Aver

• [500] Burn This Book! (2016/04/03)

(Oriental Daily with video) April 3, 2016.

Yesterday "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun published a Facebook post titled "The battle of the Hong Kong Public Library: spontaneously remove simplified character books from the shelves in order to resist brainwashing." Cheng said that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department had purchased 600,000 simplified characters, including many children books in praise of the Chinese Communist Party. Because library space is finite, they also removed certain traditional character books to make room for the simplified character books. Cheng said that this was brainwashing of the next generation. Cheng called on citizens to spontaneously remove the simplified character books.

Cheng uploaded a video to demonstrate tossing the simplified character books into trash bins, slipping them into cracks between book shelves, stuffing them into the fire hydrant boxes, etc.

(SCMP) April 7, 2017.

A radical activist was arrested on Wednesday after he allegedly appealed to the public to remove books using simplified Chinese characters from public libraries.

Alvin Cheng Kam-mun, commonly known as “Four-eyed Gor Gor”, 27, is a member of Civic Passion, which supports localism and promotes anti-mainland Chinese sentiment.

Cheng was arrested for theft and “access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent” in Shau Kei Wan as he worked at a roadside booth set up by the radical group.

A police spokesman said they had received a report on Tuesday from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, which operates public libraries in the city, that someone had removed books with simplified Chinese characters in a library and the act was recorded in an uploaded video clip.

The clip, lasting just over one minute, was posted on Cheng’s Facebook page on Saturday. A male claimed on the video that he was Cheng and was in a public library in Mong Kok.

It showed dozen of books with simplified Chinese characters being removed from shelves and dumped in a rubbish bin or hidden inside a fire hose compartment or gaps between bookshelves. This apparently happened inside the library.

The clip came with a message titled “Hong Kong library war. Spontaneously removing books with broken Chinese characters to oppose brainwashing.”

He said in the message: “The media recently reported that public libraries had bought 600,000 books in broken Chinese characters since 2006. Many were children’s books which praised the Chinese Communist Party.”

He also cited members of the public as saying the department had withdrawn some books in traditional Chinese characters to give room to books using simplified characters.

He called on the public to remove the simplified books and let the movement “blossom everywhere”.

Simplified Chinese characters, which are used on the mainland, are sometimes called “broken Chinese words” in Hong Kong. They have become more common in the city.

Civic Passion’s online news portal, Passion Times, said several police officers approached Cheng’s home in Mong Kok yesterday morning but he was not there. He was later arrested in Shau Kei Wan. Cheng was released on bail on Wednesday night and must report back next month.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 20, 2017.

Activist Alvin Cheng Kam-mun of the localist party Civic Passion pleaded not guilty on Thursday to one count of theft at the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts. There are nine prosecution witnesses, according to RTHK. The prosecution will also submit as evidence a 75-second video posted by Cheng on social media, and 1 hour and 35 minutes of closed-circuit television footage from the library. A pre-trial review is scheduled for May 12.

Internet comments:

- Legislator Wong Kwok-hing said that Cheng Kam-mun is being selfish here. Just because Cheng didn't like simplified characters himself, he is depriving all other persons from reading those books. "If you destroy these library books, you will be legally responsible and not Cheng Kam-mun."

- Cheng Kam-mun says that he hails from the city of Chaozhou, Guangdong province. And now he wants to fight against China and oust all mainland Chinese (including himself?) from Hong Kong.

- Yet another boycott campaign by Civic Passion? The last time they called for the people of Hong Kong to boycott Wong Jing's film, <From Vegas to Macau III>, that movie raked in HKD 27 million in Hong Kong and RMB 1.1 billion in mainland China (see #448).

- I also remember the case when the rumor first surfaced that Yoshinoya was serving radiation-contaminated Fujishima rice. Yoshinoya clarified that the company uses rice from Heilongjiang province, China. Immediately the localists aid that they would rather eat radiation-contaminated Fujishima rice than Heilongjiang rice. That was the perfect supporting proof for the WWII Japanese belief that they can always count on the Chinese to kill each other first.

- Simplified character books are used for brainwashing? Here is a set of traditional character books that is much more so than any simplified character book: The Selected Works of Mao Zedong. It is the message, not the media!

- Cheng Kam-mun is confusing the message and the medium. He thinks that the medium is everything. You can publish The Selected Works of Wan Chin in simplified characters and Cheng would think that this will brainwash youngsters to become Communists.

- Cheung Kam-mun and his friends are going to dump 600,000 books into the trash bins of the public libraries in Hong Kong. If you have to stack 600,000 books, how tall is that? Let's assume that each book is 10 cm thick. 600,000 books will be 600,000 x 1cm = 6,000 meters. You need a very very tall trash bin to hold those books.

- The reason why some Hongkongers like to go to the Shenzhen Book City to shop for books is very simple -- there is greater variety. In China, they publish several hundred thousand new book titles per year. All sorts of specialist books are published because the mainland market is big enough. These books will not get published in Hong Kong, because the market is too small.

- Most books on Chinese medicine are published in simplified characters in China. Does Hong Kong want to shut itself out from progress in Chinese medicine?

- (WSJ) Guide to Hong Kong Schools and Education

The Hong Kong education system, overseen by the Hong Kong Education Bureau, is divided into three types of schools: government schools, subsidized schools and private international schools. There are more than 1,100 schools in Hong Kong in total; as of 2010, more than 1,000 of them were local government schools. Primary and secondary education is mandatory for Hong Kong residents, but kindergarten is not.

Government schools are fully funded by the Hong Kong government and teach in Cantonese and English – though it is up to each school to determine how much of each language is used as the medium of instruction. Government schools are open and free for all children. There is a short application process in which students can select their top school choices, but assignments are generally made based on residency zones.

The English Schools Foundation is subsidized by the Hong Kong government to provide an English-language education, with priority given to students who cannot speak Chinese. Starting in 2001, ESF schools started switching over to the International Baccalaureate system, after years of using the British curriculum. As of 2010, there were 20 ESF schools with about 12,000 students enrolled. The schools are delineated in geographical zones and only accept students who reside in their applicable zone. There is also an admissions process, which includes interviews and an application. Preference is given to non-Chinese speakers, students of alumni and siblings of students. ESF schools all have the same fee structure, which runs from HK$58,100 (with a $10,000 deposit) per year for primary school to HK$89,250 (with a $16,000 deposit) for secondary school.

Hong Kong also has private international schools, which vary in curriculum and teaching style. With a focus on sending their students to foreign universities, these schools can be very competitive — wait lists can approach 70 students per grade. Most international schools use an English-based curriculum and tend to be separated into the British, American, Canadian and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs.

Many schools identify with a particular country (such as Singapore, Canada or France) and offer separate English and foreign-language sections. There are also an increasing number of schools that emphasize a compulsory Mandarin Chinese component, reflecting Mandarin’s growing influence in Hong Kong.

Here is the gist of the matter: At the international schools, they teach putonghua/simplified characters and they don't teach Cantonese/traditional characters. If Civic Passion doesn't like this, they can protest valiantly at the international schools.

Why are the international schools doing this? Because they want their students to be useful internationally. Knowing Cantonese/traditional characters is not useful internationally; knowing putonghua/simplified characters is very useful internationally.

- Chris Wat Wing-yin wrote about the mentally retarded people who started the Hong Kong National Party, and the Equal Opportunities Commission received complaints about her insulting that particular class of people. So everybody lay off Cheng Kam-mun's intelligence!

- Based upon my personal observations of many hours spent at the public library, I can tell you that it is not efficient to dump the simplified character books into the trash bins or hide them in the cracks. It is more efficient to hide them in plain sight. My observation here in Hong Kong is that nobody ever uses the English-language section of the public library and yet that section is sizeable. So all it takes is to move the simplified character books en masse onto the shelves in the English-language section. The books have not been stolen or vandalized. They have only been misfiled. And the potential readers will not never find it because nobody ever goes into the English-language section.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 4, 2016.

Pro:
"It was effective and fun! Well done!"
"I went down to the Tsuen Wan Public Library and slid some simplified character books into the cracks"
"Set fire to them"
"Use markers to deface the pages of the books"
"Tear pages out of the books"
"Swipe some feces inside the books"

Con:
"Why are you picking on books such as The Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Exegesis of Dream of Red Chamber?"
"Many reference books exist only in simplified editions. Why are they being destroyed?"
"This is what the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty did -- he burned the books and put all the scholars to death."
"Once this catches on, it merely puts a burden on the cleaning lady who has to carefully go through the trash bins to retrieve the discarded books. I am sure that she is going to be very grateful to Cheng Kam-mun for keeping her employed."
"It means that the libraries will have to hire outside help to look for missing books."
"Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat's own novel has a simplified character edition. These guys change their tunes so quickly that they can't even keep up with themselves."
"Well, I think that the Valiant Warriors can always borrow Deng Xiaoping's Black/White Cat Theory: It does not matter whether a book is printed in simplified or traditional characters; it only matters that the contents of the book have been vetted by the Valiant Warriors to be consistent with Hong Kong core values as only they know."

- (Oriental Daily) April 6, 2016. Civic Passion said that a number of police officers went to Cheng Kam-mun's home this morning, but Cheng was not there. Cheng was later arrested at a Civic Passion street booth in Central. Cheng was taken down to the Chai Wan Police Station. Several Civic Passion members are outside the police station to voice their support of Cheng. It is believed that this was related to dishonest use of a computer to advocate certain actions at public libraries.

- Cheng Kam-mun was not telling people to deface simplified character books. He made it very very clear that he was only posting certain information onto the Internet for reference's sake. How can that be "dishonest use of a computer"? He can't be held responsible for what persons unknown do after reading his reference materials. The Internet is already filled with reference materials on making bombs, committing suicide, setting up gang rape, torturing animals, posting upskirt photos, sharing kiddie porn, etc.

- (Oriental Daily) The Baptist University Student Union held a referendum on scrapping putonghua competency as a graduation requirement. 89% of the students voted to scrap putonghua. The student who started the referendum said that the will of the students is very clear on this issue and he wants the school to eliminate the requirement as soon as possible. By the way, the total number of votes is 1,544 which represents 12.17% of the student body. The rest of the student body went on with their studies and ignored this farce.

- Contrast with this.

(The Standard) April 21, 2016.

An elite international school that has produced three Nobel laureates plans to accept applications from September, with parents and corporations paying between HK$800,000 and HK$3.5 million for nomination rights. The Hong Kong campus of Malvern College founded in Britain 150 years ago is located in Tai Po's Science Park. It will take in 380 students from five to 14 years old for Years One to Nine classes for the 2018-19 school year. The number of students is expected to increase gradually, with the full capacity up to Year 13 set at 960. Malvern College has produced three Nobel winners James Meade, economics, 1977; Frederick Sanger, chemistry, 1958; and Francis Aston, chemistry, 1922 as well as the renowned author of The Chronicles of Narnia, C S Lewis.

The school only offers the international baccalaureate curriculum with focus on science and mathematics. Putonghua classes will be mandatory.

Malvern College does not teach Cantonese, because it is not regarded to be an internationally spoken language. Putonghua is where the future is.

- (EJ Insight) May 18, 2016.

On a late night in Lan Kwai Fong, a woman asked Ivy where she was from and what she was doing in Hong Kong. When Ivy answered she was from the mainland and working, the woman blurted: “Why do you steal our jobs?” Ivy is a 22-year-old education consultant at a Hong Kong college and her case is not unique.

Antagonism between Hongkongers and their mainland cousins has been building up since the handover to China. Many people think the main reason is Beijing’s iron-fisted policy on political reform in Hong Kong. That includes how its next leader will be chosen.

Hongkongers also complain that Beijing is pushing its own agenda, for instance by making Mandarin the medium of instruction in Hong Kong schools. ”I learned Cantonese in school, so I can’t help my children with their Mandarin lessons,” said Estella Lung, the mother of a seven-year-old boy. “I don’t want to teach my children in such a way.”

Professor Tse Shek-kam, director of the Center for Advancement of Chinese Language Education and Research in the University of Hong Kong, thinks Mandarin will not only be a challenge for parents but will also increase the burden on students. ”Putonghua may not benefit Hong Kong children at all. Firstly, it’s not their native language,” he said.

However, some parents prefer Mandarin as a medium of instruction for teaching Chinese. ”When the children grow up, they might end up working in China, Singapore or Malaysia. They need to be able to speak Mandarin,” said Helen, who has an eight-year-old girl.

Meanwhile, Margaret Chung, a Hong Kong resident in her early twenties, believes Hong Kong people are panicked that someday Hong Kong “will lose its values and freedoms”. ”This panic is based on some very solid grounds,” Chung said. ”I think Hong Kong people are most concerned about mainlanders coming to Hong Kong to work or study,” she said. “If the bosses are Chinese, they might hire Chinese workers instead of employing Hong Kong people.”

This is why some Hong Kong parents face a dilemma over whether Mandarin is useful to their children.

- This whole issue is preposterous. Look at the most fervent localists -- Edward Leung, Ray Wong, Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, Chu Hoi Dick ... when they go to Taiwan to liaise with pro-Taiwan independence people, what do they speak? Putonghua! When Edward Leung and Ray Wong met with members of the US Consulate General in Hong Kong, what do they speak? Putonghua! Because the foreign service officers of the United States are trained in putonghua when they are posted to the Far East. The reason why they want other Hongkongers not to learn putonghua is that they want to have exclusive rights to act as compradors.

- (Oriental Daily) July 11, 2017.

The trial of Cheng Kam-mun took place today. According to the facts not disputed by either side, the defendant Cheng Kam-mun was at the children's section of the fourth floor of the public library at the time of the incident on March 29, 2016. At the time, Cheng put 9 children's books in simplified characters into the garbage bin in the lobby. The total value of these books was $550. The act was recorded by a video surveillance camera in the library. Later that day, a janitor found those books while taking away the garbage. According to the janitor, she thought at first that it was a child's prank at first.

On April 2, Cheng Kam-mun uploaded a video on Facebook, showing himself putting the books one by one on the floor and then putting them into the garbage bin.

According to Cheng Kam-mun himself, he read that the public library system has 600,000 simplified-character books since 2005. Cheng was concerned that these books may "brainwash" children. So he went to the library that day to see if the situation was as bad. He was able to find simplified-character books easily in the children's library. So he took the video of the books as he tossed them into the garbage bin in order to express his dissatisfaction of the presence of these books in public libraries. He also wanted to tell the public "to resist the cultural invasion."

Cheng also admitted that he took some simplified-character books from the adult section of the library and hid them into fire hose cabinets so that readers cannot find them.

The magistrate ruled that the evidence exists for the case. The trial will resume on August 15.

- (Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017.

Cheng Kam-mun testified on his behalf today. He said that he did not want to destroy the simplified-character books. He only wanted them removed from the shelves and he also wanted the public to be concerned about the many simplified-character books in the public libraries.

Under cross-examination, Cheng denied that he wanted the books to be treated as garbage. He said that the janitor should be able to see the books in the trash bins. He said that he only he does not have the means to destroy all 600,000 simplified-character books in the public libraries.

- (HKG Pao) August 15, 2017.

In his video, Cheng Kam-mun said :「用特別方式銷毀殘體字書」 (use a special method to eliminate the deformed-character books). He agreed that "eliminate" can mean "destroy" but he said that he does not have the means to destroy the 600,000 simplified-character books in the public libraries. Cheng said that he did not think that putting a book in trash bin would cause it to be discarded. He said that he did not put the lid tightly on the trash bin because he wanted someone to find them.

- (Oriental Daily) August 25, 2017.

The prosecution said that under the Theft Ordinance, if the individual believes that he has the legal right to do something, then he is not being dishonest. However, the evidence presented showed that Cheng Kam-mun did not notify the librarians about the locations of those books and he also did not know how the janitors will handle the trash bin. Therefore those books can be lost permanently.

Although the books were ultimately found and Cheng Kam-mun claimed that his objective was to express his opinion, your goal is not your intent and therefore Cheng can still have dishonest intent to make the books disappear forever.

The defense said that the anti-theft device in the books were not removed, so the books cannot be taken out. Ultimately the librarians found the books. Cheng Kam-mun also took videos and publish those. So if Cheng Kam-mun wanted to steal the books, he would not have been blasé. The magistrate said that supermarkets have closed-circuit television cameras but thefts still occur every day.

The defense emphasized that Cheng Kam-mun read the news reports about the situation at the library and he wanted to take action to protest. Perhaps this was a prank, but it should not be regarded as dishonest intent or permanent destruction of property.

• [499] An Apple A Day (2016/04/02)

(EJ Insight) March 31, 2016.

Apple Daily has been forced to apologize after running an advertorial featuring a renowned Hong Kong-based Australian artist who disavowed it. The newspaper said none of its editorial staff was involved but held an employee from its classified ads department responsible after an internal investigation. The employee has been suspended, according to media reports.

The investigation followed a Facebook post by Gregory Charles Rivers (河國榮) in which the 50-year-old Australian performer complained about being used in an advertisement without his permission. Rivers said he was approached in February to do an interview with Apple Daily in Jini Bakery Cookies, a local bake shop, on March 7. He was to be paid HK$2,000 (US$258) for expenses. He went to the venue on the appointed day and was quickly made to pose inside the shop by a photographer. Rivers repeatedly asked the photographer if the photos were going to be used in an article or in an advertorial and was told these were for the interview, according to news website hk01.com.

The interview lasted five minutes but Rivers said he did not check the media credentials of the interviewer who asked just three questions. The photographer did not say whether they were from Apple Daily. On March 20, Apple Daily ran a full-page spread of Jini cookies with Rivers’s image and it was marked “advertorial”.

A day earlier, the bake shop published a photo of Rivers on its Facebook page, along with a note thanking him for “dropping by”. The post was subsequently removed.

Netizens flooded Jini’s social media pages with angry comments and expressed their support for Rivers. Jini Bakery Cookies has been dismissed as a copycat version of Jenny Bakery, a popular pastry shop which operates in Hong Kong, Singapore and mainland China.

(Jini Bakery Cookies Facebook) March 31, 2016.

Last night Jini Bakery Cookies published "A Letter to Mr. Gregory Rivers" on its Facebook in which their boss Eric Chiang Yao-ming explained:

It all began when our company worked with Apple Daily on an advertisement ... I asked the Apple Daily Advertising Department worker Terry to see if you will take part. He contacted a woman named Apple who claimed to be the manager of Gregory Rivers. After Terry sent her the advertisement, she said that Gregory Rivers has seen it, sees no problems and will take place. The asking price was $14,000 (Terry said that the whole sum was for you and the other costs will be billed elsewhere). I agreed to the price and arranged for the photo session. On that day, I was away from Hong Kong, so I asked Terry with whom I have worked many times before to assume full responsibility.

During the session, Terry used whatsapp to inform me that Gregory Rivers believes that this event was an advertisement/spokesperson and wants to stop. I was obviously displeased because your reaction was completely different from what Apple said. But I can't force you, so I said to stop the session. However, I did not want Gregory Rivers to lose anything on account of this, so I offered to pay the $14,000. However Terry did not want my company to lose money so he offered to call Gregory River's manger to see if the session could be completed at a higher price. We finished our overseas telephone conversation. Afterwards, he called me and said that the session was successfully completed after negotiating an additional payment. Our company wired two sums of money into Terry's bank account, one for $14,000 and another for $4,000 in additional payment. Although Terry insists on paying the additional $4,000 because he said that it was his mistake, I stuck to my principles of not wanting anyone else to lose money so I made him take the additional sum.

After my carefully analysis of the incident and seeing your whatsapp screen captures over at HK01, I conclude that the woman named Apple is not your manger (Terry told me that she is your manager) and she only paid you $2,000! She deceived you into coming to our company for a photo session!

After this incident, our company's reputation has been completely ruined ... At this time, this woman Apple has deceived you, Terry (at Apple Daily) and my company. After consulting my lawyer, I believe that this is a case of commercial fraud. It is a criminal act. I don't know if you have to join my company's lawyer to file a police report, so that the police can pursue this matter.

Internet comments:

- (Apple Daily) January 27, 2015. Recently Jini Bakery Cookies took out a full-page newspaper ad to say that certain people are selling their cookies under other brand names in an improper manner. Jini Bakery says that they only have two official retail outlets, one in iSquare (Tsim Sha Tsui) and the other in Tsuen Wan Citywalk. In the ad, Jini Bakery did not name the other brands. However, many people believe that this must be Jenny Bakery which is founded earlier than Jini Bakery.

Our reporter went down to Jini Bakery in iSquare. The worker there said that everybody who visits Hong Kong will buy these "Little Bear" cookies. They line up to buy from us every day." However, the reporter did not find any other customer at the time. By contrast, Jenny Bakery located in the next block had more than 100 people queuing up outside. One mainland tourist waited for more than two hours to spend more than $1,000 to buy more than a dozen boxes of cookies as presents. Because of the popularity of Jenny Bakery Cookies, many other stores have risen to sell counterfeit products. Rather than producing their own counterfeit products, they are buying Jini Bakery cookies and selling them as Jenny Bakery cookies. This is a violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.

- (Oriental Daily) For the second day in a row, Apple Daily has apologized to Gregory Rivers. On March 31, Apple Daily's entertainment real-time news published a news report titled "Gregory Rivers's homemade cookies, free music video for ATV." However, the cookies in the video were computer creations which don't exist in reality. The video caused people to misunderstand and make inquiries with Gregory Rivers.

- Gregory Rivers spent more than 20 years licking TVB's boots and got nowhere with his career. But he is suddenly popular with Yellow Ribbons because of his anti-TVB, anti-government comments.

- Don't be silly. Gregory Rivers is a veteran performer, so he will always saying things that are wishy-washy. For example, here is what he has to say about the Mong Kok riot:

I found last night's Mong Kok riot to be ridiculous. Real Hongkongers don't do this. Everyone who participated in the riot used masks to cover their faces, so they must be bad guys. I have some suspicion that someone paid these people to use the vendors' issue to cause trouble as Hongkongers.

I pray that each injured policeman, reporter and citizen will recover soon.

You are right. It was wrong to say: "Everyone who participated in the riot used masks to cover their faces, so they must be bad guys."

P.S.

Vendors should have the right to make a living (I like the vendors).
People throwing bricks at the police is ridiculous.
The police firing shots is even more ridiculous.

In a while, I will delete this post. It is a radicalized subject!

Can you figure out which side he is on?

- Elephants can fly if Apple Daily writers can be trusted to tell the truth.

(Huaxi Dushibao) April 1, 2016.

On the morning of April 1 in Sanpu village, Buyao town, Zhaojiao county, Liangshan prefecture, villager Ma Weiha sensed that his chickens and sheep seemed to be scared by something. So he went out to check and he found a panda hiding in his courtyard. Ma said that the villagers keep about a dozen mountain hunting dogs, and he was concerned that the panda might be chased and injured by the dogs. So he immediately informed the community director. Meanwhile villagers heard that a panda had been found. So they rushed over because they were all concerned that the panda might be endandered. So they used ropes to tie up the panda and formed a human wall to protect it. They also called the Forestry Department immediately. The panda was eventually released back into the wilderness.

(Apple Daily) Panda appears, villagers forcibly press it on the ground for a group photo. April 1, 2016.

Zhaojiao country Liangzhou prefecture Sichuan province villagers found a 100-kilogram panda in the wilderness. Many villagers were excited and they pressed the panda on the ground in order to take photos with this "national treasure." This was the second time that a wild panda has been found here. The villagers found this panda very interesting. After the Forestry Department was apprised, they immediately placed the panda under protection, and they planned to send the panda into the Meigu Dafongting National Nature Preservation Area.

Internet comments:

- Apple Daily does not have any correspondents covering news in mainland China. They have dozens of writers sitting in a large room scouring the mainland websites. The writers look for stories which they rewrite with angles that are more aligned with the political inclinations of Apple Daily. This is the kind of journalism practiced in Hong Kong today. There is absolutely no reason to spend any time learning journalism at the Journalism and Media Studies Centre at Hong Kong University.

- When Apple Daily says that everything in China is fake, we encounter a philosophical conundrum. If Apple Daily is lying some of the time, then is everything in China fake or not?

- This Apple Daily news story is as dumb as it gets. Everybody in China knows that it is a serious crime to trap a panda and hold it under captivity. Such being the case, would you pose for a group portrait to be widely distributed by a newspaper? Is there better evidence for a criminal conviction?

- All this was supposed to stop in 1998 as Jimmy Lai promised, but it has actually gotten worse. A lot worse.

(SCMP) October 30, 1998.

The husband of the woman who last week threw her two sons then herself to their deaths from a Sheung Shui building said yesterday he had been a victim of media trickery and his own greed.

Chan Kin-hong said that in the days after the deaths of his wife, Lam Man-fong, 41, and sons Ho-wai, six, and Ho-yin, 10, he accepted money from a newspaper, spending it on prostitutes in Dongguan. 'I was tricked into allowing the newspaper to photograph me with the women. I was greedy for the money,' Mr Chan said in a television interview last night. He has become a figure of hate since the media scrutiny of his sex life.

Yesterday, Mr Chan, 41, was attacked by four or five men as he burned offerings to his wife and sons, who were cremated on Wednesday. Mr Chan said he was afraid to travel to the mainland since the newspaper and television reports on him and his family.

'I was set up by a newspaper. I was greedy for $5,000 which was offered to me to have my picture taken in bed with two women. I did it as a floor show to get the press off my back,' Mr Chan said. 'I'm sorry for what I've done. I know I've wronged my wife and my two sons. I deeply regret that what I did in the past caused the deaths of my beloved wife and sons. I have been sacked from my job and I don't have any friends any more. All my relatives have been keeping away from me. I promise to turn over a new leaf. I have to find a job soon because I can't depend on the allowance from the Social Welfare Department.'

Yesterday's attack came as Mr Chan burned the offerings at the back door of an undertaker in Winslow Street, Hunghom, after staff refused to let him inside. Passersby abused him as TV cameras filmed and shortly afterwards a group of men appeared and kicked and beat him. Mr Chan suffered bruises and a cut lip, but told police he did not want to report it. Mr Chan urged reporters not to follow him and said he was contemplating legal action against two newspapers for calling him 'names', and ruining his reputation.

(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.

(Oriental Daily) April 2, 2016.

Hoi Tin Tong filed a lawsuit against Apple Daily three years ago about a newspaper report in which Hoi Tin Tong was accused of selling rotten turtle jelly. During the civil trial, it was revealed that Hoi Tin Tong's former partner Choi Kwok-keung had provided the information to Apple Daily. The High Court ordered Apple Daily to turn over the unedited video to Hoi Tin Tong. However, Apple Daily appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals said that the courts will protect the confidentiality of sources for the sake of public interest. However if the newspaper had already disclosed the identities of the sources, then it can no longer use that as a reason. In this case, Apple Daily published a video in which Choi Kwok-keung was identified as the source who brought the reporter to Hoi Tin Tong to film how a female worker processed the rotten turtle jelly. The video also showed the name badge of that female worker. Choi Kwok-keung also admitted that he arranged for the Apple Daily reporter to meet with the female worker.

The Court of Appeals also said that the sworn statement by the Apple Daily reporter did not address anything about leaking the identifies of Choi Kwok-keung and the female worker. In considering this case, the courts noted that the sworn statements did not say that other sources have to be protected besides those who are already known. Therefore the court ruled the High Court was correct in ruling that Apple Daily must provide the original video to Hoi Tin Tong.

Internet comments:

- (YouTube) Apple Daily, September 12, 2013.

When the video began, the ID badge of the female worker was made fuzzy. The video was said to be taken by a hidden camera and the voice was distorted.

Once into the video, the protocol was tossed into the wind. For example, at 1:21, you can see the name of the female employee very clearly.

In a case like this, the stakes are very high because a company can be destroyed. Guilty or not, the company will file a lawsuit. Everything about this report should have been reviewed many times by the reporter, editors and lawyers. How can this sort of elementary mistake be missed? You get the sense that they don't care at all. This is because the advertising revenues have far outstripped the potential penalties. For example, you can be fined for inaccurate reporting but the costs are less than one full-page advertisement for one day.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 1, 2016. Apple Daily was ordered to pay $100,000 in court fees.

- But that still pales in the wake of the HK$1,660.8 million in lost revenue.s

(HKG Pao) April 22, 2016.

Last week Apple Daily published an article titled: "Winnie Tam: Leave the bootlicking to Junius Ho." In the interview, Bar Association chairperson Winnie Tam was quoted as saying: "There are many bootlickers. Look at Junius Ho. Leave it to him, right?" Last night Junius Ho disclosed on his Facebook that Winnie Tam has apologized to him. However, Tam said that the report title did not represent her views and she will ask Apple Daily to clarify and apologize.

Ho said that Tam was astonished by the report title. The interview had gone on for three hours, and she does not recall how Ho came to be mentioned and she does not recall what she said. But she clarified that she has always thought that Ho spoke sincerely and responsibly. She will ask Apple Daily to clarify and apologize.

Ho said that he and Tam were acquainted 31 years ago. They are good friends and he does not believe that Tam would deliberately hurt or smear him. He accepted Tam's apology and "felt at ease." Tam is overseas at this time, but they will have lunch together once she returns home. Ho said that the Apple Daily has hurt both of them, and they will discuss joint action.

Apple Daily: According to a Hongkonger's post on the Internet, he sought help from the Hong Kong Immigration Department after the Kumamoto earthquake and received nothing. Instead, his BNO enabled him to leave by airplane with the help of the British embassy.

Truth: The Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Immigration Department reached six Hongkongers stranded in Kumamoto and arranged for them to leave.

[After the earthquake, Apple Daily published an article titled "Thoughts about Hong Kong independence in terms of consular protection." A individual with a HKSAR passport called the Immigration Department for help after the earthquake and got nowhere. Meanwhile, a BNO holder called the British embassy and the British government helped the person to purchase tickets to fly to Tokyo and then leave Japan. The difference was night and day. The conclusion: "It was no wonder that the voices for Hong Kong independence (or even return to United Kingdom) have been so loud."

But Wen Wei Po pointed out that Kumamoto was an isolated city after the earthquake. The airport was only reopened days later. Since the security screening equipment was damaged, there are still no outbound passenger flights. It was also impossible to exit by high-speed rail or expressway because the roads and the rails were damaged during the earthquake. All Hongkongers stuck in Kumamoto will have to wait for the airport, roads or railways to be repaired before they can leave.]

(Wen Wei Po) April 20, 2016.

The source of Apple Daily's story is a comment left at Passion Times. A Hongkonger in Miyazaki (Kyushu) said that it was a waste of time to call 1868 (the Hong Kong Immigration Department help line) because the receptionist will only say to take good care of yourself. Fortunately, this person has a BNO passport. When he called the local British consulate, he was told how to proceed to Fukuoka. He also got help to book airline tickets at 8am to fly from Fukuoka to Tokyo and then transfer to fly to Hong Kong. Furthermore, the fare for the Fukuoka-Tokyo leg can be paid at the British consulate after he returns to Hong Kong.

However, Miyazaki was not affected by the earthquake because it is 185 kilometers away from the quake center of Kumamoto. Miyazaki is connected to Tokyo by expressway on which traffic had not been interrupted by the earthquake. So it is nonsense for this person to need to seek the help of the British consulate to reach Tokyo from Miyazaki and then to Hong Kong.

• [498] The Hong Kong National Party (2016/03/28)

(SCMP) March 29, 2016.

A new group appearing to be at the extreme end of the localism movement is setting up a party to turn Hong Kong into an independent republic, swiftly inviting scepticism across the political divide.

Calling itself the Hong Kong National Party, the group said it would not recognise the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, a stance that could have it mired in legal trouble.

Led by former Occupy Central activist Chan Ho-tin, the National Party will use “whatever effective means” available to push for independence, including fielding candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September and co-ordinating with other pro-independence localist groups.

“Staging marches or shouting slogans is obviously useless now. Regarding using violence, we would support it if it is effective to make us heard,” said Chan at a press conference he conducted alone on Monday at a flat in a Tuen Mun factory building.

He claimed the party was funded entirely by the donations of its 50-plus members, mostly university students and young activists.

On the Hong Kong Nation:

1. What is the Hong Kong Nation?

Just holding values, culture and habits similar to Hongkongers isn't sufficient to become a member of the Hong Kong nation. The Hong Kong Nation are those who are dissatisfied with the colonial oppression of Hong Kong by China and want this oppression to stop or disappear.

2. The mainstream and the margins are all in the Hong Kong Nation.

It is an undeniable fact that Hongkongers are Chinese people from Guangdong and their descendants. But history tells us that regional culture is inseparable from unique national characteristics. The Guangdong Chinese who were born and raised in Hong Kong will be known and regarded by the mainstream Hongkongers as more "Hongkonger" than those who speak putonghua or are non-Chinese residents.

Of course, we agree that persons of any nationality, color or race can become Hongkongers. But we must admit that non-Guangdong Chinese people are more marginal, so that they will have to spend more effort before they can be regarded as Hongkongers in practice. This reality cannot be altered in the short run, but it shows that the Hong Kong Nation has its own language and race. This can be frequently found in other nations. We believe that the nation should be restricted by race, but we also agree that a nation cannot be formed without any racial factors. We welcome persons of any race to become a member of the Hong Kong Nation by their efforts.

3. Naturalization is one way to become the Hong Kong Nation

Presently the Hong Kong Communist colonial government is using the one-way-visas and the births of infants whose parents are not Hong Kong residents to cleanse the Hong Kong Nation through a large-scale racial genetic transformation. Before the Hong Kong Nation retakes its own sovereignty, any immigrant approved by the Hong Kong Communist colonial government is an immigrant tool of the Chinese Communists.

Hongkongers do not have sovereignty and therefore cannot screen the values and cultural levels of the immigrants. Presently they are unable to block the immigrants. But any newly arrived immigrant in Hong Kong must go through a naturalization process before that meet the conditions to become part of the Hong Kong Nation. New immigrants must melt into the Hong Kong community through learning Hong Kong values and culture before they can become a member of the Hong Kong Nation.

4. Opposing colonialism is a universal value

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights both have Articles that recognize the right of each nation for self-determination and that colonial imperialism is an evil act that isn't allowed by the international community. Every nation which was oppressed by colonialism, including Hong Kong, should have the right for self-determination. We support the Hong Kong Nation in order to let the world know that the Hong Kong Nation will shrug off Chinese colonization and become independent and self-sufficient.

5. Hongkongers are not part of the Chinese Nation

The Chinese Nation is a deformed concept for nationhood. It is a political tool used by the Chinese colonists to rule. The Manchurian Empire used territorial boundaries to muddle up the definitions of nations, using economic and military invasions, religious and cultural infiltration to transform cultures and customs and destroying the sovereignty and uniqueness of the various nations and forcing them into submission. The Chinese Communists continued with the Manchurians' colonial policies to now. China used these excuses to invade and oppress the neighboring countries. Historically Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet and now Hong Kong today are the victims of the Chinese Nation.

The Chinese colonialists often used racial characteristics to distinguish among races, so that they came up with absurd ideas such as "all those with yellow skin and dark eyes are Chinese." Today in Hong Kong, some people still think that they are "Chinese" which showed that they lack consciousness of Hong Kong nationhood. In the 1980's, the Hong Kong Nation was misled by the Greater China advocates, and their "democratic return to China" actually deprived the Hong Kong Nation of the right for self-determination.

Video: Press conference about the establishment of the Hong Kong National Party. March 28, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beC4MK6j5Ac

(SCMP) March 30, 2016.

Beijing’s office in charge of Hong Kong affairs has slammed the establishment of a new political party advocating independence for the city as a serious violation of the country’s constitution, the Basic Law and a threat to national security.

The State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office issued a strongly worded statement through the official Xinhua news agency on Wednesday, after the Hong Kong National Party ­announced its formation on Monday. It has yet to be ­registered. The party, led by former Occupy activist Chan Ho-tin, has pledged to push for independence by, for example, fielding candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September.

“The establishment of a pro-independence party by an extremely small group of people in Hong Kong has harmed the country’s sovereignty and security, as well as endangered the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong,” a spokesman for the office was quoted as saying. “It has also harmed the interests of Hong Kong. It is firmly opposed by all Chinese nationals, including some seven million Hong Kong people. It is also a serious violation of the country’s constitution, Hong Kong’s Basic Law and the relevant existing laws.”

The office said the Hong Kong government would handle the matter according to the law. “We are aware that the Hong Kong SAR government has ­already rejected the party’s registration. It was a suitable action,” the office was quoted as saying.

But the party was undeterred. It issued a statement on Wednesday saying a constitution is supposed to serve as a proclamation on how citizens are to be protected. “It is ridiculous that the citizens are accused of violating the constitution,” the party said. It also dismissed as “ridiculous” a warning on Tuesday by the Department of Justice that it might take legal action against the party. “We will not be afraid of such draconian laws. Bring it on. We will push ahead with Hong Kong independence with Hong Kong people,” the party said.

A government spokesman ­replied: “Any suggestion that Hong Kong should be independent or any movement to advocate such ‘independence’ is against the Basic Law, and will undermine the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and impair the interests of the general public. The SAR government will take action according to the law.”

Political commentator Johnny Lau Yui-siu said Beijing’s condemnation was “unnecessary” because pro-independence ­ideology had not gained support in the city. “The statement would in fact drive more Hong Kong people to care about the issue of independence. They may not support it but they will think about it,” Lau said.

Internet comments

- (NOW TV) The Hong Kong National Party says that they have 30 to 50 members at this time, half of them being university students. The convener Chan Ho-tin was the convener of the Polytechnic University Concern Group For Withdrawing From The Hong Kong Federation of Students. Chan said that the Hong Kong National Party will actively think about entering the Legislative Council elections. They do not exclude the possibility of working with other Localist groups.

- (Oriental Daily) How do you squeeze the toothpaste out of an empty tube? The press asked Chan Ho-tin how many members were in the Hong Kong National Party. Chan beat around the bush for a while. When finally pressed to the wall, he said that they have 30 to 50 members. When asked who these people are, he eventually said that half of them are students. But he won't say what the other half is. When asked where the money comes from (for example, to rent the office at which the press conference was being held), Chan said that all their members are funders.

- Chan Ho-tin graduated from Polytechnic University six months ago. He is working full-time for the Hong Kong National Party. Is there more money in political party-building than a regular job?

- The Hong Kong National Party opposes Hong Kong Basic Law Article 1, which states that Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. The reasoning is that Hong Kong began functioning as a port in 1841, which was before the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949.

- When the Hong Kong Nation is founded, we must immediately start a racial cleansing campaign to get rid of all impure, inferior racial types such as new mainland Chinese immigrants and South Asians!

- After the Hong Kong Nation is founded, the new immigrants (=all those who came to Hong Kong after July 1, 1997) will not automatically become Hong Kong Nation citizens. Instead they will go through special screening and subject to re-education if they fail to meet the requirements.

- What requirements? Firstly, there is the language test on reading/writing traditional Chinese characters, and speaking/listening to Kong-style Cantonese (note: Canton-style Cantonese is unacceptable). Secondly, there is the new Constitution and the revised history of the Hong Kong Nation where Year Zero is 1841.

- Culture always starts with the cuisine. In the Hong Kong Nation, the national foods shall be curry fish balls, shumai, fried pork intestine, chicken feet, fake shark fin soup, rickshaw noodles, the mixture of coffee and milk tea, pineapple bread, etc. All the foods of the Chinese colonizers will be banned, including Peking duck, Yangchow fried rice, Guangdong roast goose, Chung King hot pot, Wan Nam rice noodles, Shanghai stir-fried thick noodles, Shan Tung dumplings, Sichuan fried wontons, Mongolian lamb, Lan Chow beef noodles, Chiu Chao marinated meats, etc.

- But what should we do about French fries, French toast, Taiwanese beef noodles, American/Swiss cheese, American pie, Brussels sprouts, Spanish omelet, Greek salad, Danish cookies, Norwegian/Scottish salmon, Swedish meatballs, Indian curry, New York cheese cake, Philadelphia cheese steak, Boston lobsters, London broil, Yorkshire pudding, Hungarian goulash, Russian cabbage soup, etc?

- It is not necessary to ban all these traditional dishes. We only have to rename them. For example, Peking duck becomes Tsim Sha Tsui duck, Yangchow fried rice becomes Cheung Chau fried rice, etc. See Freedom Fries for international standard operating procedure (SOP).

- (Wikipedia) The genuine indigenous Hong Kong people are the five families with the names, Tang, Hau, Pang, Liu and Man during the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). These are the earliest recorded settlers of Hong Kong. It is still an open question whether the revised history of the Hong Kong Nation will begin with these aborigines or the Treaty of Nanking.

- Well, does American history begin with Eric the Red, Christopher Columbus. the Mayflower pilgrims or the native Indians? No, American history begins with the founding of the United States of America after the War of Independence, not a moment earlier.

- Whoever wins the final battle and exterminates all enemies will get to write history. Everybody knows that.

- Those who were born in mainland China but came before July 1 1997 are Communist infiltration agents. It is true that some of them may be genuine Hong Kong Nation people. But during a state of emergency, there won't be time to sort things out. About 30% to 40% of all Hong Kong residents were born in mainland China. The simple solution is to march them to the border and order them to walk over to the other side. If they won't move, fire machine guns into the air. If they still won't move, fire machine guns at them. They will all be gone, one way or the other. Hong Kong will be a much better place to live in. Housing prices will plummet and everyone will have at least one apartment. Food and water will be easy to find due to reduced demand. Jobs will be begging for workers and wages will go through the roof. Happy days will be here.

- I don't know how your economics will work. You propose to eliminate 40% of the population, most of whom are elderly people. The immediate impact is to those who cater mainly to these people. For example, you won't need so many nursing homes. So most of the nursing homes will be closed and their workers will be jobless. And when the population shrinks by 40%, the overall economy will also shrink. For example, the 7.3 million Hongkongers are served by around 30,000 licensed restaurants which earn an average of 3% profit. If the population shrinks by 40%, there are that many people eating out and therefore the restaurants can't all maintain the same revenue levels. When they become unprofitable, they will raise prices and take austerity measures (such as reducing operating hours, employee head counts, salaries and working hours). A large number of these restaurants (maybe not 40%, but 20% is plausible) will be closed and their employees jobless. This is going to happen across most economic sectors.

- When your household income falls because some household members lost their jobs, you won't go and eat out. This means that the catering industry will be devastated. Ditto cinemas, karaokes, department stores, consumer durables, etc.

- About seven percent of those with right of abode in Hong Kong are not of Chinese ancestry. They are Europeans, Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, etc. Unfortunately for them, many can't pass the civics test on Hong Kong language, history and culture. We will need the support of the United Nations Security Council members (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, etc) to recognize the Hong Kong Nation, so their citizens will be allowed to stay if they wish even if they can't pass the civics test. But all others (such as Indians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Indonesians, etc) will be given a short period of time (e.g. 24 hours) to pack up and go home where they belong.

- You fool! How do you arrange air transportation for 400,000 people to leave in 24 hours?

- Why is that a problem? Just march them over to Shenzhen and let them figure out to get home (by air, sea, land, whatever).

- Even if you were born in Hong Kong, you will still have to be screened based upon your personal history (e.g. your schooling, your work, your family, your associates, etc). After all, CY Leung was born in Queen Mary Hospital and studied at King's College/Polytechnic University during the British colonial era but he is not a "genuine Hongkonger."

Here are some examples of the criteria: If you attended the pro-China Pui Kiu Middle School, you will be on the list of excluded people; if you work as a policeman, you are excluded; if your retired father worked as a policeman before, you are excluded; if your wife works for the Bank of China, you are excluded; etc).

- Also, your Facebook will be closely studied for Blue Ribbon tendencies which is cause for expulsion from Hong Kong.

- It is less important to define who is a Hong Kong Nation citizen. The important thing is to persuade others to join the Hong Kong Nation. But no exceptions should be given to anyone born in mainland China or whose parents were born in mainland China. These vermin belong to the hostile invasion forces sent down here by the Chinese Communists.

- The more important point is to get people to join the Hong Kong Nation. As for those who refuse to join the Hong Kong Nation, they will be judged by People's Court and declared to be Enemies of the People. It is expected that a state of emergency will exist during the first days of the Hong Kong Nation. All Enemies of the State will be interned, expelled or executed.

- After the Revolution takes place, it is likely that there will be a great deal of hardship due to the expected embargo by mainland China and their ally toadies. If a referendum/plebiscite were held, it is likely that a Chinese Reunification Party will make a clean sweep. Therefore, Article 1 of the Constitution of the Hong Kong Nation must necessarily be: "Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the Hong Kong Nation."

- Basic Law Article 2 about the National People's Congress will be erased. In its place will be "Article 1 of the Constitution of the Hong Kong Nation cannot be amended under any circumstance."

- ... but what if they amended Article 2 first before they amend Article 1?

- Basic Law Article 3 about citizenship requirements shall replace "permanent residents" by "those born in Hong Kong, speak/write Cantonese and have passed the history/culture test."

- Basic Law Article 4 about "safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens" shall be suspended indefinitely until as such time that all traitors and saboteurs are eradicated.

...

- (TVB) On March 28, 2016, the Immigration Department reported that more than 576,000 persons entered Hong Kong. Of these more than 170,000 entered via Lo Wu, more than 61,000 via Lok Ma Chau and another 90,000 plus through the airport. This is the reason why the people of Hong Kong are up in arms about! When the Hong Kong Nation is founded, all human traffic between borders will be halted pending studies to be performed by experts appointed by the transitional government.

- Two types of people were entering Hong Kong at the end of this four-day Easter holiday. Firstly, they are mainland invaders. They obviously should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong and defecate/urinate in the streets/subways. Secondly, they are Hongkongers who spent their vacation in mainland China. They should not be allowed to spend their money over there. So sealing off the borders will be in the best interests of the Hong Kong Nation.

- When the inevitable collapse of China occurs and the Hong Kong Nation comes into existence, we must be prepared to immediately form a Committee of Public Security/Revolutionary Tribunal. All existing laws should be vacated. In the interregnum, there should be a Law of 22 Prairial, which will forbid persons to employ counsel for their defense, disallow the hearing of witnesses and make death the sole penalty.

- The assumption is often made that when the Hong Kong Nation comes into being, the first task is to immediately convert all the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices (HKETOs) into embassies. At this time, there are 12 HKETOs outside the Greater China region (in Berlin, Brussels, Geneva, Jakarta, London, New York City, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, and Washington DC). and eight in the Greater China Region (including one in Taiwan). Looking at this lineup, it looks like we need to set up offices in Moscow, Paris, Sao Paulo, Mexico City Johannesburg, New Dehli, Rome, Madrid, Stockholm, etc pretty soon in order to cover all the major powers.

- You can't declare your overseas offices as embassies on your own. You have to establish diplomatic ties with the home countries first. What makes you think that they will risk making enemies with China?

- There is so much preparation work that the Hong Kong National Party must perform in anticipation of Independence Day. Everything costs money (e.g. the rent for the office in the Tuen Mun industrial building), so it is time for all future Hong Kong Nation citizens to donate money to the Cause. Since the Hong Kong National Party has neither corporate registration nor bank account (because the name Hong Kong National Party contravenes the Basic Law), they will accept cash donations only. So send more money more frequently to them!

- Of course, the reason why they have to field a candidate for the Legislative Council elections is that the job pays $93,000 per month plus another $100,000 for staffing. By comparison, the average starting salary for a recent university graduate is only $11,000.

- More evidence that there is plenty of money to be made in the Hong Kong independence industry:

These Civic Passion t-shirts are being sold at $380 per piece. It is for certain that these t-shirts are not made in Hong Kong. It is most likely that they produced in China for less than $10 apiece. To not help China, the shirts can be ordered from Cambodia.

- (Facebook) When this Civic Passion member was challenged to a one-on-one fight, what does he do? He valiantly took out his telephone to call the Evil Police for help. Of course.

- The share of voters for the radical Localists is fixed. More organizations coming in means greater competition. From here to September, it will be Localists attacking each other.

- Here is the catalog of messages:

"Donate more money!"
"Democracy can solve all the problems!"
"University students rule!"
"I am your savior!"
"Chicken soup of the soul!"
"Yes! Yap Yat-tze fucking said David Tang said fucking whatever!"
"You are the pig, not me!"
"Born in a time of chaos, I am forced to eat buffet!"
"It's all the fault of the government!"
"America/Japan are the best! We're the worst!"
"When big brother tells me to break the law, I do it immediately!"

- (SCMP) Independence party founders are both clowns and criminals – and their poison is spreading. By Alex Lo. March 31, 2016.

It’s just a matter of time. A new extreme localist group has been formed, calling itself the Hong Kong National Party. It repudiates the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, seeks to establish independence for “the Republic of Hong Kong” and will use any means, including inciting violence, to achieve its goal.

Co-founder and former Occupy Central activist Chan Ho-tin said his party would use “whatever effective means” available to push for independence, including fielding candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September and coordinating with other pro-independence localist groups.

“Staging marches or shouting slogans is obviously useless now. Regarding violence, we would support it if it is effective to make us heard,” Chan said.

I am no lawyer but it all sounds illegal. If you don’t recognise our constitution, how can you become a lawmaker? If you advocate violence, any number of local laws including the public order ordinance and the crimes ordinance will suffice to define a criminal offence.

But the question is, how should reasonable people respond to localist groups like this? Should they be treated like clowns or criminals?

They certainly deserve to be laughed off the stage. But as they say, it takes a village, that is, the whole community, to stop something like that.

Alas, too many people in Hong Kong nowadays are only too happy to make excuses for such inexcusable individuals, exploiting their misguided efforts to spite the government, Leung Chun-ying and Beijing.

The latter are blamed for pushing people in Hong Kong towards extremism. I am not sure it’s really so simple.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say Beijing and the Hong Kong government are entirely to blame. Does it follow we should fold our arms, shake our heads and let the localists and their independence movement run berserk? It’s not in anyone’s interest to let such a movement take root in Hong Kong.

Since independence will never be a realistic option for Hong Kong, nothing good will come out of extreme localism. This is a poison that is spreading in our body politic. But unless we can figure out a way to channel the anger and idealism of young people into fighting for more viable political goals, localism will look appealing to many of them.

- (Chris Wat Wing-yin) When my daughter first posted a message to a forum about "a Hongkonger seeks pen pals," she got practically no response for the whole week. Then she added "China" to her profile. Suddenly, she got many requests from all over the world, including Slovakia, Lithuania, Croatia, Poland and Tunisia. So in the eyes of the rest of the world, Hong Kong is nothing but everything changes when Hong Kong becomes Hong Kong (China). Why are these people interested in Hong Kong (China)? What do they write to my daughter about? She said that it was mostly about daily life but many people also asked her about homework exercises. Say what? What kind of homework would a Polish girl need to ask my daughter about? "Chinese!" These are young people who are learning Chinese (putonghua/simplified character system) in school and that is why they seek out Chinese people to become their pen pals. In this world, many people in faraway places are learning Chinese. Meanwhile in Hong Kong, some people are proud that they don't know Chinese (putonghua/simplified character system). Good luck to the Hong Kong Nation! They don't know how insignificant they are in the world until Hong Kong leaves China. At 13 years old, my daughter found this out just by posting a message to seek pen pals.

- The Localists have a saying that "they were born in a time of chaos and therefore they have a certain responsibility."

"Born in a time of chaos"? Here is the banner with those words being displayed on bustling, prosperous Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok district.
Here is true chaos as it can be found in Syria. If you think revolution can only come rise from the ashes of chaos, you need to work harder in order to achieve chaos (according to international standards).

- (EJ Insight) March 31, 2016.

Beijing appears to be sufficiently alarmed by the formation of Hong Kong National Party, which is advocating the creation of an independent republic and the repudiation of the Basic Law.

The SAR government promptly rejected the group’s application for registration, warning that calling for independence is a violation of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

However, official condemnation of the group has only made it well-known over a period of just a few days after its establishment was announced on Sunday.

In fact, attacks on the group have fueled discussions about Hong Kong independence, prompting many people to consider the concept of independence as an option for the city as China tightens its grip on the territory.

A spokesperson for the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office strongly opposed any action related to Hong Kong independence, stressing that the Hong Kong SAR is part of the People’s Republic of China under the Basic Law, and the principles of “one country two systems” and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.

In an interview with the state-owned Xinhua news agency, the spokesperson said “an extremely small number of people” have formed a pro-independence group, “threatening the national sovereignty and safety, as well as Hong Kong’s stability, prosperity and basic interest”.

Such action, the spokesperson said, is “firmly opposed by all Chinese nationals, including some seven million Hong Kong people”.

“It is also a serious violation of the country’s constitution, Hong Kong’s Basic Law and the relevant existing laws.”

The office said the SAR government would handle the matter according to the law, and praised it for refusing to register the group.

Also on Wednesday, the official Global Times dismissed the National Party’s founders as “mere attention-seekers who want overnight fame”.

The paper said the idea of Hong Kong becoming independent is “completely unrealistic”, and called on Hong Kong people to simply ignore the group.

In a way, Beijing’s reaction was completely understandable and expected.

In a place where there is no freedom of expression, where people have long lived under authoritarian rule, any concept that goes beyond the official line is considered treason, an outright rebellion.

But for Hong Kong people, the discussion of a topic such as Hong Kong independence should be protected by our laws. Hong Kong, after all, highly values its freedom of expression and thought.

That’s why we find it quite strange for the administration of Leung Chun-ying to issue a statement echoing Beijing’s official stance on the issue, warning that it “will take action according to the law”.

However, the government did not say which law it is referring to.

Even local legislators said the government would be hard put to find an appropriate law to sue the National Party’s members for advocating independence.

Beijing is correct in saying that Hong Kong National Party is only a small group.

Not only that, it is composed mostly of university students and other political neophytes, just like Youngspiration and Hong Kong Indigenous.

Though lacking in support from established politicians, these groups have proved their strong influence among the youth in the district council elections in November last year and the Legislative Council by-election for the New Territories East last month.

In the by-election, for example, Hong Kong Indigenous candidate Edward Leung was able to secure more than 15 percent of the votes.

What apparently worries Beijing and Hong Kong officials is the profile of his supporters, which could provide some insight into the possible outcome of the Legislative Council elections in September.

Data provided by the electoral office shows that Leung’s votes mostly came from traditional public estates in Tseung Kwan O, Tai Po as well as the Northern District.

The top 10 polling stations where Leung secured the highest votes shared the same characteristic, which is the higher than average number of voters born after 1990.

For example, in the polling station of Sheung Tak Estate in Tseung Kwan O, voters born after 1990 accounted for 23.1 percent, while in other polling stations, they accounted for 12 percent.

That indicates that most of the supporters of radical democrats with independence leanings were first-time voters.

This means that most of the young voters have a tendency to support Hong Kong independence, and this is what Beijing authorities are most worried about.

However, Beijing’s hard-line stance on the issue could only encourage more youngsters to register to be able to cast their votes in the September elections.

Based on the Edward Leung’s 15 percent vote benchmark, it cannot be ruled out that radical young democrats can secure seats in the five geographical constituencies in Hong Kong, or five seats in total.

Hong Kong National Party may just be an appetizer in the emerging campaign for Hong Kong independence.

There is also a political party being formed by Scholarism stalwarts Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Oscar Lai, which will be announced in mid-April.

The new party has identified Hong Kong’s future after 2047 as its key advocacy, which is probably another way of saying that they will focus on the issue of Hong Kong independence.

The three Scholarism stalwarts have deep experience in political struggle and enjoy massive support from the youth, so it is expected that their new party will be at the forefront of the discussion on independence.

It’s highly likely that Beijing’s stern warning against Hong Kong National Party is actually directed at Joshua Wong and his new party.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 31, 2016.

Talk of independence for Hong Kong could bring forward legislation to enact Article 23, the security law targeting subversion and sedition which was abandoned in the face of mass opposition in 2003, Hong Kong University law Professor Eric Cheung Tat-ming said on Thursday. He added that he was worried that such discussions could touch a nerve in the central government.

Regarding the newly-established, pro-independence Hong Kong National Party, Cheung said that their stance may not conform to the Constitution of China and the Basic Law, but the suggestion that it severely endangers the country is an exaggeration, according to a report by RTHK. Cheung said: “It’s the same as you suggesting that ‘defeat the Communist Party’ is against the Constitution of China, but this does not mean that people who voiced this kind of opinion have broken the law. The Basic Law and Bill of Rights protect freedom of speech.”

The Hong Kong National Party announced its establishment on Sunday, and said that they were denied registration at the Companies Registry. “They said we could not register because of political reasons,” said party convenor Chan Ho-tin.

With the party not being a “society” or a “company”, those advocating for independence could be charged with violation of the Societies Ordinance, Cheung told Apple Daily. However, Cheung said that a lot of concern groups and alliances are also not registered. “The government cannot enforce the law selectively.”

- (Commercial Radio) Hong Kong University Students Union president Althea Suen proposed to adopt Hong Kong independence as a common goal, to gain the support of the international community and to achieve Hong Kong independence ultimately by overthrowing the existing government by revolution or force.

- Yippee! Let Althea Suen lead the way on the assault of the PLA garrison in Admiralty! Millions will join and thousand will die, but the commies will be drowned with our blood!

- Sorry that you miss the message from Occupy Central! In a revolution, there will always be a division of labor -- some people will charge headlong while others will stay behind to take care of command-control-communications, logistics, propaganda, media relations, etc. In Althea Suen's case, she will serve best as the spokesperson interviewed by BBC/CNN/VOA/Fox News instead of throwing bricks at PLA tanks. When the bullets start flying, someone has to be alive and speaking from the American consulate to tell the world that we are being slaughtered, so that our sacrifices will not go for nought.

- The Hong Kong National Party has promised that action will begin within one month. What action? No, it's not armed revolution. Instead, they will begin to pass out pamphlets in the street.

- (HKG Pao) April 5, 2016.

The Shue Yan University Student Union organized a forum titled "Paths of Resistance Methods and Outcomes -- the Debate between Peaceful Non-violence and Valiant Resistance." The school declined to lend its facility for the event. So the event was co-sponsored by the Academy of Performing Arts Student Union. However, that school also declined to lend its facility. The forum was ultimately moved to the APASU meeting room. Both Student Unions deplore their schools for obstructing the forum. However, the Shue Yan University administrator said that the title of the forum was different from that stated on the application and therefore the Student Union broke their promise. Meanwhile, the Academy of Performing Arts said that they never received a formal application from the students. The students said that they had sent a Whatsapp message to the school.

The forum speakers were Chan Ho-tin (convener of the Hong Kong National Party), Edward Leung (spokesperson for Hong Kong Indigenous), Chan Wai-yip (People Power), and Au Nok-hin (Democratic Party). The four were seated behind a glass wall while the audience watched them speak in the goldfish bowl. The school used the broadcasting system every five minutes to ask people to leave this unauthorized event.

- (HKYDS Facebook) Baggio Leung (Youngspiration) said that since he was not a signatory to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, he is not bound to either learn about that Declaration or abide by it. Another guest said that this logic means that American citizens do not have to either learn or abide by their constitution (because the US Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788 when none of the current American citizens or even their parents were born yet). Leung could not come up with a riposte.

- Joe Chan's Facebook:

In reality, the so-called Yellow Ribbon-Blue Ribbon dichotomy does not exist. I believe that most Blue Ribbons are not CY Leung fans and they have no ties to the Chinese Communists. Most of them just could not stand the sight of a bunch of crooks leading a bunch of idiots to back Hong Kong into a dead-end alley. This is a situation in which we are all on the same boat. Some people think that the captain is a thief, but they are not powerful enough to stop him. So their plan is to sink the boat in order to force the captain to abandon ship. The net result is that we all die. The worst part is that most people were not killed by the thief, but they were killed by the idiots who sank the boat. As for the assertion that the Blue Ribbons are intolerant of dissident views, they are only unhappy about being 'represented without permission' and hijacked by the idiots. Can you understand this, you 'very civilized and very democratic warriors'?

- (SCMP) Show us a plan if you want a revolution in Hong Kong. Michael Chugani. August 9, 2016.

You say you want a revolution. You say you’ll change the constitution. Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.

What you’ve just read are selected lyrics from John Lennon’s 1968 hit song Revolution. Who would have thought that nearly 50 years later those words would come back to haunt our politics? Revolution is in the air. Doubters need only open their eyes to what happened so brazenly close to government headquarters last weekend. Thousands converged on Tamar Park for Hong Kong’s first ever independence rally where leaders electrified them with talk of a revolution. They even urged supporters to infiltrate the government, especially the police. Heady stuff.

Call me a soothsayer but this is what I wrote six years ago: there’s anger in the streets. People, mostly demoralised young adults, feel they have been suckered for too long by the old order. Beijing should be scared. Property developers who squeeze every last dollar out of hard-pressed families should be scared. All those tai-tais cruising upscale malls for designer handbags should be scared. So wake up and smell the revolution.

People laughed me off at the time. No one’s laughing now. Hong Kong’s nascent independence movement has so spooked the central and local governments that they even used what many consider dirty politics to bar independence advocates from contesting next month’s Legislative Council elections. Before Occupy few imagined that normally docile Hongkongers would seize key districts for 79 days. Before the Mong Kok riots few believed our youths took self-rule so seriously they would start fires, hurl bricks and attack police.

Now they’re threatening a revolution unless Beijing changes the constitution to allow self-determination. But what kind of revolution? Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience or Nelson Mandela’s guerrilla warfare? The 2014 “umbrella movement” didn’t make Beijing blink. Now civil disobedience has flopped, dare our independence fighters raise the stakes to armed revolt? They have shown they don’t fear the local police, but what match are they against the might of the People’s Liberation Army?

As Lennon said all those years ago, show us the plan if you want a revolution. There isn’t one. Our young revolutionaries are no doubt better at capturing Pikachu than PLA soldiers. But just talking about revolution has already taken Hong Kong where it has never gone before. Revolutions need not succeed to cause turmoil. So don’t make the mistake again of laughing it off.

- (SCMP) Independence talk is civic learning, but national education is brainwashing? The hypocrisy defies logic. By Michael Chugani. August 16, 2016.

Listen up, all the hypocrites out there. This is about you. Here is a question: to teach or not to teach? When the government tried to introduce national education in schools you said it was a ploy to brainwash our children. Such was the outcry that the government had to ditch its plan. But now teachers and academics who opposed national education have organised groups to discuss Hong Kong independence on campuses. When the Education Bureau warned they would lose their teaching credentials if they promoted independence to students, they accused the bureau of white terror. They insist discussion of independence is part of civic education, which helps students make their own choices.

Let’s get this straight. Allowing discussion of independence is part of civic education but teaching the constitution is brainwashing? I am befuddled by this logic. Does it mean it’s good to teach children to decide for themselves if they want to break away from their country but bad to teach them about the country they may choose to break away from? How can you decide if you want to break away from your country if teaching you about that country is brainwashing? I’m keen to know if independence discussions would involve armed revolt as well. I know I’ll be labelled a Beijing bootlicker for writing this but that’s the price you pay nowadays for calling out hypocrites.

For the record, I believe campuses should be places where young minds are exposed to all ideas so they can make informed choices. But that’s no longer what’s happening on our campuses. The political divide that is tearing apart our society has invaded our campuses. Increasingly, students are being taught not to think for themselves but to advocate. This was evident during Occupy. Many academics backing the uprising encouraged students to do likewise. If that’s civic education rather than brainwashing, why is national education brainwashing instead of civic education?

I am not advocating national education and bashing discussion of independence. My point simply is that if we have one, we should have the other. How can young minds be groomed to think for themselves if they are only exposed to one side? Let children discuss independence but let them also learn about their country. Let’s do it as part of their education, not as a back door to corrupt their minds.

• [497] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2016/03/25)

(Wen Wei Po) March 24, 2016.

The staff associations at the eight universities held a joint referendum over three days. Today, they announced the results. out of 26,332 qualified teachers and staff members, 4520 voted at a rate of 17.2%. On the motion to "abolish the powers of the Chief Executive to appoint the university trustees/council members", 92% voted for. On the motion to "increase the ratio of representation of popularly elected teachers, staff members, graduate students and undergraduate students in the board of trustees/councils, 94% voted for.

The organizers declared that the approval rates were more than 90% across all the universities. This proves that the opinions of the teachers and staff members are "clear and consistent" across the universities. They said that they intend to hold a press conference next Tuesday about these results.

The voting in this referendum can be done by one of two methods. Electronic voting requires the staff association to first send a invitation to which the staff member must provide staff ID and other personal information to confirm before registration is complete for voting. However, Hong Kong University declined to provide the email file to the staff association on privacy grounds. Therefore the HKU staff association had to use their own sources to send out the invitations. Individual staff members complained that they received these invitations without asking and have questions about where the senders obtained their email addresses from. The other voting method is to appear in person at the voting booth, present ID and cast the ballot.

(Hong Kong Economic Times) March 25, 2016.

Internet comments:

- 17.2% voted of which 92.0% voted for the motion. What is the headline? "92.0% voted for the motion."

- Most of the newspapers took dictation from the organizers' press release. For example, Hong Kong Economic Times' title is:
"Referendum on institutional autonomy": More than 90% of university teachers/staff members agreed to abolish the Chief Exeuctive's powers to make appointments.
- At least, HKET put "Referendum on institutional autonomy" in quotes to show some reservation.
- The two tables inside the HKET report conveniently leave out the base total. That is, you cannot deduce the voting turnout.

- And this is Ming Pao:

More than 4,000 university teachers voted
90% agree to eliminate Chief Executive as Chancellor.
- The Ming Pao person who wrote this must be still asleep at the time. The voters were teachers AND staff members who don't necessarily teach. The two motions do not include stopping the Chief Executive from becoming the Chancellor automatically. Wake up, already!

- A 17.2% voting rate? That is an improvement over the 17.1% voting for the 2010 mini-referendum! Democracy is on the march to victory!

- Deep down inside, of course, everybody knows that the response was tepid. Even supporters are embarrassed by the organizers using such headlines in their press release. It also means that voter turnout will be even worse the next time. Just take a look at the referenda organized by the Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group:

September 1, 2015: Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting #1 (#314): 9,298 voted out of about 162,000 alumni for a 5.7% participation rate

November 28, 2015: Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting #2 (#388): 4,454 out of 165,450 alumni voted for a 2.7% participation rate.

And they are not going to hold any more of these Extraordinary General Meetings because of the backlash over the waste of time and money.

- (Apple Daily) The organization of this referendum is inconsistent across the institutions. At Chinese University of Hong Kong, the staff association set up two street booths (at the train station and by the cafeteria) operating during 8:00am-9:30am, 12n-2pm and 5pm-7pm. Student volunteers handed out leaflets to promote the referendum. At University of Science and Technology, Institute of Education and Baptist University, there are no booths and all voting is done over the Internet. At Baptist University, the only promotion is through posters on Democracy Wall and email.

- When the campaigners are spiritless, the result will be dispiriting too.

- "Institutional autonomy" takes two steps. The first step is the negation of the status quo in which the Chief Executive can appoint a number of of trustees and council members. Once the Chief Executive is out of the picture, who becomes the Chancellor? Who appoints the trustees and council members? There is no constructive proposal from anyone so far on this second step, because everybody knows that any proposal will be shot down by somebody or the other.

- In society at large, it is commonsense to say that the universities are receiving huge amounts of public funding and therefore they must be subject to oversight from the outside. So it will never be allowed to have the university councils/trustee boards be dominated by teachers, staff members and students. What is left unresolved is where these outside council members and trustees are supposed to come from.

- The students don't have any proposals, because they are less concerned about the means than the ends -- they don't care who is on the council as long as it votes according to what the students want. In other words, they want domination.

- HKU Council chairman Arthur Li met with "elite" students and made the comment that while he does not oppose teachers and staff members being involved in politicking, he said that it was wrong to hold a press conference during the school week. Why? Because it means that that teachers and staff members are taking time off from their regular business to engage in extracurricular activities. He must be referring to next Tuesday's press conference ...

- Digression: How do you reconcile this photo of people trying to go from Hong Kong through the Futian Border Crossing into China with all the talk about the People of Hong Kong don't want China?

- Hongkongers go to mainland China even though they know that:
(1) you can't buy anything because everything is fake
(2) you can't eat food or drink water because everything is poisoned
(3) you can't find any entertainment because the place and its people are so backwards
(4) you may find your body organs stolen
(5) you have no freedom of speech
(6) you are monitored by the Public Security Bureau the whole time
(7) you cannot access Facebook
(8) ...

- (Wen Wei Po) March 27, 2016. In February, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union held a referendum on "the Chief Executive automatically becoming the Chancellor" and "increasing the representation ratio of staff/teachers/students on the board of directors". However the project was ruled invalid due to improper arrangements. Although 24% of the students voted, it was pointed out that the ballots were incorrectly printed and the voter identity was not recorded.

