stores, etc. What people really want are the small take-out restaurants that sell egg waffles, curry fish balls and beef entrails. You can't find them in Mong Kok anymore.

- Dear keyboard warrior, when was the last time that went to Mong Kok? Just go to Dundas Street (between Fa Yuen Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South), Sin Tat Plaza (Argyle Street), Mong Kok Road (by the Goldfish Market), Newport Cinema (Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street), Bute Street (between Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Goldfish Market). You have to be blind not to see the egg waffles, curry fish balls, beef entrails, fried chicken, grilled satay skewers ...

- It is one thing to have the Bird Market, the Flower Market and the Goldfish Market in Mong Kok, being those unique places in Hong Kong with a high concentration of specialty stores. But there is nothing special about curry fish balls etc because you can get them anywhere (Tsuen Wan, Causeway Bay, Siu San Wan, Sheung Wan, wherever). There is no point in turning Mong Kok into a place with 500 fish ball/beef entrails stalls.

- The demise of Mong Kok Centre came about for two major reasons. The first reason is Occupy Mong Kok. When regular customers found it inconvenient to come, it becomes a habit not to come. The second reason is Chinese Communist oppression in the form of Taobao, because you can find everything you need quicker, cheaper and more convenience over there.

- Who would want to go there to shop when a bunch of Yellow Ribbon Zombies yell "I want genuine universal suffrage" every night? Why would a business want to rent a space there?

- Temple Street is quintessentially local. Do you see hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers flocking there every night? Please do not kid yourself that Hongkongers really want only localism! For reference, see HKTV -- people can talk the talk, but they have to actually walk the walk.

- Yes, the Localists said that Hong Kong needs to build up an agricultural industry in order to become self-sufficient and therefore Hongkongers should move out to North East New Territories to grow organic vegetables. That's all talk and no action.

- If there is a huge demand for the products sold in the several hundred boutiques in Mong Kok Centre, that mall would be hundreds of thousands of customers spending hundreds of millions of dollars every day. But there are too few customers to even allow the boutiques to cover rent. If you want to place the blame, it goes to people who won't shop there. And it is their right to shop or not shop.

- The reason why business is falling in Mong Kok is that there are large shopping malls everywhere else. There is less need to go to Mong Kok.
- If there is no need to to go Mong Kok, then why does Hong Kong Indigenous/Hong Kong Localism/Civic Passion want to drive the mainland tourists away from Mong Kok. What do they care if the place has only dispensaries and jewelry stores if they don't go there?

- Mong Kok is not even the Central Business District. The Central Business District of Hong Kong is in Admiralty/Central. The commercial rents are the highest in Hong Kong because of the demand from multinational companies. Following the logic of the Localists, they should be out there chasing the foreigner companies away to make way for low-rent curry fish ball stalls and light manufacturing factories (like those who make plastic Christmas trees).

- Nostalgic about the bygone days on Nathan Road? When I was young, there were rattan furniture stores, coffin stores, joss paper goods stores, paper kite stores, etc. Are these businesses viable today? Besides it's all talk and no action anyway, because no young person would ever work in these places.

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2015.

On Sai Yeung Choi Street South, someone wrote the letters RBS (or RB?) on the side of a Hong Kong Police van. The police obtained the surveillance video from a store and replayed the entire action. In this 26-second video, two foreigners in white and black clothes respectively stood in front of an electronics store and looked around. When they saw that no one was paying attention, the foreigner in black went up to write the letters while the foreigner in white filmed the action with his mobile phone. The two men then left in a hurry. At 8pm that evening, the police arrested two Australians, a 23-year-old named Colk and a 22-year-old named Adamson.

According to the information, this police van was parked outside the Bank Centre at the intersection of Nelson Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South. It was going to serve as the command centre for the Songkran (water splashing) festival that the Localists announced. This was no ordinary Songkran because people on the Internet were suggesting using abrasives to attack people, and the police took these threats seriously.

Internet comments:

- I don't know what "RB" stands for. I do know that in Chinese, "SB" stands for "stupid cunts."
- A less common usage of "RB" in Chinese is to "fuck a cunt." Were those Aussies horny?

- What is "RBS" or "RB?"? The Australians have last names Colk and Adamson which do not contain the letters R or B. Google search says that the most commonly cited RBS for Australia is the Royal Bank of Scotland. Of all the things that I want to scratch on a police van, the "Royal Bank of Scotland" is not one of those.
- Could RB be short for "rubbish"?

- This shows that Hong Kong is a surveillance society where people can't even have the privacy when they write graffiti on police vans. I think I'll immigrate to Australia as soon as possible, because they have freedom and democracy.
- Sai Yeung Choi Street South is probably the densest surveillance spot in the universe due to the acid attacks.

(EJinsight) June 29, 2015.

Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming has called on Hong Kong people to join the July 1 protest to demand a relaunch of the political reform process after lawmakers vetoed the Beijing-backed proposal for the 2017 chief executive election, Apple Daily reported on Monday. Lee said a huge turnout will exert pressure on the government to restart the process. Echoing Lee’s call, Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit said the public should participate in the march to show Beijing that Hong Kong people will not give up their fight for genuine universal suffrage.

According to the Civil Human Rights Front, around 100,000 people are expected to turn up for the march.

Lee said fighting for genuine universal suffrage has been the theme of each year’s July 1 march. With that objective yet to be achieved, people should come out on Wednesday to pursue the fight, he said. Lee noted that there are still two years before 2017, giving the government enough time to table another political reform proposal that would either ignore election framework issued by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on Aug. 31, 2014, or at least offer a higher degree of democracy.

Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing said the July 1 march, aside from seeking to restart the electoral reform process, will also raise other issues, including high property prices and the overloading of the public health system.

Executive Council convenor Lam Woon-kwong said on Sunday he does not see any chance for the the electoral reform process to be restarted within the foreseeable future.

(Oriental Daily) June 30, 2015.

This year the Civil Human Rights Front have set the theme as "Build a democratic Hong Kong, take back the future of our city." The sub-themes include amending the Basic Law and other items. They applied to the police for a 100,000-strong march. However, the consensus is that the turnout will much lower than in recent years and no group has declared Occupy Central II, the police will be marshaling only 3,000 police officers (which is 1/3 of the force amassed for the Legislative Council vote on the constitutional reform proposal."

Since the Civil Human Rights Front is known to deliberately slow down the march, this time the police will clear the way for the lead car so that there can be no excuse. Furthermore, because hot weather is expected, the police will arrange for the marchers to start even before 3pm if the soccer fields are 85% filled already.

(Oriental Daily) June 30, 2015.

Certain Localists have declared that they will hold "water splashing festivals" in Mong Kok, Tuen Mun, Hung Hom and Sha Tin in order to defend Localism. As of noon today, almost 100 people said that they will participate. One netizen suggested: "The dispensaries sell disinfectants which will combust spontaneously when mixed with glyceride oil." Another netizen corrected him: "Spontaneous combustion is too fast. Mustard seeds are better because you don't feel anything at first but 12 hours later your skin will burn."

The police said that they are concerned, because the designated areas are crowded with people. The police remind people to obey the law and look after their own personal safety.

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2015.

The Civil Human Rights Front planned to start the march at 3pm, but they did not start until 330pm. It is not known whether this has to do with the sparse attendance. The marchers occupied less than one soccer field.

(SCMP) Marchers thin at Victoria Park as July 1 pro-democracy protest kicks off. July 1, 2015.

The annual July 1 march kicked off at Victoria Park at 3pm, with demonstrators set to march on the Hong Kong government headquarters – though some pro-democracy activists have predicted a lower turnout.

The Civil Human Rights Front, the organiser of the pro-democracy march, held a rally at Victoria Park in Causeway Bay at 2pm but crowds only filled about one and a half soccer pitches.

With 10 minutes to go till kick-off, the soccer fields near the Causeway Bay entrance to the park were either empty or only filled with a few people including the march organisers, dozens of Falun Gong practitioners and journalists. More people were filing in through the Tin Hau entrance of the park. The crowd began filtering out of the park at about 3.25pm. By 4.30pm, police had reopened Causeway Road, the first part of the march route, to traffic.

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2015.

July 1st size estimates

2009: Civil Human Rights Front 76,000; Hong Kong Police 28,000
2010: Civil Human Rights Front 52,000; Hong Kong Police 20,000
2011: Civil Human Rights Front 218,000; Hong Kong Police 54,000
2012: Civil Human Rights Front 400,000; Hong Kong Police 63,000
2013: Civil Human Rights Front 430,000; Hong Kong Police 66,000
2014: Civil Human Rights Front 510,000; Hong Kong Police 98,600
2015: Civil Human Rights Front 48,000; Hong Kong Police 19,650

For 2015, the Hong Kong Police estimated about 6,240 persons started out from Victoria Park. At 3pm, two soccer fields were half-occupied. Therefore the organizers delayed the start and appealed to those who want to join in the middle to come down to Victoria Park to make the starting crowd more presentable.

(Commercial Radio) July 1, 2015.

Hong Kong University Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science professor Paul Yip conducted research along the route and estimated that between 18,000 and 22,000 marched.

(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme) July 1st, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme estimated that 28,000 persons marched.

(SCMP) Protest fatigue and lack of clear goal blamed for slump in July 1 rally turnout. July 1, 2015.

The turnout for the July 1 rally for democracy yesterday plunged to the lowest since 2008, with observers and marchers blaming protest fatigue and the lack of an obvious goal after the rejection of the government's electoral reform package.

The Civil Human Rights Front, the organiser of the annual pro-democracy march, last night put the turnout at 48,000, compared with last year's 510,000. Police said the number of marchers peaked at a mere 19,650, compared with 98,600 last year. The University of Hong Kong's public opinion programme put the turnout at around 28,000, compared with 162,000 last year. Professor Paul Yip Siu-fai, an HKU statistician, estimated around 20,000 people took part in the march.

Front convenor Daisy Chan Sin-ying admitted the turnout was lower than expected. "After the vote on the reform package, there is no burning issue so people may not feel any urgency to protest," she said. But she disagreed it meant people had given up on the fight for democracy or considered the march useless. She also dismissed suggestions that the low turnout indicated a lack of public support for their call for an amendment to the Basic Law.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, attributed it to post-Occupy fatigue and the lack of urgent political issues. "A growing number of protesters also believe the city should no longer stick to peaceful protests in achieving democracy in the wake of the Occupy sit-ins," Choy said.

(Post 852) July 1st, 2015.

The Civil Human Rights Front announced the crowd size for the 2015 July 1st march was 48,000, which is a lot less than the 510,000 for 2014. When you see that apart from the Falun Gong, only soccer fields 4, 5 and 6 have people standing there, you knew this was happening.

The two main themes of the Civil Human Rights Front this year were: "Build democracy in Hong Kong" and "Take back the future of our city." The five slogans were "CY Leung resign," "hold the black police responsible," "rescind the public security rules and regulations", "eliminate the nomination committee" and "amend the Basic Law."

I was not standing at the head of the procession, so I don't know what was happening there. But in the middle and back of the procession, I heard a few isolated "CY Leung resign" but I never heard the other slogans. So the Civil Human Rights Front had a problem this year with publicizing things.

Actually not only the participants but the political parties and groups did not care much about the slogans of the march. Frankly, they were more interested in exhibiting their own products and propaganda.

Last year, the Occupy Movement was the main theme of the July 1st march. Even if the political parties have different positions, they can only react to the Occupy Movement in their own style. So there was a clear theme. But this year the slogans don't have a leading theme. Furthermore, "Amend the Basic Law" and "Build a democratic Hong Kong" are not positions that all political parties and groups concur with.

With respect to the street booths, there were many more local organizations. This is in response to the call for micro-level cultivation in the post-Occupy era. But it is noteworthy that while the Occupy Central with Love and Peace booth caught a lot of attention, it is less so this year. Also, the Federation of Students are less prominent now that half the universities have withdrawn.

Even the pro-establishment booths that were meant to counter the march were non-descriptive.

After the Umbrella Movement and the veto of the constitutional reform bill, it is natural that the number of marchers should fall due to the lack of issues. The carnivalization of the march is not a big problem. When an issue arises, there will be a carnival again. The political parties and social groups need support, and they cannot be criticized for soliciting donations on July 1st.

But the Civil Human Rights Front was even more disappointing than the fall in numbers or the Carnivalization. Given what was happening in the afternoon, there shouldn't be any statements about "hopefully the number of participants will match the same level as last year." They were also open about "amending the Basic Law." Also it was unnecessary to "feel astonishment" that someone would hold a Hong Kong independence flag and promote Hong Kong independence at a time when Localism is so widespread.

(SCMP) Critics have harsh words for Hong Kong's democracy march and rally. July 2, 2015.

While thousands flocked to Victoria Park yesterday to participate in the annual pro-democracy rally and march, there was no shortage of harsh words from their opponents. Some dismissed it as "pointless". Others said they were fed up with the seemingly endless protests of the past year and wanted harmony.

The Civil Human Rights Front, which organised the event, was banking on public discontent with the government after last year's Occupy protests to turn it into another massive anti-government display. The Occupy protesters took over roads in Mong Kok, Admiralty and Causeway Bay to press Beijing to give Hong Kong what they considered "genuine universal suffrage".

Nothing was achieved, though, and the campaign, characterised by violent conflicts between supporters, opponents and police, ended after 79 days.

Yesterday morning in Taikoo Shing, Loren Lau, a 50-year-old administrative officer, said she was not interested in joining the marchers because "they are too extreme". She dismissed the young activists as "spoiled children" who only offered criticism but no solutions. "Democracy doesn't mean you want your way only," she said.

In Central, waiter Edwin Chung Long-win, 20, said his father forced him to join the July 1 rallies in the past, but he did not support the activists' demands and feared the march could degenerate into violence. "Their idea of freedom isn't mine. The 'umbrella movement' was only propaganda. [The protesters] damaged public property and fought with police officers," Chung said.

Accountant Susan Chan, 33, of Causeway Bay, had also marched in the past but said she was fed up with the "pan-democrats' anti-everything attitude" and decided not to take part this year. "I don't quite follow the pan-democrats' logic. When the government allows all people one man, one vote, they say no and reject the political reform. Now they come out and say they will fight for democracy for us," Chan said. "Hong Kong people would have been able to elect our chief executive but for the pan-democrats."

The political reform proposed by the government was voted down 28-8 in the Legislative Council last month after 31 pro-establishment lawmakers walked out in a failed attempt to delay the vote. Without the support of the 27 pan-democrats, the reform package could not get the two-thirds majority in the legislature required for it to pass anyway.

Secondary school teacher William Li, 54, said he did not think protests were effective in pressuring the government. "I have joined several marches after the Occupy movement and the turnout was so low. People seem to have turned to more radical action, like storming the Legislative Council." Li was once a regular at the July 1 marches but decided to stay at home this year.

High school pupil Dominic Wan, 18, chose to spend the day shopping. "We don't have anything to complain about. I'm not too fond of this Occupy thing. I don't believe it's good for Hong Kong. [They] annoy a lot of people. I think Hong Kong is good as it is. I think we depend on China."

Restaurant manager Michael Lee, 45, said: "What I want is a more peaceful Hong Kong. Since the Occupy movement, I have been feeling a sense of insecurity. The city is not as safe as it was before."

(SCMP) ‘We don’t want Hong Kong independence’: July 1 march organisers refuse to side with localists. July 2, 2015.

The organisers of yesterday’s annual Hong Kong pro-democracy rally have distanced themselves from localists advocating independence from China for the city.

Daisy Chan Sin-ying, convener of the Civil Human Rights Front which organised the march, said the group did not think that Hong Kong should seek independence. “The front actually does not hold such a view [on Hong Kong independence],” she said during an RTHK talk show today.

She said the group, in demanding to amend the Basic Law to solve the city’s constitutional and livelihood issues, was a move that followed the “one country, two systems” framework. “The Basic Law gives Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy except for military and diplomatic matters ... The problem is only that the central government is not implementing what is stated in the Basic Law,” she said. “It is not that there is an urgent need for Hong Kong to seek independence.”

Chan made the remarks after a handful of localists joined yesterday’s rally, standing in front of the organisers’ “big banner” and leading the marchers at one point. The localists brandished the colonial-era Hong Kong flag, a symbol now seen as advocating independence.

She said the front was shocked by the localists’ action and its stalwarts argued with them in asking that they refrain from trying to lead the march.


(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19e0-5TmGRc Victoria Park  crowd
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLeVyJxnYK4 The head of the procession
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7QnQt0J7EQ Falun Gong banner demanding the prosecution of Jiang Zemin

(Bastille Post) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pud-TZ9m9qg

(dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ygh0qGqo1w Quarreling between opposite camps

(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg7T9HlLHXA Police surrounded the Scholarism station.
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuRgSs8mcO0 News report

(Passion TImes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1lLMMH-2_k Civic Passion screaming at pro-establishment people

Internet comments:

- Low attendance this year? I am going to bring out the beer and peanuts, and watch how the Yellow Ribbons tell me where the silver lining in the cloud is. Some candidates:

--- They are saving their energy to beat up the police canines in Mong Kok tonight

--- They are holding acid/water splashing festivals elsewhere

--- July 1st (Wednesday) is only a public holiday and most people have to work

--- It's okay as long as they keep sending the donation checks in. You don't have to actually attend a wedding banquet, but your wedding present (preferably as $CASH$) must arrive.

--- They are waiting for Lau Wong-fat to show up before they start.

--- They only gave away 300 free-shirts. But this only proves the people did not come out here for freebies today.

--- The Chinese Communists re-opened Lai Yuen Amusement Park in Central/Admiralty and drew away the missing people.

--- The world is small small small small

--- Audrey Eu said that fewer people came out because people are no longer worried about the constitutional reform proposal being passed in the Legislative Council.

--- (Oriental Daily) Occupy Central founder Benny Tai said that the number of marchers this year exceeded his expectations. Therefore, you can put aside any idea of low attendance this year. Thank you.
- When there are numerous marchers, Benny Tai said that it is great. When there are very few marchers, Benny Tai says that it is great. Things are always great for Benny. You have a nice day too, thank you.

--- When the June 4th attendance was lower than expected, they said that people were saving themselves for the big show on July 1st. When the July 1st attendance was lower than expected, they said that people were still fatigued from Occupy Central/constitutional reform. What will be the excuse for the next big event, namely the District Council elections in November?

--- Wait, they are predicting a 1.2 million turnout for the anniversary of September 28 when the Hong Kong Police used tear gas against demonstrators. That would be before the November elections.

--- Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau says that there have been too many large assemblies such as the June 4th march and the June 4th candlelight vigil, and so citizens are fatigued. She expressed concern that citizens may come down from heat stroke. Aha, so we now find out that either the July 1st march occurred for the first time in 2015, and/or all previous ones were held in cool weather.

- Former Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow said that the low number does not mean that the democratic forces have vanished. It only proves that "when the need arises, there will be resistance." He explained that the citizens do not have any sense of urgency to march because the government's constitutional reform proposal has been vetoed.
- Is Chow trying to say that the citizens really wanted urgently not to have one-person-one-vote and now they are very content with the outcome?

- Former Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that he had expected a big drop in the number of marchers. He said that democratic movements necessarily go through peaks and troughs. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that the movement is dead when the numbers are low and that there can't always be 500,000 every year.

- The mainland official media criticized the slogan of "Amend the Basic Law" as being radical but also as pointless as the demand to move the exchange rate to one Hong Kong dollar for 100 American dollars.


- It is also possible that the organizers may refuse to release a number, saying that the only important thing is the marchers today represent the will of the people of Hong Kong. They can persuade the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme from releasing their data in return for a sizeable donation. But they can't stop the Hong Kong Police from issuing a crowd estimate, which becomes the one and only official estimate.

- A soccer field can easily accommodate 100,000 persons: Camp Nou, Rose Bowl, Michgan Stadium
- Can they beat the 85,000 at the Sha Tin Racecourse on the third day of the Lunar New Year? (Apple Daily)
- Can they beat the number for the new Lai Yuen Amusement Park? That's 10,000 in the first three hours.
- Can they beat the number for those who lined up to get tickets for July 1st Open Day at the People's Liberation Army barracks in Shek Kong? That's 18,000. Another 12,000 went to the PLA base at Stonecutters Island.
- Can they beat the number for the Ikea's Midnight Madness Sale at Megabox in Kowloon Bay? (see photo)

- The police said that they have 3,000 officers on duty. Were there more police officers than marchers?
- Stupid! The 3,000 police officers are on the ground and therefore they are counted among the marchers. Whatever the number that the organizers conjure up eventually, you make sure to subtract 3,000 from it.
- And Falun Gong pays 1,000 people to march. So you make sure to subtract another 1,000.
- And there must be 1,000 so-called photojournalists. So you make sure to subtract another 1,000.
- And there are 3,000 Filipina maids demanding a pay raise to $4,500 per month. So you make sure to subtract another 3,000. (Note: If they are demanding a pay raise for themselves, then they cannot be fighting for democracy. A public referendum among Hong Kong voters would only lower their wages!)

- Well, when they filled six soccer fields on June 4th, they claimed 500,000 persons. Now they have only 1-1/2 fields, so that is still 500,000 x 1.5 / 6 = 125,000. This is more than the 100,000 that they predicted at first. Things have never been better.

- When they started out, the police counted 6,420 persons. Somehow another 48,000 - 6,420 = 41,580 joined in later. Well, what is the point of assembling and setting out when practically everybody joins up later along the route?

- The police said that 6,420 started out from Victoria Park. These are the traditional pan-democrats who assembled there by habit. This is a much lower number than in previous year and suggests that this base has eroded severely. The first reason is Occupy Central, which ended after 79 days with absolutely nothing gained. The second reason is the constitutional reform, where the veto now means that there is no chance for universal suffrage in at least ten years. Given these reasons, what would anyone want the pan-democrats to continue to lead the way?

The police said that the peak number was 19,650. The additional people joined after the start, entering at places such as the Goose Neck Bridge. These are the pro-democracy people who will not listen to the Civil Human Rights Front anymore. They have all sorts of other issues and demands, from environmental protection to gay marriage to burn victims to autistic individuals. They tend to be more single-issue-oriented and they don't have affinity for the Civil Human Rights Front's main issues (amending the Basic Law?). How can these people form a cohesive opposition force? That's a good question that the capos in the backroom (Jimmy Lai, Joseph Zen, Anson Chan, Martin Lee) will have to figure out.

- How hard is it to cover six soccer fields anyway? Everybody just bring the biggest beach umbrella that you can find.

- What will the Apple Daily headline be for tomorrow? Even they can't say "500,000 marched for democracy." More likely, it will be "Marchers faint from heat stroke, CY Leung doesn't care whether citizens live or die."

- Blast from the past from Li Yi in Apple Daily, January 2, 2010: Although only 30,000 persons marched in the street, there were probably several million more who quietly carry hope and conscience in their hearts. So there you have the virtual headline: Millions marched for democracy!
- Yes, I agree that there were millions in the streets today (note: I didn't say that millions marched in the streets today).

- (Oriental Daily) Best story of the day: Former Hong Kong Chief Secretary Anson Chan came with Hong Kong 2020 research director Lee Wing-tat and others to march. As usual, she said "Bye bye" to Lee Wing-tat at the intersection of Hennessey Road and Queens Road East and left. She tried to hail a taxi with no success. So she walked into a nearby coffee shop and drank a fruit juice. She stayed for 15 minutes and left by taxi afterwards.

- Some bitch was on television declaring that public opinion as evidenced by the demonstration today clearly favors an immediate re-start of the five-step process for constitutional reform and amending the Basic Law. You have to be a politician in order to lie like a dog.

- (RTHK) Civil Human Rights Front convener Daisy Chan said afterwards that their organization is only responsible for organizing the event in which citizens participate out of their own personal beliefs. As such, she is not accountable for the turnout at the event.
- Ah, yes, but aren't these guys very much into this "accountability" thing? Anything happens, and they say "XXX must apologize and resign." When they are in the line of fire, all of a sudden they claim zero responsibility.
- (RTHK) Daisy Chan said earlier that the number of marchers this year should be able to match the same level as last year (for which the Civil Human Rights Front claimed 510,000). Why is anyone listening to her?

Left pane: 2014
Right pane: 2015
- Daisy Chan is absolutely the worst person ever to lead the Civil Human Rights Front. Her problem is that she can't remember what she said before and those gaping self-contradictions are shocking. For example, she once explained away a low event attendance because people have to work. And that was on a Sunday. This time, she says that July 1st is a public holiday when people have to work. What is a public holiday then? By the General Holidays Ordinance, this means a day which shall be kept as a holiday by all banks, educational establishments, public offices and government departments. Yes, some people have to work (police, firemen, transportation, etc), but they do that year-round because they provide essential services.

- (Oriental Daily, Oriental Daily, Oriental Daily)

The numbers game really doesn't matter. The real game is the donations. The organizers Civil Human Rights Front went down from $438,000 last year down to $248,000 this year. The League of Social Democrats took a major hit this year, going down from $930,000 last year to $350,000, probably because chairman Leung Kwok-hung said that he turned down a $100 million offer to switch his vote and therefore his party coffers must be flushed with cash already. People Power went from $420,000 to $210,000. Scholarism went from $1,310,000 last year to $540,000 this year but the impact is unknown since they won't disclose their finances. The Democratic Party took a hit too, going from $200,000 down $160,000. The Labour Party went from $180,000 to $110,000. The Neo-democrats went from $134,000 to $100,000. Civic Party actually gained a little bit, from $415,000 to $435,000.

But the real winners of the day are the flesh-peddlers (you don't even know what they stand for, but so what?).

- Self-contrarian: Civil Passion's Wong Yeung-tat once said: "Fuck every donation-soliciting organization!" On this day, he was out there begging for alms too.

- (Metro Radio)

With respect to the people carrying the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence jumping into the head of the procession, Civil Human Rights Front convener Daisy Chan said that it was not their idea. She emphasized that the Civil Human Rights Front does not agree with the idea of Hong Kong independence.

- (VJmedia) I joined the Localists' kidnapping of the head of the procession this time. The results were very good. The Civil Human Rights Front wanted to chase us away but they failed. In the end, they called the remnants of the Federation of Students to raise their flags alongside of us the whole way. It was a very funny scene LOL.

- The slogan "CY Leung must resign" has been around forever in various forms. For as long as I remember, they have seen saying "XXX must resign" every single year, where XXX is the Chief Executive at the time. If you repeat this often enough, it will lose its edge.

- (SCMP) Scholarism convener Joshua Wong Chi-fung also believed the lack of a clear theme was the "key reason" for the low numbers. "All the student bodies, civil societies and political parties were unable to come up with a clear framework for the next democratic movement," he said. "We have to admit our own limitations and find out shortcomings in the existing strategies and theories." One of the event's themes was to amend the Basic Law, but Wong said discussions in the past few months were only a start and no consensus had been reached as to how to achieve that goal.

Short-term implication: To those who marched today, you've wasted your time.

Long-term implication: We have no idea of what we are doing.

Thanks for making it very clear.

(Occupy Central with Love and Peace)

2. Rules for Non-Violent Protest

1. Insist on the use of non-violence means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.


2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.


3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.


4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury.


5. Be bold in the face of violence. Do not try to hit back. Move to a safe place and ask for the help from the picket or medical team.

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/?route=occupy/eng_detail&eng_id=28#sthash.ggO8I1xq.dpuf

2. Rules for Non-Violent Protest

1. Insist on the use of non-violence means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.


2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.


3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.


4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury.


5. Be bold in the face of violence. Do not try to hit back. Move to a safe place and ask for the help from the picket or medical team.

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/?route=occupy/eng_detail&eng_id=28#sthash.ggO8I1xq.dpuf

Rules for Non-Violent Protest

1. Insist on the use of non-violent means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.

2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.

3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.

4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury ...

(The Standard)  Occupy Central is action based on risky thinking. By Lai Tung Kwok. June 12, 2014.

With the launch of the constitutional reform consultation, the Occupy Central movement arouses wide public concern.

According to the Ci Hai Chinese dictionary, the meaning of "occupy" is to forcibly take possession of geographic space; to forcibly take control of a territory or a position.

"Occupy" has important implications that involve the controversy over "legal" or "illegal" and whether it will affect areas including people's living, social order, normal operation of the financial, industrial and commercial sectors including the hotel and tourism businesses, the stability of our economy and local and foreign investment.

As secretary for security, I have the responsibility to explain clearly the nature of the Occupy Central movement and its impacts.

In an article entitled "The Most Lethal Weapon of Civil Disobedience" in the Hong Kong Economic Journal on January 16, 2013, University of Hong Kong associate law professor Benny Tai advocated the use of non-violent and civil disobedience action to fight for true democracy.

Up to 10,000 protesters will be unlawfully mustered to block roads in a bid to paralyze the political and commercial heart, aiming to force the central government to accede to their demand.

The proposal has gained the support of Chinese University of Hong Kong associate professor Chan Kin-man and Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China standing committee member Chu Yiu-ming.

It appears many people still do not understand clearly whether Occupy Central is an unlawful act and whether organizers can control it and follow their self-proclaimed principles of "non-violence" and "bearing legal liability." They have not fully considered the consequence of paralyzing Central and whether the assembly will go out of control endanger public order and safety.

Tai noted that Occupy Central is a weapon with mass "disruption power." On that, the action should comply with principles including: The number of participants is critical, perhaps forcing police to use a higher level of force and incur a higher political cost for the government. Ten thousand people or more can achieve such a purpose. To express their stance with civil disobedience. To break the law, but with no violence. Resources will be deployed to block main roads in Central. A broadcast center will be set up to draw the attention of the public and the world through the media to mount greater political pressure. Civil disobedience is an unlawful act. Participants will be asked to pledge to bear legal liability and to surrender themselves to police after the blockade and let the authorities decide whether prosecution will be taken against them. These form an integral part of the political inspiration for the movement.

Two months after this outline, the three organizers unveiled the Occupy Central manifesto, in which I noticed a modification to the disobedience principle listed above. It stated that people can participate in the movement in different modes: pledging support only and not needing to perform unlawful acts; not needing to surrender to the police after the blockade or to file a defense at a trial; or surrendering to police but not filing a defense.

In an article entitled "What Offenses Could Be Committed By Occupy Central?" in Chinese on May 24, 2013, Tai further pointed out that participants might commit offenses: Under the Summary Offenses Ordinance, a person who obstructs, inconveniences or endangers a person or vehicle in a public place can be fined HK$5,000 or imprisoned for three months. Under the Public Order Ordinance, Occupy Central should be considered an unauthorized assembly. So every person who "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse knowingly takes ... part in such an unauthorized assembly" is guilty of an offense and liable for imprisonment for up to five years and a fine. Under the Public Order Ordinance, when three or more people assemble and "conduct themselves in a disorderly manner ... to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly."

The article also mentioned that a first conviction would likely mean a fine or a few weeks' imprisonment or a suspended sentence.

In any event, the organizer has admitted that occupying Central by civil disobedience would be a law-breaking act, so the legality of Occupy Central is definitely in question.

More broadly, despite its lack of natural resources Hong Kong has become a world city largely due to long-term efforts by generations across different sectors of the community. The success gained over the years is treasured by everyone.

A law-abiding community is the cornerstone of our stability and prosperity. Everyone is equal before the law and all citizens should abide by it. There is no justification for anyone for whatever reasons, including civil disobedience, to be above it.

Recently, there was extensive media coverage about the Court of First Instance of the High Court reducing sentences imposed on legislators Raymond Wong Yuk-man and Albert Chan Wai-yip, who were convicted of unlawful assembly, to a fine.

The judge quoted the trial magistrate's "The Reason for Sentence," pointing to the fact that unless a court ruled that a law violated the Basic Law or human rights there has never been a single law in Hong Kong that people can chose to abide to or to ignore.

"Even those with strong views on certain social issues should still be held liable for contravening criminal offenses. No one is above the law, or else the rule of law as a core value of the society would be undermined ...

"Freedom of speech and freedom of demonstration and protest are the core values of Hong Kong, but the rule of law is equally important. Any unlawful or non-peaceful assembly could entail a tendency or a risk to jeopardize the rule of law in an open and extensive manner. The rule of law must not be jeopardized, because instability is detrimental to the development of society."

Do the organizers of Occupy Central have the ability to maintain the movement's non-violent nature? In view of opinions expressed recently by various sectors, including radical groups in media reports, I believe the answer is eminently clear.

After the Taiwan students' occupation of the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan, various groups declared they would occupy or besiege landmarks in Hong Kong, including the Central Government Offices and the Legislative Council.

In an article entitled "Occupy Legislative Council and Occupy Central" published on March 25 in Apple Daily, Tsai said: "In fact, there is no monopoly in taking protest actions. Occupy Central is not and should not be the only form of protest action by Hong Kong people ...

"Protests will be diverse. Apart from the Occupy movement there will be various forms of protests [and in] locations including the Legislative Council... People will organize their own form of protests in support of each other to generate the greatest political effect."

On April 15. Apple Daily published another article by Tai, "In Response To Queries Of Older Generation On Occupy Central." He pointed out that Occupy Central is a rally and organizers could not guarantee it would be absolutely peaceful.

I now quote a Ming Pao editorial "The Radicals Alter The Nature Of Occupy Central" from May 24 on aims for the 2017 chief executive election:

"Although the organizers of Occupy Central do not agree that the movement has been hijacked ... the development of the movement is running counter to their subjective good intentions. Now the radicals have taken over Occupy Central, with only proposals containing the element of civil nomination [for chief executive] screened in and all moderate proposals deliberately eliminated. The moderates have been marginalized ...

"Records show that demonstrations held by the radicals have usually ended up in a disorderly manner. It is hard to believe that the radicals would scrupulously abide by the peaceful and non-violent principle when Occupy Central takes place."

As the objectives, visions, strategies and means of expression of protesters in public processions differ, radicals will take the opportunity to hijack the movement and turn peaceful meetings into violent ones, deviating from the original plan.

During the Legislative Council Finance Committee meeting on June 6 on funding for advance work on northeast New Territories new town areas, radicals forced their way into the Legislative Council. The incident shows clearly how a peaceful demonstration can go out of control.

In view of the nature of Occupy Central and possible consequences, I would like to remind people that when considering whether to join the movement as participants or onlookers they must consider personal safety and legal liability.

Finally, we will ensure actions in accordance with the law while taking robust action to uphold the rule of law and maintain safety and order.

Lai Tung-kwok

Secretary for Security

Here are some of the cases that have come before the court. Compare these against the Occupy Central with Love and Peace rules on non-violent protest.

(Oriental Daily) May 1, 2015.

19-year-old maintenance worker Au Yik-kit was charged with spraying a 3-meter-by-3-meter red-colored circle on Hennessey Road in Causeway Bay. The police asked him to remove the paint but he refused. Therefore the police arrested him and charged him with criminal destruction of property. Au is implicated in the Sheung Shui warehouse case in which he is charged with attempted arson, loitering and possessing restricted weapons.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

Three young men heeded an Internet call for action. 19-year-old unemployed man Au Yik-kit said that he was the lookout. He was charged with possession of an assault weapon and loitering. He denied these charges.

According to a New Territories North District Police Tactical Unit officer, he was working the night shift and encountered the defendant at San Fung Road, Shek Wu Hui. The police officer found the defendant has two switchblades in his pockets. The defendant claimed that he owed $8,500 in debt and was afraid of being beaten up. Therefore he carried the knives for self-defense. The police officer then found matches, igniter, maps and other items in another pocket. The police arrested the defendant. The case was taken over by the Criminal Investigation Department who searched the defendant's home and found iron crowbars, shovels, axes, etc.

(Oriental Daily) May 1, 2015.

27-year-old truck delivery man Leung Chi-heng was charged with disorderly conduct in public on the night of October 17 in Mong Kong. He was charged leading the chant "Kill the cops" and also throwing a metal barricade that almost injured two policemen. The defense presented two policemen who described what happened. Leung declared that he never did such. He said that it was chaotic that night, and the police arrested the wrong person.

(Oriental Daily) June 26, 2015.  27-year-old unemployed man Leung Chi-hang was charged with disorderly conduct in public on October 17 in Mong Kok. The police testified that he hurled insults at the police, said he "wanted to beat the cops to death" and threw a metal barricade at the police. He was found guilty as charged. However, the defense said that they have located a Cable TV video which shows Leung doing something but not throwing any metal barricade. However Cable TV claimed freedom of press and will not provide the video unless there is a court warrant.

(The Stand) July 23, 2015. Last month the defense found a new video as evidence. Based upon the video, the magistrate ruled that the contents were inconsistent with the testimonies of the police. The defendant did not lift the metal barricade and his actions did not constitute incitement. Therefore the magistrate found the defendant not guilty.

(HKG Pao) March 14, 2016.

Recently a lot of street posters were posted in North District against a couple of Hong Kong Indigenous who have been borrowing money without re-paying. According to the 'wanted poster', North of the Rings member Suki and Hong Kong Indigenous member Leung Chi-heng said that they needed money and asked friends and relatives to lend them several hundred thousand dollars. Afterwards they refuse to repay their debts. Victims have lost their life savings, became mentally ill and even committed suicide.

Hong Kong Indigenous quickly declared on Facebook that the individual Leung Chi-heng joined as a volunteer in mid-2015 but left after two months. Hong Kong Indigenous said that they are always concerned about the physical and mental health of their members and volunteers, and the organization is grateful for their contributions. However, the organization will not interfere with their personal lives and therefore cannot comment on the street posters in North District.

North of the Rings announced on Facebook that they have not yet been able to confirm that the woman in the poster is the same as their member Suki. However, they acknowledge that they have a female member named Suki who was in charge in administrative work but left last August for personal reasons. North of the Rings said that they respect her decision. However, they know nothing about her personal life and they will not intervene either. As ex-fellow soldiers, the organization will attempt to reach Suki and try to provide assistance. Since the complainant has already reported to the police, North of the Rings will make no further comment on the case.

Internet user Mandy Wong commented: When your party member did something wrong, you say that this is a personal matter and you get away without having to make any comments. When someone else does something wrong, you want their whole family to die! That's makes a lot of sense!

(Ming Pao) May 19, 2015.

28-year-old transportation worker Tang Tak-chuen was accused of interfering with police operations. On October 27, he was accused of taking away the police baton of female police officer Wai Ching. According to Wai, she was crossing the flower trough on the meridian of Nathan Road to go to the southbound lane when Tang suddenly approached her, grabbed her baton and ran away. She yelled and chased Tang. Tang ran for about 6 meters when several other police officers arrived to arrest him.

The defense pointed out that Wai testified that she wrapped the nylon cord on the baton twice around her wrist and therefore it was impossible to take it from her, especially given that there was no sign of injury on her wrist. The defense claimed that Wai jumped down from the flower trough and clubbed Tang on the head with a blow coming down from above. Then she clubbed Tang again on the neck. Because she used too much force, the club fell out of her hand onto the ground. Then she slandered Tang for taking away her baton.