Recently the CUHK Student Union held another referendum. 17% of the students voted and that was more than the 16.66% (=2,816 votes) threshold so that all four motions were passed at approval rates between 54% to 97%.

However, the votes came about only because the student union pulled a number of tricks. On March 20, the Student Union said that they will have evening voting hours "at the request of certain members." Also the referendum was supposed to be held on nine days (March 11-23 minus Saturdays and Sundays) but they suddenly announced that voting will take place on March 24 too "so that more members can vote." On the evening of March 24, voting was extended 30 minutes past the stated deadline due to "technical problems." This kind of unscheduled "extra time" is even more amazing that the "Ferguson extra minutes" that are routinely given to Manchester United when the team is behind.

In truth, the record showed the voter turnout was only 6.75% by March 20; on March 24, almost 900 persons voted and pushed the total to several dozen votes past the threshold.

• [496] The Hong Kong Chief Executive Election 2017 (2016/03/24)

Waiting for a mistake. By Chris Wat Wing-yin

Are the Hong Kong media sick? Are the Hong Kong reporters losing their minds? Why else are they reiterating the same mumbo-jumbo every day?

Nowadays no matter where or whom, as you as you finish speaking, the reporters will fire rapid questions at you:

"What do you think of CY Leung's performance? Do you support him for a second term? Do you think that the Central Government supports him for a second term?"

"What you think about John Tsang as Chief Executive? Somebody says that the Central Government has anointed our Secretary for Finance already? Have you heard that?"

"What about Jasper Tsang? What about Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee?"

"Recently some people are advocating Hong Kong independence? Do you approve or disapprove Hong Kong independence? Do you think that Hong Kong can become independent? But some people say that it is possible? ..."

"What is your view on young people today? What is your view on the Mong Kok riot? ..."

In Hong Kong, every time that CY Leung, John Tsang, Regina Ip Lau, Jasper Tsang, Starry Lee etc show up, the reporters will ask them again; when Rita Fan, Tam Wai-chu, Elsie Leung, Chan Chi-shi, Ambrose Lee show up in Beijing, the reporters will ask them again; even at company shareholders' meetings where Li Ka-shing, Li Siu-kei, Ng Kwong-ching and Chan Kai-chung show up, the reporters are still asking them these things.

Isn't this bothersome? Isn't this boring? Isn't this annoying? Is there really nothing new under the sun? Do these questions have to be repeated again and again day after day? Clearly the reporters are waiting for somebody to make a mistake, or for somebody to lose patience and blurt out something straight. That is what news is made of.

Whether someone supports CY Leung for a second term as Chief Executive, and whether they support Hong Kong independence share the same answer: It is a waste of time to talk about it.

CY Leung has given no indication that he is interested in a second term. He is like someone who hasn't entered the Miss Hong Kong pageant, but every day people are debating whether she is beautiful or not? Elegant or not? Composed or not? Suitable to be crowned Miss Hong Kong or not? Don't you think that this is absurd?

As for Hong Kong independence, it is summarized as: If they want to be idiotic, why do you have to be idiotic with them too? The Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital patient wants Earth to become independent of the solar system. Are we going to conduct a feasibility study?

When the sun rises up tomorrow, can we stop having these intangible matters that have not happened or cannot possibly happen? Please?

News coordinator Fung Wai-kwong recently said that Chief Executive CY Leung is facing "character assassination" by the opposition on a daily basis. Commentators made fun of this effort to protect his master. But here is an example of what this "character assassination" can be.

Previously CUHK vice-chancellor Joseph Sung spoke to Ta Kung Pao. Sung spoke about his feelings when he went down to the Occupy Central site in October 2014: "... at the time, our only thoughts is that these students are like our children. We don't want to see anyone hurt, even sacrificed ..."

An Internet media outlet immediately seized on this to come up with their exclusive report titled: "One word in Joseph Sung's interview disclosed that Chief Executive CY Leung wanted bloody suppression of Occupy Movement." Where is the evidence?

I checked with a politician who is familiar with Hong Kong as well as the mainland. He said that some media outlets reported during the Occupy Central period that the central government was going to send troops out to deal with it. They even spelled out that those PLA soldiers will be coming from the Guangzhou military district. However, this person heard a different version: At the time, CY Leung guaranteed that the Hong Kong Police can handle the matter and he asked the central government to wait patiently for the HK SAR government to deal with it. CY Leung had the trust of the central government, and no PLA troops were sent. In the end, the PLA never came and Occupy Central was dispersed peacefully.

With respect to the Joseph Sung interview, he did not spell out what "sacrifice" refers to. Does it mean sacrificing their studies? Sacrificing their time? Or sacrificing their lives? Even if it is the latter, how did the Internet media outlet deduce that CY Leung wanted to do so? Logically the deduction is untenable. But in so doing, the Internet media outlet is doing "character assassination" on CY Leung as well as Joseph Sung.

The politician said that the particular Internet media outlet is moronic. If CY Leung wanted a bloody suppression, he would not have to wait for 79 days. Because Occupy Central was dragging on, certain Hong Kong media complained that the government response was too weak and they demand clearance by use of force. If the Hong Kong people and the Central Government both wanted clearance and this Chief Executive wanted to carry out a bloody suppression, he would not have to wait so long for the Occupy people to disperse on their own.

Oddly enough, the Occupy Central instigators and the other principals have not gotten their day in court as yet. Meanwhile someone is already making a scare story out of some demonstrably false old information. Could it be that some people needed to raise the level of "character assassination" against the Chief Executive because they are interested in entering the election too?

• [495] The Interns (2016/03/24)

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 24, 2016.

Press freedom in Hong Kong has declined for the second year in a row, with both the public and journalists believing that it deteriorated in 2015, a study by the Hong Kong Journalist Association (HKJA) has found.

Although the survey only began in 2013, the index is currently at its lowest, dropping 1.4 points to 47.4 for the general public and 0.7 points to 38.2 for journalists compared to the previous year. A total of 54 percent of public respondents and 85 percent of journalists believed that it has declined.

According to HKJA Chairperson Sham Yee-lan, journalists are usually more sensitive towards such changes but, when the public rating also falls, it shows an increased awareness of the problem.

The survey was conducted in conjunction with the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (HKUPOP), which interviewed a total of 1,021 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong adults between January 14 and 19. Questionnaires were also received from 446 journalists.

It was also found that journalists and the general public are of the view that self-censorship has become more common, with both groups believing that media outlets are concerned about criticising the central government in Beijing.

Many also reacted negatively to the purchase of English-language daily The South China Morning Post by Chinese e-commerce conglomerate Alibaba with 88 percent of journalists and 57 percent of the public believing that the buy-out threatened press freedom.

An overwhelming 97.7 percent of journalists also believed that the failure to prosecute those who attacked reporters during the pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014 harmed press freedom, while over 97.1 percent said the government’s release of information at inappropriate times or through inappropriate channels was detrimental.

More than 94 percent of journalists also believed not allowing online media to attend government press conferences was harmful to the freedom of the press.

Sham called for the government to introduce a Freedom of Information Act as soon as possible.

“That existing laws are insufficient to allow journalists to obtain the information they needed for reporting also renders undesirable effects on press freedom. With 10 being very adequate and 0 being very inadequate, the average rate for the public is 5.7 and for journalists 4.4, further 0.1 and 0.2 down from 2014 respectively,” the HKJA observed.

Sham said that press freedom was pillar of Hong Kong’s success, but it had been “eroded at its roots”, and was an indication that fundamental rights enjoyed by the public were being encroached upon. She urged the government to do more to safeguard press freedom, a right guaranteed under the Basic Law.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 23, 2016.

Journalism students from local universities have been rejected from TVB News’ summer internship programme. Staff from Baptist University, Shue Yan University and Chinese University confirmed with HK01 that their journalism students had not been accepted as interns.

Shue Yan University Head of Department of Journalism and Communication Leung Tin-wai told Apple Daily that their students did not even get an interview.

TVB said that the arrangement to split the eight intern places equally between Hong Kong and mainland university students is the usual practice. The company did not confirm the rejection of local journalism students to Apple Daily but said that the interview process for the internship had been partially completed.

Last year, TVB News took on four local students for its internship programme, but at least two of them were not journalism students, HK01 reported.

Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) Chairperson Sham Yee-lan told Apple Daily that news media had independent decision-making power, but should not forget Hong Kong students.

HKJA vice Chairperson Shirley Yam also said that local news media should allocate intern places for local journalism students. “Do mainland students know Hong Kong better than Hong Kong students?” she asked. She also said that “it would be a very sad thing” if local journalism students could not practise journalism in Hong Kong.

The news sparked much debate online, with one netizen saying, “when TVB stops taking local students, the number of students applying to journalism will fall, or even plummet.”

(Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 26, 2016.

After being quiescent for a while, the Hong Kong Journalists Association has re-surfaced with a research report that gave a failing grade to freedom of press in Hong Kong.

Indeed, there is less and less space for freedom of press in Hong Kong. Why? Very simple. You're the problem! Don't you see that the news reports over the past several years are only about you people pushing Yellow Ribbon views. Those who throw bricks, assault police, imprison others, break windows, start riots, disrupt society, destroy order ... become heroes, saints and angels according to you in full-page interviews, cover stories and special editions.

Have you ever seen reporters interview the policeman who fired the shots during the riot? The injured policemen? Did you read about HKU Council members getting their clothes ripped up? No. Instead we get to see the criminals talking about meting out justice.

Using the power of the Fourth Estate, the media has raised the lawbreakers onto the moral high ground, protected the criminals, hurt the citizens and wronged society. Is there freedom of press? Yes, but it is in the hands of the opposition camp.

Common folks who don't side with the Yellow Ribbons found that their voices are silenced. They won't be heard on radio phone-in programs. They can only send the news around the Internet bit by bit. As for the government's responses, very little is reported. If there was an one-hour interview, then one sentence will be aired and that is the sentence that you misspoke. Freedom of press? For most citizens, it was lost long ago. We don't need the Journalists Association to tell us now.

Recently RTHK invited me to participate in a program for Grand Reconciliation. I declined. The reason is simple. While RTHK is funded by the taxpayers, it is the instigator of these social conflicts. If you listen to their phone-in programs or City Forums, they are never fair and balanced. The ratio of voices is 9:1, with 9 being the opposition camp and 1 being regular citizens. Now they want to know how to achieve a reconciliation? The problem is with you folks!

Earlier the new media outlet HK01 threw out a lot of money to hire more than 300 people mostly from Ming Pao and Apple Daily. With staff people like those, you can imagine how "fair and balanced" they might be. The mysterious financiers are very generous, and they hired all the university interns that TVB won't hire.

HK01 purchased advertisements on the MTR and television. Their slogan is: "When society is torn asunder, everybody loses. So it is time to change!" Yet the first issue of HK01 has a photo of Chan Kam-lam and his family, saying that Internet users are encouraging people to cause trouble at the ice cream store founded by Chan Kam-lam's son-in-law. Thus they are indirectly promoting that campaign. So this is HK01's idea of "change."

In Hong Kong, we have genuine freedom of press.

Internet comments:

- HKJA vice Chairperson Shirley Yam said that TVB is not just a commercial business because it is regulated by the CAP 562  Broadcasting Ordinance. Therefore every one of its decisions must convince the public.

Chinese University School of Journalism and Communication professor Clement So said that TVB reserved intern slots for CUHK journalism students every year, so he is perplexed by TVB's decision not to hire any Hong Kong university students.

Have these people ever thought of what is the consequence of full disclosure? Let me imagine how this could happen.

First, TVB issues a statement to the effect that it hire interns on the basis of the best talents from among the pool of applicants.

That statement won't satisfy the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the university journalism professors or the student unions. They demand FULL DISCLOSURE now!!!

So what if on the next day, TVB uploads the particulars of all candidates, plus the video interviews. Here are some samples that I made up:

Candidate #1:

Gender: Male
Age: 21
Residency: Born in Hong Kong
University: Chinese University of Hong Kong
Major: Journalism
Languages: Two languages (English and Chinese), three dialects (English, Cantonese and putonghua)

Video interview:

Q. Many others of your generation choose to study overseas (United States, England, Australia, etc). Why did you choose to stay in Hong Kong?
A. Because this is the place that I have known all my life. I love Hong Kong and I want to be here forever.

Q. You are a Hongkonger. Do you have a Home Visit Permit to visit China?
A. I don't have one. I have never applied for one because I have never thought about going there. But I am willing to apply for one if I get this internship.

Q. ... only if you get this internship?
A. Eh ... I am not sure. It depends.

Q. What is the difference between Qianhai and Hengqin?
A. Eh. I don't know. They may something to do with places in Shenzhen. I don't know.

Q. What do think about the unlicensed cooked food vendors in Hong Kong? Should they be allowed to operate?
A. The cooked food vendors represent a way of life in Hong Kong and they must be allowed to operate without interference from those government bureaucrats.

Q. Do you have a personal Facebook page? What do you write about?
A. Of course, every Joe has a personal Facebook page. I love to write about what I eat. I post pictures of every dish at every meal that I eat. I want to make a total record of everything that I eat.

Q. Do you have a Weibo?
A. No, I don't.

Q. Why not?
A. Because I don't know anyone who uses Weibo. And I don't know how to read or write in simplified Chinese characters. Besides I hear that everything on Weibo are lies. Why should I bother?

Q. Do you use WeChat?
A. What for!? This is Hong Kong. Everybody uses Whatsapp.

Q. Would you feel comfortable interviewing someone in English?
A. Well ... I don't think that will come to pass. TVB Jade is a Cantonese-language station. There is no reason to interview in English. If it has to be, then I am confident that I can read off the questions according to the script.

Q. (in English) And I decline to make any response to any further questions at this time as I feel that you are maligning my character.
A. Eh ... (in Cantonese) I think that it is totally unfair for you to spring some English on me like this.

Candidate #2:

Gender: Female
Age: 22
Residency: Born in Suzhou, China.
University: Chinese University of Hong Kong
Major: Journalism
Languages: Three languages (English, French and Chinese), six dialects (English, French, putonghua, Suzhou (father), Wenzhou (mother), Cantonese (four years in Hong Kong)).

Video interview:

Q. On your resumé, you claim to know French. How did that come about?
A. My father is a university professor in linguistics. He told me that the French language sounds very much like the Suzhou dialect that I grew up with. Therefore I decided to study French as an elective. It is always good to open up your eyes to look at the rest of the world.

Q. With your university entrance exam marks, you would have been accepted by all the top universities in China. Why did you choose to come to study in Hong Kong?
A. I had lived in China all my life. What is the point of more of the same? I wanted to see what the rest of the world was like and experience the lives of others. Hong Kong is a midway point, because it is still Chinese enough not to be completely exotic.

Q. Tell me about Yiwu. What, if anything, do you know?
A. Hmm. That's interesting. Yiwu is a medium-sized city in Zhejiang province, but it has assumed mythic status in China as the city of trades. I have not been there yet, but this is one of the places that I mark down as one that I must visit. If you haven't been to Yiwu, you can't understand China. 

Q. What do think about the unlicensed cooked food vendors in Hong Kong? Should they be allowed to operate?
A. Hmm. As an outsider with no detailed knowledge, I don't have any positions. Here is what I know off the top of my head. On one hand, people should be allowed to make a living without unnecessary restrictions. On the other hand, unlicensed and uninspected vendors seem to pose certain risks to public health and safety. This is not a Hong Kong-only problem, as the situations exist all around the world, whether it is my hometown Suzhou or wherever else. In the end, it depends on the particular details.

Q. Do you have a Facebook account? If so, please describe what you typically post on?
A. Indeed I do. Every student at the university has a Facebook page, and we are all involved in various special interest groups. My personal Facebook is a collection of the big world news stories. I find that maintaining such a Facebook forces me to keep up with what is going around the world. Unlike my peers, I am not interested in posting about myself.

Q. Do you have a Weibo? If so, what's it about?
A. Indeed I do. On my Weibo, I talk about my personal experiences as a mainland student in Hong Kong. I have a following of about 20,000 individuals at this time. I will only post what I believe is useful or interesting to others. People say that while my posts are infrequent, they appreciate the thoughtfulness.

Q. How do you communicate with your friends? Whatsapp? WeChat?
A. If I have to communicate with someone, I will use whatever suits them. I can use Whatsapp and I can use WeChat. Whatever they prefer. The communication medium is only a means. The message itself is the ends.

Q. Would you feel comfortable interviewing someone in English?
A. Why not? At my university, most of the journalism are taught by foreigners using English. Our students are all supposed to be multi-lingual.

Q. (in English) I have doubts whether you can understand my articulations on this particular issue as they involve certain complex considerations of socio-cultural issues.
A. (in English) I believe that your statement is a test of my grasp of the English language and my ability to respond in such situations. I assure you that this is totally unnecessary.

Now the point is not so much whether you would choose Candidate #1 over Candidate #2 or vice versa. The point is that the lives of both candidates will be ruined forever afterwards when the data dump at this level is done. This is a serious violation of the privacy of the candidates. When they came in for the interview, they never expect everything will be posted on the Internet. You don't really want FULL DISCLOSURE, or else nobody is ever going to apply for internship again.

- This is the same issue with the case of Johannes Chan, an applicant for the pro vice-chancellor of academic staffing and resources. If the university made a full disclosure of his entire C.V. plus all the comments from the referees and peers, many relations and careers may be broken.

- TVB has several hundred people in its new department. They are hiring eight interns for the summer to assist their regular workers and to learn from that experience. Perhaps some day these interns might be hired after they graduate, or perhaps not. Get real!

- What is an intern? The TV news broadcast hostess says that she needs coffee before the show goes on and the intern rushes over to fetch her a cup. That intern isn't going to change the lead story on 6:30pm news. Please do not equate intern hiring with freedom of press.

- Regular workers are obviously more important than the interns in turns of producing news. Why stop at full disclosure of the intern-hiring decisions? We want full disclosure on the hiring of all workers at all the media organizations in Hong Kong!

- I consider it a far worst suppression of freedom of press if TVB's decision to hire a summer intern has to be approved by Organization X.

- The Journalists Association is the perfect illustration of suppression of freedom of press.

- The Heritage Foundation ranked Hong Kong as the top 'country' in the world on its 2016 index of economic freedom. But what economic freedom is there if TVB's decision to hire a summer intern has to be approved by a special interest group, the Hong Kong Journalists Association? PLEASE!

- (HKG Pao) Each year TVB's news department hires mainland student interns. But these interns are not taking over the positions of local Hong Kong students, because the former will be with the putonghua news programs while the latter are with the Cantonese news programs. Generally speaking, local Hong Kong student interns won't be able to speak putonghua flawlessly. Furthermore, the putonghua audience are liable to call in to complain if the intern speaks atrocious putonghua!

• [494] Resist Compulsory HKUSU Membership Fee (2016/03/23)

(Silent Majority HK Facebook) March 23, 2016.

The Hong Kong University Student Union misused freedom to speech to promote Hong  Kong independence, giving the impression that all the students agree with their union. However, this occurs only because the students have to pay compulsory union membership dues of more than $100 each. This was what gave the union millions of dollars a year to spend on promoting Hong Kong independence.

Last month, the incoming union president Althea Suen publicly stated that she supports Hong Kong independence, and the Hong Kong University Student Union magazine Undergrad published an entire issue on that subject. Last month, the mainland students at Hong Kong University began an eggs-versus-high wall campaign to stop paying their union fees.

In the past, Yellow Ribbon media such as Apple Daily and Ming Pao love to quote Haruki Murakami:

“If there is a hard, high wall and an egg that breaks against it, no matter how right the wall or how wrong the egg, I will stand on the side of the egg. Why? Because each of us is an egg, a unique soul enclosed in a fragile egg. Each of us is confronting a high wall. The high wall is the system which forces us to do the things we would not ordinarily see fit to do as individuals . . . We are all human beings, individuals, fragile eggs. We have no hope against the wall: it's too high, too dark, too cold. To fight the wall, we must join our souls together for warmth, strength. We must not let the system control us -- create who we are. It is we who created the system. (Jerusalem Prize acceptance speech, JERUSALEM POST, Feb. 15, 2009)”

After the Mong Kok riot earlier this year, the Hong Kong University Student Union declared that they will not abandon the rioters: "We will always stand on the side of the resisters."

So now with millions of its own dollars at stake, will the Hong Kong University Student Union stand on the side of the resisters who don't want to pay their compulsory union dues? Will they join the mainland students to overturn the system of compulsory union membership? Or will they crush the eggs and make an omelet?

Internet comments:

- (BBC) By Li Zan. March 22, 2016. ... After Althea Suen stated on RTHK that she supports Hong Kong Independence, a February 21 essay <Concerning the HKUSU president's Hong Kong independence statements plus detailed methods for mainland students to refuse to pay union membership dues> began to be circulated among mainland students. The essay said: "No matter whether she was speaking for herself or for the student union, the fact that she is the HKUSU president means that what she says will carry weight in society and this is a severe blow to mainland students at HKU." The sub-title of this essay: "Nothing about matters of nationhood is too small to tolerate." On the same day, the Resist HKUSU Compulsory Membership Fee Facebook was established.

Later that day another essay <Student Union, give me a reason why I should pay membership dues> was circulated. The essay said that Althea Suen can say whatever she personally wants to say as a matter of freedom of speech. The student union is supposed to be there as the bridge between the students and the university. Yet the student union has made a lot of decisions without consulting the students, such as "Billy Fung leading the students to charge into the council meeting and leaking the confidential meeting details," "laying siege to university council chairman Arthur Li," etc. The Student Union merely communicated with certain students and acted. So why should the other students who were not consulted want to join this union?"

The writer asked: "Why should students whose voices aren't being heard join the union?" The writer said that the student union cannot and does not represent all the students. Usually, the student union cabinet are all Hongkongers. The current cabinet ran with a big "Hong Kong Priority" slogan, showing certain xenophobic attitudes. By comparison, their platform for non-local students is a very vague: "We will attract non-local students to attend union activities and melt into the Hong Kong University community."

The essay said that the refusal to pay membership dues is not intended to start a polarized war between local and non-local students. The authors of these two essays declined to be interviewed. However, it is clear that just about every one of the 1,200 mainland students have seen these two essays.

"... I asked cabinet members for comments, but there have not been any substantive replies. Althea Suen said that she has no comments because this matter is not progressing any further. As a student union member, I sent emails to Althea Suen, Internal Affairs vice-president Lau Chi-hang and the Student Union official mailbox, but I got no response."

So perhaps the discontent of the mainland students with the student union election/communication system, the compulsory membership system and the political directions of the student union will die down after the new president's comments. But someday the same discontent will rise up again.

- The Hong Kong University Student Union is too busy with overturning the university ordinance whereby Hong Kong's Chief Executive automatically becomes the university chancellor.

- Oh, previously, they promised that they would try their best to stop the constitutional reform for the Chief Executive election. They even occupied Central for 79 days. The bill was vetoed in June 2015. What a victory for the students and the rest of the people of Hong Kong!!! The students and the pan-democratic politicians that they would immediately trigger a new bill with their preferred civil nomination of Chief Executive candidates. It is March 2016 now. Not a single thing has happened. They have moved on and now the hot topic is Hong Kong independence in 2047. Universal suffrage is just so "YESTERDAY".

What this means is that today they may be saying that they busily engaged in running these university referenda on the chancellor appointment. They promise to get back to you on the compulsory student union dues as soon as that is over. But they won't, especially when it means that you want to take a chunk of money out of their pockets.

- Unfortunately the students have already paid their union dues before school even started last September. Therefore the students can't get their money back.

- A vote of no confidence in the cabinet is better. If the motion is passed, Althea Sun will have to leave with her tail between her legs.

- A referendum is the best solution. The Hong Kong University withdrew from the Hong Kong Federation of Students after such a referendum. In like manner, the students can collect signatures to hold a referendum to make the student union fees optional rather than compulsory. If there isn't enough money to run the student union, then those who want to pay can pay $1,000 per person. Hereafter, the student union can advocate Hong Kong independence or whatever else, and everybody knows that they represent only their small number of dues-paying members and not the entire student body. That would put an end to any future controversy.

- Althea Suen said that membership dues payment this year is about the same as previous years, so there is no reason to be concerned.

- Suen was referring to membership dues payment that were made before last September.

- The students are habitually saying that government officials are numb and indifferent to the voices of the People. How would you characterize the response of Althea Suen and the Student Union? How is it any different?

- Actually, it's only the mainland students who are unhappy. The other non-local students also feel alienated. Many of the HKUSU announcements and statements are in Chinese only, because the student union people aren't comfortable with using English.

• [493] Walk Tall And Carry A Big Stick (2016/03/23)

(Oriental Daily with video) March 22, 2016.

Last night at around 10pm at the intersection of Nathan Road and Shan Tung Street, two men and two women were using a megaphone to do their Shopping Revolution thing. Three men about 40 to 50 years found them annoying and told them to quiet down. The two sides argued. The two men and two women were attacked with punches and an umbrella. The police were called.

By the time the police arrived, the three men had fled. A 60-year-old man named Koo and a 39-year-old woman named Cheung reported head injuries. 40-year-old man named Chan reported pain on his face. A 56-year-old woman named Chin reported pain on the back of her arm. The four were sent to the hospital. The police are treating this case as common assault which caused actual bodily injuries.

Videos:

Resistance Live Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCAJx02azL8
At past 10pm on March 21, the Mong Kok Shopping Revolutionaries were marching along Nathan Road when a man wielding an umbrella attacked and injured four Shopping Revolutionaries. The man then fled into the Sun Hing Building. The Shopping Revolutionaries pursued the man to the building, but the security guards blocked them from entering the lobby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyNvz8gi5fM The men tried to leave by taxi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HnKYtsuys The Shopping Revolutionaries marched down the Mong Kok Police Station to protest police misdeed (namely, not telling the complainants about the case number).

Internet comments:

- Why are they calling the police when attacked? Don't they always say that the police are Black Evil Canines?

- I thank the three heroes for taking action. Finally someone saw to it that justice is done.

- Everybody else knows that this was inevitable except those Shopping Revolutionaries. Furthermore, this will continue to happen again and again.

- The man escaped into the Sun Hing building. Where else? The Shopping Revolutionaries quickly gave up, because they knew that if they made more noise, the triad bouncers are going to come downstairs to confront ...

- Attacked by a man wielding an umbrella? So they finally admit that the umbrella is an assault weapon.

• [492] What Happened To My Money? (2016/03/21)

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 20, 2016.

Student group Scholarism has announced the suspension of its operations to make way for the formation of a new student group and a political party.

Scholarism, which was formed in May 2011, said that it had been thinking about its future position since the end of the pro-democracy occupy movement in 2014. It said that its model of supporting political movements and student movements simultaneously needed to be changed.

“A highly political Scholarism made us hard to get into schools to educate and organise secondary school students; as a student group it is hard for Scholarism to handle a self-determination movement which will last for dozens of years,” it said in a statement.

Convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung said that he was able to visit almost 30 schools to give talks during summer breaks before the occupy movement, but he only went to one afterwards. Protesters would target him outside school premises, causing others to cancel appointments, he said.

After deliberation between members, it was decided that the group will suspect its operations though not disband.

A new political party to be formed next month was previously announced by some ten members including Wong and former spokesperson Agnes Chow Ting. The group will push for a referendum on Hong Kong’s future. Meanwhile, a new student group will also be formed in around six months time, headed by spokesperson Prince Wong Ji-yuet.

“The new student group will not intentionally politicise itself, as we wish for a new image, to drop the burden of the past, and focus on works about students,” Prince Wong said. “But if there are any [political] educational issues coming, such as TSA tests and teaching Chinese in Mandarin, we will continue to follow up.”

Of the 120 current members, 30 have expressed wishes to move to the new student group, though Scholarism has not consulted every member yet.

Joshua Wong denied that a split in political ideals led to the group being broken up into two new organisations.

“Every issue is related to politics – but the political party will focus on discussions on political reform and advocacy, while the student group will focus on educational issues or civic education,” Joshua Wong said.

Of the HK$1.45 million currently held by the group, HK$700,000 will be transferred to the new student group and HK$750,000 will be transferred to a fund for legal assistance. None of Scholarism’s current funds will be transferred to the new party.

“Donations previously given to Scholarism were also agreeing to the same ideals, so we think it is suitable for the funds to be given to the new student group,” Prince Wong said.

The Scholarism Fund for Legal Assistance will be managed by Tang, Wong & Chow Solicitors, for providing financial support to those in need, should they be arrested or charged due to political actions they participated in as Scholarism members.

The fund is entrusted to six Scholarism members including Joshua Wong, Prince Wong, Agnes Chow, Andrea Melody Chuh, Pauline Chan Po-ling and Chung Lai-him. They are responsible for the respective approval procedures, annual releases of audit reports and revealing the types of cases approved for the coming seven years. Remaining funds after seven years will be donated to human rights organisations.

Joshua Wong stressed that the fund would not be used in a judicial review he has filed.

(SCMP ) March 20, 2016.

Student activist group Scholarism, which played a leading role in the 2014 Occupy protests, suspended work yesterday before completely disbanding to form a new, “less politicised” group. The end was announced a month before the formation of the new political party to be led by the group’s convenor, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, alongside a few core members.

The party is preparing to field at least two candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September, setting the stage for younger players to enter an arena dominated by ageing veterans. It is also planning a referendum in 10 years’ time for Hongkongers to decide their own future beyond 2047, the expiry date for Beijing’s 50-year promise to run the city under the “one country, two systems” formula.

Wong said the group he formed five years ago was now too heavily politicised in the wake of the 79-day pro-democracy sit-ins in 2014, making it difficult for them to reach out to schools. “I managed to conduct sharing in some 30 schools after I finished the public exams, but after the umbrella movement I have been [invited] by only one or two schools, with one being besieged by Beijing-friendly protesters and the other cancelling the sharing session after the incident,” Wong said on Sunday. “That’s my first-hand experience.”

Describing the break-up of Scholarism as a tough decision, Wong said it would help the group to reposition itself, with a new student body – to be formed in six months – focusing on student issues and civic education, while the party concentrated on elections and greater democracy.

Founded by Wong when he was a secondary school student, Scholarism made a name in leading a citywide campaign that forced the government to shelve a national education curriculum in 2012. It then shifted its focus from education policy to the city’s democratic development, gaining international exposure during the Occupy protests.

What Scholarism does with the HK$1.45 million in donations it still possesses will be closely watched. The plan is to set aside HK$700,000 to form the new student group, while the remaining HK$750,000 will be pumped into Scholarism’s fund for legal assistance – managed by lawyers and entrusted to six core group members – to offer financial support to group members who were arrested in previous protests. No money will be passed on to the new party. Any money in the legal assistance fund left over after seven years will be donated to human rights groups.

Prince Wong Ji-yuet, the Scholarism spokeswoman who will lead the new student body, said the financial arrangements would not go against the donors’ wishes as the new body would uphold the principles and philosophy advocated by the original group. She added the new student group would not be deliberately “depoliticised”, but would focus on promoting civic education.

(Oriental Daily) March 20, 2016.

After the dissolution of Scholarism, the whole world is interested in where the millions in assets are going. Joshua Wong said that the $1.45 million of Scholarism will be split into two pieces: $700,000 to establish and operate a new student organization, and another $750,000 for the legal defense fund of Scholarism members. Joshua Wong's new political party won't get a cent of the money.

However, this statement is contrary to a comment that Joshua Wong posted on his Facebook on March 14. The comment was titled "The last membership meeting of Scholarism." The recommendation was made to turn over $1.2 million of the Scholarism assets to the new political party to establish itself. This motion was passed on the meeting of March 6. This new political party will pay all the legal fees of the Scholarism members. Another $500,000 was allocated to establish the new student organization. Please note that the total assets amount to $1,200,000 + $500,000 = $1,700,000 at the time. But now Joshua Wong has declared that the total assets are only $1,450,000. Where is that missing $250,000?

On the Internet, people wondered that if the money was donated to Scholarism, by what right can this as-yet-unnamed student organization take over the money? Some people are saying that they will form a Scholarism Victims' Alliance to get their money back.

Why wasn't Scholarism allowed to continue? What was it necessary to form a new brand student organization? One explanation was that if Scholarism is not dissolved, the money could not be dispensed. Furthermore, Scholarism has a constitution of some kind whereas a new student organization can be more malleable so as to make Joshua Wong the permanent supreme regent to direct all matters in conjunction with the new political party. However, the leader of the new student organization Prince Wong said that Scholarism had been too politicized and makes it hard to push for civic education, and therefore they wanted the new organization to focus for improving education. You can decide for yourself whether you believe this?

Videos

INT New Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9zSGHwxJVE Full press conference

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) When Scholarism was founded in 2011, they had only a single issue: to oppose national education. The members were all students with no political party background (note: Joshua Wong's parents were revealed to be Civic Party members later on). They gave the impression of being "very pure, very sincere." That was the period when Scholarism gained the most by way of aura.

Once the fight over national education was over, Scholarism had to go into the political arena in order to live on. During the July 1st march, they took in more in donations than the traditional pan-democratic political parties. During the Occupy Central "referendum", they proposed civil nomination of the Chief Executive candidates. Occupy Central was also started in support of Joshua Wong and company's intrusion into Civic Plaza.

Unfortunately, once they became highly politicized, the schools began to shut them out for that reason. Meanwhile as youngsters who are not adults yet, they cannot enter the adult world of politics. They don't know anything and yet they think that they are exceptional and brilliant. Are they too young, or too ignorant, or too narcissistic?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 22, 2016.

Yesterday morning, Joshua Wong was scheduled to appear on Commercial Radio at 8am along with Prince Wong. Prince Wong arrived on time, but Joshua Wong was not to be seen. The host sighed and said: "I have been a radio host for such a long time, and I am saddened by the sight that young guests are usually late. Within the same group, the women are usually on time but the men are usually late. Why?" He said: "This is 8:22am now. Prince Wong is sitting by my side. Joshua Wong is late ... I hereby publicly denounce Joshua Wong for being late." Prince Wong sat and smiled in embarrassment.

Finally Joshua Wong showed up at 9am. The host said: "Every listener knows that we have been waiting for the arrival of former Scholarism convener Joshua Wong. He has finally shown up. Good morning." The host said that Joshua Wong is about to form a new political party: "So you have been telling the old farts that trustworthiness is the most important thing. Hey, here you are late by one full hour. As you take your first step into politics, can you explain to us your thoughts on trustworthiness?"

Joshua Wong apologized to the hosts and the audience for his tardiness. But he said that being late once does not affect his "trustworthiness."

During the program, Joshua Wong said that they plan to field candidates in Hong Kong Island and New Territories East for the 2016 Legislative Council elections in September. Based upon the experience of certain other political parties, each district will require $800,000 to $1,000,000 in election campaign funding. Therefore the new political party will need $2 million in funds.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 22, 2016. Earlier this month at a court hearing about the taking of Civic Plaza, Joshua Wong was late by half an hour. The magistrate ordered him to stand still and be lectured. The magistrate said: "People who want to carry out great things should reserve the time" and "Being late for a meeting is waste of other people's time." At the time, Joshua Wong said that he "totally understood." Less than three weeks later, Joshua Wong was an hour late for the Commercial Radio program. Does he "totally understand" that he was wasting other people's time?

- August 13, 2016. At this Hong Kong University forum, the empty chair was meant for Joshua Wong. He was only 30 minutes late this time.

- (Kinliu) On Monday, Joshua Wong went on radio to talk about his new political party. Afterwards, he went to the HSBC Bank to open a new account for his new political party. However, the bank determined that this organization does not meet their requirements and rejected his application. HSBC Bank declined to comment to the media, saying that all client information is confidential.

According to information, the Scholarism account had about $1.45 million. Scholarism said that none of the money will be forwarded to the new political party, which therefore has nothing to operate with. No wonder Wong is anxious to establish a bank account for the new political party so that he can start another round of fund-raising.

- Joshua Wong has started fund-raising even before he got a bank account.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 21, 2016.

Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong said that HK$2 million would be needed to field two candidates in the upcoming LegCo elections, after the student activist group announced its suspension of operations to focus on a political party and a student group.

“At the moment, new political groups don’t even have one dollar. In April, [we] have to start paying rent. Hence we are in immediate and dire straits,” said Wong on Monday.

“In the future, we will use a crowdfunding movement, hoping to raise funds,” he said. “If we are elected by citizens, we hope to receive their small donations, even if it was ten or eight dollars, or even 50 or 100 dollars.”

- At $10 per person, Joshua Wong needs 200,000 suckers to raise $2 million. Alternately, Joshua Wong can travel to Kadoorie Hill to pay homage, and Jimmy Lai will give him a suitcase loaded with spanking new $1,000 bills.

- Wait, did he ask for Viagra pills too?

- (Bastille Post) Immediately after the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election, the Localists including Raymond Wong (Proletariat Political Institute), Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) and Wan Chin (City-State) announced that they intend to field five candidates in five districts for the Legislative Council elections in September. Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) was not on their list.

Scholarism now says that they want to field two candidates, Oscar Lai in Kowloon East and Nathan Law in Hong Kong Island. Joshua Wong is only 19 years old and won't meet the 21-years-old age requirement. Scholarism will be trying to take away the votes from both the mainstream pan-democrats and the radicals.

In the 2012 Legislative Council Kowloon East elections, Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) got 36,600 votes and Andrew To (League of Social Democrats) got 27,300 votes. The two split up the radical votes and enabled the pro-establishment Paul Tse to sneak into the final position at 38,500 votes. The entry of Oscar Lai means that the radical vote may be further divided.

In the 2012 Legislative Council Hong Kong Island elections, the Civic Party led with 70,400 votes but they could only send one candidate into the Legislative Council. Labour Party's Cyd Ho got in with 31,500 votes. In this case, Scholarism needs to take votes away from the Democratic Party, Civic Party and Labour Party.

Overall the situation is that the total votes for the pan-democratic and the pro-establishment camps will be about the same. However, the pan-democrats will be split up into (1) mainstream pan-democratic political parties; (2) mainstream radical political parties; and (3) Localists/Scholarisms.

- Scholarism Victims Alliance Facebook

- Thievery:

Yesterday Scholarism said that they are disbanding. After all these years, they have $1.45 million left. Another $2.74 million is unaccounted for.

Previously Scholarism had given Ming Pao the following information:

2012 June - 2013 June Futak Building office rent = $1,000 x 12 = $12,000

2013 July - 2016 June Lai Chi Kok office rent = $21,000 x 36 = $756,000

Printing news and miscellaneous expenses = $250,000 per year x 4 years = $1,000,000.

So the total expenses over the past four years is $1,768,000. Where is the remaining $972,000? This does not include the donations from June 4th event, the Lunar New Year's event, online donations, etc. According to the above, the July 1st march raises at least $200,000 each year. So that is $600,000 for the three dates per year. For the two years, the total would be $1,200,000.

Added to the $960,000, this means that $2,160,000 is missing!

- For the final group photo of Scholarism, Joshua Wong told everybody to wear their black t-shirts. But he shows up in a bright orange t-shirt to match the orange banners in the background. This shows who is the superstar and who are the background props.

- (Headline Daily) Scholarism was founded by Joshua Wong, Queenie Chung and Ivan Lam. It began under the name "Scholarism-Anti-National Education Alliance." At the time, Joshua Wong promised that the organization will be disbanded if and when national education is vetoed. In 2012, Wong changed the name of the organization to "Scholarism" which began to deal with other political issues. Queenie Chung decided to quit because the nature of the organization had changed. She characterized the current Scholarism as over-expanding like a nouveau riche with volunteers of uneven quality. In the end, there are opinion differences which made it hard for students to focus on education issues.

Ivan Lam said that Scholarism had been facing up to internal dissension and public disappointment for some time. The dissolution after four years will be good for both members and supporters. He said: "Scholarism wanted people to unite together. But another way of looking at this is that they did not know how to deal with opinion differences."

- Whereas Scholarism began as a single-issue organization, it later began to engage in various political issues. This made it hard for schools to invite Scholarism speakers like Joshua Wong, Prince Wong, etc to address students because they have become an overtly political organization. In future, Scholarism members who are interested in education issues should be with the new student organization and those who are interested in political issues should be with the new political party. That is the stated reason for the split-up.

- Joshua Wong and his friends are following an established model of political party/special interest group. An example is the Democratic Party/Professional Teachers Union. Another example is the Labour Party/Confederation of Trade Unions. The special interest group can draw in certain supporters but who may be turned off by politics. For example, students are interested in the issue of national education but they are not interested in the request for additional funding for the Express Rail Link. Therefore these organizations split themselves into different brands that compliment each other.

- Five years ago when Scholarism started, Joshua Wong, Oscar Lai, Queenie Chung, Ivan Lam, Prince Wong, Agnes Chow and others were secondary school students. Five years later, they are no longer in secondary school. So Scholarism has difficulty defining itself as an organization representing secondary school students. Some of these people have left secondary school and gone on to tertiary education. But their scholastic records were so terrible such that none of them managed to enroll in the top eight universities. For example, Joshua Wong was said to be in Open University. So it was clear that Scholarism had no future.

- On January 3, 2015, Joshua wong said: "I want to complete my four years of university first and then I will consider the future. At this time, I don't intend to follow a political party, enter politics or take part in any elections ..."

So much for that ...

- Scholarism always featured Joshua Wong in center stage and there is was no attempt to cultivate a new leader who is currently a secondary school student. As Joshua Wong and others got older, they can no longer be perceived as representing secondary school students. So it was a matter of time before the end game.

If Scholarism is to continue with the same cast of characters, it has to abandon the student market and become a political party going after voters who were born in the 1990's. However, Scholarism is at an awkward stage because people such as Joshua Wong are not yet old enough to run for the Legislative Council. But if they don't do anything before then, their support base will shrink severely. So they have to form a political party before they are marginalized and forgotten.

- After Occupy Central, the pan-democrats can see that Occupy tactics can't force the Chief Executive to quit or even squeeze a very small concession out of the government. Thus the new view is to engage in "valiant resistance by force" in the manner of the Localists. However, Scholarism's political narrative and methods follow those of the traditional pan-democrats, except that they have a few neatly packaged baby faces. Eventually, the faces of these young people will no longer be fresh. Therefore they will be facing an uphill battle. Will Joshua Wong still be remembered by the time that the 2020 Legislative Council elections come around?

- Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat said that the ideas of Scholarism and its convener Joshua Wong do not overlap with Civic Passion or the Localists. Civic Passion is more radical and Scholarism is more moderate and closer to the mainstream pan-democrats. However, other people say that Scholarism may be on speaking terms with the pan-democrats but their methods are more radical. Scholarism's main support base is young people, so they will be competing with the Localists and the radical pan-democrats such as People Power and League of Social Democrats. This means all-out civil war in the September Legislative Council elections.

- (Strait Times) March 18, 2016.

Billionaire Li Ka Shing said yesterday that Hong Kong's economy is at its worst in 20 years, and warned that the city's stock market could fall by more than half if the financial hub does not get backing from mainland China.

Mr Li, who held court with reporters for over an hour at an earnings news conference, is the latest person to sound the alarm after Moody's downgraded Hong Kong's sovereign credit rating at the weekend, citing its links to China's economic slowdown.

"Today's Hong Kong is getting worse... the worst I've seen in 20 years," said Mr Li, 88, referring to the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. "Our home sales and retail now is worse than in the Sars period. During Sars, (the effect) was short-lived but now it is long," he said, in a reference to the severe acute respiratory syndrome that crippled the city in 2003.

Hong Kong retail sales, which suffered their worst decline in 13 years last year, have been hit by a slump in tourists from the mainland which has been blamed in part on increasing cross-border tensions.

"If we respect tourists, no matter where they're from, today our retail, hotels would not be this bad. So everyone has to reflect on themselves, there are a lot of issues the politicians need to reflect on how they can do better," Mr Li said.

A contrary opinion came from Joshua Wong: (Speakout HK @ YouTube)

0:07 Wong: I have not seen any large companies being affected because Occupy took place so as to carry out mass-scale layoffs. The Hong Kong stock market did not go down. So how was the economy affected?

- On radio this morning, Prince Wong said that she was happiest during Occupy Central and saddest when Occupy Central was over. So she is also a member of the "Don't Worry Be Happy" faction.

• [491 Charles Ho's Speech (2016/03/20)

(Headline Daily @  YouTube)

0:38 Mr. Li Ka-shing said earlier that the Hong Kong economy is the worst now over the past 20 years. He is right to say that it is the worst. Every sector is at its worst. How did this happen? It started from Occupy Central. This does not have anything to do with political governance. It was a manmade disaster. It was caused by people. A group of hopeless people.

1:11 For example, Benny Tai. This inexperienced, rigid person. (applause) He walks around the street telling people to do this sort of thing. Of course, he was overtaken by others. He couldn't stop it, right or not? You teach at a school, but you tell people to go into the streets and break the law. I think that as a professor, you should be teaching people how to study.  But you teach people to take to the streets. Soon other people took the wind out of your sail when it came to taking to the streets.

1:47 You let that ... what's his name? ... Wong what ... (laughter) He doesn't even look human, right or not? He couldn't stop things. How are you going how to deliver a lecture? When he failed, he looked as if he was going to cry. If you lose, you shouldn't be crying. You should just shut up. But now you come out again to start something else. Of course you are going to wind up with another failure.

2:18 I have previously spoken about the ill effects of Occupy Central. They shouldn't be very happy. First there are the ill effects of Occupy Central. Next there is anti-parallel trade. Now all the ill effects are showing themselves. The ill effects are becoming clearer and clearer now.

2:39 Firstly, your international image is bad. At the time, it was a lot of fun, a lot of fun. But you are hurting other people. You should not think that you are just hurting business people. You are hurting your friends and relatives, even your parents. Because if the economy is bad, they will cut wages and hire fewer people. Did you think about that? They haven't thought about that. There is a causal effect.

3:16 You should not think that if you cause trouble out there in Hong  Kong, it won't affect you. You will be hurting the people around you. Dozens of them. Hundreds of them. You don't know for sure.

3:50 So you go ahead to riot. I have never heard of collecting donations while rioting. Brand new money bills. I have never heard of that. If you have to donate to them, you iron new money bills for them with Viagra inside, etc. This group of people is truly awesome. I don't know how they did it.

4:23 So there is this one person named Leung. He says that he is a Localist. He is the king of liars. I was born in Hong Kong and I am a Localist. He was born in mainland China and he says that he is also a Localist. That is deceiving people, that is conning people. Today there are many young kids who don't know any better and they are willing to follow him to death because they think that he is such a hero. He calls other people "locusts" but he is also a "locust" himself. Why didn't he say so himself? He thought that he could just gloss over it.

4:58 Does Hong Kong have any chance to become independent? If he goes to Paradise, he may have a chance. Because Paradise is his world. Paradise. That is the Paradise that he created for himself.

5:20 Anyone with even a modicum of thought would know that there is no possibility for independence. He talks these about these sorts of things. Now I, Charles Ho, have traveled to the mainland for many times over many years. I frequently see those current affairs commentators talking about the mainland and then the United States. They are lousy.  I guarantee that I know one billion times more than they do.

5:58 Over the years, I have seen so many policies coming from the central government and I have met so many people. Nobody has ever said that they want to trample upon Hong Kong or otherwise not support Hong Kong. So you have to be fair according to your conscience.

6:15 So when these guys want to go independent, I don't know what they are up to. So when they say how bad the Communists are and the democrats are whatever ... all that I have observed and experienced over the years, none of the many government teams over have ever wanted Hong Kong's economy not to be good. That is why I say that the Hong Kong economy is bad today because it is a manmade disaster.

6:46 So why can't Hong Kong not be independent or become like those Middle Eastern countries? Please don't trust what the Americans say. Those revolutions. Today the Middle East created so many broken families and refugees. Please don't believe in this sort of thing. Therefore I sometimes say that Hong Kong is a lucky land.

7:17 Today the students like the one named Leung who graduated after studying so many years. Today you are studying there in those schools because we are giving you the money to enable you to study, because the government is subsidizing you. You have no idea how lucky you are. You should think about this. The structure of this government is tops among the world.

7:56 When the Civic Party first showed up more than a decade ago, I had some hopes. But I find that the Civic Party is becoming worse and worse as time goes by. When I heard that Leong ... what's his name ... oh, Alan Leong ... each time that I hear Alan Leong speak, I visualize him wearing a Chinese-style suit and speaking inside a funeral parlor. Do you think that is what he looks like? (laughter) He looks like a master of ceremony for funeral rites.

8:26 These people have no original ideas. They watch what others do and they repeat the same. They see Long Hair do something, they do the same. Brother, how educated is Long Hair? He is just a bum. But they follow Long Hair and act in the same lowly manner. So don't you think that the Civic Party people have damaged their brains with too much studying?

8:51 A colleague of mine told me that Joshua Wong may be going to study at Harvard. He was going to study overseas. I said that this punk won't go. He asked me why. Take a look at him and you know that he can't pass the SAT. Right or not? If he gets into Harvard, he can't even keep up with ABC. Right or not?

9:11 Today there is a very tragic situation in Hong Kong. When our university students graduate, their English skills are worse than the Hong Kong University students from thirty or forty years ago. You can find any Hong Kong University student from thirty years ago, forty years ago and see how their English is. There is no comparison. They are ten times better. The reason why you see so many people still working is that the quality of those coming from behind is so poor.

9:55 Over the years, Hong Kong education has been been a complete failure. There are two reasons for the failure. One of them is about using the mother tongue to teach. The other is is liberal studies. When I talk about education, many people don't want to listen. They came up with this before. But I have to speak out. Teaching in the mother tongue. I, Charles Ho, only found out three years ago that teaching in the mother tongue means teaching in Cantonese. If you want to learn, you should learn in Mandarin. At least you can get around in mainland China. Therefore English-language skills are getting worse.

• [490] Today's Roundup of Demonstrations (2016/03/19)

(Oriental Daily) (Oriental Daily with video) March 19, 2016.

Today after attending a school anniversary event at the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai, Department of Education secretary Eddie Ng found his vehicle surrounded by more than one hundred demonstrators. According to eyewitnesses, some of the demonstrators wore black clothes with stickers saying "Down with Eddie Ng", "Cancel TSA" and "Defend traditional Chinese characters." Other demonstrators wearing Civic Passion t-shirts used megaphones. When the demonstrators saw Eddie Ng coming out, they surrounded the car, banged on the car and demanded that Eddie Ng get out of the car and received the letter signed by 335 students.

The Department of Education news office said that Ng was invited the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School to celebrate their anniversary. Unfortunately the event was disrupted by persons from the outside and Ng expressed regret that a shadow was cast upon the celebrations. Ng did not step out of the car in view of the personal safety of all those present.

The school said that they learned from the students' Facebook group that they intended to petition Eddie Ng today. The school said that they respect the students' freedom of expression, and they set up an area for the students to express their opinions to Eddie Ng.

However, the 100 or demonstrators contained only three to four alumni or current students. Most of those standing in front were outsiders not wearing school uniforms. In consideration of personal safety, the school summoned the police.

(Apple Daily with video) March 19, 2016.

When Eddie Ng left, he encountered the student demonstrators. More than 100 students took part in the demonstration. But Eddie Ng hid inside his car, played with his mobile phone and checked his watch. He did not accept the petition letter and he did not speak to the students. After about 30 minutes, the police arrived. The students clashed with the police, with one student falling down on the ground. The students broke through the police blockade several times to block Ng's exit. The police tightened their cordon and closed the side entrance. Finally Ng was able to leave after the police opened a path for him.

(Wen Wei Po) March 20, 2016.

Yesterday morning at 10am, a Golden Forum user began posting on "(People needed quickly) Eddie Ng is at Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai". He taught outsiders to take the 705 and 706 buses to get off at Tin Yuet Stop. This internet user continued to post updates: "Quick, the students are waiting to start and the Apple Daily reporter has arrived", "Open day at the school anniversary, so everyone can enter" and "people are needed as well as equipment."

The internet user also uploaded photos taken at the school. Even before Eddie Ng arrived, someone had laid down a banner on the ground. There were photos of Eddie Ng arriving and being surrounded by the demonstrators. "The police are helping him to leave so we need people quickly" and "the police are pushing us aside and blocking us."

Other commentators added: "Magnify this! We have to push push push," "the police have charged into the school and they are assaulting the students!" "there are three police vehicles plus one water cannon vehicle" and "let us hope that no student would jump off the building to land on top of Eddie Ng's vehicle."

But eventually the show was over. What did they have to say? "Although the school is somewhat useless, many of the teachers are anti-government. Previously some teachers told the students to go and occupy Central." "The teachers took part in the anti-national education campaigns upon the orders of the principal." "Many teachers gave tacit permission, and even said that they will support anything and everything." "The teachers did not stop the students; they encouraged them" and "I saw some teachers holding the police back. Also the teachers started the black-shirt movement, so it is hard to say whether the black-shirt people were teachers or outsiders."

(EJ Insight) March 21, 2016.

Education Secretary Eddie Ng Hak-kim has dismissed criticism that he chose to sit in his car and play with his smartphone rather than meet some students and activists who had staged a protest over the weekend. Ng was accused of taking refuge in his car for about 30 minutes on Saturday after the vehicle was surrounded by protesters who were calling for, among other things, abolishment of the controversial Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) for local students.

The incident happened after Ng attended an anniversary celebration at the Queen Elizabeth School Old Students’ Association Tong Kwok Wah Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai on the morning of March 19.

As Ng was preparing to leave, he was accosted by protesters. Rather than engage with the activists, the education chief sneaked into his car and tried to get away from the scene, according to reports. Students then blocked the car in protest, prompting Ng to remain in the vehicle. He was seen sitting with his legs crossed and his eyes firmly glued to his mobile phone. Ng took out some documents to read at one point, and checked the time on his watch several times, turning a deaf ear to the chants by protesters.

The protesters, who were around a hundred in number, were demanding that Ng come out of the car to receive a petition on education-related issues. Some of the activists had also raised slogans that Ng should step down from his post. Around 20 police officers arrived at the scene as the standoff continued for about half an hour. The officers then formed human chains to allow Ng’s car to leave.

Following the incident, Ng, through a secretary, sought to justify his actions, saying the decision to remain in the car was made in view of the situation. His top concern was ensuring safety of all the people present there, he said, adding that it is regrettable that a school event was disrupted. He lashed out at the protesters, saying that blocking roads and surrounding people’s cars is not the right way to express one’s opinions.

Ng later said during the tenth anniversary of the Hong Kong Woman Teachers’ Organization that he is unhappy that some people are making the local education system the scapegoat for every social issue. The education chief said that he communicates with teachers, students, parents and principals on a daily basis and that over 40 schools have participated in the enhanced edition of the TSA, which he insists is a good evaluation tool.

Lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen, who represents the education functional constituency in Legco, was quoted as saying by RTHK on Sunday that Ng was wrong in not getting off his car and listening to the students. The official’s handling of the incident on Saturday was poor, he said, suggesting that his actions will be deemed as arrogance and lack of empathy toward students.

Internet comments:

- Oriental Daily says that the school said that it was 100 persons, with three to four alumni/students and the rest outsiders. Apple Daily says 100 student demonstrators. The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPp-dzwXgBE. How many people look like secondary school students?

- The best part of the Apple Daily video is this guy giving an impassioned speech:

Secondary School third year students have to take the TSA, sixth year students have take the DSE. These open exams have caused me to be under a lot of unnecessary pressure!

Even the guy next to him had to giggle and others were looking away. In summary, he is saying: "I don't like studying. So let there be no exams and then there won't be any pressure on me!"

- Secondary students protest against TSA! That should have been a good news story. Instead, the story became Civic Passion Hot Dogs causing trouble again! and has no news value anymore.

- (Cable TV) The black hand behind the assault today was Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School principal Chu Kwok-wah.
Frame 1: I would be very proud
Frame 2: Good students, good students
Frame 3: I don't think that they committed any real wrongs

- You don't get it -- Principal Chu was talking about his students, not the Civic Passion Hot Dogs from the outside.
- No, Principal Chu is clearly suffering a case of the Stockholm syndrome. Just take a look at that completely inappropriate smirk on his face.

- (HGK Pao) March 23, 2016. The school has issued an open letter to accuse the media of taking Principal Chu's partial statements out of context. For example, the open letter said that Principal Chu did indeed say that "he was proud of the students." However, the original full statement was: "During the anniversary ceremony and the open day activities, the students behaved in a well-mannered, proper and appropriate, and they deserve to be proud of." However, when our reporter reviewed the video, Principal Chu's original full statement was: "Good students! Good students! I would be very proud!" with no sign of being edited.

As another example, when Principal Chu said "I don't think that they committed any real wrongs", the school said that original full statement was: "During the process of learning and maturing, the actions and deeds of the students will definitely contain some imperfections. Even if they sometimes break the rules, they haven't make any big mistakes." But what Principal Chu said in the video clip was "I don't think that they committed any real wrongs." This is not what the claimed original full statement contains, and it is inconsistent with the preceding part of the claimed original full statement.

The format of the letter is also odd. The letter began as a statement from the school but it was signed by Principal Chu. So does this letter represent the school or Principal Chu? Are they one and the same? Or are they separate entities with different interests? Was Principal Chu trying to clarify what he meant, or what he being 'apologized' by persons unknown? And what is the position of the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association in all this?\

- (Cable TV) The school has sent out a letter to the parents to say that Cable TV edited the response of the principal. Cable TV is now presenting the full video segment. The principal said that he was proud of the overall performances of his students on the school anniversary. However, the full video showed the principal was saying that he was proud of the student demonstrators. The school is not responding to further inquiries from Cable TV.

- The Tong Kwok Wah Secondary School board of trustees chairman commented on a statement by the student Tong Kam-ting:

As a teacher, I agree that everybody should care about society and actively express their views. At the same time, I wish that the students could learn to heed and respect the opinion of others even as they demand these others to listen to them. They should not mishear or speculate. They should base everything on facts and communicate objectively and reasonably.

After the ceremony, you published <It is useless to cry. Who is going to listen to our voices?> which drew broad discussions on the Internet. As a responsible educator, I must made the following response:

You wrote: "Today I was the master of ceremony. I stood on the stage and heard Secretary Ng endlessly repeating CY Leung's old tune on One Belt One Road, and speaking about the failure of our education system ... in Secretary Ng's view, students gave up living because they are not trying hard enough."

I did not want to rely solely on my own memory, so I asked a colleague to help me review the videotape of the ceremony many times. I can confirm that Secretary Ng did not mention education in Dongguan during his entire speech. He did not address the student suicides in Hong Kong, and he did not say that the cause of the student suicides was not because they don't try hard enough. As for One Belt One Road, Secretary Ng in his 10-1/2 minute speech spent 90 seconds on this topic, using the term "One Belt One Road" exactly four times. Do you think that it is correct to say that he repeated it endlessly? Besides, I want our students to know that One Belt One Road was a general direction of development set by the state three years ago, and not the personal proposal from Chief Executive CY Leung. So do you think that it was accurate and objective to characterize it as "CY Leung's own tune"?

I hope that every Hongkonger can understand that to discuss, share or exchange rationally, we must speak reasonably based upon facts. If you try to persuade your readers through the use of unrelated or even fabricated information to arouse people in order to achieve your goal, you are being irresponsible. Reporting the facts, disseminating information and discussing politics are different from writing literature. You should be rational and objective. It is inappropriate to present your subjective feelings and judgments as objective facts in order to arouse and stir. Rather than saying "Secretary Ng cowered cowardly inside the car," I would have objectively said: "Secretary Ng remained inside the car." Rather than saying "behind was a group of students who were forcibly obstructed by the police," I would have said: "behind was a group of students who were kept away by the police." There are many similar instances. I think that I should leave it up to the principal and the teachers to analyze in detail with everybody.

Sometimes, we will also pay too much attention to what we care about and ignore the needs and feelings of others. According to the original itinerary, Secretary Eddie Ng was scheduled to go to a Hong Kong Tree Planting Day event in Yuen Long right after his appearance as VIP guest at our joint school anniversary. Did our students even consider that when they block Secretary Ng's car for 45 minutes, they might be disrupting the subsequent event? Have you considered how anxious and nervous the organizers of that event were getting?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 23, 2016. Department of Education secretary Eddie Ng's mother recently passed away. This became a hot topic for the Localists! Localists including Civic Passion, Hong Kong People Awaken, Anti-Communist Party/Anti Colonialization and Golden Forum posted the good news. Many people using the Edward Leung icon said that Ng's mother died because of the sins of her son, and that Eddie Ng sent his mother to meet the school children who committed suicide. They wondered when it will come to the turn of Ng's own children. This is the sort of thing that you can expect if and when the radical elements takes over in Hong Kong.

(Oriental Daily with video) March 19, 2016.

Eight demonstrators charged into the Express Rail Link construction site on Austin Road, Tsim Sha Tsui district at 6am. Three of them climbed up a crane, hung down two banners "Stop construction of Express Rail Link" and "Oppose Co-location." The police and fire departments were summoned. At 9am, the three individuals were persuaded to come down. One of the demonstrators was League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong.

(Wen Wei Po) March 20, 2016.

According to information, this action was pre-planned. Raphael Wong said on his Facebook, they attempted to enter the construction site two nights ago but were discovered and forced to withdraw. Afterwards, the eight persons (including Wong, Land Justice League's Chu Hoi-dick and Yip Wing-lam plus other League of Social Democrats members sneaked into the construction site between 1am and 2am. They even went up a crane and hung out two banners. They used Facebook to hold a live broadcast of the process.

At around 7am, the construction workers showed up to work. The demonstrators used their megaphones to chant slogans. They said that the extra funding process was illegal, the co-location arrangement violates One Country Two Systems and they demanded to stop construction immediately and all the MTR and government officials bear the responsibility. According to the construction workers, those people were shouting from ten floors up and nobody could hear what they were saying.

The construction management could not persuade those people to come down. So they called the police. Fire engines, ambulances and police vehicles were sent to the scene. At around 9am, the demonstrators came back down. The police inspected them to make sure that they did not remove anything that belongs to the construction site. Then the police took down their Hong Kong ID information and let them leave.

Afterwards these people chanted slogans outside the construction site. Raphael Wong said that they "used their own methods" to enter the construction site, and they were willing to bear the consequences of this act of civil disobedience.

Yesterday, Initium posted an exclusive report. They said that the eight demonstrators entered construction site at 130am. At 200am, the demonstrators used a metal ladder to scale a two-storey high wall and entered the emergency exit to reach the construction site for the lower levels. At 3pm, they reached a crane. At 530pm, they began to go up the crane. At 6pm, they hung out the banners.

Raphael Wong said that Chu Hoi-dick had been in and out of the construction site three times already. The crane appeared to have only seven floors high, but it is actually 20 floors high. He said that they recognized that the act of civil disobedience carries the risk of being prosecuted, or being sued by the MTR in a civil case which may cause bankruptcy. However, "we have prepared ourselves with that awareness."

Internet comments

- Not wonder there was a huge traffic jam on Wui Cheung Road today. Fire engines, ambulances and police vehicles were parked along one lane. Plus the reporters too. That road is always congested already! Please find some other way of expressing your opinions! The fire engines and ambulances are needed to help others who are really in need. Why don't you people just leap down?

- Stop the Express Rail Link project? Are you going to provide for the livelihood of several thousand families? As the Chinese saying goes, ruining somebody's livelihood is like killing their parents! ..

- Those people who opposed the MTR system back then are probably riding it every day now! High Speed Rail is something that all modern cities around the world have. These people keep trying to block economic development in Hong Kong. What do they want?

- The answer is simple: Raphael Wong and Chu Hoi-dick are running for Legislative Council in September. They need the publicity.
- They think that by staging these shows, they will get as many votes as Edward Leung. Then they will get a job that (1) pays $93,000 per month; (2) does not entail much hard work -- just show up occasionally, shout and scream from your seat, get expelled by the chairman and go to lunch.

- The astonishing thing is that the police only took down their Hong Kong ID information and did not arrest them. This is as straightforward a case of trespassing as there ever will be.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 20, 2016.

Reactions from the radical Localists.

- They went when nobody was working. This is like protesting after the Legislative Council passed the extra funding. Only leftist retards do this!

- They succeeded in delaying the project by four hours?

- Actually you are not occupying the entire construction site. You just went up to hang two banners and then you came back down. You are putting up a show more than anything else.

- They talk as if this action was valiant and courageous. But actually everything took place between 6am and 8am. With due respect, what is the purpose of all this? If you want to put on a show, you should put on a full show.

- Bastards, you ought to leap down. Construction sites stop work when someone gets injured or dies. Please don't pretend as if you are engaged in resistance.

- What a fucking big halo! This is yet another partial victory that will bring your bastards closer to that Legislative Council seat!

- Raphael Wong had to find a way to stand out because his boss Leung Kwok-hung had just gotten himself in trouble by insulting Wong Yeung-tat's wife with a sexist comment ("a thousand heads rested on her arms of jade").

- Yo, bro! You had plenty of chance to filibuster/block the extra funding of the Express Rail Link inside the Legislative Council, but you let the government off. After Edward Leung got many votes, you suddenly remembered that you guys are radicals too. So you pretended to charge the Legco. After you let the government off, you come to cause trouble at the construction site? I will definitely vote against you in September!

Reactions against the radical Localists.

- This is funny. Is anti-Express Rail Link the sole right of the Localists? For anybody else, if they take action, the Localists scold them; if they don't take action, the Localists scold them too. Only the Localists can do no wrong; everybody else is wrong all of the time.

- Only the Localists can "fight valiantly with force." All others are traitors.

- Well, at least these people today did not wear masks to conceal their identities. And they are not facing ten years in jail for rioting. I don't understand what the Localists want to incite a riot and go to jail for ten years.

- Well, the Localists always throw the first brick in an assembly and then they leave by taxi. This is what they do best.

- Those who claim to be "valiant" are usually the fastest to leave. By now, the term "valiant" is actually negative thanks to the Localists.

- Civic Passion member Dr. Cheng Chung-tai is different from the people today. He is "valiantly resisting" the Express Rail Link by standing at a street booth and doing voter registration.

- Why does Cheng Chung-tai want to resist/oppose the system (which includes the Legislative Council which is dominated by pro-establishment side) on one hand and then actively campaigning for a Legco seat on the other hand? Because the job fucking pays $93,000 a month. It only takes 10% of the votes to get elected, so Cheng is trying to register enough people who want to destroy everything.

(Agence Presse France) March 20, 2016.

Rights groups have condemned China after a Beijing-based journalist went missing, linking his disappearance to an unusual open letter calling for President Xi Jinping’s resignation. Jia Jia, a freelance journalist, has not been seen since Tuesday, his lawyer told AFP, without giving further details.

Amnesty International said a close friend of Jia told the group he disappeared some time after going through customs at Beijing airport when about to board a flight to Hong Kong. “He went missing on the 15th,” lawyer Yan Xin said, citing the journalist’s wife.

City University of Hong Kong also confirmed to AFP that Jia had not turned up to a seminar he was due to give on Thursday.

“We are deeply concerned by Chinese journalist Jia Jia’s disappearance,” said Bob Dietz, Asia program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists. “If he is in police custody, officials must disclose where they are holding him and why. If anyone else knows where he is, they should step forward and clarify this worrisome mystery.”

Under Xi, China‘s ruling Communist Party has tightened controls over civil society, detaining or interrogating more than 200 human rights lawyers and activists last year in what analysts have called one of the biggest crackdowns on dissent in recent times.

Sophie Richardson, China director for Human Rights Watch, voiced concern over Jia on Twitter. “#China disapps journo–no longer enough to just erase all trace of criticism. Trend now is to erase critics, too,” she tweeted. Both Amnesty and the CPJ have linked Jia’s disappearance to an open letter published on the news website Wujie News earlier this month calling for Xi’s resignation. The letter, which was rapidly removed, was signed “Loyal Communist Party members”, but little else is known about its authorship.

“His going missing is most likely related to the publishing of the letter and perhaps the authorities’ implication of his involvement or knowledge of the letter,” Amnesty China researcher William Nee told AFP. “Journalists and activists are forced all the time to ‘drink tea’ with the authorities… but it generally doesn’t last this long,” he said, adding that officials usually try to extract information during such meetings.

However, Jia’s lawyer Yan said his disappearance may not be connected to the letter.

(Apple Daily) March 19, 2016.

About 10 League of Social Democrats members marched from the Western District Police Station to the China Liaison Office to demand an account of Jia Jia's whereabouts. Because nobody came out to accept their letter, they burned it in front of the bu ilding. They also pasted posters on the front door.

(SCMP) March 20, 2016.

At least eight activists and a lawmaker were arrested over a dramatic protest on Sunday morning when they entered the site of a massive, illegal waste hill in Tin Shui Wai and attempted to shovel earth into bags to take to government offices. They were frustrated by the slow pace of government action to tackle the illegal dumping that formed a four-storey-high mound over an area the size of two football pitches.