The defense then claimed that several male police officers kicked and punched Tang, handcuffed him tightly to cause injuries on his hands. The medical report showed that there were red spots on Tang's scalp and wrists. The defense wanted to know the police guidelines on the use of baton, but the magistrate ruled that this was not germane to this trial.

(Wen Wei Po) July 4, 2015. After listening to the closing statements from both sides, the magistrate deemed that the two police witnesses were reliable and trustworthy whereas the defendant's testimony was not credible. Therefore the magistrate found the defendant guilty. The defendant said afterwards that he expected this verdict.

(Oriental Daily) On July 22, Tang Tak-chuen was sentenced to four weeks in jail. He posted $10,000 in bond and will appeal the sentence.

(Sing Tao) May 26, 2015.

23-year-old Golden Forum user Tam Hiu-fung posted last October to incite others to join the illegal assemblies of Occupy Central. He wrote things such as "If you are a man, you should take back Mong Kok" and "The MTR is the lifeline of Hong Kong so we have not messed with it. Since the government wants to continue to fool around, let's go all the way!" Earlier Tam had pleaded guilty to one charge of dishonest use of a computer.

The magistrate pointed out that it was very irresponsible for the defendant to make those statements on the Internet, because people might actually take action as a result. The magistrate asked: "Is this constructive and helpful for Hong Kong?" The magistrate sentenced the defendant to 100 hours of community service.

(Oriental Daily) May 11, 2015.

23-year-old BBQ meat restaurant waiter Tam Hiu-fung used his iPhone to post messages on the Golden Forum last October 17. He incited others to join an illegal assembly, "Three stages of the weekend counter-offensive: Take Mong Kok for the fifth time; take Lung Wo Road for the sixth time; occupy Central during the day." He also wrote: "If we cannot re-take Mong Kok, then we'll purchase tickets and enter the MTR to wait for the train." The police came across these posts made by the individual known as Lee Siu-ming, tracked down the IP address and arrested Tam at the waiters' dormitory.

(New York Times) October 28, 2015.

At 6:49 a.m. on Oct. 17, not long after the police completed a predawn operation to clear a volatile protest camp in Hong Kong’s densely populated Mong Kok neighborhood, someone posted a “call to action” on a popular online forum, urging residents to retake the streets.

“Tonight, if you’re a man, let’s revive Mong Kok,” a user calling himself Li Siu-ming wrote on the HKGolden website. “If there are no other options, we will have to blockade the railway station, paralyze the MTR,” he added, referring to the city’s subway system.

There was little to distinguish his posts from others online about the pro-democracy demonstrations that have disrupted Hong Kong for more than a month. But the next day, the police demanded user data related to his messages, according to HKGolden’s manager.

Several hours later, officers arrested a 23-year-old man at his home, saying he had “incited others on an online forum to join the unlawful assembly in Mong Kok, to charge at police and to paralyze the railways.” In announcing the arrest, a police spokesman, Hui Chun-tak, made a sweeping assertion: It is a crime in Hong Kong to post messages calling on people to attend the protests.

“I stress, inciting others to commit criminal acts on the Internet is illegal,” he said.

The warning, along with a refusal to disclose more information about the case, has heightened fear that the authorities in this former British colony have begun to police the Internet using methods more often associated with the security forces in mainland China, where web censorship is routine and a crackdown on online dissent has been underway for more than a year.

The police have declined to provide the exact language that prompted the arrest or to confirm any link to the messages posted on the HKGolden forum. But Joe Lam, the site’s chief executive, said officers had demanded that he provide them with the Internet Protocol addresses and messages associated with the Li Siu-ming account.

In addition to the call to paralyze the subway system if necessary, the user urged protesters to “force the police to use force” when retaking the Mong Kok site. After protesters succeeded in re-establishing the camp, he got back online and suggested at 1:57 a.m. on Oct. 18 that they “charge Lung Wo,” referring to a street outside the Hong Kong government’s office secured by the police.

But the next day, he reported that officers had come to his home and arrested him for messages supporting the protesters. “I just got home after giving a statement,” he wrote. “So gloomy. Technology Crime Division. Be careful.”

The police have identified the suspect only by his surname, Tam, and said he had been released on bail pending an investigation. Mr. Tam initially sought the help of a group of lawyers and volunteers associated with the protest organizers; they said his full name was Tam Hiu-fung.

In a private message on the HKGolden site, the person using the account declined to comment but confirmed his name was Tam Hiu-fung. “I don’t want to go into details about my background. It’s not important,” he said when reached by telephone. “I’m an ordinary Hong Kong youngster. I just want to do something for Hong Kong.”

It is unclear what drew the police to Mr. Tam. The pro-democracy movement has relied heavily on social media and messaging apps to organize and mobilize protesters, and statements urging people to turn out for the demonstrations or even to confront the police are rife on local websites, as well as on Facebook and Twitter.

Messages advocating violence are less common but can be found among both protesters and those who support the government, raising the question of selective prosecution.

“Open fire and kill those animals. Watching it makes my blood boil,” one Facebook user opposed to the protests wrote on Oct. 16, commenting on a video of a clash between demonstrators and the police.

(Oriental Daily) June 11, 2015.

20-year-old man Leung Chi-wai was charged with assaulting a police officer on November 25 in the Occupy Mong Kok area. According to the police officer Choi Hong-kai, he heard the defendant Leung yelled "Charge!" and then charged at the police line. Leung then fell on the ground when he ran into other police officers. Leung started struggling on the ground. Choi went up to subdue him and got kicked twice. Eventually Choi subdued Leung.

Upon cross-examination, the defense pointed out that Leung was wearing a helmet and goggles at the time but Choi said he did not. Furthermore, the defendant claimed to be tackled by policemen, hit with batons and cursed out with obscene language, but Choi said it did not happen. The defense then played a video. Choi agreed that the video was taken at the scene. The video showed a man being tackled onto the ground by the police. Choi agreed that the man wore the same clothes as the defendant at the time of arrest. However, Choi was not sure about the time when the video was taken.

(Sing Tao) June 11, 2015. The defense played two videos. One was provided by a Golden Forum user and another one was found on YouTube. In those videos, a man in blue jeans and camouflaged top was suddenly dragged out of the crowd by plainclothes policemen. Someone yelled: "Fuck your mother! Wearing a helmet? Hold him!" At three to four policemen rushed up to subdue this man. When asked whether this was the defendant, the witness Choi said "very similar." The defense said that the situation that day was that the defendant was not leading any charge, but he was suddenly pulled out by the police, hit a couple of times on his legs and then subdued. Choi said that he did not see such thing.

The defendant Leung Chi-wai said that he was demonstrating in Mong Kok. At Shan Tung Street, he was pushed by the crowd to the front row and suddenly plainclothes policemen pulled his helmet, pushed him on the ground and subdued him. He said that he did not kick any policeman. After viewing the two videos, Leung said that he was the individual who was subdued in the video. He said that he did not see Choi in these videos.

(Oriental Daily) June 30, 2015. The magistrate said that the policeman's testimony was not credible. First Choi testified that he saw the defendant saw him approaching and kicked him. However, Choi was unsure whether there was eye contact. Furthermore, there was discrepancies between the video and the testimony. Therefore, the magistrate ordered the defendant discharged as not guilty.

(Wen Wei Po) June 12, 2015.

On October 17 during the illegal Occupy Mong Kok period, the police was enforcing crowd control at the intersection of Shan Tung Street and Nathan Road. 26-year-old part-time interior decorations worker Cheung Hon-wei suddenly gave a big shout, charged at a police van, jumped up to take a flying kick at the van door. Two scratch marks were made on the van door. The police subdued Cheung and charged him with criminal destruction of property. At the trial, the defendant said that he had no idea why he kicked the police van. He apologized to the police and said, "I am making a public apology to the police. I deeply regret (what I did)." Cheung was allowed to post a 15-month good behavior bond for $2,000. He also has to repay the police $480 for the car repair work. 

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

22-year-old musician Marco Lee was accused of assaulting a police officer on Lung Wo Road, Admiralty on October 18 last year. Two police officers testified. One of the officers was hit by a water bottle while the other officer observed the defendant throw that bottle. Because there were large numbers of demonstrators and photojournalists filming, there was no chance that the two officers corroborated on the evidence.

The defense pleaded that the defendant attends church and volunteers to teach in prison. Furthermore, the defendant is not a violent person and did something unusual this time out of political fervor. The magistrate said that the court must send a message to the public that police will be protected while on duty. Therefore, the magistrate sentenced the defendant to four weeks in prison. He is currently out on $500 bail pending appeal.

(Apple Daily) June 5, 2015. After being found guilty, Marco Lee explained that he and his girl friend joined the demonstration. At the time, the police had forced the demonstrators off Lung Wo Road. Amidst the chaos, he was suddenly grabbed from behind by policemen. Two police officers came up and pushed him down on the ground. He said that he was hit in the leg by a hard object. "One of the policeman knelt on my chest five to six times." He found it hard to breathe and could not fight back. About five policemen surrounded him. He was handcuffed and taken over to Government Headquarters. A plainclothes policeman dragged him by the handcuff and told him to hurry. His forearm was injured as a result. He said that the doctor at the hospital told him that he had a broken bone. However, the medical report indicated only that he had scratch marks on his left shoulder. The defendant said that the police used violence on him to release anger. Prior to that there had been many instances of police assaulting demonstrators. The defendant was frightened by the police that day.

(Wen Wei Po) June 17, 2015. The magistrate said that on October 18, demonstrators attempt to break through the police line and occupy Lung Wo Road. Sergeant Fong Wai-kay was hit in the back by a hard object. Another police officer Hui Hing-sing observed the defendant Marco Lee tossed the water bottle and therefore went to make the arrest. Lee kicked Hui in excitement. Other police officers came and helped to subdue Lee.

The defense claimed that the police made false charges against Lee in anger. But the magistrate said that the testimony of the two officers could not have been improvised at the scene. Also, Lee's claimed injuries did not match the medical report. When Lee was subdued, he asked the police whether he was arrested. This is not a reasonable reaction for an innocent person. Therefore, the magistrate said that the defendant was not honest and trustworthy and therefore he rejected his testimony. The prison sentence was imposed because the defendant showed no remorse for his deed.

(Oriental Daily) February 24, 2016. Marco Lee based his appeal on the assertion that the magistrate should not have disallowed his own testimony during the initial trial. However the High Court judge immediately rejected his appeal and sent him to jail immediately for four weeks.

(Headline Daily) February 25, 2016. The appeals judge said that Lee said at one time that he did not resist arrest and at another time said that he was arrested after some struggling. So his testimony was self-contradictory. The judge said: "I don't see anything wrong with the magistrate not trusting him. I don't even trust him."

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2015.

32-year-old courier delivery man Man Chi-wai was charged with obstructing the police. He was standing on the electricity transformer station in Tamar Park and he refused to follow police instructions to leave on October 15.

Man claimed that he wears eyeglasses for his "900 degree myopia." On that day, he wore a surgical mask and he climbed on of the electricity transform station in order to get a clearer picture. He did not chant any slogans and he did not display any banners. At around 2am, a policeman told him to come down to be arrested. Because the transformer station was pretty tall, he could not come down immediately. He asked the policeman to help him, but was turned down. Eventually he came down and two policemen dragged him to the wall. He was asked to face the wall, raise his hand, lower his hands, squat down and then lie face down on the ground. Several policemen then punched and kicked him. The police then tied his hands up with plastic bands and took him into an unmarked car. The police cursed him out with foul language. He was then taken down to the police station. He insisted that he did not obstruct the police.

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2015.

19-year-old Yu Wai-lun joined Civic Passion and Hong Kong Indigenous Democratic Front in the anti-parallel trader demonstration in Yuen Long on March 1. At around 6pm, Yu put on an armored glove and punched police officer Lee multiple times. Lee arrested Yu immediately. Later, Lee underwent medical exam and was shown to have sustained injuries on his left arm, shoulders, upper back, groin and lower leg. The police also found body armor and knee guards in Yu's backpack.

The magistrate said: "Have young lads like you been watching too many movies and cartoons? Were you going to put on the armor and become a martyr?"

The defendant Yu had just completed his DGSE exam. He pleaded guilty to one charge of assaulting a police officer. He bowed to the police officer Lee and said: "Sorry for causing bodily harm to you. I promise that I won't do this again."

The defense lawyer said that Yu is the only son of the family. Yu has just completed his DGSE exam and plans to attend university. Yu does not belong to any political party and he has reflected on his actions. He promises not to participate in any such action in the future. Yu really wants to attend his graduation ceremony. Furthermore, he serves as a swimming coach at an international school and therefore wants to be bailed out.

(HKG Pao) July 7, 2015.

In mitigation, the defense pleaded that the defendant was discriminated against in school due to his obesity. Today, the defendant realizes that the anti-parallel trade movements have created discrimination against mainlanders and parallel traders. Therefore the defendant hopes for a lenient sentence. Furthermore, the defendant is well-behaved at home and in school.

The magistrate Shui Kai-lai said that the defendant is a young person that society will rely on in future. Therefore he sentenced the defendant to a 12-month probation order.

(The Stand News) July 6, 2015.

Outside the courthouse, Yu Wai-lun told the press that he does not regret taking part in the anti-parallel traders movements, but he is sorry to have assaulted the police officer. He said that he has not considered whether the anti-parallel trade movements is discriminatory against certain parallel traders. Will he participated in similar actions in future/ He said that he does not know.

(Oriental Daily) June 29, 2015.

16-year-old student Fung Tsz-ho was charged with assaulting a police officer on March 1 in Yuen Long. At the time, there was a demonstration against parallel traders. Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officer Lee Wang-tat was in plainclothes with a police vest dispersing the crowd out the McDonald's. Lee claimed that the defendant pushed the door from the inside, hitting him thrice on the elbow. The defendant also cursed him out as a "Police dog." Lee said that he had explained to the defendant that "the police are working, please do not push anymore." However, the defendant did not stop. Therefore he believed that the defendant was intentionally pushing the door at him and he made the arrest accordingly.

(Wen Wei Po) The defendant denied the charges. He said that he was in Yuen Long that day because he is "interested in current affairs" and wanted to understand better. He also wanted to offer "spiritual support." At the time, the police used pepper spray at the crowd, which carried him inside the restaurant. Then he saw some people with raised batons outside the restaurant so he wanted to go out and "understand" things more. But when he pushed the door, it hit someone.

Fung said that he is hearing impaired and requires a hearing aid which he was not wearing at the time. He said that he could hear what the policeman was saying. He took one step back and the police rushed up to knock him down and handcuff him. That was when he realized that those people were policemen. He also denied calling police officer Lee Wang-tat a "police dog."

The defense lawyer said that when Fung first pushed the door, the angle reached only 70 degrees and he did not make it out of the restaurant. Therefore, Lee's testimony is suspect. It was also said that Lee was in plainclothes and the defendant may not have seen the word Police on the vest from that angle. Therefore, Fung accidentally opened a door that hit Lee and there was no deliberate intention to assault the policeman.

(SCMP) July 10, 2015. A hearing-impaired secondary school pupil was yesterday cleared of pushing the door of a fast-food restaurant and hitting a policeman amid chaotic scenes during a protest against parallel trading in Yuen Long.

Acquitting Fung Tsz-ho, Tuen Mun magistrate Kelly Shui said she could not rule out the possibility that the 17-year-old opened the door and accidentally hit officer Lee Wang-tat. She also could not be sure if Lee was hit by other people at the scene, or if he was being oversensitive as the area outside the McDonald's restaurant was crowded.

The court was told that Lee in plainclothes, wearing only a police vest, was deployed to disperse protesters who were gathering outside the restaurant to protest against parallel trading. Fung was inside the restaurant at the time when police started pepper-spraying protesters, Shui noted.

Fung had earlier pleaded not guilty to one count of assaulting a police officer.

During the trial, Lee accused Fung of "opening and closing" the front door of the restaurant at very fast speed as the door hit him three times. Outside court, Fung, who will sit public exams next year, said the trial had wasted his time as he had to miss some classes. He added that he was not aware that Lee was a police officer.

(Sing Pao) June 30, 2015.

27-year-old Eric Poon (nickname "Hexagonal wrench") has been arrested by the police. Poon is suspected of having accosted a girl under the age of 16 and offered to show her some paintings. Then he kissed her against her will. The girl lodged a complaint with the police.

(Wen Wei Po) July 1, 2015.

Eric Poon showing his form with spitting, cursing and making obscene gestures

On June 11 2015, a fourteen-year-old girl was molested by a man under the pretext of showing her some paintings. Her mother learned what happened and filed a police complaint on June 25. According to the court records, a man with the same name (Poon Won-tong) was found guilty of raping/molesting a 14-year-old girl in Tuen Mun in June 2006 on three separate occasions (in a parking garage platform, a restroom for handicapped persons in a recreational area and in a parking garage stairwell). At the time, the defense claimed that the defendant had previously sustained an injury to his brain and therefore he has sub-normal intelligence.

(The Sun) July 14, 2007. A 14-year-old runaway girl was raped/molested thrice by a young man named Poon Won-tong on three occasions, once on a table tennis table for the public in Shan King Estate parking garage, once in a public restroom for physically handicapped persons in Yeung King leisure park and once in the stairwell of the Shan King Estate parking garage. On the first occasion, the defendant tied up the girl and raped her on top of the table tennis table. On the third occasion, the man forced the girl to commit fellatio. On one occasion, there was a under-aged male who watched the rape while fondling the girl. The defense claims that the defendant is mentally retarded due to brain damage.

(Apple Daily) July 14, 2007. According to the defense lawyer, the defendant dropped out of secondary school Form 3. His parents got divorced last year. Last October, the defendant was taken to mainland China to live with his maternal uncle to learn interior decoration. After the police contacted his father over this case, the father went to mainland China and took the defendant back to Hong Kong to turn himself in to the police. According to the prosecution, the defendant and the victim agreed to run away on June 6. On the same day, he took her to the platform in the Shan King Estate parking garage and asked for sexual intercourse. She refused. He used a towel to tie her hands up and carried her onto the table tennis table to rape her. Afterwards, the defendant took her into the public restroom for physically handicapped persons in the Yeung King Road leisure park. At the time, a 14-year-old boy asked to be allowed to watch. So the defendant removed the victim's clothes, used a towel to tie her hands up and raped her. On the same day, the defendant woke the victim up in the parking garage stairwell and forced her to engage in fellatio.

(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2015. At 3pm on May 21, the defendant Eric Poon got into an argument with a worker on the fourth floor of the Fa Yuen Street Public Library. The worker asked Poon to be quiet, but the Poon said: "If you don't know who I am, I will tell someone to beat you to death." The defendant was found guilty of criminal intimidation and sentenced to three months in jail.

Video: Eric Poon looking for a one-to-one fight at the Mong Kok Public Library.
0:55 Poon: You shut up!  Leave!
1:05 The other man who is a head shorter than Poon: Leave? How can I leave? You are blocking my way!
1:07 Poon: Leave! Fuck your mother! Are you scared? Let's have a one-to-one fight!

(Wen Wei Po) August 1, 2015. On January 3, 2015, Eric Poon is suspected of injuring a male pedestrian named Law inside Hollywood Plaza (Mong Kok). Poon has been charged with one count of common assault.

(Oriental Daily) August 15, 2015. The trial of Eric Poon on charges of sexually molesting a female minor will be held on October 5. The defendant Eric Poon pleaded not guilty. The prosecutor said that there will be four witnesses. Because the victim is a minor who was sexually assaulted, she will testify by video conference. The prosecutor said that the defendant is serving three months of jail sentence for criminal intimidation while still awaiting trial for three other cases. Since the defendant had been known to skip bail before, the prosecutor asked that the defendant not be allowed to bailed out. The magistrate ruled that the defendant will be detained until the trial.

Video: Eric Poon lying down on the ground and being interviewed by Simon Ng. He equates the 87 tear gas canisters in Admiralty with the June 4th 1989 incident. The closing comments: "What is your name?" "Eric" "Everybody please support Eric and donate more money."

Video: Unidentified man punched Eric Poon in the eye with a straight right.

Video: eetv interviewed Eric Poon about being injured on his eye previously. "It was around 3:50pm on October 22. I was over there by the intersection of Dundas Street and Nathan Road. A group of people who claimed that they were bailiffs ... they claimed themselves ... that is to say, they are fakes. They dismantled our roadblocks. About ten of them. There were more of us than them." "If there were more of you, then how did you end up bleeding in your eye?" "We wanted to pull the iron barricades back.  Then there was was a Green Ribbon who wore grey sunshades. He held scissors. He cut up our stuff to take away. I pushed him. After I pushed him, I scratched his eyeglasses because I had longer arms. I wanted him to show his face. He was displeased. He hit me and broke the left side of my eyeglasses. That was right in front of the police. The police didn't care." "Did you ask for police assistance?" "Yes, then we went down to the police station. The police released him immediately. I saw it. My friends saw it."

Video: Eric Poon and Ng Ting Pong expounding on the finer points of democracy in Occupy Mong Kok area.

Video: Eric Poon has a confrontation with a Hong Kong Broadband salesman outside Hollywood Plaza on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok

Video: Eric Poon using a megaphone to scream obscenities

Video: Eric Poon bullies a woman as he slaps her hard in the head. When others tried to get him to stop, he said: "Shut up! It's family business!" The woman said: "I really did not borrow any money." But Poon said: "No? You stole my money until there's only 24 dollars left." A person came up to intercede but Poon pointed two fingers at him and said: "None of your business. It's a personal matter." Although there were many Yellow Umbrellas around, nobody stopped Poon who left on his own.

Video: Eric Poon being forced to pack up and leave his Sai Yeung Choi Street South site. He was not the only person asked to leave. As the plainclothes policeman noted: "Arrested five times previously ... a psychiatric hospital record ... sex crimes record ... various people have made 130 complaints against him ..."

(Oriental Daily) July 3, 2015.

Last November, police superintendent Franklin Chu took part in the Solar Peak operation to deal with the Occupy demonstrators. From November 28 through December 1, he received a large number of harassment calls on his mobile telephone and home telephone. He lodged a complaint to the police. The police checked the calls with the telecommunications service providers and tracked down two individual callers.

28-year-old male moneychanger store owner's son Kwong Kai-hong made 37 calls on December 1, including 14 calls within one hour to the home telephone of Franklin Chu. On Kwong's telephone, Chu's number was entered on the contact list as "Spasm Chu."  22-year-old university female student Poon Sheung-yin made 30 calls within three days. Both individuals had attempted to use the "133" prefix to conceal their own caller ID's.

The defense said that the two defendants are first-time offenders and do not realize that it is a crime to make harassing telephone calls, which were "unwise" and "stupid." The defense also said that the two defendants learned from the Internet that this superintendent had clubbed demonstrators and they got "over-enthusiastic" and used the Internet forum information on Chu to call the superintendent and "tell him that he was wrong."

The magistrate disagreed with the defense's explanation. "No matter how noble the motives were, it is wrong to do this." Furthermore, the calls to Chu's home are deeply annoying to his entire family.

Defendant Kwong Kai-hong

Defendant Poon Sheung-yin

(SCMP) July 4, 2015.

A man and a woman admitted making dozens of telephone calls over four days last year to harass a police officer who was shown on television news beating an Occupy movement supporter, a court heard yesterday.

Kwong Kai-hong, 28, and Esther Poon Sheung-yin, 21, each pleaded guilty to two counts of making persistent phone calls to then Sha Tin divisional commander Franklin Chu King-wai, who took part in the "Solarpeak" operation during the Occupy sit-ins in Mong Kok last year.

Chu received one anonymous call after another on his residential landline and mobile phone between November 28 and December 1, Tsuen Wan Court heard. No caller identity was displayed for most of the calls.

"The frequency of the telephone calls was annoying to [Chu] and he reported the case to the police," prosecutor Kalina Wong Suk-lan told Magistrate Rita So Ka-yin.

Local media reported that Chu retired after the footage capturing his action against Occupy supporters went viral on the web. Poon found Chu's phone numbers in a post on the HKGolden.com forum, the court heard.

According to records on Kwong's mobile phone, 14 calls were made to Chu's residential landline and 23 to his cellphone on November 28 and 29. Police arrested Kwong and seized his phone on December 22, Wong said. The officers found Chu's numbers saved as a contact under the name of "Chu King-luen".

Poon made 19 calls to Chu's residential landline and 11 calls to his mobile phone between November 28 and December 1. She admitted to police under caution that she rang Chu more than 10 times with a view to "punishing and harassing" him, Wong said.

In mitigation, the pair said they cared about what happened in Hong Kong and had committed the crimes on impulse.

So said that regardless of what they saw in the television footage and however noble their motive, the way they handled the matter was inappropriate. The magistrate said they should instead have raised any concerns they had with the relevant authorities.  She adjourned sentencing to July 17, pending probation and background reports.

(Apple Daily) June 25, 2015.

According to police officer Shum Chun-yin, he was on duty outside Wai Fung Centre at the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street at around 7pm on October 17, 2014. Shum observed that 25-year-old porter Wong Hiu-sing claiming to have been hit in the eyes by pepper spray. At the time, other persons offered Wong water and paper tissue to wipe his face. The defendant cleaned up while complaining that police used the pepper spray with neither cause nor warning.

Shum testified that after cursing for two minutes, Wong glared at him and yelled: "Fuck your mother, you goddamned policeman!" Then Wong threw the wet towel at Shum, hitting him right in the nose. Shum and another police sergeant arrested Wong for assault. The defendant fended Shum off and used his shoulder to ram Shum in the chest. The two fell down on the ground. Shum felt pain, and realized that his shoulder has been dislocated. Upon cross-examination, Shum admitted that the police report did not contain anything about being rammed with the shoulder. "It's my fault for not being sufficiently detailed." He also said: "By the time that I got to the hospital, my chest didn't hurt much. My arm was really hurting."

The defendant said that he was on the way home after work. When he got to this location, the police had blocked off the road. He waited 10 minutes without going anywhere. He was relatively calm but other people around him were cursing the police non-stop. Suddenly the police sprayed him. His eyes were still hurting after he cleaned. "I couldn't see anything. I was innocent. I got upset and I threw the paper towel. Then I got held. I didn't know who they were. I did not want anyone touch me, so I struggled. I did not intend to assault or resist the police. " The defense pointed out that the defendant did not participate in Occupy Central.

The magistrate said that although the policeman failed to recorder the shoulder thrust on the chest, this was not a critical detail and did not affect his credibility. By contrast, the defendant's court testimony was inconsistent with his statement to the police in many places. The defendant also has four prior convictions. Therefore, the magistrate found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to seven days in jail.

(SCMP) Police use pepper spray as Hong Kong protesters clash with 'pro-China' group in Mong Kok. June 29, 2015.

Police arrested five people and used pepper spray to try to disperse violent clashes in Mong Kok last night as localist demonstrators protested against a group of people singing in Putonghua, creating a fraught situation that quickly spun out of control when rival pro-Beijing demonstrators clashed with the localists. Four men and one woman aged between 23 and 55 were arrested, police said, and one police officer was reported injured. Dozens of anti-mainlander demonstrators targeted the musicians, who regularly assemble in the pedestrian area of Sai Yeung Choi Street South, accusing them of causing a nuisance.

"Localist" has become an umbrella term for radical groups defined by an anti-mainland sentiment and a desire to resist Beijing's influence over the city.

As word of the protest spread, rivals from patriotic groups arrived, and soon heated verbal arguments broke out, later escalating into physical clashes. Scores of police officers had been standing ready for the protest by the localists, who had announced their intentions in advance. When the two sides began to clash, police deployed metallic barricades as partitions to try to keep them apart.

The situation took a particularly violent turn when officers removed a man from the crowd and carried him into a police vehicle at about 8pm. Localist protesters surrounded the police vehicle on Nathan Road, and officers fired pepper spray at them, hitting several.

The two sides later returned to Sai Yeung Choi Street, where angry verbal exchanges continued for about an hour, followed by chases on foot and physical struggles. Workers from some shops on the street shut their metal gates, apparently to prevent damage.

The chases and fights later spilled into nearby Mong Kok Road, where officers were seen using pepper spray again. A man with his face covered with blood was spotted leaving the scene with the assistance of a woman.

Police were seen helping some apparent participants of the melee into a taxi, angering the localist protesters, who accused them of releasing the perpetrators of crimes. As of 12.50am, about dozens of the localist protesters gathered outside Mong Kok Police Station and called for the release of their fellow protestors taken away by the police. 

(Oriental Daily with video) June 28, 2015 20:07

Almost one hundred demonstrators demanded that the Chinese middle-aged women stop singing and dancing on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. They said that the Chinese middle-aged women's "country music" and "Red songs" are sung in "bandit language" (=putonghua) and represent a form of cultural cleansing that destroys respectability.

The demonstrators emphasized that they were gathering peacefully, but several dozen of them rushed at the Chinese middle-aged women and rained obscene curses upon them. Several dozen uniformed police officers were present to maintain order and separate the sides.

I Care Action founder Anna Chan showed up around 8pm, raised a Chinese national five-star flag, smiled and said nothing. The demonstrators heaped obscenities, but she declined to respond. The police set up a ring of metal barricades around her.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 20:56.

Several dozen Localist demonstrators held a demonstrators against the middle-aged Chinese female dancers on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok district. There were multiple clashes, with people bleeding from injuries. At around 9pm, Caring Hong Kong Power member Anna Chan counter-demonstrated and the Localists rushed at her as she left. The police used batons to control the crowd. Many demonstrators and counter-demonstrators fell to blows. The police dispersed everybody. One man surrounded by the Localists was bleeding in the neck, and the police took him away.

When the fights broke out, the jewelry stores, movie houses, optical glass stores and commercial plazas all lowered their gates. There were five Chinese middle-aged women song/dance booths at the time and at least two of them packed up and left early.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 21:35.

At around 8pm, the police applied pepper spray on Sai Yeung Choi Street South the first time in order to stop the clashes. At around 830pm near the Canton Road Market, the police applied pepper spray the second time. Many were sprayed, including reporters.

The demonstrators extended their battle front from Sai Yeung Choi Street South to the Canton Road Market, which was closed at this hour. The demonstrators chased and assaulted citizens. A woman was punched by the demonstrators. Another middle-aged man who was bleeding in the neck tried to use a water bucket to defend himself. A man in white clothing was hit in the back of the head when he complained about the demonstrators.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 22:33

A man was hit by the demonstrators until he was bleeding in the neck. The demonstrators accused this man of committing assault and demanded that the police arrest him. The police declined. So several dozen demonstrators trailed this man all the way to Tai Kok Tsui until the man asked the police to take him down to the police station. About thirty or so demonstrators gathered outside the police station.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 23:58

The police arrested four men and one woman and will charge them with assaulting police officers, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct in public and common assault. More than 30 Localist demonstrators gathered outside the police station to demand the release of those arrested.

(Wen Wei Po) June 29, 2015.

A number of radical groups were present, including the Hong Kong Indigenous Democratic Front, the Hong Kong Localism Power, Valiant Frontier, Local Ideology, Civic Passion, DLLM Orchid, Hong Kong City-State and so on. However, the participants appeared to be only the foot soldiers in these organizations and the big bosses were absent. Civic Passion's number two guy Cheng Chung-tai made an appearance earlier at a forum on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, but left before the demonstration began. So the participants were dashing around like "flies with no heads" without any purposeful organization. One of them said: "The big bosses are in hiding. They said that they are valiant, but they are actually very scared. They are only using us as cannon fodder."

(Wen Wei Po) June 29, 2015.

The demonstrators from the Hong Kong Indigneous Democratic Front, Hong Kong Localism Power, Valiant Frontier and other organizations showed up in Sai Yeung Choi Street South at around 730pm. They said that they wanted to demonstrate in a  "peaceful, rational and non-violent" manner. But in truth they want to put a stop to all putonghua singing there. They also said that non-Local culture must not be introduced into Hong Kong or else Local culture will be exterminated.

Love Hong Kong Action convener Anna Chan and Righteous Civil Squadron convener Ah Man came to wave the flags of the Chinese nation and the Hong Kong SAR region. Anna Chan said that Hong Kong is a part of the People's Republic of China. If the Localists are dissatisfied, they can always leave this Special Administrative Region of China and immigrate somewhere else. Someone else said that if the Localists forbids anything other than speaking in Cantonese or English, they should charge into the numerous Korean and Japanese restaurants on this street because their customers are always greeted in Korean and Japanese.

The police set up a human wall to separate the two sides. When Anna Chan and Ah Man left an hour later, there was a large-scale clash. The combatants fought from Soy Street to Shan Tung Street down Sai Yeung Choi Street South. A large number of police came and arrested two persons.

But the Localists would not quit. Captain America with his British flag shouted: "There are too many police here. Let us go over to the other side and start all over again." So he and those who followed his call returned to Sai Yeung Choi Street South to provoke the street performers. They even surrounded an electronics chain store and forced the employees to lower the gates on the claim that "someone was stealing something."

And someone said that he was assaulted by somebody. So the battle line was extended to the intersection of Mong Kok Road and Tong Mei Road. A small number of persons even tried to charge onto Nathan Road and start another "Occupy". Several dozen persons followed a police car to the Mong Kok Police Station and demanded that the police release the arrestees.

(TIME) Hong Kong Clashes Reveal Anti-Beijing Anger as City Nears Anniversary of Reunification. June 29, 2015.

Street scuffles between pro-and anti-Beijing factions broke out in Hong Kong Sunday night local time — and one of the city’s most prominent pro-democracy figures was set upon in the street in an apparently unrelated attack. The violence underscores raw tensions in China’s most open metropolis, just three days ahead of the 18th anniversary of the city’s return to Chinese sovereignty.

Trouble began when so-called “localist” groups — many members of which argue for Hong Kong’s independence from China — staged a rally in the densely crowded Mong Kok district of central Kowloon to protest the presence of mainland Chinese street musicians. The performance of Mandarin-language songs in a Cantonese-speaking, working-class area like Mong Kok is regarded by many localists as culturally and politically provocative.

Violent clashes broke out when pro-China groups showed up to counter the localists, with rival groups chasing each other through streets crowded with shoppers and tourists, forcing retail outlets to pull down their shutters. Police say five protesters, four men and one woman, were arrested. No injury figures have been released, but police used pepper spray to subdue protesters and local media published photos of at least one bloodied pro-China protester being led from the scene.

Simon Sin, one of the leaders of Hong Kong Localism Power, accuses police of not doing enough to protect localist demonstrators. “The police protected the people who were attacking us. They didn’t protect us. We got hurt yesterday,” Sin tells TIME.

(EJinsight) Police slammed over handling of assault on Mong Kok protester. June 30, 2015.

Hong Kong police are under fire over their handling of an assault by a pro-Beijing demonstrator on a localist protester during an anti-China rally in Mong Kok on Sunday night.

A protester, who gave his name as Sunny, said he saw his friend being attacked by a group of nine people in the street. The victim, surnamed Leung, was punched several times and dragged before he managed to escape, Sunny was quoted as saying by Apple Daily. Camera footage shows a man being pursued by two people after police separated them. Also, news photos show injuries to Leung’s back. However, the officers made no arrests in the incident, angering protesters.

They were demonstrating against street singing and dancing by a group of women suspected to be mainlanders. Things began to get out of hand when pro-Beijing supporters showed up and exchanged taunts with the localists. The heckling escalated into clashes, with the police moving in, armed with truncheons and pepper spray.

Apple Daily is reporting that suspected triads were among a group that instigated the violence. They were earlier seen with pro-Beijing groups led by I Care Action.  Sources said troublemakers might have been hired to provoke the localists into a fight, hoping they will be detained and forced to miss a planned July 1 rally.

[Comment: Bizarre reporting here: "They were demonstrating against street singing and dancing by a group of women suspected to be mainlanders." (emphasis added). As far as is known, "being a mainlander" is not a crime in Hong Kong, in the sense of "suspected to have stolen the vehicle" or "suspected to have robbed the bank." According to the 2011 Census,  32.1% of the overall population in Hong Kong was born in mainland China/Macao/Taiwan. So this statement cannot be made as if this is normally acceptable. The reporter should find a source to say so and even find another source to present an opposite point of view. For example, Mr. X (no first name please) of Y organization said that they were demonstrating against women suspected to be mainlanders but senior barrister A says that those women are exercising their freedoms of speech/assembly.]

(SCMP) Why Hong Kong localism has no future. Alex Lo. June 30, 2015.

Hong Kong has no future unless it can figure out a way to coexist with the mainland. That is why the radical rejectionism of so-called localists is a dead end. It's especially tragic that many localists are young people, whose future might be considerably brightened if they were willing to explore new opportunities created by the economic rise of China, and learn mainland culture and language. Alas, disappointed by their poor local prospects, yet unable or unwilling to look for opportunities elsewhere, they are stuck in Hong Kong.

And raised by a strong sense of entitlement and a false feeling of superiority over mainlanders while being basically ignorant of the outside world, they idealise our city that in reality has no real moral, intellectual or spiritual substance. In virtually all endeavours of human value, in the arts and sciences, in cultural tradition and history, in business daring and artistic creativity, it's to mainland China you need to turn, not tiny Hong Kong.

We do have our advantages: our freedoms are real, despite our lack of democracy; and our level of public corruption is considerably lower than that on the mainland. These are worth preserving and fighting for. But both freedom and corruptibility are relative. And our fight to preserve our uniqueness and advantages does not, and should not, equate to anti-mainland sentiments and actions.

The average mainland urbanite is much freer and materially better off than any time in the last century and a half. The Communist Party's anti-corruption drive remains a work in progress. But we should never underestimate the party's ability to renew itself and adapt to new circumstances. A richer and freer China will just speed ahead of Hong Kong.

The oft-cited warning about Hong Kong becoming "just another Chinese city" betrays our own arrogance and ignorance. Many leading mainland cities have a depth and human interest our own city simply cannot match. Like it or not, our future, good or bad, is China. Even if you idolise the West, remember that most Westerners have no real interest in Hong Kong by itself except as a passageway or transit point to the mainland.

Hong Kong either gets on that unstoppable bandwagon that is China or it will just get left behind.


(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUguIM29uI Women sing while demonstrators chant obscenities. Anna Chan shows up at 7:00.
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAK_kOOChJI Fighting at 4:20. An arrest is made.
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCAHJo5up8Q The police won't arrest the alleged attacker

(Apple Daily) http://hk.dv.nextmedia.com/actionnews/hit/20150629/19201886/20073437?_ga=1.242723777.218432039.1397350956 Lots of fighting.

(Ming Pao) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeF0nBoJo-4 Masked demonstrators assaulting citizens (e.g. flying kicks at 0:39 and 1:14). This is the video that the pan-democrats, Benny Tai, Joseph Zen, Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, the Professional Teachers Union, the Civil Human Rights Front, the Federation of Students and Scholarism will claim ignorance about because they made sure that they never watch it.
- Speaking of videos that must not be viewed, here is the most famous one to my mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HUPIuuZOTs&feature=youtu.be

(Cable News) http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=461033

(NOW news) http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=141230 Demonstrators attacking citizens.

(SocRED) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7pqY4Gd8WQ The police escort the Love Hong Kong Action and Righteous Civil Squadron persons away
(SoCREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2k9gkJ8yvc Police action (arrest, witness statements)
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vll3Y8U-Ok8 Police carry a man away while fighting a scrum of photojournalists.
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwce4PGn4Tw Following the police closely at the Mong Kok fruit market
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6OH0U6ngeo Mong Kok Fruit Market action

(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEIhoAGY9LY Localists forced the police to take assault suspect down to the police station
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9XVq_TPGdk Pushing and shoving, followed by pepper spray
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZRVojbO4UM Police escort alleged attacker to leave

(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkqWpbE1a1Q Boxing matches broke out.

Internet comments:

- Mr. Ko showed up today to sing. He said that he was born in Hong Kong and has been living here for more than fifty years. He says that he has no political inclinations. In the last five years, he and his friends became interested in singing putongua songs on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall. But after tonight he is angry at the Localists for preventing him from singing.

- Recognize this man! He is a Hong Kong traitor. We need to find out everything about him -- his name, his family, his home address, his telephone number(s), his workplace, etc. And then we will make him regret that he ever sung songs in putonghua.

- (Lau Sai-leung at The Stand News)

The Chinese middle-aged women entered politics during the anti-North East New Territories Development protests. After Occupy Central started, they showed up in Tseung Kwun O to stop Apple Daily from sending out its printed newspapers. During the constitutional reform period, they showed up to support the government. These Chinese middle-aged women are a political tool. They are definitely imported from the mainland and not authentically local. The mainland is operating the Chongqing model with these women. In Chongqing, Bo Xilai was the first to recognize the political potential of the plaza middle-aged women, and he promoted Red Songs to use in his drive against corruption. Bo used a Cultural Revolution approach to consolidate his power. During that time, Red Songs were even sung at the Hong Kong Town Hall concert hall. These Chinese middle-aged women are not engaged in the leisure activities of ignorant womankind. They represent the resurrection of Cultural Revolution politics. The people of Hong Kong will not tolerate them.

The mainland Chinese middle-aged women grew up during the Cultural Revolution. They were born between the mid-1950's and 1966. When they were in primary and secondary school, they persecuted their teachers in a nationwide effort. Their common dream was to be inspected on parade at Tiananmen Square by Chairman Mao. They are uneducated and uncultured, but they understand politics. The people of Hong Kong have seen through this mass stupidity of the Cultural Revolution. Back then, many people took the risk of swimming across Dapeng Bay in order to start new lives in Hong Kong. Those people left the mass stupidity behind and changed the fates of their children.

It is normal reaction for the people of Hong Kong to reject the Red plaza dancing of these Chinese middle-aged women, especially in public spaces. Why are local bands allowed to perform but these Chinese middle-aged women are not? The people of Hong Kong know the difference -- these middle-aged women sing Red songs and do the Plaza dance, and they are allied with the digiterati, the triad gangs and the country squires when they show up en masse.

- I understand how the Localists have the inalienable right and the sacred duty to beat up any mainlander that they come across, but the newspaper is reporting that the Localists were chasing and assaulting "citizens" all the way from the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall into the Canton Road Fruit Market. Are they "valiant resisting" and "civilly disobeying" regular citizens now?

- I completely understand why the demonstrators are forced to protest. The placard held by this Chinese middle-aged Localist woman reads (in English): "Chinese Style Street Dancing is Bad Taste."

The woman was arrested merely for jumping into the middle of Nathan Road to block vehicular traffic. The fact that she was dressed in bad taste is not germane to the core issue here.

- I completely understand this. This man hit a Localist. Therefore this man is bleeding from a big gash in his neck. Therefore the police must arrest him or else the Localists will lay siege to the Mong Kok Police Station.

- On television, I heard the demonstrators yell: "This is Hong Kong. We only speak Cantonese here. No other language is allowed." I hope this message gets through loud and clear to the international community (Americans, Europeans, Filipinos, Australians/Kiwis, Canadians, Indonesians, Taiwanese, Japanese, Koreans, etc) -- YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE. IF YOU WANT TO STAY IN HONG KONG, YOU MUST SPEAK ONLY CANTONESE.
- Every evening I pass through the Mong Kok East train station on my way home. A middle-aged Chinese man is always playing a guitar and singing English-language soft rock songs (such as As Tears Go By, Five Hundred Miles, Michelle, Yesterday, etc). Can the Localists please tell him that this is Hong Kong and no other dialect/language besides Cantonese is allowed?
- Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city. Cosmopolitan means: "Free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world." That is why all dialects/languages other than Cantonese shall be banned.

- June 28 2015 23:16 discussion forum comment. "Hong Kong people unite to oust all mainlanders. Support the Localists!"
- Look at the timeline. The action is still thick out there, and you support the Localists by pounding on your keyboard. Why don't you get out there and occupy the Mong Kok Police Station, seize the guns and ammunition and actually start a revolution?

- In Apple Daily's report (no link will be provided so that they won't profit from the hits), it was said that the Localists drove the Chinese middle-aged women away whereupon the Blue Ribbons assaulted the Localists. That choice of language clearly show that Apple Daily is "fair and balanced" just like Fox News.

Have you been brainwashed by me yet?
Poisoned Fruit Daily
Say FUCK to the Poisoned Fruit

- Who is a Localist anyway? Here are some choices:
--- Someone whose ancestors were already in Hong Kong before 1898 and now has Ting Uk land rights in the New Territories
--- Someone whose parents were both born in Hong Kong
--- Someone who has at least one parent born in Hong Kong
--- Someone whose parents are Hong Kong permanent residents (but not necessarily born here)
--- Someone who has at least one parent who is a Hong Kong permanent resident (but not necessarily born here)
--- Someone who was born in a Hong Kong hospital (but his parents need not be Hong Kong permanent residents)
--- Someone who was born in Hong Kong but not in a hospital (but his parents need not be Hong Kong permanent residents)
--- Someone who was not born in Hong Kong but has become a Hong Kong permanent resident after living here for seven years or more
--- Someone who is here on a one-way visa but has stayed here for seven years in order to become a Hong Kong permanent resident
--- Someone who agrees with everything that Mr. Ho (no first name, please) of the Hong Kong Localism Power says.
If you come up with some rules, you will find it interesting that many of the loudest Localists aren't so Local after all (to wit, Claudia Mo Man-ching, Lee Cheuk-yan, Wong Yeung-tat, Billy Chiu, Cheng Kam-mun, Nathan Law, etc).

- What are they REALLY protesting about?

It can't be because those singers/dancers make too much noise. On Sunday evening, the whole Sai Yeung Choi Street South is filled with performance artists.

It can't be because those people from a trash culture are playing trash music in putonghua:

It can't be because those people have bad taste.

It can't be because those people were taking tips (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG3eS__sfgg ).

It can't be because those people are taking over public space. Here is the lobby of the HSBC building filled with Filipina maids on a Sunday. The Localists have never complained.

In front of Chungking Mansions in Tsim Sha Tsui, there are always dozens of South Asians waving business cards in front of pedestrians. The Localists have never complained.

For here is a large Sai Yeung Choi Street South crowd listening to a local band singing in English. The large crowd is impeding the progress from others who want to pass through. No complaints from the Localists either.

Are you puzzled? The real reason is given in Hong Kong Localism Power's call for action: "When Hong Kong Localism Power was holding its forum on Sai Yeung Street South pedestrian street last week, the Mong Kok Middle-aged Women Group increased their volume and overwhelmed our discussion. Therefore, we are starting an anti-locust movement to express our dissatisfaction with the Middle-aged Women Group!"

Get it!? This is just another gangland turf struggle. All other assertions are chaff counter-measures to misinform, mislead and misdirect.

- Here is a video that summarizes some of the points of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej62c6_E3RE

Intro: Video of the middle-aged Chinese women in Mong Kok.

Con: For example, the songs that they sing, the dances that they dance, they're all very Chinese in style and peasant-like.  Such Chinese culture are unsuitable for a cosmopolis.

Pro: You cannot choose, filter or eliminate on the basis of cultural tastes. There are many forms of pop culture. If I think that the music that I listen to is at a higher level than other people ... well, this is not reasonable.

Is this because there is insufficient public space? or inappropriate usage?

Con: Public space should be used only by local people. I find that these middle-aged women are basically not local people. They came here to make money. Public space is not intended for us to make money from.

Pro: When you think that they don't perform well, you tell them to stop. I think that is somewhat unreasonable, because everybody has the right to use public space. We should be using it on the basis of mutual respect. The government manages the public space. People of our generation do not have a consensus about the use of public space. I think that it is time to discuss a three-win solution.

- If people seem to be confused about what is allowed and what is not allowed on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian area, then it is urgent now to form a Localist committee so that they can decide for us. All those who want to perform on the street must pay a small fee for a limited-time stamp of approval. You have a nice leg, and you wouldn't want it broken, do you?
- Video: Monty Python skit of mafia blackmailing the British army https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZKUozrBl4

- This is a huge racket, because Localist committees will also be needed to decide on many other things:
--- Events held at the Hong Kong Town Hall/Hong Kong Cultural Centre
--- Movies exhibited at the Hong Kong International Film Festival
--- Books sold at Joint Publishing/Commercial Press/Chung Hwa bookstores
--- Stores rented out in all shopping malls
--- Advertisements/programs on radio/television
--- Academic appointments at the eight universities in Hong Kong
--- Hiring at all companies listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange

- Why is so big deal about these street fights? Here is something that just happened the day before when several dozen South Asian refugees fought in Yuen Long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqioXwhREs. And these are the people who are causing chaos in Hong Kong, not the Chinese female middle-aged singers/dancers. Why don't the Localists do something about the South Asian refugees?

- Chronicle of a court trial outcome foretold

Defendant: "I was getting a headache at home. So I left my Lei Muk Shue home and went down to Mong Kok to buy an aspirin. I walked by the said location and the police arrested me without cause."
Magistrate: $300 fine or 120 days of community service or unconditional release.

- By stopping the Chinese middle-aged women from singing and dancing in a public area, the Localists have violated the following articles of the Basic Law:

Article 27
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

[The subjects were not allowed to express themselves through singing/dancing; not allowed to assemble in a public area]

Article 28
The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.

No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.

[The subjects were subjected to deprivation or restriction of the freedom of person.]

Article 31
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of movement within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and freedom of emigration to other countries and regions. They shall have freedom to travel and to enter or leave the Region. Unless restrained by law, holders of valid travel documents shall be free to leave the Region without special authorization.

[The subjects were not allowed to move around at will.]

Article 34
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom to engage in academic research, literary and artistic creation, and other cultural activities.

[The subjects were not allowed to engage in artistic creation (singing and dancing) and were in fact told that their activities are 'trash'.]

If you ask the senior barristers of the Civic Party/Democratic Party to comment on this state of things, they will surely respond: "I don't have enough information on these events. I'll get back to you later if and when I find out more." Since they won't try to find out more, they won't ever have to comment.

- (Hong Kong Equal Opportunities Commission) Race Discrimination Ordinance

The RDO is an anti-discrimination law enacted in July 2008 to protect people against discrimination, harassment and vilification on the ground of their race. Under the RDO, it is unlawful to discriminate, harass or vilify a person on the ground of his/her race. The RDO has come into operation since 10 July 2009.

According to RDO, race in relation to a person means the race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin of the person. Racial group means a group of persons identified by reference to race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin. References to a person’s racial group refer to any racial group into which the person falls.

If a person engages in an unwelcome, abusive, insulting or offensive behavior because of another person’s or his/her near relative’s race, which makes him feel threatened, humiliated or embarrassed then it is racial harassment. Racial harassment can be in any form—physical, visual, verbal or non-verbal—and even a single incident may constitute racial harassment. It also occurs if a person creates a racially hostile environment for another person because of his/her or his/her near relative’s race. Racial harassment is unlawful under the law. Example: Engaging in name calling, which people of certain racial groups may find offensive or impolite, or using a disparaging or offensive tone when communicating with people on the ground of their race could be racial harassment.

Racial harassment is an activity in public which incites hatred, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person because of his/her race. Any racist incitement involving threat of physical harm to persons or their property or premises is considered serious vilification and is liable for fine to a maximum of $100,000 and imprisonment for a maximum of two years

- Twitter photo of the Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers:

- Twitter photo of protest message against Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers: Trash songs, trash music, go back to the mainland!

- Twitter photo of protest against Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers: Chinese bitches!

- Twitter photo of protest against Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers: Chinese Style Street Dancing is Nuisance. Chinese old ugly prostitutes. (P.S. Michael Tanner must be irritated at the Union Jack flags)

- A new word is introduced into the English language:

- (Oriental Daily) Global thinker/leader Joshua Wong was was suffering from a severe case of attention deficiency on this night until 12:30am when he and his girlfriend Tiffany Chin were assaulted by a man and a woman near a McDonald's on Ivy Street, Tai Kok Tsui district. The man grabbed Wong by the neck and punched his face. Chin picked up the camera and tried to film, but the man pushed her down and dragged her on the ground by her hair. He tried to kick Wong again. The man and the woman then fled. Wong called the police who took him down to Kwong Wah Hospital for an examination.

- "As quiet as a mouse" - that's Joshua Wong if you ask him whether he supports assaulting Chinese middle-aged female singers/dancers in the pedestrian area.

- When he doesn't need the police, he calls them "police dogs." When he needs the police, he calls them "police uncles."

- While Wong was getting punched in the face, Chin did not immediately try to stop the man or call the police. Instead she took out her phone to start filming. Terrific sense of priority here.
- How many "Likes" did Chin get for her Facebook video post?

- When Joshua Wong was arrested in Mong Kok previously, he claimed that the police squeezed his scrotum really hard. That is why he is reluctant to deal with them again.

- On July 1st, we need to march and demonstrate against the organized violence directed against our students. P.S. Don't forget to donate lots of money.

- This is yet another CIA false flag operation. The goal is to boost attendance and donations at the July 1st march.

- This was just so predictable. They've already tossed petrol bombs at Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai's home, hired a hit man to kill Jimmy Lai with some bullets but no gun, tossed pig entrails at Jimmy Lai, etc. There aren't too many unplayed variations left.

- Joshua Wong asked the attacker: "Why?" The man replied: "I don't need any excuse to beat you up." Here is the big problem. Wong should not be asking the man that question. He should be asking: "What did I do to get assaulted?" That's where the solution lies.

- You write: "Hong Kong has become an awful place, in which people with different political opinions are violently attacked." I completely agree with you. Yes, it was really awful that the Chinese female middle-aged singers/dancers were violently attacked today.

- Derivative art or violent threat?

- Derivative art - A spoof of plaza dancing in the style of Wong Kar-wai's The Grandmaster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFAxMKVkId0

- "One Country Two Systems" was introduced in order to make sure that Hong Kong can retain its established system with a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years after the 1997 handover. On one hand, some people don't want to see it become One County One System. Thus the Localists don't want to see mainland culture such as plaza dancing creep into Hong Kong. On the other hand, some people want to see it become One Country One System. Thus the Localists want to see popular culture such as plaza dancing be banned in Hong Kong just like on the mainland (see The Wall Street Journal: Will China Ban the Dancing Grannies?).
- Variation on a saying of Sigmund Freud: The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the Localist's soul, is 'What does a Localist want?'

- (HKG Pao) Recently the government proposed to rebuild the Sai Lau Kok Garden in Tsuen Wan. However, People Power legislator Chan Wai-yip said that the rebuilt site would become a plaza for middle-aged women to sing/dance.
By this logic, we should not build any highways because the Yellow Ribbons will occupy it, and we should not designate any pedestrian malls because the Shopping Revolutionaries will take over? There are hundreds of thousands of "middle-aged women of Chinese descent" in Hong Kong and they have their right to use public space as they see fit (including singing and dancing together). Also, it was pointed out that Chan Wai-yip's wife fits the characterization of "Chinese middle-aged woman."

Hong Kong Localism Power Facebook June 21, 2015.

"Chase away the barbarians, give us back our Hong Kong"

When Hong Kong Localism Power was holding its forum on Sai Yeung Street South pedestrian street, the Mong Kok Middle-aged Women Group increased their volume and overwhelmed our discussion. Therefore, we are starting an anti-locust movement to express our dissatisfaction with the Middle-aged Women Group!

As of today, Hong Kong Localism Power will undertake a series of actions against the Mong Kong Middle-aged Bandit Women Singing Group in order to restore our genuine Hong Kong, to restore our Sai Yeung Choi Street South with its original thick local flavor. We will purge all Chinese barbarian culture, we will refuse to listen to bandit music, we will refuse to watch these old ladies dance. Please pay attention to our page!

Wan Chin's Facebook

The Localists have their own character in beating back the Middle-Aged Dancing Group. Raise a placard that says: "Ugly women doing old dances (homonym for "fuck the mother"), mainlanders appalud." Just walk over there and display it silently. Then you say that you a mainlander and enjoy seeing equality because everybody can become a dancer. If they disagree that they are ugly, you say: "I only said that ugly women can dance. Dancing is a human right. You are so pretty, so you should keep on dancing."

Internet comments:

- It is astonishing that the fake localists would switch from valiant discussions about throwing petrol bombs to opposing female middle-aged street singers/dancers in less than one month.

- DLLM! The fucking Yellow Ribbons occupied Sai Yeung Choi Street South for almost 80 days. During that time, they were using megaphones to deliver speeches from morning through the night. The local residents couldn't get any sleep and started to throw stuff out of their windows down onto the street. I didn't see Hong Kong Localism Power coming out to valiantly protect the rights of those local residents.

- The last time I went to Sai Yeung Choi Street South, I saw the Hong Kong Localism Power booth. It was Sunday afternoon. There were all two of them. One of them manned the booth while the other spoke on the megaphone. The man on the megaphone was very worked up in describing their awesome achievements in the anti-parallel trader demonstrators. I stood and watched for about five minutes. Nobody else stopped at all. The man was just screaming into thin air.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny8E9AqqdIY Video of Mr. Bean trying to do the plaza dance.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdtVIHQEJZs Video of Chinese national plaza dancing championships

- https://www.facebook.com/498203090239831/posts/864265626981691 Video of the Mong Kok plaza dancing that Hong Kong Localism Power is going to put a stop to by beating the dancers up.

- (Southern Metropolis Daily) May 15, 2015. At a time when mainland residents are become less enthusiastic about plaza dancing, Hong Kong is quietly seeing a burst of plaza dancing in its parks, recreational areas and plazas. While the theme song for plaza dancing it <Little Apple>, in Hong Kong the preferred song is <Can't afford to get hurt>.  On an early summer morning, a dozen or so middle-aged women began dancing in the Mong Kok Road recreational area. They lined up in three rows, they kicked their legs and waved their hands. Their motions are simple. They repeated the same song again and again. They stopped at 1030am. They told our reporter that they lived in the neighborhood. They don't know each other too well, but they get together just for the dancing. "We are bored. Dancing gives us the change to exercise our body. At 7pm, some people also come here to dance before heading home for dinner."

Chinese University of Hong Kong anthropologist Wang Qianni said, "In a globalized world, women everywhere seemed to pursue the same thing. In developed countries such as England, senior citizens like to do modern sequence dancing and the English people respect their actions. In China, plaza dancing becomes the butt of jokes. Maybe this tells us that we should re-think tolerance in modern Chinese society." She also said: "Maybe it is not a question of middle-aged women's plaza dancing intruding into private space, but rather the issue is whether private space is intruding upon the public space of senior citizens. Urban designers should think about the demand of space as reflected in plaza dancing, as well as come up with ideas about how to consider the needs of women and senior citizens."

- The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution: Event Announcement

Eradicate poor-quality culture
2015 June 28
Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok
Hong Kong Indigeneous/Hong Kong Localism Power/Valiant Frontier
- Looks like the Hong Kong City-State valiant warriors are going out there to beat up some middle-aged women! That's called 'picking on someone of your own size'.
- If love means never having to say that you're sorry, then democracy means never saying that someone else's culture is inferior and must be eradicated.

(SCMP) Last remaining tents cleared from Hong Kong’s Occupy spillover camp outside Legco. June 24, 2015.

The last remaining pro-democracy protesters’ tents in front of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council building were cleared this morning. Representatives from the Lands Department read an ultimatum, saying that anything left in the public areas in front of Legco could be removed, and that the government reserved the right to prosecute what it calls “illegal occupiers.” 

The clearance went smoothly, except for one Putonghua-speaking, middle-aged man  who seemed reluctant to leave. After talking to reporters and representatives from the Lands Department, he was taken away by two police officers to an unmarked white van, which left the area. 

Ellen Leung, a protester aged in her 30s, said she had been here intermittently since last year during the Occupy protests. The freelance marketing worker said that for the past few days, protesters had been gathering their remaining supplies, such as blankets, and getting them cleaned before donating them to charity. She said she was sad when the government cleared the Occupy camps last December after 79 days of protests, but this time she feels different because the government’s political reform proposal was voted down by Legco last week. “As least we achieved something when the political reform package didn’t pass,” Leung says. “Now we’ll continue our protests in the upcoming [District Council] elections.”


(dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdMY0BM9aLI

Internet comments:

- Who is this "Putonghua-speaking, middle-aged man who seemed reluctant to leave"?
(Oriental Daily) The mainlander Wang Deng-yao who has overstayed his visit visa argued for a while before he was finally taken away by the police.

- When 12-year-old mainlander Siu Yau-wai was reported to have overstayed, the Valiant Front called for valiant demonstrations to have him deported immediately (see #247). Let's see whether the Valiant Front will hold valiant demonstrators to have Wang Deng-yao deported immediately. Helpful advice: Don't hold your breath.

- Ah, I remember Wang Deng-yao (see #218). The Oriental Daily photo does not show the state of his teeth. I wonder how many are left after today?

- (TVB) Wang Deng-yao argues with a Lands Department worker, who said: "This stuff now belongs to the government. This no longer belongs to you. Do you understand?" Wang Deng-yao argued back: "I am facing the prospect of becoming a street beggar. What can I do? What have I done wrong? What is wrong? Tell me. Don't take any action."
This is the end of the conversation. Before this video, Wang Deng-yao demanded more time to pack up. The worker reminded him that three days' notice had been given. Wang said: "I am especially dissatisfied because this government is treating me in an inhumane manner ... "

- Question: Is panhandling criminalized in Hong Kong?
Answer: Who cares about any law? All I know is that there are beggars everywhere (in Mong Kok, Causeway Bay, etc).
- But if you really want to know, here is: CA 228 Section 26A Punishment of persons begging alms:

Any person who wanders abroad, or places himself or herself in any public place, street or waterway to beg or gather alms, or causes or procures or encourages any child or children so to do, commits an offence and is liable on conviction-

(a) for a first or second offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 1 month; and
(b) for a third or subsequent offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

- Some other prior arrests for Wang Deng-yao:
(SCMP) December 12, 2014. A Beijing resident shouted "Down with the Communist Party!" before he was carried away. Wang Deng-yao, 55, said he had also taken part in the 1989 Tiananmen Square student movement, and had entered the city this week to "find out the real situation in Hong Kong".
(CUHK) December 15, 2014. Wang Deng-yao and other arrested protesters in Causeway Bay have been released. His visa is due to expire today, so police has asked him to leave tonight.
Take care, good luck and thank you, Mr Wang.
(EJinsight) April 28, 2015.
The arrests came after nearly 100 people staged a demonstration, blocking three south-bound traffic lanes on Nathan Road outside the Sino Centre, Apple Daily reported. Among the arrested was Wang Deng-yao, who is said to have taken part in pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square 25 years ago.
So why hasn't he been convicted/deported?

- Wang Deng-yao has probably procured a Civic Party senior barrister to file a petition for political asylum and now can stay on while his petition is being considered.
- Not quite because the case is bizarre. Wang Deng-yao said that he lost his mainland ID and his application for a replacement has not been approved. He has applied for political asylum to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee but was turned down. His only choice now is to go to Thailand, but he does not own any valid travel document. Therefore, he is stuck in Hong Kong.
He can't find work because anyone who hires him is guilty of hiring an illegal worker.

- (Oriental Daily) Benny Mok was at the scene holding a banner and a yellow umbrella. He said that he has stayed for 250 days and he will miss the place. He said that it was unjust to clear the site, because the demonstrators have the right to demonstrate at the East Wing of Government Headquarters. Mok said that Tim Mei Village represents civil society in this new era and that this suppression will not succeed. As to being accused of blocking the street, Mok said that the demonstrators were not allowed neither to enter Civic Plaza to express their demands nor stay overnight at the Legislative Council demonstration area. Therefore, they should be allowed the trivial right to sleep in the street. He said that he will be back, although he won't be staying over.

- (EJinsight) November 12, 2014.

Former government surveyor Benny Mok has decided to end his hunger strike, after spending 40 days outside the government headquarters, Apple Daily reported Wednesday. The 51-year-old “Mr. Hungry” said he would not hesitate to go on another hunger strike, if the government makes defamatory remarks on the student protesters or clears out the protest sites by force. “I could also try preparing food for those who are staying at the protest sites,” he said. Mok, who is suffering from diabetes, said he has lost 30 pounds over the last 40 days as he only relied on saline solution for nourishment. However, his conditions have improved.

- Here is a photo of Benny Mok eating rice soup on day 20 (=480 hours) of his 40-day (=960 hours) hunger strike:

- (TVB) Demonstrator Mr. Yuan said: "I'm going to miss this place and the relationships that I have formed with the people here. I am going to sit here to watch them remove their stuff. I worry whether they have left valuables behind. Some people did not come back to pick up their valuables. We are leaving. Naturally, next month, someone else is coming back to build a camp again."

- This Mr. Yuan is incoherent. He has no idea what he is saying.

- Some people did not come back to pick up their valuables? This means that their tents were not occupied. So this was a tent city where no one is staying at?

- I'll be back.

- (Oriental Daily) Photos of things that will be thrown away by the Lands Department workers. The owners are probably going to obtain Legal Aid and file some frivolous lawsuits against the government.

Q1. Are you disappointed that the universal suffrage proposal was vetoed?
52%: Yes
38%: No
6%: Hard to say
4%: No opinion

Q2. Do you think that the veto of the universal suffrage proposal has an impact on the prospects of democratic development in Hong Kong?
27%: Yes, for the better
46%: Yes, for the worse
15%: No change
10%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q3. Do you think that the veto of the universal suffrage proposal has an impact on governance in Hong Kong?
19%: Yes, for the better
48%: Yes, for the worse
14%: No change
10%: Hard to say
9%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think that the veto of the universal suffrage proposal has an impact on the relationship between the central government and Hong Kong?
10%: Yes, for the better
52%: Yes, for the worse
23%: No change
14%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q5. In the long term, do you the veto of the universal suffrage proposal is a good or bad thing for Hong Kong?
29%: Good thing
63%: Bad thing
5%: Hard to say
3%: No opinion

Q6. Who do you think is the biggest loser when the universal suffrage proposal was vetoed?
9%: Central government
17%: Pan-democrats
50%: The people of Hong Kong
12%: The Hong Kong SAR government
6%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
1%: No losers
6%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q7. Who do you think bears the most responsibility for the veto of the universal suffrage proposal?
15%: Central government
56%: Pan-democrats
3%: The people of Hong Kong
14%: The Hong Kong SAR government
5%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
4%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q8. Do you think the Hong Kong SAR government should focus on the constitutional reform or economic/livelihood issues in the remaining time of its term?
15%: Constitutional reform
74%: Economic/livelihood issues
4%: Other issues
2%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion

Q9. Some people are advocating to repay the pan-democrats for their veto of the universal suffrage proposal by voting against them in the upcoming elections?
62%: Agree
19%: Disagree
12%: Hard to say
7%: No opinion

(Ming Pao via ltaaa.com)

Every year, the eight universities in Hong Kong actively recruit top mainland students. This year, they are less attractive than before. According to Hong Kong Polytechnic University, they had 3500 applicants last year but only 2300 this year for a drop of 34%. Lingnan University reports that they had 928 applicants last year, but only 556 this year for a drop of 40%.

According to Joshua Mok at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, the drop in mainland applicants may be attributed to parents getting concerned about the safety of their children over those anti-mainland visitor actions. Also, the Hong Kong dollar is relatively strong against the Japanese Yen and the Euro, which makes other places in the world more attractive.

According to the Department of Education, thee were 6630 mainland undergraduates during the 2014/2015 academic year. They account for 71% of all non-local students. There were 71,500 local students. In graduate school, 69% of the student come from the mainland.

Joshua Mok said that every school wants to have more non-local students in order to create a diversified environment. Schools also value research ability. However, few local students want to enter graduate programs. Those who do prefer overseas institutes because of the foreign experience. Therefore, the schools end up with a majority of mainland graduate students.

Occupy Central founder and Chinese University of Hong Kong Department of Sociology associate professor Chan Kin-man said that if mainland students are concerned about their personal safety because of the Umbrella Movement, then this shows that mainlanders lack information due to government censorship. This has made China "the only country in the world that has a negative perception of the Umbrella Movement." Chan said that he himself as been invited by many universities around the world (such as the United States, Australia, etc) and everywhere students welcomed him and praised the Hong Kong students for the Umbrella Movement.

Chan regrets that fewer mainland students will be coming, because it is a loss for them to be trapped in an information-deprived country. If they could come to Hong Kong, they can bring the Hong Kong advantage back home and advance development there. Meanwhile Hong Kong students can benefit from the exchange.

Chinese University of Hong Kong Local Society convener Ventus Lau hopes that the university will accept fewer mainland students now that there are fewer applicants. Those freed slots can be given to local students. "I am not opposed to internationalizing the university, but right now it is sino-fication disguised as internationalization." Lau said that he thinks the current allocation of dormitory space and scholarships are basically fair. But since many scholarships are awarded based upon academic performance, Hong Kong students fare less well against the elite mainland students. He says that the university expenses are covered by public funds and therefore those resources should be given to local students. The university had better deal with this problem or else campus conflicts are going to become more heated.

Basic Facts (University Grants Committee)

Students Enrolment (Headcount) by Place of Origin (2013/14) City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Baptist University Lingnan University The Chinese University of Hong Kong The Hong Kong Institute of Education The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology The University of Hong Kong
Mainland China:
Other parts of Asia:
Rest of the World:

Internet comments:

- Chan Kin-man says that China is the only country in the world that has a negative perception of the Umbrella Movement. Hong Kong is a part of China.

Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme (November 19, 2014)

Q6. Should the Occupy Movement continue or stop?

13.8%: Continue
79.2%: Stop

However, Chan Kin-man's Occupy Central won't stop until he can get democracy for Hong Kong. As an associate professor in sociology, Chan has taught us a lesson that democracy means disregarding the opinions of an absolute majority.

- Chan Kin-man also takes a monolithic view towards things, and that explains why Occupy Central failed. He thinks that there is one and only one way of looking at things. If you don't look at it his way, then you must be brainwashed or something. He thinks that Occupy Central is correct, so he disregards all dissent. To date, he has no understanding why 79.2% of the people of Hong Kong want the Occupy Movement to go away.

- Frankly speaking, if they want to learn advanced science and technology, they should go to the United States or Europe. In Hong Kong, they won't be able to learn much and they will be treated like trash. What is the point? Young men, go west!

- If  you go to the United States and Europe, you will have to speak English. That is at least useful for you in the future. If you go to Hong Kong, you will have to speak Cantonese. What is the purpose? It will be completely useless unless you plan to stay there.

- The Ming Pao article has the title "Heart of Glass". According to the Urban Dictionary, Adj. describing someone who falls in love easily, usually with someone who ends up not feeling the same. Someone who experiences a lot of broken hearts.

- When many mainland students come to Hong Kong, you complain that they are depriving Hongkongers of their rightful resources such as dormitory space and scholarships. They also won't allow mainlanders to run for Student Union positions. So now the mainland students are not coming anymore. What do you do? You criticize them for not knowing any better.
The bottom line is that you want mainlander students to come to Hong Kong in order for you to treat them like dirt so that you can feel superior.

- With fewer mainland applicants, there will indeed be more dormitory space and scholarships freed up. To fill up those spaces, you will have to lower your admission requirements for your local students. Once admitted, these students cannot be allowed to fail out just because they can't keep up. If you don't think that they are good enough, you shouldn't have admitted them. Therefore, you must lower your standards and give easy grades. Your university will suffer in reputation. None of this should surprise you.
Alternately, you can accept a smaller student body adhering to your existing standards. You can shelve your expansion plans and even fire some redundant lecturers/tutors. Or you can keep the lecturers/tutors and run small class sizes.

- It is even less safe to study in the United States with the racial violence. But more mainlanders are flocking over there. Why? At least Americans don't boo the Chinese national anthem.

- Civic Passion's valiant tactics are working great. Let us hope that we exterminate all locusts eventually.

- Does that mean no more 'Sex on Hong Kong Street' videos?

- Let me tell you why mainland students are not coming: Job Search. If you graduate now and have a University of Hong Kong Class of 2015 diploma, nobody is going to hire you!

- Only Hong Kong would be so stupid as to have 69% of graduates students coming from the mainland!
- Is that so? Here is the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP): Foreign students make up the majority of enrollments in U.S. graduate programs in many STEM fields, accounting for 70.3 percent of all full-time graduate students in electrical engineering, 63.2 percent in computer science, 60.4 percent in industrial engineering, and more than 50 percent in chemical, materials and mechanical engineering, as well as in economics (a non-STEM field).

- The reason why the United States welcome international students: (Daily Caller) Our economy stands to benefit immensely from the jobs created by skilled foreign workers. In fact, immigrants are responsible for creating more than 40 percent of the current Fortune 500 companies. Just consider AT&T, eBay, Google, SanDisk, Sun, Qualcomm and Yahoo, all of which were founded by immigrants.
- Hong Kong gets those mainland students but they can't really keep the good ones who are finding Shenzhen to be a happier environment for entrepreneurship.

(SCMP) How Beijing's liaison office is flexing its muscles again in Hong Kong affairs. June 20, 2015.

A sudden flurry of meetings and telephone calls at Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong shortly after the pro-establishment camp's botched legislative ballot on Thursday underscores again the increasing assertiveness of mainland officials in local political reform.

Beijing loyalists either got a pat on the back or had to explain themselves - depending on whether they were responsible for the historic Legislative Council vote recording the lowest ever support among all three post-handover reform proposals from the government.

Just 25 minutes after the outcome was sealed, senior officials of the Sai Wan office called Liberal Party leader Vincent Fang Kang at about 1pm, praising the party's five lawmakers for having done a good job by staying in the chamber to cast their votes, the Liberals' honorary chairman James Tien Pei-chun said.

Independent lawmaker Lam Tai-fai, of the industrial sector, also said he received a similar call, from liaison office deputy director Yin Xiaojing. Yin thanked Lam for backing the package, the lawmaker said.

On Thursday, the ill-fated blueprint for electing the city's chief executive by "one man, one vote" in 2017 was blocked by 28 votes to eight, following a surprise last-minute walkout by 31 pro-establishment legislators that they later said was meant to delay the ballot by 15 minutes. Their bungle reduced the much-anticipated showdown between pan-democrats and Beijing loyalists in Legco to a farce - and made the defeat of the government's proposal, though expected, all the more embarrassing.

Three hours later, Business and Professionals Alliance chairman Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen visited the liaison office with several party colleagues for a hastily arranged session to tell "a deputy director" what had happened.

Then yesterday morning, independent lawmaker Ng Leung-sing turned up in Sai Wan as well, followed by pro-establishment ally Abraham Razack of the alliance. Both had also taken part in the walkout. "I have regular dialogue with the liaison office," Ng said. "Of course it was unavoidable for us to discuss what happened on Thursday."

The liaison office's prompt contacts with pro-establishment lawmakers in the wake of the debacle speak volumes about the high profile it adopts over Hong Kong's electoral reform.

It was understood the office had considered, as its top priority, ensuring all 42 Beijing loyalists in Legco would back the reform. "That was why they spared no effort in lobbying medical-sector legislator Dr Leung Ka-lau to support the package," a government-friendly lawmaker said on condition of anonymity.

In the first few years after 1997, Beijing had adopted a low-key approach as it was confident the city could run itself. Senior officials from the liaison office were barely visible at public functions.

But that "non-interference" policy ended with a 500,000-strong march on July 1, 2003, against the launch of national security laws. The following year, Beijing asserted its power to decide the city's political system via interpretation of the Basic Law.

Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit said the recent meetings at the liaison office were strong proof that the office had violated Article 22 of the Basic Law, which stated no mainland departments should interfere in Hong Kong's internal affairs.

(The Stand News) June 21, 2015.

At the City Forum today, Civic Party legislator Alan Leong said that the pro-establishment legislators lined up to explain their failure to vote to the China Liaison Office. This fact deserves attention because the legislators swore allegiance to the Basic Law in their oath of office and Basic Law Article 22 bars the central government from interfering in Hong Kong. When the pro-establishment legislators go to explain their "accountability" to the China Liaison Office, they are destroying the Basic Law.

Basic Facts:

The oath of office for the members of the Legislative Council:

I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity.

Basic Law Article 14:

The Central People's Government shall be responsible for the defence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be responsible for the maintenance of public order in the Region.

Military forces stationed by the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for defence shall not interfere in the local affairs of the Region. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, when necessary, ask the Central People's Government for assistance from the garrison in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief.

In addition to abiding by national laws, members of the garrison shall abide by the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Expenditure for the garrison shall be borne by the Central People's Government.

Basic Law Article 22:

No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.

Internet comments:

- You may be confused about this:

(Wen Wei Po) On one hand, pan-democrat legislator Frederick Fung said on radio that from the end of last year to now, he has made multiple contacts with the American and British consulates. "Since Christmas, the British Consul-General has come to see me five times and the American Consul-General has met with me three times. So you can see that they are not lackadaisical. There were also European consuls, American congressmen and British parliamentarians." Fung said that the western nations thought that the government's proposal was acceptable.

Hong Kong does not have anything like the Logan Act, which is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. Therefore, Fung can file as many reports as he likes to the American, British and Canadian governments.

On the other hand, Hong Kong legislators (and even Hong Kong citizens in general) are not allowed to speak to anyone from the China Liaison Office or, for that matter, any Chinese government official.

The very simple explanation is based upon Basic Law Article 22 which applies only to the Chinese. There is no comparable law in Hong Kong for Americans, British, Eskimos, etc.

As an example, this Jiangxi province government promotion meeting on May 28, 2015 for Hong Kong group investors interested in key joint investment opportunities is in violation of the Basic Law Article 22, but the Hong Kong Communist government won't enforce that law.

- In like manner, you can see the American Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington visiting Hong Kong harbor.