This was the second daring stunt by the group this weekend. On Saturday, they entered the construction site of the controversial high-speed rail link in Austin, scaled cranes and unfurled banners at the top, calling for the work to be stopped. No one was arrested.

On Sunday, lugging shovels, trollies and canvas sacks, about a dozen activists from the Land Justice League entered the dump site, opposite the private Kingswood Gardens estate, at around 7am. They climbed the waste hill and erected large banners that read “shame to dumping” and “government responsibility”. They then started filling the bags with earth.

Police stopped the activists from leaving after receiving reports from the site manager, warning them that removing earth from the private site would be tantamount to theft of private property. After a tense standoff, eight activists were arrested and sent to Yuen Long police station, at least six of them for suspected theft, while others had their particulars recorded and told to leave.

Labour Party lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan also arrived to show his support for the protesters, but after a struggle to enter the site, he was physically carried out by officers who handcuffed him and drove him away. Another Labour Party member, Eddie Tse Sai-kit, was also arrested.

“To date, we have not seen the Planning Department use the Town Planning Ordinance to take enforcement action,” league member Chu Hoi-dick said as he was also arrested. “[Tin Shui Wai] is not an isolated example. Across Hong Kong, many illegal dumping cases go unresolved ... If the government keeps ignoring this, we residents will not continue to let the environment be destroyed.”

Two weeks ago, government departments said the “illegal site formation” was potentially “unstable” and “dangerous”. An order to the landowners to ‘shotcrete’ the mound with high pressure air and concrete within a week went ignored. The Lands Department said nothing could be done as it was on private land and there was no breach of lease. Environment officials said the dumping did not constitute illegal waste dumping but possibly a breach of air pollution laws. The Planning Department said it would look into whether there was any unauthorised development. And after nearly three weeks, the illegal mound remains on the site despite the government pledging to take “join enforcement action”. On Sunday, development minister Paul Chan Mo-po reassured the public that the departments were taking “stringent follow-up action” and was in contact with the landowners. “We need to collect lots of evidence, including satellite imagery from different times and study the relevant laws and their applications,” he said.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) According to Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki, Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan was arrested because he "talked too loudly" when speaking to the police commander at the scene. Kwok said that the arrest was "unnecessary" and that the Hong Kong Police are becoming just like the mainland Public Security Bureau.

- Kwok Ka-ki was addressing about 50 people outside the Yuen Long Police Station demanding the release of the arrestees. You have eight persons arrested in the original incident and 50 people showed up later down at the police station. Why didn't the 50 people show up in the first place? Because nobody wants to hike out early in the morning to an event at which nothing may be happening. They will go down to the police station after they hear that something has happened.

- Kwok Ka-ki was not present at the scene of the arrest either. So he was just either making it up or repeating some hearsay. (Oriental Daily)'s version was:

According to information from the scene, Lee Cheuk-yan arrived earlier than the others. Twice he attempted to charge into the site, but the police stopped him. He argued with and bellowed at the police. He sat down on the ground and refused to leave. So he was carried away by six police officers. He was even handcuffed. The police report said that a 59-year-old man named Lee was arrested for disorderly conduct in a public place.

As for the other Labour Party member Eddie Tse Sai-kit, he was arrested for the more mundane charge of not carrying his Hong Kong ID.

Police.gov.hk In accordance with Section 17C "Carrying and production of proof of identity' of "Immigration Ordinance" (Cap 115) of Hong Kong Law, a police officer has power to inspect the proof of identity of any person. Any person who fails to produce proof of his identity for inspection as required by the law will commit an offence. If any person fails to produce his proof of identity for inspection on demand, he should give a reasonable explanation and evidence to prove his identify to any police officer in a reasonable time and circumstance. Depending on the circumstances and attitude of the person being checked, a police officer may issue a verbal warning, bring the person back to the police station for further enquiry, take summons action or even arrest the person concerned.

- I am not sure if Lee Cheuk-yan's arrest was necessary or not, but I do know that Tse Sai-kit's arrest was not unnecessary on his part. When he left home his morning to come here, he must surely know what he was going to do and that there is a good chance for ID checks. So why didn't he bring his ID? Or is he an illegal mainlander?

- (Ming Pao)'s version was:

Lee Cheuk-yan attempted to charge past the gate and got into an argument with the police. Lee said: "The land owner can build a mound but we cannot go back in to clean up the mound?" The female police officer responded: "There is no problem with you expressing your views. But this is a private lot. You should pay attention to your behavior. Do you understand?" Lee said: "My behavior right now is very good. Right now we are protecting the environment. What is the problem with clearing the mound?" Lee was then surrounded and taken away by several police officers on the grounds of disturbing the peace.

- LOL. It took six police officers to carry that big fat slob Lee Cheuk-yan away (see TVB news report).

- Why did Lee Cheuk-yan have to bellow? (see RTHK video) The police officers aren't hard of hearing. He is doing it for the news camera. If he speaks in a normal reasonable tone, the audio recording microphone may miss him.

- Whenever the government is unwilling or unable to enforce the law, citizens must take matters into their own hands. That is the logic. So when the government is unwilling or unable to remove that mound, citizens must do so themselves. Similarly when Hong Kong is being swept by a crime spree committed by South Asians and the police can't stop them, citizens must take matters into their own hands.

- When the earth was being unloaded, nobody (such as the residents of Kingswood Garden) called the police. So the police did not do anything. Now these people break into the property and start removing earth, the owner calls the police to report theft of property. Of course, the police have to act. That's the only thing that the police can do.

- Suppose that you are a scavenger/collector by habit. Your apartment is stacked to the ceiling with newspapers that you scavenged over the past thirty years. Your neighbors think that this is a disgrace that subtracts from the value of their real estate. They call the police but the police say that what you do in your own home is none of their business. Any complaints should go to the Fire Department (for fire hazard), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (for vermin), and other departments for specific reasons. The neighbors break into your house to remove the heaps. You call the police about these thieves. The police arrest them. That is the story here.

- If someone goes down to Repulse Bay and removes a bagful of sand for keepsake, she is guilty of theft. The sand belongs to the government. In like manner, you remove earth from anywhere without permission from the owner (either the government or a private owner),  you commit theft.

- (Cable TV) A Kingswood Garden resident has a photo from 12 years ago that the mound was already present. This is disappointing because CY Leung can't be blamed for everything. However, it is still a possibility for the rumor that the operator is a personal buddy of CY Leung. This has not been proven to be false, so it must be true. Or something. Anyway, CY Leung BAD!

- If Lee Cheuk-yan believes that the government must repay the citizens $19.6 billion for that extra funding of Express Rail Link, then can he march down to the Money Authority and take matters into his own hands to carry out his justice?

- When he gets the $19.6 billion from the Money Authority, he'll keep it in his pockets for now, just as he did to the $500,000 that Jimmy Lai donated to the Labour Party.

- A few members of the Land Justice League showed up this morning and began filling sandbags with earth from that mound. They eventually filled about 50 sandbags. Do you know how tall that mound is? At 50 sandbags per day, it will take several decades to do it yourself. So you are only doing this for show. You were never serious about doing the job yourself.

- The purpose of the Land Justice League action today was to take some of the earth and dump it outside Government House/Government Headquarters in order to gain attention. The action was symbolic.

- If the Land Justice League people were seen dumping in front of Government Headquarters and the police are called, they will be caught red-handed for illegal dumping. The land belongs to the government and the perpetrators were caught dumping without permission from the owner.

- Indeed, the Contemporary Manual for Social Activism says that the first step is to do something to attract attention. The second step is to raise money. The third step is to run for elective office. So far so good. Everything is working according to plan.

- That was the Hong Kong Indigenous model that everyone is now adopting: (1) the Mong Kok riot; (2) $1,000,000 in donations kept by the organization plus $530,000 kept by Ray Wong; (3) Edward Leung gets 60,000+ votes in the Legco by-elections.

- The media has already made the determination that this was an illegal waste hill. The 'hill' is visibly confirmed. The 'illegal' and 'waste' parts have really not been clearly defined yet. If the government charges in and levels the hill to the ground, the same Civic Party will pop out and say that rule-of-law is dead in Hong Kong which is becoming just like Red China.

- Your break into private property and you remove contents without permission. The owner calls the police. But the police can't arrest you. This sort of thing may be typical in Communist China, but it shouldn't be happening in a place with 'rule-of-law' as its core value.

- No, you don't understand. Breaking-and-entering/theft is illegal ... but not if you are doing it for FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE OPENNESS TRANSPARENCY UNIVERSAL VALUES etc. That is called meting out public justice.

- It is wrong to dig up the bricks from the pavement. But if you are using the bricks to throw at the police, then it's alright. It is just sand particles in the grand scheme of things. Also sprach Edward Leung.

- There are two views of the relationship between Lee Cheuk-yan and Chu Hoi-dick. On one hand, Chu Hoi-dick ran in the Pat Heung South district council election, got 1482 votes compared to the winner Lai Wai-hung's 2872 votes. Therefore Chu Hoi-dick can be a good precinct captain for the Labour Party. On the other hand, Chu Hoi-dick seemed to harbor Legco ambitions along with Lau Siu-lai and other 'scholars'. So he would be competing for the same voter base with Lee Cheuk-yan.

- (NOW TV) (Speakout HK) March 28, 2016. A group of Land Justice League members and Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan carried soil and trash to the Government Headquarters building in Admiralty. They dumped the trash onto a sheet of canvas in order to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with how the government dealt with the Tin Shui Wai case. The police told them to remove the rubbish when they leave, but they left without doing so. The government sent in sub-contractors to remove the pile of trash after the demonstrators left.

• [489] The Violin Player (2016/03/19)

(HKG Pao) March 18, 2016.

After the passage of the extra funding bill for the Express Rail Link, the Sincere Strings issued a declaration:

We will be imposing additional fees for the Express Rail Link on all pro-establishment customers. All violins, bows and cases will be assessed $2,800 more (=$19.6 billion extra funding divided by 7 million Hongkongers). This measure is effectively immediately until the pro-establishment camp are gone!

So far, the Sincere Strings Facebook has successfully obtained more than 2,000 LIKE's and more than 120 comments. It is apparent that the promotion is quite effective. However, since most of the comments are unfavorable, it is not clear whether the effect was positive or negative.

We checked with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Consumer Council. Under existing regulations, "politically-based prejudice" is not regulated. There is nothing that citizens can do about this.

We checked the history of Sincere Strings. It was established in February 2013 in a small office on the eleventh floor of the Witty Commercial Building, Tung Choi Street, Mong Kok district. When we visited the location, the door was closed. Most of those who came and went were the workers. There were very few customers.

The name of the owner of Sincere Strings is Bob Lam. He learned to play violin as a child, taking the music courses at the Hong Kong Academy of Performance Arts. He holds a Grade 8 violin certificate. He was an interscholastic violin champion. Lam was a member of the Hong Kong Philharmonic at one time, but was later dropped to the Hong Kong Youth Symphonic Orchestra. Lam makes a living mostly from teaching violin and selling violin instruments and equipment.

Like most Yellow Ribbons, Lam attributes his lack of success to society, government and country. In his personal Facebook, Lam is relatively silent. Mostly he shares Yellow Ribbon news stories and and commentaries. But it is clearly that he is anti-China, anti-police, anti-CY Leung, anti-establishment and pro-Occupy. In February last year, Lam 'unfriended' a student due to differences in opinion, saying "I am better off not teaching this idiot of a student."

Although Lam is not a professional performing musician, he has not given up that dream. On October 8, 2014 (ten days after Occupy Central broke out), Lam traveled to Shanghai; on April 6 last year, he said that he just made a same-day round trip to Guangzhou. We tried to reach Lam for comments on his differential pricing policy. Nobody picked up his mobile phone. There were two numbers for Sincere Strings. One of them was taken by a worker who declined to comment. The other was forwarded to mainland China. Is Lam performing in mainland China again?

So do we have yet another anti-China but pro-RMB Yellow Ribbon? Such people are a dime a dozen in the post-Occupy era, so there is no need to be surprised. However, should parents allow their children to be taught and brainwashed by this hate-filled Yellow Ribbon?

• [488] Follow the Money (2016/03/17) There is money ... correction ... a lot of money to be made in the democracy game. The best part is that people can't ask you any hard questions because that would be suppressing FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE OPENNESS TRANSPARENCY PRIVACY CONFIDENTIALITY. Or something.

(HKG Pao) March 17, 2016.

After their successful awards show, TV Most is going to have an anniversary party in May. Today Apple Daily, Ming Pao and HK01 are reporting that TV Most is demanding $3.28 million for event sponsorship, which is a significant increase over the $1 million that Shell Oil paid for event sponsorship of the awards show. If that is too much, there are other tiers of sponsorship at $1.28 million, $640,000 and $280,000. TV Most's goal is to bring in between $7 to $10 million.

Yesterday TV Most boss Lam Yat-hei acknowledged on Facebook that the price list is correct. "But we are being quite reasonable here. It is nothing to pay a few million in sponsorship. We deserve that." "Other media outlets wondered if our price is too high, but they cannot doubt that we have worked very hard ... and we make lots of money along the way. It's going to be great ..."

Even as TV Most declared that that they deserve to get rich, there is news that certain people are organizing to target the TV Most sponsors. According to one person, "Politics and politics, and business is business. Any advertising agency or advertiser who wants to jump in will be targeted." The event sponsor will definitely be targeted, and so will the other sponsors at the lower tiers. "Anyone who wants to make  money by causing chaos in Hong Kong will be our targets! Rather than attacking TV Most, we will be attending their sponsors. Hong Kong is the battlefield, but the mainland Internet users will join in to form an even larger battlefield. We'll see who is going to challenge us."

This person did not spell out the tactics in detail. But it is believed that it will included negative Internet publicity, boycotts and complaints. The person did not respond whether there will be protests at the event itself.

Silent Majority HK Facebook. March 17, 2016.

Last night Pricerite announced on its Facebook that it will be the event sponsor for TV Most's anniversary programme. So praises were heaped upon Pricerite owner Guan Baiho.

In 2004, Guan bought the debt-ridden Pricerite and turned the company around. Clearly Guan has the ability to become the God of TV Most. However, what did Guan attribute his success to? Guan said that there were two major reasons: (1) the motherland and (2) trust.

Guan Baiho said that young people in Hong Kong should strive to become better by going north to start their businesses. "You ought to realize that you will be serving all of China and not just the 7 million in Hong Kong." Furthermore this is the trend: "I hired Hong Kong university graduates in mainland China, because they knew enough to seek their opportunities in Shanghai."

Guan also aid that his dad taught him that a man cannot succeed without gaining trust. "The ideology and culture of the motherland is no longer like before. They are getting closer and closer to Hong Kong." Guan said that young people need to improve themselves constant in order to get ahead.

Does Pricerite stand to profit with its marketing strategy of sponsoring TV Most? Well, don't count on it. Look at what happened to Shell when they became the event sponsor of the TV Most's music award show. As usual, TV Most fans posted hashtags to thank Shell. But after the show, they will only say "I enjoy TV Most but I can't say thanks to Shell" and "I encourage Shell's sponsorship but I am not going to thank Shell." Once the money changes hands, the hell with you!

(HKG Pao) March 20, 2016.

We contacted Pricerite and wanted to interview Chief Executive Mr. Ng, Customer Communications director Mr. Leung, Marketing Department and Brand manager Ms. Lam and Executive Director Ms. Leung about the TV Most sponsorship. The receptionist said that Pricerite does not use Chinese names and so we had to ask for Mr. John Leung. Thus we reached Customer Communications director Mr. Leung.

As soon as we told Mr. Leung that we wanted to ask about the TV Most sponsorship, Mr. Leung said that he cannot respond and he referred us to the public relations specialist Ms. Tsang who is responsible to answer on behalf of Pricerite. Ms. Tsang is a very busy person and we finally got through to her at 5pm. Interestingly, Ms. Tsang said that she cannot answer on her own. She asked us to give her the questions and she emphasized that she will have to discuss with the director in charge of this matter before she can respond. But isn't the "director in charge" precisely Customer Communications director Mr. Leung?

Pricerite has not made their response by our deadline. We have this idea that if Pricerite is paying $3.28 million, why not go all the way? They can invite all the big bosses led by Shanghai Chinese Communist Party Consultative Conference member Mr. Guan to get on stage to receive the thanks of the thousands of audience members. And they get invite the Shanghai city leaders to attend as VIP guests!

Previously our detailed reports on Pricerite may have created the impression that we are about to start a boycott movement. That could not be more wrong! We urge everybody at TV Most, HKG Pao, Facebook and the discussion forums to support Pricerite and we urge all our Yellow Ribbon friends to proceed to Pricerite to buy buy buy everything in order to support CCPCC member Mr. Guan and his company. Pricerite paid $3.28 million to TV Most and the furniture industry typically has a very low profit margin of 1%, so Yellow Ribbons must buy $328 million in furniture and electronic goods to make good for Pricerite.

Internet comments:

- Looking up Pricerite's performance, they earned $9.8 million for the first half of 2015. They have 31 stores at the time, which means that each store earns only about $50,000 per month. Well, this is a waste of time and they are better off looking for opportunities elsewhere.

- If they make only $9.8 million over 6 months and they want to spend $3.28 million to sponsor the TV Most show, then Pricerite deserves to go bankrupt.

(Wen Wei Po) March 17, 2016.

Previously, the Hong Kong Federation of Students had to disclose its financial statement under public pressure. However, the information simply created more problems. According to the 2013/2014 financial statement posted in June 2015, the Federation has a HSBC account with more than 10 million RMB which is a "strategic investment." Where did this money come from? Why was it never reported previously?

According to Localist Ventus Lau, who was the convenor of the Localist Study Group at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, "the Localists' strategy should not be to divide the political spectrum into three segments. We should only have two segments. To do so, we have to take over the assets of the pan-democrats. From the Tertiary Student Unions to the Federation of Students to the District Councils to the Legislative Council. We have to take over everything to form a new pyramid for the Localists."

Ho Kwan is the successor to Ventus Lau. Ho has participated in the anti-parallel trade protests and he organized the CUHK to withdraw from the Federation of Students. Ho is running to become secretary-general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. He proposed to use the Federation's Hong Kong Democracy Fund to support democratic movements in Hong Kong, such as posting bail for students who are arrested during the resistance.

Ho also pointed out that the Federation of Students had a property nicknamed Self-Rule Eighth Floor which is being used rent-free by "social organizations." Ho said that if elected as secretary-general, he will order the "social organizations" to vacate the premises within one month. "Afterwards, the property may be rented out or just to be used by students. In any case, we won't let the social organizations benefit."

Ho reposted Ventus Lau on Facebook: "If the Federation of Students is ultimately going to be dissolved, where do you think that the remaining assets should go to? The Localists or the Leftist Retards? Who do you want to deal with Self-Rule Eighth Floor? Politics is always a battle for resources!" Ho said: "This is one reason why I am running for secretary-general."

(Wen Wei Po) March 30, 2016.

In 1989, the Hong Kong Federation of Students established the Democracy for China Fund in order to aid peaceful, rational means of promoting Chinese democracy and social progress. How is the money spent? The fund began with $10,000,000 in assets but it has only $1.6 million now.

In April last year, the Lingnan University Student Union held a music concert in which singers sang Fuck the Police and other obscenities. It turns out that the Hong Kong Federation of Students gave $12,370 from the Democracy for China Fund to fund that concert. At the time, then Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Nathan Law was part of the preceding cabinet at the Lingnan University Student Union. This raises the question of whether Nathan Law used personal influence to make this happen, when the event appeared not to be "peaceful and rational in promoting Chinese democracy and social progress."

(Wen Wei Po) March 30, 2016.

Our reporter went through several dozens of documents that the Hong Kong Federation of Students released.

In the reports on the Emergency Reserve Fund for the HKFS' finance committee, it explained that they put some of the emergency reserve fund into a RBM fixed deposit account and then decided to convert into Hong Kong dollars. However, none of these reports indicate the amounts involved.

By comparison, the Interim Finance Report by the HKFS finance committee was more detailed. The monthly charges of approximately $1,000 for photocopying is listed with a trend chart to illustrate. For example, we now know that they spent $1,500 on photocopying in April but they spent $0 in September. What happened? The machine broke down! Of course, you don't expect to see them explain the $10 million RMB account, do you?

Another fantastic piece of financial reporting was the annual budget forecast produced on June 28 last year.  The budget included the membership dues pf more than $270,000 from the three universities at which students voted in May to withdraw from the HKFS!

Many of the HKFS documents were clearly copy-and-paste jobs. For example, the value of one investment fund in the Emergency Reserved Fund used a number from six months ago without updating. The HKFS explained that this was because the investment fund's website was not working. However, they don't explain whether the investment fund's website could be down for six months or the HKFS only looks at the value every other six months.

The trend charts for the electricity bill and the photocopying charges are clearly the same chart with a different title. Maybe someone has eyesight problems.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students and Student Activities Foundation Limited Company has the exactly the same amount of $1.365 million in June 2015 as in the three working reports in February 2016. So this was yet another copy-and-paste job.

In the annual report, a director who had left nine months ago was suddenly "reappointed." The description of the status of the Foundation Company was exactly the same as the previous year. So that was yet another copy-and-paste job.

In the latest report, the company said that they were able to "contact the directors." So what happened in previous years? How did the board of directors meet to discuss financial matters if they cannot be contacted? In the June 2015 work report, they said that they will re-assess the value of their owned properties. However, the most recent report submitted at the annual meeting lists the old estimate from the year before last. Meanwhile, the savings deposit which hadn't change at all in the past 6 months suddenly leaped by more than $90,000. Meanwhile the total assets now exclude the real estate properties so that the total asset value just crashed from more than $14 million to just over $1 million.

Our reporter attempted to reach Nathan Law multiple times recently, but he has not responded.

(Wen Wei Po) March 30, 2016.

Three unanswered questions:

Q1. What is the current financial state of the Hong Kong Federation of Students?

What is the value of the real estate properties sometimes soaring and sometimes disappearing? Where is the money from the HKFS and Student Activities Foundation Limited Company to the HKFS going? What are multiple years of financial statements missing? Where does the $10 million RMB deposit come from from? Why are citizens' donations being disappeared? And for those universities that have withdrawn from the Federation, should they be getting their money back? The HKFS has said nothing so far.

Q2. Who is operating Self-Rule Eighth Floor?

In the past, the HKFS has let certain social groups use the Self-Rule Eighth Floor, including paying their utility bills, real estate taxes and wages of about $50,000. The HKFS admits that those people are not HKFS members, and they are doing so in order to gain the influence of these people to help the HKFS have broader participation from the masses. But who are these mysterious people? How can you just leave it with saying that "they have an understanding"?

Q3. When are the personnel issues at the HKFS going to be resolved?

The HKFS has been accused of holding "small circle elections." The past HKFS secretary-general Nathan Law won election because he received 37 votes, so he became nicknamed "Law 37." The reason is that the HKFS people are elected by those who serve in the cabinet the previous year. Recently, all the candidates for secretary-general/deputy secretary-general withdraw their candidacy because they don't want to be get nicknames based upon the small number of votes that they will get. Therefore, the positions are vacant for now.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 6, 2017.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) have launched a fund to assist prosecuted pro-democracy protesters, regardless of their political affiliation.

The Federation will inject HK$1 million and launch a crowdfunding campaign to reach HK$3.5 million, in order to provide the activists and their families help with daily expenses, legal costs, transport fees, medical fees, among others.

“We will not discriminate among people if they have different means of protesting [or] political views, or even a different imagination of the future – as long as their intention was to fight for Hong Kong’s freedom and democracy,” said Poon Ka-kit, the external secretary of the Lingnan University student union. But he ruled out helping those use indiscriminate violence.

The fund will be managed by a committee consisting of the chair of the HKFS Standing Committee, three student representatives, and three members of the public – one of which will be a practicing barrister. Its priority will be helping jailed protesters. It will also help those who do not receive assistance from other funds such as the Justice Defence Fund, which mainly assists 16 jailed activists and disqualified lawmakers.

Au Tze-ho, president of the Chinese University of Hong Kong student union, said the make-up of the committee was to avoid biased decisions, adding that the application criteria is not strict. He also said applications will be confidential, but a regular financial report will be published.

Tommy Cheung, a former student leader who has now graduated, is one of the committee members representing the public. He was charged by the government over the 2014 pro-democracy protests. Cheung said he could personally afford the bail money and other legal fees, but the same could not be said for other protesters: “This HKFS fund can help bringing the voices of these protesters back to the mainstream, so that more Hong Kong people will know about them.”

Fermi Wong, founder of the NGO Hong Kong Unison and another public committee member, said the government has been taking a “ruthless” approach in targeting young people. She said the protesters will also need emotional support, such as prison visits. “This is a sad and worrying situation,” she said. “We should help those fighting for Hong Kong’s development, to make them less lonely.”

- Where is the $1,000,000 coming from? From the union membership dues that all university students are compelled to pay? If so,then  in their own immortal words about anything the government proposes, "Have public consultations been held?"

(EJ Insight) March 17, 2016.

A decision by key leaders of Scholarism to run in the Legislative Council elections in September has raised speculation that the student activist group will soon be disbanded. There are also rumors that the key leaders will form a new political party while Scholarism will be replaced by a new student body, Apple Daily reports.

Scholarism spokesperson Wong Tsz-yuet said no decision has been made and discussions are still going on. He remained tight-lipped on rumors that the student organization will dissolve on March 20.

Former spokesperson Oscar Lai Man-lok refused to comment, adding that questions about the matter should be addressed to the group’s convenor or spokesperson. Lai announced earlier that he is forming a political party with convenor Joshua Wong and former spokesperson Agnes Chow to compete in the Legco elections. Wong, however, has yet to reach the legal age of 21 to be eligible as a candidate and is awaiting the result of a judicial review on the issue.

Founded in 2011, Scholarism used to have more than 600 full-fledged members, but now only has about 120 members after several restructuring exercises. According to its rules, all members must not belong to any other political party. This means that Legco hopefuls like Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow must first quit Scholarism in order to form their own political party.

Professor Dixon Sing Ming of the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology said it would be a pity if Scholarism were dissolved, noting that the group has yet to complete its “historical mission” after the Occupy protests in 2014. Sing, however, believes that any new political party to be formed by the Scholarism leaders would be able to solicit support from young people as well as middle-age and older voters who have become disappointed with the pan-democrats.

According to news website hk01.com, Scholarism has been outstanding in raising funds through public donations, sometimes even outperforming some pan-democrat parties.

Last March, Oscar Lai revealed the student group had a cash reserve of HK$2.5 million. Current spokesperson Wong Tsz-yuet said should the organization disband, its funds could be donated to other organizations sharing their beliefs. It was reported that Scholarism had an income of HK$1.937 million between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014, with a surplus of HK$810,000 for the 12-month period. The group also raised HK$1.31 million from a July 1 protest in 2014.

(Oriental Daily) March 17, 2016.

On March 15, the news came that Scholarism will disband. So far there has been no denials coming from Scholarism members. People speculate that they will split up into two halves: a political party and a student organization.

Previously last March, former Scholarism spokesperson Oscar Lai disclosed that Scholarism has reserve funds of $2.52 million coming from donations. So where is that money going to go after Scholarism disbands? The public is keenly interested. Yesterday an alleged member of Scholarism said that the money will be split between the two new groups. But if a citizen donated money to the student group Scholarism, is it fair to take that money to give to a political party?

Scholarism spokesperson Prince Wong responded that "according to the organization rules, the assets will be donated to organizations with similar ideas." This was immediately taken to mean the new organizations. Critics also said that the organization rules have never been publicly disclosed, so that the rules are whatever those people say.

(Ta Kung Pao) March 26, 2016.

Previously Raymond Wong announced that he would be running in the Legco elections in a slate with Civic Passion and Hong Kong Resurgence Order candidates. But before they start, they need money. So last Thursday Wong's Proletariat Politics Institute held a fund raising dinner, with $600 to $2,500 per person (or $20,000 to $30,000 per table). Last October, the Proletariat Politics Institute held a dinner at the same restaurant with VIP tables priced at $12,000 and ordinary tables at $3,600. So the prices have more than doubled in less than one year.

According to the leaflet, an ordinary table for twelve costs $7,200 or $600 per person. According to the restaurant, even the nine-course seafood meal with American lobsters, abalone, scallops, shrimps etc costs only $2,880 for twelve persons. Thus, the hosts are collecting 2-1/2 times more than their costs. The VIP table for twelve costs $30,000 or $2,500 per person. For that nine-course seafood meal, the hosts are collecting more than 10 times more than their costs.

Earlier, Wong said on Internet radio that if his slate wins all five districts, they will resign and trigger a de facto referendum. For these two elections, they would need $20 million. It is estimated that Wong raised about $1 million on this night.

(Wen Wei Po) March 27, 2016.

On February 1st this year, Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat announced that they have a plan to recruit a "Civic Youth Army" to raise fresh troops for the Resistance. He said that the Civic Youth Army training will include combat techniques and wilderness survival plus the correct culture/history of Hong Kong. Each class shall consist of 50 teenagers starting this summer. He said that the fees per Youth Army soldier shall be $15,000, so that each class of 50 will bring in $750,000.

However, Civic Passion is not a licensed educational institution. So Wong Yeung-tat came up with the idea that instead of collecting tuition fees, they will sell military coupons valued at $2,500 each. If you buy 6 coupons (totaling $15,000), you can "sponsor" one teenager to join the Civic Youth Army; if you buy only one coupon, you can "nominate" one teenager.

Further conditions are attached to the use of these military coupons. First of all, the coupons must be used up in the next two periods of the Civic Youth Army recruitment drive or else they expire without any possibility of refund. Secondly, if the buyer fails to nominate a candidate, the right of selection goes to Civic Passion.

On March 24, Civic Passion removed the Civic Youth Army recruitment poster from its Facebook. Nowadays they are just recruiting regular Civic Passion members. According to information, there were few takers and there was no way to reach the goal of 50 recruits.

Earlier a citizen Chiu said that his son told him to purchase military coupons. In the mid-March, he contacted a Civic Passion executive editor named Ho and was told that they are still raising funds and have not yet begun to accept applications. When Chiu asked whether the money will be refunded if there are insufficient applicants to form a class, Ho said no refunds.

Citizen Chiu said that if he was paying tuition and the class could not be formed, he should be getting a refund. But now Civic Passion is selling military coupons and not collecting tuition, so they are saying that they won't do any refunds on the military coupons. Citizen Chiu said the "the Hot Dogs (=Civic Passion) are using this ruse to rip people off!"

(SCMP) May 4, 2016.

Pro-independence militant group Civic Passion is enlisting teenagers for “military style training” and “lectures on localism” as part of plans to launch a youth corps over the summer.

The group says it wants to counter a government education system it sees as trying to brainwash students to be obedient to the Communist Party, citing the controversy over a proposal a few years back to introduce national education in Hong Kong and plans to use Putonghua to teach Chinese.

Civic Passion’s move, which comes amid a rising tide of calls for Hong Kong independence, has been treated with suspicion by critics, who fear the group could use the summer activities to instil radical ideas in young people.

Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat, who is the youth corps’ commander-in-chief, said: “As the Communist Party is stretching its hands over Hong Kong, we believe there is a need to develop a sense of belonging to Hong Kong culture among our young people and develop their critical thinking.”

He dismissed his critics and said: “It would be crazy to think we are building an army to fight against the government. We are not teaching teens how to use guns. You can see our youth corps is like the army cadet force led by Leung Chun-ying’s wife.”

He was referring to the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association, a uniformed youth group modelled on the People’s Liberation Army and formed last year by leftist groups with Regina Leung Tong Ching-yee as commander.

A Mr Wan, 31, who declined to give his full name but claimed he had served the British army, said: “There will be fitness training and survival skills in the wild.”

Wong said they had been planning the project for a year.

Formally called the Passion Teens Squad, it started a month-long “recruitment” drive on Wednesday. The 30 places – first come, first served – are open to anyone aged 14 to 17. There is no fee but parents’ consent is required.

Wong said the project was funded by supporters donating HK$2,500 for “army pay” coupons. He previously said the project would cost HK$400,000.

Wong said the project was funded by supporters donating HK$2,500 for “army pay” coupons. He previously said the project would cost HK$400,000.

Internet comments:

- You forgot two more recent cases: the $530,000 and 100 Viagra pills found with Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) and the holy mess with Leticia Lee and others over at the Justice Alliance etc.

• [487] Kong Girl Redux (2016/03/17)

(Facebook video) https://www.facebook.com/1517304251910273/videos/1518333415140690/

On the No. 9 bus, a Kong girl sat on the outside priority seat reserved for the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and persons with special needs. The bus companies introduce these priority seats to enhance the awareness of offering seats to the people with special needs so as to cultivate a culture of being considerate and sacrificing themselves.

A senior citizen wanted to sit on the inside seat. The Kong girl got up, moved her suitcase and let the senior citizen in. Then she sat back down and threw the suitcase on the foot of the senior citizen. This is when the video starts.

Kong Girl: Is it the case that I am not letting you sit down? You want the outcome. Why are you arguing about the process? Is it the case that I am not letting you sit down? SHUT UP! Or else you can call the police. Alright or not?

Senior citizen: Call the police.

Kong Girl: You call the police! I have plenty of time to play with you. I did not hit you (with the suitcase)!

Senior citizen: You say ...

Kong Girl: If I did, you call the police!

Senior citizen: You call the police.

Kong Girl: You call the police! I hit you. So why do I have to call the police!?

Male: Forget it. You're only riding for several stops.

Kong Girl: Fucking insane! You tell her to shut up. If you tell her to shut up, then I won't make any noise. I am not letting her sit. Do you think that you are everything? Just because you are a senior citizen, do you think that you are everything? Sooner or later I will become a senior citizen too!

Senior citizen: You are sitting here.

Kong Girl: It is not that I am not allowing you to sit down. Why are you arguing?

Senior citizen: Why ...?

Kong Girl: YOU SHUT UP!!!

Senior citizen: Why don't you stop talking?

Kong Girl: I let you sit down. What more do you want?

Woman: This is a priority seat.

Kong Girl: I have a suitcase! You get off the bus! What fucking business is this to you!? Or else you can call the police! Leave! Go away, bitch!

- (EJ Insight) Young people avoid priority seats to escape ‘public trials’. January 18, 2017.

Nearly 80 percent of secondary students are under pressure not to use priority seats on public transport for fear they would be subjected to discrimination if they fail to offer them to those in need, according to a survey. About 96 percent of 1,715 respondents would voluntarily offer their seat to passengers in need, Apple Daily reports.

The survey was conducted by Beacon Pop Index and Truth Light Society in December. It found that 73 percent of the students never used a priority seat while 22 percent said priority seats should be abolished altogether. About 26 percent said they would not offer their seat to another person unless asked. Eight in 10 students said they fear being under scrutiny if they do not offer their seat voluntarily.

Truth Light Society vice president Helen Fu said young people are fearful of online abuse directed at people who don’t offer their seats. Priority seats have in a way become a source of humiliation for them, she said. “When members of the community are willing to offer their seats voluntarily, the need to designate priority seats will no longer exist,” Fu was quoted as saying by am730. There are many instances where priority seats are vacant while the train compartment is jampacked, Fu said. She said people should not take it too seriously. Using the seats under certain circumstances could help ease congestion, she said.

MTR said priority seats are assigned as part of an effort to encourage the culture of offering help to the needy. However, all passengers are free to use those seats, it said.

• [486] Racism Against South Asians (2016/03/17)

(SCMP) Trump card – Hong Kong politicians have followed US tycoon into the gutter by fanning racist fears. By Michael Chugani. March 15, 2016.

Election year brings gutter politics. In America, presidential candidate Donald Trump is fanning the prejudices of voters with promises to ban Muslims and to keep out Mexicans with a border wall.

In Hong Kong, legislator Elizabeth Quat has learnt from Trump ahead of September’s Legislative Council elections. She wants to intern South Asian asylum seekers. Trounced in last November’s district council elections, Quat likely believes she can score points by labelling dark-skinned asylum seekers as criminals who should be locked up.

She is not the only pro-Beijing politician to play the race card. Her Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong is aping the Liberal Party, whose Dominic Lee Tsz-king on Tuesday labelled South Asian asylum seekers as murderers and rapists. He talked of “over 3,800 crimes for the past few years”, but glossed over how many were murders and rapes.

Former security secretary Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong has joined the drumbeat for Hong Kong to quit a UN convention on asylum claimants, denigrating Indians as so poor that they come for the HK$3,000 monthly refugee allowance. These are the same people who denounce localists as bigots for confronting mainlanders who abuse their tourist status to trade in parallel goods.

Lee cited Europe’s refugee crisis as an alarm bell for Hong Kong. Quat cited our 1980s refugee camps for Vietnamese as reason to intern South Asians. Over a million refugees flooded Europe last year. Hong Kong had over 100,000 Vietnamese refugees. And the accumulative backlog of South Asian claimants? About 11,000. Oh my, we’re really being swamped.

How are people like Dominic Lee different from Trump when they demonise a race? An Immigration Department statement to Public Eye’s questions was no better, accusing South Asian claimants of gaming the system, a claim dismissed by human rights lawyer Mark Daly.

Let’s do a reality check. Just 230 asylum seekers were caught working illegally last year. The number for mainland Chinese was 1,609. This does not include the hundreds of mainland women who come here illegally as sex workers or the foreign sex workers in Wan Chai bars. Let’s not forget the mainland gangs who burgle upscale homes and kidnap rich people.

Who has ruined our quality of life more – the 11,000 asylum seekers or the millions of mainlanders whom the localists oppose?

Quat and the others won’t dare answer. They belong to a group whose hands are tied to a puppet string that leads to the liaison office. Hong Kong has only accepted a tiny handful of asylum seekers. Most are fakes who need to be stopped. But let’s not do it by fanning racist fears.

Michael Chugani may be impeccably politically correct about his situational analysis, but the information being fed daily to the people of Hong Kong is this table at Oriental Daily:

1/6/2016: Happy Valley. Three South Asians armed with knives showed up outside the home of a wealthy businessman but were arrested by the police. A total of 8 men and women were arrested, with one man being prosecuted to conspire to cause grave physical harm to a businessman.

1/7/2016: Sham Shui Po. Eight South Asian males chased and chopped a male asylum seeker.

1/8/2016: Yau Ma Ti. Police arrested a South Asian man who was running an unlicensed pub.

1/8/2016: Yuen Long. A male asylum seeker from India slashed the neck and chest of his Indonesian girlfriend.

1/9/2016. Tin Shui Wai. Eight Pakistanis were arrested for illegal assembly and carrying concealed weapons.

1/9/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian was arrested fro stealing the mobile phone of a female vegetable stand operator.

1/10/2016. Hung Hom. Three South Asian men went into a car washing place and assaulted a worker.

1/10/2016. Sham Shui Po. A South Asian male armed with a knife robbed $4,500 from a convenience store.

1/10/2016. Central. The Customs Department arrested three South Asian males at a warehouse for contraband merchandise.

1/14/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. Two South Asian men destroyed property at the Oriental Daily office with red paint and hard objects.

1/14/2016. Aberdeen. A male asylum seeker was arrested for working illegally and assaulting the police.

1/15-16/2016. Yuen Long/Tin Shui Wai. 30 South Asians were arrested at an unlicensed pub.

1/19/2016. Tsuen Wan. The Customs Department arrested a Pakistani man at a contraband cigarette warehouse in an industrial building.

1/22/2016. Yuen Long. A drunken South Asian male was arrested for assaulting a male who was trying to help street people.

1/22/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian male was arrested for defacing a store with red paint.

1/23/2016. Sheung Shui. A South Asian male was arrested for selling drugs. $5,500 worth of drugs was seized.

1/27/2016. Shan Shui Po. Two South Asian thieves stole from the donation box at Lord Guan's Temple.

1/30/2016. North Point. Four South Asian robbers robbed a garage owner of $100,000 in cash. (see YouTube)

1/30/2016. Mong Kok. Four South Asian pickpockets stole $10,000 RMB from a male pedestrian.

1/31/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian male snatched a mobile phone from a woman who was waiting for a bus.

1/31/2016. Mong Kok. Six South Asian men stole $19,000 from a man and a woman.

1/31/2016. Mong Kok. A South Asian man holding a broken bottle charged onto the road to stop a car and robbed $100 from the driver.

1/31/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A number of South Asians robbed more than $27,000 from an Indian tourists. Four Indians were arrested.

2/1/2016. Admiralty. A doctor was bashed on the head by a South Asian man and needed four stiches at the hospital.

2/3/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A Pakistani male asylum seeker robbed a woman of $58,000 in cash, but he was subdued by citizens.

2/3/2016. Yuen Long. A Bangladesh male attacked a compatriot and robbed him of a mobile phone worth about $1,000.

2/4/2016. Yau Ma Ti. Five South Asians robbed a $10,000 gold chain off a compatriot.

2/4/2016/ Yau Ma Ti. A Bangladesh male was arrested for drug possession and loitering.

2/5/2016. Yau Ma Ti. A South Asian asylum seeker was arrested for possession of an assault weapon and resisting arrest.

2/5/2016. Tai Kok Tsui. A South Asian male charged onto the road to stop a car and commit robbery.

2/5/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A Nepalese man was assaulted by compatriots.

2/6/2016. Causeway Bay. Two South Asian asylum seekers quarreled over money and assaulted/injured each other with knives.

2/7/2016. Sham Shui Po. Three to four South Asian males set fire to a foot bath facility.

2/8/2016. Two South Asian Males stole $8,000 RMB from an African man.

2/8/2016. Wanchai. Four Indian men robbed a mainland Chinese male of $1,000. The police arrested three Indian men at the scene.

2/9/2016. Pat Heung. Three South Asian men entered a village house to assault a Bengladesh man and robbed him to $3,000.

2/13/2016. Cheung Sha Wan. A South Asian man snatched a mobile phone from a female pedestrian and fled.

2/14/2016. Yuen Long. A Thai man was arrested while committing burglary at a store room.

2/14/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. Four intoxicated Ugandans were arrested for fighting.

2/17/2016. Causeway Bay. A South Asian man stole $78,000 in cash from a male MTR passenger.

2/18/2016. Tsuen Wan. Two South Asians attempted to rob the bag of a male pedestrian.

2/18/2016. Yuen Long. A female Indonesian asylum seeker was arrested with $800,000 worth of drugs.

2/19/2016. Sham Shui Po. A South Asian male stole a wallet from a man containing $1,500.

2/20/2016. Tin Shui Wai. A South Asian man assaulted citizens playing chess in the park.

2/22/2016. Wan Chai. Three South Asians attacked a truck driver with hard objects to cause injuries on hands and feet.

2/24/2016. Sham Shui Po. Two Vietnamese asylum seekers were caught stealing 34 chickens.

2/24/2016. Yuen Long. Two South Asian burglars stole $200,000 from a villa.

2/24/2016. Sham Shui Po. A male Vietnamese asylum seeker was arrested for assaulting a female compatriot.

2/25/2016. Tin Shui Wai. A male South Asian asylum was arrested for sexual assault against a female neighbor whose South Asian boyfriend was arrested for physical assault against the transgressor.

2/25/2016. Tai Wai. Two South Asian men stole $5,000 RMB from a male MTR passenger.

2/25/2016. Mong Kok. A South Asian asylum seeker was arrested for stealing perfume worth $180.

2/26/2016. Tuen Mun. Three South Asian males robbed a woman's handbag which carried $7,000.

2/26/2016. Tuen Mun. Six South Asian men bashed the head of a compatriot and fled.

2/27/2016. Sham Shui Po. Eight South Asian males and two Hong Kong males stopped a van, assaulted the driver and the male passenger and robbed $270,000. (see YouTube) (see Facebook)

2/28/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian man was spotted by restaurant workers for eating without paying. He smashed a beer bottle against the wall and fled.

3/2/2016. Yau Ma Ti. A South Asian man was arrested for pounding on the keyboard at the Jockey Club betting station.

3/3/2016. Kwun Tong. Four South Asians stole a $170 speaker.

3/4/2016. Mong Kok. A South Asian smashed a taxi window and ripped off the camera.

3/6/2016. Central. Two South Asian males bashed the heads of two compatriots and fled.

3/6/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. Five persons were engaged in a melee, and two South Asian men were arrested.

3/6/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. An Indian man was arrested for shoplifting.

3/6/2016. Yuen Long. Three South Asian men attacked an Indian man with wooden poles and took the money in his pockets.

3/7/2016. To Kwa Wan. A South Asian man attacked an Indian man and stole his bicycle.

3/7/2016. Yuen Long. Three South Asian men broke into a villa and took almost $10,000.

3/8/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A South Asian man robbed a mainland tourists of $3,000.

3/8/2016. Hung Hom. A Pakistani man assaulted two compatriots after a dispute over a transaction.

3/8/2016. Yau Ma Ti. A Vietnamese man was stealing a bag of potato chips from a 7-11 store. When detected, he stabbed and killed the owner. (see YouTube)

3/9/2016. Jordan. A male Pakistani asylum seekers was arrested for extorting drivers over public parking space.

3/10/2016. Yuen Long. Three South Asian men robbed a woman of $1,500.

3/10/2016. Tsuen Wan. Two South Asian men pretended to be buying flowers and stole $14,000. (see YouTube)

3/11/2016. Cheung Sha Wan. Two South Asian men stole $2,000 from a compatriot.

3/12/2016. Tin Shui Wai. Two South Asian men were arrested for punching a young man who was coming home late at night. [Note: they didn't like the way that he looked at them]

3/15/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A male African asylum seeker was arrested for drug possession and resisting arrest.

3/15/2016. Mong Kok. A Nigerian man using drugs was injured when he jumped out of the window to avoid arrest.

3/15/2016/ Yuen Long. A South Asian man was arrested for sexual assault against an 18-year-old female.

3/16/2016. Yuen Long. Two South Asian men robbed a male pedestrian of $5,000 cash.

3/16/2016. Yuen Long. A Pakistani man assaulted and robbed a young man of $1,600.

Internet comments:

- Why is Oriental Daily so keen on tracking crimes committed by South Asians? You need to go back to this series of stories about The Shanghai Kid and his South Asian poster gang.

(Oriental Daily) January 16, 2016.

Previously a wealthy tycoon had received an extortion text message from former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung (nicknamed The Shanghai Kid). The tycoon reported the matter to the police and called Oriental Daily too. On January 6, the tycoon noticed three South Asian men and a Chinese man outside his residence. He believed that these people meant him hardm. So he called the police. The police came and the men fled. In the vehicle that the men came in, the police found three knives, gloves and masks. So the police gave protection to the tycoon and his family and then the Organized Crime Unit followed up on the case. Yesterday the police arrested seven men and one woman. Of these, three were South Asian men. The arrested included "Paki Ming", a lieutenant for the The Shanghai Kid.

The tycoon said that he is not afraid of evil triad forces and that he will testify against them. He said that the Shanghai Kid has looked for and gotten trouble. "It is a up to God whether to forgive these triad gangsters. My duty is to send them to see God!"

(Oriental Daily) January 16, 2016.

Former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung's lieutenant "Paki Ming" was arrested with seven other individuals  and taken back to a container park in Yuen Long to gather evidence.

(Oriental Daily) January 22, 2016.

In recent years, the problem of South Asians and Africans coming to seek asylum in Hong Kong and then joining triad gangs afterwards is become more serious. Former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung (nicknamed The Shanghai Kid) is said to directly send selectors to India and Pakistan to pick his troops. Then he provided full service to have them come over here to seek asylum; before they come, they are taught how to claim torture and hence obtain temporary residence while their asylum application is being considered. once they get here, he provided legal services and food/board, and they get assigned to their respective jobs (such as bouncers, extortionists, drug dealers, etc). 

(Oriental Daily) March 3, 2016.

Former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung (nicknamed The Shanghai Kid) hired unemployed young people and South Asians to paste posters all over hong Kong to smear and blackmail a number of wealth Hong Kong tycoons.

Today at around 1pm, four South Asian men was pasting posters at the pedestrian overpass across T.mark Plaza, Tai Ho Road, Tsuen Wan district. More than 10 police officers who had been staking out the location rushed up to arrest them. The four men were 3 Pakistanis and one Indian. They all have temporary resident papers while awaiting resolution on their petition for asylum because they feared torture at home. According to eyewitnesses, these four men were very efficient with their work and they put up thirty to forty posters in a matter of minutes. When the police appeared, the four tossed their glue bottles and posters into the flower bed and fled. They struggled hard even after the police pushed them onto the ground.

The four men were posting threatening posters directed at senior personnel at Oriental Daily.

Oriental Daily has counted 71 instances in which posters directed at Oriental Daily were posted between January 7 and March 3 at various locations all over Hong Kong.

- Given that this type of information is flooding the news, it is no surprise to find:

The people of Hong Kong are being bullied and harassed by fake asylum seekers
The Localists have never done anything to fight back and resist.

The Localists (such as Hong Kong Indigenous, Hong Kong Localism Power, etc) are not expected to do the work of law enforcement. However, they also said that the the people of Hong Kong are suffering at the hands of the mainland parallel traders who are clogging up the sidewalks of Sheung Shui, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun and therefore they are taking action into their own hands to valiantly defeat the parallel traders. Fine. Now the people of Hong Kong (especially in Yuen Long, Tin Shui Wai, Sham Shui Po, Mong Kok, Tsim Sha Tsui) are terrified by the South Asian crime spree. So why aren't the Localists out there to valiantly defeat the South Asian criminals.

- Remember that while the Localists say that they are valiantly fighting the parallel traders, they were actually targeting anyone who looks a mainlander. So in this case they need to target every South Asian that they come across.

- Labour Party legislator Fernando Cheung defends the asylum policy: "I see no evidence that every asylum seeker is fake." (YouTube)

Of course, Cheung is right. Some asylum seekers came under false pretenses but it is unlikely that every single one of them is. But if some asylum seekers come under false pretenses, abuse the system, use up Hong Kong taxpayers money to the tune of $1.6 billion a year and commit all sorts of crimes, then something should be done.

- Fernando Cheung seems to take the position that nothing must be done because we may be sending back some person who is genuinely under the threat of torture. God forbid!

- Well, it defies credulity to see so many asylum seekers who fear torture back in their home countries of India, Pakistan, etc. Don't those countries already have FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY/HUMAN RIGHTS/UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE/RULE OF LAW/UNIVERSAL VALUES? If we Hongkongers living in a time of chaos are better off than they are, why do we need FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY/HUMAN RIGHTS/UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE/RULE OF LAW/UNIVERSAL VALUES?

- In 2014, Fernando Cheung argued at the Legislative Council that the asylum seekers should receive the same level of money that Hong Kong residents receive for social welfare. He said that this was the basic level of need, and it is their fundamental human right. The government should find them jobs so that they can make their own living. Presently the asylum seekers receive $3,000 a month and they are not allowed to work.

- A poster against the Labour Party:

- Here are some more ...

(Oriental Daily) March 16, 2016. Late breaking news! At 0:55, a 17-year-old boy was at an electronic game centre in Kwong Wah Plaza, Yuen Long district. He got into an argument with three men, including one South Asian. He was attacked and robbed of $100 cash plus a game card containing $1,500 worth of game points. The police arrested 28-year-old Pakistani asylum seeker man Alimjiid for drug possession and common assault. According to a female worker, there have been frequent quarrels between South Asians and Hongkongers there.

- (Oriental Daily) March 16, 2016. An 18-year-old woman went past Sau Fu Street, Yuen Long Street when she was groped on the buttocks by a 25-year-old male Pakistani asylum seeker. She called the police who came to arrest the man. One commentator wrote: "Do Yuen Long residents have to form their own civilian self-defense militia?"

- (Oriental Daily) March 17, 2016. At 4am on Lugard Road, Wanchai district, a slightly intoxicated 24-year-old Englishman Josh quarreled with ten men some of whom were South Asians. Josh was punched and injured in his head and hands. His attackers fled.

Since this is never going to stop, this stream will be stopped here arbitrarily.

- Here are some videos from the Hong Kong subway.

The first video https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/1207597232622673/ was taken from inside the subway car. A family is quarreling with three South Asians.

The second video https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/1207609432621453/ was taken from the subway platform by another person. The three South Asians are being chased and beaten.

What happened? As with Internet videos, the original source with the full and accurate story will be hard to trace. But here are the two common versions:

Version #1: The family of ten had just had dinner and were taking the subway home. The three clearly intoxicated South Asians and one of them made an unsolicited sexual advancement against a young woman with the family. You can see what happened next. It is said that one family member is an off-duty policeman (short hair, white t-shirt, black pants, white athletic shoes) who did not participate in the fighting.

Version #2: The three intoxicated South Asians got into the train and began to harass a white-haired smallish old man. A family traveling in the same car intervened. The South Asians escalated the situation with a stream of curses. You can see what happened next.

Related link: South Asians in Hong Kong.

• [485] Impasse/Stalemae/Dead End/Game Over (2016/03/15)

(EJ Insight) Game over for Hong Kong. By Michael Chugani. January 5, 2016.

Is it game over for Hong Kong?

I have asked this question in two previous articles.

In a 2013 article, I wrote: “I do not think Hong Kong is ‘game over’. But I do think we are in danger of becoming that.”

In a 2014 article, I wrote: “I asked in a previous column if it is ‘game over’ for Hong Kong. I now believe it is indeed game over for us if we compare ourselves to what we were.”

A year has passed since I wrote that. I have not changed my mind.

I still think it is game over for Hong Kong.

But let me explain what I mean when I say Hong Kong is game over.

I do not mean we are going to become a third-world city. We will remain a highly developed and wealthy city.

But we will no longer be the pride of Asia.

We will no longer excel and succeed in everything we do, like we did before.

We will no longer unite and put the overall interests of our society above our own interests when necessary, like we did before.

Our politics will not be driven by common sense but by divisive self-interest.

This divisiveness will produce political leaders who lack the conscience to do what is morally right for our society.

In fact, we are already seeing all of this now. I believe it will only get worse, not better.

The reason I believe it will only get worse is our political leaders are not making any effort to make it better.

They seem to prefer a chaotic and divisive political atmosphere to a rational one.

Without a doubt, we were once the pride of Asia, especially during the era of the four Asian Tigers.

The term refers to Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. The high economic growth rate of these four economies from the 1960s to the ’90s was admired by the world.

Many considered British-ruled Hong Kong to be the most successful of the four Asian Tigers.

The economic models of these four Tigers were the envy of developing nations. Many other places tried to copy our road to success.

Can we honestly say today that Hong Kong is more successful than Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan?

Of course not.

To be brutally honest, we are the least successful of the four Tigers today.

We lose to Singapore virtually all the time in global surveys on housing standards, innovation, standard of English and quality of life.

We were once the most economically competitive city in China but lost the No. 1 position to Shanghai two years ago.

We are now in second place, but the latest survey warns that Shenzhen is poised to overtake us soon.

Shenzhen’s gross domestic product will overtake Hong Kong’s in the coming year.

We admire Korean TV dramas, Korean music and pop stars, but we have created nothing for others to admire.

Koreans don’t care too much about Hong Kong dramas or Cantopop.

We were far ahead of Taiwan in innovation, lifestyle and many other things, but now Taiwan even has a higher standard of English than Hong Kong.

When our first post-handover chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, tried to position Hong Kong as Asia’s world city in his 1999 annual policy speech in the Legislative Council, many wondered what he meant by it.

His administration explained that it meant making Hong Kong excel in areas such as innovation, quality of life, education and tourism, and become a coordinator of global economic activity so we could be on an equal ranking with such great cities as New York and London.

But a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers showed Hong Kong ranked only 11th on livability out of 28 cities in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, behind Singapore and even Seoul.

Everyone knows our quality of life has plunged because of factors such as air pollution, housing unaffordability, which has forced families to live in subdivided homes, and the flood of mainland tourists.

Our tourism industry is in a mess, mostly because of our overreliance on mainland tourists.

Our universities have been dropping in global rankings, and our neighbors now far outperform us in innovation.

Our MTR was once the pride of Hong Kong and envied by the world.

Today, it has become the shame of Hong Kong. It is horrendously overcrowded, and every new project is delayed and over budget.

Far from being Asia’s world city, we are now a city in decline.

I believe Hong Kong has already reached its peak and is now on the way down.

We no longer have the political will, the competitiveness, the unity and the yearning to be No. 1.

We don’t have leaders who can bring us back up to our former peak.

It is hard to climb up. It is easy to fall down. Once you begin falling down, it is even harder to stop the fall.

That’s why I say I believe it’s game over for Hong Kong.

Our political system is largely to blame for our decline.

Hong Kong is neither a democracy nor a totalitarian city.

After the end of British colonial rule in 1997, we switched to a unique, executive-led political model under the “one country, two systems” principle.

The model allowed Hong Kong to continue as a free society governed by the rule of law, unlike mainland China, our new sovereign.

It worked for a while after the reunification but has now become so dysfunctional that it is the cause of our political polarization, stagnation and Legislative Council gridlock.

The executive is no longer able to lead, because the political model does not allow the chief executive to be the leader of a political party.

The political system allows half of the 70-member legislature to be directly elected and the other half to be indirectly elected through functional constituencies.

The proportional representation system of Legco direct elections means that candidates can win a seat with as few as 30,000 or 40,000 votes.

This has enabled candidates hostile to the government to win seats, creating an opposition with enough Legco members to vote down important proposals from the executive branch.

The model allows even a handful of hostile Legco members to derail government policies through filibusters and quorum calls.

In other free societies, ruling parties can overcome this, but since the chief executive cannot be a member of a party, there is no ruling party in Hong Kong.

The executive must depend on the support of our so-called pro-establishment Legco members, but these members are not always united.

Our political system is now so dysfunctional that it took over three years for the executive-led government to get Legco funding for a new Innovation and Technology Bureau.

Most countries updated their laws years ago to protect copyright in the internet age, but a copyright protection amendment bill has been stuck in Legco for years even though it meets international standards and is supported by western countries, including the United States.

Legco members in the democracy camp will continue to block the bill unless the government meets the demands of young netizens to make it even more liberal than international standards.

Opposition legislators are now so fearful of losing their seats in next year’s Legco elections that they have become hostages of young people who were politicized by Occupy Central and are now registering as voters.

The copyright bill and the technology bureau are not the only victims of our dysfunctional system.

New towns to solve the housing shortage, a dual immigration control point at the West Kowloon high-speed railway terminus and even landfill expansions have all become victims.

The chief executive is unable to even appoint council members at publicly funded universities without facing a mountain of criticism.

This opposition to everything that the executive-led government does is driven mostly by a reluctance of many Hong Kong people to accept and trust the one-party communist system of China.

Opposition politicians and a large sector of the local media feed on this mistrust to create even more mistrust by whipping up anti-mainland sentiment within the population.

They are far better at using mistrust to win hearts and minds than government officials, pro-establishment politicians, and the pro-establishment media are at using trust to win hearts and minds.

It is, of course, easier to ask Hong Kong people, who are so used to living in a free society, to mistrust a communist regime than it is to ask them to trust a communist regime that jails political dissidents, restricts freedoms and even bans popular internet sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

But our highly paid senior officials are now so devoid of leadership qualities and innovative new ideas to compete in today’s world that you can’t really blame Hong Kong people for having so little trust and so much contempt for the government.

When the number of mainland tourists to Hong Kong began to fall, the only idea our officials could come up with was a “Happy @ Hong Kong Super Jetso” campaign of discounts to promote shopping.aaaaaa

It was a stupid idea that failed miserably.

Now our highly paid financial secretary has come up with the idea of food trucks to promote tourism after watching a movie about food trucks.

Surely, such a senior official should be taking a macro view instead of proposing food trucks, which is not a novel idea and should be dealt with by far junior officials.

Would the finance ministers of Singapore or South Korea propose food trucks to promote tourism? Of course not.

It is too late to reboot Hong Kong and hope that will fix our problems.

We need to reinvent Hong Kong.

We need a new political system to get us moving again.

We can either have a less democratic and more dictatorial system, such as the successful Singapore model, where the executive-led government holds real power through a ruling party, or a more democratic system where the leader has a mandate from the people to rule.

Either system will be better and more effective than the one we have now.

But there are no signs that we will change our political system any time soon.

That’s why I believe it’s game over for Hong Kong.

(EJ Insight) Hong Kong has reached a political dead end. By Michael Chugani. March 15, 2016.

You can change Hong Kong this coming September.

I wish I could say you have a chance to change it for the better. But the sad reality is that you cannot.

It doesn’t really matter which way you vote in September’s Legislative Council elections.

Our politics have now become so divisive that Hong Kong will continue to be an angry city dominated by rancorous politics regardless of whether the so-called democracy camp or the so-called establishment camp wins.

This will be the case even if voters choose to keep the status quo so that neither side wins.

A politically divided city that sometimes erupts in violence is the new normal for Hong Kong.

The Mong Kok riot on the first day of the Lunar New Year proved in graphic terms that the old Hong Kong we knew is gone for good.

We must all learn to live with this new normal of protests becoming more and more violent with no solutions in sight to heal our society.

Some will say I am too pessimistic. But the truth is I am being realistic.

Let me explain why you cannot change Hong Kong for the better, whichever way you vote in September’s Legco elections.

Many people may choose to vote for pan-democrats because they are angry about the mainland’s abduction of bookseller Lee Bo and four of his associates for selling books critical of the Communist Party.

And many may vote for establishment camp candidates because they are angry at the way young rioters set fires, hurled bricks and fought with police throughout the night in Mong Kok on the first day of the Lunar New Year.

But it won’t make any difference whichever side wins.

Neither side has a strategy or the political courage to unite Hong Kong.

Supposing the so-called democracy camp wins at least 35 of the 70 Legco seats.

Occupy Central co-initiator Benny Tai Yiu-ting has proposed a strategy to do this.

He used the English word “enemy” to describe the so-called pro-establishment camp during media interviews about his proposed strategy.

His use of the word “enemy” to describe the establishment camp already shows how rancorous our politics has become.

The establishment camp consists of Legco and district council members, the Leung Chun-ying administration, and the central government.

It is common knowledge that many in the democracy camp consider Leung Chun-ying and the central government as enemies.

But should establishment camp Legco members and district councilors also be regarded as enemies?

Over 800,000 people voted for establishment camp candidates in the 2012 Legco elections.

If the establishment camp is the enemy, then the 800,000 voters who supported the camp are also enemies by association.

How can the democracy camp unite Hong Kong if it wins in September when it considers the Hong Kong and central governments and 800,000 voters as enemies?

Perhaps Tai Yiu-ting should have said “political opponent” instead of “enemy”.

He believes it will strengthen the hand of the so-called democracy camp if it can win at least 35 Legco seats.

Yes, the hand of the pan-democrats in Legco will indeed be stronger if they control half the seats.

But what’s the use of this stronger hand in practical terms?

The only use that I can see is that the pan-democrats will find it far easier to block government policies if they control at least 35 votes.

But they are already quite successful now in delaying and blocking government policies through filibusters and quorum calls.

They cannot propose and push through their own policies even if they have control of half of Legco because the constitution, which provides for an executive-led government for Hong Kong, greatly limits the power of Legco to propose policies.

Important policies must come from the government.

Legco only has the power to block such policies, like it did with the central government’s political reform framework for the 2017 election for chief executive.

And it needs to be understood that two can play at the game of filibusters and quorum calls.

If the pan-democrats win half the Legco seats and try to push through even non-binding motions, such as condemning the June 4, 1989, crackdown, the establishment camp can thwart this by using the democracy camp’s tactic of filibusters and quorum calls.

It would be foolish for the democracy camp to think that if it wins over half the Legco seats it can proclaim that Hong Kong’s people have voted for so-called genuine democracy and force the central government to allow it.

The central government will never allow genuine democracy as defined by the democracy camp.

It did not allow it even after the 79-day Occupy civil disobedience protest, which paralyzed parts of the city.

And it will not allow it even if Hong Kong people give the democracy camp a major victory in the September Legco elections.

It should be clear by now that Beijing’s top priority is national security.

That’s why it even risked damaging the “one country, two systems” principle by detaining Lee Bo.

Beijing will not undermine national security by allowing an election system for Hong Kong that could produce a chief executive it does not trust, especially now that so many young people are willing to use violent means to agitate for self-rule and even independence.

I do not want to belittle Tai Yiu-ting.

I consider him a friend. He has been on my television show several times, and he was kind enough to write a foreword for one of my books.

But I just do not see how so-called genuine democracy can be furthered if the pan-democrats win half the Legco seats.

How much or how little democracy Hong Kong has is in the hands of the central government. Nothing can change that.

Tai Yiu-ting believed he could force the hand of Beijing with Occupy Central.

The civil disobedience protest, which came to be known as the Umbrella Movement, caught the attention of the whole world.

Did it bring the central government to its knees? Of course not.

Instead of allowing so-called genuine democracy, the central government became even tougher toward Hong Kong.

Now let’s suppose the establishment camp wins such a big victory in September’s election that the democracy camp no longer has enough votes to block policies in the same way it blocked the political reform framework for the 2017 election for chief executive.

The central government would then most likely reintroduce the same reform framework for the 2022 election for chief executive.

As we all know, the framework allows one person one vote, but people can only vote for candidates prescreened by a nominating committee.

That’s why the democracy camp voted it down as fake democracy.

But if the establishment camp wins big in September, it will have enough votes to easily pass it.

The central government would most likely also instruct the Hong Kong government to reintroduce the controversial Article 23 national security legislation, which was abandoned in 2003 after mass street protests against it.

Would it bring political unity and harmony if a victory by the establishment camp in September gives it enough votes to pass Article 23 legislation and Beijing’s framework for the 2022 election for chief executive?

Of course not.

A part of society, especially the younger generation, will see it as the central government imposing its policies on Hong Kong.

They will hate the establishment camp even more for kowtowing to Beijing’s wishes.

The establishment camp will be seen as the enemy by a part of society even though it can legitimately claim it had a mandate from voters to approve the framework and Article 23.

That’s why I say Hong Kong will be as divided as it is now regardless of which side wins.

In reality, everyone will be a loser.

Hong Kong people have dug themselves a hole and they are sinking deeper into it every day.

Is there a way out of this hole?

Yes, there is always a way out of a predicament, but you have to know how to find the right door.

The first step is to accept the fact that Hong Kong is part of China and that China is ruled by the Communist Party.

Hong Kong’s freedoms allow people to hate the Communist Party, but it is futile to fight it.

The second step is for the pan-democrats and young people to understand that they are free to hate Leung Chun-ying but must accept the fact that he is the chief executive and he has Beijing’s support.

They have to realize that Hong Kong can only have a democratic system that Beijing trusts.

The third step is for the democracy camp, particularly the Civic Party, to be willing to cooperate with Leung Chun-ying to find middle ground.

The Civic Party must end the stupidity of boycotting him because they refuse to accept that he is the chief executive.

The Democratic Party must end the childishness of refusing even to invite him to its anniversary dinners.

The democracy camp must also not allow radical young groups to set the political agenda or tell it what to do.

In return, Leung Chun-ying must end his hostile attitude toward the democracy camp, and the central government must trust Hong Kong people and listen more to their views instead of using a hardline approach.

Sadly, I do not see any of this happening any time soon.

Neither side is willing to compromise.

That’s why I say we cannot change Hong Kong for the better.

And that’s why I have said in past articles that it’s game over for Hong Kong.

• [484] Our 2047 (2016/03/15)

(Wikipedia) One Country Two Systems

Deng Xiaoping proposed to apply the principle to Hong Kong in the negotiation with the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher over the future of Hong Kong when the lease of the New Territories (including New Kowloon) of Hong Kong to the United Kingdom was to expire in 1997. The same principle was proposed in talks with Portugal about Macau.

The principle is that, upon reunification, despite the practice of socialism in mainland China, both Hong Kong and Macau, which were colonies of the UK and Portugal respectively, can retain their established system under a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years after reunification. What will happen after 2047 (Hong Kong) and 2049 (Macau) has never been publicly stated.

(Hong Kong University Student Union's Undergrad magazine)  Our 2047

The Joint Sino-British Declaration's promise of no changes for 50 years will reach the end of its term in 2047. The fate of Hong Kong is unknown. Will it be an independent country? Continue in it present form? Or become a Chinese city? This is seldom discussed by society. 2047 seems to be remote, but the Hongkongers began talking about the 1997 in the late 1970's already. Based upon the rapid Communization of Hong Kong, we must be ready to deal with the second discussion of Hong Kong's future in order to increase our bargaining trips at the table. With respect to the second discussion of Hong Kong future, we have the following demands:

(1) Hong Kong becomes an independent sovereign country that is recognized by the United Nations;
(2) The establishment of a democratic government;
(3) A Hong Kong constitution drawn up by the people of Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong government has become a puppet of the Chinese Communists. Its governance is blindly tilted towards the Chinese Communists. They weaken autonomy and self-rule in Hong Kong, they developed Northeast New Territories for no reason, they gloss over the endless cost overruns at the Express Rail Link, they cooperated with the Chinese Communists' Qianhai project and the government report became a One Belt One Rail report. Even if Hong Kong does not have the ability to become independent in terms of hardware, and even if the Chinese economy continues to be strong, our main consideration is not whether we can become independent. Instead, the important point should be whether Hong Kong should become independent or not.

We yearn to defend the Cantonese dialect and the traditional characters, the historical markings on our mailboxes, an independent and solemn judicial system, the unique humanities and social ecology of Hong Kong and a democratic government that is oriented towards the interests of Hong Kong. These demands are not based upon hatred. They comes from every single soul that longs for freedom. Fighting for independence does not take place overnight. At this moment, we are only at the beginning. Very often, advocates of Greater China chauvinism say that we must support democratic movements in Hong Kong because Hong Kong can't have democracy if China does not have it. Yet can promoting the democratization of China be easier than building an independent nation? Absolutely not.

(SCMP) March 16, 2016.

Hong Kong should become a sovereign state recognised by the United Nations in 2047, according to the latest issue of the University of Hong Kong student magazine Undergrad.

An article headed “Hong Kong Youth’s Declaration” argues for the city’s independence on expiry of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which stipulates that Hong Kong should remain unchanged for 50 years from the handover. “Even though Hong Kong doesn’t have the conditions to become independent yet ... whether independence is viable or not is not our main concern. The main point is whether Hong Kong should become independent”, the article says.

In addition to independence, it demands a democratic government be set up after 2047 and for the public to draw up the city’s constitution. It also denounces the Hong Kong government for becoming a “puppet” of the Communist Party, “weakening” the city’s ­autonomy.

But the article’s claims were on Tuesday dismissed by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. Leung said that while Beijing had promised Hong Kong’s capitalistic systems and way of life would remain unchanged at least until 2047, “Hong Kong has been a part of China since ancient times, and this is a fact that will not change after 2047”. In last year’s policy address, Leung criticised the student publication for discussing independence.

The article was also slammed by a number of prominent Beijing loyalists. HKU council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung described the idea of independence as nonsense, adding: “I don’t think any wise person would listen.” Alluding to mainland China, Li said: “Where would our water and food come from? Hong Kong’s future is good – it is a blessed place.” Basic Law Committee vice-chairwoman Elsie Leung Oi-sie said independence would be impossible. “In terms of culture, lineage and nationhood, we are one with the country,” she said.

Marcus Lau Yee-ching, editor of Undergrad, argued that “only Hongkongers can decide the future of Hong Kong when the Basic Law expires in 50 years”.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, said calls for independence represent a “natural progression” in the city’s politics, as the SAR government has repeatedly failed to maintain Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. “Many young people are disappointed, in terms of political reform and failure to achieve universal suffrage,” Choy said.

(EJ Insight) 2047: Who can predict what will happen?  By Alan Lee. March 21, 2016.

The Hong Kong University Students’ Union’s official periodical, the Undergrad, recently published an article in which the author says the year 2047 will mark another crossroads in Hong Kong’s history. By that time Hong Kong people, he says, should seize the opportunity and rethink the future of our city and its relationship with China.

As the Sino-British treaty governing Hong Kong’s handover is set to expire, the city must consider declaring independence and seek the United Nations’ recognition as a sovereign state, and then build its own democratic government and draft its own constitution, the author suggests.

He believes it could be the best way out for our city as Beijing continues to deny us greater democracy, and as our civil rights and way of life are under serious threat due to the mainland’s increasingly aggressive interference in our affairs.

As expected, the article immediately came under heavy fire from the pro-establishment camp and pro-Beijing heavyweights such as Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, member of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee; Elsie Leung Oi-sie, former Secretary for Justice; and Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, chairman of the Hong Kong University Council and former Secretary for Education.

Dismissing the article’s proposals as “nonsense” and “ridiculous”, the heavyweights urged the people contemplating Hong Kong independence to stop wasting their time on something that is absolutely impossible and will never happen.

Then it was our Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s turn to weigh in on the matter.

Speaking to reporters, Leung pointed out with absolute conviction that Hong Kong has been a part of China since ancient times and that it will definitely remain so after 2047.

Now, while our leaders have dismissed the idea of Hong Kong’s independence as ridiculous and far-fetched, isn’t it equally ridiculous and far-fetched when a bunch of people tell you firmly that something will definitely not happen 30 years from now, when none of them will live to see it?

Do they all have a crystal ball at home through which they can predict what exactly will happen in the future?

Let’s imagine, if a Russian guy back in 1961 had told everybody around him that the Soviet Union would cease to exist by 1991, I bet people would definitely have called him insane and ridiculous.

Likewise, if a Chinese person had in, say, 1881 told his friends that the Qing Emperor would abdicate in 1911, I’m sure his buddies would definitely have dismissed that as nonsense as well.

Now, let’s push our imagination a little further.

If Mao Zedong had proclaimed at the first national congress and founding ceremony of the Chinese Communist Party — which took place at a non-descript urban apartment in July 1921 in Shanghai, and which saw the attendance of just 12 people including Mao — that the party would take power in around 30 years’ time, I bet his fellow party members who were at that meeting would probably have laughed at him in the way like Arthur Li laughed at the Undergrad.

Let’s bear in mind the fact that in 1921 there were less than a hundred registered Chinese Communist Party members across the entire China.

As we all know now, all of the above “nonsensical” and “ridiculous predictions” have turned out to be true.

So who could tell — apart from God — what exactly is or is not going to happen 30 years from now?

Of course I understand that our prominent pro-Beijing figures, given the positions they hold and the prospect of midnight phone calls from Beijing, had no choice but to denounce the calls for Hong Kong’s independence without any delay.

However, they would be completely ignorant and naïve if they truly and faithfully believe that the status quo in Hong Kong — or even the mainland — would definitely remain intact in and beyond 2047. Do they really think they are Nostradamus or something?

The fact that the pro-independence discourse which used to be shrugged off by the overwhelming majority of the public in Hong Kong before the handover has now reached the mainstream media and is quickly gaining momentum indicates that something must have gone seriously wrong with the SAR government and Beijing’s policies towards Hong Kong over the past 20 years.

As a matter of fact, one could hardly have imagined in the 90s that the idea of Hong Kong seeking independence from China would one day become a legitimate topic up for serious discussion in local and even international media and quickly gain popularity among the younger generation in our city.

Instead of denouncing the idea and labeling those who advocate it as “separationists”, isn’t it time for our chief executive and his bosses in Beijing to reflect on what they have done to alienate the people of Hong Kong, especially the younger ones, so much over the past two decades?

And why independence sentiments appear to be gaining ground in Hong Kong, while 10 or 20 years ago the idea would have been dismissed out of hand by most people!

Internet comments:

- With respect to demand (1) in the Our 2047 essay, this Undergrad writer is stating his/her own wishful thinking without bothering to familiarize himself/herself with what the United Nations has to say about its procedures:

How does a country become a Member of the United Nations?

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

How does a new State or Government obtain recognition by the United Nations?

The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the [United Nations Charter] and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The procedure is briefly as follows:

1. The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.

2. The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.

3. If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.

4. Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

So if Hong Kong wants to become an independent sovereign nation in the future, it better start lobbying 9 out of 15 Security Council members (including China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States) plus two-thirds of the majority in the General Assembly.

The obvious barrier is: CHINA, which is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power. If you cannot hurdle past this first barrier, don't bother with the rest.

- But of course if it is the usual vaporware again, then never mind ... just go back to your other business.

- Strategy #1: Buy their votes. The current members of the Security Council members are:

Permanent members
- China
- France
- Russian Federation
- United Kingdom
- United States

Non-permanent members
- Angola
- Egypt
- Japan
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Senegal
- Spain
- Ukraine
- Uruguay
- Venezuela

You can't pay enough to buy the votes of the five permanent members. If one or more of the permanent members vote for Hong Kong, China will break off diplomatic relations. That may mean the end of the United Nations as a whole. So the five permanent members will vote as China wishes. Of the current nine non-permanent members, Angola and Venezuela are politically aligned with China. That means you have eight votes at a maximum. Everybody can count this. Therefore nobody except perhaps Japan will even grant you the courtesy of a meeting. And Japan will meet with you only to anger China and not because they really sympathize with your cause.

- The path is actually clear. Singapore achieved independence because it had the blessing of Malaysia. Hong Kong can achieve independence if and when it gets the blessing of China. If China supports Hong Kong independence, so will everybody else. So you need a strategy to get China's consent. The only strategy that the Localists have so far is "valiant resistance with force." So the Localists will rip the bricks out of the pavement, throw the bricks at the Hong Kong Police and thus force the Chinese Communists to bend to the will of the people of Hong Kong. Or something.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 31, 2016. at a forum, China-Australia Legal Exchange Foundation chairman Lawrence Ma said that Hong Kong cannot possibly be recognized by the United Nations as a sovereign nation under the United Nations Charter. Ma asked former Undergrad editor-in-chief Marcus Lau Yee-ching if Lau was willing to fight the People's Liberation Army to his death. Lau who had said that he would "valiant retaliate" immediately retreated and said that force was unnecessary because Hong Kong wants to conduct a referendum like Scotland. Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers chairman Tang Fei said that Scotland was historically a separate country that was conquered by England. Tang asked: "Has Hong Kong ever been an independent country?" Tang said that Scotland could hold a referendum because the British Parliament agreed to let it. "Do you believe that the National People's Congress will allow this subject to be brought up?"

- How hard is it to gain United Nations recognition as a sovereign nation? A case for comparison is Taiwan, with a seemingly better argument than Hong Kong.

(Wikipedia) Foreign relations of Taiwan.

Entities with full diplomatic relations with Taiwan

Oceania:
- Kiribati
- Marshall Islands
- Naurau
- Palau
- Solomon Islands
- Tuvalu

Africa:
- Burkina Faso
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Swaziland

Europe:
- Holy See

Central America:
- Belize
- El Salvador
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Nicaragua
- Panama

Caribbean
- Dominican Republic
- Haiti
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

South America
- Paraguay

The current members of the Security Council members are:

Permanent members
- China
- France
- Russian Federation
- United Kingdom
- United States

Non-permanent members
- Angola
- Egypt
- Japan
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Senegal
- Spain
- Ukraine
- Uruguay
- Venezuela

Taiwan has no diplomatic relations with any of the 15 Security Council members.

Under the One China policy, countries that seek diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China must break official relations with the Republic of China (ROC) and vice versa. Recognizing Hong Kong would mean breaking diplomatic relations with Security Council permanent member China. Good luck with all your future issues before the United Nations Security Council.

P.S. Breaking news: Gambia just ditched Taiwan for China (New York Times).

- (Wen Wei Po) March 21, 2016. at a forum, China-Australia Legal Exchange Foundation chairman Lawrence Ma said that Hong Kong cannot possibly be recognized by the United Nations as a sovereign nation under the United Nations Charter. Ma asked former Undergrad editor-in-chief Lau Yi-ching if Lau was willing to fight the People's Liberation Army to death. Lau who had said that he would "valiantly resist" beat a quick retreat and said that force was unnecessary because Hong Kong wants to do a referendum like Scotland. Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers chairman Tang Fei said that Scotland was historically a different country that was conquered by England. Tang asked: "Has Hong Kong ever been an independent country?" Tang said that Scotland could hold a referendum because the British Parliament agreed to let it. "Do you believe that the National People's Congress will allow this matter to be put to a vote?"

- With respect to demand (2), the same issue of Undergrad enunciated clearly that the lesson from Occupy Central is that they don't want a Grand Stage from which orders are issued by the leaders. In other words, they won't allow any government to function. You can clearly see what will happen under a democratic government. You can name the person whom you believe is best qualified to become Chief Executive, and I can give you a long list of people who will be his enemies via street protests, pelting eggs at events, filibustering in the Legislative Council, etc.

- With respect to demand (3) about the Hong Kong constitution drawn up by the people of Hong Kong, this is hilarious because it ignores the history of democratic referendum and constitutional reform.

As one example, see the Civic Referendum during Occupy Central with Love and Peace:

OCLP commissioned the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (HKUPOP) to run a poll on three proposals – all of which involve allowing citizens to directly nominate candidates – to present to the Beijing government. It ran from 20 to 29 June 2014.

A total of 792,808 people, equivalent to a fifth of the registered electorate, took part in the poll by either voting online or going to designated polling stations. The two referendum questions were

Item 1: For CE Election 2017, I support OCLP to submit this proposal to the Government:

1. Alliance for True Democracy Proposal;
2. People Power Proposal;
3. Students Proposal, or Abstention;

Item 2: If the government proposal cannot satisfy international standards allowing genuine choices by electors, LegCo should veto it, my stance is:

LegCo should veto;
LegCo should not veto;
or abstain

The proposal tabled by the Alliance for True Democracy, a group comprising 26 of the 27 pan-democratic lawmakers, won the unofficial "referendum" by securing 331,427 votes, or 42.1 per cent of the 787,767 valid ballots. A joint blueprint put forward by Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students came second with 302,567 votes (38.4 per cent), followed by a People Power's proposal, which clinched 81,588 votes (10.4 per cent).

Please note the two problems:

- A referendum can let voters choose among one (or more) among a small number of options. Whoever comes up with the list of options has circumscribed the possible outcomes. For example, you are not allowed to state "None of the above" in item 1, or otherwise state your own proposal (such as One County One System). So when you run a so-called referendum, you will only generate more irresolvable controversies.

- The response rate is "one-fifth of the registered electorate." The total population will be "represented" by those who voted as if the whole world will have the identical preferences. So when you run a so-called referendum, you will only generate more irresolvable controversies.

As another example, consider the Hong Kong Legislative Council by-election 2010:

The 2010 Hong Kong by-election was an election held on 16 May 2010 in Hong Kong, triggered by the resignation of five pan-democrat Legislative Councillors in January of the same year.[1]

Discussions among the pan-democrats commenced in July 2009 for five legislators to resign to force a territory-wide by-election. The plan, which they dubbed the Five Constituencies Referendum (五區公投/五區總辭), involved one pan-democratic legislator resigning from each of the five geographical constituencies, thereby triggering a by-election in which all Hong Kong citizens could participate.

Although the Basic Law of Hong Kong does not provide for official referenda, the pan-democrats hope that by returning the resignees to the Legislative Council, on their manifesto of real political reform in Hong Kong and the abolition of functional constituencies, the election can be seen as a de facto referendum and an endorsement of these issues. The five LegCo members resigned their seats on 21 January 2010 with the by-election taking place on 16 May 2010.

Only 17.1% of HK's registered voters cast ballots, as compared to the record of 45.2% for the 2008 legco election.

We have the same two problems here.

For the 2016 September Legislative Council elections, it is announced that five Localists candidates will participate:

- "Four Eyed-Brother "Cheng Kam-mun in Hong Kong Island
- Raymond Wong Yuk-man in Kowloon East
- Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) in Kowloon West
- Wan Chin in New Territories East
- Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) in New Territories West

If elected, they plan to resign immediately in order to trigger yet another Five Constituencies Referendum on something or the other. They haven't learned a thing from history. They think that "banging your head against the wall" is an act of courage.

- I like the part about "Even if Hong Kong does not have the ability to become independent in terms of hardware, and even if the Chinese economy continues to be strong, our main consideration is not whether we can become independent. Instead, the important point should be whether Hong Kong ought to become independent or not." That is to say, the important thing is for you to waste your time on this. But I don't want to waste my time on it.

- This is going to start a new wave of analogous statements, such as: I know that physics says that I cannot fly to the moon by bicycle, but the important point should be whether I ought fly to Mars or not.

- I know that I won't be able to win the Mark 6 lottery because I did not buy a ticket, but the important point ought to be how I plan to spend my winnings.

- Very funny! (Wen Wei Po) Education constituency legislator and Professional Teachers Union vice-chairman Ip Kin-yuen was asked about Undergrad promoting Hong Kong Independence. He said that the situation is "somewhat complicated." Since he hadn't read the publication, it was "inappropriate for him to comment." Although his answer did not answer anything, he added: "In these situations, your newspaper usually says that I am dodging the issue." Our reporter said that Ip Kin-yuen can contact us anytime after he finishes reading this issue of Undergrad.

- Of course, Ip Kin-yuen will make every effort to make sure that he does not read Undergrad.

- (TVB) Hong Kong University council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung said that the students have freedom of speech, but Hong Kong independence after 2047 is just impossible. Li said: "If Hong Kong independence means returning to the United Kingdom, which does not want you, and you don't even have right of abode here, then this is sheer nonsense. If Hong Kong becomes independent, where does the food and water come from? These are two very basic things without which you cannot be independent. Everybody knows that Hong Kong has been part of China the whole time, even after the Opium Wars. It is absurd to talk about Hong Kong leaving China. I am not going to waste time to debate or comment on this. Any intelligent person knows that this is infeasible and a dead end. There is no point in wasting time."

- If all Arthur Li can come up with are old gags about food and water, then I think that he is pathetic. I wish he could come up with some other points the next time. It's only food and water. Hongkongers are valiant and ingenuous. We will think of some way of solving these minor problems.

- Indeed, we'll just hire the best experts out there to tell us how to get the food and water to feed 7.3 million people. These will be people who know what they're talking about, unlike the political hacks who are clueless. (Acknowledgement: I borrowed this quote from Donald Trump)

- If we all eat and drink less, we will pull through.

- Apart from food and water, Arthur Li can also mentioned gas and electricity. Natural gas is imported from China via submarine pipelines for electricity generation and gas production. No gas means that people will have to head to the hills to gather firewood for cooking. Electricity is generated by local plants using coal and natural gas imported from mainland China plus the Daya Bay nuclear power station in mainland China. No electricity means no mobile phones and computers, which means no Facebook. Now that is going to be a big problem ...

- TVB didn't report that Arthur Li said he was born a Hongkonger and proud to be Chinese. But if someone wants to become a Jap, then Li said that he can't stop them.

- Everybody knows that Li's elders held important positions during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. So how dare he denigrate those Hongkongers who want to be Japs?

- You say that if you pay with real money, China they must sell it to you. If that's the case, then why do you want to go out and stop mainland tourists and parallel traders from coming here to pay real money to buy your milk powder and other merchandise? It comes down to if you hate them, you won't sell to them at any price. The Commies may just flush the Dongjiang water into the ocean rather than sell to you.

- Democratic Party legislator Albert Ho said that Undergrad has freedom of speech, which means that no subjects or viewpoints should be taboo. In so doing, Ho is trying to fawn on young people. Unfortunately the radical youth thinks that his comments represents "leftist retardism" because the only acceptable course of action is "valiant resistance by force."

- (EJ Insight) Why can’t we talk about independence?  By SC Yeung. March 16, 2016.

Hong Kong independence has once again become a topic of conversation after a student publication featured it in its latest issue.

Civic Party helped turn it into a political talking point by raising the importance of autonomy in the context of 2047, when Hong Kong fully reverts to Chinese sovereignty.

That is when the Basic Law and other agreements under the Sino-British Declaration, the basis of Hong Kong’s 1997 handover to China, expire. That is also more than 31 years out, a generation away and a distant future for older Hongkongers.

But for younger people who have the most at stake in that future, there’s no time to lose to ensure the next phase of Hong Kong’s political development. Which is why such issues as self-determination and autonomy will remain in our consciousness even if we don’t actually talk about them.

But why not? If we have been discussing autonomy, why can’t we talk about independence?

Hong Kong people were already excluded from the Sino-British talks on their own future. They want to make sure that this time around, their views will be heard. Hong Kong’s political class is not ready or willing to accept the fact that independence could be an option.

Realistically, that notion is a non-starter. China will not allow it to flourish, let alone happen, and it will take a yeoman’s job to get the Hong Kong government, with the pro-Beijing camp behind it, to let it enter the political mainstream.

Leung Chun-ying famously excoriated Undergrad magazine, the University of Hong Kong student publication in question, in his 2015 policy address for an article about self-determination. He accused it of inciting separatism. Yesterday, he responded to Undergrad’s latest issue as emphatically. “It’s ‘common sense that Hong Kong will continue to be part of China after 2047 when the Basic Law guaranteeing the way of life in the Special Administrative Region is to expire,” he said, adding that Hong Kong’s capitalist system “should not and need not change” after 2047.

Leung’s remarks are straight out of Beijing’s playbook. Chinese officials have repeatedly stressed that Hong Kong is part of China and that fact will not change, although they might allow certain rights and freedoms of its citizens beyond 2047. And in case anyone is in doubt, they keep reminding us that independence is impossible.

Now comes Arthur Li, the HKU council chairman and not the biggest fan of Undergrad magazine, who is playing to our worst fears. “Where will our fresh water come from? Where will our food come from?” he said. Nonsense. Li’s scaremongering shows his ignorance of how market economics work.

First of all, our water supply does not come free. We buy it from Guangdong under a commercial agreement. Some of our food supply comes from the mainland but we also pay for it.

Second, the world is a marketplace of commodities and services.  If China does not want to sell food and water to us, someone else will come forward. That’s not to mention that Hong Kong will soon have a desalination plant to turn sea water into fresh water.

When Singapore left the Malaysian Federation in the 1960s to go it alone, it didn’t go thirsty or hungry. They have kept their border open to allow the flow of goods. The two countries have maintained a long-term water supply contract.

Li’s argument is as implausible as the idea of Hong Kong independence. And that is precisely the point.

We need to talk about these issues because we are being plied with ideas that don’t make sense. And we are being warned about certain “unmentionables” lest we provoke Beijing. Yet, we are told at the same time that there’s freedom of thought and free speech in Hong Kong.

- Joshua Wong's argument about why Hong Kong should be independent: Hong Kong port began in 1841 but the People's Republic of China was founded only one century later in 1949.

Internet comment:

- In 214 BC, the first emperor of the Qin Dynasty Qin Shi Huang conquered the territories of the southern tribes, and the uninhabited island known today as Hong Kong became a part of Greater China. But Joshua Wong was not a good student and he wasn't even admitted to regular university, so he can only be expected to be ignorant about basic history.

- (Ta Kung Pao) What is the significance of 2047 anyway?

According to Basic Law Article 5,

The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.

So 2047 is in a way a dividing line. But what is it dividing? The socialist/capitalist economic and/or lifestyle systems? Or something else?

Some people will have you believe that 2047 is the moment to decide upon territoriality and sovereignty. But Basic Law Article 1 clearly states:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an unalienable part of the People's Republic of China.

This means that territoriality and sovereignty are not up for discussion at all. So any talk of dividing lines such as independent state-building etc is just a pack of lies.

- Reasons for Hong Kong independence from the University of Science and Technology students:

(1) Hong Kong only imports 90% of its water, pork, beef, fish and vegetables plus 20% of the packaged foods from mainland China. The rest is produced locally or supplied by other countries. So if Hongkongers eat only 10% of what they used to eat, they'll be okay. Besides they can always increase their imports of Japanese A5 wagyu beef, Norwegian salmon, Alaskan king crabs and Boston lobsters to replace the mainland food.

(2) Scotland can demand independence even though it does not have an army. But Hong Kong has 6,000 PLA soldiers and more than 33,000+ police officers. So the PLA and the police are a formidable ready-made army.

- Unfortunately, the PLA soldiers are all mainlanders who are under the command of the Central Military Commission of the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, the 33,000+ are Evil Police Dogs who will be purged immediately if and when the Revolution for Independence succeeds, do why should they help you?

(3) 25 sovereign countries around the world have even less land than Hong Kong. So Hong Kong can become an independent nation like São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Palau, Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Marshall Island, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Tuvalu, Nauru, Monaco, Vatican City, etc. [Note: Eh, please note the population density in these small states! They don't have 7 million people to feed.]

- (SCMP) March 18, 2016.

Act strategically instead of just venting anger, one of the world’s leading political scientists told activists in Hong Kong as he warned that the rise of separatist sentiments was counterproductive if not suicidal for the city’s democratic future.

Professor Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University in the United States, said any attempt to advocate independence or regard it as a way out beyond 2047, the expiry date of Beijing’s 50-year promise under the “one country, two systems” formula, would only push the central authorities to crack down on Hong Kong and further marginalise the already weak pro-democracy camp.

“I think it is suicidal,” Diamond, who was visiting the city, told the South China Morning Post in an interview on Friday. “It is not the way Hong Kong is going to achieve democracy and deeper or more meaningful autonomy. It is just going to play into the hands of the hardest hardliners in China.”

Diamond was commenting on the rise of localism as reflected most recently in the Legislative Council by-election last month, in which young candidate Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous scored a significant 16 per cent vote share despite a short period of campaigning.

The convenor of the student-led group Scholarism, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, who played a significant role in the Occupy protests in 2014 and planned to form a new political party next month, also pledged to hold a referendum in 10 years to let Hongkongers express their desire for self-determination after 2047.

Diamond, founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy who has studied democratisation across continents, pointed to the basic strategic rules of social movement – “to unify your ranks and divide your adversaries”.

Noting the strong sentiment of nationalism in mainland China, he said advocating independence would only divide Hongkongers but unify everybody in China, not to mention drive away some moderates across the border who had looked forward to more engagement with the city.

The same theory applied to the relationship between police and pro-democracy activists, which had turned confrontational in the wake of the 79-day Occupy sit-ins. The scholar believed the protesters should be more empathetic and get into the minds of their political adversaries in a bid to neutralise the opposition.

Emphasising his empathy towards the young’s frustrations, Diamond stressed he was not asking them to change their aspirations, just to act strategically with an analytical mind.

“When you have been victimised … and been treated unjustly, as the whole Hong Kong population has been, the natural reaction is anger, frustration and resentment,” he said. “But being mad as hell and resolving that you are not taking it anymore is an emotion but not a strategy.”

He added that the democratic camp, which had little power and resources compared to its counterparts, did not “have the luxury of simply venting emotion”, like what the Philippines went through in 1986.

Meanwhile, Diamond believed the mainland could eventually evolve into an asymmetrical federal system, which allowed the two special administrative regions to enjoy more autonomy than the other provinces, and this could be a possible way out for Hong Kong.

He said the Communist Party should lead a process of gradual political reform like the KMT did in Taiwan and that could “buy themselves a lot of time”.

“I think if the Chinese Communist Party would move to that direction and lead and shape the process of political reform, they would be able to remain in the driver’s seat like the KMT did,” said Diamond.

- (SCMP) Nationalism reigns whatever the ideology. By Alex Lo. March 19, 2016.

According to numerous accounts, Margaret Thatcher at one time considered the options of either retaining Hong Kong post-1997 or granting it independence. At a crucial meeting with her senior staff and military advisers, she voiced both possibilities.

Her generals promptly showed her maps of the city in relations to the Chinese hinterland. They reportedly said there was no possibility of holding or defending Hong Kong against a China committed to retaking it.

China, they reportedly said, could just choke off the city by cutting off food and water supplies. That meeting put an end to her musings and set her on the path to negotiations that led to the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Localists, who fantasise about independence now or after 2047, may well ponder the history of that episode. Independence is not for us to gain, but for China to grant. As an abstract intellectual exercise, let us consider what kind of a China it would have to become to be willing to grant such a thing. It’s obviously out of the question under communist China. The supposition by some people is that only a democratic China would be willing to entertain real independence or autonomy for Hong Kong.

This way of thinking is most recently raised by Larry Diamond, an anti-communist conservative ideologue from the US. He reportedly said the Chinese Communist Party regime was going down. “It is not what China can do for Hong Kong but what Hong Kong can do to advance democratisation in China,” Diamond said.

If you want Hong Kong to be free, you must help China democratise. That’s his logic. I would not bet on the demise of the CCP so easily. Leaving aside his call for subversion, Diamond’s proposition is historically and logically dubious.

Why would a democratic or politically liberal China be any less interfering? In one of his more lucid writings, Horace Chin Wan-kan, the godfather of localism, wrote that a democratic China would be as nationalistic as it is now, if not more so. Why would it let Hong Kong go?

Perhaps Diamond should spend more time in his own country. Would most right-thinking patriotic Americans even consider independence for Texas, something that is advocated time and again?

- (EJ Insight) Joshua Wong and the pan-dems should get their priorities right. By Wong On-yin. March 23, 2016.

It appears politicians in Hong Kong have suddenly become exceptionally visionary, as they rush to join in the discussion of Hong Kong’s way forward after 2047.

Many say we should start fighting now for our right to determine our own future after 2047.

However, that begs the question: what about the unfinished business of fighting for universal suffrage that is still lying right in front of us?

Are the pan-democrats really that concerned about planning ahead for the days after 2047, or are they just deliberately changing the subject in order to hide their failure and incompetence?

Apart from rushing to change the subject in order to divert public attention from the pro-democracy campaign, there is also a stampede among the pan-democrats to claim they are “indigenous parties” in an apparent attempt to ride on the tidal wave of popular support for nativism and widen their support base.

For example, the Civic Party, which rose to prominence after the July 1 rally in 2003, has recently changed its party’s main theme by replacing “fighting for democracy” with “defending our indigenous self-determination”.

Also replacing its goal is Scholarism, which announced Sunday that it will shortly cease to exist and split into two different wings, one of which will form a political party and send members to run for public office pledging “self-determination in 2047”.

But what about the idea of “popular nomination” in the election of the chief executive that these parties pushed for during the Occupy movement?

Have they all ditched the idea already?

Don’t the pan-democrats who are pitching the 2047 issue owe the public an explanation as to whether they will, from now on, focus on promoting nativism rather than fighting for democracy, something we have been relying on them to do for us for the past 30 years?

In fact it is undeniable that the subject of “2047 and beyond” is important, but at this moment, discussion of this topic should be confined to academic circles and remain on a theoretical level only.

It is because there is something far more urgent lying immediately before us, which is the fight for universal suffrage and the right to choose our own leader, and it is this ongoing and unfinished fight that people like Joshua Wong should remain focused on right now.

The freedom and civil rights promised under the Basic Law, although continuously deteriorating, still give us a window of opportunity to fight for as much democracy as we can.

What we should be doing now is making full use of that window of opportunity to get the best deal from Beijing before that window is closed, rather than worrying about something 30 years from now.

- (AM 730) By Zhou Xian. March 23, 2016.

... Even the most stubborn Hong Kong independence advocate knows clearly that Hong Kong cannot become independent under the present objective circumstances. However, just because it is impossible today does not mean the same in the future.

The fast-track Hong Kong independence people make the assumption that China will collapse economically and politically in the near future. Once the central government loses control, there may be a chance for Hong Kong independence.

The slow-track Hong Kong independence people do not believe that a rapid collapse of China will take place. Furthermore, the people of Hong Kong still do not have a sufficient sense of nationhood. Therefore, they are actively spreading ideas such as "Hongkongers are different from Chinese people," "Hongkongers are not Chinese," "Hongkongers are a separate race," etc. If they repeat this sort of thing often enough, the Hongkongers will be sufficiently detached from China. When the opportunity arises, Hong Kong can become independent. Specifically, the slow-track people will resist One Country and increase the gap between the Two Systems. Otherwise, Hong Kong will be eaten up by mainland China before independence.

There is another basic assumption, which is that Hong Kong is irreplaceable as a financial centre for China. For example, where would the corrupt officials hide their money without Hong Kong? So no matter how bad things get here, the central government will not strip away One Country Two Systems and take over Hong Kong. Back then Deng Xiaoping refused to make any compromise in taking Hong Kong back. The Hong Kong independence view is that the central government leaders today do not have the standing and courage of Deng Xiaoping.

These assumptions cannot be shown to be implausible. But I have an idea: Do you think the central government will sit and watch helplessly as the Hong Kong independence people play out their script until 2047, when today's young people have grown up and became the majority who will vote for independence?

I respectfully disagree with Li Ka-shing who said: "It may be One Country One System in 2047." I personally believe that the central government will act first, and it may be One Country One System before 2027 already.

- Spoof of Apple Daily: Security lapse at Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital, large number of patients escape to disseminate message of Hong Kong independence

- (HKG Pao) In an Apple Daily essay, professor Benny Tai began by talking about water, electricity and food. He says that you can buy these things with money. Even the mainland will continue to sell to Hong Kong because they make money.

Tai said that he does not see any possibility for Hong Kong independence in the short run. But he predicted that the Chinese Communists and mainland China will run into a huge political crisis before 2047. "Only when mainland China falls into political chaos can Hong Kong become independent. If China is so chaotic that even its own sovereignty is uncertain, then the sovereignty of Hong Kong is even less certain. That is the opportunity for Hong Kong to become independent."

Tai said that "it is beyond subjective desires of people to know how China will change." There should not be just "the China opportunity" without "the China crisis." Tai called for Hong Kong independence young men to "be concerned" about mainland political developments and "fight for international attention." Tai said: "At the key moment, the Hong Kong people will be able to gain international recognition to become an independent sovereign nation.

Internet comments: 

- The only way for Hong Kong to become independent is for China to fall into total chaos like Iraq or Syria? When that happens, Hong Kong will be in the middle of all that chaos. Millions of refugees will try to rush in because the independent sovereign nation of Hong Kong will be a safe haven. What will you do then? Set up machine guns on the border to mow down these refugees? Tow their boats back out to open sea and sink them along with their passengers?

- This is the same old script that Wan Chin has peddled before. At least Wan Chin said that when China collapses, Hong Kong must be independent in order to survive ... "Hong Kong has to establish its city-state sovereignty, consolidate internal governance and implement double universal suffrage in accordance with the method of Wan Chin." The only difference is that Benny Tai is speaking as a scholar while Wan Chin is speaking as the Grandmaster of the City-State of Hong Kong.

- (Speakout HK) Immigration is an individual right. If a Hongkonger wants to immigrate to Canada or Australia, the Hong Kong government will not obstruct. Independence is not an individual right. Marcus Lau may want Hong Kong to be independent, but this is not up to Marcus Lau to decide. Because this is an issue of national sovereignty of China, the 1.4 billion Chinese citizens will have a say on the matter. Hong Kong is not Scotland. Whereas the British Parliament allowed a referendum to be held in Scotland, the Chinese government holds the position that Hong Kong independence is splittism/separatism/treason. Given this position, why bother holding these referenda in Hong Kong? The Chinese government won't let independence happen, and the 1.4 billion people won't either. Why bother?

In Hong Kong, the most basic question about independence is this: "Do you want to be Chinese or not?" Marcus Lau wants independence because he thinks that he is not Chinese. Fine. But what about other Hongkongers who want to be Chinese? What about their rights? Never mind that these other people might be the majority. Even if they are a minority, will they quietly accept this "annexation" of their homes to a foreign country?

It is total fraud to package Hong Kong independence as an individual right. It is not an individual choice like immigration. It is forcing other people to give up being Chinese. "It's alright for you not to want to be Chinese, but why are you forcing me to give up being Chinese?"

• [483] Loud Speaker (2016/03/12)

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 11, 2016.

Additional funds totalling HK$19.6 billion for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) have been approved by the legislature’s Finance Committee, despite fierce protests and filibustering from pan-democratic lawmakers.

Ray Chan Chi-chuen and his handheld mini-megaphone

Pan-democrats questioned the procedure set by acting chairman of the committee Chan Kam-lam whereby newly elected lawmaker Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu could only ask questions after motions put forward by pan-democratic lawmakers were dealt with. The 19 pan-democratic lawmakers moved 1,262 motions, but Chan only approved 36.

Lawmakers such as Ray Chan Chi-chuen, Lee Cheuk-yan and Claudia Mo Man-ching rushed to the chairman’s table in attempt to take away Chan Kam-lam’s microphone, in order to stall the meeting. Leung Kwok-hung sprayed ink on Chan, and was told to leave.

Leung Kwok-hung sprayed ink on Chan Kam-lam.

Chan Kam-lam also ordered four other pan-democratic lawmakers, Albert Chan Wai-yip, Ray Chan, Lee Cheuk-yan and Claudia Mo, to leave the meeting room but the order could not be executed by security guards, who were trying to block lawmakers from getting close to the chairman’s table. Chan then suspended the meeting three times, with each suspension lasting 10 minutes each. He then moved the meeting into the Legislative Council chamber. Chan decided to bypass the 7-minute question time allocated to Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung, and begin the discussion of the motions put forward by lawmakers. Yeung then took out a loudspeaker and questioned Chan’s decision to bypass him.

Alvin Yeung protesting using a loudspeaker

Large numbers of pan-democratic lawmakers protested in support of Yeung, leaving their seats and rushing to the front of the chamber. They were asked by Chan to leave.

At 5.10 pm, Chan suddenly asked lawmakers to vote on the motion, but only counted the votes of those seated. The HK$19.6 billion extra funds for controversial rail project was passed.

Yeung later added that he would apply for judicial review over Chan ignoring his request to have a recorded vote, which he claimed was in violation of the Basic Law.

Protesters stormed into LegCo building as the funding was passed and stayed on an escalator leading up to the chamber. Police officers went into LegCo to maintain order. Some protesters were holding loudspeakers. A LegCo staff member asked protesters to leave the building or face police action.

(SCMP) March 12, 2016.

The HK$19.6 billion extra funding request for the controversial express rail link from Hong Kong to Guangdong was abruptly passed by the legislature’s Finance Committee yesterday, triggering chaos inside and outside the chamber.

An angry legislator threw ink at acting committee chairman Chan Kam-lam as he out-manoeuvred pan-democratic lawmakers’ efforts to stall the vote, while police had to forcibly remove protesters who had the building.

The drama erupted at around 5pm, two hours into the meeting, when Chan suddenly called for a vote on the government’s request for extra money to complete the railway that will link Hong Kong to Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

Moments before the vote, newly elected Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, used a megaphone to complain that he was only given seven minutes to ask questions even though he had not participated in the funding request debates before.

“I know Mr Alvin Yeung has been returned by 160,000 voters… but while you are here [in the chamber], you have to act according to the rules of procedure,” Chan told Yeung. “You don’t enjoy any privilege just because you have gained a certain number of votes.” As Yeung continued to protest, Chan called for security to remove him from the chamber, at which point, all the pan-democrats left their seats and stood around their new colleague.

When they refused to return to their seats, the acting chairman suddenly put the funding request to a vote, relying on raised hands among pro-establishment lawmakers still in their seats . The vote was taken in the main chamber after the meeting had to be suspended three times in another room, where radical lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung threw ink at Chan, forcing him to go the bathroom to clean up.

Soon after the vote, around a dozen activists from Leung’s party, the League of Social Democrats, and the Land Justice League stormed into the Legislative Council’s lobby.

Scuffles broke out between the activists and security guards as they tried to rush into the chamber. “The vote is void! Shame on Chan Kam-lam!” they shouted as they grappled with security, and police were called in. The activists remained in the legislature for around three hours before being removed by officers, who carried them out one by one without any violence.

The arguments raged on after the meeting, over whether Chan’s surprise move was in accordance with Legco rules. Speaking to the media after the snap vote, lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, convenor of an alliance of 23 pan-democrats, apologised to the public for not being able to block the funding. Ho accused Chan of abusing his power and described the vote as “violence in Legco”. She did not rule out seeking a judicial review to overturn the decision.

The pro-establishment camp, however, insisted that Chan acted fairly and rationally, in accordance with the rules. Veteran lawmaker Tam Yiu-chung of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong hailed Chan’s “patient and careful” conduct. “Chan repeatedly asked the pan-democrats to stop messing around and return to their seats in order to proceed with the motions,” Tam said. “But sadly they kept breaking order.” Tam, also an executive councillor, said the debate had been delayed too many times by the pan-democrats’ filibustering.

Former Civic Party lawmaker and barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah said it was hard to discern at this stage if there were reasonable grounds to challenge the handling of the vote in court. Tong noted that courts had reiterated in previous legal challenges against Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-tsing’s decisions to halt filibusters that they had no intention of interfering with legislative proceedings.

(EJ Insight) How pan-democrats deceive their supporters. By Wong On-yin. March 16, 2016.

One of the most disappointing things about Hong Kong’s pan-democrats is that they are not only incompetent, but they also, from time to time, deliberately create misconceptions in the minds of the public in order to deceive the citizens and hold their support base.

The most recent example of that was seen during the Legco New Territories East by-election late last month, when pan-democrats were begging their supporters to vote for Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu of the Civic Party.

Yeung must win to ensure the marginal majority of the pan-democrats in the geographical constituency in the legislature, the pan-democrats said.

Otherwise, the pro-establishment camp will have enough votes to amend the Rules of Procedures of the Legco to ban filibuster, which is the only means the opposition camp has to stop the legco from passing unpopular or unjust bills submitted by the Leung Chun-ying regime, pan-democrats warned.

Many voters seemed to buy into their sales pitch and voted for Yeung, who finally beat the DAB candidate by more than 10,000 votes and got elected.

However, what the pan-democrats didn’t tell their supporters is that filibuster as a means of resistance in Legco had already been ruled null and void by the High Court four years ago, and as a result had completely lost its effect both tactically and constitutionally.

The fact that pan-democrats were hiding this truth from their supporters, so that they can continue to claim moral high ground and create a deceptive impression that they are bravely standing up against tyranny, suggests that these people are a bunch of hypocrites with no integrity whatsoever.

Some of you might doubt that I am wrong, as a filibuster mounted by the pan-democrats in the Legco recently did strike down the so-called “Cyber Article 23”. So filibuster still works, doesn’t it?

At first glance it might have been so. However the truth is that the government withdrew the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 not because it was brought to its knees by the pan-democrats, but simply because the administration just didn’t mind doing so as the bill itself was politically insignificant and the only people that would be let down by its withdrawal were a handful of American copyright holders only.

However, based on what happened in the past few years in Legco, when it comes to important bills that mean life and death to the government such as the Appropriation Bill, filibusters might have postponed voting on these bills for a couple of weeks on a few occasions, but have never succeeded in striking down any single one of these bills. Simply put, filibusters are just a useless performance in front of camera staged by the pan-democrats to impress their supporters.

One might still remember that after Legco President Jasper Tsang Yuk-shing had invoked cloture in May 2011 on a bill that banned any legislator who had tendered his resignation from running again in the by-election that followed, radical lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung took the case to the High Court and filed a judicial review application over Tsang’s power to force a vote on the bill.

In May 2012 the High Court ruled in favor of Tsang, saying that under the principle of the separation of the three branches, the judiciary had no constitutional right to interfere in how the legislature was run, and therefore the court agreed that the decision on invoking cloture rested completely with the Legco president himself.

Then in September 2014 the Court of Final Appeal again ruled in favour of Tsang citing the same arguments. However, the significance of these court rulings largely went unnoticed as the public was captivated by the Occupy Movement at that time.

As Tsang has already vowed that he will not be running in the upcoming Legco election, the next Legco president, certainly someone from the pro-establishment camp, might not be as profound and tolerant as the incumbent, and may invoke cloture much more frequently. Hence, there will certainly be even less room for filibusters in the next Legco.

To members of the “Valor Faction (勇武派)” who intend to run in the election in September, it’s time for them to understand the truth: filibuster no longer works and is nothing but a farce staged by the pan-democrats who otherwise cannot come up with any other trick to please their supporters.

Therefore, it would be a complete waste of time for anyone who really wants to make a difference to join the washed-up pan-democrats and take part in their scam in the next Legco.

Videos:

NOW TV
http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=171858 Many interruptions during the morning. When the meeting resumed at 230am, People Power's Chan Wai-yip and Chan Chi-chuen and League of Social Democrats' Leung Kwok-hung took over the chairman's post and refused to leave. The meeting was suspended again.

NOW TV
http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=171790 At around 740pm, the police cleared out demonstrators inside the Legislative Council building at the request of the secretariat.

Oriental Daily
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160311/bkn-20160311161125217-0311_00822_001.html Pan-democratic legislators Chan Chi-chuen, Chan Wai-yip, Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung Kwok-hung and Gary Fan Kwok-wai rushed up to the acting chairman's post. Leung Kwok-hung splashed the ink that he brought with him. Chan Chi-chuen occupied the chairman's seat. Chan Wai-yip sat down on the floor.

Oriental Daily
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160311/bkn-20160311194138222-0311_00822_001.html Demonstrators outside the Legislative Council.

TVB News
http://news.tvb.com/local/56e2c1a76db28ccf38000007/ Demonstrators charged into the Legislative Council to protest the vote. A number of them tried to go up the escalator but security guards stopped them. Other demonstrators were locked outside the building. Both pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps speak to the press.

Cable TV
https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/461365950727454/ Demonstration outside the Legislative Council building

RTHK
https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/461280594069323/ Leung Kwok-hung splashed black ink on Chan Kam-lam and the secretariat. Four pan-democratic legislators were ejected.

Ming Pao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Vm4eHein8 Demonstrators charged into the Legislative Council building
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0lm0tzpYMU Twelve demonstrators were carried off by the police

Headline Daily
http://hd.stheadline.com/news/realtime/hk/1054635/ Demonstrators charge into the Legislative Council building after the vote.

Epoch Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJnaLdrGNXM Alvin Yeung speaks with megaphone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdYX_lL3RZI Leung Kwok-fung vs. Chan Kam-lam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okxixWuvtGU Occupation of the chairman's post - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypLYGbGTvgo Occupation of the chairman's post - Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5rsH598ydw Demonstrators carried off by the police

Chu Hoi-dick's Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1048226825251253/ Demonstration outside the Legislative Council

Oliver Yip
https://www.facebook.com/yin.yip.96/videos/448955638643915/ Young man harassing uncles and aunties is harassed by them outside the Legislative Council.

Resistance Live Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAAtQec0d7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wz1Qqr0DHc
Demonstrators charge into the Legco building

https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/943341829048216/ Legislative Council session on the two votes to fund Express Rail Link.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) In 2010, there were 10,000 persons voicing their opposition to the funding of the Express Rail Link at the Legislative Council. Yesterday when the Legislative Council passed the extra funding of the Express Rail Link, 12 protestors were arrested.

Land Justice League member Chu Hoi-dick was present in 2010 as well as yesterday. He founded the Land Justice League after the 2010 demonstration and he has continued to oppose the Express Rail Link since. Yesterday he gave two reasons on why the turnouts were so differently. Firstly, the people have lost confidence in the effectiveness of protests, because it was like banging your head against the wall with no effect. Even idealism will have to deal with defeat.

Secondly, different factions and different thoughts are no longer mutually inclusive. In recent years, the Valiant Resistance movement have criticized the lefist social activists relentless for insisting on moral correctness but achieving nothing. Therefore many activists have left because they don't want to be stereotyped, smeared, and insulted.

An informed source said that Chu Hoi-dick was only scratching the surface without getting to the underlying reason. Nothing fails or succeeds without reason. The reason why there were 10,000 people was because various forces mobilized their people. Today nobody came for the simple reason that those forces did not mobilize their people.

For example, the Localists (Hong Kong Indigenous, Civic Passion, etc) want to focus on the issues that they are leading on, such as radical resistance actions and legislative council elections. They do not regard Express Rail Link as a major issue for them. If they show up, they will only be lending their support to their rivals. Therefore you don't see them around.

- Present to be counted: League of Social Democrats (Raphael Wong, Tsang Kin-sing); People Power; Shopping Revolutionaries (Chin Po-fun); Land Justice League; Lau Siu-lai, etc.
Absent/missing in action: Civic Passion; Hong Kong Indigenous; Hong Kong Localism Power; Valiant Frontier; Keyboard Frontier; North District Parallel Imports Concern Group; Hong Kong City-State; Scholarism; Hong Kong Federation of Students; etc.

- (Bastille Post) The Legislative Council Finance Committee passed the extra funding of the Express Rail Link in a seemingly controversial manner. Previously, informed sources told me that they were confident that the measure would pass. This was not because they knew that committee acting chairman Chan Kam-lam would violently stop the filibustering. Instead, they said that they were coordinating through middlemen with the pan-democratic legislators all along, including both the large traditional parties and the small radical parties. These middlemen believed that the pan-democrats knew that they could not afford to bear the responsibility if the project was killed off at this stage.

On television, you see the pan-democrats surround the acting chairman to scream and yell before the vote, but in truth they had no intention of stopping him. After the vote, the pan-democratic camp said that the vote was invalid while the pro-establishment camp said that the vote was justified under the circumstances blah blah blah. In truth, all that was just a sideshow because all the actors and actresses knew what the outcome had to be.

- (HKG Pao) Last time around on the Copyright Amendment Bill, the pan-democrats dallied around with filibustering and quorum calls. But the government made a surprise move by withdrawing the bill from further consideration and thus putting the blame squarely on the pan-democrats. On television the pan-democrats were in complete disarray, as they wished the government could make some symbolic concession to let them pass the bill in order to satisfy the American copyright holders. So the pan-democrats knew this time that they could not let this happen again. Therefore, we have this piece of lousy acting.

- The whole affair is like the Shumai offered by the restaurant this morning -- it was all prepared overnight. When you order it, it is heated up and brought out. However, the acting was incredibly bad (especially "Village Mayor" Raphael Wong (League of Social Democrats vice-chairman and legislator Leung Kwok-hung's aide).

Raphael Wong (League of Social Democrats) and Claudia Mo (Civic Party) embrace and shed tears at not being able to fight for that big hole in the ground in Kowloon West.

Best Actress Award goes to Lau Siu-lai, who was crying because the PLA will be coming down to Hong Kong via the Express Rail Link. (InMediaHK) Lau was shut out of the building before the doors were locked. She began crying outside. A policeman said: "Is she done with crying? She is really annoying."

- (Oriental Daily) When acting Chairman Chan Kam-lam decided to call for a vote, no pan-democratic legislator offered any motion in objection. Chan Kam-lam then ordered a vote on the first motion to allocate extra funding to the Express Rail Link. The motion was passed without anyone objecting. Chan Kam-lam then ordered a vote on the second motion to allocate extra funding to the Express Rail Link. The motion was also passed without anyone objecting. The meeting was then adjourned. So the pan-democrats had at least three chances to postpone the voting. They did not act.

The explanation from one pan-democratic legislator was that Alvin Yeung was speaking very loudly through his megaphone, and the nearby pan-democratic legislators could not hear what Chan Kam-lam was saying. Meanwhile the pro-establishment legislators said that the pan-democrats deliberately let the motions pass because they knew that they would be held responsible for a large number of construction workers losing their jobs as well as tens of billions of sunk costs going down the drain. Therefore the pan-democrats acted deaf and dumb, and blamed the pro-establishment camp for pulling off a dirty trick.

- Were the pan-democrats fighting every inch of the way? You betcha!

Here is radical legislator Raymond Wong shooting the breeze with pro-establishment legislators Leung Mei-fun and Lam Tai-fai. Wong jumped on the table to pose for television after the vote.

- (HKG Pao) March 12, 2016. Everybody had expected the Legco debates would go down the wire. But amidst the chaos of flying ink and three adjournments, it was the turn for newcomer Alvin Yeung. He brought along a megaphone to make his speech, and acting chairman Chan Kam-lam ordered him to leave immediately for disorderly conduct. Immediately the pan-democrats jumped up from their seats and rushed over to form a human wall to defend Yeung and his megaphone. So there we have the sight of more than twenty pan-democrats worth millions of dollars in pay per month trying to defend the Yeung's megaphone which is a low-tech gadget worth just a few hundred dollars. In the end, Chan Kam-lam asked several times "If you don't get back into your seats, I'll take the vote" without response and so he went ahead with the vote. That was the rout of the battle to stop extra funding of the Express Rail Link.

After the dust settled, Chan Chi-chuen ran around and babbled nonsense. Cyd Ho was in tears apologizing to the 7.3 million Hong Kong citizens. So this was a even bigger fiasco than the veto of the reform of the Chief Executive election when the pro-establishment legislators went outside to wait for Lau Wong-fat to arrive.

Spoof of Alvin Yeung: See how awesome I am! The extra funding of the Express Rail Link was passed because of my megaphone. Haha!

- Alvin Yeung is a barrister by profession. What is the purpose of the megaphone? With a megaphone, you can outshout someone else without a megaphone. This means that you rest your case not on some reasoning, but on the volume of your voice. You don't need to go to Law School to do this. All you need is to buy the loudest megaphone out there.

- Alvin Yeung is such a weirdo, because
(1) When he was studying in Beijing, he sang praises of mainland China. Now that he is back in Hong Kong, he says mainland China is hell on earth.
(2) He was politically mentored by his predecessor Ronny Tong Ka-wah, but they are not on speaking terms now.
(3) When there was a riot in Mong Kok on Lunar New Year's Day, he said that he was providing legal service. But he got evasive when it was pointed out that barristers cannot be making direct solicitations for business. He showered loving care on the rioters, but not a single word of sympathy went to injured reporters and police officers.
(4) He said that he wanted to enter the Legislative Council in order to get things done. So his first act as a Legislator was to demand a quorum call in order to filibuster.

- (Oriental Daily) Alvin Yeung said that the vote was taken before he used his allotted seven minutes. He said that what he had to say may influence the preferences of the pro-establishment legislators and therefore he wanted the vote to be taken again. However Finance Committee chairman Chan Kin-por said that only the Legislative Council chairman has the right to nullify the vote. Chan added: "I understand that you are a new legislator and you are unfamiliar with a lot of things." Legislator Wong Kwok-kin said that Alvin Yeung violated discipline by using a megaphone to speak. Acting chairman Chan Kam-lam had kicked Yeung out of the chamber already, so Yeung had lost his right to speak.

- On8 Channel (Wong On-yin) Facebook

Only one person rushed out while the others stood around chanting. Shameful! They were deliberately shirking off ...
"They did not take any action to prevent Chan Kam-lam from calling for the vote. In the end, they watched $19.6 billion in funding passed within one minute. The pan-democratic legislators kept saying that "the vote was invalid", but this is the same as the police telling the robber that "it is wrong to rob." Is this anyway to stop it from happening? ... If the Hong Kong legislators charged out and took away Chan Kam-lam's microphone, they would have stopped him from calling for that quick vote. If you want to resist, you must go all the way. It is no use to stay in your seat and yell with a megaphone, because what you say on the megaphone is not part of the official transcript and cannot be part of the filibustering. At this moment, I admit that I am sorry about how things might be different if Edward Leung was the one in the Legislative Council ..."

What is this talk about how Alvin Yeung was useless and that things would have been different had Edward Leung been elected instead? Well, well, well. At the time when Chan Kam-lam announced a vote was on, five legislators (Chan Wai-yip, Chan Chi-chuen, Leung Kwok-hung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Claudia Mo) had already been expelled for disorderly conduct. Furthermore, the doors were barred so that the five could not re-enter. Back in the main chamber, Alvin Yeung brought out his megaphone to speak and he too was ejected. However, the other pan-democrats formed a ring around Yeung to prevent the security guards from removing him and Raymond Wong stood on his desk to speak. Then Chan Kam-lam announced that the vote was on. Gary Fan Kwok-wai, Raymond Wong and Alvin Yeung rushed towards the chairman but there were stopped by a row of about a dozen security guards.

Given these circumstances, what do you think Edward Leung can do? Do you think that he is so valiant, brave and powerful that he will be able to overwhelm a dozen security guards with his bare hands? Or did he bring a bottle of acid in his pocket to take out and use at the right moment? Or a petrol bomb? Unfortunately we don't know the answer, because this is just speculative. We will have to wait until September. If and when Edward Leung is elected, we will see what he can so that he won't be expelled or stopped by the security guards like everyone else so far.

- Edward Leung would have tried to break through but he will be stopped. Then he will post on the Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook that they need people to donate more money to them.

- The premise of Hong Kong Indigenous is that they need someone inside the Legislative Council to work with those on the outside, in the same way that Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung let the demonstrators gain entrance to the university council meetings. But you cannot assume that the Legislative Council security arrangements are static like the Great Wall of China. Because if the existing arrangement is breached once, it will justifiably be upgraded in the future. If ten security guards are not enough this time, they will have thirty next time. If thirty security guards are not enough, they will invite the police Special Tactical Squad in. If the STS is not enough, they will invite the PLA in.

- (TVB) The next day at the Finance Committee meeting, Lee Cheuk-yan said: "Yesterday Chan Kam-lam clearly took advantage of the confusion to help the government rob the citizens out of $19.6 billion. The questioning was not completed and the 37A was not processed yet before the vote. We feel that the vote was invalid. I have a motion of no confidence in the manner by which acting chairman Chan Kam-lam handled things. I ask you to declare today that the vote yesterday was invalid." To which chairman Chan Kin-por said: "Because the agenda today does not contain the item that you are talking about, your question is out of order. I've heard what you said. Next!"

- (Facebook) On the next day, the Legislative Council Finance Committee was supposed to meet on matters related to healthcare. As soon as the meeting started, Civic Party legislator Alan Leong motioned for an adjournment. The reason that Leong gave was that he was not in a good mood!!! Also Chan Chi-chuen thought that he liked Raymond Wong's standing-on-the-desk act yesterday, so he took off his shoes and jumped on the desk too.

- Why do the pan-democratic legislators do these things?
(1) The job pays $93,000 a month.
(2) And you have fun and joy every day at work. Just look at the beaming smiles on the faces of Chan Wai-yip, Chan Chi-chuen and Leung Kwok-hung.  Oh what fun and joy it is to filibuster!

- D100

- Express Rail Link's $19.6 billion cost overrun could be used on livelihood issues:
It can build 32,000 public housing units
It can pay for 21,700 more emergency room doctors for one year
It can pay for 49,000 more registered nurses for one year
It can pay for 46,300 more social workers to look after small children
It can pay for 50,000 more teachers to teach and care for students

That may all be technically true, but the $19.6 billion to complete the Express Rail Link is a one-time-only cost. The cost of the healthcare system is more than $50 billion per year, which recurs year after year. You cannot just hire 21,700 more emergency room doctors, because they have to work in some kind of facility with the proper equipment (such as hospital beds, x-ray machines, CT/MRI/Ultrasound devices, waste disposal systems, air conditioning, morgue, etc) and supporting personnel (such as nurses, radiologists, physical therapists, nutritionists, pharmacists, database programmers, cashiers, administrators, insurance processors, telephone operators, ambulances, etc).  Besides, you can't hire 21,700 more emergency room doctors even if you want to because qualified people are not available in such numbers.

- Hong Kong Localism Power

Chan Kam-lam's children are named Chan Chun-kit and Chan Wing-yan. These two pieces of trash will be running for district councilor. Everybody remember to harass them.

(Wen Wei Po) March 14, 2016.

After the vote for extra funding for the Express Rail Link, League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Tam Tak-chi wrote on Facebook: "Somebody asked me where Chan Kam-lam lives. Does that person want to do something stunning? I told that person to be careful. Sha Tin Pass Road, Shap Yi Watt Village. Everybody knows that." Then Tam used a conversation between husband and wife to pinpoint Chan Kam-lam to be "near the Kuan Yin Temple in Shap Yi Watt village."

One Internet user noted that after tonight, "there is good chance that Chan Kam-lam will be living in Wo Hop Shek tomorrow." Wo Hop Shek is the name of a major cemetery in Hong Kong. Another Internet user said that while nothing will change because the vote was final, "at least we can give Chan Kam-lam's mother a fright."  A third Internet user wrote: "Tam Tak-chi, do it quickly. You are a Hot Dog (=Civic Passion) bastard if you expect others to do what you fervently wish for in your heart. I hope that's not what you are." Tam replied: "I have always followed the non-violent path" and "Do I want to beat up Chan Kam-lam? Today at the Legislative Council ... I wanted to go over and beat him up. Long Hair (=League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung) said it would be doing that piece of shit a favor." A fourth Internet user wrote: "Hey, I want a take-out food order. Two bowls of lotus seed soup." In Chinese, the lotus seed is the term for bullet.

Meanwhile the Longsee Facebook posted Chan Kam-Lam's address as Number 14, Shap Yi Watt Village, Sha Tin, New Territories. They suggested: "If Hong Kong citizens are interested, they can look up Legislator Chan and thank him for his great accomplishments. Hey hey hey, this is information publicly disclosed by the Election Affairs Committee so it is not illegal. Don't blame me."

- If you can't reach Chan Kam-lam personally, you can reach his family. According to information, the Korean ice cream shop Honey Creme in Lei Garden Road in Causeway Bay was founded by Chan Kam-lam's son-in-law. Recently, Internet users went to Honey Creme's Facebook and left comments demanding repayment of the $19.6 billion that Chan Kam-lam stole from the people of Hong Kong. As of today, the Honey Creme Facebook has been deleted so that people cannot leave more comments. An Internet user also went to the location on March 16 and spotted only about 6 customers between 7pm to 8pm. Will Honey Creme be heading the way of the Hei Kee Crab General?

- The problem with using a megaphone is that what comes around comes around. You are not the only who has a megaphone. If you use it on someone, someone else will use it for you.

(Oriental Daily) March 27, 2016. The Hong Kong Self-Rule Movement organized a forum featuring speakers Leung Kam-shing (North District Parallel Trade Concern Group), Martin Wong, Chan Wai-yip (League of Social Democrats), Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo-Democrats) and Tam Tak-chi (People Power). After the presentations, there was a Q&A session. The localist nicknamed Steamed Fish On got up and posed a question to Chan Wai-yip. As Chan responded, Tam took out a megaphone to drown out Chan. Another audience member named Chiu tried to stop Tam. There was a quarrel between Tam and Chiu. At the end, Tam summoned the police because he said that his megaphone was damaged. The police came. After mediation, Tam agreed not to file charges.

SocREC video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG0ROyMmk1w

• [482] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2016/03/11)

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,187 persons interviewed by automated telephone in Hong Kong during March 1-7 2016.

Q1. Did you pay attention to the results from the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election?
74%: Paid attention
15%: Half-half
7%: Paid no attention
2%: Hard to say
3%: No opinion

Q2. Traditionally the political spectrum in Hong Kong is divided into the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp. Some people think that this by-election shows that the radical localists have become a third force in the political spectrum. Do you agree?
43%: Agree
30%: Disagree
22%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion

Q3. Are you a New Territories East registered voter?
35%: Yes
66%: No

The rest of the questions are asked of NTE registered voters only:

Q4. How satisfied are you with the overall arrangements for this by-election?
50%: Satisfied
30%: Half-half
13%: Dissatisfied
7%: No opinion

Q5. Do you think that there was an intense atmosphere around this by-election:
40%: Intense
45%: Half-half
11%: Not intense
4%: No opinon

Q6. Did you vote in this New Territories East Legco by-election?
85%: Yes
15%: No

Q7. What is the main reason why you voted? [Base: Those registered voters who voted on election day]
35%: To show that I oppose a certain candidate/political group/faction
41%: To show that I support a certain candidate/political group/faction
4%: Habit
17%: Fulfill my civic duty
3%: Other
0%: No opinion

Q8. What is the main reason why you did not vote? [Base: Those registered voters who did not vote on election day]
9%: Unsure which candidate/political group to choose
12%: Don't care about politics
18%: Don't agree with the political groups to which the candidates belong
13%: No time to vote
14%: No candidates that I like
8%: Voting can't change things
4%: A by-election is unimportant
16%: Other
5%: No opinion

Q9. When did you made the final decision on whom to vote for? [Base: Those registered voters who voted on election day]
20%: On the day of the vote
30%: Within one week of the vote
12%: Within two weeks of the vote
36%: More than two weeks before the vote
3%: No opinion

Q10. Whom did you vote for? [Base: Those registered voters who voted on election day]
2%: Lau Chi-shing
4%: Nelson Wong
27%: Holden Chow
1%: Leung Shi-ho
5%: Christine Fong
15%: Edward Leung
35%: Alvin Yeung
3%: Blank/void
8%: No opinion

Q11. Which political party/group do you support most?
6%: People Power/League of Social Democrats
21%: Federation of Trade Unions/DAB
3%: Labour Party/ADPL/Street and Neighbourhood Workers
11%: Civic Party
10%: Democratic Party
2%: Liberal Party
3%: New People's Party
9%: Other political parties
35%: No clear preferences (including those who support no political parties; independents; don't know)

In the cross-tabulation of candidates voted for versus most supported political parties,

Holden Chow:
69%: FTU/DAB
13%: New People's Party
4%: Liberal Party
13%: Others

Edward Leung:
25%: People Power/League of Social Democrats
19%: Civic Party
3%: Democratic Party
3%: FTU/DAB
3%: Labour Party/ADPL/Street and Neighbourhood Workers
38%: Others

Alvin Yeung:
33%: Civic Party
15%: Democratic Party
10%: People Power/League of Social Democrats
3%: Labour Party/ADPL/Street and Neighbourhood Workers
3%: Others

• [481] Sieg Heil! (2016/03/10)

(Hong Kong Free Press) New ‘localist’ CUHK student leader will not veto any method if effective and supported by students. February 22, 2016.

A group of students who identify as “localists” have been elected to run the student union in the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). When asked about what their “bottom line” is, the newly-elected leader of the student union stated that they would not veto any method of resistance so long as it was effective and supported by students.

The win marked a change from the usual “leftist” student leadership in the school in previous years. Chow Shue-fung, president of incoming localist cabinet Spark, said that the election was a battle between the traditional left-wing ideology and the ideas of localism. He also said that the victory was not just a result of his cabinet’s efforts; rather, it was a triumph of the rise of localism.

Chow also said that the voting results showed that localism had become an unstoppable force amongst students. He believed that even if Spark was not elected, CUHK would also become gradually “localised”, and that it was the general trend amongst students.

The localist camp is tied with various movements related to the expansion of Hong Kong’s autonomy, for example advocating for city-state status or outright independence. Last week, new University of Hong Kong (HKU) student union president Althea Suen associated localism with “seeing Hong Kong as their ‘home’, and wanting to prioritise the interests of Hongkongers and protect the city’s core values.”

For the first time in 19 years, there was more than one cabinet running for student union in CUHK. Spark obtained 2,343 votes – meaning around 60 percent of the total – beating its competition, Illuminant, by around 800 votes.

The voting turnout, however, was only around 23 percent, similar to previous years. Chow said that this was because the incumbent student union faced a manpower shortage problem, leading to long queues at polling stations which put students off, Ming Pao reported. Chow also said that the voting turnout went up following the Mong Kok unrest which broke out over the government’s clearing of street hawkers earlier this month.

A member of Chow’s cabinet was arrested in connection with the Mong Kok unrest earlier this month. Chow said that he respected that member’s decision and was confident that his performance in student union tasks would not be affected by his legal troubles.

In an earlier interview, Chow had said that they would “fight valiantly with force”. When asked whether there was any bottom line with regards to the use of force, Chow said that the cabinet would not veto any method so long as it was effective and was not opposed to by CUHK students.

However, like HKU’s Althea Suen, Chow said that the student union was not a political party and that they would have to take into considerations the students’ interests, RTHK reported. He also said that the traditional peaceful methods of protest, such as singing and marching, had been proven to be ineffective.

Reforms proposed by Spark included introducing fast food chains such as McDonald’s into the campus and holding the first-ever e-Sports competitions at the university.

(HK01) March 9, 2016.

The Nazi salute is illegal in Germany and other countries, but recently a Hong Kong student aroused controversy with the Nazi salute. <HK01> received a complaint from a foreign student at Chinese University of Hong Kong about the incoming student union president Chow Shue-fung making a Nazi salute-like pose at a recent event. The student said that he was shocked at the photo and felt offended by the gesture. He thought that this was not something that a student leader or anyone who knows and respects history should do. The student said that he sent the email to HK01 because he wants public attention to the tragic history behind the gesture. Chow admits that he was the individual in the photo.

Chow Shue-fung replied: "I made that pose at the request of a friend. That pose can stand for many things, just as Superman ready to take flight. If that student felt offended, he can contact me. I will explain it to him in person."