But you will probably never see the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning in Hong Kong during your lifetime.

While the Basic Law does not forbid Liaoning from visiting Hong Kong, many pro-democracy activists are bound to say that they will be fearful if this were to take place. In deference to this type of reaction, Liaoning will be kept out of Hong Kong.

(EJinsight) May 7, 2015.

After Chinese University of Hong Kong graduates voiced their concern about a proposed visit by People’s Liberation Army troops to the campus, the university suspended the visit at the last minute. CUHK and the PLA apparently agreed on the suspension.

The move is consistent with the principle that the role of China’s army in Hong Kong shouldn’t go beyond the defense of the city, as provided in the Basic Law.

Article 14 states: “Military forces stationed by the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for defense shall not interfere in the local affairs of the Region.”

Last month, the Postgraduate Student Association of CUHK, which is heavily dominated by students from mainland China, invited members to join a May 8 event described in the email invitations as a “People’s Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison and CUHK students fellowship activity”. It said dozens of PLA soldiers would visit the campus, attend classes and have lunch with vice chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu. Then off they would go to play basketball with CUHK students. However, the event was kept a secret from most of the local students, and even the CUHK student union did not know about it.

There’s no doubt that the PLA entering a university campus is a sensitive issue, even after Hong Kong has been under Chinese rule for almost 18 years. The campus is a wellspring of the success of Hong Kong.

Freedom of expression and academic freedom prevail there, and students and scholars can conduct their studies and research without any external interference. Students from everywhere, including those from the mainland, enjoy the same rights at CUHK.

On the other hand, the PLA, which serves the interests of the Communist Party of China, has the responsibility to maintain the nation’s sovereignty in all aspects. A visit by the PLA to the campus, even if a friendly one, would understandably trigger fears of pressure being brought to bear on academic freedom, even if only on a psychological level.

That’s why 163 CUHK graduates backed an online petition titled “No PLA on the Campus”. While the response wasn’t great, at least it drew the university’s attention to the issue and led to the suspension of the visit. The university said the suspension was due to “some students misunderstanding the purpose of the event”, and thus the visit would fail to achieve its original purpose.

- I would be surprised to be surprised. It is no surprise that a senior barrister would stand up for an apparent violation of the law. It is also no surprise that this senior barrister refuses to denounce the 79-day illegal Occupy Central.

- In 2010, the Democratic Party stepped inside the China Liaison Office to negotiate the deal in which they traded their votes in return for increasing 10 more Legco seats of five directly elected geographical constituencies and five directly elected Super District Councilors.

(Ming Pao) June 21, 2015.

After the government's constitutional reform proposal failed to be passed by the Legislative Council, the Civil Human Rights Front, Scholarism and others are proposing to amend the Basic Law. Civil Human Rights Front convener Johnson Yeung Ching-yin wants to redefine the power relationship between Hong Kong and the central government. However, the Democratic Party and the Labour Party thinks that amendments of the Basic Law should be restricted solely to Article 45 on universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive including the elimination of the nomination committee and Article 68 on universal suffrage for the Legislative Council including the elimination of the functional constituencies.

Previously, the pan-democrats have reached agreement on Basic Law amendments with the Federation of Students/Scholarism during the discussions on the resignation of Legislative Council(s) to force a de facto referendum. This was going to be one theme of the referendum. Meanwhile the Civil Human Rights Front have also listed Basic Law amendment as one of the theme's in this year's July 1st march.

(SCMP) Pan-democratic heavyweights warn of risks in revising Hong Kong's Basic Law. June 8, 2015.

A fresh dilemma is looming for mainstream pan-democrats as their allies from civil rights groups advocate an amendment to the Basic Law as a new direction in the pursuit of genuine universal suffrage when the present debate on reform ends.

Trying to revise the city's mini-constitution is too time-consuming, if not downright dangerous, according to pan-democrats including Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee and Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing.

The law in question is Article 45, which stipulates only a nominating committee can name chief executive candidates when universal suffrage is introduced.

The idea of amending it became the talk of the town after leaders of the student unions of four universities burned a copy of the Basic Law last week, during an annual candlelight vigil at Victoria Park commemorating the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Lau noted the students' frustration over stagnating democratic development. But modifying the law was fraught with danger as it would open the way for Beijing to tighten constitutional provisions that had protected Hongkongers' rights and freedom, she warned yesterday. "[I] do not oppose any discussion … but we must be very careful in dealing with the matter, which is full of traps," she said.

At the burning of the book on Thursday, the student leaders argued Article 45 served only the interests of Beijing and tycoons.

Following the move, almost 30 disparate pro-democracy groups yesterday kicked off marches across the city against the government's reform plan for the 2017 chief executive election, which they said failed to offer voters a genuine choice of hopefuls.

The tertiary students' action was akin to "dropping a bombshell", Civil Human Rights Front convenor Daisy Chan Sin-ying said. Nevertheless, she said, they had floated a new idea that deserved more debate after the legislature, as expected, voted down the government's offer of "sham universal suffrage" this month.

The Federation of Students, the city's oldest and the most politically active pupil group, also backed amending Article 45.

But key pan-democratic politicians echoed Lau's reservations about the idea.

Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit, who convenes an informal grouping of 23 pan-democratic lawmakers, said effecting changes to the Basic Law was not their top priority now. "What we want to do is to get the central government to honour its promises, delivered to Hong Kong since the 1980s and enshrined in the Basic Law," he said.

His party colleague Eu pointed out an amendment would take a very long time and was not necessary to achieve universal suffrage. Burning the Basic Law book might give the public the impression the students opposed the "one country, two systems" principle although they might not mean it, she said.

Basic Facts:

Basic Law Article 45

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I: Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Plus Instrument 3 and Instrument 4.

Basic Law Article 68

The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by election.

The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.

The specific method for forming the Legislative Council and its procedures for voting on bills and motions are prescribed in Annex II: Method for the Formation of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Its Voting Procedures. Plus Instrument 5 and Instrument 6.

Basic Law Article 158

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

Internet comments:

- "Previously, the pan-democrats have reached agreement on Basic Law amendments with the Federation of Students/Scholarism ..." The Federation of Students are down to four out of eight universities, and Scholarism has no base support (it is a secondary-school organization with at most 100 members led by people who are no longer in secondary school). Why are their backroom agreements relevant to the people of Hong Kong and their interests?

- How do you amend Basic Law Article 45 and Article 68? You follow Basic Law Article 158 on amendments, which says that you need (1) the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to the National People's Congress; (2) the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Legislative Council; (3) the consent of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Strategizing means defining the ways by which these three parties can be persuaded to agree with your demands. Marching on July 1st to chant slogans such as "End one-party rule!" and "Down with the Communist Party!" isn't a winning formula.

- Basic Law Articles 45 and 68 cannot be amended without first amending Basic Law Article 158. I propose the following revision to Basic Law Article 158.

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the people of Hong Kong.

Amendment proposals are accepted with a minimum of 10,000 signatures from Hong Kong permanent residents. Such proposals shall be voted upon in a public referendum to be conducted by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme.

Any amendment that has more support than opposition shall be submitted to the National People's Congress Standing Committee which shall automatically approve it. The amendment shall not be rejected just because it contravenes the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

- Of course, you were surely joking when you said that the referendum shall be held by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme. You can vote as many times as you want on the Internet with computer-generated Hong Kong ID's.

- The results of the 6.22 Civil Referedum conducted by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme:

If the government proposal cannot satisfy international standards allowing genuine choices, LegCo should veto it.

87.8%: LegCo should veto
7.6%: LegCo should not veto
3.9%: Abstention
0.7%: Did not vote
0.1%<: Blank vote
0.1%<: Invalid vote
0.1%<: Refused to vote

Total number of votes: 792,808

 (SCMP) June 16, 2015.

... The latest HKU-POP poll - funded and commissioned by Liberal Party lawmaker James Tien Pei-chun with a "supersize" pool of respondents of 5,000 plus - covers both. Forty-eight per cent supported the proposal, while 38 per cent opposed it. When asked which button lawmakers should press, 51 per cent supported Legco passing the bill, against 37 per cent who disapproved.

The Civil Referendum organized by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme ended up drawing only supporters but not opponents of the limited number of proposals. It did not reflect the opinions of the population as a whole.

- If you don't trust the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, then the government Registration and Electoral Office can hold the referendum for registered electors. They have the detailed voter information which they can verify.
- Yes, it only costs $100+ million each time to rent space and hire help at more than four hundred locations across Hong Kong. Why don't we take that money and split it among the people?
- Of course, we can run an omnibus referendum containing multiple proposals (see, for example, California ballot proposition).

- You are now trapped in an infinite loop.
In order to amend Articles 45 and 68, you need to amend Article 158.
In order to amend Article 158, you need to amend Article 158.
Well, you're stuck.
Is there any way to challenge Article 158? You can file a petition for a judicial review by the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. But with respect to any matter concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region, that Court shall seek an interpretation from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (see Basic Law Article 158). So you are back to where you were.

(SCMP) Hong Kong reform package rejected as pro-Beijing camp walk out in 'miscommunication'  June 19, 2015.

Hong Kong's legislature yesterday blocked the government's electoral reform plan as a historic showdown between pan-democrats and Beijing loyalists became a farce when the latter camp's bungled walkout meant that only eight lawmakers voted for the plan.

There was utter confusion among the government's allies when 31 of them left the chamber in the mistaken belief the ballot would be adjourned while they waited for rural kingpin Lau Wong-fat, who was stuck in traffic on his way to cast his vote.

The resulting fiasco ended two years of debate and months of bickering on how Hong Kong could elect its chief executive by "one man, one vote" in 2017.

All 27 pan-democratic lawmakers kept their vow to vote no, and pro-establishment medical sector representative Dr Leung Ka-lau added a 28th vote. That would have been enough to deny the proposal the two-thirds majority it needed. But the pro-establishment camp's plan to blame pan-democrats for the failure of reform was severely undermined, as the walkout left just eight yes votes and a clear majority against the package.

The eight who voted yes were the five Liberal Party lawmakers, the Federation of Trade Unions' Chan Yuen-han, and independents Lam Tai-fai and Chan Kin-por. Legco President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing and labour representative Poon Siu-ping were present but did not vote.

(SCMP) June 19, 2015.

A commentary published in the People’s Daily today said pan-democratic lawmakers should take the full responsibility for obstructing democratic development in Hong Kong. “The opposition lawmakers’ perverse act of voting down the electoral reform proposal went against mainstream public opinion in Hong Kong. It exposes their true colours of opposing democracy while chanting slogans fighting for democracy,” the Communist Party’s mouthpiece said.

“The opposition is actually opposing ‘one country, two systems’ and the Basic Law. The biggest political issue in the 18 years since the handover is some people in Hong Kong don’t accept the fact that China has resumed Hong Kong’s sovereignty,” the commentary said.

The commentary said the pan-democrats were actually struggling with the central government for the power to govern Hong Kong through the rejection of the reform package, adding that they were attempting to turn the city into an “independent political entity”.

The newspaper said the central government would continue to implement “one country, two systems” unswervingly and support Hong Kong to achieve the ultimate goal of universal suffrage.

(The Stand News)

- The government's constitutional reform proposal was voted down by a majority of 28 votes NAY to 8 votes AYE. But many pro-establishment newspapers handled the outcome in a deliberately low-keyed manner. Sing Tao and Headline News, both from the Sing Tao Group, used the headline "Vote tallying outside the Legislative Council" for their report that they canvassed the pro-establishment legislators and all 42 of them supported the government's proposal.

(SCMP) Finger points to a second term as Hong Kong CE for Leung Chun-ying. Alex Lo. June 3, 2015.

As the government electoral reform package was voted down, the lack of a clear political cause made many protesters at the July 1 march - the smallest in years - resort to shouting that old pan-democratic chestnut: down with Leung Chun-ying.

The ironic thing is, if the reform package had passed, the chief executive's chance of securing a second term would have been extremely low. That would be simply a matter of arithmetic, given his low popularity rating. He might not even enter the race.

But now we may be in for seven years of Leung. This is because as the reform fails, we are back to the old "small circle" system of selection, with the 1,200-strong Election Committee. Suddenly, a Leung second term looks considerably likely. Indeed, he may have been the biggest beneficiary of the reform's failure, thanks to all the pan-democratic lawmakers and their united "No" vote.

That was what a few pro-establishment politicians such as James Tien Pei-chun had warned when they used Leung as the boogeyman to try to scare people into supporting the reform. They were ridiculed back then. Now we are staring at that very real possible outcome they warned against. That may be why Leung now appears in public with renewed confidence and with a spring in his step. Barely half a year ago, shortly after the end of the Occupy movement, he looked wary and grey.

There may have been short periods when Leung's plunging popularity ratings so alarmed Beijing that it had doubts about his ability to govern. There was a time when his public outings were dogged by angry protesters like those from Scholarism. Now it's those kids from Scholarism like Joshua Wong Chi-fung and his girlfriend who get harassed in the streets while Leung and his lieutenants often manage to make public appearances unmolested.

He is again Beijing's man. Come 2017, his odds of being "reselected" will be all in his favour. If nothing else, Beijing will want to impose Leung on Hong Kong as a punishment for rejecting the electoral reform and challenging its prestige. It's also Beijing's way of reciprocating to the pan-democrats who have given it the finger one too many times.

Internet comments:

- "Hurrah! We finally made 5 million voters lose one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive!"

- Here is the summary: The pan-democrats vetoed a bill that has the support of the people of Hong Kong so that future Chief Executives will continue to be elected by a 1,200-person election committee for the foreseeable future.

- (Discuss.com.hk) June 18, 2015.

When  you read the newspaper reports today, you might think that the Chinese Communists suffered a huge loss. But here is my scorecard for the day:

Pan-democrats: Huge loss
Central government: Huge victory
Pro-establishment camp: Small victory
Localists: All for nothing.
Foreign forces: Huge loss

How so?

(1) 1,200 election committee continues to elect a pro-China Chief Executive in 2017
(2) Functional constituencies continue in Legislative Council to provide a pro-China majority
(3) CY Leung stands an excellent chance of being re-elected
(4) Pan-democrats vetoed one-person-one-vote and now own the responsibility
(5) Radical elements ready to instigate trouble after the vote had nothing to rage about
(6) USA/UK/EU failed to disrupt Hong Kong's social order and profit from short-selling the Hong Kong/Chinese stock markets

This was an awesome performance by the Chinese Communists. Everything worked according to their script. This was the outcome that they wanted, and the pan-democrats obliged them. And the Localists became collateral damage too.

- Immediately after the fiasco at the Legislative Council came a flood of reports from 'informed Beijing sources' that many heads (at the Politburo (Zhang Dejiang), State Council, National People's Congress (Li Fei), China Liaison Office (Zhang Xiaoming), CY Leung, the political reform trio of Carrie Lam, Rimsky Yuen and Raymond Tam, Legco president Jasper Tsang, the eight who were present to vote AYE, various political parties (Liberal Party, DAB), etc) will roll because Xi Jinping/Li Keqiang/Zhang Dejiang/Zhang Xiaoming/CY Leung are pounding on their desks in rabid anger. These reports are not credible because the sources are all anonymous. Worse yet, they are made out as if they are highly placed sources.

Here is the dilemma: If you don't have a highly placed source, then that information is suspect because the source is not in a position to know state secrets. If you claim to have a highly placed source, then that information is suspect because such a source is likely to be selling state secrets to foreign forces for big money instead of leaking it to a credibility-deficient tabloid newspaper/website based in Hong Kong/USA.

These are good sources of entertainment (like Bo Xilai paying Zhang Ziyi $700 million to sleep with him), but not good sources of information.

- (Bastille Post) The road to democracy. June 19, 2015.

It is a fact that the constitutional reform would not have passed even without that odd happening. Nothing was going to change that.

The 27 pan-democrats plus the Medical sector's Leung Ka-lau voted NAY to veto the bill. Then they said to immediately re-start the 5-step process for constitutional reform. How do they go about doing this? Do they put a knife at the throat of the Hong Kong SAR government by threatening to filibuster and obstruct everything so that the central government must yield unconditionally to their demands? And if the pan-democrats offer a bill based upon civil nomination of Chief Executive candidates, are they going to get a 2/3 majority in the Legislative Council?

When the pan-democrats first talked about Occupy Central to pressure the central government/Hong Kong SAR government, the National People's Congress Standing Committee immediately responded with the August 31st resolution. According to information, the draft resolution began with with "With respect to the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive election by universal suffrage in 2017 ..." In the final version, "in 2017" was excised. This means that the August 31st resolution will be valid not just for 2017 but also for any future Chief Executive elections until as such time when it has been field-tested. People compared this to eating a baked cake. If you don't want to eat it now, it can be put away. When you want to eat later, the cake will be reheated in a microwave and brought out for you. It is the same old cake. If you want to eat a new cake, you will have eat the old one first. The cake will not be thrown out until it has been tasted. Such is the wish of the central government.

The pan-democrats want to bend the central government according to their will. Are they powerful enough? The pan-democrats are playing "all-in show hand" poker with the central government all the time. The central government is not obliged to play along. This time, the central government played a card that turned out to have greater public support than not. Even if the foreign forces want the pan-democrats to take the offer. But the pan-democrats tossed the card away. This is only going to make the central government even less willing to implement democracy in Hong Kong.

In the history of the world, democratic development comes from either bloody revolution or compromise/concession. In Hong Kong, conditions do not exist for a revolution. If Hongkongers don't have the wisdom to make compromises and concessions, nothing will come out of this.

- (TVB) Civic Party legislator Alan Leong said that the veto of the constitutional reform proposal is a message to the central government about the demand for genuine universal suffrage. He called on the Hong Kong SAR government to re-start the constitutional reform as soon as possible.

What is "as soon as possible"?

5-Step Process of Constitutional Development:

  1. The Chief Executive to make a report to the National People's Congress Standing Committee as to whether there is a need to amend the two electoral methods
  2. A determination to be made by the NPCSC as to whether the electoral methods need to be amended
  3. The resolutions on the amendments to be introduced by the HKSAR, Government to the LegCo, and be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the LegCo,
  4. Consent to be given by the CE to the motions endorsed by the LegCo, and
  5. The relevant bill to be reported by the CE to the NPCSC for approval or for the record.

So the first step is to find a Chief Executive who is willing to make a report to the National People's Congress Standing Committee. The current Chief Executive CY Leung has stated that he has no intention of doing anything about constitutional reform for the rest of his term. His term runs out in 2017.

In 2017, a new Chief Executive will be elected by a 1,200-person election committee. CY Leung has not indicated whether he will run again or not. If he runs and is re-elected, then he probably won't touch constitutional reform. His second term ends in 2012. If he does not run or if he run but is not re-elected, another Chief Executive may or may not want to touch constitutional reform. Why not? If on one hand, the pan-democrats won't budge because civil nomination is a sine qua non for them and, on the other hand, the National People's Congress Standing Committee insists that its August 31st has no expiry date and won't be amended until field-tested, then it is a waste of everybody's time and effort to go through the five steps. It will be the 2015 vote all over again.

It is said that there may be a chance that the new Chief Executive elected in 2017 may re-start the constitutional reform. That is a 'maybe'. That Chief Executive can save some time and effort for everybody by asking the pan-democrats up front: "Do you accept the NPCSC's August 31st framework?" If not, he/she should stop immediately. The funds (for printing pamphlets, holding town hall meetings, etc) can be better spent (such as direct payouts to senior citizens).

- It is not true that there is no end in sight.

At the latest, all this will be resolved in 2047 when One Country Two Systems expires and One Country One System takes over. Then Hong Kong will follow whatever they've got in China at that moment. That much is certain.

But the end could be even earlier, perhaps in a couple of years. Occupy Central founder and Chinese University of Hong Kong associate professor Chan Kin-man has said that China may collapse really soon and then Hong Kong will get the opportunity to become independent. So the end may be very close! If we can keep our faith, join hands and pray together, God will deliver us from evil. Amen.

- Yet another way is for the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to hold yet another public referendum to vote on civil nomination of Chief Executive candidates. If the public approves, then this becomes the law of the land.
- Been there, did that. Robert Chung can get 700,000 signatures to support civil nomination, and Robert Chow gets 1.8 million signatures to support the government's proposal with the 1,200-person nomination committee.
- 'The law of the land' does not contain any mention of binding referendum results. You are masturbating again ...
- Of course, if the referendum results are not in your favor, you would immediately repudiate it and say that your own conscience is more important than majority opinion. Meanwhile if the referendum result is in your favor, you would immediately say that it must be respected.

- Alan Leong suggests that the Hong Kong SAR government and the central government have the constitutional duty to implement universal suffrage for the Chief Executive. The vetoed proposal follows Basic Law Article 45 and Annex I, which Leong rejects. So the governments have discharged their constitutional duty but Leong and friends refused.
Meanwhile, the Hong Kong SAR government also tried to introduce Basic Law Article 23 legislation because they have the constitutional duty to do so. Leong and friends also vetoed that.
So what Alan Leong is really saying that the Hong Kong SAR government and the central government have the constitutional duty to do whatever he says PERIOD. I hope this is sufficiently clear.

- According to the radical elements, if Basic Law Article 45/Annex I are standing in the way, then an amendment is in order to permit civil nomination.
According to the same radical elements, the Chinese Communist Party is illegitimate and therefore one-party rule must end!
So why do the radical elements want the illegitimate Chinese Communist Party to amend the Basic Law for them?

- Amazingly, Alan Leong did not get to the main point. Or perhaps he did but TVB did not air it. Here is that usual main point: "The road to democracy is long and hard, but we will continue to fight for FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and RULE OF LAW. Therefore, the people of Hong Kong should continue to vote for us so that we can continue to fight for FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and RULE OF LAW. And, most important of all, don't forget to donate money to us so that we can continue to fight for FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and RULE OF LAW.

"I want genuine universal suffrage"
"I want you to keep donating your money to me."

- Now you're really talking. The heart of the matter is that pan-democrats do not want FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY and UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. If these things actually arrive, the pan-democrats will become redundant. If they are not needed to RESIST and FIGHT, they lose their $90,770 monthly salary plus donations. Revolutionaries need permanent revolutions or else they may be forced to become working persons.
- In like manner, the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China cannot really permit June 4th to be vindicated, because they wouldn't know what to do with themselves anymore.
- In this case, the pan-democrats, the pro-establishment camp and the central government don't want one-person-one-vote and prefer to remain the same place. So they staged a slapstick comedy for your entertainment.
- Unfortunately, the pan-democrats did not know beforehand. If so, five of them could have voted AYE so that the final vote was 23 NAY versus 13 AYE, and the bill failed to pass because the 34 others failed to come in and vote AYE.
- I am completely unconcerned because:

- Alan Leong also called for the government to repair the social rifts. WTF! What has done more to cause social rifts than Occupy Central? And here is Alan Leong being led away at the end of Occupy Central.

- Here is the new and improved five-step constitutional reform process:
Step 1: Pan-democrats Occupy Central again
Step 2: Pan-democrats run nightly Shopping Revolutions in Mong Kok again
Step 3: Pan-democrats raise the specter of Hong Kong independence (by attacking mainland tourists, etc) again
Step 4: Pan-democrats destroy Hong Kong's economy again
Step 5: Pan-democrats veto the next constitutional reform proposal again

- Dialogue
Pan-democrats: I want genuine universal suffrage!
Central government: The August 31st resolution still stands.
Pan-democrats: I want the five-step constitutional reform process to re-start!
Central government: The August 31st resolution still stands
Pan-democrats: We call upon all citizens to pour onto the streets and Occupy Central again!
Citizens: DLLM! Are you done yet?

- (Bastille Post) On RTHK, Occupy Central founder Benny Tai said that over the past two years, 800,000 people have participated in the civil referendum and Central was occupied for 79 days. While it may seem that nothing was gained, many Hongkongers are now awakened and they will not sit there and wait for handouts from the authorities. But Benny Tai did not offer any concrete strategy to fight for democracy.
Benny Tai is offering an optimistic fantasy. When Benny Tai and company brought out Occupy Central, they said that if we follow his formula to paralyze Central for two days and then surrender ourselves en masse to flood the police stations, the central government will give up and we will have democracy. Nothing like that happened. So why would you listen to any more Benny Tai predictions?

- (Bastille Post) Two little pigs.

A completely stupid thing happened at the Legislative Council as the pro-establishment legislators made an elementary mistake and failed to cast their votes. This incident drew attention fully towards that mistake. Many pan-democrats were delighted about the constitutional reform proposal that received the lowest support rate in Legco history. Some are saying: "You are not afraid of having wolves as enemies; you should be afraid of having pigs as your allies."

But the pan-democrats were just as piggish in their strategy to fight for democracy for Hong Kong. When the National People's Congress Standing Committee made its August 31st resolution, the pan-democrats proclaimed this is be "sham universal suffrage." But even the foreign forces such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union were telling them to take the deal. Supposedly, the central government was uncertain just how much influence the foreign forces have on the pan-democrats. If they are influential, they should be able to get five pan-democrats to vote for the proposal. In the end, the foreign forces could not make a single pan-democrat switch positions.

In retrospect, why did the foreign forces support the constitutional reform proposal? You could say that the United Kingdom wanted to do business with China, but the United States did not have to do so. Clearly, they knew that even if the nomination process is restrictive, the Chief Executive will ultimately be elected by 5 million voters. This would have been a milestone in the development of democracy in Hong Kong. No matter who is running for Chief Executive, that person cannot go against public opinion. This implies a qualitative change in Hong Kong democracy. Although the proposal is flawed, it is very positive step forward. That is why the foreign forces wanted the pan-democrats to pocket the offer.

However, none of the pan-democratic political parties wanted to take the fall. So that was how this proposal got vetoed. They failed to see how the central government was granting the right to elect in exchange for stability. Therefore, the pan-democrats were as stupid as pigs in their strategizing. It took two unmatchable pigs to bring the curtains down on constitutional reform.

What happens next? The pro-establishment camp is obviously still crying over the debacle. But the pan-democrats should not be smiling. There is no clear way for them to force the central government to re-start the five-step constitutional reform process. Therefore the first consequence of the veto is that the development of democracy in Hong Kong is now completely stalled. For the next 5  years, perhaps even 10 years, the central government won't be willing to re-start constitutional reform.

- Fast forward to April 22, 2017 (SCMP).

Beijing has poured cold water on Hong Kong’s electoral reform aspirations, saying the city had pressing livelihood concerns to handle in the coming five to 10 years.

“Political reform has failed after so many years. “[Hong Kong] cannot afford to dedicate energy to political reform in the next five or 10 years, but not to housing, people’s livelihoods and the economy,” Wang Zhenmin (Central Government's Liaison Office legal chief) told an academic conference on Hong Kong affairs held in Beijing on Saturday.

- (SCMP) Like democracy, keep national security law on back burner, too. By Alex Lo. April 24, 2017.

The city’s political blogosphere and social media were set ablaze when the central government’s liaison office’s legal chief, Wang Zhenmin, said at the weekend that Hong Kong would not have democracy in the coming decade.

As if having timed their incendiary comments, Wang Junli, the former deputy head of the People’s Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong, compared the city’s situation to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and the South China Sea, meaning the introduction of a national security law under Article 23 of the Basic Law was urgent.

Their remarks made good newspaper headlines, but were not saying anything we didn’t know already. After pan-democratic lawmakers voted down the government’s electoral reform in 2015, there was in fact no further prospect for universal suffrage anytime soon. You can blame the central government for imposing the restrictive framework on the reform. Or you can blame the pan-democrats and their allies for undermining it for Hong Kong people. But it is what it is; and Wang Zhenmin is just spelling it out.

However, he is probably not commenting on democracy as such, but rather telling chief executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor what to do. That’s what the legal chief meant when he said: “[Hong Kong] cannot afford to dedicate energy to political reform in the next five or 10 years, but not to housing, people’s livelihoods and the economy.” That will pretty much cover the period of Lam’s first term, and perhaps her second as well.

That should suit her just fine. If there is no prospect of success for democratic reform, she would be perfectly justified not to touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Of course, Wang Zhenmin’s quote is just as true if we substitute “political reform” with “Article 23”, which we also can’t afford to expend energy on over more pressing livelihood issues. Wang Junli’s claims notwithstanding, Hong Kong is no threat to the nation in any way, because our localist provocateurs are nothing but a joke.

Pan-democrats like to quote the Basic Law by saying we have a constitutional duty to establish full democracy. Well, we have the same constitutional duty for Article 23, too, so let’s not get on our high horses.

We have failed spectacularly trying to legislate political reform and a national security law. In the process, we have inflicted untold damage on our body politic. Let’s give both of them a rest, for now.

- (HKG Pao) How to overturn the NPCSC's August 31st resolution? By Shih Wing-ching. June 19, 2015.

... According to the pan-democrats, the August 31st resolution is unconstitutional. That is their view, but the National People's Congress Standing Committee does not look at it this way. According to western parliamentary practice, the pan-democrats should lobby the NPCSC about the reasons and persuade them to see it the pan-democrats' way. Thus, the NPCSC may reverse its decision at their next meeting.

But the pan-democrats are not doing that, because they think that the Communists control the rubber-stamp NPCSC and lobbying won't be effective.

If that is the case, the pan-democrats must lobby the central government leaders. Unfortunately, the pan-democrats also think that contacting Chinese Communists is proof of betrayal of the democracy cause. They don't dare to hold secret discussions with Chinese Communist officials because they are afraid of being accused of striking secret deals or being bought. Therefore, when they meet with Chinese Communist officials, it is always as a group such that they can monitor each other as well as establish their own innocence.

Such meetings become occasions in which both parties re-iterate their positions with no opportunity to probe each other or try for compromise. Nothing significant can come from these meetings.

The indications are that the pan-democrats have no intention of lobbying the Chinese Communists. They are more interested in calling the people of Hong Kong to join their resistance campaign and stop the Communists from carrying out their plans for governance in Hong Kong.

Unfortunately, these resistance movements cannot shake the determination of the Chinese Communists to exercise their sovereign rule. The Occupy Central movement gathered formidable support and the citizens paid a high cost. But it could not change the NPCSC resolution. To a certain extent, the August 31st resolution is the response of the Chinese Communists to the Occupy Central movement. Therefore, a few more civil disobedience campaigns will only make the NPCSC impose more restrictions on Hong Kong.

Under the existing laws, the right to interpret and amend the Basic Law lies with the National People's Congress Standing Committee. When the NPCSC makes an evaluation, they will consider national factors in addition to Hong Kong factors. When the pan-democrats run resistance, they cannot just look at Hong Kong factors and ignore the NPCSC's national concerns. Otherwise, Hongkongers will pay high costs without gaining anything. Politicians must not care solely about political correctness while ignoring practical feasibility.

- What do the "foreign forces" have to say after the vote?

(Telegraph) Hong Kong rejects Beijing-backed political reform package. June 19, 2015.

The UK was "disappointed" at Hong Kong's failure to reform their system, said Hugo Swire, the Foreign Office minister of state. "We continue to believe that a transition to universal suffrage is the best way to guarantee Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity, and is in everyone’s interest," he said. "We hope that a constructive dialogue on future reforms can be established, reflecting the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong and in accordance with the Basic Law."

Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in Washington that the US believed "the legitimacy of the chief executive will be greatly enhanced if the chief executive is selected through universal suffrage".

(SCMP) US plans to raise Hong Kong electoral reform at talks with top Chinese officials. June 20, 2015.

Scott Robinson, spokesman for the US consulate in Hong Kong, said the US government encouraged the Hong Kong government, Beijing and the people of Hong Kong to continue to work together towards the goal of achieving universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law and the aspirations of Hongkongers.

"We believe the legitimacy of the chief executive would be greatly enhanced if the chief executive were selected through universal suffrage and if Hong Kong's residents had a meaningful choice of candidates," he said.

"We greatly value our relationship with Hong Kong and have a deep and abiding interest in its stability and prosperity. Hong Kong's open society, rule of law and free market are based on principles Americans and the people of Hong Kong share."

(EJinsight) Chris Patten: Hong Kong will have democracy eventually. June 19, 2015.

Hong Kong will eventually have democracy, former governor Chris Patten says, a day after legislators resoundingly rebuffed Beijing by voting down its preferred selection method for the next chief executive.

Patten, Hong Kong’s last colonial leader, told Apple Daily that Thursday’s defeat of the 2017 election reform package marked a critical moment but does not mean the fight for democracy is in a “dead knot”.

“Maintaining an open economy under rule of law will surely lead to political consequences,” he said. “For a free city like Hong Kong that is rich in both software and hardware infrastructure, what it now lacks is only the capability to elect its own leader and such a situation will definitely not last forever,” he said.

Patten rejected accusations Britain is responsible for social and political divisions in Hong Kong, saying Beijing and some Hong Kong politicians are to blame. He said China is bound by treaty commitments under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the basis of the change of sovereignty.

Patten refused to comment directly on the election bill, saying “you all know my views on democracy”. Asked how Britain can help Hong Kong fight for democracy, he said the British government should talk about core values.

Patten has been critical of London’s stance that Hong Kong people should accept the electoral reform proposal in its present form and gradually improve on it.

What they have to say is vacuous, but it is what they didn't say (or cannot bring themselves to say) that is interesting.

  • They can't say that the people of Hong Kong were suppressed because they know that the support levels for the government's proposal were higher than the oppose levels in the public opinion polls.

  • They can't say that the pan-democrats were wrong to reject a progressive step.

  • They can't say that the central government refused to grant democracy to Hong Kong.

  • They can't say that the central government must now craft a new bill according to the pan-democrats' specifications.

  • They can't say that the pan-democrats should now filibuster livelihood-related bills to force the Hong Kong SAR government's hand.

  • They can't say that the pan-democrats should proceed with Occupy Central II until the Hong Kong SAR government cries uncle.

- (VJmedia) June 19, 2015.

Apple Daily roster of who voted which way

June 18 2015 is a historical moment for Hong Kong, because the 2017 Chief Executive election bill was vetoed at the Legislative Council. This outcome carried no suspense because the positions of the various legislators have been known for months already. Surprisingly, there was an anti-climax with 28 NAY votes versus only 8 AYE votes. Sometimes "you cannot help but laugh" (to quote the famous saying of CY Leung).

Because of this farce, the media, Facebook and whatsapp groups are making fun of the pro-establishment camp.

But what happens after the laughing? What then?

The political storm will quickly die off. But this is just the calm before the next political storm. The government says that they will go back to focus on livelihood issues. But who is going to believe that? When the 2017 Chief Executive election method is vetoed, the plans are being immediately launched for the 2017 Chief Executive election which will be held using the old rules. In 2017, the Chief Executive will be elected by a 1,200-person election committee. So the potential candidates are immediately sizing up this committee. For example, the incumbent CY Leung will definitely be active if he wants re-election. The pan-democrats had better not under-estimate their opponents.

In 2012, Leung "conned" his way to become Chief Executive. This is unlikely to work in 2017 because he is a known commodity now. The central government won't be fooled again. They won't allow candidates to fight each other openly and then pick the winner at the end. They will pick their candidate up front and then the election committee will vote for that candidate. Therefore it will be hard for the other potential candidates to obtain committee support.

The pan-democrats will be on the outside looking in at the Chief Executive election. However, they can do battle in the District Council and Legislative Council elections. But they will be facing an unprecedented uphill battle. This time, they are not running against Communist agents. They will be running against the Communists themselves with more "Chinese" voters. Over the years, the pan-democrats have seen diminishing voters and resources whereas the Communists have increased both voters and resources. Within the pan-democrats, the Democratic Party are dying and other political parties cannot attract votes. Some young people have gained reputation through Occupy Central, but they won't be able to run in elections without the help of large numbers of precinct captains.

- What is for certain is that in the District Council and Legislative Council elections, there will be a large number of 'colorless' candidates who say that they are coming out to serve the people and they have no political positions. In truth, they have very firm political positions but they can't make open declarations for fear of automatically losing votes. So your best bet is to vote for someone with a loud and clear political position, because you will at least know what you are getting.

- The 2016 Legislative Council elections are important. If the pan-democrats lose enough seats so that they become less than 1/3, the 2017 Chief Executive will have the votes to pass a constitutional reform based upon the NPCSC's August 31st framework.

- There are two schools of thoughts about the Legislative Council elections in 2017.

According to one school of thought, the pan-democrats will win in a landslide. Evidence:

(TVB) TVB commissioned the Lingnan University Public Governance Programme to interview 1,115 adult Hong Kong permanent residents on June 9-12.

Q3. If the constitutional reform fails to pass, who is responsible? (Multiple choices allowed)
42.8%: The HKSAR government
36.7%: The central government
18.0%: The pro-establishment camp
39.2%: The pro-democracy camp

According to another school of thought, the pan-democrats will lose in a landslide. Evidence:

(Hong Kong Research Association) 2,268 adults were interviewed by automated telephone system on June 5-12.

Q8. If the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, who is the most responsible?
16%: The central government
51%: The pan-democrats
3%: The people of Hong Kong
18%: The HKSAR government
2%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
8%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

What is your pick?

- Conspiracy theory: Shortly before the voting, it became known that there would be enough pan-democrats switching to pass the bill. Why? Because if the bill was vetoed, the whole constitutional reform issue goes away for at least a decade. But if the bill was passed, there would be an immediate riot outside the Legislative Council, the pan-democrats can start Occupy Central II and this becomes the central issue of the 2015 District Council elections, the 2016 Legislative Council elections and the 2017 Chief Executive election. Thus, the pan-democrats win everything. Once the pro-establishment camp realized that, they walked out. There were 36 legislators left. They would have needed 16 more pan-democrats to join the 8 pro-establishment legislators. There was not enough time to organize. And the designated pan-democrat switchers ended up voting NAY because the plan had failed.

- What happened over these past couple of years? Here is the summary:  Daddy offers universal suffrage for Chief Executive but spoiled brat throws it all away.

(Silentmajority.hk) By Francis Lui. April 28, 2017.

In using game theory/economics to analyze a problem, we examine the actors and consider the problem from the perspective of their individual/group interests.

For the pan-democrats, do they really support the election of a Chief Executive by universal suffrage?

The pan-democrats cover a wide political spectrum with large differences in ideas. At this time, I cannot think of any pan-democratic party that is preparing itself to become the ruling party. Even if there is, they know that their ideas will run into conflict with the Central Government and therefore they cannot possibly have effective governance. Thus, their best bet is to continue to become the opposition and the most basic requirement is that they have to oppose the government.

If the Chief Executive is elected by universal suffrage, the elected person will have far more votes than any legislative council or political party. If you oppose that person, you cannot call him 689 or 777, because that person may have 1,874,234 votes or some such compared to your 38,171 votes. So even if the pan-democratic politicians may say that they want "genuine universal suffrage," they must know that their veto will make universal suffrage unattainable. But in the game-theoretic analysis, they are working in a manner consistent with their best interests.