Chow Shue-fung's Facebook

Chow Shue-fung
[You again, HK01?]
HK01 claimed that a foreign student from Germany at Chinese University of Hong Kong complained to them that a photo that my friend uploaded had me raising my right hand in the manner of the Nazi salute. That photo shocked him and he wanted HK01 to follow up.
(1)  HK01 is a new Chinese-language Internet media outlet. For the past week, HK01 is the only media outlet that has been pursuing this case with me. According to what I know, there are not many German students at CUHK and it is rare that there is one student who knows Chinese, reads Chinese-language Internet and knows about HK01. If he was so shocked, then why didn't he complain to Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Apple Daily, South China Morning Post and other newspapers? Why didn't he complain to me, the Student Union or the University? Why did he only complain to HK01? This is puzzling. Here I sincerely ask HK01 to refer the student to seek me out directly so that we can discuss this in person. If I offended him, I want an opportunity to explain to him in person.
(2) As my friend said, this photo was uploaded for viewing by his friends. It was included in a folder of about 100 photos. About one hour later, another friend who is studying in Europe told me that the photo is likely being used by the media to create a story. So I immediately called the friend who uploaded the photo to remove it. He removed it immediately.
(3) This photo was among the photos that my friend took with me at his graduation ceremony. The pose was made at the request of this friend. I did not pay any special attention when I took the photo, and I did not intend any disrespect to anyone.
(4) I do not support Nazism and its historical acts. I detest the racism and war crimes that Nazi Germany committed during WWII. In the first semester this year, I attended Ivan Choi's Art of Leadership class and I wrote two essays about Hitler's rights and wrongs. I am willing to publish those two essays for anyone who is interested in my views on Nazism.
(5) I am angry that HK01 would ambush me over my private activities with my friends. HK01 used the paparazzi method to ask me about this affair via my Facebook, mobile phone and the Student Union office. The frequency of calls annoyed the Student Union workers and myself.
(6) I along with our cabinet (the 46th CUHK Student Union cabinet Spark) have made an internal decision in February that since HK01 has a pro-government position and its funding is very suspicious, we will not take any interviews or inquiries from HK01. This is the reason why I will not respond to HK01. HK01 has harassed our union many times and I am forced to make this response against the union's consensus. So here I have to apologize to the other executives of the Student Union.

Internet comments:

- (Wikipedia) Today in Germany, Nazi salutes in written form, vocally, and even straight-extending the right arm as a saluting gesture (with or without the phrase), are illegal. It is a criminal offence punishable by up to three years of prison (Strafgesetzbuch section 86a).

- Chow Shu-fung said: "If that student felt offended, he can contact me. I will explain it to him in person." Indeed, Chow will "fight valiantly with force" against that whiner.

- Unless, of course, that complainant is a 6'10" 320-pound American football player in which case Chow will just shut the fuck up.

- Chow said that he pose in that manner at the request of his friend. If his friend told him to pull his pants down, would he? Probably not, because even Chow knows that it is wrong. In this case, Chow doesn't know that performing the Nazi salute is wrong, especially when it is totally unnecessary.

- The focus so far has been on Chow. He is fair game because he is the president of the CUHK Students Union and therefore a public figure/official. But what about his friend who made Chow pose that way? Chow said that he did not mean offense, but who was his friend trying to intimidate/insult/mock?

- Chow said that the pose can mean many things, such as Superman getting ready to fly. But he simply won't say what he or his friend meant at that particular moment.

- One of the consequences of the 'opening' of Eastern Europe (including Poland, Ukraine, etc) is the emergence of pro-Nazi skinhead movements. As Hong Kong 'opens' up, we should expect to see how own pro-Nazi racist movements, in the manner of White Aryan Resistance, Blood and Honour, and Hammerskins. We expect that they will expound a theory of racial cleansing to make sure that the Blood of the Hong Kong Race is not contaminated by inferior mainland Chinese species.

- On the Hong Kong Internet, there is a saying that there is truth when there is a photo. Here is a photo of Adolf Hitler demonstrating the proper Nazi salute by extending the right arm in the air with a straightened hand. Then there is a photo of tens of thousands of Germans making the Nazi salute. Finally there is a photo of Superman extending his right arm in the air with a closed fist. Conclusion: Chow Shue-fung does not read his comics very closely.

- On July 18 2015, The Sun published an image of the Elizabeth II (then a young girl) and the Queen Mother performing the Nazi salute.

If the Hong Kong localists believe that the path to independence is by returning Hong Kong sovereignty from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom and the Queen of England can perform the Nazi salute, then so too can localist Chow Shue-fung.

- If the Journalists Association threw a fit when TVB said that they will refuse to take any more Next Media interviews, what will they do when the CUHK Student Union refuses to take any more HK01 interviews/inquiries?

- (BBC) August 6, 2017.

Two Chinese tourists were arrested in Berlin for making Hitler salutes outside the German parliament on Saturday.

Criminal proceedings have been started against the middle-aged men for using symbols from a banned organisation. The pair have been released on bail of €500 (£450; $600) each. Germany has strict laws on hate speech and symbols linked to Hitler and the Nazis. The men - aged 36 and 49 - could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years, according to police.

- In Hong Kong, we have genuine freedom of expression. We can do all the Nazi salutes that we want, and we won't get into legal trouble. Sieg Heil!

• [480] Hong Kong Students Commit Suicide (2016/03/10)

(Oriental Daily) March 9, 2016.

September 7, 2015: 21-year-old Chinese University of Hong Kong Diploma of Education male student leaped to his death from his Tsz Wan Shan home due to problems with his studies.

November 3, 2015: 21-year-old Polytechnic University Electronic and Information Engineering male student leaped from his Sha Tin home due to family problems.

November 4, 2015: 21-year-old Shue Yan University Counseling and Psychology female student leaped from a building in Sau Kei Wan due to problems with studies and emotions.

November 19, 2015: 18-year-old Chinese University of Hong Kong English Department female student leaped from her Aberdeen home due to academic pressures.

December 15, 2015: 22-year-old Chinese University of Hong Kong male student leaped from his Sai Wan home.

January 20, 2016: 21-year-old City University female research graduate student leaped to her death in the Sha Tin campus due to problems with studies and emotions.

March 5, 2016: 22-year-old Chinese University of Hong Kong female medicine student leaped to her death from her Fan Ling home due to problems with studies and emotions.

March 8, 2016: 20-year-old Hong Kong University male literature student leaped to her death in Wong Tai Sin.

(HKG Pao) March 9, 2016.

Recently there has been a spate of student suicides in Hong Kong. This should be a time to seriously look at the emotional problems of young people. However, certain political types are using these suicides to fan hatred and violent and thus accumulate political candidate.

Yesterday Civic Passion member "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun posted on Facebook to connect the student suicides with the Mong Kok riot.

Cheng Kam-mun
March 8, 2016
This morning I called a telephone phone for help. The Evil Police arrested a 15-year-old student  in his home for the Mong Kok affair on Lunar New Year's Day. Five policemen were sent to make the arrest. They didn't find him at home so they went to his school.
They obviously went to his home early morning deliberately, because that is when a person's will is at its weaker. Is it necessary to use such lowly tactics against a 15-year-old student who was getting ready to go to school?

After I followed up on the case, I learned another student has committed suicide this morning. My heart grew even heavier. Do you realize that we are facing up against a murderous Chinese Communist regime that is trying to drive Hongkongers to death in every way possible?

Next Cheng Kam-mun posted a question posed by some 'tutor' to a student. The question is: "If the government imposes draconian measures, why other methods are there to deal with this apart from moving elsewhere?" The student wrote: "Suicide or endurance, because we don't have the ability to resist the government." Cheng annotated: "It really makes my heart ache to see these small children think this way. Thanks to those old farts who keep saying that Hong Kong is very prosperous and peaceful, while they drove the next generation into such desperate straits to become so cowardly that they won't even dare to resist draconian measures ..."

Meanwhile Sammy Wan (a General of the City-State) shared the Ming Pao suicide suicide and added: "Before you die, please actively consider going to fight in the streets."

Sammy Wan:

Right now the best thing to do is to recruit new blood at school entrances.
The best thing to write on the leaflet is:
You don't want to go to school? Join XXX!
You don't want to do homework? Join XXX!
You don't want to die? Join XXX!

Over at Passion Times, a writer wrote: "Why do students go to commit suicide when they have a long life ahead of them? It is very simple. They don't see any future." Then the writer goes on to oppose TSA and other government policies. The essay was titled: "Your own child, you kill him yourself."

Meanwhile the Lego Studio Facebook wrote: "You live on not to survive, but to retain your life in order to take revenge."

Wan Chin wrote on Facebook: Before a huge earthquake or tsunami hits, alert small animals will flee or commit suicide.

(EJ Insight) March 10, 2016.

On Wednesday evening, a 20-year-old arts student from the University of Hong Kong jumped to his death from the rooftop of a building in Wong Tai Sin where he lived with his parents. The student reportedly left a note suggesting he was depressed due to academic and other pressures. His death brought to 20 the number of student suicides since the beginning of the current school year in September last year.

While the number of cases mounted, the government of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying appeared not to be bothered at all, until of late when education minister Eddie Ng finally decided to call a meeting on the issue.

What’s happening to our children? Many teachers and parents are at a loss, and tend to blame themselves, although it can’t be said that they’re not doing their utmost for the benefit of our kids.

Others blame the current education system that focuses on academic performance rather than the individual development of the students, and this has put so much pressure on the students, some of whom find it hard to cope.

Of course, the government will be quick to deny that these cases are directly related to the education policy.

The education minister expressed his regret over the cases. He was scheduled to hold a meeting with teachers, parents and psychologists on Thursday to try to sort out the issue. His department has stressed that the school system has mechanism to deal with the crisis, and the current curriculum has been devised to help students build their character and develop a positive outlook in life. All those efforts, however, didn’t seem to have worked for at least 20 students who chose to end their lives in the current school year.

Why are our government officials so slow in responding to this crisis? It may be that they feel suicides are outside the scope of government policy, that despite their best efforts, there is hardly anything they can do to prevent people who are suffering from depression from taking their own lives. That’s probably the reason for their silence.

On Wednesday, pro-Beijing newspaper Ta Kung Pao came out with a column that seeks to shed light on the rise in the number of student suicides. The title: “Student suicides related to extreme violence”. Apart from the “traditional” factors linked to suicides, says the article, it cannot be ruled out that, based on the rising incidence and frequency, the cases may have something to do with the fact that society is full of contradictions and violence.

Some students fail to exercise resilience in the face of pressure, such as when they are criticized by their parents and teachers, and such psychological weakness could push them to a dark view of life, according to the article, which was published next to the newspaper editorial. “If society is harmonious, prosperous and full of hope, young people may see the light of hope, and they may chat with their friends and teachers. But when society is full of resentment, controversies and hostility, some may only see the darkness. The parliament is full of chaos. There was even a riot in Mong Kok when people celebrated the first day of the Lunar New Year. The youngsters attacked the police with bricks on the streets. The young people who witnessed such circumstances will feel frustrated and disappointed. How can they find hope and happiness?” The article concludes: “For the sake of our youth, to those who continue to mess up Hong Kong, please stop.” 

It’s quite surprising that the column avoided mentioning the role played by the government’s education policy in shaping the attitude of students and their view towards life. Shifting the blame to radical activists is pointless, and may even be dangerous.

Of course, everyone desires a harmonious society. But the current political deadlock, which is the source of so much tension and conflicts in society at present, is mainly due to the government’s refusal to listen to public opinion.

The Hong Kong government insists on pouring billions of dollars into white elephants to please Beijing and inject politics into the school curriculum, such as the pro-Beijing patriotic education curriculum. All this creates resentment and hostility. 

So who is to blame for the discord in society? The radical groups who are reacting to these pro-Beijing policies or the government which insists on foisting these policies on the people? In fact, we should stop this blame game. Instead, we should try to look into the roots of the issues affecting our students and think of ways to help them cope with the pressures of studies and family, of society and life.

For starters, the education department may consider reducing the workload of both teachers and students, leaving sufficient time for them to better communicate with each other and build mutual trust. That could help in reducing the pressures on both sides.

In primary school, for example, kids on average study for more than seven hours at school and spend another hour on their homework each day. That’s certainly a lot longer than the global average of six hours. The massive volume of academic work placed on the students deprives them of the time to enjoy their childhood and relieve themselves of the pressure at school. Teachers, students and parents all suffer from the pressure of having to follow the government curriculum and meeting the teaching requirements.

Government does have the responsibility to ease the pressure on our children. If the government has to point the finger at the violence and hostility in society, it should also blame itself.  Were it not for its indifference and intransigence, we should be having a harmonious society.

Internet comments:

- (Wikipedia) Copycat Suicide: Journalism Code

Various countries have national journalism codes which range from one extreme of, "Suicide and attempted suicide should in general never be given any mention" (Norway) to a more moderate, "In cases of suicide, publishing or broadcasting information in an exaggerated way that goes beyond normal dimensions of reporting with the purpose of influencing readers or spectators should not occur."

The study's author, University of London psychologist Alex Mesoudi, recommends that reporters follow the sort of guidelines the World Health Organization and others endorse for coverage of any suicide: Use extreme restraint in covering these deaths — keep the word "suicide" out of the headline, don't romanticize the death, and limit the number of stories. Photography, pictures, visual images or film depicting such cases should not be made public" (Turkey).

While many countries do not have national codes, media outlets still often have in-house guidelines along similar lines. In the United States there are no industry-wide standards and a survey of in-house guides of 16 US daily newspapers showed that only three mentioned the word suicide and none gave guidelines about publishing the method of suicide.

Craig Branson, online director of the American Society of News Editors (ASNE), has been quoted as saying, "Industry codes are very generic and totally voluntary. Most ethical decisions are left to individual editors at individual papers. The industry would fight any attempt to create more specific rules or standards, and editors would no doubt ignore them."

- The student suicides over the past 6 months were due to a variety of reasons. Some students couldn't keep up with the studies, some had family problems, some have personal emotional problems, etc. It is surely wrong to reduce everything to government policies for which the answer is street-fighting.

- Youngspiration spokesperson Baggio Leung is more blunt by saying that these students died because Youngspiration hasn't done its work well enough. He begs the students to give "the old brothers and sisters" (that is to say, Youngspiration") a little bit more time to rectify matters.

- When a child dies, the family is in deep mourning. Will Civic Passion, Joshua Wong, etc please shut up and give the family a little bit more space?

- Only the worst type of people could suggest that if you perform poorly in school, you should go into the streets and take revenge against the police. So you kill a few policemen. Does that solve the problem?

- They probably have the idea that they perform poorly in school because the Education Department is setting unreasonable requirements. They want a world in which they wake up whenever they feel like, they go to a school that resembles a coffee shop where they socialized and play online games, and they can graduate whenever they want and automatically get a job that pays $50,000+ a month.

- I'll tell you another reason for students to be depressed. A young man wants to enroll in a university because everybody knows that university graduates will get better jobs and pay. However, it is expensive even though the government picks up three-quarters of the costs on the average. Therefore, the young man must have the support of his parents, siblings and the rest of the extended family. Now you have a situation in which the economy is dipping into recession and, thanks to these rioters, and the corporations are saying that they won't hire any local university graduate. It is depressing to carry the expectations of everyone in your life but the prospects are grim. So who should be held responsible?

- If CY Leung/Eddie Ng are to be blamed for student suicides, then who is to blame for this suicide?: (The Sun) March 10 2016. Yesterday around midnight, a security guard at the Next Media building in Tseung Kwun O found an unconscious woman in her 30's in the parking lot. He called the police. The emergency workers found that the woman still had a live pulse, so they took her to the hospital. The woman did not have any identification on her. The police found a suitcase, a water bottle, a number of love letters, an empty medicine bottle and another medicine bottle with only two pills left. There was a final letter that read: "I end my life at the same time that I end my 18-year-long affair with a celestial king!"
Note: Apple Daily explained that the "celestial king" is Leon Lai.

- (Wen Wei Po) Wan Chin's explanation of the string of suicides: It is the dark green plastic tent that is used to screen off the public glaze. It is in the shape of the ancient Egyptian pyramid, which is the most mysterious architectural structure of humankind. The pyramid is the cause of all these suicides. If the pyramidal tent is changed to some other shape, the string of suicides will come to a halt!

- (Local Press) Wan Chin: Why children in Hong Kong commit suicide?

Why children in Hong Kong commit suicide? Do you know why? Wan Chin is going to tell you why Hong Kong children have been hounded to death. Hong Kong children have been subjected to overtly excessive, premature academic and skills training, and also various monitorings of achievement. But opportunities for further education and prospects for employment are blatantly disproportionate to the arduous cultivation the children have to go through; and prospects unfortunately remain unattractive for those who complete higher education. Hong Kong is obviously not the same kind of society that Japan had in the past, in which there were big corporations and enterprises that would absorb brilliant students. Over-trained, over-educated for nothing in return is a harsh reality of the Hong Kong society. How has Hong Kong come to this?

The culprit is not the schools nor the parents; the culprit is politics! The reason Hong Kong has gotten into this plight is because Hong Kong’s form of government is an undemocratic modern politics and its society has lost its traditional moral judgement.

But Hong Kong is an affluent society having in its possession an abundance of public funds for the support of public educational services, and parents too have surplus funds to pay for all kinds of commercial training services.

As the legitimacy of modern politics comes from the empowerment of the citizens, every citizen therefore is endowed with the natural right to enjoy all kinds of governmental care, from which a large number of public services and commerical services are derived. As long as a place has entered the stage of affluent society, public money will be used to take care of the various desires of the citizens. Public service providers would create for the citizens all sorts of needs, which would be scheduled for regular assessment and upgrade.

Hong Kong’s existing education is one adopted after Hong Kong has become an affluent society. But since Hong Kong has not the checks and balances of a democracy, and has not the concepts of national moral values, the educational bureaucrats can thus draw on a range of educational demands (multi-intelligence, synthesized abilities, etc.) to oblige the schools to provide many extraordinarily intricate educational services and achievement monitoring schemes, accumulated one after another, unstoppable by anybody! However, the children who survive such education also fail to be competent, most of them are just dull and stupid.

After the British colonial government’s departure from Hong Kong, the society has lost its moral judgment. And as Hong Kong has not done a thing for nation-building, we have neither our own national values nor democratic monitoring of our educational funding and bureaucrats. Hence, the officials of the Education Bureau act domineeringly on their own, and educational business groups, tutoring centers, children skills centers, textbook publishers all deem children of Hong Kong to be milch cows.

Under the pressure of various academic authorities, public educational services and chargeable training services, parents are kept constantly on the go, not knowing what to do to hold out against the strain. Deep into the night, parents and children, and even the whole family would cry under the burden of the children’s schoolwork!

The way to fight against all that insanity is simple: democratize Hong Kong, so that educational funding, educational management and policy-making will all be subjected to democratic scrutiny, moral values assessment and constraining, and there will be people who have the sense to call for a halt when things have gone wrong.

The issue is that you need to pick the right council members who have the wit to wrestle and tangle with the bureaucrats, and who have a strong sense of ethical responsibility. In Hong Kong, we don’t have many choices for such people, perhaps only one.

- More shameless politicking

P.S. You don't actually have to join us. You can just send money to us.

- Sing Pao: Message from Lau Mei-yee to all managers:

During this academic year, there have been more than 20 student suicides. The most recent case is the 7th case in 9 days.

Based upon the fact that there is a copycat effect, media outlets should be careful about how to deal with reporting these news stories:

Accordingly our Hong Kong news section will adhere to the following principles:

1. We will make direct reports of student suicides, but not on the front page.

2. We will not publish photos of the students unless their families voluntarily provide them.

3. We will not publish bloody photos from the suicide scenes.

4. The suicide news reports will be accompanied by a telephone number for a helpline.

5. The suicide news reports will not include a detailed description of the process.

6. The suicide news reports will explore possible causes and follow-up measures.

7. The headlines of the stories should not be designed to inflame emotions.

8. Reporters should pay extra considerations to feelings of the families and persons from the schools.

The same principles apply to other sections when it comes to this topic. For example, an actor may be commenting on the suicides in the entertainment section.

Any commentaries on the suicides should be submitted to myself or Brother Wai for screening.

Thank you for your cooperation.

- (Oriental Daily) Recently children have been playing all sorts of suicide-related games. For example, a variation of Stone Paper Scissors begin with two kids standing on top of the stairwell. They play Stone Paper Scissors. The loser has to leap one step down while shouting "Leap out of the building!" The game continues and the first to reach the bottom loses his life.

As another example, the game Falling Fred for Apple/Android mobile phones lets the user control the movements of the free-falling Fred. Various obstacles (such as electric saws, fans, etc) appear. If Fred gets hit, he will sustain various degrees of injury, even death.

In another game, the user is tasked to find a way of committing suicide in order to reach the next level. Although this game is labeled for adults only, anyone can download it.

- (Facebook) Hong Kong parents think that the school exams are killing their children, so they are setting fire to the TSA papers.

• [479] The People's Liberation Army Arrives On Express Rail Link (2016/03/08) The NOW TV story appeared in May 2012, but is now being revived to scare the hell out of you.

(NOW TV) May 25, 2012.

<People's Liberation Army News> (Jie Fang Jun Bao) recently reported for the first time that the military is using the High Speed Rail system to deploy troops quickly.

Traditionally, the military has used the regular railway to deliver tanks, guided missiles and other heavy equipment, and the High Speed Rail to deliver soldiers, rifles, mortars and other light weapons.

The report says that the High Speed Rail system was designed for dual civilian-military use. The civilian train terminals can be converted rapidly for military use and thus reduce military response time. For example, in the expansion project for the Nanjing terminal, the soldiers can go directly to the platforms to board the trains.

In terms of the dispatch system, the PLA commanders can take over the High Speed Rail system and insert military trains into the networks of routes.

The High Speed Rail trains are also designed to be bigger and wider than the regular ones, and the military has developed equipment that can fit into these trains.

The High Speed Rail trains have doors on both sides, which allow soldiers to enter on one side while other soldiers leave on the other side. The time is therefore reduced by 50%. To date, more than 43,000 soldiers have been safely sent to their destinations via High Speed Rail.

In early May, the Nanjing Military District arranged for a group of soldiers carrying light weapons to take the High Speed Rail and join the hypothetical battle as soon as they arrive. This will increase the likelihood of victory for the People's Liberation Army.

(SCMP) February 2, 2016.

MTR Corp management warned of “catastrophic” consequences if legislators reject a proposal to plug the HK$19 billion funding gap facing the much delayed cross-border high-speed railway after its independent shareholders voted almost unanimously for the funding arrangement.

Hours after 99.83 per cent of the vote of independent shareholders backed the funding proposal at a meeting yesterday, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said the government would try its best to get approval from the Legislative Council - the last hurdle for the extra HK$19.6 billion needed for the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link.

Secretary for Transport and Housing Professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung hinted that the government might consider as early as today whether to bypass Legco’s public works subcommittee and go directly to the Finance Committee.

MTR chairman Frederick Ma Si-hang called on pan-democratic lawmakers to “ raise their hands high in mercy” to give the project a pass this time. “From MTRC’s perspective, our biggest concern is the filibuster in the Legco,” he said. Ma said the HK$65 billion budget approved by Legco in 2009 would be used up by mid-year and the company needed to notify its building contractors by next month to allow time to make preparations, whether Legco gave the green or red light. “The consequences would be catastrophic in terms of unemployment and reputational damage,” Ma warned if lawmakers rejected the extra funding. “Hong Kong would become an internal joke in the international construction industry. What’s more, we would lose a key rail connection with the mainland’s high-speed railway network which would link Hong Kong to other parts of Asia and Europe.” He claimed last week that between 5,000 and 7,000 workers and engineers in the construction industry would lose their jobs if work was suspended.

(EJ Insight) Why the express rail link is a Trojan Horse. By Joseph Lian Yizheng. March 15, 2016.

Beijing has made public its plan to build a giant tunnel across the Taiwan Strait for an express rail link between Beijing and Taipei. Observers believe the proposed project would allow the People’s Liberation Army to seize the island a lot easier. The cross-strait rail link is among the key projects under China’s 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020). Taiwan people had never heard of the plan until Beijing announced it.

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council told the island’s lawmakers that the project was “something impossible” to happen, and Premier Chang San-cheng (張善政) issued a verbal protest to Beijing for not notifying Taipei beforehand. But mainland cadres, including Wang Mengshu (王夢恕), one of the country’s top railway engineers, said the two sides had been discussing the plan for a decade and that Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was aware of, and possibly facilitating, the proposal.

According to Beijing, the mega project involves the construction of a 122-kilometer tunnel spanning the strait, and linking Fuzhou (福州), the capital of Fujian (福建) province, with Taiwan’s Hsinchu (新竹) County.

We have reasons to conclude that the ultra-long tunnel will give the Chinese military a shortcut to the island to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers if they can control the Hsinchu exit for just a couple of hours. Taipei is just some 80 kilometers north of the beachhead. Beijing wants the tunnel to be up and running in five years.

In an editorial, China’s state-run Global Times branded Taiwanese opposing the project as “cowards” and said the rail link has effectively frightened them to “urinate”. Many Hongkongers are also frightened. The HK$19.6 billion additional funding for the city’s own Express Rail Link is no big deal after the disputed voting at the Legislative Council last Friday, but what makes us wary is Beijing’s thinly veiled warning.

Wang was quoted as saying that the central authorities would never allow the construction of the rail link to Guangzhou and Shenzhen to be halted, adding that the Hong Kong side has no say in the fate of the project. He said the mainland can even help foot the bill for cost overruns, which he said is “a paltry amount” compared to China’s annual budget of 800 billion yuan for rail projects this year.

The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong rail link is of little military significance as Chinese troops are already posted in the territory and reinforcements can easily come in from across the border. The project aims to serve a political purpose.

Seoul and Tokyo once discussed a tunnel to bridge the Tsushima Strait but Koreans scrapped the project for fear that Japan might extend its economic clout across the narrow waters and undermine their own interests. Moscow also broached a tunnel linking its Sakhalin island with Japan’s Hokkaido prefecture but was rebuffed by Tokyo as Sakhalin was once under Japanese control until it was lost to the Soviet Union after World War II.

Mega transport projects between two jurisdictions always entail a raft of intricately-related political facts. Beijing likes to tell Hongkongers not to politicize everything yet every one of its own initiatives has a political agenda.

Hong Kong’s still unfolding infrastructure fiasco may serve as a warning to Taiwan. The express rail link to China is not just a hugely expensive white elephant, it’s indeed Beijing’s Trojan Horse. “When China prospers, Hong Kong prospers as well.” That’s a phrase Tung Chee-hwa has repeated ad nauseam.

Indeed, the mainland economy was humming during Tung’s reign as chief executive, and China at the time adopted a relatively lax political stance toward Hong Kong. But now exactly the opposite is true: When China tumbles, Hong Kong tumbles as well.

Moody’s suddenly downgraded Hong Kong’s credit outlook to “negative”, citing Hong Kong’s vulnerability to mainland economic upheavals and political meddling, like the 2014 white paper that distorted the “one country, two systems” principle. Moody’s was on a solid footing when it issued the downgrade. All signs, from mounting debts to shrinking foreign reserves, present a gloomy picture for the Chinese economy. It’s doubtful if Beijing still has enough ammunition in store – given its rocketing bad loans and fleeing capital – to fight the downturn and restore market confidence.

Many Hongkongers see eye to eye with the rating agency but the SAR government rushed to follow Beijing’s rhetoric, lambasting the move as “purely speculative and subjective without any ground”. Now we know that when Beijing cadres lie, their Hong Kong stooges lie as well.

Internet comments:

- What happens if the pan-democratic legislators manage to stop funding the High Speed Rail by filibustering? What kind of achievement is that to claim for the Legislative Council elections coming in September?

"Well, we filibustered long and hard and we have successfully fought to make sure that Kowloon West ends up with a deep hole in the ground." That does not sound very good.

"Well, we made 7,000 construction workers and engineers lose their jobs so that they can spend more time with their families." That does not sound very good either.

So here comes the Fear Factor based upon the 2012 NOW TV report:

Lau Siu-lai's Democracy Classroom
Oppose the High Speed Rail, Cut Off The Funding
Lau Siu-lai:
The People's Liberation Army has stated clearly that the High Speed Railway was constructed in order to facilitate them to come directly to Hong Kong. We must not dig our own graves with our own money!
Our negligence today will be paid for by the blood and freedom of our children and their children.

- Did I miss something? Why does the People's Liberation Army need to transport soldiers from mainland China to Hong Kong via High Speed Rail when they are already here? Right in the heart of Admiralty there is a Chinese People's Liberation Army Forces Building. There are also many other PLA Garrison bases: Ching Yi To, Kowloon East, Stanley, Western, Stonecutter navy base, Shek Kong Airfield, San Tin, Tam Mei, Sha Tau Kok, Gun Club Hill. The troop strength of the garrison is about 6,000 personnel.

- Look, here is a map of the network of expressways in Hong Kong. (Transport Department) All expressways and most of the trunk roads are high standard multi-lane dual carriageways with grade separated interchanges and are designed to carry a high volume of traffic at a higher speed.

Hong Kong shares a border with mainland China. There are any number of ways in which People's Liberation Army military trucks, armored personnel carriers and tanks can drive across the border and enter the central areas by any number of expressways, trunk roads and tunnels. By stopping the High Speed Rail project, you can delay the People's Liberation Army for a few more minutes at the most.

- You've stated the problem. The solution is easy. All the roads and tunnels in Hong Kong will be mined. At a signal from the Hong Kong City-State leadership advised by Grandmaster Wan Chin, the charges will be set off. There will be no way for the PLA to come to Hong Kong by road. All the bridges and tunnels will be destroyed. And then we'll just sit and wait for the US Seventh Fleet to come and defend us. And they will, because Captain America defends freedom and democracy everywhere.

- The People's Liberation Army also has a helicopter fleet with Z15, Z20 and Mi-17 troop transporters. They can drop troops off in any open space, such as sport fields (e.g. Hong Kong Stadium, Victoria Park, Wan Chai Sports Ground, Happy Valley Racecourse,  Kowloon Cricket Club, Kowloon Bowling Green Club, Kowloon Tsai Park, Sha Tin Racecourse, etc) and rooftops (e.g. Peninsula Hotel) in Hong Kong. So we need to mine all open spaces in Hong Kong as well.

- You forgot about the biggest landing area - Hong Kong International Airport. It is impossible to defend Lantau Island anyway because the landing can take place anywhere. So we'll just blow up the Tsingma Bridge and leave that island to the Commies. They can have Disneyland for all we care.

- Hong Kong has many beaches. The People's Liberation Army has landing crafts. So we need to build concrete barriers at all of the Hong Kong beaches in order to stop those PLA landing crafts.

- Stop being stupid! The PLA Navy can show up with half a dozen destroyers escorting landing crafts to enter Victoria Harbor and disembark at Central Piers. What are you going to do? Dig up bricks from the sidewalk to throw at the PLA soldiers? Do you count on them not shooting you just because you are live-broadcasting on Facebook?

- Once upon a time, Taiwan had a plan to switch road signs if they are invaded. Also their published maps contained intentional mistakes. This was all under the belief that the Chinese Communists don't know the way and will be confused by the switched road signs and incorrect maps. Today, everybody uses GPS-based navigational systems so this is no longer relevant.

- (Wikipedia) Current train journey times

MTR subway (Hung Hom-Lo Wu (Hong Kong)): 45 minutes, plus time for border checks (both on Hong Kong side and China side)

High Speed Rail (West Kowloon to Futian (Shenzhen)): 14 minutes

Net savings for time of arrival of the PLA solders = 45 - 14 = 31 minutes. Stopping the Express Rail Link should give us the critical time needed to ready our defenses.

- (Apple Daily) October 14, 2015. According to <Hanwoo Defense Commentary> from Vancouver, Canada, the PLA Air Force has built a ground-to-air formation with six Hongqi-6 (HQ6) missile batteries at their Shek Kong base in New Territories. According to information, the Hongqi-6 covers a maximum distance of 18 kilometers and a maximum altitude of 12,000 meters to defend against low- and medium-altitude guided missiles. Hongqi-9 batteries are deployed in Shenzhen to defend against high-altitude guided missiles.

- Well, these missile batteries must not be deployed in Hong Kong. When Hong Kong becomes an independent City-State, the United States will send the Seventh Fleet to defend against the Commie hordes which will be defended by these missiles.

- By the way, those missiles are too big to fit inside the Express Rail Link trains.

- Are you stupid? Shek Kong is 12,085 meters away from the Hong Kong-Shenzhen border and a matter of minutes away by truck over land. If they took the High Speed Rail, they will have to disembark in West Kowloon and find transportation back up to Shek Kong.

- Well, if all else fails, there is always the same old excuse: the High Speed Rail project died because of CY Leung.

- As for what to do with the deep hole in the ground in Kowloon West, Legislator Chan Wai-yip knows: "We'll let the government find some experts to tell us what can be done with it."

- Chan Wai-yip sounds exactly the same as Donald Trump, who says that he can solve America's problems because he is a deal maker. What kind of deals will he make? (Huffington Post) "My specifics are very -- I'm going to get great people that know what they're doing, not a bunch of political hacks that have no idea idea what they're doing ... appointed by President Obama ... that doesn't have a clue. I mean that man doesn't have a clue."

- There are two proposals for the soon-to-be-abandoned Kowloon West site already. Proposal #1: A shopping mall that will look exactly the same as Elements next door. Proposal #2: A columbarium to store the ashes of ancestors. Both proposals are designed to meet popular demand.

- Estimated cleanup cost if the project is abandoned: $10 billion. No problem. We'll just raise corporate taxes.

- When the Hong Kong City-State Revolutionary Government takes over, China must do ... NOTHING except to cut off all ties with Hong Kong "because the situation is unclear." But it also means stopping people, food, water, electricity, fuel, money, cars, trains, boats, and everything else from crossing the border in either direction. Within one week, there will be riots in Hong Kong. On one side, the new government is holding parties and parades to celebrate the victory. On the other side, people want basic essentials which the new government is not able to supply. People will be digging up pavement bricks to throw at each other. Pretty soon, there is a chorus: Will the PLA come down as quickly as possible to put down the rebellion? Then the PLA will come on the High Speed Rail trains to be greeted with kisses and flowers while the members of the Hong Kong City-State Revolutionary Government take shelter in the American, British and Swedish consulates.

- China should do SOMETHING, like issuing a 'black' travel advisory and stop all traffic from mainland China into Hong Kong because the situation is very dangerous. It will also thoroughly search all ships heading for Hong Kong (including those carrying food and water) in case they carry nuclear/biochemical weapons.

- Raphael Wong (League of Social Democrats) demonstrated against the High Speed Rail today in Wong Tai Sin and ran across the Blue Ribbon tough guy nicknamed "Magnifying Glass": https://www.facebook.com/100006584053689/videos/1780814932147958/ who used standard Yellow Ribbon tactic (=a constant stream of invectives with no room for any rational discourse).

- (Wen Wei Po) And why is Lau Siu-lai so high-profiled nowadays? She is planning to run for Legislative Council along with Chu Hoi-dick (Land Justice League) and other 'scholars.'

- (Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies) 805 adults were interviewed by telephone from 19 to 24 February 2016.

Q1. Do you support the extra funding to complete the Hong Kong Express Rail Link?
Agree: 55.0%
Disagree: 36.0%.
Don't know/hard to say: 8.9%

Q2. Why do you support the extra funding? (Base: Those who answered Agree on Q1)
42.0%: It is a waste of resources if we stop the construction of Express Rail Link which is mostly completed
26.9%: It is favorable to Hong Kong's economic development
13.8%: It enables more convenient transportation between Hong Kong and mainland China
11.3%: It facilitates the social and economic integration between Hong Kong and mainland China
1.8%: It is cheaper to travel by Express Rail Link than by airplane
2.5%: Other reason
1.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. Why do you oppose the extra funding? (Base: Those who answered Disagree on Q1)
44.8%: It is not necessary for Hong Kong to build the Express Rail Link
27.6%: The issue of co-location arrangement has not been resolved
10.0%: Lack of confidence in the Hong Kong government
5.9%: Oppose Hong Kong and mainland China coming together
4.8%: More beneficial to develop the Kowloon West Terminal into a shopping mall
6.2%: Other reasons
0.7%: Don't know/hard to say

With the polling results to Q1, how can you justify that you are standing up on behalf of the 7.3 million citizens of Hong Kong?

- Hey, it's easy. All you need is a thick skin.

- If some day the PLA wants to invade Hong Kong, they will assemble in Shenzhen first and then they will steamroll down the expressways right into the city. The Localists who kept shouting about shedding first blood will be watching everything on television at home. They will boil with anger but they also know that they are powerless to stop the PLA.

In reality, the only way to resist the PLA is to hope that they take the High Speed Rail. Those trains run pretty much on schedule, so when one of them comes along carrying 1,000 PLA soldiers, you wait with an 18-wheeler truck by the side. When the train comes, you shout "God Save The Queen" and you ram the truck along with yourself into the oncoming train. Everybody dies. The tracks will be disrupted and no more trains can come through anymore. The PLA knows this. Never in military history did an invasion into hostile territory take place by ferrying soldiers into the heart of that territory by railway. So if the PLA is going to come, they will come by land, air and sea but they definitely won't be coming on a train.

- More from Siu-Lai's Democracy Classroom

Within two days, from Wen Wei Po, the Youth Development Society, Good News Hong Kong, Speakout Hong Kong, and Headline Daily's Chris Wat to the many complaints to my school, the Chinese Communist suppression apparatus appears to me making an all-out attack against me!
I am not afraid of these pressures, because everything that I saw is factual and for the good of Hong Kong. I will persist.

- 100mao

Actually I will never even take the Hong Kong Express Rail Link once
Because I will never ever be able to obtain a Home Visit Permit

Just because you won't be able to use it, it shouldn't be funded. By extension, the same logic applies to these situations (spoof of 100 Mao from 100 Blind Mao):

Actually, there has never been a fire inside my home.
Therefore we should get rid of the Fire Department.

Actually, I have never had to visit a social worker in Hong Kong.
Therefore we should fire all the 8,000 Hong Kong social workers.

Man: Actually I will never use a women's restroom.
Therefore we should get rid of all women's restrooms.

Woman: Actually I will never use a men's urinal.
Therefore we should get rid of all men's urinals.

• [478] Student Unions Sell Banned Books (2016/03/07)

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 7, 2016.

The student unions of nine Hong Kong universities and higher education institutes are to sell “banned” books in protest, following the recent case of the five detained booksellers which many feel curbs freedom of expression and publication.

In a post by the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) on social media, the student association said that Causeway Bay Books – which specialises in gossipy titles banned in China – is currently mostly empty, and book printers have destroyed most of the unsold “banned” titles. It said the case was “solid proof” China was disrespecting the one country, two systems principle and interfering with Hong Kong’s freedom of publication, speech and personal safety. HKFS stated that it has obtained a small amount of the “banned” books and will sell them at the student unions of nine universities and higher education institutes starting this week.

“Hong Kong is a free city, universities are the fortresses of freedom and defending freedom is the righteous thing to do for students,” HKFS said in the post.

The schools where the books will be sold are:

• University of Hong Kong
• Chinese University of Hong Kong
• Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
• Polytechnic University
• Baptist University
• Lingnan University
• Shue Yan University
• Hang Seng Management College
• Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong

Internet comments:

Hong Kong Federation of Students
Unafraid of White Terror
Higher education institutions selling "banned book" by consignment

* "Banned books" refer to those books that are not allowed to be printed and published on mainland China. According to the Basic Law, the books can be freely published and sold in Hong Kong
* The prices of the books will be set by the Student Unions

- What are these so-called banned books? You can't figure this out from what the Hong Kong Federation of Students is saying on that page. They put the term "banned books" in quotes, so it is not what it normally means. So what do they really mean?

In China, more than 100,000 new book titles are published legally each year. Before publication, a book has to be read by a reviewer who approves, rejects or makes recommendations for revisions. Some books are not approved for various reasons (such as politics, pornography, sexism, violence, racism, separatism, libel, financial fraud, superstition, teaching how to commit crime, etc). Those books which are approved receive a ISBN number for publication. It is against the law to publish a book without an authorized ISBN number.

So in China, a banned book is either

(a) a book that was submitted by a publishing house for review and the government did not approve publication. An example might be Yu Hua's <China's Best Actor: Wen Jiabao>.

or

(b) a book that was not submitted for review because the publisher had no expectations for approval. Examples might be

(i) <The Six Women of Xi Jinping>, the unauthorized story of the six women in the life and times of the current Chinese Communist leader;

(ii) <The Complete Teachings of Falun Gong> by Master Li Hongzi;

(iii) <Freedom in Exile>, the autobiography of the Dalai Lama;

(iv) <Complete Works of Chairman Mao>, the collected works of Mao Zedong published unofficially without authorization from his literary estate;

(v) <The Heart of the Young Girl>, the pornographic novel which was widely circulated in hand-copied form during the Cultural Revolution;

(vi) Tips on how to buy lottery tickets based upon the interpretation of dreams;

(vii) Tips on how to cure cancer by meditation;

(viii) How to make $1,000,000 RMB by leveraging your stock market speculations;

etc

In Hong Kong, it is not the case that publishers are completely free to publish any book as they wish. It is true that books about Xi Jinping, Falun Gong, Dalai Lama, separatism, Hong Kong independence, etc are freely published. There are at least two categories in which publication can run into legal problems.

Firstly, there are copyright violations. For example, the martial arts novels of Jin Yong cannot be published in any form without his authorization. Because his books sell so well, plenty of fools rush in and face the legal consequences.

Secondly, there are violations of other statutes of law. For example, child pornography. As another example, trade descriptions (e.g. miracle diets/treatments that are in fact harmful). The situation would be similar in the United States as well as mainland China. Don't kid yourself that anything goes in Hong Kong or should go in China.

When the Hong Kong Federation of Students say that they are selling "banned books," they are narrowly referring to a certain distinct class of books that are not available on mainland China for political reasons. They are not referring to books that are banned in Hong Kong (for reason of copyright violation, child pornography, deceptive advertising, etc).

- Are the student unions performing a social service by allowing mainland visitors to buy these political books that are not available on mainland China? You must be kidding me!

(New York Times) Hong Kong Bookstores display Beijing's Clout. October 19, 2015.

The tiny book stall next to the popular Star Ferry terminal in Hong Kong does a brisk business catering to the thousands of visitors from mainland China who pass by every day. About half of its books are political, including titles about the private lives, back-room politics and fabulous fortunes of the Communist Party elite in China. The other half are pornographic. Both types are banned in the mainland. “Political books and pornography books both have market value,” said the owner, Mak Kuen-tat, as he leafed through a tabloid about local celebrity gossip.

That is to say, you can buy any of these books at newsstands and bookstores all over Hong Kong. At the Hong Kong International Airport, each of the bookstores has at least one complete bookshelf dedicated to the latest titles. These other outlets have a better selection than what the HKFS is offering.  As the Hong Kong Federation of Students noted, "According to the Hong Kong Basic Law, the books can be freely published and sold in Hong Kong." The books are not banned in Hong Kong if you can buy them everywhere.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students says that the prices of the books will be determined by the student unions. You can trek out to Tuen Mun or Tai Po to find out whether they have marked the prices up or down. The books should have a listed price printed on the back cover. If they black the original prices out and put new price stickers in, you can always obtain the listed price over the Internet.

- I do not for one moment think that the Hong Kong Federation of Students is 'valiant' in this attempt to resist the Chinese Communist Party. This is just a PR show that is coming off very poorly.

- If the students are truly valiant, they should cross the border in a van loaded with the books and sell them at Shenzhen University or Zhongshan University.

- Next Weekly is not allowed to be sold on mainland China. The student unions should be selling Next Weekly too.

- "HKFS stated that it has obtained a small amount of the “banned” books and will sell them at the student unions." Earlier, the lease for the ninth floor Chai Wan warehouse of Causeway Bay Books was up and they decided to close the place down, unloading all the worthless unsold inventory. Some of those books were routed to the Hong Kong Federation of Students and others to the Alliance for Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in Hong Kong on the way to the landfill. (see SCMP)

There were two warehouses under Mighty Current, the parent publishing company of Causeway Bay Books. Both units held over 100,000 printed books when Lee disappeared. “There were 45,000 copies on the 9th floor of the warehouse, which was a rented unit whose lease expired last month. The rest were on the 10th floor office owned by the Lees,” Woo Chih-wai said. He recalled seeing all the copies being cleared out from the 9th floor unit on January 25 on the orders of Sophie Choi Ka-ping, Lee’s wife. “They were all packed and ready to go to whoever the buyers were. But then Sophie ordered them to be destroyed instead of selling them,” he said.

If you are interested in paying $150 for a 2010 book about how Hu Jintao plans to exact revenge on Jiang Zemin before leaving his post in 2012, you should go ahead by all means if it makes you feel good that you are supporting freedom, democracy and human rights. This is a dishonest sales pitch.

- This is not a freedom of academic research issue. The argument is not about whether information flow is being cut off by the mainland ban. There is no useful information in those books, which even those involved in the production/printing/sales of these books will freely acknowledge. For example, how does the author know exactly what words Li Keqiang used during the second November 2015 meeting of the Politburo? Was the room bugged? Did the secretariat leak the recording to a Hong Kong freelance writer?

- It is not that all the information is false. Out of the entire ocean of information, perhaps one bit is true. But how do you tell that bit from the rest? Given this being the case, why would any insider leak their knowledge to one of these book publishers to produce a book that will be placed alongside the "Sex Lives of XXX/YYY" etc? There is no political effect and the money is nothing compared to the risk of being caught.

- The Hong Kong Federation of Students said that the case of Causeway Bay Books was “solid proof” that China was disrespecting the one country, two systems principle. Well, China was willing to let Mighty Current publish whatever they publish and Causeway Bay Books sell whatever they sell in Hong Kong. The problem was that the booksellers got greedy and decided to sell directly into mainland China. They took orders from mainland customers, put covers of romance novels on the political books and tried to sneak them through the Shenzhen post office. So these Hongkongers were violating mainland laws and thus "disrespecting the one country, two systems principle."

- If you say that Gui Minhai and Lee Bo did right, then what about the reverse situation? A printing house in Shenzhen prints a deluxe collected works of Jin Yong in traditional characters and sells them to Hongkongers via Taobao for 10 RMB. Is that okay with you too?

- (HK01)

In 2012, Gui Minhai and Lee Bo founded Mighty Current, which incorporated Lee's three publishing houses and Gui's nine publishing houses which used to be with Frontline Magazine. They also hired away two Frontline Magazine stalwarts, Lui Por and Cheung Chi-ping. Mighty Current purchased a 200-square-meter warehouse on the tenth floor of Hong Man Industrial Building in Chai Wan and rented another 100-square-meter warehouse on the ninth floor of that building. For a while, they were doing even better than Frontline Magazine in total revenues.

In 2014, Gui Minhai and Lee Bo invested money together to buy Causeway Bay Books from Lam Wing-kee. The bookstore became the contact point between the publisher Mighty Current and its readers, and formed the chain from publishing to retail sales. At the time, the former owner Lam Wing-kee was getting old and had lost $200,000 over the years. Therefore Lam was happy to make the deal.

So you should get real about the situation of the bookstore -- it was ready to go under at any moment unless the new owners can make the plan for direct sales into mainland China work. In other words, they had to succeed in operating an illegal business in mainland China. So must China sit and watch?

- This sounds like the Opium Wars. China says that they don't want the opium to come into their country. Great Britain says that they have the right to conduct commerce across the border. Who won? The folks with the superior gunboats.

- How many gunboats does the Hong Kong Federation of Students have?

• [477] Pearls of Wisdom From A Fifth-Year Philosophy Student (2016/03/03)

(SpeakoutHK @ YouTube) [Note: This radio session should be watched on video to see his facial expressions)

0:01 RTHK radio host: If the actions injured some citizens who were passing by, then what is your view?

0:06 Edward Leung, spokesperson for Hong Kong Indigenous: Even I don't want it to happen.

0:10 Host: But it is possible.

0:11 Leung: It is possible. At every large-scale conflict, such things are hard to avoid completely.

0:33 Caller Mr. Yeung: Actually I am very worried. After listening to what he said today, I and my wife want to have a child. One day I and my wife will be walking down the street. Will what Mr. Leung said happen to her? Injuring a pregnant woman, injuring a child. I am very worried as a soon-to-be dad. On Lunar New Year's Day, I saw someone ready to set fire to a taxi. I don't know if you remember a fire in Mong Kok a few years ago. How many people died? How many families met tragedy? If an explosion occurred that night, how many families will be broken?

1:05 Leung: To think about how to do something that will be directed against the state apparatus but at the same time reduce the impact on innocent citizens. I think that there should be some thinking about this.

1:20 Host: Do you have any answer?

1:21 Leung: Not so far.

1:23 Host: Will you remind the demonstrators?

1:24 Leung: Remind them?

1:26 Host: "Don't do it. Think about it carefully first."

1:27 Leung: It is hard to instruct every member of an angry crowd.

(SpeakoutHK @ YouTube)

In response to the a radio host saying that the police came to maintain order but were assaulted by the mob.

0:12 Edward Leung, spokesperson for Hong Kong Indigenous: Ultimately, they are a disciplinary force. That is, shots have been fired already. If they (the police) don't want to be pawns for the authorities, they should get another job.

(SpeakoutHK @ YouTube)

In response to the radio host speaking about reporters being injured in the line of duty.

0:12 Edward Leung, spokesperson for Hong Kong Indigenous: All of Mong Kok was already a battlefield. The demonstrators and the police were all in the heat of battle.

0:20 Radio host: You're the one who is declaring it to be a battlefield. But the reporters were only doing their jobs.

0:24 Leung: If there is another clash like this one, everybody should be fully prepared.

Internet comments:

- This mad man says that the reason why the police and reporters were injured was that they were not properly equipped for a riot whereas the rioters were fully prepared for the event. (Sigh)!.

- Please tell me what else this TVB cameraman should be equipped with?

- Leung said that everybody was in the heat of battle and therefore injuries were unavoidable. But the reporters were not accidentally injured. The rioters wanted to remove evidence of their criminal activities. They threatened the reporters with vulgar curses, they destroyed camera equipment and they assaulted reporters. They interfered with news gathering. Will Edward Leung come out and state that he is willing to defend the Press as the Fourth Estate?

(Initium) March 1, 2016.

"A new immigrant is not necessarily an Other. If a new immigrant arrives in Hong Kong, actively learn Cantonese and accepts Hong Kong culture and core values, then he/she can become one of Us." Edward Leung told the Initium reporter. He said that the people of Hong Kong should be able to define who is a new Hongkonger. They advocate that the right of approval of one-way immigrant visas from mainland China to Hong Kong should be in the hands of the Hong Kong government.

But will a society that keep emphasizing Us versus Them erect barriers and cause fears?

Sitting in the teahouse restaurant, Edward Leung stayed silent for a few seconds and then leaned his body forward, smiled and said: "These walls do not exist as long as you are willing to blend in."

Edward Leung's mother is a new immigrant from Wuhan city, Hubei province, China. His father is a Hongkonger who taught Chinese history at a secondary school. On a field trip to Wuhan, he met Edward's mother. After they got married, he applied for her to come down to Hong Kong to live. Thereafter she was a housewife.

In Edward Leung's narrative, his mother is one of Us to me, a model of how to actively blend into Hong Kong. "She seldom goes back to mainland China. She learned to speak Cantonese after she got here. From the start, she spoke Cantonese. At first she couldn't speak Cantonese, but she learned it. She never taught me putonghua. She spoke Cantonese all the time."

His mother loved Chinese literature. She introduced Edward Leung to Tang and Song dynasty poems, and introduced him to the books of Qian Zhongshu and Shen Congwen. But China is still very alien to him.

"It is clear that the place where I live in is called Hong Kong and everybody says that I am a Hongkonger. I have been to China much. Have I really Chinese?" He recalled his perplexity. At age 5 and again age age 13, he went back to Wuhan with his mother. But apart from seeing snow, he does not have much of an impression of China.

In 1997, Hong Kong was returned to China. Edward Leung was 6 years old. He said that he vaguely pondered "why Hong Kong was returned to China" and "why did the blue flag of Hong Kong become a red flag."

As for identity, Edwad Leung's father did not have these perplexities. "He is anti-Communist but also very patriotic. He votes for the Democratic Party each time." His father was particularly interested in studying the Late Qing dynasty, the northern campaign of the Nationalist Revolution, the War of Resistance against Japan and the Civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists. He gave history lessons to his son. "At heart, my father is anti-communists. His frequent conclusion was that the revolutionary efforts of the forebears managed to establish a nation. But because the Communists seized power through the Civil War, the New China is awashed in abject poverty and corruption is everywhere."

Internet comments:

- How localist is our Localist candidate?

His mother is a mainland locust who came from Wuhan city, Hubei province, China.

His father is a Hongkonger who chose to marry a mainlander instead of a Hongkonger. She spoke no Cantonese at the time.

After the parents married, the father applied for the mother to come down to Hong Kong on a one-way immigrant visa, like the hundreds of thousand of other female mainland locusts.

Afterwards, the mother became a housewife. This means that she was stealing resources from genuine Hongkongers without making any contributions of her own, like the hundreds of thousands of other female mainland moocher locusts who sponge off the genuine Hongkongers who pay genuine taxes.

Late breaking news: Even the candidate was born in mainland China. He and his mother came after his birth for family reunion, like hundreds of thousands of others. And the candidate is in his fifth year of undergraduate studies majoring in Philosophy, soaking up more money from the Hong Kong taxpayers.

- The time of this disclosure is strategic. Edward Leung must have known that this is a problem. The only issue is that he wants to set his own terms for the disclosure. To do so before the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election would torpedo his campaign. Therefore he kept the lid on. However, he knew that he could not do so forever. Therefore he chose to do so now while he was still riding on the tide. If he waited until later, the campaign season for the September Legislative Council elections would have started and the disclosure would come from his enemies. So he chose to come clean now and hope that the impact on the election six months later will be minimal.

- This may not be the whole story yet. For example, what are the ages of the parents? The most typical story is the one in Ann Hui's Night and Fog: An elderly man from Hong Kong takes a wife from mainland China and goes on to neglect and abuse the woman. So was the father 60 and the mother 20 when they met? ...

- (Hong Kong Census 2011)

Place of birth of Overall Population, 2011

Hong Kong: 4,278,126 (60.5%)
Mainland China/Macau/Taiwan: 2,267,917 (21.1%)
Elsewhere: 525,533 (7.4%)

By age, most persons over age 65+ were born in mainland China/Macau/Taiwan.

- So what is the real problem? Nationalism? Racism? Ageism? Jeunism?

- Edward Leung said that a new Hongkonger is not defined by place of origin. Instead, a new Hongkonger is someone who learns to speak Cantonese and accepts the culture and core values of Hong Kong.

Conclusion #1: If you can't speak Cantonese, you are not a new Hongkonger. Please take note, all you South Asians, Americans, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Canucks, etc.

Conclusion #2: There is no consensus on what are the culture and core values of Hong Kong. If you offer a list, that is your opinion. Edward Leung is saying that a new Hongkonger must accept the culture and core values as listed by Edward Leung.

- Don't count on there being a list from Edward Leung. He isn't sure what those things are and he is going to be shifty about it.

- Well, people like to say that rule-of-law is a core value in Hong Kong. That is not the case as far as the Localists are concerned. Under any system of law, it is reasonable to assume that must be ordinances against rioting, criminal destruction of property, physical assault, arson, etc. The Localists do not believe that such laws are applicable to them.

- In practice, the Localists will judge a person based upon external appearance. They never bother to obtain a sworn statement of loyalty to the cause of Localism. For example, see the Tuen Mun mother-daughter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n02bbn_7aKw). Interesting when the mother opened her suitcase to show that she was not 'smuggling' anything, the response was "Maybe you didn't but your compatriots are." So that was guilty by association through place of origin which covers Edward Leung.

- A true Localist speaks Weitou dialect. Everybody else is a locust, with only generational differences.

- (YZZK) According to the localists, they are the genuine Hongkongers whereas all those who came from mainland China and speak accented Cantonese are not. Based upon this standard, people like Ming Pao founder Jin Rong (who speaks with a Zhejiang accent), Sir Run Run Shaw (who speaks Ningbo-accented Shanghainese all his life) and Asia's richest man Li Ka-shing (who speaks with a Jiaozhou accent) are not Hongkongers! But who are you to say that they are not Hongkongers? Who amongst you have contributed more to make Hong Kong great than them?

- If Edward Leung's mother is stopped in the street by angry Shopping Revolutionaries because she is a "mainland Chinese middle-aged woman (大媽)", how would he respond?

- What is this psychoanalytical babble about the mind of Edward Leung? The whole thing is very simple: Edward Leung is a Revisionist Maximalist, which is a Jewish movement that supported Nazi Germany for its anti-communist stances while opposing their antisemitism. Or something. Whatever.

- Why is this an issue for some Localists? Some of the City-State advocates say that Hongkongers are a different race and the Communists are moving large numbers of mainlanders down to dilute the purity of the blood of the race of the Hongkongers. Therefore, they demand an immediate and permanent stop to all immigration from the mainland. Such being the case, Edward Leung and his mother are part of the problem, and they must be exterminated in the Final Solution in order to preserve the purity of the Herrenvolk.

Supporters of Edward Leung used a kind of Deng Xiaoping "Black Cat White Cat" argument to say that the only thing that matters is that he supports Localism! This issue will be raised along the way to the September Legco elections.

- Let me quote the Grandmaster Wan Chin:

Wan Chin's Facebook
June 25, 2014
The gender theory of Hong Kong-China melting together. If Hong Kong and China should melt together, the first group of victims will be the women of Hong Kong! Hong Kong women can anticipate doom! Many fucking stupid feminists (including leftist retards, social welfare workers, feverish university professors) advocate universal values and support Hong Kong-China melting together. They called to welcome mainlanders and they condemn those in Hong Kong who want to oust the locusts. But they don't realize that the Communist Party is employing the strategy for ruling over barbarians -- penises, sperms, vaginas and uteruses are the weapons of the barbarians. The Communist Party cannot slaughter all of the men in Hong Kong, and they cannot openly rape all of the women in Hong Kong. So they used the soft method by sending mainland vaginas. As wives, lovers and prostitutes, these mainland women put waste to the vaginas and uteruses of the women of Hong Kong, unless they can become as slutty as those barbarian women. The Communist Party is sending all these mainland uteruses to Hong Kong. Using the role of motherhood, they will dominate the bloodline, language and family upbringing of the next generation of Hong Kong people. They will also control the men of Hong Kong. What the fuck do the Hong Kong scholars know about the gender theory of the Communist Party?

The fact that Edward Leung is still praising his mother so effusively means that he has been brainwashed just as the Communist Party intended to.

More from Wan Chin:

What is a Hongkonger? If you really have to define it, what is that definition? When asked by repporters, my definition of a Hongkongers is: A permanent resident of Hong Kong. Nothing else. Please do not attach any nonsense such as universal values, Hong Kong values, Hong Kong culture, etc. That would be suppressing freedom!

First of all, our so-called Hong Kong values are arbitrary without any standards. You can say that it is about human rights but you can also disagree with that. For example, I disagree with equal rights, minority rights, etc. I think this interferes with freedom. I don't think that Hongkongers must speak Cantonese well. Hongkongers can speak English or they can speak poor Cantonese (as those elderly Chaozhou people, Hakka people, Shanghainese peole, Indians). It does not matter if a small number of Hongkongers can't speak Cantonese. To come up with a list of Hong Kong values and then force all Hongkongers to accept this is Fascism. It stands on the opposite side of freedom and liberty.

If another condition has to be added on top of permanent residence, then it would be the defense of Hong Kong's public resources (for example, making sure that land and sea are not taken over by the mainlanders, social welfare is not robbed by the mainlanders). Even newly arrived mainlanders can also defend public resources in Hong Kong to prevent them from being robbed by outsiders who have no rights. Hongkongers can be pro-Communist China or pro-America. That is their freedom. But Hongkongers cannot advocate public resources being handed over to outsiders. That would not longer be an issue of their personal freedom, because public resources are at issue.

(Local Press) Wan Chin: What is a Hongkonger?

What is a Hongkonger? If a definition is really wanted, what definition are we going to give? When pressed by the reporters for an answer, my definition for a Hongkonger would be this: Hong Kong permanent resident. Nothing else. Never tack on those craps what are known as universal values, Hong Kong values, or Hong Kong culture and the like. All of these would oppress freedom!

First, our so-called Hong Kong values are only transient words going by without standard. Even with the postulate of human rights, we can still disagree with what it entails. For example, I for one do not agree with the equal rights proposition nor that of ethnic minority rights, for I think they impede freedom. Also, I don’t hold that as a Hongkonger one must be able to speak Cantonese well.

It’s perfectly alright for a Hongkonger to speak only English or just be able to speak some broken Cantonese (for example, Cantonese spoken by those elderly Ch’aochounese, Hakkas, Shanghainese, and Indians). It’s not a problem even for a minority of Hongkongers not be able to speak Cantonese.

To expound on a set of Hong Kong values and then force all Hongkongers to accept it is fascism! A contravention of freedom.

If besides the status of being Hong Kong permanent resident another condition is to be tacked on, it should be the protection of Hong Kong’s public resources (for instance, to safeguard the intactness of our natural environment, ensuring that it is free from mainland encroachment; to prevent our national welfare from being robbed by the mainlanders). Even the new mainland immigrants to Hong Kong are obliged to safeguard Hong Kong’s public resources against encroachment by outsiders who have no rights for their use.
Hongkongers can choose to be pro-communist or pro-US — that’s their own freedom, but Hongkongers must not preach the encroachment of Hong Kong’s public resources by people from outside, because this is an action outside the domain of their individual freedom, and it’s an action that would hamper our public resources.

(postscript: The above is the quintessence of the interview I had with TVB reporters today. Apart from all that is said, I observe that the discourse on Hong Kong values by the pro-Hong Kong independence camp has revealed a little of the nationalists’ fascist, coercive tone. You have to exercise your wit in dealing with this, lest you let yourself fall into a snare. In fact, it’s easy for us to lose our freedom under the temptation of nation-building through independence!)

Wan Chin: As a libertarian, I oppose the postulates of “universal values” or “Hong Kong values”. These theses about values can be extremely dangerous. All of you should reflect on them many a time, lest you fall into the trap.

Wan Chin: The theory of “Hong Kong values” expounded by those proponents of Hong Kong independence has in fact revealed traces of the nationalists’ fascist tendency. Exercise your wit in dealing with it.

Wan Chin: You can acquaint yourself somewhat with what sort of a thing a philosopher’s intellectual capacity is. Nonetheless, I never have the slightest wish to brag about myself being a philosopher. I have no need to do that.

Ivy Fang: It is okay to be pro-China or pro-US or pro-Britain but never do anything to betray Hong Kong. It’s easy to understand all this. Don’t see why so many pig-heads are hell-bent on selling out Hong Kong.

Wan Chin: Yes indeed. Even pro-Taiwan is okay.

Wan Chin: In fact many young people enjoy servitude — for the sake of nation-building through independence, they wouldn’t mind to subject themselves to servitude. You see, many people simply do not deserve to enjoy freedom.

Wan Chin: During the early years of the Republic of China, many young people took a liking to communism and collectivism, but they simply didn’t like freedom.

- (Oriental Daily) In the Initium interview, Edward Wong stated that his mother was a native of Wuhan city, Hubei Province, China. Afterwards, someone dug out an old photo of Edward Leung with long hair and said that he clearly looked like a mainland country hick.

[P.S. In this photo, he is hauling a cart full of bottled water in a supermarket. This cannot possibly be for personal consumption. So he is hogging valuable resources for profit, and that makes him a parallel trader. And because this mainland locust has bought up all the bottled water, a genuine Hongkonger who comes in later will only find an empty shelf.]

- Today Edward Leung admitted that he was not born in Hong Kong. However, he said that the place of birth is immaterial as long as you speak Cantonese and embrace Hong Kong values.

- I am flummoxed by Edward Leung's multiple statements.

Proposition #1: In the Initium interview, he said that he is 23 years old and his mother has been in Hong Kong for 24 years.

Proposition #2: In the Initium interview, he said that he has only been to mainland twice, respectively when he was 5 years old and 13 years old.

Proposition #3: Today he came out to tell the press that he was not born in Hong Kong.

So where was he born? Not on mainland China, according to Proposition #2. So his mother got married, applied to come to come to Hong Kong for family reunification, got pregnant, and traveled overseas somewhere (Taiwan? Thailand? Vietnam?) to give birth to Edward Leung. Why?

- Circa 1992, the more likely scenario is: 55-year-old never-married secondary school history teacher Mr. Leung went to a Shenzhen nightclub and met a 19-year-old fortune-hunting nightclub waitress from Wuhan city, Hubei province. They got married and she stayed at first in an apartment in Shenzhen. Later she got pregnant and gave birth to a son. Mr. Leung applied for mother and son to join him for family reunion. Chances are that Mr. and Mrs. Leung won't even tell their son that this was what really happened.

- A year ago, 19-year-old Betty Wong wrote an autobiography about illegally entering Hong Kong when she was eight, successfully obtained right of abode and getting accepted by the Hong Kong University School of Medicine. Internet users criticized this Chinawoman for robbing the resources of the people of Hong Kong. Well, it seems that Betty Wong speaks Cantonese and embraces Hong Kong values. Now what?

- If a Hongkonger is one who speaks Cantonese and embraces Hong Kong values, then I nominate Siu Yau-wai. He speaks Cantonese and his behavior suggests that he will excel in bullying the weak, cursing the police, kicking suitcases and throwing bricks.

- Poster for Edward Leung's September Legco campaign:

I am mainland immigrant Leung Tin-kei
Death to all mainland immigrants

Poster ad: Are you willing for Hong Kong to spend $1,000,000 every 18 minutes to educate/raise the children of "locusts"?

Locust Edward Leung: After I came to Hong Kong and laid eggs, I saw that Hong Kong was being destroyed by more and more locusts. Therefore I decided to start a anti-Locust campaign. I am not a Chinaman. All locusts should scram back to China.

Why Magazine
2016.03.06
Localists trying to turn the Legislative Council red?
Our own Hong Kong mainland kid will save us?!
Edward Leung acknowledges with his own mouth that he is a Single NO!!
"Without me, Mainlander Kei, you Hongkongers would all be dead by now?
T-shirt letters "Hubei province, Wuhan city, Localist fake product."
"Mainlander Kei" long-hair look is shown
60,000 Hong Kong pigs voted to support!

Addendum:

Freedom of speech as practiced in the United States of Amerika.

Warm welcome to new immigrant from Wuhan
Edward Leung Tin-kei melting into Hong Kong
"We are not part of China"

Photo of HKU student Edward Leung and teacher Benny Tai.
Born in a time of bullshit talk, we have the responsibility to be irresponsible.
Benny Tai started Occupy Central, but bailed out midway to resume teaching duties.
Edward Leung was born in mainland China, but went on to fight for Localists as a Local.

Edward Leung was candidate #6 in the New Territories East Legco by-election. But we never realized the significance that "Number 6 kid" is a Cantonese homonym for "Mainland kid".

- When Edward Leung 'fessed up, it is the golden opportunity for other Localists to 'fess up as well because a shared limelight is less heated than a solo appearance.

"Four-eyed Brother Cheng Kam-mun admitted that he is from Chaozhou (Chieuchow/Teochew) city, Guangdong province, China.

"Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun gave further details: "Each morning (in Australia), I went to work first at the bakery; at noon, I went to work at one restaurant; in the evening I went to work at another restaurant. I was holding three jobs. I met my girlfriend and we got married. She is also a Hongkonger, but she no longer thought that Hong Kong culture suited her. During the Umbrella Movement, I decided to return to Hong Kong. We got divorced. I haven't been back to Australia since. I knew that even if I stayed in Australia, my heart will be in Hong Kong and I can't live with that. I wanted to return to Hong Kong and contribute to my homeland."
Good story, but how do you explain the photo of you on Harcourt Road, Admiralty on September 28, 2014? Weren't you supposed to be still living in Australia?

- (Oriental Daily) June 7, 2016. The interviewer pointed out that former Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en holds a Singapore passport. Fung did not deny this. He said that after June 4th 1989, his parents wanted to immigrate and therefore arranged for Billy to be born in Singapore. If Hong Kong comes under One Country One System, the family would leave. But so far things have not gotten so desperate yet. In other words, if things go awry in Hong Kong, Billy Fung Jing-en will just use his Singapore passport to leave.

- Dr. Cheng Chung-tai, Teaching Fellow, Department of Applied Social Sciences, Polytechnic University and member of Civic Passion lists as his educational credentials: Bachelor of Arts (Polytechnic University) and Doctor of Philosophy (Peking University). And Hong Kong University students opposed the mainland student exchange program because of a fear of being brainwashed. Or something.

The young Cheng Chung-tai interviewed by RTHK in 2005: "What flows in me is the blood of a Chinese person."

http://www.hk01.com/%E7%86%B1%E8%A9%B1/43226/%E9%84%AD%E6%9D%BE%E6%B3%B0-%E6%A5%8A%E5%B2%B3%E6%A9%8B05%E5%B9%B4%E4%BA%AE%E7%9B%B8-%E9%8F%97%E9%8F%98%E9%9B%86-%E6%B3%B0%E5%8D%9A-%E4%BF%82%E9%BB%91%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2
https://www.facebook.com/franky.leung.754/videos/2117183761839381/

In the 2005 RTHK program, Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) and Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu were both studying in Beijing at the time. Cheng said that he wanted to go outside Hong Kong because he thinks that being in Hong Kong too long means that he gets less sensitive to what is happening around him. He said that the Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan students are treated as neither local nor foreign students.  He asked: "What flows in me is the blood of a Chinese person, but I don't know how to sing the national anthem. Does that mean that a Chinese person is someone who knows how to sing the national anthem?"

Yeung said that he wanted to live in China, understand the people and develop his career.

- Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration): I am a Hongkonger. Because I love this place, I don't want to see it buried in the hands of the Hong Kong Communist government. How much I am willing to give to this place was never about the English letters on the ID or the DNA. If I came from the outside and grew up in Hong Kong, I think I will still love this place in the end. No matter how bad things get, I am not willing to leave because I don't want to give it up. [Attachment: Birth Certificate from the Births and Deaths Registry, Hong Kong.

- Ho Chi-kwong (Hong Kong Localism Power) I thank Yau Wai-ching for her response. Here I will disclose some of the personal information on my Hong Kong ID. I am setting an example. I hope that the other Localist leaders who planned to participate in the September Legislative Council elections won't hide their places of origins in order to cheat Localist votes.

- (HKG Pao) On Mother's Day, Ming Pao published an interview with Demosisto chairman Nathan Law Kwun-chung about how he plans to spend Mother's Day with his mother. Inside the article, there is this sentence: "50-something-years-old Mother Law (known as Ah Lan) arrived in Hong Kong in 1999 with 6-year-old Ah Chung to reunite with Ah Chung's father and other family members." Hey, this means that Nathan Law is a new immigrant who was born in mainland China!? In November 2014, Ming Pao also interviewed Nathan Law: "Nathan arrived when he was 5 or 6 years old with his mother from Guangdong province. On the mainland, he attended a Hong Kong-funded kindergarten: 'I learned to write traditional Chinese characters and I didn't get the impression that I was injected with any points of view.'" No wonder Demosisto does not position itself as Localist -- its chairman is a mainland immigrant too!

- In mainland China, everything is fake -- infant milk formula, maotai wine, hairy crabs, etc. In Hong Kong, everything is real except for the Localists.

- This disclosure throws a wrench into the definition of a "new Hongkonger."

On one hand, a "new Hongkonger" is no longer someone who has to be born in Hong Kong, because of the long list of exemptions: Edward Leung, Cheng Kam-mun, Nathan Law, Claudia Mo, Lee Cheuk-yan, etc.

On the other hand, a person who is born in Hong Kong is not automatically a "new Hongkonger", because of the long list of exceptions: CY Leung, Carrie Lam, Lau Kong-wah, Lau Wong-fat, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, etc. These people have been said to betray Hong Kong to the Chinese Communists.

So the definition has to shift towards language and values.

But a "new Hongkonger" cannot be just someone who speaks Cantonese. Of the 8.5 million people in Guangzhou, about half of them have Cantonese as their only language. And there are many more Cantonese-speakers outside of Guangzhou within Guangdong province. They cannot be allowed to become Hongkongers.

So a "new Hongkonger" must be defined in terms of values.

In the United States, this is done through an Oath of Allegiance which must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Can such an oath be used? There are loads of problems with this version. For example, many Hongkongers with right of abode still hold foreign citizenship, and they must be made to absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance and loyalty to their countries of citizenship or else they can't become a "new Hongkonger." As another example, to "support and defend the constitution and laws against all enemies, foreign and domestic" means defending the Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 1: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China ...) as well as laws against unlawful gatherings, riots, obstruction of police business, assaulting police officers, copyright violation, etc. And there is also this thing about "bearing arms when required by the law"? And how can God help when the people of Hong Kong have diverse religions (Catholicism, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, Falun Gong, atheism, Hinduism, Islam, etc).

So what you need first is a Constitution under which Hong Kong becomes a City-State and a new law code under which certain activities such as riots, assaulting police officers, destroying property, copyright violation, tax evasion, money laundering, etc are acceptable under certain circumstances.

And finally you must remember the Chinese saying that some people regards oaths as "eating lettuce" (that is, you take an oath out of necessity but you promptly toss it to the back of your mind).

- Collection of short comments:

-"我要真本土！"(I want genuine Localist!) Who is going to make that banner to hang down from Lion Rock?

- If Edward Leung is from Hubei, then he must surely defecate/urinate on subway trains. According to Localists, all mainlanders do that.

- I have never discriminated against mainlanders who settle down in Hong Kong, I have never discriminated against mainland tourists, and I will never call them locusts. But I am very much prejudiced against the mainland immigrant named Edward Leung, because he is a locust.

- So the localist is not local and the Hongkonger is not from Hong Kong. Why don't you go back to your home in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China to discuss Localism with the central government?

- More than 60,000 Hong Kong pigs donated more than $1 million to support the election campaign of a mainland locust. They seemed to be really working hard to achieve One County One System. When the opposition is like this, the Communist grandpas don't even need friends.

- "生於斯長於斯" (born here, raised here) was the motto on his campaign election materials. He is suspected of violating both the election and advertising laws. The Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Customs Department should be informed.

- He wants to stop the daily immigration of 150 mainlanders to Hong Kong. He forgot to mention that he was one of those.

Fable:
Once upon a time, a big locust brought a little locust to Hong Kong. When the little locust grew up, he was embarrassed to be a locust. So he ostracized the other locusts. One day, the little locust looked into the mirror and was surprised to see a locust! Angrily the little locust smashed the mirror. He said: "I am not a locust! The mirror lied!"

- In mainland China, there is a famous saying: "天上九頭鳥、地上湖北佬" (High up on the sky is the nine-headed bird, down on the ground is the Hubei guy) meaning that neither can be trusted. If even mainlanders can't trust Hubei people, why would anyone trust Edward Leung, place of birth Wuhan city, Hubei province, People's Republic of China?
- Quick, there is a commercial idea here -- sell nine-headed birds to the 60,000 Hong Kong pigs who voted for Edward Leung!

- A Hubei-dialect rap song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djBLYQhKr3M

- There is an empirical social law about mainlanders: 一雞二賊三乞兒 (they are either (1) prostitutes; (2) thieves/robbers; (3) beggars). How many of these attributes does Edward Leung have?

- Adolf Hitler adored blue-eyed blonde-haired Aryans and hated his own brown-eyed dark-haired Jewish blood, so he started the Holocaust to exterminate all Jews (but not himself, of course). Edward Leung adored the valiant Hongkongers and their values and hated the cowardly mainlanders and their total lack of values, so he started the Brick Revolution to exterminate all mainlanders (but not himself, of course).

- Here is the logical inference:

Step 1: All those who are born in China and immigrate to Hong Kong later are "new immigrants". This is a definition.

Step 2: A "new immigrant" is a "locust" which came to Hong Kong to extract the social welfare benefits. This is a central tenet of Localism.

Step 3: All "locusts" should be expelled back to mainland China. This is the goal of Localism.

Step 4: Edward Leung was born in China and immigrated to Hong Kong. By Step 1, he is a "new immigrant." By Step 2, he is a "locust." Therefore, by Step 3, he should be expelled back to mainland China.

- Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn where Edward Leung was born. I only want to know: Whatever happened to the escalation without any bottom line that he promised to give us?

- (HKG Pao) Speaking in defense of Edward Leung, Civic Passion's Cheng Chung-tai said that all along the so-called Hongkonger is someone who abides by Hong Kong culture and values and lives in Hong Kong. Thus, the place of birth is unimportant. "We are talking about using culture to build Hong Kong, using culture to build a nation as opposed to checking where you were born and where you came from." "Even people who are born on the mainland can be Hongkongers if they take the viewpoint of Hongkongers and respect the local rights of Hongkongers."

Previously, Civic Passion had been fighting for the right for Hong Kong to examine and approve one-way immigration visas from the mainland. "It is not that we won't let mainlanders come. But they have to be examined and approved by us." Cheng Chung-tai explained that there has to be examinations of Cantonese fluency and Hong Kong cultural knowledge before they can be considered to pass.

Well, does this sound like an examination for a doctorate degree or what? The important point was that Edward Leung was one or two years old when his mother brought him to Hong Kong. At that age, Edward Leung could not have passed the examinations of Cantonese fluency and cultural knowledge! When asked about this, Cheung Chung-tai said: "I don't know if Edward Leung went through this type of examination. You'll have to ask him yourself because I really don't know."

- Also, Edward Leung said that his mother learned to speak Cantonese after she arrived in Hong Kong. It was 'after', not 'before.'

- I take it that the same applies to every immigrant into Hong Kong, not just mainlanders but also American, Brits, Aussies, Vietnamese, South Asians, etc? For example, a Hong Kong student goes to study in France and marries a French woman. When he graduates and returns to work in Hong Kong, his French wife cannot come to live here because she can't speak Cantonese. Is that the idea? [Of course, she can stay here on an extendable tourist visa but she can't work and be paid here until as such time that she can pass the Cantonese fluency and Hong Kong cultural knowledge tests.]

- (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) To become a naturalized U.S. citizen, you must pass the naturalization test. At your naturalization interview, you will be required to answer questions about your application and background. You will also take an English and civics test unless you qualify for an exemption or waiver.

Please note: The naturalization test is not administered before the immigrant arrives in the United States, nor soon after. It is administered only when the immigrant wants to apply to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Cheng Chung-tai wants to administer a language/civics test before approval to come.

There are some unintended results that Cheng Chung-tai may not have thought about. Of the 1.4 billion population in mainland China, 100 million live in Guangdong province and a large number of them speak Cantonese. Very few people outside of Guangdong province speak Cantonese. So the language requirement is going to restrict the pool of immigrants to Guangdong. Next, if someone living in Guangdong is doing well career-wise in Guangzhou, Shenzhen or wherever, moving to Hong Kong at this time would be a step down. Therefore, you won't get the cream of the crop. You will only be getting impoverished old people with only elementary school education.

Now these applicants will pass the Cantonese fluency test easily because that is their first language. There will also be tutors, classes, textbooks and apps to help the applicants pass the civics test. (Go to any U.S. Chinatown and you will find many bilingual civics test books on sale.) As with any school anywhere in the world, they don't have to appreciate or believe in it; they only have to recite by rote. So this is just the stuff that apparatchiks come up with in order to appear to be actively doing something but it is actually a total waste of everybody's time.

- (EJ Insight) March 8, 2016.

Hong Kong is a land of immigrants, with people having come here from different places over the years and making the city their home. While most locals can trace their ancestral roots to mainland China, there has also been an influx of people from other parts of the world in recent times. Given this situation, who can call himself a “genuine” Hongkonger? Can a person who has his origins elsewhere have any right to wage a “localist” fight against new immigrants?  And, is it not hypocrisy if someone who was born outside Hong Kong seeks to identify himself with a so-called indigenous group?  

Well, these are the questions that Edward Leung Tin-kei of the radical group Hong Kong Indigenous is facing now following revelations over the weekend about the activist’s background. 

Leung, who contested in the Legislative Council by-election last month and took a respectable third place with more than 60,000 votes, admitted on Saturday that he was born in the mainland, and not in Hong Kong. The comments, which were made as Leung made a trip to New Territories East to thank voters, came after he acknowledged earlier that his mother had been an immigrant from China.

The news prompted intense debates and sharp criticism in online forums, with people wondering if Leung had any right to take the “localist” position given his place of birth and family background. Critics mocked him for spearheading pro-hawker protests in Mong Kong last month and for organizing fierce demonstrations last year against the so-called parallel traders.

Leung’s politics flies in the face of his actual background, netizens jeered, questioning his claims of Hong Kong identity. Meanwhile, some people were interested in knowing how traditional localists will now deal with Leung.

Civic Passion, a radical localist group that has close ties with lawmaker Wong Yuk-man and Lingnan University professor Horace Chin, had been among the groups that had been quite firm in recent months on the issue of immigrants from China. Those groups had been the first in Hong Kong to use the word “locusts” to describe new immigrants, accusing them of unfairly tapping into the city’s social welfare resources. Chin had also stirred a controversy by suggesting that Chinese women settled in Hong Kong were taking orders from the Communist Party to monitor local men.

Interestingly, after Leung’s background was revealed, the groups suddenly stopped railing against new immigrants. Instead, they said that they welcome the immigrants, but the migrants should pass tests on Cantonese and Hong Kong culture to show their loyalty and commitment to the city. The change in stance suggests that Civic Passion realizes that it may have gone wrong previously in targeting all new immigrants. Immigrants should also have the freedom to embrace localism, and one cannot determine a person’s loyalties by just looking at his place of birth, the thinking goes. “CY Leung was born in Hong Kong, but is he a true Hongkonger?” — a member of Civic Passion wondered aloud, calling for new mindset on the issue of localism.

The rise of localism has triggered a debate on Hong Kong identity in the recent past. According to the Basic Law, anyone who lives in Hong Kong for seven consecutive years will qualify for permanent resident status. Such people are entitled social welfare benefits from the government. But since the 1997 handover, there has a new term called “New Hong Kong people”, which is defined as new immigrants from China who moved to Hong Kong via the single-trip visa mechanism. Such visas were granted by the Chinese government to its people, to enable family reunions in Hong Kong, at the rate of up to 150 visas per day. Due to the flow of immigrants since 1997, such immigrants account for about 12 percent of Hong Kong’s population as of now.

The localist groups in Hong Kong have slammed the 150-visa-quota by Beijing as another way of colonialism. China is trying to change the character of Hong Kong by moving hundreds of thousands of mainland people to the special administrative region, localists argued, accusing Beijing of seeking to extend the Communist Party’s influence.

Against this backdrop, social conflicts between old Hong Kong residents and new immigrants have been widening. Locals have been griping as more and more new immigrants were being allowed to apply for government subsidies as well as public housing despite not fulfilling the 7-year stay requirement. Taxpayers say their money should be used on Hong Kong people, rather than helping the new immigrants. Some have even said that new immigrants should be made to move back to China if they fail to adopt the Hong Kong way of life.

Despite all these arguments, there is growing acceptance among people now that one shouldn’t automatically view immigrants with suspicion and discriminate against them. One can’t assume that the people are moving due to political reasons, or that the new immigrants won’t embrace the Hong Kong way of life. If people are willing to embrace core Hong Kong values, learn Cantonese and English, and stand with Hong Kong people in their fight for the city’s future, there is no reason for localist groups to target the immigrants. It’s worth noting that new immigrants from China will play a key role in deciding the outcome of many seats in the upcoming LegCo election in September.

The rise of localism will no doubt will be a key agenda in the election as traditional democrats, radical groups and some from the so-called neutral camp will all try to play the “local” card to win public support. But one should remember that the place of birth is not the determining factor as to whether a person is a genuine Hongkonger. The more important aspect is a person’s belief in the core values of Hong Kong, and their pride in being Hongkongers. Rather than quibble about a person’s identity, it will be good if all Hong Kong people stand united in safeguarding the city’s freedoms and autonomy.

- (SCMP) Localist leader Edward Leung between a rock and hard place. By Alex Lo. March 8, 2016.

For decent people, it should not matter whether localist radical Edward Leung Tin-kei was born on the mainland or not. His mother was a mainland immigrant who came to the city 24 years ago, after he was born. But given his extreme xenophobic ideology and that of his group Hong Kong Indigenous, he opens himself up to accusations of hypocrisy.

At the weekend, he admitted he was born on the mainland but came to Hong Kong with his mother at a very young age.

His mother worked hard to secure a future for her child. And Leung was obviously a good student, to be admitted to the University of Hong Kong, where he is studying philosophy and politics. The city did not spit in their faces, as localists do on mainland visitors. Instead, it embraced and offered them a chance at a better life that they wouldn’t have on the mainland.

That’s what our city has always about, a great metropolis built on the back of hard-working and entrepreneurial migrants, transients and colonials.

Leung has not even graduated and already has a massive political following. In the New Territories East Legco by-election last month, he finished in third place by securing more than 60,000 votes, an impressive feat.

Too bad it was run on a populist platform grounded in hate and resentment against mainlanders and China in general.

His group organised numerous protests last year that singled out those they took to be parallel-goods traders and mainlanders for harassment, and has been accused of inciting the Mong Kok riot.

Given his own mainland background, it’s fair to ask: what happened?

It’s not unusual that for some people desperate for a sense of belonging, they reject or refuse to acknowledge their own past and go so far as to subvert or fight against their own kind.

Some localists have argued they are not haters, but defenders of Hong Kong’s autonomy, culture and values. That is legitimate. But it’s often a fine line between legitimate defence and hateful aggression. Leung’s Hong Kong Indigenous and other, similar radical groups crossed that line long ago.

As Leung’s political career advances, he may want to ponder his own past. He may yet become a decent person and a good politician.

- (EJ Insight) Why an immigrant can also be a nativist. By Joseph Lian Yizheng. March 9, 2016.

There are many who snigger at Edward Leung Tin-kei’s assertion that his popularity, as proven in last month’s Legislative Council by-election, shows that Hong Kong’s politics has shifted toward a “three-way race” of Beijing loyalists, pan-democrats and the nativist groups that he represents.

Some, including those from the mainstream democratic bloc, say that in order to make his point more valid, Edward should have garnered at least a third of the vote, rather than his actual share of around 15 percent, in the New Territories East election.

I would advise these people to take a look at the results of last year’s Canadian federal election.

Led by Justin Trudeau, who later became the Prime Minister, Canada’s Liberal Party beat its two major rivals, Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, and grabbed more seats — 184 in total in the House of Commons — than that of the other two parties combined.

The landslide victory was never anticipated as most observers had expected a neck-and-neck race. In the previous election in 2011, the Liberal Party was a laggard, trailing the other two rivals.

The likelihood of candidates from Hong Kong Indigenous and like-minded groups winning a seat in each geographical constituency citywide in the upcoming Legco elections in September can be higher than you think.

By then everyone will have to admit the formidable rise of the young nativists.

I noted in a previous column that “Hong Kong people’s national recognition has been waning alongside the influx of mainlanders totaling 900,000 since the handover – immigrants who settle down in the territory under the 150 per day, one-way permit scheme implemented for family reunions. One in every eight Hong Kong residents today is from mainland China”.

But these immigrants as a whole do not tend towards patriotism or political allegiance, though there is no denying that some still constitute the voter base of the pro-Beijing parties.

They are not innate opponents of freedom and nativism either. As of now, Beijing cannot claim to have succeeded in a scheme to use new immigrants to water down the local democratic push.

Data from the University of Hong Kong’s public opinion program also reveal that there has been little change, between 1995 and 2015, in the percentage of respondents who regard themselves solely as Hongkongers vis-à-vis those that called themselves Chinese.

The ratio remained at around 2:1 in both the years. This is evidence that the political inclination of new immigrants constantly evolves towards localism.

No one likes to live in complete subservience to the state. Longing for freedom is something inherent; one cannot buy people’s hearts and minds and make them more “patriotic” by giving out banquets and freebies.

To nurture localism further, we need to adopt a new “touch base” concept and see the newcomers who have settled permanently in Hong Kong as potential nativists and people who share the same aspirations for democracy.

Edward didn’t hide the fact that he was born on the mainland and that his mother migrated to Hong Kong some twenty years ago.

He is a living example that a nod to the city’s core values makes one a Hongkonger.

There’s no other viable way to differentiate between Hongkongers and outsiders, as otherwise the only “genuine” locals will be descendants of indigenous villagers living in New Territories back in the 19th century.

Japan offers an interesting perspective as to how newcomers are assimilated into the host society.

Though Chinese tourists have tattered reputation in Japan and elsewhere, I found, during my years of stay in Japan, that some of my colleagues from the mainland were equally suave and deferential just like the Japanese.

These mainlanders living in Japan admire and are willing to accept the Japanese ways of conducting oneself and getting along with others.

It’s no exaggeration to say that having spent some time in Japan, even the most hardcore anti-Japan patriots would develop some genuine affection for the country.

Among Chinese expats in Japan, it is almost a cult now to follow Japanese culture and etiquette.

Given the rush of mainlanders into our city, how can we say that Hong Kong will also not have the same effect on newcomers?

- (EJ Insight) Who Can Speak for Hong Kong? By Stephen Vines. March 12, 2016.

Who is qualified to speak for Hong Kong?

This question arises from the so-called revelation that Edward Leung Tin-kei was born in the mainland.

Leung, as most people know, is a leader of the Hong Kong Indigenous movement, who made a spectacular debut at the recent Legislative Council by-election, winning more than 60,000 votes.

He presumably volunteered the information about being born in the mainland in the interest of full transparency, but the mini storm on the internet this revelation provoked has produced more confusion than clarity.

Even if the obvious point about Leung being brought up in Hong Kong is ignored, this begs the bigger question of whether an accident of birth should be the determinant of identification or indeed qualification to lead a group advocating localism.

While it is both predictable and slightly pathetic to see localism’s opponents seizing on the minor issue of Leung’s birth, it is more worrying to hear localism sympathizers expressing doubts on the basis of whether a person needs to be born in Hong Kong in order to assert a loyalty to Hong Kong.

The dimwits who are hyperventilating over Leung’s place of birth find themselves in the bad company of sundry racists and other lowlifes who think that a person’s origins are far more important than their views, actions or indeed record.

There is some very bad history here.

For example, there was no more loyal German community, prior to the advent of Nazism, than German Jews.

The well-established Jewish community was prominent in spreading German culture beyond the nation’s borders and well represented in the armies that fought German wars.

They also made stellar contributions to the country’s economy.

Yet the Nazis were obsessed by their “foreignness” and insisted that their origins were far more important than anything else.

Fast forward to Hong Kong in 2016 and, depressingly, you will find a body of opinion that lurks uncomfortably close to the sewers from which Nazism emanated.

There is, for example, an unwillingness to accept that the well-established community from the Indian sub-continent, many of whose members have lived here far longer than so called “real Hongkongers”, can be considered to be genuine heung gong yan.

As for other communities who have made their homes here, they too are deemed to be irredeemably foreign.

Unlike the flag-waving patriots who go out and buy foreign passports for their families and establish scuttle holes overseas, these “foreigners” are doomed to be forever foreign.

I know something about this because I am one of those foreigners.

I also happen to be “merely” third-generation British, as my grandparents arrived in London as literally penniless immigrants.

One set of grandparents never quite mastered the English language, but my parent’s generation had no linguistic problems and never thought of themselves as anything but British.

It may be argued that it was helpful that they were white, but even conservative Britain has changed a great deal, and people of all colors have achieved a level of integration that seems to be a distant dream in Hong Kong.

Those who search the world for overseas examples that justify backward thinking in Hong Kong will have no problem heading off to the United States, another place based on immigration, where there was a tremendous furor over whether Barack Obama, the first black president, was truly an American.

Despite the considerable efforts of a grandson of German immigrants to cast doubt on his American identity, the vast majority of fine American folk voted for him to be their president.

You might have heard of the man who led this futile campaign to dislodge Obama, for he is Donald Trump and may himself become president if we are all very unlucky.

Meanwhile, back in Hong Kong, part of the blame for a lack of what is supposed to be a United States-style melting pot must also be apportioned to some of the people who have settled here without bothering or even attempting to learn Cantonese while preferring to stick with their own communities.

This resolute apartness also affected some ethnic Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong, who initially stuck close to their own communities, be they Shanghainese, Fujianese or whatever.

What matters or should matter, is how they see themselves in relation to Hong Kong identity and what contribution they make to the community.

Whether Edward Leung was born on the Moon or somewhere in the mainland is really irrelevant, yet this question is being seriously discussed as though it matters.

Thankfully, many people in Hong Kong have moved on from obsessing over place of birth, but there are many holdouts.

As ever, they are well on the wrong side of history.

Internet comment:

- Actually nobody cares about where Edward Leung was born in as much as they don't care that Wong Kwok-hing was born in Vietnam and therefore his loyalty is suspect. Edward Leung became an issue only because his group Hong Kong Indigenous and Wan Chin's City-State used to say that the people of Hong Kong are a completely different race and therefore they want to stem the tide of inferior Chinese immigrants. The farce here is really about the rapid backtracking of those racist theories by Hong Kong Indigenous and City-State.

- (Line Post) March 14, 2016.

Why the fuss over Edward Leung's birthplace? That is because certain Localists Internet users and opinion leaders have been exhibiting strong xenophobia and protectionism. They are used to giving blanket labels to mainlanders and new immigrants with terms such as "locusts" and "Strong Nation citizens." They have advocated many ideas that are protectionist in nature for local-born Hongkongers. For example, they object to the Basic Law giving right of abode to children when neither of the parents are Hong Kong residents; they oppose the Final Court's decision to allow new immigrants to apply for social welfare; they oppose new immigrants being able to apply for social welfare after one year of residents. Some Internet users said that all new immigrants are welfare cheats who rob the resources of the people of Hong Kong.

Without this kind of xenophobia directed against mainlanders, nobody would care about where Edward Leung was born. But after the information came out, certain Localist opinion leaders came out to assure everybody that they are not against all new immigrants from the mainland or the mainland spouses of Hongkongers. Immediately their previous prejudicial comments were retrieved by Internet users. For example, over at Hong Kong Indigenous: "Hong Kong has limited land and resources. If the government keeps bringing in new mainland immigrants with no apparent reason, everything that belonged to us Hongkongers and even this piece of earth will fall into the pockets of the new immigrants."

In so saying, Hong Kong Indigenous is pitting "Hongkongers" against "new immigrants." But if a "Hongkonger" does not have to be born locally and "new immigrants" can become Hongkongers, then what is the definition of "new immigrants""?  If you think that "the government keeps bringing in new mainland immigrants for no apparent reason," then Edward Leung and his mother came under this policy. So why can they become "new immigrants" and "Hongkongers"?

I believe that the self-contradiction of the Hong Kong Indigenous lies in the English word "Indigenous". The term came from the combination of the Greek words ενδό (for "within") and γέννoυς (for "born"), meaning "born locally" or "born within". In anthropology and law, the term is usually "native" or "aboriginal." Thus, the name Hong Kong Indigenous clearly intends to show that they are trying to defend those are born and grow up in Hong Kong. If now Hong Kong Indigenous say that the "Hongkongers" that they are defending are not just those who are born and grow up here, then the impression of "moving the goal posts" cannot be avoided.

Another issue is that the Localists have often criticized the mainstream pan-democrats as "leftist retards" for following certain idealistic principles. But now we have Edward Leung saying: "As long as someone respects Hong Kong culture and defends Hong Kong core values, he is a Hongkonger no matter if he was born in Hong Kong or elsewhere." This is exactly the kind of thing that "leftist retards" say. So what now is wrong with the mainstream pan-democrats insisting on defending Hong Kong core values, and conserving local architecture and culture?

If a new immigrant satisfies Edward Leung's criterion for being a Hongkonger, should she not be allowed to apply for social welfare after residing here for one year? A baby whose parents are not Hong Kong residents can grow up in Hong Kong speaking Cantonese and defending Hong Kong core values as required by Edward Leung. So why does Hong Kong Indigenous insist that the baby must be expelled, or not be allowed to attend school here?

- The real issue is that Hong Kong should have the right to screen and approve/disapprove mainlanders who want to immigrate here. So who should be allowed to come here? Here we can adopt the universal values as defined by the United States Public Health Service in its Manual for the Physical Inspection of Aliens (1917).

The Manual has a list of excludables: "imbeciles, idiots, feeble-minded person, persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority (homosexuals), vagrants, physical defectives, chronic alcoholics, polygamists, anarchists, persons afflicted with loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases, prostitutes, contracts laborers, all aliens over 16 who cannot read." So there you have it.

- (HKG Pao) To raise even more money, Edward Leung decided to pose as a model to sell t-shirts. The Use It Or Lose It Facebook is selling two t-shirts. One has the words "I FUCKING WANT FREEDOM" and the other says "I DON'T NEED SEX BECAUSE GOVERNMENT FUCKS ME EVERYDAY."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) July 31, 2016.

Born in mainland China in 1991 to a mother from Wuhan, he arrived in Hong Kong as an immigrant at the age of one.

He attended a top-tier English-language secondary school in Yuen Long, and regularly supported his local football team, Tin Shui Wai Pegasus. Introduced to the Hong Kong music scene, he now cites indie group The Yours as his favourite local band. Following acceptance into the University of Hong Kong, he represented his all-male hall of residence in three sports, and was elected chairman of its student association.

Then, in the early hours of February 9, 2016, he was arrested on charges of rioting, during the “Fishball Revolution” that saw bloody clashes in Mong Kok between protesters and police.

What led the boy from Wuhan to choose such a path?

Edward Leung Tin-kei, the face of localist party Hong Kong Indigenous, became the subject of controversy in March this year when his Wuhan roots were made public. Internet users criticised the hypocrisy of the perceived anti-Chinese immigration – or even xenophobic – stance shared by many localist groups, when one of their own best-known figures was an immigrant himself.

Leung responded by claiming that Hongkongers are defined by their “common values, cultures and institutions”, rather than place of birth.

Internationally, Leung’s civic – as opposed to ethnic – conception of national identity is hardly a new idea. But how has a common identity been constructed in Hong Kong, a refugee city whose population has exploded almost tenfold since the end of the Second World War? An ever-increasing number of young Hongkongers no longer identify as Chinese, but there is no single all-encompassing reason why.

Some immigrants like Leung have come to adopt this nascent identity, calling for Hong Kong’s interests to be prioritised over those of China. Others are less enthusiastic, preferring to retain their Chinese identity despite sympathising with the city’s struggles for democracy and autonomy.

Glen, 26, was born in China’s Zhejiang province, but he now calls himself a Hong Kong localist. Like Leung, he has almost no recollection of his infant years in mainland China, as he came to Hong Kong at the age of two. He compares the revelations of Leung’s birthplace to “coming out of the closet”, leading the way for greater acceptance of immigrants like himself who have come to embrace the localism movement.

“Initially, I had reservations against telling others in the movement that I was from Zhejiang. But as political events have developed, I feel more comfortable doing it, and the more I do so, the less ‘Chinese’ I feel.”

Likewise, King Wong, a 20-year-old student activist, agrees that the support for Leung has clarified an important principle: “localism is not racism”. He admits that the ideological underpinnings of localism were not always so clear, and that the movement was sometimes criticised as “fascist” – at least until the appearance of Hong Kong Nationalism (香港民族論) in September 2014.

Published by the Hong Kong University student magazine Undergrad, Hong Kong Nationalism was a seminal collection of writings from activists and commentators. Many drew reference to historian Benedict Anderson’s theory that nations were merely socially-constructed “imagined communities”. They refuted the idea that Hongkongers necessarily belonged to the Chinese nation, and cited the city’s own cultural artefacts – such as its television, film and music industries since the 1960s – as elements of a society that has developed independently from China. It would therefore be possible to construct, through “imagination”, an independent nation.

King Wong believes that constructing a Hong Kong national identity is a necessary step to protect the city’s interests. Awareness of this identity is “a way to maintain a degree of separation between Hong Kong and China, given that the city is seriously succumbing to Communist influences.”

Yet in reality, circumstances of birth and formative years appear to be key in determining whether or not mainland-born immigrants grow up to join the ranks of their “enemies”. Civil society in mainland China and in Hong Kong are very different, and some immigrants find it hard to adapt.

Although Glen understands the Zhejiang dialect and visits his ancestral home every other year, his parents were very conscious of the need to integrate him into Hong Kong society. His mother enrolled him into a local kindergarten a year earlier than other children.

When she discovered that his primary school had, in her opinion, “too many immigrant students”, she removed him, and sent him to a government-run school instead. When growing up, he never experienced any discrimination.

King Wong, in contrast, may have experienced a more drastic change of environment. He arrived in Hong Kong from Shantou – a coastal city near the Guangdong-Fujian border – only four years ago, and spent most of his education in mainland China. He spoke the local Teochew and Cantonese languages, and identified as a Chinese person.

One of the subjects taught in his Shantou secondary school was politics, which introduced students to China’s electoral system, and heralded the National People’s Congress – the country’s legislature – as a body elected by the people. “The ultimate goal,” he recalls, “was to convince us students of the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy.”

Although he neither had any strong political opinions nor any particular enthusiasm for the Party, many of his friends held anti-Japanese views – a populist aspect of contemporary Chinese patriotism. “Everywhere around me there was a sense that the Japanese were our enemies. They invaded us, and never apologised for it.”

Although he was educated in Shantou, King Wong’s father was from Hong Kong. When he crossed the border at the age of 16, he attended a local Catholic school, where his new friends commented that his “habits and mannerisms” were unlike those of other mainland Chinese teenagers. Like Glen, he adapted quickly, and did not meet any discrimination.

Both Glen and King Wong trace their sense of historical awareness to their parents. During the Mao Zedong years, the Communist Party and its policies led to the deaths of tens of millions, and the persecution of many more. The older generation experienced these events first hand.

Before the establishment of the new Chinese state in 1949, Glen’s family of traditional medicine practitioners had owned “almost an entire street full of property” in a city in Zhejiang. As part of the “bourgeoisie”, they naturally became targets of persecution in the 1950s, and their distrust of Communist rule continues today.

Similarly, King Wong’s father often brought newspapers from Hong Kong across the border to Shantou, in order to expose his son to the outside world. From these clippings, he learnt about the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.

China is not one monolithically nationalist society: some communities appear less susceptible than others to patriotic fervour. Like King Wong, 29-year-old Sophie spent most of her life – until 2014 – in her native province of Guangdong, speaking Cantonese before learning Mandarin.

Yet her family’s village has never really been submissive to full Communist control. “It wasn’t seriously affected by the Cultural Revolution, and despite the One Child Policy, it was common for couples there to have three children.”

“Nobody really believes in the traditional abstract concept of nationalism in that rural part of Guangdong. There’s a really local vibe.” Sophie likens the Communist Party to a classical “dynasty”, and points out that political power has constantly consolidated and fragmented between central and regional governments over the 5,000-year course of Chinese history.

She has always expressed her feelings for the continued friction between China and Japan, such as over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, in two words: “who cares?”

Rather than grouping all ethnic Chinese into one nation, Sophie has always tended to notice the cultural differences among the various peoples living in China. “National sovereignty has nothing to do with the daily lives of real people… but unfortunately not everyone thinks like this in the inland provinces,” she laments.

Feeling an affinity with Hong Kong’s democratic values, both Glen and King Wong began their political participation by attending the July 1 rally. But like many others, they became involved in more organised protest groups on September 28, 2014, when police fired 87 canisters of tear gas at protesters in Central and Admiralty, signalling the start of the “Umbrella Revolution”.

“During the initial stages of Umbrella Revolution, I joined a leftard [idealistic pro-democracy] group,” recalls King Wong, “as I felt that we needed to bring democracy to China and liberate the people in the mainland.” However, he claims that the group was notorious for conducting too much public fundraising, and felt that “there were problems with its finances”. He left the group, disappointed, after several meetings.

Seventy-nine days later, the last remaining protest site in Causeway Bay – by then virtually empty – was cleared out by the police. In his quest to investigate why the Umbrella Movement had “failed”, King Wong took to the Internet. He became exposed to the localist writings of Lingnan University professor Chin Wan and online media outlet Passion Times, and started to contemplate his own identity.

“I thought that if I had to choose between defending the interests of China and those of Hong Kong, I would choose the latter. At that point, I realised I was a Hongkonger.”

On the recommendation of a friend, he signed up to join a localist organisation online. When he told some other members that he was born in mainland China, they did not react with hostility, but instead applauded him. “‘You are a true Hongkonger,’ they told me.”

King Wong has now experienced clashes on the front line of protests, and volunteers his time setting up booths for Hong Kong Indigenous and the Hong Kong National Party. He has also done the same work for mainstream pro-democracy parties, but laughs and claims that it was a paid “summer job”.

Glen has not officially joined any localist organisation, preferring to act in smaller, more mobile groups with his like-minded friends. His once-persecuted family does not object to his participation in the movement, but only cares for his safety.

Asked why more mainland immigrants have not joined Hong Kong’s localism movement, King Wong claims that many do not have a deep interest in politics. “It is easier to persuade them to support the pan-democrats, by talking to them about the atrocities committed by the Communist Party. But to introduce them to the concept and rationale behind Hong Kong independence is… difficult.”

“One of my [mainland-born] friends believes that federalism is the best way forward for China; he is the single person who has come closest to identifying with my point of view.” He adds that many immigrant families would object to their children engaging in dangerous localist political activities, when they still have relatives or business interests across the border.

Glen believes that the age at which immigrants arrive in Hong Kong is the most important factor in determining their political beliefs, because “ideologies – once they take root in a person’s subconscious – are very stubborn”. Unless confronted with a sudden event or a policy change, he does not think that many immigrants would readily switch allegiance to the localists.

Sophie still identifies as Chinese, despite expressing moral support for Hong Kong localism and independence. She agrees that she has spent too many years in mainland China to consider herself a Hongkonger, at least for the foreseeable future.

But perhaps more importantly, she is pessimistic about the city’s prospects: “as the city is quickly succumbing to mainland influences, the ‘Hong Kong identity’ is also becoming increasingly devoid of meaning. Foreigners don’t think that Hong Kong is particularly special or distinct from China anymore.”

Yet Sophie has even stronger words of scepticism for the phenomenon of Chinese nationalism. “Everyone around me – whether friends or family – is trying to leave China and move abroad. They don’t trust the system and want security in daily life. As long as they have the [financial] means, they don’t want to stay in mainland China.”

“The people who loudly boast about how patriotic they are… it’s just because they don’t have the means to leave.”

Since the 1997 handover, 879,000 immigrants from mainland China have arrived in Hong Kong via the so-called One-way Permits, representing over 12 per cent of the city’s population. China’s Public Security Bureau – not the Hong Kong authorities – approves the immigration applications, limited to 150 per day.

Localist groups have demanded a change in these policies. They want Hong Kong to take back the right to approve immigration applications from Chinese authorities, while the Youngspiration political party also advocates Cantonese-plus-traditional-Chinese or English tests for all prospective immigrants.

Mainland Chinese immigrants can be seen on all sides of Hong Kong’s political spectrum – including in the nascent localism movement – but ultimately, participation rates remain low. In a June 2015 study, the Hong Kong Institute of Education interviewed over 1,000 immigrants who have lived in the city for approximately four years, and found that more than 90 per cent had never participated in activities held by political parties, district councillors or even community organisations. More than 50 per cent support demonstrations as a means of political expression in Hong Kong, but around 30 per cent oppose protests.

Glen is personally cautious about welcoming new arrivals, although he also encourages locals to introduce immigrants to the city’s political affairs. He fears that Beijing aims to gradually change the city’s political make-up through immigration.

“The Chinese Communist Party wants possession of Hong Kong,” he says, “but what it really wants is a Hong Kong without Hongkongers.”

- (SCMP) Wake up and see your skin colour: self-denial for Hongkongers to say they’re not Chinese. By Michael Chugani. June 13, 2017.

Hate Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying all you want but he spoke the truth last week about being Chinese. What he said in essence was that if you’re born Chinese, others will always regard you as Chinese no matter what passport you hold or how much you want to disown your identity.

Many young people distance themselves from being Chinese. They identify themselves solely as Hongkongers. You can say you’re from outer space but unless you have bulging eyes, pointy ears, and scaly green skin, only kooks will believe you.

You can neither run nor hide from your ethnicity. Cosmetic surgery can only go so far, as the late and great Michael Jackson discovered.

Hongkongers who loathe being Chinese can wear foreign or SAR passports on their foreheads, but it’s human nature to view others not by nationality but by facial features. I speak with authority on this.

I always say I’m American when people ask what I am. But then they always ask again what I really am.

Saying I’m from Hong Kong won’t suffice. They always retort I don’t look Chinese. The only way to satisfy them is to say I’m Hong Kong-born with Indian parents and that I’m also a naturalised American.

When I explained this to an inquisitive Shenzhen bartender, he said: “Ah, you Indian. Bollywood movies good.” It mattered little that I’ve never lived in India and can barely speak the language.

When Hongkongers travel, it is natural for Thais, Europeans, Americans, and others to assume they’re Chinese. You cannot expect them to differentiate between Hongkongers, mainlanders, and Taiwanese. Some cannot even tell apart Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.

Whenever mainland Chinese tourists behave obnoxiously abroad, Hongkongers often get caught up in the scornful local backlash. One way out is to wear T-shirts proclaiming they’re Hongkongers.

Unlike young Hongkongers, Chinese in the United States are proud of their ethnic origin. They consider it an insult to be called American-Chinese and insist on being identified as Chinese-American.

OK, that’s an unfair comparison. Chinese-Americans live in a democracy. Young Hongkongers fear the growing shadow of communist China will darken their future freedoms.

It’s fine for them to boycott the June 4 candlelight vigil with the rationale that the Tiananmen crackdown had nothing to do with them. But it’s self-denial to say they’re not Chinese. They need to wake up and see the colour of their skin.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Hong Kong identity… what exactly is it? By Tim Hamlett. June 18, 2017.

This question has lately become so mainstream that social scientists and politicians are weighing in. Unfortunately much of the discussion has been along rather crude lines. The matter in dispute is whether Hong Kong youngsters consider their identity to be Chinese, and if not, is this a problem?

Mr Leung Chun-ying’s offering on the subject was, like so much that falls from that particular pair of lips, difficult to square with reality. Governments, he said, would regard you as Chinese if you had a Chinese name and face, whatever passport you held. This is, to put it politely, not the way it usually works. A passport is an official document issued by a government, and governments are of all possibilities the one most likely to take it seriously.

Indeed those comfortable countries whose passports are regarded as most attractive often make a point of disregarding the ethnic origin of their citizens, and many of them have laws against discrimination on that basis. I wondered, actually, if Mr Leung’s remarks had been distorted in translation and he had actually meant “the government”, rather than governments in general. For there is one government of which Mr Leung’s observation is palpably true: the PRC regards all ethnic Chinese as subject to its control, wherever they may be and whatever passport they carry. Such people can be kidnapped in foreign countries and carted back to the People’s Paradise, to face charges relating to “crimes” which were not offences in the place where they were committed. In the eyes of their government Chinese people are not served, they are owned.

Possibly sensing that his master’s voice had been enjoying one of its less lucid moments, Michael Chugani repeated the point, but with a subtle difference. In Mr Chugani’s version it was not governments which would refuse to recognise a different national identity from that of your face, but “other people”. Apparently Mr Chugani’s fellow-Americans often insist that he is “really” Indian because he looks that way. This seemed rather a poor argument for recognising yourself as Chinese rather than a Hong Konger. After all many Americans are lamentably misinformed about “abroad”. One gets used to explaining that Hong Kong is not in Japan. Also it is generally considered that the main determinant of a person’s identity should be that person’s choice, and other people’s failure to recognise that choice should be resisted rather than appeased.

But this is all rather unsubtle. It assumes that identity is something unitary, logically consistent and permanent. This seems rather unlikely. In tolerant countries, after all, one person does not have one identity. He or she has a variety of identities in different contexts. Someone who is born and raised in London, and spent most of his life there, will certainly identify himself as a Londoner. That does not mean he is a traitor or a seeker of independence. In the World Cup he supports England, in the Olympics he supports Great Britain, and in the Ryder Cup he supports Europe.

Besides this geographical onion, she may have other loyalties or memberships. Some of these are within national boundaries, like the National Trust or the Boy Scouts of America, while some of them cross it, like the Catholic Church or the Freemasons. In Hong Kong this is still allowed. It is an arrangement we rarely think about. We have multiple identities which are not mutually exclusive. Someone who thinks he is a Hong Konger may also consider himself Chinese, Muslim, and a member of Amnesty International. Asking people which identity they prefer is asking for trouble. The answer depends on the time and the context. Consequently we should not draw too many conclusions from it. A young Hong Konger who considers Hong Kong his most important identity is not necessarily rejecting all the alternatives out of hand.

Totalitarian regimes are different, alas. Multiple loyalties are not allowed. We are supposed to have “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer” as one unhappy precedent had it. One people, one country, one leader. And this trinity, like its religious counterpart, is not supposed to be divisible. It has to be swallowed whole. If you do not admire the leader you are also betraying the country and the people. The difference between Hong Kong and China on this point was not covered in the Basic Law. I suppose the drafters thought that having provided for a high degree of autonomy and capitalism continuing for 50 years they had dealt with the matter. Clearly Mr Leung has had the necessary brain surgery to meet the standards of devotion required. The prospect of the rest of us having to go the same way may explain some of the disillusionment among young people contemplating a future here.

In fairness to Messrs Leung and Chugani we should perhaps note that ethnic identities have a unique characteristic: they are the first thing people see. When you meet a stranger, before either of you says anything, and without conscious effort on either side, you have an initial impression of gender, age, ethnicity and perhaps other superficial things. People I meet in lifts occasionally comment on my height. If you met President Obama in the street the first thing that would register would be that he is black, more or less. A man interviewing potential students is deceiving himself if he thinks he does not notice that some of the ladies are pretty.

This initial impression quickly fades into the background as you get to know other things about the person concerned. Your first unconscious thought may be “This kid is Chinese”. But once you have discovered that he is a gay vegetarian anarchist who supports Manchester United the ethnic classification is overwhelmed. Of course there are people for whom it remains a problem. No matter how well they know the person the ethnic category still obliterates everything else. This is known as racism and it should be opposed, not accepted as an unavoidable fact of life.

• [476] The Taking Of Civic Plaza 123 (2016/03/03)

(YouTube) TVB news coverage of the taking of Civic Plaza on September 26, 2017.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 3, 2016.

The leaders of student activist groups Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) defended themselves on Thursday, after a court ruled that they had a case to answer for their involvement in the charging of the east wing forecourt of the Government Headquarters in 2014.

The hearing of the case continued at Eastern Magistrates’ Courts. The student activists – Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung – were charged with inciting others to join, and taking part in unlawful assembly. They were accused over their roles during the charging of the Government Headquarters on September 26, 2014 following a week-long class boycott campaign, a prelude to the pro-democracy Occupy protests that started on September 28.

After hearing from the prosecution, the magistrate ruled that all three defendants would have a case to answer.

In defence, Wong said that he had planned to protest peacefully without the use of violence. He said that following an assembly that night, he only called on protesters to enter the east wing forecourt of the Government Headquarters – dubbed “Civic Square” by protesters – because he thought that staff members would open the gate for the demonstrators. He said he had never thought of climbing fences to enter the area, adding that he only later did so because there were too many people at the gate. Wong also cited the anti-National Education protests outside the Government Headquarters, arguing that police never arrested him at that time.

Protests against the unpopular Moral and National Education subject broke out in 2012 as demonstrators occupied the Civic Square for more than a week. They accused the government of using the subject as a political tool to build a sense of patriotism among local students. The subject was eventually scrapped following the demonstrations.

Law also defended himself in court on Thursday afternoon. He said that HKFS had planned to break into Civic Square following the student protests, but said that they did so using non-violent means. However, he added that the student group did not have plans to retreat when they were stopped by security officers.

Last Friday, the United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China released a statement, quoting a congressman as saying that the trials appeared to be “nothing more than political flexing, targeting those who dared to stand up for freedom of democracy.” The Hong Kong government responded to the statement on Monday, saying that it was inappropriate for the commission to make open comments on cases that are the subject of legal proceedings.

(EJ Insight) March 4, 2016.

Student leader Joshua Wong said he did not expect clashes when he rallied protesters to enter Civic Square outside government headquarters at the height of the 2014 street occupation.

Wong, 18, founder of student activist group Scholarism, told a magistrates’ court that their actions in the Sept. 26 incident were based on “peaceful and rational principles”. He said the group had planned a three-day sit-in to press the government for talks, Apple Daily reports. Civic Square was chosen because of its proximity to the central government offices, Wong said. He said they had learned their lesson after Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying met them only once during an anti-national education protest in 2012.

Wong is accused of inciting others and participating in an illegal assembly. He said they had planned to enter the square, declared off-limits to the public by the police, by piggybacking on reporters and employees. When he climbed over a fence to get to the other side, he was merely following others, Wong said. However, Wong said he did not expect their actions to erupt in violence, adding no one had been ejected from the public square before.

Asked by the prosecution if he considered injuring security guards as a peaceful action, Wong said yes but added he expected to be asked to leave, not manhandled. He said he was surprised at being surrounded by police officers and being held in a police station for 46 hours.

Co-defendant Nathan Law, 22, secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), said his group had discussed whether they should break into Civic Square. Even so, the move did not mean they were going to charge the police, he said. Law, also charged with inciting others and participating in an illegal assembly, said their presence in Civic Square made it harder for the government to ignore their demands for a peaceful dialogue.

A third accused, former HKFS secretary general Alex Chow, will appear in court on Friday, charged with taking part in an unlawful assembly.

The hearing continues.

(SCMP) July 21, 2016.

Three prominent student leaders who spearheaded the 2014 Occupy movement were convicted on Thursday over the storming of government headquarters – an ­incident that led to the blocking of key roads for 79 days.

Former Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung was found guilty at Eastern Court of unlawful assembly along with former Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang, 25. Demosisto chairman Nathan Law Kwun-chung, 23, was convicted of inciting others to join an unlawful assembly.

Wong beat the incitement charge, and all three were released on bail. Their case marked the first criminal convictions of the student leaders who played a pivotal role in the civil disobedience movement for greater democracy after Beijing set a framework for political reform that was seen as too restrictive.

The trio will be sentenced on August 15, pending reports on the suitability of probation and community service orders. The maximum penalty is a HK$5,000 fine and three years’ imprisonment.

Wong, currently Demosisto’s secretary general, remained defiant, and said they would seek legal advice on whether to appeal. “We do not regret what we have done,” he said

Law was also unrepentant. “Because of our actions, the Umbrella Movement started, and we believe it is very important for Hong Kong,” he said. “We still think we did something right.” Law said he felt calm when the verdict was delivered, as it had been almost two years since his initial arrest.

But it was uncertain whether his conviction would affect his bid to run for a Legislative Council seat in September. His lawyer, Michael Chai Chun, told Magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan in mitigation that Law would be disqualified from the race if he was jailed for three months or more, even if it was a suspended sentence.

Law was tight-lipped about his plans, only saying he trusted his political campaign team to fulfil their duties if he was incarcerated.

The case centred on the key protest two days before the roads were occupied, when student activists stormed the east wing forecourt at government headquarters, unofficially dubbed Civic Square, when it was closed for security reasons on September 26.

Cheung emphasised in her hour-long verdict delivery that the court would only rule in accordance with the law, regardless of the evidence touching upon some political or highly sensitive social issues.

The court heard that Wong encouraged others to enter the forecourt before he climbed over its newly erected three-metre­security fence. Law then took over the microphone in calling for more people to surround police officers and block the complex, with Chow among those who broke in. The protest was held without police permission or the government Administrative Wing’s consent to enter the compound.

The incitement charge against Wong did not stick as the court could not be sure that his brief call on stage for the storming of the compound would prompt disorderly entry causing fear – the two elements to prove incitement – when there was no evidence to suggest that he knew they would be physically obstructed by security guards at the scene.

(The Wall Street Journal) Convicting Hong Kong’s Democrats. July 21, 2016.

A Hong Kong court convicted three student activists Thursday for their roles in leading the mass pro-democracy protests that occupied downtown streets and captured international attention in 2014. The question now is whether these convictions reflect merely the price of civil disobedience, or an acceleration of Hong Kong’s descent into the authoritarian politics of mainland China.

Joshua Wong, age 19, and Alex Chow, 25, were found guilty of unlawful assembly for leading protesters into a walled-off plaza outside local government headquarters on Sept. 26, 2014. Nathan Law, 23, was convicted of inciting demonstrators during the same incident, which led two days later to police using batons and tear gas against peaceful protesters nearby, a move that drew tens of thousands more into the streets. Some 75 days later the crowds dispersed peacefully but empty-handed, as local officials and their Beijing masters refused to compromise on democratic reform.

“We believe we have done something right and will not regret it,” said Mr. Law after the verdict Thursday. “Democracy doesn’t just come out of thin air. We’re up against the world’s largest authoritarian regime,” said Mr. Wong. “I had prepared to pay the price for my actions, and compared to rights activists on the mainland, the price I pay is nothing.”

That’s true, but the young men face up to two years in prison at sentencing Aug. 15. The just penalty would be no more than community service or a suspended sentence, especially because of the overbroad nature of the colonial-era law under which they were convicted. As human-rights groups have noted, it squeezes peaceful-protest rights by requiring advanced police approval for any public demonstration of more than 30 people.

o the 2014 protests. This isn’t surprising, as the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful and generally popular. Officials may not want to make martyrs of charismatic leaders like young Mr. Wong, who rose to prominence at age 14 fighting a government plan for courses on patriotism in public schools.

But there’s evidence that Thursday’s verdict could be part of a broader turn toward harsher treatment of democrats. Prosecutors recently charged outspoken lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung with misconduct for allegedly failing to disclose a donation from pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai. That case appeared dormant for two years.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption then fired its head of operations in an unprecedented move that democrats believe is retribution for her greater focus on investigating pro-Beijing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying than his democratic critics. The ICAC says she was underperforming but offers no evidence.

Late last year, five local booksellers critical of Beijing vanished into mainland police custody, one of them abducted from Hong Kong. Local officials have failed to resolve the matter with Beijing. The case suggests that Beijing has decided to use hard-line tactics to curb dissent.

Next month’s sentencing of Messrs. Wong, Chow and Law will be an important test. If they are sent to prison, they will become Hong Kong’s first political prisoners. That could herald a new era in which protests for democracy become less peaceful.

(SCMP) August 15, 2016.

Aspiring lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung is clear to run for next month’s Legislative Council elections as he and former Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung were spared jail over the storming of government headquarters two days before the 2014 Occupy movement, while a third student leader was given a suspended sentence.

Magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan had intended to sentence all three to community service orders. But she eventually jailed former Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang, 25, for three weeks, suspended for one year, because he needed to study abroad.

Former Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung, 19, and Demosisto president Nathan Law Kwun-chung, 23, were given 80 and 120 hours of community service orders for their respective convictions on one count of unlawful assembly and one of inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly.

Sentencing reports previously ordered by the court suggested community service orders of up to 160 and 140 hours for Wong and Law respectively. Chow’s counsel said neither community service nor probation was suitable for his client because he would be studying abroad.

Cheung said sentencing for the case was atypical. She said the court had to adopt a more lenient and understanding attitude towards the student leaders, whom she described as passionate and genuinely believing their political ideals.

The judge said their actions were not self-serving but moderate compared with the protests that followed the storming.

Law’s non-custodial sentence meant his bid to run for a Legislative Council seat next month would not be affected as candidates are only disqualified if they are jailed for three months or longer.

(The Standard) September 22, 2017.

A court has rejected a government bid to put three student leaders behind bars.

The trio had stormed into the forecourt of government headquarters, or Civic Square, on September 24, 2014, sparking the Occupy protests two days later.

Magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan last month handed down non-custodial sentences to Demosisto secretary- general Joshua Wong Chi-fung, party chairman and legislator-elect Nathan Law Kwun-chung, and former Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang for their participation in the illegal assembly and inciting others to take part in an illegal assembly.

But the Department of Justice was not happy and asked Cheung to review her decision, arguing that an immediate custodial sentence was the only appropriate punishment. At Eastern Court yesterday, the prosecution said the act was premeditated, adding that there were more than 100 people at the illegal assembly and that several security guards were injured.

Submitting precedents to the magistrate, the prosecution asked for the student leaders to be imprisoned.

However, Cheung pointed out that all the precedents submitted involved violent acts by triad members or armed attackers.

"The students were seeking their ideal and there's a big difference from the triad members who looked after their interests."

The magistrate further doubted that the prosecution's claim that "immediate imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence" and asked the prosecutors if they had gathered statistics of the sentencing of illegal assembly cases.

As to claims the non-custodial sentences handed could not reflect the seriousness of the case, the magistrate said: "I would have handed a fine if it was not serious."

The prosecution also argued that the trio did not show genuine remorse. Cheung said pleading guilty is not the only way to demonstrate remorse, adding that accepting the court's ruling is also a way.

Barrister Edwin Choy Wai-bond, for Chow, cited a biblical reference and urged the magistrate not to become Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who succumbed to pressure to crucify Jesus.

Cheung upheld the previous ruling as the prosecution failed to provide sufficient grounds. Wong, 19, was given 80 hours of community service for his conviction on one count of unlawful assembly and Law, 23, 120 hours for one count of inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly.

Chow, 25, who is leaving for Britain for postgraduate studies, was given a three-week jail term suspended for one year

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 12, 2017.

Activists Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow have given up appeals against their convictions for unlawful assembly offences arising from the storming of Civic Square. Their actions gave rise to Hong Kong’s 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests.

Wong and Law have completed significant parts of their sentences, whilst Law also voiced concerns about his other court cases. Both were convicted of participating in an unlawful assembly, whilst Law was also found guilty of inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly.

Wong and Law were given 80 and 120 hours of community service respectively, while Chow was sentenced to three weeks in jail, suspended for one year, in August last year. They lodged the appeal two weeks after the conviction.

The Court of Appeal granted the Department of Justice leave to appeal against the sentencing of the trio. The case has yet to be scheduled.

The trio’s appeal was scheduled to be heard on May 22, but they decided to give it up a few weeks ago upon receiving legal advice.

Wong told HKFP that he had only around ten hours of community service left to complete, so there was not much point in appealing. He also hoped to demonstrate to those who criticised them for being irresponsible in joining the Occupy protests that they would take responsibility. Even if the situation amounted to a political prosecution.

Law said that they may not have the best chance in winning the appeal. He said he faces other court cases, and potential cases related to Occupy protests, so he decided to give up appealing as legal procedures are very cumbersome. He has completed more than half of his community service.

Videos:

TVB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozGAXU5M3us September 27, 2014, 6:30pm news report

TVB News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgVIHOuD5xw

ATV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PEJcURJVus September 27, 2014, 6:00pm news report

Lianain Films @ Vimeo  First Umbrella – September 26, 2014

Fix Easz @ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyGzUykAZdc . At 5:23, Joshua Wong suddenly called on people to enter Government Headquarters. At 5:34, people began to scale the wall. At 6:25, there are physical struggles.

Internet comments:

- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance Section 18 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.

- Here is the defense strategy:

I was not there, so I am not guilty.

Even if I was filmed to be present there, I did not commit the alleged acts.

Even if I was filmed to have committed the alleged acts, I was temporarily insane at the time and I am therefore not responsible for my actions.

Even if I was filmed to be mentally alert giving speeches and interviews at the time, the law does not apply in this case because I did it for Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights and Universal Suffrage.

Even if my motives cannot excuse my crime, the magistrate will let me off lightly because I am contrite and remorseful for having caused dozens of injuries to the security guards. Besides I have the rest of my life ahead of me, and I cannot afford to let a criminal record stop my ascension.

Even if I say that I am contrite and sorry, I will walk out after the court and tell the media that I am not in the least bit contrite and remorseful and that I have no compunction about doing this again.

So there you have it. You don't have to follow this story anymore.

- The mystery is just why they would want to take over this so-called Civic Plaza. Ostensibly this is for its symbolic value. But can someone explain what it symbolizes? What larger goals is the takeover connected to? How does taking over this plaza further those goals?

- The action was intended to highlight the demands of the demonstrators; instead the action drew attention to the action itself. After all, violence sells on television; talking heads don't (unless they have big tits).

- The defense started by challenging accounts of the incident. It is not easy to challenge the TVB news video, but the human witnesses can be challenged.

(Oriental Daily) March 1, 2016. Security guard Fung Chung-kwun testified that he was on duty at the flag pole around 10pm that night. A person claiming to be the assistant of a legislator brought several dozen individuals and argued with other security guards at the gate. Fung said that he has seen the man before and knew him to be with the Legislative Council. Therefore he opened the gate in try to understand what was going on. As soon as the gate was opened, the man bumped him and tried to enter the plaza. He grabbed the man's shirt to stop him. The man hit him twice on the chest. During the struggle with other demonstrators, he was also bruised on his neck, back and knees. Ultimately the demonstrators charged past the gate.

The defense questioned why the doctor did not note the bruises after the medical examination at the hospital. Fung said that he doesn't know why. The defense said that Fung had previously claimed in his statement that the man hit him on the wrists, neck, knees, etc, but now he is testifying that the man hit him on the chest while the other injuries were caused by other persons. Fung said that he did not notice that section when he read over the police statement.

- (Oriental Daily) March 3, 2016.

In his self-defense, Joshua Wong said that he has always advocated peaceful and rational demonstrations and that he personally abides by non-violence resistance. He recalled that when they occupied Civic Plaza for nine days in 2012 to protest against National Education, they did not apply for a letter of non-objection from the police, and the police only advised them but did not stop or arrest them. On the night of this assembly, the crowd was about to leave when Wong got on stage and encouraged people to enter Civic Plaza in order to express their demands.

He originally wanted to wait for a worker to enter the grounds while holding a pass, and then rushed over to hold the door open to let the crowd in. But there were too many people before the gate already. So he decided to scale the wall. As soon as he reached the plaza, he was stopped and arrested by a number of police. He was quite astonished and kept yelling: "What are stopping me?" He was taken down to the Central District police station and held for 46 hours before his mother obtained a habeas corpus from the High Court to secure his release.

Under cross-examination, Wong admitted he was willing to break the law in order to fight for justice. He did not apply to enter Civic Plaza, because "I knew that the application would be rejected." He also understood that if a large number of people entered Civic Plaza at the same time, there might be injuries. Therefore he chose to scale the wall to enter. He thought that the security guards and the police will try to dissuade him just like last time. He never imagined that there would really be a physical calsh.

In his self-defense, Nathan Law said that he acted as the Master of Ceremony on stage. He was in charge of disseminating information and so he did not enter Civic Plaza. He emphasized that he did not call on the persons in the assembly to cause property damage or personal injuries. The prosecutor said that after the police applied pepper spray on the demonstrators who attempted to barge into Civic Plaza, Law continued to stand on the stage and urged the crowd to "retake Civic Plaza." Law replied: "That was just slogan-shouting. It does not mean advocacy of specific actions." He disagreed with the prosecutor's characterization of the retaking of Civic Plaza being violent.

- (Oriental Daily) As befitting his superstar status, Joshua Wong was late 25 minutes in court. He pleaded traffic jams because he lives in South Horizons (Aberdeen) and has to travel to the Eastern District Court. The magistrate lectured Wong about leaving more time for the "important things in life."

- Yes, I told you that White Elephant projects such as the Aberdeen Tunnel don't work or Joshua Wong wouldn't be late. They should convert the tunnel into a public park so that the cars can go back to use Wong Nai Chung Gap. Maybe it is too late but we can still stop the other White Elephant projects High Speed Rail, the Zhuahai-Macau-Hong Kong bridge, the third runway at the Hong Kong International Airport, etc.

- Indeed, that's exactly what I expect you to say. Let me help you by adding: "It's all 689's fault." You mustn't forget that one.

- (Congressional-Executive Commission on China) Representative Christopher Smith, Chairman; Senator Marco Rubio, Cochairman

Congressman Chris Smith and Senator Marco Rubio, the chair and cochair respectively of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, today expressed concern about recent developments in Hong Kong and indicated that the U.S. Congress would be watching closely how the upcoming trial of student pro-democracy leader Joshua Wong and several other prominent protesters unfolds, characterizing it as an important bellwether of democratic freedoms and true autonomy in Hong Kong.

“Instead of putting Joshua Wong on trial, the Hong Kong government should be promoting and consulting him, and his fellow student activists, as the best hope for Hong Kong’s future,” said Congressman Smith. “This trial appears to be nothing more than political muscle flexing, targeting those who dared to stand up for freedom and democracy, and it continues a very disturbing trend. Beijing’s expanded influence and reach in Hong Kong are undermining the future of the “one country, two systems” model. The Administration should do more to help protect Hong Kong’s autonomy, which is clearly in U.S. interests. Hong Kong’s unique vitality and prosperity are rooted in its guaranteed freedoms and the rule of law, if they are further eroded and Hong Kong’s autonomy is undermined, the Congress and the Administration must decide whether separate treatment for Hong Kong remains warranted.”        

“A year and a half ago, thousands of Hong Kong residents peacefully gathered in the streets, yellow umbrellas in hand, to demand electoral reforms and greater democracy. Student leader Joshua Wong was at the forefront of that movement. He and his fellow protesters tapped into a yearning for true democracy. Since that time Beijing’s grip on Hong Kong has only tightened. We’ve seen booksellers disappear, academic and media freedom shrinking, and growing disaffection among Hong Kong’s youth,” said Senator Rubio. “The trajectory is troubling and merits greater attention from the Obama Administration. These most recent actions call into direct question Beijing’s commitment to the principle of ‘one country, two systems.’ It is against this backdrop that Joshua’s case goes to trial. We will be watching closely how it is handled. He and his fellow students represent the future of Hong Kong, not Beijing’s tired tactics of repression and intimidation.”

In addition to Wong, head of Scholarism, Nathan Law, head of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, and Alex Chow will also face trial, currently scheduled for February 29, for their involvement in the September 2014 pro-democracy protests.

- (Info.gov.hk) February 28, 2016.

    In response to media enquiries on the statement issued by the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China about its concern for the trial of student leaders involved in the 2014 illegal occupy Central movement, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (SAR Government) today (February 28) issued the following statement:

     "The SAR Government is committed to upholding the rule of law. Any arrest and prosecution are conducted according to the laws of Hong Kong and those being prosecuted will be tried by the court in an independent, fair and open manner.

     The Department of Justice (Department) of the Hong Kong SAR handles all criminal prosecutions independently and free from any interference. When making a prosecutorial decision, the Department does not take into account any political considerations and there is no question of political prosecution whatsoever.

     Prosecution and trial in Hong Kong are entirely affairs of the SAR and no foreign governments should intervene. The SAR Government regrets that the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China has openly made comments on cases that are subject of pending legal proceedings. The Commission should respect the legal and judicial system as well as the judicial independence of the Hong Kong SAR. It is inappropriate for the Commission to make any open comment on cases that are subject of pending legal proceedings.

• [475] Cheung Ray versus Beggar Woman (2016/03/02)

(Wen Wei Po) March 2, 2016.

Previously a Hong Kong independence supporter (see #310) gained fame through his bigotry but this time he has shocked more people by posting photos of himself kicking a beggar woman. Cheung Ray has said that he "went through the game experience on the night of Lunar New Year's day in Mong Kok. As an "attacker" and "warrior", he said that he spotted a mainlander begging on Shan Tung Street so he "stuck his foot out." He even posted photos of himself kicking the female beggar. A lot of Internet users were angry because he bullies elders, women and children. They said that they will continue to promote the case until the newspapers report it. Cheung Ray obviously did not think that he was wrong and said: "What is wrong with me using my method to resist valiant?" He cursed the beggar woman: "Everybody wishes that her children will all be kidnapped by beggar gangs, get their hands and legs chopped off and beg for money!"

Internet comments:

Kenny Poon: If you so full of justice, why don't you go kick some gangsters! Bastard! What a piece of trash which bullies the weak and fears the bullies!

Kong Wai-bun: You think that you are a hero and you are fucking impressing people this time!

Candy Chau: Are you stupid? What else can you do other that beating up women and children? Please tell me. I'm waiting to hear.

Anson Cheng: When the police won't enforce the law to oust the beggars, then citizens can beat people right there in the street? What kind of fucking logic is this? By what authority can you act on behalf of the police to oust people? Do you think that you are the angel here to save the world?

Aison Yang: This is is unconscionable action, which is being brought out to show off to the praise of so many people ... I am very astonished? Tolerance used to be the calling card for Hong Kong. How did it become like this today?

Cola Yu: Bullying people because they are women or children, bullying people because they are impoverished. Is that supposed to be impressive? If you dare to kick the ISIS terrorists and then post photos onto Facebook, I would be impressed. Brain-damaged trash!

- Keeping the score ...

Cheung Ray
July 3 1:50pm
I ran across a old beggar woman at Fortress Hill. I stepped right on her. She was still able to walk away. That was awesome. Smile.

Cheung Ray is not the only one. He has company.

Tiffany Lee's Facebook
I really wanted to kick her money.
I just saw a young girl (primary school student) happily walking over to give money to her
I was hopping made!!
Most Hongkongers would rather be vagrants than beggars
Hongkongers have social workers to follow on their cases, along with welfare subsidies.
They won't go out ot bag.
I would appreciate her if she was giving an artistic performance to earn a living.
But she was just waving her hand.
She was clearly begging.
Even if she were a Hongkonger and wanted to make a living by playing on people's sympathy, she still deserves to be cursed out.
But she clearly isn't a Hongkonger. Her look shows it.