Such being the case, why do they keep demanding the restart of the constitutional reform process? This is where they are smart. If the government actually restarts consultation, they can mobilize the masses to oppose the government's proposal. This is how they attract new adherents, siphon in donations and expand their organizations. By contrast, when all is peaceful and quiet in society, they will have no reason to exist.

For the government, the conflicts in Hong Kong are both ideological and socio-economical in nature. The election of a Chief Executive by universal suffrage is connected more to the former than the latter. So which should the government focus on -- constitutional reform or economic/livelihood issues?

If restarting constitutional reform merely builds a platform for the opposition to oppose the government without achieving universal suffrage, then the government should spend its time on reducing the pressure from social issues such as high housing prices, etc. If they succeed, their changes of realizing constitutional reform would be better.

Therefore, according to game-theoretic analysis, the government should not restart constitutional reform. If the pan-democrats apply pressure, the government will respond that the pan-democrats have shown that they will not accept the unmovable August 31st framework.

Of course, the government will not be able to resolve all the socio-economic problems in the short run. High housing prices stem from insufficient land supply. Landfills will take decades to implement, and brownfields affect the interests of too many parties. Therefore this government won't be able to put housing prices under control during its five-year term.

As for wealth inequality, the problems are even more intractable. At this time, the Chinese economy continues to grow and that should help Hongkongers' economic development. However very few people are taking advantage of the opportunities. In fact, many people don't even pay any attention to what is happening in mainland China. As a result, their wages stagnate or even decrease, and the gap between them and those who seize the economic opportunities will continue to grow.

Under such circumstances, there will continue to social divisions and the pan-democratic camp will continue to have a support base. But as the Chinese economy continues to grow and the gap between Hong Kong and mainland China continues to grow, Hongkongers will come to have better opinions about mainland China.

Over the next several years, the government will have no incentive to restart constitutional reform. The pan-democrats are in this strange position: On one hand, they want to government to restart constitutional reform as soon as possible; on the other hand, they kept insisting that they will "pocket" nothing except their "genuine universal suffrage." Isn't this the perfect way of eliminating the incentive for the government to restart constitutional reform?

Internet comments:

- Golden saying: "If you can betray your own country China, you surely can betray Great Britain one fine day. Please go away. Thank you." Here is my nomination for the new Hong Kong City-State national anthem: O, Perfidia!
- Not so much about the logical inference on treason, but it is the part about "Please go away. Thank you." The Brits are just so polite (=cruel irony).

- Diamond saying: "Lack of self-respect and low self-esteem." Please see Hong Kong vs. Bhutan. The answer to the question: What kind of people boo their own national anthem and feel great about it?

- The independence movement was forced into existence. On one hand, these people insist that they are not Chinese. On the other hand, the British want nothing to do with them. So they have no choice except to found a new free and independent Hong Kong City-State.
- So you mean to say that Michael Tanner is actually giving a push to the Hong Kong independence movement?
- I totally understand what you saying. On one hand, they could be Chinese humans. On the other hand, they couldn't become British poodles. So they have no choice except to become Hong Kong pigs.

- It is clear that Michael Tanner is a fictional character created by Chinese Communist propagandists. True Brits love freedom, democracy, human rights, universal suffrage and rule of law (but not civil nomination). After all, the Brits led by their great leader Tony Blair brought freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Look how happy the Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans are with their newfound freedom and democracy. Soon the Brits will bring freedom and democracy to Syria and then Iran.
- But the Brits won't pip a squeak about Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?
- Michael Tanner is very real -- see his comments at The Guardian.

- Michael Tanner is actually saying what plenty of Hongkongers are very perplexed by. Okay, so a group of people want to become an independent nation. We understand that. We have seen America, India, Pakistan, Mexico, Venezuela and so on go through the process. But we have never seen anywhere in history any such nation taking the path of wanting a return to its former colonial master who will then give permission to become independent.

- Hong Kong independence mantra:
Oh beloved Great Britain, we were, are and will always be part of you!
Do not forsake me, my darling!

- Chinese Colonists GET OUT!
(because we prefer the British colonists instead)

- A Concise History of Hong Kong (2007) by John M. Carroll.

Despite their status and wealth, the members of the Chinese bourgeoisie, like all Chinese in Hong Kong, continued to face racial discrimination in every turn. Racial segregation was enforced both legally and informally. In 1901 a group of Europeans petitioned the colonial government for a separate school for Europeans, arguing that integrated education harmed the morality and character of European children. Although one Chinese resident complained to the local press that "to exclude from certain schools means to go against the law of nature and to aggravate the hatred between Chinese and foreigner" and Secretary for the Colonies Chamberlain condemned the proposal, it enjoyed great support among European parents and the colonial government ... Chinese were barred from the Hong Kong Club and the Hong Kong Jockey Club, and in some hotels Chinese guests could stay only in certain rooms or could not stay overnight.

A particular example of this government-enforced racial divide was Victoria Peak, the exclusive hill district on Hong Kong Island where no Chinese, except for the servants, cooks, houseboys, and drivers working for Europeans, were to live. In 1902 this residential segregation became law when the Colonial Office allowed the Peak to be used solely by residents approved by the governor. Subsequent ordinances passed in 1904 and 1918 explicitly barred Chinese and Eurasians from living on the Peak. As in India and other British colonies, Europeans in Hong Kong worried that close contact with Chinese posed serious physiological and moral risks. Most Europeans in Hong Kong believed that the fate of the colony depended on the health of its European population. Amid the fears of increased contact with Chinese and rising economic competition from the Chinese bourgeoisie, these restriction movements were attempts to preserve the status and social structure of the elite European community of Hong Kong.

- Why do I call you a bastard?
Your paternal grandfather is Chinese.
Your paternal grandmother is Chinese.
Your maternal grandfather is Chinese.
Your maternal grandmother is Chinese.
Your father is Chinese.
Your mother is Chinese.
But you insist that you are not Chinese.
Therefore you are a bastard.
Quod erat demonstrandum/
ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι.

- 'Tis time to switch flags.

- More sayings of Michael Tanner

- Michael Tanner challenges all pro-independence Hongkongers to take this UK Citizenship test. You must be correct at least 75% (18 or more out of 24 questions) to pass.

- Cartoon: Wishful thinking: "Motherland!" "I remember the colonial days so fondly" ... "If you can betray your own race, you will surely betray us one day if we take you in!"

(Wen Wei Po) The Hong Kong Guangdong Community Association commissioned the Hong Kong Research Association to interview 1,269 citizens on June 10-14

Q1. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass the Chief Executive election proposal?
64.1%: Yes
27.5%: No
5.2%: Hard to say
3.2%: No opinion

Q2. How confident are you that the Legislative Council will pass the proposal?
17.7%: Confident
62.2%: Not confident
16.9%: Hard to say
3.2%: No opinion

Q3. If the Legislative Council fails to pass the proposal, will you vote again for those Legislative Councilors who voted NO this time?
20.8%: Yes
60.3%: No

(Wen Wei Po) Hong Kong Island Federation interviewed 3,557 citizens from mid-May to June 11.

Q1. Do you agree that the election of the Chief Executive should follow the Basic Law and the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee?
71.0%: Agree
23.4%: Disagree
5.6%: Neither agree nor disagree/no opinion

Q2. Do you want to have one-person-one-vote?
93.3%: Yes
3.0%: No
3.7%: Neither/no opinion

Q3. Do you think constitutional reform should proceed gradually rather than remain in the same place?
70.3%: Yes
18.7%: No
11.0%: Neither/no opinion

Q4. If the government's proposal is vetoed and citizens won't have one-person-one-vote, then those legislators who voted NO should be held responsible.
67.2% Yes
20.3%: No
12.5%: Neither/no opinion

(HKG Pao) Silent Majority HK commissioned the Hong  Kong Public Opinion Research Centre to interview 901 adult Hong Kong citizens by telephone on June 8-11.

Q1. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass/veto the constitutional reform proposal according to majority opinion?
83%: Yes
11%: No

Q2. Do you think the Legislative Council should pass or veto the proposal?
60%: Yes, so that there is one-person-one-vote in 2017
33%: No, so that the 1200-person election committee will continue as is

Q3. Should the pan-democrats vote together according to their previous agreement?
29%: Yes
60%: No, they should vote according to their own wishes now

Q4. If the constitutional reform is vetoed now, when will the five-step reform process occur again?
11%: Before 2017 (during CY Leung's term)
35%: 2017-2022 (during the term of the next Chief Executive)
33%: After 2022

Q5. Will you vote for any candidate who vetoed the constitutional reform proposal this time?
35%: Yes
50%: No

(TVB) TVB commissioned the Lingnan University Public Governance Programme to interview 1,115 adult Hong Kong permanent residents on June 9-12.

Q1. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass or veto the government's constitutional reform proposal?
46.7%: Yes
44.8%: No
8.2%: Don't know

Q2. Do you accept the constitutional reform proposal?
34.6%: Yes
43.9%: No
18.8%: Half-half

Q3. If the constitutional reform fails to pass, who is responsible? (Multiple choices allowed)
42.8%: The HKSAR government
36.7%: The central government
18.0%: The pro-establishment camp
39.2%: The pro-democracy camp

Q4a. Would you vote for a legislator who vote against the proposal? (Among those who want the proposal to pass)
25%: Yes
75%: No

Q4b. Would you vote for a legislator who voted for the proposal? (Among those who don't want the proposal to pass)
19%: Yes
81%: No

(SCMP) Surveys reveal only one thing - the public is evenly split on 2017 political reform. June 16, 2015.

The local government began the reform process vowing to win over the public. The use of polling was to be its key strategy to convince sceptics, but it has found itself confronting divisive and sometimes disappointing results.

According to the rolling poll by three universities, opposition and support for the proposal has been neck and neck, although in the University of Hong Kong's latest survey released yesterday, 51 per cent of people called for Legco to approve the bill.

Still, few expect any of the 70 lawmakers to base their final decision on such public sentiment.

First, public sentiment seems to matter less than the convictions of the lawmakers, analysts say. As one pro-democracy lawmaker said on condition of anonymity: "Even if the universities' poll say there's more support than disapproval, we can't vote yes - that's not in line with what we have been asking for all along."

Second, the poll results at the core reflect the status quo of a deeply divided society. Even most polls commissioned by Beijing loyalists show at best a support rate of 60 per cent. After factoring in the margin of error and the response rate, the level of support is unremarkable.

But these findings also differ from the latest releases by the tri-university polls - regarded as one of the most authoritative - which show that opposition had briefly overtaken support, reaching what the pan-democratic lawmakers cheerfully describe as a "golden crossing". Some 43.4 per cent said they did not back the proposal, compared with 41.6 per cent supporting it, in the poll conducted between June 4 and June 8 by HKU, Chinese University and Polytechnic University. However, the level of support again surpassed opposition in the most updated figure, released on a daily basis.

On Friday, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying raised eyebrows when he responded to the findings by saying one should pay attention to whether the pollsters exhibited "strong political inclination" and how professional they had been. He added that the public should compare different polls as questions were asked differently.

A day later, he found at least one survey useful. He drew the media's attention to an HKU poll in collaboration with RTHK which found that 50 per cent of respondents said Legco should pass the reforms, against 33 per cent who said otherwise.

Like Leung, pro-establishment politicians argue there is a difference between asking whether one approves of the proposal and whether Legco should pass it.

The latest HKU poll - funded and commissioned by Liberal Party lawmaker James Tien Pei-chun with a "supersize" pool of respondents of 5,000 plus - covers both. Forty-eight per cent supported the proposal, while 38 per cent opposed it. When asked which button lawmakers should press, 51 per cent supported Legco passing the bill, against 37 per cent who disapproved.

The latter finding is in line with previous surveys conducted by pro-establishment groups that asked whether Legco should approve it: there would be more support than opposition with a support rate of above 50 per cent.

Take a mid-May poll conducted by the Hong Kong Policy Research Institute commissioned by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Beijing-loyalist party with the most lawmakers. Some 61.9 per cent of 1,070 respondents chose the first option, against 32 per cent who opted for the second.

But the way the questions were drafted was a "classic example of leading questions", said Dr Fu King-wa, an expert in statistical journalism at HKU. In the poll, the DAB asked respondents: "Do you think the Legislative Council should: (1) pass the proposal, in order to allow universal suffrage of the chief executive by one person one vote, or (2) vote down the proposal, at the expense of the political system stepping on the same ground in 2017?" Fu says: "It is too negative to include such terms as 'at the expense of' and 'stepping on the same ground' for a professional poll."

In a poll by the New People's Party in April and May, 51.3 per cent supported the proposal. The poll was conducted on the street by the party itself - a party with only two Legco seats. Fu says the problem with a poll like this is the willingness of passers-by who do not support the party to be surveyed. Party chairwoman Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee admitted the poll was not "weighted" and not citywide. "Poll findings are a matter of trust at the end of the day," Ip said as she unveiled her findings. Fu stressed the importance of "weighting" a poll, a technique to adjust answers to account for over- and underrepresented groups according to census statistics.

Also on the pro-Beijing side, a more consistent monthly poll conducted by the Hong Kong Research Association found 60 per cent support for Legco to pass the plan over time. In its conclusion for the latest release yesterday, the association, a favourite pollster of pro-Beijing groups and parties, does not hide its political inclination and "appeals to pan-democratic lawmakers to … consider supporting the proposal".

Professor Ma Ngok, a political scientist at Chinese University, says the joint-universities poll is the only credible, non-commercial one and if lawmakers were to make a decision based on a poll, this ought to be it. "Without a majority support, a government cannot claim that it is a reasonable policy," Ma says.

After the vote, all eyes will be on whether the pan-democrats will suffer in the District Council elections this year and the Legco election next should they vote down the proposal and, in a way, disenfranchise the public. But Ma doubts this will happen, given such an evenly divided public. "The original plan for the government was to blame the pan-democrats. I'd say that no longer works," Ma says.

(The Standard) June 16, 2015.

A local radical group advocating independence for the SAR is allegedly involved in the bombing plot. At least one of the nine arrested over the plot admitted to being from the National Independent Party.

The suspect is apparently a key member of the group, whose Facebook page was set up in January. The page was deleted last night, but archived webpage records show that in a post on June 1, the group, in poor English, stated: "Warning: If the constitutional reform package is passed on June 17, then Hongkongers must be prepared that there would be casualties on that day. Legislative Council will be another ruin as in Ukraine."

In another post on January 19, the group compared the independence movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The banner of the group said "Liberty, not communism, is the most contagious force in the world."

The group's stance was detailed in another post on May 13. "We are devoted to combining the pro-independence groups in Taiwan and Hong Kong into a cross-territory force," it stated.

The group supports localism groups HK Indigenous and Civic Passion. It also saluted Undergrad, a University of Hong Kong student union publication criticized by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying in his policy address for "advocating independence."

Members of the group joined anti- parallel trading protests, and planned to oppose construction of the third airport runway, and the passing of the political reform proposal "using any means," it stated.

The group had 219 "likes" before yesterday. It surged to 335 "likes" before the page was closed down.

A former construction worker, Cheng Wai-shing, was one of the people arrested in the alleged bombing conspiracy. Cheng. 29, was arrested after participating in anti-parallel trading protests in Yuen Long. He was banned from going there. After being injured in a traffic accident, he became a cleaner.

Cheng allegedly owns a motorcycle found outside the ATV studio in Ho Chung. He also owns a private car and a lorry. His social media account says he is enthusiastic about social movements, likes riding motorbikes and plays war games. He has uploaded several pictures of himself holding long guns.

Another suspect is a 20-year-old Eurasian who lives in Costa Bello in Hong Kin Road with his family: his businessman father, his mother and younger brother. It is understood he just returned from studying overseas a month ago.

(Cable TV) June 15, 2015.

According to information, some of the arrestees admitted that they were members of the National Independent Party. The police have been paying attention to this organization for over a month. On June 1st, the website of the National Independent Party contained a warning that if the constitutional reform proposal is passed by the Legislative Council on June 17th, then "the people of Hong Kong should be psychologically prepared to suffer casualties that day" and "the Legislative Council will become another Ukrainian ruin."

The National Independent Party website also contains videos of demonstrations in other countries, saying that "these are the resistance standards" and "our warriors should be prepared at all times."

The National Independent Party say that they never boast about their accomplishments or fame, and they will continue to stay invisible while conducting revolutionary activities. They said that they were present in the various anti-parallel trader actions and they got "results." Their next targets will be the Third Runway at the Hong Kong International Airport and the June constitutional reform. They will do everything possible to stop these things.

The National Independent Party say that buying new weaponry will stop the demonstrators, because the authorities will become BBQ meat just like elsewhere in the world.

The National Independent Party Facebook was established in January this year. So far more than 200 people have given Likes. In May, the National Independent Party announced that they will work towards joining the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence movements to form a new independence force.

Last update on June 11: Remember everyone who comes out to act should wear surgical masks! Why? What is the reasonable excuse? MERS!

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

List of suspects
1: Cheng, male, 29-years-old, construction worker
2: Chan, male, 34-years-old, unemployed
3: Pennelli, male, 22-year-old, technician
4: Man, male, 23-year-old, unemployed
5: Woo, male, 21-years-old, unemployed
6: Chan, female 29-years-old, purchasing agent
7: Hui, female, 21-years-old, Open University student
8: Woo, female, 30-years-old, Jockey Club EduYoung College teacher
9: Fung, female, 25-years-old, client service representative
10: Chan, 58-year-old, businessman (father of female Chan and arrested at Lo Wu border control point)

Suspect Cheng, also known as "Hong Kong bin Laden"

(Apple Daily) June 15, 2015.

Cheng and Chan are the core members of the National Independent Party. They were arrested during the Occupy Yuen Long demonstration for carrying a box cutter and a switchblade respectively, as well as using chili oil spray. The two are out on bail while the investigation continues.

Cheng is known to friends as the "Hong Kong bin Laden" and he lives in a Sheung Shui villa with his girlfriend Woo. He used to be a construction worker but hasn't work due to a leg injury sustained from an auto accident. Cheng loves to play music and war games. On June 11, he posted a photo of himself holding an AK47.

Chan graduated from Polytechnic University and he loves model guns. He has posted war games photos of himself and friends. He claimed to have been in the French Foreign Legion. In 2010, Chan was found guilty of possession of explosive materials and sentenced to 240 hours of community service.

Rizzy Pennelli lives with his Italian father, his Chinese mother and a younger brother in Sai Kung's Costa Bello. He graduated from university in England last year. He participated in the Umbrella Movement, and was pushed to the ground by the police during the Mong Kok clearance. On his Facebook, he said that he cares about democracy, but he does not agree with a completely peaceful resistance.

(Oriental Daily) March 3, 2015.

33-year-old unemployed man Chan and 29-year-old construction worker Cheng were arrested with 19-year-old student Kwan. The three of them were found carrying a switchblade, a box cutter, a 30cm long rubber truncheon, a lighter and several homemade chili oil sprayers. The police searched Chan's home and found three homemade police batons (including electrical wires).

Muscular Cheng also supports the Occupy Movement. His Facebook icon is a yellow ribbon. According to information, Cheng is a fan of guns and motorcycles. He has a photo of himself on a motorcycle as the front page of his Facebook. He is a member of motorcycle Facebook groups and frequently go riding with friends. He adores Jerry Miculek, the Greatest Shooter of All Time. He is known to his friends as "the Hong Kong version of bin Laden" and "the King of Robbers."

Chan with singer Denise Ho

According to information, Chan graduated from Polytechnic University and has worked as a lifeguard and a swimming coach. He loves model guns. On his Facebook, he posted photos of himself and friends in war games. Chan supports Occupy Movement, and his Facebook icon is the Shopping Revolution. He has worked as an emergency aid worker at the Occupy Mong Kok zone. He has a photo of himself wearing an emergency worker uniform, together with helmet and goggles. He said that this was the ultimate equipment for an equipment freak.

In 2010, Chan was convicted of possessing restricted explosives and sentenced to 240 hours of community service. Chan who had served in the French Foreign Legion did not have the opportunity to use his fluent French in court. The magistrate said that Chan made him "very uneasy because it was hard to render a verdict." In that case, Chan converted a smoke bomb into a rocket and tested in a Mong Kok back lane in June 2009. He was arrested by police patrolmen. In his apartment, the police found materials related to rockets. Chan said that he wanted to test the theories on rockets and therefore he manufactured a rocket "for fun."

(Oriental Daily) May 26, 2016.

The magistrate found defendants Chan and Cheng guilty of possession of weapons of assault. The magistrate found that two defendants' explanation not to be credible.

Chan said that he was there to render emergency aid, but his chest armor was not consistent with that role. Chan also said that the five bottles of chili oil was given to him by a relative in mainland China but he did not know where they came from.

Cheng said that a friend gave him the chili oil. However, he was unable to find the friend to testify on his behalf. Cheng also claimed to have consumed the chili oil before, but he could not explain how.

The magistrate said that the lab analyst determined that the chili oil was not fit for human consumption. Like pepper spray, it can cause discomfort to the eyes upon contact. Therefore the magistrate determined that the two defendants brought the chili oil spray bottles in order to attack people.

(Oriental Daily) March 17, 2017.

After serving nine months in prison, Chan Yiu-shing is appealing his conviction and sentence. After serving six months in prison, Cheng Wai-shing is appealing his conviction.

Chan's lawyer said that the magistrate erred in not accepting Chan's explanation that he was there to offer voluntary emergency rescue. The magistrate ignored the possibility taht Chan wore a protective armor helmet to protect himself as opposed to joining violent clashes. When Chan got to the scene, he may just turn around and leave, or stand aside and watch. The lawyer also said that the magistrate was ambivalent about the potency of the chili oil spray, by saying that it was of low density at one point and then as potent as pepper oil spray at another point.

Cheng's lawyer said that the chili oil spray can be consumed and the prosecutor failed to disprove the contention that the defendant intended to apply the chili oil spray on his food.

The High Court judge questioned whether any person who apply the chili oil spray inside the mouth. The expert testimony was that this spray can cause discomfort in people. "When you use chili sauce to attack someone, it is considered a weapon. There is no way that you can argue that it cannot be a weapon of attack because it is edible."

(SCMP) March 17 2017.

Two Hongkongers found carrying chilli spray at a 2015 protest sought to overturn their weapons conviction on Friday, arguing that they did not intend to take part in a non-peaceful demonstration.

Chan Yiu-shing, 35, was found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon and sentenced to nine months jail in May last year after police intercepted him carrying five bottles of chilli spray and wearing protective “BMX gear” at the protest in Yuen Long on March 1, 2015.

His co-defendant Cheng Wai-shing, 31, was sentenced to six months jail for possessing one bottle of the chilli spray during the same protest.

Protests emerged in the New Territories in 2015 with Hongkongers voicing their discontent towards mainland parallel goods traders. Locals said the traders had swamped their neighbourhoods, caused congestion and a shortage of goods.

During Chan and Cheng’s trial in May 2016, a magistrate ruled that the protective gear worn by Chan was “a clear sign that it was not for a peaceful protest” and the chilli spray was an offensive weapon. At the time, the pair argued that the spray was intended for consumption.

Having now completed their jail time, the pair took to the High Court on Friday to appeal against their conviction and sentences.

Their lawyers argued that being dressed in protective gear and carrying multiple bottles of chilli spray did not mean that they intended to take part in a non-peaceful protest.

Chan’s defence lawyer, Alexander Cheung Hok-fung, said the convicting magistrate jumped steps to reach his conclusion. “The magistrate said the gear was for protective reasons, which we accepted,” Cheung recalled of the May 2016 trial.

He said the magistrate then, however, concluded that the protective gear proved Chan was not there to take part in a peaceful protest and the spray was therefore an offensive weapon. “There had to be other evidence before such an inference can be drawn,” he told High Court judge Mr Justice Albert Wong Sung-hau.

Cheung argued that Chan’s gear was for his own protection as there was a commotion on the day. He said Chan might also have been leaving the protest when police intercepted him, therefore suggesting that he would not have used the spray on others.

Defence lawyer for Cheng, Randy Shek Shu-ming, contested the magistrate’s decision to deem one bottle of chilli spray as an offensive weapon.

Mr Justice Wong is expected to hand down his judgment at a later date.

(SCMP) Hong Kong bomb plot a conspiracy to smear us, localists claim, ahead of reform vote. June 16, 2015.

Hong Kong localists have distanced themselves from radicals arrested for an alleged bomb plot, as they raised claims that the plan was a conspiracy to smear them before the Legislative Council votes on the government’s electoral reform package.

Jon Ho, spokesman for Hong Kong Localism Power, told a Commercial Radio programme today his group had no connection to 10 members of the “National Independent Party” arrested for allegedly plotting to set off bombs to cause mayhem and bloodshed. Ho also questioned if the party was a genuine localist group, citing suspicious features of material belonging to the group seized by police officers. “Localist groups would not mention umbrellas and yellow ribbons,” Ho said, referring to items carrying logos of the key icons of last year’s Occupy movement.

Some paraphernalia also carried the name of the League of Social Democrats. Ho said that it was “impossible” to link League of Social Democrats lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung to localist groups as he insisted he was Chinese – a standpoint that was entirely different from that of localists. Some localists said online they had never heard of the group and knew no one in it. Hong Kong Indigenous spokesman Ray Wong Toi-yeung said: “I’ve never heard of them. Absolutely not.”

Meanwhile, a Facebook user raised several points of suspicion, based on observations of the evidence police showed to the press. The user found a slogan that read: “Kick out the snake feasts-vegetarian feasts-rice dumplings-cakes,” on some seized leaflets shown by police. The items are usually used to refer to pro-establishment political groups, as they were known to offer them as gifts to draw support. But the user said: “Why did rice dumplings come before cakes [in the slogan]? Hongkongers would not make mistakes like this,” referring to the more common sequence of “snake feasts, vegetarian feasts, cakes and rice dumplings.”

Another Facebook user said: “A [real] localist group would definitely not describe themselves as ‘national.’”, while another said: “Which nation are you talking about? Why does a nation need to be independent when it’s already a nation?”

(memehk) Stephen Siu. June 16, 2015.

There are four possibilities about these National Independent Party guys.

Possibility #1: They were framed. They never did anything like this, but the police planted the evidence. These people are innocent valiant warriors. They went to the ATV studio to chat, but the police planted the explosives, guns and banners. I think this is impossible to do in Hong Kong. If these people suddenly come up with proof that they could not have been at the scene, etc, it would be a major disaster for the police. It is one thing to frame one person, but framing ten persons at the same time is almost impossible to carry out.

Possibility #2: The police directed the whole operation. These ten people are mercenaries hired by the police to do this. If so, what is the purpose? It would be to smear. But to smear whom? The pan-democrats have disavowed them already. Therefore they will be smearing the Localist movement. But nobody in the Localist movement has heard of them. So who are they smearing?

Many commentators are opting for this possibility. I consider this to be preposterous. Among these ten individuals, several of them have been active for a long time. There was a couple who were arrested in Yuen Long. Another one is a Student Frontier member working alongside Cheng Kam-mun. If they are really police informants, they would be undercover for a long period of time gathering information on big-shots such as Raymond Wong, Wong Yeung-tat, Wan Chin, etc. Now that they are arrested, they can only testify against each other and then they will be sentenced to 10 years or more in prison. In The Godfather, a famous saying was that they won't touch heroin because the jail term is long and "people would break and start to talk." This is a stupid plan. How can anyone believe these arrestees are police informants? If the police does this, they only need two to three informants and they want to be able to have the evidence to convict all of the Localist leaders.

Possibility #3: The police have informers around them, but the informers are not among the ten arrestees. The informers knew what they were up to, and they may have even incited them to do these things. Such an informer will come into suspicion from the arrestees because he wasn't arrested too. This informer will show up as a witness for the prosecution and then his identity will be concealed.

Possibility #4: Ever since the Umbrella Movement, all the radical elements are under police surveillance. These people came to the notice of the police earlier, and the police have been following them for the past three months. The arrests were made after they tested the bombs. This is the most likely scenario. Some people are saying that they detect flaws, such as the choice of terms that appear to be non-Localist. That is risible. Do you have to take the SAT test and demonstrate proper Chinese-language usage in order to qualify to be a Localist? These are stupid people and there is no limit as to how stupid they can be. When they get their day in court, the Internet will find out all about them. Then we will know whether they are police informants or not.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

There is a new statement that supposedly comes from the National Independent Party. It says that the nine arrestees are members of their organization, which has suffered an unprecedented blow. However, "the revolution will not stop." The NIP acknowledges that that their members used TATP to make bombs in order "to achieve the greatest effect with the least amount of resources." The goal is to charge at the Legislative Council during the debate/vote on the constitutional reform  proposal.

The statement also says that the National Independent Party wants to achieve independence for Hong Kong, which is a nation capable of being independent. They also criticized other localist parties for immediately disavowing the National Independent Party or not even acknowledging that it exists. They said that some of their members are also members of other localists organizations with whom they have previously exchanged intelligence.

(Bastille Post) June 16, 2015.

A Facebook user named Yim Tat-ming claimed that the National Independent Party's Facebook page was posted from the IP address of the One Country Two Systems Research Centre which is led by Executive Council member Cheung Chi-kong. This became proof that the whole thing must be a false flag operation.

Once the media started calling, the One Country Two Systems Research Centre asked their technical support to verify that this was not true. Shortly afterwards Yim Tat-ming: "The post on source of the National Independent Party has been deleted, including from my status this morning. I apologize for any convenience caused by the rumor." According to information, the One Country Two Systems Research Centre has filed a police report.

(EJinsight) National Independent Party: Terror group or political bogeyman?  By SC Yeung. June 16, 2015.

News that police seized explosives and arrested members of a shadowy group following a raid on an abandoned building in Sai Kung certainly perked things up at the start of the week. The suspects were described as members of a political group called National Independent Party, whose goal, as the name implies, is to gain independence for Hong Kong. 

It is supposedly a radical group who will not hesitate to employ violence to achieve its ends. In fact, police said they seized from the group maps showing the locations of Admiralty and Wan Chai as well as a dynamite depot in Ma On Shan. They were allegedly plotting to sow terror and chaos in the city as the Legislative Council deliberates and votes on the government’s political reform proposal this week.

This is indeed unsettling. Not since police officers manhandled unarmed activists and attacked them with tear gas and pepper spray in last year’s Occupy protests has violence figured in recent political activities.

But what is worrisome is that the authorities have branded this group as a “localist”, thereby lumping it together with other activist groups which have no intention of employing violence in their pursuit of genuine autonomy for Hong Kong.

In fact, none of the pro-democracy groups knew about the National Independent Party until it was divulged by the authorities. A check with its Facebook fan page showed that it has around 120 “likes” since the account was opened in January.

After the raid on the former ATV studio on Ho Chung Road, police officials held an on-site press conference to elaborate on the nature of the group, based on the evidence they have gathered.

Police said they found leaflets saying “Chun Ying, go to hell” and “Black police die with their families”. These slogans are quite strange for members of localist political groups. In the first place, they never call Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying by his first name. They just call him “689″, which refers to the number of votes he got from the election committee to win the post in 2012. As far as we know, only pro-Beijing publications such as Sing Tao Daily call him Chun-ying in their news reports.

Another bizarre word found in the group’s leaflets is “reunification” to describe the city’s return to Chinese rule in 1997. This is a word used by authorities in Beijing, not by known radical political groups in Hong Kong.

Another leaflet found on the site says: “Please vote for Umbrella Localists.” Now, localist groups have distanced themselves from the Umbrella Movement as early as the first few weeks of the protests since they believe the campaign won’t achieve anything. They certainly don’t want to be described as “Umbrella Localists”. In fact, the name of the group — National Independent Party — does not reflect the goal of genuine localist groups.

Localist groups want to focus their struggle on achieving genuine autonomy for Hong Kong. This means they want to reduce the importance of China in the city’s political, social and cultural life. They want Hong Kong to have its unique status, instead of being a mere administrative region of China.

As to be expected, pro-democracy groups immediately clarified that they had nothing to do with the National Independent Party or its officers and members, or with its alleged plans to attack Legco later this week.

Hong Kong Localism Power and People Power stressed that they do not condone violence. “Police said localist activists are making bombs, but I am not sure if it’s real or not,” Jon Ho of Hong Kong Localism Power was quoted as saying. “We have nothing to do with that.” People Power’s Tam Tak-chi added: “People Power did not do that. Our group does not believe in violence.”

So who are the people behind the National Independent Party? It is becoming clear that this shadowy group is besmirching the image of localist political groups. It is being used to portray “localists” as violent groups that intend to sow chaos and disorder in the city to pursue their agenda.

And who would benefit if localist activists are portrayed as violent radicals? Certainly not the localists and other pro-democracy activists, certainly not their cause of achieving genuine universal suffrage and true autonomy for Hong Kong. It’s the enemies of pro-democracy groups that will gain from this atmosphere of fear and suspicion that is being created in the city.

As Legco prepares to vote for the government’s political reform package, we hope everyone will maintain sobriety and allow reason to prevail in the deliberations. But if violence breaks out outside the Legco complex, the authorities can easily put the blame on the localists and pan-democrats — thanks to the National Independent Party.

(Apple Daily) June 17, 2015.

An editor of the National Independent Party Facebook group contacted our reporter and told us that the party "exists only in name" with loose organization. He said that he saw a network security discussion at the Hong Kong Golden Forum and joined. "At the time, the name was something like China-Hong Kong-Taiwan Chinese People Democracy Discussion Group. Someone complained that the name was too long, so it was changed to National Independent Party."

He guessed that someone in the group went and formed their own action group. "Sometimes the page is updated without my knowledge." He said that he has never met with any other member. Most of the photos are of Taiwanese girls or umbrella designs. "There is no evidence that the arrestees are party members." He said that there may be some police informers in there. "We screen, but all you have to do is state your political beliefs and send a photo of your ID. How can you screen out someone who intends to become a mole?"

He said that he has never seen the pamphlets that the police exhibited. "The worse part is that they don't know their history because they think that the million person march came after the June 4th massacre."

As an editor, he said: "I have thought about the police coming to search my home. But I have nothing there. There is nothing that they can hold me to ... I was nervous for a while, because I had to decide whether to delete all my adult videos."

Internet comments:

- The National Independent Party? Our normal understanding is that some region of a nation wants to become independent. For example, Scotland from the United Kingdom; Catalunya from Spain. But what is a National Independent Party? Does mean that the whole nation wants to be independent of the whole nation?

- If you go to Free Dictionary and type in "National Independence", you are re-directed to "Self-determination" which means (1) determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will; (2) Freedom of the people of a given area to determine their own political status; independence.

- Most of the 238 National Independent Party Facebook followers are said to be political news reporters, who wanted to have access in the event that something happens. They have had the chance, but the Facebook page has been removed since.

- (RTHK) According to Hong Kong Indigenous, the National Independent Party is a sham localist group. The evidence as seen in the police photos:

- The NIP says "handover of Hong Kong" whereas authentic localists say "transfer of sovereignty";
- The NIP says "Chun Ying" whereas authentic localists say "689";
- The NIP says to kick away "snake meals/vegetarian meals/glutinous rice wraps/cake" (which is the nickname of a pro-establishment Wen Wei Po forum user) whereas the rest of the world says "snake meals/vegetarian meals/cake/glutinous rice wraps";
- The NIP says "Umbrella Localism" whereas authentic localists don't want any association with any umbrellas because that movement is a sissy non-violent pantomime;
- The NIP says "national independence" whereas authentic localists hate the Association to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China for wanting "to build a democratic China".
All in all, this is very suspicious. Therefore pro-democracy Hongkongers should remain united together and not be divided by the evil Communists.

- 沒事就兄弟,出事就契弟 When things run smoothly, we are brothers. When trouble comes, I don't know the bastard.
- They used to explain the schisms (Hong Kong Priority, Hong Kong Indigenous, Hong Kong Localism Power, Hong Kong Localist Democracy Front, etc) away by saying that "there is no need to have the same slogans as long as we have the same goals." But today, they suddenly declared that there are standard linguistic codes in order to be genuine Localists. This is quite embarrassing.

- Video: The People's Front in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

- Yes, the National Independent Party don't act like authentic Localists (see, for example, Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat showing up in a boxing ring and getting shellacked) who are all talk and no action.

- (Sing Pao) On that evening, the individuals set off a bomb on the roof of the ATV studio for testing purposes. Smoke could be seen. When the police arrested the individuals, one of them resisted and shouted: "I am going to kill you all ... I hate you ... Long live democracy!"

- In the United States of America, these terrorists would be subjected to waterboarding (which is merely enhanced interrogation and therefore not torture).

Q1. Do you think the government proposal for universal suffrage is more, less or the same as the current system?
71%: More
10%: Less
12%: The same
5%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q2. DO  you think that Legislative Council should pass the government's proposal?
64%: Yes
26%: No
7%: Hard to say/don't care
3%: No opinion

Q3. When a legislator holds a position on constitutional reform that is different from the majority preference, do you think the legislator should follow majority opinion?
78%: Yes
11%: No
6%: Hard to say/don't care
5%: No opinion

Q4. Are you confident that the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal will be passed by the Legislative Council?
9%: A lot of confidence
9%: Some confidence
36%: Not a lot of confidence
31%: No confidence
11%: Hard to say
4%: No opinion

Q5. Do you think that the pan-democrat legislators can get an even more democratic Chief Executive election system by vetoing this proposal?
18%: Yes
72%: No
8%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q6. If there is no universal suffrage for the 2017 Chief Executive election, how many years later will it come?
9%: 5 years
20%: 10 years
16%: 15 years
14%: 20 years or more
34%: Hard to say
7%: No opinion

Q7. If the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, who is the biggest loser?
10%: The central government
18%: The pan-democrats
51%: The people of Hong Kong
12%: The HKSAR government
3%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
3%: No losers
1%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q8. If the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, who is most responsible?
16%: The central government
51%: The pan-democrats
3%: The people of Hong Kong
18%: The HKSAR government
2%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
8%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q10. If the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform proposal, will you vote for any pan-democrats who vetoed the bill the next time?
20%: Yes
61%: No
13%: Undecided
6%: No opinion

(Wikipedia) Yeung Kwong

Born in 1926, Yeung became a member of the Hong Kong Tramways Workers Union in 1948 and led strikes by Hong Kong Tramway's fare conductors the following year.  He served as chairman of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), the largest pro-Communist labour union in Hong Kong, from 1962 to 1980, and then its president between 1980 and 1988. From 1973 to 1987, he was a local deputy to the National People's Congress.  During the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots, which was inspired by the mainland China's Cultural Revolution and escalated from a labour dispute at a plastic-flower factory in San Po Kong, Yeung served as director of the Hong Kong and Kowloon Committee for Anti-Hong Kong British Persecution Struggle. Thousands were injured and 51 died, 15 of whom were killed in bombings planted by the Leftists. Nominated by the FTU, then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal, the highest honour in Hong Kong, to Yeung for his "outstanding contribution to the labour movement and labour welfare in Hong Kong and for his dedicated community service" in 2001. In the morning of 16 May 2015, Yeung died at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sha Tin after he underwent a heart operation last year.

(The Standard) June 15, 2015.

There were demonstrations at the funeral of Yeung Kwong, former president of the Federation of Trade Unions. Just before 10am, Hong Kong Indigenous protesters marched from Hung Hom MTR station to the funeral home, chanting slogans. They accused Yeung of being responsible for the violence during the deadly riots 48 years ago. FTU president Lam Suk-yee delivered an eulogy at the service. Yeung was director of the Anti-British Struggle Committee at the time of the riots, which saw 51 people killed and thousands injured. He was controversially awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal in 2001.

(EJinsight) June 15, 2015.

A spokesman for the political group Hong Kong Indigenous offered an apology to the family of former communist labor leader Yeung Kwong after holding a protest at the latter’s funeral on Sunday.

Ray Wong Toi-yeung said his group did not mean to offend Yeung’s family and relatives but staged the protest to assail the government for heaping praises on the late unionist who led the 1967 leftist riots that killed scores of Hong Kong people, Ming Pao Daily reported on Monday.

In Sunday’s protest, activists brought pineapples to symbolize home-made bombs used by rioters in 1967 and mock at Yeung’s memory for his role in the turmoil. Wong also uncorked a bottle of champagne to mark Yeung’s death.

Those who attended the funeral were Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, and former secretary for justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie. When CY Leung walked out of the funeral home, several protesters attempted to climb over the barricades but were stopped by police officers.

Paying tribute to Yeung, current HKFTU chief Lam Shuk-yee said Yeung was instrumental in introducing water supply from Dongjiang River in Guangdong to Hong Kong in the 1960s and exemplified bravery in leading the protests in 1967 to fight for better benefits for the working class.

Hong Kong Indigenous was one of the groups that joined the pro-democracy Occupy Movement last year and the protests against mainland parallel traders earlier this year.


(Resistance Live) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RbTdZxyX_k
(Resistance Live) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3dP3LneEU Opening the champagne bottle and chanting "Yeung Kwong go to hell!"

(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz7jeIoji-I CY Leung and Zhang Xiao-ming leave the funeral home.
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK5GMAgDsI4

(Ming Pao) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73AS5spUU-c
(0:58) Lam Suk-yee: We all respect our predecessor. He dedicated his life towards the workers' lives and to defend their rights. Therefore we respect him. This funeral is not the place for political arguments. We hope that everybody can respect others, respect the deceased. There are other occasions for demonstrations and protests. Thank you.
(1:37) Reporter: How are people being disrespectful? Can you be more specific?
(1:39) Lam Suk-yee: I am still saying that this is a funeral service and not a political squabble. I hope that people can respect his family and his colleagues.

Internet comments:

- The leftist riots took place in 1967, which is 48 years ago. Practically none of these demonstrators were born yet. Some of their fathers weren't even born yet. It doesn't mean that they can't have a point of view on that piece of history, but they should be more substantive than just chanting "Down with the Communists" and "Yeung Kwong, go to hell!"
- At least when the angry Chinese patriots rant about the Yasukuni war shrine, they try to tie it to concerns about the rise of Japanese militarism.

- If the localists want to demonstrate/protest against CY Leung and Zhang Xiaoming, there are plenty of opportunities. The reason why they choose the funeral service of Yeung Kwong was precisely because this is going to offend a lot of traditionally minded Hongkongers. That's fine. But bizarrely Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong issued an apology afterwards. They intended to offend and they got what they want. Why retreat after the damage was done?

- "Ray Wong Toi-yeung said his group did not mean to offend Yeung’s family and relatives but staged the protest to assail the government for heaping praises on the late unionist who led the 1967 leftist riots that killed scores of Hong Kong people, Ming Pao Daily reported on Monday." In what conceivable way could Ray Wong think that opening champagne and chanting "Yeung Kwong go to hell" wouldn't be offending Yeung's family and relatives. What was he thinking?
- Most likely, he didn't imagine any such until he went home and his parents and grandparents gave him hell and then it dawned on him that some regular people may get very upset over this type of behavior.

- The 1967 Leftist Riots was the original Hong Kong indigenous resistance movement against a foreign colonial power. The Hong Kong Indigenous said that Yeung Kwong was responsible for the murder of dozens of Hongkongers during those riots. Look at the list of casualties carefully: How many were "beaten/shot to death by police"?
The Yellow Ribbons talk about how evil and brutal the Hong Kong Police are. Look at these descriptions from 1967 about the Hong Kong Royal Police:

Chan Kwong-sang, a student barber, beaten to death by riot police at Wong Tai Sin Resettlement Area.
Tsui Tin Por, a worker of Mechanics Division Public Works Department, beaten to death at Wong Tai Sin Police Station after arrest.
Lai Chung, a worker of Towngas, shot by police in a raid, then killed by drowning.
Tsang Ming, a worker to Towngas, shot by beaten to death by police in a raid ...

- In the morning, the Localists demonstrated against a bomb-maker. In the evening, they went and built their own bombs (see #271).

(EJinsight) June 16, 2015.

Police have seized some explosives and arrested nine people after a raid on an abandoned former ATV film studio in Sai Kung, Radio Television Hong Kong reported Monday. Among the arrested, four were women while the rest were male, according to the report. All the detained were said to be in the 21 to 34 age group. They included a student, a teaching assistant and some unemployed persons. Police suspect some of them may be linked to a local radical group. The arrests came as lawmakers prepare to vote on the government’s controversial political reform bill this week.  

The vacant former ATV studio on Ho Chung Road, where the explosives were seized, has been sealed by the police since Sunday night after inspectors from the Organized Crime and Triad Bureau found explosive devices there, Ming Pao Daily reported. The police bomb squad and firefighters were called to the site. Police say they believe the building was being used to make and test the explosive devices.

Meanwhile, Apple Daily reported that inspectors took away evidence at about 7:45 am on Monday. Among the things they picked up were an air rifle, three bullet clips and an electronic scale. Inspectors also found two bottles, one containing a deep-brown fluid and another containing a transparent fluid as well as some white powder in plastic bags, according to the report. The studio, where security guards were stationed during daytime, used to be a main site for ATV to film its TV dramas before being abandoned many years ago.

(SCMP) June 16, 2015.

Nine radical activists were arrested in Hong Kong this morning after police found powerful explosives they suspect were intended to be detonated before the Legislative Council debates the government’s political reform package this week. The highly unstable explosives, known as TATP, were seized at the vacant former ATV studio in Sai Kung in the early hours of this morning by the police bomb squad, which carried out a controlled explosion at the site.

The discovery was swiftly followed by the arrest of five men and four women from Hong Kong, aged 21 to 34, in a series of raids across the city by the force’s elite Organised Crime and Triad Bureau. The suspects include a post-secondary student, a teaching assistant, a construction worker, a technician, and three unemployed people, a police source said.

The nine suspects are core members of a localist radical group, which had discussed launching a bomb attack online, according to the source. “Some of them were picked up in the vacant studio [in Sai Kung] when they allegedly tried to make home-made bombs and tested the power of the devices,” the source said.

Chemical substances which could be used to make explosives were also confiscated together with air guns in some of the suspects’ homes during the raids, the source added. It is understood the explosive seized in the raids is triacetone triperoxide – also known as TATP – which has been used in deadly terrorist attacks around the world, including in Israel and the London bombings on July 7, 2005 in which 52 people died and more than 700 were injured.

The source failed to say how many explosives or chemical substances had been seized in the operation but said they were very powerful and could cause fatalities if detonated. One test tube of the material is powerful enough to "blow a car into pieces", the source said.

The discovery of the explosives was made when officers raided the ATV studio off Ho Chung Road in Sai Kung. Bomb disposal officers were called in to destroy the material in a controlled explosion at the scene. Police also seized an air rifle and equipment allegedly used in the manufacture of explosives at the studio. A motorcycle found at the site was impounded. “More arrests are expected as the investigation is continuing,” another police source said.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

The police found large amount of explosive materials at the abandoned ATV film studio in Ho Chung Village, Sai Kung district last night. There were many bags containing nitrate. Explosive experts came and remove the suspicious materials and also detonated some of the materials at the location.

When nitrate is mixed with sulphur and carbon ingredients, it becomes a powerful explosive material. The Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik used ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil) to build the bomb that killed 8 persons in Oslo.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

Nine indigenous/localist/nativist activists were arrested on suspicion of bomb-making. According to information, the target of their action was the constitutional reform and they wanted to use the bombs to set off fear. The abandoned ATV was used as a bomb factory as well as testing ground. Those arrested included students, workers and a teaching assistant.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

After daybreak, the police searched the site thoroughly. The explosive materials were found on the roof of the old ATV studio and on the persons of the arrested individuals. The police also conducted searches and made arrests elsewhere in Hong Kong. So far at least five males and four females have been arrested.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

The police arrested nine individuals who were testing bombs at the time. The police also impounded a motorcycle. The owner of this motorcycle had previously been arrested in the Occupy Yuen Long anti-parallel trader demonstration for possession of pepper oil and a switchblade.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

Our reporter called up the "Father of Hong Kong independence" Wan Chin for comments. When he learned that some Localists have been arrested for bomb-making/testing and adapting guns, he hung up the phone.

Our reporter also called up North District Parallel Trade Concern Group convener Leung Kam-sing. He said that the case is still under investigation so that it is not clear that Localists were manufacturing bombs. He said that that there is no need for large-scale demonstrations given that the constitutional reform is almost certain to be vetoed.

Polytechnic University tutor and Civic Passion member Cheng Chung-tai said that it is not confirmed yet that Localists were involved. "At this time, you can say whatever group that you wish!" He said that Civic Passion has no plans to organize resistance during the Legco vote.

Population Policy Concern Group convener Roy Tam said that the Sai Kung affair has nothing to do with the moderate Localists, and he has no information that any of his members have been arrested.

(HKG Pao) June 15, 2015.

The police operation at the bomb-making factory was the top news story at most news organizations except for two.

At Apple Daily, the headline story was "Soccer king Woo Kwok-hung passes away." If you hit the arrow at the bottom right of the photo, you will get to the story about "Explosive materials at old ATV studio." Isn't this deliberate low-profile handling intended to cover up bad news about the Localists?

At Ming Pao (nicknamed Apple Daily's supplement), the top news story of the day was the Consumer Council warning people that they may get skin rash from mosquito repellant. The second news story is about young North Koreans fleeing to South Korea. The third news story was the "bomb factory." Does Ming Pao think that mosquitoes and North Koreans are more threatening than bombs?

So what are we supposed to think? Do these newspapers support Localism/Hong Kong Independence? Do they approve of violent radical action? Or does their management have something else in mind?

(Oriental Daily) July 15, 2015.

Based upon information, the police went to an abandoned quarry in Ma On Shan and removed a number of explosive materials (including sulfur, thinner, etc). According to experts, sulfur mixed with thinner will create an obnoxious smoke.

(Oriental Daily) July 15, 2015.

According to the police, they searched the Sai Kung home of one suspect and found three bottles containing about two liters of TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide).

(Oriental Daily) July 17, 2015.

Chan Cheuk-lam was able to post bail. She told the reporters that she is innocent or else she would have kept wearing a surgical mask. She said that she had already purchased airplane tickets to Hokkaido. If it weren't for this case, she would be eating wagyu beef in Japan right now.

(Oriental Daily) June 17, 2015.

The six defendants were Chan Yiu-shing, Cheng Wei-shing, Rizzy Pennelli, Woo Kai-fu, Man Ting-lock and Sarene Chan Cheuk-lam, ages 21 to 34. They were charged illegally and maliciously manufacturing explosive devices to cause explosions which may damage lives and property.

According to the prosecutor, the police conducted surveillance on May 27 and found the first, second, fourth and fifth defendant entering into the building and supposedly testing explosives that created light. On June 14, the police observed the second and third defendant entering into the building, staying for more than half an hour and creating some smoke. The police arrested those two and found 7 kilograms of chemicals and five liters of liquid materials. The first and fourth defendants were arrested in Wanchai. The fifth and sixth defendants were arrested in their residences.

The first 34-year-old first defendant Chan Yiu-shing is unemployed and lives with his parents. His parents are willing to provide $5,000 bail. Chan complains of being beaten by the police.

The second defendant Cheng Wai-shing is a construction worker. Cheng complains of being beaten by the police.

The third defendant Rizzy Pennelli lives with his family and says that the police lack strong evidence and therefore he should be allowed to be bailed out. Pennelli complains of being beaten by the police.

The first five defendants were not allowed bail, because the magistrate says that the charges were serious and he was sure why these individuals are in possess these restricted materials.

The sixth defendant Sarene Chan Cheuk-lam said that she only obliged someone's request to purchase something and therefore she was allowed to be bailed out on $20,000. She also complains about being intimidated by the police.

(SCMP) June 18, 2015.

Six defendants charged over a bomb plot in Hong Kong yesterday accused police of assaulting them or using threats to get them to cooperate with the investigation.

The five men and one woman, aged 21 to 34, reported the alleged incidents to acting Principal Magistrate Don So Man-lung during their first appearance at Kwun Tong Court.

Rizzy Pennelli, an Italian national born and raised in Hong Kong, suffered repeated blows to various parts of his body and his private parts were "pulled", the man's lawyer, Michael Vidler, said. "A woman police officer hit him with a hard object on the neck," Vidler told the court. Pennelli suffered bruises and abrasions over his body and face as a result, Vidler said.

Pennelli was in court along with Hongkongers Chan Yiu-shing, Cheng Wai-shing, Wu Kai-fu, Man Ting-lock and the case's sole female defendant, Sarene Chan Cheuk-lam. They face a joint count of "conspiracy to cause an explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property" between May 27 and June 14.

The six were accused of unlawfully and maliciously making an explosive substance, with which they conspired to cause an explosion in the city.

In Sarene Chan's complaint against the police, officers allegedly threatened to arrest her husband, a doctor, if she refused to cooperate, defence counsel Christopher Wong Tat-ming said. The officers warned that the arrest could jeopardise the husband's career, Wong said.

Chan Yiu-shing claimed police had tried to coax an admission out of him by offering to mitigate for him in court. "At the point of the arrest when [Chan] was handcuffed, he was [also] assaulted by police officers," his counsel told the court.

Man's right to remain silent was allegedly encroached upon, the same counsel said. The court also heard Man had fainted after an encounter with the police but was denied treatment. Officers told Man that he would have to shoulder the blame for others should he refuse to speak in a video interview, the court heard.

Sarene Chan was granted bail, while the other five were remanded in custody. She is a master's degree holder and online merchandiser, a court document shows. Cheng is a construction site worker, while Pennelli is an engineering graduate and a technician. The rest are unemployed.

Senior prosecutor Noelle Chit applied for an eight-week adjournment to allow time for forensic examination of more than 10 kinds of chemicals. The police investigation was ongoing, Chit said, including studying the defendants' electronic devices, which might result in more arrests. She said the case was expected to go to the High Court.

So said he would grant the prosecution only four more weeks, adding that he did not expect the scope of investigation to be too wide. The magistrate adjourned the case to July 22.

(SCMP) June 17, 2017.

Six defendants charged over a bomb plot in Hong Kong yesterday accused police of assaulting them or using threats to get them to cooperate with the investigation.

The five men and one woman, aged 21 to 34, reported the alleged incidents to acting Principal Magistrate Don So Man-lung during their first appearance at Kwun Tong Court.

Rizzy Pennelli, an Italian national born and raised in Hong Kong, suffered repeated blows to various parts of his body and his private parts were "pulled", the man's lawyer, Michael Vidler, said. "A woman police officer hit him with a hard object on the neck," Vidler told the court.

Pennelli suffered bruises and abrasions over his body and face as a result, Vidler said.

Pennelli was in court along with Hongkongers Chan Yiu-shing, Cheng Wai-shing, Wu Kai-fu, Man Ting-lock and the case's sole female defendant, Sarene Chan Cheuk-lam. They face a joint count of "conspiracy to cause an explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property" between May 27 and June 14.

The six were accused of unlawfully and maliciously making an explosive substance, with which they conspired to cause an explosion in the city.

In Sarene Chan's complaint against the police, officers allegedly threatened to arrest her husband, a doctor, if she refused to cooperate, defence counsel Christopher Wong Tat-ming said.

The officers warned that the arrest could jeopardise the husband's career, Wong said.

Chan Yiu-shing claimed police had tried to coax an admission out of him by offering to mitigate for him in court.

"At the point of the arrest when [Chan] was handcuffed, he was [also] assaulted by police officers," his counsel told the court.

Man's right to remain silent was allegedly encroached upon, the same counsel said. The court also heard Man had fainted after an encounter with the police but was denied treatment.

Officers told Man that he would have to shoulder the blame for others should he refuse to speak in a video interview, the court heard.

Sarene Chan was granted bail, while the other five were remanded in custody.

She is a master's degree holder and online merchandiser, a court document shows. Cheng is a construction site worker, while Pennelli is an engineering graduate and a technician. The rest are unemployed.

Senior prosecutor Noelle Chit applied for an eight-week adjournment to allow time for forensic examination of more than 10 kinds of chemicals.

The police investigation was ongoing, Chit said, including studying the defendants' electronic devices, which might result in more arrests.

She said the case was expected to go to the High Court.

So said he would grant the prosecution only four more weeks, adding that he did not expect the scope of investigation to be too wide. The magistrate adjourned the case to July 22.

Internet comments:

- All this evolved from the original operation known as Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Now we have a 13-year-old girl running away from home to join the Occupy movement and people making bombs to deliver more love and peace to the people. Great job!

- Whom do you think the bombs will be directed at? Where will they be set off?
Police Headquarters Wanchai against the police?
Government Headquarters against public servants?
Government House against the Chief Executive?
Legislative Council against the demonstrators and the Tim Mei Village residents?
The High Court against the judges, magistrates and lawyers?
China Liaison Office against the Chinese Communists?
People's Liberation Army barracks against the occupying force?
Causeway Bay Sogo Department Store against the civilian population?
Victoria Park on July 1st against the demonstration marchers?
Jimmy Lai's front lawn?

- How did the police bust this case? Most of the suspects were arrested at the scene, so this does not seem random.
Either some neighbor called the police about the explosive sounds that were coming from the unused ATV studio at night, or else the operation was penetrated by a police informer/mole/undercover officer who waited to collect enough evidence.
- (Apple Daily) The police had information on this group of individuals before. Three weeks ago, the police already placed surveillance cameras and equipment at the location. They decided to make the arrests last night.

- In the morning, the Localists went out to the funeral parlor in Hung Hom to demonstrate against the late Yeung Kwong, who was the leader of the movement to lay bombs around Hong Kong in 1967. In the evening, they went back to the abandoned ATV studio to build and test bombs.

- Apple Daily and Ming Pao's editorial decisions take time, because their headline stories are based upon one-reporter-one-vote. It takes a while to contact all the reporters and tally their votes.
- You are not allowed to express any skepticism/cynicism about Apple Daily/Ming Pao's choices of featured news stories, because the Hong Kong Journalists Association will say that this is interfering with editorial independence.

- Localists? Is a V mask evidence? Is a stack of League of Social Democrats pamphlets evidence?

- (Commercial Radio) One individual was arrested in his Costa Bello (Sai Kung) home where police found a pamphlet entitled: "You win the war of verbal abuse but you lose your morality -- is that worth it?" under the name of the League of Social Democrats. Previously, the organization had already issued a notice that this pamphlet did not come from them.

- The denial was made by League of Social Democrats chairman Leung Kwok-hung. Who is going to believe him after the $100 million lie?

- This is a case in which all keyboard warriors should be wary about "following the preceding vehicle too closely." Much of the information so far is unofficial, so you should not be over-confident and over-interpret.

- Supplementary information:

(Oriental Daily) The police investigation began after the National Independent Party's Facebook talked about casualties at the Legislative Council which will be turned into rubble. The police trailed the individuals for some time. On this evening, the police observed two men entering the abandoned ATV studio and tested explosives on the roof, releasing a puff of smoke. The police took action and apprehended the two individuals. They found seven kilograms of nitrate, five liters of liquid and some combination of the two. There were also detonators on the ground. The police thought that the mixture was volatile and therefore detonated it. Meanwhile, other police officers went to a Sai Kung villa and found three liters of TATP. Based upon the testimony of the two arrestees, the police arrested three men and four women, all of whom were related to the National Independent Party. Later the police arrested a 58-year-old man at the Lo Wu border crossing. He is a businessman suspected of purchasing chemicals on behalf of his daughter.

(Apple Daily) The Police's Crime Investigation Division took over the case from the Security Bureau and began to trail the target individuals. They observed that these people were using the old ATV studio as base and sending dangerous materials, chemicals and guns over there. Yesterday evening, the police observed that two men bought some chemicals and went by motorcycle to the ATV studio. Then they test-detonated on the roof. The police deemed the moment to be right and rushed in to arrest the two. At the same time, police officers in the Organized Crime Unit arrested the remaining individuals all over Hong Kong.

(Oriental Daily) The police found maps that indicated a number of targets in Wanchai and Admiralty and an "explosive warehouse." The location of the warehouse is the abandoned quarry in Ma On Shan. The police went out there and found a certain amount of chemicals and thinner that can be used to make bombs.

(The Standard) 'Life goes on if vote fails. June 12, 2015.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor says she is cautiously optimistic on Hong Kong's prospects post-reform. But she again insisted that it will be a step backward if the Legislative Council does not pass the bill next week. Lam said she did not expect the pan-democrats to continue their noncooperative movement in a large-scale manner.

She said Legco's Public Works Subcommittee has stepped up passage of several government applications for funding of public works projects and pan-democratic lawmakers should know that citizens would be angered if they continued to be noncooperative. Even if reform is voted down, the central government is unlikely to view pan-democrats as parties that they cannot communicate with, she said. The government will continue to foster closer communication with the young generation to make them know their opinions are valued by the government, she said.

In an interview with Sing Tao Daily, sister publication of The Standard, Lam said that if political reform is voted down, all efforts spent previously on setting the timeframe and roadmap on the implementation of universal suffrage would be lost. "It's not only that no progress will be made [on political reform] but it's also a step backward," she said.

Lam said some pan-democratic lawmakers had privately asked her why she still insisted on promoting the government's reform proposal even if reform is not good enough. But Lam stressed that she truly believes that the government's reform proposal "is worth recommending" to the public.

She expressed hopes the proposal can be passed. Lam added the government will not set up a platform to discuss political reform if the bill is voted down. "It is meaningless," said Lam, adding that setting up a platform might not help forge consensus.

She said it will be difficult for the next chief executive to initiate the political reform process. If reform is voted down, the chief executive will still be elected by 1,200 Election Committee members in 2017, she said.

She questioned how the public can pressure the chief executive to initiate a new five-step procedure on political reform.  Lam said that if the chief executive is elected by some five million voters via "one person one vote" in 2017, candidates in the election need to express their stance on universal suffrage.

(Speakout HK) June 13, 2015.

The Hong Kong Medical Association announced the results of its third poll of membership opinions on the constitutional reform. Out of 6,659 filled questionnaires, 47.4% supported the constitutional reform proposal and 49.7% opposed. The remaining persons gave no opinion. The response rate was 43.8%, which is very high for mail surveys. This shows that the subject was important to its members, and we should respect the results.

These polls shows that neither side holds an overwhelming majority. That is something that everybody can agree upon.

In less than a week, the vote will take place. At this time, the pan-democrats are very firm on their intention to veto the proposal. At least two-thirds of the legislative council (47 out of 70 legislators) must approve any constitutional reform, and the 27 pan-democrats are adamant that they will veto. There does not appear any chance for change.

The pan-democrats want to veto the proposal and then start all over again. But is their next step viable? They have so far never given a substantive response.

The pan-democrats may say that they have offered many "recommendations" and "proposals" already. Frankly, how many of these fall within the Basic Law framework? (For example, the pan-demcorats' sine qua non civil nomination is not consistent with Basic Law Annex I). When they had the opportunity to meet with the central government officials, they always stipulate up front that the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee must be rescinded. So what concessions do they expect go get out of the central government?

Even if the pan-democrats can come up with a constitutional reform proposal that all 27 of their legislators can accept, can they get enough another 20 votes to reach 47? So even if they restart the five-step process, an even larger number of legislators may vote down their proposal.

In medicine, you treat an ailment with the right medicine. Since public opinion polls show the present proposal has the support of one half or more of the people, it is better to find some reasonable and legal fine-tuning to obtain more support. That is the most pragmatic approach. But universal suffrage in 2017 now seems impossible.

Dear pan-democrat fans, you want to reject the proposed one-person-one-vote system but you can't come up with any feasible proposal. This is like abandoning the patient just when he seems to be on the way to recovery.

A doctor must provide a viable treatment for a patient. Similarly, pan-democrats must provide a viable treatment for the public, instead of just rejecting the existing proposal and press the NO button to veto after shouting a few slogans about freedom and democracy.

Instead of deciding which button to press, the pan-democrats should worry about explaining what their next steps are for the purpose of realizing universal suffrage. And they need to give up any impractical ideas.

(TVB) On The Record: Interview of Albert Ho by Kenneth Ng. June 13, 2015.

(0:01) Ho: The August 31st resolution has to be vetoed first. That is very clear. That's because the August 31st resolution was made because of CY Leung's report that began the constitutional reform process. The veto would mean that this constitutional reform process is over. Therefore the August 31st resolution no longer exists. The next time, there will be a new report. A new decision. Therefore, I feel that we must veto first.

(0:20) Ng: That is your understanding.

(0:22) Ho: Yes.

(0:23) Ng: The central government has a different understanding. When the times comes, who makes the decision? Do you decide? Or does the central government decide? That is very clear.

(0:28) I can only use legal logic. I can only use legal reasoning.

(0:32) How can you say legal logic? Does the central government have to take their case to the High Court?

(0:37) Then that's it. We can only speak of reason. If you want to do this by force, you lose public support.

Internet comment:

- The central government has spoken: The August 31st framework has not yet been implemented, and therefore it will not be modified until after experience is gathered after implementation.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (June 1, 2015)

The electoral reform framework set out by the country's top legislature on Aug 31, 2014 will remain in effect beyond 2017, a senior Beijing official told Hong Kong lawmakers on Sunday.

Li Fei, deputy secretary-general of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) and chairman of the HKSAR Basic Law Committee, set the record straight on the top legislature's power when he talked to Legislative Council members at a meeting in Shenzhen.

Opposition members in LegCo have demanded the revision of the NPCSC's Aug 31 decision, or they would veto the government's reform blueprint when it is tabled at the chamber in about two weeks' time. The package requires two-thirds majority to pass into law.

Li reminded the Hong Kong lawmakers that the resolution adopted last August does not specify an expiry date and it will remain in effect for Chief Executive elections after 2017. There is no possibility for the top legislature to revise the decision without even putting it into practice, he said.

So why is Albert Ho still in denial?

- If the August 31st framework does not have an expiry date, we can just sit and wait until 2047 when One Country Two Systems expire and then we will have one-person-one-vote under the unexpirable August 31st framework. Is this the Grand Plan?

- Kenneth Ng took Albert Ho apart, just like how he took Alex Chow apart.  Albert Ho tried to argue that vetoing the proposed bill means that the August 31st resolution is vetoed as well to create a blank blackboard once more. Kenneth Ng gave his now famous skeptical response ("That's your understanding but ...") while trying to hold back his laughter. Albert Ho probably has no idea what he was saying anyway.

- Albert Ho: "If you want to do this by force, you lose public support." This is hilarious. When the public opinion was against them, they said that they will only vote according to their own conscience irrespective of what the people want. But now on the Road to Damascus, they are suddenly seeing the light of public opinion.

- The five-step process of constitutional development:

In accordance with the Basic Law and the Interpretation of the NPCSC in 2004, the procedures for amending the methods for the selection of the CE and for the formation of the LegCo (also known as "5-Step Process of Constitutional Development") are as follows:

  1. The CE to make a report to the NPCSC as to whether there is a need to amend the two electoral methods,
  2. a determination to be made by the NPCSC as to whether the electoral methods need to be amended,
  3. the resolutions on the amendments to be introduced by the HKSAR Government to the LegCo, and be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the LegCo,
  4. consent to be given by the CE to the motions endorsed by the LegCo, and
  5. the relevant bill to be reported by the CE to the NPCSC for approval or for the record.

Steps 1, 3 and 4 are taken by the Chief Executive, who will continued to be elected by a 1,200-person election committee until as such time when one-person-one-vote is realized. CY Leung will probably be re-elected. Why should he oblige the pan-democrats when he knows that it will be fruitless?

Steps 2 and 5 are taken by the National People's Congress Standing Committee? They came up with the August 31st framework and they want to observe it in action before considering any amendment. Why should they oblige the pan-democrats?

During Step 3, the HKSAR Government will hold public consultations. If the pan-democrats signal that they have the numbers to veto anything fits the August 31st framework, then the process might as well as stop without wasting more time and energy.

Alternately, if the pan-democrats signal that they have the numbers to veto anything except unrestricted civil nomination, then the process might as well as stop because this is not permitted under Basic Law Annex I.

- The August 31st resolution reflected the central government's concerns about Hong Kong elected a Chief Executive who does not love Hong Kong and/or China. The nomination committee is designed to screen out such persons. Are they worrying too much?
Well, the August 31st resolution was made before the Umbrella Revolution and the National Independent Party bomb factory. Shouldn't the central government be even more concerned now? If the August 31st resolution is replaced, then a new resolution will be even more restrictive.

(SCMP) Hong Kong protesters march to Legislative Council to urge no vote on political reform. June 14, 2015.

Several thousand pro-democracy supporters marched from Victoria Park to the Legislative Council complex in Admiralty today, to protest against the government’s electoral reform proposal as lawmakers are set to debate and vote on the controversial pacakge later this week. But the turnout fell short of march organisers’ expectations. They put the number of marchers at 3,500, well short of their original estimate of 50,000. Police said 3,140 took part in the rally at its peak.

... Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan said he was confident that pan-democratic lawmakers would vote down the proposal. “We will definitely vote down the proposal,” Lee said at the rally. Lee said: “We will not storm [Legco]. That is because if we do, lawmakers won’t be able to vote. We don’t want to stall. Once it is voted down, we need to come out again fighting for genuine universal suffrage.”

Internet comments:

- (INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwf4hiqSIXg Video of Civil Human Rights Front march
- (INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOY43wCjQpk Video of demonstrators chanting "Down with the Communist Party" at pro-Communist supporters
- (dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FN9aLlTw0w Video of Civil Human Rights Front march

- Lee Cheuk-yan said: "Once it is voted down, we need to come out again fighting for genuine universal suffrage." What does that mean? More marches on Sunday afternoons with several thousand marchers (note: numbers are padded up as usual)? This is a dead end. They've been doing this shtick for decades with nothing to show.

- To "come out again fighting" means two things (1) keep marching on one Sunday every three months; and (2) keep donating money to the pan-democrats. It is mostly about the second part.

- When 1,000,000 people come out to march against something or the other, the big number proves that the issue has mass support. When 3,000 people come out to march, the small number still proves that the issue has mass support. Here is the statement of the day:

(SCMP) “It might have to do with the recent reverse in public opinion [according to surveys conducted by universities]. People now feel more confident that the proposal will be voted down,” Sam Yip Kam-lung of the Citizens Against Pseudo-Universal Suffrage Campaign formed by various pan-democratic groups, told journalists after the march.

As if that is not proof enough,

“People might have decided to save their energies for later,” he said.

- (Commercial Radio) Civic Party legislator Alan Leong said that the number of marchers today exceeded their expectations. He said that the government must respect the fact that so many people still showed up in hot weather as well as the certainty that the bill will be vetoed.

I recommend viewing the Argument Clinic segment of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

- Just when I thought I was going to miss Ting Hai after the last episode of The Greed of Man ran on Friday, I now find a more than adequate replacement in Alan Leong.

- The standard ratio of Civil Human Rights Front-to-police crowd estimate ratio is typically 3-to-1. On this day, it was only 3500-to-3140. Why are the CHRF so restrained today? And the demonstrators were dismissed half an hour ahead of schedule. Their hearts are not in this anymore.

- Civil Human Rights Front planned for 50,000 people for June 14 but only 3,500 (according to them) showed up. But let's look ahead at the rest of their predictions:

(The Standard) May 19, 2015. Civil Human Rights Front convener Daisy Chan Sin-ying said an application has been submitted to book the Legco car park for protests for June 14-18 and June 21-25. She said the front expects about 100,000 protesters to surround the complex.

(Oriental Daily) June 15, 2015. On this evening, the meeting began at 7pm. There were about 100 persons. The number gradually increased to 300 by 9pm.  (Note: that number includes the reporters)

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015. On this evening, the meeting was attended by about 200 persons. League of Social Democrats chairman Leung Kwok-hung and Scholarism convener Joshua Wong were present. Wong proposed for the people to amend the Basic Law themselves, as if that's possible.

[Basic Law Article 159:

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong. ]

(True Brothers of Democracy blog) June 13, 2015.

On the evening of June 12, Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat and Cheng Chung-tai met with Hong Kong Indigenous Front's Ray Wong and Cheng Kan-moon to discuss the action plan before the vote on the constitutional reform. Wong Yeung-tat said that all participants must be prepared to be arrested and jailed. This is the time for Hong Kong "to use force to resist the tyrants." Anyone who opposes the use of violence is a capitulationist and therefore an enemy of Civic Passion. "We must carry out at least three world-shaking events this year" so that Hong Kong independence can become a hot international topic. This time, the pan-democrats are providing a platform and therefore there has to be a big battle with the police. Apart from being psychologically prepared, all combatants should wear protective equipment, surgical masks, helmets, goggles and even full-body armor. Some of them will carry wooden shields.

Wong Yeung-tat said that the Hong Kong Police's Special Tactical Squad was the main force during the clearance of Occupy Central and caused Civic Passion to suffer. Therefore, revenge shall be made this time. This action will not only involve attacks on police officers, but chaos should be created at the scene. The main methods include hitting with rods and poles, spraying women's self-defense pepper spray and other chemical sprays and tossing bottles containing inflammable liquid at the law enforcement agents and the crowd. Amidst the chaos, an assault on the Legislative Council will be made.

Ray Wong and Cheng Kam-mun said that the current stock of materiels will be enough to guarantee that all participants have helmets and goggles. The front-line chargers will have full-body armor, the second-line chargers will have half-body armor. On June 15 and 16, Civic Passion will be readying the glass bottles and gasoline in the Tim Mei Avenue tent city. A four-man action team will quickly assemble the petrol bombs when the time comes.

Internet comments:

- (SCMP) “I am here today to show my support for the pan-democrats. They need to vote down the proposal,” said 55-year-old protester Stephen Au. "If anyone attempts to storm [the Legislative Council], I won’t follow them. I don’t support such radical actions.”

That would make Stephen Au a "Hong Kong pig" in the eyes of the Valiant Warriors of the Hong Kong City-State.

(Bastille Post) June 16, 2015.

There is a classification of the pan-democrats into four groups on the basis of two dimensions. One dimension is political ideas, which are either radical or moderate. The other dimension is action tendencies, which are either idealistic or pragmatic.

The first type of democrats are the radical idealists. They are not only idealists, but they will take radical action. Examples are the suspects arrested at the Sai Kung bomb factory. These people participated in Occupy Central and the anti-parallel traders protests. They are now moving into more radical actions that will inflict casualties in order to force the authorities to yield. This group is small in numbers, but their actions can have huge consequences on society.

The second type of democrats are the moderate idealists. They have ideas but they seldom act. Most of the pan-democrat supporters are of this type. I have spoke to many young people. They want to see the constitutional reform vetoed. They don't think the proposal is sufficiently democratic and so they want it vetoed. As to what happens next after the veto or how to fight successfully for democracy, these are not issues that they contemplate about. They won't think about it. They think something is bad and they oppose it. That's all.

The third type of democrats are the radical pragmatists. They are radical but they are also pragmatic. The leaders of the pan-democrat political parties fall into this type. Among the pan-democrats, it used to be that the only radicals were the League of Social Democrats and People Power. But now they are leading the mainstream political parties such as the Democratic Party and Civic Party. The latter have absorbed the lesson of the Democratic Party reaching a compromise with the central government in 2007, with the conclusion that any pan-democrat party that cuts a deal with the central government on the constitutional reform will be punished in the next elections. Therefore they won't be caught and lose Legco seats. They even wish other parties would compromise so that they can take over those seats as well as enter the Chief Executive election.

The fourth type of democrats are the moderate pragmatists. The most noteworthy ones are Civic Party's Ronny Tong and the Democratic Party's Nelson Wong. Based upon the overall consideration of the democracy project as a whole, they prefer a compromise bill. They want to take a first step and then amend it later, because democracy will never take off otherwise.

At this final moment of the constitutional reform process, the central government's position is said to be contained in nine words: 不調整、不讓步、不放棄.  Point #1: No adjustments to the proposal whatsoever. They won't tinker with turning the corporate votes into individual votes, because they think that's useless. Point #2: No concessions whatsoever. They will not promise that this proposal is for the moment because it will be changed later. If they made such a promise, the pan-democrats will press on with the next question: How will it be changed? That'll lead to even greater arguments. Point #3: They won't give up until it is over.

So the central government's position is that they want the bill to pass, but they won't be too upset if it isn't passed. The central government played an imperfect card and waited to see if the pan-democrats will follow. But the democrats are without leadership and cannot only follow the radicals. This means that the democracy movement is reaching a dead end. After the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, they will end up with nothing. There is nothing on the horizon that will restart the five-step constitutional reform process and give Hong Kong another shot at universal suffrage. So this is how the people of Hong Kong lost their right to use one-person-one-vote to elect their Chief Executive.

There is no future for a democracy movement that has no leadership.

(SCMP) Hong Kong pan-democrats face a quandary over their next move in political reform battle. June 17, 2015.

Over the next few days, the battle lines at the Legislative Council are firm, immoveable and well-rehearsed. It is D-day for the vote on whether Hong Kong will choose its chief executive in 2017 by a citywide election between up to three pre-vetted candidates.

Pan-democrats, whose votes are critical to ensuring the two-thirds majority necessary to carry through this political reform bill, have said they will reject it. And even as observers wonder who will be the winners and losers in such an outcome, many are also eyeing another battleground - the streets - and asking whether or not there will be a return of Occupy.

But both the leaders of the Occupy movement and those spearheading the night rally outside the Legislative Council this week say the street protest that lasted for 79 days last year will not have a sequel. Instead, they say, they are eyeing the polling stations as their next political battlefield. They emphasise the importance of engaging in discourse in the next stage of the fight for democracy.

A repeat of last year's mass sit-ins is unlikely because there has been no indication that any pan-democrats will change their minds on voting against the government's reform proposal, says Occupy co-founder Dr Chan Kin-man. More importantly, Chan says, people are fed-up with protests after the 79-day sit-in failed to change Beijing's strict reform framework.