Jacqueline Lee's Facebook
I want to say that this old man has been here for many years already
Grandma is not your so-called mainlander.
Grandma has a son with Down's Syndrome.
Grandma's spouse cannot move around.
During the day, she scavengers for cardboard boxes.
I remember one year when it was very cold when Grandma sat shivering at the MTR station.
I and my friends asked Grandma why she wasn't home.
We spoke for an hour. She said that she has no money to buy good to make dinner.
Her husband has to visit the doctor regularly.
So she wanted to hang around longer to see if she can get a little bit more.
Finally we got pooled our money and gave her $500.
I know that isn't a lot. I was just a student at the time.
But I want to say that Grandma is not your so-called mainlander.
She wanted to help herself, but she has no means!
Please watch your mouth! Being pretty doesn't mean that you can fucking boss everybody else!

Cathy Wong's Facebook
My friend and I just saw her at the MTR entrance
She whispered: Buy a bun for grandma to eat.
I turned around. She said that she wanted a bun
Then she asked if she could have rice instead
Finally she said that she wanted sticky rice chicken because it is more filling.
Ultimately we bought her stick rice chicken from Tong Kee, plus two buns and a bottle of soy milk.
As we gave the food to her, she kept saying thanks and wish us good health
Then she that she was going home to eat the sticky rice chicken that we bought her
She walked away slowly. This just happened at around 1030pm.
She spoke very slowly, looking very lost and lonely
My friend and I saw a Facebook post and found out the story behind her case.
Grandma spoke perfect Cantonese.
I thought that the chick should not be doing such a fucking stupid think in order to become famous.
Even if you don't want to help someone, you don't have to smear them.
You have an evil mind and your looks come from that. You are not that pretty.
On the Internet there is plenty of talk based upon your own fantasies converted into facts.

Tiffany Lee
If this woman is really a Hongkonger victim under the social system
Even though it is justified to chase her off and it is human compassion not to,
I was wrong because I did not verify her status
But so far the person who claimed that she is a Hongkonger victim under the social system
has provided no solid evidence.
Just because you say that she is a Hongkonger means that she is Hongkonger.
That's is just talk without any evidence.
If you break the law, you break the law.
Facts are based upon evidence!
I will personally go and seek the evidence.
If you people like to find out about my background, go ahead.
If you people like to continue to smear me, go ahead.
If you people like to make personal attacks against me, go ahead.
This isn't going to showcase how compassionate you are and how you really want to help grandma.

Usana Queena
Stinking cunt ... you don't dare to respond directly and you only want to make denunciations (to the Facebook administrator) ... pig cunt ... when you go outside again, please remember to wrap yourself up in a sharia ... if you are recognized, you will be fucking laughed at.

Internet comments:

- What about Tiffany Lee? There is the Facebook video in which she said that she was born in mainland China and came to Hong Kong just in time to start first-year Primary School. In other words, she is just another stinking mainland locust.

- More about Tiffany Lee:

Full name: Lee Ka-yan/Tiffany Lee
School: Sixth year, Cotton Spinners Association Secondary School, Kwai Shing Wai, Kwai Chung district
Telephone: 97xx888x

She used to have a boyfriend who is a Passion Times host. She is still helping him this morning but they broke up after an argument over this incident.

• [474] The Lee Bo Interview (2016/03/01)

(EJ Insight) March 1, 2016.

A Hong Kong bookseller is doubling down on his claim that he returned to China voluntarily after being reported missing last year in an alleged abduction orchestrated by Beijing. Lee Bo told Hong Kong police in an arranged meeting on Monday that he was not kidnapped or taken to the mainland against his will but gave no further details, Apple Daily reports. Lee agreed to the meeting organised by the Guandgong interpol office at the request of the Hong Kong government. Two officers from the Hong Kong police crime unit and an immigration official traveled to a location outside Guangdong provoince. The hour-long interview, which took place in a guesthouse, came with the understanding that Lee would not be asked about his pending cases in the mainland, the report said. Lee said he was “free and safe at the moment” and was assisting in an unspecified investigation into a “person named Gui”. He said he plans to return to Hong Kong once the investigation is completed.

Sources said Lee might have been referring to fellow Hong Kong publisher Gui Minhai, who earlier said he had voluntarily surrendered to Chinese authorities for a 2003 traffic conviction. Gui had been reported missing in Thailand in October, believed kidnapped by Chinese agents. He was later paraded by the authorities on national television. He initially said he was assisting in an investigation. Lee and Gui are among five men from Mighty Current Media Ltd., a Hong Kong bookseller that publishes material critical of the Chinese elite, who mysteriously disappeared last year. 

Lee asked the Hong Kong police to cancel any pending cases against him relating to his disappearance and that his exact location not be disclosed, according to an official press release. Sources said Lee and Gui returned to the mainland to help in an investigation into missing confidential documents relating to national security. Lee, who holds a British passport, has extensive knowledge about the matter, they said.

In an interview aired by Phoenix Television Monday night, Lee said he has decided to give up his British residency because his case has made life complicated for him and his wife. He said his wife agreed with his decision. Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office declined to comment on Lee’s remarks. Democratic Party legislator James To said giving up citizenship is not a simple process. The applicant must prove the act is voluntary and not made under duress and that he or she is in a proper state of mind, To said.

Political commentator Willy Lam said Beijing might allow Lee and the rest of his missing colleagues to return to Hong Kong to ease pressure on the National People’s Congress which begins its plenary session on Saturday. However, Gui might be held to account and punished severely, he said.

(South China Morning Post) March 1, 2016.

One of the missing booksellers from Causeway Bay Books appeared on television and admitted for the first time he had sneaked into the mainland illegally to assist in an investigation,

Lee Po, who runs the bookstore specialising in selling politically sensitive publications banned on the mainland, reiterated in the 20-minute interview aired by Phoenix TV on Monday night that he had visited the mainland of his own free will to assist as a witness in an investigation into Gui Minhai, co-owner of publishing house Mighty Current, which runs the bookstore. Lee appeared calm and smiled throughout the interview, conducted in a well decorated room in an unknown location

On the mystery surrounding his disappearance, Lee said: “I sneaked into the mainland with the help of a friend [or friends] so I didn’t use my home return permit.” But he declined to elaborate. “It’s not convenient to disclose the details,” he said.

He explained the fact that the investigation might make someone angry which might bring harm to him and his family was the reason he adopted a secret way to visit the mainland without using his travel document. “I wanted to secretly visit the mainland and solve my own matters as soon as possible, and then return home secretly,” Lee said.

The interview was aired hours after Hong Kong police disclosed they had met Lee in a guest house at an undisclosed location on the mainland.

Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok said on Tuesday morning that during the meeting, Lee did not tell the police how he got to the mainland without going through proper channels. But police will continue to follow up on this matter, the security chief said. Lai also said that there has been no evidence so far to show that mainland law enforcement officers had carried out their work in Hong Kong. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying would say only that even though Lee’s wife has withdrawn her request for police assistance, the force has continued to look into the case.

The content of the interview was also carried on Monday night by Shanghai-based online portal Thepaper.cn and Hong Kong newspaper Sing Tao Daily’s website.

Lee dismissed speculation that he was in trouble for buying sex on the mainland or blackmailing public figures there by publishing books with material on their negative side. He said Gui had published a lot of books about mainland issues in recent years, but all these books were compiled carelessly with copied and in some cases fabricated material. “I was to blame too. And I took this opportunity to confess my wrongdoing.” He also said he had not yet been able to go home as the investigation was continuing. But he could return whenever his assistance was finished.

The British citizen said he had never sought help from the UK government and he had always called himself a “Hongkonger” and a “Chinese”. He said he and his wife had decided to abandon their UK citizenship as this had complicated the case. He had notified the British side about their decision. “I haven’t been to Britain for more than 20 years. And I haven’t enjoyed any rights or benefits as a citizen.” The couple’s daughter is studying at a British university where she is paying fees imposed on ordinary foreign students, he said.

“My life now on the mainland is very good. I’m very safe and free. And you can see my health is still not bad. I get along well with the law enforcement workers, who treat me well,” Lee said.

Two pictures of the couple taken on the mainland during the Lunar New Year holiday were also made available with reports about the interview. Lee said his wife Sophie Choi Ka-ping had met him and they had had some fun.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 1, 2016.

Several Hong Kong lawmakers have said that claims made by detained bookseller Lee Bo in a Phoenix TV “interview” are difficult to believe.

Lee spoke to China’s Phoenix TV on Monday, in which he said: “I came to the mainland to assist with the judicial investigation, and I had to incriminate some people. I was really scared that if these people found out, they will cause harm to me and my family, so I didn’t want anyone to know, and I didn’t want to leave any immigration records. So I chose to smuggle [to the mainland].”

Speaking on RTHK radio, Alvin Yeung, newly elected Civic Party Legislative Council member, said: “I understand that right now, many ‘kind-hearted’ people want to cover up the story and whitewash, to make the story as [least serious] as possible. But any Hongkonger with common sense will know… how can it be so simple?” He also asked if the police could reveal more about the meeting with Lee. “When did they meet? They met him through who? Through what methods?” he asked.

Former lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah also told RTHK that it was difficult to judge whether what Lee said was political PR or the truth. He said that the main point in the matter was why he needed to smuggle himself back to the mainland and that there are more political problems involved than legal problems.

James To Kun-sun, pro-democracy lawmaker and member of the Legislative Council’s Panel on Security said to Ming Pao: “[Lee Bo] went back to the mainland to assist the [Chinese] government’s investigation, but he doesn’t have the confidence in the [Chinese] police to protect his personal safety?” He said that there were still many suspicious aspects regarding Lee’s case.

Michael Tien Puk-sun, pro-establishment lawmaker and a Hong Kong deputy to the National People’s Congress (NPC) told Ming Pao that it would be difficult to follow up the case in future [NPC] meetings because “Lee Bo said himself that he was not kidnapped, so accusations of cross-border law enforcement will be difficult to hold up.”

The police met with Lee on Monday morning and took a statement from him at a guesthouse in the mainland. Lee told the police that he arrived in China voluntarily to assist the authorities and that “it was not an abduction”.

Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok said to local media on Tuesday: “As to how Lee Bo left Hong Kong, when a police officer and immigration department representative talked to him yesterday, Lee Bo did not reveal any further details. We will follow up in this regard.” He also said that he did not see any proof or evidence of cross-border law enforcement, according to Apple Daily.

(SCMP) March 2, 2016.

Hong Kong’s police chief said on Tuesday he suspected Causeway Bay bookseller Lee Po was hiding something, but that the force would have to accept his story that he had sneaked into the mainland of his own free will in order to help with an investigation.

Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung said there was no point in seeking another meeting with Lee in the near future, after he met a police officer and an immigration officer on Monday, six weeks after Hong Kong made the request.

Lo also said there was no evidence to support speculation that Lee was kidnapped by mainland agents last December over the sale of banned books across the border.

The force is in a dilemma as to how to proceed with its investigation into Lee’s mysterious disappearance, as he has made clear to the visiting officers that he does not want their help.

The controversy took yet another diplomatic twist on Tuesday, with a British government spokesman telling the Post the UK was still “ready to provide consular assistance” to Lee and his wife, even though they had both decided to give up their British citizenship.

The Swedish foreign ministry also told the Post that its staff from the Beijing embassy on February 24 had been allowed to visit Gui Minhai, a colleague of Lee’s and a Swedish national, who also went missing and turned up on the mainland. A ministry spokesman would only say Gui was “well”.

Grilled by reporters about Lee on Tuesday, Hong Kong’s police chief said: “We don’t see [evidence] that he was forcibly taken away. We have met Mr Lee in person, and he said that he used his own means to leave Hong Kong for the mainland. Thus, at this moment when we do not have other evidence, we have accepted what he said.”

However, Lo admitted that Lee was not telling them the full story.

“I believe that if we are to meet him again in the near future, there will be no new updates. There was something he did not reveal to us,” Lo said.

Before Lee vanished at the end of December, Gui disappeared from Pattaya in Thailand in October. Their publishing colleagues, Lui Por, Lam Wing-kee and Cheung Chi-ping, disappeared that same month, but everyone surfaced across the border later.

Lee stuck to his story on Monday that he was not kidnapped and was helping with an investigation into Gui, who has been accused of smuggling banned books into the mainland. He asked Hong Kong police to drop their investigation. But the police chief said the investigation was not yet over.

“We will wait for him to come back to Hong Kong. Once he is here in Hong Kong, when we have the right to carry out law enforcement duties, we will meet him again,” Lo said.

(EJ Insight) How China’s spin doctors bungled the latest Lee Bo script. By SC Yeung. March 3, 2016.

Hong Kong bookseller Lee Bo shot his own story full of holes when he talked to Hong Kong police officials during an arranged meeting in Guandong on Monday. Whoever wrote the script knew it was an utter fabrication, but who is still surprised by a Chinese propaganda spin?

The gist of it is that Lee was not kidnapped by Chinese agents as reported; he spirited himself to the mainland, bypassing immigration authorities, to help in an official investigation. It’s a rehash of his previous “clarification” but it gets weirder every time the story line is repeated because it does not make sense any way you cut it.

If Lee is on official business in the mainland (to assist in an official investigation), why smuggle himself in? The only thing that is new here is that Lee wants out of his British passport, saying the controversy has made life difficult for him and his wife, as if he was in trouble in Britain. Yet, Lee paraded himself before state media with his tall tale and hewed to the script.  

The whole mucky episode begins to take on mythic proportions when you throw in the entire cast of characters. It happens that three of Lee’s colleagues in book publisher Mighty Current Media Ltd. are also “assisting in an investigation” after being reported missing last year and saying they voluntarily returned to China. The target of the investigation turns out to be Gui Minhai, who owns Mighty Current Media and whose own story is the stuff of fiction.

When he surfaced in the mainland after disappearing in Thailand in October, he said he voluntarily returned to China to turn himself in for a 2003 traffic homicide. To be fair, Gui and his colleagues are probably the last people to have a hand in all of this spin-doctoring. The communist propaganda machine is known to stretch credulity and bend the truth for its own ends.

The truth is this: Gui’s publishing company is a purveyor of unsourced damning books and articles about the Chinese elite. It’s the kind of gossip the Chinese masses love and the communist bosses loathe. One such book satirized President Xi Xinping’s foibles.

Thanks to a hole in the Great Firewall, China’s infamous internet filter, the booksellers’ saga has reached the Chinese masses. Netizens who have been sharing Lee’s cover story on social media are having a field day taking it apart. “Even a fool won’t fall for it,” a commenter said. “Is his brain filled with water?” said another. One summed up the collective response of the online community, saying be doesn’t believe an iota of what he read, even the punctuation marks.

In Hong Kong, reaction is decidedly mixed. The government insists there’s no evidence Chinese police took any one of the booksellers away. Political observers expressed concern about the implications of the booksellers’ troubles for press freedom in Hong Kong. Commentator Lee Yee wrote that cross-border missing-persons cases will be harder to report to the police because this might mean trouble for the disappeared.

All of which remind us that nothing you see on state television in China is what it seems. 

(Thepaper.cn with video) February 29, 2016

Q. Earlier when your status was unclear, many people speculated that you "were disappeared" by mainland police crossing the border to kidnap you. What is the truth of the matter?

A. Absolutely no such thing. I have stated to the outside world through the Hong Kong police and my wife that I voluntarily returned to mainland China to assist in an investigation. This was a personal act. I was never "kidnapped" or "disappeared." I was not threatened or lured by anyone. As for the assertion being "kidnapped" or "disappeared", I considered it to be fabrications with ulterior motives.

Q. You said that you returned voluntarily to mainland China. But your wife said that you did not bring you Home Visit Permit with you. So how did you get to the mainland?

A. I went back to the mainland secretly with the help of friends. Therefore I did not use my Home Visit Permit. I cannot disclose the details.

Q. Why did you go back to the mainland secretly?

A. The reasons are somewhat complicated. After the problems at Mighty Current, I wanted to return secretly to the mainland to take care of my own problems and then come secretly back to Hong Kong without anyone knowing. So I did not want a record of my exit. I am worried that if I work with the mainland authorities on the investigation, I may have to testify against others, and they and their families may get angry at me and cause harm to me and my family. In order to ensure the safety of myself and my family, I chose to return secretly without using my Home Visit Permit.

Q.  After you went back to the mainland, your wife Ms. Choi filed a police report to say that you were missing. She suspected that you were kidnapped and taken back to the mainland. The affair became more complicated and politicized. Why didn't you tell your family about your whereabouts?

Q. This is not what actually happened. On the night when I got back to the mainland, I called my wife and told her that I was on the mainland. Based upon what I know, my wife did not file the police report first. Somebody else did it, and then persuaded my wife to file a police report. Afterwards, I met with my wife on the mainland and I learned from her the details of how she filed the police report. So I let her to withdraw the police report. My wife did not make the matter more complicated. Somebody else made it more complicated.

Q. Previously there was a media report that said that the closed circuit television camera at the Hong Man Industrial Centre in Chai Wan caught you being taken onto a van by several men as you left. Did this happen?

A. I can formally say that this did not happen.

Q. In Hong Kong, somebody said that you were arrested while patronizing a prostitute on the mainland. Some media said that you published books with negative information on mainland personalities and then you used these books to blackmail the principals. Therefore you are facing criminal charges. What do you think about these views?

A. This is nonsense. I have never patronized any prostitutes on the mainland, and I have never blackmailed anyone. These sayings are an insult to my character. I reserve the right to seek legal redress.

Q. You say that you returned voluntarily to the mainland to assist in an investigation? What is your status in the investigation? What is the subject? How is the progress so far?

A. I returned to assist in the investigation as a witness. I am assisting in the investigation of my company's internal affairs and employees. There is also the suspected crimes of Gui Minhai. The case is ongoing at this time.

Q. Why does it take so long to assist in an investigation.

A. The case involves my company plus several employees. As the person who is responsible for them, I have the duty to resolve this case. According to the law enforcement people, this case is somewhat complicated and many issues need to be resolved. Therefore, they look to get more details. I don't know all the details.

Q. Are you free to return to Hong Kong?

A. In order to assist in the investigation, I don't think that I can return to Hong Kong for now. There is another reason. The case was not so complicated originally. But certain people in Hong Kong hyped it up and brought a lot of pressure on me. When the outside world stops hyping the case, the pressure will be less. After the investigation is completed, I can return to Hong Kong anytime. And I can also visit the mainland legally.

Q. When you returned to the mainland to assist in the investigation, many outsiders thought that you "were disappeared" and this created a storm. Some people protested against the trampling of One Country Two Systems, and other people protested against the Hong Kong government and the police for not protecting the safety of Hong Kong people. Others worried about freedom of speech and freedom of publications. What is your opinion about these developments?

Q. I only came to mainland China to assist in an investigation. This is a strictly personal matter, that concerns myself, my company and its employees. I don't think that this has anything to do with "One Country Two Systems" and "the threat against the personal safety of the people of Hong Kong." As for what you said about freedom of speech and freedom of publication, I believe that Hong Kong still has freedom of speech and freedom of publication. Of course, freedom of speech and freedom of publication does not mean that you can fabricate rumors or make things up.

Q. There is a view that your affair is being hyped by certain groups or individuals. Do you agree with this view?

A. I very much agree. Actually, it was my personal business to return to the mainland in order to assist in the investigation. My wife and I don't want to be exploited as political tools. I wish those people who are hyping up my case would stop magnifying the matter.

Q. A lot of people are voicing their support and demonstrating against your "being disappeared." How do you look at that?

A. Let me say this once more. It was my personal business to return to the mainland in order to assist in the investigation. But certain groups used my case to start demonstrations. They even encouraged my wife to join. Also some groups went to petition at the British and American consulates in Hong Kong. I think that what they are doing only hurts me and does not help me. On one hand, this disrupts the normal life of my family. On the other hand, it does not help to revolve my situation.

Q. Do you hold a British passport?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Did you seek help from the British side?

A. I have absolutely made not request fro any help from the British side. Here I have something to say. In the 1990's I applied and received the right of abode in the United Kingdom. But over the past 20 plus years, I have never stayed in the United Kingdom, and I have never enjoyed any rights or benefits of British citizens. My daughter is studying in England as this time. She pay tuition fees at the rate of foreign students. I have always thought of myself as a Hongkongers. I am Chinese.

Q. But the United Kingdom is paying close attention to your case. They said that you were "involuntarily transferred to mainland China" and that this was a "serious violation of the Joint Sino-British Declaration" and destructive to One Country Two Systems. What do you think of the British opinions?

A. As for this, I hope that their attitude was based upon incorrect judgment and misinterpretation of incorrect information. I hope that the case will calm down following this public clarification. Some people wanted to use my right-of-abode in the United Kingdom to hype the case and make matters more complicated. I have decided to give up my right-of-abode in the United Kingdom. I have discussed this with my wife and she agrees. Concerning giving up right-of-abode, I have notified the British side through the relevant channels.

Q. Your letter to your wife mentioned that Gui Minhai was suspected of being involved in crimes. What is your relationship with Gui Minhai? What is your opinion of him?

A. I have known Gui Minhai for many years. I started Mighty Current with him with his encouragement. He is morally suspect, because I only found out later that he caused a death during a traffic accident and he fled China during the suspended sentence period. In addition, Gui Minghai published many books about the mainland through Mighty Current. These books are all fabricated and/or plagiarized, with many of them being pulled out of the thin air. You can copy some of the contents from these books and check them on the Internet. You are bound to find a whole lot of them. I was aware of the situation. Mighty Current was selling these books to the mainland. I was at fault too. I want to use this opportunity to express my regret, and to apologize to those who were hurt. This was one of the reasons why I voluntarily returned to the mainland to assist in the investigation.

Q. The outside world is very interested in your current situation. How are you living on the mainland? How about your health? How are the mainland law enforcement people treating you?

A. Firstly, I have to thank everybody for your concern. I am living very well on the mainland. Very safe, very much at liberty. As for my health, you can see that my health is pretty good. I get along very well with the law enforcement people. They are very friendly towards me.

Q. You have been assisting in the investigation for quite a while. Did you spend the Lunar New Year on mainland China? Did you meet with your family?

A. Yes. I met with my wife during the Lunar New Year. I went out with her to enjoy ourselves. We were very happy.

Q. As you said before, you will return to Hong Kong after finishing to assist in the investigation. You also acknowledged openly that you left Hong Kong illegally. Are you worried that you will be charged with illegal exit when you return? Are you worried that you will be pursued relentlessly by the media?

A. It is a fact that I exited illegally, for which I am prepared to bear the corresponding responsibility. I am worried that the relentless media pursuit after I return will disrupt the normal lives of me and my family. I hope that after you read this interview, you should stop pursuing me and my family. This is all I want to say. If you ask me one thousand more times, I will still be saying the same thing.

• [473] Hong Kong Legislative Council New Territories East By-election (2016/02/28)

Time of Day	2012 Legco Election Voter Turnout	2016 Legco By-election Voter Turnout
8:30am	1.31%	0.70%
9:30am	3.70%	2.43%
10:30am	7.14%	5.19%
11:30am	10.90%	8.66%
12:30pm	14.77%	12.99%
13:30pm	18.06%	15.71%
14:30pm	21.83%	19.23%
15:30pm	25.20%	22.60%
16:30pm	28.65%	26.03%
17:30pm	32.21%	29.39%
18:30pm	35.91%	32.75%
19:30pm	39.80%	36.33%
20:30pm	43.78%	39.39%
21:30pm	48.39%	42.69%
22:30pm	53.86%	46.1%

(Hong Kong Research Association) February 28, 2016 11:20pm. Exit poll of 14,895 voters at 22.9% response rate.

33.2%: Alvin Yeung
30.5%: Holden Chow
20.4%: Edward Leung
8.7%: Christine Fong
4.5%: Nelson Wong
1.6%: Leung Sze-ho
1.1%: Lau Chi-shing

Technical note: This exit poll is based upon 51 out of the 146 voting stations, with 11 in North District, 8 in Tai Po, 13 in Sai Kung and 19 in Sha Tin.

(Electoral Affairs Commission)

• [472] The Simplified J5 (2016/02/25)

(SCMP) February 24, 2016.

Nearly 10,000 complaints have been made against TVB’s decision to use simplified characters during its Putonghua newscasts on its J5 channel, the Communications Authority said.

TVB, Hong Kong’s largest television station, made the change on Monday, switching its Putonghua newscasts from the Pearl channel to the HD Jade channel, which it renamed J5.

Subtitles, news graphics and other characters now feature simplified Chinese rather than the traditional form widely used in Hong Kong.

An authority spokesman said it had received almost 10,000 complaints by 5pm on Tuesday. He said that under the terms of its licence, TVB was required to provide Chinese subtitles in its newscasts, weather forecasts and current affairs programmes.

But TVB was allowed to decide how subtitles were presented, a spokesman said.

This is the second such controversy over the use of simplified and traditional characters that have hit the city this month, after the discovery of a public consultation document prompted fears the Education Bureau was planning to replace the use of traditional characters with the simplified ones in teaching.

Many web users on the popular HKGolden.com forum said TVB’s decision was “insane”.

“What’s the problem with mainlanders learning traditional characters and Cantonese when they are here in Hong Kong?” one wrote.

Another said: “Way to go TVB for being a tool to help push for mainlandisation.”

A template that is being circulated online says that TVB should not have made use of public airwaves in Hong Kong to broadcast simplified characters in its newscasts.

“Cantonese and traditional characters are a part of Hong Kong’s tradition and culture,” the template reads, adding that the way of life in the city should remain unchanged for 50 years as guaranteed in the Basic Law.

Civic Party’s lawmaker Claudia Mo wrote a letter to TVB Group chief executive Mark Lee Po-on, asking the station to provide both traditional and simplified characters in the Putonghua newscasts and let the viewers choose which form they want.

TVB defended the decision. A spokesman said that Hong Kong is an international city and the new arrangement would “better serve different audience needs”.

In an article in its overseas edition yesterday, the state-run People’s Daily defended the use of simplified characters, drawing as a reference the other controversy that took place earlier this month. It also cited the Education Bureau as clarifying it has never advocated replacing traditional characters with the simplified ones.

“From an education point of view, for Hong Kong students learning simplified characters, not only will they be able to access wider reading materials, they will also get more opportunities in the future,” the article said.

“Simplified characters are commonly used in Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia today. That happened because they wanted to connect to the market in mainland China. Isn’t it strange that Hong Kong, as a Special Administrative Region of China, is sensitive towards the use of simplified characters?” it said.

(EJ Insight) February 24, 2016.

The Communications Authority has received about 10,000 complaints from viewers furious about Television Broadcasts Ltd. (00511.HK) starting to use simplified Chinese in subtitles for news programs on its J5 channel.

TVB, the city’s dominant free-to-air station, started Monday to offer a 45-minute prime-time news and information program in Putonghua with simplified Chinese characters for the subtitles.

Regulations for the domestic free TV program service license require all newscasts, weather reports and current-affairs programs aired by the broadcaster to provide Chinese or English subtitles, Apple Daily reported Wednesday.

However, the license did not specify how the subtitles are presented, it quoted a representative of the authority as saying.

TVB defended its decision, saying the new arrangement will offer viewers more choices and better serve the needs of different audiences.

Hong Kong Baptist University’s student union condemned TVB for attempting to please mainland China and urged the station to reverse the change.

Civic Party lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching and the party’s candidate in the upcoming Legislative Council by-election, Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, protested outside TVB’s headquarters in Tseung Kwan O. Mo said TVB has the responsibility to protect the interests of the public. She said she is worried traditional Chinese characters will follow the path of the Uyghur language and the Tibetan language, both of which are fading away.

Meanwhile, the People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, published an article arguing there is no conflict between simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese, so people should not politicize the issue. The Beijing-based newspaper criticized radicals in the city for encouraging a sense of cultural superiority on this issue, which it said is too shallow and naïve. It said that if we must appeal to history, we might as well revive ancient Chinese writing systems such as seal characters and the oracle bones script.

Well-known Hong Kong novelist Ni Kuang called on TVB viewers to avoid watching the broadcaster’s programs if they use simplified Chinese subtitles.

However, Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political commentator and senior lecturer at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said there is now only one TVB program that uses simplified Chinese subtitles, so Hongkongers should not criticize the broadcaster too much, as they live in a diverse city.

(HKG Pao) By Robert Chow. February 24, 2016.

There are more and more weird things happening in Hong Kong! A bunch of self-described Internet users and media politicize everything. Since they have the communication channels, they can smear everything and they turn white into black. The latest example is when they are challenging TVB's J5 channel showing putonghua news with subtitles in simplified characters.

It is even weirder that ten thousand persons are complaining against J5 with the Communications Authority! The number seems astonishing, so we have to ask just what they are complaining about. So which is this?

(1) They hate TVB

(2) They hate simplified characters

(3) J5's putonghua news with subtitles in simplified characters is depriving them the opportunity of watching the news.

It is likely that (1) is true; (2) is definitely true. But these are not plausible reasons for complaining.

So is (3) true?

If a Cantonese speaker wants to watch Cantonese news, the TVB Jade Channel (Channel 81) has better schedules. Also the TVB News Channel (Channel 82) can be watched all day. So what are they being deprived of? What do ten thousand unhappy people want to deprive the rest of the world the right to watch putonghua news with subtitles in simplified characters?

When a Frenchman watches French news, there is nothing strange about having French subtitles. English news with English subtitles is okay too. Cantonese news with traditional characters is normal too. Everybody accepts these three normal ways. So why is putonghua news with subtitles in simplified characters so objectionable?

Hong Kong would be truly finished if the Communications Authority agrees.

Like it or not, it is estimated that about 1 million people in Hong Kong have putonghua as their mother tongue. They came from mainland China where they received education in simplified characters. They are more fluent in putonghua than Cantonese. In addition, another 800,000 Hong Kong students from kindergarten to secondary school are learning putonghua.

Based upon commercial considerations, TVB already dominates Cantonese programs and now they want J5 to dominate the 2 million person putonghua population as well. So isn't it normal to have putonghua news with subtitles in simplified characters?

Today a bunch of people are making some noise. It does not matter whether they don't want to stoop down to use putonghua or they don't know putonghua. They are a bunch of people who don't want to keep up with the times. The world will surely pass them by.

How many Hong Kong parents would tell their children not to take putonghua lessons out of localist passion and thus force them to get zeros for grades?

Someone asked me why the TVB Pearl Channel English-language programs have traditional character subtitles. Hey, those programs let non-English speakers watch English-language programs. Frankly, it is a lot more difficult to learn English by watching Chinese subtitles. If you want to learn English, it is much better to watch English-language news with English subtitles.

Putonghua news with subtitles in simplified characters is intended for those who speak putonghua. What is the point of these Localists who think that the world must obey their wishes? Normal people and normal television stations will ignore them!

Actually what are they complaining about? There are other Cantonese programs on J5 using traditional characters in the subtitles. Programs from Taiwan are the same.

Sigh, Hong Kong is really being brought down by this group people! Let's quickly dissociate from them!

(EJ Insight) February 25, 2016.

Civic Party lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching has blasted TVB’s decision, saying she is worried that traditional Chinese characters will go the way of the Tibetan and Uyghur languages, which are now dying out.

In his reply, TVB chief executive Lee Po-on called Mo’s comments “specious” and accused the legislator of discrimination for overlooking the needs of people who only read simplified Chinese characters. Lee said the broadcaster did not reduce the airtime of newscasts that use Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters for subtitles, stressing that it always serves Hong Kong people first. He also said the change complies with the domestic free TV program service license requirements. Lee said Mo, who has worked previously at a TV station, should know that it takes time to prepare for and change the subtitles, and it is not a change meant to please Beijing.

Mo, after receiving Lee’s reply, noted that TVB is sounding like a mouthpiece of Beijing. She said radio waves are valuable public assets, and local TV viewers should always be given priority. “We will not ask for Chinese subtitles if we were in UK,” Mo said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 2, 2016.

Broadcaster TVB and legislative councilor Claudia Mo have been locked in a bitter exchange over the use of simplified Chinese subtitles for a Mandarin news programme on TV channel J5. “Your letter on February 29 is full of nonsense. We will not respond again,” TVB wrote in its latest response to Mo.

Mo’s original letter, sent on the same day, said: “If pointing out that simplified characters are not complete is discrimination, is TVB deliberately switching to use simplified characters and belittling the traditional characters that Hong Kong audience uses [and] discriminating against traditional characters?” On her Facebook page, Mo joked that the broadcaster’s CEO Mark Lee Po-on has stopped being her pen-friend.

Netizens reacted quickly to Mo’s Facebook post, with the TVB letter receiving 8,900 “angry” face emojis, as Facebook users took advantage of the social networking website’s new “reaction” function. Many commented on the post in support of Mo. “They know they’re in the wrong. They can’t win, so they claimed [Mo] is speaking nonsense and even said they wouldn’t “play” with you. Childish!” one said. “I’ll share this to PR disaster [Facebook group],” joked another.

(Headline Daily) Hong Kong society has fogged clear thinking. By Michael Chugani. February 3, 2016.

Hong Kong's politically polarized (divided) society has fogged clear thinking. Fog is a thick cloud close to the ground caused by tiny water drops that hang in the air. This makes it hard for people to see. But if you say something has fogged clear thinking, it means it has made it difficult for people to think sensibly. A good example is the irrational (unreasonable, illogical) opposition to TVB's use of simplified Chinese characters for its Putonghua news on the new J5 channel. I host a TVB show but I don't think it’s a conflict of interest to write about TVB. Many Hong Kong people are understandably afraid simplified characters used on the mainland will gradually replace traditional characters used here. They become incensed (very angry) whenever they see simplified characters replacing traditional characters.

I became incensed two years ago when a well-known hotel switched (changed) to simplified characters for its lift directory. I get incensed when restaurants switch their menus to simplified characters. But there is a big difference between that and J5 using simplified subtitle characters for Putonghua news. Restaurant menus are for Hong Kong people too, not just mainlanders but the J5 Putonghua news is for mainlanders living here who may not understand traditional characters. Most Cantonese-speakers do not watch Putonghua news. They watch Cantonese news on the Jade and iNews channels which use traditional characters. Putonghua news takes up only 4.7 of the 203 hours of news that TVB broadcasts weekly.

(SCMP) Character assassination? Hong Kong’s furore over simplified Chinese. March 3, 2016.

Hongkongers’ sensitivity about their language has been pricked again by a mooted plan to teach simplified Chinese in schools.

At the start of last month, it emerged that the Education Bureau’s latest consultation document said local pupils should learn to read simplified characters.

Traditional characters are the norm. The simplified form is used on the mainland, but deemed inferior to the traditional form by some, and sometimes mocked as “crippled” or “mutilated characters”. Intellectuals, educators, parents and localists have all aired views, and public sentiment on the matter was evidenced last week when TVB started using simplified characters during Putonghua newscasts on its J5 channel – sparking 10,000 complaints.

The debate has heightened potency, raging against the backdrop of the Mong Kok riot and the resulting prominence of localism evidenced in last weekend’s New Territories East by-election.

The state-run People’s Daily urged people not to politicise the issue and pin derogatory labels on simplified characters, while Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing said people didn’t need teaching simplified characters and could learn them on their own.

Some say the policy is part of a hidden government agenda to do away with traditional characters along with Cantonese and further ‘mainlandisation’.

Education chief Eddie Ng Hak-kim denied any political intent behind the move, accusing some of distorting the facts and sowing discord. The bureau pointed out that learning simplified Chinese was not an item for consultation now as it had already been stated as a goal in the Chinese Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide in 2002.

The policy most likely went unnoticed then because attention was on other major education reforms, such as the benchmark assessments for teachers, according to Hong Kong Aided Primary School Heads Association honorary chairman Lam Sheung-wan.

The document states that after mastering traditional Chinese, pupils should be able to read simplified characters to widen their reading range and foster better communication with the mainland and overseas, while schools should promote “using Putonghua to teach Chinese language” on campus as a long-term goal. But the bureau admitted it did not have any evidence that using Putonghua to teach Chinese language would be more effective than using Cantonese.

Last week it received a total of 22,000 public submissions and replies from 338 primary schools, 355 secondary schools and 37 special schools over the consultation, issued in December. While acknowledging the practical functions of simplified characters, those interviewed by the Post all resoundingly rejected the idea of using them in schools, saying there was no need. Supporters, especially the city’s international schools – which mostly teach simplified characters – maintain simplification can speed up learning and writing, as well as aiding integration with the mainland.

Local scholars stood by their conviction that traditional script is a legacy of ancient Chinese culture that needs to be preserved. They believe as long as students achieved a good grasp of traditional characters, it would be easy for them to read and recognise the simplified characters without needing extra lessons.

Some academics say traditional characters make it easier to trace meaning and the stories behind their formation. “I beg the government not to create problems where there are none,” said Chinese language expert Professor Ho Man-koon, of Caritas Institute of Higher Education. “Teachers do not need to specifically teach simplified characters. Students can naturally learn them by guessing and making logical inferences.”

The heads’ association’s Lam agreed. He said: “Students should learn simplified characters only after they achieve a good foundation on traditional characters, usually when they are in high school. The government should refrain from turning a guest into a host otherwise Hong Kong students will be caught in the middle. Traditional characters should serve as the basis of our Chinese language learning, not their simplified forms.”

Legislator Lam Tai-fai, representing the Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong and supervisor of Lam Tai Fai College, said the business sector was ambivalent about students learning simplified characters.

“The knowledge of simplified Chinese has nothing to do with making profits,” he said. “Since traditional Chinese is widely recognised and adopted in Hong Kong, it is better to encourage students to learn simplified Chinese [of their own accord] rather than to make it mandatory.”

Professor Brian Tse Shek-kam, director of the Centre for Advancement of Chinese Language Education and Research at the University of Hong Kong, pointed out that even South Korea realised the importance of learning traditional Chinese characters; it restored them to Korean language and literature textbooks for elementary pupils this year.

There are rising fears that simplified Chinese will gradually replace the traditional form if it becomes part of the subject curriculum. Professor Ho said he believed this was a major concern for the city’s teachers. “They fear that after students achieve a good grasp of simplified characters and Putonghua, many years later simplified Chinese will fully replace traditional script in their textbooks,” he said. “They fear simplified characters will bring an end to traditional Chinese teaching and even replace traditional script.”

Eva Chan Sik-chee, convenor of the Parents Concern Group on National Education, warned that the issue being overlooked in 2002 does not mean that there is a consensus on it now. “The government has not really consulted the public. Many people in the education sector are not even aware of this proposal,” she said. “We are highly concerned about the overall impact of the proposals, including using Putonghua to teach Chinese as a long-term goal. We have a feeling that the whole consultation exercise is leaning towards the mainland culture, and made out of a political motive.”

And Lam Sheung-wan believed the government intended to please the Central government with the initiatives. “I believe after the handover, the government has deliberately done something to please the central government. But something done deliberately can backfire and may end up offending Beijing,” he said. “If the government wants to use one thing to suppress the other, then it is bound to trigger conflicts. Although the government says this is not compulsory, I think during this sensitive period it should not wake the sleeping dog.”

But Principal Fung Pik-yee of the Aplichau Kaifong Primary School in Ap Lei Chau, said people should not be so sensitive about the issue. “People are taking it too seriously. I think it is harmless to learn simplified characters as they can serve as a learning tool for reading more mainland textbooks. “I won’t discourage [my students] to learn by themselves,” she said. “Do we really need to exaggerate things and conjure up so many conspiracy theories like mainlandisation?” That said, Fung did not recommend teaching simplified characters in primary schools because students will be easily confused by the two types.

Professor Ho said that was always a key concern for teachers. According to public exam reports, pupils easily made typos in traditional characters because they mix them up with simplified ones.

Lam Sheung-wan said even local teachers are not conversant with the simplification methodology, questioning how they could teach students good Chinese. He said: “Some simplified words are simply devoid of logic and totally unrelated with their traditional forms or meanings. Students will have difficulties associating the simplified characters with their traditional forms.”

On the subject of mingling cultures, Lam said: “I think there are a lot of good qualities about Hong Kong people that mainland people should learn. “The most important thing is the qualities of people – staying true to themselves and being an upright person. These qualities are what make Hong Kong a true world-class cosmopolitan city. Without these Hong Kong is nothing more than a cosmopolitan city on the mainland.”

Internet comments:

- News on the five TVB channels:

TVB Jade (Channel 81) (read in Cantonese and subtitles (if any) in traditional characters)
6:30am-9:00am Good Morning Hong Kong/News Around The World
1:00pm-1:20pm News at Noon
6:30pm-7:00pm 630 News Report
11:00pm-12:00m Nightly News

TVB Pearl (Channel 84) (read in English and subtitles (if any) in English)
7:30am-8:00am NBC Nightly News
12:00pm-01:00pm CCTV News - Live
7:30pm-8:00pm News at Seven-Thirty
11:40pm-12:00m News Roundup

News Channel (Channel 83)
24-hours of news each day (read in Cantonese and subtitles (if any) in traditional characters)

J5 (Channel 85)
8:30pm-9:00pm Putonghua News Report (read in putonghua and subtitles (if any) in simplified characters)

If you want to watch news any time of the day, you can always reach for the TVB News Channel. If you want to watch news neatly packaged once a day, you can watch the morning, noon, evening or night news on the flagship TVB Jade Channel. If you want to watch the news read in English, you have TVB Pearl Channel. If you want to watch the news read in putonghua, you can watch J5 once a day at 8:30pm-9:00pm. Given that you want to watch it read out in putonghua, it is logical that you would want the subtitles (if any) to be in simplified characters.

- The whole thing is a business decision by TVB. Right now, they already dominate over-the-air broadcast news with their TVB Jade programs. Their main competitors are the cable broadcasters (Cable TV and NOW TV). Because some Hong Kong residents don't understand Chinese, they run English-language reports on TVB Pearl. They don't even have any local competitors (given that ATV is defunct). And because they think that there is a market for those who are not fluent in Cantonese, they air a half-hour putongua news show on J5 once a day. It stands to reason that this show would have subtitles in simplified characters.

If nobody watches that show, TVB will have to cancel it eventually due to lack of interest. If that show is watched by enough people, then TVB is serving that segment of the public well. Let the market decide, instead of big-mouthed women (BMW).

- If you are concerned about simplified characters corrupting Chinese culture, what about Kongish corrupting English? There are plenty of examples of Kongish at Kongish Daily Facebook. Add oil!

- Hongkongers won't let simplified characters corrupt our culture. That is why the English-language name for the "Labour Party" will never become "Labor Party."
- In 2003, the New York Times had to apologize to the American National Theatre for referring to them as the American National Theater.
- Yes, and the Hong Kong Exhibition and Convention Centre must never become a Center.
- So did you watch that Legco debate program programme last night?
- (Wen Wei Po) Hongkongers will also say "You must can do it" like certain persons in northern England and never "You must do it" or "You can do it" or "You must and you can do it." It has to be "You must can do it" and nothing else.
- But you better be careful when you call someone "plastic." In Kongish, this meant that the person is a doctrinarian egghead. In English, this means that the person is a hypocrite. The meanings are different.

- Before we even get to the matter of TVB J5, we should first deal with RTHK which is fully funded by the Hong Kong SAR government. RTHK operates 12 radio channels. Presently RTHK 5 is running some putonghua progammes. RTHK Putonghua runs almost all putonghua programmes. RTHK DAB 2 carries a 24-hour relay of China National Radio for Hong Kong. These channels must be replaced by ones that use Cantonese.
- I also noticed that RTHK 6 and RTHK DAB 4 run a 24-hour relay of the United Kingdom's BBC World Service. I think these channels must be replaced by ones that use Cantonese.
- I know that RTHK won't be able to find replacement programmes so easily. But MyRadio and D100 are immediately available and also widely popular among young people.
- MyRadio and D100? Not so easy to go on air, because they won't bleep out the obscenities.

- While Claudia Mo desperately wants to shield Hongkongers from the pernicious influence of putonghua and simplified characters, the rest of the world is moving in the opposite direction. (Oriental Daily) In New York City, it is estimated that the number of residents who understand Chinese increased from 260,000 to 350,000 from 2001 to 2011. At the current rate, the Chinese will surpass the Dominicans to become the largest immigrant group in New York City. The Fire Department started a Chinese class last fall so that the firemen will be able to speak Chinese in emergency situations.

- Here is who is using what where:
People's Republic of China, population 1,400,000,000, simplified characters
Singapore, population 5,000,000, simplified characters
Malaysia, Chinese population 6,500,000, simplified characters
Hong Kong, population 7,300,000, traditional characters
Taiwan, population, 23,000,000, traditional characters

-Taiwan switched to Hanyu Pinyin in 2009, which is recognized as the international standard for romanized Chinese.

- When a Hongkonger goes to Taipei, he will find that the major streets have names such as Zhongxiao Road, Zhongshan Road, Fuxing Road, Nanjing Road, etc.
- And the central districts have names such as Zhongzheng, Daan, Xinyi, Songshan, Datong, Wanhua, etc.

- In the People's Republic of China, the pinyin pronunciation of 'China' is Zhongguo.
Ditto in Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia.
Only in Hong Kong must it be Chungkwok.

When outsiders come to Hong Kong, they don't know what Chungkwok is.
When Hongkongers travel outside, they don't know Zhongguo is.

- On 18 December 1973, General Assembly resolution 3189 (XXVIII) included Chinese as a working language of the General Assembly and suggested the Security Council consider adding Chinese as a working language.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that Chinese is one of the five official languages of the United Nations,

Noting that four of the five official languages have already been made working languages of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and affirming that in the interest of efficiency in the work of the United Nations, Chinese should be accorded the same status as the four official languages,

1. Decides to include Chinese among the working languages of the General Assembly and to amend accordingly the relevant provisions of the rules of procedure of the Assembly;

2. Considers it desirable to include Chinese among the working languages of the Security Council;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to transmit the present resolution to the President of the Security Council.

2206th plenary meeting
18 December 1973

However, Claudia Mo insists that the Hong Kong people must remain illiterate with respect to Chinese (which is taken by the United Nations to be spoken putonghua and written simplified characters) because Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city.

- (SCMP) Localists must understand that to succeed in the world today, you must be able to speak and write the languages of business. By Alex Lo. March 21, 2016.

My late father was a teenager when the Japanese occupied Hong Kong. By the end of the war, he and many of his friends were fluent in Japanese, having been forced to learn the language and sing the national anthem at school.

After the war, he made a conscious effort to unlearn Japanese, as he considered it the language of imperialism. By the time he qualified as a solicitor, he couldn’t speak the language anymore, though he still understood it when spoken to.

That was unfortunate as it was the 1960s, when the Japanese economy was taking off. Many Japanese companies such as car dealerships came to Hong Kong to set up shop, and they all needed legal services. There were clearly good business opportunities for my father. But he became self-conscious and easily embarrassed when he tried to speak Japanese.

The lesson he wanted to impart to his children was that learning a new language or dialect is never a bad thing, under whatever circumstances. And never let pride get it the way of learning new things.

It’s therefore sad that many young people today, especially those who are politically motivated, are increasingly rejecting Putonghua and simplified written Chinese scripts in the name of localism.

Since 1997, the government has actively promoted biliteracy and trilingualism – often referred to as mastering two languages (Chinese and English) and three ways of speaking (Cantonese, Putonghua and English).

It’s a tall order. But as a goal, there was for many years a consensus that such abilities were necessary for success. That consensus has broken down, thanks to our highly divisive politics.

The issue is so highly charged that mere mention of teaching simplified Chinese characters in schools is enough to spark an outcry. The latest furore focuses on the Curriculum Development Council, which has just completed a consultation on Chinese language curriculum. It wants to adopt the teaching of simplified characters but only as an eventual goal with no time frame for introduction.

Critics and activists say such a policy is just to placate Beijing. That may well be the case, but so what? Cantonese localism is all very well. But you need Putonghua and English to succeed in the world today.

- (EJ Insight) Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) confirmed it will take over the television channels of the defunct Asia Television Ltd. April 2 and will run programs from 6:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. every day, Apple Daily reported Thursday. Assistant director of broadcasting Chan Man-kuen said RTHK has yet to develop its newscast service, so no news anchors will be seen on the news telecasts, and initially there will be no English-language news bulletin. Chan said RTHK’s program Hong Kong Story will be aired with Indonesian subtitles for the first time, to help Indonesians integrate into the local community.

No comments are coming from the Localist groups about the Indonesian subtitles. As Ray Wong says, they are on speaking terms with anyone except the Chinese.

• [471] Miss Tirade Speaks On Universal Pension Plan (2016/02/24)

(SCMP) February 25, 2016.

If you speak Cantonese, by now you have must have watched it at least once or possibly more times. You must have shared the link with your family and friends and urged them to watch it too. If asked, you can probably quote a few zingers from it verbatim.

I am referring to the anti-government tirade by Kwan Ying-yi, a self-described “concerned citizen”, at a special Legislative Council meeting to discuss retirement protection earlier this week. The video went viral on social media, receiving 300,000 views on YouTube in just 48 hours. Netizens have added English subtitles, turned her words into a rap song and even called on her to run for Legco in the September election.

For those who haven’t had the pleasure of viewing – or understanding – the Cantonese-only clip, here’s a recap of Kwan’s three-minute rant.

On the government’s proposed pension scheme:

Your so-called ‘universal’ retirement plan puts an HK$80,000 asset limit on applicants but only offers them a paltry payment of HK$3,230 per month. Are you kidding me? There is so much government-business collusion and inflation these days that we can’t even buy a catty of contaminated vegetables for HK$30!

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam rejected the need-blind proposal [favoured by the public] because she claimed it would lead to a government deficit. What she said made me laugh out loud! The government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars on white elephant projects like the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge and the high-speed rail link, only to nickel and dime the poor on social programmes. How dare she mention the word deficit.

On law and order:

What happened after [Chief Executive] Leung Chun-ying was accused of accepting HK$50 million in secret payments? Nothing.

What happened to the pro-Beijing camp after it blatantly rigged the district elections? Nothing.

In our topsy-turvy city, firing shots into the air is considered compliant with police protocol. The ethical standards for the government and the police are as “flexible” as the arm of the officer who hit passers-by with his baton and called it an “extension of his arm”. Lawmakers are permitted to spread unfounded rumours in Legco, like the one about one of the abducted booksellers taking a speedboat to China to procure prostitution.

To be honest, I am worried that after making this speech today I, too, may disappear and “go to the mainland using my own methods”.[Kwan was again referring to the missing booksellers who had presumably entered mainland China without proper documentation]. Why bother with retirement protection when our personal security is unprotected?

On the chief executive and his cabinet:

I want to offer Leung, his senior staff and the Hong Kong police a piece of advice: there is something called karma in this world.

There isn’t much we can do to stop you now, but future generations of Hongkongers will be watching you. Your karma will catch up with you one day!

As soon as Kwan’s speaking time was up, the meeting’s chairman, pro-establishment lawmaker Wong Kwok-kin, switched off her microphone to stop her from spewing more anti-government venom. But the damage was already done. Her harangue was uploaded to YouTube within minutes and was held up in the echo chamber of the internet as the ultimate indictment of CY Leung’s “failed administration”. Kwan became an overnight social media sensation, all for venting frustrations that so many others have failed to put into words.

Netizens credited her success to her well-chosen tone. She delivered the sort of angry wife scolding based on logic understood by ordinary citizens, with none of the abstruse political speak preferred by the traditional pan-dems. Even a C9 – an unsophisticated housewife in the local vernacular – is able to grasp the convoluted political issues covered in her speech.

But perhaps it is who she is that has made her tongue-lashing so powerful.

Kwan has no discernible political affiliation or agenda. She has no constituent to please or ideology to preach. She is, it seems, just a fed-up citizen who is tired of being a passive bystander and has to blurt out the truth, like the child in The Emperor’s New Clothes. By calling out the government in a simple, relatable way, Kwan might have changed more minds in a few days than any of the slogan-shouting pan-dems or brick-throwing localists have in years.

Gong chu, which literally means a Hong Kong pig, is a popular Cantonese catchphrase to describe citizens who choose a steady livelihood over civil liberties, or those who are thankful for economic hand-outs from Beijing despite having their freedoms gradually taken away. Kwan’s refusal to be a docile farm animal is a testament to the long-term impact of the Occupy movement, which put citizens through a kind of social awakening not experienced since the protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Impressive as it was, Kwan’s Legco appearance has not been universally praised. Criticisms are coming from both ends of the political spectrum: the moderates found her rhetoric too aggressive, while the radicals said it wasn’t nearly aggressive enough.

The latter group, comprising mainly localists, took particular issue with her reliance on karma as a form of political comeuppance. To them, the Buddhist belief in retribution is just a self-deluding old wives’ tale to make the oppressed feel better about their plight when they lack the courage to take real action to change it. Karma won’t stop bad governments from doing bad things, the localists sneer – only a revolution will.

If there is a moral in this story, it is that to counter the ruling elite’s growing impunity, the opposition needs all the help it can get. The pan-dem lawmakers will push back government officials in Legco debates, the radicals will resist riot police in street protests, and ordinary citizens like Kwan will use their sharp tongues to engage and educate the masses in every day dialogues. They will each do their part and give what they can, instead of constantly ripping into each other and bickering over whose method is the only way forward. As the city heads into an election weekend where two opposition candidates are siphoning off votes from each other and effectively handing the victory to the other side, citizens are well-served to remember the fortune cookie wisdom that we are stronger together than apart.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 23, 2016.

A woman who delivered a voracious tirade against Leung Chun-ying’s government has won the approval of netizens after she called officials “worse than thieves” during a meeting at the legislature.

Kwan Ying-yi identified herself as “a citizen who loves Hong Kong” during a special meeting held by the Panel on Welfare Services on Monday. Kwan was unhappy that the government was willing to spend billions on “white elephant” projects such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, but much less on Hong Kong citizens.

In response to Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor saying that retirement protection plans may lead to budget deficits, Kwan said: “When I heard it, I couldn’t help but laugh… You’re spending billions and billions on these infrastructure projects and you never think it’s too much. You’re telling me that spending one cent on welfare is too much? You’re talking to me about a deficit?”

She criticised officials for not understanding how difficult life is for average Hong Kong residents.  Kwan asked if the government was kidding when it suggested that those qualifying for retirement protection would need to have assets totalling under HK$80,000 and that the monthly assistance in the programme would only be HK$3,230.

“Of course [Secretary for Labour and Welfare] Cheung Kin Chung, who gets more than HK$300,000 in monthly salary, does not understand the plight of the common Hongkonger. Or else, he would not say cold and inconsiderate things like getting HK$16,000 per month is already very good.”

Kwan also said that Hong Kong has “morally degenerated” and questioned why nobody had held Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying accountable for receiving a secret payment of HK$50 million from Australian company UGL, or why there is still no progress on the case where seven police allegedly beat up a protester during the pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014.

Her angry speech received enthusiastic support from netizens.

“I really agree with what Miss Kwan said. Thank you for voicing our opinions. There are not many Hong Kongers who dare to speak out like that,” one said on Facebook. Another said: “Excellent! We are proud of you!”

However, not all were impressed: “Everyone knows how to scold, but it is of no help. You’re only good if you can give some effective suggestions,” one said. Another said: “Construction projects have economic returns, but retirement protection is just spending. If there are no construction projects, [government] income will decrease in the future, how will there be money for retirement protection? Hong Kong already has comprehensive social security assistance and public housing for those who need it!”

The special meeting was held to discuss social security and retirement protections. Members of the public were invited to attend and speak about the issue.

(EJ Insight) February 24, 2016.

A woman who vented her anger recently at a LegCo panel hearing as she spoke about the various problems faced by Hongkongers has now won even more fame and attention.

The reason: Her three-minute rant, during which she lashed out at the government and lawmakers over issues such as retirement protection and street violence, has been converted into a rap song.

After her speech at a hearing of the LegCo sub-committee on retirement protection went viral, some netizens used her words to create a catchy song that is now being shared widely on social media.  

The woman — a person surnamed Kwan — can now perhaps consider claiming royalties on the derivative work that was inspired by her speech.

Well, here are the lyrics of the new rap title that was composed to the tunes of a famous pop song called Hong Kong (香港地).

[Intro] 0:00
Today’s topic is about retirement protection. According to the government’s proposed so-called retirement protection scheme, the assets limit is HK$80,000 while applicants can only get HK$3,230 a month. As a resident who loves Hong Kong, I want to ask the government – are you kidding?

[Chorus] 0:23
We love this land. Sad or happy, alive or dead, it’s our Hong Kong.

[Verse] 0:36
In a city with high prices amid collusion between businessmen and government officials, all wet markets are acquired by Link Real Estate Investment Trust. A catty of poisoned vegetables is priced at HK$30. What can people buy with HK$3,230?

The government spends hundreds of millions on incidental expenses.

Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mathew Cheung Kin-chung, who makes more than HK$300,000 a month, of course doesn’t know how difficult it is for people to make ends meet. If he knows it, he wouldn’t have said mean words such as ‘it is not so bad as [a construction worker] can make HK$16,000 a month’.

Many informal groups have proposed suggestions to the government on retirement protection but Chief Secretary Carrie Lam has rejected the proposals by saying that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has never agreed to launch such plan.

When Leung was running for election in 2012, he said he will talk to the public with a pen and paper. What happened?

[Chorus] 1:20
We love this land. Sad or happy, alive or dead, it’s our Hong Kong.

[Verse] 1:32
Frustrated by the government, Hong Kong people stayed on streets during the Umbrella Movement while students had to be taken to hospitals after they joined a hunger strike in cold weather. Did Leung listen to the people?

Lam said a retirement protection scheme without assets limit will lead to fiscal deficit. I can’t help laughing when hearing this.

The government keeps seeking extra funding for white elephants such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, Express Rail Link and Liantang Boundary Control Point. It even bypassed the public works subcommittee of LegCo. These projects cost hundreds of billions of dollars. 

How come it is expensive to spend on people? Fiscal deficit?

Be honest. Bad government officials are worse than thieves.

In a society of moral degeneration, a policeman firing shots into the air is said to be acting within the rules. Police can freely beat people with batons, just like an extension of their arms.

Lawmakers can spread unconfirmed stories in LegCo – that someone (missing booksellers) took boats to the mainland and engaged prostitutes there.

I am worried that I will disappear tomorrow after giving this speech, and the public informed that I traveled to the mainland on my own volition. I don’t see protection for my person, not to mention retirement protection.

CY Leung received HK$50 million from UGL. No follow-up.

Seven police officers beat a protestor at a dark corner. No follow-up.

Now-retired police commander Franklin Chu King-wai beat pedestrians with his baton. No follow-up.

Secretary for Development Paul Chan Mo-po hoarded sites [while pushing forward the development of the Northeast New Territories district]. No follow-up.

Timothy Tong, former Commissioner of Independent Commission Against Corruption, violated the commission’s rules. No follow-up.

Pro-establishment camp was found to have involved in vote-manipulation many times. No follow-up.

[Laughter sound] 3:03

To me, retirement protection does not only mean the pension but also a right to vote.

We want to elect our Chief Executive with 6.89 million votes but not to have a poor candidate chosen by the central government with only 689 votes.

I want to remind Leung, who might have forgotten his bottom line or has never got one, and many other officials, lawmakers and Hong Kong police, that there is something called retribution in this world.

Hong Kong people have no say at this moment but will see how all you fall in future.

[Chorus] End 

Videos:

Kwan Wing-yin's speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCRO2PfRK3c (in Cantonese)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtYcZ0-crYs (interpreted in English)

(Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong) 790 adults were interviewed by telephone January 25-28, 2016.

Q1. Do you agree that every senior citizen should receive a uniform retirement payment?
46.1%: Yes
27.0%: In-between
24.6%: No
3.0%: Don't know/hard to say

 Q2. Do you agree that seniors must pass a means test on assets to get the retirement payment?
39.3%: Yes
26.4%: In-between
31.1%: No
3.2%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. Which scheme do you prefer?
45.7%: All senior citizens should receive uniform payments
43.1%: Only those senior citizens who pass the means test can receive pension payments
11.2%: Don't know/hard to say

Q5. What is(are) the funding source(s) of the pension scheme? (multiple choices allowed)
52.7%: Using the government fiscal reserve
15.2%: Raising the rates of existing taxes
24.4%: Imposition of new taxes (such as sales tax, pension tax, etc)
11.8%: Transferring from the Mandatory Provident Fund in part or in full
18.2%: Imposing a new contribution scheme
5.1%: Other
9.2%: Don't know/hard to say
0.5%: Refused to answer

Q6. What is your opinion of setting $80,000 as the asset limit?
11.9%: Too high
17.4%: Just right
62.1%: Too low
8.6%: Don't know/hard to say

Q7. What should the asset limit be set at?
27.8%: Less than $200,000
23.3%: Less than $400,000
23.5%: Less than $600,000
11.2%: $600,000 or above
5.5%: Other
8.6%: Don't know/hard to say

Q8. Views on retirement protection

If all senior citizens get it, the government expenditure must increase substantially and eventually it will be unsustainable
31.1%: Yes
26.9%: In-between
38.2%: No
3.7% Don't know/hard to say

If an asset limit is imposed, then this is a different kind of welfare scheme and not a truly universal retirement protection
37.9%: Yes
25.5%: In-between
30.0%: No
6.6%: Don't know/hard to say

If all senior citizens get it, the next generation will have to pay more taxes or otherwise provide funding, which is therefore unfair to young people
25.6%: Yes
27.0%: In-between
41.9%: No
5.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Q9. In order for one's life after retirement be protected, which should one rely upon more?
41.8%: Oneself
11.0%: One's family
23.7%: The government
10.4%: All three are equally important
10.5%: Other
2.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Conclusion: Overall, the researchers feel that a consensus is not yet formed in public opinion about the best form of retirement protection in Hong Kong.

(SCMP) Lose-lose situation on Hong Kong pension options: face much higher taxes or force elderly means-testing. December 23, 2015.

Hongkongers have two extreme options to choose from if the city is to have a proper pension scheme: one that is universal and covers all retirees but will cost a fortune and require higher taxes; and the other catering only to those in need, but subject to a means test that will shut out most elderly citizens.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor yesterday launched a six-month public consultation exercise on the highly contentious issue, following up on work of the Commission on Poverty, which she headed.

“Even if there is clear consensus among the public, to have anything concrete, delivering the money into the hands of the elderly would be impossible to achieve [within this administration’s tenure],” said Lam.

“If the public overwhelmingly say that they don’t mind the tax hikes in order to pay for the ‘regardless of rich or poor’ option, a responsible government will still have to respond, but we also need to be responsible and let the public know the high expenses.”

The non-universal option, catering to “those with financial needs”, would be much cheaper. Elderly people with assets below HK$80,000 and monthly income capped at HK$7,340 would get a monthly allowance of HK$3,230. For a couple, assets cannot exceed HK$125,000 and their monthly income limit is HK$11,830.

Only about 250,000 among 1.12 million elderly would be eligible today. By 2064, when the elderly population is projected to reach 3.58 million, only 600,000 – around 23 per cent – would be eligible. Total elderly welfare expenditure that year would hit HK$55.8 billion.

The universal option, “regardless of rich or poor”, would benefit all elderly people to the tune of HK$3,230 a month. But, according to the government, it would mean an additional HK$22.6 billion in welfare expenditure, and HK$56.3 billion extra for 2.58 million elderly by 2064.

Total elderly welfare expenditure would be HK$106.1 billion by 2064. But statistics show that if Hong Kong sticks to its current retirement policies, total elderly welfare expenditure will reach HK$49.5 billion by 2064.

To cover the expenses over the next 50 years, the universal pension plan would require a 4.2 per cent increase in profits tax , or an 8.3 per cent increase in salaries tax, overturning Hong Kong’s low tax regime which is a cornerstone of the local economy. Other options to foot the bill include introducing a goods and services tax of 4.5 per cent.

While Lam expressed reservation about the universal pension option, she denied that the government was scaremongering to ensure the public would reject it.

The government based its “regardless of rich or poor” option on a study it commissioned, led by University of Hong Kong academic Nelson Chow Wing-sun. A disappointed Chow yesterday criticised the government for presenting his proposal in such a way that it appeared to put the public purse in danger. “The only reason why the government did so is that it does not want people to support the universal scheme,” Chow said.

Both the labour and business sectors gave the thumbs-down to the consultation proposals, with Labour Party lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan noting that very few people would benefit under the non-universal plan. Stanley Lau Chin-ho, honorary president of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, was against both options in the consultation because of the tax implications. Chua Hoi-wai, chief executive of the Council of Social Service, said the threshold of the non-universal proposal was set too high.

• [470] The Closing of the Academic Mind (2016/02/24)

(Project Syndicate) The Closing of the Academic Mind. By Chris Patten.

LONDON – I would wager that I have been Chancellor of more universities than anyone alive today. This is partly because when I was Governor of Hong Kong, I was made Chancellor of every university in the city. I protested that it would surely be better for the universities to choose their own constitutional heads. But the universities would not allow me to resign gracefully. So for five years I enjoyed the experience of giving tens of thousands of students their degrees and watching what this rite of passage meant for them and their families.

When I came back to Britain in 1997, I was asked to become Chancellor of Newcastle University. Then, in 2003, I was elected Chancellor by the graduates of Oxford University, one of the world’s greatest institutions of learning. So it should not be surprising that I have strong views about what it means to be a university and to teach, do research, or study at one.

Universities should be bastions of freedom in any society. They should be free from government interference in their primary purposes of research and teaching; and they should control their own academic governance. I do not believe it is possible for a university to become or remain a world-class institution if these conditions do not exist.

The role of a university is to promote the clash of ideas, to test the results of research with other scholars, and to impart new knowledge to students. Freedom of speech is thus fundamental to what universities are, enabling them to sustain a sense of common humanity and uphold the mutual tolerance and understanding that underpin any free society. That, of course, makes universities dangerous to authoritarian governments, which seek to stifle the ability to raise and attempt to answer difficult questions.

But if any denial of academic liberty is a blow struck against the meaning of a university, the irony today is that some of the most worrying attacks on these values have been coming from inside universities.

In the United States and the United Kingdom, some students and teachers now seek to constrain argument and debate. They contend that people should not be exposed to ideas with which they strongly disagree. Moreover, they argue that history should be rewritten to expunge the names (though not the endowments) of those who fail to pass today’s tests of political correctness. Thomas Jefferson and Cecil Rhodes, among others, have been targeted. And how would Churchill and Washington fare if the same tests were applied to them?

Some people are being denied the chance to speak as well – so-called “no platforming”, in the awful jargon of some clearly not very literate campuses. There are calls for “safe spaces” where students can be protected from anything that assaults their sense of what is moral and appropriate. This reflects and inevitably nurtures a harmful politics of victimization – defining one’s own identity (and thus one’s interests) in opposition to others.

When I was a student 50 years ago, my principal teacher was a leading Marxist historian and former member of the Communist Party. The British security services were deeply suspicious of him. He was a great historian and teacher, but these days I might be encouraged to think that he had threatened my “safe space.” In fact, he made me a great deal better informed, more open to discussion of ideas that challenged my own, more capable of distinguishing between an argument and a quarrel, and more prepared to think for myself.

Of course, some ideas – incitement of racial hatred, gender hostility, or political violence – are anathema in every free society. Liberty requires some limits (decided freely by democratic argument under the rule of law) in order to exist.

Universities should be trusted to exercise that degree of control themselves. But intolerance of debate, of discussion, and of particular branches of scholarship should never be tolerated. As the great political philosopher Karl Popper taught us, the only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself. That is especially true at universities.

Yet some American and British academics and students are themselves undermining freedom; paradoxically, they have the liberty to do so. Meanwhile, universities in China and Hong Kong are faced with threats to their autonomy and freedom, not from within, but from an authoritarian government.

In Hong Kong, the autonomy of universities and free speech itself, guaranteed in the city’s Basic Law and the 50-year treaty between Britain and China on the city’s status, are under threat. The rationale seems to be that, because students strongly supported the pro-democracy protests in 2014, the universities where they study should be brought to heel. So the city’s government blunders away, stirring up trouble, clearly on the orders of the government in Beijing.

Indeed, the Chinese authorities only recently showed what they think of treaty obligations and of the “golden age” of Sino-British relations (much advertised by British ministers), by abducting a British citizen (and four other Hong Kong residents) on the city’s streets. The five were publishing books that exposed some of the dirty secrets of China’s leaders.

On the mainland, the Chinese Communist Party has launched the biggest crackdown on universities since the aftermath of the killings in Tiananmen Square in 1989. There is to be no discussion of so-called Western values in China’s universities. Only Marxism can be taught. Did no one tell President Xi Jinping and his Politburo colleagues where Karl Marx came from? The trouble these days is precisely that they know little about Marx but a lot about Lenin.

Westerners should take a closer interest in what is happening in China’s universities and what that tells us about the real values underpinning scholarship, teaching, and the academy. Compare and contrast, as students are asked to do.