The group calling itself the Citizens Against Pseudo-Universal Suffrage Campaign has been stationed outside the Legislative Council building since Sunday and plans to stay until lawmakers vote. It has drawn a crowd of some 300 every night - far fewer than the 50,000 expected by the organisers.

"Young people don't think rallies or demonstrations are of much use any more. Civil society has to find ways to pull these people together again. It's a tough question," Chan says. Chan remains the most active among the three Occupy Central co-founders after the civil disobedience movement ended in December. The aged Reverend Chu Yiu-ming says Occupy was his last battle and the next generation should take over. The other co-founder, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, has been devoting his time to writing newspaper columns on politics and a book on Occupy.

Chan notes that young people have become more interested in satire rather than physical action. "Look at the Legco hearings on reform and those online videos and you'll find them enjoying themselves - and they do have an audience," says Chan, a Chinese University sociology professor.

He is referring to recent Legco hearings where youngsters made use of their three-minute air time to mock officials or pro-establishment lawmakers. The recordings were circulated widely on Facebook. The online platform TV Most, which mimics officials' acts via short films and songs, is also getting popular, he notes.

The other major Occupy leader, the Federation of Students, has taken a back seat this time. Weakened by a disaffiliation campaign after Occupy, it now represents student unions of just four universities, down from the previous eight. The federation's secretary general, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, says his group will participate in the rally "to stay united and pave the way for the next mass campaign".

Daisy Chan Sin-ying, convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, which is co-organising the Legco rally, insists peaceful assemblies still have a place in the overall agenda. "Not many people can shoulder the consequences of civil disobedience. A peaceful, lawful assembly is still the platform that can bring together the maximum amount of energy," the 27-year-old legislative assistant says.

The front, working with several new groups that formed in the aftermath of Occupy, has adjusted its approach to mass rallies, Chan says. They now play less music - which has been snubbed by youngsters who think singing is self-indulgent - and are starting to engage in more in-depth discussions before and after marches. Looking ahead, Chan Kin-man says the next battlefield will not be in the streets but rather the district council elections in November and the Legislative Council polls next year. He himself is training five Occupy volunteers to run for office.

Pan-democrats, he says, should come up with issues other than politics in the district council elections to attract voters with aspirations demonstrated at the Occupy protest sites, such as environmental protection.

"The Legco poll will be even more important because Beijing officials told voters to 'punish' pan-democrats who vote against the reform package. Pan-democrats must strive to keep their critical minority in the chamber," he says.

The past few months have also seen new players taking the stage. One of them is Kevin Yam Kin-fung, who made headlines last year when he led a campaign that ousted former Law Society president Ambrose Lam San-keung. Lam's controversial support of a Beijing white paper was deemed a threat to the city's judicial independence. Yam, convenor of the Progressive Lawyers Group, has been working with 11 other new professional groups in weekend street campaigns, explaining to people why the government package should be rejected. After this week, it will be important to focus on "solid matters", Yam says. Political reform will remain a concern, but the professional groups will also get involved in other public policy debates.

Even as the groups around Occupy find new ways to further their agenda, the pan-democrats who backed them are now at their own political crossroads.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, says moderate pan-democrats are in a no-win situation in a polarised political landscape. "They risk losing the backing of hardcore supporters from the pan-democratic camp if they vote for the proposal. But they might also disappoint some middle-of-the-road supporters if they vote down the package," he says. "At the end of the day, they can only decide their voting preference in accordance with the principles they have been espousing."

(The Stand News) June 14, 2015.  https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E6%B8%AF%E5%A4%A7%E6%B0%91%E7%A0%94-%E4%BA%94%E6%88%90%E4%BA%BA%E8%AA%8D%E7%82%BA%E5%BE%9E%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%95%B4%E9%AB%94%E8%80%83%E6%85%AE-%E6%87%89%E6%94%AF%E6%8C%81%E7%AB%8B%E6%B3%95%E6%9C%83%E9%80%9A%E9%81%8E%E6%94%BF%E6%94%B9/

The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme cooperated with RTHK to interview 1,004 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong adult residents on June 8-9.

From the viewpoint of society as a whole, 50% of the respondents said that they support the Legislative Council passing the constitutional reform proposal while 33% opposed.

From the viewpoint of themselves as individuals, 49% of the respondents support while 39% oppose.

The rolling poll conducted by the three universities (HKU, CUHK and Poly) (see #232) asks the respondents directly whether they support or oppose the constitutional reform proposal. This other HKU-POP askes the respondents to consider separately from the social and personal viewpoints.

Internet comments:

- How do you reconcile those poll results?

From society's viewpoint on June 8-9, 50% support and 33% oppose (source HKU-POP)
From individual's viewpoint on June 8-9, 49% support and 39% oppose (source HKU-POP)
But overall on June 4-8, 42% support and 43% oppose (source HKU-POP/CUHK/Poly U)

What can people possibly be thinking about?

Robert Chung, HKU-POP director

(Ming Pao, Sing Tao) June 16, 2015.

Liberal Party's James Tien commissioned Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview 5,043 persons on June 5-14.

Q1. Do you support or oppose the Legislative Council to pass the constitutional reform proposal?
51%: Support
37%: Oppose

Q2. Do you support or oppose the constitutional reform proposal?
48%: Support
38%: Oppose

(Wikipedia) Bhutan: a landlocked country in South Asia at the eastern end of the Himalayas. It is bordered on the north by China and to the south, east and west by India. The 2012 population was estimated to be 742,737 (165th in the world).

(Oriental Daily)

In 1982, Bhutan played its first international soccer match and lost 1:3 to Nepal. In 2000, they lost 0:20 to Kuwait for its biggest lost in history. In 2002, number 202 ranked Bhutan won its first international match against lowest-ranked Monserrat by 4:0. This was made into a documentary <The Other Final> for an event other than the Brazil-Germany FIFA World Cup final.

In 2015, Bhutan was ranked number 209 when it played Sri Lanka in the first round of the FIFA World Cup in Colombo on March 12. To everyone's surprise, Bhutan won by 1:0. After the victory, the team set off to KFC to celebrate. Bhutan also won the return match 2:1 in Thimphu on March 17.

Frankly, Bhutan has a population of just over 700,000. Its people do not like soccer much. It has no professional soccer players. Therefore the conditions are not favorable to the development of the sport of soccer.

In the second qualifying round of the 2018 FIFA World Cup, Asia Group C has these teams: Bhutan, China, Hong Kong, Maldives and Qatar.

For these matches, the China Football Association designed a series of posters about their opponents.

Do not underestimate any opponent
After the match is over, some of them will return to operate an airplane, duang!
Against a team like this, better be careful!
Away: 2015 June 16
Home: 2015 November 12

Do not underestimate any opponent
According to their manager, they want to beat and China and take second place in the group
Against a coy team like this, better be careful
Away: 2015 September 8
Home: 2016 March 24

Do not underestimate any opponent
As everybody knows, they have many naturalized reinforcements
Against a deep-pocketed team like this, better be careful!
Away: 2015 October 8
Home: 2016 March 29

Do not underestimate any opponent
The has black skin, yellow skin and white skin people
Against a diversified team like this, better be careful!
China-Hong Kong (China)
Home: 2015 September 3
Away: 2015 November 17

Video: China Football Association promotional film

(SCMP) Left Field: China FA's odd posters of World Cup opponents backfire. June 13, 2015.

Let's hope China make it to the 2018 World Cup or else the Chinese Football Association will have a lot of egg on their face. The CFA mandarins put their foot right in their mouths last week when releasing a wacky campaign of posters heralding their qualifying group matches against Hong Kong, Bhutan, Maldives and Qatar. The campaign, apparently meant to be light-hearted, took a dig at each opponent in a not-so-subtle way.

The Hong Kong poster focused on skin colour, with Chinese fans warned not to underestimate "Hong Kong's black skin, yellow skin, white skin".

England-born Jaimes McKee, Ghana-born Christian Anna, mainland-born Bai He and Hong Kong-born Chan Man-fai show unity.

It gets more bizarre. The Bhutan poster focused on the captain who is a pilot, saying "after the game someone from their team will go back to fly a plane".

The dig at Qatar was on their squad of "naturalised reinforcements", warning fans to be prepared playing against this "wealthy" side.

The Maldives were labelled "proud" and "arrogant" simply because the team's coach said he was confident they would beat China.

But the poster that took the cake was the racist slant on Hong Kong's mixed team. Half of the 22-strong squad are made up of naturalised players such as Christian Annan (born in Ghana), Jaimes McKee (England) and Festus Baise (Nigeria). There are also five players from the mainland.

They have all earned the right to play for Hong Kong after living here for seven or more years, becoming permanent residents and applying for an SAR passport. Their skin colour might be different, but they are all united in playing for Hong Kong.

If anything, China's attempts seemed only to fire up the Hong Kong fans, who packed out Mong Kok Stadium for their match against Bhutan - and booed the China national anthem.

China have qualified for only one World Cup, in 2002, when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the showpiece. As hosts, Japan and Korea were given automatic berths, making it easier for China to grab one of the places given to Asia. It will not be easy this time around as the last few occasions of qualifying have proven. Asia is given 4.5 slots at the World Cup - four teams qualify directly with the fifth team going into a play-off against a team from another confederation.

World Cup qualifying has already begun in Asia. A total of 12 smaller teams took part in the first round with the top six progressing into the second round where the likes of Hong Kong and China are playing. These six, plus another 34 teams, have been drawn into eight groups of five. And as fate would have it, China drew Hong Kong again.

The eight group winners plus the four best runners-up will advance to the third round. These 12 teams will be divided into two groups of six to play home-and-away matches. The top two teams from each of these groups will book their berth at the 2018 World Cup with the two third-placed teams entering a play-off, home-and-away, to decide who will advance to the inter-confederation play-off.

The road is long and hard for China. Despite being the top-ranked side in the group - 79 in the Fifa rankings - they must get past Qatar (97th) in their preliminary group, notwithstanding the fact that Hong Kong (164) could also prove to be a banana skin owing to the weight of history. Mainlanders remember all too well the night of shame at the Workers Stadium in Beijing in 1985 when disgruntled fans rioted after goals from Cheung Chi-tak and Ku Kam-fai gave Hong Kong a 2-1 victory, knocking China out of the World Cup picture.

The real test will come if China progress to the next stage of qualifying. But the poster campaign shows they are nervous and already looking for excuses.

Hong Kong will meet China away in Shenzhen on September 3 before hosting them in the return tie at Hong Kong Stadium on November 17. One thing is certain in the mind of Hong Kong Football Association chief executive Mark Sutcliffe - this campaign will be a catalyst for a full house at So Kon Po.

"This is a bizarre campaign. Still, it seems to be generating a lot of media noise and that's great for promoting the matches," Sutcliffe said. He believed the whole "skin-colour" theme was meant tongue-in-cheek and the CFA was not being racist.

Let's hope that is the case.

(EJinsight) When politics transcend sports. June 12, 2015.

Did a group of Hong Kong fans go over the line when they booed the Chinese national anthem during a football match? The answer is yes, judging by the fierce reaction on China’s social media.

Mainland netizens are calling Hongkongers traitors and British lap dogs, among other choice words.Whether or not they are justified to blame the whole of Hong Kong for the actions of several thousand football fans is not nearly as controversial as what prompted the behavior.

Apparently, the booing was spontaneous, with about 6,000 Hongkongers rising in unison and mocking the national anthem for its duration. The incident happened on Thursday when the Hong Kong side was introduced for its World Cup qualifier against Bhutan.

This is worth noting because Hong Kong hosts China in November after playing the mainland side in Beijing in September.

Perhaps no one expects another embarrassment to China but it could happen because this is not remotely about sports, where such provocative displays are frowned upon, but about worsening cross-border relations.

(SCMP) China soccer fans furious as thousands of Hong Kong supporters boo national anthem. June 12, 2015.

Hong Kong and China’s World Cup qualifying match-ups look set to be even more heated affairs after mainland netizens reacted angrily to footage of a packed Mong Kok stadium booing the national anthem before Thursday night’s 7-0 win over Bhutan. Given the political situation in the SAR, the games – in Shenzhen in September and Hong Kong in November – between “big brother” and “little brother” were already set to be the stage for fierce rivalry.

A 6,300-strong full house – many suggested fans were motivated to attend by that poster – watched Hong Kong thrash the Himalayan minnows in the opening group C match, some displaying banners such as “HK till I die” and “Hong Kong Power”.

But judging from online reaction, fans on the mainland who watched the game on CCTV were far from impressed to hear the majority of the crowd boo the March of the Volunteers before the game. While the crowd remained silent and respectful for the Bhutan anthem, they erupted in jeers and boos  for China’s.

Mainland reporters who went to Hong Kong to cover the match as preparation for China v Bhutan on Tuesday were astonished at the fans’ reaction, and many netizens reacted angrily.

One fan from Guilin commented on Sina Sports, “Hong Kong people gave an insult to the national anthem, team China must do a good job” while another from Gansu recommended nothing less than immediate invasion, saying “Hong Kong is nothing, just destroy it”. Others blamed the Hong Kong education system, saying “there were problems with Hong Kong education a decade ago and those born in the 1990s do not know anything about patriotism and never be thankful”. Another comment from Guangdong simply said “get out, Hong Kong separatists” while another said  he “looked forward to see team China beat Hong Kong 7-0”.

On Weibo, the tone was much the same. "Even if you have no good feeling for the country, the country has done nothing bad so that you need to boo the national anthem. There should be a basic respect," wrote one commenter "If we are not from the same family, why should we move into the same house? It would be better we say goodbye to each other," said another. "Go ahead! so that our people can understand the real Hong Kong," said another.

Hong Kong face the Maldives on Tuesday, with the match already sold-out, then don’t play again until the September 3 showdown against China. Hong Kong Football Association chairman Brian Leung Hung-tak was worried a similar situation may occur at Hong Kong’s second qualifying match against Maldives at Mong Kok Stadium on Tuesday, but admitted it would be difficult to stop the fans.  “We can only urge them not to do so,” he said.

“We should respect any national anthem, not just China’s,” said Leung. “This is a basic requirement in a civil society. More importantly, we are in Hong Kong and this is part of China. The fans’ reaction to the national anthem is intolerable. I know there are people who dislike China but we were attending a sports event and should have  at least the sportsmanship of respecting others.”

Two years ago, Hong Kong fans booed the Philippine national anthem and were accused of making racist and discriminatory comments. FIFA fined the HKFA 30,000 Swiss francs (HK$256,000).

Video: Hong Kong fans booing Chinese national anthem
Video: Hong Kong beat Bhutan by 7:0.

Internet comments:

- On November 17 2015, Hong Kong will be the home team against China. Eleven years ago on the same day, China was home to Hong Kong and won 7:0. Unfortunately, China failed to qualify by one goal due to goal differentials, and Kuwait advanced instead.

- Counter poster made by the Hong Kong Football Association:

Don't let other people look down on you
Our soccer team has black skin, yellow skin and white skin
The goal is the same to fight for Hong Kong
You are Hongkongers so you must give us support!
Hong Kong-China
Home: 2015 November 17
Away: 2015 September 3

- According to the Localists, FIFA lists the team as 'Hong Kong' and not 'Hong Kong (China)'. This meant to them that FIFA accepts Hong Kong as a sovereign nation. Well, if so, then why is the national anthem of Hong Kong the same as the People's Republic of China national anthem?
- Hong Kong is as sovereign as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. FIFA has a special statute permitting "regions which have not gained independence" to apply for membership separately with the permission of their parent countries (emphasis added). Puerto Rico, Hong Kong and the Faroe Islands are all FIFA members under this regulation. This also helped FIFA to sidestep certain political issues by admitting Taiwan and Palestine as members without addressing the issue of whether they are independent nations.

- This match was broadcast on CCTV 5 in mainland China. What do you think that it does for the people of Hong Kong? Adoration? Admiration? Contempt? Disgust?
- Do you think that this will make the people of China more supportive of the "democratic aspirations" of the "people of Hong Kong"?

- What is so big deal about foreign-born players being on national teams? 78 out 736 players at the 2014 World Cup were foreign born.

- Why is it racist to say that the Hong Kong team is diversified and have people with different skin colors? This is a statement of fact. No value judgment is implied.

- What might happen when Hong Kong plays China later this year?
First game on September 3 in China: Will the Hong Kong away fans boo during the national anthem? Will the Hong Kong valiant warriors travel to China and open yellow umbrellas? Will Captain America show up and hoist the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence? Apparently, the mainland fans are already organizing to beat the crap of anyone who does any such thing.
Second game on November 17 in Hong Kong: Will Hong Kong Localism Power administer flying kicks to the bus carrying the Chinese national team? Will Joshua Wong cross his arms and turn his back on the national flag during the singing of the national anthem? Will Apple Daily distribute yellow umbrellas at the entrance for a mass photograph opportunity? Will the mainland away fans boo the Hong Kong national anthem? Or will they play the national anthem just once with both flags flying?

- They already have the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence. Now they need a national anthem for the Hong Kong City-State. Quick, there must be a talented musician somewhere to do just this! This is your chance to become the Francis Scott Key of Hong Kong.
- Don't be lazy and tell me God Save The Queen will suffice.
- As Chip Tsao says, when there is a superior item out there, there is no need to find an inferior substitute.
- The national anthem for the Hong Kong City-State is clearly going to be <Raise the Umbrella>. Here is Denise Ho's soulful rendition. This is absolutely the greatest song ever. The song itself is inspiration enough to create a new sovereign nation.
- I vote for Verdi's Va Pensiero. The song was intended for Italian patriots seeking to free it from foreign control. It has been proposed as the national anthem of Padania in the even that it secedes from Italy, which is a similar situation with Hong Kong.
- Wrong! The official theme song for Occupy Central is Happy Birthday! Every time anyone sings the song anywhere in the world, they will be singing Hong Kong's national anthem.

- Is FIFA going to fine the Hong Kong Football Association because the home country fans booed their own national anthem? That's an interesting proposition. It is not an automatic NO, because the reason why FIFA imposes such fines is that they won't allow politics to get into football and this case is clearly political.

- Soccer brings out the worst in nationalism. This is a case of Chinese dogs vs. Hong Kong pigs. This is unsavory.

- So far I see no discussion of the problems in Hong Kong football.
Are you aware that once upon a time in the 1950's and 1960's, Hong Kong was a major power in Asian football? The best Hong Kong semi-pro local-born soccer players played for the Republic of China team, being Hong Kong citizens (of Chinese descent). The People's Republic of China was not yet a FIFA member. Another team of second-tier players represented Hong Kong, and that team includes some foreign-born amateur players as well as some Hongkongers who cannot represent a foreign country (e.g. Hong Kong police officers who pledged allegiance to the Queen of England). Then the whole setup collapsed in the 1970's as big corporate money came in and third- and fourth-tier foreign reinforcements arrived to dominate. Today the situation is as noted by the CFA poster: half of the Hong Kong team is imported (mostly from Europe, Africa and mainland China) and naturalized after seven years of residency. This is addictive because it insures some level of success but it is unsustainable and even detrimental for native Hong Kong football. Of all people, the Localist/Nativist/Indigenous movement must know that. This Hong Kong-China rivalry is obscuring the real  question: Where is Hong Kong football heading?

- Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1ZMAhUy_8 Hong Kong versus Maldives on June 16, 2015. Was there booing of the national anthem?

Q1. Do you support or oppose the government’s proposal on CE election of 2017?
56.8%: Support
33.8%: Oppose

This poll is based upon the three-university rolling poll. The survey question is identical, but the survey outcomes are different. That could due to design differences.

First of all, this poll is designed for people who are busy and work long hours. So the entire interview lasts one minute, unlike the long omnibus telephone interviews that the universities conduct.

Secondly, the three universities use home telephone numbers, which restricts the coverage. Hong Kong has the higher mobile telephone penetration in the world (7.3 million persons owning more than 10 million mobile phone numbers), so that many people no longer have home telephones. This poll uses randomly generated mobile phone numbers (prefixes 5, 6 and 9) and expands the coverage.

Here is one incident as reported by three different newspapers.

(Apple Daily)

Yesterday evening in Mong Kok district, a young woman was slashed in the neck. According to eyewitnesses, the male suspect held a 6-inch-long fruit knife and was ready to stab the female friend of the victim. He failed. There was an argument. The suspect punched the friend. When he tried to stab the friend again, he mistakenly stabbed the victim instead.

According to the police, the suspect is a 20-year-old man and the 21-year-old female friend of the victim is his girlfriend.  The female friend is a business student at City University.

The male suspect is active on Facebook, as he kept forwarding funny videos from around the world. In 2014, he wrote: "I am thinking about the baby pig, ha ha." Soon after that, there was probably some emotional turmoil in his life. He wrote: "The wrong love is an inevitable medicine," "No energy left to love people," "short pain is better than long pain", etc.

(Oriental Daily)

A 20-year-old man recently left his direct sales job and hated his 31-year-old female co-worker named Wong for causing division between him and his 21-year-old City University student girlfriend.

At around 630pm, the male suspect learned that his girlfriend was out with the female co-worker in Mong Kok, so he brought two knives in order to set an ambush on Argyle Street. He took out a 5-inch-long fruit knife and attacked. Wong was slashed on the left side of her neck, and blood came gushing out. The male suspect stood there with blood on his hands and continued to play with his mobile phone. He was surrounded and subdued by heroic citizens and turned over to the police. The girlfriend was in shock.

According to eyewitnesses, the male suspect pulled out the knife and immediately attacked Wong without saying a word. Wong was slashed on the left neck. Fortunately an emergency aid worker passed by after work and immediately rushed over to stop the blood flow. Workers in a dispensary brought out bandage to help.

(Sing Tao)

A 20-year-old direct salesman named Ho felt that a female co-worker named Wong was targeting and stopping him from getting to know the 21-year-old female co-worker named Tang. Furthermore, Wong was derailing everything he was doing at the company. Yesterday evening after leaving work, Wong, Tang and another female co-worker were walking around Mong Kok. So Ho followed the co-worker to Mong Kok. As they walked along Argyle Street down near Sai Yee Street, Ho took out a knife, rushed over and slashed the artery on Wong's left neck. Afterwards, he stood on the side and played with his mobile phone until he was arrested. With the massive bleeding, Wong was slowly fading away. Fortunately, a emergency aid worker passed by and stopped the bleeding. She was taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for treatment and she is in a serious condition.

Internet comments:

- In Hong Kong, reporters = fiction writers.

- In Hong Kong, a news report = 10% hearsay, 20% photos from Internet users, 70% imagination running wild.

- It's one thing to say that the truth = the sum total of the parts. But the parts are contradictory with each other. Somebody is wrong here. But who?
- Well, they all agree on the fact that a woman was slashed by a man. But that isn't much of a news story, is it?

- Hey, you better not make any criticism because that would be an assault on the inviolable freedom of press.

- A friend of mine works for a newspaper. He said that most of the time, the reporters don't know what happened. They just ask the reporters from other newspapers who seemed to know. But they can't report the identical thing, so they create or change some details. Reporters from competitive newspapers actually help each other (including sharing photographs) because today others want you to help them and tomorrow you may need help from them. Better to build good relationships than become a pariah.

- Dear Journalists Association, stop spending so much time on defending the freedom of press and start paying attention to professionalism and code of ethics.

- They can't even agree on the length of the knife, much less the personal histories of the principals.

- With newspapers like these, no wonder I keep losing money at the racetrack based upon their betting tips and information.
- Well, what did you expect? There are 14 entrants in a horse race, and they have two dozen experts and every horse gets picked by someone or the other. So the next day, they can tout how they picked all the race winners.

- You can't trust the newspapers, but you can trust the social media. Exclusive news: The male suspect has been ferreted out as a Yellow Ribbon!

- Lousy fiction writing. Here is my better version: The 31-year-old woman is a mainlander who has managed to entice the 21-year-old City University woman to quit the Umbrella Revolution and get a real job at an up-and-coming company. The 20-year-old man tried to infiltrate the company to win the girl, but is obstructed and persecuted by the 31-year-old woman in every which way. Therefore, he decided to get valiant and administer justice to the treacherous female mainland locust. Now isn't this story a lot more interesting, with the entire Mainland-Hong Kong conflict as the backdrop?

- No, the above piece of fiction is only good for Passion Times. I have a better Apple Daily 'leftard' version: The 20-year-old man just immigrated from the mainland on a one-way-visa three years ago. Because he hardly spoke any Cantonese, he could not attend school and so he got a job as a janitor at a direct sales company. There, he fell in love with a 21-year-old City University female intern. However, the 31-year-old company female employee told him to stick to his job cleaning the toilets and stop bothering the other employees. So the man got upset and committed the dastardly act. Now isn't this a lot more interesting, with the entire evilness of mainlander as the backdrop?

- I don't care about any of this. I only want to send my best wishes to the slashing victim. May she recover well at the hospital.

(Apple Daily)

The rolling poll by the three universities showed that the support and oppose rates are both 42.8%. Thus, Beijing can no longer hope to use public opinion to force the pan-democrat legislators to switch their votes. According to an informed person, President Xi Jinping had called a stop to enticing the pan-democrat legislators because he wanted a rule-of-law. But as public opinion reversed on the constitutional reform, the targeted legislators are being approached again.

According to this informed person who quotes a legislator who does not want to divulge his identity, that legislator went to his club to swim and encountered a 'friend' whom he has not seen for a long time. During the conversation, that individual said that there is underground betting in Macau on whether the constitutional reform proposal will be passed. The individual suggested that the legislator make a bet on the passage. The legislator got wary and told that individual: "Please do not talk to me about this. I don't want to listen to this." Afterwards, he thought that this middleman did not run into him by accident, and that he probably used the underground betting as a pretext to get him to switch his vote in return for a big 'payout.' This informed source then cited his own sources that Beijing was reported to be offering $300 million dollars per vote. "As long as you are willing to press the button (and vote YES), you can pocket the money no matter whether the proposal is passed or not."

Our reporters spoke to many pan-democrats about this rumor of money offer. League of Social Democrats legislator Chan Wai-yip confirmed that he has heard about money being offered to switch votes. "Actually, someone was saying that three weeks ago already." Chan said that the central government's money offer was "very significant." He cited another legislator who said that a middleman representing the Chinese government making contact. "Some people said that the offer was $100 million. I don't know if that is truthful or just a joke." However, that other legislator claimed that the money offer was real.

Chan also said that various people have tested him out in the past two to three weeks. He frankly said that someone had indirectly made him an offer. "It is inconvenient for me to say too much. At the present stage, when the other side made are making various offers, it can be very attractive. It will be attractive to anyone in politics." But Chan said that he will veto the proposal, because it was wrong and would destroy democracy in Hong Kong.

According to People Power legislator Chan Chi-chuen, middlemen have tried to learn more about his position, but nobody has made him any offers. But he has heard some legislator claim that the central government "wants him to name his price, but it is not known whether that is a fact or a joke." Chan emphasized that he will veto the bill.

Civic Party legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah said that nobody has made him any offer to pass the proposal. He said that he will veto unless the central government promises to make a huge turnaround on the proposal (such as promising to eliminate the functional constituencies in the legislative council).

Neighborhood Workers Service Council legislator Leung Yiu-chung, independent legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Health Services sector legislator Joseph Lee Lok-long, ADPL legislator Frederick Fung Kin-kee, Legal sector legislator Dennis Kwok Wing-hang and Information Technology sector legislator Charles Mok said nobody has made them any offers and that they will veto the proposal. Raymond Wong said: "I wouldn't reverse my vote even if an offer exists, but there is none." Charles Mok said, "If I wanted to switch votes, I would have done it already" and "not after public opinion has switched." Joseph Lee said that Health and Environment Department secretary Ko Wing-man has met with him to lobby for his vote, but Lee repeated that he will veto the proposal. Accountancy legislator Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong has not yet responded to our inquiries.

(Sing Tao)

League of Social Democrats legislator Chan Wai-yip said that two to three weeks ago a middleman offered more than $100 million to some pan-democrat legislators that he knows well to support the constitutional reform proposal. But Chan said that he will not go and make a denunciation at the ICAC, because it is hard to produce evidence for these allegations. For example, he has denounced the past two Chief Executives, but nothing has come out of it yet.

Democratic Party legislator Sin Chung-kai: In mainland China, they are talking about the rule-or-law, so it is not credible that they want to buy votes. "Even if you hate the Communists, you shouldn't manufacture rumors against them."

Information Technology sector legislator Charles Mok: I haven't heard about these stories, and nobody has offered me anything. You can have my vote for free if you remove the August 31st framework (of the National People's Congress Standing Committee).

Accountancy sector legislator Kenneth Leung: The reason why such stories are being circulated now is to shake up the confidence of the pan-democrats. "Previously, they were talking about $100 million. Now they are talking about $300 million. Next week they may be talking about $600 million."

Civic Party legislator Claudia Mo: Anyone who switches their vote should commit suicide! The rumors about the central government offering money now is a systematic smear job so that people will think that the "pan-democrats carry price tags around their necks."

(SCMP) CY Leung laughs off report Beijing will offer pan-democrats HK$300m bribe to back reform. June 11, 2015.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying this morning laughed off reports suggesting Beijing could use as much as HK$300 million to bribe pan-democratic lawmakers to vote for the reform package to be scrutinised next week. Speaking in Chicago, Leung brushed aside the accusations as he said everyone could judge the report “based on common sense”.

(Bastille Post)

According to an authoritative source, this news story is fiction without any shred of evidence. There is no $300 million offer. There isn't even a $30,000 offer. The fundamental reason is that the central government would never engage in any law-breaking activity. This source also said that the constitutional reform is a legal as well as political issue, and the central government never handles political matters in such an unserious manner.

This authoritative source guesses that this story is making an appearance now for obvious reasons. First of all, this false information is designed to influence public opinion. Citizens may think that the central government is low-and-dirty in buying votes and therefore oppose the proposal. Secondly, it is designed to cement the pan-democrat votes, because anyone who switches vote now will be suspected to have pocketed $300 million.

Internet comments:

- Where did the Apple Daily reporters learn their journalism? Which school failed to teach them the Five Ws:

The Five Ws, Five Ws and one H, or the Six Ws are questions whose answers are considered basic in information-gathering. They are often mentioned in journalism, research, and police investigations. They constitute a formula for getting the complete story on a subject. According to the principle of the Five Ws, a report can only be considered complete if it answers these questions:

  • Who did that?
  • What happened?
  • When did it take place?
  • Where did it take place?
  • Why did that happen?

Each question should have a factual answer — facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete. Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

If this is a true story, it would be the single most important evidence so far of central government meddling in Hong Kong affairs. But now the story limps out in a whimper. Who? What? When? Where? Why? None of these questions are answered.

- Finally someone came up with two and a half W's: (RTHK) June 13, 2015.

League of Social Democrats lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung says that "a middleman" offered to give him $100 million if he voted in support of the government's political reform proposal. He said he rejected the offer immediately and felt angry that there have been rumours he had been bribed. But he said he did not know whether the middleman is connected to the Beijing government.

New People's Party chairwoman Regina Ip said she doesn't believe Beijing would try to bribe any of the pan-democrats. The Liberal Party's James Tien, said he believed Mr Leung's allegation. However, he didn't think "the middleman" was sent by the Hong Kong government or Beijing.

Lawmakers will vote on the proposal on Wednesday. The pan-democrats are expected to veto the plan as they say it fails to meet international standards for democracy.

Leung said that someone offered him $100 million. That was what happened. He said that the offer was for him to switch his vote. That was why it happened. He said that he was offered, so that was half of the Who. But he didn't name the other party, only that he didn't know if this was a Beijing person. He did not say when. He did not say where.

James Tien said that he believed Mr Leung's allegation. However he didn't think "the middleman" was sent by the Hong Kong government or Beijing. So which other party goes around offering $100 million then?

- Leung Kwok-hung is worth $100 million? Maybe 100 million sperm cells.
- Leung Kwok-hung is the witness to a major crime, but he won't name the criminal. If Leung reports the case to the ICAC and the case is successfully prosecuted, it will be the greatest guarantee that the central government will never meddle in Hong Kong politics again. But Leung won't. Why?
- Because Leung Kwok-hung won't name names, it is assumed that he made it up.
- Leung Kwok-hung declined comment when emails by Mark Simon to Jimmy Lai indicated that $500,000 was sent to Leung. But now Leung is on radio talking about this other matter.
- Jimmy Lai paid Leung Kwok-hung $500,000 previously for his votes, so now he turns down $100 million?
- How much did Jimmy Lai pay Leung Kwok-hung to go on radio and tell this story?
- If this actually took place, it would have been front page news on Apple Daily/Next Weekly for days already.
- Only four pan-democrat votes are needed, but Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Wai-yip and Raymond Wong are the least likely of bribery targets. Giving him $100 million is only going to allow him to fund more anti-Communist activities in Hong Kong.
- If the central government has $100 million to spend, it would have been far easier to sub-contract through multiple layers to arrange for an 'accident' to occur to Leung Kwok-hung and work on a more malleable replacement.

- I hereby increase my offer to $10 billion to Leung Kwok-hung. I put my money where my mouth is:

Vote AYE and this money shall be his.

- Who loses if the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal fails to pass? Here is the current thinking:
(1) the people of Hong Kong because the Chief Executive will be elected by 1200-person election committee again in 2017, CY Leung will most likely be re-elected and they won't get one-person-one-vote for at least another decade.
(2) the pan-democrat legislators because they can't explain why electing the Chief Executive by 1200-person election committee members is better than one-person-one-vote and they face re-election in 2016.
(3) the central government suffers a loss of face, but nothing else really.
(4) the Hong Kong SAR government suffers nothing really because it is just the go-between.
So why does the central government need to bribe anyone? They seemed to be better off with failure to pass the proposal.

- If the central government has such largesse, they would be offering multiples of $100 million to people like the Dalai Lama and Rebiya Kadeer.

- (Bastille Post)

I don't like to harp about what media colleagues have to say, but when I saw the headline news <Middleman offered $300 million to entice legislators to vote>, I couldn't restrain myself. $300 million? Are you stupid?

... Although the story seemed concrete, further reflection will lead you to conclude that it is very much untrue.

Firstly, the whole story contains no evidence. It quotes Chan Wai-yip who heard another legislator say something. Nobody knows who this other legislator is. Under the law, this is known as hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

Secondly, why should the central government pay $100 million to buy one vote? If it is willing to do everything possible to pass the bill, it would never be so firm and stubborn and allow the pan-democrats no room whatsoever to switch positions.

Thirdly, any legislator who accepts the bribe won't be able to enjoy it in Hong Kong. The Prevention of Bribery Ordinance applies to all public officials (including legislative councilors). It is a crime just for the wealth of a public official not being commensurate with the income. What can the legislator do with the $300 million? He can't deposit it in a bank. He can't use it in large amounts (e.g. buying apartments). He can only keep it under his bed. Or he can flee overseas to some place without an extradition treaty. So the conclusion is that nobody will make such an offer and nobody will take such an offer even if made.

... The more I think about it, the crazier I thought this story was. I was naive enough to think that nobody could possibly believe this. But a friend told me that at the restaurant, many people were discussing this story. Some people denounced the central government while others said "It's great to be a legislator because you are made for life with one vote!" So many people believed the $300 million bribe story. When lies get repeated often enough, people start to believe it.

- According to Leung Kwok-hung, he said that this individual probably had a big boss behind him with the money. Leung told the individual that he didn't want to see him again. Leung definitely knows this individual, even the big boss. The relevant statue is Section 4 of the CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance:

The individual and his boss are both guilty of committing this offense. As an elected public servant, Leung Kwok-hung has the legal and moral responsibility of immediately denouncing these individuals to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for attempting to make the largest bribery in the entire known history of Hong Kong.

- Leung Kwok-hung is a publicity hound. Right now he is doing the rounds on the talk shows about the Bribe of the Century. Of course, he knows that the publicity value would be a whole lot greater all around the world if he went to the ICAC and make the formal denunciation. For example, American politicians would be so jealous (see List of American politicians convicted of crimes) because none of them ever got any offer close to the now legendary $100 million. To the extent that Leung won't go to the ICAC, it means that he had no evidence.

- Ah, finally the truth comes out.

(Bastille Post) June 14, 2015.

Yesterday, Leung Kwok-hun claimed that someone approached him and offered him $100 million to support the constitutional reform bill. He said: "His boss wanted a vote, so he approached me. I told him that I don't want to see him again and I won't want to listen to what he has to say." He continued: "It is rumored that I took money and I am going to switch my vote! Let me tell you: Please have some integrity even if you have to lie!"

Today the South China Morning Post said that they contacted Leung Kwok-hung later and Leung told them that he made up the $100 million figure to attract media attention. At around noon, RTHK also reported that Leung admitted that the $100 million bribe was fictional.

During the RTHK interview, he said that he made up the dollar amount. But it was true that a middleman contacted him in February. There was no mention of any dollar amount. The middleman wanted him to come up with a money figure that will guarantee that he will never have to worry about money again.

According to RTHK, Leung explained that if he didn't use the $100 million figure, no media outlet would report what he said. Leung refused to be recorded during this interview.

- (dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgYsaOCvKEE CY Leung, Leung Kwok-hung.

- So Leung Kwok-hung jerked the media around and then heaped scorn upon them ("They wouldn't report this if I didn't make up the $100 million figure. They're like that"). Where is the Hong Kong Journalists Association when we need them to defend the profession?

- The "If I didn't say _______, the media would never report it."
--- If I didn't say that 2,000 students were massacred on Tiananmen Square, the media would never report it.
--- If I didn't say that 530,000 persons marched on July 1st 2004, the media would never report it.
--- If I didn't say that 41% support and 43% oppose the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal, the media would never report it.

- am730 news story (see Pinocchio):

(Speakout HK)

Chief Executive Office information coordinator Andrew Fung Wai-kwong wrote to Apple Daily chief editor Chan Pui-man today about an editorial stating: "(Chief Executive) CY Leung also encouraged certain organizations to charge violently att peaceful Occupy students and citizens, causing many injuries." Fung said that the allegations were "extremely serious but also baseless." Therefore the editorial writer Lu Feng and Apple Daily should provide the facts and explain to the public how CY Leung encouraged which organizations to "violently charge at peaceful Occupy students and citizens, causing many injuries" where and when. Fung said that Leung reserves the right to pursue the matter.

Lu Fung responded: "He (CY Leung) did not condemn the attackers and did not take measures to effective eliminate those attacks. So he can be said to be tacitly encouraging them." In addition with respect to Leung reserving his rights, Lu said: "The risks in writing political commentary are higher than before. I am not the first and I am afraid that I won't be the last to be held accountable." He emphasized that he will treat this matter in normal fashion.

Chief Editor Chan Pui-man also responded: "Apple Daily is a platform for open expression. We welcome any individual, organization or government official to correct the contents in our newspaper. Lu Feng has provided an adequate response to information coordinator Fung. As for what Fung said about 'Mr. Leung reserving the right to pursue the matter,' we hope that the Chief Executive can explain specifically what he meant. We believe that the senior government officials who hold high powers should not be issuing threatening or seemingly threatening words or actions against news organizations and news workers. Otherwise this may affect the space for free speech in Hong Kong and its core values."

Chan recommended Fung read this verdict: "It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech."

Internet comments:

- I recommend Andrew Fung to read George Bernard Shaw: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

- Theorem (according to Apple Daily): Any time that the Chief Executive does not condemn any crime or take measures to stop it from recurring, then he is tacitly encouraging it.

Let's apply the theorem to the Apple Daily news section on this day:

Item: Hong Kong fans booed national anthem in World Cup qualifying match against Bhutan. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: 3-year-old crawled though window and fell to death from eighth floor. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: Korean woman used Facebook to spread MERS rumor because she didn't feel like going to work that day. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: Police set noon deadline to remove dangerous materials on Tim Mei Avenue. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: 46% oppose August 31st framework if and when constitutional reform is re-started. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is encouraging it.

Item: Woman died from kidney failure after drinking Panadol-laced herbal tea. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: 26-year-old female hygiene inspector commits suicide due to work-related pressures. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.


A  number of newsstands in Mong Kok posted notices today that they are not selling Next Weekly anymore. According to the Newsvendors Alliance, they receive their copies from Next Media at $16 per copy when the list price is $20. In Mong Kok, the convenience stores such as 7-Eleven and Circle K sell them at the cover prices, and some newsstands sell them at discount ($19 or even $18). However, the convenience store chain 759 is now selling their copies at $14 per copy. At that price, there is no way for the newsstand to compete. Therefore, the newsstands are now on strike against Nexts Weekly.

(Apple Daily)

According to Next Weekly chief editor Lee Chi-ho, they have made no promotional agreements with 759. On the current issue of Next Weekly, they have only shipped several hundred copies to 759 which is getting it at a price higher than what the newsstands are paying. Lee said that 759 makes the decision on pricing, and that the boycott would have a huge impact on sales.

At 759, the list price for Next Weekly was $20. During the current sales period, there is a 30% discount so that the actual price is $14. If the buyer pays with MasterCard PayPass credit card, there is another 12% discount, so that the net price is only $12.30. According to Newsvendors Alliance chairman Mr. Liu, "If magazines can be sold at $12.30, our prospects will be dim. If we don't speak up now ... newsvendors cannot compete with these big capitalists." Liu said that thee are 400 newsstands around Hong Kong and they are paying $16 per copy of Next Weekly. There is no way for them to compete against 759.


759 chairman Lam Wai-chun proclaimed that this was just a beautiful misunderstanding. He said that 759 was testing its delivery system and testing the selling of Next Weekly for three weeks at 20 stores. "There is no fixed price for Next Weekly, so he intended to sell at the cover price. But our company was running the 30% discount program, so it was also applied to the magazine. We have now set the price back to the original $20."

(Oriental Daily) June 9, 2015.

On the eve of the vote on the constitutional reform proposal, there is now a <Resistance Handbook> being circulated on the Internet. The handbook tells people that they "would rather be flying ashes than floating dust" and teaches people how to resist the police. According to information, the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police is very interested in the matter.

There are 24 pages in the handbook. Some "men in black" distributed copies of the handbook at the June 4th assembly in Hong Kong University. The handbook is also distributed on the Internet. The cover is based upon "V for Vendetta" and it says that in such times as these, "Valor is not an act of desperation, but a meaningful gamble." The handbook teaches people how to arm themselves and fend off police attacks.

(Speakout HK on YouTube)

0:05 According to information today, there are arsenals in the demonstration area outside the Legislative Council. There are large amounts of wood, nails and glass bottles. It is frightful to see so many tools.
0:16 A radical organization has uploaded a <Resistance Handbook>. They talk about bringing a coffin to the demonstration march, setting it on fire and tossing it at the police. They suggested using flag poles, bamboo rods and iron bars to charge the police, and also using ropes to pull down the iron barriers as well as toss fire bombs. Fire bombs, not water bombs. Wow, these guys are nuts. They want to cause casualties. What is the difference with ISIS?
0:46 Even Internet users are upset and cursed out the poster. "Administrator, please remember to take your medicine so that your mental impairment does not worsen." "People are getting rasher." "They are pushing the students out to die."
1:02 During Occupy Central, they carried shields with nails jutting out. This time, they may use glass bottles to make fire bombs to toss at the police. Isn't this the rise of terrorism? This is extremely dangerous to our society and our children as they grow up. Worse yet, some people tell young people to charge while they hide like turtles in their shells. We have to say NO to these terrorists for the sake of our children.

(YouTube) SocREC. A video tour of Tim Mei Avenue on June 10, 2015.

Internet comment:

- Publicity of the <Resistance Handbook> merely arouses curiosity. If you haven't seen it before, you want to see it now. Where can you find it? In Facebook, of course.

- The Handbook contains a quote by the Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten in 1996: "Hong Kong, it seems to me, has always lived by the author Jack London's credo:

I would rather be ashes than dust,
I would rather my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze,
Than it should be stifled in dry rot. I would rather be a superb meteor,
With every atom of me in magnificent glow,
Than a sleepy and permanent planet."

- How much does this standard equipment (helmet, gas mask, headgear, shoulder pads, elbow pads, arm pad, gloves, anti-riot shield, shin guards, athletic shoes) cost?

- Looks terribly hot when its 33 degrees outside. You will be dropping dead from heat exhaustion within one hour.
- This was obviously written by a green novice who didn't even bother to read up on Protective Equipment in Gridiron Football. If he did, he would know that the single most important piece of equipment is: the jockstrap (=athletic supporter). Or maybe a woman wrote this handbook ...

- Oh, it isn't easy to be "valiant." First, you need to be physically fit. Fortunately, just seven minutes a day will make you fit to become a "valiant resister."

- I was wondering what they propose to do if they escalate the violence and the police eventually used guns. I had to laugh when I read the bottom line: "ALWAYS MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE OBSTACLES IN FRONT OF YOU, INCLUDING PEOPLE." You can't make that up.

- (Associated Press) What Dzhokhar Tsarnaev needed to learn to make explosives with a pressure cooker was at his fingertips in jihadist files on the Internet, according to a federal indictment accusing him of carrying out the bombings at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured dozens more. Before the attack, according to the indictment, he downloaded the summer 2010 issue of Inspire, an online English-language magazine published by al-Qaida. The issue detailed how to make bombs from pressure cookers, explosive powder extracted from fireworks, and lethal shrapnel.
- I was disappointed. I was expecting a bomb-making manual but this is nothing of the sort. Instead, they were teaching you what to do when the policeman in front of you is swinging a baton at you.

- The salt works scene from the movie <Gandhi>?
- I do my seven minutes workout every day in order to prepare myself to be clubbed in the head by the police?  What's in it for me except for my subjective sense of moral superiority?

- There is even a YouTube propaganda video with ominous music: The people of Hong Kong, you have endured enough. To defend your own, you must resist valiantly. We fight to our death for our freedom. We will not be sandbags anymore. We will counter-attack. One man's efforts are tiny, but the efforts of a group of people will be enough to resist the authorities. Do not let our young generation fight alone.

- The resistance leaders are looking for more fools willing to go out and get clubbed in the head by the police. This makes for good movies that will raise more money for the resistance leaders to look for even more fools willing to go out and get clubbed in the head by the police. The supply is inexhaustible "because they can't kill us all."

Q1. Do you think the Legislative Council should pass the Chief Executive election proposal?
63.6%: Yes
29.6%: No
4.1%: Hard to say
2.7%: No opinion

Q2. How confident are you that the Legislative Council will pass the proposal?
26.5%: Confident
50.5%: No confident
20.9%: Hard to say
2.2%: No opinion

Q3. Do you think that failure to pass the proposal will have positive or negative consequences?
18.9%: Positive
51.6%: Negative
15.9%: No consequence
12.6%: Hard to say
1.0%: No opinion

Q4. If the Legislative Council fails to pass the proposal, will you vote again for those Legislative Councilors who voted NO this time?
23.5%: Yes
57.4%: No
13.1%: Undecided
6.0%: No opinion

Q5. Do you support the opposition's violent tactics in harassing government officials reaching out to local communities?
25.7%: Support
59.1%: Do not support
8.8%: Don't care
6.4%: No opinion.

(Wen Wei Po) The New Territories Association of Societies interviewed 828 Hong Kong citizens on June 1-9.

Q1. Do you want to have one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive?
85.5%: Yes
3.6%: No

Q2. Do you think that the Chief Executive election must be based upon the Basic Law?
71.9%: Yes
20.2%: No

Q3. Do you think that the Hong Kong SAR government should make a proposal for Chief Executive election based upon the August 31st framework set by the National People's Congress Standing Committee?
63.0%:  Yes
30.1%: No

Q4. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass the Chief Executive election proposal based upon the August 31 resolution of the NPCSC?
62.2%: Yes
30.7%: No
7.1%: No opinion

Question: Do you think the Legislative Council should pass the proposal for the 2017 Chief Executive election method?

Response May 12-16 2015 May 21-23 2015 May 28-30 2015 June 5-7 2015
Yes 51.3% 49.3% 47.5% 49.4%
No 40.1% 39.4% 38.2% 39.5%
Unaware of the proposal 3.1% 4.2% 4.7% 4.0%
No opinion/Hard to say/Refused to answer 5.6% 7.2% 9.8% 7.2%

Internet comments:

- Inevitably this poll will be compared to the Hong Kong University/Chinese University of Hong Kong/Polytechnic University rolling poll. Before you waste any more time, I will just tell you that the questions are different:

HKU/CUHK/PU asked: Do you support or oppose the government’s proposal on Chief Executive election of 2017?

CUHK-IAPS asked: Do you think the Legislative Council should pass the proposal for the 2017 Chief Executive election method?

Some people don't like the government's proposal on Chief Executive election, but nevertheless think the Legislative Council should pass that proposal, because not passing it means continuing with the 1,200-person small-circle election committee in 2017 as well as no full universal suffrage for the Legislative Council in 2020.

- (Speakout HK)

For the first time, the support and oppose rates were equal in the three-university rolling polls yesterday. Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan cheered when he heard about it. He said that that the two numbers are in "golden convergence" and he is looking forward to the "golden crossover." Today's numbers indeed showed that oppose has passed support. But what is Lee Cheuk-yan so joyful about?

First, we should point out that the three-university rolling polls are asking: "Do you support or oppose the 2017 Chief Execution election proposal from the government?" Those who oppose the proposal may nevertheless want the Legislative Council to pass the proposal. Therefore, the numbers in the poll should not be interpreted as "oppose the passage of the bill." Today, Polytechnic University Centre for Social Policy Studies director Chung Kam-wah who is part of the three-university team said on radio that the poll results do not reflect whether the interviewees want to "pocket it first" or not.

But no matter whether more or fewer people support than oppose, everybody will be a loser if the bill fills to pass. There are no winners. So where does Lee Cheuk-yan's 'joy' come from? Chung Kan-wah said on radio today: "What joy can there be?"

Will Hong Kong get out of the doldrums after the constitutional reform is vetoed? Will the heated debates stop? Chief Executive CY Leung said that he will turn towards livelihood issues after the constitutional reform proposal is voted upon, but will the radicals stop? If the answer is no, then what is Lee Cheuk-yan cheering about?

Indeed, even if the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, the sky won't fall down. But the prospect of continual political wrangling with no prospect for short-term or mid-term resolution should sadden every Hongkonger, not making them cheer. Of course, the exceptions are the politicians with ulterior motives.

(EJinsight) Police has worst public image among HK disciplinary forces: poll. June 11, 2015.

The police has the worst public image among all the city’s disciplinary forces, according to a survey by the Public Opinion Program of the University of Hong Kong. The satisfaction rate of Hongkongers towards the police stood at 50 percent, marking a decline of 6 percentage points from a previous survey six months ago. Meanwhile, the dissatisfaction rate of locals towards the police was up 2 percentage points to 29 percent, in the survey which was conducted between May 29 and June 2. The net satisfaction rate — the difference between the satisfaction rate and dissatisfaction rate —towards the police force fell from 29 percent to 21 percent, which is the lowest figure since 1997. The figure decreased from 51 percent in late 2013 to 36 percent in mid-2014 and further dropped to 29 percent in late last year after the Occupy movement.

The latest survey results were based on responses from 1,038 people.

In terms of net satisfaction, the Fire Services Department recorded 92 percent, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison was at 34 percent, compared with 35 percent six months ago.

This is the first ever full-coverage survey, which shows that the recognition rates of Hong Kong’s disciplinary forces are all above 75 percent, said Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, director of HKU’s Public Opinion Programme.

In terms of net satisfaction rate, the Auxiliary Medical Service took the second rank after the Fire Services Department, with a figure of 81 percent. It was followed by the Government Flying Service (77 percent), the Immigration Department (73 percent), the Customs and Excise Department (64 percent), the Civil Aid Service (60 percent), the Correctional Services Department (57 percent) and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (49 percent).


You get the impression that the Hong Kong Police is the worst among the Hong Kong disciplinary forces. Furthermore they have gotten worse over time.

Let's look at some more data from the same Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme.

(HKU POP) Please rate on a scale of 0-100 your satisfaction with the Hong Kong Police Force as a disciplinary force. 0 stands for very dissatisfied, 100 stands for very satisfied, 50 stands for half-half. How would you rate it?

Date of survey  Total Sample   Satisfaction Rating   Standard Error 
  29/5-2/6/2015  1,038   61.0   1.1 
  25-28/11/2014  1,012   61.0   1.2 
  25-30/6/2014  1,009   62.3   0.9 
  29/11-3/12/2013  1,022   63.7   0.8 
  26/6-2/7/2013  1,008   66.4   0.8 
  4-12/12/2012  1,010   67.0   0.8 
  13-20/6/2012  1,001   63.0   0.9 

The latest satisfaction rating is 61.0 with a standard error of 1.1. The oldest satisfaction rating is 63.0 with a standard error of 0.9. The difference (63.0 - 61.0) = 2.0 has a standard error of SQRT (1.1*1.1 + 0.9*0.9) = 1.42. According to the Student's t-test, the difference is not statistically different. In other words, the Hong Kong Police is not rated any differently in 2015 from 3 years ago.

Now for a different question from the same HKU-POP.

(HKU POP) Are you satisfied with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force? (Very positive/positive/half-half/negative/very negative/don't know/hard to say)

Date of survey  Positive   Half-half   Negative   Don't know/
Hard to say 
  29/5-2/6/2015  50.4%   19.2%   29.5%   1.0% 
  25-28/11/2014  56.1%   15.2%   27.0%   1.6% 
  25-30/6/2014  55.6%   23.8%   19.4%   1.2% 
  29/11-3/12/2013  64.3%   21.9%   13.2%   0.6% 
  26/6-2/7/2013  59.4%   24.8%   13.1%   2.8% 
  4-12/12/2012  66.0%   22.8%   9.0%   2.2% 
  13-20/6/2012  54.6%   29.0%   13.8%   2.6% 

For the same period as above, the difference (54.6 - 50.4) = 4.2% has a standard error of SQRT[(50.4*49.6/639 + 54.6*45.4/540) = 2.9. According to the Student's t-test, the difference is not statistically different. In other words, the positive rate towards the Hong Kong Police is not different in 2015 from 3 years ago.

Next, do you know the reason why the net satisfaction rate for the Hong Kong Police is dropping? The drop is due largely to the increase in negative satisfaction. I leave you with two propositions:
(1) People are dissatisfied with police brutality against pro-democracy demonstrators during the Occupy period.
(2) People are dissatisfied with police inaction to clear the Occupy sites and give the streets back to the citizens.
This poll yields zero information for you to choose between the two.

Speakout HK:
Filled with tents and sheds laden with hidden weapons
If the law enforcers continue to tolerate this
This is not called tolerance
This is called being useless

The most important rule in cross-examination of witnesses in court is: Never ask a question when you don't know the answer. In like manner, some polling organizations will never ask a question whose answer they may not like.

Apart from the disciplinary services, who else can you compare the Hong Kong Police with?

(HKU POP) Are you satisfied with the overall performance of the members of HKSAR Legislative Council?

Date of survey  Positive   Half-half   Negative  Don't know/
Hard to say
  14-28/12/2011  16.9%   28.0%   48.7%   6.4% 
  13-20/9/2011  12.5%   27.5%   54.1%   5.9% 
  23-29/6/2011  10.5%   32.6%   50.7%   6.2% 
  21-30/3/2011  13.2%   32.9%   50.9%   3.0% 
  17-22/12/2010  19.2%   31.8%   41.1%   7.8% 
  18-24/9/2010  20.8%   35.9%   37.2%   6.0% 
  18-22/6/2010  18.9%   23.4%   51.3%   6.4% 
  23-25/3/2010  18.3%   26.8%   49.4%   5.5% 
  14-17/12/2009  17.7%   30.4%   46.5%   5.5% 
  14-17/9/2009  21.0%   39.1%   34.4%   5.5% 
  16-21/6/2009  20.8%   37.5%   35.4%   6.2% 
  9-11/3/2009  20.9%   33.1%   39.9%   6.1% 
  16-18/12/2008  26.0%   31.7%   29.3%   13.1% 

Alas, HKU-POP no longer asks this question, because it really really really makes the Legislative Council look bad. Compared to those clowns, the Hong Kong Police are absolute angels. The media says that the Police with a +29% net satisfaction rate is in the pit, but the Legislative Council has a -31% net satisfaction rate.

But you should not be too harsh on the Legislative Council, because what is happening here is a design feature. Hong Kong is a polarized society and the Legislative Council is nominally democratic. Therefore, the Legislative Council is necessarily polarized as well. When the vote goes one way, the other side throws a tantrum (=banana) for the evening television news. When the vote goes the other way, this side does the same and says that this is the darkest day in Hong Kong history (or something). If a compromise is reached, neither side will be happy as they all cry "Betrayal!" The people observe these actions and form their opinions. That's all.

What do people think about the media reporting on things like the public image of the Hong Kong Police?

(HKU POP) Do you think the news media in Hong Kong are responsible in their reporting?


26.3%: Responsible
35.7%: Half-half
31.9%: Irresponsible

More importantly, what do people think about the university public opinion polling organizations? Alas, this question is never asked.  So we can only speculate about what the 70%+ who refused to participate are thinking.

This morning, an Internet media Facebook page posted a photo of Joshua Wong eating a bun in an MTR car. The subtitle was "Big expert liar Joshua Wong says one thing but does the opposite; he knowingly broke the law by eating in the MTR subway."

Later Joshua Wong wrote his own Facebook: "Sorry. I did eat in the MTR today. I have no evasions or excuses. When I am wrong, I am wrong. Joshua Wong publicly apologizes here. There will never be a next time."

Internet comments:

- Leadership qualities of Joshua Wong, #10 in Great World Leader List of Fortune magazine

- Isn't he on an indefinite glucose-enhanced hunger strike? Now he is eating a bun? To recuperate?

- The original Facebook version called Wong a "Big Expert Liar". How did he earn that reputation? He promised that Scholarism would be disbanded after the National Education issue, but they are still going around charging police lines and swindling donations. Also, he falls down at every demonstration and screams "Police brutality!"
- Oh, the version that I saw had the subtitle: "Strong Nation Man from Ap Lei Chau found eating food in MTR."
- Yes, the current Localist belief system contains the tenet: If you see someone defecating/urinating/eating in the MTR, then that person must be an uncivilized Strong Nation Locust.
- I am pretty sure that when this Strong Nation Man finishes eating and gets off, he is going to defecate/urinate on the platform immediately.
- Remember the famous Thick Toast mainland woman? She was subjected to an Internet lynching.

- After Wong finished eating, he apologized. According to Alex Chow, Wong has thus completed the rule-of-law process. So what more do you want?

- The rule-of-law process is not complete until Joshua Wong mails in his check for the $5,000 fine. (Wikipedia: According to the Mass Transit Railway By-Law, eating or drinking, and smoking are not allowed in the paid area of stations or in trains. Offenders will be fined up to HK$5000.)

- Because he was photographed, he had to apologize. If he hadn't been photographed, he would have just kept going and never be bothered by any pangs of conscience. This is rule of law (that is, when you break the law, you make sure that you are not seen).
- The photographer and his camera should be commended. If the photo was fuzzier, Wong would have tried to deny it.

- When Joshua Wong breaks the law, he gets away with an apology on Facebook. If the individual is a mainland boy, what do you think Hong Kong Localism Power's Mr. Ho will have to say?

- Apologize? Isn't he supposed to resign (from whatever positions he currently holds)? This is what he always demand of government officials.

- It was very wrong for the photographer to post it on Facebook. If there is a wrongful act, it should be reported to the MTR authorities. Posting it on Facebook is a serious violation of the right to privacy of Joshua Wong. He should be filing a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Here is a TVB screen capture of an Occupy Mong Kok demonstrator announcing: "I feel that the law comes second." So what comes first? According to Joshua Wong, it is eating food.

- Rule of man and not rule of law. Top frames: Mainlander mother and son. Bottom frames: Joshua Wong.

- Civil disobedience: the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always defined as being nonviolent resistance.
Since the MTR By-law of forbidding food consumption is inhumane, cruel and unhealthy, it can be and it should be disobeyed.
- Famine Is A Crime: If widespread famine now only occurs after the deliberate acts of leadership create the conditions for starvation, what should be the international response? In a 2003 article in the American Journal of International Law, lawyer David Marcus argued that famine could constitute a crime against humanity. European Parliamentarians have set a precedent by recognizing the Ukrainian famine of 1932 — in which Stalin’s government forced grain removals and forbade movement in a way that guaranteed widespread starvation — as such. And most famines of the more recent past fit that description very well. That suggests it should become standard practice for the ICC to issue warrants for the arrest of leaders of regions or countries where mass starvation occurs.
Therefore the ICC should issue an arrest warrant for CY Leung for causing mass famine within the MTR.

Q1. Some people think that the proposed Chief Executive election method imposes many restrictions, so that they want the Legislative Council not to pass the proposal. Other people think that even with these restrictions, they want the Legislative Council to pass the proposal so that we can have one-person-one-vote to elect a Chief Executive. Where do you stand?
42.2%: Don't pass the legislation
49.4%: Pass the legislation
4.2%: Neither
4.2%: Don't know/no opinion.

Q4.1. If the National People's Congress Standing Committee promises to make changes to the Chief Executive election method after 2017, then what?
26.2%: Don't pass the legislation
62.0%: Pass the legislation
4.2%%: Neither
7.2%: Don't know/no opinion

Q4.2. If the group and corporate votes are replaced by individuals on the election committee, then what?
22.0%: Don't pass the legislation
66.2%: Pass the legislation
4.2%: Neither
7.0%: Don't know/no opinion
0.6%: Refused to answer

Q4.3. If more than half of the voters cast blank votes, then the Chief Executive election is null and void. Then what?
21.5%: Don't pass the legislation
67.1%: Pass the legislation
4.2%: Neither
7.0%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q5. Some people think that if the government's proposal is not passed, then 2017 will use the existing Chief Executive method without universal suffrage. Other people think that if the proposal is not passed, then the political reform process will be re-started for a more democratic Chief Executive election method. What do you think?
43.7%: Use same old method
41.4%: Re-start political reform process
7.6%: Neither
6.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q6. Some people think that if the government's proposal is not passed, then the 2020 Legislative Council election will not be changed. Other people think that if the proposal is not passed, then the political reform process will be re-started for a more democratic Legislative Council election method. What do you think?
39.7%: Use same old method
40.2%: Re-start political reform process
11.2%: Neither
8.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q7. What will become of the relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong if the government's proposal is passed by the Legislative Council?
52.6%: Become better
36.4%: Stay the same
15.6%: Become worse
5.0%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q8. What will become of the relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong if the government's proposal is not passed by the Legislative Council?
3.8%: Become better
37.5%: Stay the same
52.4%: Become worse
5.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q9. Some people think that even if persons with certain political views are excluded, it is meaningful enough to have one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive. Other people think that if these people are excluded, the Chief Executive election is meaningless even with one-person-one-vote. What do you think?
44.7%: Meaningful
43.3%: Meaninfless
6.3%: Neither
4.7%: Don't know/no opinion
1.0%: Refused to answer

Q10. What do you think is the likelihood of the Legislative Council passing the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal?
11.5%: Very likely
44.7%: Very unlikely
40.6%: Half-half
2.7%: Don't know/hard to say
0.5%: Refused to answer

Q11. Some people think that if universal suffrage is not realized for the 2017 Chief Executive election, Hong Kong will suffer huge losses politically, economically and socially. Other people say that business will as usual without serious consequences. What do you think?
27.9%: Suffer huge losses
62.9%: No serious consequences
5.0%: Neither
4.0%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q14. In the Legislative Council, how important is the position of the candidate on political reform?
31.3%: Very important
37.4%: Important
17.8%: Half-half
6.9%: Unimportant
2.1%: Very unimportant
1.8%: Not applicable (e.g. not a registered voter; no intent to vote)
2.7%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q15. If you voted for a certain legislator but his position on political reform is the opposite of yours. Will you not vote for him/her the next time?
64.1%: Definitely not vote for him
27.5%: May or may not vote for him
2.5%: Not applicable (e.g. not a registered voter; no intent to vote)
5.2%: Don't know/no opinion
0.6%: Refused to answer



Meanwhile, the Concern Group for Public Opinion on Constitutional Development found in its poll, held from May 31 to June 5, that 49.4 per cent of 1,051 people hoped lawmakers would pass the reform plan despite its shortcomings. The figure was down 1.4 percentage points from last month. Some 42.2 per cent opposed the plan.


A poll conducted by Lingnan University on behalf of the Concern Group for Public Opinion on Constitutional Development also found that the gap between the levels of support and opposition to the electoral package has shrunk, Apple Daily reported. The poll showed that 49.4 percent of people now expect lawmakers to pass the reform plan despite its shortcomings. The figure marks a decline of 1.4 percentage points compared to those who expressed a similar opinion in a previous survey undertaken between April 27 and May 2. Meanwhile, 42.2 percent of the respondents opposed the plan, up 0.5 percentage point from the previous survey, according to the report. The latest poll was conducted from May 31 to June 5, taking in the responses of more than 1,000 people.

The margin of error (=standard error) of the difference between the two independent survey estimates (each based upon about 1,000 sample size and each being around 50%) is SQRT[(50x50/1000) + (50x50/1000)] = 2.2%. Therefore, the observed 1.4% drop is not statistically significant.

There is no point in wasting your time on interpreting the trending.


One NON (單非): a baby born in Hong Kong to a parent who is a Hong Kong permanent resident

Two NONs (雙非): a baby born in Hong Kong to parents who are both not Hong Kong permanent residents

Three NONs (三非): a baby born outside of Hong Kong to parents who are both not Hong Kong permanent residents

According to the Court of Final Appeal, anyone who is "One NON" or "Two NONs" has right of abode in Hong Kong, and is therefore entitled to be educated in Hong Kong. If their parents choose to reside outside Hong Kong while the children commute to school, the children become cross-border pupils. Not every cross-border pupil is a "Two NONs" because there are plenty of Hongkonger parents working and residing in Shenzhen.

(Oriental Daily) June 6, 2015.

On this day, the central allocation results of the Primary One Admission (POA) are released. At the Heung Hoi Ching Kok Lin Association's Buddhist Wisdom Primary School in Sheung Shui, a dozen or so Localists demonstrated. They set up a large banner saying "I am not Chinese" and they used a megaphone to urge "Two NONs" students to go study in mainland China and hence release their spaces so that students with one or more parents being Hong Kong permanent residents do not have to commute further away.

Hong Kong Localism Power spokesperson Ho Chi-kwong said that the demonstration today was directed neither at the Buddhist Wisdom School nor the "One NONs." Instead the targets are mainly the "Two NONs" children. He accused the parents of those children of coming to Hong Kong as tourists, had their babies delivered in Hong Kong hospitals to obtain right of abode and then to use up the school spaces so that local students have to commute to schools outside their local communities. Ho also said that it was inhumane for these children to commute several hours a day across the border. Ho also expressed concern that as these children grow old, they will continue to take up space in secondary schools and universities, and eventually jobs away from Hongkongers. Worst yet, when these children grow up, they will even apply for their parents to come to Hong Kong for the purpose of family reunification.

Banner: "I am not Chinese"

Meanwhile a man passed by, saw the demonstrators and started cursing them for "causing trouble in a Chinese place." He accused the demonstrators of "looking for exposure." The two sides cursed each other out for several minutes. The police came and separated the sides.

(Oriental Daily) June 6, 2015.

About the Localists calling her "Two NONs" daughter a "locust", Mrs. Zhang said: "What can I say? If we didn't come to study, who is going to that school? We are benefiting. You keep saying that we are stealing from you. Some day, our children will be paying taxes too."

According to North District Primary School Principals Association chairman Chan Shiu-hung, there will be about 2,600 cross-border pupils this year. The average school will be receiving 300 applicants, and some of the pupils will be allocated to places like Tin Shui Wai, Tsing Yee and Ma On Shan. Chan said that not everyone will be happy with the allocations, and that some people will hold demonstrators. Chan hoped that the demonstrators will act with restraint and not harass the parents and pupils.

Banner: "Locust children, go back to mainland China."

Banner: "Locust Chinks go back to mainland China"

Internet comments:

- Everything dates back to the case of Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen. By the ruling in that case, these Hong Kong-born children have right to education. So what are we arguing about now? If you don't like the law, change it. If you can't change it, you can overthrow the system with a revolution. But you will need more than a dozen people to carry out your revolution.
- Hong Kong Basic Law Article 24: The permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be: (1) Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; ...

- "I am not Chinese"? Well, according to Basic Law Article 1: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. If you are not Chinese, then what happens in Hong Kong (China) is none of your fucking business.

- Why do they have to wear surgical masks? Fear of MERS? Standing police arrest warrants?

- Even the Baby Kingdom moms want these Localists to fuck off!

- (Apple Daily, May 1 2011) According to Hong Kong Internet users, 14-year-old Chong Fung-yuen is the founder of the dynasty of locusts who have wrought havoc in Hong Kong. Chong said: "Every time that people talk about such things, they say that I was the original sinner." "When I was in primary school, all the fellow students knew about my background. By the time I reached secondary school, almost nobody knew." Was he worried about people talking about him behind his back? "No, I get along with them."

4-year-old Chong Fung-yuen in 2001

- Let us be clear about the definitions of "Two NONs" and "Three NONs". They include all those whose parents are not Hong Kong permanent residents, which includes mainlanders as well as other nationals. So a child born to American parents is not entitled to education in Hong Kong, according to Hong Kong Localism Power.

- (Apple Daily) The Hong Kong Institute of Education interviewed more than 1,000 new immigrants from mainland who have moved to Hong Kong for about four years or so. Only 12% said that they regarded themselves as Hongkongers. 55% said that they suffered discrimination in Hong Kong. 60% said that Hongkongers do not accept new immigrants. 66% said that Hongkongers are prejudiced against new immigrants. 76% of the respondents that they can speak 76% fluent Cantonese, but 26% still use hometown dialects to communicate with friends and families. 40% said that they never discuss local politics or public affairs with others.

- (Wen Wei Po) Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers vice-chairman Wong Wai-shing said that the Localists have the wrong target. "The government set up the website to facilitate school allocation so as to solve the problems created by the Civic Party's Director of Immigration vs. Chong Fung-yuan case. If the localists are dissatisfied, they should express their views with the relevant parties. Right now they are targeting the Two NONs pupils, using descriptive terms such as 'locust kids'. This is verbal violence which conveys insult and prejudice against those children. The result will be an increase in conflicts between Hong Kong and the mainland without solving any problems. The local residents will be annoyed, while mainlanders will find Hongkongers incomprehensible."

- A Helena Wong parody:

Spoofed placard: "Shenzhen is more competitive than Hong Kong because the Two NONs children are returning to mainland to study in order to improve their competitiveness"
- Shenzhen is now bigger than Hong Kong in (1) stock market trading volume; (2) port container volume; (3) high technology companies (Tencent, QQ, Weibo, etc); (4) real estate (Wanke); (5) automobiles (BYD); (6) diversity (Huawei, DJI, etc).

(Oriental Daily) June 5, 2015.

Democratic Party legislator Helena Wong Pik-wan said that someone used her photo without permission to manufacture a number of banners. These banners have been posted at the Kwun Tong MTR station, Pioneer Centre (Prince Edward), Argyle Street (Mong Kok), Ta Kok Tsui, etc. In these banners, Wong wears a t-shirt with a yellow cross in front. She is standing before an Umbrella Movement banner with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage." By standing in front, Wong blocked the word "genuine" with an "X". The banner contains the sentences "pan-democrats universal suffrage" and "voters pan-democrats." But crosses are used to create "pan-democrats universal suffrage" and "voters pan-democrats" instead. Wong believes that these posters are aimed at the pan-democrats over the constitutional reform proposal, with the hint that voters should pay back at the voting booths.

Wong thinks that the posters were the work of West Kowloon pro-establishment camp. Wong has lodged a complaint at the Mong Kok police station. Two weeks ago, Wong lodged a complaint at the Yau Ma Ti police station about her banner being slashed and defaced by unknown persons. She asked citizens to denounce these perpetrators.

Internet comments:

- There are lots of other posters that people should be complaining about as well. None of them have filed police reports (yet).

Chinese president Xi Jinping: "Hongkongers want genuine universal suffrage: Let's raise umbrellas together, let's support it together!"

Chief Executive CY Leung: "Citizens Main Road: '689' must resign"

"Traitor Jimmy Lai behind the scenes
Traitor Claudia Mo Man-ching took $500,000 bribe in the name of democracy
Selling Apple, fewer than 2 sentences out of 10 sentences are truthful"

"Traitor Benny Tai
Teacher who mistaught the children. Millennium-long sinner"

Secretary of Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung: "Consultation can take place after the legislation is passed."
Duresu logic: "If you use a condom after the act, can you still prevent pregnancy?"

Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian as Godzilla

"Long hair" Leung Kwok-hung: "I am a big liar. I want $10 billion."

- Hong Kong Internet Article 23

Internet Article 23 (網絡23條) broadly refers to a set of proposed ordinances regulating the internet in Hong Kong. Under debate is the legality of derivative works popular on the internet, including doujin drawings, kuso, parodies, and the modification and adaptation of the lyrics in Hong Kong. The name "Internet Article 23" comes from the controversial Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 on national security that detractors say would curb personal freedoms.

Many people believe that related regulations will let the derivative work bear criminal responsibility easily, including the modified or adapted song or pictures. As a result, it strived to public opposition. Due to the opposition, the Government shelved the amendment in May 2012. By July 2013 the Government launched a consultation once again in order to let people discuss on how this type of "parody works" can be exempted from criminal responsibility.

If "derivative work" is acceptable on the Internet, then why not in real life? Get a life, Helena Wong Pik-wan!

- The website HKG Pao has this photo already: " I want NO universal suffrage" with the pan-democrats. Helen Wong Pik-wan is the second person on the left.

- Helena Wong Pik-wan selling towels with caricatures of CY Leung at the 2015 Lunar New Year Fair in Victoria Park.

(SCMP) Hong Kong’s Tiananmen vigil in spotlight amid growth of localism and alternative rallies. June 4th, 2015.

Hong Kong’s Victoria Park will become a galaxy of candlelight tonight, just as it has been on every June 4 since 1990 to mark the anniversary of the bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Tonight all eyes will be on if, and how, the turnout for the annual candlelight vigil, which starts at 8pm, will be affected by alternative rallies at other venues and the growth of localism.

More than 180,000 people attended last year’s vigil in the park to call for vindication of those killed in 1989, according to the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which has organised the annual commemorative event since its inception. The previous biggest turnout reported by the alliance was 180,000 in 2012. Police, however, put the turnout at 99,500, compared with 54,000 in 2013.

Many mainland Chinese visiting Hong Kong are expected to join the vigil, with the city the only place under the jurisdiction of Chinese authorities where people can observe the anniversary in public and on such a large scale.

Civic Passion, a radical pan-democratic group, will launch a bus tour from Causeway Bay at 4pm to commemorate the pro-democracy movement, taking their supporters around all 18 districts in the city.

Leaders of student unions at several universities have decided to skip this year’s vigil in protest at one of the alliance’s slogans: to “build a democratic China”. The student unions of four other universities, including the Chinese University of Hong Kong, will give speeches at Victoria Park Meanwhile, the student union of the University of Hong Kong will for the first time organise its own public assembly on campus in Pok Fu Lam from 7.30pm, to give mourners an “alternative” to the Victoria Park vigil.

The thought of localism has been gaining ground among some young people in recent years among growing anti-mainland sentiment. The term, along with the label “nativists”, has emerged in the local political lexicon to refer to people who share an ideology of focusing solely on Hong Kong affairs to the exclusion of all things national.

The alliance, which was founded in May 1989 to support student activists in Beijing and helped some student leaders wanted by mainland authorities to escape, will be put to test this year. According to a telephone survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong’s public opinion programme from May 22 to May 28, the popularity rating of the alliance dropped sharply to 44.6 marks, a record low since 1992. The survey found 38 per cent of 1,089 respondents opposed disbanding the alliance, versus 26 per cent who supported the idea. Some 52 per cent agreed the official stand on the June 4 incident – described as a “counter-revolutionary riot” – should be reversed, down from last year’s 56 per cent.

(Ming Pao) June 4th and Localism. By Ching Cheong. June 3, 2015.

Today is the first June 4th after the Umbrella Movement. Everybody is paying attention to the rapidly growing Localism in the Umbrella Movement and its possible impact on this year's June 4th memorial events.

I think that those who care about local interests should strengthen their June 4th awareness and participate in the June 4th memorial events. My reasoning is as follows:

Firstly, among those young friends who advocate Localism today, June 4th is absolutely their enlightening teacher in their maturing process. Perhaps they were just young children who attended their first Victoria Park candlelight vigil while cradled by their parents. In other words, they grew in the memory of June 4th. This is a movement advanced by the broad masses of Hong Kong citizens and serves to enlighten the next generation. We should not disregard it so lightly. As an annual memorial event, it serves to silently raise our next generation. Today Hong Kong has a new generation of young people who know right from wrong and who have a strong desire for democracy.

Secondly, those friends who advocate Locailism should know that in order to create a specific group identity, there has to be a collective memory for this group. Such collective memories serve to meld the group together. June 4th is a major collective memory in the consciousness of the Hongkonger. It was precisely this quarter-century of commemoration that differentiates the people of Hong Kong from the people of mainland China. It has melded the Hongkongers together. Therefore Localists should derive even more factors from the June 4th memorial events to enhan