Do you want universities where the government decides what it is allegedly safe for you to learn and discuss? Or do you want universities that regard the idea of a “safe space” – in terms of closing down debate in case it offends someone – as an oxymoron in an academic setting? Western students should think occasionally about their counterparts in Hong Kong and China who must fight for freedoms that they take for granted – and too often abuse.

(info.gov.hk) February 24, 2016.

Education Bureau's response to Chris Patten's article
*****************************************************

     On February 22, Lord Patten published an article entitled "The Closing of the Academic Mind" on Project Syndicate's website, in which he mentioned the head of the Hong Kong Government being the Chancellor of all government-funded universities. Upon receiving media enquiries, a spokesperson for the Education Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) gave the following response today (February 24):

     During his tenure as Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, in consultation with the Executive Council, approved to grant university status to three institutions, namely the City Polytechnic, Baptist College and the Polytechnic in 1994. At the same time he also reaffirmed the statutory mechanism for the Governor to be the Chancellor of all government-funded universities in Hong Kong, and this mechanism was enshrined through legislation. Throughout the remainder of his term, Lord Patten had not revised this mechanism or the relevant legislation. Neither was the mechanism and legislation abolished at the time of Hong Kong's return to China. Therefore, the current practice of the Chief Executive being the Chancellor of the government-funded universities precisely stems from the then Governor Patten's decision. In putting forward his arguments in an article after an interval of more than 20 years, Lord Patten was acting in complete ignorance of the facts.

     Lord Patten claimed that "the rationale seems to be that, because students strongly supported the pro-democracy protests in 2014, the universities where they study should be brought to heel. So the city's government blunders away, stirring up trouble, clearly on the orders of the government in Beijing." Such a claim is totally groundless and a sheer fabrication and the HKSAR Government expresses deep regret.

     Regarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy, we note that the President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, Professor Peter Mathieson, also talked about this subject in his speech delivered on December 17, 2015. An excerpt of the speech is produced below:

     "I want to finish by saying something about academic freedom and institutional autonomy. These two terms are often confused or used interchangeably and they should not be, because they are different. Academic freedom is the critical underpinning of university life: the freedom to study, research, read, write and/or talk about whatever subjects that we find most interesting, stimulating or important, no matter how controversial they might be or how the findings may challenge dogmas or official viewpoints. In my opinion, academic freedom is alive and well at (the University of Hong Kong). We do not however have complete institutional autonomy and nor can we expect it. We are a publicly funded institution and it is entirely appropriate that we are responsible to the public, and hence to the government that represents them, to assess, justify and adjust our activities according to societal impact and need. Publicly funded institutions all over the world have similar responsibilities. Look at recent events in universities in the UK, the US, Canada and Japan or schools in Korea: none of them have complete institutional autonomy, so no one in Hong Kong should think that this issue is purely a local matter."

    The HKSAR Government reiterates that academic freedom is an important social value treasured by Hong Kong and safeguarded by the Basic Law. It is also a cornerstone of the success of the higher education sector. The HKSAR Government attaches great importance to upholding academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The eight University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded institutions are all independent and autonomous statutory bodies. They have their own governing ordinances and statutes which set out their objectives, functions and governance structures. The legislation provides the institutions with the power and freedom to carry out their objectives and functions.

    In fact, the roles of the UGC, the Government and the institutions in the higher education sector are clearly defined in the UGC Notes on Procedures, which sets out five major areas of institutional autonomy, namely selection of staff, selection of students, curricula and academic standards, acceptance of research programmes, and allocation of funds within the institution.

Internet comments:

- The Closing of the Academic Mind? This is clearly a play on the book The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. But this comparison is hilarious, because Wikipedia explains:

The Closing of the American Mind is a 1987 book by Allan Bloom, who describes "how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students." He focuses especially upon the "openness" of relativism as leading paradoxically to the great "closing" referenced in the book's title. Bloom argues that "openness" and absolute understanding undermine critical thinking and eliminate the "point of view" that defines cultures.

This is the exact opposite of what Chris Patten is arguing for.

- Chris Patten wrote: "When I was Governor of Hong Kong, I was made Chancellor of every university in the city. I protested that it would surely be better for the universities to choose their own constitutional heads. But the universities would not allow me to resign gracefully." All three Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Chief Executives that came after the handover automatically become the constitutional heads of all the universities in Hong Kong. Can they 'resign gracefully'? No, because this is not a matter up to the Chief Executive or the respective universities to decide upon. Each university has a university ordinance encoded into Hong Kong law.

Even if the Chief Executive resigns as chancellor, he is still the chancellor by law; nobody else can assume that position. The university ordinances were in existence when Chris Patten was governor and he became the chancellor automatically under those ordinances. He was talking rubbish when he suggested that he wanted to resign gracefully but the universities would not allow him to do so. The truth is that the university ordinances wouldn't allow it.

If you want things changed, you will have to change the law. You should ask the Executive Council and the Legislative Council to do so, as opposed to writing articles in British newspapers.

- If Chris Patten really didn't want to be chancellor, he should have sought to change the university ordinances. He did nothing of the sort. What he meant to say that the British governors were omnipotent and he could have made the Legislative Council enact any law of his desire. So all he had to do was to snap his fingers and the university ordinances would be amended to his liking and allow him to resign.

- Chris Patten wrote: "On the mainland, the Chinese Communist Party has launched the biggest crackdown on universities since the aftermath of the killings in Tiananmen Square in 1989. There is to be no discussion of so-called Western values in China’s universities. Only Marxism can be taught." I don't know what to say. Let me proceed to the Peking University website and look for the courses under the School of International Studies:

Or this partial listing from the School of Government:

I recommend that "Westerners should take a closer interest in what is happening in China’s universities and what that tells us about the real values underpinning scholarship, teaching, and the academy. Compare and contrast, as students are asked to do."

- I like this bit: (The Guardian) Chris Patten, the chancellor of Oxford University, has told students involved in the campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes that they must be prepared to embrace freedom of thought or “think about being educated elsewhere”. Patten accused students who had criticised Rhodes, who regarded the English as racially superior, of trying to shut down debate. He said that by failing to face up to historical facts which they did not like, students were not abiding by the values of a liberal, open society that “tolerates freedom of speech across the board”.

- In like manner, those Hong Kong University students who don't like Arthur Li should "think about being educated elsewhere."

- Chris Patten wrote: "So the city’s government blunders away, stirring up trouble, clearly on the orders of the government in Beijing." Can Chris Patten please share the order from the government in Beijing to the Hong Kong government with us?

- Also, the simultaneous use of "blunders," "stirring up trouble" and "on the orders" in the same sentence is very confusing. Can Patten please make up his mind? Were these blunders? Or were these nefarious trouble-making schemes? Or were these written scripts to be carried out?

- I am more perplexed by the use of "clearly" in that sentence. With due respect, it is not clear to me. Can Patten please provide some evidence?

• [469] Hong Kong By the Numbers (2016/02/23) (HK01) HK01 commissioned the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview 500 adults across Hong Kong. Of these, 130 are New Territories East resident.

Q. If the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for? The Hong Kong-wide results are as follows:
14%: Alvin Yeung
14%: Holden Chow
8%: Edward Leung
7%: Christine Fong
5%: Nelson Wong
4%: Leung Sze-ho
2%: Lau Chi-shing
20%: None of the above
25%: Undecided

Of course, only New Territories East registered voters can to vote in this by-election. The results for the 130 New Territories East residents are:
15%: Alvin Yeung
14%: Holden Chow
9%: Edward Leung
8%: Christine Fong
6%: Lau Chi-shing
4%: Nelson Wong
4%: Leung Sze-ho
9%: None of the above
31%: Undecided

(Hong Kong Economic Journal) February 26, 2016.

D100 commissioned the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview registered voters in New Territories East from January 22 to January 23.

The results are:
24%: Alvin Yeung
20%: Holden Chow
12%: Edward Leung
11%: Christine Fong
8%: Nelson Wong
1%: Lau Chi-shing
1%: Leung Sze-ho

(The Stand) February 27, 2016.

Here are the breakdown of the D100-HKU POP survey by sub-district:

Sai Kung
2%: Lau Chi-shing
8%: Nelson Wong
17%: Holden Chow
0%: Leung Sze-ho
24%: Christine Fong
6%: Edward Leung
24%: Alvin Yeung
8%: None of the above
17%: Undecided

Sha Tin
1%: Lau Chi-shing
7%: Nelson Wong
25%: Holden Chow
1%: Leung Sze-ho
10%: Christine Fong
10%: Edward Leung
26%: Alvin Yeung
5%: None of the above
15%: Undecided

North District
3%: Lau Chi-shing
16%: Nelson Wong
18%: Holden Chow
2%: Leung Sze-ho
1%: Christine Fong
21%: Edward Leung
16%: Alvin Yeung
7%: None of the above
17%: Undecided

Tai Po
0%: Lau Chi-shing
9%: Nelson Wong
18%: Holden Chow
1%: Leung Sze-ho
6%: Christine Fong
16%: Edward Leung
29%: Alvin Yeung
10%: None of the above
11%: Undecided

• [468] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2016/02/23)

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1071 persons were interviewed February 11-20, 2016.

Q1. How much attention are you paying towards the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election?
51%: A lot of attention
21%: Some attention
23%: So-so
2%: Not much attention
2%: No attention whatsoever
2%: No opinion

Q2. Do you think the election atmosphere is intense at this time?
15%: Very intense
25%: Somewhat intense
44%: So-so
11%: Not too intense
2%: Not intense at all
3%: No opinion

Q3. What is the major factor in your choice of candidate?
2%: Recognition
18%: Policy platform
51%: Political party background/political position
2%: Personal image
19%: Past performance
3%: Other
6%: No opinion

Q4. Do you want the candidate to focus on Hong Kong-wide issues or district-specific issues
69%: Hong Kong-wide issues
18%: District-specific issues
9%: No opinion
4%: No opinion

Q5. When will you decide on who to vote for?
25%: On voting day
30%: Within one week before voting day
7%: Within two weeks before voting day
23%: More than two weeks before voting day
15%: No opinion

Q6. Will you be voting in this New Territories East Legislative Council by-election?
62%: For certain
23%: Most likely
5%: Most likely not
2%: Definitely not
7%: Undecided
2%: No opinion

Q7: Who would you vote if tomorrow were voting day?
3%: Lau Chi-shing
11%: Nelson Wong
20%: Holden Chow
1%: Leung Chi-ho
5%: Christine Fong
10%: Edward Leung
22%: Alvin Yeung
26%: Undecided
2%: No opinion

Q8. What is your main source information about the election?
22%: Internet
23%: Print newspapers/magazines
6%: Friends/relatives
3%: Radio
8%: Television
15%: Election promotional materials
13%: Other
11%: No opinion

• [467] Lingnan University Council Meeting (2016/02/23)

(SCMP) February 22, 2016.

Lingnan University’s governing council cancelled its meeting on Monday after a group of students seeking governance reform tried to block members from entering the meeting venue. A group of around 30 Lingnan students clashed with a council member and university president Professor Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon separately when they tried to enter the meeting venue on the university’s campus in Tuen Mun. A security guard fell to the ground in the brief chaos. Students also grabbed Cheng’s clothes and tried to prevent him from leaving. Three police cars were seen briefly outside the university. The council later announced its decision to cancel the meeting.

The protesting students said they were angry at the council’s decision not to consider student demands that the chief executive should be stripped of the power to appoint council members and that the ratio of elected members from inside the university should be increased. They said without the reform, the council would be susceptible to political interference, citing the recent appointment of three pro-government members as an example. “We just wanted to ask the government-appointed members why they opposed [student demands],” said student union president Philip Lau Chun-lam. “Are they ignoring students’ opinions?”

But one of the council members, sociology professor Peter Baehr, said students’ action was “alarming” and “can easily turn into violence”. “I believe this is wrong,” said Baehr. “I think the treatment of the president is bad. I don’t think that you should be mobbing the president or other people.” With students insisting on their demands and the council not backing down, Baehr said he did not know how the disagreement could be resolved. “Sooner or later people are going to have to talk and come to some kind of arrangement,” he said.

(Wen Wei Po) February 23, 2016.

Lingnan University's government council was scheduled to meet yesterday at 330pm. Student Union president Philip Lau Chun-lam and about twenty students arrived early at 300pm. They surrounded any council member that they saw approaching and clashed with the security guards. During the chaos, one security guard was pushed down onto the ground. Fortunately there was no serious bloodshed. Council chairman Auyeung Pak-kuen and president Leonard Cheung Kwok-hon went up to see what was going on. Auyeung clarified that the council members agreed to discuss the issue last October. However, that was not a guarantee as such, because the council members cannot be made to vote one particular way only. Cheng repeated to the students that the council members "agreed to discuss" and not "agreed to establish" a special committee.

However, the students continued to blockade the council members. They pulled at Cheng's suit. Ultimately Cheng was able to enter the meeting place. Auyeung continued to explain to the students that as council chairman, he has to balance the demands of various stakeholders and cannot just cater to the wishes of one faction. He said that the council has many matters to handle and cannot "ignore everything else to deal with one issue." He implored the students to let him pass. But the situation did not get any better. Eventually Auyeung was forced to leave and the meeting was canceled.

Council member Peter Baehr disapproved of the blockade. He specifically mentioned that Leonard Cheng was pushed and shoved by the students, which was "just one thread away from violence." He expressed concerned that this can become a violent incident. He said that the students have the right to express their dissatisfaction, but campus violence will not be tolerated.

(Oriental Daily with video) February 23, 2016.

About 3:20pm, Leonard Cheng and Auyeung Pak-kuen arrived at the Wong Administration Building and were about to enter from the right-hand entrance. The students rushed forward to block them and demanded that a special committee be formed to evaluate the University Ordinance. Cheng clarified to the students that after the last student blockade incident, the council agreed to discuss the formation of such a committee but not to immediately form one. Cheng attempted to enter the left-hand entrance, but Student Union president Philip Lau and several other students rushed forward to stop him and they struggled with the security guards. Eventually, Cheng went back and entered through the side entrance.

Auyeung Pak-kuen continued to be blockaded. He explained that the council members did not think that this was the right moment to form a special committee and therefore they tabled the motion and decided to deal with education issues. Auyeung was not able to break through the blockade. Eventually he left.

Last night, the Lingnan University Student Union posted "The university council is shameless: they must immediately fulfill their promise made during the blockade." They said that a student referendum was held last November during which more than 1,000 students voted to pass three motions: change the University Ordinance; not make the Chief Executive automatically the university vice-chancellor; remove the power of the Chief Executive to appoint council members. The Student Union demanded the council members to fulfill their promise during last year's blockade and immediately form a special committee to evaluate the University Council. They also called on the students to attend the demonstration today.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 23, 2016.

Two Lingnan University students, who were formerly members of its student union, have been summoned to a disciplinary hearing over a protest last month against its governing council.

Lau Chun-lam and Lo Ngai-yin, who were president and executive member respectively of last year’s student union, protested outside a Council meeting venue on February 22. They demanded council members set up a committee to review its structure and questioned whether the Chief Executive should be the chancellor of the school. The meeting was terminated prematurely as the duo and other student protesters blocked some Council members from entering the venue.

Lau and Lo requested help from the student union after they received news of the hearing, saying they did not understand the intention of the hearing and they were feeling “great pressure”.

“[Our] freedom of protest should be protected,” they wrote in a statement. “We feel that since the intention of the hearing is unknown, attending the hearing may subject [us] to political suppression, therefore we refuse to attend this hearing.” They added that they did not regret their actions.

The student union of Lingnan University also issued a statement saying that the disciplinary hearing was a “retroactive punishment” since Lau and Lo had finished their elected term.

The union urged a public investigation, instead of a closed door hearing, to let students know about the issue. It said that its representative – a member of the disciplinary committee – will be present at the hearing to “prevent the school from conducting a political trial”. “The student union strongly objects to the school interfering with students’ freedom of assembly and protest on the campus,” the statement read.

- This is the same rubbish from the Occupy Central people. During the siege, they proclaimed that they realized that their actions were illegal and that they will accept the consequences. When the moment of reckoning comes, they say that they cannot be held responsible because that would be political oppression.

- Those two students talk about their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Under Article 27 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 issue here is Article 28 of the Basic Law: "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." The students were depriving/restricting the freedom of the council members.

- "I want genuine expulsion from school."

Videos:

RTHK
http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1243684-20160222.htm
https://www.facebook.com/RTHKVNEWS/videos/965676106873779/ Interview with council member Peter Baehr

TVB
http://news.tvb.com/local/56cb18f96db28cbb13000004/

Cable TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUvZc2zp0U

• [466] Brother Minced Meat (肉碎哥) Is Arrested (2016/02/21)

(SCMP) February 21, 2016.

Activist Ray Wong Toi-yeung, a key figure in the localist group ­accused of starting the Mong Kok riot, was arrested yesterday for ­inciting others to take part in the violence, after chemicals that could be used to make explosives were found inside a flat. Wong, 22, convenor of Hong Kong Indigenous, was said to have gone missing after publishing a “final message to Hong­kongers” on February 11 in which he said it was “better to die with honour than survive in disgrace”.

He was arrested at about 2pm yesterday when police broke into a flat in Tin Shui Wai where officers seized the chemicals. They also seized an extendable baton, one electromagnetic gun, HK$530,000 in cash and about 100 pills of suspected part one poison, including boxes of the erectile dysfunction medication sildenafil and marijuana. A Guy Fawkes mask, protective gear used in war games and a computer along with some circuit boards were also found. A bomb disposal unit was called to the site. A 28-year-old man was also arrested in the flat for participating in a riot and assisting an offender.

Wong was held for questioning on suspicion of being involved in the violence that rocked Mong Kok when hundreds of protesters clashed with police, setting fires on the streets and hurling bricks at front-line officers on the night of February 8.

Hong Kong Indigenous announced Wong’s arrest on its Facebook page before it was confirmed by police. Wong, a freelance interior designer, co-founded Hong Kong Indigenous in January last year and has been a core member and spokesman for the group. It operates on the principle of using violence to fight “oppression”, and has rejected the more peaceful approach adopted by the Occupy movement in 2014.

(Oriental Daily) February 22, 2016.

The police brought Ray Wong (handcuffed behind his back and wearing a black hood) back to his Tseung Kwan O apartment to collect evidence. They left with a laptop computer. According to information, Ray Wong told the police that the $530,000 found in Tin Shui Wai were legal fees. The police are investigating about possible money laundering.

(SCMP) February 23, 2016.

Activist Ray Wong Toi-yeung, convenor of the localist group ­accused of instigating the Mong Kok riot, was brought to Kowloon City Court on Tuesday afternoon to face a rioting charge.

The fresh prosecution brings the number charged in connection with the riot to 46, with all but one of those charged with one count of rioting over alleged participation in the Mong Kok riot of February 8 and 9. Wong, 22, a freelance interior decorator, was not required to enter a plea before chief magistrate Clement Lee Hing-nin as he sat surrounded by seven police officers in the defendant’s dock.

Assistant director of public prosecutions Ned Lai Ka-yee said Wong took part in the riot along with others. He opposed Wong’s bail application. But in rejecting that request by the prosecution, the chief magistrate said: “My view is that stringent bail conditions can alleviate the risk of absconding.”

Wong’s case will return to the same court on March 22, pending police investigations and the Department of Justice’s legal advice.

In the meantime, Wong was released on HK$100,00 cash bail and a HK$100,000 cash surety from his mother, on the condition he resides at a reported address, remains in Hong Kong and refrains from entering parts of Mong Kok except while on a mode of transportation. He was also required to surrender his passport and home return permit within 48 hours of his release from custody, obey a curfew from midnight to 6am, and report to Tseung Kwan O police station three times a week.

Lee said: “All these conditions are recorded in the bail sheet, with a copy that will be given to you. Is that clear?” “Yes,” Wong replied through an interpreter during the hearing, which was conducted in English. Lee also reminded Wong’s mother, who was sworn in to serve as his surety, to ensure Wong abides by the bail conditions or she would risk the confiscation of the HK$100,000. Wong’s lawyer, senior counsel Nigel Kat, revealed that “a reputable member of society”, whose identity was not mentioned in the open court hearing, was also willing to pay HK$100,000 as a cash surety.

Dozens of Wong’s supporters queued up outside the court building before the afternoon hearing, and then filled up the seats upon admission. Among them were Wong’s mother, his group’s spokesman Edward Leung Tin-kei, who was also charged with rioting earlier this month, and founder of now-defunct political group Student Front, Alvin Cheng Kam-mun.

Rioting is liable to a maximum sentence of ten years in prison upon conviction on indictment, or five years on summary conviction.

(SCMP) Localist delinquent movement seeking independence makes fashionable move to violence, but it’s a political dead end. By Alex Lo. February 23, 2016.

Some people seem to be mesmerised by the sound of their voice. Ray Wong Toi-yeung, a key figure in the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, is no doubt one of them. After allegedly helping to start the riot in Mong Kok, the militant activist seeking independence for Hong Kong posted a last message on the internet and then disappeared. He said it was “better to die with honour than survive in disgrace”. His subsequent action says the opposite. Instead of bravely confronting his supposed oppressors – presumably the police and the government – he sneaked off and never returned home. Not only was he not ready to die, he was probably not even ready for jail.

Police raided a flat in Tin Shui Wai and arrested Wong on Sunday. Officers also turned up some interesting evidence. Besides chemicals that allegedly could be used to make bombs, they also found a retractable baton, one stun gun, more than half a million dollars in cash and about 100 pills of suspected restricted drugs, including Sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, and also marijuana. Police also found a Guy Fawkes mask and protective gear used in war games along with computer circuit boards. His inclinations towards violence and sex are rather pronounced. And this guy is the convenor of Hong Kong Indigenous. So what does that say about this group and localism?

Those who have tried to justify and explain away the delinquent nature of this movement have helped create this monster. Their hatred of the government and Beijing has been blind to the danger this movement is posing to Hong Kong. And it’s not just Hong Kong Indigenous. Seeking independence through violence is fashionable these days among the young. The newly elected leaders of Chinese University’s student union, who have formed Spark, an activist group that advocates independence, have said that there is “no bottom line” when “fighting with force”. The incoming University of Hong Kong student union president Althea Suen is less violent in her rhetoric but is also seeking independence for Hong Kong.

This is a political dead end that will only spell ruin for Hong Kong. However bad our government may be – and it’s really not so bad as pan-democrats have made it out to be – nothing justifies such a fruitless and dangerous path.

(SCMP) March 2, 2016.

A key figure of localist group Hong Kong Indigenous claims his family has received threats from “powerful people” to make him disappear like Lee Po, the bookseller allegedly spirited to the mainland late last year.

Speaking of his experiences since his February 21 arrest over his alleged role in the Mong Kok riot, Ray Wong Toi-yeung said his relatives were contacted by different people through various channels, including by phone and middlemen, in the days after the event.

Wong refused to identify the callers but claimed they were not from Hong Kong, did not speak Cantonese and wanted to meet him directly. “These were people with powerful backgrounds. I think everyone can guess who these people are,” he said. “Some of these people succeeded in reaching my family members and in the course of their conversations, there was coercion and cajoling.

“They said they’d be able to find me and when they do, they would catch me. They also referred to the case of Mr Lee Po.” Asked why he did not report it to the police, Wong said police “did not have enough power” to investigate such people.

Lee, a seller of politically sensitive books, was last seen on December 30. He was later revealed to be in Shenzhen but there was no record of him leaving Hong Kong. Many speculated that Lee was abducted by mainland law enforcement agents in Hong Kong and taken across the border. Lee denied this in a mainland television interview this week.

(Wen Wei Po) December 1, 2017.

According to the court documents, the bail conditions for Ray Wong are such that he has to report to the police station once a week. Earlier, he had applied to the court for a one week leave to travel to England. He left Hong Kong in early November. Afterwards, Wong did not make his weekly appearance at the Tai Po Police Station. Under the established procedure, the police will issue an arrest warrant after due diligence.

Ray Wong is supposed to the host of a Hong Kong Indigenous online programme. This programme has not been aired for the five weeks between November 1 and November 29. On each occasion, the Hong Kong Indigenous website announced the cancellation several hours beforehand without offering any explanation. Ray Wong's personal Facebook has not been updated since November 12.

On the night of November 3, a group of pro-Hong Kong independence people gathered for a BBQ party on the rooftop of a Kwun Tong industrial building. Ray Wong was present and he seemed light-hearted about his upcoming trial. In retrospect, he was light-hearted only because he had planned to to skip bail.

When Ray Wong applied for bail in February 2016, the prosecutor opposed because there was a risk of flight. But the magistrate set severe conditions to reduce the risk. Bail was granted for a $100,000 cash bond plus $100,000 of personal bond by his mother, along with the requirements that he must not leave Hong Kong, that he must keep a midnight-6am curfew and that he cannot enter certain parts of Mong Kok. If Ray Wong skips bail, the $200,000 bond money will be confiscated. Since then Ray Wong has applied many times to travel overseas because he was invited by foreign organizations. Most of the time, the court allowed him to go and he has always returned until this time.

(SCMP) December 1, 2017.

The High Court has issued an arrest warrant for a high-profile Hong Kong activist accused of instigating a riot last year that left 130 people injured, after he breached multiple bail conditions, the Post has learned.

Ray Wong Toi-yeung, who led the once-active radical group Hong Kong Indigenous, failed to report to police last week and return his travel documents to the court after a judge-approved trip to Europe.

He was said to be in the UK, according to pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po. The British consulate would not comment on the report.

A police spokeswoman, while declining to comment on Wong’s case, added: “The force would, in the light of the circumstances of each case, locate the suspects at large through different channels and then apprehend them.”

Wong could not be immediately contacted. He was due to stand in an 80-day trial starting next month accused of three charges including rioting. He also faces charges of joint incitement and inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly.

Wong, 24, was earlier granted permission by the court to travel to Germany to attend an event.

The Post understood that the court issued the warrant of arrest after he breached the bail conditions imposed by the court requiring him to report to Tai Po police station on November 22 and surrender his travel document to the court.

Wong was released weeks after the disturbances last year on condition of a HK$100,000 cash bail and a HK$100,000 cash surety from his mother. He was also ordered to live at a reported address and remain in Hong Kong.

At that time the Department of Justice objected to Wong’s bail application. But Clement Lee Hing-nin, chief magistrate at Kowloon City Court, granted him bail and ruled that “stringent bail conditions can alleviate the risk of absconding”.

It is not immediately clear whether Wong is still legally represented. The Post learned that two lawyers who were earlier instructed by Wong, Nigel Kat SC and Ronny Leung, no longer represented him.

Anyone subject to an arrest warrant made by the court in such circumstances risks being held in custody until the trial begins.

(SCMP) December 9, 2017.

A second man alleged to have taken part in a riot in a busy Hong Kong district last year was hit with an arrest warrant on Saturday, a week after a leading pro-independence activist was served a similar order. The High Court issued the warrant for Li Tung-sing, making him the second person sought ahead of a riot trial due to take place next month. Li was found to have violated his bail conditions, as was Ray Wong Toi-yeung, who led the once-active radical group Hong Kong Indigenous.

Neither Wong nor Li appeared at the hearing on Saturday. It was held in preparation for the trial slated to open on January 18.

At the closed-door proceeding, Madam Justice Anthea Pang Po-kam issued a second arrest warrant for Wong. It supersedes the first warrant issued for the activist on December 1 after he failed to return his passport to police following a judge-approved trip to Europe.

The judge also imposed new bail conditions on the rest of the six, requiring them to hand over their travel documents on Monday and not to leave Hong Kong. Asked on Saturday whether the conditions would affect him, Leung said “of course” before leaving court.

The rest of the defendants are Lam Lun-hing, Lam Ngo-hin, Lee Nok-man, Lo Kin-man and Wong Ka-kui.

Videos:

Headline Daily
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAITCIVxaQ
http://pop.stheadline.com/content.php?vid=40956&cat=a

TVB
http://news.tvb.com/local/56c9c5ac6db28ce130000002/
http://news.tvb.com/local/56cad71b6db28c9013000006/
https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/457851044412278/

Cable TV
https://www.facebook.com/1634608756778242/videos/1676048315967619/

Internet comments:

- Internet rumor: The police knew the whereabouts of Ray Wong yesterday already. But since Edward Leung was holding a campaign rally last night, they decided to postpone the arrest until today. After all the newspapers have reported on the rally, they took action today.

- The police busted the door down in order to arrest the two individuals holed up inside. Well, the Housing Department (and therefore the taxpayers) will have to repair that door.

- (Reddit) Ray Wong's final message:

My fellow Hongkongers, this is Ray Wong of Hong Kong Indigenous. I am recording this because I am unsure about my immediate future. This may well be my last chance to express my thoughts in public.

I am a young man from Hong Kong, born and bred. I care about this city. Once Hong Kong was the land of the Hongkongers, but as I grew older, I noticed that it is no longer the case. When I stand on the platform of the MTR, I often wonder if I was in the Mainland. So I became an activist - I was there when we protested against the introduction of the National Education curriculum, I was there when we protested against the development plans of the Northeastern Territories. But I (and we) always failed. I was, for the longest time, disillusioned, and I feared that Hong Kong was beyond help, until the 28th of September 2014. That was the day when the Government confronted us with guns and tear gas, but we did not back down. It was at that moment I realised us Hongkongers could stand up and be counted, that resistance was not futile. The so-called Umbrella Revolution ended in failure, but it changed my mind about Hong Kong.

Now I believe Hong Kong can change.

I formed Hong Kong Indigenous as a result of the Umbrella Revolution. Our first campaign was to reclaim areas that were disrupted by smugglers. We were labelled thugs by the Government, by the mainstream media, by the general public. But we persisted because we believed we had to act to protect our City. The Government eventually acted, and tightened the visa requirements. Smugglers no longer roam our City with the same swagger.

On the 8th of February 2016, we were in Mongkok to protect the annual Chinese New Year night market. As always, we believed persistence would bring changes. Many things happened that night, and many arrests were made. But I urge you to look back to how we reclaimed Tuen Mun, and how we didn’t back down despite the public’s criticism and the Government’s hard-handed crack down. Our persistence brought changes.

2016 is going to be a tough year. There are going to be more protests. But I urge you, my fellow Hongkongers, to persist. We shall overcome, and Hong Kong will change for the better. Lastly, I give you these words, and I hope they will give you strength at this difficult time: It’s better to burn out than to fade away (literal translation: we would rather be broken pieces of jade than a tile that is whole).

Ray Wong's idea of 'burning out' into 'broken pieces of jade' is to hole up in a public housing flat in Tin Shui Wai, which is best known for youth gangs, domestic violence, mental illness, suicides, and newly arrived mainland immigrants.

- The joke around the Internet tonight is about minced meat. Why? Because 'broken pieces of jade' in Cantonese is a homonym with 'minced meat.' Tonight we are all going to have steamed minced pork meat for dinner in celebration.

- Yesterday Edward Leung said that the goals of the revolution can only be reached by stepping on the corpses of others. Today, Edward Leung reached higher by stepping on the body of Ray Wong.
- Edward Leung also said that the primary goal is the Revolution. Under these circumstances, it was right to wear mask to cover one's face because it is more important to be able to continue the fight. In like manner, Ray Wong might have talked about broken jade but it is more important to be able to continue the fight.
- Excuse me, holing up in a Tin Shui Wai apartment is not continuing any fight.

- Hong Kong Indigenous raised $100,000 after the Mong Kok riot which they said would be used to provide legal aid to all arrestees, but non-members haven't gotten anything from them. Now with Ray Wong arrested, it is time to raise even more money.

- Whereas the other arrestees so far have been bailed out for several thousand dollars each, Ray Wong may not get bail because he was on the run for almost two weeks and therefore he is a flight risk.
- He is not a flight risk because he's got nowhere to flee to. He can't possibly want to sneak across the border into China, right? And he won't be able to pass Immigration Control to get on an airplane to fly somewhere. And it is hard to see which consulate would offer political asylum to a rioter.
- He is also a danger to society because he was found with chemicals (ammonium nitrate) used by terrorists to build bombs. He is in the same situation as those who were arrested while testing bombs in the abandoned ATV studio last year.

- Usually in a movie about a revolution, there is a canned piece of dialogue which goes something like: "If one Ray Wong falls down, there will be tens of thousands of other Ray Wong's coming forth!" I wonder if such a recording has already been made.

- (Oriental Daily) The report says: "Police received information that Ray Wong has been hiding in an apartment in Ching Hoi House, Tin Ching Estate, Tin Shui Wai district. After a lot of investigation and checking closed-circuit surveillance videos, they finally zeroed in on the target." The key phrase is "the police received information." Somebody told the police, but the information was not specific (i.e. a specific apartment unit). So somebody informed the police about the general whereabouts of Ray Wong.

- (Wen Wei Po) The report says: "The police had more than a hundred detectives at the campaign rally. A number of individuals who may know the whereabouts of Ray Wong showed up. After the rally, many teams of detectives trailed these target persons. After a lot of analysis, the police determined that the home of one of the targets is most likely to be Ray Wong's hiding place. Yesterday afternoon, the police completed their preparations and charged inside an apartment unit in Ching Hoi House, Tin Ching Estate, Tin Shui Wai district to arrest Ray Wong and another man."

- (Apple Daily) Earlier the police received a tip that Ray Wong has shown up in Tin Shui Wai for the past week. The detectives checked the surveillance videos and finally determined that Ray Wong was in Ching Hoi House, Tin Ching Estate. During the morning, the police did not see Ray Wong coming out. In the afternoon, the police went and knocked on the door of the eighth-floor apartment. Nobody answered. So the police decided to break down the door and entered. Wong and a 28-year-old male named Cheung were inside. The two were uncooperative with the police after being arrested.

On social media, someone speculated whether this has to do with Ray Wong posting a photo of himself showing some barges in the background. Perhaps that allowed the police to identify the location. Also, another resident on the same floor that he saw two men going into that apartment four days ago but he did not recognize Ray Wong.

- (Oriental Daily) The police found ammonium nitrate, silicon dioxide and polyethylene glycol. Ammonium nitrate can be used with fuel oil to form an explosive (ANFO). Ramzi Yousef used ANFO to try to destroy the World Trade Centre in 1993. The worst terrorist act in the history of the People's Republic of China were the Shijiazhuang bombings in which several ANFO bombs exploded across the city to kill 108 people in 2001.

- They found bomb-making chemicals? Quick, let's find some environmental preservation activists and show us how to make soap from those chemicals!

- The police found $530,000 cash in the Tin Shui Wai apartment. According to (HKG Pao),

He was rebellious and was not a good student. In the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Exam, he did not score high enough to be accepted by any university. So he entered the Caritas Bianchi College of Careers to pursue an associate degree in interior decoration. In 2013, in the last year of his studies, he dropped out of school due to a difference of opinion with the teaching staff. Thereafter he worked as a freelancer in interior decoration. His income was unsteady, and his clients were mainly introduced by friends and previous clients. Last year before he entered radical politics, he claimed to have engaged six jobs averaging $60,000 in profits per job. So his income was good.

Ever since he started the anti-parallel traders demonstrations, his business was greatly affected. He admitted that "China-capital companies won't seek me out and Blue Ribbon decorators won't work with me. Some clients are worried that if I got arrested in the middle of a project, then what happens to the project and the deposit?" Therefore, he has not gotten any more business since the Lunar New Year.

But now he is sitting on a pile of cash. Meanwhile Hong Kong Indigenous was using the Mong Kok riot to raise money, getting $100,000 immediately. The money was intended to help all the arrestees but arrestee Ken Lo said that Hong Kong Indigenous refused to help him. So now it transpires that Ray Wong was sitting on a stash of $530,000. Where did it come from? Could it be those "foreign hostile forces"?

- If you have $530,000 in cash, would you keep in a bank account or under your mattress? The only reason why it is not in the bank is because you don't want it be known.

- Somebody suggested that the brand new bills are used for lai see money during the Lunar New Year. There is $530,000 in cash there. At $1,000 per red envelop, there are 530 envelops. How many people do you know hand out $1,000 each to 530 persons?

- (EJ Insight) Police seized HK$530,000 (US$68,182) in cash, a small amount of marijuana, a stun gun, a baton, a mask and dozens of Viagra pills. Hong Kong Indigenous, which confirmed Wong’s arrest on its Facebook page, said its lawyers are assisting in the investigation. It said the cash seized by the police was donated by citizens and was part of a legal defense fund.

- It sounded nice to say that not a single resister will be left behind but the reality is that some of the arrestees did not receive any legal aid from either Hong Kong Indigenous or the Civic Party. And we know that it was not because Hong Kong Indigenous did not have money -- they were sitting on at least $530,000.

- If the $530,000 was set aside for legal defense, then why was it not placed at the lawyers' office? Why was it in the possession of a fugitive? When the money is eventually needed, someone will have to fetch it and thus expose the whereabouts of Ray Wong.

- After the Mong Kok riot, Hong Kong Indigenous said that it would be taking in donations for the first time. They now say that the $530,000 was raised as a result of that call. Take a look at the photo of the $500 and $1,000 bills. They are spanking new. It seems that the donations did not come through small donations from a large number of citizens. Most of that money came from the proverbial bagman carrying a large plastic red-white-blue canvas bag. Who was that? What was the money really for?

- Ray Wong can also say that the $530,000 belongs to his friend. This other guy lives in a public housing unit for which there is an upper asset limit of $236,000. So he'll have to hand the apartment back to the Housing Authority.

- (Oriental Daily) Ray Wong told the police that the $530,000 found in Tin Shui Wai were for legal fees.

- No wonder the Civic Party barristers support rioting -- they stand to make a lot in legal fees!

- (Ming Pao) Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Wai Pik-kwun emphasized strongly that the $530,000 found by the police in Tin Shui Wai was not the donations that the organization recently raised for the Mong Kok clash. "We understand that some people think that Ray took the money in order to flee. But I can confidently tell everybody that the donations did not end up in Ray's hands. They are being held by members who are under no risk of arrest." Wai said that over the past 10 or more days, the organization had not been able to contact Ray Wong who was out of reach. As to whether the $530,000 belongs to the organization, Wai said that they know exactly whether it came from but they cannot comment because this was case evidence. "The money was not found on Wong's person, so people shouldn't speculate too much."

On February 10, Hong Kong Indigenous began to solicit donations to provide legal aid to those who were arrested for the big clash in Mong Kok. So far they have raised more than $1 million. Wai said that they were receiving one to two hundred donations per day, but now it has dropped down to dozens per day. "It was expected that the reaction would cool down." She said that she understands that some people are concerned about how the money is being spent and she promised public disclosure.

As for the 28-year-old man named Cheung who took Ray Wong in, Hong Kong Indigenous said that Cheung is not a member and so they are considering whether to provide aid to him. "It also depends on what he wants." According to information, Cheung and his mother moved into that unit last summer. Recently the mother has been living in mainland China and Cheung was by himself. Neighbors characterized Cheung as "shifty" because if they step out of the elevator together, Cheung would hid in the stairwell and wait for the neighbors to enter their apartment before coming out to enter his own apartment. Neighbors said that they have not seen Ray Wong, but they often see courier boxes left in front of Cheung's door.

- (Oriental Daily) During the action, the police found about 100 pills that were suspected to be Part 1 Poisons. What is a Part 1 Poison? According to Drug Office, "Poison" means a substance which is specified in the Poisons List under Tenth Schedule of Pharmacy and Poisons Regulation (Cap. 138A). Confusing? Just look at the photo of what the police found:

So what is this? (Wikipedia) Sildenafil, sold as Viagra and other trade names, is a medication used to treat erectile dysfunction.
- Oh ... no wonder Ray Wong feels valiant all the time.
- Cable TV also mentioned "a small amount of marijuana."

- (Ming Pao) The police said that there was a coil gun. Internet users found from Taobao that coil guns are available for as low as 22 RMB. This is a device that uses electromagnetism to fire projectiles over a short distance.

- (HKG Pao) Weapons? drugs? cash? What was Mr. Wong up to? Here are four questions:
(1) Mr. Wong will be 23 years old on September 23. How many 22-year-old's in Hong Kong hold $530,000 cash with him?
(2) Mr. Wong had chemicals that could be used to inflict a lot of damages. Is he concerned that this could affect innocent citizens? Or those scholars who have been automatically justifying his actions so far?
(3) It is understandable that Mr. Wong needs weapons to run his revolution. But what about the 100 Viagra pills and the marijuana?
(4) Why do the scholars such Edward Yiu, Cheung Tat-ming, Ma Ngok and the Civic Party barristers let the children of other people take drugs, wreck havoc and face ten years in jail for rioting but they won't let their own children join in? Why don't you tell your children to join in, you pseudo-intellectuals!

- (Oriental Daily) At the bail hearing, the prosecutor said that they found a recipe on how to manufacture smoke bombs and pepper spray.

- In the Kübler-Ross model, the five emotional stages experienced by survivors of an intimate's death are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. So we are in the first stage of denial, where people believe that there must have been a mistake and cling to a false preferable reality. What explosive? What weapons? What drugs? The police must have planted all these objects. After all, they control the scene and they can plant anything that they want. We must not believe any of this.
- This is a case in which the Internet rule "Do not follow the preceding car too closely or you'll get into an accident" applies. You know nothing beyond the scratchy details from news report. So don't make any bold conclusions. On the Internet, you can say anything. But once you lose credibility, nothing you say will matter anymore.

- Ray Wong is being detained on suspicion of involvement in the Mong Kok riot. What is the evidence against him? In TVB News Magazine http://mytv.tvb.com/tc/cat_news/newsmagazine/230649,

At 3:03 Ray Wong is shouting from the top of the van about "I am a Hongkonger" and "down with the Communist Party"; Hong Kong Indigenous announced that they are exercising the right of an election candidate to hold a rally and since they are less than 30 in numbers, they don't need prior notification to or approval by the police. 

At 3:31, Ray Wong used the megaphone to shout: "If you want to play, we the people of Hong Kong ... we Hong Kong Indigenous ... we will surely play even bigger."

At 3:47 (which was 1:45am), someone said "Three, two, one" and the blue jackets charged into the police line.

Ray Wong is in the middle of the scrum in this Apple Daily photo

- The arrest of Ray Wong has sapped the energy from his buddy Edward Leung's election campaign. Instead the talk of the town is about the many possible interpretations around these elements: (1) $530,000 in cash; (2) 100 Viagra pills; (3) a boyfriend; (4) a flexible police baton; (5) an electromagnetic coil gun. So what was Brother Minced Meat doing with them?

- Not a single item seized during the raid can be tied to the Mong Kok riot. Period. So shut the fuck up!

- (EJ Insight) Ray Wong, convenor of localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, was captured in a Tin Shui Wai hideout by officers from the Organized Crime and Triad Bureau acting on numerous leads, Apple Daily reports. Wong, 22, was found in an eighth-floor flat in Ching Hoi House, part of the Tin Chung public housing estate, after officers broke in when no one answered the door. A 28-year-old man, surnamed Cheung, was arrested for aiding and abetting a suspect. Wong and Cheung put up a fight before they were subdued and hauled to the Tin Shui Wai police station, the report said.

- This proves that Ray Wong was as valiant as he says he is. He put up a good fight but was overwhelmed by the cowardly police who attacked him in numbers.

- Ray Wong could have flushed the ammonium nitrate and Viagra pills down the toilet and tossed the baton and coil gun out of the window.

- If Ray Wong was truly valiant, he would have jumped out of the eight-floor window without being captured alive.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 24, 2016.

22-year-old unemployed male Ray Wong appeared in court facing one charge of rioting. The prosecutor said that he participated in rioting with other persons at around midnight on February 8th. The prosecutor asked the defendant be remanded for further legal advice. The prosecutor opposed bail because the riot chare carries a maximum jail sentence of 10 years and Wong is a flight risk. He said that the police tried to find Wong but were only able to find him recently because Wong was avoiding them. The magistrate asked whether the police had a search warrant. The prosecutor said that the police had a search warrant but had to break down the apartment door because the persons inside pretended that no one was home. Lai also said the police found guides to manufacture smoke bombs, pepper spray and tear gas, which means that Wong is using it to manufacture or teaching others. The prosecutor said that more serious charges may be filed later.

Wong's lawyer Nigel Kat said that Ray Wong was not wanted by the police. Although the police went to Wong's residence in Tseung Kwan O on five occasions, they did not contact him or his mother who also lives there. Therefore the prosecutor made a misleading statement. He said that Wong is a public figure and the leader of an organization dedicated to defending Hong Kong values. Wong will be helping his friend Edward Leung to campaign in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election.

Nigel Kat said that some people out there disapprove of the ideas of Wong and his organization and have made personal attacks. Therefore Wong stayed at a friend's apartment out of concern for his own personal safety. Kat said that 28-year-old man arrested in Tin Shui Wai along with Wong is the treasurer for Hong Kong Indigenous. Therefore it was no surprise to find so much cash. As for the Viagra pills, these are popular medications in Hong Kong. Kat also said that the materials found in the apartment do not belong to Wong. Kat said that Wong has no prior record and therefore the chances of him breaking the law again is minimal. Kat proposed posting a $100,000 bail. Wong's mother and friends were also willing to post $100,000 as personal bonds.

The prosecutor said that Wong was involved in inciting and directing the rioters to charge at the police line. The magistrate considered the arguments from both sides, and allowed Wong to post $100,000 bail together with his mother posting $100,000 personal bond.

- Nigel Kat's vigorous defense of his client only raises more questions for me. Here is a list:

(1) Since when has Viagra become a common, popular medication in Hong Kong? Is Viagra supposed to help Localist quest for Hong Kong independence such that one must have 100 Viagra pills?

(2) A small organization Hong Kong Indigenous's treasurer holds $530,000 cash in his public housing apartment. Many Hongkongers will be very jealous. Are all Localist organizations and their leaders just as wealthy? Why do these organizations have so much money? Where does the money come from? Is this Black Gold? Who is the funder? Did they pay taxes?

- (SCMP) Riot reality: denouncing mob violence of Mong Kok doesn’t make me a pro-China shoeshiner. By Michael Chugani. February 23, 2016.

Let’s talk about being pro-China. To do that, Public Eye will switch to the first person. I have often been labelled pro-establishment or pro-China. The two are interchangeable in Hong Kong’s political lexicon. But after the Mong Kok riot, the label is being hurled at me as an expletive. In Hong Kong’s noxious politics, you are a Beijing shoeshiner unless you shoeshine the so-called democracy camp. I denounced the rioters as brick-hurling mobs who started fires, smashed windows and bludgeoned a downed policeman. I mocked legislator Cyd Ho Sau-lan for blaming the Mong Kok mayhem entirely on bad governance.

How does denouncing violence make me pro-China? Am I pro-establishment if I say it sickened me that the rioters put bricks under fire engines to stop firefighters from dousing flames that threatened residents?

Pan-democrats often cite Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King as idols. Both fought real oppression, unlike our pampered democrats. Both shunned violence. Would that make them shoeshiners if they were alive today?

Am I pro-China if I point out that Ray Wong Toi-yeung, convenor of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, was in a flat with bomb-making chemicals, weapons, drugs and over half a million dollars in cash when police arrested him in connection with the riots? I have often said I take no issue with Hong Kong Indigenous for opposing parallel goods traders and the flood of mainlanders who have made life hell for Hongkongers. I have said the central authorities damaged one country, two systems by detaining bookseller Lee Po and that he should be promptly freed. I have said the central government is clueless about Hong Kong’s values 19 years after the handover. I have repeatedly criticised our unfair society where a handful of tycoons dominate.

But that is not enough for the so-called democrats. I am pro-China unless I agree that bad governance is totally to blame for the riots. Those who label me pro-China even mock me for having an American passport. What’s that got to do with anything? I am a loyal American and will gladly shine the shoes of my country’s great democracy but never the shoes of the so-called democrats here.

Friends have urged me not to stare down the dirty looks I now sometimes get on the MTR. But that would be giving in to hypocrites who say they want true democracy yet won’t let others have an opinion.

I don’t intend to give in. So bring it on.

- (Oriental Daily) February 24, 2016.

One of the bail conditions set by the magistrate is to make Ray Wong's mother post a personal bond. She went up to the witness stand to take the oath. The magistrate told her that she must follow court procedure and show her face before she took the oath. She did so. The defense lawyer explained that she wore a mask because she was ill and she did not mean any offense. Afterwards she was asked if she would tell her son not to touch politics. She said, "I will, I will" and then she left in a hurry.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 24, 2016.

Hong Kong Peanuts host Cheung Cheung said that most political parties in Hong Kong are either registered as a social group with the police or as a limited company at the Companies Registry. He said that he checked at the police website and did not find any social group for Hong Kong Indigenous. He checked the Companies Registry and did not find Hong Kong Indigenous either.

He checked to find Ray Wong as a company director and found that Ray Wong and Edward Leung were directors of a company named Channel i (HK) Limited. Thus, Cheung Cheung concluded that Hong Kong Indigenous does not exist under the law. "Strictly speaking it is merely a Facebook page."

Cheung Cheung said that since Hong Kong Indigenous is not registered, it wouldn't be able to get a bank account. "So where did the donations that Hong Kong Indigenous solicited go?" He said that Ming Pao quoted Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Wai Pik-kwun as saying that they have raised more than $1 million in support of the arrestees in the Mong Kok riot. "Since Hong Kong Indigenous does not have a bank account, where is that $1 million being kept?"

Cheung Cheung cited another report which said that the Hong Kong Indigenous is denying that the $530,000 cash found by the police when they arrested Ray Wong represent donations from citizens. Also, Hong Kong Indigenous said that the person arrested along with Ray Wong is not a member. However, Apple Daily and Ming Pao both quoted Ray Wong's lawyer Nigel Kat as saying that the arrested man is Hong Kong Indigenous' treasurer and "it is not unusual to find a lot of cash."

Cheung Cheung said: "Hong Kong Indigenous does not have a bank account. So there is a big question about how they handle donations. There is this further cloud over the $530,000 cash. This shows that Hong Kong Indigenous' explanation about its finances does not meet what the public expects from a political party ... Hong Kong Indigenous members are mostly young people, but they are now handling millions in funds. This is worrying. If the money is held in trust of some individual's bank account and it gets misused, then this is a betrayal of the citizens. Worse yet, the money could be used for an election campaign and that would be even more troubling. Therefore, Hong Kong Indigenous must give a clear account."

Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook says to write all donation checks to "Leung Tin Kei Edward."

- By starting a riot in Mong Kok, fifth-year university student Edward Leung is now a millionaire. This beats studying philosophy for five years.

- Hong Kong Indigenous has a Chinese-language Facebook page. But take a took at the locations of their Facebook friends:
(1) 63%: Hong Kong
(2) 5.8%: Egypt
(3) 3.8%: Algeria
(4) 3.7%: Syria
(5) 3.3%: Iraq
You didn't realize that so many Middle Easterners can read Chinese, did you?

- After being criticized for taking so much in donations but not actually helping arrestees, Hong Kong Indigenous issued this public appeal about the most recent arrestee (Ming Pao February 26, 2016 08:26 breaking news): "Does anyone know this arrestee? Please sent the information via PM and we will arrange for lawyers to provide full support."

- Well, do you recognize this man? Is this man identifiable at all with the hood over his head? Hong Kong Indigenous is asking precisely because the man is unidentifiable. Do you get it?

- (Bastille Post) March 9, 2016.

This afternoon our reporter found Edward Leung and Ray Wong of Hong Kong Indigenous meeting for almost two hours with two individuals who are believed to be with the US Consulate in Hong Kong.

At around 3pm inside the Cova restaurant on the third floor of Pacific Place in Admiralty, five persons were meeting including one foreign male and one foreign female. Some of the conversation was conducted in putonghua.

Leung and Wong sat across each other. The foreign man sat next to Wong. The foreign woman sat next to Leung. The foreign man listened and also spoke. They talked for a long time, and left around 430pm. Leung, Wong and another woman left first. The two foreigners stayed to settle the bill. Afterwards our reporter trailed the two foreigners who left Pacific Place and walked to the US Consulate on Garden Road. The two were able to enter by showing identification. So they are likely to work at the US Consulate.

Our reporter called Ray Wong to ask if he met with US Consulate personnel and what they talked about. Wong said that it was personal business and he does not have to explain it to the public. Our reporter was unable to reach Edward Leung.

Internet comments:

- The language issue is interesting. Trade school dropout Ray Wong speaks no English while HKU fifth-year philosophy student Edward Leung's English is hilarious with his invention of new terms (e.g. "walk in the street" means "demonstrate"/"go into the streets"). The Americans don't speak Cantonese. Thus, the fifth woman was likely to be an interpreter brought along by Wong and Leung. However, they found it easier to communicate in putonghua, because the Americans were probably trained in putonghua at the Foreign Services Institute before being sent off to China. But didn't Edward Leung say that his mother would always speak in Cantonese and never in putonghua? And what is Ray Wong's story?

- (am730) By Ko Ming-ya. March 11, 2016. Ray Wong told the press that the meeting was held to discuss the concepts behind Localism and that they are willing to speak to everybody except the Chinese. Actually, if Ray Wong and Edward Leung don't want to be Chinese, it is their own business and nobody cares about what they do.

However, it is hilarious that they would always say that Cantonese is the official language of Hong Kong Localism and they refuse to accept putonghua, and now they use putonghua to communicate with the people from the US Consulate General? This is one of those funny plot twists straight from Stephen Chow movies.

The truth is that putonghua is used by most Chinese around the world as well as many foreigners who deal with China. This is a trend that Localists Ray Wong and Edward Leung cannot reverse. They can have their principles, but they have to bow to reality and use putonghua. In the final analysis, the purpose is to have communication so no language is naturally superior to any other. Whatever works works.

Compared to the xenophobic Localism of Ray Wong and Edward Leung, the Americans were flexible. They did not insist on speaking in English but they were willing to use putonghua. What a contrast to the rigid Localist doctrinarians!

- Did the US Consulate give Ray Wong the $530,000? Did the Viagra pills come from the dispensary inside the US Consulate General compound?

- (HKG Pao) The pro-government Bastille Post had an exclusive report on the meeting between two Americans and Ray Wong/Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous. Ray Wong and Edward Leung are presently out on bail pending riot charges. So they are of great interest to the Hong Kong media, which are famous for the paparazzi. So how could the Americans be so dumb as to hold a meeting with those two in public?

My guess is that the Americans wanted to give the pan-democrats a message: If you don't follow my orders, I will use someone else even more radical to take your place. Earlier the Americans were very unhappy about the stalling of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill because American companies are the largest copyright holders with the most at stake.

At the same time, they want to put a damper on the Localists. By having afternoon tea with the Americans, Ray Wong and Edward Leung are now branded traitors. This will help the pan-democrats in the September Legislative Council elections.

The media arrangements were also fanciful. They found a pro-government media outlet to deliver an exclusive story. That is very convincing. The reporters were clearly tipped beforehand, because they came with the entire array of photographic equipment. This could not have been a chance encounter. After the meeting, the Americans walked to the US Consulate to make sure that they can be trailed, and then they showed their passes at the gate to enter the compound!

It is pathetic that the two young men thought that they were being taken seriously when in fact they were unwitting actors in a staged play.

- (EJ Insight) March 10, 2016.

Two key members of Hong Kong Indigenous were spotted meeting with two westerners thought to be staff from the US Consulate General, Sing Tao Daily reported Thursday, citing online newspaper Bastille Post.

Bastille Post and Sing Tao Daily are owned by Sing Tao News Corp. Ltd., chaired by Beijing-friendly businessman Charles Ho Tsu-kwok.

One of the HKI members was Ray Wong Toi-yeung, convener of the localist group, who was arrested Feb. 21 on a charge of inciting violence during the Mong Kok clashes on the night of Feb 8. He was granted bail with conditions on Feb. 23.

The other was Edward Leung Tin-kei, a University of Hong Kong student who was among those arrested for taking part in the clashes. While out on bail, he came in third in the Legislative Council by-election for the New Territories East geographical constituency on Feb. 28.

The two men, along with an unidentified young woman, were seen talking with two westerners, a man and a woman, in a Pacific Place restaurant for nearly two hours Wednesday.

The three locals left first, and the foreigners paid the bill.

Bastille Post reported that the language used in the meeting was Putonghua.

A spokeswoman for HKI denied she was present at the afternoon tea gathering.

Wong later confirmed to an Apple Daily reporter that the meeting on Wednesday was with staff from the US Consulate General. He said they wanted to know more about localism, but they didn’t talk about the by-election during the meeting, Wong said. Wong said it was normal for the localists to meet with people from various fields, “except from China”, Apple Daily reported.

Officers of the US Consulate General have allegedly been keeping close contact with local political groups in Hong Kong and providing suggestions to them, Sing Tao said. Early last year, with regard to the government’s political reform package, they advised pan-democratic lawmakers to “take it first”, the newspaper said.

- (VOA China) March 24, 2016. Ray Wong is interviewed by VOA China ... in accented putonghua! This is because the national language of the Republic of Hong Kong is Cantonese and it is not spoken around the world except by people in Hong Kong, Macau, Guangdong and Guanxi provinces. To communicate with the rest of the world, Ray Wong could not use English because he speaks English even worse than he speaks putonghua. So we are now left with Ray Wong speaking in the tongue of the Enemy.

- (HKG Pao) March 26, 2016. When asked by VOA about the Mong Kok riot, Ray Wong said that the previous resistance methods of the pan-democrats have proven to be ineffective, so it is "necessary" to use more radical methods of expression. "In the past, the Hong Kong pan-democrats used peace, reason and non-violence. We see that this method of resistance is useless against a government with no 'bottomline'. We feel that if we continue to do this, we will be locking up the power of the people." Ray Wong also said that "valiantly fight with force" is not violence; it is "a spirit to fight to the end" in order to show the government about the power of the people. "In the Lunar New Year's Day riot, in many videos you can see the demonstrators holding bricks in one hand and purchasing drinks from the convenience stores. If our demonstrators are truly violent, they would be robbing and stealing."

- Spoof of Apple Daily front page -- they would do this if only Hong Kong Indigenous were a pro-establishment political party meeting with a chauffeur from the China Liaison Office.

- Wan Chin's Facebook: Hong Kong students should not despair! It is essential to learn English well. The American soldiers will be coming soon and they need you to show the way! "This way, Sir!"

- (Oriental Daily with video) March 22, 2016.

Ray Wong was met by about 50 demonstrators when he came for a court hearing today. The demonstrators wanted to punish the rioters severely and restore rule-of-law. Wong was escorted into the building by police officers. His lawyer told the magistrate that Wong wants to attend the Eleventh InterFaith InterEthnic Conference in India from April 26 to May 5. The prosecutor said that he was neutral . The magistrate approved the application with the promise that Wong will turn in his passport to the police within 24 hours of returning to Hong Kong. Afterwards Wong said that he is going there to talk about ethnic issues and Hong Kong matters.

- (Wen Wei Po) The title of this conference is "Strengthening Our Alliance to Advance the People's Dream: Freedom, Justice, Equality and Peace." Previous attendees include World Uyghur Congress president Ribaya Kadeer and spokespman Dilshat Reshit and Falun Gong reprsentatives.

Ray Wong says that he was invited by the Dalai Lama last mnoth to attend the conference at the Dalai Lama's residence in Dharsamsala, India. Does he look forward to meeting with the Dalai Lama? Wong said "that the main reason was not to meet with the Dalai Lama but to meet some genuine separatists."

The conference is organized by Initiatives of China, which was founded by Yang Jianli in 2008. The principal funding comes from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a branch of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Between 2008 and 2001, Initiatives of China received about US$50,000 to US$70,000 per year from the NED. Since 2010, they have been receiving about US$60,000 per year from the Bridge Fund and other sources.

- Ray Wong tells the media that he believes in Tibetan Buddhism.

- An essential part of Tibetan Buddhism must be about throwing bricks at people?

- (Oriental Daily) April 24, 2016.

Ray Wong found that his application for e-Tourist visa to India was rejected without any explanation. Meanwhile Edward Leung got his e-Tourist visa. However, the message indicated that Wong is still eligible for a Regular Visa. So Wong has decided to find an agent to file an Urgent Visa application.

- (Oriental Daily) April 29, 2016.

The agent has informed Ray Wong that the application for an Urgent Visa has also been rejected. Wong went down to the Indian consulate to try to get a visa, but was told that it will take at least 3 to 5 days. So Wong will not be able to make the trip. Meanwhile former Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow was also unable to get a visa to attend the same event.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 6, 2016.

Yesterday Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong said that he has been accepted by Oxford University to enroll two-year degree course in Philosophy beginning in October. He told the media that he will get an Undergraduate Certificate of Higher Education.

For his supporters, this is proof that they are not young wastrels.

According to the University of Oxford Department for Continuing Education, the Undergraduate Certificate of Higher Education courses can be taken as weekly classes, short online courses, linked day schools, or classes offered in Oxford University Summer School for Adults (OUSSA). The Certificate is equivalent to the first year of full-time undergraduate study (FHEQ Level 4). Oxford University’s Department for Continuing Education does not offer undergraduate degrees, but students who obtain the Certificate may, if they wish, apply to transfer the credit from the Certificate to another academic institution, such as the Open University, which does offer degrees. The transfer-in of credit is always at the receiving institution's discretion.

This course requires no formal academic qualifications. Successful applicants will be those able to demonstrate genuine interest in and enthusiasm for the subjects that they propose to study. They will need to have the time and commitment needed to work for a University qualification. Candidates will need to meet the University`s standard English Language requirement for undergraduate entry, details of which can be found here.

The programme does not have any formal academic acquirements. All students applying for registration will be given an interview, via Skype. The interviewer will be looking for evidence of genuine interest in the subjects selected as the main and the secondary subject areas; understanding of the commitment that will be needed to pursue study on a part-time basis; and the availability of sufficient time to devote to the course.

International students will by HKD 17,000 in tuition fees per year. At FHEQ Level 4, this is not a degree as such because it is just Year One Undergraduate. At FHEQ Level 5, this is a Diploma of Higher Degree which is like an Associate Degree in Hong Kong. At FHEQ Level 6, this is a Bacherlor's degree. At FHEQ Level 7, this is a Master's degree. At FHEQ Level 8, this is a Doctorate.

- Ray Wong is taking continuing education at Oxford University for one and only one reason. If and when he is convicted of incitement of and participation in rioting, this will be a mitigating factor -- a nice young man with no prior records and a desire to educate himself should be given a second chance, and therefore justice will be done with 80 hours of community service.

- Besides, Ray Wong is telling everyone that Oxford University accepted him, but not before asking him whether he has ever been convicted of a crime. If and when is convicted for the Mong Kok rioting, he may be facing 7 to 10 years in jail and therefore miss out on his Oxford education. Surely no judge can deprive him of that excellent opportunity, right?

- (Taipei Times) July 2, 2017.

Two decades after Hong Kong’s handover to China, Hong Kongers have come to realize that despite sharing the same roots, Hong Kongers “are not Chinese,” said Ray Wong (黃台仰), a spokesperson for the pro-independence group Hong Kong Indigenous.

Wong made the remarks in an interview with the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times).

There is “no other way” to safeguard Hong Kong values than to become independent, he said.

The erosion of the values Hong Kong holds dear by the spread of “Chinese-centric” ideals via the education system and the gradual loss of the ability to speak Cantonese is proof that the “one country, two systems” model has failed, he said.

The localism camp that came to the fore after 2014’s Umbrella movement emphasizes nationalistic ideals and stresses that Hong Kong is different from China, because they differ historically and culturally and have fundamentally different aspirations.

In a poll published last year by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 17.4 percent of Hong Kongers said the territory should declare independence in 2047 following the termination of “one country, two systems.”

In the 15-to-24 age group, 39.2 percent supported independence.

The number of independence supporters exceeds academics’ expectations, especially among young people who have received higher education, Wong said, adding that various polls have shown that Hong Kongers have declining faith in “one country, two systems.”

A poll conducted in 1997 — the year of the handover — by Hong Kong University showed that 63.6 percent of Hong Kongers were confident in the proposed “one country, two systems” method, while 18.1 percent were not, he said.

However, a poll last month showed that the number of supporters has dropped to 49.1 percent, while the rate of disillusionment grew to 43.2 percent, he added.

Wong, born in Hong Kong in 1993, is an icon in the localism camp.

He said the Hong Kong in which he grew up, compared with Hong Kong before it was returned to China, made him feel “greatly different from Chinese.”

Many see the localism camp as “radical pro-democrats,” but Wong said that the two camps differ in protest methods and identity.

The pro-democracy camp had witnessed Hong Kong under both British colonial rule and the Chinese economy’s take-off, and therefore harbors “romantic illusions” of China, he said.

The pro-democracy camp believes that the territory should be responsible for spreading democracy throughout China, which is vastly different from the localism camp’s ideology that China and Hong Kong are fundamentally different.

Wong during the interview repeatedly mentioned how there is a tide of Chinese moving into Hong Kong who have not only brought great change, but also “do not learn Cantonese or follow our customs.”

Hong Kongers have no say about the 150 Chinese who come to live in Hong Kong every day, making living space even more cramped, Wong said, adding that the surge in Chinese investment after the handover has caused housing prices to skyrocket, further limiting the places young people can live.

“We do not seek to drive out all Chinese, we just do not wish to be under an excessive amount of Chinese control,” he said.

Politically, Hong Kongers are under the constraint of “one country, two systems” and cannot hold true general elections. Economically, it has entered a stage of decline, which makes it even more dependent on a rising China. Socially, China is “diluting” Hong Kong culture with its immigrants.

Just 20 years after its return, Hong Kong is slowly being turned toward communism, he said.

Localists’ choice to promote independence through protest is essentially a forced decision, for as long as Hong Kong is still under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, “the conclusion that Hong Kong must be independent will not change,” Wong said.

He stressed the importance of education, adding that the reason young Taiwanese are so enthusiastic about politics and for the nation’s prevalence of civic activities is because education conveys a civic society’s values.

Wong said he hopes he can induce the thought of rebellion and protest in the minds of young Hong Kongers through education.

While Hong Kongers themselves are pessimistic about the localist movement, Wong was optimistic, saying that despite only existing for a few years, the movement has already garnered support from 17 percent of Hong Kongers.

“For us, it is growing fast,” he said.

For young people who are unable to leave, the solution is to find ways to make Hong Kong better, Wong said, adding that Hong Kongers must become more active and attack the Chinese Communist Party with claims of independence, thus hastening its collapse and dissolution.

- (Wen Wei Po) December 1, 2017.

Yesterday, our newspaper published an exclusive story about Ray Wong jumping bail and absconding. According to informed persons at Hong Kong Indigenous, our story began to circulate within the group early in the morning. Many Hong Kong Indigenous were caught surprised. Some of them felt directionless. Even our source looked bewildered when he spoke about this development.

But very quickly, the leaders of Hong Kong Indigenous and other pro-Hong Kong independence groups issued "gag orders" to all their members to refrain from openly discussing this matter, so as not to reveal sensitive information or to offer evidence of unlawful behavior.

So far none of the Facebook of the leaders of these groups have a single mention of Ray Wong. They are acting as if nothing has happened.

Meanwhile our story was being read tens of thousands of times with thousands of comments to pillory Ray Wong. At the same time, people are wondering whether the other Hong Kong Indigenous leader Edward Leung has done the same since he has not been heard from recently.

- By jumping bail, Ray Wong has stiffed his mother for her $100,000 cash surety. Not to fear, because the people of Hong Kong will organize a crowdfunding campaign to raise $100,000 for her and then much more for Ray Wong so that he can continue the fight for Hong Kong independence! Long live the revolution!

- (Wen Wei Po) December 10, 2017.

24-year-old Li Tung-sing is a student at Open University. He attended the Shung Tak Catholic English School in Yuen Long district and therefore got to know fellow secondary school student Edward Leung. Li is a founding member of Hong Kong Indigenous, and it was Li who invited Edward Leung to join the party.

On July 28, 2016, Li "strategically" resigned from Hong Kong Indigenous in order to run on the same ticket as Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration) in the New Territories East Legislative Council elections. After the election, he "rejoined" Hong Kong Indigenous. At the time, Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong identified Li as the third-ranking member of their party.

(Bastille Post) December 10, 2017.

In September this year, Ray Wong and Li Tung-sing traveled together to London to attend commemorative activities for the third anniversary of the Umbrella Movement. The two had photos takes outside Westminster Parliament with yellow umbrellas in hand.

Ray Wong's bail condition is such that he must obtain court approval in order to travel outside of Hong Kong. He was approved to travel to Germany and Belgium during November 4-20. He was supposed to report to the Tai Po Police Station within 24 hours of returning to Hong Kong. But he was a no-show.

Li Tung-sing's bail condition does not involve any travel ban and he does not have to report regularly to the police. So the court only found out that he had absconded when he failed to show up for the pre-trial hearing.

Li Tung-sing had been an aide for disqualified legislator-elect Leung Chung-hang.